Movie Review: Untraceable (2008)

Untraceable (2008)

Generic, Yet Fulfilling

Directed By: Gregory Hoblit
Starring: Diane Lane, Billy Burke, Colin Hanks, & Joseph Cross
MPAA Rating: “R” (for grisly violence and torture, and some language)

After a rather lengthy break from watching and reviewing movies (my apologies), I decided to jump headlong back into the game with the Diane Lane thriller, Untraceable. What I expected was a rather formulaic thriller that was enjoyable strictly on a very basic level...and that, for better or worse, is exactly what I got. It runs along a very basic pattern with every twist and turn calculated down to the very second. The characters are given clichéd back stories that never amount to much except for the bare minimum of characterization. The conclusion is not particularly complex, overly-explained, and fairly predictable. However, Untraceable proposes several intriguing moral questions, sports some gruesome death scenes, and features Diane Lane in a competent and likable performance.

Jennifer Marsh is a single mother and FBI agent who is very good at what she does. She is known for tracking down internet criminals, so it is not surprising when a website called “Kill With Me” turns up on her screen. It displays a cat that is dying faster with every person who is logged on, and it is live. The solution seems simple: shut down the website. But, of course, it just keeps coming back up and it is impossible to trace because it has been routed through an intricate web of computers. “It’s just a cat,” one of her colleagues says. He is right...until the cat dies and is replaced by a human. Very quickly, the situation grows far more desperate. As people continue to disappear and reappear on the website only to die and as millions of viewers continue to tune in, Jennifer and her team race to uncover the identity of the killer, not knowing that he already knows who they are and has equally-horrific plans for each of them.

There are a few actresses who could peel potatoes and I would crawl out of my basement, pay ten bucks for a ticket, and spend twenty more dollars on popcorn and a coke just to watch them do it. Diane Lane is one of them. She is a great actress and, though she does deserve better roles than this, she gives the film all the fuel its plot and second-hand screenplay lack. She brings emotion to the dully-written part, which could have been played by a man with only a few minor tweaks and no one would have noticed. It is the kind of part written for any thespian and it is difficult to imagine any of the screenwriters putting much thought or emotion into its creation. Still, Lane shines just as brightly as ever, providing grace, dignity, and respect to the film.

Untraceable is the kind of film you watch, expecting a solid mystery with a dash of morality. Beneath its blood-splattered exterior, there is an intriguing (if not slightly hypocritical) statement against audience’s obsession with violence. Of course, the message may be more effective if it was not being displayed in a film that also features a man being burnt to death by heat lamps in an extended scene. So yes, it is hypocritical in its message and it really is never as intelligent as it thinks it is, providing a few lapses in logic and all too convenient occurrences to keep the pace bubbling along. However, it makes up for this by delivering a tight and competent thriller that never allows things to get boring. You may have seen all of this before, but Untraceable moves so quickly and viciously that you won’t have time to notice.

Movie Review: Land of the Dead (2005)

Land of the Dead (2005)

The Dead Walk Again!

Directed By: George A. Romero
Starring: Simon Baker, John Leguizamo, Dennis Hopper, & Asia Argento
MPAA Rating: “R” (for pervasive strong violence and gore, language, brief sexuality and some drug use)

Twenty years after Romero made Day of the Dead, he returns to the franchise that made him a legend and, with him, he brings a thoroughly-talented cast, slick visuals, and more blood and gore than you could ever want. It may not be his best film when compared with the likes of Night of the Living Dead (1968) and Dawn of the Dead (1978), but it is better than Day of the Dead and it vividly displays the talent that made him famous. He again expands upon his own series by further challenging our knowledge of the zombies. The bloodthirsty creatures are again learning and advancing, making them just as intriguing as they were twenty years earlier.

Not long after the events portrayed in Day of the Dead, a large group of survivors has holed up within the confines of a city surrounded by rivers. The wealthy, led by the villainous Kaufman (Hopper), have locked themselves in a massive skyscraper named Fiddler’s Green that has everything anyone could ever need to survive. Kaufman allows the poor to live on the surrounding streets, though this is probably due to his need for workers rather than anything else. The poor include the heroic Riley (Baker) and the self-centered Cholo (Leguizamo) who are constantly at odds with each other. When Cholo, who has been personally serving Kaufman for years, is refused access to the Fiddler’s Green, he decides to lead a violent attack on the building. Suddenly, the delicate balance of survival is ruined and zombies begin to overtake the city. Now, Riley and a small group of comrades must try to stop Cholo and the impending zombie invasion.

George A. Romero has a way of never disappointing...at least not with this franchise. Even Day of the Dead, which is arguably the weakest of the series, is still a good movie. Land of the Dead is no exception and this is perhaps his greatest achievement since Night, not because it is better but because it is still this good after all of these years. With hundreds of other zombie films having been made and forgotten over the years, it is somewhat amazing that Romero still manages to keep his creatures interesting, frightening, and the best of the bunch. Clearly, he has something that no other filmmaker has; I don’t know what it is, but he has it. His creatures are still scary and we are still in awe of them whenever they walk (or shuffle) on screen.

Land of the Dead is not a complete return to form for Romero who saw his series stumble on slightly in 1985 with the release of the too-talkative Day of the Dead, but it is still a pretty great film. Despite the fact that all of the characters except for about five are completely interchangeable and the ending is perhaps a little too happy, Land of the Dead is still a genuinely fun zombie film. The social satire is still very much prevalent and the gore flows like a raging river. Gore hounds will love to see Romero get back to filming what he films best: zombies decapitating, devouring, and otherwise dismembering a slew of hapless victims. Romero has never been one for subtlety and filmmakers everywhere should take a lesson from the aged, but not dulled director. He has proven to be one of the most innovative and amazing horror filmmakers over the years and, if Land of the Dead is any indication, he won’t be slowing down any time soon.

Movie Review: The Eye (2002)

The Eye (2002)

What You Can’t See…

Directed By: The Pang Brothers
Starring: Angelica Lee & Lawrence Chou
MPAA Rating: “R” (for some disturbing images)

Here is a sinister little film that gets under your skin, squirms around, and then takes a thick bite out of your flesh. The Eye is a superior ghost story, one that sets a new standard for modern horror. The film is never gory and never cheap with its thrills; instead, it takes the high road. Here is an intelligent film, one that scares its audience with genuine suspense and scares. Sporting solid performances, insane ghost effects (you could see me squirming in my chair from frame one and I never stopped), and an explosive ending that is perfectly bleak, The Eye is a fulfilling, wonderful, and truly horrifying film. Its progression into terror seems natural, unlike most films that seem to progress about as casually as a bull in a china store. People looking for an example of a good ghost story should look no farther than The Eye. Unfortunately for us, so many looked no farther than just creating more insipid remakes. Don’t be fooled; The Eye is a true original.

Mun Mun (Lee) is a beautiful young woman who has blind since birth. When doctors perform a cornea transplant in hopes of reversing her blindness, she can finally see for the first time in her life. However, she can see more than just the world around her...she can see ghostly apparitions that seem to haunt her every move. As she races to uncover the secrets behind the original owner of her eyes, she discovers that a terrible tragedy is about to occur and only she can stop it...but can she uncover the mystery before it is too late? What begins as a quiet, reserved film that relishes long moments of eerie silence quickly explodes into a horrific scene of carnage that is unexpected and very effective due to its stark contrast with the rest of the film. Of course, much of the film is carried by the beautiful and very talented Angelica Lee who never strays away from the camera for more than a minute. She is very expressive and handles the part differently than most actresses who would, no doubt, slap on as many fake tears as possible and scream madly with arms flailing. She, like the film, is reserved and introspective, making her journey all the more compelling.

The Eye (2002) is what you may consider to be a hidden gem...not because it hasn’t gotten enough publicity, but because it never begs to be the next great genre offering. It exists and, through this existence, it achieves greatness. The booming musical score, the grisly ghosts that snarl and grasp at hapless victims, and the big-breasted girl who is always screaming madly are all precariously missing. Instead, we have a thoroughly mellow film, one that is amazing because of what it is not, rather than what it is. This is not the kind of horror film we have come to expect. This is not your typical ghost story. This is not just a series of cheap scare tactics. If someone had told me their plans to create a film like The Eye beforehand, I would have chuckled slightly and then quietly, yet mournfully informed them that it would never work...at least, not with audiences. Critics may praise its artistry, but audiences would storm out feeling like they had just been sucker-punched. I would have been wrong. The Eye is a film that works well with both critics and audiences. This is what horror looks like when it is used as an art, not as a gimmick.

Movie Review: Reeker (2005)

Reeker (2005)

Something Stinks…

Directed By: Dave Payne
Starring: Devon Gummersall, Derek Richardson, & Tina Illman
MPAA Rating: “R” (Not Rated)

Reeker has a rather compelling thought behind all of its violence and dumb characters. What could have been an intriguing psychological thriller, unfortunately, quickly divulges into just another slasher flick with a decidedly unconvincing slasher. This killer, which strangely smells horribly bad, has no boundaries and no real identity. One might say that this is necessary in order to make the twist ending convincing, but I say that it is just bad writing. This slasher can teleport, carry an arsenal of weapons with ease, and hide in the toilet of an outhouse. Because of this, there is no sense of chase or an ability to escape; in an instant, the slasher, which was just miles away, can be right beside a potential victim, leaving them incapable of escape. This may make the situation seem more desperate for the characters, but it is hardly fun to watch.

Five friends, including the blind Jack (Gummersall) and the tough-talking Gretchen (Illman), find themselves stranded in the middle of nowhere when their car breaks down. They find themselves at a local diner with no working television, radio, or cell phone. They also stumble upon the strange Henry (Michael Ironside) who is desperately searching for his wife who went missing during one of his many black-outs. Suddenly, a ghostly specter begins killing all of the friends off one-by-one. As people around them die in horrifically gruesome ways, Jack and Gretchen decide that they must work together in order to escape similar fates. Little do they know, this specter is not just any regular killer; it is death itself and escaping it may prove to be the most terrifying nightmare ever. Or something like that, I guess...

Reeker is one of the many films that was built around its twist; in fact, it is almost as if we are merely watching the twist ending play out in a rather lengthy way. Fortunately, I enjoyed the ending and I felt that it was quite appropriate. The various clues that were left along the way (that seemed completely irrelevant at the time) became interesting tools to show that the ending was not just tacked on right at the end...well, those and the fact that the killer, the setting, and the deaths are all based on the twist, as well. Everything...yes, everything...is all about this twist. In reality, it is a rather surprising twist, one that perhaps would not have worked had it not been handled so well. Unfortunately, the other aspects of the film are not handled nearly as well. The slasher aspects are thoroughly uninspired and dull.

When Reeker ended, I couldn’t help but feel let down and yet not really surprised. Having heard a fairly positive response from other genre fans, I went into it wanting to see a really a great slasher flick and yet not expecting one. What I got was something in between what I wanted and what I expected. It certainly is an original look at the slasher genre and its ending is thought-provoking and fun, but the stalk-and-kill sequences are not interesting at all despite the fact that the potential is always there (i.e. the toilet sequence...what happened?). However, I still enjoyed Reeker as a somewhat cheesy, but entertaining piece of horror garbage. Pauline Kael once said, “The movies are so rarely great art, that if we cannot appreciate great trash, we should not go at all.” It may not be great, but Reeker certainly is good trash.

The Most Anticipated Summer Films

I may specialize in the horror genre, but not many scares will be delivered this summer. So, I have decided to provide for you a short list of my seven most anticipated summer films. For the purpose of this list, I am looking at all films being released between the beginning of May and the third week of August. With that out of the way, here we go.

7.) The Incredible Hulk - June 13, 2008

I skipped the Eric Bana Hulk (2003) during its theatrical run after hearing so many abysmal things and, for one reason or the other, I never picked it up on DVD either. Now, the Incredible Hulk will be returning to the big screen in a completely new film, which has the potential to start a solid franchise. I have enjoyed all of the marketing thus far and the casting...well, it's worth a full admission price by itself. Put Edward Norton and Liv Tyler in a movie with a big green monster in purple shorts that causes all kinds of destruction and I am there with bells on.

6.) The Happening - June 13, 2008

Whatever happened to M. Night Shymalan, the man who crafted such masterful horror experiences as Signs and The Sixth Sense? Well, he killed his career with such disappointments as Lady in the Water and The Village. Now, he is trying to revive his career with The Happening, which looks like a return to form for the ailing director. With a top-notch cast that includes Mark Wahlberg and Zooey Deschanel and a trailer that is rather chill-inducing, Shymalan could make or break his recovery with this film. Either way, I want to see it happen...and my money is still on The Happening becoming a big hit.

5.) The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian - May 16, 2008

I really loved The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe and so I am excited to see what Prince Caspian has to offer. If nothing else, it should sport some epic battle scenes, great visual effects, and beautiful scenery. These films are filled with hidden meanings and symbolic undertones and yet they never seem bogged down by them. With all of the heavy political moments and thick dialog, The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe was still a very fun film to watch. I expect the same thing here...except on a much grander scale.

4.) The Strangers - May 30, 2008

Liv Tyler could star as a hood ornament in a sequel to The Dukes of Hazzard and I would still show up, giddy with excitement. There is just something so magnetic and wonderful about her. Put her in what could possibly be the scariest horror film of the year and I am camping out of the movie theater. From everything I have seen and heard, The Strangers is going to be one of the few films of the year that really delivers genuine scares and terror. Even the trailer (check it out, if you haven't already) sends chills up my spine.

3.) Sex and the City - May 30, 2008

I know exactly what you are thinking...Sex and the City? What can I say? The show is one of my favorites, filled with sharp humor and witty dialog. It's a great show, even if most men won't admit it! So, I am very excited for this film, which looks like it captures the feel of the show wonderfully well. This is a distinct change in pace from the hustle and bustle of the summer season and, quite honestly, I find it very refreshing. With all of the explosions and over-the-top violence, a slower-paced and colorful comedy will be just the ticket. For all of these reasons, Sex and the City is one of my most anticipated films of the summer season.

2.) The Dark Knight - July 18, 2008

Who isn't anticipating this movie? This is the sequel to one of the most amazing comic book adaptations ever, Batman Begins. This film shows the return of much of the same cast, with only Katie Holmes opting not to come back (but Maggie Gyllenhaal replaced her so producers traded up) and it also adds Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent and Heath Ledger as The Joker. With an extensive viral marketing campaign that includes everything from mysterious websites to strange emails sent to popular bloggers, The Dark Knight has achieved massive acclaim and interest. Mark my words, this film will be remembered for years.

1.) Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - May 22, 2008

What else could possibly top this list? The Indiana Jones series became a staple of cinema lovers' hearts years ago and to see a new installment (complete with Cate Blanchett in a villainous role) is very exciting. It has the return of Harrison Ford as the whip-snapping adventurer and that alone is absolutely fascinating. This film has a huge legacy to live up to and, though the margin for disappointment is large, I have faith in Ford and Steven Spielberg to make yet another amazing movie. If only Sean Connery would have returned, this would have had me running madly to the movie theaters. As it is, I'm just walking quickly.

Movie Review: Day of the Dead (1985)

Day of the Dead (1985)

Innovative, But Unfortunate

Directed By: George A. Romero
Starring: Lori Cardille, Terry Alexander, & Joseph Pilato
MPAA Rating: “Not Rated”

Day of the Dead (1985) is a good film, but it has the sincere misfortune of following in the footsteps of Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead. Those films were amazing, filled with horrific violence, intense character relationships, and true terror displayed on screen. They were unique experiences in horror that have defined the zombie subgenre. The zombies presented in Day of the Dead look better than ever and the gore has been perfected; these are amazing creations and the violence that enshrouds them is even more brutally wonderful. But these creations are sitting in the backseat here...behind the overacted melodrama of a thoroughly boring cast of survivors, with the exception of the lone female, Sarah (Cardille), who is so righteous and heroic that we all know she will survive.

The world has been completely decimated by the ghouls that plagued Romero’s previous films. It seemed as though Dawn of the Dead displayed this apocalypse of sorts, but Day takes it one step farther. There is nothing left that we see; the film opens with Sarah and a few other survivors looking for any people who may be hiding in a city only to see that there is definitely no one left. Only the dead come out to greet them. They return to an underground military base where a sadistic Captain Rhodes (Pilato) has taken over control. There are only twelve people there and they are quickly divided into the categories of good and evil, with the maniacal Doctor Logan (Richard Liberty), a blood-splattered scientist researching the creatures, balanced in the middle. As the two groups square off, the ghouls accidentally access the facility and a new nightmare begins.

What this plot synopsis does not tell you is that this invasion does not begin until the last act; the rest of the film, though entertaining enough for what it is, is fairly focused on building dread and delivering insincere melodrama. Our survivors spend much of the film screaming, when they should be talking and bickering endlessly, when they should be thinking through their problems. It does not seem to flow and the confrontations seem like desperate plot devices. Joseph Pilato, playing Rhodes, overacts to a level that would make Cruella De Vil jealous and the rest of the villainous army men follow suit. The conflict between the two groups is hollow and contrived, which would not necessarily be a problem if it was used as a mere subplot; instead, it is the plot. It just becomes tiring and, I must admit, a little annoying.

After reading all of that ranting, you might expect me to not like Day of the Dead. Actually, I really enjoyed it; in fact, I may have loved it had it not had such an incredible family history to live up to. This is a typical eighties film, better than most, but suffering from the same problems: a meandering plot, senseless characters, and bad acting (with the exception of Ms. Cardille who does exceptionally well and a few other supporting actors). Romero succeeds, however, when he unleashes the final act, which is bloody, violent, and brilliant. Here, he makes up for all of the inane dialog by filming what he films best: zombie carnage. Zombies literally tear through characters, spilling intestines and other vital organs everywhere. It’s a great conclusion to the film. Romero also excels when he is depicting the relationship with Doctor Logan and the zombie Bub (Sherman Howard). Here is where he continues the evolution of his carnivorous villains and it’s an amazing relationship. Day of the Dead is good, not necessarily great, and even though it may not live up to the glory of its predecessors, it is still a fun Romero film.

Movie Review: Dawn of the Dead (1978)

Dawn of the Dead (1978)

Completely Different...Still Amazing

Directed By: George A. Romero
Starring: David Emge, Ken Foree, Scott H. Reiniger, & Gaylen Ross
MPAA Rating: “Not Rated”

With Night of the Living Dead (1968), George A. Romero showed that he was a talented writer/director with a knack for horror. With Dawn of the Dead (1978), he shows his versatility. Yes, he is still working with the living dead, but this film is nothing like the grainy, black-and-white film we all know and love. Whereas the first film was steeped in horrific visuals and dark suspense, Dawn of the Dead revels in bloody violence and humor. It is filmed on a much grander scale, in a large shopping mall rather than in a confined farmhouse, and features bigger stunts and larger action. This is the quintessential sequel, one that expands upon the original without ever being overshadowed by it and yet never lacks what made the original so great.

Picking up where Night of the Living Dead left off, the world is consumed with the ghastly creatures that had tortured the farmhouse, and there is no sign of the epidemic stopping. Four survivors--Stephen (Emge), Peter (Foree), Roger (Reiniger), and a pregnant Francine (Ross)--take a helicopter in hopes of escaping the infestation. After being attacked while refueling, they decide to take refuge at a nearby shopping mall. They stay there for months, starting new lives and using supplies gathered from the mall to survive. Tensions begin to mount when the infection tears through the group and they are forced to decide whether or not they should kill the infected person or let the infection play out in his body. It soon becomes clear that survival will become more challenging than ever when a group of violent bikers attack the mall.

Night of the Living Dead featured some of the most gruesome scenes in cinematic history with images of a daughter devouring her father and more, but Dawn of the Dead takes this gruesomeness to a new level. Made ten years after the original film, it is filmed entirely in a vivid color that makes the still gory death sequences even more horrifying. Blood that closely resembles red latex paint runs coats the entire film and Romero never turns away from images of snarling jaws sinking into raw flesh and ripping it from an arm or a leg or a neck followed by a spray of this blood. It is strange that so many years later, it is rare to see violence and gore used this effectively. I suppose it is because we have become fascinated with computer-generated effects and have forgotten the masterful simplicity of a good ole’ prosthetic.

Dawn of the Dead is a rare occurrence; it is a sequel that is as good as and perhaps even better than its predecessor. It takes the original material, expands upon it, and yet still retains the terror and brutality. There is a usual problem with sequels that Romero manages to avoid. After you have revealed the monster in the first film and shown it in its entirety, how do you again make it scary in a sequel? By the time the new film rolls around, we should know all about the ghastly creature or, in this case, creatures. Romero avoids this pitfall by showing a mental evolution within the creatures. Unlike what was presented in the first film, the ghouls here remember their past lives and use it to their advantage. They remember hallways, doorways, and hiding places; this makes them far more than just bumbling carnivores. With Dawn of the Dead, Romero makes his zombie-infested universe even more terrifying.

Movie Review: Night of the Living Dead (1968)

Night of the Living Dead (1968)

Exactly What You’ve Heard

Directed By: George A. Romero
Starring: Judith O’Dea, Duane Jones, & Karl Hardman
MPAA Rating: “Unrated”

This will probably be my shortest review thus far, because everyone has heard of Night of the Living Dead (1968) and its greatness has been discussed ever since it was released. I suppose that my review is rather inconsequential because of this, but it never hurts to throw one out there (especially since I will be reviewing the entire series within the next few days). Yes, Night of the Living Dead is a great film and it is one of my favorites, one that is unforgettable and completely horrifying. Because of its low-budget and inexperienced team of filmmakers, it is an even more remarkable feat in cinematic history. This is the film that all aspiring filmmakers hope to make...and yet so few do.

The plot is very simple. Barbra (O’Dea) is on a road trip to visit the grave of a family member with her brother, when a shuffling, grotesque man emerges from the mist and kills her brother. Barbra flees to a nearby farmhouse, which is seemingly abandoned. There she meets Ben (Jones), a heroic black man who boards up the house. Through the cracks, they watch as the outside world is consumed by people exactly like the ones that killed Barbra’s brother. A small television informs them that this is not just a small accident, but rather a global epidemic. When Barbra and Ben discover that a family and a young couple are hiding in the basement, the patriarch Harry Cooper (Hardman) immediately wants to take command. Quickly, tensions between Harry and Ben begin to mount and they discover that the greatest threat to their survival may not be the ghouls outside...but their comrades inside.

If there has ever been a film that was the perfect jumpstart for a franchise and yet a perfect individual film on its own, Night of the Living Dead is it. Romero has crafted an ingenious motion picture that is genuinely effective and a staple for any horror movie fan. What really is there to say that has not been said? The cast is phenomenal, the ghoul effects are sinister and creepy, the direction is stark, the grainy feel to it all only increases the efficiency, and the ending is thought-provoking and perfectly fitting. The social commentary runs thick beneath the surface (though it has been denied by the filmmakers), giving an entirely new and intriguing level to the whole film. This really is one of my favorite films, and it is one that I can always turn to when modern cinema lets me down (which is quite often). If you haven’t seen Night of the Living Dead, why haven’t you? If you have and you didn’t like it, then stand still while I get a burlap sack and some sticks. This is horror cinema at its finest.

Movie Review: Shrooms (2006)

Shrooms (2006)

Loses Its Way

Directed By: Paddy Breathnach
Starring: Lindsey Haun, Jake Huston, & Maya Hazen
MPAA Rating: “Not Rated”

I don’t know what I expected Shrooms to be...but it certainly wasn’t what it was. This is probably because I didn’t expect a bad movie, but that is exactly what I got. The film has a rather intriguing premise and a competent enough cast partnered with slick direction, so what exactly went wrong? Shrooms executes its plot with no real interest or sense of entertainment. It follows a cyclical routine that constantly repeats itself over and over until the film’s twist ending that only serves as a means of eliminating any interest the rest of the film may have had. It’s all just very blah and rather grating when, at the end of it all, we realize just how much potential was completely squandered by inept screenwriters who could not maintain a smooth narrative to save their lives.

A group of Americans venture to Ireland so that they can take shrooms, get high, and have fun. Unfortunately for them, someone or something has different plans. Soon, the friends all begin to die one-by-one and, as panic sets in, they begin to turn on each other, desperate to stay alive. However, one of them, Tara (Haun), happened to have taken deadly Shrooms just before the killer struck and, instead of dying, she now can see the future. Now, she must use her visions to save her friends...but can she save them in time? The answer to this question is, of course, “No!” Much of the film revolves around Tara having a vision (complete with tacky editing and creepy music) and then that vision being played out seconds later in reality. Half of the time, the visions make more sense than the actual occurrences, which are shot in an even more uninspired manner.

Shrooms is not a good movie...in fact, is a thoroughly bad one that starts off in the right direction and quickly veers off into darkened territory before finally losing us completely. It sports a nice cast and passable direction (for the most part, with the exception of the death scenes), as well as a sinister-looking villain. The only problem is that we never know if what we are seeing is real. Is that ghostly specter real? Should they really be running? Are people dying? What really is going on? This normally would not be a problem if it were not for the absurd and disappointing conclusion that attempts to wrap everything up in an implausible and all-too-simplistic way. The ending is unforeseeable, because it makes very little sense and, once you have seen it, you will wish you hadn’t.

I reviewed a film called Crazy Eights not too long ago and much of my review was centered on it having so much wasted potential. Shrooms suffers from the same mistake, though possibly on a lesser scale because, at least, it does not waste a relatively famous cast (i.e. Dina Meyer). It was filmed by a first-time horror director with a cast of complete unknowns (Teenage girls may recognize the face of Robert Hoffman from such films as She’s the Man and Step Up 2 the Streets, but that is about it). I always want films such as these to succeed and go on to become great cult classics, but that just will not happen with Shrooms. Contrary to the belief commonly held by most critics, we horror fans do indeed enjoy quality films and this film, most certainly, is not one of them. This is what gives horror films a bad name.

Movie Review: The Return of the Living Dead (1985)

The Return of the Living Dead (1985)

Hilarious and Gruesome

Directed By: Dan O’Bannon
Starring: Clu Culager, Thom Matthews, Don Calfa, & Beverly Randolph
MPAA Rating: “R”

The Return of the Living Dead (1985) may sound like a sequel to Night of the Living Dead (1968), but it is actually not. In fact, the movie claims to be a sequel to the supposed factual events that inspired George A. Romero’s film (but that were changed so that the U.S. Army wouldn’t sue the filmmakers). Very quickly we can see that The Return of the Living Dead is not going to be a scary horror film. Instead, this is a horror comedy and a very effective one at that. The film proceeds through various stages of gore, ghouls, and gags never really attempting to take itself seriously. This is, I believe, what keeps The Return of the Living Dead from being a rip-off and instead keeping it somewhere in between an homage and a satire.

At a medical supply warehouse, Frank (James Karen) is showing new employee Freddy (Matthews) around on his first day of the work. Soon, he begins to reveal the shocking truth of Night of the Living Dead...and the horrifying fact that the real zombies are in the basement of that very warehouse. When the two men go down to check it out, they accidentally release toxic gas that quickly spreads all over the town, bringing the dead up from their graves. Instead of calling the emergency number listed on the side of the gas canister, Frank calls the owner of the warehouse, Burt (Culager), who takes them all over to the nearby mortuary so that they can cremate all of the evidence of the gas leak. However, soon the men and a group of Freddy’s friends realize that this nightmare is far from being over.

The Return of the Living Dead has everything that fans of eighties horror should enjoy. The film is splattered in all kinds of blood and gore, with the slimy zombies moaning “Brains! I want to eat your brains!” endlessly and then acting upon this desire with a bunch of punk rock teenagers, four paramedics, endless police officers, and more. Yes, the blood is spread on heavily here. The film also sports a fun soundtrack, slick direction (I loved the entire scene with the smoke rising into the rain and the rain seeping into the graveyard), solid acting from the leads (though not from the supporting cast, which doesn’t last long anyway), and the flame-haired Linnea Quigley doing an erotic striptease and then remaining nude for the rest of the film (yes, even as a zombie). If that wasn’t enough, it also has a bold, refreshing ending and a hilarious sense of humor.

Was there anything bad about this film? Not really...even the negative aspects (i.e. the talent-lacking supporting cast) only made the film seem even more hysterically over-the-top and effective. So, I really enjoyed The Return of the Living Dead for what it was: a comical companion piece to Night of the Living Dead that features creepy creature effects, slimy gore gags, a vibrant leading cast, and more fun than a barrel of monkeys. It even does manage to be frightening at times (The “Send more paramedics...” line sent shivers up my spine) and occasionally disturbing (The rigor mortis sequences were highly-effective and made me shudder). I also really dug the fact that everything (even the dead butterflies on display and the dissected dogs) came back from the dead...an intriguing twist. When everything was said and done, The Return of the Living Dead delivered everything it wanted to with style, humor, and ample gore.

Movie Review: Don't Go in the Woods (1981)

Don’t Go in the Woods (1981)

Undeniably Awful

Directed By: James Bryan
Starring: Jack McClelland, Mary Gail Artz, & Angie Brown
MPAA Rating: “R”

I once heard someone say that Don’t Go in the Woods was just an unpretentious slasher flick that really only wanted to have fun. I can certainly see where they were coming from; the film is a technical disaster with everything, from the acting to the musical score, being of the worst quality imaginable. But, horror fans have come to look past technical aspects to enjoy many fun films so why should Don’t Go in the Woods be any different? Well, because it really isn’t fun...at all. In fact, this is one of the most boring films I have ever sat through. The plot is perhaps incomprehensible, though we do somewhat figure out that there is a killer and that people are dying just by the seeing people groan followed by a dribble of blood in the grass.

The plot is barely existent, but I will try to make due with what was provided. Four campers (McClelland, Artz, Brown, and James P. Hayden) head off into the woods for a little bit of fun. Meanwhile, a whole bunch of random and thoroughly grating people (One word: “Dick!”) are brutally butchered (or, at least, I think they are, but it was hard to make out exactly what was happening). When the killer turns on the friends and kills one of them, two manage to successfully escape the woods and reach the police. Realizing that they have left one of their friends behind, they head for a little bit of vigilante justice as the bumbling cops stay two steps behind everything. Blood flies, more people die, and then the movie ends. Does that sound interesting to you? It did to me too; unfortunately, the movie is not nearly that fun.

Having just reviewed the abysmal One Missed Call (2008), I can honestly say that, though Hollywood is in a rather dire state right now, even the worst of our films hardly come close to the atrociousness of Don’t Go in the Woods. As I have said, the film is a technical disaster. Characterization? There wasn’t any. Writing? Really bad. Editing? Good heavens! Direction? Jerky and annoying. Musical score? Too comical for a serious horror film (or any horror film for that matter). Acting? Terrible, terrible, and yes, terrible from everyone. Don’t Go in the Woods is filled with first-time actors who never acted again (Artz went on to become a popular casting director, but she was never seen in front of the camera after this). I wouldn’t go so far as to say that this film ruined most of their careers, but I also think that it, if I were a producer, I would never hire an actor from this film.

I didn’t like House of 1000 Corpses. I didn’t like One Missed Call (2008). I didn’t like Lake Dead. But, I absolutely hated Don’t Go in the Woods. I understand that it was a low-budget film that came from the horror mass production era known as the eighties, but even the dumbest, most incompetent film can at least be pure entertainment. This, however, is not. It is just very bland and it plays out like a bad joke that never realizes how bad it really is. Instead, it just keeps going, sinking deeper and deeper into its own stupidity and aimlessness. Is there anything good to be said here? Well, I really enjoyed the first of the two hanging sleeping bag scenes. Someone should really post that on Youtube so that horror fans can watch it without having to endure the rest of the film.

Movie Review: May (2002)

May (2002)

Genuinely Effective

Directed By: Lucky McKee
Starring: Angela Bettis, Jeremy Sisto, & Anna Faris
MPAA Rating: “R” (for strong violence/gore, some sexuality and language)

I had heard about May ever since it was released, but I never got around to seeing it until just now. May is one of the few horror films that connected with critics and genre fans alike. It was praised for its psychological aspects and its genuine creepiness, but most of all for Angela Bettis as the titular character. Bettis is one of the most underappreciated actresses working today and her talent is on vivid display here. If this was a slasher flick, Bettis would be the slasher...but she is far too good here to fall in the same category as the obsessed maniac from Prom Night (2008) or the demented family from House of 1000 Corpses. Instead, she pulls the film from being cheap slasher fare to being a darkly-humorous psychological character study.

May Canady (Bettis) never had a happy life. She was isolated from her school friends because of a patch that covered her lazy eye...but her mother tried to fix this by giving her a doll housed in a glass box. May grew up with this doll as her only friend, until she meets Adam (Sisto), the “perfect” guy who doesn’t seem to mind the fact that she is obsessed with his hands and rarely speaks. In fact, Adam likes weird or so he says...but he doesn’t know just how weird May is. May also grows close to her coworker, Polly (Faris). Polly is a lesbian who is attracted to May. She also does not seem to mind the fact that May is weird. When May’s doll is accidentally destroyed, she becomes desperate to make a new friend and, as her mother said, “If you can’t find a friend, make one!”

May begins on an air of happiness...perhaps not happiness, but contentment. May is lonely, but she does not necessarily seem to mind. After all, she has her doll and the doll keeps her company. The film progresses through her various encounters, especially those with Adam and Polly. Her relationship with Adam grows from awkward yet tender to awkward yet dark when a sexual encounter ends with May getting a little too rough for Adam’s comfort. The film descends evenly and constantly to a place of darkness that is almost unimaginable. Whereas most horror films use their violence to shock or even excite audiences, May uses it to disturb and to terrify. Once May commits unspeakable actions in the name of friendship, we finally see the true horror that resides within her mind and, though it seems so sudden in the film, we realize that the entire first three-fourths had been leading us to such violence.

I kept expecting May to resist its natural progression, to succumb to the temptation of becoming typical Hollywood fare, but it never does. May is a bold film, never sacrificing its own genuine nature in favor of becoming a safe film. Once the violent and blood-soaked final act kicks in, we are treated (well, perhaps “treated” is not the correct word) with scenes that are, quite simply, terrifying. They are a stark contrast to the more subdued feeling behind the rest of the film, but Angela Bettis and Lucky McKee (a pairing that can only be described as perfection) make this transition seem so natural and even more disturbing. It’s easy to see why May never received a wide theatrical release (it did have a limited one), though it certainly deserves one. Studios seemed to be determined to choose safer projects and May never even pretends to be safe. This is a bold, brutal, and truly disturbing psychological film.