Bring me the drawing salve, would ya?

WOW.
Love it.



I just watched Splinter (2008), which I bought sight-unseen - something I rarely do (last spontaneous purchase was Sideways, so it's been awhile) - and I was, for lack of a better word, enthralled with it.
I'd been reading about it and hearing about it for months, and it was nearly all great reviews, so I was psyched to see it.
What a different concept. I can see why it won a bunch of indie horror awards. This is good stuff.

The 'monster' in this flick is unlike any I've ever seen in horror, and folks, that in and of itself is refreshing. The closest I can compare it to is 'The Thing". But I have to disagree with some who say it is too much like The Thing. I can't say that's true. Besides, the remake of The Thing was made in 1982...

Splinter's general concept is not entirely unique though.
We've got an unlucky group of people stuck in a building in what seems like a hopeless situation. I've seen that before many a time. Who hasn't? Such as the rather low budget It Waits, the
stellar first Feast movie, The Descent, Evil Dead and Evil Dead II, Alien, The Thing, Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead....you see my point? And almost every horror movie puts its characters in perilous danger...

So after a frightening little teaser before the credits, Splinter starts out innocently enough. Seth and Polly (Paulo Costanzo and Jill Wagner) are off to the woods for a romantic camping trip - celebrating an anniversary of togetherness. When the tent they brought fails to be easily set up and then breaks, they opt to go find a motel. On their way, a girl (a drugged out, pale faced Rachel Kerbs playing 'Lacey') jumps out on the road... they stop and when they are looking back at her trying to decide what to do, her convict boyfriend Dennis (the excellent Shea Willingham) shows up at the driver's side window with a gun to car-jack them.

So it's a few miles later and the two hitchhikers are in the car with our couple. It's obvious Lacey is either sick, on drugs, or both. Dennis tries to comfort her but she's just weirded out.
Then they run over something and the tire goes flat. How typical, right? Well what they hit isn't typical. After a brief encounter on the roadway with the unidentifiable creature (which, in an apparent drug-induced stupor Lacey mistakes as a long-dead pet of hers but in reality looks more like a smooshed porcupine), they change the tire and head back down the road, okay until the car starts overheating. They pull into a gas station (I know, there just happens to be one nearby) and begin looking for the cashier/attendant after getting gas and some refreshments. Cause car-jackin' makes ya' hungry!!

Things go WAAAYYY downhill from there. They find the cashier. Or should I say he finds them. The car-jackers and the nice couple end up trapped inside the gas station with a parasitic creature of some sort trying to get in. It's like no other creature you've ever seen, and the effects are above average. If they used any CGI I don't know where. Almost immediately, the group is down to three and they end up working together on the same side against the terror.

This was really paced well, had satisfying character build-up with really good acting, a vastly superior amount of tension that is missing from so many films these days, and a plot worthy of multiple viewings.
The characters all go through a bit of an epiphany throughout the course of the movie, each finding strength they didn't know they had, as well as a few admirable traits that don't surface until near the end.

The reason the movie is called Splinter is apparent after a very short period of time. And like the tagline says, it will get under your skin. There isn't a huge amount of gore, but there are some very disturbing scenes, one in particular involving a utility knife that just about made me (yes, even me!) close my eyes... and that takes ALOT, people. ALOT. But I made it.


Seth, Polly, and Dennis try to figure out how to get free lottery tickets out of the machine...
(just kidding)



Never, I repeat, NEVER... use the restroom at a gas station.
Seriously.


Alternate DVD cover

Splinter Official Site

Splinter/IMDB

Not your average snowboarding holiday...

Cold Prey is a 2006 Norwegian horror movie (with the correct name of 'Fritt Vilt') that I happened upon by seeing its trailer during some other random movie I saw. It looked interesting and even with subtitles I was game for a go.

I was pleasantly surprised, actually. It got me from the beginnning, and though it had many of the same elements of your average 80's slasher flick, I still wanted to see where it was going.

It starts out with two couples and a spare, on their way to a backwoods snowboarding trip. This had to actually be filmed in Norway or the likes, as the scenery was gorgeous.
So they are having a great time on the slopes, letting loose, etc... and of course one of them (the fifth wheel) gets hurt. I'm talking breaks his leg-compound fracture- hurt. Not good.

So what happens next? As easily anticipated, they load the guy on a sled (where it came from I don't know, because they supposedly were miles from the car, and had been snowboarding - so generally it would be considered a burden of sorts to snowboard with a sled on your back, right? But same goes for the skis & poles they seemed to pull out of their ass later...) Anyway - they load the helpless chap up and start walking and they luckily (?) come upon a ski lodge.
Upon further inspection they realize it is mysteriously abandoned (even though there is still lots of booze to get drunk on inside). They break in so that they have shelter for the night, intending to walk out in the a.m. to find help for broken-leg dude.

The usual horror movie tactics follow: investigate the deserted old place, find some strange artifacts and newspapers telling the history of the place, drink excessively, leave a few people alone to get their groove on, gruesome murders start....with a pickaxe no less.

In detail: they start a fire in the fireplace and set the hurt guy up on the couch after splinting and supergluing his compound fracture shut (!), then three of the group start investigating the old place while the lead chick stays with Fracture-Frank...
The three amateur detectives find a burned out room (which happens to be ROOM 237 - apparently an homage to 'The Shining'... I don't miss anything) and wonder just what happened there. Later, two of the three set up shop for the night in one of the rooms but when the horndog tries to have sex with the virgin, she shuts him down and he gets pissed, leaving her alone to be the first victim. Didn't you just see that coming?

Then it turns into a pick-one-at-a-time-off kind of movie, which is nothing new, but to be honest there was really a fair amount of tension while waiting for each to meet his maker. The lighting and atmosphere really lent alot of uneasiness and apprehension. The pacing was great, just enough time to get invested in the well-being of the five friends, then the mayhem starts.

Of course being Norwegian, it was subtitled, but as I've said before, I don't have much problem with that. And the acting was pretty satisfactory, as I came to actually give a crap about each character - as typecast as you'll notice they all are.

The 'monster/killer/freak' was nothing really special, but he had his own backstory which was party indecipherable due to the fact that the movie was foreign - there was a part early on in the film where some of the group finds newpaper articles describing a series of events at the hotel that obviously give cause to our killer and apparently the reason for the desertion, but unfortunately whoever was subtitling for us silly Americans felt it unnecessary to subtitle the newpaper headlines, so we are left to guess what is going on -(the only bad part about the fact that it's a foreign film).

Usually when I see a movie advertised in a trailer or in Fangoria or Rue Morgue that I have never heard of, I am always wary, but sometimes I can be pleasantly surprised, which was the case here. Like I said, there is nothing new here - nothing you haven't seen in say, Wrong Turn (from which I found several similarities)... but it was remarkably free of CGI (always a plus these days) and the whole pickaxe thing hasn't been done (at least not well) since My Bloody Valentine.

I'd have to say check this out. It appears a sequel was out 10-10-08 but I'm not sure if that was at the theater or on DVD. Part 2 is not on Amazon.com yet The website below has the trailers for both- they are not subtitled, but you can certainly get the jist.

Good stuff.


Fritt Vilt/Fritt Vilt II

Why is this called 'Red Mist' ??

Red Mist (a.k.a. Freakdog - actually a much more appropriate title, you'll find out) is an indie horror flick from the guy that brought us 'Shrooms'. It's another one of those 'medical students do really stupid things that could easily muck up their future' movies, and some of what you'll see just reeks of several other similar-themed movies.

Catherine (Arielle Kebbel, who could easily pass for Mandy Moore's sister) is a med student with a bunch of drunken, horny, and ridiculously un-focused fellow med-student friends who are terrribly clichéd. You have your typical blonde rich-bitch (whom you love to hate), the ordinary girl (who, if I'm being honest, has one of the best deaths), the goth girl (channeling her inner Keira Knightly - accent and all), the dorky yet married dude (himself doing his best Seth Rogen impression), the boyfriend type (but still not the so-called McDreamy -and sooooo not the George Clooney/Doug Ross type), and the obligatory smart ass guy who starts all the trouble (I couldn't wait for that blockhead to bite it)...

Catherine has a stalker of sorts. Kenneth, a rather sad yet disturbed young man who enjoys hanging out in the morgue and taking pictures of dead girl's breasts with his cell phone while he cuts himself. Nice.
Kenny shows up at a bar where the aforementioned friends are closing it down getting drunk and taking some drugs they stole from the hospital pharmacy (off to a great start in their medical careers, eh?) Kenny asks if he can walk Catherine home, she politely declines, and so Kenny shows them some pictures on his phone that show them stealing the pharmacy drugs.
I guess he thought he'd try a bit of blackmail to get into Cat's pants, I don't know.

He leaves, but the gang has Catherine convince him to come back and 'party with them'.... They, in turn, make Kenny down (quickly through a funnel, no less) a lethal concoction of alcohol and drugs, then carelessly but unintentionally induce a seizure while using strobe lights with music. Nice. Kenny drops to the floor, unresponsive.

Whilst discussing their options (shades of 'I Know What You Did Last Summer') they wait too long and our boy Kenneth slips into a coma. Then they do the only thing they can do (because this is a movie, after all, and needs to be at least 90 minutes long - gotta do something!) - they dump him off at the hospital, hoping someone finds him.
Of course this throws a major guilt trip on Cat. Everyone else, including her apparent boyfriend, seems to think this is a lucky break. Yay! He's in a coma and can't tell the cops what happened.

Catherine reads up on some experimental drugs that can possibly help coma patients, so in keeping in tune with the 'really f**king stupid things med students do' theme, she forges a doc's name on a prescription and gets said drugs for her 'pal' Kenny. (Would someone explain to me why they would even have these experimental drugs on stock at the hospital pharm? This baffles me.)....

So anyway, she injects Kenny with the drug (because no one at all is in the coma ward late at night - except one floozy nurse who has a penchant for leaving her post and getting her rocks off with a random doctor in the supply closet...) and low and behold, he develops some brain function. Imagine that.
However, unbeknownst to Catherine, the drug apparently makes the brain have 'out of body experiences'... meaning Kenny is somehow able to possess other people, who in turn exact his revenge on the unsuspecting med students who have left him in this deplorable condition.
Seriously.

I didn't dislike this movie, but it left some room for improvement. There were a few sequences near the end that just weren't fluent, and I was left wondering just what had happened. At times, it morphed into 'Shrooms' land for me... with some weird psychedelic images and the unavoidable 'girl running half naked through the woods' experience. I mean, what was she doing out in the woods when this whole film is basically set in a hospital? It left a small bit of continuity fly right out the window.

Red Mist isn't scary, either.
It's more of a psychological morality play with enough gore to place it in the horror category, but the gruesome kills don't even show up till like, 45 minutes into the film.

It's not the type of movie you'd want to pay ten bucks to see at the theater (but what is?) but it would do for a saturday afternoon if you can catch it on the Sci-Fi channel. I mean, it's better than one of those Lifetime movie of the week crap-fests!

After you see it though, you'll realize, like I did - that Freak Dog would have been a much better title. Red Mist sounds like something that is on stage at the Miss America pageant. Ugh.

Can you believe this??

Get this:

I read, just today, that a newly formed production company is remaking The Exorcist - with Dakota Fanning in the Linda Blair role, Nicholas Cage as Father Karras, William Shatner as Father Merrin, and Sharon Stone in the Ellen Burstyn role.

Apparently they are set to start filming in Phoenix, Arizona the beginning of this summer.
Yeah, Phoenix should really be able to sub for Georgetown, right?

My burning questions, I mean the ones that are keeping me up at night, are:

*Do you think the house will be an adobe?
*Will they call "Captain Howdy" Mr. Spock instead?
*Are there rats in Phoenix? If so, will she hear 'rats' in the attic or lizards on the patio?
*Will Regan still utilize a Ouija board or will they use drums, flutes, and chanting to conjure Pazuzu?

*Will Regan's mom perform a strip tease including a chair for her dinner party instead of singing?
*Will Father Karras still fall down a flight of steps, or will he somehow turn into Elvis and sing the devil out of Regan?

*Will Regan use an ice pick in lieu of a crucifix to do those nasty things to her dainty parts?
*Will Father Merrin try to get Regan and her mom a hotel room instead of staying at home to face the demons? I'm thinking Priceline, here folks.

*Will they still use pea soup or will it be a concoction made of peyote cactus?
*Will Regan still pee on the carpet or will Dakota stipulate no bodily functions will be used in the making of this film.... well, there goes the vomiting as well.

*And will Regan actually even be possessed in this version, or just out of her mind at having to listen to Nicholas Cage's monotone voice for two hours?

I don't know who is set to direct it, but I suppose someone like Uwe Boll will get the honors.
I shudder to think.

Can you imagine even re-making this classic film?
It's like re-doing Casablanca with Jessica Alba and Keanu Reeves! YIKES!

By the way, April Fools.

This is not the Twilight crowd's vampires....

I finally got to see the much-hyped vampire movie: Let the Right One In.

Let me tell you, it's sooo worth the hype.



Let the Right One In stars Lina Leandersson as Eli, a mysterious young girl who moves into the apartment beside Oskar (Kåre Hedebrant) and warns him on their first meeting that they cannot be friends.
Yeah, I guess that does sound a bit like Twilight at first, eh? (LOL)
But things are not what they seem.

This movie is based (quite faithfully I might add) on the novel by Swedish author John Ajvide Lindqvist, who thankfully adapted the screenplay as well. The starkness of a 1982 Swedish winter that director Tomas Alfredson brings to the screen is only part of the fantastic atmosphere that surrounds and envelopes this entire film.
And yes, people, it's a Swedish movie so there are subtitles. You can also set up the movie to be dubbed with American, but I prefer to watch people's mouths actually match what the words coming out say, so I use the subtitles with no problem at all.

Oskar, we learn right off, is being bullied at school and as a 12 year old with divorced parents, he is a fairly lost and forlorn pre-adolescent when he meets Eli at the small playground outside their apartment complex. As I said, she tells him they can't be friends, but they end up bonding over a Rubik's cube, which sets in motion a series of events. It is puppy love at its finest, yet there are reasons that Eli and Oskar should not be together.



Spoiler here (as if you hadn't heard): Eli has been 12 a very long time. She is a vampire.

Eli has a father figure, Hakan, that helps keep her deadly secret by procuring her meals.


Nice.

It is never said how or if they are related, but it is obvious he is having more and more doubts about the nature of his duty. When Hakan meets his end, Eli is left alone to try to survive.

Eli and Oskar become close, and he eventually does come to figure out she is not like him.
(Took a bit of time though - guess the pale face smeared with blood finally gave it away.)



Then again, who'd think a 12 year old vampire was living next door?
But Oskar loves Eli despite this inconvienience.

Oskar enlists Eli's advice as far as dealing with his bullies, and being the natural predator she is, Oskar learns from her and starts to take matters into his own hands...



But when Eli's secret is threatened to be exposed, she decides she must leave.

I won't mention the end because it is the most powerful (and bloodiest) part of the film.
Suffice it to say, retribution comes just in time.

By the way, the title of the movie (and book of course) comes from the legend that explains that a vampire must be given permission to enter a house first. This is the first vampire movie I can remember that actually delves into that myth... and shows what happens if they are not actually invited in'...

So, in essence, you have to let the right one in...so to speak.

All in all, this is a slow-moving, bleak film that speaks to the more discerning horror fan. I don't think I've been as impressed with filmmaking in quite some time.
The last few minutes of the movie: sublime.

Unfortunately, word on the street is that come 2010, an Americanized version of this movie will slosh its way into theaters thanks to the money hungry Michael Bay team of hacks. Ugh.

But we'll always have the original to look to for a real look at cinema done right.

Quarantine

I'd actually been waiting to see Quarantine (2008) for over a month now. It's been at the top of my Netflix queue but I kept getting everything except.

Anyway,
I've recently seen a few movies that use the same hand held cam effect - Diary of the Dead and Zombie Diaries. I did not care for either one of them at all. I did enjoy Cloverfield more than I thought I would, but if you put all three of them up against Quarantine, they would all fail miserably in my eyes. I'm not saying it's the next best horror movie, but I did enjoy it quite a bit.
Here is a movie that the hand held shaky cam thing actually worked and was believable, IMHO.

Quarantine is an American remake of the Spanish film [rec], which I have not seen but have heard very good things about.
It centers around a reporter, Angela (Jennifer Carpenter of The Exorcism of Emily Rose and also Dexter) who, with her camera man Scott (Steve Harris) has been assigned to follow the L.A. Fire Department for the evening shift. They meet two firefighters, Jake (Jay Hernandez of Hostel fame) and Fletcher (Johnathon Schaech) who they are assigned to shadow.
After some friendly banter between the guys and Angela, a call finally comes in and they are off to a scene.

They arrive at an apartment building where according to police on scene and the Russian super, one of the tenants - a woman - had been screaming like crazy but is now gone silent. They proceed to the apartment in question and find Mrs. Espinoza, gasping for breath, bleeding, and foaming at the mouth. They try reasoning with her (?) and she becomes violent, biting one of the officers in the neck (and I'm not talking Dracula here, I'm talking Dawn of the Dead).
Things go downhill from there. Way downhill.

The next thing you know, the CDC is outside and they completely barricade and close off the entire building, refusing to let anyone in - or out.
Victims start piling up and the veterinarian that lives there, after examining the bodies, comes to the conclusion that the bodies are showing all the symptoms of rabies. So if you get any body fluids (blood or otherwise) on you - or should I say in you - you're pretty much f***ed.
You can't just get shots and forget about it, rabies diagnosed after symptoms show is a death sentence.

The two firefighters, Jake and Fletcher try to gather all the tenants together on the lower floor, so they start searching apartments and have more run ins with zombie-type infectious freaks. Quite cool.
Fletcher falls from the top floor after being bitten, smacking his head off the floor. Not good. He doesn't die right away, so you can see where this is going. People are bitten left and right and so much screeching and shrieking from people who are either infected or on their way there.

Naturally, Angela and her camera guy are getting all of this on film, and it truly is almost like watching a documentary. A really intense, rather frightening, documentary.
Angela interviews some of the tenants, including a little girl who is apparently sick with what her mother calls 'bronchitis'. Through some further prodding, Angela finds out the little girl's dog was taken to the vet that day because he was sick.
When one of the CDC agents finally comes inside to take blood samples, it is learned that an animal clinic nearby was infected by rabies and the source dog apparently came from that very apartment complex.

The tension just keeps escalating throughout. When we are finally down to just three people, and then down to the two that you assume are going to be there at the end, the camera shakes more than ever and to be honest, I felt a bit queasy at that point.

Something that really, REALLY does bother me about Quarantine is that when the movie came out and the trailers were up on tv, the creepiest scene - the one with the girl (Carpenter) being pulled backward while she screams (also on the DVD cover) - I waited 88 minutes for than particular scene.
What I'm saying is: when you start watching this movie, you already know how it's going to end because you've seen the trailer.
Thankfully, it's fun to watch the 'getting there' parts in between...

Thoughts on violence in contemporary horror

My thoughts on violence in contemporary horror:

First of all, just let me say I have a hard time finding faults in horror movies in general. I can usually find redeeming qualities in most horror films (but that list would not include Borderline Cult, or the Prom Night and April Fool's day remakes!). However, if pressed to choose between say, Halloween and Friday the 13th (both originals) I would no doubt pick Halloween.

I do not believe it is necessary to have alot of gore in a movie to make it scary. The element of suspense is much more important to me than watching someone get an arrow through the eye. When Laurie was looking out her window of her bedroom and saw Michael standing in amongst the sheets on the clothesline, and then he disappeared - much more frightening.

That being said, wanting honest chills from a movie does not interfere with my glee at watching movies such as "À l'intérieur" (aka "Inside") or "Frontier(s)" -both French gorefests. They, in particular "Inside", mixed the suspense with the gruesome blood & guts and still came out with a fairly good total product. I felt this was done rather well with "Haute Tension" as well. Funny how the French are running rings around us Americans in this category. I can only provide "The Strangers" as a recent example of how tension is done right here in the states (but even that was a remake of the French horror film "Ils" (Them).
Going back a bit, I would say the 1982 remake of "The Thing" is a prime example of a perfect mix.
Most recently, I think "Quarantine" is actually a pretty good film as well, if you can get past the shaky-cam.

So I don't think you need the graphic violence, per se. There have been a fair amount of horror movies that didn't have alot of gore but still managed to freak me out. Case in point: the classic Psycho, the aforementioned Halloween, Ghost Story, The Shining, The Ring, The Grudge - hell, even the Texas Chainsaw Massacre ('74) didn't have much blood to speak of.

But on a side note, you gotta give us something, anything: "The Happening" - WTF???

I have yet to see The Last House on the Left remake, but I sincerely doubt it could be as disturbing as the original. It was always known for its brutal violence and disturbing death scenes, but to be honest, even it pales in comparison to all the French movies I previously mentioned, along with flicks like Hostel, The entire Saw series, Dawn of the Dead ('04), The Descent, Halloween ('07), and one of my recent faves, Dog Soldiers. That scene of the dog pulling the dude's intestines out..yikes.

Movie critics today (and probably always will) find horror fans inexplicable. They just don't get why we run out to the latest horror movie on opening weekend. They simply do not understand we are looking for the next great horror flick. (Still looking.....)
Critics lump us into one small bunch of weirdos and complain that all the movies are doing is trying to find new ways to kill people. Indeed, a mish-mash of recent horror seems to prove that theory correct. Mundane, boring and useless sequels with amped up gore does not a good horror movie make.

And I'm not laughing, either.
Robert Ebert recently stated (in his review of the new Last House on the Left) : "Other scenes, while violent, fell within the range of contemporary horror films, which strive to invent new ways to kill people, so the horror fans in the audience will get a laugh."

I wouldn't exactly say that horror fans are looking to crack up during death scenes, though. I know I wasn't laughing when Michael Myers beat his sister's boyfriend over the head several times with a ball bat in the Rob Zombie remake. Not really that funny, actually.

But I know I have become more and more jaded and desensitized over the last 25+ years of watching horror. I do believe I've seen it all. I've seen people die in so many different ways that I sincerely doubt ANYTHING would surprise me. I mean, Hostel freaked me out, but more because it was the thought of something like that actually happening on vacation- not that someone got their achilles tendon cut. Been there, done that - Pet Sematary ('89) - and that was more disturbing cause it was a little kid doing the cutting.

Turistas did the same thing to me. I am not sure I will ever go to South America. It's the thought that it could happen, not the actual removing of the kidneys that got to me.
Even Eli Roth's first venture, "Cabin Fever", was scarier because you could actually get that disease (Necrotizing fasciitis).... but that scene where Cerina Vincent shaves her legs off... yeah, that was brutal.

But actually, I was more scared watching Daniel Craig get his privates whacked over and over in Casino Royale. Now THAT was frightening.

Today's movie makers need to realize that just plain old blood and guts doesn't win over the average horror fan. We are still a discriminating bunch, and though we will go see your latest gorefest of the week, we are still searching for that next 'Blair Witch Project", you know? And again... no blood in that one either.

Easy on the green beer today!

Pretend you care...

I stole this subject from Final Girl - she has it somewhere in her blog, I think like two years ago or something...

She titled it 'Pretend you care...', and I think that about sums it up.
My answers might not all be horror-related, but I'll try.
Here goes:

1) Name a movie that you have seen more than 10 times:
Sticking to strictly the horror genre, I'd have to say Halloween, Friday the 13th, Psycho, The Shining.... so many more. I do have a soft spot in my heart for both Psycho 2 as well as Ghost Story and have seen each numerous times.

2) Name a movie that you've seen multiple times in the theater:
Whoa. Thinking here. I'm not much for multiple theater viewings (cost, baby, cost!)... Okay, does Twilight count? I saw it two times in one week. I did see Titanic twice "in house", that's scary, right?

3) Name an actor that would make you more inclined to see a movie:
Johnny Depp. I would watch HIM watch paint dry for two hours. Or longer.

4) Name an actor that would make you less likely to see a movie:
David Spade, Tara Reid, Ben Stiller. I also hate and refuse to watch anything Chris Farley was ever in. What a loser. Sorry that he's dead and all, but he sucked. Belushi wannabe.

5) Name a movie that you can and do quote from:
Too many to list. I really rock at movie quotes. I've got a great memory and can pull them out of my ass like nobody's business.
As for horror, I'd have to say I've quoted 'The Shining' frequently. "Wendy, Darling...Light of my life....I'm not gonna hurt ya..."

6) Name a movie musical that you know all of the lyrics to all of the songs:
Gotta go with 'Grease' here. (Sorry, I'm not a Rocky Horror Picture Show fan)

7) Name a movie that you have been known to sing along to:
Again, Grease. Oh, and the Sound of Music. (so sue me!)
Ooo! Forgot Sweeney Todd. I know those songs.

8) Name a movie that you would recommend everyone see:
Random choice: Blair Witch Project

9) Name a movie that you own:
I'd have to just randomly pick something, I own a shitload of DVDs, people. And 75% of them are horror. Ok - here goes: Secret Window (part of my 'Johnny Depp is a god' collection...)

10) Name an actor that launched his/her entertainment career in another medium but who has surprised you with his/her acting chops:
Crap, I don't know. For some reason I can't think of a single soul at this moment... Wasn't Bon Jovi in that submarine movie awhile back? Was he any good?

11) Have you ever seen a movie in a drive-in? If so, what?
I saw a double feature of 'Psycho 2' and 'Vamp' back in..oh I don't know, 1983 ?
In a similar vein: I always wanted to go to the drive in and watch a movie that shows people watching a movie at a drive in... (i.e. Twister, Grease, Christine) - is that weird??

12) Name a movie that you keep meaning to see but just haven't yet gotten around to it.
Quarantine

13) Ever walked out of a movie?
Movies are way too expensive. Gotta get my money's worth even if it kills me. But I don't think I ever disliked something that bad...

14) Name a movie that made you cry in the theater:
Embarrassingly, Titanic. But come on, anyone who didn't cry when Kate let Leo's hands go and he sunk into the water just isn't human and I'll never believe they didn't cry anyway. Liars.

15) Popcorn?
Sometimes, depending on my mood. Sometimes I just like to get Snowcaps and throw them at the loud kids four rows down.

16) How often do you go to the movies (as opposed to renting them or watching them at home)? I'd have to say the percentage is like 97% home, 3% theater. I'm cheap and Netflix rocks.

17) What's the last movie you saw in the theater?
Friday the 13th (2009)

18) What's your favorite/preferred genre of movie?
Art-house independent films.
Naaahhh... you know me better than that - horror, hands down.

19) What's the first movie you remember seeing in the theater?
Something Disney I think. Perhaps Snow White or maybe Dumbo. I don't recall exactly, I was like, 4. But you know, those Disney films are probably what set the wheels in motion for my love of horror. I mean, what the hell is scarier than witches giving you poison apples, your mom getting shot, or getting swallowed by a freakin' whale? Yeah, that Disney dude must have really liked kids....
Nasty.

20) What movie do you wish you had never seen?
Eyes Wide Shut (the sound you hear now is me screaming as I pull hair out of my head one by one at the mere mention of that crapfest. Thank GOD I didn't see it in the theater, or I'd have your answer for question #13)
I also DESPISED the movies 'Gummo' and 'Borderline Cult'. Those pieces of dreck are burned on my brain for all eternity.

21) What is the weirdest movie you enjoyed?
Weirdest? Hmmm.... 'Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me'.... that's some strange shit, there. David Lynch is so friggin' obscure. Guess you could add his Mulholland Drive and Lost Highway to that list.

22) What is the scariest movie you've seen?
Besides the obvious answer of 'The Exorcist', I have to add 'The Blair Witch Project'... and to be honest, the first time I saw the remake of 'The Grudge' it freaked me out. Seriously. I still think of that jaw-clicking sound every once in awhile. Chills.

23) What is the funniest movie you've seen?
Probably 'Christmas Vacation' - hot damn is that hysterical! For horror, I'd go with 'Young Frankenstein' - good stuff!

HAVE A GOOD ONE!!

Hell is closer than you think.

Something to look forward to, perhaps?

Below is the trailer for the new Sam Raimi feature coming out this May.
Movie's called "Drag me to Hell" and it seems like it might not be too bad, eh?

'Vampire' skull found in Italy

In case anyone hasn't seen this story yet:
"Alleged vampire skull found in Italy"

Another article on skull

Diary of a disaster

When will people stop making 'Blair Witch' type films? Have we not come to the end of that era yet? Can we rush it along?
This hand-held video stuff has got to stop at some point, right?

Am I the only person who is sick of amateur filmmakers thinking they can bite off a piece of the Blair Witch pie and run with it?
The latest entry (at least the latest I've seen, as I have yet to watch Quarantine - though it is in my Netflix queue...) is the god-awful Zombie Diaries.

Which is, in effect, George Romero's Diary of the Dead reworked (and not well) from a British point of view.
I didn't care for Romero's latest either, but I have to admit I liked it better than this 'why-did-they-even-make-it' time waster.

I know, I know... somebody out there is gonna disagree with me.
Someone will no doubt say it is a marvel of cinematic brilliance.
Well I'm here to tell you NFW!

So here we have a yet another zombie invasion (yawn) in Britian.... Come on people, was this not effectively done already in the vastly superior 28 Days Later? Even its sequel, 28 Weeks Later (which I think I enjoyed even more than the first) was a better example of zombies run amok.

Stressing the hand-held factor, a news crew is gathering interviews and data regarding an apparent flu of some sort that is spreading like wildfire in England. They talk to people on the crowded streets (some of whom are already wearing masks on their faces- and not the Halloween kind) and it does add a bit of a realistic feel to the movie. But if I wanted to see that crap I'd watch America's Funniest Home Videos (which I certainly DO NOT enjoy)...

The news crew ends up in the countryside (how convienient) where there are lots of old houses, barns, garages and the likes for the zombies to play hide and seek in.
Of course there is your obligatory zombie-thrashing and writhing in the grassy patches (does every zombie flick have that? I guess the red blood does look lovely against the green grass...?) and the dead, haunted eyes that are also a pre-requisite in the Romero-type shuffling zombie style.

The makeup effects aren't bad. The background music is effective enough.
But I was never once frightened, terrified, freaked-out or even slightly nervous.
There was simply nothing scary about Zombie Diaries and in fact, it was rather boring.
This is billed as one of Dimension's EXTREME HORROR flicks. Oh.My.God.
There was very little to no gore. At the very least they could have thrown in some good grue effects to keep things interesting.

I guess they were attempting to make a survival movie (?) or something similar, but for me - I'd take the original (or in this case, even the '90 sequel) Night of the Living Dead over this attempt. There is absolutely nothing new here.
I've read some other reviews in which people are comparing it to NOTLD and 28DL but to be honest, it can't hold a candle to those gems. Not even a match.
People who call it a low budget wonder could never have seen NOTLD or BWP. Period.
If I didn't know better I'd have thought ZD was a Uwe Boll crapfest.
I will give it props though, as I think it could quite possibly turn someone into a confused, moaning, half-dead zombie if they have to sit through the whole thing.

And the video camera shit? Can we just stop with that? Please.
Until there are ACTUAL zombies shambling about, keep your video recorders at home.

Mirror mirror on the wall...

...is this movie any fun at all?





In a nutshell, not really.


Recently I checked out Kiefer Sutherland (Mr.24) in the UNsurprisingly dull 'Mirrors'.

One of the most cliched films to come out last year, Mirrors tells the story of ex-cop Ben, who suffers from one of those typical cop hangups - I got somebody killed, fell into a deep alcoholic depression, and messed up my family life.

So he quits the force and ends up taking a job as a night-shift security guard for an old abandoned department store that is wrapped up in litigation due to a fire that destroyed almost the entire interior. He takes the place of the previous guard who, before we ever see Kiefer, slices his own throat (slowly for good effect) in a bloody expression of "I hate my job" syndrome.


So Kiefer has to roam the rooms and many floors of this old relic, which was burned out but still has all the old mannequins and mirrors everywhere, just to make sure there are no squatters or drug dealers, etc. After one night at this joint, I would have so been out of there. But no! Ben feels compelled to search the place after he hears strange noises, and seeks answers when he can't explain things.


Needless to say, he gets pretty wrapped up in the mystery of the place.
It is a very macabre and eerie pile of rubble. He starts seeing things in the mirrors (hence the brilliant title) and here's where the film does lend itself to some frightening images. Burned people seem to lurk around every corner, inside the mirrors. Some of the most disturbing scenes involve random people (even outside the store - people in Ben's life...) looking into the mirror and when they look away, their image in the mirror does not. Or it does something utterly horrifying, like rip its jaw apart. Cool stuff.


Some good gore is hidden behind alot of yawning, and there are several incidental and rather unimportant characters. There some kind of crap understory involving Ben's son, and multiple dramatic yet useless episodes between Ben & his estranged wife. But you have to sit through what could easily be part of a Lifetime movie of the week family drama to get to the grue.
And the ending, in which the mystery is resolved, leaves alot to be desired.
I can only assume once again, that the original Korean (Into the Mirror) film was better.


I didn't hate it, but I found myself drifting off near the end. I may check it out again at some point, to see if it was really less boring than I think it is.




Really the best scene in the whole movie...

Barker's new ride

Recently I watched a new Clive Barker adaptation, The Midnight Meat Train.



This is just a dark film. Naturally, with Clive Barker writing and producing, you know it's gonna be nasty.
At first, I wasn't sure just what the hell was going on except that there was a serial killer choosing victims on a midnight subway train. Simple concept. Not such a simple flick.

Story goes like this: Leon (Bradley Cooper, in a really odd career choice) is a struggling photographer trying to impress a big wig (Brooke Shields) in the photography world with his unique visions of New York City.
She asks for more - something dark, something real.
He stalks the streets of NYC at night, soon running into a young woman being accosted by a few gang-like thugs. He stops the attack by pointing out the security cameras to them.

The next morning, when having brunch with his supportive girlfriend (Leslie Bibb), he notices a picture of the girl he saved the previous night. She is missing and presumed dead.

Soon he is on the trail of a serial killer who, like I mentioned, selects victims by riding the subway late at night and waiting for most people to get off.. then he gets his trusty - yet thick and scary- meat hammer and brutally slams it into the victims. Over and over, and over again.



The visuals are quite disturbing, and tap into the same kind of visceral sensations that Barker's Hellraiser once did as well. There is a considerable of flying blood.

When Leon tracks the killer down, he risks life and limb by actually taking pictures of the crimes as they occur.

To say more would be saying too much. You have to see this, if nothing else but for the cinematography. It is really stylish and unique in a world of lame remakes and unoriginal films.
I mean, who doesn't like meat hooks, creepy meat packing plants, and slow motion flying blood, right?



But it's not all good. It suffers from some plot holes and isn't particularly scary.
There are changes from the source material (Books of Blood by Barker himself) that are inexplicable.
And the villian, though seemingly menacing and hard-core, comes off always looking like he has a bowel impaction.. or that he might burst into laughter. Ok, maybe that's just me.

It's Friday again...

So... went to see the new Friday the 13th remake yesterday (yes, on Valentine's day - what can I say, as a horror fan I know where my heart lies).



I can't say it really offered any new takes on the franchise. I wasn't jumping up and down afterwards with all the joy and happiness that a really good re-make (are there any?) could bring. But it was fairly good.
If you'd never seen the original.
It brought nothing new to the table and really just felt like your standard, everyday kids get killed in the woods kind of film.
What it did have was a typical cast.




Your token black guy, token asian stoner, a sex-crazed 'go off on their own and get killed' couple, a sleazy but hot 'I'll take whoever's left' kind of chick, the hard-core rich guy, and his everyday-nice-girl-next-door girlfriend. Add Jared Padalecki (Supernatural) as your 'dude in search of his lost sister' and you have your quintessential horror movie cast. Like I said, utterly stereotypical, no surprises. Padalecki is the glue that holds it together, though. Most everyone else is phoning it in.

Guys will no doubt describe this movie in one way. The pre-opening credits romp with the naked hot chick with fake boobs, and the remainder of the film with two naked hot chicks with real boobs (one of whom is water-skiing nude. yeah, seriously). I know, I know. You can't have a horror movie without gratuitious nudity. Whatever.

But getting down to the story (?) - First things first. Re-hash the storyline where they pull an Anne Boleyn with mommy dearest. No real need to update it, just off with the head. I liked the original better.
Then have some kids (pre-opening credits, like I said) hiking in the famous Crystal Lake area, looking for some weed. For some reason, someone (maybe the head Crystal Lake Rasta, I don't know) has planted a shit-load of mary jane out in the middle of nowhere and our first gang of giggling oversexed teens are searching for it when it gets dark and they set up camp for an evening of what else? Drinking, sex, and campfire tales of deformed youngins who want revenge for their mother's death. Right.
So after all their debauchery, they meet up with Jason of course.

Cut to our new cast of partying, sex-driven twenty-somethings. They are headed to the expensive lake-side home of hard-core rich dude (because he is driving the pre-requisite Cadillac Escalade) for a weekend of what else? Sex, drugs, alcohol, and more sex.

They stop for supplies at a local store and meet Clay (Padalecki) who is looking for his lost sister (one of the aforementioned weed-seeking partiers). He and rich-boy don't exactly hit it off, but rich-boy's girlfriend certainly gives Clay a second (and third and fourth) look.

So after some drinking games and naked water-skiing, Jason finally shows up to start dispatching people in a very timely manner. With no truly interesting kills, he just keeps hacking through the cast like any other random nutjob in the woods would.
One thing I did like - the moment he finally ditches the sack over the head and finds his iconic hockey mask. Nice.



Jason in his sack over the head era, pre-hockey mask.



And here he has moved on to the more famous visage we're all used to...
And he's doing what he does best.

Like I said, nothing new here.
And some weird stuff, too - things that didn't make much sense.
For some reason (spoiler here), Jason has kept Clay's sister all chained up in a series of underground tunnels under his old house. Ok, first of all, I think we can all recall that in the original part 2 when we are first introduced to Jason, he was found to be living in a ramshackle old shed of sorts, with random pieces of timber and metal put together. A real piece of crap.
Now he has a house? And the underground tunnels? Did he carve through the layers of dirt and clay to form those cavernous passageways? And for what purpose? And let's not forget, it's lakeside property, people! Could there really be tunnels as such, that close to the water? Wouldn't they fill up with water like a mineshaft would? Huh?
And why the hell would he feel the need to keep the chick alive? What was she eating for six weeks? Was he raping her? Didn't seem to be. Why would he not just kill her? Seriously.

Those things didn't really interfere with my watching or enjoying the film.
But it would have been infinitely more impressive to be someone who had never, in fact, seen ANY of the original friday films - not someone who has seen all ten.
The plots of the first four movies were smooshed together to make this one, so I'm wondering - what now? You know damn well the powers that be are in their offices, waving the magic wand for sequels - especially after the $19 million + it made on opening day, and the projected $50 mil opening weekend. Horror fans always come out in droves the first weekend out, and this appears to be no different.

In comparing this remake against the Zombie "re-imagining" of Halloween a few years back, in all honesty I think I'd take the Halloween flick. Say what you may about Zombie's directorial skills, but at least he brought something new to the franchise. By telling a bit about Michael's background, we at least got a peek into a new chapter of the story. I can't say much for everything that followed after he escaped from prison, as it was basically nothing we hadn't seen, but that first hour - I liked it alot.

But this Friday - rehashed and revamped with no real reason to explain why except to make a few bucks.
I know there are a few remakes in the works for other iconic horror movies, and if I have to sit through a rehash of 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' or 'Hellraiser' like this one, I'm not sure I'll be there opening weekend to throw support. I mean, Elm Street without Robert Englund? Yikes.




One of the best moments in the film.
A perfect shot.

Have a heart, would ya?

Have a bloody fantastic Valentine's Day!

I Believe...

I did this on my regular blog and found myself thinking of lots of slightly dark thoughts to believe in as well - so here goes:

I believe:

*Nearly all horror movies have some redeeming qualities (I said nearly...)

*Stephen King's earlier works are much more frightening.

*I'd rather sleep with a vampire than a werewolf. Excess hair is a real turnoff, even compared to being coffin bait.

*A small stay in an insane asylum isn't necessarily a bad thing.

*'Let the Right One In' is how vampires should be done.

*Serial killers are sadly, damn interesting.

*Escargot (snails) have to be the scariest food - well, except the bugs and shit that that Andrew Zimmern dude eats!

*Ghosts have the right to be pissed.

*Remaking classic horror films is an iffy task, only remotely effective in most cases. One example of a dazzling exception: 'The Thing' (1982 remake of '51 film)

*The tv show 'Moonlight' was cancelled too soon :(

*3D horror films (or any 3D gimmick) is redundant and silly. And the glasses make my face hurt, dammit.

*Anita Blake has turned into a mega-slut. But I still read on, for Jean-Claude's sake.

*The X-Files still has not been worthily replaced.

*Johnny Depp can portray any dark character with unbridled enthusiasm.

*Twilight, while fascinating, is truly vamp-lite in my book.

*'Shaun of the Dead' is friggin' brilliant.

*I may have to order me up some HBO, to see what all the True Blood fuss is about...

*It's always darkest...when the lights are out.

Happy Birthday, George!

Thanks to my favorite uncle for the reminder of this very important birthday!

George Romero/Wikipedia

Super Sunday...

GOOD LUCK BLACK & GOLD !!!

cool!

Steelers Pride

Just an unavoidable shout out to The Pittsburgh Steelers for winning the AFC Championship yesterday after defeating the Baltimore Ravens. Kudos to Polamalu for the pick that saved the day.

It's off to the Superbowl in Tampa to meet up with the Arizona Cardinals and their head coach Ken Whisenhunt - former offensive coordinator for the Steelers. You gotta love it.

Normally, I do like birds... however, in this case- I tend to remember that steel can crush a bird like nobody's business.

go steelers!!!

Depp as Barnabas? Say it ain't so...

I was googling my little heart out today when I read somewhere that the rumor regarding a Dark Shadows film (with Johnny Depp attached as Barnabas Collins) was circulating again.



Dark Shadows was a popular gothic soap opera that was on in the late 60's/early 70's. Johnny Depp is always quoted as saying he loved the show, and to play Barnabas would be a real highlight in his career.
So bring it on!

I keep seeing that the new film version is coming out in 2010, and that Depp's production company has the rights and Tim Burton (of course) was signed on to direct.


If Dark Shadows does come to fruition, it would mark Depp's 8th collaboration with Burton.

Well, this is the most positive proof about the Dark Shadows movie that I found:
A (very) short interview with prolific producer Richard D. Zanuck...

Really does sound like it's the truth this time. Supposedly they are working on it this summer.
Guess we'll see. Have to follow this story as info is available.

Meanwhile, I was thinking how truly perfect Johnny Depp would be in that role.



Most of the following pics are stills from Sleepy Hollow - but I'd have to think his look would be similar as Barnabas Collins.





And my favorite...



Please let him look just like that :)

Why, George, Why?

I know, it seems a real sacrilege to diss this film. It really does.
But I have to be honest when I say this movie just didn't do it for me.
Much as I respect the great George Romero (we're not worthy...we're not worthy) - I think maybe he might want to re-think any current zombie movies he might have on the brain.

Some people (or so I've read) are calling this a masterpiece. Seriously?
To me, it seemed like a cross between Cloverfield and MTV's The Real World (which isn't saying much on either account).
The whole hand-held movie camera schtick has simply got to end at some point, right?
It was absolutely brilliant in The Blair Witch Project.
Then everyone and their mother started doing it and it meant nothing. Not clever. Pure crap.

Ok. Plot goes like this: The recently deceased are coming back to life.
WOW, something new, you say? I wish.
This concept was great. In 1968.
Forty years later and we have nothing new to add but a movie camera filming the events happening? Ugh.

The acting in this movie sucked. I especially hated the lead character Jason (Joshua Close)...he was the jackass shoving the camera in everyone's face as they ran for their lives. Hated him nearly as much as his bitchy, completely unlikeable girlfriend, Debra (Michelle Morgan).
I wished a zombie would eat her freakin' brains!

Hard to believe anyone found this concept frightening. I sure didn't.
There were a few good gore scenes, but to be totally honest, Cloverfield came off more scary than this. And Blair Witch? Vastly superior to this poppycock.
We're supposed to believe that if a so-called zombie was chasing you - or your girlfriend - you would make sure you kept that camera rolling, no matter if your friend gets an ax in the head or their guts ripped out or what have you.
Silly, that's all I can say.
I wanted to punch Jason countless times and actually could not wait to see his innards turn to mush.

On a positive note: I did enjoy the mention of Pittsburgh (and surrounding locations) in the film, which is typical of longtime 'Burgh resident Romero.

Anyway... I didn't like Diary of the Dead, and now I know why I waited so darn long to move it up on my Netflix queue. Can't get those 96 minutes back.
Unfortunately, I have read on Wikipedia that Romero is making yet another zombie installment called (tenatively) Island of the Dead.
Help.

I am a HUGE fan of Romero's black and white original NOTLD, and drag it out on several occassions throughout any given year to get my zombie fix. But I'm not really much of a zombie freak, to be honest.

Echoing my previous posts, bring on the vampires.
I like my undead still do-able. Sorry.

Seriously!

Such a great sign.

However:
Would mean so much more if they spelled rotary correctly...

Gone to the dogs...

With the holidays just ending (a quick shout out to celebrate that fact), I've been trying to watch a few more movies, in particular horror.

I was really lacking in the month of December, simply because I had enough horror in every day life trying to deal with the behemoth that is the holiday season...
But in the last week, I watched two movies, both original takes on the werewolf story.

I have heard that 2009 is the year of the werewolf.

2008 was supposedly vampires, with the Twilight phenom, True Blood on HBO, and the fabulous movie based on the book of the same name: Let The Right One In. (Sadly I haven't seen the film yet, it hasn't been around here - but I say it's fab because I've only heard good things....)

But I assume the whole year of the wolf thing stems from the upcoming remake of The Wolfman (starring Benicio Del Toro and releasing in November '09) and the fact that the second Twilight film, New Moon (Nov. also), contains a major plotline involving lycanthropes/shapeshifters. I also read somewhere that there is a tv show in development about the moon-loving hairballs.

So, in that vein....

I must say neither of these movies thrilled me to pieces. They both were just mediocre. I will start with the one with the really hot dude, cause that's about all that kept me watching.

Skinwalkers (2007) is about two packs of werewolves, one good - one evil. Yeah, whatever.

The main point I need to make here is that Jason Behr (The Grudge, Roswell) is one really hot, evil werewolf. That's about all I got from this mess.

Jason Behr as "Valek"

The evil pack (who travel in a biker gang. Why? Because it's cool, right?) is trying to infiltrate the good pack because apparently there is a 12 year old boy among them that has the power (when he hits puberty or some such stupid thing) to - when the big creepy red moon comes up at midnight on the kid's 13th birthday (naturally!) - stop the evil affliction and release them from the curse.

There is something for the boys, too - Rhona Mitra stars as the boys mother, but she's pretty flat as an actress. She has never seemed realistic in anything she does. (Hope she fairs better taking over for Kate Beckinsale in the new Underworld movie - Rise of the Lycans... see, more werewolves.)

One thing that really irritated me was all the gunfire. There was more gunfighting in this movie than the shootout at the OK Corral! I mean, this is a werewolf movie. Show me some damn heads getting ripped off or something. Can't they at least bite someone? Most of the action comes when they are still human. And I guess they need guns to show who's boss. Dumb.

Basically this is one big wreck of a film. There's stuff about Native American curses, a few sex scenes, a bit of gore - and other than that, ugh.

But it was worth watching for Jason Behr, if nothing else. I've come to believe that since he can't really get a decent career off the ground, perhaps he should just model underwear...

Blood & Chocolate (2007) is even more convoluted than Skinwalkers.

It wants so much to be a Twilight-style flick for the younger generation, even though it pre-dates it more than a year - but it just doesn't get there.

Vivian (Agnes Bruckner) lives in Bucharest -that's in Romania, folks - where all the vampires come from - they couldn't even give the werewolves their own country. WTF?
She lives with an aunt because her parents are dead, killed by an nasty pack of werewolves. Vivian has her own little secret as well. Bet you can guess what it is. Yep, her time of the month is exceptionally harsh.

Aiden (Hugh Dancy, in an odd role choice) is a graphic artist traveling through Bucharest when he is bewitched by Vivian and they fall in love.
Unfortunately, Vivian is promised to the leader of the pack (please refrain from singing...), Gabriel (Olivier Martinez, who was much lovelier in 'Unfaithful'..).
Fighting ensues. Blah Blah Blah.

Basically all I can say good about this movie is this: They used real wolves instead of really bad CGI or crappy effects. It worked for me, but that's about all that did.
This movie falls flat on so many levels.

I am convinced there have only been three good werewolf movies in the last thirty years: An American Werewolf in London and The Howling (both 1981) and the under-rated and under-appreciated Dog Soldiers (2002)...
(Mini-props to Ginger Snaps (2000), I guess.)

Guess we'll see how they do with the Wolfman remake and New Moon... surely someone will get it right...

But for now, I'll just take my vampires, thanks.

Besides, not to be rude, but if you have sex with a werewolf (before he changes I hope) - does that mean you are into beastiality?
Ew. Bring on the vamps.

All the Best for a HORRORble 2009!