You're Next: 27 of 31 Horror Movies I've Never Seen

Home invasions movies stormed the cinema for a brief spell.  It seemed the more explicit the torture the more money the films could make.  The problem is that they were all basically the same movie.  Family, or couple, is tormented by masked and unknown assailants for no apparent reason other than the glee of killing and chaos and have to fight tooth and nail to survive in their own home.  Sound familiar?  So what happens when you turn that prospect upside down and make one of the survivors, a survival expert? You get, You're Next.

The film is about a delightfully screwed up rich family gathering at a large estate somewhere in some rural area to celebrate the Mother and Father's 35th Anniversary.  The first 20 minutes gets the exposition out of the way, introducing the tension between siblings, the mother's life of medication, as well as the wives/girlfriends/boyfriends of the siblings.  Then in the midst of a fight at dinner Tariq (Ti West), boyfriend of sister Aimee (Amy Seimetz), notices something out the window, goes to investigate and gets a cross bolt in the head.  As you may guess all hell breaks loose from there and the rest of the film is about survival as family members are picked off left and right by three men clad in black tactical gear and creepy animal masks.

The delightful twist in this story is that middle child Crispian's (AJ Bowen) girlfriend Erin, played by Sharni Vinson seems to have a knack for what to do in a crisis situation, which we learn later has to do with her being raised on a survivalist commune by her dad until she was 15, in the Australian outback.  Bad luck for the killers, who she seems to thwart by every, and I mean EVERY, means necessary, including a meat tenderizing mallet, a blender, screw driver, axe... You get where I'm going with there.  There's a lot of carnage in this movie and the pacing is damn near perfect.

I'm not generally a fan of movies like this.  I hated The Strangers and most of the films that came out in that era.  You're Next, however, has a very dark sense of humor that I seemed to get.  Who doesn't have that family member that drives you up the wall so much that you almost wish they would get stabbed a dozen times by various screwdrivers and knives?  While certain aspects of the movie were a bit cheesy and a bit unbelievable, it was refreshing to see three masked killers, who look like cinematic badasses, continuously get set back by a tough as nails Australian girl.

4 out of 5 skulls.

[REC]3 - Genesis: 26 of 31 Horror Movies I've Never Seen

This review is probably going to be my briefest one yet.  I'm starting to firmly believe that there is the third movie of any given trilogy.  If the second one is good, the third almost always fails.   This has not been true in the case of Star Wars (the original trilogy that is) and Indiana Jones (the third is actually better than the second in my opinion and the fourth suffers the curse) whereas, in the Alien franchise, the third, while not terrible, was badly received and it's production plagued by problems due to the producers, the second and third Jurassic Park movies were pretty damn terrible when compared to the first (the third being utterly ridiculous in a bad way), and almost every slasher franchise's third film has been too awful to even be worth writing about.  With all that said, [REC]3 - Genesis can only be described as garbage.

The film takes place at the wedding of Koldo and Clara, the events of the prior films are not mentioned whatsoever, and we begin with found footage style shooting by family members at the wedding videographer.  One of the groom's Uncles, Victor,  has a bandage on his hand from a dog bite at the clinic he worked at, giving us a pretty clear idea of who is going to be patient zero in this little outbreak scenario.  Sure enough, as the wedding goes on, Victor show more symptoms until a balcony falling incident followed by a bite, followed by more infected people and there goes the wedding.

Where this film changes is that the "found footage" style is abandoned in favor of the traditional narrative style of film making with a symbolic destruction of the videographer's camera before the opening title card.  Sadly, this ends up making the film worse for wear.  The actors all become cliche's, the naturalism which enhances the chaotic terror of the opening goes out the window, and the story then becomes about the bride and groom finding each other against all odds.  People die, there's a kinda cool scene with a chainsaw, and there's blood everywhere, but ultimately that doesn't save this film from the curse.

The main area, where ANY film suffers is the writing, and this film suffers from abysmally poor writing.  This film is directed by one half of the directing team (and one third of the writing team), Paco Plaza, of the first two films and if I had to guess, his partner, Juame Balaguero probably didn't like the direction Plaza took this film because Plaza has zero involvement on the upcoming [REC] 4 - Apocalypse.  I found myself rolling my eyes again and again at the tritely pathetic direction the story took, feeling more like a collection of scenes with no real character development, and no conflict other than the possession zombies.  All in all, avoid this one.  The fourth film picks up where the second one left off (according to the synopsis on imdb) so here's hoping that film makes up for it.  What an awful film.

1 out of 5 skulls.

[REC]2: 25 of 31 Horror Movies I've Never Seen

By now, if you've read any of these little reviews, you should realize that I'm not terribly fond of the "found footage" genre of film making.  Generally, I find it to be a cheap way of telling a story that capitalizes on even cheaper thrillers and sudden jump cut editing.  I realize that there is a certain freedom that it allows to the filmmaker, to use said jump cuts for example, but something about that shaky camera style just does not do it for me.  However, every so often I see one of these films that either reaffirms my distaste, or surprises me in a good way.  Back in 2007, that film was Spanish made [REC], remade in America as the utterly forgettable Quarantine.  I enjoyed [REC] quite a bit and found it to be a very refreshing spin on the classic infection story.  Somehow, though, the sequels evaded me and when Paranormal Activity came out I decided I was completely done with "found footage" horror movies.  Luckily, a friend of mine refreshed the idea of [REC] and convinced me to take the time to watch the 2009 sequel [REC]2 which I finally, not so begrudgingly, have.

[REC]2 not only picks up on the tail of [REC] but shifts the genre in the most awesome way possible.  In the first film we are lead to believe that it is merely some crazy mutation of rabies that causes the outbreak of infected violent people in the apartment complex.  In the second film, we join an elite squad of SWAT type men who go into the building with a Doctor from the National Health Department.  We discover, after the first encounter with an infection victim, that things are not as they seem.  The Doctor is a Priest from the Vatican and the infection is in fact a mass Demonic Possession.  From there it's all about survival and finding the blood from Teresa Madeiros (the original possession victim) to attempt to synthesize an antidote.

WTF?  So, not only is this film a "zombie like" infection movie, it's also about demons.  Well who didn't invite me?  The film is like a modern, found footage, Demons, which to some may salt it's credibility as a horror film, but for me piques my interest intensely.  I have a soft spot for Euro Demon movies and man does this one deliver.  Blood vomiting, voice changing, levitation, frighteningly fast moments of violent frenzy; [REC]2 delivers and delivers until at the incredibly twisted climax you realize "There has got to be a third one of these coming soon."

The actors playing the squad are riff off of each other quite well and the opening scene in the van reminded me a little bit of the helicopter scene in Predator.  They do a good job of creating that sense of camaraderie that comes with working in a tight knit group.  The Doctor/Priest, played with an obsessive intensity by Jonathan D. Mellor, provides that motivation that drives the story towards it's incredibly edited (eat your heart out Paranormal Activity) and incredibly creepy ending.

Since, no movie seems to escape me unscathed, I do have to say that there are a few moments that are utterly cheese balled and pulled me out of the movie.  Luckily, the film still has so much going for it that it sucked me back in almost as fast as it took me out or this would have been a much more negative review and since I've already mentioned that I find the ending twisted, creepy, and incredibly edited, AKA really dang good, I guess it's time to watch the third one and see where it goes from there.

4 out of 5 skulls.

Discopath: 24 of 31 Horror Movies I've Never Seen

If you've been reading any of my reviews in the past you'll know that I'm a hopeless fan of the Giallo genre.  That sleazy exploitation of sex and death, stylized by music and camera genre.  It appears I'm not alone in this strange attraction as there have been a number of films in the recent years that pay loving homage to it.  Between Berberian Sound Studio, The Strange Color of Your Body's Tears, and The Editor it seems that us Giallo fanatics are coming out of hiding.  Unfortunately, like many Giallo's from the 70s and 80s, they're not all good and 2013's Discopath is a prime example of one of the unfortunate lesser films of the genre.

Set in New York and Montreal, the film follows a twisted killer named Duane Lewis, played by newcomer Jeremie Earp-Lavergne, who suffers from psychotic breaks at the sound of music.  Set in the 70s while Disco is the rage, Duane is brought by a girl to a discotheque where he loses his mind, never to regain his sanity.  While Earp-Lavergne is quite good at making the stereotypical psycho face, his performance in this piece was blandly straightforward as "the bad guy."  Don't get me started on the "cops" of the story.  It's like writer/director Renaud Gauthier just couldn't be bothered to do any actual research, writing the characters completely off of other Giallo films.  This would work if it were intentionally funny, but the actors didn't seem to be in on the joke, if there was one intended in the first place.

Most Giallo's don't let you know who the villain is until the end, in an Agatha Christie whodunit way, but there have been a few notable exceptions like Hatchet for the Honeymoon and The Stendhal Syndrome.  With that the experience then becomes about how is the killer going to get caught?  The audience already knows who he is, but the characters do not necessarily which adds to the tension.  At least, it's supposed to if done properly, but Discopath unfortunately fails at this.  The key problem of the film is that the characters are all flat and there is no real focus to them.  This is an issue in most lesser Giallo's, the focus becomes all about the camera style, lighting, music, and the kill sequences and the story and acting takes a tremendous back seat.

The film is indeed shot quite well and the lighting is quite superb, especially in the discotheque club sequences.  The music is a plethora of disco and synth, including an often used disco rendition of Flight of the Bumblebee.  The gore is indeed inventive, I've never thought of someone sticking a body full of broken LPs and they certainly don't scrimp on the blood.  The problem, of course, is that just focusing on these details does not the save the movie from bad acting and bad writing.  Were it not for the incredible embellishment to all the other details I'd probably have just turned it off and called it a loss, but I stuck through it regardless.  This is another one that belongs in the MST3K category.  Watch it with friends, an ample amount of alcohol, and take the piss out of it.

2 out of 5 skulls.

Jug Face: 23 of 31 Horror Movies I've Never Seen

I've never quite understood "the South."  I mean, I've learned about the Civil War, as most children do growing up in the USA, and I've certainly been to my fair share of Southern States, but there is something about the culture that I am completely disconnected from.  It's a weird divide that you most frequently find in arguments where ideology is concerned.  I will say, though, that many a great writer has come from the South.  William Faulkner, Harper Lee, John Grisham, Truman Capote, Anne Rice, Tom Wolfe; all come to mind.  It's that strange Gothic quality that if you transposed it to Europe, you could just change the weather and find some serious similarities.  How does that transpose to film?  Well, Jug Face might be a good example of just that transposition.

Set in a backwater in a nameless southern region where the light has a beautiful golden hue to it, Jug Face tells the story of a strange group of people living pin the woods and worshiping a pit.  From the opening credits we learn that in an older time, the ancestors of these people were claimed by The Pox until a mysterious Pit washed them clean of disease in exchange for human sacrifice (the first of which just so happened to be a priest).  From then on the folk carried on the tradition.  A seer throws clay jugs with the faces that the Pit requires to continue living unabated.  Unfortunately, avoiding sacrifice has it's consequences, and Ada (played with a tremendous energy by Lauren Ashley Carter) discovers that not only is she the next Jug Face, but that her unborn child (conceived out of incest with her brother) is also desired by the pit.  Driven by the need to protect her unborn, Ada hides the Jugs and the Pit starts killing people with impunity.

The story is told much like a piece of Gothic Southern fiction and almost feels like it would have worked better as a novella or short story.  What the film does very well is in it's horrific take on the what goes on in those rural backwoods.  Anyone who lives in more urban settings has had those moments where you see "those people from out there."  It's true, there is a curious fascination that comes with getting a glimpse of a culture you don't understand.  It's even mimicked at one point in the film where a character says "We don't know what crazy things those people are up to."  Perhaps, worshiping a human eating pit is a little bit far, but it's that twisted macabre that elevates the story above most other low budget horror films.

The film is also quite inventive with it's use of light and point of view.  We never see exactly what comes out of the pit, since we are only allowed to see through it's eyes, but we know that whatever it is comes from deep in the Earth and really likes to eviscerate whoever it comes across.  The pit is almost constantly full of blood throughout the movie, leaving a very unsettling bright red to the dark brown clay like dirt in which it rests.

The film has a sort of anti-climax that makes me wonder what exactly was the point, or if there even is a point.  This is probably the weakest thing about the film, as I was left feeling that basically there is no hope for these people but to continue killing their own at the whims of a creepy tree root monster in a bloody watery pit.  I suppose one can argue that it's a morality tale about accepting the burden of sacrifice/martyrdom, but at the end of the day, I wanted to see that monster get his.  Fortunately, the film is not too long, has some incredible production design and stand up performances from the supporting cast to make due for the aforementioned weak points.  Definitely worth a watch, but probably not much repeat value.  In all honesty I don't think I'll ever be able to look at deep rural folks the same way ever again.

3 out of 5 skulls.

House on Haunted Hill: 22 of 31 Horror Movies I've Never Seen

Since I'm sure some of my friends who read this are going to wanna smack me across the back of the head, let's just get it out of the way right now.  I've never seen, to my knowledge, a William Castle film.   It's true.  In fact, outside of most of the universal monster movies and few films from the 70s most of the 50s to 60s horror has somehow evaded me.  Usually it's because I'm not Mr. Horror Movie Guy, despite my knowledge and love for certain genres and eras of horror film.  I simply lack that ability to watch everything just to watch it.  Some call it taste, I just shrug.  Either way, I finally watched the original House on Haunted Hill.

The story is introduced at the beginning of the film.  A eccentric millionaire and his wife invite 7 strangers to spend a night in a supposed haunted house for the sum of $10,000 each.  The caveat, of course, is that the house is supposedly haunted by 7 ghosts of people who died horribly violent deaths and crave to take new souls into their realm.  The eccentric millionaire Frederick Loren is played by the immeasurable Vincent Price who keeps you wondering about his motivation throughout the film.

The film is one of those rare instances of a B-Movie that could easily compete with the A's.  Yes, it has a few cheesy bits and pieces here, but Castle does an excellent job of keeping the audience on it's toes until the grand reveal, which I'll be honest when I say I didn't quite see coming.  I've never seen the remake either so at least I wasn't at that weird viewing disadvantage.  Carolyn Craig plays Norah Manning, a typist for Loren's company and also the face of fear for the audience, though the why is part of the reveal which I am not about to spoil.

Castle utilizes editing and music for what are now considered classic jump scares much like the kinds that flood most films of today.  The brilliance of Castle is in the mood and setting.  He creates an atmosphere where you start to wonder, in context of the events, what is real and what is manipulation.  Couple that with some downright creepy looking actors and moments and you've got some nice classic horror.  Yes there is one moment that falls for the typical, slow moving thing towards screaming woman who also slowly backs away rather than runs, but that's to be expected from this era of film making.  People weren't ready for the hyper realism that dominates much of modern movie making.

The score was also quite good for what was obviously a low budget and the setting equally creepy.  The exterior of the set is the famed Ennis House (used in a plethora of films including The Day Of The Locust and Blade Runner) while the interior is a film set with a Gothic vibe.  All these elements come together and cement the film's place as a classic in horror history.  Not perfect, but certainly enjoyable and a must see for fans of the classics.

4 out of 5 skulls.

Horns: 21 of 31 Horror Movies I Have Never Seen

Daniel Radcliffe will probably be fighting the legacy of Harry Potter for most of his life.  He was practically handed a career via the franchise and while many of the other child actor who lasted with it have attempted to branch out, he may also be the only one who legitimately has a real knack for this acting thing.  If you need some serious proof, go to the movie theater and buy a ticket to Horns, the recent directorial effort of french extreme maestro Alexandre Aja.

Based on a novel by Stephen King's son, Joe Hill, the film is about Ig Perrish who has been accused of murdering his girlfriend Merrin.  Set in the rural North, everyone in this otherwise small and sleepy town is convinced that Ig is guilty.  One day after a particularly drunken night, Ig wakes up with two horns growing from his temples and a strange supernatural ability to peer into the deepest recesses of other people's memories.  He then sets out to use this new found power to find out who really killed Merrin.

While I have not read the book, it is described to be a mixed bag of fantasy, crime thriller, and Gothic horror fiction, which the film certainly lives up to.  While for the most part, it's lighter than say High Tension or The Hills Have Eyes (remake) the theme and vernacular of the story is very much Aja doing what he's good at.  The horns give Ig this window into the deepest darkest side of all the townspeople, exposing them for what they really are.  Having grown up in a small rural town I really appreciated how Aja captured and portrayed that slimy dark muck underneath the otherwise beautiful landscape.  It's a darkness that once you've seen it in the flesh, it can never be ignored.

Another wonderful aspect of this film was it's ability to blend practical (i.e. real) effects with CGI (computer generated images) to aide some of the more fantastic elements of the story with a realistic texture and hue.  So often films either go one way or the other and unless you have a LOT of money it's damn near impossible to achieve practical effects that will stun the audience.  On the flip side, when all of the effects are achieved with computers it's rare that they are blended well enough to feel believable in the slightest.  I know that part of watching Horror films is about suspending one's disbelief, but practical effects offer a layer of realism that CGI just doesn't meet.  For example, part of the lasting adoration for John Carpenter's The Thing are the practical creature and makeup effects which still terrify and disturb audiences to this day.

Back to Radcliffe.  Radcliffe runs the gamete of emotional display in this film, but it he does it a way that is fairly believable.  He rarely hams it up for the camera and in fact you get the feeling that he is so immersed into the character of Ig that he forgets about the camera altogether.  You get to seem him really embracing that little bit of darkness that's in everyone, and he didn't let his accent slip once; believe me that's important.  It also helps that he had a great supporting cast.  Juno Temple's Merrin glows onscreen in the flash back sequences, and Joe Anderson's portrayal as Terry, Ig's brilliant trumpet playing, drug addled, selfish older brother is a perfect foil.  There are also great cameo's from Heather Graham and David Morse among others.

My only real complaint about the film is that I felt it could have pushed the tone harder.  I got the sense that this was an effort of restraint from either Aja or the studio in order to make a more accessible film.  Humor is quite present in the film, which is good, otherwise the film would've felt pretentious.  Still, I have hardly anything really bad to say about it, only that I wanted a little bit more from it than it delivered.  All in all, an enjoyable film with some solid acting, and a unique story shot in a gorgeously dark location.  Weirdly enough, you can rent or buy it in HD streaming from Amazon, but I'd recommend checking it out in theaters.

4 out of 5 skulls.