FAQ

How do you rate movies and books?

I used to use a 1-5 star rating system. Now, I don't use any sort of rating or ranking system because I believe everyone should watch movies for themselves and form their own opinion. Using a rating system just deters readers from viewing movies on their own if they read negative reviews. I am an honest critic. Like all true horror fans, there's a lot of bad movies that I like. However, that won't stop me from weighing it out fairly and being critical on it. Just because I love it, doesn't mean I'll give it a four star rating. My biased opinion is always set aside when fairly evaluating a film or book.

Will you review my film or book?

Yes! Click the contact me tab on the top right corner of my blog.

How long is the turnaround on you reviewing my movie/book?

Usually there's a maximum of a two week turnaround, although I'm usually done quicker. I get a lot of emails full of books and screeners that I shovel through just about every day, so it's first come, first serve.

Will you post/promote my Indiegogo movie?

No, sorry. I work with and promote what's already there and existing. Usually the people who ask for promotions are extremely rude, and don't reply to emails unless they just send an update on their movie that they want me to post about. Not interested. 

How many horror films have you seen?

Asking me this is like asking me to recall how much money I've spent in my entire life up until now. It's near impossible to know this answer, but it's a lot. Too many to count. I've been watching horror films for over twenty years now. One day, I plan to make it a project and track down and list every horror movie I've ever seen. One day. 

Why should I take your word on whether or not a movie or book is good?

You shouldn't. See/read it for yourself. My fanbase comes from the fact that I am always honest, and don't sugar coat things for the sake of getting my name put in a trailer or on a poster. It's cool when that happens, but being and staying true to me and my opinion is number one in my book.

THE COLONY won't save you

RATED- UNRATED

RUN TIME- 95 MINS

WRITER(S)- JEFF RENFROE, SVET ROUSKOV, PATRICK TARR, AND PASCAL TROTTIER

STARRING- KEVIN ZEGERS, LAURENCE FISHBURNE, AND BILL PAXTON

DIRECTOR- JEFF RENFROE

Synopsis taken from IMDb

Forced underground by the next ice age, a struggling outpost of survivors must fight to preserve humanity against a threat even more savage than nature.

This is another recent rental of mine. I've heard some pretty good things from friends, so I wasn't reluctant to give it a shot. However, there is a small part of me that was worried because Laurence Fishburne doesn't have a good track record with me. But, in all fairness, he has his share of good films. Also, the fact that it co-stars Bill Paxton helped to sell me on giving it a watch.

From the way this flick started, I instantly could see that it wasn't going to be that bad, and that it had promise. I definitely like the concept, and I actually was impressed with its delivery. There is a real sense of it being severe times for humanity, and I couldn't help but get pulled in, and sympathize with the characters. The year is 2045, and after we build climate controlling machines, they break down and ever since, it's never stopped snowing. So, all humanity is broken up into underground colonies, where they're quickly running out of resources. However, from what I understand, major critics accuse this movie of borrowing old ideas from sci-fi motion pictures, and I can't really disagree.

 Sam (Jeff Renfroe) is the main character and we follow him on the journey as he tries to accompany Briggs (Fishburne) to search out and save a fellow colony that isn't responding to radio contact. Upon the rescue mission, they come to realize that the death of the other colonists are by a group of cannibals, who ate them. Again, this is a great idea, and it kept me intrigued, even if it's originality is severely lacking. But, it's very entertaining.

The performances are pretty spot on, Fishburne and Paxton are at their best. The character development is dry and repetitive, but the acting is surprisingly convincing. I enjoyed the interactions between characters, and their dialogue isn't forced. Though, nothing remarkable stands out about the writing, it just works for what this film is. I would have liked to see more clever writing done, to really put it over-the-top and make it less predictable. 

There's things that this movie does fail at miserably, and the main thing, is the lead villain, the Feral Leader (Dru Viergever). I don't like or understand the need for him to be as menacing as he is. I understand he's the bad guy and main threat, but the acting and execution of his appearance looks like something out of a ridiculous sci-fi movie. I found this character to cheapen the overall effect this movie had before he became a player on screen. Had he been more fitting to the story, and not as cheesy, I think this film may have been really good. Not to mention the mediocre cgi, that reminds us all that this isn't a high-end motion picture, and also lessens the impact this film may have otherwise had.

In the end, The Colony is more of the same. But it's enjoyable and an easy watch. Can't say I hated it, but I can't praise it. Could have been better, but wasn't. I am expecting this one to become forgotten very quickly, and it sucks. There was a lot of potential behind this one, and it just didn't add up to what it should have.

UNDER THE BED (2012)

RATED- R
RUN TIME- 87 MINS
WRITER(S)- ERIC STOLZE
STARRING- JONNY WESTON, GATTLIN GRIFFITH, AND PETER HOLDEN
DIRECTOR- STEVEN C. MILLER



Synopsis taken from IMDb
Two brothers team up to battle a creature under the bed, in what is being described as a "suburban nightmare" tale. 

This is one of those films that immediately appeals to the inner child in you. Seeing the cover instantly brings back times of when I was scared of what was under my bed. Of course at the time, I didn't have the sense to know it was only some board games and dust bunnies keeping me awake at night. But, I wanted to give this flick a chance, and see if something really scary can be made of this concept, or if it'll just be another flop. With a free rental from redbox, I had nothing to lose.

This comes off as a hybrid between "Feast" (2005) and the 1989 childhood classic, "Little Monsters". Weird combination, I know. But, it works for a brief period. Rather intentional or unintentional, the acting was pretty convincing, and I honestly didn't know if Neal (Jonny Weston) was telling the truth or completely insane with the stories he tells about the monster under the bed. I couldn't help but think that if he isn't crazy, what type of trouble he is going to cause his younger brother, Paulie (Gattlin Griffith)? I chose to believe the acting was intentionally supposed to make you guess as to what's the truth and what isn't, because even though the performances weren't great, they were fitting. And of course, there's stereotypical parents that don't believe them, and leave them to fend for themselves. 

Although the acting wasn't always convincing, the dialogue and the content were portrayed as very realistic and gave a good sense of how a normal family interacts. The interactions built a good foundation between characters and provided the story with a chance to develop.

There's moments that are downright funny (some intentional laughs and others not), and there's moments of genuine jumps. Best of all, there's some really well done gore, that isn't expected! Out of nowhere, we're hit with brutal scenes of devastating deaths.

Unfortunately, all that makes this movie memorable ends up getting forgotten due to so many obvious flaws. There's a few scenes that really puzzled me, because they were such obvious cop-outs that it ruined the overall effect. Something as simple as, if the little brother, Paulie, needs to stand on his older brothers shoulders to get out from under the bed, how the hell does Neal make it out with such ease when just a moment before he had no way out? Things that go unexplained like this ruin the realism and should have been given more thought and time.

In the end, "Under the Bed" is a fun monster flick worth a watch. Even though you won't be completely blown away, there's a couple good scares and some aforementioned gore. Nothing about this motion picture makes it memorable, but it's not the worst movie out right now. It had a lot of potential, and still manages to pull off a few good effects. I think had the story stayed more consistent and grounded, it would have pushed the pace a little better, and avoided some things that are downright ridiculous. 

I won't give away and spoilers, because this is a relatively new movie that most haven't heard of yet. But, it's available now, and Halloween is only a few days away. So, if you're in the mood for something a little strange and a little new, "Under the Bed" just may be for you.

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.