Slasher: Origins

Sounds like a bad horror-prequel, doesn't it? I guess in a way it is.

After I posted Titans of Slash, someone said to me "Ok, hold up there a sec. You start us off with Psycho then leave us hanging!" I sure as heck don't wanna do that, so let's have a look.

Although some say Slasher movies had earlier origins, there's no arguing that Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho (1960) is the one that popularized the genre. Somewhat inspired by earlier murder mystery horror, such as House On Haunted Hill (1959), Psycho must have been one of the first to portray violent murders. This movie itself inspired much of the following wave of films depicting graphic killing.

Now, about the movie itself: it was simply amazing. And I'm not just saying that because everyone else does. There's a reason why it's considered Hitchcock's greatest film.

To the edge of my seat did it take me? Yes, oh yes indeed.

What first struck me as remarkable was how old it didn't seem. You heard me right. Many movies of that time, as well as those for a long while afterward, have a certain feel to them. Maybe it's just for us looking back from the modern age, but usually you feel like your watching peopel act in older films. The cast of Psycho did not act. It lived. Particularly the lead. Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates was so genuine that he stood out from the other actors (who were also very good) and seemed to be in a completely different world, a real world. The filming was smooth. The movie was more at ease (especially for one that makes you so uneasy) and natural than it's peers, adding even more to it's unreal reality.

Now, this movie doesn't tote high body-count that the slashers of today aim for. And sorry gore-lovers, but though it was considered extremely violent for it's time, it's nothing like what we see in ours (though it was still fairly brutal). That's okay, it doesn't need any of that. The suspense alone is enough. And when the violence comes, it is fast and relentless, catching you off-guard even when you know it's coming.

(Mrs. Bates is one scary mother'.)

Definitely worth the watch, even if you hate old movies. It also spawned three sequels, though I haven't seen them. It seems that all three were generously received by fans. Though they do not measure up to the original, they were considered decent enough films each on their own. Perkins came back to play Norman in each one, though they were all made many years after the original (in '83, '86, and '90).

And finally, in '98 they did a remake. A shot-for-shot remake. No, it didn't exchange punches with the original, it was just almost an exact reenactment of the '60 version. The only differences? The actors (and acting), modernization, and length. Overall, it wasn't as good as the original, but it's decent enough if it's your first time seeing any version (like it was for me). As a reviewer on IMDB going by bob the moo said, "So-so, until you compare it to the original - then it's poor." Though I enjoyed it plenty, I have to agree.

First of all, most of the scenes were longer than in the original. Not much, sometimes only by seconds. Did that add to the movie? Half the time it added a bit more character to what was already there, and in the other half it was just unnecessary drag. The modernization didn't change much; it took place in a different year, monetary amounts were different, and a few expressions were updated slightly. They tried to make it seem like a '60s movie with their filming and sadly all that accomplished was a distracting conflict of style for the viewer.

Three of the five characters of interest were portrayed by actors that seemed completely uninspired and lifeless. Anne Heche had the same neutral look on her face for most of her scenes, and Julianne Moore and Viggo Mortensen (more like Riggo Mortissen) seemed bored out of their minds. I felt like I could have gotten more life out of a blank wall in an invisible room that doesn't exist. William Macy, however, held up his character well enough. Vince Vaughn, in the leading role of Norman Bates, did a disarmingly good job. I don't know about you guys, but this was a completely different role for Vaughn than I've ever seen him do, and his acting matched the unusualness. How did he measure up to Perkins? Well, his was a different Norman Bates. Vaughn's version was more socially awkward and obviously disturbed, while Perkins' just seemed like a polite shy young man. I admit I liked Perkins' Bates better, but there was nothing wrong with Vaughn's. In fact, I'd watch the remake again if only to see Bates in that different light.

Last note of interest: I couldn't help but notice that at times, Perkins (right) reminded me a bit of Christian Bale(left). What do you think? Interestingly, Bale starred in a film called American Psycho as Patrick Bateman. We know that the name is a tribute to Psycho, but what about the actor choice? Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.

Jason, Have You No Heart?

Because you're newest movie doesn't! The rehash of Friday the 13th was a senseless kill-fest that lacked story and character. The only substance it brought to the viewers was a different Jason Voorhees than we used to know.

Uh-oh! A negative review?

Well, not ALL negative, but yeah, sort of.

I had really high hopes for this one. I guess this is all I should have expected from it. The majority of the later Friday the 13th movies were all about the killing, less about story. The fans were fine with it, really. Youpee! Jason is killin' some dudes! That's what they were looking for. But me, I enjoy a horror more when it has a decent plot to back it up. I'll begin with the bad, then move on to the good later.

Trailers ho! (Youtube, Apple)

First of all, Vanessa of Cinema Coquette mentioned that I don't really hate on the acting in the movies I've reviewed so far. Well, she'll be delighted to know that that's just what I'm going to do in this case. Simply put, the acting was bad, or at least had no feel to it. Not horrible, per se; horrible does come along, but I reserve that word for the worst of the worst. Still, you could pick up a teen off the street or off the set of any soap opera (oho! a low-blow to the soap operas!) and have a cast mostly on-par with what we seen in this movie. "Hyuk, hyuk, I'm a teen and like sex and drugs, hyuk!" I couldn't find any inspiration to root for a character's survival. I'll pretend I'm going to find some deep meaning to this film and say that the lack of any depth meant that nobody was really there, and it was all a dream, the end.

(Hahaha! I have no need to act >:D )

The next problem was the plot. Basically, they jammed two movies into the first 30 minutes, and the rest was a third movie. They were all slightly related, but they didn't need each other. The first two were just another half-hour of sex and gore for the audience and back-story that us viewers could deduce perfectly well on our own. So what's this 'story' I keep talking about? I don't need to put it in a nutshell for you, it's already in there. Some teens go to a lake to party, one guy is looking for his missing sister, and Jason decides to kill them all for being there (that's HIS territory, punks!). He also randomly goes and kills some dude who has been living in the area for quite a while. I guess the characters in the movie are like items on clearance at your local superstore: ALL THINGS MUST GO! He got introduced as a character, so I suppose the movie makers decided they might as well kill him too. Why not, right, we're on a roll.

They had a steady formula for the movie: introduce teens, kill teens; introduce more teens, kill 'em some more. Nothing in between. You get just as much story as a McDonald's ad. And to put it simply, there wasn't much in the form of scares either. Sure he jumped out at you a few times, and maybe you jumped too, but otherwise no. Anything worth drawing out some fear was used in the commercial anyhow.

(I'm totally not right behind you.)

My goodness, I sound like a professional critic! For once we're on the same wavelength, and I think that's the scariest part about this movie! Mr. Allan Hunter puts it very nicely on Rotten Tomatoes.

"One for horror fans that everyone else can happily avoid."

"Golly, do you have anything nice to say to this poor defenseless film?" Oh, yes, that's next. Because, you see, if senseless violence in the form of a large amount of slaughtered teens is what you were looking for, then this is the movie for you! In fact, you get two whole bunches of them looking for love and marijuana, just asking to be slasher victims. And for those of you who say "that is horrible!" keep in mind that what I just said is the main reason people go to see this movie: to watch whatever creative ways the makers have put together for people to die. If looked at only from that point of view, this was a great movie. Not much else going on.

But the one thing that I personally found to be a treat in this movie is the new and improved Jason. If you've seen the old movies, you remember the slow, clumsy, indestructible brute that was Jason. Now, not only is he stab-proof, but he's cunning (traps, plans, etc), he's fast (what's scarier, a guy with a machete walking at you, or a guy with a machete RUNNING at you?), and he's agile (more stealthy then ever, with smooth deadly movements). They took a threatening dude and made him into an even more unstoppable monster. In my opinion, seeing that was the main reason to watch this movie.

(I've been exercising! Can you tell?)

Overall: Critically, it's not a good movie. I might rent it when it's in the cheap-movie isle at Blockbuster, and that'll be the end of it. But, if you're in the mood for a movie with a decent kill-count and fair variety of ways to pull off said kills, then go ahead, have a ball. Heck, you might love it. I enjoyed it fine. Still doesn't make it good.

It's Lycan Action-Horror Movie

Called 'horror' mostly for its Gothic style and for being about vampires and werewolves, it's not at all scary. But, it is full of action and an epic-style story. Plus some romance if you want that. :)

Personally I'd just call Underworld: Rise of the Lycans an action movie, but since it's placed in the horror genre (and there wasn't any other horror flick on that week o_o) I'll include it here.

But let's not let that bring us down! Yay! Action movie!

Right, so, it was pretty good. The effects were nice with some cool looking werewolves going around. Though there could have been more action sequences, what they had was intense. Everything from close combat to huge ballistae. I especially liked that they briefly had a human that could kick some butt too. Still, it delivered part of what we all went to see: more Werewolf vs Vampire craziness!

(FINISH HIM!)

Yet, it didn't so much fill the other part: Underworld. The first movie (and even the second one) had more of a horror feel than this one. Creepy scenes, Gothic but also unknown, and even the style of a gritty underworld were lacking in this third installment. To me, it felt like a separate story, even though many parts were related to the other two films. Really, when you get right down to it, it might as well have been. As things stand though, it is Underworld, and I enjoyed watching it just fine. And to be fair, I guess the werewolves were at times a little intimidating. ;)

("Wanna be friends?! :D")

The cast was great. Solid acting all around. Michael Sheen returned to play Lucian and did his job in the rebel-slave-leader-who-is-also-a-werewolf role. Like everyone else, I was sad that we wouldn't be seeing Kate Beckinsale, but they brought in Rhona Mitra (woo!), which was nice. :) And then we have Bill Nighy returning as well as the tyrannous lead vampire Viktor. I once again loved how he played the cold, self-centered, powerhungry, merciless Viktor, unblinking and for some reason always seeming like he is trembling with wrath. That's him on the right. Creepy.

The romance was your typical star-crossed lovers thing... with wolf-mans and vamps, but yeah, same old. That was one of the big things that separated this movie from the others: deep down it was a love story. Sure the other ones had some romance, but this was Romeo and Juliet... if Juliet could kill a man with the flick of her wrist. Like I said, good for some movies, but is it "Underworld"?

(D'awww...)

Now for them critic people. They tossed this movie to the wolves (pardon the intended pun). Seriously, they tore it apart. Many were put off by how different it was than the others. One guy, Jeffrey M. Anderson, at Rotten Tomatoes had this to say on that note:

...it quickly turns into a pretty standard-issue "revolt of the slaves" action picture...

I disagreed with some other things he said, but he's right there. However, some of the critics just plain sounded ignorant in their bashing of Rise of the Lycans. Some said Sheen's movement from roles in dramas (like Frost/Nixon or The Queen) made his place in an action movie awkward and laughable. Uh, sorry to disappoint those poor fools but he's been in action movies before either of those said roles (like Underworld and Timeline). Did I mention he did a good job in those action movies too? Oh, how silly of me, because he did. So, that was "dumb criticism #1" from them. Number two would probably just be the way they boohoo'd about how they didn't enjoy action and the story. The problem with many critics is that they get too involved in their own opinions and don't look at the movie objectively. Take a look at the review done at The Movie Blog by John Campea. He had some interesting things to say, but most of all he looked at the good and the bad and rated it fairly. Unlike the rot some critics spout out, senselessly declaring that they were bored or that it was stupid, or such things.

Overall: Definately worth the watch, especially if you're a fan of the series. It's different, yes, but a good different. And yes, for those of you who were disappointed in Underworld 2, this one makes up for it. I'd make some joke about how you could sink your teeth into it, but I wouldn't want to sound cliché would I? Oh.

Slasher + 3D = WIN

It's all in the math.
Although Bloody Valentine lacked in story and depth, it was just plain fun to watch.

Be warned, though. It's only worth watching in 3D. If you're going to watch it any other way, don't bother. Here are your trailers: Apple and Youtube.

Oh, and before I get started, when I opened the IMDB site for this movie, a random quote came up that horror movie fans should appreciate: "Michael: Jason, is that you?" Hehe, I thought it was a funny coincidence.

Alright, so the movie wasn't that scary. Sure there were a few things jumping out, but even those didn't get much out of me. Slasher movies, though, aren't really expected to scare you. They might, but mostly they're watched to 1. See how people deal with a psycho killer, and 2. the gore. Gore is sort of its own kind of scariness for squeamish viewers anyhow. And this movie had plenty of it. It had brutality and dismemberment coming out the wazoo.

Except for the effects, Bloody Valentine was more a tribute to old horror movies than a modern horror itself. I mean, the acting was pretty corny, but you could tell that it was supposed to be. The whole story and ending melodrama brought back memories of the good ole 80s slashers. Now lets get to the 3D. This is what made the movie. Literally everything is in 3D. Some people might think 3D means stuff popping out at you, and in some movies that is the case, but My Bloody Valentine impressed me by having every little detail in the film being three-dimensional. I'm usually put off by 3D in any movie, unimpressed by things 'trying' to jump out of the screen, but this one took the cake. Everything from weapons, body parts, gaping wounds, lights, tunnels, and even full frontal nudity (nudge nudge), all of it in glorious 3D!

(Hey! Where' d those clothes come from?)

At times it even became ridiculous. I felt more like I was at a Disneyland haunted house ride than a scary film. Well, except for the profanity and violence. This is a movie you watch to "ooooh!" and "aaaah!" and "woah!" and even laugh at times. My Bloody Valentine 3D is all about the entertainment.

But let me emphasize a little more about that 3D fun. If two characters are talking in the street, it looks like they are standing in front of a car and it looks like that car is in front of a store. No, not "looks", it feels like it. And the lights they beam at you... well, they're bright!
Of course, no slasher movie would be complete without cliché moments.
-A killer is on the loose, its night, the store is closed, the door opens and closes, and what does a worker have to say? : "Hello?" Is anybody there?
-At the start, a girl walks into the mines looking for her friends, and gets all scared about it: "Guys where are youuuu?" Boo! Just kidding.

Among others. But it was nice to see some people fight back against the killer instead of just curling up and taking it.

The critics had opinions all over the place, pretty much saying what I said: corny, but damned if that 3D wasn't awesome. Some were put off by the "corniness" and called this a typical slasher but in 3D. Mostly those ones sounded like they just didn't like slashers in general.

Overall: Not something to scare you. It's a slasher with fantastic 3D effects and any near-fan of the genre should have a good time.

PS: Oh yeah, I had to pay 3$ extra for the 3D glasses. Then, there was an announcement before the film asking us to give them back after the movie was over. Hohoho! Right, I just paid for these. I'm gonna keep them. In fact, I've been wearing them while I wrote all this, so there!

The Unborn Potential

Though this wasn't a very noteworthy movie, it was enjoyable. And heck, there are much worse out there.

I was really excited about seeing this one. The trailer (Youtube, Apple) gave me high hopes. But, sadly, this was just another movie that fell short. It had its moments, and they were good ones, but it had just as many flaws. Those flaws brought it down.

Just to be prepared, I had a nice corny title in mind for this post in case it ended up really sucking: "The Unborn should have stayed that way". I'm glad I didn't have to use it.


Now, let's start with the good.

The acting was solid. Something we don't get in all our horror movies these days. Gary Oldman gave us a decent performance as the Rabbi. Some even say he stole the set when he was on scene, but I don't think so. The rest were nothing special, but nobody was "bad". Though I was surprised to see Carla Gugino and James Remar playing nothing-roles as Casey's parents.

Pretty much every other aspect of the movie, however, was "here and there". Like the special effects. They looked great when they were used to tweak the way possessed people looked, and when they created all that trouble in the public restroom. But at times they became obviously fake, taking me right out of the movie. Such as whenever the little creepy kid did his scream thing. It looked fake, it felt fake. The same goes for a portion of the scary-old-man scene. I think they should have moderated their CGI use, or at least make the less impressive bits harder to see with lighting or camera motion.

(She's scared, you see.)

"Its a horror movie, how about you get to the part about the scares!" Hey, I'm getting there! If I'm counting correctly, they had two "good" scares, three "properly" creepy scenes, and a bunch of "BOO!" scares. Yes, things-jumping-out-at-you is the main scare cause of most horror movies, but I don't count them as "good". They're alright. Good scares build up the atmosphere and stick with you. One in this movie really set you up for a scare, denied it, THEN got you. Disarming! Creepiness is its own category, and boy they had a few good ones. I mean, did you see the old man in the trailer? Unfortunately, the few noteworthy bits didn't leave a lasting impression (i.e. they didn't trouble my sleep at all). In fact, the movie's big climax wasn't even scary. It was like it turned into an action movie out of nowhere: I was excited rather than frightened. Really cool, but not horror.

Sadly, I did agree with some of what the critics said about the lack of overall scariness and quality in some areas (although they pushed those opinions further than I think was called for). But one thing many of them said bothered me: the movie was laughable? Lets look at Mr. Ratliff's comment on Rotten Tomatoes.

"The Unborn is so lame that even a scene where Nazi 'doctors' experiment on twin children by poking a needle in their eyeballs is more laughable than horrendous."

I... can't really see that being laughable in any context. I actually heard a guy laughing in the theater after every "scary" scene, but his laughs were delayed and sounded uncertain. Probably just another person trying to prove to nobody in particular that "I don't get scared of movies, no sir, not me!" I'll admit aspects of the movie may not have been top notch, but they were far from laughable.

The plot, while interesting, had some holes. For example, the spirit possesses people left and right, and yet "Jumby wants to be born now." Why go through all that trouble when you can take anyone anytime? Beats me. And maybe I missed something, but what were those bugs about? I couldn't see any reason for focusing on just the one type. If somebody gets stabbed, aren't police usually a little suspicious of anyone present at the time? And the survival of certain people is unclear at the end, which was tiny bit frustrating. But I do have to give them this: the girl knew to turn the dang light on when something scary was happening. Also, characters were willing to believe that crazy stuff was going on. Refreshing. If she told me all those insane things, I'd be inclined to believe in supernatural causes too.

Overall: if you like horror movies in general, you should be happy with this one. Chances are you've enjoyed ones that are much worse (I know I have).

The first and third pictures come from Rotten Tomatoes.