Horror Reviews

[psychooralien]

Didn't see this section earlier so I have thought of a Film to review, horror of course.

Horror Reviews not my Horror Reviews.



Along with comedies, horror movies are perhaps unique among film genres in that they don't necessarily have to work in order to work. Character development, act structure, changes, choices, climaxes - everything a good movie is supposed to have - they get tossed out the window. Fear, which is an involuntary emotion, can't be intellectualized or compartmentalized the same way pathos can. The heebie jeebies don't stand justification, the collywobbles deny even the best attempts at comprehension. If a horror movie is done right, it should scare the audience, and if it does that then it can be considered a success even if the rest of the movie isn't.

And by that standard, Pulse works.

To be sure, at no point does Pulse make enough sense to be mistaken for anything resembling coherence. The plot is murky, the motivations vague. The filmmakers attempt several times to explain what's actually happening. For instance, there is some talk during the film of increased bandwidth opening a portal to the netherworld, or the spirit universe, or wherever the critters materialize from. Then there's more discussion about how maybe a computer virus can, in fact, kill these creatures. Or maybe the creatures are themselves a virus. And that they can be stopped by red packing tape, because apparently they vibrate at a different frequency than the color red. Or something. Frankly, the whole thing is rather nebulous. In the end, though, what matter are the frights. Here, at least, Pulse delivers.

There are two sequences in particular that deserve special recognition as being especially well done. The first is when Mattie visits her boyfriend's apartment after he stops returning her calls. The scene, as it's written by Wes Craven, is suspenseful to begin with because it's full of dramatic irony; The audience knows, although Mattie doesn't, that her boyfriend Josh has been attacked by the virus people and is now a virus person himself. But notice how the visit isn't about creatures jumping out from behind walls or cacophonous noises, but rather about the unease caused by growing dread - especially the dread associated with knowing when something's wrong with a loved one but being unable to articulate it. The way the scene ends, with a grim discovery, is shocking.

Another scene, near the end of the picture, is equal to the first in its effect. It comes after the false climax, and is a jolt right before the supposed resolution. The scene, which will go unspoiled for those intent on seeing the movie, is a play on the medieval concept of sanctuary, but in a totally original and quite ingenious way. Well done.

Pulse deserves further credit for actually being about something, in so far as a totally incomprehensible film can be about anything. Every character in the movie is constantly on a cell phone, or email, or instant messaging program. This is how at several key points during the film they actually communicate. It's a curious fact that although all these modern day conveniences purport to bring people closer together, they actually drive people further apart. It would be ejaculatory, of course, to declare Pulse on par with the great Romero zombie movies, which were satire writ large. But there's a point here, buried beneath the silliness: hooking everything up to wireless networks will cause you to be possessed by evil, dead spirits who want your soul, causing your body to eventually either a) be sucked into a wall or b) explode in a fiery hail of ash. Texting is no way to go through life. It's true. You can look it up.

As a whole, Pulse itself is something of a rarity among recent horror movies in that it takes itself completely seriously. It doesn't nod or wink at the audience, doesn't contain any knowing looks or in-jokes. And although it uses horror conventions, it doesn't bow to them. It makes no sense, but at least it makes no sense in the spirit of solemnity. To make no sense and be ironic is a fate worse than texting.

Ultimately, Pulse is a competent horror film which delivers a few scenes of sublime terror. It doesn't all make sense, and some of it's quite silly, but it's a success as a horror movie. It works.

http://uk.movies.ign.com

Sorry friends, this is one film you won't be sorry you missed. No thrills, chills or characters you can care about. No one seems to care when his fate is discovered. I'm guessing the props dept had a lot of bugs around and wanted to use them up.

[psychooralien]

I'm just going to watch The Amityville Horror right now.

[_____V_____]

Nicely written.

Budding review writer?


OR...







You decide.

[tic]

Is Pulse a remake of the 1988 film Pulse, about "intelligent" electricity?

[Despare]

Originally Posted by tic

Is Pulse a remake of the 1988 film Pulse, about "intelligent" electricity?

It's a remake of the 2001 Asian film "Kairo".

[tic]

Originally Posted by Despare

It's a remake of the 2001 Asian film "Kairo".

Cheers, why call a film after another well known film when its nothing to do with the (perhaps) more well known one?

Originality is dead. RIP Originality. :(

[psychooralien]

Ever since the release of Jay Anson's 1978 novel The Amityville Horror, the story of Kathy and John Lutz and their haunted experiences at 112 Ocean Avenue have become a part of pop culture. Whether you think their story is complete mumbo jumbo or that it might be true, few deny that Anson's novel is compelling and creepy. It was a massively successful page-turning best seller in the '70s, which gave way to the 1979 feature film adaptation starring James Brolin and Margot Kidder. That film was followed by a whole slew of follow-up sequels. More than a quarter century has passed since the Lutz story first came to light, and it is still hotly contested. Books and documentaries continue to analyze its reality or debunk the validity. Now, in 2005, Hollywood has decided to take another stab at doing Anson's novel justice. While the original film was a big success, it is incredibly dated with cheesy acting and effects and strays heavily from the novel.

The new Amityville Horror stars Ryan Reynolds as George Lutz and Melissa George as Kathy Lutz. Jesse James, Jimmy Bennett and Chloe Grace Moretz play their three children, Billy, Michael and Chelsea, respectively. It is directed by first timer Andrew Douglas from a script by Scott Kosar. The story, as the Lutz legend goes, has George and Kathy Lutz moving with their three children into a large house on Long Island Sound in the mid-Seventies. The house is steeply discounted because of the grisly events that occurred there one year prior when 23-year-old Ronald Defeo murdered his entire family in the middle of the night with a shotgun. The Lutzes decide that they can deal with the house's past and move in. Almost immediately, strange occurrences take place, from Chelsea's new imaginary friend to sounds of "Get Out!" and George constantly being awakened at precisely 3:15 a.m. each night. Little by little, the plot escalates and the house begins to take control of George Lutz.



The ultimate irony of this new film is that, from its inception I have been hearing that it was intended to be a closer adaptation of Anson's novel. After getting sucked into the lore of the Amityville legend, I picked up a copy of the book and read it before seeing the new film. To my surprise, the new film shares very, very little with the novel, changing almost every detail and retaining only the thinnest outline of the novel's story. As it turns out, the original film from 1979, which is by no means a good film, is actually more true to the Anson novel. Screenwriter Scott Kosar has taken enormous liberties with the source material for this new film and, with that, sucked every ounce of subtle and creative terror from what could have been a classic horror film. In its place, the makers have delivered a typical, run of the mill cheap scare fest that should provide the kind of disposable entertainment audiences seem to flock to in recent years. Quality and cash flow do not coincide, so this is what we are left with.

From about ten minutes into the film, the story of Amityville goes sour. Crazy events happen so quickly in the house, such as the ghost of an Indian drooling blood behind the little boy when he goes to the bathroom in the middle of the night, that you can't possibly buy the family remaining in the house. Instead of little occurrences happening that could almost be explained away, we have loud bangs, crashes and voices in the background. I'd be getting the hell out of that house the second I heard voices saying "Get Out!" and a little girl appeared in the corner of the room hanging from a noose. But that's just me. George Lutz also changes personality almost immediately when they enter the house. Suddenly he's cold, disturbed and violent. There isn't a slow build, it's just an immediate thing. George is in the house? Then he's crazeeeee! He leaves, he's fine. The first title card says Day 1, then it's suddenly Day 15. What happened to all those events in between? Either the cutting room floor or a terribly incompetent script.

Separate from the context of the ultimately silly film, there are some decent jumps. They are not particularly clever or distinctive, but they are loud and sudden and will take audiences by surprise. Like a theme park ride that doesn't need a story for set up, these jolts should please audiences momentarily. They stand alone and don't make the accompanying film any better, but they are something. Unfortunately, there's this bad film in between each of the scares.

The acting isn't the problem in the film. Ryan Reynolds does a good job and, along with Blade: Trinity, he's now sufficiently proven he has a much broader range than the Van Wilder shtick of his past. As George Lutz becomes violent, and eventually homicidal, Reynolds is scary. He's not exactly Nicholson in The Shining, but he does a nice homage.

Melissa George is fine in the brief part she's given, but she doesn't have much to do. Again, going back to the book, her character had some really interesting moments and her arc as a character was fascinating. Here, she's just supposed to look scared and be a loving mother on occasion. Reynolds is the focus and you mostly forget that the Kathy Lutz character matters at all.

The worst part of this new Amityville is the Indian burial ground plotline. I won't give away major plot details on this, but I just couldn't believe how unnecessary and stupid this plot device was. Somehow the makers decided that the hauntings and mythology behind the horrible events of the Defeo murders weren't enough. They felt it necessary to explore another myth of the Amityville lore, that the area was once an ancient Indian burial ground. Enter cheesy ancient Indian torture sequences. Good Lord, give me a break. At best, this was fodder for a sequel.

Director Andrew Douglas offers up the kind of frenzied, style-for-style's-sake directing we see entirely too much of today. Of course, Michael Bay, who serves as a producer on this, is one of the originators of this whiz-bang flashy style exhibited by Douglas, so it's probably to be expected. In contrast, I loved the remake of Texas Chainsaw, which Bay also produced, so I had some hope that this might follow that trend. That was a genuinely scary film, with a great look and a strong female character driving the story. This is just visual masturbation: Quick cut editing, swinging camera pans and jarring images of spook house scares.

Amityville Horror is an extreme disappointment. As a fan of the book, I'm surely more critical than average audiences, but I'd think anyone would see through this cookie cutter horror film. This is a bad film any way you look at it. My familiarity with the novel mostly frustrates me because I know how much potential there was and how much they screwed up a great story with genuine scares in favor of a film that offers nothing new. I know that you have to make changes to adapt any book, and there are even a few in this new film that I understand, but don't just make changes to be different. I never thought it could be possible, but the 2005 Amityville Horror is an inferior film to the 1979 version. Neither is good and fans of the book will be let down to see that, for the second time, Hollywood has taken this highly filmic and compelling novel that has stuck with readers for years and turned out a completely forgettable film.

http://uk.ign.movies.com

The Amityville Horror was the ticket.It was both terrifying and funny, and there were many chilling moments. His transformation from good guy step-dad to menacing, red-eyed villain was nicely done. As for Phillip Baker Hall, as the priest, he brought good chemistry to his character, and I admire him greatly as an actor.

8/10

[psychooralien]

Next: Silent Hill but remember, my personal review is at the bottom.

[psychooralien]

After being a film critic for a few years now, I've started to learn the cardinal signs of a film that hasn't exactly come together the way the studio had hoped. Back in Toronto on the set of Silent Hill last summer, things looked promising. Director Christophe Gans was a big fan of the games, the sets looked very cool, the casting was perfect and Gans himself appeared to fully understand the many, many failings of video game movies past. The teaser trailer earlier this year looked good, the promotional posters and ads looked good. Could it be? Could it finally be? Would there actually be a video game movie that was worth its salt? All of the sudden, Screen Gems pulled the plug, as they have so many times before. The press junkets and interviews were cancelled. Screenings were cancelled. Days before the release at the premiere, critics were turned away. This was a really, really bad sign. I figured it was one of two things. Either the film was downright junk, or just a bit too weird . Still, I liked what I had seen on set, I liked the cast and I thought Gans was an interesting choice, so I tried my best to alleviate preconceived notions and proceed to this day-of-release press screening with an open mind.

Silent Hill opens with the dreams of young Sharon . She is sleepwalking outside in the night and her mother, Rose , is desperately pursuing her. When she finally catches up to her daughter, the girl utters out cries of the words, "Silent Hill, Silent Hill…" Against the wishes of her husband Chris , Rose decides to take a trip with her daughter to this mysterious town and try to find out what she remembers from her past before she was adopted. Through some internet searches, Rose has learned that the town is rumored to be haunted, but its true secrets have been hidden in locked records for years. Just before entering the town, Rose encounters a persistent policewoman named Cybil. Scared and determined, Rose speeds away and down the road to the abandoned town of Silent Hill. When a girl who looks like Sharon appears in the road, Rose swerves to avoid her and crashes, falling unconscious. When she comes to, her daughter is missing. The town, as gamers well know, is no normal town. There are assorted ghouls around most every corner, especially when the town siren sounds off and all goes dark. Cybil soon joins Rose to help her in the pursuit of her lost daughter. The deeper they get, the more is revealed of the past atrocities of Silent Hill and the demons that still lurk about in the dark.



Visually, Silent Hill looks spectacular. The dark, highly atmospheric, intricately detailed set pieces are often lifted straight from the game. Silent Hill is, at its most basic level, a haunted house movie, but the house is the whole town. Every corner reveals another barrage of horrific imagery. During the day, a snow falls constantly on the town, but when Rose catches a snow flake, she realizes it is actually just ash. The transition of the town from day to light is a very cool effect. Rooms turn to ash, bloody-vein like branches cover the walls. The look of Silent Hill is undeniably creepy. The set pieces are often so good that they seem to promise something more to come than is ultimately delivered by the unfolding storyline.

From armless demons with vacuous pits in their stomach, to dwarf-like, face-less assemblages of ash to a big dude with some kind of gladiator helmet wielding a machete that would give Jason Voorhees an inferiority complex, the creature effects of Silent Hill are well done. Primarily Computer Generated, they are perfectly lit and never look jerky or obviously fake. Again, these eerie, frightening characters themselves offer more irks from their look rather than how they play into the movie.

The starting point of the problems with Silent Hill is length. This film is 127 minutes long. Yes, that's right, it's freakin' long! Believe it or not, it's rumored that Gans original cut was nearly three and a half hours. Good lord, save me now. Much like Brotherhood, Hill meanders through its storyline at a very slow pace, lingering within scenes far longer than needed. There are countless sequences that repeat expositions we've already gotten once before. The editing of Hill is sloppy and overtly proud of itself, full of scenes that might look cool, but don't serve the plot at all. One thing a scary movie should never be is boring, but it was often a struggle to stay alert and coherent through this morning's entire epic screening. Shaving at least 35 minutes would greatly improve Silent Hill.

Speaking of scary movies, that's probably the biggest problem with Silent Hill. Scares. Anyone see any, anywhere, any place within the vicinity of this movie? There are a few moments that appear to be leading to scares where I felt a few goose bumps form on my arms in anticipation of something, anything… But alas, there was no payoff. Letdown after letdown. There is not a scare anywhere in sight of Silent Hill. Part of this can again be blamed on the editing, which does very little to build intensity appropriately, and part can be blamed on the story, which is more intriguing than invigorating. Even the nurse sequence, in which Rose must navigate a room of inanimate knife-wielding nurses only brought alive by touch or light isn't especially scary. Seeing it filmed, I expected this to be a really creepy scene once effects and music were added, but like so much else in Hill, it was just a let down. You'd expect the right music, the right sets, the right creatures, etc. to equal scares. Still, something else is missing to pull it all together.

There isn't a lot to say about the cast because the problems with the film are not their fault. I liked the casting when I first heard it and I still liked it in the film. Mitchell continues to develop as a very versatile and competent actress. She gives off an inner-strength and competence that serves the character of Rose well. Laurie Holden, whose work I've been only vaguely familiar with before Hill, does a very good job as Cybil. Deborah Kara Unger, nearly unrecognizable through most of the film, is good. Sean Bean, who finally plays something besides a bad guy, doesn't have a whole lot to do, but he makes his part work well enough. The best acting of the film comes from Jodelle Ferland, who handles some extremely intense scenes with relative ease, especially for a girl her age. She has a bright future ahead.

As director, Gans brings his unique visual sense and little else. As a self-professed fanatic of the game series, it seems as though Gans' take on Silent Hill is less concerned with what gamers or laymen would like to see in the movie and more what he wanted to see. The result is a movie that will likely please only Gans.

There are some clever homages to the game that fans will surely appreciate, but the story also deviates from the game and takes some twists and turns that seem needless. Roger Avary's script is all over the place, beating you over the head with one plot detail and skipping over another.

So there we have it. Our worst fears realized yet again. The video game-to-film genre has endured more than a decade of mediocrity. Silent Hill is probably the smartest and best-looking video game adaptation yet, it just doesn't have much else going for it. After all, video games are about entertainment, and Silent Hill is a chore to sit through.

uk.ign.movies.com

Seriously, it truly is like you are living the game. (Having a woman as the main protagonist, ensure's the main character is more vulnerable, than if it were a man). The production design is truly superb and you get the feeling that Silent Hill really does exist. I was so skeptical about this movie, as traditionally, Game-To-Movie adaptations are, let's face it, crap!Again, it really is the best horror movie in years!

[psychooralien]

Next film review: Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon