The Strangers: Prey at Night

image source

The Strangers: Prey at Night centers on a family running afoul of the titular strangers while in trailer park for a sort of weekend getaway. Parents Mike and Cindy (played by Martin Henderson and Christina Hendricks respectively) have grown tired of their daughter Kinsey's (played by Bailee Madison) troubled behavior. As a result they are sending her off to boarding school. Their son Luke (played by Lewis Pullman) is pretty much just along for the ride, despite being old enough to take care of himself. Before Kinsey is sent away, the family is visiting her and Luke's aunt and uncle, who live year-round in a trailer park. Naturally, it doesn't take long before things start to really go wrong. If you're someone who's wondering whether or not you need to see the first Strangers movie before seeing this one, you don't. Full disclosure, I've actually never seen the first movie. The story that Prey at Night offers is actually self-contained and really easy to follow. I'm also going to warn you right now that there might be spoilers in this review. The reason is because there are things I like in this movie that might make getting around the spoilers difficult. I 'm going to do my best to avoid them, but I don't want to make any promises I can't keep. The first half of this movie really builds up this family as characters, so that you can relate to them and sympathize with them when the shit hits the fan. There is a potential drawback because that first half is pretty slowly paced, but it was really effective for me. It also helps that the performances are legitimately really good. Bailee Madison really stood out to me as the daughter. She essentially has to carry the movie, and she really steps up to the plate. The strangers themselves are really effective villains. Their masks are creepy. What really makes them work is that they don't really have motivations for their actions. One of them is asked and her answer is simply: "why not?" This is all we really learn about them, and I think that makes them scarier. It's especially freaky because they really put this family through the ringer. Even the soundtrack gives off a sense of unease. A lot of the songs played during the movie are upbeat pop ballads like Kids in America, Makin' Love Out of Nothing At All, and Total Eclipse of the Heart. These are all either buildup or the backdrop to some of the heinous acts committed by the strangers, and I was surprised at how effective I found it. I've had plenty of movies that I've liked despite the reviews not being the best. This is a movie I loved. I had some minor issues with the pacing in the beginning, but I genuinely loved everything else.

9 / 10  

Monster Family

image source

Alright, let's get positives out of the way because most of this review is going to be pretty negative. Some of the voice cast is pretty solid. Jason Isaacs is easily the best part of the movie as an animated Dracula. I'm always happy to see Nick Frost get work. The animation is pretty good too. If I had to sum up Monster Family in one word: it's annoying. Most of the characters are irritating (Baba Yaga stands out as the most obnoxious). A lot of the jokes are juvenile at best. Yeah, the jokes in this movie are almost all fart jokes, and they are never funny. Occasionally, a joke works. For example, Dracula's butler is named Renfield. This actually pretty clever, especially if you know the Dracula story. The story involves a family wearing monster costumes that are turned into their costumes by a witch. The reason for this is because Dracula has fallen in love with the mother, Emma (voiced by Emily Watson) despite having never actually met her, and does so after only talking to her on the phone one time. Honestly, if you cut Dracula out of the movie all together, then this actually might have the potential to be something enjoyable. As much as I honestly enjoy Isaacs as Dracula, I hate his whole I'm lonely at want someone to love me plot. It was honestly much better done in Hotel Transylvania 3. The main family has their moments where they can annoy me. However a lot of the supporting characters are just assholes, and they aren't even all that entertaining. There's no real sense of tension. There's a scene where the family worries about whether or not Emma will burn in the sun. 30 seconds (and a lame fart joke) later, we learn that she won't. If we know that famed vampire weaknesses don't really have any effect on her, and Dracula's in love with her (and the movie's main antagonist), then there's no real reason to fear for this character's safety. The other real reason this doesn't work is that, for intents and purposes, Emma is the movie's main protagonist. It doesn't work to build tension in a given moment, only to constantly undercut it at every turn. It doesn't take before the movie really starts to show its teeth. After a while, you just sort of sit there, wondering how long before it's over. Emily Watson's performance in the film is kind of all over the place. Sometimes, she seems like she's invested. Sometimes, she seems like she just wants a paycheck. Dracula has these three bats, and they're not entertaining at all. They just kind of feel like the minions' sloppy seconds. The biggest flaw that this movie easily suffers from is that the family all wants to be human again. That's fine enough. The problem is: Emma's the only one ever seems to take action most of the time. The plot also feels unbelievably basic, and a lot of this movie is just stitched together by random scenes. Overall, Monster Family has a lot working against it, and has very little working for it.

3 / 10 

Gnome Alone

image source

Gnome Alone is an animated children's movie available through Netflix. The movie centers around junior high school student Chloe (voiced by Becky G) as she and her mother (voiced by Tara Strong) move to a new house in a new town. It doesn't take long before Chloe begins to realize that her new home has some weird goings-on happening. She unwittingly stumbles into a battle between lawn gnomes and tiny little creatures called trogs. This doesn't interest Chloe however because she is more interested in having a successful social life. She even tries to befriend the popular girl, named Brittany (voiced by Olivia Holt). She befriends her nerdy neighbor named Ian (voiced by Josh Peck). When Chloe's mother leaves town on business, Chloe and Ian must help the lawn gnomes defend the house (and ultimately the world) from the constantly eating trogs. I'm not going to lie, when this movie started I was pretty worried. The new kid moving into a new house in a new town and having problems because of it is a cliche that is nothing short of tired and worn-out at this point. They do try to expand on it a little bit more by saying the mother and daughter constantly move, so Chloe never really has a chance to fit in anywhere. Granted, that's not overly original either. But, the idea of constantly moving is still a little less used than just moving to a new house. When they do make all of these points, it's kind of done through exposition that doesn't come off as natural, some much as it comes as kind of clunky and awkward. A lot of the humor doesn't necessarily work for me either. It's not that it's awful, it's just clearly meant a lot more for little kids, and not a college student in his 20s trying to watch this movie from a critical lens. The movie's pop soundtrack is also an easy knock against the movie for me. At best, it's just sort of generic and forgettable. At worst, it can be distracting and actually start taking you out of the movie. While I don't think the overall product is a great movie, I will admit that there's good stuff in it. The animation is solid enough. Ok, it's not on the level of some Pixar's best work. But, it's really all that bad in any real capacity either. The voice acting is clearly this movie's strength, though. Josh Peck, Tara Strong, David Koechner, and George Lopez all having backgrounds in voice acting to varying degrees. But, I think Becky G herself is the standout, which is probably for the best because she's the one that really has to carry the movie. I legitimately buy her as a kid who's probably around 13. While she does end up doing the right thing, you can kind of tell she has her own self-interest at heart throughout most of it. Even if it is cliched, they at least make it so you understand where's she's coming from. Overall, I think this movie is harmless enough for young viewers, even if it probably won't engage anybody who skews a little bit older.

6 / 10 

Terror Train

image source

Terror Train is a slasher film from 1980 about a killer who seeks revenge against a group of pre-med students. Said group of pre-med students played a cruel joke on a nerdy kid during a New Year's party, which led to the kid spending time in a mental hospital. Three years later, the students are all attending another New Year's party, this time aboard a train. I won't lie, I really enjoy this movie. I can easily poke holes in the plot. They don't really give any legitimate explanation for how the killer gets around on the train. Somebody should be able to see him. The character development is thin. Yes, this is a legitimate flaw in the movie. The thing I feel like I constantly bring up when I review 80s slashers is that, even though I recognize this as a necessary criticism to bring up, it has never particularly bothered me. The kills are kind of standard. They aren't awful, but they don't stand out too much either. I felt it was important to get these three points out of the way because they really are the only issues I have with this movie. One of my favorite elements of this movie is that the killer doesn't stick to one costume. It makes it creepier since you never actually know which costume the killer is in until he actually strikes. It's something I find interesting considering the Groucho Marx mask he initially wears is the mask that is the most associated with this movie. Hell, it's the mask on the poster. This is one of the rare examples where a slasher movie actually has some pretty strong acting. You kind of know that Jamie Lee Curtis is going to give a good performance. Her character is one of the few that actually has some development to her. It makes sense since she plays the movie's final girl. Hart Bochner (who would go on to play Ellis in Die Hard) also does a solid job as the main douchebag of the movie. The guy actually understands how to sell the right emotions, and he's legitimately believable when he does so. Actor Ben Johnson is also good as the train's conductor. An older gentleman doesn't often get to be the actual hero in a slasher movie. This is one of the things I honestly appreciate about this movie. I love the way they shoot the train. The shadows and lights can give it an eerie look and feel when the filmmakers need to build some atmosphere, and want characters isolated. David Copperfield is fine in the movie as a magician. Even though it's kind of obvious the man's not an actor, his charisma is actually enough for him to carry himself through the movie. Overall, while Terror Train doesn't reach the heights of slashers that came before it like Halloween, Black Christmas, and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, I still think it's a solid entry in the slasher genre that deserves to be seen.

7 / 10   

Madman

image source

Madman is a pretty clear product of its time, even by the standards of early 80s slasher movies. A group of twenty-somethings that works at a campground unwittingly brings a terrifying local legend to life. The villain, known as Madman Marz (loosely based on the Cropsey legend), begins stalking and killing them (as your typical slasher killers do). This seems to be one of those movies kind of lost to obscurity, and it isn’t that hard to see why. Don’t get me wrong, I actually enjoyed the hell out of this movie, even if it was seriously flawed and genuinely stock. It kind of seems like a copycat wanting to do what the likes of Halloween and Friday the 13^th did. Unlike movies like The Burning and Sleepaway Camp (movies that debatably wanted to do the same thing), this movie doesn’t really do enough to stand out for people. Granted, I can’t say for sure whether or not that is true. I’m speaking only out of speculation here. The characters don’t really have a ton of personality to them. You’re never really given much in terms of who they are or what they like. They’re pretty much just there to die. To be honest, I don’t have that big of a problem with this. It’s pretty commonplace for slasher movies. However, the best slashers offer characters you actually want to root for. As much as I enjoy rooting for the killers in slasher movies, I can admit that films like A Nightmare on Elm Street and Halloween wouldn’t be nearly as effective if we didn’t like characters like Nancy Thompson or Laurie Strode. That’s where Madman suffers the most. I don’t really feel one way or the other for these characters. The acting isn’t very good, but I won’t dwell on that too much since slasher movies aren’t known for having stellar acting. Calling out the movie having bad acting would be like calling it out for not being particularly well written. I don’t necessarily watch slashers for Oscar-worthy story or dialogue. The foreshadowing doesn’t quite work as well as it should. The basic concept seems to be there, but in can feel awkward. The reason I bring things like the acting and writing up are because they are legitimate issues with the movie, whether you can overlook them or not. I will give the movie props for having some legitimately good kills. The kills in this movie can be pretty mean-spirited and gruesome. I mean a character gets decapitated with the hood of a car. In my opinion, this is the movie’s best kill. There are points where the scene going on doesn’t feel necessary. In the end, I enjoyed Madman as a fan of slasher movies, and I enjoyed it in spite of its pretty noticeable flaws. 

6 / 10   

Creepshow

image source

Creepshow is widely considered a classic as both a horror movie and an anthology film. The movie is campy and over the top. To be fair, this movie was written in the vein of horror comics of the 1950s like Vault of Horror and Tales from the Crypt. The movie's also a collaboration between horror giants George A. Romero (who directed the film) and Stephen King (who wrote it). I will admit that the stories are never really that scary. They are, however, genuinely twisted and somewhat creepy. The movie deals with stories involving ghosts, monsters, revenge, cockroaches, and alien plant life. Most of the stories in the movie combine these elements. The movie's cast is fantastic. Some of the performances in this movie include the likes of Tom Atkins, Hal Holbrook, Adrienne Barbeau (all three of whom are in The Fog), Stephen King himself, Ted Danson, Leslie Nielsen, E.G. Marshall, and Ed Harris. I've hinted at this before, but each and every performance is excellent. Nieslen and Marshall are easily the standouts of the film. Marshall plays a germaphobic shut-in seemingly growing more and more paranoid and losing his mind. as his apartment becomes infested with cockroaches. On the other hand, Leslie Nielsen gets to show off a side to him I've never really gotten to see by playing a legitimately threatening villain (a far cry from his typical comedic roles he's more well-known for). What's more is that the motivations he has are actually understandable and relatable, even if you know that he's probably taking things too far, and is clearly in the wrong. Something I found interesting (even if I can't say it was all that surprising) was just how quotable the movie was. There are a couple of points (one in particular stands out) where it does fall a touch into horror cliche. Namely, there's a point where a character makes your standard idiot choice in a horror movie. Thankfully the movie doesn't fall into cliche categories too much. It really only happened that one time The only reason I bring this particular moment up at all is because it's the one time where I watched the movie and just kind of went, "really." In the end, I really liked Creepshow. It really wasn't hard for me to see why this film is genuinely considered a cult classic of the horror genre, and the movie gets a definite recommendation from me.

9 / 10         

Halloween (2018)

image source

40 years after the events of the first film, Michael Myers manages to escape and returns to Haddonfield, Illinois to wreak havoc and kill indiscriminately. Laurie Strode (played by Jamie Lee Curtis) has become a paranoid shut-in, preparing only for Michael to escape so that she can kill him once and for all. Halloween was of the movies I was anticipating the most this year, especially as a die-hard fan of the slasher genre. No, I don’t know why this is called Halloween, even though it is a sequel to the very first film, and not a reboot. One of the things that made me curious about this movie was that Danny McBride and David Gordon Green wanted to ret-con the twist from Halloween II, essentially making it so that Laurie Strode and Michael Myers are no longer siblings. Jamie Lee Curtis gives what may easily be the best performance of her career thus far. I completely buy that this is the way she would act in the situation. It is easy to pick on acting in most slasher movies, but that is definitely not the case here. The acting is solid on pretty much every account. Aside from Jamie Lee Curtis, I have to give props to Judy Greer as Laurie’s daughter Karen and newcomer Andi Matichak as Laurie’s granddaughter Alyson. Something that I think helps make the performances in the movie work is the way the characters in the film are written. The main three women of the film are given some depth, making you understand why they act the way they do, why they feel the way they do. There is humor in the film, and some people are going to find it off-putting. It actually worked for me because it got me to care about characters that are arguably only there to die. The best example to me is the normally stereotypical hot blonde party girl. She has a legitimately solid back and forth with the kid she’s babysitting, which actually gives both of these characters some likability and realism. It also doesn’t hurt that the comedy in the movie legitimately made me laugh, especially when it could have been forced and could have fallen flat. There’s also a twist halfway through the movie that will turn people off. This also worked for me because I actually felt that they built it up decently. Outside of the Rob Zombie movies, this might have been the most brutal I’ve seen in a long time. Overall, Halloween may just be the best sequel in the Halloween franchise. If you get the chance to see this movie, I highly recommend seeing this movie, especially if you are a Halloween fan.

10 / 10   

The Wolf Man

image source

Here's something you might be surprised to hear me say: This is the first time I've ever seen 1941's The Wolf Man. I am fully aware that this movie is considered not only a classic horror film, but arguably a classic film in general. Do I even need to go into the plot? It's arguably one of the most famous horror movie plots of all time. Larry Talbot is bitten by a werewolf during the full moon and the movie then must deal with his duality between man and beast. Almost immediately, I loved the performance by Lon Chaney. Before the man was even turned into a werewolf, he showed a level of charm and charisma that draws you to him right away. When he does finally become the wolf man, you really do buy into the emotions he conveys such as confusion and fear. Chaney also pulls of the animalistic nature of the character. One thing that never felt like it was made entirely clear was the film's setting. I think it's supposed to be a small English town, but I honestly can't say for sure. There were points where I was worried about the movie's slower pace. For the most part, it worked for me. Bela Lugosi does a great job as the gypsy fortune teller. The only thing I wish was that he had more screen time in the movie than he did. The same could easily go for Claude Rains as Larry's father, Sir John. He does a great job in the scenes he's in, but he only really seems to pop up every now and then. My favorite scene in the movie is a talk between Larry and his father. Larry is frightened and is almost interrogating his father, trying to see how much the man does and doesn't know. I like that we're not told the exact details right away, but given subtle hints to it at first. The reason this works for me is because the movie takes its time, building up to his transformation into the wolf man. This is a good tactic that many future monster movies (and horror movies in general) utilize. You're almost always aware of the threat. Knowing something is off gives you a feeling of genuine unease. The movie's score was good (but I can't say it ranks among some of my all-time favorites). The gothic imagery is amazing, and this movie is dripping with it. The man Gwen is engaged to is pointless. The romance of the movie is built up between Larry and Gwen. Gwen's fiance seems like he is going to play a role, but the movie seems to forget about him halfway through. Don't get me wrong, he still shows up a couple of times, but he never felt like an actual character, and he never left an impact on the movie or one The closest explanation we get to possibly building up Larry and Gwen's love story more (to a point she actually wants to run away with him) is that Gwen and her fiance have a fight, but nothing is said about the engagement being broken off, making it feel as though his character ends up serving no real purpose. The Wolf Man was an enjoyable movie in the end, even if it has some noticeable problems.

7 / 10    

Goosebumps 2: Haunted Halloween

image source

Two boys named Sonny and Sam (played by Jeremy Ray Taylor and Caleel Harris respectively) go into an old abandoned house looking for junk. Inside they find an unfinished manuscript for the first Goosebumps book ever written, titled Haunted Halloween. The two unwittingly unleash Slappy the Dummy. When Slappy begins wreaking havoc, the two boys team up Sonny's older sister, Sarah (played by Madison Iseman) to stop the villainous dummy. So, I enjoyed this movie. It's not quite as good as the first movie. I wish Jack Black wasn't sidelined so much. Although the movie does seem to have some fun with how pointless he honestly ended up being in this movie. The mom character was kind of annoying. A lot of her jokes and punchlines just kind of fall flat and come off as awkward. Similar to the first movie, the effects aren't particularly strong. Similar to the first movie, again, Slappy is the one effect that really works. I also want to give props to voice actor Mick Wingert (who takes over the voice from Jack Black in the first movie). The guy is clearly having fun in the role, and is trying very hard. This movie is pretty short in the long run. I think this movie works as a solid-enough alternative to take the kids to for Halloween. The characters are pretty generic. You get a stock bully. The actors (particularly the main three and Jack Black) actually do a good job in the movie. I also enjoyed Ken Jeong in the movie as a neighbor who goes fanboy over Halloween. Some of the jokes are definitely in there for adults. For the record, there aren't a ton of them, and they are very hit and miss. I already mentioned that a lot of the jokes involving the mom didn't work for me. So, ultimately this movie had some good elements to it, and they definitely outweigh the bad elements in my opinion. The three main actors work for me. Jack Black works (as sidelined as he is). Ken Jeong is pretty entertaining in his supporting role. The voice actor for Slappy is a ton of fun, and the effects on him aren't half bad. The movie relishes in the spirit of Halloween, which I like. On the other hand, a lot of the effects are bad. Some of the jokes don't really land. The mom character was kind of annoying. Ultimately, while I liked this movie less than the first movie, my reactions were still pretty similar to the first movie. I enjoyed this movie on something of a guilty pleasure level despite its flaws.

6 / 10 

Van Helsing

image source

Here's a question. Does 2004's Van Helsing hold up? No, not really. Don't get me wrong, I honestly love this movie. It's over the top. It's cheesy. It's campy. To be honest, I do kind of wonder if that's the point. This movie is directed by Stephen Somers (who also directed the first two Brendan Fraser Mummy movies), and the man has admitted to being a fan of the classic Universal movie monsters. The plot is surprisingly complicated. Van Helsing (played by Hugh Jackman) works as something of an assassin for a secret church order based in Rome. They send him to aid a beautiful woman named Anna (played by Kate Beckinsale), who is the last in her family line, kill Dracula (played by Richard Roxburgh). Dracula wants to use Frankenstein's Monster to bring his thousands of dead, bloodthirsty children to life so that they can hunt and feed. Suffice it to say, this movie is far from being high art. There are legitimate parts of the story that don't make sense, or are so stupid they probably don't work nearly as well as they should. One of the movie's plot twists (spoiler for a movie that's almost fifteen years old) is that Van Helsing's name is Gabriel, and that he is the right hand of God. Yeah, I don't really know how I feel about this plot twist. Richard Roxburgh's performance as Dracula is horrible, but it almost feels suitably over the top, which kind of makes me forgive it. It's clear, the man's just having fun and hamming it up. Hugh Jackman and Kate Beckinsale were probably the only two people who were legitimately attempting to take the movie seriously to some extent. Because of this, they are the best performances in the movie. The sheer amount of monsters in the movie does overstuff it a bit. This movie alone features Dracula, Dracula's brides, Frankenstein's monster, the wolf man, Igor, and Mr. Hyde. The mix of action and horror doesn't always blend as well as it should or could. If you want to build up a gothic atmosphere, having it followed up with a bombastic action scene doesn't always work as well as it could. It can easily end with tonal whiplash. The special effects are also pretty bad (something that regularly seems to plague a lot of Stephen Somers's movies). For example, the idea of how werewolves transform in this movie is kind of cool, but the bad special effects just kind of undercut the idea. One of the character deaths in the movie really doesn't work for me either, simply because this character had already survived much worse. Besides that, this death comes out of nowhere. Ultimately, Van Helsing is not a good movie (especially when you remove nostalgia goggles), but I still love it as a guilty pleasure.

6 / 10   

Before I Wake

image source

Before I Wake is sort of a hard movie for me to review. The reason I say this is because it doesn't really seem to have anything outwardly wrong with it at first glance. It just doesn't do much of anything to engage me. I did start to notice more of the flaws as it went on. The movie centers around two parents, named Mark and Jessie (played by Thomas Jane and Kate Bosworth respectively) who have recently lost their son. They adopt a young boy, named Cody (played by Jacob Tremblay) who had recently been put back into the foster program following an incident. It is soon revealed that Cody has special powers. He can project things when he is sleeping. I'm normally a huge fan of director Mike Flanagan, having enjoyed several of his previous movies like Ouija: Origin of Evil, Oculus, and Hush. For the most part, his directing in this film seems like it's on point. The actors are trying. Thomas Jane is clearly the standout. He really does excel as a father with clear pain in his eyes and suffering on his face.  Kate Bosworth is harder to describe. I can tell she's trying. I understand what she's going for. She's clearly playing the mother who's trying to hide her suffering behind something of a stoic facade. This is something that should have worked. Maybe it's because I'm not the biggest fan of Bosworth as an actress to begin with. There are moments where she does legitimately break down. However, there doesn't seem to be enough of these moments. They are the parts that occur where I do find some spark in her performance. There are points where Cody imagines this monster, called the "Canker Man." I never really felt as though he came off as particularly frightening, so much as I found him kind of goofy. For the most part, the movie isn't badly directed. I say this because Mike Flanagan knows what he's doing, I think the movie's screenplay could probably have been a little bit stronger, in the end. Parts of it seem to work, like the concept of a young boy who accidentally brings his dreams and his nightmares to life when he is sleeping. It also makes sense that he wouldn't want to go to sleep because he is honestly frightened of harming people. On the other hand, some of the dialogue didn't really make sense to me, even when they tried to justify it. The movie's ending is really good. It's actually heartbreaking. I just wish the rest of the movie would have been better to make me feel that this movie was worth recommending, and I just can't bring myself to do so.

5 / 10 

Terrifier

image source

Terrifier was a movie I found on Netflix a while back. The main reason I didn't review it right away was so I could save the review for October, when I'm more inclined to review a lot of horror movies. This could easily be described as your typical slasher flick. The biggest thing I can probably say about this movie is that I wish it did more to stand out. Yes, the kills are really gruesome, one of the few things about Terrifier that really does stand out. For the most part, I was on board with them. However, one of the kills did go a little too far, even for the taste of someone who admits to enjoying Hatchet. I am going to spoil this kill because this could be a good way for you to know whether or not you are truly on board with this movie. There's a girl that the main villain, Art the Clown, strings up by her feet naked. He then proceeds to saw her in half. It's really the only moment where I was legitimately uncomfortable simply because it felt like the movie was relishing in being cruel, and trying to use gore for the sake of gore. That said, Art the Clown himself (played David Howard Thornton) is easily the best part of the movie. A lot of the acting in this flick is bad, which is common for a slasher flick. Thornton makes a memorable and menacing performance out of never once saying a word. It's good that the actor does such a good job because the writing for the character feels hit and miss. Sometimes, the character's unpredictability and insanity works and makes you legitimately unsure of how the character should (and will) react. Other times, it felt like the filmmakers watched other horror movies and tried applying them to the movie without really trying to figure out if it will work in context. It can come off as trying too hard. The most egregious example is an unfortunate rip-off of The Silence of the Lambs. The writing also kind of works because you know next to nothing about Art, and it's legitimately a good use of the "less is more" tactic. The characters are all pretty one-dimensional. They don't really have much of anything to them. Because of this, when the movie attempts a main character bait and switch, it really doesn't work. Part of the problem is that it does it a bit too late in my opinion. The shock is there, yes. However, there isn't much left of the movie, and the person the filmmakers switch over to being the main character never felt truly established as a legitimate character. The budget is noticeably low. Sometimes, this works in the movie's favor. Sometimes, it doesn't. Terrifier was one of those movies I was fine with watching, but don't see myself wanting or needing to seek it out again. 

4 / 10 

Truth or Dare

image source

You're probably gonna call me crazy when I say this: I recommend watching this movie. Keep in mind, I don't recommend this as a good horror movie (because it is definitely not that). I recommend this as legitimately good comedy. Full disclosure, I will be going into some minor spoilers, so read this review at your own risk. There are some halfway decent things about this movie, but not very many. The acting isn't half bad. OK, it's nothing Oscar-worthy. But I've legitimately seen a lot worse in my life. The concept is actually good. The movie is about a group of friends who are brought into a supernatural version of the game truth or dare, and have to figure out how to survive. Everything else about this movie is just bad. Even if most of the actors actually are decent (and clearly trying), the characters themselves are awful. None of them are particularly likable, so you're never really upset when someone dies. The absolute worst character in the movie is Ronnie. He is every bro-y douchebag stereotype with nothing else to him. The best thing about this character is that he's not in the movie for very long. The character development doesn't really work either, mostly because it all just kind of comes out left field. The writing is one-dimensional and kind of forgettable. Hands down, the best-worst part of this movie is the faces people make when saying "truth or dare." A character in the movie describes the faces as "photo-shop filters." I kind of think they look like derp faces. The point is, they are really funny. They're not scary, and unbelievably hard to take seriously. You see these faces a lot. After a while, it becomes clear that the movie's PG-13 rating really hinders it. Considering how dumb the movie already is, it should have embraced this idea fully by going for a hard R. Some of the kills are kind of creative, but the filmmakers cut away from them too quickly for us, the audience, to really take them in. Between this and one of the dares in the film involving two characters sleeping together, this feels like it could've been an R at one point, but was eventually neutered down. I have no idea if that's true or not, but it really wouldn't surprise me. You also have to really suspend your disbelief because this movie has some major plot holes and leaps in logic. The movie hinges on characters acting like idiots, as well as just making up rules for the game that, to my knowledge, don't actually exist. The reason for this is obviously because they needed a way to try and keep the movie interesting. There are a lot of problems in this movie (and it really is awful), but I laughed at most of it because the movie's execution just wasn't there.

*Edit: Apparently, this was the unrated version to the movie. So, even in the unrated version of the movie, the kills still feel tame.

2 / 10  

Slender Man

image source

I had pretty much figured that Slender Man was going to be a bad movie as soon as I saw the trailer. However, I still watched this movie with something of an open mind. Ten minutes into the movie, I knew this thing was doomed to fail. At this point, the filmmakers had proven they weren't going to offer anything interesting or original. How do I know this? Here's the plot: four idiot teenage girls decide to summon the titular Slender Man (who's barely in the movie by the way) by watching an internet video. One week later, and they're having nightmares, and one of them disappears. The thing is, this idea worked a lot better in The Ring. Why? The images you see on the videotape in that movie are legitimately fucked up. The characters in this movie suck. For about the first third of the movie, they aren't developed. For example, the movie constantly tells you what the characters' names are, and I've already forgotten them (I only finished the movie a few minutes ago at the time I'm writing this). I knew next to nothing about these girls five minutes into the movie. By twenty minutes in, that really hadn't changed. By the time they do try developing these characters (a whopping thirty minutes into this ninety minute movie), it feels too little, too late. Hell, they don't actually develop the girl who vanishes until after she's disappeared. Because of this, I don't care about these girls. I feel no attachment to them or any investment in them. When the one girl disappeared, I really couldn't muster up a reaction beyond "eh, whatever." A good chunk of the movie is these girls trying to find their friend and stop Slender Man (I think). The issue here is that if I can't find myself invested in the characters, why should I invest myself in the mystery they are (maybe) trying to solve. It feels like a mix of my not really caring and the filmmakers not really caring. Interestingly enough, I found out while I wrote this review that a lot of scenes were cut before the movie was released in theaters, and that honestly makes sense. More than anything, it makes the movie feel tedious. It comes off as a chore more than anything else. As cliched as it might be for me to say, this movie feels twice as long as it's 90 minute run-time. The movie also fails at being scary. The first major scare is nothing more than a lazy fake-out jump scare, and they are littered throughout the movie. I don't hate jump scares, they just need to feel earned, and I don't think this movie earns them. While the acting in this movie isn't the absolute worst acting I've ever seen, none of it is particularly good. The sad part is: the actress who plays the girl who vanishes can act. She's been in Oculus and Ouija: Origin of Evil. Granted, part of the problem could be that the writing gives them nothing to work with. There's a line near the beginning of the movie where one of the girls says she never sneezes because in the old times, people sneezing exercised demons. My reaction to that line was: "I think biology would say otherwise moron." I can't really say Slender Man ever really offended me. It made me mad, but only because it was dull and hollow, and was never very engaging. At least a movie that offends you can engage you in some way.

0 / 10     

Hell Fest

image source

A group of twenty-somethings go to a horror-themed traveling amusement park called Hell Fest. There, they are stalked by a masked killer wearing a mask that several employees in the park use. This feels like a movie that was tailor-made for me to enjoy. As most people who know me already know, I love slasher movies. The park itself looks awesome, like something I would legitimately love to go to. The acting is solid, which is admittedly pretty rare when it comes to slasher movies. Bex Taylor-Klaus and Tony Todd (both of whom are genre veterans at this point) serve as the clear standouts in the cast. The movie's kills are deliciously gory and will absolutely please gore hounds. The killer, called the Other, has a look that could have come as goofy in the wrong hands. Director Gregory Plotkin and the actor (Stephen Conroy) actually make it so that the Other truly does work. Without giving anything away, I legitimately loved this movie's ending, and find to be the creepiest and most effective part of the movie. Plotkin also really shows a solid understanding of tension. Without giving too much away, I think the best example is a scene involving a guillotine. I'll admit I was a little bit worried when I found out he's the same guy who directed Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension. Thankfully, this movie is leaps and bounds better. However, there are flaws, and they are noticeable, First, the character development is thin, at best. Any problems the characters are going through are honestly pretty vague, and they never feel like they're fully defined. The characters are likable mostly due to the actors playing them. The story itself isn't particularly original either. This doesn't bother me because I don't watch slasher movies for their stories. Even if it doesn't bother me, I do feel it needs to be brought up. But, I don't need this movie to be groundbreaking. It's just good enough, and that's all I really needed. 

7 / 10 

A Quiet Place

image source

A Quiet Place follows a family trying to survive day to day after an apparent alien invasion. John Kraskinski (who wrote, directed, and starred in the film) cited Alien, Jaws, and No Country for Old Men as influences. This is something that clearly shows in the final product, and I mean that in the best way possible. Kransinksi clearly understands tension, as he manages draw dread out of noises that we normally take for granted. For example, the family lays down paths of sand in order to easily walk barefoot. I wouldn't normally think about how loud a footstep might be. Without going into spoilers, the opening scene is the clearest example I can think of for this. Another element to this movie that works with building tension is the moment you see that Evelyn (played by Emily Blunt) is pregnant. The alien creatures hunt, attack, and kill based off of what they can hear, and babies are naturally loud. They don't have the world experience to know that they need to be quiet in given situations. Much of the film is silent, spoken only in sign language with subtitles at the bottom. There's actually a couple of levels to this. The first level is that the family's eldest child (played by Millicent Simmonds) is deaf. The second level (as I've already talked about) is the creatures hunting and killing people based off of noise. Krasinski sought Simmonds out to play the daughter because she legitimately is deaf, and he felt that would add authenticity to the movie. The moments where characters actually speak are legitimately jarring, and I mean that as a compliment. This is easily one of my favorite movies so far, and I highly recommend it. That said, I do have a couple of warnings. First, because the movie is so quiet, it really does force you to pay attention to it. Second, the movie is slow-paced, and that will be a turn-off for some people. Having read this review and knowing where I stand personally, by now you'll know whether or not this movie is for you.

10 / 10