Jug Face (2013)

Jug Face -
I'd watch this over the movie

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

(Hated It) 

Netflix Synopsis: A pregnant teen tries to flee her backwoods community when she learns she's to be sacrificed to a monstrous beast that lives in a pit near her town.

The Peeps: Chad Crawford Kinkle (writer, director); Lauren Ashley Carter, Sean Bridgers

Quick Run Down:  Impotent, Kinda Laughable, Mundane 

Worth the Watch: Not At All

Ada's a young girl in a troubled world.  She's got a man hard for her all the time, a mute grandpa whose brain don't work like the rest, and her momma checks her out each month to make sure she's drippin' like she should be cuz if she ain't it means someone's been fooling 'round in and where they shouldn't've been.  So, what's a girl to do?  Well, she's gonna let that man - boy, really - get up in her so to ease that hurtin' erection and then accidentally get pregnant then try to hide it.  But in Ada's world - a reclusive community in Backwoods, America - you can't just hide things.  That's because there's this Pit, see.  A gaping, ugly omnipotent Pit in the ground with bubbling, brown water in the bottom of It, and It watches over the people in the community and sends out a big, hideous creature to right wrongs when things don't go as It - the Pit - planned.  And there's definitely a plan. The Pit telepathically tells a mentally challenged member of the group who is the next person to be sacrificed to It - It needs sacrifices to stay happy - and the man makes a jug with the person's face on it and whose ever face matches the face on the jug (ah - Jug Face!) gets laid down on a stump and sacrificed like all good Pit loving folks should.  When Ada sees her OWN face on the next jug, though, she hides it so no one will know cuz she don't wanna die. But this pisses the Pit off.  It can't have no foul ups in Its master plan, so It sends a big ugly creature out to bring the wrath upon any victim it can get its dirty hands on!

The Pit - bow down in Gratitude and Terror.

I can usually find something to like in movies, but I came up with pretty much nothing in Jug Face.  It's a pointless, impotent film that makes you question why it was even made.  It's kind of like watching a wet rag hang on the edge of a sink and slowly, slowly slide off. Then fall. That's Jug Face.  There's no tension, no emotion, and no zeal.  It's just a slow series of events that show an unfathomably selfish girl keep ridiculous secrets and continually loop the noose for her own hanging.  There aren't any characters worth talking about, and the villain - a possessed or blessed or something Pit - might be the worst antagonist ever.  It's just a big hole in the ground with water in the bottom, and the creature it supposedly releases you never actually see. It's just portrayed through a moving-through-the-woods-then-spotting-someone POV shot.  Plus, the murders it commits are shot in cheesy, shaky, jaundiced colored segments that come off largely laughable.  Even the one ghost part - some kid that was killed long ago by the Pit and haunts the trees - isn't scary.  It's not even presented as scary; it's there to help. So, thinking about it, there's NOTHING scary in this film.  It's almost like Kinkle (writer, director) forget he was making a horror movie, and maybe he wasn't.  Maybe there's some kind of social commentary going on that I don't realize, but I'm not digging through the Pit muck to find out.  It's not worth it.

Alright - I feel pervy for saying it but Carter gets topless in the first ten minutes.  There.  Turn it off afterwards.

So, if you want to watch a movie that I would compare to watching a porno starring an impotent, 70 year old blind man and a Japanese virgin, I'd recommend Jug Face.  It's not any good, but you be the judge.  It's on Netflix!

This is the... no one cares.

"And I thank the Pit with all my heart for making it so."

The Den (2013)

The Den - Trailer,
but I'd say don't watch it.
Just go for the movie.

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

(Really Liked It) 

Netflix Synopsis: While investigating webcam chat habits, a young woman witnesses a gruesome murder online.  Now she and those she loves are being pursued by the killer.

The Peeps:  Zachary Donohue (director, co-writer); Lauren Thompson (co-writer); Melanie Papalia, David Schlactenhaufen, Adam Shapiro

Quick Run Down:  Tense, Scary, Good

Worth the Watch: Hell Yeah!

Liz is a research student - apparently, at least; it's really not explained - that is applying for a grant to study the new way we communicate with people across the world - through facetime... or interfacing... or web-chatting... or whatever it's called.  Regardless, her idea is to record the innumerable chats she plans to have over a chat website called 'The Den' and use the collected info to explain why we are chatting across the globe to complete strangers but also, and more importantly, WHO we are chatting to.  As she says in the film, "The question still remains - who's out there?", but, as Liz begins her study, she finds that who is on the other end of her cam is not at all the friendly, chatty face she was hoping for.  It's someone much worse.

I really liked The Den, and there are several reasons why.  Barely going a full 80 minutes, the flick is filmed almost entirely through web interfacing, with a little bit of security camera type footage thrown in towards the end.  I initially thought this would be annoying, but I found myself really intrigued 10 or so minutes in because of the dynamics of what was happening on-camera.  You have emails being checked and read, multiple people saying hello or signing off, and others video calling. When these video calls are answered, you are watching two people, of course, but there are often scenes where the two people wind up doing two different things - one has to answer a phone call; another quickly responds to an email.  There's a multitasking element present in the fiction that closely relates to our everyday reality, and, while getting too close to home can sometimes suck the fun out of entertainment, this element in the movie works really well. It provides a constant back and forth for our entertainment/preoccupation hungry minds, and it also sets up a double layer of tension - one for one camera, one for the other.  This only works because the movie doesn't revolve around the 'there's someone behind you and only I can see him!' trope.  (Young as it is, the tactic's already a trope.) Instead, again, you have the multitasking element. Thompson and Donohue (writers) are pumping focus points in from both ends, and you find yourself pulled between two moments of tension or, at least, intrigue. Plus, the unique use of the interface template allows for screens to decrease or increase in size, for multiple screens to pop up, and for POV's to change, all effects that often happen suddenly in the film.  It's a technique that's never been used to this degree before (the entire length of the film) but manages to be really successful in grabbing attention and raising hairs.  There are times when the switching from one person's interface to another's or from one person's, say, laptop interface to their cell phone is disorienting, but this works to the film's advantage because often we, the viewer, find ourselves up against the task of finding our place in the movie - who are we with now? what device are we on? - while also just WAITING for that thing, whatever it might be, to happen to the person we are watching.  It sounds exhausting on the viewer's part, but it's really effective.

'Can I borrow some sugar?'

Another thing that really works for The Den is the antagonist.  He doesn't pussyfoot around; he goes for the jugular. He's not interested in scaring or messing with or confusing - he wants to track, torment, torture, and terminate.  He's sharp too because he hacks - a point that I think works beautifully when married with the dual vision interface commented on above.  So, he's smart, quick, and more interested in hurting than scaring.  It's a villain we haven't seen in a while and its nice to know he's still out there!  But it's also good to know that there are smart protagonists left in horror flicks, as well.  Most of the time, we have to tell ourselves not to question what a character does or we will lose all credibility for them because of their lack of common sense.  In Den, though, Liz makes good, if not - daresay? - logical decisions.  She even does logical THINGS through the course of the film, and this combo makes her struggle much more believable and her peril all the more real.  There are some moments that you have to turn a cataract-covered eye to, but you are willing to forgive them because you still feel for the character, you fear the antagonist, and you are interested in just who and what the hell are going on in 'The Den'.  I will say that, once you get an idea of that 'who' and 'what' towards the end of the film, the tension dials back and things become a more predictable/formulaic.  The first 3/4's of the movie is easily the better part, but the end still carries us through with some good moments.

Finally, some general notes about The Den - there's not a lot of blood but, when you do get some, it's good and vicious.  There are two or three jump scenes but they are only quick scares.  The good horror comes from the tension that Donohue builds and builds through plot, minute events, and Liz's character.  Papalia, as Liz, does a good job too. I've never seen her in anything else, but she holds her own here.  The others in the film are rote but serve their purpose faithfully.  And, lastly, there are some random conversations that pop up during Liz's online chats that get annoying, but I think they are there to make a point - no one's really trying to communicate or reach across the globe for a good conversation via the internet.  Instead, online chatting has just increased the number of opportunities we have to be jackasses in front of other people.  Just my thoughts.

So, if you want to watch a well made, interestingly and tightly put together horror flick that is tense and scary, I'd strongly suggest The Den.  I thought it was really good, and I'm still debating if I should change 'Really Liked It' to 'Loved It!' in my ratings.  But what does my vote matter?  You can make your own decision because the movie's on Netflix!

'Damn - I can't see fuckin' shit outta this thing.'

"Don't open up attachments from strangers.  Ever."

Vamp (1986)

Vamp - the Trailer!

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

(Didn't Like It) 

Netflix Synopsis: Fraternity pledges seeking a good strip joint check out the After Dark Club, unaware that the bar's luscious dancers are bloodthirsty vampires. 

The Peeps:  Richard Wenk (writer, director); Chris Makepeace, Robert Rusler, Grace Jones

Quick Run Down: Confusing, Awkward, Strangely Paced 

Worth the Watch: No

Keith and AJ are college buds wanting to get into a fraternity, but, in order to do so, they have to round up a stripper for a party the frat's throwing that evening.  So, they call around, strike no oil, and decide to venture into the city, where they plan to visit a strip club and acquire services in person.  To accomplish this, though, they need a car, so they have to borrow one from a wealthy reject student that will only lend them wheels if they take him along with them.  The two guys begrudgingly agree, and all three head for town and ultimately, the After Dark Club.  But things aren't as they appear at the ADC - the shady, seedy strip joint and its seemingly harmless employees bite harder than the kids realize!

'5 W's and How' 

Vamp is not a good movie.  It has a few good parts but not near enough to make the whole worth much for watching. What IS good - an elevator scene; two death scenes; a constant array of half naked chicks; random funny moments - gets caught up in the confusing plot movements, poorly executed sequences, and strange to the point of uncomfortable pacing that litters the film.  For example, our three college guys get into the city, and they are all looking around at the shops and malls and people and cars.  Then, the driver - AJ (Robert Rusler) - runs a red light and has to swerve to avoid hitting a car.  The camera spins around and around within the cab of the car, and the guys inside shout and scream, etc.  Then, when the car finally stops, the camera shows us a long shot of the car sitting still in the middle of the road, and the whole city has changed. The thriving shops are gone, places are boarded it up, newspapers flap by in the wind, and there's no one in sight.  Oh, and it's suddenly dark too.  Keith (Chris Makepeace... not war) says some throw away line, there's an awkward pause, and then the kids drive off. And that's that.  Er... what the hell just happened?  Did the car spin into an alternate universe?  Did the kids jump in time to some sort of post-apocalyptic city?  Are they high, and this is their imagination?  Did I miss something?  These kinds of things happen all throughout the movie.  Granted, none are as bad as the example given, but most still leave you asking the '5 W's and How' - what, when, why, where, who, and how.  Still, I want to say that the movie might have been enjoyable if the plot added up, but I don't think I can go that far.  The main actors do a decent job, but the background guys are just terrible.  Random faces in a titty bar looking uninspired and pointless.  Grace Jones (I only know her from Conan The Destroyer and Boomerang, but, after looking her up, I see she's done a ton of stuff, namely music) doesn't say a word, but she manages to have a little bit of an effect through make-up and just looking like her strange, angular self. Her costumes are pretty ridiculous though.  In fact, most of the production design and the like are boring.  You've got a run down city, a dark smoky uninteresting bar, and a lot of alley ways; that's about it.  The DP tried to give this drab scenery some life by lathering everything in green and pink, but it still isn't much to look it, though it does manage to create some creepiness and increase the tension some.  Speaking of tension, there's mostly none.  Three scenes come to mind where I felt myself getting into what was happening, but that's it.  The rest is just feels so lazily put together that nothing comes through but motions and words.  It sucks, too, because I really wanted to get into this.  I root for 80's horror flicks because they are good-bad and usually the underdog in winning people's attention, but this one just couldn't pull me over to its side.

Something I noticed in the flick is that it is pretty similar to From Dusk Til Dawn. The premises are very very closely related - vampire-ridden nudie bar with patrons as dinner/snacks/treats - and the make-up kind of looks the same.  The latter might be a stretch at times, but the plot connections aren't a stretch at all.  In fact, there are elements that match up kinda uncannily.  None of this matters, though, for two reasons: 1) the films wind up doing entirely different things; and 2) From Dusk Til Dawn is TOO much better than Vamp for it to make any difference.  The comparisons are still interesting to note.

Vamp

From Dusk Til Dawn

So, I'd say skip it, but if you wanna watch an awkward and strangely paced movie that raises more questions than intrigue or hairs, check out Vamp.  It's got some good scenes, but they are few and far between.  Whatever you decide, you know where to avoid it or find it - Netflix!  

"Hey, baby - what time do you get off?"

"2.30."

"Can I watch?"

Grabbers (2012)

Grabbers

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

(Liked It) 

Netflix Synopsis:  Residents of an Irish island must get very drunk to survive attacks by alien monsters who can't tolerate high blood alcohol levels in their victims.

The Peeps:  Jon Wright (director); Kevin Lehane (writer); Richard Coyle, Ruth Bradley, Russel Tovey, Lalor Roddy

Quick Run Down:  Fun, Funny, Good CGI and Creature Effects 

Worth The Watch:  Yeah!

Garda (officer) Lisa Nolan (Ruth Bradley) has been assigned to a few weeks of duty on Erin Island in Ireland, and she's coming in to take the legal reigns of the community while the local police chief is on vacation.  The deputy she'll be working with, Garda Ciaran O'Shea (Richard Coyle), is a hard drinking local a little sore about not being given the responsibility of police chief duties while the boss is away, but he's so hungover - if not drunk - most of the time that it doesn't really matter.  So, O'Shea sets out to show Lisa the ropes, but things aren't quite what they normally are on the island - a large pod of dead pilot whales washes up on the beach, covered in deep gashes and scars; people's heads are found missing their bodies; one of the town drunks keeps talking about a sea monster he's got taking a bath in his bathtub.  As the two policeman start to investigate, they realize they've got problems that are from out of this world!

I love creature features.  There are some bad ones out there, i.e., Squirm, but, when you think of movies like Critters, Tremors, Slither, Gremlins - these are gems, great movies that all follow the same plot but are easy to watch, fun and funny, and almost always entertaining. Grabbers slides nicely into this category.  A close blend between Tremors and Slither, the film's story is the basic one - aliens land (or splash, in this case) into a small town and wreak havoc among the locals.  From there, you've got various bits of interaction between the islanders and the aliens themselves until there's finally a big stand off, and the humans show the aliens that you don't mess with Earthlings.  This is what the best of the creature features do, and this is what Grabbers does.  The flick goes a step further, too; it throws in a bit of a high-concept - you gotta drink to stay alive.  This an intriguing, promising way to change up the routine.  Unfortunately, the drinking stays too limited and contained during the first act to allow the idea to serve as the springboard it could have.  The characters that DO drink in the opening bits of the movie have good stuff (Lalor Roddy or 'Paddy' has some really funny lines), but the real drinking and consequential shenanigans don't start until the last half of the film, which feels like missed opportunities. There are some other problems with the film, too.  The opening act has a LOT of scenes, so you're constantly moving from one thing to another, sometimes to only spend a minute or two with a character before moving on to something else. Also, we see the main alien of the film way too early.  Something that works so well with Slither is that every time you see the main alien, it is changing.  There is something knew about it, something fresh.  With Grabbers, the main alien is seen early on, and it remains the same for the remainder of the show.  This ultimately takes away from the impact of the creature, leaving the last half of the film not as good as it could have been.  These are all just downfalls, though; things that should have been done differently.  There are lot of things that are done right.  Casting is one of them.  Coyle, as O'shea, is good. He's always had strong comedic timing (his character in the British TV show 'Coupling' is hilarious), and he continues to work those chops here.  Bradley is good, if a little simple and lackluster sometimes, but the real shiner is Lalor Roddy, whose dialogue and attitude are nearly always worth a chuckle.  The CGI in Grabbers kicks ass, too.  The practical creature effects are creative and good, but the CGI is flawless, save one little scene near the end that the creators smartly, quickly cut away from. The main alien design will trigger connections to a major Hollywood sci-fi flick just released, and I can't help but think that Jon Wright and his team are cursing the H-wood pic for maybe stealing some of their design. Another good part of the flick is the scenery.  Shot almost exclusively in Ireland, the film is full of expansive, beautiful shots that allow for the setting to become a character itself. You can tell Wright knew what he was working with because he uses a lot of wide, panoramic shots of the coast, hillside, and flatlands within in the country.  Some really beautiful capturing.  And finally, the film is just fun.  It's not technically great; it often feels rushed and abrupt (esp. the love story); and the dialogue - European slang and Irish-isms like shite; feckin'; shandy's; 'I'm pissed'; 'the fittest' - is rushed and sometimes difficult to understand.  (I'm an American; what can I say?)  Still, the movie moves along nicely and is fun to watch, with some good laughs. Coyle sells it, and it seems like everyone else involved is genuinely having a good time as well.

So, if you wanna watch a movie that inspires some complaints but is still a good, solid creature feature, have a grab at Grabbers.  It's not great, but I think you'll have a good time.  An' if ye don't belee' me, well jus' go havuh look fer yeself, ya stubbern bahstird!  It's on Netflix!

I'll take a shandy of what he had!

"It's always the quiet places where the mad shit happens."

Alien Abduction (2014)

Alien Abduction

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

(Liked It) 

Netflix Synopsis:  A real-life phenomenon inspired this horror tale about a family camping trip that becomes a nightmare when a wrong turn leads to an alien encounter.

The Peeps:  Matty Beckerman (Director); Robert Lewis (Writer); Katherine Sigismund, Corey Eid, Riley Polanski, Jillian Clare

Quick Run Down:  Occasionally Tense, Nice Visuals, Kinda Dragging and Repetitious

Worth the Watch: Yeah

Alien Abduction follows a family of five as they are making their way through the North Carolina hills.  Hills that are notorious for blue mountain light phenomenons that the locals chuck up to UFO's.  This is unbeknownst to the family, however, and they find a spot to lay down camp and hang out for the night.  Some of the said lights are seen that evening, and this visual - caught on handheld camera by the autistic, youngest son - carries the family through conversations the following morning when they breakdown their tents and head deeper into the mountains.  On there way though, they get lost - or something GETS them lost - and they eventually wind up in a tunnel where a slew of SUV and sedans have been abandoned and their respective owners nowhere to be found.  That's when strange shiznit starts happening, and those lights finally reveal their true selves!

Abduction starts us off with a note, a trembling forewarning, a knee-knocking precaution... a reason to shake your head and think, 'Yeah, right.' Before the movie even starts, a single sentence types across the screen in small, concise letters: "The following footage was leaked from the U.S. Military."  Or something like that.  I don't remember exactly what it reads, but I do remember exactly what I thought when I read it:  Really?  Are filmmaker's still using that? Aren't audiences - wait: before I jump the gun, I'll just say that, though I probably shouldn't have, I liked  Alien Abduction.  It has a couple of nice little family moments in the first act, which moves pretty quickly, and the end of the first act, opening of the second, is tense and well put together.  The rest of the movie tends to do the same thing over and over, just in different locations, but it still maintains an element of suspense and fear, namely in a few particular scenes.  There are about three jump scares -  the best of which is predictable and you know it's gonna happen but it still works when it does - and, all throughout the movie, there are some really pretty visuals using unique lighting, quick cuts, and off-center arrangement.  The acting's surprisingly good too.  Corey, the eldest son, holds up well under duress and a minor character arc, and a random side character isn't great but he has some good dialogue.  The mother's kinda worthless, but she serves her point in the end.  Despite all of this though, as mentioned before, the movie tends to repeatedly milk the same teet and wander aimlessly from one location to another to try and squeeze out yet another drop.  The scares and tensions induced often work but for just a short period of time.  You ultimately find yourself waiting on the end by about 45 minutes in (which is okay because the actual movie barely runs 80 minutes).  So, long story short - the second half of the film drags.  But, getting back to my opening point, are filmmaker's still trying to sell the whole 'this really happened' idea?  I like found footage stuff, but when the filmmaker's of found footage flicks put things like 'based on real events', 'discovered by authorities deep in the woods of (insert wooded, countryside county here)', etc., is the audience still really supposed to believe that or are the creators just saying that to create a different kind of horror experience (even if we know that it's BS)?  If that opening sentence - and some that follow it - wasn't there in the beginning of Abduction, would I have perceived the film differently?  I think I would, but I'm not sure if it would be for better or worse.  Just something to think about as your viewing the flick.

So, if you want to watch a movie that has a strong first half, some tense moments, and good visuals but pretty much just does the same thing in different settings, check out Alien Abductions.  It's flawed and far from great, but I think you'll like it.  If you don't believe me, check it out - it's on Netflix!

I wanna make a Beiber/prison joke for some reason...

  

'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!