Rating:
Oh, another american remake of a japanese movie. Are there any fun twists here? Any at all? Well there’s just one, and it’s not a big one. The americans are of course the main characters but the action takes place in Japan for most of the time. So there’s some old grudge, some burried secrets, and some ghosts appearing in the photos of a supposedly talented photographer. Supposedly because looking at the prints of his photos in the movie (especially the so called “professional” shoot they did) they’re pretty boring and standard. Anyone with a point-and-shoot could take pictures like that. But ok, we can forgive him if the movie’s any good right? Right. Nah, wrong again. This movie could’ve been good but didn’t quite make it. First of all it’s not scary. Second of all there’s too much talking about bullshit. And lastly the explanation of why this is happening, while can be satisfactory, is so standard, boring and dull it makes me wonder why the fuck did they make this movie at all in the first place. But there are some good elements too, especially the very ending (last scene) in which I said to myself “Oh now I get it, that’s clever”. Too bad the rest wasn’t. They tried that trick of pretending to have a deep story and atmosphere like many other american movies try to do, but failed miserably. +1 for the last scene and +1 for the basics. I’m not really satisfied. It’s almost like a teen movie with slightly older people.

Rating:
Oh, the Swedes! We’ve got so many nice stereotypes about them don’t we? Depressed, hard drinking, a bit odd. This movie uses some of them to show how difficult their lives must be in the dark and cold most of the year. Well, I’ve been there and it’s not as depressing as portrayed (if at all) but who cares. Stereotypes are there for a reason So here’s a Swedish horror movie that made it pretty high in the overall 2008 charts. Why?

Well for starters it’s a good movie. It has some slow, boring parts that might as well could’ve been cut off from it but overall it’s good. Really good. It’s dense, it’s different because the culture portrayed is different. And even though simple, the story is beautiful and at the same time inappropriate. Imagine two outsiders, 12 years old, that start to really like each other. One – Oskar – is a shy blond kid that get’s picked at at school by bullies. Just a quick note though, if those are bullies they should’ve seen Nelson Muntz. Because those bullies are kinda sissy. But I digress. His friend is Eli – a 12 year old girl that is a little weird – only comes out at night, never gets cold, is very agile and strong and to top it all off – drinks human blood to survive. Yeah, you’ve guessed it. She’s a vampire. The title strongly attaches itself to the legend that for a vampire to enter your home you must invite him first or he cannot cross the door.

Sure, human and vampire relationships have been overused a lot lately, especially in crappy movies like Twilight, but here all the fun stuff is because they’re 12 years old. Not yet teens, not kids anymore. And it’s not sexual or anything, it’s their way of learning a first ever relationship, but with some bloody details. This is fresh and new and it keeps the viewer hoping it’ll all be fine for them, even at the cost of more human lives. The only downside is that about 1/3 of the movie (a little here, a little there) gets a bit boring and slow paced. But it’s a fair price to pay for the experience and a good sign that non-american, deeper horror movies have a chance in the box office.

What totally sucks though is that there’s gonna be a hollywood remake of it in 2010. Yeah, that’s bad news.

Rating:
So here’s the deal. A phone rings, showing it’s your friend that had died before, and it leaves you a voicemail. The voicemail is oddly dated – in the future, usually a few days from the call. When you listen to it you hear your own voice talking and then screaming, and then you die. This is basically the story of this movie, a chain of voicemail messages leading to the main character receiving the call as well and trying to overcome it. What’s good about it is that for a japanese remake it doesn’t scream hollywood all over. The acting is good enough, not great but pretty much standard. Some of the spooky, scary scenes are a bit funny (you’ll see why when you watch it) and generally it uses the same technique of sudden movements, but with some nice twists to it. Not a great thing, but decent enough.

Rating:
The SAW series have been going downhill since the first, great and innovative one. Sure it had acting that would’ve been better if performed by a wooden chair, but still it was fresh, new and had that “something” that probably made the producers realize they need more SAW, and people realize that they love it. So what’s up with V ? Well for starters – the idea to continue a horror movie where the villain is dead and even dissected is quite cool. It gives (or at least tries) the movie depth that’s much needed in this genre full of cliche teen movies. So yeah, Jigsaw is dead and his work is carried on by his disciple Mark Hoffman. And sure we have some basic SAW stuff – like the disgusting / scary beginning that’s a must in every part of the series. The rest is progressively worse, still has some nice touches and shows that the story can be carried on, even though it’s getting inconsistent with itself at times. But hey, it’s hard to write good scripts y’know!

What is wrong with this movie is probably the directing. The camera actions are slow,shaky and often unnecessary. There’s a lot of visual chaos and not much to back it up. The story parts are kinda boring and uninteresting, so many people take the time to get some more popcorn during those. On the other hand the “scary” scenes due to bad montage and poor camera work are pretty standard most of the time. It’s far from being innovative. And we’d expect a series like that to be. We really, really do. Let’s hope for a better part IV. This I consider a missed opportunity.

Rating:
First I’ve seen the trailer. Then I thought: hey! that might be a good one. Then I saw Daybreakers and my hopes were shattered. So I figured that probably this one will be at least as “normal” and “clean” and “corny” as the former. Well not exactly. Sure some of the characters and some special effects look VERY cheap, but at the same time it’s really not bad. The story is not too original, the apocalypse is coming, the angels are coming down to exterminate the humans, and one renegade angel protects a girl in labor, who’s child is supposedly the new savior. Well anyways…

It starts off with explosions and people on strings flying away, running on ceilings and all that. But it progresses slowly into something maybe less scary but at the same time entertaining as the wait for what’s going to happen. Yeah it’s not really a scary movie, except probably for some sudden parts like jumping out with bloody teeth. But seriously it’s not a bad thriller for a hollywood one. Sure we know it’s dumbed down, and sure we know it’s made for a certain type of people but let’s forget about that and just indulge in this one. It’s entertainment. An action-thriller that doesn’t pretend to be deep. And that’s probably it’s biggest advantage. The ending is kinda typical, and basically this is nothing new. But the form winning over concept here doesn’t hurt your eyes so bad if you start to watch this without hoping for depth.

The Shining movie (1980)

Rating:

The Shining TV series (1997)

Rating:

The shining was an amazing book. It came from the days when Stephen King cared about writing amazing books more than receiving amazing paychecks. But anyway, it was only a matter of time before someone decided to cash in on the idea and make a movie. Luckily it was Stanley Kubrick and that name, even if controversial, proved that it will either be a masterpiece or a piece of crap. Personally I think it’s the former, and Jack Nicholson really shined in this one. But mr. King didn’t think so. In fact he apparently hated the movie and decided to do it his own way. This time as a four-piece television series, with “the guy from Wings” as the psycho-father.

Generally each one has it’s fans, and sure the special effects are a little bit better in the more recent tv series, but it is lacking one thing that made the first movie a masterpiece. Sure the autistic boy is pretty much the same, and they had a prettier mom in the tv show. But in no way “the guy from Wings” can compare to good ol’ Jack. While his performance was surprisingly good for a sitcom actor, it was nowhere near the awesomeness of Jack. Sorry.

And don’t be fooled. This movie is about the father character and father character only. His slow decline into madness and imaginary alcohol abuse is the basis of the transformation from a loving father into an axe swingin’ monster. Both movies deliver, but one delivers the experience, while the other is just a decent movie and nothing more. The plot is almost the same except for the ending, but the tv show looks like any other thing. And seeing Jacks manic face through the broken door is one of those moments that became known as “classics” and for a reason!

Rating:
Allright. What do we get when we take Stephen King’s “Misery” and combine it with a teen movie and a small town? Well we get exactly “Homecoming”, the (now almost) new Mischa Barton movie. Basically a guy comes back to his hometown from school with his new girlfriend. He doesn’t realize that his old highschool sweetheart was a psycho who gatheres all of his pictures and sleeps in his old socks or whatever. So the fact that a new girl is now with her dream guy makes her go insane and well, since it’s a “Misery” kinda thing the bad one kidnaps the good one. That’s basically it. Of course there are cliches (aside from the mere fact it’s not a very original script) and stuff like “evil people don’t stay dead for long” can apply to this movie too.

But for a teen movie that is not actually that bad. The teens are not as annoying as usual, and the acting is pretty good. Too bad the plot is so repetitive. You’ve seen it. Probably a couple times over.

Rating:
Every event has a beginning. Every monster has a birth. Every bla bla bla … Well ok… So take an educated guess on where had our favorite leather-faced anti-hero was born. Let’s see… A slaughter house? Bingo!
It’d been a bit more entertaining if he was born in a normal, healthy family and something went terribly wrong. But no. He was born in slaughterhouse, was ugly and was thrown into the dumpster to be found by a hillbillie woman living just outside of town in a familiar two story white house with rectangular pillars on the front. Good thing Tobe Hooper was involved in this one, that’s probably why it didn’t go all cheesy and teen-drama way. Sure there are teens (or early 20′s, who cares) on the road in 1969. They travel through the town and well they’re forced to stay there against their will for the family to enjoy a nice dinner. So what’s good and what’s bad?

The good thing is that it’s a little scary and really tense – the feel of inevitability is all around, and the canibal family even though not the smartest of them all, seem to have the control of the situation all the time. Also the general atmosphere and the dark shots are a nice thing. Plus for the characters too, they’re a colorful bunch and not as annoying as in most horror movies. Also the absurdity of it all makes it a little scary in that non-comprehensible kinda way. The tea party scene is a fine example of that.

Now the bad things : First of all the fact that some side-stories are not followed (you’ll know when you see it) and it almost screams to show more of those stories to have a richer, fuller experience. Second of all – yeah, they use the technique of “sudden jump out from somewhere” here too.

But generally it’s a pretty good movie and you should keep an eye on this. Americans tend to make crappy horrors like 60% of the time, so when stumbling across the remaining 40 I do notice. And since those movies are made especially to appeal to our culture (or mine to be precise) I do like ‘em when they’re good. And this is not bad. Worth a watch.

Rating:
Whoa! Koreans! Can’t remember if I’ve ever watched a korean horror movie before. I did see oldboy and the rest of the series and was amazed by how well those movies were all made. Beautiful, mysterious (well to me at least) and well made with attention to detail. So I figured their film business is pretty strong. After watching “The Host” I can only confirm that. The story is pretty simple, a little “slow” guy lives in a food stand by the river with his father and his daughter, selling snacks to tourists. One day something comes out of the water and starts attacking people. That something is a 20 foot monster, and it kindaps the daughter of our “almost-hero”. He doesn’t give up on her and decides to go look for her acompanied by his father, his brother and his sister. Of course there’s a government hunt, a quarantine, a possibility of a deadly virus and so forth. And to make things more interesting ‘Kwan’ – the main character – falls asleep a lot, is not at all talkative and for the whole movie seems dellusional, as if he’s somewhere else in his head.

What drives him is the love he has for his daughter and that drives him to be heroic. Sure, it’s simple, but it works. It really does, even with the dubbed version that I saw, the acting is really great. It makes the story believable on some levels and that counts. Sure it’s cheesy sometimes, sometimes even weird. But those are probably the cultural differences so it’s not necessarily a bad thing.

The visual effects are from an american studio, and they’re ok. The monster is “ugly enough”, agile enough and it doesn’t look like cheap CGI. Although it does look like H.R.Giger should’ve participated because it doesn’t really have that “evil” feel to it. But that’s not the point. The monster is just a way of showing the obstacles a man has to face to get to the one person he cares about. And people do him more harm than the monster itself (well aside from kidnapping his daughter – obviously). I recommend it. Not quite a horror since it’s a mix of genres, but hey, the monsters are there, the drama, and a well developed plot + good acting. Oh and it’s fresh! Super fresh after oh so many teen-horrors and girls naked in the shower asking “is anyone out there?”. Thumbs up!

Rating:
I remember, years ago when I first heard the title “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” I chuckled for a bit. What a funny, straightforward name to call a movie. But the more I found out about it the more I realized that it was a film that defined a large part of the genre, and gave the future filmmakers a whole lotta ideas. Tobe Hooper’s debut in 1974 was a shocking, yet very original gore experience, that many, many others copied later on. Basically the story back then was that on the outskirts of texas (hence the name) a canibal family hunts down some unexpecting people. Of course it was 1974 and texas was a desolate, lonely deserted place, sort of like a post-apocalyptic wasteland, you know. So no authorities really bothered to investigate it for a long, long time. The most important guy in the family was a guy wearing a mask made from human skin, called “leatherface” who had a liking to the chainsaw, especially when it came to cutting people up. I can see he wasn’t so keen to chop down the firewood, but hey, as long as he brought the stew home he was allright.

So now, 30 something years later some teens (yeah, I know) are traveling through texas (like they had nothing better to do) and they stumble upon probably the only “normal” (if you can call it that) person from that family. And right after they meet the startled girl, she pulls out a gun, blows her brains out and leaves them terrified, thinking how will they ever clean the car now. If I was there I’d tell them to watch Pulp Fiction and call Mr. Wolf to help out, since it worked out pretty well there. And they might catch a human hamburger on their way home. But I digress. So what happens here is of course the kids are hunted down and eaten by the family members, mainly the guy with the chainsaw. There’s blood, there’s gore. There are of course those “unexpected moments” when we expect something scary to happen, like someone’s coming, or whatever and it turns out to be someone harmless. On the other hand we have plenty of bloody chainsaws, rusty hooks and other stuff that canibal-mutant-hillbillies love and cherish.

Oh and the kids trying to escape / stay alive. How it turns out I won’t tell you, but what’s good about it – aside from it being another teen horror – is that it’s not as stupid as most of those. It has some suspense, nice action, some really nice escape sequences and can get scary at times. So yeah, it’s a good remake and it pays the right tribute to the original from 1974. But I wonder how did they all survive out there in texas for 30 years, I mean come on, is eating human flesh making you immortal ? Well, too bad I’m a vegetarian. Enjoy!