The Last Exorcism (2010; Daniel Stamm)

How could I have passed up a screening of this? Knowing my tendency towards all things Eli Roth and mockumentary, the idea of combining the two was just too sweet for me to pass up. I needed a few days to reflect on my exact reactions, but now I think I got them reined up.


Raised to be a minister, Cotton Marcus has been deeply seated in the church community for almost his entire life. Events have unfolded over the years that make him question whether or not being a pastor is his true calling, but he sticks with it for the time being to help people with his natural gift to entertain. He decides to let a small documentary crew accompany him on his final exorcism before he announces his retirement to reveal to the public just how fake it all is.

People can take this movie a lot of ways. It could easily be seen as a heavy handed swing against religion, or even a final revelation that maybe there are truths to be had in the supernatural. Peoples bias on the subject (including mine) will sway their opinion one way or the other, but I really don't think that was the intentions of the film. I think, like other projects attached to Roth, this is a film for enjoyment.

Let me explain. I was so torn on some aspects of the film as they felt as sort of a betrayal to the mockumentary movement. I have fully explained my opinion on what they should and should not consist of (here, here, here, here, etc...), but this experience showed me a little bit of a different light (similar to that of Cloverfield). The Last Exorcism contains both CGI and a musical score. Now normally I found those things so distracting in mockumentaries that I never really felt they had a place in what was supposed to be a reflection of the real world. Something to me really clicked in this one, though. The score highlighted the events properly without taking over and the CGI, while a stretch, really can't be held against the film for realism if I allow the score.

So what is this? This was a piece constructed to be entertainment. They wanted to make a movie that utilized the strengths of mockumentaries and the strengths of more standard fiction movies. It may still seem sort of incompatible, but watch it and see if it really is that much of a problem.

On other notes, the light-hearted tone through large portions of the film help lean your opinion towards the entertainment part of the realism vs. entertainment argument and it has been a long time since such a solid lead has been seen in a mockumentary. Seems like I haven't really found a lead so compelling to follow in a mockumentary since the Blair Witch Project itself, and that is something special. The only part I have to dock heavily for is the CGI-laden ending, because despite leniency for the CGI, the ending will definitely leave most people a little stunned.

Score: 4/5

Notes: Eli Roth.

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?

Man on Wire (2008; James Marsh)

I have finally decided to take a step back from my never ending mountain of work to write another review. I have had a lot of films mulling in my head, but I just haven't had the time to make anything concrete. So here you go.


A documentary that explores the life and achievement of one man's dream.

Like most of you, I have never given a second thought to tightrope walking. I went to a circus once when I was little, but I never really ever gave the concept a chance. So coming into a film about a man whose dream was to tightrope really worried me that I wouldn't be able to connect to his dream. To miss the connection in a documentary such as this would be catastrophic to its message, but I was determined to try.

As I watched the images flutter across my screen, I realized I wasn't watching a documentary about tightrope walking. I was watching a documentary on dreams and the people who would give it all for a shot at them. Philippe Petit, the focus of this piece, was so struck and captivated by a single moment in his teenage years that it proceeded to craft the rest of his life to the achievement of this one, miraculous goal. To be able to witness a person so determined and motivated that they never seem to falter. A person so willing to embrace a goal so far from reach that they will do anything to get only a step closer.

“What a beautiful death to die in the arms of your passion.”

To amplify the power of the event, it is retold by Philippe and his comrades with such an intensity that it is like they are being thrown right back into the days where it all unfolded. The score put behind the events is subtle and upbeat to the point where it feels like it is pushing you along with Philippe to go conquer your own dreams. It makes you reflect on yourself and how far you would go with a friend so driven by an object of their desire. This documentary, despite how far off his dream may be from your own, has the power to connect to anyone and may even inspire people to change their lives. This is the impact great films should have.

Score: 5/5

Notes: Watch this documentary.

Pandorum (2009; Christian Alvart)

My life is once again filled with classes and stress, so the intervals between reviews will increase. On the bright side, however, a few friends and myself decided to sit down and make a pact between us. During the year 2010, we will all watch three hundred films we've never seen and no less. This also gives us motive enough to do the other thing we wanted which is to try and be a little more fair. We've always neglected certain areas of cinema and skipped releases we "knew" were going to be awful, so this is our chance to turn that around. So while watching all these films will give me even less free time, what time I have I should be able to squeeze out a review or two because lord knows I'll have enough material to write about.


The earth is suffering extreme overcrowding, resources are low, and all that boring stuff. The solution? A shuttle sent out into space found a planet almost identical to ours and so a plan is set in action to have people shipped over there to make more room. Shit breaks, stuff goes wrong, and everything is dark and metallic.

To be absolutely counter intuitive, this isn't a film I was actually planning on skipping. When it first released I had no idea what it was and more or less just let it sail past me, but recent talks around me got me interested and so I thought I would check it out for myself.

First thing that caught my metaphorical eye was the soundtrack. While somewhat modern, it also felt like it had a tinge from the horror of old. While by no means fantastic or inspiring, it was a step above just throwing tense ambient sounds into the mix.

Second thing, the lighting. I understand a lot of the criticism of sci-fi horror, because visually many of them do look alike. The fact of that matter is, though, that how else would you design a tense atmosphere in a spaceship? The structure is reasonable considering the direction technology is going, and having the dank, dark steel corridor sort of triggers your reaction by itself now.

The most important part of this film to me, though, was the structure of it all. This film could have derailed itself in all sorts of ways, but it managed to keep itself tight throughout most of its playtime. I think the perfect comparison would be Neil Marshall's The Descent. Much like Marshall's work, Pandorum relies heavily on the mystery and darkness to propel fear, but after everything begins to clear up little by little, the film picks up the pace into more of an action setting. It all goes back to my belief that the less you see, the more you are afraid. The over exposure usually kills the tension in a horror film, but if you shift the whole film with the exposure, it all flows much easier with much more effect.

As far as the weaknesses go, while the characterization of each of the survivors was clear, they felt a little cliche. I don't want to delve too much into the story so you are able to go in as blind as I did, but one character in particular had an action sequence which, while it could have been effective in another film, just felt out of place in the reasonable reality that was already constructed so carefully. However, that being said, I would not be lying if I said that had someone wanted to shoot Alien now instead of so long ago, knowing the conventions of popular cinema today, it probably would have come out something like this.

Score: 4/5

Notes: Think The Descent with an Alien twist to it all.

The Lovely Bones (2009; Peter Jackson)

My feelings behind the announcement of this title were very strong. The idea that Peter Jackson might start honoring his humble beginnings by giving us another Heavenly Creatures was just blowing my mind. I just kept thinking to myself how nothing could go wrong, because obviously Peter Jackson is immune to the trends of the spotlight...


A very young teenage girl gets murdered. However she refuses to leave the land between the living and dead so she can observe what is happening to the people who were around her.

If the very ominous "..." didn't give it away, that was sarcasm up in the first part of this review. Being under the spotlight with high financing seems to have finally killed Jackson's chances of handing us another Heavenly Creatures (let alone another Bad Taste). The wonderful soul behind the somewhat twisted message is completely absent for this recent attempt.

First off, if you are trying to decide whether or not a certain scene requires CGI, it doesn't. This film felt like a gigantic test of my tolerance for computer animation. Half of the effects were completely unnecessary. They were supposed to express the wonderful creativity that was the land between Heaven and Earth, but one can find beautiful locations on Earth that fit just as well and don't kill the atmosphere nearly as bad. Look at Lord of the Rings for example, which was also shot by Jackson and the environments looked absolutely breathtaking in some scenes. While on that topic, I'm no expert on the book, but half of the imagery and symbolism just felt absolutely needless. Throwing in imagery and CGI for the sake of having them simply doesn't cut it, sorry (just look at Halloween II).

Now to just to throw the rest out there and meet my minimum requirements, the soundtrack was interesting at a few points, but ultimately just distracting, poorly timed, and kinda loud. The acting was mostly solid (Stanley Tucci did wonderful) but the characters weren't given much to work with within the story arch. The entire message of the film sort of gets jumbled between all the abstract, useless sequences and it really just falls apart.

Before ending, I will give it a few positive spins. A small handful of scenes actually were well executed and enjoyable, and even though I had a perfect example lined up it got buried under the garbage pile in my mind, so that is all I got.

Score: 1/5

Notes: I know it doesn't release until 2010, but IMDb insists on 2009 and who am I to argue? Also, they didn't have faces on the back of milk cartons. What the hell was up with the cheap looking digital film?

The Horribly Slow Murderer with the Extremely Inefficient Weapon (2008; Richard Gale)

I figured it was about time for another ludicrous short to be posted up on this site, so here you go. The Horribly Slow Murderer with the Extremely Inefficient Weapon is probably one of the silliest shorts in recent history. Check it out sometime as it is definitely worth the ten minutes of your time.

They Live (1988; John Carpenter)

When I am asked to sum up my opinion of cinema from the 1980's I always use the same two word answer. While it is a very biased answer, many people still agree with me that it seems to fit the mood of the genres it touched. Those words?

John Carpenter

A drifter finds his way into work and a temporary home while, well, drifting. While there he notices some mysterious activity that leads him into a whole new world of truth.

They Live continues a tradition that many other horror directors started years before. The political commentary in it is so obvious, yet unlike Romero, it never feels too forced or pushed down our throats. It very much feels natural with the flow of the rest of the film and our attention never waivers from the action at hand.

They Live also marks the end of Carpenter's fantastic eighties career and in a way feels like an appropriate summary of his previous works before falling into his downhill slide in the nineties (with the exception of In the Mouth of Madness). However, after all of this introduction, where does it leave the film itself?

The character Carpenter places before us are absurd. We focus around a drifter whom we know nothing about who is thrust into a terrifying situation and instead of panicking he pulls out some guns and some cheesy one-liners. He meets friends by beating them or holding guns to them. The point I am trying to make here is that this film is awesome. This movie continues the enjoyment we all had when we first watched Escape From New York years earlier.

If you have never seen Escape From New York, then there really is no way to convince you that the description above is more than just ridiculous garbage. I am not a proponent of saying that trash cinema is actually high quality in disguise, but with Carpenter's works it really is. Everything was sculpted to their degrees on purpose. It is obvious with pieces such as The Thing and Halloween that Carpenter is no stranger to serious cinema and this idea helps solidify that he wanted these movies to look this way for a reason.

They reflect the absurdity of the political ideas that the films are commenting on. The genius behind such a tool is that not only does it further drive the commentary home, it also gives what would have been a more "normal" piece a life of its own.

I suppose I should briefly touch on the more concrete elements. The camera is well instrumented here and the black & white actually adds to the feeling that we are trying to be controlled as if our artistic minds are being suppressed by the lack of color. The score is typical of eighties Carpenter with very simple melodies being effectively used. The drawbacks are that while it is an undeniably strong film, you can't help but feel some of his spark fade on all aspects of the piece. It is like asking a landscape artist to do a portrait. The portrait will look good, yes, but it will still lack some of the genius that pushes his landscapes past the point of good.

Score: 4.5/5

Notes: Obey this review. Consume Carpenter's products.

Paranormal Activity (2007; Oren Peli)

I learned one thing from my years as a movie fanatic, and that is that crowds are terrible. I usually skip out on most theatre screenings simply because the crowds can completely break the atmosphere of a movie if they are bad enough. So when I go to see the screening of this film in a packed theatre of 750 people and it still manages to scare me... well... we must have something going for us.


Young couple X and Y (easier than typing in names) move into a house and Y (the woman, clever huh?) starts hearing noises during the night. She then goes on to tell X she has had previous experiences with hauntings and they should get help from experts.

We all know here how much I love mockumentaries, so when I caught wind of this a few months back I couldn't resist getting sucked in. As more and more reviews popped up saying that this is the scariest film they've seen in years my interest had no where to go but up. Lucky for me, one of the screenings just so happened to be close by so my friends and I packed up and shipped off (not that we really packed anything, it was only an hour drive, but whatever).

The problem with many modern day horror films is they try too hard to focus on flat out thrills and jumps and lose out on atmosphere. That or they are just terrible at all of it, but just roll with me for this. The situation is that more often than not, it is easier to craft some cheap thrills that can win over most common movie goers than it is to craft an atmosphere so dense that the ceiling might as well be two feet off the ground. This is where I find the greatest strength of mockumentary film making. When you design your piece into a form of first person perspective and amateur film making, you no longer have to carefully craft tense scores to match your inspired landscapes. The power of the first person perspective is its ability to push atmosphere through its own momentum.

This is of course assuming you can keep us wrapped into the films reality which can be the toughest part. Mockumentary film making is so barren of components relative to traditional film making that a lot more stress is put on what is there. The acting has to be top grade or else their characters fail to reflect what most of us would do. The lighting has to be perfect, neither showing us too much nor too little. The use of extravagancies such as CGI has to be justified to such an intense degree as its presence can abruptly rip you right out of an otherwise perfectly constructed piece.

After all of that, where does it leave our main topic, Paranormal Activity? If there was ever another mockumentary to continue Blair Witch Project's thrown (and to a lesser degree, Noroi's thrown) it would be this one. Many of the strengths that made Blair Witch so successful are what push Paranormal Activity forward. The day/night sequences that appeared in Blair Witch show up much stronger in Paranormal Activity. They train your body to react to the time of day without having to really lift a finger. It came to the point where the audience I was with started screaming as soon as realized a night sequence was beginning.

To make even more connections, the use of CGI in Paranormal Activity was almost non-existent. The concept was to use simple tricks to propel what would otherwise be a normal ghost story to scarily realistic proportions. The characters, while not perfect, still thrust the story forward with enough charisma to keep us interested.

While films like Cloverfield have shown us once again the unlimited possibilities we have access to using the mockumentary style, it is films like Paranormal Activity with their seemingly average subject matter that truly frighten us. This portrayal of events could have easily been anyone. It could have been you. That, my friends, is scary.

Score: 4.5/5

Notes: I know the still I used wasn't in the screening, which is exactly why I used it. It doesn't spoil anything and makes a clear statement at what you can expect.

The Uninvited (2009; Charles & Thomas Guard)

This is a touchy subject for me. Like so many others, I am sick of this remake trend. The idea that foreign films are not enough to stand on their own and need "translation" into our culture is quite sickening to me. However, I simply decided to ignore the bulk of this trend and try to ride it out. Needless to say, the J-horror remake fad is dying slowly but surely (making way for slasher remakes...) and then this monstrosity pops up. As seen on the front of this blog, one of the films in my top ten is the deeply profound "A Tale of Two Sisters". Kim Ji-woon is an unstoppable force in the world of cinema today, and his works should not be touched. The labyrinthine structure of "A Tale of Two Sisters" mandates the viewer to watch its intricicies over and over to fully establish its beauty and awe-inspiring construction. So when it comes to the remake, well, comparisons must be made to establish the complete lack of necessity of it all. This will, in turn, lead to many aspects of the films being exposed, and while I will never divulge anything gigantic, I will be forced to dissect and compare specific scenes. So if you have never laid your eyes upon Ji-woon's masterpiece, I recommend you stop here and just know this; Never fuck with the Kim.


Some girl (now named American) is traumatized by her mothers death and is temporarily sent to an institution to recover. After some time, American is sent home to reunite with her father and sister (now named Bullshit) only to discover that her father's girlfriend has moved in. There is something off and neither American nor Bullshit like her. The veins go much deeper, but that is enough for now. Now to compare!

The first thing shoved into our face is how Americanized this film has become. We start out watching American make out with some guy at a party. Why? In the original folktale and Ji-woon's interpretation, there was never a need for such acts. I guess this is the US way of establashing innocence because she denies the advance to fornicate. That is how we interepret morals in our youth? Disgusting and unwarranted. The strengths of the character should lie within the character herself as this film is very much an understanding of her mind, not how much or how little she loves dick.

This paragraph is simply another example of Americanizing the film and contains spoilers, so skip this if you haven't seen the first one (it is the only one that matters). The development of the "other" sister in this film is quite a dramatic difference. In the original the sister was developed, just like everything else, as a way to cope with the guilt and resentment. The sister represented that which needed protection from the materialized evil that needed to be fended off. All forms of deep symbolism are discarded in the remake, choosing to adapt the more surfaced twist that is seen in umpteen dozen other films that have come out in the past decade.

The visual style of the remake craves desperately to be identical to its parent, but fails in all forms. As seen in the image above, the solemn beauty of the house in the first film is tried at, but simply comes off as background noise. The soundtrack is dull and does nothing but carry us from scene to scene as if they only included it because they knew they had to. The focus on water is present like in the original, and just like the original, it is simply there as an allusion to the original folktale. In that regard, I suppose, it can be considered even.

One thing that bothered me greatly was the change of title. "The Uninvited" seemed like a ridiculous title to me given the original content of the first film. I guess it is supposed to be a reference to the girlfriend who was never wanted in the home. However, most people would assume it to be about the apparations that occur, as if they were unwanted ghosts haunting the innocent people inside. That, of course, wouldn't make any sense, as in the original the apparations are not only wanted, but are needed in order for the center of our film to exist.

As I kept pondering the title, I suppose I came to understand it a little better. As I said before, the remake stripped all forms of depth and tradgedy that were essential to the original's success and beauty and threw them into a hole. I kept wanting to analyze the copied imagery for what it was in the original and tried to apply it to the remake. That was a poor mistake. All the copied scenes were thrown in without second thought by idiots who apparently didn't understand their existence in the first place. The example I will use here is the blood trail.

The blood trail was the essential escalation of her coping after her illusions were threatened when her father confronted her. The trials she was putting her sister through had to become more rigorous as her guilt grew heavier on her conscience. The trail was then later shown to represent the fragments of her different realities colliding as she finally lost herself with the confrontation with the girlfriend at the end. So what does any of this have to do with the remakes blatant copying? Nothing at all, they simply threw it in to create "tension".

The significance of "A Tale of Two Sisters" was built upon the significance of all of its little pieces. Everything that was shown was placed in front of us delibrately. What we get with "The Uninvited", however, is simply another collage of the dozens of other remakes, scare scenes slopped together by a story devoid of soul and meaning. Not only can the film not stand up to it's predecessor, it can't even stand up as its own film. The importance of this review really comes in expressing many of my ideas on "A Tale of Two Sisters" so that my eventual review of it doesn't have to be a book like this review is.

Score: 1/5

Notes: Bells, Pearls, and Insignificance

Sling Blade (1996; Billy Bob Thorton)

A film highly overlooked by most people due mostly to the monolithic success that was Forrest Gump, Sling Blade is... wait a minute. I never review anything up here...


Much better. Well, I might as well do the plot first too... Karl, a mildly handicapped individual, is put into a mental hospital after killing his mother and her lover at a very young age. Fast forward a few years and now it is time for Karl to be released as an adult to create a life of his own. With great unease the hospital releases him, and we get front row seats to just how adapted Karl is.

Alright, now to backtrack, Sling Blade was regrettably ignored by most people (myself included... but I was 6, give me a break) during the colossal reign of Forrest Gump. I'm not saying Forrest Gump didn't deserve the attention, but we need to learn to spread the love a little more.


The first moments of the film where we witness Karl's interview with a young girl writing for her school newspaper and then his eventual release set an unforgettable tone of unease. This is our first introduction to Karl, and we are thrown right in with the rest of the characters as we try to figure out whether Karl has really recovered. This part of the film seals the deal as to why Forrest Gump won out. The light-hearted sides of film tend to sell better.

That isn't to say that the entire film has a serious tone about it, that is. In actuality, the film does have quite the mixture of emotions thrown into it with great success. Add on top of that a great timely soundtrack to fit the southern atmosphere and baby, you got a stew going.

The only thing I can dock this film for is the lack of replay action it will get (which is another contrast to Forrest Gump). This film is a beast (two and a half hours or something like that) and it just didn't feel like the material was enough to warrant frequent repeats (it was damn close, though).

Score: 4/5

Notes: Hades (Some people call it Hell, but I call it Hades)

Jacob's Ladder (1990; Adrian Lyne)

It has taken me a long time to thing of something to write as an introduction to this review. I had all these wonderfully constructed things to say in my mind about the movie, but nothing as an introduction. Then I finally gave up and put this.


Jacob is a Vietnam veteran who has returned home to New York (I think it was New York... whatever, just Big City X). He had gotten a doctorate degree, been divorced, and is now dating a woman who works at the post office with him (despite his doctorate, yes). His life starts to go off has he begins to flashback to a certain day in Vietnam where his platoon was attacked and he, himself, was injured. His flashbacks begin to manifest themselves into reality, having an effect on his health and daily life. As to prevent giving away much else, the rest of the film is him combating his flashbacks and memories of his past.

I find it hard to limit myself to such a summary of this film. To really get a grasp on what I am going to try and explain to you, you really just have to watch it for yourself. This film is so heavily event driven that reviewing it will be hard without being able to directly reference certain events. I will try and express what I can anyway, however, as I feel this is a neglected film that needs to be heard.

Jacob's Ladder is for all extents and purposes, a film about a man's struggle within himself. While that is pretty generic sounding, you have to realize that it really is a man's struggle within himself. The genius of Lyne's work is that he makes all the events, no matter how disturbing, completely grounded into reality on some sort of level. This is very important in the impact of the film as it drives you so strongly convinced of reality until the last scene of the film.

The whole film is built off of dual meaning. While you are watching the film, every event is both significant in the life of Jacob as he perceives it, and as a symbol in the struggle he is having. I am trying to drive home to you that this film is a lot deeper than just gore and drama on screen.


I know the previous segment will be hard to follow without having actually seen the film, and I apologize that I really can't simplify it anymore. I needed to stress the importance of the symbolism so that people don't walk away feeling the ending as some sort of cop-out. That could completely ruin the whole film for them, and they don't even realize they are missing out on what they really just saw. Now I will discuss some of the more technical aspects I usually cover so that there is at least one part in this review people who have yet to watch this movie can grasp.

At first I was weary as the camera felt sort of dull and unmotivated to really capture any scene with any real form of emotion. However, I quickly found out how wrong I was as the film threw me into some of the most wonderful visuals I can remember seeing in recent history. The soundtrack is unmemorable (there might not even be one... that is how forgettable it is) and is the only truly real disappoint in my mind at the moment. That rounds off this review with a...

Score: 4/5

Notes: Hippy Scientists, No Post-Production Special Effects

Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon (2006; Scott Glosserman)

In a world where slashers are not movies, but in fact reality, a young man by the name of Leslie Vernon is about to become the next great killer. To mark the occasion, he has given special access to three young wannabe journalists to record him as he prepares for the night that he hopes will launch him into slasher history.


Oh and how he succeeds. This film is everything a slasher should be and everything a satire wants to be. I say wants to be because as we all know, slasher satires have been done before. Don't let that scare you off, though, this is no Scream. With self references that put Scream's to shame and acting that is truly inspiring (more on that later) Behind the Mask is worth ten times it's own weight in gold. If someone would be so kind as to calculate what that actually comes out to that would be very helpful. I am simply assuming that it comes out to a decent amount, but wouldn't I look like a fool if it wasn't?

Anyway, on to the acting. While acting is an aspect I tend to skip over unless it is appalling, I felt that with this movie, it is very much needed. Nathan Baesel as Leslie Vernon is captivating to say the least. He appears in front of the screen like a child celebrating Christmas. His energy and vigor are palpable as we watch him jump and tremble with excitement at the very idea of his special night.

The cinematography is everything you could want in a slasher and more. Throughout the film we switch from mockumentary style camera as we watch the journalist's footage and pretty standard yet crisp slasher filming. The transitions flow smoothly, despite how it may sound, and work beautifully in a certain sequence where we are walked through the night as Vernon wants it to unfold.

The weak points? Well, there really aren't any. While maintaining a resemblance to the slasher formula, the mockumentary filming and the depth to the satire give it a life and a feel of it's own. However, with that comes a certain understanding that the audience must have a previous grip on basic slasher standards. I want to give it two separate scores to resemble this, but I wouldn't know how, so for now...

Edit: I have decided not to punish this film at all for expecting some previous knowledge. So a perfect score it is.

Score: 5/5

Notes: Ahab, Virgin, and Robert Englund

The Midnight Meat Train (2008; Ryuhei Kitamura)

Ryuhei Kitamura is a director many people have been keeping their eyes on. His eye with the camera is quite remarkable and most people would have trouble denying that (his action cutting is another story). When his popularity had grown so much that he was asked to direct an American horror film, I will admit I was very intrigued. It also brought to mind the time when he was asked to direct another film outside of his expertise, Godzilla. While never witnessing this film, the word on the street is that even his most dedicated fans had to turn away in disgust.


A small time photographer finally gets his shot at a larger scale show. The only problem is that the head of the show says his work is a little too shallow and he needs to dig just a little deeper into the city's underbelly to achieve real masterpieces. He tumbles upon a mysterious man who only boards the trains at night and he decides to try and figure out the reason why.

It turns out that Kitamura actually does have more than just one (action) trick up his sleeve. While his style is still very much present in the film via slow motion and heavily stylized kill scenes, the film definately has the feel of something very new to him.

First off, while his characters are not poorly constructed or poorly acted, they still feel a bit... bland. They just come off as any other American couple in any other American film (The Grudge's character come to mind as another example of this). While stereotypes can be helpful in films, this is not one of them.

I want to touch back for a minute upon the idea of Kitamura's camera. Word on the street is that some people feel that this film is a bit over directed. Meaning, he went way too far out of his way to try and make this film look so good it just looks like shit. I disagree. If you understand Kitamura's background, his touches feel very much normal for him and are not that far of a stretch with the material used in this specific film.

Now to speed up the rest of this so I have time to rest and try and get healthy. The colors used fit wonderfully with the rest of the film. The blue tones used in the subway car fit perfectly (and are also quite natural). The soundtrack isn't very memorable, but is at least competent. What is the point I am trying to get at? This film is a combination of the expertise of a very competent director and the average-ness of someone who obviously doesn't work in this genre mixture very often.

Score: 4/5

Notes: Ted Raimi, Conspiricies, and Mushroom? Chest

Rope (1948; Alfred Hitchcock)

Most of my movies that I review tend to be relatively new. Can you blame me? These movies are from my generation, are easier to research, and are easier to obtain. However, as a self proclaimed "film addict" I must always take some time to go back and obtain the classics. While most of them have been put on Criterion, and are therefore ludicrously expensive, some maintain normal (cheap) releases. Those are the ones for me.


Two intellectual socialites have embraced an idea that certain individuals at such a sophisticated level such as themselves have the right and responsibility to kill lesser individuals. To prove to themselves just how cunning they are, they decide to not only kill one of these lesser humans, they decide to hide the body in a chest in the middle of their living room. It also just so happens they are hosting a party for the man they murdered in that very room.

I have always maintained that Rope is Hitchcock's strongest film (followed closely by other well knowns such as Rear Window and Vertigo). The actors in this film pull off their respective roles perfectly, my favorite performance being Brandon (John Dall) who is a charismatic and manipulative som' bitch (and who is also a murderer).

I will be honest, some of my enjoyment of this film comes from the knowledge of how it was made. Hitchcock wanted to try and shoot a film in as few shots as possible. He was, however, limited to the length of the modern film reels, which led to the film ending at around ten rolls, with some of the cuts hidden by zooming into objects and zooming out at the start of the next roll.

That being said, this led to the camera being mostly restrained to sweeps and zooms, but it worked almost perfectly within the small confines of the film (a single room and a hall).

Which brings me to another thing I have noticed. There is something about confined films that makes me feel that it can show so much more about the director's skills when they can craft an interesting and gripping film only utilizing one or two set pieces (see 12 Angry Men). I also enjoy when directors can successfully juggle a large cast of major characters, but that is for later reviews (see my top two favorite films).

Where does this film go wrong? I felt the continual use of dialogue that was suppose to be cleverly playing around with the murder (stories of strangling chickens, the use of the word dead) was a bit over used and became so obvious at points it distracted you from the atmosphere of the film and pulled you back into reality for just a split second. While small, it still has an impact on the final vision of the film that prevents it from achieving the coveted perfect score.

Score: 4.5/5

Notes: James Stewart is a Sexy Man

The Last Broadcast (1998; Stefan Avalos & Lance Weiler)

As stated many times before, I love mockumentaries.


That is all I have.



Two men (pictured above) run a small time television show that is quickly losing it's crowd. In order to get some attention back, they decide to do a live broadcast of them hunting down the Jersey Devil. They hire two other men to accompany them into the woods and then everything falls apart. Three of the men are murdered and the fourth is determined to be the guilty one. What we watch is a documentary about the case and how the host feels that the fourth man is very much innocent.

My reviews on mockumentaries always have to be short due to the fact that not much can be said about the cinematography or score. This leads me to a very blunt point... if you enjoy this style of cinema, you will very much enjoy this film. If you however have no fondness for this ilk of film, then you should just walk away, because apart from the ending, no "new" ground is struck with this one.

Any of you who cared enough to reach this point.. this is for you. I feel this film lovingly crafts a murder mystery in with a spice of horror all wrapped up in my favorite bow of mockumentary reality. From the get go we are bombarded with facts from the case that seemingly pointed to the fourth man as the guilty party, but as the digging becomes more intense, more evidence comes to light that makes us not as sure as we were before.

The reason I am going to knock points off of the final score is for the ending. While it was a gutsy move to pull, I felt that a more... Blair Witch ending would have fit better. If you see the film you will understand what I mean.

Score: 4/5

Notes: Mockumentary on a Documentary

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

From Beyond (1986; Stuart Gordon)

I must say, this review is going to be ridiculously biased. Not for the sake of Jeffrey Combs. Not for the sake of Stuart Gordon. Simply for it being inspired by Lovecraft. I have been a avid fan of Lovecraft for quite a few years, so I always welcome anything that is tied to his works.


I am glad that (while other people may disagree) there is a semi-competent director (in the form of Gordon) who is frequently giving us his visions of what he thinks is truly going on in Lovecraft's worlds. The beauty of it is that another director can come along, create another film on the same short story, and come up with completely different creatures that dwell in the other dimensions and worlds.

(Keeping it fresh again) two scientists set up a device that activates a certain resonance, causing a gland in our brain to grow, allowing us to see into another dimension, and in return, seeing that dimensions inhabitants see us. To bring the idea to another level of realism (at least to a degree) the film makes a connection between schizophrenia and the size of that certain gland. I thought it was a clever idea, at least.

I am not quite sure as most of the surprisingly few Gordon films I have seen are fuzzy in my memory, but it appears he has a very intimate fondness with still camera angles. While that can make films come off as stale (due to moving cameras representing progression, movement, etc) it worked surprisingly well as we felt our characters trapped in a certain space. The camera was further complemented with a wonderful color palette in many of the shots.

As for the score, it is adequate but altogether not too exciting or memorable. Jeffrey Combs puts on a wonderfully enjoyable performance (again). All in all this film has the feel of a Lovecraft title, but it lacks the depth required to truly delve into his beautifully constructed world. While that obviously can not be held against any single film, maybe it is something Gordon might want to work upon. A series of Lovecraft films that fit together besides the small hints to locations that reoccur.

Score: 3/5

Notes: Tentacle Rape (Fuck Yes)

Welcome to the Jungle (2007; John Hensleigh)

Excuse me if I find it a bit hard to swallow that the same man who helped write Armageddon and Jumanji decided his best career move would be to make a horror mockumentary about cannibals. One last thing, yes, this movie really is a mix of two classic mockumentarys you should be thinking of. If you really can't name both of them, shame on you. I will give you a little bit longer to get some guesses before I give it away...

(Pause)



Two young couples (yeah, that's right, can you guess it yet?) head into the jungle to try and find proof of Michael Rockefeller's survival so they can make it rich. Bad happens.

Alright, the break is over. At first, this film comes off as only an updated, milder form of Cannibal Holocaust (Dubbed Mockumentary #1 for you guessing folk). However, once you crack it open and start watching it, you will quickly learn that it uses a very Blair Witch formula for developing the characters and the tension. (Yes, Blair Witch is Mockumentary #2. You can leave your score in the comment section).

However, it feels that Hensleigh got too caught up in trying to develop each part that he forgot to tie them all together. This leads to a very choppy experience where the pacing and atmosphere drastically change from one piece to another. We start with the Blair Witch feel of watching our main kids be silly so we can bond with them and what have you. We then are brought into our kill zone (the wilderness for all three). Tension dwells in the group and fighting occurs, which is supposed to help add to the helplessness of the situation. After the tension and fighting, bad happens.

You see, where the Blair Witch Project set all of these steps up and blended them into one cohesive, believable web, Welcome to the Jungle just leaves out the bridges between. We go from parties directly to walking through the forest. We are then treated to ten or so minutes of nonstop fighting. The traveling and fighting really aren't mixed together at all. After we watch nothing but fighting we are immediately thrown into the bad happening and then the film is over.

I will say, however, that not all in this is bad. All of the characters come off as credible and are acted very well. Also, the #1 part of this film is actually executed almost perfectly. The cannibals are portrayed brilliantly and some of the kills, while very #1, are still very effective. So even despite the film's poor attempt at reaching for #2, the fact that it nailed #1 so perfectly near the end made the questionable beginning surprisingly tolerable and rescued the film from being a failure.

Score: 3/5

Notes: Is that Mikey screaming for help? Or is it Josh...

Incident at Loch Ness (2004; Zak Penn)

I am a total sucker for mockumentarys, I am very aware of it. I just love the potential of it all and the almost endless new doors that it can open. So on that note...


Two men with a digital camera choose to start a documentary filming the life and ideas of Werner Herzog at the same time he was planning on filming a documentry of his own about how fake the Loch Ness monster is. They all head out to Scotland for Herzog's film and things start to fall apart within the crew and Herzog's reality.

First off, this movie gets points for centering around Werner Herzog. I personally like to believe that when Zak Penn decided to try to make this mockumentary, he knew that people would never approve of having to watch him on film for that long. In order to compensate, he chose to switch the main director in the movie to Herzog. As an extra insurance policy, he also chose to make sure he came off as a complete idiot compared to Herzog. Whether or not he knows how close his fake personality represents his competence as a writer is a different story, however. Maybe even the story for his next screenplay ;).

Anyway, what mocumentarys come down to are the immersion. Do you feel like this is a real documentary? With this film the answer is a resounding "sometimes". When certain parts of the film hit, it can be very obvious that they took thought in setting the shots. That in return kills the feeling of spontaneity that these sort of films are supposed to possess. However, that is only some of the time, leaving the majority of the experience in the green. So to leave this review brief so I can write my next one, I will lend this film a...

Score: 3/5

Notes: Jeff Goldblum, Bikini Model

The Prestige (2006; Christopher Nolan)

"Now you're looking for the secret. But you won’t find it because of course, you're not really looking. You don't really want to work it out. You want to be fooled."


The Prestige, the film I believe to be Nolan's greatest achievement to date (despite the several million people who would disagree with me) is finally being reviewed on my site. How exciting.

Two up start magicians have a bumpy beginning and spend the rest of their lives trying to one up each other. The sheer determination of both of them brings their competition to life threatening proportions as both of the men refuse to back down. To put it briefly, it is a story of unparalleled determination.

Nolan's expertise in story telling and presentation are at their peak as he transforms a very entertaining book into the perfect screen adaptation. He makes exactly the right changes to make the book's tale fit.

As for his presentation; it is spot on. His camera feels perfectly balanced with it's colors and zooms. The music is constructed perfectly for the era we are being shown, yet still feels so wonderful on our ears.

The original tale told on paper is filled with twists and turns that are almost completely unexpected, however the film kicks it up a notch, burying you with hints and clues without you being the slightest bit aware. That toppled upon one of the most gripping realities once you finally grasp it all makes this film worthy of a...

Score: 4.5/5

Notes: Better Than The Dark Knight