McConnaughay
10-15-16, 09:57 PM
http://slasherclub.weebly.com/uploads/5/2/9/7/5297423/342277554.jpg?250
Sinister is a film that’s very near-and-dear to me. If I were asked of the reasons why I enjoy horror films, or in-particular, the slasher genre, I would say it’s in-part because of the memorable antagonists and iconic moments. And, for a long-stretch of time, especially in the time period around when Sinister was made, horror films have become dependent on cheap scares and lazy low-budget approaches. For this reason, I really resented supernatural films. I was late watching Sinister, afraid it’d be another run-of-the-mill supernatural film on the order of Paranormal Activity or some other “spooky” movie I can’t get into. Sinister surprised me by having memorable moments and a terrific antagonist in Bughuul.
The directing in this film is in capable hands (Scott Derrickson, director of the underrated Hellraiser: Inferno and Deliver Us From Evil) and the acting is afforded premium effort by Ethan Hawke and company. The story is well-told and isn’t rushed, the characters feel developed and are allowed to stretch their legs, standing as more than simply template archetypes. The lighting and sound effects add plenty to this offering, filled with demented video-tapes that haunted me upon first viewing. That, right there, is why this film is dear to me. This film is the only film that has scared me in my adult life, watching it in the darkness of my bedroom, the execution was a particular highlight. Everything about this film feels a cut above and inspired. In the same way that Wes Craven was inspired when he did Elm Street, this film looks to do first something that seemed obvious and etch out a classic, not just a quick cash-in.
If I had to name off some criticisms, it’d be that the film has occasions where it focuses too much on addressing the viewer, jump-scares almost always take me out of the moment and it also felt like the use of the victims at most points outside the video-tapes were forced and unnecessary.
Sinister is a terrific horror film. I loved it, and I loved how it went against what has become the norm of modern mainstream horror films by the end. Highly recommended.
Rating: 4.2 out of 5.0
http://slasherclub.weebly.com/uploads/5/2/9/7/5297423/972415994.jpg?250
The A Nightmare on Elm Street series was a gateway franchise when it came to my love for the slasher genre. I watched the **** out of each film, dressing up at Freddy Krueger for Halloween at the age of eleven, I loved that bastard to death. Truth be told though, as I’ve come to learn in my adult-life, the films weren’t always up to task when it came to repeated viewings. That’s what I learned when I revisited Wes Craven’s New Nightmare, which was, for nostalgic reasons, a contender in the Horror Challenge of my favorite horror film.
In-retrospect though, the film brings acting and a narrative that can best be described as a work-in-progress, a prelude to what was on Wes Craven’s mind before he directed Scream. Heather Langenkamp contributes a worthwhile effort in her role, but the same can’t be said for the performance of the child-actor’s Dylan Porter character. It isn’t his fault, not as much as it is the over-the-top and outlandishness of what is occurring in the first place. The narrative itself feels heavy-handed and undiscovered. They try and make this story about how Freddy Krueger is this ancient creature that has been concealed inside the Elm Street movies, but now, with them finished off, the “genie is out of the bottle,” and is looking to wreak havoc. Whenever I was a kid, I thought this was the coolest concept ever, but now, watching it six or seven years later since my last viewing, it’s not. It’s an intriguing idea that doesn’t really add up to anything, and honestly, putting aside the amount of admiration and respect I have for Wes Craven, it’s execution makes it sillier than intriguing.
I also didn’t like the allusions to Hansel and Gretel much, but that’s neither here nor there.
I think the biggest criticism I can think of for this film is to say that there’s too much noise, too many narrative themes, and it doesn’t have the entertainment-value or memorable scenes to keep itself effective. I like the idea of art becoming reality, of a darker-figure coming out from it all, but I would’ve preferred them not bother with an explanation for the anomaly.
All in all, Wes Craven’s New Nightmare is a decent film and one of the better of the sequels, but it fails to match the high caliber nostalgia that made me consider it for the Horror Challenge. Robert Englund remains terrific for the role and, at the very least, I do think the film let Elm Street go out with some dignity after the previous installments really butchered it.
Rating: 2.4 out of 5.0
http://slasherclub.weebly.com/uploads/5/2/9/7/5297423/107654184.jpg?250
Hellraiser: Inferno is the fifth installment in the Hellraiser film series, and is notable for two major reasons. It is the first of the series out of theaters, after Hellraiser IV: Bloodline concluded, and is also the first film without any major involvement from Clive Barker. That makes it feel almost cruel that I find Inferno to be the best of the series.
The Hellraiser franchise isn’t one that I grew up enjoying, rather, it was one I decided to pursue later down the line and found an appreciation for. Since then, I have read the book for which it was based, as well as many of the comics based on the story. And, while I enjoy The Hellbound Heart’s creative means of torture (exaggerating the senses and so on), I think the comic-books might be the definitive interpretation of the characters.
The films never really had my acclaim, but I found moments I enjoyed. The first film was functional, but it was more than a little rough around the edges. A lot of that has to do with Clive Barkers’ lack of experience as a director, the budget, and just the fact the idea of the Hellraiser is better in concept than in execution. The second film and the fourth film were godawful, with the fourth film being especially terrible. And, while the third isn’t “good,” I enjoyed its more ridiculous themes.
A lot of the reason I didn’t like the later films is because they became so overly complicated and it moved the characters in a direction that was very peculiar and unnecessary. What I liked about the Cenobites was their aesthetics and mystique, and I think Inferno capitalizes more on that.
Granted, yes, Inferno is a script taken and morphed into a Hellraiser film, and granted, yes, I know Pinhead is only in it for like ten or so minutes, but I liked the unique approach.
Scott Derrickson has become one of my favorite horror directors (he also did Sinister and Deliver Us From Evil) and it’s a testament to him that I can watch every Hellraiser film and single out his film as the standout.
The film isn’t without its flaws, and upon watching it, I can tell you that it really isn’t a contender for my “favorite” horror, but it is a solid film. It plays out like a detective movie, the main-character trying to catch this deplorable man named The Engineer, and while it doesn’t have a large kill-count or very much extreme violence, it does offer commendable performances and enjoyable, if archetype-like, characters.
Hellrasier: Inferno is likely the furthest you can go from a Hellraiser film and is nowhere at all what Clive Barker intended, but I still like their inclusion in the narrative, how the film was done and put together. It admittedly holds a place in my heart because while marathoning the series, Inferno was the saving grace, but it’s still a film I can recommend!
Rating: 2.8 out of 5.0
http://slasherclub.weebly.com/uploads/5/2/9/7/5297423/872925190.jpg?250
Child’s Play is one of the many slasher films I grew to love as a kid. I can remember when I was eight years old, I had a back-to-back marathon of The Tigger Movie and Bride of Chucky (grew up on this ****). I was a little leery about watching this film again. I mean, I knew I had to for the Horror Challenge Review, to make sure it was fresh in my mind, but after Wes Craven’s New Nightmare, I was terrified nostalgia inspired my wondrous memories of this film.
Luckily, they didn’t. This is a well-made, well-acted film. Brad Dourif became iconic in his role of Chucky in the same way that Robert Englund did for Freddy Krueger. This film really feels like the perfect beginning of Child’s Play too, in that, it just gives a taste on the limitless potential of the character. It doesn’t play out much like a traditional slasher movie, the violence isn’t all that gory and it has a slow-burn approach for what is known as inevitable. It made me really want to see Chucky in-action. The film is helped infinitely by its pacing and tone, however. It never feels too dreary or too scary. That just isn’t the dynamic they’re going for with this. There’s more energy and color, it embraces the novelty of itself and doesn’t try to turn itself into something that it isn’t. (Curse of Chucky does this.) This film feels silly in a dark way, a serial killer puts himself inside a doll and now he is terrorizing a young boy, the serial killer doesn’t make a mess of things, but spouts off cuss-words like no tomorrow, and along the way, you silently cheer for the cute kid and his mom.
This is a good film. Not a great film, but a good one. The logic of it is certainly questionable, but why question it, eh? It’s just a fun, straight-forward and dementedly light-heart horror affair.
Rating: 3.4 out of 5.0
http://slasherclub.weebly.com/uploads/5/2/9/7/5297423/530301919.jpg?250
Deliver Us from Evil is the third film directed by Scott Derrickson that has appeared in my Favorite Horror Challenge, but was, most of all, the one I anticipated to debunk from the list. I remembered leaving the theaters with an underwhelming feeling, the acting and cinematography was both well-executed, with creepily delivered imagery and a grimy atmosphere that stays consistent from the beginning to the end. I left the theater feeling underwhelmed, but was convinced by my peers that I had paid witness to a more worthwhile film. And, don’t get me wrong, there are one or two moments that are worth singling out as memorable, but through the power of suggestive persuasion and my own forgetfulness, Deliver Us from Evil was kind-of lumped into the Challenge. Not really because I expected it to be a contender, but more because I wanted to give it a second chance and see if I’d find something more to like about it.
I didn’t, I’m afraid. If anything, upon a second-viewing, I’ve realized that even the best moments aren’t as well-delivered as I remembered. The film suffers from the best aspects about it also being its worst. The grimy atmosphere feels heavy-handed, with rainy streets and dreary surroundings, the dark and gritty approach beckons tiredness and disinterest from me as a viewer. Frankly, the lack of color in this affair is brought to the forefront by a lack of happenings inside of it, a very slow-burn pacing and a plodding two hour run-time. The payoff isn’t enough to justify itself either.
Slow-burns are a mixed-bag, and this film feels too run-of-the-mill and ho-hum to make my attention seem like a worthwhile investment. The film’s narrative tries its hand with religious themes, a common trait in Derrickson’s films, but the execution of the film around the character’s intermingling fails to make me care about them beyond a superficial level.
Rating: 1.0 out of 5.0
http://slasherclub.weebly.com/uploads/5/2/9/7/5297423/914646416.png?250
Don’t Breathe is the sophomore effort in Fede Alvarez’s directorial career, his other work being the decent Evil Dead remake, and is a film I was modestly looking forward to. The biggest reason for my mild anticipation is because I didn’t expect the film to be released to theaters, the film ended up being a much bigger deal than I thought it’d be.
2016, in retrospect, has been a solid year for horror films. The Conjuring 2 was terrific, as was 10 Cloverfield Lane, and Lights Out was surprisingly decent. And, after watching this film, Don’t Breathe is certainly another feather in the genre films’ cap.
The film is an improvement on Evil Dead on all accounts, while Jane Levy reprises herself as a leading woman, her acting feels so much more seasoned and capable, whereas the rest of the cast is very capable of playing their part. The narrative is definitely thinly scripted, but sometimes, simple development and simple characters work better with a film with a concept. Don’t Breathe incorporates elements of a slasher, doing a lot of new and interesting things with it. Fede Alvarez’s directing and the cinematography all make for a very intense and brooding atmosphere, making the antagonist something to be afraid of. The biggest gripe I have with this film is that it had one more comedic and ridiculous moment in it that I feel broke the tension and weakened the menacing qualities of the built antagonist.
To summarize my thoughts, Don’t Breathe is my favorite original horror film this year so far, with commendable acting, strong directing, and a good, minimalist story-line. The tension is well executed, as is the rest of the film, and it takes the slasher genre and home-invasion genre, and does something unique and new with them. Highly recommend it to horror fans. Not sure I like the prospect of a sequel, but it’s doing well enough to safely assume we’ll get one.
Rating: 3.5 out of 5.0
http://slasherclub.weebly.com/uploads/5/2/9/7/5297423/644252423.jpg?250
In a lot of ways, the Child’s Play 2 exemplifies my perfect horror film, or, perhaps more fittingly, my perfect slasher film. Unlike the first film, which was dealt having to explain the character’s origination and the handling of initial novelty of concept, this film is allowed to merrily wander about with our plastic friend. In other-words, Child’s Play was similar to a slow-burn film, albeit, not to as high of an extent. The burning desire built in moviegoers’ was to see Chucky in-action, and it worked for that film, but, in this film, Chucky is fully fleshed out and diabolical. Foul-mouthed and equipped with a hellish laugh, Chucky quips and stabs at a rampant more-is-more rate.
The concept of this film, to many’s dismay, follows a similar formula to the first, what, with Chucky trying to steal Andy’s body. However, I believe the film took the formula of the first and improved it on all cylinders, and, it did it in a completely different direction. Everything is even more energetic and giddy in this film than in the last, and like I said before, I’ve never found the character particularly scary, as much as I’ve found him very entertaining to watch. I’m well aware of who the bad-guy is, who the good-guy is, and it plays out like a game of cat and mouse. The only difference is there’s blood and swear words.
The acting is executed pretty well and the characters are every bit as developed as they need to be with the concept. The special-effects, while definitely a thing of the past, are damn good when it comes to Chucky’s facial expressions, and the music adds a lot to the vibe of the film. That is, not a serious horror film, but a colorful and lively one, fueled by vibrant cinematography.
This film is delivered on almost all accounts, being my favorite film in the Child’s Play series, it is also one of my all-time favorite slasher films.
Rating: 4.0 out of 5.0
http://slasherclub.weebly.com/uploads/5/2/9/7/5297423/298340807.jpg
The third Child’s Play is remarked by Don Mancini as being his least favorite in the franchise as a whole, and for me, it was remembered in a similar light. Upon watching it again, however, I can honesty say it isn’t that bad, at all. The weakest entry in the original trilogy, for certain, but it had sprouts of inspiration in its own right and, at the very least, it stays true to the energetic and somehow light-heart execution of the previous entries.
This isn’t to say that a lot of changes aren’t made, like, in-particular, with how Andy is recast and is now a sixteen year old in military school. Regardless of this fact, I still felt a connection with him, like I had experienced the last two wrenching trials with him.
The acting remains somewhere in the middle between good and B-movie charm, and, as a film, it doesn’t really miss a beat tonally from the rest of the series. Having watched all three of them, back-to-back-to-back, none of them are what I’d call bad, it’s just by happenstance that I find the third to be the weakest of the set. In the end, however, if you like the other two films, you’ll find enjoyment out of this one as well.
Rating: 3.0 out of 5.0
http://slasherclub.weebly.com/uploads/5/2/9/7/5297423/965492780.jpg?250
Inside is a film I had little expectations heading into. As a horror buff in-general, I like to expand my horizons as much as possible. And the New French Extremity movement ushered in a handful of well-received films. The only other film I had seen ahead of this of the movement was a film called Frontiere(s) which wasn’t my cup of tea. Convenience is the reason I decided to watch Inside, a friend of mine let me borrow a copy, and with Julien Maury and Alexandre Bustillo at helm of the next Texas Chainsaw Massacre film, I figured it was relevant.
In-terms of cinematography and style, this film is very intense and blood-filled, I have never liked the “torture porn” expression for films, but this film is definitely vicious enough to be associated with the phrase. In-fact, by the home-stretch it’s an absolute massacre, a blood-filled extravaganza! The question I am left with though, is whether the film is violence for the sake of, or if the film itself as the merits to stand on its own. The answer is somewhere in the middle.
The film itself has a paper-thin narrative in-retrospect, along with one-dimensional characters and acting that is neither bad nor praiseworthy. The concept is kept simple, which is often the case for a lot of great horror films – woman wants other woman’s baby and will stop at nothing to get it. The film kept my attention, which is a compliment to its execution. The violence and absolute torment done to the antagonist is harrowing and unrelenting, with the last twenty or so minutes really bringing things together as sadistically as possible.
In the end, however, while Inside boasts intense blood-filled visuals that contribute a squirm-worthy aesthetic, and even has a few worthwhile scenes, it never reaches the same high-level anywhere else. The film is competent through and through, and I liked the end sequence quite a lot for its deliverance, but the overall product, I found lacking. I’d recommend it to gore-hounds, but this isn’t one I can recommend to casuals.
Rating: 2.3 out of 5.0
http://slasherclub.weebly.com/uploads/5/2/9/7/5297423/656164991.jpg?250
The Neighbor is a 2016 crime thriller film from Marcus Dunstan, a talented director who first caught my attention with The Collector and The Collection. The film also brings Josh Stewart, who starred his freshman and sophomore efforts, back as his main-protagonist.
This film didn’t seem to have a lot of buzz or attention to it. I had seen a couple of articles about it, but it has mostly flown under the radar so far. This is a shame because The Neighbor is a well-made, if a little by-the-books, crime thriller.
A capable cast helps elevate the characters, which are a step above the run-of-the-mill type that has become the norm. I’ll admit the film holds one or two instances in it that are a little too cliché to let slide, but as a whole, I’d call the film a success in the character and acting department. Josh Stewart plays the role of a mostly silent survivor similar to how he did in The Collector, but he makes a success out of it.
The storyline is well-delivered as well and the film has a handful of tense moments. The film also has a moment during where it turns conventions on its head that I enjoyed.
The reason the film never exceeds expectations, however, is because a lack of innovation. The concept is predictable all the way through and although I waited in-anticipation of something unique, the film never really does anything new for itself. It’s always a straight-line formulaic approach and it never deters from that.
The Neighbor is a well-made film, but doesn’t do a whole lot of new stuff. I’ll admit that it’s likely the most well-aimed film in Marcus’ directorial catalog so far, but it’s his least interesting too.
Rating: 2.3 out of 5.0
http://slasherclub.weebly.com/uploads/5/2/9/7/5297423/976357933.jpg?250
Rob Zombie is about as polarizing of a figure as they come, especially when it comes to his efforts in the horror industry. Personally, I find him a mixed bag of ideas. I didn’t downright his efforts in the Halloween franchise, and I actually did enjoy his Devil’s Rejects film. I was excited for 31. As a matter of fact, it was one of my most anticipated horror films of the year. The concept alone was enough to entice me. Something about survival-like games are something I’ve always found interesting (the success of Saw and Purge indicate I am not alone in this). Which is why I am saddened to say that 31 squanders all of its potential by adding up to a less-than-satisfactory feature film.
As a director, Zombie has always been rough-around-the-edges and scruffy when it comes to certain things, things like his absolute infatuation with violence or profanity, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but he always struggles with excess and an inability at using these things to the narrative’s benefit. In 31, the first thirty minutes of the film is just about all throwaway drivel, with unlikable characters being unlikable characters, reduced to snarling archetypes rather than legitimate personalities. And, when the interesting stuff finally comes, none of it really amounts to much. None of the antagonist are what I’d call worthwhile, with every one of them doing something to take away anything menacing about them.
In the end, 31 left me with a bad taste in my mouth. I don’t think it’d be fair to call it a horrible film, I enjoyed some of the camera-work, for instance, but as a whole, I’d call it a mediocre affair. Abysmal characters and little of the “good stuff” to save it, 31 might be my biggest letdown of the year.
Rating: 1.7 out of 5.0
http://slasherclub.weebly.com/uploads/5/2/9/7/5297423/396257000.png
Blair Witch was marketed as a game-changer by many horror aficionados, in the trailers, it was marketing as taking the found-footage genre to new, unseen heights. I’ll start off being completely honest by saying I never really got the hype with the Blair Witch Project, for the most part, I feel that found-footage is a novelty act that hasn’t aged well. With that being said, I was still excited for Blair Witch. I didn’t really believe it’d be as great as everyone said, but I was optimistic and hopeful.
If nothing else, I can say I enjoyed Blair Witch more than Blair Witch Project. Though, it still wasn’t what I’d call a terrific film. The biggest merits I would praise for the film would be about the likable enough cast, they aren’t above-and-beyond, but the cast comprises a worthwhile ensemble which is different than what I thought about the original film. The biggest issue, however, is that the film offers nothing new and delivers little to write home about in the memorable moment department. As a matter of fact, I feel like the film is more-or-less just a louder version of the original, and while I prefer this one, all in all, it will feel undoubtedly safer and more run-of-the-mill for this generation.
It isn’t the worst horror film I’ve seen this year, it isn’t anywhere near the best, but it is what it is, not a game-changer, but a decent found-footage rehash.
Rating: 2.0 out of 5.0
http://slasherclub.weebly.com/uploads/5/2/9/7/5297423/663187215.jpg
John Carpenter’s Halloween is a classic film. Oftentimes dubbed as one of the innovators and founders of the Slasher genre, Halloween is the debut of the iconic Michael Myers. As a film, Halloween exceeds on a lot of levels. The acting, which introduced Jamie Lee Curtis, was well-executed and delivered on most accounts, with development of each character making them seem established. A lot of the standard horror tropes debut here as well, and for that reason, familiarity works to the film’s detriment when it comes to still holding up today.
I’ll admit that I believe the film is lacking in some departments. The fact that it is a classic that ushered in so much from the genre helps make it impervious from criticism, but I still found a lack of creative scares and presence. Just because something is among the first, doesn’t mean that it is the most inspired, for a lot of scenes, having Michael Myers pop up and stand, aimless, for several seconds, might help advance the narrative, but it is a trope that was classic even before the film came out. The cinematic score is one of the most memorable and distinctive in history, but, in some instances, I can’t help thinking it feels tacked on last minute and unneeded in some scenes.
While I don’t believe Halloween holds up on all accounts today, that should only be taken as a minor criticism. The characters are memorable, and the sheer mystery of his character is one of the character’s best attributes. Halloween is a good film, and while I don’t think it reaches the levels of greatness that its legacy might have you believe, I do think highly of it for paving the way for what has become one of my favorite genres.
Rating: 3.0 out of 5.0
http://slasherclub.weebly.com/uploads/5/2/9/7/5297423/609129710.jpg?250
An American Werewolf in London is a horror-comedy film I’ve heard recommend on a number of occasions. A lot of the reason it has taken me as long as it has to watch the film, might in-fact be because of the heightened expectations I had for it. A high percentile on Rotten Tomatoes and a healthy cult-following, when, other-wise, I didn’t think the film itself looked too appealing when I watched trailers for it. In the end, I found enjoyment in An American Werewolf in London, but it wasn’t anything much more than what I expected.
A charismatic and likable lead, the film has charm and enthusiasm about it. The set pieces and make-up are all top-notch as well. I’d compare this almost to a Full Moon Feature, which some might take an insult (I like Full Moon), a b-movie, which is what this film felt like. The characters themselves aren’t very well-developed, the relationships are fast-paced and unrealistic, and the acting itself lacks on an emotional basis. The charismatic and likable lead I mentioned earlier finds himself unequipped to tackle the severity of certain situations with the level of emotional prowess I think would’ve benefited the narrative, which I found very lacking.
An American Werewolf in London is a decent film, an entertaining, harmless affair that neither particularly excels nor fails.
Rating: 2.0 out of 5.0
Sinister is a film that’s very near-and-dear to me. If I were asked of the reasons why I enjoy horror films, or in-particular, the slasher genre, I would say it’s in-part because of the memorable antagonists and iconic moments. And, for a long-stretch of time, especially in the time period around when Sinister was made, horror films have become dependent on cheap scares and lazy low-budget approaches. For this reason, I really resented supernatural films. I was late watching Sinister, afraid it’d be another run-of-the-mill supernatural film on the order of Paranormal Activity or some other “spooky” movie I can’t get into. Sinister surprised me by having memorable moments and a terrific antagonist in Bughuul.
The directing in this film is in capable hands (Scott Derrickson, director of the underrated Hellraiser: Inferno and Deliver Us From Evil) and the acting is afforded premium effort by Ethan Hawke and company. The story is well-told and isn’t rushed, the characters feel developed and are allowed to stretch their legs, standing as more than simply template archetypes. The lighting and sound effects add plenty to this offering, filled with demented video-tapes that haunted me upon first viewing. That, right there, is why this film is dear to me. This film is the only film that has scared me in my adult life, watching it in the darkness of my bedroom, the execution was a particular highlight. Everything about this film feels a cut above and inspired. In the same way that Wes Craven was inspired when he did Elm Street, this film looks to do first something that seemed obvious and etch out a classic, not just a quick cash-in.
If I had to name off some criticisms, it’d be that the film has occasions where it focuses too much on addressing the viewer, jump-scares almost always take me out of the moment and it also felt like the use of the victims at most points outside the video-tapes were forced and unnecessary.
Sinister is a terrific horror film. I loved it, and I loved how it went against what has become the norm of modern mainstream horror films by the end. Highly recommended.
Rating: 4.2 out of 5.0
http://slasherclub.weebly.com/uploads/5/2/9/7/5297423/972415994.jpg?250
The A Nightmare on Elm Street series was a gateway franchise when it came to my love for the slasher genre. I watched the **** out of each film, dressing up at Freddy Krueger for Halloween at the age of eleven, I loved that bastard to death. Truth be told though, as I’ve come to learn in my adult-life, the films weren’t always up to task when it came to repeated viewings. That’s what I learned when I revisited Wes Craven’s New Nightmare, which was, for nostalgic reasons, a contender in the Horror Challenge of my favorite horror film.
In-retrospect though, the film brings acting and a narrative that can best be described as a work-in-progress, a prelude to what was on Wes Craven’s mind before he directed Scream. Heather Langenkamp contributes a worthwhile effort in her role, but the same can’t be said for the performance of the child-actor’s Dylan Porter character. It isn’t his fault, not as much as it is the over-the-top and outlandishness of what is occurring in the first place. The narrative itself feels heavy-handed and undiscovered. They try and make this story about how Freddy Krueger is this ancient creature that has been concealed inside the Elm Street movies, but now, with them finished off, the “genie is out of the bottle,” and is looking to wreak havoc. Whenever I was a kid, I thought this was the coolest concept ever, but now, watching it six or seven years later since my last viewing, it’s not. It’s an intriguing idea that doesn’t really add up to anything, and honestly, putting aside the amount of admiration and respect I have for Wes Craven, it’s execution makes it sillier than intriguing.
I also didn’t like the allusions to Hansel and Gretel much, but that’s neither here nor there.
I think the biggest criticism I can think of for this film is to say that there’s too much noise, too many narrative themes, and it doesn’t have the entertainment-value or memorable scenes to keep itself effective. I like the idea of art becoming reality, of a darker-figure coming out from it all, but I would’ve preferred them not bother with an explanation for the anomaly.
All in all, Wes Craven’s New Nightmare is a decent film and one of the better of the sequels, but it fails to match the high caliber nostalgia that made me consider it for the Horror Challenge. Robert Englund remains terrific for the role and, at the very least, I do think the film let Elm Street go out with some dignity after the previous installments really butchered it.
Rating: 2.4 out of 5.0
http://slasherclub.weebly.com/uploads/5/2/9/7/5297423/107654184.jpg?250
Hellraiser: Inferno is the fifth installment in the Hellraiser film series, and is notable for two major reasons. It is the first of the series out of theaters, after Hellraiser IV: Bloodline concluded, and is also the first film without any major involvement from Clive Barker. That makes it feel almost cruel that I find Inferno to be the best of the series.
The Hellraiser franchise isn’t one that I grew up enjoying, rather, it was one I decided to pursue later down the line and found an appreciation for. Since then, I have read the book for which it was based, as well as many of the comics based on the story. And, while I enjoy The Hellbound Heart’s creative means of torture (exaggerating the senses and so on), I think the comic-books might be the definitive interpretation of the characters.
The films never really had my acclaim, but I found moments I enjoyed. The first film was functional, but it was more than a little rough around the edges. A lot of that has to do with Clive Barkers’ lack of experience as a director, the budget, and just the fact the idea of the Hellraiser is better in concept than in execution. The second film and the fourth film were godawful, with the fourth film being especially terrible. And, while the third isn’t “good,” I enjoyed its more ridiculous themes.
A lot of the reason I didn’t like the later films is because they became so overly complicated and it moved the characters in a direction that was very peculiar and unnecessary. What I liked about the Cenobites was their aesthetics and mystique, and I think Inferno capitalizes more on that.
Granted, yes, Inferno is a script taken and morphed into a Hellraiser film, and granted, yes, I know Pinhead is only in it for like ten or so minutes, but I liked the unique approach.
Scott Derrickson has become one of my favorite horror directors (he also did Sinister and Deliver Us From Evil) and it’s a testament to him that I can watch every Hellraiser film and single out his film as the standout.
The film isn’t without its flaws, and upon watching it, I can tell you that it really isn’t a contender for my “favorite” horror, but it is a solid film. It plays out like a detective movie, the main-character trying to catch this deplorable man named The Engineer, and while it doesn’t have a large kill-count or very much extreme violence, it does offer commendable performances and enjoyable, if archetype-like, characters.
Hellrasier: Inferno is likely the furthest you can go from a Hellraiser film and is nowhere at all what Clive Barker intended, but I still like their inclusion in the narrative, how the film was done and put together. It admittedly holds a place in my heart because while marathoning the series, Inferno was the saving grace, but it’s still a film I can recommend!
Rating: 2.8 out of 5.0
http://slasherclub.weebly.com/uploads/5/2/9/7/5297423/872925190.jpg?250
Child’s Play is one of the many slasher films I grew to love as a kid. I can remember when I was eight years old, I had a back-to-back marathon of The Tigger Movie and Bride of Chucky (grew up on this ****). I was a little leery about watching this film again. I mean, I knew I had to for the Horror Challenge Review, to make sure it was fresh in my mind, but after Wes Craven’s New Nightmare, I was terrified nostalgia inspired my wondrous memories of this film.
Luckily, they didn’t. This is a well-made, well-acted film. Brad Dourif became iconic in his role of Chucky in the same way that Robert Englund did for Freddy Krueger. This film really feels like the perfect beginning of Child’s Play too, in that, it just gives a taste on the limitless potential of the character. It doesn’t play out much like a traditional slasher movie, the violence isn’t all that gory and it has a slow-burn approach for what is known as inevitable. It made me really want to see Chucky in-action. The film is helped infinitely by its pacing and tone, however. It never feels too dreary or too scary. That just isn’t the dynamic they’re going for with this. There’s more energy and color, it embraces the novelty of itself and doesn’t try to turn itself into something that it isn’t. (Curse of Chucky does this.) This film feels silly in a dark way, a serial killer puts himself inside a doll and now he is terrorizing a young boy, the serial killer doesn’t make a mess of things, but spouts off cuss-words like no tomorrow, and along the way, you silently cheer for the cute kid and his mom.
This is a good film. Not a great film, but a good one. The logic of it is certainly questionable, but why question it, eh? It’s just a fun, straight-forward and dementedly light-heart horror affair.
Rating: 3.4 out of 5.0
http://slasherclub.weebly.com/uploads/5/2/9/7/5297423/530301919.jpg?250
Deliver Us from Evil is the third film directed by Scott Derrickson that has appeared in my Favorite Horror Challenge, but was, most of all, the one I anticipated to debunk from the list. I remembered leaving the theaters with an underwhelming feeling, the acting and cinematography was both well-executed, with creepily delivered imagery and a grimy atmosphere that stays consistent from the beginning to the end. I left the theater feeling underwhelmed, but was convinced by my peers that I had paid witness to a more worthwhile film. And, don’t get me wrong, there are one or two moments that are worth singling out as memorable, but through the power of suggestive persuasion and my own forgetfulness, Deliver Us from Evil was kind-of lumped into the Challenge. Not really because I expected it to be a contender, but more because I wanted to give it a second chance and see if I’d find something more to like about it.
I didn’t, I’m afraid. If anything, upon a second-viewing, I’ve realized that even the best moments aren’t as well-delivered as I remembered. The film suffers from the best aspects about it also being its worst. The grimy atmosphere feels heavy-handed, with rainy streets and dreary surroundings, the dark and gritty approach beckons tiredness and disinterest from me as a viewer. Frankly, the lack of color in this affair is brought to the forefront by a lack of happenings inside of it, a very slow-burn pacing and a plodding two hour run-time. The payoff isn’t enough to justify itself either.
Slow-burns are a mixed-bag, and this film feels too run-of-the-mill and ho-hum to make my attention seem like a worthwhile investment. The film’s narrative tries its hand with religious themes, a common trait in Derrickson’s films, but the execution of the film around the character’s intermingling fails to make me care about them beyond a superficial level.
Rating: 1.0 out of 5.0
http://slasherclub.weebly.com/uploads/5/2/9/7/5297423/914646416.png?250
Don’t Breathe is the sophomore effort in Fede Alvarez’s directorial career, his other work being the decent Evil Dead remake, and is a film I was modestly looking forward to. The biggest reason for my mild anticipation is because I didn’t expect the film to be released to theaters, the film ended up being a much bigger deal than I thought it’d be.
2016, in retrospect, has been a solid year for horror films. The Conjuring 2 was terrific, as was 10 Cloverfield Lane, and Lights Out was surprisingly decent. And, after watching this film, Don’t Breathe is certainly another feather in the genre films’ cap.
The film is an improvement on Evil Dead on all accounts, while Jane Levy reprises herself as a leading woman, her acting feels so much more seasoned and capable, whereas the rest of the cast is very capable of playing their part. The narrative is definitely thinly scripted, but sometimes, simple development and simple characters work better with a film with a concept. Don’t Breathe incorporates elements of a slasher, doing a lot of new and interesting things with it. Fede Alvarez’s directing and the cinematography all make for a very intense and brooding atmosphere, making the antagonist something to be afraid of. The biggest gripe I have with this film is that it had one more comedic and ridiculous moment in it that I feel broke the tension and weakened the menacing qualities of the built antagonist.
To summarize my thoughts, Don’t Breathe is my favorite original horror film this year so far, with commendable acting, strong directing, and a good, minimalist story-line. The tension is well executed, as is the rest of the film, and it takes the slasher genre and home-invasion genre, and does something unique and new with them. Highly recommend it to horror fans. Not sure I like the prospect of a sequel, but it’s doing well enough to safely assume we’ll get one.
Rating: 3.5 out of 5.0
http://slasherclub.weebly.com/uploads/5/2/9/7/5297423/644252423.jpg?250
In a lot of ways, the Child’s Play 2 exemplifies my perfect horror film, or, perhaps more fittingly, my perfect slasher film. Unlike the first film, which was dealt having to explain the character’s origination and the handling of initial novelty of concept, this film is allowed to merrily wander about with our plastic friend. In other-words, Child’s Play was similar to a slow-burn film, albeit, not to as high of an extent. The burning desire built in moviegoers’ was to see Chucky in-action, and it worked for that film, but, in this film, Chucky is fully fleshed out and diabolical. Foul-mouthed and equipped with a hellish laugh, Chucky quips and stabs at a rampant more-is-more rate.
The concept of this film, to many’s dismay, follows a similar formula to the first, what, with Chucky trying to steal Andy’s body. However, I believe the film took the formula of the first and improved it on all cylinders, and, it did it in a completely different direction. Everything is even more energetic and giddy in this film than in the last, and like I said before, I’ve never found the character particularly scary, as much as I’ve found him very entertaining to watch. I’m well aware of who the bad-guy is, who the good-guy is, and it plays out like a game of cat and mouse. The only difference is there’s blood and swear words.
The acting is executed pretty well and the characters are every bit as developed as they need to be with the concept. The special-effects, while definitely a thing of the past, are damn good when it comes to Chucky’s facial expressions, and the music adds a lot to the vibe of the film. That is, not a serious horror film, but a colorful and lively one, fueled by vibrant cinematography.
This film is delivered on almost all accounts, being my favorite film in the Child’s Play series, it is also one of my all-time favorite slasher films.
Rating: 4.0 out of 5.0
http://slasherclub.weebly.com/uploads/5/2/9/7/5297423/298340807.jpg
The third Child’s Play is remarked by Don Mancini as being his least favorite in the franchise as a whole, and for me, it was remembered in a similar light. Upon watching it again, however, I can honesty say it isn’t that bad, at all. The weakest entry in the original trilogy, for certain, but it had sprouts of inspiration in its own right and, at the very least, it stays true to the energetic and somehow light-heart execution of the previous entries.
This isn’t to say that a lot of changes aren’t made, like, in-particular, with how Andy is recast and is now a sixteen year old in military school. Regardless of this fact, I still felt a connection with him, like I had experienced the last two wrenching trials with him.
The acting remains somewhere in the middle between good and B-movie charm, and, as a film, it doesn’t really miss a beat tonally from the rest of the series. Having watched all three of them, back-to-back-to-back, none of them are what I’d call bad, it’s just by happenstance that I find the third to be the weakest of the set. In the end, however, if you like the other two films, you’ll find enjoyment out of this one as well.
Rating: 3.0 out of 5.0
http://slasherclub.weebly.com/uploads/5/2/9/7/5297423/965492780.jpg?250
Inside is a film I had little expectations heading into. As a horror buff in-general, I like to expand my horizons as much as possible. And the New French Extremity movement ushered in a handful of well-received films. The only other film I had seen ahead of this of the movement was a film called Frontiere(s) which wasn’t my cup of tea. Convenience is the reason I decided to watch Inside, a friend of mine let me borrow a copy, and with Julien Maury and Alexandre Bustillo at helm of the next Texas Chainsaw Massacre film, I figured it was relevant.
In-terms of cinematography and style, this film is very intense and blood-filled, I have never liked the “torture porn” expression for films, but this film is definitely vicious enough to be associated with the phrase. In-fact, by the home-stretch it’s an absolute massacre, a blood-filled extravaganza! The question I am left with though, is whether the film is violence for the sake of, or if the film itself as the merits to stand on its own. The answer is somewhere in the middle.
The film itself has a paper-thin narrative in-retrospect, along with one-dimensional characters and acting that is neither bad nor praiseworthy. The concept is kept simple, which is often the case for a lot of great horror films – woman wants other woman’s baby and will stop at nothing to get it. The film kept my attention, which is a compliment to its execution. The violence and absolute torment done to the antagonist is harrowing and unrelenting, with the last twenty or so minutes really bringing things together as sadistically as possible.
In the end, however, while Inside boasts intense blood-filled visuals that contribute a squirm-worthy aesthetic, and even has a few worthwhile scenes, it never reaches the same high-level anywhere else. The film is competent through and through, and I liked the end sequence quite a lot for its deliverance, but the overall product, I found lacking. I’d recommend it to gore-hounds, but this isn’t one I can recommend to casuals.
Rating: 2.3 out of 5.0
http://slasherclub.weebly.com/uploads/5/2/9/7/5297423/656164991.jpg?250
The Neighbor is a 2016 crime thriller film from Marcus Dunstan, a talented director who first caught my attention with The Collector and The Collection. The film also brings Josh Stewart, who starred his freshman and sophomore efforts, back as his main-protagonist.
This film didn’t seem to have a lot of buzz or attention to it. I had seen a couple of articles about it, but it has mostly flown under the radar so far. This is a shame because The Neighbor is a well-made, if a little by-the-books, crime thriller.
A capable cast helps elevate the characters, which are a step above the run-of-the-mill type that has become the norm. I’ll admit the film holds one or two instances in it that are a little too cliché to let slide, but as a whole, I’d call the film a success in the character and acting department. Josh Stewart plays the role of a mostly silent survivor similar to how he did in The Collector, but he makes a success out of it.
The storyline is well-delivered as well and the film has a handful of tense moments. The film also has a moment during where it turns conventions on its head that I enjoyed.
The reason the film never exceeds expectations, however, is because a lack of innovation. The concept is predictable all the way through and although I waited in-anticipation of something unique, the film never really does anything new for itself. It’s always a straight-line formulaic approach and it never deters from that.
The Neighbor is a well-made film, but doesn’t do a whole lot of new stuff. I’ll admit that it’s likely the most well-aimed film in Marcus’ directorial catalog so far, but it’s his least interesting too.
Rating: 2.3 out of 5.0
http://slasherclub.weebly.com/uploads/5/2/9/7/5297423/976357933.jpg?250
Rob Zombie is about as polarizing of a figure as they come, especially when it comes to his efforts in the horror industry. Personally, I find him a mixed bag of ideas. I didn’t downright his efforts in the Halloween franchise, and I actually did enjoy his Devil’s Rejects film. I was excited for 31. As a matter of fact, it was one of my most anticipated horror films of the year. The concept alone was enough to entice me. Something about survival-like games are something I’ve always found interesting (the success of Saw and Purge indicate I am not alone in this). Which is why I am saddened to say that 31 squanders all of its potential by adding up to a less-than-satisfactory feature film.
As a director, Zombie has always been rough-around-the-edges and scruffy when it comes to certain things, things like his absolute infatuation with violence or profanity, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but he always struggles with excess and an inability at using these things to the narrative’s benefit. In 31, the first thirty minutes of the film is just about all throwaway drivel, with unlikable characters being unlikable characters, reduced to snarling archetypes rather than legitimate personalities. And, when the interesting stuff finally comes, none of it really amounts to much. None of the antagonist are what I’d call worthwhile, with every one of them doing something to take away anything menacing about them.
In the end, 31 left me with a bad taste in my mouth. I don’t think it’d be fair to call it a horrible film, I enjoyed some of the camera-work, for instance, but as a whole, I’d call it a mediocre affair. Abysmal characters and little of the “good stuff” to save it, 31 might be my biggest letdown of the year.
Rating: 1.7 out of 5.0
http://slasherclub.weebly.com/uploads/5/2/9/7/5297423/396257000.png
Blair Witch was marketed as a game-changer by many horror aficionados, in the trailers, it was marketing as taking the found-footage genre to new, unseen heights. I’ll start off being completely honest by saying I never really got the hype with the Blair Witch Project, for the most part, I feel that found-footage is a novelty act that hasn’t aged well. With that being said, I was still excited for Blair Witch. I didn’t really believe it’d be as great as everyone said, but I was optimistic and hopeful.
If nothing else, I can say I enjoyed Blair Witch more than Blair Witch Project. Though, it still wasn’t what I’d call a terrific film. The biggest merits I would praise for the film would be about the likable enough cast, they aren’t above-and-beyond, but the cast comprises a worthwhile ensemble which is different than what I thought about the original film. The biggest issue, however, is that the film offers nothing new and delivers little to write home about in the memorable moment department. As a matter of fact, I feel like the film is more-or-less just a louder version of the original, and while I prefer this one, all in all, it will feel undoubtedly safer and more run-of-the-mill for this generation.
It isn’t the worst horror film I’ve seen this year, it isn’t anywhere near the best, but it is what it is, not a game-changer, but a decent found-footage rehash.
Rating: 2.0 out of 5.0
http://slasherclub.weebly.com/uploads/5/2/9/7/5297423/663187215.jpg
John Carpenter’s Halloween is a classic film. Oftentimes dubbed as one of the innovators and founders of the Slasher genre, Halloween is the debut of the iconic Michael Myers. As a film, Halloween exceeds on a lot of levels. The acting, which introduced Jamie Lee Curtis, was well-executed and delivered on most accounts, with development of each character making them seem established. A lot of the standard horror tropes debut here as well, and for that reason, familiarity works to the film’s detriment when it comes to still holding up today.
I’ll admit that I believe the film is lacking in some departments. The fact that it is a classic that ushered in so much from the genre helps make it impervious from criticism, but I still found a lack of creative scares and presence. Just because something is among the first, doesn’t mean that it is the most inspired, for a lot of scenes, having Michael Myers pop up and stand, aimless, for several seconds, might help advance the narrative, but it is a trope that was classic even before the film came out. The cinematic score is one of the most memorable and distinctive in history, but, in some instances, I can’t help thinking it feels tacked on last minute and unneeded in some scenes.
While I don’t believe Halloween holds up on all accounts today, that should only be taken as a minor criticism. The characters are memorable, and the sheer mystery of his character is one of the character’s best attributes. Halloween is a good film, and while I don’t think it reaches the levels of greatness that its legacy might have you believe, I do think highly of it for paving the way for what has become one of my favorite genres.
Rating: 3.0 out of 5.0
http://slasherclub.weebly.com/uploads/5/2/9/7/5297423/609129710.jpg?250
An American Werewolf in London is a horror-comedy film I’ve heard recommend on a number of occasions. A lot of the reason it has taken me as long as it has to watch the film, might in-fact be because of the heightened expectations I had for it. A high percentile on Rotten Tomatoes and a healthy cult-following, when, other-wise, I didn’t think the film itself looked too appealing when I watched trailers for it. In the end, I found enjoyment in An American Werewolf in London, but it wasn’t anything much more than what I expected.
A charismatic and likable lead, the film has charm and enthusiasm about it. The set pieces and make-up are all top-notch as well. I’d compare this almost to a Full Moon Feature, which some might take an insult (I like Full Moon), a b-movie, which is what this film felt like. The characters themselves aren’t very well-developed, the relationships are fast-paced and unrealistic, and the acting itself lacks on an emotional basis. The charismatic and likable lead I mentioned earlier finds himself unequipped to tackle the severity of certain situations with the level of emotional prowess I think would’ve benefited the narrative, which I found very lacking.
An American Werewolf in London is a decent film, an entertaining, harmless affair that neither particularly excels nor fails.
Rating: 2.0 out of 5.0