SCREAM (1996) Movie Review

SCREAM (1996)

Review by Bethany Ramos

Don’t answer the phone… This is perhaps one of my favorite horror movie lines from the last several decades, and for good reason. SCREAM has a wonderful familiarity for many of us who enjoyed it in the 90s, yet it still has the ability to make you jump in your seat. As a side note, you may enjoy revisiting this film since it features Courtney Cox and David Arquette, who are now divorced. Blast from the past!

SCREAM starts at a classic high school campus somewhere in the United States, although we can’t overlook the fact that all of the students appear to be in their 20s, reminiscent of the adultS cast as students in 90210. No matter. The point is that a maniac with a knife is on the loose, and for Sidney (Neve Campbell), her fate may be in his hands. SCREAM is directed by Wes Craven, who created the NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET series and brings the same unique perspective to this horror film.

Yes, you will definitely find horror clichés in this movie, but you have to appreciate the self-awareness of the characters as they discuss what to do and not to do when a killer is on the loose according to classic horror movie "rules". In essence, you will get the “best practices” for a horror film, directly from the mouths of the lead characters. SCREAM, for that reason, brings a bit of cleverness to the horror genre, although you will still experience many of the same stereotypes and holes in the plot that seem almost ridiculous.

Bottom line? SCREAM is an enjoyable slasher movie that’s fun to watch even 15 years later as we await the new release of SCREAM 4 (or is that SCRE4M) next year. Most of all, don’t miss the scene with Casey (Drew Barrymore) trying to spend a quiet night alone watching a scary movie, when she makes the mistake of answering the phone. It’s a wrong number, but the caller keeps calling again and again, until he reveals that he is watching Casey from outside as she is alone in her house. Casey then turns to see her boyfriend bloody and tied up outside, where he is disemboweled before her eyes after she gets the caller’s horror movie questions wrong over the phone.

This is just a sample of what you can expect from the first in the SCREAM series, and remember, when watching this movie don’t answer the phone…

Read More

THE LAST EXORCISM (2010) Movie Review

THE LAST EXORCISM (2010)

Review by Gunter Jameson

Whatever THE LAST EXORCISM is, it is not predictable. Director Daniel Stamm and writers Huck Botko and Andrew Gurland came up with a great twist on a mostly dead horror sub-genre, exorcism movies, and made the tired material somewhat new again.

In THE LAST EXORCISM, which is due on DVD January 4th, a former child preacher turned agnostic, Reverend Cotton Marcus (Patrick Fabian), receives a letter requesting his help with the exorcism of a teenage girl named Nell (Ashley Bell). Since Marcus no longer believes in the reality of demonic possession, he sets out to show that exorcisms are nothing but hoaxes by performing a fake exorcism as a film crew follows him, documenting his tricks and slight of hand. However, once he’s pulled off his fake exorcism, Nell begins to act in erratic and unexplainable ways, leading Marcus and the film crew to believe that she is in fact possessed by a demon.

The film is shot in the shaky-cam, documentary style of THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and CLOVERFIELD, which adds to the overall sense of claustrophobia and terror. And as the Reverend and the film crew dig deeper into each unexplained event, more and more questions arise. Each time the reverend feels that his job is done and that the possession was simply some sort of mental illness, his theories are obliterated, leaving more questions than answers.

Although the exorcism genre has had doubting evangelists before, Marcus’s doubt is not melodramatic or overplayed, thanks to the superb acting by Patrick Fabian. And Ashley Bell is able to bring real creepiness to her character by deftly maneuvering between a sweet and innocent teenage girl and the demonically possessed in a way that draws the audience in and leaves them questioning, as well as Marcus, the true impetus behind her increasingly horrifying acts.

However, although both Fabian and Bell do a fine job and the initial setup is original, the balance of the film falls flat, especially the hugely disappointing ending which is par for the course for this type of fake documentary-style film. Although, at some points, the documentary style adds to the feeling of anxiety in the audience, at other times it is simply confusing, leaving the audience to sort out exactly what is happening rather than cringing in terror. The end result is a movie that is innovative in its approach to the genre and has great potential to transcend the usual teen horror fare at the box office, but ultimately doesn’t deliver on its promise due to its necessarily limited documentary-style point of view. All-in-all it’s not a horrible film, but it is disappointing, knowing that it could have been so much better.

Read More

THE MIST (2007) Movie Review

THE MIST (2007) Review

Review by Bethany Ramos

THE MIST is yet another Stephen King theatrical adaptation by Frank Darabont, further proving that they both make a good match when it comes to creating a quality horror film. This movie will not only keep you on the edge of your seat, but it will take you on an emotional journey that will stick with you long after the credits roll.

THE MIST begins with a storm, where David Drayton hides with his family in their basement to stay safe from the bad weather. When they wake up in the morning, they find that a tree has crashed through their front window, and they have lost power. David and his son go into town for supplies, leaving his wife at home. When they get to the grocery store, David realizes that something has gone horribly wrong. A bleeding man runs into the grocery store screaming about something in the mist, which is when David and the other grocery store customers see a thick mist rolling toward the city.

David soon discovers that he’s trapped inside the grocery store since he can’t go out into the mist and risk unspeakable horrors. David and the customers stay hidden inside the grocery store, with tensions mounting as time goes on. However, the survivors soon realize that there are creatures lurking inside the grocery store that are just as frightening as what may lie outside in the mist. These fears cause many of the cast members to unravel as they fight to stay alive, with David ultimately deciding to escape to get to his car and get free of the mist.

Overall, the entire cast is compelling and shows different aspects of how human nature reacts in adverse circumstances. This movie is a unique horror film since you become truly invested in the characters until the bitter end. The only criticisms of this film would be that some of the plot points are utterly predictable, but the film offers a deep emotional connection that will leave you thinking about it days afterward.

For those of you who can’t get enough of what Frank Darabont brings to the horror genre, he has now collaborated to bring the zombie epic The Walking Dead to AMC. This is a show following the storyline of the zombie apocalypse, where you will again get to know a group of survivors and most certainly become emotionally invested in their journey along the way as they survive the zombie disaster that has hit their town. These days, many of the best plot lines have hit the small screen, giving you one more reason to become addicted to a TV show that you just can’t quit watching. As a whole, the series takes a few detours from the original graphic novels but remains true to the characters and the theme of the books.

Read More

AUDITION (1999) Movie Review

AUDITION (1999)

Review by Tom Parnell

What draws us to horror movies? Is it the feeling of being scared while in a safe and comfortable environment? Is it the heart-racing shock of imagining what could be lurking in the shadows? Or is it a kind of perverse schadenfreude as innocent victims suffer a fate worse than death on the screen in front of us?

These may seem like quite weighty questions for a mere film review, but anybody intending to watch Japanese director Takashi Miike’s AUDITION should be prepared to find themselves pondering them.

Prolific filmmaker Miike has explored cartoonish violence in films such as ICHI THE KILLER and the DEAD OR ALIVE series, but AUDITIO is all too real, which is where perhaps the horror is created. Everything that happens in AUDITI could happen; the main character is familiar and believable, his motivation understandable and his surroundings homely and comfortable. If Miike had chosen to add a ‘based on true events’ caption at the beginning I doubt few viewers would have questioned it.

The film begins with widower Shigeharu Aoyama being encouraged by his teenage son to find love again. Shigeharu’s friend, film producer Yoshikawa, suggests they hold a fake audition for an actress to play Shigeharu’s wife in a fictional film, and from there he can woo the applicant of his choosing.

Despite opening with the death of Shigeharu’s wife the beginning of the film has quite a positive feel and could easily have gone on to be a story of unconventional romance and clichéd ‘learning to love again’. Miike is not one for clichés and this is far from where the story is headed.

What does happen is that into this seemingly innocent story an unnerving undertone is introduced, in such a subtle manner that at first the viewer would be hard pressed to say exactly what it is that is making them uncomfortable. Miike’s style is reminiscent of David Lynch’s as he slowly builds tension and makes the mundane seem somehow surreal. Our expectations are continually confounded and the sinister atmosphere increases, until the film’s dramatic, difficult and disturbing crescendo.

It is difficult to review this film entirely without giving something away, although I defy anybody to predict the ending accurately. What I will say is that AUDITION ends with one of the most difficult movie scenes I have ever had to watch and I’m still not sure how I should feel about it. What I would say is that I don't believe it is entirely gratuitous.

AUDITION is a good film and I would definitely recommend it, it is engrossing, stylish and subverts the viewer’s expectations. What I would be uncomfortable in saying is that I enjoyed it all. Nothing is more tempting than being told something may be too extreme for you to see, but if you do watch AUDITION be aware that you may very well end up seeing more than you wanted to.

Read More

ANTICHRIST (2010) Movie Review

ANTICHRIST (2010)

Review Joe Johnson

ANTICHRIST, directed by Lars Von Treir, never made it to the big screen, at least at my local multiplex, and with good reason! It is difficult film to watch and therefore does little to appeal to a mass audience. Having seen the trailer for this in 2009 I was immediately excited at the prospect of seeing what looked like a pretty grim horror, somewhat of an understatement I later found out. I waited patiently for the picture to debut but it never materialized. This only added to my anticipation when I found it nestling lonely on a shelf in my local Blockbuster months later as I assumed it had been deemed too scary for cinema audiences!

Scary is not really the right word to describe ANTICHRIST. Party poppers are scary when they make you jump, ANTICHRIST is downright disturbing. It follows just two unnamed characters, a husband and wife simply referred to in the film as ‘he’ and ‘she’, played by William Defoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg respectively. At the start of the film their son falls from his bedroom window to his death, neglected by his mother and father who are getting it on in a variety of locations around the house at the time.

The couple are understandably traumatized and, in seek of some respite, they take a vacation in a deserted cabin in the middle of a forest (personally I’d have choose a sunny beach with a cocktail bar but each to their own). While exploring the forest he and she both experience odd visions and rather than becoming closer and helping each other, they actually become alienated, when they’re not romping that is! The film is, visually, a work of art and some of the images associated with death and decay are truly disturbing. A talking fox does lighten the mood, even if its monologue to Defoe is somewhat ominous.

As the film proceeds the pair become increasingly mentally unstable and ‘she’ performs unspeakable acts of genital mutilation on both herself and her once loving husband while he sleeps. These scenes are incredibly graphic and all the more harrowing, as they lack the melodramatic pomp of Hollywood hits like HOSTEL, instead presenting them in stark, full frontal reality. All the while the scenes are played out against a juxtaposing cacophony of an opera soundtrack. Even if you are a die-hard horror fan this is a difficult watch, and I find hard to fathom gaining enjoyment from watching ANTICHRIST. As an artistic, sensory experience however it is unparalleled.

Read More

PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2 (2010) Movie Review

PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2 (2010)

Review by Joe Johnson

For me, the original PARANORMAL ACTIVITY was one of the best horror films of all time. Fright fanatics may refute this, but I’m happy stand my ground and argue that the first offering stood amongst horror greats such as THE SHINING and ALIEN. Although many likened it to THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT owing to it’s handheld camera shooting style, I found it to be an entirely more visceral involving experience, simply because the framing was not influenced by seemingly artificial human intervention, rather we were seeing the events unfold raw and unedited.

When the sequel was announced I felt a mix of excitement and in trepidation, the latter because part of what made the first film such a unique experience was the method of storytelling. Having become accustomed to this style, and assuming the second offering stayed true to its roots I convinced myself that it would lack the same edge that its predecessor orchestrated so expertly.





While PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2 does indeed retain the format of its big brother, the content is just as, if not more, mortifying second time round. The film charts the events that lead to Katie’s demonic possession in the original, beginning two months before in her parent’s home. Rather than just two main characters, this time Katie’s whole family is subject to the supernatural goings on, the addition of a dog and baby to the fold certainly offer ample opportunities for the demon to wreck havoc.

And wreck havoc it did, most notably on my constitution! As before, the film is a harrowing experience with expertly timed segments of high tension. The genuinely heart stopping moments are few and far between but when they come, they will rock you to the core, those of a nervous disposition need not apply, unless you have a sadistic tendency to test your thrill-threshold to the max, something which I’m guilty of!

The few criticisms I heard of the picture were that it was slow to start. This may test the patience of those with borderline ADD, but fans of the first will know that good things come to those who wait. It’s difficult to talk about the film without giving too much away but I can say with hand on heart that this is no shoddy, badly made sequel. PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2 builds on the success of the first film, toying with audience’s composure until it is frayed beyond all recognition. PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2 is recommended to any horror fan and is a worthy successor to one of the most nail-biting, edge-of-the seat examples of the genre.

Read More

THE DESCENT (2005) Movie Review

THE DESCENT (2005)

After a tragedy one year before, six female friends gather in the Appalachian Mountains to explore a cave system together. Soon after they enter the caves, a collapse blocks the path behind them and they are forced to venture forward, hoping to find another way out. As tension and fatigue begins to put a strain on the group, they discover to their horror that they are not alone in the dark. That is all the synopsis you're going to get, and all that you need.

This was bar none the best horror movie to hit the United States in 2006, even with its truncated ending (more on this later). Anyone who will try to argue this point simply hasn't seen this movie. It is that scary. So scary in fact, that your intrepid writer, who usually goes out of his way to keep the writing in third person and remain somewhat objective, is going to slip into full-on first person narrative for a moment.

No movie has done to me what THE DESCENT did since I watched the Japanese film PULSE. That was in 2001. As I watched this movie, alone at night on my couch, I could not help but move from one uncomfortable position to the next as the tension ratcheted up and the carnage spilled out on the screen. When the screen went black, my heart rate was bumping, my fingers were shaking and gosh-darn-it if I didn't pause just a moment before going into a dark room to turn on the lights.

This is Neil Marshall's second full-length outing as director. His first film, DOG SOLDIERS, was a unique take on werewolves and pitted them against a small band of military soldiers in the woods of Scotland. He returns again to the similar themes in his writing, only this time around six females discover what goes bump in the shadows and learn what goes bump within themselves. The film has a feminist agenda, without being preachy at all, and allows these women to let loose an inner strength that is too often in this world suppressed.

Throughout the entire film there is some very active camera and sound work going into creating a very specific mood and subconscious feeling within the viewer. In the beginning of the film, great pains are taken to use as many full and wide angle shots as possible, to give an open and airy feeling. But once inside the cave systems, the camera closes in on the actors and thus closes in on the viewer which brings about an uneasy and claustrophobic sense.

There are many shots where most of the screen is "dead" space, as the characters climb through the tiny tunnels, as if the blackness were swallowing them up. Speaking of blackness, lighting takes an interesting and sinister turn once they go underground. The second part of the film is lit purely from source light, i.e. torches, flares, glow sticks and a camera's infra-red lens, which washes entire scenes in strange hues of red and green, and can be quite disorienting at times.

While watching this film, the average horror fan will be able to easily spot several references and nods to past horror films, which in include ALIEN, THE THING, CARRIE and even the not so horrific GOONIES. Marshall does not try to hide the fact that his film includes these references. It is almost as if to say: remember the terror you felt when watching those other movies? Well I'm going to try and give you that same visceral reaction.

And now onto the "two" endings. This film was originally released in Great Britain, and the original end of the film had a much more bleak and somewhat open end. When Lion's Gate got the rights to the film, they literally stopped the movie halfway through the end. The truncated ending created a more happy ending for a movie-going American audience that would not be able to accept the true implied fate of what happened. Sadly this downbeat ending, which implied that no one made it out alive and was seen in full on the US DVD release, was overridden with the release of THE DESCENT: PART 2.

Read More

SAW 3D (2010) Movie Review

SAW 3D (2010)

Halloween weekend seemed like the perfect time to wrap up the long, gruesome SAW series, but all of the loyal fans out there are asking, “Does it really have to end?” SAW 3D continues the story directly where SAW VI finished with main character Hoffman (Costas Mandylor) surviving the trap created by Jill (Betsy Russell).

All the while, Bobby (Sean Patrick Flanery) has become quite well-known because he’s survived a trap set by Jigsaw, and using that fame to write a book and go on tour. This, of course, infuriates Jigsaw, meaning that Bobby will soon be walking into a new trap set by… You guessed it - Jigsaw! This leaves him in a fight for survival for his own life and the lives of those close to him.

Even though many moviegoers may have been waiting in anticipation for the main character from the original movie, Dr. Gordon (Cary Elwes), he is barely in SAW 3D. You see him in a few early scenes, and then he seems to disappear altogether with little input throughout the entire storyline. You may also be confused to find that the actual Jigsaw has but a few cameos in this movie. He did die in SAW III, but in most of the other movies following, he still had quite a bit of screen time through videos and flashbacks. In SAW 3D, you will find that Tobin Bell is hardly seen, although he has top billing in the movie promotion.

SAW fans may be split down the middle since SAW 3D brings the series full circle, and the movie features some seriously intricate and complicated torture chambers. However, movie fans may also be bothered by how little they see Gordon or Jigsaw, which are supposed to be the most meaningful characters in the series. What you will find most in this movie is a man moving from room to room, attempting to save people as usual. Unfortunately, this same scenario is quite played out by this point, with the traps not being as thrilling or gruesome as anticipated, especially compared to SAW VI. One trap involves pulling a key from a difficult location, and in another, a floor with huge patches missing has to be crossed which adds a bit of adventure to the quest. Moviegoers also may observe that the traps worked exactly as planned, although it would have been more believable to see at least one trap fail.

Although fans may have some criticism of this movie, it was the perfect way to wrap up the series and celebrate Halloween weekend. The storyline itself is well formulated with quite a bit of plot to keep you on the edge of your seat, and even with his minimal amount of screen time, Jigsaw’s appearance is horrific to say the least. Don’t miss out!

Bethany Ramos is a lover of horror movies and co-owns The Coffee Bump. For a great selection of Bunn coffee filters, check out Bethany Ramos' website!

Read More

THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (1972) Movie Review

THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (1972)

Review by Tom Parnell

Maybe it’s an indictment of the desensitizing of modern audiences, but I find that most films which were banned or heavily censored decades ago would probably attract no more than a PG-13 rating today. LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT is not one of these films.

Made in 1972, it was part of the BBFC's infamous Video Nasties list. It wasn't until 2002 that this film was officially allowed to be released in the UK, and then it wasn’t until 2008 that a fully uncut version was passed by the BBFC. The film is still banned in multiple countries around the world.

If LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT had been about killer monsters or aliens I don’t think it would have had half the problems passing the censors, or half the impact on the viewer. However, the horror which director Wes Craven creates here is one that is so despairingly human that it becomes difficult to watch and for once I can understand why the BBFC might have wanted to protect certain people from seeing it.

The film tells the story of an ‘as American as apple pie’ family who live out in the sticks, and begins with their celebration of daughter Mari’s sweet seventeen. Much to the concern of her protective parents, Mari is heading out to the big city to watch a rock band with her rebellious friend Phyllis. What’s going to happen to them?

Meanwhile nearby, escaped criminals Krug Stillo and Weasel Podowski are holed up with equally disturbing partner Sadie and Krug’s junkie son Junior.

On their way to the concert our young protagonists meet Junior in a shop and are lured back to the gang’s hideout on the premise of buying some drugs. So begins a horrific ordeal, both psychological and physical, which sees the girls kidnapped and driven out into the countryside, where their torment continues.

LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT was horror big-hitter Wes Craven’s directorial debut, and even though it is of the same genre it is far from the cartoonish violence of A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET or SCREAM. The film is also arguably more intelligent than Craven’s later work, as the viewer is faced with a series of escalating nightmarish scenarios and we get a real feeling of the girls’ powerlessness in the hands of their captors.

Craven also successfully uses Junior as a vehicle for a more human, nearly sympathetic witness to the girls’ torment, building a bridge between the viewer of the film and the character and pointing out the impotence of both in their ability to change the course of events.

This is not the ludicrous and tasteless realms of more recent ‘torture porn’ horror trend, as seen in films like SAW or HOSTEL. LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT’s last act causes the viewer to turn from revulsion at the acts of the psychotic criminals to practically cheering on Mari’s middle class parents as they perpetrate similar horrors, which leaves you on very thin moral ice and is a powerful statement about the fragility of society.

LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT is a difficult film to watch, but it is also an intelligent, thought-provoking film, which makes it a rare gem in the horror genre.

Read More

CANNIBAL TERROR Movie and DVD Review

CANNIBAL TERROR (1981)

When two bumbling crooks and their prostitute friend hatch a plan to kidnap the young daughter of a car manufacturer, they think their money troubles are all over. But, these crooks can’t even get a simple kidnapping right, and when their plan falls through, the trio pull a few favors and quickly cross over into the next country to hide out, taking the little girl with them. There’s only one problem - the cottage they’re hiding out in is right on the border of cannibal territory!

Though the crooks think they’re safe, tension mounts no doubt due to the fact that Mario rapes Manuela, the wife of the cottage’s owner. Manuela’s husband deals with Mario in his own special way, while the other two race into the jungle. On their trail though, are the parents of the little girl and the tribe of cannibals who have picked up their scent. As the chase turns into free-for-all battle for survival, the only question remains is who will be lucky enough to simply die and who will become the next sacrificial meal of the cannibals?

For bottom-of-the-barrel EuroTrash sleaze looking to cash in on a horror fad, look no further than this Alain Deruelle (directing under the pseudonym Allan W Steeve) French/Spanish co-production from 1981, as he tries to ride the coattails of Italian directors like Ruggero Deodato and his infamous CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST. However, Deruelle proves that his abilities to mimic a genre to make a few bucks are even worse than Jess Franco at his worst. Interestingly enough, Franco was thought to be the true director of this movie for years.

The cannibal sub-genre is a particularly nasty offshoot in the realm of horror, and lends its perverse violence, often times demeaning stereotyping and lurid acts of sexual depravity to those with an acquired taste. And that is when the genre is done right. When done as a poorly cobbled together cash-in such as CANNIBAL TERROR, the results are a mixture of unintentional humor and boredom, interrupted ever so briefly with moments of stomach-turning disgust.

Here, the laughter starts from the first scene with abysmal acting from everyone involved, magnetized by the canned and nearly-emotionless English dubbing, but really gets the guffaws rolling with the introduction of perhaps the worst depiction of cannibals the screen has ever seen. These cannibals, who for the most part are pasty white Europeans with sideburns, flowing locks of hair, and beerbellies who have painted their faces and can barely contain their giggles as they hoot and holler and dance around endlessly. Rather than try to exploit their “savage rituals” a la MONDO CANE, here it amounts to nothing more than a ridiculous updating of white guys pretending to be Indians in old Hollywood westerns.

Now the highlight, if one can call it that, of any good cannibal films is of course the visceral display of flesh eating. Derulle’s version of that is to substitute a pig’s body for that of human, drape some clothes over it, and let a few extras tear it apart. We get two scenes of this grotesque barbarity, as a few fellows pull at and pretend to eat the organs of some piggy. Its a bit revolting, until you notice their smiles, as if it say, “look at us, we’re cannibals!” It is impossible to take anything even remotely serious after that.

The rest of the film amounts to a few brief glimpses of nudity thanks to exploitation mainstay Pamela Stanford (BLUE RITA, GIRL SLAVES) in one of her final roles, lots and lots of walking, a few clips of jungle stock footage, and a rollicking African beat inspired soundtrack. In fact, there’s just enough footage of interesting and exciting scenes to be able to cut together a trailer that (as is often the case) promises much more than is ever delivered.

It is a sure bet that if CANNIBAL TERROR had not been labeled a Video Nasty and briefly banned in the UK during the mid-’80s, the film would have long ago disappeared into obscurity. But now, thanks mostly to this infamous list it has lived on, and now the movie has finally been restored to all its uncut “glory” by Severin Films for its US DVD debut, where it will surely continue to provide laughs for a whole new generation of gut-munching fanatics.

The DVD provides an anamorphic widescreen transfer of an uncut print, and has been remastered in Hi-Definition, though the quality varies from one scene to the next, and even one cut to the next. The sound retains glaringly obvious of its dubbed roots. The special features include a deleted scene, which is just a short clip of Pamela Stanford dancing around topless that should have been reinstated into the film and the theatrical trailer featuring a priceless voice-over, especially when the announcer exclaims “Cannibal Terror!”

For genre enthusiasts this is worth a precursory glance just for the sake of curiosity and mocking, and for those that absolutely positively have to own every Video Nasty. For the rest, there is nothing to see here.

Read More

GINGER SNAPS (2000) Movie Review

GINGER SNAPS (2000)

Sisters and best friends Brigitte and Ginger Fitzgerald are inseparable teens who share everything together, and are never far from each others side. When the two decide to kidnap a fellow student's dog for attacking Brigitte, Ginger is attacked by a snarling monster in the woods. Was it just a big dog, or was it the small town's fabled beast, who kills and eats animals? The next day, Ginger's graphic wounds from the attack begin to rapidly heal, and Ginger starts to feel a primal change within her. She also finally gets her period, three years later than she should have.

When Ginger's changing attitudes begin to drive the two sisters apart, Brigitte begins to suspect that Ginger was attacked by a werewolf. Ginger's physical changes, from thick coarse hair and a small tail protruding from her back, solidify her fears. She turns to the local drug dealer and horticulturist for advise on a possible cure. Ginger's changes appear to be from a biological virus, and if it is a disease, then there must be a cure. The only question is whether an antidote can be found before Ginger completely snaps.

Horror, and to a slightly lesser degree science fiction, has always had the benefit to its writers to mean something else or to be seen as an allegory to a more serious or dangerous topic to discuss. The classic monsters of early horror cinema hid frail human emotions. Communist undertones were rampant in the 1950s, under the guise of cheap B-horror schlock. The "body horror" sub-genre was perfected by David Cronenberg and Shinya Tsukamoto to talk about contagious disease and the natural breakdown of the human body. Sometimes these topics can be overlooked, or not even noticed, by those who are just looking to be entertained or get a cheap scare. Sometimes they are seen by those with a keen perception. Sometimes however, the "real" topic of the film is so obvious that it almost becomes silly to hide it within another genre. Such is the tragic story about Ginger, written by Karen Walton and directed by John Fawcett.

Werewolves have always had the distinction of being a cover to talk about involuntary physical and mental changes or to serve as a juxtaposition to a spreading disease via blood. From THE WOLFMAN to AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON, the main protagonists become lycanthropes against their will, and must deal with their permanent curse. Such is the case in GINGER SNAPS, were Ginger's affliction is merely a red herring for puberty and all the unbalanced hormones that come with it. For Ginger, the slowly gestating lycanthrope virus is just the same as her new found primal desires for boys and her period - she can not control her desires, and is willing to do anything to make it stop. Karen Walton's script, which is laden with the terrors of womanhood, gives a feminine injected boost to a genre that seems permanently bulls-eyed at 18-34 year old males. For the men in this film, their horror comes from their inability to dominate and control a woman either through verbal put-downs or archaic parenting, in the face of her female ferocity.

This is not to say that the film skimps on the actual werewolf story. It is quite the opposite in fact. Walton's biological take on the subject is well thought out, and it takes the entire film for Ginger to finally succumb to the virus. In between, make-up and creature effects designer Paul Jones (who previously worked on NIGHT BREED and the HELLRAISER series) slowly transforms actress Katharine Isabelle into an animalistic version of herself. The changes are very subtle, and his dedication to physical make up and latex, play integrally into the believability of Ginger's transformation. And when Ginger finally makes the full transformation, it is a violent and painful turn, recalling the transformation in AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON. The final creature, which again is a physical effect brought to life by an actor and animatronics, is a unique creature. And thanks to Jones' build up earlier on, one can easily make the connection, especially in the eyes of the creature, that this was once Ginger.

Under Fawcett's direction, the film gets a standard horror atmosphere as he brings his characters through dimly lit woods and drenching school hallways and the sisters' room with shadows, though there is nothing mind blowing in his approach to his suspense set-ups. During the attack sequences, the camera keeps with the characters witnessing the attack, or are hiding during the attack, rather than showing what is actually happening. Fawcett gives just enough of a glimpse to let the viewer fill in what is happening. Though this may have been done due to the budget constraints, Fawcett makes it work. What he doesn't skimp on is the aftermath, showing multiple half eaten dogs and the invariable dark-laced humor that follows during clean up, or Ginger's shredded victim when she has to protect her secret.

Upon its release in the US in early 2001, it was completely ignored as a theatrical release (IMDB states it was shown on *one* screen) and then unceremoniously dumped on DVD in 2003 in a full-screen only version. Fortunately for those with a little hunting power, in Canada (the Canadian government funded this film as part of their film program) there is an incredible DVD release. It is a shame too, because this film deserves a much wider audience than it has received. Two decent sequels rounded out the Ginger "trilogy" in 2004.

Read More

BAY OF BLOOD (1971) Movie Review

BAY OF BLOOD (1971)

On a grand estate on the shore of a bay, an elderly woman clings desperately to the land so that it will not be bought and turned into a resort. However, her murder sets off a chain reaction that brings all of the potential heirs to the estate out of the woodwork, and more disturbing, an unknown killer who begins to systematically murder each of these heirs. The situation takes another turn for the worse when a group of teenagers decide to trespass on the estate, and are quickly targeted by a killer who knows no remorse, sympathy, or limits to their cruel imagination for slaughtering their next victim.

In 1970s Italy the murder-mystery, also known as a giallo, was coming into its golden age soaking the screen in blood, filling it with red herrings and sleazy sexuality and generally confusing the hell out of the audiences with complicated plots. But when famed director and writer Mario Bava brought BAY OF BLOOD to the screen, it was like nothing anyone had seen before. Starting off from a generic storyline that could be found in any run-of-the-mill giallo, Bava quickly amps everything up from the almost insane weaving of all the characters' relationships, to the one-after-another murders that are each committed in a more horrific way, to the gratuitous and graphic sex and nudity.

This film has become known as the very first official slasher film, and is (or at least should be) the water mark to compare all other films that compete for the slasher subgenre label. In America, it can be debated whether BLACK CHRISTMAS or HALLOWEEN was really the first US slasher film, though both owe all their screen credit to Bava's masterpiece. The early FRIDAY THE 13TH films in particular also borrow heavily from this film, right down to the first-person POV and some of the signature murders in the series. For better or worse (and for most fans it is probably the better), due to BAY OF BLOOD, sex and violence will always be married in the slasher genre.

It is not just that the film is the very first slasher, it is a great slasher and can still to this day hold up against any would be film adversary. The groundbreaking murder sequences within the film alone make the film worth seeking out, even if you are passive fan of the genre. The make-up special effects, helmed by Carlo Rambaldi (who would later work on E.T. and ALIEN among others) can still hold up almost forty years later, which is testament to their realism. It is truly a crime that as the years passed this film has become more obscure, fallen off the "must see" lists of some horror stalwarts, and may even be unknown to younger and newer faces to the horror scene.

This was one of the last films that Mario Bava would make, and it is a culmination of a lifetime of work. Even though the movie's essence can be boiled down to a horror shocker, each of the film's individual parts are given the respect and professionalism that would be seen in a high art or dramatic picture. Bava has always been known as one who uses color to manipulate and enhance his films, and it is no exception here. The music plays a critical part in setting moods and building up suspense. Bava's camerawork pulls from the well established "unknown killer" motifs and makes them his own, which set the stage for future directors and cinematographers to mutate to their own needs.

Any horror fan owes it to themselves to give this film, and Mario Bava, the full credit and respect that it deserves, and that even if it doesn't become a permanent part of your home collection, that it is seen at least once for historical purposes. When watching this, try to keep in mind when it was made practically no one had done anything like this before. And guaranteed, no one will see the ending coming, nor has anyone had the balls since to make an ending quite like BAY OF BLOOD. The couple being double-impaled on the bed while having sex is just icing on the bloody cake.

Read More

SUSPIRIA (1977) Movie Review

SUSPIRIA (1977)

Review by Tom Parnell

What exactly do witches do?

If you think about it nobody has ever really explained this. From a very young age we are told there are witches, they have little pointy hats and broomsticks, throw frogs into cauldrons and cackle a lot. But nobody ever explains why they do all this. What is their goal?

Dario Argento’s cult classic SUSPIRIA poses this question in a sort of Grimm fairytale for adults (if the brothers Grimm were sponsored by an artificial blood production company). Whether the film actually answers it is another matter.

The movie begins with all-American stranger-in-a-strange-land Suzy Bannion (played by Jessica Harper) arriving in an unnamed European country where she has enrolled in a prestigious ballet school. What’s going to happen to her?

We are less than five minutes in before the tension begins to build, driven in no small part by the EXORCIST-style theme performed by the aptly named Goblin. Although Argento goes to great lengths to build suspense throughout SUSPIRIA, we are left in no doubt as to the nature of what lurks in the shadows, as the phrase “Witch” is repeatedly whispered whenever the music grows to a climax. At points this can get somewhat irritating, as there are several moments when the characters are listening for specific creepy noises around them and it becomes hard to distinguish sound effects from the relentless repeating soundtrack.

From the start the film’s set design and cinematography are stunning. Every building and room is bigger than life and decorated in a spectrum of coloors with wallpapers that appear to have been designed by an excitable descendent of William Morris. Argento continually finds unusual and exciting angles from which to frame shots, from distant headlights through a pitch-black woodland to the unusual spectacle of pouring a glass of wine practically straight down the viewer’s throat.

Where this film falls down is in the plotline and dialogue. Suzy wonders around the mysterious dance academy doe-eyed and mouth agape, while the requisite number of friends and acquaintances are knocked off in a variety of gore-soaked ways. Then suddenly and inexplicably she starts talking about witches (I can only suspect that she somehow caught a snippet of the soundtrack) and the next thing you know she’s off consulting a ‘witch expert’ who happily knows an awful lot of plot exposition.

I read afterwards that Argento had initially planned to populate the dance academy with 12-year-olds, but the studio wouldn’t let him so he kept the dialogue in protest. This would explain a lot, but if it is the case it seems a shame that he ultimately punishes the viewer for this censorship.

In all SUSPIRIA is a stylish and well-paced horror, with some truly grizzly set pieces. But if you’re wondering what motivates a witch I still can’t tell whether it’s murder or whether they’ve just got to dance!

Tom Parnell is a writer and former journalist who is eagerly awaiting the DVD release of Toy Story 3.

Read More

DEAD SNOW (2009) Movie Review

DEAD SNOW (2009)

Review by Tom Parnell

When it comes to monsters, Nazi zombies may not be a new idea, but they are up near the top of the horror food chain, along with ghost ninja pirates. It would be far too easy for a lazy director to rely on this epitome of horror squared to carry the whole film, while simply ignoring the basics of character development, or even just decent dialogue.

DEAD SNOW however, with its snappy script, great direction and post ironic nods to its predecessors, happily avoids falling into this trap. This is a highly enjoyable movie which can have you laughing and wincing in the same moment, without relying on one gimmick to keep the audience enthralled.

Norwegian director and co-writer Tommy Wirkola’s only previous feature film, KILL BULJO, is a bizarre Scandinavian parody of Quentin Tarantino’s KILL BILL, with murdered reindeer, racist police officers and a pastiche of the famous DELIVERANCE ‘squeal like a pig’ scene. Although it may not seem like the most natural step to go from there to a full-blown zombie horror, much of the humour is carried through into DEAD SNOW and you get the feeling that, like a smirking version of Tarantino, Wirkola is a man who likes his movies.

DEAD SNOW has many of the classic cabin horror elements; a group of youngsters heading out for a ski holiday and staying in a remote shack, something evil lurking in the woods and a mysterious stranger with a tale of horror. What it doesn’t do is treat these as anything more than the clichés we all know they are.

For one of the first times since SCREAM the main characters actually exist in a universe where horror films are available; they know the rules (there is an excellent scene involving what to do if you’re bitten by a zombie) and they aren’t about to go quietly into the night. There are plenty of laughs and nods to films such as EVIL DEAD, but I still felt myself genuinely caring about some of the characters and willing them to survive.

Wirkola does a great job of creating tension when it’s needed and going for full-on blood-spattered snow when the time comes. You may have been wondering why the fact that the walking dead are Nazis makes any difference, but the addition of SS uniforms does add a genuine extra element of sinisterism to the zombie hoard and the high quality of the zombie make-up perfectly complements this.

In all, DEAD SNOW is funny, exciting, beautifully visual and genuinely terrifying in parts and with a the tagline “Ein, Zwei, Die” who could resist?

Read More

MONSTERS (2010) Movie Review

MONSTERS (2010)

Review by Michael Montenegro

I recently watched MONSTERS as an early release on my FiOS Video on Demand; it's USA theatrical release is scheduled for October 29th. I went in to watching this movie with moderately high expectations since they are marketing this movie as "2010's DISTRICT 9".

However, let me be the one to burst that bubble! In order for that comparison to be accurate DISTRICT 9 would need to remove 95% of their alien scenes, have the lowest common denominator plot devices and turn out to be a love story masquerading as a "monster" movie.

MONSTERS' premise is that 6 years ago NASA found the possibility of intelligent alien life in our solar system. They launched a probe and instead of landing safely it crashed in the middle of Mexico and the region was quickly inhabited and over run with "strange creatures." The area was walled off and became the Infected Zone, with sections of Mexico (and presumably America) bordering the Infected Zone constantly under attack from said creatures.

Now that sounds like a great idea for a movie about giant monsters! Sadly this is NOT a movie about giant monsters, it's a love story?! That's right, I watched and waited patiently for my big pay-off alien showdown and all I got was two of the most flat and uninteresting characters trekking across Mexico together and falling in love at the end. The offending characters are Andrew Kaulder, a photographer for a major US publication and Samantha Wynden, the "runaway bride" daughter of the publisher of said publication.





Samantha is caught in and slightly injured in an altercation between military forces and a wandering creature near her hotel in Mexico, where she is hiding out from her father and fiancee. Apparently her emotions around getting married are so confusing she runs to creature-infested Mexico presumably on daddy's dime to think things over. Really?! Not some tranquil far away European nation or some private island that fits your characters' background? Nope she picks the most ghetto areas of Mexico where alien encounters and devastation run rampant.

Enter our photographer Andrew, who is tasked by daddy dearest to find and bring his daughter back safely to the US. He's hesitant at first since leaving the area to escort "Ms. Whiny rich girl with problems" home will likely derail his opportunity to get some real shots of these creatures, which is his job and the whole reason he's stationed down there in the first place. But after a somewhat "stern talking to" over the pay phone from daddy he agrees to get her to the harbor and on the last ships to the states.

Arriving at the harbor they find there's only one company selling tickets for the last ship out and of course the price of admission is a steep one. They negotiate a little and get two tickets on the ferry leaving at 7am the following day. So what better to spend the night before your last shot of leaving the area for 6 months then shack up in a shady flee-bag motel and go out drinking like it's Cinco De Mayo!





We all know drinking leads to feelings and a "connection" but it doesn't lead to anything physical with unattached to Whiny rich girl so Andrew, being a guy, finds a local lady to end his night. The next morning Samantha, upon discovering Andrew's passed out bed mate, runs away upset and Andrew gives chase in his boxers to "apologize?"

If you're confused by this don't worry, it's natural. So of course after working this apparent "tiff" out Andrew returns to find... the tickets and their passports have been seemingly stolen by his now absent lady of the night. Oh no!! Who could have foreseen such a plot twist?! Oh right anyone who has half a brain and knows the movie isn't even halfway over and they haven't entered the Infected Zone yet!

They try to reason with the uncaring ticket guy who simply explains the price has now doubled! How could they possibly afford double... if only one of them had a super rich and connected father... but that only happens in the movies! So the the only option left is to go through the Infected Zone with "Mercs-for hire" and to cover the cost our heroine hands over her diamond engagement ring. Gasp!

Well at least now I'll get to see the creatures attack people and run amok right?! Wrong! Our intrepid duo navigate the Infected Zone with their "guides" coming to rest for the night and hearing stories told around campfire of why the area is refereed to as Infected. Turns out the creatures mate and the female lays her eggs in the form of glowing toadstool growths on tree trunks all over the jungle.





The group's night is interrupted by a radio squawk of an obvious attack in the area. As they try to escape the danger the first truck out of the two is picked up by some dark tentacles and dropped. Gunfire and screaming ensues and through a broken and flipped over truck window we see our first real, all be it quick, glimpse of the creatures. Back lit only by the moon we see basically a big Octopus on what appears to be stilt like legs, yep... that's all these new breed of Monster movie makers can imagine for us.

So now alone Andrew and Samantha push on toward the "promised land" of America. They reach a very old temple and climb to the summit and look out across the jungle and see a massive wall signaling the border of Mexico and America. The scene, which could have had a really interesting effect, is ruined by the next few pieces of dialogue in which, with the subtlety of a sledgehammer to the head, drives home the point that America is something we take for granted while inside and how it's so different looking at her from the outside in.

Wow! So on top of a love story it's also addressing the issue of illegal immigration! What can't this movie do... oh right, show me Giant Monsters being Giant Monsters!

Thankfully we're reaching the end of this dribble. So as our couple reach the seemingly deserted and abandoned border wall, seeing only emptiness and hurricane like destruction, it appears all is not safe in America. They wander into the night finally finding a run down yet still functioning gas station equipped with lights and a working phone and pay phone. They quickly call the 911 and are told to stay put and a military unit is in the area and en-route to pick them up.





Now this has promise, our heroes are alone in the dark, the military is on the way and all signs point to a nice decent action sequence to close out the movie. Again Wrong!

What we see on the final moments of MONSTERS is not one but two creatures, again back lit by sporadic lightning flashes, who stumble upon the gas station and come together and mate. They apparently lock tentacles and glow with bio-luminescence then walk away making almost whale like calls. As they walk away the military unit of twin Humvees show up and take our couple away separately. That's right, the final image we as an audience of MONSTERS see is our couple looking longingly at each other, knowing they can never be, that their just from two different worlds. Fade to black. The End. WHAT!?!

The level of anger and sheer disappointment I felt at a movie that was billed as a return to the Giant Monster movie was epic! What we have here is a movie about two people from different worlds coming together and eventually falling in love with each other with the backdrop of creatures roaming around the jungles mating. The perfect words I can find to describe this movie are "Wasted Potential". However if the idea the entire time was to make MONSTERS a love story then why call it MONSTERS?

I can't in good faith recommend this movie for any fan of legit monster movies. The ratio of monster to human drama is completely off balance. If you're looking for a love story that has an indie feel with very little monster parts this is the movie for you. But if you're a fan of old school GODZILLA or BEAST FROM 20,000 FATHOMS movies stay away, unless you like to be teased and taunted with no payoff.

Michael Montenegro is an avid Horror/Sci-fi movie fan. He is also a hardcore comic reader and artist having graduated from The Joe Kubert School of Cartoon and Graphic Art. He currently resides with his fiancee, two cats and a ferret in NJ.

Read More