LuckyMatt93 Reviews

Julie & Julia (2009)

A sweet story and good for a chuckle or two, but easily forgettable

[7/10 · 9 September 2009]

I went to see this film looking for a good laugh, and I wasn't disappointed. It's decently funny, and Meryl Streep really impressed me with her impersonation of Julia Child. She manages to keep Julia accessible and human; she isn't dotty or screechy in any way. I've only seen her here, but I'm sure she's great in films outside of this.

One of the beefs I have with Julie and Julia though is that the plots going on aren't exactly balanced very well. At one time you're caught up and engrossed in Julia's plot and then all of a sudden you transition back to Julie's (less interesting) plot. Another thing is that it's easily forgettable. I'm sure it won't be remembered in a year or a two; it hardly does anything to distinguish itself from most other chick flicks. There's also an overabundance in sexual content, which makes it hard to recommend for parents who want to watch it with their kids.

Dawn of the Dead (1978)

Highly overrated, but still good

[7/10 · 5 September 2009]

Dawn Of The Dead is easily one of the most overrated horror films in history, although this doesn't at all mean that's it's bad. I just feel it's blasphemy that it's praised as much as it is; more than Night Of The Living Dead and Day of The Dead -- both of which are superior to Dawn by a longs hot.

The script for the film is often disjointed, the make up effects are laughable and cheesy (purple and blue zombies, oh boy), and overall it just feels more like an action film than anything else. It lacks the strong horror vibe that Night and Day nailed. The socio-political subtext is also incredibly weak in comparison to the powerful subtexts Night and Day had.

On the positive side of things though, it's very entertaining, the characters are likable, and the atmosphere is creepy beyond words.

The Birds (1963)

"Suspense and shock beyond anything you have seen or imagined!"

[10/10 · 22 August 2009]

The Birds is easily one of the best horror films of all time. It's Hitchcock's second best achievement (behind the fantastic horror masterpiece that was Psycho).

One of the great things about this is that there's no soundtrack, just the ominous sounds of the birds flapping and screeching. It only underscores Hitch's sure directorial hand -- who needs a clanging, scary soundtrack when the images and well-plotted suspense do it all for you? The fact that we cannot really unravel the mystery gives the film an almost mythic quality, as if it means more than it actually does.

The performances are top notch. Tippi Hendren steals the show as the wealthy but fun-loving socialite. Jessica Tandy provides a hypnotic and wonderfully disturbing portrait of a possessive mother, and Suzanne Pleshette is excellent as an emotionally devastated schoolteacher -- she blends toughness and vulnerability to perfection in a small role.

There's only one small problem. The matte paintings and animation that create the attack scenes are admittedly both tame and lame when looked at today. Yet it hardly detracts from the rest of the film anyways, so it's really nothing.

I don't know how else to put the way I feel abut The Birds except to say "indescribable". The unsettling atmosphere, the mounting terror, the slow building suspense, etc. It's still as frightening as it was back in 1963, laced with shots that will haunt you long after you watch it.

Saw V (2008)

Dead weight......

[4/10 · 23 July 2009]

Saw V as of this moment is the weakest installment in the series, with Saw IV marginally surpassing it. Although V is better made with better directing and a better script, it still lacks the entertainment value that IV had despite it's major flaws. Not to mention, it's completely dependent on the previous films. It feels more like an extended episode of a television show than a complete story onto itself. A non-fan watching the film for the first time would be completely lost.

The script is often disjointed, the traps are dull and require no ingenuity, and there's not a lot of structure, with uninteresting flashbacks popping up randomly and grinding the film to a halt.

David Hackl's directing failed to impress me. He doesn't have any visual flair beyond the most basic of camera setups, nor any rapport with the actors. He also shoots the film with a smeary, cheap look. I will admit he did a better job than Darren Bousman did with IV, but that's not saying much.

There's an overload of bland cardboard characters, most of whom are completely disposable and only exist to react to situations and die. The dialog given to them is as deadly as the traps. When it isn't monotonously explaining what we've already seen, it's mostly of the "Fck you," "What the fck!", "Survival of the fittest, my ass" variety. The acting is terrible beyond belief, with the only saving graces in the acting department being Tobin Bell and Scott Patterson.

The 5-1 subplot is nothing more than a pathetic and unimaginative Saw II regurgitation. It's ludicrous, stupid, and above all: just plain pointless. It hardly gels with the rest of the story (having it be in the film to "frame Strahm" isn't a good enough excuse when they easily could of done something as simple as just leaving a object or two of his for FBI agent Erickson to find; that would of gotten the point across equally as well, maybe even better). The blunt and sad truth is that it was only inserted into the film to both fill up the running time AND add in some additional gore and violence to satisfy the simple-minded teenagers in the audience.

There's a huge deficiency in suspense, which was one of the many things that once made the series great. Instead, just like in IV, it's replaced by senseless gore that has no substance within the story whatsoever. The ending I was surprised with: it was great and very suspenseful.........it's just a shame that the rest of the film didn't match up to it. If it did, then we'd have something special.

Even with these negative aspects though, it isn't terrible. The directing is not as bad as I make it out to be. In fact I liked Hackl's slow pacing, which allowed for a much more relaxed vibe than IV, and also for things to be set up neatly. To add on to this, the cat and mouse game throughout is very interesting, and there are undoubtedly bits of entertaining value to be found here and there(although not nearly enough to make up for all of it's major flaws).

Overall, Saw V is a weak and disappointing sequel unable to hold it's own. But it does have it's share of redeeming factors, and for that, it doesn't deserve any lower than a 4.

Thank god that it's not as bad as the fifth entries in most other horror franchises (Halloween 5, Hellraiser 5, Nightmare On Elm Street 5, etc.)

Saw II (2005)

Very good

[7/10 · 18 July 2009]

Saw II is a more than worthy sequel to the superb original and also a solid horror/thriller on it's own. The traps are creative (one in particular is absolutely horrific; it involves someone having to dive into a pit of needles), and the twists are both shocking and brilliant. There's also something that most Hollywood horror films are missing nowadays: character development. Jigsaw is explored deeply and Tobin Bell delivers a chilling performance. The character has become a famous horror icon, ranking up there with Freddy Krueger, Norman Bates, and Michael Myers.

The suspense is there and hardly ever let's up. Saw II doesn't have the BEST suspense (the best would be in Saw and Saw III), but it's still impressive seeing how most horror films today lack in that department. I was on the edge of the seat the entire 90 minutes.

The subplot that goes on is very interesting and ties perfectly into the rest of the story. There are a few flaws though, and that's what kind of bogs this film down from getting a higher rating. The characters in the subplot are for the most part stereotypical and underdeveloped. Plus they're given some pretty mediocre dialog throughout. If the number of characters was reduced and there was more time spent on developing them and improving on the dialog, I probably would of liked it a bit more.

Even with those few negative aspects though, it's still very good and easily one of the best sequels in the Saw series.

Halloween (2007)

Absolutely terrible

[1/10 · 24 June 2009]

It's official: Rob Zombie butchered a classic. Not only that, he's made even the worst Halloween installments look like masterpieces.

In Carpenter's original as well as in most of the sequels (excluding Halloweens 5 and 6), Michael Myers was a scary as hell, mysterious figure; pure evil in the shape of a man. Zombie ruins Myers' mystique and creepiness by explaining that Michael Myers is simply another result of an abusive childhood. The first half an hour of Zombie's film feel like frickin Dr. Phil's version of Halloween; it's focused on the dysfunctional childhood of Michael. His mother is a stripper, his teenage sister is a skank, his stepfather is an alcoholic verbally-abusive couch potato, and he gets picked on at school -- somehow the idea of pure evil randomly emerging from middle-American averageness was a hell of a lot scarier than the "fucked up childhood" psychological profile Zombie had. Zombie turns the monster into some sort of anti-hero we're supposed to be sympathizing for. And sure, it's sometimes fun to cheer along with a villain, but honestly: the way Zombie does it is just plain embarrassing.

The characters in this piece of garbage are some of the most unlikable characters I've ever seen in a horror film. Half of them are loud and obnoxious human beings, and half of them are annoying one-note sluts who you want to see picked off the moment they appear on screen. Even Laurie Strode, the main heroine who we are supposed to be sympathizing for, is nothing short of repulsive and loathsome. Not good.

Halloween 2007 has atrocious acting, atrocious dialog, so much vulgarity it makes you think it was written by Jerry Springer, and an overload of mindless bloodshed, brutality, and nudity. It's a real shame he totally forgot about the most important element that made Carpenter's original a masterpiece -- suspense and tension. This retread is 35% worthless "new stuff," 15% extra kills and gore (because surely that's what the original Halloween is known for: high body count and gore), and 50% material stolen directly from the source material. Zombie's script boils down to stereotypes, redneck trash, a hippie Dr. Loomis, numerous plot holes, and extreme contradiction.

The only thing truly scary about this film is how much of a disaster it is.

Eden Lake (2008)

One of the best horror movies in years

[10/10 · 22 June 2009]

It's safe to say that Eden Lake is one of the best horror movies from this decade. It has some incredible scares and it's very atmospheric. But the expertly executed tension and pace really makes Eden Lake stand out. I was skeptical during the first 30 or so minutes. I was beginning to think I was in for another run-of-the-mill horror film, as there wasn't much about the proceedings that was differentiating it from everything else. But slowly, the film started to draw me in, and soon I found myself utterly consumed with the cat-and-mouse game being played out on screen.

It hits you on a psychological level just as much as it will on a visceral one. It does an excellent job of being very disturbing and affecting without being overly gratuitous. Only a few horror films today have mixed gore and psychological terror perfectly, like for example The Descent, the Saw series, Inside, etc.

Eden Lake also has a bit of social commentary, and its focus is put squarely on the unruly youth of today. While it may have more bite in its native land, it's an issue that will resonate anywhere. Luckily however, the script is smart enough to not just rest on the laurels of all kids being troublemakers; it does try and dig into the root of the problem, and at the end of the day conveys a nice "violence breeds violence" message. In addition, the movie deals with the dangers of peer pressure and finding yourself amidst a bad crowd.

Britain seems to be at the top of it's game with horror movies. 28 Days Later, The Descent, Mum and Dad, and now this gem.

Jason Goes to Hell (1993)

A really enjoyable installment

[8/10 · 14 June 2009]

Jason Goes To Hell is an underrated flick (much better than Part 6, Part 8, JX, and FVJ; all of which were atrocities). It IS very silly and does mess with Jason's mythology, but still, the positive aspects are plentiful. The gore in this entry obviously benefited from the bigger budget, with easily some of the best and most gruesome murders in the series. The sexuality and nudity are also kicked up, keeping continuity with the rest of the series. The overall movie is incredibly fun and entertaining, even if it doesn't exactly fit with the other movies in the series. With it's gore and excessive campiness, it still holds true to many of the conventions of the series. This is an undeniably goofy, tongue-in-cheek horror film full of a few well-played gambles, some good humour (thankfully this installment has it's limits and doesn't go overboard with it like Part 6), and features one of the best out-of-left-field endings since the first Sleepaway Camp.

Jason Goes To Hell isn't at the top of my list for the Friday The 13th series, but it's also not at the very bottom either. If you want to see a REAL franchise-ruining film, try Jason X, Halloween Resurrection, or Nightmare On Elm Street 5.

Saw IV (2007)

Incredibly entertaining, but one of the weakest in the series

[6/10 · 1 June 2009]

Saw IV makes for a jolly good time. It's highly enjoyable and really succeeds on the level of entertainment value. It also has more of a Halloween-vibe than the other installments and manages to hardly ever be boring. It keeps you as the viewer going along with it until the final credits start to roll.

The downside is that, even with these positive aspects, it unfortunately is one of the weakest in the series and for that, I find it difficult to give it higher than a 6.

Darren Lynn Bousman really let me down here. His directing for Saw II was good, and as a freshman filmmaker he impressed me. His directing for Saw III was a colossal improvement; it absolutely blew me away. His direction for Saw IV......was horrible. The transitions were irritating, the lighting was nauseating/in your face, and the quick cuts were atrocious (it felt like Darren and the editor were having a seizure on the keyboard). His super-fast pacing, while helping to make the film more enjoyable, just doesn't work.

The script clearly is rushed (probably the most rushed script yet), and the execution is very sloppy. The narrative is overly convoluted, as it simultaneously goes off in three different directions, with none of the plots being developed well. The one plot though that nears being developed well with Strahm and Jigsaw's ex-wife is really interesting and, in my perspective, succeeded from a dramatic standpoint. Throughout it are flashbacks depicting the rocky road and dissolving marriage that led to John becoming Jigsaw. Yes, it could have been something more, but it was still above average.

There's an overload of characters, most of whom are unlikable cardboard cutouts just lined up for a quick kill. Saw and Saw III had fewer characters, which allowed for more character development and more sympathy for them. The actors/actresses who play the characters are, for the most part, amateur at best. The only real stand out performances are Tobin Bell who's fantastic as always and Scott Patterson who brings a lot of charisma to his role.

The film's not quite as nerve flinching as the others. It doesn't have any scenes that make you squirm in your seat like when Dr. Gordon saws off his foot, or when Amanda falls into the pit full of needles, or even when Eric Matthews smashes his foot with the bathroom toilet cover. Those small things are the ones that get the audience; this simply shows the bloody entrails of people.

Overall, Saw IV is very fun and will certainly keep you entertained, but it's still one of the weakest in the series. It's a tad better than V, but doesn't hold a candle to the first three.

Saw III (2006)

We have a winner

[9/10 · 23 April 2009]

SAW III in my opinion is tied with the original as the best in the series. For many reasons- one reason being that it keeps it simple. Instead of dealing with multiple characters that sacrificed any kind of character development like in SAW's II, IV, and V, SAW III, like the original, has much fewer characters, leading to a more intimate setting where we can connect to everyone. And while it does have sub-plots, they don't feel out of place, they're not just randomly thrown in to shock audiences. They feel organic, they all connect smoothly at the end and make sense as to why.

If you've seen a SAW film, you know the story is going to have twists, turns, and violence/gore to accompany them. But at least SAW III does it very well. It expands on characterization and back stories for these characters and ties up the loose ends as believably as this franchise can do. We also get a deeper look at the relationship between Jigsaw and Amanda, knowing more about how the two really look at each other. Jigsaw is the calm, cancer-stricken anti-hero who does these evil things to prove a moral standpoint. Amanda, on the other hand, doesn't seem to grasp this - instead using the traps to torture her victims as a way to get back at innocent people for the way she was tortured herself with suicidal tendencies and drug abuse. With these two extremes, we see how much Jigsaw is trying to mentor her in his vision while she struggles with her own demons. And when Jigsaw gets ill, we see that Amanda really isn't a fitting apprentice to carry on his legacy as her vindictiveness comes out.

SAW III is also supported by the fact that the two protagonists are developed deeply. Maybe not as much as our two anti-heros, but we understand where they're coming from. From Lynn's dour nature to devastated Jeff's situation. The subplot with Jeff by the way adds some great underlying messages to the film. These messages shows us that hate, vengeance, revenge, and complacency brings more pain than anything else, and does not solve anything. It ruins families, destroys relationships, clouds judgment, and at the end: self-destruction. Leigh Whannell, who wrote the first two films with James Waan and flew solo writing the screenplay for this one, does a nice job giving the spotlight to all the characters instead of just focusing on Jigsaw and Amanda. He makes SAW III more of a character study than any of the other installments and that's one of the essential reasons why this installment scores high.

Darren Lynn Bousman directs a much more subtle film than he did with SAW II and SAW IV. The quick edits are kept to a bare minimum (thank God) and the film has a lot of dread going for it. Very moody and darkly atmospheric. He focuses on the drama and emotion at hand, which was a vast improvement on SAW II and especially SAW IV. He lets the acting and the situations do the work for him instead of being extra-fancy with the camera work. Lastly, the cinematography is a plus. Darren shoots the film with a vibrant and kinetic feel and uses good, non-queasy camera movements. I love the lighting most of all though; he uses a wide arrange in the color palette (from lime green to icy blue). He definitely proves here that he knows how to grasp the material and visualize it. His direction of III ranks alongside James Waan's mindblowing direction of the original.

The acting is hardly an issue. It's usually good or better. Tobin Bell can play John Kramer in his sleep by now for gods sake! He shows excellent range and is always effective in the role because he gives the character more depth than what the script probably provides. Shawnee Smith is superb as Amanda, who will always be one of my favorite characters in the series. This is without a single doubt her shining moment, her most dramatic portion in the series. You really want to hate her but you just can't because you pity her. Smith could have easily played the character as an annoying nutjob, but she gives the character substance and unbelievable humanality. Angus Macfadyen as Jeff is superb in his role as well; he makes Jeff the most realistic and sympathetic character within the entire series. As far as I'm concerned, McFayden nailed the mourning father act. Bahar Soomekh was decent but always outshone by Bell, Smith, and McFayden. Her acting was a bit flimsy at times, but for the most part she gave a nice performance and made her character likable.

The suspense and tension, while not as impressive as the original, is still great. Hardly any other Saw film or horror film in general for that matter (with the exception of Eden Lake from last year and Inside from 2007) has been so edge-of-your-seat gripping, so exciting. The slow pacing allows you to gradually absorb everything in, and this makes it all the more better.

There is a lot of extreme gore in this film, but unlike some other installments like Saws IV and V, it's done very well and serves a purpose. Jeff's bloody trials are in a lot of ways cathartic. You're enduring these horrific scenes along with Jeff, and the relief at the end that the horror is over really fits with the theme of redemption through forgiveness. Moreover, the revelation that the horror isn't over, and what you feel as a result, drives home the Shakespearean tragedy in a very personal way because you the audience have to keep enduring it.

SAW III is clever, solidly written, has the best characters, succeeds with the emotional aspect it was going for, and ties up loose ends perfectly. For a third installment in a horror series, it's incredibly strong.

Funny Games (2007)

A brilliant and horrifying look at movie violence

[9/10 · 18 April 2009]

Grim and relentless, Funny Games USA has much more on its mind than just startling displays of blood and terror. It's tame in it's depiction of sadism (though the very nasty effects are underscored in long takes). It keeps the physical stuff off camera entirely, relying instead on the actors and their expressions/reactions to the horror that occurs in order to get the point across. Scene after scene the actors show the effects of emotional and physical stress. Naomi Watts, in particular, really succeeds at this. Her reactions to the behavior of Michael Pitt and Bradly Corbett are a lot more unsettling and memorable than any amount of violence the screen can toss at us. In short, she reminds us that we're watching a human being suffer through a truly horrific situation. It may not be exactly fun, but you came to see a horror film, right?

And therein rests the focus of the film. Without spoiling it for anyone, a large part of what happens in this examines not only the culture of movie violence, but also the audience that enjoys watching it. When Tim Roth asks why they don't just kill the family now, Michael Pitt simply tells him, "You shouldn't forget the importance of entertainment." You see, this is one of the reasons why the film works so damn well. On one level, it makes viewers pay for its implied violence. On another level, the film pushes its point harder. At first, Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet seem like standard movie psychos, like Norman Bates or Hannibal Lector. But then Pitt begins to break the fourth wall and address the audience, asking what "you" might want to see. When at last he stops a scene that has gone "wrong", he grabs a TV remote, rewinds it, and replays it to accommodate his own ends, the film has jumped from regular horror into meta territory. At once very smart and difficult to see, it is, ironically, all about watching. As viewers, we serve as witnesses to an innocent family's torment and as such, Haneke implies that we're just as responsible as the villains. It's an interesting angle to bring into this sort of film as it challenges the viewer by asking what it is they're looking for when they come to a horror movie. How Funny Games proceeds to then toy with those expectations will, without a doubt, divide viewers: charming some while enraging others.

But it's not all social commentary and fancy art-house material. If there's one thing that many of today's horror films fail to provide, it's suspense. Funny Games definitely has it. The suspense and tension is so tight and gripping that it becomes almost unbearable at times, and Haneke's camera is often sedentary for such extended periods that the viewer begins to fear that danger may come at any minute.

This is easily one of the best and most intriguing horror movies from this decade. It's tied with the original Austrian version, as they're both equally as good.

Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers (1988)

A lot more misses than hits

[6/10 · 12 April 2009]

Halloween 4 is sadly one of the worst in the series, although it's miles better than the atrocious Halloween 6 and the unwatchable Resurrection. That's not saying much, but oh well.

It's just more of the same crap over again, with hardly any originality. It mainly consists of annoying shallow characters, a barrel of overused clichés, and hysterical dialog.

Michael Myers has now become a recycled and tiresome plot device. He isn't captured in a scary light like he was in the first two films, and to make matters worse, the design of his mask is absolutely atrocious.

The director failed to provide the dark, grim, and eerie feel that Carpenter and Rosenthal did. It's just bland. Ugh.

Donald Pleasance is really the saving grace of Halloween 4. Wonderful as always (although here he does look tired and bored of his character; I can see why). There's also Danielle Harris, who is a surprisingly strong child actress. The introduction of kiddies into horror films can often ruin them yet Harris holds her own against her fellow cast members. Unfortunately, those two are about the only good actors in the film and all around one of the few redeeming factors of this otherwise incredibly weak sequel. It has it's moments where I think it shows it could be something really good, but it's then bogged down by chunks of the movie that are just plain dismal. Especially when the gang of rednecks form a lynch mob and go out to get them some Michael on a stick.

The execution and pacing is very poor. The screenplay and direction is aimless, uneven and shoddy. By the third act, the film's a boring and repetitve mess, devoid of any scares, any build up, any eerie moments, or any real suspense.

A number of things in the film are just too incidental, ie; there are too many excuses and lame motivations for said events to happen. At the beginning, we are shown how the phone lines will come to not work in a disappointing and incidental fashion; we are shown much later on shots of Rachel and her baby sister running into the house's attic followed by a close up of Myers taking a random knife off a shelf that just happened to be there: did Rachel not think to grab a weapon? Did she not run past the exact same shelf? Or did the character of Myers jump a temporal filmic space downstairs into the kitchen in the space of one cut? Twinned with this, the resulting fight on the roof plays out in a very humorous way with Myers lumbering around with his knife and characters surviving thirty foot falls.

Lastly, it doesn't know what to do with itself. At one point it seems like it's going to become a survival thriller in the vein of a Romero zombie flick. Then it seems like it'll be more of an action film what with the loading up of the posse. Later it seems like it's leading into militarism as the characters rush to an outpost to defend themselves from this supernatural attacker. However, none of these threads are fully realized and the characters seem unable to just sit down and bide their time. They get up and wander around for no reason, they run in ridiculous and unproductive directions, and none of them seem able of getting an ounce of communication out.

To wrap things up, Halloween 4 is a disappoint on nearly every level. This film marks the point when the series officially turned stale.

Halloween II (1981)

Best sequel in the series

[9/10 · 28 March 2009]

It is rare that horror sequels (or any film sequels) manage to capture the tone and essence of their predecessor. However Halloween II, made 3 years after John Carpenter's original, does just that and overall comes out to be a successful exercise in terror. The film continues from the moment Halloween left off. Not to spoil the plot, Laurie is taken to the local hospital where she is again pursued by Michael Myers. It is this continuation of the story, as well as Rosenthal's attempts to recreate Carpenter's visual style (still lots of long POV tracking shots) which differentiates Halloween II from the other sequels in the series; it actually serves to further the plot in an interesting way and remains consistent with the first film's style and content. A very worthy film when taken on its own, it also serves as the concluding episode to the first part in the Halloween franchise.

Rosenthal uses the hospital setting to great advantage. With only a skeleton crew working, the hospital is dark, empty, and has an overwhelming sense of claustrophobia. In several scenes, Rosenthal uses the darkness of the hospital to mask Michael's presence in a room only to have him appear as the light shifts, which is a truly chilling effect. Much more chilling than anything in the later sequels.

Critics generally bashed the film because of the blood and gore. I find this completely ludicrous, because whatever blood and gore it did have hardly affected anything. There actually isn't even that much when compared to the later sequels.

All and all Halloween II is a great follow up to the classic original. It's the best sequel out of the series, one of the best horror sequels ever made, and a more than acceptable stand-alone film.

Twilight (I) (2008)

Just awful

[1/10 · 20 March 2009]

Twilight is an embarrassing, teeny bopper, clichéd, soap opera bastardization of the vampire mythos. An atrocity to all vampire lore. The Twilight craze has to be the worst thing to happen to popular culture from this decade, it's truly horrid. The film is marginally worse than the horribly written book series, and consists of the following: unlikable shallow characters, lame effects, beautiful sparkling CW eye candy, and a false despicable message directed towards teen girls. It's simply just crass, substanceless garbage, which is not worth one's time or money.

Let The Right One In, another child vampire romance film from 2008, is superior in every way imaginable.

The Hills Have Eyes (2006)

Utterly fantastic

[9/10 · 8 March 2009]

I love Wes Craven's original 1977 Hills Have Eyes. Although it's extremely dated today, it was great and very impressive for it's time. It doesn't hold up as well today as it did back then, but it's still a wonderfully creepy and enjoyable movie. In my opinion, it's Wes Craven's best work next to Nightmare On Elm Street (Scream is somewhat overrated). I've seen many similar films of that era which have scared me out of my wits and spooked me out for nights on end. I was excited and had high hopes when I went to see this remake. Aja's previous film High Tension impressed me, and I had a sense that this would impress me even more.

I should've seen it coming, as I was uncomfortable and uneasy from the opening credits and things just got worse from there. Yet that's really good, because there's one thing that I believe every film needs to accomplish: it needs to make you feel something. This film does that, and much more. It makes you feel uncomfortable, uneasy, emotional, scared, shocked, surprised, disgusted, and horrified. In other words it delivers in abundance.

As I said, this film had me chilled from the opening scenes, and actually by that I mean the titles. There's this great trick of flashing images and piano wire kind of music which makes you jump out of your seat. That little audio clip is also used throughout the film at certain parts to unnerve you again; it's very clever and very effective.

Having witnessed some extreme violence and the total annihilation of a small group of people, you then meet the main characters of the film, stopping by a gas station in the middle of the desert, setting off on their journey. You already know they're close to danger, and as they're sent on their way you know they're heading straight towards it. A couple more clever touches are added here, knowing the family are headed towards danger you are introduced to a baby and a pregnant young mother in the group, and you feel the worry and terror rise. You know they are headed for trouble, and you begin to wonder what horrors face them. In fact, you sympathize so much for the family that you just don't want it to happen or even see it. I was literally almost in tears when *SPOILER* Doug was comforting his slowly dying mother in law. This is saying a lot, because little to no horror films in the past few years have gotten to me so much on an emotional. Kudos to the excellent cast, you guys succeeded in pulling it off.

It does a great job with the suspense and fear, at some points it builds it to the point where it's almost unbearable. Aja is already messing with your head, and he knows just how to do it to perfection. Something else he does well is film some great shots. Some of the opening scenes with his tracking camera shots are superb and really give exposition without words. It looks great, the style throughout gives a feel of remoteness and a little seventies feel to it much like the original film without going too overboard. Many of the shots and camera movements through the film are really effective in heightening the fear and anticipation, particularly when he actually doesn't let anything happen. When you traditionally expect something, he stretches the scene, or doesn't deliver, and then he'll catch you off guard. Sure, there are one or two traditional Hollywood scares (perhaps to make the studio happy) but these are early on and very VERY few. About one or two. This whole style was the most effective in the first night attack and also in the later scenes in the town. There's a ton of surprises in the film; who gets killed, who doesn't, and how and when. Once the suspense goes, we arrive at the real horror. Horror in the form I remember, when I saw the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre for the first time.

Talking of the horror aspect, the special effects are amazing and make for some unbelievably horrific scenes. The whole premise could have easily turned cheesy and unbelievable, yet it doesn't. It never feels that way. Aja actually makes you believe the unbelievable. No wonder this film holds its own!

The mindblowing direction, along with the stellar performances, well written screenplay, and great execution makes for a completely satisfying film. It really gets to you and makes you feel a big range of emotions, even after leaving the cinema. It's not only one of the best horror remakes ever made, it's also in general one of the best horror movies this decade!

Inside (2007)

Excellent

[10/10 · 22 February 2009]

Foreign horror movies are, as of this moment, dominant in every way to the majority of crappy American horror movies that are being dragged out into theaters (with only a few gems coming out like the Saw series and The Hills Have Eyes). The Descent, Eden Lake, REC, High Tension, and 28 Days Later are some excellent examples of how foreign horror movies are ruling the horror genre.

The plot concerns a young pregnant woman on Christmas Eve who mourns the sudden loss of her husband and anxiously prepares to go the hospital the next morning for the delivery of her baby. Throughout the night, she goes through a horrifying experience after a mysterious woman breaks into her house, with devilish intentions. This is definitely a film that will exponentially improve in your eyes with regards to how much you know about it beforehand. Hell, I thought it was going to be some sort of Rosemary's Baby/It's Alive type film, so I was certainly in for a surprise. Right off the bat I knew this one was going to be something memorable – we view the impact of a major car accident from inside the mother's womb, and then a great visual gag – a broken, bloody windshield wiper still running after the impact. Inventive, horrific visuals mixed with black yet understated humor? Ah yes, the French!

The first half strongly develops the main character and adds depth to her (thank god), unlike a lot of other horror movie characters who are flat and cardboard plot devices. You can really empathize for her as she's going through this rough process as a single soon-to-be mother. Women who are pregnant can especially can relate to the situation the main character is in. The second and third half is more or less a cat and mouse game between the two women, and tension really builds up. The entire film is executed brilliantly and flawlessly. We are kept on the edge of our seats and never do we have the chance to catch our breath.

Writer-director Alexandre Bustillo and co-director Julien Maury have made a debut that ranks with the original Texas Chainsaw or Night Of The Living Dead as one of the all time great freshman efforts. The camera set ups and lighting are phenomenal, I was very impressed. The slow drawn out music is even better (it adds to the creepiness of the movie).

This may be one of the most gruesome films you'll ever have the fortune or misfortune of seeing. The body count isn't particularly high, but the amount of bloodshed that results from these deaths (not to mention the amount of injuries inflicted on the two leads) will leave you hanging your mouth open in amazement. Although it's completely grounded in reality, making it all the more disturbing and scary. This is NOT a movie you will applaud and cheer at during/after the kill scenes. There are occasional moments that serve to break the tension, but for the most part, Inside is most definitely NOT a fun film to watch. It's brutal, intense, scary, atmospheric, creepy, and unsettling.

Overall, it's an excellent horror movie; without a doubt one of the best from this decade.

Day of the Dead (1985)

A severely underrated zombie masterpiece

[9/10 · 13 February 2009]

This is easily the best 'DEAD' installment behind Night Of The Living Dead. Suspenseful, thought provoking, and disturbing. It's really sad that it's as underrated as it is, being bashed and unfairly labeled as the black sheep. It deserves much more recognition and praise than it already has, given the outstanding quality of the film. I'm shocked that the overrated Dawn gains more notoriety.

The mood of Day is sinister and the atmosphere is unsettling and claustrophobic. There's also a strong sense of dread and hatred throughout. Without a doubt Romero's darkest piece of work (both literally and figuratively).

The character development here is top notch. Strong, literate, and fairly unidealistic. Probably the best in the series! We have the stern and determined female protagonist (Lori Cardille), the cruel authoritative military captain (Joseph Pilato), the goodhearted pacifist helicopter pilot (Terry Alexander), and the nutcase scientist who means well, but is devoid of any real logic. As we've all come to know, character development seems to come last or not at all in a good majority of horror movies.

The cast gives great performances. The actors who play the soldiers led by the captain all come off as barbaric and deranged, and it was cool to see John Amplas ('Martin') back again in a supporting role. The two stand out performances though are by the wonderful Richard Liberty as Dr. Logan (who the soldiers refer to as "Frankenstein"), and Howard Sherman as Bub, the warm and sympahetic zombie he tries to domesticate. The sequences between Logan and Bub are terrific and add a whole new level of pathos to the movie.

The socio-political subtext is probably the best thing about the movie. It's a subtle, believable, hard-boiled reflection of the real-world tension between science and the military. Next to Night Of The Living Dead, it's the most powerful in the series. Dawn, Land, and Diary's subtexts are very weak in comparison.

Day Of The Dead is not only one of Romero's finest pieces of work, it also stands at the forefront of zombie flicks and, all around, is one of the best horror movies from the 80's. It holds up extremely well today, far better than the woefully dated (though still enjoyable) Dawn Of The Dead.

Zombie (1979)

A fun and entertaining zombie flick

[7/10 · 12 February 2009]

Zombi 2 is a very good entry in the zombie sub-genre, and all around one of the better efforts from Romero-wannabes. It's also Lucio Fulci's best (and only decent) film. We have a creepy and nihilistic atmosphere, amazing gore/make up effects, gleeful sleaziness, likable characters, and some good suspense near the end.

There are a few downsides though. It's thin on plot, has horrible acting, and definitely not in the same field as Romero's first three 'Of The Dead' films. Fortunately, those negative aspects don't detract from the enjoyment of the film.

It's probably the second best non-Romero zombie film I've seen, behind Shaun Of The Dead.

Black Christmas (1974)

A genuine horror masterpiece

[10/10 · 1 February 2009]

This is not just the godfather of all slashers, it's the godfather of all horror films. Black Christmas is a sharp edged gem that sadly never garnered the popularity that it's inferior ripoffs like Halloween did and in consequence never got the praise it much deserved. Depressing, really depressing.

The director, Bob Clark, takes his time setting up a dark mood, and exploiting his eerie setting fully while giving us hints of slick style on the way (the killer POV shots and the slow motion). He also inter-cuts murder sequences with mundane events which makes the scenes quite effective. He gives us a solid script, excellent old fashioned suspense, and a strong atmosphere to rely on that oozes with an unrelenting creepiness.

Character development sets this one apart from other horror films. Olivia Hussey is angelic as the film's resident Scream Queen. Her character, Jessica, is thinking about having an abortion; she's definitely not your modern day leading lady for a slasher film, which usually involves someone pure at heart, innocent and virginal. These troubles that Jessica goes through add depth to her character, making her impossible not to like and adding the reality of character flaws to the whole picture. The rest of the characters are given a lot of depth as well, and this really helps you sympathize for them.

Music, like Halloween, is just as important of a factor as any horror classic. Perhaps it has to do with Peter, Jessica's boyfriend, being a pianist, that the scoring is a low and aggressive piano set. It's the part of the film that makes your creep bone crawl. Jessica receives a phone call from the killer, who shouts out "Billy!" "Agnes!" "What your mother and I must know is..." and other disturbing, seemingly meaningless quotes. His voice is dark, almost demonic, and uses multiple high and low tones that sometimes overlap each other. The question often comes up of whether or not the killer called "Billy", is possessed, or just very talented at what he does. The 2006 remake of Black Christmas, Black X-Mas, tries to answer every single question of what "Billy" is saying in the original, and explain his background. To do so completely destroys the purpose of Bob Clark's film, as the scariest aspect of Black Christmas is all of the things that you don't know. We enjoy wondering who the killer is, what his motive exactly is, where he came from, do we know him already? What is his motive? Where did he come from? Do we know him already? The film gives us just enough information and clues to chew on without providing straight out concrete answers. This allows the film to linger in our minds as we try to figure out what our own opinions are as to it's many mysteries. It's all in the mind, which is where the BEST creativity comes from (Blair Witch Project, Rosemary's Baby, etc). The lesser we see and the lesser we know, the better.

Black Christmas was made before the thousands of clichés of the slasher genre became typical, and has impacted American slashers like few others. Halloween has the mystery of who the killer is nearly down pat; it was a holiday horror with a stalker and anonymous phone callers. When a Stranger Calls took the nerve smashing concept from Black Christmas and used it for the opening act, where "the calls were coming from inside the house." Many slashers to follow would use Black Christmas' "Is that you?" line when a character would wonder who is lurking about. Today, the creepy caller often gets spoofed (Student Bodies) or updated in the form of a less effective cell phone (Scream). This Canadian terror has influenced SO SO many artistic gems that it feels like a crime that it is rarely seen as the powerhouse it deserves to be acknowledged as. No doubt, if Bob Clark could've copyrighted the slasher movie concepts and clichés that he created, he would've been just as famous as John Carpenter or Wes Craven, maybe even more.

It's simple (like Halloween) and doesn't require any additions to make it stronger. It's damn near flawless for gods sake! It's a truly fantastic masterpiece of horror cinema, the best horror film ever made. We never find out the answers to the killings at the house. This may be frustrating to some, but it's really a concept of genius, keeping the evil untouched and ready to haunt our minds on the night of December 24th.

Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982)

Incredibly underrated- one of the best Halloween installments

[9/10 · 31 January 2009]

Halloween III: Season Of The Witch is an incredibly underrated installment in the Halloween series. It's chilling, atmospheric, has an original concept, is filled with genuine scares, and has a fantastic spine-tingling musical score. Plus, it's the last film that captures the same wonderful holiday feel of the first two (which the later sequels lacked). This is the second best sequel in the series, behind the original and Halloween II. It's also wonderful to watch around Halloween time (guaranteed to put you in the holiday spirit).

Don't forget: Happy Happy Halloween Halloween Halloween Happy Happy Halloween Silver-Shamrock!