Freddy Vs. Jason

This isn't my usual style of horror. But what drew me to this film was the premise. It may sound like the most cliche' thing in the world, but have you ever actually seen two slasher icons throw-down before? There were films like "Dracula Vs. The Wolfman," or "Frankenstein vs. The Mummy," but films like that stopped being made fifty years ago, before slasher icons even existed. And yeah we have films like Alien Vs. Predator, but those are more animalistic battles, Freddy Vs. Jason is a fight between two sentient entities of pure evil. Even if it's been done before in some b-movies I've never seen, I can guarantee it's never been done with any bigger slasher icons than these, because these are the two biggest slasher icons of them all.

If you go into a film like "Freddy Vs. Jason" expecting a cinematic masterpiece, you're being rather silly, aren't you? The original A Nightmare on Elm Street is probably the only film out of the 20 or so films associated with either franchise that would be considered a masterpiece by the critics' reckonings. And while the Friday the 13th series is an undeniable horror classic, by "Jason X" not even the most hardcore Voorhees fans would be calling this high brow stuff. And Freddy Vs. Jason came after that.

With that in mind, I thought the plot here was very well done. The people around Elm Street have figured out how to defeat Freddy Krueger -- they stop talking about him, stop acknowledging him, and over time the memory of him fades away. If kids don't fear him, he can't inhabit their dreams.

So Freddy taps Jason Voorhees to do his dirty work. Freddy assumes the guise of Jason's mother and orders him to punish the teenagers of Elm Street. When bodies start turning up, the memory of Freddy is rekindled and he starts to gain power again. But things run afoul between our demonic duo when Jason refuses to stop killing and starts robbing Freddy of victims he wanted for himself. Then the ultimate slasher showdown begins.

The film wasn't brilliantly written, but it was competent, it was well shot, and it was entertaining. The characters were stock archetypes, but Ginger Snaps' titular Katharine Isabelle did get to play an uber-cool tomboy, more beautiful now that she's not competing with the gorgeous Emily Perkins (hey, don't judge me... Perkins is four years older than her in-film older sister and was 23 even in the first Ginger Snaps! She's more than ten years my senior.)

All in all, Freddy Vs. Jason will obviously never rise to my favorites list, but I enjoyed it. In fact, out of the handful of mediocre teen scream flicks I've watched, I enjoyed this one more than any others (such as Wild Country, the Night of the Demons remake, Grizzly Park...). Though that may be because the premise was more original in this one.

The only thing I strongly disliked about this movie is that it portrayed Jason as the hero and Freddy as the villain. I mean, really here?? There's no 'lesser of two evils' between these two monsters. You could argue that Freddy is worse because he killed children before he died. But, then you should consider the fact that Jason has ten original continuity films, while Freddy only has six. So even while Jason isn't the killer in all of his films, he's still probably killed a much larger number of people than Freddy has. Why does this film have to have a good guy and a bad guy?

I don't mind that the teenagers themselves are rooting for Jason. They're operating under the hilariously optimistic belief that if Jason wins, they can return him to Crystal Lake and he won't have any reason to kill people anymore (as if he ever needed a reason!), but if Freddy wins, he'll merely continue his revenge on the denizens of Elm Street. So misguided though they are, I understand why they're trying to help Jason. What irks me is that the film itself is portraying Jason as the good guy, e.g. by playing triumphant music while he's winning the fight, and evil music when Freddy has the upper-hand.

Me personally, I was rooting for Freddy, because I think he's much cooler. The fact that this is the original Freddy Krueger, Robert Englund, in this film insures that the performance is tops. Jason is a very intimidating beast of a man but he just can't stand up to the iconic Krueger.

If they were ever to make a sequel, I would go see it in theaters. What greater praise is there than that?

Scream 4

Warning: Since the mystery is pretty much what a Scream film is all about, this review contains major spoilers not just for Scream 4 but for Scream 1 and 2 as well. Be forewarned!

The secret to the Scream formula is that these films play at half a dozen games, and win them all. That's a major reason why this franchise is so popular, you can watch them for a variety of different reasons and still come away satisfied.

First, and perhaps foremost, they are world-class "whodunit" stories in the age-old tradition. Where everyone is a viable suspect, and you won't know until the end who's good, and who's evil.

Secondly they are, of course, brilliant deconstructions, which is arguably what made Scream famous. It took a genre awash in cliches and injected a spark of awareness to make it all feel new again. It was a quintessentially 90s idea, the Nirvana of horror films, so it's no surprise I love it.

But the deconstruction is about more than just a hip eye-wink to the audience. How many horror films exist in a universe apart from the horror culture that we fans live and breath? How many zombie movies are there where no one has heard of George Romero, and the walking dead are called, well, the walking dead and never "zombies?" How many classic slasher set-ups are there where the kids never bother to realize they're the unfortunate recipients of a tragic archetype? 

As a horror fan, if I ever found myself living in a by-the-numbers horror scenario, movies are the first thing that would come to my mind. How could they not, with them being such a part of my life? And that's where Scream comes in, to rectify that perplexing lack of awareness which makes so many horror films feel slightly disconnected from the real world we live in. That's why films like Scream are such a hit with hardcore horror fans despite taking their share of cheeky 'stabs' at the cliches of the genre, these are films that connect the fandom of horror with the medium of horror. 

Thirdly, the Scream films are the two things they're supposed to be, the two genres they're born from. They're the all-time ultimate "teen scream" genre films, full of hip dialogue, drunken parties, sexy characters and teen angst. It's also beyond question the highest quality slasher franchise in 20 years, full of creative kills, intense chases, and doomed ingenues.

Unlike other fun horror films like Shaun of the Dead or Dale & Tucker Vs. Evil, Scream is fun but it's not a comedy, it's a horror film that takes itself seriously and even delivers a couple of decent scares. Come on, all alone in the house, the killer calls, but wait, he's in the house! The intros are always pretty darn creepy, admit it. One who is so inclined could ignore the deconstruction, and even the mystery, and just enjoy these films as slasher films. And they'd still come away with a good experience.

Lastly, in regards to the Scream series... Not being a veteran slasher fan, I've never really had one of those iconic killers to call my own before, but I have to say I've grown very fond of Ghostface. The creepy voice, the obsession with horror films, the meticulous planning, he's a fantastic 'character,' even if technically he's someone new each time. And that signature move he has when he turns his head to the side after a character says something to him, is just fucking amazing. Despite being a mask, it totally gives this powerful impression of mock-concern, almost pity. It's such a simple little thing but whoever came up with that was a genius. 

Now on, specifically, to Scream 4.......

The concept that Scream 4 is a makeshift, in-universe reboot of the original Scream in addition to another sequel is what really kept the mystery fresh and alive for me. That's because you have all these archetypes from the first film (and some, even, from the second film -- I was definitely looking at that one nosey reporter with suspicion during her one short scene), except it's impossible to know which of the archetypes are going to pan out as they originally did, and which ones are going to be turned on their head. So you have all of these obvious killers and yet you still have no idea who it's going to be. This gave Scream 4 a dimension of ingenuity where it feels like we're treading on uncharted territory instead of just being the fourth iteration of the same set-up. In other words it doesn't feel cheesy ala "really, everyone gets caught up in the same kind of murder mystery AGAIN?" when (in-universe) the killer is intentionally recreating the past again and (conceptually/on the filmmaker's meta level) the film is intended as a tongue-in-cheek way to win new viewers, many of whom would not have been around to watch the original Scream 15 years ago. 

Some people have complained that the film isn't modern enough. Admittedly  it definitely appeals a lot more to original Scream fans than to newcomers  characters like Dewey and Gale are never even fully explained (as far as their history goes), so newcomers would probably feel at least a little in the dark. But what's wrong with Scream appealing to the classic formula? If they wanted to do a true reboot they'd probably have named it Scream Again or Scream Louder. People complain so much about modern horror, is it so wrong for one film to hearken backwards?

More importantly, though, I think the movie's classic 90s feel was intentional, because it's another piece of the deconstruction, and it actually helps to make the film relevant to today. It's a pseudo remake, after all, retro is the idea! Even when they aren't remakes, retro horror has been very successful recently, with period films such as The House of the Devil, Paranormal Activity 3, and Let Me In. So rather than detracting from Scream 4's relevance, its bygone style actually marks it more clearly as a comment on modern horror.

And that gets into what makes Scream 4 so special for me, individually. The original Scream films played on the slasher classics of the 80s. Scream 4 ingeniously arrived just as dozens of modern remakes of these classic slashers started pouring out of film studios. But the remake craze isn't restricted to slashers, remakes of all kinds of creature features and exploitation films joined in as well. And Scream 4 was able to perfectly nail the tropes of all these silly remakes, really down to a T. I've never been an avid fan of the classic slashers, so the original Scream films only tangentially connect with me on the deconstruction level. But I'm quite familiar with these modern remakes so Scream 4 makes an intimate connection with me. 

The only mild criticism I have is that it feels like they should have 'gone for broke' and made this a climactic finish to the series, maybe even kill off a major character. Instead, they had their sights on rebooting the franchise and following through with more sequels. Unfortunately, Scream 4 performed below expectations, and the idea for further films has been scrapped. Even so, I have to admit, had new films followed, that would have been worth a lot more than the shock & awe of killing Sidney or another major character in Scream 4. As badass as it would have been, nothing's better than more Scream films, and a Scream film without Sidney, Gale, & Dewey sounds like it would be hard to pull off, quite possibly a "jump the shark moment."

In hindsight, part of me wishes the killer had turned out to be Sidney, because her motive and backstory would be by far the most compelling. The film definitely started to build it up with her whole arc about not being the victim. Well, in a slasher, you're either a victim, or you're the killer. After sustaining atrocity after atrocity in her life, it's plausible that Sidney could have developed a need for murder in order to prove to herself that she's not powerless, that she in fact wields the power to end a life. Sidney Prescott has actually killed several people over the course of the series. It's always been strictly in self-defense, but killing that many people has to change a person, it could reasonably have germinated a taste for murder inside her. 

Of course had the series continued, it's possible the plan was to eventually make Sidney the killer, perhaps with Gale as her accomplice. Part of me thinks Kevin Williamson is too sentimental to go that route, and I can respect that. If they went that route but they failed to pull it off excellently, if it ended up kind of cheap or weak, then that would retroactively damage the rest of the series for some people, by ruining the Sidney character. Of course if it was pulled off really well, it would add a whole new dimension to all the previous films. On the other hand, it might just be too cheeky and brutal for the Scream franchise. As Scream 4 very aptly quipped, "the unexpected is the new cliche," and the Sidney-Gale killer ending would very much play into that.

All in all this is one of my favorite horror films by far. Don't just rent it online, buy or rent the DVD, because it contains an extended version (with a different chain of events) of Britt Robertson's intro scene. I wish she had been cast in one of the main roles, her snarky precocious style (not unlike a young Katie Holmes) was perfect for Kevin Williamson's writing (perhaps she could get a gig on The Vampire Diaries). It also contains an extended ending with an interesting tone. And it contains a bunch of other deleted scenes, one or two of which should definitely have been included in the film because they expound on the deconstruction aspect, and those are always the best scenes.

The Cabin in the Woods

Notice: By virtue of the film's content, a spoiler-free review would be basically pointless so this review contains HEAVY SPOILERS.

I've been gleefully rewatching all my favorite new acquisitions from the Halloween season, and I have to say.... The Cabin in the Woods is even more brilliant the second time around, where I was able to appreciate the full range of nuance in the back-story.

Honestly, when I was watching this film it felt like reading The Hunger Games or watching Avatar: The Last Airbender, in the sense that they've compiled so many familiar tropes but each one has been executed to utter perfection, begetting a new whole that becomes something distinctly unique and formidable. 

Cabin first gives you a Hunger Games-style control center for a Battle Royale blood sacrifice (similar films but the distinction is, The Hunger Games features the immense level of environment control which Battle does not, and Battle features the concept of the blood sacrifice being to placate rather than to demoralize as it is in Games; both aspects being present in Cabin). Then it sets you up with the archetypal 'college kids' isolated vacation' we've seen in nearly every "teen scream" genre flick since antiquity. Finally we throw in some classic Evil Dead "oops I summoned zombies" and the main pieces are in place, though that doesn't begin to address the vast myriad of film references throughout the movie.

This film combines a dozen and ten things, to the fifth power if you count all the monsters. But at its core, at its deepest conceptual level, it's a marriage between two approaches towards horror: the self-aware deconstruction of the Scream series, where a group of would-be victims tap the necessary "rules" of horror films in a bid to survive while the nature of these rules is snarkily pondered in a social context; and the tongue-in-cheek horror-comedy of recent hits like Shaun of the Dead, Zombieland, and Tucker & Dale Vs. Evil; where a basic horror set-up gives way to a humorous farce while lovingly poking fun at horror cliche's. And while I would not place Cabin above Scream (by virtue of what Scream accomplishes), even as much as I enjoyed Shaun and Tucker & Dale, Cabin is definitely the greatest and funniest horror comedy ever made.

And there's no question that The Cabin in the Woods is more clever than Scream. Scream set out to accomplish at least a trio of disparate goals and succeeded flawlessly with them all, but what that means is the deconstruction only received a fraction of each films' focus. Cabin, alternatively, combines a handful of disparate films but enlists each into one single goal: total horror deconstruction. The "rules" are outlined here thrice more vividly and articulately than in any Scream film.

And while Cabin lacks the "meta" aspects of Scream, which Kevin Williamson is famous for (moments where the film ironically -- in the classic literary sense -- pokes fun at itself, ala the "Stab" series), it makes up for it with the elaborate and well-crafted implications regarding the fact that most of the horror films you've watched, and most of the horror films that have yet to be made, are all de facto prequels to The Cabin in the Woods. Every trope, every dumb move, every slow build-up, was all the work of these blokes in a control room in their periodic attempt to save humanity by appeasing ancient overlords. While Cabin almost surely will never get an actual sequel, all you have to do is pick any a horror film off the rack and piece together for yourself (as Marty did in Cabin), what ways the "puppet-masters" are orchestrating the events. 

The sole way in which this film fails, the way -- if accomplished -- The Cabin in the Woods could have bested not only Scream but it would have placed itself in the top iota of horror films ever made, is that it's simply not scary. I don't see why they fell short in that category, it seems basic enough. I get the feeling merely producing/directing the monster scenes differently (in a traditional horror style) could possibly have made it scary. But perhaps they just didn't want to risk gutting the comedy, or betraying the deconstruction, or erring too close to Scream, or lord only knows what. In any case, achieving the best and cleverest horror-comedy of all-time is no cause for complaint. The Cabin in the Woods is an instant classic for horror buffs and it's destined to go down in history as the best-made horror deconstruction.

Ginger Snaps 2: Unleashed

Notice: No real spoilers here, just expository information.

This is the greatest series of werewolf films. The original Ginger Snaps is a modern classic, and Ginger Snaps 2 is a genuinely superior film, believe it or not. The original Ginger Snaps is thick with stylish, brooding goth flair, and I love it for that. But Ginger Snaps 2 takes a turn for the darker, and it's better for it: with decrepit asylum corridors, the spectres of mental illness, and recurring flashes of gore. The other avenue number 2 takes to improve on the first is in its basic story premise. The original told an iconic werewolf story, but as such it was more basic. Brigitte's struggle in Unleashed is a more unqiue and unpredictable adventure.

As always, the subtext is exquisite. Unsurprisingly unconvinced that the condition which forced her to kill her sister is a positive transformation, Brigitte continues her tooth and nail battle against the onset of puberty. The titular Ginger appears only as an incorporeal hallucination to calmly harbinge doom for her kid sister. The hallucinations are quite possibly brought on by Brigitte's vascular injection of the powerful poison monkshood, the only way to postpone her transformation into the beast. But when a well-wishing suitor confuses the epeleptic seizure, a side-effect of the monkshood, with a narcotic overdose, Brigitte becomes held against her will in a drug addiction clinic. Now she's stuck in an asylum, with no way to stave off lycanthropy, and to make matters worse there is another werewolf stalking her, drawing ever nearer.

I found the relationship between Brigitte and Ginger very nuanced and touching in this film. Ginger appears to mock Brigitte, but it feels less like residual derision than like anxiety (on Brigitte's part) over the unstoppable transformation she is going through. All the while, Brigitte carries pictures of her and her sister with her always, never losing the love and mercy which unfortunately forced her hand in the murder of Ginger. Does Ginger appear as a result of Brigitte's fear towards lycanthropy, or does she appear as a haunting guilt over dealing Ginger's final blow? Perhaps both, and more.

I enjoy the misandristic overtones. The only two significant male characters are monsters who are obsessed with sex. One is a monster for killing and presumably eating humans. The other is an even more deplorable monster, who manipulates mentally disturbed drug addicts in order to sexually abuse them. And, to prove how great of a guy he is, he's found a way to keep them addicted to drugs while he does it! But, hey, the three minor characters who are male seem to be decent blokes. And not all of the women are very humane, it's not like it's black & white. But it's always nice to see a horror film with female heroes who don't conform to the hysterical, can't run, victim archetype.

The first Ginger Snaps was largely about the love and devotion between the two sisters, and the dark side of puberty & sexual awakening. Ginger Snaps 2 carries on these themes but takes the latter in a somewhat different direction. For Ginger, the transformation represented both evil, and an awakening of powerful new abilities and experiences. For Brigitte, it means only becoming a horrible monster. In that sense this a twisted, grim reiteration of the classic "innocence forever" theme from Peter Pan, Toy Story, The Santa Claus, et. al. The ultimate theme of the Ginger Snaps series is that you can't fight the coming of age. No matter how hard you try, you're doomed to grow that hair, feel those pheromones, crave human flesh... But I like that Brigitte tries. I like that she's willing to give up everything and anything to keep from becoming that monster.

The DVD also has some excellent deleted scenes (Ghost telling Brigitte that they're going to harvest her organs is priceless). I always wish scenes like this would be included in an "extended version" instead of just tacked on as an extra. I could do with an extra ten minutes of runtime on such a good film. I could just eat that up.

Home Movie (2009)

Home Movie

Rating: 4 stars out of 5.

Notice: No spoilers until stated. 

Overview: A well-executed and harrowingly realistic tale of a parent's worst nightmare.

In the case of paranormal subjects, found footage can make the unreal appear real. And while these films are often terrifying, they also contain a little spark of awe and wonder inherent in making fantasy come to life. In the case of more realistic subjects such as serial killers and rapists, the fantasy is gone and in its place exists only the grim understanding that what you're seeing could genuinely occur.  Many of the most disturbing films of all-time are of this variety, including the original found footage film, Cannibal Holocaust.

Home Movie is of the latter variety, and while it's not one of the most disturbing films of all-time, it's definitely disturbing, and some of its dark images have continued to linger with me long after viewing.

Home Movie concerns a small family: the minister father, the psychiatrist mother, and their twin children Jack and Emily. The family has just moved out to a secluded house in the woods to live a quiet, idyllic life. The parents are warm and nurturing, but the children aren't quite normal. The ten year old twins are developing an unhealthy taste for killing and causing pain.

No matter how many times a found footage film takes me to the woods, it is always good. Is there any better setting in the world? The woods just has an intrinsic foreboding to it somehow. The house and locale here are beautiful, it's an inherently chilling setting and they pulled it off perfectly.

The first act of this film is especially excellent. The early scenes of the happy mother and father nurturing their children are incredibly real and well-written. The foreshadowing at this point is strong without being obvious. The placement of the children's story about the dragon with a paper bag over his head verges on brilliant. It's heartbreaking to see such loving parents and then to witness what transpires with the children. The rising action that follows is handled aptly with a creepy aplomb. Even if the direction becomes obvious after the first time the kids act out, the disturbing journey is worth more than the mystery.

While the hints are subtle, another area the film excels in is portraying the children's interest for the macabre. It's frightening to imagine these regular looking kids who see death and become obsessed with it.

The only thing holding this film back from ranking higher is a certain problem I have regarding the film's final act.

~SPOILER WARNING BEYOND THIS POINT~

At the end of the film, the kids make their move on their parents. Surprisingly, after how perfectly handled the rest of the film is, this part leaves something to be desired. A more simple, direct treatment would have been exceedingly more terrifying. I like the concept that these kids are clever, possibly even savants, who have meticulously planned this grand salvo. However, the way it's done is just too much. The rest of the film is amazingly realistic, but this part is too complex, it's more like a slasher film or even some kind of Bourne-esque action movie: the kids set traps, drug their parents, beat them, tie them up, let them escape, toy with them, tie them up again, it's way too much to feel intuitively real. One or two of these aspects alone would have driven the point home while maintaining the illusion.

In any case, it was a smart, disturbing film with some of the best acting I've seen in found footage. Definitely recommended for people who don't mind being a tad disturbed.

Paranormal Activity 4 (2012)

Paranormal Activity 4

Rating: 3 stars out of 5.

Overview: The series continues to get bigger and wilder with its complicated storyline, but PA4 veers from the tradition of the first 3 films enough to make it a genuinely exciting film to watch. It admirably avoids many of the downfalls that plagued Paranormal Activity 3.

Notice: No spoilers beyond basic expository information.

After watching the astoundingly terrifying Atrocious last weekend and being reunited with what true found footage film-making is all about, I was apprehensive about what Paranormal Activity 4 may be like. I knew it could never live up to the precedent so recently set by Atrocious. And sure enough, Paranormal Activity 4 is the least scary of all the Paranormal Activity films thus far. Never the less, the film really managed to impress me. I enjoyed it much more than the third film and I'm actually excited about seeing Paranormal Activity 5 next year (god willing). 

While PA3 was scarier, it was basically existing on borrowed ground. It retained the plot progression of the first two films while never even approaching the level of scares they achieved. So it felt like an exceedingly well-made Asylum film, the production values were good but it's a story you've already seen told, and told better. 

I read one review which stated PA4 is the first of the series to play it safe. On the contrary, PA4 was the first of the sequels to veer from the formula of the original film. When all you're dealing with is the demon, you pretty much know how it's inevitably going to end. After the first film you know pretty much how the demon operates and what to expect. But the fourth film enters a number of new elements which made the story's progression far less foreseeable, and for that I found this a very exciting film to watch.

The third film jumped the shark by injecting convoluted mythos into a series which had previously succeeded on a primal, intuitive level. But the fourth film transcended the misstep of the third by taking it even further and severing the series from its instinctual roots. In doing so it became something different entirely, and managed to be good on its own merits. No, it's certainly not as good as the first two PA films, but it was a very interesting movie, and it impressed me. I am actually really excited to be invested in the Paranormal Activity franchise again after the frustrating mess of misfires that confounded Paranormal Activity 3. 

At this point the Paranormal Activity mythos has become overwrought, bizarre, and a little bit nonsensical. But with PA4 it's finally reached that sweet spot where it's crazy enough to be interesting, without being too campy to take seriously. It's clear that the series will never return to the terror-inducing simplicity which made it famous in the first place, but that may be for the best, as it was never liable to recapture the spark of the first two films anyway. I'm genuinely excited to see it get even bigger and wilder as the film series goes on, because now I'm confident they can do it without pissing all over the franchise. It's gone into the territory where it's silly but still cool.

Atrocious (2010)

Atrocious

Rating: 5 stars out of 5.

Notice: No spoilers beyond basic expository information.

Overview: An unparalleled control of found footage basics informs this clever spin on the classic formula. A true and formidable successor to The Blair Witch Project. Atrocious is one of the scariest movies I've ever seen.

Three kids and their mom take a trip to a secluded summer home, right next to a big ole' labyrinth. An old legend states that if you get lost in the labyrinth at night, the ghost of Melinda will lead you out, and the kids want to film a self-styled documentary about her. Think you've heard this one before? Well, maybe you have. But Atrocious adds enough, and deviates enough, and executes itself well enough to stand on its own as a classic of found footage.

Even while I was scared shitless, which was quite often, I couldn't help repeating in my head "wow, this is a good feeling." What feeling, you might ask? The feeling that comes from a watching a found footage film where the filmmakers intrinsically understand what makes found footage good in the first place. It's been a long time since I've seen a found footage film that properly handles itself. I had seen so many midlevel entries into the genre since then, I forgot how amazing it was when you stumble upon a film that does it unmitigatingly right. There are so many mediocre films out there, I had honestly thought that I might be getting tired of found footage! Ahaha, oh my. Atrocious was brilliant.

The premise may mirror Blair Witch quite unsqueamishly, but the two films' respective atmospheres are well removed. The hedge maze labyrinth of Atrocious is a very different beast from the sprawling pines of Blair Witch. And without giving away too much, don't expect the story arcs to match either.

What sets Atrocious so far apart from its peers is its flawless command of the fundamentals. The fundamentals are what define any good found footage film, and a failure to grasp the fundamentals will invariably break one. But Atrocious nails it. The setting, god the setting, it's old school creepy. Their basement is full of stone walls and unsettling clutter, the labyrinth is full of gorgeously utiliized ancient stone benches and pyres and so forth, all of which give me the willies. The camera direction is spot-on, invoking [REC]'s unnerving corridors and the terrifying, shaking uncertainty cultivated by the masters of subtlety in The Wicksborro Incident.

Bottom line, Atrocious will never be quite as flawless as The Blair Witch Project, but there's no shame in being beaten by the best. There are a lot of good found footage films out there, however in the last few years these films have made their name by eschewing the formula rather than mastering it. [REC] was action-packed rather than slow-burning, V/H/S is the first notable anthology of the genre, and so on.

Atrocious doesn't do that, Atrocious makes its name by being able to weild this old form with genuine skill. The classic found footage formula is what got me into this genre, and at the end of the day there is nothing I like to see more. Problem is, despite how utterly simple it seems, most filmmakers fall flat on their face when attempting to copy it. Meanwhile Atrocious hits nearly every salvo with apparent ease, and for that it is superb.

I didn't even realize quite how much Atrocious had scared me until I went to bed that night and had a nightmare about it. This is a film that really stayed with me. Originally I was thinking of giving it 4 & 1/2 stars, but after noticing that it scarred me for life, I have to bump it up to 5. (I'm of course exaggerating, it only scarred me for a day..... so far. And I watched it yesterday.)

Paranormal Activity 4 (trailer)

Paranormal Activity 4.

So apparently in the new Paranormal Activity, Katy, with Hunter in tow, moves into a suburban neighborhood and starts terrorizing the couple next door.

This could be good or bad. On the one hand, I don't think the premise makes any sense. This demon has waited decades in order to recieve the son he was promised, and then once he has it, he does what with it.... settles down in suburbia and starts scaring kids for sport? Why on Earth would he possibly do that?

I'm sure they'll explain why this has to happen in the film. And that's the point of contention for me. Part of me wants them to come up with a really good explanation for why such a weird plot makes sense. But the other part of me wants the movie to forgo the mythos-building and get back to what makes Paranormal Activity 1 and 2 good. Better than good, in fact, some of the best fucking films ever made.

What made PA 1 and 2 great is exactly what inspired Oren Peli to create Paranormal Activity in the first place. He had always been frightened of ghosts, and tapped into that universal fear to create the film. Put emphasis on universal. Those films are so scary because they're some of the most relatable horror films ever made.

Everyone's been alone in a house or building and heard random noises that 99+% likely are nothing sinister, but then you hear it again, and again. Paranormal Activity rachets up the action slowly so that you can put yourself in their place. The universality of the experience is part and parcel of what makes these films so unsettling and the richer of a backstory it gets, the more complex of a mythology it weilds, the less universal it becomes and the less scary it is.

With PA4 taking on the ole' "scary neighbor" motif it seems like it could potentially be returning to a more classic scare, with less of the mythos building. But it could just as easily take the mythos-building to yet new heights. Only time will tell.

In any case I'm excited for it and I love to see this franchise expand and proliferate, no matter the results. Paranormal Activity has become the first, and inarguably the best, found footage franchise and for that it deserves kudos from the likes of me. Twenty, thirty years down the line Paranormal Activity may well still retain the title as the ultimate found footage franchise. [REC] turned away from found footage a long time ago so it's not even a contest.

Trollhunter (2010)

Trollhunter

Rating: 3 stars out of 5.

Notice: No spoilers beyond basic expository information.

Overview: In a genre often accused of repeating itself, Trollhunter provides an awesome and much-welcome counterpoint. It's more clever than it is frightful, but it's an exciting ride.

Trollhunter is easily one of the most critically-applauded found footage films of recent years. And the praise is relatively well deserved, Trollhunter takes a genre with a strong temptation to remain formulaic, and ventures beyond in both subject matter and style. Hunting giant trolls is a subject perfectly suited to Norway's mythological heritage, and it's rare that a found footage film (particularly one with good production values), succeeds in being funny.

It starts with a group of kids following a mysterious bear poacher, but they soon learn there's more to his story. Over the course of the film, this veteran Trollhunter shows the kids the ropes of his secret trade. He details the natural characteristics of trolls (species variation, intelligence level, diet, habitation), strategies for taking them down, and the governmet conspiracy to keep them under wraps. This gives the film an admirable mythos and sense of reality. But since the film is funny at least as often as it is serious, the attention to mythical detail seems a tad wasted. Even so, in-universe consistency is always appreciated. Even a goofy movie becomes less impressive when they lack a coherent base.

I can't say I love Trollhunter quite as much as many seem to, as comedic and tongue-in-cheek films aren't so much my fancy. Cheesy, trashy, zero-budget films, hell yes, but there's a fine line between that and films which are traditionally funny like Trollhunter. All in all Trollhunter has excellent production values, great creatures and a solid plot. It's an admirable addition to the found footage genre from the great nation of Norway, and one that I'm sure will still be viewed years from now.

Horror Roundup Volume One: October Comes Early

I just can't wait for October to get here so I can start creeping myself out with scary movies. I probably shouldn't be dipping into the horror bin this early, but since I work nights, I'll only have about 8 days in October to watch movies in pitch darkness. So here are the first three movies I watched this horror season.

Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011)
----

The best way to describe this movie is: old school cool. Don't Be Afraid of the Dark has basically everything I want out of a horror film. Atmospheric and moody, with a creepy setting and sinister paranormal forces that aren't overdone or ridiculous. Plus it boasts Guillermo Del Toro with Katie Holmes, two of my favorite names in film/tv (albeit for... ENTIRELY different reasons.)

It has sort of an unassuming feel to it. It doesn't feel like a big bad blockbuster, and that's part of its charm. After all, it's a remake of a made-for-TV movie. And despite the astounding quality of its execution, it still almost feels like a TV movie. It reminds me of AfterDark's HorrorFest, which I loved dearly. Just a yearly batch of humble horror films not trying to be the next big franchise, just trying to be good and scary. The only difference is, Don't Be Afraid of The Dark is even better than the best HorrorFest movies. EVEN Lake Mungo, which is a spectacular found footage film.


Carrie (2002)
----

This was a very competently executed film, aside from the obnoxiously obvious cuts for commercial breaks. Instead of cutting for breaks in-between scenes, they would cut right in the middle of a scene, forcing us to acknowledge that this was a TV movie. Other than that, I found the characterization was very believable, and the familiar plot was handled well. They did seem to dwell on the "mystery" aspect too much for a plot that even those of us not familiar with the original are destined to be knowledgable of through countless references in TV and film. Carrie is a cultural staple, after all. They kept building it up like "ooh what's going to happen at prom," part of me was hoping they would change the ending so that all the build up is worthwhile.

The most peculiar thing about this film is that it was intended as a pilot for a TV series, staring Carrie. I find that peculiar because, as much as I adored Carrie throughout most of the film, I don't see how anyone can still root for her after the murderous rampage at the school. Mind you, I love revenge fantasies. In a fictional setting where good and evil are unambiguous, it's great to see evil people pay for their misdeeds. That's why I love Super Hero movies. But massacreing an entire school is a sensitive subject. I know real world and fantasy should be kept separate, but the only difference between what Carrie did and what the perputrators of Columbine did, is that the Columbine murderers had to use guns instead of magic powers. She didn't just kill the bad kids who bullied her (not that bullying is a justified reason for murder in the least), she also killed good kids, and innocent bystanders, and faculty who had stood up for her.


Romasanta: Werewolf Hunt
----

Directed by famed [REC] creator, Paco Plaza. This movie has a variety of names. On Netflix it's called simply "Werewolf Hunter." On IMDB it's "Romasanta: Werewolf Hunt." On Amazon it's called "Werewolf Hunter - Legend of Romasanta."

Romasanta is the name of the real life serial killer in England who admitted to his murders but claimed he was not guilty because he was a werewolf and couldn't control himself. Based on the blurb, I thought this would be very much like The Exorcism of Emily Rose: where this man is put on trial and the argument is whether or not he is truly a werewolf. But instead this movie is about a cunning serial killer and his meticulous kills.

Not a complete departure from typical werewolf lore but definitely with some unique nuances. Not the most engrossing of the movies I watched, but definitely something that can appeal to both werewolf fans and fans of psycho killer movies. And I liked the ending that they gave it.

Ghostwatch (1992)

Ghostwatch

Rating: 3 out of 5 stars.

Notice: No significant spoilers.

Overview: An unmitigated triumph of innovation and design, this is one of found footage's most influential films. But the content will seem dry by today's standards.

The phrase "ahead of its time" encapsulates this obscure 1992 TV movie, aired once on Halloween and then banned from ever airing again in its native UK. Although it caused quite a few water cooler conversations in the homeland, it has never been made officially available in the US, and was only recently releasd on DVD in the UK.

It's not strictly "found footage," more of a faux-cinema verite. Ghostwatch is a facetious BBC documentary investigation, pruporting to include live feed from a haunted house on Halloween night. Interviews with the family and exposition from reporters accompany scenes of ghoulish activity, such as objects moving of their own volition and stange loud noises. Reputable BBC personalities cooperated with this clever hoax to give it an extra-dose of realism. Unsurprising considering found footage was a deceit still unknown to the public at large, many were convinced by this production, and the film has even been accused of influencing one child's suicide!

In addition to pioneering the ghostly premise for countless found footage films (as ghosts easily represent the most common antagonist in found footage) and pre-empting the genre's most successful franchise (Paranormal Activity), Ghoswatch can also be linked to any number of faux-documentary films such as Fourth Kind and the TV version of Incident In Lake County. Most intriguing of all, perhaps, is it's obvious parallel to the now-omnipresent trend of faked ghost-hunting TV programs, like 'Ghost Adventures,' 'Paranormal State,' 'Ghost Hunters,' and MTV's 'Fear.'

But aside from its influence, how high quality of a film is it, really? Well, it gets a 10 out of 5 in originality amd craft. but probably only a 2 or a 3 in watchability. It's a very dry program. It's very REALISTICALLY dry, like a documentary genuinely would be. Which makes it an incredibly well-made piece, but not necessarily a fantastic movie. Admittedly, the deadpan seriousness with which the subject is broached can be considered to make this program more unsettling than the over-the-top jumping and screaming you see in modern shows. So those of you with a more refined, old school sensibility may find the program exciting and terrifying. My taste errs closer to where the genre has evolved to, than where it came from. Sure, I can watch someone walk down a dark hallway on shakycam for 40 minutes and adore every freaking second of it. But a BBC documentary from the early 90s? Not my idea of an exciting watch. But it's definitely worth a view for any fan of found footage, ghost stories, or groundbreaking horror films. For those of us without access to a DVD version, it's readily available on Youtube.

Back in Season

The spookiest of months is quickly approaching and I am ready to hunker down with some frightful features. This season I hope to explore some of the exciting new found footage releases, such as:

• V/H/S
• Chronicle
• War of the Worlds: The True Story
• Evidence
• Unaware
• Project X
• The Devil Inside
• Paranormal Activity 4

And make a significant dent in the long list of important found footage films I have seen (often several times) but not finished writing reviews for as of yet, including but not limited to:

• The Blair Witch Project
• Alien Abduction: Incident In Lake County
• Trollhunter
• Paranormal Activity
• Paranormal Activity 2
• Paranormal Activity 3
• Lake Mungo
• [Rec] 2

I may even review some non-found footage horror films (Chernobyl Diaries was just an exception due to Peli's involvement). But only found footage reviews will be listed in the review list on the right panel.

Well, enjoy Fall and don't let the ghoulies get ya! But be sure to bring a camera along.... y'know, just in case they do.

The New Oren Peli, "Chernobyl Diaries"

This is NOT a found footage film, but seeing as it relates to Oren Peli, I'm going to review it regardless.

Mr. Oren Peli has had a highly uneven career thus far. He proved himself to be a brilliant visionary with 2007's Paranormal Activity, a subtle and effective horror movie that nearly reinvented the found footage genre; the first blockbuster in that genre since The Blair Witch Project shocked the world. However.... most, if not all, of what he's done outside of the Paranormal Activity franchise (i.e. doing pretty much everything for the first film, and helping to write the second) has been mediocre at best. The found footage TV series The River (created with fellow Paranormal Activity 2 writer Michael R. Perry) was an unfortunate, resounding failure. His genre follow-up to Paranormal Activity, the mysterious Area 51, has been sent through the developmental hell gauntlet for three years and may or may not ever see the light of day. It remains to be seen if Area 51 is simply so awful the studio thinks even the success of Paranormal Activity can't carry it, or it's another case of a masterpiece cluelessly shelved by fickle executives (or my random third theory, that they don't want it to compete against or detract from Paranormal Activity and are holding it back until the franchise dwindles).

As someone who will forever respect and admire Mr. Peli, I am proud to report that Chernobyl Diaries, which Peli wrote, is a fantastic and well-made horror film. It's not amazing or visionary, it's certainly not without flaws, but it is was an excellent watch and is an impressive, effective film.

I wonder if Russia has any disturbing Chernobyl-themed horror films, because in the US our tragic nuclear past has been well-probed for horror. Chernobyl Diaries could easily pass as a particularly inventive remake of The Hills Have Eyes. Both film revolve around tourists trapped inside a car amidst a desolate locale where they are accosted by radioactive cannibals. But where the films differ vastly is in setting. In Chernobyl Diaries, a barren, empty desert is exchanged for an abandoned industrial city. The starkly contrasting setting gives way to a viciously different atmosphere. I haven't seen the original Hills Have Eyes, but Chernobyl Diaries categorically outclasses the 2006 remake. It's scarier, more interesting, and better-shot.

The setting was truly gorgeous and harrowingly spooky. The filming was lusciously dark and claustrophobic, reminiscent of REC with pitch black corridors, plus the disheartening unease of an abandoned city in the dead of night. The plotline is merely so-so, and fairly predictable. But the cinematography makes up for it. If you're anything like me, you will find the scenery chilling to the bone, with deep, complex underground passageways that just go deeper and deeper and deeper. Naturally I would have preferred a bit of a more subtle approach, but coming from me that goes without saying. If you had given this amazing setting to the low-key experts who made The Wicksboro Incident, and they made an equally subtle found footage film out if it, it would probably be the creepiest thing ever made.