Brian's Review - Episode 50

Pray "Episode 51" never, ever happens.

Released: 2011
Genre(s): Horror, Thriller

As I've said before, ghosts are scary. Or, at least they're supposed to be, right? I mean, they do all sorts of effed-up stuff: they pass through physical objects, moan in agony, possess toys and make them creepily move. With such rich, terrifying, and primal mythologies to base spooky spirits off of, how could any film get it wrong?

"Episode 50" is how. Maybe I secretly like brain aneurysms, but whenever Netflix shoves a movie about ghosts in front of me, I find myself hitting "play" before I can reflect on any of my past mistakes. Good golly, I really should have reflected here.

"Episode 50" doesn't even start off with a good presentation: parts of the film are traditional, third-person camerawork, while others are randomly first-person, "found-footage"-style mumbo jumbo, without any real explanation of why these transitions are occurring. They certainly don't look pretty, nor do they add to the suspense or drama of the movie, and relying on them as a novel gimmick has been overdone.

Regarding plot, "Episode 50" weaves a story about a paranormal investigation team that went missing while documenting an allegedly-haunted location. Sound familiar? It should, because this is basically a poor man's version of the massively-underrated "Grave Encounters" - a film superior to this one in every way. This is especially apparent when one observes the acting in "Episode 50," which plays out a lot like a kindergarten play, minus the cute giggling and unintentional stammering of lines. With this movie, I can't tell if the stammering is due to the horrible script or from the actors themselves being completely devoid of talent. This cast is definitely the acting world's version of NFL replacement refs. You want them to die within the first 20 minutes of the film and that feeling only intensifies as the melodrama drags on.

It would've made it slightly less unbearable if there were any scares thrown in to break up the monotony of watching the definition of "stupid" personified onscreen, but alas, this was another essential aspect of ye olde horror movie that was neglected by the filmmakers. "Episode 50" attempts to scrape by with mediocre effects, a complete lack of atmosphere, and poor execution. In all honesty, the only thing you should expect to send shivers down your spine is the atrocious acting. This isn't even bad enough to be fun. Avoid.

Rating (out of 5): 1

Brian's Review - Silent House

Silent...but deadly?

Released: 2011
Genre(s): Horror, Thriller

What makes a haunted house scary? Is it the gruesome brutality of events past? The decrepit, forlorn atmosphere, resulting from years of neglect? The complete lack of wi-fi?

No. It's the otherworldly haunts. Ghosts - whether they float, teleport, crawl, hobble, or slither - are undeniably terrifying mother effers. They can disappear without warning, only to later manifest in any number of places where they don't belong (like your mirror). They come shrieking out of the shadows and get up in your grill. And they're always trying to turn your furniture into avant-garde art fixtures. Even the most misunderstood spirits are creepy as hell, which is normally their own fault for acting like screaming, bleeding assholes, instead of just sending their friends a text from beyond the grave that says "WTF I was murdered LOL."

So what does this have to do with "Silent House"? Well, for one, the movie is riddled with things that go bump in the night - and boy, do they bump a lot. In fact, many of the film's most spine-tingling moments occur when the tranquility of the old, rickety house is unexpectedly shattered by the sounds of shuffling footsteps in some uninhabited upstairs room. Slamming doors, twisted visions of unknown crimes committed during the abode's dark history, and unexplained paranormal activity all contribute to an eerie and unsettling setup.

Unfortunately, said setup is slow to start, with much of the movie's first moments being taken up by backstory that is so bare-bones that it in no way is able to justify its plodding pace or disjointed delivery. Once things actually get going, "Silent House" does manage to ride high on its effective combination of quasi-"found footage" sensibilities and the psychological pressure of the main character's situation. The whole emotional package being sold here is heightened significantly, thanks to the film being edited to view like a single take - the lack of scene transitions ensures there isn't much time to gather yourself between jolts. However, even this novel approach isn't enough to save "Silent House" from itself during some critical moments.

While Elizabeth Olsen does an excellent job of working herself into a horrified frenzy, she's unable to support the entire cast. The supporting characters seem wooden in their movements and conversations, making it impossible for us to feel the same level of panic during each scene. Where there isn't any dialogue, we're left with long, drawn-out sequences that rob the movie of all momentum, instead of offering the same delectable slow burn tactics seen during the middle acts. These moments become even more unbearable once the plot basically begins to bash us over the head with such obvious foreshadowing that the rest of the film feels like a game of "Wheel of Fortune" with only the vowels missing. It's honestly insulting to the audience's intelligence and makes the twist incredibly underwhelming.

It's a shame, because "Silent House" could have utilized its blend of gimmicky camerawork, haunted house elements, and psychological horror presentation to differentiate itself from similar films in the genre; instead, it ends up as a mediocre remake of the original Uruguayan movie. It's also a huge bummer that someone in Hollywood felt the need to steal this idea almost immediately after the release of its South American counterpart. Even lamer is the claim that this film is "inspired by true events" - this is basically movie maker code for "at some point, something happened to some people that may or may not have been like this, but we think this is what went down." Leaning on gimmicks more than on substance makes this an average flick with a couple good scares and a subpar, dissatisfying ending.

Rating (out of 5): 3

Brian's Review - The Legend of Lucy Keyes

A legend not worth retelling.

Released: 2006
Genre(s): Drama, Mystery, Thriller, Horror

Every now and then I play Netflix Russian roulette, where I pick a movie at random and pray to the ancient gods of old that it ends up being good. I'd say about half the movies I find are decent, with the other half causing me to hemorrhage intensely and/or uppercut random objects in a blind fury. Unfortunately for myself, my possessions, and my loved ones, "The Legend of Lucy Keyes" was the exact type of brain-meltingly horrendous concoction that normally causes said uppercutting marathons. Sweet bags of kettle corn, is this film bad.

Let me start off by saying that Netflix needs to get its shit together. Not only did they categorize this movie as a "horror," but they also used the super-creepy version of the poster featuring a little ghost girl (and nothing is scarier than undead children). This is outrageously misleading, and I say shame on Netflix for betraying my trust. Sure, the film features its fair share of otherworldly spooks looming out of the mist to shriek at the protagonists, but in reality this is a drama. And I don't mean "The King's Speech"-caliber drama; no, I mean gut-wrenching, contrived, brain-numbing, overacted, poorly-scripted drama. This movie did really well on Lifetime, and no offense to anybody who enjoys a good "mom and daughter bonding over cancer/death/underage pregnancy in the family" cry fest, but I can see why. Despite being made in 2006, everything from the credits to the music to the filter used on the camera has that special (read: cheesy) 1980's quality to it - and the acting is no exception.

This is about as scary as a reading of "Goodnight Moon" (which means it's significantly less scary than people who shop at Walmart), without any semblance of real suspense or thrills, and a pace that would make a nursing home look like a fraternity house during the weekend. There's a part or two where a half-assed attempt to "creep out the audience" occurs, but every time I started to grip my seat in anticipation, the film reminded me of what it really was, and lost all momentum abruptly. The worst part of this carrot-and-stick approach is that once the "big reveal" of the movie finally comes to light, it's impossible to justify the immense amount of mental pain the story and bad acting doled out beforehand.

So let's go over this again, shall we? Production: bad. Acting: bad. Music: bad (unless you're really into generic synthesizer riffs). Plot: stupid (despite the claim that this is based on a true story). Overall, this is one of those films where nothing could have gone worse for it (or the audience viewing it). It's rare that I stumble across something so completely devoid of redeeming characteristics that I have to smack it with the lowest of low scores, but "The Legend of Lucy Keyes" is epic in its shittiness. Unless you have a soft spot (and I mean a very soft spot) for the corniest of movies, I can almost guarantee that this is not going to be for you. In keeping with my Russian roulette reference from before, this is an effing bullet to the head.

Rating (out of 5): 1

Brian's Review - Quarantine

Time to update your vaccinations.

Released: 2008
Genre(s): Horror, Thriller, Sci-Fi

America has a habit of taking other countries' awesome ideas and giving them the Hollywood remake treatment, often to the entire world's chagrin. While not all repackaging attempts fail, those that do fail so hard that I audibly groan (or swear) when I see a new one being advertised. Combine that with the standard of awfulness set by "found footage"-style films and you can easily see why "Quarantine" immediately climbed to the top of my "Looks Too Stupid to Give a Chance" list. And there it stayed for almost four whole years until I saw it at the library and my morbid curiosity kicked in (what can I say? I'm a sucker for free movies). While many sources tell me that the original Spanish film "REC" (sometimes stylized as "[REC]" or "[Rec]") is far superior and far scarier than this remake, I have to say that I honestly enjoyed most of what "Quarantine" had to offer (although if "REC" is supposedly a better movie, I'll definitely have to check that out soon).

Set almost completely in a dark apartment building, this spin on the zombie survival sub-genre intelligently utilizes its environment to produce some intensely claustrophobic encounters with the ravenous menaces stalking those unfortunate enough to still be alive during this nightmare. The film does a nice job of building up tension before delivering some solid nerve-blasting jolts - all without relying on a corny or predictable soundtrack. In fact, the only audio in the entire movie is the sound of terrified screaming/crying from the survivors, enraged shrieking from the zombie-tenants as they hunt down said survivors, and occasionally the squishy sounds of some poor sap being disemboweled. The experience becomes a daunting test of bravery as abandoned apartment rooms quickly transform from silent, dark sanctuaries into echoing caverns of bone-chilling chaos without a single warning. I'm not a huge fan of the jump-scare, but it's employed here quite effectively. The creature effects are commendably creepy as well, with the zombies looking more like diseased, emaciated (and terrifyingly fast) horrors than clumsy, shambling, B-movie corpses.

The biggest issue I had with this flick is a common one among horror entries (and one that will probably never be truly fixed by the industry): protagonists being idiots. If I had a bottle of mouthwash for every time I've seen a moronic survivor cluelessly reach out to touch a person who is clearly already an effing zombie, I'd be the town drunk. "Quarantine" seems eager to fit in with the rest, falling guilty of this, as well as many other mindless clichés. It's the type of film that really doesn't want its characters to survive, and doesn't give a damn about whether you do or not. In fact, it's easier to not care about their mortality when they're acting like a bunch of brainless children who got into dad's private stash of cocaine from the '80s. Carelessly running around while screaming and making generally dumb decisions means you can become zombie food for all I care.

Overall, the flick pulls itself together into something that shocks, rattles, and unsettles to an adequate degree. It's not a masterpiece (as I'm told of "REC" - review pending), but it's a pretty decent remake, especially given its gimmicky composition. I'd definitely recommend it over the slew of subpar filth that makes up similar entries in the sub-genre. If you live in an apartment, you can even use "Quarantine" as a guide on what not to do in the middle of a zombie attack inside a shared residential building. Added bonus!

Rating (out of 5): 3

Brian's Review - Grave Encounters

Just another reason to hate mental hospitals.

Released: 2011
Genre(s): Horror

I've said it a million times before, but I'll say it again: I hate "found footage"-style movies. More often than not, they're cheesy, gimmicky wastes of time, marred by horrendous acting, paper-thin storylines, and a linear mentality that severely limits the film's ability to build up any real terror. They're a lot like the guy at the party who knows how to do magic, but only knows one trick (and that trick is already kind of lame). Needless to say, I wasn't setting my expectations very high when I saw "Grave Encounters" sitting in the long line of third-rate horror movies on Netflix. Also, the last horror flick I watched about mental asylums was the abysmal "The Ward" and the horrible aftertaste that experience left with me was still fresh enough to make me wary of the sub-genre. Regardless, I had a couple beers to numb my brain for what I assumed would be a mentally-deadening hour and a half of cinematic slop and hit play.

Turns out, I was pleasantly surprised. This is by no means a masterpiece, but it hits all the right notes in terms of horror fare - the scares come quick and vicious, making up for a slow opening that plods on for just a little too long. Then again, without this rather lengthy, incredibly cheesy setup, there wouldn't be nearly as many fun, obvious jabs in the direction of crap like "Ghost Adventures" and the multitude of other similar shows starring douchebags with cameras in dark buildings. As far as satire is concerned, this film hits the nail right on the head.

As I mentioned, the movie does a great job at being frightening, but it's how it goes about it that makes it truly memorable. There's definitely less emphasis on the amateur jump-scare technique, with more chills being drawn out and built up through subtle imagery, creepy ambient sound effects, and the downright terrified reactions of the characters. Some panned this flick for its special effects, but I have to disagree wholeheartedly, as I found the ghosts here to be intensely unsettling. More disturbing still is the fact that the cast isn't your standard, horror film, throwaway kill-fodder: instead of helplessly and idiotically bumbling about with targets on their backs, these people fight to stay alive. Hard. They break down every door in their way, seek safety when attacked, and do what they can to survive what is honestly one of the most nightmarish onscreen situations I've seen recently. Watching them struggle with such fervor against the dark forces closing in around them, only to fall time and time again, is ridiculously disheartening. To further strengthen this oppressive atmosphere, the abundance of supernatural elements here are expertly combined with a claustrophobic setting enshrined in darkness, getting under your skin all the more when the whole mess is compacted by all the heaviest characteristics of a psychological thriller.

Needless to say, "Grave Encounters" left me both unexpectedly impressed and insanely creeped out. This is honestly some spooky shit. If you hate mental patients, the facilities they're housed in, ghosts, dark hallways, dark hallways in mental facilities full of the ghosts of mental patients, or the F-word, your heart will probably explode in a ball of crybaby hysteria upon watching this. For everyone else, it won't scare the dickens out of you, but it's an experience that's sure to bring a healthy dose of dread and suspense into your life, while simultaneously poking fun at the reality TV industry. In the world of suffocating, Netflix horror sludge, "Grave Encounters" is a solid piece of ground to take a break on.

Rating (out of 5): 3.5

Brian's Review - Priest (2011)

Even if you pray for it, this movie doesn't get any better.

Released: 2011
Genre(s): Action, Horror, Sci-Fi

In a cinematic market saturated with cheeseball, romanticized vampire love-romps, it's nice to see a movie bring the fight back to these supernatural beings with all the bloody, balls-to-the-wall determination of 1998's "Blade." While "Priest" missteps many times in many directions, it's not the worst film I've seen, and I can't condone hating it as a whole. With that being said, it's also not a movie I can particularly like, and I can absolutely condone hating certain pieces of it.

While the film's visual style is a sleek, flashy, streamlined blend of commendable CGI and prop work, the world the characters inhabit lacks sufficient substance: the oppressive human city ruled by the church doesn't seem oppressive enough, the desert wasteland doesn't seem harsh enough, the vampire hives don't feel threatening enough. This could be overlooked if it wasn't for the fact that the main character and his companion(s) are constantly exploring new settings throughout their journey, bringing us back over and over again to locations that are not fleshed out in the least. It's an overlooked aspect that unfortunately damages the presentation of the movie, and prevents viewers from immersing themselves into this fantasy backdrop.

In fact, it may be hard for some viewers to invest themselves into this film at all due to a number of reasons. Continuity (or lack thereof) in regards to the original Korean comic aside, "Priest" has a story as interesting as a wet paper bag and as engaging as a Slinky without a staircase; it's practically nonexistent, and what is there is pretty ho-hum. Additionally, none of the characters seem to give a damn about anything, including each other. The interpersonal relationships here are sparse at most, and the "acting" seems to all be executed as a complete afterthought. Which is acceptable, to a degree - after all, this is an action flick.

And as an action flick, "Priest" shines: the vampires are hellish, vile, and savage creatures, making the fight scenes rapid and brutal, and blood is splashed liberally about the screen during the ensuing chaos. It's not some of the most fluid choreography out there, but it gets the job done in a quick, dirty, and fun manner that should satiate the appetites of most action fans. There are a couple moments here that stood out as completely badass, proving "Priest" as an enjoyably competent actioner.

In the end, "Priest" boils down to a mediocre concoction, unable to establish a profound sense of compassion, understanding, or urgency, while successfully utilizing action sequences to pump itself into a high-octane fight scene showcase. Without substance, the movie quickly crumbles under its own weight, forcing it to lean on its effects and set pieces to an almost crippling degree. Fortunately, if you're going in looking for an action film and nothing else, "Priest" will maintain your interest throughout, since it spends all of 15 minutes to explain any of the plot. This is great for adrenaline junkies, but bad for anyone looking for anything deeper. View at your own discretion.

Rating (out of 5): 2.5

Brian's Review - Darkness (2002)

You probably won't even need a nightlight for this one.

Released: 2002
Genre(s): Horror, Thriller

The "haunted house" sub-genre of horror - as overdone as it is - is one of my favorites, so I'm always on the lookout for hidden gems I may have missed over the years. Long before her rise to fame as the star of the inexplicably popular, vampire flavor-of-the-moment "True Blood," Anna Paquin was effing around with other supernatural forces in "Darkness" - a horror movie so bad, I'm surprised the residual stigma didn't cripple her career permanently. This was not the droi-...erm, haunted house I was looking for. In fact, it's not the haunted house anyone is looking for. Not that people go around looking for haunted houses on the regular. Well, I guess douchebags do.

Far too frequently, I find that directors neglect to include the one primary ingredient that makes a horror film a horror film: horror. How the hell do you forget that? "Darkness" falls into this category of teeth-grindingly false advertising, selling the prospect of terror here with all the effort and honed precision of a German Olympic diver. Not only is this movie almost completely devoid of scares, but the ones that did make their way into this film are so flimsy and underwhelming that they're also immediately forgettable. Without any kind of backbone, the "frightening" aspects of this film (many of which are almost directly lifted from similar flicks) flop about clumsily and inconsistently, never truly digging into the viewer with any kind of substantial force. You're constantly wanting more while watching this. Add some of the worst acting ever seen in the past ten years to some of the most rigid, robotic dialogue ever written, and you have the recipe for a big bowl of instant disappointment soup.

There's little silver lining to be found in this attempt, but what there is can be located in the first half of this gigantic, steaming cinematic turd. This is where the plot (which later turns into a wildly-thrashing, nonsensical melodrama) is actually interesting and holds some suspenseful potential as it delves into the occult and supernatural rustlings within the house. "Darkness" - ever so briefly - finds its footing during these miniscule moments, and manages to present a tense and creepy mood. Mind you, immediately after each scene, the atmosphere quickly throws up in its own mouth and chokes to death, so make sure you don't blink, because you can potentially miss all the "good" parts here.

There's no denying that "Darkness" is crap: everything from its acting to its direction is executed poorly. What it lacks in substance, it makes up for slightly with mystery and thrills in the opening act, although even these unfortunately dissipate almost entirely into yawn-inducing clichés and some of the most unrealistic portrayals of human reactions of all time. I'm not even sure that "Darkness" would've turned out any better in any other director's hands, solely due to the fact that the story is so stupid; in that respect, it reminds me of another incredibly lame movie that touted a theme centered on darkness. And much like that film, this one should've left us all in the dark about its existence.

Rating (out of 5): 2

Brian's Review - The Descent

A fun experience that descends into stupidity.

Released: 2005
Genre(s): Horror, Thriller, Adventure

For years now, I've been told by dozens of my friends to check out "The Descent" - apparently, "one of the scariest horror movies of all time." I heard grand stories about how heavy the atmosphere was, how it was littered with terrifying jump-scares, and hardcore action sequences. And, no offense to said friends, but it all honestly made me want to avoid the eff out of something so massively hyped-up. Seven years later, my willpower worn to its breaking point, I borrowed this "instant classic" from the library to see if it really was worth all the buzz. Even though I managed to go into it with only moderately-high expectations, "The Descent" just didn't cut it for me.

One part spelunking accident film (think "Sanctum" on land), one part creature-feature, "The Descent" isn't especially original, but the concept has tons of potential for claustrophobic encounters and brutal violence, which it does manage to deliver plenty of. In fact, once the first creepy-crawly makes itself apparent (actually one of the best parts of the entire movie) and our female protagonists finally start to repurpose their climbing gear into deadly weapons, things manage to get mildly exciting. Unfortunately, the fight scenes only occasionally border on badass, with most of the girls degrading into unlikeable idiots, ending up as lame vehicles for cheap-looking gore effects. The action sequences suffer from a strong case of premature climax, satiating nothing but quick adrenaline fixes. It wouldn't be such a lopsided payout if the scenes between weren't so excruciatingly boring, infuriating, or soulless.

The main characters completely lack any semblance of intelligent thought, and therefore prevent any semblance of sympathy to be cast their way. It always sucks when a filmmaker doesn't manage to infuse a single note of humor into any of the writing, and it sucks even more when said brainless dialogue leads to the protagonists having only as much personality as the feral savages hunting them. This was like watching an episode of "BattleBots," with the girls and monsters hacking each other to pieces, except that show was fun and involved science, whereas this just involves stupid jump-scares and bad acting. I also cared about the fates of the robots in "BattleBots" more than the characters here. Cardboard cutouts, all the way around.

Don't get me wrong here - I halfway liked this movie, if only for the visceral and oftentimes over-the-top action scenes; these moments were genuinely fun and the idea of battling something hellish with a climbing pick is pretty hardcore. However, there are just far too many negatives here to give it a good score, most notably the fact that this film isn't scary at all. There is so much potential here for primal, darkness-themed, tight-quartered terror, and "The Descent" drops the ball in every way possible. This also means my friends either a) are gigantic, wimpy babies, b) are shamelessly lying trolls, or c) don't remember 2005 very well. Maybe it just wasn't that scary of a year. Then again, Robert Rodriguez did decide to make the movie "The Adventures of Sharkboy & Lavagirl" in 2005, which sucked so hard that it was horrifying to think that Rodriguez willing created it. Regardless, "The Descent" doesn't live up to the cult-like fervor surrounding it, and is a mildly distracting experience at best.

Rating (out of 5): 2.5

Brian's Review - Masters of Horror: Cigarette Burns

The creepiest cigarette company ad ever.

Released: 2005
Genre(s): Horror, Thriller

Despite the misleading name, John Carpenter's Masters of Horror entry "Cigarette Burns" has nothing to do with smoking tobacco and a lot to do with the slang term referring to cue marks that appear on film reels. It also has a lot to do with a cursed movie that effs up people's lives, à la that creepy video from "The Ring," or the insanely disturbing 1920's silent short film "Un Chien Andalou" (which some may know for its famously grotesque scene of an eyeball being slit open with a straight razor). While the movie "Cigarette Burns" is unsettling in itself, this film within the film is almost like a living, breathing character with a far more important - and sinsiter - role than most of the human cast.

In typical Carpenter fashion, this movie plays up the slow burn, albeit at a bit of an accelerated pace, since it has to cram an entire plotline into a mere hour's timespan (after all, "Masters of Horror" is technically a television series). Unfortunately, with such a limited length, those precious moments that are eaten up by the movie dragging its ass seem all the more pointless. While the greatest scenes occur when the atmosphere is at its most foreboding and psychologically horrific, the in-between moments plod along and break up any sort of tension that could have been capitalized on. Carpenter, however, is a master of his craft, with experience allowing him to gather flesh-rending steam and enough momentum to barrel into this film's ultimately satisfying climax at full force.

I can't really say that I was blown away by this attempt: it's undeniably unnerving, but it doesn't have enough conviction behind it to make it truly scary. Still, it's one of the better acted (fan girls - and probably some boys too - will squeal with delight at the sight of Norman Reedus) and more unique concepts for "Masters of Horror," and not everything about the execution can be critiqued negatively. If you're looking for a good place to dive headfirst into the series from, then seek no more; John Carpenter will guide you the rest of the way.

Rating (out of 5): 3

Brian's Review - Haunted Forest

It'd be a cool place to hike. If it wasn't for, you know, the killer ghost and stuff.

Released: 2007
Genre(s): Horror, Thriller

Although I've said it many times before, I'll say it again: the idea of an evil/misunderstood female spirit seeking bloody vengeance on those who wronged her/accidentally crossed her path is not a new one - nor is it normally an effectively scary one. While movies like "Ju-on: The Grudge" undeniably cemented the "creepy ghost girl" sub-genre into mainstream horror, finding a fresh, new spin on this approach has proven fairly difficult for most filmmakers - there is an abundance of copycat attempts that flood the market almost every year, all which manage to fall disappointingly flat. With this in mind, it shouldn't come as any surprise that I wasn't expecting a lot - if anything - from "Haunted Forest," which initially sounded like an uninspired mash-up of "The Ring" and "Pocahontas." However, after actually giving it a chance, I'm glad to say that this particular entry colored outside the lines just enough to pleasantly exceed all my expectations.

The Native American mythology infused into the plot here is done surprisingly well, never straying into blindly-offensive or stereotyped clichés, and not overdoing what effectively becomes the focal point of the movie - instead, "Haunted Forest" very organically allows the backstory to flow into the events unfolding on screen. And said events are pretty creepy.

While the dark-haired, gnarled, ghostly antagonist that stalks the main characters may seem like a ripoff of Samara, the way this one slinks up for the jolts (and the kills) is truly unsettling. There's a lot of dark energy and imagery here that really crawls under your skin, and most of the frights aren't cheap jump-scares, but rather set up with atmosphere in mind. Gore is limited, never dominating the movie's focus or sapping it away from what's truly important in a horror film - the horror - so gorehounds can stop getting all hot and bothered, and go back to making out with their "The Human Centipede" posters and loneliness. The effects are fairly decent for something that is clearly low-budget fare, and the bang you get for your buck scare-wise is well worth the price of admission (admission in my case being my Netflix subscription fee). My final verdict: if you're sick of following the same path most ghost flicks try leading you down, then go get lost in the woods. You may end up pleasantly surprised with what you find.

Rating (out of 5): 3.5

Brian's Review - The Devil Inside

Inside? Outside? Who cares? This movie still sucks.

Released: 2012
Genre(s): Horror

No matter how innovative, ambitious, or eager to break the mold, every film about exorcism released since 1973 has been and always will be compared to "The Exorcist" - perhaps the most memorable, influential, and frightening movie about the subject ever made. No other film has received more praise or more appreciative nods within this horror sub-genre. Now, thanks to the magic of modern movies, Hollywood has managed to create "The Devil Inside" - a ham-fisted, ugly film that could be considered the exact opposite of the '70s classic.

The movie doesn't start off so badly, combining the (regrettably) exploitable style of "found footage" with slow-burning creeps, all built around a premise reminiscent of 2011's "The Rite." It effectively raises those "science-versus-religion" questions (the very same that generate those 250 comment-long battles on Facebook), while simultaneously managing to raise a goosebump or two. And that's about it. There's not really a whole lot of redeeming qualities to this film.

Although I mentioned "The Devil Inside" is slow-burning, it should be noted that "slow" is the operative word here: this movie straight-up drags its ass through a glue factory. If you're not yet asleep after the first half, you'll find yourself in more "exciting" territory, where the jump-scares are frequent, cheap, and predictable. Any atmosphere that the film built up and could have capitalized on is gone by the second act. Instead, it decides to fall back on its gimmicky "novelties," lazy, clichéd writing, paper-thin characters, and tired and recycled plot points - it all plays out like a low-budget waste of time, and nobody will be found caring. To make matters worse, it sets up what is easily one of the worst endings in cinematic history. Prepare to be overwhelmed with rage.

Pointing out that this is a ripoff of earlier, better genre attempts seems redundant. It's also completely unnecessary to compare this to "The Exorcist": it'd be a massive insult to the iconic horror entry to even place it side-by-side with this crap. "The Devil Inside" doesn't manage to pay any sort of respectful homage to its predecessors, and it ends up being an utterly boring, humorless example of poor planning and even poorer execution. Even the movie cover promising the involvement of a creepy, blind nun is a lie. Disappointing doesn't even sum this one up. Avoid it like a jet of Linda Blair's demon puke.

Rating (out of 5): 1.5

Brian's Review - Pulse 2: Afterlife

More of a hell than an afterlife.

Released: 2008
Genre(s): Horror, Thriller

Every now and then I get possessed by a masochist and decide to burn my eyeballs out of my skull with the worst movie I can possibly find. Fortunately for you, you can just read my review and spare yourself from the suffering that is "Pulse 2: Afterlife," a direct-to-video sequel to a remake of an actually scary Japanese film. Except unlike said Japanese film, "Pulse 2: Afterlife" completely lacks any sort of finesse, subtlety, or intelligence. Grab some toilet paper, because this is the cinematic version of dysentery.

When it comes to cinematography, this movie is about as interesting as a saltine cracker. Not only do the setups lack the ability to generate any sort of suspense, but almost every shot makes the actors look like they're superimposed into a washed-out, CGI world. Maybe it was just the work of an overzealous effects magician during post-production, or maybe everything really was shot in front of a green screen, but regardless of the excuse, "Pulse 2: Afterlife" is an over-doctored Frankensteinian abomination.

The characters themselves are extremely unlikable, repeatedly making idiotic and frustrating decisions that are not only ridiculous, but unrealistic as well. The actors play their parts with all the gusto of a pack of sleeping three-toed sloths, feigned fear occasionally bubbling to the surface like farts in a tub. Good gravy, is this bad stuff, and it makes it impossible to sympathize with any of the characters' plights.

Even the scares here are poorly done: since there's no creepy atmosphere, the movie falls back far too often on the ever-clichéd tactic of the jump-scare. And what an ugly tactic it is. These "scares" are so ham-fisted and predictable that they end up being positively yawn-inducing. Easily my favorite scene is one where the characters face-off against an idle laptop that is supposedly "dangerous"; the scenario is so preposterous and stupid that I would've laughed out loud...if I hadn't been groaning already. Everything that is meant to create a feeling of hopelessness in us ends up just breeding frustration, and it doesn't help that the movie plods along with all the purpose of diarrhea-flavored chewing gum.

The only thing that "Pulse 2: Afterlife" does even mildly well (besides causing brain aneurysms) is in its portrayal of the detrimental effects the apocalyptic setting has on the protagonist's family. The stress even causes a child to get slapped in one scene, and that's exactly how you'll feel while watching this film: like an abused, helpless child, and as one, you'll never be able to commit an act as atrocious as this movie will commit unto you. Avoid at all costs.

Rating (out of 5): 1

Brian's Review - Occupant (2011)

Worth leasing, but not buying.

Released: 2011
Genre(s): Thriller, Horror

The low-budget thriller/horror film market is saturated with an unfathomable volume of horrendous crap, and more times than not these attempts merely recycle or mimic more well-known and higher-quality entries into the genre. While it can be excruciatingly horrible to wade through this onslaught of cinematic sludge, every now and then I stumble across a diamond in the rough. "Occupant" isn't the smartest effort of recent memory, nor is it the scariest, but it's certainly unique enough to be worth mentioning. The plot here isn't especially innovative, borrowing heavily from movies like "1408" and Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining," but much like said inspiration, the execution is what differentiates this film from the slew of other cheap imitations. The movie is actually pretty sleek-looking for a lower-budget offering, and it makes effective use of its small, fairly-unknown cast, especially leading man Van Hansis, whose portrayal of a man grappling with his sanity is so convincing its unsettling. The atmosphere is dark, disturbing, and suspenseful, akin to an under-your-skin David Lynch head trip; it's that special blend of intentionally-ambiguous psychological thriller and supernatural horror that makes this a very carrot-on-a-stick experience, never allowing the viewer to turn away once the action begins its slow-burning buildup. Unfortunately, this very same technique is a double-edged sword, as the pacing of this film lacks the polish of experienced Lynchian projects, sometimes clumsily lurching about as the character flounders and fumbles through his maddening ordeal. Regardless, the movie is creepy enough to make for one entertaining night, or maybe even two if you're charmed enough by its chilling premise and ability to draw on our primal fear of isolation. "Occupant" may not be a masterpiece, but the cost of renting this apartment-centric thriller sure beats paying a security deposit - go ahead and rent away.

Rating (out of 5): 3

Brian's Review - Survival of the Dead

If the living keep making movies like this, the dead really should survive.

Released: 2009
Genre(s): Horror, Action

George A. Romero's groundbreaking zombie apocalypse series has undeniably gotten worse with each new iteration, becoming more of a vehicle for the horror master's tongue-in-cheek social commentaries than a true scare fest. Unfortunately, this well-worn premise begins to really show its age quite noticeably in Romero's most recent attempt, "Survival of the Dead," cutting loose from any serious thematic elements and just losing itself to the predictable horror-action template that pumps out droves of immediately-forgettable movies each year. There's almost nothing here separating it from low-budget popcorn fodder, despite some rather feeble efforts to infuse subtle commentary regarding the current generation's brainwashed dependency on the internet. Beyond that, "Survival of the Dead" doesn't have much else to offer: the plot hinges on a preposterous Hatfields vs. McCoys-style feud, and much like the infamous conflict, the film feels mostly unnecessary and somewhat stupid. There's enough gun violence to keep action junkies happy, and enough over-the-top CGI gore to appease the more open-minded gorehounds (although there's really nothing extreme or realistic here), especially if they're willing to accept some of it as intentionally-cheesy comedic flourish. While the survivors' main objective is clearly self-preservation, I can't help but feel that there was no real urgency to their journey, and that - despite being in the middle of the end of the civilized world - they weren't in the least bit affected by their predicament. Then again, nothing in the movie feels particularly menacing, with slow, shambling zombies, who seem to attack in much smaller groups than in previous entries to the series, and gunfights breaking out so often that the battles lose any truly threatening impact. Even the main character seems bored with what's happening, unfazed by the multitude of explosions and computer-generated blood splatters emitting from headshot exit wounds. It's unfortunate that despite its prestigious lineage, "Survival of the Dead" operates with only enough creative momentum to generate yawns and zombie-like states of indifference. Unless you get some morbid satisfaction from seeing a Romero release limp along with other contemporary bargain-bin slop, I suggest finding another undead offering to get your zombie fix.

Rating (out of 5): 2

Brian's Review - The Presence

Don't go number two in the haunted outhouse.

Released: 2010
Genre(s): Drama, Thriller, Horror

The haunted house genre is one of my favorites by far - who doesn't fear what goes bump in the night, especially when said bumping occurs in your own presumably-safe abode? It's a concept that's been beaten to death, but unfortunately one that's rarely done well, with most films either sticking to formulaic templates or choosing to remake originally-terrifying Asian horror flicks as watered-down, brainless crap. "The Presence" gets some points for falling into neither of these categories, breaking the mold in both its presentation and pacing, but nothing beyond its own unorthodox approach allows it to have any true staying power. The cinematography is splendid here, highlighting still, brooding environments, while generating chills not through cheap jump-scares, but rather with subtle imagery and atmosphere. The slowly-swelling pacing of "The Presence" may turn off some: the character interactions are pretty limited for the first 20 or so minutes of this movie, with minor creepy moments occurring sporadically throughout, but things don't really start picking up until near the end. The big blank space that makes up the body of this film is used for some very clunky and mainly irrelevant backstory development, as well as a scene where the director tries to scare us with a shaking outhouse. Yes, you read that right: a shaking outhouse. While the marketing department for this movie attempted to sell "horror" as one of its sub-genres, this honestly borders on false advertising; the scares here are about as frightening as a napping kitten. Don't get me wrong - there's plenty of moments and situations that add legitimate creep-factor to this film, but "horror" this most certainly is not. "The Presence" has enough unconventionality to keep things at least semi-interesting, as I didn't ever consider turning it off, and actually wanted to find out what would happen next, but it really doesn't possess a profound enough punch to have any replay value. It could definitely be worth a rental to some (notice "some," not "all"), but probably shouldn't be the first choice on anybody's list. I sincerely applaud the efforts to go above and beyond the norm here, but, much like a shaking outhouse in the woods, it's only minimally frightening and mostly lame.

Rating (out of 5): 2.5

Brian's Review - The Thing (2011)

1982's original was something. 2011's prequel is nothing.

Released: 2011
Genre(s): Horror, Thiller, Sci-Fi

When John Carpenter released "The Thing" in 1982, it's combination of bizarre animatronic magic and nail-bitingly tense atmosphere was unsettling and jarring enough to generate a cult following of significant magnitude that still exists today. As an avid Carpenter fan, my enthusiasm for the 2011 prequel was mixed: would this movie be able to harness the same sheer, terrified energy caused by the unknown assailant from the original, or would Hollywood glam it up into a cheap, street-walking version of its former self? The answer is unfortunate, with "The Thing" of 2011 coming off as more of a soulless echo of the epic creature feature it could have been. Gone is the focus on suspense that made Carpenter's version, and Ridley Scott's "Alien" before it, so intense – no longer do we watch the characters carefully and meticulously explore their once-secure base, expecting horror around every corner, and no longer do said paranoid fixations cause them to unravel and implode; in reality, the characters in this iteration are almost as devoid of emotion as the creature itself. What we do get is plenty of in-your-face, close encounters with the alien, but it does less stalking of the survivors to build satisfying dread, and more brutal evisceration and mutilation. One might expect that this approach would yield more visceral, white-knuckle action sequences to make up for the lack of effectively chilling ambiance, but instead we're served a big, boring platter of dull, gray hack-and-slash. Even the CGI here is inconsistent - one moment, the effects appear lifelike and bold, the next, they become clumsy and ham-fisted, allowing even the outdated special effects of 1999's "The Mummy" to make them look like an elementary school art project. While the events that unfold during the end credits are a surprisingly bright light in this massive pool of sludge, the "too little, too late" rule applies here: ultimately, this "The Thing" is an ugly, plodding mess of slime, and unfortunately, I'm not just referring to the monster.

Rating (out of 5): 2

Brian's Review - The Lost Boys

Captain Hook never would've messed with these Lost Boys.

Released: 1987
Genre(s): Comedy, Horror, Fantasy

The '80s: oversized leather jackets, big sunglasses, and even bigger hair. Oh, and vampires, according to 1987's "The Lost Boys," a wild horror-comedy that does an incredibly effective job of being just as thrilling as it is outrageously funny, even two and a half decades after its inception. The cast is comprised of a veritable who's who of the era's teen stars, expertly conveying this film's goofball undertones by portraying panicked, high-strung adolescents. The tongue-in-cheek humor here is made all the more apparent by some enjoyably gruesome action, as the young protagonists battle a vicious vampire gang with weapons so appropriate for a group of comic book-reading, overly-imaginative teens that they practically shoot out silliness. The movie does a great job of not taking itself too seriously, but simultaneously slips in some delightfully disturbing and twisted mythology, and the atmosphere is never too far off from chilling. The normal corniness of the '80s is prevalent throughout this dark and delicious telling of small town vampire lore served Americana, but the execution and pacing of "The Lost Boys" keeps things interesting, while the laughs are all intentional, rather than an unfortunate byproduct of the generation's cheesier sensibilities. While I'd be lying if I claimed that the film has much (if any) substance, I can advocate for the fact that it's not a necessity for a movie like this: "The Lost Boys" is made for those who like cheap cinematic buffets, serving up horror, comedy, and just plain fun in satisfying portions; it never tries to be more than it needs to be. If you're getting sick of angsty, brooding, sparkling vampires, and prefer your creatures of the night to be loud, raucous, and rocking a pair of Ray-Bans, throw on this old-school laugh-and-thrill fest and enjoy a piece of the '80s that wasn't (quite as) awkward.

Rating (out of 5): 4

Brian's Review - Land of the Dead

A horror legend's lackluster resurrection.

Released: 2005
Genre(s): Horror, Action

The first time I saw George A. Romero's original "Night of the Living Dead" the reasons for its status as a timeless horror classic became instantly apparent to me: the movie boasted a dark, frantic atmosphere, the characters exhibited a believable range of human emotions, and the entire experience was so profound in its bleakness that the dread actually fermented into something more sweet than sour; an ambrosia of sorts. After the close of his groundbreaking first trilogy, the arrival of Romero's fourth zombie apocalypse flick brought with it high expectations that had been brewing for twenty years. Unfortunately, the film does little to match the established quality of its pedigree, failing time and time again to capitalize on its potential for both thrills and chills. While billed as a horror movie, there's really nothing frightening here; the survivors seem to just meander aimlessly about, with scarcely a care in the world regarding their undead enemy. The zombies are parallels of their living counterparts, yet their plotline ironically seems to speak far more eloquently without any dialogue involved - granted, our sympathy for their plight is somewhat contrived, thanks to Romero's not-so-subtle cultural commentary about national social issues, but in all honesty, I found their sub-story far more engaging to watch than the main characters' quest, which is as linear and cardboard as they come. The action scenes are intense and wildly fun, but they're marred by random CGI graphics spliced in with the more realistic, traditional gore effects - the result is somewhat cartoonish, and while this technique is sometimes intentional, there are moments "Land of the Dead" takes itself far too seriously to try to add the dark humor of over-the-top zombie kills to the mix. Don't get me wrong, this isn't a bad movie, not by a long stretch; but when all is said and done, this isn't high-quality Romero, and that inadequacy alone is a letdown. It's worth an evening of enjoyment, but not memorable enough to provide a lasting zombie fix (instead, try the 2004 remake of "Dawn of the Dead").

Rating (out of 5): 3

Brian's Review - Head Trauma

This film only exhibits some of the symptoms.

Released: 2006
Genre(s): Horror, Mystery, Thriller

The "slow burn" is almost a lost art form in movies these days - so many people want their action immediate and explosive, and their horror gory and full of gratuitous shock value. Audiences seem to want to pay their eight dollars, have their eyeballs seared out of their heads for an hour and a half, and then leave the theater, without having to reflect on any pesky storylines or ambiguous plot developments. I'm sometimes part of this crowd, using movies as a way of shutting down my brain completely and feasting ravenously on visual spectacle. However, every now and then I like when a film engages me on a mental level, intellectually pushing my mind to solve a mad mystery before the time-released answer is revealed. "Head Trauma" is one such movie in a lot of ways, bombarding the viewer's senses with enigmatic and unsettling images, without offering immediate explanation, and letting the story unhurriedly unfold segment by segment over the duration of the film. Initially, these sequences seem crude and sluggish, only occasionally being broken up by a quick scene of a startling spook or a violent flashback. While this might grate on the nerves of some, the majority of these pieces have an ultimate purpose, and the intriguing story aspect far outweighs the confusion that follows in the wake of most of them. Eventually, the deliberate pacing of this formula comes to a head, and the plot forces us to face a disturbing truth. Unfortunately, the calculated gait that serves this movie so well is a double-edged sword in some respects: while the slow buildup undeniably enables the atmosphere and uncertainty to add to the sheer creepiness factor here, it also may allow many viewers to guess the "surprise" twist the film so carefully tries to ration out in precise doses over its entirety. I wouldn't go as far as calling it a "plodding" storyline, but it certainly lacks any real urgency; it would've been nice to see the speed of the movie start to snowball as more and more details were revealed and the pieces of the puzzle started to snap together. "Head Trauma" isn't going to be for everyone, with a heavy reliance on plot instability and obscurity, unfolding at the rate of a slow march. Those who aren't driven away by this idea will love the surprising effectiveness of this technique, and how easily it blends surreal elements into a haunting ghost story that will both chill and amuse.

Rating (out of 5): 3

Brian's Review - The Rite (2011)

It's not entirely wrong.

Released: 2011
Genre(s): Thriller, Horror

Demonic possession: regardless of your take on the validity of it, it'd be impossible to argue that the subject matter hasn't had a profound impact on the horror genre. While some offerings are better (see: "The Exorcist") than others, the fact stands that people speaking in tongues and twisting into unnatural poses is creepy stuff. 2011's "The Rite" joins the smorgasbord of possession movies already on the market, but does so with a refreshing approach that synchronously questions faith, science, and human insight. Even though some of the same old, tired tactics of previous exorcist-versus-demon films are used to fill the empty spaces, the movie primarily uses these lulls in the action to explore the idea of skepticism in the face of bizarre and unnatural circumstances, preventing it from feeling too much like a generic copycat. The movie dwells on the main character's struggle with his own jaded nature as he tries to make sense of the pure insanity unfolding in front of him; simultaneously, it lets us confront our own doubts and beliefs, becoming more of thinking man's exorcism story than a nerve-rattling horror outing. The horror itself tends to be a product of the atmosphere, rather than jarring jump-out moments or disturbing gore effects, relying more on the unsettling onscreen imagery to sustain a feeling of deep unease. The great Sir Anthony Hopkins does an admirable job of embodying wise patience, passionate fury, and discouraged uncertainty all at once, and his character's emotional journey is done supreme justice by the actor's time-tested talents. While some might be turned off by the religious undertone stressing the importance of accepting faith, rest assured that this is most certainly not a zealot-infused, Christian propaganda piece, but more of a cinematic debate that questions blind faith just as much as it does secular scrutiny. However, those who just like the idea of Dr. Hannibal Lecter squaring off against a demon will definitely get a kick out of this one. This is worth at least a weekend rental.

Rating (out of 5): 3