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)

Jason X (2001)

Jason X (2001)
Watched June 1, 2009

SYNOPSIS
Three words: Jason. In. Space.

SHORT REVIEW
"Jason X" is among the worst entries in the "Friday the 13th" series.

REVIEW
Well, not only was "Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter" not the final chapter, "Jason Goes To Hell: The Final Friday" wasn't the final Friday either. Some wise guy decided to revive the series by putting Jason... in space, joining the likes of Leprechaun and other franchises desperate to make some more money. And, unfortunately, for the most part, it sucks.

So, Jason and some other girl get frozen in a cryogenic chamber, and are awakened in the year 2455 by a bunch of futuristic people, that, for the most part, look and act exactly like people in 2001 would. Yeah, there's a robot, but there's also sluts and people desperate for money, so apparently the world hasn't improved much in 450 years.

Anyways, through means unknown to the characters, the audience and presumably the filmmakers, Jason wakes up and starts to kill again. And, luckily for him, there's a bunch of dim-witted people from the future who are practically asking to die! And so it begins...

I don't know why, but I really love the 80s feel and look that the original "Friday the 13th" films have, and it's part of the reason I love them and all other slashers from that golden age. Of course, since the film was made in '01, it doesn't have that 80s feel to it. If anything else, it has the look and feel of a straight-to-video POS from the 2000s, what with the awful acting and bad CGI. If I didn't know better, I definitely would have guessed that this was DTV. I'm surprised it got a theatrical release, to be honest.

There's a couple cool kills, but overall, it's a Jason film, so they're primarily machete-based. At least for the most part, the kills are on-screen and not shyed away from. Actually, that's not necessarily true, because a good many kills are off-screen, but it's not PG-13 by any means, either.

The biggest thing wrong with "Jason X" is that it seems to lack that sense of fun that the originals had. Even if most of the sequels were awful, they were still fun. Not so for most of "Jason X". Maybe it's just because I felt obliged to hate "Jason X" and it took the fun out of it, but it just didn't have that... oomph, I guess is the way to put it. It really only gets fun in the last 15-20 minutes, after that goddamn annoying chick died (more on goddamn annoying chick later). The scene with the virtual reality Camp Crystal Lake is pretty freaking hilarious, though, and the sleeping bag scene is by far the highlight of the movie, and a great parody on the original films.

Okay, goddamn annoying chick time. As seems to be par for the course in slasher films, there's a wise guy, or wise girl in this case, in "Jason X". But the wise guy character is never so annoying as it is in "Jason X", where the wise girl will never shut her fucking mouth, and everything that comes out of it is just unfunny bullshit one-liners that aren't even "so bad they're funny" one-liners. They just make you shake your head in anger or disappointment or whatever. She finally dies, and amazingly, after she's dead, the film gets about 10 times better.

Even with the satisfaction of having that annoying-as-hell girl sucked through an air tube into oblivion, "Jason X" is really not that good. Out of the original ten entries (this doesn't count "Freddy vs. Jason" or the "FT13" remake), I'd probably have to place "Jason X" as tied with the 8th best. It's at least better than "Jason Takes Manhattan" (isn't everything?) and is about the same as "Jason Goes to Hell". I might actually place this ahead of "Jason Goes to Hell" just because at least "Jason X" didn't have some fucking worm thing that was supposed to be Jason's soul or whatever. Still, even if it's better than two entries, it still sucked. I give "Jason X":
2 out of 5 chainsaws (PRETTY BAD, SKIP IT)

P.S. And no, I don't think "A New Beginning" is the worst entry in the "FT13" series. I actually kind of liked that one.

From Within (2009)

From Within (2009)
Watched March 31, 2009 (April Fool's! I watched it on April Fool's Day. Man. That may be a candidate for worst April Fool's Day joke of all time. I'm sorry.)

SYNOPSIS
Suicide after suicide is happening in a small Christian town, and who's to blame? Well, maybe the witches!

SHORT REVIEW
This Horrorfest entry isn't that great, but the delightfully grim ending and the crazy Christians who love burning people alive made me enjoy it somewhat.

REVIEW
And so it begins... After Dark Horrorfest 3! I've seen 8 of the past 16 Horrorfest films, and they're basically a mixed bag. We've had the good ("Borderland", "The Gravedancers"), the average ("Reincarnation", "Mulberry St.") and the god-awful (how I despise thee, "Unearthed"). Well, the first one I've watched from 2009 fits in with the other average entries.

"From Within" is actually pretty entertaining, due to the consistent number of suicide scenes, which range from people drinking drain cleaner to people shooting themselves. It's not like the kills were that memorable or anything, but there's so many of them that there's barely a 15-minute period without you getting to see someone else bite the dust. The kills lose some of their effect due to annoying direction and sound effects, however. I just don't understand why directors feel the need to change camera angles every half a second, because it's annoying as hell. Kills are more gruesome and interesting when you actually get to SEE the kill instead of some random flashing and camera movement.

But the film doesn't just depend on the kills to deliver a good horror, no, they focus on story. But, the story is pretty predictable and stupid, which is unfortunate, as the plot line is pretty interesting. The characters are compete caricatures. We've got the good girl, we've got the misunderstood emo kid, we've even got the good girl's boyfriend who turns out to be a big douche. Not only that, they felt the need to make the "good girl" have the obligatory "bad home life", which includes the constantly drunk mother and the nonexistent father. It's just ridiculous how many cliche characters there are in this one movie. Ridiculous.

The only interesting characters are all the Christians. I think it's pretty funny how badly Christians are portrayed in this. They are all crazy nutcases who talk like they came right out of the Bible ("Thy pain is thy salvation" who the hell says that?) and basically cause all of the conflict in the entire movie.
SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
They are also responsible for every death in the freaking movie. The suicides are all explained to be a curse started by one of the brothers that are supposedly witches (they are actually witches). The reason the curse was started was because all the Christians killed the guy's mother. And then, when the other brother tries to stop the curse, the Christians just kill him and so the curse lives on to kill everyone in the town. It's just awesome. SIDE NOTE: I find it interesting that the entire movie, the one person blamed for all the suicides is actually the person that is responsible for all of them. Usually, when it's a mystery of who is causing all the deaths, the filmmakers choose someone that ISN'T the main suspect. Strange.
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS

The ending to the movie is also deliciously downbeat and grim. I won't give it away (well I guess I kind of did in that spoiler paragraph above), but it definitely made me like the film just a little bit more.

In the end, "From Within" really isn't anything that special, but then again, it's not bad either. At the very least, it's better than "Unearthed". God damn, I hated "Unearthed". Overall, this one is a good start to the 3rd Horrorfest, and I hope the rest of this year's entries are at least as good as this one. They probably won't be, but at least this one's pretty good. I give "From Within":


3 out of 5 chainsaws (ALRIGHT)

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 Lost Skeleton of Cadavra (2001)

The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra (2001)
Watched March 28, 2009

SYNOPSIS
The plot includes skeletons, mutants, aliens, forest creatures and science. I'm not going to expand on that.

SHORT REVIEW
"The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra" is hilarious from start to finish.

REVIEW
I like sci-fi movies from the 50s. Their wooden acting, nonsense plot and overall awful-ness just make me enjoy them greatly. "The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra" perfectly replicates those B-movies by giving us ultra-wooden acting and overall ultra-awful-ness.

A scientist and his wife go to the woods to find an asteroid made of Atmospherium. But, it appears as if they're not the only ones after the Atmospherium. A couple of aliens need it to help start up their ship so they can get back home. And, the evil guy needs it to bring the Lost Skeleton of Cadavra back to life. Who will get to the Atmospherium first? Will the Lost Skeleton be found? And what of the mysterious mutant that has escaped from the alien's ship? All of these questions will be answered in "The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra", filmed in glorious Skeletorama.

It seems like just about every line uttered in the film is quotable. And almost all of them are funny, if not hilarious. "Seriously, Betty, you know what this meteor could mean to science. It could mean actual advances in the field of science." "I'm a scientist, I don't believe in anything." "Why shake when we could touch other things... like lips?" The list could go on and on. There are so many classic lines in here, it's scary.

Speaking of scary, there's really no way this could be considered a horror film, so if you want one of those, don't see this. Actually, see this anyway, because it's pretty much amazing.

This is going to be a pretty short review, because there's nothing really to say about "The Lost Skeleton" except for the fact that it's really, really funny, almost to the point of being genius sometimes. And the film has so many jokes shoved in it that I'm sure it has a lot of replay value.

If there's any flaw in the film, it's that some jokes or scenes go on for far too long than they should. There's a scene between the evil guy and the aliens where they talk about sharing that really wasn't that funny to begin with, but then it's dragged on for another minute or two, so I was almost to the point of yelling "Get on with it!" Fortunately, these instances are far and few between, so you can get back to the hilarity pretty soon.

Ah, how I loved this movie. I might even consider buying it, and I don't buy many DVDs unless they're on sale. So, that's just a sign of how good it is. I give "The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra":


5 out of 5 chainsaws (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED)

Re-Cycle (2006)

Re-Cycle (2006)
Watched March 29, 2009

SYNOPSIS
A young author finds herself in a world where everything that has been abandoned lives.

SHORT REVIEW
"Re-Cycle" has dazzling visuals and an interesting plot, but I only thought it was alright.

REVIEW
The Pang Brothers really should just stay in Hong Kong. I really liked "The Eye", and "Re-Cycle" is pretty good, too. But when they come over to America, they make these awful movies like "Bangkok Dangerous" and "The Messengers". What is it about the U.S. that spawns these awful movies from otherwise pretty talented filmmakers? It's quite strange.

I wouldn't say "Re-Cycle" is on par with "The Eye", and it's really only horror for less than half of the movie, but I have to say that it is a pretty good fantasy movie. The first part of the movie deals with the main protagonist in her apartment writing her new novel. But, it appears like the supernatural forces from the story she's writing are loose and in her apartment, and she's having some pretty creepy encounters. This part of the film is pretty damn good, is very suspenseful and has some genuine scares.

But then, suddenly the film switches gears. It was weird that the tone switched so quickly, because I was expecting a horror film all the way through, but for the most part, "Re-Cycle" is a fantasy, almost a fairy tale for adults, like "Pan's Labyrinth". The author is transported to some other world, which is soon revealed to be the place that everything that has been abandoned goes. Interesting premise, and it's pretty well executed, because of its great and memorable visuals. Among them is a cave of aborted babies, which is pretty creepy.

Speaking of caves of aborted babies, the film has a very prominent anti-abortion message.
SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
The main character has a little girl helping her through the entire movie, and at the end, it's revealed that the little girl is actually her baby she aborted eight years ago. The protagonist begs and begs for the little girl to come with her back to Earth, to which the girl responds "you had your chance to live with me." Boom. Schooled.
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
I'm definitely not one of those crazy "Choose life or I'll kill you" people, but the movie actually did make an alright anti-abortion case that makes you think about your stand on abortion. And even if you are pro-choice all the way, it doesn't make the cave of aborted babies any less awesome.

Well. I'm done. I have nothing else to say. The visuals are cool, but really, I can't say I loved the movie. You haven't seen anything else like it, but I wouldn't put "Re-Cycle" on the top of your "Must See" list or anything. I give "Re-Cycle":

3 out of 5 chainsaws (IT'S ALRIGHT)

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)

April Fool's Day (2008)

April Fool's Day (2008)
Watched March 27, 2009

SYNOPSIS
Exactly one year ago, a group of friends accidentally killed someone. Now, that someone is back, and unless someone confesses to the murder, then every one of them will die.

(ULTRA) SHORT REVIEW
"April Fool's Day" is a piece of shit.

REVIEW
You know they're running out of remakes when they are remaking films like "April Fool's Day". I guess they're done remaking the classics, and now they're moving on to the not-so-classics. Soon, they're going to start remaking movies that nobody has actually heard of, like "Night School" or "Graduation Day". Or "Blades".

SPOILER PARAGRAPH FOR BOTH APRIL FOOL'S DAY MOVIES
SPOILER PARAGRAPH
SPOILER PARAGRAPH
But, anyways, I'm pretty sure the only thing anyone remembers from the original was the ending, where it's revealed that none of the killings were real, and were all just a really elaborate April Fool's Day joke. So why the hell would they use the same ending as the original? This automatically erases all elements of surprise from the movie, because, really, the only people who watch Direct-to-Video horror movies are the people who love horror, and therefore, have seen the original. It's pretty f'ing stupid, in my opinion. To make matters worse, the ONLY thing that is the same between the remake and the original is the twist ending. The entire rest of the film is completely different, and doesn't even have the same basic plot line. So why the hell would the filmmakers decide to keep the "twist" ending that everybody knows the "twist" to? Alright, I'm done ranting.
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS

Pretty much everything in "April Fool's Day" is awful. All of the characters are annoying rich kids, so you don't give a shit whether they die. The plot line is just a sad rip-off of films such as "I Know What You Did Last Summer". The death scenes are among the worst in recent history. And the acting is bad.

The film also takes too long on the set up. Normally, a film would take about 5-10 minutes setting up the plot for the rest of the movie, i.e. killing off the character that died exactly a year ago. Except "April Fool's Day" takes a half hour to kill off this character. Not to mention the half hour you have to sit through before said character is killed off is basically just an episode of "Gossip Girl" or some other awful show like that. I mean, it has the two spoiled rich kids with the dead parents who care too much about their reputation, the gay gossip writer, and the stalker dude who films a girl incessantly. Now, I've never seen "Gossip Girl", but those characters sound like they would be lifted right off that show.

And then, after the half-hour of "Gossip Girl" B.S., you're treated to another hour of the most pitifully done death scenes you've ever seen. I mean, these are on par with the kills from "One Missed Call" and "Prom Night" (the remakes). They're bloodless and are less scary than a 5-year-old's Halloween costume. You've got the most laughable drowning scene that you've ever seen, you've got the worst hit-by-a-car scene that you've ever seen, and a couple more kills that are probably just about the worst you've ever seen. Are you seeing a pattern here?

The ending (see above spoilers if you just want to see the ending and spare yourself 90 minutes) also just feels tacked-on and doesn't work near as well as in the original. Plus, after the "twist" ending, they feel the need to tack on another "twist" just to try to make the film even stupider. I won't spoil this one, but I laughed out loud, it was so bad. I laughed out loud.

Honestly, I think all you readers (all you nonexistent readers) get the point. "April Fool's Day" is awful. You shouldn't even consider wasting your time on this nonsense. I'd say it's one of the worst horror movies of 2008 and it basically does nothing right whatsoever. I give "April Fool's Day":


1 out of 5 chainsaws (GOD-AWFUL)

Seed (2008)

Seed (2008)
Watched March 27, 2009

SYNOPSIS
Serial killer Max Seed is electrocuted twice and buried alive, but digs himself up and returns to have his revenge on the people who tried to kill him.

SHORT REVIEW
"Seed" is pretty damn bad, but nowhere as bad as Uwe Boll haters want you to think it is.

REVIEW
I have no problem with Uwe Boll. This may be because I haven't seen the films that are considered his worst (I've only seen this and "In the Name of the King", which really wasn't that bad). Maybe I'll hate him as much as every other film fan in the world if I see "Alone in the Dark" or "House of the Dead", but at the moment, I think there are much worse directors in the world. Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer (director of "Disaster Movie", "Epic Movie", "Date Movie"), for example, make Uwe Boll look like Kubrick by comparison. I also think Boll's d-bag antics are pretty damn funny.

That being said, "Seed" is a pretty bad movie. But I've seen much worse. Much, much worse. I honestly think the only reason "Seed" is so despised (it has an abysmal 2.4 rating on IMDb) is because Uwe Boll directed it. If the exact same film was released without Boll's name attached, I'm betting it would have gotten at least a somewhat better response.

But, I'm not saying it's a good movie. It's actually really stupid. The killer, Seed, has no on-screen presence, and is not scary at all. The entire film has no suspense whatsoever. The only scares are dumb "jump scares" that you'd expect from PG-13 crapfests like "Prom Night".

The blood is mostly pretty bad CGI, and looks very fake most of the time. Not only that, but the deaths you do see are way too long and drawn out. A prime example of this comes about an hour in. In a scene that has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the movie, you see a woman tied to a chair and then for literally 5 minutes, Seed takes some hammer-axe thing to her head. 5 f'ing minutes. It's quite possibly one of the most ridiculously drawn-out death scenes in horror movie history. The scene also isn't shocking, as neither of the actors are convincing, and the CGI blood is so god-awful that it almost makes it laughable. The scene is also so sporadically shot, it's ridiculous. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that Seed was filming himself kill this lady. So, he sets up a camera to catch all the action. So why does the camera keep zooming in and out and shaking as if the cameraman had cerebral palsy? It really doesn't make any sense.

Unfortunately, that aforementioned kill is the best shot out of all of them; mostly due to the fact that the whole rest of the film is so fucking dark, you can't make out what the hell is happening. It's as if Uwe Boll decided to save money by just going ahead and not hiring a lighting crew. The police raid of Seed's house is ridiculous, as it's basically just 10 minutes of complete darkness and some grunting noises. Plus, I think the cameraman was also having some sort of seizure, because of the parts I could see, the camera was shaking around so much, I thought I was watching "Cloverfield".

Also, the characters are the definition of cardboard cutouts. You learn absolutely nothing about any of them, to the point that you can't tell any of them apart. But, most of them are actually competent actors, except for the main policeman. Just watch the dream sequence including this actor that's about five minutes in, where he gives such a bad performance, it's laughable. "DOES ANYONE SEE THE KILLER? NO! THAT'S THE KILLER! STOP THE BUS! DON'T GIVE HIM YOUR BABY! NO!" It's ridiculously bad.

But, I gotta give Boll some props for actually having the balls to kill off people you don't expect to die.
SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
The ending sequence is uncompromisingly brutal, where the main guy's daughter sees her mother get killed before her eyes, and then watches her dad graphically shoot himself live on a TV screen. To add insult to injury, Seed then locks her up with dead daddy to watch him decompose. Not many filmmakers would have the balls to do that.
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS

The thing that has gotten the film most of the attention its getting is its graphic depiction of (real) animal killings at the beginning. While it has virtually no point to the rest of the film, the footage is pretty shocking. Another potential shocker is the scene where police officers watch Seed's filmed footage of a baby decomposing and being eaten by maggots. Like I said, not many filmmakers would have the balls to do that.

But all of the brutality is to make a point that humans are awful beings. Don't you all just love horror movies with morals?

After reading some reviews on Netflix (by the way, the film is one of many available to watch instantly on Netflix) afterwards, I actually gained some respect for "Seed". There were many one-star reviews, saying that the film is "absolutely revolting" and "despicable", and there were many reviewers that said they could not finish watching it because it was so sickening. While I had no trouble finishing it (I guess I'm just a bad person), I realized something. Isn't horror meant to shock? Doesn't this mean that "Seed" is a great horror film? Horror films like "Inside" and "Martyrs" are praised for being truly shocking, disturbing and hard to watch. So I guess "Seed" actually made its point well. There are truly awful people in this world, and the film may have opened people's eyes to that. This epiphany of mine didn't make me change my mind that the film was bad, but it did make me understand the point of the movie. And, since I guess it did its job well, I'll give "Seed" an extra chainsaw and give it:

2 out of 5 chainsaws (PRETTY BAD, SKIP IT)

P.S.:I almost considered giving it 3, but then I remembered that the actual film was damn awful. But 2 out of 5 is pretty good considering the director is considered the worst in the world.

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)