The Conjuring 2 (2016)

Genre: Ghosts; Supernatural
Director: James Wan
Availability: Still in Theaters

When I saw The Conjuring in theaters back in 2013 it scared the shit out of me. I sat there with my knees tucked up to my chin, leaning into the side of my best friend, and screaming so loudly at the jump scares that I started to become embarrassed. Three years and multiple viewings later it still scares me silly. But as much as I love The Conjuring I don't want to watch it again under the guise of another name, such as, oh I don't know, The Conjuring 2.

And when I say it's the same movie I exaggerate. It is of course an entirely different movie. They both just happen to share: an old dingy house, young jovial kids, a stressed out but loving mom, spooky things that start to happen to one kid while she's sleeping in bed, then everyone's a target and they all start sleeping in the living room together, then someone gets possessed, the Warrens come along and offer them kindness and neighborly normalcy while sympathizing and being helpful, a kid hides in the wall, they find a creepy spinning toy that plays music, there's pale gangly ghosties with terrible skin and dark eyes, there's the mystery of discovering what actually happened, there's the misleading answer, the evil things follow the Warrens back home, the kids go stay in a different place while the house gets cleaned, everyone is saved by love. If my life shared that many qualities with someone else's life they'd put us on Unsolved Mysteries and we'd be famous.

I guess my expectations were too high in that I wanted like, some new ideas in a new movie.

Griping aside, Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga are as delightful as ever as the loving, supernaturally inclined husband and wife team. And there's some really great, creepy imagery throughout that has stayed with me. It's not a bad movie, it's actually a good movie, and for many fans it will be just as good as or even better than the first (so say some critics). But I remain disappointed and will pout about it for a little while longer.

2 out of 5 stars

Cabin Fever (2016)

Genre: Virus
Director: Travis Zariwny
Availability: VOD

Remakes. For good or evil they are as popular as ever. Sometimes we luck out and get a great re-imagining, like Evil Dead or Fright Night. Other times we end up with absolute garbage, like The Omen, or The Fog. And then there's the remakes that just seem completely pointless, they aren't good, they aren't bad, they aren't a new vision, and especially in Cabin Fever's case, they aren't a new voice. They just exist because. Because, Cabin Fever 4: Outbreak, fell through and so a remake was the next best thing.

But they couldn't even be bothered to write a new script, so they used Eli Roth's original script. Seriously. They used the same script. Well, a trimmed down 92 page version of the 134 page original script. Which makes sense because the one thing that made the remake different from the original is that it was lacking any sense of humor. Gone is the bizarre scene at the local store with the weird kid doing karate moves. Roth's original was not only gory and terrifying but it had an odd sense of humor to its characters, "the local color" as you will. There was also a tenderness to the romance angle, a very real sense of fear and doom with the virus angle, and a heart-wrenching feel to the abandonment and killing of friends scenes. The remake is just as gory with some solid young actors filling the spots but the spirit of the original is not there. It feels soulless. A resurrected, walking dead version of a classic, iconic movie.

And what's with The Shining nod at the beginning? (The Shining theme song plays briefly as the camera follows the car from above winding around the side of the mountain.) Maybe if the whole movie was peppered with classic movie fodder it would have made a kind of sense but just the one scene? Ugh, stop it. You're not some meta movie, you're a shameless unoriginal remake that is doing nothing for the genre aside from filling a slot on the metaphorical shelf.

Give me another cheesy Cabin Fever sequel any day of the week. I mean, did you see Patient Zero? That fight scene on the beach at the end... good stuff.

2 out of 5 stars

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016)

Genre: Period Piece, Zombies, Based on a Book
Director: Burr Steers
Availability: In Theaters

This review will surprise no one but me. After all, even though I work in a bookstore and have a sign under Pride and Prejudice and Zombies that reads, "Soon to be a major motion picture! Read it before you see it!" alas, I did not read it before I saw it. I honestly have very little interest in reading a butchering of an author whom I adore. I don't need zombies in my Jane Austin books. Zombies in my Jane Austin movies, however, well that appeals to me greatly. Period piece settings, bad ass women, awesome dresses, zombies, lots of fighting, explosions - what could go wrong?

Well, I suppose if I'd read the book I would have known but, how was I to anticipate that the zombies would. fucking. talk.?

Talking zombies are the worst.

So, you take a classic love story and throw in zombies? I'm down with that. But, you take a classic love story and throw in talking zombies, a class war, and hypersexualized beloved characters? I'm less down with that. I mean, Elizabeth Bennet's heaving breasts were practically a character themselves. (She really did heave quite a lot.) Not to mention the casting of Darcy being off, Elizabeth being absolutely gorgeous yet still being referred to as somewhat plain, the zombie special effects looking obviously CGI, and the fact that they fought each other more than they fought the zombies. There was a little too much P&P and a little too little Z. Frankly, I think the story they wanted to tell here would've worked better with vampires. No one is surprised that vampires can talk. And Darcy already thought he was Blade with that black trench coat that he never took off, not even at his wedding.

What a douche.

While not terribly realistic, I certainly enjoyed the imagery of the movie, it's very sleek with a beautiful cast, sexy outfits, and lots of elegant fighting scenes. It's too bad the plot was so sloppy and the talking zombies - well, they just ruin everything.

2 out of 5 stars

Martyrs (2016)

Genre: Torture, Remake
Director: Kevin Goetz, Michael Goetz
Availability: VOD

In 2009 I read a review for some French horror movie called Martyrs that everyone was freaking out about. The reviewer said, "The only bad thing about Martyrs is that you can only watch it for the first time, once." A few days later, without ever having seen a trailer, I watched it with my best friend. We were quite literally on the edge of our seats. We had to pause the movie twice so that we could catch our breath. My friend started pacing as she watched. We had never seen anything like it. Was it torture porn? Was it some kind of existential art house horror? Was it supernatural? What the hell were we watching? After the movie was over we made plans to show it to our partners. They had the same reaction. It's brutal, sure. It's hard to watch, yes. It's scary, absolutely. But it's also smart. It's layered. The second act is different from the first, the third different from the second. It changes and evolves and endures and becomes something more than itself. Simply, it's a brilliant movie.

So of course America wanted to remake it. And I'm cool with that. There are many remakes that have become some of my favorite horror movies - Dawn of the Dead; The Blob; Evil Dead; Fright Night; Maniac; Texas Chainsaw Massacre (don't judge, Jessica Biel is divine). In the right hands a remake can turn into something wonderful. An homage to the original and yet uniquely its own. But in the wrong hands...

Kevin Goetz: Here’s the thing—The original Martyrs is so brutal, and such an experience on its own; we were not hired to make that experience. I think they took a look at Scenic Route, our first film with Josh Duhamel, and said, “These guys know how to tell a story. We’re gonna take Martyrs’s story that we really like from the original, and we’re gonna give it to these guys to tell a story that is, frankly, watchable compared to the one that’s been banned in several countries, and most people have to walk out of and blah blah blah.” I mean, even I have a hard time watching it.

Huh. That explains SO MUCH. They were hired, and frankly wanted to, make a watered-down version of the original. Something "watchable". Well, I hate to break it to you Goetz but this softcore, whiny drivel of a horror movie is hardly watchable. You destroyed complex, strong characters and made them timid and predictable. You took a unique and layered plot that kept the audience guessing and made it simple, installing common horror movie tropes where there were none before. You minimalized a complicated female friendship, making it seem tenuous. Those hard to watch moments in the original movie weren't there just to make its audience squirm. They had value. How are you to understand and believe what makes this woman a martyr without those significant moments? It's like in a romcom when the two characters meet and after 20 minutes of witty dialog and wackiness, they're in love. A few electrocutions later and hey we've got ourselves a martyr ladies and gentlemen. Hallelujah!

Was I prepared to enjoy the Martyrs remake? Absolutely. But the attitude that went into making this "re-imagining", and the apparent disinterest in creating anything of value just pisses me off. I wasn't expecting the remake to be the same kind of monster as the original, I mean, the French have horror movie skills that are pretty hard to match. But I was hoping that the remake would still challenge its audience in some fantastic, surprising way that didn't involve making it easier to watch. I think the thousands of other horror movies out there have that certain quality covered.

Martyrs 2016 - banned in Dollface's house - oh noooes! Critics say it's unwatchable! "My cat just couldn't handle it's utter predictability. He was like, Meow, and totally left the room."

2 out of 5 stars

Freddy's Nightmares: No More Mr. Nice Guy (1988)

I was just lamenting the other day that I miss renting my horror on VHS because of all the great trailers that played before the feature film. I used to have a pen and paper handy to write down new titles to check out when I returned the movie to the video store.

Lucky for us Portlanders we still have a few video stores around that offer VHS rentals of the rare movie that hasn't yet been converted to another format - like Freddy's Nightmares: No More Mr. Nice Guy.

Being that I was such a big Freddy fan when I was a kid it's a little surprising that I never watched or even really knew of the Freddy hosted television show about the good people of Springwood and their untimely deaths. But my husband had watched a few episodes on cable when he was a kid so he was eager to revisit the first episode, which also happens to be the origin story of Freddy. Though I suspected it would be pretty terrible I was totally game. I mean, I like terrible. Terrible can be fun.  Freddy's Nightmares: No More Mr. Nice Guy, turns out, not fun, just terrible.

School play kind of terrible. Public Access kind of terrible. The kind of terrible that becomes fascinating when you start to realize that HUNDREDS of people were involved in making and distributing the terribleness and yet it still, somehow, against all odds, made it to television. And. AND! It was directed by Tobe Hooper! I mean, I know that Tobe also directed Eaten Alive and Funhouse (actually a personal favorite though not good) I still have high expectations of him because, well, Texas Chainsaw Massacre was just THAT GOOD. (We won't talk about Poltergeist. You wouldn't like me if we talked about Poltergeist.)

The only positive thing that has come from this experience, aside from the pure visual pleasure of watching anything from 1988 (that hair! those outfits!) is that I can now say that I've seen the first episode of Freddy's Nightmares. Now the only thing left to do is to make some friends who would actually be impressed or even know what the hell I'm talking about.

2 out of 5 Stars

Tusk (2014)

Genre:  Creature Feature
Director:  Kevin Smith
Country:  USA
Availability: In Theaters

First, let me start off by saying - Tusk? What the fuck? What kind of crackpot stoner idea did I just watch? Now, to be clear, I'm not bemoaning the ridiculousness of a story that revolves around turning a man into a walrus. I mean, yes, I am. It's really fucking stupid. But hey, I've seen over 900 horror movies in my lifetime and I've witnessed and enjoyed far more idiotic ideas than this. I guess it was the execution that left me wondering if I'd just been insulted. It was like inviting someone into your home and having them make fun of your lifestyle in such a backhanded way that it left you standing there scratching your head.

Now, I'm not for or against Kevin Smith as a writer/director. I never saw Clerks, I really liked Mallrats, Chasing Amy was just okay, Dogma was pretty stupid, and anything after the '90s went completely ignored. Until Red State. I certainly didn't love Red State but it was a solid, good movie.  After all, how can you go wrong with Michael Parks, Melissa Leo, and John Goodman at the helm? And religious zealots running around with firearms? Yeah, that's terrifying right there. So what the hell was Kevin Smith smoking when he decided to do Tusk? Was it a dare? Did he lose a bet? Or did he simply want to show the world that you could make a horror movie about anything at all, and people would fill the seats.

And to even call Tusk a horror movie is to simply conform to the idea that creating a semi-serious movie about a man being turned into a walrus is in and of itself, horrific. But the sad fact is, Tusk isn't a scary movie nor is it a horrific one. It fails in all aspects of horror save for its conception.

That being said, I did enjoy Tusk. Mostly because it was a funny movie but also because Justin Long, Michael Parks, and Johnny Depp did good work under the circumstances [of being in a stupid fucking movie]. So yeah, I'll watch a dumb-ass movie like Blood Lake or a disgusting movie like Human Centipede and love every minute of it. Because even when a horror movie is stupid, you can tell, like getting kissed by someone who loves you, that they mean it. But Tusk? That shit was soulless.

2 out of 5 stars

The Frozen (2012)

Genre: Supernatural
Director: Andrew Hyatt
Country: USA
Availability: Netflix Watch Instantly

I was remarking to myself the other day that I'm beginning to think that horror movie writers/directors don't actually watch horror movies. Sure, they may cite The Greats as their heroes and inspirations, their childhood Gods if you will. I can't tell you how many times I've read some random horror movie director recalling how seeing - The Exorcist or The Shining or Evil Dead or The Omen or Psycho or Night of the Living Dead -changed his life and he knew from that moment that he wanted to write horror movies. Or maybe they'll throw a name into the mix - The Great Wes Craven, The Amazing John Carpenter, The Brilliant George Romero! And of course, they wouldn't be wrong in their praise, but the real question remains - have they seen any of the other 10,000 horror movies that are out there? The little indies that could? The little indies that couldn't? The shit-splattered reels that roll on and off of the video shelves faster that you can decide that you want your 90 minutes back? Or the small gems that go under-the-radar and are only whispered about by the ones In The Know. Because I don't think they've seen jack shit. If they had they'd know that their tired little "twists" had been done ten times over and a hundred times better. Which brings me back to The Frozen.

Kudos to The Frozen for taking some of my horror movie loves - camping, snow, being stranded, lone survivalist chick, creepy dead kids - and then adding 90 minutes of watching paint dry and a ridiculous overused twist ending - to kill any desire I may have in the near future to watch any of the aforementioned horror movie tropes.

Fuck you The Frozen. I don't know who in their right mind gave you the genre badge of Horror Movie but someone should rip it right off of your chest and leave that open wound bloody and oozing. You suck.

Sincerely,
Doll

2 out of 5 stars

Piranha 3DD (2012)

Genre:  Creature Feature
Director:  John Gulager
Country:  USA
Availability:  Amazon On Demand; Redbox (soon)

Let me first qualify this review by saying I was a big fan of not only the original 1978 movie Piranha, but also the 2010 remake - which admittedly had very little in common with its predecessor. Apparently when you put chicks in bikinis and then have them slowly being eaten alive by fish, it's highly entertaining in my book.

So I figure, how can you go wrong with another Piranha movie? Especially one with a tagline like, "Double the action. Double the terror. Double the D's."  Well, let's review.

The story itself is fucking stupid. I mean, in 2010's Piranha 3D I can understand when prehistoric piranha are released into a lake from an underwater prehistoric lake that was buried and then exposed after an earthquake opened a fissure in the lake's floor. Makes total sense right? (just nod politely)  So, in Piranha 3DD I'm to believe that the piranha from the first movie, before they were all blown to smithereens and after existing in Lake Victoria for oh, 3 days, laid eggs in that time in an underground river that leads into the piping system of a waterpark called Big Wet. And it's here, with certified water strippers and a fat waterpark worker who likes to stick his pecker into open water pipes and hump them, that the tiny baby piranha are released via the pipes to feast on swimmers who can't seem to make it the 12 feet to the edge of the pool to get out of the water before they are eaten alive? I don't fucking think so.

Add to this preposterousness a piranha living inside a girl's vagina for days. Days! She doesn't know this of course, because, why would you? Though the vagina piranha has the last laugh when he makes his presence known via biting a penis that suddenly moves into his territory. It's kinda like a Three's Company episode where there's all these misunderstandings and then someone totally overreacts. Anyways, the boyfriend (who is attached to said penis) pulls out and sees a piranha on his dick and he decides that the best course of action for this wacky situation is to cut it off. The penis. To cut the penis off. Then he bleeds to death on the kitchen floor. Like ya do. The girl however, having had a piranha living inside of her for days, DAYS, is like, totally fine. Of course she did have some unexplained convulsions and foaming at the mouth earlier while the piranha was narrowing in on its target. But now, covered in blood and vomit and mouth foam, she's aces. Man, vaginas are little wonder caves that can apparently house piranhas. Go vagina! (OMG.)

I'm sorry, am I spoiling the movie for you? Trust me. My silly little words will forever fail to illuminate the reality that is Piranha 3DD - a sight which you must behold yourself.

As I was saying. There are so many more completely absurd moments that I can't even begin to recount them all. David Hasselhoff guest stars, of course, as David Hasselhoff. He is so atrociously bad that he deserves a Razzie immediately. And the cherry on top... Ving Rhames. If you recall back when I was reviewing 2012: Zombie Apocalypse I stated that Ving Rhames needs to be in every horror movie I watch. I still stand by this statement, even though it actually made me sad to see him in this movie. Hell, I had more respect for him in 2012: Zombie Apocalypse. Which is saying a lot. Have you seen that movie? It's fucking horrible.

Which brings me to the end of this review, wherein I say, without hesitation, that you need to watch Piranha 3DD. IT'S HILARIOUS. Grab a friend or three (make it a threesome - hey-o!) and be sure there is copious amounts of alcohol to consume and watch this movie. You will totally regret it but it'll be one of those "had fun doing it" regrets like eating an entire box of brownie mix or blowing your paycheck on strippers and porn. Cause we've all been there, am I right? Ehhh? Yeah, I'm totally right.

2 out of 5 stars (but really more like 3.5 out of 5 stars)

Madison County (2011)

Genre:  Slasher
Director:  Eric England
Country:  USA
Availability:  Redbox; Amazon On Demand

Madison County has all the fixin's of a mediocre yet enjoyable slasher hick movie. There's the group of beautiful young friends who are fun and in love! There's the road trip to the middle of nowhere. There's the lack of cell phone signal. The creepy locals. A killer with a fucked up mask. A dirty half naked girl who's been captive for days. And the woods. And yet somewhere down the road Madison County goes from potentially good, to unremarkable. I'm not sure if it's a lack of truly interesting characters or a lack of creative or gruesome kills. Maybe it's because the movie takes place in complete daylight, a brave decision for a horror movie but not really an effective one. Either way, the story is too straightforward to standout among its countless peers, and although I enjoyed Madison County for what it was, I'm pretty sure it's going to fall into that forgettable horror movie abyss that hides in the recess of my mind.

2.5 out of 5 stars

Wreckage (2010)

Genre:  Slasher
Director:  John Mallory Asher
Country:  USA
Availability:  Redbox; Amazon On Demand

Wreckage. A movie so ridiculously bland that the only remarkable thing about it is its tagline - Beware. The spare parts may be your own.

Get it? Spare parts? Like a car! Because it's called Wreckage and they need spare parts... ha! Ahem.

So this was a movie. And bad things happened. The worst of which was me having to watch it. Ba-dum-ch!

But seriously folks. Wreckage is a movie that suffers from too much plot, if you can believe it. If the movie was done better then these little side stories would flesh out the film and make it a rounded story. But it's done so poorly you just sit there wondering why Wreckage isn't just a movie about a crazy killer stalking people in a junkyard. The kills are, for the most part, pretty dull. And the acting is just... wow.

It's a testament to Redbox and whoever chooses these horror movies to be carried in their kiosks because without them these low budget flicks would probably never even make it onto my radar. Sometimes there's nice surprises, like Die and Mother's Day. And other times you're sitting there wishing for your dollar back.

2 out of 5 stars 

Spiderhole (2010)

Genre:  Slasher
Director:  Daniel Simpson
Country:  United Kingdom
Availability:  Netflix Streaming

It's been a long time since I've watched a horror movie that was so bad that it sucked all of the fun out of watching bad horror movies. So, way to go Spiderhole! You did... something!

Usually when I rate a horror movie 2 stars there's a part of me that still enjoyed watching it. Take Hell Night for example. It wasn't a so bad it's good movie, but it was still fun to make fun of. I gave it two stars because it was a shitty movie, but I still enjoyed watching it. Spiderhole on the other hand, was a truly unsatisfying experience. Instead of cheerily proclaiming the idiocies of the characters, I found myself angry at their ridiculous situation. I couldn't stand to watch them overreact and flutter uselessly about instead of getting their shit together and being proactive. At 81 minutes Spiderhole ran about twenty minutes too long.

So, the movie is about some art students that squat in a gross, creepy mansion for the summer so they don't have to pay rent anywhere, right? And instead of bringing things that they might need when living in a gross, creepy mansion, like a first aid kit and a tool box, maybe a crowbar or a sledgehammer, they bring throw pillows and knick-knacks to make the place homey. And instead of exploring the place to make sure there are no psychos lurking around (oh hello pile of bloody clothes) before bolting themselves into a place that seems to have sheets of metal covering every window and door, they break in, take one look around a few rooms and proclaim "home sweet home".

It really just goes from bad to worse with every scene as this group of sprightly twenty-somethings can't seem to fight back against an old man in scrubs. I would have much rather watched actual spiders coming out of holes in the walls while frantic teens scurried to smash them all like some kind of gross whack-a-mole.

2 out of 5 stars

Hell Night (1981)

Genre:  Slasher
Director:  Tom DeSimone
Country:  United States
Availability:  Netflix Watch Instantly

Hell Night! An 80s' slasher flick about sexy teens partying in a supposedly haunted manor starring Linda Blair! What could possibly be bad about something that sounds so awesome?  Well, let me tell you...
Linda Blair cannot act. Sure, she was terrific as Regan - the demon possessed little girl in The Exorcist - but maybe it's easier to act like a demon than it is to convincingly portray a regular teenage girl. A few months ago I had the misfortune of seeing her in an atrocious movie called Roller Boogie. And while it was clear from that movie that her abilities must have not made it past the age of 14, I had high hopes for Hell Night bringing Blair back to her horror roots. Not so.

Alas, Linda Blair's performance was not the only element making Hell Night a ridiculous bore to watch. The script was obviously written by a 12 year old boy, "Scott: What a little twat. We should have left her behind.
Peter: Why? Her behind is the best part. We should have kept her behind and left the rest of her." Oh yeah, the movie is full of gems like that. As well as gag scares, quick kill shots with little to no gore, an over-the-top end chase scene and extremely cumbersome and killable killers. Despite all of this, the movie could have been salvageable if not for the dull "character building" scenes that dragged out the middle of the movie. The very last shot of the movie was pretty terrific though and it made me sad that any potential that Hell Night had was squandered by its creators.

2 out of 3 stars

Salem's Lot (1979)

Genre:  Vampires, Stephen King

Director:  Tobe Hooper

Country:  USA

Availability:  Amazon Instant Video

For a vampire movie that runs an arduous three hours in length, Salem's Lot tells little of the monsters that are supposedly "taking over the town" and instead embarks on an exhaustive journey of exposition between the characters. The elements of the book that made the story rich and interesting are completely lacking here, instead of a wide cast of flawed & unique characters we are stuck with silhouettes of people so generic they are practically puppets. Instead of a town full of people dropping like flies we see a handful of victims and only hear verbal accounts of more. The creepiness and horror of our heroes having to hunt down friends and neighbors-turned-vampires for slaughter is completely missing in the movie adaptation and as a result the movie lacks tension, menace and devastation. I wasn't the biggest fan of the book but it did have a lot going for it and unfortunately the movie plays like a hollowed-out version of King's story. I don't know how this Salem's Lot movie became such a horror classic but being a fan of King, Hooper and 70's horror, and also being a sinfully forgiving viewer, I feel confident believing that nostalgia probably plays a big part of this film's continued praise. As a new viewer who is not 12 years old, I was bored and disappointed, finding no redeeming qualities in the longest three hours I have recently spent.

2 out of 5 stars