The Loved Ones (2009)

SEAN BYRNE

THE LOVED ONES

AUSTRALIA, 2009

7.5/10

"Bring the hammer, Daddy."

Man, I was not expecting to like this one. Last night, I was going through my watchlist on IMBd to find a horror movie that I hadn't seen, when I came across this one. I had heard a lot about it, but despite all the people telling me it was good, I still felt that it just HAD to be mind-numbingly terrible. Which just goes to prove that maybe I should stop judging movies so much before I watch them.

It could best be described as a weird mash of "Carrie" and "Misery" (kinda similar to how 2002's MAY was a mash of "Carrie" and "Frankenstein") with a little bit of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" because of the whole psychotic-family thing, but that doesn't mean it's unoriginal. Before watching, I was afraid that this film was merely riding on the coattails of the recent wave of torture porn movies (I really hate that phrase but there's really no other way to describe them), but I was surprised to find this film to be a unique thrill ride. It seemed almost like the best of both worlds: it had the interesting and relatable characters from the classic horror movies, but still had the brutal and unrelentless violence from today's pictures (I don't think that a movie should rely on violence, but when it helps the movie like it does here, I'm all for it). 

At first I thought the side story of the two students at the actual dance was a bit pointless, but they did provide a much-needed break (an hour and a half of endless gore would have gotten super boring) and, just when I was growing tired of their story, we see the pictures in the girl's house, which really sheds an incredible and horrifying light on the effect this psychotic family has had on the town. 

*SLIGHT SPOILERS IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH*

There are some very suspenseful scenes (myself and other male viewers were probably cringing in suspense at the scene where Lola threatens to nail Brent's penis the chair in the first half of the movie. Sure, penis-related horror is pretty overdone, but it gets the job done). The scene where Brent and Holly are in the car and we start to hear/see Lola crawl after them is pretty fucking creepy if you ask me. There are also some great moments of dark comedy ("Is it finger-licking good?") that, unlike the comic relief in some other films (*cough* The Conjuring *cough*) doesn't distract the viewer from the scares on screen. And just so I can group all of my spoilers in one paragraph, I'm just gonna say that the implied incest was incredibly uncomfortable, which is obviously what Byrne was trying to achieve, so I give him props for that.

*END OF SPOILERS*

Now the movie isn't perfect by any means. The struggling relationship between Brent and his mom has been done in countless movies, though it does work here. The last 30 minutes drag just a little bit, and for a movie that seems to try to defy genre conventions, there are moments of cliche. The scene in the pit was, in my opinion, not very effective, though another person described it as "nightmare inducing" so it might work for other viewers. 

All in all, this is a pretty effective and entertaining torture flick. It takes a tired concept and makes it seem new again. In a time where most horror movies are pretty dull or too over the top, this one manages to be pretty effective and entertaining. I definitely wouldn't be surprised if this became a contemporary classic. It's not perfect, but it's entertaining and gets the job done. Recommended for people who like character horror with some unrelentless violence as well.

Dark Water (2002)

HIDEO NAKATA

DARK WATER

JAPAN, 2002,

7/10

"I'm sorry, honey...that we can't be together."

**There are spoilers in one (small) section of this review, but they are marked as spoilers so you can avoid them**

Yoshimi Matsubara is in the middle of a divorce and custody trial with her husband. She has custody of her daughter for the time being, but the final decision hasn't been made yet, when they go looking for an apartment to live in. They come upon a slightly run down yet livable apartment that is a good size for the two of them and affordable for their lifestyle as well. Goody. Of course, eventually everything slowly starts falling to shit, and that all begins with a water stain appearing on Yoshimi's ceiling. Really, you can't make this shit up.

Despite the semi-laughable premise, Nakata does a pretty good job with the film. There are lots of very beautiful shots (but the yellow tint of the flashback scenes looks pretty cheap and irritating), and while it can be a little slow at times, the pacing is generally pretty good. Like many other J-horror, the villain is a young girl with long, black hair, similar to Nakata's other, and superior, film, RINGU (1998). At the beginning of the film, I found Mitsuko (the young girl) pretty scary, but by the end of the film I was tired of her as every scare felt familiar.

The actors all do a very good job. It's a bit harder for me to judge acting when they aren't speaking English because I have no idea what words are getting inflection, but they all seemed decent enough to me. The actress playing Yoshimi was a bit over the top at times, but it's clear that that's how her character would react in stressful situations.

**SPOILERS START**

I think a problem with this film is that Nakata aimed to make his audience jump more than he wanted to creep them out. The scene where Yoshimi climbs the water tower and hears faint knocking, due to the fact that Mitsuko drowned in there, is incredibly creepy, but the second the knocks grow louder and they dent the water tower, all the tension is lost. Same with the bathtub scene that's going on simultaneously. Ikuko (Yoshimi's daughter) just saw the bathtub fill itself up and inside there is, you guessed it, dark water. She leans over the bathtub and we see air bubbles come up, but instead of doing a magnificent and suspenseful scene like the amazing television scene in RINGU, we get a cheap jump scare of Mitsuko's hands coming out of the water and grabbing Ikuko's head.

**SPOILERS END**

Despite the cheap jump scares, there are a couple of amazing scenes in the film, mainly the last one, which left the viewer with a very haunted feeling and ties everything up quite nicely, but there are just too many mindless, formulaic jump scenes for me to give this film anything above a 7/10. Overall, this is a slightly overrated yet still pretty effective movie. It's not nearly as good as RINGU was, but it's definitely still worth watching.

The Birds (1963)

ALFRED HITCHCOCK

THE BIRDS

USA, 1963

9/10

"Can I bring the lovebirds, Mitch? They haven't harmed anyone."

"Oh all right, bring them."

**Slight spoilers below**

Alfred Hitchcock is my all time favorite movie director, and so when he worked in my favorite genre, the horror genre (which he only did twice in his career), the product is outstanding. This film is fantastic, it's really only 9/10 because it's not as good as some of his other films. The movie follows Melanie Daniels as she pranks a man she met in the pet store to a small town where he spends the weekends with his mother when the house and the rest of the town become under attack by various kinds of birds. That's basically it for the plot. That's why I believe that no director other than Hitchcock could have been able to pull this off as well as he did. 

Something that is curious about the film is its complete lack of a soundtrack. The closest thing we get to music in this film is when Melanie is outside the school, listening to an almost never ending refrain that the school children are singing as a flock of birds grows larger and larger on the playground behind her. This is probably one of the most suspenseful scenes I've ever seen in a horror movie. The complete silence of the attack scenes, save for sounds of screaming people and the cries of the birds gives an incredibly creepy realism to them, and it works brilliantly in this film.

The beginning of the film is strangely light-hearted. It follows Melanie as she attempts to deliver some lovebirds to Mitch without him seeing her deliver them, and even after that, life continues on normally until Melanie attends a birthday party, along with the first (organized) bird attack. I say organized because of mentions of smaller, one-bird attacks (like the bird that hits Melanie on the boat) that aren't on the scale of the later attacks. The rest of the film carries on with bird attacks, followed by peace, only to be followed by more bird attacks, until Melanie and the Brenner family lock themselves in their house. This reminds me of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (1968) because while they feel safe for the moment, both the audience and the characters know that this peace can't last forever, and that the birds will eventually attack. This plot, due to its feeling of being completely spontaneous, shouldn't work very well, but Hitchcock pulls it off masterfully.

Another thing that Hitchcock pulls off brilliantly is the huge mystery of the film. We never really find out why the birds are attacking, only some different, and probably not accurate, guesses made by various characters throughout the film. This will no doubt annoy some viewers (especially the younger ones), it still works very well in the film. The final shot of the family riding off into the horizon, once again the feeling of current peace yet impending doom, may also annoy viewers, but it works extremely well in the film.

To make some more comparisons to NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, this film is a very character driven one, as there is a lot of down time between the bird attacks where we learn about the various relationships between characters. It is always tricky to do this because if the characters are written with not enough complexity then it's boring, and if they don't respond realistically, it's not scary. However, like NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, all the characters are interesting, believable, multi-dimensional ones. But just because some of the film is focused on the interactions of the characters doesn't meant that there aren't good bird attack scenes, because there are. There is an amazing scene where Melanie stands in a phone booth to escape the birds, and since Hitchcock films this scene from within the booth, we feel just as claustrophobic, exposed, and caged as Melanie does. This is just one of the many superb attacks done by birds throughout the film. The effects in these scenes, while they have aged, are done very well, especially considering the time period they were created in.

All in all, THE BIRDS was a pretty risky film to make. It is extremely character driven, and it is a subject that is pretty difficult to make scary (you have to admit that if you just hear the synopsis, the film sounds a bit silly). Yet Hitchcock manages to pull it off brilliantly in the way that only the Master of Suspense could.

Cannibal Holocaust (1980)

RUGGERO DEODATO

CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST

ITALY, 1980

8/10

"Keep rolling! We're gonna get an Oscar for this!"

**This review contains many spoilers, even though this is honestly a film that can't be spoiled**

The magnum opus of the short lived cannibal sub genre, CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST (1980) is probably one of the most talked about horror movies of all time, and is definitely the most controversial. This film, one of the earliest found-footage films, follows a professor as he attempts to find traces of a group of four people who ventured into the Amazon to film a documentary about the tribes of cannibals which reside there. Nothing could prepare him for what he discovered on the tapes. The film is famous because when the film was released in Italy, Deodato, the director, was believed to have murdered his cast and that this movie was actually a snuff film. He had to bring all the actors in and show how the magnificent impaling effect (pictured above and in the poster) was pulled off. It is also infamous because Deodato murdered actual animals for the movie (they were later used as food for the native actors, but it's still probably the most controversial aspect of the movie). The animals that are killed include a coatimundi, a turtle, a spider, a snake, two squirrel monkeys, and a pig. It is possible, if you own some of the DVDs, to watch a shorter version with the violence against animals removed (I know the Grindhouse release has this option, I'm not sure which others do, though).

When I watched this film for the first time a while ago, I was honestly expecting a mindless splatter fest but was pleased to find an actually thought-provoking message questioning how just how barbaric culture in the "modern world" is today. That's not to say that the film isn't disturbing, because it really is. The rape of the tribal girl in the last half of the film remains one of the only scenes in a movie that upsets me to the level of having to avert my eyes, the hut burning scene was incredibly upsetting for me, and the Last Road to Hell segment contains footage of actual human executions (they weren't filmed specifically for this film, Deodato simply used already filmed footage of real like executions), all in all this is a film that is pretty difficult to get out of your mind after the credits roll. Because of this, I honestly can't recommend this film, as it will be very, very hard to watch for anyone who is upset by violence, rape, anything really. The movie starts off slightly tame (the first half does have some violence and a pretty graphic rape scene, as well as some of the aforementioned violence against animals, but it's not nearly as upsetting as the last half), and it almost lulls you into a false sense of security. Then, the professor discovers the team's tapes, and that's when the film really begins.

This movie has an amazing soundtrack. The calming, peaceful theme is in direct contrast with the disturbing, grisly nature of the film. Yet underneath that light score, you still feel something wrong with it. It was this piece of music that made Faye's rape and the hut burning scene probably the two most memorable scenes in the entire film. The acting is probably the weakest part of the film, but it does improve throughout the film, especially once the characters view the found footage, so the portion of the film involving the documentary crew is quite believable. The direction is great, the camerawork does make it seem like what we're viewing is actually happening, but it doesn't have BLAIR WITCH PROJECT (1999) levels of camera shake, or it's at least not as obvious. The story, while incredibly simple, is fantastic and executed perfectly.

I have only seen this film twice (once a while ago, I don't remember how long, and another just last night), so it's obvious that, while I do like it, it's not the kind of film I wish to watch again and again, as it can get hard to watch. While I gave MARTYRS (2008), another talked about and disturbing film, a higher rating, this movie is definitely the more upsetting/disturbing of the two. Yes, it does have its fair share of set backs, but it's an incredibly influential movie and is such an important part of the genre that it should be seen by everyone who can stomach it.

Carnival of Souls (1962)

HERK HARVEY

CARNIVAL OF SOULS

USA, 1962

8/10

"It's funny... the world is so different in the daylight. In the dark, your fantasies get so out of hand. But in the daylight everything falls back into place again."

The film opens on a sunny day as two cars are side by side, stopped at a light on an otherwise deserted road. The occupants of the car begin a drag race, neither of them seem officially in the lead until the two cars reach the bridge, where one of the cars loses control and flies off the bridge, landing in the water. Three hours later, the car is still being searched for when one woman, Mary Henry, rises from the water. This is how the semi-forgotten cult classic, CARNIVAL OF SOULS (1962) begins. Many have compared this film's tone to an episode of the Twilight Zone extended to feature film length (well, 84 minutes) and because of this, there are times when the film seems to drag a bit. But this isn't a movie that focuses too much on the plot. More than anything else, it's an atmosphere film. Now, it doesn't have BLACK SUNDAY (1960) (review here) levels of atmosphere, but it still works very well in the film.

In fact, this movie does a pretty good job considering the fact that it had a group of local actors who, on the whole, lacked experience, a budget of only $30,000, was filmed in only three weeks, and a crew of only six people. The acting, while nothing to write home about, is not horrible, but there are moments when it gets a little cheesy. The ghoulish make-up is pretty effective, I found myself creeped out every now and again, especially during the film's climax. The director (who has never made a feature film besides this) actually does a very good job with the film. In the quote above, the protagonist says how the world seems different in the daylight, and the director takes this quote and runs with it. The things that seem innocent in the daylight, such as where Mary stays, or the carnival where she feels drawn, or the church in which she plays the organ, suddenly change in the dark and become threatening. Of course, they physically look the same no matter what the time of day is, but the atmosphere the director builds really does make it seem that these safe and pleasant locations mutate into alarming sights of horror in the dark. Many have commented on how good the soundtrack is, so I will not linger upon it, but it honestly is very good. A lot of it is played on the organ, which makes sense because Mary Henry is an organ player. 

This film was originally ignored by critics and audiences alike, but has gained a cult following throughout the years through late night television screenings and a Criterion release. This film is probably not for everyone. As I mentioned before, the plot is slightly slow moving, yet I was still intrigued and interested for the majority of the film. In fact, there isn't much of a plot at all. It relies almost exclusively on its atmosphere to evoke a feeling of dread and horror. Not to say that there are no jump scares, because there are, but they obviously take the back seat as far as priorities go, and there is no violence, gore, or sex to speak of throughout the film. Instead everything simply feels wrong and uneasy, and throughout the picture we, the audience, get a growing sense that something is wrong, beyond the demon-ghoul thing. The twist ending, while semi-predictable, is still good and allows the viewer to be able to analyze and re-watch the film multiple times. I do recommend that you go into the film without knowing the ending, even if, like me, you guess it about halfway through the movie.

Watching this film, it's pretty easy to see how it may have inspired David Lynch or George Romero, so I definitely recommend that fans of their work check this movie out. All in all, this is a very impressive, yet still modest, piece of low budget horror. Genre fans looking for semi-forgotten treasures (I say "semi-forgotten" because over the years it has gained increasing levels of fame, yet it's still not particularly well known) should definitely check this out. It may not have the best acting, plot, or script, but it does have a great atmosphere and does deliver a couple of rather good scares. It is in the public domain so you can watch it for free online, even though if you're a fan I recommend the Criterion release. Highly recommended.

Vampyr (1932)

CARL THEODOR DREYER

VAMPYR

GERMANY, 1932

10/10

"She must not die."

The first time I heard of director Dreyer's amazing, nightmarish masterpiece, VAMPYR (1932), was that it was very similar to the surrealist tone of one of my favorite films ever made, David Lynch's ERASERHEAD (1977). This piqued my interest, and this film found itself near the top of my watchlist. But I was still wary to watch this film. I heard about the strange, grainy video, the washed out dialogue, how this film was as surreal as surreal gets, and then some. But two nights ago, I decided that it was finally time to watch this film.

My initial reaction was the same reaction I had when I watched ERASERHEAD for the first time: "I have no fucking idea what's happening, but I think I like it." The plot is paper thin as we follow our protagonist, Allan Grey, as he uncovers the secrets of a small town he has come across. But the most interesting thing about Allan Grey is that he is completely fucking useless, he's completely one-dimensional, and we don't really know anything about him. While this would greatly annoy me in almost every other movie, in VAMPYR, it works, mainly because VAMPYR does not follow anything even resembling conventional movie-making techniques. 

The entire movie has a very surreal, dream-like quality to it (partly because of the aforementioned grainy and washed out footage as well as the delicate, soft dialogue). We are witness to a strange, unfamiliar world where we see images that are bizarre and intriguing, yet haunting and creepy (like the amazing shadow scene in the first half of the film). Dreyer's amazing, gliding camera work makes even those most stationary sets (such as the mansion where much of the film takes place) come to life and breathe before us. The film itself has much difficulty distinguishing reality from dream, and it does this better than almost every other film that attempts this feat.

This film is no doubt not for everyone. It is an incredibly unique film, and is very bizarre, even for fans of surreal cinema. Even ERASERHEAD, in my opinion, made a bit more sense than this. Viewers will no doubt be annoyed by how passive Allan Grey is. Even the few times he does help, he is often accompanied by another person who causes him to act. As I mentioned before, this works remarkably well in this film due to the fact that it is more of a dream. We are Allan Grey, passively witnessing events but very rarely acting.

A lot of the film, while not conventionally frightening, is very unsettling and its images stay with the viewer long after the screen turns to black. When I first watched this film, I was set on figuring out the significance of all the imagery and metaphors featured in the film. Because I was so set on analyzing this film the way I've analyzed films like ERASERHEAD, I don't think I was able to enjoy it properly right away. The next day, however, I sat back and watched the film again, not attempting any dissection, and let its imagery present itself to me, and discovered a much creepier and more haunting film than I had before. Sure, by the fourth or fifth viewing of this film, I will no doubt have a more concrete view of what I believe the film to represent, but for now, and I urge first time viewers to do this as well, it is good enough to be enjoyed on its own.

Some of the acting in this film is a little shaky, though this is mainly because Dreyer preferred to work with amateurs who had no real film experience, it doesn't distract from the film and actually works pretty well in this context. The direction is absolutely beautiful, and the light and shadows are some of the best I've seen in a black and white film. The entire film is covered in a haunting and, frankly, terrifying atmosphere, and this is the film's true appeal along with absolutely fantastic film-making, as the plot itself is nothing particularly revolutionary. While it was ignored by critics and audiences alike in the '30s, it has since found a very dedicated audience and a must-see for all horror fans and is, quite simply, a masterwork of horror cinema.

The Fly (1986)

DAVID CRONENBERG

THE FLY

USA, 1986

9/10

REMAKE OF THE FLY (1958)

"A fly... got into the... transmitter pod with me that first time, when I was alone. The computer... got confused - there weren't supposed to be two separate genetic patterns - and it decided to... uhh... splice us together. It mated us, me and the fly. We hadn't even been properly introduced."

Some other science fiction-horror films made in this same time period are just large spectacles to display disgusting and impressive special effects. Lots of times, they are generally weak on character development and good plots. Now, sure, David Cronenberg's THE FLY (1986) does have a lot of pretty gross special effects and the plot is pretty simplistic, but the characters in this films are so well developed and fleshed out that I can't help but feel that this film is generally much better than many others of its kind. It follows scientist Seth Brundle, who thinks he figured out a way to transport objects, and decides to show a woman in the media, Veronica Quaife, his projects. THE FLY is not only a great horror film, but it is also an amazing drama and love story on top of that.

Even though it is dramatic and romantic, do not be fooled: THE FLY is not a weak-hearted, light-spirited, happy love story of a movie. The film shows, in excruciating detail, Seth Brundle's transformation from a human being into a gigantic Brundlefly. Yet still, Jeff Goldblum (the actor playing Brundle) is able to break past the many layers of disgusting make-up and let the humanity beneath still break free. His performance in this film is truly great, and probably one of his best.

Cronenberg was no doubt very intelligent in his showing of Brundle's transformation. We first see the good aspects of the fusion, such as the extra strength or the increased stamina in bed. Even though we, as the viewer, know that everything will fall apart and any benefits which Brundle might have had will be nowhere near comparable to what happens to him later, we still have a small glimmer of hope that maybe, just maybe, things may turn out well. And then, slowly but surely, things take a turn for the worse. Much worse. 

And then there's the special effects, namely, the make-up, for which this film won an Academy Award. It starts out subtle: strange hairs on his back, changes in his face, and then it because much more graphic and brutal. The final half of the film features many layers of make-up, which no doubt took forever to get in and out of. While I'm not sure if I'd qualify it as gore because his transformation doesn't have much blood (the finale I would definitely qualify as gore, though), gore-hounds will probably be pleased just because the make-up in this is so good, disgusting, and brutal.

As I mentioned in my review of THE OMEN (2006), one of the most important things I need to see in a remake is something new. Besides the basic premise of a man being fused with a fly, this film is pretty different to THE FLY (1958). This film is, in my opinion, the superior film. It is smarter, scarier, sexier, and all around a better film, something that is very rare in horror movie remakes. All in all, THE FLY is a great film that should be seen by anyone who hasn't viewed it yet.

Black Sunday (1960)

MARIO BAVA

BLACK SUNDAY/THE MASK OF SATAN

ITALY, 1960

8/10

"You will never escape my vengeance, or of Satan's! My revenge will seek you out, and with the blood of your sons, and of their sons, and their sons, I will continue to live forever! They will restore me to life you now rob from me!"

BLACK SUNDAY (1960) opens with the execution of a witch. A mask with nails sticking out of it is placed on the witch's face, and then, using the biggest sledgehammer/mallet/whatever I've ever seen, the mask is struck and the nails are driven into the witch's face. Pretty gruesome stuff for 1960. However, it rains, so the witch cannot be burned, which turns out to be a huge mistake.

  

It stars Barbara Stelle in the role of both the witch Ava and the young heroine, Katia. How she can go from gentle to horrible in just the blink of an eye shows that she is indeed a very talented actress, and proves that she deserved to be among the '60s and '70s horror icons. All of the other actors do a very good job, but no one's performance stood out to me the way Barbara Stelle's did. 

The famous Italian horror director Mario Bava creates a very stunning film that is packed with dark imagery and each shot is full of creepy atmosphere. Even in the beginning scenes, when nothing was really happening yet, I could still feel a huge amount of suspense. There is a gothic feel to the entire feel, which helps it immensely. For Bava's real debut as a director (he did shorts and uncredited directing work before this), BLACK SUNDAY is absolutely amazing. No doubt one of the reasons BLACK SUNDAY is so magnificent (because while the acting and script are very good, they are nothing truly amazing) is because of Bava's skill as both a director and a cinematographer.

The film has many influences from early Universal and Hammer films. I'm not sure if it's true or not, but I read that fact that THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957), a Universal film, and HORROR OF DRACULA (1958) met much success in Italy led to the production of BLACK SUNDAY. Because of this, I feel that this film has the old-fashioned atmosphere of a Universal film, but also features some of the violence of a Hammer film. It is also based on a story by Gogol, which I have not read. The set pieces in this film are absolutely beautiful, especially for a low-budget film. Each shot in the film is beautiful, helped by the Gothic feel and the black and white photography. 

The soundtrack in this film really stood out to me as being quite fantastic. It was creepy, strange, and romantic all at once, and it fit into this movie perfectly. It's very easy for a soundtrack to be intrusive or get in the way of the story (as much as I love SUSPIRIA (1977), the soundtrack is way too attention drawing and distracts from the rest of the move). This film's soundtrack, however, draws just enough attention to itself for the viewer to realize how good it is, but not so much that it stops the viewer from paying attention to the film, and that's really what all soundtracks should do.

All in all, this is a very creepy Italian horror film, and it's pretty short (87 minutes), so you can watch it without it taking too much time. Mario Bava directs the film masterfully, and Barbara Stelle gives an amazing performace. A great watch for fans of Gothic or Italian horror.

The Bride of Frankenstein (1935)

JAMES WHALE

THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN

USA, 1935

10/10

"You think I'm mad. Perhaps I am. But listen, Henry Frankenstein. While you were digging in your graves, piecing together dead tissues, I, my dear pupil, went for my material to the source of life. I grew my creatures, like cultures, grew them as nature does, from seed."

After the success of FRANKENSTEIN (1931), James Whale agreed to do a sequel as long as he had complete creative control. What resulted was THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935), one of the best horror films and one of the best sequels of all time. While the original was more of a straight-out horror film, BRIDE adds some self-parody comic relief into the mix, which, while it would seem out of place in the dark tone of the original, works wonderfully here.

The film opens with Mary Shelley, author of the original novel, telling that the story is not over, as she begins to tell the tale of the bride. While this story-telling device is very over-used nowadays, I do think it works very well here, especially since the same actress who plays Mary Shelley comes back into the movie at the end, this time in the role of the Bride. Also, Mary's storytelling never gets in the way of the story. It is introduced in the opening scene, and then pushed aside to make room for the fantastic film that follows, unlike how many films today that use that device constantly remind the audience of the fact that it's all a story.

The character of the Monster sees much character development in this film. Whereas in the original, he was a grunting, powerful figure, leaving a trail of destruction behind in his wake, in this film, he attempts to find a place where he belongs. We see him bond with a blind hermit who plays the violin and teaches him some words ("Bread. Good. Fire not good. Fire bad."). While Boris Karloff was against the idea of making the Monster talk (even though he does in the original novel), it does make the character seem largely sympathetic, and isn't that one of the points of the Frankenstein stories?

Lots of people say that BRIDE is better than the original FRANKENSTEIN, and I honestly would have to agree. A sequel is hard to do, especially when it isn't a planned sequel, or when the original is as amazing as FRANKENSTEIN was, but Whale proves that it is possible to make a sequel that's even better than the original. The set pieces in this film, largely influenced by German expressionism, are amazing, and the Creation scene off the Bride manages to be even more spectacular than the amazing Creation scene of the Monster in FRANKENSTEIN. BRIDE seems much more epic to me, whereas FRANKENSTEIN was very much a more tightly plotted film. Both methods work very, very well for each film, I just personally prefer BRIDE. 

A problem with this film is that all of the characters have become so iconic and familiar, and every shot has become so deep rooted in our popular culture that, by the time we see both films, many things are familiar. Even though the Bride is only unveiled towards the end of the film, we have all seen her and we all know what she looks like and how she reacts upon seeing the Monster. We've all see it before, we've all heard it before. But that still doesn't mean that this film isn't intriguing and interesting, because it is. 

As I said before, this film is injected with comedy, something that fans of the dark and grim original may find alienating, but I promise that if you sit back without any ideas about what you want the film to be and you let it present itself to you for what it is, you will discover that it is a very good, very enjoyable film, and an absolutely must-see for classic horror fans and, quite honestly, should be viewed by everyone at some point in their lives.

My Bloody Valentine (1981)

GEORGE MIHALKA

MY BLOODY VALENTINE

CANADA, 1981

7.5/10

"From the heart comes a warning, filled with bloody good cheer, remember what happened as the 14th draws near!"

The 1980s, what a time for horror the 1980s were. Following the huge success of HALLOWEEN (1978) and FRIDAY THE 13TH (1980), many slashers based on certain days were created. We got NEW YEAR'S EVIL (1980), PROM NIGHT (1980), SLIENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT (1984), and many others. And probably one of the best of those films, and, in my opinion, one of the best non-franchise horror films of the '80s was MY BLOODY VALENTINE (1981).

The plot is pretty simple. Two security guards at the mine hurry away to get to a Valentine's day party in time, forgetting to check the methane levels. There's an explosion, and the miners are stuck in the cave, only one surviving: Harry Warden, who had to eat the flesh of the other miners to survive. After a year at a mental hospital, he breaks free and kills the two security guards responsible, and warns the town never to celebrate Valentine's Day again. 20 years later, the town decides to hold another Valentine's dance, and sure enough, the killing starts again.

This film is famous because the MPAA forced it to cut out a lot of its gore (and the gore in this is very impressive for a kinda low-budget flick), but nowadays it can be viewed in all of its gory glory on the uncut DVD. True, the added footage is a little grainy, but seeing as it has been on the side for 30-ish years, it's rather good. Many kills are interesting and creative, with many rather effective jump scares.

There are a lot of characters, some of them are not memorable and are paper-thin. There are a lot of cliches, like the jokester, and an older bartender who warns the young characters (not teenagers, just young) is very similar to Ralp from FRIDAY THE 13TH. The four or five more main characters are a bit more complex and interesting. They are still not great characters, but they are believable and real enough that I care what happens to them. Since there are a lot of characters, there are also a lot of actors, and a lot of the acting is nothing remarkable. However, a lot of the lead roles do very well, and we don't watch slashers to see Oscar-worthy acting, we watching slashers to see a bunch of people get cut up creatively.

The director does a very good job creating the atmosphere. The opening scene is very surreal and dreamlike, yet a horrific act still occurs, which perfectly sets the tone for the rest of the movie. In the beginning, we see Valentine Bluffs, a town covered in pink and red hearts and banners declaring the upcoming Valentine's dance, yet we still feel a sense of foreboding. Later in the movie, the scene involving the descending suits is very suspenseful. When some of the characters descend into the mine for the climax of the movie (filmed in an actual Nova Scotian mine), it is very claustrophobic and creepy. I think it compares best to the recent british horror, THE DESCENT (2005). The scene where four of the characters climb the ladder was very tense and created a very large sense of anxiety. The shot of the killer knocking out the lights in the mine with his pickaxe is very creepy.

Everything about the killer is scary, really. I mean, I find gas masks pretty fucking creepy, and they make the whole "heavy breathing" cliche even more distinct and creepy. The costume really hides the killer's identity, whether it's Harry Warden or any of the other characters killing people is pretty hard to tell. I don't really like the twist at the end just because it wasn't executed very well, but the last line of the film is still really, really creepy.

In conclusion, this is one of, in my opinion, the better 1980s slasher films. Though the plot is lackluster and the actors/characters leave much to be desired, it's still a very effective, atmospheric horror flick. Try to watch the gorier uncut version, but the original cut is still pretty effective.

Inside (2007)

ALEXANDRE BUSTILLO, JULIEN MAURY

INSIDE

FRANCE, 2007

6.5/10

"There's a strange woman by my door. Please hurry up. I don't know what she wants. She knows my name... she knows everything about me..."

Since I reviewed MARTYRS (2008) yesterday, I thought it might be fun if I reviewed another French film viewed as highly disturbing, INSIDE (2007).

This review is covered with various spoilers, some small, others larger, continue reading at your own discretion. 

When the film came out, I heard it praised by various genre fans as one of the scariest, brutal, most disturbing films in recent years, and so naturally, I had to check it out. The fact that I had nightmares as a child both about someone stabbing people with a pair of scissors and another about someone cutting an unborn fetus out of another person's uterus made me think that this film was perfect for me (the shot above of a pair of scissors stabbed through the protagonist's hand was literally a recurring nightmare I had as a kid). And so I went into this film with huge, huge expectations.

Despite a very weak opening scene (the CGI baby? really?), although I loved the windshield wiper still running against the broken window, the first 30 to 40 minutes were probably my favorite part of the film. The scene with La Femme at Sarah's door, asking her to let her in literally had me cowering in my seat more than any of the brutal violence that followed. The quick shot of her lighting her cigarette made me think for a second that Le Femme was in fact the nurse who smoked and talked to Sarah at the beginning of the film, an absolutely excellent red herring. I do believe that once La Femme was in the house and we got a good look at her, a lot of the tension was lost, but before we see her face, the shots of her just standing in the darkness are incredibly creepy. 

And then, after 30 minutes of exposition, we get what we paid for: to be grossed out and see just how much blood La Femme can manage to shed. Because of this, I'd like to propose a couple of alternate titles for INSIDE. Perhaps, PARTY AT SARAH'S? Or maybe 101 INVENTIVE USES FOR HOUSEHOLD SCISSORS. And there are quite a few uses of these scissors, my favorite obviously being the stabbed-hand shot (it also didn't help that I have an almost identical pair of scissors with are sitting on the table directly adjacent to me as I type this). The bathroom is probably my favorite set in the entire film, as red blood looks amazing against the clean white background of the room. The entire film is incredibly brutal and gory, which is really the only reason you watch this film: to see the gore.

The film is not without fault, though. It features some of the most idiotic policemen captured on film, it's repetitive, and even though it's pretty short, during the last 10 minutes, I was simply waiting for it to end. The zombie policeman (if you've seen the film you know exactly what I'm talking about) was useless, boring, and just downright not scary. The CGI shots (the aforementioned fetus shots, the scene were Sarah burns La Femme's face off) look horrible and inspire eye rolls instead of screams. The twist ending involving La Femme's identity is horrible (like, yeah, Sarah was told that everyone died in the crash, but surely she would have seen photos of the woman who died in the car they crashed into? Surely, Sarah would recognize her instantly?), and Sarah is somewhat unrelatable, as she is written as being detached from her friends and family, but the only thing this succeeds in doing is making Sarah detached from the audience as well. Honestly, the film is very, very good until La Femme cuts the lights, then it just goes downhill. 

I mainly watched this film just because I wanted to see if La Femme ever cut Sarah's stomach open and pulled the baby out. As I mentioned earlier, I had a nightmare about that as a kid, and the thing that made me want to watch this the most was the fact that that might be in there. I'm not going to say whether or not that happens, I just wanted to include that's mainly why I watched the film, because at the end of the day, people watch this film to see some disgusting pieces of blood and gore. And this film delivers on that. There are many, many, many faults in the film, but the gore makes up for it, and isn't that what we're watching for, anyways?

Martyrs (2008)

PASCAL LAUGIER

MARTYRS

FRANCE, 2008

9/10

"Lucie was only a victim. Like all the others. It's so easy to create a victim, young lady, so easy. You lock someone in a dark room. They begin to suffer. You feed that suffering. Methodically, systematically and coldly. And make it last. Your subject goes through a number of states. After a while, their trauma; that small, easily opened crack, makes them see things that don't exist."

Grisly, graphic, and brutal, MARTYRS (2008) has gained quite a lot of publicity as being an incredibly disturbing horror film. This is another film that I watched for the first time last night, even though I've been meaning to watch it for a very, very long time.

Going into MARTYRS, I had quite a few ideas of what I expected this movie to be. I thought that what would make the movie disturbing would be HOSTEL or SAW levels of gore, I thought it would be a mindless flick that shed more blood than needed. I thought it would be various situations created for the use of gore for gore's sake, that there would be no higher purpose to the film. And boy, was I wrong. MARTYRS does have gore, true, but it is not overplayed, and honestly there are films which are much, much gorier. Not to say that it isn't gory, it is, just not as much as you may expect. MARTYRS instead disturbs you by the way it handles the gore, the way it shows the tortures for what they, not glorifying them in any way.

This is why I don't like why I have seen some people on the Internet refer to this as "torture porn". I'm already not a big fan of the term, but MARTYRS is not torture porn. Unlike HOSTEL, it does not glorify the violence, not does it attempt to entertain (more on that later) using the violence. MARTYRS exists to make you feel uncomfortable, to disturb you. Sure, there may be a few people who enjoy the gore in this, but on the whole it exists for upset the viewer more than anything.

As I mentioned earlier, MARTYRS is not meant to entertain. That may sound weird, seeing as don't all movies exist to entertain? This film, however, does not. It exists to make you incredibly uncomfortable and shocked, and it certainly does that. Everything else about this film is top-class. The cinematography and gore effects are both amazing, the soundtrack (though there is very little of it) is incredibly effective and adds to the experience of this film. The acting is fantastic, and the characters are interesting, complex, and believable  As much as I love popcorn films and mindless slashers, this film is on a tier above the rest. It is dark, shocking, and atmospheric. Though it is an incredibly uncomfortable experience, I recommend that everyone watched this film. There is not much that one can say about this film, so I recommend that you watch it for yourself.

Braindead/Dead Alive (1992)

PETER JACKSON

BRAINDEAD/DEAD ALIVE

NEW ZEALAND, 1992

8/10

"Stand back, boy! This calls for divine intervention! I kick ass for the Lord!"

Last night, for the first time, I watched BRAINDEAD (1992), it's been on my watch list for over a year, and I decided to finally view it and then review it for this blog.

Smart, funny, and downright disgusting, Peter Jackson's BRAINDEAD is a masterpiece in the horror-comedy genre (you read that right, the LORD OF THE RINGS director made one of the goriest zombie films of all time). Now, I'm not usually a fan of slapstick comedy, and as much as I love EVIL DEAD (1981) and its sequels, I never found them funny (I know that the original EVIL DEAD was just a plain horror, but the others were slapstick comedies), and so I had pretty low expectations for this film. However, I actually found this film very funny (still not hilarious, which it why it's not a 10/10 or even a 9/10, but I did chuckle at some points). People who watch this film no doubt remember many lines, such as the aforementioned "I kick ass for the Lord!", or "Your mother ate my dog!" "Not all of it", or even "We don't sell sedatives! Tranquilizers, I do have." It is the combination of not only slapstick humor but also generally witty and amusing dialogue that places this movie as my favorite slapstick comedy. 

The film also has one of the best taglines ever: "Some things won't stay down...even after they're dead." It truly lets you know you are in for a gory ride. There are some wonderful events in the film, from a rat monkey to humping zombies to a zombie baby to a priest using the martial arts to a Jack-o-Lantern type of lit up zombie. What more could you ask for in a slapstick film?

The film takes a while to get in to the huge amounts of blood and gore that it is famous for. It introduces its characters, Lionel and Paquita, develops their relationship, and while the zombies begin very quickly, this film isn't a bloodbath until the last 35 minutes. The plot is very minimal and has been used time and time again, but this film isn't supposed to have a killer plot. It sets out to make you laugh and do exceed your wildest expectations with, literally, gallons and gallons and gallons of blood (five gallons per second in the lawnmower scene). I was told the amount of blood in this would exceed my expectations, so I expected blood on the level of EVIL DEAD, but I ended up getting way more than that.

So if you're looking for a fun popcorn movie to watch with your friends that aren't squeamish, this is it. You'll laugh, smile, be a little disgusted, but ultimately come back for more. Highly recommended. 

The Exorcist III (1990)

WILLIAM PETER BLATTY

THE EXORCIST III

USA, 1990

7.5/10

"Incidentally, did you know that you are talking to an artist? I sometimes do special things to my victims: things that are creative. Of course, it takes knowledge, pride in your work... For example, a decapitated head can continue to see for approximately twenty seconds. So when I have one that's gawking, I always hold it up so that it can see its body. It's a little extra I throw in for no added charge. I must admit it makes me chuckle every time. Life is fun. It's a wonderful life, in fact... for some."

In 1973 we got THE EXORCIST (1973), one of the most commercially successful and famous horror movies of all time. 4 years later, we got THE EXORCIST II: THE HERETIC (1977), an unbelievably horrible movie (I watched it once years ago and I can't bring myself to watch it again, even though I probably will eventually because it'll be fun to write a review for). Then, 13 years later, we finally get THE EXORCIST III (1990), an actual worthy sequel. 

Now, this film actually could have been a lot better than it actually is. A big reason I'm rating it 7.5 out of 10 is because I'm taking into account the kind of film Blatty wanted to write. He wanted it to be a more faithful adaptation of his book, LEGION, and even wanted the film to be called LEGION, but the studio made his make the story more exorcism-focused, and to put THE EXORCIST name on it to make it easier to market. I mean, the movie would have been loads better if that exorcism wasn't thrown in at the end, and it felt a lot more like an afterthought than a resolution to the story. 

Seeing as I am a huge SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (1991) fan, I loved the interactions between Kinderman and the Gemini Killer, as their conversations were slightly similar to those of Clarice Starling and Hannibal Lecter. Blatty writes these scenes exceptionally, which is to be expected seeing as his novels have received much acclaim, and much of THE EXORCIST III's power relies on the words and symbolism. Blatty's direction is also amazing, especially considering that this was only the second film he's ever directed. Although I believe that THE EXORCIST has slightly better cinematography, this film is still amazing. This is one of the only films I can think of where it's directed, written, and adapted from a novel by the same person. 

THE EXORCIST III is completely underrated. I've never met anyone who's even heard of the film, but even on the Internet I see very little appreciation for the film. Considering the fact that it's a third installment in a horror film series, this film is exceptional (I mean, compare this to any other third installment in any other horror series, it's most likely superior). THE EXORCIST III is an incredibly intelligent horror film, but can still be enjoyed without focusing on the more intelligent aspects. If you're looking for a film with great acting, you can find that here. If you're looking for a film with some beautiful shots, you can find that here. If you're looking for a film with a fantastic plot (except for the dumbed-down crowd pleasing scenes the studio forced Blatty to include), you can find that here. If you're looking for a film with enough symbolism and foreshadowing to keep you engaged in the film to watch it again, you can find that here. If you're looking for, arguably, the most effective jump scare in the entire horror genre, you can most definitely find that here (please refrain from watching said scene before-hand, it works much better in context). 

In conclusion, THE EXORCIST III is an unbelievably underrated horror flick, that, while I still believe the original to be vastly superior, is a wonderfully journey into darkness. It would no doubt be much better if the studio let Blatty have more creative control over the film, but it is still worth a view or two. Highly recommended.