A Nightmare On Elm Street (1984) 30th Anniversary: 13 Nerdy Nights of Horror - Day 13

 We have finally arrived at the final day of these 13 nights, as well as the end of Halloween. So I figured, what better way to end this month of horror films than a review of one that's celebrating its 30^th anniversary this year. I am of course talking about Wes Craven's “A Nightmare On Elm Street.”

In the 80's, horror films were starting to make a new name for themselves. Not just in terms of ghosts or haunted houses, but more onto the slasher genre, which technically started with the Alfred Hitchcock 1960 film, “Psycho.” It was well known for pushing the boundaries past what the movie code was known for, allowing other films to follow suite, resulting in the MPAA's rating system. While “Psycho” may have had partial credit in getting it out there, it wasn't until the 70's, with film like “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” and “Halloween” that it started rolling. Since then, other films like “Friday the 13^th” have attempted to follow in the success as well, getting successful franchises too.

It wasn't until 1984 that Wes Craven gave us one of the scariest and most original horror films ever made. The story tells of four teenagers, who start dreaming about a murderer. He has a old fedora hat, an ugly Christmas sweater, a burnt face, and a glove with knives on the fingers. This man is known by the name, Freddy Krueger, and when the main girl, Nancy, is the only one left, it's up to her to finally put a stop to Freddy and his doings.

When it comes to slasher films of this time, no film manages to get my skin crawling better than this one. It has the proper amount of haunting imagery and atmosphere to keep one on the edge of their seat. You're most vulnerable when you're asleep, so dealing with a villain like this was a creative idea, and adds to the film's charm of it all. It was even said that Wes Craven was inspired by tragic events, making the film seem all the more realistic.

The characters, while the typical horror type teens, manage to be likable. Heather Langenkamp as Nancy is regarded as one of the most recognizable horror heroines, much in the same vein as Laurie Strode in “Halloween.” The big difference is that Nancy is a bit more calculative and has an understanding of what she's doing and how to handle situations. Amanda Wyss as Tina also give out a good performance as well, even when at the brink of death. That scene where she sees Freddy down the ally, and her getting sliced at while floating still sends chills down my spin, going down as one of the most uncomfortable death scenes to watch. Jsu Garcia as Rod was the typical rebel bad boy, but he does show that he does have more to him than just that stereotype, but not much can be said about that.

Then we got to Glen Lantz, played by Johnny Depp. Yes, the same Johnny Depp, we all know and love, started his film career with this movie. For a film that was already unique for it's creative setting, it's made even more of a treat for which actor they had for it. At the time, Depp was already a high school dropout trying to get a musician career going, so this film was able to help him get recognition, especially since he later landed the main role of Tom Hanson on “21 Jump Street.”

Now for the main event, Freddy Krueger, played by Robert Englund. What can you say about him? He's scary, he's funny, he has a great backstory, he has a signature weapon, and he has a face and voice, unlike most slashers at the time. That's one major key factor he has, is his backstory and motivation for why he's doing this. He was a child murderer who managed to get off not guilty, and so takes his revenge on the children of those said parents who burned him alive. It's much like how Mrs. Voorhees in the first “Friday the 13th” wanted to kill the people at Crystal Lake, because they did nothing to help her drowning son. Freddy is an icon, and that's how it's going to be. Another thing that “Nightmare” did that other slasher films haven't, is they kept Robert Englund as Freddy, even in the TV spin-off show that it got.

After about 30 years, how does it hold up? Very well. “A Nightmare on Elm Street” not only remains one of my favorite horror films, but one of my all time favorite films, with Wes Craven being one of my favorite directors in the horror genre. It's a fascinating film that never gets old, no matter how many times I watch it. So if you're looking for a slasher classic, I highly recommend it.

Rating: 10/10

While we're on the subject of “Nightmare,” let's talk briefly about the sequels and its remake. The sequels are a bit...meh. The only ones I would actually recommend are “3: Dream Warriors,” “Wes Craven's New Nightmare,” and “Freddy vs. Jason.” Now for the remake, produced by Michael Bay. At first, I did hate the film, but as I got older with a more mature mind and better understanding for film...it's okay. I didn't quite like the CGI, some of the characters were pretty uninteresting, and the make-up they use for Freddy was a bit overkill, but it could have been worse. I do think it's a better remake than “Rob Zombie's Halloween,” but not by much. Jackie Earl Haley is a good Freddy, and he does try his best, and does have a few funny lines here and there, but he's no Robert Englund. Is it the worst of the “Nightmare” franchise? No, that goes to “Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare.” Is it the worst Platinum Dunes movie? Uh...did you SEE “Ouija?” Compared to that, this film is a miracle. If you're curious about it, then you might find something to enjoy.

Rating: 5/10

I hope you've all enjoyed my month of reviewing horror films. I might do this again next year, but who knows? I know I certainly wouldn't mind doing it again. Well, now that Halloween's arrived, enjoy the festivities, enjoy the scares, eat candy if you feel like it, and have a wonderful night!

Insomnia (2002): 13 Nerdy Nights of Horror - Day 12

 Back in August, we suffered a tragic loss in the world of comedy and acting in general. Robin Williams, one of the greatest actors of our time, had passed away from suicide, after suffering from years of depression. It's was a hard thing to deal with, and still is, because the thought of someone like Robin Williams falling to depression was unthinkable. So as a way to honor the man, I have seen people talk about a lot of his movies like “Dead Poets Society,” “Good Will Hunting,” and “Aladdin.” Since we're still in the month of Halloween, I figured it would be fitting to talk about a film that not too many people talk about. And it happens to be one of Christopher Nolan's earliest pictures, “Insomnia.”

The film tells of two police investigators in Alaska, looking for a homicidal murder. When one of them is killed, the other has to deal with the internal struggle of losing his partner, and still catch the man who did this, all while dealing with the lack of sleep due to Alaska being mostly day.

What people don't know is that this film is actually a remake of a Norwegian film of the same name, making it one of the only two films that Nolan has remade (the other being his Batman films). Not only does Nolan manage to give his own unique take on the idea, but manages to surpass it by a long shot. As one of Nolan's earliest films, it ranks among one of the top 10 best thrillers of the past decade.

The two leads in the film, played by Al Pacino and Robin Williams, are fantastic to watch. Seeing two of the most iconic Oscar winning actors work off each other is hypnotizing to watch, that you couldn't keep your eyes off either of them. Pacino gives without a doubt one of his best performances, playing an insomniac cop like you wouldn't believe. I mean, with Al Pacino, he'll give his damn best no matter what.

Robin Williams on the other hand...well, have any of you seen the film “One Hour Photo?” It came out later on that year, but try to imagine that kind of character from “One Hour Photo”...only 10 times more creepy, and if he was a serial killer. Williams plays this character really effectively, especially when he admits to murdering people. I mean, the guy confesses to it like he just went grocery shopping, it's really chilling. It's one of Williams' best performances, and one of his more underrated works.

If you're looking for a real enticing thriller, definitely check out “Insomnia.” It's not only one of Williams' best and Pacino's best, it's one of Christopher Nolan's finest films. The acting is great, the direction is great, the shots of Alaska are beautiful, and the writing is top-notch.

Rating: 10/10

Dracula Untold: 13 Nerdy Nights of Horror - Day 11

 When it comes to vampires, the one who comes to mind the most when mentioning the iconic creature is Count Dracula. Bram Stoker's novel about the creature of Transylvania, much like “Frankenstein,” are symbols of classic horror and embody the image of Halloween and horror. Universal's iconic film from 1931 is the most famous portrayal of the character, and Bela Lugosi's performance made him the character, through and through. Since then, many adaptations of the novel and character have been done countless times, even by “Godfather” director Francis Ford Coppola, with Gary Oldman as the titular character.

This time around, we'll be talking about a film that gives us the origin of Count Dracula, from Universal and Legendary, “Dracula Untold,” starring Luke Evans.

In the times of the dark ages, Dracula was formally Prince Vlad the Impaler, and was a warrior of great strength. When his old acquaintance requests his son for his army, Vlad takes it upon himself to find the strength to defeat him and his army, by succumbing to vampire blood. Now he has three days to defeat the army, or give in to temptation and remain a monster.

With the cast that this film has, they all do great jobs. Luke Evans is a really damn good Dracula, and you can get that emphasis of torment in his eyes as he's trying to fight his urges and keep his humanity. I would really love to see him play Dracula again in future films. Dominic Cooper gives a great job at playing the villain, as anyone else would in this kind of role. Not much to his character, aside from being a childhood friend of Vlad, but Cooper manages to take advantage of that nicely. Sarah Gadon as Vlad's wife is good as well, playing a stern and strong woman, and willing to take command if needed. Needless to say, what happens at the end is quite heartbreaking.

As for the action scenes all manage to be exciting, showcasing Dracula's power with every passing scene. The first action scene however, was a bit annoying to sit through, due to the shaky cam work not being creative. Aside from that, the rest of them are pretty entertaining to watch, especially with the scenes where Dracula attacks his foes and travels by turning into bats. It actually makes me think that a film adaptation of "Legacy of Kain" can be possible, which I DO want.

What I love best about this film is the concept. The idea of giving Dracula an origin story is a neat idea, and this actually does work. Not only does it add to the legacy of the vampire legend, but it also adds a sense of sympathy to the character, that actually works. We do get to see a sympathetic side of Dracula, and that he only was ruthless because he was raised that way, but wants to resist that past. THIS is what “Maleficent” SHOULD have been! This was what I actually thought Maleficent's back story to be, instead of what that pathetic excuse of a film from Joe Roth and Linda Woolverton gave us. Thank you Universal, for using this idea for one of YOUR villains!

Overall, “Dracula Untold” was really enjoyable to watch. Universal claims this is the start of their new Monsters series, with possible reboots of “The Wolfman,” “Frankenstein,” and others. If they're as good as this film, I will gladly be there to see them. It's dark, it's foggy, it's grim, and it's fun. Definitely give it a watch, and see for yourself.

Rating: 8/10

I, Frankenstein: 13 Nerdy Nights of Horror - Day 10

 Mary Shelly's “Frankenstein” is one of the most recognized novels of all time, and remains one of the iconic horror stories. The tale of a mad scientist who gives life to a monster of his own creation has influenced the world since its release. It gained further recognition, curtsy of Universal Studios, with the 1931 film, starring Boris Karloff as the monster. This version of “Frankenstein” is the one people think of most, and has since had a big impact on pop culture and horror history. The success of this film, along with the 1931 “Dracula” starring Bela Lugosi, had launched Universal into their Golden Age of horror films, with one iconic film after the other.

Many other adaptations of “Frankenstein” have been done afterwards, including one directed by Kenneth Branaugh and starring Robert deNiro as the monster, and another one coming out next year featuring Daniel Radcliffe, but none have quite had the same impact as the original...then we have “I, Frankenstein,” based on a graphic novel, based on the book...and it is one of the dumbest films I have ever seen.

In “I, Frankenstein,” the monster, who is called Adam Frankenstein, is now in modern times, as he teams up with a tribe of gargoyles, going up against a scientist played by Bill Nighy and his army of demons which he plans to raise and conquer the world, or some shit like that. This movie is so stupid that it's hard to comply what the hell is going on.

That's the main problem I have with this movie, is the story doesn't seem to work. It is just a messy story that got lazily directed, which makes sense, since it was written and directed by Stuart Beattie. For those who don't now, Beattie is best known for writing for films like “Pirates of the Caribbean” and “Collateral,” but also wrote shit like “Punisher: War Zone,” “Australia,” and “Tomorrow When the War Began,” which he also directed. This film was his second directed film, and it shows. Not only is the story lame, but the CGI is just so overdone, and the action scenes are...meh. I will at least give credit for not being shaky cam action scenes, but that's not saying much.

Acting wise, it's just as bad. The only two good performances in the entire film come from Aaron Eckhart and Bill Nighy. Eckhart as Frankenstein's monster, who is now called “Adam Frankenstein,” does try to make this work and is clearly trying his best, especially when he's doing his own stunts. However, the make up on him is just...lazy. He doesn't look like he was built from different dead body parts, he just looks like he just got scars all over him. That's not a monster! I will give credit that he did try giving SOME reason as to why he's called Frankenstein, making it his last name like his creator, but that's all I can give. While I don't quite like Bill Nighy's character, I'll also give him credit for trying, as opposed to the rest of the cast, ESPECIALLY Jai Courtney who was AWFUL in this movie.

This film was produced by Tom Rosenberg and Gary Lucchesi, the same duo that produced the first two “Underworld” movies, and later produced the sequels solo (Rosenberg produced “Rise of the Lycans,” and Lucchesi had produced “Awakenings”). It was said that they were planning to do a crossover of “Underworld” and this film, but due to this film barely making its budget back AND it being panned by critics, I doubt such a thing will ever happen.

With this whole war against gargoyles and demons, it makes me ask one thing: where the hell is my “Gargoyles” movie? Seriously, we have the capabilities to make a film based on the Disney animated show, so where is it? I know there's a rumor going around that Kevin Fiege may be producing one, but I won't believe it until I see it!

Overall, “I, Frankenstein” was just a lousy excuse of a movie. The story is all over the place, the direction is blah, and the acting is terrible aside from Eckhart and Nighy.

Rating: 3/10

Well, this is a bummer. Halloween's almost here, and the recent revival of a classic Universal monster wasn't that good. Can't I get one film that does an icon justice, at least in a fun way?

…That could work.

Next Time: Dracula Untold

Ouija (a horror film dumber than a second coat of paint): 13 Nerdy Nights of Horror - Day 9

 You guys remember “Jumanji?” That quirky 90's Robin Williams film about the board game that came to life? I do. It was a fun and exciting film, with some neat special effects for its time, good characters, and was one of the landmarks for director Joe Johnston. Needless to say, it's a classic film to watch, and you should go watch it if you haven't yet.

All those things “Jumanji” has, are all the things that “Ouija” doesn't, because “Ouija” is A TERRIBLE FUCKING MOVIE! Not beating around the bush here people! This new film from Platinum Dunes and Hasbro was shit! I couldn't believe how nonsensical and stupid this film was, even after knowing this was a dumb idea to begin with!...Yeah, I didn't like this movie.

The film tells of this girl, whose friend hung herself, so she and the rest of her friends try to talk to her through a Ouija board in her home. However it turns out that the house was built on a graveyard, and so they've summoned up a ghost that is the same one that killed the friend in the beginning. Bullshit happens, twist happens, they win, then another twist happens.

Out of all the films to come from either Platinum Dunes or Hasbro, it is the worst on both sides. “Battleship” and the remake of “A Nightmare on Elm Street” were smarter than this film. I actually feel bad for talking bad about “Annabelle,” because that film is “The Exorcist” compared to this film. Nothing makes sense, the acting is lousy, the script is ludicrous, and...you know what? With how much stupidity is in this film, I need to list some of the things wrong with this film from the ending. Spoiler alert, so be warned...actually, don't be warned, because this movie is so stupid it wouldn't matter.

When they first play the Ouija board, they contact the same ghost that the hung girl conjured. Soon enough, each of the friends start dying off one by one. They find out that the conjured ghost was an insane mother who sacrificed her daughter for some reason, and the surviving child has been in a mental ward, which happens to be in the same town (convenient). She tells them to cut the sewn parts of the ghost daughter's corpse off to free them of the mother, which they do. However, shock of all shocks, the daughter was the one killing people the whole time and now she's free. So they defeat her by burning the body AND the board at the same time, but the board reappears and the main girl is possessed.

Okay, a few questions here: If the ghost mother was trying to warn them, who was killing the kids beforehand? How could the daughter kill if she could only be freed by cutting open her sewn mouth? Why didn't the mother just say, “get out now! My ghost daughter is evil and shit!” instead of jump-scaring them? Why did the ghost daughter have to go over to someone using the Ouija board, instead of just killing someone in their chance immediately? And for that matter, what was the point of the fucking Ouija board?! Seriously, what purpose did it have aside from summoning the ghosts?! Or how about a better question: WHAT WAS THE POINT OF THIS MOVIE?!?!?

*sigh*...I can't take this anymore. Screw this movie, screw Platinum Dunes, and fuck 2014. November, please help redeem this year with “Big Hero 6,” “Interstellar,” and “Mocking Jay Part 1.” Or at the very least, LET “BIRDMAN” BE RELEASED WIDER BY THEN! Seriously, I really want to see “Birdman!

Rating: 1/10

The Book of Life: 13 Nerdy Nights of Horror - Day 8

 When it comes to Hispanic culture, it always fascinates me in it's imagery and everything else about it. One of it's big holidays, “The Day of the Dead,” is an example of such, because it is a time to celebrate the memory of those who have passed on. So to give the holiday and culture a bit more recognition this year, we are given the Guillermo del Toro produced animated film, “The Book of Life.”

While a few kids are on a field trip to the museum, the instructor tells them a tale from the Book of Life. In this story, La Muerte (the ruler of the Land of the Remembered) and Xibalba (ruler of the Land of the Forgotten), make a wager to switch their ruling over their lands. The contest depends on who is able to be with Maria, the General's daughter. Manolo, a musician bullfighter, or Joaquin, a ready-for-anything soldier? Things get out of hand however, when Xibalba tries to interfere with the wager, resulting in Manolo's death, and trying to find his way back home.

The film was directed by Jorge R. Gutierrez, best known as the creator of the Nickelodeon show “El Tigre: The Adventures of Manny Rivera,” and much like Genndy Tartakovsky, it's easy to pick out his style of animation. Gutierrez's animation has a very unique style to it, and I like how he makes the characters in the story look like puppets, since it is being told through the book and the puppets in the museum. I also enjoyed how in flashbacks, they cut to 2-D animation, letting us know that the format is still around in some way or another. The film is very colorful, even in it's dark moments when death comes towards the characters, and you get some pretty good Looney Tunes style of humor.

The characters are also as colorful as the film itself. Manolo, Maria, and Joaquin, the three main characters, are fairly enjoyable and give off their own distinct personalities. They all have flaws, but not to the point where it's unbearable, and that's what makes them interesting. And the performances by Diego Luna, Zoe Saldana, and Channing Tatum are good, when it comes to on-screen actors doing voice acting. Luckily, we do get work from actual voice actors such as Carlos Alazraqui, Eric Bauza, Grey DeLisle, and Ron Perlman as Xibalba.

What didn't work were the segments with the kids at the museum, because it brought me out of the story. They're the stereotypical troublemaker kids who are there just be like the annoying kids in the audience who talk to the film. I would have been fine if they were only in the beginning and end, as opposed to cutting back to them from time to time. I also wasn't too big on Ice Cube as the Candle Maker, the keeper of the Book of Life. He wasn't bad in the film, but I felt like his screen time could have been reduced a little bit.

Other than that, the film manages to be pretty entertaining. It's no masterpiece or anything, but it's still a fun film to show the kids during the Halloween season, and I had a lot of fun with it. Check it out, and see for yourself.

Rating: 8/10

Vampire Academy: 13 Nerdy Nights of Horror - Day 7

 You would think that after “The Twilight Saga” ended, vampires would finally be given some dignity again...sadly that's not the case here. The thing is, like most successful films and franchises, there's always a film, from an opposing studio, that is made in response to it all, as a means to cash in on the bandwagon. “Twilight” is an example of such cash-ins, and as a result we have been given bad film after bad film, which leads us to today's topic, “Vampire Academy.”

In this film, we are introduced to Lisa, the princess of a tribe of vampires, and her guardian, Rose. They escaped the academy of vampires, because there were people out to kill them, but are soon brought back by force. And from that point on, they deal with training, magic, gossip, pranks, and other bullshit like that.

The best way I can describe this film is this: imagine the characters from “Mean Girls” put into the world of “Harry Potter,” in the style of “Buffy: the Vampire Slayer,” only done in the poorest way possible. This is not only one of the worst vampire films I have seen, but it is also one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The acting is awful, the direction is pathetic, the pacing ranges from too fast to slow as molasses, and the writing is nothing but unoriginal ideas made into schlock. I haven't read the books this film is supposedly based on, but I doubt if it would help.

As a supposed comedy, there wasn't anything funny about this film. The jokes they throw at the audience are either too juvenile or too tasteless, and some try to make fun of how this isn't “Twilight.” Not to mention, the pacing in this film is what also kills the film greatly. For a film called “Vampire Academy,” we don't know that much about the academy, except for exposition. That's all that the film is, just exposition, until it reaches the mid-point, where we have absolutely NOTHING going on!

The characters in this film, who are extremely stock and pointless, are not worth watching. We have the typical best friend who is important to everyone, the mentor that the main character falls for, the dorky friend, the bully, and the nice guy who gets friendzoned after helping the protagonist greatly. It's all cliche, and most of the cast does them poorly, with the exception of Gabriel Byrne as the villain. However, what kills this film completely is the main character, Rose Hathaway. She is just an annoying piece of shit, who I wanted to punch in the face every time she talked. Not once in this movie, does she accomplish at saving anyone, without the help of someone else, and she never develops as a character. I don't blame Zooey Deutch though, because I know she's a good actress; it's just that the character was poorly written.

The film was directed by Mark Waters, and written by Daniel Waters, two talents that I know have shown us how good they can be with films. I would put the blame on Daniel, since he wrote the script, but it could be Mark's direction at adapting it that failed, considering the fact that Mark hasn't directed a good film since “Mean Girls,” and that his style doesn't seem to fit the material. This idea of a school for vampires could have worked out great, if it had been executed better. Maybe if they had gotten somebody like Tim Burton or Wes Craven, somebody who knows how to handle ideas like these, then it could have been a whole lot better. But as it is, it's not worth it at fucking all.

There was speculation with the studio that there was going to be a sequel, but thanks to this film bombing to where it didn't even make HALF of it's $30 million budget AND being panned by critics to where it's at a 9% on Rotten Tomatoes, there's no chance of a sequel. Not even a fundraiser campaign could warrant this film a sequel, since they only made less than a fifth of its goal.

Overall, “Vampire Academy” is nothing but a dud of a film. And...*sigh*...you know what? Don't just take my word for it. Go to channelawesome.com, and watch the Blockbuster Buster's review of this film. He goes into a much more detail on this one, and it's a review that I highly recommend for others.

Rating: 1/10

Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones: 13 Nerdy Nights of Horror - Day 6

 People say that the found-footage genre has overstayed its welcome, and...they'd be right. These films are incredibly cheap to make, and with the amount of stupidity that comes from a good majority of them, it's pretty easy to see why it doesn't work. And it couldn't be anymore true than with the “Paranormal Activity” franchise.

The first film was release independently at festivals, and garnered huge acclaim really fast, as one of the scariest films of the last few years, building up suspense and tension in a way we haven't quite experienced. While I don't fully agree with people on that, I can understand why it got praised as much as it did. The second film was made, right after the first one's success, and has been judged as either being better or worse than its predecessor. I just think it's about the same, with some slight improvements, but also giving out some wooden acting. Same can be said for the third film.

The fourth film, on the other hand, subjected itself to cheap advertising, even worse characters, and an obnoxious amount of stupidity that makes my brain hurt. Not only did I consider it the worst of the franchise, but also the worst found-footage film I have witnessed...then this year started to role around, and we got “Earth to Echo,” which I already discussed, but one that came close was the newest installment of this series and “supposed” spin-off, “Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones.” Or as I'm calling it: “Jump-scare Home Video: The Latino Cut.”

In this film, we got a couple of Hispanic friends, who go and check out the apartment of their neighbor, after she's carried off in an ambulance. When they investigate their room, one of them soon starts having supernatural things happen to him, as he's now able to float as he falls, and gain super strength. But wouldn't you know, it's all the work of a demon.

While it isn't as bad as “Paranormal Activity 4,” it doesn't help the fact that this film is completely derived of anything good. First, the film is absolutely boring and uninteresting, to where I almost fell asleep. Didn't help, since this film is jam-packed with jump-scare after jump-scare, because god forbid we let a horror film in this day and age have suspense and atmosphere, instead of jump-scares. The acting in the film is also atrocious, much like...well, most found-footage movies, because you have to really ask, why would people be filming this stuff instead of calling someone for help. I know it's suppose to be a horror film, but there's a limit!

This was the first film that came in theaters this year, which still keeps with the tradition that January films that come out this year tend to suck. Last year was “Texas Chainsaw 3D,” the year before was “The Devil Inside,” before that was “Season of the Witch,” and now we have this one. And in all honesty, I would rather watch any of those films than ever watch this crap ever again. Needless to say, this year had possibly the worst January for movies.

Now, the reason I said this was a “supposed” spin-off, was because the film makers claimed that this would have no interaction with the real “Paranormal” series. If that's the case, then what the fuck was the point of that ending?! An ending of which, I will now spoil, so be warned.

At the end of the film, the best friend tries to hunt down his possessed friend, who has now gathered an army. When he finds an old house, he sees the closet door from the third film, in which he enters and suddenly is in the ending of the first film. I'm not kidding, he sees the possessed Kate walking down into the kitchen, he asks for help, Katie screams for Micah, Micah's killed, and the best friend runs away, only to be jump-scared to death.

Okay, just going to clarify: NO CONNECTION MY ASS!

Overall, “Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones” is flat out BULLSHIT. Sadly, since it was made on a low budget, it still made money. Which means “Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension” is slated for next March. After sitting through this, I'm jumping on the band-wagon for this to end.

Rating: 1/10

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007): 13 Nerdy Nights of Horror - Day 5

 With the month of Halloween still in motion, it's time we take on something a little more up my ally: musicals. When it comes to musicals, one thing mostly comes to mind: Broadway. In the olden days of film, musicals were all the craze, ranging from stuff like “Singing in the Rain,” “Cabaret,” “Oklahoma,” “Holiday Inn,” and hundreds of others. Musicals were in a genre of their own, and the adaption of a Broadway musical onto the silver screen, very few manage to get it right in this day and age, like “Jersey Boys,” “Les Miserables,” “Chicago,” “Hairspray,” “The Producers,” and today's topic, “Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street.”

In the late 70's, popular songwriter, Stephen Sondenhiem, had given us the Tony Award winning epic, “Sweeney Todd.” Based on "The String of Pearls: A Romance," it told the story of Benjamin Barker, a Victorian era barber who was taken away from his wife, by the corrupt Judge Turpin. When he returns to London after 15 years, he dawns the alias, Sweeney Todd, only to discover that his wife is said to be dead, and that his daughter is now the ward of the Judge. Now Todd sets up shop once again, planning to take revenge on the villain, with the help of the meat pie shop owner, Mrs. Lovett.

“Sweeney Todd” is, in my opinion, one of the greatest revenge stories ever told. The idea that your local barber might slit your throat when your guard is down is quite a frightening thought. Sondenhiem is one of the greatest songwriters of all time, with over fifty years worth of material, and many Tony, Grammy, and Oscar nods to prove it. And who better to adapt a work such as this, than the master of Gothic horror himself, Tim Burton. Burton has always shown interest in doing an adaptation of the musical, ever since he first saw it during his college days, and despite not being a musical enthusiast.

I love the opening credits of this film, like it tells you what will happen in the movie, without exactly giving it away on a silver platter. The production style and look, while common in Burton films, still makes it fascinating. He's always had a knack for making something out of a fantasy world, and he is one of the few who is able to master such a technique. The depressing feel of London during this time is always hypnotizing to look at, and I love seeing films with that kind of cloudy setting. One thing that also makes me happy, is the gore factor. There is so much blood in this film, it's ridiculous. But the best part is that it's all practical effects, something we hardly see nowadays in film.

The casting in the film is excellent to. You couldn't pick a better casting for Judge Turpin than Alan Rickman, one of the greatest villain actors of all time. It also works to his advantage, because he was a stage actor before he got famous with “Die Hard.” He makes the role his own, much like he did with Snape and Hans Gruber. Timothy Spall as Beadle Bamford is great as well, since playing the slimy assistant of the villain is easy for him to do. I mean, the two have worked on the “Harry Potter” series together, so it does make sense. Pirelli, played by Sacha Baron Cohen, is one choice that would either make or break. I'm not too big a fan of Baron Cohen, mostly his Borat shtick, but he manages to do a really good job here, playing a con-man trying to sell an elixir which turns out to be false.

Laura Michelle Kelly as Lucy Barker is one that not too many people talk about. She manages to pull off the transformation from a loving Victorian woman, into someone who has completely lost her mind. And as someone who has been performing as Mary Poppins at West End, it is quite the transition. Jamie Bower and Jayne Wisener as Anthony and Johanna mange to give off good chemistry, despite the small time they've had. However, when you look at the fact that Johanna has hardly seen anyone her age after being locked up by the judge, it would be understandable.

This film was made during that time when Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter were pretty much dominating Tim Burton's lead castings. However, unlike “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” “Dark Shadows,” and “Alice in Wonderland,” this one managed to do the job right. Bonham Carter does a great job as Mrs. Lovett, being someone who'd do anything just to be with Todd, even if it meant helping or lying to him. Not to mention, she's a pretty good singer too, allowing a song to send chills down your spine.

However, Johnny Depp steals the show as Sweeney Todd. This role has been considered one of Depp's best roles, garnering both an Oscar nomination and Golden Globe Award, which are both well deserving. A man who had lost everything he ever had in life, so he has no regrets on what happens to him, as long as he gets revenge. He always has that blood-lust look in his eyes, like he could be eyeing you as his next victim, at any point possible. Todd is one of my favorite characters for those reasons, and I hope to one day perform as him in the future. I also love how the make-up looks like he hadn't slept, like the nail-biting anxiety for revenge is what's keeping him awake for so long, it's really cool.

Now since it's almost been seven years since its release, what are my current thoughts? “Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street” is not only one of my favorite films from Tim Burton, but one of my favorite films period. It's a film that I love more with each passing view. I actually do wish Burton would do more musical movies, because when he does them, it's breathtaking to watch. If you haven't seen this film yet, check it out.

Rating: 10/10

Now that we're done with that, let's talk a little bit about the upcoming “Into the Woods” movie, featuring Johnny Depp. All I got to say is...I'm a little hesitant, especially since I performed the show last Spring. I do like the idea of Depp as the Wolf, and James Corden as the Baker, but I'm not too enthusiastic about Emily Blunt and Meryl Streep as the Baker's Wife and the Witch. But aside from that, I'll still go in with an open mind, like a normal person would.

The Boxtrolls: 13 Nerdy Nights of Horror - Day 4

 Laika studios has started to make a name for itself in the past few years, with stop-motion features like “Coraline” and “ParaNorman.” Both films upon release have achieved critical acclaim, due to their great storytelling, top-notch animation, and surprisingly good voice acting. With how well the studio was doing, garnering two Academy Award nominations, it got me hooked on their next project, “The Boxtrolls.”

“The Boxtrolls” tell the story of a young boy, who is taken into the custody of sewer creatures, known as boxtrolls, being raised as one of them. As the years go by, exterminators have started to gather up any boxtroll that roams the surface, and it's up to the boy, along with the mayor's daughter, to put an end to the exterminator's reign of terror.

If you've heard about this film, you would know that it has a great teaser trailer, which shows some of the animators creating the different kinds of puppet figurines for the film, kind of like a behind-the-scenes look at the film. It was a pretty original trailer, and I was hoping the film would deliver the same kind of originality that it looked to be promising...and boy, was I disappointed. Don't get me wrong, I did like the film, just not as much as "ParaNorman" or "Coraline."

What doesn't settle in well with me were the cliches we have seen before countless times, only they're much boring here. It's the typical fish out of water tale we've seen before, only it doesn't do that much new with it. It goes in the direction you think it's going to go, if you've seen them plenty of times, making it not as suspenseful as you'd expect.

The villain in this film, played by Ben Kingsley, is just a stock villain; he's Gargamel from “The Smurfs,” only his motivation is just dull. Although, I will admit, there is a funny side to his motivation, especially at the end...but that's about it. His henchmen were also boring too, being the cliched henchmen you've seen in almost every film that has these archetypes. You know, the fat guy and skinny guy who are both thugs, as well as the psychotically dumb third guy, who just wants to kill things to please the boss and psychotic side? Those kinds.

Then there's the prejudice town, that believes the lies the villain has been spreading, so when the hero tries to reveal him they don't believe it, until the end when the villain attacks...it got old. What pissed me off, however, was the girl's father, the “supposed” mayor. He was just such a piece of shit, that by the end I really didn't want him to be with his daughter. I mean, I get what they're going for, but that's no excuse for what they did with his character. Not only that, but we barely get any interaction with the girl's mother, who hardly gets a line. They might as well have cut her out of the film.

I will admit, I did buy the connection between the kid and the two main boxtrolls that raise him. They do show a caring compassion for one another, and seeing him grow up in the same ways they did is pretty neat. It was also cute how they each have their own names, simply from what image they have on their box, like Fish, Shoe, Oil Can, Wheels, and the main kid named Eggs. The girl, Winnie, was decent too, and she did have an interesting psychotic side to her. Other than that, not much else can be said about her.

If there's anything Laika gets right, it's the animation of their works; while not as good as “Coraline” or “ParaNorman,” it's still impressive stop-motion. With what they showed in their teaser trailer, it shows that they were putting a lot of effort into it, but I did notice hints of CGI in a few spots, which did bug me a bit. The voice acting is pretty good as well. Isaac Hempstead-Wright does a pretty good job at playing Eggs, and Elle Fanning was alright as Winnie. Even if I didn't like his character, Ben Kingsley voicing the villain was good sounding. What I was pleased about was the boxtrolls being played by voice actors, mostly from Dee Bradley Baker and Steve Blum as Fish and Shoes. Sadly, it isn't enough.

Overall, “The Boxtrolls” was okay for what it was, but could have been better. If you want to see this film, maybe you'll enjoy it better than I did. I just hope that the next film that Laika does will turn out to be much better.

Rating: 6/10

Annabelle: 13 Nerdy Nights of Horror - Day 3

 Last year, director James Wan gave us the film “The Conjuring.” The film told of a married couple of paranormal investigators, helping a family who lived in a haunted house, and banish the ghosts. After viewing it a couple times, I found the film to be very effective, as well as one of the best original horror films in a long time. James Wan is a great horror film director, and I do hope his entry into the “Fast and the Furious” franchise turns out well. With how popular “The Conjuring” was, surely there would be a franchise they could milk from this. With the room of antique items that the Warrens had in the film, the producers decided to give some of those items, namely the doll at the beginning, a film that explains their power.

“Annabelle” tells of a young expecting couple, who are suddenly attacked by cultists. When one of them, Annabelle, dies and drips blood into the doll, it soon sets off a demonic connection with the couple through said doll. And the rest, you can guess from here.

Not only does this film fail as a successor to “The Conjuring,” it fails as a horror film in general. My main complaint about this film, is that it's BORING. Hardly anything in this film was scary, and whenever it tried to be, it's either a stupid jump scare or close ups of the doll. Which, by the way, the more you see the doll, the more laughable it is than scary...that seems to also describe the movie. There were only two scenes out of the entire film that actually did scare me: one was the scene where Alfre Woodward gets pounced at in the third act, and the other was the stairway chase. Other than that, nothing else was scary, not even the look of the demon that's haunting them, which looks like the gray-cooked version of the “Insidious” demon.

While the acting wasn't terrible, it wasn't good either. The main couple played by Ward Horton and Annabelle Wallis always shifted between being somewhat tolerable to just plain bad. The only other two characters worth mentioning are the priest and Alfre Woodward as the religious expert, which are both about as dull as you'd expect.

While James Wan did produce the film, the director of this film was John R. Leonetti, the cinematographer for “The Conjuring,” as well as other films like “The Mask,” “Mortal Kombat,” “Insidious,” and “Piranha 3D.” However, much like Wally Pfister and “Transcendence,” Leonetti is not as skilled with direction, with the evidence being this film AND “Mortal Kombat: Annihilation.” Yeah, wrap your head around that one.

Overall, “Annabelle” was just disappointment. A big heaping pile of disappointment. While it isn't as bad as something like “Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones,” a film we'll get to later on this month, it still doesn't make up for some of the bullshit found in the rest of this.

Rating: 3/10

Tusk: 13 Nerdy Nights of Horror - Day 2

 Twenty years ago, an independent film maker named Kevin Smith gave us the film “Clerks.” It was a quirky comedy that mostly took place in a convenience store, where colorful characters exchange dialogue, and it was great. Since then, Smith has gone on to make films like “Chasing Amy,” “Mallrats,” and “Dogma,” continuing within the “View Askewniverse,” much in the same vein as Tarantino's movie universe. However, that's not to say he has had some bad films in the past as well...and “Tusk” is one of them.

In the film, Justin Long and Haley Joel Osment (yeah, he's still alive people) are podcasters that talk about the hilarious weird shit of the world. When Long's trip to Canada to interview someone goes wrong, he meets up with an old man in a deserted area, in hopes of getting a story out of him. Things go wrong, however, when the old man plans to turn Long into a walrus, and it's up to Osment and Long's girlfriend to go to Canada and find him.

I was loving the beginning of the film, as it really built up tension in a very unsettling way. The acting was also really good too, especially from Long and the old man, played by Michael Parks. Those moments beforehand really made for nail-biting tension, like you don't know what would happen next...and then, it all when downhill from there.

What I mean is, the film stops its interest by the time Long becomes a Walrus, as it just goes into shock value syndrome. When Long finally becomes a walrus, it shows you blatantly what it looks like, with no suspense building up to the climax. It just turns into Kevin Smith's take on “The Human Centipede,” where the horror aspect is all shock value. And the walrus itself...let's just say it looks like a body suit, designed by Leatherface. I will give credit for it being done with practical effects, but that's about it.

The tone also shifts around unnaturally when they try to add humor to the film, as we're introduced to this private investigator, played by Johnny Depp. With such a bumbling like character, it makes me feel like he was intended for another film or something. I don't blame Depp for this, I just felt like the direction wasn't right for a film like this. Not only that, but the editing seemed off, as there are scenes shown that felt tacked on, or if it was originally cut out, and then the editor (being Kevin Smith) regretted it immediately after.

However, what made the film unbearable was the ending. I'm not going to spoil what it is, but it is just one of the most unpleasant endings I have ever seen in a movie. I would have preferred if the ending was left ambiguous, but with the choice they went with, I have to say I was displeased with it.

Overall, “Tusk” is a horror film that I felt uncomfortable watching. While I did think that the acting was good, as well as the build up, the pay off is what kills it, much like a Stephen King mini-series adaptation.

Rating: 3/10

Godzilla (2014) Godzilla 60th Anniversary: 13 Nerdy Nights of Horror - Day 1

Welcome my wonderful friends to the month of Halloween. This year, I've decided to do devote my time to talking about more than just the horror films that have come out this year, but also talk about films from previous years, ones that I'm eager to talk about and share to you all. So for the next month, I'll be talking about 13 horror, or horror related, films for the month of Halloween.

And what better way to start the month, than with one of the summer's biggest blockbusters, and one of the most anticipated films of the entire year, “Godzilla.”

For those who don't know, “Godzilla” or “Gojira” as he's called in Japan,” is the iconic fictional giant monster born from radiation, after the events of Hiroshima. At the time of the first film's release, it seemed scary, since it was just after World War II, so the thought of a monster like that was frightening. For 60 years and 30 films, the monster has had a huge impact on pop culture, making him a legend to many. The original film, “Godzilla: The King of the Monsters,” is regarded by fans as the best of the series, and the one that fans recommend the most to new viewers.

In the late 90's, Tristar made an attempt at rebooting the series, after Toho killed him off in the second series. It was directed by Roland Emmerich, the director of “Independence Day,” and starred Matthew Broadrick and Jean Reno.

However, the film has been heavily criticized to death, and even Toho themselves didn't like it.

Here's my argument: Why though? Why is it so hated by many, and why has it garnered hatred to the level it's at? I mean, I'll admit I used to hate this film, but now that I'm older, I've started to think about this a little bit more. It isn't a masterpiece, but if we were to judge it as a Godzilla film, we need dive into the main complaints that the film has been given:

#1: Godzilla's design – This one, I can kind of understand why it was disliked. The design, while not horrible, does differ from the image we associate Godzilla with. It's obvious that the film is trying to appeal to the “Jurassic Park” crowd, especially with the film ripping off scenes and moments from it, but that's something LOTS of films do, even back then. I do see the debate with the design, but I'm not too terribly torn about it. It's not good, but it could have been worse.

#2: Godzilla dying – People always say, “Godzilla doesn't die by the military, he's invincible! He can only be killed by other giant monsters, like King Gidorah!” I'm not one to say people are wrong, but here's my problem: they're comparing this movie to the entire series. Think about how the first film ended, and try to imagine if they didn't make a sequel, let alone a series of films to follow it. You would think Godzilla was killed. The film is not a remake of the entire series, it's a remake of the first film, staying true to what it originally did.

#3: The human story is bad – Oh really? You people are going to say that, out of the ENTIRE Godzilla series, this one had the worst human story? Okay bucko, let me ask you something: name at least ONE film in the series, prior to this film, that has a human story that is both GOOD and MEMORABLE. Hardly, right? And say that you'll still say this human story sucks in this, here's something I have to ask: you'll defend “Godzilla's Revenge,” featuring the pillsbury dough boy in black face, voiced by Barney the Dinosaur's mentally challenged cousin, but this one is total bullshit? Argue about it all you want, but “Godzilla's Revenge” will still be worst.

Overall, the film isn't the best, nor is it the worst. It's enjoyable in its own right, in the same vain as any other Roland Emmerich movie, as cheesy fun (except “Anonymous, that was actually fantastic). But enough about the 1998 film, let's talk about the new film from Warner Bros and Legendary.

In present day Tokyo, a nuclear physicist is trying to expose the truth that his wife wasn't just killed by an earthquake, but rather a monster. When his son comes to visit him, they revisit the abandoned part of town, only to realize that the government is examining an egg creature, under the acronym “MUTO.” When it is released, Godzilla rises up to the surface to stop the MUTO, before the other one escapes and breeds more.

While it may be advertised as a remake of the classic film, it isn't. It acts more like a sequel to the original 1954 film. This would make sense, because whenever a Godzilla series would like to start fresh and new, it would result in the same process, much like “Godzilla (1984).” The proof of that is when the film brings up that the Japanese have encountered Godzilla back in 1954, meaning Godzilla has been asleep for 60 years. As a Godzilla film, it works for what it is, pretty damn well...however, if I was to look at it as a film on its own, much like how almost EVERYONE did with the Tristar film, I do find some fault with it.

For starters, Bryan Cranston does a fantastic job as the physicist, Joe Brody. The first act has so much build up and development dedicated to him finding the truth about his wife's murder. That scene where he's being interrogated, and he goes off on that rant is very emotional. You do care about what happens to him, and you feel like he's giving it his all there. What happens later? He pretty much gets killed when the MUTO hatches, five minutes later. Are you serious?! You just had all this development go into this character, a man who is mentally torn about the loss of the love of his life for over twenty years, cast a fantastic actor to play him, had him in almost all of the advertisements...and you just kill him off by the end of the first act?!

Now this wouldn't have bothered me as much, if the son was just as interesting right? Wrong. Don't get me wrong, Aaron Taylor Johnson is a great actor, but his character and performance in this film was just...meh. You could have gotten anybody else to play him, and it wouldn't have made a difference. His character was just so generic and bland, that it's hard to feel any sympathy for what happens to him. Same can be said for his wife and daughter, who felt like they didn't get as much development as they should have, when the monsters approach the city. I think it would have been best if instead of the dad dying, it was the son, that way we could have a bit more of an emotional feeling with them, knowing that they've lost someone who they've had a strong connection with. I will admit, the supporting cast that's with them, consisting of Ken Watanabe, Sally Hawkins, Richard T. Jones, and others are good in the film, but it isn't enough to help the film out.

Now let's get to the main event of the film, Godzilla and the MUTO. First off, the MUTO was a good idea, but the designs of them are very unoriginal, a word that PERFECTLY describes Hollywood today. They just look like a mix between Orga, Mothra, and the Cloverfield monster. And more screen time is devoted to them, more so than Godzilla, who's only the film for less than 20 minutes. Now, I have nothing against the giant monster fights, but I would have preferred if they saved it for a sequel, instead of shoehorning them in with barely any room for Godzilla. Now some may argue they did the same thing in “Godzilla 2000,” with the arrival of Orga, but it was also done in a much better film.

Overall, what do I think of it? Well...I still really liked it. While I did criticize the film in the same vain as others have with the 1998 film, that doesn't mean it's bad. It is technically better than the Tristar film, but it isn't up there with some of the other greats, like “Final Wars” or “Godzilla vs. Destroyer.” If you're looking for a fun Godzilla film to settle into, then give a watch and see for yourself,

Rating: 8/10