Category Archives: B+

Review: Creep

Director(s)Patrick Brice
Principal CastMark Duplass as Josef
Patrick Brice as Aaron
Release Date2014
Language(s)English
Running Time 77 minutes

From it’s handheld feel and picture quality to its mumblecore dialogue, I wouldn’t blame someone for confusing this Netflix found-footage horror flick for one of the streaming services more eccentric documentaries in the vein of Tiger King. The film opens on Aaron, a videographer struggling financially, who’s accepted a project to film a client project whose details are only to be revealed upon meeting. He drives up to the address the client had sent to him previously and knocks on the door, eager to get to the assignment. He gets no response. Red Flag #1.

He waits outside the house, hoping that the entire situation is just one big misunderstanding. As he looks around he sees an axe in the tree stump. Red Flag #2. As he’s just about to call it quits Aaron, the enigmatic client, pops out of nowhere giving both Josef and the audience a jump scare – a sign of things to come. His gregariousness and enthusiasm for the project alleviates both Josef and our own worries. As he brings Josef into his house, he explains that he’s suffering from a terminal illness and wants to record a day in his life for his unborn child- a memento to give his child a way to see him as the “man he was”. A strange request, but one that tugs at our heartstrings and distracts us from the warnings that came before. Aaron agrees to the project and the duo sets off to record the everyday life of Josef.

Given the morbid nature of the assignment- chronicling an dying man’s natural activities for his unborn child- early recordings of Josef feel darkly comedic. Him roleplaying activities he wants to do with his child with nothing but his imagination might seem endearing , but it comes off as nothing more than comical and a bit unsettling. As the day continues, Josef continues to act increasingly unhinged. He goes from asking strange invasive questions under the guise of establishing a kind of rapport with Aaron to revealing an host of unsettling behaviors and truths about himself. However, each of these aberrant actions is justified with some emotional plea for Aaron to stay and continue filming the project and maintain a friendship with Josef. Despite every instinct both he and the audience share about getting out of the situation, Aaron consistently acquiesces to the erratic happenings. For example, Josef reveals early on that he had taken pictures of Aaron as he had driven up to the house. When asked why, he reveals that he was scared and he thought if he got to know Aaron before Aaron had gotten to know Josef then he would be less scared. This twisted attempt by each character to understand the other first is the heart of the movie.

Josef (Mark Duplass) showing Aaron( Patrick Brice) photos he took when the latter arrived at his house.

The audience is constantly left to question what exactly Josef’s game is and why Aaron refuses to ever leave the situation despite the constant red flags. The former is obviously scheming towards something, but the spontaneity of his actions make that something impossible to gauge. You know he’s going to do the unexpected, but precisely because it’s the unexpected each of these moments manages to shock and surprise. On the other hand, Aaron constantly gives his client the benefit of the doubt, extending a kindness that seems almost foolhardy given how little background information he has on him. As a result, the movie is best viewed as a character study, of two separate kinds of alienated individuals coming into a comedically nefarious entanglement. The question becomes why are each of them doing what they’re doing? Why is Josef inconsistent with his stories? Why does Aaron keep forgiving him? Getting to the bottom of these questions is what keeps you intrigued in the ever evolving game of cat-and-mouse.

For the most part, the experiment works. The movie does a good job establishing the practical reasons Aaron is involved with the project- his desperate need for money. Every strange action Josef engages in is immediately explained away in a harmless, albeit strange sort of justification. The extemporaneous and impromptu dialogue between the two makes every interaction feel natural. Both Duplass and Brice play incredibly well off one another, with the former channeling all the weirdest energy he can find and the latter mustering as much patience as possible for the antics he experiences. You know that the actors are delivering, when one of the best scenes takes place in complete darkness with Duplass narrating some genuinely disturbing events with such candor that it’s hard not to tremble in fear, even if for just a moment. Needless to say , all these over-the-top eccentricities become grounded in the story as opposed to feeling hackneyed which keeps a certain suspension of disbelief.

Unfortunately, the movie becomes a lot weaker once the story tapers off and focuses on just Aaron thinking about the situation by himself. The movie’s magic comes from the character’s interactions with one another, so the isolation of one of the two characters in the story removes the dynamic that makes everything up till that point cohesive and tense. This problem might have been resolved if the story delved deeper into Aaron’s psyche during these points, but even these moments do more at characterizing the enigma that Josef is than doing anything for Aaron. Josef doesn’t even need to be in the room to steal the screen. Given the ending of the movie, maybe that’s the point. Maybe we were never supposed to get either of the characters and were meant to just go along with certain statements of facts regarding them. The idea that it’s impossible to really understand them has a certain kind of charm in end of itself, even if it’s the one I wanted.

Speaking of charm, the structure of the movie invites a lot of interesting questions. How are certain events/moments recorded? Why are certain scenes put together in the way they are? Are the eccentricities of the movie staged or are they just detours on the path to the final conclusion? Each of these questions is answered and put together in a succinct and neat explanation at the end of the movie. I was someone who was going to write the film off as just a neat and effective flick, but the culmination of all the absurdities pays off in a way that ties together all the loose ends, even if its not the way I wanted or expected. If anything this is proof that a smart idea and tight execution is all that’s necessary to induce some chills.

REPORT CARD

TLDRCreep is found-footage done right. It focuses on its characters and their respective interactions to develop an engrossing tale that’ll have you asking just what each character is playing at in what seems to be an increasingly demented game of cat-and-mouse. If nothing else, it’ll leave you with even more of a reluctance to answer any shoddy looking Craigslist advertisements for ad-hoc work.
Rating8.7/10
GradeB+

Go to Page 2 to view this review’s progress report

Review: Friday the 13th Part 2

Director(s)Steve Miner
Principal CastAmy Steel as Ginny
John Furey as Paul
Adrienne King as Alice
Steve Daskewisz as Jason
Release Date1981
Language(s)English
Running Time 87 minutes

Friday the 13th Part Two is one of the few horror sequels that manages to take what was interesting and effective in the first movie and add to it substantially.The story is better paced than the originals with kills being effectively spread throughout the movie to keep the tension and excitement more constant. Characters are given time to develop and become people who you can root for. Jason is actually the villain (even if not adorned with his iconic hockey mask) and adds a certain level of brutality to the kills that was missing before. This is a sequel that has everything a fan of the original could want and more.

The movie opens up with a quick recap of the end of first movie which is then revealed to be nightmare Alice is having/reliving as a result of her trauma . Within a few moments she’s unceremoniously killed by Jason with a cut to the title card. Normally the death of a previous final girl in such a mean spirited fashion (coughs in Halloween 5) gets me upset , but Alice was such a non factor in the first movie (one of my major criticisms) that it almost feels nice knowing that we’re getting someone new. After the title card, the story picks up 5 years with the reopening of a camp on the shores of Crystal Lake. Cue title card.

The first thing the story does that’s a marked improvement over its predecessor is clearly establishing a crew of characters with identifiable traits. Paul, the camp owner, is a well-mannered guy trying to do good for his students and those that they’ll interact with. Ginny (our final girl), his girlfriend, is a fun loving, witty, child psychology student. When the final act starts and and her back is pushed against the wall, you really appreciate how well her characters strengths are set up earlier. She’s resourceful and tenacious in a way that places you squarely in her corner. The main set of campers that are set to be slaughtered by Jason are, for the most part, likable and fleshed out just the right amount. Performances feel genuine and the staffers feels like young adults just messing around with one another. Characters get to interact with each other over elongated periods giving the audience a reason to care about their ultimate fates.

Likewise, there’s some thought given to developing Jason. He’s not just some hulking monster in the woods waiting to kill nubiles. His actions feel purposeful and the way the film subtly (and not so subtly in one particular scene) builds up his psychology and way of life raises a lot of interesting questions. Unfortunately, not all of those questions get answers that feel acceptable, the biggest being how Jason is alive despite being “dying” decades previously. The whole driving force behind Pamela’s murder spree in the first movie is her belief that Jason had died because of negligent camp counselors. If he hadn’t actually died, then that means he was just living out in the forest relaxing. If this was the case, then why didn’t he act to help his mom when she was struggling? The film would like to have you believe he witnessed her death and took revenge; that’s what the opening sequence with Alice was supposed to indicate. It’s just that that requires uprooting the basis of the whole story or coming up with a convoluted headcanon to explain what’s going on. This is a problem that’s endemic with the franchise. It rarely knows what it wants in the moment, so there are a lot of retcons/oddities in the plot that make otherwise interesting moments confusing. That being said, I think the good outweighs the bad and got over the issue on my third play-through.

Now one thing that the first installment got right was the kill scenes due to the practical effects magic of Tom Savini. Despite not being able to get him on the second movie, the kills and their respective brutality are still on display (even if they don’t reach the same consistent heights). In fact, one of my favorite kills in the franchise happens early on and it might be one of the most mean spirited slasher kills I’ve ever seen. It’s just brutal and demonstrates (as if we even needed it) that Jason has absolutely no qualms with who he murders.

Unfortunately even though the movie makes huge strides in improving and refining the slasher formula , there’s more than one oddball moment that feels out of place with the realism and sense of urgency that’s being set up. For example, there’s a moment where a group of characters makes a gruesome discovery only to be stopped in the act. However, the spectacle they came upon is never mentioned by anyone else despite its potential importance in saving future characters lives. There’s another moment where Jason comes upon a character and they literally just stand there waiting to die. While there aren’t a lot of weird moments like these, they definitely stick out like sore thumbs and make the movie feel more uneven.

REPORT CARD

TLDRFriday the 13th Part Two is a rare sequel that fixes its predecessors mistakes while building on the aspects of it that fans love. Sure there are some oddball moments that feel out of place with the more grounded and realistic setting the movie tries to go for. Thankfully, none of these moments derail the movie when it’s at its best – delving into the psychology of its killer and providing tense and effective kill sequences.
Rating8.5/10
GradeB+

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Review: Swallow

Director(s)Carlo Mirabella-Davis
Principal CastHaley Bennett as Hunter Conrad
Austin Stowell as Richie Conrad
Elizabeth Marvel as Katherine Conrad
David Rasche as Michael Conrad

Laith Nakli as Luay
Release Date2019
Language(s)English
Running Time 94 minutes

Rotten Tomatoes describes this movie as an “unconventional approach to exploring domestic ennui” in its Critics Consensus section. After having seen the movie twice, I can say this summation is anything but accurate. A movie about domestic ennui would explore the way a subject feels a sense of purposelessness in relation to their household/household duties. Swallow is so much more that and plays out more like a character study of newlywed wife, Hunter, succumbing to the pressures of performing to her new husband,Richie, and his family’s expectations developing pica, a condition characterized by eating inedible objects, as a result. It’s not that shes bored with her “duties” and is listlessly wandering around trying to find something to do so she dabbles with eating inedible objects for fun. It’s more so that the pressures and expectations she’s put under compounded with with pre-existing underlying issues leads to her eating as a psychological response to the alienation and trauma she’s processing.

As someone who loves horror, I rarely find myself scared to the point of wanting to look away while watching . This movie is an exception and makes Hunter’s acts of swallowing inedible objects absolutely painful to watch. It’s not just that the objects themselves are threatening and dangerous looking, which they are; it’s that the sequences play and build upon circumstances that could really happen. Pica is a real condition that’s been documented. As someone who’s loved eating ice since I was a kid, the idea of being inexplicably drawn to eat something dangerous is a genuine fear of mine. Likewise, an awful family/in-law situation stressing out a new wife is something that a lot of people can relate to. Grounded rules and situations like these are why the movie works. The circumstances that make up the “scare” sequences are grounded in reality and relatable enough so the uncomfortable moments feel like they could happen to someone we know, if not us outright.

Every action that Hunter takes, has an emotional undercurrent that drips off the screen and makes you invested in her journey and what happens to her. This is all because of Haley Bennet’s performance, without which movie would fail to work. She starts off so eager to please, trying to fill in the roles that her passive aggressive husband and in-laws expect her to. There’s a genuine earnestness in how she tries to curry favor. Likewise, her dejection and respective attempts to regain adoration are painful to watch because the conclusion feels almost foregone. When she eats her first object, there’s a mystery in her eyes as she decides to ultimately take the plunge. Then when she accomplishes her task the delight and genuine happiness she feels radiates (accompanied by some upbeat snazzy tunes). It gives these moments a perverse feeling. You know they’re wrong. They’re painful. But for her, they almost feel like escapes from the emotional and psychological hellscape she finds herself in. Such eccentric behavior could come off as just creepy, but instead comes off as kind of endearing. As the stakes ramp up so does her emotional range and it’s quite a trip to see where she ends up by the end of the movie.

The movie is also gorgeous to look at. There are certain scenes that are draped with a rich red and a deep blue akin to something out of Suspiria (a movie I genuinely love). It gives the movie a phantasmic feeling as the colors drape over Hunter during long takes that linger on her expression. I love the use of close up shots of objects and Hunter’s reactions to them generate an incredible amount of unease and tension despite it being obvious as to what she’s going to do. I also genuinely appreciate the way the characters are blocked off in group encounters. The way the Conrad family is positioned to Haley often highlights the discrepancy in their power and reinforces the underlying nature of what the “family’s” relationship really is.

Unfortunately, while the movie’s ambitions are lofty, the execution in the latter half of the movie leaves a lot to be desired. There are sprinkles of greatness, but they feel rushed and haphazard. There’s a pivot in the third act that feels like it could have hit the mark if it was set up and developed better, but unfortunately feels unearned. It’s not that I think everything needed to be explained. It’s more that I think the plot elements that the third act tries to build on aren’t present enough to justify the importance they’re given. This is a shame because the ideas driving the ending make a lot of sense from a thematic perspective. Isolated, I like them a lot. Unfortunately, in the context of the narrative they feel like bits tacked on to the end as opposed to natural extensions of the story.

REPORT CARD

TLDRSwallow is a wonderfully unique horror that focuses on real grounded scares as opposed to tired tried cliches. Somehow the story of a newlywed with a snooty wealthy husband and in-laws developing an odd eating condition wherein she eats dangerous inedible objects is incredibly relatable and touching. I found myself earnestly invested and horrified as a result. (I averted my eyes more than once on my first watch through.) Sure there are some rough patches namely, a third act that I think was rushed compared to the rest of the story, but the movie is genuinely unique. Thought it doesn’t always hit its marks, its unique blend of body and psychological horror is one that I’ll be thinking about for a long time.
Rating8.8/10
GradeB+

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Review: Ouija: Origin of Evil

Director(s)Mike Flanagan
Principal CastElizabeth Reaser as Alice
Annalise Basso as Lina
Lin Shaye as old Lina
Lulu Wilson as Doris
Henry Thomas as Father Tom
Release Date2016
Language(s)English
Running Time 99 minutes

I actually watched this movie before Ouija, the ill conceived first movie, in the hopes of better understanding incongruities that appear in the last 20 minutes. After having finished the first movie, all I can say is Mike Flanagan deserves a lot of credit for giving one of the most vapid and forgettable horror movies of recent years an emotionally resonant backstory that somehow makes the original movie a little bit better. It’s hard enough to make a good movie let alone one that elevates a poor one which makes this sequel-prequel all the more rare.

Unlike the first movie, the prequel sequel makes full use of its first scene. Alice, the matriarch of our main family, is in the middle of a seance with an elderly man and his daughter. As the ceremony continues, things become more fantastical and it feels like a supernatural presence is there. Every time the daughter expresses skepticism, the presence grows along with her father’s faith in the process. It’s a tense introduction that’s made all the better when you realize that Alice is running a con service. All the paranormal events are just the result of a tricked out room and the help of her two daughters. It’s effective because it baits us into expecting scares from the start, while establishing our main family’s background as well-meaning con-artists. In 10 minutes, Flanagan manages to give his characters more of a backstory than the entirety of what Ouija does to develop its main lead.

In fact, the story takes its time establishing character motivations, essential relationships, and sources of conflict to ensure that subsequent scares have significance. When things get first get harrowing close to the 40 minute mark, you’re already invested in the family and their tribulations. They may be running a con, but they don’t do it maliciously. They’re just struggling to get along, weighed down by tragedies from the past and the financial struggles that accompany them. After the supernatural events turn more sinister, you feel for the family and root for them, even as the twists and turns start to get more ridiculous by the end of the movie. Because Flanagan doesn’t rely on cheap jump scares , there’s always a palpable sense of tension looming in the air. There’s no cheap outlet for that anxiety to so when something terrifying does happen it hits with a real momentum.

Every single main performance is on point. Even exposition scenes feel less boring and artificial because of how serious and solemnly the information is delivered. When the nature of the main horror is revealed, it definitely feels nonsensical and less developed in comparison to the well-crafted family story at the heart of the movie, but I found myself caring in spite of all of that because of how much energy the actors take in conveying the situation. In particular, Lulu Wilson absolutely kills it as Doris. She starts off innocent, not even aware that her family’s main source of income is a scam. She genuinely thinks the spiritual services her mother offers and that her sister and her help with are real. However, after she becomes influenced by the dark presence in her house, she’s actually scary. I mean legitimately frightening. She has one monologue in the latter half of the movie that still hasn’t left my mind and chills me to my bones every-time I watch it.

Now in spite of my praises, I did think the movie suffered from serious story issues in the last chunk. Because it has to set up the first movie, it’s forced into story choices that undermine a lot of the overarching themes and the logic of the supernatural events occurring. While some of these decisions could have been done better (I personally think the underlying source of the haunting is hackneyed and disappointing), I don’t think they ruin the movie. If I had to describe the situation, it’s similar to Wonder Women in that its great first and second act are marred by a less than satisfying third act. It’s not that the movie is bad. It’s just disappointing because of where it could’ve gone. If anything, I wish that this was an independent movie that had nothing to do with Ouija so the third act could’ve developed in a natural way unencumbered by any storytelling restrictions.

REPORT CARD

TLDROuija: Origin of Evil is a surprisingly well thought out family drama turned supernatural horror that’s less about the ouija board than the title would let on. Though it’s hampered by having to set up it’s predecessor, Ouija, it somehow manages to still deliver some shocking and scary moments that’ll keep you invested in what’s to come.
Rating8.6/10
GradeB+

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Review: Upgrade

Director(s)Leigh Whannell
Principal CastLogan Marshall-Green as Grey
Simon Maiden as STEM
Betty Gabriel as Detective Cortez
Harrison Gilbertson as Eron
Benedict Hardie as Fisk
Release Date2018
Language(s)English
Running Time 100 minutes

Grey’s a technophobic mechanic living in a future cyberpunk styled world whose life flips upside down after a brutal altercation leaves him as a quadriplegic. When he’s offered the choice to implant STEM, a technology that would fix the connection between his brain and nerves allowing him to move, he takes it in the hopes of gaining the ability to enact his own revenge. The result’s a genre-blending adventure with precise and sharp action scenes, fun bits of black humor, exciting thriller sequences, and a healthy dose of body-horror to boot.

This is a multifaceted story about humanity’s relationship with technology and the dangers of becoming absorbed by our creations. The technology available to the characters is both heavily futuristic – fully functional smart homes, voice operated cars, etc – but still has room for analog elements like manual cars. The contrast gives the setting a strange distant, but eerily close enough feeling which makes its message hit harder. The movie questions our general orientation towards technology from how often to how strongly we should use it. Before the incident, Grey exhibits a lot of autonomy. He doesn’t like using new technology and takes a kind of pride in his ability to perform tasks manually. That gives him a sense of purpose. The story painstakingly takes the time to juxtapose his resistance to tech with society’s wholehearted embrace of it. After he’s left immobile, he’s despondent. Despite having the technology available to do the tasks he needs to do, he finds no solace in existence. The loss of tactile interactivity is a death knell, and until he’s present with the possibility of it coming back , he doesn’t see a point in life. It’s a situation that raises some interesting questions about our sense of perception and evaluation. Is STEM no longer technology because Grey is using it as a conduit to control his own nerves, imbuing with some kind of human element? Why is using the other voice technology to help him as a quadriplegic not a conduit in a similar vein? If there is no difference , then it’s just a question of using technology to help achieve a purpose in life without overshadowing it. If there is a difference, then Grey’s choice is meaningful in how it presents the tumultuous agency issues we face when given tools that can do more than needed.Though the story’s exploration of these ideas isn’t as fleshed out as I’d want it to be,it’s certainly stylish enough to entertain you while giving you just enough food for thought.

If you saw Venom and wished the movie focused on and developed Tom Hardy’s relationship with the symbiote to a greater degree , this is the movie for you. The duo have tense moments, buddy-cop moments, light conversations, Q/A sessions, and everything in between. It feels like a fleshed out relationship and is the central focus of the story. STEM’s foreign presence in Grey’s body presents some agency issues as the two seek to mediate control over the flesh and blood body they both inhabit. STEM asks for permission to do certain acts and Grey permits them. This dynamic is accentuated by Marshall-Green’s great performance. He sells the weird not-in-control of body sensation that we see, and it genuinely feels like he’s just a passenger letting the driver, STEM, do it’s own thing. It’s a strange quandary ,because it’s all consensual. It’s a genius move that lets STEM work as a stand in for technology in general . We can choose to use it for set purposes and retain a sense of independence at the cost of doing “more” work, or we could let it do more work at the cost of less control. Or is it even a loss of control if we permit it? I won’t spoil where the conversation goes, but I can say that it’s presented in a way that’ll keep you engaged even if you aren’t that interested in the social commentary proper.

Whannell knows how to deliver crowd pleasing fights, and I was elated at how the camera moves and tilts at sharp technical angles. You can tell there’s a mechanical element involved and the choreography feels crisp and distinct. I could feel every single blow and felt myself almost moving along with the camera, like a flurry of quick, calculated strikes. The fast paced nature of the movement also gives way to some quick shock scares that are used sparingly to great effect. Furthermore, a lot of the violent scenes are clever and take full advantage of the environment the story takes place in. There’s one during the second act that had me both wincing in pain but also crying in laughter at how ridiculous it would be to die in such a fashion.

My biggest problem with the movie is outside of Grey and STEM, none of the other characters really stand out. I liked some of the antagonists, but outside of the final villain , no one else ever gets development that doesn’t feel paper thin. There are attempts made at introducing some faux human vs upgraded human schism ,references to the mistreatment of veterans , and some ideas of class division but, like the antagonists,they get left to the wayside. It’s a shame because I think all of these threads had the potential to be layered with each other to create something next level, but unfortunately nothing ever really jives with each other enough to give the movie any extra kick. This issue becomes even more apparent in the ending, which simultaneously suffers because of the under developed antagonistic forces while being chilling and horrifying because of the well-developed final villain.

REPORT CARD

TLDRUpgrade follows a quadriplegic man who agrees to undergo a surgery to move again. The twist? All his actions are mediated by a little microchip called STEM that talks and works with him to move his body. This cyberpunk body horror with healthy doses of both black comedy and action in an ambitious attempt at analyzing humanity’s relationship/increasing dependence on technology. Not everything worked, but what did work stuck with me.
Rating8.8/10
GradeB+

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Review: The Similars

Director(s)Isaac Ezban
Principal CastGustavo Sanchez Parra as Ulises
Cassandra Ciangherotti as Irene
Humberto Busto as Alvaro
Carmen Beato as Gertrudis
Santiago Torres as Ignacio
Fernando Becerril as Martin
Catalina Salas as Rosa
Release Date2015
Language(s)Spanish
Running Time 90 minutes

When 7 people find themselves trapped in at a bus station during a hurricane, tensions run high as eerie disturbances racket up. As the characters get more desperate to leave the situation, they realize that an “illness” is slowly spreading, threatening to infect every member of the group. What follows is a series of harrowing encounters and communicative breakdowns as the group tries to figure out the best way to weather the storm- physical and supernatural.

I’ve seen a lot of reviews compare this to The Twilight Zone, and while I can certainly see the references (hell Ezban talks about how the show influenced him), the movie has its own distinct voice and flair. The first half of the movie is tinged with a sense of mystery as the different members of the group slowly make their way into the situation and introduce themselves. As things go wrong, it’s hard to determine exactly what’s happening and why what is happening is happening the way that it is. When answers are revealed, the movie takes on a more direct horror like feeling with some genuinely chilling scenes of violence. By the time the movie ends, the realization of what happened truly hits, and the piece shines as something unique.

The movie has a lot to do with difference and the way we categorize people based on our perspectives of the world and the levers of power we have access to. Character groupings/alliances constantly change as each member learns more about others or gains a tactical advantage that lets them dictate the group’s pace. It’s an interesting exploration of human social interaction and the horror comes from determining at exactly what point the parameters for those interactions break. Are people a reflection of our perception along with some identifiable “objective” knowledge or is everything really just a matter of perspective and power? It’s an interesting topic and the movie broaches it from a terrifying vantage point.

This is the first movie I’ve seen with such a desaturated color palette. I was sure it was black-and-white to begin with, but after a few scenes realized that there were tiny splotches of color everywhere. It gives the already dreary movie an even bleaker feeling. The movie is left feeling gray with slight signs of life, and that aesthetic perfectly compliments the subject matter. The practical effects/makeup department also deserves kudos for nailing the aesthetic of the horrifying transformation the characters are trying to avoid. It feels distinct and real enough to get under the skin, without being so over the top so as to distract from the situation.

Given that the story is set during the Mexican student protests of 1968, before the Tlatelolco massacre, I expected politics to be more of a major feature of the movie. It’s not that it’s not utilized. Story beats line up with the beats of the protests and the parallels between the situations are definitely there. Character’s make mention of the turmoil and it’s even featured on the radio. However, it’s kind of cast aside to the background of the story, as another general way we otherize/categorize people. Its utilization feels more generic which is a shame, because the tidbits of intersection we get between horror and politics is interesting to mull over. I only wish the movie took the next step.

REPORT CARD

TLDRThe Similiars feels like an episode of The Twilight Zone with a distinct Mexican flair and sense of intrigue. The story of individuals trapped in a bus station, unable to leave and desperate to avert a mystery illness should keep fans of the genre intrigued from start to finish. Though I wish the movie went farther in incorporating its distinct political setting into the story, its exploration of the human element and what makes relationships tick is more than interesting to mull about by itself.
Rating8.9/10
GradeB+

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Review: Evil Dead

Director(s)Fede Alvarez
Principal CastJane Levy as Mia Allen
Shiloh Fernandez as David Allen
Lou Taylor Pucci as Eric
Release Date2013
Language(s)English
Running Time 92 minutes

Normally, when a horror fan hears the word “remake” they feel a deep sense of fear. Most horror remakes usually suck and are made as cash grabs that prey on nostalgia. They usually have a weak plot or one that’s functionally the same as the original with none of the soul or passion behind it. Certain iconic scenes will be redone as a moment of fan-service, but nothing of substance will be added to differentiate the movie outside of this fan-service. Outside of a few rare instances (like The Ring as an adaptation of Ringu) , horror remakes are doomed to fail because they refuse to innovate or add their own mark on the franchise. Thankfully for The Evil Dead fans, Fede Alvarez isn’t about that, and has managed to create a familiar but wholly unique Evil Dead origin story.

The film literally opens with misdirection, framing shots and moments to jog fan memories. You think you know what’s going to happen, but then it’s something completely different. Over the top violence, linguistic jabs, emotional turmoil. The first five minutes is like a small demonstration of what’s to come.The story picks up a while later, as a group of friends goes up to the iconic cabin the woods. Their purpose? To help their friend, Mia, get over her problematic drug addiction. The group is comprised of Mia, her estranged brother David, their eccentric friend Paul, David’s girlfriend Natalie (Elizabeth Blackmore), and the self-appointed leader of the healing expedition,Olivia (Jessica Lucas).

The set up adds a nice motivation for the trip. All the characters are going to help their friend deal with a life-threatening issue. When a user goes cold turkey they become more paranoid, frantic, desperate, and afraid. The set-up would make any sign of possession easy to disregard as just as an effect of rehabilitation. The stakes are set early on , so the groups decision to stick out terrifying situations makes sense. It’s a clever premise that’s utilized properly.

However, unlike the original movie, this soft reboot struggles at establishing memorable moments for its characters, outside of just really gory sequences. The only interesting characters are the siblings because they get the lion’s share of characteristics and backstory. Their estrangement gives the relationship a sense of mystery which keeps us invested in figuring out what really happened between them. The most memorable sequences in the movie involve them because they’re the emotional core of the movie. They both have reasons to care about and be cautious of each other and the movie demonstrates that nuance properly. Granted, it’s not like I hated the other characters. I did like Pucci’s performance as Eric, but the story only starts to make use of his ability to be manic in the third act. Outside of that, every character feels like they exist just to be abused and disposed of by the script/ the ghosts that get summoned by the Necronomicon.

Speaking of which, the Necronomicon looks amazing and I love how much fun the team had in making and styling it. From the protective sealing around it, to the scrawled messages in it begging users not to use it, the book evokes a different sense of dread. In the original , the text is indecipherable/in another language , but here there are very clear visual cues.

Evil Dead – Page from the Necronomicon warning users not to touch it.

It makes the danger more apparent, but it also makes the decision to read it seem more absurd. The original gets away with it because the circumstances leading up to it are just an unfortunate result of the supernatural and the worst of peoples’ habits coming together with catastrophic consequences. It’s not that its the worst set up ever. It just feels messy. The character that ends up reading it is repeatedly shown to be a bit eclectic in matters about the occult. It just feels like if that’s the case, and they’re thereto help their paranoid friend suffering from withdrawal, that they would not say horrifying incantations. I can forgive it though, because it’s an Evil Dead movie and no curse means no fun.

That’s good, because the movie is a TON of fun. There’s a lot of love for the source material on display and you can tell that Alvarez understood how to adapt those original moments and update them for mainstream audiences today. The gore is even more over the top here and there are sequences that will leave your stomach queasy after watching. What makes these bloodbaths stand out is that they’re all done with practical effects. The horrifying applications of sharp material to flesh will chill viewers to their bone, and it makes sense when you realize it’s created via actual practical illusions and tricks. I love that they went the extra mile in selling the hyper-realism because it gives the franchise something completely different.

Now that I’ve said that, if you like the Evil Dead movies because they’re really funny, this movie may not be what you’re looking for. The movie attempts to replicate a lot of humor ,and to be fair to it, I did chuckle at some of the fast verbal lashings delivered by the deadites. My issue is just that the humor is few and far between. Most of the time it’s too fast or just feels like something edgy that should be funny but has no real meaning or weight. Though the movie can’t balance the its serious and comedic tones at the same time like Evil Dead 2,the way it handles its themes of overcoming addiction gives it something unique that the others don’t have. It’s also not chock full of fan service. Personally, I think it has just enough references to have older fans smiling, without focusing on them so much as to alienate brand new viewers. Its the golden amount.

If you’re looking for an Evil Dead movie that’s more related to the first movie in the franchise and are okay with/enjoy a more serious story-line, you should definitely check this out. I think one huge advantage this movie has is how easy it is to show to people who want to be scared by a horror movie. Aaron Morton did a great job at getting great shots and Bryan Shaw’s editing keeps tension high at all times. There are no lazy sequences and the supernatural events always feel like a threat. Jump scares are expected but get the job done and don’t feel cheap. Gory moments are actually hard to stomach (if you don’t like gore), and demonstrate real creativity in figuring out just how far to push the audience. Alvarez is a master at pacing so the movie always feels like its progressing towards some goal. When I first saw this movie, I was on my feet during the ending. Couldn’t believe how cool and aesthetic it all was.

REPORT CARD

TLDREvil Dead is a great soft reboot that manages to tell the original’s classic story with enough twists to feel like its own creature. The film’s packed to the brim with gore and scares alike, so check it out even if you’re a horror fan not familiar with the franchise.
Rating8.6/10
GradeB+

Go to Page 2 to view this review’s progress report .

Review: Dude Bro Party Massacre III

Director(s)Tomm Jacobsen,Michael Rousselet,Jon Salmon
Principal CastAlec Owen as Brent / Brock
Olivia Taylor Dudley as Motherface
Patton Oswalt as Chief of Police
Release Date 2015
Language(s)English
Running Time103 minutes

Despite what its title would imply, Dude Bro Party Massacre III is not a sequel to a well established franchise. Instead, it’s a criticism of privilege and insulation from punishment, an introspective look into frat culture and the social construction of masculinity, a fun satire of horror and slasher tropes, and is dumb and over the top in the best possible way. You can take out your brain and just enjoy the spectacle or you can have fun with the underlying themes- the movie works well for diverse crowds.

The plot is structured like a VHS tape- with an overarching slasher film and a series of advertisements in between- like someone recorded the movie as it ran on TV. The main story line follows the notorious Motherface, a killer who targets fraternities. The story is absolutely bonkers and goes in places I never expected. I can say with absolute certainty that most of ya’ll haven’t seen anything like it. The ad portions are fun, short, and to the point and never feel like they takeaway from the main movie.The absolute chaos of the movie also keeps repeated viewings fresh. If you like unique and interesting kills in an 80’s fashion, this movie has them in spades. The practical effects are great and I loved the ingenuity behind certain executions. You can tell there’s a lot of love that went into this.

Though the film intentionally tries to fail the Bechdel test, it absolutely feels like a feminist movie. Yes, the main characters are the brothers in the feature fraternity, but the movie makes it painfully obvious that all the members have participated in pretty horrendous stuff, despite how comical it all plays off. Motherface’s journey as such almost feels justified. It’s a slasher movie where you simultaneously for and against the “villain”. However, the movie still takes time to explore the nuance of a fraternity and the ideas of brotherhood related to it. Despite their problems, the frat members aren’t all malicious dudes. Some of them enjoy the experience because it gives them a sense of bonding that helps them feel less alone and isolated. It keeps the movie from ever feeling preachy.

Despite how much I love the chaos of the movie- at times it feels like misdirection for midsdirection’s sake. There are moments that are ominous and meant to trick a first time viewer, but they never feel like they pay off in the themes. So their fun but feel pointless. The movie also kind of drags on in the end. Don’t get me wrong – I love the ending. It’s amazing. But it also had me going why? These aren’t huge issues but I feel like they kind of muddled the point.

Report Card

TLDRDespite being too absurd for it’s own good at times, Dude Bro Party Massacre III is a surprisingly topical satire that’s sure to leave you smiling by the end of it.If you want a fun movie to watch with friends put this on (as long as people are okay with gore). It should delight a lot of audiences. It’s smart, unexpected, and feels like a roller coaster in the absurd.
Rating8.8/10
Grade B+

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Review: Solo

Director(s)Ron Howard
Principal CastAlden Ehrenreich as Han Solo
Woody Harrelson as Tobias
Emilia Clarke as Qi’ra
Donal Glover as Lando
Phoebe Waller-Bridge as L3-37
Joonas Suotamo as Chewbacca
Release Date2018
Language(s)English
Running Time135 minutes

I saved this review till the end for my Star Wars movie journey for a reason – if Episode IX wasn’t what I wanted it to be I wanted to leave my reviews off on a good note- the franchise has meant a lot to me in the short time since I’ve started binge consuming it and I want the love to show. When I first watched Solo, I had a surprisingly fun time. I say surprising because so many of my friends said the movie was a dud. Box office sales and the internet told me it was a disappointment. Thankfully, I saw the film from a different point of view and was exuberant about the whole package. The movie is packed with passion, humor, fun action scenes, gorgeous visuals, memorable characters, and is a movie Star Wars fans and movie fans alike can enjoy.

First off let me say – if I had gone in and saw this movie with no understanding of Star Wars I still would have liked it. That’s not to say it’s bland or unremarkable in any way – it’s definitely a Star Wars movie. What I mean to say is the movie never really relies on having to know or be familiar with anything. Everything obviously becomes more interesting and fan-servicy in great ways if you’ve watched the other movies in the saga, so I felt doubly intrigued by the way everything unfolded. The story expands the lore of the characters we know and love without ever sacrificing the integrity of future moments. It’s meaningful past retconning – it only serves to make moments and ideas in other movies more resonant. There are also cute additions to the lore of the galaxy so that the rise of the Empire feels more grounded.

The acting and characterization of the major (and even minor) players serves to make the narrative more appealing and memorable. In particular, I loved Alden Ehrenreich’s portrayal of Han Solo. He’s more hopeful and optimistic – with outlines of the rogue we got to know in Episode IV. He doesn’t try and act like Harrison Ford, which I love – no actor can ever really copy another so trying to give life to the character is more important. In this case, I completely believed in him as Han, and as someone who didn’t love the character as much as other fans (namely because of his depiction in Episode VI) , I can say without a doubt this movie made me appreciate him more. Alongside Ehrenreich, we have great performances from both Emilia Clarke as Qi’ra and Woody Harrelson as Beckett. The latter came off as an alternative timeline Han and serves as as a great foil to the title character. The former is phenomenal at playing his childhood friend/love interest and brings out a new dynamic I didn’t expect to see. Donald Glover is likable as Lando and feels and acts like how I imagine a younger Lando would act. The biggest surprise of the movie is Chewbacca . He gets a real sense of agency in this movie and I feel like I finally got a chance to know him in a meaningful way as opposed to the hairy sidekick. Watching all the pieces come together, play out, and evolve is a treat.

The plot plays out without a lot of surprises, but the few that do come up are amazing. I won’t spoil them, but I do genuinely want to know how Disney plans on following some of the threads from this film. There’s a lot of potentially cool situations that could play out. While the film mostly plays it safe, the execution of a ton of scenes are top notch. the score is absolutely phenomenal. I mean like- wow – I did not expect it to be this amazing in a spin-off movie. John Powell has done an amazing job and making compelling and epic sounding pieces. If you haven’t seen the movie at least listen to some of the music. This section of “Marauders Arrive” should be enough to convince you. Add onto this the amazing action scenes, gorgeous visual effects, and sharp hitting humor (for the most part) and you’ve got a fun, enjoyable romp to a series of interesting locale.

The production issues become slightly apparent near the end of the film . Lord and Miller are hilarious and I wanted to see how they’d play around with the humor revolving L3-37. I enjoyed the character and thought she could’ve been used more effectively. Some of the fan service also becomes a bit egregious (never awful but we could’ve done without parts of it). Ron Howard did a great job with the position he was put in and definitely helped preserve a lot of decent moments. There are some strange plot points in the third act that I wish were more fleshed out. But all in all , I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and hope that unanswered threads in this movie get resolved in a satisfying media release in the future.

REPORT CARD

TLDRSolo is a fun movie that adds a lot to the backstory of characters we know and appreciate. I for one, think I’ll enjoy Episodes IV and V more on the re-watch given the way Lando , Han, and Chewie get fleshed out. There are some missed opportunities, slight pacing issues, and a bit of overindulgence in fan service but it never takes away from the fun time at hand.I think this is a movie any Star Wars fan can enjoy. There’s something in here for everybody and the story only plays on the elements we all love. The best part? You can show the movie in group settings with people unfamiliar with the setting and they’d still have a good time.
Rating8.7/10
GradeB+

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Film Review: Sinister – 2012

Director(s)Scott Derrickson
Principal CastEthan Hawke as Ellison
Juliet Rylance as Tracy
James Ransone as Deputy So & So
Release Date2012
Language(s)English
Running Time109 minutes
Report Card Click to go Review TLDR/Summary

A projector starts up and the guttural mechanical sounds of its inner workings cloud the soundscape. Super 8 footage emits from the unseen machine depicting a family, each member of which has their head covered by a bag, being hung on a tree. The gritty footage is augmented by the abrasive noises of the projector – the footage takes on a disturbing home-made quality. Every member of the domestic unit is executed when a tree branch is cut by an entity not shown on the screen. As the family’s feet stop moving, the title card crops up in the lower right corner of the frame, as if etched out against the grain of the celluloid.

Post title sequence, the viewer is introduced to the film’s protagonist, Ellison (Ethan Hawke), a writer moving to a new house in an effort to find materials to publish a new best-seller. However, his move is interrupted by a sheriff (Fred Thompson) who accosts him and gives the audience Ellison’s relevant backstory: the writer published a best-seller but struck out with his subsequent novels which not only painted law enforcement as incompetent but also incorrectly assessed the nature of situations being documented. It becomes clear that this current book is Ellison’s attempt at striking gold once more after a set of failures.

Before leaving, the sheriff mentions that Elliot’s pursuits will only bring up answers that no one wants to know and that his decision to move into the house he’s chosen is disrespectful in light of the circumstances surrounding the disappearance. Both warning and condemnation alike are ignored by Elliot who waives the sheriff off. This interaction is noted by Ellison’s wife, Tracy (Juliet Rylance), who asks her husband what the altercation was about. She hesitatingly questions if the house the family has moved into is next to a murder site again, implying that Elliot has made the family move to dangerous locations before. He assuages her concerns and confirms the house is not neighboring a murder location. But as he stares at the same broken tree from the snuff film from the opening, it becomes clear that he’s moved his family into an abyss where a family was hung. Far from keeping the family some proximity away from the terrors of his investigative work, he’s brought them right into the heart of darkness.

The all-encompassing evil surrounding his family makes its appearance felt as the four-person unit eats dinner in complete black. They don’t know what Elliot has dragged them into and act in total bliss, unaware of the abyss slowly encroaching from all around. Unfortunately, this façade is one doomed to collapse as Elliot discovers when he goes upstairs to do some unpacking. He notices a black scorpion near a box filled with super 8 film reels. Suddenly, the title sequence rears its ugly head again – the scorpion becomes an emissary of terrible things to come.

Alas, Elliot is unaware of these connections and takes the box of “home videos” downstairs after trying to dispatch the scorpion. He goes into his private study, far from the eyes of his family, and starts to play the tapes. At first, the super 8 footage depicts a peaceful domestic image; a family plays around while having a joyous looking picnic. However, this idyllic image is shattered as the jittery footage cuts to the title sequence’s footage – it becomes clear that this cheerful family is the same one the viewer saw being hung. Now, Elliot has seen the same. Now, the tree in his backyard seems all the more ominous. Now, evil has made its presence brazenly known.

Perturbed by the experience, Elliot goes outside to check on the tree and is confronted by its looming presence. It’s as if the spirits of the family still linger from where they were executed, warning Elliot of what’s to come. Nevertheless, he persists and goes back to his study to continue investigating the demented home films.

But the footage proves to be too much. Each film he watches follows the same pattern – a peaceful vision of a family which is followed by their gruesome execution. Finally, the violence erupts and totally breaks Elliot down. Shocked and disgusted, he takes out phone and dials the police, ready to get legal enforcement in on an issue which seems to be more heinous than he previously imagined.

And then he stops. He looks up and sees a stack of his bestseller, Kentucky Blood, sitting perched on a shelf under a bright light, a limelight from a past age. The decadent red color of the books entrance Elliot; within them, he sees this case as a chance at being great all over again. The allure of greatness takes precedence over all else, and he turns the phone off. A decision made that cannot be undone.

This is the heart of Sinister and where the film excels: the story of a writer pursuing the restoration of his status at all else, making a Faustian deal with to get back in the limelight. The film spends the entirety of its run-time with Elliot as he attempts to discover the root of the mystery, the reason behind the murders, and the connective tissue behind the tapes. The more he watches the found-footage films, the more he gets invested. Because we’re forced to watch with him, the same sense of morbid curiosity infects us. Even though the conclusion of each tape is foregone, there’s a horrific spell cast that makes it impossible to avert the eyes from the screen. It’s in these moments, watching a man watch horror films, that Sinister manages to unnerve the most. The true crime feeling gives the supernatural events captured on the home videos gone wrong a palpable malevolence – they’re meanspirited and get under the skin because of how vicious and unforgiving they are.

These moments gain their power not from gore but from their propensity at triggering the viewer’s imagination. At a fundamental level, there’s something creepy about super 8 film stock because of the way the texture of it obfuscates and “dirties” the image. There’s an uncomfortable grittiness that’s always present. Normal images are distorted enough to feel unnerving, but the hellish and inexplainable nature of what’s depicted only amplify the feeling. Sinister takes this unease and transforms it into palpable dread with its sound design. Along with the sounds of the projector, the film utilizes distortions, scratches, incomplete jumbles, demonic choral riffs, and other sonic oddities to create states of paranoia. Something is always buzzing or disconcerting enough to create worry. Because of this, the viewer is forced to think about where the noise is coming from and what it has to do with the image. There’s a fundamental disconnect between what’s going on and that sense of mystery is what generates unease and causes one’s thoughts to run wild. Like Tobe Hooper’s The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Sinister evokes the feeling that one has seen gore of the most depraved kind even when no gore has been shown purely by stimulating unconscious fears regarding the situation.

It’s precisely when the film tries to explain the nature of its supernatural set-up and remove the level of mystery that it suffers; the unconscious fears that had previously been building up fizzle out as the direct explanation of the spectral undermines the unease by which it operates. The film goes for these more overt gestures in order to engage in predictable, expendable jump-scare sequences that pad the story until it ends. In fact, once the last home movie is played, there’s a significant drop in narrative momentum, as the film becomes lost on how to effectively move the characters to the next story beat.

This should not have been the case; the terrors should have been built around and upon Elliot’s compromised relationship with his family and his obsessive pursuit of a glorious time at the cost of everything else. It is precisely in the destruction of the idyllic family life that Sinister disturbs deepest, so the larger story should have been focused more on the disintegration of the family unit in relation Elliot’s decision; however, the film only ever shows his arguments with Tracy and even those play second-fiddle to the film’s investigation into the actual nature of the supernatural mystery, which as previously mentioned, undermines what makes the film effective. Consequently, the tension that the first half excels in is lost for much of the latter portion of the film as both character and narrative momentum is squandered on cheap thrills that pale in comparison to the frights from before.

This pivot in focus is a shame because it squanders Ethan Hawke’s grounded and terrified character work which otherwise laid out a perfect foundation on which to build the film. His emphatic reactions to the home movies is part of the reason they come off as so disturbing. There’s a visceral pain he imparts upon seeing the families meet their end. But then this pain is juxtaposed against the ambition in his eyes that props up every time he’s reminded of his past. Both heaven and hell are present in his gaze and lets the viewer at least understand his character’s actions even the consequences seem disastrous.

Thankfully, the final few minutes of the film bring the narrative back to the threads that made it compelling to begin with, both subverting the the haunted house story and resolving Elliot’s arc in satisfying fashion. It’s a far cry from the potential hinted at in the opening act, but Sinister‘s craft, mood, and performance carry its uneven narrative to terrifying heights.

REPORT CARD

TLDRSinister starts strong as a true-crime styles supernatural thriller that follows an author going in over his head to get a story, but falters towards the end as it settles for cheap and conventional horror tactics. When the film is at it’s best, it’s truly terrifying and promises to unsettle even the most veteran of horror aficionados, but at it’s worst, the film does little more than undermine the basis of what makes it so effective. Thankfully, with an near impeccable first act, a thoroughly engaging performance by Ethan Hawke, and a perfectly poetic ending, there’s much to recommend for viewers looking for a spooky time.
Rating8.5/10
GradeB+

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion and more in-depth analysis.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .