Horror – Page 8 – We Are Movie Geeks

THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 3 (FINAL SEQUENCE) – The Review

100% Politically incorrect. 100% Medically accurate, so claims Tom Six. 100% complete garbage. Harsh? Not really.

I am not going to step onto a soap box and preach to you about how some films have gone too far. Please, go further. I am not going to rant about how certain things should never be portrayed on film. Please, push the envelope and break boundaries. I will not call for censorship and restraint in exercising free speech. Please, by all means, shock and disgust us till the cows come home. However, what I will do, is to persistently and relentlessly call things as I see them.

This movie is garbage. Not because its vulgar or offensive, but because its a failure. I have seen the entire trilogy now, and while in all honesty I can admit that I am no big fan of the franchise as a whole, my disdain reaches its monumental peak with THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 3 (FINAL SEQUENCE).

Writer and director Tom Six, I presume, has delusions of grandeur around the misguided endeavor to become the next John Waters… I shutter to think. No, sir. I admire the tenacity, but no. I equate these movies more to the ranks of Troma, and yet I enjoy most Troma films. What is the difference, you ask? Intent. Context. Story.

Despite not rating it highly, I actually give THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE — the first installment — fair marks for originality, a daring disregard for consequences and the spirit of breaking rules and ruffling feathers. With that said, a great film it was not. THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2 received even less praise from me, for reasons you can read in my review, but everything that made the first film original and daring and that made the second film over the top and grotesquely enjoyable in a twisted sort of late night cultish way, all of that has gone completely MIA in the third film.

So, what remains? Let me illustrate. Did you notice how I plugged my own review for the second film in the previous paragraph? Now, imagine if I were to do that in each and every paragraph of this review. THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 3 attempts to poke fun at itself, repeatedly referring to the first two films by way of integrating them into the story. Everyone’s favorite little round oddity, Laurence R. Harvey, returns again, this time playing Dwight Butler, a Hitler-stache sporting accountant for a prison. Dwight is a fan of the first two films, and with the current system failing as a deterrent to criminals, he is desperately trying to convince the warden that he has the answer to their problems in his HUMAN CENTIPEDE DVDs.

Unfortunately for Dwight, the warden is a tough nut to crack. Warden Bill Boss, played by the creepy Dieter Laser from the first two films as well, is an assault on the senses. I can honestly say that, while watching Harvey play Dwight, I can grin a little. Conversely, watching Laser play Warden Boss is a fate worse than being strapped down and forced to watch every episode of The Bachelorette CLOCKWORK ORANGE style.

THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 3 offers Dieter Laser spewing sexist, racist, and all around offensively senseless jibberish, screaming and convulsing all over the big screen while Harvey’s Dwight persistently nags at him to listen to his idea to turn the rowdy inmates into a massive human centipede using the medically accurate concept from the first two movies, while porn star turned “actress” Bree Olson provides eye candy as the sheepish, intellectually dull secretary/Warden’s play thing.

Still interested? But wait, there’s more. You would think Dwight were the central character. No. Harvey had his 15 minutes of fame as the central character in part 2. In part 3, its Laser’s show. Despite the title, the creation of the infamous human centipede takes place almost entirely in the last act, and a quick one at that. Until that time, we get copious amounts of Laser acting like a complete and total raving lunatic… but, hey, maybe that’s what will ultimately sell the movie, but if you expect it to be anything like the first two films, beware.

THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 3, for those gorehounds out there, is also a let down. You saw the height of gore in part 2. Part 3 offers a key scene of testicular terror, but aside from that, the few scenes of disgust that are present equate to sight gags and gross-out humor, but nothing truly graphic.

Finally, for good measure, THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 3 provides a cameo by Tom Six as himself — big surprise — and features Eric Roberts as the Governor seeking re-election, relying on Warden Boss and Dwight to turn their numbers around and make him look good. As for Roberts, not sure how this movie is supposed to make him look good, but I certainly hope he wasn’t that hard up for cash. Watching him in this movie, it became abundantly clear he had better things to be doing.

Overall Rating: 1 out of 5 stars

Beware the Trailer for HUMAN CENTIPEDE 3

Haven’t had enough yet? Is your lunch staying down too well and you need help regaining that uneasy feeling in your gut? (Some of the Movie Geeks are) But if not, your wait is nearly over, as HUMAN CENTIPEDE 3 (Final Sequence) is coming and we have the trailer for this third and final installment of writer/director Tom Six’s infamously disgusting trilogy…

500 prisoners, one body: the world’s most deranged medical experiment reaches unholy heights in this final installment of the notoriously shocking trilogy.

Read our reviews of HUMAN CENTIPEDE and HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2

Opening in theaters and VOD on May 22nd, 2015

THE HARVEST (2013) – The Review

At one time or another, we’ve all felt we’ve had the worst parents in the world. We have our reasons, but watch THE HARVEST (2013) and you’ll quickly reevaluate your thinking. The question arises… what is a child’s life worth and how far will you go to save that life when certain death rears its unfriendly head?

THE HARVEST tells the story of a seriously ill boy named Andrew, bed-ridden and bored out of his mind. He’s not allowed to leave the house, play baseball, have friends or go to school, and is barely allowed to leave his room. Andrew, played by Charlie Tahan, is weak and can barely stand on his own, but he still has desires just like any boy his age. These desire have been successfully subdued by his over-protective, borderline psychotic mother Katherine, played by Samantha Morton. Then a misunderstood, rebellious girl his age named Maryann moves into her grandparents’ house nearby and changes everything.

Maryann, played by Natasha Calis, doesn’t waste any time exploring and looking for some way to entertain herself in this secluded area, tucked away in the woods. This is how she happens upon Andrew’s house where the two quickly develop an awkward but empathetic friendship of kindred spirits. For the first time, Andrew actually appears to be experiencing some level of happiness, that is of course, until Katherine discovers the existence of Maryann, which had prior been kept a secret.

THE HARVEST is set almost entirely inside or in the immediate vicinity of Andrew’s home. What Andrew’s house may lack in physical size, it more than compensates with the size and severity of its secrets. With Andrew basically confined to his bed in his room, the house is essentially a prison. Katherine, a medical doctor by profession, is obsessed with curing her son’s ailment at any and all costs, which serves as her prison. Andrew’s father Richard, played by Michael Shannon, is also a prisoner, but his confinement is his hopelessly lost marriage to his mentally unstable wife Katherine.

Written by first-timer Stephen Lancellotti, THE HARVEST is a passionate film steeped in fear, guilt and lies kept by every major player in the film. The emotional scale of the film tilts heavily toward the darker, unsavory elements of humanity. Despite this, Lancellotti’s strong, well-written characters hold the otherwise excessively depraved nature of the story together, keeping Andrew’s world from crumbling around him until the very end. This is most clearly illustrated in Michael Shannon’s surprisingly subdued performance as Richard, a man so beaten-down by his wife’s insistence on being a controlling emotional mess, that he can often barely speak or move in her presence.

Richard is not a coward, but he is weak. Having left his career to stay home and take care of Andrew while Katherine works, he has but a single purpose that drains his very essence, and yet Katherine will not even allow him to fully embrace this role. Other weaknesses of Richard’s emerge in the film, but they all tie back into his desire to do right by his son, however he must. Sadly, that often means protecting and supporting Andrew against his mother’s abrasive, even violent behavior spawned from a truly demented sense of ensuring her’s son’s well-being.

Samantha Morton delivers a performance so absolutely frightening that the concept alone of their being a real life Katherine out in the world somewhere alone sends chills down my spine. On the most primal, stripped down level, her heart is in the right place, but the manner and methods by which she pursues saving her son’s life are so utterly deplorable that virtually every moment she is on screen is cringe-worthy. Consider Kathy Bates’ performance as Annie Wilkes in MISERY (1990) and then notch that sucker up to 11 on the bone-tingling terror scale.

Andrew’s helplessness is made convincing by Charlie Tahan’s performance, not just in the physically demanding nature of the role requiring him to appear weak and broken, but in his emotional state and virtually non-existent level of energy. In pulling this off, Tahan only increases the next-level insanity that emerges from Morton’s performance. Meanwhile, Natasha Calis is perhaps the most normal and well-rounded character in the film, despite her own demons, which are relatively minor in comparison to Andrew’s. Finally, for good measure, McNaughton throws a familiar seasoned favorite in the mix with Peter Fonda playing Maryann’s grandfather. While his role is rather small, he does provide a crucial line of dialogue in the film that, for Maryann, serves as the equivalent of Uncle Ben telling Peter Parker “with great power comes great responsibility.”

John McNaughton is a filmmaker of notable cult status, but many of you reading this are scratching your heads, I am sure. Having made his mark early in his career, McNaughton is best known to true horror movie aficionados for HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER (1986), his debut film that also introduced Michael Rooker to movie audiences, who is now something of a household name amongst The Walking Dead fans.

Well-known for the gritty, faux-documentary style of his feature film debut about what makes a killer, McNaughton takes a sizable step away from that visual style. The film still has a hint of that voyeuristic element, but its subtle and will go mostly unnoticed. I realize how strange this will sound, but THE HARVEST actually conveys more of a prime time Hallmark family movie night vibe to its visual style, with its contemporary, shot-on-digital video looking, real life drama sort of stuff, that actually adds to the creepiness of what takes place.

McNaughton is no stranger to delving into projects that develop as much controversy as they do cult following, such as MAD DOG AND GLORY (1993) and WILD THINGS (1998). I feel this will not be an exception to that rule and I am certainly grateful for McNaughton sticking to his guns. I will end with this… if you are not even a little bit afraid of Samantha Morton after seeing this film, please do me a favor and never introduce me to your mother.

THE HARVEST opened in New York on April 10 and is available on VOD now.

The film opens in Los Angeles this Friday, April 24th at the Arena Cinema in Hollywood.

Overall Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

IT FOLLOWS – The Review

There is finite number of themes from which to draw, so half the battle of making a compelling film is finding a new angle to tell a story already told countless times. David Robert Mitchell succeeds at this as writer and director of IT FOLLOWS, a new horror film that’s receiving a level of artistic appreciation and acclaim rarely experienced by films true to this genre.

Set in suburban Detroit, the story follows Jay, a teenage girl who unwittingly becomes the target of an invisible evil force when she falls for a teenage boy who is not who he seems. Once the truth of the terror she has inherited sets in, she realizes she will never again be able to relax and enjoy her life, unless she can find a way to destroy the force compelled to follow her anywhere she goes. Accompanied by a handful of close friends, Jay must trust them to protect her against a dangerous force only she can see and that seemingly cannot be killed.

Jay, played by Maika Monroe, is exceedingly convincing as the relatively innocent, well-mannered good girl turned mostly helpless victim. She’s the popular girl with a kind heart type of character, easy to like and worthy of our empathy. Her sister Kelly, played by Lili Sepe, is a bit more of the girl next door, adventurous type, but the two of them are close enough to weather this bizarre storm together. Jay’s childhood friend with a deep-seeded crush Paul, played by Keir Gilchrist, first presents himself almost as if he’s the closeted gay friend, but rather turns out to be a timid admirer who ultimately proves to be Jay’s most dedicated defender.

Finally, Greg (played by Daniel Zovatto) is more the rebel teenage boy type, with whom Jay becomes smitten, but whose efforts to protect her are more steeped in a mild masculinity. Together, these four teenagers must try to outwit this slow, but smart presence while constantly on the move and on their toes, as the entity can appear as anyone.

IT FOLLOWS takes one of the oldest, most conventional horror movie plots and reinvents the entire experience. So many times, we have witnessed teenagers being stalked, chased and terrorized by slashers, psychos and evil creatures, but never quite like this. Mitchell draws on the influences of horror and the legendary filmmakers that have come before him and makes a film all his own.

Driven by an unseen terror, essentially introduced to the mainstream by the shark in JAWS, Mitchell also draws from another slow-burn suspenseful horror icon in HALLOWEEN, not just in the pacing, but also with the film’s original music, composed by Rich Vreeland (credited as Disasterpeace), which strangely melds the eerily minimalist style of John Carpenter’s score with the more ethereal ambiance of Vangelis, such as his work in BLADE RUNNER.

Following a similar line of thought, IT FOLLOWS also draws from another quintessential John Carpenter work, a remake itself. THE THING (1982) lays the foundation for a specific type of fear through paranoia that emerges as the mysterious force, which can appear as anyone, someone the character knows or loves, or a complete stranger. This creates a tension whereas anyone at anytime could be out for blood, unless you know what to look for, which Jay eventually understands and is significantly easier than testing blood samples with electricity.

Mitchell utilizes a color palette that pops just enough to embellish production, but selectively places harder contrast to add depth and enhanced darkness to certain scenes. This, along with a masterful use of moving camera and knowledge of when to linger statically, brings the underlying fear of the unknown and sense of being followed right to the foreground of the film, supercharging our ability to feel in that very time and place with Jay and her friends.

IT FOLLOWS is an extremely visceral, sensory film. In its peak moments, the shared fear is almost palpable, inducing goose bumps and an irrational sense of paranoia. Those viewers already naturally prone to these characteristics on a daily basis, may want to watch this film with great caution, as you’ll never see strangers quite the same way again.

IT FOLLOWS is successful not due to a massive budget, big special effects or a star-studded cast, as none of these things exist for the film. Instead, the film thrives on a solid script, tremendous direction and a low-key, talented cast without pretension for making anything other than what this film was meant to be, a terrifyingly complex but seemingly simple horror film that eats away at out most primary human fears.

IT FOLLOWS opens in St. Louis theaters on Friday, March 27th, 2015.

Overall Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

GHOUL (2015) – The Review

The truth is that, no mater how great a concept is for a story, no matter how well the film is marketed, the ultimate proof is in the production pudding. How excellent is your execution? Not the capitol punishment type — even if some films make you wish for that instead — but, execution of idea from concept to completion. Unfortunately, despite all the best intentions, many films fail to find the appropriate approach.

GHOUL (2015) is one of these films. It should be quite apparent already that I am not overwhelmingly impressed with this one, but in an effort to change things up a bit and better explain my thoughts on this film, I’ll begin with the end.

[No worries, I never spoil films, even the ones I dislike.]

The final 15-20 minutes of GHOUL are, by far, the most engaging, most intense and most successful minutes of this entire film. With that said, it’s not enough to save it entirely, but merely wipes the crust from your eyes and the spittle from the side of your mouth, finishing with the subtle minty freshness of a stick of gum that lasts about as long as the flavor in a handful of Chiclets.

The story comes full circle, the twist is revealed and the special effects are admirably effective for a film of this style, genre and budget. With a running time of only 86 minutes, its not entirely inconceivable to endure to the end for the tasty bits that add flavor, but you’ll need to choke down the blandness of the meal before the dessert.

Let’s return to the start now, where the film is at it’s most uninspired. GHOUL follows a small clutch of friends turned indie filmmakers who travel to Ukraine to shoot footage and interviews for the pilot of a documentary series they call Cannibals of the 20th Century. We’ve seen it before in principle, young inexperienced aspiring filmmakers venturing into uncharted territory to make their names, danger be damned.

Roughly, the first 30 minutes is relatively boring and uneventful, failing to build much of any character development, nor suspense or even much plot. Roughly half the film is merely bickering and accusations between characters, not unlike what we see in the average “reality” TV series that litter our television sets.

What they hope will be a successful late-night basic cable cash cow, quickly reveals itself to be a bust. When their local elderly guide turns out to be unreliable. Not only do they not have anything from the survivor of the Soviet Union’s most violent serial killer and “star” of their project, but they find themselves stuck in the remote woods with their young and pretty interpreter, a crazy young Ukrainian witch, and an evil supernatural force that will not let them leave unless they do exactly as it asks of them.

GHOUL is unfocused, indecisive about what the central plot truly is about. The villain is clearly defined, but is not as central to the story as would be expected. Drama is developed primarily through the perspective of Jenny, played by Jennifer Armour, who also happens to provide the best performance of the film. Jenny has a secret she hides that ultimately plays a significant role, indirectly and metaphorically, in the film’s twist.

Overall, GHOUL is a late-night, cheap rental popcorn flick, mildly worth seeing to the end, even at the cost of submitting to the snooze-inducing first two acts, but only if you’ve already gone through all the cool films in your Netflix queue.

[For the more discerning genre fans, be especially observant of the pride taken in the humorously hokey but admirable attempt at the gory gutted cat prop used not once, but twice in the film.]

GHOUL hits select theaters on Friday, March 20th, 2015.

Overall Rating: 2 out of 5 stars

OUT OF THE DARK (2014) – The Review

It’s been some time since I’ve had that feeling of being “had,” going into something with hopeful expectations, only to find out that it was all a ruse. Cinema is often like this, drawing us in, capturing our emotions and interests, even playing off our primal instincts. Michael Bay knows the mass loves explosions, so there are always plenty in his films, all of which appear int he films’ trailers. Trailers are another way that we, as viewers, can be duped. It’s a necessary evil, I suppose. The nature of the marketing beast that, inevitably, will always accompany the anticipation involved with being a movie watcher. This has become something of a cultural agreement of modern society. We tolerate in order to be entertained.

I find it “crazy” how individuals associated with one film, generally applauded for being a success, can turn around and be equally associated with a flop, but it happens. This is where the “buyer beware” term is coined. Never judge a book — or, movie — by it’s cover, as they say. This goes both directions. It’s been by experience that, no matter how much you enjoy a director, actor or actress, or perhaps even a writer, never to allow yourself to be drawn into the blind expectation that anyone is perfect. Unfortunately, I allowed this very rule I have self-imposed to be broken.

OUT OF THE DARK (2014) is a film that has done just that, wandered haphazardly out of the dark, only to be blinded by the light of day as it finds an eager, albeit unsuspecting audience. For those fans of the horror/thriller genre accustomed to Netflix, the ratio of good genre films to schlocky and/or just plain bad movies that seemingly pop up out of nowhere is pretty extreme. Nonetheless, at least a minimum of 3-4 of these films will always be present in our queue at any given time, patiently awaiting their 90 minutes of instantly-streamed glory. What we are not accustomed to, and less less tolerant of, is paying inflated theatrical ticket prices to obtain the aforementioned low-grade thrills of b-movies.

In short, this shall be the level of entertainment one receives when sitting down to watch OUT OF THE DARK. I have never been one to unduly criticize a filmmaker for making his/her art, and that’s not about to start now. In all honesty and with full disclosure, I am disappointed with director Lluis Quilez, as this is his feature film debut. On the other hand, OUT OF THE PAST is co-written by Javier Gullon and David Pastor, and I couldn’t be more disappointed. Pastor, who wrote and directed CARRIERS (2009) and THE LAST DAYS (2013) were both of noticeably higher caliber, despite his now well-established obsession with viral epidemics. Gullon wrote ENEMY (2013) for God’s sake, a vastly superior and endlessly cerebral and mesmerizing piece of scriptwriting. How this can be is beyond my comprehension, but its said that oil never mixes with water.

OUR OF THE DARK sets in motion a thriller about two parents searching for their missing child, only to uncover a corporate scandal hidden behind a family secret by way of a ghostly haunting in South America. Chew on that. Sarah, played by Julia Stiles, moves to South America along with her husband Paul, played by Scott Speedman, and daughter Hannah to take over her father’s business. Her father Jordan, played by Stephen Rea, is a respected man in the jungle village as he once helped bring prosperity to the poor indigenous people, but that prosperity has recently suffered due to economic downturn and tragedy. Shortly after arriving, Hannah goes missing, which leads to a witch hunt for creepy children who are suspected by Sarah to have taken her daughter, but of course her search is hindered by silence and secrecy.

Director Quilez has managed to take a dismally uninteresting script and still make a visually engaging film, despite what I imagine is a modestly modest budget. In addition, the special effects for the creepy children are low-grade but effective, a mix of makeup and digital manipulation. The overall effect of the ghostly haunting sequences is somewhat unnerving, so for that I commend the filmmaker in what would otherwise be a relatively forgettable film. As for the cast, Speedman has never gotten me excited for anything, so I’ll stop there. Stiles has ridden the fence for some time now, but ultimately takes a hit in my book with OUT OF THE DARK. She plays this film too safe, far too by the book, theatrically textbook. Perhaps the most unbearable example of this would be the key, climactic scene when she confronts her father, but I also can’t blame Stile and Rea entirely for this, because the dialogue in this scene is so utterly cliche I could nearly recite their lines before they do. The drama gives way to forced melodrama and the emotions are of the instant just-add-water equivalency.

OUT OF THE DARK (2014) is slow to get started, offers little in the way of original material and asks the audience to care way to deeply about 2-dimensional cookie cutter characters in a dispassionately written film that isn’t quite sure if it’s a paranormal thriller or an ecological morality drama. While its an excusable throw-away popcorn rental that at least looks interesting at times, its far from worth paying cinema prices. At least at home, you can kick into MST3K mode if necessary, and not risk getting asked to leave the theater… and the popcorn is a lot cheaper.

OUT OF THE DARK is currently available via VOD and opens in theaters on Friday, February 27th, 2015.

Overall Rating: 2 out of 5 stars

WYRMWOOD: ROAD OF THE DEAD – The Review

We’ve been through many cycles of cinematic history now, reached many milestones and have given birth to many cliche’s as well, but as time draws forth, where does film take hold to ensure a continued future of innovation? Certainly, technology does, and will always have its part in the creative endeavor of filmmaking, but when it comes to story, are we beginning to see the long, slow death of originality? On some levels, I fear this may be a temporary reality, but much like life and energy itself, never truly dies and will always find a way.

It will come as no surprise that many a studio film is churned out in formulaic fear of stirring the pot, rousing the dormant interest of adventurous viewers, but we still have our independence. Indie filmmakers, the experimenters, the explorers, the balls-to-the-wall, no excuses, just make it happen and make it yours pioneers. These are the artists who take risks and will always find a way to make something fresh, original and entertaining.

WYRMWOOD: ROAD OF THE DEAD is one of these films. I admit, I may sound like a grandstanding fool, but keep in mind this, like so many of the best indie films today, is not trying to please everyone. There truly isn’t a one size fits all equation for filmmaking. This is where Hollywood so often fails. This is where Australia has repeatedly shown its glory, a revelation we first uncovered back in the 70s and a resurgence that has recently become realized by more and more viewers. We may be experiencing the beginning of a renaissance down under, and if you’re a fan of genre film, you’re in for a real treat.

Like so many modern indie filmmakers, crowdfunding has been a crucial and liberating financial friend, allowing artists to reach out to their fans and peers directly, and in turn those fans and peers can have a direct and immediate impact on getting the films they want to see get made. WYRMWOOD was funded, in part, through crowdfunding. Co-writer and director Kiah Roache-Turner has delivered an entertaining, fresh, sick and twisted genre film for the fans and it does not suck.

Co-written by brothers Kiah and Tristan Roache-Turner, WYRMWOOD is not just another zombie apocalypse film… well, actually it is, but its much more. We enter into the story as the epidemic has already set in, spreading throughout the Australian Outback, but our journey follows an average mechanic names Barry (Jay Gallagher) who witnesses his wife and daughter turn into zombies. With nothing left to lose, Barry suits up and knuckles down, setting out to locate and rescue his sister Brooke (Bianca Bradey) amidst a chaotic world of flesh-eating zombies and even less-savory human beings.

WYRMWOOD can be viewed as MAD MAX meets DAWN OF THE DEAD, as some marketing suggests — the MAD MAX portion is clearly evident — but the film offers some additional nuances for the seasoned genre buff. Stylistically, the film does display a touch of the Raimi brothers, but more appropriately the visual style and graphic violence of a younger, more raw Peter Jackson, who reigns from the neighboring New Zealand. Such films as BAD TASTE (1987) and DEAD LIVE (1992) come to mind, both of which are far more graphic and violent than this, but whose influence is unmistakable. These are both films that helped pave the way for an entire genre, which is only now firmly taking hold on a wide scale.

WYRMWOOD is a dark film, both in its content and in its humor, but it also melds genres. Horror stands strong as its base, but the film is as much science fiction as it is blood and guts. Without giving anything away, I was pleased to see a film that suggests a twist on the origin of the zombie apocalypse that is new but also based on some level in fringe science. If you’d like a hint, refer to National Geographic’s TV series How to Survive the End of the World, Season 1: Episode 1: Zombie Earth (2013). This twist on the storytelling allows the film to enter new territory, explore new concepts and suggest alternate talking points in the massively popular zombie genre. On a side note, personally, WYRMWOOD is more akin to AMC’s TV Series The Walking Dead than it is to Romero’s classic DAWN OF THE DEAD (1978), but I can see both as influential.

For the true genre fans, the film offers more than it does for the average viewer. Call them bloody Easter eggs if you like, but the characters and scenarios set up in WYRMWOOD are bizarre and eccentric. David Lynch meets Stuart Gordon, with a psychotic mad scientist who loves disco music and Barry’s sister, Brooke, holds a powerful secret one may trace back to being influenced by Stephen King, or Stan Lee, depending on how you choose to interpret her ability.

WYRMWOOD: ROAD OF THE DEAD is a film that holds true to its subtitle in a literal sense. Its a road movie, about a couple of guys trying to survive a long drive through dangerous lands. The film is as familiar as it is enticing as a unique translation of the zombie apocalypse story. There is plenty of action, quality special effects and stunt work, a balanced combination of drama and comedy, believable characters who are relate-able and likable — or easy to hate, when appropriate — and most importantly, features a strong, unpretentious heroine that is more palatable than what has been offered — respectfully — from Milla Jovovich and Kate Beckinsale.

WYRMWOOD opens in select theaters on Friday, February 13th, 2015.

Overall Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

OUIJA – The Review

Although Summer has long passed, it’s not too late for another youth-oriented movie adaptation. So, what is it, another flick based on a popular series of “young adult” novels, or perhaps a “tear-jerker” like THE FAULT IN OUR STARS or IF I STAY? Is it another comic book or classic TV show getting the big screen treatment? Nope, this is based on a game. But not a video or computer game like the Lara Croft franchise or the recent NEED FOR SPEED. It’s an “old school” board game, one that’s been around for ages. The box office sinking of BATTLESHIP has not deterred the folks at Hasbro Films (an off-shoot of the toy empire). After all, GI Joe and those Transformers are still raking in the bucks. Plus THE LEGO MOVIE’s success will spawn a trio of spin-offs. Oh, and there’s a chance of cross-over money from the ravenous fright flick fans, since this game supposedly contacts the netherworld. Switch off the lamps, light up the candles, and enter the world of OUIJA.

It begins with a flashback to a pre-teen girls’ slumber party as a pretty lil’ blonde gives her BFF, along with the theatre audience, the rules of the game. Flash ahead years later and the ladies are about to finish up high school when tragedy strikes. That BFF, Laine (Olivia Cooke) is shattered by her loss. She must know why this happened and so she gets out, of course, that dusty old ouija board. Since she can’t do this alone, Laine recruits her beau Trevor (Daren Kagasoff), her rebelleous kid sister Sarah (Ana Coto), the deceased’s beau Pete (Douglas Smith), and mutual pal, diner waitress Isabelle (Bianca Santos). Needless to say, they get much more than they bargained for when all matter of weird stuff starts happening. Laine realizes that they opened a portal that has allowed an evil force into our dimension, a force that targets the five friends. Is there any way they can stop this entity and send it back before its vengeance is unleashed upon them all?

First time feature director Stiles White (a veteran special effects artist), working from the screenplay he co-wrote with Juliet Snowden, pummels the film with every PG-13 “spookshow” cliché we’ve seen again and again. Characters pop into frame with exploding music beats while others emerge from the shadows silently for no good reason other than to try to make the heroine and audience jump. The spirits are a variation of the pale, stringy-haired wild wraiths so common since THE RING from a dozen years ago. And they’re intent on offing the cast as if this were a kids’ cable channel FINAL DESTINATION. There’s none of the inventive, infectious energy that made THE CONJURING an unexpected multiplex thrill ride. Cooke leads the good-looking cast through the motions while glowering as if she was fretting over exams (much as her role in THE QUIET ONES or on TV’s “Bates Motel”). The whole cast is interchangeable, as if they were plucked from the latest CW prime time show or a soft drink commercial all running around a generic West coast town. At least Coto gets a mild punk/goth look (a ripped shirt!) along with a “grrril” snarl. We do get a couple of supporting turns from two screen vets. One’s from a current popular horror franchise, another’s a fave film teen witch. These ladies are the only adults to make an impression, the rest are invisible and ineffectual (Laine and Sarah’s single Pop skips out early on a business trip). During a brief scene in which Laine meets a school counselor we almost expect his dialogue to be replaced by the saxophone “waa-waa” of the adults in the Peanuts animated TV cartoons. The film will work for its intended audiences as young girls will bury their faces in their boyfriends’ shoulders (and to be fair, both will spring from their seats a few times), but for those of us who have been to more than a couple of movie haunted houses, it is a real slog. Do they have to play the game in the dead of night? Why not enjoy a potluck lunch before opening the window to begin the summoning? Sorry, logic’s got no place here. Instead of heading to theatres, OUIJA would be better off gathering dust with the other games

1.5 Out of 5

HONEYMOON – The Review

At some point in our lives, we all get swept away and caught up in the intoxicating high of young, new love, whether its real or imagined. While fully immersed in the depth of all this romantic and emotional giddiness, it would seem nothing could tear the two of you apart, nothing except, perhaps, a sudden and frightening event that occurs of unknown origin. Consider it the newlyweds’ worst nightmare, a honeymoon gone horribly wrong, at the hands of forces beyond your control.

In director Leigh Janiak’s film HONEYMOON, the newlyweds at the center of our story experience one version of this very nightmare. Paul and Bea are swimming in their joyous new life together and no other soul nor care in the world around them even registers on their radar. The two of them are sharing some time away from their jobs, their family, friends and everything else at a little country house by the lake. One night, Paul wakes up and finds his wife missing, only to discover her still, silent body standing almost comatose in the dark woods. Something bad has happened to Bea, but the details are lost on both of them at first.

Paul, played by Harry Treadaway, is a kind, caring average Joe that is clearly infatuated with his new wife. Bea, played by Rose Leslie of HBO’s Game of Thrones, is equally in love and the two carry on with an energetic, playfully erotic honeymoon until the mysterious night in the woods. From this point on, that carefree feeling is gone and their honeymoon rapidly spirals into a chaotic chain reaction of secrets, paranoia and unsettling revelations by Paul that something has changed about Bea and she clearly will never be the same woman he married.

The sudden and abrupt shift in tone of HONEYMOON puts on the breaks of our good time watching these two likable characters getting their kicks. The jarring nature of the event in the woods shakes us back into reality then plunges us into the uncertain and nerve-racking mystery of who, what and why. Bea plays this off at first, but her gradual emotional, psychological and physical departure from her husband sets Paul on a fear-driven mission to save her, somehow. Then the strange marks and bleeding begins and Paul struggles to convince Bea she needs help, as she pleads with Paul not to pry into what’s happening for his own safety.

The premise of HONEYMOON is fueled by the intimate setting and small cast. The answer to exactly what has occurred to Bea and why and by whom, or what, is never answered and is only vaguely eluded to as fuzzy, theoretical possibilities as derived by the audiences’ own imaginations. Then again, the film isn’t about the what, who or why, but the relationship and the aftermath this event causes. This is where Leslie and Treadaway deliver the backbone of the film, which is light on special effects and supporting cast.

HONEYMOON is a character-driven horror film of the utmost psychological nature. Something clearly happened to Bea, and is continuing to happen, evolving and progressing as Paul continues to feel more and more helpless. Treadaway shows admirable range in conveying the array of emotions Paul must endure during the span of this film, convincingly portraying a man overcome by fear, confusion, anger and to some extent, even betrayal. Leslie, on the other hand, continues to show she has grit as well as sexual appeal. She can be alluring and tough, but void of emotion or frighteningly creepy when necessary.

Janiak paints an eerie modern tale of horror with human emotions and the fear of the unknown, melding classic themes of Edgar Allen Poe with body horror that evokes the influence of David Cronenberg. HONEYMOON does not fall back on special effects or simple, primal shock tactics as a crutch to keep the audience attentive. In fact, I feel as though a very intentional effort was made to avoid the use of these tactics at all costs, whenever and however possible. This, in turn, makes for a much more enjoyable and believable experience.

HONEYMOON is a slow burn. The story builds, then crushes us, then gradually rebuilds in the aftermath of the wreckage, developing an entirely new and much darker universe for these two characters than that which we were first introduced. The film does require a small amount of patience and a slightly higher tolerance for some uncomfortable moments of minimally-risque sexual horror that will have both men and women cringing and quite possibly nauseated.

HONEYMOON opens on Friday, September 12th, 2014.

Overall Rating: 3.5 out of 5 Stars

ALMOST HUMAN – The Blu Review

Writer and director Joe Begos’ ALMOST HUMAN (2013) may draw influence from the oft-remade “Body Snatcher” genre of science-fiction, but where he strives to stand apart is by bringing the classic standard to the modern grindhouse horror audience. This is a gory, violent rendition of the concept of alien creatures taking over human bodies and controlling them from within like robots. While this approach has its niche market, I always contend that viewers should try and look past the gore and violence but still embrace it as they experience the film as a whole, then make judgments based on more than simply the visceral sights and sounds that may prove distasteful on their own.

ALMOST HUMAN, not to be mistaken for the short-lives futuristic sci-fi television series that aired the same year, presents itself with a surprisingly low key, unassuming disposition of simplicity. The film avoids the more darkly comedic, or slyly self-deprecating trends that have fared well for films like HOBO WITH A SHOTGUN, instead investing in a more dialogue-conscious, character-driver story that allows the audience to connect more closely to the human element of the horrific events that unfold on screen.

That’s awfully deep talk, so let me move beyond that now and discuss the more visceral traits. ALMOST HUMAN, perhaps shockingly, is not as gratuitously violent and gory as may have been suggested. Granted, I am coming from years of exposure to the type, but the true horror here comes from the cast and script. While the special effects are noteworthy, not over-the-top but realistic, their used sparingly, relative to the genre. Its the anticipation and drama that keeps the viewer on edge in this film.

ALMOST HUMAN stars Josh Ethier as Mark Fisher, a man returned home after having disappeared two years prior in a mysterious flash of blue light. Graham Skipper plays his friend Seth Hampton, one of a small clutch of witnesses who have tried to move on with their lives while fully aware of the unforgettable events that occurred. With Mark’s return, however, something has changed. He has changed and he has a mission.

The story takes place in Derry, Maine, the same fictional town that often serves as the setting for Stephen King’s tales of horror. Told with an indie-spirited perspective, ALMOST HUMAN could be called a minimalist backwoods alien abduction story, graphically interpreted for mature audiences, but its also an exhilarating, edge-of-your-seat film on a small scale. Ethier nails his performance as the cold, empty emotionless husk of a human body driven by its other-worldly host. Consider Schwarzenegger as the Terminator without the accent and a decent skill for acting, then dress him up like Paul Bunyan and you’ve got Mark Fisher.

ALMOST HUMAN is not your 50s sci-fi. It’s gritty, steeped in realism and yes, its violent. Why do I keep coming back to that? Because its important, but the horror isn’t entirely visual. The sound in the film plays a crucial role, both literally and psychologically. Lights and sounds become synonymous to terror and fear, whereas darkness takes an unconventional break from being the harbinger of doom. Viewing the film on blu-ray only greatly enhances this element of the film’s design. The sound becomes its own character symbiotic to the grotesque worm-like alien creature that have implanted themselves within their human hosts.

As for the special effects, the aliens themselves are handles much like Spielberg’s handling of “Bruce” the great white shark in JAWS. The less you see of the inhuman antagonist the better, generating a greater sense of fear and discomfort than can be realized by over use of special effects. Once again, this is where Begos’ use of sound plays an integral role. the aliens are far more present in the film as interpreted through the high-pitched, ear drum piercing shrieks they make. Like fingernails on chalkboards multiplied by a thousand. Add to this the short 80-minute running time and you have a compact sensory science-fiction slasher flick.

As for any lack of a happy ending in the story, this can be remedied by pleasant surprises within this blu-ray’s special features. Containing not one, but two feature-length commentaries: one with writer/director Joe Begos and Josh Ethier and another with this duo plus actor Graham Skipper and producer Cory Lockman. As if this weren’t enough for the average enthusiast, the blu-ray also includes a feature-length making of documentary, a behind-the-scenes featurette on the set with Graham Skipper, and the short film TOXIN, in addition to the standard inclusion of trailers, TV spots and photo galleries. Overall, the ALMOST HUMAN blu-ray is the total package that blends sci-fi and horror with an accessibly engaging but minimally cerebral story and lots of goodies. Oh, yeah… and, it has a chainsaw.

Tag: Horror