Tales of Halloween

Not since “Trick ‘R Treat”, which is nearly 10 years old as of this writing, has a horror anthology film about the most spooky of holidays come into the public eye, so it is understandable the amount of hype this movie received. The film, a compilation of 10 grim tales set in one unlucky town on Halloween night, promises to deliver thrills, chills and even some nervous laughs right from the beginning. The opening credits are beautifully done, setting the tone with their cartoonish pop ups and continuous feed of compelling story titles and enticing directorial nods. The film then opens formally with Adrienne Barbeau’s wonderfully creepy voice over the radio, an excellent nod to “The Fog” for those of us who appreciate the classics. But with all the industry buzz, all the spooky credits, even Miss Barbeau’s sultry vocals, does “Tales of Halloween” come through on it’s promise of ‘Tricks, Treats and Terror’? Well, boys and ghouls, let’s turn down the lights, grab a glass of of warm cider and some candy corn and see how we fare at the end of the night.

“Tales of Halloween” is a series of ten loosely related stories woven into a single runtime. Each story is written and directed by a different person, which makes judging the movie as a whole a bit difficult. The key to that sentence is the combination of “written and directed”. This is not a hack job project where they bought a bunch of scripts and had a bunch of folks go to town on them; each story is fully owned and authored by the director. That much is easy to see as you watch the film. The directing style always fits the story, for better or worse. And, just to be clear, there are plenty of examples of both. While it would be overkill to separately discuss each story, I will try to touch on them all here and then cite examples to compose an overall critique.

The movie opens with its strongest tale, ‘Sweet Tooth’. It is a classic Halloween tale at its best: a caution to children not to eat too much candy. It embraces every modern and commercial aspect of the holiday, but also keeps its horror edge sharp. This is the kind of story of murder and monsters that your parents heard about Halloween growing up, not something you ever worried about. Which is exactly what we need more of these days. The second story, ‘The Night Billy Raised Hell’, sticks with that classic Halloween vibe and adds in pranks gone wrong and devilish revenge to the mix. Barry Bostwick playing the grumpy old neighbor is just icing on the cake for me here. Darren Bousman does a spectacular job here creating a visual treat for us through lots of goofy camera play and quick action. It all made sense for me when I realized he was the guy responsible for the surprisingly fun “Repo! The Genetic Opera” and “The Devil’s Carnival”. The last of the classic Halloween stories is ‘Grim Grinning Ghost’, a ghost story about a girl driving home alone on All Hallow’s Eve. This one is tense and spooky, and really the only true ‘scary’ movie of the bunch.

Beyond those first three more traditional tales, there is a set of solid horror stories that deserve some recognition. The best of the bunch is “The Ransom of Rusty Rex”. It is well filmed, well acted, and the story has a delightfully twisted ending. I couldn’t help feeling throughout that I had heard the story before, but even now I still can’t place where it would have come from. Horror fans will appreciate the cameo at the end. Next on the list is “Friday the 31st”, which is just kooky and odd enough to be really enjoyable when you get to it. The timing of this one was is what seals it as a good addition to the film; had it been the first or last story, you would have a much lower impression of the film as a whole. It combines deformed murderers, possession, aliens and claymation all in about eight minutes of screen time. “This Means War”, not to be confused with the rom-com feature from a few years back, is another fun short that steps away from the flow of the rest of the film. It is a story of old school versus new school (well, something like new school), and kind of a way-too-metaphoric essay on the state of Halloween today. I’m not really sure what the writer was really going for, but if it was an “at face value” show of Halloween decorations and mayhem, I’ll take it. Rounding out the better set is “Bad Seed”, the final story of the anthology. While it is not the strongest, it is another story that benefits from its placement. The main characters are police officers, and the story almost serves to close out or put a wrapper around some of the other bits. The dialogue and action dances on the cheesy side, which again is perfectly okay in a movie like this. The story deals with a murderous jack-o-lantern and the officers trying to stop it. It had a serious “Halloween 3” vibe by the end, and all cheesiness withholding was pretty fun.

The last three are really not much to write home about. “Trick” tries to flip the Halloween child killer theme on its head, but doesn’t allow enough character build up to make the surprise finale much of a surprise. The gore factor was certainly there, but I’d prefer a more complete story in my Halloween anthology. “The Weak and the Wicked”, again, suffers from a lack of character development. I really enjoyed the bad-ass chick, but other than that everything about the plot seemed rushed. It also really missed the mark when it came to creature effects, I hate to say it. Finally we come to “Ding Dong”. With a little polish, this story of a childless young couple on Halloween could have been good, but I think the writer, Lucky McKee, just didn’t have enough time to develop the story he wanted. There is also the issue here of what is real and what is metaphor. I don’t think enough clues were given either direction for the audience to make an educated conclusion as to whether the dream-like sequences with the witch are supposed to be interpreted as reality or not. Lucky McKee, mind you, was the only name on the director list I actually recognized before watching the movie, so I expected more.

One of the biggest shortcomings of this film was its inevitable comparison (by general theme and structure as well as by critics) to “Trick ‘R Treat”. The two really are in a different ballpark. It’s like when people say the Alabama football team could beat the Jacksonville Jaguars. Sure, it’s fun to talk about, but in no way do they actually match up. The same goes here. “Trick ‘R Treat” has the cast and production value of an honest studio movie. “Tales of Halloween” just doesn’t. It’s not Busch League, but when you throw together a collection of ten unrelated shorts and try to stand up to a cohesive, multi-story movie that intertwines itself and has a singular style, you will fall short. “Tales of Halloween” is certainly not a bad movie, and as described above it is quite fun and shines at times, but is not the kind of movie that is going to find itself ingrained in the fabric of the holiday for years to come. I would love it if AMC or SciFi picked up the concept and did one of these every year, but that is more of the feel this movie has.

So, we’ve come to the end. The cider is gone, the bag of candy corn is empty and our belly’s are starting to feel the effects of consuming all those Halloween treats. Are we mad about it? No. Was it a good Halloween night? Definitely. Did we want more? Well, that’s the part that’s hard to say. Halloween only comes once a year, and a true blue Halloween movie comes less often than that. So while it may not be perfect, I’ll still tip my hat to a good effort and a fun time. I’ll definitely try something new next year, but this year certainly was good in its own way.

Story: 6

Visuals: 6

Fun Factor: 6

Burying the Ex

As a big fan of “Holliston”, I like to check out what else its creators, Adam Green and Joe Dante, are up to. After reviewing “Digging up the Marrow”, Green’s newest soiree, a couple months ago, I finally got around to renting Dante’s newest feature, “Burying the Ex”. The movie came out in June to very little fanfare. Critics and random web crawlers felt that it was a flop, just a dumb wannabe horror comedy lacking in fun, gore and scares. Even with the subpar reviews nagging at the back of my mind, I hoped that even though this movie wasn’t for everyone, I would still find it enjoyable. Fortunately, that was exactly the case. I’ll admit, this isn’t for everyone. It is very much a romantic comedy, just with some zombies and a hell of a lot of genre allusions. So, basically exactly what I figured it would be.

“Burying the Ex” is not your typical zombie movie. It is not your typical horror movie. And it is not your typical romantic comedy. However, if you are the kind of person that could possibly be interested in the intersection of those three, then this movie is highly recommended. The flick opens with Max, played by an excellent Anton Yelchin, dealing with his overbearing girlfriend Evelyn, played by the talented in oh-so-many ways Ashley Green. Max loves his girlfriend, but she has plenty of marks against her. When she is unexpectedly killed just before he plans to break up with her, Max turns into a wreck. Eventually he meets a new girl Olivia, played by Alexandra Daddario, who is everything he could ever ask for in a girl. Unfortunately, that is about the time that Evelyn comes back to life. See, she and Max made a vow to be together forever earlier in the movie, but because they said it unknowingly over a creepy devil-genie idol at the shop Max works at, it bound her even in death. Hey, there’s always gotta be a reason for zombies to show up. Now Evelyn wants her man back, Max wants his dead girlfriend to stay dead, and Olivia just wants to hang out with the new guy she likes. Sound like a fun love triangle?

What really makes this movie great is the set of characters that we see develop over the run time and the relationships between them. First we’ve got Max, who is the guy every horror movie fan can relate to. He’s kinda dorky, he works at a horror emporium (where is he required to tell his customers to ‘go to hell’ as they leave), but he’s really a good dude. And he has a super hot girlfriend. Evelyn, said girlfriend, is the kind of girl you could understand having a love/hate relationship with. On the one hand, she’s got the looks and sex drive to make anyone jealous; but on the other, she is a professional blogger, she is totally against artificial additives to foods, and she is a go-green Nazi. But… she’s really hot. Then we’ve got Olivia. She works at an ice cream shop with novelty genre and pop culture themed flavors. She’s totally obsessed with horror movies. She knows what “Fruit Brute” is. And she’s played by Alexandra Daddario. Do you suddenly see Max’s dilemma here? He’s got Evelyn, the safe choice, the known quantity, who has her faults but also her good aspects. But he’s also got the fun, attractive, new Olivia, who is so very like him and so seemingly perfect.

Okay, you see what I did there? I got really into the whole romantic comedy side of this movie and totally neglected the reason I’m reviewing it as a horror movie. I told you there were zombies, right? And you are still reading? Good. There is plenty of gore to go around. The zombie make up itself is pretty spectacular, nothing CGI or over the top here. Evelyn just looks like a dead person, none of the wild and unrealistic makeup some people like to put zombies in. When the violence comes, Dante does get pretty creative and we can smile at a lot of the gore we see.

Overall ‘Burying the Ex’ is a good flick, but it does have its disclaimers. It is not for the casual fan, you’ll need a pretty solid appreciation for the genre to enjoy it. It’s not for the gorehound, this one is just not bloody enough. And it’s definitely not going to induce nightmares, so if you’re looking for a good scare you should turn and run. What ‘Burying the Ex’ is is a cute romantic comedy for the horror fan. I know I’ll probably take some flak for that comment, but it’s the truth. It’s fun, it’s well written, it has just the right amount of gore and violence, and it’s just tailored enough to keep mainstream audiences out of sight. Take from that what you will.

Story: 7

Visuals: 6

Fun Factor: 8

Zombeavers

I finally made it around to checking out “Zombeavers”, one of the newer horror flicks I’ve been looking forward to. There was a lot of hype around the release, and for good reason. A slough of great fake movie posters, a spectacular title and some pretty entertaining trailers could charm many a fan boy. Viewers know coming in that it won’t be a traditional “scary” movie, but it should be good for a few laughs and have enough gore to make a case for its genre. In the end I was pleasantly surprised, but generally not impressed.

The biggest draw for me to “Zombeavers” was some of the initial reports and interviews I read. It was billed as “not taking itself too seriously, but not being a clichéd parody”, or something to that effect. I had big expectations, and I was thinking something the likes of “Piranha” and its blend of interesting characters, overly ridiculous plot and plentiful laughs. I’d say the movie here checks one of those boxes, then tries to get away with checking a second but forgets what it is doing momentarily and gets caught. As far as the plot being ridiculous, sure. Easy check. BIG check. Zombie mutated beavers? Sure thing. And that’s just the beginning of the ridiculousness. The next box, the laughs, they’re there too, don’t get me wrong. You’ll find yourself laughing just as much as at the intentional jokes as the sheer oddness of some of the situations and lines. Either way works, don’t think that’s a knock on the writers. They knew what they were doing in that department. Where they falter is on that last box, the ‘interesting characters’ part. The plot does actually have some dramatic and good intentioned twists and turns, the relationships are a bit more complex than the standard for horror movies, but something just misses. I’ll blame it a bit on the actors (more on that later), but primarily I think the characters aren’t very likeable. It’s not that they weren’t believable, there just wasn’t anyone I was rooting for. So overall, missed potential in the story department, but still pretty entertaining.

Visually, the movie had it’s ups and downs. Lighting, camera angles, cinematography stuff like that is sub par. I wasn’t expecting anything impressive, but there is little stimulation from that front. The credits were fun, I’ll give them that. Very old school and had me grinning. And the opening scene was much of the same. I was having flashbacks to “Return of the Living Dead”, which is a good thing. But then we got into the meat of the film and the smile faded. To make up for it, director Jordan Rubin throws in a heavy dose of grossnes, gore and nudity very early on. The effects, while not on “The Thing” level, were all real karo syrup and slime kind of stuff. I hope that was a stylistic choice and not a monetary one. Whichever the case, they looked great and fit the mood of the film. As for the other visual goodies, I’ll tell you that Cortney Palm is quite the looker.

***SPOILER ALERT***

I always like to take at least one thing away from a movie. It may be something as simple as a character’s name or an interesting camera shot, but there is always something that shines. “Zombeavers” has an interesting element that I had not seen before, and one that I really want to commend Rubin and his partner Al Kaplan on. I’ll explain here: What is the biggest cliché in horror movies? That if you have sex, you will die. And how can we simply summarize this movie? Six horny college kids spending a weekend in a cabin are attacked by undead beavers. Now the interesting part here is that despite the seemingly standard plotline, the people that have sex first do not die first! In fact, the sluttiest girl of the three, the one who is topless for probably a full five minutes of screen time, is the one that survives! Not the nerdy, uptight one. Not the sad, emotional one. The slutty one! Eat that, “Cabin in the Woods”! Maybe I’m the only one that will appreciate that, but honestly, very original stuff. Rubin, if I ever see you at a bar, the first round is on me.

I’m omitting things like sound, set design, costuming, etc. Honestly… it was an indy horror movie. The emphasis here is on having some fun, seeing some zombie beavers eating some college kids, and seeing some nice boobs. We got that surprise middle finger to the decency conventions of horror, but really, this wasn’t a thinker. A friend once asked me in high school if I would hook up with our substitute teacher “after 8 beers, and she came on to you”. That about sums up “Zombeavers”. Most people won’t give it a chance, at least not without a little prompting, but in the end they won’t be mad about it. Despite all the criticism I dished out, I did enjoy the movie. I’d check out another Jordan Rubin movie, if he ever decides to take on the big screen again.

*Extra note: Rubin actually has a pretty impressive track record outside of the movies. He is a writer for various talk and comedy shows, with credits including “The Man Show”, “Crank Yankers”, the MTV Movie Awards and even 2011’s Academy Awards.

Story: 6

Visuals: 5

Fun Factor: 6

Digging up the Marrow

One review I read called “Digging up the Marrow” something to the effect of “Adam Green’s love letter to horror fans”. I don’t know if that was paraphrasing or just plagiarism, but the phrase really does do a good job of both hooking a potential viewer and explaining the movie. I’ve always stated that I like movies about movies, and this one is a movie about making a documentary. It’s shot as a documentary, but it makes no claims of truth; we know we’re watching a scripted, acted movie. What is endearing and interesting about “Digging up the Marrow” is that everything except the main plot is reality. It’s a weird gimmick and admittedly one that will likely appeal much more to fan’s of Adam Green’s work, but I’m one of those guys and this review will be biased. Deal with it.

The movie is set in real life Southern California in the present day (2014), where horror director Adam Green (played by himself) and his production company are working on several movie titles as well as the next season of their horror-sitcom, “Holliston”. Before the action starts, Green receives a letter from a man that claims that monsters really exist and he has proof. The movie you’re watching, now, is the documentary that Green films to bring these monsters to the public. It starts innocently enough, with a highly skeptical but highly hopeful Green meeting with a slightly unstable looking William Dekker (Wise). The investigation progresses and the crew goes deeper down the rabbit hole because Green really wants to find monsters. As he (and other casual interviews during the opening) explains, it is every horror fan’s dream that these monsters, the stuff of their dreams, really do exist. Wouldn’t that be a great world? It’s what these guys make movies about and what we spend our hard earned dollars to watch. And so the film continues, with Green slowly taking over Wise’s role as the believer trying to get the truth out. The role switch is interesting and leads to some very entertaining and exciting moments. What really keeps you interested is how much you agree with what Green does. Usually in a horror movie the main character makes some dumb, cliché move, but Green knows all the cliché’s and he’s not following them. He makes some questionable decisions that you want to yell at him for, but then you put yourself in his shoes and… you’d do the same damn thing. That’s what makes “Digging up the Marrow” fun, putting yourself in Green’s position and thinking how you’d act.

A lot of the movie’s charm comes from it’s stabs at the horror culture and it’s denizens. We get a boat load of cameos, everyone from Kane Hodder (what Green movie would be complete without him) to Mick Garris. There are references galore to “Holliston” and “Hatchet”, and who doesn’t love the “Shinpads” posters? Okay, I’m getting a bit fan boy on you. But the whole movie feels like you’re at a horror convention. Lots of real people just like you who are just huge fans and want nothing more than to see some monsters and have a good time. There are plenty of jokes at the culture as well, but the film is just as quick to remind us of it’s good intentions.

“Who did your special effects?” is an entertaining theme from the movie. Of course it’s an ensemble crew, but special attention needs to be given to Alex Pardee, the twisted and beautiful mind behind “Digging up the Marrow”’s ‘monsters’. A very talented artist, Pardee’s work can be marveled at through a simple Google search. The guy isn’t really into gore and his creatures aren’t necessarily the most visually scary, but they are downright creative and awesome to look at. Whether the backstories given in the movie by Dekker are Pardee’s own or the work of Green’s imagination, they bring even more credibility to what you are watching. The art design in this movie is just so damn cool.

So visually, yea, this is pretty fun. Picture quality is good for what it is, a documentary. Same goes for sound. I’m not sure how much of this was really shot on low budget equipment and with on-location sound setups, but the movie was supposed to feel like a documentary and it really shines in that department. In this section I usually throw in a bit about any attractive women in the movie so I’ll give a shout out to Adam’s (ex)wife Rileah Vanderbilt, but that’s really, really not what this movie is about. We’re 100% focused on seeing monsters in the shadows, and we’re fine with that.

To close, “Digging up the Marrow” was a very entertaining way to spend a Friday with a few beers. The movie was not really reviewed well so I didn’t have many preconceptions, just an interesting story and a writer-director I knew I liked. While Green is no Don Coscarelli or Wes Craven, he certainly has his place within the modern pantheon of horror. It’s yet to be seen if he even wants to do something full blown “horror”, but for the time being I’ll keep watching “Holliston” and entertaining myself with his other flicks.

Story: 7

Visuals: 7

Fun Factor: 8

The Babadook

Even though rumors about “The Babadook” have been swirling since before the show was released and have only grown more fervent since, I had never heard anything regarding plot, characters, goriness, whatever, just that it was really damn scary. That’s just how I like to go into a movie: Nearly clueless about what I’m about to experience, just that it will definitely be worth my time. I can tell you now like they told me, this uber creepy purebred horror flick out of Australia really delivers the goods. If you’re up for it, I’d really suggest following my lead and watching it alone, late at night with all the lights out. It’s a little gimmicky but it really sets the mood, and I bet you don’t remember the last time you went down to the basement and turned out all the lights to watch a horror movie. Be a kid, be terrified, and by God don’t read any books that mysteriously show up on top of your dresser. Because if it’s in a word or it’s in a look, you can’t get rid of the Babadook!

I’m just gonna go straight for the jugular here. “The Babadook” is damn scary any way you slice it. The direction is spectacular; Jennifer Kent did everything right, whether it was getting the actors to do their thing, getting the lighting and settings right, moving the camera to just that right spot, or knowing the perfect times to show that goddamn Babadook, visually this movie is awesome. Now here’s the problem: the story is really not that compelling. If this movie falters anywhere, it’s their. Now, I will fully admit as I often do, that maybe I just didn’t get the whole thing. Maybe I missed some last piece of the puzzle, but honestly I think the way the story tried to wrap up in the final act almost stabbed the movie in the back. The premise as the movie went just built and built. Every moment was more tense than the next. Even when we got some relief, some player would go and f it up again, spiraling us back into darkness and fear. And that was great. But then, the end came around and just felt disjointed. I’m perfectly fine with leaving some questions unanswered, but that was not the idea here. No, it seemed like every question would be answered, only with a bit of disregard as to whether the audience understood the answer. This is meant purely as constructive criticism here. Sure, I didn’t like the end, but I’m not saying it was wrong. I’m just saying I think that a lot of what made the monster so scary was that you didn’t know what it was, or where it came from, or how to stop it.

Okay, back to business as usual here. The basic plot of “The Babadook” centers on Sam and his mother, a young family that was robbed of their father and husband because of an accident when Sam was born. That bit comes back throughout the movie and is an important piece of background information. Well, Sam is a bit strange to begin with, but he gets a little weirder when he starts seeing things and building weapons to protect his mother from a monster. We finally find out what the kid is talking about when he asks his mother to read him a bedtime story, and in good horror movie cliché fashion, little Sammy wants to read the world’s most terrifying children’s book. Everything in the book suddenly begins to haunt the young family, driven by the titular Babadook. Is he a man, a monster, or just a figment of everyone’s imagination? We don’t really know, but we do know he’s here to stay.

There are quite a few solid actors in the movie, but obviously our two main protagonists stand out in our mind. Sam, played by first timer Noah Wiseman, is absolutely perfect as the creepy kid with a monster in his closet that no one will acknowledge. He goes through some seriously terrifying stuff, and plays it like a champ. The seizure scene is no joke, and all times where he sees things just off camera had my hair standing on end and my knuckles white. Terrific stuff from a young kid, but I worry if the filming was in any way scarring. Alongside Noah, Essie Davis plays the exhausted but loving mother Amelia. She does her job well and plays a very believable haunted single mother. While I didn’t dig some of the “going crazy” scenes, it’s probably because Ms. Davis played them so convincingly. Fun fact, and it took IMDB to point this out to me, but Ms. Davis is also the unrivaled ‘Ms. Fisher’ of “Miss Fisher’s Murder Mysteries”, a staple of PBS at my house.

“The Babadook” is in no way a “fun” movie, but it is a must see for any genre fan. I’ll let my issues with the story slide when I give two big thumbs up for the constant feeling of dread and anxiety you are under for the full ninety minute run time. I think it narrowly missed out on that upper echelon of truly scary movies inhabited by the likes of “The Exorcist”, but Ms. Kent made a dazzling attempt. I’d say with a lot of certainty that this was the scariest movie I’ve seen in the last five years, and I won’t go back further only because I don’t feel like doing my research. It will be hard to sleep. You will have nightmares. And you will love every minute of it, or curse me for suggesting it. I was getting goosebumps just writing about it, that’s how genuinely creepy it was. Now I’ll leave you with the sound that will haunt those who know, and entice the uninitiated:

Ba… ba… dook! Dook! DOOOK!

Story: 6

Visuals: 9

Fun Factor: 7

Housebound

“Housebound” was a fun flick out of New Zealand that my brother and friend had suggested to me. I’ve been a little slow on my horror movie viewing lately, its sad to admit, and I was in need of a pick me up. I was looking for something fresh, original, and out of the blue. Because neither of the guys had given me any real background on “Housebound” I decided to see if it fit the bill. A little over an hour and a half later of laughing, tensing up and trying to understand what the players were saying, I can happily say that yes, “Housebound” was exactly the movie I was looking for.

“Housebound” chronicles young and not quite housebroken Kylie, who after being caught committing a quite entertaining crime, is put on house arrest with her mother. Very unhappy, she mopes, makes her mother’s life hell and generally acts like a jerk until things around the house start turning weird. After getting after her mother about supposedly bogus claims of the house being haunted, Kylie starts to see and hear things that make her think the old lady may just be right. She dives into the disturbing history of the house and finds out all too well not everything that goes bump in the night is a ghost.

Where this movie really excelled was its plot and pacing. The plot itself is not overly original, but follows in the tradition of the classic ghost story, which I respect. Person moves into house, things start to get a little creepy, main character starts doing her research and finds that something very evil and very sinister happened in the house, and then we must resolve everything somehow. “Housebound” pleasantly deviates from the norm in the final act, one that is full of action and surprises. I don’t want to call them plot twists, because that term has a negative connotation in my mind, but we are certainly surprised a few times.

The acting in the movie is nothing to rave about, but it is solid. Morgana O’Reilly plays a great lead and is incredibly believable as the misguided and troubled girl. She’s not really a youth, and I think that’s part of what the movie is playing on, that even when you’re an adult, “going home” is a journey to a whole different world. Kylie’s mother Miriam, played by Rima Te Wiata, was my favorite in the film. She’s a class act and plays her part wonderfully. Glen-Paul Waru, who plays parole officer and ghost hunter Amos, is just plain fun. I’m not sure if he’s got the chops to be the star, but he definitely does a great job with his role. All around the cast is solid, which is great to see when half the players don’t even have pictures on IMDB.

Writer/director Gerard Johnstone definitely put a lot of work into creating a solid, fun, very original movie in “Housebound”. After a long absence from the horror scene, I was very happy to see that there is still a lot of original work going on. I feel a little bad watching movies on Netflix, but I really hope the people who made this movie made a couple bucks. Somebody should at least give Mr. Johnstone a nice advance on his next project. If he could make this nearly polished gem for just $350,000, think of what he could do with a million? But then again, maybe that homegrown attitude and the smell of elbow grease are really what makes “Housebound” so endearing. Anyway, check it out for yourself, it should still be up on Netflix now.

Story: 8

Visuals: 6

Fun Factor: 8

Texas Chainsaw

I went into Texas Chainsaw not really knowing a lot, more just excited about the 10PM Thursday night screening. I’d seen several TV spots which really didn’t make it out to be all that interesting, but it’s a storied franchise and blah, blah, blah. I hadn’t seen a good horror movie in a while so I figured I’d check this one out. I like to give filmmakers the benefit of the doubt and come into the theater with an open mind, and that’s definitely what you have to do here. I was pleasantly surprised by the movie overall, which turned out to be a good little slasher flick with an interesting driver. Instead of just being a remake, or just being a “re-imagining” as seems to be the trend these days, Texas Chainsaw was actually a compelling extension of the original story. For fans of the 1974 original, like me, there were a good number of cameos and plot devices that were greatly appreciated, but it also held its own and retold enough of the story to engross newcomers to the story. Now that I’ve said a lot of overall positives about this thing to get us started, lets sit down and get to the gory details.

I have very mixed feelings about the visual feel of this one, and I think a lot of it stems from the 3D. I do believe this is being officially billed as “Texas Chainsaw 3D”, so you would think there would be a lot of emphasis on the 3D visuals. Now, horror, as a genre, has not really figured out how to use this new technology. I want to say we were the first to use it, with Friday the 13th 3D and Jaws 3D way back in the day, but that was a whole different thing. In the 80’s, there would be maybe 3 scenes where something was flying out of the screen at you, totally cheesy. Modern 3D technology is being used to give extra depth and clarity to the picture, increasing the visual appeal throughout every scene, not just the gimmicks. It seems to me like horror directors really want to embrace the modern role, but can’t resist falling back to the old tricks. For example, we get several chainsaws coming toward the audience, but they feel out of place in a scene where there is real, developed tension. It almost kills the mood in a way. Most movies made for 3D should be watched that way, but this is one where I don’t think the 2D version will fall short. Beyond that, I dug the lighting and set design, especially in Leatherface’s room. Lots of bloody bits, really lives up to the TCM name.

What really stuck out for me was the way they used the original story and built a whole new world around it. Fans of the original should really enjoy the opening and the few cameos by the original cast. The story driving the movie is interesting, but I hesitate to say it is original. I can’t put my finger on another movie with the same premise, but Halloween comes close. It just feels like I’ve seen this before. The other interesting note is how similar the overall plot movement is to the original. The storylines are completely different, but the whole “kids go to house, run away from crazy guy for an hour” thing is still there; I‘m not going to spoil anything so I won’t go into the details. The end, however, was definitely it’s own handiwork. I can’t say I liked it, but we’ll touch on that later.

When it comes to sound, you’ve really got two types of horror movies: Ones that use a well crafted score to build tension for the audience, and ones chock full of ambient sound that let the audience build tension themselves. Like any movie with “chainsaw” in the title, this one is part of the latter. The score doesn’t stand out, which isn’t necessarily bad, but what you really want to hear is that sputtery two stroke revving away in the background. And you do, a lot. Now I’ve got some beef with the sound quality at the screening I was at, but I am assuming that was just the theater. If the mid-section of the movie was mixed as poorly as I heard it, the sound guys should be ashamed of themselves. But as I said, it was probably the theater. The other point I have to mention is a particular song that comes on when they are just getting to Texas, fairly early on, that had me cracking up. I have no idea who it was by or what it was called (I know, I’m a bad critic and didn’t stay for all of the credits), but the chorus was something along the lines of “God will **** you up” sang in the most redneck drawl imaginable. And they say horror movies don’t have good soundtracks.

The acting in the movie was alright, with the veterans doing there part well and the newcomers holding there own. Alexandra Daddario plays a pretty decent lead, and Trey Songz surprised me with a fairly compelling performance. Dan Yeager was not your daddy’s Leatherface, but he did a really good job in the role. It’s good to see a little freshness in an old franchise. The characters themselves were a mixed bag. The kids were very bland in my opinion, mostly because they really didn’t fit the typical stereotypes. It felt, to me, like the writers were trying too hard to give them depth, and I just didn’t care about them. I was also very disappointed in how dynamic Heather’s character was. I understand that people change in response to overwhelming situations, but this was a little far-fetched for me. The characters I did like were the ones that carried over from the 70’s portion of the film, people like Sheriff Hooper (homage?) and Burt Hartman. I thought the dynamic of the town was well crafted, drawing the audience in and dividing them over the moral dilemmas at the center of the film.

While I can’t say I really liked Texas Chainsaw, I felt it was well worth seeing. Fans of the franchise can enjoy it if they go in with an open mind, and the rest of the world will be hit or miss, really depending on if they like gory slasher movies. The guys behind this movie put the audience in a very interesting place; I went to see Texas Chainsaw with a friend who had never seen the original, and by the end we had completely different views on what was going on. Who is good and who is bad is really brought front and center here, with the director seemingly nudging the audience in a direction that I completely disagree with. I felt like my past experience with the TCM franchise taught me one thing, and this new movie wanted to teach me another. Just a comment, not bad or good, but it did spark a pretty interesting conversation on the way home. You’ll have to see it yourself and decide which family you’ll side with.

Story: 6

Visuals: 7

Fun Factor: 6

Tucker and Dale vs. Evil

I’m pretty sure I’m the last horror guy to watch “Tucker and Dale vs. Evil”, but in case I’m not, stay tuned. I had heard great things about this movie, but unlike so many other horror flicks these days, this one definitely delivered, although in a completely different way than I was expecting. To give everyone the same experience, all you need to know is this: Two friends go up to their newly acquired “vacation home” in the mountains to do some spring cleaning. At the same time, a group of college kids heads up to the mountains for a weekend of drinking and questionable decisions. Through a lot of misunderstanding and a series of very unfortunate events (for the college kids), the students come to the conclusion that our heroes, Tucker and Dale, are psychotic hillbilly serial killers out to get them. Hilarity ensues in what could be one of the more intelligent parodies on horror I have seen in a long time.

In reality, that is all that “Tucker and Dale” is; a parody. We see the classic ‘kids in the woods getting offed by a serial killer’ storyline, only told from the other side. The protagonists are a pair of lovable rednecks who have finally accomplished their dream and bought a vacation home. While to you and I the house they buy looks like a pyscho killer’s cabin, complete with antlers on the walls and jars for holding body parts, Tucker and Dale find it pleasant and quaint. Dale is fairly dumb and has very low self esteem, while Tucker is a bit smarter and ‘better with the ladies’. The whole misunderstanding starts when Tucker and Dale decide to go night fishing in the same lake the college kids decide to go skinny dipping in, unbeknownst to both parties. They startle Allison, the cute but sensible one of the college kids, and she falls into the water and is knocked unconscious. When Dale dives in to save her, the college kids finally notice the guys and think that they are dragging away Allison to rape and kill her. The rest of the movie follows as a comical sequence of gory slapstick in which the college kids and various other entrants are offed while the evidence against our main characters builds.

Writer/Director Eli Craig really hits the mark with his feature length debut. You know you’ve got a great film on your hands when all the artistic elements fit together to tell the story, and that is exactly what Craig has accomplished. The script itself is goofy and irreverent, but much of the satire of the film comes from slick direction, cheeky camera angles and a great score. The skilled set of actors certainly contribute, but the visual experience is really what drives the story.

Few films in recent years have been able to be both gory and funny at the same time. I’m not talking Piranha here, which was both gory and funny but at different times, I’m talking Dead Alive where you laughed as body parts went flying across the screen. I can’t remember ever giggling as a kid got impaled by a handmade spear before, but I did here. No, I’m not some sadist, it’s just that the situation is so amusing you can’t help but laugh. Same goes with a guy getting his head shot off. It shouldn’t be funny, but in “Tucker and Dale”, director Eli Craig made it humorous. On the more attractive side of “visual treats”, we get a lot of Katrina Bowden, which is about everything you need. There is a bit of gratuitous nudity in the skinny dipping scene, but seriously, we get Katrina Bowden in a tied up flannel shirt and cut off jeans so who cares.

Overall, “Tucker and Dale” is just a good, fun movie. You’ll laugh non-stop at the hilarious pratfalls, cringe at the over-the-top gore, and fall in love with the two wonderfully scripted leads. The movie is essentially a parody so the story isn’t beautiful or anything, but it keeps you involved and is very intelligent. Seeing the classic hillbilly killer movie from a redneck’s point of view is incredibly clever, and makes for a great movie. While it’s not going to get an Oscar nod, “Tucker and Dale” is the much needed horror comedy we have all been waiting for. Some of you were smart and saw it when it came out; I like to think I was savoring it by waiting this long. Really I was just depriving my self of one of the most entertaining horror movies of the 2000’s.

Story: 7

Visuals: 8

Fun Factor: 10

Piranha 3DD

I have to admit that the original reason I watched Piranha 3D earlier this year was because I heard the rumblings surrounding a sequel that would be bigger and more ridiculous than the first. After hearing a few surprisingly positive reviews of the original, and learning that the “3DD” moniker had been officially announced, I went out and snatched up Piranha 3D on Blu Ray. In case you haven’t read my review, the quick and dirty is that I thoroughly enjoyed the flick, with it’s tactful blend of camp, gore, sex and interesting and believable characters. When June 1st rolled around, I was ecstatic for the sequel to arrive in theatres. Then the next week of June rolled around, and I still found nothing in the local papers or online about showtimes. What gives? The official website still says “Coming June 1st”. Apparently this wasn’t exactly a wide release, and with the abysmal ratings and revenue numbers, there’s a topless chick’s chance in a piranha pool that it will ever be. I ended up renting the movie in HD on iTunes of all places for about $7, plugging my phone into my TV and checking it out in the 50” glory most will be stuck seeing it in. I’m not mad that my seven dollars are gone, I’m just really disappointed in Dimension Films, Alexandre Aja and most importantly Jean-Luc Bilodeau.

The original Piranha 3D (2010) was all about the visual show, so let’s start there. From Scene 2 onward, we get to see a set of knockers about every 30 seconds, so check off the “DD” reference. About 100 times. We’re not really expecting anything revolutionary in terms of the piranha modeling, and these things look about the same as in the first movie, so I won’t knock it there. The problem here, why “3DD” gets a “D minus” and “3D” gets an “A”, is the tastefulness of the gore. Tastefulness may not be the right word, but I’m talking about the difference between goofy gore and unnecessary gore. “DD” is just over the top. Sure, there’s still tons of blood and missing limbs, but nothing was original. The only play at interesting gore here was the finale in which ***Spoiler alert, I guess*** Chet gets his head cut off by some flags on a rope. I guess the point here is that if you want to see naughty bits, you should just cut to the chase and turn on “Cinemax Afterdark”, don’t waste your time with a pseudo horror movie.

It’s hard for me to say the acting was bad because this movie had so much going for it in that department. First of all, David Hasselhoff plays himself as a celebrity lifeguard who, surprise, surprise, has never actually saved anyone. It’s a hilarious concept, but falls just short of entertaining in practice. David Koechner is a comedic genius, but ends up a bit awkward while trying to bring seriousness to his villain’s role. Danielle Panabaker is a major cutie and a solid actor, but the script just doesn’t allow her to bring the credibility to the lead role that Steven McQueen brought in the first movie. To round it out, Christopher Lloyd and Ving Rhames reprise roles from “3D” and have fun with them, however they have too strong of personalities to be put in such minor parts. Then there is my boy Jean-Luc Bilodeau, who I have mentioned before in my review of “Trick ‘r Treat”. I really respect the guy, and was overjoyed to see his name appear early in the opening credits of “DD”. Unfortunately, while he does a good job with the role, he ends up in one of the most awkward and disturbing scenes I have seen in a long time. Honestly bro, that was a poor choice of roles to get your name on the map.

I think the real problem with “DD” was the choices made by Dimension in pre-production. If you look at the writing credits, you notice that the main group is a crew that has worked on tons of movies, the connecting factor being that they are all sequels, and not well regarded ones. Look a little closer and you’ll see that the characters were created by the writers of the script for “3D”. It’s as if a light bulb went off in my head: you have a reasonable group of characters again, but the situations they are set in are terrible. Secondly, they grabbed John Gulager to direct “DD”, where they had Alexandre Aja do the first film. Aja has made a name for himself by bringing a fresh style and pace to his movies, which include “High Tension”(2003) and “The Hills Have Eyes”(2006). Gulager, on the other hand, has made me laugh with his filmography of not only “Feast”, but “Feast II” and “Feast III”. Don’t get me wrong; if you’ve directed a movie you’ve got more going for you than I do, I just feel that this movie could have been as good as the first.

So there you have it. I didn’t even talk about the story, because it didn’t seem necessary. In just about every department I can think of, “DD” was a let down. Dimension had something golden, and they dropped it in the sewer on the way to the theatre, didn’t bother cleaning it off, and tried to give it to the audiences. The people weren’t fooled, and neither were the distribution companies. If you want to waste $7 on something, light the bills on fire. Your friends will respect you more.

Story: 3

Visuals: 3

Fun Factor: 3

The Woman in Black

“The Woman in Black”, from the get go, had a lot going for it and a lot going against it. First of all, it is rated PG-13, as good as a death wish for horror movies. Then, the primary actor in the movie is Daniel Radcliffe, of “Harry Potter” fame. On the positive side, it’s a creepy looking movie set in turn of the century England. It’s made by a bunch of Brits on their home turf, so they should know their stuff. And it is presumably about a ‘Woman in Black’, an age old concept of the wronged woman out for revenge. Like the story of the ‘Woman in White’, the ‘Woman in Black’ mythos is seen in many cultures and geographic areas, under many different circumstances, but the same general theme. Where the ‘Woman in Black’ is a vengeful spirit, the contrast ‘Woman in White’ is usually seen as a mournful ghost, sometimes beneficial but mostly hands-off. Fortunately for the audience, and Radcliffe’s continued career, the movie succeeds in taking the familiar concept of vengeful ghosts and throwing off all other preconceptions, creating a genuinely scary visual experience all while spinning an endearing tale of father and son.

Don’t let that last bit fool you; “The Woman in Black” is definitely a mystery whose main plot centers around the mysterious deaths of children. The story starts with Radcliffe, a young lawyer, being sent to a small village to tidy up the loose ends at an old woman’s estate. The estate, Eel Marsh House, is a creepy old manor located in the middle of a swamp, accessible only when the tide is right. Before Radcliffe can even get there, things start getting odd. The townspeople aren’t helpful at all, and children start dying. Of course it is up to our fearless main character to figure out what is happening and fix it, a classic structure in horror films. Classic, yes, tried and true, yes. Unfortunately, that also means that it ends up being predictable and unoriginal. Not that it’s a bad story, its just that it doesn’t take a psychic to know what’s going to happen next.

The directing is really where this film shines. I’d never heard of James Watkins before, but I bet we’ll see his name again at some point. A good vision of how this film should feel coupled with very effective cinematography makes for an incredibly pleasurable viewing experience. While I’ve expressed my gripes about the story already, the way the narrative is conveyed more than makes up for the somewhat played out plotline. When I think of horror, real horror, I think of monsters lurking in the shadows, ghosts in the distance, eerie noises coming from all around. These are the kind of things that are real and tangible, that a viewer can relate to. And, those are the elements that the director has injected into “The Woman in Black”. As an audience, we are always craning our neck to peer into the next room, watching the corner of a mirror as it passes out of view. You want to see everything this film has to offer, and to do that you must watch not only the primary action but also everywhere else on the screen. The standout of all of this was the use of focus. Nearly everything scary is just out of focus, or so fleeting that you have to fill in the gaps yourself. When trying to find a good image for this review, I came across plenty of stills of the titular woman from the film; that is not at all what I saw during the movie. Maybe I’ve got a wild imagination, but I think that is a true testament to how powerful selective focus can be for a movie.

When we seriously get down and analyze the players in this fright fest, we are not disappointed. I and many of my  contemporaries had a lot of doubts about Daniel Radcliffe’s acting chops. Well, two hours later, I’m proud to announce that Radcliffe has successfully thrown off the cape and wand in favor of whatever damn costume he feels like donning. In about as far a role from the boy wizard as you can get (and still keep the accent), Radcliffe plays a young widowed lawyer with a four year old son and a lot on the line. The emotion of dealing with the death of his wife and the love he feels for his son are very convincing, and rarely did I question the believability of the role. Ciaran Hinds, who plays Daily, is also very good in his role of the secretly anguished skeptic in town. The rest of the cast might be prime stock in the Old Country, but they’re fresh faces to me. Everyone performed well for their character, although the children came across as rather bland. Not sure if that was the intent or if British kids are just lousy at showing emotion.

The costuming and set pieces were an absolute joy. I’m not a historian, but I felt like I was in turn of the century England. Everything was still dirty and gloomy, but we did have cool cars. The house itself was one of the coolest things I have ever seen, sitting atop a hill in the middle of a giant swamp. I don’t know if that is a real location or just a model, but it looked great and almost makes me want to visit. Plus, the house is downright creepy. The only thing that bothered me was that darn road. Everyday at the tide, the water would rise and the road would be completely washed out. Then, as soon as the tide left, the road was above water and fine. But this was no paved road, it was a dirt path at best! These kinds of things really bother me when I get out of movies, but fortunately they have no real bearing on the merits of the film itself.

“The Woman in Black” is a surprising little movie put out by the British Film Board. I’ve always thought the Brits had a pretty good handle on horror, but after “Shaun of the Dead” and “28 Days Later” I thought maybe they only knew about zombies. Well, I was wrong, they know about ghosts and creepy kids, too. While this is a great movie to watch in your house at night by yourself, it also turns out to be a great date movie. A girl will never cuddle closer to you than during the final scene with Radcliffe walking through the house. Part mystery and part fatherhood story, “The Woman in Black” is 100% scary and a great movie to check out if you’re on the fence about PG-13 fright flicks.

Story: 7

Visuals: 8

Fun Factor: 7