STAGE FRIGHT will make your ears bleed

RATED- R
RUN TIME- 89 Mins
WRITER(S)- Jerome Sable, and Eli Batalion
STARRING- Minnie Driver, Meat Loaf, and Allie MacDonald
DIRECTOR- Jerome Sable



Synopsis taken from IMDb
A snobby musical theater camp is terrorized by a blood-thirsty killer who hates musical theater.




Having never seen Alfred Hitchcock's 1950 original film of the same title, I had little to go on and had almost no expectations going into this version of "Stage Fright". I watched a trailer for it when I saw it was on VOD, and that was enough to get me to pay to see it.

From the start, there's a brutal kill right at the beginning before the opening credits. The nature of the kill is sheer brutality, the sound effects, the blood, and the ruthlessness shown in the kill told me all I needed to know about this film: that it has an edge.

I'm not opposed to musicals, I actually like a lot of musical plays and films. So, all the singing didn't disturb me. I've heard this film described as "Sleepaway Camp" meets "Glee", which is an appropriate comparisson since it's a musical at a camp. But, I'd say it's more "Scream" meets "Glee", because rather than try to be scary, it comes off more cool than anything. One thing that is positively established in this film, is the feeling of an 80's slasher flick. Coming off like a modernized 80's era stabathon film, I still wasn't convinced that it was going to be a movie I'd enjoy due to how quirky it is. And we all know that the term '80's slasher' can be a good or bad thing.

Camilla Swanson (Allie MacDonald) is a cook at a musical theater camp, with her brother, Buddy (Douglas Smith). The camp itself is sinking, on the verge of bankruptcy. The stage producer, Roger McCall (Meatloaf) decides that in order to save the camp, he's going to bring back "The Haunting of the Opera", the same play that Camilla and Buddy's mother was murdered after debuting, 10 years ago. When Camilla hears that they're going to be bringing the musical back for a revival (this time a kabuki version), she auditions and gets the role after some despute with the director. Although Camilla thinks she's doing a good deed and honoring her mother, Buddy disagrees and doesn't think she should do it.

The director of the musical, Artie (Brandon Uranowitz) basically sexually harasses the females and blackmails them in order to pick which lady he wants to be the face of the musical. What aggravates me about this scenario is that no one ever says anything to him about it. They all just deal with it and act like they have to do as he says or else. Somehow the characters forgot they're only doing a small-time gig, and act like Artie's a big shot. When really he's the director of a camp musical. This got a "wtf" reaction out of me because these girls let this crude guy walk all over them and use them for the sake of a damn summer musical at a camp full of nobodys. So I find it unrealistic that their reactions are anything but cussing Artie out. These girls must have really been desperate otherwise...

While it's intentional, characters like Artie are all around the cast, making most of the cast instantly unlikable. And it kept me hoping that the lot of them would meet the blade of the killer (laugh). Without hardly any characters to back or support aside from Camilla and Buddy, I was taken out of the movie, and it lessened my experience watching it. And, my fiance pointed out a very funny element that somehow slipped my vision: most of the cast wears the same clothes the entire film! Guess everyone forgot their changes of clothes due to all the excitement of going to summer camp. Either way, small details like that irk me. But, I think that I was trying too hard to stay interested in the film to notice that detail on my own.

Now, let me talk about the killer. Whenever he shows up, the movie turns into a heavy metal horror musical! The lyrics are silly, but the music is enjoyable. He's twisted, violent, vicious, brutal, and relentless. However, the more I saw of the killer, the more ridiculous I thought he was. At one point he even gets out a guitar and solos in front of a victim before murdering them. Such goofy things don't really do anything for me but annoy me. He's very choreographed and stylized in his movements, making him an unrealistic character. As I said before, this movie tries to come off as cool more than anything. And I noticed that two saw-like weapons he uses are actually the tops of cans, which I actually laughed at. Had the killer been not as over-the-top as he was I probably could have appreciated that aspect.

Although several people are killed off, the play must go on, right? Right. With the impending doom of the killer showing up and killing Camilla like her mother, she still goes on stage and performs. The plot twist/killer reveal is easily predictible and nothing unconventional, but again you can smell the 80's slasher element this movie has. There's a secondary plot twist that I didn't find so predictible, but it's pretty flat. Once it's out in the open it doesn't do anything but make this movie mediocre at best.

There's some good, creative kills and gore. But I expected the quality of the movie to overall be higher. The movie climax is good, but nothing memorable. Ultimately the only thing that I can say is that I'm not impressed, but it's worth a watch.

Catch it now on VOD or get to the theater May 9th to check it out.

2.5 stars out of 5

ROBOCOP isn't the same machine

RATED- R
RUN TIME- 117
WRITER(S)- Joshua Zetumer, Edward Neumeier, and Michael Miner
STARRING- Joel Kinnaman, Gary Oldman, and Michael Keaton
DIRECTOR- Jose Padila



Synopsis taken from IMDb
In 2028 Detroit, when Alex Murphy - a loving husband, father and good cop - is critically injured in the line of duty, the multinational conglomerate OmniCorp sees their chance for a part-man, part-robot police officer. 




I'm going to start off this review by stating that unlike most people, I do not hold the original 1987 "Robocop" in high regard. I mean, I like it, but it's no "The Terminator". So, going into viewing this, I wasn't worried about them sullying a film that I hold in high regard. I was however, completely turned off by the black suit. Even I was face-palming at how they made Robocop look like Cobra Commander from the awful "G.I. Joe" films that have came out as of late.

Like most reboots and remakes, there's things I like and dislike about this telling of the tale. I think that they were on the right track with the idea but, about halfway through the film, it seems it was just pieced together however it would fit. And of course, like most movies nowadays, there was little-to-zero character development. I appreciate the fact that they tried to give backstory with Alex Murphy and his family, but it wasn't enough to ever make me really care for the character. I was just looking for cool effects about midway through, when I gave up on the story improving.

In all actual truth, I don't think that there are many things that this movie improved on aside from the design of the suit, and the special effects and cgi. There's more negative to say than positive. Such as, Joel Kinnaman doesn't do as good of a job playing the half-man, half-machine cop as well as Peter Weller once did. However, I think part of that has to do with how the story seemed to rush any emotional scenes, so I blame the writing, not the acting. Had there really been time invested in getting to know the character, I might have said otherwise.

"Robocop" also seems to be a bit dulled down, besides having a cool looking suit (when it's not black). He just didn't come off as much of a bad-ass as he did in the 1987 movie. He isn't as tough or resistant, and his fighting isn't as impressive. He tends to need more help, and is hurt easily. I figured it was because in modernizing the film, they wanted to ground it and make it as realistic as possible. But, it didn't better the film. It took the some fun out of it to be honest.

I really enjoyed seeing Michael Keaton playing a villain. Hell, I've always liked Keaton. But even he couldn't save this film from becoming just another popcorn flick for the kids to watch. See, I don't mind that it's not taken seriously, and I don't mind it being a popcorn flick, but when the original motion picture is a serious Terminator-esque R rated picture, it really pales in comparison.

The movies main twist isn't nearly as impactful, and it's not as political or meaningful as a film overall. The deception angle is weak, and it just came off as too easy and simple. There was no complexity to anything, it is just cut and dry, fun. Nothing more. I find this an unnecessary reboot for such a mediocre story. Should have left "Robocop" series sleeping until something better came along as a worthy reason of awakening it.

So, aside from the fact that I can say "hey, that was a fun movie. Cool effects and some good laughs", there's nothing to praise this movie for. I remained entertained, but that's not nearly enough.

2 out of 5 stars

OLDBOY (2013)

RATED- R
RUN TIME- 104 Mins
WRITER(S)- Garon Tsuchiya, Nobuaki Minegishi, and Mark Protosevich
STARRING- Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Olsen, and Samuel L. Jackson
DIRECTOR- Spike Lee



Synopsis taken from IMDb
Obsessed with vengeance, a man sets out to find out why he was kidnapped and locked into solitary confinement for 20 years without reason. 



Now, being fair, I'm not going to do as some movie critics do and judge the film at hand on how much they like/dislike the director. In this case, Spike Lee being widely disliked for many reasons was, I believe, the reason for so many bad reviews for this flick. Being totally unbiased as usual, I can admit that the guy makes good movies, so my personal feelings towards him don't effect my opinion of his films.

It took me at least two viewings of the original Korean "Oldboy" before I got its appeal. Now, I'm a fan of the movie, like most. But, it took a little getting used to for me. However, since I've grown to like the original movie, it made it really easy for me to like this American remake, since it stays very true to the first film. But, there are differences, and some of them aren't for the better.

One of the things that made the 2003 motion picture so interesting  to me, was the revenge element. I'm not a fan of torture films typically, but there are exceptions. And I really enjoyed watching the vengeance part, and seeing the truth be chipped away at. However, what I didn't like about the original Korean film was the incest. In fact, it's the reason I had to watch the film a few times before I was able to soften up to it and see what all the hype was about.

Funny thing is, in this rendition of the story, Joe Doucett (Josh Brolin) really doesn't get a good and healthy overdose of revenge. The hammer scene isn't as impactful, and is totally changed for that matter. I was expecting to see teeth being pried out, like in the other version. But nope, not this time. Instead, the torture is dulled down to a bare minimum, but still enough to keep me watching. Where things really got out of hand in my book, was the incest. And I thought the family relations in the original film were bad!

Turns out, they upped the incest element by a lot. They dulled down the torture and gore, as I stated above, and really went for the gross strings with the incest. So, the things that I liked about the 2003 Korean film are completely flip-flopped in this one. There's hardly any torture, which disappoints me. And the fact that this film seems to be made solely for the shock value by raising the stakes of the family "bonding" seriously takes the wind out of my sails.

I will give it the credit of never getting boring, or dragging out too long. That was a main concern of mine. I didn't want it to really lack in things that the original didn't. Luckily it dodged this bullet and managed to keep me entertained the entire time. Only thing is, I was hoping to be excited, not just entertained. It doesn't take long before it picks up and throws you in the middle of things, and I do like that. Now, if only this flick had some meat on the bone, instead of just bone, we would have really been onto something.

On the other hand, the acting was very well executed. Josh Brolin, Samuel L. Jackson, Elizabeth Olsen, and Sharlto Copley give top-notch performances that are definitely worth remembering. It's a powerhouse of acting, for a story that needs to have it's balls reattached.

With this film not having the guts it needs to pull off such a twisted and demented story, it ends up being ridiculed by fans of the Korean film. And to be honest, I can't really defend it, nor will I. Even though I enjoyed the film, I didn't love it. So, I'm going to give it a passing grade, but I'm not going to act like it deserves a great rating, because it doesn't. Sad thing is, it really is one of the better American remakes! Still not impressed.

3 out of 5 stars

CARRIE is a bloody mess

RATED- R

RUN TIME- 100 MINS

WRITER(S)- LAWRENCE D. COHEN AND ROBERTO AGUIRRE-SACASA 

STARRING- CHLOE GRACE MORETZ, JULIANNE MOORE, AND GABRIELLE WILDE
DIRECTOR- KIMBERLY PEIRCE



Synopsis taken from IMDb
A re-imagining of the classic horror tale about Carrie White, a shy girl outcast by her peers and sheltered by her deeply religious mother, who unleashes telekinetic terror on her small town after being pushed too far at her senior prom.

Almost everyone knows about "Carrie" and how the story plays out. If by chance you're not knowledgeable of the tale, I advise you to not read this review. I'm going to specifically mention things that may ruin it for anyone not familiar with the content.

For starters, Kimberly Peirce, the director of 1999's controversial film "Boys Don't Cry", and most recently, "Stop-Loss" (2008), took on the task of directing this re-imagining of the bloody tale. I find it only fitting that this movie is directed by a female, honestly. From where I'm coming from, I would think that logically, having a woman behind the camera could help put a new sense of realism and urgency to the situations at hand. That's what I thought, anyway...

The first thing that stood out to me was how everything is modernized. I expected it to be done, and I'm glad that it wasn't overdone. The girls locker room scene being uploaded on YouTube is a nice touch, and definitely sets the movie up right. However, aside from this flick being successfully placed in modern time, there's not much else it exceeds at. In fact, it comes up short in a lot of ways.

Such as, Carrie (Chloe Grace Moretz) and her relationship with her mother, Margaret White (Julianne Moore) is totally disappointing and flawed. I understand the need for a new take on the situation, but I'm not too happy with how this was done. From the go, Carrie is defiant and back talks her mom. The relationship between these two characters is the foundation of the entire story. So to have Carrie not be submissive and scared of Margaret doesn't work. I guess, to put it more simply, Carrie is too lively and not beaten down enough.

Not to mention, after Carrie realizes her abilities and overuses them to death, she uses them on her mom to basically throw her around and control her. Taking the control out of Margaret's hands and giving it to Carrie is a big mistake. The character of Carrie doesn't work as a strong and empowered person, it kind of takes away the point of the revenge at the end. And she uses her telekinetic abilities so much, that if you don't know what's coming at the end of the movie, you can tell it's going to involve her powers. The payoff is null and void because of how fabricated and fake everything is made to seem.

I dislike her semi-friendship with Sue Snell (Gabriella Wilde) as well. What should have been a key relationship in the story felt flat and hollow, with no heart and soul. Completely unconvincing acting.

 Also, I really didn't like how the prom scene was executed. The setting looked good, and looked like a genuine school prom. I also like Carrie's relationship with Tommy Ross (Ansel Elgort), and the differences there. But, the way Carrie's revenge is done is just downright watered down and lame. First of all, I hated the movements she made when she was using her abilities against her schoolmates. I also dislike how she saved certain people from her reign of terror, such as Ms. Desjardin (Judy Greer).

I didn't feel the rage and hatred, and hurt. It wasn't authentic. Add to that, the worst thing of all about this flick is the fact that Carrie flies. I literally face-palmed myself in the theater! I found it utterly stupid. Doing something that has such a high cheese factor has to be done elegantly, and in a way to make it seem even less ridiculous. 

Overall, I didn't like the cast. This motion picture has the cast of a PG-13 movie. Everyone is so Hollywood and fake, none seem like real characters that you can relate to. I like Chloe Grace Moretz as an actress, but I feel that her talents were wasted in a film that she wasn't suitable for. Even though she's made to look homely, it still doesn't work because she's too attractive. 

All I can really say is that I'm disappointed like hell with this one. I had people telling me that it was going to "suck", but that's what everyone says when a remake is coming out. So, I went in with an open mind, expecting it to be good, hoping it to be good. And I came out extremely let down. Maybe, if this film were on it's own, and had no predecessor, I could like it. But, when you have an existing film done by the great Brian De Palma, I can't help but compare. 

I understand why this movie went in the direction it did. It was the only logical step to take in putting a new take on the story. However, there's hardly any worthy advancements, and what is there is forged and expected.

I would say that this is a remake of the original film, not a re-imagining. The De Palma film is a re-imagining of the book by Stephen King.

In the end, this is just another remake that doesn't live up to it's name. 

FRIGHT NIGHT 2: NEW BLOOD Is Not a Bite You Want

RATED- R
RUN TIME- 100 MINS
WRITER(S)- MATT VENNE
STARRING- WILL PAYNE, JAIME MURRAY, AND SEAN POWER
DIRECTOR- EDUARDO RODRIGUEZ 



Synopsis taken from IMDb
By day Gerri Dandridge is a sexy professor, but by night, she transforms into a real-life vampire with an unquenchable thirst for human blood. So when a group of high school students travel abroad to study in Romania, they find themselves ensnared in Gerri's chilling web of lust and terror. Charley and "Evil" Ed must stop Gerri from drinking and bathing in the blood of a "new moon virgin," which just so happens to be Charley's ex-girlfriend, Amy. They enlist help from Peter Vincent, the vampire hunting host of a reality show called "Fright Night," to drive a stake through Gerri's plan and save Amy from a fate far worse than death. 

The original "Fright Night" (1985) is my second favorite vampire film ever, has been since I can remember, right behind "The Lost Boys" (1987). I didn't mind the "Fright Night" remake back in 2011, either.Granted, it wasn't the original in any comparison, but they did a good job with keeping you entertained. It was a fun movie.

Much to my surprise, the new film, is more of a remake than a sequel. I did not know this, nor expect it. I saw the redband trailer a few months back, and that's all I knew going into it. And honestly, I was expecting good things, after being pleased with the remake. I knew by the trailer that this new movie was going to have some nods to the original, such as the vampire moving next door, and the lead  vampire's name being Gerri. I never thought this was going to be another retelling, and not a follow-up to the 2011 flick.

Truth be told, I knew I was in trouble within the first 10 minutes. There's a good jump before the opening credits, but after that, you can instantly see the change in quality it takes. When we get character time with Charley (Will Payne) and "Evil" Ed (Chris Waller), it's very clear the acting is poor, and not believable. The dialogue was almost as lacking as the performances. Right here, as I aforementioned, I knew I was in trouble.

Reason being; you can't set up a good story that's heavily character induced, when the actors and actresses can't pull the roles off. If they're laughable, and or unbelievable, than the whole feel of the film is shot to hell. Such is the case with this, unfortunately. I was even disappointed in Jaime Murray's acting as the lead vamp, Gerri Dandridge. 

I've somewhat followed her career after seeing her on season 2 of Showtime's "Dexter", which is my all-time favorite show. But, this movie isn't her best body of work...

With basically the whole premise of the original movie, from back in 1985, "Fright Night 2: New Blood" hardly offers up anything extra worth watching for. You know, I really hated Christopher Mintz-Plasse's "Evil" Ed, and compared to Chris Waller's version in the new movie, I'd kiss Mint-Plasse's feet. Not to mention the travesty that's become of a once iconic character, Peter Vincent...

The story, and character development are rushed. Now, couple that with the laughable, and or forgettable acting, and you see what a mess this film is. They tried to  go to new territories with making Gerri really be  Elizabeth Bathory, but it doesn't stick. It's not the right story, and it's not pulled off right. I think we're all overdue for a good horror film about Elisabeth Bathory. The 2006 flick, "Stay Alive" tried to make it happen, but much like this picture, didn't know how to properly execute a decent plot.

I'm overall very let down by this sequel/remake. There's nothing memorable about it, and quite frankly, I was happy when it ended. Other than some decent gore, there's nothing impressive offered. And the gore doesn't really mean anything with lazy makeup applications. I don't understand the point, purpose, or need for this film's existence. But, then again, it's not my place to say what films should and shouldn't get made. 

I can't say that if there's another installment in the "Fright Night" series that I'll be anxious to see it. Unless by some great power someone steps up to get the series back on track for a 3rd film, which I'm not holding my breath for. I actually would prefer the original "Fright Night: Part II" (1988), and I didn't even really like that one either!. "Fright Night 2: New Blood" is honestly just as bad as the "30 Days of Night" sequel. 

In the end, this motion picture goes into the bin of films this year that I'll never watch again. That about sums it up.

Top 5 Worst Horror Movie Remakes

In response to my popular post last week on the best horror movie remakes, I figured I'd do a follow-up. This time, talking about the worst horror remakes around. The ones that to me, don't offer anything new or creative, and don't do the originals justice. As always, when remakes are brought up, it's bound to draw attention in both the positive and negative. Remakes are the hardest thing for genre fans to agree or disagree on. I won't be surprised if many disagree with this list. I also won't be surprised if many agree.

Before you read this list, you should make sure and check out last weeks post first. Top 5 Horror Movie Remakes

The movies listed below are the worst of the worst. And yes, before anyone says anything, Rob Zombie's "Halloween" remake is on the list. I think Rob is more controversial and hated than remakes at times. I personally, don't have any issues with him, and I enjoy most of his work. However, his remake of the greatest horror film ever was atrocious to me, as is the sequel. There are worse remakes out there though, and there all here too.

1) One Missed Call (2008)

2) Day of the Dead (2008)

3) Prom Night (2008)

4) The Fog (2005)

5) Halloween (2007)

Top 5 Horror Movie Remakes

The picture above was something that I saw on Facebook the other day, and posted it on my Grimm Reviewz page. It got me thinking, and I thought that it'd make a good post. Especially since I'm not a remake hater like so many others are. I'm don't necessarily approve of them but, I'm not one to hate them before giving them a chance. And regardless of what others believe, there actually are some good ones out there. 

There's actually more than five that I can list but, five is a good number to stick with. The ones listed are ones that I not only thoroughly enjoy but, I consider to be better than their predecessors. I know remakes are controversial because loyal fans of the original films feel passionate about them, and don't want them remade. However, truth of the matter is, remakes can be really good. Below are my five choices, the ones that I consider the best, above and beyond. 

1) The Thing (1982)

2) The Fly (1986)

3) The Hills Have Eyes (2006)

4) The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)

5) Dawn of the Dead (2004)

Finally Speaking My Mind About "Evil Dead" (2013)

When the film hit in April, I went to a premiere screening of it. However, at that point I was taking a break from writing for a few months. So I never did a review for it. But I figured now, since it's been out a while and it hit home video, that I'd finally touch up on the subject of what is the remake of one of the biggest and most iconic horror films ever filmed.

The day of the premiere I had my close group of horror friends over, and we watched the original Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell trilogy and had a good ol' time. I don't think there's a chance of not having fun when you watch any or all of the original 3 films. Though 2 remains my favorite, they're all perfect in their own ways and for different reasons.

Before we left, I had to dress in fashion, so I got out my limited edition t-shirt of "Evil Dead 2" and headed to the event.

Watching the film, I remember feeling very tense and on edge, ready for anything to happen. I had a lot of hope going into the movie, and watching it was a thrill. I loved the way the possessed looked, they were creepy as hell! Definitely some scary makeup effects.

The violence and sheer brutality of the film had me guessing as to how it managed to get away with an R rating. Not to mention the gore! This has to be the goriest horror film I've seen in a cinema in a long time. Usually you don't get blood like that until the unrated version hits video.

Leaving the theater, the one part that stuck with me the most is the nail gun scene. That is the most terrifying scene in the film in my opinion, it is just non-stop, relentless terror. Then there's the bathroom scene with the syringe, which was the other part I kept thinking of. Once the scares started, they never really let up!

I felt something else leaving the theater as well; disappointment. Not because I disliked the film, but because aside from the 2 scenes I mentioned above (although I knew most of the bathroom scene already), all of the good parts of the film were already showed to us in the awesome red band trailers. So really, seeing the film was just filling in the gaps of what you weren't shown in the trailers. I remember thinking upon first viewing them, that if they let that much out in the commercials, what are they saving for us in the movie that they aren't showing us? And it was a letdown to find out that there really wasn't that much else to it. It would have been  much better had they not released all that footage and saved it, and I think it would have gotten even more positive reviews than it did.

There's two things that I really didn't like about the remake, and I'm not comparing it to the original when I say this, but I felt that the possessed were dulled down. I think for a remake you're supposed to go bigger and badder, and instead, they died way too easily. In the original film, you had to cut them up into pieces in order to stop them. Now in the is one, one of the possessed loses both her arms and dies. I don't like that. Being a balls-to-the-wall remake, they should have gone better and made the possessed even more resistant and unstoppable as opposed to making them easier to kill.

The other thing I disliked is the tree rape. I'm not sick or perverted, well, okay, maybe I am. But I'm not going to bash a film for having a bad rape scene, because saying there's such a thing as a good rape scene is a bit twisted. But, yet again, I felt that this was dulled down and lessened as well. Now that I've watched the film on my exclusive Target steelbook blu-ray 5 times since I bought it on it's release date, I realized that the branch that penetrates Mia is covered in thorns! This makes up for the scene being lackluster a bit, but it still could have been done better.

It wasn't really rape, it was just something that crawled insider her like a snake.

With these two major flaws, I know why that one critic said "A near perfect experience". It's very close to being a great film, it just doesn't deliver on all fronts like we were lead to believe it would. And something else that I thought that made the original superior was that, even though the remake had more of a story and character history to it than it's predecessor, there wasn't as many likable characters. If the film wasn't so short, it could have changed that by not feeling so rushed and allowing true character growth. Which is why so many of us crave for an unrated edition!

I know it seems as though I'm only mentioning things about the film that I don't like, but I actually loved the movie! As a stand alone film it's awesome, and it's a nice nod to the original and fits in with the series rather lovely. It's a modern day take on the original, and it's extreme. Overall I rate the film  3.5/5. And had there not been so many hiccups, I would have gladly given this film a 4. Remake or not, this is a real horror film, and we haven't had a movie like this that's mainstream in a long time.

As I mentioned above, this movie does have more story to it than the original 1981 film. It's not just some college kids going to hang out in a cabin, the 2013 version has a back story that's simple, yet relatable and fitting. One of the major things that I've heard people criticize the reboot for is that there's no character development which is false. And there's hardly any in the original, so to bash this one for being no different doesn't make a lot of sense.

People were really saying that horror is dead when they didn't like this remake, and they think they're being taken seriously when they say this. I'm convinced that some people only bash movies just because it gets them attention. To say a genre is dead over one film? Unheard of. And besides, most of the people who harshly criticize things and make idiotic statements are so used to giving out bad reviews that they don't even know a good film when they see it anymore.

For more on why and how horror isn't dead and never will be, read my critically appraised article for MoviePilot.com, that will about sum it up for you. Why some say Horror is Dead

Ultimately, this film is not the original. But guess what? It wasn't supposed to be! This is it's own film, and it's a really good one at that. Those who don't like it, and say that it ruined the integrity of the original need to pull their head out of their ass. Remakes don't tarnish originals, and if you don't like it, you don't like it.

Nobody's forcing it on you! Hell, I hated Rob Zombie's "Halloween" remake, does that mean the original isn't the same to watch anymore? Hell no, that's moronic!

I thoroughly enjoyed this film, and cannot wait for the sequel! Let's just hope this time that they don't put too much in the trailers and spoil the best parts for us again.

Maniac proves to be one of the best horror remakes ever

RATED- R
RUN TIME- 89 MINS
WRITER(S)- ALEXANDRE AJA, GREGORY LEVASSEUR AND C.A. ROSENBERG
STARRING- ELIJAH WOOD, AMERICA OLIVO AND NORA ARNEZEDER
DIRECTOR- FRANCK KHALFOUN



Synopsis taken from IMDb
The owner of a mannequin shop develops a dangerous obsession with a young artist.




You all know that just about everybody is a fan of the original William Lustig 1980 film, it's one of those horror films that always gets brought up. It's a gore filled movie that's as disturbing as it is thrilling and violent, so when word hit about the remake, a lot of people weren't happy and weren't willing to give this movie a chance. I'm here to tell you that you shouldn't go in expecting it to fail because it's actually a great horror movie. There's some horror films that come out from time to time that really actually strike the chord that we're all hoping someone would play and this is one of them. This remake ended up being one of my favorite  horror films of the last ten years, along with "The Descent" and "The Hills Have Eyes" remake. Elijah Wood gives the performance of his career, he really nails it. 

Wood doesn't usually do films like this, so it's a good change of pace to see him in  role that really shows off a new side of his acting and skills. Watching his performance is like watching Bryan Cranston on Breaking Bad for the first time. You just don't expect this type of performance from someone that you're used to seeing in other less serious roles. Elijah had to really get into character for this role and it shows. The camera is on him the whole movie! He doesn't get a break of camera time because the whole movie you're in his head. 
He carries the whole film on his shoulders and doesn't let it slip. I was genuinely impressed with him and gained a new respect for him as an actor. 

The entire film is shot in Frank's (Wood's) point of view, only showing you his face when there's a mirror or something to give off a reflection. You view the entire film through his eyes.Wood said in an interview that being on set felt more technical than emotional, and that he's never played someone so dark before. And that due to the strenuous 4 week shoot that he became desensitize to the disturbing material. Watching how he acts and how awkward he is around people, how he views people and how he views people viewing him. You see his insecurities and his phobia's come to life and you suffer with him. 

It was a perfect touch to do this type of film making because it allows you to have sympathy for the character, and understand his madness. It also makes you understand on a whole new level how damaged and demented he is compared to the original movie where there wasn't as much character development. Director Franck Khalfoun, stated "POV has been in movies since "Peeping Tom", but no horror film had ever been entirely shot that way...I wanted the audience to feel trapped in his body"

The film opens with a gritty, unsettling scene that let's you know within 5 minutes of the film that this is not a remake for the faint of heart. This is a horror film for the real horror fans, not the popular crowds who go after school on a Friday night to annoy everyone in the theater. You'll mostly find hardcore genre fans bragging about this movie because we're the only ones who can appreciate it over the average viewer. This is a movie for the true fans of the brand, it doesn't pull punches and it has a big brass set of balls. The gore is stellar and not over done but, there's enough blood and brutality to go around. Franck Khalfoun really had an artistic, original view for this film and takes it to a new level. 

Most importantly the gore and brutality is used as a tool to tell the twisted story of Frank, and how his relationship with his mother when he was younger has permanently scarred him. This movie doesn't use gore as a means to try and make the movie good, the gore relies on the story, not vice versa. I knew once I saw Alex Aja was involved in the making of this film, that this was going to be something special. He's one of the most talented writers and directors in horror today and, has a graphic vision of grounding horror and making his films uncomfortably intense.

The music in this film was one of the key elements that helped with it's success. It's like plucking a chord to your nerves when you hear it. The French composer known simply as Rob made the music have an 80's horror undertone, but it feels modern. Paying true homage to the original film while also giving us a fresh and unnerving score.

Dare I say that this film surpasses the original in my eyes, though it is missing the notorious and iconic shotgun scene the original had. My favorite scene of the movie is probably when the cover art of the primordial film (Frank from the waist down holding a knife in one had and severed head in the other) is acted out and shown. It has a better story and acting than the 1980 film and is scarier. This is one of those remakes that surpasses it's predecessor. Thank God they got the right people involved with this film because it could have been a disaster. Luckily, it hits a home run that all horror fans can enjoy. Even if you don't agree that it's superior to the original classic starring the late Joe Spinell.

THIS FILM GETS 4 REAPERS SKULLS OUT OF 5

Tom Hiddleston to possibly play Eric Draven in "The Crow" remake

Sources state that Tom Hiddleston is on his way to being the lead in "The Crow" remake. It was up in the air for a while as to if Bradley Cooper will be getting this part, but in the end it didn't work out. Thank God for that. I don't think that Bradley Cooper would have been good for that role at all.

I don't personally think "The Crow" needs to be remade, nor do I think it should be remade. Brandon Lee died doing that role and he'll forever be immortalized as that character. He put a face on the character and movie for good.

However, a remake is inevitable I suppose. I think Tom Hiddleston is a better fit for the role than Bradley Cooper. With his angular face and features as well as his build. If he has his hair like he had it as Loki in "Thor" and "The Avengers" than I think I can see it working. How he'll perform is another story. Let's hope he does good.

It isn't final yet that he's gotten the role. He has to pass the makeup test to see if he fits what they're looking for. So we'll have to wait and see. I can't say I'm not scared that they aren't going to butcher what the original created, but I remain optimistic.

Evil Dead (2013) 2ND REDBAND TRAILER UP NOW!

Silent Night (2012)

"He Knows Who's Been Naughty"

RATED- R
RUN TIME- 94 MINS
WRITER(S)- JAYSON ROTHWELL
STARRING- MALCOLM McDOWELL, JAIMIE KING AND DONAL LOGUE
DIRECTOR- STEVEN C. MILLER

Synopsis taken from IMDb

The police force of a remote Midwestern town search for a killer Santa Claus who is picking off citizens on Christmas eve.




STORY: If you've followed my blog over the last year you've seen that I've watched and reviewed all of the "Silent Night, Deadly Night" films. While I'll never watch any of the sequels again, the first became one of my favorite slasher films ever. I loved it. When I heard of the remake I was indecisive on how I felt, I wanted to know if this film would do the original justice.

The story of this film is fresh and not copycatting the original, I liked that. This story centers around a guy who goes around wearing a Santa suit and is murdering townsfolk who've been naughty. In the original they spend a lot of time on the killer and on this one they just throw you right into it. Not to be discouraged, they do show you back story and the murderers past. In this one instead of knowing who the killer is the whole time, you gotta wait until the end to find out and that was something I liked as well. He leaves a track of bloody footprints after every scene, showing he's a massive guy.

Aubrey Bradimore (Jaimie King) is local law enforcement trying to take down the mad Santa and get a lead on who he is, how to stop him. Her superior, Sheriff Cooper (Malcolm McDowell) has the same intent on catching the Santa, but he has his own way of running things that cause tension between him and Aubrey.

He knows if you've been bad or good so be good for goodness sake.

ACTING: The acting in this film was fairly decent, the leads (King and McDowell) do a good job in their roles. The acting suffers a bit with some of the minor cast, but the movie has a bit of dark humor to it so it makes even the weaker acting go over just fine. The actors this film has works with the type of movie this is and the environment created for it.



KILLS/GORE: This film didn't hold back on the violence, brutality or bloodshed.  It's a real treat for you gore-hounds out there. This film is easily the bloodiest Christmas movie you'll ever see. Blood flows throughout the entire film practically and this Santa doesn't care how old you are, he targets little children as much as adults. There's flamethrowers, axes, scythes, knives and even fire pokers and a wood chipper (which is probably my favorite).



OVERALL: The story isn't as strong and important in this film as it was in the original, but this film is definitely scarier and more suspenseful. It doesn't surpass the original to me, due to the charm 80's horror films have on me, but this film here delivers. I was very pleased with "Silent Night", it will make even adults scared of Santa.

THIS FILM GETS 3 REAPER SKULLS OUT OF 5