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!