Annabelle (2014)

Happy October, horror fans!

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  John R. Leonetti
Studios:  Warner Bros. Pictures
Starring:  Annabelle (coincidence?) Wallis, Ward Horton, Alfre Woodard
Tagline:  Before The Conjuring, there was... Annabelle.
MPAA Rating:  R
Genre:  horror, terror, thriller, suspense, drama, haunting, demon, occult, family drama
Scare score:  B-/B
Rating:  A-

Plot overview: In 1960s California, society is changing and so are the lives of young couple Mia (Wallis) and John Gordon (Horton), who are expecting their firstborn child any week now.  As a special gift, John presents the anxious Mia with a very rare Annabelle doll to complete her extensive collection.  One night, however, their kind neighbors are savagely murdered by two cult followers who then attack Mia and John.  Just as Mia begins to lose consciousness from a stab wound to her abdomen, the male intruder is shot by police, and the female intruder takes her own life while cradling the Annabelle doll in her arms.  From that day forward, strange and terrifying events begin haunting Mia and her newborn child.

So yes, I ended up going to see Annabelle on opening night in a crowded theater filled with all kinds of personalities, which can simultaneously improve or ruin a horror movie.  To be honest, I wasn't expecting this movie to be good - how much can you do with a doll?  (Don't get me started on Child's Play).  Well I have to say, whether it was the movie itself, the beautiful allusions between this and other classic horror movies, or the wild-and-crazy audience around me, Horror Buff will go against the critics in saying that Annabelle was a hit.

The period piece is done very masterfully (very reminiscent of Mad Men), expounding upon the 1960s/70s world created in The Conjuring, to which this movie serves as a prequel.  Director John R. Leonetti (who worked on films such as Child's Play 3, Dead Silence - the poster is very similar to Annabelle's - and more recently with James Wan on Insidious, Insidious: Chapter 2, and, of course, The Conjuring) takes his turn in the limelight as this new sort of universe within horror continues growing.  The allusions to the Insidious movies (that demon looks like a darker brother of Darth Maul, and also the concept of hauntings following a family) and The Conjuring (especially the tune the mobile above the baby's crib plays) were some of my favorite details in this film.  They received a huge reaction from the audience.

The other allusions that are most obvious in Annabelle are to Rosemary's Baby, and while the latter is far superior, it was a really nice nod to see from Leonetti to Polanski.  From the general plot to the iconic pram, even going so far as Mia's clothes, the similarities between the movies are undeniable.  In fact, the relationship between the movies goes deeper than simple on-screen allusions.  Our protagonist in this film is named Mia, perhaps in reference to Mia Farrow, star of Rosemary's Baby.  Furthermore, Mia is totally stylized in this movie to look like Sharon Tate (who is said to have wanted the eponymous leading role in Rosemary's Baby - well, not the baby... you know what I mean), wife of Roman Polanski and victim to the Manson Family, which is referenced in the beginning of Annabelle and played upon in terms of cults and home invasions.  All of these allusions became so strong that when it all hit me I immediately started worrying that the plot of Annabelle was going to take the same turns (I'll explain below); I'm so happy it didn't.

Acting is really pretty standard in this movie: fresh, young(, attractive) faces, all with a very innocent '60s air about it.  Even if her role is unoriginal, Annabelle Wallis does a pleasant, strong job (just as we need/ want her to) in the lead as mother, wife, and victim.  Speaking of which, I would love to see Wan come back with a movie with a man in the primary role as a victim.  Also, I can't stress enough how weird it is that her name is Annabelle and she landing the lead in this movie.  Virtual newcomer Ward Horton impresses us in one way or another in his shallow role as perfect husband, loving father, driven careerist and, of course, doctor.  I thought he brought a lot of heart to the otherwise static role. Then, in a desperate attempt to diversify the film, we have the lovely Alfre Woodard.  Unfortunately, her character Evelyn simply becomes the newest member of the "magical black person" club of archetypes in film and literature.  Would that she had been given more depth or screen time, or less knowledge and even power, to avoid this grievous stereotype.

The horror in this film is largely under attack by critics, to which I can understand but not fully agree.  I asked the question once and I'll ask it again: how much can you do with a doll?  I have a feeling that the creative team here asked themselves the same question, and easily resolved it by deciding that a lot of this film's horror didn't even have to do with Annabelle herself.  As we learned in other Wan/ Leonetti films, sometimes, every day objects are merely used as conduits by things far more horrible and dangerous.  Annabelle takes this lesson to heart in several ways.

I've always said that one of the most clever things a horror movie can do is inspire terror in mundane, every day objects.  It is one thing to be afraid of aliens or invisible monsters, and a completely separate experience to be afraid of the water or chainsaws.  So while this movie chooses a doll, which enough people are afraid of anyway (and by the way, I would never ever marry a woman with a doll collection like Mia's), it also diverts our attention to other everyday items and occurrences such as sewing machines (agh!!), basements, or even leaving the stove on.  In regards to the doll itself, this movie is dead-on with its suspense.  I found a lot of the terror in this movie to be Hitchcockian in nature.  Not surprisingly, the suspense in this movie is fantastic, and also not surprisingly, I think that critics are angry about whether or not it ultimately delivers.  In many ways, I think it does.  There are some wonderful, memorable scares throughout the movie, including things we are and are not expecting.

*SPOILER ALERT*

Well into the movie, we still aren't sure what to expect and whether or not this Annabelle doll is truly going to manifest her malevolence.  For Pete's sake, we don't even see the doll actually move until the last 15 minutes of the film.  What does the movie do to keep us scared/ interested until then?  Sure, Annabelle relies on a lot of "dumb" scares and fake outs to get us through a large amount of the plot, but it does so no more than any other horror movie.  In fact, Annabelle boasts a lot more good scaring than many horror movies we see these days.  In a typically James Wan fashion, we are given only glimpses as to the true nature of the haunting/ evil in this movie until the climax/ falling action, but these are best described as real hints, not as red herrings such as in many other horror movies.  There is lots of talk of the occult, devil worshiping, and satanism through the film, but when the time is right, yes, I think this movie certainly delivers in regards to the demon/ devil (?) that ends up being the culprit behind the haunting and the puppeteer behind Annabelle.  One thing I think we can all agree on is that this demon is a huge improvement from Darth Maul in Insidious.  Once this crazy new character starts appearing, he doesn't stop, and I loved it.  The audience I was with last night kept going wild any time he popped up, all with positive reactions.  I thought that this demon was an absolute treat from the creative team here.

With the undeniable allusions to Rosemary's Baby, I started to get more than a little frightened by this film, not so much because of the scares but instead for fear of where the plot was headed.  The new apartment building, the troubled pregnancy and worrisome threats directed at the baby - who is the absolute cutest baby in the world - the quirky and spiritual neighbor (Evelyn), the career driven husband... No I thought.  No no no.  John gave Mia Annabelle in the first place.  John was never home to experience the haunting, and easily could be feigning belief in his wife.  John went away right before we saw the stove left - not magically turned - on.  John put Annabelle in the trash, but did he take her out?  For more than a hot sec, I was so worried that we were just seeing Rosemary's Baby all over again, and that John and Evelyn were in on it.  The best thing this movie did was not go down that rabbit hole.  The suspicions are there, but thankfully that is not the case.

My only real problem, then, is the resolution in this movie.  The demon wants a soul, and its sights are set on baby Lia/ Lea/ Leah.  Since the baby cannot offer her own soul, the demon will need to trick someone into offering one to him, using a haunting to achieve the insanity or possession of his victim.  Just as the exasperated Mia is about to take her own life to end the haunting and bring back her daughter, Evelyn steps forward and quite literally takes the plunge.  But wait - what does that solve?  While her sacrifice - the whole theme of the movie since the first scene - brings back Lea, it still gives the demon/ Annabelle's ghost the soul they wanted to harvest for their 'conjuring.'  Soo they have the baby, but have they also loosed a demon out into the world?  And if so, why is Annabelle still haunted (epilogue to this movie and prologue to The Conjuring)?  Regardless, the one thing I know is that my first rule holds true: babies will always be all right.

In contrast to what most critics are complaining about (the ending), I have to say that I for one am thankful to finally see a horror movie that doesn't resolve itself, only to have the final second of the film show that the terror is not over.  Not that every movie should end on a totally happy note - gosh no - just that because a horror movie chooses to completely resolve itself (which you can't even say it does because we know Annabelle causes more problems down the line) doesn't make it a bad movie.  Get over yourselves.

Final critique:  While critics may be disregarding Annabelle as nothing special, I think that it was a creative and effective movie in its own right, as well as an important new piece of the Insidious/ Conjuring universe (which I'd like to henceforth title "White People's Demons").  This delightfully suspenseful movie boasts both funny and freaky scares and draws upon many of our very human fears of every day things such as injury, pregnancy and childbirth, and things that go bump in the night.  At the end of the day, we have another Wan/ Leonetti film about a mother protecting her children/ family, but while Annabelle nods her creepy head at other, greater horror movies, she delivered much more of a punch than what I was expecting.  One thing we should be expecting for sure: plenty of real life Annabelle dolls popping up in people's Halloween decor this year!  All in all, this was an enjoyable movie that I would recommend to anybody although those who scare easily are sure to be frightened.

September Review

For your consideration:

1.  The Pact (2012): A-
2.  The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974): B+
3.  As Above, So Below (2014): B/B-
4.  Next of Kin (1982): B-

Next of Kin (1982)

Not to be confused with the 1989 Patrick Swayze film of the same name...

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  Tony Williams
Studios:  SIS, The Film House
Starring:  Jacki Kerin, John Jarratt, Alex Scott, Gerda Nicolson
Tagline:  There's No Place Like Home, Bloody Home.
MPAA Rating:  M for Mature
Genre:  foreign film, horror, terror, thriller, suspense, mystery, drama, psychological thriller, serial killer
Scare score:  C+
Rating:  B-

Plot overview:  After years away, introverted Linda (Kerin) inherits a large retirement home called Montclare following the death of her mother.  Shortly after her arrival, mysterious deaths begin to happen.  Through her mother's diaries, Linda learns that this is not the first time Montclare has been plagued by such sinister events.

I came across this movie while reading a short write up on a blog called Drunken Zombie, which I found through the Horror Blogger's Guild, which you should definitely check out.

This Australian film was a pretty enjoyable watch last night right before bedtime.  Be warned though; I had to adjust to the sheer '80s-ness of it all (costumes, even the cinematography itself, which makes the whole thing seem like a made-for-TV-movie) and then also pay close attention to understand the heavy accents.  Once these two steps were completed, I was in for an enjoyable experience.

I thought that Next of Kin presents us with both Gothic and even Lovecraftian horror, though in a very modest type of way.  First and foremost we have Linda and then the voiceover of her now deceased mother; Linda is our young and virginal (albeit more in personality than in action) protagonist, as was made typical by Gothic horror, and through her mother and the diary (themselves the helper and sort of talisman that provide wisdom or insight from the past), Linda is guided and able to better prepare for the horror at hand.  Then of course we have Montclare, a character in and of itself, an expansive old mansion filled with dark rooms and twisting hallways, along with its fair share of things that go bump in the night.

As far as Lovecraftian horror goes, I thought there was a fair amount of detachment and isolation in our characters, not to mention plenty of mysterious pasts and unanswered questions.  Where did Linda go and why did she leave?  Was her mother sane, and is she?  There are an abundant amount of examples of times in this movie when Linda sort of shuts down or finds herself unable to deal with her situation.  While I thought this was both good acting and a realistic reaction to the streak of murders, we also start to wonder how reliable Linda truly is as our protagonist and perhaps savior.  Furthermore, there is really no one in this whole cast that we feel the audience or even Linda can trust, except perhaps her favorite elderly resident at Montclare.  Bruce (Jarratt) seems like a handy and trustworthy (although unfaithful) guy, but how often does our female protagonist's love interest turn out to be the bad guy?  Too often, if you ask me.  Then our obvious suspects are right under our noses: caretaker Connie (Nicolson) and the seemingly dastardly Dr. Barton (Scott).  Who is a poor girl (or poor audience member) to believe in once dead old people start turning up in every bathtub in Montclare?  Between these and many other unanswered (and perhaps unimportant) questions (who is running through the hallways once Linda is alone with our killer in the final scene? etc), even we viewers, safe and cozy in our beds, begin to feel pretty helpless, and Linda's sanity just dwindles down right until the very end.

All that being said, this movie presents us with some really lovely and intriguing horror.  You're sure to get your fill of suspense in this good, old fashioned mystery with some psychological depth and a good, clean ending.  I'm sure that this reminds me of another plot, but I can't quite think of it at the moment.  Oh well, no matter.

The cinematography, aside from looking like a made-for-TV-movie (is it?), is actually very cool and progressive.  I believe that this is the reason Tarantino praised this foreign film, and although at first I found some artistic choices to be out of place, they really only made this movie more interesting.  There are a few times we see the upstairs hallway become elongated and dreamlike, culminating in a scene where Linda is running through the hall and we are shown the 'set' from above, watching her run forward as if she were instead running upwards.  That was very interesting.  Otherwise, this movie boats fantastic transitions between scenes.

Final critique:  I'm not even going to go into who the killer is or any spoilers at all, but without giving that away I want to reiterate that I liked this movie.  The final scenes once we learn about motive and all that jazz were really entertaining, the satisfying reasoning behind our Gothic horror set in the Outback.  There is some fun gore scattered throughout this movie that piques our interest and even surprises us since the plot takes a little while to get started.  Once it does, however, this is a quick watch at 89 minutes.  I would recommend this to all audiences, with its weakest point being that it may seem outdated to some.

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974)

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  Tobe Hooper
Studios:  Vortex
Starring:  Marilyn Burns, Edwin Neal, Jim Siedow, Paul A. Partain, Gunnar Hansen
Tagline:  Who will survive and what will be left of them?
MPAA Rating:  R
Genre:  horror, terror, thriller, slasher, gore, psychological thriller, torture, teen, cannibals, serial killer, masked murderer
Scare score:  B-
Rating:  B+

Plot overview:  While driving through the vastness of central Texas to go see an old family home, siblings Sally (Burns) and Franklin Hardesty (Partain) and friends Kirk (William Vail), Pam (Teri McMinn), and Jerry (Allen Danziger) find themselves the helpless victims of a family of insane serial killers.

Shortly before its 40th anniversary coming up this October, I found that last night was the perfect night to watch this true horror classic.  With visionary direction by co-writer Tobe Hooper (Poltergeist, Salem's Lot), The Texas Chain Saw Massacre has quickly and surely won its way into being one of the most iconic horror films out there, with one of the industry's most successful killers, Leatherface (Hansen).  Made on less than a $300,000 budget, this modestly produced movie in many ways redefined the horror genre, spawning a franchise and leaving a mark that still scares audiences 40 years later.

All that being said, I want to state that I do appreciate this movie, but I don't love everything about it. I think the sort of wrong-turn (although the victims are right where they want to be), inbred, rotten deep America is all strangely beautiful, and with a chain saw thrown in for fun, what's not to love?

Well there's the production quality, for starters.  It's tough with a low budget film and the fact that this was 1974 for us to have really clear images.  On the other hand, one of the absolute best things about this movie is the 'special effects,' that is, props, sets, general gore.  There are really gross visuals throughout the film that I'm sure shocked audiences at the time, as many of them still might today. Did you know that when the family feeds Grandpa (John Dugan) a taste of Sally's blood, it was actually Marilyn Burns' blood??  That's wild.  But I'm getting ahead of myself; let's start at the beginning.

Based on a true story.  Okay, so this movie doesn't actually include the words "based on a true story," but nonetheless it is one of those countless films that claims to be the real-life account of what happened to real people.  In fact, I know that the original movie and the 2003 remake have very much convinced audiences and popular culture that a Texas chain saw massacre did, in fact occur (it did not, although a large amount of Leatherface's backstory [grave robbing, bone furniture, mask of skin] is based on true facts about serial killer Ed Gein).  If you've read this blog before, you'll know that Horror Buff hates horror movies that claim to be based on true stories, regardless of how it helps them in the box office.

After that exciting little beginning, the intro to this film is extremely long.  Like, we're talking just under half the movie until we see a chainsaw.  Sure, it sets the tone (as an exposition should) of where our characters are and why, and throws in some honestly freaky footage of a vandalized graveyard.  More importantly as far as thematics are concerned, we just see a lot of images of old, drunk, weathered men sitting around not doing much.  This sort of stagnant culture is important, perhaps as a cause of how Leatherface & family came about.

The best thing about this long introduction, which does virtually nothing to introduce us to our cast of teenagers (who, aside from Sally and Franklin, then become unimportant sacks of meat, such as Leatherface must view them), is that it presents us with some truly fantastic acting by Edwin Neal in the role of the hitchhiker.  Audiences have already been creeped out and even disgusted by the scene at the graveyard at this point, not to mention subjected to nauseating talk about animal slaughter, and then suddenly this unstable hitchhiker appears and really freaks us out.  Is this scene too bizarre?  Are the reactions of our 5 personality-less teenagers unrealistic?  Does it matter?  The whole time, we may sit there and think "Oh no, I would never let that guy in my van" or even about how we would kick that guy straight out the first time he talks about death or whips out a razor, but it doesn't matter, because we are already stuck in the van with him and his craziness will run its course before we can get him out.  We are suffocated in that scene, by the Texas heat, by Franklin's whining, by Edwin's violent lunacy.  It's fantastic.

By now I've waited long enough to bring up what is the absolute worst thing about this movie: Franklin Hardesty.  I have a hard time deciding whether it's Franklin I hate or actor Paul A. Partain, but I think I'm certain that it's just Franklin, a useless, helpless, dramatic, and loud whiny brother that serves no purpose in the film except to be annoying, and occasionally babble on about creepy subjects such as death threats and animal slaughter.  Franklin cannot pick up on social cues.  Franklin's disability prevents him from having fun with the other personality-less teenagers.  Franklin pees in a coffee bean can.  Franklin sticks his tongue out at no one and pouts instead of cursing or throwing things like a normal human (as if cursing would have spared them the R rating).  Franklin is the worst character I've ever encountered in a [horror] movie and sincerely it hurts this movie because of it.  What is the point of Franklin?  I would love an educated answer.  Luckily we only have to endure him for 52 minutes.  Oops, spoiler alert.

Once that's over, it's back to the fun stuff.  The most horrifying thing about this movie is the overall sense of helplessness of the victims and nonchalance of the antagonists.  There is an enduring sense of vulnerability in the film that only increases as the teens we are never actually introduced to are hacked away, as we run out of gas and lose the keys, as the sun sets and it seems that everybody is in on the terror in this town.  There is decay here: moral, physical, human decay, right around the corner from the Hardesty's family home where they played as children.  A place of innocence has turned into a place of total evil, filled with forgotten locations and deranged people who become butchers in America's heartland.  This is one of those films that makes every small town scary, every long drive risky, every hitchhiker on the road a potential killer.  The Texas Chain Saw Massacre continues being relevant and important as more stories break on the news about serial killers on the loose and women being found locked in suburban basements.  Leatherface is just a man in a mask, and although his mask his made of tanned skin, how many others are out there wearing masks we can't see so easily?  This movie begins on a sunny summer afternoon, and ends in a shocking and senseless bloodbath illuminated under the broad Texan sunrise.

*SPOILER ALERT*

The second half of the film presents us with pretty constant terror and some gore.  By gore, I do not so much mean people getting visibly hacked up (we don't see that) so much as tons of footage of bones and body parts, Grandma (a la Psycho, with which this movie shares many similarities) and Grandpa (probably the grossest thing in the film); the list goes on.  Aside from any Halloween movie, I think that The Texas Chain Saw Massacre might boast one of my favorite chase scenes.  Sally is relentless in her attempt to break free from the horrors at hand, and she does a valiant effort, resulting in a really great chase scene through the bushes and bramble at night, with chainsaw-wielding Leatherface close behind.  This scene is just plain enjoyable for everybody, except perhaps Sally.

Things go from bad to worse when Sally finds out that Leatherface is not just some isolated serial killer, but that what seems like the whole town (all 3 residents) are in on the killings.  Is there no escape?  Jim Siedow also gives us some good acting in his easily despicable role as the proprietor of the gas station, aka Leatherface and the hitchhiker's daddy.  I love Leatherface's stern impassibility earlier in the film (especially the shrieks he makes), although once daddy comes back home, we see a different, weaker, frightened side of the big faceless killer that only adds to his pathos.  One of my favorite lines in the movie is when the soulless proprietor is abducting Sally and makes a comment about the electricity bill - just another example of this psychopathic apathy that should really rock us as humans.  Such clever writing.

All that being said, I still have a debate in my head about whether or not this is a boring movie.  The last time I had seen it before this week was about 5 years ago in college, and aside from wanting to rip my ears and eyeballs out because of Franklin, I remember thinking that not too much happened here.  After watching it this week, however, I found myself fairly entertained by the events of the film.  I guess it's safe to say that once the action starts, it doesn't stop coming.  Even if the film feels somewhat lost at times, as uncertain as where to go as our final girl Sally, it's still worth the enjoyable acting we get from the family of deranged Texan cannibals.  If you can make it through the long exposition, you're in for a pretty fun ride of disturbing events and visual content that have made this movie so legendary.

Final critique:  This movie is simply a must-see.  Coming from the genius of Tobe Hooper and co-writer Kim Henkel, this film rocked audiences 40 years ago and, along with multiple reboots and remakes, continues to rock us today.  If you can get past the grainy quality of the film, this movie is a wild ride; well, at least the second half is.  Not recommended for audiences that scare easily or get grossed out by gory or disturbing images, because along with the eponymous chainsaw, the props in this movie are half the terror.

The Pact (2012)

GENERAL INFO:
Director: Nicholas McCarthy
Studios: Entertainment One, IFC Midnight
Starring: Caity Lotz, Casper Van Dien; ft. Agnes Bruckner, Kathleen Rose Perkins, Haley Hudson
Tagline: Some doors should never be opened.
MPAA Rating: R
Genre: horror, terror, thriller, drama, mystery, haunted house, ghost, serial killer
Scare score: B+
Rating: A-

Plot overview: After the death of her mother, ex-drug addict Nicole (Bruckner) returns to her childhood home, which is filled with bad memories and other presences. Shortly after, she goes missing and her estranged sister Annie (Lotz) is forced to come home to confront all of the negativity that lingers in her mother's house.

I was very surprised by this movie. The movie poster (which bears a close resemblance to that of The Frighteners) has stood out to me on Netflix for a while, but I didn't watch it until the other night, after I heard that it has a sequel coming out this fall. Though it started out as your typical dark, slow, dramatic horror movie (I was reminded of Absentia in that sort of dreary aspect), I found myself more and more impressed by the film's creativity and surprising twists and turns.

The first thing that struck me was the very artistic way this movie is filmed and edited. I loved the realism and attention to detail; I loved the shots and cinematography: There was something oddly beautiful about this movie and I appreciated that. Special effects were good and constantly took us by surprise, adding points to the scare score.

Acting was pretty decent. Sometimes things felt forced, but I guess you can't help that. I was relieved that the characters felt somewhat real to me, and that helped balance out any faults in acting or in the script. We should be especially pleased with Lotz, who takes us through the entire film. A super special shout out goes to Haley Hudson who legitimately had the perfect look for her creepy role. That was fantastic casting. Same goes for Mark Steger, who shows up towards the end of the film keeping us fairly terrified all the way through.

The plot really kept me interested, even when the film felt like it was dragging along. I was not expecting this cool mix of reality and the supernatural. There is a fusion of genres here that piques our interest and takes us places we are not expecting to go. Half of the fright/ excitement of the movie comes from the surprising plot twists that go so far as to shock us as they unfold.

*SPOILER ALERT*

Who doesn't get creeped out when they're home alone, or when they hear noises and bumps in the night? Once the scares start in this movie, they don't stop coming. I wasn't sure what to expect when the movie began and we had Bruckner alone in the house and when that closet door was ominously open. As the supernatural forces began to become apparent, I figured we were in for some sort of ghost movie, but then things got more interesting.

The mystery is great. Better yet, while Annie makes her way around Cali looking for more clues and leads, the horror continues inside of that house. The first time we see the silhouette of a man (a la White Noise) standing inside of the bedroom, I think I suffered a mini heart attack. Otherwise, we put up with a lot of invisible forces throwing people around, doors being left open, a pretty cool Ouija scene, and headless corpses randomly appearing in the night. The twist this movie takes towards the end was what really took me by surprise and is sure to shock all audiences. The second that Judas (Steger) crawled out of the floor—following a pretty riveting Ouija scene (isn't there a Ouija-themed horror movie coming out soon?)—my jaw practically dropped and I was just so pleased with the turn the movie had taken. This was another great casting choice, and the way he moved his body around was simply eerie, adding yet another dimension of horror to this film.

Final critique: I would recommend this movie to anybody as a surprising horror film that really delivers. My favorite thing about this was the blend of the supernatural with an otherwise realistic plot, great casting decisions, and wonderful attention to detail and cinematography. Nicholas McCarthy is a director we should certainly be keeping our eye on.

As Above, So Below (2014)

Très français!

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  John Erick Dowdle
Studios:  Universal Pictures, Legendary Pictures
Starring:  Perdita Weeks, Ben Feldman, Edwin Hodge, François Civil
Tagline:  The only way out is down.
MPAA Rating:  R
Genre:  horror, terror, thriller, drama, psychological thriller, found footage, gateway to hell, ghosts, underground
Scare score:  B
Rating:  B/B-

Plot overview:  In modern-day Paris, urban explorer/ [al]chemist/ college professor/ double-PhDed/ possible daughter of Indiana Jones/ still hot and normal Scarlet Marlowe (Weeks) is set on continuing in her and her late father's quest to find the legendary philosopher's stone.  Followed by cameraman Benji (Hodge) and quirky love interest George (Feldman), Scarlet is guided by the savvy Papillon (Civil) and his two friends deep into the catacombs below Paris.  However, all of the team's research and experience couldn't prepare them for what awaits them below.

True story: I just watched this movie in an entirely empty movie theater.  While I had hoped that it would add to my experience, I quickly found that As Above, So Below was not the scariest movie to sit through by myself.

Written (in part) and directed by horror regular John Erick Dowdle, this movie certainly has a touch of Quarantine to it.  I mainly attribute that to the found footage take on the film as well as the dark figures lurking in an even darker background, illuminated only by choppy camera light.  As far as the upside-down, reversed world perspective of the movie goes, we of course also think of the opening sequence of Devil, which Dowdle also directed.

As soon as the movie started, I let out an almost audible groan when I realized that, naturally, this movie was going to be found footage.  I rather hate found footage movies; there is something cheesy and ironically unrealistic to this approach that tries so desperately to make things seem realistic.  In many ways, found footage is a feeble attempt to scare the audience solely through visual input instead of through plot and creativity, which in my book carry more integrity.  Then again, I am always welcome to new or different ways of filming and editing.  Unfortunately found footage will never overcome its stereotypes from Blair Witch.  Vomit bags are recommended.

Even so, As Above, So Below begins with an intriguing and loud opening sequence of events that introduces us to our protagonist and how she is willing to put her life on the line for her work/ life passion of exploration and civil/urban archeology.  I did find acting to be pretty labored throughout the whole beginning of the movie, well into when the team actually enters the catacombs, about 45/50 minutes into the film.  This movie really toys with the audience's capacities for suspense and thrills, surprising us when we don't expect it to and then letting us down when we want more.

The scares in this movie are many and varied.  There is a general sense of dread (but is it ever confirmed?) and an undeniable similarity to The Descent.  Otherwise, the twists and turns of the catacombs and caves below Paris, paired with the rapidly-moving and changing footage from the characters' cameras force the viewer into an uncertain and claustrophobic atmosphere; our own sort of purgatory filled with excitement and terror as we never know what lies around each corner.  That being said, let me mention that the set of this film seems fantastic and vast.  The first real scare of the movie catches us off guard about 40 or 45 minutes in, and from that point on we are frequently bombarded with visual and psychological scares (will the team die down there? what was that face in the water? etcetera) that serve to either confuse or intrigue us until we are left with perhaps more questions than there are answers.

*SPOILER ALERT*

This movie covers a large amount of literary and historical themes, ranging from alchemy to religious and satanic symbolism, and then ultimately focusing on redemption (which is also heavily tied into alchemy once again).  That being said, what was perhaps presented as a found footage, gateway to hell-esque film suddenly becomes something that tries to dig deeper, much as the catacombs do below the streets of Paris.  Horror and supernatural elements set aside, this is a movie that deals with character forgiveness and judgement, with the survivors eventually seeking retribution (or not) for past 'crimes' that have haunted them until the present.  Such a transformation from sinfulness to redemption is much akin to the general themes of alchemy and related followings such as Freemasonry, and it is one of the most basic themes in literature since the times of Aristotle.

The first time I heard this movie title when I saw a trailer a few months ago, my mind immediately went to "on Earth as it is in heaven," and perhaps yours did too if you say your prayers every night.  That being said, I was expecting much more of a gateway to hell style movie than what As Above, So Below presents us.  From the beginning, small hints of what's to come are dropped and then gone again in the blink of an eye.  While still in Iran, Scarlet clearly sees a spectral apparition of her father, hanging on his noose.  This comes back a lot later on, but then are we led to believe that Scarlet herself is unstable?  There are questionable visions and scares placed in the movie well before our cast of characters enters what we are told is an evil part of the catacombs.  Who, then, is seeing what?  Can we trust any of our characters, and to what point?  Why are there "normal" people in these closed-off sections of the catacombs performing what is either a satanic ritual or the world's most secretive choir practice?  Special shout out to Olivia Csiky Trnka, who, with her piercing, wide-set eyes was certainly one of the scariest aspects of the movie.  Is La Taupe (Cosme Castro) alive or dead, and if he is alive how does he move so quickly or appear in places that he previously was not?  Who or what is the hooded and maybe masked phantom lurking in the darkness of the caves?  What is its purpose?  Why is a man nicknamed 'Butterfly' when he explores caves for a living?  Why?

One issue I definitely had with this movie was its failure to deliver.  Whenever a horror movie starts throwing tons and tons of shallow red herrings at us, I find myself going into a sort of scary sensory overload.  As Above, So Below often presents us with some very scary images that ultimately mean nothing after their brief screen time.  I thought that the hooded, masked character towards the end was extremely scary, but nothing came of it.  The 'dead' knight/ Nicolas Flamel, Miss Trnka and her haunting eyes, the boy in the water - all of these piqued our interests yet very few were explained inside of the plot.  What were those bodies that burst forth from the stone, and why were they there?  This to me is a horror movie trying too hard with a hat full of cheap scares.  At the end of the day, are our characters really in hell, or just some strange parallel reality where they must account for their sins or regrets in the past?  Even if this is the case, why is it happening, and why in the catacombs of Paris?  As Above, So Below sets up many exciting plot angles and story lines, but in the end, it only delivers on a few.

Final critique:  If you think you would enjoy a crossover of Harry Potter, Indiana Jones, and The Descent, this is the movie for you.  Even seeing this movie totally alone in a dark theater couldn't make it much scarier, regardless of the countless, futile scares the creative team threw in for fun.  This was not a bad movie, but sometimes the only thing worse than a flat out bad horror movie is one that promises us real terror and then fails to deliver.

August Review

Well this will be short...

For your consideration:

1.  Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood (1988): B-

Look out for more horror coming your way in September!  Happy Labor Day, folks.

Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood (1988)

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  John Carl Buechler
Studios:  Paramount Pictures
Starring:  Lar Park-Lincoln, Kevin Spirtas, Terry Kiser, Susan Blu, Kane Hodder
Tagline:  Jason is back, but this time someone's waiting!
MPAA Rating:  R
Genre:  horror, terror, thriller, slasher, stalker, serial killer, psychopath, masked murderer, teen
Scare score:  D/ D+
Rating:  B-

Plot overview:  Sometime after the events of the previous film, Tina Shepard (Park-Lincoln) returns with her mother (Blu) and Dr. Crews (Kiser) to Camp Crystal Lake, where her father died ten years earlier.  Still blaming herself for her father's death, Tina is haunted by bad memories while the conceited Dr. Crews attempts to exploit her peaking emotions to study signs of telekinesis.  On top of the pressure from her doctor, Tina is half befriended and half mocked by the rowdy group of teenagers staying next door.  Not to mention, a strange masked figure has risen from the lake.

Let me start by pointing out that the Friday the 13th movies really do believe in girl power.  Just look at the movie poster here.  Not that Jason ever, ever discriminates when it comes to choosing his victims, which are many (I recently saw a chart of body counts in horror franchises and our boy Jason is #1) - but still, horror movies are generally very giving when it comes to the 'final girl.'  Friday the 13th Part VII throws us a huge curve when we are introduced to Tina Shepard, aka the second coming of Carrie, only with a cool, '80s flare and a loving mother.  Speaking of which, special shout out to the mysterious Susan Blu for portraying such a cool (although somewhat clueless) mom.  Seriously about girl power though: Spousal abuse?  BAM Tina kills dad.  Creepy therapist trying to exploit your psychic powers?  BAM shut him down and run him out of the house.  Jerky girls next door picking on you for being a basket case (we've seen similar concepts with Tommy Jarvis)?  BAM Jason gets them anyway.  Tina is absolutely a rival for Jason; he seems afraid of her, aware of her more so than he is of anyone else.  One even wonders if she's too strong for Jason.

Actually it's interesting that this is the second main character we've had after Tommy Jarvis to have dealt with mental health issues.  Both Tina and Tommy had traumatic experiences as children (as Jason himself must have), and then later in their teenage/ young adult life, society continues to mock them for it, as seen specifically by queen bee Melissa (Susan Jennifer Sullivan) in this installment.  Not only does this affect both protagonists in terms of dealing with a 'boy who cried wolf'-type scenario, but they themselves have to question their own sanity and ability.

Concerning Tina's knack for telekinesis, this whole plot choice leads to a supernaturally gifted protagonist to combat what is now a 100% supernatural antagonist.  In earlier films, Jason/ his mother are (more or less) human.  It isn't until Part VI that Jason is sort of, you know, brought back from the dead, so it's no great mystery that in this film he is all-out zombie.  This becomes especially apparent later in the movie.  Watch it and you'll know what I mean.

I generally enjoyed this movie and was really torn about the score.  I almost went lower until I remembered that while watching it, I was fairly entertained and enjoyed the new teenage bait, the creative kills (I LOVED the sleeping bag/ tree one), and the never-ending body count.  As far as Friday the 13th movies go, I did feel that this one followed the normal recipe, but the psychic powers of our leading lady of course change things.

Acting is very mixed all across the charts.  Most people play up their roles too dramatically in a largely '80s fashion, but considering the ironically light-hearted feeling of the movie, it's not a big deal.  This is the first of four Friday the 13th movies to take on the talented Kane Hodder in the role of Jason.  Mr. Hodder is in the middle of a lengthy and accomplished career of acting and stunt work; some of his credits include Wishmaster, Se7en, and even Waxwork in the same year as this installment.

*SPOILER ALERT*

Speaking of Jason, I think the single most surprising event of this movie was when our killer is unmasked.  What in the world was that creature beneath?  Who knew that coming back from the dead (perhaps two or three times) and spending some time underwater could result in you looking like that?  Perhaps more creative than frightening, I suppose we can attribute this work to director John Carl Buechler who has led a well-known career in the realm of special effects and makeup.

Final critique:  Within the world of Friday the 13th, Part VII: The New Blood manages to surprise us with some new and crazy ideas, while still remaining true to the feeling of the franchise (naughty teens = fresh meat, things popping out of the lake when we least (most) expect it... etc).  I certainly enjoyed the film, but that comes by taking it with a grain of salt and kind of expecting what you're going to get from virtually almost any other film in the series.  If you're looking to start getting into the world of Jason and Camp Crystal Lake, start at the very beginning and work your way through.  If you ignore my advice and go with lucky number seven anyway, prepare yourself for an eerily campy world of '80s teenagers, parties, and of course the dark shadow lurking outside the cabin.

July Review

Well folks, July was a pretty crazy month with moving back across the Atlantic and catching up with family and friends.  Sorry for the hiatus, but the Horror Blog's summer vacation is officially over.  Back to bringing you more scary stuff!

Special shout out to having been able to join the Horror Bloggers Guild.  If you yourself blog or are interested, check them out!

Onto the review.

For your consideration:

1.  Secuestrados/ Kidnapped (2010): A-
2.  The Fog (2005): B+
3.  House (20080: D/ D-

Hope everybody has been enjoying their summers and filling their free time with some horror.

Stay scary

The Fog (2005)

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  Rupert Wainwright
Studios:  Revolutions Studios
Starring:  Tom Welling, Maggie Grace, Selma Blair; ft. Rade Šerbedžija
Tagline:  From the makers of "Halloween"; Their PAST Has Come Back to HAUNT Them
MPAA Rating:  PG-13
Genre:  horror, terror, thriller, ghost, haunting, supernatural, curse
Scare score:  B-
Rating:  B+

Plot overview:  Just as the residents of Antonio Island prepare to celebrate the town's 134th anniversary, a heavy fog comes in from the sea, carrying within in artifacts and terror from the island's secret past.

I'm going to go against the tide here and boldly declare that I did, in fact, enjoy this movie.  Weird to think that it's coming up on 9 years since this film's release, and this is the first time I've seen it.  Nor have I seen John Carpenter's original version from 1980, although I now plan on it.  In fact, this summer I'm planning on having a marathon of watching either the original or remake of films that I've already reviewed.  Keep your eyes peeled!

Back to The Fog.  I didn't know what exactly to expect from this movie, and was frankly surprised to see such famous faces.  Given three huge personalities from 2005 - namely Tom Welling and Selma Blair - I figured the movie would either be really good or really bad.  Funnily enough, it fell into neither extreme, although online reviews may disagree (and go towards the negative).  I enjoy horror movies with big names on the bill, and I enjoy a sense of drama and plot that early-through-mid-2000s horror usually presents us with (think Darkness Falls).  This film gave us both of those things: faces we recognized paired with beautiful shots of Oregonian (read Canadian) landscape, water, islands, lighthouses, carefree young people on boats- and ghosts lurking around every corner.

The plot was a bit confusing for me at first; I wasn't sure if I missed some sort of introduction, or if the sequences taking place 134 year prior to the film's events were just scattered throughout.  First question: the town was celebrating the 134th anniversary and not the 135th, right?  Why in the world would they celebrate that?  Just to make the film's events take place in 2005?  Then why choose 1871?  I was extremely confused by this detail.  Anyway, we quickly become accustomed to seeing shadows lurking around, with a randomly burnt dog at one point.  For a long while, this film could have gone anywhere.  I was not expecting it to be so centered around actual ghosts, but perhaps rather some monster in the fog.  I guess I was confusing it with The Mist the whole time.  I mean the titles are just so different.  Silly me.

Acting is what we expect.  That is to say, not bad, but pretty standard for our young handsome faces of famous actors in 2005.  In fact, I was overall pretty impressed; the acting is good enough to move the plot along without any problems.  Tom Welling is pretty typical as our protagonist Nick: good looking, innocent, and kind-hearted.  Maggie Grace is a beautiful, lovable, eager-to-get-out-of-the-small-town Elizabeth (adventure she will get!).  One of my personal faves Selma Blair graces us with her dark wittiness as the sensual radio DJ and responsible mother Stevie.  In a smaller but still important role of William Blake, we have the familiar face of Rade Šerbedžija.  All do a good job, if not limited by the standard tropes of horror - dumb scares, near-death situations, nervous shouts of "I don't want to calm down!"  All typical, but still well done.

Scare-wise, most internet reviews will tell you that this is one of the least scariest films of all time, that it shouldn't even be under the horror genre, that it's creators and re-creators are spineless cowards that should be burned at the stake, etc.  Horror Buff disagrees.  I'm sitting here on a sunny day with lots of noise coming in from your average Tuesday happenings around town, and I was still surprised by several of the film's moments.  Yes, plenty of suspense that never actually scares us here.  And also yes, some of the scenes that were maybe intended to be scary become rather dumb, or merely interesting as we watch special effects surprise us and kill off cast members.  Still, John Carpenter is not your average over-the-top screams-gore-and-body count kind of guy, even if the Halloween franchise was perverted into that.  Carpenter, as far as I'm concerned, has always loved a good storyline behind his movies, drawing especially from a more old-fashioned interpretation of horrors and thrillers.

*SPOILER ALERT*

The real question as this film moves along (with well-placed action, scares, and events) is: do we buy it?  Sure, there is this dense curtain of fog moving in, drawing some victims in and leaving some treasures out, and that causes plenty of suspense for a good part of the movie.  What is inside?  What was that phantom pirate-esque ship like something out of Scooby Doo?  Are there sea monsters, aliens, or something else?  Once we piece an obviously-presented background together, we realize that the threat is, in fact, vengeful ghosts.  Who doesn't love a ghost, especially one with pretty darn unpleasant leprosy?  History buffs are sure to enjoy a ghost tale regarding the westward expansion of America.  Thus presented with a colorful backstory and even more colorful (well-done) ghosts, is the audience happy?

If you're expecting a ghost story filled with thrills and violence, this isn't the film for you.  Revenge is handled more subtly in this movie, give or take one or two flaming corpses and a ghostly garbage disposal.  That isn't to say that the movie isn't enjoyable, which I think it was.  Sure, it's all very supernatural, but so many horror movies are.  If you let yourself accept this plot and storyline, I really think The Fog is not a bad watch.

Special effects, especially those of the fog and then of the ghosts themselves, were done very well.  That's a huge plus for the movie, which comes to depend so heavily on them.  I don't think we're even used to seeing ghosts have so much action-packed screen time.  This film would have suffered an even worse reputation had it not been for these great effects.

My biggest thing was the ending of the movie.  Like, what was that?  I guess along with the "blood for blood," generations-long-revenge of the film, we have to accept we're in the realm of reincarnation as well.  Was Elizabeth - herself a scion of one of the town's four founders and traitors against Blake's people - always a living version of Blake's uncomfortably young bride?  Or did the upcoming events of horror and revenge somehow spirit her away into a historical plot?  That kiss at the end was both shocking and gross, but what happened next was even more unexpected, at least for me.  Even though we should of course realize during the flashbacks that Elizabeth has an uncanny resemblance to Mrs. Blake, I for one was not expecting her to so suddenly become a part of Blake's ghostly crew.

Final critique:  This movie does not deserve the horrible reputation is has.  Another reason why you can't always trust Rotten Tomatoes.  Myself living in a very foggy region, this film presents a colorful plot, heavy with background as well as historical and present-day small-town drama that makes up plenty of plot for what scares might be lacking.  Decent acting, fun plot, and an easy watch for those who scare easily (although there are some disturbing images).  All in all, not a bad watch.

100th Movie Review

Say it ain't so.  While Horror Buff tried to plan the Horror Blog's 100th movie review with pomp, circumstance, and fear, it seems that I miscounted, and that my review of House was, in fact, the monumental one-oh-oh.

I wish I had picked a scarier, more well known, or just plain better movie for the event, but what's done is done.  I'm looking forward to a summer of horror blockbusters to spend my nonexistent money on.  Hope that everybody had a fun and safe holiday weekend, and thanks for reading.

Stay scary

House (2008)

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  Robby Henson
Studios:  Lions Gate Entertainment, Namesake Entertainment
Starring:  Reynaldo Rosales, Heidi Dippold, Julie Ann Emery, J.P. Davis, Michael Madsen
Tagline:  The only way out... is in./  The Guilty Cannot Hide.
MPAA Rating:  R
Genre:  horror, terror, thriller, supernatural, masked murderer, psychopath, stalker, ghost, surprise ending
Scare score:  C
Rating:  D/D-

     

Plot overview:  After sustaining a flat tire on the backroads of rural Alabama, quarreling couple Jack (Rosales) and Stephanie (Dippold) make their way to a run-down Victorian inn.  Inside they find another couple, attractive Leslie (Emery) and hot-shot Randy (Temple), as well as the Wayside Inn's creepy owners, strict Betty (Leslie Easterbrook), eerie son Pete (Lew Temple), and rough caretaker Stewart (Bill Moseley).  The couples then find out that they have somehow attracted a masked killer called Tin Man (Madsen) who has come to punish them for their sins.  Thus begins a nightmarish series of haunting events that challenge their sinful reality.

I've seen bits and pieces of this movie on TV over the years, but I think this was the first time I actually forced myself to sit through it.  This movie has absolutely so much going on that sometimes it's hard to understand/ keep track of what's going on.  Pretty early on we should realize that there are supernatural things going on here; never could we really guess to what extent this spiritual, purgatorial experience would go.

Acting stinks.  It stinks.  That is, at least, for the first say 3/5 and final 1/5 of the movie.  There were some parts when I wasn't poking my eyes out with frustration.  Rosales is pretty brutal all around; lots of demanding close-ups, slow reaction shots: things that are hard to deliver on.  Dippold (what a name) redeems herself a few times, but is nothing super special.  Poor Alana Bale is thrown into the confusing and too-important role of Susan, a good ghost trapped in the house, making the young actress seem poorly trained.  The roles in this movie are just so bizarre and oddly written/ conceived that I can't blame actors for being awkward.  Concerning the creepy inn owners, I do like Leslie Easterbrook a lot; the audience hates her immediately after her first cruel lines.  Lew Temple as Pete is creepy (if stereotypical) enough, and very experienced veteran horror actor Bill Moseley is positively evil as Stewart.  I also loved to hate Michael Madsen in his multifaceted role.

*SPOILER ALERT*

The plot is pretty wild in this movie.  People stuck out in the boondocks of the south is not original but always enticing nevertheless.  As soon as the caretakers show up, we should already feel overloaded with horror stereotypes since they are being unmercifully shoved down our throats.  Creepy, strict hosts with uber-religious opinions, a somewhat deformed son lurking around like something out of Scary Movie 2.  Things certainly do get interesting when the so-called Tin Man shows up, wielding a flashlight and shotgun and a creepy, Leatherface-esque mask.  I honestly did like the idea of Tin Man a lot, and felt that the movie could have been a lot scarier had it only focused on him as well as the house's nightmarish memory chambers that haunts the four victims.

The second that the movie starts piling on satanic symbolism, devil worshiping, maze-like chambers everywhere (like one of Freddy's nightmare worlds), things get out of hand.  Even the individual memory/ nightmare sequences are pretty darn confusing and leave the audience to guess at or invent the characters' backstories.

Aside from the confusing nature of this movie, I thought it did deliver a few scares.  I guess I enjoyed the different types of horror in this movie: interpersonal drama, lingering psychological trauma, utter confusion, and of course a masked murderer chasing everybody and demanding a dead body before dawn.  Horrible memories supernaturally reliving themselves to haunt characters is certainly not new in the horror genre, but House handled this with cool effects (Stephanie on thin ice) and dark, disturbing backstories (Leslie dressed up and forced to eat pies).  Random bouts of terror from all over do help this movie to stay somewhat interesting, as otherwise we watch characters run around and around this hellish maze.

The end of the movie will probably split audiences.  I guess I sort of accepted it and then enjoyed the piece as a whole.  The original novel was written by two Christian authors, which gives more sense and even meaning to the test that the film's characters are put through, yadda yadda yadda.

Final critique:  This movie tries fitting too much plot and action from the original book (I assume), and the result is a sometimes scary but otherwise confusing bundle of mess.  Lots of characters running around, chasing or being chased, with plenty of unconvincing acting and plot that forces the audiences to real think about just what is going on here.  Not a high score in my book, but not a total waste of time either.

Secuestrados / Kidnapped (2010)

My second Spanish language film review following El espinazo del diablo.

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  Miguel Ángel Vivas
Studios:  Vaca Films, La Fabrique 2, Blur Producciones, Filmax
Starring:  Fernando Cayo, Manuela Vellés, Ana Wagener, Guillermo Barrientos, Martijn Kuiper, Dritan Biba
Tagline:  Hogar Dulce Hogar (Home Sweet Home); Take Your Last Breath
MPAA Rating:  Unrated
Genre:  foreign film, Spanish language, horror, terror, thriller, drama, family drama, psychological thriller, home invasion, robbers, kidnapping, torture
Scare score:  C+/ B-
Rating:  A-

Plot overview:  On their first night in their new home, a well-off Spanish family falls victim to a dastardly home invasion.

The plot makes the movie sound easy enough, right?  That's because it is; Secuestrados (meaning "kidnapped") is a straightforward movie that explores the brutality of a violent robbery along with the physical and emotional repercussions of victims and burglars alike - all the while forcing the viewer to participate.  By far, the best thing about this movie is its simplicity: simple, beautiful cinematography; honest acting that the audience can empathize with; and a clean-cut plot that via its voyeuristic nature forces the viewer to partake in the savage happenings, throwing us coldly into the bleak universe of the film.  This universe, as we come to realize, is our own meaningless reality.

If we are willing to assume that we do live in such a cold world (Vivas and the producers wished to stress the reality behind the film's violence), then the terror of the film takes its grip.  Who doesn't love taking the seemingly safe and ideal suburbs and turning them into a sadistic playground for psychological and physical torture (think The People Under the Stairs or even The Strangers)?  The suburbs can be scary, too.  That is the lesson that husband Jaime (Cayo), wife Marta (Wagener), and teenage daughter Isa (Vellés) learn when they move into an upper-middle class suburb of Madrid.  Hoping to escape the stress of the city and bond more as a family, the fairly normal and innocent trio could never imagine what awaits them on their first night.

A father, mother, and child rendered helpless upon the violent intrusion of several foreigners.  The similarity to Funny Games is unmistakable, and I would be a bad blogger if I didn't mention or recommend the latter to you.  Aside from the small difference (there are only two intruders in Funny Games while there are three in Secuestrados, this Spanish film shows the robbers' intent to be monetary while there truly seems to be no reason in the Austrian film, and lastly, Funny Games is much more sadistic), these two films are very much alike in their nihilistic portrayal of home invasion.  Like so many horror movies, the intruders themselves - billed only as Young Thief/ "assailant" in Spanish (Barrientos), Strong Thief (Kuiper), and Head Thief (Biba) - have their own struggles.  Strong Thief is off his rocker, high on cocaine and sexually violent.  Young Thief shows more than a touch of morality and repentance once things start to go awry, and Head Thief is dealt his fair share of unexpected mishaps.  The plot only wavers from a straightforward robbery when we - I mean the family, robbers, and audience alike - are surprised by (un)expected houseguests as well as small measures of resistance taken by the family.  To be totally honest, the film might even border on boring if it weren't for these small variations and complications, not to mention the gripping cinematography and the convincing acting.

I was in love with the way this movie was filmed.  The camera work was masterful; consisting only of 12 long shots leading us around the sprawling house and streets of the neighborhood.  The camera is at times passive and objective, and then suddenly very personal and mobile; not once are we distant from the action or drama.  Whether the shot is up-close to the terror or reactions (beating, crying, bleeding) or spanning in and out of rooms of the house, we as viewers are forced to take an active part in both the savagery and resulting suffering.  The long shots are thrilling; I must say it is a welcome break from the constant cuts and flashing shots of fast-paced horror movies today.

This filming method is only enhanced by the truly wonderful job of the performers.  In the beginning of the film, we have a typical family.  Suit and tie, client call taking father, stressed and detail oriented mother, and rebellious angsty daughter.  Then we have the antagonists who are equally as strong, although given less room to perform.  The worst actor in the film is boyfriend César (Xoel Yáñez), who regrettably gets a decent amount of screen time sniveling and pleading when nothing's even happened yet.  Super static.  As the film progresses, the family delivers so beautifully the agony and fear that you would expect a traumatizing experience such as the one portrayed in the movie to cause.  Perhaps most impressive is the young Manuela Vallés, who plays the terrified and shocked Isa so heart-wrenchingly.  By the end of the film, this was the performance that struck me most.

*SPOILER ALERT*

I think that most of all I enjoyed how realistic the film was.  No, I have never been on either side of a robbery, home invasion, or anything of the sort, but I imagine that a particularly well-planned and violent one would go something like the one in the movie.  The scariest part of the entire movie was when they first break in through the window; I had been waiting for it to happen (so many shots of big glass windows), but when it did it certainly got a reaction from me.  Then I loved how they just began to smash everything, ripping pictures out of frames, taking things without value - in home robberies, invasion of privacy is the cause of true terror.  I was so happy that father Jaime and even mother Marta kept their heads while young Isa began to shake and cry from the get-go; I can't stand a film where everybody goes paranoid and cowardly from the start.  I also enjoyed the dissension between the thieves.  Sure, we've seen that a million times before, but I thought it was realistic.  There was a good balance in the film regarding the violence, equal parts physical and psychological, and not overboard on the sexual (although with some disregard for my cardinal rules).

My problems with the movie were few.  Primarily, I didn't understand the beginning.  Throughout the movie it had me wondering if that was in fact Jaime, or otherwise how this man tied into the plot.  No answer was given, which led me to the conclusion that it was just meant to show that the home invasion had happened before and will happen again, pointlessly, a la The Strangers.  Secondly, it's obvious from the beginning that the movers are going to turn into the robbers.  Still, if our Young Thief was the mover who took the box into Isa's room and the golf clubs into Jaime's study, what happened to the scar on his forehead that Isa asked him about?  Am I wrong in thinking that this was the same man?  Lastly, and this is me being nit-picky but hey, the main events of the film seem to forget that this is their first night in the house.  In the afternoon, we have a house filled floor to ceiling with boxes and clutter; how is it that by the evening every thing has been put in its place?  We're taking little-to-no boxes, stocked kitchen, beds made, even the bathroom drawers organized and the downstairs storage room neatly-kept.  This is 100% unrealistic.  I love the first night idea, especially the misfortune of Isa still being at home before escaping to her party, but nobody on this earth can unpack their stuff and furnish their entire home in a few hours.  It just isn't happening.

Otherwise, I guess I should mention my feelings about whether or not this is truly a horror movie.  Yes, there is horror, more due to the terror of the home invasion and the resulting abuse.  Really this is a psychological thriller that is paired with violence and some gore.  The home invasion idea, more akin to Panic Room, The Strangers, or Funny Games.  The movie isn't so much "scary" as it is unsettling and then shocking.  As I mentioned, the scariest moment was the big *bump* when the first thief breaks through the window.  Later, the violence is disturbing (a broken arm, a gunshot), and on top of that we are surprised (my jaw dropped) by the sudden gore the film gives us.  That scene was truly gross.  Otherwise, the nihilistic, dark approach to the film's commentary regarding violence in our society leaves us feeling sad and upset, contemplating what terror awaits us outside (or even inside) our own homes.

Final critique:  It's been a while since I've had so much to say about a movie.  Secuestrados, while not the scariest movie out there, should be hailed for the mark it will leave upon us after sitting through its purposefully-purposefulless (get it?) violence, brutality, terror, and smattering of gore.  Some of the reviews out there will tell you that this is the best film ever made, but that's just not true. This is a spectacularly filmed, wonderfully acted, and surprising powerful movie that I would recommend to anyone looking for some small scares but otherwise a lasting sense of depression and meaninglessness.  Not recommended for newbies or those who aren't able to handle a little (but strong) gore.  Honestly a really enjoyable film; I would recommend listening in the original Spanish and finding subtitles if you need them, although I did watch a few minutes of the dubbed version and it seemed well done.