[Rec] 2

Where [Rec] was the Alien of hand-held, first-person horror, [Rec] 2 follows more closely with the action-heavy Aliens. Both sequels, while respecting their horror roots, amp up the intensity and focus on the action, relegating scares to a close second. [Rec] and Alien are horror films through and through, wanting to scare you more than excite you, and their sequels are really action films that maintain a thrilling and frightening atmosphere. There are more similarities than this (the fact the follow-ups focus on military teams the most obvious, something fellow action-horror sequel 28 Weeks Later does to the original 28 Days Later), but the similarities are more homage than rip-off. What is important is [Rec] 2 is a damn fine sequel and film in its own right.

The film begins just minutes after where the first finished, with a small SWAT team moving in to infiltrate the apartment building quarantined to control the deadly virus that killed nearly everyone off in [Rec]. They are joined by a doctor/priest who seems to know more than they do about the going-ons of the virus, as well as some random kids who appear towards the middle of the film. In all honesty, [Rec] 2 is not a character driven film, instead, directors Jaume Balaguero and Paco Plaza keep their eye on action and deliver thrill after thrill. This may be the films major fault, though it isn't really a detractor at all, mostly because we don't have time to care that we don't really care or no about these people we are watching. [Rec] 2 compliments [Rec], where the first film spent more time building dread and letting the audience get to know some of the characters, the second film tries to advance the plot, aka the mystery, surrounding the virus.

Which leads us to the second biggest change from [Rec] to [Rec] 2. What began as a film featuring a virus changing people into living zombies, we are now treated to (spoiler?!... not really) a supernatural action-thriller. The virus is more than just a bad case of rabies, it now has ties to some freaky demonic stuff. It could have been a silly and ridiculous premise, but Balaguero and Plaza pull it off, keeping the developments coming and employing a few tricks to expand the universe and environment they set up in the first film. Luckily, the addition of the supernatural element juxtaposed nicely with [Rec], which hinted at some of these developments, so whether the directing duo planned this from the beginning or not is up for debate, they do manage to make it work.

The actors all do a decent job of seeming real, but because they aren't all that important, at least on a personal basis, the focus should be applied to the camera work. [Rec] 2 simply makes filming what is happening important and essential to the story, so it doesn't feel forced to have a camera around all the time. And, in another Aliens homage, the SWAT team uses helmet cams, which allow the main cameraman to tap in to these feeds at will. It allows for more to happen and to be seen, while still maintaining the first-person narrative. So credit once again to the directors.

[Rec] 2 is exactly what you want from a sequel, especially one stemming from the horror genre, and it gets so much right in its limited runtime that any faults are hard to notice/complain about. It feels like a cap to the story, keeping everything contained in two films, but should there be a third, it seems that it will dramatically change what we are used to for this series. Let's hope this finishes it, where it can remain on top.

Genre - Horror (3.5)

Screenplay (4)
Acting (2)
Production (4)
Directing (4)

Tucker & Dale vs Evil

Tucker & Dale Vs Evil isn't the first horror film to employ comedy to set it apart, and it isn't the first to use that comedic base to satirize and turn the genre on its ear. But it is certainly one of the more fun examples, taking a well-worn concept and transforming it into something new and exciting. The hillbilly killer convention of the horror genre is so universal and tired, as is the cabin-in-the-woods subgenre that has its place in T&DvE, but Eli Craig, the writer and director, has turned the perspective around, making those frightening, redneck hillbillies the heroes of the film and the teens they should be hunting...well, they are still douchebags.

So Tucker and Dale, the titular rednecks, are really just a couple of sweethearts from the country, wanting to spend time at their newly purchased "vacation" home, to spend some time drinking beer and fishing. That would have been easy enough if a group of teens hadn't set up camp nearby, fearing the two men and assuming the worst. T&DvE is a film that is really about assumptions and prejudice, about human nature and its ability to judge others who are different from us, without ever attempting communication in order to understand those very people. Which sounds a lot deeper for a comedy than this one actually is, but it's important to know that it is, indeed, there.

Eli Craig's script and direction are solid throughout, giving us exactly what we'd expect to see, only presenting it in a different light. The set-ups are largely the same as you'd find in a typical horror film, with chainsaws, wood chippers, sharp sticks, and ineffectual cops enough to have even an amateur horror fan know what is being parodied. But this isn't a Funny Games dissection of the genre, so it embraces the blood, the gore, and the silliness you hope to find. With the teens essentially their own enemy in this film, because they are the ones who must do all the evil, the endless ways they are dispatched bring something fresh to a time when watching teens die isn't as fun as it used to be.

The real champions here are stars Tyler Labine and Alan Tudyk, who a handful will recognize from cult shows not enough people watched. They fill their hillbilly roles with a grace you wouldn't expect to find, and their ability to handle comedy is astounding. Tyler Labine, who seems as nice a guy in person as his character is onscreen, has a small love plot with one of the teen leads, and where that should normally fail, he pulls it off with aplomb, making it seem natural and real. The teens are really pretty one-note, but that is to be expected, so it doesn't really hurt anything, because they aren't the ones we are supposed to care about. Labine and Tudyk really make the whole film worth it, and I can only hope this sees wider distribution in the future.

Genre - Comedy (3.5)

Screenplay (4)

Acting (4)

Production (3)

Directing (3)

Triangle

There is a shot in Triangle that perfectly sums up the film, yet is so damn good that I wouldn't dare ruin it for anyone. Sadly, it would work as an amazing selling point, but those who venture into Triangle will certainly know what I'm referring to once they see said scene. Luckily, there are others scenes and aspects to discuss, which will hopefully push people to see the film.

Triangle is written and directed by Christopher Smith, most likely "known" for his horror/comedy Severance. That film was a pleasure to watch and had fun with its slightly touched upon meta humor. The characters know enough about the ideas behind horror films (though never actually referenced, to avoid Scream comparisons, that it makes watching it so much fun; it keeps you guessing. But Triangle isn't like that, and while not an out-and-out horror film, it has its fair share of thrills, which tend to be more psychological than anything. Smith, and here I'll say *spoiler alert* for those hoping to go in blind, plays with the idea of time travel/time looping to move our main character through the story. It's cleverly done, and because it is complex and layered, Triangle has you unraveling the story after it's over.

Smith does a fantastic job writing and directing, building tension slowly and keeping the majority of the thrills psychological, so it never delves too much into cliched slasher material. Due to the nature of the film, and as mentioned at the beginning of this review, there are some really incredible shots. Too bad this low-budget flick didn't see a wider release, but I'm sure it will find its audience on DVD. Triangle twists and turns, not waiting simply for the end to wow viewers. And once the final twist is revealed, it sends you reeling, trying to understand exactly what has happened and how.

The acting is good, yet the majority falls onto the shoulders of lead star Melissa George. She does a great job, filling a variety of roles and emotions. You can certainly admire just how much she had to do for this film and it really pays off. And her co-stars all do what they need to to make her plight more real, more gripping.

If the film has any faults, it's probably in the time shifts, though from my viewpoint everything worked out well. I haven't figured everything out yet, so I'll keep the possibility open. But this is a little horror flick that subverts the usual fare, which was welcome enough. I thoroughly enjoyed Triangle and hope that it will find an audience further down the line.

Genre - Horror (3.25)

Screenplay (3)

Acting (3)

Production (3)

Directing (4)

The House Of The Devil

The House of the Devil had me excited, more to see if Ti West's experiment succeeded, and less about the actual film. And I use the term experiment loosely, because the film doesn't feel all that experimental, but has qualities that differentiate it from other films of its time. While West certainly succeeds with his experiment, he has also succeeded in crafting a highly enjoyable and terrifying film, which, above all else, is the most important aspect.

At this point, those unfamiliar with The House of the Devil will be wondering what this aforementioned experiment is. Ti West, writer and director of some horror films you've likely never heard of (I haven't), has created an authentic 1980s horror film. Now, I don't mean he imitated or copied or drew inspiration from 1980s horror films, but has actually created one nearly two decades after the 80s. From the camera angles, the grainy video quality, the credit font, the pacing, the score, and just about everything else, The House of the Devil is a pitch perfect 80s film. In fact, it's better than many of the films from the actual decade. So experiment may be an appropriate term, because The House of the Devil doesn't feel like a movie made in 2009, but feels like something that came from the era of Friday the 13th and A Nightmare on Elm Street.

The story concerns itself with satanic cults, and the depraved and awful things they can do to innocent people, especially young, virgin college girls. But the film is actually more about Samantha, a young woman who is meant to "babysit" some elderly woman, stuck alone in a huge house in the middle of nowhere. West uses this time to build tension, slowly, which lends itself to some truly stomach clenching moments. Instead of jump scares - though there are a few - West builds upon a growing sense of dread, having the audience fear for Samantha's life, whose only foul was being desperate.

The acting is consistently solid, and the performance by Tom Noonan is quite good. He has a presence, and while he may not seem, at first, to fit, his role may be more essential because of this. And while Noonan deserves much of the credit, West managed to write characters with unique voices that seemed to be layered enough to be interesting. His script has us caring what happens to Samantha and her friend Megan. That is not an easy task, probably because it is so rare in current horror films. The teens in present day horror are all mean-spirited and obnoxious, so their deaths don't mean as much to viewers as characters we care about.

The House of the Devil is tense in all the best ways. It is a horror film that doesn't rely on jump scare tactics or excessive gore to sell the fear. This is a beautifully crafted film that belongs to another decade, but audiences now will have the pleasure of seeing it in this era, before it has a chance to age and gain a cult following. The House of the Devil is a stylistic throwback that anyone who experienced horror films in the 80s should see, but so should horror fans of the present. It's truly worth it.

Genre - Horror (3.5)

Screenplay (3)

Acting (3)

Production (4)

Directing (4)

Shutter Island

It's wonderful to see a horror film treated with so much respect, especially by a director as well-known and prolific as Martin Scorsese. And make no mistake, Shutter Island is a horror film, and a well-made one at that, which likely explains the mixed critical reactions. The mystery and thriller aspects to Shutter Island combine with the horror elements, creating a unique blend, but the film's horror roots cannot be ignored, and I'm glad Scorsese didn't shy away.

Based on the novel by Dennis Lehane, author of Mystic River and Gone Baby Gone, Shutter Island is an altogether different beast from previous works. Sure, the location is similar, but the tone is darker, the tension higher, and genre twisted. I say genre twisted, because Lehane is a writer with mystery backgrounds, which is prevalent in Shutter Island, but certainly not limited to. The film is no different, and perhaps more atmospheric than the novel it was adapted from. Scorsese embraces the horror, the paranoia, and audiences are treated to a glimpse into a genre they usually hold in disdain. This is a horror movie that takes it's time with the characters, lets the mood build and culminate in a final, game-changing twist. By the time of the big reveal, we've come to know these characters, whether they're wholly truthful or not.

As I've already mentioned, Scorsese treats Shutter Island with respect, framing scenes much like those of horror films, utilizing shadows, paranoia, jump scares, loud noises, and the score to create tension and fear. Combine that with the setting - a mental institution - and the apparent brutality of the doctors and their procedures, and you definitely have the workings of a horror flick...or thriller if you will. Shutter Island is a beauty, and whether you enjoy the story or not, it's hard to argue the film isn't gorgeous. Scorcese is a talented director, and Shutter Island proves this.

His cast is wonderful, from Leonardo DiCaprio to Mark Ruffalo to Ben Kingsley. Each of them brings their character to life, and I argue Kingsley does the most terrific job. I don't usually fawn over Kingsley's work, but he captivated me every time he was on screen, and I wanted more of him. But everyone does a fantastic job, especially in light of the twist ending, when you realize there is more to each character than you would have thought. And while the role is limited, Jackie Earle Hayley plays wonderful creeps, and his performance as a deeply trouble and violent patient resonated long after he appeared.

Shutter Island exceeded my expectations, which I'm glad to report. For a Lehane adaptation, it ranks close with Ben Affleck's Gone Baby Gone, and stretches far beyond Clint Eastwood's Mystic River. Judge for yourself, but this is a film worth seeing.

Genre - Horror (3.75)

Screenplay (3)

Acting (4)

Production (4)

Directing (4)

[Rec]

The trend in horror to film from the perspective of a camera, as if the scenes unfolding before us were, in fact, real, is one that can divide audiences as much as excessive gore. Cloverfield worked because the story was interesting and the monster was fascinating. Also, the camera work wasn't entirely too hectic and thus motion sickness and vomiting wasn't an issue. The Blair Witch Project is the most famous example (and one I haven't seen at the time of writing), yet Paranormal Activity, and the ridiculous amount of money it has raked in, certainly can be called the most successful. But while the aforementioned films can be deemed good or bad almost entirely upon the camera work and scare factor, I think none in the genre is better than [Rec].

[Rec] is a Spanish horror flick from the minds of Jaume Balaguero and Paco Plaza. The plot, and setting, is fairly simple. Angela Vidal is a reporter doing a fluff news piece on a team of firefighters when a call comes in. When they arrive at the apartment complex where the call came from, they find no fire, but instead distressed tenants. That's when everything goes awry and the firefighters, the news team, and the tenants are sealed in the apartment to contain a virus that turns people into zombie like crazies. Like the rage infected Brit's from 28 Days Later, but in a more contained area. It's not so much the plot that makes [Rec] so interesting, but the way it is presented. Balaguero and Plaza keep the audience's perspective strictly inside the news camera, so the scares come from what you don't see (or what jumps in your face). And while some of the scares are of the cheaper variety, there is a building sense of dread throughout the film that makes it a truly effective horror film.

The writing isn't much different from what you'd find in an average horror flick, but it certainly isn't worse. There is the set up, the screaming and yelling required of the characters, and the scary shit happening in between everything. But the acting, for the most part, works because the actors seem like real people trapped in an awful situation. Or maybe they are just unknown actors speaking a foreign language. Either way, the characters felt genuine, so feeling bad when everything came crashing down around them was easier than most horror movies allow. And, as is inherent in handheld cinema, characters are allowed to act "on," because there is a camera in their face. That gives a lot of leniency to the actors.

Not to sound too repetitive, but the real effectiveness of [Rec] comes from the camera work and directing style. Balaguero and Plaza have the audience at their mercy, letting them see what is in front of the camera and having them guess at what is just out of frame. A big death at the foot of the main stairway and the films climax are truly chilling scenes and prove how skillful the directors are at their craft. [Rec] is a horror film, and a scary one, that proves that some of the best thrillers are coming from outside the U.S. And you can be sure the American remakes won't nearly match the originals quality (which is true for [Rec]'s shot-for-shot remake Quarantine).

Genre - Horror (3.75)

Screenplay (4)
Acting (3)
Production (4)
Directing (4)

Pontypool

Atmosphere is important, especially in a horror film. Creating dread, fear, anxiety is the hardest job a director has, and Pontypool manages to make those feelings real. The story follows Grant Mazzy, his producer, and tech girl at a small town radio station in the snowy Canadian city of Pontypool. Over the course of the day, reports come in about a riot, some massive uprising in the townspeople, a madness spreading over the city. Director Bruce McDonald confines the events of the day in the radio station hidden in the basement of a local church, leaving the audience to fear the unknown, experience the anxiety of the characters, who are forced to report on this chilling story without any actual evidence. Tony Burgess, the writer of both the screenplay and the novel it is based upon, handles the first two-thirds of the story expertly, keeping most of the action out of the radio station, thus distancing it from his characters. The final third is the far more convoluted, when too much exposition is employed to explain the madness changing the town into cannibals. None of this would have worked, however, if the main cast wasn't able to sell it. Stephen McHattie, as Grant Mazzy, really makes his character believable, not knowing if the trouble rising in Pontypool is real, or just some elaborate hoax being played on the once star radio host. Pontypool is a clever twist of the horror genre.

Genre - Horror (3)

Screenplay (3)
Acting (3)
Production (3)
Directing (3)

Drag Me To Hell

Welcome back, Sam. It's been many years since you've given us a horror film (even more if you exclude Army of Darkness, given its more action/comedy vibe), yet clearly you've still got it. Even with the limits of PG-13, Drag Me to Hell manages to relentlessly attack the audience with so many jump scares, you'll be on the edge of your seat the entire film, knowing if you relax for even a second, some frightening image will pop off the screen. But while jump scares are usually the cheapest kind, director Sam Raimi knows how to utilize them, especially when they're mixed with his signature comedic touch. Drag Me to Hell wont be the scariest film you've ever seen, but in the modern, watered-down world of horror, you'll be hard pressed to find one that is as much fun. Fans of Raimi's work, especially of his Evil Dead trilogy, may notice little callbacks to those films, and his time as a young filmmaker. In one scene, a possessed many does a little dance jig, which I believe Bruce Campbell did as Evil Ash in Army of Darkness. The acting is solid all around the board, even Justin Long, who is both loved and reviled by so many. Which is comforting, watching a horror film without cringing at terrible acting. Younger horror fans will certainly dig Drag Me to Hell, showing them a side of the genre they might not have been introduced to yet, and die hard Raimi fans will relish the style and passion they remember from his older work. Drag Me to Hell is a creepy, funny, gross little picture, and I guarantee you'll walk out of the theater with a smile on your face.

Genre - Horror (3.75)

Screenplay (4)
Acting (3)
Production (4)
Directing (4)

Splinter

Six cast members. From start to finish, only six cast members step in front of the camera, two of them only for a few minutes. I like that. Especially in a movie like this, when high concept could have stepped in and muddy the events preceding it. While Splinter is hardly a perfect horror film, or even a particularly memorable one, it is a fun flick. The story is simple: monster, hostages, blood/gore, gas station. That about sums it up. For some, Splinter will be lacking in fast paced action, others will enjoy the character development that begins the film but will be disappointed when it tails off halfway in, and others will question the questionable science. But these are problems many horror films face, and in one that doesn't take itself too seriously, as Splinter does, they are easy to forgive. Plus, the monster was an interesting one, building itself from body parts of its victims, which it kills because it is simply a disease/bacteria/virus thing that needs to feed. But the splinter aspect is what really intrigued me, and I hope to see further development of the splintering in another film (though I am not encouraging stealing the idea, but suggesting the creators of Splinter do something cool).

Genre - Horror (2.5)

Screenplay (2)
Acting (3)
Production (3)
Directing (2)

Fido

Oh, how I wanted to love this. A comedy/horror film about domesticated zombies. What's not to love about that? Well, a lot of it actually. Fido is by no means terrible. It is just so mediocre that I can't help but feel disappointed. There was so much that could have been done with Fido, I'm surprised it decided to stick to the same jokes and skimp on any real social commentary. It tries, but never really takes advantage of the opportunity. Maybe Andrew Currie, a writer and the director of Fido, should reexamine George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead for an example of zombie social commentary (zosocom?). But he does have some fun with his characters, building an interesting enough character out of Fido himself, the zombie a middle class family buys as a...well, slave essentially. The character never speaks and instead just grunts, as zombies are ought to do, yet audience's will probably care more for Fido than any of the other characters, which is a testament to that one character, yet kind of a sad statement for the human characters surrounding him. In the end, there are so many zombie films, one disappointment just leaves room for dozens of others to surpass.

Genre - Comedy/Horror (2.25)

Screenplay (2)
Acting (2)
Production (3)
Directing (2)

Inside

I haven't seen this much blood spilled on screen since Peter Jackson's Dead Alive. Sure, I enjoy myself a gory movie just as much as the next horror buff, but damn. I guess movies made outside the U.S. really know how to utilize gore (Dead Alive being from New Zealand), and Inside, from France, escalates the blood factor as the ending draws nearer, perhaps even rivaling Peter Jackson's classic. Wait, you can't beat that lawnmower scene. Sorry. Now, I'm aware I'm focusing a lot on blood, but good Christ, there is a ton of it here. The story, which centers around a pregnant woman alone on Christmas Eve and who is subsequently terrorized by a psychotic woman, builds slowly, until the climax arrives, and it does so with a fury. All the best aspects of foreign horror are here; super depressing, twisty, and (shocking) it is actually creepy. Inside is fairly self-contained, with most of it taking place in the pregnant woman's home, more specifically her bathroom. There are all sorts of boundaries pushed with Inside, more so than any American film would dare, and the result is refreshing. The only complaint? While I kind of dug the climax, it unrolled fairly slowly and upped the ridiculous factor a little too high, but overall, it still is fun. I dare any viewer to watch Inside without squirming just a little, especially when the baby stuff comes into play. Good luck.

Genre - Horror (3.5)

Screenplay (3)
Acting (3)
Production (4)
Directing (4)

The Last House On The Left (2009)

Let's get business out of the way first. The Last House on the Left is not a horror movie, at least not in the way you'd imagine. It is more of a thriller, an intense and psychological one, where the only real comparison to horror is the occasional bloody demise of a bad guy. Wait, did I say bad guy? Yup, for those of you who haven't seen the original LHOTL film, made by Wes Craven in 1972, this is a tale that turns the usual victim/hunter relationship on its head. I still have yet to see the original, but remakes don't get me all childish and pouting because an old classic is attempted again. The original remains intact, so quit whining.

The Last House on the Left, of the 2009 variety, was tightly paced, and to watch the family, whose daughter was raped and abused, seek revenge on the very same people when they accidentally arrive on their front doorstep is wonderful. You can cheer when one of Krug's (Garret Dillahunt) gang is offed, because their horrible actions earlier may (?) justify the killing. I thought the script kept things moving, and there weren't any moments of boredom, perhaps because of all the anticipation of knowing what was going to happen next. Dennis Iliadis has directed a very nice looking film, and even pushes up close when the worst things happen, forcing you to watch them. I liked that touch. It felt especially effective, yet disturbing when we witness daughter Mari's rape. The scene is uncomfortable and real, but it is necessary to the plot. It makes the family's reaction justifiable. Only the microwave gimmick at the end had me shaking my head at plausibility, but it was a fun image and certainly entertaining.

Genre - Thriller (3)

Screenplay (3)
Acting (3)
Production (3)
Directing (3)

Feast II: Sloppy Seconds

So part two. Was this film necessary? Not even remotely. The first Feast was all we needed. It was fun, fast, and gory, and ended on the perfect note. Feast II: Sloppy Seconds picks up where the previous one left off, but ignored the main survivors of the first film and focus on a new bunch, mixing some original, yet lesser characters mix in. All fine, except there are stretches of Feast II that are utterly boring, and add nothing to the overall story. Yes, story means little for something like Feast II, but nothing should be completely pointless. I liked the gore increase, but there were an extra fifteen-, twenty-minutes that could have been cut for the sake of the audience's sanity. When an hour-and-a-half film feels long, then you know something is wrong. That said, there are moments of genius inspiration, the best of them including the messy demise of a baby. It is shocking and unexpected (to a degree), but hilarious at the same time. I can't say I've ever seen anything like it. Marcus Dunstan and Patrick Melton return as screenwriters, and famous for the recent Saw flicks, but are not nearly as sharp as their previous outing.

Genre - Horror (1.75)

Screenplay (2)
Acting (1)
Production (2)
Directing (2)

Feast

When I first heard about Feast, it was during the third season of Bravo's Project Greenlight. I wasn't too intrigued by the film while watching the show, but decided to give it a chance when it hit DVD. Hey, I'm a horror-whore, so why not? I found that Feast lived up to its name, as I constantly wanted more. The pace is set extremely high, giving viewers little time to keep up. But with a horror film, and a comedic one at that (and a self-aware one on top of all that), I don't mind the breakneck speeds. But what say you of the acting? Eh, there were some actors, but nothing too god-awful. Production? Cheap. Directing? Someone filmed it, I guess. Feast works not for the aforementioned reasons, but because the script has a ton of fun with the material. And, like any good horror film of this caliber - i.e. monster movie - there are mountains of gore, the whole film leaving a bloody mess in its wake. Watch Feast for fun, to have a good time, and to watch monsters rip people to shreds for no reason at all.

Genre - Horror (2.5)

Screenplay (3)
Acting (3)
Production (2)
Directing (2)

Eden Lake

I vow (for the limited time until I forget the vow) to stop defending horror films. Why? Good or bad, critics just don't seem to get horror films. Sure, some do, but most critics try and grade horror films as if they were failed dramas. But horror films, aside from (critically acclaimed) classics like The Exorcist, The Shining, etc, are often times meant as fun, blood-pumping visceral experiences. I consider The Thing a classic, but in the end it is a gore-filled monster movie where characters make some silly mistakes. It is the nature of a horror film.

So I now arrive at Eden Lake. A British tale of horror that kept me on edge from the start, and left me speechless and moved. Rarely is a hunter-and-prey horror film that is set in the woods well acted, but Eden Lake is one of the exceptions. I felt for the couple whose romantic getaway is interrupted by murderous children, and rooted for their escape, but knowing full well the odds were not in their favor. James Watkins, the scribe and director, created an intense, atmospheric indie horror flick. Some may be disappointed by the "twist" ending, but I found it just added to the downbeat tone the rest of the film carried. I was reminded of The Strangers and Ills while watching Eden Lake, and that wasn't a bad thing. Just the helpless, unfortunate couple caught in a mess they cannot escape from. I still haven't shook the feeling of dread Eden Lake delivered, and I'm glad for this. It means something worked.

Genre - Horror (3.5)

Screenplay (3)
Acting (4)
Production (3)
Directing (4)

Cube

God, I'm a sucker for movies with isolated characters, trapped and fighting for their lives. Nothing original about, but damn are they entertaining. Saw was great for this reason, but Cube did it first (at least of these two examples). I'll give Cube credit for one thing right off the bat; it tried to be smart. And you know what? It did, for the most part, or at least as far as I can tell. The math seems plausible, and the construction of the deadly cube rings true to me. Not many horror movies put this much thought into their plotting. But fuck math, right? You just want to watch Cube for inventive and violent killings? Well, the movie definitely has those. So in the end, you get a semi-intelligent, quick paced, violent thriller that leaves you hanging. Cube throws a lot of questions at the audience, and answers very few. And while some find that unsatisfying, I loved it.

Genre - Horror (3)

Screenplay (3)
Acting (2)
Production (4)
Directing (3)

Friday The 13th (2009)

It seems, in my humble opinion, that the slasher genre is often misunderstood. Which is odd, figuring how mindless a genre it typically is. Audiences and critics just don't seem to get how these slice-and-dice films work. The formula is simple: a killer murders victims (young and often half-dressed) in inventive ways that lead to tons of bloodshed. Sure, they can be more than that, but often this is what you get. When will people understand this?

But, to get back on track, does this work for Friday the 13th? I say yes. While some may label me a heretic, I will say that the original Friday the 13th left me underwhelmed. It is the only Friday movie I've seen, and it didn't make me care enough to seek others. And Jason wasn't even in it. But this new, sleek, Jason-filled Friday the 13th reboot is a blast. It starts quick, and the violence and nudity continue until the credits roll. What more could you ask for? The film is fun, never takes itself too seriously, but wisely chooses not to mock itself. Some things seem outlandish (duh, slasher movie), and that is due to uninspired screenwriting. But the directing and technical aspects are fantastic. A worthy entry into the slasher genre.

Genre - Horror (3.25)

Screenwriting (2)
Acting (3)
Production (4)
Directing (4)

Saw V

Finally, a Saw that gives us something new, or at least newish. Sure, Saw V has faults, many of them, but I respect what the writers tried to do. They twisted the usual story line, and focused more on Scott Patterson's Agent Strahm than the victims. Plus, the amount of gore was significantly reduced, perhaps in response to the erroneous claims of "torture porn." Director David Hackl takes over for Darren Lynn Bousman (Saw II - IV), though his work seems lacking when compared to Bousman.

Genre - Horror (2.5)

Screenplay (2)
Acting (3)
Production (3)
Directing (2)

Saw IV

And then there were four. It is more mayhem and madness, this time with Riggs as the victim. Jigsaw and apprentice Amanda are dead, but the former continues to make appearances in flashbacks that explain why he does what he does. A pretty bold move to kill your villain partway through the series, but Saw enjoys doing these things. So Saw IV is much like the others, but sometimes (like every Halloween) that is what audiences need. And new script writers Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan breathe some fresh air into the series.

Genre - Horror (2.75)

Screenplay (3)
Acting (3)
Production (3)
Directing (2)

Saw III

Saw III is much like Saw II, in that it features a victim of Jigsaw who must face impossible decisions in order to live. The plot isn't necessarily important, but how events transpire are. You have Jeff (Angus MacFadyen), who must decide whether or not to let those responsible for his sons death die. So some gruesome torture scenes ensue, and then the inevitable twist arrives, which works well with the mixed story lines of the franchise. If you're a fan of the series, Saw III is a worthy entry.

Genre - Horror (2.75)

Screenplay (2)
Acting (3)
Production (3)
Directing (3)