Sinister (2012)

True-crime writer Ellison Oswalt moves himself and his family in to a house where an horrific crime took place earlier, but his family doesn't know. He is trying to find out more about the crime so he can write a new book about it to help his flailing career. He uses some "snuff" film that he finds which show the crimes to help in his research, but he soon finds more than he bargained for. There is a figure in each of the films, but who or what is it? As a result his family start to suffer as does he. Things take a turn for the worst. Will they survive?

Let me tell you, this movie has a stupid and predictable plot with big plot holes. There is, however, something there though, something good and freaky. This movie connected with the parts of my brain that actually makes me freak out.

Ethan Hawke couldn't chosen a better film to make his horror debut. He's excellent as a has-been writer that turns more paranoid and more frustrated as this movie and the movies within the movie unfolds. His characterization of Oswalt is splendid in it's imperfection. The character is foolish, selfish and he drinks too much but Hawke doesn't make it too overt, it's subtle and teasing.

Juliet Rylance, as Oswalt's wife, seems like a breath of fresh air to the horror industry, she can actually act. There is never a moment when I didn't believe in her performance, every movement and word seems to come from within. I really hope to see more of her in the future.

The two major weak points of the movie were the two sets of kids, living and "dead." There's a risk with making a horror movie with kids, a risk that almost never pans out and it sort of doesn't in this. The kids overact and don't really know when and when not to hold back in their performances. There's one moment when we get to focus on the "dead" kids and I have to admit it made me and others at the showing laugh instead of feeling scared. Hawke's and Rylance's performances together with the atmosphere of the movie, however, overshadows all that.

The real star of the movie though, is it's atmosphere. It looks and feel dark and ominous, but the sound is were the real terror comes from. The sound department seems to have been playing around with infra sounds because I could really feel the terror deep inside, even in moments I knew what was going to happen and logically knew I shouldn't be this freaked out. The 8mm film parts used in the movie only adds to the feel of the movie and is crucial to how we feel and perceive this movie.

While Sinister is no way perfect, it has just the right level of scariness to overcome it's imperfections and they only add to the whole experience.

American Horror Story 1x1 Pilot

According to IMDb.com American Horror Story is about "A family of three move from Boston to Los Angeles as a means of reconciling their past anguish," however, it's about so much more than that and I would rather claim it's really about the house they move in to.

American Horror Story is about the weird, the quirky, the beautiful and the scary in our everyday lives but mixes it with the supernatural and extraordinary and it does so in a way that makes it horrifying but intriguing to watch.

My favorite thing about the show is the fact that it doesn't hide the fact that the supernatural is involved but rather pushes it in your face. Every scene and every minute breathes it.

I also love the whole cast, not even one of the cast falters but they all shine in their own way. Connie Britton and Dylan McDermott are wonderfully tragic, and Taissa Farmiga plays the daughter in subtle but quirky and sad way. The surrounding cast could've been caricatures of quirky characters, and in some ways they are but it works well.

So in the end, American Horror Story is scary and it's good. The pilot is a 10 and I hope the rest of the season continues on the same path.

I Spit On Your Grave (2010)

According to imdb.com "Writer Jennifer Hills (Sarah Butler) takes a retreat from the city to a charming cabin in the woods to start on her next book. But Jennifer's presence in the small town attracts the attention of a few morally deprived locals who set out one night to teach this city girl a lesson."

This is a remake, I repeat, this is a remake, however, I feel like it's a good one. It updates but doesn't dilute what the original movie set out to do. There are some problems with this update though. Mainly, the plot and the characters. I'm not saying the whole movie is bad, but there are things that happen in this movie that would not happen in real life and that doesn't make sense, but I'm going to get to that later.

I want to start off with what was good with this movie; Actress Sarah Butler was amazing in this movie, every scene she seems natural even when horrible things are done to her. The rape scene alone is excruciating to watch because of her performance but even before that when the men are just torturing her psychologically she makes it real. Actor Chad Lindberg is another star in this movie as mentally handicapped Matthew who was unwilling to begin but turns into a willing participant, only to be the only who regrets his actions afterwards. From beginning to start Lindberg delivers more than enough and in the end, is the only one of the tormentors you want Jennifer to go easy on.

Now back to what was not so great about the movie; the unbelievable plot points. In the original, there was no sheriff involved and the fact that he is in this one makes it more unrealistic than the movie it's based on. In the remake there is no lead up for the sheriff to be an accomplice to the atrocities that happen to Jennifer. In the original the group have been conspiring from the start, but in the remake we so no communication between the group, that starts the torture, and the sheriff. He just out hunting when Jennifer runs in to him and then he just goes along with the torture and rape, for no apparent reason. I'm guessing the writer wanted to go for a shock factor, basically a "you can't trust anyone, not even the sheriff, when you're in the outback" plot point. In this movie it doesn't work though, especially since it seems to be the first time the group has ever done anything like this before. The writer wants us to take a leap of faith that is illogical and inconsistent with the rest of the movie.

Another bad plot point is Jennifer's revenge, basically the second half of the movie, because it doesn't make sense. The writer is telling us Jennifer lived on berries and bugs for a month in an abandoned cabin just biding her time until she can get comeuppance. However, are we suppose to believe that after being badly hurt, traumatized, without clothes and probably chilled from the river, she just decided to go hide in the woods? For a month! And without the group finding her? We know the group grew up in the town, we see them fishing and hunting in the woods and we're suppose to believe that none of them knew about the abandoned cabin close to the one Jennifer rented? Jennifer also seemed pretty healthy, not mentally, but physically after her month stint in the woods, almost stronger than she was before.

But I guess if you're a connoisseur of intricate ways of revenge and gory scenes, this is a movie for you. If you want to see Sarah Butler and Chad Lindberg act their asses of and really shine, this is also a movie for you. It is graphic though and I understand why the director went on to show it unrated.

Horror is the name of the game!

M&M has this game on their site and it's pretty awesome.
They show you a painting that has references to different horror movies in it and you have to guess them. All the little references are pretty good and the painting is pretty beautiful in a haunting kind of way.
Click here for the Game

My brother and I are huge geeks... FYI

My brother and I have this game we have been playing for at least the last 10 years.
We call it "Who is that and what were they in before," basically us showing off our skills in knowing different actors' filmography.

We watch a movie/TV show and if an actor we know comes on screen we have to call their name and name a movie/TV show they've been in before. You get points for every name and movie/TV show you can mention. It really gets funny when you've named every major actor and their movies, because then you get down to the "That Guy" actors, such as Peter Stormare and Clint Howard because then you get to start "bluffing", which means that you just make up movie/TV show titles and see if they stick, however, if you're called on it you lose a point.

I've noticed that this game is not only fun and gives me a little bit of cultural capital, but it actually has helped me in social situations because by training my mind to remember those I only interact with para-socially, I also remember people's faces in other social situations.

Does anyone else play this game? Or are we just the biggest geeks ever?

The Remake Conundrum

So this year a couple of remakes were released. such as A Nightmare on Elm Street, only it's not called a remake anymore but instead they are being promoted as a re-imagining of the story. This seems to be a newly formed pattern when it comes to promoting remakes nowadays, this non-use of the word remake. Instead words like re-imagining, re-starting, tribute, Americanization, and, my own favorite, rebooting is being used whenever Hollywood decides to recycle.

It seems today the word remake has gotten a negative connotation to it, and whenever a remake is in talks, the fans of the original will undoubtedly come out of the woodwork to loudly complain about it, and in almost every case, not one of those fans has seen any of the footage from the remake. It almost seems that the complaints that the fans of the original have are just a knee jerk reaction to the word remake and if you as a fan of the original don't complain about it, well then you are seen as not being a fan at all.

However, I'm going to take the opposing view to this. I say remakes are good. Now I'm not talking story wise because let's face it, remakes almost always get it wrong, but when I say remakes are good, I mean they are good for the original. I say this because if a remake is being done, in most cases there is also a lot of buzz about the original, which in turn will make more people see it, hence, the original, which in almost all cases is seen as the epitome of film making, will get more fans.

This can also be seen when books are adapted for the silver screen. The book being portrayed will either be sold more at bookstore or borrowed more often from the library.

This is because in the end, people want to know the source material, and they want to know why this specific movie is being remade or why that book is being filmed. People are naturally curious and they think knowing trivial things like what and when something is being made into a movie will get them more culture capital and make them cooler.

So the next time one of your friends want to see the newest remake, don't follow your gut reaction, take a breath and ask them if they want to see the original beforehand. Maybe this way one of your favorite films will gain a fan.

Mel Brooks' Dracula; Dead and Loving It

Last night I re-watched Mel Brooks' Dracula; Dead and Loving It and I was kinda shocked at how un-dated it feels. The movie was made 15 years ago but it still holds up, at least to me, and I can't really say the same for Scary Movie. So why do I still like Mel Brooks' movie but not Scary Movie?

I can't really put my finger on it but it might have something to do with the fact that Brooks stuck to doing a consistent parody of one other movie while Scary movie features small bits of parodies of every scary movie that was hip at the time. It might also have to do with the fact that while Brooks' movie does have a sexual tone to it,it is still subtle but Scary Movie is as unsubtle as can be with its dick-, fart-, and boob jokes.

I mean,take the scene where Mina requests Jonathan to touch her, he says no but she makes him touch her breast and then her father comes in to the room and discovers Jonathan's hand on her breast and gets outraged... at a couple that has been engaged for 5 years! This scene cracks me up even after the 10th time watching it.

In comparison, the sperm fountain scene in Scary Movie. I admit, I laughed the first time I saw it but then the second time I just shrugged my shoulders and every time after that I didn't find it funny because it was so over the top.

In the end, I figured that both movies reflect two different eras, two different types of writers and two different types of style. Mel Brooks is an old-school writer that sticks to the classic slapstick comedy while the Wayans brothers are younger and cruder that appeals to the 12 year old in all of us.