The Taking of Deborah Logan (2014) review

(7/10)

     It's always good to discover a hidden gem in the world of horror, as too many lackluster rip-offs and low-budget failures make up the genre today. The Taking of Deborah Logan is an underrated horror film that, though is quite derivative, borrows from all the right places. At some parts, the script flops and the plot's many twists don't add up, but for the most part, this is an all-around creepy, well-acted, and exciting horror film. At least it's better than a lot of the poor excuses nowadays.

PLOT: Mia (Michelle Ang) and her camera crew venture out to document the life of Deborah Logan (Jill Larson), a woman suffering from the early sings of Alzheimer's disease. Deborah's daughter, Sarah (Anne Ramsay), has been staying with Deborah as her disease begins to drain her memory. As the crew gathers footage for their Alzheimer's special, strange things start to happen to Deborah and the people around her. Her disease starts to spread faster, her tantrums start to get more violent, and unjustifiable occurrences start to take place in the family household. The crew slowly moves from documentary mode to investigative mode once these occurrences begin, causing them to uncover some serious mysteries about Deborah's life and former clients. As clues are slowly uncovered, Deborah's condition seems to escalate from Alzheimer's patient to the possessed. The plot is a very cool idea. The whole "found footage" aspect isn't so fresh anymore, but the more specific details make the film seem real unique. It's a documentary gone wrong in the most haywire fashion. Who goes to film an Alzheimer's documentary and expects to get caught in a story of possession? It's a found footage film meets a paranormal investigation. Neither idea is fresh, but combining them has seemed to work in the past.

ACTING: The performances in this film are actually quite great. The star of the show was definitely Jill Larson as the possessed Deborah Logan. Larson portrays Logan's descent into madness and possession in such a way one would get chills. Fully-expressive facial contortions, powerful speech, and accurate motions define the frightening change in Deborah. Larson's interpretation of Deborah sinking from hopeful housewife to evil spirit is quite shocking, believable, and amazing. The rest of the cast was pretty excellent too, with other impressive performances by Anne Ramsey as Sarah, Michelle Ang as Mia, and Ryan Cutrona as Harris. Everyone else played off the drama and trauma created by Deborah in the film quite well.

EFFECTS: The visual effects in this film weren't the most realistic or well-polished, but they were definitely creepy and interesting. The several freaky incarnations of Deborah are quite frightening to look at though obviously fake. What wasn't too obviously fake, however, was the cringe-inducing simulation of the medical procedures Deborah had to go through. Those could make anyone feel uncomfortable because it feels so real and that's rather unsettling. The effects did fail in certain parts, but for the most part they inspired some pretty freaky and occasionally cringe-inducing effects.

OTHER CONTENT: The Taking of Deborah Logan is probably one of the most underrated horror films of its time. Though there are a lot of flaws, it still manages to excite and creep out the audience. The filmmakers used the proper techniques to distribute the scares among the steady-building suspense the film contains throughout. It builds up suspense and then delivers satisfaction to the audience through small scares until the pot finally boils over near the end. The film is in no way unique, but it knows how to put plot and horror elements to proper use. Most of its scares and situations seem derivative of other works (The Exorcist, Grave Encounters, The Last Exorcism), but they all seem to fall together just right when combined. However, that does also create a few plot twists that don't add up. They twists start to get so preposterous that they run together and begin to make less sense. The filmmakers borrowed the situations well, but didn't tie up all of the loose ends or account for the baggage left by borrowing these situations. The script is also pretty bland and poorly written at parts near the end of the film, but for the most part, everything's rock solid. The film does have a lot of flaws, but it takes what it finds and puts them together in such a way to make exciting entertainment.

     The Taking of Deborah Logan deserves a lot more credit than its gotten thus far. Though it's very derivative and preposterous at times, the film takes the elements its given and puts them together quite nicely, exhibiting a very talented cast and building suspense and excitement up to the frightening end. This film provides some truly creepy imagery and succeeds in grabbing its audience and holding their attention tight as a rope in tug-of-war. Sometimes one just has to give a film a chance and consider what its up against, which is what made this film such a pleasant find in terms of horror.

Small Soldiers (1998) review

(5/10)

     Small Soldiers is a nostalgic trip back to the nineties, personifying the same general fascination with toys and future technology in that decade. The movie is a gem for its short-lived children's franchise and offbeat feel, which helps teach a bit of a lesson in the end. However, the movie is definitely not one of the greats and very dated compared to today's standards.

PLOT: In the nineties, the race for making the best toy was a real battle. So many different new and era-unique toys had been created thus far. This movie plays with that idea by introducing two new toys set to war against each other: the Commando Elites and the Gorgonites. The Commandos were seen as the patriotic heroes while the Gorgonites came off as weird aliens with strange attributes. The Commandos instantly became more popular. However, what the public doesn't know is that the Commandos have been programmed a bit too well with authentic military technology. A young boy named Alan (Gregory Smith) buys a whole set of Commandos and is surprised when they spring to life and dedicate themselves wholeheartedly to killing their programmed rivals, the Gorgonites. However, the Gorgonites have also sprung to life, but just for the sake of survival and not for war. The two toy races end up in an all-out war that Alan, his friends, and his family get caught in the crossfire of, as the Commandos are hell bent on achieving their goal. The plot is very unique for the most part, stealing only the idea of toys coming to life. The idea of putting them at war in a live-action environment is what made it seem fresh. The plot for the most part was executed as well as it could be, with the humor and events feeling a bit more offbeat and dark than they need to be. However, it puts this dated gem on the corner of being a cult classic. This movie even had a short-lived toy franchise around the time of the movie's release that faded out real quick. Ironic, isn't it?

ACTING: The performances in this movie aren't too spectacular or too bland either. The actors do their jobs as they should. Gregory Smith does a decent job as Alan, the young hero, and so does Kristen Dunst as his love interest, Christy. Other honorable performances come from David Cross as Irwin Wayfair, Phil Hartman as Phil, Tommy Lee Jones as Commando Chip Hazard, and Denis Leary as Gil Mars. No extremely stellar performances, but these guys all do their jobs as well as they possibly can.

SCORE/SOUNDTRACK: The score is pretty run-of-the-mill for the most part but the soundtrack has a lot of different selections from many different artists, including the likes of Queen, Billy Squire, and many others used throughout the movie in many different ways.

OTHER CONTENT: This movie was great entertainment in its time, especially for its target audience. As a child, I loved this movie and everything about it. Now, it takes me back to that time but doesn't seem to hold up to today's standards. It's a period piece in its own way, as it represents the nineties. It has the offbeat humor, childish innocence, and cheap effects. The Commandos and the Gorgonites look like real toys moving and interacting with the exception of certain scenes of action where the effects look very dated. The movie was really fun in its time, and is still fun if you remember it that way. However, it seems quite bland and stale to today's standards. It hasn't aged well, unless you tend to be an over-enthusiastic nineties nostalgia kid. In which case, this is a classic to reserve and remember. The lesson taught was impressive though. Through the Gorgonites, the movie teaches not to judge a person by their strange appearance but their heart, which was a nice lesson to learn at the target audience's age.

     Small Soldiers is a very overlooked gem of nineties entertainment, but is only good for that much. The movie is a trip back to the simplicity and quirkiness of that decade, but grows stale when compared with today's standards.The brief franchise and idea were nice parts of my childhood that I'm glad existed. However, their time is passed, but what a time it was and what a lesson was learned. Everyone just wants to be accepted and at home, man or Gorgonite.

Memory (2006) review

(7/10)

   Memory is probably one of the most underrated horror movies of its kind. Stellar acting, an enthralling mystery, and some truly creepy imagery kept this semi-confusing and somewhat slow movie afloat. It's a poor man's psychological thriller at best.

PLOT: After accidentally ingesting a hallucinogenic powder being tested on lab rats, Dr. Taylor Briggs (Billy Zane) starts to have strange daydreams, lining up with real murders and tragedies that happened before he was born. After some intense research, things start to get more and more peculiar as Taylor starts to think he's witnessing the past of one of his relatives. Everyone begins to think he's gone crazy, except his lover, artist Stephanie (Tricia Helfer), his mother, Carol (Ann-Margret), and his father-in-law, Max (Dennis Hopper). However, as Taylor and Stephanie start getting to the bottom of these weird visions, they start to notice it may be the missing link in Taylor's family timeline. The plot is essentially a combination of the premise of Altered States and the mechanics of Memento. The plot, at its bare bones, is preposterous and confusing, but by the end of the movie, you'll be impressed to see how they pulled it off. The moments of horror are filmed excellently and the writers, though they got carried away, succeeded in tying up all loose ends.

ACTING: The performances in this movie are very well done. Billy Zane does justice to the part of frantic Dr. Briggs, Tricia Hefler does a great job as the "sidekick", Stephanie. Dennis Hopper and Ann-Margret did an excellent job as the parents, especially Ann-Margret near the end. Everyone does a pretty great job with their parts.

SCORE: The score and soundtrack definitely has potential. The main theme is pretty haunting yet simple, and the alternative soundtrack almost enhances the movie.

OTHER CONTENT: Memory is basically an expected disaster turned good. The movie has its faults, like a preposterous mystery, unnecessary side-conversations, and several confusing turns of events. As evidence is tossed at us and pieced together, the mystery becomes more and more confusing, but just as much enthralling. The victory in this movie is that it succeeded in pulling off a mystery so unrealistic. If the unintentionally-good mystery isn't enough to save this movie, then the horror scenes will. The horror sequences, especially near the movie's finale, are expertly done and very well filmed. I would believe them to be the best sequences in the movie. They're memorable and very unsettling, both respectable factors for a true horror.

   Memory would probably be the biggest expected disaster that somehow saved itself. It may be preposterous, confusing, and unnecessary at times, but it saves itself by sucking you into the mystery and chilling you with the sequences of horror. Most horror fans may end up despising the movie, but I think it's an underrated gem of modern independent horror.

From Dusk Till Dawn (1996) review

(7/10)

   This half crime drama and half Grindhouse type horror movie proves that when two great minds come together, gold is made. With excellent performances by an all-star cast, campy special effects, hilarious dialogue, and intelligent plot execution, From Dusk Til Dawn makes its place as an instant classic in the horror world and in both Quentin Tarentino and Robert Rodriguez's fantastic film canon.

PLOT: Wanted bank robbers Seth Gecko (George Clooney) and Richard Gecko (Quentin Tarentino) have plans to travel into Mexico to flee the law and continue their lives without bother. To help on their journey across the border, the Gecko brothers take a vacationing family hostage, including faithless pastor, Jacob Fuller (Harvey Keitel) and his children, Kate (Juliette Lewis) and Scott (Ernest Liu). Once across the border, the unlikely posse stops at a shady bar and strip club open from dusk until dawn, known as the Titty Twister, whose main customers turn out to be more than expected. The customers turn out, unbelievably, to be vampires thrown into a frenzy by the scent of blood. Now the Gecko brothers, the Fuller family, and their new bar friends, Sex Machine (Tom Savini) and Frost (Fred Williamson), must fight their way through the night until the sun comes up at dawn. The plot is unique and very excellently executed. The switch from Tarentino's crime drama to Rodriguez's vampire flick is obvious, but fun to watch. The whole movie is a lot of fun and excellently thought out for the movie that it really is.

ACTING: The performances in this film are not only supplied by an all-star cast, but they are also excellently and professionally done. Clooney and Tarentino made a charismatic, professional acting team creating a presence of a stoic older brother and a loony younger brother as well as an epic criminal team. Harvey Keitel and Juliette Lewis also did a great job creating a very real family with issues to work out, as well as Ernest Liu in his first role. Everyone in this movie did a fantastic job of performing, from the leads to the supporting cast, including movie veterans Cheech Marin, Salma Hayek, Tom Savini, and Danny Trejo (who would later come to play Machete).

SCORE: The soundtrack and score in this movie was excellently crafted, signalling the many mood changes with rockin' artists. The soundtrack contains the music from rock greats, ZZ Top, Stevie Ray Vaughan, and The Blasters while also introducing the bar bad, Tito & Tarantula with excellent action score by Graeme Revell. The soundtrack is probably one of the best, among the ranks of Pulp Fiction and Dazed and Confused.

EFFECTS: The special effects in this movie are cheap but fun. The effects are made to be cheap and campy, bringing on a familiar Evil Dead-esque feel. They aren't professionally done, but they do their job in securing their type as a Rodriguez exploitation film.

OTHER CONTENT: This movie succeeds as both a crime drama and Grindhouse horror film. The two great directors, Quentin Tarentino and Robert Rodriguez, come together to make greatness. Almost as if they split the movie in half, you can tell when one man's vision ends and the other man's begins. Along with tall of the achievements this movie has scored for me, it also brings home excellent dialogue from sarcastic jokes to clever references. The movie is also affected by very professional direction and editing, bringing out the color in everything. This movie, to say the least, is a lot of fun to watch and a treat for horror fans. However, it wasn't made to be perfect. It's not a movie for everybody and it really isn't made to be taken seriously. I really like the movie, but it's not a milestone in cinema, just a treat for fans everywhere.

   From Dusk Till Dawn is a treat for Grindhouse and Tarentino fans everywhere, blending horror and drama together in an engaging, fun, campy movie experience with expert acting, an awesome soundtrack, and a pair of geniuses behind the wheel.

The Screaming Skull (1958) review

(7/10)

   Though this movie may seem like terrible, B-movie garbage to some, I have to admit that I had a lot of fun watching this one. Though cheesy, the intended scares and concept of the movie's horror aspect came off as very entertaining and nostalgic, if you will, in relation to the time of the black-and-white, B-movie mania. Even with that, the performances have great potential, and the movie carries a great spirit of the horror it wants to be.

PLOT: Newlyweds Eric (John Hudson) and Jenni (Peggy Webber) Whitlock have just moved back into the large house of Eric's late wife, which has been carefully maintained by the creepy groundskeeper, Mickey (Alex Nichol), who withholds a deep respect for the dead woman's memory. The marriage is going great for the newlyweds until Jenni starts seeing strange apparitions in her home, such as random skulls everywhere and flashes of Eric's late wife. With all these apparitions of terror, she starts hearing random screams similar to the peacocks that waltz around the yard. Eric, hearing of these occurrences, even starts to think she's going insane. Is her mind getting to her or are these apparitions really coming to her? The plot is actually pretty decent if you replace the skulls with more threatening apparitions of a sort. The execution is both a letdown and a prime factor of the movie's camp. The execution makes the movie come off as ridiculous, with imagery failing to even give you a chill until maybe once near the end. However, the execution also seems to glorify the camp in the movie, making the bad seem so much more entertaining and hilarious than it really is.



ACTING: The acting performances in this movie are actually really good, though the content lets down the potential. Our two leads, Eric and Jenni Whitlock, are actually very well played by John Hudson and Peggy Webber. Anytime the leads needed to show emotion, it was performed excellently, with several blood-curdling screams from Webber and general conversation with Hudson. Along with our leads, Alex Nichol (also the director) supplied a more-than-decent performance as Mickey, the creepy groundskeeper. His performance of the groundskeeper really tried to set the mood for the movie, even though the true mood it was setting was never really reached. The movie in itself is extremely low-budget with characters; aside from these three, we have exactly two other characters: Russ Conway and Tony Jackson as Mr. and Mrs. Snow. They didn't do anything significant performance-wise, however.

SCORE: The score of the film tried to set a creepy kind of mood to freak the audience out, with operatic-type themes suggesting something ghostly. However, with all of the cheese and camp of the movie, it feels misplaced and almost laughable. It's definitely a well done horror score, but it just doesn't fit and kind of enhances the hilarity and entertainment I feel during this movie.

EFFECTS: The effects in here were really cheap. There really isn't much to say about them, considering the majority of them were skull props and occasional faded-out flashes of skulls and ghosts a.k.a. people in sheets. The one effect I thought to be decently interesting for its time would be the skull corpse near the end, for it actually stands and moves and looks a little like it poses a threat.



MISC. THOUGHTS: With all of the low-budget fails of which I have described, including the non-threatening effects, not-scary imagery, and ensuing, unintentional hilarity, you would think I would mark this movie as terrible. However, I don't have the power to say that this movie didn't entertain me one bit. The promise of needing a coffin in the beginning to the unintentional hilarity of the scares to me just come off as glorious camp. This seems like it unintentionally wanted to be a parody of its own time frame of film. The era of midnight shock-horror in the 50s and 60s were very well cheesy yet known as notorious days in early horror filmmaking, and this film seems to accidentally glorify just that. It feels almost like this is intended to be just a low-budget camp fest to glorify its own era of horror. Though it may not have been intended to come off as that, it came off as that to me and I really have to say I enjoyed the movie with this aspect in mind. It was actually a lot of fun to watch.

   This old midnight horror flick was very cheaply made and quite bad, but it was very fun to watch. The acting performances were actually pretty good and the unintentional camp made this a fun movie for me to watch, as I found it hilarious and all in good spirit of this sub-genre of horror back in its time. If you look at it from a more serious standpoint, the execution is ridiculous, the score is almost misfitting, and the effects are failed attempts, making this feel cheaper than it actually is. The factor that determines whether you like this movie or not is how much fun you actually have watching it, and for me, there was a lot of fun had actually watching this.

Halloween (1978) review

(9/10)

This horror classic is still full of suspense and creepy as ever, laying down a landmark for modern slasher films, but does it hold through the test of time?

PLOT:In Haddonfield, IL on Halloween 1963, young Michael Myers stabs his older sister to death for no apparent reason. Years later as an adult, Michael (Tony Moran) breaks out of the mental institution that has held him up for years on none other than Halloween night. From there he begins slaughtering unsuspecting teens, mainly targeting unwary young Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis). There's only one true person bent on going after Michael to stop him, and that is his psychiatrist, Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence). Will Myers be contained this Halloween night? It's a good plot executed very well.



ACTING:The performances in this film were very great. Jamie Lee Curtis played a very convincing role as Laurie. For her first film, she really became the part. I find her to be the best performance in the film, along with the great Donald Pleasence as Dr. Loomis. Both were really great in their parts. There really wasn't a bad performance in the bunch. The other performances I'd like to mention would be Nancy Loomis as Annie, P.J. Soles as Lynda, and Sandy Johnson as Judith Myers.

SCORE:The score in here is one of the most memorable and iconic things about the film. John Carpenter really did a great job at creating a unique and creepy theme. It's beautiful and haunting yet frightening and simple all the same time. I really enjoyed it.



OTHER CONTENT:This film is a really great slasher horror film. The film is packed with suspense, superb direction, a smart script, and a lot of creepy moments. I really enjoyed the metaphor of comparing Michael to almost that of fear itself. It's really creepy and cool. This film is also a really good film to watch around Halloween season, for not just the title but the atmosphere overall. However, I have a small problem with the film that most might find disagreeable. The film was packed with many well-directed, creepy moments, but I don't believe the film is as scary now as it was back then. It just doesn't scare me. The film overall is packed with a huge release of suspense, a bunch of creepy atmosphere, and great direction, but I just don't find it truly scary.

OVERALL,an awesome horror film with a very well executed plot, very great performances, memorable and iconic score, a lot of suspense, superb direction, a smart script, a bunch of creepy moments, a Halloween atmosphere, and a cool metaphor, but it's not as scary today as it was then arguably.

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.

This Is Not a Film (2012) review

(9/10)

This in-depth documentary was a good attempt at breaking free of the Iranian governments laws and glorifying the art of film.

SUBJECT:Iranian filmmaker Jafar Panahi is about to be sent to prison for six years and banned from filmmaking for 20 years. This mini-documentary shot partially on an iPhone and filmed by Mojtana Mirtahmasb documents the screenplay rejected by the Iranian government and the struggle Jafar has to go through. It's a really in-depth documentary done real well for being shot secretly.



PEOPLE:Jafar Panahi seems to be a real visionary director with a good idea and mind for filmmaking. I appreciate his idea for films and what he points out in his previous films. I also like how Mojtaba Mirtahmasb risked his life to shoot Jafar's struggles. It was a very brave act

OTHER CONTENT:This documentary was very much a picture of life with the Iranian government. I liked how he tried to rebel and get around their laws. I hope one day things are better for these peoples' lives. However, this documentary seemed to be a little bit less enlightening than I expected it to be. I also really wished he finished his screenplay.



OVERALL,an awesome documentary with a real in-depth subject matter, a visionary filmmaker and a brave soul, and a good picture of the Iranian government's oppression., but it wasn't as enlightening as I had hoped it to be.

Bully (2012) review

(8/10)

I've been looking forward to seeing this for a long time, and now that I have seen it, I have to say that it is a very good documentary and proves its point to its audience with little to no effort.

SUBJECT:The subject of this documentary is based on five different families that have kids that are being bullied in school. They focus on the family of a girl being persecuted because she's lesbian, the family of a son who hung himself at 17 because of his classmates' pressure, the family of a daughter who brought a gun to school to scare her bullies, the family of a son who's picked on everyday because of how he looks, and the family of a boy who also committed suicide and is dedicated to the stopping bullying all over the world. It's very good subject matter executed and explored brilliantly.



PEOPLE:The dedication and heart of the people in and behind this documentary is very strong and touching to the purpose of it all. I appreciate their journey to stop bullying, for I've been in that place before. There are some really good kids out there getting abused.

SCORE:The soundtrack is mainly made up of alternative rock and pop, but is used very well.



OTHER CONTENT:This documentary really sheds light on the world of bullying and the effect it has on students and entire towns. I appreciate the goal behind it all, but I have a questionable problem with the documentary. The documentary has caught kids bullying other kids on camera via the camera crew, but I believe that had an impact on the kids on tape. What if the kids only acted up this way because they were on camera? What if they never did it until now? I find that questionable.

OVERALL,a great documentary with a brilliantly explored subject matter, very strong dedication and heart, score used very well, and a needed light shed on the world of bullying, but I wonder if the camera had an impression on how the kids acted or not and how accurate it all actually was.

From Dusk Till Dawn (1996) review

(7/10)

This movie is a lot of fun; the quirkiness of Quentin Tarentino with the grindhouse-camp feeling of Robert Rodriguez make a very entertaining film with plenty of scare and comedy to go around.

PLOT:Seth (George Clooney) and Richard (Quentin Tarentino) Gecko are two notorious criminals in their area and are on the run to a deal in Mexico that could get them rich. On the way, the stop at a hotel looking to rest a little until they get the idea to hi-jack an RV across the border. The RV in question belongs to ex-pastor Jacob Fuller (Harvey Keitel) and his children, Kate (Juliette Lewis) and Scott. They make it across the border and to a bar/strip club and stop in to have a drink and wait for the deal at dawn. However, the bar's clientelle isn't so desirable; in fact, they almost seems like vampires. If that's the case, will our friends survive until dawn? It's a great plot executed pretty well.



ACTING:The performances in this movie range from very good to alright. For the most part, they're very good. George Clooney and Quentin Tarentino do a great job as Seth and Richard Gecko. They played off of each other rather well. Along with these two, Harvey Keitel and Juliette Lewis both played a really good part as Jacob and Kate Fuller. The other shiners would be Fred Williamson as Frost, Tom Savini as Sex Machine, Salma Hayek as Satanico Pandemonium, Danny Trejo as Razor Charlie and Cheech Marin in multiple roles.

SCORE:The score is made up of some creepy and action themes but mainly a killer soundtrack. The soundtrack contains some classic rock and blues mixed with some smooth bar songs from artists such as ZZ Top, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Tito & Tarantula, The Blasters and more.

EFFECTS:The effects in here range to many things. There are vampires exploding, decomposing, bursting into flame, and plenty of blood and guts to go around. The effects range from cheap blood and gore to computer-generated effects. Either way, the effects are campy and very well done for a movie like this. It really adds horror to it all.



OTHER CONTENT:This movie is a lot of fun. With two great directors at the chair (Quentin Tarentino of Pulp Fiction and Robert Rodriguez of Machete), you can expect at least something good out of this movie. What we get is a no-holds-barred, gritty, campy vampire flick/crime drama. This movie is mainly for fun, however, and not for substance, for it has some trouble with character development, cheesy jokes, and any sentimentality. This movie was made for laughs and grindhouse fun and not much else, but that doesn't make it all bad.

OVERALL,a good horror movie with a well-done plot, very good performances, a killer soundtrack, campy effects, and a fun time, but it has a few problems with development, humor, and other emotions. It's just not what I'd call the best movie ever anymore.

Stephen King's The Shining (1997) review

(6/10)

This version may not be as scary, psychological, or popular as Kubrick's, but it stays to the book more accurately than Kubrick's ever did. However, it's still a typical TV miniseries.

PLOT:Jack Torrance (Steven Weber) is a former drinker with a wife named Wendy (Rebecca De Mornay) and a son named Danny (Courtland Mead). He's referred by his friend Al to a job as winter caretaker of the rich Overlook Hotel. Because he's in need of the money, he takes the job and his family up to the Hotel closing day. While there, they meet the cook, Dick Hallorran (Melvin van Peebles), who discovers that Danny has a certain power, known as the "shine", which can help him see the possible future and things his parents can't. Things start out fine for the Torrances until Danny senses via his imaginary friend, Tony (Wil Horneff), that the hotel has a mind of its own and wants Jack to be its permanent caretaker. Danny must avoid the hotel's tricks and keep his daddy from succumbing into the hotel's whims. It's a great plot executed fairly well.



ACTING:The acting in here was pretty good overall. Steven Weber played an excellent job as Jack Torrance. He wasn't as good as Nicholson in Kubrick's version, but he played a pretty accurate Jack. Rebecca De Mornay also played a pretty great part as Wendy Torrance, playing right off of Weber's lines. Wil Hornef played a supple role as Tony and the older Danny, but his lines and the execution kind of ruined it for him. Melvin van Peebles played an accurate part as the shining cook, Dick Hallorran, but he wasn't anything spectacular. The rest of the roles were hit-or-miss, but the worst performance in the whole miniseries was Courtland Mead as Danny Torrance. His childlike acting got annoying and unrealistic, which nearly ruined it all.

SCORE:The score didn't matter all that much, but it was spooky and intense. It set the mood rather well for this horror miniseries/movie.

EFFECTS:Aside from Mead's acting, this was the worst part of the miniseries. The computer-generated effects used to animate the ghosts appearing and the hedge animals moving was pretty bad and looked cheap and unrealistic. However, the make-up and blood effects weren't all that bad and actually worked pretty well.



OTHER CONTENT:This wasn't actually as bad as you'd expect it to be. It stayed reliable to the book, still was pretty scary, and had a decent emotional impact. This stayed way more reliable to the events in the book than Kubrick's star-studded version ever did. It captured nearly everything that his version missed. This one wasn't as scary as Kubrick's, however. It was still pretty spooky, I'd say, for a TV miniseries. This also had a pretty decent emotional impact toward the couple's marriage, the parental relationship, and the afterwards of the event. The con to this is that it's a TV miniseries; that in itself isn't a bad thing, but it has the feeling of one. The effects are cheap, the actors probably haven't had much work after this, the script was a bit flawed, and the execution had some major problems, especially with Tony's scenes. I believe this was a great attempt at rekindling the relationship between King and his book, but it is still just another TV miniseries/movie.

OVERALL,an ok TV movie with a fairly well-executed plot, pretty good acting, mood-fitting score, working make-up effects, reliability to the book, kept some scare, and had a decent emotional impact, but the lead child actor was annoying, the computer effects were bad, the script was flawed, and it had some major problems with execution.

Night of the Living Dead (1968) review

(9/10)

The zombie movie that awakened a nation.

PLOT:Barbara (Judith O'Dea) and her brother are going to their father's grave to place flowers on it; however, when they get there, a man is roaming the graveyard and her brother jokes with her saying it's going to get her. Ironically, the man attackes her, but her brother fights him and is left on the ground. She runs to a nearby farmhouse where she meets an African-American named Ben (Duane Jones) and the family that lives there, including stubborn father Harry (Karl Hardman) and eccentric Tom (Keith Wayne). They find out by TV that these things are cannibalistic corpses brought back by radiation from a satellite shot down by the army. Now they must keep them out of the house and stay alive until they acn reach a rescue station. It's a great set-up for a zombie movie, and is executed as well is it can be.



ACTING:Excellent. O'Dea and Jones steal the show as the show real fear, panic, and overall emotion. An honorable mention is Marilyn Eastman as Helen, the mom. I could see her fear when she was attacked.

SCORE:Very scary and at times hypnotic.

EFFECTS:There's just a few scenes with blood and gore, but the ones with it don't go as far as to overuse the blood. They make the effects realistic and necessary.



OTHER CONTENT:I appreciate this film for how, at the time being, it was a groundbreaking spot in horror entertainment. Zombie films had not been invented until 1968 when this came out. It does still unnerve in today's times, with its shocking ending, wandering corpses, the idea itself, and the best scene with the little girl and her mother However, it's just a bland film compared to today's zombie film. So much has been done with the zombie subgenre that this film is just seen as a bland zombie film no different from the others. Time wasn't the best to this due to many other sequels and additions. Either way, it's still a classic, distrubing zombie film that started it all. Congrats, Mr. Romero, you started something big.

OVERALL,an awesome horror film with a well-executed zombie plot, excellent acting, hypnotic and scary score, realistic effects, and the power to still unnerve today, but time wasn't real good to it.

Prophecy (1979) review

(6/10)

This just screams B-movie and every essence of it, but the message, suspense, and effects just draw it to a near-win.

PLOT:Dr. Rob (Robert Foxworth) has never been remembered for anything he's done to help people, but his chance finally comes when a close friend asks him to go to a forest that's the subject matter of a war between the original Indians that have lived there for a long time and a leading paper mill that has been using the lake and other resources for about 20 years. He flies down there with his musician wife, Maggie (Talia Shire, who's character is also "secretly" pregnant), to bring some peace to the dispute, but things start to go weird when Rob catches rumors of unexplained deaths and sees bizarre sights (such as a fish the size of a boat). The Indian people also speak of an animal they've seen combined with all the others. Through a careful investigation, Rob discovers the paper mill is polluting the lake and the effects of the pollution are turning the local animals into monsters, including an angry, mutated bear. It's a good plot executed decently.



ACTING:The acting isn't great, but it does have some good performances. Robert Foxworth and Talia Shire play a respectable part as the two lead protagonists, Rob and Maggie. They were by far the stars of the show. The other shiners would be Victoria Racimo as Ramona and Richard Dysart as Isley. I don't believe Armand Assante played a very emotional part of the Indian lead protagonist, John Hawks. I believe he had about as much emotion as Kristen Stewart, and that's bad. His is the only real bad one, I'd say.

SCORE:The score wasn't really important. It was just some new, horror score that went with the mood. It didn't repeat itself as the likes of "Creature from the Black Lagoon" did, but it didn't play a major part.

EFFECTS:The effects are cheap, to say the least, but I also believe they are pretty well-made. The movements are easily labeled as cheaply done, but the design is still pretty freaky and unnerving as it is.

CAMERAWORK:I actually appreciated the camerawork in this movie, for it was closely-cut and very tongue-in-cheek with its style. I liked it.



OTHER CONTENT:This is basically just a shlock 70s B-movie, but it isn't the worst you'll ever see. Aside from the decent leads and freaky costume design, the movie also sent a sad message and packed a lot of suspense. The message this movie sent off was to save the environment and stop pollution, and I'd say it succeeded in delivering that message through scares and tears. It's actually kind of sad when you think about it. Also, the director (John Frankenheimer) is said to be a very good suspense creator, and this movie shows it. There are a couple parts in this movie where the suspense can almost be cut with a knife, and I appreciate that. However, this movie does have a lot of cons to its few pros. The movie itself is very cheesy and almost laughable. There were a few scenes I found myself chuckling at the shlockiness of it all, but it's not the worst B-movie you'll ever see. Yes, it's still pretty bad, but it does have some positive aspects to it, if you seek to find them. I got chills.

OVERALL,an ok B-movie with a decent plot, some good performances, unimportant score, cheaply unnerving effects, closely-cut camerawork, a good message, and plenty of suspense, but it was very cheesy and very laughable; if one were to fail to find the good aspects in it, this would just be a bad movie altogether.

The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975) review

(10/10)

Give yourself over to absolute pleasure...my favorite film.

PLOT:Newly engaged Brad Majors (Barry Bostwick) and Janet Weiss (Susan Sarandon) leave off to see their friend Dr. Scott (Jonathan Adams) to tell him the news when their tire goes flat on their car in the pouring rain. They walk to a castle where they meet crazed, transvestite scienteist, Frank N. Furter (Tim Curry) and are forced to stay the night with him and his "creation", Rocky Horror (Peter Hinwood). While there, they each fall into seduction, mischief, murder, and "an erotic nightmare beyond any measure". The plot is a very cool twist on the classic Frankenstein/sci-fi genre and helps to express individualty, sexual freedom, and campiness, all in a clever mind-freak.



ACTING:The acting is somewhat timed and precise as a stage show, but that was the goal writer Richard O'Brien and the director were trying to get at. Wooden, yet precise to exhibit the ultimate campiness. I believe everyone did a pretty good job with their parts. The shiners to me are Tim Curry as Frank Furter, Richard O'Brien as Riff Raff, Susan Sarandon as Janet Weiss, Meat Loaf as Eddie, and Charles Gray as the criminologist. This had to be Curry's best performance in a film; he does his job with such a fury that it seemed he was born for the role. I also liked the fact that they cast the writer as one of the characters. Good idea. In my opinion, my least favorite performance was Little Nell a.k.a. Nell Campbell as Columbia. Everyone at one point had to admit she was annoying.

SCORE:The soundtrack is without a doubt the best thing about this movie, next to its message. The soundtrack exhibits a different feel in every song, from seduction in "Touch-A Touch-A Touch Me", to nostalgia in "What Ever Happened to Saturday Night?" and even to a good time in "Time Warp". Beautiful guitar + rockin' sax + sci-fi piano + definitive feelings and moods = a perfect campy musical soundtrack.

EFFECTS:The effects were all pretty low-budget looking, but they all worked to enhance the campy feeling of the film. It ranged from stage props to cheap computer cutouts, but it all worked.

CAMERAWORK:The camerawork in this film is very well done. It's forboding, creative, and captures every aspect of the film's emotions.



OTHER CONTENT:The movie was meant to be so bad, that it came out good in a glossy layer of campiness. The sexual akwardness, zombie-horror feel, rockin' music, pretty ladies, uneven wrongness, and overloaded campiness sends shivers down my spine and sends me into an "orgasmic rush of lust". The whole film gives me a pleasurable, shivery feeling like I can sense and feel everything the characters do. I'm a Frankie fan, or a Rocky Horror buff if you will.

OVERALL,an epic campy film with a cooly-adapted plot with great hidden messages, timed acting that comes off as that of a stage show, a rockin' soundtrack, campy effects, well done camerawork, overloaded campiness, and a feeling that all Rocky Horror fans should end up getting.

Grave Encounters (2011) review

(9/10)

Ever been through a haunted house? If you would have documented it, then you would have something similar to this on film.

PLOT:This new paranormal investigation TV show entitled "Grave Encounters" starts to show some pontential running its sixth episode, which takes place at an abandoned mental hospital which is said to be haunted. Lance Preston (Sean Rogerson) and his crew decide to do a lock-in to investigate the supposedly-haunted hospital, though the crew has weaseled their way through show business in a fake way. When they actually start to get some hard evidence that ghosts exist and that this place is haunted, strange, scary, and confusing things begin to happen that try to drive our team into madness. It's a good plot idea to make a movie about that's executed very well.

ACTING:For this independent horror, the acting was great! I felt the fear and saw the insanity in these characters' personas. The shiners were Sean Rogerson as Lance, Merwin Mondesir as T.C. Gibson, Mackenzie Gray as Houston Gray, and Ashleigh Gryzko as Sasha Parker.



SCORE:There was little to no score, but of what there was, it was pretty ominous.

EFFECTS:You can tell just about all of the effects are done with computers, my best guess being Adobe After Effects, but the ghosts and their faces are pretty scary looking in the end. It's like looking up the demon face trend on YouTube. The blood effects aren't half bad either, though they look like cherry jell at times. Compared to most low-budget horrors these days, the effects were pretty well done.



OTHER CONTENT:This movie was a very entertaining horror ride! It was scary, intense, fun, and seemingly neverending. The whole experience is like being stuck inside a haunted house attraction with no emergency exits or ways to get out. Thrilling! My only problem I found with this movie is that in it's most confusing parts, it can become unreasonably silly. It's insane and illogical with no real reason! But then I start to think, ghosts are illogical as well, so it isn't that bad.

OVERALL,an awesome indie horror with a well-executed plot, great horror acting, little ominous score, well done computer effects, and the feel of an ultimate thrill ride, though it came off as silly during the confusing bits.