Scream (2022)

 

Directed by: Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett

Starring: Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, David Arquette, Marley Shelton, Melissa Barrera, Jenna Ortega, Dylan Minnette, Jack Quaid, Jasmin Savoy Brown, Sonia Ammar, Mikey Madison, Mason Gooding, and Kyle Gallner

Genre: Horror / Slasher, Thriller

Rated: R

The fifth entry in the Scream franchise takes place twenty-five years after the events of the original film. Someone has once again donned the signature Ghostface ensemble and started yet another string of attacks and murders in Woodsboro. This time, however, the focus is not on Sidney Prescott, but Samantha Carpenter, a young woman with a secret connection to the events of the original. A new group of young people are on the chopping block, forcing Sidney Prescott, Gale Weathers and Dewey Riley to once again face down another masked killer and hopefully put an official end to Ghostface’s legacy.

When I heard a fifth Scream film was in the works I was initially very hesitant – like Neve Campbell had said in many past interviews, I didn’t think it could be done well without Wes Craven. I was worried the series would be ruined. However, when I learned Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett, the men behind Ready or Not (2019), would be heading the project, I grew far more optimistic – these two know how to combine horror and humor, badass final girls and brutal gore effects into very fun stories. When Neve signed on to return as Sidney (something she was reluctant to do without a good script) I knew I could get excited, and I was not disappointed.

Scream (2022) is a true love letter to the original film and gives friendly nods to the three previous sequels. There are tributes to several fallen characters of the past – beloved characters memorialized rather than forgotten. There are also a couple surprise appearances from past characters which I was ecstatic about. I would highly recommend watching / rewatching the four previous films prior to catching this one in order to pick up on all of the references.

Our legacy actors, Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox and David Arquette, are amazing as always in their return to the respective roles of Sidney, Gale and Dewey. Despite not being written by Kevin Williamson, the characters still feel true to their roots and have developed naturally over the past twenty-five years. I’m so proud of how far Sidney has come and cannot wait to add her entry to my character study blog (I had been holding off until I could see this film). She has finally stopped running and found her peace, and she will do anything to prevent the destruction of her happiness. Gale has calmed down and become a lot more caring. She has found her success and is willing to put others before a major story; however, she is still not someone you want to mess with. Dewey is still lovable and goofy, but he’s been through a lot, and it’s finally starting to show. These three characters have been through hell, and developed accordingly. The only other major returning character is Judy Hicks from part 4, and I was pleased to see she is treated with a lot more respect in this film. Rather than being the suck-up deputy with a crush on Dewey and a penchant for baking and cheesy quips, she has become the sheriff of Woodsboro. She’s a single mom who adores her teenage son and sushi. She is far more likable this time around, and it was nice to see Marley Shelton flex her more dramatic acting skills.

I wasn’t sure how I was going to feel about the new young cast members. I was excited to see Kyle Gallner in the cast (surprise, surprise to anyone who has followed this blog for a while … it’s no secret I love this actor), and saddened that he was criminally underutilized. The only member of the new group of teens I’ve seen before is Jenna Ortega. I really enjoyed her as Phoebe in The Babysitter: Killer Queen, and her turn as Tara Carpenter, Samantha’s younger sister, in this film, is equally fun but definitely more badass. Tara takes hit after hit and gives back as much, if not harder than she receives. She’s tiny, but she’s feisty and very underestimated. She also has excellent taste in the ‘elevated horror’ side of the genre.

I am always reluctant to embrace a new “final girl” when it comes to this franchise as Sidney will always and forever hold that title. However, Melissa Barrera’s Samantha is a quality next generation lead. She has the heart, she has the brains, and she has the strength to face these circumstances head-on. Given more space to develop, she has the makings of becoming Sidney Prescott 2.0, and could possibly carry any further entries in the series. While this entry does feel like a solid, definitive end, we know Hollywood can never leave well enough alone, and there could and probably will be more.

The rest of the new characters aren’t really fleshed out well enough for me to form much of an opinion. Having two of Tara’s closest friends be the twin niece and nephew of Randy Meeks was great. Mindy takes right after her uncle, though she has far better luck with the ladies. Her brother, Chad, is more of a doofus jock, but he seems sweet. Liv is rather forgettable, unfortunately being exactly as Mindy describes her, “too boring.” Amber seems like a nod to Tatum in her having the “super protective best friend” role, but lacks the charm of Rose McGowan, and almost comes off as possessive of Tara. I thought it was cute that they named a character Wes as a tribute to Wes Craven, and Dylan Minnette is adorable, but I would have liked more time with his character. Lastly, we have Ritchie, Samantha’s supportive, somewhat naïve and hapless boyfriend of six months that accompanies her back to Woodsboro when her sister is attacked.

This version of Ghostface is particularly brutal and far less restrained than previous renditions. The deaths are cringe-inducing and one specific kill will rip the heart out of any Scream fan. (I legitimately cried in the theater. No, I am not ashamed.) This Ghostface does not hold back and no one is off limits to them. The deaths are bloodier than in some of the previous entries. Ghostface opts for more vicious attacks with multiple rapid-fire stabs and I love the lack of obvious CGI gore effects. Ghostface also plays heavily with the heads of the victims in this entry which amps up the tension far more than the run-of-the-mill “hey, I’m going to kill you,” calls in earlier sequels. This killer really enjoys toying with good-hearted people and knows how to hit them where it counts, but also severely underestimates the lengths good people will go to to take down evil. The reveal of who is behind the mask is a bit underwhelming, but the commentary on the toxic side of fandom and the lust for infamy that mass murderers have is the true unmasking.

Overall, this is a solid, well-done entry to the franchise that has me questioning my original ranking of the previous films. (It may be time to revisit and revise my prior ratings.) The original will always be untouchable to me, however, this sequel is superior to most, if not all of the preceding ones. It is a love letter to the source material rather than a cash grab, holding true to the roots of the franchise and what made it so great in the first place. Assuming Hollywood doesn’t push to continue the series, this feels like a satisfying ending for the characters and the story.

8/10

Open Water (2003) & Open Water 2: Adrift (2006)

Open Water (2003)

Directed by: Chris Kentis

Starring: Blanchard Ryan and Daniel Travis

Genre: Adventure/Survival, Drama, Horror/Thriller

Rated: R

Based on a True Story

Based on true events, the story follows Susan Watkins and Daniel Kintner on their much needed vacation to the Caribbean. While on a scuba diving trip, the couple is accidentally left behind due to an error in the passenger headcount and stranded in the middle of the ocean. What follows is the hypothesized scenario of what  happened to the couple in real life as we watch Susan and Daniel struggle to survive.

I watched this film for the first time when I was in high school and found it dreadfully boring. I recently gave it a second shot, thinking I may have been too young to appreciate it. I was right the first time.

I truly feel that if you have the film rights to a tragic story like this, you should attempt to do the real people it’s based on justice. While the characters have different names than the couple the film is based on, they could have at least been likable and well rounded. Instead, all we know about them is that they’re bland, middle class workaholics that need this vacation to fix the strain in their relationship. We do not even learn their names until 30 to 40 minutes into the film – yet we know the names of their coworkers within the first five, coworkers that we never hear or see whatsoever. It felt like 80% of the film was the two leads bickering. There was no effort to make them seem like real people and that makes it hard for the viewer to relate to or sympathize with.

The acting itself left something to be desired, with neither actor giving a believable performance. I did not feel their fear or their helplessness as much as I felt I should. Both were fairly wooden, with Blanchard Ryan being fairly expressionless with the exception of confusion or frustration. (However, apparently she won a Saturn award for best actress beating out Nicole Kidman, Kate Winslet, Julianne Moore, Ziyi Zhang and Uma Thurman that year, so what do I know?) The few scenes where the two leads showed any affection toward each other felt very forced, and there was no chemistry between them. The acting really pulled me out of the film and I found it hard to feel the tension I should have been feeling given the situation these two were in.

Aside from the acting, the production was okay. There are some beautiful shots of the water due to the film being shot on location and the danger felt a bit more authentic as real sharks were used in the latter half of the film. However, I didn’t latch onto the attempt at cashing in on the Found Footage craze that other reviewers did. I’ve never been big on that subgenre, but I do like a few films in it and acting like this film is the second coming of The Blair Witch Project is a bit much. Again, this is supposed to be based on true events so the found footage aspect feels like a gimmick rather than respectful of the actual couple and their families.

Lastly, there was some unnecessary full frontal female nudity. I get that the scene was supposed to depict the intimacy issues between the couple, but I feel it could have been done without Blanchard Ryan getting naked. Also, I found it awkward that we see her breasts and pubic region before we learn the character’s name.

Overall I found this film just as hard to get through at the age of 32 as I did when I was 15 years old. The characters were flat, the acting wooden, the nudity unnecessary, and the found footage gimmick annoying and disrespectful. It is a short film at an hour and 19 minute runtime but feels easily double that due to the lack of characterization or anything much happening at all. Some people love this film and it has garnered some critical acclaim, but it is absolutely not for me.

4/10

Open Water 2: Adrift (2006)

Directed by: Hans Horn

Starring: Susan May Pratt, Richard Speight, Jr., Niklaus Lange, Ali Hillis, Cameron Richardson, and Eric Dane

Genre: Adventure/Survival, Drama, Horror/Thriller

Rated: R

This is not an official sequel, but attached to the original film to ride on its popularity. The story follows six friends and one baby on a day trip to celebrate one of their thirtieth birthdays. The group sets out on a yacht for a day of swimming, drinking and fun. However, things take an unexpected turn when the group finds themselves stranded in the ocean after a swim with no way to get back on the boat. Panic ensues as the group struggles to survive long enough to get back to safety.

As aforementioned, this film has little to do with the original Open Water, and far less intelligent as well. Where the first scenario is entirely plausible, and did, in fact happen, this one is only made possible by what can only be described as idiocy – mostly from one character in particular.

The film begins with footage of the main group from a decade or so earlier, that instantly made them incredibly irritating to me. When we meet them again in the present, it takes a bit to warm up to them. Amy is our protagonist with a paralyzing fear of the water due to a traumatic incident involving her father when she was a child. She hesitantly agrees to face this fear and go on this boating trip to celebrate her friend’s birthday, and is accompanied by her supportive, sweet husband, James, and their baby daughter, Sara. The rest of the characters include birthday boy Zack, EMT (or lifeguard?) Lauren, douche bag Dan and his current fling, Michelle. As we get to know the group, I did find most of them likable, with the exceptions of Dan and Michelle – she’s written as the traditional “blonde bimbo” and the victim of a bad cliché while he is human garbage.

One thing this film has over its predecessor besides a bigger budget and a decent cast is characters with actual personalities. While they may not be fully well rounded, they do feel a lot more real than the cardboard cutouts from the original that were supposed to be depicting real people. I love the relationship between James and Amy. They feel like a couple in love with each other and their baby girl. Moreover, their relationship is healthy and supportive, taking care of each other through panic attacks and injury – as well as being a team when parenting. Why is this such a rarity in these films?

James Helping Amy Through a Panic Attack

Amy Supporting James

Lauren is a strong female character. We don’t know much about her except that she has some sort of medical training, but she seems like a great friend to Amy and seems to be the only one who cares about Michelle. Zack is pretty bland, and other than it being his birthday, we really learn nothing about him. As mentioned above, Michelle is little more than a stereotype and her panic seems to be written to purposely annoy the viewer rather than gain her sympathy. There is really nothing positive to say about Dan, aside from his last minute change of heart towards the end of the movie. He’s a playboy and Amy’s ex (obviously for good reason), who has no respect for others or their property. I hated this character more and more with every scene, and wanted to climb through the screen and drown him myself.

Me to Dan

Dan is literally the entire reason these characters are in this predicament in the first place. If he had respected Amy’s boundaries about her fear of the water and left her onboard while he and the rest of the group enjoyed a swim, she would have been there to help them out. Instead, he grabs her and jumps overboard, sending her into a panic attack and forgetting to let down the ladder in the process. He also thwarts an attempt to climb back onboard using the diving knife as a foot hold as the knife would damage the yacht. In stopping this attempt, he fatally wounds one of the group members – so, I hope your friggin’ yacht was worth it.

Dan does have one smart idea – using their clothing as a rope to get someone back on board to let down the ladder. However, they have the biggest, heaviest guy in the group climb it instead of, say, Lauren, who is much smaller and has the upper body muscle to pull herself up. Naturally, the makeshift rope rips, and they’re back at square one.

Check out those arms! She easily could have made it!

                               

The majority of the film caused me rage due to the inept characters – from Dan causing this problem in the first place to the ambiguous ending and who possibly survives.

I will say the acting is another improvement over the previous film. I could feel Susan May Pratt’s panic when she was carried into the water, her heartbreak as those around her begin to die, and her terror at realizing her baby is all alone on the boat and she has no way of reaching her. Richard Speight Jr., the only reason I watched this film in the first place, warmed my heart with his portrayal of James and the love he has for his family, only to rip it out toward the end of the film. Seriously, a movie this bad has no right making me tear up, and it’s all Richard Speight Jr.’s fault. 

*sigh* Of course ... 

The rest of the actors were believable and competent, though I wish Cameron Richardson was given more to work with – I saw her on Harper’s Island and I know she is capable of more than this. The fear is tangible with these characters and kept my interest.

Aside from two random girls on a party boat that passes the stranded friends in a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it scene, there is no female nudity – just an annoyingly long close up shot of Susan May Pratt’s wet underwear clad butt toward the end. The nudity is mostly from Richard Speight Jr. 

Hellooo Trickster!

Couldn't Resist Adding a Little Gabriel Sass

 and Eric Dane – which is a nice change of pace when it comes to horror films.

The cinematography was much better, not taking the found footage route was definitely the way to go. While the ocean water shots were not on location, they are effective in portraying the characters stranded in the open ocean, and still beautiful.

Overall, this is an unrelated sequel with the Open Water brand attached to get more viewers. It is a competent film with decent acting and cinematography, but the writing, the stupidity of some of the characters, and the ambiguous ending bring down what could have been a slightly above average flick. Still it had more of an emotional impact on me and kept my attention, so for that it gets a slightly better rating than the original.

4.5/10

My Bloody Valentine (1981) vs My Bloody Valentine (2009)

 

My Bloody Valentine (1981)

Directed by: George Mihalka

Starring: Paul Kelman, Lori Hallier, Neil Affleck, Keith Knight, Cynthia Dale, Alf Humphreys and Don Francks

Genre: Horror / Slasher

Rated: R

 On Valentine’s Day twenty years ago the small mining town of Valentine’s Bluff was rocked when a tragic cave-in trapped five miners. When search and rescue finally uncovers the men, there is only one survivor, Harry Warden. Deeming the mine collapse to be the fault of his supervisors who had left early that evening to attend the Valentine’s Day Dance, Harry murders them both the following year. Harry was committed to Eastfield Mental Hospital and the town did not have another Valentine’s celebration for two decades. Now, in 1981, Harry has become little more than a legend and the town has decided to have a Valentine’s Day Dance once again. However, someone isn’t happy about this and will do anything to keep it from happening. Is Harry Warden back in town or is someone else following in his footsteps?

               Despite the praise this slasher gets in the horror community, this has never been one that I’ve loved. That’s not to say it isn’t entertaining – it is, but I find it lacking somehow. The basic storyline is fine and the premise held a lot of potential, but for me it didn’t quite get there.

               I feel one of the biggest drawbacks of this movie is the characters. They’re not unlikable, but they don’t really have much personality or development either. Many characters fall to the killer’s pick axe without the viewer even knowing their names. The plot centers on the love triangle between Sarah, Axel and TJ, with both of the boys vying for the role of her love interest. They’re so caught up in fighting each other for that spot that they do not seem to care what Sarah wants at all. Frankly, neither guy deserves her; she’d be better off alone. Sarah herself is fairly bland, only starting to get a personality in the third act when she needs to support her friend and get them both to safety. The sheriff is so worried about causing a panic in town that he doesn’t mention the trail of murders to anyone, allowing the main group of twenty-somethings the ignorance of thinking it would be safe to throw a party after the Mayor cancels the dance. 

               The kills are creative and brutal. The special effects are well done – the standout definitely being the corpse in the dryer. The setting of the mine in the final act provides the perfect creepy atmosphere for a stalk-and-slash with the dim lighting and claustrophobic tunnels. The viewer is just as lost as the characters in the maze of unlit underground passages, unable to determine the best mode of escape. Unfortunately, the tension isn’t really there as we follow the dwindling group, because, as mentioned above, there is nothing interesting or compelling about any of them.

               There is little to no nudity – just a close up of a girl’s breasts clad in a lacy bra and a bunch of dudes showering. I did like that the movie promoted safe sex by having a male character pull out a condom as he and his girlfriend prepare to make love. Aside from the nameless girl in the opening sequence, the women aren’t obviously objectified, and actually work together and support each other. Toward the end of the film, Sarah takes charge and guides her distraught friend through the mines in hopes of leading her to safety. We don’t see enough of girls helping girls in these flicks and we should change that.

               This is not a bad little slasher film by any means, but it’s not one of the most entertaining either. It has the slower pace of Halloween or BlackChristmas and the gore of Friday the 13^th, but ultimately does not have the likeable characters or quality writing that made those films the classics they are. It is a solid entry into the slasher subgenre, and many in the horror fandom love it, but for me it is simply average.

6/10

My Bloody Valentine 3D (2009)

Directed by: Patrick Lussier

Starring: Jensen Ackles, Jaime King, Kerr Smith, Tom Atkins, Kevin Tighe

Genre: Horror / Slasher

Rated: R

 In 1999 there was a collapse in the Hanniger Mine trapping six men. The only survivor found by Search and Rescue was Harry Warden, who had snapped and killed the other five men so he wouldn’t run out of air. Found in a coma, Harry is transported to the local hospital, where he wakes up and begins a killing spree ending in his death. Ten years later, someone has taken up Harry’s pick axe and the murders have started again. Is Harry Warden truly dead and buried? Has he come back or is it someone else entirely?

               If you know me you know I’m not typically into remakes – mostly because they’re usually done on films that are perfect as is and still hold up to this day. However, in this case I felt that the original held promise that it didn’t live up to and a remake could change that. This movie had a chance to make something great – it had a good cast, a solid storyline to work off of and a decent budget – but they blew it.

               The characters were something I’d really hoped would be improved upon. As stated above, the original characters were very bland and lifeless, not really inspiring the viewer to care for them. This flick took these characters and turned them into assholes. TJ is now Tom, who, after nearly being murdered during Harry’s massacre, left town for a few years to get away from this experience. He returns after his father dies to take care of the estate and determine what to do with the mine. Once there he learns Sarah, his girlfriend from ten years prior, is now married to the Sheriff, Axel. The love triangle is still very much part of the story, and this time I care even less about it.

               Tom is the only character I give a damn about, and, no, it’s not just because he’s played by Jensen Ackles. The minute he returns to town he’s treated like a pariah. Everyone in town believes his mistake in the mine ten years ago caused the cave-in and thus the murder spree of Harry Warden. Also, he’s deliberating on selling off the mine which is the town’s livelihood. It’s obvious he’s carried the events of the past around with him and that he doesn’t want to be back at all. With the way the townspeople treat him, why should he care at all about them? Sell off the mine and take the money to live a nice life far away from there.

               Tom is still hung up on Sarah, and I cannot understand why. They had no chemistry in the scenes where they were supposed to be a couple. Also Sarah blames him for her walking into the mine during Harry’s murders (even though he was getting something out of his truck) and states she got with Axel because “he was there for me” during that horrific incident – the one that nearly led to Tom’s death, but whatever. 

He only stared death in the face while she ran, no big deal. 

She is resentful of Tom leaving, and I do understand her hurt, but at the same time, if she was acting like he didn’t do enough to protect her I don’t blame him at all for leaving. The entire town hates him and his girlfriend is now hero worshiping Axel. I would have left too.

               Axel is an absolute piece of garbage. Not only was he trying to get with Sarah while she was with Tom, he also treats her like crap now that she’s his wife. He’s jealous and possessive when Sarah has one conversation with Tom. He screams in Tom’s face that she’s “my wife, the one I have sex with!” in the middle of a hospital. Yet he’s cheating on Sarah with Megan, her employee at the grocery store that barely looks over eighteen while he’s in his late twenties to early thirties. Gross Axel, not only are you cheating scum, you’re predatory trash as well.

Apparently the actress was about 26, but she looks barely out of high school. 

               Other than the main three, the side characters are all equally unlikable. Megan is proudly sleeping with her boss’s husband, Ben and the retired Sheriff Burke have some shady secrets, the deputies are rather useless, and everyone else is just knife fodder. Also, what was the point of Sarah and Axel’s child? He is in literally two scenes and has no lines. He and his nanny could have been scrapped in exchange for a plot that made any damn sense.

               While this version does hold on to the basic premise of the original film, it veers off into a mess. Yes, it is Valentine’s Day (or close to it), it’s the anniversary of a prior murder spree, and there’s the love triangle, but that and the original character names are all that remains. There is a party scene at the mine but it is very brief and just serves as exposition for the later events. Many people are killed at random that have nothing to do with the original party massacre or Harry Warden. These deaths were pointless and could easily have been cut without the film losing anything.

               Another area that was decent in the original but could have easily been improved upon is the gore effects. The original did well with what they had, but their budget was limited and modern effects could have brought an upgrade. Instead, the effects were far worse in many respects due to terrible CGI. I get that a lot had to be done that way due to the 3D gimmick, but it looked awful – the girl’s head that was split in half by a shovel was obviously computer generated, and laughably bad. 

Seriously, what is this?

The kills in general were okay, the best ones being ripped from the original (i.e. corpse in the dryer). The brutality is still there but the CGI blood ruins it for me.

               Where the original lacked nudity this version has it in abundance. Both male and female characters appear in the nude. We get middle aged man butt (Trust me, there is only one man in this film who the female viewers want to see naked, and it sure wasn’t that guy!) 

My apologies, Jensen. 

and  full frontal from the character of Irene – who is naked for at least ten minutes, from the sex scene to chasing her dickhead partner into the parking lot with a gun, to being chased and cornered by the killer. Not only do we get all that, but there are multiple scenes were the police are watching the video tapes made by her creepy old-man lover and many pictures of her naked corpse. There is also a very pervy close up of the character Megan in her panties, and a crotch shot of her underwear again as she climbs through a window in a mini skirt. Again, this girl looked barely legal to me, and the exploitative shots of her are very uncomfortable.

               The women in this film are treated like trash. The men see them as objects to possess, use and cast aside as they please. The only “friends” Sarah has are Irene, who she seems to have grown very distant from over the past decade, and Megan, her employee that is banging her husband. While the original had girls supporting girls, there is barely any female interaction, and when there is it is catty and awful (Sarah and Megan) or an employer / employee relationship (Sarah and the Nanny). Irene is the stereotypical “slut” of the film and she is, of course, punished for her promiscuity. Even the female motel owner, a little person, was extremely sexualized (did we need to focus on her breasts? Really?),

 and, I feel, also exploited for her size, having her be flung up and tacked to the ceiling like a rag doll. She has a total of maybe two minutes of screen time and all it consists of is her boobs, her flirting with Tom, and her demise. She seemed like she could have been a fun character, but ultimately added nothing to the story except to pad the body count.

               This film tried to take the elements from the original that worked and ride on those successes, but couldn’t make them work within the context of this story. The tense, claustrophobic atmosphere of the mine is not utilized to its full potential. The original was actually shot in real mines and had to use the lighting already installed, making the scenes darker and creepier. This version has well lit tunnels and tries desperately to recreate the creepiest scenes from the original, such as the mining outfits dropping from the ceiling, the dryer corpse, etc. The mining uniforms dropping from the ceiling surrounding someone was built up in the original, in this film it was completely random. I find it hard to believe a grown woman can fit inside a normal household dryer, never mind the corpse cooking so thoroughly in the maybe ten minutes between the character’s death and the discovery of her body. (The body in the original was in a much larger dryer overnight.) The killer smashing a few lights in the mine during the final confrontation was intimidating. That action being extended to around ten lights – and the lighting still being bright as ever in the scene – could not recapture the tension of its predecessor. The final showdown even taking place in the mine at all seemed forced because that was where the original ended, not because it made sense.

               I have so many questions. How did the killer get from the office door to the back alley in two minutes then carve out the victim’s heart, display it in a chocolate box, write on the wall in the victim’s blood and get the hell out of dodge in the next five that it took Sarah and Axel to arrive? For that matter, how did the killer know which vehicle in the motel parking lot belonged to the naked bald jackass or when he would be coming out to drive away? How did the retired Sheriff know there was a killer in Sarah’s house? Why would you waste time calling the police on the landline when a killer is after you and you could just hit the store’s alarm button? Why did the Valentine box only start dripping blood once it was in Axel’s hands? Does this director have a cage fetish? (There’s A LOT of cage imagery – the bed springs, the mining cage and the security grates on the grocery store’s office window.) 

Why did I subject myself to this? Who knows!

               This poor attempt at a reboot, squandered any potential it could have had by taking the, rather tame by comparison, source material and turning it into an exploitative piece of garbage. They had the cast, they had the budget, they could have made something great. Instead they took a quaint little early ‘80s slasher that managed to avoid a lot of the typical tropes, and add everything this subgenre is criticized for. It’s like they took a look at the original and said, “You know what this needs? More naked chicks, awful characters, crappy CGI effects and some blatant misogyny! Also cages because they get me hot!”

               I know I am in the minority for disliking this remake, but I honestly cannot understand why anyone would enjoy it. I was excited to watch this because I heard so many in the horror community raving about how great it is. Did we watch the same movie? This remake did not do justice to the original, in fact it stamped out everything that worked in its predecessor, replacing it with bad CGI, soft-core porn, and characters that all deserved to bite it. There are plenty of movies that share these elements and don’t bastardize prior, superior films, nor take themselves as seriously as this flick does. Stick with the flawed original. Maybe someone will get this story right someday.

Next time, please listen to Sidney ^^

4/10

Phantom of the Mall: Eric’s Revenge (1989)

 

Directed by: Richard Friedman

Starring: Derek Rydall, Jonathan Goldsmith, Rob Estes, Pauly Shore, Kimber Sissons, Tom Fridley, Kari Whitman and Morgan Fairchild.

Genre: Horror / Slasher

Rated: R

This 1989 re-imagining of the classic Phantom of the Opera, brings the story to the mall culture of the 1980s. Rather than a man living beneath the opera house obsessed with a young opera singer, there is a man living under the new mall, obsessed with Melody Austin, a young waitress working in one of the restaurants. This mysterious man appoints himself as her guardian angel and will do anything to protect her (and other young women) from any harm.  Melody is working to move on after losing her boyfriend, Eric in a housefire one year prior, and begins to find clues to her admirer's identity, making her wonder if Eric really died after all. She teams up with new potential love interest, Peter, to find out what really caused the fire at Eric’s home and if he actually survived.

I went into this movie looking for a cheesy good time and I was pleasantly surprised. Is the plot a silly rehashing of a far superior classic? Yes. Are the deaths ridiculous? Yes.  Are the special effects shoddy? Definitely. Yet there were so many things that charmed me about this film and made me enjoy it.

The plot is silly, yet I couldn’t help wanting to find out the truth behind the house fire that may or may not have taken Eric’s life. Was it a tragic accident or was there something more sinister behind it? The mall currently stands where Eric’s house used to be. Was the mall developer responsible for the fire? It’s honestly a bit predictable, but fun to follow along none the less.

The kills are over the top but so entertaining. The deaths involve arrows, fan blades, electrocution, escalators, and even a cobra (where in the hell did the killer get one of those?!). Approximately 90% of the kills were terrible people that were harming others in some way. For most of the movie I was rooting for the killer as he continued to take out the garbage in his own special way.

In relation to the kills, we must consider the special effects and gore. Both left something to be desired, but they were able to entertain all the same – even if it wasn’t the kind of entertainment the movie was going for. For instance, when one character’s eyes pop out while they’re being electrocuted, it looks like sausage links shoot out of the sockets. The burned skin effects aren’t the greatest, there is minimal blood and the decapitated head looks like a stuffed Halloween mask. 

I liked the main group of teens the film focuses on. Melody is a very sweet, albeit traumatized girl, who witnessed Eric's assumed death. Peter is a reporter that is obviously in love with her, willing to do whatever he can to help her find out what happened to Eric. Suzie is Melody’s fun, laid back best friend who tries to break Melody out of her shell. Even Pauly Shore’s character, Buzz, seems like a decent guy, aside from his desperate attempts to win Suzie’s affections. These are friends that truly care about each other and band together to help one another if one of them is in trouble. I actually worried for these characters a bit, which is unusual in the B-movie slasher fare I often review.

The acting was fairly solid for the most part. Kari Whitman carries the film well and Rob Estes gives a decent performance as Peter. I found Morgan Fairchild’s appearance in a film like this surprising, but enjoyable. The only performance that I found truly lacking was Derek Rydall’s as the phantom. This character is overly dramatic – especially his rage fist pounding when he witnesses something that angers him. This gesture is done at least three times throughout the film and it is quite laughable every time.

Another thing I was not expecting in this film is that it did veer away from some of the classic slasher tropes. Melody is not a virgin, there’s no “slutty” girl in the group, the comedic relief character is also a very caring friend, and, perhaps most surprising of all, the nudity is tasteful and the sex scenes are sensual. Kari’s breasts are only shown from the side view, and the sex scenes are Melody's memories where Eric is worshiping her body. They definitely feel shot more through a female gaze – perhaps to indicate Melody’s perspective. We get far more nudity from Buzz dropping his pants and mooning a security guard. If you’re going into this looking for gratuitous T&A, there really isn’t much to be found – just some side boob and Pauly Shore butt.

This is not a film that takes itself seriously. It knows exactly what it is – campy, cheesy, slasher fun – and does not try to be anything else. It knows what the audience wants – pure, mindless entertainment – and it delivers. Halloween this is not, but it is still a good time if you just want to shut off your mind for a while.

6/10

Intruder (2016)

Directed by: Travis Zariwny

Starring: Louise Linton, John Robinson, Moby, and Zach Myers

Genre: Horror, Thriller, Suspense

Rated: Not Rated

A violent Oregon storm is blowing in for the weekend and young cellist, Elizabeth, is home enjoying some time alone. Unbeknownst to her, someone has entered her home and joined her in her weekend of solitude.

Meet Elizabeth, an orchestra cellist who has the strength to manhandle such a large instrument, but cannot manage to carry two trash bags to the can outside. Elizabeth only listens to cello music, is unique because she has an old-school answering machine, and often does security sweeps in her home that just happen to miss the intruder's very obvious clues and hiding places. Meet the Intruder who is obsessed with Elizabeth, hides in her closet, leaves finger prints and DNA EVERYWHERE, and acts more like an angsty teenage boy than a grown man. Also there's a creepy music instructor, an overly at-home boyfriend, and a cute cat named Ozzy that will be the only character you like in this entire film.

The movie literally opens on a cliché - a 'dark, stormy night' with a young woman alone in her big house realizing she's not alone. We know, since it's the beginning of a horror film, that she's going to die, but her death is sudden as she is grabbed from behind in a jump scare complete with orchestra swelling music. A thin white plastic trash bag is pulled over her face and she makes no attempt with her free hands to remove or rip a breathing hole in the material. Instead she dies (within a minute of being grabbed) with her hands reaching out for nothing in front of her.

Seriously? Poke a hole in that flimsy plastic! Use your fingers, your teeth, anything! Where's your will to live?!

Apparently stalker boy gets off on dark stormy nights, because when he decides to become Elizabeth's uninvited new roommate, it is once again, a dark stormy night. He sneaks into her apartment when she's taking her second trip to the outside trashcan (why the director thought showing her make two trips to the trashcan was necessary is beyond me) and hides in her closet for most of the movie. Aside from the creep factor of him being there without her knowledge, lurking near her towels when she takes a shower, and touching her face while she sleeps - the intruder isn't very scary, with the exception of his manners. The first night, he raids her fridge (eating cottage cheese from the container with his fingers!), takes a bite out of an apple and leaves it in her fruit bowl, and urinates in her dirty dishes. All of this goes completely unnoticed by Elizabeth the following morning. (Girl, you can't smell the URINE in your sink?!)

The movie basically just follows Elizabeth through her boring, mundane life. The viewer watches her go to cello practice, fight with her boyfriend, baby sit her friend's cat, shower numerous times, change clothes numerous times, have sex with her boyfriend, video chat with her Mom, fix a light bulb, do her laundry, and sleep. The viewer also watches the intruder watch her do these mundane tasks. Eventually he just becomes part of the scenery. When he finally makes his move, the screen cuts to black and the credits roll - just long enough for the viewer to scream, "I WASTED AN HOUR AND A HALF FOR THAT?! NOTHING HAPPENED!!" Never fear, friends, the credits break to reveal the real ending, which is only a little less unsatisfying than the fake one. There's no big showdown between Elizabeth and stalker boy, and, quite honestly, the real ending doesn't make much sense based on stalker boy's previous modus operandi.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I cannot be scared for characters that I dislike - and this movie does absolutely nothing to make them likable. Elizabeth only seemed concerned with her own needs and couldn't understand why her boyfriend wouldn't give up his tenured position as a university researcher or professor to follow her to England for a few months while she plays with the Philharmonic Orchestra. (That Bastard!) I was hoping she'd make a journey of self-discovery through this horrific experience, maybe come into her own as a badass and overtake the intruder - but sadly, no such luck. The only character I was anxious for was the cat, and thankfully, the film did avoid the cliché of killing the pet for shock or to torment the victim. (Only because the intruder did NOTHING to her throughout 95% of the film.)

The acting was mediocre. Louise Linton's natural Scottish accent can be heard sporadically throughout her dialogue, confusing the viewer as to whether she is supposed to be an American or someone from abroad studying music in Oregon. Moby only had two scenes and not much of a character to work with, so this film probably isn't the best specimen from which to judge his acting prowess. John Robinson and Zach Myers gave decent performances as her neighbor, John, and her boyfriend, Justin, respectively.

I did like the setting. I loved Elizabeth's apartment, it had personality (unlike her), and seemed like a cozy place to relax for a weekend. Her  neighborhood was cute and quaint. It felt inviting. A perfect contrast to a suspense / horror themed plot - if the horror actually decided to show itself.

There were a number of things I hated about this movie. I hated that every man Elizabeth encountered came off as a threatening creep in some way. I hated the unnecessary shots such as the aforementioned trash sequence, the pervy downward pan of Elizabeth's naked body while she washes herself in the shower (nothing against her, she has a beautiful figure), the unnecessary male nudity, and the cinematic montage at the fake end of the film where Elizabeth sees the intruder's face and immediately attaches it to all the actions he did without her knowledge. How is she having a realization flashback montage when she had no idea he did ANY of those things?! I hated how every time Elizabeth is close to discovering the intruder or something that would reveal she is not alone in her apartment, she just happens to be distracted and pulled away from what she was doing. I hated how sloppy the intruder was and how blind Elizabeth was to this sloppiness. The guy relied on sheer luck to not be found out. Lastly, I hated the scene where the intruder kills someone in Elizabeth's apartment with a knife - not a single drop of blood hit her pristine cream colored carpet. How is that possible?

Overall, this is one of the lamest entries in the 'Home Invasion' subgenre of horror/thriller films I've ever seen. The characters are dull and uninteresting, even anger inducing. Clichés abound. Nothing happens for the majority of the film, and when it does happen, it's not very satisfying. I would only recommend this film if you like spending 90 minutes watching some creep watch some girl do mundane things and enjoy a really slow build up to practically nothing in the end.

3.5/10

Trailer:

Devour (2005)

Directed by: David Winkler

Starring: Jensen Ackles, Shannyn Sossamon, Dominique Swain, Teach Grant, William Sadler, and Alan Ackles

Genre: Horror, Thriller, Supernatural, Occult

Rated: R

On his twenty-first birthday, Jake Gray's best friend signs him onto "The Pathway," an internet game where players provide their personal information and get calls from the game telling them to do things. Not long after Jake is signed into "The Pathway" things begin to take a turn for the worse, he loses his job, he begins to have violent visions depicting him harming his loved ones and himself, and his friends begin to die off. As things become progressively weirder, Jake becomes determined to find out what is behind the strange occurrences in town and the deaths of his friends. But Jake will soon find that sometimes the truth is better left untold.

Despite Jensen's numerous warnings at various conventions, this movie isn't as terrible as it could have been. I went into this expecting a disaster. What I got was a flawed, mediocre attempt at a thrilling occult story involving Satanism and devil-worship. Mr. Ackles and I may have different tastes as to what constitutes a terrible film, but after some of the horrible flicks I've sat through, this just rates as "meh."

The story seems to have a slight identity crisis. It starts off with the evil internet game seeming to slowly change the behavior of those who have signed in. It seems to prey upon the hidden secrets, insecurities or fears residing within the players and convinces them to do something about these things. Those that play the game begin to die at their own hands after committing a brutal act of violence. Of those playing, Jake is the only one who seems able to resist the game's coercion, enabling him to investigate what is really going on and discovering it has everything to do with a group of devil worshippers. All of this leading up to the slightly incestuous twist ending. I didn't mind the twist, but it could have been done without the incestuous aspect.

The acting was well-done. For it being his first feature film, Jensen Ackles carries the film well. I felt he did especially well in the scenes of conflict between him and his father, Paul, played by Jensen's real life father, Alan. The two work well together in displaying a strained father/son relationship that, to this fangirl's knowledge, does not exist between them in reality. 

For example, this scene: 

My only fault with Jensen's performance is the Luke Skywalker style "NOOOO!" he lets out at the end of the film upon discovering the last two victims. To someone who has seen this man nail numerous highly emotional scenes since the release of this film, this was a surprising acting choice on his part.

I thought Dominique Swain did a good job portraying the inner conflict of Dakota, a girl who comes off as "easy" but, the movie hints, is dealing with a history of sexual abuse by her father. She made Dakota sexy and silly with a sadness or a void lurking just beneath the surface. She made the character more than just the "token slut" and into someone I could easily care about. I wanted to get to know this character better, but aside from one scene in class, Jake's birthday celebration, the scene at the restaurant where she works, and a slightly hot but mostly awkward sex scene between Dakota and Jake, her character is mostly pushed to the side in favor of far less interesting characters. 

The rest of the performances weren't very noteworthy, even Shannyn Sossamon, who plays Jake's love interest and the closest thing to a leading lady this film has, was rather dull. Did her character, Marisol, and Jake make a cute couple? Yes. But, until the last ten minutes of the film, she's pretty bland. This is not the fault of the actress, the character was written poorly. An actress can only do so much with a bland script.

The characters themselves were pretty flat. Jake is a college student who works as a computer tech and hunts in his spare time. He frequently brings his paralyzed mother orchids at the nursing home, and frequently fights with his apparently ultra-religious father. Oh, and he's been suffering from disturbing visions that he cannot shake off. Still, he's not very interesting, and, truthfully, I probably wouldn't have cared much about him if he was played by a less talented actor.  

As described above, Dakota is by far the most interesting, while Marisol is probably the most boring. Marisol has one quirk, which is her hobby of reading tarot cards. Otherwise she's just a pretty nurse with laptop issues that catches Jake's eye one day and slightly aids him in his quest to solve the mystery of what is happening to his friends.

The one character I didn't really like at all was Conrad, Jake's best friend and, I think, also his cousin (I might be wrong on that one). Conrad is introduced with conflict - Jake has to confiscate a gun from him before he shoots a fellow classmate and that classmate's girlfriend. It is never explained why Conrad hates this classmate, Darius, so much, or why (Slight spoiler) he eventually kills Darius, other than "The Pathway" told him to do it. There is only one scene where Conrad and Jake act like real friends, the rest of the time, Conrad is either attacking Darius or going on about "The Pathway." Also, let's not forget, it's his fault Jake got sucked into the rabbit hole of "The Pathway," in the first place. Conrad, as an overall character, annoyed the hell out of me, and while Jake was devastated to see him go, I was not. 

 Since Conrad's conflict with Darius is never explained, I felt like the scene where he finally kills Darius should have been swapped out with Dakota's final scene.  Her reasons for doing what she does could be considered justified, and her crime is far more interesting in my opinion. Many would argue that the victim had it coming based on his treatment of her from the beginning of the film. The man was a sexual predator and needed to be taken out. However, despite her fully developed storyline, her crime and her death are committed off screen while Conrad's ill-defined storyline gets undeserved attention. 

What is not explained is why the only people that seem to be affected by "The Pathway" are Jake's two closest friends. Then ending explains why they were targeted specifically, as well as the others who meet their end within the film. However, it is stated that this game is popular, so why isn't there anyone else acting strange in town? No one else at Jake's college seems to have  succumbed to this strange behavior, nor any adults or teenagers in the neighborhood. I mean, I know this game is "elite" but you would think at least a few other people in town would have logged on and become fellow players. This plot could have developed into something far bigger, but the disappointing reveal of local devil worshippers being behind the entire thing kept the premise from spreading too far from the small town the film is set in.

The entire time I was watching this film I kept wondering why it was even called, Devour rather than The Pathway, which would have made more sense. I know this was technically answered in a brief, blink-and-you'll-miss-it shot of a plaque in a church depicting a passage from the Bible with the word "devour" in it, but it still doesn't feel fitting to me. "The Pathway" is the initial cause of Jake's problems, and it is mentioned in the film far more than the word "devour," or the Bible verse briefly depicted. 

Overall, this film isn't as terrible as Jensen has been known to claim, but it isn't anything special either. It's a rather tame attempt at a tale of devil worship that mixes aspects of Stay Alive, The Ring, and The Omen into yet another mediocre entry in the horror genre. This is not really worth the watch unless you're a Jensen Ackles fan and want to see some of his work pre-Supernatural. If you are just curious about the sex scene, don't waste your time with the entire movie, Youtube has you covered:

You aren't missing much by skipping this one.

4.5/10

Trailer: 

#Horror (2015)

Directed by: Tara Subkoff

Starring: Chloe Savigny, Timothy Hutton, Sadie Seelert, Haley Murphy, Bridget McGarry, Blue Lindeburg, Mina Sundwall, and Emma Adler

Genre: Horror, Slasher, Thriller

Rated: Not Rated

Six preteen girls having a slumber party are in for a night of horror as an unknown killer begins to pick them off one by one.

This film tried desperately to make a social commentary regarding our dependence on our phones and social media, as well as to make a point about the negative effects of cyberbullying. The girls the film centers around are hooked on this interactive mode of social media that is something of a cross between Candy Crush and Instagram. They snap pictures of each other and post them online with tags that range from cute to cuttingly mean. For instance, one girl, Kat, takes a picture of three of the others and tags it "#fatuglybitches," and one of Georgie, the overweight member of the group, tagging her as a fat pig, or something similar. However, these are the only instances of actual cyberbullying, the rest of the time, the girls are just bullies with no creativity when they cannot be glued to their phones. Apparently this addiction to social media and one's cell phone is an epidemic that affects the adults in the lives of these girls also, as more than one girl states that she feels invisible to her parents as they would rather be on their phones than spend time with her.

I wanted to like this film but there is so much wrong with it that I found that impossible. I've been looking for a horror movie that tackles the problem of cyberbullying head on and actually does a decent job of making the viewer think twice before posting something cruel online, but have had no success. I also couldn't bring myself to really sympathize with any of the central characters. I understand we are supposed to identify with and root for Sam, but she put me off in the beginning of the film with the rude way she spoke to her obviously loving, involved mother. Maybe after her ordeal she'll learn to appreciate the kind of mother she has, but nothing can be certain as she didn't really show much growth throughout the film. She did, however, half-heartedly try to stand up for the other girls when they were being bullied, and she did risk her own life to try and help girls who really didn't deserve it, so her character gets a few points of redemption on that front. The only other character that wasn't a complete waste was Francesca, who, while still a jerk, knew when enough was enough. Lastly, Ava wasn't too bad either, but she disappears pretty early on once the slasher aspects of the film kick in, so we don't really get to know her.

The three remaining girls I have absolutely no sympathy for. I tried to feel bad for Georgie when the other girls picked on her for her weight. As a supporter of the Healthy at Any Size movement and a believer that beauty comes in all shapes and sizes, I refuse to judge someone by their weight, and find people who do judge for that reason disgusting and shallow. What these girls said to Georgie, constantly barraging her with snide remarks about her weight, telling her to stop eating when she eats for comfort, ridiculing any ideas she has about getting exercise, and telling her to kill herself, was uncalled for and hurtful. I did want to slap the hell out of the girls when they were saying those things to her. However, Georgie is not a sympathetic person, because instead of standing up and walking away from these girls who say such hurtful things to her, she turns around and joins them when they switch their attention to another girl in the group. Georgie also hurls homophobic slurs at Francesca, which automatically turns me against her. I don't care if you're overweight, I do care if you're an ignorant asshole individual.

The last two brats we have on the roster are Sofia and Kat, both spoiled, self-absorbed, entitled rich bitches girls who think they can do and say whatever they want. Sofia is the Queen Bee of the group and all the other girls fawn over her, regardless of the fact that she's a cruel little troll who will turn on any of her so-called friends in a second. Kat is even crueler than Sofia, as she is willing to take it far past a little underhanded bullying and tell someone straight to their face to kill themselves. This comment is too cruel, even for Sofia, and she actually finds herself kicked out of the house.

I've said it in prior reviews and I will say it again, I cannot find a horror movie scary if I do not care about the characters. As aforementioned, the young girls are entitled little trolls, but the parents aren't any more likable. Sofia's father is cheating on her mother, Alex, in the opening scene, while Alex tries to get in the pants of the workmen at her home. Alex also drives drunk and leaves six obviously unbalanced preteen girls home alone. (Yes, I stayed home alone at twelve, but I wasn't a psychotic little turd either.) Dr. White, Kat's father, seems too busy for her until it may be too late, then he goes off the deep end and barges into Sofia's house to terrorize the remaining seventh grade girls.

There were things I absolutely didn't understand, such as Sam's supposed psychic abilities/sensitivities - an aspect of her character that adds absolutely nothing to the story. What was the point of her having these "sensitivities"? They don't help her in any way, and actually detract from the plot. I also don't understand the desperate need the underling girls had to be friends with girls like Sofia and Kat. I guess these two must be the most popular in their grade, but what's the point in being popular when you don't have any real friends you can count on? I guess when you're twelve that spotlight looks awfully inviting, no matter how much you have to suffer to be in it. Lastly, this is a film centered around preteen girls, was it really necessary for the opening scene to involve a woman writhing in orgasm in the front seat of a car? Also, what purpose does it serve to have her walking around in the middle of winter wearing nothing but a skimpy negligee under a trench coat?

I think the one thing I hated the most aside from the girls themselves was the Candy Crush/Instagram social media program the girls were addicted to - as it came up as part of the actual film, transitioning scenes, introducing the idiotic characters, and depicting their photos that they post online. The fast-pacing and bright colors hurt my eyes, and I found it distracting from the actual storyline rather than helping it along. I also hated the emojis popping up randomly, as I also found them distracting. Other viewers seem to disagree, but, as someone who doesn't really use many emojis in my daily life, I'd rather not have them overtaking my horror films. It's not cute, it's not creative, it's juvenile and irritating.

There is very little to no suspense, the kills are rapid, and the gore effects merely decent. The death on the tennis court had potential, but was cut way too short despite the tension that was building up. The attempted drowning in the pool was the only scene that had a tangible amount of tension. The rest fell flat. Lastly, the killer was extremely predictable and but hardly believable.

The only aspect of the movie that I did like was the setting - the house is huge, modern, and boxy which I hate, however the vast amount of windows does add to the tension. I liked the way the art seems to pulse or move in a creepy fashion, and I loved that there was a constant dusting of snow falling from the sky. Also, the filmmaker didn't get it wrong when she depicted slumber party activities of young girls - dressing up, goofing off with the camera, swimming in the pool if your friend is lucky/rich enough to have one, dancing silly, watching movies and playing games like sharing secrets are all part of the slumber party package - though my friends and I were chowing down on junk food while these scrawny runts are "on a diet, Mom! God, how can you be so stupid?!"

Overall, another lame attempt at capturing the negative effects of bullying/cyber bullying, which is a shame, as this is a great, powerful concept to explore. The characters are obnoxious, spoiled little twits in dire need of a swat upset the head, and the game/social media almost being a character ruins a lot of the potential for me.  The gore effects were decent, kills rapid, and killer predictable. Avoid this one. 

3.5/10