Davo's Writing Corner

It’s a strange feeling, being indebted to another person. The concept that some special someone was able to single-handedly turn your life around for the better. One year ago, I was floating through the void. I had a job that made me want to kill myself. I blew money on frivolous bullshit to cope. I had no real friends. I was on bad terms with my family. I was completely miserable, to the point where I’d lost my ambition. I am a screenwriter, and my dream is to be a director. LA is where that is a real possibility, and LA is where I’ve always needed to go. At this time, I wasn’t writing. I certainly wasn’t trying to move to LA. Filmmaking seemed so far-fetched to me - due to all the times people told me I wouldn’t make it as one - that I figured there was no point in even trying. And then this person came into my life. They inspired me to make art. They convinced me that my art was actually good. And they showed me that it doesn’t matter what other people say about my chances; the only one standing in the way of my dreams is me and my own inhibitions.

This person didn’t only help me as an artist. My entire life, I’ve been stepped on by everyone. By strangers. Friends. Even family. Especially family. This person showed me that I was worth respect. That I was worth love. Love is something I wasn’t even sure I believed existed a year ago. I mean, romantic love anyway. My trust in people had been betrayed too many times at that point, and as a result, I had given up on having a romantic relationship with someone. I was beginning to think, maybe I’m aromantic. This person certainly made me realize that wasn’t the case. I mean, talk about perfect. Not perfect like something manufactured in a laboratory. Perfect like, perfect for me. Perfectly fit for me. This girl (yes, I was talking about a girl) is talented, more talented than even me. She’s a true artist, and she has a true artist’s mentality. She’s smarter than anyone I know. She’s always 100% honest, no matter what. She’s just as clever as I am, and makes me laugh every day. And she is so supportive. This is a person I feel truly tied to.

When I say tied, I mean like, a soul mate or something. Are soul mates even real? The concept of there being one person in the whole world that’s perfect for you is kind of ridiculous, let’s be honest. And the old me would’ve scoffed at the idea of a soul mate. The old me - pessimistic, cynical, angry, aromantic. The new me has embraced it. And the person who changed me from the old me into the new one was that girl. If it hadn’t been for her, I’d still be floating through the void. I wouldn’t be moving to LA in 5 weeks; I’d be a jobless sad sack with no ambition. I’m indebted to her for that. And I want to spend the rest of my life making her happy, just to show how much I appreciate what she’s done for me. That’s why I’m so hard on myself when I fuck up; the last thing I want to do is treat my hero like dirt, even if it’s unintentionally.

Before sitting down to write this review, I needed to see this film twice. That is because on my first viewing, my take away from it would be influenced by two things: my nostalgia, and my utter shock at seeing a good Star Wars film in a theater. The last truly good Star Wars film came out in 1980, 15 years before I was born. Return of the Jedi had it's moments, as did Revenge of the Sith. But overall, were they good films? Fuck no. As of right now, there are 7 films in this franchise. 3 of those films are good. The original Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and now The Force Awakens. So now, I've seen it twice. Contrary to what I thought would happen, I liked it even more the second time around. My ridiculous expectations, fan theories, and the paralyzing fear that it would disappoint me all affected my enjoyment on the first viewing. Don't get me wrong, I fucking loved it the first time around. I just loved it more this time. (Also, when I say "Empire", I'm probably referring to The Empire Strikes Back. When I say "Jedi", I'm probably referring to Return of the Jedi.")

Star Wars: The Force Awakens is set 30 years after Return of the Jedi, and in some ways, things have drastically changed. In other ways, things are exactly the same. That both adds to this film and detracts from it. As far as the story goes, it's okay. It's very intense, and it goes to some dark places. This is the darkest Star Wars film yet, with the exception of maybe Revenge of the Sith. Maybe. The problem here lies in the fact that the film relies a bit too heavily on familiar plot points from the original films. There will be moments where you think "Haven't I seen this before?" Overall, there isn't a whole lot of new things they do in the story department. Trying new things is what made Empire so great. This film, in a way, plays it safe. And you know, that's totally fair. Disney and JJ Abrams (the director) needed to be very careful, so as to not upset the fans. And the way to not upset the fans is by recalling the originals, and - perhaps more importantly - learning from the mistakes of the prequels. That's kind of how this film feels in a way. JJ Abrams, whether or not he wants to admit it, does not like the prequels. He doesn't seem too fond of George Lucas either, and it really shows here. The familiar plot points and characters almost feel placed here to say "Look, George. We can do your own movies better than you." Every interview where Abrams is asked about Ewoks or Jar Jar or the prequels has him responding with a snarky "Heh, no." response. The first line of the film (very minor spoiler, doesn't reveal anything) is "This will begin to make things right." Sounds like Abrams is trying to tell us something. And you know what? I don't have a problem with that.

The only thing I truly have a problem with (and this is just me nitpicking) is some of the CG. There are certain scenes involving aliens that I'm really "meh" about. And I felt the same way with the originals. Another reason I like Empire so much is that aside from a Wampa, some Taun Tauns and Jedi Master Yoda, there are no notable aliens in the film. Star Wars is a very human story, and it's best when silly alien background characters don't distract from that (looking at you, Jedi). Most of these aliens are practical, involving people in costumes and puppets. However, there are two characters in the film - Maz Kanata and Supreme Leader Snoke - that are motion capture. It's not like they're spiritual successors to Jar Jar Binks or anything. It's just, the CG is a bit noticeable with these two. When you have a film full of practical effects, doing close-up shots of a cartoon character is kind of jarring. That's my only honest-to-God nitpick, though. Now let's talk about what I liked.

First and foremost, this is an actual film. Done by an actual filmmaker. It's not the 90% animated bullshit that was the prequels. This movie is crafted by a true craftsman of cinema. Whether or not you like JJ Abrams' films, you cannot deny that he's a talented filmmaker. He knows very well how to direct intense, gripping action scenes (of which there are countless in this film). There are certain shots in this film that you would have never seen in a Lucas-made Star Wars film. And you know, that's pretty fucking refreshing. Everything has weight to it. Everything is massive in scope. Crashed Star Destroyers, the remains of an AT-AT, the expansive desert. These are things that really feel... big. And real. It immerses you into this world in a way that hasn't been done since the originals. And while the story itself plays it safe overall, there are things that this film does that are new for a Star Wars film (or at least, new-ish). Stormtroopers can actually shoot? The bad guys are actually scary? The lightsabers have weight to them? The fights are emotionally fueled? Some of these things, we haven't seen since the originals. Some, we've never seen. Speaking of the fights, the lightsaber duel toward the end of the film (not a spoiler, it's in the trailers) is by far my favorite part of the film. Both characters have such an intense motivation to fight the other one, making for a very emotional fight. That's something we really haven't seen since Jedi (they tried it in Revenge of the Sith, but that somehow led to them jumping around on lava platforms and doing backflips and shit).

The characters are what really sells this film. They're just all so fucking likable. Rey and Finn in particular are likable, relatable characters that you are actually invested in by the end of the film. The actors who play them - Daisy Ridley and John Boyega - have such charisma and chemistry with each other. They both have bright futures ahead of them. And what's great is that they actually know they're in a Star Wars film. The actors in the prequels, even the ones that I like, gave the most wooden performances imaginable. It's as if they didn't realize the films they were in, like they just stumbled onto set. These two are so stoked to be here, and it shows with how enthusiastic they are in the film. Ridley has this gravitas to her that is fucking sublime, considering it's her first major role in a film. Boyega is one of the most likable people I've seen in a blockbuster in over a decade. I just want to be friends with him. Poe Dameron - played by Oscar Isaac - is just as likable, though he's not in the film quite as much. I'm hoping they expand on his character in Episode VIII (and I'm sure they will). Most of the villains, unfortunately, are a bit one-dimensional though. General Hux - played by Domhnall Gleeson - is just a generic mean Imperial officer. Supreme Leader Snoke - played by Andy Serkis - is just a generic big mean Sith lord. Captain Phasma - played by Gwendoline Christie - is just a generic mean Stormtrooper lady. None of them are compelling, whatsoever. But it's okay, because we have KYLO FUCKING REN. This is a character that, surprisingly, has a lot of emotional weight. There's something about his character (that I won't spoil) that adds this layer to a character who first appeared to simply be a generic Darth Vader clone. Weirdly, he's more compelling than even Vader was in the first film. Vader became compelling in Empire and Jedi, but he was just a big mean enforcer in the original Star Wars. That gives me hope that Kylo Ren could become an even greater villain in VIII and IX, which would be pretty goddamn wild.

The last major thing - and perhaps the most important thing - to talk about is how the nostalgia is handled. How are the old characters handled? How are the old plot devices handled? How are the homages and the callbacks handled? Well, they're all handled with a level of respect that the prequels just did not offer. I mean, think about it. In the prequels, they made Obi Wan Kenobi a snarky dick. They gave Yoda a lightsaber. They shoehorned C3PO and R2-D2 into it in a way that felt really forced. And the biggest offense is that they made Darth Vader a whiny bitch. Things are different this time around because the people behind The Force Awakens are actual Star Wars fans. Is George Lucas a Star Wars fan? Hell no. Is JJ Abrams a Star Wars fan? Absolutely. And hence, the callbacks and the old characters are always treated very respectfully. Some of them - like the droids and Leia - aren't in tremendously big roles, but they're in it exactly as much as they need to be. Leia will likely play a larger role in the sequels, considering her relevance to the plot. There are minor characters and devices from the original films that make cameos in this film, but it always feel very fluid and natural. It's fan service, but not blatantly so. The Millenium Falcon is treated as respectfully as it should be, and it's clear that Abrams knows how big of a deal it is to see the Falcon in a film again.

Most importantly, Han Solo and Chewbacca are done right. These characters are major players in The Force Awakens, and it's so fucking perfect. Harrison Ford isn't sleepwalking through this like he was in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. It's as if he drank from the Fountain of Youth or some shit; he's really enthusiastic in this role. Harrison Ford disappears, and there's only Han Solo. And it doesn't feel weird or stilted or anything. It's really Han Solo and Chewbacca, the same Han Solo and Chewbacca that we last saw in Jedi (Chewie was in Revenge of the Sith, but who gives a fuck about that?) Having said that, it's not like they're just copy and pasted from those films into this one. Han Solo's really grown as a character between Jedi and The Force Awakens. Certain things happened in between this film and Jedi, and it really shows on his face (particularly in his scenes with Leia). He's a bit older, a bit slower, and there are scars - both physical and emotional. That's not to say it's all doom and gloom; there is a lot of humor with Solo and Chewie. To be honest, there's a lot of humor in this film all around. I'd go as far as to say this is the funniest Star Wars film yet. There were several moments with Chewie that actually got a good laugh out of me, but one particular moment with Chewie that was extremely earnest. Like, Empire-level earnest.

The last thing, where is Luke? He's not in the trailers, he's not on the poster, and no one seems too keen to talk about his role in the movie. So, is he in the movie? Yes. And it's great. That's pretty much all I can say without spoiling it. Overall, this film is pretty fucking amazing. There are minor problems (that I addressed), but nothing big enough to really bring the film down. It's not as great as Empire in my book, but it's greater than every other film in the saga. Even the original Star Wars. It's more intense than the original film. It's less goofy than Jedi and the prequels. It's not boring like Episodes I and II. It's not overly reliant on CG like the prequels. And most importantly, it's a good fucking story. You know, unlike every Star Wars film that isn't the original and Empire. Like I said at the start of this review, there are 3 good Star Wars films out of 7. This is one of them, and I am so fucking relieved that it is.

A Nightmare on Elm Street is a 1984 slasher film directed and written by Wes Craven. Like I said in my first review (Scream), I wanted to open and close Spooktober with a Wes Craven film. And what better way to close this month than with the original Freddy Krueger film?

There are several things about this film that make it as great as it is. One of the things that sets it apart from a lot of the other slashers of it's time is it's pacing. Unlike Halloween, Friday the 13th, Child's Play and other slasher flicks of the era, this film is very quick. Rather than taking a long time to build up, the first kill in Nightmare is about 15 minutes in. And after that, you're in it. The total death count by the end of the film is only 4, but they space them out very well. There's a whole back story regarding Krueger and how he died that really works well in the context of the film. The story goes, Krueger was a local child murderer who got away on account of a technicality. The parents in town all decided to band together, track Kruger down, and burn him to death. So it makes you wonder, is Kruger targeting these kids as revenge, or is he killing them just because he wants to? Speaking of, it's never explained why he became a fucking dream wizard after he died. I think that was deliberate, to add to the mystery of the character.

Another great thing about this film is both a familiar trope, and something very different from the usual: the final girl. This is a trope often used in slasher films, but it's rare that they're an actual character. Usually, the final girl is just someone who runs from the killer screaming until the end, when she somehow gets away. In Nightmare, the final girl is Nancy, who fights the killer herself. This is something Craven did in a lot of his horror films. The idea that the victim(s) would fight back by the end and defeat the killer. And it works well here, as she devises an entire plan to kill Kruger. Not everything goes as planned (refer to Johnny Depp's blood soaked bedroom), but she still manages to take him out. Or so we think. The ending is a bit strange, in the same sense that the entire film is. Meaning, the distinction between dreams and reality becomes increasingly blurred as the film progresses. This confuses the viewer, much like how it confuses Nancy. So in a way, this helps the viewer identify with the character on a level that we don't often get to.

The big thing about this film is the concept. A man stalks and murders people in their dreams. This made Nightmare one of the scariest films of the '80s, just because of how inescapable the killer was. Michael Myers? Lock your doors on Halloween. Jason Voorhees? Don't go to the lake at night. Leatherface? Stay the fuck out of Texas. But Freddy Krueger, you can't escape, due to the fact that we all have to sleep. What makes the film even scarier is that a lot of us who've seen Nightmare probably have had nightmares about Freddy Krueger. Now, isn't that fucked up? Everyone sleeps, and everyone is vulnerable when they're sleeping. Krueger, on the other hand, can do pretty much anything he wants to in the dream world. This leads to some creative kills, like being dragged along a ceiling, hung by a blanket, or sucked into a hole in the bed. Overall, this film is extremely effective, not only in the kills, but in the whole concept of a dream killer. This, I would argue is Craven's best film.

Also, the score for this film is fucking haunting. Charles Bernstein, the guy who did the score for Nightmare, needs to be working a whole hell of a lot more.

10/10

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a 1974 slasher film directed by Tobe Hooper and written by Hooper and Kim Henkel. While Henkel went on to do the fourth TCM film (you know, the weird one that had Matthew McConaughey), Hooper made the second TCM film, appropriately titled The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2. I almost considered doing a review of TCM 2, simply because of how much I love the movie. But I've already done one horror comedy review this month, so I figured I should do the original, which is a classic.

While one might say John Carpenter's Halloween popularized the slasher genre, I would argue that the original TCM is what really created what we know to be the "slasher" today. Norman Bates, the antagonist of Psycho, was the first big serial killer in cinema, much like how Psycho was in many ways the first slasher film. But Leatherface, the primary antagonist of TCM, was the character who started all the big slasher tropes. He's large, he's silent, he wears a mask, and he uses a conventional tool as a weapon. In these ways, this character completely paved the way for Michael Myers and Jason Voorhees. But I'm not here to talk about the cultural impact this film has had, I'm here to talk about the film itself.

One of the misconceptions people have about this film is how gory it is. While the title suggests that this is a bloodbath, it's really not. There's a little bit of blood here and there, but it's not really gory at all. The film manages to scare the viewer in other, more effective ways. Firstly, in the pacing. The film starts off slow, which some might say is a bad thing, but it's for good reason. It slowly but surely gets more fucked up as it goes along, creating this tension that culminates in the final chase at the end of the film. And once you're in that last half-hour, the film does not let up until the credits roll. With the opening monologue, this film sets an extremely creepy tone, which remains throughout the rest of the film. The creepiness is supported not only by the story, but also by the cinematography. TCM is shot in 16mm, giving it an old-timey, documentary-style look. There are several moments where the camera focuses on different things in the area, like skulls and feathers, or jars in a room. This makes it almost feel like we're watching real footage. It's very cold and at times, emotionless in how it tells the story. Which, I think, is the point.

This creepiness is also supported by how horrible the killers are. The way Leatherface kills people, while not particularly gory, is still super fucked up. The first person to die in the film is bludgeoned to death with a hammer, and the second person to die is impaled on a meat hook, forced to watch her boyfriend's decapitation, then stuffed into a freezer. Not just him, but his family too. His brother is weird and creepy as shit, and the patriarch of the family is creepier than all of them put together. Not to mention their corpse of a grandfather, who has to be fed blood to wake up. This whole family is all sorts of fucked up, and that becomes especially apparent toward the end of the film. The lead girl is tied to a chair, screaming at the top of her lungs, as the whole family sits there and laughs at her. This goes on for a while, making you realize how fucked up this whole thing really is. And then they kneel her down in front of a bucket and try to get Grandpa (the corpse) to kill her with a hammer. But he's too weak to do it, because he's a corpse. So she escapes, leading to the final shots of the film: the lead girl laughing hysterically as she gets away, and Leatherface dancing like a maniac in the road with his chainsaw. So like I said, the creep factor remains until the end of the film.

All around, this is a classic, a major inspiration for many of the slasher films that followed, and one of the most well known and beloved horror films of all time. And of all the classics, this one is one of my favorites, so it only seemed right to review it. The brilliant thing about this film is that it makes you feel so sick without the use of gore that after you've watched it, you remember the film as being a gorefest. It's gotta be one fucked up film to do that.

It Follows is a 2014/2015 supernatural horror film directed and written by David Robert Mitchell. This is one of the two most recent films on this list, along with Tusk. But for all intents and purposes, this is a very retro film. There's a clear love of horror films from the '80s here, and in many ways, this film takes some of the best aspects of those films and reinvents them here. However, and much like most of the other films I've reviewed thus far, this is not a perfect film. Since It Follows is overall very good, I'm going to get the things I don't like about the film out of the way first.

This film is a bit slow in parts. Now, I don't mean slow in the way that Lincoln is slow. That movie's just fucking boring. The problem here is in the editing, not in the directing or writing. When the movie wants to be, as it often does, it can be very intense. There's just some fat that really could've been cut. Several scenes, particularly in the first half, could've been cut in order to make the film's pacing more consistent. The pacing isn't the only consistent thing about the film, though. The mythology/rules of the entity that follows Jay, the protagonist, is complicated and unclear. Certain things will be established, like that you can't kill it by shooting it, or that it's always making it's way toward you, or even it's method of killing you once it catches up. Then, later in the film, these things will be completely contradicted. Sometimes, the entity will just stand there and watch you instead of following you. Sometimes it'll walk past other people, and other times it'll push someone out of the way to get where it's going. You can't kill it with a gun, but then you sorta can? I don't know. If the writer would've made the rules of the entity more clear and consistent, the third act in particular would've gone a lot more smoothly.

With that out of the way, let's go over everything I liked about the film. As I mentioned earlier, the aesthetic of this film is very '80s, in the cinematography, the clothing, and the score (which I love). There is one weird moment with one of the characters reading from a weird clamshell smart phone or something, but other than that, they got the '80s vibe down to a T. Aside from the aesthetic, another thing the director accomplishes is a constant unease and tension, with regards to the entity. This thing follows Jay hroughout the entire film without really stopping, so there's never really a point where Jay gets to just breathe. She's always looking over her shoulder, always ready to take off running or speed off in a car. And when she finally does stop to breathe, the entity catches up to her. There's a scene where everyone is on the beach, hanging out, and you see this entity come out of nowhere, far in the background. It takes it's time walking up to her, building the tension as you wonder "What is it going to do when it reaches her?"

One thing this film does that I'm sure not a whole lot of people are talking about is how it subverts one of my least favorite tropes in horror films: the protagonist is dealing with some supernatural terror, and they try to tell others (friends, family, the police, etc.); instead of helping them, nobody believes the protagonist. In It Follows, the friends are confused at first, and some of them have a lot of trouble believing it, but it's nice to see all of them helping Jay. Everyone ends up working together to escape (and later fight) the entity. The best thing about this film, however, is how it takes an extremely original concept and executes it in a way that reminds you of the classics. Nobody's ever done a horror film about an STD (sexually transmitted demon) before, so it's definitely unique. Yet, the film harkens back to John Carpenter films like The Thing and Halloween.

There is one other thing I need to talk about, and that is the ending. I don't know if this is a pro or a con; I guess it depends on the person. For me personally, I'm okay with the ending. Here's what happens: Jay and her friends fight the entity at a pool, and it's not explicitly stated whether or not they kill it. Later, Jay has sex with her friend Paul (since when you have the STD, the only way to get rid of it is to pass it onto someone else by having sex with them). I guess Jay does this to be safe. Paul spends the entire film gawking at Jay (he's pretty much General Fuckboy), so obviously he's DTF. Later, Paul is seen driving past some prostitutes. Just like before, it's unclear whether or not he has sex with one of them (to pass the STD on, duh). The last shot of the film is Jay and Paul walking down the street, holding hands, while someone walks behind them. We don't know if the person is the entity or just a regular Joe, just like we don't know if Paul passed on the STD, or if they killed the entity at the pool. This open-ended resolution (or lack thereof) might be really annoying to some people. Others might really like the uncertainty. I'm okay with it. And overall, I actually kinda love this movie, in spite of it's flaws.

The Blair Witch Project is a 1999 found footage horror film directed and written by Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez. Considering that I don't like found footage movies, and considering that this particular film is the one that popularized the found footage genre, you would think that I would hate this movie. I don't; as a matter of fact, I really appreciate and enjoy the Blair Witch Project, simply because of how effective it is as a 'scary movie'.

Going into it, you should expect that this film is going to be slow. A lot of horror films don't get wild until the end, and found footage films in particular take some time to build up. If you're interested in the actual mythology in this film, or at the very least capable of being patient with it's slower moments, then you will enjoy this film. The acting is interesting, considering the circumstances these performances were under. The opening of the film consists of several interviews with townsfolk, dealing with the mythology of the Blair Witch. The thing about these interviews is that some of the townsfolk are actors, while others were just people they found on the street. This adds to the realism of the film, which is what a lot of the film strives to do.

Similarly, the three leads were unknowns, and most of the film's dialogue is improvised; the leads were given a 35-page outline before filming, and notes each day were given seperately to them to help with the improvising. This greatly benefits the film, by conveying the message that these are real people instead of fictional characters. Scripted dialogue sounds a certain way, a way that most people don't talk. Here, the leads repeat themselves and stammer, the way real people do. Adding to the realism is the fact that none of the leads wore make-up, many of their reactions to the things that happen are genuine (as the filmmakers did not fill them in on a lot of the things that were to happen during filming), and the filmmakers even went as far as to deprive them of food, to make them more agitable.

The greatest thing about the film is how much it accomplishes by doing so little. Things like a pile of rocks and stick figures rack up the creep factor early on in the film, while things like the sounds of children outside a tent and crackling in the darkness really fuck with you, once you're invested. There's a particular scene where the leads are running, where one of them looks at something off camera and screams "What the fuck is that?" in absolute horror. We never get to see what they see, nor do we ever see the witch (assuming that's what's after them in the first place). The end of the film is especially haunting and clever, for it's callback to one of the first scenes of the film. Overall, this movie is extremely effective, by how realistic it's portrayed, and by it's minimalistic approach to scares.

The Strangers is a 2008 slasher film  directed and written by Bryan Bertino. I would say that this is easily one of the most underrated horror films of the 2000's. No one seems to remember this film, and it has a pretty modest rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It certainly isn't a perfect film, but it deserves more recognition than it gets.

There are two things this movies does incredibly well, and one thing it's kind of lacking in. First, this movie really knows how to build up tension (possibly more so than any movie I've reviewed this month). There are plenty of quiet moments, and sometimes, the slower something inevitable happens, the more terrifying it is to watch. The music in particular helps create this tension, both in the score by tomandandy and in the use of certain songs (there's a certain scene that uses Merle Haggard's Mama Tried in a really effective way). Throughout the film, as the leads (played by Liv Tyler and Scott Speedman) realize how fucked they are, we too realize that their attempts to escape are futile.

One problem with the film has are it's two leads. Liv Tyler and Scott Speedman both give very good performances, don't get me wrong. But these characters aren't all that interesting. It's clear that they tried, with the engagement thing at the beginning. But once the titular killers arrive, that subplot is completely dropped and the focus is shifted to the killers. The focus should certainly be on the killers, but it would've been nice to have seen more of a story arc between these two characters.

The best part about this film is the killers. It's a thin line on which these characters walk, between reality and fantasy. And they walk this line beautifully. They seem to be able to disappear and reappear at will, almost as if they're teleporting. They get in and out of the house without making a sound, leaving little clues that they were there. Like a fucking ghost. But, some of the scares in this film are scares I've not seen in a film before. The one that really got me, early on in the film, was the first time one of the killers enters the house. Liv Tyler stands in the foreground, and in the background, this guy just fucking walks out. That constitutes as a jump scare in my book, but a really good one (no signature jump scare screeching noise makes it acceptable in my book).

The ending is an extension of the reality of these killers. You may remember, during my Sinister review, I bitched about the ending for being pointless. The bad guys win and the good guys lose, essentially. And the same thing happens here, but I'm okay with it. I'm okay with it for a few reasons, one of which being that this is a realistic portrayal of how this shit happens. Sinister isn't realistic because it's about a demon ghoul or some shit. The main reason this works, however, is because there is no point in the film where you think these people are going to escape the killers. They never find help, they never hurt any of the killers, and there's only one moment where Tyler's character ALMOST contacts somebody. But that is quickly nipped in the bud, and soon after, these people meet their demise. Well, sort of. Tyler's character survives, but it's weird.

Overall though, this film is intense as fuck, and actually pretty scary. It's scary to me in particular because it could happen to anyone. There's no "I'd never go into the woods at night to bang" and there's no "I'd never drink something a stranger gave me". These people bit the dust for no reason, and while that might normally be shitty writing, I feel like it works very well here. It's great to have motivation if you want a better story, but sometimes, no motivation at all can make the killers far more scary.

Also, shout out to Glenn Howerton aka Dennis Reynolds (one of the best characters on television) for his cameo.

Tusk is a 2014 horror-comedy film directed and written by Kevin Smith. I know I already did a Kevin Smith movie earlier this month, but in that very review, I said: "Kevin Smith, for those of you who don't know is basically my favorite person ever. " And if I was gonna review Red State, there's no way I wouldn't review Tusk. So, this is a strange fucking movie, first of all. I'm not sure how else to put it, really. And I'm not talking James Gunn or Edgar Wright-level strange. This is maybe the strangest film I've ever seen. And the fact that it gives no fucks in regard to pleasing anyone, that it's a film that's really beating to it's own drum, is what makes me love this film. Tusk is in top five favorite films of all time, and it has a 39% on Rotten Tomatoes. Don't get me wrong, it's not a perfect film. It does have some issues.

Generally speaking, there are four main problems people find with this film. Two of them, I agree with. People don't like the walrus suit, but I love the walrus suit. People hate the ending, but I love the ending (we'll get into why later). The two points I do agree with on some level are the opening and Guy LaPointe. The opening scenes go for this light-hearted comedy tone that really doesn't work. Which, honestly, does not make a whole lot of sense, considering it's a Kevin Smith film. Regardless, the first few scenes are pretty clunky. There's a lot of forced laughter, and a lot of jokes that don't land. One scene I actually do like involves Harley Morenstein from Epic Meal Time as a Canadian border agent. Once we get to Pippy Hill, where we spend the majority of the film, things start to get good though. As far as Guy LaPointe goes, it's 50/50 for me. The character itself, I like. The actor who plays him, Johnny Depp, I have a very high opinion of. It's just, when he comes in, the entire film comes to a screeching halt. The specific scene that a lot of people (myself included) took issue with was an extra long scene involving Guy LaPointe having a conversation with the villain of the story, Howard Howe. This scene simply goes on too long. The joke of the scene stops being funny after a couple of minutes, and then you're just waiting for things to get good again.

Now, let's get to what I actually do like. First, Howard Howe. If you remember, in my Red State review, I referred to the character of Abin Cooper. Michael Parks, the man who played him, is back in Tusk, playing Howe. And like I said in that review, he is an acting wizard. Like, it's insane to watch this guy act. He spends the first half of the movie being the most subtly creepy (and intriguing as hell) old man ever seen in a Kevin Smith film, and the second half chewing the scenery and being totally batshit. Once we get to Pippy Hill, Parks gives monologue after monologue, reeling us in with his wild ass stories. Stories about meeting Hemingway, hunting a Great White Shark, getting lost at sea, being saved by a walrus. And then the protagonist Wallace, played by Justin Long, is knocked the fuck out. And once that happens, shit gets weirder and weirder. It starts with Wallace's leg getting cut off, before escalating into "Is man indeed a walrus at heart?" You sit there for a while, asking yourself "Are they really going for this?" And the answer is yes. They fucking go for it. About an hour into the film, we get the walrus reveal. Howe is seen reciting Lewis Carroll to someone (or something) off screen. That someone is screaming at the top of their fucking lungs, as we pan up to them slowly. At first, we just get glimpses. Something sewn together from human flesh, a la Leatherface. Something with flippers. Something big. And finally, the camera cuts to poor Justin Long, screaming at us from inside a fucking walrus suit. This scene will get a reaction out of you if you go in not knowing what the suit looks like (like I did). Whether it's absolute horror, utter confusion, or gut-busting laughter, this reveal will get a visceral reaction out of you.

The ending is a bit polarizing. A lot of people found it was overkill, or that it was jumping the shark (as if the entire film hasn't been a series of jump-the-shark moments already). Personally, I love this entire ending. I think it's bizarre as hell, just like the rest of the film, and I love it specifically for that reason. Let's do a quick rundown. Toward the end of the film, as Guy LaPointe and Wallace's friends are approaching Pippy Hill to save him, Wallace is woken by Howe, who - AND I SHIT YOU NOT - is now sporting his own walrus suit. As Fleetwood Mac's Tusk plays, the two walrus-men have a walrus fight. Like, how two walruses would actually fight. Wallace wins, killing Howe just as his friends bust in. The entire fight is played for laughs, but once they walk in on their friend, covered in blood and sewn into a walrus suit made of human flesh, it's like "Oh, shit." I mean, put yourself in their shoes for a moment and consider how you'd react. Cut to one year later, and we see that Wallace - still in his walrus suit - lives in a wildlife sanctuary. You know, because he went full walrus. This is what people really didn't like about the film. A man gets sewn into a walrus suit, has a walrus fight with his captor, and nobody cuts him out of the suit because he's mentally a walrus now. Clearly, none of this is even remotely realistic. It's not supposed to be. This film is a testament to someone's fucked up imagination, running wild. It isn't meant to say anything profound (though it kinda does at the end), and it's not meant to be some super-realistic story. It's a walrus movie, plain and simple. If the concept alone doesn't grab you, then you're not gonna enjoy this film. But if you like fucked up weird shit like I do, check Tusk out.

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street is a 2007 musical horror film directed by Tim Burton, written by John Logan, and based on the Broadway musical of the same name by Stephen Sondheim. And yes, it is a horror film. It involves serial killers and cannibalism, it's gory as fuck, and it ends with a bloodbath. That constitutes as a horror film in my book, and an exceptional one at that.

First, let's talk about everything other than the music aspect. This movie is dark. It's bleak, it's gloomy, it's everything you can expect from a Tim Burton film. The problem I have with Tim Burton is that he always uses that style, even when it isn't warranted (Willy Wonka, Alice in Wonderland, etc). But when he uses that style with fitting subject matter, it works. And here, it fits amazingly well. This is a Victorian-era revenge story about a murderous barber (Todd) and his obsessed partner/landlord (Mrs. Lovett), who together, turn the bodies of Todd's victims into meat pies which are sold in Lovett's meat pie shop. So, yeah. A story this fucked up wouldn't really work with any other director, at least not as well as it does here. Everything is on point, in this movie. The sets are on point. The cinematography is on point. The acting is on point. The leads in particular, played by Burton regulars Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter, give very good performances. Aside from a couple of weird moments, there's nothing really bad I can say about this film.

Now, the music. This is what the movie actually revolves around. I suppose this is less about the film itself and more about the musical in which it's based on, but whatever. Much like every other aspect of the film, the music is on fucking point. It never comes off as hokey, no matter how dramatic it gets (which is to say, very dramatic). Like any movie musical, it took me a few minutes to get into the music, but once I did, I was fucking in. Stephen Sondheim is considered by many to be the greatest songwriter in Broadway. And here, it's hard not to agree with them. Lyrically and musically, the songs in this film are both conventional and unconventional. The melodies in particular are very unconventional in a lot of ways. And that is what makes these songs unforgettable. The lyrics tell the story, but the melodies are what show us the emotional arc of these characters. And each song has it's own feel and purpose. There are slower, more emotional songs, like Johanna and Not While I'm Around. There are more light-hearted numbers, like The Contest and By the Sea. And there are quicker, tension-filled songs, like Epiphany. Pretty Women, in particular, becomes more and more tense as the scene goes on, to the point where you're on the edge of your seat by the song's close.

So all in all, this is a very dark, emotionally-charged, sometimes intense, horror film. And the real horror doesn't come from the blood and gore. It comes from what the characters are thinking and feeling, and where these characters end up as a result of their poor decisions.

The Devil's Rejects is a 2005 horror film directed and written by Rob Zombie, and the sequel to House of 1000 Corpses. In short, my thoughts can be summed up in five words: I fucking love this movie. Assuming you want the long version of my thoughts, here they are:

Going into this film, there are two things you need to know. It's really funny, and it's REALLY dark. Like, this is some fucked up shit. It may not be as gory as Evil Dead, but I'd argue that it's far more disturbing. This film goes to some dark fucking places, first of all. There's a scene in a hotel room that's particularly fucking heinous. But what really fucks with the viewer is how likable the killers end up being. The three leads, played by Bill Moseley, Sheri Moon Zombie, and Sid Haig, humanize these characters (who are three of the most depraved individuals ever seen on film). At the start of the film, it's clear that these are the villains, but by the end of the film, it's very different. Over the course of the film, the killers slowly become the ones you side with, as the sheriff becomes the villain. It's a real mindfuck.

Despite how dark it is, this movie is actually very funny. I wouldn't necessarily call it a comedy, but there's a lot of humor to be found here. The humor is one of the things that really helps you sympathize with the killers. Two of my favorite scenes in the film are a scene about "Tutti fucking Frutti" ice cream, and a scene about chicken fucking. A lot of this humor comes around the midway point, sandwiched between the disturbing first act and the intense-as-fuck third act. The humor really helps relieve some of the tension that's built up in the first act, and in a way, it keeps the film from being too fucked up for people to handle.

One of the most interesting things about this film is the fact that it's a sequel to House of 1000 Corpses. The characters are carried over, and the events of the first film inspire the events of this film, but other than that, Rejects and Corpses have nothing in common. While Corpses is a stylized, over-saturated, music video-esque nightmare, Rejects is much more grounded, playing almost like a Western in some ways. The characters themselves are much more grounded, as well. Captain Spaulding takes off his clown make-up. Baby Firefly doesn't laugh once in Rejects (her laugh was a defining trait in Corpses). Otis Driftwood is no longer albino. Gone is the giant mutant beast, gone is Dr. Satan (although, he's in a deleted scene). In many ways, the events of this film are actually plausible. And that's what makes this film really fucked up. Overall, Rejects is a far better film than Corpses. It's funnier, it's scarier, and most importantly, you really care about these characters, despite how awful they are.

You're Next is a 2011/2013 slasher film directed by Adam Wingard (V/H/S, A Horrible Way to Die) and written by Simon Barrett (who writes all of Wingard's films). The aesthetic that this film conveys is almost perfect in my eyes. But, maybe it's the directing that conveys that, rather than the writing. Let me explain.

This film is interesting in that it's a slasher film, but it's also a mumblecore film. A mumblecore film, for those of you who don't know, is a low-budget film that involves nonprofessional actors giving naturalistic/improvised performances. I suppose this style has it's merits, if you're looking for a more realistic story or something. But personally, I enjoy watching a film that embraces the fact that it's a film. And mumblecore's emphasis on amateur acting is a bit of a disservice to this film, in some ways. I mean, don't get me wrong, some of the performances in here are really good (in particular, the lead girl). But some of the side characters are played by pretty meh actors. This is especially obvious in the first half-hour of the film, before all the killing really starts. There's a dinner scene in particular that drags along for a bit longer than it needs to. But I can see how someone could like these quieter scenes. I guess mumblecore just isn't for me.

None of that matters though, once the killing starts. Aside from the opening sequence, there are no deaths until 20-30 minutes in. But once that first death happens, the film kicks into overdrive and doesn't slow down until the credits roll. This is what is great about the film. I'm not sure if it's in the directing, the writing, the storyboarding or the cinematography, but the way some of these people are killed is - for lack of better words - fucking cool. I suppose the credit can go to everyone. The killers harken back to Michael Myers and Jason Vorhees in some ways, on account of them being silent and masked. But really, they're more akin to the killer(s) in Scream. They trip, they fall, they fuck up, etc. They're not zombies and they don't have black eyes. They're just dudes with masks who are trying to kill some people. And I like that. I also like the idea that the protagonist actually knows how to defend herself. And it's explained why she can defend herself. Generally speaking, the lead character is either completely helpless, or an inexplicable badass. The lead here is neither of those. She's a badass, but a believable one. And some of the deaths she's involved in are potentially the most gruesome in the film.

So even though the film's got a slow start, the quick pace, creative deaths, crisp cinematography and lead actress are what elevates this film to being one of my favorites. I'd say that the strong points are strong enough to the point that all of the film's previous faults are forgiven in my eyes.

Red State is a 2011 action-thriller-horror film directed and written by Kevin Smith. Kevin Smith, for those of you who don't know is basically my favorite person ever. I mean, he's had rough spots (Jersey Girl, Cop Out, Doogal, Live Free or Die Hard, Catch and Release, Southland Tales, Daredevil, etc.), but overall, he is one of the most unique directors in Hollywood. I mean, his latest film was a fucking walrus movie (and don't worry, I will be reviewing that before the end of Spooktober). Red State, like it's father, is very unique and creative in how does things. Also like it's father, Red State fucks up sometimes.

This movie is unpredictable as fuck. Sometimes, that works for the film (like when something wild and unexpected happens that catches you off guard). Sometimes, it works against the film (like when a character is killed for no reason, or when a subplot fizzles out with little to no resolution). The start of the film is okay. The three boys who start out as our leads are decent, I suppose. They're crass-as-fuck, and kind of vulgar, but they're not unlikable. And there are some funny lines. This shit lasts for about 6 minutes. The next 30-40 minutes of the film end up being the best part of the film. We're properly introduced to Abin Cooper, who is played by acting wizard Michael Parks. This fucking guy knows how to act. Like, to the point that he completely owns this film. The past decade or so, Parks has mostly been playing small roles in Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez films (all of which have been great). But here, he is essentially the star of the show. He plays this character so fucking creepy, but in a weirdly charismatic way. You want to listen to everything he says, no matter how horrible it is. And it is horrible. Horrible, bigoted, half homophobic-half homicidal shit is what this guy spew to his followers. And then they proceed to show a gay man tied to a cross with plastic wrap. And then they shoot him in the fucking head. Since I didn't mention it before, I'll mention it now: this film revolves around a church full of homophobic, homicidal gun nuts. It's essentially the Westboro Baptist Church, but with guns.

After they kill the gay kid, there are a few more instances of some creepy shit, mostly involving Parks. But then, John Goodman is introduced, and the entire film switches gears. At that moment, it's no longer a horror film. Now, it's an action film. Goodman, who plays an ATF agent, comes in with a shit load of other soldiers because of a call that was made concerning the guns these church fucks have been stockpiling. And then, the last half of the film is one big fucking shootout. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of good shit in here. But amidst all the gunfire, there's no time for Parks to give another big monologue like he did earlier in the film. And as I said, that's the best part of the entire movie. Nonetheless, Goodman is fucking great. He always is. And everyone else in the film is great too. The acting is on point all across the boards in this film, and I would even say it's the strongest thing about the film. The cinematography is great too, even though I'm not fond of the handheld, gritty style that it's got. The lack of music is an interesting choice, and honestly, it works well for the film. It makes it more realistic, more claustrophobic.

The biggest problem with the film, everyone can agree on the ending. We're essentially given a bait-and-switch. You're led to believe something big is about to happen, and then the film cops out and gives a bullshit explanation. Now, the reason for this is that the budget was only 4 million dollars, and to do the planned ending, it would've costed WAY fucking more. But like, was it necessary to lead us on and make us think the film was about to go there? But, weak ending aside, this is a very effective film. It's incoherent, it's uneven, and it's kind of unhinged. It's also well shot, creatively written, unique, and led by an incredibly talented cast. So, overall this is some good shit if I do say so myself.

Evil Dead is a 2013 supernatural horror film directed and co-written by Fede Alvarez. I think a more appropriate thing to call it would be a fucking gorefest. Not necessarily in a bad way. This film does a lot of shit right. Like, there are no major problems I have with this movie. It's surprisingly good as both a gorefest and a remake, it actually has some well developed characters, and it has a good ending. So let's get into all that shit.

First and foremost, the gore. This movie is chock fucking full of it. Just to give you some examples of the blood and guts we're subjected to in the film, there are scenes depicting: someone puking blood on a person, a dead dog who was a bludgeoned to death with a hammer, someone sawing their face off, someone sawing their arm off, someone slicing their tongue in half, someone being repeatedly stabbed in the face with a syringe, someone being shot with a nail gun, someone being beaten with a crowbar, etc. It's some pretty intense shit. But, it works. Like, really well. Assuming you're not squeamish, there are certain moments in this film that are actually horrifying. This movie isn't necessarily jump scare heavy (which is a good thing in my book), so don't expect to feel "startled" while watching it. Expect to cover your face or something, though. Because this shit is fucked.

This movie is a remake, so a lot of people went into this a bit cautious. The trailer made it look very good though, and that hyped me up to see it in a theater. And I did. And the film, as you can assume, did not disappoint. The only similarity to the original Evil Dead that this film really has is the concept: a group of young people stays at a cabin in the woods, and a book ends up releasing evil spirits that they have to fight. The original Evil Dead was more campy (and deliberately so) than this. I mean, don't get me wrong. There are moments in this film that are a bit hokey, particularly at the beginning. But overall, this film is relatively serious in it's tone. And intense. I think I mentioned that before.

The characters in this, as I stated, are actually well developed. This is accomplished primarily by two things: a unique backstory, and good acting. Now, some of the side characters aren't what I would call "three dimensional characters" or anything. But our two leads, played by Jane Levy and Shiloh Fernandez, are actually pretty fucking good. And conveniently enough, those are the characters who are most interesting. Much like Scream, the most interesting part of this story is what happens off-screen. Particularly dealing with their relationship, and their mother (who passed prior to the events of the film, also similar to Scream). Jane Levy is too good of an actress to be in a horror film probably, so her talent in this elevates the entire film to heights it would never normally reach. Not to say the entire film is riding on her shoulders. I guess you could say that it is, kinda. But not really.

The only other thing to mention is the ending. Compare this to my last review, Sinister. Where Sinister had a truly pointless ending, where nothing is accomplished and evil is not punished, Evil Dead ends with our hero emerging victorious. For a lot of this film, we were under the impression that Fernandez was the hero. But no, it was Levy. After she's cured of her demon posession shit, and after everyone else is dead, she fights the demon in the midst of raining blood. She ends up sticking a chainsaw through the demons face, killing it. And then the sun comes up, and the nightmare is over. I mean sure, all her friends are dead. And sure, her brother's dead too. But at least she's not. And she was the first one to turn. Maybe it was the execution of the ending, but I think it just sits better with me when the ending isn't fucking pointless. So thank you for that, Evil Dead remake.

Sinister is a 2012 supernatural/psychological horror film directed by Scott Derrickson (the guy who's doing Doctor Stranger) and written by Derrickson and C. Robert Cargill (who used to be a film critic on Spill.com). This movie, I'm very conflicted about. Don't get me wrong, I love this movie. There are just certain things about this movie that bug the hell out of me. Let's go ahead and start with the bad things about this film, so we can end on a positive note.

There are two major things about this film that bother me: the supernatural shit, and the ending. As I stated, this is a "supernatural/psychological horror film." The psychological side of that coin refers to the snuff films that the film revolves around, as well as the problems the protagonist, Ellison Oswalt (played by my spirit animal, Ethan Hawke). The supernatural side of that coin refers to the spooky ghosts, and the villain of the film, Bughuul (which has "ghoul" in it's fucking name). Bughuul is the name of some obscure ass Babylonian deity (which we can assume is fictional), and that part is fine. When it comes to myths and legends and shit, I'm usually okay with it. The thing I don't care for is all the jump scares, which become apparent in the last third. The other thing that bothers me, as I said before, is the ending. As the title suggests, this is a spoiler review, so fair warning:

Toward the end of the film, we're given the impression that Ellison and his family are safe. They leave the ghoul-infested murder house, Ellison drops the book, and all is good. And then they're all murdered (watch the movie to find out why). The thing that bothers me here isn't that the good guys died. The thing that bothers me is that nothing was accomplished. In the context of the film, nothing good happened in those two hours. No one was saved, no murders were truly solved, and the Bughuul lives to kill another day. This ending makes the audience feel like they wasted their time. Now, this works if it's trying to convey a message (example, Requiem for a Dream). This movie wasn't really trying to make any points, unless the point was "Don't move into a murder house or your child will kill you with an ax." So, fuck this ending. It stinks and I don't like it.

Sounds like I hate this movie, probably. Like I said, "I love this movie." Here's what I loved about the film: the psychological part of it. In other words, whenever the movie wasn't fucking around with ghouls or ghosts, I was really into it. The snuff films got increasingly fucked up as they went on (I can't think of any other film that involves someone's face getting run over by a lawn mower). Everything to do with the Ellison character (his reason for trying to write this book, his relationship with the police, the problems with his family, etc.) got me very invested in the story. Despite the fact that the movie ended terribly, it opened strong as hell, with the first snuff film. The Super 8 footage of a family being hung from a tree set the tone for a disturbing ass movie. The music really helped compliment this, especially during the snuff film scenes. Ethan Hawke was fantastic as per usual, and honestly, there isn't a single bad performance in the film. If it weren't for the spooky ghosts/ghouls and the ending, I would have no problems with this film.

So considering that this is a new blog with hardly any posts, and considering that we've just entered Spooktober, I'm going to try and post some film reviews every week. The plan is to have one up every Monday, Wednesday and Friday in October (the first one being today, the 2nd, and the final review being on October 30th). 13 reviews of horror films, all personal favorites of mine. Of the 13, only 4 of them can be considered "classics". The first review is Scream, for two reasons: I just watched it like three nights ago, and Wes Craven recently passed, so this is my way of saying “I respect your work.” The final film I review will be Wes Craven’s other big film, A Nightmare on Elm Street. Having said that, here is the review:

Scream is a 1996 slasher film directed by Wes Craven (of Nightmare on Elm Street fame) and written by Kevin Williamson (the guy who created Dawson's Creek). Seems like a weird fucking pairing, right? Well, it works extremely well. The script and the directing on this film have hardly similarities, yet they blend together pretty damn well. Let me elaborate. Wes Craven’s directing in the film is very traditional. Not to say that it’s poorly directed. The best part of the film, directing-wise, is how smoothly it moves with the tone shifts in the screenplay. There are plenty of scary moments (the image of Casey Becker’s corpse hanging from a tree in the opening scene still haunts me to this day), plenty of action-y moments (like the chase scenes), plenty of funny moments (Jamie Kennedy and Matthew Lillard in particular are great), and plenty of dramatic moments (primarily dealing with the death of Maureen Prescott). The brilliant thing about the directing is that none of these transitions are jarring to us.

The writing is very ‘90s. The dialogue is almost like something out of an early Kevin Smith film, where all the characters are film experts. This is coming from someone who loves Kevin Smith films (especially the early ones). There are certain moments that are a little cheesy, but they’re few and far between. What sets this apart from a lot of horror films is how invested you get in the character of Sidney Prescott. If you look at other horror film protagonists, they’re usually likable, but they’re never really developed. Sidney has a strong personality, and a fucked up history. Which is another unique thing about this film. The entire film revolves around the fact that someone was murdered one year before the events of the film. And we go with it, because they don’t just bring it up out of nowhere and then drop it. Maureen Prescott’s murder influences the behavior of Sidney through the entire film, as well as having a direct tie to the killers (it’s been out nearly 20 years, so don’t yell “spoiler” if you’ve not seen it already).

Other thoughts: The twist/reveal at the end is cool, but predictable. The score is fucking strange as hell; it doesn’t fit a ‘90s teen film, and it doesn’t fit a slasher film either. It’s not a bad score, it’s just odd. Acting highlights are Neve Campbell, Jamie Kennedy, and Matthew Lillard; everyone else for the most part gives a decent performance (except maybe Drew Barrymore, but she’s not in it too long). Henry Winkler is in it for some strange reason, but he’s not bad (he’s also not in it too much).