Maniac (1934) review

(7/10)

     Maniac pushes the boundaries beyond what was common and typical of cinema back in the 1930s. It's frightening and disturbing even today, leaving the one watching feeling uncomfortable- which is exactly what it wants. Though the film possesses many problems from some terrible acting and unnecessary plot twists, it still remains a very unique exploitation horror made with a mindset way ahead of its time.

PLOT: Insane Dr. Meirshultz (Horace Carpenter) and his hopeful apprentice, Don Maxwell (Bill Woods), are planning to give life to a once-dead human being with a real human heart. After sneaking into the local morgue and bringing a dead woman back to life, the doctor's passions and psychotic tendencies get stronger. His lust for his experiments gets so crazy, Maxwell ends up shooting him out of panic. In an attempt to cover up what he's done from the public eye, Maxwell uses his skills as a master of disguise to impersonate Dr. Meirshultz. However, after taking on the role of the late doctor, he starts to actually believe he's the real Dr. Meirshultz and takes on his impassioned intentions to an even further degree. The plot is a very excellent concept altered too much. The plot at its bare bones is very well thought-out and perfect for a good horror film. What ruins it is that the filmmakers added a few too many excess plot twists that didn't really have anything to do with the film or its essence, like some of the sequences with the injected "maniac" and Maxwell's wife and her friends. Some of it just seemed to hold little relevance to the genius horror plot presented. However, it was executed well enough to fit almost snugly into the flow of the film.

ACTING: The acting in this film is very hit-and-miss. The two main leads are the best performances in the whole film and actually grow very realistic and convincing as it progresses. Horace Carpenter plays a very chilling role as the mad scientist Dr. Meirshultz, and Bill Woods plays an even more frightening role as Maxwell. Carpenter's performance was of a very convincing mad scientist, whereas Woods' is comparable only to a true mind going mad. His performance in this film is disturbing, almost iconic, and as manic and insane as the title and his character suggest. However, the rest of the Maniac's cast are best described as circus clowns. The performances are stereotypical, annoying, and very inexperienced. It look as if some of them had never seen a camera before in their lives. Aside from the two very talented leads, the cast is pretty terrible, granted it was the 1930s.

SCORE: The musical score of this film wasn't anything too special but fit the mood just right. It was very dramatic and spooky-sounding.

OTHER CONTENT: Maniac is an exploitation film worth praise and more recognition by horror fans around the world. The film pushed many boundaries beyond what was accepted to be filmed and what was considered taboo. It's one of the first of its time to contain content like animal brutality (staged), grotesque blood and gore, Satanic imagery, heavy talk of mental illness, and full-on female nudity. One didn't see anything like that from the 1930s world of cinema- even taking horror into consideration. Most of the rage around this time was from stars like Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff in spooky mainstream horror movies, but none of them had the guts to push past the boundaries of the taboo. Aside from being just controversial for its time period, Maniac is actually pretty frightening and well-styled. The leads set up and deliver a feeling of paranoia and terror and the horrific imagery really drives the feelings home. The director of this film (Dwain Esper) knew how to send a message and drive the point home by painting a portrait of madness on the screen rather than straight up telling the viewer what changes were going on. It wasn't just fighting animals and dramatic, Satanic overlays that signified the character's descent into mania but the well-written tidbits of psychological facts and life advice given in between each sequence of the film. Each one preceded a twist in the story and a change in Maxwell's character, helping the viewer feel not only well-informed about the science of his mental condition, but uneasy as the viewer knows what's coming next and that whatever it is won't be very pretty. The film has a very dedicated style, enhancing the frightening and disturbing moments and giving it the real dirty, gritty, and somewhat uncomfortable feel of watching a true exploitation horror film.

     Maniac is an exploitation horror that demands to be remembered. The frightening and disturbing imagery is way ahead of its time, racing past what's acceptable of the time period without looking back to wave goodbye. Most of the acting is quite awful and lackluster, but the two leads stole the show. Each's depiction of his own mania is a terrifying and convincing, delivering even still today. The plot is genius, punctuated with style and only interrupted by unnecessary plot twists that even still help the film's flow. Maniac is no true horror masterpiece for sure, but it definitely deserves credit for what it has done and for what it still does to viewers today- make them feel both frightened and uncomfortable.

Carnival of Souls (1962) review

(8/10)

     Carnival of Souls provides loads of creepy imagery, a convincing lead, and a very curious plot. The film hasn't aged well compared to modern standards, but it still remains one of the creepiest and most intensely suspenseful horror films of its time.

PLOT: Mary Henry (Candace Hilligoss) and her friends are foolishly driving around one day when they get in a fatal car accident, of which she is the sole survivor. Soon after, Mary decides to move away and start anew with aspirations to become a church organist. However, a threatening, ghostly man (Herk Harvey) begins stalking her, popping up out of nowhere and terrifying her daily. Mary also starts having these random moments where she's completely disconnected from reality- no one can hear her and she can hear no one else. As Mary's life begins to go downhill, she grows more frightened of the mysterious man and more drawn to the town's abandoned carnival in hopes of finding an solution. The plot is very illogical and unexplained in some aspects, but for the most part comes together quite nicely and shockingly at the film's final twist. The sudden realization for the most part ties things together, spelling out certain things plainly and leaving the rest up to interpretation. Personally, I love films that leave some situations up to interpretation. However, a lot of viewers bash films for doing this in excess. In reality, when a little thought is put into it and everything is put into perspective, the plot is a brilliant and chilling concept, probably even more terrifying in its time.

ACTING: The performances in this film are pretty excellent, especially for their time. Herk Harvey plays a creepy role as the mysterious man though he doesn't have much of a vocal role. Other great performances come from Frances Feist as the gentle landlady Mrs. Thomas, Sidney Berger as the stereotypical drunk John Linden, and Stan Levitt as the compassionate Dr. Samuels. The show-stealing performance, however, comes from the lead, Candace Hilligoss as Mary Henry. She puts on a show so convincing and so horrifying that it even feels real. The viewer starts to feel more and more sorry for her as her life starts to plummet downhill, portrayed perfectly by Hilligoss. One can truly feel the depression and torment that overtakes her as the demons torment her and start ruining her personal life. She plays the part that well.

SCORE/SOUNDTRACK: The musical score in Carnival of Souls is very creepy and atmospheric. It sets the mood for the ever-present suspense and creepy scares. It may seem just as spooky as the next horror movie in the decade, but either way it set the mood just as well as was necessary.

OTHER CONTENT: Carnival of Souls is a very in-depth horror film for the 1960s that provides a lot to talk about at heart. The suspense is very well laid out throughout the film, always building and only giving in for brief, freaky scares usually involving the mysterious man or those who look similar. The makers of this film knew how to handle suspense. On the more obvious side of the fear spectrum, long-lasting creepy imagery is presented to break the loud, suspenseful silence. The creepy scares and imagery seen throughout this film may be fairly simplistic, but they succeed in creating a creepy, eerie, and downright uncomfortable atmosphere. They leave a long-lasting impression in the viewer's mind comparable to modern day haunts like the images presented in The Grudge. What also adds a lasting impression is the many in-depth theories about the plot. As the film concludes, (SPOILER), the audience sees obviously that Mary didn't survive the car crash. However, what could this mean? When you think about it, she couldn't have just been wandering the earth as a ghost being tormented by demons because people still were talking to her. This spawns many theories, like the possibility of Mary being stuck in a sort of purgatory-like state and that the other ghosts are trying to make her cross over. However, this spawns even more theories like what each character Mary spoke to represented and if there is really a more in-depth and metaphorical meaning to the film as a whole. This may have been from the early age of horror film, but it still makes the viewer think and leaves one hell of a lasting impression.

     If one were expecting to watch Carnival of Souls and expect a fun, spooky, or cheesy horror classic meant to entertain, one would be horrifyingly surprised. The film contains an intense amount of depth, suspense, and creepy imagery as well as a master performance by its lead. One doesn't just get a scare here but a memorable and thought-provoking impression rather surprising in comparison to other horror film of the time.

Roman (2006) review

(6/10)

   Offbeat horror director, Lucky McKee, makes his acting debut in this independent, post-May psychological horror, which, though lacking much scare factor and budget, contains much substance.

PLOT: Roman (Lucky McKee) is a recluse of a sort with no friends, no TV and nothing to do but work and watch The Girl (Kristen Bell) pass by his apartment window everyday around 5:30 PM. Roman clearly has a kind of creepy, shy obsession with this girl. One day when Roman decides to get out of the house for a bit, he finally meets this girl. They start to have a few conversations and become friends. Next day, Roman meets the girl outside his apartment after work and invites her in. Things get a little exciting for Roman before she says she has to leave. Roman, in a fit of excitement, doesn't let her leave and accidentally smothers her trying to keep there and keep her quiet. When Roman realizes what he's done, he's distraught and doesn't want to let go of her for anything. In turn, Roman dumps her body in his bathtub and starts to preserve it under ice, as he doesn't want to lose her or have anybody find out. Roman's life continues normally until a new girl moves into the empty apartment. Her name is Eva (Nectar Rose) and she's a very strange character similar to Roman. Roman's life with his "two girlfriends" starts to get better but also very confusing in trying to let go of one obsession and begin with another. The plot is simple but executed pretty decently. Though McKee actually doesn't direct in this one, it still contains a flair of offbeat, disturbing horror through the telling of Roman's obsession with his corpse and his sheltering from the world. It's not perfect, but it could be done so much worse.

ACTING: The acting here is hit-and-miss for the most part. All of the performances are the equivalent to an everyday conversation with the person. Lucky McKee did a decent job as Roman, pulling out all the stops at the end of the movie. Nectar Rose also stood out a bit with her role as the visionary Eva. She took the part as if it came natural. The rest of the performances are just kind of plain, even Kristen Bell as The Girl. The murder scene was pretty much the highlight of her performance.

SCORE: The soundtrack is a weird mix of different kinds of alternative music. Though not too pleasant to hear, it sets the mood quite well for Roman's "dates" and fantasies.

EFFECTS: The only special effects involve the steady-rotting corpse of Roman's obsession. They're very cheap and inexpensive, but I like the fact that they tried to show the passage of time in this manner.

OTHER CONTENT: This movie is definitely a strange one, but for an obscure indie horror, it kind of works. Haunting atmosphere, a well-written script, surreal editing, and a prying look at a the life of an inexperienced recluse help this movie kind of float into the safe zone. This horror is by far not the best, but it would have to be an independent favorite for me. McKee and director Angela Bettis come together to make a very neat little psych horror, with a surprising amount of heart and realism.

   Though McKee isn't in the director's chair this time around, I'd still group it with all of his other works easily. Roman is a haunting, disturbing, and surreal psychological horror that is very underrated. Though the performances and scare factors aren't rock solid, the mood is still set accurately with all other factors falling decently into place. It's nowhere near perfect, but definitely the right touch of offbeat.

The Silence of the Lambs (1991) review

(9/10)

   One of the only horror classics to be up for an Oscar, this film shook the horror world. The memorable character of Hannibal Lecter was introduced to us for the first time through the visionary eyes of Jonathan Demme and the excellent acting skills of Anthony Hopkins. The film's excellent acting, grotesque images, and anxiety-inducing suspense all make this an excellent horror film and a great drama. However, not everyone can stomach this film as well as others.

PLOT: Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) is training to be a member of the F.B.I. under the direction of Jack Crawford (Scott Glenn), an important trainer for the group. Meanwhile, a notorious killer named Buffalo Bill (Ted Levine) is making a name for himself, slaying woman after woman with all familiar calling cards. As an outside mission, Crawford sends Clarice to a mental institution to interview notorious serial killer, Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) a.k.a. Hannibal the Cannibal. After a traumatic visit to the institution, Clarice starts to take the information given to her by Hannibal and finds out major things about the crimes of Buffalo Bill. After enough information is retrieved from the twisted, ex-psychologist, the true identity of Buffalo Bill, his location, and his motive start becoming clear. However, a race is on to catch the serial killer, for he has taken a U.S. senator's daughter for whatever he's wishing to do. The plot is brilliantly written and excellently executed, creating a unique idea and molding in characters and intense suspense that grabs you and keeps you entertained and guessing upon the mystery of the great crime.



ACTING: The performances in this film are very excellently done. The starts in this film are definitely Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster. Anthony Hopkins plays an amazing, memorable part as the twisted, cannibalistic psychopath, Hannibal Lecter, adding color and madness to the role. His performances is definitely one of the most memorable in horror film-making, sparking iconic quotes and visionary scenes of disturbing scares. Foster also creates a very real portrayal of the beginner-F.B.I. agent, Clarice Starling. From the accent all the way to the realistic actions of the character under pressure, Foster definitely reigns persistent as a heroine of horror/drama film. Ted Levine also played a very realistic and disturbing part as confused serial killer, Buffalo Bill. The way Levine played the part just enhanced the twisted mood created here. All performances were very well done, from the major characters to the minor characters, for example, Stuart Rudin as Miggs and Brooke Smith as Catherine Martin, the senator's daughter.

SCORE: The score in this film is very well done, but nothing truly memorable. The score fit the moods well but didn't create any memorable themes. However, the use of the song "Goodbye Horses" for Buffalo Bill has grown memorable and quite scary to today's standards.

EFFECTS: The effects in this horror were very well done. They weren't the best I've ever seen, but they were definitely worth mentioning. From chewed-up body parts to corpses murdered gruesomely, the effects were very well done and realistic, giving the audience the feeling that there really is a dead body on set or that something really bad did actually happen in life.



MISC. THOUGHTS: This film is definitely a memorable classic for the horror genre, creating a twisted persona of two different serial killers, Hannibal Lecter and Buffalo Bill, with the earlier being more memorable in the end. Jonathan Demme creates, in this film, a twisted, demented, and actually scary portrayal of a crime mystery and serial killer story. He also creates a great amount of suspense, making the audience feel the tension in the film up to the very end. However, this film may be a little too twisted for some people's tastes. The only reason this film isn't widely accepted as perfect film-making across the cinematic nation is because some people can't even stomach the film's entirety. The film is very twisted, unsettling, disturbing, and sadistic at parts and can be actually scary, which is a good plus for horror fans but not for lovers of all drama film. The film is a cinematic masterpiece, but only to those who choose to accept it.

   Putting into motion another memorable horror face, this horror/drama film grabs the audience and keeps them where they need to be: glued to the screen. The performances are excellent, especially by the great Anthony Hopkins, the plot is unique and brilliantly worked with, the effects were gruesome, the suspense is dense and tense, and the film is actually a good, twisted scare for horror fans. However, some people can't seem to take the realism of it all as well as others.

Pet Sematary (1989) review

(6/10)

This disturbing horror movie from the mind of Stephen King could have been done better with its performances and execution. However, this movie still has the power to scare and stir up certain emotions.

PLOT:Louis Creed (Dale Midkiff), his wife, Rachel (Denise Crosby), and his kids decide to move into a new house a small-town area of Maine. While there, they meet their nice elder neighbor, Jud Crandall (Fred Gwynne), who knows all the history of the area and the legend behind their house: the child-constructed Pet Sematary. Deeper behind the Pet Sematary, Jud tells Lous about a sacred Indian burial ground where the dead come back to life. Jud proves himself when the family's cat, Church, gets ran over on the dangerous road in front of the house constantly traveled by fast trucks and tankers. The ground still works, but according to Jud, it's soured. The being buried in the ground isn't the same one that comes back, meaning it changes to an evil being once it comes back. Louis take note of this, but becomes tested when an accident involving his youngest child sends his family into sad hysteria. Louis may make a bad decision and test the boundaries of Jud and Victor Pascow (Brad Greenquist), the ghost of a dead patient haunting Louis and his family. It's a great plot executed decently.



ACTING:The performances in here are just okay. Dale Midkiff and Denise Crosby play near-decent roles as Louis and Rachel Creed. The best performances in this movie would have to be Fred Gwynne as Jud Crandall and Brad Greenquist as Victor Pascow, with a special cameo by Stephen King as the minister. These two put more feeling in the role and didn't feel as bland as these performances did, though they both have fine moments in the movie. The other performance I'd like to mention would probably have to be Andrew Hubatsek as Zelda, Rachel's sick sister. He did alright playing her part.

SCORE:The score in this movie was pretty okay. There's nothing I really found unique about it, but it accomplished what it set out to do.



OTHER CONTENT:This horror movie was very problematic in its execution and screenplay at certain parts. The movie doesn't stick that much to the book as it should and is very cheesy with some parts of the movie. The movie sometimes feels like a disturbing treat and sometimes feels like a cheesy horror story at others. There were some scenes I felt more like laughing and shaking my head when I was supposed to be scared. However, there were also some scenes that ran chills up my spine and freaked me out, like the scenes with Zelda and the scenes involving Gage's accident and its aftermath. This movie overall is unbalanced with its scares and comedy reliefs as well as with its accuracy. If it had been up to me, I would have left the movie as a book, the way I felt it should be.

OVERALL,an okay horror movie with a great plot, okay performances, okay score, and some very disturbing moments, but the performances seemed bland at times, the story seemed cheesy through its execution, and it seemed to unbalanced throughout.

Carrie (1976) review

(9/10)

This disturbing adaption of the popular Stephen King novel is a frightening and meaningful horror film under the direction of the great Brian De Palma. However, I believe the film needed a bit more back story than it had.

PLOT:Carrie (Sissy Spacek) is a young 17-year-old girl abused by the girls at school and her mother (Piper Laurie), who's an over-religious freak. After getting all of the other girls who bullied her in trouble, one of the girls convinces hotshot Tommy Ross (William Katt) to take Carrie to prom with no good intentions in mind. Meanwhile, Carrie has discovered she has telekinesis, or the ability to move and use things with her mind. Combining Carrie's telekinesis and whatever may happen at the prom, we know this won't end well. It's a great plot executed very well.



ACTING:The performances in this film were excellent. Sissy Spacek did a brilliant job of playing the over-abused teen Carrie White. I believe she did great honor to the role. Piper Laurie also did a great job of playing the over-religious mother, Margaret White. There really wasn't a bad performance in the film, for the cast was nearly all-star. The performances I would like to mention would be William Katt as Tommy Ross, John Travolta as Billy Nolan, Amy Irving as Sue Snell, Nancy Allen as Chris Hargensen, and P. J. Soles as Norma.

SCORE:The score in this film is pretty good and gets the job done right, moving from emotion to emotion well.



OTHER CONTENT:This film was a really good horror with a great message of anti-bullying in it. I appreciated the message and thought the plot execution set everything up well. This film may have a positive message, but it also, however, is pretty disturbing. From the panic in the opening scenes to the climax at prom, this film is loaded with disturbingly scary imagery, which makes a great horror film. I also enjoyed the way De Palma directed this film, adding in all the disturbances and scares nicely. The only problem I seemed to have with the film is that I felt there was too little character development as I felt was needed. We know Carrie's bullied, we know her mother's a religious freak, and we know Carrie's well known as an outcast with a bad mother. However, we don't have as much character development to back that up. I'm sure the novel build up more than this, but overall, this film seemed to be a bit underdeveloped in characterization.

OVERALL,it's an awesome horror film with a great plot, excellent performances, pretty good score, a great anti-bullying message, a lot of disturbing scenes, and enjoyable direction by Brian De Palma, but I felt a little more character development was necessary.

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) review

(10/10)

This original horror classic tops almost all horror films I've seen to date. The emotions captured in this film are amazingly shown with amazing performances and visionary horror direction by Tobe Hooper.

PLOT:A group of friends, including brother and sister Sally (Marilyn Burns) and Franklin (Paul A. Partain), go on a road trip through Texas to visit Sally and Franklin's deceased grandfather's old house. However, weird and disturbing things start happening, including picking up a freaky hitchhiker that looks a lot like Dracula (Edwin Neal). Things get even stranger, especially with the news of graves being robbed and "artwork" of decomposing bodies is being made close by. After their encounter with the strange hitchhiker, the group stop at the house for a while and spot another house out in the distance, which is believed to have gasoline for their van. Upon visiting the house, however, the group finds that the residents aren't your typical neighbors, specifically a psychotic killer brandishing a chainsaw (Gunner Hansen). Now the group must get away or fall victim to the chainsaw. It's a great horror plot executed brilliantly.



ACTING:The acting in this film is excellent. I could see the fear and insanity in each person's eyes during the horrific scenes. The best performances I could mention would be Marilyn Burns as Sally and Gunner Hansen as Leatherface, or the chainsaw killer. I could see perfect horror and insanity in her eyes and actions that it seemed real. Hansen's iconic performance of  Leatherface was just brutal and frightening with beauty in its own ways. Every performance was great because emotion and insanity itself was captured perfectly. The other performances I'd like to mention would be Allen Danziger as Jerry, Paul A. Partain as Franklin, William Vail as Kirk, Teri McMinn as Pam, and Edwin Neal as the hitchhiker.

SCORE:There wasn't much background score in the film except for the music on the radio, which was mainly southern-type. The one memorable theme with the scraping sound effect, however, was very creepy and good in its minimalism. The sound effects worked above everything else because they were insane.

EFFECTS:The effects here were really good for being low-budget in the seventies. The make-up and prop effects for Leatherface and the house were very creepy and well done. The blood effects for the kills and cuts we see are also quite realistic in itself, while not being too brutal.



OTHER CONTENT:This horror film is one of the king's of all horror films. This film captures the feeling of insanity above anything. For more than a couple scenes in the film, I was actually scared due to the scary silences and horrific portrayals of the characters. It takes a lot for a film to really scare me, and this one did just that. I was very convinced. Also, this film is shot so artfully for a horror film, even with some of its flaws. Hooper knew what he was doing going into this boat by angling the camera just right from the beginning to the end. Every thing I believe Hooper wanted to capture was truly captured. Even all of the flaws this film may have make it even better.

OVERALL,an epic horror film with a brilliantly-executed plot, excellent acting, creepy sound-effect score, well done effects, a thundering feeling of insanity that it even scared me, and artful capturing of the film itself.

The Wicker Man (1973) review

(9/10)

This psychological horror was a very intellectual scare through the brain of my faith, acted through very well and executed with brilliant precision.

PLOT:Sgt. Neil Howie (Edward Woodward) comes to an island in Scotland named Summerisle to search for a missing young girl named Rowan Morrison. Neil is a very pious man and doesn't tend to be swayed easily by anything, so when he starts to find out about the bizarre religious practices of this island's residents, he sticks to his Christianity with suspicion of fowl play in the disappearance of Rowan. Visiting with the leader, Lord Summerisle (Christopher Lee), Neil finds out the island is populated by pagans with old ways that could be deadly to him and the missing girl. It's a brilliant plot executed excellently.



ACTING:The acting in this film is excellent as well, with very convincing and serious parts played by Edward Woodward and Christopher Lee as Sgt. Neil and Lord Summerisle, as well as a well done performance by Britt Ekland as Willow, the landlord's daughter. Every performance in this film was done in greatness by the actors and actresses. The other shiners would have to be Dian Cilento as Miss Rose, Irene Summers as May Morrison, and Ingrid Pitt as the librarian, as well as others.

SCORE:The score in here is beautiful and very well done by Magnet and arranged by Paul Giovanni. The music itself was very folk-like and the sung lyrics sounded beautiful and rather Celtic altogether. I really loved the soundtrack, as it was actually very full of song.



OTHER CONTENT:This film is a horror for the intellectuals who believe deeply in God and Christianity, as it involves a martyr being put forth as a possible sacrifice in a pagan-ruled area. I found the film not only a psychologically scary treat but also very well shot with beauty in the cinematography. Even the most crude shots in the film were shot with such precision that it seemed attractive to the eye, from Willow's dance to the burning of the wicker man itself. I felt this was a film that gave the audience something to think about in terms of religion, whether it be a test of faith or scare in itself. The film itself wasn't too scary, but it messed with your mind enough to inspire a shock and come-to-realism in what you are actually watching.

OVERALL,an awesome psychological horror with a brilliant plot, excellent acting, beautiful score, an intellectual scare of a treat, beauty in cinematography, and scares for believers, but the scares are more psychological than easy to spot, so it's thought process and disturbing thoughts aren't for everyone.

Evil Dead (2013) review

(7/10)

This remake of the original horror classic is an amped-up blood fest that adds modern horror cliches while still paying homage to its source material. The performances were really good and the blood poured freely, but it's missing the dark humor that made the original a classic.

PLOT:On a road trip turned intervention, David (Shiloh Fernandez), his girlfriend, Natalie (Liz Blackmore), his best friend, Eric (Lou Taylor Pucci), and other friend, Olivia (Jessica Lucas), meet together at a cabin in the woods to cure Mia (Jane Levy) of her drug addiction. However, things start turning dark when the group discover a former site of witchcraft in the basement of the cabin. There they find a mysterious-looking book with strange passages and incantations, which Eric reads aloud. Eric doesn't know, but he's summoned an evil spirit prepared to take all of them down, one-by-one, starting with Mia. It's a great plot executed pretty well.



ACTING:The acting in here was actually very good. A few of the performances really convinced me. Jane Levy played an excellent part as Mia, the possessed junkie reaching sobriety. I saw the fear and horror in her most. Shiloh Fernandez also played a pretty decent part as David, as did Lou Taylor Pucci as Eric and everyone else. There really wasn't a bad performance in the movie, from the few in the very beginning to the special cameo at the very end.

SCORE:The score in here was very intense and horrific. It was almost as generic as most modern horror movies, but I though it fit just right.

EFFECTS:The blood flows endlessly in this horror movie. The effects were pretty well done in my opinion. You could tell they were fake, but I believe the make-up effects of the demons, the visual effects scattered throughout, and some of the blood effects were really detailed and close to the original. They still succeeded at making the demons look scary in this one.



OTHER CONTENT:This remake actually wasn't as bad as it could have been. Though it added modern cliches to what used to be a classic, the movie still payed a thoughtful homage to the original by adding in scenes directly referencing to the original and its sequel. The main problem I had with this movie is the surprising lack of dark humor that the original had. There were little to no overdone, campy laughs as there were serious horror cliches. One of the things that made the original such a cult classic was its humor, which this lacks minus a few key moments and the very, very end. However, it was still pretty good for a modern horror remake.

OVERALL,a good horror remake with a great plot, very good performances, intense score, detailed yet fake effects, and a few modern horror cliches, but the cliches and bloodflow seem to take the place of the raging dark humor and camp the original had.

Dawn of the Dead (2004) review

(7/10)

This amped-up remake of the Romero classic adds more excitement, a more intricate story, and a bit more added scare to the overall zombie subgenre. However, the movie remake also comes with a few deeply recognizable flaws.

PLOT:The Earth has officially been taken over by a zombie breakout and is rapidly getting worse. The last two remaining that we focus on the most are Ana (Sarah Polley) and Kenneth (VIng Rhames). To flee and find shelter from the undead, the two take shelter in an abandoned shopping mall, where they meet a mean group of security, including stubborn CJ (Michael Kelly) and several other survivors. After the outbreak starts getting worse, the group decides the best thing to do would be to sail to another island in hope of a safe zone. It's a good plot executed very well.



ACTING:The acting in this movie is alright. Some performances are pretty good and others really suck. Sarah Polley and Ving Rhames were pretty okay as the main characters, Ana and Kenneth. Most of the other characters were just okay. The shiners would be Mekhi Phifer as Andre and Ty Burrell as Steve. The rest would be in the middle of okay and forgettable.

SCORE:The score in here is pretty well done, with some good horror score and a few well-placed songs, such as Johnny Cash's "The Man Comes Around" and Richard Cheese's cover of "Down With the Sickness". I enjoyed it altogether.

EFFECTS:The effects in this movie are kind of cheesy, but they also get the job of being scary done. The effects assist with the scares being effective altogether. Compared to the original, these effects are more charged and violent. Both are good nevertheless.



OTHER CONTENT:This fueled remake of the classic is actually almost as good as it is or even better. The energy in this movie is way more charged and in-your-face as compared to the older one, which is a bit more subtly creepy. The constant action goes together with the creepiness in this one and kind of draws it all in together. However, some of the directions this movie decides to go in seem a bit cheesy and overdone. I believe for zombie films, there is a fine line between good substance and overdone cheese. This movie crossed back and forth over that line several times, but still worked it all out together in a way. One thing I also didn't like is that the characters in this seem more forgettable and less complex than they did in the first one. I couldn't really place as many people as I could before.

OVERALL,a good zombie movie with a very well done plot, okay acting, well-placed score, cheesy yet scary effects, more action, and a few more independent scares, but there are forgettable characters and a few overdone sequences.

Dawn of the Dead (1978) review

(9/10)

This classic zombie film has enough gore, story, political undertone, and creeps to satisfy every horror film fan and most movie-goers in general. Romero knew what he was doing around the time this was made, but does it stand the test of time?

PLOT:Taking place not too long after "Night of the Living Dead", this film puts us into the chaos of the media and general public dealing with the zombie apocalypse. Our main characters here are two National Guard troops who were sent to clean out any infestation, Peter (Ken Foree) and Roger (Scott Reiniger), and two members of the crew at a local TV station, Stephen (Davide Emge) and girlfriend Frances (Gaylen Ross). These four snitch a helicopter and head for the country, but decide to not to after coming in contact with a few ghouls around that area. The eventually stumble upon a shopping mall infested with the creeps to hide out in, but life isn't easy living on the higher floor's deep recesses. Not to mention a biker gang find out about them and makes life even harder for the four of them. It's a good plot executed greatly.



ACTING:The acting in this film is really good. Ken Foree and Scott Reiniger are really great as the two National Guard officers, as are David Emge and Gaylen Ross as the "happy" couple. The four really added personality to their roles. There really wasn't a bad performance in the bunch. The zombies were pretty well played too.
SCORE:The soundtrack in here is brilliant and composed by one of the kings of horror score, Dario Argento and his band, Goblin. The score was very unique and pretty creepy at times. I really liked it.

EFFECTS:The effects in here were very gory and somewhat realistic for the time period. For the time period, the zombies looked fairly realistic and very creepy. The blood and gore effects are still very well done and rather brutal as ever.



OTHER CONTENT:This film was more than just your basic zombie film. There was enough action, drama, and comedy for it to have been generally accepted among more than just one audience. This film actually deserves a lot more respect than it gets by the general public. The film is also fairly realistic to how life might be and how the world might react if a zombie apocalypse really broke out. However, a lot of the scares and basic make-up effects don't stand the test of time; they aren't scary compared to today's standards. There are a good bit of scares that still leave a lasting impression on the audience, but for the most part, they're really dated. I was hardly scared by this film at all, but it is still a good film, especially for its time.

OVERALL,an awesome zombie film with a great plot, really good acting, brilliant score, very well done gore effects, more genre possibilities besides the horror label, and realistic situations pertaining to any possible zombie apocalypse, but some of the scares and general make-up effects don't seem to stand up to the test of time.

Naked (1993) review

(8/10)

This was a peculiar film in my opinion. I enjoyed most of it, but a lot of the humor and theme didn't seem to click with me. On the brighter side, I enjoyed a lot of the script and emotional depiction.

PLOT:Johnny (David Thewlis) is a man from Manchester with an ear for philosophy and a bad attitude. At the beginning of the film, we see him committing the nasty act of sexual assault to a young lady. He immediately steals a car and flees from his Manchester home to London to live with his old girlfriend, Louise (Lesley Sharp). This film documents his journey wandering the streets and meeting random people as he deals with his life and the deeds that have been done. It's a great plot executed excellently.



ACTING:The performances in here were pretty brilliant. David Thewlis played a solid and entertaining part as the nasty English criminal, Johnny. The script really seemed to connect with him. Another couple of really satisfying performances would be Lesley Sharp as Louise and Katrin Cartlidge as Sophie. They really did a good job. The other shiners would be Greg Cruttwell as Jeremy, Claire Skinner as Sandra, Peter Wight as Brian, and Ewen Bremner as Archie. There really wasn't a bad performance in the film though.

SCORE:The score wasn't too important and not too memorable either. but it satisfied and got the job done.



OTHER CONTENT:This film was very interesting. I liked a lot about it. The script had to be one of the best parts due to the dark humor, emotional study, and philosophical thoughts. The dark humor inspires a few shallow chuckles, the philosophical thoughts give people something to really think about, and the emotional study is just the root of the whole film, honestly. This is an intense film study and narrative of one man's life and emotions. It really was good. However, there were a few things that I didn't agree with. The film's main emotions are sadness and depression as well as anger. If you're in a happy mood, this wouldn't be the film to watch. It's very down-bringing for the most part; you have to be in the right viewing mood. Also, a bit of the humor and script I didn't seem to get or understand, which just put me off a bit more. It was a really great film, but I have just a couple problems with it.

OVERALL,a great film with an excellent plot, brilliant acting, satisfying score, good dark humor, thoughtful philosophy, and an intense study of emotions, but it's really depressing and has a few things I didn't get.

Repo! The Genetic Opera (2008) review

(4/10)

I had heard mixed reviews on this movie, and now that I've seen it, I realize how strange this movie really was. It had a few good songs and a certain flair to it, but it was overall lacking and way too out there for me.

PLOT:In the future, there's a company called GeneCo which has helped bunches of people with organ transplants when they were low on money. They could pay on their new organs as if it were a house or a car, in monthly payments. However, if you missed a payment, the evil Repo Men would come and rip that organ right out of you without warning. One young girl named Shilo (Alexa Vega) decides to look into this. She was diagnosed with a blood disease at birth which was inherited from her mother, so she's locked up in the house by her worrisome father, Nathan (Anthony Head), who has a dark secret to hide. Things start to change for Shilo when the owner of GeneCo, Rotti Largo (Paul Sorvino, decides to take her into his world. It's a pretty good plot executed in a strange and almost-decent way.



ACTING:The acting in here was okay. There were some good performances and some bad performances, considering you also have to judge them for their operatic/vocal talent. Among the many faces in here, we have Paris Hilton and Bill Moseley accompanying Alexa Vega and the rest. The best performance would have to be by Alexa Vega as Shilo Wallace. She was the most involved in the movie and in emotion, aside from the Grave Robber played by Terrance Zdunich. The Grave Robber had to be my favorite character. The other shiners would be Paul Sorvino as Rotti Largo, Nivek Ogre a Pavi Largo, Paris Hilton as Amber Sweet, and Sarah Brightman as Blind Mag. Bill Moseley didn't live up to his full potential in her, as he did in some of his previous work.



SCORE:The score in here was decent at times. This movie is told almost completely in song, as it is a sort of a rock opera. For the most part, the soundtrack was pretty awful. The actors weren't very talented singers and the background score just sounded cheap. However, there were a few good songs I liked, such as the beginning scene in the graveyard and the song sung by the Grave Digger in the middle. Overall, though, the soundtrack was not very good.

EFFECTS:The effects in here were okay. The computer animation used for the city was pretty cheap, but I felt it fit in and got the job done. The effects of the blood and gore were also cheap-looking, as well as gross. It's perfect for a fan of the gutsy kind of horror movies, but it was just a little crudely overdone to me.



OTHER CONTENT:This movie was truly something strange. It was like combining Rocky Horror with Sweeney Todd, but removing all the clever wit and camp. This movie just feels strange and out-of-place. I appreciate its unique style and idea, as well as some of the songs. However, this movie just feels a bit brain-dead. It seems like they were trying to make this way more serious than it actually is. Had it contained some cleverness in place of all the gore, the movie would have been a little better. However, it's just a strange movie for those who want something a little too different from the norm.

OVERALL,a mediocre movie with a good but strange plot, okay acting, decent but mainly awful score, cheap and okay effects, a lack of wit, a brain-dead feeling of over-seriousness, and just a lot of gross strangeness, but a few songs and characters were really cool and it has a unique style to it.

Sinister (2012) review

(7/10)

This modern horror movie actually wasn't too bad! It was shocking with a fresh idea and actually scary.

PLOT:Ellison Oswalt (Ethan Hawke) is a best-selling author of true crime novels. So he can start his new crime novel, he moves with his family to a strange house in a small town with a bad past behind it. Shortly after everyone moves in, he goes up to the attic and finds an old Super 8 camera and film with recordings of several grisly murders. As Ellison investigates further into these tapes, his life is plunged deep into a malevolent darkness that could destroy his family. It's a great plot executed very well.



ACTING:The performances in here are actually very great. Ethan Hawke plays a very great part as the haunted author, Ellison Oswalt. He isn't the best horror movie actor, but he got the job done rather well. There was also a great performance by Juliet Rylance as Tracy, his wife. The played off each other very well. The child actors weren't so bad either. The other shiners I'd like to mention would be James Ransone as the deputy and Nick King as Mr. Boogie.

SCORE:The score in here wasn't anything spectacular, but it was fairly unique. It was jumpy at some times and just a creepy theme at others.

EFFECTS:The effects in here were pretty creepy. The blood effects weren't anything special, but the digital effects were pretty creepy. The effects used for the murders were pretty scary.



OTHER CONTENT:This horror stands out in modern times; it's actually good and not just a cheap way to make money. The plot and its twists are rather new and shocking. It uses some generic horror movie cliches, such as jump scares and fake jumps, but the twists make up for it. It's actually really clever and scary, but it's nothing truly spectacular. It's just actually good.

OVERALL,a good horror movie with a great plot, very great acting, unique score, creepy effects, clever twists, and some actual scares, but does have some generic horror cliches.

Taxi Driver (1976) review

(9/10)

I had been putting off seeing this one for the longest time for absolutely no reason. Now, I'm glad I saw it and wondering why I put it off so long. It's a hard-hitting, smooth, and truthful film on the dark streets of the world.

PLOT:Travis Bickle (Robert De Niro) has just gotten a job as a taxi driver in the streets of New York. He's smooth, quiet, and hates most of the rabble of the streets. However, he meets a beautiful blonde working in office named Betsy (Cybill Shepherd) and falls in love. It doesn't last long, though, until he makes a big mistake and scares her way. No matter how much he tries to re-kindle things with her, she always turns him away, which forces him to snap. He then comes up with an idea to kill the candidate in office this girl is working for. Meanwhile, he's trying to help a 12-year-old prostitute named Iris (Jodie Foster) escape from her pimp, Sport (Harvey Keitel), and go back to her parents. It's a good plot executed greatly.



ACTING:The acting in here was very great. Robert De Niro did an excellent job of playing our lead, Travis Bickle. I think it was a very memorable performance, Another performance worthy of note is the young Jodie Foster as 12-year-old hooker, Iris. Even at this young age, she was a very talented actress. The other shiners would be Harvey Keitel as Sport, Cybill Shepherd as Betsy, Peter Boyle as Wizard and Martin Scorsese himself in a cameo as the weird, vengeful passenger.

SCORE:The score in here is very smooth and smoky sounding, like a crime mystery in a bar. It fits the mood of the film very well.

EFFECTS:The blood in here flows pretty freely for an action flick. There are a lot of kills, and blood to accompany. The blood effects in here look pretty realistic and detailed as gunshots are fired and knifes are used.



OTHER CONTENT:This film is a very interesting look at the decline of society today. The exaggerated realism of it all shocks you and puts the urban world into what I believe to be its place. The performances lead the plot through with great direction by the beloved Martin Scorsese. However, this film had a plot issue for me. Though the plot was very well thought-out, it wasn't completely solid. You couldn't sit down and tell me the plot without telling me all the twists in it first, like Dazed and Confused. It makes the film open to suprises, but a little complicated to follow for some.

OVERALL,an awesome film with a good plot, very great performances, smooth score, realistic blood effects, shocking realism, and great direction, but the plot wasn't completely solid

Mama (2013) review

(8/10)

This kind of horrific, melancholy fairy tale of two girls is definitely worth seeing. Del Toro definitely knew what he was doing when he made this.

PLOT:Five years after a tragic murder involving a family of four (a dad, mom, and two girls), two little girls are found in a cabin living by theirselves, or so it seems. Once the girls are returned to civilization, they are placed in the care of their uncle, Lucas (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau), and his girlfriend, Annabel (Jessica Chastain). However, a presence from the cabin seems to have followed the girls back home; this presence is the spirit that has raised them the past five years, named Mama. Now Luc and Annabel must try to protect the children from the jealous hands of Mama. It's a good plot executed very well.



ACTING:The performances in here were excellent. I think this film lived off the acting aside from the scares. The best performances were done by Jessica Chastain and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau as Annabel and Lucas/Jeffrey. They really led the cast on. The other shiners would be Daniel Kash as Dr. Dreyfuss and Megan Charpentier as Victoria. For a child, she did a pretty great job.

SCORE:The score was very good. It set the mood of the film off in the right direction every time, and it contained a truly haunting theme that I hope becomes more familiar in time. Thank you, Fernando Velazquez.

EFFECTS:The effects are really what set the scares in place next to the supsense. Though all of the effects were CG, they never failed to scare. The effects used to make Mama look and move in scary angles were pretty great. I, as a animation/special effects geek, have always wanted to pull off something like this.



OTHER CONTENT:This was actually a really good film. Del Toro decides to put old-school jump scares and suspense-buliding techniques to win over its audience instead of just mindless gore and killing. It also contained a very compelling storyline and told it as if it were a sick, melancholy fairy tale instead of a horror film. Even for being a modern horror film, this was truly a beautiful film with balancing emotions and plenty of scare in it. However, I found it to be a little derivative in some of the scares and ideas it contained. Also, I didn't really agree with the ending; I could've seen it going in a completely different direction, even if it was an emotional end.

OVERALL,a great horror film with a really good plot, excellent acting, very good and haunting score, pretty great effects, old-school scares and suspense-builiding, and beauty by balanced emotions, but it was a bit derivative and I didn't agree with the ending.