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.

Superman versus Batman

This week I was discussing Superman versus Batman with a group of friends when, imagine my surprise, I realized I was the only one out of about ten people who actually liked Superman more. I also found it amusing how in a group of people were everyone was American preferred the "vigilante" while me, the Swede, is all about the "Truth, Justice and the American Way" superhero.

I didn't really get to explain all the reasons for why I liked Superman more before I was booed but I guess I'll talk about the key reasons for liking the blue guy here instead.

Reason number one; I find the fact that Superman has all of these powers; invincibility, heat vision, freeze breath, flying, Super strength and more, and doesn't use them to take over the world a very admirable trait. He could literally destroy Earth but instead he rather help the people.

Reason number two; He doesn't kill, ever. Aside for the 60's TV show, Batman was and is quite vicious and seems to have no patience for "rehabilitating" the criminals. Superman, on the other hand, believes that no matter how many times Lex Luthor, or any other criminal, breaks out of jail, the justice system is something to believe in.

Reason number three; There is a lot of debate about this but I actually think Superman is Clark Kent at heart. I think he was raised by good people who taught him right from wrong so strongly that it translates into everything Superman does. I then think that the AI, built upon the image of his biological father Jor-El, just added to what the Kents had already taught his Kal-El. Bruce Wayne, however, is really Batman at heart. Even though Bruce Wayne grew up with a wonderful caretaker in Alfred and big shoes to fill when it comes to his philanthropist father Thomas Wayne, I believe the death of his parents cloud that so much that the only thing left is a shell of a man and Batman.

Reason number four; Someone once said that Metropolis is New York by day and Gotham is New York by night. I think this starkly shows the difference between Superman and Batman. One brings light and hope while the other one brings vengeance and operates in the shadow.

Reason number five; Despite being an alien, Superman is the epitome of humanity.

And that's why I like Superman more.

The Human Centipede (First Sequence) (2009)

According to imdb.com "In Germany, two American women and a Japanese man fall victim to a demented surgeon who plans to recreate a horrific operation with humans that he performed on his three beloved dogs: reverse-engineering Siamese triplets by attaching their digestive systems." By doing so he is making a centipede-like creature for his own enjoyment.

While watching the movie it felt like there was no point to the movie because it is not really explained why the surgeon suddenly decided to make the creature, although it should be said that Director Tom Six does put in flimsy hints about the surgeon and that he used to separate conjoined twins, or what the point of the creature even was, it has no application at all in the real world.

The biggest problem, however, is that is neither shocking nor horrifying as Director Tom Six probably wanted it to be, it wasn't even that gross. And this is a movie that deals with people getting sown mouth to ass and has a scene were in the front person takes a crap that the second person has to digest!

According to Wikipedia.org "The concept of the film arose from a joke Tom Six made with friends about punishing child molesters by stitching their mouth to the anus of a fat truck driver." I kind of wish he would've stuck with that idea because by using two good looking, innocent girls instead the movie really doesn't make any sense and it makes it look like Six only did so to appeal to an audience whose favorite fetish is girls eating feces, basically the "2 girls-1 cup" audience.

The only good thing that this movie has going for it is its mise-en-scène. Visually, this movie has many stunning scenes but the most beautifully done is the last scene. The camera work, the lightning, the setting and the actors all come together for this one scene. It's a shame it's only for that scene.

In the end, Human Centipede is not a movie I would ever recommend to anyone to watch or watch myself again.

Jennifer's Body (2009)

This week I watched Jennifer's Body. According to IMDb.com the movie plot is; A newly possessed cheerleader turns into a killer who specializes in offing her male classmates. Can her best friend put an end to the horror?

It stars Megan Fox and Amanda Seyfried. It was written by Diablo Cody, who also wrote Juno. When the movie came out it got a lot of mixed reviews, most of them bad. Probably because critics and viewers were expecting Juno with a horror twist.Maybe baby drama were the baby turns out to be a demonic entity instead?

However, I found the movie to be satisfying, not the best horror I've seen but neither the worst. How much I enjoyed it really surprised me since normally I can't really stand Megan Fox, her "acting" in Transformers and her comments in real life makes me cringe each and every time, but in this movie I didn't mind her at all. This might have to do with the fact that Fox's portrayal of Jennifer seems to be Fox playing herself but with wittier lines, courtesy of Cody.

However, I think it was Amanda Seyfried's portrayal of Needy that really pulled together the movie. Seyfried's Needy is never weak, stupid or a stereotypical horror blond bombshell, instead Diablo Cody and Seyfried give us a character that is very much an average teenage girl that is put in a very extreme situation by her "sand box" best friend Jennifer. They also lets us know not only how these experiences changed her but also how much. Seyfried's transformation from sidekick to slayer doesn't seem to far fetched.

Both Jennifer and Needy divergent journeys and turbulent friendship can be seen as a very plausible metaphor for the trials and tribulations teenage girls go thorough every day, both individually and together. The plot of the movie can be seen as a extreme example of what can happen when two people, who have been best friends since forever, grow apart. In real life, this would probably end with talking behind each others backs, fights and facebook de-friending, but in Cody's world we get demon possession and murder.

Another aspect of the movie is that it can be seen as an extreme example of what can happen after a female, in this instance Jennifer, is sexually brutalized and victimized, as Jennifer was by the band.

It also has not so subtle overtones as being a metaphor for both female sexual liberation, such as Needy losing her virginity and Jennifer luring the boys (a.k.a. her food) by using sex as power.

All in all, it was a good movie.

Legion (2010)

This weekend I went to see Legion. According to IMDb.com the plot is "An out-of-the-way diner becomes the unlikely battleground for the survival of the human race. When God loses faith in humankind, he sends his legion of angels to bring on the Apocalypse. Humanity's only hope lies in a group of strangers trapped in a desert diner with the Archangel Michael"

I loved the trailer and the idea of this movie. I mean in a world that seems to be getting more and more violent and twisted every day the whole idea of God losing faith isn't so far fetched. I also thought that it would be interesting to see what that would entail, for example; demon possession, crazy old ladies climbing the walls while cursing and gore, lots of gore. I have to admit that some parts of the movie was funny, gory and a little bit creepy. However, the two biggest problems of the movie was;

1. I didn't really care for the main characters. They felt two dimensional, shallowly written and extremely stupid. I mean the one character that was suppose to be the hope of humanity is a girl who got pregnant by one guy, strings another guy along for the ride and smokes while pregnant, it is like the writers couldn't decide which character flaw to give her so they gave her all of them. They also named one of the characters Jeep, which just sounds like a product placement to me because who really names their kids Jeep? At least name him Bentley, Royce or Ford!
   
2. It felt like I was watching a movie trying to hard to be Terminator with the whole "your baby has a destiny". Seriously, I was just waiting for them to name the kid John Connor. Maybe the makers of the movie thought that, like fashion, every 20 years we need to recycle, readjust and remake the movies of our earlier years to fit how they view the world now.

In the end I wish they would've gone more in depth on some of the more crucial subjects of the movie, such as why God lost faith, why this particular baby is important and what happens in the world after the apocalypse comes along.
What we get, however, is kind of a shallow movie that only scratches the surface, cool fighting between the two angels Michael (Paul Bettany) and Gabriel (Kevin Durand), and some pretty awesome acting by Dennis Quaid and Charles S. Dutton.

I guess I have to stick to my weekly episodes of Supernatural to get my fix on in-depth analysis of urban legends, myths, beliefs, pop culture and religion.

First Post a.k.a Who the hell do I think I am?

First post. The pressure is on!
Okay, not really.

So I guess this is the part where I introduce myself but what can I really say?

I'm 24 yrs old and female. I started watching horror when I was 6, which is not something I recommend but it's the truth, and I feel in love with it.

I love the horror fandom and the only real problem I have with being a female horror fan is that a lot of times I'm not being recognized as a fan. Usually I'll be seen as the date, I'm only there because of hot actor or a guy "dragged" me to the movie/con!
No, I'm sorry, but the truth is that for the most part I'm the one dragging him!

So I decided to start this blog so people can read, both guys and dolls, my point of view.

This blog will be about my experiences within the fandom, my reviews on the movies and my opinions on horror.

From childhood's hour I have not been
As others were; I have not seen
As others saw.-Poe