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