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.