We Are What We Are (2013)

By now, you're probably well aware that this is yet another US remake of the original 2010 Mexican movie Somos Lo Que Hay (I'll save you the trouble and admit that my review of the original is just a placeholder, i.e. no need to click that link). Usually, I would beg that you at least watch the original first but still give the remake its shot (for e.g. La Casa Muda/The Silent House; Låt den rätte komma in/Let Me In), and in some cases skip the remake all together (every 80s slasher movie remake thus far). In this case, though, I'm experiencing an unorthodox bent toward suggesting to watch the remake first. If, like me, you've already seen the remake rather recently (within the past year), I suggest waiting another year or two to let its impression fade from memory. Not that one is strikingly better than the other, in this case; it's just that knowing the story and basic execution could cause extreme boredom for the first and much of the second acts.

Carrie (2013)

Review forthcoming.

The Devil Inside (2012)

For me, one of the most memorable episodes of How I Met Your Mother features Barney's video resume.  Throughout the television series, Barney makes references to his blog and his web site, and in this particular episode he has his friends pull up his video resume online.  To my memory no address is given, but at this point, after reading his blog online and his printed book The Bro Code (also referenced throughout the series), I knew a quick Google search would take me directly to the video featured on the show.  Tactics like these--pulling the viewer into the world of the show via external sources--works well with How I Met Your Mother.  In the case of The Devil Inside, however, such devices have left me unmoved and slightly annoyed.

But before jumping to the matter external to the movie (matter I didn't even discover until the end of the movie), let's focus on the movie itself, which opens in the documentary style.  I wondered if it were going to remain like this throughout--which would've been more than welcome in my opinion--but, sadly, it does not.  Sadly?  Yes, sadly.  I say this because, after having seen the film, I can say that it would've been fresher had it remained a collage of newspaper clippings, interviews, etc., as the opening sequences gripped me much more than the switch-over to a mockumentary/found-footage form.  I thought perhaps I'm just too immune to this stuff now.  Sticking strictly to documentary made Lake Mungo and Cropsey great because it was so different (to be fair, people have pointed out that I wouldn't feel this way if I watched Unsolved Mysteries more often!).  But that's not to say found-footage still doesn't have life in it--all it takes is a good story with some change-ups to keep it fresh (The Last Exorcism, for example).

Coincidentally, I fell asleep shortly after the film switched from documentary to found-footage.  (I do realize that the film was intended to be "turned into a documentary"; I'm just referring to the form that we actually get as the audience).  The film kept jolting me awake to the raucous sounds of exorcisms, and I would rewind and try to get into it again, only to return to my slumber moments later.  Finally, as I awoke to the credits lethargically moving up the screen, I decided to go to bed.  Thus I had to give the move a proper watch the next day.  This time, I realized why I kept falling asleep.  The movie is barely 80 minutes long, but it is congested with politico-religious banter, none of which is anything new: the Church doesn't do what's right; the Church won't condone our attempts at finding out what's wrong; I need to do what I believe is right; they just keep her drugged up and won't properly evaluate her; the institution versus the individual; and so on ad infinitum.  I get that the film has to establish each character's conflict to justify their actions, but can I please get a fresh story?

But for all my negativity, the movie isn't a flop.  There are some pleasing elements, such as the overhead camera perspective during the exorcisms, which provided some nice angles and effects.  (The car-mounted cameras, on the other hand, are a strange and useless choice.)  And the exorcisms themselves (well, at least the first one) are pretty intense.  The verbal intensity isn't quite on the level of the film that spearheaded the exorcism genre 40 years ago, but it definitely pays its mandatory homage.  Audio design is well done, and there is more than one blood spattering, which threw me a curve-ball in light of the fact that this was a wide theatrical release.  In fact, I'm really surprised this dark indie horror was picked up and distributed on such a wide scale.  I'm used to films like this being packaged as unforgivingly horrific masterpieces, but actually being glossy PG-13 thrillers designed to reach the widest demographic scope possible (read: make the most money possible).  So, the film, within it's scant 80-minute runtime, does offer some pleasing effects--especially the contortionist effects, which always stir me (The Last Exorcism, The Exorcism of Emily Rose).

Another saving grace of the film is Fernanda Andrade, whom I had never seen before.  Aside from the obvious placement of a beautiful girl at the forefront of the film, she is a superb choice for the role.  And there are times when the movie seems to be aware of itself, though not in quite the meta-film way of, say, the Scream franchise.  For example, the dog-jumping-against-the-fence stock scare; and the I'm-just-the-annoying-camera-guy bit.  In the end, the film's subtle self-awareness and the fresh face of Fernanda Andrade weren't enough to bring me back (unless you count the fact that I fell asleep the first time and had to re-watch it the next day).  And when the film ended and I promptly visited the supplemental web site, as directed, I found myself annoyed at the marketing of external resources to generate forced controversy and buzz around the film.  But they've sure done a great job.  Don't believe me?  Just check out the lengthy discussion on said supplemental web site, which prompts you to "be a part of the ongoing investigation."

The Wicker Tree (2011)

A huge disappointment for fans of the original British classic, The Wicker Man (1973).  There are amusing moments, but overall the film is just another offering from the horror movie assembly line.  Skippable.

11-11-11: The Prophecy (2011)

This could work for someone who's never seen a horror movie before, but it's essentially an exercise is refurbished horror movie gimmicks throughout the decades of the genre.

Carrie (1976)

Sissy Spacek was absolutely the perfect choice for this adaptation of Stephen King's debut novel. Her performance was repugnant and charming, often at the same time. I felt terrible for her but I was horrified of her. In the end, though, I was rooting her on. Brian De Palma didn't waste any frames on this one; and the pacing of the final climactic prom scene creates whiteknuckled tension. Extra points for the effect of the car going backwards in the dream sequence!

Stake Land (2010)

A blend of many genres: apocalyptic, religious, survival, action, and of course vampire. I wasn't exactly thrilled to watch another vampire movie, but this one stands out. Great acting. Vicious effects and action sequences. Strong emotion. A likable hero. And Danielle Harris.

[REC] 2 (2009)

When the original [REC] (known to American audiences as Quarantine, the remake) was over I wanted more. In fact, I wanted the movie to continue from exactly where it left off. Well, little did I know the franchise would continue as desired. And there's a third installment on the way! I really like what they did with this one. The action begins immediately and the filmmakers make use of multiple character/plot POVs and fancy PIP (picture in picture) cameras to keep the movie interesting (we know the real deal at this point after all). Plus, we get another great ending that has become the trademark of a great new horror series. Well done, Spaniards!

The Ceremony (2008)

Rating: A
Experience Vitals: Netflix Instant on Wii.

Movie Spotlight! Has anyone else heard of this one? I looked around and can't find many reviews. Just like yesterday's movie, The Perfect Witness, this is one I never would've found without Netflix. And it was a hit! I love these slow-burn psychological/supernatural thrillers. The slow-burn structure typically yields more character development/sympathy/empathy and intensifies the creepiness of the subtle horror. I admit that this one, like Lake Mungo, was able to creep me out without overdoing anything--indeed, because of not overdoing it! If you liked The House of the Devil and Paranormal Activity (I recently took a liking to PA, so don't be misled by the old review), you'll like this one. The lead deftly carries the movie through the banal, the creepy, the absurd, and a messed up ending. This one is to be watched late at night, alone, with the lights out.

The Last Exorcism (2010)

The first horror movie I've seen since The Human Centipede back in early October, The Last Exorcism is an excellent return to my cinematic love. Sure, draw up a Venn diagram of possession-genre devices and you're bound to see TLE overlapping with The Exorcism of Emily Rose, Rosemary's Baby, et al., but TLE still manages to postulate some originality and an unique tone. There are no cheap, ready-made gimmicks, e.g. jump-scares, musical stings, etc., just good old-fashioned suspense-building, tension, and subtle chills. I've seen a lot of people thumbs-downing the ending, but I disagree just as I disagreed with the derision of The House of the Devil's ending. This is a fine film. Good eye, Mr. Roth!

TRANSCRIPT REVIEW: Antichrist (2009)

ATTENDEES: Jason, Lucas, Rex, Chris

(Credits roll. Everyone sits in stunned silence.)

LUCAS: That was stupid.

(Everyone laughs.)

REX: [Lars von Trier] was clearly a little depressed.

LUCAS: I don’t know. That was just…stupid. I think my expectations were set ridiculously high. It was just boring.

REX: What do you think Chris?

(Chris sits quietly, staring at the credits, his fingers steepled under his chin. Finally, exhales.)

LUCAS: Still absorbing it all?

CHRIS: I just. Wow. Well. Uh—there was a lot of sexual symbolism. That’s for sure.

(Rex agrees.)

CHRIS: Every time the movie put the male phallus triumphantly on display, femininity would dominate. For example, in the last chapter before the epilogue, everything is in grayscale except for the tree, a stout, glowing phallic symbol. But, then, a legion of women overcomes him.

REX: Definitely a lot of psychological investigation of human nature.

LUCAS: Man. I didn’t get any of that.

CHRIS: The one part I absolutely despised and I wish they’d removed was the talking fox.

(Everyone chuckles.)

REX: Yeah, I didn’t understand the point of that at all. It didn’t add anything to the movie.

JASON: I don’t think the fox was actually talking so much as Williem Defoe was imagining the voice and the fox mouthing the words. I liked the audio of the voice, but it didn’t really work right there. Maybe Lars wanted to break up the mood.

CHRIS: True. I still hated it. It took an otherwise serious, ominous tone and made it comical.

LUCAS: That was my favorite part! I thought, finally something is happening.

JASON: It’s obvious that he [Lars von Trier] was pissed off at women when he wrote this.

(Everyone agrees.)

CHRIS: I liked how it was an Adam and Eve story in reverse. We started in present day and traveled back to the advent of original sin in the Garden of Eden. And it was as if the movie’s Eve realized that it would be in the best interest of humanity if Eve were to remove the part of her that drove her sexuality.

(Everyone, including Chris, cringes.)

LUCAS: When she drove that bar through his leg, I was just thinking, yes, we don’t have to watch ugly people do it anymore. (Laughs.) I would’ve been fine if I didn’t see Williem Defoe’s junk.

REX: Well, that wasn’t actually Williem Defoe. It was mostly likely a porn-double or a prosthetic.

CHRIS: I’d say prosthetic. Did you see how unrealistically smooth it was?

REX: (Laughs.) And rodlike!

JASON: Speaking of that part [the immobilization scene]. I couldn’t help but notice that Williem was so concerned with his leg. That was pretty bad, but I would be worried about my aching nuts!

REX: He never checked them!

(Laughter and agreement.)

REX: I think it’ll be a while before the next handjob.

CHRIS: I was surprised at the level of detail given us by the camera during the castration scene. I thought the scene from Penance was the worst, but this topped that.

JASON: The female castration bothered me so much more, too.

CHRIS: There’s a notable essay concerning that. About how men cringe more at the sight of female genital mutilation versus male.

REX: As if we don’t want the womb, our starting point in life, our home, destroyed.

CHRIS: Saw that symbol, too, when he took refuge in the fox hole.

REX: Plus it was all tastefully, artistically executed. You could tell the film’s intention wasn’t to see how far they could go with something. Everything was displayed for a purpose, not for shallow shock value.

(Silence. Reflection.)

CHRIS: The point definitely wasn’t to define a superior gender.

LUCAS: Yeah, just like in the books she was studying for her thesis, she seemed to decide that women needed to be punished.

REX: He’s right. Women deserve or require the bondage, mutilation they suffered.

LUCAS: But, man, that was about a nine out of ten on the weird-o-meter.

CHRIS: One thing’s for sure. The film was well made. It’s been a while since I’ve seen a good arthouse film.

REX: The opening scene was outstanding.

LUCAS: Yeah, it was good.

JASON: The cinematography was painfully beautiful in the sense that the film was translated effortlessly.

(Collective agreement.)

JASON: The super slow-mo was akin to the dullness of a stomachache—tolerable yet uncomfortable nevertheless. He combined slowness with super-detailed close-ups that were almost too in-focus, and the contrast of the two were remarkable in the push-pull that it created within.

REX: Absolutely.

(Jason continues. Chris and Rex further engage. Lucas thumbs at his iPhone.)

JASON: Camera angles created a sense of softness and dread at the same time; the overhead shots of her walking gave the vantage point of some ethereal being, Satan, or just plain stark loneliness from minute to minute.

CHRIS: Especially in the metaphysical sequences.

JASON: The overexposed lighting technique again somehow was able to merge the dichotomy of good and evil in the same frame. Bright halos formed around her face and head at times emulating an angel, yet inside she was losing the battle with the evil that was consuming her. Brilliant play.

REX: One thing I noticed was that she didn’t really have any care-level guilt or remorse [concerning the child]. In fact, they were both mostly unremorseful. There was some superficial guilt, but for her it was more like recognition, clinical recognition, than remorse.

JASON: She was busy gettin’ it! (Laughs.) Seriously, though. Yes, and she felt her own guilt because she wasn't feeling as much remorse as she thought she should, so she targeting him for it. In addition that fact caused her physical and psychological condition to worsen, not because of the loss directly.

CHRIS: That makes sense if you compare Freud and Jung. The movie even took an explicit stab at Freud. In that light, I see the movie as entertaining the notion of Carl Jung’s shadow theory. She got upset with him, accusing him of being indifferent. But it seemed that he was projecting her shadow. As Jung says, people rarely like seeing their shadow in others.

REX: I subscribe to Jungian psychology.

CHRIS: And, like Jason said, if we don’t embrace and accept our shadow, it tears us apart.

LUCAS: You guys are reading way into it.

(Jason, Rex, and Lucas begin to depart. Chris gets up, turns off the TV.)

CHRIS: I’m definitely going to watch that again. There’s tons of symbolism going on.

LUCAS: I’m never watching that again.

(Group departs. Conversation continues next day.)

Born (2007)

Rating: F
This is a big day, folks! The first F of 2010 goes to Born, a movie about a bunch of stuff where people do things and say whatever comes to mind. Every time my brain tries to process everything that occurs in this movie, I get a migraine. Sure, it has Kane Hodder thrown into the mix, and his lines are mostly hilarious, but the horror icon is easily overlooked. The script is atrocious; certainly no one really wrote the nonsense that comes out of the characters' mouths. The CGI is a joke: laughable lightening bolts and a baby demon who mashes its Transformer-like face against the main girl's stomach. This baby demon also manages to pop out of her stomach via a belly-button hatch every now and then. At no point did I feel the movie had something worthwhile to offer. I really couldn't tell what it wanted to be. At times it was humorous, but for long stretches it took itself way too seriously for a movie that includes a death scene in which the heroine kills someone by scrubbing their back in the tub. And there are scenes in which the heroine is possessed by the demon baby in her womb that have to be seen to be believed.

The House of the Devil (2009)

Rating: A+
I am going to try to keep my emotions out of this review. (I LOVED THIS MOVIE!) Even though it is impossible, I'm going to do the best I can to provide the most objective review possible. (TI WEST NAILED IT!) I don't want to ruin it for anyone else by setting their expectations too high. (MY ALREADY HIGH EXPECTATIONS WERE EXCEEDED!) So, without further ado, here is a tame, calculated account of my thoughts on The House of the Devil. (PROBABLY MY NEW FAVORITE MOVIE!)

If you've been following Horror Dose this past week, you've seen that I decided to work my way up to this film by watching Ti West's preceding two feature-length releases in chronological order. I chose to do this because I didn't want to be disappointed by The House of the Devil, as every blog out here has been heralding this movie as a sensation, and I wanted to witness West's progression, good or bad, as a director. While The Roost had some glaring blemishes, Trigger Man took those blemishes (e.g. dead-time), polished them, and made them work. In fact, that was pretty much the pattern with every aspect of the two movies: Trigger Man effectively polished and redelivered all of the film-making elements of The Roost, proving to me that West was headed in the right direction (no pun intended).

The Roost and Trigger Man behind me, it came time to watch the movie I was dreading and anxiously awaiting. Dreading because of my unreasonable expectations; anxiously awaiting because of, well, my unreasonable expectations. West instantly shattered all expectations! I can't describe it, but something about the masterful throw-back 80s set and the "feel" of the movie caused me to relinquish my expectations and enjoy what was given to me, scene-by-scene. The film had that same down-time, or slow-burn, but it wasn't bothersome in the least. The stonewashed jeans, the classic Coca-Cola paper cups in the pizzeria, the enormous "portable" tape player; it all worked to create this atmosphere that I couldn't help by love. And it exhibited a wit that I've seen in Chan-wook Park's work and cannot properly explain, but it occurs, for example, during the payphone scene early in the film.

When the name Jocelin Donahue, the lead, appeared, I knew I had seen the name somewhere recently. Then it occurred to me that she played Maryanne Stewart in The Burrowers, which I had just watched the night before. I don't think she had more than three minutes in the movie, but after witnessing her performance and on-screen charm in The House of the Devil, I eagerly anticipate her next movie. Donahue, in my opinion, lit up the screen and carried the role masterfully. By the time West started hitting us with "it" I really cared for Donahue's character. Thus, all that dead-time equated to a Dickensian character development act that set the stage for the third and final act, which locked me in as a fan for life--a fan not only of Ti West and Jocelin Donahue, but of The House of the Devil.

If you haven't seen this movie, I would suggest watching West's other films first to get a sense of his style. Yes, it is a slow-burn as others are pointing out. West takes his time acquainting you the character(s), setting the mood, and building up the suspense. I refuse to describe what happens at the end, but I will say that I enjoy the abrupt ending common to all three West movies I've seen now. Each movie follows a slow-build-into-a-strong-ending-and-CUT! structure that I love. Who really needs to know what happens next? The House of the Devil is unlike any movie I've seen in a long time. Horror, lately, has delivered either extreme splatter-punk, torture, or extra (t00) sharp cheese. The House of the Devil strikes a chord that hasn't been struck in quite some time. It delivers everything I want in a horror movie.

Book of Blood (2008)

Rating: C-
The first five minutes had me hooked. For whatever reason, the ominous closeups in the diner pulled all my attention into the movie--an amazing feat given that my mind was still absorbed in schoolwork. But, sadly, the movie fell flat. In fact, it turned into nothing more than what recent big studio haunted house flicks have already exhausted. No one from the cast was interesting; the thrills were tiresome; and the story (a combination of Clive Barker's "Book of Blood" and "On Jerusalem Street") were lost in an apparently difficult effort to build up the twist. If you want an entertaining experience adapted from the mind of Clive Barker, stick with The Midnight Meat Train or Hellraiser (the first one). Or, and this just came to me, watch only the first and last fifteen minutes of this movie. Better yet, just read the story (advice I usually offer when someone asks what I thought of a Stephen King adaptation).

Shocker (1989)

To use an oxymoron shared by so many in the horror movie fan community, Shocker is a great terrible movie. The story is all over the place, the effects are outlandish, the lines are extra cheesy, and the musical score is an onslaught of 80s metal. And speaking of the score, Shocker is complete with some of the most prolonged and raucous of stings I've encountered. It seemed like an explosion of a thousand MIDI samples every time someone unexpectedly turned the corner!

I would love to have been there when Wes Craven wrote this script. Protagonist: a young (high school? college?) football player in a platonic relationship, who has his own house, is able to "feel" the antagonist and "confront" him via dreaming. Antagonist: A serial murderer who gets juiced on television electrodes before slaying his victims. He is also apparently involved in some form of dark worship based on references to animal sacrifice. (Later in the movie, we find that this dark force our antagonist worships is an enormous pair of electronic lips!)

These two central characters are then pitted against each other in true Craven style. The movie is a mash-up of Nightmare on Elm Street, Poltergeist, and Fallen, though Fallen released nearly a decade later. Like Nightmare, the protagonist is able to face the killer, but a buddy, Rhino in this case, must wake him before it's too late. Unlike Nightmare, Shocker throws this in and then abandons it, most likely because, well, it's already being used in the Nightmare series. But I'm not complaining. This is one reason I love Stephen King novels (emphasis on novels); it's great when an artist mixes in elements across his or her body of work.

The movie is loaded with gags and gimmicks, ranging from the ghost girlfriend, who constantly appears from the bathroom, to the ending. The ending is an enormous success for Shocker, and again, I wish I could've been there to witness the writing. Two characters dive into a television set and duke it out across channels. Then, back in reality (is this movie ever really in reality?), the remote control is used to govern the killer's actions--a nice little precursor to Haneke's Funny Games, though Haneke took it to a different level.

BC at Horror Movie a Day recently organized a screening of Shocker with Craven and others in attendance. Here is a short clip from the Q&A that took place before the screening. He also has some great commentaries here. If you haven't heard of Horror Movie a Day, then I'm shocked that you have heard of this blog, and I urge you to start reading HMAD. This horror aficionado has been watching a horror movie every day since early 2007!

The Screwfly Solution (2006)

Buffalo wings. I'm addicted to them. Seriously addicted. When a new Buffalo Wild Wings opened less than a mile from my home a few years a ago, I would instantly become a regular and the future recipient of an ulcer or two. And, recently, I discovered a better way to eat Buffalo wings: baked, with Frank's Red Hot Buffalo wing sauce! So, you can image my satisfaction on Saturday night when I sat down with a big bowl of baked Buffalo wings and watched a horror movie!

Just like the wings (which were demolished within three minutes), the movie was great. Of the Masters of Horror offerings I've seen, The Screwfly Solution ranks among the strongest in both concept and execution. No easy feat when you have under an hour; but for this time constraint I love the Masters of Horror series. With features just under an hour in duration, they are the perfect solution for someone with severe A.D.D. Or, if it's late and you're tired, but you can't go to sleep without watching a horror movie: MoH!

Anyway, back to the movie. Great plot, though not original; click here for the Wikipedia information on the 1977 short story by Raccoona Sheldon. Plot: Something is causing men everywhere to brutally murder women who arouse them--a common, frequent occurrence in the life of a typical, heterosexual man. This alone set the stage for some truly creepy scenes, whether you're a man or a woman. The movie plays off the notion that we humans are merely insects in a garden (many references to the biblical Garden of Eden), and an exterminator (God? Aliens?) has been sent to eradicate our existence; and what better way to eradicate humankind than by killing off all the women?

Sam Hamm (writer) and Joe Dante (director) do a great job adapting Sheldon's story. I loved the character shift from the (female) epidemiologist, first and foremost. Just when I thought the movie was going to follow this assertive heroine as she fought through bureaucratic government forces to uncover and expel the root of the epidemic, that door is closed and the focus shifts to Jason Priestley and his family. Dante is able to pull off some fairly dramatic moments despite being pressed for time; and despite poor acting on part of the daughter, the viewer is drawn into their lives enough to care what happens. The always reliable Elliott Gould is under utilized, thrown in for good measure. But he still manages to add some depth to the film, and reveals his true purpose toward the end.

Cheers to Dante for the consistent white-noise transitions that ultimately brought the film to a close; for injecting a quick clip of a Miike film (Imprint?); and for foreshadowing the notion of aliens. Wings and The Screwfly Solution were a perfect pair for a late Saturday night. I thoroughly enjoyed the film from start to finish, and I look forward to future MoH installments I haven't seen yet. Thanks to Netflix for instant, streaming movies, a selection that includes quite a few from this Showtime series. If you haven't seen this one, check it out. Have fun!

From Within (2008)

Much better than the recent Slaughter. This flick offered a well-developed plot, strong characters, taut pacing, and visualyl stimulating thrills. Sure, there are a multitude of films out there based on the "religious zealotry" plot, but something about From Within just worked--I was glued to the movie from beginning to end. More than anything else, I enjoyed the strong lead by Elizabeth Rice and the redneck antics of Adam Goldberg.

The Haunting in Connecticut (2009)

What's with the DVD menus these days? I purposefully abstain from reviews and trailers before watching a movie because too much is given away. Now, with the DVD menus in movies like The Unborn and The Haunting in Connecticut, I am forced into an onslaught of all the mood and thrills of the movie, delivered in a rapid--yet comprehensive--collage that plays before AND after I select play movie.

Tonight, as I encountered this, I looked away from the screen until it was over. Extreme behavior? I've been known to exhibit extreme behavior at times, sure; but why throw away the mood and horrific imagery before the movie even starts? I don't want to see any of it. I want to be scared for the same reason the characters are: because they are witnessing things for the first time. Anyway, I haven't even started the movie yet--had to vent out my frustration.

On with the show...

Well, that was disappointing. This movie offered nothing new to the audience: one of the family members see "frightening" visions, the family becomes concerned, the doctors confirm that nothing is wrong, a priest attempts to expel the evil from the house, some library research is done, and so on and so on. I thought The Amityville Horror remake did a better job than this movie. The only deviation from the format we've all been subjected to time and time again is the multiplied number of "scares." Seriously! I couldn't even keep count of how many times this movie used the exact same scare tactic.

Boo.

You may argue, but I recommend The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005) above this movie.

Martyrs (2008)

Not sure how to review this one! It's an intense movie split into three acts, but to review all three acts would be to give the movie away. As such, I will attempt to be as evasive as possible. Once again, the only way to experience the full effect of this horror flick is to forgo reading synopses and watching trailers. Just go in cold, let it ruin you, and deal with it.

The first act was amazing. It was entertaining, intense, gory, fast-paced; everything about the first act screamed high production value, the right choice of actors and actresses, and skilled directing. Both the visuals and the sounds were heightened for our viewing pleasure. Truthfully, the movie could have ended with a little twist at the 45-minute mark and I would've been a happy camper. But it didn't.

In order to keep from ruining it for those who read reviews without watching the movie first, I'll refrain from saying anything about acts two and three.

If you've read anything about this movie, you've probably read that the movie left people stunned, numb, low, and speechless. Well, it's true. When this movie ended, I looked at my friend with whom I watched it and saw a pallid, silent figure who resembled the otherwise jocund hockey fanatic. We both agreed that the second act was a bit too long (i.e. too hard to watch, especially for that length of time) and the third act was just outright bizarre!

Today I feel as though I'm floating through space while my subconscious performs the temporal motions of my usual life. I can't decide if I liked the movie as a whole or not. As I've said, the first act was an A+, but combined with the rest of the movie, I just don't know. It definitely messed with me, which is why I watch horror movies to begin with, but I don't know if I wanted these particular emotions stimulated (or, rather, singed off!).

This is not a movie for everyone, but if you love being pulled down into the dark recesses of misanthropy, by all means, throw this DVD into the player, heat up the Jiffy Pop, and enjoy.

Pro-Life (2007)

I felt compelled to make up for yesterday's dross by picking another one from Masters of Horror. Of the selection Netflix has available to view instantly until April 1st, John Carpenter's Pro-Life was chosen. I almost picked between Pelts and Deer Woman, but decided to save them based on recommendations I've received from readers. Having already seen Carpenter's Cigarette Burns, I felt moderately certain Pro-Life would deliver what I want in a horror movie.

In a young girl's attempt to have an abortion behind her overpowering father's back, she conveniently runs into two doctors who work at the local abortion clinic. They take her in and then ward off the father when he shows up and demands his daughter be sent back out.

Not everyone in the movie delivers a solid performance, but the main characters certainly do and that's what matters. The father is played by Ron Perlman who easily invokes fear whether acting in a horror movie or not. He pulls off the role of an über-religious nutcase with finesse.

Once we're past the first ten minutes, which quickly lay out the conflict, the movie begins building the tension between Perlman's character and the entire abortion clinic, mainly by bringing up a lot of arguments in the ongoing ethical issue of abortion. Eventually, the father forces his way into the clinic, taking some casualties along the way, all in the name of God.

Pregnancy oddities are used to build suspense and horror as well. The daughter is disbelieved when she claims to have been impregnated only a week prior as her stomach is already showing; an ultrasound is performed and the child inside of her begins punching and kicking visibly through her abdominal wall; crablike legs emerge from between her legs.

The most notable scene in the movie involves the father overthrowing the head of the clinic and performing an abortion on him (that's right: him). While not terribly graphic--the way Takashi Miike might have done it--it was still quite insane and uncomfortable. What really makes the scene disturbing is Perlman's calm dialogue throughout the process of making a hole and then using the actual clinical abortion equipment to perform the makeshift surgery.

The movie ends with the daughter killing the evil child, and just before the credits roll she says, "God's will is done." So, it seems the moral of the movie, amid all of the ethical arguments, is that abortion is justified if you are aborting a demon seed.

Très bien Carpenter. I maintain that this MoH series has been a profitable investment for you. Now, go forth and make a full-length movie for us!

Review Soundtrack:
Deftones - "Digital Bath"
Parkway Drive - "The Siren's Song"
Becoming The Archetype - "Elegy"

---

[ About Horror Dose ]
[ FAQ ]