THE WARD

The Ward
Dir: John Carpenter, 2010
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1369706/
Reviewed by: Chase

Synopsis: A busty, blonde beauty performs some delinquent acts of arson, among other misdeeds commonly associated with the insane, resulting in her inevitable institutionalization. In the ward (the title! that's the title!), Kristen, our blonde and ballsy heroine, meets her fellow inmates, all pretty princesses, and when the girls start dropping like flies, Kristen realizes there is something or someone haunting the ward, threatening their very lives.

Review: Let's not mince words: this movie is embarrassing. The so-called twist ending was predictable and uninspired (see spoiler below), the dialogue was L.O.L. hilarious (i.e. "If I were you I'd watch out, new girl."), and the "acting" made B-movie thesps look kind of awards worthy. The scares relied so heavily on quick, in-your-face spooks, outward cries of terror from the audience were replaced with giggles. Lot and lots of giggles.

I am really digging for something positive to say about the movie... The lead actress, Amber Heard, is gorgeous. That's all.

*SPOILER WARNING* I'm saving you all a lot of pain and wasted time by revealing the "twist" at the end, because frankly, it was a giant pile of stinky do-do. Turns out, Kristen was raped as a child and as a result her mind split into multiple personalities. All of which are beautiful, busty women. Meaning: all the girls in the ward are individual splinters of Kristen's mind! Oh, and the grotesque, melty-faced woman behind all the murders in the ward? She is the doctor's "new technique" of killing each of Kristen's alter egos. *SPOILER ENDS*

Some scary movies can be classified as "so bad they're good," but that is not the case with The Ward. It's just so bad.

Rating: 3/10 
Scare Scale: On a scale of one to scary, The Ward was not.

HALLOWEEN

Halloween
Dir: John Carpenter, 1978
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077651/
Reviewed by: Chase

Synopsis: Revered as the original "slasher" flick, Halloween set the bar for decades of scary movies that followed in its wake. It's premise is simple: psychotic child murders his sister on Halloween, is sent away to a mental institution, and after 15 years escapes, reeking havoc on a neighborhood of young, attractive girls. With a ghost-like white mask and an unfathomably large kitchen knife, Michael Myers introduced himself into the nightmares of movie goers worldwide.

Review: I have seen two of the nine sequels/remakes that have spawned since the 1978 classic, but until last weekend I had never seen the original tale of Michael Myers. It wasn't easy for me to voluntarily subject myself to another episode of his shenanigans, because frankly, Michael Myers scares the bujeeebies out me!

It could be because he's pretty much immortal (how else do you explain him surviving gun shots, electrocution, fire, stab wounds, falls from multistory buildings, being struck by large motor vehicles, etc.). Or because he NEVER speaks or screams or moves his face at all. But I think the reason Michael has haunted me so ruthlessly all these years is because he is always a step behind me, stalking me silently. At least in my dreams. I've had recurring nightmares starring Mr. Myers for as long as I can remember. They're the worst, too.

As for the movie, it was okay. It was clearly made for about $10 and had virtually no plot, but it is what it is. Jamie Lee Curtis is passable in the lead role as Laurie Strode, a role that jump-started her long and bumpy career. Laurie is kind of an iconic role today, serving as really the first smart, strong female protagonist in a horror franchise. Many would follow, but Laurie seems to take the cake as far as resourcefulness goes. I mean, she poked Mikey's eye ball with a hanger, for crying out loud! Who thinks up this stuff? Laurie Strode, that's who.

My main complaint about the film is it does a pretty good job of setting up an epic, climactic showdown between and Michael and Laurie (side note: why Laurie? Why is he so committed to making her life a living hell? Was it simply because she was the first girl he saw after escaping the institute? I wonder...), but when the finale finally came it was just... short. And somewhat predictable.

As I said, the movie really builds well, not showing us too much too early, earning its thrills and chills. There are some pretty good jump-worthy scares, and more than a fair share of lingering shots of a distant Michael standing statuesque, staring blankly at his next prey. Those scenes give some serious goosies.

Being the first of its kind, I can't complain too much about flimsy plot devices and predictable scares, but I will say that it didn't scare me nearly as much as other 80s slasher flicks have. That being said, the horror genre owes a lot to the risks Halloween took, even if not all of them paid off.


Rating: 7/10
Scare Scale: Gives good old-fashioned goosies!

MISERY

Misery
Dir: Rob Reiner, 1990
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100157/
Reviewed by: Whitney 

Plot: A well known novelist, Paul Sheldon (James Caan) is driving home from his visit to a remote woodsy town where he has just completed his latest installment in his cult book series.  Due to a freak snow storm, Paul runs his car off the road causing a near fatal accident.  Luckily, or so it seems, for Paul, his biggest fan, Annie Wilkes (Kathy Bates) rescues him and nurse him back to health.  In a not-so-lucky turn of fate for Paul, Annie, furious with him for killing off her favorite literary character of all time in his recent manuscript, decides to keep Paul bed-ridden and completely dependent on her until he re-writes the ending to the story.

Review: Maybe one of the most tense thrillers Steven King has ever written, and it definitely translates on to film.  Reiner shoots the suspense of this movie brilliantly.  I jump every. single. time I watch it, not to mention remain on edge throughout the film.  There is a sequence where Annie leaves to the store to buy Paul the "correct" typing paper and Paul figures out a way to escape the guest room for the first time that highlights this tension masterfully.  My stomach is churning just writing about it (or perhaps it is just all of the coffee I've had.)  Glah, so good!  Onset anxiety issues here I, gladly, come!

I also am going to take a paragraph just to dedicate to Kathy Bates.  While James Caan is shining in this role, especially during scenes where he feigns Stockholm syndrome to mask his contempt for this psychopath, the nutter herself is the clear winner (and the Academy would agree with me on this, as they awarded her Best Actress for her role.)  Bates really has the challenge of acting out three different roles in this movie: complete psychopath (both the hysterical and viloent subcategories), pleasant nursemaid, and super-fan.  She nails all three equally.  And props to Reiner who knows exactly which shots work best for each split-personality trait, whether it's the lingering upward shot of Bates standing over Caan's bed when he awakes due to a thunder storm, or the less intimidating shots of her when she relays her abundant knowledge of Paul's personal life.  It all works so well.  Kathy Bates is the exact type of person you would dream for this role- she doesn't over act it, she's believable, and creepy from the very first moment to her brutal last. I love seeing a female in a strong, aggressive role in a horror/thriller film for once.  I love that the character does not rely on some sort of bimbo tactics and actually has depth, even if she is the "bag guy".

As I own, but have never read the book, I can't tell you if the screenplay does it justice, but it is well adapted for a movie-going audience.  This movie is not a mystery.  There are no surprise endings or twists that it must use as a crutch to carry the plot along; it simply moves at a healthy pace on its own.  The storyline itself picks up right away, with in the first 5 minutes, and the character roles are clear from the beginning as well.  Every now and then, you just need to leave M. Knight Shamalamadingdong and home and just get to the point.  Misery is a prime example of why that concept works. Maybe I'll be Annie Wilkes for Halloween....

I can't well enough end this review without mentioning "that scene."  You know the one, even if you have never seen this movie before... the scene where she hobbles Paul in order to keep him bed-ridden.  Yeah, this scene may be the most graphically gruesome, yet bloodless scene to ever hit the movie screen.  I don't think I've ever seen this part once, in all of the times I've watched Misery, with out turning away a bit.  It's not even stomach-churning, it's just a moment of to-the-bone discomfort. 

I recommend this movie if you have never seen it before, or even if you have.  I suggest watching it if you like horror movies that do not need supernatural elements to terrify you.  I also recommend watching it if you are a little bit stuck on yourself and love having oodles of fans, er, friends pour over your every facebook sentence.  Maybe you'll think again.

Rating: 8.5/10
Scare Scale: Terrifyingly Suspenseful

LET THE RIGHT ONE IN

Let the Right One In

Dir: Tomas Alfredson, 2008

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1139797/

Reviewed by: Chase

Synopsis: When a mysterious older man and young girl move in next door to Oscar, a small, bullied boy, an unusual friendship forms between him and the peculiar new girl, Eli. It isn't long before Oscar realizes that his new friend isn't like other girls. In fact, she isn't even human. 

Review: Made is Sweden, Let the Right One In (and the equally affecting American remake Let Me In) is basically the anti-Twilight. The story might sound similar on paper--vampire + human = young love--but where Twilight contained sparkly skin and a pouting protagonist, Let the Right... has meat on its bones. It's violent, grim and meticulously paced. There's also a minor revelation about our little vampire, Eli, partway through the film that had me researching the film for days.

Essentially, it's a love story set in the bleak, dark shadows of a horror movie. Beautifully told through the eyes of two children, director Alfredson weaves a story so timelessly simple, yet grotesque and disturbing all the same. The two young actors are more than up for the challenge and deliver two unforgettable performances. Lina Leandersson in particular, as little Eli, is both stunning and chilling as the conflicted little blood sucker. 

The film unfolds quietly yet intensely, always leaving much of the horror and gore to the imagination (most effectively done during the final moments of the movie). There are moments of absolute terror, most memorably Eli's guardian's midnight outings to get his young vampire her sustenance, but also moments of sweetness and innocence. The guardian's presence and role makes for a refreshing twist on the vampire genre. You'll have to watch the film to know what I mean.

As mentioned, there is an American remake, Let Me In, that is almost shot-for-shot the same beautiful, haunting movie, but with a few more jolts and some minor plot changes, so if you prefer to watch without subtitles I highly recommend the remake. The original, however, is the superior piece of art, in my opinion. Its cinematography alone is breathtaking.

This is one of my favorite movies, I think. It's a cinematic gem.

Rating: 9/10
Scare Scale: Moody and dark, intense and unsettling.

PET SEMATARY

Pet Sematary
Dir: Mary Lambert, 1989
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098084/
Reviewed by: Whitney

Synopsis: A handsome, (popular opinion of 1989), doctor moves his wife and two young children from Chicago to a small town in the countryside (presumably Maine, as that is where Stephen King tends to set his novels) located on busy stretch of road used haphazardly by truck drivers.  His creepy, yet inviting neighbor, Judd Crandall (played by Fred Gwynne, the loveable Herman Munster), befriends the family and shares the dark history of the land behind the Creed's new house.  The eerie backwoods are home to, not only a pet sematary (which, despite my atrocious spelling typically, is hard for me to spell the misspelling correctly, as I tend to actually spell cemetery correctly- though truth be told, it just took me four tries to get the e's in the right place instead of inserting a's.  But that's completely off subject).... oh, where were we?  Yes, the pet semetary is not the only burial ground behind the Creed's house; there is also a much darker cemetery, one traditionally used for American Indian burials.  Or was used, up until the soil went sour and remains that were buried in shallow graves started rising from the dead as something dark, and supernatural- something Louis Creed finds out all to well after a string of unfortunate incidents, starting with the death of a beloved family pet, spirals a series of secret burials in the sacred, yet soiled (pun intended) ground.

Review:  I first saw this movie when my mother let me pick out a scary movie to show at my birthday party, or perhaps it was a Halloween party, when I was about 10 or so.  I have several childhood friends who can tell you, it scared the crap out of us.  I don't think most of us could even finish it.  Though it wasn't my first horror movie (which would have been Creepshow when I was 6 or 7, what ever age kindergartners are.  I'm pretty disconnected from children things right now), it had a lingering effect on me.  I think I've actually only been able to bring myself to watch it three times in my life, this being one of them.  There is something that really creeps me out about this movie.  Still. 

The creepiest part, or at least when I was a kid, was the mother, Rachel's, sister Zelda.  When Rachel was a kid, she often was left to care for her older sister Zelda, who suffered from Spinal Meningitis, whatever the hell that is.  Oooh, okay, I just looked it up.  It, as the movie would suggest, is rather unpleasant.  Here is a link for more information http://spinalmeningitis.org/.  If you watch this movie and think to yourself, "Man, Zelda looks like a, well, man...", then you are correct.  A male was cast for the role of the hideously sick sister because the casting directors had a hard time finding a woman thin enough for the role.  Sigh.  This is why men look better in dresses then most women.  They have the legs for it.  However, this man in Pet Sematary does NOT make a good woman.  Just a creepy-as-shit one.  Watching these scenes as an adult, Zelda is not as frightening and looks more like a Muppet with plastic surgery then anything, but I'm telling you, nightmarish for a kid.  Also, I find it kind of bizarre that one of the creepiest Stephen King movie moments comes from, not something supernatural, but the portrayal of a young (doesn't look it) woman dying of an incurable illness.  It would be like making a scary movie based on a leper colony.......... hmm, I may have to do that.   

One of the highlights for this film has got to be Fred Gwynne.  I love this guy.  His accent, which I presume is that of North Easterners, is, well, memorable, kind of, old-timey movie-esque.  I think that's why I like his character so much.  The baby, Gage (who also stared in movies like Kindergarten Cop and TV shows like Full House), is one of the creepiest movie kids of all time.  Props to that baby's onset handler.  Some of the acting is pretty cornball, but it's not too overdone.  I hate the mother's character, but I think I hate her because Stephen King wanted me to hate her.  What a yuppie... and that little Dutch Boy hair cut.  Few things really date this movie, aside from her hair. 

The story itself is an adaptation that has been told and altered time and time again.  It's a lot like The Monkey's Paw, or any variation where grief stricken people bring back their dead loved ones out of desperation, only to find out that the living can never really, truly, come back as themselves; that death is much darker then one could hope.  This cautionary tale is the perfect example of what separates the undead or the walking dead from the conception of zombies, primarily their motives and verbal skills. 

The most enjoyable Stephen King novel to film adaptations, for me at least, are usually those that King himself writes the screenplay for, aside from a few... shining examples (feel free to puke at anytime if my grotesque puns invoke that feeling of nausea for you).  Pet Sematary's screenplay was written by Stephen King, so the translation from novel to film works really well in this instance. 

After all this time, the movie still holds up for me.  I'd recommend watching Pet Sematary if you like classic tales of horror and are easily creeped out by children.

Rating: 8/10
Scare Scale: Classic Chills

 "I'm a man, living as a woman with Spinal Meningitis.  Let me share my story and how Permamed can help."

SHUTTER

Shutter
Dir: Masayuki Ochiai, 2008
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0482599/
Reviewed by: Whitney


Synopsis: A recently married woman moves to Japan to follow her photographer husband's job.  It's there that she finds herself feeling out of place and a little bit lonely while her husband is focused on his career.  At this point, the plot could go two ways.  Scenario number 1: To bide her time, she befriends an older actor, played by Bill Murray (my favorite male actor of all time), and finds herself sharing tense, but platonic moments exploring Tokyo together.  Though their bond strengthens, Bill Murray is scheduled to return to America while Scarlett Johannson is left to return to her bleak way of living as a married woman in a foreign country.  Upon parting, Billy Murray whispers a secret to S. Jo.  I'm guessing he said, "Joshua Jackson will someday star in the movie of our lives, but it will be a horror film instead of this romantic sleeper."

OR

Joshua Jackson stars alongside Racheal Taylor in the horror version of this movie.  Ergo, Shutter.  Where the plots between this movie and Lost in Translation diverge is when, instead of Racheal Taylor's character, Jane, falling in love with an older actor to bide her time, she well, discovers a dark secret that involves ghosts, and phantom car crash, and eerie photographs.  

As with traditional Japanese horror films, the suspense surrounds a ghost story and the ghost in the story has a past secret that needs to be revealed in order for the hauntings to cease.  Usually these Japanese scary movies use a device in which the message of terror is relayed.  In The Ring (which is going to be my next, or next next review), the device is a film.  Sometimes the ghost is attached to an object or particular person, in this movie, it's both.  Well, the female ghost (which seem to be the gender of choice for Japanese spirits told in these stories) in this movie is more or less attached to a person, but reveals their message through photographs.  I hope you are following this, because, just like making a fine soup, I'm giving you all of the ingredients and plot twists I'll ever need to write about for any Japanese ghost story movie I review.  Americans like slashers, Europeans like monsters, Japanese like ghosts, and Canadians are afraid of not being taken seriously.  Every country has their thing.  

Review:  I kind of enjoyed this movie, even though it was exactly what you could expect.  The make-up, cinematography, art direction, and characters were all pretty standard.  I did find it amusing that they took a Japanese horror film, turned it into an American horror film, but still managed to set it in Japan.  Joshua Jackson does a good job of playing a douche bag.  Oh how far he has come from his Mighty Duck days. I think the one thing that didn't make this movie too dull for me were the tense moments.  The scary parts weren't frightening per se, but they were tactfully placed, so props to the editors on this film.  

There is a sequence in the movie where Jane is researching why all of her photos have strange orbs or figures that seemed to have materialized upon developing them, she visits a paranormal magazine that publishes similar pictures and stories.  The editor takes her into a secret back room filled with "real" photo submissions lining the walls.  I thought I had heard or read somewhere, (though IMDB could not confirm this), that the photographs with orbs and unexplained faces and figures were actual photos collected and this was the inspiration for the film.  I can appreciate the movie a little more if this is factual, but again, I can't confirm, via my laziness and lack of extensive research, if this is true or not at the moment.  

Oh, one more thing:  There is a point in the movie when Joshua Jackson is developing his film in a dark room (dated) and a part where he says his entire photo shoot was ruined because of a glare in all of the pictures and sort of flips out because of it.  Ummmm... photoshop, anyone?  If you are, and he is, a professional photographer, photoshop is part of your life.  Doi. 

Overall, I'd recommend this movie only if you have seen other Japanese/American ghost story remakes before, simply because it isn't the best of the bunch, but still has some watch worthy moments.  The end is sort of intense and fairly satisfying in the way it moves and is shot.  If you do watch it, get in the mind set, turn of the lights, watch it at night, and pay attention, otherwise, it will probably easily be lost on the viewer.  

Rating: 6/10
Scare Scale: Scary in the dark room.

VACANCY

Vacancy
Dir: Nimrod Antal, 2007
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0452702/
Reviewed by: Chase

Synopsis: Luke Wilson and Kate Beckinsale star as David and Amy Fox, a couple whose relationship is on the rocks. The end. Just kidding, there's more. For reasons too lame to include in this post, they take a detour down a dark mountain road on their drive home from seeing family. Naturally, their car breaks down and they must spend the night at a Norman Bates-approved hotel, where a fidgety man with glasses and a comb-over checks them into the Honeymoon Suite. For only $5 more!

Inside their room, David and Amy discover video tapes containing horrific footage of real murder scenes that took place in a room that looks surprisingly similar to their own. Wait! It is their hotel room! Oh noooo! David and Amy must outsmart the attackers, plan a getaway, and reconcile their marriage all within an 80-minute movie that probably should've been titled "The Grisly Death of Luke and Kate's Careers."

Review: Vacancy was directed by a man named Nimrod. Need I say more.

Okay, it's not thaaaat bad. It did have some redeeming qualities. The lighting and production design were quite impressive. And the opening credits were cool, but somewhat confusing; the score and the clever use of typography felt more like a slick espionage thriller than a gruesome tale of horror. Still, well done on the credits, Nimrod.

One of the most commendable things I can say about this film is it didn't rely on gore or shocking death scenes as scare tactics. The opening scene in the car also implemented some clever camera tricks using mirrors to give the first scene of painful character development a bit of uneasiness and dread.

There is an effectively claustrophobic scene that takes place in a dirt underground tunnel (don't ask), but that could be because I had panic attacks as a child just by being in a sleeping bag. Rats were also involved in the tunnel, and rats always bring their A-game in scary movies.

Oh, and the masks the "killers" wear are pretty disturbing. Another point for Nimrod!

Now onto the bad. Sorry, Luke "Chubby Face" Wilson but you could never marry someone as flawless as Kate Beckinsale. Suspension of belief only goes so far, brother. And the supposed "strain" on their relationship wasn't believable in the slightest. At one point, Amy finds a picture of her and a boy (their dead son, I presume) and wells up instantly, doing all she can give dimension to her character, to the movie.

I jumped maybe twice during the film, but let's face it-- I jump when someone pops a balloon at a carnival. I appreciate what the movie was trying to be, but it was simply too familiar. How many movies set in a creepy, isolated hotel are there anyway? I've seen at least twelve. One in particular comes to mind.

In the end, Vacancy had too many "Why didn't they just..." and "That would never really work..." moments to be taken seriously. Thin characters and cheap scares amounted in Vacancy leaving me feeling just that: vacant.

Rating: 5.5/10 stars (2 stars for the well-lit, well-designed sets, 1 star for the masks, 1/2 star for the rats, and another 2 stars for being only 80 minutes long.)
Scare Scale: Squirm a little, yawn a little

CURSED

Cursed
Dir: Wes Craven, 2005
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0257516/
Reviewed by: Whitney

Summary: A brother and a sister are driving (wait, this sounds remotely familiar, but I promise, the premise is different from yesterday's review of Jeepers Creepers) and are involved in a car accident and wind up wounded by a large wolfish-bear creature which, unbeknown to them, isn't a traditional animal at all, but rather a werewolf.  The hunt is on to track down and kill the master werewolf before they themselves turn into the beasts.

Review: Let's start with the cast.  Talk about a B celebrity cameo fest!  I think everyone who has ever been on a WB/CW/UPN (or whatever the hell it is called these days) is in this movie and then some.  It's pretty insane.  Jesse Eisenberg and Christina Ricci have the lead roles as Jimmy and Ellie, respectively and play parent-less siblings living in L.A.  This is why Craven can throw in cameos from, oh, say, Scott Baio just for the hell of it.  The acting is alright and pretty cheesy, but, considering the vibe of the film, if the actors took it any more seriously, I would feel an uncomfortable disconnect.  There were some good one liners, but nothing overly memorable.  Eisenberg does what he does best and plays a socially misfit toy, er, teen while Christina's huge forehead (and possibly receding hair line) seem to constantly be a distraction from her actual performance for me. 

The werewolf costumes are a bit silly.  Some of the werewolf parts are over done with CGI, but I'm glad they kept some actual people dressed up in make-up and costumes.  If you are expecting a scary werewolf film, don't expect it from Cursed.  Actually, you probably shouldn't expect it ever.  Werewolf films aren't ever really frightening, but rather pretty humorous and festered with cheese, which I love.  I can understand why this film didn't rate very high amongst the critics, but is considered a modern cult classic.  Comical gore + silly wolf make-up + a buttload of B-listers, yeah, I'm in!  Cursed falls somewhere on the werewolf scale between Teen Wolf and American Werewolf in London (or maybe it's Paris.  Which ever is better.  I tend to get them confused.)

I don't really find myself having any real beef with this movie.  It seems a little low budget for a Wes Craven film, but maybe that's because of all those cameos.  Did I mention the Cameos?  To be perfectly frank, the only thing less scary then werewolf movies are mummy movies.  Mummies = not scary (keep that in mind if you ever plan on making a horror movie.)  For the cult value, it's worth a watch.

I guess this film really just falls into the category of silly horror.  I don't think there is one part where I even jumped.  As far as scary movies go, it was pretty PG (though not actually PG.)  I recommend this movie if you don't like to be scared and enjoy silliness instead of thrills.  Or if you  have a lingering crush on Joshua Jackson from his Dawson's Creek days. 

Rating: 7/10
Scare Scale: Scared Silly

JEEPERS CREEPERS

Jeepers Creepers
Dir: Victor Salva, 2001
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0263488/
Reviewed by: Whitney

Plot: Two meddling kids, a brother, (dumb name) Darry, (Justin Long, who seems to be following me everywhere... perhaps even... dare I say... haunting me?) and sister Patricia, (Gina Phillips), while on a road trip home, stumble upon an unspeakable beast and his layer and are subsequently hunted down by the beast looking to harvest body parts for its own rebirth. 

Review: I had seen this film once in high school when it first came out on DVD.  I remembered that I didn't really care for it then, but seeing as it has been 10 years, I figured it was safe to revisit it, give it a second chance and look at it from more objective eyes.  After a second viewing, I wasn't swayed from my initial opinions.  Many of my friends have raved about this movie and have told me how scary it was.  With this in mind, I accept all backlash I have coming my way after this review.

For starters, as with my initial sentiments, the cinematography is pretty bad.  Yes, poor lighting has a well deserved place in horror movies, but when it constricts me from actually seeing the action that is going on, it becomes problematic.  It makes me wonder if the lighting was a mere ruse to distract from a poorly thrown together monster, which looks nothing like the human parts of which it has been created.  The one place poor lighting could have been effectively used was in the monster's underground layer.  Unfortunately, it wasn't dimly light enough to distract me from the terrible mannequins that looked nothing like real human bodies.  They looked more fake then the boobs I previously discussed in my Candyman review.  If I was Justin Long, excuse me, Darry, I would have laughed, assuming I was in some avant garde Nordstrom's store display. 

But that's all aesthetic technicalities.  Outside of technical details, the characters were kind of flat, and yes, I know horror movie characters traditionally do not have a lot of depth, but when you only rely on two characters to carry the whole film, there should be something that makes the viewer hope for their survival.  The acting is pretty typical, the camera shots are rather uncreative, and the twist... well, if you can't guess which body part the monster is trying to harvest from one of the two main characters just be even reading the title, then you may be a little daft. 

Perhaps the only saving grace to this movie is the originality of the boogeyman.  A monster that hunts humans to harvest their body parts in order to rebuild itself is a pretty clever motive.  Oh, the other thing that I enjoyed about this movie were the cats.  I can enjoy any scary movie where the cats don't die.  I also have a confession, I fell asleep during the last ten minutes.  I think I fell asleep during Jeepers Creepers the first time I saw it as well.

I recommend watching this if: You need a sleep aid; you are a teenage girl who scares easily; you have a strange fascination with Justin Long.

Rating: 3/10 stars
Scare Scale: Teen Scream

PRINCE OF DARKNESS

Prince of Darkness
Dir: John Carpenter, 1987
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093777/
Reviewed by: Whitney

Synopsis: A priest discovers an ancient relic, kept as an abandon church's secret, and calls upon a university professor and his novice, yet skilled, students to help solve the mystery behind the mystery of the tube filled with an unknown glowing green substance.  Upon the night's investigation and properties that defy the laws of chemistry and physics, it is determined that the relic has demonic powers that control, not only a group of outside vagrants (one memorably stands out as a cameo by Alice Cooper), but also, eventually, the scientists.  Could this vessel be linked to the devil himself?  I'll let you decide that on your own, considering the title of the movie is Prince of Darkness. 

Review:  If you are expecting a movie about Ozzy, well you best hit the back button on your browser because this film comes to us via Mr. Carpenter and only includes one rock star.  Hint: it's not Ozzy.  John Carpenter really is a master of horror.  The way he constructs films is with high suspense and a tinge of humor every now in then:
"Has anyone seen Susan?"
"Whose Susan?"
"Radiologist, glasses?"
 This is an exchange that happens between nearly all of the cast in this movie as an on going gag.  It's catchy to the point that I found myself quoting it allowed along with the characters each time it was reintroduced as dialogue.

The grotesque parts were comical, but restrained a little bit compared to, oh, say, Sam Raimi.  (Oh, also, a side note: I've been watching quite a few movies where people spew on each other.  It's kind of rad.)  This was the first time that I had seen this movie and it didn't disappoint.  By the shear number of characters, I knew that the body count would be high and, for a movie like this, that is exactly what I want.  Singular characters in horror movies can get tiresome and droll, but if you have a cast with enough people that you can only focus on a character for a few minutes and likely never remember their names before they get slaughtered, well, that's perfect for someone with a similar ADHD condition as myself. 

For '87, the effects are on par with other movies of the time.  The make-up done on the woman who incubates Satan's sludge, if you will, is some of the better of the demonic possession variety in similar films.  I must say, however, considering that most of the cast is supposed to be scientists, they really aren't that great at problem solving in practical, life and death situations.  Even so, with horror films there is still an element of fun provoked by yelling, "get away from the door you idiot!" or "don't go up there!" or "dig faster!"  This movie provides a lot of opportunity for that.  Though I'm not going to have nightmares due to this film, I can see myself watching it for many Halloween seasons to come.  I mean, common, Alice Cooper as a murdering, demonically possessed hooligan.  I'm not worthy!  I'm not worthy!

I'd recommend watching this movie if: you like movies about possession and you're a fan of scary movies cut with a bit of comedy.

Rating: 8/10
Scare Scale: Occasional Jumpiness

THE SHINING

The Shining
Dir. Stanley Kubrick, 1980
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081505/
Reviewed by: Chase

Synopsis: The Shining finds Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson) recently out of work and struggling to become a writer. Jack is unexpectedly offered a temporary job as caretaker of an isolated Colorado hotel during the winter. His meek and loyal wife Wendy (a flailing, delicate Shelley Duvall) agrees and soon Jack, Wendy and their son Danny move to the Outlook Hotel. In the quiet and desolate emptiness of winter, Jack begins to unravel and when evil forces begin taking control of Jack and the hotel, the son, Danny's mysterious telepathic abilities--aka The Shining--may be their only hope of survival.

Review: The last time I saw The Shining it was a sunny afternoon in October of 1999. I was a middle school-er at a Halloween party with a pack of giggly girls, and we were buzzin' on Mountain Dew and Skittles. Needless to say, the experience was about as scary as a pile of fluffy kittens. For years now, I've felt I owed it to myself, as a self-labeled film buff and connoisseur of the horror genre, to revisit this Stephen King classic.

Stanley Kubrick has turned out a classic film or two in his time. To many, he epitomizes fearless film making. None more fearless, and potentially disastrous than perhaps "The Shining". Based on a 500+ page Stephen King novel, anchored on three central performances (one being a child, one being Nicholson's crazy eyes, and the other being... Ms. Duvall.), shot in an isolated mountain resort, and tackling some pretty twisted material, it could have easily been a convoluted mess of cheap thrills. Thankfully, that isn't the case.

The film, in short, is masterful. It's long (146 minutes), slow and plodding, but never dull. Kubrick implements some pretty incredible film making techniques to capture the vastness of the Overlook Hotel, yet somehow gives the film a undeniable sense of claustrophobia. His use of tracking shots--long, slow traveling shots--following the characters across spacious rooms or tailing them through narrow hallways are ground-breaking film making.

Nicholson's gradual transformation from conflicted patriarch to ax-wielding lunatic is chilling. His most iconic movie moment of possibly his entire career comes near the end of the film and was actually improvised by Nicholson while filming. Duvall's reaction blurs performance and true terror.

So it's a technical marvel, full iconic imagery (the twins! a sea of blood spilling from the elevators! icky corpse lady in the tub!), performances and dialogue ("Heeeeeere's Johnny!"), but is it scary? Hell yeah. The opening shots of windy roads and beautiful mountainous landscapes are underlain with a dissonant musical score that immediately put knots in my stomach. The scares are perfectly paced, starting with the films subtle moodiness and sense of foreboding, and eventually become down-right bone chilling at the one hour mark. It isn't until about 120 minutes into the movie that Kubrick goes for broke and really lays on the scares (or the crazy).

80s horror movies were a mixed bag; many were absolute crap, while some were instant genre classics. The Shining is most certainly one of the latter.

Rating: 9/10
Scare Scale: Bone chilling

CANDYMAN

Candyman

(Dir: Bernard Rose, 1992) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103919/

Reviewed by: Whitney

Candyman, Candyman, Candyman, Candyman, Candyman.  I'm waiting.... still waiting... All right, I must say, this movie used to scare the crap out of me.  Seriously.  I don't think I ever even, okay, maybe once, played Bloody Marry as a child. There is something about summoning evil that I was fearful of as a kid.  Not so much now.  Now, it's Ouija boards and seances, and prancing, albeit, respectfully, through cemeteries at night.  I'm just not as fearful anymore, and that probably accounts for why movies like Candyman just do not hold up as well for me as an adult. 

The movie starts out a bit slow, other than the initial scare that takes place with in the first five minutes of any horror film.  The movie starts off chronicling the urban legend of the Candyman who, as legend has it, was the son of a former slave who was murdered by towns folk after having and affair with and getting a white woman pregnant.  The woman's father hired men to take the Candyman, saw off his arm, and smash hives of bees around his body, which was covered in honey, leaving him to be stung and eaten to death.  He allegedly haunted a seedy, skid-rowish neighborhood, attacking and murdering those who dared say his name five times into a mirror. 

Well, wouldn't you know it, lil; miss investigator decides one night to f*ck with the Candyman, for research, of course, by testing out the legend herself in her own bathroom.  Of course, because she summoned him in her wealthier, high class neighborhood, nothing happens... right away, but once she starts meddling in his hood and starts to spread word that Candyman doesn't exist to the locals, that pisses him off and he decides to use her in a plot of revenge to gain support in his existence again.

Unfortunately, the final body count is low for a movie like this.  I think the legend, at least as a kid, lingers, but the film really doesn't hold up as well.  There isn't enough gore and bodies to push it into the shocker category.  At the same time, there isn't quite enough suspenseful moments to make it overly thrilling, as an adult, either.

Another thing that bothers me about this film is the lead female.  She's a weird Sharon Stone knock off who seems to have Hallmark Channel moments, not horror film moments.  Or maybe, she is better meant for some sort of Pantine commercial.  The movie feels dated, and not in a retro, vintagey way that works for classic horror films.  I also don't like that it is a horror movie that is racially driven in motives, in some sense, but still manages to depict the "ghetto" in the most stereotypically racist way possible.  It misses the mark there.  The end is a bit overblown in the "moral of the story" department, but the last thrill, though entirely expected, makes the movie slightly more enjoyable.

Other things that I do not like about this movie: her boobs have too much plasticity and look awkward.  Also, she takes a bath in some sort of milky substance at one point, and for whatever reason that creeped me out more than most of the "scary" parts.  One other thing; A hook for an arm?  Really?  Thatttttt's pretty overdone, like my mother's turkey on Thanksgiving Day.  Actually, I don't eat meat and my mom isn't a terrible cook.

Oooh, I did like all of the bees.  Insects always give me the creepy-crawlies.  Anytime insects come out of body cavities, the creepy level of a movie raises significantly for me.

Overall, I'd recommend this movie if  you are 10 and need to be scared for a couple of years via urban legends, and trust me, all 10 year-olds need to be scared a bit.  It makes parenting a lot easier if you can just threaten to summon the Candyman.  Of course, this is coming from someone who has no children.  However, I have experienced this for myself via a father who was really into making his kids watch scary movies.  I think it helped make me a better adult.

Rating: 5/10
Scare Scale: Teen Scream

DRAG ME TO HELL

DRAG ME TO HELL

(Dir: Sam Raimi 2009) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1127180/

Reviewed by: Whitney

Plot Overview: A young woman, Christine Brown, is inflicted with a Gypsy curse on her after refusing to help an elderly lady for her own personal gain. 

Few horror directors can effectively, not just straddle the line, but jump rope between thrills and comedy.  Raimi's arsenal of horror seamlessly does this time and time again.  For me, Raimi can perfectly execute the necessary levels of garish gore required to keep me entertained, make me laugh a little, and simultaneously throw up, ever so slightly, in my mouth; like when the old woman's corpse spews, or rather, projectile vomits bile and rotting fluids into Christine's mouth.  Yeah.... about like that.  Trust me, it's a great scene.

The plot isn't really anything we haven't seen before- Gypsies tormenting non-Gypsy folk with supernatural curses.  Even for Raimi, the "curse" theme has already been well traveled territory.  Perhaps because of this, the movie itself has a very familiar feel and is, in many parts, is reminiscent of Sam Raimi's earlier works, like Evil Dead.  Because of this, and Raimi's impact on the horror film industry, the film has a vintage vibe, stylistically, but still looks like modern cinematography.  The characters' parts aren't overacted and I don't even mind the "I'm a Mac" guy (you know, the one who kind of looks like every 20-something brunette male comedian that has ever graced the set of SNL.  Yeah, that guy), being cast in this movie as the male lead.  That's surprising, because I kind of hate that guy.  

So here are some personal thoughts:  After watching, to no surprise, many episodes of "My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding" (I think it's on Lifetime or TLC or some veritable crap like that), I, as a person with waning political correctness, understand that Sam Raimi's depiction of Gypsies and their culture is not at all accurate.  With that being stated, I like Raimi's ideas of Gypsies way better then how TLiftime portrays them.  Call me racist, but you know you enjoy supernatural Gypsies far more than realistic folks as well.  Mehmeh.  There is a woman who comes into the frozen custard shop where I work and, I swear, aside from having better teeth and two good eyes, she looks like the Gypsy woman from this movie.  Is this pertinent to the plot line?  Not at all, but I would like to add that this may be why I feel this movie is both comedic and a little bit frightening- because real life scary witch-looking elderly women really exist.  God forbid I don't give her a big enough scoop size when she comes in, least I be finding myself in a similar situation as Christine Brown.  Eepps!  No thank you!  I mean, this isn't the type of movie that I can't sleep at night after watching it, and I probably chuckle more than anything else, but still, it has a little somethin' somethin' that is slightly creepy, and that's the old woman.  Not even the demons summoned by the curse are really that frightening, in my opinion.  Maybe you personally don't feel this way because you do not work at a custard shop with crazy old gypsy women as your regular customers and you can't understand my sentiment, but maybe you have a crazy, creepy grandmother or something and do...

This is the watchable silly for which horror aficionados swoon.  It's the right amount of cheesy blood, vomit, and insects to make the viewer engage and laugh instead of turning away in disgust from the thrill scenes.  It's enjoyable to those who like scary movies and who are big babies and find themselves too frightened to watch horror movies alone in the dark.  Watch it alone, watch it with friends, watch it again.  Tis' the season, after all.

Rating: 7.5/10
Scare scale: Sleep with the lights off.