The Amityville Curse...1990...91 minutes...R...starring Kim Coates, Dawna Wightman, Helen Hughes, and David Stein...directed by Tom Berry
A group of five friends move into a house that one of them has purchased in order to do renovations, spruce up the place, and make it a lovely place. The fact that the psychic woman got a hunch to buy that house? No, that's fine, no worries. The sealed over room in the basement? No, that couldn't be a bad omen. Nightmares? Ignore those...everything's going to be just fine.
Everything will be just fine if you leave this dog alone, that is. This movie is the 4th in the Amityville sequence; but for a movie that's trying to make it on the Amityville title, there are some fairly pressing issues. One, it's not involved with THE house, but it's set in another house across town. (Apparently this town is just rife with supernaturally active spots.) Two, there's no relation to the original story of the house either. It could have happened anywhere, but slap on the Amityville name to draw the crowds, right?
I might not mind such behavior if the movie was a better movie. It's not, though. The acting isn't believable, the writing is sub-par, and if you haven't figured out who the killer is going to be halfway through the film, you're either not paying attention or completely overthinking it. I will say that the ending is amusing watching the amount of physical abuse one person can take...including a can of hot wax to the face! Ooohh, that's gotta hurt! This assumes you'll make it to the end, and that's not an easy assumption to make.
Well, let's see if the next reviewed movie gets any better. I give this selection 1.5 confessionals out of 5.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Monday, November 15, 2010
NAMR: Writing on a regular basis
As I'm sure many of you are experiencing with the whole NaNoWriMo experience, I have found that making time to write regularly is more of a challenge than I initially thought. Scheduling on a regular basis has always been a particular bane of mine, and I'm noting that I'm falling behind on my quota here. Mind you, I am not throwing in the towel, though I am a bit more realistic about my chances about actually making it. Well,I knew this would be an extreme challenge, and at least I know where I stand after a month.
There's plenty of room for improvement. :-)
I hope that everyone has had a good November so far, and I hope that you are preparing for a lovely holiday season. More horror on the way!
There's plenty of room for improvement. :-)
I hope that everyone has had a good November so far, and I hope that you are preparing for a lovely holiday season. More horror on the way!
Friday, November 12, 2010
The Blob (1988)
The Blob...1988...95 minutes...R...starring Kevin Dillon, Shawnee Smith, Donovan Leitch, and Jeffrey DeMunn...modern screenplay written by Chuck Russell and Frank Darabont...directed by Chuck Russell
First of all, I admit that this entry should really have been switched with the last, so at least the two "Blob"s could be back-to-back, but I'm reviweing them as I see them, and my method of seeing movies is occasionally very random. Second of all...Frank Darabont? Really? Like "The Walking Dead" Frank Darabont? Indeed. Surprised the heck out of me.
So, anyways, the plot is much like the original. A strange organism crash-lands near a small town, and gets an attack of the mad munchies. Only the teens seem to be wise to this gelatinous threat, and of course no one will listen to them. Only this time, the government gets involved in trying to capture the creature. We can trust them, right?
Two things are immediately noticeable as differences...one, people do not get eaten nearly as antiseptically as they did in the 50s. Here, we get to see partially digested snacks floating around in the semi-sentient goo, as well as the effects of blob fluids on the human form. Two, this blob gets a bit more animated...with tentaclish psuedopods, a faux mouth when needed, and the ability to hide in the most...interesting...of places.
Maybe it's me, but I have to admit that the best thing I've seen Shawnee Smith in is a contraption designed to rip her jaw off if she doesn't start carving. It could have been that I'd just seen the original, but I really found it difficult to get involved with the story; and while the updated effects were interesting at times, I got bored pretty quickly. The movie does have its moments; Kevin Dillon has a nice line after he spills a jar about killing the strawberry jelly. The ending isn't horrible either...but again, I just wasn't held.
I'll give the movie 2.5 class rings out of 5...I'm tempted to go lower but I'm giving the movie the benefit of the doubt that I saw it at the wrong time. But really, don't spend money seeing this one.
First of all, I admit that this entry should really have been switched with the last, so at least the two "Blob"s could be back-to-back, but I'm reviweing them as I see them, and my method of seeing movies is occasionally very random. Second of all...Frank Darabont? Really? Like "The Walking Dead" Frank Darabont? Indeed. Surprised the heck out of me.
So, anyways, the plot is much like the original. A strange organism crash-lands near a small town, and gets an attack of the mad munchies. Only the teens seem to be wise to this gelatinous threat, and of course no one will listen to them. Only this time, the government gets involved in trying to capture the creature. We can trust them, right?
Two things are immediately noticeable as differences...one, people do not get eaten nearly as antiseptically as they did in the 50s. Here, we get to see partially digested snacks floating around in the semi-sentient goo, as well as the effects of blob fluids on the human form. Two, this blob gets a bit more animated...with tentaclish psuedopods, a faux mouth when needed, and the ability to hide in the most...interesting...of places.
Maybe it's me, but I have to admit that the best thing I've seen Shawnee Smith in is a contraption designed to rip her jaw off if she doesn't start carving. It could have been that I'd just seen the original, but I really found it difficult to get involved with the story; and while the updated effects were interesting at times, I got bored pretty quickly. The movie does have its moments; Kevin Dillon has a nice line after he spills a jar about killing the strawberry jelly. The ending isn't horrible either...but again, I just wasn't held.
I'll give the movie 2.5 class rings out of 5...I'm tempted to go lower but I'm giving the movie the benefit of the doubt that I saw it at the wrong time. But really, don't spend money seeing this one.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
House On Haunted Hill (1999)
House On Haunted Hill...1999...93 minutes...R...starring Geoffrey Rush, Famke Janssen, Ali Larter, and Taye Diggs (appearance by Jeffrey Combs)...written by Dick Beebe...directed by William Malone
If you've seen my notes on the original "House On Haunted Hill", then you know the basic story consists of a birthday party thrown by a wealthy eccentric at a legendary haunted house. The guests are told that if they spend the night, they get a large amount of money for their troubles. $10,000.00 may have seemed like a large amount of money in 1959, but now a cool million for each guest is up for grabs. Of course, the house has turned into an asylum where the head doctor was nuttier than his patients, if just as homicidal.
Geoffrey Rush plays Steven Price, the wealthy amusement park owner who has gone along with his wife's crazy idea for a party. (yes, this is the Frederick Loren character redone and named in homage.) Even though this movie may not be up to the caliber of other films he has both starred and won awards in, the man still plays the role with gusto. I'm not sure he's our age's equivalent to Vincent Price, but there are few other actors I can think of who would be as appropriate. Famke Janssen steps into the role of plotting wife, now Evelyn instead of Annabelle. The guests are played by recognizable talent, and all of them deliver as well as the movie itself will let them.
Sad to say, the movie really doesn't do much to improve upon the original. Without spoiling the ending of the 1959 movie, the script was trying to stay true to the idea of the original film...but they had to make it predictably different as well. The two threads make the movie a bit convoluted, and inserting some dramatic effects-scenes doesn't help the sense that the story has become a jumbled mess. The very end of the movie didn't make me thrilled either. This said, there's nothing too terribly wrong with the movie...there's just not much too terribly right either.
I'll give it a rating of 2.5 strange display cases out of 5.
If you've seen my notes on the original "House On Haunted Hill", then you know the basic story consists of a birthday party thrown by a wealthy eccentric at a legendary haunted house. The guests are told that if they spend the night, they get a large amount of money for their troubles. $10,000.00 may have seemed like a large amount of money in 1959, but now a cool million for each guest is up for grabs. Of course, the house has turned into an asylum where the head doctor was nuttier than his patients, if just as homicidal.
Geoffrey Rush plays Steven Price, the wealthy amusement park owner who has gone along with his wife's crazy idea for a party. (yes, this is the Frederick Loren character redone and named in homage.) Even though this movie may not be up to the caliber of other films he has both starred and won awards in, the man still plays the role with gusto. I'm not sure he's our age's equivalent to Vincent Price, but there are few other actors I can think of who would be as appropriate. Famke Janssen steps into the role of plotting wife, now Evelyn instead of Annabelle. The guests are played by recognizable talent, and all of them deliver as well as the movie itself will let them.
Sad to say, the movie really doesn't do much to improve upon the original. Without spoiling the ending of the 1959 movie, the script was trying to stay true to the idea of the original film...but they had to make it predictably different as well. The two threads make the movie a bit convoluted, and inserting some dramatic effects-scenes doesn't help the sense that the story has become a jumbled mess. The very end of the movie didn't make me thrilled either. This said, there's nothing too terribly wrong with the movie...there's just not much too terribly right either.
I'll give it a rating of 2.5 strange display cases out of 5.
Monday, November 8, 2010
The Blob (1958)
The Blob...1958...86 minutes...NR...starring Steve McQueen, Aneta Corsaut, Earl Rowe, and John Benson...written by Theodore Simonson and Kay Linaker...directed by Irvin S. Yeaworth, Jr. and Russell S. Doughton, Jr.
No one ever believes you when you're a rebellious teen. Let's take Steve for an example: he and his girlfriend Jane go driving on the edge of town, looking for where a shooting star landed. They end up almost hitting an old man who has this strange (and alien, let's not forget alien) goo on his hand; but being good kids at heart they take the oldtimer to the doctor. The goo ends up growing, and eating the old man, the doc, and his nurse...but of course no one believes Steve, who's a known hot-rodder. Darn kids trying to save the town....
This movie is one of Steve McQueen's earlier roles, and no one thought that it would be as big of a hit as it turned out to be. (He might have held out for more than $3,000 had he known.) It's also a prime example of the 50s thriller...sure, everything's dated; and it's hard to take a movie seriously where the threat to the general warfare looks like a gigantic amount of strawberry jelly. It's especially hard to take seriously when you hear the opening theme song. Still, consider the movie a time capsule and an excellent exemplar of teen angst as expressed in popular culture. You gotta love a movie where the teens of the town use their expertise of making noise to get the town mobilized...complete with sirens and air-raid alarms.
Doing my scrounging around on the Internet for tidbits on the movie, I found out that Rob Zombie had been planning to do a remake of this movie but has apparently dropped the project to work on "The Lords of Salem". Now there's a thought I find more disturbing than the original movie itself....
For the sake of film history, and because you just don't see too many movies featuring a gigantic amount of red alien protoplasm, I give "The Blob" 3 yappy little dogs out of 5.
No one ever believes you when you're a rebellious teen. Let's take Steve for an example: he and his girlfriend Jane go driving on the edge of town, looking for where a shooting star landed. They end up almost hitting an old man who has this strange (and alien, let's not forget alien) goo on his hand; but being good kids at heart they take the oldtimer to the doctor. The goo ends up growing, and eating the old man, the doc, and his nurse...but of course no one believes Steve, who's a known hot-rodder. Darn kids trying to save the town....
This movie is one of Steve McQueen's earlier roles, and no one thought that it would be as big of a hit as it turned out to be. (He might have held out for more than $3,000 had he known.) It's also a prime example of the 50s thriller...sure, everything's dated; and it's hard to take a movie seriously where the threat to the general warfare looks like a gigantic amount of strawberry jelly. It's especially hard to take seriously when you hear the opening theme song. Still, consider the movie a time capsule and an excellent exemplar of teen angst as expressed in popular culture. You gotta love a movie where the teens of the town use their expertise of making noise to get the town mobilized...complete with sirens and air-raid alarms.
Doing my scrounging around on the Internet for tidbits on the movie, I found out that Rob Zombie had been planning to do a remake of this movie but has apparently dropped the project to work on "The Lords of Salem". Now there's a thought I find more disturbing than the original movie itself....
For the sake of film history, and because you just don't see too many movies featuring a gigantic amount of red alien protoplasm, I give "The Blob" 3 yappy little dogs out of 5.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Session 9
Session 9...2001...100 minutes...rated R...starring Peter Mullan, David Caruso, Stephen Gevedon, Josh Lucas, and Paul Guilfoyle...written by Brad Anderson and Stephen Gevedon...directed by Brad Anderson
A crew of asbestos abatement workers face a challenge in getting a large, abandoned asylum up to code in the time bid for the contract. What's worse, members of the team have their own issues that are causing complications; Gordon, the team leader, has a new baby and hasn't been sleeping well while Hank is dating Phil's ex. One of the team members finds a recording of one of the case histories, a woman named Mary Hobbes with multiple personalities...and things start going downhill for the team as more and more is revealed on the 9 taped sessions of Mary's case.
There are certain places that have become standard settings for horror tales, especially in regards to the "haunted house" story. Included under this heading are the large mansions or plantation homes, creepy churches, dilapidated prisons...and of course the mental hospital or asylum. In particular, this last selection of setting seems rather appropriate; in such a place a viewer is often unsure if the phantoms of the movie are external or internal. "Session 9" is one of those movies that doesn't make it too clear, ultimately leaving it up to the audience to decide.
This movie doesn't have a whole lot of gore, or even effects to rely on...rather relying on the slow buildup of tension as things both get revealed and get unraveled. Like the setting, the characters are all in some state of disrepair...either with perosnal issues, crises, or phobias. It's the story of these people, and of the hospital itself, that will either make the movie work for you or bore you for an hour and a half. While the plot isn't horribly inventive, the execution of it is handled well enough that I think people will be drawn to it. Certainly "Session 9" is a refreshing break from the usual hack and slash, and the talent involved is first rate...if slightly reminiscent of a CSI get-together.
I give this movie a solid 3 wheelchairs out of 5.
A crew of asbestos abatement workers face a challenge in getting a large, abandoned asylum up to code in the time bid for the contract. What's worse, members of the team have their own issues that are causing complications; Gordon, the team leader, has a new baby and hasn't been sleeping well while Hank is dating Phil's ex. One of the team members finds a recording of one of the case histories, a woman named Mary Hobbes with multiple personalities...and things start going downhill for the team as more and more is revealed on the 9 taped sessions of Mary's case.
There are certain places that have become standard settings for horror tales, especially in regards to the "haunted house" story. Included under this heading are the large mansions or plantation homes, creepy churches, dilapidated prisons...and of course the mental hospital or asylum. In particular, this last selection of setting seems rather appropriate; in such a place a viewer is often unsure if the phantoms of the movie are external or internal. "Session 9" is one of those movies that doesn't make it too clear, ultimately leaving it up to the audience to decide.
This movie doesn't have a whole lot of gore, or even effects to rely on...rather relying on the slow buildup of tension as things both get revealed and get unraveled. Like the setting, the characters are all in some state of disrepair...either with perosnal issues, crises, or phobias. It's the story of these people, and of the hospital itself, that will either make the movie work for you or bore you for an hour and a half. While the plot isn't horribly inventive, the execution of it is handled well enough that I think people will be drawn to it. Certainly "Session 9" is a refreshing break from the usual hack and slash, and the talent involved is first rate...if slightly reminiscent of a CSI get-together.
I give this movie a solid 3 wheelchairs out of 5.
NAMR: Gore and desensitization
After writing some of these posts, the thought occurs to me that someone who watches the sheer number of horror movies that I do is quite possibly the worst person to judge how much gore might be appropriate in a movie. When it comes to gruesome scenes, I can only say what I find disturbing and what I think other people might have trouble with. I must admit, thought, that when it comes to movie blood I'm quite jaded. (OTOH,and you can ask my wife for backup on this...real blood still makes me squeamish.)
I'll share what prompted this post. While watching "An American Werewolf In London", I found myself chuckling at a shot in the Piccadilly Circus attack scene where someone's head goes flying off into the street. Then I caught myself, and just wondered how far from normal I may have come to find something like that funny. Granted, I'm not saying the head looked particularly real...but it's the sort of thing that regular people wouldn't find funny, right?
I msut admit that I've had to build up a certain level of psychic resistance to seeing some terrible things depicted on celluloid. My father passed on his love of the genre to me at a young age, and Fangoria magazine was an early reading staple in my youth. Also, some of the movies I saw at an impressionable age were definitely not what a majority would consider appropriate. Clockwork Orange, for example, should probably not be seen by anyone whose age is still in single digits...but let's just say I was ahead of the curve, and not always by my choice. (Now, I have to admit that I keep finding Kubrick's film funnier and funnier every time I watch it.)
So, is movie violence and bloodshed real to me? Obviously not...if I had let myself see it as real, I think the resulting shock would have been one of those sanity-breaking moments that Lovecraft was so find of writing about. That's not to say I don't flinch occasionally, but my buttons are in different places than some might expect. I expect that other people who watch a lot of horror are in a similar place, but I do have to pause when I think about movies and consider that while -I- wasn't bothered with the various acts that resulted in arterial spray, other people might be.
There's not exactly a point to the post, save to muse on the issue and to help pass on fuller info on yours truly. I do believe that a certain part of transparency is required so that readers can know what my own biases are and adjust accordingly. So there you are...adjust accordingly. ;-)
I'll share what prompted this post. While watching "An American Werewolf In London", I found myself chuckling at a shot in the Piccadilly Circus attack scene where someone's head goes flying off into the street. Then I caught myself, and just wondered how far from normal I may have come to find something like that funny. Granted, I'm not saying the head looked particularly real...but it's the sort of thing that regular people wouldn't find funny, right?
I msut admit that I've had to build up a certain level of psychic resistance to seeing some terrible things depicted on celluloid. My father passed on his love of the genre to me at a young age, and Fangoria magazine was an early reading staple in my youth. Also, some of the movies I saw at an impressionable age were definitely not what a majority would consider appropriate. Clockwork Orange, for example, should probably not be seen by anyone whose age is still in single digits...but let's just say I was ahead of the curve, and not always by my choice. (Now, I have to admit that I keep finding Kubrick's film funnier and funnier every time I watch it.)
So, is movie violence and bloodshed real to me? Obviously not...if I had let myself see it as real, I think the resulting shock would have been one of those sanity-breaking moments that Lovecraft was so find of writing about. That's not to say I don't flinch occasionally, but my buttons are in different places than some might expect. I expect that other people who watch a lot of horror are in a similar place, but I do have to pause when I think about movies and consider that while -I- wasn't bothered with the various acts that resulted in arterial spray, other people might be.
There's not exactly a point to the post, save to muse on the issue and to help pass on fuller info on yours truly. I do believe that a certain part of transparency is required so that readers can know what my own biases are and adjust accordingly. So there you are...adjust accordingly. ;-)
Monday, November 1, 2010
An American Werewolf In London
An American Werewolf In London...1981...97 minutes...R...starring David Naughton, Jenny Agutter, Griffin Dunne, and John Woodvine...written and directed by John Landis
American students are known for taking trips across Europe, and two (David and Jack) are hiking up in the northern country of England. Of course, they don't listen when people warn them to stick to the roads and avoid the moors. Bad choice. They get attacked by a wolf...killing Jack and wounding David; a wolf that turns human when it is gunned down by the local villagers. David recovers in a London hospital, but he's plagued by strange nightmares and visions of Jack, who's looking much worse for wear being undead and who is encouraging David to kill himself. It seems Jack's soul is stuck in Limbo and can't move on until the werewolf's line is destroyed... and David is due for some changes in his life on the next full moon.
One of the things that will keep this movie as a feature to be revisited is the werewolf transformation scene as done by Rick Baker's effects...when having to change a man into a beast couldn't be done with enhanced computer effects. At the time, the effects were revolutionary and even now they're impressive...especially when the amount of work and possible discomfort for the actor is considered. Another factor in how well the movie stands up is Landis's deadpan writing; some of the conversations with David's victims are both humorous and just plain disturbing.
If you like werewolf movies, "American Werewolf" is considered one of the classics. If you like blood and gore, there's plenty of that included...especially in the attack in Piccadilly Circus. I'm not sure that the movie is something for everyone; a certain amount of black humor is required to really get into it...but it's certainly worth watching if you have the time and the inclination. I give it 3.5 pentagrams on the wall.
American students are known for taking trips across Europe, and two (David and Jack) are hiking up in the northern country of England. Of course, they don't listen when people warn them to stick to the roads and avoid the moors. Bad choice. They get attacked by a wolf...killing Jack and wounding David; a wolf that turns human when it is gunned down by the local villagers. David recovers in a London hospital, but he's plagued by strange nightmares and visions of Jack, who's looking much worse for wear being undead and who is encouraging David to kill himself. It seems Jack's soul is stuck in Limbo and can't move on until the werewolf's line is destroyed... and David is due for some changes in his life on the next full moon.
One of the things that will keep this movie as a feature to be revisited is the werewolf transformation scene as done by Rick Baker's effects...when having to change a man into a beast couldn't be done with enhanced computer effects. At the time, the effects were revolutionary and even now they're impressive...especially when the amount of work and possible discomfort for the actor is considered. Another factor in how well the movie stands up is Landis's deadpan writing; some of the conversations with David's victims are both humorous and just plain disturbing.
If you like werewolf movies, "American Werewolf" is considered one of the classics. If you like blood and gore, there's plenty of that included...especially in the attack in Piccadilly Circus. I'm not sure that the movie is something for everyone; a certain amount of black humor is required to really get into it...but it's certainly worth watching if you have the time and the inclination. I give it 3.5 pentagrams on the wall.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
NAMR: Happy Halloween!!!
Just hoping everyone had a great holiday! I'll get back to business tomorrow...work and life had me take a break for a bit. But I will charge ahead and do the rest of these reviews! Prepare to be...inundated. ;-)
Anyways, be well and safe, people!
Anyways, be well and safe, people!
Friday, October 29, 2010
In The Mouth Of Madness
In The Mouth Of Madness...1995...95 minutes...R...starring Sam Neill, Julie Carmen, Jurgen Prochnow, and David Warner, with an appearance by Charlton Heston...written by Michael De Luca...directed by John Carpenter.
Insurance investigator John Trent has been called in by Arcane Books to locate their prize horror author, Sutter Cane. The writer is a sensation bigger than Stephen King, and his latest book is likely to be worth millions...but Cane has gone missing, and so has the manuscript. The only person to have read it is Cane's agent, who was gunned down in front of Trent to stop the agent's insane axe attack. Accompanied by Cane's editor, Linda Styles, Trent sets off to the town of Hobb's End...a fictional town in Cane's works that Trent believes was set up by Arcane to help publicize this "missing" book. Trent soon learns that the truth is far stranger...and deadlier...than fiction.
Anybody familiar with horror fiction will see the obvious link between Cane and early 20th century writer, H.P. Lovecraft. I am going to offend some Lovecraft purists when I say that Carpenter's film is one of the best...and arguably THE best...Lovecraftian movie out there. No, it doesn't specifically use the Cthulhu mythos that came out of HPL's work; but no other movie I've seen better conveys the idea of supernatural beings trying to invade, distort, and ultimately reshape our world. It's hard to depict something so terrible that it defies description, especially in such a visual medium as film, but by focusing on Trent's journey to truth and insanity the -sense- of what Lovecraft was writing about becomes clear.
That's not to say that the movie is perfect. In the interests of full disclosure, I really enjoy Carpenter's work. That said, some of the creature effects are fairly obvious as effects...and there are several "flash" sequences where a bunch of images are shown in rapid succession. I find them effective at times, but I know people with eyesight issues who find such rapid flashing painful to watch. Carpenter also delights in having a lot of "jump" moments in the movie...which are fun but do add a bit of cheesiness that distracts somewhat from the sense of growing helplessness and alienation that Trent goes through.
I love the talent in this movie. Sam Neill really hits the mark as a man losing control in about every sense imaginable, and Jurgen Prochnow is very convincing as a creepy writer-turned-dark messiah. (His accent works for me in this role, but your mileage may vary.) You might notice a familiar looking young boy on a bicycle when Trent finally gets out of Hobb's End...this was one of Hayden Christiansen's first movie parts.
Like many films of the genre, I think "In The Mouth Of Madness" is one of those movies that either works for you or doesn't. I would also argue that a deciding factor may be how a potential viewer answers the questions: what if reality as we know it is not a fixed, static thing...but rather potentially fluid? What if the rules changed? Is such a thing possible? I give this movie 3.5 black churches out of 5.
Insurance investigator John Trent has been called in by Arcane Books to locate their prize horror author, Sutter Cane. The writer is a sensation bigger than Stephen King, and his latest book is likely to be worth millions...but Cane has gone missing, and so has the manuscript. The only person to have read it is Cane's agent, who was gunned down in front of Trent to stop the agent's insane axe attack. Accompanied by Cane's editor, Linda Styles, Trent sets off to the town of Hobb's End...a fictional town in Cane's works that Trent believes was set up by Arcane to help publicize this "missing" book. Trent soon learns that the truth is far stranger...and deadlier...than fiction.
Anybody familiar with horror fiction will see the obvious link between Cane and early 20th century writer, H.P. Lovecraft. I am going to offend some Lovecraft purists when I say that Carpenter's film is one of the best...and arguably THE best...Lovecraftian movie out there. No, it doesn't specifically use the Cthulhu mythos that came out of HPL's work; but no other movie I've seen better conveys the idea of supernatural beings trying to invade, distort, and ultimately reshape our world. It's hard to depict something so terrible that it defies description, especially in such a visual medium as film, but by focusing on Trent's journey to truth and insanity the -sense- of what Lovecraft was writing about becomes clear.
That's not to say that the movie is perfect. In the interests of full disclosure, I really enjoy Carpenter's work. That said, some of the creature effects are fairly obvious as effects...and there are several "flash" sequences where a bunch of images are shown in rapid succession. I find them effective at times, but I know people with eyesight issues who find such rapid flashing painful to watch. Carpenter also delights in having a lot of "jump" moments in the movie...which are fun but do add a bit of cheesiness that distracts somewhat from the sense of growing helplessness and alienation that Trent goes through.
I love the talent in this movie. Sam Neill really hits the mark as a man losing control in about every sense imaginable, and Jurgen Prochnow is very convincing as a creepy writer-turned-dark messiah. (His accent works for me in this role, but your mileage may vary.) You might notice a familiar looking young boy on a bicycle when Trent finally gets out of Hobb's End...this was one of Hayden Christiansen's first movie parts.
Like many films of the genre, I think "In The Mouth Of Madness" is one of those movies that either works for you or doesn't. I would also argue that a deciding factor may be how a potential viewer answers the questions: what if reality as we know it is not a fixed, static thing...but rather potentially fluid? What if the rules changed? Is such a thing possible? I give this movie 3.5 black churches out of 5.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
All Souls Day: Dia de los Muertos
All Souls Day: Dia de los Muertos...2005...88 minutes...(TVMA)...starring Marisa Ramirez, Travis Wester, Nicole Hiltz, Laz Alonso, David Keith, Danny Trejo, and an appearance by Jeffrey Combs...written by Mark A. Altman...directed by Jeremy Kasten
Some towns just have all the trouble. Some towns also seem to attract people passing through like flies. In the horror paradigm , these two qualities are linked...the more trouble, the more people just have to pass through at the wromg time. Take Alicia and Joss, for example, who are on a road trip to meet Alicia's parents. The couple manage to come through at a same time a procession is carrying a casket...which they nearly hit, and the contents of which come spilling out. Too bad the contents turn out to be a young girl with her tongue cut out. It only gets worse for the couple from this point, with tracherous sheriffs, failed sacrifices, strange innkeepers, and the dead rising from their graves.
I selected this movie off my OnDemand from Starz, so I missed the fact that this was a movie made for SyFy. My mistake. I'm not going to belabor this particular review, because I've already wasted enough time on this selection by watching it. Suffice to say that with the last three names involved (Hey, David Keith is a local guy done good, so I root for him.) the movie still hasn't been saved. It's not a traditional zombie movie, at all, and honestly never finds its way. The gore is light, and honestly the movie comes off as so boring, you fall asleep and thusly miss some of the large plot holes.
The summary: don't go here. Just don't.
I give it 1.5 weird skeleton carvings out of 5.
Some towns just have all the trouble. Some towns also seem to attract people passing through like flies. In the horror paradigm , these two qualities are linked...the more trouble, the more people just have to pass through at the wromg time. Take Alicia and Joss, for example, who are on a road trip to meet Alicia's parents. The couple manage to come through at a same time a procession is carrying a casket...which they nearly hit, and the contents of which come spilling out. Too bad the contents turn out to be a young girl with her tongue cut out. It only gets worse for the couple from this point, with tracherous sheriffs, failed sacrifices, strange innkeepers, and the dead rising from their graves.
I selected this movie off my OnDemand from Starz, so I missed the fact that this was a movie made for SyFy. My mistake. I'm not going to belabor this particular review, because I've already wasted enough time on this selection by watching it. Suffice to say that with the last three names involved (Hey, David Keith is a local guy done good, so I root for him.) the movie still hasn't been saved. It's not a traditional zombie movie, at all, and honestly never finds its way. The gore is light, and honestly the movie comes off as so boring, you fall asleep and thusly miss some of the large plot holes.
The summary: don't go here. Just don't.
I give it 1.5 weird skeleton carvings out of 5.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
The Blair Witch Project
The Blair Witch Project...1999...81 minutes...rated R...starring Heather Donahue, Joshua Leonard, and Michael C. Williams...written and directed by Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez
I thought this selection would be appropriate after the last post. Most of you already know the story: three film students (Heather, Josh, and Mike) were making a documentary about a Maryland legend known as the Blair Witch, and decided to hike into the Maryland woods in order to find the sites where strange things have been reported to happen. The only thing that was recovered after they were reported missing was the film footage that was shot...which only deepened the mystery and controversy surrounding the case. What's shown is the recovered footage.
Or so the premise for the movie, web site, and all related materials went. Blair Witch was remarkable when it came out for being made at a very reasonable cost, and getting the distribution that it did. The marketing behind it was inspired as well, using a website to help spread buzz about the "strange case of 3 missing film students". Of course, it's now remarkable as being the genesis of the "unsteady cam" movies as I like to call them. By this, I'm referring to films being shot from the vantage of the characters such as Cloverfield and Quarantine, to name a couple.
The movie does work in many ways as we watch the intrepid filmmakers get further and further into trouble, and the reactions we as movie viewers are seeing feel very real. From what I understand of the behind-the-scenes process, most of the "acting" wasn't that much acting...talk about people being willing to suffer for their art... so it's not surprising that we feel for these people. The pace of the film stays active, and the scene where they find the hanging stick-men is truly a moment where you know things have taken a turn for the eerie.
Of course, watching the movie can be hard...especially if you don't do well with shaky camera work. Yes, it's accurate for what is being presented, but I know some people who just can't do films of that nature. A lot of people were also unhappy that the audience was shown very little in terms of effects or seeing what "it" was. The movie presented a lot of different tales associated with the Blair Witch legend, and a lot of what was put out wasn't explored. There's a great amount of tension building as the events progress, but whether or not there's payoff is up for debate. (Even more came out with the associated site and games that helped market the Blair Witch phenomenon, as well as in an add-on feature with the three actors on the DVD) Of course, the movie precedes a lot of the computer effects that would become available to people not long after, and this fact has to be kept in mind as well. Lastly, people who may not be familiar with the movie may be very familiar with one of the seminal moments of Blair Witch; Heather's confession shot in extreme close-up...because that scene had been heavily parodied.
Most of the movie I have to leave to viewers to decide for themselves if it works or not. I will say that, for what it is and working within the limitations that the cast and crew had, Blair Witch holds up pretty well. Certainly it added ideas to the filming process in general, and may have helped pave the way for smaller companies to get movies like the recent "Colin" out to the attention of a bigger audience. That alone makes it worth noting. I give it 3 dangling stick-men out of 5.
I thought this selection would be appropriate after the last post. Most of you already know the story: three film students (Heather, Josh, and Mike) were making a documentary about a Maryland legend known as the Blair Witch, and decided to hike into the Maryland woods in order to find the sites where strange things have been reported to happen. The only thing that was recovered after they were reported missing was the film footage that was shot...which only deepened the mystery and controversy surrounding the case. What's shown is the recovered footage.
Or so the premise for the movie, web site, and all related materials went. Blair Witch was remarkable when it came out for being made at a very reasonable cost, and getting the distribution that it did. The marketing behind it was inspired as well, using a website to help spread buzz about the "strange case of 3 missing film students". Of course, it's now remarkable as being the genesis of the "unsteady cam" movies as I like to call them. By this, I'm referring to films being shot from the vantage of the characters such as Cloverfield and Quarantine, to name a couple.
The movie does work in many ways as we watch the intrepid filmmakers get further and further into trouble, and the reactions we as movie viewers are seeing feel very real. From what I understand of the behind-the-scenes process, most of the "acting" wasn't that much acting...talk about people being willing to suffer for their art... so it's not surprising that we feel for these people. The pace of the film stays active, and the scene where they find the hanging stick-men is truly a moment where you know things have taken a turn for the eerie.
Of course, watching the movie can be hard...especially if you don't do well with shaky camera work. Yes, it's accurate for what is being presented, but I know some people who just can't do films of that nature. A lot of people were also unhappy that the audience was shown very little in terms of effects or seeing what "it" was. The movie presented a lot of different tales associated with the Blair Witch legend, and a lot of what was put out wasn't explored. There's a great amount of tension building as the events progress, but whether or not there's payoff is up for debate. (Even more came out with the associated site and games that helped market the Blair Witch phenomenon, as well as in an add-on feature with the three actors on the DVD) Of course, the movie precedes a lot of the computer effects that would become available to people not long after, and this fact has to be kept in mind as well. Lastly, people who may not be familiar with the movie may be very familiar with one of the seminal moments of Blair Witch; Heather's confession shot in extreme close-up...because that scene had been heavily parodied.
Most of the movie I have to leave to viewers to decide for themselves if it works or not. I will say that, for what it is and working within the limitations that the cast and crew had, Blair Witch holds up pretty well. Certainly it added ideas to the filming process in general, and may have helped pave the way for smaller companies to get movies like the recent "Colin" out to the attention of a bigger audience. That alone makes it worth noting. I give it 3 dangling stick-men out of 5.
NAMR: Reporting on Knoxville Horror Film Fest
I made it to Friday night of the film festival, and was glad to have done so. Relix Theatre is a venue that's a bit more relaxed than your typical movie house; you can buy beer if that's your thing, pizza was on sale for food, and the seats were either church pews or folding chairs. I'm happy to report that the turnout was good; I had no idea how many people might show but it looked liked the place was filled, yet we weren't stacked on top of each other like cordwood.
The organizers had collected an impressive selection of 25 short films to present, ranging from local productions from here in "Knox Vegas" to international choices from France, Argentina, and Germany. They were arranged in six blocks, and in between were breaks where people could get more beverage or could win items from an equally impressive amount of booty that the festival's sponsors donators provided. I'm happy to report that I got a part of the bounty; knowing horror trivia CAN be a good thing.
Like any film festival, the selections ranged from wonderful to not so wonderful to just plain odd, but what I found encouraging was simply the amount of local people making what were very obviously labors of love. I guess I've been living under a rock, but I'm learning we have a thriving film community. I'm also quite refreshed to see the amount of support the festival got in terms of sponsorship and turnout. Hopefully there's enough to see the festival continue.
Some notes for people who may attend the Fest next year: if you're a person who can't stand distraction when viewing films, the relaxed atmosphere may not be condusive to your peace of mind: despite the organizers' best efforts, there are still people texting in the middle of selections, and people come and go from their seats to talk to others, get more beverage, and generally rummage about. Some of it has to happen, of course, as the staff has to keep supplies stocked...but it's fair warning I'm giving. Also, sometimes things don't run so smoothly...certain films just refuse to run without problems...and the event didn't end until about 1 to 1:30 in the morning, so be prepared to stay late if you want to see everything.
I must reiterate and stress: the whole Knoxville Horror Film Fest is obviously a labor of love, and that passion shone through the whole night. So, hats off to everyone involved, and I hope that next year I can attend both nights!
The organizers had collected an impressive selection of 25 short films to present, ranging from local productions from here in "Knox Vegas" to international choices from France, Argentina, and Germany. They were arranged in six blocks, and in between were breaks where people could get more beverage or could win items from an equally impressive amount of booty that the festival's sponsors donators provided. I'm happy to report that I got a part of the bounty; knowing horror trivia CAN be a good thing.
Like any film festival, the selections ranged from wonderful to not so wonderful to just plain odd, but what I found encouraging was simply the amount of local people making what were very obviously labors of love. I guess I've been living under a rock, but I'm learning we have a thriving film community. I'm also quite refreshed to see the amount of support the festival got in terms of sponsorship and turnout. Hopefully there's enough to see the festival continue.
Some notes for people who may attend the Fest next year: if you're a person who can't stand distraction when viewing films, the relaxed atmosphere may not be condusive to your peace of mind: despite the organizers' best efforts, there are still people texting in the middle of selections, and people come and go from their seats to talk to others, get more beverage, and generally rummage about. Some of it has to happen, of course, as the staff has to keep supplies stocked...but it's fair warning I'm giving. Also, sometimes things don't run so smoothly...certain films just refuse to run without problems...and the event didn't end until about 1 to 1:30 in the morning, so be prepared to stay late if you want to see everything.
I must reiterate and stress: the whole Knoxville Horror Film Fest is obviously a labor of love, and that passion shone through the whole night. So, hats off to everyone involved, and I hope that next year I can attend both nights!
Friday, October 22, 2010
Night of the Living Dead (1968)
Night of the Living Dead...1968...96 minutes...unrated...starring Duane Jones, Judith O'Dea, Karl Hardman, and Russell Streiner...written by John Russo and George Romero...directed by George Romero
Barbara and her brother Johnny have gone to the cemetary to place flowers on their father's grave, but have picked the wrong night to do it (naturally). After a bit of sibling banter, where Johnny makes fun of his sister and a wandering stranger, Barbara goes to apologize to the passerby and is attacked. Johnny leaps in to protect Barbara but gets killed in the ensuing fight. Barbara flees and, after wrecking the car the pair came in, makes her way to a nearby farmhouse. Still in shock, she encounters other people trapped in the home...all of whom are trying to survive the eerie crisis they find themselves in. All over the country, the dead have started to rise and are now preying on the living, killing and eating anyone they can find.
Honestly, I'm not sure I can say anything more about this particular movie that hasn't already been said. It is the wellspring from which the zombie subgenre of horror has sprung from, and its effects can be seen all over popular culture. Zombies can be found in comics, video games, TV (especially with the new Walking Dead show to premier Oct. 31st), and of course movies. There's even a subdivsion now of zombie comedies, with such films as Shaun of the Dead, the previously reviewed Dead and Breakfast, Fido, and Zombieland just to name a few. Even the phrase "Zombie Apolcalypse" is starting to be found popping up in all sorts of places. While there were movies featuring the idea of the zombie before Romero, this selection truly set the standard from which later creations have come.
But to be fair the movie survives as a classic because it's still a good movie. Certainly at the time, the level of gore and shock value provided was much higher than what we would consider it today, and many people found it to be as offensive and repulsive as many would find the Saw movies of today. Now, to jaded horror fans, the effects are almost quaint...though being in black and white, I would argue that there's still some effective moments that can disturb. More important, though, are the other aspects of the movie: the performances are effective...Judith O'Dea as a woman in shock feels very true...and the pace of the story is steady. I'm truly fond of the dialogue in the movie; from the opening squabble between Barbara and Johnny to the sheriff's comments as he's interviewed. Ultimately, though, what works most effectively is the fact that while the zombies are the danger, it's the inner nature of humanity that decides the fate of the survivors.
The only thing that I might argue is off is the whole "Venusian radiation" theory, but I like to think that it was just something authorities ran with because "We have no idea" just wouldn't fly.
Watch this movie to see where the zombie craze came from. Watch this movie because it's one of the films that horror buffs always talk about. Watch this movie because it's a good movie. I don't care, just as long as you watch this movie. The rating: 4.5 gnawed limbs out of 5
Barbara and her brother Johnny have gone to the cemetary to place flowers on their father's grave, but have picked the wrong night to do it (naturally). After a bit of sibling banter, where Johnny makes fun of his sister and a wandering stranger, Barbara goes to apologize to the passerby and is attacked. Johnny leaps in to protect Barbara but gets killed in the ensuing fight. Barbara flees and, after wrecking the car the pair came in, makes her way to a nearby farmhouse. Still in shock, she encounters other people trapped in the home...all of whom are trying to survive the eerie crisis they find themselves in. All over the country, the dead have started to rise and are now preying on the living, killing and eating anyone they can find.
Honestly, I'm not sure I can say anything more about this particular movie that hasn't already been said. It is the wellspring from which the zombie subgenre of horror has sprung from, and its effects can be seen all over popular culture. Zombies can be found in comics, video games, TV (especially with the new Walking Dead show to premier Oct. 31st), and of course movies. There's even a subdivsion now of zombie comedies, with such films as Shaun of the Dead, the previously reviewed Dead and Breakfast, Fido, and Zombieland just to name a few. Even the phrase "Zombie Apolcalypse" is starting to be found popping up in all sorts of places. While there were movies featuring the idea of the zombie before Romero, this selection truly set the standard from which later creations have come.
But to be fair the movie survives as a classic because it's still a good movie. Certainly at the time, the level of gore and shock value provided was much higher than what we would consider it today, and many people found it to be as offensive and repulsive as many would find the Saw movies of today. Now, to jaded horror fans, the effects are almost quaint...though being in black and white, I would argue that there's still some effective moments that can disturb. More important, though, are the other aspects of the movie: the performances are effective...Judith O'Dea as a woman in shock feels very true...and the pace of the story is steady. I'm truly fond of the dialogue in the movie; from the opening squabble between Barbara and Johnny to the sheriff's comments as he's interviewed. Ultimately, though, what works most effectively is the fact that while the zombies are the danger, it's the inner nature of humanity that decides the fate of the survivors.
The only thing that I might argue is off is the whole "Venusian radiation" theory, but I like to think that it was just something authorities ran with because "We have no idea" just wouldn't fly.
Watch this movie to see where the zombie craze came from. Watch this movie because it's one of the films that horror buffs always talk about. Watch this movie because it's a good movie. I don't care, just as long as you watch this movie. The rating: 4.5 gnawed limbs out of 5
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Legion
Legion...2010...100 minutes...R...starring Paul Bettany, Lucas Black, Tyrese Gibson, Adrienne Palicki, Charles S. Dutton, and Dennis Quaid...written by Peter Schink and Scott Charles Stewart...directed by Scott Charles Stewart
God has lost faith in humanity and has decided to wipe mankind off the face of the Earth. The only chance for man surviving is a pregnant woman in the nigh-deserted truck stop of Paradise Falls, and an angel who has decided to defy the Divine Word and protect the baby she is about to have. This time, the end of the world isn't going to be a flood, but an angelic horde that possesses the weak to attack the strong. Can a small band of people hope to win out?
So, there's an appropriate enough blurb...and I'll be the first to admit that I'm not sure you can call Legion an honest-to-goodness horror movie. I'm also unsure where else you would put this movie, and since there is a strong supernatural element in the film I decided to proceed with a review. I believe there's always a slippery slope in labeling movies and sticking with such labels very tightly, because many movies just don't fit in any one niche but straddle these lines...sometimes blithely. On a more practical level, I've got a quota to meet. ;-) At any point, on with the review.
Whenever a movie starts dealing with themes about God, angels, and various religious organizations, it gets into an area that's going to make people unhappy...even if the movie in question handles such ideas with care. The movie starts off with a scene of Michael landing on Earth...reminiscent of The Prophecy...and divesting himself of his wings to make himself human. In the process, he loses his halo...which is also a very thick collar. I personally wasn't offended but the moment did take me out of the film long enough to note it and see that we were going to be diving blithely into controversy.
That might have been the goal, because honestly the movie didn't feel very fresh or new to me. I've already referenced The Prophecy, and Legion pulls a lot from it. There's also moments that feel pulled out of other movies, especially in a visual sense: Exorcist III and 30 Days of Night with the looks of the possessed people come to mind. Of course these moments were supposed to be new because it wasn't devils, or vampires this time...but angels. Yeah, whatever.
I really didn't feel like I got to know any of the characters that well either...the woman who is to bear the holy child was hardly a sympathetic character, her would-be suitor and friend has been having strange dreams that we never really learn more about, and the rest of the group who find themselves at Paradise Falls are more caricatures than actual people. I don't blame the actors, they were doing the best with what they got...and there's a few good moments to be found nonetheless.
I did like the inevitable angel fight, mostly because I like the idea of wings as both shield and weapon. Stilll, the ending seemed rather forced, and a moment that could have been one of revelation about the role of angels from their point of view instead turned into more of a divine "oops". I also had a tangental question at the end of the movie: what was up with the flies? Again, The Prophecy did it first...and honestly did it better.
Due to the beauty of OnDemand, I didn't pay money to see this movie. I can't recommend anyone else spending actual money to see it either...unless you're an independent filmmaker making an argument about how big budget doesn't always make for better film. I give it 2 Swiss-army maces out of 5.
God has lost faith in humanity and has decided to wipe mankind off the face of the Earth. The only chance for man surviving is a pregnant woman in the nigh-deserted truck stop of Paradise Falls, and an angel who has decided to defy the Divine Word and protect the baby she is about to have. This time, the end of the world isn't going to be a flood, but an angelic horde that possesses the weak to attack the strong. Can a small band of people hope to win out?
So, there's an appropriate enough blurb...and I'll be the first to admit that I'm not sure you can call Legion an honest-to-goodness horror movie. I'm also unsure where else you would put this movie, and since there is a strong supernatural element in the film I decided to proceed with a review. I believe there's always a slippery slope in labeling movies and sticking with such labels very tightly, because many movies just don't fit in any one niche but straddle these lines...sometimes blithely. On a more practical level, I've got a quota to meet. ;-) At any point, on with the review.
Whenever a movie starts dealing with themes about God, angels, and various religious organizations, it gets into an area that's going to make people unhappy...even if the movie in question handles such ideas with care. The movie starts off with a scene of Michael landing on Earth...reminiscent of The Prophecy...and divesting himself of his wings to make himself human. In the process, he loses his halo...which is also a very thick collar. I personally wasn't offended but the moment did take me out of the film long enough to note it and see that we were going to be diving blithely into controversy.
That might have been the goal, because honestly the movie didn't feel very fresh or new to me. I've already referenced The Prophecy, and Legion pulls a lot from it. There's also moments that feel pulled out of other movies, especially in a visual sense: Exorcist III and 30 Days of Night with the looks of the possessed people come to mind. Of course these moments were supposed to be new because it wasn't devils, or vampires this time...but angels. Yeah, whatever.
I really didn't feel like I got to know any of the characters that well either...the woman who is to bear the holy child was hardly a sympathetic character, her would-be suitor and friend has been having strange dreams that we never really learn more about, and the rest of the group who find themselves at Paradise Falls are more caricatures than actual people. I don't blame the actors, they were doing the best with what they got...and there's a few good moments to be found nonetheless.
I did like the inevitable angel fight, mostly because I like the idea of wings as both shield and weapon. Stilll, the ending seemed rather forced, and a moment that could have been one of revelation about the role of angels from their point of view instead turned into more of a divine "oops". I also had a tangental question at the end of the movie: what was up with the flies? Again, The Prophecy did it first...and honestly did it better.
Due to the beauty of OnDemand, I didn't pay money to see this movie. I can't recommend anyone else spending actual money to see it either...unless you're an independent filmmaker making an argument about how big budget doesn't always make for better film. I give it 2 Swiss-army maces out of 5.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
NAMR: Knoxville Horrorfest 2010
First off, so we're all on the same page: NAMR stands for Not A Movie Review. I figured I needed a way to mark posts that weren't specifically about a particular movie. I'll try to keep them more or less on subjects that people interested in horror will find relevant.
My first one is to point out that Knoxville has its own Horror Film Festival, the 2nd year running from what I understand. It's this weekend, Friday Oct 22 and Saturday Oct 23 at Relix Theater off of Central Avenue. Here's a link to their information page...don't know if the following will be an actual link, so you may have to cut and paste:
http://knoxvillehorrorfest.com/2010.html
With luck, I'll be there Friday night. :-)
My first one is to point out that Knoxville has its own Horror Film Festival, the 2nd year running from what I understand. It's this weekend, Friday Oct 22 and Saturday Oct 23 at Relix Theater off of Central Avenue. Here's a link to their information page...don't know if the following will be an actual link, so you may have to cut and paste:
http://knoxvillehorrorfest.com/2010.html
With luck, I'll be there Friday night. :-)
Dead and Breakfast
Dead and Breakfast...2004...NC-17...88 minutes...starring Ever Carradine, Erik Palladino, Jeremy Sisto, Bianca Lawson, Gina Phillips, and Oz Perkins (appearances by David Carradine, Portia De Rossi, and Diedrich Bader)...written and directed by Matthew Leutwyler
One of the perennial rules of horror movies is to never let the car, truck, or RV break down if it's at all possible. Sadly, another rule is that a vehicle will always tend to break down at the worst possible spot. Six friends on their way to a wedding in Galveston have the inevitable breakdown, ending up in the small town of Lovelock that is...of course...in the middle of nowhere. Or Texas. They take refuge in a bed and breakfast, and one of them manages to knock over a strange Eastern box, said to offer good luck and protection. The problem being, the "power source" for this charm is a spirit known as the Kuman Thong...and it really needs to stay in its container or prison. Oops.
If you don't like your horror and gore mixed with comedy and slapstick, Dead and Breakfast is not for you. If the idea of a country-singing narrator doesn't sit well, Dead and Breakfast is not for you. If the idea of zombie line dancing has no appeal for you, well...Dead and Breakfast is not for you. These are the things that drew me to the movie, and I found it very enjoyable. Yes, there's quite a bit of blood...part of the comedy is in the excess of spatter. This also isn't a movie you don't want to spend too much time worrying about plot holes and logic; you either go with it or you don't.
I went with it, and I give it 3 carved boxes out of 5.
One of the perennial rules of horror movies is to never let the car, truck, or RV break down if it's at all possible. Sadly, another rule is that a vehicle will always tend to break down at the worst possible spot. Six friends on their way to a wedding in Galveston have the inevitable breakdown, ending up in the small town of Lovelock that is...of course...in the middle of nowhere. Or Texas. They take refuge in a bed and breakfast, and one of them manages to knock over a strange Eastern box, said to offer good luck and protection. The problem being, the "power source" for this charm is a spirit known as the Kuman Thong...and it really needs to stay in its container or prison. Oops.
If you don't like your horror and gore mixed with comedy and slapstick, Dead and Breakfast is not for you. If the idea of a country-singing narrator doesn't sit well, Dead and Breakfast is not for you. If the idea of zombie line dancing has no appeal for you, well...Dead and Breakfast is not for you. These are the things that drew me to the movie, and I found it very enjoyable. Yes, there's quite a bit of blood...part of the comedy is in the excess of spatter. This also isn't a movie you don't want to spend too much time worrying about plot holes and logic; you either go with it or you don't.
I went with it, and I give it 3 carved boxes out of 5.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Candyman
Candyman...1992...R...99 minutes...starring Virginia Madsen, Tony Todd, Xander Berkeley, and Vanessa Williams (with an appearance by Ted Raimi)...written and directed by Bernard Rose...adapted from a Clive Barker short story entitled "The Forbidden"
Let's talk urban legends: people waking up in the bathtub on ice missing a kidney, alligators in the sewer flushed down the toilets, and apparitions like the Candyman...who is evoked by staring into a mirror and saying his name 5 times. These tales become woven into our culture, and achieve a life of their own. In a way, these stories become a gateway to myth...and perhaps, just perhaps, are also a doorway into immortality. If nothing else, tales like these can be studied, tracked down, and analyzed; which is what doctoral candidate Helen Lyle is doing. She and her companion Anne-Marie McCoy follow the trail of the Candyman, in eerie ghost stories, to an inner-city area named Cabrini Green; not the safest of places for college students.
Of course, Helen forgets a key rule in her hunt: be careful what you look for...you just may find it.
As someone who loves both horror fiction and horror movies, I find the idea of a legend with life in it compelling in many ways. I do believe that stories have power; we're drawn to certain tales because they speak to us on levels beyond the literal...they hit us in the deep places that we try to label with words but that ultimately go beyond logic and left-brained analysis. Horror stories scare us, but they also draw us in, and allow us to look in the darkness...if just for a brief second. Clearly enough, I like the thought behind the story and the movie.
I also think the movie delivers fairly well. There's some good moments to make you jump, and plenty of gore to make you flinch as well. Tony Todd's voice makes him an excellent choice as a creature of dark legend, and he ends up stealing the show in the scenes he appears in. (Appropriate, in my opinion.) Virginia Madsen isn't to be underestimated; I'm watching the film and can see her as a woman so caught up in the story she's researching that she's losing herself. Everone else...well, eh.
A warning: if you're sensitive to animal violence, there's a rough moment in the movie for you. There's also plenty of blood, though perhaps not as much as you might expect.The soundtrack does occasionally get a little intrusive as well. Still and all, I think Candyman gets 3.5 bloody hooks out of 5.
Blame Sam Raimi, though; if I ever lose a hand, I'm going chainsaw and not hook. ;-)
Let's talk urban legends: people waking up in the bathtub on ice missing a kidney, alligators in the sewer flushed down the toilets, and apparitions like the Candyman...who is evoked by staring into a mirror and saying his name 5 times. These tales become woven into our culture, and achieve a life of their own. In a way, these stories become a gateway to myth...and perhaps, just perhaps, are also a doorway into immortality. If nothing else, tales like these can be studied, tracked down, and analyzed; which is what doctoral candidate Helen Lyle is doing. She and her companion Anne-Marie McCoy follow the trail of the Candyman, in eerie ghost stories, to an inner-city area named Cabrini Green; not the safest of places for college students.
Of course, Helen forgets a key rule in her hunt: be careful what you look for...you just may find it.
As someone who loves both horror fiction and horror movies, I find the idea of a legend with life in it compelling in many ways. I do believe that stories have power; we're drawn to certain tales because they speak to us on levels beyond the literal...they hit us in the deep places that we try to label with words but that ultimately go beyond logic and left-brained analysis. Horror stories scare us, but they also draw us in, and allow us to look in the darkness...if just for a brief second. Clearly enough, I like the thought behind the story and the movie.
I also think the movie delivers fairly well. There's some good moments to make you jump, and plenty of gore to make you flinch as well. Tony Todd's voice makes him an excellent choice as a creature of dark legend, and he ends up stealing the show in the scenes he appears in. (Appropriate, in my opinion.) Virginia Madsen isn't to be underestimated; I'm watching the film and can see her as a woman so caught up in the story she's researching that she's losing herself. Everone else...well, eh.
A warning: if you're sensitive to animal violence, there's a rough moment in the movie for you. There's also plenty of blood, though perhaps not as much as you might expect.The soundtrack does occasionally get a little intrusive as well. Still and all, I think Candyman gets 3.5 bloody hooks out of 5.
Blame Sam Raimi, though; if I ever lose a hand, I'm going chainsaw and not hook. ;-)
Monday, October 18, 2010
Ju-on (The Grudge)
Ju-on (The Grudge)...2000...R...70 minutes...starring Ryota Koyama, Takako Fuji, Yurei Yanagi, and Chiaki Kuriyama...written and directed by Takashi Shimizu
A teacher goes checking into the home of one of his students, and gets drawn in to the cycle of death and revenge that has played out there. The movie is segmented, following different people whose lives intersect with the victims of a horrible crime and the house where it happened. This movie has spawned an American crossover as well as at least one sequel that I know of, and is one of the movies that has introduced many people here in the States to Japanese horror.
Now, I have said before that if I had to be caught in a horror movie, I would pray that it was an American movie, because then at least I'd have a slim chance of surviving. Ju-On was the movie that spawned this statement. We know it as "The Grudge", but personally I would translate it as "Seething Hatred Of All Life From Beyond The Grave" for accuracy's sake...mostly because if you're unlucky enough to get caught in the movie's house (a true Killer Pad), you're dead. No ifs, ands, or buts; you're just frakkin' dead. And if you know someone who's been in the house, your chances for escaping alive aren't good either.
What makes this movie work, at least from my very American point of view, is that it's creepy in ways that we're not used to on this side of the Pacific. Kids making cat noises while people aren't looking, long haired female corpses crawling downstairs while making croaking sounds...just plain eerie. (Between The Ring and this movie, I have to wonder if the female ghost with the hair over the face isn't just a Japanese cultural standard. Remember, don't look them in the eye if you can at all help it.)Now, admittedly, there's some moments where I wondered what was up...why in the world is a tutor terrified of a perfectly cute black cat? Still, at least with more familiar American movies, I feel like I know the "rules" of how supernatural critters operate. Well, throw the rulebook out here...and that's what makes this movie supremely unnerving.
This movie really isn't all that gory...and the effects needed are minimal for this movie, so it's not laden with a lot of things to distract from what's happening. Mostly. There's a sequence with a schoolgirl returning home that may be a bit rough for people not used to horror effects. (Trust me, the Japanese aren't shy about gore, though. We'll talk about a charming little cinematic piece called Audition later.) I'm fond of the segmented story style when it's done well, and it is here, so I give Ju-On 4 bad-tasting sake bottles out of 5.
13 days until Halloween. I hope everyone has a scary, but ultimately safe and fun, time.
A teacher goes checking into the home of one of his students, and gets drawn in to the cycle of death and revenge that has played out there. The movie is segmented, following different people whose lives intersect with the victims of a horrible crime and the house where it happened. This movie has spawned an American crossover as well as at least one sequel that I know of, and is one of the movies that has introduced many people here in the States to Japanese horror.
Now, I have said before that if I had to be caught in a horror movie, I would pray that it was an American movie, because then at least I'd have a slim chance of surviving. Ju-On was the movie that spawned this statement. We know it as "The Grudge", but personally I would translate it as "Seething Hatred Of All Life From Beyond The Grave" for accuracy's sake...mostly because if you're unlucky enough to get caught in the movie's house (a true Killer Pad), you're dead. No ifs, ands, or buts; you're just frakkin' dead. And if you know someone who's been in the house, your chances for escaping alive aren't good either.
What makes this movie work, at least from my very American point of view, is that it's creepy in ways that we're not used to on this side of the Pacific. Kids making cat noises while people aren't looking, long haired female corpses crawling downstairs while making croaking sounds...just plain eerie. (Between The Ring and this movie, I have to wonder if the female ghost with the hair over the face isn't just a Japanese cultural standard. Remember, don't look them in the eye if you can at all help it.)Now, admittedly, there's some moments where I wondered what was up...why in the world is a tutor terrified of a perfectly cute black cat? Still, at least with more familiar American movies, I feel like I know the "rules" of how supernatural critters operate. Well, throw the rulebook out here...and that's what makes this movie supremely unnerving.
This movie really isn't all that gory...and the effects needed are minimal for this movie, so it's not laden with a lot of things to distract from what's happening. Mostly. There's a sequence with a schoolgirl returning home that may be a bit rough for people not used to horror effects. (Trust me, the Japanese aren't shy about gore, though. We'll talk about a charming little cinematic piece called Audition later.) I'm fond of the segmented story style when it's done well, and it is here, so I give Ju-On 4 bad-tasting sake bottles out of 5.
13 days until Halloween. I hope everyone has a scary, but ultimately safe and fun, time.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Killer Pad
Killer Pad...2008...84 minutes...rated R...starring Daniel Franzese, Eric Jungmann, Shane McRae, and Emily Foxler...written by Dan Stoller...directed bt Robert Englund
I decided to take a tour of FearNet after work today, and found this selection. Seeing who directed it, I decided to go ahead and give it a shot. What I hadn't known was that the people who produced "Dude, Where's My Car" were also behind this piece...although it became obvious what sort of movie it was very quickly. Again, it was after work, so I needed some light entertainment.
Killer Pad is the story of 3 young men (and the pet dog) getting out on their own by travelling by car to the West Coast. Of course, any group of newcomers needs a place to stay...and after a mishap or two along the way, our below-average (to put it kindly) trio get set up in a wonderful place. It's large, has a wonderful view of Los Angeles, has all the amenities, and is the right price. Of course, there's the satanic decor that might put you off, you have to ignore the hole in the basement that sheds that hellish red light...and never mind the address: 666 Perdition Lane. To normal people, these might be clues...but not for our fearless, brainless trio. Devilish hijinks ensue.
This movie is no Shaun of The Dead...it's not even Dead and Breakfast, where you have a shiningly brilliant moment of comedy such as zombie line dancing. (You read that right, I'll be getting to that movie later.) Still, if you're in the right frame of mind, Killer Pad can be an amusing way to spend some time. Joey Lawrence has a cameo as himself, and Bobby Lee of MadTV fame has a role as Winnie, the real estate broker.
Gore is minimal, but the humor isn't highbrow. If toilet humor isn't your cup of tea, one particular sequence will not be to your liking. The effects are nothing to write home about either, but it's what you'd expect in a movie like this one. I wouldn't recommend spending money to see this flick, and I certainly wouldn't invest time in it if something better were on. Still, I got a few chuckles out of it, and it's not a total loss either...if you're looking for something light and fun in the horror genre, this title will do. I give it 2 holes in the cellar out of 5.
I decided to take a tour of FearNet after work today, and found this selection. Seeing who directed it, I decided to go ahead and give it a shot. What I hadn't known was that the people who produced "Dude, Where's My Car" were also behind this piece...although it became obvious what sort of movie it was very quickly. Again, it was after work, so I needed some light entertainment.
Killer Pad is the story of 3 young men (and the pet dog) getting out on their own by travelling by car to the West Coast. Of course, any group of newcomers needs a place to stay...and after a mishap or two along the way, our below-average (to put it kindly) trio get set up in a wonderful place. It's large, has a wonderful view of Los Angeles, has all the amenities, and is the right price. Of course, there's the satanic decor that might put you off, you have to ignore the hole in the basement that sheds that hellish red light...and never mind the address: 666 Perdition Lane. To normal people, these might be clues...but not for our fearless, brainless trio. Devilish hijinks ensue.
This movie is no Shaun of The Dead...it's not even Dead and Breakfast, where you have a shiningly brilliant moment of comedy such as zombie line dancing. (You read that right, I'll be getting to that movie later.) Still, if you're in the right frame of mind, Killer Pad can be an amusing way to spend some time. Joey Lawrence has a cameo as himself, and Bobby Lee of MadTV fame has a role as Winnie, the real estate broker.
Gore is minimal, but the humor isn't highbrow. If toilet humor isn't your cup of tea, one particular sequence will not be to your liking. The effects are nothing to write home about either, but it's what you'd expect in a movie like this one. I wouldn't recommend spending money to see this flick, and I certainly wouldn't invest time in it if something better were on. Still, I got a few chuckles out of it, and it's not a total loss either...if you're looking for something light and fun in the horror genre, this title will do. I give it 2 holes in the cellar out of 5.
Friday, October 15, 2010
House On Haunted Hill (1959)
House on Haunted Hill (1959)...75 minutes...unrated...starring Vincent Price, Carol Ohmart, Richard Long, and Carolyn Craig...written by Robb White...directed by William Castle
It's hard to throw an entertaining party, I'm told. Still, some ideas seem a little over the top. Try this one: rent out a mansion known for its ghosts and grisly crimes as the setting for a birthday party, invite 5 people you know could use some cash, and challenge them to the following: if each person can stay the night inside the haunted house, he or she will receive $10, 000.00. With that, you have the setup for House on Haunted Hill.
Vincent Price plays millionaire Frederick Loren, who throws the above-mentioned party for his fourth wife Annabelle. Invited are test-pilot Lance Schroeder, columnist Ruth Bridges, psychologist Dr. David Trent, Watson Pritchard, the owner and former victim of the house, and office worker Nora Manning...none of whom know Annabelle or Fredderick socially, and all of whom could use the money. We soon learn that there's no love lost between rich husband and wife...she's wanting all his money and has already tried poisoning Frederick. The house has already claimed seven victims...and according to Pritchard, the spirits are on the move. Nothing could go wrong here, could it?
So, by modern standards of horror movies, this black and white piece may seem dated and dull. Certainly it will seem bloodless, but this movie has a classic performance by Vincent Price. If you have no idea who Price is, well...shame on you! I'll admit, he's one of those actors I would watch if he was reading the phone book. It's also a fun watch to see how much the genre has changed...as well as the world in general. (A test pilot named Lance? Really?) You do have to disregard some things...like, who leaves acid in a wine vat, or how can a puppet push someone? Overall, though, it's worth a watch...and it's not even an hour and a half long.
Be sure to check the end credits for another smile. I give it between 2.5 and 3 disembodied heads out of 5.
[ revision on 11/8...why be halfway about a rating? I'm going ahead and bumping the rating up to a full 3...if I can give "The Blob" 3, certainly Vincent Price can get a 3] ---JD---
It's hard to throw an entertaining party, I'm told. Still, some ideas seem a little over the top. Try this one: rent out a mansion known for its ghosts and grisly crimes as the setting for a birthday party, invite 5 people you know could use some cash, and challenge them to the following: if each person can stay the night inside the haunted house, he or she will receive $10, 000.00. With that, you have the setup for House on Haunted Hill.
Vincent Price plays millionaire Frederick Loren, who throws the above-mentioned party for his fourth wife Annabelle. Invited are test-pilot Lance Schroeder, columnist Ruth Bridges, psychologist Dr. David Trent, Watson Pritchard, the owner and former victim of the house, and office worker Nora Manning...none of whom know Annabelle or Fredderick socially, and all of whom could use the money. We soon learn that there's no love lost between rich husband and wife...she's wanting all his money and has already tried poisoning Frederick. The house has already claimed seven victims...and according to Pritchard, the spirits are on the move. Nothing could go wrong here, could it?
So, by modern standards of horror movies, this black and white piece may seem dated and dull. Certainly it will seem bloodless, but this movie has a classic performance by Vincent Price. If you have no idea who Price is, well...shame on you! I'll admit, he's one of those actors I would watch if he was reading the phone book. It's also a fun watch to see how much the genre has changed...as well as the world in general. (A test pilot named Lance? Really?) You do have to disregard some things...like, who leaves acid in a wine vat, or how can a puppet push someone? Overall, though, it's worth a watch...and it's not even an hour and a half long.
Be sure to check the end credits for another smile. I give it between 2.5 and 3 disembodied heads out of 5.
[ revision on 11/8...why be halfway about a rating? I'm going ahead and bumping the rating up to a full 3...if I can give "The Blob" 3, certainly Vincent Price can get a 3] ---JD---
First Review: Silent Hill
Silent Hill...2006...125 minutes...rated R...starring Radha Mitchell, Sean Bean, Alice Krige, and Jodelle Ferland..written by Roger Avary....directed by Christophe Gans
Based on the horror/survival video game series by Konami, Silent Hill is the story of Rose Da Silva...who takes her adopted daughter Sharon to the abandoned title town in hopes of helping Sharon remember whatever it is that has her sleepwalking at nights. Rapidly, Rose finds herself wrapped in the mystery of Silent Hill...and may find out the truth about the mining town and her daughter if she can survive long enough.
Okay, I'll start by saying that I thought that this movie was an excellent adaptation of a video game series to a movie, though I understand that when I say this, I'm talking about a category where the bar has unfortuanetly not been set very high. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the Resident Evil series...but anyone who has had to sit through such cinematic "bliss" as House of The Dead, Alone In The Dark, or Street Fighter (either one of them) will know that this particular transition is very hit-or-miss. In this particular case, the filmmakers played to the strengths of the game and produced something that was accessible to veteran SH game explorers and to first time audience members.
The most obvious strength is in the visual look of the movie.The film bounces between Silent Hill in our world, and the Silent Hill of the other world...not truly a hell, but certainly no paradise either. It's this version of the town that really catches the eye. Landscapes are filled with obscured buildings, strangely named roads, huge chasms that cut off the town in places, and deserted vehicles. Strange creatures lurk in this environment, modeled almost directly from monsters encountered in the game series. (One of the most notable is the gigantic monstrosity known as the Red Pyramid), and the transition from day to night in the Otherworld is a spectacular transition form fog and soot to darkness, rust, and blood. A wonderful soundtrack adds to the overall strangeness of the place.
The story itself is nothing that most movie viewers haven't seen before, but Radha Mitchell is believable as a mother willing to do anything to make sure her daughter is safe, and its her performance that centers the movie. Many of the other characters do seem to get short shrift, especially Sean Bean, but Jodelle Ferland as both Sharon Da Silva and Alessa Gillespie steals the show when both her performances are considered. Like most of the games, I found the end of the movie to be a bit unsatisfying in terms of plot...(admittedly, I ended the movie thinking 'Wait...what?')but if it made for not-great story, the lack did add to accuracy in cross-over.
There's a fair level of gore in the film...it's not pervasive, but the moments it does have are impressive and not for the squeamish. Two scenes stick out: an encounter with the Red Pyramid by the church...and a plot-resolving confrontation at the end of the movie.
Overall, I give this movie 3.5 pyramid heads out of 5. I read that a sequel is being planned, involving the same writer and director, so I have fairly high hopes for it. My only question: did Radha Mitchell ever get the outfit she was promised? (If you get the DVD, check out the 'making of' featurettes to understand what I'm babbling about.)
Based on the horror/survival video game series by Konami, Silent Hill is the story of Rose Da Silva...who takes her adopted daughter Sharon to the abandoned title town in hopes of helping Sharon remember whatever it is that has her sleepwalking at nights. Rapidly, Rose finds herself wrapped in the mystery of Silent Hill...and may find out the truth about the mining town and her daughter if she can survive long enough.
Okay, I'll start by saying that I thought that this movie was an excellent adaptation of a video game series to a movie, though I understand that when I say this, I'm talking about a category where the bar has unfortuanetly not been set very high. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the Resident Evil series...but anyone who has had to sit through such cinematic "bliss" as House of The Dead, Alone In The Dark, or Street Fighter (either one of them) will know that this particular transition is very hit-or-miss. In this particular case, the filmmakers played to the strengths of the game and produced something that was accessible to veteran SH game explorers and to first time audience members.
The most obvious strength is in the visual look of the movie.The film bounces between Silent Hill in our world, and the Silent Hill of the other world...not truly a hell, but certainly no paradise either. It's this version of the town that really catches the eye. Landscapes are filled with obscured buildings, strangely named roads, huge chasms that cut off the town in places, and deserted vehicles. Strange creatures lurk in this environment, modeled almost directly from monsters encountered in the game series. (One of the most notable is the gigantic monstrosity known as the Red Pyramid), and the transition from day to night in the Otherworld is a spectacular transition form fog and soot to darkness, rust, and blood. A wonderful soundtrack adds to the overall strangeness of the place.
The story itself is nothing that most movie viewers haven't seen before, but Radha Mitchell is believable as a mother willing to do anything to make sure her daughter is safe, and its her performance that centers the movie. Many of the other characters do seem to get short shrift, especially Sean Bean, but Jodelle Ferland as both Sharon Da Silva and Alessa Gillespie steals the show when both her performances are considered. Like most of the games, I found the end of the movie to be a bit unsatisfying in terms of plot...(admittedly, I ended the movie thinking 'Wait...what?')but if it made for not-great story, the lack did add to accuracy in cross-over.
There's a fair level of gore in the film...it's not pervasive, but the moments it does have are impressive and not for the squeamish. Two scenes stick out: an encounter with the Red Pyramid by the church...and a plot-resolving confrontation at the end of the movie.
Overall, I give this movie 3.5 pyramid heads out of 5. I read that a sequel is being planned, involving the same writer and director, so I have fairly high hopes for it. My only question: did Radha Mitchell ever get the outfit she was promised? (If you get the DVD, check out the 'making of' featurettes to understand what I'm babbling about.)
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
About My Blog
I've always loved horror movies. My dad and I would watch all sorts of scary films even before I was in school, and my mom loves to tell the story of how she came home from a day of work to find him and me hunched over a Fangoria magazine while he was explaining how the various movie effects worked. So I come by this predilection honestly, and I've been fortunate enough to find a wife who supprts my viewing habits.
I've also been trying to get my interest in writing to become more than just an interest. So my wife suggested that I try writing about horror movies, blogstyle. We'd both just watched "Julie and Julia", and while I'm certainly not expecting a movie to erupt out of these entries, I do think that having a project to help instill some discipline into my writing skills would not be a waste of time. So my own primary goal is this: by next Halloween (10/31/11) I'm going to try to have reviews and thoughts posted on 500 horror movies. 500 movies in 383 days.
I've got no idea if this goal is realistic, or will get hit, or will simply be a record of a failed project. I guess we'll see.
Before we get started, I thought I should share my own views on movie reviews. In a nutshell, they're nice but should never be taken as gospel. If a writer's views and a reader's happen to match up, then that reviewer may be a good fit for said reader; but when it comes to movies, I'm well aware that we all like different things. That's just fine. So if you, potential and probably imaginary blogreader, don't agree with what I've said and the reasons why, I'm certainly not going to be offended. All I ask is that you keep any feedback on the polite side of things...messages like "You suck", etc, will be summarily ignored.
Okay, I think that'll do fo a start. I will say that these reviews will probably have spoilers. I'll try to mark them as such, but I make no promises. Let the reader beware.
I've also been trying to get my interest in writing to become more than just an interest. So my wife suggested that I try writing about horror movies, blogstyle. We'd both just watched "Julie and Julia", and while I'm certainly not expecting a movie to erupt out of these entries, I do think that having a project to help instill some discipline into my writing skills would not be a waste of time. So my own primary goal is this: by next Halloween (10/31/11) I'm going to try to have reviews and thoughts posted on 500 horror movies. 500 movies in 383 days.
I've got no idea if this goal is realistic, or will get hit, or will simply be a record of a failed project. I guess we'll see.
Before we get started, I thought I should share my own views on movie reviews. In a nutshell, they're nice but should never be taken as gospel. If a writer's views and a reader's happen to match up, then that reviewer may be a good fit for said reader; but when it comes to movies, I'm well aware that we all like different things. That's just fine. So if you, potential and probably imaginary blogreader, don't agree with what I've said and the reasons why, I'm certainly not going to be offended. All I ask is that you keep any feedback on the polite side of things...messages like "You suck", etc, will be summarily ignored.
Okay, I think that'll do fo a start. I will say that these reviews will probably have spoilers. I'll try to mark them as such, but I make no promises. Let the reader beware.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)