Full Length Review Thread

[Splatterscribe]

As we're all aware, The H-man has limited-to-no internet access at the moment, so new reviews are not really making it onto the site. I'm starting this thread as a place  for people to post full reviews they've written so they can see the light of day. No trying to rock the boat  here..just thought that since the forums are available, it's not a bad way to get some new written material onto the site. Either people will go for this or it'll be a colossal failure..either way, the members of HW will have a venue to have their critiques read, newcomers to the site will be able to read new reviews until Big H can get up to speed and it will give us something other than the "Militant Atheism" thread to comment on. 

Here's my first contribtuion-the review I submitted for Saw VI. Enjoy!

Saw VI
A review by SPLATTERSCRIBE
Running Time : 90 minutes
Directed by Kevin Greutert


One of the most painful occasions any horror fan can experience- and I submit we’ve all endured this more often than any of us would like to acknowledge- is witnessing the decline in quality of a motion picture franchise which began on a note heralded by the horror community as brilliant and original . 

On the other hand, every so often there comes the rare sequel which not only matches the quality of the original, but manages to build upon the established storyline in such a creative, clever manner that it breathes new life into the property, reminding the fans who have diligently stuck by their favorite character or characters of why they fell in love with the series to begin with .

Against all expectations and amidst  reluctance in the wake of a fifth installment which many fans (not this reviewer, though)  perceived to be a sign the series was destined for the dustbin, Saw VI   falls into the latter category, scoring as not only the best of the sequels to the surprise 2004 indie horror breakout, but as a solid horror film , period.  This is a good movie, folks.

The twisted saga of John “Jigsaw” Kramer’s (Tobin Bell) deadly games continues with a particularly nasty trap which involves  Tanedra Howard , the winner of the “Scream Queens” reality show.  Without giving anything way, the trap is classic Jigsaw , both brutal and moralistic. In an interesting touch, whereas the fifth installment began with a trap that referenced Poe’s The Pit and the Pendulum,  this time the opening game borrows from Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice (specifically the famed “pound of flesh“) . You have to hand it to this series- there may be gore galore, but they at least try for that extra bit of class.

From here the story picks up where Saw V left off. Jigsaw successor Lt.Detective Mark Hoffman (Costas Mandylor) is out of the glass coffin, Agent Strahm  is very dead and it seems that there is one final game Jigsaw has mapped out posthumously.

The unwilling participant this time is William (Peter Outerbridge), a callous and reasonably slimy health care representative for Umbrella Health who has a special team of young associates (he refers to them as “The Dog Pit” ) working every day specifically to find errors in medical applications. Their less than savory purpose is to find legal validity for the company  to deny or drop coverage. If you’re sensing the political undertones of this plot point, then you’re on the right track. There’s a definite jab at the health care system going on here and, honestly, Saw VI handles it with the same satirical finesse as Romero at his finest. 

Unfortunately for this particular executive, one of Umbrella’s formerly insured patients was a certain engineer who developed cancer.  Before long, William has been abducted and placed into a game of his own , forced to survive a series of challenges where he must now directly choose who lives or dies. 

While this storyline unfolds, the film also continues to provide further insight into the unstable nature of Hoffman. As the plot unfolds, the  FBI  grows more suspicious of the circumstances surrounding Strahm’s disappearance and their subsequent investigation is propelling them in Hoffman’s direction. . Additionally, it is explained how John, Amanda (Shawnee Smith in newly shot scenes that add a lot of backstory ) Hoffman and Jill Tuck (Betsy Russell) all connect. Through  extensive flashbacks (Bell has almost as much screen time here as he did in Saw II), revelations are made about the depth of each character’s involvement in the overall plan and the groundwork is laid for Jigsaw’s endgame and how it ties directly to the man currently being tested. .

The traps are well orchestrated and as twisted as ever. A carousel trap and a sequence in a steam room were two highlights, not only of this film but the entire series. As was the case with the preceding installment, things tend to get progressively gooier as the film hurtles toward it’s climax. However one subtle change from the last two films is that the creepy factor is returned.

While I enjoy all of the Saw films, I’ll be the first to admit that the last couple were more entertaining than scary. Not so this time. Editor of the five previous Saw films, director Kevin Greutert (who makes an assured and frankly astonishing feature debut with this film) has remembered that this is a horror franchise and that, along with pouring on the grue, it’s permissible to make the film creepy. For the first time since the second film, the abduction sequences were eerie and tense. William’s capture in particular is extremely well crafted  and unnerving.  Then there’s Hoffman, who has a number of moments both in the present day and in the flashbacks where he demonstrates that he is truly evil.

Greutert also paces the film just right. The dialogue scenes don’t run on too long and they are interspersed in just the right increments between William’s ongoing game. This time, when a flashback occurs it’s something you want to see because  information is being provided that fills in the remaining gaps . Some of these revelations are indeed going  to come as a surprise to those who have stayed with the series thus far.

The performances are about what you expect. As always., Tobin Bell aces it. At this point the guy could walk onscreen wearing a top hat and a pink tutu and the moment he rasps “Live or die, make your choice..” the audience would belong to him.  Despite this immediate acceptance, Bell consistently refuses to phone it in. Indeed, John Kramer is at his most human and vulnerable in this film. There is one scene where he discusses a possible cancer treatment and, despite all of the destruction and death he’s been responsible for, damned if I didn’t find myself feeling pity for the man. That’s Bell’s magic- he actually confronts you with this complex character, makes him very human and forces you to feel for him.  I can sum up Shawnee Smith’s contributions with one word: Ditto. She has Amanda down pat and it’s rewarding to see the two of them on screen together again.

Costas Mandylor as Hoffman is given much more to do and he rises to the occasion admirably. Hoffman is a complicated character and watching how his story proceeds, changes and culminates is truly fascinating and goes a long way towards helping maintain the creep factor I mentioned earlier in this review.

For those interested, Tandera Howard is actually pretty good in what amounts to a fairly small role. Interestingly, one moment with her character serves as a powerful indictment of Jigsaw’s twisted process of rehabilitation.

Rounding out the best performances of the film is Peter Outerbridge, who as William strikes the perfect balance between  a man who you can’t help but loathe, yet who it is easy to sympathize with as the games get underway.  One interesting aspect to his character which rises to the surface is that, despite his coldness, William repeatedly demonstrates a willingness to physically suffer in an attempt to save human lives. Outerbridge brings  depth and texture to both sides of this duality and , consequently, he is my favorite protagonist to date  (If Cary Elwes had played Lawrence Gordon closer to this level, I would have enjoyed the original Saw a lot more than I did).

The film looks good, with some moderate bleaching in the flashbacks and an excellent use of sepia tones and red hues through the film. The aforementioned steam trap sequence in particular is a stunning collusion of color and set design.  Saw V cinematographer David Armstrong returns to capture all of it with  clarity and crispness. To accompany the solid camerawork, Charlie Clouser returns for the sixth time to gives us a score both dramatic and subtle. Clouser is one of the best composers working in film today in that his music doesn’t override the movie, but becomes an organic part of it. That has never been more evident than with Saw VI. Even his variation on the instantly recognizable “Hello, Zepp” theme is original and lively this time (fans of the original incarnation fear not- stay through the credits and you will hear it in all of it’s glory).

Then there’s the twist. Unlike Saw V (which had an amazing conclusion, but no actual twist), this film returns to the legacy of  featuring a surprise revelation at the climax … and they’ve come up with a good one. In fact, it’s one of the best, having  a direct impact on the rest of the film . Marcus Dunstan and Patrick Melton ( who wrote Saw IV and V) have again kept the series going in an intelligent manner with an eye for story. They’ve also raised their game, giving us the most engaging film of the series. The final, tense scene does indeed leave the door open for the next installment, but by the time it plays out the pieces of Jigsaw’s game have been brought together  and - for the most part-   Saw fans have been on an exciting, well crafted journey through the twisted heart of Jigsaw’s world. For the most part.

With that last sentence on the table, let’s turn to the bad. As much as I respect what was done here and admire the film as a whole, there are two aspects of Saw VI that I have to take issue with. 

One is Betsy Russell returning as Jill Tuck.  Though her dialog is limited, even when she’s standing by and emoting silently this woman isn‘t getting it done. Her mouth always seems to be twisted into a flat grimace and its hard to decipher whether or not she’s sad, angry, frightened or laughing on the inside. I like Betsy Russell and, if her scenes with Strahm  in Saw IV were any indication, she can do better than this.  If she is to return for the next film (and all signs point to yes on that one) then she needs to get back on her game.

The other problem I have was one specific moment in the movie that is so random and  so out of place it literally sent me into a laughing fit. I’m not kidding. This is one of the all time great cinematic “WTF?” moments.

To wit: During one particular flashback, John Kramer is standing in William’s office and - in the middle of a conversation - turns to look at an aquarium  on the wall behind him. He looks at the fish inside for a moment and in a strange,  drawn out tone  says “piraaaanha.”

The fish are in fact piranha and I get the allegory between their presence and William’s cruel nature, but damn… it was such an uncharacteristic moment that it inspired chuckles, not chills. I can’t really lay the blame on Bell, though. Yes, his delivery could have been different, but upon further thought just the idea of  that moment popping up during that specific scene (in which a serious conversation is taking place) wouldn’t even sound right on paper. So the writers lose a point for that.


Outside of those complaints, I have no other qualms with this film. It was brisk, the story tied everything together nicely there were moments of dread combined with lots of the red stuff. This is the film that defines what is great about this series. With Saw VI, the franchise has hit a high water mark, giving us a picture that honors the original and rewards the fans for their devotion by upping the ante and surpassing it’s predecessors. That’s the beauty of Saw VI - this far along and it still has us wanting to play a game.

Highly recommended.

Nine out of Ten Piraaaaanha!

[GeneralCinema]

Midnight Movie
The New Face of Horror
 
At a rundown theater, a horror movie with an infamous urban legend is going to be played at midnight.  It seems that the director actually killed people in the movie, and while locked in a mental institute he mysteriously disappeared.  Upon his disappearance, it seems that everyone in the hospital disappeared as well, but not before they were brutally murdered.
 
Fast forward five years to a rundown theater in a suburban town.  A copy of the director's movie is about to be played at midnight despite the urban legend attached to the movie.  Among those attending the midnight screening are the acting manager of the theater, her friends, a biker and his bitch, and the detective and doctor that were the only witnesses to the aftermath of the institute massacre, since the director is still considered to be on the loose.
 
Not long after the film starts, the kids start heckling the production values of the film.  During the film, they watch one of their own die on screen, thinking this is part of the show they start to enjoy the film even more.  Before long, they realize that the killer is really killing the people in the theater.  Discovering that they're locked inside the theater and shut off from the outside world, they must find a way to fight to stay alive.
 
This movie was the winner of Best Feature Film & Best Cinematography at the Chicago Horror Film Festival, and was chosen as DVD of the month for March 2009 by Fangoria.  I watched this recently and was pleasantly surprised.  As I reflect on it while writing this, I think I enjoyed it more than I initially thought.  This means that it requires a re-watch. 
 
The gore is decent, but it's more bloody than gory.  Bringing on the blood is the killer - picture a 6-and-a-half-foot tall psychopath who drags one of his feet as he walks.  He wears overalls and a half-skull mask.  His look is very intimidating and to top it off, he uses a custom made corkscrew-device.  It might not sound too threatening, but one you see it in action, you see that it's very effective.
 
The writing was mostly typical, but the biker had some of the best lines.  When he first showed up, I wanted his character to die, but by the time he did, I liked him so much from his dialog alone!
 
The movie ends rather abruptly - it was done well and I didn't think it would end the way it did.  I was sure that this-or-that would happen, but when it didn't I found myself enjoying the ending and being glad that it didn't go any farther.
 
I definitely have to give this a re-watch.  Sadly, I DVRed it but deleted it soon afterward.  I have to check the time it's on again.
 
I'm giving this a 7 out of 10.

[Splatterscribe]

GC, good call on Midnight Movie.

I picked this up on DVD yesterday for about five bucks. I agree with pretty much everything you said here (and I'll add that I loved the killer's voice on the rare occasions when he spoke), but I think I'd give it an 8/10 ,adding the extra point for the fact that there was at least one death which caught me off guard. Man it's nice to be pleasantly surprised for a change.
I also appreciated the fact that Radfor'ds ability wasn't explained..it just was. Whenever someone bitches that a horror movie didn't explain how a killer is doing what he does, I refer them to the original A Nightmare on Elm Street. We knew why Krueger was killing..but that movie never once explains exactly how he managed to get into people's dreams..that didn't come until several sequels in.

[GeneralCinema]

GC, good call on Midnight Movie.

I picked this up on DVD yesterday for about five bucks. I agree with pretty much everything you said here (and I'll add that I loved the killer's voice on the rare occasions when he spoke), but I think I'd give it an 8/10 ,adding the extra point for the fact that there was at least one death which caught me off guard. Man it's nice to be pleasantly surprised for a change.
I also appreciated the fact that Radfor'ds ability wasn't explained..it just was. Whenever someone bitches that a horror movie didn't explain how a killer is doing what he does, I refer them to the original A Nightmare on Elm Street. We knew why Krueger was killing..but that movie never once explains exactly how he managed to get into people's dreams..that didn't come until several sequels in.

I did say that it required a re-watch.  My rating might change after that.

[GeneralCinema]

Snow White: A Tale of Terror

The fairy tale is over

The movie opens with William and Lillian Hoffman, a very wealthy couple, riding in a carriage through the woods.  An accident destroys the carriage and mortally wounds Lilliana, who is very pregnant, and forces William to perform a C-Section to save their unborn daughter.  Fast forward several years later to the grounds of the Hoffman Estate where Lilliana (the daughter, now a young girl) meets her new Step-Mother Claudia.  Lilli shows her resentment towards Claudia by throwing water in her face at the wedding reception.  After this, Lilli runs into Claudia's room and hides under the bed.  Her nanny runs in looking for her, sees the magic mirror, and dies of fright.

Nine years later, Lilly is grown and Claudia is pregnant.  William is seen praying for a son.  Claudia asks Lilli to wear a dress that was hers when she was a girl, but Lilli declines.  Later that evening, Lilli is seen wearing a dress that was her mother's.  Claudia goes into labor, which leads to the baby being stillborn and her becoming infertile.  Claudia tells her mute brother to rescue the corpse before he can be disposed of.  As she is breaking down, she smears a face cream on her mirror and her reflection is restored, and the mirror begins to talk to her.

In case you haven't guessed, this is a very basic re-telling of the fairy tale "Snow White".  This more closely resembles something from the Grimm Brothers than Disney.  It's very dark, very tense, and is definitely NOT for children.

The movie stars Sigourney Weaver and Sam Niell.  I don't know why, but I ALWAYS forget that Sam Niell has an extensive horror resume.  He plays William Hoffman and compliments Sigourney Weaver's evil Step-Mother Claudia.  Their chemistry on-screen is really good.  I'd like to see them do another movie together.  I also always seem to forget that Sigourney Weaver is a fantastic actress.  I guess this happens when you see her type-cast as Ellen Ripely.  She was wonderful in this and deliciously evil.

There's little gore and it's not too scary, but Miss Weaver is a scene-stealer.  Almost every scene with her is very, very tense.  She does a great job as the wicked step-mother, but I think we could have seen more of her as the old woman.  There wasn't enough screen time for her I think.  Also, the build up is great.  You know that somethign is going to happen, but you're never quite sure what.  Again, I just wish is was scarier.

True Love's kiss isn't in this movie and niether are the seven dwarfs.  We get seven outcast miners and a scene reminiscent of "The Abyss".

I think this was done very well and would like to see updates on more fairy tales done this way.  If anyone has ever read the Borthers Grimm, you  would know that their fairy tales are anything but child-friendly.

I'm giving this a 7 out of 10 poisoned apples.

[GeneralCinema]

Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus


While studying whales off the coast of Alaska, Oceanographer Emma McNeil comes to an ice shelf with two gigantic creatures frozen inside it.  After an experimental sonic device is dropped from a military helicopter the shelf breaks and the two combatants are freed from their slumber.  They go their separate ways and wreak havoc on the world, leaving the people in between to try to stop them.  This is Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus.

Before I begin, let me say that I LOVE any movie where there's a giant monster.  It doesn't really matter what kind of monster it is, as long as it's a monster.  This movie gives us two giant monsters, but does very little with either of them.  It starts off kind of as a Godzilla/Gamera movie would, but that's where the similarities end.

The acting is horrible.  I'd probably be more upset if the acting was good and the movie was bad.  We get the wonderful non-talents of Deborah Gibson and Lorenzo Lamas.  They both made me sick.  In fact, ALL of the people in this are annoying and I would have been satisfied if everyone died in the end.  My biggest gripes though are Debbie Gibson's big nose, which takes away from her facial features and her Cindy Brady lisp.  Holy shit!  This woman needs some speech therapy!  Badly.

The CGI was actually a bit worse than the acting.  There are scenes where the CGI was reused repeatedly and even reversed.  Apparently the movie was originally called "Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus 3D" but the funding for the 3D fell through.  It looks like the funding for the MOVIE fell through at some point.

There is ONE good scene in this debacle.  After the Mega Shark is freed, it jumps out of the water and eats a 747 several thousand feet in the air.  I wish the whole movie had scenes like this.  The writer could have made it fun, but instead it was more boring than anything else.

The final battle was much too short for a movie like this.  In a ninety minute movie, we only get a ten minute battle.  I would have made it at LEAST 30 minutes so nobody would feel let down by the title.  There was, of course, a build-up to a sequel.

Based on the title alone, this one gets 3 out of 10.

[GeneralCinema]

The Zombie Diaries

Brace yourself... This time it's for real.

How many times have you watched a zombie apocalypse movie and thought "what if it happened for real?"  What would you do and what situation would you find yourself in?  Would you be able to trust others around you? 

Kevin Gates and Michael Bartlett give us an excellent example of independent film making and a surprisingly real zombie movie. 

Shot in documentary format, the movie begins in London.  Interviews with citizens emphasize both dismissive and paranoid reactions to an unspecified disease that is gradually making its way to Britain and the rest of the world.  The government won't do anything about this outbreak because they don't know enough about it and it hasn't hit the country yet.  After the interviews, one of the film makers learns that both New York and London were hit with the virus - London getting hit particularly hard.

The film is broken down into three sections.  Diary 1 - The Outbreak, where we learn of the virus and what the film crew does when they find the farm house that they went to for an interview that's supposedly deserted.  Diary 2 - The Scavengers follows three people (two British and one American) driving along the English countryside looking for supplies and armed with only one rifle.  Diary 3 - The Survivors follows a small group of people who remain uninfected and are holed-up at a farm.

I really enjoyed this movie.  The realism was portrayed very well and the tension grips you and doesn't let go.  Yes, it moves slow but so do the zombies - which always gets my seal of approval.  Watching this movie, I wasn't scared of the zombies - they're zombies.  They have one purpose.  I was more scared of the situational circumstances that the people were brought up against.  If something like this happened in real life, the roadways would all be closed, gas stations would run out of gas, supermarkets would be barren quicker than you could spit, and ammunition would be sparse - eventually.

I thought the acting was decent.  Everything was made to be as believable as possible.  There are scenes where this feels like an actual documentary.  Kudos for the film makers.

The zombies were done really, really well.  They were eating people and the gore was top notch for what it was.  Oftentimes in an independent zombie film, the zombies and gore are the last thing that detail is given to.  This movie is definitely the exception.  The zombies were realistic and they moved with the grace of a shambling zombie from the Romero-verse.  Some people may complain that there aren't too any zombies in it (NoTLD gives us several dozen at the least), but to put it in perspective,the movie is set on a farm and the outskirts of civilization - miles from any large city or town.  How many people today live on or near farms or in the outskirts?  When's the last time you heard of a zombie driving a car?  If these zombies started closer to the city, they'd have to shamble to where the survivors are.  How far could a shambling zombie travel in one day (I know they don't sleep, but there are still 24 hours in one day)?  If this were set in a city, the zombies would probably be rampant.

The aspects of human nature reek throughout this movie.  People can never seem to agree on anything, and in dangerous situations still wander off alone or leave comrades by themselves.  There is a twist - part of which depicts how despicable some people can be, even in a crisis situation - and it works.  In fact, the people are probably scarier than the zombies.  At least you know what the zombies are gonna do.

I'm gonna give this one a 7 out of 10 little piggies.

Kevin Gates and Michael Bartlett

Russell Jones    ...    Goke
Craig Stovin     ...    Andy
Jonnie Hurn      ...    John
James Fisher    ...    Geoff
Anna Blades     ...    Vanessa
Imogen Church ...    Sue
Kyle Sparks      ...    Greg
Alison Mollon    ...    Elizabeth
Victoria Nalder  ...    Leeann
Jonathan Ball    ...    Matt
Sophia Ellis       ...    Anna
Will Tosh          ...    James
Hiram Bleetman ...    Manny
Ralph Mondi      ...    Amine
Leonard Fenton ...    Bill

[Splatterscribe]

The Zombie Diaries

Brace yourself... This time it's for real.

How many times have you watched a zombie apocalypse movie and thought "what if it happened for real?"  What would you do and what situation would you find yourself in?  Would you be able to trust others around you? 

Kevin Gates and Michael Bartlett give us an excellent example of independent film making and a surprisingly real zombie movie. 

Shot in documentary format, the movie begins in London.  Interviews with citizens emphasize both dismissive and paranoid reactions to an unspecified disease that is gradually making its way to Britain and the rest of the world.  The government won't do anything about this outbreak because they don't know enough about it and it hasn't hit the country yet.  After the interviews, one of the film makers learns that both New York and London were hit with the virus - London getting hit particularly hard.

The film is broken down into three sections.  Diary 1 - The Outbreak, where we learn of the virus and what the film crew does when they find the farm house that they went to for an interview that's supposedly deserted.  Diary 2 - The Scavengers follows three people (two British and one American) driving along the English countryside looking for supplies and armed with only one rifle.  Diary 3 - The Survivors follows a small group of people who remain uninfected and are holed-up at a farm.

I really enjoyed this movie.  The realism was portrayed very well and the tension grips you and doesn't let go.  Yes, it moves slow but so do the zombies - which always gets my seal of approval.  Watching this movie, I wasn't scared of the zombies - they're zombies.  They have one purpose.  I was more scared of the situational circumstances that the people were brought up against.  If something like this happened in real life, the roadways would all be closed, gas stations would run out of gas, supermarkets would be barren quicker than you could spit, and ammunition would be sparse - eventually.

I thought the acting was decent.  Everything was made to be as believable as possible.  There are scenes where this feels like an actual documentary.  Kudos for the film makers.

The zombies were done really, really well.  They were eating people and the gore was top notch for what it was.  Oftentimes in an independent zombie film, the zombies and gore are the last thing that detail is given to.  This movie is definitely the exception.  The zombies were realistic and they moved with the grace of a shambling zombie from the Romero-verse.  Some people may complain that there aren't too any zombies in it (NoTLD gives us several dozen at the least), but to put it in perspective,the movie is set on a farm and the outskirts of civilization - miles from any large city or town.  How many people today live on or near farms or in the outskirts?  When's the last time you heard of a zombie driving a car?  If these zombies started closer to the city, they'd have to shamble to where the survivors are.  How far could a shambling zombie travel in one day (I know they don't sleep, but there are still 24 hours in one day)?  If this were set in a city, the zombies would probably be rampant.

The aspects of human nature reek throughout this movie.  People can never seem to agree on anything, and in dangerous situations still wander off alone or leave comrades by themselves.  There is a twist - part of which depicts how despicable some people can be, even in a crisis situation - and it works.  In fact, the people are probably scarier than the zombies.  At least you know what the zombies are gonna do.

I'm gonna give this one a 7 out of 10 little piggies.

Kevin Gates and Michael Bartlett

Russell Jones    ...    Goke
Craig Stovin     ...    Andy
Jonnie Hurn      ...    John
James Fisher    ...    Geoff
Anna Blades     ...    Vanessa
Imogen Church ...    Sue
Kyle Sparks      ...    Greg
Alison Mollon    ...    Elizabeth
Victoria Nalder  ...    Leeann
Jonathan Ball    ...    Matt
Sophia Ellis       ...    Anna
Will Tosh          ...    James
Hiram Bleetman ...    Manny
Ralph Mondi      ...    Amine
Leonard Fenton ...    Bill

Solid review GC! Being a  fan of Diary of the dead I've been wanting to catch TZD for some time, since I understand it covers similar territory. This piece compels me to add the film to my Netflix Queu. 

[Marshal Earp]

Good idea Splat. I actually went back the other day and started reading a bunch of old reviews just out of boredom due to the lack of new content. This will make for nice filler till The Hor gets some more reviews posted.

Now when I have time over the next few days I can read what you guys reviewed.

[GeneralCinema]

Twilight

I'm not sure where to begin with this.  My wife recently got hooked onto this series.  So far she's read the first book and seen all three movies in the series so far.  He friend got her hooked onto it and they told me to watch the movies.  I got cajoled into watching the first one today.

I went into this movie knowing that it was about vampires and that it was a love story.  That's the bare bones plot for Dracula also.  Sadly, Twilight is a far cry from Dracula.  This movie should probably be viewed as a love story that happens to have vampires, too bad it's not a GOOD love story.

There's no beating around the bush here.  Kristen Stewart is one of the worst actors of her generation.  Based on her performance in this, she's just getting by on her looks.  Aside from her, the rest of the cast looked like they were actually trying to work with the tripe that was the script.  Melissa Rosenberg should probably stop writing movies.

The plot was somewhere, but I'm not sure where.  This movie moved so slowly, it's second only to Interview With The Vampire for "slowest moving vampire movie ever" - and no, I don't care what anyone else thinks.  IWTV is terrible (but that's for another post).  I'll agree with Lord J that some of the liberties taken on traditional vampire lore are...interesting at best.  Each vampire having a unique power has promise, but that's it.  The way to kill a vampire is lame and so is the "sparkling like diamonds" in the sun bit.  Personally, I would have preferred if he burned up.  At least SOMETHING would have happened.  TWO HOURS of my life was wasted on this movie for an extremely sad fight scene and to see a "vampire" sparkle.

Speaking of sparkling "vampires", this brings me to the effects.  What kind of vampire movie has almost no blood?  Sure at the movie's climax there's a little bit, but nothing I would consider close enough for a vampire movie.  Vampires drink blood - in any form or version - so we should see vampires drinking blood.  Give them blood lust, have it spray everywhere and have them covered in it, make a group of them practically have an orgy in it.  ANYTHING would have been better than what we got, which were just a few scenes of minimal blood.

When the vampires are moving at super speed, the effects for this were very inconsistent.  Sometimes they were pretty decent, other times it looked like they were kind of running while suspended a few inches off the ground while the background moved faster than them.  yes, I'm critical, but consistency makes for a good movie.

To be as completely and brutally honest as I can, I was almost bored beyond comprehension.  Had I seen this in the theater with no foreknowledge of the books or story, I would have walked out and gotten my money back as soon as the word "vampire" came into play.  In fact, I dislike this movie so much, I'd rather watch THE NOTEBOOK again over this.

1 out of 10 references that made me think of Count Duckula.

[Splatterscribe]

2001 Maniacs : Field of Screams


In 2006, some people got together and  decided to update H.G. Lewis's gorehound cult classic 2000 Maniacs for the modern era. Director Tim Sullivan and his writing partner Chris Kobin teamed with-among others- producer Eli Roth to bring us a twisted new vision of this tale for the 21st century.

The result was 2001 Maniacs, an often genuinely funny, gleefully gruesome exercise in horror comedy that featured a terrific leading performance from Robert Englund as George W. Buckman, undead mayor of Pleasant Valley, a ghostly town of angry wraiths who manifest annually to lure unsuspecting northerners into their down home southern community festival, seduce them with sex and food for two days and then kill 'em and serve them as barbecue.
The basic premise behind this is that -back during the civil war- some errant union soldiers who were part of Sherman's march wandered into the unsuspecting town, and murdered every living thing within it's borders. So now the restless dead arise every year to exact their cannibalistic revenge on anyone hailing  from the north until the number of their victims matches the number killed in Pleasant Valley- 2001.

Now fast forward to 2010 and Sullivan and Kobin (assisted by producer Christopher Tuffin)  have brought us a sequel , bearing the nifty little title 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams .   Eli Roth, however, did not choose to return for producing duties on this one. Despite not being a Roth fan,  I do acknowledge that he clearly loves horror films and is willing to go over the top with his work.  Keeping that in mind, I have to wonder how much of the magic the first time around was due to his behind the scenes influence, because - despite having the same writers and director- this sequel sucks.
 
What's really heartbreaking  is that the premise is a good one. The ghouls of Pleasant Valley,  having once again made preparations for another year of slaughter, realize that  this time they have no takers. After a promising opening sequence where they deal with the local sheriff,  Mayor Buckman (a scene stealing Bill Moseley, who proves he's a horror superstar  by  making the role entirely his own) decides that they will  gather en masse' on the town bus and take their festival on the road.

At this point the film introduces us to to a group of  travellers cruising in an RV as part of a reality TV show along the lines of MTV's Real World.  Here the first "bad movie" warning bells sound as the characters assembled are representative of every cliche' in the book: We have the Paris and Nicole clones (one of whom actually carries the stuffed remains of her dead dog) , the angry Mexican driver/PA/mechanic, his sassy black girlfriend,  the bitchy, pseudo-lesbian female producer, a Jewish cameraman, a not-so-closeted homosexual and his completely straight buddy.

The RV  comes across a detour sign and is re-routed right into the newly christened Pleasant Valley Travelling Jamboree. From there, the new arrivals are welcomed by Buckman and his group and the film slips into essentially the same territory as the first as the northerners are picked off in a variety of extremely gory ways .

Okay let me get this out here right now- the acting  sucks. I've seen Troma flicks with performances that put the ones in this movie to shame. Moseley is terrific, as are Lynn Shaye and Ryan Fleming (both of whom return from the original as , respectively, Granny and Hucklebilly) - but in all other regards this is strictly amateur hour. Hell, on second thought, why disrespect amateurs?   If someone stood in a room reading the phone book at a wall in a monotone, it would have more tone and inflection than the general line delivery provided by this cast .

Since there are some good gore set pieces, I might have tended to overlook the acting- after all, this isn't great art and the aforementioned Troma has managed to make plenty of entertaining films that don;t so much have actors as people doing weird things on screen. But Field of Screams also manages to commit the unforgivable sin of cult gore cinema- it's  boring.

We spend scene after scene watching the idiots from the RV wander around and behave in a manner suggesting that they actually died at birth and -though their brains are inoperative- their nerves have been firing for twenty odd years since, giving the appearance of life.  Nothing they do is particularly funny (which is really annoying in the instance of the Paris and Nicole clones, since Hilton and Ritchie are so out of the spotlight at this point culturally that the inclusion of their personality types is lame to begin with)   and  so many moments unfold with only these people onscreen (minus any sign of the Pleasant Valley folk) that they begin to feel like torture.

Then there's the pacing. I kid you not..at times it's as if the people in this film are sleepwalking through a river of molasses. 

Case in point: there's a moment inside of one of the festival tents where Buckman informs several of the surviving  northerners (who have all been bound together)  that  they have a chance to live if they search for and find various weapons hidden around the jamboree site while the ghouls hunt them. If they arm themselves and can fight their way out before being killed, they're free to go. So what happens? We get a shot of these people walking -not running, mind you, but walking -away from the tent after being sent out to locate the weapons while two banjo players idly stroll behind them .  Now, personally, if a town full of cannibalistic shades had just untied me and told me that all I had to do to avoid ending up on the menu  was find the gun hidden somewhere close by,  walking wouldn't enter into it. My sorry white ass would be rocketing into the night looking for something to whack a hillbilly with. 

Throw in some second rate, racially charged attempts at comedy, a horrendous and ill considered Flashdance parody  and a character who can apparently shrug off being impaled on a pitchfork as if it were a paper cut  and you end up with a film that misses the mark disastrously.  Yes, there are some excellent splatter effects and a top notch turn by genre great Moseley, but that isn't enough to cover the multitude of pacing and performance issues prevalent in this sequel.

The thing about HG Lewis's films- including the original 2000 Maniacs - is that they were consistent. They never featured good actors and they never boasted solid plotting. If you had seen one, then you were aware that his focus was on pushing the boundaries of taste with the gore and you knew what to expect.  The inherent problem here is that Sullivan had delivered a fast, funny blowout of carnage and dark humor his first time out.  This film was simply moronic...and I was expecting something more.

2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams earns two out of ten times eighty six minutes felt like three hours.

[GeneralCinema]

The Last Exorcism

I just got home from watching this and I really, really enjoyed it.  It's definitely not a movie for everyone, but I'll save that for later...

Reverend Cotton Marcus is a disillusioned minister.  He's been preaching the Word since he was a young boy and even performed his first exorcism at the age of 10.  After years of being a minister he loses his faith - preaching is his job and he treats it as such.  After performing many exorcisms, his faith is waned even further when a boy his son's age dies in an exorcism.  Now he attributes more to science than Jesus Christ.  He decides to bring a documentary crew along for his last exorcism.  The documentary crew are there to show the world that exorcism is a fraud as is Reverend Marcus.

Upon opening a letter marked URGENT, Cotton and the crew head to the Sweetzer Farm where the cattle have been mysteriously dying nightly.  Louis Sweetzer claims that his daughter is possessed and asks Cotton to perform an exorcism.

That's all of the plot that I can reveal.  I completely agree with AICN when they say "the less you know, the better."  Typically I read spoilers, but I refrained from doing that for this one and I'm glad I did.  I thought this was genuinely scary and very effective.

There aren't too many special effects - some minor contortionism and pyrotechnics are the majority of what we get, but it works well.  We also see how Cotton plans to expose the exorcism as a fraud - I feel that's revealing too much.  The camera work is jerky at times, but that's what happens when you run while filming.  There is one scene where they make really good use of the camera, but you'll have to see the movie.

The acting was adequate.  Ashley Bell did a really good job and was scary when she needed to be - that's all that counts.  Patrick Fabian actually kind of made me angry as Cotton - but this is a good thing.  His character is essentially a minister who walked away from the faith, but doesn't know anything else so he preaches for a living - not believing what he's preaching.  These two stand out the most, everyone else gave a pretty standard performance.

Now onto the part where it's not for everyone.  This movie isn't so much about possession as it is about demonic forces.  I've experienced Spiritual Warfare to a degree and this movie was on the mark of what the enemy can do.  If the movie was about a documentary crew filming an actual exorcism and Cotton's faith was where it needed to be, this would have been on par with The Exorcist.  However, that's not the case.  From my experience with Spiritual Warfare, I looked at this from the perspective of "what would I do if I were in his shoes?"  That made the movie much more effective and scary for me.  Not everyone can or will look at it from that perspective and may not like it.  It's very slow and the scares don't start until pretty late - they're effective nonetheless.  The ending might throw some people off, but I think it worked well for the plot.

Personally, I'd recommend this.


I went to sleep when I got home.  As soon as I fell asleep, I was dreaming about this movie.  I NEED it now.

[GiveMeGore]

I enjoyed The Last Exorcism quite a bit too. I loved the story from the get-go. The main character is awesome.....    that being said though..... I was really looking to be scared here and wasn't.....at all. The few sequences that were intended to be scary just were big let downs in my opinion. A couple quick shots were effect enough but they all left me wanting a lot more.

and the ending was great. The ending made this movie for me..... 5 minutes before the end sequence I was saying to myself this is kind of a big let down...... but after the ending, soaking it all in.....it was a damn fine flick. 8-10 for the story and ending. 2-10 in the scare department.

[GeneralCinema]

Frozen
No one knows you're up there

Childhood friends Dan and Joe, and Dan's girlfriend Parker go to a New England resort for a day of skiing.  Not wanting to pay full price for lift tickets, Dan convinces parker to bribe the attendant to let them on for a lower rate.  Since Parker is inexperienced, the three spend the day on the Bunny Slopes. 

Wanting to get at least one good run in, they try to go on the lift one more time only to find that it's closing due to the weather.  The three convince the same attendant to let them on one last time.  Due to a schedule conflict, the attendant tells his relief to keep the lift on since there are three more skiers coming down.

Seeing three separate skiers come down the slope, the replacement turns off the lift and the resort closes for the week.  Dan, Joe, and Parker are left stranded on the lift and must find a way down or freeze to death.

Whew.  Sorry about that but that's the gist of the plot.  This movie was written and directed by Adam Green - the genius that gave us the wonderfully made Hatchet.  Personally, I put Adam Green in the same league with Eli Roth. 

Frozen, while good, was not as good as Hatchet.  It was, however, much darker.  Hatchet was campy and fun.  This movie is no such thing.  Heavily driven by dialogue between Joe and Parker, it moves kind of slow.  To be fair, when you're stuck on a ski lift a few stories up there's not really much to do except talk and freeze. 

That's where most of the effects come in.  This movie effectively duplicated the effects of frostbite and gave us some extras in the process.  Nothing too graphic, but I found some of it shocking.  In fact, this movie had me feeling sorry for the things the characters had to go through.

The story is actually pretty solid - some things annoyed me but I can't say what they are without spoiling anything. 

The true star of this movie is the tension and the gore.  Adam Green loves his horror and he doesn't like holding ANYTHING back.  Kudos to him for that.  As far as I'm concerned, the gore alone puts him in the Splat Pack and he's already earned a spot in the "Masters of Horror" category.  He's a sick, sick dude and I will watch ANYTHING that he puts out.  Yes, he pulled a card from Open Water, but this worked pretty well.

Based on the gore alone, I'm gonna give this an 8 out of 10 reasons to go pee before getting on a ski lift.

[Splatterscribe]

Saw The Final Chapter ( AKA Saw 3D)



After six years and a network of twisted games which have left scores dead and just as many scarred for life, the sinister machinations of John
"Jigsaw" Kramer have been brought full circle in Saw The Final Chapter- AKA Saw 3D - the seventh and (if you buy into the press) final chapter of the popular franchise.

The film opens with an effective prologue which takes us back to the final moments of the original Saw and reveals to us that Dr. Lawrence
Gordon (Cary Elwes) did not in fact die from blood loss after amputating his foot.

Then we move ahead to present day and the requisite opening trap. In this one, two men are forced into a brutal battle- each has to try to
kill the other and save a woman who has been cheating on both of them.

The catch here is that (for the first time in the franchise) the game is public, unfolding in the display window of a store while an anxious
and horrified crowd of onlookers watches the deadly game unfold. A lot has been made of the fact that this sequence has no real connection to
the rest of the story, but it's worth mentioning that one of the people from this trap does show up in a group therapy session later on in the
film. That puts this scene on a par with the opening scene of Saw VI, which also had no connection to the rest of the movie, save to show
the survivor in a later scene.

The thing is, I think whether or not the scene is connected to the rest of the plot misses the point. Watching it, I was under the distinct
impression (based on various shots of the gathered crowd staring and watching the people within struggle for their lives -including one
darkly comic flash of a woman capturing the moment with her cell phone camera) that the filmmakers were winking at the Saw fanbase. After all, are not those of us who enjoy the more hardcore entries into the horror genre voyeurs to a fair amount of gruesome death ourselves?

After this mordant sequence , the film gets down to business. Jigsaw apprentice Detective Mark Hoffman (Costas Mandylor) - last seen in bad
shape and screaming like a madman after he narrowly escaped the Reverse Bear Trap in Saw VI- patches himself up and goes on the hunt for John Kramer's wife Jill Tuck (Betsy Russel), the person responsible for his experience in the RBT version 2.0. In the meantime -as evidenced by a startling and memorably grotesque sequence set in an auto garage - Hoffman continues to put people through barbaric tests with frequently
messy results.

Jill knows that Hoffman has survived and goes to the police, offering to give him up in exchange for immunity and protection. She
specifically asks for a detective named Gibson (Chad Donella) who-though initially skeptical- eagerly accepts the deal when he learns
of Hoffman's involvement.

As this plot thread plays out, we're introduced to a self help guru named Bobby Dagen(Sean Patrick Flanery), who has carved out a successful
niche' by both publishing a book about his experiences being in and surviving a Jigsaw trap and hosting meetings for other Jigsaw survivors
under the auspices of the organization S.U.R.V.I.V.E. .

Thing is, Bobby may not have been completely honest about his experiences. Consequently, he has attracted the unwanted attention of
Jigsaw and Hoffman, leading to Dagen being forced to play a game of his own.

The traps are set, Hoffman is on the loose , Jill is hunted and -as these storylines collide - all holy hell breaks loose.

The performances this time around fit the Saw mold of status quo.  Some are lukewarm (Donella is rather goofy as Gibson, though he grew on me as the film progressed) , some are okay (Flanery runs hot and cold) and some are legitimately surprising, most notably Mandylor and Russel.
Mandylor has really grown into his character and if there's a specific reason why I would recommend watching Saw The Final Chapter, it's to see Hoffman. He's gone completely over the edge at this point, yet he's cold and
calculating enough to operate with a deadly intelligence, leaving behind an astonishingly large trail of bodies.

Russel-who I thought was a weak link in the previous film- brings a better game to the table this time. If she isn't given a lot to do by the
screenwriters this go round, at least she does it well. The scene where she offers the plea deal is one of her best in the series.

Elwes does well enough, though he actually isn't in the film for very long stretches. In this instance, less is more and what we see of Dr.Gordon is an  example of deriving a fair amount of impact from limited exposure. I write the following as someone who has never been a fan of the Gordon character: I am glad they brought him back for this film. Though brief, his
role is important.

Finally there's Tobin Bell. What more can anyone add to the continuous stream of praise for this man who has invested John Kramer with so much life? Of all of the Saw films, this is the one where he logs the least amount of screen time. Yet his few moments (such as a brilliant encounter with Dagen at a book signing) have such an impact that his presence is felt throughout.

Visually the film looks crisp.  Those with Blu Ray players and 3D ready televisions are heretofore advised that, although 
there are a few sequences where the expected level of gore is hurled at audiences, for the most part
the 3D favored depth and spatial relationships, not projectiles. As the film was actually shot in 3D and not post-converted, the sense of
immersion came across well enough at times. Having said that, the added dimension wasn't necessary and given that home video transfrs of the effect are often less effective than their theatrical counterparts,  I can confidently report to
those seeking to save a few bucks that they  will have just as much fun with the film in 2D.

Now the traps are something else. What we get this time are an odd mix of over-the-top mechanics and at least one game which  returns to the grittier style of earlier films. In certain scenes, the deadly devices look as if they were constructed as part of some deranged engineer's
pet project in his basement. Given John Kramer's background, this is spot on. One game in particular- which involves a blindfolded man
attached to a mechanical noose walking along wooden planks- struck me in it's departure from the credibility stretching nature of the rest of
the games. This scene,which I consider to be a standout of the film, reminded me of the pig vat in Saw III or the needle pit in Saw II ,
games which held a certain level of plausibility in their design.

I appreciated that moment, since the bulk of the other games tend to push things into the ludicrous range. Yes,they look as if someone designed them at home and they're undeniably fun , but right around the time we see a woman threatened by metal spikes which will impale her if the decibel level in a room goes too high, the last, lingering vestiges of that low key, chillingly believable simplicity which arose from two men chained in a filthy bathroom with nothing but a hacksaw and their wits drains from the series entirely. I give the film makers some credit for acknowledging how inherently absurd the entire premise has become over the past few years and tonally embracing that knowledge with this last effort

Where Saw The Final Chapter cannot help but stumble is in meeting the unrealistic expectations for a grand finale set by the previous films. Returning director Kevin Gruetert (who helmed the superior Saw VI and edited the first five) does a terrific job adding trace amounts of intentionally dark humor and keeping the pace moving . Yet his skills behind the camera cannot entirely overcome the fact that- under the reign of writers Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunston (who have written every chapter since creators James Wan and
Leigh Whannel jumped ship at part III)- this series has become so convoluted and increasingly outlandish in the complexity of the games
that there was never going to be a way to successfully explain every single detail and wrap up every loose end.

However, a stumble is not necessarily a fall. Despite the gruesome and unlikely nature of the traps and some of the lesser performances, Saw The Final Chapter shifts into high gear in the third act and begins to bring all of its pieces
together. The last half hour is adrenalized and unrelenting, climaxing in a bravura series of revelations and twists, some of which still
managed to to catch me off guard. The final ten minutes represent the sort of scene fans tend to passionately debate about and there has indeed been a great deal of divisiveness over whether or not the conclusion of this film (and by association
the Saw saga) is worthy of what has come before.

In an effort to avoid overt spoilers, what I will offer in way of critical opinion is this: In it's own offbeat, demented manner, the ending makes sense. When one reflects upon the entire series and considers all of the games, all of the intersecting plot lines and the intelligence which would be necessary to pull it all off, the revealing final moments have a twisted logic to them.

Is Saw The Final Chapter the best Saw film? No. The primary game is essentially a reworking of themes we've seen addressed prior to this and , again, the film makers just went for broke and jettisoned any semblance of realism. This is Saw as Grand Guignol, with the characteristic grittiness and eerily claustrophobic vibe which informed the original films now replaced by over the top technical showmanship and grandiose theatrics.  Yet despite this, it doesn't play as an epic finale so much as an epilogue. A way to tie up some the prominent story threads left hanging at the end of the previous installment. On my personal list I'd definitely rank it below Saw VI and Saw II. Though I enjoyed the film, it really does need to be the last. There is nothing left to say.

Is it a good Saw film? Y'know, I'd say it is.Not great, but good enough. It's more entertaining than I had any reason to expect the seventh chapter in a yearly horror franchise to be. It's fun, gory, surprisingly playful in tone at times and it ends the series on a note that I felt was appropriate.  At this point as a fan, I can't ask for more than that.

Saw The Final Chapter earns a respectable 7.5 out of 10  Face Piercing contraptions which would have made Fulci proud.