The Seven Year Ick

Usually it's the traffic or the smog or the hipsters that'll get you in Los Angeles. Nope. The Things That Go Bump in the Dark, they're what'll get you.

"Absentia" (2011)
written and directed by Mike Flanagan
starring Katie Parker, Courtney Bell, Dave Levine, Justin Morgan, and Morgan Peter Brown

How Is It?
Low-key, atmospheric, moody, and well-made. It doesn't rush to get you anywhere, and though it can feel like it's moving a little slow here and there, it really isn't. The story is about pregnant Tricia (played by Courtney Bell) whose husband has been missing for seven years. Her prodigal sister Callie (played by Katie Parker) moves in with her for support, as the county is finally ready to declare Daniel, the missing husband, deceased. It should come as no surprise that things go awry. Rather than spectacle the film focuses on the characters, no cats jumping out of cupboards or other cheap scares. "Absentia" is a slow burn, an eerily slow but steady burn.

The Players
The acting is pretty solid all the way around. Parker and Bell have good chemistry playing the sisters, as do Levine and Gordon as the police detectives. Brown as husband Daniel, while not on-screen as much, gets to play the widest range and to great effect. There's not a lot to say on this end, really. Very human, engaging performances from all quarters.

Behind the Camera
Mike Flanagan wrote and directed. It's a tight, clean script, nuanced and interesting, as is the direction. The cinematography and editing are sharp and keep you interested, focused, and engaged throughout. No frills, though. Flanagan kept the look and feel simple and did so to great effect. The visuals complement the story and the acting, a very adept movie package. The movie has a personal, intimate feel, coupled with an uneasiness, an uncertainty and sense of things being somehow off-kilter the whole while. Economically and effectively eerie and subtly unsettling, and that's good horror.

The Verdict
It's a solid flick top to bottom and side to side. If you're in the market for gore and screaming and action and slashing, this one is not for you. "Absentia" is a smart movie, a very good movie indeed. Not only do I recommend it, I'm buying a copy for my personal collection.

You didn't see that coming, did you?

"Oculus" and "The Quiet Ones" don't deliver quiet what's expected. That works in one but alas, doesn't in another.

"Oculus" (2014)

You've seen this movie before... ish. It's the time-tested spooky story of kids with a terrible past going back to the scene of the crime to get to the truth and get even. Just this time the baddie is... well, it's a mirror. Karen Gillan stars in what looks like it should be a bog standard haunted house movie with cliches galore, and it is... and isn't. Yes, there are some key point in the film that avid horror movie fans see coming miles away, but it still works. "Oculus" is a pretty tight, well made, well performed, fairly well paced ghost story with a healthy dose of psychological horror in the mix. I was skeptical going into it and actually a bit surprised and pleased as the credits rolled. The movie doesn't reinvent anything in the genre. What's refreshing is it doesn't try to be something it isn't, and it tells its story very well. Hats off to all involved in the making of it. I quite liked it. It's well worth watching.

"The Quiet Ones" (2014)

I am still rather stuck on exactly how to put how this film doesn't work, except to say that it seems in it efforts to lead viewers to wonder "What really happened?" it simply made itself rather muddy. All the hallmarks of paranormal investigation movies are there, all the stock characters, scares, character arcs, and twists. It was distinctly Hammer, yes. It was just rather flat, unfortunately. I expected more.  Streamable, maybe rentable for the special features for hardcore Hammer/horror buffs.

Sometimes it's just best to quit while you're behind.

Rutger Hauer in a 3D re-imagining of "Dracula" with a decent dose of T&A could work but for one thing: Dario Argento.

"Argento's Dracula 3-D" (2012)
directed by Dario Argento
written by Dario Argento, Enrique Cerezo, Franco Paolucci, and Antonio Tentori
starring Thomas Kretschmann, Marta Gastini, Asia Argento, Unax Ugalde, Miriam Giovanelli, and Rutger Hauer

How Is It?
It's about as sophomorically substandard as you have come to expect from Dario Argento, alas. Plodding, dull, cheap-looking, and frequently painful to watch. This is one of the worst films I have ever seen.

The Players
It is so hard for me to write this, but it was disappointing all around. Kretschmann as Dracula came across bored, as if he was simply going through the motions. Asia Argento was dutifully in her dad's movie. Gastini and Ugalde were wooden, and Hauer... oh dear. They were all there, but none of them looked present. The rest of the cast, on the other hand, chewed the scenery like it was going out of style. So in many ways, this was a typical Argento joint. Alas.

Behind The Camera
It was almost like watching a SyFy Original Motion Picture, just less fun and far less entertaining. A woeful script written by committee, nearly comically mediocre digital effects, low-end practical effects, sets and lighting that looked as if they barely tried at all, and a lack of apparent cohesive vision to the project are what hurt this film. In short, this movie died while it was being made. There was nothing new in it, and there wasn't even anything out of Argento's really old and dated bag of tricks that was done well. Overall, it was a lesson in incompetence.

The Verdict
Remember Argento's heyday thirty years ago. That's all there is to do at this point. Avoid this film at all costs.

Three to start again...

"Frankenstein's Army" (2013)

World War 2 rages on, with the Communists storming through Eastern Germany, and while answering an advance unit's request reinforcement one Soviet unit finds far more than they ever bargained for, a secret Nazi lab in full swing making new kinds of super soldiers. The film's well made and fairly entertaining but does sag a bit in the middle, taking some too long playing one note before gearing up again for the run to the end. All in all, it really is a cut above average, even if just. Rentable.

"The Moleman of Belmont Avenue" (2010)

Two rather bumbling brothers have run their inherited brownstone apartment building into the ground, and adding to their woes, something's trying to eat every living thing in the place, starting with the tenants' pets. It lives in the basement, and it's up to the boys to stop the menace. It's not exactly a grabbing premise, and unfortunately the film keeps in line such. It's not a bad film. It's certainly not a good one, though Robert Englund stands out as Confab, a mildly creepy and at the same time cool older ladies man. The problem with the film is that only Englund seems to fire on all cylinders. Besides his performance and a few moments here and there, the film's really not that fun. Not recommended.

"Manborg" (2011)

I will only say that the poster says it all and that this film was made for $1,000 (Canadian). Beyond that, it's the best film on today's list and better than several I have reviewed on this blog. Watching it, it's the 1980s all over again. It's a marvelous pastiche. The nearly nonexistent budget is obvious in every frame, as is the ludicrous amount of fun, work, and love that went into it. "Manborg" is nothing but laugh-out-loud fun all the way through. It's definitely worth renting and/or buying.

Two night clerks alone in a soon-to-close old haunted inn. What could go wrong?

The Yankee Pedlar Inn is about to close after over a hundred years of business. Two clerks have desk duty for the last weekend. One of them is a mildly creepy but somehow almost lovably well-meaning guy who seems to be love with... his laptop, and the other is a rather cute, slightly clumsy, asthmatic young woman with a keen imagination and a desperate desire to... find the resident ghost. Oh, and Kelly McGillis is there, too. Between the tape recorder, the crystal, and the dark, locked basement what could possibly go wrong?

"The Innkeepers" (2011)
written and directed by Ti West.
starring Sara Paxton, Pat Healy, and Kelly MicGillis

How Is It?
It's old school horror and suspense, and it's done well. It's done really, really well.

The Players

All of the players in this film deliver spot-on performances, nothing over the top. Sara Paxton's Claire comes across pleasantly awkward, both socially and physically, and believably innocent, honest, and both serious and fun-loving. Pat Healy's Luke is quite believable also, never remotely unpleasant but with an understated and not well-hidden burden of loneliness. Kelly McGillis' Leanne rounds out the main character cast as the '80s tv celebrity turned mystical healer who is visiting the inn while touring on the convention circuit. The three work solidly together, as well as alone. Solid work all around in front of the camera.

Behind the Camera
Ti West can make a good movie. It was filmed on location in a real inn, and it was just the right place. West uses the interior geography of the place marvelously. It's homey and charming and quaint and all, and it's also a bit eerie, then pretty spooky, and then it's just plain sinister. And the real kicker is that it's never overdone, visually or audially. West keep the emphasis on atmosphere, ratcheting things up bit by both, punctuated with just the right amount of levity, and it winds up with the film really being, in my opinion, a course in how to make a haunted house movie. "Hometown Gothic" is how I would classify the film. For me it's reminiscent in feel to Robert Wise's 1963 classic, and quite possibly the finest haunted house movie ever made, "The Haunting", and that is high praise indeed.

The photography and lighting are good. The script is tight. The direction is top-notch.

The Verdict
I bought a copy the day after I watched it. It's a solid, dependable, excellent made film. It's a slow burn of a scare, and it's an excellent movie. "The Innkeepers" delivers. Highly recommended.

The Thursday List: Foreign Film Edition

"Once Upon a Time in the West" (1968)

Not only is the film that almost single-handedly breathed life back into westerns, it is quite likely legendary Italian film director Sergio Leone's best film... and widely regarded as one of the best, if not the best, western movie ever made. The combination of a strong story, interesting characters well portrayed, Leone's directing near-operatic style, and brilliant score by Ennio Morricone is marvelous and really fires on all thrusters. And Henry Fonda as Frank, in my opinion one of the best screen villains in all cinema, is amazing. This film isn't just a must-see for fans of westerns but also for film fans in general. This film is in my Top 100 and the Top 100 of many others as well. Highly recommended.

"The Devil's Backbone" (2001)

A horror film set in Spain in 1939, the last year of the Spanish Civil war, "The Devil's Backbone" is simultaneously a compassionate, heartfelt story of humanity, innocence, comradery, human frailty, and sacrifice and a story of greed, viciousness, corruption, fearful villainy, war, and murder. And a ghost story. Guillermo del Toro's work here delivers both a remarkable elegance and a pronounced and relentless dread. This film is in my Top 30 and is held in very high regard by a wide swath of moviegoers as well. It's a horror film, and beautiful, that you would do yourself a real favor to watch. Highly recommended.

"The Third Man" (1949)

At the crossroads of post-WW2 Germany, while the Cold War escalates almost quietly, a pulp novelist arrives to visit a friend and finds far more than a bargained for. "The Third Man" is regarded by many to be the best British film of the 20th century, and I am not inclined to disagree. It was brilliantly written by Graham Greene, skillfully and creatively directed by Carol Reed, and Orson Welles and Joseph Cotton, as well as the rest of the cast, deliver near perfect pitch performances. And then there's the memorable score, only one instrument, a zither. Shot simply and much on location in still war-damaged Vienna, the striking cinematography strongly complements the performances and lends enormous atmosphere. This film is in my Top 10. It's a classic. Highly recommended.

Two Things: something cool and something dumb

The Cool Thing

In 2006 a cool movie got made. "Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon". It was a documentary about an aspiring serial killer, and some time during the movie the documentary turns into a slasher film itself. It was funny, had a wonderful and talented cast, was well written and well directed, and was a lot of fun.

Now the same production team wants to make a sequel, and I think it's a good idea, and I've pledged $50 to their Kickstarter campaign. Their studio is apparently nervous about making more horror, and so the "Behind the Mask" gang want to raise $450,000 to make the picture. (The original was made for $262,000.)


Here's the link their Kickstarter page: 


"Before the Mask: The Return of Leslie Vernon"

The Dumb Thing

For whatever reason, Blogger will not allow me to comment on any of my posts. Nothing seems to fix it so far, not clearing or resetting my browser, not anything. I'm not ignoring anyone whose commenting, not that there are many of you. I simply can't respond in the comments. More on this as/if it develops.

Now go pledge a few dollars to "Before the Mask".

Please.

Pretty please.

It'll be cool.

Coming Soon: a haunted house

"Sinister"

from Summit Entertainment

Ethan Hawke plays a novelist looking to write a great novel. He and his family can't afford to keep their old house, and so they move into another, cheaper one... one with a bloody history. Things go downhill. The trailer looks good, and so it's here. It piqued my interest, as it features Ethan Hawke and Vincent D'Onofrio.

Alien 5 (a.k.a. the first film)

A dying trillionaire sends a space mission to explore the possibility of meeting humanity's parent race on a distant, newly discovered planet. There are tunnels, shadows, slimy things, dupicitousness, and a big giant face. Hilarity, as ever, ensues on LV-223.

"Prometheus" (2012)

directed by Ridley Scott

written by Damon Lindelof and Jon Spaihts

starring Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender, Charlize Theron, Logan Marshall-Green, Idris Elba, and Guy Pearce

How it is?

I have to come right out with it. The visuals are amazing, but they can't cover up the problems with the script. (My inner scifi fanboy really hated to say that about "Prometheus", but there it is.)

The Players

At the top there are Michael Fassbender, Charlize Theron, and Idris Elba. Fassbender as the Weyland Corporation's premiere android model, David, steals the show. His is a touching and simultaneously sympathetic and casually menacing performance as the android who seems maybe to want to be human... or at least equal, more than a servant. Theron's portrayal of Vickers, the Corporation's no-nonsense executive representative on board the Prometheus, is spot on and arcs well over the course of the film. Idris Elba as Janek, the captain of the Prometheus, is as close to an everyman as the we get in the film, and his performance as the good captain brings a practical, grounded humanity to the film that is missing for the most part in other main characters.

At the other end of the spectrum there are Noomi Rapace and Logan Marshall-Green, but it's not necessarily a matter of lacking performances but rather cardboard characters as written. Rapace's character, Dr. Elizabeth Shaw, was the lynchpin of the whole mission, her theory of an extraterrestially seeded Earth. The theory was more interesting than the character, and the character seemed to be sort of another attempt at bringing scifi and movie fans another Ellen Ripley. Rapace/Shaw simply didn't get enough traction, what with everything else going on in the film. Marshall-Green's character, Shaw's love interest, Charlie Holloway, wasn't substantial enough a character for him to be much more than cardboard. That's not a fault of either and everything to do with the script. And then there's Guy Pearce as Weyland Corporation's aged namesake, Peter Weyland. Pearce manages well with the character through a lot of prosthetic makeup, although Weyland's presence is relatively slight, in both screen time and story contribution.

Behind the Camera

At the top there is Ridley Scott. He is an astonishing film director. With Dariusz Wolski (cinematographer) and Arthur Max (production designer) he made an amazing visual follow-up/prequel to the rest of the Alien franchise. The attention to detail, every little thing practical and digital, was as is his career reputation suggests, mightily impressive. The film moves along at a fair clip the whole way through, with appropriate rising and falling action so the audience gets neither exhausted or lost. Well, mostly neither. The kicker for the film is the writing is where it doesn't quite hold up.

At the other end of things, there are there's the writing. In a nutshell, Prometheus is either a bit overcomplicated or a bit shoddily written. The skeleton of the story is simple enough and intriguing. There were just too many layers added, for whatever reasons, by screenwriters Spaiht and Lindelof, and rather than an interesting ensemble of characters, each with contributions to make, there were a few interesting characters and some other ones thrown in because story formula demanded it. It just never really gels. (Gosh, my inner fanboy is reeling at this.) The writing simply doesn't measure up to Scott's direction and visual scale or what anyone was expecting, really, and that's a real shame.

The Verdict

Prometheus seemed to be more about asking questions than about characters being confronted by those questions and acting accordingly, which is what weakens it. It felt like a conflicted film, a strong visual sense that wanted to show things and get across ideas and a script that didn't know how to stage or explain them effectively so it tended to play with what were sometimes rather obvious tropes. I am notoriously unforgiving of what I believe to be slack or poor or substandard writing, especially from people who ought to know better, and Spaight and Lindelof's script is a decidedly average at best, and the rest of the film can't escape from it.

Due to the strength of the performances by Fassbender, Theron, and Elba and the combined expert visual and technical machinations of Scott and the production crew, the film still comes in looking better than average. It's just that it feels awfully forced in places, trying to cover over the things that really don't really work but were kept in anyway. Alas, the film couldn't live up to the hype.

A Lonely Guy, Two Dead Women, and Three Guys and a Video Camera (It's not what you think.)

"The Woman in Black" (2012)

Technically well executed film, competently directed. Good story but average script. The film is quite atmospheric, gloomy, and visually delicious, but its shocks and scares were by and large stock and predictable and so not really shocking or scary. Excellent performances by the cast, Ciaran Hinds in particular, emphasize the gloom and mystery of the story, but oddly, the story itself didn't hang together well, especially with the ending that disappointingly didn't match the rest of the film. The 1983 book and the 1993 BBC radio drama are much more frightening and tightly written. Average.

"Chronicle" (2012)

Finally we have a 'found footage' movie that fires on all cylinders. It concentrates on telling a simple, good story very well. The characters are interesting and have reasonable arcs, and the script is generally quite tight. The cast is excellent, and the special effects are used to help in telling the story and not just there for spectacle. They are spectacular, however. It all comes together to make "Chronicle" much, much better than average. It's more than a science fiction special effects fiesta. It's a very interesting "What if?" story about human nature. Highly recommended.

Not really all that rad.

A group of Americans (and two Aussies) go with a former Russian Special Forces tour guide on an "extreme tour" near probably the most infamous man-made disaster site in history. What could possibly go wrong?

"Chernobyl Diaries" (2012)
directed by Bradley Parker
written by Oren Peli, Carey Van Dyke, Shane Van Dyke

starring Jonathan Sadowski, Jesse McCartney, Olivia Dudley, Devin Kelley, Dimitri Diatchenko, Nathan Phillips, Ingrid Bolso Berdal

How is it?

It never quite figure out what it wanted to be until about half an hour from the end -- when it was too late, and so it decided to be desperately predictable and average.

The Players

The actors and actresses did well with what they had, which were by and large cardboard characters. Up until the script just became overrun with so many cliches there was no room for originality they generally managed to make things interesting. Dimitri Diatchenko as Uri the Extreme Tour Guide gave the best performance by far in the film, and it was genuinely a downer when Uri went the way of all tour guides in horror films. The film lacked a great deal once he was gone, which was too soon.

Behind the Camera

The film has a very good visual sense. Director Bradley Parker knows visuals. This is his directorial debut, after working in visual effects since the very late 1990s. And oddly, it's the atmosphere of the film that lets it down. Parker never really commits to the horror but leaves it just out of camera range or just out of focus in the dark, and so the movie audience never gets the roller coaster effect, only a series of close calls, dark corners, and the characters experiencing mounting horror without the audience being in it with them. The audience gets drowned in atmosphere until about the last half hour when things start moving quickly, just in very formulaic ways, and when the ending comes it's just... well, there, having been expected. It's not all Parker's fault.

It's Oren Peli's. He's the man who brought Paranormal Acitivies 1, 2, 3 and soon 4. His general schtick is the horrors being left to audience imagination, and that can work really well for some things. With this film it comes across rather forced, as a gimmick. The story is interesting at first, but the screenplay doesn't serve it well. By the end it's down to clicking off the ticky boxes for horror movie conventions, and the audience doesn't really care because there's nothing new or original about it. It's just there. It's almost perfectly average.

The Verdict

"It's almost perfectly average." That really covers it. It's worth a see if you can pay $5 like I did to see it matinee and you're into the genre. Otherwise wait for it to be on Netflix streaming in two or three months.

Don't Be Afraid of Watching Something Else

For reasons we never really get to know a little girl we really never get to know or care about gets sent to live with her not terribly supportive, workaholic architect dad and his designer/girlfriend in a big giant spooky house that turns out to have awful little mischievous and bloodthirsty CG creatures in the basement. Hilarity via predictability and narrative paltriness ensues.

"Don't Be Afraid of the Dark" (2011)
directed by Troy Nixey
written by Guillermo del Toro and Matthew Robbins
starring Guy Peace, Katie Holmes, and Bailee Madison

How Is It?

To put not too fine a point on it, it's rather flat, all told. It's designed beautifully and looks great, but most of the story and script are rather tired. There are a few good bits here and there, but overall... it's generally a rather ineffective gimmick movie.

The Players

If Guy Pearce had enough screen time in it or if his character was terribly important, which you would think would have been the case, I could tell you how he did. He did alright as an archetype, the Career Success Oriented And Not Terribly Empathetic Father. Katie Holmes manages well as the Awkward Girlfriend/Surrogate Mother Who Doesn't Feel She's Ready To Be A Mother But Finally Finds The Strength When The Kid Is In Danger. To give credit where it's due, both did alright with the material they had to work with. The movie belonged to Bailee Madison, who played the Misunderstood And Terribly Socially Awkward But Allegedly Quite Bright Child, who was let down by two things. One was a woefully ordinary and overly long script for the story. The other was she couldn't carry it and didn't have any help in the effort, primarily from the script and direction.

Behind the Camera

The film looks great. The sets are very nice and lit and shot pretty well. The shots are well framed, and the movie has atmosphere. And the creatures look good. Troy Nixey's first feature length film looks good. It's just not got much in the way of substance, and it feels maybe like it's maybe twenty or thirty minutes too long. There is too much wandering in the dark, too much spotty lighting, too much emphasis on looking mysterious without there really being any mystery whatsoever. It's not so much a haunted house film as it is a mouse hunt, which is a real let down, and much of it has to do with the script.

The script is subpar. There. I said it. There's not enough story for its hour and a half, and the story that we get is, well, more than a bit hackneyed. It pains me to say this about a script by Guillermo del Toro, who is one of my favorite directors and storytellers and a true artist of the macabre, but the script, by and large, is just painfully below average. The characters are cardboard and not original, plain and simple. The scares, or what passes for them, come quite by the numbers and are for the most part visible from miles away. And the whole thing reeks of melodrama and fails to establish even an internal reality beyond "This is supposed to be scary." The script is the foundation, and it doesn't work well.

The Verdict

A very weak script in the hands of a novice director has the odds against it at the outset. "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark" didn't beat the odds. The few good moments it had weren't enough to hold my attention as a viewer. Honestly, if I had not been watching it to review it, I would have switched it off before the thirty minute mark.

Not frightening. Dreadfully predictable. Characterless. Uninspiring. Not recommended.

The Thursday List: My Shelf Edition (Pt 3)

"Apollo 13" (1995)

It was a rough year at the Academy Awards that year, and as cool as "Braveheart" was, for my money this was the Best Picture. Superbly directed, visually stunning, with a top-notch script and near flawless cast, "Apollo 13" is a master class on how to put together an historical drama for film. It also put into pop culture the saying I hear several times a year: "Houston, we have a problem." I believe this film was tops in what was truly a good year for movies.

"Army of Darkness" (1992)

While relying more on slapstick comedy than the violence and gore of its two predecessors, "Army of Darkness" is a fun comedy-horror, and Bruce Campbell is in top form. Critics generally panned it when it came out, comparing it to the first two Evil Dead films, but that was a mistake. On its own "Army of Darkness" holds it own and has a distinct style and tone, and it's good stuff.

"Batman" (1989)

With all the hubbub over Christopher Nolan's two Batman film installments and Heath Ledger's Joker, many people look back uncharitably on Tim Burton's film, and that's a shame. It's a good script with a good story. It has very good, stylized art direction and a distinct, dark feel. Its Batman, portrayed by Michael Keaton, and its Joker, portrayed by Jack Nicholson, don't disappoint. It's just cultural tastes have changed. "Batman" is a very good film, and I recommend it.

The Thursday List: My Shelf Edition (Pt 2)

"Aliens" (1986)

This film was an integral part of my development as a kid, a science fiction buff, an actor and writer, and a movie fan. It's a sequel unlike its predecessor in style and can work by itself as a standalone film. Its script is top notch, and it's a technically superbly executed film. All of it has held up well over time, the special effects in particular. It's a smashingly entertaining cinema experience.

"Alien 3" was included on a recent Thursday List and so will be skipped for this segment.

"An Innocent Man" (1989)

A pretty solid drama, this is one I came across quite by accident back in the '90s while channel surfing one night. It's a simple story, effectively told, and featuring a very good cast, with Tom Selleck and F. Murray Abraham at the fore. The script is well written and tight, and it's well directed and gets everything right on cue. It's kind of predictable, but it's genuinely engaging and so is better than most. I like it.

"An American Werewolf in London" (1981)

This was one of the first movies I ever saw on cable television and was the source of some of my fiercest nightmares as a pre-teen. Sometimes deadly serious, sometimes comic, sometimes deadly serious and comic -- it's a highly effective, quickly paced, very well performed, and extremely fun horror film. It was the first VHS tape I ever bought, the third DVD and third Blu-Ray I ever bought. A solid film. One of my favorites.

The Thursday List (Episode 9) (re-post)

"Prince of Darkness" (1987)

Another by John Carpenter, the second in his 'Apocalypse' trilogy, which began with "The Thing" (1982) and concluded with 1995's "In the Mouth of Madness". The film centers on a group of scientists called in to investigate an impossibly old church artifact, and things go downhill from there rather quickly. An skilled cast, superb writing, and a genuinely creepy, full of mystery and dread atmosphere make this one another one of the most effective horror films of the last quarter of the 20th century. The fashions are dated a bit, plus Jameson Parker's mustache steals a few scenes, but overall this is again an example of John Carpenter showing how to tell a good story very, very well. Highly recommended.

"Dance of the Dead" (2008)

Pretty straightforward. A motley crew of students, a pizza delivery guy, and a coach work to protect the high school prom from a horde of zombies attacking the town. Don't be fooled by the simplicity of the story. This film is sharp, funny, scary, very well written and directed, and really fun to watch. On top of that, it's an indie, and we like good independent films. Highly recommended.

"F For Fake" (1975)

This was the last major film by Orson Welles, and it rather defies description. It was years ahead of its time in editing technique and overall style and remains worlds ahead of other films in what has become known as the mockumentary genre, though "F for Fake" isn't really a mockumentary... sort of. For the curious and/or adventurous of you looking for different film experiences, this one is by a bona fide Master of Cinema and cannot be missed. It is wildly entertaining and informative and more than a little mischievous. Not just recommended. Essential.

The Thursday List, Episode 8

"The Haunting" (1963)

A scientist, two psychic sensitives, and a skeptic go to check out a very haunted house indeed, and no hilarity ensues whatsoever. Robert Wise's 1963 film adaptation of Shirley Jackson's novel, The Haunting of Hill House, is considered by many, including this reviewer, as the best haunted house movie ever made. A solid story and script coupled with amazing technical direction plus an excellent cast give this film an atmosphere of unease, darkness, mystery, and psychological horror that just about can't be beat, and the best thing is that by and large it's a slow burn from beginning to end. It's masterful. Highly recommended.

"The Legend of Hell House" (1973)

There is no such slow burn in 1973's "The Legend of Hell House". Once it gets going, it keeps going and doesn't really let up, just gives you enough time to breathe. Adapted by Richard Matheson from his own novel, this film has the same premise as "The Haunting" but approaches from a different angle and much more ferociously. The cast shines, especially Roddy McDowell, and the direction is determinedly '70s and very effective. It may not be the best haunted house film ever, but it's close... and probably the most fun to watch. Highly engaging, highly energetic, and... Highly Recommended.

"Event Horizon" (1997)

A bit overambitious but well done and with a great attitude, "Event Horizon" is probably the best haunted house in space movie ever made. It's more than a hair over the top and sometimes tends to try to hard, but there's something about the film that just screams underdog. It's got a good script and direction, and the cast does pretty well. It just keeps barely not quite coming completely together. Having watched it more than a few times, I believe there's a good, fun, healthy attitude about the film, and it's really great fun to watch, especially with friends, which makes raises from average to slightly above average. And so while your mileage may vary, I say... Recommended.

The Thursday List, Episode 7

"Quigley Down Under" (1990)

This is one of my favorite post-1960s westerns. It's a solid, entertaining yet often overlooked film. It has aged far better than most of its more popular cinema contemporaries and is just as well written, acted, and directed as most of them. It has action, humor, and drama, and instead of relying on flash and cool it is plainly a good story told well, which is better than flash and cool and many other superficialities every time. Recommended.

"The Exorcist III" (1990)

Once again we have a case of an often overlooked solid, entertaining film that has aged better than many of its contemporaries. This chapter of the "Exorcist" cycle more than makes up for its diabolically hodgepodge (and often unintentionally quite funny) predecessor. It's an effective detective/horror film that really only gets over the top at the end, though it still works well. Script, direction, and cast are excellent, and the film effortlessly moves between darkly funny humor and delivering atmosphere and chills. Again, good story and well told. Recommended.

"The Return of the Living Dead" (1985)

This is probably the second most legendary zombie movie of them all, and despite its title was in no way associated with George Romero's 1968 film. (See this Wikipedia article for that story.) It's a zombie film with an excellent atmosphere of dread, a good cast, and a very effective balance of laughs and scares that keeps the film's pace moving at a steady clip. Above all, it's fun to watch, either alone or with friends. Highly recommended.

Bigotry can get you killed, by your own hand or your friends', and it will be funny.

A group of horny, beer-swilling, pot-smoking college kids just wanted to go camping... out in the middle of nowhere... where years before something really, really bad happened to a group of horny, beer-swilling, pot-smoking college kids who just wanted to go camping. And Tucker and Dale just wanted to go fishing at the lake by the cabin. Oh yes. Hilarity. It does ensue.

"Tucker & Dale vs. Evil" (2010)
directed by Eli Craig
written by Eli Craig and Morgan Jurgenson
starring Alan Tudyk, Tyler Labine, Katrina Bowden, Jesse Moss, Brandon McLaren, Chelan Simmons, Adam Beauchesne, Christie Laing, Philip Granger, Travis Nelson, Alex Arsenault, and Joseph Sutherland

How Is it?

If you enjoy horror, comedy, and/or romantic comedy films or just like watching films that fire on all cylinders and are loads of fun to watch, then you should see this one.

The Players

There really isn't much to say in this section. While Labine, Tudyk, and Bowden are the leads of the film, it's an ensemble piece. The supporting cast did a marvelous job, each one getting their moments to make their mark and doing so memorably and well. They were all fun to watch work. I was especially impressed with Tyler Labine and his chemistry with his co-stars. In a film full of excellent performances, his portrayal of Dale really stands out. Alan Tudyk, ever reliable in drama and/or comedy, is in top form as well. And Katie Bowden fits right in with the two of them and is a real delight to watch as well. The three of them work marvelously together.

Behind the Camera

Good actors can do wonders with poor to average scripts. When good actors get really very good scripts... well, we get what we have with this film. Craig and Jurgenson delivered a solid script, one that covered all the bases quickly and effectively, one that didn't waste much time on standing exposition but generally kept things moving. So the audience gets information at the same time as the plot moves along, and it clicks. That it parodies a well-worn classic genre helps, of course. People know what to expect in slasher films, and so part of the fun is watching how those conventions are turned around. It's a good story, and it's well told. There you are.

Looking at the technical side of it, "Tucker & Dale vs. Evil" is a very well made film. It's Eli Craig's best one yet, I'd say. The film's direction is much like what I said of the script. It's moves at a steady clip and keeps the audience engaged, something more than a few films have difficulty doing. The cinematography, lighting, special effects, and all are clean, not overcomplicated or overambitious, and very effective. It looks like he made all the right choices with this film. It's one of the best all-around films I've seen in a while.

The Verdict

"Tucker & Dale vs. Evil" has beer, skinny-dipping, fire, a deserted lumber mill, blood, cultural misunderstandings, gore, plenty of laughs, and a lot of heart. Highly recommended.

The Thursday List, Episode 6 (Late Edition)

"Chromeskull: Laid to Rest 2" (2011)

This is an impressive film, technically. Specifically, the makeup and effects of this film are impressive, mightily impressive. Unfortunately, saying that about a movie is rather like going to a concert and coming saying "Well, the seats were comfortable." Style is no substitute for substance, and this film was style heavy and substance poor. The script made little sense, but most of the actors managed well with what they had. All told, it wasn't really bad, though if it hadn't been for the special effects it would've been a bit below average. Recommended for fans of gore effects, not quite so for general viewers.

 "Scream of the Banshee" (2011)

When "SyFy presents" appeared at the opening, my heart sank a bit. As the movie progressed, my heart sank even more. The more the actors, brave men and women all, struggled against the bland and plodding script, the more they themselves sank into the SyFy swamp, an awful and hideous place wherein mediocrity and cheapness rule with a plastic fist (rather poorly painted to look like iron from a distance). It was obvious they knew as well as I that there was only one way for it to go, and in the end, we all went down together. At least they got paid for their time and energy, and it's still far and away and worlds better than Neighbor. Unless you want to make a drinking game out of watching it or you have a crush on Lauren Holly, this film is: Not recommended.

"The Omega Man" (1971)

This is an example of films that have aged about as well as Dorian Gray at the end of his story. The themes of Matheson's original 1954 novel, I Am Legend, are sweeping and universal, and it seems they were reduced down and twisted a bit to suit the cultural vogues of the beginning of the 1970s. They're clumsily handled in the script, and so instead of having an impact and encouraging you think it just preaches at you. The non-message parts of the film, on the other hand, are quite good. Heston's in great form and has some really good scenes, as does Rosalind Cash. It could have been better, but despite the ham-fisted handling of some of the themes and the near-comical 1970s-ness of it, it really is a slightly above average film, except for the ending. Oy vey. "The Omega Man" is worth watching, but don't go out of your way or be in a hurry to. Matheson's novel, though, should be required reading.

The Thursday List, Episode 5 (Early Edition)

"Soylent Green" (1973)

Usually ecological disaster movies are crap. They're preachy and irritating and weakly written. "Soylent Green" isn't one of those. It's the ecological disaster movie all the others are trying to be. It's solidly written and directed, and it features the final and quite moving film performance of the legendary Edward G. Robinson. The worst thing about the film, aside from Charlton Heston's mediocre performance for the first half of the film, is that it's so dreadfully 1970s, with the fashions and the language. And if that's the worst part of the film, that's doing pretty good. This film's a classic for good reason. Recommended.

"Dead Again" (1991)

"Dead Again" is a neo-noir psychological thriller and one of my favorite movies. It stars Kenneth Branagh, Emma Thompson, Andy Garcia, and Sir Derek Jacobi and is a veritable master class in film direction, screenwriting, and performance. It's gorgeously shot and features scenes both in color and in black and white while the plot develops and the action moves back and forth between the 1940s and the 1990s. It's a tight, lean story, very engaging, and should have you quite rapt until the very end. Highly recommended.

"The Mangler" (1995)

Robert Englund and Ted Levine in a horror movie based on a Stephen King short story and directed by Tobe Hooper. Holy cow! This should be pretty good. Except that "The Mangler" is a laundry folding machine... that gets possessed a demon... and terrorizes the people at the laundry service, while a detective (Levine) tries to investigate and the owner (Englund) tries to find it new victims. Holy crap. Now it seems like it should blow. To be fair, it's an all around very competently made film. It's just clunkily written, but more than that it just doesn't work as a story. I've not read the short story, though. I'll wager it worked a lot better there. The movie blows. Avoid.