REC 3: Genesis

Fans of the REC series love each and every movie that's been released and with good cause. What could have been a simple zombie story has added touches of mystery that make you wonder just what causes these events and how far they might spread. The original film was a masterpiece of claustrophobia where a supposed virus may have infected those inside an apartment building whose inhabitants are forced to ride out the attacks of the night with no hope of escape. The latest entry into this series takes a different approach. The film opens with a wedding and reception. Clara and Nina are a couple in love and both their families represent quite a large gathering. Included in this group is Nina's uncle. His uncle is a veterinarian whose hand is wrapped that day due to a dog bite. This simple bite will change the entire day. The usual festivities go on and everyone is dancing and singing when they suddenly notice this uncle balancing on the balcony with a strange look on his face. He falls and the first person to respond he reaches up and bites, pulling away flesh and frothing at the mouth. From there things progress with the discovery that he's infected others there and those who are infected begin attacking those who are not. Soon blood sprays and bites become frequent, Clara and Nina become separated and each group they are with attempts to find a way to survive. These zombies are not the standard slow moving sort but the run as fast as you can and grab anything moving kind. And each person who falls then gets up to join the carnage. With no hope of anyone coming to their rescue, Nina tells those in his group he refuses to leave until he finds Clara. He says they have a connection and he knows she's still alive. When her voice comes over the PA system his statement is proven true and he now heads out to find her. The film offers something different from the previous entries. First off is the fact that while its contained in a huge reception hall and grounds, its no longer that enclosed feeling found in an apartment complex wrapped in plastic to contain the disease. The disease is loose on the world now. Secondly this one adds small touches of humor now and then to ease the fear you feel while watching. One character walks around in a foam knock off brand Spongebob outfit (he was there to entertain the children) with a shotgun in his hand. Nina dons a suit of armor found in the chapel to protect himself while searching for Clara. Touches like these shuffle the emotions felt while watching. The film should keep gore hounds happy with the amount of blood that splatters and shoots across the screen. Limbs are severed, guts are yanked out and bites offer up plenty of chewed flesh that spurts plenty of fluid. Some people have criticized the film for straying away from familiar territory. One criticism has been that the priest in the film stops the zombies from moving about by reading Biblical passages. Those who know the cause of this plague will understand, those who thought it was simply a virus will not. Suffice to say that it is possible in the world this story takes place in that that would help. Another thing that upset some fans was the change of locale, the difference between the confined space and this spacious reception hall and grounds. But that only makes sense when you consider the subject at hand, the spread of a disease of sorts that will infect the world. Eventually you must leave that confined space and move on. REC 3 does just that, taking the disease outside of that small space and moving it forward. Should another sequel come up my guess is it will be spread even further, infecting an entire city rather than a small space. It's the natural progression of things. If you like zombie films, you'll love this. If you like the REC films, you should love this. If you love horror movies or gore films this one should be right up your alley. If you enjoy none of the above be prepared for something different than you normally watch. A solid foreign horror film that hits all the right notes.

Paranormal Activity 4 (2012)

A big fan of this series (my name even gets a fan credit in #1!), I thought the trailer for PA4 was awful. And the "viral campaign" never took off like it did for #2 and #3. It was as if even those involved simply weren't very committed/interested in the film they were making. The reviews were ALL tepid--even those that sort of praised it--and word of mouth was dismal. The "actual people watching the film" TV ad was so over-the-top, it became a joke. And then the film itself was a mess. Why have the wink-wink "in jokes" of the kid riding the bike like THE SHINING? It takes us "out" of the movie we're watching...and ads zero to the film. Same with the first fake" drag scene of the girl. Again, why remind us that we're watching a movie, why take us out of the experience? And NOTHING happens for so long into this movie, it's just people talking and talking and talking. The few little scares are already shown in the trailer, which they have done before...but those are the ONLY scares! So we are not surprised. And it's clear that the writers/directors had no real ideas of what Toby was to do this time. In other words, WHY does he levitate the girl? If the goal is to kill everyone, that just do it. The levitation scene is simply to impress US, the viewers. But we've seen that before, in a dozen films...and in the trailer! So there is no shock or surprise. And why bounce the ball down the stairs? And why is there scene after scene in the dark with the xBox? Toby is "better" than moving some dots around but they feature that xBox feature into the ground. Finally, the ending (no spoiler, if you've seen PA3)...is the SAME ending as PA3. We learn nothing. In fact, you can remove PA4 and you've learned NOTHING. When PA5 comes out, hopefully the filmmakers have learned from the dismal box office, word of mouth and reviews for PA4 to PUT THE SCARES BACK IN. And have a REASON for the film. All the above being said, I WILL buy PA4 and here's why: I wasn't that impressed with PA3 in the theater but the extra footage--not much, just a few scenes of Toby messing with the girls more--made for a MUCH more "sinister" film. Not sure why they were cut from the film, but they really add to PA3. Same with PA2--and maybe these movies are just better seen at home. So, here's hoping that PA5 will really deliver. They know what a mess PA4 was, so let's hope they have learned their lessons.

The Devil Inside (2012)

My boyfriend and I loved this movie, while everyone around us hated this movie. I stand up for what I say, I cannot wait to buy this DVD and watch it again. I'm so intrigued by exorcisms and murders and horror, it was like a documentary for me with exorcisms with a great story line. I thought they did an EXCELLENT job with Maria's exorcism, I've never seen a movie with that intense of an exorcism. I loved how the demon passed onto it's next victims, that's something I haven't really seen in a lot of those kinds of movies. I know everyone is disappointed by the ending, but really, HOW ELSE IS IT GOING TO END? There is no other way it could have ended. I absolutely loved it. I also know that everyone is complaining about the way it was shot, but you also have to be the kind of person that loves that kind of filming, like The Blair Witch Project, The Zombie Diaries, Cloverfield (even though that movie was horrible), and the Paranormal Activity movies. I think this movie is just for a certain type of person, someone that loves documentaries, loves horror, and doesn't mind a dialogue every once in awhile. And not everyone is going to like that stuff, they were all hoping for a fun, scary movie, but this isn't for everyone. So if you're a person that is intrigued with exorcisms and loves bloody scenes, this is the movie for you.

Chernobyl Diaries (2012)

The film opens up with all the excitement of watching your neighbor's vacation films...which is what we are doing. Two couples are touring Eurasia. Chris (Jesse McCartney) the sensible one, and Paul (Jonathan Sadowski) the wild man are brothers. There are two lovely young ladies with them, Amanda (Devin Kelley) and Natalie (Olivia Dudley). Paul hooks up with the proverbial Russian named Uri (Dimitri Diatchenko) who offers him a backdoor tour of the abandoned city of Chernobyl (Pripyat). Another couple joins them because seven people make for a better horror film than five...except in this case. While I was waiting for a scene out of "Hostel" or something interesting to happen, it didn't happen. Instead the van breaks down (it would be a quick movie if it didn't) and our group of tourists are stuck in a restricted area with no communication. The movie has that jittery hand held camera action to it, which I have grown to hate. To make the thrills cheaper, they turn out the lights and have everyone scream in terror. Oh, Chris has a boo-boo on his leg.

The Cabin in the Woods (2012)

With geek god Joss Whedon (creator of TV's Buffy and Firefly among other fan favorites) on board, it's fair to say that the expectations for "The Cabin in the Woods" were quite high for enthusiasts of the horror genre. Here he shares a writing credit with the film's director Drew Goddard and the result is one of the year's more entertaining experiments. I truly think that this is a film that will suffer due to those that are willing to discuss too many of the plot points in advance, so I'll be brief in my actual descriptions. I will say this, though, the less you know about the movie--the more fun you can have. In my opinion, even the advertising campaign and trailers hint at too much. You know from the start that this isn't your typical fright fest. Instead, what is served plays up and skewers every horror movie cliche imaginable. It is both hip and witty, as well as smarter than it has any right to be. It twists movie conventions around in clever new ways and makes something that seems remarkably fresh and different. And if you're a fan of horror movies, this is simply fun, fun, fun. Of course, we all know the genre of movies that involve a cabin in the woods (or other appropriately desolate place). Let's get a car full of kids, strand them, and then start picking them off in increasingly creative ways. At the start, that's exactly the scenario that "The Cabin in the Woods" sets up. We meet five standard character archetypes for these type of films: the jock (Chris Hemsworth), the stoner (Fran Kranz), the good girl (Kristen Connolly), the vixen (Anna Hutchison) , and the scholar (Jesse Williams). After a brief bit of character introduction, we're off to the woods. As they settle in, each rises to their individual stereotype. First there's drunken revelry, then there's the discovery of a very spooky basement, and then mayhem ensues. What's going on and can anyone survive? If you've seen the trailers, however, (and if not, this is also included as the first scenes in the movie) you know that there is something more complex at work behind the scenes. But that's all you get from me. Let's just say that the film turns into a post-modern game as much as a traditional horror endeavor.

Quarantine 2: Terminal (2011)

I thought the first movie was lousy. I watched this one with extreme prejudice. The movie starts building the characters of 2 stewardesses. Then as they help and greet passengers we get a glimpse of the passenger backgrounds. We already know there is going to be an infection, but who? The co-pilot is sick. He thinks he got it from his dog. There is a woman on board from an apartment building. Her cat is with her. The cat had left the building which she claims is very unusual. There is a man with some hamsters. Another man helps him with the hamsters and gets bit. There is an elderly man who is sick along with his wife, and a woman who has just returned from overseas, and a few others. A man is watching the events unfold from outside the apartment building from the first picture on his laptop. This one picks up where the other leaves off except the action is in an airplane. Once a passenger gets infected and isolated in the restroom, the plane is told to land. It hooks up to a terminal where they are quarantined. Now it is just a matter of who lives and who dies. The first thing I noticed is they got rid of the hand held camera nonsense and had enough money to make this into a regular movie. They still jerked the camera around when an infected human attacked to give you that terror feel. The animal sounds made by the infected humans didn't seem to be real or coming from the people making them. There is room for improvement as they kept the door open for an infinite amount of sequels. Acting was a lot better than the first one. Better story line. Quick and effective introduction of characters before the action starts.

Exorcismus (2010)

Exorcismus, not surprisingly, starts off fairly predictable, following in the footsteps of pretty much every other possession film out there, but toward about the midway point things suddenly change course, leading you in an original and disturbing direction. While most films seem only interested in patterning themselves on Friedkin's The Exorcist, Carballo introduces us to a "not-so-innocent" young girl with dark secrets, constantly locking horns with her progressive parents. Instead of jumping right into the possession, the director leads us to wonder whether Emma's malady is nothing more than the calculated tantrum tactics of a conniving teenager. This, of course, keeps us guessing while tension slowly builds and the signs of possession become evident. The film occasionally has a documentary feel, thanks to the cinematography of Javier (Romasanta) Salmones, successfully bringing you closer to the characters without forcing you to participate, like The Possession of David O'Reilly. Naturally that only works when you're given genuine characters to connect with and in my opinion the actors all did a wonderful job, with 19-year-old Sophie (Resident Evil: Apocalypse) Vavasseur turning in the most impressive, and probably physically exhausting, performance as Emma. Bottom line, when you watch a possession film you want to see some actual demonic possession, whether that's bending backwards, walking on walls, vomiting pea soup or using foul language. In the case of this film, the director could have kept things ambiguous without ever showing us anything supernatural but, thankfully, he didn't go that route. Exorcismus doesn't depend on wild CGI possession gags but they are used and when they are its to great effect as they're never over-the-top.

I Saw the Devil (2011)

I knew this was gonna be a good movie but I didn't think it was gonna be this good! "I Saw The Devil" is an awesome serial killer, cat an mouse revenge flick where the good turn evil in order to inflict pain and suffering on a greater evil. The story goes like this, one snowy night a woman who is married to a detective catches a flat tire and calls for a tow, a stranger appears to help but ends up beating her, kidnaps, dismembers and disposes of her remains in a river. The remains are found and the hunt for the killer begins as the police narrow it down to four suspects. The detective takes time off due to his wifes death but secretly tracks down the four suspects and tortures each one till he finds the one who killed his wife. Once found he exacts revenge over an over in a very cool way I might add at which time a game of cat an mouse occurs that leaves a trail of dead bodies and a once lawful detective no better than the truely psycho killer he's been stalking. "I Saw The Devil" is a brutal/gory but not to gory film that will lead you down a road with a psychopath and a man who becomes one out of grief and anger in order to get revenge! As far as acting, it was great as was the score which fit the movie perfectly. Every year there is one or two horror movies that really standout, "I Saw The Devil" is 2011's standout horror masterpiece that deserves to be seen!

Human Centipede II: Full Sequence (2011)

Ever hear of "The Aristocrats" joke? They even made a documentary on it. It's about a family auditioning for a stage act, and it's basically an exercise in improvisation on the part of the teller to see just how offensively explicitly obscenely over the top flat out revoltingly gross that audition can be. Many have had a crack at it, some with considerable talent, and the results have been interesting for those who can appreciate that type of thing. The sub-genre of torture porn in horror films seems to be following a trend comparable to "The Arostocrats", and if it continues, it's probably going to burn itself out in unintentional self-parody. Some would argue that this point has already been reached, and they may be right, although it's hard to say. What people find disturbing is highly subjective. If you had asked me two months ago which film I would personally classify as "most disturbing", it would have likely been "A Serbian Film". The title holder prior to that would have been "August Underground Mordum", which held that dubious honor for seven years. Now "Human Centipede 2" comes along and slams "A Serbian Film" into the sewer a mere two months later. Horror certainly has gotten edgier these days. In any case, Tom Six is a director with some talent, and I think this one's going to be talked about for awhile. It certainly helps that the movie's villain is without a doubt the CREEPIEST character I've ever seen. Anyway, if extreme horror is your thing, go for it. To date, I think it's the best of the lot. Or worst, considering how you look at it. 99.9% would say it's fit only for burning, and it would be difficult to argue the point. Why this type of thing appeals to me, I really can't say. But it does, and this one freaked me right the &!@# out.

Yellow Brick Road (2011)

Name Your Link The movie starts out as a black and white documentary about an incident in 1940 where a village/town of people all take off walking down a trail. Only one person survived and he was a bit crazy. Bodies were found along the trail, many more missing. Years later Teddy Barnes, teacher and writer (Michael Laurino) manages to obtain the records and decides to investigate in order to publish a book. The team goes to the co-ordinates of the trail head only to find a movie theater. Teddy decides to go into the theater and talk to the counter girl/projectionist who tells him a bizarre tale of how the original Oz movie was playing at the time of the incident. She (Laura Heisler) is over eager to help them go down the Yellow Brick Road, a sign that marks the trial. She takes them to the trail. There is a psychologist(Alex Draper) on the trip who is constantly filming individuals and asking them questions as a sanity check. This gives the movie the annoying feel of those reality type movies. Also in the team is his wife Melissa (Anessa Ramsey) and Daryl and Erin Luger (Clark Freeman and Cassidy Freeman). Cy (Sam Elmore) and Jill (Tara Giordano) round out the team as they head on down the trail laced with belladonna. The movie develops slowly as small things happen. Daryl finds a hat that is from the era, but seems new. Jill's GPS goes haywire, one minute they are in Guam, the next Italy. They joke about it. They hike for five days in Northern NH (is that possible?) and they come to a field (poppies?) and they hear music. Their instruments are not working properly and they know something is at work, but what? They speculate: Solar flares? Earth magnetism? Government experiment? The music becomes addicting. Emotions flare... Good acting. Nice New England accent by Laura Heisler. I enjoy horror/mystery/thrillers and this one was exceptionally good, even though the ending didn't offer an explanation as to the events.

The Thing (2011)

Thats one of the early lines in the film from Kate, it could also be asked about making a prequel to the much loved '82 classic. Just like in the movie, my answer is "yes I do". Making a film this many years after a classic and trying to make the story before that movie is challenging. When watching The Thing from '82 you had to wonder about the Norwegians and the back story, thats why this film is interesting. I went into the film with an open mind. It surprised me in the amount of detail. They really tried to match this up with the prior film as best they could. With the age gap between the films, I think they did a great job. Mary Elizabeth Winstead plays Kate a paleontologist, brought to Antartica to help in bringing a frozen "thing" out of the ice. She starts out observing and asking questions while Dr. Halvorson conducts his analysis of the specimen. As the story unfolds however, its Kate that uses her head and leads the group. The question throughout the film is- who is human? Nobody is who they seem all the way til the end. And some people you think aren't human, turn out to be only to be different later. The effects and cgi are executed very well here. The examination of a consumed human within a thing is creepy. They even have to cut through a casing around the human- sick stuff. The star of the movie is definately Winstead, although the cast is collectively good. The casting was very good for a film that mixes characters from different countries. One of the best scenes in the movie is when the group gathers for a test to see who is human. This is where Winstead is at her best. Great work here. And the best weapon against these things is THE FLAMETHROWER! Great action throughout the movie- you won't be disappointed. Theres even some time spent in the craft these visitors came to Antartica in. And you'll get that feeling of isolation and fear that the '82 movie was effective at. Not to mention not everyone speaks English which adds another dimension. What could be worse than being in the freezing cold, thousands of miles from civilization and not knowing if the person next to you is human? The movie doesn't end with the credits. Most the people at the theater left at this time. But there is a bridging of this film straight into the '82 film. The dog being chased by the helicopter is here. "Thats no dog!" Some production notes that I thought were interesting. There was a million screen captures of the '82 film on a lap top. That was used to create as close as possible, the Norwegian camp. The film used practical effects as much as possible over CGI. The movie was shot in Toronto. The lead character of Kate was inspired by the Aliens films, which you feel a little watching the film. John Carpenter wanted to make an appearance in the film, but this didn't happen because of scheduling.

Bereavement (2010)

If I could sum up this movie in one word, it would be "wow". I just finished watching "Bereavement" and I will rate this amongst my top horror movies of all time. From a filming aspect, I have to also agree with other reviewers that the cinematography is fantastic. I was impressed with that right from the start of the film. In terms of horror movies, this is a gem to the genre. I didn't see "Malevolence" so I didn't know what to expect in this prequel. Will there be any survivors? You'll have to watch to find out. The mark of a good horror film is to make the audience care about the characters so that you feel terror if their safety is threatened. This film succeeds with that. This film isn't just about blood and guts all over the floor so if you're getting this because you want some sadistic torture copycat like the "Saw" franchise, you'll be disappointed. Another reviewer wrote that they felt there wasn't enough background story to the serial killer. I disagree with that. The actor portraying the serial killer actually made me feel a little sorry for the character. He was clearly psychotic and out of his mind. He didn't seem to take joy from killing people. It was something he felt he "had" to do. We the audience don't learn about this man's own childhood or how he ended up committing these horrible murders. Its a mystery but that adds to the allure of the film. Another complaint someone had is why did this new girl Allison all of a sudden was the only person in town who found the missing boy in the abandoned rundown shack after 5 years? Thats not so far fetched. If you think about your own town, how many times do you drive past an old house or building and never even give it a second look? Allison was brand new and had a fresh pair of eyes as she looked around her new surroundings. Thats why she was able to pay attention to what others ignored over the years. I will say that I agree that it seemed odd that the killer was killing locals and yet no one seemed to notice or maybe the sheriff's office is just that inadequate. That was really the only flaw of the story. Otherwise, this movie is definitely 4 out of 5 stars. Great job to all that created this film!

The Ward (2011)

I'll be short and to the point. The film has gotten a lot of bad press. Even horror "aficionados" have jumped off Carpenter's wagon.... My theory as to why? Well, the movie is a basic psychological thriller in the vein of "who is really crazy and who isn't?" That is the best I can do to explain the story without spoiling it for you. Now, many movie goers have tired of this type of film. Even I must admit that these types of horror/thriller films had run their course about 5 years ago. However, the film is well done! It is a rehash of some of the same psychological thrillers of the recent past but it is executed pretty darn well! This is a John Carpenter film, no doubt. Many of his trademark motifs are present. The camera penetrates space, going down corridors, etc. Carpenter also handles the female cast well and shot them so well that no angle made them appear less than beautiful. And he even finds new ways to put in the old fashioned "stingers" he has become famous for. Guaranteed to make you jump at least once. The film isn't designed to be a who-done-it or exist as a tricky mind screw ala Shutter Island. If you want a good, atmospheric thriller go no further. Will it change your religion? Nah, but it is worth the purchase. So, hey. Listen up. If you are a Carpenter fan, buy this DVD. If you are a fan of solid direction, buy this DVD. Honestly, the film is well done. Carpenter's best film since In the Mouth of Madness.

Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011)

As I start my review for "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark" I must confess one thing: I'm not a fan of supernatural horror movies. While I admire haunted house films like "Poltergeist", I've always found this sub-genre of horror to be painfully dull and its characters to be agonizingly stupid ("The Amityville Horror", I'm looking at you). They usually have the same formula: a stupid, yuppie couple (occasionally with children) buy a house, move in, hear strange noises, and bad things happen. Rinse and repeat. So, going into "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark", my expectations were pretty low. After reading some not so positive reviews online, they sank even further. So is "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark" worth screaming for? Well..more on that in a bit. The film begins with a gruesome prologue shows the home's deranged first owner, Emerson Blackwood, luring his maid into the dungeon-like basement and performing medieval dentistry on the terrified young woman. As he carries out the atrocity, he explains to the young maid that they, the goblin-like creatures known as Homunculi, have taken his son and will only give him back with teeth. As the young woman screams, whispering can be heard all around the room from the sealed up fireplace. Blackwood makes his way over to the fireplace and offers the teeth in exchange for the return of his son, only to be told his offering wasn't acceptable and he is pulled into the fireplace. The basement is sealed and forgotten over the generations. The movie then opens with a young girl, Sally Hirst (Bailee Madison), moving into Blackwood Manor, the Gothic mansion being restored by her architect father Alex (Guy Pearce) and his girlfriend Kim (Katie Holmes), an interior decorator. Her father is renovating the house they live in, in hopes of having it on the front page of a known magazine. Due to the fact that her mother recently abandoned her, Sally has become a distant child with emotional vulnerability. Although Kim tries to befriend her, Sally alienates herself from her. One day, Sally hears voices calling her name and follows them -- finding a hidden basement with a fireplace that has been bolted shut. She is drawn toward the fireplace, as she can hear voices that beg her to open it, promising friendship. One day she sneaks into the basement to open the fireplace, but her father stops her before she can get the door completely open. The Homunculi escape, however, and begin to torment Sally at night telling her to turn the lights out. As the days progress, Kim finds one of her dresses shredded. Shortly afterward, a teddy bear that Kim gave to Sally is found destroyed underneath her bed after she yelled for her Dad having been scared by the creatures. Sally claims that someone (or something) else is to blame for these things, but her father does not believe her and is preoccupied with renovating the house. Kim, however, begins to believe her claims, as strange incidents occur more frequently. But is it too late? "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark" is over-the-top, melodramatic, and full of plot holes. But, you know what dear reader, I loved every minute of it. This is the kind of movie in which logic is thrown out the door before the opening credits even begin. It is atmospheric in a way that has been missing from most horror movies today. Those that were disappointed by the lack of Gothic overtones in the "Fright Night" remake will be in Heaven here. The sets are gorgeous and the fluid use of cinematography is inviting in a way that makes you feel at home with these gawkily little creatures. The acting here is a bit hit or miss. Guy Pearce is terrible as the father who doesn't seem to care whether his girlfriend or his daughter lives or dies. His performance is bland to the point of sleepwalking through his role. Katie Holmes, on the other hand, is a revelation. It's nice to see a strong, female role in which she is neither helpless nor a shrewd bitch. She thoroughly blew me away and has a few very touching scenes with Madison. Madison makes for a convincingly scared child but her performance is a bit hit or miss. Overall, if you are in the mood for a moody, Gothic treat, you could do far, far worse than "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark".

Final Destination 5 (2011)

The "Final Destination" franchise began going downhill rapidly after the second movie. But, will the fifth movie help the franchise go back up or will it continue going downhill fast? I saw this movie about a month ago at the test screening, and I must say that, in my opinion, this is the most brutal, the most gruesome, and the most clever movie of the entire franchise. It has many well-thought out death scenes, and one death scene in the movie made me cringe and look away, and trust me, I watched A LOT of slasher/gornography films. One of the most famous scene is the lasik surgery which I thought was pretty good. I'm not going to spoil it for you. First off, this movie has a very interesting plotline. As you heard from the trailer, you know the new death rule, and I think it is pretty clever. But, why didn't Bludworth tell it to the others? Hmmm...? Second of all, the characters are very very relatable. You can actually tell if one hates the other, and one is friends with the other for a long time. Also, you can actually feel bad for a character when he/she gets hurt or dies. The acting is very impressive, hence the proffesional and experienced actors. I think this is one of the reasons why this movie made it to my highest rank of the "Final Destination" franchise. Third, what is this franchise famous of? Exactly, the unique death scenes that happens from the materials/places we see/go to everyday. There are some death scenes here that are very gruesome that if I picture it, I either cringe or smile on how good the death scenes are. One death scene made it to my top 15 most brutal death scenes I have ever seen. Some of you might know it, some of you might not. One thing for sure is, you will know it when you see the movie in August. Lastly, the ending of the whole movie. The ending that made me gasp and left my jaw dropped open for the rest of the movie. It is a pity that many people know it already and spoiled it for everyone, because thy will not be as surprised as everybody on the screening when we reached the ending of the movie. All I gotta tell you is rewatch the whole franchise and soak in every scene you see.. :) So, this review might not be as long as you want it, and as detailed as you hoped for. But, all I have to say is watch the movie. It is way worth your money and your time. This will be a box-office hit. So, "Final Destination 6 and 7", here we come!

Fright Night (2011)

Hollywood is recycling movies, cranking out remakes, reboots and prequels so fast that Fright Night is just one of TWO remakes released in the same week in August. But unlike the Conan reboot, Fright Night hits it out of the park. I confess to never having seen the original Fright Night, so I'm a tabula rasa so far as preconceptions of what Fright Night should be. I can't tell you how well the new Fright Night stands up to the original. What I can tell you is that this new Fright Night alternates perfectly between funny and thrilling. Starring Anton Yelchin, Colin Farrell, Imogen Poots, David Tennant and Toni Collette, Fright Night is long on talent and short on filler. It moves at a brisk pace until it turns on pacing afterburners (in a good way!) about halfway through. Anton Yelchin plays Charley Brewster. He and his single mom, Jane, played by Toni Collette live in Las Vegas and in a nod to the real world the economy is weak resulting in dozens of foreclosed, empty houses. So when whole families disappear from the neighborhood, it's only natural to think that the former occupants fell on hard economic times and lost the family home. But Charley's best friend, Ed, knows better. Ed knows that all the missing kids at school and empty houses in town are the work of Vampires. Queue Jerry, played by Colin Farrell. He's Charley and Jane's new next door neighbor. Y'know, a guy who works nights and sleeps during the day. A lot of people work nights at Vegas casinos. Besides, a vampire named Jerry? That's like naming a vampire Bill, Erik or Pam Well just like Erik Northman, Jerry is of the species homo vampiricus badassicus. He will not be throwing pebbles at your window and sharing chaste kisses with you in the woods. He will however, be flipping your car over and trying to disembowel you. Colin may be the scariest character named Jerry in all film history. At the start of the movie it's a quite, subtle menace, but it isn't long before Jerry cuts loose and the movie shifts gears from fun comedy to all out thrill ride. Fright Night, like 30 Days of Night reminds us that vampires need not be angst ridden and insecure. They EAT PEOPLE! And it's awesome. I don't know whether Fright Night is a good remake, but it is a great movie. It is full of laughs but has fantastic thrills too. After seeing what vampires named Jerry are capable of, let's all of us hope what happens in Vegas truly stays in Vegas.

11/11/11 (2011)

As noted by other reviewers, this is not the 11-11-11 film heavily advertised on television. This is a low-budget knock-off that my husband rented from Redbox because he thought it was something else. Trickster moviemakers. Letting go of the fact that this movie is basically hoodwinking the public into renting or buying something that they're not... This movie is a stinker. Judging completely on its own merits, it's fair to say that this movie HAS NO MERITS. It does feature the 11:11 phenomenon as well as some 9/11 conspiracy theories, but mostly it's a no-budget movie that isn't worth watching or reviewing. The acting is completely pathetic. Directing and writing aren't any better. The premise is ridiculous and whatever potential may have existed in the script has been choked to death. It's not scary, it's not clever, it's not even cool in the way that overly cheesy horror movies can be. This movie has no redeeming qualities.

Insidious (2011)

I know I'll get butchered by some for the title, but the tension in this film was stupendous. At all the right times, in all the right places, the scares and thrills are there. Sure, it's a hodge-podge of Poltergeist, Exorcist and Paranormal Activity, but each aspect of those movies is accentuated to produce a genuinely frightening combination. After a family of five moves into a new home, it takes little time to realize something is wrong. Items move, doors close. When one child falls into a coma and the mother hears what sounds like Vin Diesel growling in some Gaelic dialect over the baby monitor, it's time to move despite the fact the father is a disbeliever. Unlike the Jefferson's, moving on up doesn't work for this family and the frights return like ghost herpes. While creative license was necessary to move the story along, the astral plane concept is not completely embraceable. Nonetheless, the rest of the movie hits on all cylinders. Visually there isn't a lot, but what is presented works very effectively. All the scare techniques (e.g. eerie noises, well chosen music accompaniment, quiet-to-loud shocks, quick reveal scares) are expertly crafted and executed. Epic timing on more than one occasion. None of the actors really stand out, and a few (a Ghostbusters reproduction) were somewhat silly, but Lin Shaye must be recognized for her interesting performance as a medium who ties the entire movie into a sleep-stealing knot. Impressed from beginning to end by this movie, I applaud the return to old fashioned, suspenseful horror that doesn't need a teenage sacrifice in a brothel, hostel, or abandoned building. Not saying I dislike those, but Insidious is good for the change of pace. The second half of the film is much slower than the terrifying first half, but if you've recently asked yourself, "Whatever happened to the slow build up?" Watch this in a dark theater with a great speaker system. Guaranteed thrills.

Priest (2010)

What's harder to kill than a vampire? The thriving vampire movie genre, which reappears here in the form of Priest, an entertaining mash-up of sci-fi, horror, and various Westerns adapted from a graphic novel by Min-Woo Hyung and starring Paul Bettany (The Da Vinci Code, Creation, Iron Man, etc.) in the title role. In Hyung's world (as depicted by screenwriter Cory Goodman and director Scott Charles Stewart), the future is a dystopian nightmare still reeling from centuries of conflict between humans and vast armies of slimy, humanoid vampires; having been saved (or so we're told) by fierce and noble warrior priests, people now live in a great, grim city that makes the Los Angeles depicted in Bladerunner look like a vacation resort, while the remaining vampires have been consigned to "reservations" in the desert. A few hardy souls subsist out in the barren wilderness as well, and the fun starts when a gang of vamps attacks one family, abducting pretty young Lucy (Lily Collins, Phil's daughter) and killing her parents. The girl's sharpshooting boyfriend (Cam Gigandet) seeks out Bettany's retired Priest, who's only too willing to defy the dire warnings of the arrogant clergymen who control the cities, jump on his supercycle, and head out to do battle with a foe that, far from being defeated, has been regrouping and now plans to--gasp!--lay waste to all mankind. A couple of twists involving central characters are eventually revealed, but the best parts are the action sequences in the vampires' enormous "hive," aboard (and on top of) a speeding train, and elsewhere as the Priest and a few of his cross-bearing (on their foreheads, that is) comrades, including action veteran Maggie Q, try to stop the head vampire dude (basically a fanged version of Clint Eastwood's Man with No Name) and his ravenous minions. Considering the range of 21st-century vampire flicks, from the arty Swedish import Let the Right One In to the romantic Twilight series, there's plenty of room for a popcorn chewer like Priest.

Apollo 18 (2011)

Suppose, following the official final lunar mission of Apollo 17 in December 1972, that the once-aborted Apollo 18 mission had been taken over by the Pentagon and sent to the Moon on a highly secret mission? That's the premise behind the 2011 film APOLLO 18, a film that is not only a conspiracy tract, but also something of an outer-space shocker a la the 1979 blockbuster ALIEN. The premise of this pseudo-documentary sci-fi enterprise is that, under a cloak of secrecy so great that apparently not even the same American media that uncovered the truth of Watergate knows about, the Department of Defense sent a three-man crew to the Moon on Apollo 18 in December 1974 on an errand that the crew clearly knew nothing about beforehand. Everything seems to go well at first; the two men (Warren Christie; Lloyd Owen) who land on the Moon in the lunar module "Liberty" make their landing as routine as anything we saw during the real Apollo program (with the exception, of course, of the Apollo 13 mission of 1970, which almost took a fatal turn). But once they get there, they discover what would appear to be an actual Russian lunar module a mere three miles from their landing site; and when they enter the module, they see the interior is in a shambles, with blood over the control panels, and a couple of very dead Russian cosmonauts. Even more, Own and Christie discover tracks made on the Moon's surface that are neither theirs nor those of the cosmonauts--indicating, of course, extra-terrestrial life (a premise that defies a lot of scientific credibility since, at least during the actual Apollo missions, no evidence of such a thing was ever found on the Moon's airless surface). But then the extra-terrestrial creatures, which look like mini-crabs, appear out of the lunar rocks, and then.... Basically a combination of various conspiracy-type sci-fi films (e.g. HANGAR 18, CAPRICORN ONE) , legitimate sci-fi (2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY; ALIEN), docudrama (APOLLO 13), and "found horror footage" (THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT), APOLLO 18 was largely financed by the very independent brothers Harvey and Bob Weinstein for what was an extremely paltry amount, $5 million. Given its attempts at BLAIR WITCH-style tactics (shaky cameras; grainy video; strobe lights) and working with technology that existed back in the mid-1970s, the makers of APOLLO 18 have sought to exploit that market of so-called "found film" footage that popped up after BLAIR WITCH's sudden and huge success in 1999. The finished product has many of the same flaws and high points of BLAIR WITCH; the acting by the three principal actors cannot be expected to be on the level of Tom Hanks, Kevin Bacon, or Bill Paxton in APOLLO 13. And it certainly has too many credibility gaps to either be as enlightening as "2001" or as scary as ALIEN, though, strangely, the brief moments when the lethal crab-like creatures do appear in person (mostly, they are implied) give off a shock factor not far removed from THE BIRDS or JAWS, which is far better than most horror films of recent vintage have managed to do. Not surprisingly, both NASA and the Pentagon disavowed giving the makers of APOLLO 18 any help in its making, and it's just as well. This movie is no masterpiece by any reasonable definition of the term, even given a budget that, by today's sci-fi standards, is very low indeed. As an experiment in combining conspiracy theories, pseudo-documentary techniques, legitimate sci-fi, and horror, however, it does succeed in certain ways that very few others of its type ever dreamed of.

High Tension (2005)

The feature film breakout from French director Alexandre Aja is just the kind of grueling and grisly splatter-fest you won't soon forget. However, "High Tension" (or "Haute Tension," if you prefer) is more than just gore galore with a stylistic touch; it's also a psychological horror that not only plays with your mind, but alters your expectations of what a horror movie could and should be as well. In the film, best friends and college students Alex and Marie find their vacation in a remote farmhouse owned by Alex's parents cut short when a mysterious man in a grungy overalls welcomes himself in. After the family is dispatched of and the man kidnaps Alex in his creepy Scooby-Doo van, Marie pursues him on a roadtrip that finds the carnage mounting as the tension builds, capping off in an unforgettable conclusion. Proving to be a true master of horror, Alexandre Aja combines arresting visuals with disturbing imagery to concoct a bold piece of cinema that takes the genre to a whole new level. Among its accomplishments, this film marks the beginning of the French horror boom that eventually gave way to the director's fruitful career in the United States, directing the successful remake of The Hills Have Eyes. It's a tough film to discuss without giving too much away, but rest assured, its effects will linger for days after seeing it. It's a film that begs to be seen twice as there is so much to digest and the film leads you to believe it's something it's not the first go-round. Crammed full of suspense, gore and style, "High Tension" is the kind of film that more than lives up to its name.

Saw 5

I'm a big fan of the series, especially 2 and 3. I think Saw 2 is one of the best horror films ever made. Beautifully done, excellent script, and 2 main surprises at the end. I first became disappointed with the series at seeing Saw 4, not necessarily because Jigsaw is dead, though he IS the dominating force and needs to come back. (If I had written #4, I would've started it at the end of 3, making the father save Jigsaw with a transfusion so he could find out where his daughter is; plus, his wife was a nurse, so he would conceivably know CPR, etc.) Anyway, I found little clever about the end of #4, and far less at the end of #5. 4 was written as a horror movie, not a hybrid mystery/horror movie, which is what brought me into the series in the first place. And #5 is more like a TV police drama than anything else. As one who doesn't watch any TV, I guess I'm more sensitive to how Saw 5 plays than an audience full of people who don't go to the movies as often as I do. It's too bad. But I'm Still looking forward to #6 of course. And will keep watching the series, hoping the cleverness of 2 and 3 will return.

Saw 4

I could always sympathize with John Kramer(jigsaw) on some level because i watched my mother die from cancer. he has easily become my favorite character in the genre. seeing this installment just shows even more, the man was a genius. twisted as he may have been. this movie focuses on the events in the aftermath of Saw III and Jigsaw's past. We see more of what drove him to the point he was at, and we get to see his first game. the main storyline is about Detective Riggs trying to find Detective Matthews from Saw II. its now been 6 months since his disappearance. i dont want to give anymore info away, b/c realization is half the fun with this series. ill just say it goes back and forth between Riggs situation and looks into Jigsaw's past. The overall story is by far the most interesting in my opinion, even if only for the better look into John's past. not that the rest of the movie falls short, this is possibly the most engaging in the series. the traps are very clever, and in a case or two the pons really seem to deserve their fates. i dont know how they'll keep the series going after this entry. Tobin Bell(Jigsaw) is the face of this series and a future horror icon. excellent movie.

Saw 3

I'm not even going to bother going over a synopsis of the plot. All you horror fans need to know is that this movie surpasses the first film, but in my opinion, it doesn't stand up to the second film in terms of suspense. Saw 3 is the goriest, most disturbing of the films. It seems like 2006 was the year of gore! First came Hostel, with it's torture and blood, then came The Hills Have Eyes, with it's rape, animal killings, parent killings and brutality, and now comes Saw 3...With it's flesh tearing, bone breaking, head twisting, gore splattered shock-fest. I have NEVER, in all my years of watching horror, had to actually cover my own ears and close my eyes while watching more than one scene in a movie before this one. The opening scene had me squirming in my seat with my lids tightly shut (after 15 seconds into the scene I had to mute the tv because I was so grossed out by the noises) and the scene involving a victim trapped in a device that "TWISTS" every limb on his body until the skin tears and the bones break made me want to literally vomit. But, still, the movie was very suspensful and horrifying. It kept you watching and interested. If you can stomach extreme gore and terror then you might enjoy this film. I have to admit that I REALLY hated the ending though. I can't even explain how upset it made me, but overall, the movie was very scary and disturbing. Better than the first, not as good as the second...give it a try...but do it on an empty stomach!!

Saw 2 (2005)

The diabolic Jigsaw is back in the follow up to the smash "Saw" which came out of nowhere to become one of the biggest grossing horror films of all time. Not content to rest on the mayhem he created in the first film, Jigsaw is back kidnapping those he deems unworthy of life, and forcing them to earn their lives back in a series of brutal and bizarre games, where death is all to often the result. The sequel picks up shortly after the events of the first film where Detective Eric Matthews (Donnie Wahlberg) is investigating yet another victim. The fact that the victim is missing a puzzle shaped piece of skin leaves no doubt as to who is behind this killing, and Matthews and his task force set up their efforts to stop the killer before he can strike again. A sudden inspiration leads Matthews and his team to a factory where they soon discover Jigsaw amongst all of his toys and traps. The frail Jigsaw is dying from a terminal illness, and he reveals to Matthews that he has a game underway, one where a group of people are trapped in a remote house filled with traps that are also filling up with a deadly gas. Only those who can survive the traps and decipher the clues will be able to locate the antidotes and survive the mayhem. Matthews is even more determined to find the locale of the house as his son is one of the individuals trapped inside slowly dying from the poison. Matthews and his team can see what is happening in the house via a video monitor and while the team attempts to determine the location and save the individuals, Jigsaw (Tobin Bell), plays a dangerous game with Matthews as he attempts to interrogate him for information. The film moves back and forth from the interrogation to the individuals trapped in the house and keeps the tension going. While not as claustrophobic or as gory as the original, "Saw 2" benefits from an interesting premise and a rousing finale that sets the stages for the pending "Saw 3". Some may find a bit of issue with the pacing as it does not contain as the tension and scares are scarcer than they are in the first release. Solid performances throughout makes "Saw 2" a cut above most horror films and is not to be missed by fans of the original.

Saw 1

With some of the PG-13 tripe coming out as horror nowadays, SAW is a refreshing step back into the good old days where horror meant blood, and blood meant horror. No annoying harpies or pretty pictures of hell or tragically humanized vampires here, just an ingenious killer with an obscure motive. SAW dives right into the depths of the madness too, opening with our killer's current victims, two men chained on opposite ends of a filthy restroom, a body in the center clutching a cassette player and a handgun. Each man is given a tape to play, which provides him with a nice dilemma to ponder during his captivity. The background of the killer and the events leading up to the men's current situation unfolds nicely during narrated recollections and well-placed flashbacks, while the actual motive stays hidden underneath the obvious delight the killer derives from the simple pleasures of torture. Because SAW also brings to film an excellent `Whodunnit?', I am not going to elaborate on the storyline any further. Suffice to say that Cary Elwes and Danny Glover give excellent performances (Elwes surprising me since I have only seen him in comedy roles), the photography is good, the killing methods tasty, the blood not really overdone but still dosed out well, and the plot sustainable. Lets face it fans, we don't go to horror movies to learn how to do decoupage, we go to get scared and grossed out. SAW fulfills that primal hankering, leaving you to utter `blech' and `bravo' in the same troubled breath, and wondering what your punishment would be like under the careful ministrations of this psychopath. Aficionados of the genre are going to love SAW's mixture of gore, insanity, ingenious traps, and filth, while non-lover's of the theme should stick to `Sleepless In Seattle' and other such ilk. SAW put the taste of terror and gore back in my mouth, something that has been lacking in some of the recent sugar-coated intruders into this bloody domain. Enjoy!!

Wolf Creek (2005)

I chose to see this movie after a dinner with some girls from work, and perhaps this Horror is not for everyone, we all got creped out and totally engrossed in the story line. Shot in what felt like real life cinematography it felt so raw and real I had to remind myself to breathe while the story unfolded. I liked how the cast was small and very likable, and although the beginning unfolded slowly we got to know and like Liz, Kristy and Ben more, until I remembered that this was not going to be a pretty movie and I had a huge knot in my throat thinking about what was laying ahead for them. The are simple young kids backpacking through Australia when they visit the Wolf Creek National Park, and spend some time at the Crater, which is a tourist attraction while in the middle of nowhere. Their troubles start when their watches and the car stop working, and they have to rely on a friendly local to help them out. Unfortunately the friendly local has other intentions about their future and they are gruesome. I was shocked while watching half the scenes; this movie really stays in your head, days after you see it. Perhaps because the kids are so nice and likable and real and when bad things happen it's like watching yourself in this situation. I really liked this movie because it reminded me of books such as Intensity by Dean R. Koontz, where you had a young person or more, trying to survive a deadly game with a lunatic killer who is insanely hard to outwit. The major plusses of the movie were that the cast was small and let me tell you, they were not spared close encounters and even death, but you must watch for yourself to see how that unfolds. All I can say it that when you saw the struggle and pain and thought a certain person was safe, only the worst happened over and over. This movie grabs you slowly, but then it sucks you in like a tornado. I loved this low budget flick and I will definitely hold it above many Hollywood productions. If you love horror, then you will love this, no iffs and buts about that!

Hostel: Part III (2011)

A soon-to-be groom celebrating his bachelor party in Las Vegas learns his longtime best friend has targeted him for ritual murder.
Honestly, I wasn't expecting much from this movie... direct to DVD, the biggest "star" in it was Kip Pardue, not even a production credit from Eli Roth... but I had no idea it would be so aggressively stupid and just plain insulting to the intelligence of its audience. Hostel was popular not just due to its gore, but because it played on American fears of that dark and alien place that is eastern europe, as well as themes of xeno and homophobia. In short, it was torture porn that was smarter than it had any right to be and that is why it was such a success. Then along comes Hostel II with slightly less provocative gender themes, misogyny and one of the most disturbing and graphic death scenes to grace cinema theaters in a while. Now we have Hostel III, a movie that is so distant from its predecessors that, as I stated before, it's just plain insulting to viewers. Hostel III follows the Elite Hunting Club's continued booming business of torture and murder, this time taking us to the U.S. (mistake number one) Las Vegas (what happens there stays there, get it?) to be precise, where club members not only get to indulge in acts of carnage, but also have the option of watching and even placing bets on the dismemberment. A group of guys, lead by hasbeen Kip Pardue (you know how I know he's a hasbeen? cause he's staring in Hostel III!) out celebrating their buddy's impending wedding. While this premise sounds mildly promising, it isn't, not even a little bit. This movie fails for one main reason: it betrays its source material completely and utterly. Even with the limited budget of a direct to DVD release, one would at least expect to see some decent gore and disturbing carnage, right? Think again, instead you'll be treated to some of the most bloodless and stupidest deaths you've ever seen. Number one: a person does not die from having their face peeled off. Number two: hissing cockroaches do not crawl into people's mouths by the hundreds to choke them to death. Number three: why on earth is there an unrated version of this? I didn't see anything that was disturbing or horrific enough to even warrent a hard R rating. I'll tell you why, it's a sales gimmick. It's crap like this that is so insulting, to think that this garbage's makers believed that they could piggy back off of decent horror films like Hostel and Hostel II, and try to sell audiences cheap toilet paper like this is just a slap in the face. The worst SAW movie is leaps and bounds better than Hostel III, which is a truly sad and accurate statement. I actually feel dumber for having watched this movie. Save yourself some angst and a few brain cells and skip this movie. Rewatch the first two instead.

Hostel: Part II (2007)

I enjoyed this movie, it was a bit more interesting the first one. I was disappointed that Jay Hernandez gets killed right away, but it also it makes sense since no witnesses/survivors can be left or else the whole operation is at risk. What really put a new light in the movie were the two male characters who are new to the club. There we get to see two different characters at play, one who is eager to taste evil and one who has to be dragged into the situation. The one who is eager has fantasies of how killing somebody will make him gain a characteristic that will intimidate others, a characteristic that does not need to be mentioned yet perceptible. What he fails to consider is that the characteristic that he years for, might not come from killing an innocent and defenseless victim, or killing without need or killing out of curiosity. The other clients of the club are truly evil, they indulge in their dark pastime as the goal, for pleasure, and that is how and why they can kill not only without remorse but with pure pleasure. At the end I did feel sorry for him, very little effort was needed (even a simple matter of just sit and wait) to complete his contract and he would have survived. For Stuart, the character who has to be dragged into the situation, on the other hand, he does not want to be "that guy" yet slowly but surely when presented with the proper opportunities and motivations, he turns out to embrace the darkness and evil. Stuart's repressions and frustrations come to surface and he will project them into anybody who is in front of him. His transformation from the hesitant/undecided guy is extreme and very convincing. This also left me thinking about his friend, maybe his friend couldn't transform because he did not have any repressions or frustration. Being a wealthy and physically attractive man who probably got his way most of the time, there was probably very little to brew evil feelings. The transformation to evil is also extreme for the surviving girl, Beth, who turn herself into a ruthless killer, too. But at least she did have a very good reason for that. Payback is a bitch, indeed. I guess it was good for Stuart to embrace evil, the audience had to abandon any sympathy for this character for the ending to work. There was really no way out of that room without somebody murdered and had Stuart remain his old self and tried to save the girl, they both would have died. Probably what I have mentioned was not the main idea of such a movie, but it was interesting to me.

Hostel (2006)

The first time you watch "Hostel" you leave remembering two things: an insane amount of sex and nudity, and some truly brutal torture sequences. The media ignoranty dubbed it a new genre, "torture porn". This film is actually rather tame when compared to some of Italy's 70's horror, grindhouse flicks like "Cannibal Holocaust", and some of Asia's current horror masters. Nontheless, horror fans drooled, sqeamish movie-goers and media watchdogs were offended, then everybody moved on. The truth is this: "Hostel" is the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" of our generation. After taking this so-called "director's cut" re-release as an opportunity to revisit a recent horror film I remembered fondly -if mostly for the two reasons stated above- I came to realize why so many people (not the least of which is Quentin Tarantino) believe in Eli Roth as a horror savior. "Hostel" is a film layered with subtle humor that builds suspense beautifully and gives the audience exactly what they want to see while making them feel as though they've seen worse things than they actually have; all TCM hallmarks. The characters, obnoxiously American protagonists and European antagonists alike, are all both likeable, depraved, and almost feel like people you may know or have met somewhere before. You laugh with them, you scream with them, and you wonder what your own friends and family are truly capable of. Also reminiscent of TCM is the slaughterhouse feel one gets from the entire process of this torture industry where angry Europeans can take out their frustration with Americans and other tourists for a fee, thus comparing the suffering of the victims to that of animals harvested for slaughter. Be it simply for irony's sake, vegetarian propaganda, or both; it is nicely done. Had I reviewed this flick after one veiwing, I'd have given it 4 stars, tops, but having spent a little more time with "Hostel", I've found that there really is much more than meets the eye here. It really is a damn near flawless horror film with lots of little jokes I missed the first time around (keychain anybody?) and a final act that is so delightfully insane you can't help but smile as Roth intentionally pushes the limits of implausibility to comical levels while giving the audience bloody satisfaction. I love it. While these DVD's are packed with extras that the studio apparently wouldn't allow Roth to include in the intitial release, as a director's cut this release fails miserably. The film itself is entirely unchanged except for an alternate ending. And that ending is awful, nonsensical, confounding, out of character, and pretty much inferior to the original cut in every possible way. So why the 5 stars? Because Roth was wise enough to include both versions so that you can choose to watch the original unrated version with the good ending intact. No harm, no foul. There are no less than four commentaries, tons of lengthy featurettes, around 20 minutes of deleted scenes, and an interview with the most hardcore director in the business, Japan's twisted and talented Takashi Miike (who has a cameo in the film) among other extras. Many of these special features were on the first DVD so this release is really only for those who have put off buying this movie. And if you haven't yet, now is the time.

Paranormal Activity 3 (2011)

I am a fan of the Paranormal Activity franchise and went to the theater opening weekend to see parts 1 and 2. I was excited about Part 3, but for some reason, not excited enough to go to the theater to see it. We rented paranormal Activity 3 the day it came out on Redbox and I was excited to watch it. I like scary movies but don't like to watch them alone. My teenage children were home so it was a good time to get "scared". This movie does a good job of explaining the origin of the "curse" and has some pretty scary parts in it. Overall, the actors do a good job. The younger Katie and Kristi actors are amazing, especially little Katie. She really makes her role believable. Before this movie I never really thought about camera angles and how they affect a film. But after watching Paranormal Activity 3, I noticed just how much camera angles and movement can affect the viewer. Some scenes were very suspenseful simply due to the way the camera was positioned/moving. There were a couple, ok a few...times when I screamed out loud or talked to the characters like they could actually her me. (Anyone else do that?) I will say this...There are a couple of scenes in the movie where I thought to myself, "I cannot believe the just did that to the little girl"...Some scenes push the envelope, but not too far in my opinion. Conclusion, this is a good movie and offers a few good scares with alot of suspense. But in my opinion, no sequel or prequel will ever outdo the original Paranormal Activity movie.

Paranormal Activity 2 (2010)

If you didn't like the first Paranormal Activity I strongly doubt you will enjoy Paranormal Activity 2 so don't even bother, stay far away from it. I was one of those who liked Paranormal Activity and thought it was entertaining and somewhat different from other horror movies as well. The concept of all these paranormal events going on and purposely cheaply-made film was intriguing and best of all, it worked. The thing is there were parts were I was genuinely scared, I couldn't help but be a little freaked out by what the characters were going through. This second PA movie is actually the prequel to the first one and not a traditional sequel like you would imagine, it has elements of both a prequel and a sequel (that's the best way of putting it). It can be a little difficult to imagine a second film that wouldn't ruin what the first one did, be different and still have the effect the first had. I was curious enough and found this one just as enjoyable as the first one. Paranormal Activity 2 doesn't really cover new ground but with careful improvements and changes, works just as well if not better than the original. I respect that they obviously didn't want to ruin what the first movie did which tends to be hard for a sequel, they clearly cared enough and wanted to show viewers something worthy (and I'll say it was). Paranormal Activity 2 begins two months before the first film and what happens in this prequel leads to the first. This time around the story is focused on Dan, his wife Kristi, Dan's daughter Ali and son Hunter who are-you guessed it-victim of paranormal activity. It's becoming clear to viewers that something is after baby Hunter and will go through anything to get him, even family members. Dan is a skeptic and refuses to talk about these events until it comes to a point he can no longer ignore. His daughter Ali believes and researches the events happening to the family. This leads to a situation. Now, the story is nothing new but it soon all falls into pieces. If you believe or not in these things is not the point, you are likely to be captivated, guessing and wondering what's coming next. What's interesting is that you see Katie and Micah from the first PA and you even see them at their house and Micah with his Camera. I felt this one explained more of what happened in PA which only helps of course. For me, when watching the first film it took some time to really get into it but once you're in, it's quite a ride. PA 2 is no different but there are some elements that made it even more enjoyable for me. It starts out nice and easy, then gradually things begin to happen and it gets progressively worse, it's a formula that worked well for the first and it also applies here. In this one the acting is much better, there are cameras all over the house and the story behind it all was really interesting. The family dog, a German shepherd named Abby who also feels a presence in the house; animals usually feel those types of things before humans do and only contributes to make things more interesting. In the first PA, it seemed things only happened when the characters were asleep, which made sense. This time around things happen both during night and day which adds another dimension to PA. I was definitely freaked out after viewing, I kept thinking about what I've just seen on the screen. Paranormal Activity is deeply psychological that's why it's so interesting to some and won't appeal to others. It certainly makes one think about the paranormal and raise questions, but that's probably what the filmmakers want you to do. If you liked the first one chances are you will also like this one, I probably enjoyed this prequel/sequel more than the first. I feared this one might be bad but I must say that the experience is just as valid as in the first movie. Some things about PA 2 are very similar to the first, yet it's also different in its own way, after all no one experiences things in the same way. Just to make things clear, it's not "the scariest film ever!" or "the worst movie ever made" as some reviewers said. You may have seen the first movie but are you sure you're ready this time around? 4/5.

Paranormal Activity (2009)

A well-written review of any film should never label its subject "good" or "bad". Rather, it should give you an idea of whether or not you can expect to enjoy it, based on your own preferences and expectations. Paranormal Activity is a particularly controversial film when it comes to the potency of its terror. Most reviews either complain, with great disdain, "I hated it - it wasn't scary at all" or exclaim in total satisfaction, "It scared the pants off me - I loved it". There seems to be little in-between. I saw the film today, having read enough reviews to know pretty much what to expect. But before I reveal my own reaction to Paranormal Activity, I would like to offer a few ideas that those who know little about this film may find helpful. Alfred Hitchcock, the celebrated director who was known as "The Master of Suspense" held many interesting theories about what frightens an audience. Hitchcock believed that, when properly stimulated, the viewer's imagination was far more powerful - and far scarier - than many direct images that may or may not frighten the average viewer. Directly depicting a ghost, a monster or a demon for example, even with today's special effects, may scare many viewers, but that will depend solely on the quality of the effects. And even if well done, many viewers may find the images unconvincing or downright laughable, for they may have other ideas about what a ghost, monster or demon should look like. However, if the filmmaker merely implies that a supernatural event is taking place, and sets up the situation with enough skill, the viewer's imagination can take over and sometimes yield a far more frightening experience than any vivid imagery ever will. After all, people go to horror films to be frightened, and what could be more frightening than unseen terrors from one's own imagination? By setting the mood with dark rooms, low lighting, eerie shadows and other effects that many people will associate with their greatest fears, an innocent image of two people peacefully sleeping, unaware of what may be going on about them or to them, can become very frightening indeed, even if few special effects are used. This is especially true if the moviegoer has developed enough empathy with the characters to place themselves in the same situation. Many modern horror films rely on blood, gore and violence, with horrible creatures conjured up by special effects and vivid scenes involving battles with ugly demons or manic killers in order to provide thrills. That can be a lot of fun, and certainly very scary. But it can also be argued that, as CGI effects advance and become more vivid and frighteningly realistic, many viewers become inured to violence, blood and "creatures" while depending less and less on their own imagination, and in the process, they will sometimes forgo a far scarier experience. I know that no special effect ever came close to my own nightmares, because my nightmares are stirred by the things I fear most, and not the things that I've been conditioned to find scary. In short, no amount of vivid terrors can match the human imagination, provided that the imagination is properly stimulated. Well, this is the basic idea behind Paranormal Activity. Largely on a shoestring budget, the writers/director/actors of Paranormal Activity have managed to create an old-fashioned thriller that relies almost exclusively on the viewer's imagination. Those who like their "scary movies" full of CGI, monsters, blood and violence are warned; you will probably be extremely disappointed. But if you have enough respect for your own imagination, and can allow yourself to be frightened not by what you see, but by what you think is there, you just may find Paranormal Activity to be every bit as frightening and well done as many people say it is. By the way, I saw it with a friend. He did not find it frightening at all. On the other hand, I definitely expect to have trouble sleeping tonight. Whether or not you will agree may depend on how effective your own imagination can be.

28 Weeks Later (2007)

When I heard that this was coming out, I was not expecting much. The original is arguably THE zombie classic (discounting the hysterical "Shaun of the Dead") of the last decade, but the sequel involved almost none of the original minds that brought us the stark terror of "28 Days Later", which combined the threats of cataclysmic disease and it's deadly effects on the mind which caused those infected by what became known as the "Rage Virus" to viciously and relentlessly attack the uninfected, either killing the victim or spreading the disease. A sequel had potential of course, but it seemed like it would be a by-the-books popcorn affair. Boy, was I wrong. People complained that the first film started too slowly and was boring for the first twenty minutes; I disagree, but that issue has been addressed nonetheless. The opening sequence flashes back to another group of survivors during the original outbreak. Their fate is one you won't forget; it is startling, chaotic, terrifying, dramatic, hopeless, and heartbreaking, all within one fairly short chain of events. That's when I knew this one was going to be everything I wished it would be and it never let me down. This film is epic and personal, gruesome yet tearful, and manages to give you everything you want, even when you had no clue that you wanted it. The evolution of the Rage Virus is a fascinating one in that it manages to outlive the death of all of the infected (from starvation) by exploiting a rare gene that allows some people to be carriers of the virus without succumbing to it's effects. The result: even kissing your wife hello could be the catalyst for a new, deadly outbreak. The story kicks in 28 weeks after the infection dies and the US military is overseeing the repopulation of London; or a district of London to be precise. Every possible step is taken to ensure that the horror that was the infection that wiped Great Britain's population clean off the earth is not repeated. Naturally, the virus finds a way. As the crushing mass of humanity flees from the compromised quarantine and the murderous zombies, there is an amazing scene where the rooftop snipers are frantically trying to distinguish the civilians from the infected as they run down a bottlenecked street. The chaos and hopelessness of the situation are palpable as the camera shows us through a soldier's scope just what he is up against in dramatic fashion. The way that these situations of large-scale human terror are turned into personal struggles is what makes this movie a stone cold classic in my mind where it otherwise would have been just another great horror film. The cinematography impresses as well. There are plenty more of those iconic shots of deserted London that bring back memories of the first film and make me wish I lived there so I could appreciate them more. Another nice touch. And the final shot of the film, while not unexpected, is one that will chill you to the bone and thrill you at the same time. I've spent significant time trying to think of a horror sequel that surpassed the original so superbly and I honestly can't think of one. The closest would be the original "Dawn of the Dead", but I still prefer "Night of the Living Dead" to "Dawn" so "28 Weeks Later" takes it. This is an absolute take-no-prisoners, hard "R", work of terror that must be viewed by all professing to be horror fans.

28 Days Later (2003)

When a devastating virus decimates the British Isles, a comatose courier awakens in a London hospital to find the city populated only by murderous zombies.

There is very little about this movie that can be considered "horror" per se. At best, in this sense, the film is a suspense flick, with a somewhat spooky score/soundtrack (that added plenty to the tension in its atmosphere), and a great cast who portrayed the best and worst traits in human nature. I can understand those who give the movie a bad review since they were expecting something extremely scary (that's the way in which it is being marketed) and ended up watching an intelligent, well presented study in good and evil, right vs. wrong, loyalty vs. survival, and many other concepts that one wouldn't expect from a "horror" flick. This movie, in that sense, simply was not what the average goer was promised. Now, as far as good films are concerned, this is definitely a worthy effort. It has more depth than one could ever expect; the cinematography is done extremely well; and the acting is superb (even on the part of the nearly silent and secondary infected characters). The symbolism is one that the average movie watcher might not get, especially if they're looking for two hours of gore or scary moments (there are very few of those, as the director clearly preferred to refrain from using extremely graphic imagery). Indeed, what makes this film a valuable one is the social criticism and the analysis of human nature that it presents. What is more important, survival or friendship/family? Are the ethics of scientific research being checked to prevent the creation of harmful agents (even if not as tragic and extreme as what we see in this film)? Is it worth fighting for one's life when hope is dim or even non-existant? Many more questions arise and give extreme value to this film. This is definitely an excellent example of existentialist movie making. Whether it is a horror film or not becomes irrelevant once you observe its true meaning. So, if you are the kind of person who enjoys trashy and bloody films like the Jason or Freddy "epics," or if you cannot handle too much thinking while at the theatre, then this is not a movie for you. If you've enjoyed "smart" flicks like "Lost Highway," "Frailty," or "The Ring," then this is definitely for you. You will feel good about seeing this one, even though it portrays so many bad and ugly things about us as "humans."