'It's Good To Be Back!'

Llarvae and germs:

"It's good to be back!"

I've been on hiatus for reasons undefined, reasons undefined, but I'm back on the map with more movies and marathons in store.  Stay tuned - there are festival features; teeth-chomping marathons; and general gore gallore.  Plus, I'm broadening my horizons to include some general industry news for the serious hounds - gore and industry alike - out there.  So, brace yourself brothers and sisters:  I'm gonna find a place in film for you all!!

Heyyyyyyyy there!

___
*Disclaimer: Netflix is TM and copyrighted; all rights reserved.  Any previous, present, or future material used or stemming from Netflix 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!

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...