Deliver Us From Evil – 5

Director – Scott Derrickson

Cast – Eric Bana, Édgar Ramírez, Olivia Munn, Chris Coy, Dorian Missick, Sean Harris, Joel McHale, Mike Houston, Lulu Wilson, Olivia Horton, Scott Johnsen

Release Year – 2014

Reviewed by John of the Dead

This is a film that had me excited for multiple reasons. It is the newest film from Scott Derrickson, who is a director with a resume I enjoy. He broke onto the scene with the mediocre Hellraiser: Inferno, but since then he has given us The Exorcism of Emily Rose and Sinister, both supernatural films that I highly enjoyed. I am also a fan of lead actor Eric Bana, and this marks the first horror film of his career. Throw in the semi-true supernatural storyline and you have my devout attention, so going into this film I really hoped to enjoy it. From the get-go I began to realize that the experience I expected was not going to happen, and when the story finally achieved greatness it was too little, too late.

Detective Sarchie has a knack for finding unusual cases, and the troubled detective’s “radar” brings him face to face with a series of disturbing crimes committed by a heinous killer. Teaming with an unconventional priest schooled in the rituals of exorcism, Sarchie battles the frightening demonic possessions terrorizing his city where no one, not even his family and partner, are safe.

Scott Derrickson and fellow Emily Rose co-writer Paul Harris Boardman produced this screenplay from Ralph Sarchie’s tell-all book, and while I have yet to read Sarchie’s take on the matter I hope it is more interesting than what these writers delivered. The first act is blander than it should be, starting off with a hint of the evil’s Middle Eastern origin and concluding with the first crime associated with those possessed by it. I could not believe how uneven these scenes felt, and I blame both writing and directing execution for failing to secure the viewer. The second act fares better but unfortunately produces more unanswered questions than I would like to deal with. I enjoy a film that leaves a few rocks unturned so that the viewer is allowed to debate amongst him/herself or friends, but that was not the case here. Instead, multiple horrific elements are thrown in here and there but never used to full potential. Because they must each share runtime they remain undeveloped and instead become more of an annoyance than an engaging development to the conflict. Finally, when the third act hits the horror manifests to supreme levels and I was left smiling for once. I was glad to see a strong finish to a film that started poor but gradually got better, but as I mentioned earlier, “too little, too late”. Character-wise I was disappointed in how Det. Sarchie was portrayed. We see him suffer the usual conflicts associated with a New York City officer, which basically means we see him suffer the usual CLICHES. He neglects his family, turns to alcohol as a solution (moderately, though), and of course keeps this major threat to the public pretty much to himself and a few confidants. I get that he needs conflict at home to help develop his character, but the method of doing so was as cliché as it gets and ultimately a waste of a good actor. The priest, Father Mendoza, was used with much better results. His unconventional mannerisms and internal demons were interesting and made you actually care for the guy, plus his actions during the final act stole the show. I am not sure if this was the case in “real life”, but the writers gave us a mediocre lead with a good supporting cast. The horrror they wrote into the film was pretty good though, and we were given plenty of it. Even though I did not particularly like the film I was glad to see lots of horror to keep me going until the end credits relieved me. We see plenty of kills, decent gore, and lots of spooks that were effective in a movie theater with surround sound. The supernatural element could have been furthered and is one of those undeveloped elements I mentioned earlier, leaving out untold potential that could have resulted in supreme levels of horror.

Derrickson’s direction was hit and miss, which was the biggest surprise for me. He delivered solid efforts with Sinister and The Exorcism of Emily Rose, so naturally I figured he would bring the goods once again for Deliver Us From Evil. From the get-go he sets good atmosphere – dark and gloomy, which is just the way I like it. The tension strikes early and his execution is engaging, giving us a full frontal point of view to the carnage. When the horror hit he would play heavily on the senses, especially sound. There are some spooky nighttime scenes that show nothing but still brought chills about the movie theater thanks to the spooking scratching noises we would hear. When the final act hits and the major exorcism begins we are shown just how great Derrickson can be. His execution was incredible and once again he brought amazing sound with him to seal the deal. I wish I could say that the rest of the film was this good, but his execution came with faults as well. The acting performances from our protagonists were pretty mediocre, with the best performances coming from the possessed antagonists. Sean Harris (Creep, Isolation, Prometheus) stole the show as Santino, the lead antagonist who is the root of the conflict in the film.  Harris seems to have a knack for portraying creepy characters, as he also portrayed the Creep in Michael Smith’s 2004 effort, Creep.  I enjoy a good antagonist, but it’s usually nice if the protagonist can hold his/her own as well but sadly they were not written in that manner. The worst is yet to come though. There were scenes in the film that I found completely unfathomable, and that is because they were so bad I could not believe my eyes. I don’t want to provide spoilers, so all I can say is that these scenes involve horrible sound effects added to some of the “scare” scenes. I would expect such antics from a crappy low budget piece from a novice director, but to see such nonsense on the big screen…unfathomable.

Overall, Deliver Us From Evil is a film I wanted to like, but poor writing and directing execution made that impossible. The story is downright stupid at times, as is the execution, and while the horror eventually manifested into something great…it was too little, too late. I promise I’m going to stop saying that too.

Rating: 5/10

The Town That Dreaded Sundown – 7

Director – Charles B. Pierce

Cast – Ben Johnson, Andrew Prine, Dawn Wells, Jimmy Clem, Jim Citty, Charles B. Pierce, Robert Aquino, Cindy Butler, Christine Ellsworth, Earl E. Smith, Bud Davis, Vern Stierman(narrator)

Release Year – 1976

Reviewed by John of the Dead

The Town That Dreaded Sundown remains one of the most under-appreciated horror films of all time. Most who know of it know that it is great, so it is not necessarily underrated, but not enough horror fans have viewed this atmospheric mid-70s slasher despite the truly haunting experience it delivers. Based on a true story that took place in Texarkana back in 1946, The Town That Dreaded Sundown is a film that will live on for the rest of time as both a great slasher film predating Halloween and Friday the 13th, and one of the creepiest films to never receive the attention it deserves.

Texarkana, a duo town bordering Texas and Arkansas, is under siege by a hooded killer deemed the “Phantom Killer”, terrorizing the townsfolk who venture out at night. When Texas Ranger J.D. Morales is brought in to bag the killer, dead or alive, the town sees promise in authorities apprehending this savage killer, but they have no idea the craft this killer possesses.

Aside from having one of the coolest titles in the genre, The Town That Dreaded Sundown is a perfect example of the awesomeness that was (and still is) 70s horror. Shown in pseudo-documentary fashion via a narrator, this is basically The Lengend of Boggy Creek(both by the same director) for the slasher sub-genre, which has me licking my lips every time I view this piece.

While based on true events, the storyline is tight and wastes little time on anything but horror that is made even creepier by this film actually being one of the most factually correct of the numerous “based on true events”/”inspired by true events” films we find infesting the genre. This was definitely not the first time we were given a masked slasher (Blood and Black Lace did it 12 years prior), but this was the first time I had seen the usage of a sack over someone’s head, which is just about as eerie as it gets. The storyline is a very simple one that focuses on the killer’s torment of the townsfolk and their social reactions to his carnage, forcing them to take up arms and brace themselves on the possibility that they could be the next victim. This left the tension high throughout the film and the numerous sequences involving the Phantom Killer (both killing and non-killing) plus the eventual addition of a solid-mannered Texas Ranger kept things interesting and the pacing tight. Surprisingly enough, there was a fair comedic element thrown into this piece, mostly at the hands of a doofus sheriff’s deputy, showing that despite the serious nature there is a bit of intentional cheesiness involved in this piece, although the rest of the cheese provided is of the favorable unintentional variety.

Director Charles B. Pierce(RIP – 2010), who also gave us The Legend of Boggy Creek and The Evictors, did an awesome job delivering this film to us, with loads of creepy atmosphere and superb execution of the horror. The sets used were amazing, giving us a quiet town surrounded by creepy wooded areas that provided the perfect hiding spots for our killer to utilize in his torment of the town. This also made for quick crafty getaways for him to employ in this cat and mouse game with the wayward authorities who were also a step behind him. Pierce’s execution of this killer was simple yet amazing, giving us a truly haunting antagonist thanks to his attire (especially the sack) and his mannerisms, expertly delivered by actor and hall of fame stuntman Bud Davis. It takes a lot for an actor to give us a truly creepy performance for a non-speaking character, and he did so with awesome results. The look in the Phantom Killer’s eyes as he hacked and slashed away at his victims was truly epic and will remain engrained in my memory as long as I live – and THAT is a sign of a truly superb horror film. While most of the kill sequences were simple they were highly effective in delivering good horror ot the viewer, but do not underestimate the Phantom Killer, Charles B. Pierce, or writer Earl E. Smith as we are given the coolest kill involving a trombone that I have ever seen – just another reason I will forever remember this awesome piece of horror history.

Overall, The Town That Dreaded Sundown is a superb 70s slasher film that gives us one of the first portrayals of a masked killer stalking the woods of a quiet town and wreaking havoc on those unfortunate enough to cross his path. One of the few horror films to actually be based on real events, the level of creepiness to this film is far above average, and director Charles B. Pierce achieves the same atmospheric success that he often attained during his career. The killer is fantastic and superbly executed, making for one of the most enjoyable slasher experiences I have ever come across.

Rating: 7/10

The Amityville Horror (2005 remake) – 6

Director – Andrew Douglas

Cast – Ryan Reynolds, Melissa George, Jesse James, Jimmy Bennett, Chloe Moretz, Rachel Nichols, Philip Baker Hall, Isabel Conner, Brendan Donaldson

Release Year – 2005

Reviewed by John of the Dead

I remember working at a local movie theater when this remake came out and thinking to myself “what a waste of time and money”, refusing to give this film a watch due to my distaste for money-grabbing horror remakes at the time. While I still somewhat feel that way, I decided it was about time that I give this flick a watch in its entirety (I saw snippets here and there while working at the theater) so that I could settle a personal dilemma over whether or not this film outdoes the original – which I feel is an mostly-positive yet overrated film whose sequel, Amityville II: The Possession, is much better. This remake oddly suffers some of the same faults as the original does, but thanks to some unique elements thrown in that result in a somewhat original take on the original storyline and positive direction from Andrew Douglas this effort was not nearly as bad as I expected, and made for a flawed but decent almost-positive watch.

When George(Ryan Reynolds; Blade: Trinity, Buried) and Kathy(Melissa George; Triangle, 30 Days of Night, Turistas, Mulholland Drive, Dark City) Lutz come across a large and beautiful lakeside home with a low price-tag they rejoice at the thought of the home soon becoming theirs, and take a terrible risk when they learn of the home’s dark past yet take the plunge in buying the home anyway. Soon after moving in the Lutz family experiences odd occurrences going on around the home, and they soon learn that the past never stays buried in the Amityville house.

I really cannot tell you with absolute certainty which film is better, this one or the original. Most likely it is the original as they both receive the same rating from me but the original has achieved classic status whereas this remake is just…a remake, despite the positives it delivers that the original failed to give us. If the original IS better, then it is only by a slight margin. Nonetheless, the original was not an original idea, but an adaptation of Jay Anson’s novel, so does it really matter?

The story follows the same overall plot from the original film, which works as an enjoyable one for me because I love films that involve people moving into a new home. Why? Because you never really know what went on in the home, and that leaves the new tenants open to whatever supernatural/physical forces still residing in the dwelling. Our characters are mostly positive, with each providing their own movement to the piece, although some obviously more than others. I was glad to see that we were given some additional elements not seen in the original piece, mostly regarding the background behind the heinous events that took place years before the Lutz family moved in. In addition to that, this is where the only actual kills occur in the film, with most of them occurring off-screen and sadly never really delivering the horror the storyline could have delivered. Much of the dislike regarding the original film is that it is quite boring, but thanks to Scott Kosar’s brisk moving screenplay this film did not suffer the same fault. For example: the original film runs 117 minutes, this one runs 85 minutes and gives us more going on than the original did with almost 40 more minutes. Sadly, this screenplay does come with quite a few faults, and to make matters worse they came during the final act of the film. I was enjoying the first two acts of this piece and was leaning towards a 7-rating at the close of the second act, but after the typical Hollywood dialogue and stupid scenes we were given in the third act this film was lowered to the borderline-positive level the original resulted in – a big loss in potential.

First time feature-film director Andrew Douglas did a great job delivering this film to us, employing awesome atmosphere provided by perfect sets from the dark and gloomy home, very much reminiscent of the subject matter at hand. His camerawork is positive and he does a fairly good job at providing the horror at times, although I cared little for the CGI horror scenes as they were just typical Hollywood and not very scary. Now the “closet” scene was great, and definitely the highest selling point the film had to offer. Surprisingly enough there was a decent amount of gore thrown into the film, although most of it came via shy execution that left most of the kill sequences sadly off-screen. For a PG-13 effort they sure left out a lot of the horror that they could have gotten away with in this underwhelming experience.

Overall, The Amityville Horror remake is a decent watch that brings some positives not seen in the original piece, but still suffers the same overall outcome of the original despite coming in at a brisker pace and offering more horror – a sad case of lost potential. The direction is positive in giving us good atmosphere in well-shot fashion, so watching this film will not be painful, just unfulfilling.

Rating: 6/10

Fire in the Sky – 8

Director – Robert Lieberman

Cast – Robert Patrick, D.B. Sweeney, Craig Sheffer, Peter Berg, Henry Thomas, Bradley Gregg, Noble Willingham, Kathleen Wilhoite, James Garner, Georgia Emelin, Scott MacDonald, Wayne Grace

Release Year – 1993

Reviewed by John of the Dead

Fire in the Sky is a film I had been dying to watch ever since I first read about the film and the story behind it, and thanks to Netflix I did not have to try hard to get my hands on this one. Most of us balk at low-budget 90s horror films such as this one, but its amazing story and positive execution make Fire in the Sky one of the creepiest films that I have ever seen and a new addition to my favorites list.

When a group of five men return home from clearing brush for the federal government at a nearby state park, they claim one of the men, Travis Walton, was abducted by aliens on their way home. This story is wishy washy to the local authorities, and they bring in seasoned investigator Frank Watters(James Garner; The Great Escape) to find out what really happened. Watters believes the men are lying about the aliens in a cheap attempt to cover up the murder/disappearance of Travis Walton, and the local media does little to help the men, riling up the townsfolk to believe a group of murderers reside among them. As the men’s stories begin to prove true yet the authorities refuse to believe that aliens really abducted Walton, Walton mysteriously shows up five days later…and with one hell of a story to tell.

I would rather say this now than later: I loved this movie. Alien films have always intrigued me due to my fascination with the possibility of life outside of our planet, and when you throw in the abduction element it only makes things sweeter and creepier. The film claims to be based on “true events”, and is an adaptation of a book written by the actual Travis Walton titled “The Walton Experience”. Most of you all know that films claiming to be based on true events are only 10% true at the most, but this film experience has me convinced that this could be one of the more factual of the “true events” films, that is of course if you believe Mr. Walton was actually abducted.

The storyline is an awesome one, and is told in awesome fashion. We are left in the dark over what is going on at first, and the backstory is given to us multiple times in flashbacks as the men tell their story over what happened to Travis Walton. Each of the characters provides their own conflict to the story, and while some contributed more than others we were not given any worthless characters, which is always a plus to me when it comes to film writing. The horror is not always prevalent given this film is mostly about the character trials our protagonists are forced to endure as they try and clear their names, and a fair amount of drama is thrown in as a result of this. Thankfully, when the horror is brought into the film it is incredible, and complimented with the well-written drama we get a 109 minute effort that paces very well. Constant developments are thrown in, with the biggest and most shocking one coming when Travis Walton makes his appearance after disappearing without a trace for five days, a scene that gave me goosebumps and chills up my spine.

Director Robert Lieberman did a fantastic job with every element of the film, using a slew of actors lead by Robert Patrick(Terminator 2: Judgement Day, The Black Waters of Echo’s Pond, Autopsy) to deliver positive performances and great conflict/drama, as well as giving us superb horror when the film called for it. For such a simple PG-13 90s film to come with superb horror Lieberman had to do many things right, and he did by giving us superb atmosphere that came with every possible idea used to provide good scares such as dark shadows, numerous places to hide(forest), and intense visuals as well. All of this however pales in comparison to the scene consisting of Travis Walton reliving the experience he suffered at the hands of the aliens, which has to be one of the scariest sequences I have ever seen. The entire flashback consists of at least 10 minutes of runtime, and while taking its time to draw out scenes and raise the tension we get some truly scary alien action shown in a brash and full-frontal aspect that is sure to leave the viewer with scenes he/she will never forget. As I mentioned earlier, the horror is not overly prevalent int his watch in comparison to other horror films, but when the horror is brought in it hits very hard and left me with one of my favorite horror experiences of all time.

Overall, Fire in the Sky is a fantastic film that gives us a harrowing adaptation of one of the scariest experiences someone can face, and does so with great writing and superb direction. While the film is not an outright horror film and gives us lots of character drama, the horror in the film is some of the best that I have ever seen, making this a highly recommended watch for all horror fans, especially those with an interest in aliens.

Rating: 8/10

Wolf Creek – 7

Director – Greg McLean

Cast – John Jarratt, Cassandra Magrath, Kestie Morassi, Nathan Phillips, Gordon Poole

Release Year – 2005

Reviewed by John of the Dead

Wolf Creek has always been a film that has stuck out to be me because it was the first Australian horror film that I ever saw, and it was a good one as well.  Taking its time and settling on unnerving horror created by Greg McLean’s positive direction, Wolf Creek is a rare blend of the usual vacation horror film that delivers a unique premise in this often clichéd horror sub-genre.

Kristy, Ben, and Liz are three friends embarking on a hiking trip through Australia’s beautiful Wolf Creek National Park.  Upon returning to their vehicle after their initial day hike they run into trouble when their car won’t start.  Stranded in the middle of the Australian Outback with little supplies, they are elated to accept help from Mick Taylor, a local outdoorsman who tows them to safety with a promise of fixing their vehicle the next morning.  Little do the three friends know, accepting Mick’s “helping hand” comes with sinister consequences, and their vacation has now become a nightmare.

Greg McLean(Rogue) made a name for himself with this film, and it goes to show that you do not need a lot of money or A-list actors to make a solid horror watch, just creativity and ingenuity.  He gave us the often used vacation horror idea where we follow a group of people exploring an area that they are not familiar with and then come in contact with a sinister killer, or group of killers.  However in Wolf Creek he added his own unique take to the idea by not giving us some deformed cannibal or demented creature, but simply delivering a normal looking person who harbors some psychotic fantasies.  It is because of that right there that this film is as scary as it is, because it shows that you can never truly trust someone even if they seem like the trustworthy type.

Most of the storyline follows Kristy, Ben, and Liz as they are traveling toward Wolf Creek, meaning there is quite a bit of development that takes place.  I did not personally enjoy this, especially when these 50 minutes of development take up a lot of the films 96 minute runtime, but thankfully the events that took place once the development was over were good and satisfying.  Once things get going the tension never slows down, and we are left feeling as helpless as our protagonists are thanks to the awesomely written character that is Mick Taylor.  His down-to-Earth persona was fantastic is keeping the viewer on edge given you know that he can’t be as nice as he appears to be, and when things turn ugly he really lets loose.  It took a while for things to get going, but McLean’s screenplay wound up a tightly written piece by the time the credits rolled.

To compliment his positive screenplay. Greg McLean’s direction was equally as awesome, and managed to keep my interest during the film’s long developmental process until the good got going.  McLean shows that his patient execution of the film’s most tense scenes was a genius idea as he drew them out as long as possible without overdoing it.  The musical score was simple yet haunting, and he got positive performances from everyone involved, especially from John Jarratt(Rogue) as Mick Taylor.  Wolf Creek is often remarked as a “gory” movie, but I really did not see enough gore for me to warrant such a term to describe the film.  There are some good kills scenes that involve live-action gore, but the film was never “gory” in my opinion, nor did it give me any scenes considered “torture porn” either.  Instead, Wolf Creek is that simple and moderately paced movie that gets under your skin more and more as the movie runs on,

Overall, this is a positive Australian horror film that delivers great tension and good horror despite getting off to a slow start.  Awesome direction and a tight screenplay from Greg McLean make this film a treat to watch, and he also included a sweet killer to marvel at.

Rating: 7/10

Memories of Murder – 8

Director – Joon-ho Bong

Cast – Kang-ho Song, Sang-kyung Kim, Roe-ha Kim, Jae-ho Song, Hie-bong Byeon, Seo-hie Ko, No-shik Park, Hae-il Park, Jong-ryol Choi

Release Year – 2003

Reviewed by John of the Dead

This is one film I had been meaning to watch for quite some time, but as usual…it took me a while to get a hold of it.  I had heard great things about this flick, and it was even included on Quentin Tarantino’s list of his top 20 films  since 1992, the year he began directing.  Not bad huh?  Anyway, after finally giving this film a watch I can see what all of the fuss is about.  This is an amazing serial killer film that is in fact based on off the true story regarding South Korea’s very first documented serial killer.  Told and displayed in awesome fashion, this film is a must watch by all.

It is 1986, and the province of Gyunggi, South Korea has been exposed to it’s second murder of a beautiful young girl; found raped, hog-tied with her panty hose, and gagged with her underwear.  The province’s two detectives, Det. Park Doo-Man and Det. Cho Yong-koo rely on their brutal and primitive tactics during their interrogations, which to their surprise are unproductive.  A young hot-shot detective from Seoul9the capital), Det. Seo Tae-Yoon, is sent to assist the province with their case.  Much to the horror of the province’s unprofessional detectives, Det. Seo acquires the first big break in the case thanks to him relying on psychology over brutality.  Due to the state of South Korea at the time, they do not have access to modern day technology, namely DNA technology, and must rely on primitive methods to further the case.  However, as each lead and development leads them closer but not close enough to the killer, the toll of disappointment and frustration begins to kick in, dragging even Det. Seo down to his lowest point ever.

While this film is less of a horror film than say “The Silence of the Lambs”, there is still enough of an element of horror to warrant my review.  Pretty much, any serial killer film can be enough to warrant a horror review given the serial killer content alone is horrific in nature.  Nonetheless, before I get into that element lets talk this film’s relation to reality.  Thankfully, thi sis one of the few films to actually portray the “true events” it is based off of.  One reason behind this film’s success and ability to appeal to many is the fact that it focuses on South Korea’s FIRST case of a serial killer.  This was no ordinary serial killer either, but one that required the use of over 300,000 policemen and the interrogation of over 3,000 suspects yeah, this was/is a big deal.  Thanks to this element, selling the film must have been pretty darn easy.

One of the finer points of this film is Joon-ho bong’s direction and amazing cinematography.  It was thanks to this film that Bong’s next film, “The Host”, received much and well-deserved attention.  Right from the get-go we are thrown into an amazing visual experience that fully employs Bong’s use of his scenic surroundings.  Few films show such beauty in several elements of weather, but rain, sine, night, day…this film is a treat to watch.  Aside from aesthetics, the film’s pacing is expertly done as well.  We do get some slow points here and there, but the character development and intriguing storyline kept me engaged enough to stay hooked on what was going on before me.  Bong also does not stray way from showing the aftermath of the killer’s “activities”, a nice touch and definitely the biggest driver behind the film’s horror element.  Some may find it taboo, and yes it is hard to watch and fathom, but given this film’s subject matter I expect and DESIRE to be shocked.  Without that, the film would not succeed at moving its viewer emotionally.

Written by three writers including Bong himself, I must applaud all three of them for a fantastic effort.  They threw in enough elements to keep this 130 minute film from dragging and added some great character use as well.  Watching the two boneheaded Gyunggi detectives fail and waste time as a result of their primitive and barbaric interrogation practices sent a nice message to those who believe fear is the only motivator in a case like this.  Watching the respectable Det. Seo Tae-Yoon achieve more success than his two “partners” without the use of force and shoddy interrogation but with his mind was overly pleasing to me.  Don’t get me wrong, torture has it’s place in interrogations, but only when warranted and with a sufficient amount of evidence to show the person is guilty and just not coming forth.  In this film it was Det. Park and Det. Cho’s first move, and a costly one given the amount of time they wasted on useless suspects.

The greatest aspect of this film in my opinion is the use of its characters, not the killer.  We get a first-hand look at the toll the case takes on our three detectives, and how a lack of technology and proper training can severely hinder an investigation.  Watching Det. Park and Det. Cho’s destructive habits turn to positive ones at the cost of much trouble was great to watch, and what only furthered this awesome character use was watching Det. Seo’s respectable nature turn worse and worse as even his tactics were no use for this smart yet pathetic killer.  Basically this film is half thriller/horror and half cop drama.  How often can you say “cop drama” in reference to a horror film?  Not very often, and I like that these writers included that element.

If you are coming into this film expecting it to be the South Korean version of “The Silence of the Lambs” or “Seven” then you may be a bit surprised at what you get from this film’s killer.  Why?  Well, unlike both of those films, we never get much use out of the killer’s character.  As a matter of fact, we only really see him one time.  Yes, ONE time.  Personally, I enjoyed that and felt that it added to the mystery and therefore intrigued me still the same as if we had received a lot of screen time from him.  In all essence, this film being a serial killer film is…not about the serial killer.  He is referenced, of course, but his absence is what sells the film.

Overall, this is an awesome watch that I recommend to all fans of the serial killer sub-genre.  We get amazing direction, character performances, writing, and a brutal serial killer that is used expertly.  Give this gem a watch.

Rating: 8/10

The Exorcism of Emily Rose – 7.5

Director – Scott Derrickson

Cast – Laura Linney, Tom Wilkinson, Campbell Scott, Jennifer Carpenter, Colm Feore, Joshua Close, Kenneth Welsh

Release Year – 2005

Reviewed by John of the Dead

Based on the “true events” that happened to the young German girl, Anneliese Michel, who’s parents and two priests were successfully convicted of manslaughter for her death during an exorcism, this flick happens to be one of the more “factual” of the “true event” horror flicks that have plagued movie screens for years. This flick effectively combines both elements of “horror” and “law” in what I like to refer as “the horror version of Law & Order”, and if you know me…you know that I love both “horror” and “law”. Hehe.

The film follows actress Laura Linney as up-and-coming defense attorney Erin Bruner, who has been given the task of defending Father Moore(Tom Wilkinson), a priest on trial for the “negligent” death of a young girl named Emily Rose whom apparently died as a result of his exorcisms. Lead prosecutor Ethan Thomas (Campbell Scott) is our with a vengeance to send Father Moore to prison, but the modest Father Moore has no fear of prison, and simply wants to tell Emily Rose’s story, as a staple to those who do not “believe”.

I really enjoyed this film and as I mentioned earlier…this flick effectively combines to different genres(horror and law) thanks to co-writer/director Scott Derrickson’s management of these two elements. The film takes place in both the past and present, keeping the viewer up to date with Father Moore’s trial and using the flashback scenes to paint the story of what happened to poor Emily. I also really enjoyed the fact that this film opens the door to whether or not “God” and “Faith” can be used in the courtroom, because how do you “prove” that a person is possessed by a demon when some of the symptoms fall directly under the diagnosis for multiple-personality disorder and/or schizophrenia? Exactly my point. Time after time we are given what seems to be definite proof that Emily is in fact “possessed”, only to be thrown in the opposite direction with new evidence that contradicts her “possession” scientifically. Genius huh? If you are into legal dramas…then this is a film for you, regardless of it’s horror elements.

How are the performances? Laura Linney does the “attorney” act pretty well, equally as well as her role as a prosecutor in the film Primal Fear(Edward Norton’s first film). Tom Wilkinson and Campbell Scott nail their roles as well, but I must say it is little-known actress(at the time of the film) Jennifer Carpenter who takes the film’s “Best Actor/Actress” award. Although nearly half of her dialogue comes in the form of blood-curling screams, Jennifer Carpenter really impressed me with her facial expression and aura in this film and debatably puts Linda Blair to shame. Haha! Judging from what we see Jennifer’s character go through, she must have gone through hell during the filming of this flick. Her body is put into all kinds of sick looking contortions(luckily she is double-jointed) during her possession scenes and her use of Latin and Archaic as the demon inside her “battles” Father Moore comes off effective and believable(not fake, like Christian Bale’s North Carolinian accent in Public Enemies).

The pacing for this film is pretty good as well, thanks in part to the back and forth action between past and present tense keeping you hooked on the story. When the “horror” action kicks in, it is pretty good and definitely enough to give chills to most horror buffs.

Overall, this is a fulfilling film that is not only interesting, but a break from the typical horror films we get from Hollywood nowadays.

Rating: 7.5/10

– I listed this film as an “Honorable Mention” in my Top 50 Horror Movies of the Decade(31-40) post.

The Amityville Horror – 6

Director – Stuart Rosenberg

Cast – James Brolin, Margot Kidder, Rod Steiger, Don Stroud, Murray Hamilton, John Larch

Release Year – 1979

Reviewed by John of the Dead

Ah yes, the infamous Amityville Horror, the film based on “true events” told by a man who’s family basically went insane and was attacked by a house they moved into after a family was murdered there but one of their children years before.(story it is based on, not exactly the plot of the film) It is an interesting story, although never officially proved, it has never factually been disproved, which always leads to us haunted house addicts wanting it to be true. Either way, I’m sure Hollywood absolutely adores any whacked out story based on “true events” that they can somehow turn into a profitable movie.

This film follows the Lutz family as they move into a home with a horrific past that they wish to put behind themselves, and make a fresh start as newlyweds. All is well at first, but soon George(James Brolin) begins to change and act not quite himself, which includes acting very snide and violent towards his family(see a connecting to “The Shining” here?). As time goes he George is progressively overwhelmed by whatever force is still residing that house, and in the next 28 days they learn it wants them either out, or DEAD.

This film has quite a bit going for it given it was made in the late 70s(era of infamous horror lore), and who will forget seeing Superman’s wife(Margot Kidder played Lois Lane in the first four Superman films) in her panties doing ballet stretches.(hehe) This film manages to pull off the “creepy haunted house” feel, with our characters hearing voices telling them to “get out!”, as well as blood dripping from the walls and inanimate objects causing physical pain to those in the house, but that is about it really.

I did not like how the main plot of this story seemed to branch off but yet always lead to absolutely nothing. For instance, the daughter “Amy” being paid visits by “Jody”, who was one of the children killed before they moved into the home. Sure it was creepy that she was being visited by this spirit, but not only do we never see the spirit…NOTHING “significant”(keyword) involving the spirit ever happens! We are also lead down this path with the police detective as well. We are forced to witness him try and investigate the house, yet his characterization in this film leads absolutely nowhere and should have been left out of the script. I will also do you gorehounds out there a favor and let you know now, there are absolutely no deaths in this film(which is surprising for a 70s horror flick), all you will witness are a few people getting hurt and one person going blind. I am not complaining however(“The Shining“ had one death and still managed to be an amazing horror film), but I’m sure it would have helped add some sort of excitement to this film.

I honestly found myself quite bored with this film. The first half of the film was interesting as it was developing the story, but we are introduced to too much side plots and useless dialogue that this film should have done without. This film is a few minutes shy of two hours in length, and I honestly believe this film would have benefited had director Stuart Rosenberg shaved the final cut down at least 20 minutes.

I did like the scenes involving the house keeping the priest and the nun from helping the family with the home, but even those scenes could not save this film from being used as an alternative to sleeping pills.

Overall, check this flick out if you are interested in classic horror flicks, but don’t look for this to be overly exciting or as beautiful to watch as “The Shining”.

Rating: 6/10

Stuck – 6

Director – Stuart Gordon

Cast – Mena Suvari, Stephen Rea, Russel Hornsby, Rukiya Bernard, Carolyn Purdy-Gordon

Release Year – 2007

Reviewed by John of the Dead

This film is the latest directoral effort from Stuart Gordon, who brought us the infamous Re-Animator, From Beyond, Castle Freak, and Dagon(to name a few). This film derives highly from a shocking event taking on October 26, 2001, receiving lots of mainstream news coverage and had many Americans thinking “Seriously???” (the news coverage did not begin until early 2002, when the details of the accident were discovered) What happened was a 25 year old woman named Chante Mallard was driving under the influence, hit a man, and actually DROVE HOME with the man still stuck in her windshield and still very much alive. She left the poor man in the garage, had sex with her boyfriend, and the next day her and some friends take his now dead body to a park and left it there. Chante Mallard was convicted of murder and sentenced to 50 years for the crime, plus 10 years to run concurrently for tampering with evidence(trying to burn her car).

Anywho, Stuart Gordon quickly jumped on the story and turned it into a full length feature-film, joining the likes of TV shows CSI and Law & Order whom also adapted the story to the screen. This film follows Thomas Bardo(Stephen Rea) as a man going through some hard times. A former project manager, he is jobless, out of unemployment money, and just recently evicted from his apartment. New to the streets, he is wandering around late at night looking for a place to stay when he is struck by a young girl(Mena Suvari) who is doped up, drunk, and ON A CELL PHONE. The young girl is a nurse with a bright future ahead of her. She is up for a promotion and is not going to let anyone ruin that, no matter how hard they bust through her windshield.

Although I already knew much about the Chante Mallard fiasco, I was still very interested in this film and was curios to see how Stuart Gordon would adapt it to film. As a fan of Re-Animator and From Beyond, I figured this film would at least come out decent, and well…it did. I really expected more from this film, but in the end I really did not feel like I had viewed anything special. My biggest knock against the film would be the characters. Mr. Gordon did a pretty decent job building up the Thomas Bardo character, showing us a bit of the frustration he must go through and how his life went from pretty good, to pretty bad. However I do not feel that we were given enough background on Bardo to force us to really feel and care for him. Not once was there any mention of family, we never know if he was previously married, if he has kids, or if he was ever married at all! The reason this bugged me is because it seems the film is set for us to feel really bad for him, and I did feel bad, however ultimately he did not have much to live for, or much to lose. That is probably the case for the real life story, due to the fact that the man Chante Mallard killed was in fact a homeless man, however this is a FILM and if I wanted an exact rundown of what happened I would simply Google the story, simple as that.

Continuing with the film’s characters…Mena Suvari’s character came off bitchy, and narcissistic, which I’m sure was required of her in order to paint the type of person Chante Mallard was. However I do have to ask…was director Stuart Gordon afraid to use an African American actress as the girl who hit the homeless man? Why do I ask? Well…for one, the woman this story is based on is in fact African American. I was thinking that maybe Mr. Gordon was afraid he would be labeled a racist if he did that although it would have made the story a lot more factual. Truth is truth my friend…the lady was African American, deal with it. We’ve seen this happen before with directors…such as the lashing Mel Gibson got from Jewish activists for his film The Passion of the Christ, which had Jews killing Jesus which in fact THEY DID DO! Anywho, I do feel that Mr. Gordon was directly hinting at the fact that the woman who hit the man was African American. First off, Mena Suvari, who is WHITE, has braided cornrows, an African American boyfriend, and African American best friend. Could it not be anymore obvious? It seems that either  Mr. Gordon was afraid of the backlash he would get, or he really admires Mena Suvari. Yes I said it, someone might actually admire Mena Suvari.

Is this a bad film? No, not really, it just could have been a lot better had the character development not been so lazy. The film does actually give us some pretty hard scenes to watch, involving Mr. Bardo trying to get out of the windshield and having to pull a piece of a windshield wiper out of his stomach. OUCH! The film actually did pace really well, and I never truly found myself bored with the film. There were some unneeded scenes here and there, but they were somewhat entertaining and did not slow down the film at all. My favorite aspect of the film would have to be the film’s ending sequence. It was better than I expected the film to end, and as you may have guessed…this film does not end the way the actual story ends, although I believe it ends the way the actual story SHOULD have ended! Hehe.

Overall, this is a decent watch that I recommend you seeing if you know about the story it is based off of. Don’t expect it to be amazing, but you may in fact enjoy it more than I did.

Rating: 6/10

The Girl Next Door – 7




Director – Gregory Wilson

Cast – Blythe Auffarth, Daniel Manche, Blanche Baker, Grand Show, Graham Patrick Martin, Benjamin Ross Kaplan, Austin William, William Atherton

Release Year – 2007

Reviewed by John of the Dead

This is a film I had been reading on for quite some time, but could never get my hands on it reasonably.  I was finally able to view this film and all I can say after finishing this piece is “WOW.”.  Not an overly excited wow, but just a shocked and disbelieving “WOW.”.  Based on the novel by Jack Ketchum, which is based on true events I will explain later in the review, this flick is a shocker that is sure to leave itself imprinted on your mind for quite some time.

The Girl Next Door follows two sisters who recently lost their parents in an accident.  The older of the two sisters, Meg(Blythe Auffarth), came out of the accident with a few scars.  Her younger sister Susan(Madeline Taylor) unfortunately came out of the accident in a much more crippling condition, and has contracted polio.  The girls are sent to live in a quiet suburban country town with their Aunt Ruth(Blanche Baker) and her young sons.  The rest of the film tells the story of the unspeakable events and baseless punishments the aunt puts the two girls through and the struggle of a young boy who tries but cannot succeed at helping them.

I can honestly say that I have not seen a film this horrific in a very long time.  This film is like Cannibal Holocaust but without trying to be Cannibal Holocaust.  We don’t get immense gore in this film, and that is what really shocked me.  How is it that a film with very little gore can be so downright disturbing?  Easy, it is executed properly and is very well written.  Only his second film, director Gregory Wilson did an amazing job with this film and with the message it meant to convey.  Much like Frank Darabont’s The Mist, this film WILL PISS YOU OFF!  Now is that a good thing?  Not really, I don’t like being pissed off BUT I do have immense respect for films that move you that much.  This film’s intention is to anger you, and it succeeds greatly at what it sets out to do.  This is not one of  those hard-to-watch flicks that only throws in such horrific scenes simply to supply the viewer with baseless torture porn.  No, this flick uses such scenes to show just what the young girl went through at the hands of some of the cruelest people to make the silver screen.  I applaud this film’s director for having to guts to include what he did, and this film’s two writers Daniel Ferrands(who wrote Halloween 6: The Curse of Michael Myers) and Philip Nutman also get credit for this film’s gutsy nature by including the acts that occurred in the novel and in real life.

Real life?  Yes, REAL LIFE.  The novel this film is based on is based on the true events that occurred in Indianapolis, Indiana in 1965.  16 year old Sylvia Likens was brutally assaulted and tortured to death by her caretaker and a few of her cohorts her parents had entrusted her with during their three month absence as traveling carnies.  I could go into more detail, but I’ll leave that up to you if you decide to look further into this case.  Here is the Wikipedia link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Likens.

Is it surprising to you as it is to me that a horror film that claims to be “based on true events” is ACTUALLY based on true events?  Time and time again we get films that claim to be “based” or “inspired” by events that occurred somewhere in time, but this is usually just a marketing gimmick or AT THE VERY MOST the film is only based on 10 percent of the story it claims to be based on.  Example: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre claiming to be inspired by true events, particularly of the serial killer Ed Gein who would dig up corpses and use their skin and other body parts for various uses.  Gein never chased anyone with a chainsaw.  Never.

Now you will notice some differences between this film and the story it is based on, but the differences are small and are in fact needed in order to help the film appeal to the viewer.  As far as the actual plot is concerned, this film is dead accurate.  I really liked how the young boy named “David” was added to the story, and his conflict in the film is felt by the viewer.  You see the toll these events take on the young boy, and his struggles to betray his friends(who not only outnumber him but are mostly older than him as well) and get help from the young girls.

I have no major complaints for this flick, although I felt the film’s conclusion(in flashback mode) was not very satisfying.  Sure it did not follow the actual events that took place, but after all the torment and turmoil we were forced to sit though, I wanted to see some awesome vengeance and redemption.

Overall, this is a positive watch that I dare all horror fans to sit through and not squirm in their seats.  Not only is this flick not for the squeamish, but it sends  powerful message and shows just how savage some people can be.

Rating: 7/10