Brian's Review - Contagion (2011)

It's worth getting infected by this movie.

Released: 2011
Genre(s): Drama, Thriller

If today's trends dictated everything, 2011's "Contagion" would've been a balls-to-the-wall, adrenaline-saturated, explosion-and-gore-ridden zombie apocalypse action-horror. Those types of films are fun and all, but thank whatever god or deity you worship that this wasn't the case here. If it had been, we would've been robbed of one of the most thought-provoking, tense, and deeply-unsettling movies in recent history.

Boasting an all-star cast, "Contagion" brings the talent like a clown brings the uncomfortable. Acting prowess is on full display here, with a visceral sense of realism striking incredibly close to home at all times - families are pushed to their breaking points, doctors/scientists (science-doctors?) are rushed to discover a cure, the government becomes a scapegoat and is hard-pressed to save the world. "Contagion" presents a wild nightmare world that's not farfetched in the least.

This flick is incredibly effective at presenting a believable emergency scenario, eerily echoing the semi-recent SARS and H1N1 scares that caused mass hysteria and panic everywhere in the world. Except in New Jersey, where I assume everyone was too busy fist-pumping and being generally douchier than the average American to care about the outbreak of a potentially fatal virus. Let 'em burn.

The heaviest sense of dread occurs in the opening acts as we watch the illness spread like wildfire, decimating the population with all the efficiency of an invisible assassin. Unfortunately, "Contagion" is unable to hurdle some noticeable pacing issues, and this momentum peters out a bit around the middle to end segments. And despite a positively spine-tingling ending, the sense of discomfort I felt as the final credits rolled was nothing a few squirts of hand sanitizer couldn't fix. While it's littered with moments that will surely send a germaphobe into an obsessive-compulsive latex-glove-and-disinfectant shopping spree, most people aren't going to be terrified of this movie (although more than a few will be pretty grossed-out). Plus, why does it sound like they let the composer of the "Mass Effect" video game soundtrack do the music for this? It's not bad, but it frequently sounds out of place.

Minor gripes aside, "Contagion" is easily the most realistic, emotionally-intense pandemic flick I can remember off the top of my head. It refuses to waste any time on useless, mushy fluff, but instead creates a pseudo-prediction of a very possible future world crisis. Even if you don't buy into the disturbingly brutal and honest plight of its characters, at the very least "Contagion" will force you to finally wash your hands before you eat dinner. Your mom will thank it for that.

Rating (out of 5): 3.5

Brian's Review - The Caller (2011)

Time to invest in caller ID.

Released: 2011
Genre(s): Thriller, Mystery

While some people may recognize leading lady Rachelle Lefevre from the original, craptastic "Twilight" movie, it'd be a mistake to dismiss 2011's "The Caller on the assumption that it targets a similar demographic. No sparkling vampires can be found here - rather, grating teenage angst is replaced by a brooding, yet thoughtful and constant atmosphere of unrest, and adolescent pining is nowhere to be seen among the truly unsettling character interactions.

While the film's premise may seem a tad absurd, nestled somewhere between an episode of "The Twilight Zone" and a twisted version of "The Lake House," the hodgepodge of plot components surprisingly works here. It's actually even kind of an original and - dare I say? - cool idea. Lefevre's character gives the flick a very grounded feel, as she plays a woman steeped in depression after a nasty divorce, but the scenario manages to avoid congealing into a bucket of Lifetime-worthy slop. This can mostly be attributed to the movie's commendable ability to effectively blend elements from dramas, psychological thrillers, and supernatural horrors. The pacing of the story itself isn't awful either, with the wire-tight tension building consistently over the course of the film, until it reaches a neck-snapping breaking point during the last act.

Unfortunately, the momentum here is broken up too much by awkward and oftentimes bland dialogue. Besides a selection of truly spine-tingling conversations between the main character and the movie's crazy-go-nuts antagonist, verbal interaction is pretty forgettable throughout. Tack on a generous helping of head-explodingly-bad logic from the characters we're supposed to be rooting for (a long-lived tradition in horror/thrillers that apparently must be upheld), and I have to drive the score of "The Caller" way down. It's a shame, because overall it's a decent flick, and could've benefited from some better writing. Regardless, it's fresh enough to be worth at least a single viewing. If not, you can always call yourself in the past and prevent yourself from watching it. Or something.

Rating (out of 5): 3

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 - 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 - Sanctum

Like an underwater caving expedition, this movie is dark, dingy, and disappointingly damp.

Released: 2011
Genre(s): Adventure, Drama, Thriller

Outside of the horror genre, it's not often that I find myself feeling absolutely no remorse for the cast of characters as they undergo terrible and deadly tragedy. Even less common are situations that cause me to actively root for the deaths of the protagonists, if only so the movie will end sooner. "Sanctum" is one such film, coming off not only as a shallow and clumsy offering into the world of adventure-thrillers, but a frustrating one as well.

The plot of the movie is interesting enough: there's an underwater cave, there are some underwater cave divers, things go horribly wrong, and everything turns into the least fun season of "Survivor" ever. Well, not as bad as "Survivor," but things get pretty damn lame very quickly, despite the film's inexcusably dreadful pacing.

This slug race urgency mainly stems from the painfully slow progress the characters themselves make on their journey. These same characters also make it absolutely impossible to sympathize with their plight, coming off as overwhelmingly stupid and irritating.

The main female character in the crew manages to make a bad name for women in disaster-style situations, not only coming off as obnoxiously moronic, but also as an overly-stubborn dumbass. While I'm all about women standing their ground, especially in as widely-digested media as movies, I can't help but feel that this character was intentionally more brainless than the others. That's not to say that the writers are completely misogynistic douchebags though - there is still a good chance that they're just inexcusably awful at writing. Unfortunately, the actress doesn't help her case at all, coming off as unintentionally awkward and wooden. Also, why the hell does it sound like she's attempting to do a Sigourney Weaver from "Alien" impression during most of her scenes?

There's simply no other way to describe the young male protagonist except as a "punchable little shit" - I'm not sure if the writers wanted to make his character come across as a completely generic, whiny, ungrateful turd in this toilet bowl of a film, but even once he manages to reconcile his angsty feelings with his father, the relationship that develops between the two feels so artificial that you could pack it into an Easy Cheese canister and nobody would be able to tell the difference. The amount of tearjerking potential here is on the same level as a pigeon crapping on your windshield; unless you're having a really, really, really bad day (i.e. your dad and you just got trapped in an underwater cave), then you probably won't need the tissue box for this one.

But maybe you will, because after all, this is a James Cameron flick. So maybe if you cried during "Titanic" or "Avatar" or one of his other cornball cinematic ventures, you'll shed a tear or two. But let's not give him too much credit for this epic amount of cheese and overwrought emotion - after all, he only co-produced "Sanctum" - although I'm willing to wager that this inept attempt to create a movie that's truly "moving" and "redemptive" in quality may have attracted him a little, like a moth to the most garish of flames. Fortunately, Mr. Cameron redeems himself somewhat by giving us some beautiful underwater eye candy to ogle from time to time, despite occasionally slipping into some minor CGI-ugliness.

While "Sanctum" is a good idea in theory, none of the pieces are in place to make this an effective film: the acting is unconvincing, the dialogue is dry, the action is snore-worthy, and the one or two genuinely suspenseful scenes are completely overshadowed by the suffocating cloud of crap pervading throughout. Unless you're fanatically into caving, diving, or bad movies, this can be avoided like a bullet between the eyes. It's unfortunate, but the bad writing here sinks "Sanctum" and leaves it to rot at the bottom of an underwater abyss. Honestly, that's where you should let it stay.

Rating (out of 5): 2

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 - 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 - Unknown (2011)

Knowing doesn't make this any less forgettable.

Released: 2011
Genre(s): Action, Mystery, Thriller

What was it about 2008's "Taken" that made it so entertaining and watchable? For me, it was the fast-paced, vicious action that culminated into one hell of a revenge flick; it was a movie that didn't try to hide itself behind smoke and mirrors, but embraced the fact that it was nothing more than a hyper-violent, trigger-happy power fantasy. Due to this, my reaction to the idea of another action-thriller starring Liam Neeson was naturally a positive one. While the premise of "Unknown" seems to have more in common with films like "Memento" than "Taken," the psychological thrills here are far less twisty and turny than similar entries into the genre: during this movie's entirety, save for a few choice moments, I couldn't help but feel like I'd seen this all before, and it wasn't a beaten path that served up much excitement beyond the by-the-numbers chase scenes of its predecessors. I'm in full support of the willing suspension of disbelief when watching a film, but the events here become increasingly disparaging as the mound of improbabilities relentlessly grows to gargantuan proportions. The action sequences are enjoyable enough, in that "stock footage" sort of way, but they're hampered by a start-stop dynamic that far too frequently rears its ugly head. This would be fine if there was any sort of mind-blowing reveal after all this slow burn pacing, but the ending feels so underwhelming and rushed that it leaves the screen as a generic anticlimax, instead of the sum of all its available parts. It's not bad, but you can rest assured that nobody will chastise you for letting this movie disappear into the unknown.

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 Untouchables

Not quite untouchable, but an undeniable classic.

Released: 1987
Genre(s): Crime, Drama, Thriller

Crime movies - to be specific, mob-related movies - tend to capitalize on two major things to add onscreen punch: the acting and the whacking. Some are more balanced than others, doling out equal doses of moody, noir-esque grit, and wickedly brutal mob hits; it is this potent cocktail that makes "The Untouchables" such an enthralling blast to watch. The violence here isn't overdone, taking an approach that emphasizes style and atmosphere, instead of unsightly gore or gratuitous shock value; these scenes remain profound without delving into the realm of the gruesome. The vicious action sequences are done more to enhance the engaging story (loosely-based on Eliot Ness' autobiographical memoir the film derives its title from) than distract from it, which allows the viewer to focus on the superb, brooding, dramatic tension that builds between Ness and Al Capone's rival camps. While there are definitely moments where the plot drags its feet a bit - which is somewhat confusing, as the movie is wrought with historical inaccuracies (what does a little more embellishment hurt?) - the acting is consistently adequate enough to allow at least some of the momentum to continue through these scenes. Robert De Niro in particular personifies the sinister charisma of the infamous Chicago gangster in a portrayal dripping with both savagery and believable enthusiasm. Unfortunately, the grandest moments of this film are frequently plagued by a touch of unintentionally cornball grandiosity; most of this is due to a soundtrack that oftentimes seems more at home in a Mel Brooks movie than in a riveting crime-thriller. All nitpicking aside, there's plenty about this film that can effectively exhilarate, charm, and impress those seeking a crime-busting romp through the streets of the Windy City. If you're looking for a mob drama that's bearably dark, genuinely triumphant, and even quietly epic, "The Untouchables" is far from the worst choice available and shouldn't be passed up.

Rating (out of 5): 3.5

Brian's Review - In Time

JustIN TIMEberlake.

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

Initial previews of "In Time" made it appear like just another, run-of-the-mill, style-over-substance thriller, and in a lot of ways it is, but honestly there is a vast multitude of reasons to watch this wild sci-fi actioner: it's slick, sleek, fast-paced, and serves as another great example of Justin Timberlake's rise to legitimacy in the acting world. The film is beautifully-imagined, bringing to life a not-so-far-fetched futuristic world that seethes with equal parts hyper-charged techno-wonder and gritty realism. The best part is that underneath this mesmerizing, glossy shell is a subtle commentary that seems to parallel today's most pressing socials issues - it strikes very close to home watching these characters literally work and waste their lives away while the rich and privileged live in lavish squander. At the same time, the movie serves as a critique of sorts regarding this country's bizarre and intensifying obsession with youth. Regardless of the message here, a political agenda is not the main focus of this film, as this is still ultimately meant to be viewed only as a high-speed action romp and nothing much deeper. For all of its thought-provoking undertones, this isn't all that smart of a movie, playing to the same tune as similar high-octane thrillers, such as "Limitless," choosing to fall back on stunning visuals and explosive action sequences; instead of "cerebral" we get "formulaic." Fortunately, as a whole product, "In Time" is ridiculously fun to watch, and it doesn't waste time trying to explain the science behind the sci-fi, but rather jumps at us unflinchingly with guns blazing. Due to this naked and earnest approach, I have to say I recommend it for at least a single viewing.

Rating (out of 5): 3.5

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