Storage 24 (2013)

Storage 24

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

(Really Liked It) 

Netflix Synopsis:  In this creepy thriller, an emergency power shutdown in London leaves four friends trapped by random circumstances in a cavernous storage facility. Before long, the group realizes that something lethal is inside the darkened warehouse with them. 

The Peeps: Johannes Roberts (director); Noel Clarke, Marc Small, Davie Fairbanks (writers); Noel Clarke, Colin O'Donoghue, Laura Haddock, Antonia Campbell-Hughes

Quick Run Down: Tense, Creepy, Atmospheric, Fun

Worth The Watch?: Yes!

A plane crash leaves Hyde Park in ruins and inadvertently locks several young Brits in a storage unit because the power failure caused by the crash has left the security of the facility on the fritz. If this isn't bad enough, most of the people in the place know each other and there is a current, sour separation going on between two of them. But then you have the cherry on top - there's one more person... well, thing... in the storage unit too.   It's not there to check up on it's stored stuff, either.  It's there for blood!

The British seem to really get it right in the horror genre every now and then.  For example, Neil Marshall's The Descent, Shaun of the Dead (comedy/horror; huge success), and Attack the Block (not big in the States but a great sleeper horror that is well worth the watch for any nationality), and while Storage 24 is not a great movie, it IS a movie that takes a basic premise, a single location, and a some imagination and talent to make a creature feature.  And that is just what Storage 24 is - a well paced, atmospheric, well-executed, cool creature feature.

Storage 24 starts off with a big bang.  Literally.  We hear a huge explosion outside of the storage unit the film starts off in and this, we come to realize, is the sound of the plane crashing into Hyde Park.  From here, things don't escalate very quickly.  In fact, they don't really start moving until about half an hour into the film, but the cast and the crew handle the film adeptly enough that you don't lose interest and you want to keep watching.  Once we get into the storage unit and there is real interaction, things pick up and that's when Roberts, the director, really starts showing his moves.  He milks the tension with great use of angles and close ups, relying mostly on sound and quivering eyeballs to tell and sell his tension.  Couple this with an X-Files inspired score that's good and moody and an alien creature that is partial CG/partial prostethcis but very well stitched into the film in both regards, and the movie moves quickly and keeps you interested and entertained.  There are some inevitable questions of debatable logic and decision making, but Storage overall maintains its creep factor at a high while working with minor character arcs and occasional scares.  There are even a few scenes of carnage that are deliciously drawn out just to make up for the lack thereof in the first 3/4's of the film.  Also, the location used is uniquely shot to give it a very vast, labrynth-like feel and, though you can sometimes tell the same shot is being used again and again, Roberts' pacing keeps those details hidden in the excitement going on in the film or easily forgivable because the film is doing its job and entertaining.  My biggest complaint would be the persistent presence of yellow, which often gives the cast and the background a sickly, jaundice color.  At first I thought it was a unique artistic choice, but then I realized it was just a repurcussion of the color scheme of the location design.  It doesn't hurt the film, but it's kind of distracting in some of the earlier scenes.  Just a heads up.

So, if you want to watch a creepy, tense, atmospheric, and fun British creature feature, I would definitely check out Storage 24.  It is surprisingly good, would make for a good couple on the couch with popcorn flick, and might even be something fun to sit down and watch with older kids/teens.  If you don't believe me, check it out.  It's on Netflix!

___
*Disclaimer: Netflix is TM and copyrighted; all rights reserved.  Any material used or stemming from the site is theirs, exclusively.  This site is not, in any way, affiliated with Netflix.  It's only a horror hound's effort to help consumers find the best (and worse) horror movies available on the website. Happy watching!

  

Rise Of The Zombies (2012)

Rise Of The Zombies

 

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

(Didn't Like It)

Netflix Synopsis: When the undead overrun San Francisco, a desperate group survives by locking themselves inside Alcatraz Prison and must gamble everything on finding a way to stop the zombie scourge before it's too late.

The Peeps: Nick Lyon (director); Keith Allan, Delondra Williams (writers); Marial Hemingway, LeVar "Reading Rainbow!" Burton, Ethan Suplee, Danny Trejo

Quick Run Down:  Lots of CGI, Lots of Gun Shots To The Face, Lots of Running and Screaming, Not Enough Reasons To Say It's A Good Movie

Worth The Watch?:  No, Unless You're Just In That Kind Of Mood...

Rise of the Zombies follows a mixed group of survivors that are hiding out on Alcatraz after a zombie outbreak.  The bay current (...yeah...) somehow manages to bring in a tide of zombies and the group decides to head to the San Fran mainland in order to seek out the doctor that is on the verge of a cure.




There's nothing else you can do with zombie movies, and what you may come up with will be better executed on "The Walking Dead" before that phenomenon is finally given it's fatal bullet to the brain.  Rise is an example of this because the film offers nothing new save some good looking film (not even good shots or frames, just a good picture quality) and a slew of actors that inspire you to scratch your head and ask, "Are they THAT desperate?"  Marial Hemingway, Danny Trejo, Ethan Suplee, French Stewart - all actors that, at one point or other, were doing decent secondary/tertiary characters in big budget films.  Now, they are starring in zombie spin offs.  Oh, and there's LeVar Burton too!  You may remember an educational show called 'Reading Rainbow' that was on during the early 90's and LeVar was the host.  I haven't seen him in anything since, but he's in Rise and he's not bad.  He plays a scientist left on Alcatraz, so we get less and less of him as the film moves on, but it's still cool to see the guy from your childhood telling us about what he sees in his microscope.  Age has treated him well, too, even if he is doing B-rated zombie flicks.  Speaking of B-rated, this film isn't so much that as it is just uninspiring.  There is literally no character development and what we do get about any of the characters doesn't come until almost half an hour in.  From there, more is gradually divulged, all in the effort to keep the action "non-stop" and build characters as the film moves on.  This only semi-works for one girl, though, and once she's out of the picture, we're back to screaming, running, and shooting zombies in the face with head crown explosions CG'ed in afterwards.  There's one intense scene that is WAY over the top, but I give kudos for a pretty ballsy, albeit exploitive, sequence.  It'll make you squirm, to say the least.


There's not much to say about Rise of the Zombies.  The dialogue is eh, the acting is shoddy, the effects are poor (the opening sequence is just abysmal), and the plot is splotchy.  Personally, I'd say skip watching it, unless you're just in that kind of mood.  You know, when you're willing to torture yourself just to get a few cheap laughs.  One of those kinds of moods.  A beer and rowdy friends kind of deal.  But, hey - don't let me hinder you.  You can watch it whenever you want; it's on Netflix!!

What happens to this kid brings a whole new meaning to
late term abortion...

 

Pet Sematary II (1992)

Pet Sematary II

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

(Really Liked It)

Netflix Synopsis: Having moved to a different town to start a new life, 13-year-old Jeff and his new friend Drew discover a strange Indian burial ground. After burying Drew's dog in the cemetery, they realize they've unleashed a deadly evil that can't be stopped.

The Peeps: Mary Lambert (director); Richard Outton (writer); Edward Furlong, Anthony Edwards, Clancy Brown

Quick Run Down: Atmospheric, Fast Paced, Surprisingly Grisly, Good

Worth The Watch?:  Yeah!

Pet Sematary II brings us to Ludlow, Maine, again, after Jeff (the first ever emo-kid Edward Furlong) and his father, Chase (Anthony Edwards with hair!) move there following the tragic death of Jeff's mother.  Once they arrive, Jeff makes friend with Drew, whose dog dies and they decide to bury it in the Indian burial ground, Pet Sematary, where legend has it, the dead come back to life.  They do in fact do that, but it seems that the dead bring Death with them when they come 'round the second time!

Pet Sematary II works for several different reasons.  First, there is a lot going on in the script, but it manages to not be too busy.  There's an angry stepfather angle, a boy that's lost his mother angle, a bully angle, and a scary angle.  All of these are nicely woven into the script by Outten to expand and intensify what is a thin, basic plot, a point the original Pet suffered from.  In this second one, when one angle plays through, there's another one to fall back on, helping the film move quickly and usher us into a grisly last 30/40 minutes.  Second, Lambert has stepped up her game this time behind the camera.  You've got some energetic camera movement, some killer production design, and good lighting, all working together to create a nice ambience and background.  The main actors in this sequel are lacking, but Sherriff Gus (Clancy Brown) is intimidating and unpredictable and by the film's end, he's tracking carnage all through the movie.  He's not the lead, but he practically carries the film in certain parts, and you can tell that Lambert began to rely on him more and more.  He's a lot of fun to watch and gives the movie a lot of the sinister quality it ultimately exudes.  The final thing that makes Pet II work is its grisly nature.  In the first film, there were some special effects, but they don't even come close to the 2nd.  This one has some cringe worthy moments that are both suggested and shown, and they bump up the degree of the film's effect.  King apparently had nothing to do with this production (he's not listed as any kind of affiliate, co-writer, producer, etc.) which is probably because, once he saw the nature of the violence in the film, he decided not to be involved.  He's noted as saying (in his book Bag Of Bones, I think) that the horror genre was moving further away from heroes and tone and praising more of the Monster and the pain the Monster could inflict.  I could easily see him having this opinion of Pet II, as it is surprisingly violent and gives the Monster the opportunity to almost get away with everything.  Whatever the reason, with King not being a part of the production, it feels like Lambert just said, "Screw it.  Let's do some really fucked up stuff in this film."  And she did, from rabbit gutting to face gnawing with a running dirt bike tire to power drills through the shoulder and melting faces.  Grisly, indeed, but it really sets the film a step above the rest.  I don't just say that because of the violence, either.  I love it when a horror movie embraces an R rating and runs it, really gives the audience what they are looking for.  After all, we're all adults, and we don't go to R rated horror movies to see mushy relationship and subtle fear.  We want some churning stuff that doesn't exploit but isn't scared to work with dark themes and capture a certain profile of evil.  Pet Sematary II doesn't quite got THAT far, but it tries and that's all I'm  - we're - asking for.  And, personally, I think it does it pretty successfully.

So, if you wanna see an early 90's horror film that turns out to be much more of a gem than you would expect, check out Pet Sematary II.  It's grisly, creepy, atmospheric, fun, and I don't think you'll be disappointed.  It's on Netflix!!

 

Pet Semetary (1989)



Pet Sematary

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

(Didn't Like It)

Netflix Synopsis: Louis Creed moves his family to the country and discovers a cursed burial ground on his property that brings the dead back to life -- yet with an added streak of evil. An accident soon forces the heartbroken father to contemplate the unthinkable.

The Peeps: Martha Lambry (director); Stephen King (writer); Dale Midkiff, Fred Gwynne, Denise Crosby, Miko Hughes

Quick Run Down: Wanting, Trying, Little Bit of  B.S.

Worth The Watch?: No... Unfortunately, I'd Say 'Next'

The Crandell family of four has just moved into a new house on the outskirts of a small town.  The father, Louis (Dale MidKiff), is a doctor in the city but, after a series of tragic events, he finds his expertise hasn't educated him in the kind of death he's up against.

I want to say I'm a Stephen King fan, but I can't.  I've only read a few of his books, and that was mostly in H.S.  I still think he's an incredible writer, though (despite my lack of readership) for three reasons: he's prolific as all hell; have you seen how many of his shorts and novels have become movies?, and have you read his "On Writing" - Awesome!  All that being said, a good novelist doesn't necessarily design a good screenwriter because the script for this movie is eh.  It moves, but combining movement with a lazy partner (director Lambry) creates an overall sloppy combo that just doesn't make an entertaining dance.  Pet tries and works in certain instances, but, ultimately, it's a series of events that are barely atmostpheric because they only reach out from the center of a morbid tragedy.  That was King's point, well-deserved in his novel (I actually read this one!), but his macabre sense doesn't carry over in the film adaption.  The premise is there, ripe for horror, but the ultimate product is glossy, superficial, and unaffecting.  The "sematary" and the child are the only real selling points and they become used as the film moves on, namely after the actual 'thing' in the story happens.  That doesn't stop some creepiness from ensuing - it's freaking King, guys! - but it still doesn't make for a good horror movie.  When the guillotine finally falls, this is a horror film left mostly frightless.

Fred Gwynne (Munsters) plays the friendly neighbor in this, and he's awesome.  He makes you want to make a fire, pop the top on a bottleneck of beer, and listen to his stories about growing up in the small town.  Also, the kid that plays Gage is the cutest little boy I've ever seen.  He later goes on to play in Mercury Rising, which he's cute in too, but in Pet he's just adorable. 

So, if you want to watch a Stephen King written flick that doesn't do much, have at Pet Sematary.  It's not good, by any means, but there are some mediocre parts that do for minor scares.  Otherwise, I'd say next.  Your call.  It's on Netflix!

Holy crap - look at that face!

 

Scream (1996)

Scream

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

(Loved It!)

Netflix* Synopsis: Horror maven Wes Craven -- paying homage to teen horror classics such as Halloween and Prom Night -- turns the genre on its head with this tale of a murderer who terrorizes hapless high schooler Sidney Prescott by offing everyone she knows.

The Peeps: Wes Craven (director); Kevin Williamson (writer); Neve Campbell, Skeet Ulrich, David Arquette, Courtney Cox, Mathew Lillard, Jamie Kennedy, Rose McGowan

Quick Run Down: Fresh, Inventive, Fun, Great One-Liners, Fast-Paced, Clever

Worth The Watch?: Yes!

I'm gonna throw a disclaimer out there before I even begin this review.  I'm young.  More specifically, I was 13 when Scream came out.  I remember my best friend's Mom said she would take us to see it at the local theater if we'd do certain chores around the house, and, of course, we said "Hell yeah!"  After getting slapped for cursing, we did those chores then went to the movie that night.  In one sentence - it freaked me the hell out!  I didn't know or understand horror films then, had only seen Texas Chainsaw Massacre and The Exorcist once, in the day time, with all the lights on, with nothing hanging over the edge of the couch because I didn't want Leatherface or Lucifer to reach out and saw off slash possess my freaking foot.  But what Scream did for me was more than entertain and terrify.  It showed me that there's a method to all of the madness that is fear and blood and guts in horror films.  I was pretty much sold after that.

Scream opens with one of the best, if not THE best, hook for any horror movie.  In the first 12 minutes, we get everything we need - the voice, the challenge, the face, the viciousness. the intestines.  The audience is drawn in by questions, superficially easy until Ghost Face wises up and says, you think you're smart?  I KNOW horror movies; you don't know shit!  And we don't.  The script starts throwing us curve balls, red herrings, scares, and original, fresh, interactive metafictional play that is fun when it's dull, frightening when it's spot on.  Williamson, the writer, took the frame of a horror movie and made it into a plot, but let's not get into that sort of talk.  Technicalities can make or break a film, critically, but sheer entertainment is what sells.  And Scream is entertaining.  Save Ulrich, who just looks as angst and greasy as a mid-20's guy could, the acting is good for a bunch of 90's teens, and their chemistry works.  Personally, I think Lillard chews the frame up with spontaneous bursts of energy; Jamie Kennedy kills with dialogue and insight; and Rose McGowen has the most wonderful chest a horror movie has ever seen.  And that's just eye candy.  There is some really killer dialogue being thrown around, some awesome cameos, and just an arrange of "funness" making the whole goddamn thing SO MUCH FUN!  I don't know if you've gathered this yet, but I really like a fun horror movies and, for the 90's, this tops the list.  It's not overtly serious, it's tongue in cheek, it's mysterious, and... well... it's FUN!  There, I said it again.  I'm sorry, I really am.  I just really thing it's a cool fucking movie.

The scares are good; the dialogue is really good; there are good gore shots; and there are some really good sequences in the film that build to a tense climax.  The finale doesn't lack by any means, and Lillard, by his lonesome self, brings drama and comedy (oh, the one liners!) as things come to a bloody conclusion.  I can mostly take or leave the rest of the franchise, but I dig this one and I think it is ABSOLUTELY worth the watch.

So, if you want to see something that is original, fresh, entertaining, and... who wooda guessed it?!... FUN!, check out Scream. It's a killer(!) slasher flick and well worth the watch.  Plus, it's on Netflix!!

___
*Disclaimer: Netflix is TM and copyrighted; all rights reserved.  Any material used or stemming from the site is theirs, exclusively.  This site is not, in any way, affiliated with Netflix.  It's only a horror hound's effort to help consumers find the best (and worse) horror movies available on the website. Happy watching!

Scream 2 (1997)

Scream 2
 

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

(Didn't Like It)

Netflix Synopsis: In the two years since the fateful events in Woodsboro, Gale has written a best-seller, which has been turned into a film. As the movie premiere looms closer, the mysterious deaths begin again. Dewey heads to Sidney's college to protect her.

The Peeps: Wes Craven (director); Kevin Williamson (writer); Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, David Arquette

Quick Run Down: Slow, Uneven, Not Very Good

Worth The Watch?: Skip It

After the murderous events in Woodsboro, Sidney Prescott has moved onto college and it looks like Ghost Face has followed her.  As the phone bill and the body count grows, Sidney is forced to live through the nightmare that started it all... all over again!

Scream 2 is a classic sequel.  It's not very good, it's over the top and inaffective, and it just doesn't feel right.  You know, like when your wife buys the off brand bread and your PB&J's fall apart and taste grainy.  It's practically the same thing but it's just not as good.  That's where Scream 2 stands in the franchise.  The same cast is back, the concept is there, and the ultimate unwinding makes sense (would even be predictable if there were enough things in the film to suggest it).  Still, the film isn't good.  The plot is basic, which means that there needs to be some serious new stuff or at least interesting stuff going on, but none of that happens.  Instead, you have what feels like an ameaturish effort to capitalize on what was a very original and fresh idea in '96.  The scares are mostly mute, Randy's the only person that really gives any good, moving dialogue, and Jerry O'Connell gives the best performance, probably because he doesn't feel like a character wrapped up in their own little depressed-by-the-Woodsboro-Murders world.  (He does a singing on a cafeteria table bit that is a lot of fun and maybe the highlight of the movie, for me at least.)  The pieces of the film that ARE scary are usually over the top.  A particular crash scene that leads to a direct confrontation with Ghost Face comes to mind, and, while it inspires hair raises, the basic concept just doesn't work.  It's TOO 'suspension of disbelief' or maybe I'm looking too much into it, but what could have been a good scare turned out mediocre and lackluster.  I will acknowledge one bit of the film that involves a stage play rehearsal that's works well, and the way it is handled suggests to me that Craven is good behind the camera but only when he has the goods on the page.  Otherwise, he's moving a camera around a set.  I've never thought he was that great of a director, but when he gets it, he gets it.  And I see now that that magic happens when a good script is given to him. 

So, long story short, skip this installment of Scream.  It has some interesting parts, but nothing that really does anything worth a damn.  Just a warning though, the beloved Randy does not make it into the 3rd film.  If you want to know why, check out Scream 2 (namely, the 1:00:00  mark).  It's on Netflix!




I might just be being morbid, but that's hot...

Scream 3 (2000)

Scream 3

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

 

(Liked It)

Netflix Synopsis: This installment of the tongue-in-cheek (but still scary) horror trilogy finds Sidney Prescott again battling a crazed killer -- only this time it's on the set of Stab, a movie-within-a-movie based on the original Woodsboro murders.

The Peeps: Wes Craven (director); Ehren Kruger (writer); Neve Campbell, David Arquette, Courtney Cox

Quick Run Down:  Moving, More Memorable Than the Other Sequels, Fun

Worth The Watch?:  Yeah

Sidney Prescott has gone into hiding, but in Hollywood, Ghost Face still lives on, this time on the movie set of "Stab 3":  the movie based on the events that happen in the movie that is the original Scream... yeah, that's how Craven rolls.  As the murder tally grows, Sidney is needed and eventually pulled out of hiding so that that white-faced SOB can finally get what's coming to him!

For a third installment, this is a pretty good sequel.  The plot is mostly just a vehicle, but that's classic Kruger style. Kevin Williamson (the writer of 1, 2, and 4 of the franchise) stepped out of penning this one and Ehren Kruger was brought in.  Kruger (Skeleton Key, Transformers 2 & 3, Arlington Road) is not a strong plot writer, but the tension and movement that he works are usually good.  This is evident in Scream 3, as the plot is basic and mostly rote but there are some really good sequences throughout the film that move it quickly and create intense moments.  The film within a film bit is fun, though annoying at times, but once we get on set with the killer and the old Scream crew, it sets up some interesting times.  This film also delves into the past of Maureen Prescott (Sidney's Mom) and we get to know who she was, what she was up to, and what she was all about.  It's revealing and dark and possibly even a little eye-opening if you really get into the franchise.  Either way, again, it's fun.

In this installment, we are given Lance Henriksen as a cast member.  I don't think Henriksen is a good actor, but he's a horror icon and he's always a good time.  Parker Posey pops up as Gale Weathers in the "Stab" movies, and she's awesome.  Quirky, if not goofy, and usually hilarious, she provides an extra bit to the film that's cool.  The last new face is Patrick Dempsey, who I'm convinced only knows how to say lines that have sexual subtext, thus making lines that DON'T sound strange and out of place.  As for the original cast, they are all the same, but I have to say - Courtney Cox's hair is awful in this film.  Sorry - just couldn't friggin' stand it. 

Random note - Cox and Arquette are married, which I'm sure you all know, but in Scream 3, a little bit is thrown in the end that's cool and a REAL play on reality.

So, for a third installment, Scream 3 is good fun.  Kruger ups the action and Craven is good behind the camera when he has the goods on the page.  This is apparent throughout several sequences in the film, and I think you'll be able to pick them out when you watch this flick.  Check it out.  It's on Netflix!!     

 

Scream 4 (2011)

Scream 4
 

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

(Liked It)

Netflix Synopsis: Perennial survivor Sidney Prescott, now a successful self-help author, returns to her home town of Woodsboro in the fourth act of director Wes Craven's Scream franchise. Sidney's homecoming, however, coincides with a slew of unsettling new murders.

The Peeps: Wes Craven (director); Kevin Williamson (writer); Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, David Arquette, Emma Roberts

Quick Run Down:  Tongue in Cheek, Trying, Good Regurgitation

Worth The Watch?:  If you like the previous Screams, Yeah

Eleven years after Scream 3, the supposed last film of the franchise, comes Scream 4, complete with original director and writer.  I remember groaning when I heard about this, but I really didn't think much of it.  With the rash of remakes that has broken out along the skin of the horror scene (a list of which is quickly ran down during the film), I blew the installment off as a cash cow, figured it wouldn't be worth a damn, and went on my twisted way.  Seeing it on Netflix last month, though, I figured I'd give it a shot and, while I don't think I wasted any major part of my life, I wouldn't have been missing much if I had watched something else.

The 4th installment of the Sream franchise once again couples us with Sidney Prescott (an ever more attractive Neve Campbell) as she has finally gotten past her Ghost-Face days and has written a book called "Out Of Darkenss", a chronicle on her struggle with fear and so forth.  Her first stop on her book tour is, of course, her home town of Woodsboro.  She's flipping her hair and being all adult and accomplished like when a string of murders happen and the Ghost Face killer is on the loose again, tracking, stabbing, and murdering his way to the number one victim - Sidney.

There are only a few things in this film that make it stand out from the others.  Neve Campbell is one of them.  Not only has she gotten better looking over the years, her acting has taken on a certain charge.  It may be because she knows the Sidney character so well or that she's working with younger kids in the movie, but in Scream 4 there is a certain maternal, protective energy to her acting that makes it really good.  It's a minute thing and it certainly doesn't carry the film (esp. considering it's a horror movie), but I found it to be one of the more entertaining aspects of the movie.  The second thing that stands out is Williamson's script.  That's not to say that the script is good, but in 4, Willliamson once again amps up the movie references and almost makes the movie about movies, themselves.  You'll recall he did this with the first one, and he's really harks back to that here in the 4th.  Some of this is to the film's advantage (movie trivia and self-referential humor) but it also gets kind of whiny and defensive.  The opening - a movie within a movie within a movie - feels like the writer is saying that, no matter what this film does, you, as the viewer, still probably won't be scared because it's all been done before.  Granted, he's right, but at least make an effort to up the ante or something.  The finally mark of Scream 4 is that it's still Scream.  There's not a lot of difference between it and the first one, save originality and freshness in 1996, and though it's not a great film, maybe even just mediocre, it still provides the slight scare and murder/slasher mystery that the series has mostly held up through it's run.  I personally didn't think it was a bad film, a good overall installment, but nothing that did anything to move the franchise forward.  Regurgitated is the word that come to mind for describing it, but it's a good regurgitated, as oxymoronic as that sounds.

So if you want to watch a Scream movie that is just that, check out Scream 4.  There are only one or two minor scares and a few decent gore shots, but the film holds up to what the Scream franchise is all about.  Check it out.  It's on Netflix!

"Oh, and your lemon squares taste like ass!"

Everyone SCREAM - Another Marathon!

Llarvae and Germs:

I found another anthology complete and ready for viewing on Netflix.  And it's...

 

 

 

Er...

 



SCREAM!

Yeah - apparently 4 was so crappy that, just a few years after production, it's already on the web.  I never saw that last installment, haven't seen 2 or 3 in several years, but I'm a big fan of the original.  So, I'm gonna head in the Woodsboro world of stabbings, Stab, and self-referenatil humor. 

Reviews pending!

 

Grave Encounters 2 (2012)

Grave Encounters 2

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

(Didn't Like It)

Netflix Synopsis:  A year after a film crew spent a fatal night there, a new team is entering the halls of Collingwood Psychiatric Hospital in search of the truth. What they discover will make believers out of all of them. That is, any who live to tell the tale.

The Peeps:  John Poliquin (director); The Vicious Brothers (writers); Richard Harmon, Dylan Playfair, Leanne Lapp, Seth Rogerson

Quick Run Down:  Kind of Tense with Scary Moments But Mostly Perplexing

Worth The Watch?:  If you've seen the first one and you're alone... or if you and your friends saw the the first one and you're with your friends

Grave Encounters and Grave Encounters 2 aren't bad movies.  They have entertaining moments and decent to good scares.  If you saw the first one, though (read my review - it's below!) you know it starts strong but ends flatly.  Grave Encounters 2 tries to do something different, but it does it in a way that creates too many questions.

GE 2 immediately starts us off with "vloggers" giving their responses to the original GE.  There are dissenters and lovers, those scared and those disappointed.  This opening ends with Alex (Richard Harmon) from "Alex's Movie Madness" and his own review.  The film stays with Alex and, come to find out, Alex and his bud, Trevor, are senior film students putting together a film for their thesis film project.  Alex is getting more and more distracted from his actual movie, though, as he gets further and further into the idea that GE 1 is real (meaning the hospital is a real place, the events that happen in the film are real, all the people in the film are real and therefore dead, and the hospital's ghostly nature is real).  Pretty soon, Alex foregoes his inital project because he is only interested in telling the true story of Grave Encounters, documentary horror style.  The parties involved decide to travel to the hospital and explore it for the sake of expanding on this documentary idea which they think is visionary.  From there, "madness" and "sacry-ness" ensue.  Supposedly.

GE 2 is sort of like Evil Dead 2 (there are actually some similarities if you consider certain things that happen in the movie; this movie is not NEAR as good).  It's the exact same movie as the first one, only expanded with some extra stuff thrown in.  In fact, GE 2 even goes so far as to include footage from the first one.  So, if you didn't see the first one, you don't really need to because you pretty much learn everything about it and see all of its scare and jumps moments in the second one since they are shown randomly through the course of the sequel.  The reason behind this is because the second film constantly references the first film as if it were a real film.  That means: A group of kids (fictional) are making a documentary (not real) about a real horror movie (that's not real)...?  And okay - I get this but it just... doesn't work.  I can't take it serious.  Maybe it's me, but there's an inherent disconnect in that concept that immediately takes me out of the film.  I simply couldn't/can't suspend my disbelief long enough to get into the idea and take the film seriously.  And I wanted to.  The first GE wasn't bad and I thought the second one might correct the flaws or at least give us something new.  It did give us something new, but its just a rebaking of the same cake.  That's disappointing too because the Vicious Brothers (writers only this time) were essentially given the opportunity to remake their first feature.  They could have done whatever they wanted, and they did,  I guess.  It just turns out to be kinda crappy.  The opening is fun and the hospital still looks and feels creepy, but the movie just uses tropes from the first one in abrupt and arbitrary ways.  Don't bother with story, either.  The fictional film that's real investigated through a fictional film concept is perplexing enough, but then you have the actual STORY which is just silly.  I hate to say it, but the Vicious Brothers aren't good screenwriters.  They have good ideas, but they are convoluted, confusing, and - track record shows - heavy on the front, light in the end.  I want to give them credit for coming up with a different concept, a sort of metafictional fictional reality, but I can't let it go that the movie just isn't that good.  Then there's this thing that happens at the end... it just sort of gets laughable.

So, if you want to watch a decent movie with limited scares, a little bit of tension, but a very perplexing plot, check out Grave Encounters 2.  I thought it was alright, for what it was worth, but you can't really look past the surface without finding it lacking.  I don't think you'll be disappointed if you watch it, but I do think you'll find your expression a confused one once the movie finishes. 

Check it out.  It's on Netflix!

There's a scene involving this kind of footage - thermal rendering - that's
hilarious and might make the whole movie worth watching.  It's low-bro humor
but it's funny.  Fast forward to 41:00 left in the film if you're interested.

Grave Encounters (2011)

Grave Encounters Trailer

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

(Liked It)

Netflix Synopsis:  In this horror flick, the stars of a paranormal-investigation TV show spend the night in a derelict psychiatric hospital, hoping to uncover what's been going bump in the night. As their cameras roll, they find themselves trapped -- and hunted.

The Peeps: The Vicious Brothers (writers/directors); Sean Rogerson, Ashleigh Gryzko, Merwin Mondesir, Juan Riedinger

Quick Run Down:  Starts Atmospheric, Tense, and Scary, Ends Mostly Flat

Worth the Watch?:  Yeah, if only for the first half and a few scares in the second

Grave Encounters couples us with the five member crew of the ghost hunting reality show, "Grave Encounters".  This crew is about to perform a lock in at an abandoned mental hospital in hopes of capturing some really creepy stuff for their 6th episode installment of their TV show.  There's some back ground and build given for the hospital, Collingwood Psychiatric Hospital, a little bit of character intro for each member of the crew, and then they are chain and pad locked in and the ride begins.  And it's a good one... until about midway through.  

Grave Encounters starts off really strong.  The characters are believable and well written; the story is moving and interesting, if not a little tongue in cheek for fun at times; the acting is good for pretty much every one involved; and there is a lot of ground covered for creating some really good scares once the lights go out  And once they do go out, once the guys are put into the hospital, those scares deliver.  They operate on a Paranormal Activity level - give you info about an area or object, show that area or object, then build the tension until the scare finally, suddenly happens - but they're still effective and fun.  This builds and builds until about the middle or just after and then, gradually, the air is let out.  The movie takes a visceral, tangible-horror turn and most of the tension pumped up in the beginning is lost.  Not entirely, but the second half just doesn't work like the first.  I think some of this can be blamed on the shift from psychological to more straight-forward scares, but some of it is also the story's fault.  The convoluted details of Grave Encounters' plot get in the way of any kind of connection with the film because, if you really think about it, it just doesn't make a whole helluva lot of sense.  I'm a story guy, so if plot or story starts slacking, I start to lose interest.  I think this is part of what happened for me with Encounters.  That's not to say there aren't scary parts in the second half of the film.  Personally, I think the story simply gets in the way in the second half, but it's still fun and entertaining.  Unfortunately, what starts off as a promising and potentially terrifying thrill ride mostly blows a couple of its strongest fuses early on and delivers dim the scares in the end.  And there's really not much to be said about the actual ending.

So, if you wanna check out a horror movie that really delivers in the beginning but shifts in the center and loses its flare towards the end, check out Grave Encounters.  It may not be scary all the way through, but it's still a good watch.  It's on Netflix!

Protoype for skin-texting.

 

CreepShow 2 (1987)

CreepShow 2

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

(Really Liked It)

Netflix Synopsis:  Join the rotting-but-amiable Creep as he introduces this anthology of three gruesome tales written by the master of horror, Stephen King. An homage to the works of EC Comics, this wicked sequel takes viewers on one hair-raising roller-coaster ride.

The Peeps:  Michael Gornick (director); George Romero (screenwriter); Stephen King (based on his short stories); Tom Savini, George Kennedy, Lois Chiles

Quick Run Down: Campy, B-Rated, Fun, Good Popcorn Horror

Worth the Watch?:  I love 80's horror, so -- definitely!

Creepshow 2 is the sequel to the always fun and entertaining Creepshow, directed by Romero and written by King in 1982. This second installment is not as good as numero uno, but it's still fun and recalls a better time for horror movies when gore wasn't the only point and being scary didn't take itself so seriously. Even in Gornick's lesser hands, Creepshow 2 reminds us that a horror movie can be and should be fun. It also reminds us that the best horror movies may have happened in the 80's and early 90's.

Creepshow 2 tells three stories. The first -- "Old Chief Wood'n'head" -- follows an older couple who owns a general store in a down-and-out town close to an Indian reservation. Outside the store is a wooden statue of an Indian warrior, but he turns out to be much more than that by the film's end. I'm sure the plot is easily discernible from this super brief synopsis, but I won't intentionally give anything away (as the trailer does - check it out under the poster up top). Still, spoilers aside, this first segment is a little drawn-out on sympathy and dialogue, but still fun and entertaining. And with it, we're immediately ushered under the archway and into the campy grounds of entertaining 80's horror. Sure, the genre was simple, often cheesy, and terribly B-rated back then, but it was also loads of freaking fun. This short is an example of that. It's a basic story of retribution, but it sells what it needs to and throws in a little blood and laughs along the way. I'm torn, but it may be my favorite of the three installments within the anthology.

The second story -- "The Raft" -- is yet again a simple idea mostly banking on intriguing effects and clever kills. Two young couples are on their way out to a lake to get high, swim, and have some fun on a cold but sunny day. When they get to the lake, they swim out to a free-floating raft to hang out. Floating in the water, though, is a strange, membranous organism that suddenly starts threatening the couples' lives.  You can guess the rest of the story, but it's still a fun little short film. There's some pretty cool make-up going on; the idea is strange but still manages to be different; and again, the whole thing's just fun. Ridiculous but fun. Oh, and there's nudity in this one too!

The third and last installment -- "The Hitch Hiker" -- is the goriest of the three shorts. A well-to-do, married woman is on her way home after sleeping with another man when she accidentally runs into a hitch hiker, presumably killing him. Instead of helping, she turns tail and runs. But that doesn't mean she gets away with what she did. The hitch hiker finds her... then finds her again... then finds her again... then again! This is another short that's a cool watch, and though it's probably my least favorite of the three, it's still entertaining and sports grisly effects. Plus, this one features Stephen King in probably one of the longest cameos I've ever seen him have. He's hilarious to watch, playing the hell out of a trucker with a flare.

All of these tales are introduced by Creep (played by a made-up Tom Savini in the beginning and end; middle segments are animated) who is pretty much a Cryptkeeper-type. His predecessor, as a matter of fact. He delivers quips like "boys and ghouls" and "deliciously macabre masterpiece" and more, making the downtime between the films lag less. It doesn't really add much to the film, but it does help remind the audience that what we're watching is based on the graphic novella that came out in 1982, serving as a basis for both the first and second film.

So, if you want to watch some fun, campy, simple but entertaining 80's horror, check out Creepshow 2. Unfortunately, the first film isn't on Watch Instantly, but at least we have the second one. Check it out - it's on Netflix!

Paint me nostalgic, but MAN - I miss the 80's. 
Nobody could get away with something like this now...

The Bleeding House (2011)

The Bleeding House

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

(Didn't Like It)

Netflix* Synopsis:  The isolated life of a family living in suburban Texas is interrupted when a charming stranger comes to their door in this tension-filled thriller. The visitor, whose own intentions are unclear, soon uncovers dark secrets in the family's past.

The Peeps: Philip Gelatt (writer; director); Alexander Chando, Patrick Breen

Quick Run Down:  Slow Burn, Not Necessarily Predictable But Nothing Surprising Happens

Worth The Watch?:  Eh - It's not bad, It's not good...

The Bleeding House connects us with the Smith Family, a family of 4 that apparently have a hideous secret buried in their past that the town they live in, their neighbors, their friends, and even themselves can't seem to get over.  Whatever the secret is, it leads the mother to lock up all the knives and lock her daughter in her room.  The audience doesn't know what it is, but it must be one helluva deal...

Enter Nick, a genteel thinking and speaking Southerner broken down in his travels and looking for a room for the night at the Smith family home.  Reluctantly, they take him in, and he enters into the realm of secrecy and shadows the family lives in, only to deepen them with his own.  Or possibly free the Smith's from theirs.

This isn't a bad movie.  It has a decent premise that amounts to a basic plot and slow burn script.  There's not a lot of effects at play, and the cinematography is pretty straightforward.  The only thing that really shines through the whole film is Patrick Breen, who plays Nick.  He's not awesome, as his character isn't very awesome, but in most cases, he's what holds the film together and makes it worth watching.  He has some really good lines that create an interesting backdrop for the secrecy the Smith family upholds.  But, again, the film just really isn't worth watching.  Not much happens and, when it does happen, it's not predictable but it's not surprising either.  I honestly shy away from just saying skip this one because it's Gelatt's first feature and, in that context, I suppose it's not bad.  All that aside though, I still have to be honest and say pass this one up.  Unless you're just interested in seeing the first feature of a possible up and coming talent, it's really not worth it.

Whatever your choice, The Bleeding House is on Netflix.  It's not bad, but it's not good either...

___
*Disclaimer: Netflix is TM and copyrighted; all rights reserved.  Any material used or stemming from the site is theirs, exclusively.  This site is not, in any way, affiliated with Netflix.  It's only a horror hound's effort to help consumers find the best (and worse) horror movies available on the website. Happy watching!