Wishmaster 3: Beyond the Gates of Hell (2001)

GENERAL INFO:
Director: Chris Angel
Studios: Overseas FilmGroup, Artisan Entertainment
Starring: A.J. Cook, Jason Connery, Tobias Mehler, John Novak
Tagline: Three Wishes, One Nightmare
MPAA Rating: R
Genre: horror, thriller, folklore, religious occult, college
Scare score: D-
Rating: D-

Plot overview:  The wishmaster (Novak) is back again, this time awoken by the wholehearted college student Diana Collins (Cook).  In his pursuit for Diana's wishes and therefore the freedom of his evil race, the djinn takes the form of Professor Barash (Connery) in order to track down his victims without drawing attention.  This time, however, the djinn must battle powerful forces of good, but who is the only one that can try and stop him?

I didn't hate this movie as much as the second one, but I suppose that by this point my expectations had already been lowered.  This time around we have a totally different djinn, be that plot or the poor change of makeup and lack of continuity.  In fact, we don't actually see the djinn in his true, bad-costumed self, but rather in the Professor's body the entire time (gee that must help with the budget), not that Connery was anything special (letting his dad down just like Diana in her childhood car accident...oops too soon for her traumatic childhood which causes her trust issues now?  Excuse me while I puke... but actually, Horror Buff has a stomach bug at the moment).

Here we have your typical college movie: the group of friends (50% guys, 50% girls), as usual two couples each with a unique personality.  Diana is our virgin of course, with the kindhearted but frustrated boyfriend, a girl best friend who is sexually active and a little crazy, and her sex-driven boyfriend.  We've never seen anything like that before...  Each classroom scene is filled with literary allusions that just so happen to relate to our plot, and during killing sprees the rest of the school is off partying.  Cliche cliche cliche.

I read a theory online that this is supposed to be a totally different djinn than the previous films, which I like an accept due to a lack of continuity regarding the fire opal and the djinn himself.  He acts totally different yet again, acting as more of the devil himself than merely one demon, and this time around he is able to hurt people even when they don't necessarily wish it.

This movie takes a weird turn when Diana wishes that the spirit of St. Michael - who takes the bodily form of Diana's dedicated boyfriend Greg (Mehler) - to come help stop the wishmaster.  That's new for me!  Of course not even the archangel is a cure-all, and Diana must take on the djinn pretty much by herself in a final rooftop battle *yawn*.

The best thing about this movie is A.J. Cook because Criminal Minds is my jam.  The gore is also pretty decent and I think there was a death scene I liked but honestly I can't remember anymore, so I guess it couldn't have been too great.  Come to think of it, one girl wishes to lose weight and as you might imagine, things get pretty gruesome.

Final critique:  This movie wasn't awful but there's no need to ever watch it unless you're just really into djinn or otherwise stuck in a movie marathon like I am.  The Wishmaster series continues to go downhill in this installment which depends heavily on sex-driven college kids and a bad, corny script to get us through eighty-nine minutes of cliches - well, except for the whole archangel bit.  Still it had a few scares and some gore, so at least it kept things entertaining.

Wishmaster 2: Evil Never Dies (1999)

GENERAL INFO:
Director: Jack Sholder
Studios: Artisan Entertainment
Starring: Andrew Divoff, Holly Fields, Paul Johansson
Tagline: Evil Has Been Summoned... Again!
MPAA Rating: R
Genre: horror, thriller, folklore, religious occult
Scare score: F
Rating: F

Plot overview: After being summoned back into the human world by an unsuspecting thief Morgana (Fields), the djinn (Divoff) continues his mission to fulfill the prophecy to bring about an apocalypse at the hands of his race.  Morgana turns to her ex-flame-turned-priest Gregory (Johansson) to stop the evil genie from collecting 1,000 souls and bringing the rest of the djinn into the world.

This movie was awful and I wasn't even going to blog about it except that there is a Wishmaster marathon on TV (literally be careful what you wish for...) so I figured why not?

This is a made-for-TV movie and it certainly feels like it, if not an episode of Are You Afraid of the Dark? which I would prefer to have watched.  The script is bad, the acting is bad, the plot is bad, and worst of all it makes a lot of the errors that I thought the first movie neatly avoided.  It furthermore opens up too many plot holes that a viewer can't easily ignore.

For example, this movie draws in some dumb comedy that can so easily ruin a horror movie.  In the beginning of the movie, a cop yells at the djinn "Freeze!"  First of all this is a command, not a wish, and second of all it is directed at the djinn to do to himself.  Although the djinn never listens to anyone else's command without specifying that they wish something of him, he manages to freeze this cop, and then declares "He needed to chill out," a line straight out of Schwarzenegger's mouth in Batman & Robin from two years earlier.

In fact, Divoff, his character, and even his M.O. were almost totally changed in this movie.  I hated Divoff so so so much.  He was creepy and irritating, and reminded me of some nerdy pricks that I met in college.  Whereas in the first movie the djinn spoke as though he were, in fact, coming out of the neo-Persian empire well before the Early Middle Ages, in this movie Divoff was a slick, quick-speaking, modern business man... with a really annoying, self-satisfied, Jack Torrance grin stuck on his face.  The whole plot involves so much sex which is typical of horror movies of this caliber, from the nude art-stricken walls of Morgana's apartment to her nightly lack of pajamas to her love for Gregory.  Furthermore, the movie takes this wild, religious turn (Jesus imagery?  stigmata?  really and why?) with Morgana becoming some pure-of-heart virgin with some apparent tie to the prophecy because of her orthodox religion or because she awakened the djinn - we're never really sure.

Something annoying about this movie is that you can almost tell that the writers (and Divoff) think the whole thing is so clever.  I guess they were following the lighter, more comical standards of horror movies from the time, but it gives no credit to the film.  The whole casino thing was embarrassing, strange, and over the top.  It doesn't even begin to touch the opening or ending sequence in the first film.

Final critique:  Oh well, now I'm stuck in the middle of a 4-installment series that will probably only get worse.  This is the kind of movie that gives the horror genre a bad rep, so while I wouldn't recommend it I guess I'd say it's still not the worst horror movie I've seen and at no point did I want to stop watching it.  I guess give it a try if you're looking for something dopey; there is some gore so if you're not into that, it's only a win-win if you stay away.

Wishmaster (1997)

GENERAL INFO:
Director: Robert Kurtzman
Studios: Pierre David, Image Organization
Starring: Tammy Lauren, Andrew Divoff, Robert Englund
Tagline: Be Careful What You Wish For.
MPAA Rating: R
Genre: horror, supernatural thriller, folklore, religious occult
Scare score: C-
Rating: A-

Plot overview: After centuries of being trapped inside the magical fire opal, an evil djinn (Divoff) is finally released into "present day" Los Angeles by an unsuspecting Alexandra (Lauren). Ultimately, the evil entity must track Alexandra down in order to grant her three wishes which will release the rest of the destructive race of the djinn from their realm between worlds. Along the way, however, he collects the souls of other victims slowly and painfully by tricking them into asking for a wish. The fate of the world lies in Alex's hands as she plays the djinn's terrible game, hoping to outsmart him before making her third and final wish.

While laying here sick in bed, I came across Wishmaster 3 on TV and realized that I had never seen any of these movies aside from their VHS cases on the shelves of Blockbuster back in my youth. So with all the time in the world ahead of me, I flipped off the TV and went straight to the internet.

I, uh, really liked this movie. I'm a sucker for big movie plots and romance and cool sets and costumes, so the opening sequence in Persia alone had me hooked. The first thing that strikes you about this movie aside from the sort of mystical plot (which, aside from the whole wishing bit, I found to be pretty closely related to what I had learned about jinn—ghosts of sorts that linger between worlds but often interfere with humans in playful or malevolent ways—in a class I took on Islam in college) was the gore. There is plenty of fun, colorful gore in this movie that reminded me a lot of '80s horror (after all, Wes Craven's name is attached to this first film in the Wishmaster series), a mix of Hellraiser with perhaps some Nightmare on Elm Street. We're talking fun, explosive, makeup-heavy bodies with skeletons breaking out and goo pouring from every orifice, the type of gore that makes you smile but still feel just the slightest bit queasy. I thought the gore was so creative and the costumes and makeup were excellent, specifically in the opening scene in Persia and Beaumont's (Englund) party towards the end of the film. I hope this film got some recognition for that.

The whole plot is just plain fun. The djinn/ genie himself is such an evil jerk we have to hate him. In his natural form is he is kind of scary, although I found his look to be a little too Star Wars meets Jeepers Creepers. Actually, adults with acne scars really freak me out, so I thought that the Nathaniel Demerest human form was even more creepy. I think the best thing they did with this djinn was keep him serious and not let him make any one liners like we see so often in the Leprechaun movies or even in Nightmare on Elm Street (sorry, Freddy). Keeping this genie meanie (I had to) allowed him to actually be a smart, formidable enemy.

Alexandra is a cool, likable leading lady with a sort of '90s girl power about her; we find her somewhere in between the hopeless, clueless, sexy horror movie girls from the '80s and the hopeless, clueless, sexy horror movie girls from the '00s. This girl is all about brain but with looks to boot; thankfully she is never exploited for her femininity, as overall this film stays away from the sex card. Her only fault is that she loves her family and friends, and almost throws away the well-being of the world to save their lives. So selfish! (Just kidding, it's a really tight situation.)

Hey there Robert Englund! Isn't he so evil looking even with no makeup on and while playing a perfectly ambivalent character? This movie has a few familiar faces that we love to see in our growing horror family, such as Tony Todd (Candyman himself!) who I love and Jenny O'Hara from Devil who has a great face and I wouldn't be surprised if we saw her in more movies in the future.

*SPOILER ALERT*

I guess my biggest issue with this film is that I thought the resolution brought up some pretty big plot holes. We've all seen Disney's Aladdin, and more importantly we've all seen Kazaam (coincidence that Wishmaster came out only a year later? I think not) so we know the yesses and nos regarding genies: they can't bring people back from the dead, they can't make people fall in love, and you can't wish for more wishes. Like duh this is so sophomoric why am I even reviewing it, right? Well Alex tries making the evil djinn kill himself, and she gets a bit too literal by saying "blow your brains out," and not to our surprise we find that the djinn cannot commit suicide/ die because he is older than time yadda yadda yadda. At the final climax of the film, however, Alex simply wishes one specific detail (omg because she studied newspapers!! so smart!!) that takes everyone back in time, preventing the djinn from being unleashed from the stone in the first place (for now). Okay... so there were a million other wishes that would have had the same positive result? What if I wished the djinn back into the stone? What if I wished he never was created? What if I wished he wasn't evil? What if I wished him powerless? What if I just politely asked him to stop? The third and final wish and the subsequent 'defeat' of Mr. Genie becomes a bit anti-climactic, and tons of plot holes are opened up. Oh well, at least we have room for a sequel now.

Favorite scene: Hands down, following Alex's second wish when she is returned safely back to her apartment (what a waste of a wish) and the djinn is leaving a message on her answering machine (classic 1997). In the middle of his threatening message, she picks up the phone and yells a forced "F*** you!" Oh snap girl you just shut that djinn djownn!

Final critique: I can see why people wouldn't like this movie. It can be borderline cheesy at times even though it avoids humor which so many horror movies of the '80s and '90s tended to include in some way. My response would be that this movie falls under the horror genre but not under terror. While the djinn is evil, he's a colorful '90s evil. This isn't a dark thriller that instills terror in our hearts by any means, but if you accept that this is a fun horror film, you will be thrilled by the plot and the plentiful gore. I recommend this movie for anybody looking for a fun, light horror with a few scares, but if you can't handle gore (even though it's not realistic), this isn't the movie for you.

Also, is The Horror Blog complete now since I referenced Kazaam? I think that's how life works.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005)

GENERAL INFO:
Director: Scott Derrickson
Studios: Lakeshore Entertainment, Firm Films
Starring: Laura Linney, Tom Wilkinson, Jennifer Carpenter
Tagline: What Happened to Emily?
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Genre: drama, thriller, exorcism, possession, religious occult, courtroom
Scare score: F+
Rating: C-

Plot overview:  Following the attempted exorcism performed on the now deceased 19-year-old Emily Rose (Carpenter) by Father Richard Moore (Wilkinson), the priest finds himself on trial for negligent homicide.  Assigned to his defense is the self-declared agnostic, career-driven Erin Bruner (Linney), who makes it her job to prove that a darker, spiritual realm exists, not only to the jury, but to herself as well.

I don't really like this movie, so I'm not going to write much about it.  It's one of those "based on a true story" jobs that has virtually nothing to offer us, and in my book (or blog) it shouldn't even be considered a horror movie.  I'm over exorcisms.  I don't really like exorcism movies because they're all the same, and this one proves no different as it brings nothing new to the genre except perhaps that it is actually more of an Inherit the Wind than The Exorcism (which looking at the poster it so desperately markets itself to be), with the 'scary' parts only retold in flashbacks.

I saw this for the first time in about 2006, and I didn't like it then especially because I was surrounded by people who thought it was terrifying.  Even recently I heard someone consider this movie scary.  Like, what?  The fact is this movie is not scary minus perhaps a few good moments as Emily begins experiencing demonic forces (or not) surrounding her at college.  Hence the F+ rather than an absolute failure.

It gets real old real fast that it is constantly raining in this movie, and that the movie itself is so dark (making it very difficult to watch in the daytime).  This film is filled to the brim with pathetic fallacy and exorcism cliches in general.

Luckily Linney is a great, fun actress who just keeps her cool throughout the film and her character's self journey.  Father Moore is a nice guy but pretty blah in general, the character of Emily bugs me in her creepy, wallpaper-patterned dresses and drab Kansas turn of the century, Puritanical look.  I don't like the way the the prosecutor Ethan Thomas (Campbell Scott) speaks, or the way he fails to act during most of the film.  I did, however, think the exorcism scene was fun to watch and interesting with its various references to the Bible and history.

Final critique:  This is a boring movie.  It isn't scary unless you get scared by the slightest things, which take place only during about 5 minutes of the movie.  I don't really recommend this film if you're looking for a horror movie, although the religious supernatural courtroom plot does become pretty compelling as the main plot of the film.  Boom, roasted.

Funny Games (1997)

GENERAL INFO:
Director: Michael Haneke
Studios: Filmfonds Wien, Wega Film, Österreichischer Rundfunk
Starring: Arno Frisch, Susanne Lothar, Ulrich Mühe, Stefan Clapczynski, Frank Giering
Tagline: Ein Alptraum ("A Nightmare")
MPAA Rating: Unrated
Genre: foreign film, German language, horror, thriller, psychological thriller, suspense, drama
Scare score: D+
Rating: A-

Plot overview:  Wealthy German family Georg (Mühe), Anna (Lothar), and son Georgie (Clapczynski) arrive at their lake house for a relaxing vacation.  While still unpacking, the odd Peter (Giering) shows up at the door asking to borrow eggs for the neighbors, which he clumsily breaks two separate times.  When his eloquent friend Paul (Frisch) shows up, the unpleasantness begins and they break Georg's leg with a golf club.  With the husband out of commission, the family submits for a night full of more terror than they could ever have imagined.

The entire time I watched this movie I was just thinking about how great a shot-for-shot, verbatim English remake would be.  After finishing, I was glad to hear that that already happened in 2007, so I will have to check that out some time soon.

This film was bizarre; it certainly kept me attentively watching throughout its entirety, but it was never really too scary.  In fact, I read that Haneke didn't intend for this to really be a 'horror' film, which it certainly isn't if you limit your definition of horror films to slashers and monsters.  The best way I could describe this to a more mainstream horror audience would be that it does everything right that The Strangers does wrong.  Basically, our two antagonists (but are they really antagonists?) show up at a nice house to torture an unsuspecting family simply because they can.  Perhaps this film makes the torture even sicker than the sheer violence of The Strangers because Peter and Paul's acts are carried out always in game form.  Some of the worst psychological torture came for me in moments such as when the men play a German version of eeny meeny miny moe (a la Elephant) in order to chose a victim, or when Anna is told to play along in order to chose her husband's fate.  Each member of the family at various times is falsely given the power to determine how another family member will be harmed, thus straining one's own conscience as well as the family relations.

Perhaps more than family, this is a movie about a woman.  Lothar shines as a believable wife and mother (perhaps the former more than the latter) from basic tasks such as cooking then later on as a protector and even as a tragic hero.  In fact, unlike women in most horror movies, Anna is never a victim of her womanhood (in the scene where she is made to strip, the environment - though certainly hostile - remains polite under the manners of the psychopaths, and her body is only complimented and neither touched nor violated aside from taking away her privacy).  While Georg's manhood is taken away after his leg is broken, and while Georgie's innocence is lost throughout the ordeal, Anna is our hero - strong and able to attempt escape - but she always remains a mother and wife although she suffers for it.  The filming and script make her the most important member of the family for us, and from the beginning of Peter and Paul's reign of terror we find ourselves rooting for Anna to triumph - a fact which Paul is aware of and calls us out for.

The most unique aspect of this film for me was Paul's character, his breaking of the fourth wall, and his god-like control over the events of the movie.  Although a negative force in the film (assuming we root for the wholesome family, their lives, and their values), Paul becomes the lead player drifting in and out of our reality as viewers and the fictional reality within the movie.  Paul and Peter's conversation at the end of the film is a commentary on the events of the film itself, and Paul - aware that he can break the fourth wall as he pleases - even makes the statement about fictional realities or dimensions being real and actual merely because they do exist, by definition, albeit within some realm of fiction.  Some of the most chilling moments of the movie for me were when Paul would turn around and look through the camera directly at us.  I thought it was funny when he would talk about how the movie was progressing, what we wanted and expected as viewers, and what would be good action and suspense within the events of the film.

*SPOILER ALERT*

One of the strangest things for me was after Anna successfully grabbed the gun and killed Peter.  That made sense to me; it was what we expected (maybe) because it's how most horror movies go, a sudden turn around so that our heroine can break free.  When Paul pulled that stunt with the remote I knew that it was hopeless and that the family was really doomed.  (Well actually, I already knew how this ended because I read about the final scenes before watching. Womp womp)

I thought Paul and Peter were so perfect, so psychotic, so creepy.  Their dialogue made their characters so excellent to me, and that's what I wanted most to be replicated in the English-language version of this film.  I most liked how well-spoken Paul was, and how he kept teasing Peter for his weight.  The scene when Paul keeps talking about Peter's background - with the story constantly changing - was really eerie.  Also, the fact that they kept wanting to eat and play games during their stay at the household further showed the 'ennui' they claimed to be suffering from, and as I've stated in previous entries, the worst kind of terror is a realistic terror that happens simply because it can.

We have to appreciate the commentary this film makes on violence - pure and pointless violence - which is always appropriate considering the amount of terrible shootings, killings, and fights we hear about in our world today.  The cruel and blasé happenings in this film, and the possibility of them happening in real life, push Funny Games into the horror genre in my book.

Final critique:  A lot of people would find this film disturbing, which I can only assume Haneke wanted to happen after watching.  It isn't a scary film, per se, rather what happens in the film and the lack of any motive thereof is what becomes scary for us,  the viewers, no longer safe in our reality that Paul is able to penetrate and even perhaps control as this film breaks away from most horror movie archetypes, going so far as to break two of my cardinal rules in an anticlimactic, unimportant way.  Funny Games, then, becomes not only a horror movie, but an interesting look into a terrible nightmare void of reason that will have us questioning what we would do in a situation where our rights as humans and love as a family are tested and stripped slowly away.

Waxwork (1988)

GENERAL INFO:
Director: Anthony Hickox
Studios: Vestron Pictures, Contemporary Films, HB Filmrullen
Starring: Zach Galligan, Deborah Foreman, Michelle Johnson, David Warner
Tagline: Stop On By and Give Afterlife a Try
MPAA Rating: R
Genre: horror, comedy, voodoo, teen
Scare score: D
Rating: B+

Plot overview:  A group of teenagers is invited to a late-night showing of a new and mysterious waxwork in town by its suspicious owner (Warner).  The inside of the museum holds a large collection of morbid scenes featuring wax models of 'the most evil men from history.'  As some of his friends begin to disappear, Mark (Galligan) begins to suspect that these life-like waxworks may be sucking in victims in one madman's plot to unleash unspeakable evil into the world.

I stumbled upon Waxwork almost completely randomly during a late-night Wikipedia search session, and I was so happy with my choice.  This movie has a little bit everything for everyone.

Coming more than forty years after the 1953 House of Wax really left its mark in the wax sub-genre of horror, I thought this movie had a cool plot for a horror basis with just enough of that '80s sci-fi and humor to make it an interesting, although not particularly frightening - film.  What I guess drew me most to this movie was the numerous fantastic references to historical and fictional characters such as Dracula, the Marquis de Sade, and the Mummy.  I thought it was strange that the waxwork/ plot of the movie pitched these as all being real people (a werewolf?), but hey I guess the whole plot is out there so why sweat the details.

Back to the details actually (okay, so I'm a stickler), a big problem I had with the movie was that the whole evil plot of the waxwork caretaker was referred to as "voodoo," which it really had absolutely nothing to do with beyond the usage of specific possessions of these 'real' men in their wax recreations. Oh well, that's corny '80s Hollywood horror for you.

All the acting is pretty '80s, which is hard to get away from, but I did enjoy all the quirky, archetypal teens dealing with their day-to-day and then their separate fights to survive various imaginative sequences.  Again, I thought all of these horror allusions were really cool, it allowed the movie to explore various genres and break away from the confining wax museum.  We as viewers were given a selection of refreshing death scenes from across the ages, from Dracula's castle to a mummy's tomb to a nice nod at Romero's living dead.  Sure it was easy to crack up at that oversized gremlin that was the werewolf, but later on I thought the brief gore in the Dracula sequence was pretty gross, and then the large final battle was really a blast.  I didn't actually expect Galligan (what's good, Gremlins?) to be the star of this show, nor did I expect the weird and quiet Foreman to become our leading lady and final girl even though she was the obvious virgin throughout.  Either way, I enjoyed Galligan as a hero we could get behind and cheer on, but I wasn't a big fan of Miss Foreman as Sarah.

I watched this movie immediately after watching Human Centipede, yet surprisingly this one had me jump one or two times, which the former film did not.  True, it was like 4 AM, but to this fun movie's credit, it did have me a little scared at least two or three times (mainly jumpy moments while my guard was down).

Final critique:  I can't think of much more to say about this movie.  I really did enjoy it, and I think a good thing about it is that it provides a few silly scares that everyone can enjoy.  It's rated R I think mainly due to language and some slight gore, plus it's about a group of teenagers and you know how they can be, but all in all I thought it was pretty harmless.  I definitely recommend this movie to anybody looking for a fun '80s flick with a few thrills.

Human Centipede (First Sequence) (2010)

GENERAL INFO:
Director: Tom Six
Studios: Six Entertainment
Starring: Dieter Laser, Ashley C. Williams, Ashlynn Yennie, Akihiro Kitamura
Tagline: Their Flesh is His Fantasy
MPAA Rating: R
Genre: foreign film, horror, thriller, body horror, mad scientist, torture, tourists
Scare score: B-
Rating: A-

Plot overview:  After their rental car blows a flat tire in Germany during their European vacation, best friends and girly New Yorkers Lindsay (Williams) and Jenny (Yennie) seek shelter in an isolated house.  As their dream vacation quickly turns into their worst nightmare, both girls are drugged and captured by the owner of the house, the misanthropic Dr. Heiter (Laser), a renown surgeon specializing in the separation of Siamese twins.  Now hoping to perfect a reverse surgery, the two girls and a third victim (Kitamura) become the living pieces of the sick doctor's new pet.

I know there was tons of talk and shock etc. when this movie came out a few years back, but it never really piqued my interest.  To be honest it sounded to me like the film took a wild, gross plot (rumor even had it that Six though such an operation would be possible) and went really mainstream with it, resulting in a sell-out that I didn't end up hearing too much about afterward.  Well I don't know if all of that is even true, but I have to say that I finally got around to seeing this the other night and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

I was honestly surprised that this wasn't a low-budget gore fest.  I thought this movie had a pretty decent story behind it, with the vacation-gone-wrong theme that scared us so much in Hostel or Turistas.  I specifically appreciate horror based on tourists being kidnapped/ tortured because it is a very practical fear that I think most people (or their mothers) can relate to after stepping out of their homes or off of a plane.  While the whole co-joining of people was something new to me, it came as no surprise that it was done so clearly as a continuation, of sorts, of Nazi experimentations.  Like, the story is about a German doctor - no shocker there that he is portrayed in long, clean lab coats; tall, shiny boots; a modern and extremely clean house where he can conduct his crazed experiments on live specimens.  To me, this was just another joust from the Dutch in their endless game of how they can still insult Germans by calling them Nazis.  Gotta love Europeans.

Dieter Laser was such a weirdo in this movie and I loved it.  From the first scene when the girls arrive at his house and he looks outside with those creepy eyes, or when he bluntly tells them "I don't like human beings."  Ugh that was so good.  Big applause to his freak out scene later in the movie as the cops get on his trail and he begins to realize he may not be getting away with all his crimes.  I read that he stayed in character at all times while on set, which would have made filming this with him even more uncomfortable.

Speaking of filming... what was that like for Williams, Yennie, and Kitamura?  Like imagine you're an aspiring actor or actress and you land a lead in this film and then they're like "Ohh yaa the only catch is that after the first third of the movie where you scream and cry a lot, in the last two-thirds of the movie you're on your knees with your mouth against so-and-so's butt.  K see you on set byee!"  I want to go find interviews with these people to learn how weird that must have been.

I liked our three victims.  I was almost surprised in the first few scenes of the movie when the girls are getting ready for their night out that they didn't come across as the typical immature, annoying, all around bad actresses that we are so used to in modern horror.  Especially Williams struck me as a mature, serious actress... I mean yeah, that changed later on when their acting was reduced to crying, screaming, and then crawling around, but props to them anyway for those first few scenes.  Kitamura pretty much cracked me up the entire time.  I really wasn't expecting some random Japanese guy in the film, but I loved how vocal he was and I thought the Japanese language was beautiful even though it was distressed and probably vulgar most of the time.  But what a character, with some interesting dialogue to boot.

The cinematography, namely the exterior shots of the house (and the interior, too) impressed me.  It was nice to see some thought put into what I was expecting to be a sell-out blood bath.  Honestly, the good filming combined with the several *almost* escapes plus the amount of time it even took for the whole centipede bit to begin really surprised me; together they really gave a thought-out movie feeling to this film, and I spent my night pretty delighted to be watching a fun and often funny movie (it had me laughing quite a bit).

Final critique:  This movie certainly wasn't what I was expecting it to be.  I know now that I'll be recommending this to people, although it certainly is not for everyone (just mention the basic plot to most people and you risk them vomiting on your shoes).  To be perfectly honest, however, I thought that the movie stayed on the polite side of things, and I found myself wanting more gore, more excrement, and maybe less tears (does that make me weird?)  Well I guess my next step would be checking out the sequel, which I've heard makes up for the blood etc that this first one leaves out, but after reading the synopsis I don't know that I can handle it!  Stay tuned, my pets.

Victim (2010)

GENERAL INFO:
Director: Matt Eskandari, Michael A. Pierce
Studios: Pierce/ Williams Entertainment, Kingdom of Light Entertainment, Zero Gravity Management
Starring: Stephen Weigand, Bob Bancroft, Brendan Kelly
Tagline: It's Not Always Who You Think
MPAA Rating: Unrated
Genre: psychological thriller, drama, mad scientist
Scare Score: F
Rating: D-

Plot overview:  A young man (Weigand) is kidnapped and forced to undergo extreme mental and physical torture in a surgeon's (Bob Bancroft) twisted plot for revenge.

I realize I have been gone for months, dropping out of the horror movie and blogging scene to enjoy a lazy summer.  Well boredom has kicked in, and my duty to The Horror Blog has found its way back into my schedule.  

Unfortunately, this is the movie I chose to start with.  I was looking forward to a lazy Saturday night on Netflix's awful horror movie selection, and for some reason this seemed appealing.  The movie poster certainly helps, but what really pulled me in was the the short description for the film basically made me think I was in for a perhaps gorier, English-language version of Almodovar's La piel que habito which was so excellent I don't know why I haven't blogged about it.  

This movie was nothing that non-spoiling internet reviews promised it to be: it was boring, not frightening whatsoever, there was no gore considering the movie is about forced surgery, there was very little plot evolution and everything was predictable.

Returning to Almodovar, I don't get how the two movies can exist separately, and I was upset to learn that Victim is the older of the two films.  The plots are exactly the same except Victim is boring and slow and cheap and poorly done with no artistic valor that I could find.  I mean, to be honest I did really like Georgie (Kelly), and while Dr. Volk really annoyed me I thought he was pretty perfectly creepy.  In fact, this movie is saved by the fact that the acting is not horrible; the actors are just not given much room to do their thing, per se.  But really, this movie has the same exact plot as La piel que habito - like the plots are 98% identical.  How is that legal?  Oh well.  Almodovar trumps.

Back to the bash, this movie was boring and frustratingly predictable - but to its credit, I didn't feel the urge to turn it off (hence a D- rating instead of a flat F).  The movie delivers in no way except for a kind of sadistic pleasure of revenge which kept me hoping something shocking would happen.  There was that one little plot twist regarding Rachel (Jennifer Howie), the daughter's, fate, so I guess that was interesting, but still this movie was a kind of one-time mistake in my book.

Final critique:  I'm back on the horror blogging scene and this is my flaccid debut.  This movie has a cool (though not unique) plot which had me setting out with big expectations.  The film didn't deliver, but I was able to sit through it hoping it would improve.  While it never was great, this is not the worst horror movie I have seen, so if you feel like sitting through La piel que habito's ugly little sibling, this is the film for you.

April Review

For your consideration:

1.  Strangers on a Train (1951): A-
2.  I Know What You Did Last Summer (1997): B+
3.  Wait Until Dark (1967): B+
4.  I Still Know What You Did Last Summer (1998): C

Strangers on a Train (1951)

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  Alfred Hitchcock
Studios:  Warner Bros.
Starring:  Farley Granger, Robert Walker, Ruth Roman
Tagline:  It's Off the Beaten Track!
MPAA Rating:  PG
Genre:  thriller, psychological thriller, suspense, crime, mystery, black and white
Scare score:  C+
Rating:  A-

Plot overview:  While heading to visit and discuss divorce with his unfaithful wife Miriam (Laura Elliott), amateur tennis star Guy Haines (Granger) crosses paths with eccentric and good-for-nothing socialite Bruno Anthony (Walker) on a train.  Bruno wastes no time in prying into Guy's "private" life - which the tabloids are currently exploiting - and although Guy remains shy, Bruno goes so far as to explain his idea of how to pull off the perfect murder.  But when Bruno takes this exchange too far and begins acting on his plan, all signs point to Guy as the guilty party.  Will Guy be able to clear his name and save himself from Bruno's antics?

Ever since I saw a CSI episode when I was 10 where this movie title was dropped (leading to a brutal murder via screwdriver to the back of the head), I have wanted to see it - not sure why I waited so long!  Obviously this film has been very famous for over 60 years now and for a good reason.  This movie was very enjoyable, not only because it's Hitch and I love him, but because on one hand we have a lovely black and white classic, and on the other we have an entertaining thriller.  From the beginning I was never quite sure where the plot was headed, and I found myself doubting various characters.  They proved me wrong a few times, and even the ending managed to surprise me.

The plot itself is interesting although I didn't find it to be the most plausible thing ever thrown at us (not that the events of The Birds are much more likely...)  Let's be honest.  Bruno's mother should realize her son is psychotic.  If I were her, I would get him help and then separate myself from him.  If I were Guy, and an obsessive weirdo approached me on a train, I would never let him discuss details of my intimate life solely because the tabloids have exploited them.  I would ask him to please stop talking to me.  The minute he brought up murder plots, I would become extremely concerned.  And furthermore, if that same man ever actually killed, thinking he was doing me a favor, I would go straight to the police.  No, they wouldn't pin it on me simply because a "stranger" did it.  Law enforcement doesn't work that way.  So what if they saw me fighting with the victim shortly beforehand?  Silly Guy.

Miriam is so perfectly evil.  I mean, we practically have to hate her as soon as she starts toying with Guy in her first scene.  I guess Bruno does some good after all...  Speaking of that crazy Bruno, Robert Walker does a really good job of creating this creepy, annoying, eccentric character.  Bruno is so irksome, so irritating- so crazy.  Kudos to him.

I was a huge fan of Ruth Roman in the role of Anne Morton, the strong and beautiful daughter of the Senator.  She was a perfect, dedicated love interest for Guy, staying true to him even after learning about the situation in which he has become entangled.  I feel like all these old Hollywood movies have some beautiful starlet tucked into the cast.

Lastly, I was Team Guy from the first scene on the train.  Granger plays him expertly as a likable, honest character.  There was something very innocent, very human about this performance.  It seemed effortless, like Guy was a real, well, guy that you or I might know.  Obviously Horror Buff spends his free time swinging with a young tennis crowd in Southampton.  Back to Farley/ Guy, it's easy to sympathize with him, and that being said, I am pretty happy with how things work out.

My one problem, however, is that, based solely on how he reacts to the whole situation, Guy is clearly guilty in this movie.  The minutes he becomes aware that Bruno has committed a murder, and the second he decides not to go to the police, he becomes a criminal in my book.

*SPOILER ALERT*

So like, sure, maybe everything ends all fine and dandy for him- but he's a criminal.  There's no other way around it.  Sure I'm no law student, but I don't think he should be off the hook at the end of the movie.  And these are the characters we have going into politics...

My favorite scene was probably the one on the carousel towards the end of the movie.  I think they did a nice job of building up the tension here, and I liked the effects.  Also, I appreciated that the whole thing sort of crashed, sending innocent people off in various directions.  It's nice when actual things happen harming random characters, making the film more realistic than if they had spared them in some stupid way.  The train scenes were also enjoyable and interesting.

Final critique:  You should see this movie.  It shouldn't scare you (it gets a C+ for effort), but, as always, Hitch does a nice job of making us sweat.  Again, the plot isn't too realistic, but the story is presented in an attractive manner that we can really get hooked on.  It's the type of movie that reminds me why I love Hitchcock and why I love old movies.  There is some honest, human acting here that gets the job done without being over the top.  Plus, there's a lot more to the film than meets the eyes, or so I felt, regarding various subtexts of society and inward/outward appearances.  If anything, it might make you think again before striking up a conversation with a stranger on a train or subway.

Wait Until Dark (1967)

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  Terence Young
Studios:  Warner Bros.
Starring:  Audrey Hepburn, Alan Arkin, Richard Crenna, Jack Weston
Tagline:  A blind woman plays a deadly game of survival.
MPAA Rating:  Unrated
Genre:  thriller, suspense, thieves
Scare score:  D+
Rating:  B+

Plot overview:  Hoping to recover an old doll filled with pouches of heroin, conmen Mike (Crenna) and Carlino (Weston) are hired by bad guy Harry Roat (Arkin) to retrieve the item by whatever means necessary.  They have tracked down the doll to the apartment of photographer Sam Hendrix (Efram Zimbalist, Jr.) and his blind wife Susy (Hepburn).  Taking advantage of Susy's disability when she is home alone one night, the three men weave an intricate web of lies, fake stories, and false characters to gain Susy's trust and ultimately find the doll.  But will their treachery be enough to outsmart Susy in her own home?

I'm doing something a little different here, as I wouldn't consider this a "horror" movie, yet I am writing about it in my Horror Blog.  After two nights in a row watching slashers from the late '90s, I felt the need for a change and went further back to a much more well thought out, much better acted movie, that being Wait Until Dark.  I had heard tons about this great film, but I had never seen it.  As I watched it, I kept debating back and forth whether or not I would blog about it.  Well here we are.

I wish I had sat down at night in a dark room with a bowl of popcorn for this one.  Instead I started part of it, then watched the second part on my laptop in the afternoon while doing other things around the house.  That certainly distracted me a bit from the film, but I still really enjoyed it.

This is a smart movie.  It has that old feeling (and that older look), and aside from a few loud scenes on the street we can really allow ourselves to be comfortable even as the suspense of the plot grows stronger and the tension between characters seems unbearable.  I think it is a very bold move to have a main character be blind, which Hepburn acted superbly and affectionately, which shouldn't come as a surprise in the least.  I was impressed with her eyes as well, as she didn't wear glasses but maintained her gazed straight head at all times.

The three conmen might deserve more credit.  They are tough, mean, and intelligent, which usually isn't a factor for typical movie bandits.  Crenna isn't only a heartthrob, but when he shows actual feelings throughout (perhaps sympathy for Susy) he becomes a dynamic character.  I especially liked Arkin, although I was constantly confused by his strange, Godfather-esque accent and John Lennon glasses.  Together, they add a lot of drama to the film and give it almost a live theater feelings due to their strong acting and the small set of the apartment interior.

As far as my scare rating goes, this falls into the old category of movies that just can't scare us anymore since we're used to today's over the top terror.  I would only credit this movie with one scene that actually scared me, that being the first time Mike goes looking in the bedroom closet.  Didn't see that one coming.  The famous blackout scene was really excellent, making me wish I had been watching in the dark.  Unfortunately, it wasn't quite as scary as I was expecting it to be.

Final critique:  This is a great choice if you're looking for a pretty drama and action packed film on any night of the week.  The thrills are few but the suspense is high, and this movie doesn't lose sight of its integrity in order to deliver unnecessary scares.  Some parts are a little slow, and I think a remake would have a good chance of doing well, but in the meantime, see this original gem.

I Still Know What You Did Last Summer (1998)

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  Danny Cannon
Studios:  Mandalay Entertainment
Starring:  Jennifer Love Hewitt, Freddie Prinze Jr., Brandy, Mekhi Phifer, Matthew Settle; ft. Bill Cobbs, Jack Black
Tagline:  Someone is dying for a second chance.
MPAA Rating:  R
Genre:  horror, thriller, sequel, mystery, slasher, stalker, serial killer, teen
Scare score:  C-
Rating:  C

 Plot overview:  One year after the events of the first movie, Julie (Love Hewitt) is readjusting to a normal life at college, in part due to her roommate Karla (Brandy), Karla's boyfriend Tyrell (Phifer), and a possible new love interest, Will (Settle).  After Karla wins an all-expenses-paid getaway to the Bahamas, things seem like they might finally be going right.  Unfortunately for them, killer Ben Willis (Muse Watson) is back, and with hurricane season in full force, the new group of four is trapped on the island with Ben swiftly killing off anyone who gets in his way.  Will Ray (Prinze) get there in time to save Julie yet again, and in the meantime can the four friends stay safe, even from each other?

This sequel isn't as good as the first film (few sequels ever are).  We are taken away from little old South Port and placed in the "Bahamas," where most of the film's terror takes place within a winding hotel resort.  I don't have tons to say, so I am going to keep this one quick.

The script is much better this time around.  The characters feel much more real and comfortable when they talk, and you totally get into that sassy, college vibe and slang (thanks, Brandy).  While the lines themselves might have been better, however, that doesn't mean that delivery really changed.  I guess in the horror genre we have generally accepted that the acting is never going to be great, especially in dumb teen horrors, but it was still a disappointment.

Casting in this movie is almost about as mythical as in the last one.  Love Hewitt is back, and brooding and negative as ever, so I am more than thankful for Brandy's upbeat, lively, lighthearted performance.  I mean, what college girl who is still suffering from the trauma of seeing her best friends murdered and potentially having murdered someone doesn't need a perky best friend and roommate, you know?  Unfortunately, this sequel's attempt to make the cast not-so-white results in two over-the-top caricatures in our core four, obviously with Mekhi Phifer being the biggest example.  I am a big fan of Bill Cobbs in a few of his roles, and while he spends most of his time in this movie as a mysterious, mumbling red herring, I still appreciated his presence.  Lastly, I mean, Jack Black.  Nuff said.

A few issues with the plot and action itself.  First of all, everyone reacts way too calmly to the many deaths of this movie.  We are dealing with ignorant college students, they should not see bloody dead bodies and be like "Jinkies!  Let's get out of here."  No.  They should be terrified and sick because of it.  The constant mindset of finding another corpse, then running away back into the hotel until they surely find another one gets real old real fast.

My biggest problems are about our dear old friend Ben.  The killer has completely changed his MO in this movie.  Yes, he wants Julie (and Ray) dead, and yes, he kills anyone who gets in his way.  Still, he kills far more frequently and even randomly in this movie.  From the beginning of the film, workers on the island begin dropping like flies simply for the sake of being around.  Left and right we have someone getting slashed, and it remains clear that it is for audience enjoyment rather than for the sake of integrity to the horror movie itself.  Furthermore, he is much less human this time around.  Whereas in the first film he was this scary and seemingly unstoppable, but very human, figure, in this movie he seems almost like Michael Meyers by his slow way of walking and ceaseless stalking.  Also, his voice is just so weird and forced in this installment, I can't handle it.  Do less, Ben.

Final critique:  I mean, no, this isn't a great movie.  But that doesn't mean it's not a decent, fun movie to watch when you're in the mood for some light horror.  The first one is certainly better, but this is not a bad choice for a lazy night at home when you're looking to get just a little creeped out by a group of dumb teens trapped on a stormy island as a stalker with a meat hook begins slashing everybody's throats.  Plus, with an awesome Titanic reference pretty early on, who could turn this awkward, forced sequel down?

I Know What You Did Last Summer (1997)

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  Jim Gillespie
Studios:  Mandalay Entertainment
Starring:  Jennifer Love Hewitt, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Freddie Prinze Jr., Ryan Phillippe; ft. Bridgette Wilson, Anne Heche
Tagline:  If you're going to bury the truth, make sure it stays buried.
MPAA Rating:  R
Genre:  horror, thriller, mystery, slasher, stalker, serial killer, teen
Scare score:  C+
Rating:  B+

Plot overview:  Exactly one year after hitting a mysterious man on the road and dumping his body in the ocean to hide the evidence, now distanced friends Julie (Love Hewitt), Helen (Gellar), Ray (Prinze), and Barry (Phillippe) are reunited under uncomfortable circumstances in their hometown of South Port.  Having been tortured by her guilty conscience for a year, Julie is horrified to find a note left in her house saying "I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER!"  As the group of estranged friends comes together again to get to the bottom of the mystery, a killing spree starts in the small town as a large figure in a fisherman's slicker suit carrying a lethal meat hook begins tracking down his four intended victims.  Who is the mystery killer and how does he know what happened last summer?  The four friends must fight for their lives to stop the murders and rest their guilty consciences.

I am probably the biggest fan of '90s-2000s teen horror movies.  There is something so wonderful about  the overdramatic plots, the awful scriptwriting, and the creative, often slightly provocative deaths.  I prefer this era of horror to teen slashers from the '80s (mainly due to effects, costumes, plots, and the fact that I was alive), and even today I don't find that horrors directed at young audiences or groups of friends deliver as much as they did in these days when they hit their prime.  It really brings back some good memories.

I Know What You Did Last Summer centers around a group of four (superstar) friends, so I mean with four of the hottest celebrities of the moment headlining, nothing could go wrong, right?  Wrong.  Again, I'm a big fan of this film (more for personal measures than practical ones), but Jennifer Love Hewitt bugs the heck out of me - I mean, how annoying is Julie? - which is never a plus when that's your main protagonist.  Still, she is the most empathetic one of the group, and automatically I think it's safe to assume that she will be our final girl.

Otherwise, I'm a huge fan of Sarah Michelle Gellar, Freddie Prinze, and Ryan Phillippe.  That's not to say their acting is great.... Let's talk about the script first.  It's pretty darn bad.  I found it awkward in many parts, mainly because we're dealing with a group of teenagers who are speaking like somebody put a script in front of them instead of allowing them to talk as they actually would.  On top of this unrealistic dialogue, the, er, acting doesn't really take the characters to high places.  Furthermore, this film relies pretty heavily on the assumption that the characters make some of the stupidest decisions possible given their situations.  Would I rather watch Summer Catch and Cruel Intentions?  I mean, maybe, but luckily for this little gem, the horror aspect brings me back every time.

We have a compelling mystery here, I'll give the film that.  There are great questions thrown at us (who knows?  who is the killer?) which leads us to question not only the host of supporting members of the cast (shout out to the creepy Anne Heche and the beautiful but horrendously rude Veronica Vaughn- I mean Bridget Wilson- but also our core four, as we think they are the only ones who truly know what happened that night.  I truly enjoy this type of mystery in horror films, that keep us guessing and guessing again until the puzzle pieces are put together just near the end, in a somewhat far-stretched but otherwise understandable way.

I think this film does a good job with the killer (Muse Watson).  The covered-head-to-toe look is creepy, and it prevents us from guessing who he might be - or even if "he's" male or female.  The best innovation here is the meat hook, hereafter made iconic to this film trilogy.  Some deaths are more exciting than others and we range from simple slashes with the hook to dramatically murdered characters carried away by this murderer's seemingly superhuman strength.  As far as this killer goes, he pulls off some pretty tricky stuff for a human which had me questioning the reality of his plotting more than once.

Better than the death scenes, perhaps, we have the suspenseful scenes which are a plenty.  Whether we are in a locker room, some sort of fish factory, the sticks of whatever state this is supposed to take place in (maybe one of the Carolinas?  Even though the cliffs are so obviously California), or especially a bedroom, this movie is filled with moments that make us want to curl up and cover our eyes before the dark figure swings out his hook yet again.

As far as cinematography goes, I didn't play very close attention to the actual filming of this movie, but it's one of those horror flicks that relies on typically dark, cluttered rooms, fog, nighttime, and various angles that show us the doors left open or the shadows crossing the hallway.  I wasn't crazy about the last 10 or so minutes of the movie, which I thought were pretty random, but otherwise I enjoyed the setting of South Port.

Final critique:  My biggest complaint with this film is the unrealistic dialogue and the anything-but-practical actions and reactions of this group of teens.  Still, I Know What You Did Last Summer is a sort of young classic: a horror film that might not have a lot of intrinsic merit, but that if you mention, most people will know the name.  My recommendation?  Watch it.  Have a sleepover, make some popcorn, have a pillow fight, and watch this movie to get all scared before bed.  The blood is minimal, the deaths are quick, the suspense is high, and our protagonists are just so charming.  If nothing else, you won't be wasting your time by watching this stupid, suspenseful film.