Showing posts with label Horror Film. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Horror Film. Show all posts

Review: Occupant (2011)

Occupant (2011)
Director: Henry Miller
Writer: Jonathan Brett
Stars: Van Hansis. Cody Horn, Thorsten Kaye



Occupant begins with the death of an old woman in her apartment. She shakes around, gasps, coughs, and finally kicks the bucket.  We have our title and credits on display and the movie begins to chug along.  The scene isn’t particularly frightening, in fact, it's pretty goofy. 

The setup goes as such; the old woman’s grandson, Danny, arrives to confirm the death of his long estranged grandmother.  When, at her apartment, he discovers that it's rent controlled on the lease and obscenely cheap, considering it has 3 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, living room, dinning room, and a kitchen.  Or, we’re told that’s how big it is; we hardly see more than 4 rooms the whole time.  

The, at first, apprehensive and grumpy Danny is told that if he can stay in the apartment for 12 days without leaving he becomes the lease holder in the eyes of the law and it remains rent controlled.  Once he finds out… he still doesn’t seem to really give a damn.  Until the aggressively friendly doorman and lawyer convince him he should stay… hell they even make arrangements for him, deliver his food, and help him avoid being kicked out.  The entire plot relies on a New York doorman and a New York lawyer selflessly trying to get a 20 something guy a nice apartment on the cheap.  Next time I go house hunting, I want that kind of representation.  Yet this guy kind of treats them like shit anyways.  He’s such a passive character he even starts painting the apartment and stops after like 3 minutes, leaving a few red blotches for the whole movie, which makes it just that much more a chore to get through.

- Sir anything you need, I will get you.
- Hey f*ck off man, don’t be pressuring me into the best situation ever.


Danny’s also got himself a sexy, blonde, web stalker, she first appears when Danny’s on the way to his grandma.  She videotapes him and follows him around a bit before they flirt.  She comes back again, because we need a female presence in the movie, saying she tricked the doorman into letting her in. It’s not creepy because A. She’s hot.  B. She has whiskey.  They hang out, have dinner, have sex, and then she films herself going through all his stuff, for her “stalk blog.” She treats it like an episode of “MTV Room Raiders” but… it’s not his stuff… it’s his dead grandmother’s…ok.
           
- Hey how’d you know where I lived?
We only met once, when you told me you run a “stalk blog.”
- Don’t worry about that, I’m pretty.
I’m just here to judge you based on this dead lady's stuff.


Occupant sets up a lot of potential scares and even more possible resolutions as Danny slowly goes unhinged.  Is the building owner trying to scare him away?  Is the doorman preparing to kill him?  Is it all a plot by stalker-cam girl? Is there a monster in the closet?  Is the apartment haunted? However, what the movie fails to see is setting up all these scary possibilities doesn’t actually make it scary.  Especially when the protagonist has no desire to actually do anything.  It would be scarier if something started to actually happen. Instead, we have a repeat of the stalker girl set up.  Someone comes to the door, we build to a scare, and we cut away to the next day. 

Sure, there are a few good moments. A dark figure standing in the background here or there is actually pretty spooky. Watching a totally unhinged Danny build death traps near the end is pretty fun, because he is actually doing something proactive.  The atmosphere built in the apartment is decent, and the film is shot better than it has any right to be.  There’s just barely enough good to make you sit through it thinking there will be a decent pay off.  But… no… they even tell you the ending right as Danny starts to hit on his stalker girl.  Sadly. It turns out Danny was just crazy!

I don’t know why I even bothered to think otherwise.

After Danny’s suicide by a door filled with nails… yeah that happened and it was hilarious and awful. We watch a new family move into the apartment.  We can only assume that it’s no longer rent controlled.  A little kid finds stalker girl's camera (which was left there because?) and watches the footage and what he sees is terrifying.  No, it’s not the sex tape they made. Just footage of Danny killing and hiding the girl’s dead body!  Then the door buzzer rings and the kid looks at the door in fear.  We close the movie. 

The movie leaves so many unanswered questions, sets up so many cool little things, and then fails to deliver on any of it.  Outside of a few cool shots and the doorman’s funny facial hair there is nothing redeeming about this movie.  Just skip it.

Hello, I’m your friendly doorman… and this is my mustache. 


- Will Woolery

Review: Elevator (2011)

Elevator (2011)
Director: Stig Svendsen



Elevator is the story of nine strangers trapped inside an elevator. They are all going to a party for an announcement of the retirement of the CEO, who happens to be on the elevator. It is revealed that one of them has a bomb strapped to her. She is seeking revenge against the CEO. Then she dies. Most of the film is about the characters trying to figure out how to get off the elevator before the bomb goes off.

This could have been an interesting interplay between characters from different socioeconomic backgrounds. Instead, it's an uninteresting, flat story about people stuck in an elevator. In contrast to a film like Devil, (2010, directed by John Erick Dowdle) which is a great suspense story set inside an elevator, this film fails to capitalize on its claustrophobic setting. An interesting cast of characters portrayed by some good actors, never get the chance to break out of stereotypical roles. There is the racist comedian, the rich old white man, and the nice overweight guy.

The storyline of the bomber could have been explored to create more suspense. However, once we learn the bomber's identity, the film loses its momentum. It then turns to gore and blood for shock value. You don't care about any of the people stuck in the elevator, with the exception of the one who is pregnant. You don't feel any sense of doom or urgency with the ticking clock. What could have been a study in themes such as corporate greed, racism, and infidelity, instead fails to be anything more than a boring retread of other movies you've seen before.


There is one reference in the film to Lifeboat (1944, Directed by Alfred Hitchcock). That film also had a group of strangers trapped in a small space with one of them harboring a dark secret. Written by John Steinbeck, it's a great example of a psychological thriller that takes place in one location. See that instead.

- Peter Browne

Review: American Mary (2012)

American Mary (2012)
Directors: Jen Soska, Sylvia Soska
Writers: Jen Soska, Sylvia Soska
Stars: Katharine Isabelle, Antonio Cupo, Tristan Risk



American Mary tells the story of a young med student desperate to make money. It's a relatable premise about a woman trying to make ends meet. Mary interviews for a job as a stripper and instead ends up getting offered $5,000 to stitch up a guy who's been badly injured. While she is initially terrified, she performs the surgery. She returns home, horrified by what he has done. The next day, she is offered more money by a stripper for a body modification operation. Mary gets invited to a party that one of her professors is having. There, she is drugged and raped. The story then turns in a different direction when she has her rapist teacher kidnapped. She performs multiple surgeries on him. She drops out of med school, goes into business on her own as a body modification surgeon, and continues to hold hostage and operate on her professor.

Mary, played by Katherine Isabelle, gives a great, confident, sarcastic and scary performance. She is often clad in black leather and lace; think Betty Page meets Dr. Kevorkian.  However, we never really discover much about her character other than that she has a grandmother who dies. We don't learn who she is or what she wants, other than revenge. While the film has its moments, ultimately the story falls short of satisfying the expectations it sets.  There are several characters and scenes reminiscent of David Lynch or The Wachowski siblings, but there's a lot of noir-ish style and not enough substance.

After Mary kills a security guard who discovers her hostage, the film toys with the idea of turning Mary into a villain. There's also a storyline with a detective on her case that felt rushed. The film tries to tell several stories that don't all get resolved, and the ending feels rushed. It does, however, have a good mix of dark humor and gore, and features a powerful female protagonist, often absent in modern horror films. 

- Peter Browne





Visit Peter's Website

Review - Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986)


Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986)
Released September 1990
Director: John McNaughton

We live in a society where culturally our entertainment has a lot of violence in it; (this coming from a horror film reviewer...) but often times the violence in film and television is toned down to a quick punch in the face or it is completely absurd and the blood pours down the screen. We watch horror films to feel a sense of danger, shock, or just to get our adrenaline pumping, but rarely has there ever been a film filled with such hopelessness as Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer.

Whenever someone tells me that they are desensitized to violence, I tell them to watch Henry, because even the most desensitized film goer will shut up and respect the sheer realism that Henry provides. Simply put: Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer is a brilliant film, but it is NOT a fun film. Nothing is sugar-coated, cartoonish or absurd. The character of Henry shares many biographical concurrences with real-life serial killer Henry Lee Lucas. Director John McNaughton makes clear in the beginning of his film that it is based more on Lucas' violent fantasies and confessions, rather than the crimes for which he was convicted; however, this fantastical portrait of Lucas’ life takes nothing away from this truly bleak film.

We are immediately introduced to Henry as a killer and follow him throughout his daily routine. No mention is given to any police inquiries and Henry is oblivious to any notion of avoiding capture or covering his tracks. Much of the film's power comes from this nonchalant approach, whereby, if a person doesn't register that something he is doing is wrong, then it quickly becomes almost acceptable. We then meet Henry’s roommate Otis (who later joins Henry on his murderous rampage) and Otis’ sister Becky, who’s coming from out of town for a visit. We watch as the movie slowly suffocates the viewer with countless murders, interwoven with a story of three tortured individuals trying to find some way of coping with one another. The film ends with no justice and no peace. Henry continues to drive around town and kill with no signs that he will eventually be captured.

Rooker, in the title role, is totally convincing and gives a performance free from the mannerism clichés which detract from more famous serial killer characters like Hannibal Lector (the film actually made me stop watching Dexter, simply because it changed the way I view serial killers) Almost equally disturbing is Tom Towles performance as the half-witted roommate Otis, who is used as some form of comic relief until you realize just how many people you’ve met in your life that share some of Otis’ tendencies.

Everything about Henry: Portrait of A Serial Killer feels genuine. Its low budget makes it feel homemade (shot on 16mm and only had a $110,000 budget) and the relationship between the characters is so downplayed by (then) unknown actors that everything feels real, which of course makes it scarier. Some films will scare you with monsters or graphically showing a kill, but I don’t think the murders are what makes Henry such a horrifying film. I think it’s simply the atmosphere painted across its entire landscape that brings viewers to the brink of terror.

SPOILERS:
Scariest Scene: Henry gets a bottle to the face from Otis and right as he’s about to kill Henry, Becky stabs Otis in the eye. In any other horror film, this may have just been another stabbing, but the sheer tension this film provides makes this scene truly unforgettable. (With help from the soundtrack, which is arguably the best in any horror film)

- Andrew Megow

Review: Dark Night Of The Scarecrow (1981)

Dark Night of the Scarecrow 
(1981 TV Movie)
Director: Frank De Felitta




I first saw Dark Night of the Scarecrow on TV, when I was a little kid, at a sleep-over in the early 80s.  With the lights turned out and snacks on hand, the next 2 hours of supernatural and suspense became the talk at recess for months to come.  And like any childhood fad, the movie was quickly forgotten.  Recently, when I finally scored myself a low-quality copy off the internet, I hoped I was going to be treated with sweet nostalgia, and not be faced with destroying another childhood memory.  I mean come on, what good has ever come out of a made-for-TV movie?

Dark Night of the Scarecrow is directed by novelist Frank De Felitta (author of Audrey Rose and The Entity) and is credited as the first killer scarecrow movie that started the quasi-popular sub-genre. Until this title, a horror movie that featured a scarecrow as its centerpiece simply did not exist.  You could say it led way to other scarecrow movies like Scarecrows (1988), Jeepers Creepers (2001), and Hallowed Ground (2007).

Set in a small farming community, it centers on Otis Hazlerigg (Charles Durning) the town’s postmaster.  He deems Bubba (Larry Drake, Darkman and Dr. Giggles), a large, gentle, mentally challenged man, a danger and a menace. Bubba’s innocent childlike friendship with 10-year-old Marylee (Tonya Crowe) is something he especially deplores. 

When word goes around that Marylee was attacked by a dog and is presumably dead, Otis takes immediate action with his three friends to hunt down Bubba.  Bubba runs home and his mother hides him in a scarecrow costume in the middle of a field.  When the hounds track him down, Otis and his pals mercilessly gun him down.  Before the gun smoke even settles, they learn that Marylee is still alive, and that Bubba actually rescued her.  Great big oops.  Otis places a pitchfork in Bubba’s dead hand and fabricates a story that he tried to attack them with it.  Using this lie in court, Otis and the three are released due to lack of evidence against them.

Following the trial, members of the vigilante group start getting killed one by one by what appears to be accidents.  Before each death, the men claim sightings of the same scarecrow mysteriously appearing on their property.  For Otis, the pressure is on to find out who is responsible before he’s ultimately targeted.  Is it the district attorney looking for justice because they were let off the trial so easily?  Is Bubba’s mother avenging her dead son?  What of Marylee who says Bubba is not dead, but is hiding?  Or could it be Bubba himself from beyond the grave?

Because this title was made for TV in the 80s, it didn’t (or couldn’t) rely on violence, gore, or big special effects.  The strength of the movie is in its simple storytelling, simple filmmaking and fantastic performances from the cast.  Although most deaths are off-screen with minimal blood, the movie still offers a great air of suspense and even includes a spooky midnight grave digging scene (who doesn’t love those!) and a climactic chase in a pumpkin field.


With expectations set on nil, when I rewatched this childhood favorite 30+ years later, I was pleasantly surprised to take a break from the oversaturated bombardment of annoying teen celebrities, blaring pop music, and mediocre CG gore effects. 

- Frank Fu