Review: SILENT NIGHT

SILENT NIGHT
2012
Directed by Steven C. Miller

Here's a concept for you: guy dressed as Santa Claus, around Christmas time, killing people. You hear that and think "You'd have to be an idiot to fuck that up!"

And yet, for five films, the filmmakers of the original Silent Night, Deadly Night series did just that. The first film is regarded as something of a "classic," but I think that has more to do with nostalgia and also people remembering something the movie is not. And aside from the infamous and memorable "GARBAGE DAY!!!" sequence from Part 2 (CLICK HERE TO SEE IT!!), the original franchise is a tiny, uncooked Christmas goose, not worthy of even Bob Cratchit and his poor family.

Here is one franchise that was read for a reboot/remake/whatever. So how did they do? Well, it's not a total catastrophe! That's something!

For one thing, the film looks pretty professional, and director Steven C. Miller must have been watching a ton of J.J. Abrams stuff before he sat down in the director's chair, because there are lens flares all over this thing.

SPIT OUT THAT GUM, YOUNG MAN.

SILENT NIGHT takes place in a town where apparently everyone is a fucking jerk-off. There are creepy, pervert priests; there are disgruntled Santa's who make kids cry; there are pornographers and cocaine addicts; and there is lazy town sherif, played by lazy actor Malcolm McDowell.

Jamie King stars as Aubrey, a deputy getting over the loss of her husband. She's nervous on the job, which is bad timing, because some crazy man in a Santa Claus suit is killing people in town. He appears to be killing "naughty" people, like a really bratty little girl, and people committing adultery and so on. However, the filmmakers seem to abandon this plot point, because soon our killer Santa is killing everyone in sight, naughty or nice.

The movie is kind of a mess. There's a strange plot-line that appears in the middle of the film about man in the past who ALSO dressed as Santa and killed a bunch of people with a flame thrower. Then there's Aubrey's uncertainty with her job. At one point she's even visited by what I can only assume is the ghost of her dead husband, dressed in a Santa suit. It's weird. Most likely there were half a dozen different drafts of the screenplay, and they just did a little pick-n-choose and hoped they all stuck.

Malcolm McDowell ponders: "What the fuck happened to my career?"

The movie does have its saving graces. The gore-factor is top notch, and I appreciate that they used a lot of practical effects rather than just CGI blood and gore. The Santa costume, with its clear mask, is actually pretty creepy looking. And the film doesn't pull punches; people die in nasty ways.

But there's no heart or soul at play here. If a filmmaker with passion had tackled this film, even with its messy screenplay, we could've ended up with something near-perfect. But Steven C. Miller seems to just be going through the motions, moving from point A to point B in dull procession.

"PUNISH!"

Characters come and go, popping up from time to time to make the audience say "Oh yeah, that guy..."; the ending "plot-twist" is pointless; the town looks like an obvious studio backlot. And then there's that whole "naughty or nice" angle. Early in the film, there are several scenes where killer Santa will dispatch some rude asshole, and spare some "innocent" person nearby. Okay, that's fine. But then they forget all about that, and soon Santa is going after the Mayor, who seemed like a nice guy, and the cute police station dispatch girl, who also seems pretty nice. What's your deal, Santa? Make up your goddamn mind. 

Also, Jamie King is a cute actress and she's clearly trying, but she gives a pretty bad performance here, and is incapable of carrying a film. At one point she comes across the corpse of someone very very close to her and her "horrified" reaction is laughable.

But, any film that features a scene like this can't be all bad:

SILENT NIGHT is a not an awful film. It has its moments, and its certainly more enjoyable than any of the films from the original franchise (GARBAGE DAY!! scene excluded, of course). You could do a lot worse when it comes to Killer Santa movies. However, with such a seemingly good concept, it still baffles me that no one has managed to get it right yet.

I give SILENT NIGHT:

         TWO NOGS out of FOUR

Review: LINCOLN

LINCOLN
2012
Directed by Uwe Boll Steven Spielberg


Who was the greatest American president? If you said James K. Polk, you're 100 % correct.

But a close second is Abraham Lincoln. There are a lot of people on the internet, aka the cesspool of humanity, that like to knock Lincoln off his pedestal, and say things like "He didn't REALLY hate slavery!" or "He was a TYRANT!" or "What's up with that BEARD?"

To those people I say: shut up, morons.

Yes, it's true that Lincoln has become a mythic figure, and that there is a more human, flawed side to that myth. But don't be a silly idiot. Lincoln was a great man, and a great president, and if you don't believe me, read a fucking book or two.

Sadly there haven't be many great films about the great man (except, of course, Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure). People have tried, and made valiant efforts. But no film really seemed to take Lincoln from a marble statue and turn him into a living, breathing man.

UNTIL NOW.

LINCOLN, the latest film from Steven "the Beard" Spielberg, takes a unique approach to the story of the 16th president of the United States. Rather than your standard cradle-to-the-grave biopic, LINCOLN focuses instead on a period near the end of the Lincoln's presidency and life: specifically, the period where Lincoln is trying to get the 13th Amendment passed, thus ending slavery.

The Civil War is dying down, and the Union has all but declared victory. This is a mixed blessing for Lincoln: it's obviously great that the war is ending, however, he fears that once the war is completely ended, there will be no real rush to abolish slavery, and he'll have no chance getting his amendment passed. So, Lincoln tasks Secretary of State William Seward (a wonderful and warm David Strathairn) with rounding up three men (John Hawkes, Tim Blake Nelson and James Spader--all fantastic, especially Spader, who steals every scene he's in) with gathering enough votes to pull the whole thing off.

Be excellent to each other....and PARTY ON, DUDES!

Along the way Lincoln has to deal with his wife Mary Todd (Sally Field) who is slowly sinking into insanity and his rebellious son Robert (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who is contractually required to be in all movies these days), who wants to go join the fight, much to his parents' chagrin.

Lincoln also has to reign in fiery abolitionist Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones, who gives one of the best performances of his career). Stevens is seen as a "radical," and his outbursts could derail the whole process.

This movie is a delight to behold. It never feels dull, or slow. Every scene crackles with energy, thanks to Spielberg's rather reserved direction, Tony Kushner's fire-cracker of a script, and top-of-their-game performances from literally the entire cast.

But of course, the real attraction here is Daniel Day-Lewis. Day-Lewis is one of the best actors we have, and he seems to turn in "career best" performances in every single role he takes (with the weird misfire of the dull musical NINE). And once again, he comes through. Day-Lewis becomes Lincoln. We will never REALLY know how Lincoln talked, and walked, and acted--but watching Day-Lewis is probably the closest we'll ever get. His Lincoln is a tender, reserved man, with a high voice and a rumpled, unkempt appearance. And he loves to tell stories. Any time Lincoln wants to get a point across to his squabbling cabinet members, he regals them with a humour story, and you can't help but hang on every word. The real Lincoln suffered from depression, and his humor helped him work through the melancholy feelings that overcame him. Day-Lewis understands that, and embodies it fully.

Lincoln makes blankets a fashion statement.

LINCOLN isn't a flawless film, though. The very first scene of the film feels just a little too "staged," and doesn't really flow with the more realistic tone the rest of the film takes. Also, while his performance is fine, Joseph Gordon-Levitt's Robert Lincoln feels useless here. I'm sure he was added to provide more glimpses into Lincoln's personal life, but the character doesn't seem to add much to the film, and could've easily been left on the sidelines.

There's also a brief shot near the end where the image of Lincoln appears inside the flame of a lantern that is almost painfully corny and on-the-nose, but thankfully it ends before you can roll your eyes too much. And while we're on the subject of the end, personally I think Spielberg could've ended things before the assassination (SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!). He makes a wise choice by having the assassination happen off-screen, but before the whole sequence, we are left with the image of Lincoln saying goodbye to his staff, uttering the words "I would like to stay, but I fear I must go," and quietly walking out of the White House, bathed in shadows. In my humble opinion, that would've been a perfect spot to cut to the credits. But the extra stuff doesn't diminish the impact of the film, so I can't complain too much.

"You're gonna love this next scene; it ends with a real BANG!"
"Ugh, terrible."

LINCOLN is that rare Hollywood biopic that is uplifting and inspirational without being cloying and overly manipulative. Daniel Day-Lewis should be going off to the store right about now to buy some extra Oscar Wax, because I can't think of a single actor this year who is more deserving of an Academy Award.

Until someone invents a time machine, we'll never really be able to see Abraham Lincoln as a living, breathing person. So while we wait for that day, this film will be the best option we have.

I give LINCOLN Four out of Four Stovepipe Hats.

Review: SKYFALL

SKYFALL

2012

Directed by Sam Mendes 

SKYFALL is the INSERT NUMBER HERE! James Bond film, and the third film to feature Daniel Craig as 007. Critics have been going Double-O-CRAAAAZY for this film--so how good is it? 

I'm not a huge Bond fan. I like "Goldfinger," and "Casino Royale," and the one with the gadgets! But SKYFALL is certainly one of the better Bond films, especially after the weird disaster that was QUANTUM OF SOLACE, which was about James Bond trying to stop some guy from stealing water or something. 

There are two big things SKYFALL has going for it: one, they decided to let Sam Mendes direct, and two, after the two rather dull villains of the previous Craig-Bond films, Javier Bardem turns in one of the most memorable Bond Villain performances of all time. 

Mendes brings with him master cinematographer Roger Deakins, who makes every single frame of this film look gorgeous. He also works hard to bring some fun back into the franchise. 

SKYFALL's story is one of the simplest of all the Bond films. For one thing, there's no ice hotel or invisible car. The plot is this: Creepy bad-guy Silva (Bardem) has stolen files that will reveal the identities of undercover spies. He's doing this because he has a grudge against MI6 head M (Judi Dench). Bond tries to stop him. Things blow up. Bond looks great in suits. Ralph Finnes has a badass scene where he shoots a gun. Naomie Harris is gorgeous. Bond has a spooky old family mansion. More things blow up. The End.

Oh mamma....

Of course there is more to it. The film's overall theme seems to be about how Bond (and M) just doesn't fit into the "modern world." Bond is getting old; he's lost a step or two. He drinks a lot more (and still maintains that amazing physique!) 

Mendes wisely strips everything down. While there is the usual globe-hopping and exotic locals of the Bond films, the plot is so simple that we don't get lost or bored. And who knew Mendes could film such thrilling action scenes. Unlike other action films, we can actually see what the hell is going on here. The camera doesn't shake all over the place. The stunts (for the most part) look real. 

Original Gangsta

That said, SKYFALL left me a little cold. For one thing, there's a strange disconnect with what's going on here. One of the side-effects of stripping the story down is that the stakes aren't very high. Yeah, our bad-guy Silva is clearly crazy and evil, but really he just wants to kill M. And sure, that's not good, but it doesn't really have the same effect as "WORLD DOMINATION," which is what most Bond villains are out to achieve. Bond almost feels unnecessary to the story. Anyone who is good with a gun could just as easily protect M here. 

The other problem I have with this film is that it's almost beat-for-beat an adaptation of THE DARK KNIGHT. Before the film came out, Mendes said in several interviews how heavily influenced he was by Nolan's film. Afterwards, he seemed to quiet down about this--probably because the film is just too damn similar. 

Javier Bardem is a great actor, especially when it comes to playing lunatics, but Silva is straight out of the Heath Ledger Joker Playbook. Bond has a dreary old family mansion (like Batman!). He has an old, trusty housekeeper (like Batman!) who helped raise him after his parents were killed (like Batman!). 

M takes on the Harvey Dent role as the person trying to change things who is targeted by a lunatic. Hell, Silva even has facial/mouth scars (like the Joker). Silva even lets himself get captured, just so he can pull of this big elaborate scheme (again, like the Joker.) 

You wanna know how I got this hair??

I get it; THE DARK KNIGHT was a game-changing film, so it was only natural it would influence other films. But the influence here is just a little too on-the-nose. 

All that said, I can't deny SKYFALL is a lot of fun. He may be a Joker-clone, but Silva is a really entertaining villain. A particular scene where he tries to "seduce" Bond is hilarious and incredibly well acted between Bardem and Craig. For the "final battle," Bond and co. transform his family's mansion into a Home Alone-like boobytrap factory, which results in a lot of fun scenes of nameless henchmen flipping on light switches only to end up exploding. As mentioned before, the direction and cinematography is fantastic. All of the actors are great (Dench is always good, as is Ralph Finnes; Ben Whishaw makes a nice, nerdy Q; oh, and did I mention Naomie Harris is gorgeous? Because she is).

SKYFALL also acts as a sort of "greatest hits" of the Bond franchise. I won't spoil things, but let's just say the last half of the movie is filled with fan service, from characters to vehicles.

SKYFALL is a fun film. It's entertaining, and it's never boring. Yet it somehow left me a little cold. Maybe the hype got to me; or maybe I'm just not a big enough Bond fan to get bowled over.

All in all, I give SKYFALL three Javier Bardem's out of four.

Review: KILL LIST

WTF???

End of review.






Okay, I guess I should review it for real....

KILL LIST

2011

Directed by Ben Wheatley

There has been a lot of buzz about KILL LIST. Several websites I follow went out of their way to applaud the film and call it one of the best horror films of 2011. 

As is always the case when horror movies have good buzz, I was skeptical. It's not because I'm such a cynical bastard (which I am); it's just that everyone's view of what constitutes "good horror" is different. Horror, like comedy, is a very subjective genre. One fan's masterpiece is another's pile of steaming shit.

So I waited and kind of forgot about KILL LIST. And then, for some reason, it popped into my head, so I gave it a watch. 

There's no real way to review this movie without giving away spoilers, since the movie is one twist after another, so be forewarned, HERE THERE BE SPOILERS.

KILL LIST is about Jay (Neil Maskell), who has been out of work for eight months, much to the chagrin of his wife Shel (MyAnna Buring). One night, the couple has a dinner party, where Jay's old partner Gal (Michael Smiley, who is wonderful here) shows up with a date named Fiona (Emma Fryer).

During dinner, Jay has a bit of a breakdown, flipping over plates and getting into a violent argument with his wife. This is the first indication we have that Jay is not really "right in the head."

Gal takes Jay aside and tells him of a potential job, that will pay well. Jay is hesitant at first, but relents. And then we find out what kind of work these guys do: they're contract killers. 

The job seems simple, at least simple in hitman terms: kill three people: a priest, a librarian and an M.P. 

Jay and Gal have been hired by some mysterious old man who lives in a mysterious hotel and it's all very mysterious. And things get weirder from there. 

Jay finds his victims thanking him just before he kills them. He also goes off the deep-end, turning what should be simple hits into bloodbaths, much to the chagrin of Gal. 

Both men have a bad feeling about this job, and they want to back out. The mysterious old man says no: if they back out, not only will they be killed, but their families will be killed also. 

So Jay and Gal go off to kill the last person on the list, the M.P., who lives in a secluded mansion. While camping out at night, waiting for the right moment to strike, the guys witness a bizzarre cultish ritual, with naked people in masks sacrificing a young woman by hanging. It's not up until this point that KILL LIST becomes a "horror" movie. Everything preceding thi. s scene is more like a British gangster thriller. 

But when the scary stuff starts happening, it's pretty unnerving. Things slowly go batshit insane, and Jay retreats to a cabin with his wife and son to try to avoid the spooky cultists--to no such luck. 

I won't describe what happens at the end for two reasons: one is because it's much more effective if you have no idea what's coming and two is because I have no idea what the hell it means.

I'm not the type of movie-goer who needs everything spelled out for them. Sometime ambiguity can enhance a viewing experience. One of the greatest horror films of all time, Kubrick's THE SHINING, leaves a lot to the imagination, and it works.

KILL LIST is a different story. I'm not really sure if it succeeds. It's ending is shocking, and disturbing, but it also makes very little sense. I don't need all my questions answered, but a few hints might've helped. 

The film is well made; director Ben Wheatley knows how to frame a shot for maximum creep effect. The violence is brutal and graphic. The acting is good across the board, with Michael Smiley as Gal stealing every scene he's in. But KILL LIST is such an uneven film that it's hard to recommend. It doesn't seem to know what it wants to be, and suffers as a result.

I think a lot of the positive press from the film resulted in the fact that people were so caught off guard by the ending that they thought they had seen something truly remarkable, when really there's not much to KILL LIST beyond some graphic violence and one or two creepy scenes.

Review: SINISTER

SINISTER
2012
Directed by Scott Derrickson


It's so hard to get horror right.

"Horror" is subjective. What scares one person won't always scare another. But there is a basic structure and format to good, effective horror that when it's done right, it can send chills up the spine of even the most cynical of fans.

SINISTER is the horror film to beat this year. The year isn't over yet, but I'll go out on a limb and say that SINISTER is the scariest film of 2012. The film is brought to us by producer Jason Blum, who also produces the PARANORMAL ACTIVITY films and INSIDIOUS. He's pretty much got this thing down to a science at this point. He's even opening his own haunted house in California.

SINISTER, however, is on another level though. The PA films, and INSIDIOUS, while both containing scares, also have a level of fun silliness to them. They're like haunted houses at carnivals. You get a good scare or two, then you walk out laughing.

SINISTER isn't interested in giving you a chuckle. It wants you to leave the theater shaken. And it succeeds.

The story is about true crime writer Ellison, played by Ethan Hawke. Ten years ago he had a big hit with his true crime book "Kentucky Blood." However, ever since then, he's been chasing glory. His other books have failed, and one book even ended up helping a real killer go free.

Ellison desperately wants to recapture his fame and fortune, and he thinks he knows just how to do it. He moves his wife and children into a new house, and not just any house. As we see at the beginning of the film, in chilling detail, the house was the scene of a murder. A family was hung from a tree in the yard, and their daughter went missing. The crime was never solved.

Ellison doesn't tell his family they just moved into a murder house. He knows his wife Tracy (Juliet Rylance) will freak out--and rightfully so. So he keeps everyone in the dark as he goes about trying to solve the mystery.

However, the first night in the house, Ellison finds a box marked HOME MOVIES in the attic. The box contains film canisters as well as a Super 8 projector. He sets up a theater in his office and watches.

To his horror he discovers the films contain not only the murders of the family that lived in his house, but several other murders spread across the years. He does some digging and discovers that all the murders are similar in that they involve families killed, and one of the children missing.

This should be enough to freak anyone out, but Ellison also begins hearing strange bumps in the night. His son begins experiencing intense night terrors. His daughter draws pictures of dead girls. Scorpions, snakes and a mean looking dog invade his property. And then he notices a strange, ghoulish figure appearing in the snuff films. With the help of a local professor (played by Vincent D'Onofrio, who literally Skype's his performance in), he believes this figure might be an ancient deity named Bagul; a nasty monster who eats the souls of children.

There's a lot more going on here, but to tell you would spoil the fun. And by fun I mean dread and terror.

SINISTER is relentless in its goal to scare you. There are moments of levity here and there, but for the most part, SINISTER wants to make you uncomfortable. From its weird, jarring and haunting score to the brutal snuff films Ellison watches almost nightly, SINISTER takes hold of your nerves and pulls them in every direction possible.

Hawke does a great job carrying the film. His character, when you get right down to it, is kind of an asshole, but Hawke makes him likable and believable. His family could've been a bit more fleshed out, especially his wife, who spends most of the film either chastising Ellison or the children. But these are minor flaws and come nowhere close to derailing the story, as the film is really about Ellison and his own personal descent into terror and doubt.

Director Scott Derrickson, who has had a very spotty film career up till now, does his best work ever here. He's able to fill every angle, every shot with almost overwhelming dread. There's nothing outwardly scary about the house Ellison and his family move into, but with impenetrable darkness and shadows lurking at night, Derrickson is able to convey real unrest and unease.

The script, by Derrickson and C. Robert Cargill, is filled to the brim with creepy ideas. The writers know exactly what scares people, and they throw everything they can think of right at the audience.

SINISTER will be released wide on October 12th. It's a perfect movie for Halloween season. It's the type of horror movie that sticks with you; that makes the hairs on the back of your neck stand up as you watch it.

It's the type of horror movie that haunts you long after you've gone home from the theater, gotten into bed, and turned off all the lights.

SINISTER

Going to an advanced screening of SINISTER tonight. I'll be sure to review it after I see it. Hope it scares the BEJESUS out of me.

Review: V/H/S

V/H/S

2012. Directed by: Adam Wingard, David Bruckner, Ti West, Glenn McQuaid, Joe Swanberg, Radio Silence

The horror anthology film has always been a favorite of mine. And, unlike a lot of horror fans, I don’t mind the “found footage” genre of horror films. V/H/S combines both of these things and tries to breathe new life into both.

V/H/S has a fairly simply plotline: a group of Jackass-type thieves break into a spooky house to find a videotape. Instead, they find a dead old man and SEVERAL videotapes. One by one, our bumbling thieves watch a tape, each one revealing a different scary story.

Like most anthology films, it’s hit or miss. Despite being a fan of this particular subgenre, I don’t think I’ve seen a single anthology film where I’ve liked all of the stories told. So let’s break this baby down by its segments.

TAPE 56

Adam Wingard’s TAPE 56 acts as the wrap-around story—the way we get to the mini-stories within. While it has a nice atmosphere, and some really subtle, creepy moments, it’s one of the weaker entries. I’m not sure the movie even needed a wrap-around story, and as it is, TAPE 56 doesn’t really do much else than set up the premise. Which tape are our thieves looking for? Why does this old (presumably dead) man have all these VHS tapes? Who is the mysterious person who hired our thieves? Why does the ring-leader have a mustache that makes him look like a 70’s porn star? None of these questions are answered. I don’t have a problem with ambiguity, but the open-ended nature of TAPE 56 leaves a lot to be desired.

AMATEUR NIGHT

David Bruckner’s AMATEUR NIGHT is our first “tape” and follows three frat-boy types as they go out on the town to look for girls. One of the guys sports a pair of glasses that contain a hidden video camera/microphone combo.

The guys eventually end up at a bar, where they encounter a few ladies, one of them being the very weird, mousy Lily. Lily is quiet and more than a little spooky, but she seems to have the hots for our camera-man.

Eventually the friends end up back at their motel room with Lily and another girl. The other girl eventually passes out, and soon the friends learn that Lily is more than she seems…

AMATEUR NIGHT is a nice starting point. It takes a little way to find its grove—the first half of the story is truly obnoxious, as we follow these giggling, repulsive guys on their quest to get laid. But once the mysterious Lily enters the picture, things really start to pick up. I wouldn’t call this segment scary, but it’s certainly disturbing, and it’s nice to see these three assholes get pretty much what’s coming to them.

SECOND HONEYMOON

Next up we have SECOND HONEYMOON, from director Ti West. West has already made quite a name for himself in the indie horror world, having directed THE HOUSE OF THE DEVIL and THE INNKEEPERS. He has a very deliberate, slow-burn style that some love and some hate. Personally I loved both of his previous movies, so I was looking forward to this entry.

SECOND HONEYMOON follows couple Sam and Stephanie as they go on a second honeymoon out west, with Stephanie filming the proceedings. Things seem rather mundane at first, but one night, there is a loud knock on their motel room door, and Sam goes to investigate.

When he comes back, he reports that the person who knocked was a strange and somewhat scary girl asking for a ride the next day. Sam of course turned her down, and the couple goes to bed.

While the couple sleep that night, the mysterious girl comes into their motel room and films them sleeping—and brandishes a switch-blade which she softly strokes against Stephanie’s flesh.

To say more would be spoiling the pretty shocking ending, but I will say this is one of the strongest entries in the film. It’s the only one that isn’t “supernatural”, but West has a real knack for “realistic” dialog. This really feels like the video-log of a real married couple, and the way he slowly builds the tension from mundane to disturbing is masterful.

TUESDAY THE 17^TH

TUESDAY THE 17^th, from Glenn McQuaid, is hands-down the weakest entry in the film, and should have been cut entirely. It has a neat premise—a sort of satirical take on slasher films (thus the cheeky title), and also the premise of a “final girl” coming back for revenge against the killer.

But the end result is rather lame, and the acting is downright atrocious here. Our “final girl”, Wendy, is so unbelievably unsympathetic and annoying that there’s no possible way we can get on her side.

When the killer shows up, for some reason he doesn’t photograph on the video camera; rather, he’s just a bunch of blurry, staticy glitchies. This is a cool effect, but it leads the viewer to ask: Why? It seems like something that the filmmaker did because he thought it was cool for the sake of being cool, and didn’t put much thought into it.

THE SICK THING THAT HAPPENED TO EMILY WHEN SHE WAS YOUNGER

While TUESDAY THE 17^TH is the weakest entry here, SICK THING is the most disappointing.

Emily has skype-like chats with her boyfriend James. She’s just moved into a new apartment, and pretty soon she begins to suspect it’s haunted. Also, we learn that when she was younger she had problems with self-mutilation—a problem she seems to be picking up again.

SICK THING is very well directed and acted. The skype angle—which doesn’t really make sense in a film full of VHS tapes, but whatever—works wonderfully in bringing the scares, as James (and the audience) can spot things creeping in the dark behind Emily before she notices them.

However, when the “twist” is revealed, it’s like a bunch of hot air being let out of a balloon. It’s so incredibly lame and nonsensical that it downright made me mad. Director Joe Swanberg had a great thing going here, and then, for some strange reason, decided to sabotage it completely with an ending that is, to put it bluntly, fucking stupid.

10/31/98

As the saying goes, you save the best for last, and that is certainly true with our last story, 10/31/98, directed by a group of filmmakers known as Radio Silence.

Like AMATURE NIGHT, 10/31/98 is about a group of frat-boy types, but unlike AMATURE NIGHT, the guys in this segment are likeable and funny; we actually enjoy following them around.

It’s Halloween night, and four friends are trying to find a Halloween party they were invited to. They find what they THINK is the right house, but once inside, they discover it’s empty. Or is it?

10/31/98 is both amusing and scary. It has an almost “kitchen sink” approach to it, where the filmmakers throw every haunted house cliché in the book at you, and it all works incredibly well. I certainly hope Radio Silence tackles some more horror stuff in the future, because they have a real knack for knowing what makes horror fans tick.

With a little trimming here and there V/H/S could’ve been truly fantastic. As it is, we’ll just have to settle for a mix of pretty darn good and mediocre. As far as grading the entries, here’s how I’d do it:

TAPE 56: C-
AMATEUR NIGHT: C-
SECOND HONEYMOON: A
TUESDAY THE 17^th: D-
THE SICK THING THAT HAPPENED TO EMILY WHEN SHE WAS YOUNGER: C+
10/31/98: A+

V/H/S is currently available On Demand and also via Amazon Streaming. It’ll also have a limited theatrical run sometime in October. It's not excellent, but it's worth watching maybe once. 

Review: THE PACT

The Pact
2012
Directed by Nicholas McCarthy

It's very hard to make an effective independent, low-budget horror film. If you don't believe me, go hop on Netflix and scroll through the horror movies on instant watch. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Back? Yeah, they're pretty much all terrible.

So whenever a good independent horror film comes along, it's like a breath of fresh air. The Pact is such a film.

The Pact is the story of two sisters, Nichole (Agnes Bruckner) and Annie (Caity Lotz). The sisters have had a less-than-perfect relationship with their mother--a fact that's highlighted when we learn their mother used to lock them in a closet when they were "bad."

Their mother has recently died, and Nichole is at their childhood home, trying to get affairs in order and to attend the funeral. Annie wants no part of any of this. She still hates her mother, and has no intention of returning home.

This all changes when Nichole seemingly vanishes. Liz (Kathleen Rose Perkins), who is the sister's cousin, is watching Nichole's young daughter--and when she doesn't hear from Nichole for three days, she frantically calls Annie. Annie isn't very worried at first. Nichole has a history of drug abuse, and Annie suspects that Nichole has just run off, unable to deal with what's going on.

Things only get worse, though. One night, after the funeral, Liz also disappears from the house, and Annie is attacked and flung around by some unseen force. Is the house haunted? If so, by who? And just what happened to Liz and Nichole?

The Pact is as much of a mystery/thriller as it is a horror film. Writer/Director Nicholas McCarthy perfectly blends genres, switching deftly between a detective story, serial killer story and a spooky haunted house flick. The special effects in the film are subtle, which makes them all the more effective.

At one point there's a very interesting/different approach to the "bringing a psychic into the haunted house" trope. Haley Hudson plays Stevie, a blind girl Annie knows from high school. Stevie lives in a house full of apparent drug addicts/dealers, who are constantly blasting heavy metal music and playing video games. She also just happens to posses the ability to communicate with the dead. Stevie and Giles (Sam Ball), who is apparently her handler, and a real prick to boot, show up at Annie's house, with creeptastic results. I've seen a million horror movies that use this plot point--bringing in someone to commune with the spirits--but Hudson's haunting performances, and the way Giles abusively protects her, makes it seem fresh and exciting here.

There's a lot more than meets to eye in The Pact. To go into it would spoil the fun. I literally knew nothing about the film when I sat down and watched it, so when the plot twists began to pop up, I was pleasantly surprised.

Right now, playing in theaters, is a dreadful looking film called The Apparition. It has 0 % on Rotten Tomatoes and is, by all accounts, awful. Yet that film will be more well-known than The Pact, which is a damn shame.

The Pact is suspenseful, scary and effective. McCarthy has a real eye for composing and framing his shots, and Caity Lotz, as Annie, brings a layered and thoughtful performance to the film; she's not just some dingbat final girl, making dumb decisions and just asking to get killed.

The Pact is currently available on Amazon as a "theatrical rental." For 6.99, it's cheaper than going to the actual movies, and it's more than worth it.

Review: A DANGEROUS METHOD

A Dangerous Method is Canadian Madman David Cronenberg's most recent film.

 It tells the (mostly) true story of the birth of psychoanalysis, and the relationships between Carl Jung, Sigmund Frued and Sabina Spielrein. Also there’s a lot of stuff about sex, and there is spanking, so you know you’re in for a good time.

Michael Fassbender, who continues to be both awesome and in every single movie that comes out now, is great as Jung and Aragorn Mortensen is a real treat as Frued, who is constantly smoking a cigar and is constantly bearded.

But the real stand-out here is Keira Knightley, who is most famous for being the British version of Natalie Portman and also being a wet blanket in those stupid Pirate movies.

Knightley is fantastic here, playing Spielrein as a tortured animal of a woman, all jutting jaws and choked words. Also she looks really good getting spanked.

The film is based on a play, which means there’s not much action, just people sitting around talking. Thankfully what they are talking about is really interesting, and the actors doing the talking are all very good. 

The only flaw is we don’t really learn anything about these people, with the exception of Spielrein. I guess since they were all REAL people we can just look them up on Wikipedia to find out what they were really like, but both Jung and Frued are sort of blank in this film, despite the good performances.

I love David Cronenberg and will continue to be excited for any movie he makes. However, there is a part of me that wishes he would get back to making the awesome monster porn movies of his glory days.

I give A Dangerous Method three and a half out of four Fassbender’s.

Review: THE DARK KNIGHT RISES

"It is a far, far better thing that I do than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known." -- Jim Gordon (by way of Charles Dickens).

The Dark Knight Rises is a beast of a movie. It had to be; they had no choice. After the phenomenal success that was The Dark Knight, Christopher Nolan and co. couldn't very well go back and make a more subtle, character study type movie like they did with Batman Begins. This was, after all, the final film in the trilogy. It had to make the crowd go wild.

Here is what I love about Christopher Nolan's films: he tries REALLY HARD. Even if you don't like his movies, you have to admit that the man will go to whatever lengths necessary to tell the story he wants to tell. He has become the master of what could be considered "intelligent popcorn films"; that is, movies that have all the flash and bang of a summer blockbuster, but also take the time to focus on the drama at hand.

I purposely waited to write this review, because it's going to have spoilers, and I'm sure at this point everyone has seen the movie. And if not, you really should--in IMAX. More on that later...

The Dark Knight Rises picks up 8 years after the events of the Dark Knight. Gotham City is a peaceful place and Batman (and Bruce Wayne) have vanished from the public eye. Bruce Wayne limps around his mansion with a goatee and a lost look, channelling Howard Hughes at his craziest. But trouble is brewing in Gotham; beneath the exterior of peace and calm lies something more sinister. 

Bruce Wayne is first snapped out of his seclusion by a cat burglar who has been robbing from the rich. She even rips off Wayne, posing as a maid to steal some pearls--and also Wayne's fingerprints. 

Bruce does some fancy computer work and discovers the name of the cat burglar: Selina Kyle. 

But Selina Kyle (aka Catwoman--although they never call her Catwoman in the movie) is small potatoes compared to what's really coming. A slimey Wayne Enterprises board member (which is a kind of employee Wayne Enterprises seems to hire a lot) named Dagget is trying to make a power grab of the floundering company. He's so determined to get what he wants that he's been bankrolling a group of mercenaries, led by the hulking, mysterious Bane.  

Of course, none of this matters to Bane. He has his own agenda--he wants to destroy Gotham, and with it, Bruce Wayne.

Thrown into the mix is Commissioner Gordon, still struggling over the cover-up about Harvey Dent's death; Miranda Tate, a philanthropist trying to help Wayne Enterprises; and a young beat cop named John Blake, who, it turns out, is more important to the story than anyone could've guessed before hand. 

I've seen The Dark Knight Rises twice so far--the first time in IMAX, the second in a "regular" theater. When I left the IMAX showing (opening night at midnight), I was overwhelmed with emotion. I was ready to proclaim "this is the best film of the trilogy!" It had totally blown me away.

But when I saw it a week later in a regular theater, my mood changed. I still loved the movie, but I was more perceptive to the flaws this time. With that in mind, I suggest anyone who is going to see this movie should plop down the extra bucks and see it in IMAX.  Nolan shot over an hours worth of footage in IMAX, and it shows. You are complete engulfed into the world of the film; the soundtrack takes you over and for nearly three hours you are in a blissful, overwhelmed mood. 

But, like I said, the Dark Knight Rises has flaws. 

The film has been surprisingly divisive amongst fans of the franchise. Some hail it as a masterpiece, others hate its guts. It's a polarizing film. I guess that's to be expected. I'm pretty sure after the Dark Knight, the fans of this franchise all had their own ideas of what the third and final Bat-Film should be. And therein lies the problem. 

The majority of complaints I've read about the film seem to be people complaining about not what was in the film, but what WASN'T. People are pissed they didn't get the movie THEY wanted. That's not how movies work, kids. 

But again, there are those flaws I mentioned. For one thing, even at nearly 3 hours, the film feels rushed. This is a good thing in the sense that the film flies by; there's almost no down time, and you never get bored. But as a result it feels like they had to condense the plot to fit it all in there. I honestly could've watched another hour of the film and still been engrossed. 

There are also some glaring editing mistakes that really should've been caught in a film this big. A scene in a court room involves Bane having one of his goons bring him Miranda Tate, but in the very next scene, she is fine and dandy and talking to Bruce. But then later we see that Bane is "holding her hostage" to get Batman to come to him. All Nolan and his editor had to do was simply move the scene with Bane calling Miranda over to a later position (or even cut that small scene entirely). Instead it's just there in your face, making you think "Why didn't they fix that?"

Matthew Modine's character, a cop named Foley, is completely useless. He's set up to sort of be the heir to Jim Gordon's job, and there's a scene near the end where Gordon chastises him to come out of hiding to fight Bane and his army. But other than that, the character is flat and serves almost no purpose, and then is killed off screen. 

I love the ending--with Alfred spotting Bruce and Selina alive and well in a cafe; however, this scene was very heavy-handedly telegraphed at the beginning of the film. Alfred talks about how he always wanted to spot Bruce at this cafe, and know that Bruce had "finally made it" out of Gotham. They might as well have had the words FORESHADOWING flashing on the screen during this scene. 

But the flaws in the film do not equal the sum of its parts. There is far more good than bad. 

The film has a long list of "best things about this film" items, but at the top of that list is Anne Hathaway's Catwoman, who steals every scene she's in. For some reason when Hathaway was announced for the part, the fanboys were PISSED. I don't know why--I have nothing against Ms. Hathaway. I find her charming and attractive. But she apparently wasn't good enough for Catwoman. Then again, Heath Ledger, when announced, wasn't "good enough" to be the Joker, and we all know how that turned out.

Hathaway's Catwoman is the only character in the film who gets to have fun. Everything else is so dark and gloomy and hopeless, but Hathaway is clearly living it up. Every sly line, every seductive look, every smart ass remark rings true. If they made a spin-off movie about Hathaway's Catwoman, I'd be first in line.

While we're talking about performances, let's talk Tom Hardy's Bane. As soon as footage started to come out with Bane, there was concern over his voice. People were saying it was hard to understand, or just goofy. Honestly I never had a problem understanding a word he said in the film, but that's me. 

Hardy is fantastic as Bane. He makes the character seem terrifying and brutal, and yet at the end, he even manages to make us feel a little sorry for the guy. Sure, he's a murderous, neck snapping, face smashing monster--but he also helped save a little girl from a prison full of lunatics! He even sheds a tear. 

The voice Hardy chooses to use is indeed strange. But I think the fact that the voice is SO DAMN WEIRD makes the character even more interesting. Who the hell in the world can you think of who has a voice like that? No one. It's just too damn weird. And that's what makes it compelling 

The always alluring Marion Cotillard is Miranda Tate, who is obviously Talia, Ra's al Ghuls daughter. I'm pretty sure as soon as she was cast in the film, every Batman fan knew exactly who she was. It wasn't surprising when she stabbed Batman in the back (literally). But when Cotillard finally goes "bad" at the end of the film, she brings a bitter iciness to the part that sells it and makes us overlook how obvious the twist is, and how underwritten the part was.

Then there's John Blake, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. The film is just as much about him as it is about Batman. Not only is this about the Dark Knight rising, it's also about Blake's character rising up from just a beat cop to being something more. Gordon-Levitt does fine with the part, but like Miranda Tate, I did feel like he was a bit underwritten. The character could've used some fleshing out. 

And then of course we have series regulars Gary Oldman, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman. Caine's Alfred is surprisingly absent for most of the film (I was not expecting that). Freeman doesn't have much to do, but he's always fun to watch. And Gary Oldman is, well, Gary Oldman. He's the coolest mother fucker on the planet and the best actor in the galaxy. 

And last but certainly not least we come to Christian Bale. Yes, Batman still has that goofy voice (again, it doesn't bother me--but that's me). But this is easily Bale's best performance of all three films. Bruce Wayne goes through so much in this movie, and Bale sells it all completely. I think Bale is a fantastic actor, but in certain movies he seems to be taking things a little TOO seriously. Here, he breathes new life into the character he's played twice before, and you can tell he's loving every minute of it. 

Hans Zimmer's music is incredible. The best of the trilogy. It's non-stop, churning, pounding music that refuses to let you catch your breath. Without it, the film wouldn't work nearly as well as it does.

The Dark Knight Trilogy is an amazing feat. It did the impossible: a good superhero trilogy. Most superhero films hit the "third movie curse", but Christopher Nolan and co. have avoided that but making the films bigger and more complex as they went along, but never losing sight of their original mission: to present Batman in a "realistic" world. It was a franchise full of amazing moments, and awful real-life tragedy. 

As a Batman fan and as a film fan, I'm grateful to Christopher Nolan for taking the character seriously, and for doing what he does best: trying REALLY HARD. 

I'm sure it's only a matter of time before Warner Brothers reboots the franchise. I highly doubt it will ever live up to what Nolan has created here with these three films. 

The Dark Knight Rises is not a perfect film, but it is a perfect ending to the universe of these films. The characters get what they deserve this time--not what they need. 

I, for one, am going to miss this franchise.

Final rating for the Dark Knight Rises: 9 out of 10 Bats. 

Review: I AM A GHOST

I Am a Ghost is one of those rare ghost stories that's told from the perspective of the one haunting the house, rather than those being haunted.

Anna Ishida is Emily, a woman from a seemingly Victorian time stuck in a loop. She keeps reliving the same random events every day, and she also finds herself communicating with a medium she can not see, named Sylvia. 

Emily died in the house she haunts, and Sylvia is trying to get her to move on--but it's not quite working, and neither woman can figure out why.

To say any more would spoil the film, so that's all you need to know. The less you know, the more effective this film is.

I Am a Ghost is a slow-burn, reminiscent of Ti West's House of the Devil, which also features a female character trapped in a spooky old house, slowly building towards a frightening climax.

This is essentially a one-woman show, and Anna Ishida does a fine job of carrying the film. She's not as polished as a "Hollywood actress", but this helps with the out-of-time nature of the character. 

Again, this is a slow-burn of a movie; some people may lose patience after seeing Emily cook the same two eggs for the fifth time, but the build up is worth it. When the horror finally kicks in, it's all the more effective.

It always helps to have a good setting for your film, especially if your film is of a lower-budget, and the old house in I Am a Ghost is perfect. It's clearly a real house--not a set--adding realism and a nicely preserved historical look. Director H.P. Mendoza employees a few nifty tricks to keep the mostly quiet movie engaging; for one thing, the film itself is presented in a frame reminiscent of an old photograph, with rounded edges. Split-screens and washed-out colors help with atmosphere and actually contribute to the film, rather than just feeling like they were added to "look cool."

If there's one complaint I have with the film, it's the (vocal) performance of Jeannie Barroga, as the psychic Sylvia. Never seen and only heard, Barroga's line-delivery feels very flat, almost as if she's just reading her lines off a piece of paper into a microphone, and not putting much feeling into them. But that's not enough of a problem to derail the movie. 

At 74 minutes, I Am a Ghost never over-stays its welcome. It knows just when to end, and doesn't drag things out any further than necessary. 

It may not be the slickest of ghost movies, but it's certainly one of the more effective, with a final act that will leave you chilled and disturbed. 

Review: LUNOPOLIS

I’ve watched Lunopolis twice now, and I feel like watching it a third time.

What a world this is where I want to watch a movie called Lunopolis three times!

This is the tagline of Lunopolis: There are people on the moon, they’re from the future, and they’re running our government.

Right away you want to throw this into the rubbish bin. But Lunopolis is a surprisingly fun movie about people who live on the moon and control our government. It seems really cheesy, and at times it is. But it’s also well done, and even creepy at times. Who knew a movie about Moon Men could be creepy? Not me, or Tom Hanks, who LOVES the moon, could have predicted such a thing.

The movie makes fun of Scientology and it has a fucking flying car in it. And a time machine. Also a moon rock. 

There’s a scene where a character yells “You can stop the charade, we HAVE your moon rock!” and is being serious.

Also, everyone who was ever good at anything or famous, like Albert Einstein, Ben Franklin, Hitler or Frankenstein was from the Moon. 

Why aren’t you watching this right now? It’s on Netflix Instant. It has a really cool soundtrack that sounds a lot like Explosions in the Sky and Mogwai. 

I give Lunopolis 4 out of 4 Moons.

Review: THE GREY

The Grey was a really poorly marketed film.

If you saw trailers or TV spots for the film, you probably got one thing out of it: LIAM NEESON FIGHTING FUCKING WOLVES OMG. HE MAKES “GLASS” KNUCKLES OUT OF TINY VODKA BOTTLES AND KILLS TEN THOUSAND WOLVES WHILE SCREAMING.

That is not at all what The Grey is like.

The Grey, believe it or not, is a surprisingly philosophical look at mortality and faith. Also it has killer wolves.

Liam Neeson stars as a sad, quiet, ass-kicking man named Ottway. He works for some oil company, where his job is to have a beard and also to shoot wolves and other animals so they wont eat the oil workers. 

Ottway and the rest of the workers are flying back to Anchorage Alaska when their plane goes bonkers and crashes. A bunch-o-people die, and the survivors go about trying to…survive. Easier said than done, because besides the fact that it’s freezing cold and snowy wind keeps blowing everywhere, they happen to have crashed near the den of a pack of big ass cartoon wolves who want to eat their fucking faces off.

One by one, the men are picked off by wolves, while Ottway tries to lead them to safety. 

The film was directed by Joe Carnahan, who made one good movie once, called Narc. Then everything he did after that was fucking awful. It’s nice to see he’s getting back into the “good movie” game. It looks like he’s been watching some Christopher Nolan films, because the film has a very Nolan-esq vibe to it.

It would have been VERY easy for The Grey to go wrong. I mean, just the premise alone—a bunch of guys fighting off wolves—screams B-MOVIE. But the script, by Carnahan and Ian Mackenzie Jeffers, goes above and beyond what is expected of it. Instead of just having the group of men be stereotypical, underdeveloped hard-asses, the script fleshes each character out, so that when they meet their wolfy demise, it actually is effective. We WANT these guys to survive. They don’t though…(SPOILERZ).

Liam Neeson is always good, even when he’s in garbage. But he does some of his best work in years in The Grey. He doesn’t feel like he’s collecting a paycheck—he feels like he’s embodying the character he’s playing.

It’s important to go into The Grey with a clear head, and NOT expecting it to be about LIAM NEESON: WOLF PUNCHER. It’s also important to go into the film realizing you’re going to walk out feeling really depressed.

A good alternate title for the film would be THE GREY: IS GOD REAL? NO HE’S NOT.

I give The Grey 4 Wolves out of 4.