<![CDATA[TalkHorror - Horror Talk For All Horror Fans - Official TalkHorror Reviews]]> http://talkhorror.com/boards/ Mon, 20 Apr 2026 18:03:55 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[Lost After Dark - Review]]> http://talkhorror.com/boards/showthread.php?tid=3742 Mon, 05 Oct 2015 19:09:54 -0400 Lilith]]> http://talkhorror.com/boards/showthread.php?tid=3742 Lost After Dark

[Image: 2015_10_05_19_05_56_Lost_After_Dark_poster_jpg.png]



PLOT

Typical plot here with this one. A group of teenagers decide they are going to steal a school bus and go on a joy ride! But of course the bus breaks down, now we couldn't have it any other way now could we? Eventually, these kids of course end up at some creepy broken down house. Little do they know they're about to be stalked by some crazy cannibalistic killer!

Heads are gonna roll!



REVIEW

This film was released August 21, 2015 and was directed by Ian Kessner, which he also helped to write.

I stumbled across this film at my local retail store just this past weekend. I was on the hunt for some movies, particularly something different to watch for this Halloween season. The cover art for Lost After Dark caught my eye. I said to myself, this reminds me a little bit of those old 80's VHS covers you would see on a lot of horror movies back then. So with that thought, I reached up to snatch it off the shelf so I could take a read of the back cover to find out what this is about. Before I flipped it over, some text caught my eye, it read, "And you thought the 80's were dead". In the lower corner it read, "Retro 80's horror done right". So of course my interest was now definitely piqued. I flip over the case to read what it was all about. Sounded like it could be your typical 80's style horror plot. Knowing myself and how skeptical I am of these types of "attempts" to bring back those 80 style horror films... I decided to bite and I bought it.

Saturday night, we pop it in and start watching.

One of the things I noticed right off the bat was the look and feel of the film. It was definitely 80'sish, it appeared the makers tried to take care in providing an 80's atmosphere for viewers. I have seen many attempts at this in the past with other movies attempting the same thing, those films STILL looked way to polished to pull off that 80's retro feel. Lost After Dark seemed to pull this off just a bit better in my opinion.

As for the cast and characters go, I was not that impressed. I can usually find myself sympathizing with at least one character in these types of films, and it was just not happening here. I didn't even really feel any chemistry between the cast members either. Usually you have that ONE girl (typically) in these horror movies that you have that "rooting" spirit for, it just wasn't there. Which was unfortunate. And to be fair here, if this film had actually been made back in the 1980's.... I would of written the same thing.

Now on to my thoughts about the killer......

You can definitely see that this killer was molded after those from the late 70's into the 80's. I felt like this killer was just a bit over molded though, if you know what I mean. I think while the makers wanted a good retro throwback with this film, that they over done it in some areas, which in my opinion only hurt the movie... example the killer..... instead of taking on this role and making it his own, giving it his own presence and so on... I felt I was watching more of a mimicking of all of the horror icons we know and love from the 80's. For me, that is always a drawback. I want to see actors give these "killer" roles their own personality, not some one elses.

I get that it is a throwback to the 80's.... but in my opinion, that doesn't mean that you still can't make the character your own, while tipping your hat to the late greats. I just feel that with these types of films, good opportunities get lost.

With that being said... the movie had some good moments. It was nice to watch a movie that wasn't dominated by cheap jump scares for once. There was definitely some 80's style scares in this film and that was nice to see. I won't say what, as I don't want to ruin the movie for someone that has not seen it yet.

However, there were things missing, one of those things being "tension". I always loved the tension that a lot of those old movies from the 70's and 80's provided. The big build up, the climatic endings. I just didn't feel any of that was here in Lost After Dark. I feel the makers got so caught up in making sure that some layers of this throwback film was there for viewers, but letting other important layers slip away and it cost them. You can be original all the while tipping your hat off to the 80's era without mimicking it. If you truly know what worked back in that era, by all means use it... but you should make it original.

It's times like this when I wish I could make my own throwback film to the 70's and 80's and just show people what I mean. A lot easier to show, then to try and describe it sometimes.

Soundtrack....

Not to much to say here really, other than it wasn't to bad for what they were trying to portray here. Nothing really catchy in my opinion. There was a tune playing while they were all on the bus that wasn't to bad. Not sure what the name of it was, but one of the guys shut it off and played another tape.... rap. Completely ruined the scene for me, lol. I mean, I have no problem with rap, I like some rap music... but that just wasn't the time or place for it, lol.

No catchy killer theme here either.

Overall....

For the most part, the film wasn't a complete flop and I would recommend others out there to give it a watch. I think the movie will be more successful among those that are younger, as they won't really have the same expectations as some of us old school fans.

As I tried to convey... the film doesn't completely suck or anything, it is just lacking in a lot of areas. But I do give it props for it's attempt at taking us back to the look and feel of the 80's era.

Definitely NOT sequel worthy, even though it appeared to be setting up for one... OR they were just mimicking the era once more as it birthed tons of sequels. Either way, this should not have a sequel.



Lilith's Tidbits:

While the gang is on the bus, one of the guys switches out cassette tapes and puts in a rap tape. But what he actually puts in is, Mr. Big's "Lean Into It." This is a rock album, and even if the guy recorded over it with rap music.... Lean Into It didn't come out until 1991, about 7 years after this movie was supposed to take place in.


TRAILER:

[video=youtube;v5yydT_SCTU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5yydT_SCTU[/video]]]> Lost After Dark

[Image: 2015_10_05_19_05_56_Lost_After_Dark_poster_jpg.png]



PLOT

Typical plot here with this one. A group of teenagers decide they are going to steal a school bus and go on a joy ride! But of course the bus breaks down, now we couldn't have it any other way now could we? Eventually, these kids of course end up at some creepy broken down house. Little do they know they're about to be stalked by some crazy cannibalistic killer!

Heads are gonna roll!



REVIEW

This film was released August 21, 2015 and was directed by Ian Kessner, which he also helped to write.

I stumbled across this film at my local retail store just this past weekend. I was on the hunt for some movies, particularly something different to watch for this Halloween season. The cover art for Lost After Dark caught my eye. I said to myself, this reminds me a little bit of those old 80's VHS covers you would see on a lot of horror movies back then. So with that thought, I reached up to snatch it off the shelf so I could take a read of the back cover to find out what this is about. Before I flipped it over, some text caught my eye, it read, "And you thought the 80's were dead". In the lower corner it read, "Retro 80's horror done right". So of course my interest was now definitely piqued. I flip over the case to read what it was all about. Sounded like it could be your typical 80's style horror plot. Knowing myself and how skeptical I am of these types of "attempts" to bring back those 80 style horror films... I decided to bite and I bought it.

Saturday night, we pop it in and start watching.

One of the things I noticed right off the bat was the look and feel of the film. It was definitely 80'sish, it appeared the makers tried to take care in providing an 80's atmosphere for viewers. I have seen many attempts at this in the past with other movies attempting the same thing, those films STILL looked way to polished to pull off that 80's retro feel. Lost After Dark seemed to pull this off just a bit better in my opinion.

As for the cast and characters go, I was not that impressed. I can usually find myself sympathizing with at least one character in these types of films, and it was just not happening here. I didn't even really feel any chemistry between the cast members either. Usually you have that ONE girl (typically) in these horror movies that you have that "rooting" spirit for, it just wasn't there. Which was unfortunate. And to be fair here, if this film had actually been made back in the 1980's.... I would of written the same thing.

Now on to my thoughts about the killer......

You can definitely see that this killer was molded after those from the late 70's into the 80's. I felt like this killer was just a bit over molded though, if you know what I mean. I think while the makers wanted a good retro throwback with this film, that they over done it in some areas, which in my opinion only hurt the movie... example the killer..... instead of taking on this role and making it his own, giving it his own presence and so on... I felt I was watching more of a mimicking of all of the horror icons we know and love from the 80's. For me, that is always a drawback. I want to see actors give these "killer" roles their own personality, not some one elses.

I get that it is a throwback to the 80's.... but in my opinion, that doesn't mean that you still can't make the character your own, while tipping your hat to the late greats. I just feel that with these types of films, good opportunities get lost.

With that being said... the movie had some good moments. It was nice to watch a movie that wasn't dominated by cheap jump scares for once. There was definitely some 80's style scares in this film and that was nice to see. I won't say what, as I don't want to ruin the movie for someone that has not seen it yet.

However, there were things missing, one of those things being "tension". I always loved the tension that a lot of those old movies from the 70's and 80's provided. The big build up, the climatic endings. I just didn't feel any of that was here in Lost After Dark. I feel the makers got so caught up in making sure that some layers of this throwback film was there for viewers, but letting other important layers slip away and it cost them. You can be original all the while tipping your hat off to the 80's era without mimicking it. If you truly know what worked back in that era, by all means use it... but you should make it original.

It's times like this when I wish I could make my own throwback film to the 70's and 80's and just show people what I mean. A lot easier to show, then to try and describe it sometimes.

Soundtrack....

Not to much to say here really, other than it wasn't to bad for what they were trying to portray here. Nothing really catchy in my opinion. There was a tune playing while they were all on the bus that wasn't to bad. Not sure what the name of it was, but one of the guys shut it off and played another tape.... rap. Completely ruined the scene for me, lol. I mean, I have no problem with rap, I like some rap music... but that just wasn't the time or place for it, lol.

No catchy killer theme here either.

Overall....

For the most part, the film wasn't a complete flop and I would recommend others out there to give it a watch. I think the movie will be more successful among those that are younger, as they won't really have the same expectations as some of us old school fans.

As I tried to convey... the film doesn't completely suck or anything, it is just lacking in a lot of areas. But I do give it props for it's attempt at taking us back to the look and feel of the 80's era.

Definitely NOT sequel worthy, even though it appeared to be setting up for one... OR they were just mimicking the era once more as it birthed tons of sequels. Either way, this should not have a sequel.



Lilith's Tidbits:

While the gang is on the bus, one of the guys switches out cassette tapes and puts in a rap tape. But what he actually puts in is, Mr. Big's "Lean Into It." This is a rock album, and even if the guy recorded over it with rap music.... Lean Into It didn't come out until 1991, about 7 years after this movie was supposed to take place in.


TRAILER:

[video=youtube;v5yydT_SCTU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5yydT_SCTU[/video]]]> <![CDATA[Chernobyl Diaries (2012)]]> http://talkhorror.com/boards/showthread.php?tid=3725 Thu, 27 Aug 2015 10:40:41 -0400 TerrorScribe]]> http://talkhorror.com/boards/showthread.php?tid=3725 Chernobyl Diaries (2012)

Directed by: Bradley Parker
Written by: Oren Peli, Shane Van Dyke and Carey Van Dyke
Starring: Jesse McCartney, Olivia Taylor Dudley, Devin Kelley, Jonathan Sadowski
Running time: 86 minutes
Rating: R


Life is hard.
Math is easy.

Not including algebra, calculus or any other numeric discipline longer than four letters, I’m inclined to agree with that statement. Life can throw you all kinds of unexpected craziness - even under the most mundane and seemingly predictable circumstances. Math, on the other hand, is fairly consistent. Two and two will always equal four - no surprise there. However, there are occasions where life imitates math when all the pieces of an equation add up to the same thing every time.

A model of such consistency is “Chernobyl Diaries”.

Written in part by Oren Peli (of “Paranormal Activity” fame), the film follows nice guy Chris (Jesse McCartney), his good-looking blonde girlfriend Natalie (Olivia Taylor Dudley), her attractive brunette friend Amanda (Devin Kelley) as they journey across Europe to visit Chris’ bad boy brother Paul (Jonathan Sadowski) who lives in Kiev. Sound like a lot of time for character development? Not really - it’s just the opening montage. Once they get to Kiev, we learn that Paul is a bit roguish and has the hot bananas for Amanda, who just broke up with her boyfriend and that Chris wants to marry Natalie (for those of you keeping score at home, that’s one hero couple with a side of two dead meats). Paul then convinces the group to take an “extreme” tour of the abandoned city, Pripyat, which was evacuated when the nuclear reactors at Chernobyl exploded. After another couple joins the party, they head out with their former Russian special forces tour guide to the city. But at the perimeter, they are turned away by soldiers. Not so easily deterred, they find another way into the city where soon, they find that they are trapped and hunted by something unseen.

“Chernobyl Diaries” is trite and disappointing debut from director Bradley Parker and I almost hate to say that because I strongly suspect it’s not his fault. The script, written by Peli, Shane Van Dyke and Carey Van Dyke (credits for the latter two include “Titanic 2” and “Mega-Python Vs Gatoroid”Wink is eye-rollingly ridiculous in spots and seemed like it would be better suited to a Saturday night slot on SyFy than a theatrical release. As with most films of this “caliber,” we are introduced quickly to the victims. They aren’t really characters because characters are more than just pretty faces covering a collection of tropes with no other development as the movie progresses. To coin an old phrase, they are simply born to die, wandering from situation to situation making the same stupid decisions you’ve seen in cut-rate horror since time immemorial. I’m not sure which of the three writers to pin that on but it reminded me a lot of Peli’s work in “Paranormal Activity”. While there was no script in that film, it was his hand that guided the actors in the characters’ behavior, similarly plagued by poor choices.

Aside from that, “Diaries” was nicely shot, making the most of the dour surroundings in Hungary and Serbia. The actors staked out the middle ground between good and bad and didn’t do anything to detract from the film.

In movie critic circles, when a movie is screened on a Thursday night before a Friday release, it rarely - if ever - bodes well for the movie. And when two of the screenwriters for a project seem to specialize in Made-for-TV drek, that likewise, is not a good sign. It was an unfortunate equation leading into “Chernobyl Diaries” and sadly, it's the only thing that added up for it.]]> Chernobyl Diaries (2012)

Directed by: Bradley Parker
Written by: Oren Peli, Shane Van Dyke and Carey Van Dyke
Starring: Jesse McCartney, Olivia Taylor Dudley, Devin Kelley, Jonathan Sadowski
Running time: 86 minutes
Rating: R


Life is hard.
Math is easy.

Not including algebra, calculus or any other numeric discipline longer than four letters, I’m inclined to agree with that statement. Life can throw you all kinds of unexpected craziness - even under the most mundane and seemingly predictable circumstances. Math, on the other hand, is fairly consistent. Two and two will always equal four - no surprise there. However, there are occasions where life imitates math when all the pieces of an equation add up to the same thing every time.

A model of such consistency is “Chernobyl Diaries”.

Written in part by Oren Peli (of “Paranormal Activity” fame), the film follows nice guy Chris (Jesse McCartney), his good-looking blonde girlfriend Natalie (Olivia Taylor Dudley), her attractive brunette friend Amanda (Devin Kelley) as they journey across Europe to visit Chris’ bad boy brother Paul (Jonathan Sadowski) who lives in Kiev. Sound like a lot of time for character development? Not really - it’s just the opening montage. Once they get to Kiev, we learn that Paul is a bit roguish and has the hot bananas for Amanda, who just broke up with her boyfriend and that Chris wants to marry Natalie (for those of you keeping score at home, that’s one hero couple with a side of two dead meats). Paul then convinces the group to take an “extreme” tour of the abandoned city, Pripyat, which was evacuated when the nuclear reactors at Chernobyl exploded. After another couple joins the party, they head out with their former Russian special forces tour guide to the city. But at the perimeter, they are turned away by soldiers. Not so easily deterred, they find another way into the city where soon, they find that they are trapped and hunted by something unseen.

“Chernobyl Diaries” is trite and disappointing debut from director Bradley Parker and I almost hate to say that because I strongly suspect it’s not his fault. The script, written by Peli, Shane Van Dyke and Carey Van Dyke (credits for the latter two include “Titanic 2” and “Mega-Python Vs Gatoroid”Wink is eye-rollingly ridiculous in spots and seemed like it would be better suited to a Saturday night slot on SyFy than a theatrical release. As with most films of this “caliber,” we are introduced quickly to the victims. They aren’t really characters because characters are more than just pretty faces covering a collection of tropes with no other development as the movie progresses. To coin an old phrase, they are simply born to die, wandering from situation to situation making the same stupid decisions you’ve seen in cut-rate horror since time immemorial. I’m not sure which of the three writers to pin that on but it reminded me a lot of Peli’s work in “Paranormal Activity”. While there was no script in that film, it was his hand that guided the actors in the characters’ behavior, similarly plagued by poor choices.

Aside from that, “Diaries” was nicely shot, making the most of the dour surroundings in Hungary and Serbia. The actors staked out the middle ground between good and bad and didn’t do anything to detract from the film.

In movie critic circles, when a movie is screened on a Thursday night before a Friday release, it rarely - if ever - bodes well for the movie. And when two of the screenwriters for a project seem to specialize in Made-for-TV drek, that likewise, is not a good sign. It was an unfortunate equation leading into “Chernobyl Diaries” and sadly, it's the only thing that added up for it.]]> <![CDATA[Jurassic World (2015)]]> http://talkhorror.com/boards/showthread.php?tid=3720 Sat, 22 Aug 2015 13:08:06 -0400 Chainsaw Brutality]]> http://talkhorror.com/boards/showthread.php?tid=3720 [Image: B3twbr5.jpg?1]


Rated PG-13 / 2 Hours 3 Minutes (123 Minutes)


After being greenlit in 2004, eleven years later and twenty-two years after the original -
Jurassic World has arrived in theaters. The park, now known as "Jurassic World", is in fact a worldwide attraction. Thousands upon thousands visit the high-tech, state-of-the-art facility. Running or overseeing the daily operation for current owner, Simon Masrani, is Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard) who is committed to her job 100% and really has not had much up-close contact with the dinosaurs. Chris Pratt plays Owen Grady, an ex Marine and has been working at the park for quite some time. His specialty is Velociraptors, he is like a horse whisperer of sorts and connects with them unlike anyone else can at the park.

Meanwhile, In-Gen is hard at work trying to meet it's consumer demands by constantly adding new "attractions", dinosaurs, into the park. Any new attractions are made safe before people visit them. So, when their newest genetic creation, Indominus Rex is brought into the mix - Owen Grady is requested to give his opinion and thoughts on the safety & stability of the structure containing the creature. In the blink of an eye, things go South and the entire park is at the mercy of Indominus Rex and the other dinos.

The first thing to get my attention was the original theme music from John Williams, I had goosebumps when I heard it. I remembered how I felt in '93 and the nostalgic feeling it brought back. The score is played more than once during the film. I appreciated Colin Trevorrow's respect he shows toward the original as well. There are nuggets or easter eggs throughout the movie that pay homage to Jurassic Park. He also stays true to the feel and atmosphere of what a JP movie should be. There is a nice balance of humor thrown in amongst the suspenseful moments. It flows well and the movie nevers feels disjointed or uneven.

Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Ty Simpkins and Nick Robinson all give really strong performances. The chemistry between Pratt & Howard really make the experience even more enjoyable. The same can also be said for Simpkins and Robinson who play brothers in the movie. Vincent D'Onofrio gives a solid performance too.

All the dinosaurs look legit, if there was any CGI used on them - I couldn't tell. The cinematography is handled well, the island really looks beautiful & is showcased more than once. The action scenes are done good too and shot smoothly - loved the p-o-v shots.

For me, Jurassic World does not reach the level of the original but it is the best sequel. This is a fun and enjoyable film, any JP fan can find something to love about it.

Dinosaurs are back on the big screen!


4/5 (B+)]]> [Image: B3twbr5.jpg?1]


Rated PG-13 / 2 Hours 3 Minutes (123 Minutes)


After being greenlit in 2004, eleven years later and twenty-two years after the original -
Jurassic World has arrived in theaters. The park, now known as "Jurassic World", is in fact a worldwide attraction. Thousands upon thousands visit the high-tech, state-of-the-art facility. Running or overseeing the daily operation for current owner, Simon Masrani, is Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard) who is committed to her job 100% and really has not had much up-close contact with the dinosaurs. Chris Pratt plays Owen Grady, an ex Marine and has been working at the park for quite some time. His specialty is Velociraptors, he is like a horse whisperer of sorts and connects with them unlike anyone else can at the park.

Meanwhile, In-Gen is hard at work trying to meet it's consumer demands by constantly adding new "attractions", dinosaurs, into the park. Any new attractions are made safe before people visit them. So, when their newest genetic creation, Indominus Rex is brought into the mix - Owen Grady is requested to give his opinion and thoughts on the safety & stability of the structure containing the creature. In the blink of an eye, things go South and the entire park is at the mercy of Indominus Rex and the other dinos.

The first thing to get my attention was the original theme music from John Williams, I had goosebumps when I heard it. I remembered how I felt in '93 and the nostalgic feeling it brought back. The score is played more than once during the film. I appreciated Colin Trevorrow's respect he shows toward the original as well. There are nuggets or easter eggs throughout the movie that pay homage to Jurassic Park. He also stays true to the feel and atmosphere of what a JP movie should be. There is a nice balance of humor thrown in amongst the suspenseful moments. It flows well and the movie nevers feels disjointed or uneven.

Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Ty Simpkins and Nick Robinson all give really strong performances. The chemistry between Pratt & Howard really make the experience even more enjoyable. The same can also be said for Simpkins and Robinson who play brothers in the movie. Vincent D'Onofrio gives a solid performance too.

All the dinosaurs look legit, if there was any CGI used on them - I couldn't tell. The cinematography is handled well, the island really looks beautiful & is showcased more than once. The action scenes are done good too and shot smoothly - loved the p-o-v shots.

For me, Jurassic World does not reach the level of the original but it is the best sequel. This is a fun and enjoyable film, any JP fan can find something to love about it.

Dinosaurs are back on the big screen!


4/5 (B+)]]> <![CDATA[Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)]]> http://talkhorror.com/boards/showthread.php?tid=3719 Sat, 22 Aug 2015 13:01:29 -0400 Chainsaw Brutality]]> http://talkhorror.com/boards/showthread.php?tid=3719 [Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=350&d=1431708975]

Rated R / 2 Hours (120 Minutes)


Wow, where to begin? For starters, the reviews and praise the film has gotten leading up to this weekend - are completely legit. Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron are two badasses here. While they are equally tough, Hardy's Max is a loner, a fighter and a man that has had to earn his right to live. Theron's Furiosa comes from a more family-oriented background and is clearly passionate & compassionate about those around her, and closest to her. The two characters just compliment each other so well. Nicholas Hoult is outstanding in his supporting role as "Nux", a man looking and searching for his place. He is willing to prove he belongs to the cause. Actually, the entire cast delivers - there is no glaring weakness anywhere.

This is all tributed to George Miller's script and story. The cinematography is beautiful, and breathtaking at the same time. The shots he gets in every single action setpiece are phenomenal. The setpieces themselves are insane and crazy. I don't like throwing around the word "masterpiece", but this is how I feel after seeing the movie last night. There are so many memorable moments visually, you can't count them on both hands. The costume design is also great, as you might expect. It has the grungey, rocker, late 70s/80s look.

The carnage and pure mayhem George Miller dishes out is not forced. It all flows with the story. Sure, there is a little downtime, but it's just enough for you to catch your breath before it all resumes at full throttle. It is beyond high octane.

Finally, the entire mood and feel is set by an excellent score from Junkie XL (Tom Holkenborg). He is able to create an even more grand sense and feel the movie possesses. The sound is also pulsepounding and awesome.

To me, Fury Road supplants the original. The greatness of this film cannot, and should not, go unnoticed. This is an instant classic and one to be remembered for many years to come.


5/5 (A+)]]> [Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=350&d=1431708975]

Rated R / 2 Hours (120 Minutes)


Wow, where to begin? For starters, the reviews and praise the film has gotten leading up to this weekend - are completely legit. Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron are two badasses here. While they are equally tough, Hardy's Max is a loner, a fighter and a man that has had to earn his right to live. Theron's Furiosa comes from a more family-oriented background and is clearly passionate & compassionate about those around her, and closest to her. The two characters just compliment each other so well. Nicholas Hoult is outstanding in his supporting role as "Nux", a man looking and searching for his place. He is willing to prove he belongs to the cause. Actually, the entire cast delivers - there is no glaring weakness anywhere.

This is all tributed to George Miller's script and story. The cinematography is beautiful, and breathtaking at the same time. The shots he gets in every single action setpiece are phenomenal. The setpieces themselves are insane and crazy. I don't like throwing around the word "masterpiece", but this is how I feel after seeing the movie last night. There are so many memorable moments visually, you can't count them on both hands. The costume design is also great, as you might expect. It has the grungey, rocker, late 70s/80s look.

The carnage and pure mayhem George Miller dishes out is not forced. It all flows with the story. Sure, there is a little downtime, but it's just enough for you to catch your breath before it all resumes at full throttle. It is beyond high octane.

Finally, the entire mood and feel is set by an excellent score from Junkie XL (Tom Holkenborg). He is able to create an even more grand sense and feel the movie possesses. The sound is also pulsepounding and awesome.

To me, Fury Road supplants the original. The greatness of this film cannot, and should not, go unnoticed. This is an instant classic and one to be remembered for many years to come.


5/5 (A+)]]> <![CDATA[Howling 2: Your Sister is a Werewolf (1985)]]> http://talkhorror.com/boards/showthread.php?tid=3709 Fri, 21 Aug 2015 22:33:27 -0400 Dr. Briggs]]> http://talkhorror.com/boards/showthread.php?tid=3709
To a series as legendary for its lack of entertainment value as The Howling, it's not a terribly bad start! Just like with the first Amityville sequels, the second Howling installment still retains a little "life" rather than being a dispirited imitator. What's more, it often seems more intentionally tongue-in-cheek than truly as incompetent as critics believe. From old woman turned sexpot with a werewolf's power of... energy draining, to the midget werewolf pawn disguised as a little girl, to blatantly overacting all around, this movie sweetly reeks of intentional cheese with few serious scares to be found.

Is it hard to believe? Many horror sequels went the same route around the same ten-year-stretch. Not all were made equal of course, as even people who know the intent of all four films will usually choose Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 and Evil Dead 2 over Texas Chainsaw Massacre 4 and Leprechaun 4. I won't deny that Howling 2 is incompetent, as seen in the times it appears to be attempting to be serious - the flashback of Karen White has The Howling's initial protagonist turning into a more dangerous looking werewolf than in the original film, yet comes off looking sillier due to the makeup job looking relatively incomplete; likewise, the final confrontation between Christopher Lee's stoic hunter and lead "werewolf bitch" Stirba, contains special FX that would have looked cut rate a decade earlier. The fact that they use the same (admittedly catchy) song over and over can be seen as either fun or tedious in effect, but either way, it's pretty cheap.

However, for all the flaws, Howling 2 is never slow and never un-entertaining. I give it a recommend, but a very light only-if-you're-in-a-certain-mood recommend, with a 4/10. As most people call Howling 2 one of the worst in its franchise, I'm starting to get a little hope back for Bo and my upcoming Howling-marathon!]]>
To a series as legendary for its lack of entertainment value as The Howling, it's not a terribly bad start! Just like with the first Amityville sequels, the second Howling installment still retains a little "life" rather than being a dispirited imitator. What's more, it often seems more intentionally tongue-in-cheek than truly as incompetent as critics believe. From old woman turned sexpot with a werewolf's power of... energy draining, to the midget werewolf pawn disguised as a little girl, to blatantly overacting all around, this movie sweetly reeks of intentional cheese with few serious scares to be found.

Is it hard to believe? Many horror sequels went the same route around the same ten-year-stretch. Not all were made equal of course, as even people who know the intent of all four films will usually choose Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 and Evil Dead 2 over Texas Chainsaw Massacre 4 and Leprechaun 4. I won't deny that Howling 2 is incompetent, as seen in the times it appears to be attempting to be serious - the flashback of Karen White has The Howling's initial protagonist turning into a more dangerous looking werewolf than in the original film, yet comes off looking sillier due to the makeup job looking relatively incomplete; likewise, the final confrontation between Christopher Lee's stoic hunter and lead "werewolf bitch" Stirba, contains special FX that would have looked cut rate a decade earlier. The fact that they use the same (admittedly catchy) song over and over can be seen as either fun or tedious in effect, but either way, it's pretty cheap.

However, for all the flaws, Howling 2 is never slow and never un-entertaining. I give it a recommend, but a very light only-if-you're-in-a-certain-mood recommend, with a 4/10. As most people call Howling 2 one of the worst in its franchise, I'm starting to get a little hope back for Bo and my upcoming Howling-marathon!]]> <![CDATA[Hellacious Acres - The Case of John Glass (DVD Review)]]> http://talkhorror.com/boards/showthread.php?tid=3633 Thu, 12 Apr 2012 15:36:59 -0400 Bojangles]]> http://talkhorror.com/boards/showthread.php?tid=3633 “I feel like I’m watching a really bad 60’s sci-fi movie that has been made this year. Fuck. Me."


[ATTACH=CONFIG]1872[/ATTACH]


Back of The Box:


A man suffering from amnesia wakes up in a desolate barn from a cryogenic freezer to be informed that the planet has been devastated by a world war and reduced to little habitability by a subsequent alien invasion. He is thrown into a military mission to help reestablish a livable atmosphere for what’s left of humanity. Soon enough he encounters more than he bargained for: aliens, crazy survivors, inadequate equipment and a pretty unhealthy dose of bad luck. Jam-packed with visual inventions and plot twists this movie offers a dark and humorous take on the post-apocalyptic genre.


Review:


This has to be the worst movie I have seen in an extremely long time. Hell, it may even be the worst movie I have ever encountered in my life. Yes, I am being 100% serious. Right now, I would be very hard-pressed to think of a movie that is worse. If I run a horror website and say a movie is bad, you may want to keep your distance – trust me.


The whole movie looks like they used some sort of effects preset on it. It looks like someone had Adobe After Effects, said the hell with any sort of technical editing and just ran the whole movie through some sort of preset and then called it a day. Seriously, the whole movie is in a greenish-blue tint and of course, it is has that typical grain effect.


The voice of the main character actually got on my nerves and that is a major bad point seeing as how he pretty much talks to himself through-out the entirety of the film. The main character sounds like Keanu Reeves and Williams Shatner has some sort of bastard child and that is the main character of the movie.


Speaking of the main character’s voice and sound in general, I was extremely disappointed with the audio levels in this movie. There is a female computer voice in the movie that you have to turn the volume up in order to hear. However, when the music kicks in, you are going to immediately reach for the remote and turn the movie down. As a matter of fact, I had to keep the remote on-hand during the whole movie. One second, I’m turning the movie down and the next second I am having to turn it up.


Do you remember in the movie Clerks 2 when Randle is talking about The Lord of The Rings and he complained about how much walking takes place in the movie? That is exactly how I feel about Hellacious Acres. The main character walks all over the place and it takes forever. Do you want to watch someone walking across acres and acres of fields?


Actually there is a teleportation device in the movie, so the main character can get from place-to-place much quicker. Of course, you are excited to hear this news, so you do not have to watch the main character walk through the whole movie, but there is a penalty for using the teleportation device. Whenever he uses the device, he is stricken with so much pain that he has to rest it off.


This movie drags on and on and on and on and on. Every single thing in this movies take so long that it becomes painful to watch. You are either watching a guy walking, watching him writhe in pain or watching him sleep. This movie makes every single second painful.


Speaking of the time it takes for the character to accomplish simple tasks; the runtime of the movie clocks in at 1 hour, 48 minutes and 45 seconds. If they cut the runtime of this movie down to 5 minutes and turned it into a short screamer it would still be boring, slow and dull. So, you could only imagine what it feels like to watch this for such a lengthy runtime.


The Verdict:


This was a hellacious watch of a movie. It is extremely boring, annoying, plotless and pointless. You could not pay me to sit through this movie again. The movie is now residing within my collection and it will never see the light of day again.
When I received the package for this movie, there was a little gift inside of it. At first, I thought “This was pretty cool of them”. Unfortunately, this did not help their cause, because the movie itself ruined this gift for me.


Inside of the envelope, accompanying Hellacious Acres: The Case of John Glass DVD, was a can. Attached to this review you will see a picture of the can they included in the package. Sadly, I grew to hate this can, because in the movie he finds a can of food and does not have a can opener. So, we have to watch him use a hacksaw on the can until he finally gets it open. After that, we are forced to watch him open more cans of food.


I hate to rate a movie so low, but there is nothing good I could find about this movie. It is seriously that bad and I hope I never come across another movie like it.


Rating:


1 out of a possible 10.

.jpg   hellacious-acres-the-case-of-john-glass-dvd-and-prop-can.JPG (Size: 86.56 KB / Downloads: 13) ]]> “I feel like I’m watching a really bad 60’s sci-fi movie that has been made this year. Fuck. Me."


[ATTACH=CONFIG]1872[/ATTACH]


Back of The Box:


A man suffering from amnesia wakes up in a desolate barn from a cryogenic freezer to be informed that the planet has been devastated by a world war and reduced to little habitability by a subsequent alien invasion. He is thrown into a military mission to help reestablish a livable atmosphere for what’s left of humanity. Soon enough he encounters more than he bargained for: aliens, crazy survivors, inadequate equipment and a pretty unhealthy dose of bad luck. Jam-packed with visual inventions and plot twists this movie offers a dark and humorous take on the post-apocalyptic genre.


Review:


This has to be the worst movie I have seen in an extremely long time. Hell, it may even be the worst movie I have ever encountered in my life. Yes, I am being 100% serious. Right now, I would be very hard-pressed to think of a movie that is worse. If I run a horror website and say a movie is bad, you may want to keep your distance – trust me.


The whole movie looks like they used some sort of effects preset on it. It looks like someone had Adobe After Effects, said the hell with any sort of technical editing and just ran the whole movie through some sort of preset and then called it a day. Seriously, the whole movie is in a greenish-blue tint and of course, it is has that typical grain effect.


The voice of the main character actually got on my nerves and that is a major bad point seeing as how he pretty much talks to himself through-out the entirety of the film. The main character sounds like Keanu Reeves and Williams Shatner has some sort of bastard child and that is the main character of the movie.


Speaking of the main character’s voice and sound in general, I was extremely disappointed with the audio levels in this movie. There is a female computer voice in the movie that you have to turn the volume up in order to hear. However, when the music kicks in, you are going to immediately reach for the remote and turn the movie down. As a matter of fact, I had to keep the remote on-hand during the whole movie. One second, I’m turning the movie down and the next second I am having to turn it up.


Do you remember in the movie Clerks 2 when Randle is talking about The Lord of The Rings and he complained about how much walking takes place in the movie? That is exactly how I feel about Hellacious Acres. The main character walks all over the place and it takes forever. Do you want to watch someone walking across acres and acres of fields?


Actually there is a teleportation device in the movie, so the main character can get from place-to-place much quicker. Of course, you are excited to hear this news, so you do not have to watch the main character walk through the whole movie, but there is a penalty for using the teleportation device. Whenever he uses the device, he is stricken with so much pain that he has to rest it off.


This movie drags on and on and on and on and on. Every single thing in this movies take so long that it becomes painful to watch. You are either watching a guy walking, watching him writhe in pain or watching him sleep. This movie makes every single second painful.


Speaking of the time it takes for the character to accomplish simple tasks; the runtime of the movie clocks in at 1 hour, 48 minutes and 45 seconds. If they cut the runtime of this movie down to 5 minutes and turned it into a short screamer it would still be boring, slow and dull. So, you could only imagine what it feels like to watch this for such a lengthy runtime.


The Verdict:


This was a hellacious watch of a movie. It is extremely boring, annoying, plotless and pointless. You could not pay me to sit through this movie again. The movie is now residing within my collection and it will never see the light of day again.
When I received the package for this movie, there was a little gift inside of it. At first, I thought “This was pretty cool of them”. Unfortunately, this did not help their cause, because the movie itself ruined this gift for me.


Inside of the envelope, accompanying Hellacious Acres: The Case of John Glass DVD, was a can. Attached to this review you will see a picture of the can they included in the package. Sadly, I grew to hate this can, because in the movie he finds a can of food and does not have a can opener. So, we have to watch him use a hacksaw on the can until he finally gets it open. After that, we are forced to watch him open more cans of food.


I hate to rate a movie so low, but there is nothing good I could find about this movie. It is seriously that bad and I hope I never come across another movie like it.


Rating:


1 out of a possible 10.

.jpg   hellacious-acres-the-case-of-john-glass-dvd-and-prop-can.JPG (Size: 86.56 KB / Downloads: 13) ]]> <![CDATA[The Woman (2011)]]> http://talkhorror.com/boards/showthread.php?tid=3392 Thu, 16 Jun 2011 10:25:00 -0400 TerrorScribe]]> http://talkhorror.com/boards/showthread.php?tid=3392 The Woman (2011)

Directed by: Lucky McKee
Written by: Lucky McKee and Jack Ketchum
Starring: Sean Bridgers, Angela Bettis, Pollyanna McIntosh, Lauren Ashley Carter, Zach Rand, Shyla Molhusen
Running time: 108 minutes
Rating: R

In the beginning, as some people like to say, god created... well pretty much everything. But, it was kinda like throwing a party and nobody showing up, so god created guests: it solved the immediate problem and saved him on the cost of invitations. It wasn't too long, though, before there was drama. God created man first and then pulled woman from an extra body part: so they were created together but not equally. Man was to be the boss of the woman. And while woman sought knowledge, man, by proxy for god, found that to be evil, they were cast out of paradise and woman was made to bear the burdens for her transgressions.

At least that's what some people say.

Some people might say that man, in his natural state, prefers the balance found in a matriarchal belief system. Others still might say that man was created as a result of biological happenstance and natural selection. One thing that could be agreed upon is that Lucky McKee's "the Woman" is a potent movie.

Meet the Cleek family - Chris (Sean Bridger), Belle (Angela Bettis), Peg (Lauren Ashley Carter), Brian (Zack Rand) and little Darlin' (Shyla Molhusen) - and something's just not right with them. While the rest of the community may see a perfect family, a current of fear runs through them. Chris, a lawyer in the small town they live outside of, rules his family. One day, while he is out hunting, he comes across a feral woman (Pollyanna McIntosh). Driven primarily by lust, he captures the woman and chains her up in his cellar with the intent to "civilize" her.

"The Woman" drives its knuckle into the cultural pressure-point of male/female relations. If audiences find it disturbing, it is because it cuts so close to the beliefs that many people have: men are the undisputed kings of their castles and women are there only to service them. It's a foundational notion that underlies much of how our society operates. This movie takes that notion and expounds upon it to a grotesque and unfortunately realistic conclusion. McKee, expanding on the universe created by writer Jack Ketcham, expertly reveals to us things that we might ordinarily turn a blind eye to. It could be looked to as an allegory of the "white man's burden," of bringing - or rather - forcing our culture on the "savages." In this case, it is also highlights the disparity in the relationship between men and women.

In addition to McKee's sure guiding hand, his cast does an exceptional job of bringing this story to life. Bridger, as the family patriarch brings a dangerous calm to the role, like calm ocean waters filled with sharks. Bettis, as the long-suffering but cowed wife, brings a mutli-faceted performance as Chris' wife that garners both sympathy and scorn. McIntosh is downright fearless as "the woman" expressing volumes with just a look. Topping the list for me, though, was the performance of young Zack Rand. As Chris' only son, it's easy to see him initially as just another victim of his father's domineering hand. However, as the movie progresses, you see the depths to which his soul is poisoned by his father's teachings and attitudes. His eyes hold a seething contempt for his sisters, his mother and just other women in general. I personally felt it was a first class performance for the actor in his first film.

"The Woman" is an extended gut punch. It is an unflinching, uncompromising film that will challenge you, possible disturb you and definitely entertain you. It is And in the end, that's what you're looking for.]]> The Woman (2011)

Directed by: Lucky McKee
Written by: Lucky McKee and Jack Ketchum
Starring: Sean Bridgers, Angela Bettis, Pollyanna McIntosh, Lauren Ashley Carter, Zach Rand, Shyla Molhusen
Running time: 108 minutes
Rating: R

In the beginning, as some people like to say, god created... well pretty much everything. But, it was kinda like throwing a party and nobody showing up, so god created guests: it solved the immediate problem and saved him on the cost of invitations. It wasn't too long, though, before there was drama. God created man first and then pulled woman from an extra body part: so they were created together but not equally. Man was to be the boss of the woman. And while woman sought knowledge, man, by proxy for god, found that to be evil, they were cast out of paradise and woman was made to bear the burdens for her transgressions.

At least that's what some people say.

Some people might say that man, in his natural state, prefers the balance found in a matriarchal belief system. Others still might say that man was created as a result of biological happenstance and natural selection. One thing that could be agreed upon is that Lucky McKee's "the Woman" is a potent movie.

Meet the Cleek family - Chris (Sean Bridger), Belle (Angela Bettis), Peg (Lauren Ashley Carter), Brian (Zack Rand) and little Darlin' (Shyla Molhusen) - and something's just not right with them. While the rest of the community may see a perfect family, a current of fear runs through them. Chris, a lawyer in the small town they live outside of, rules his family. One day, while he is out hunting, he comes across a feral woman (Pollyanna McIntosh). Driven primarily by lust, he captures the woman and chains her up in his cellar with the intent to "civilize" her.

"The Woman" drives its knuckle into the cultural pressure-point of male/female relations. If audiences find it disturbing, it is because it cuts so close to the beliefs that many people have: men are the undisputed kings of their castles and women are there only to service them. It's a foundational notion that underlies much of how our society operates. This movie takes that notion and expounds upon it to a grotesque and unfortunately realistic conclusion. McKee, expanding on the universe created by writer Jack Ketcham, expertly reveals to us things that we might ordinarily turn a blind eye to. It could be looked to as an allegory of the "white man's burden," of bringing - or rather - forcing our culture on the "savages." In this case, it is also highlights the disparity in the relationship between men and women.

In addition to McKee's sure guiding hand, his cast does an exceptional job of bringing this story to life. Bridger, as the family patriarch brings a dangerous calm to the role, like calm ocean waters filled with sharks. Bettis, as the long-suffering but cowed wife, brings a mutli-faceted performance as Chris' wife that garners both sympathy and scorn. McIntosh is downright fearless as "the woman" expressing volumes with just a look. Topping the list for me, though, was the performance of young Zack Rand. As Chris' only son, it's easy to see him initially as just another victim of his father's domineering hand. However, as the movie progresses, you see the depths to which his soul is poisoned by his father's teachings and attitudes. His eyes hold a seething contempt for his sisters, his mother and just other women in general. I personally felt it was a first class performance for the actor in his first film.

"The Woman" is an extended gut punch. It is an unflinching, uncompromising film that will challenge you, possible disturb you and definitely entertain you. It is And in the end, that's what you're looking for.]]> <![CDATA[The Rite (2010)]]> http://talkhorror.com/boards/showthread.php?tid=3264 Fri, 28 Jan 2011 14:19:54 -0500 TerrorScribe]]> http://talkhorror.com/boards/showthread.php?tid=3264 The Rite (2010)


Directed by: Mikael Håfström
Written by: Michael Petroni (inspired by the book by Matt Baglio)
Starring: Colin O'Donoghue, Anthony Hopkins, Alice Braga, Rutger Hauer, Ciarán Hinds
Running time: 112 minutes
Rating: PG-13

Faith.

What do you believe? Why do you believe it? In the case of religion, we have faith that there is a purpose for our lives, that there is a meaning to it all and ultimately, that there is reward or consequences.

In short, we hope.

Hope is an emotional Schrödinger's Cat that sits in its box until we open it and find the true gift: proof. Some people, however, are simply content to wait and wonder, fearing the knowledge that proof might bring.

The latest effort from filmmaker Mikael Håfström ("1408") introduces us to Michael Kovak (Colin O'Donoghue), the son of a mortician who is being prepped to continue this family business. That is not the life he wants for himself, so as a means of "escape", he joins the priesthood. He figures he can get a four-year education and then decide against taking his vows at the end of it. It seems like a good plan and on the eve of his ordination, he passes his resignation along to the Father Superior. That's when he finds out that if he chooses to quit, his education will come due to the tune of about $100,000 in student loans. He's handed another option, though - attend a month-long course in exorcism in Rome. Father Superior sees promise in him and he thinks that training as an exorcist might change his skeptical mind. While in Rome, he meets Angeline (Alice Braga), a reporter doing a story on the course. She seems drawn to his skepticism, but this same cynicism also draws the attention of his instructor, who sends him to an experienced exorcist, Father Trevant (Anthony Hopkins) for some real-world experience with spiritual warfare.

"The Rite", like most January fare, is not a great movie. It is, however, a much better vehicle for Hopkins than his last foray in to January horror ("The Wolfman"). In the hands of an experienced and capable horror director in Håfström, we get more than just gloss and empty shadows. Given that we are dealing with the dubious world of spirits and exorcisms, Håfström gives the movie a feeling that straddles the mundane and the fantastic. He gets plenty of help from his cast. O'Donoghue is solid as the unbelieving young aspirant. Braga also does well as the inquiring journalist and non-love interest.

And now, here's the part where I'm going to upset a bunch of people.
I don't think I liked Anthony Hopkins in this.

Sad but true. Even though he did his usually very good job of playing the mentor, there were just some parts of the film where I felt like some of his direction was just, "For this part, just give me some Hannibal Lector." At that point, I stopped seeing Father Trevant and started seeing Hopkins aping old roles and trotting them out again like a show pony. Could just be me, but that's the impression I took away from it.

I liked the movie as a whole. They did a good job of creating likable, interesting and believable characters; though there were times I thought they took the "skeptic" act a bit too far. They may also have borrowed just a little too much from "The Exorcist" playbook (old priest, young priest, crisis of faith, etc...). To a casual moviegoer, it probably won't be a big deal, but to a genre fan, the tropes stick out like an angry pimple. What bothered me most though was how many times I caught the film shamelessly trying to manipulate me. While every movie does this - that's how we suspend our disbelief, after all - this one was way too obvious and ham-handed about it.

"The Rite" is a perfectly serviceable horror/thriller doing its darnedest to nose its way above other mid-winter fare. It's certainly not a bad way to spend a Friday night.

At least, one can hope...]]> The Rite (2010)


Directed by: Mikael Håfström
Written by: Michael Petroni (inspired by the book by Matt Baglio)
Starring: Colin O'Donoghue, Anthony Hopkins, Alice Braga, Rutger Hauer, Ciarán Hinds
Running time: 112 minutes
Rating: PG-13

Faith.

What do you believe? Why do you believe it? In the case of religion, we have faith that there is a purpose for our lives, that there is a meaning to it all and ultimately, that there is reward or consequences.

In short, we hope.

Hope is an emotional Schrödinger's Cat that sits in its box until we open it and find the true gift: proof. Some people, however, are simply content to wait and wonder, fearing the knowledge that proof might bring.

The latest effort from filmmaker Mikael Håfström ("1408") introduces us to Michael Kovak (Colin O'Donoghue), the son of a mortician who is being prepped to continue this family business. That is not the life he wants for himself, so as a means of "escape", he joins the priesthood. He figures he can get a four-year education and then decide against taking his vows at the end of it. It seems like a good plan and on the eve of his ordination, he passes his resignation along to the Father Superior. That's when he finds out that if he chooses to quit, his education will come due to the tune of about $100,000 in student loans. He's handed another option, though - attend a month-long course in exorcism in Rome. Father Superior sees promise in him and he thinks that training as an exorcist might change his skeptical mind. While in Rome, he meets Angeline (Alice Braga), a reporter doing a story on the course. She seems drawn to his skepticism, but this same cynicism also draws the attention of his instructor, who sends him to an experienced exorcist, Father Trevant (Anthony Hopkins) for some real-world experience with spiritual warfare.

"The Rite", like most January fare, is not a great movie. It is, however, a much better vehicle for Hopkins than his last foray in to January horror ("The Wolfman"). In the hands of an experienced and capable horror director in Håfström, we get more than just gloss and empty shadows. Given that we are dealing with the dubious world of spirits and exorcisms, Håfström gives the movie a feeling that straddles the mundane and the fantastic. He gets plenty of help from his cast. O'Donoghue is solid as the unbelieving young aspirant. Braga also does well as the inquiring journalist and non-love interest.

And now, here's the part where I'm going to upset a bunch of people.
I don't think I liked Anthony Hopkins in this.

Sad but true. Even though he did his usually very good job of playing the mentor, there were just some parts of the film where I felt like some of his direction was just, "For this part, just give me some Hannibal Lector." At that point, I stopped seeing Father Trevant and started seeing Hopkins aping old roles and trotting them out again like a show pony. Could just be me, but that's the impression I took away from it.

I liked the movie as a whole. They did a good job of creating likable, interesting and believable characters; though there were times I thought they took the "skeptic" act a bit too far. They may also have borrowed just a little too much from "The Exorcist" playbook (old priest, young priest, crisis of faith, etc...). To a casual moviegoer, it probably won't be a big deal, but to a genre fan, the tropes stick out like an angry pimple. What bothered me most though was how many times I caught the film shamelessly trying to manipulate me. While every movie does this - that's how we suspend our disbelief, after all - this one was way too obvious and ham-handed about it.

"The Rite" is a perfectly serviceable horror/thriller doing its darnedest to nose its way above other mid-winter fare. It's certainly not a bad way to spend a Friday night.

At least, one can hope...]]> <![CDATA[Red Victoria (2008)]]> http://talkhorror.com/boards/showthread.php?tid=3259 Fri, 21 Jan 2011 12:19:47 -0500 TerrorScribe]]> http://talkhorror.com/boards/showthread.php?tid=3259 [SIZE="5"]Red Victoria (2008)[/SIZE]

Written and Directed by: Tony Brownrigg
Starring: Tony Brownrigg, Arianne Martin, Edward Landers, Joshua Morris, Christian Taylor
Running time: 82 minutes
Rating: Unrated

Of all the treasures in the world, few are more rare than inspiration. Without it, one might say that we would have no art, no invention, no religion…

No love.

Fortunately, the occasional breath of the divine fills us up and sparks our minds and fires our imaginations. Inspiration has given us the sonnets of Shakespeare. Inspiration has given us the Apollo moon rocket. Inspiration has given us chainsaw-wielding maniacs, knife-fingered, dream-dwelling child molesters and trap-building madmen.

What? You didn’t think inspiration only gave us sunshine and bunnies, did you? No, sometimes inspiration gives us things like “Red Victoria”.

The first feature offering from writer/director Tony Brownrigg, “Red Victoria” is the story of Jim (Brownrigg), a put-upon screenwriter. Jim writes pseudo-intellectual, high-brow screenplays that his agent cannot give away for love or money. Finally, his agent suggests that Jim comes down off his literary high horse and write something that will sell – namely, a horror script. Horror, though, comes about as naturally to Jim as knitting does to fish. Jim needs a little inspiration and it comes to him in the undead form of Victoria (Arianne Martin). Zombie? Demon? Devil? Whatever she is, only one thing is certain: she is there to educate and inspire Jim in the fine art of horror.

Let the madcap mayhem begin.

While initially it looks like we’re going to get a fairly pedestrian trip to Horrorland, it then takes us down paths that owe more to the works of Lucille Ball and Desi Arnez than it does to the works of, say, George Romero and John Carpenter. Brownrigg has crafted not a horror movie, or even your standard horror-comedy. What he’s made is really a screwball comedy dressed in horror togs. One can easily see the influences of movies like, “Bringing Up Baby” just as easily as one could see the influences of “Scream” or “A Nightmare on Elm Street”. It gives it a light and quirky feel to it – even when Victoria is busy twisting someone’s head off or flaying the pizza boy. Sometimes however, I felt like it doesn’t have an exact grip on what it wanted to be. Along the way, it seemed like Brownrigg got caught chasing butterflies exploring the relationship between Jim and Victoria. It wasn’t a deal-breaker, but it did give the film a bit of a meandering feeling.

Additionally, the film is bookended with an interview scene that felt like it was added on as an afterthought. I think it was supposed to provide a stinger at the end but it just left me flat and seemed completely out of step with the rest of the film.

One thing that definitely worked, though, was the casting. Brownrigg, wearing one of his many hats in this film, worked well as the exceedingly high-strung artiste, Jim. Edward Landers, in his first role, charmingly breathed life into the stereotypical horror fan, Carl. Likewise, newcomer Christian Taylor made the most of his sparse screen-time as Jim’s impressively pretentious friend, Blake. And then, of course, there’s Martin’s Victoria. If the plan was to make her an endearing and homicidal giggle-pixie of death, then she gets full marks for her portrayal. In fact, I think they need to clone her and distribute her to struggling horror writers everywhere.

“Red Victoria” might not make the best choices from a horror standpoint, but it certainly hits where it’s aiming from an entertainment standpoint. Genre writers – myself included – may find themselves wondering who exactly do they have to kill to get a muse like that.]]> [SIZE="5"]Red Victoria (2008)[/SIZE]

Written and Directed by: Tony Brownrigg
Starring: Tony Brownrigg, Arianne Martin, Edward Landers, Joshua Morris, Christian Taylor
Running time: 82 minutes
Rating: Unrated

Of all the treasures in the world, few are more rare than inspiration. Without it, one might say that we would have no art, no invention, no religion…

No love.

Fortunately, the occasional breath of the divine fills us up and sparks our minds and fires our imaginations. Inspiration has given us the sonnets of Shakespeare. Inspiration has given us the Apollo moon rocket. Inspiration has given us chainsaw-wielding maniacs, knife-fingered, dream-dwelling child molesters and trap-building madmen.

What? You didn’t think inspiration only gave us sunshine and bunnies, did you? No, sometimes inspiration gives us things like “Red Victoria”.

The first feature offering from writer/director Tony Brownrigg, “Red Victoria” is the story of Jim (Brownrigg), a put-upon screenwriter. Jim writes pseudo-intellectual, high-brow screenplays that his agent cannot give away for love or money. Finally, his agent suggests that Jim comes down off his literary high horse and write something that will sell – namely, a horror script. Horror, though, comes about as naturally to Jim as knitting does to fish. Jim needs a little inspiration and it comes to him in the undead form of Victoria (Arianne Martin). Zombie? Demon? Devil? Whatever she is, only one thing is certain: she is there to educate and inspire Jim in the fine art of horror.

Let the madcap mayhem begin.

While initially it looks like we’re going to get a fairly pedestrian trip to Horrorland, it then takes us down paths that owe more to the works of Lucille Ball and Desi Arnez than it does to the works of, say, George Romero and John Carpenter. Brownrigg has crafted not a horror movie, or even your standard horror-comedy. What he’s made is really a screwball comedy dressed in horror togs. One can easily see the influences of movies like, “Bringing Up Baby” just as easily as one could see the influences of “Scream” or “A Nightmare on Elm Street”. It gives it a light and quirky feel to it – even when Victoria is busy twisting someone’s head off or flaying the pizza boy. Sometimes however, I felt like it doesn’t have an exact grip on what it wanted to be. Along the way, it seemed like Brownrigg got caught chasing butterflies exploring the relationship between Jim and Victoria. It wasn’t a deal-breaker, but it did give the film a bit of a meandering feeling.

Additionally, the film is bookended with an interview scene that felt like it was added on as an afterthought. I think it was supposed to provide a stinger at the end but it just left me flat and seemed completely out of step with the rest of the film.

One thing that definitely worked, though, was the casting. Brownrigg, wearing one of his many hats in this film, worked well as the exceedingly high-strung artiste, Jim. Edward Landers, in his first role, charmingly breathed life into the stereotypical horror fan, Carl. Likewise, newcomer Christian Taylor made the most of his sparse screen-time as Jim’s impressively pretentious friend, Blake. And then, of course, there’s Martin’s Victoria. If the plan was to make her an endearing and homicidal giggle-pixie of death, then she gets full marks for her portrayal. In fact, I think they need to clone her and distribute her to struggling horror writers everywhere.

“Red Victoria” might not make the best choices from a horror standpoint, but it certainly hits where it’s aiming from an entertainment standpoint. Genre writers – myself included – may find themselves wondering who exactly do they have to kill to get a muse like that.]]> <![CDATA[A Serbian Film (2010)]]> http://talkhorror.com/boards/showthread.php?tid=3234 Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:49:35 -0500 TerrorScribe]]> http://talkhorror.com/boards/showthread.php?tid=3234 A Serbian Film (2010)

Directed by: Srđan Dragojević
Written by: Aleksandar Radivojević, Srđan Dragojević, Marija StanoÅ¡ević
Starring: Sergej Trifunović, Srđan Todorović, Jelena Gavrilović, Katarina Žutić, Slobodan Bestic, Luka Mijatović
Running time: 110 minutes
Rating: Unrated

There has been a VAST change in the American sexual landscape in the last ten years. Yeah, you can blame the internet for it. I have a mental picture that in the near future, wizened grandfathers will tell disbelieving youngsters about how they had to leave the house to get porn and how naked women only existed on the glossy pages of magazines or on grainy copies of well-worn video cassettes.

Ah, the good ol' days.

Back then, if you didn't want just plain ol' boy-girl, girl-girl or some variant thereof action, it was usually the thing of only hearsay or rarity. Now, thanks to the easy of deliverability and the anonymity afforded by the Internet, man's darkest and most twisted desires are literally made flesh. The shadows of these are presented to us in "A Serbian Film".


The first feature by writer/director , Srdjan Spasojevic, tells the story of Milos (Srdjan Todorovic), a retired pornstar, now family man. As it is for most these days, money is tight for him and his family: I imagine there's only so much money one can hole away. Enter his friend and former co-worker, Lejla (Katarina Zutic), who comes to him with an offer. There's a porn auteur, Vukmir (Sergej Trifunovic) with a very lucrative offer for Milos if he will sign on to do his visionary movie, no questions asked. He does. We follow his slow, uneasy immersion into the deranged fantasies Vukir wants to commit to film.

Then, he... and we plummet.

Many can't see past the superficial shocks and perversities on the screen to see the underlying stories. First, we have Milos' desperation to get his family into a financially secure place. Bitterness drips from his voice and life in Serbia is something he wants his family to escape from. Here, the hero's journey doesn't just go through hell, it starts there and descends further from there. Devils surround Milos; temptation and damnation is on every side. He soon learns that when one sells his soul, the deal you are offered and the deal you receive are often two different things. And while this may sound somewhat poetic, there is nothing pretty or frilly about this movie. Director Spasojevic does not give us any niceties to hang onto. He presents us an ugly tale of an ugly existence painted not in black and white, but in black and blood. If Spasojevic provides us with anything, it is with contempt - contempt for humanity on a grand scale. With the amount of sex presented in this film, one would expect a distinctly misogynistic tone to the film. Instead, the overall feeling is not of misogyny but of one of complete misanthropy: both the men and women are victims. Sex is not beautiful or arousing but either angry or mechanical. In either case, it is almost always shown as a way to debase another.

However, for all the sturm und drang of the movie's final act, the preceding two are an agonizing calm; a torturous crawl through razor wire to the maw of the abyss. The actors drag us mercilessly with them. Todorovic's Milos brings an odd likability to his role as the desperate father and husband who also happens to be a porn star. Jelena Gavrilovic and Luka Mijatovic are appropriately and tragically adorable as Milos' wife and young son. As the crooked cop and Milos' brother, Slobodan Bestic virtually (and sometimes literally) oozes onscreen. The cherry on the top of this dung heap, though, would certainly have to be Sergej Trifunovic as the director, Vukmir, who either through design of script or accident of translation delivers some of the most laughable yet disturbing lines I have ever heard.

"A Serbian Film" is a cinderblock stark piece of hate and madness. The only thing worse and darker than the fiction of it is that, somewhere in the world, the reality is far worse.]]> A Serbian Film (2010)

Directed by: Srđan Dragojević
Written by: Aleksandar Radivojević, Srđan Dragojević, Marija StanoÅ¡ević
Starring: Sergej Trifunović, Srđan Todorović, Jelena Gavrilović, Katarina Žutić, Slobodan Bestic, Luka Mijatović
Running time: 110 minutes
Rating: Unrated

There has been a VAST change in the American sexual landscape in the last ten years. Yeah, you can blame the internet for it. I have a mental picture that in the near future, wizened grandfathers will tell disbelieving youngsters about how they had to leave the house to get porn and how naked women only existed on the glossy pages of magazines or on grainy copies of well-worn video cassettes.

Ah, the good ol' days.

Back then, if you didn't want just plain ol' boy-girl, girl-girl or some variant thereof action, it was usually the thing of only hearsay or rarity. Now, thanks to the easy of deliverability and the anonymity afforded by the Internet, man's darkest and most twisted desires are literally made flesh. The shadows of these are presented to us in "A Serbian Film".


The first feature by writer/director , Srdjan Spasojevic, tells the story of Milos (Srdjan Todorovic), a retired pornstar, now family man. As it is for most these days, money is tight for him and his family: I imagine there's only so much money one can hole away. Enter his friend and former co-worker, Lejla (Katarina Zutic), who comes to him with an offer. There's a porn auteur, Vukmir (Sergej Trifunovic) with a very lucrative offer for Milos if he will sign on to do his visionary movie, no questions asked. He does. We follow his slow, uneasy immersion into the deranged fantasies Vukir wants to commit to film.

Then, he... and we plummet.

Many can't see past the superficial shocks and perversities on the screen to see the underlying stories. First, we have Milos' desperation to get his family into a financially secure place. Bitterness drips from his voice and life in Serbia is something he wants his family to escape from. Here, the hero's journey doesn't just go through hell, it starts there and descends further from there. Devils surround Milos; temptation and damnation is on every side. He soon learns that when one sells his soul, the deal you are offered and the deal you receive are often two different things. And while this may sound somewhat poetic, there is nothing pretty or frilly about this movie. Director Spasojevic does not give us any niceties to hang onto. He presents us an ugly tale of an ugly existence painted not in black and white, but in black and blood. If Spasojevic provides us with anything, it is with contempt - contempt for humanity on a grand scale. With the amount of sex presented in this film, one would expect a distinctly misogynistic tone to the film. Instead, the overall feeling is not of misogyny but of one of complete misanthropy: both the men and women are victims. Sex is not beautiful or arousing but either angry or mechanical. In either case, it is almost always shown as a way to debase another.

However, for all the sturm und drang of the movie's final act, the preceding two are an agonizing calm; a torturous crawl through razor wire to the maw of the abyss. The actors drag us mercilessly with them. Todorovic's Milos brings an odd likability to his role as the desperate father and husband who also happens to be a porn star. Jelena Gavrilovic and Luka Mijatovic are appropriately and tragically adorable as Milos' wife and young son. As the crooked cop and Milos' brother, Slobodan Bestic virtually (and sometimes literally) oozes onscreen. The cherry on the top of this dung heap, though, would certainly have to be Sergej Trifunovic as the director, Vukmir, who either through design of script or accident of translation delivers some of the most laughable yet disturbing lines I have ever heard.

"A Serbian Film" is a cinderblock stark piece of hate and madness. The only thing worse and darker than the fiction of it is that, somewhere in the world, the reality is far worse.]]> <![CDATA[The Super (2010)]]> http://talkhorror.com/boards/showthread.php?tid=3191 Wed, 24 Nov 2010 11:41:32 -0500 TerrorScribe]]> http://talkhorror.com/boards/showthread.php?tid=3191 [SIZE="5"]The Super (2010)[/SIZE]

Written and Directed by: Brian Weaver and Evan Makrogiannis
Starring: Demetri Kallas, Lynn Lowry, Manoush, Ron Braunstein, Edgar Moye’, Ruby Larocca
Running time: 102 minutes
Rating: Unrated

If you’re one of the innumerable masses that has ever lived in an apartment, you are familiar with that twinge of anxiety that comes with knowing some stranger has gotten into your place while you’ve been away. No, it’s not a criminal of any type, it’s one of the apartment’s personnel. Maybe they’re there to fix something or spray for bugs or do some other kind of routine maintenance, but the whisper of fear is still there. After all, some person who you don’t know has just gotten into where you call home. Quite honestly, I didn’t really experience this feeling until I moved into my most recent place. The first time I had an apartment was when I used to carry a gun for a living and I almost shot the only person I ever found in there.

But that’s a story for another time.


The story right now is the winner of the Bloodie for Best Feature Film at this past weekend’s Blood Bath 2 Film Festival, “the Super”. The second offering from the writing and directing team of Evan Makrogiannis and Brian Weaver, “the Super” introduces us to George (Demetri Kallas) the owner of a run-down apartment building in New York City. George seems like a nice enough guy – he’s genial to his tenants, a family man and a veteran. Still you get that feeling that George might not exactly be firing with a full magazine. It’s not too long before the layers of his façade are pulled away and things get… interesting.

From the opening frame, “the Super” firmly plants its grindhouse roots. From its gritty opening title shot to its simulated reel changes, we are immersed in George’s world and its population of colorful characters. With a lesser collection of actors, this could have easily turned into an extended exercise in eye-rolling. Happily, these actors are up to the task. Kallas is the proverbial storm in a teacup as the wildly fluctuating George as he shows us the frightening vistas of his emotional landscape. Genre veteran Manoush is equal parts menacing and matronly as a Russian dominatrix. Rapper Necro – or as billed here, Ron Braunstein – stars as a dirty cop with a mean streak. Lynn Lowrey (from Romero’s original “the Crazies”Wink also appears as George’s long-suffering wife.

For the most part, the movie is as strong as the cast. I loved the cinematography – especially the parts where their emulation of grindhouse style was near flawless. The acting, as I’ve mentioned before, was great. The story was generally strong, though some parts didn’t flow as well as I would have hoped. In some cases, it seemed like there was a distinct demarcation that I personally found distracting, and there were other parts (bits of exposition and a couple of “pet the dog” scenes) that I thought could probably have been removed to make things just a teensy bit tighter. Neither problem was bad enough to torpedo the film, but I did find myself looking at my watch a couple of times. Despite that, Makrogiannis and Weaver created a very tangible, very rough world that leaves its dirt under your fingernails and its damp stale air in your lungs.

“The Super”, to my knowledge, doesn’t have a distribution deal yet, so you’re going to have to keep your eyes peeled for it on the festival circuit. It’s a nice bit of cooking for the homesick grindhouse fan. It’s not exactly how Mom used to make it, but it’s close enough to be appreciated.]]> [SIZE="5"]The Super (2010)[/SIZE]

Written and Directed by: Brian Weaver and Evan Makrogiannis
Starring: Demetri Kallas, Lynn Lowry, Manoush, Ron Braunstein, Edgar Moye’, Ruby Larocca
Running time: 102 minutes
Rating: Unrated

If you’re one of the innumerable masses that has ever lived in an apartment, you are familiar with that twinge of anxiety that comes with knowing some stranger has gotten into your place while you’ve been away. No, it’s not a criminal of any type, it’s one of the apartment’s personnel. Maybe they’re there to fix something or spray for bugs or do some other kind of routine maintenance, but the whisper of fear is still there. After all, some person who you don’t know has just gotten into where you call home. Quite honestly, I didn’t really experience this feeling until I moved into my most recent place. The first time I had an apartment was when I used to carry a gun for a living and I almost shot the only person I ever found in there.

But that’s a story for another time.


The story right now is the winner of the Bloodie for Best Feature Film at this past weekend’s Blood Bath 2 Film Festival, “the Super”. The second offering from the writing and directing team of Evan Makrogiannis and Brian Weaver, “the Super” introduces us to George (Demetri Kallas) the owner of a run-down apartment building in New York City. George seems like a nice enough guy – he’s genial to his tenants, a family man and a veteran. Still you get that feeling that George might not exactly be firing with a full magazine. It’s not too long before the layers of his façade are pulled away and things get… interesting.

From the opening frame, “the Super” firmly plants its grindhouse roots. From its gritty opening title shot to its simulated reel changes, we are immersed in George’s world and its population of colorful characters. With a lesser collection of actors, this could have easily turned into an extended exercise in eye-rolling. Happily, these actors are up to the task. Kallas is the proverbial storm in a teacup as the wildly fluctuating George as he shows us the frightening vistas of his emotional landscape. Genre veteran Manoush is equal parts menacing and matronly as a Russian dominatrix. Rapper Necro – or as billed here, Ron Braunstein – stars as a dirty cop with a mean streak. Lynn Lowrey (from Romero’s original “the Crazies”Wink also appears as George’s long-suffering wife.

For the most part, the movie is as strong as the cast. I loved the cinematography – especially the parts where their emulation of grindhouse style was near flawless. The acting, as I’ve mentioned before, was great. The story was generally strong, though some parts didn’t flow as well as I would have hoped. In some cases, it seemed like there was a distinct demarcation that I personally found distracting, and there were other parts (bits of exposition and a couple of “pet the dog” scenes) that I thought could probably have been removed to make things just a teensy bit tighter. Neither problem was bad enough to torpedo the film, but I did find myself looking at my watch a couple of times. Despite that, Makrogiannis and Weaver created a very tangible, very rough world that leaves its dirt under your fingernails and its damp stale air in your lungs.

“The Super”, to my knowledge, doesn’t have a distribution deal yet, so you’re going to have to keep your eyes peeled for it on the festival circuit. It’s a nice bit of cooking for the homesick grindhouse fan. It’s not exactly how Mom used to make it, but it’s close enough to be appreciated.]]> <![CDATA[Walking Distance (2010)]]> http://talkhorror.com/boards/showthread.php?tid=3168 Fri, 12 Nov 2010 10:41:02 -0500 TerrorScribe]]> http://talkhorror.com/boards/showthread.php?tid=3168 [SIZE="5"]Walking Distance (2010)[/SIZE]

Written and Directed by: Mel House
Starring: Adrienne King, Debbie Rochon, Denton Blane Everett, Glenn Morshower, Katie Featherston, Reggie Bannister,Shannon Lark
Running time: 90 minutes
Rating: R

It’s time for another episode of “TerrorScribe Confessions.”

If you missed the previous episode, we won’t recap the horrible and embarrassing events of that night. Suffice it to say that powdered lime works exactly how they say it does and that I will never look at a Jello pudding pop the same way again.

This week’s confession: it’s taken me three tries to watch this movie.

The movie in question is “Walking Distance”, the sophomore effort from Houston-based director Mel House. The movie centers around hotshot neurologist, Cole Gray (Denton Blane Everett), who’s landed a research position with the secretive Facility, located in his hometown of Twinbrooke Court. But all is not sunshine and bunnies there. Mysterious sinkholes are appearing, people are disappearing and there are some in town who think that the Facility is behind it all. What is really happening in Twinebrooke Court? Who are all those strange burning people? Most importantly, where can I get that awesome Trogdor game?

“Walking Distance” is a trippy, disturbing journey through familiar territory. It felt like someone had taken some of my favorite comic books, soaked them in LSD and then handed them back to me to read. Sure, everything seems fine and normal… for the most part, but the farther you go into it, you start finding little unexpected nuggets of madness, wicked little tendrils that snake around you and draw you into a nightmare in sleep’s clothing. House infuses the movie with a dreamlike quality interspersed bits of reality and then sudden disturbing excursions down dark, twisted paths. Decorating these pathways are some brilliant practical effects. There are fair amounts of goop, gore and blood and a couple of creative and nicely done kills. In a film with a bigger budget, they would have spent some insane amount of money for some CG effect that would have been half as believable. It’s a lesson Hollywood would do well to remember: sometimes the old ways are the best.

Still, a journey like the one I’ve described is difficult to take if you don’t have the cast to pull it off. Luckily, “Walking Distance” does. In addition to a relatively talented young cast, you also have sprinkled into the mix genre favorites Reggie Bannister, Debbie Rochon and Shannon Lark, veteran actors Glenn Morshower and Kathy Lamkin, “Paranormal Activity” star, Katie Featherstone and even horror icon Adrienne King (whose last turn on the silver screen was in 1981’s “Friday the 13th Part 2”). It’s a shame we haven’t seen her in almost thirty years. She truly shines in her role as Facility administrator, Louise Strack, and not just because of how she’s lit. I think she brings an extra layer of subtlety and a certain grace to her role that give Strack additional depth.

Of course, as a small budget film, there are going to be some things that are going to grate on the eye of a spoiled movie watcher. Even the third time through, some of the CG they used still looks bad. I know it’s just the nature of the beast, but I can’t help but wonder if there wasn’t a practical solution that they couldn’t have just enhanced with CG instead of creating it entirely digitally. If I had to have another gripe with the film, it would be that the ending felt a bit abrupt: not disappointing, though – just abrupt.

I guess the third time’s the charm for me. “Walking Distance” takes some familiar tropes, dips them in crazy sauce and serves them piping hot with a side of blood and nightmare.

Enjoy.]]> [SIZE="5"]Walking Distance (2010)[/SIZE]

Written and Directed by: Mel House
Starring: Adrienne King, Debbie Rochon, Denton Blane Everett, Glenn Morshower, Katie Featherston, Reggie Bannister,Shannon Lark
Running time: 90 minutes
Rating: R

It’s time for another episode of “TerrorScribe Confessions.”

If you missed the previous episode, we won’t recap the horrible and embarrassing events of that night. Suffice it to say that powdered lime works exactly how they say it does and that I will never look at a Jello pudding pop the same way again.

This week’s confession: it’s taken me three tries to watch this movie.

The movie in question is “Walking Distance”, the sophomore effort from Houston-based director Mel House. The movie centers around hotshot neurologist, Cole Gray (Denton Blane Everett), who’s landed a research position with the secretive Facility, located in his hometown of Twinbrooke Court. But all is not sunshine and bunnies there. Mysterious sinkholes are appearing, people are disappearing and there are some in town who think that the Facility is behind it all. What is really happening in Twinebrooke Court? Who are all those strange burning people? Most importantly, where can I get that awesome Trogdor game?

“Walking Distance” is a trippy, disturbing journey through familiar territory. It felt like someone had taken some of my favorite comic books, soaked them in LSD and then handed them back to me to read. Sure, everything seems fine and normal… for the most part, but the farther you go into it, you start finding little unexpected nuggets of madness, wicked little tendrils that snake around you and draw you into a nightmare in sleep’s clothing. House infuses the movie with a dreamlike quality interspersed bits of reality and then sudden disturbing excursions down dark, twisted paths. Decorating these pathways are some brilliant practical effects. There are fair amounts of goop, gore and blood and a couple of creative and nicely done kills. In a film with a bigger budget, they would have spent some insane amount of money for some CG effect that would have been half as believable. It’s a lesson Hollywood would do well to remember: sometimes the old ways are the best.

Still, a journey like the one I’ve described is difficult to take if you don’t have the cast to pull it off. Luckily, “Walking Distance” does. In addition to a relatively talented young cast, you also have sprinkled into the mix genre favorites Reggie Bannister, Debbie Rochon and Shannon Lark, veteran actors Glenn Morshower and Kathy Lamkin, “Paranormal Activity” star, Katie Featherstone and even horror icon Adrienne King (whose last turn on the silver screen was in 1981’s “Friday the 13th Part 2”). It’s a shame we haven’t seen her in almost thirty years. She truly shines in her role as Facility administrator, Louise Strack, and not just because of how she’s lit. I think she brings an extra layer of subtlety and a certain grace to her role that give Strack additional depth.

Of course, as a small budget film, there are going to be some things that are going to grate on the eye of a spoiled movie watcher. Even the third time through, some of the CG they used still looks bad. I know it’s just the nature of the beast, but I can’t help but wonder if there wasn’t a practical solution that they couldn’t have just enhanced with CG instead of creating it entirely digitally. If I had to have another gripe with the film, it would be that the ending felt a bit abrupt: not disappointing, though – just abrupt.

I guess the third time’s the charm for me. “Walking Distance” takes some familiar tropes, dips them in crazy sauce and serves them piping hot with a side of blood and nightmare.

Enjoy.]]> <![CDATA[Altitude (2010)]]> http://talkhorror.com/boards/showthread.php?tid=3145 Wed, 10 Nov 2010 09:41:10 -0500 TerrorScribe]]> http://talkhorror.com/boards/showthread.php?tid=3145 [SIZE="5"]Altitude (2010)[/SIZE]

Directed by: Kaare Andrews
Written by: Paul A. Birkett
Starring: Jessica Lowndes, Julianna Guill, Ryan Donowho, Landon Liboiron, Jake Weary, Mike Dopud
Running time: 91 minutes
Rating: R

While I undoubtedly love the Halloween season, I have to say, almost nothing comes close to the feeling you get on Christmas morning. Even as an adult, I still feel the magic in the air whether it was walking through the early morning calm or waking to the sound of frantic present opening. Of course, opening presents was one of – if not the – favorite part. Tearing through the pretty colored paper, wide-eyed, and opening the box to reveal…

Socks.
Or underwear.
Sadly, that’s the feeling I got while watching “Altitude.”

At first glance, the story looks like what is now the typical modern horror story: four pretty teens against a mysterious and frightening supernatural force.

Oh, and in a plane.
Did I mention there were tentacles?

For the most part, that’s the story you get. For the most part… but in the end, you get socks. It’s not that it’s necessarily a bad thing or that it’s poorly done, but it is deeply flawed. It beats the cliché drum pretty hard as far as the characters go. However, they do a bang up job considering the actors (Jessica Lowndes, Julianna Guill, Ryan Donowho, Landon Liboiron and Jake Weary) did probably 90% of their work against a green screen. Sadly, they could have just as easily titled it “Five Kids Bickering in a Plane”. After a while, it just got tiresome watching them play one cliché against the other. Really, we’ve seen it before. As for the story, we’ve seen it before too and executed better. Though, when the first two storytellers that come to mind with this kind of tale are Rod Serling and Steven Spielberg, it’s going to be hard to top. I wonder if it’s just the nature of the story itself that it requires stereotypical characters to tell it or that the stereotypes just could have been handled better. Going too much into the story, I think, spoils it. If you are up to watching this, I’ll leave it up to you to decide.

The effects were very good. There was only one thing I had a hard time believing to be real: the plane. It wasn’t all the time but some of the exterior shots of the plane looked like video game cut scenes. It’s really a shame since the other effects were, as I said, very good.

The DVD features include a concept art gallery (director Kaare Andrews is a comic book artist and even provides some art for the film), a nice feature on all the green screen work they did and also an extensive behind the scenes feature that let’s you in on virtually everything that went into making “Altitude”.

I was really hoping for some tasty bit of Lovecraftian goodness with “Altitude”. I didn’t get it. It was a film, mired in a lot of the standard tropes, that made a meager effort to break free of them, but didn’t quite take off.]]> [SIZE="5"]Altitude (2010)[/SIZE]

Directed by: Kaare Andrews
Written by: Paul A. Birkett
Starring: Jessica Lowndes, Julianna Guill, Ryan Donowho, Landon Liboiron, Jake Weary, Mike Dopud
Running time: 91 minutes
Rating: R

While I undoubtedly love the Halloween season, I have to say, almost nothing comes close to the feeling you get on Christmas morning. Even as an adult, I still feel the magic in the air whether it was walking through the early morning calm or waking to the sound of frantic present opening. Of course, opening presents was one of – if not the – favorite part. Tearing through the pretty colored paper, wide-eyed, and opening the box to reveal…

Socks.
Or underwear.
Sadly, that’s the feeling I got while watching “Altitude.”

At first glance, the story looks like what is now the typical modern horror story: four pretty teens against a mysterious and frightening supernatural force.

Oh, and in a plane.
Did I mention there were tentacles?

For the most part, that’s the story you get. For the most part… but in the end, you get socks. It’s not that it’s necessarily a bad thing or that it’s poorly done, but it is deeply flawed. It beats the cliché drum pretty hard as far as the characters go. However, they do a bang up job considering the actors (Jessica Lowndes, Julianna Guill, Ryan Donowho, Landon Liboiron and Jake Weary) did probably 90% of their work against a green screen. Sadly, they could have just as easily titled it “Five Kids Bickering in a Plane”. After a while, it just got tiresome watching them play one cliché against the other. Really, we’ve seen it before. As for the story, we’ve seen it before too and executed better. Though, when the first two storytellers that come to mind with this kind of tale are Rod Serling and Steven Spielberg, it’s going to be hard to top. I wonder if it’s just the nature of the story itself that it requires stereotypical characters to tell it or that the stereotypes just could have been handled better. Going too much into the story, I think, spoils it. If you are up to watching this, I’ll leave it up to you to decide.

The effects were very good. There was only one thing I had a hard time believing to be real: the plane. It wasn’t all the time but some of the exterior shots of the plane looked like video game cut scenes. It’s really a shame since the other effects were, as I said, very good.

The DVD features include a concept art gallery (director Kaare Andrews is a comic book artist and even provides some art for the film), a nice feature on all the green screen work they did and also an extensive behind the scenes feature that let’s you in on virtually everything that went into making “Altitude”.

I was really hoping for some tasty bit of Lovecraftian goodness with “Altitude”. I didn’t get it. It was a film, mired in a lot of the standard tropes, that made a meager effort to break free of them, but didn’t quite take off.]]> <![CDATA[Saw 3-D (2010)]]> http://talkhorror.com/boards/showthread.php?tid=3110 Tue, 02 Nov 2010 14:35:43 -0400 TerrorScribe]]> http://talkhorror.com/boards/showthread.php?tid=3110 [SIZE="5"]Saw 3-D (2010)[/SIZE]

Directed by: Kevin Greutert
Written by: Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan
Starring: Tobin Bell, Costas Mandylor, Betsy Russell, Sean Patrick Flanery, Cary Elwes
Running time: 90 minutes
Rating: R

I’m really not good with blood.

Back when I was in Marine Corp boot camp, one of the first in a string of constant dangers we were exposed to was needles: lots and lots of needles. The whole first week, when we weren’t exercising, being yelled at or otherwise… indoctrinated, they were sticking us with needles: a vaccine here, an inoculation there and more than a few samples of blood. During one particular sample taking, I decided to watch. There was something hypnotic about the thick, deep-red stream that filled the tube. Hypnotic. So very…

And that was about the time I passed out.

Yes, big bad Marine and latent horror fan passed out while they were drawing my blood. True story. In the meantime, I learned to put up with a multitude of pains and annoyances. The latest annoyance I’ve learned to put up with goes by the name of “Saw 3-D”.

In this, the supposed “final” installment, we follow Jigsaw survivor, Bobby Dagan (Sean Patrick Flannery), who has gone on from his ordeal to become a motivational speaker. There’s only one small hitch: he’s not really a Jigsaw survivor. He’s faking it for the money and fame. Needless to say, this doesn’t sit well with Jigsaw (Tobin Bell, who we see in a flashback) and Dagen and his entourage are taken and the games start anew. Throughout this, the power struggle between Jigsaw’s widow, Jill (Betsy Russell) and Officer Hoffman (Costas Mandylor).

“Saw 3-D”, like many horror movies that have come out in the last year or so, was an endurance test: patches of hysterical screaming and gore improbably stitched together into a grotesquely uninteresting tapestry. Or, since this installment was filmed in 3-D, we are more appropriately placed into a diorama. The only problem is that there in nothing in the environment that engages us as viewers. The traps are gruesome and cringe-inducing, yes, but the victims in said traps are merely that – victims – and nothing more. There are really no emotional anchors in the movie; Jill and Hoffman are the only emotional touchstones and then, only because they have been with us for a few movies now. Otherwise, we are left clutching at shadows, oftentimes finding nothing there. For the majority of the film, all we are left to do is follow Dagen as he staggers from trap to trap for the inevitable death of each of his superficial but still remarkably unlikable friends. There was a time in the series when the purpose of the ordeal was to make the victim appreciate the life he or she was taking for granted. Now, any higher purpose has been set aside and the “Saw” series has devolved into a simple game of revenge. Even when they try to make a point of showing the positive life-changing aspects of Jigsaw’s traps, it’s quickly set aside for the revenge tale of Jigsaw reaching out from beyond the grave to punish Dagen. Similarly, the Jill/Hoffman storyline is more focused on the revenge aspect than it is about a battle of philosophies or legacy.

“Saw 3-D”, is a sad shade of its former self; the resemblance these days being only cosmetic. Next Halloween, we can rest safe in our beds knowing that the torture is over.

Or is it?

As every horror fan knows, no monster is truly dead until it dies at the box office. “Saw VIII” anyone?]]> [SIZE="5"]Saw 3-D (2010)[/SIZE]

Directed by: Kevin Greutert
Written by: Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan
Starring: Tobin Bell, Costas Mandylor, Betsy Russell, Sean Patrick Flanery, Cary Elwes
Running time: 90 minutes
Rating: R

I’m really not good with blood.

Back when I was in Marine Corp boot camp, one of the first in a string of constant dangers we were exposed to was needles: lots and lots of needles. The whole first week, when we weren’t exercising, being yelled at or otherwise… indoctrinated, they were sticking us with needles: a vaccine here, an inoculation there and more than a few samples of blood. During one particular sample taking, I decided to watch. There was something hypnotic about the thick, deep-red stream that filled the tube. Hypnotic. So very…

And that was about the time I passed out.

Yes, big bad Marine and latent horror fan passed out while they were drawing my blood. True story. In the meantime, I learned to put up with a multitude of pains and annoyances. The latest annoyance I’ve learned to put up with goes by the name of “Saw 3-D”.

In this, the supposed “final” installment, we follow Jigsaw survivor, Bobby Dagan (Sean Patrick Flannery), who has gone on from his ordeal to become a motivational speaker. There’s only one small hitch: he’s not really a Jigsaw survivor. He’s faking it for the money and fame. Needless to say, this doesn’t sit well with Jigsaw (Tobin Bell, who we see in a flashback) and Dagen and his entourage are taken and the games start anew. Throughout this, the power struggle between Jigsaw’s widow, Jill (Betsy Russell) and Officer Hoffman (Costas Mandylor).

“Saw 3-D”, like many horror movies that have come out in the last year or so, was an endurance test: patches of hysterical screaming and gore improbably stitched together into a grotesquely uninteresting tapestry. Or, since this installment was filmed in 3-D, we are more appropriately placed into a diorama. The only problem is that there in nothing in the environment that engages us as viewers. The traps are gruesome and cringe-inducing, yes, but the victims in said traps are merely that – victims – and nothing more. There are really no emotional anchors in the movie; Jill and Hoffman are the only emotional touchstones and then, only because they have been with us for a few movies now. Otherwise, we are left clutching at shadows, oftentimes finding nothing there. For the majority of the film, all we are left to do is follow Dagen as he staggers from trap to trap for the inevitable death of each of his superficial but still remarkably unlikable friends. There was a time in the series when the purpose of the ordeal was to make the victim appreciate the life he or she was taking for granted. Now, any higher purpose has been set aside and the “Saw” series has devolved into a simple game of revenge. Even when they try to make a point of showing the positive life-changing aspects of Jigsaw’s traps, it’s quickly set aside for the revenge tale of Jigsaw reaching out from beyond the grave to punish Dagen. Similarly, the Jill/Hoffman storyline is more focused on the revenge aspect than it is about a battle of philosophies or legacy.

“Saw 3-D”, is a sad shade of its former self; the resemblance these days being only cosmetic. Next Halloween, we can rest safe in our beds knowing that the torture is over.

Or is it?

As every horror fan knows, no monster is truly dead until it dies at the box office. “Saw VIII” anyone?]]> <![CDATA[Paranormal Activity 2 (2010)]]> http://talkhorror.com/boards/showthread.php?tid=3086 Mon, 25 Oct 2010 10:36:01 -0400 TerrorScribe]]> http://talkhorror.com/boards/showthread.php?tid=3086 [SIZE="5"]Paranormal Activity 2 (2010)[/SIZE]

Directed by: Tod Williams
Written by: Michael R. Perry, Christopher Landon, Tom Pabst
Starring: Katie Featherston, Micah Sloat, Brian Boland, Sprague Grayden, Molly Ephraim, Tim Clemens
Running time: 91 minutes
Rating: R

OK, time for a little mental exercise.

Imagine if you will if, instead of getting “The Empire Strikes Back” as the sequel to “Star Wars”, we got something a little different. Instead of ice planets and swamp planets and asteroid fields and a climactic light saber duel, we got a bit of a prequel. In this prequel, we meet Luke’s brother, also a farm boy on a different planet. He comes to own a couple of droids who have secret plans to a new Imperial space station. He needs to get off the planet and return the plans to a member of a royal family, so he hooks up with a former Jedi and a roguish smuggler. They leave the planet, only to be captured on this space station. Later they rescue the member of the royal family, escape from the space station and later destroy it using the secret plans they were trying to return. The movie ends with Princess Leia’s ship being attacked by a Star Destroyer.

While I understand that one of the tricks of making a good sequel is to use some of the same elements that made the original successful, at some point you have to expand the world, give it depth, a life of its own and not just rehashing it.

“Paranormal Activity 2” starts roughly two months before the paranormal activities of the first film. Here, we meet Katie’s sister, Kristi. She’s a new mom and the opening minutes show footage of her and her family – husband Dan and stepdaughter Ali – bringing home the new baby, Hunter. Everything is sunshine and bunnies until the house is “broken into.” As a precaution, Dan has security cameras set up throughout the house and soon, the strangeness begins.

Let me start with a few positives about this movie. On the whole, it’s not a bad little thriller. It does a good job of connecting itself to the first film, even expanding the universe ever so slightly, and even provides a few good scares.

However…

Remember the exercise we started out with? Here is the real world example of it. “Paranormal Activity 2” is virtually an exact rehash of the first movie: character for character, beat for beat. Sure you have the addition of a stepdaughter, a dog, a baby and a nanny, but it all distills down into the girl with the supernatural stalker and the disbelieving, abrasive significant other. It felt so similar that I thought you could probably take a timeline of both movies, overlay them and match them up almost identically. Not only do they rely on the same personal dynamics, they also rely on the exact same scares as the first movie. The only real difference is that we have six cameras to catch a mysteriously opening door or moving pan. Otherwise, they follow the exact same setup as they did in the first movie: silence followed by a rumbling that builds gradually that finally births a jump scare. Rinse. Lather. Repeat. And with the exception of one good scare, the rest of the film doesn’t just emulate the first movie; it downright duplicates a scare from the original. It’s not so much that they are stealing from the first movie, it’s more like they are cloning it and slapping a “2” and the end of the title

At the end of the day, “Paranormal Activity 2” doesn’t feel like a prequel or a sequel. It feels like a cheat. King Solomon once said there is nothing new under the sun. This movie proves it.]]> [SIZE="5"]Paranormal Activity 2 (2010)[/SIZE]

Directed by: Tod Williams
Written by: Michael R. Perry, Christopher Landon, Tom Pabst
Starring: Katie Featherston, Micah Sloat, Brian Boland, Sprague Grayden, Molly Ephraim, Tim Clemens
Running time: 91 minutes
Rating: R

OK, time for a little mental exercise.

Imagine if you will if, instead of getting “The Empire Strikes Back” as the sequel to “Star Wars”, we got something a little different. Instead of ice planets and swamp planets and asteroid fields and a climactic light saber duel, we got a bit of a prequel. In this prequel, we meet Luke’s brother, also a farm boy on a different planet. He comes to own a couple of droids who have secret plans to a new Imperial space station. He needs to get off the planet and return the plans to a member of a royal family, so he hooks up with a former Jedi and a roguish smuggler. They leave the planet, only to be captured on this space station. Later they rescue the member of the royal family, escape from the space station and later destroy it using the secret plans they were trying to return. The movie ends with Princess Leia’s ship being attacked by a Star Destroyer.

While I understand that one of the tricks of making a good sequel is to use some of the same elements that made the original successful, at some point you have to expand the world, give it depth, a life of its own and not just rehashing it.

“Paranormal Activity 2” starts roughly two months before the paranormal activities of the first film. Here, we meet Katie’s sister, Kristi. She’s a new mom and the opening minutes show footage of her and her family – husband Dan and stepdaughter Ali – bringing home the new baby, Hunter. Everything is sunshine and bunnies until the house is “broken into.” As a precaution, Dan has security cameras set up throughout the house and soon, the strangeness begins.

Let me start with a few positives about this movie. On the whole, it’s not a bad little thriller. It does a good job of connecting itself to the first film, even expanding the universe ever so slightly, and even provides a few good scares.

However…

Remember the exercise we started out with? Here is the real world example of it. “Paranormal Activity 2” is virtually an exact rehash of the first movie: character for character, beat for beat. Sure you have the addition of a stepdaughter, a dog, a baby and a nanny, but it all distills down into the girl with the supernatural stalker and the disbelieving, abrasive significant other. It felt so similar that I thought you could probably take a timeline of both movies, overlay them and match them up almost identically. Not only do they rely on the same personal dynamics, they also rely on the exact same scares as the first movie. The only real difference is that we have six cameras to catch a mysteriously opening door or moving pan. Otherwise, they follow the exact same setup as they did in the first movie: silence followed by a rumbling that builds gradually that finally births a jump scare. Rinse. Lather. Repeat. And with the exception of one good scare, the rest of the film doesn’t just emulate the first movie; it downright duplicates a scare from the original. It’s not so much that they are stealing from the first movie, it’s more like they are cloning it and slapping a “2” and the end of the title

At the end of the day, “Paranormal Activity 2” doesn’t feel like a prequel or a sequel. It feels like a cheat. King Solomon once said there is nothing new under the sun. This movie proves it.]]>