Netflix Recommendation: The Ritual

A Folk Horror tale that manages to deliver the horror goods in a conventional, yet refreshingly unexpected way

by Jason Elizondo

I went into this one fairly cold. The only thing I knew about it was that it was a Folk Horror film, and that's it. I knew nothing about it's production, or what the film was even about. The reason I even knew of it's existence at all was because Folk Horror is my wife's absolutely favorite genre of film, and this is a film that has been on the radar of that specific community for a long time, namely because there just isn't a whole lot of Folk Horror out there to begin with, so when a new one is being made or about to be released, it's a big deal in that community. For them, the Netflix premiere date just couldn't get here soon enough.

Based on the book by Adam Nevill, The Ritual tells the tale of a group of college friends who, instead of going on a trip to Las Vegas, choose (some reluctantly) to go on a a camping trip through the woods of Sweden in honor of their friend who recently died in a horrific crime. Once they reach their destination, they soon discover they're not alone, and being hunted one by one by someone or something evil and unseen. 

To be honest, the film doesn't offer anything new in the "hikers go missing in the woods" genre, but it's in the films solid cast, it's excellent cinematography, and an ending that was satisfying in a way that most of these type of films fail to deliver on that makes it worth watching. The group of friends, highly annoying and making every wrong decision in the book, are what you'd expect for a group of clueless hikers in a situation like this. But what the film lacks in character depth, it more than makes up for in tension and stunning visuals, all leading to a finale that, unlike most films of this type, actually takes the care and time to produce an ending that not only answers your questions, but delivers the goods in a big way that I was not expecting. I won't ruin it for you here in case you haven't seen it, but rest assured, the payoff is surprisingly fulfilling in a big way.

One of the things I found rather refreshing is that director David Bruckner (Southbound, The Signal), handles the visuals like a pro, never once relying on lazy handheld camerawork that's so common in this genre. Moreover, I'm equally happy that it wasn't yet another Found Footage film, which I've felt has run it's course to the point that they now result in a roll of the eyes rather than genuine excitement. I still can't believe Blair Witch went that route - I expected more from Adam Wingard.

Here, director Bruckner, along with cinematographer Andrew Shulkind, offers up some outstanding visual eye candy that puts most new horror films to shame. Considering this was a Netflix production (Netflix purchased it after it's UK release), that's quite an accomplishment. And all of this comes to a head in the climax, that made brilliant use of some old fashioned movie magic.

Produced by Andy Serkis, The Ritual made it's UK premiere in October of last year, but is now available to stream on Netflix. If you like dark moody horror, you're sure to dig this one.

If you would like me to review a film or Blu-Ray release, please feel free to contact me at jasonisageek@yahoo.com

Bad Movie Night: 12 Disasters of Christmas

"Some bad movies just bore you, while others create a perverse fascination, an aura that keeps you watching in the hope they will never get better. '12 Disasters of Christmas' does not" ~ David Hinckley

by: Sarah James

Every once in a while you take a gamble on a film you’ve never heard of, and watching it is like winning the lottery.  I had that experience over the holidays.  I invited a group of people over to my house for a holiday horror night.  I had no specific film in mind, but I assumed we’d watch a holiday slasher.  Luckily, my friend Neil was in attendance.  Neil watches more movies than any human I’ve ever known, and I wholeheartedly trusted his recommendation of 12 Disasters of Christmas.  12 Disasters is not a slasher, it’s a SyFy production that tries really hard.  For that, I love it.

Have you heard the story of Joseph and Mary?  They give birth to a child, affectionately known as Jacey.  In Jacey’s quest to save the world, she is betrayed by Jude.

This isn’t a Bible tale.  It’s the 12 Disasters of Christmas!  Jacey appears to be your average, blonde headed, attractive teenage girl from Idaho.  We quickly find out that Jacey is much more that meets the eye.  The year is 2012.  Jacey is of Mayan descent, and she’s the Chosen One sent to save the world from total destruction.

This is a lot to wrap one’s mind around.  Luckily we have Jacey’s Grampa and his creepy serial killer-esque bulletin board of Mayan prophecies to help us understand what’s going on.  I could paraphrase, but I think it’s best to just let Grampa, obviously the town crazy person, tell you in his own words.  In reference to the Christmas carol The Twelve Days of Christmas, Grampa frenetically schools Jacey and Joseph, “It’s not just a Christmas carol.  Do you know the song?  Do you know what it means?!  When the Mayans were being conquered by Cortes they feared that this prophecy would be wiped out with them.  So they created a song to ensure that their message would survive.  And it’s been for millenniums spread around the world and translated into dozens of different languages.  Joseph, I don’t have time to explain this to you.  You gotta believe me.  I’m not crazy, and the world is going to end today unless you stop it, and you can’t do it without Jacey!” 

Long story short, Jacey has been given a magical Mayan ring by her grandmother which, when placed on Jacey’s finger, brings out a magical Mayan birthmark on Jacey’s arm.  Jacey must search all of Calvary (yes, Calvary), Idaho (yes, Idaho) for the remaining four rings buried by the Mayans.  That’s right…five golden rings.  Once Jacey has all five rings on her hand she will be able to save the world.  Luckily, Jacey gets abdominal cramps as she nears the location of each ring (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, anyone?).  Jacey also asks the question that’s been on all of our minds, “Do I look Mayan to you?”.  Grampa explains that a thousand years of European intermarriage can do that.  Moving on!

Along the way, we experience the twelve disasters of Christmas…or at least some of them.  I lost count, but I’m pretty sure we never hit twelve.  The first and goriest are the icicles of death which explode from the sky and impale innocents and inflatable holiday decorations alike.  These seemingly come out of nowhere and will delight and surprise you regardless of whether or not you know they are coming.  Speaking of holiday decorations, my friend Emily aptly noted that even Grampa had decorated for Christmas, even though he KNEW the end of the world was coming.  Another of my favorite disasters is the treenado, which occurs at a Christmas tree farm.  On my first viewing, all I could say, over and over again, was “Oh, God, it’s happening!  It’s happening!  TREENADO!!!”.

There are actual villains in this movie, but they are what I’d call “soft” villains.  The real focus here is the end of the world.  For what it is worth, our Bible-familiar readers will recognize Kane as our villain’s name and Jude as the mayor who betrays Jacey’s family. 

You know a movie is hitting the right spot if you can’t shut up while watching it.  I don’t mean the annoying chitter chatter.  I mean the gasps, the oooohs, the aaaahs, the belly laughs.  This movie is best watched with others.  Gather your friends and prepare yourself for the ultimate Revelations meets Mayan prophecy film!

The 12 Disasters of Christmas is available for rent on Amazon, or you can just buy the DVD like I did.  The DVD was released under the title 12 Disasters, and it’s currently selling for less than $10 on Amazon.
_________________________________________________________________________________

robotGEEK'S Review: Bad Moon

1996
Directed by: Eric Red
Category: Horror

I'm just gonna cut to the chase; Bad Moon was awesome. A film that took me so long to finally watch, and one that I find surprisingly low on the "Best Werewolf Films" lists of other bloggers, critics and filmgeeks. Why is that? For me personally, this is going to rank high up on that list and for good reason. I'll explain.

I've always been a big fan of Eric Red whether he's just writing a screenplay or both writing and directing. The guy has genuine talent in both the horror and thriller genre's and while he doesn't have a large output, the films he does have under his belt are quite memorable, beginning with The Hitcher. Does anyone out there "not" love this movie? To date it's one of my all-time favorites. He's also co-writer of Near Dark. I'll admit, Near Dark didn't really do much for me as far as cool vampire films go. The ingredients are all there, but it was the execution that fell flat, which is surprising when you consider that you have both Eric Red and Kathryn Bigelow writing and Bigelow (Blue Steel, Zero Dark Thirty, The Hurt Locker) directing. Even with it's rock solid cast of Bill Paxton and Lance Henrickson, it just always felt like it was missing something. But despite Near Dark's slightly lackluster vibe, he's continued to turn out quality work ever since with some personal favorites being Blue Steel, Body Parts, The Last Outlaw and now Bad Moon.

Okay, so....Bad Moon. I've known this film existed but have never really heard anything about it. Usually a cult film will generate some kind of buzz, but this one never got any for some reason, so I never really gave it a second thought until recently when it was featured on JoBlo's "Best Movie You Never Saw" (I think?) column and finally, "someone" had something good to say about it. Let me rephrase that, they had something "great" to say about it and it was just the push I needed to get my ass in gear to check this sucker out.

Based on the novel Thor, by Wayne Smith, Bad Moon kicks off with one helluva bang. I mean literally, the first 10 minutes are the absolute best 10 minutes of the film. I actually found myself rewinding that whole segment about 3 times because it was that badass. Sure the rest of the film doesn't quite live up to that incredible opening, but it doesn't make the film as a whole any less entertaining because despite it's minimal setting and pretty straightforward approach, it's got tension up the wazoo and enough suspense, great camera work, outstanding monster effects and a stellar performance by Michael Pare that drive this baby home. I've always liked the guy because he's a solid actor, but man he really delivers in this one. It's really Pare's performance that makes the film work as well as it does. Interestingly, besides Pare there's really only 3 other co-stars, adding to the films small scale approach and setting.

What makes this film interesting is that when it's over, it's such a simple premise. After getting bit in the jungle by a werewolf, Uncle Ted (Pare) decides to go visit his sister and her son in the hope that the family bond and the power of love will cure him of his new curse. Their family dog Thor knows what's up though, and he will play an integral part to the story. And that's pretty much it. 95% of the film takes place either in or on the land surrounding the sister's house in the woods. Yet writer/director Eric Red is able to build up so much tension, suspense and moments of pure genius in the film's short running time, and at 1 hour and 20 minutes, it's as long as it needs to be. And as I mentioned before, the makeup effects are outstanding. In fact, while werewolf films are not exactly scarce, the practical effects in this one are downright impressive and raise this one heaps above most. I also got to give credit where credit is due and with this film, a lot of that needs to go to Eric Red, hands down. While having only made a handful of films as a director, Bad Moon is surprisingly polished and Red turns out some really stunning visuals as well as moments of inventive filmmaking.

But wait, let's get to the few issues I had with it before I end up marrying this thing. For one, and probably it's one biggest flaw, is the one "change" scene it had, which happened at the end of the film. Even by 1996 standards, it's pretty weak, made all the more unsatisfying by the overuse of 90's CGI. And that's a real bummer considering it's the films one and only "changing" scene and the only time it uses said CGI. I'm sure at the time Red and the effects crew felt that CGI was the practical way to go, or that maybe they had come up with a way to make it look more inventive and natural, but by today's standards it's somewhat comical, even resulting in a slight chuckle......for me at least. But you know, that's really it's biggest issue even when you consider some of the plot goofs like the time the sister gets 8 shots out of a 6 shot revolver. Funny stuff.

Nitpicking aside, one of the best werewolf films out there and one that more people need to discover. It's also a testament to writer/director Eric Red's talent as a director and genre filmmaker. I only wish he had made more films, even if he was just a director because the aesthetics he uses are awesome.

The rundown on releases:
As far as releases go, sadly there hasn't been a real standout one, which is a shame. First off we have a bare bones 2000 release from Warner Brothers devoid of any real special features. It is in widescreen though, so that's something. And while not insanely expensive, it seems to go for a lot higher than I would have imagined, even in the "used DVD" market. Must be because of it's cult status. The only other release we have to choose from would be where it's included in Warner Brother's "4 Film Favorites" pack as seen here on the right, along with Wolfen, Abel Ferrera's Body Snatchers remake and Coma. This set is actually a little cheaper than the other release if you want to actually own a hard copy. You can, however, rent or buy it digitally from Amazon Instant Video, which is how I saw it. Whichever way you decide to go, watch it. It's reeeaaally good.

robotGEEK'S Review: John Carpenter's Halloween

1978
Directed by: John Carpenter
Category: Horror

This Halloween season, more than any other, I've immersed myself in the Halloween franchise and with horror films in general. I've always loved horror, but most of the time I'm changing it up with horror, action, badass cinema, or almost any other genre. But seriously, I don't think I've ever had the need or want or drive to check out as much Halloween as I possibly could as much as I have this past goulish season.

With Rob Zombie reinvigorating my love for the franchise recently, I decided I should revisit Carpenter's original classic masterpiece. It helps that I've also been in somewhat of a Carpenter kick these past few months also, devouring everything Carpenter I could get my hands on. And oddly enough, Christine has been popping up a lot on AMC, whereas I don't ever recall seeing it on television before. But recently, I've caught it about 3 different times and I'll sit down and watch it every single time. I've also seen this pop up regularly the whole month of October, but it's always in a dreaded pan and scan or full frame. Seriously AMC? But anyway....

It's been a long while since I've sat down to watch this one. Undoubtedly Carpenter's most popular film to date, I just never felt the need to revisit this one often. We all know what happens, how it plays out and why it's as popular as it is. But finally making the time to revisit this for the sake of the Halloween season, I'm still struck at how amazingly effective it all came together so perfectly. Beginning with it's opening credits and opening sequences, his use of the steadicam is just nothing short of brilliant. This is made all the more apparent by director Rick Rosenthal's mediocre use of the concept in the sequel just a few years later. Not that Rosenthal is a bad director, just not a very inspired one.

What also makes Halloween so effective is it's simple take on the slasher film material. I mean, we've had slasher films before Halloween, but they were never made as popular until John Carpenter revitalized that little sub-genre in 1978. Let's face it, we wouldn't even have Friday the 13th were it not for Halloween. But because of so many "right" choices Carpenter makes, it comes off as just brilliant indie filmmaking. His camerawork, his music, the casting choices and most importantly of all, a cool looking and tough as hell Michael Myers. See, that's a crucial aspect to this series because let's face it, some of these dudes who have donned the Myer's mask in these sequels are just not up to snuff for the gig. I know I've bitched about it before, but man, George Wilbur in the Myers jumpsuit for Halloween 4 was.......distracting. Yes, he's tall, but he's also the thinnest of the Myers bunch. So thin in fact that he has to have shoulder pads underneath that jumpsuit. But I digress. In this film, Nick Castle's portrayal of Michael Myers pretty much defined the role for anyone to follow, some with varying degrees of success.

We've all seen Halloween right? I don't think I need to bother with a synopsis or a play by play. As basic a story structure and premise as it is, that's also one of it's biggest strengths. It's never really explained "why" Myers is pure evil, or why he was so evil at such a young age, unlike Rob Zombie's need to explain or justify this in his remake from 2007. He just is and nobody except Dr. Loomis is completely aware of this. But do we really need all that backstory? Not really. Carpenter and writing partner Debra Hill pretty much sum it up with the opening sequence to get the story going, but without really pinpointing anything that led him to be this way. One day he just snaps, end of story. Sometimes less is more, or the power of your imagination is better than what could have been written on paper. Clearly Carpenter and Hill figured this out a long time ago.

As many films as I've seen and as many horror films as I try to devour, Halloween still holds up remarkably well 35 years later. No gimmicks, no over-reliance on gore or effects, or tricky camerawork; instead Carpenter utilizes good ol' fashioned storytelling, beautiful fluid camerawork with a keen sense of how to properly frame a shot, an amazingly simple yet effective score and strong performances from his leading cast. Just try and think of all the other little independent horror films that came out about the same time and see where they ended up. John Carpenter's Halloween has sustained and lasted and overcome because of his sheer talent. It honestly just doesn't get any better than this.

As far as releases go and trying to determine which one is the best bang for your buck, there are just way too many to even comprehend. I myself watched the "Extended Edition", which I didn't even know existed until a friend lent it to me for this review. From what I understand, Carpenter and the cast went back after the film was completed and shot additional scenes to fill in some time gaps for it's television airing since it apparently wasn't long enough. But the newly restored 35th Anniversary Blu-ray also seems to be a great investment and at an incredibly great price. Seriously, you can't beat the price. Whichever way you go, it's surely a trip worth taking and proves time and time again why it's considered one of the best of the genre.

robotGEEK'S Review: Halloween 2 (2009)

* This review is based off of the 119 minute Unrated Director's Cut

2009
Directed by: Rob Zombie
Category: Horror

I can't believe I'm saying this, in fact, I never thought I'd even "want" to actually watch this after not being a fan at all of Zombie's first Halloween film, buuuuuuuut.......I really like this film. Call me crazy!

And I know what you're thinking, "what's with all the remakes if you don't like them?". I hear ya. Sometimes I want to punish myself, or hold out hope that there is a solid one out there. I gotta be in the mood though, as was the case with Rob Zombie's Halloween 2. I wanted to see a Halloween film I hadn't seen before, and you know, I dig a Rob Zombie flick from time to time, even if it has to be one of his Halloween films. So let me be clear. I did not want to see this after seeing the first one. His first *Halloween film was just all wrong. I still can't wrap my brain around some of the gawd awful decisions he made making that film. As much as I love the Halloween franchise, and as much as I love Rob Zombie films, I just can't like Rob Zombie's Halloween.

Without turning this into a review of his first Halloween film, I'll just point out a few quick points of interest that ruined that film experience for me.
I dig Zombie's Exploitation style of filmmaking, when it suits the material. But with Halloween, the hand-held shaky-cam stuff just didn't jive well at all. Not when you compare it to Carpenter's fluid and expertly choreographed panavision extreme widescreen compositions in the original. Yet, because Zombie had made 2 films prior to this using his Grindhouse/Exploitation style, he delved right into this one with the same concept, only ruining what could have been a decent horror remake. I hate that shit and it makes me physically sick. Is it that difficult to keep the fucking camera still man? You know what they say don't you? all that shaky-cam/hand-held/quick-edit crap is a device directors use to mask the fact that they do not possess any talent behind the camera. Is that really the road you want to go down? I surely hope not. Not sure why he feels the need to make so many of his characters back country hillbillies, but when you include that into the Michael Myers/Halloween lore, it's getting pretty old.

But that's not to say that Halloween is not without it's pluses. It certainly has them, but I'll get into that when I decide to do a review of it sometime. For now, I just want to make my point across that he seriously missed the mark with that one. Halloween should have and could have been the start of a fucking fruitful and profitable franchise for Zombie, but alas, with certain key decisions he made it was a missed opportunity.

Which is why I'm more than happy to say that for the most part, for me anyway, he's almost completely redeemed himself with this sequel 2 years later. Holy shit. It's almost like somebody else had made this. As I was watching the first 20 minutes unfold in the hospital, I'm thinking to myself "Now this is the Halloween film I wanted to see!". He's done away with the hand-held shaky-cam stuff, and has amped up the carnage considerably. What writer/director/producer Rob Zombie has done here is spin the franchise on it's head and going a slightly different direction than with the first one. I'm not sure if that has anything to do with the reaction he got from the first film, or if he was already stylistically leaning more towards this visual style because Halloween 2 seems to bridge the gap in two tonally different visual styles he used in Halloween in 2007, and then with The Lords of Salem in 2012. Immediately with this film you see a huge difference. He's taken the time to set up some really killer shots, and though he does revert back to his signature hand-held style from time to time, it's  minimal.

I don't think I've mentioned it yet, but I think the casting of Tyler Mane as Myers was just brilliant. The guy just fits the role so perfectly. And I can say the same thing about Malcolm McDowell. If there was ever any other actor perfect for taking over the role of Dr. Loomis that Donald Pleasance made so iconic, it's him. And overall, the rest of the cast was pretty good. I always enjoy seeing Danielle Harris up on the big screen and always enjoy the cult and character actors he peppers his films with. Sherri Moon Zombie returns, but only for the trippy sequences, so her role is very minimal...thankfully. Look, I think she can be a good actress, and her work in The Lords of Salem is a huge step in that direction, but she's just not there yet, but she could be. One actor I did have a problem with was, amazingly, the lead actress Scout-Taylor Compton, who plays Laurie Strode. I found her to be incredibly annoying. I don't know if it's because of her age, or the constant crying and unintelligible yelling, but she got on my nerves pretty quick. Though, I did like the material she had to work with. Clearly Zombie was really trying to give his lead actress some moments to shine and to show a wide range of emotions that shift as the film progresses, but her delivery ruins what could have been some great dramatic scenes.

I've heard Zombie state numerous times that this was the worst experience he's ever had making a film. Too much studio interference and pressure resulted in a film he's not entirely happy with. For me personally, that's an interesting thing to hear considering in my humble opinion, this ended up being a much stronger film than the first. Originally this film was in other hands, but Zombie didn't want someone else to ruin his vision, so even though he was exhausted from his first Halloween experience, he just couldn't let anyone else handle this so he agreed to come back and write and direct the sequel. Honestly, Zombie knows his shit. It's painfully apparent that he's a genuine film nerd, and when it comes to making films in different styles and tones, he succeeds the way a lot of other horror filmmakers fail. Each and every one of his films to date offer something different in the horror genre, and they're done exceptionally well............with the exception of Halloween. But then here we are with Halloween 2 basically putting my faith back into Zombie and the Halloween franchise. Unfortunately, I believe he's done with these Halloween films and with the horror genre in general. So he says. If this is true, then that would be a shame because while his films are not everyone's cup of tea, he's definitely got balls and talent and I think with a few more "horror" films under his belt, he can deliver that truly great horror film. It's in his blood, I know it. On the plus side though, maybe his retirement from the horror genre will allow him to dip his hands into other genres. I actually see him making a fantastic, violent and gritty as hell action film in the vein of late 70's and early 80's Italian Euro Crime Cinema. His style suits that idea incredibly well.

Here's a bold statement; Zombie's Halloween 2 is one of the top 3 Halloween films. Yes, I said it. In fact, let me blow your mind a little bit more. Rob Zombie's Halloween 2 is the best Halloween film in the last 32 years. Though I consider Halloween III: Season of the Witch to be a great and severely underrated horror film, I do not consider it a Halloween film. So let's just scratch that one and let's say this is the best Halloween film since Rick Rosenthal's 1981 sequel to Carpenter's original classic. Seriously, this has everything that you'd want in a slasher film that all of it's many sub-par sequels were never able to get right ever since 1981. This film is dark, brutal, bloody, intense and you've got a Michael Myers that actually looks menacing as hell and imposing like a force of nature. Sure as a whole, this film is a bit uneven with it's trippy dream sequences and bizarre hallucinations-which honestly kind of take you out of the film a bit-but on all other fronts, it delivers a classic slasher film experience we crave but just don't get anymore.

I mean, tell me that opening hospital sequence doesn't make you all giddy with excitement? I actually wish the entire film had stuck to that concept. That would have been something. A good ol' fashioned "unstoppable killer stalking a hospital picking off people one by one" type of film. And that's where things get tricky, because while there are plenty of flashes of genius that Zombie displays with this film, there are also some unusual and questionable decisions that quite frankly, leave you dumbfounded. For one, he continuously shows Michael Myers face without his mask for a good chunk of the film. That's pretty ballsy. And though I kind of dig the monster roaming the land routine, having him look like a drifter sporting long hair and a long beard was odd. And to top that off, he has Myers grunt......often, whereas in every other Halloween film ever made, he was a silent killer. And get this, he actually utters a word once in the film. Again, another odd creative decision that might have served the film better had it not been included. But above anything, I think it's the dream and hallucination sequences that throw the film off a bit and ultimately make this film while uneven, also weird. But I love weird, so there you go.

I stand by my word when I say this is one of the best films in the franchise. I don't know why it's gotten so much hate. I mean, it's not like "any" of the Halloween films have gotten any love from critics, but in the case of this film, it seemed the critics were exceptionally harsh. And for what? Here we finally have an honest to goodness straight up slasher film (do they even make those anymore?), and still, nobody's happy. The IMDB's 4.8 positive rating is a joke, and Rotten Tomato's 21% fresh rating makes no sense. What movie are they all watching? Get with the program. Enjoy this film for what it is and for what it offers and leave all your snide criticisms at the door. Uneven yes, but a damn fine and brutal slasher flick.

* Update
In my naivete, I feel I may have jumped the gun in my opinion on Rob Zombie's first Halloween film rather harshly. My comments that I made at the beginning of this review in regards to his previous Halloween film were based on my pre-conceived notions and not on a full scale experience watching the film from beginning to end, rather from scenes I saw here and there where I wasn't fully invested in the experience of watching the film the way I should have. I've since changed my opinion on his first Halloween film.....rather drastically too I may add. 

I've since done a comprehensive review of Rob Zombie's Halloween, which you can find HERE.

robotGEEK'S Review: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)

2003
Directed by: Marcus Nispel
Category: Horror

Not being a fan of remakes in general, in fact quite loathing a good 90% of them, I find myself liking these Chainsaw (TCM, TCM:The Beginning, TCM 3D) updates more than I should. In fact, these along with the Friday the 13th reboot are actually pretty damn good horror films. Whether you think it's a good thing or a bad thing, I should add that both the Friday and Chainsaw reboots were both helmed by video and commercial director Marcus Nispel.

But getting back to my point. I remember loving this thing when it first hit, but I think this was at the beginning of the whole remake/reboot craze and I don't think that whole concept had yet gotten to the bottom of the barrel garbage that we've been getting lately; a lot, I might add, that also came from Michael Bay's Platinum Dunes banner.

So it's Halloween night, and while everyone else has something going on, I'm sitting home alone looking for a horror film to watch. Particularly, I was in a "Slasher" type of mood. Being as I was itching to watch John Carpenter's Halloween, but not owning a copy (GASP!!), I went with what I had in stock. And I'd been meaning to revisit this one for some time. So what better excuse right? Well let's do this.

I realize a LOT of others don't agree with my point of view, but I seriously think this is a great horror film done right, remake/reboot or not. Director Marcus Nispel has done a bangup job bringing this dying franchise to life, and not in the sense that it necessarily tries to eclipse or even make you forget about the 4 films that came before it, but rather offers a refreshing and much needed update. Considering all the other horror franchises out there, the Chainsaw films have had about the least made, which is surprising because you'd think it could be easy coming up with different ways to have a guy running around with a chainsaw killing people. But yea, not the case with this one.

After blowing us away with the original in all it's dingy, gritty and almost documentary style realism, co-creator/writer/director Tobe Hooper decided to go the complete opposite direction with his follow-up, to mixed results. I'll admit, I've seen it countless times, and as much as I try to like it, I find it hard to sit through. Mainly because the constant screaming and yelling from Chop Top and others give me a headache. But overall, the silly vibe just doesn't gel very well with me, even though Dennis Hopper is pretty badass. Great effects, great set design and amazing trailer, but as a finished product, it's not a very good Chainsaw film. Now Part 3 I consider a great horror sequel, but I know a lot of other's don't. Personally, it's top notch filmmaking and holds that constant dark "something bad is about to happen" vibe throughout. Sure it's not very gory, but maybe we'll get an "uncut" version some day. Yes, I realize we already have an "uncut" release, but it's not really "uncut". Let's be honest here. Watch the "Special Features" on that disc and you'll know what I'm talking about.

Five years after Part 3 was released and failed to impress at the box office, the co-creator/writer of the original classic decides to give us another one called "The Next Generation". I'm just gonna leave that one alone.

Almost a good 10 years passes by before Michael Bay's Platinum Dunes decides to use this film as one of their first franchise reboots and while a lot of people were skeptical, ultimately became a box office hit. And why not? It's got a "lot" to admire. Great camerawork, an authentic gritty atmosphere and a no-holds-barred attitude that makes this better than you expect it to be. But most important, Andrew Bryniarski as Leatherface is one big scary son of a bitch, taking a different approach than all the other's before him.

They stick to the original story pretty well, only changing a few minor plot points, characters and adding a few new ones, but overall, it's very similar. Yet it plays out so differently because of it's structure. It really never slows down to be dull at any point. In fact, about a good 15 minutes in and it's just a nonstop ride of death and dread and chases and well, you get the picture. The infamous "dinner scene" is cut, but that's alright. This film moves fast enough that you won't miss it.

Not to beat a topic to death, but as I mentioned this earlier with my Chainsaw 3D review, and several times in others, I just don't dig remakes in general, especially in this era of the quick-cut shaky-cam. But I enjoy these new Chainsaw films. Maybe it's the simple fact that in the 4 previous films, between 1974 and 1994, (and the fact that there were only 4 of them in 20 years), we were only given 2 good ones (*open to debate). Of course with these new ones, the ending of 3D was stupid and ridiculous, but I even liked that film for the most part; I just need to erase that last 20 or 30 minutes from my memory. I sure as hell can't say that for a lot of these other horror reboots. Right off the top of my head, Samuel Bayer's Nightmare on Elm Street reboot/remake comes to mind. What a pointless, needless piece of crap.

For my money, this is about as good a horror film you can get, let alone in the "remake" sub-genre. It's got all the bells and whistles that come with a big budget horror film, yet made with a gritty realism that you rarely find in films anymore.

robotGEEK'S Review: Maniac (2012)

2012
Directed by: Franck Khalfoun
Category: Horror

I'll be honest, I'm a little torn with this one. Maniac (2012) has just as many good qualities as it does bad, so trying to find the right balance in how I ultimately feel about it will be a hard one to pin down. That's a hard thing to admit to considering how excited I was to see this. And this is coming from someone who generally loathes remakes. But I figured with Alexandre Aja (High Tension, Piranha 3D) both penning and producing and original Maniac director William Lustig on board also as a producer, it couldn't be horrible right?

Hhmmm, I still don't know. On one hand I like that instead of doing a full blown remake of the original classic, they tried something different with the "first person POV" angle, which 99% of the film being shot that way. Don't worry though, it's not shaky-cam bullshit......it actually looks pretty decent, only ever really seeing Frank in reflections or in mirrors; a very tricky and cool technique and one that they pull off really well for the most part. They also infuse the film with a really stellar 80's synth infused score, reminiscent of Drive and the second half of You're Next. The effects work is also done really well, but none of it really stands out the way some scenes do from Lustig's original film, with Tom Savini on makeup duties on that one. Yea there are some scalpings, and a cool scene involving a butcher's knife, but I don't really recall any particular scenes that knocked my socks off. And lastly, I gotta give major props to Elijah Wood for turning out a pretty chilling performance. I'm not saying he made the film or anything, but as much as I was opposed to seeing him take over the role that Joe Spinell embodies so perfectly as a man struggling with childhood abuse issues and taking out his anger towards women, I felt Wood did a damn fine job, if you can wrap your brain around the fact that he was a hobbit for so long. It's a different take on the character obviously since they look so drastically different, but as a psycho with mommy issues, Wood will surprise a lot of people. Or maybe he won't. To each their own.

On the other hand though, did we really need a Maniac remake? I dug how director Franck Khalfoun took a different approach by shooting "first-person point of view", but it didn't always work. Mainly because as you're seeing the film through Frank's (Elijah Wood) eyes, you pretty much know what the fuck is going to happen right before it happens. There's really no mystery involved. He hates women because his mother was a whore, so he kills them whenever he can. But placing the viewer through the killer's eyes takes away any sense of tension. You know he's about to kill someone before he even does it. And going back to a comment I made earlier, while the effects work was good, there wasn't any kind of "wow" factor....nothing that stood out. For example, remember that scene in the William Lustig's original Maniac where Tom Savini is in a car trying to get it on with a babe when all of a sudden Frank shows up with a shotgun out of nowhere and blows his head off through the windshield? Was that really necessary or integral at all to the story? No, but it looked fuckin' awesome! And we still talk about it to this day because it was so unexpected and brutal. There's none of that here.

Director Franck Khalfoun also took some liberties with the POV shots. Every so often he would actually pull the camera away so you could see what Frank was doing to a victim. It's not a big deal, but when the film is supposed to be seen through the killer's eyes, it's an odd artistic choice considering 99% of the film is shot POV. This is also where some of my issues also lie. For the first act of the film this look is sleek and inventive, but halfway through begins to get tedious and uninteresting. It's hard to make a film look stylish when it looks like you're playing a game of Doom or Call of Duty.

All in all a bit of a letdown for me, which is a shame because I really wanted to like it considering the talent involved behind the scenes and all promotional artwork for this has been pretty stellar. While I will probably never see this again, I will be picking up the amazing soundtrack by Rob immediately. It's that good.

robotGEEK'S Review: Body Parts

1991
Directed by: Eric Red
Category: Horror

By now, you surely have heard of Eric Red. If you haven't, then that's something that needs to be rectified immediately. For starters, he's the guy who wrote the original The Hitcher, an all-time favorite of mine. He's carved out a distinctive career mainly as a screenwriter with some pretty great genre films like Near Dark, Blue Steel, Bad Moon and The Hitcher under his belt. He's also responsible for the Cult Classic Cohen & Tate, which I have yet to see. Hard to believe it's taken me this long to finally sit down to watch this one though.

Body Parts has an interesting premise. Jeff Fahey plays a criminal psychologist who loses an arm in an automobile accident. A doctor has come up with a new revolutionary procedure where she transplants body parts, in this case an arm, from a donor. After a series of freaky events Bill (Jeff Fahey), begins to wonder if it has anything to do with the arm he's just received. After some digging he discovers that it belonged to a serial killer and he begins to wonder if the soul of someone is also transplanted with these operations as he seems to be experiencing the thoughts and emotions of this former killer. Meanwhile patients of this radical new procedure start turning up dead with their newly implanted body parts missing. Is this somehow connected?

So we've basically got a sort of Frankenstein premise going on here, but more in line with a psychological thriller/horror film. An interesting concept and a very unique one, one that I found fascinating, made all the better having been made in the early 90's, giving it that specific look and feel. But at the same time it can also be a difficult idea to tackle. You can certainly go in different directions and different genre's with this premise. So how does Body Parts fare?

Body Parts mostly works. Overall, I really enjoyed it. Eric Red again delivers a genre film that entertains from beginning to end, relying mostly on it's constant sense of dread. Much like in all his films, there's always a feeling like something bad is about to happen at any given moment. The Hitcher is a prime example of this. Yet, as much as I enjoyed this film, it felt like it could have been better somehow. For a film of this type, it feels surprisingly small scale. However, Red is able to make a film look good and for these types of films, that can go a long way. But it's also Fahey's standout performance that draws you in and keeps you hooked. The guy delivers the goods here as a man who starts off as your typical family man and then suddenly begins to slowly morph into something else mentally. I'm always surprised when I see films like this and wonder why his career never got any bigger than it did. For a lot of scenes in the second half of this film, he more than proves he's got the intensity.

I think a lot of people didn't really take to this film or it's concept, which shows in it's poor box office results. I'll be honest, I didn't really take any interest in seeing this one myself back then. I think the 90's turned a lot of people off to horror. The 80's were where it was at. The 90's just seemed to be a letdown in terms of original output, but that's not to say some certainly tried. Though not a hit when it was originally released, time has certainly been kind to this film in general. And why not? It's got a lot of things going for it. First of all, the film looks slick. Not sure why Eric Red didn't take the directors chair more often, but the guy's got a natural talent behind the camera. Not being overly stylized, yet maintaining a constant slick 90's look to it, Red infuses the film with some really top notch standout sequences. For one, the car accident in which Fahey's character is involved in is just plain brutal and amazingly shot. There's also a kick ass car chase midway through the film that was just about as expertly choreographed and executed as could possibly be. But it's a scene at the very end of that sequence that just kind of made the film for me. You'll know which one I'm talking about when you see it. It's literally the highlight of the film for me. If the whole film had sucked, yet still had that one badass scene, I think I would gave still liked it. That's what 90's Cinema was all about.

Warning: Minor Spoilers!
So Body Parts has some other killer scenes and sequences, as well as a pretty eclectic supporting cast with faces and names you'll most certainly recognize from other films and television shows, most notably Brad Dourif (This guy's in everything!). It's got a unique and semi-surreal score, which I liked quite a bit, a constant eerie sense of dread and something else I forgot to mention, some badass practical effects and makeup work. Yet somehow it feels slightly off. I think some of the promotion of the film led you to believe that Bill is having trouble becoming accustomed to both his new body part and the thoughts, delusions and feeling that came with it, causing him to act out and becoming almost uncontrollable. Yes, that's part of the story, but it's only a very little part of it. Most of it deals with Bill's becoming acclimated to this new foreign body part and the things that start happening seemingly because of it, but the entire second half of the film takes on a different storyline and it's with this one where Body Parts really shines. You see, someone is out killing all the transplant recipients and stealing back the body parts. Very cool idea indeed and effects-wise, pretty gory and fun. So I feel the marketing was a bit off. I mean, it didn't ruin the overall experience, but I can see how some might have gotten the wrong idea going in thinking it was going to be about some guy who starts going crazy after receiving this new limb. For sure, that would be a badass film in it's own right, but at it's heart, that's not what Body Parts is about. It's almost like two stories that shift at the halfway mark. But oddly enough, it's the slightly different first half that sort of warms you up for the killer second. It's slower, yes, but it doesn't mean it's any less entertaining. It's a slower buildup than what I was expecting, but it's only to knock your socks off with the second half, which it does, gleefully. And at running only 1 hour and 20 minutes, it's a shorter film than I'm used to, but it's as short and as long as it needs to be.

Great look, great effects, great performance from Jeff Fahey, along with some really standout sequences make this one you should definitely seek out.

robotGEEK'S Review: Curse of Chucky

2013
Directed by: Don Mancini
Category: Horror

I think we can all agree that after Part 3, the series got incredibly ridiculous; almost like a caricature of itself. But at the same time I think it shows a lot of balls on Mancini's part to embrace that ridiculous vibe and just go with it. I'll admit though, for all it's lunacy and comedy, a far cry from the first Child's Play, Bride of Chucky was pretty fun. But then after that it just got more and more silly and they lost me.

Well it seems Child's Play creator Don Mancini, who's written every Child's Play film to date, decided to get back to basics with the franchise and really go back to full on horror, because let's face it, the last few just weren't scary anymore.

Curse of Chucky was a nice return to form for the Child's Play franchise for me. It was slow, dark and most importantly, they got rid of all the "silly". CoC also boasts an impressive number of things that actually make it good. Immediately, one of the first things I noticed was it's impressive and dark score. Hey, when a score can stand out these days, much less a DTV flick, they're obviously doing something right. And it also looks like Mancini did his homework on this one, where he returns to the director's chair after having only ever directed Seed of Chucky. He's made a small scale yet stylish little horror film, and the thing looks good. You'd never know he's only ever directed one other film, especially when you consider 95% of the film takes place in one house. I'm sure you can imagine how difficult it is to try and make one house look interesting for an hour and a half, but he manages to do just that.

But CoC is not without it's problems. While I dug the whole moody and slow buildup vibe, for the first hour, it was almost too slow. I'm all for a slow intense buildup, but once I passed the halfway mark I was wondering when the heck things were going to finally start happening. By my estimation, that was at 1 hour. But it's not really all that bad. The performances, style, score, and just the overall vibe of this new installment all just gels so well together that it's surely enjoyable.

Another thing I had an issue with was the use of CGI. From what I understand, this is the first time using CGI for Chucky in any of these films. Granted, it's not for every scene, mainly for the closeups, but it just didn't look very good. Actually, from one scene to the next, it looked like a completely different doll. In fact, whenever they implored the CGI for the closeups, Chucky looked like a girl. But thankfully, it was mainly used for closeup shots. I just wish they hadn't have used them period. It's so noticeable and when they try to get Chucky to make an evil face, he comes off looking goofy and silly, not the least bit scary. You have to remember, this is also on top of the already redesigned Chucky doll. Even in practical form, he looks noticeably different. And I'm not sure how or why, but in the last 30 minutes of the film it looks like a completely different version of the doll. Different hair, different face, everything. But hey, it's Chucky. "You" know it's fucking Chucky and that's all that matters right? Maybe I'm just nitpicking? Does it take away from the experience? Not at all. It's just unnecessary, so Fugedaboudit!

The events of this film make no mention of the events of the last few films, instead being more of a direct sequel to Child's Play 3. So I'm a little stumped at why writer/director/creator Don Mancini decided to call this one Curse of Chucky instead of Child's Play 4 or something, because right off the bat, you're expecting something along the lines of Seed or Bride of Chucky with a title like that.

Alright, alright, enough of the nitpicking. I have to give credit to the pretty outstanding casting here. Not only does the one and only Brad Dourif return to voice the little guy, but his daughter actually stars in this thing as a wheelchair bound shut-in who's pretty much shut herself off from society and holed herself up in this big house with her overbearing alcoholic mother until they receive a mysterious package containing DUN..DUN...DUN....a Chucky doll. Naturally, this is where the shit hits the fan and events are set into motion. And was it just me, or was the one male lead a dead ringer for Mark Ruffalo?

What surprised me a little was the very sparse use of gore. Sure there are some pretty cool and inventive kills, as with any Child's Play film, but it wasn't nearly as gory as I was expecting it to be. However, there are a few sequences of gory bloody delight and man are they pretty brutal. So when the scene calls for it, the effects work is pretty damn awesome.

Overall a solid film and a nice detour from the things we've come to expect from a Child's Play film for a little over a decade now. It's surprisingly slow first half might throw some people off, but stick with it because the second half delivers the goods. I for one am happy to see the franchise embrace it's roots again.

robotGEEK'S Review: Slither

2006
Directed by: James Gunn
Category: Horror

This one took me by surprise. Not only because of how fun it was, but in the quality of the production and the talent involved both in front of and behind the camera.

I remember my buddy Gabe being such a big fan of this one ever since it first came out, often trying fruitlessly to get me to watch it. I think the title might have misled me into thinking it was a low-budget forgettable indie horror film. That's just me though; not sure why I had such strong reservations though now that I think about it. So as I was browsing Netflix the other day trying to find something in the "horror" genre, I finally decided to give this one a try.

So right when it begins with the opening credits I'm already floored. James Gunn directing? The guy who did Super and who's now doing Guardians of the Galaxy? Starring Nathan Fillion, Elizabeth Banks and Michael "Fucking Merle" Rooker? Man, I'm sold. So I was immediately excited to see this, finally.

Slither has a lot going for it right off the bat. Outstanding ensemble cast, quality production value and a hip fun take on the horror genre. At times it feels like something Joss Whedon would have done had he made this himself. Now with that being said, I think I'm going to have to be completely honest here and say that while I did find it enjoyable overall, it just didn't "wow" me as much as I had hoped. I'm not sure if I can pinpoint the exact thing that didn't work for me, but it just always felt like it was missing something, or that it just didn't flow properly. I can't be alone in feeling this. Am I? I mean, all the ingredients are there. Abso-fucking-lutely. Yet somehow, in some way, it just doesn't mesh all that well together. I don't know if we would have to blame writer/director James Gunn or the editor.

Surprisingly, my first experience with James Gunn was by recently watching the highly enjoyable Super. I should have done a review on that one, but I never got around to it. That's another indie project where he mixed up a few genre's and gave us something uniquely original. It didn't blow me away or anything, but I found it an effective piece of filmmaking where in one minute it can be a sad tale of a pathetic lonely man who loves his wife so much, that he'll do anything to protect her and win her back. While on the other side of the table, at other times it's brutally violent, dark and sometimes gruesome to the point of shock. And then it can be funny, charming and cute. So it's kind of all over the place, but in a fun way. Here we have a straight-up homage to 50's "It Came From Outer Space" type films (you know, like The Blob), yet enhances it with witty dialogue and some truly outlandish sequences. And Fillion was a very nice and welcome surprise. At times, it just seemed like he was playing his character from Firefly. Awesome. I wish he had done more roles like this.

The ensemble cast in here is pretty great in their respective roles. But I think it's Fillion who ultimately steals the show. The guy is just a smart ass and a badass and combine the two, and well you have a semi-Han Solo. The film is also peppered with some regular character actors that give the film that little bit of extra spice it needs.

I should also get into the effects work, which is pretty great. I've seen bigger budgeted films that have far worse effects work, so I'm not sure if that's a testament to director James Gunn's skill as a director, or his effects team, or both, but it works effectively well. I can remember a good few that just gave me the shivers, while others were both funny and gross, which was the point.

This film has been flying under my radar for so many years, so I'm glad to say that I've actually seen it, but ultimately it just didn't impress me as much as I assumed it would. Maybe that's my fault? I've heard so many great things for so long that maybe I built it up too much in my head? Maybe.

robotGEEK'S Review: The Collector

2009
Directed by: Marcus Dunstan
Category: Horror

I know, strange that I decided to check these out out-of-order. Here's the funny thing though, if I had seen this one first, I'm not entirely sure I would have taken the time to see the sequel, which would have been a serious bummer since the sequel is leaps and bounds above this one.

Unless you looked into it beforehand, you would never know the same guy wrote and directed both of these films. That's how different they are in terms of tone, style, substance and overall entertainment value. It's so different overall that they even use a different guy to play The Collector in both films, giving you an entirely different take. I'm not sure if this was the director's intent right from the beginning, as they do in all of the Halloween and Friday the 13th films, but it's such a huge difference overall it's almost impossible not to notice, for better or worse.

So here's a quick verdict:
The Collector was pretty good as a low-budget horror film, but not nearly as good as The Collection. So there, the verdict is in. The Collection: Awesome. The Collector: Decent little film.

One of the first things I noticed immediately both as the opening credits were rolling and as the film started playing was how amateurish it all looked and felt. Quite a contrast from the second film, believe me. It seems with the sequel, writer/director Marcus Dunstan did his homework, studying up on what makes a film look good rather than just getting the job done. And whether some of that is because of the work of the DoP or Dunstan himself, it's a vast improvement in the sequel. And I'm not bashing this completely, because it was fun. I dig the concept and the cast was pretty good. Of course, if you're not into the whole Torture Porn sub-genre, then you may not like this. In fact, I was surprised I did. The Collector, when in fact being a part of this sub-genre of films isn't nearly as hardore as the Hostel or Saw films. Yes, some, if not most, of the deaths are all due to elaborate traps set up by the killer, who has basically set up shop inside a residence, holding the family hostage in the basement all while an intruder has broken into the house to rob it. It's a crazy premise, but a fun one nonetheless. The guy is basically walking into a house of horrors and the dude just doesn't know it. Will he make it out alive? Will he try and save the family trapped inside? Will he try and take on the killer?

Spoilers:
Here's some of what bothered me. Moments after the thief has entered the residence we are made aware that the family that actually owns and lives in the house is being held hostage and tortured down in the basement. Yet as the burglar is roaming the house looking for valuables, and subsequently after he discovers that the family has been kidnapped and is being tortured and he tries to find a way to rescue them, the house is filled with an insane amount of intricate traps. Some extremely sophisticated, and some very ghetto. So if the intent of the killer was to capture the home owners and "collect" them, why would there be such an insane amount of traps inside this one residence, especially when it's mainly the burglar who is dodging these crazy traps and the killer doesn't even know for the majority of the film that their's even anybody else (the burglar) in the house? All I kept wondering was "Why are there so many traps in the house when the family is already caught and being tortured down in the basement?". It just didn't make any sense.

I guess it works if you sort of turn your brain off for this film. I mean, it would have made sense if The Collector knew that there would be a lot of people coming through that residence that he knew he was going to eventually capture, hence the elaborate traps. But it just seemed like overkill, especially when you consider his whole point is to "not" kill anybody, rather he wants to "collect" them.

I will say this though, that mask looks pretty badass. It's certainly done creatively, almost reminding me of Decker's mask from Nightbreed. You see nothing of the actors face who's wearing it, other than the darks of the eyes. And they seem to do this little effect where the killer's eyes look like they're almost constantly glowing. But it's done in a way to make it almost look like a lens glare or something. Just by looking at this guy, you just have no clue who he is; the actor and the character. Which surprised the hell out of me when I did some research and found out who the actor was that was wearing the thing. I was not expecting that. An interesting choice to say the least. I should also point out that they used someone else for the sequel, someone who looks completely different physically and it's a pretty drastic difference. In this first film, he's tall and thin. In the sequel, he's shorter and much stockier, more powerful. Taking a few ques from past slasher films and maybe learning from this film, they went a slightly different direction with the character of The Collector in the sequel as well, where he's played more as an unstoppable killing machine, almost like a Michael Myers. Where as here, he's vulnerable and just a guy with a cool mask.

I think I'll start wrapping this up by saying overall, it was a decent little horror film, it's just not nearly as badass or enjoyable as it's vastly superior sequel. Hell, I'd even suggest possibly just skipping this one altogether if possible if it weren't for a couple of truly gruesome and creative kills. They do a decent job of trying to get you all caught up to speed in the beginning of the second one, only they don't explain "everything", so maybe you should just go ahead and watch this. Don't listen to me.

I was surprised at how things ultimately played out for the burglar who unwittingly decides to rob a house that's been booby-trapped all to hell by a sadistic killer who clearly likes to fuck with people; another aspect that I was not expecting. You see, apparently, this thief is able to outsmart and outwit The Collector. Who woulda thought?! And for me, that was the fun part. Someone was actually able to use their brain instead of just freaking out in panic, 'cuz you know what happens when you panic right? Don't go in expecting much, and you'll enjoy this. Then go see the sequel immediately and hope they start working on that third film.

Review: Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter AKA Part 4

1984
Directed by: Joseph Zito
Category: Horror

Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter aka Part 4, I've always considered my favorite of the series. I think because even as a kid watching these for the first time when they came out in the 80's, I always felt Part 4 was made so much better than the previous entries. I've never been a fan of director Steve Miner, who helmed 2 and 3, though I will admit he did a much better job with Part 3D mainly because of the 3D gimmickry he displayed. Overall it made for a much better experience. But it wasn't until director Joseph Zito took over the directing duties for this entry that I really took notice of how awesome a standard slasher flick could really be. I honestly didn't even really need to revisit it this time out because I've seen it so many times before, much more than any of the others, that I probably know it by heart. But for the sake of "keeping it real" and just to be able to move on to Part 5 (the only one I don't think I've ever seen from beginning to end), I thought I'd sit through it anyway.

After Jason is thought to have been killed by the sole survivor of the last massacre at Crystal Lake just 1 day before, he mysteriously comes back to life in the morgue and continues his bloody rampage of unsuspecting people at Crystal Lake. This time out a mother and her two children living alone in a cabin in the woods rent out there other next door property to a group of horny teenagers for a weekend of partying. One by one they are killed in gory fashion and it's not until Jason goes head to head with little Tommy and his big sister Trish that Jason might have finally met his match.

Not much of a synopsis because going into Part 4, the story hasn't changed. An unsuspecting group of teenagers arrive for a weekend of partying and sex only to be killed off one by one by an unstoppable Jason.
Of course, it's never explained how or why Jason suddenly comes back to life in the morgue after he was most certainly dead at the end of Part 3. So I guess now he'd be considered a zombie technically? Because he's gotta be full blown dead now from what I can tell. But without explanation as to how or why Jason can do what he does, Part 4 does possess a lot of things that make it work really well. Better pacing, better kills, more nudity, more blood and a better all around cast.

Besides having the talents of director Joseph Zito, who had just come off of the excellent early 80's slasher The Prowler, but before he moved onto Missing in Action, Invasion USA and ultimately the excellent Dolph Lundgren actioner Red Scorpion, The Final Chapter has so many other things going for it. Casting wise, it has one of the better ensemble casts in the series up to this point. The chicks are a little hotter, and the overall cast in general is pretty awesome. First and foremost, you have a very young Corey Feldman as Tommy, who's character shows up in a few later sequels. And you've also got a pre-Back to the Future Crispin Glover looking the most "normal" I've ever seen him. He's not sickly pale, sickly skinny or with a weird haircut. Here he plays kind of the nerd of the group of horny teens who has been labeled "dead fuck" throughout the film as a joke by his buddy Ted. It ends up being a nickname that sticks. And though he's pretty normal for most of the film, he demonstrates one of the most laughably horrible dances I've ever seen on film, just to keep that edge. I'm telling you, it was like a full body dry heave and it must be seen to be believed. There's also a very hot and frequently nude Judie Aronson who you'll remember as the brunette who ends up being Wyatt's girlfriend at the end of Weird Science.

One of the best things I love about The Final Chapter is the return of Tom Savini in the makeup effects department after being absent for Parts 2 and 3. It's not his best work, but it's far better than anything produced by the effects teams of both 2 and 3. Savini's stated in several interviews that he was excited to return to the series for this installment because after doing the effects work for the first one, he was told that The Final Chapter was supposed to be the very last and "final" one in the series and as he felt he gave birth to Jason in Part 1, he felt it only fitting to kill him off in glorious fashion in Part 4: The Final Chapter. Though it was intended to be the end of the series, that was not meant to be. There's simply too much money to be made off of endless sequels from a popular slasher franchise.

In my opinion, this is the best and most solid entry in the series up to this point. Part 3D definitely had it's moments, but once Part 4 came around I was sold. Solid director, solid cast and better kills make for an overall better experience.

For a recap of my reviews of the first three films in the series, check them out here:
http://robotgeekscultcinema.blogspot.com/2011/10/review-friday-13th-1980.html

http://robotgeekscultcinema.blogspot.com/2011/10/review-friday-13th-part-2.html

http://robotgeekscultcinema.blogspot.com/2011/11/review-friday-13th-part-3.html

Badass buy: The Evil Dead Thorn EMI Clamshell VHS (sealed)

This past year as I've gotten back into VHS collecting, I've slowly been building my 

Thorn EMI / HBO Cannon VIDEO 

collection. They produced a pretty eclectic group of films on white clamshell cases back in the VHS heyday and ones that I've always been drawn to. I just love the clamshell look and annoyingly, the U.S. didn't make it a habit of releasing a lot of VHS this way, rather on cheap cardboard slipcases. I don't collect everything they put out though, just films I actually thoroughly enjoy. And I'm new to this and still learning of what there output was and when.

 I didn't even know Thorn EMI had The Evil Dead under there belt until when I came across it recently for a very cheap price. The beauty about this purchase, besides getting it for very cheap, is that it's still SEALED!!! Sweet! The only damage seems to be a large tear to the shrink wrap with some smaller ones here and there. But most importantly, the actual clamshell and plastic are untouched. 

Review: Dead & Buried

1981
Directed by: Gary Sherman
Category: Horror

Dead & Buried is a film with a lot of talent behind the camera for a little seen or heard of early 80's horror film.

Directed by:
Gary Sherman (Vice Squad, Wanted Dead or Alive)
Written by:
Ronald Shusset (Alien "story", Above the Law, Total Recall)
Dan O'Bannon (Alien, Return of the Living Dead, Invaders From Mars, Total Recall, Screamers)
Special Makeup Effects:
Stan Winston (The Terminator, Aliens, Predator)

The main thing this film has going for it is it's constant sense of dread. The film carries an eerie atmospheric tone that reminded me a lot of John Carpenters The Fog, only not as awesome and not as visually stunning. In a lot of instances it reminded me of a made for TV movie. For a horror film from 1981, that's not always a good thing.

Potters Bluff, Rhode Island. A small seaside town where everybody knows everybody and nothing exciting ever happens until tourists start getting killed off in gory fashion at an alarming rate. Sheriff Dan Gillis, the college graduate who came back home to become the town sheriff, is at a loss. He thinks there is a serial killer responsible until clues lead him to believe there might be more to this close knit town, his wife and the local mortician included, than he ever imagined. 


I'd heard of this film once or twice before and finally made it a point to check it out the other day. For me, it was the talent involved behind the camera that pulled me in. I've always been a fan of both Ronald Shusset and Dan O'Bannon, who between the two of them have given me some of my favorite sci-fi, horror and action films of the 1980's. So a horror film from early in there career written by both of them with special effects by the great Stan Winston should be a sure thing right? Well yes and no. It's not so much a full on horror film as it is an atmospheric thriller with some pretty impressive effects. So going into this thing expecting a horror film and ending up with a suspense thriller that looks like it was made for television kinda left me a little bummed when it was all over. It just didn't end up being the kind of film I was hoping for. I can't really pinpoint one specific thing that felt off, because the performances and the direction were fine, but somehow it just didn't gel very well. Like it didn't know what type of film it wanted to be. At one point it felt like a Twilight Zone episode, and at another it felt like a Fog wannabe. The shifting tone really threw me off and if it wasn't for the creative and pretty awesome kills here and there as well as Jack Albertson's (in his final role) role as the local mortician with the entire town under his spell, then I woulda been bored out of my mind.

It did have a few bright spots though. The main actor who plays the sheriff, James Farentino, was pretty great. The guy was just so gung ho the entire time and gave it his all, even with some of the ridiculous scenarios. And I swear, I seriously thought it was the actor who played the dad in The Wonder Years, only younger and thinner. I'm telling you, the guy's a dead ringer. Also great was Jack Albertson, Charlie's grandfather from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. He really steals the show and it was so great to see that he ended up having a much bigger part towards the end than you realize in the first half. It also had some pretty nifty special effects courtesy of Mr. Winston. The only problem was they just seemed so out of place in a movie like this. Like, the killings were so severe, but then the film turns back into a slow Twilight Zone episode or an Alfred Hitchcock presents episode and after you cringe at the painful death, you sort of scratch your head thinking it seemed so over the top compared to the rest of the film.
I would also have to say the big twist at the end was awesome. I'm talking about the very last scene right before it cuts to credits. I honestly never saw it coming and was pretty impressed with how inventive it was. Overall though, Nothing really stood out here that will ever make me watch it again unfortunately. It was a nice effort and if anything, it really makes me want to see John Carpenter's The Fog again, another horror film that came out the year before about another small seaside town dealing with mysterious murders, only made much better and worked much more effectively by a master in the beginning of his prime.

Review: Intruder

1989
Directed by: Scott Spiegel
Category: Horror

My good man Ingo over at Hellford 667 Movie Reviews recommended this one to me recently. I've also been reading a lot about it lately since Synapse Films is doing a Director's Cut of this gore classic on Blu-ray, due to be released on Dec. 13th.

First thing I feel I need to mention is that I was unaware there were two versions of this film out. An 83 minute butchered cut as well as an 88 and 90 minute unrated Directors Cut. Had I known about this beforehand, I surely would have sought out the unedited version. But it was streaming on Netflix (the 83 minuted edited cut of course) so I thought I'd give it a go anyway.

 There's been a lot of talk about this low-budget gore classic and with Synapse Films calling it "The Holy Grail of extreme gore cinema", well that is quite a statement indeed. I can't help but feel short changed now that I know what I was watching was severely and horribly edited, but it just gives me incentive to go out and actually get my hands on the Director's Cut, which is not very pricey at all.

Jennifer (Elizabeth Cox) is your average girl working the night shift at a local mom and pop grocery store. One day her ex-boyfriend Craig (David Byrnes) shows up as they are closing down for the night demanding that she get back together with him and stating he will do whatever it takes to win her back. Only thing is, she's moved on as he's a physically abusive boyfriend and to top it off, he just got out of prison for killing a guy who intervened when the two of them were having a fight. He immediately starts man-handling her when the rest of her co-workers intervene and after a few fights, are able to throw him out and lock the door as they continue there nightly duties of cleaning and stocking up the shelves for the next day. Mysteriously though, they start dying off one by one in extremely gruesome fashion and it's up to Jennifer to put a stop to the killings once and for all.

Wizards 2005 90 min. Director's Cut

I must say, this was a really fun low-budget little horror film. It's not as well known as say The Evil Dead, but I dare say it's just as inventive and entertaining. Maybe not on par, but on a film with an obvious minuscule budget filmed entirely on one location (the grocery store), it possesses a fun vibe and playful and upbeat pace. One thing is certainly evident right from the opening shots, writer/director Scott Spiegel crammed as much visual ingenuity into "almost" every single shot that, whether you ultimately think it's a good or a bad film, you still have a pretty fun time with it because it's just so damn creative with the camera work. It doesn't always work though as there are a few scenes and sequences that were crinch inducing (mainly any kind of fight), but remarkably most of them do work and work wonderfully. I mean, some of the shots are so damn quirky that you almost laugh when you see them. Like when Linda is talking on a phone, the camera angle is situated inside the actual rotary phone and you are seeing the image of Linda on the phone through the little holes where the numbers would normally be. Huh?? That's just the topper though, as there are many inventive camera shots like that found throughout, no doubt taking inspiration from Intruder co-star and friend Sam Raimi. Yes, "that" Sam Raimi (The Evil Dead, Spider-man, Darkman) is an actor in this film as a grocery store employee, as well as his brother Ted.

I must say, this is not the kind of film I thought I was going into. In this case, that's definitely a good thing. The cover image at the top is all I had to go on, so immediately I think it's some kind of monster after a chick. I actually thought the chick was Kristy Swanson based on that cover shot too. Nope! What it is is a film about an angry abusive ex-boyfriend who terrorizes a group of grocery store employees during one long night. The entire film takes place in this one location and to great effect. We're treated to inventive and bloody kills and a decent cast, some of them better than others. I don't really want to get too into the story as they do throw in some plot twists that you see a mile away, but that ultimately give the film some fun ideas to play with where you end up second guessing yourself.

Synapse Films 2011 88 min. Director's Cut

I almost didn't want to do a review on this one so soon because the more I think about it, the more I want to see the Director's Cut to get a full appreciation for what Spiegel and company were going for. Because in this edited version, you just get pissed off because every time a kill comes, either the camera pans away and it's all done off screen or it's horribly edited in half and cuts to the next scene. You immediately know that's the case most of the time because right in the middle of a death sequence, everything is cut (the music, the sound effects, the editing, the shot) and it looks and sounds fucking ridiculous. Not the way it was done or executed, but the way it was haphazardly cut by someone who didn't know what the hell hey were doing. It honestly is really hard to watch these butchered sequences. So you can expect another "mini" review of the Director's Cut in the near future when I get a chance to catch it.

All in all though, it was a fun watch. Bottom line is, DO NOT watch the 83 minute edited cut. It'll only piss you off. Either check out Wizard Entertainment's 2005 90 minute Director's Cut (which hilariously glorifies Bruce Campbell and Sam Raimi's names in huge letters at the top even though Campbell has a 2 minute cameo at the very end and Raimi is only a minor supporting character) or you can pre-order Synapse Films 88 minute Uncut Intruder Blu-ray/DVD Combo that's set to be released on Dec. 13.