The Last House on the Left (2009; Dennis Iliadis)

Let me set something straight. I hate remakes, but I also hate Craven. As far as I am concerned, almost (stress almost) every single Craven film could be improved with a remake so my expectations for this were a little higher than other remakes (i.e. higher than no expectations at all). Just needed to make sure I got that out in the open before I started talking anything in detail.


Two dumb girls get kidnapped by psychos who are on the run. Pretty sure we all know the rest.

The first thing I noticed about the remake is that the two girls are drenched in American culture and my feelings are they deserved a portion of what they got. I choose to look at certain events in a different light and it makes watching this film, and even Craven's original, very tedious. It isn't that I choose to have it out for Craven, but when you make characters like these (which seems to be more and more common) I find it insulting to my intelligence. Not every single American goes out all over looking for drugs and partying with strangers. It brings it to an even lower level knowing that the creators have a full range of control over how they want to craft these girls, but intentionally choose to make them lawbreaking scum bags.

It isn't that they weren't completely aware. They tried to form touching moments for one of the girls by giving her a brief back story about a dead brother who always told her to try her best, but that just doesn't cover it. I find it hard to not spoil things when writing negative reviews as I feel compelled to just pick it all apart, so you might want to stop at this point and know I don't like this movie.

Now for the spoiler moments. That back story is what drove her to give up drugs temporarily and try her hardest to be a great swimmer. However, when it becomes essential for her to swim for her life, she gets shot down and dies. So what does that tell us? Are we supposed to interpret these events as she was a failure? It most certainly seems this way, and in that case, how am I supposed to bond with her? Are they trying to call me a failure too?

The entire film is built around what happens to these girls and the affect it has on the other characters. However, having the entire first segment be a mound of insults to my person and an absolute frustration in general makes enjoying the second segment a stretch. I will give it credit for being relatively solid in the portion dealing with the parents, but it isn't perfect and even if it was it couldn't save the whole from being a mess.

Score: 2/5

Notes: Was it needed to remake an insulting movie into an even more insulting movie?

Tremors (1990; Ron Underwood)

I don't care what anybody says about this movie, I just can not take it seriously. I feel that as much as it may try to be an exercise in claustrophobic suspense, I see it more as a silly 90's take on a monster film.


That being said, it in no way makes the film bad, you just have to know what to expect. A group of southern hicks get trapped in their valley when four giant.. worm things attack and start dragging people under the dirt.

While keeping my reviews undeniably fresh, the cinematography in this film is keeping the vision of the filmmaker undeniably bland. By bland I mean if you took the textbook on the basics of working a camera and made a movie on it, this is what you would have. The sheer blandness is making my vocabulary so bland that I have used bland too many times in this review already.

I want to keep this review on a high note however, as not everything about this movie is (you know the word by now). The acting was good enough to hold the story together, and by that I mean the acting was obviously made over the top to balance out the fact that the entire movie is based down below.

I could sit here and try and chalk away at why this film is not exceptional, or I could tell you that you should approach this movie differently. If you walk up to this movie with the idea that you just want to sit down to a good ol' monster flick, then that is exactly what you will get. Much like slasher flicks, monster movies have almost their own set of rules. All they really need to work are the monsters to terrorize and the people to be terrorized. Throw in some explosions and some death and it should sell.

What was the point of me going on about the cinematography then? Just to simply show you that while monster movies have some of their own rules, they aren't allowed to be lazy and/or uncreative and still expect a top score.

Score: 2/5

Notes: Chick Without Pants, Elephant Guns

The Last Shark (1981; Enzo Castellari)

This movie is such a blatant rip off of Jaws, that in Spain it is titled "Jaws III".



The reason I chose that specific cover is because I think it is amazing. Just look at how scary that is. I don't care how uninspired it is, sharks are scary. Needless to say for this movie, think Jaws. A shark attacks.

I just want to say that this movie even as a rough sailor with an accent and a mustache. Oh, and he is being hired by a clean shaven man who is cool headed. Oh, did I mention a skinny dipping girl? And the town doesn't want to close the beach to save money? And a buoy getting stuck on the shark. Sorry, where was I?

Oh yes, the camera. I like to think of that camera as simply... nope, don't have an analogy for it, it was just bad. Not bad in the sense that it was shakily unbearable, but simply as inspired and creative as the movie itself.

Okay, I just need to throw one last joke into this then I am done. I had this idea for a movie I want to make. It is about a guy named Michael Buyers. He goes around on Halloween and kills people in a white mask.

Anyway, no matter how hard I try to bury this film for being my Michael Buyers film, the subject matter is simply so rich (seeing as sharks are always scary) that you can't help but get sucked in anyway. No matter how bad the shark looks, or how silly the movie seems, you just have to love it for one reason or another. Does this mean I forgive the movie? No, not even close.

One part I want to mention about this film before I finish, simply to have something positive to throw out, is that the score is truly enjoyable. The potential for the music and "noises" as I like to call them is absolutely amazing, if only it had a proper script and flow of ideas to back it up.

Score: 2/5

Notes: Another film from my friends at wtfdvds.com

The Last Shark at wtfdvds.com/all-dvds-1/the-last-shark-1981-dvd-215.html

Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem (2007; Colin Strause & Greg Strause)

Round Two: Let's see if these guys can do a better job.


Same story, different people. Moving on...

I am going to start by addressing my two main issues with the first AVP. The Predator (singular now) has no emotions this time around. It is using any means necessary to make sure nothing knows what is going on. This leads to the Predator killing as many humans as Aliens. That is good.

The second issue was the gore. This problem was also addressed with the sequel. Heads were getting blown off all over the place, and it was glorious. They could have done more, but what they had was sufficient enough to satisfy most fans... including me.

Now, even with those problems fixed, a whole new slew of problems arose. This one takes place in a town, which leads to them adding a whole mix of stereotyped humans. These people are found to be an extreme annoyance. A fair amount of our precious time is spent getting us invested in each person, but they are so bland and two dimensional it just feeds your irritation.

Some small complaints are as follows. The Predator is not the hunter it once was. While it is back to being a bad ass, it loses it's hunter instinct. It simply walks right into the Alien hot spots and starts blasting away. There is a political message that is not only felt throughout the movie, they felt the need to drive it home with awkwardly placed dialogue to spell it all out just in case it wasn't obvious enough.

There is one quick positive I want to brush up on before I finish. This film brought a few nice additions to the mythologies of both of the races without adding anything new that might make explaining why it wasn't used in previous films very difficult. There is also a nice touch with the original Predator soundtrack placed briefly in certain spots to add a little something to make us feel comfortable.

Score: 2/5

Notes: Battle of the Pregnancies, Predalien (or Aliator)

Alien vs. Predator (2004; Paul Anderson)

Yeah, that's right. I thought I would stick to a theme, so here it is. I barely remember watching this film way back in 2004. All I can remember clearly is hating it, and watching everyone else hate it. So after watching Predator again, I felt that I should give it another go and see if I would become this movie's knight in shining armor.


There isn't much to tell. The Predators brought the Aliens to Earth as part of a game. It was so they could hunt the ultimate prey on a planet that they could destroy in case they lost.

I just want to say, first off, that I loved that idea. It was almost Hollywood's answer to the people who believe that aliens created the Earth and taught humans, etc. I just really enjoyed the Predator's story as the ultimate hunter, and that we just get caught up in the crossfire.

I am going to take this movie for what it was meant to be, a fan boy movie. Paul Anderson made sure this film was loaded with goodies featured in other movies (a lot of similar camera shots, etc...) and for that, I applaud him. To a purely fan boy approach, I believe Anderson did a... decent job.

The humanization of the Predator is what bugs me the most. The ultimate hunter is not one who has emotions. The Predator is a tactically superb, ruthless killer. This movie pisses all over that, making them to be some creature we are suppose to care for. Hell, I get the idea that these aren't Predators that have passed their test, but come on. The Aliens got a little better treatment, as they are the same disgusting, gooey beasts we have always known them to be. The perfect adaption as a survivor.

The second biggest flaw in this fan boy movie is the gore. Why is it a problem? There is none. I mean, sure, there is some space creature blood, but that is it. When I see these movies I want fountains of human blood everywhere. That is just something that he should have understood.

The score is uninteresting. It carries the film, but is ultimately uninspiring. The camera feels the same way. It carries the film the whole way, but really doesn't make good use of the claustrophobic temple that most of the film is shot in. I get the idea that this movie is supposed to make all of us fan's happy, but that doesn't excuse you from being boring and plain.

So with his heart in the right place, but his vision skewed, I leave you with a (somewhat forgiving)...

Score: 2/5

Notes: Aliens, Predators, and No Fucking Blood

P.S. Feels good to have a low score again.

Silent Night, Deadly Night (1984; Charles E. Sellier Jr.)

When it comes to christmas horror movies, there is absolutely no shortage. The idea of a warm, chubby Santa visiting just makes the soon-to-be-victims feel so at ease. Unfortunately, people seem to think not letting go of this idea will make it better. Whatever. Bring it on.


Fuck, I hate this part. Young Billy (Bill, William, What-have-you) goes to visit his grandfather when he is young. His grandfather is in a mental hospital sitting around, apparently unable to talk. As his family steps out of the room for a minute to see what the doctors think of their poor grandfathers condition, the old man glides his eyes over to Billy and tells him to beware of Santa Clause. I forgot to mention that this is on Christmas Eve, but whatever, it is a Christmas movie, and he is talking about Santa Clause, so I suppose I really shouldn't need to spell it out. On the way home from the mental place, they run into a man in a Santa suit who seems to be having car troubles. The man turns out to be a psycho, and proceeds to kill Billy's parents.

Billy grows up, is haunted by that night, and blah blah blah starts killing people dressed as Santa. Look, I tried to get detailed, but I just couldn't take it any longer. It had to end.

For what I expected to just be a nice night with a shitty movie ended up being a nice night with a pretty enjoyable film. I can not stress this enough however, do not take this movie seriously. If for one minute you actually try to watch this as a serious movie, just shut it off. While this film offers some pretty decent gore, I personally don't find gore itself very serious. I find it is only serious when the tone of the film as a whole is serious (see any comedy/horror in existence as proof of this).

Like I just said, this film displays some fair amount of gore, (and like I didn't just say) a good amount of nudity, and a decent amount of those two combined (see the still above). As anyone remotely interested in horror knows, those ingredients never get old (mixed together is always preferred... I am not creepy at all).

So what I guess I am trying to get at, is while this film really doesn't prove itself as a gem (no inspiring camera or color work) if you approach it with a light heart, you will find yourself having a fantastic time.

One last thing to point out: I really enjoyed the score in many parts of this film, so if you have the pleasure of watching this piece, take note of it.

Score: 4/5 (Slasher Score)
or
2/5 (Taken Seriously)

Notes: Nun Sex, Spanking

The Gravedancers (2006; Mike Mendez)

Ah, yes. The wonderful After Dark Horrorfest. A newer horror festival that showcases eight horror films a year. I, having not seen all of them, can really pass no judgment on the festival as a whole, but what I can say, is out of the ones I have seen...

This festival is nothing special.

Now to the feature of this review, The Gravedancers. A horror film that had me going at first, but grew too ambitious and suffered from a very common mistake that people just cannot seem to get over.
On to the bulk of this review... We are thrown right into this movie screaming. Not so much are we screaming, it's more the woman on the screen who is screaming. We are shown a brief struggle with an invisible foe (more on that later) then she is thrown over a staircase and is hung. I must add, it is a very nice shot, and I commend whom ever was in charge of the camera.

One year later... We are dropped into a funeral with the camera focusing on three snapping people in there... twenties? I don't know, I can't judge age. Anyway, there is a dude, and two girls. As to make one-hundred percent sure that we realize this, we are shown many times the tension between the girls over the dude, so I am just getting that out of the way now.

To make this short and simple so I can get into the more enjoyable part of actually reviewing, another guy comes along, three of the four characters dance on some graves while drunk, and then they become haunted.

Now, for the opinions. This movie (after the opening scene of the girl getting hung) has a very strong first half hour or so when it is dealing with just the first dude and his wife (I don't use names because I don't care enough about this film; on films I love more I promise I will use their names). There are some very real chills, and even some scares. Which brings me to the.. ghost/zombie things. I am torn, in all honesty. As shown above, they are very scary looking fellas, and I was very impressed at how scary they actually look. However, the director (Mike Mendez, director of The Convent. Never seen it myself, but it is suppose to be enjoyable? Don't take my word for that until I review it one day) felt the need to add some really obnoxious computer animated... smoke? around them (it looks like Dragon Ball Z characters when they are "charging up") which really kills any form of enjoyment while they are on screen.

Talking about the monsters takes me to the opening scene, and the thing that too many people do that I hinted at in the very start of this. First off, fights with invisible things are not scary. They aren't even enjoyable. You are just watching some person flail about and scream. I don't care how well they can act, I will never be able to get past that, and therefore will never enjoy scenes like that. Second, the thing people do too much. Stop showing so much of the monsters. People really need to learn that it is often scarier to leave the "bad guy" in the dark throughout most of the movie. The main characters actually get into fights with the monsters, so you see them on the screen for extended periods of time. No. Monsters are only effective if they are flashed at you for very brief moments of time or if they happen to be absolutely disgusting, foul concoctions that you can't help but want to throw up at the very mention.

As for the over ambition, Mike Mendez must have decided that the Dragon Ball Z monsters weren't scary enough, and seeing as he was so impressed with his (actually not very good) computer animators, he felt that he would make the last twenty minutes buried in it. Needless to say, if I wanted to watch cartoons (which is essentially what computer animation is, sorry if that upsets you) I would watch them on television for free.

Even after that very extensive list of complaints, I will manage to pull a small list of good notes. Some of the camera work (mostly during the first half that I enjoyed so much) worked very well, and gave off the sense that they knew what they were doing. The score is nothing to write home about, but it also could have been a hell of a lot worse.

So after all of that writing...

Score: 2/5

Notes: Actually has some tense moments; No gore (frown)