The Baby (1973)

Like most off-the-wall movies (Hausu, for one), this gem of modern cinema came to my attention from one of the end-of-year awards posted on Horror Movie a Day--with the ridiculous wealth of dross BC has waded through over the years, I respect his opinion when he calls a movie bananas! But the first thing that struck me about the movie was its PG rating in the face of its disturbing premise: a grown man held captive as a baby in a house with lascivious sisters and a domineering mother. How could this stay within the bounds of PG without being a slapstick comedy? Well, aside from the incredulity one feels when approaching a movie with a plot like this (not to mention the unintended cheesiness of most 70s movies), the movie actually takes itself fairly seriously and delivers an entertaining and somewhat plausible psychological aspect.

Stoker (2013)

The execution of this story requires a special kind of viewer; I'm glad I'm that kind!

House at the End of the Street (2012)

I was fully prepared for this to be tripe.  With its marketing and boasting of J Law, I was pretty sure this would fall in there with movies like The Possession: polished, safely PG-13, overproduced monotony.  But, lo, I found enough to like here to say that I quite enjoyed watching it.  No, I wouldn't watch it again by choice, but for the one shot that I did take with it, I have no regrets.

The plot is a bit unoriginal, despite what other reviewers are claiming (I've seen more than a few talk about throwing away what could have been an original idea).  One day we'll finally all agree that there are no original ideas; one can only hope for original depictions of known ideas.  But anyway, the last thing I should do is wax philosophical when I'm trying to quickly write up a below-average review of an average movie.  J Law and her mother move into a new house in a new town as a way to make a fresh start.  We begin to get the typical backstory and stressors as the plot unfolds: there were tensions between the mother and father; J Law is from the big city and misses her friends; the neighbors are weird; and, oh yeah, you guys live within sight of a house where a gruesome double-murder took place.  From there, we get some psychological twists that, on paper, would have worn out their welcome, but in execution I enjoyed.

Nothing worth reporting as far as cinematics or setting.  Pretty generic.

This is the first time I've ever experienced J Law.  I have not seen Hunger Games or that movie with Bradley Cooper.  My first impression was that she is very comfortable, casual, and she seemingly effortlessly succeeded at portraying her character without coming off as whiny and annoying.  This is the danger with the character setup we have in this movie.  The daughter character could easily be unlikable if she were to overplay the I'm-going-through-a-hard-time angle.  I realize this makes me sound insensitive, but this is a movie, after all, and it's how I feel.  I hardly ever empathize with characters on-screen; yet I empathize with characters all the time while reading.  In any case, there is great chemistry between J Law and Max Thieriot.  The mother, Elisabeth Shue, I did not care for, though I did enjoy her character in Piranha.

I seriously doubt this will end up on anyone's Best... list, unless it's some ironic list like Best Average Movies or Best Attempts at a Shock Ending, but it's still worth a watch all the same.  The ending doesn't obstreperously grope for a twist/shock/epiphany as desperately as Silent House, but it isn't just a dud either.  This is simply a movie that's worth a watch if you want to burn some time on a decent thriller.

Rating: 3/5

Amber Alert (2012)

I had heard this was an utter flop, but I decided to give it a try anyway.  Usually I am pretty forgiving--especially when I already have low expectations--but I couldn't find anything to like here.  In fact, this may be the first film that has actually angered me (at one point I irritably asked the characters to shut up).  I've seen plenty of movies with characters that bicker and argue, but this one tops them all for its sheer annoyance.  I hate to completely write a movie off, because putting a feature together is hard work, but there is no need for this one to exist.

Rating: 0/5

Rites of Spring (2011)

Review forthcoming.

Rating: 3/5

Rosewood Lane (2011)

Review forthcoming.

Rating: 2/5

The Victim (2011)

Unless you're like me and you have undertaken a responsibility to watch any and every horror movie that hits the shelves, you can probably skip The Victim and be perfectly fine with your life.  It's not that it's a bad film; it just doesn't deliver anything worth watching.  There were several times when I contemplated turning it off and doing something more useful, but I had awaited the BluRay from Netflix long enough to warrant sticking it out and hoping for the best.  And though there was never really any payoff, there were plenty of little moments of charm (even if they weren't intended the way I took them) that keep me going to the end.

The plot is fairly simple, as is the cast and setting.  Two cops are engaging in illicit activities with a couple of strippers out in the middle of wooded nowhere.  When things take a wrong turn, one of the strippers, wearing heeled boots, is able to outrun two in-shape cops and make it to a little cabin where a man seeking solitude, and (as we find out) reformation from his old ways, is there to take her in and help with the situation.  So, yeah, pretty simple setup.  And, again, sort of like a simple Troma plot (e.g. Mother's Day, where a group of criminals barge in on a group of friends), the setup and action takes place quickly, leaving the remainder of the film to be creative with sparse materials.  So, we get the usual format of twisted cop versus civilian, and the tables turn a couple times, etc.  Unfortunately the space for creativity is filled in with plenty of runtime padding, especially the opening credits.  Oh, and by the way, this is apparently based on a true story.

As I said, the plot is as simple as the cast and the setting.  It's a very small cast--and, in fact, the end credits spend a lot of time saluting the crew more so than the cast, which was pretty cool.  Each crew member, down to the gaffer, is presented in full-screen with his or her name and role, one at a time.  I think this was a nice token of appreciation on part of, I'm assuming, writer-director-actor Michael Biehn.  And I can't fault the film for its setting either, as some of my favorite movies take place entirely in the woods and at a cabin (Evil Dead!).  But, again with the padding: the sequences of driving around!  Yes, we get that they are in the middle of nowhere!  And why were the SUV's headlights off most of the time, in the woods, in the middle of the night?

The acting was mostly atrocious, especially between Michael Biehn and real-life spouse Jennifer Blanc.  For people who are actually married, their on-screen interaction was rigid, forced, unnatural.  Perhaps being married was the problem?  But I've seen better interaction (Courtney Cox and David Arquette, even after all their personal, media-ridiculed shenanigans) between married couples on-screen.  In any case, the dialogue between these two was painful to watch.  Which eventually led me back to thinking that this was deliberate.  That the film really was supposed to be a cheesy throwback.  What would've helped is if there had been more of the fan-favorite Danielle Harris, who only really appears in flashbacks.  Overall, it seemed to me that Ryan Honey was having the most fun with his role.

Despite its flaws--the padding, the poor dialogue, the overly simple and reused setup--The Victim does deliver some amusing elements.  Michael Biehn's macho-coolguy demeanor was entertaining.  There's a moment when he starts yelling at Jennifer Blanc to "stop yelling at me" when she wasn't really yelling at all.  It was kind of amusing in that I felt I got a glimpse at what arguments and other forms of domestic bickering are like for the two.  In the end, though, the most irritating part of my experience was my constant wondering about what this film was trying to be.  At times it felt like an homage to the old Troma films; at other times it felt like it was blatantly cheesy; but still, at other times I could tell it was taking itself way too seriously.  There was some gratuitous use of Blanc and Harris that will probably, unfortunately, be the only reason most people watch the movie (sort of like The Brown Bunny).

Rating: 2/5

Silent House (2011)

By now you probably know this is a remake of the Uruguayan film La Casa Muda.  Without hesitation I can affirm that the original is by far one of the best horror movies I've seen.  Minimalistic, technically impressive, subtle, confusing in the manner of a Lovecraft tale, and just plain creepy.  By the time the credits rolled, which are in themselves a sort of epilogue, I was thoroughly bothered in that way all horror fiends crave.  So when I heard there was an English-language remake, I was thrilled; and due to my awareness of its subtle nature, I made the appropriate decision to wait for the BluRay instead of going to a crowded cinema.

Unfortunately, by the time the credits rolled on Silent House, I wasn't nearly as impressed.  In fact, I was quite disappointment with almost all of this version's departures from the original.  At the same time, however, I don't know that it needed to be a repeat of what Michael Haneke did with Funny Games--a shot-for-shot remake of the original--because I like to experience reimaginings.  Silent House, for me, was three different films in one: the first third being extremely satisfying; the second third being an eyeroller; and the final third being a complete let-down.  But let's focus on the positive first.

The film sticks with the original's one-take setup, which still impressed me the second time around, especially since the action takes off nearly right away.  This is no easy feat with a film that has such a simple plot, setting, and cast.  Unless you went to film school, are an amateur filmmaker, or just a cinematography nut, you don't tend to realize all the little things that stitch a move together into a cohesive story.  Things such as scene/shot transitions, point-of-view, segue stock footage (trees, streams, highways, planes landing, etc.) are heavily used and easily overlooked, but they all go together to give a sense of elapsed time within the actual runtime of the film.  So, yes, when it comes to a one-continuous-take movie that is 90 minutes long, and that stays in the POV of a single character, it's no easy feat indeed.

Elizabeth Olsen, whom I've never seen before, nailed her role.  I mean, nailed it!  I would watch any horror movie with this actress.  And, as I've mentioned, this is a demanding role being that the whole film rests on her shoulders à la Ryan Reynolds in Buried (which is a good thing because the father and uncle characters are terrible).  I can't say I've ever seen a horror actress exhibit a sense of fear and dread quite this intense before.  There were many times I realized I was mimicking her actions: holding my breath being my most frequent response.  And that's a definite token to how great her performance was.  She was able to bring me into the film, into the silent house, if you will.

And now the negative stuff, which will inevitably include "spoilers" (deliberate quotes).  This version chooses to go with a visual entity (entity is my word for antagonist/monster/killer/stalker/etc.; not necessarily a metaphysical entity); and not only this but the entity is shown on-screen right away.  This is a huge pet peeve of mine, even with creature features.  We, the audience, stop fearing that which we've seen.  It would have been better if the film had chosen to ride it out a bit longer, instead of choosing to do this lame attempt at recreating the magic of the first in-house reveal in The Strangers.  Because, man, until this point in Silent House, I was so literally creeped out, wondering what was going on that my wife nearly scared me to death when she decided to come downstairs and ask me to turn the subwoofer down.

The other negatives revolve around the scares and the wrap-up.  A lot of scares employ the something's-there-then-a-character-blocks-the-frame-for-a-moment-then-it's-gone method, or vice-versa.  This is uncalled for in a movie of this type--of any type really.  It's insulting to the audience.  Although I can say that there were a few times the scares were setup to be predictable and then drew out past the moment of predictability, effectively raising the audience's pulse.  One of the best scares in the movie occurs at the beginning, when Olson is under a table and a glass bottle rolls across the floor.  (What occurs next is the actual good scare I'm referring to.)  If the film had maintained this type of form, I'd have been sold.

Then there's the wrap-up.  Oh! after all that disappointing middle layer, we're given no icing and no cherry on top.  Instead we're given this bizarre genre mix that is out-of-place and too far of a stretch to wow or emphiphanize (I think I made that word up) the audience.  The film is going, going, going, then it just turns and rapidly spits out what seems to be several different attempts at an ending.  Then, finally, one official turn and The End.  Then credits--but not cool credits like the original.  And I'm sitting there lamenting over what could have been a great film.  So, my final assessment is tough because it's really 3 dips into different genres: it begins as subtle psychological thriller, then haunted house, then home invasion, then killer, then survival, then mystery, then supernatural, then back to psychological.  And if you're into that, so much the better.  For me, I'd be delighted to re-watch only the first 20 minutes of this one.

ATM (2012)

I just bought a new TV--my largest yet, at 60 inches--so, naturally, I was excited to watch the first movie.  Unfortunately ATM didn't release in BluRay, but whatever.  I've been watching DVDs for years, and I honestly don't think a clearer picture would've saved this movie from its persistent mediocrity.  Now, that's not to say it isn't worth watching.  It's just mediocre from start to finish, with some glaring flaws I couldn't look beyond.

The first cringe-inducing element of the movie was the forced chemistry of the two male leads, Corey and David.  Their first interaction occurs at their adjacent cubicles in their workplace (a financial institution which I thought was a setup for some social commentary on all of the economic crises).  I've seen plenty of bad acting and terrible on-screen chemistry, but this is the worst since the first Saw installment.  The dialogue between Corey and David is written in the manner of a Judd Apatow movie, but these two cannot execute the comedy like Seth Rogen, Jason Segel, Paul Rudd, et al.  I could tell I was supposed to laugh, but it was so forced and flimsy and, well, awkward, that I could only feel sorry for the actors watching themselves in hindsight (surely they can tell how bad and unnatural it is).

The second is the implausibility factors of the plot.  When it comes to a survival flick, especially if it's a single-setting setup, it is understandably difficult to find ways to ensure continuity and suspense.  I'll just point out two things I couldn't get past.  The first is the unnatural and forced way in which our triad ends up in the ATM booth.  From Corey's insistence that David give him a ride home to the fact that he needs food to the fact that he needs to stop at an ATM--it all seems poorly thought out.  I can feel that the film is groping at straws to get these three to an obscure ATM booth.  But whatever.  I tried to excuse all the things by telling myself the film would pick up once they were inside and the killers shenanigans commenced.  And the second and most glaring flaw occurs when the antagonist pulls David's car up to the door (so as to trap them in) and uses a nearby hose to flood the booth.  As soon as David notices the car at the door, he is able to open the door about 5-6 inches.  So, once the water begins to fill the booth, why doesn't someone open the door--maybe even prop it open with the flimsy aluminum trash can?  Why doesn't the water push it open?  And as far as I can tell our characters aren't suffering any mental breakdowns that would limit this strategy.  

The third is the insulting of the audience's intelligence with what is made out to be the epiphany of the film.  Throughout the movie, we constantly get the perspective of the ATM camera and we see that the antagonist is very meticulous as to how close to the booth he gets.  The leads constantly question why he won't come near them.  But we, the audience, know that it's because he doesn't want to appear on camera.  And almost every camera-perspective shot shows David doing something destructive or violent.  So, yeah, we get that it is going to look as if David is the culprit.  But the film decides to go back and show all the clips we've just seen and really amp up the fact that it all looks as if David is actually the killer.  Yes, we got that.  Thanks.

The fourth and final is the antagonist's motive.  Or lack thereof.  Perhaps I missed something, but this seems to be one of the stock of movies in which the killer is an obsessive-compulsive with no apparent motive.  It's worked for some movies, but with the chips already stacked against ATM, it seemed like another shortcut.  I have to question whether or not the filmmakers went back and watched the final product and thought, yes, this is a good film that people will like.  Because, for me, this is mediocre and does nothing for the survival-thriller genre.  Yet, at the same time, I was compelled to stick it out for the wrap-up; and despite the finish being anticlimactic, I can say that I still had a decent time.  So here's to a good try and a chance to learn from our mistakes.

Skew (2011)

Probably one of the more confusing movies I seen, Skew's greatest obstacle is its apparently lofty aims of cerebral profundity.  Or perhaps this is one of the better indie films.  I just can't decide because, for every negative of the movie I find a positive, and for that reason I'm simply left unsettled, without any closure.  One thing I can say with certainty: this movie begs for a re-watch, and I honestly wouldn't mind sitting through it again.

That I'm considering a re-watch is amusing to me now because within the first half hour I found myself thinking, I will never suffer through this again.  Within another ten minutes I was thinking, What is the real plot here?  My expectations were heightened by the film's opening quote.  Most of these films open with a quote from a more familiar figure (to most of the demographic), like, say, Poe or Lovecraft.  But Skew opens on a quote from none other than the 19th century French literary titan Honoré de Balzac.  A student of literature, familiar with French titans such as Balzac, Rimbaud, Rabelais, Verlaine, et al., this impressed me.  It said to me that this write was deeper than most, influenced by more profound literature.  Later I would find that the writer/director is the Canadian Sevé Schelenz.  (I would also find that the film was 6 years in the making, mostly due to the FX and budgeting.)

Then we're introduced to a trio of some of the most annoying characters I've ever encountered.  I couldn't em/sympathize with any of them at any time throughout the duration of the film.  Whiny, flimsy, volatile, frustrating characters, they are.  It only takes about fifteen minutes to realize what's going on between two of the characters, so I'm not sure if the filmmaker intended for it to be that way or not.  Either way, it's a subplot that permeates the movie and appears to be an intentionally mysterious element to keep the audience engaged.  I imagine a group of people sitting in a room with this script, debating on whether it's too subtle or not, and finally leaning toward the more obvious approach.  The final product is an insult to the audience's intelligence.  Or is it a plot device that is used to distract us from that more important clues?

The mockumentary style, brought to popularity by The Blair Witch Project, is growing old, so it's always interesting to see how certain things will be explained.  I can't remember exactly why our videographer, Simon, has the camera or why he's shooting (other than for fun), but it's a simple little recorder without a flipscreen (as we're specifically told in the film).  Simon also establishes that he does not care to be on camera, and the film sticks with that (except for a brief moment on a police station security camera, and even then we don't see Simon's face).  And with the established constraint that we're going to stay in  the camera's/Simon's perspective, the filmmakers have the obstacle of explaining underlying plot points while dealing with how to get the explanations on film for the audience.  No easy feat.  But Skew has the answer: the camera turns itself on.

And now for a few words about the "main" plot, or what we can think of as the marketed plot.  For this, the film borrows from Final Destination and The Ring, and the end product isn't moving in the least.  There's no creative factor, and there's no mystery (for all of Final Destination's failures, it has always prided itself on inventive deaths and intense buildups).  This plot does, however, setup three of the more unusual scenes in the movie, all involving people who have recently been killed.  These little scares were a mixed bag because (a) they were completely unexpected and inexplicable; and (b) they were completely outside of the scope of the mockumentary subgenre.  Then again, perhaps this is the change-up we're looking for to breathe new life into the genre?  Whatever the explanation for these choices, I don't think the marketed plot is the one the film spent its efforts to develop.

The ending is one of the strangest and most confusing endings I've ever seen.  Or is it the most brilliant ending that begs the viewer to watch the movie again?  (I'll update this post once I've re-watched the film, and let you know!)  Suddenly the film becomes a psychological breakdown that raises a myriad questions.  The whole "what's real" thing starts going on.  At the same time, though, there is no great epiphany.  There is no a-ha! moment.  Just before the movie ends, with several unresolved points that are still driving me crazy, the film is rewound (not for the first time) to moments that occurred before the point at which the movie started.  At first, I was delighted, and I sat up in my chair so as to really take in what they were going to unfold.  The film had me completely engrossed.  Unfortunately, the film only "revealed" explanations I'd ascertained in the first part of the movie.  And not content with leaving me completely disappointed, the film gives one final shot that is rewound a couple times and played back the last time with the slow-step function so as to show an image that I must assume is the key to this movie.

My review seems quite negative.  The only hope is that re-watching the film unlocks the secret of its greatness.  Based on the final confusing shot, I must assume that the movie has subtle clues scattered throughout, clues which the viewer overlooks the first time for their subtlety.  The other explanation is that it's one of these films that prides itself on its inexplicability, which I don't usually favor unless its done strikingly well.  To me that screams of someone who is intelligent and does not want to be able to be explained (forced profundity).  Then again, I'm a huge fan of David Lynch, so, Skew, you'd better have something  to show me this second time around!

Retreat (2011)

Against my usual self-mandated restrictions, I read a couple of reviews about this one; and for the most part the reception was very negative.  In this case, though, I think reading the reviews properly set my expectations (I realize this statement is itself a sleight to the movie).  Retreat does not offer anything new to the survival-thriller genre, but it does do a great job at prolonging the mystery of whether the military fellow is completely delusional or not.  And for that alone, this is 90 minutes well spent.

The Woman (2011)

Think Halfway through I thought to myself, This seems like something Jack Ketchum would write. Well, it is; it's based on the novel by Mr. Ketchum and Lucky McKee. Admittedly, I've fallen out of touch with the publications from Dorchester (Leisure Books)--especially since I've read everything in print by Richard Laymon (including those that I had to order from the UK publisher, Headline Books). The Woman definitely has that Girl Next Door vibe and the cinematography is very similar to the aforementioned, Red, The Lost, and the nauseating Header. Of all the Ketchum adaptations, this one has the most to love. No real revelations or game-changer moments, but it's a solid movie with well-balanced black humor, steadily building tension, and eerie moments akin to those of Deadgirl.

And Soon the Darkness (2010)

Rating: F
Experience Vitals: Netflix DVD

Because the film gave me so little, I will return the favor with a terse review: Unnecessary filmmkaing. I'm sure the 1970 original was intense, but after how far we (i.e. the audience, the people you make films for) have come, what's the point of this?

Buried (2010)

Rating: A
Experience Vitals: Netflix DVD.

There's a reason the name RYAN REYNOLDS is stamped in big block letters above the title of the DVD. Not only is he the only character you ever see, he carries this movie with so solid a performance he's the only character you need to see. And this could have easily been a bore fest, too, because, yes, it takes place inside a coffin for the entire duration of the film and the plot never deviates from the original setup. With this film the actor/actress has a lot of responsibility, and so it's a good thing Rodrigo Cortés locked in Reynolds for the role. Even if you're put off by the idea of monotony and redundancy, you should check it out. Believe me, I'm severely ADD, but the movie gripped me from the start and was over in what seemed like barely an hour. Within fifteen minutes Reynolds and the amazing camera work had me squirming in my chair from claustrophobia! Think of the tight tunnel scenes in The Descent, then amplify the feeling a few notches. At times I was afraid the film was getting too serious to be taken seriously, but I was relieved with a touch of humor (albeit black humor for the most part, given the situation) that not only lightened the mood but pulled me into deeper sympathy for Reynolds--so much so, in fact, that toward the end I found myself in the grasp of the movie's pathos.

Devil (2010)

Rating: C+
Experience Vitals: BluRay from Blockbuster, watched in privacy of own home around 2200, fully awake and actually perhaps a bit too caffeine-stimulated.

I know: M. Night Shahm-uh-lawn, right? Steadily downhill since The Sixth Sense save for Signs, and all that, right? Well, yeah, me too, but Devil isn't too shabby, though of course--and maybe because of the fact that--it isn't directed by MNS; the story is written by him then transposed to a screenplay by someone else, let's see, uh, Brian Nelson, and finally directed by John Dowdle (Quarantine [watch the original, [REC], instead], The Poughkeepsie Tapes [this will never release]). And so but anyway, à la District 9's boasting of the name Peter Jackson, MNS's name is plastered everywhere for the marketing of Devil. Don't be fooled. But, also, don't be fooled by my praises either (if they are in fact bleeding through here) because, while it "isn't too shabby," it's not great either. Perhaps this is a good way to sum it up: I remember enjoying the movie, but I don't really remember the movie--and I watched it last night.

Frozen (2010)

Hey guys! I'm back after a long hiatus, during which I successfully completed my master's degree (thank you, thank you). So, what's to say? I'm back to checking out some fresh horror DVD releases. First post-grad school movie is, officially, Adam Green's Frozen. And I've gotta say, right off the bat, it is much better than Hatchet. (I'll pause for a moment while you boo me and throw various rotted fruits at the screen.) It is much more mature filmmaking and exemplifies Adam Green's ability to do more than mediocre camp (I still eagerly anticipate Hatchet II). One thing is certain about Frozen: Green takes a simple idea that, at first, may seem largely implausible, and delivers a tight film of escalating tension and despair. This horror fan had a blast!

Shutter Island (2010): Perhaps You Can Sway Me

What is great about this movie? It has become a rule to use this "twist" in nearly every mainstream psychological thriller out there, so why the emphasis on the so-called mindbending twist the movie boasts? Everything pointed toward the ending, e.g. the disjointed perspective of the protagonist; and if you've seen one, you've seen 'em all. So, help me if I'm missing something. Perhaps you can sway me to watch this one again. Or perhaps you agree that this is mediocre at best. (And, yes, I realize that this is not a horror movie, though it was marketed as such.)

The Collector (2009)

Rating: C

The Fourth Kind (2009)

Rating: F
This is like watching someone try to be cool and fit in. The movie tries harder than any other film out there in terms of making the viewer understand that THIS IS BASED ON TRUE EVENTS! I get it for cryin' out loud! Actual footage, actual voices, juxtaposition of the dramatization and actual footage here and there with an annoying split-screen. What's the point? This is largely boring with maybe two small flickers of potential, somewhere, I think, maybe.

Sorority Row (2009)

Rating: D-
I would really hate to know how much money was spent on this movie, and I would be shocked if it took more than a weekend to make. Unlike the Stepfather remake, I was mostly bored and hard-pressed to find something pleasing: no suspense, no likable characters (the characters we were supposed to like were paper thin, weak), trite twists, and pitiful red herrings! A complete waste of time. No one put any effort into this film unless you consider the viewer's effort to get through it. The only reason I am not giving it an F is due to a few tongue-in-cheek remarks from Jessica (Leah Pipes).