DRACULA (1931)

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Tod Browning, Karl Freund

Year: 1931

Cast: Beri Lugosi, Helen Chandler, David Manners

Genre: Horror

MPAA Rating: Approved

Tod Browning’s vision of Dracula is a landmark in filmmaking. It’s not only a breakthrough in horror pictures of its time, but also an excellent showcase for the wildly talented Beri Lugosi. While it is unfaithful to the details of Bram Stoker’s masterful novel, it still delivers the story of the Transylvanian nightmare, the vampire who could control minds, possibly the most popular antagonistic fictional character of all time, Dracula.

The events of this film are as follows (however, they differentiate from what takes place in the novel), Renfield, a real estate agent (of the time), goes on a journey to Transylvania, where he attempts to make a sale in London to Count Dracula. Little does he know that The Count is not what he appears, and before long, he is taken under his influence and thrust into the living nightmare that is victimization. When he returns to London, along with The Count, Dracula has his motives aimed at a family who administer mental care to patient Renfield. Eventually, when worse comes to worse, one Dr. Van Helsing is sought out to protect the family from the vicious beast.

What’s amazing is that Lugosi wasn’t even supposed to be in the film at first, and after a rather haunting viewing of this motion picture, it’s hard to believe that it would be the same without him. The power behind his lack of dialogue is shockingly immense. Instead of caressing “Madam Mina” with his words, as it is displayed that he does in other adaptions, he instills fear into her and her protectors silently; his performance is brilliant, to say the least.

It’s easy to point out the cheapness, unbelievability, or cheesiness of some set designs in earlier films, but not here. From scene one, it purports a grainy, old-fashioned feel that never quite fades. What’s more, as a result, the viewer’s expectations for production design are considerably low, so when the journey to The Count’s lair takes place, and the eery, well done sets are shown off, viewers are catapulted into palpable fear.

Dracula (1931) is among Roger Ebert’s list of “Great Movies”, and that’s quite understandable. No other adaptions are quite as mesmerizing as such, and with the mark this film left, it’s hard to say that it shall be beaten in years to come. Coppola’s Bram Stoker’s Dracula may surpass it in production quality and faithfulness to the novel, but Tod Browning’s imagining is engrossing and far more well made, a film for the ages. To that, I saw bravo.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (1974)

Cole's Rating: ★★★

Jesse's Rating: ★★★★

Director: Tobe Hooper
Year: 1974
Cast: Marylin Burns, Edwin Neal, Allen Danziger
Genre: Horror
MPAA Rating: R

        When I discovered that my friend held, in his possession, a copy of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) I avidly begged him to borrow it. This is understandable, considering how the multiple media stores I visited over the Halloween month failed to provide a copy of the seemingly rare DVD. But alas, my friend came through (I lent him The Color of Money, we’ll chalk it up as a fair trade), and I got my hands on the classic horror film that “Did for meat-eating what Psycho did for shower taking”(Marylin Beck, Hollywood). 

When several young adults travel down south in a van to a destination that is apparently murky to them, they come across real trouble in an act of desperation: a family bound by incestuous and reasonably sick morals. One or two of them go missing in a hunt for gasoline, and, from then on, it becomes a helpless situation that feels palpably real.

To be sure, this film is terrifying. The situation that the protagonists are in is concocted so brilliantly that it, automatically, gets my recommendation. Concerning the plot, what anchors it down is the harshly unnecessary dark comedic element that left me with a bad aftertaste.

Beyond that, the structure of this 83 minute movie really perplexed me. Director Tobe Hooper filmed this motion picture rather subtly, dragging the viewer along for the first (dare I say) rather dull 30 or so minutes, which he spent setting up the inevitable. As for the climax, it’s absolutely effective. It’s horrifying and totally involving, but then, Hooper doesn’t wrap it up well either. It’s as if he didn’t want to do the film total justice. That’s what’s so confusing about “The Massacre”.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was remade in 2003, and I can’t tell you how happy I am about it. The original is no masterpiece, to put it lightly. It’s structured awkwardly, and doesn’t boast itself as much as it needed to. But the remake does. It’s directed steadily, it’s longer, more protracted, more real-life, more serious, and more detailed. Ultimately, it’s a better film. For the first time in horror history, I discovered why exactly horror flicks are remade. They’re (or at least this one’s) purpose is to expand, correct, and update. While I believe that the original is definitely a landmark in horror filmmaking, I think that it is faulted, and it was remade for good reason. To that, I say job well done, horror enthusiasts (this time).

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse's Thoughts:  Brilliantly horrific, imitated but never duplicated, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre represents the purest form of terror known to any cinema buff. Thousands of countless ripoffs and average remakes have tried to capitalize on its success, but with minimal gore and a grainy, sadistic edge, the original 1974 "Chainsaw" is untouchable. The fact that an unknown director (Tobe Hooper), a cast of nobodies, and a shooting schedule in 100+ degree Texas heat could produce a horror flick light years ahead of its time is a miracle in itself. Give credit to actress Marilyn Burns who coined the term "scream queen" before Jamie Lee Curtis could even get her hands on it. Let me just put it right out there, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is one of the greatest films of all time. It will haunt you for days after you view it. Guaranteed.  

THE PURGE

Cole's Rating: ★ ½

Director: James DeMonaco
Year: 2013
Cast: Ethan Hawke, Lena Headey, Max Burkholder
Genre: Horror/Sci-Fi/Thriller
MPAA Rating: R

        Considering that it is compiled by a series of hopeful themes concerning humanity, concepts of futuristic violence, and Ethan Hawke, you'd think that my "two words to describe this movie" (the movie being The Purge) would be something other than laughably bad. However, thanks to the totally inept way in which the director and screenplay writers brought this movie to life, those two self-explanatory words, yet again, don't stand corrected. Translation: it was a total botch-job. With every predictable plot turn this thing took, the ninety minutes in which its encased in grew even longer. As the movie progressed, and more characters were introduced, I seriously considered the fact that it may be a really dark comedy. However, when the closing credits rolled around, I realized the job of making The Purge was simply put in the wrong peoples' hands, and was just presented at the wrong time (I think most Americans are smarter than what this movie makes us out to be at this stage in the game, though I could be wrong).
 
        Annually, there is one night devoted to a nationwide "Purge", meaning all crime is legal, because apparently this launched the United States almost totally out of all poverty, job issues, and crime in the near future. For Hawke's family, there should be no trouble making it through the night considering that his wealth is a result of him creating the ultimate safety home system for this particular reason. However, when the odds are put against his family, and their lives are questioned, what measures will they go to to survive?

        The truth is, I really did the movie justice with that plot description. It's so predictable that it's not thrilling at all, and the fact that the movie even takes its own plot seriously made me go numb. What's disappointing about The Purge is the opportunity that it beheld. As opposed to exercising a well done story to a satisfactory extent, it comes off as a big tease. Whether I say that it's silly or a misfire, bad or awful, self realizing or oblivious, it doesn't really matter. The quality of the movie is dependant upon how closely the viewer examines it as a cinematic exercise. My advice is this: if you are looking to enjoy it, don't pull out your magnifying glass because you'll realize that you just wasted an hour and a half.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

GHOSTS OF MARS

Jesse's Rating: ★★

Director: John Carpenter
Year: 2001
Cast: Ice Cube, Natasha Henstridge, Ice Cube, Pam Grier
Genre: Action/Horror/Sci-Fi
MPAA Rating: R

        Between early 2000 and late summer 2001, three movies about the planet Mars opened in theaters nationwide. Ghosts of Mars (the film I'm reviewing) happened to be the last one to come out (the other two were Mission to Mars and Red Planet, both being box office duds). Normally, this would be a disadvantage, but to put it mildly, this 17th feature by one of my favorite directors of all time (John Carpenter), happens to be a complete misfire entirely on its own. There isn't a whole lot that can save this movie. It copies a little off of Carpenter's own, much better work (the fight scenes are solid but they seem straight out of Big Trouble in Little China and the plot elements echo a little from the critically acclaimed Assault on Precinct 13) and, in general, it feels like a rushed production complete with a bland opening credits font. Now granted, what Carpenter did with his earlier films is justifiably good. They had a low budget look to them like this one, but they also had an admirable story, solid direction, reputable acting, and above all, a good script. Ghosts of Mars doesn't really have any of these things and, if it did, I was totally unaware after a mid-day viewing. I'm sad to say that this is a clear hack job from someone who I will always think of as a master of fear and thrill. Since "Mars," he has only made one more feature film in the past twelve years (The Ward). I genuinely hope that this misstep didn't shake his confidence, but I could be wrong.

        Projecting itself as an exercise with many unhinged flashbacks (heck, the whole hour and a half running time is told in one large flashback) and exhibiting a rushed sort of unpolished opening credits sequence (not to mention showing a rather cheap looking set design right off the bat), Ghosts of Mars tells the story of how the red planet is a colony and almost all of it is a liveable type of atmosphere for humans. A team of police officers led by Commander Helena Braddock (a wooden Pam Grier) venture to Mars and must take on a prisoner transfer (James Williams played by Ice Cube). While there, they discover that the planet is overrun by possessed humans (of an extreme violent nature) who sort of look like a cross between Linda Blair (The Exorcist) and zombies with lots of make-up. Like I said earlier, this flick is told in the form of flashbacks upon flashbacks with Carpenter using a lot of dissolves (fade ins and fade outs) that just add to the cheese factor. I know he's a better director than this, and I've seen what he's capable of. Maybe he didn't have total creative control. That, I guess, remains to be seen.

        With all the nonsense going on in "Mars," the one true bright spot might be the inflicted martial arts-inspired action sequences set to Carpenter's rather subdued heavy metal soundtrack. In terms of casting, I think Ice Cube (James 'Desolation' Williams) gave pretty much the best performance. Listen, the guy is no Laurence Olivier, but he fit his role like a glove and had a lot of fun with it. In the lead role, Natasha Henstridge (Lt. Ballard who is second in command) was okay despite coming off as a little arrogant and smug. As for the rest of the cast, well they pretty much phone their performances in. In a way, it seems kind of fitting for a movie this lazy and, well, this contrived.

        In retrospect, I can't, for the life of me, fathom why this motion picture took place on or had anything to do with Mars (I meant a really fake looking sound stage made to look like Mars). I mean, the whole premise was the defeating of and escape from crazily possessed, demonic entities. The red planet seemed like just a last minute background story to go along with the couple of other bad movies that it inspired. As for the plot letting us know that Mars is an okay location for human beings to survive on without proper space suits or helmets, all I gotta say is gimme a break! Having the cast walk around the planet this way just makes their surroundings seem much more fake. In general, Ghosts of Mars takes itself way too seriously to begin with. It's the type of disposable fluff that has "straight to DVD" written all over it. As for Carpenter, I don't know him personally, but I'm sure he recovered from this debacle. Basically, Ghosts of Mars didn't have a "ghost" of a chance at fulfilling his full potential as a renowned filmmaker.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

HALLOWEEN 4: THE RETURN OF MICHAEL MYERS

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Dwight H. Little
Year: 1988
Cast: Donald Pleasence, Ellie Cornell, Danielle Harris

Genre: Horror/Thriller

MPAA Rating: R

        As October 31st is steadily approaching, I have been quietly revisiting some of the random slasher flicks from the very popular series being the Halloween sequels and prequels. Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers, is a sequel that sort of stays faithful to the original, groundbreaking horror film from 1978. Although not as voyeuristic and shockingly effective as John Carpenter's low budget scream fest, "Return" has a similar look, similar feel, and garners the same production values also. It also has familiar types of set ups for the killer's dispatching of victims, and a cast of actors/actresses who are more charismatic (less paper thin) than in many other horror film knockoffs. Halloween 4 gets the job done and will satisfy a majority of the fans of this distance running series. It's a small hour and a half film with a B movie feel, but it doesn't try too hard to outdo anything that came before it. Honestly, this will never register as groundbreaking stuff. However, in its day, Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers was a financial success and staked its claim as the last recommendable horror sequel in my most humbled opinion. The best reasons to see this 1988 release on video: freshness in the way the script by Alan B. McElroy allows the film to make a smooth transaction from the previous installments, a plot that can hold the audience's attention without being too outlandish, and an ending that's surprising and ultimately terrifying. For my money, it has the same feeling of dread as the conclusion of Carpenter's pragmatic vision. The shame in all of the Halloween movies is that after the fourth entry, the series went steadily, or should I say freakishly, downhill. Rob Zombie tried to re-introduce everything with his startling new vision (Halloween in 2007 and H2: Halloween 2 in 2009) but then, for me, it was too little too late.

        Beginning with a quietly haunting opening credits sequence and appearing more as the first actual sequel as opposed to the 3rd one (Halloween II in 1981 took place in a hospital the whole time while Halloween III: Season of the Witch in 1983, had nothing to do with the Michael Myers character), "Return" eliminates the presence of heroine Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis as an actress, became a big star and didn't want to have anything to do with the series, though in the film, they state that her character died in a car accident) and concentrates heavily on masked killer Myers as he mysteriously comes out of a decade long coma (as in the original, Myers again escapes from a hospital and takes a long slog of a trip to get back to Haddonfield). When he decides to venture back to the small, defenseless Illinois town (after a long hiatus), chaos ensures and the corpses pile up. His main target is Strode's daughter, being the shy, fragile Jamie Lloyd (played by then newcomer, Danielle Harris). Thankfully, there is doctor Samuel Loomis (the always reliable and likable Donald Pleasence who looks badly burned from the conclusion of the 1981 nightmare) and a hard nosed Sheriff (Sheriff Meeker played by Beau Starr) who join forces to try and eliminate the out-of-control sicko. Oh and I almost forgot, the addition of the townspeople comprising a lynch mob to stop Myers again adds a certain level of perkiness to the proceedings. And as I mentioned earlier, the characters are likable in "Return" and they have a tongue and cheek way about them (Sasha Jenson as the high school jock and selfish ladies man is a nonchalant hoot).

        All in all, Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers is admittedly not the most innovative horror film around. However, its almost similar second cousin feel to the original Halloween means that it has just enough spunk to deliver what the most ardent fans of the series want. I just think of this flick as a horror exercise equivalent to a James Bond movie (all the Bond films seem similar in structure, but just think the comparison of the superior Dr. No to the serviceable Live and Let Die). Now that everyone's favorite holiday (who doesn't like Halloween?) is almost here, grab some candy corn, cut up your favorite jack o' lantern, and throw in a DVD copy (if you can find one) of this harmless bit of mild gore and rollicking suspense. Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers is no masterpiece, but it's a welcome "return" to horror sequel escapism.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

CARRIE (2013)

Jesse's Rating: ★★

Director: Kimberly Peirce
Year: 2013
Cast: Julianne Moore, Judi Greer, Chloe Grace Moretz
Genre: Drama/Horror
MPAA Rating: R

        Thus far, 2013 is proof that the concept of remaking classic films is probably the wrong thing to do. First, we got to witness a rather bland reboot of The Evil Dead. Now, we get another bland, lifeless, and unnecessary retelling of Brian De Palma's audacious and powerfully mesmerizing Carrie. I get it. I know why films are redone, the reason being to make money and to let a newer generation get to experience something similar to what went down over 30 years ago (blah, blah, blah). Listen, if these films didn't have an original copy that came before them, then maybe they'd be okay on their own. But the fact remains that The Evil Dead (1981) and Carrie (1976) already claimed their stake and to give them a second interpretation, to me, is just sacrilege.

        Coming off as a shot-for-shot newbie and having the majority of the actors actually looking age appropriate, Carrie examines a shy, telekinetic girl (Carrie White played by Chloe Grace Moretz who in every scene, seems to have her mouth gaping wide open) who is picked on by her classmates at school, has a religiously defiant mother (Julianne Moore as Margaret White), and out of sheer kindness (and realized guilt), gets invited to the prom (by the most popular boy in high school). As the film progresses, we don't quite no why, but Miss White has inherent powers by which she can move objects with her hands (the hand motions by Moretz aren't quite believable, sorry). When she realizes she can't take the bullying from her fellow classmates and the bible thumping crassness of her mother, Carrie goes a little bonkers (if you seen the original you know the story) and well, you get the drift. What hurts this movie and may have dented the original (what was the only fault of the 1976 version) is the way Carrie is treated from beginning to end. You feel sorry for her as a character and there is never any resolve when the flick comes to fruition. There is never a happy ending for her and you never get to empathize with her plight. Like I said earlier, I dig the original. But I disregard this buried (no pun intended) aspect of it.

        All explanations aside, with this current 2013 release, we get performances that are second rate (with the exception of Julianne Moore who plays Carrie's mom and Alex Russell who plays a slightly different version of John Travolta's character who is Billy Nolan), direction that lacks the swooping camerawork of Brian De Palma (even though it was helmed by the critically acclaimed Kimberly Peirce), and a lack of plodding creepiness that made the original such a 70's relic. Even the musical score has been modernized and filtered through an MTV type vibe. Yes, this version is much more violent and its lead does some pretty demonic things, but there's no sense of awe or dreamlike intensity that made the first one so mystifying (the opening scene in the original, within seconds, trumps the new version). Also, the aspect of 70's culture feels more tailored to this type of flick than having it take place in present day (the new Carrie has the ever popular iPhone/YouTube phase going on which I know is keeping with the times, but seems overly emphasized). In hindsight, this is a faithful yet laughably unfaithful rendition of Carrie and it's far from memorable or compelling. It hinders itself disposable and has the quintessential feel of every reboot you've ever witnessed (this is not a good thing). With good remakes (which are few and far between), the director adds a new twist or something more than an almost shot for shot retelling (sadly, this one comes pretty close to that). This new Carrie is on line with the type of modern horror films in which sterile, stylized blood and gore drips all over the screen while barely scarring the audience. Maybe it's me but I miss 70's and 80's horror films. They're grittier, eerier, and because of the time passed, grainier. Unless someone figures out how to reinvent the horror genre, we're gonna get scary movies that come off the world's biggest artificial assembly line. But hey, they're probably gonna keep making money because people wanna jump out of their seat (or think they're actually achieving that reaction).

        In retrospect, Carrie didn't need to be re-imagined (even though it kind of wasn't). It comes from the mind of someone who is too good for this type of stylized hack job. It's as if Kimberly Peirce (director of the powerful Boys Don't Cry) was so frightened that she wouldn't get another directing opportunity and had to settle for this one. I'm hoping that she gets back to what she does best which is making hard hitting dramas based on fascinating true stories. She does get the set design right, though, because the White family home in the original Carrie seems like a dead-on replica of this one. And Julianne Moore does harness the same psychotic intensity brought on by Piper Laurie in 76'. But alas, there's a moral to all this. Don't remake a great film when you know it's better to remake a bad one. To end this review, I'll leave you with the famous line from both Carries which is, "they're all gonna laugh at you!" Yeah, they're all gonna laugh at you, the viewer, if you think this is a serviceable motion picture.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

HALLOWEEN 2

Jesse's Rating: ★★

Director: Rob Zombie
Year: 2009
Cast: Malcolm McDowell, Tyler Mane, Sheri Moon Zombie, Scout Taylor-Compton
Genre: Horror
MPAA Rating: R

          Without a doubt, I applaud Rob Zombie's vision when it comes to making movies. I read somewhere that he was a huge fan of the horror genre when he was a kid. It's obvious that he pays homage to them ever since he made his first film, 2003's House of 1000 Corpses (it's also obvious that based on the film I'm now reviewing, he seems to really like the darkest images of the Halloween holiday). "Corpses" upset me, but in a good way. It's a very effective, unsettling sort of evil stepchild to the masterpiece which is The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. So ever since I saw this underrated debut, I was eagerly awaiting his next slasher/horror experiment. He hasn't totally delivered since then (The Devil's Rejects was mildly amusing, however) but like I said earlier, he is a visionary filmmaker who would rather reinvent or re-imagine a classic as opposed to just remaking it.


        Rob Zombie also has plenty of trademarks. His films always seem to have a carnival-like atmosphere complete with dirty, grubby, grungy, and totally devilish characters. And although it seems like Halloween II (the film I'm reviewing) appears to take place in present day, that doesn't stop him from throwing in a 60's or 70's AM radio tune as background music. Oh, and he generally uses the same cast members in all of his endeavors (notably his wife, Sherri Moon Zombie) and he loves to film scantily clad women from the front and the back.


        Not expecting anything different from a Zombie flick this time around, I watched his 2009 remaking (I meant re-imagining) of 1981's Halloween II. Where as that 1981 sequel had famed killer Michael Myers terrorizing a Haddonfield, Illinois hospital the same night after the events of 1978's original Halloween occurred, this time around, he has the brutal events take place exactly one year later after all the murder and mayhem from 2007's inaugural rebooting of the franchise. Halloween II is similar to its early 80's predecessor in only one really obvious way. It announces to the audience a unconditionally situation changing aspect of the plot line. Other than that, they seem like two completely different films altogether. I'm not saying that Rick Rosenthal's (director of Halloween II (1981)) early effort was a masterstroke (they're were some interesting and quite effective murder sequences, however) but it is, to this day, a much better, more focused vehicle than Zombie's loud, excess-ridden mess of a movie.

        He tries his darnedest to grab and enthrall the audience, but it doesn't ring true. The gore and gratuitous violence are mainly for shock value and don't really generate many scares. I do give him credit ,though, for making a valiant effort to give the Myers character an admirable back story, especially in his auspicious 2007 reboot. Let's just say that when this 2009 Michael Myers goes on a killing spree, it's as random as ever. You know that he is headed for Haddonfield (it feels like it takes him forever to get there, too) but on the way, he commits so many random kills (a few people at a strip club, a couple of farmers in a truck, a couple of party goers in a small van, etc.,etc...) that it feels like Zombie needed these scenes to fill the movie out so that it could turn out to be an unnecessarily long running time of two hours. Then there is the acting (and the overacting) by the entire cast (with the slight exception of Malcolm McDowell as Dr. Loomis) which is mediocre at best (enough "f words" in this exercise to fill a 100 page script, I'm thinking). Granted, this horror film has got all the usual cliches, plenty of annoying hap hazard screams, and a huge 6 foot 9 yet unintimidating actor to play Myers (played by Tyler Mane whose greatest gift to the acting world is grunting every time he stabs a victim). Once more, its got director Rob Zombie filming flashbacks and present day hallucinations. They are between the Michael Myers character and his dead/alive mother along with a younger (child) version of himself. This seems like a nifty idea at first but dissipates with every interrupted, over-the-top bloodletting toward the most annoying (not to mention mean spirited) set of victims a slasher picture could ever be crammed with.

        When it's all said and done, in reality, the Halloween franchise should have stopped years ago. But hey, Rob Zombie said it best in a documentary when he reiterated that horror fans are so thirsty for more meaningless blood and gore that they'll do anything to watch another installment (even if it's as lousy and as lumbering as this one). Well Rob, you maybe right. Halloween III is probably coming soon to a disillusioned theater near you.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Cole's Take (and a Video Review) On THE CONJURING

Cole's Rating: ★★ ½

Jesse's Rating: ★★ ½

Director: James Wan
Year: 2013
Cast: Patrick Wilson, Vera Farmiga, Ron Livingston
Genre: Horror/Thriller
MPAA Rating: R

        There are different types of scary filmmaking. In a film like Nightmare on Elm Street, not only is the viewer haunted visually, but also mentally; it’s torture going on in your mind. In a film like Halloween (the original, people), the viewer is horrified with gruesome violence and develops a sense of responsibility for the damsel in distress, ultimately putting him/herself in the victim’s position, which creates a feeling of insecurity. In a film like The Shining, the viewer becomes simply fascinated and curious with the insane nature that the main character develops, and ultimately lacks the ability to genuinely understand and sympathize with the antagonist, which creates a sense of terror. When you watch a film like Zodiac, even though it isn’t a textbook horror film, since the movie is so brilliantly made, the mere idea and dialogue that concerns the killer is enough to disturb and mentally harm. If I’m making any of these scary movies sound unappealing, I apologize because I haven’t done my job as a critic; these are all incredible and terrifying films that deserve the utmost caliber of critical recommendation. And now the latest “scary” movie out in theaters is The Conjuring. The most upsetting thing about it is that I can’t describe what exact category of scary it qualifies for, or how it manages to do it. This is because it isn’t, and it doesn’t. The Conjuring is, at best, a tense film that creates scary situations, but it isn’t altogether scary.

        Stop me when this sounds familiar. A family moves out in the middle of nowhere to a house that happens to be infested with demonic souls. Did I hear stop? Well, I should’ve. This movie rips off almost every supernatural horror movie in the cinematic industry. It’s main idea steals quite a bit from The Exorcist; it’s set up and plot rips off The Amityville Horror; and for quite a large amount of time, most of the scenes look like outtakes from Paranormal Activity. Then, a couple who are expert paranormal scientists (or something like that) are sought out for help by the mother who senses that things are going wrong. Then after, a crew organized by the expert couple orchestrate cameras and alarms that are ready to capture proof of the supernatural existence (ripping off Poltergeist) in the house in order to prove the house worthy of a legitimate exorcism. Ultimately, the movie spends a lot of its amount of time on its build up: identifying the character’s roles in each others lives, setting up scenes for foreshadow, and building the plot. It does an adequate job with all of this, too, and it's not all completely uninteresting. What’s unfortunate is, thereafter, it never takes off and relies on systematic, jolting scares that feel as if they were taken right off of the artificial scare assembly line (think scare scenes from Monsters Inc., only more adult and supernatural), though they do trigger some seat jumping moments. A lot of those seat jumping moments, though, rip off films such as What Lies Beneath, The Sixth Sense, The Haunting, The Evil Dead, The Changeling, The Messengers, and in some form, The Skeleton Key.

        For a modern horror movie (as we know how most of those go...), the cast erects no complaints from this critic. I generally enjoy Vera Farmiga’s screen presence, and she contributes greatly to the tense atmosphere that was crucial that the movie created. She channeled some of her inner Norma Bates (if you watch the show). Ron Livingston is well cast; he looks the part, and he’s ultimately believable as the father who desperately wants his family ridden of the horrible curse that is upon them. Everyone else is great, too, which is why I believe this movie is not a complete waste of time. 

        If you’re not too knowledgable of iconic camerawork, then you’ll learn a lot from The Conjuring. Countless camera-worked scenes channel some of Stanley Kubrick’s films, Martin Scorsese’s films, and a new mix of the two that makes the film more unique and enjoyable, despite the fact that it’s not the director’s own. Also, the use of wide lenses don’t go to waste; it’s shot in a way that kept me thinking that maybe this had something unique to offer, but in hindsight, camerawork can't save a tired, recycled script.

        Similar to a more recent film, World War Z, the ending feels horribly rushed and horribly Hollywood. It made me hang my head, roll my eyes, and wish under my breath that they don’t make a sequel. In fact, on the ride home, I said to my fellow critic and uncle, “Well, it was based on true case files, so there shouldn’t be a sequel.” Yeah, there shouldn’t be, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there is. This is a movie that didn’t feel much like a traditional horror movie; it built up for quite a long time, then let the viewer down and wallowed in excessiveness for a while, then just closed shop with the customers happy (it’s structured really awkwardly). Viewers should have protection before they watch this movie. Instead of helmets and shoulder pads, I suggest watching classic horror movies such as the ones mentioned above, so that they don’t fall prey to the easy style of copycat that the script and directional style so desperately rely on, and are fueled by. The Conjuring is a film that won’t be on either my “Worst of 2013” or “Best of 2013” list. It’s right in the middle; it’s got some assets, and it’s got some downfalls, so at least it’s not a complete bomb. I hope that director James Wan starts taming his skills of direction, and making them his own, because I don’t know how many more unoriginal, unspectacular horror (particularly supernatural) movies I can sit through. My greatest piece of advice to him is to watch some more classical horror movies, find a book on how to make a film original, and have a long talk and cup of coffee with Tim Burton. I think the last mentioned idea will do him some serious good.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse's Take On THE CONJURING

Click HERE To Watch The Video on YouTube

YOU'RE NEXT

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Adam Wingard
Year: 2011
Cast: Sharni Vinson, Joe Swanberg, AJ Bowen
Genre: Comedy/Horror/Thriller
MPAA Rating: R

       With smidgens of background music straight out of a 1980's John Hughes film and villains with a penchant for killing defenseless human beings by way of crossbows, You're Next exhibits a new and fresh perspective on the horror/slasher genre. Now I'm saying this based on my observation of the movie's second half. The last 45 minutes surprised me and I consider them very effective. The first half, well, it resembles one of the weaker Friday the 13th sequels coupled with residue from the meaningless pile of junk that is The Strangers (2008) ("Next" plays like a wiser, more intelligent version of the said movie). At 96 fast paced minutes, You're Next isn't monumentally scary. In fact, it's a horror flick that plays more like a thriller. Does that make it less palatable? No way. Truth be told, this is an exercise that delivers a couple of nifty twists and turns that help it rise above the ordinary. Now I can't reveal these twists (nor would I want to) but I do know this: I couldn't recommend "Next" without them. I also can't divulge who the character is that turns out to be the reluctant heroine. If you choose to take in a viewing, you'll find out for yourself that this person is a true survivalist that kinda came out of nowhere. And as the perceptive critic that I always try to be, I initially didn't pick up on it.

        Harboring actors/actresses that I've never seen in a film before and taking place in I figured the middle of nowhere (of course), You're Next has a premise that goes like this: a rich family consisting of a husband, wife, and four children (all with significant others) venture out to a remote vacation home (it's not revealed where but I found out that filming took place in Columbia, Missouri) for a sort of rekindling (the vibe I get is that they haven't seen each other in quite some time). This family doesn't know it yet, but they are being watched and are to be eventually hunted down by henchman wearing creepy masks that resemble, I guess, bunny rabbits. What begins from that moment on is a relentless rush of terror that doesn't let up. If you like the sight of blood, "Next" will not disappoint. After I left the theater, I wondered, budget wise, how much money was shelled out for all those gallons of red dye corn syrup.

        Despite that fact that this flick works, there is still something that kinda irked me about You're Next: once this thing comes to a close, there is a gaping hole evident in the storyline that concerns the antagonists' motivations. It seems like the script wasn't thought out too much, but instead invented to entertain, despite the fact that moviegoers passionate about strong writing will discover the apparent flaw.

      When it's all said and done, though, You're Next has some decent acting (much better than your standard horror fare with virtual unknowns in the cast), satisfying direction for most of the way (there are some scenes with a sizable amount of jittery camerawork that I could've done without), and an effective 180 degree turn in terms of what you thought you knew about some of the characters. Then there's the ending. It's been done a few times before with other films of this nature. It's equally disturbing and funny. Overall, this is not a horror classic that's going to set the world on fire, but it succeeds in trying to add a spark to what I believe to be a tired, over-the-hill genre of filmmaking. Regardless, this gets a recommendation from me and it's the "next" movie you should take in during these dog days of August.

-Written by Jesse Burleson & Cole Pollyea

FROM DUSK TILL DAWN

Cole's Rating: ★★★

Jesse's Rating: ★★ ½

Director: Robert Rodriguez 
Year: 1996
Cast: George Clooney, Harvey Keitel, Quentin Tarantino, Juliette Lewis
Genre: Action/Crime/Horror
MPAA Rating: R

        From Dusk Till Dawn is, by no means, a great film. In fact, I’d barely call it a good one. There are two reasons I’m recommending it, and I’ll bet you can guess why. Here’s a hint: Mr. Tarantino has his name on it. Now, he didn’t direct; Robert Rodriguez did, but Tarantino wrote and acted. With these two’s history, you know that when they put their heads together, the result isn’t going to be subtle or unnoticed. In fact, those are the last adjectives I would use to describe their 90’s gorefest because the first thing that comes to mind when I think of the film is silly, then I have to force myself to recall the first 45 minutes (before the movie took a turn for the worst).

        And if you haven’t guessed by now, the first thing that makes this movie so enjoyable is the cast. Tarantino’s movies never lack strong actors/actresses, and From Dusk Till Dawn is no exception. Harvey Keitel plays the father of two (Juliette Lewis being one) who are kidnapped by notorious robbers, played by George Clooney and Quentin Tarantino himself. I won’t disclose anymore, but if you know of the film, then I’m sure you can connect the dots on where it heads. I never said I hated the twist (it ends up working in a sense), but with how great everything prior to this plot turn was set up, this movie could be a four-star slam dunk. This assembly of the veteran actors/actresses in the film make the first half of the movie seem like Best Picture worthy stuff, and they even manage to make the second half bearable.

        The other factor that makes this recommendable and enjoyable is the writing (particularly the screenplay). Every scene is taken full advantage of, throwing in humor, intensity, engagement, and a sense of likability to the characters (most), ultimately making this a treat to fall subject to the intrigue that writers Robert Kurtzman and Quentin Tarantino so successfully create. The movie sets itself up very nicely. But then it’s the story that makes you go, “ohhhhh, that’s where this was heading”. (No positive connotation meant). It turns a contender with Reservoir Dogs into a film that Leonard Maltin called “Natural Born Vampires”. 

        If you’re looking for a fun movie, look no further. If you are looking for a masterpiece, look elsewhere. If you are a film buff, you might get a kick out of some of the vibrant writing seen throughout. If you dig cheesed out Hollywood endings, go see World War Z. From Dusk Till Dawn’s conclusion is a knockout!

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse’s Thoughts: From Dusk Till Dawn plays like two different flicks all together. The first half is a kidnapping/road movie complete with mediocre acting (George Clooney tries way too hard and Quentin Tarantino, well he's a better director than an actor) and a script that isn't quite as sharp as what Tarantino's has been known to put out. The second half is a ferocious battle between humans and bloodthirsty vampires. For me, the second half is slightly better. In the end though, it's a segment that's more stylish than anything else. Back in 1996, From Dusk Till Dawn was supposed to be Clooney's first true big screen debut (it coincided with his successful E.R. show). Unfortunately, it comes off more as a slight misfire despite Robert Rodriquez's capable direction and some effectively campy special effects. In general, this film is uneven and the vampire sequences which are meant to scare you senseless don't take themselves seriously. I put the blame on the cast because they come off as goofballs. Chalk this one up as a mixed review from me. From what I understand, this movie spawned some sequels. I guess you could call the next installment "From Bad To Worse".

Jessie's Take On (and a Video Review of) THE CONJURING

Jesse's Rating: ★★ ½

Cole's Rating: ★★ ½

Director: James Wan
Year: 2013
Cast: Patrick Wilson, Vera Farmiga, Ron Livingston
Genre: Horror/Thriller
MPAA Rating: R

        Let me start this review off by saying that The Conjuring is only moderately scary. This film is expertly plotted (for the first half), well cast, and provides a few jolts here and there. It's an American horror yarn that takes place in the early 1970's. To make things even more authentic, it also feels like 70's film making in general. Director James Wan loves to show off with the camera by harboring a large amount of zoom ins and zoom outs (if I'm not mistaken, these are prevelant techniques used in the aforementioned decade). He seems to want to do this instead of actually scaring the audience. Heck, he even films a long tracking shot (ala Goodfellas) at the beginning. This is done as the terrorized family portrayed, is first moving in. So with all the fun that Wan is having with these shots, it still feels like he's holding back. In just under two hours, The Conjuring is mostly build up. And when the scares come, they just doesn't feel potent enough. But to be honest, that's not the only problem. This is an exercise that pretty much borrows from almost every horror movie ever made. It's basically The Exorcist meets The Amityville Horror (the houses from The Conjuring and "horror" are eerily simliar) with tidbits from The Evil Dead, The Sixth Sense, The Changeling, and Paranormal Activity all thrown into the mix. Now most of what I've just mentioned is pretty scary stuff. It's just too bad that a movie based on a true story such as this one, has to be so darn unoriginal by copying everything that came before it (yes, the events in The Conjuring take place circa 1971, but it still was released this year, just wanted to make that clear).

        Set in a small town in Rhode Island and taking place in the fall season (fall is inclined to include heavy rainfall like so many horror flicks do), The Conjuring tells the story of the Parron family (five girls plus Ron Livingston as Roger Parron and Lili Taylor as Carolyn Parron) buying a farmhouse and encountering demonic forces in it that are beyond their control. They buy this place not knowing the history of it or it's tantalizing structure (apparently unbeknownst to them, there is a cellar below, how original). After things go bump bump in the night (naturally), they call on a husband and wife team of paranormal investigators (Patrick Wilson as Ed Warren and Vera Farmiga as Lorraine Warren) to drive out from Conneticut and rid the dwelling of all things supernatural. With all the painful familiarity going on, the best scene for me happens when this happily married, ghost hunting couple enters the house, scopes everything out, and delivers the bad news about what's going on. This all happens toward the middle section of the running time and I figured things could maybe go uphill from here. Unfortunately I was wrong. In the past I've recommended recyled movies of all genres. With this one, I finally had to break the streak.

        You don't have to take my word for it, but if you plan on viewing The Conjuring, just know that it almost loses its way in the second half. I'm not sure why, but this picture actually adds a comedic element with all the chaos that's going on (it's in the form of a police officer who tags along and looks completely out of place). It's totally unnecessary. To be honest, I thought this vehicle was supposed to be terrifying. I guess I was wrong. Truth be told, there's no need for some goofy side character (a sort of deapan version of Deputy Dewey in Scream) taking part in the happenings at the Parron house. Added to that awkwardness, there's also sort of a level of contradiction that occupanies the haunted family that was just mentioned. For instance, the investigators sit the heads of the Parron household down and tell them that they can't escape the evil entity trying to possess them (basically, they say that no one can leave the house). Cut to a half hour later and the whole family being haunted is told to go to a hotel. And I know this movie is based on a true story, but throughout the proceedings, it was hard for me to figure out who was being terrorized the most and why. Was it the mother or one of the five daughters? Notice I didn't mention the father. I found it weird that no evil spirit layed a finger on him.

        All in all, if you've never seen the countless films this bad boy imitates, The Conjuring might scare the living daylights out of you. If this flick somehow affects you, there's a chance you might be frightened by laying on a bed, opening a closet door, clapping twice, or looking in a mirror. But if you've been around the block like I have when it comes to scary movies, you probably will consider it disposable to the nth degree. As familiar as an old shoe and as tired as your average college student pulling an all nighter, this take on old fashioned horror fare is nothing to "conjure" about.  

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Cole's Take On THE CONJURING

Click Here To Watch The Video on YouTube

THE EVIL DEAD (1981)

Cole's Rating: ★ ½

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Darius' Rating: ★★★
Thatcher's Rating: ★★★

Director: Sam Raimi
Year: 1981
Cast: Bruce Campbell, Ellen Sandweiss, Richard DeManincor
Genre: Horror
MPAA Rating: NC-17

        Whenever you watch a horror movie, thoughts about the main character run through your head like this: “Don’t go in the closet! Why did he go in the closet? He’s so stupid! He shouldn’t have gone in the closet!”. It’s something that we can’t help because the filmmakers established dramatic irony in a common, yet amateur way. When I watched Sam Raimi’s The Evil Dead, thoughts like that ran through my head in an annoying, persistent, and aggressive fashion because the movie was set up so horribly. Now I understand that it was filmed by college students, and I’m not criticizing the low budget because sometimes those are better than big studio productions. But for every circumstance of distress that the poorly acted characters were in, there was at least one logical, safe way out. Instead of taking those, the characters string us along for a gross, gory, unintelligent, irritating, and disorienting ride, which creates a horror flick loved by some and hated by others. I’m whole-heartedly and unconditionally in the latter group.

        The movie opens up with five friends who drive out to a cabin in the woods for a “vacation”, yet it’s never really evident what they are going to be spending their time doing at this beat-up, eerie “vacation spot”, other than doing a truly awful job choreographing fights with zombies that somehow always let the zombies come out on top. I’m not going to lie here, the movie gripped me for the first twenty minutes with good camerawork and a component that good horror filmmakers know and use, which is hiding the monster for some time (here it was only, like I said, no more than thirty minutes). In Jaws, Steven Spielberg hid the shark for a good amount of time, and instead riddled the first half of the movie with exceptional dialogue, great acting, and essential scenes. In The Evil Dead, Sam Raimi instead drowns us in a laughable screenplay, pitiful acting, and a whole lot of blood, which probably consumed most of the films budget. After all, the makeup sure didn’t cost much (the zombies looked like cheap clowns). What’s more, the movie is consistently permeated with factual errors, and annoying ones at that. Here the zombies mock the humans in an incredibly annoying fashion, and then they’re too dumb to walk around the trees in the forest. Instead, they run them over. 

        So once the filmmakers started to run out of ideas, they conduct scenes that qualify as the grossest I’ve ever seen. Most of them aren’t very imaginative either, so if you’ve got a weak stomach, this isn’t for you (if it’s for anybody at all). I personally didn’t want to put up with this garbage that astounds me if people like, so I whooped out the remote and hammered on that fast forward button. You know what, I don’t even feel guilty that I missed most of these atrocious scenes because I knew what I was missing. A great horror movie throws in scenes that are unexpected and completely appropriate. It looks as if not a single scene in this entire movie is eligible for those two adjectives. 

        I went to Walmart on a bright Monday afternoon and spent five dollars on a DVD titled The Evil Dead. It looked appealing. After all, who doesn’t like a good, cheesy horror movie every once in a while? In addition to that, this movie managed to scrum up a 98% of critical recommendation on Rotten Tomatoes. I don’t think that I’ve ever wasted my money like I did here, because The Evil Dead consumed an entire hour-and a-half of my time that I could have spent watching movies such as The Trouble With Harry, Carlito’s Way, or Dog Day Afternoon (to name a few). To think that ten minutes in, I was considering viewing the remake for comparison of high to low budget on the same story. Hah! Why would anybody bother to remake this? Clearly I’m out of the loop, so if anybody could fill me in as to why it’s a recommendable movie, please do so. As for now, I see The Evil Dead as a waste of a mere DVD jacket, a waste of a substantial amount of fake blood, and a waste of time. People who scare easily, BEWARE of The Evil Dead! Just kidding; it's a laugh.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse's Thoughts: The Evil Dead is a tiny horror film made for virtually nothing (budget might have been under $100,000), but it's still larger than life. Director Sam Raimi was only about 20 years old when he traveled to the middle of nowhere and made an all out classic. His talent is in every frame and the use of camerawork was ahead of its time for the horror/shock genre. There's a grainy unsettling feel that seeps its way into the proceedings. However, if you're not screaming, you're laughing because the demonic creatures featured are kinda goofy and fun. Raimi's childhood friend Bruce Campbell (the legendary Ash) stars. The Evil Dead reigned in major cult status, spawned a couple of sequels, and put its Michigan-born director on the map. It's proof that at the time, studios did a lot cinema-wise with so, so little.   

Darius' Thoughts: Even though The Evil Dead may not be the best horror movie, it's certainly enjoyable enough to be. Done by the great Sam Raimi (Spiderman), this low budget, drive-by classic may even deserve better than 3 stars, but I'll establish my rating later. Let's move on to the story: A young man named Ash (Bruce Campbell anyone?) goes off to an old creepy cabin with some buddies to enjoy his weekend. Unfortunately for him, he encounters scrolls from the book of the dead, the idiot reads from them, and the dead are awoken to possess those around him. Let's state first off how incredible the cinematography is; it is bar none the best I have seen EVER. That's pretty good for low budget horror. The genius ways they angle the camera has to be seen to be believed, and their is no use describing them here. Also, the outrageous blood that earned Raimi the infamous NC-17 is darkly funny and scary at the same time, not to mention very good special effects. The campy-ness is fun to laugh at, and the suspense kills you as you are waiting for the demons to appear. So why the 3 stars? Ill tell you why: the pacing SUCKS. I clocked it, and it took 45 minutes for the action to start. You think that's enough, sam? Afterwards, the rest is 45 minutes of gory struggle and then abruptly ends. What kind of movie is that? Ironically, the much better sequel starts the action off IMMEDIATELY. But that's another story. Come back for my The Evil Dead II review folks! Pacing aside, this enjoyable, but not so scary horror flick is a must see for horror fans, and a should see for anyone else, not to mention having an awesome poster.

Thatcher's Thoughts: 'The Evil Dead' is a truly unique horror film. It even has an intriguing start which switches back and forth between the protagonists on their way to a cabin retreat and something sinister lurking in the woods. Overall, Sam Raimi (‘Spiderman’, ‘Oz the Great and Powerful’) does a very good job at portraying both the friendly and tense moods all throughout with an unrivaled balance. The acting is better than expected for such a low budget film, yet the atmosphere might be perceived as a little campy. It's just not completely serious in terms of tone, and you can tell. It certainly doesn't ruin the movie, though. In fact, it's just one of the elements that makes it so special. As for the story, it's a classic; a group of young  people visit an isolated cabin in the woods that turns out to be filled with dread and evil. A factor that sets the movie apart from others is Raimi's visionary approach with an "in your face" style and some of the best frantic hand held camera movements I've ever seen. You may be able to recognize the Dutch angle (in which the camera is tilted sideways to emphasize danger in a shot), which Raimi uses to his advantage in many scenes. For it's humble beginnings, this isn't the greatest horror movie out there. Albeit, there are some generally creepy scenes to find. Plus, this film was much better than a LOT of contemporary horror titles produced around the same time (‘Motel Hell’, ‘Mother's Day’, and ‘Basket Case’ just to name a few). 'The Evil Dead' is worth checking out, although 'Evil Dead II' is a debatably better movie. It's practically a remake, but with all the kinks worked out to perfection. 

Cole's Take On: WORLD WAR Z

Cole's Rating: ★★

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Marc Forster 
Year: 2013

Cast: Brad Pitt, James Badge Dale, Matthew Fox

Genre: Action/Drama/Horror

MPAA Rating: PG-13

        I’ve come to realize that whenever I watch any zombie flick—whether it be a movie or television show—that I’ve been spoiled by The Walking Dead. In fact, that may very well be my favorite show of all time (I have the poster hung up in my room). Based on my experiences, what I can say is this: fans of the show will be tremendously disappointed with this dud. As World War Z began, Brad Pitt’s character was established as a family figure, when the zombies began to flood the city like a tsunami with no warning whatsoever. The family then goes through a series of formulaic zombie-apocalypse actions which include robbing a convenience store (which beheld one of the movie’s greatest scenes), seeking refuge, and fightin’ some zombies. Pitt’s character gets recruited to do some of the government’s work to help the country’s effort; go figure.

        Money played two roles in the casting of Brad Pitt; they cast him for money (box office); and he did it for money. I mean he may as well have been a zombie; he had about as much soul as one. Here he gives an astonishingly passionless performance to an already underdeveloped character. It’s unfortunate, too, when he’s the only character you have to care about. I figured that I may as well appreciate the zombie sequences as much as possible, but when they aren’t as scary, or nearly well done, as scenes in The Walking Dead, I was utterly disappointed. So I’ll say this: you couldn’t pay me to care whether or not Pitt’s character lived, or what happened to him. And based on what I saw, it’s entirely deserving of that statement.

        What’s even worse than the deadening performance was the bland screenplay. I never knew a zombie movie could lack vitality like this one did. Everything that they were saying had already been said; everything that they were doing had already been done; and worst of all, both of those things weren’t incredibly exciting—even if they had already been done. This excludes, however, the heart-racing conclusion which contained the only 20 minutes of the movie that kept my attention. A critic from the Boston Herald titled his review on World War Z: “‘World War’ zzzzzz Brad Pitt’s movie is a snore”. Well put.

        I haven’t read the whole thing, but Max Brooks’ novel is a whole-heck-of-a-lot better than this snoozer. And from what I saw, the movie is hardly loyal. A scene I read in the book illustrates lesser-privileged people rioting against greater-privileged people in a battle for safety (shelter) from the zombie apocalypse. Now, I’m not exactly sure why the screenplay writers excluded this from the movie—or if they even read the book—but I guarantee that it could have brought some originality to the table, which is something that World War Z lacks. This goes without mentioning other incredible aspects of the novel. 

        To close, I’ll throw a few extra one-liner descriptions of the movie that I wrote down as I was watching it: 1. When the zombies aren’t on screen, not that they are impressive anyhow, the movie is as dry and bland as Pitt’s performance; I guess you have the screenplay to thank for that. 2. I know that a movie is good—or relatively good—if I can watch it, and forget that I’m watching it and become absorbed into the characters and what’s happening on screen; that didn’t happened once here. 3. Zombie-movie-lovers and fans of the book beware! World War Z is an upsetting disappointment!

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Click here for Jesse's take on World War Z