Paranormal Activity (2009)

Paranormal Activity (2009)
Watched October 24, 2009


I've been hearing about Paranormal Activity for a while now. I think the first time I read about it was the 2007 review on Horror Movie A Day (great site, by the way). The review was very positive, and I hadn't heard anything about the movie, so I was very intrigued. Over the next couple years, I kept reading sporadic reviews about the film, and with each one, I became more and more excited. But there was still nothing about a release date for the film. Until a couple months ago. Yes, to my surprise, the film I'd been hearing about for years was getting a theatrical release! When the film finally found its way into a theater near me, I jumped at the chance. So, last weekend, after a couple years, I finally saw the movie that people were calling one of the scariest movies of all time.

Did it live up to the hype? Well, no. But was it a damn good movie? Yep.

I can really honestly say there have only been two movies that ever terrified me. And those were The Ring and The Shining. But the reason that they were so terrifying, was because they were like the first two horror movies I ever saw. Since then, I've seen both those films again. The Ring hasn't held up that well for me, and while The Shining is still a fucking amazing film (one of my favs), it doesn't scare me anymore. I don't know if I should add Paranormal Activity to that list or not. I wouldn't say it terrified me, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't lose any sleep the night after I saw it.

For those of you who do not know the plot for whatever reason, here's a quick rundown. A guy buys a video camera because his girlfriend is experiencing some odd phenomena in her life, and she thinks it's paranormal phenomena. So, his idea is to set up a video camera in the bedroom, and try to capture some paranormal activity over the night. Well, the two of them end up getting a hell of a lot more than they bargained for.

I'm willing to bet a lot of the mainstream audience will find the movie boring. The first hour or so of the movie is basically just some loud noises and footsteps here and there. Not terribly exciting for the people whose favorite movie is "Transformers". But, honestly, there's something wrong with them anyways for liking a Michael Bay movie, so let's just forget they exist for a minute.

Honestly, yes, the first hour of the movie is a little slow-moving, but I never found it truly boring. I didn't find it scary, but I was pretty intrigued in what was happening. And the whole slow build-up thing was actually a pretty good idea. Because if the entire movie was like the last 20 minutes or so (when the actual scary stuff starts to happen), I'm willing to bet the film wouldn't have had the effect that it did. The whole slow-burn strategy worked very well in the film, as it allowed for character development, plus gradually making the movie scarier and scarier as it goes on makes the scares at the end that much more effective.

But, even without the slow-burn exercise, the last twenty minutes still would have been jaw-dropping. The last third of the movie is ridiculously well-done, and the last two nights the characters film are scary as shit. I'm not going to give away what happens, but trust me, it's damn awesome.

But, I think instead of like 70 minutes of build-up for 20 minutes of awesomeness, they should have made it like 60-30. Instead of the last two nights being truly terrifying, they should have made the last three nights that way. I just feel as if there was too much build-up. But perhaps I'm just nitpicking. I'm probably just nitpicking.

It truly amazes me that a film shot in a week for $10,000 can be ten times as effective as all of the horror blockbusters made for millions and millions of dollars. It just goes to show that to truly find good horror movies, you have to look to the independent scene. Horror isn't dead, you just have to wade through a lot of mainstream shit to get to the worthwhile stuff. Paranormal Activity is the aforementioned worthwhile stuff. I don't have anything more to say, except that Paranormal Activity is a really good, if overhyped, horror flick that you should all support and see in theaters. I don't think the experience will be the same on DVD. So go now.

And as a final note, I want to thank Paramount for making the right decision and actually releasing the original film and not making a piece of shit remake. Horror fans will respect you for it, and the box office numbers are proof you made the correct decision. "Paranormal Activity" gets:

4 out of 5 chainsaws (VERY GOOD, SEE IT)

Scream and Scream Again (1970)

Scream and Scream Again (1970)
Watched June 3, 2009

SYNOPSIS
There's a serial killer, some sort of master race, and a guy that can kill you by just touching your shoulder. Crazy.

SHORT REVIEW
"Scream and Scream Again" is quite entertaining, and it's quite cool how a bunch of seemingly unrelated subplots end up coming together in the end.

REVIEW
"Scream and Scream Again" is on a double-feature DVD with "The Oblong Box", which I quite disliked, which you would know if you read the review I just wrote for it. Wait, you didn't read my "Oblong Box" review? Well, go now. After you read this. Anyways, I had low expectations for this one after "Oblong Box", but "Scream and Scream Again" really delivered, and was much better than I even hoped it to be.

So, anyways, the film is kind of weird at the beginning, because there's so many different things happening. There's a jogger being captured and getting his limbs cut off, there's some sort of rapist/murderer that drains the blood of his victims, and there's Vincent Price with his vat of acid. Not to mention some military subplot with a guy that can kill by simply touching you. The film tries to be so many things at once, it's kind of an oddity at first, and you think that maybe you're watching a bunch of different films cut together into one big film. You're not. You're just watching "Scream and Scream Again".

Anyways, all these subplots eventually come together to one quite great finale, but just because the rest of the movie is kind of disjointed and strange, it doesn't mean it's not entertaining as hell, because "Scream and Scream Again" is. It's just great. The first half of the movie isn't anything amazing, but it keeps your attention. Then, there's an amazingly filmed car chase, and from there, it just gets better. It's just highly entertaining, much more so than "Oblong Box".

And, also unlike "Oblong Box", "Scream and Scream Again" uses Vincent Price to its advantage, even if Price has a pretty small role. He plays a mad scientist, and he's just great. I really do like Vincent Price.

You also may be intrigued as the poster says Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing are also in the film. But their roles are pretty much just cameos, and neither of them get very much screen time at all. Oh well, it really doesn't affect the film at all.

So, it's entertaining, and it has vampire rapists and Vincent Price. Are you sold yet? What if I said there was a guy that breaks his own arm off? You're still not sold? Then you obviously shouldn't be on this site. But stay anyways. I need every viewer I can get. I'm desperate.

It's not the best film of all time by any means, but it's a highly entertaining film that I really do recommend. If you get the double-sided disc with "Oblong Box", though, just skip that other film. It's not worth your time, in my opinion. I give "Scream and Scream Again":


4 out of 5 chainsaws (VERY GOOD, SEE IT)

Chopping Mall (1986)

Chopping Mall (1986)
Watched May 31, 2009

SYNOPSIS
Promiscuous teens are hunted down by mall security robots malfunctioning after their computer is struck by lightning.

SHORT REVIEW
"Chopping Mall" is a hell of a lot of fun; nothing more, nothing less.

REVIEW
I've wanted to see "Chopping Mall" for a while now, solely because that title is fucking amazing. I'm putting it bluntly, but it is. Just like "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes", if you're not intrigued by the title "Chopping Mall", you obviously are an emotionless robot. You can still read this blog, though, I don't really care if my readers are robots, it's better than no readers at all.

Enough about robots! Now we'll set our sights on "Chopping Mall", which is conveniently also about robots. Killer robots at that. The film starts out with a company showing off their new security robots to mall employees. The maker of these robots claims "the system is foolproof" and "nothing, absolutely nothing, can go wrong" and goes on to repeat these claims multiple times. Needless to say, something goes wrong.

In this case, electricity hits the roof of the mall three times in a row, conveniently in the place that the robots' computer system is located. Why the hell would the computer system be located on the roof? Just one of many questions that are never answered in "Chopping Mall", but I couldn't care less.

Meanwhile, while the robots kill the people looking after them, who were too busy looking at porn to notice that the robots were alive when they shouldn't have been, eight teens are doing it in a mattress shop after-hours! They picked the right night to party! The teens are all complete cut-outs. We have the newly formed couple that are the two good people, who would rather watch "Attack of the Crab Monsters" than do it. Within seconds of meeting these two, you know they're going to be the only ones to survive the night. The other six have no distinguishable personality traits, and are only there to provide nudity and a higher body count. Sounds like it's gonna be a good time!

I mentioned in my "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?" review that there were exploding heads in this movie. And I wasn't lying. One of the horny teens gets their head blown apart by the security robot's lasers! Why the hell would a security robot need lasers strong enough to explode someone's head? Man, that's really weird, the lyrics to the song I'm listening to were just "I don't care! I don't care!", which basically sums up my feelings to that question. If "Deadly Friend" can get away with basketballs exploding heads, "Chopping Mall" can get away with deadly lasers. By the way, the head explosion was good enough to warrant me rewinding the movie to watch it again.

Other than that head explosion, which was also pretty bloodless, there's no blood in "Chopping Mall", which you wouldn't expect from a film with that kind of title. But that's fine. The death scenes here are primarily laser-based, as that's the robots' main line of defense. I don't think the company's presentation on the robots mentioned lasers. I love how I'm pointing out how illogical a film called "Chopping Mall" is. Anyways, back to bloodletting, yeah, very little blood. But, the film is just so darned entertaining, I didn't need any.

Did I mention the film is 77 minutes long? Quick and to the point, just how I liked it. A perfect contrast with "Baby Jane". The film wastes no time getting to the action, as the first kill is like ten minutes in, then we get some quick boob shots and then we have just under an hour of teens getting thrown off of balconies and getting blown up by lasers. Exactly what everyone wants in their 80s horror. Man, I love the 80s.

The film never drags, and is entertaining from start to finish. It realizes it's nothing more than a crappy slasher with robots, and finishes off all the death scenes with the robots happily wishing the victims a nice day. How nice. I don't think I can bring myself to give this movie five chainsaws, as it's pretty much awful in every sense of the word, but I can give "Chopping Mall" a highly acceptable 4 chainsaws, and I'll throw in a slab of cheese for good measure. Go see it right now. Unless you're a robot, then you may find the film insulting to your race. But probably not.


4 out of 5 chainsaws and then a nice piece of cheese for no reason other than I've never given a film a rating made out of cheese (VERY GOOD, SEE IT)

What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962)

What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962)
Watched May 31, 2009

SYNOPSIS
A jealous, insane child star keeps her crippled sister hostage in an old Hollywood mansion.

SHORT REVIEW
"What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?" probably won't be of much interest to younger viewers who need explosions every two minutes to keep their attention, but for everyone else, this is a nice thriller with amazing performances by the two leading ladies.

REVIEW
Any film that can keep my attention for 133 minutes straight deserves some sort of accolade. Especially when the film is primarily dialogue-based, and has only a few fleeting action scenes. But "Baby Jane" kept my attention throughout its entire running time, which must be a testament to the fact that it's a really good film.

The aspect of the film that is the best, in my opinion, is the acting. Both Bette Davis and Joan Crawford are amazing in their parts of, respectively, the child star who is living in a dream world where everyone remembers her and loves her, and the tortured sister in a wheelchair that grew up to be much more famous than her sister. Davis steals the movie, though. In my opinion, she's spot-on in her portrayal of Baby Jane Hudson. She alternates perfectly between happy child star living in the past who wants to reclaim her fame, to insane monster brutally beating her sister and locking her in her room to starve to death. Some may call her performance a little over the top, but I didn't. I thought it was riveting and definitely made the movie more memorable. The very last scene is just haunting, yet hilarious at the same time.

Crawford is amazing as well, and you truly get that feeling of entrapment when you are with her character. She has nowhere to go, as her current lack of working legs truly limits her surroundings. You feel for her throughout the movie, and hope she can make it through her predicament alive.

Apparently, Davis and Crawford weren't exactly the best of friends off-camera either, and there are even sources saying that Davis actually beat up Crawford during the on-camera beating. There are many stories about the two playing mean tricks on each other during filming, and you kind of have to wonder how much of the intense hate portrayed on screen was actually real-life hatred.

However, the film is a little dated. A lot of the "shocking" scenes have lost most of their impact nowadays. The rat in the food scene isn't particularly shocking anymore, and a lot of other scenes just seem kind of stupid due to today's viewers being pretty desensitized and all that. However, the performances by both leading women make the dated shocks better, and the rat scene is saved by Davis' insane cackling and Crawford's desperate screams.

Also, it helps that the film's plot feels like it could actually happen in real life, and it adds a layer of realism to the film. Just a quick comment.

Okay, I'm done reviewing this one. It's good. I think you should probably go see it, unless you are only entertained by horror if it has constant exploding heads. More on exploding heads later, as my next review is for "Chopping Mall". Muhaha. Anyways, I'll rant about exploding heads in my next review. Back to "Baby Jane". The film's pretty much a classic, especially because of the amazing Oscar-worthy performances. Sure, the film's a bit slow-moving and dated, but it's still good enough to praise. "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?" earns:

4 out of 5 chainsaws (VERY GOOD, SEE IT)

Psychos in Love (1987)

Psychos in Love (1987)
Watched May 30, 2009

SYNOPSIS
Two psychos fall in love because of their shared hobby for serial killing and shared intense hate for grapes. There's also a cannibal plumber on the loose.

SHORT REVIEW
"Psychos in Love" is pretty damn funny all the way through, and I'm glad it's finally got a proper DVD release so the underrated film can find a new fanbase.

REVIEW
I'd never heard of "Psychos in Love" before I looked at a list of the new horror DVD releases and saw it on there. It sounded interesting, but I still wasn't completely sold. Then, I read some reviews for it, and they said that the two psychos bond over their loathing for grapes. Any film that uses hating grapes as a plot point is something I need to see, ASAP. So, I promptly put the film near the top of my Netflix queue and waited.

Well, the film came yesterday, and what an interesting little film. First off, the film is not supposed to be taken seriously at all. And that's a good thing. The film has a pretty black sense of humor throughout, so if you're into that kind of thing, it might be a good idea to pick this one up. I found it pretty hilarious.

I hate reviewing films that I liked, but I can't really find much to say about it. "Psychos in Love" is one of those films, so this review probably will not be that long.

But, I do know why I liked the film. It's entertaining from start to finish. There are a few great scenes, like the first couple times that the psychos rattle off a monologue about how they hate every type of grape (they continue to repeat this monologue, and while it gets a little less funny each time they repeat it, it's still pretty humorous) or the scene where they happily tell each other for the first time that they're mentally unstable. It's quite funny how nonchalantly they treat all the murders throughout the film.

However, I do have a couple complaints. First off, there's a lot of jokes that don't work. I realize that they can't all be zingers, but there's some real "wow-that-really-wasn't-funny-at-all" moments in the film. Fortunately, the funny bits outnumber the unfunny bits, so it's easy to overlook the stinkers.

Another mild complaint is the synopses of this film made it sound like the cannibal plumber was a big plot element, but in reality, the guy gets about five minutes of screen time, and only about two of those are with the psychos in love. It's a mild complaint, but I felt they just added in the plumber subplot at the very last second to add a little substance to the film. I don't know why, it just felt that way with how quickly they wrapped up the whole subplot.

But those are just minor complaints that definitely don't ruin this funny and original piece of work that really should be much more well-known than it is at the moment. Hopefully the DVD release helps the film find an audience and it's remembered as a cult classic as it should be. "Psychos in Love" gets:

4 out of 5 chainsaws (VERY GOOD, SEE IT)

Underworld (2003)

Underworld (2003)
Watched March 29, 2009

SYNOPSIS
It's a story about an endless war between werewolves and vampires.

SHORT REVIEW
For a really mainstream horror movie, "Underworld" is better than you'd expect.

REVIEW
Well, the third "Underworld" is coming out on DVD in a month or two, so I figured I'd catch up on the series so I could watch that one. And I gotta say, it's pretty good. At the very least, it's pretty entertaining. I thought it looked pretty stupid, because the main selling point seems to be Kate Beckinsale in skin-tight suits, and that's never really a good sign that the movie will be any good. But, to my surprise, it wasn't half-bad.

First off, not a horror movie. I start a lot of reviews by saying that the horror movie I'm watching isn't really a horror movie. Anyways, it's just an action movie with vampires and werewolves. But, since there's vampires, and there's werewolves, the movie is tagged as a horror. Exactly the reason that "Twilight" is somehow considered horror, and so my favorite horror news sites are inundated with "Twilight" crap I couldn't care less about. Ah well. That's how it goes.

But, yeah, the entire movie's just ridiculous action scene after ridiculous action scene. Not that I'm against that kind of stuff, I'm just tellin' ya. Completely off-topic, doesn't it bother you when people dislike action movies because they weren't believable? I'm pretty sure there hasn't been a believable popcorn movie... ever. On topic now.

The special effects are pretty good, even if they're all CGI. The werewolf transformations are pretty average, but at least they aren't cheap cut-away transformations as in most werewolf movies these days. What ever happened to days of "An American Werewolf"? What ever happened?

I'm like three to four days behind on horror reviews, and I basically have nothing to say about "Underworld", so I'm going to keep this pretty damn short. "Underworld" has a pretty good plot with a number of twists, great action scenes, and Kate Beckinsale in skin-tight suits. Constantly in skin-tight suits. I wonder if you become a vampire, you also just become sexy? It's just like part of the transformation. Because I'm pretty sure that there hasn't been an ugly male or female vampire in the last five years of vampire movies. Not once. It's ridiculous. I'm just nitpicking though. Short review. Over. I give Underworld probably 3.5 chainsaws, but since listening to Static-X puts me in a good mood, I'd say...

4 out of 5 chainsaws (VERY GOOD, SEE IT)

The Killing Gene (2008)

The Killing Gene (2008)
Watched March 27, 2009

SYNOPSIS
A series of deaths are occurring in New York, some with a mysterious equation carved into the victim's body. A couple cops must figure out what's going on and stop the killer with a troubled past.

SHORT REVIEW
Even though it starts off pretty boring and confusing, if you stick through to the end, you'll find a pretty intense crime thriller in "The Killing Gene".

REVIEW
I'm starting to really like Dimension Extreme films. Some of the best films from the last couple years were Dimension Extreme offerings, such as "Black Sheep", "Teeth" and "Inside". While I wouldn't say "The Killing Gene" is on par with those three, it is a pretty good film.

First off, I'd say that "The Killing Gene", also known as "W Delta Z", is more of a crime thriller than a true horror film. Just a quick clarification for those who want a full-on horror movie.

But, crime thriller or not, it's still a very good film. The plot line is intriguing, asking if you would kill someone you love to save yourself from being killed. It kinda makes you think. The killer, who has a troubled past, of course, captures people and tortures them, always giving the option for the torture to stop if they kill the one they love most, i.e. their son, their grandmother or their pregnant wife.

Unfortunately, the first 30-40 minutes really isn't that good. It's pretty confusing, and while it all gets clarified later on, it's really annoying to not really know what's going on. Also, you really don't learn a lot about the film's main characters until later on either, so that's kind of annoying as well.

SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
Also, it's pretty damn obvious who the killer is once that character is revealed. It's actually obvious from the very beginning, as the identity of the killer is pretty prominently given away on the DVD cover. It doesn't take much effort to figure out that the scarred-up, angry-looking chick on the cover is PROBABLY the killer. This wouldn't be a big problem, except the film takes an hour concealing the identity of the killer, and then the film suddenly switches gears into more torture-oriented territory after the identity is revealed. It just seems a little uneven.
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS

Also, the torture scenes you do see are pretty gruesome. Particularly the big final torture scene at the end, which even made me squirm in my seat. Something about nails to the fingernails gets me every time. Viewers uninitiated to gruesome blood and gore will probably find a couple scenes very hard to watch.

Well, you know, I don't have that much to say about "The Killing Gene". The plot line is pretty intriguing, and the film is overall pretty good. I give "The Killing Gene":

4 out of 5 chainsaws (VERY GOOD, SEE IT)

Citizen Toxie: The Toxic Avenger IV (2000)

Citizen Toxie: The Toxic Avenger IV (2000)
Watched March 26, 2009


SYNOPSIS
Tromaville's favorite hideously deformed monster hero of superhuman size and strength is back to fight his doppelganger, to save mentally retarded children and to save his wife's baby.

SHORT REVIEW
If you like Troma or the Toxic Avenger series, you're sure to like this one. If you don't like Troma, then this sure won't change your mind.

REVIEW
I can't understand why some horror fans dislike Troma. From what I've seen from them, their films are pretty amazing. Sure, there's no real redeeming value at all to them. The special effects suck, the acting sucks, and they have plot holes the size of Texas. But, do I care? No. Because when you sit down to watch a Troma film, you know you're going to have fun. Especially if they are actual Troma productions, and not just being distributed by Troma. Because "Blades" sucked and that was a Troma distributed film. But, if Lloyd Kaufman directed it, it's pretty much guaranteed to be fun as hell.

And "Citizen Toxie" is no exception. The film is as politically incorrect as humanly possible. It has mentally retarded children getting shot in mass amounts, man-whores, monster rape, the KKK, drunken kabuki men, and more. Not to mention the massive amounts of gore and nudity. It's pretty damn great.

The gore is great, and there are plenty of smashed heads, disembowelments, exploding monster penises and face peelings to keep even the biggest gorehound happy. And if you're in the mood for gratuitious sex and nudity, boy, do I have the film for you. I think there was actually too much nudity, because I don't think nudity should be the main point of a horror film, but, hey, that's only my opinion.

The movie's also hilarious. The other superheroes in the film are amazing. From Master-Bater, the half-rapper, half-sex offender, to Dolphin Man, all of the superheroes are pretty damn funny, and it's a shame that many of them don't have that much screen time. Especially Lardass, The Toxic Avenger's sidekick for the first 15 minutes of the movie. The parts with him were among the funniest. Any superhero that fights with sausage nunchucks is amazing.

Unfortunately, there's a good amount of the jokes that just suck. Toilet humor just isn't that funny, and "Citizen Toxie" has so much toilet humor, you'd think it was made by second graders. If they would have cut out the toilet humor, in exchange for some more really good gags, I think "Citizen Toxie" might have even surpassed the original "Toxic Avenger".

As it stands right now, however, the original is, in my opinion, much better, and is by far the best in the series. I'd say "Citizen Toxie" is the 2nd best though. The 3rd one is god-awful, but I actually really liked the 2nd one. I give "Citizen Toxie":



4 out of 5 chainsaws (VERY GOOD, SEE IT)

The Pit and the Pendulum (1961)

The Pit and the Pendulum (1961)
Watched March 25, 2009

SYNOPSIS
A young man goes to Spain to investigate his sister's untimely death, and soon learns that there's more to the story than he thought.

SHORT REVIEW
"The Pit and the Pendulum" is a very well-acted and suspenseful horror, and is especially recommended if you are a big fan of Poe or Vincent Price.

REVIEW
"The Pit and the Pendulum" is just one of those movies that I have a hard time writing a review for. I enjoyed the movie, but not to the point of raving about how amazing it is. And it didn't really have many discernible flaws to point out to you readers. So, I basically have nothing to write about. So, this may not be that good of a review.

I don't watch many 60s horror movies, because it's not my favorite horror time period, but I have to say, out of the other movies I've watched from that era recently, I think I liked "The Pit and the Pendulum" the most. It's never dull and will keep you on your toes the entire length of the film. For a movie that is almost fifty years old, it's also quite suspenseful. It doesn't depend on blood and gore, instead, it builds creepy atmosphere and a sense of dread.

Vincent Price is great, as usual. There's no weak points to the cast, and they all do a good job portraying the character they are playing. The plot is engrossing, especially if you haven't read the story it's based on in a while, so you don't remember what happens next. That's how it was for me, as I haven't read the story for a good while.

This is the second Poe/Price/Corman movie I've seen (the first being "Tales of Terror"), and I look forward to seeing more. "The Pit and the Pendulum" gets:





4 chainsaws out of 5 (VERY GOOD, SEE IT)