Blog Archives

“Madea Halloween” scarily unfunny


I think I just saw a movie. Then again, I’m not sure if I should call it a movie. The more the minutes lingered, “Boo! A Madea Halloween” felt more like an out of body experience desperate to find at least some humor. One joke to hang onto despite a soulless effort to make use of the holiday. Tyler Perry stated in interviews he’s not a fan of ghosts, witches or anything creepy crawly. A shame as the trailers advertise scenes of everyone’s favorite granny punching clowns and running away from zombies. If one thinks this will be a big “monster mash,” you will be disappointed to find its really a lame pumpkin smash.

The main plot relies on Brian Simmons (Tyler Perry) and his inability to control his bratty daughter. He crushes his daughter’s plan to go out and party at a nearby fraternity by having Madea watch her. As expected,  Brown’s daughter sneaks out and the granny is not happy. Armed with her two friends and brother, Madea seeks justice in a plot that really goes nowhere. I shouldn’t be surprised as that tends to happen in most of these movies. There seems to be a spark of an idea but somehow gets lost in a sea of meandering subplots and running jokes.

First, we get the fraternity and their big Halloween bash as every teen acts like a stereotype from Animal House or a watered down gang that boozes on beer and sex. While we don’t see any beer glasses touch lips, the writing for these characters gets irradiating with a one sided view on the modern teenager. The kind who is constantly saying a bunch of suffer talk in a masculine way, but acts all tough. The only time the fraternity got interesting is when they try to wise up (say if, someone under-aged appears at their party) and take responsibility. But even then, this action would immediately backfire when they decide to do something completely irresponsible like intense pranking.

This leads into one of the biggest problems of the whole movie. It seems to be really centered on the idea that a prank gone too far can have serious consequences. And honestly, I’m ok with stuff like that. The way its being handled is what I can’t tolerate. Without spoiling too much, certain characters will go out of their way to do these elaborate pranks against each other wither it be staging a zombie apocalypse or the death of a main character. I understand the morale value behind this subplot, but it wears the welcome too much. It even trails into an unnecessary 15 minutes near the end which completely contradicts the “other” main message.

And that is the other big problem I have which is the main theme of parenting. Most of the Madea movies center on a certain theme from second chances to dysfunctional families. “Madea Halloween” tries to examine the idea of what is good parenting and bad parenting. But it gets a set of mixed messages when you have jokes about how to beat a child up wrapped around a climax when Brian finally gets the idea of how to discipline your kid. I’m all for the idea of show and even discussing the limits of child discipline. Yet everything goes back and forth on key jokes like Brian talking to Uncle Joe about a time when Joe tossed him off the roof to learn a lesson. Material like this is not funny and bogs down the message to the point it will feel like a beating to the head or exhaust itself.

I can’t remember a single character I liked from this movie. They were all annoying, irradiating and even some that got under my skin a lot. Madea was never funny or interesting to me. I get the reason why people love this character, but I always find her to be too mean spirited at times. And it doesn’t help when you have her force out this morale message of kids respecting parents when immediately afterwards has a entire sequence when she does something mean to others. I know the purpose why she does (I can’t say without spoiling), but it sort of goes against those moments when the character has a heartfelt morale to say.

As for the others, I really couldn’t care less. Uncle Joe is the perverted senior that’s always trying to say some kind of catchphrase or dirty joke. Aunt Bam has this running gag about being able to legal smoke marijuana which gets old. Hattie is the comic relief with the annoying voice that keeps mispronouncing words just for a gag. The biggest offender I found was really Brian and his daughter. I get they are trying to build this arc over how he can’t manage to connect or even maintain control of his daughter. But when we get to their moment when they recoup, it feels manipulated after a slew of exposition on why Brian is inept over taking charge. And for someone his age, Brian should at least be able to know his daughter this well.

There were only two times I actually did snicker during “A Madea Halloween.” Once at a gag when Bam steals candy from kids and a comment from Uncle Joe about Madea having a prostate. Those jokes only worked because of the delivery of the humor and the ideas behind these two jokes. Everything else I recall is material about being harsh on child discipline and fraternity boys learning responsibility the hard way. There is nothing else I can remember that was remotely investing outside of the advanced technical work giving us the ability to see three Tyler Perry characters in one shot. I know there is an audience for Madea, but I’m not one of them.

“Boo! A Madea Halloween” left me feeling empty and dumb down to the point my mind felt numb. The morale is mixed between cynical humor and taking responsibility to the point it feels kinda calculated. Tyler Perry said his movies were meant for entertainment and not to be thought too heavily on. My criticism to that is when you force a morale like that amidst jokes of spanking and child beating, there will be mixed signals. There are better things to watch this Halloween season and this movie is no treat. I wouldn’t even recommend a single frame to anyone. The only positive about this whole thing was that I saw this Madea movie at my local cinema on Bargain Tuesday for $6. Because it would have been a whole lot scarier if I paid to see this for full admission price.

New “Ghostbusters” underwhelms with unfunny humor and dull spirits

ghostbusters2016Prior to seeing Paul Feig’s new film, I read an article from the daughter of Harold Ramis. I enjoyed with delight seeing Violet share moments with her father and how much she appreciated the cult phenomenon he created. There were two parts in that piece that got my attention. One where she goes on to say how disappointing it was to see her dad’s likeness not used for “The Real Ghostbusters” cartoon. To which Harold replied, “It’s fine. …The cartoon is its own thing.The same way you used to ask if the fans knew I wasn’t really Egon? Well, I’m not. It’s a character. There was a different Superman when I was a kid. Things change. ”

The second part that got my attention was near the end when she mentions the backlash of the new Ghostbusters movie with the principal characters gender swapped. At first she was mad, until the negativity came in. In a response, Violet pleaded to stop using the death of her father as a reason to hate the movie. To which I agree. Because a creator is gone and unable to make his vision, doesn’t give reason to use it as a purpose to hate another’s interpretation. Consider this a public service that just because someone decides to make their version, doesn’t mean it must be shunned. Call this contradicting considering my thoughts of the movie to come later, but if you don’t want to see or bother with this movie, then don’t. But when you criticize and claim you saw something before you have seen it, doesn’t give it the satisfaction it deserves. And while I admit this is not a good movie, its not one to really hate over. Because right now, right across from the laptop I am typing at are two copies of the first movie. One on Blu-ray and the other on DVD. They are on my shelf unharmed and untouched. And even if this new movie tries to erase the continuity of the original, it still exists in the minds of those who love it. Now that I am off my soapbox, let’s break into this.

Even as I type this, I feel really bad for saying that I didn’t find myself enjoying Paul Feig’s take. And personally, there’s a lot of factors to blame here. I could point my finger at Sony for how they tried to make another franchise after losing Spider-Man to Marvel Studios. Its quite clear in the advertising and marketing that they want this to be a big thing. But the problem is that the original 1984 film wasn’t destined to be a huge cultural hit. There was no planned franchise at the time. It was like lightening in a bottle. Once it comes it, it makes a strike on the big screen that can’t be duplicated. They sure tried here, but it falls pale in comparison. Even on its own, I can’t help but pick apart certain plot points and things that really bugged me which I talk about later in.

Another problem I could say is the casting, but even that’s not it. These are all really funny and talented people. I’ve seen Melissa McCarthy in movies like The Heat and she can be really funny. Even thought I wasn’t a fan of Bridesmaids, I admit she was the funniest thing in that movie from her twisted attitude and loud personality. But even here, I felt like she was struggling a bit considering the PG-13 tone this movie is mean to have and the relationships with the characters. The only break out was Kate McKinnon who had this mad scientist personality which was delightful to watch. Kate felt way more animated and seemed like she having way more fun. When Kristen Wigg and Melissa are together, there is more banter than playing off each other. Almost like arguing and that’s in part to what the characters do to each other early on. Nothing said to me, “oh, these two are close friends and I can see them getting along.” The performances were sort of dull and not very interesting. To which I personally blame more the script as opposed to the effort going into it.

The big take away is that the cast and crew really wanted to make a good movie, but it feels like they knew nothing worked because how weak the story was. Basically, it does feel like a rehash of the first movie with similar beats. There are differences here and there to keep it far apart from the original, but nothing stands out. For example, in the first movie, the original crew captures their first ghost and immediately they find the business they created booming greatly. Instead here, once they capture their first ghost, our heroines  get an immediate scolding for no reason. We want to root for these underdogs and see them succeed. That’s what made the first film work, because you felt success was on their side. In this new film, reality intervenes and prevents you from enjoying their success. Now they are being told to keep this supernatural stuff under warps and avoid public panic, when clearly its not even sending a panic. That never made any sense to me.

Another thing that bothered me was the constant use of negative male stereotypes. When watching this new take, I barley remember a point when I recall a male character that actually did some good justice for the girls. In a way, I felt more sorry for them to be surrounded by a cavalcade of jerks, morons and (without giving too much away) delirious fanboys. A prime example is Chris Hemsworth who joins in as their secretary and all he does is just act dumb to them. He doesn’t provide any help and just goes about like a buffoon.  It kept aggravating me because I felt like some better use could have been made out of this character and it didn’t. It was a one note joke that went on for way too long.

Without giving too much away, the villain is certainly the most weakest part of the movie. Neil Casey plays this creepy janitor that plans to bring an end to the world and they try to make it fit into this whole message about bullying. But it doesn’t feel blended in right. I feel its due to how there is no justification for the Ghostbusters crew and how unfairly they get treated. All Neil’s character does is go about and try to motivate the plot, but his moments are so little they could have been cut and replaced with something different. The motivation is not big enough to care for as he mucks his way to the big finale which tries way too hard to please.

The finale in particular tries to be overblown with much effects and spooks, but it goes on for too long. Its like they throw one thing after another just to please viewers of old and new with new monsters and appearances by old faces. However, there is no build up to this big climax. Ghosts come out and start to tear up New York like a giant cookie. Even the choice in ghost designs are uninteresting. In the original, they had these abstract and deformed designs that looked other worldly. In the new version, they feel like floating pedestrians crossed with rejected designs from The Haunted Mansion ride.

This new movie really tries to win fans of the old with Easter eggs and even cameos from characters who were in the original film. But it tries way too hard. Its trapped between trying to do something new for a different generation and appease fans of the old. And a good example are these cameos by the stars from the first film. Some I did find a little cute like Annie Potts and maybe Ernie Hudson. But others suffer either from feeling forced or going against what their original characters represented. One in particular plays this scientists that tries to debunk the girls, but the person who plays him doesn’t fit it. It completely goes against what the original role intended from the first film for someone who believes in paranormal activity.

I’m certain this movie might have it fans and I know really well, this will be an easy movie to hate on. But at the end of day, all these cast and crew members wanted to do was make a good movie. However, a troubled script can’t save the day. I feel really bad for not liking this because I wanted to give this new incarnation a chance. I wanted to walk out of the theater and admit I was wrong about the whole affair. Sadly, that is not that day. Paul Feig’s “Ghostbusters” is so flawed that I found myself being emotionally taken out of the movie a lot. I wanted to accept what was on screen, but nothing clicked. The jokes were unfunny, the effects were not memorable and the overall experience was just dull and boring. I literally sat there in my seat trying to find a good joke throughout the whole affair. In the end, I only laughed three times. So far, this has been a dull crop of summer blockbusters and I keep hoping something will come along to break the dullness. To which I am sad to say “Ghostbusters” didn’t answer the call very well here.


P. S. If you are curious about Violet Ramis’ article, click the link below. I really recommend it. It helped me out.

Horror-Wood Blog-a-Thon: Three Flavours Cornetto trilogy

Horror-wood 2


Of all the trilogies to exist in this universe, I never thought I would hold this one a step above Star Wars in terms of admiration. Edgar Wright originally started this as a joke but since has been official. Three original movies with different plots that have similar connections with only one big thing that keeps it together; a Cornetto ice cream. For those here in the U.S., a Cornetto is sort of a Nestle Drumstick ice cream but with more diverse flavors. An odd choice how three different movies are connected but a simple ice cream brand. And yet, each movie feels deliciously enjoyable as a frozen treat.

Shaun-of-the-deadShaun of the Dead kicks it off with the colors resembling a strawberry flavor for the gore and blood. Indeed, how fitting it is seeing the film is great send off to the Romero zombie movies. But in a sense, it feels more like both an homage and a “how NOT to survive” film. Simon Pegg is Shaun, a electronic clerk without a life, bunks with a lazy friend (Nick Frost) and recently had his girl break up with him. To think, this would be the last hero you would expect to root for in a zombie apocalypse.

Even if you haven’t see the Romero films, this movie is such a roller coaster to watch from beginning to end as our hero Shaun has to use what he has to stay alive. What makes this guy so lovable is not just the every-man abilities he gets, but just how we connect to his low life. This is the last person we expect to see be a leader with a group of friends that even feel diverse about his choices. From setting up camp in a pub to devising plan after plan, the comedy comes from not just how these people can’t work with each other but how they poorly they perform. As the gory effects mix beautifully with the British wit, one wonders how a film like this can be so well-made and nearly flawless.

2007-hot_fuzz-1The second film in the trilogy takes a different turn with Hot Fuzz. The original blue flavor symbolizes the police element which very describes this entry in a nutshell. Simon Pegg returns as a hard-boiled but “goody-goody” cop named Nicholas Angel. Because of how “too good” he performs, Nicholas gets sent to watch after a small village that is more backwards than you can imagine. Outside of trying to fit in with the lazy team, Nicholas thinks something is afoot as key murders happen while trying to deal with small-time tasks like underage teens in pubs and chasing geese.

Trading in his slacker personality, Simon Pegg does a good job playing the tough as nails cop while a good bulk of the comedy comes from how his serious edge doesn’t mingle with the small town. Of course, this builds to a huge conspiracy that he is aware of and perhaps a few others too. One suspicious character is his new chum Ed (Nick Frost) who may seem dimwitted but surprisingly doesn’t get the hard shaft when he messes up. The highlight of Hot Fuzz is the chemistry between Pegg and Frost knowing how well these two play off each other like a comedy couple. The humor of the movie is certainly in the right place seeing how odd of a village that can take something so small as a typo in a newspaper column so seriously.

However, while most people deem this the best of the three, there are problems I have with this one. The tone of Hot Fuzz tends to parody action buddy movies and at times seems to fall into the traps of them. What feels like a satire at times can be a bit too close when mimicking these Michael Bay style tropes and cliches. Of course, they do pay off at the end but nearly ruin the unpredictable factor. Now there is a dark twist about the village that I can spoil which brings the movie into a huge 360 degree turn but I tend to question the aspect too much. Unlike Shaun that is straight-up fun, the clashing parody of real cop drama vs. stylized action gets too much for me to handle. None the less, there is good comedy and charm with these characters but I miss the carefree tone from Shaun of the Dead.

The_World's_End_posterBut that leaves us to The World’s End with mint chocolate chip representing the aliens in this film. And without a doubt, this is my personal favorite of the three. I recall seeing this one in theaters after a slow summer and honestly, I couldn’t ask for a better way to end it. Many fans and moviegoers seem very divided over this one but I still feel it is the strongest of the three for a variety of reasons.

Simon Pegg trades in responsibility to become the loud and boisterous Gary King, who manages to convince his old school pals to gather and attempt a pub crawl that they failed to do years ago. Once back in the town, things seem to have slightly altered outside of the whole town being converted into mechanical beings with blue ink for blood. The concept alone doesn’t get more high winded than that paying homage to 1980s dark sci-fi ranging from John Carpenter films to a little of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

Not only does Pegg changes things up but so does Nick Frost as Gary’s best friend who is more calm and organized compared to his previous characters who were lazy and irresponsible. It’s almost like the two traded places just to see how well they could do a character like this. Even Pegg’s Gary comes off as likable despite the loud personality as someone who just wants to relive the past. Its not till near the end a huge plot twist comes into play where we finally understand why this high school past time means so much to him in a tragic yet interesting way.

The rest of World’s End is just pitch perfect to me. The fact you want to see these guys complete this marathon of beer while trying to avoid being converted into alien robots is just fun. Even for a low-budget film, the special effects alone are a huge highlight displaying how much can be accomplished with so little. Dare I say, this entry has probably the best fight scenes of all the three from bathroom brawls to intense chase scenes from one pup to the next. It all builds to a climax that is simple yet I feel Douglas Adams himself would be proud of as the worst of humanity is left to defend how amazing the human race is under the skeptical alien anomaly (voice by Bill Nighy in a hilarious cameo.) In short, this is a very engaging entry.

Besides that, I do admire all three of them for how bizarre and yet entertainingly diverse each one is. Like flavors to ice cream, movies have flavors too that entice out taste buds as much what entertains us. From zombies to cop action to aliens, these three movies have it all and much more. The appeal for these movies is just indescribable as they feel like pure love letters to what movies mean to us and why we love them. While they are not pure masterpieces, they not meant to be. They are Edgar Wright’s great send ups to our favorite genres.

Horror-Wood Blog-a-Thon: Hocus Pocus

Horror-wood 2


95d7bb7e8815898cdc893c0d72e7856b547682d6With Halloween upon us (or was by the time I wrote this), I pondered just what was it that made Hocus Pocus so popular these days. It was a movie Disney made in 1993, released in the summer (weird choice) and while it did ok at the box office, the film never made a huge splash like in the $100 millions. But now in days, this movie is like a virus on the Halloween season. Hear me out, people at my retail job talk about the film and how it airs to the equivalency of popular water bubble conversations. It gets a huge respect and love at Witch’s Woods, my other Halloween job, with even getting played at one of the haunts. And when I went to look for a copy at my local video store, there was only one Blu-Ray of it left on the shelf. That’s how huge the respect this movie gets around this time of year. So rather than review it, just what about Hocus Pocus does everyone go rapid and joyful for?

Is it the story? Well, not really but granted it does have an interesting concept. A group of witches called the Sanderson Sisters (get it? Sounds like Anderson Sisters?) are put on trail for their crimes in old Salem. They plan to say young and youthful but sucking out the souls of little children to ensure they will live forever. After their hanging, 300 years later, a kid named Max blindly lights a magic candle in their abandoned home causing them to come back and bring chaos. A typical good vs. evil story mixed with some fish out of water elements.

As the witches try to make sense of the new world, being 1993 in the movie’s case, they find Halloween is nothing but a holiday now with trick-or-treaters and technology has been updated. Does this get used to the advantage of the movie? Not fully. There are a couple of fun scenes where they interact with televisions, try to mingle at a Halloween party complete with a song and ride around on mops and vacuum cleaners. But that’s sort of about it. In a sense, I can see this working. The idea of witches resurrected and trying to fit in with modern times but it feels underplayed most of the time.

hocus-pocus-kidsThe more important thing is how Max takes their magic spell book (which by Disney’s standards is nicely designed and very Evil Dead-lite) which has a certain recipe for their soul sucking potion. While the three bewitching sisters try to hunt them down, Max has to relay on his typical sister, a would be girlfriend and a talking cat who is really a teenager cursed to help stop them. So yeah, for a 90 minute movie there is a lot going on here. In fact, there is so much plot going on that one wonders how things don’t get too complex. I can’t say its too hard to follow seeing the fish out of water elements feel like a break from the story but again, its a basic good vs. evil ploy that has been used since Disney’s time.

If that’s the case, do the characters make the movie so well-known? Again, not exactly. The main characters are sort of your run of the mill tropes and cliches. You have the awkward teen that gets bullied, the girl that will become the love interest, the sibling that is between annoying yet has a good heart, the goofy parents, the townsfolk that are deaf to their warnings and the bullies that act like they are hip and cool when they are not. Its very much a big bag of cliches that we have seen before and are written like beings we would see on a TV movie. Which is ironic seeing this movie was originally going to be a Disney Channel Original until executives thought other-wise.

Hocus-Pocus_20Things_9There’s also that talking cat named Binx who has an interesting back-story (voiced by James Marsden, human body performed by Sean Murray) and knows much of the Sandersons. But that’s sort of about it. There is also the question of times when he can talk and times he can’t. If Binx can speak English so well, what is he doing roaming about the old witch house? And if these kids are in trouble, wouldn’t it be more interesting to help convince others of what’s going on? If there was a deleted scene that explained that plot hole, I would be fine but there isn’t. He could have been a more helpful ally but just only resorts his duties to the main characters. We also get a zombie that tries to be the lackey of the Sandersons and has this funny running gag of loosing his head. But again, there’s not much to his character outside of comic relief. And that sort of sums up a good bulk of the main things. There’s not really that big or unique to them. While not bad concepts or ideas for that matter, they don’t feel fully developed.

Another thing I will address before I move on is that some people feel bugged by the whole “virgin” element. If you don’t know, the plot of the curse involves a virgin to set off these chain of events to happen. And Max just so happens to be that said “virgin” who is picked on and doesn’t fit in with the New England town. To be honest, I really wasn’t bugged this. If they flat-out bullied him because he didn’t have sex, then there would be some problems. But for the first half, most of that bullying is just toward him not fitting in and stuff like that. I can barley think of a scene where his character is made fun of just for his virginity aside from maybe one scene and the closing line. But its very underplayed.

hocus-pocus-then-nowSo if this movie isn’t really that big of masterpiece then why does it keep drawing new viewers? One answer: The Sanderson Sisters. These are probably one of Disney’s best villains to date. They have have the most fun and the actress portraying them have a lot of scene-stealing moments that really add on. True they are masked by basic quirks like Bette Midler being the annoyed leader Winnie, Kathy Najimy as the child-hungry but very bumbling Mary and Sarah Jessica Parker as the sultry and boy-crazy Sarah. Every moment they are in the movie, you can tell these three are having the time of their life. I love the way their get their eyes widen and just how expressive they can be. Even when they are given little to work with or play off of, they really try.

In fact, I wonder what it would be like if Hocus Pocus was just about them? In a time when self-centered villain movies are being the talk of the town, I would actually like to see maybe a sequel or even a reboot that just focuses on them only. It would be kind of fun to see a bunch of Shakespearean characters try to live in modern times. Heck, there’s even a stage show about them that recently opened up at the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida. Obviously, they are the strongest element in the movie and if you took that out, Hocus Pocus would have been this basic and simple film.

So with that, your probably wondering how I feel about Hocus Pocus overall and where do I stand with it. For starters, I did grow up watching this movie as a kid and enjoying it. But not for the plot or the characters, just for the witches themselves. I can’t really say if that is a good thing or a bad thing but a part of me does feel this movie holds up in some way. Granted, its not a perfect movie by any means or really a masterpiece like say the Wizard of Oz but there is sort of a way I can describe why it got so popular over the years. Because its the one movie that dips itself into holiday tradition more than any other Halloween movie. Of course, movies today like Trick R Treat are starting to catch on (which arguably is a better movie) but there is one big reason why THIS movie is getting more attention to what its doing.

A good example of this kind of movie is A Christmas Story. For those who don’t know, the movie was released and didn’t make a big impact. But over the years, everyone keeps talking about it and watching it like its some kind of Christmas classic. It honors the Christmas traditions we went through as a kid and exploits them in some form of an adult twist. While Hocus Pocus doesn’t do that entirely, it does honor some Halloween traditions like trick-or-treating, urban legends, witchcraft and even discusses darker elements of the holiday that few Halloween family films would even tackle.

So for what it is, I do enjoy Hocus Pocus. Not for the story and not for the characters but what for it does to the holiday. Granted, it could have been a stronger movie if it was placed in different hands but I can’t think of anything too bad or ethically unclean. I know this movie already has a strong fan base and still growing one. But I do warn for newcomers to watch with low expectations. I know there are a good handful of people that don’t find much joy for the story, characters and few things here and there which is understandable. As for me, I don’t mind defending this one even if it is flawed. The witches are fun, the special effects surprisingly still look amazing and its one bewitching flick I always look forward to around this time of year.

We are not done yet! All week long, we are catching up on more horror goodness for that bag of leftover candy you got. Stay tuned creeps!

Horror-Wood Blog-a-Thon: Re-Animator

Horror-wood 2


Reanimator_posterRe-Animator is a movie I so desperately want to like and recommend. There is no other movie I can think of that is a twisted take on the Frankenstein myth with such a devoted fan base. For the small budget of $900,000, it was a hit grossing over $2 million and was respected by critics like Roger Ebert and Janet Maslin of the New York Times. Being one who is big on horror from the 1980s, the premise alone sounds like something I really should enjoy. A man makes a serum that can bring things back to life but the living corpse does more damage than possible. Already that is a hint of interest so why in the end did I find myself not liking this movie?

Jeffrey Combs plays the lead scientists that creates the serum named Herbert West and as always, Combs is going to be good in any role he is in. I remember him playing the FBI agent in Peter Jackson’s The Frighteners and loving just how over the top/crazy he got. Here, he uses that manic energy but there is something very disliking to the character. Herbert is so bent on his formula that he comes off as naive of his work or just too obsessed. He rents a room with a couple and all he cares about his work while treating them like pure trash. Maybe I’m used to the traditional Frankenstein stories but there’s something very unwelcoming here. I can understand the demented insanity over making this serum but just how insane do you have to be? Hell, he doesn’t even question morale values when he tests it on their cat he kills. Yeah, he kills their pet cat and uses the formula as a test subject. What a generous house guest he turns out to be.

The rest of movie is very hit and miss for me. Bruce Abbott is Dan Cain, the owner of the house Herbert stays at and he seems more like a doormat than someone to root for. Granted, he does participate in Herbert’s experiments and reluctantly assists like a basic Igor with personality. But I don’t remember him doing much outside of assisting the experiments. I kept thinking if this crazy man was raising this form of hell around my house, I would have kicked him out in a heartbeat. And of course, his wife played by Barbara Crampton only serves to be the damsel in distress for later on but again, that’s really I remember about these side characters. They only appear to be plot elements and outside of that barley do anything I remember them which resembles an importance outside of being crucial to the story.

David Gale does have a chilling performance as a rival doctor named Carl Hill who is aware of Herbert’s experiments and tries to use the formula to his advantage. But he only serves to be a small conflict for later on when Herbert kills him and then injects his dead body with the serum. Why? Does Herbert realizes this is his enemy and bringing him back to life will cause more problems? There is a fine line between insanity and stupid. And this is sort of a problem I have with this film. Most of the characters only exist to be cogs in the story. Outside of maybe an interesting quirk or two, there’s nothing really that interesting about them.

re-animator_34Re-Animator came out around the same time as horror movies like Day of the Dead and Fright Night. And those two movies were able to take cliches and tropes while doing something interesting and unique. Romero’s zombie epic was a dark commentary on the zombification of humanity and Fright Night was a fun tongue-in-cheek flick about the vampires mythos.  Re-Animator does have an interesting concept but the story and characters just didn’t come to life for me. The only thing I do remember being unique was the special effects. Gory as they are, director Stuart Gordan really paid attention to detail in things like talking severed heads and how a rotted corpse should look. The special effects are unique considering the low budget and succeed in giving a believable quality. But even that gives the movie sort of an uncomfortable tone to me.

Photo-1-re-animator-movies-34572414-1200-782I know I shouldn’t let reality get in the way, but you reading a review of someone who will vomit at the sight of seeing someone’s insides or an autopsy. For something like a zombie movie, I’m fine seeing corpses walk about with organs hanging out. But when its done in a medical manner that is when it gets under my skin a bit. Maybe my personal preferences got in the way but even without that, Re-Animator still didn’t do anything for me. The characters are too crazy or dull, the special effects are good but perhaps too good and there is sort of this cold feeling I get whenever I think about the walking bodies and moving parts in the movie. But to its credit, it does salvage itself near the end with a finale that I won’t run for newcomers but then it ends on a open hook so large that it sort of left me feeling disappointed. Again, without spoiling the ending, I sort of felt like nothing was wrapped up or left open too much for a sequel. But at the end of the day, there is nothing I can do to adjust my feelings that much. Part of me is curious to re-watch this and see if my feelings are the same but every time I keep thinking about Re-Animator, I just keep going back to the flaws that just flat-out annoyed and bothered me. Maybe you will find some enjoyment in this and I can see why. But honestly, I’d rather stick with the classic Frankenstein films thank you very much.

“Goosebumps” is ghoulish fun

Viewer beware, your in for something adequately scary

Viewer beware, your in for something adequately scary

I often find R. L. Stein interesting as a person. He’s constantly writing books, exploring the world once in a while and always carries a unique story to tell. In his recent biography for kids, named “It Came from Ohio,” he often wrote comedic magazines pioneered independently, had an interesting sense of humor and all around fun guy. From teaching seals to dance and work on Eureeka’s Castle,  “Jovial” Bob Stein will be better remembered for his work on the book series Goosebumps. Sort of Tales from the Crypt for kids, I recall reading these in middle school and enjoying them. While they weren’t scary to me, I fondly thrilled at Monster Blood and taking a day in Horrorland. To make a movie based on the nostalgic property alone is a challenge but they tried. In the end, what we get is a film that probably should have come out 20 years ago but still better late then never.

Dylan Minnette is Zach, a high schooler that moves into Delaware after his mother gets a job as a vice principal at his new school. As with this kind of character, we go through the whole phase of him being new in the area even if its brief and add some baggage with a deceased father. This is fine alone and does give some development but it feels like a typical teenager with problems. Not to say it’s a bad thing but I do wish more was written better. You still get to sympathize and thankfully that material is not forced in so I can’t complain.

R. L. Stein (Jack Black) along with his daughter and two friends set out to stop the evil forces while making for good chemistry

R. L. Stein (Jack Black) along with his daughter and two friends set out to stop the evil forces while making for good chemistry

Zach finds that he is neighbors with a girl his age named Hannah, whose not that bad either. Odeya Rush’s performance is thankfully a step up after last year’s The Giver where she was cold and flat. Here, Rush is given more to work with especially in the later half when a huge twist about the character comes up. Like the character Zack, Hannah is written as a teenager with a simple motive to break out and not be boxed in. The characterization is very simple without too much depth tossed which is good and bad at the same time. You do get chemistry thanks to the performances but wish these people were written with more depth at times.

What stands in the way of Hannah being more social is her dad who is revealed to be R.L. Stein played by Jack Black. Ironic how the real Stein is a fan of Black and even got to work with him a bit behind the scenes to get a variation of Black’s take. The film version of Stein is more sinister and comes off as a cross between Doc Brown from Back to the Future and Dr. Loomis from the Halloween films. Black’s take adds a level of fun and thrills without overdoing it. At times, he does get a little “over the top” but you know this comedian will give it his all no matter what he will be in.

The Abominable Snowman of Pasadena who may look like Harry Henderson really packs more bite than you expect

The Abominable Snowman of Pasadena who may look like Harry Henderson really packs more bite than you expect

The reason why Stein is locked up in the house is because of how powerful his Goosebumps manuscripts are. Apparently if one were to open then, said monster would pop out and raise havoc. This is evident when the Abominable Snowman of Pasadena appears setting up the rules and tone of the film. The only way to get the creature is to simply get the thing back in the books. Simple enough, but it gets complicated when an evil ventriloquist dummy named Slappy (also voiced by Jack Black) escapes and plans to raise chaos on the small town with all the Goosebumps monsters. Not only does he steal the manuscripts and opens them, but also burns each one ensuring the monsters can’t be sucked back into the pages they came from.

Already the premise sounds familiar and I’m positive you can figure out if you will enjoy this movie or not. Personally, I liked it even when the humor did get awkward or the story got predictable. Once the town gets overrun by lawn gnomes, werewolves, a giant mantis, zombies and many other things, that is when Goosebumps was engaging to me. Sure the stuff in the first third had decent build up but it felt standard and simple. On the other hand, that is what Goosebumps is. The stories of the books never got too in-depth or too complex. They were simple stories that existed to entertain as oppose to frighten and shock.

Villian of the movie, Slappy the dummy (also voiced by Jack Black) as he plans to unleash the monsters in surprisingly convincing effects showing how great puppetry can be

Villian of the movie, Slappy the dummy (also voiced by Jack Black) as he plans to unleash the monsters in surprisingly convincing effects showing how great puppetry can be

For what it was, I got what I expected and enjoyed it. However, this isn’t a perfect movie by any means. Some of the special effects can be a tad mediocre and the comedy of characters like a cool wannabe named Champ as well as an aunt that has a strange obsession for bedazzling clothes. Though I can’t think of a time when the humor felt too forced (as I did chuckle at how lame Champ was) and there isn’t any bad messages that is being said. Even effects like the puppetry work on Slappy the evil dummy is surprisingly good considering the low $58 million budget this movie has.  In a sense, I do wish there was more edgy as it could have been a great family film but I’m glad I enjoyed what I saw. There are times when it does feel like a tribute to R. L. Stein paying homage to not only his books but even his style as well. Little facts like how he always used a typewriter for his work and the placement of bear traps in the basement add to what kind of person Stein was. A man who never wanted to be taken seriously and just wanted to let his readers have fun with his work.

Now if silly, goofy and campy is not your cup of tea or if your not a fan of the books, then Goosebumps might be the movie your looking for. I’d say this is more like a Disney movie along the lines of Hocus Pocus or Honey, I Shrunk the Kids without the edginess. In fact, much of the film does get thrilling but misses out on the scares. Had this been harder along the lines of Gremlins or Coraline, I do wonder if it would have been a better movie or play it off as too frightening. Seeing these kinds of movies as a kid, I was fine with that I saw but wish there was more to it. Its not that bad to say its the worst but its not perfect either. I just feel it was a good family film that I know kids will enjoy and might be split with the older crowd. If you want to play it safe, rent it. But for anyone else curious, I’m sure you will be fine. There’s plenty of thrills and twists that will keep you engaged and a great watch for the Halloween season. A modest recommendation at best. Just keep in mind to beware, because your in for some ghoulish fun.

Horror-Wood Blog-a-Thon: Christine

Horror-wood 2


A killer car movie...that is actually better than you expect it to be

A killer car movie…that is actually better than you expect it to be

Leave it to director John Carpenter to bring you a movie that has such a ridiculous premise but somehow makes it truly frightening and enjoyable. And not to mention horror author Stephen King for taking such a basic idea and flying with it. Granted not all of King’s work will be blockbuster material but you do get certain stories that can make such a chilling yet interesting flick. This is where Christine comes in. Probably the only killer car movie I can think of that is flat out absurd on paper but when watching it, makes for a very well made and if not near masterpiece. I know this isn’t Criterion material but man, a huge part of me feels like this movie should.

Keith Gordon plays a nerdy teen named Arnold who obviously doesn’t fit in with school. And yeah, this is sort of a minor problem of the movie. If you know King’s work, you will come across a character once in a while that does have similar qualities. Or even stories like this. The nerd that keeps getting picked on, the bullies that hassle him, the one best friend that is a jock but tries to stand up for him and the overzealous parents that want what is best for him but obviously show no sign of freedom for their kid. Cliched and predicable but even King’s channeling of these cliches can make for something interesting. In the vein of horror, you know something will happen to these tropes and cliches while curious to see where it goes.

Anrold looks over the rusted Christine pre-transformation

Anrold looks over the rusted Christine pre-transformation

And it just so happens, Arnold pines over not a girl but a car. That’s right! A 1958 Plymouth Belvedere that is believed to be cursed seeing the previous owner died in it. But he doesn’t care as the kid fixes her up like new and starts to have a huge obsession over it. So much so that Arnold starts to have a complete transformation and sees his hot rod as a girlfriend (ironically much less like the girl he tries to date.) Now he becomes rebellious, demented and all out insane. Here is where Christine gets really interesting.

Its not the car or even the other characters. Its Arnold’s obsession and how it consumes. It was almost like he made a deal with the devil just to have this new personality just to get the car of his dreams. Keith Gordon does a surprisingly good job channeling from the shy and geeky to suddenly turning into the greaser from Hell. Every time he’s on screen, you feel like he’s a time bomb waiting to explode considering what lies behind that jet black hair and devilish smug is something dark and demented. Viewers always have this fascination with dark characters as well as villains and this kid fits the bill if your looking for something like that. The transformation Arnold goes through is engaging while also frightening to watch. As you see him seep into madness, you wonder if there is any humanity left and horrify at how much control he gets over his parents while also how insane he becomes.

One of the many bullies Christine chases down in this iconic scene

One of the many bullies Christine chases down in this iconic scene

But of course, the real star of the movie is Christine herself. Lord knows how many Belvedere cars they had to dig up in order to make this automobile alive. Its never explained but the car has a mind of its own as it manages to kill the bullies that taunt Arnold and anyone who gets in the way of her relationship. The movie could have removed this supernatural element and it would have been standard. But the idea of a living car killing people is crazy but this movie really makes it scary at times. One such highlight is when Christine destroys a gas station and emerges covered in flames while chasing down another bully. The imagery and sight of a car on fire meshed with the electronic score by John Carpenter himself and collaborator Alan Howarth really make for an intense scene like this.

Can Christine be destroyed? Maybe. There are rules to this metallic beast which makes for great suspense. If you even try to smash or break the car, it simply unbends itself and regenerates like it was off the assembly line. Again, another get testament to how amazing practical effects can be. In today’s world, CGI would be an easy thing. But the fact they went through 20 cars just to make an elaborate special effect like that is astounding. If it wasn’t for the special effects, this would have been a run of the mile horror. But seeing how much effort they put into making you believe this car is alive really works.

Truly manufactured from Hell!!!!

Truly manufactured from Hell!!!!

Now is it a perfect movie? Not completely. As said, there are stock characters that are sort of uninteresting and the pace can be a tad slow. But with most of Carpenter’s films, there’s something interesting about the main characters he crafts with themes of isolation that are common in Escape from New York or his remake of The Thing. What works best is the special effects and the main character. Without these two elements, it would have been a basic teenager story about sex and stuff.

What Christine becomes is a psychological thrill ride that really delivers on entertainment and scares. Half of the time, we do get moments when we wonder if it is the car killing these people or perhaps Arnold is behind the wheel. We never know that until the very last minute when they pull a small double twist that really leaves a lot of thinking to the viewer. Was Arnold controlling Christine or was Christine really controlling Arnold? At the end of the day, there never is a clear answer and perhaps that is good. The important element of horror is the unknown. And when you have something you can’t answer for find a solution to, that is when things get really frightening. And who would think something that could have been goofy and stupid could make for amazing popcorn entertainment. Thankfully, Sony decided to release this on official Blu-Ray nationwide(after a limited run with the Twilight Time label sold out fast). I don’t just give this a high recommendation but a personal “buy it” just to have something around the house in case of a slow night. Full of thrills and dark atmosphere, don’t just watch Christine but own it.

Horror-Wood Blog-a-Thon: Jaws

Horror-wood 2


MV5BNDcxODkyMjY4MF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwOTk5NTc5MDE@._V1_SX214_AL_There is no real reason to describe what makes Jaws so good. And not to mention the amount of history it left behind. This came out in 1975 when the term “blockbuster” started to mean something and launched the career of director Steven Spielberg. Based on the novel by Peter Benchley, it took a simple concept and ran with it. In fact, it almost feels like two movies in one; a basic slasher and a fishing movie. Man vs. nature while we question if this is a basic act of nature or just an normal occurrence over exposed.

The story is a very simple one and not too hard to follow. A small town named Amity Beach is prepping for a big 4th of July celebration when a shark attack changes all that. At first, the mayor (Murray Hamilton) tries to cover it up but sadly it fails seeing more attacks occur. Things get heated to the point someone has to stop the shark and it get left in the hands of Chief Martin Brody (Roy Scheider). Thankfully, he isn’t alone as by his side are the quirky oceanographer Matt Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss) and the spiritual yet sinister Captain Quint (Robert Shaw).

From the scene when the first shark attack happens, it has you hooked. The idea of something simple as anything happening in the big ocean reaches a connection. We all love to visit the ocean and yet we fear it. Jaws plays on these two consciousness knowing that an attack from a big fish couldn’t be possible but yet opens that possibility. This is mostly because a lot of the time you never see the shark. A clever idea and came from an accident when the mechanical shark puppet wouldn’t work. It resorted to Spielberg using point-of-view shots and music to give a basic cue to audience when the shark appears. It works because it allows the imagination of the viewer to play out as terror from the deep surfaces on the swimmers for lunch.

jaws-1And when we do see the shark, its satisfying. Again, we don’t see much and I feel that is a huge strength for the movie. Once Brody and the gang are out on the ocean, anything goes in the world of the shark. Knowing how powerful this beast can be, we wonder just how well this thing could be stopped while each of the shark hunting trio take turns in trying to use their expertise to destroy the water beast. It’s this section of the film that really gets engaging. After teasing and showing how destructive this sea monster can be, we let our heroes come in and save the day.

Jaws also has a great cast too with so many great performances that are too much to mention. Roy Scheider is great as the every man hero Brody as we connect with his family life and ethics. He fears for the safety of the people while trying to question his ethics. This comes into play later when he is at sea and tries to fit in with Quint and Hooper. At first, he tries to be rational despite having his ideas ignored. Without giving too much away, it appears the pay off at the end is that any given person will come forth with a simple solution that might work. And in some cases, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know how deadly a shark can be.

jaws_primaryI also love how Robert Shaw and Richard Dreyfuss play off each other as Hooper and Quint. It feels like student vs. mentor but not in a cliched way. Hooper at first appears to be cocky and really plays up the comic relief. But during his stay at Amity Beach and in the final moments, he proves to be a reliable source seeing his knowledge of sharks comes into play at the right time. Quint, on the other hand, believes that science needs to take a back seat considering his view of ocean life and seeing it his way. He almost has a spiritual sense to it even when he recounts his time on the Indianapolis. A scene that will go down as one of the best in cinema history hearing Quint’s horrifying tale of the secret mission gone wrong.

Jaws as a whole feels like two movies in one. We get the typical slasher film as the shark stalks and kills its victims while the final half plays off like a fishing trip gone wrong. Your so embedded into these characters that you want to see them put an end to the terror of the sea and beaches. For as long as this movie has been around, surprisingly it does manage to scare people away from swimming in the ocean. And its not hard to see why considering something simple as the open sea can be a deadly creature to deal with. I also have full bragging rights to say I was able to see this on a drive-in theater screen this summer and can say this movie still packs punch, laughs and thrills. The experience alone of seeing a classic on a nostalgic favorite screen is enough for me to give this a high recommendation and remind viewers that even the most basic concept can make for an effective and unique motion picture.

Horror-Wood Blog-a-Thon: Tusk

Horror-wood 2


TuskMovieThere is no other movie I can think of that gained so much attention toward its “word of mouth” negative reception like Tusk. During its debut last year, there was rarely a person I knew that actually stood in pure defense against it. Granted, there were at least one or two people but most the talk I came across was largely negative and harsh. So much so, that it almost felt like a warning to “not-see” this movie. Avoid at all costs. Abandon all fate ye who view it. Considering this is the Horror-Wood Blog-a-Thon, I decided to see what the fuss was about, watched Tusk with an open-mind and….yeah, I don’t think I need the build up to admit that this movie is probably one of the worst I’ve seen. It’s probably in the top 10 as we speak. Instead of going over the story and such, let me break down what doesn’t work for me seeing all the movie’s problems unravel from start to finish.

In this strange horror-comedy, Justin Long plays Wallace Bryton who hosts a podcast that specializes in exploiting viral videos and mocking them but not in a fun way. I guess this is supposed to be a commentary on things like public mocking shows like Tosh.0 but it comes off feeling mean spirited. Aside from the fact that the podcast is called the “Not-See Party” (seriously, how is it popular with a name like THAT?), I found the Wallace character to be highly unlikable. You could argue they do that to make him sympathetic when bad stuff happens but most of the stuff he does is downright mean.



He is vicious on his comedy, he’s a jerk to his best friend (surprisingly played by Haley Joel Osment who is not that bad here) and cheats on his own wife. Not to mention, the motivation for him to get the story going is to interview this kid in Canada that severed his leg when doing a viral sword play video. First off, those kinds of videos where a kid is fooling with a lightsaber ordeal is very outdated to joke about. Second, Wallace treats this as a golden opportunity but why? What sense is there in interviewing someone young that got brutally injured just for extra mockery? I know they are making him very jerky so we see him have this change of heart but it just doesn’t work seeing how much baggage this guy has against. Even worse is when he discovers the kid somehow committed suicide and he’s still focused on trying to find someone weird and bizarre to fill that spot. I’m sorry but what’s the joke here? Kid injures himself and makes a video, podcast host wants to do an interview and said kid kills himself. That’s just harsh.

Anyway, a saving grace comes in the form of Howard Howe (Michael Parks) who advertises that he has stories to tell with fliers around town. Wallace becomes interested but soon finds it to be a trap. And again, the movie tries to do this horror comedy angle and here is where it becomes very obvious at how unbalanced it feels. You see, Howard was once lost at sea but somehow got saved by a walrus. And because of this, he has this huge obsession with walruses to the point he wants to turn Wallace into one. With such a paper thin motive, you wonder just what was going through Howard’s head about this whole walrus thing. And right from that point, you can tell if this movie will be enjoyable or not.

Now, surprisingly something like this could work but what hampers Tusk from being a good movie (or at least some form of entertainment) is the delivery and tone. Kevin Smith wrote and directed this and his films have this very interesting style narrative wise. Instead of visuals motivating the story, its the dialogue and ideology of these characters. His movies like Clerks and Mallrats work because we connect to the conversations these characters have. Their simple, usual potpourri talks often connect to ths story or at least are simple to understand like Star Wars Vs. Lord of the Rings or Jay talking about the Bible and its wonders (see Clerks 2). But here, this is a horror. Visuals and dialogue motivate the story and unfortunately, this movie gets to be interested in being wordy than visual.

Tusk-Movie-Still-1Again, long blocks of dialogue can move the story but it has to be done right. And here, we get so much talking and so much conversation that it really drags the movie down. The longer these discussions and arguments go on for, feels like an eternity when things should have been cut out or trimmed. It even goes against the phrase “don’t tell, show” by having key scenes where a character mentions a past moment when it would have been easier just to show it. Sometimes, that can work for something like The Shining or Jaws. Dialogue can make a creepy atmosphere and move the story to where it wants to go to. In Tusk, it just feels like filler.

After what feels like an eternity of discussion, we finally get to see Wallace get horribly transformed into a human walrus by means of human skin and disgusting restructure. The sight and description alone is so horrifying that it’s not worth describing (or showing a picture of for that matter). With the weight of Tusk centered on talking and discussing as the main focus, it really drags the pace down to an uncomfortable level. So much so that when we see the beast in its glory, we can’t relish in the cheesy and ridiculous because of how unpleasant of an experience we had. Even the design itself is too gruesome to comprehend that scenes of Wallace being taught how to eat and swim like a walrus feel grueling to watch. Even the motivation behind this act is so bizarre that it feels like an excuse than a legit reason which I can’t spoil.

Not even Johnny Depp as a laid back detective can’t save this movie. I will admit, the make-up job is not bad and you barley recognize him. There is an essence of a character here that I could get by. But what bogs down is again the amount of dialogue and exposition they throw at you. Depp’s character doesn’t even appear until near the last third of the picture and yet his introduction is very daunting to sit through. After so much scenes with talk and discuss, you think the pain would end. But no, we get an introduction to this new character and then followed by a flashback that lasts for 5 minutes too long to the point it feels like you wasted three hours of your time.

There’s only two things I remotely liked to be honest. One is a pair of convenience store clerks played by Kevin Smith and Johnny Depp’s daughters. The scenes are short but somehow they are at least far more interesting to watch. The second is one small scene when Wallace is trying to call his wife and friend but they don’t answer. Call it cliche but the way it is shot is very clever as see Wallace’s wife not notice the phone ringing and its done from a far wide shot. In a sense, it feels very Hitchcocky and it makes me wish the rest of the movie had this feeling.

Dialogue is a necessity to a story. I understand that but so are visuals and pace. Tusk is so wrapped up in talking about things that it proves to be a dull experience than it should considering its absurd premise. I should be interested in this but the overall execution and amount of talk and talk hammer the enjoyment down. This is probably one of the few movies I have sit through where pace and talk hamper on what could have been a fun film. But as it stands, Tusk is certainly in my top 10 worst films I ever had the misfortune to sit through. Consider this a public service to those curious about this movie; don’t. Just don’t.

Horror-Wood Blog-a-Thon: The Cabin in the Woods

Horror-wood 2


And now, the most beloved one of the bunch

And now, the most beloved one of the bunch

After the streak of films presented here, you think I would finally come across a gem among the bunch. Well, today is your lucky day because I get to go over what makes The Cabin in the Woods such a delight. Writer Joss Whedon has a very interesting style that feels like a near parody while playing it as a straight forward narrative. At times, his material can get self-aware but not to the point it becomes painfully obvious. Cabin was also directed by Drew Goddard who worked previously with Whedon on the Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV series and its spin-off Angel. You think these two talents would make a match made in horror. And surprisingly, that’s what this movie is. A great send off to all the traditional horror tropes and cliches we come to expect from scary movies.

The plot follows a group of teenagers who drive off to the middle of nowhere in the forest just to booze up, drug up and party. Its the typical kind of schlock you would find in The Evil Dead. And within the group are people that feel like basic stock characters like the virgin (Kristen Connolly), the sultry one (Anna Hutchinson), the jock (a surprisingly young Chris Helmsworth), the drug addict (Fran Kranz) and the smart one (Jesse Williams). As one would expect, it becomes the ultimate guessing game to who is going to die and who is going to live. And sadly, I wish I could talk about what makes this movie work but there’s a reason why.

Dare to know what lies within the cabin...

Dare to know what lies within the cabin…

Surprisingly, a lot of fans tend to be very hush-hush about the “secrets” and twists that happen. And honestly, I agree. Why spoil something good in a movie when someone is going to see it? I remember learning that one the hard way when I ruined the ending to Borat to a friend of mine. He never forgave me or even talked to me after that. It was that kind of moment. A movie tends to play with your expectations and when it goes down a path your uncertain of, that is when it gets interesting. What starts as a basic teen horror becomes more of an a homage to the genre along with a send off to the viewers that respect it.

If we know the cliches so well, why now twist them around? Why not have the druggie suddenly get smart or the jock be less of an arse and try to be nobel? That’s just scraping the surface and dare do I ruin the monster(s) that lurk about the place. Trust me when I say less said the better, because this one is worth checking out. While its not a masterpiece by any means, there is one huge element that makes Cabin stand out. A twist so good that you have to find out for yourself.




If you read past this point and what to know what happens…then your in for such a treat. Its revealed that cabin is part of a scientific experiment to please a set of strange gods that rest underneath them. As each of the stock characters die, it fills to be a sacrifice to keep the gods pleased and not bring on the end of the world. This here is what makes Cabin stand out. In fact, every scene with the scientists are the best part. As they control the environment above ground, we see how things can be motivated with the push of a button and what can be used to meet their demise.

SPOILER ALERT! Monsters gone amuck!

SPOILER ALERT! Monsters gone amuck!

But it gets better. Further in, we see that they have a huge collection of monsters they use to unleash to the places they created. It almost feels like a complete ode to nearly every horror movie out there with creepy clowns, werewolves, giant snakes and much more that inhabit these odd cells. But even describing this is still scraping the surface. I dare not ruin anymore or else the whole game is given away. But I will say the magnitude of monsters gives for a great opportunity in the climax when hell breaks loose as we are giving the ultimate monster mash ever depicted on film. Its an entertaining sight that will make any creature fan pleased.

Even so, The Cabin in the Woods has probably one of the most interesting commentary that I don’t think any horror movie has attempted. This might be stretching it but I have my own interpretation that I think describes what makes this movie so good. The stock characters are the ingredients of a horror movie being controlled as the scientists are sort of like filmmakers that want to make the film their way. They know people will go for the same old and rarely break the mold. This is in part because of the gods who feel more like film critics waiting to be awarded something they want. And if they don’t get what they wish, then its them who has the last say as the movie is killed by the mighty blow of their hands. Its an out there theory but I feel it fits for a fun film like this. Oh, as a nitpick, if your not for bleak endings, the way it concludes might turn you off…just saying…