# 1 - the descent

The Descent (2006)

Director:  Neil Marshall

Actors:  Shauna Macdonald, Natalie Mendoza, Alex Reid, Saskia Mulder, MyAnna Buring, and Nora-Jane Noone

Let me preface my review by saying that I am no Roger Ebert or Peter Travers.  I am not claiming to be a connoisseur of horror movies, nor am I suggesting that I am worthy of rating films for a renowned publication.   I’m simply a person who loves movies and who likes to write about “stuff”.  If you are not interested in scary movies or if you don’t like reading… then delete this immediately.

The movie is The Descent; A British “creature-film” so good that it puts many others to shame.  I love this movie… period.  It is so non-traditionally clever that I can’t help but be moved by it.  It’s actually an oxymoron because The Descent draws from so many other films (most notably Carrie, The Shining, and The Blair Witch Project (one of my all-time favs))… yet has such a unique quality at the same time.  Never, and I mean, NEVER, have I felt so claustrophobic watching a movie.

A year after a tragic accident, Sarah (Shauna Macdonald) decides to go on an adventure with her girlfriends to ease back into the real world.  The six girls all meet in the outback of the Appalachian Mountains to go spelunking.  But adventure quickly turns to horror, when they realize that they are actually cave-diving (without a map) into an un-discovered system (thanks to Michelle Rodriguez… um, I mean Juno (Natalie Mendoza)), and they are NOT alone.

Not surprisingly, one-by-one the group is “tested”.  The girls put up a hell of a fight, which makes for some interesting and particularly gruesome scenes.  This movie is violent… I don’t want to mislead you in any way.  There is enough gore to make Eli Roth blush.  (If you are faint of heart, do not even attempt to watch the opening sequence, let alone the entire 99 minutes)  I don’t want to make you think this is strictly a psychological thriller, though it is a great drama beneath the surface **no pun intended**.  There is no shortage of blood in this pic… and it is good to the last drop.

Nearly the entire film is set underground and it is so expertly designed that you can barely tell that the movie was shot on a “set” in London.  The ridiculously enclosed spaces, the dim light of the flares, and the deplorable “creatures” make for such a compelling pic that I can barely class it will any recent horror movies.  It is head and shoulders above the rest.

 My Grandpa Vandenberg always used to say “There’s gonna be two hits.  Me hittin’ you.  And you hittin’ the floor”  (ahhh, Yoopers).  That is The Descent.  Marshall comes in with a chilling claustrophobia and before you can recover, he hits you with the most terrifying (and most realistic (James Cameron take note)) “creatures” in decades.  (And I’m sorry I keep calling them “creatures”, but they are so perfectly crafted that I hate to reveal much.  Gollum 2.0 if you need a mental reference).

Someone online said this movie was “easy to miss, hard to forget”.  I could not agree more with that statement (in fact, I’m annoyed that I didn’t come up with that first).  I had never heard of this movie when I randomly rented it at Blockbuster a few years ago.  Nathan and I were shocked by how well-made and truly frightening the movie was (why isn’t the US delivering these quality pics??).  We were genuinely excited to watch it again for this review.  I encourage every amateur horror fan to see this film… more than once.

The Descent is easily one of the best horror movies of the decade.  It is nearly flawless… the acting, direction, and cinematography are perfection.  Desperate times call for desperate measures… add revenge to the mix and you have a real thriller.  This modern pic has guts… lots of ‘em.

Was The Descent scary?  Yes

Jami’s Rating:  4 ½ out of 5 stars

Would I recommend this movie:  Yes!

# 2 - henry: portrait of a serial killer

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (finished in 1986, released in 1990)

Director:  John McNaughton

Actors:  Michael Rooker, Tom Towles, and Tracy Arnold

Let me preface my review by saying that I am no Roger Ebert or Peter Travers.  I am not claiming to be a connoisseur of horror movies, nor am I suggesting that I am worthy of rating films for a renowned publication.   I’m simply a person who loves movies and who likes to write about “stuff”.  If you are not interested in scary movies or if you don’t like reading… then delete this immediately.

The movie is Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer; a story loosely based on the life of confessed murderer, Henry Lee Lucas.  Lucas (sometimes with an accomplice) claimed to have killed nearly 400 people throughout the United States, including his Mother and girlfriend.  Though many of these admissions proved to be false, Lucas was convicted on 11 counts and sentenced to death in Texas.  His punishment was later commuted to “life in prison” (by then-Governor, George W. Bush) and he eventually died of natural causes in 2001.

Henry (Michael Rooker) is a quiet, underpaid bug exterminator.  He lives in a small apartment in Chicago with his friend and former cell-mate Otis (Tom Towles).  One night, after a few drinks at the local pub, Henry introduces Otis to his sordid “hobby”.  Their guys-night-out turns Maniac, when the two class-acts murder a few prostitutes and a sleazy salesman.  Immediately, Otis is hooked and becomes Henry’s serial killing apprentice.

The duo goes on a killing spree in the Windy City.  They commit to a lifestyle of inward psychosis and seemingly outward normality.  Things go from disturbing to down-right horrifying when a video camera is added to the mix.  After a full day of extra-curricular activities, Henry and Otis lounge on the couch to watch the footage on repeat… rewinding the “good parts” to brag to one another.  It is horrifying, sadistic, and completely gratuitous. I actually feel guilty and repentant for having viewed such profanity.  It is the same feeling you get when watching the crucifix sequence in The Exorcist; like you need to look away and pray that your mind will erase the image forever.

Otis is, to be frank, an incestuous moron.  Henry is more level-headed, but that doesn’t make his character any more tolerable.  After all, he is a serial killer with absolutely no conscience.  (Rooker plays the role so well that I would probably be scared to meet him in a dark alley or even a well-lit bathroom.  He deserves to be listed among the likes of Anthony Hopkins, Kevin Spacey, and Anthony Perkins because his performance is exceptional)

Henry is raw and terrifyingly life-like, almost too-much so.  I felt dirty and in need of a shower after my viewing.  The movie is not graphically violent or gory, but what I found scary was the documentary-like realism.  Henry’s exist.  That is a fact.  The likeable guy-next-door could also be a Mother-murdering psychopath who kills without motive.  The actuality that Henry slaughters random women and then goes on with his daily life as if nothing ever happened is very unsettling to me.  And yes, Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Psycho are scary too… but Henry is unlike any serial killer pic I have ever seen.

Henry is almost “reality TV”-style in scope… like The Real World: Serial Killer Edition.  (You think you know, but you have no idea).  The film is basic and incredibly effective in that it neither glorifies Henry’s actions nor condemns them.  It feels very real, and for that reason the movie is pretty disturbing.  Brutal and shocking are the most accurate descriptions for this pic, but vile and appalling also come to mind.  (McNaughton begged for an R-rating, but the MPAA said no dice.  Since there was no NC-17 rating at the time, Henry was finally released four years after completion with no rating, and hence became even more controversial). 

Now, I’m a reality TV junkie who has seen every show from Survivor to Teen Mom to Scream Queens.  But those are fictional and dramatized, so they are easy to handle and enjoyable when watched in large doses… Henry is the real deal and one viewing is more than enough.  Frankly, I’d rather watch Sammy Sweetheart punch J-Woww in the face, while Snooki prances around in her furry slippers and the boys dodge grenades… at least I can sleep at night.

Was Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer scary?  Yes (more-so in the aftermath)

Jami’s Rating:  3 ½ out of 5 stars

Would I recommend this movie:  No

 

# 3 - bug

Bug (2006)

Director:  William Friedkin

Actors:  Ashley Judd, Michael Shannon, Harry Connick Jr, Lynn Collins, and Brian F O’Byrne

Let me preface my review by saying that I am no Roger Ebert or Peter Travers.  I am not claiming to be a connoisseur of horror movies, nor am I suggesting that I am worthy of rating films for a renowned publication.   I’m simply a person who loves movies and who likes to write about “stuff”.  If you are not interested in scary movies or if you don’t like reading… then delete this immediately.

The movie is Bug.  I honestly cannot compare this film to any others, because it is truly unique.  While I personally think that’s a good thing, some may find Bug too “out there”.  Run-of-the-mill it is not, though, and I appreciate that.

First things first, William Friedkin directed Bug.  He also directed The Exorcist.  The Exorcist is THE best horror movie of all time.  Hence, by the transitive property, Bug should be amazing and groundbreaking.  But math f-d us again (I knew HS was pointless)… because this movie doesn’t even deserve to be uttered in the same sentence as The Exorcist, let alone considered equal. 

But hold your horses, Harry Connick Jr fans (because they are undoubtedly crazy and will probably nail me to a Will & Grace DVD for speaking up).  I did think this movie was interesting, and I will even admit that I liked it.  It is tense, disturbing, suspenseful, weird, and unbelievably claustrophobic.  I wouldn’t consider it a horror film, but a paranoia flick at its best.

Agnes White (Ashley Judd) is a lonely, substance-abusing honky-tonk waitress living in a trashy roadside motel (think Identity) on the barren highways of Oklahoma.  Jerry Goss (Harry Connick Jr) is Agnes’ estranged husband who was recently released from prison and is thought to be behind several “heavy-breathing-and-hang-up” phone calls.  And Peter Evans (Michael Shannon) is the quiet stranger that Agnes is randomly introduced to one night via her lesbian friend RC (Lynn Collins).

Agnes is desperate… for love, companionship, understanding, safety, belief.  So when she meets the submissive character that is Peter Evans, she is intrigued and hopeful… agreeing when he asks to spend the night.  The friendship turns to romance, which quickly turns to madness. 

Agnes’ hope and trust is tested when she is awoken by Peter in the middle of the night claiming that he found a bug in their bed, an aphid to be exact.  She doesn’t see or feel anything, but Peter is certain that there are more to follow.  She eventually succumbs to the “realization” that they are infested… by not one bug, but millions.  In fact, these are no ordinary bugs.  They were implanted in Peter’s body by the government when he was stationed in the Gulf, or so he says.  He was supposedly subjected to cruel, unusual, and inhumane testing and now “they are watching”.

Jerry and RC warn Agnes that Peter isn’t quite right, maybe even dangerous.  But she is caught in the dizzying spiral of infatuation.  She feels safe and wanted for the first time in years.  Peter and Agnes begin living in a duel paranoid delusion… they scratch themselves until they bleed trying to get the bugs out, they pull their own teeth with pliers (because that is where the government hid the egg sacks), and they turn their house into a tinfoil-covered crazy-den to avoid the aphids from transmitting their signal.

Their psychosis is almost mesmerizing, driven by exceptional performances by the lead actors.  This is definitely some of Judd’s best work.  Her monologue in the final act is shear panicky genius.  It is horrifying to watch her desperation coil out of control, and her breathless rant is proof that she has fallen off the deep end… and the water feels great.

Harry Connick Jr is fantastic too as the abusive white trash ex-hubby.  (Quite a stretch from Hope Floats and singing jazz tunes on American Idol).  I love him as a musician, and he’s got the acting chops to live up to all of his successes in the entertainment industry.  But Shannon is the stand-out of Bug.  His performance as the eccentric loner Peter is so good/creepy, it gives me goose bumps.  He says his story with such conviction and seems so innocent and jaded, that it’s easy to see how Agnes could fall into his fantasy.

This movie is not for all audiences.  It is rated R for graphic violence, sexuality, profanity, drug use, nudity, and everything else that is not appropriate for people who easily feel uncomfortable.  The acting and direction is worthy of a watch if you are up for a break from normality and reality.  It is lean and undemanding, allowing the audience to surrender to the paranoia without much effort.  The claustrophobia is palpable and matter-of-fact, the isolation pitiful.  At the core, Bug is a compelling character study that will certainly get under your skin.

Was Bug scary?  No

Jami’s Rating:  4 out of 5 stars

Would I recommend this movie:  Yes

# 4 - zodiac

Zodiac (2007)

Director:  David Fincher

Actors:  Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, Anthony Edwards, Robert Downey Jr, Brian Cox, John Carroll Lynch, and Chloe Sevigny

Let me preface my review by saying that I am no Roger Ebert or Peter Travers.  I am not claiming to be a connoisseur of horror movies, nor am I suggesting that I am worthy of rating films for a renowned publication.   I’m simply a person who loves movies and who likes to write about “stuff”.  If you are not interested in scary movies or if you don’t like reading… then delete this immediately.

The movie is Zodiac and chronicles a faceless/nameless serial murderer that terrorized Northern California in the late 1960’s and 1970’s.  The self-proclaimed Zodiac killer sends a series of notes/ciphers to local publications, in hopes of garnering notoriety for his brutal homicides.

The case seems to go on to infinity (we are given date markers throughout the film to prove this point)…and in fact, it remains unsolved to this day.  If you love CSI, Law & Order, Without a Trace, Cold Case Files, or any of the other hundreds of forensic crime solving shows… you will be in 7th heaven with Jessica Biel and Reverend Camden.

The story is mainly told through the eyes of the investigators and journalists.  Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal), a cartoonist for the San Francisco Chronicle, is fascinated by the Zodiac case and becomes obsessed with capturing the elusive villain.  Robert Downey Jr. plays Paul Avery, an alcoholic reporter at the Chronicle who garners his own notoriety through his involvement in the case.  And the cast is rounded out by top-notch performances from Mark Ruffalo and Anthony Edwards as lead inspectors David Toschi and William Armstrong.  “All-Star Ensemble” is a gross understatement for this film.  Every single character is flawless and brilliantly acted.  Ruffalo and Gyllenhaal are great, but Robert Downey Jr. is absolutely exceptional.  (RDJ for President.  Seriously.  JFK, FDR, LBJ.  RDJ… coincidence?  Can’t be.)      

David Fincher directed a jewel of a film.  I wouldn’t expect any less considering the masterpieces he has delivered in the past… Fight Club, Seven, The Game.  Um… hi, hello??  If you haven’t seen all of these movies, I’m begging you to buy a ticket and get into the best-movies-of-all-time game.  He also directed the soon to be released film The Social Network, a story about the founders of Facebook and is on board for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.

Really, my only complaint about Zodiac was the length.  The running time is 162 minutes and I think they could have easily delivered the same product within 2 hours, certainly 2 1/2.  But that is nit-picking considering the strength of the pic as a whole.  The pacing and suspense are great and the movie is solid from start to finish.  For a film without a true ending (where loose-ends are not tied up), I was more than satisfied.  Fincher’s Zodiac is a journey, not a destination… buckle up folks, it’s worth the ride.

Was Zodiac scary?  No

Jami’s Rating:  4 ½ out of 5 stars

Would I recommend this movie:  Yes

# 5 - maniac

Maniac (1980)

Director:  William Lustig

Actors:  Joe Spinell, Caroline Munro, and Abigail Clayton

Let me preface my review by saying that I am no Roger Ebert or Peter Travers.  I am not claiming to be a connoisseur of horror movies, nor am I suggesting that I am worthy of rating films for a renowned publication.   I’m simply a person who loves movies and who likes to write about “stuff”.  If you are not interested in scary movies or if you don’t like reading… then delete this immediately.

The movie is Maniac.  This film can be summed up in one word… unforgettable (and not in a good, Nat King Cole kind of way.... more of a disturbing "i literally can't stop seeing this movie in my head" kind of way).  Although the slasher pic was released in 1980, time has done little to diminish its gory highlights.  Maniac is disgusting, filthy, greasy, sordid, and every other adjective used to describe something repulsive.  But you will certainly not forget it once you have seen it.  It will be burned in your mind for eternity.  The film is not stingy with shock value; even typical splatter fans will find Maniac hard to sit through.  This basically plot-less movie is completely devoid of morals or repercussion.  We witness the first slashing at 1 minute 41 seconds… and the rest of the movie ruthlessly follows suit.  The entire 87 minutes are filled with stalking, murdering, and scalping.  Now if that’s your cup of tea… break out the biscuits and enjoy.

Joe Spinell is terrifically creepy as the “maniac”.  He plays the role of Frank Zito to perfection, which is why the film is so disturbing.  He is a childish serial killer with some major mommy issues.  Due to the mistreatment and abuse by his now deceased mother, he is overtaken with rage, obsession, and insanity.  His revenge comes in the form of spontaneous, brutal murder.  He is an emotional and psychological trainwreck, complete with schizophrenic tendencies and a creepy doll collection.

The movie is successful in a few ways though.  First and foremost, special effects.  The death scenes are second-to-none thanks to make-up artist guru Tom Savini (known for his work in Friday the 13^th and many of George Romero’s pics).  He (Savini) makes a cameo in the best scene of the movie… “Disco Boy” meets his maker with a shot-gun blast to the head at point blank range.  This sequence will no doubt live in infamy as one of the finest (and most graphic) head exploding scenes of all time.

Secondly, New York.  The City that Never Sleeps shares the spotlight with Zito.  The dark, grimy streets deliver as much fear as the schizoid serial killer himself.  I can’t think of a better backdrop for a delusional misfit to pick up a lady of the night, strangle her, scalp her, and bring the goods back to his seedy apartment for decoration.  Um yeah, it’s that crazy.  I couldn’t possibly make up that scenario.  Oh, and I forgot to mention that he also takes the scalps and tacks them (with a push pin) to mannequin heads and proceeds to share a bed with the department store dummies.  Normal.

Lastly, suspense.  Lustig and Spinell (he co-wrote and executive produced in addition to starring) do a great job building anxiety.  This is a serial killer picture.  We know that the victims are going to die… but we don’t know when or how.  One particular subway scene (thanks again NYC) was brilliantly acted and directed (disregard the sound inconsistencies) and left me truly scared.  I was literally on the edge of my seat waiting for the climax and wasn’t disappointed with the payoff.

There are some major technical issues with this movie, though, and the “plot” has so many holes it could give Swiss cheese a run for its money.  But let’s face it… splatter horror buffs aren’t watching movies like this for their Oscar-caliber screenplay.

I thought Maniac was completely over-rated and not worthy of its impressive cult following.  The acting is verging on horrible and the screenplay is sub-par.  Even for a film of its genre, the gore level is quite extreme and mostly unnecessary.  Thank goodness, though, for Tom Savini… for without him, this movie would be nothing.  His special effects are amazing and the only reason I would ever recommend seeing this film.  He is an artistic genius and well-deserving of the praise he receives.

Unfortunately, the cons outweighed the pros for me with this film.  We have hints of Psycho, Ed Gein, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, and Jaws… but this movie sorely pales in comparison to all of them.

The movie is set to be released on Blu-ray this October and plans are in motion for a Maniac remake.  Tough to say if anyone will pull it off, but famed director Alexandar Aja is said to be at the helm.  And if any of you have seen The Hills Have Eyes remake or High Tension, we may be in for a treat.  I will certainly see the reboot and may even give Maniac another chance on Blu-ray.  I want to like this movie, I really do.  The story certainly sounds frightening, but this film does not live up to its intimidating title.

Was Maniac scary?  Yes

Jami’s Rating:  3 out of 5 stars

Would I recommend this movie:  No.  Ok, maybe just to see what the hype is about… definitely not for owning or repeat viewings.

# 6 - ginger snaps

Ginger Snaps (2000)

Director:  John Fawcett

Actors:  Emily Perkins, Katharine Isabelle, Kris Lemche, and Mimi Rogers

Let me preface my review by saying that I am no Roger Ebert or Peter Travers.  I am not claiming to be a connoisseur of horror movies, nor am I suggesting that I am worthy of rating films for a renowned publication.   I’m simply a person who loves movies and who likes to write about “stuff”.  If you are not interested in scary movies or if you don’t like reading… then delete this immediately.

The movie is Ginger Snaps.  A very low-budget horror movie that certainly deserves it’s cult following.  It is Teen Wolf on steroids, with a bit of Carrie and Heathers thrown in for good measure.  But unlike Michael J Fox, Ginger (Katharine Isabelle) isn’t surfing on top of vans or scoring winning free throw in slow-motion.  She is bleeding all over the place, growing a tail, and eating the neighborhood dogs.  Ahh, High School.

Ginger and her sister Brigitte (Emily Perkins) are not your typical goth outcasts.  Or maybe they are?  I’m not the authority on self-deprecation, but here are the facts…  they dress in dark clothes, stage their own death scenes for class projects, and have planned their joint suicide by the age of 16.  In a nutshell, they are a mother’s nightmare.  Luckily their Mom (Mimi Rogers) is completely clueless to their antics and thinks they are just late bloomers, socially and physically.

So when Ginger finally gets “the curse”, accompanied by lower back pain and abdominal cramps, her mother is delighted and celebrates with a strawberry shortcake oozing with bright red jelly… how appropriate.  That evening, while out playing a prank on a nasty popular girl, Ginger is attacked and bitten by a ferocious beast under a full moon.  Seemingly, it wasn’t a coincidence since Brigitte says that she’s seen this before.  “Bears attack chicks on the rag”.  (The dark humor in this movie is spot-on, and delivered with ease by the teenage actresses).  Only this was no bear.

When the wounds begin to heal at an alarming rate, Brigitte knows something is up.  The sharp fangs, sprouting hair, and slithery tail seal the deal.  Ginger is turning into a werewolf and it’s only a matter of time before the transformation is complete.  It’s up to Brigitte and the school drug dealer (Kris Lemche) to get the hypodermic concoction of Monkshood to cure her condition.

The special effects are superb considering the budget and the screenplay is fantastic (the end was a bit slow, but otherwise solid throughout).  Ginger Snaps is cinematic proof that you don’t need millions of dollars or fancy CGI to make a great movie.  This film is so much fun and is a must-see for even amateur horror fans.  Scary enough to keep you on the edge of your seat, witty enough to keep you entertained, and modernly classic enough for all generations. 

Ginger Snaps uses lycanthropy as a clever metaphor for adolescence.  Ginger is growing hair in unusual places, bleeding heavily, and suddenly lusting after boys.  Is that her inner werewolf or the curse of puberty?  Maybe both.  This is the brilliance of Karen Walton’s script… it is deep enough for those looking for something to analyze.  But simple enough to enjoy with a bag of popcorn and no thought process.  On the surface, this is just a straight-up scary teenage monster movie.  You will it enjoy it from either angle, I promise you.

Was Ginger Snaps scary?  Yes

Jami’s Rating:  4 out of 5 stars

Would I recommend this movie:  Yes

# 7 - frailty

Frailty (2001)

Director:  Bill Paxton

Actors:  Matthew McConaughey, Bill Paxton, Powers Booth, Matt O’Leary, and Jeremy Sumpter

Let me preface my review by saying that I am no Roger Ebert or Peter Travers.  I am not claiming to be a connoisseur of horror movies, nor am I suggesting that I am worthy of rating films for a renowned publication.   I’m simply a person who loves movies and who likes to write about “stuff”.  If you are not interested in scary movies or if you don’t like reading… then delete this immediately.

The movie is Frailty, a low-budget psychological thriller with nuances of The Usual Suspects, The Shining, and even Boondock Saints.  Bill Paxton and Matthew McConaughey give great performances, while teenage actors Jeremy Sumpter and Matt O’Leary are extraordinary as the young brothers, Adam and Fenton Meiks.

It was a dark and stormy night… dun dun dun.  Fenton Meiks (McConaughey) walks into an FBI office and announces that he knows who the “God’s Hand Killer” is, the serial murderer responsible for a string of deaths in the area.  It is none other than his younger brother Adam, whom he claims just committed suicide.  When FBI agent Wesley Doyle (Powers Booth) questions this knowledge, Fenton begins to chronicle his unbelievably painful and gruesome childhood.

We learn that Fenton and Adam are the only sons of widowed father Bill Paxton (we will call him “Dad” since he is nameless in the film).  Dad wakes them one night with news that he was visited by an angel in his dreams.  This heavenly creature informed him that they (Dad and the boys) had been selected by God to destroy demons who were roaming the earth disguised as humans.  He’s not sure how the plan will work, but assures the boys that it is a secret and if they tell, “someone will die”.

Fenton hopes and prays that this is just a nightmare.  But when the boys see Dad carrying a wrapped body over his shoulder in the middle of the night, his deepest fears are realized.  The Lord had delivered the list of names, and this was merely the first demon.  Fenton believes that his Dad is a murderer, while Adam is certain that he is just acting on “God’s will”.  As the movie concludes we see that either way, it didn’t really matter what they accepted as the truth.  Their fate was sealed the night Dad told them of the angel’s visit.

I am hesitant to say much more about the plot, because the screenplay is fantastic and the twists and turns are well worth the wait.  The movie, which stars Paxton, was also his directorial debut and with a helping hand from writer Brent Hanley they have delivered a gem of a horror flick. 

The movie is extremely disturbing and truly scary.  The axe-murder scenes are off-camera, but that doesn’t diminish the impact they have on the film.  I would argue, in fact, that it just adds to the intensity.  And the relationship between the boys and their father is horrifying.  The religious perversion, the child abuse, and of course the grisly homicides are heavy stuff… even for an avid terror fan.  But if you’re looking for a genuine scare, you won’t be disappointed.

 

Was Frailty scary?  Yes

Jami’s Rating:  4 out of 5 stars

Would I recommend this movie:  Yes

# 8 - diary of the dead

Diary of the Dead (2008)

Director:  George A. Romero

Actors:  Joshua Close, Michelle Morgan, Scott Wentworth, and Shawn Roberts

Let me preface my review by saying that I am no Roger Ebert or Peter Travers.  I am not claiming to be a connoisseur of horror movies, nor am I suggesting that I am worthy of rating films for a renowned publication.   I’m simply a person who loves movies and who likes to write about “stuff”.  If you are not interested in scary movies or if you don’t like reading… then delete this immediately.

The movie is Diary of the Dead.  A zombie flick meets social commentary, shot Blair Witch-style.  George A. Romero is back with the 5th installment in his undead saga.  It all started in 1968 with Night of the Living Dead, followed by Dawn of the Dead (1978), Day of the Dead (1985), and Land of the Dead (2005).  He set the rules more than 40 years ago and we’ve been adhering to them ever since.

A group of college film students are shooting a low-budget mummy movie in the woods of Pennsylvania when they hear word that there is an apocalypse of the zombie variety.  They devise a survival plan which involves getting out of town as fast as possible… in what else but a rickety van.  Jason (Josh Close), the director, grabs his camera intent on capturing every moment of the chaos on film, much to the dismay of his girlfriend Debra (Michelle Morgan).  The rest of the cast and crew are along for the very. gory. ride.

Blood-thirsty corpses are slowly staggering with their heads tilted, intent on destroying the living and eating their insides for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.  It is up to Jason and his cronies to document every moment in hopes of containing the madness, or at least helping “everyone else” survive one more day. 

As the body count rises, however, Diary of the Dead just gets more fun.  A nearly deserted hospital, an Amish farm (sure to deliver some Shaun of the Dead-type laughs), an abandoned warehouse turned arsenal of capitalism, and Debra’s parents’ house (oh brother…) all provide the backdrop for this living dead romp.  There is no shortage of blood, guts, and gunshots to the head… staying true to the MO of the “Grandfather of Zombie”.  (Listen for voice cameos from some pretty infamous Romero fans… Wes Craven, Stephen King, Quentin Tarantino, Simon Pegg, and Guillermo del Toro.  It is no coincidence that some of the greatest names in horror/film worship the ground he walks on.  Tarantino once boasted that the “A” in George A. Romero stands for “A F-ing Genius”.)

The movie is scary indeed, but has some great moments of dark comedy and is also a deeply satisfying political spoof.  One talking head comments that the real “immigration problem” now is those crossing the border from living to dead.  And Jason’s efforts are just a microcosm of the Facebook/Twitter/Internet era.  The government and mainstream media effectively shield us from “the truth”… hence we are forced to follow bloggers, amateur journalists, and YouTube in order to maintain a sense of reality.

Diary of the Dead (all of Romero’s movies, actually) is a social satire with a good deal of condescension.  But is he wrong?  We are literally obsessed with instant updates and image consumption.  For this reason, Jason charges his camera constantly and uploads his footage to the internet whenever possible (sound familiar?)… Thank goodness though, because he just got 72,000 hits in 8 minutes.  Take that “evolution of dance” and “charlie bit my finger”.

Although he is 70 years old, Romero has his hand securely on the pulse of generation Y.  He knows and understands that “seeing is believing” for the teens and twenty-somethings.  “If it didn’t happen on camera, it didn’t happen… right?” 

Diary of the Dead is not just a horror movie, although it’s a goodie.  If you thought it was, take a second look and you will certainly find a deeper level beyond the eye-popping gore.  Romero brilliantly uses zombie metaphor for how dead we have become in our day-to-day lives. He begs us to ask… are “we” even worth saving?

Was Diary of the Dead scary?  Sure!

Jami’s Rating:  4 out of 5 stars

Would I recommend this movie:  Yes.

# 9 - hostel: part II

Hostel: Part II (2007)

Director:  Eli Roth

Actors:  Lauren German, Roger Bart, Heather Matarazzo, Bijou Phillips, Richard Burji, Vera Jordanova, Jay Hernandez, and Jordan Ladd

Let me preface my review by saying that I am no Roger Ebert or Peter Travers.  I am not claiming to be a connoisseur of horror movies, nor am I suggesting that I am worthy of rating films for a renowned publication.   I’m simply a person who loves movies and who likes to write about “stuff”.  If you are not interested in scary movies or if you don’t like reading… then delete this immediately.

The movie is Hostel: Part II.  It’s like the original Hostel, except its Part II.  I don’t really know what else to say.  If you liked the first installment, you’ll probably enjoy this movie.  But if you don’t like torture, nudity, um… embellished “amputation”, or blood baths (literally) then you might want to pass on this one.

The movie was written and directed by Eli Roth, affectionately known to some as a key member of the “Splat Pack”.  He, along with his comrades, is accredited with bringing back the R-rated uber-gore horror movie on a low budget.  But he is too good for that.  It’s time he get away from the Saw and Rob Zombie-esque films and move on to bigger and better things.  He was great as an actor in Inglorious Basterds and is a talented writer, as well as a passionate aficionado of the horror genre.  Why on earth is he wasting his time and expertise on such garbage?

I have to admit that I did like Hostel: Part II better than its predecessor, which isn’t saying much.  If you put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig… am I right political enthusiasts?  Roth added some meat to the story, no pun intended, but the plot was still the same.  Except instead of a few overzealous boys being brutally tormented, this time we have a trio of cliché girl characters. 

Lorna (the sensible one)(Heather Matarazzo), Whitney (the slutty one)(Bijou Phillips), and Beth (the nerdy one)(Lauren German) are studying abroad in Rome when they decide to pack up for a weekend getaway.  With the suggestion of a beautiful stranger (Vera Jordanova), they head to Slovakia for a mini-vaca.  Next thing you know, they are gagged, bound… and you guessed it, tortured.

The torturers are two wealthy American businessmen (Roger Bart and Richard Burgi) who have bid for the right to kill young travelers in any way they see fit.  They are given a simulated Chili’s buzzer (as in Michael Scott and baby-back, baby-back, baby-back) to alert them when their prey has been captured, i.e. checked-in to the hostel.  (Nice touch by Roth).  Time for dinner… grab your chain-saws and machetes.  Now who wants chips and salsa?   

I gave the movie 2 ½ stars because it was half good.  I liked the angle Roth took with bringing the torturers to center stage as opposed to solely focusing on the victims.  It’s a touch of sophistication that we didn’t see the first time around.  I did not, however, enjoy the lack of character development (I couldn’t have cared less whether they lived or died, I just wanted the movie to be over) or the vast amount of blood and guts.  I mean, really, how many beheaded noggins do you need in one movie? 

No doubt, there are going to be people who love this movie.  If you are into splatter horror/torture porn, then you will be thirsting for even more after the 93 minutes are up.  The last 15 minutes are intense and will certainly wet your palette for the next installment (in pre-production as we speak…why?!).  I personally do not find these types of films scary or particularly entertaining, but to each his own.

All in the all, Hostel: Part II is exactly what you would expect it to be:  Hostel, the original, in a new DVD case.  My main take-away?  Don’t use the c-word… ever.

Was Hostel: Part II scary?  No.

Jami’s Rating:  2 ½ out of 5 stars

Would I recommend this movie:  No.

#10 - no country for old men

No Country for Old Men (2007)

Directors:  Joel and Ethan Coen

Actors:  Tommy Lee Jones, Javier Bardem, Josh Brolin, Woody Harrelson, and Kelly Macdonald

Let me preface my review by saying that I am no Roger Ebert or Peter Travers.  I am not claiming to be a connoisseur of horror movies, nor am I suggesting that I am worthy of rating films for a renowned publication.   I’m simply a person who loves movies and who likes to write about “stuff”.  If you are not interested in scary movies or if you don’t like reading… then delete this immediately.

The movie is No Country for Old Men.  This is as good as it gets, folks.  Based on the 2005 novel by Cormac McCarthy, the film was written, directed, and edited by the infamous Coen brothers.  It is Fargo reinvented… add a touch of Hitchcock, a bit of the Wild Wild West , throw in some “good ole’ boys” and you’ve got yourself a Best Picture Oscar.  In fact, the film won four Academy Awards… Best Director(s), Best Adapted Screenplay, the well-deserved Best Supporting Actor (Bardem), and the aforementioned Best Picture.

Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) stumbles upon a stash (stash = truckload) of heroin, a pile of dead bodies, and $2 million cash during an ordinary hunting expedition.  (If I had a dollar for every time that happened… )  He impulsively takes the money and makes a run for it, not knowing who will come looking for him.  Unfortunately the “who” is a human Terminator that uses a pressurized stun gun to kill his victims.  Anton Chigurh, the most villainous villain ever, is played to perfection by Javier Bardem.  (Seriously, he deserves the word “villain” to be used twice for every once that his actual name is used.)  Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) is the aging Sherriff in town, hell-bent on tracking down both Chigurh and the money.  And Woody Harrelson is great, of course, as Carson Wells, the overconfident bounty hunter.

We are taken up and down the Tex/Mex border on a wild goose chase filled with murder and mayhem.  You really start to care for the characters along the way, making the film a powerhouse of empathy and fear.  After all, Moss only desires a better life for his family and Sherriff Bell just wants things to be like they used to be.  Aren’t these two issues that every man and woman can relate to?  And Chigurh is the best psychopath we’ve seen in years.  He is so ruthless that we love to hate him.  (In one instance, he picks up his boots and places them on the bed while talking on the phone, trying not to dirty his leather with the blood spilling towards his feet).  It’s so bad, that it’s oh so good.

The movie is a suspense/thriller, dark comedy, crime drama, character study, adventure classic.  It’s simply complex.  (And I know you can’t call a movie a “classic” unless it is one million years old, but trust me… this is one).  Joel and Ethan Coen aren’t going anywhere and this movie is here to stay as well.

No Country reads like a who’s who of A-list actors.  And I love them all.  Men.  In.  Black.  (high voice)… Men in Blaaack.  (Thanks Will)  “Down here it’s our time.  It’s our time down here.  That’s all over the second we ride up Troy’s bucket.”  Oh man, that’s some good stuff.  (Thanks Rudy)  And if you haven’t seen Zombieland, stop reading this immediately and get to the nearest Redbox.  It is awesome in every sense of the word, and includes the best cameo of the century.  And Javier Bardem… between his accent and his haircut, I don’t know which I love more.  Needless to say, these actors could easily carry a film through the box-office (i.e. Valentine’s Day and Ocean’s 11, 12, 13, 14, 28, and 72), but the fantastic screenplay and adaptation (so mad that I haven’t read this book!) escalate it to Oscar-status with ease.

This is a must see, no exceptions.  The acting is superb, the atmosphere is spot-on, and the villain is mesmerizing.    He values human life with a coin-toss, now that’s coldblooded.  So what’ll it be… heads or tails?

Was No Country for Old Men scary?  No.

Jami’s Rating:  5 out of 5 stars

Would I recommend this movie:  Yes.

#11 - hard candy

Hard Candy (2005)

Director:  David Slade

Actors:  Patrick Wilson and Ellen Page

Let me preface my review by saying that I am no Roger Ebert or Peter Travers.  I am not claiming to be a connoisseur of horror movies, nor am I suggesting that I am worthy of rating films for a renowned publication.   I’m simply a person who loves movies and who likes to write about “stuff”.  If you are not interested in scary movies or if you don’t like reading… then delete this immediately.

The movie is Hard Candy.  It’s like Dateline: to Catch a Predator meets Audition.  The “woman” is out for vengeance, but there’s no “sweet tea” or Chris Hansen to break up the exploitation.  We’re not quite sure who is telling the truth, or even what the truth is.  It so effectively blurs the line between “hero” and “villain” that you will be talking about this movie for hours afterward, possibly days.

Hayley Stark (Ellen Page) is merely 14, yet has the awareness and aptitude of a woman twice her age.  She has been chatting online with the much older, 32 year-old photographer Jeff Kohlver (Patrick Wilson) for a few weeks, and has finally agreed to meet him for the first time at a coffee house.  They have a brief rendezvous before continuing to Jeff’s home.  It’s all fun and games at first, with Hayley mixing the drinks and Jeff showing off his modern bachelor pad.  Things quickly turn for the worse, however, when Jeff is drugged and wakes up in a very compromising position…

The rest of the movie follows the two actors through a cat and mouse escapade of psychological warfare.  Hayley relentlessly plays mind (and torture) games with Jeff… accusing him of pedophilia, rape, and murder.  He begs for mercy on several occasions, but Hayley is out for revenge and compassion isn’t on her agenda.  The movie is disturbing on so many levels.  Most notably because the girl is only 14 (although Page was 17 when the film was shot) and because the “predator” is so charming, yet undeniably creepy at the same time.

I don’t want to spoil the movie for those who haven’t seen it, so I won’t give too many details.  Let’s just say that it definitely deserves its “R” rating.  Hard Candy contains zero nudity and only a few instances of graphic language, but the subject matter will be tough to swallow for certain audiences.  This film is not appropriate for teenagers or even some young adults.

I first saw Hard Candy when it was a new release on the Blockbuster shelves, sometime in 2006.  I will admit that at the time I didn’t really care for it.  Maybe I was too young to fully appreciate the “art” of the film or the strong performances by Wilson and Page.  Or maybe having kids - in 2008 & 2009 - just gave me a new dread for certain topics, which ultimately forces me to pay closer attention.  Whatever the case, I did enjoy Hard Candy the second time around.  I hate to use the term “enjoy” with such a controversial subject… so, I’ll rephrase that by saying that I really “respect” the film. 

The acting is brilliant, specifically Page (although Wilson undoubtedly holds his own too).  Her performance was Oscar-worthy and should have at least earned her a nomination.  I loved her and hated her at the same time.  (Who would have thought that Juno was such a BA?)  The film garnered some indie acknowledgments, but was ultimately snubbed by the Academy.  David Slade also deserves recognition, as this was his directorial debut in a feature film (he worked mostly with music videos before this point).  Slade later went on to direct this summer’s blockbuster, Twilight Saga: Eclipse.

Hard Candy is very effective and will surely be polarizing to its viewers.  It’s worth seeing if you can appreciate the acting, directing, and screenplay and not dwell on the uncomfortable premise.  The movie is hard to sit through, but is razor sharp in more ways than one.

Was Hard Candy scary?  No.  Disturbing… yes.

Jami’s Rating:  3 out of 5 stars

Would I recommend this movie:  Maybe

#12 - cloverfield

Cloverfield (2008)

Director:  Matt Reeves

Producer:  J.J. Abrams

Actors:  Michael Stahl-David, Mike Vogel, Odette Yustman, Lizzy Caplan, Jessica Lucas, and T.J. Miller

Let me preface my review by saying that I am no Roger Ebert or Peter Travers.  I am not claiming to be a connoisseur of horror movies, nor am I suggesting that I am worthy of rating films for a renowned publication.   I’m simply a person who loves movies and who likes to write about “stuff”.  If you are not interested in scary movies or if you don’t like reading… then delete this immediately.

The movie is Cloverfield.  The entire monster film is shot documentary style from a hand-held camera to get a first hand point-of-view.  The footage is found at a later date, and hence the movie is made.  I first saw this movie in 1999, the summer before my senior year of High School.  Wait, that was The Blair Witch Project… and wasn’t that a ghost story?  Ok, now I remember, this is the Japanese movie with the creature attacking the city.  Shoot, that’s not right either.  That one was Godzilla.  Ok, now I got it… Cloverfield.  The story of five young New Yorkers trying to survive the most unreal and traumatic event of their lives.  That is the pseudo 9/11 documentary made into a horror movie, right?  Sort of.

Let’s get the essentials out of the way.  Firstly, I am obsessed with The Blair Witch Project, so any reference to that movie is with love and adoration.  I think it is one of the most clever concepts ever put on film.  It is the epitome of the term “scary movie”. It was so ground-breaking at the time that people honestly did not think that it was “fake” when they were viewing it in the theatre.  Now that’s effective marketing.  That ship has sailed though.  And many movies have tried to ride its coattails… no one comes close. (Although Diary of the Dead and [REC] are both solid efforts)

Secondly, J.J. Abrams is a genius.  I’m not saying that to be facetious.  I truly do worship his work, most notably Lost.  I have devoted more hours to watching Lost than I would like to admit… each hour ending with me thinking, wtf just happened??

Thirdly, if you are one of those people who claim you get “motion sickness” by WATCHING a movie on a screen… you definitely should not see this and I have one word for you in the most sarcastic intonation I can muster… REALLY??  Really?

The movie starts… off… very… slow.  I mean, seriously.  How long does it take to introduce five boring twenty-somethings?  I can do it in one paragraph… watch.  Rob (Michael Stahl-David) and Beth (Odette Yustman) are the “should be couple”.  Jason (Mike Vogel) is Rob’s brother.  Lily (Jessica Lucas) is Jason’s girlfriend who is secretly crushing on Rob (that is my astute observation, not something discussed in the film.  But it’s obvious).  Hud (TJ Miller) is the “funny white guy” who can’t get a girlfriend.  And Marlena (Lizzy Caplan) is Lindsay Lohan’s new BFF in Mean Girls.  I’m sorry, but that’s ALL I could think of the entire movie.  In Cloverfield terms, Marlena is really just the object of Hud’s affection.

Jason and Lily throw Rob a surprise going away party because he is taking a job in Japan (here’s lookin’ at you Godzilla).  The soiree plays like a wedding reception in that Hud takes the video camera around to people and asks them to send farewell wishes to Rob.  Just when I think I can’t stand another moment of this nonsense, the city is attacked by an unknown behemoth and the movie finally starts… and it starts fast.  The action is non-stop for the next hour and it’s pretty scary in several instances.  The actual running time is 84 minutes, but I’m going to pretend it is only 64 minutes long… because I’m writing J.J. Abrams a letter and requesting those 20 opening minutes added back to the end of my life.  He is God, right?

The rest of the movie details Rob’s Superman plan to rescue Beth from the highest building in the universe, which happens to be toppled at a 45 degree angle against the next tallest building in the universe, all while avoiding the creature and the disgusting mini creatures that fall from him/her/it like parasitic lice.  Of course Beth is on the other side of town, so their adventure is a long and audacious one.  Stay tuned for the subway scene… certainly the best of the movie and the reason that it made this list.

I found Cloverfield very entertaining, in a District 9/King Kong kind of way.  The special effects are great, and the creature is pretty convincing.  But I didn’t find the movie extraordinarily scary, and I personally wouldn’t classify it as a horror movie, but rather a sci-fi thriller. 

 The monster is scariest when you only see small glimpses from afar.  (Paying homage to the whole Jaws concept that less is more.)  There is just enough to scare you, but little enough to make your imagination run wild with what the creature might actually look like up close.  Abrams eventually reveals the “thing” in all its glory, and the special effects are good enough to keep you satisfied. 

I will admit that the POV camera work is a nice touch, albeit generic and shaky (sorry again for those who get “motion-sickness” without actually moving… really?).  It makes the audience feel like they are truly in the action instead of just looking down from a helicopter watching people scatter.  Once more, the hand-held doesn’t have the impact it did in The Blair Witch Project, but effective nonetheless. 

What’s amazing is that the camera battery lasted that long (Hud should get in business with Cannon) and what’s even more impressive is that Hud cared more about us, the audience, than he did about himself.  Instead of dropping the camera and running for his life because a giant creature was chopping off the Statue of Liberty’s head, toppling buildings with one fell swoop, and eating people as appetizers, Hud had the wherewithal to  keep the footage rolling for posterity.  Bravo Hud! 

Was Cloverfield scary?  At times, Yes.

Jami’s Rating:  3 out of 5 stars

Would I recommend this movie:  Yes.  It was entertaining.