It Follows: 13 Nerdy Nights of Horror Year 2 - Day 13

            Happy Halloween, boils and ghouls! Now you might be expecting me to go into one of my favorite classic horrors, but I want to talk about a film that I’ve been dying to talk about for quite some time now. Plus, I have a feeling that this film will be remembered sometime in the future as a horror classic of the modern age. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you David Robert Mitchell’s “It Follows.”

            The film centers around a girl named Jay, a Michigan college student who has been going out with this guy, Hugh. After a date which ended with car sex, Hugh drugs Jay with chloroform, where she wakes up tied to a wheelchair. He explains to her that she has now contracted a curse from him, and now is being hunted by a creature that can change its appearance to anyone. If Jay wishes to stay alive, she must keep away from it and try to sleep with somebody who hasn’t been part of the chain and explain the whole ordeal to the next person. If they die, the creature will go back to the previous person it was pursuing, all the way back up the beginning.

            The film not only acts as a really interesting take on the slow moving slasher villains like Michael Myers and Jason Voorhees from “Halloween” and “Friday the 13^th,” but it also acts as a love letter to the classic creature features of George A. Romero and John Carpenter. The backstory with how the entity does all of its killings and how it picks its targets is really interesting, and I love how it’s all a metaphor for contracting STDs, making it a much smarter film that what people would expect.

            The tension in the film is also incredibly well done. The way the creature slowly follows its target and how it could be just about anybody is a terrifying thought, as it fills its prey’s thoughts with anxiety and restless behavior. It also lends itself to scares that are well deserved, and not being ones where the volume is jacked up to high to try and create tension like most other horror films today. It’s an unstoppable creature, and I applaud the film’s ambiguous ending as to whether or not they succeeded. Also, the music Richard Vreeland aka Disasterpeace is simply astounding, having a really unique 80’s feel to it and adding to the suspense.

            The performances in the film are some of the best of any horror flick, with the best coming from Maika Monroe as Jay. She really lets the dilemma she’s going through be expressed, with a dreadful fear sticking with her at all times. While there might be moments where you suspect her to do something out of character, I always thought of her actions of her doing whatever option she had to stay alive as long as possible, and figure out if there are any other options left for her. She definitely fits right into the caliber of iconic horror ladies like Jamie Lee Curtis and Heather Langenkamp, and I do hope that Monroe gets more roles further on in the future.

            Now before I give to the rating, let me real quick talk about my favorite horror film from last year, “The Babadook.”

            The film told the story of a mother, who is dealing with PTSD and her over-imaginative son, as they are being haunted by an entity known as Mr. Babadook, who may or may not be in the mother’s mind. The big question is which of these two films do I prefer? Well, bear in mind, they’re both two completely different films, as “The Babadook” is a psychological horror film that tackles the subject of post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, where as “It Follows” is the typical creature feature that has a deep message about sexually transmitted diseases. I think both films are incredibly damn good, but if you had to twist my arm and pick one…I’d say “The Babadook” is the superior film, mostly for one major aspect: Fear of the mind. You never clearly see the Babadook’s image completely lit, and that’s what truly makes it scary. The fact that you never see the monster, and that it might all just be their imagination. Regardless of which you choose, I love both films, and I hope they’ll both be remembered as classics in the years to come.

            “It Follows” is truly a film that I recommend watching for Halloween if you haven’t already. I loved the acting, I love the story, the scares and tension are great, and the atmosphere is excellent. I know a lot of people might have been turned off by the film, thinking it was overhyped and might have ruined it for them, and I might be one of those people overhyping it. If you don’t like it, then I can understand why. I’m not the kind of person to say people are right or wrong, I’m just a guy who likes to share his opinions on films to whoever is interested in what I have to say.

Rating: 10/10

Goosebumps (2015): 13 Nerdy Nights of Horror Year 2 - Day 12

            R.L. Stine’s Goosebumps series has truly made an identity for itself. Ever since its debut in the early 90’s, future generations have really gotten hooked on the series, and even schools have warmed up to them within time, as a way of allowing kids to get into reading. Looking at the books today, most of them are kind of silly, but there are some memorable gems here and there.

            In 1995, “Goosebumps” gained more popularity in the form a TV show, with just about every episode being an adaptation of the books. As a show for kids, it does have some good episodes, but it really is a cheesy show with some of the most awkward direction and performances you will ever see. Hell, even fans of the books admit that it has some really weird executions. I should know, being one of the people who watched the show and read the books.

            During the turn of the decade, it was announced that a film adaptation of the series was in development by Sony. This caught my attention, but I was very skeptical about the project. Why? Two names: Jack Black and Rob Letterman. Now don’t get me wrong, Jack Black’s a good actor and comedian, and he’s shown his talent very nicely in “Bernie,” “School of Rock,” “King Kong,” and the “Kung-Fu Panda” series. However, when he’s working with Rob Letterman, it hasn’t turned out for the best, as seen in “Shark Tale” and “Gulliver’s Travels.”

            Regardless of my skepticism, I decided to give the film a chance, especially with the trailers catching my curiosity. That, and the script’s story was written by Scott Alexander and Larry Karazsewski, the duo that wrote the scripts for “Ed Wood” and “Big Eyes.” So what did I think of “Goosebumps?” Well, let’s take a look...

            The story tells of Zach Cooper, who moves into Madison, Delaware, with his mother, Gale. After hearing his next door neighbor, Hannah, scream during the night, Zach assumes that her father is hurting her, and tries to investigate with his friend of the town, Champ. Things start to go south, when they accidentally release the monsters of the “Goosebumps” books, and now they have to team with Hannah and her father, R.L. Stine, to trap the monsters in and save the town.

            Let me start off by saying the film becomes very entertaining by the second act, because the first act is crap. The pace is slow, the dialogue is incredibly bland, and is full of stock clichés that are executed in the most standard way possible, making it really boring, really fast.

There were also a few supporting characters at the school that didn’t really have much to do in the film. The popular kids, the principal, the flirty teacher; you could have easily written them out of the film and it wouldn’t have made a difference. I also wasn’t too enthralled by most of the monsters being CGI. I mean, it's decent looking and I do understand that some of them could only work in CGI, but it would have been nice to see more practical effects done with these creatures like they were in the TV show. That, and it was a bit annoying how they didn’t include the Monster Blood, one of the monsters that’s most iconic with the “Goosebumps” series. That kind of sucks, especially when you consider that “Monster Blood IV” ended the original series, so why not show it in this film?

            Despite this, the rest of the film does have a lot to enjoy. For starters, Jack Black as a fictional R.L. Stine is pretty good. Instead of trying to do a dead on impersonation of Stine, Black portrays the character as a shut-in who isn’t too fond with society, and it’s only from working with the kids, that he becomes easier with the world. It’s cliché, sure, but Black’s comedic timing and delivery makes it worth it. I especially love his banter with Champ, played by Ryan Lee, leading to some of the film’s funniest moments.

Dylan Minnette, a young actor who’s appeared in “R.L. Stine’s The Haunting Hour” series, as well as Hugh Jackman's son in "Prisoners," plays Zach. He’s pretty much our stock young lead, but he does do a good job with what he’s given, and he does work off of the others really well. His best scene comes from provoking Stine to admit his identity, by saying his work sucks and comparing him to Stephen King, who Stine has a hatred for. It’s a fitting joke, since R.L. Stine has been called “the Stephen King of children’s literature.” Odeya Rush was pretty good in her performance as Hannah, and does make the character interesting. Though I do have to admit, the writing with this character was a bit predictable, especially with the twist they show us. Plus, I wasn’t really too enthusiastic about the romance between her and Zach, because of how forced it felt.

With the scenes involving the monsters, they are very entertaining, and I thought it was very fitting for Slappy the Evil Dummy, also played by Jack Black, to be the villain of the film. It’s a shame they barely show him in the advertisements, because he is a very enjoyable villain, and possibly the most iconic “Goosebumps” monster. He’s got some very clever lines, he knows how to take control of the situation, and I did like how he was an actual puppet for the most part.

Some people have made a point about this film trying to be like "Ernest Scared Stupid," or “Jumanji,” or any other adventure film from the 90’s like that. I do see where they’re coming from, as it does have that feel, so depending on how you are on those kinds of films will determine your opinion on this movie. As for me, I like those films, and I did enjoy this film. Even if you’re not a “Goosebumps” fan, it’s still a harmless film with some really good moments after the first act. If you got kids or little siblings that want to see a movie for Halloween and your local theater isn’t playing “Hotel Transylvania 2,” then I’d say give this film a watch.

Rating: 7/10

Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension: 13 Nerdy Nights of Horror Year 2 - Day 11

Ah, the “Paranormal Activity” series, the current popular horror franchise that almost every year craps out another sequel. Yeah, it was only a matter of time before this series would go downhill and become a worn out fad that people grew to hate, but still want to know how it ends. But then again, that’s with just about EVERY franchise that just doesn’t know when to just stop.

The first film, while nothing special, did leave a lasting impact with audiences, and also brought the found footage style of film making back into popularity after “Cloverfield.” After that, the series became more and more repetitive, with the same formula of a family being haunted by an entity, just with a different filming technique. Second film: multiple cameras. Third film: VHS cameras. Fourth film: iPhone and Kinect. Fifth film: modern regular recording cameras. And this film? Regular cameras and a 3D VHS camera…that last part wasn’t a joke. Oh, and this film is terrible.

In this film, the demon Toby is now haunting a family that lives in a rebuilt house from the third film, and is trying to lead the daughter into acquiring a new body. And much like the previous films, we have a guy who is obsessed with filming, a mother who doesn’t believe, a friendly sister, and a douchebag comic relief. Jump scares happen bit by bit, by the third act shit hits the fan, we come close to the climax, and then jump scare ends the film. They recycle these tropes in almost every one of these films, that you could practically make a bingo game out of it.

The characters in this film have either two modes: boring as wood or annoying as hell. I really couldn’t give a shit about who this family was or if I should worry about what happens to them, because they’re written and performed so terribly that it feels like even the film makers gave up on this series too. The aunt in the film, she was pointless, and could have easily been cut out of the film. The uncle, he’s an annoying twat that tries to lighten up the mood, but fails miserably, and thankfully dies in the film…but it’s not satisfying. The parents in this film are pretty much cardboard cutouts of Micah and Katie from the first film, except that’s disrespecting cardboard. And the daughter…yeah, who cares about her?

As for the demon, Toby, his design is so uninspired. His oozing appearance makes him look like the symbiote, and with him now being visible through the 3D camera, it takes away any kind of tension the series had. I’m the kind of person that believes what you don’t see is scarier than what you do see, which is why the first three films worked. You never saw Toby, so when someone is being breathed on or pulled by the ankle out of nowhere, it was scary. Thank you, Ghost Dimension, for ruining one of the series trademarks…you must feel really proud on kicking this series in the balls, don’t ya?

The 3D was also a major turn off here. The only times you do see the 3D work is when you’re looking through the 3D camera, meaning the other cameras in this film, which is about half of the movie, you’re seeing 2D. If you’re not going to keep the 3D on the whole time, why even bother having it? All it does is just make the film look darker than it already is. This is just as pointless as when “The Phantom Menace” was in 3D, and THAT is saying a lot! Granted, it’s not as bad, as there are some moments when the pop-out 3D, mostly at the end, does work fine, but that just means you’re seeing shitty special effects in an already shitty movie.

With this being the supposed last film in the series, you think they would answer all the questions that have been popping up since day one. Well, guess what? They answer the origins of the demon that was hinted at in the third film, but it also completely ignores “Paranormal Activity 4” and “The Marked Ones.” And I don’t mean just the questions we had, I mean the films in general are completely ignored. We never know what happened to Hunter and Katie, we don’t know where that possessed army is at the end of 4, we never get an explanation for why “The Marked Ones” connected back to the first film at the end, and we never get an answer as to why we should care about these people.

Also for a film subtitled “The Ghost Dimension,” we never really see the so called “Ghost Dimension.” That portal that’s advertised in the film that is above the daughter’s bed is just a time portal back to the third film, which took place in the 80’s. Yes, they use time travel again in these movies. I’m sorry, I thought this was a horror franchise, not “The Twilight Zone.” Learn what you are, damn it!

Overall, “Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension” is just awful. The characters are unlikable, the scares and effects were terrible, and the story is more of the same recycled bull that we've seen from the other films. It fails to answer any questions left unanswered and just raises more questions, leading us to believe that there's another one on the way. This is easily the worst film in this series, and I hope like “Saw 3D,” it stays the last.

Rating: 1/10

Unfriended: 13 Nerdy Nights of Horror Year 2 - Day 10

We’ve seen different kinds of found footage films over the years. Some with really crappy cameras, some recorded off of phones, and even ones recorded off VHS cameras. While they may have some creative concepts, they execution of almost all of them turn out like complete crap. So when the trailers for “Unfriended” started to pop up, a lot of us were groaning in disgust at the film. I mean, a found footage Skype movie? Really? There’s no way that this film is going to work out well.

The film showcases six friends talking over Skype: Blaire, Mitch, Jess, Adam, Ken, and Val. The group talks about what their plans are for an upcoming concert, only to be dealing with an uninvited guest who won't seem to leave them alone. The account of the guest belongs to Laura Barns, a girl who had committed suicide a year ago, after an embarrassing video was published online. Now one by one, the friends are taken out, as you soon discover who posted the video and all the dirty secrets that each one of them has been hiding from each other.

Despite the groan-worthy premise, I did want to give the film a chance and see if this Skype found footage film could have something worthwhile. And much to my surprise, it was better than I thought it was going to be. Almost the entire film is shown through Blaire's computer screen and there's a majority of it not featuring the Skype call window. Sometimes it'll be on her Spotify playlist, where the entity plays music that either makes it tenser or add a sense of humor to the film. Other times, it'll focus on chat messaging between Blaire and Mitch privately, or Blaire sending messages to Laura's facebook and the ghost knows what she's saying before she sends the message. It cleverly allows the audience to feel the sense of fear that Blaire is feeling throughout the film.

It isn't just your typical flavor-of-the-month horror film, but rather a film that's about a major topic: cyber-bullying. I mean, it does show us in the trailer that a girl ended up taking her life because one of her friends humiliated her so much, and this film shows us the kind of people that they really are. A lot of people's major complaints with the film was with the characters being absolutely intolerable, which I totally understand, but that's the intent of what the film was going for: showing us horrible people get what they deserve for treating somebody as badly as they did. This film shows audiences that there are going to be consequences for bullying or any kind of people that try to get attention for being a troll. Plus, this isn't the first time we've seen bad teenage characters we wanted to see die (slasher films much?). 

Now what about the film did I not like? Well, the kills that we see in the film are very predictable. There are moments where the kids threaten the ghost back with like a gun or knife, or something in their surroundings that tell you exactly how they’ll get axed off in the film, so there’s not much surprise. I also didn’t like the last moment of the film, where it ends in a big jump-scare. I felt like with such really damn good build-up, they could have given off a better pay off, or better yet cut to black before we see what happens to the last of these kids.

Aside from that, “Unfriended” really turned out a lot better than I thought. It may not be revolutionary to the horror genre or anything, but it still does its job excellently. In terms of found-footage horror films, this is one of the rare good ones. If you don’t like it, I won’t hold that against you, some people have different tastes. However, if you’re willing to give this film a chance, I recommend giving it a watch.

Rating: 8/10

Back To The Future Trilogy 30th Anniversary

The 80’s was saturated with such iconic films, but none were as iconic and memorable as “Back to the Future.” The Robert Zemeckis film from 1985 has been regarded as one of the greatest films of all time, and later becoming one of the greatest film trilogies. Hell, it might even be THE best.

Before I get into this, I want to describe how I was first introduced to “Back to the Future.” It was late one night, and I walked in on a couple of my siblings watching the climax of the second film, when Marty rides his hover board in the tunnel after getting the almanac from Biff. I asked them what was going on, and they described it by telling me that the skateboarder had a magazine from the future that he has to destroy, or else the guy chasing him will vote for all the winners and win money and ruin everyone’s lives. I then sat down to watch the rest of whatever this was, and by the end, I wanted to see more of it. Years later, I got a chance to witness the trilogy on G4 when it was still there, and witness all of the films for the first time in a row. And that’s how I was introduced to “Back to the Future.”

The first film in the series chronicles the life of Marty McFly, a teenage kid whose family isn’t in the best spot as of now and his dad still being picked on by his high school bully, Biff Tannen. Marty’s friend, Doctor Emmett Brown, then reveals to him a time machine he made out of a DeLorean, and it works out successfully. However, after Doc is gunned down, Marty jumps into the DeLorean and finds himself back in 1955. Now Marty has to find Doc in that time, and get back to the future, all the while trying to fix up a couple mistakes he made along the way.

In the second film, Marty returns to a much better 1985, just in time for his date, only for Doc to take him and his girlfriend to the future of 2015. There, they need to fix up the problems that their kids go through and make sure their future doesn’t turn out for the worst. However, their problems become more hectic when 2015 Biff travels back to 1955 with the sports almanac to alter the future further, and now Marty has to stop him once again.

And in the third film, after Doc Brown and the DeLorean are struck by lightning in 1955, Marty goes to the 1955 Doc to find the DeLorean hidden to get him back home. Instead of doing that, Marty goes back to 1885 where Doc was and bring him home, only to then deal with Biff’s ancestor, “Mad Dog” Tannen.

What makes this trilogy so damn memorable is our two main leads. Michael J. Fox IS Marty McFly, and he really has the right charisma and attitude for the character. He’s funny, he’s charming, he’s smart, and most importantly, likable. Interesting fact: Michael J. Fox at first couldn’t take the role of Marty, because of his schedule with the sitcom “Family Ties,” so the role went to Eric Stotz. However, once Fox was available in his schedule, Stotz was booted off the project, even after weeks of filming, and Fox was put into his place like intended. Then we have Doc Brown played by Christopher Lloyd, who truly embodies the scientist archetype to a new height. This has been one of Lloyd’s two most memorable roles, with the other being Judge Doom from “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?” another Zemeckis film. A lot of the lings that Doc says really do add a great deal of humor to the series, especially in the first film when he questions Marty’s 80’s dialogue. Of course we can’t forget Thomas F. Wilson as Biff Tannen. While he is the bully archetype that we’ve seen constantly in films, Wilson’s performance is just so damn good because of how far he takes it. I mean, this is a guy who borrows somebody’s car, crashes it, and bitches at them for the accident. Like, oh my god, what is wrong with this guy? You can't help but laugh at how unrealistic it is.

The effects are also spectacular. In an era where CGI was just a lost dream and practical effects still remained king, “Back to the Future” shows us why that is. It isn’t something we thought was cool but by today looks incredibly dumb like some films in the 90’s do, these effects ARE STILL MAGNIFICENT.

The film is littered with so many iconic moments that even some people who may not have seen the movie can look at it and recognize it or at least get a kick out of it. Not only scenes, but lines all together, making this one of the most quotable movies to ever exist, and saying one will always bring a smile to somebody’s face. After all, it is still a science fiction comedy. Robert Zemeckis and co-writer Bob Gale really put their best efforts into this, and crafted a film that even with dated references still holds the test of time…I mean, it has time travel in it, so yeah.

If I had to choose a favorite moment from each one of the films, I would say my favorite moment from the first film is when George McFly finally gives Biff what he deserves, and that’s a good ol’ punch to the face. In the second film, it would be when Biff meets his future self and his response is “Get the hell out of my car, old man!” It’s just such a funny line, it’s hard not to laugh at it. And as for the third film, it would have to be the train finale, as it really keeps you on the edge of your seat the whole sequence through. Everything gets riskier and riskier, that you just hope everything turns out right in the end. Definitely one of the best finales of all time.

Now with it being October 21, 2015, you might be expecting me to go on a rant about how “Back to the Future Part II” got so many things wrong, like the self-lacing shoes and hover-boards, but that’s not what I’m here to do. There are plenty of films that had different predictions of the future, all of them had different results and different years, even younger than “Back to the Future Part II.” We might have expected our futures to come at a specific point in our lives, but I know that isn’t always going to be the case. Instead of worrying about why our futures aren’t happening as they are depicted in movies or what we dream they’ll be, always remember what Doc Brown said: “Your future hasn’t been written yet. No one’s has. Your future is whatever you make of it. So make it a good one.” Words to live by.

“Back to the Future” will always be one of the most iconic trilogies of all time, and three of my favorite movies. The characters are memorable, the stories are iconic, the dialogue is genius, all of it is great. If you haven’t seen these films yet, definitely get the combo pack with all three films, have yourself a little marathon, because you’re missing out on such iconic cinema.

Rating: 10/10

The Visit: 13 Nerdy Nights of Horror Year 2 - Day 9

            M. Night Shyamalan has become one of the most notorious directors of the past twenty years, hasn’t he? He got into the spotlight strongly with “The Sixth Sense,” a film so successful it got him nominated for the Best Director and Best Original Screenplay Oscars. He followed up that success with “Unbreakable” and Signs,” but then things started to go downhill when he got to “The Village” and “Lady in the Water.” To be fair, the two films weren’t bad, but they were nowhere near as good as his first three films. Then came “The Happening,” “After Earth,” and of course, “The Last Airbender”…need I say more?

            After he kept delivering bad film after bad film, it seemed like there was no hope of Shyamalan going back to the good grace he was best known for. So as you can imagine, when the trailers for “The Visit” started popping up, I was looking forward to seeing how bad it would be, and ready to make fun of it. Then you hear about the different cuts of the film about how one cut was an art house film, another cut being a comedy, and the cut that we got being a thriller. And while I did have fun making jokes at the film, “The Visit” is actually not that bad of a movie. Let me explain:

            The film tells of two kids, Rebecca and Tyler, who go to visit their grandparents for the week. During their visit, they notice bizarre things happening with their grandmother, mostly around the night time when she seems practically homicidal. Now the kids must survive the week and try to put the pieces together on what the hell is up with their grandparents.

            With it being a found footage movie, you think it’d just be another film in the genre that is done solely to be part of the gimmick, but it actually isn’t. “The Visit” actually gives a strong reason for it being found footage, because Rebecca does it to make a documentary, to show her mom how Grandma and Grandpa handle their relationship with the kids, despite it being the first time they’ve met. It really adds to the suspense and mystery of the film, which is handled very well. And that’s another thing that works: the suspense. With how the beginning is set up so calmly, it really lets your guard down for the scares to be effective on its audience. The scenes at night, the crawling under the house, Grandpa pummeling a pedestrian, it all manages to work.

            The performances by the cast are also pretty good themselves. The two that play Rebecca and Tyler do have a likable feel to them, and their chemistry as brother and sister works out. You got the older sister who sees herself as an artist film maker, and the little brother who pines to be a rapper (in the whitest way possible) and add a little flare to the documentary. You do end up caring about these kids and wish that they do end up getting out alive. The grandparents also do a fantastic job, as they really switch the dial from being sweet and caring to downright sadistic. While some of the scenes may seem silly at first from seeing the trailer, the way they’re executed in the film is brilliant and occasionally funny.

            If there are any major complaints with the film, it would mostly be the twist. It wasn’t bad, but it was easy to see what the twist was going to be a mile away. That and some moments were just cringing, mostly on the disgusting side. Not going to say what it is, but if you’ve seen the film you know EXACTLY what I’m talking about.

            Aside from that, “The Visit” still manages to be a very interesting horror film. If you haven’t seen it yet, definitely give it a watch, especially with it being Shyamalan’s first good film in a long time. The acting’s good, the suspense is good, and also works as one of the better found footage movies in a long while.

Rating: 7/10

Crimson Peak: 13 Nerdy Nights of Horror Year 2 - Day 8

                I’ve said before that Guillermo Del Toro is one of the best visionary directors of our generation. Whether it’d be films he’s directed like “Pan’s Labyrinth,” or films he’s produced like “Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark,” it’s always a marvel to look at the whole way through. So with his newest film, “Crimson Peak,” you can imagine that I was looking forward to watching this, especially for the Halloween season. Does the film seem fitting for the season? Well, let’s take a look.

            The film tells of Edith, a young girl who loses her mother at a young age and feels the presence of ghosts ever since then. Years later, she meets Thomas Sharpe, a man desperate for investors for his clay mining machine, and the two feel an attraction toward each other. After Edith’s father is murdered, she decides to then marry Thomas and live with him and his sister, only to feel an ominous aura while living there.

            One of the major highlights about this film is the production value. The designs and look of the set are simply majestic to look at, and it’s something that Del Toro truly dedicates himself to. A fun little fact that I found out afterward was that it was a real manor they used. No CGI, they built that manor from the bottom up and it payed off. I also love how they established that the house oozes the clay that they mine for, and you have moments where you can see it out of the corner of the screen. The effects with the ghosts also pretty impressive. While I am the kind of person that thinks what you DON’T see is scarier than what you DO see, I will admit the designs of the ghosts really add a strong chilling factor to them, which hint at what these ghosts might have died from. And trust me, when people get killed, it is BRUTAL AS HELL.

            The performances in the film were also pretty damn good themselves. Mia Wasikowska as Edith gives a really damn good performance, showing both great determination and great fear when the scenes call for it. She really does prove she’s got strong acting chops, making it my favorite of her work since “Lawless” back in 2012. Charlie Hunnam returns to work with Del Toro again after “Pacific Rim,” playing Dr. Alan McMichael. He’s charming, he’s likable, and is portrayed as a family friend of Edith’s, as opposed to being a love interest like you’d expect.

            However, the best performances in the film come from Tom Hiddleston and Jessica Chastain as Thomas and Lucille Sharpe. Hiddleston gives his character such grace, such dignity, and such charisma, you can’t help but like him, even when you catch on to his intentions. That’s not to say he’s the complete villain of the film, as he does end up trying to redeem himself. No, the full on villain role goes to Lucille Sharpe, and I have to say this is one of Jessica Chastain’s best performances. She just goes all out with this character and…I really want to talk about her, but I don’t want to risk spoiling the film.

            Now do I have any complaints about the film? Well, the only major complaint I have with the film is its repetition. There were a few moments that felt like they were repeating themselves, which does feel like the film trying to pad itself up to two hours, which didn’t really need that. But aside from that, there wasn’t much about it that I didn’t like, as the rest of the film manages to still hold out well. I know a lot of people were pissed off that the film wasn’t entirely about ghosts, but that’s mostly because of the marketing team not representing it right. Del Toro did say that this was more of a Gothic romance than a horror film, so there you have it.

            Overall, “Crimson Peak” is a film that, while I did want more of, I still feel comfortable recommending. It’s visually stunning, the performances are great, and it’s perfect for the month of Halloween. Is it my favorite horror film of the year? Oh no…I’m saving THAT for the end.

Rating: 8/10

Insidious Chapter 3: 13 Nerdy Nights of Horror Year 2 - Day 7

In 2011, James Wan’s “Insidious” was released widely to the public. It told of a family whose son enters a comatose state and the family is targeted by a demonic entity. As they call up a team of paranormal investigators, they soon figure out the origins of this entity and the family’s connection with another spirit of their past. Much to my surprise, the film turned out to be a pretty good haunted house flick that really felt fresh to the eyes, despite it having some jump-scares. While it did have elements of other horror films like “Poltergeist,” “Paranormal Activity,” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street,” the film manages to make those elements feel fresh to the eyes and show James Wan’s directing improve.

However, the same can’t be said for “Insidious Chapter 2.” Don’t get me wrong, the film does have some good things about it, like a few story elements and the plot synopsis does sound good to continue the story, but the execution didn’t do as well as it did with the first film. Nothing terrible, but not worthwhile.

As you’d expect, a third film has been brought into the mix last June. Did it turn out better than the last installment? No, not necessarily.

In this prequel to the first film, we have this father and daughter mourning over the loss of the family’s mother. After the daughter meets Elise in an attempt to talk to her mother, an unknown spirit corrupts the daughter’s soul, and it shows how Elise got together with the Paranormal Team.

While I do really like the concept and plot-line of this film, the weakest part is the execution of it. Instead of James Wan returning to direct, the helm was taken over by Leigh Whannell, long time collaborative writer/producer of Wan, who also plays Specs from the previous two movies. For his directing debut, it's not bad, as it does give off the same kind of atmosphere as the other two films, but it's not really that good either. It especially gets distracting when the film makes references to the first film, as if to say "I'm a prequel. NOTICE ME!"

As for the characters, they were hit or miss. Lin Shaye, Leigh Whannell, and Angus Sampson, as Elise and the Paranormal team are good on their part much like they were in the first film. However, the rest of the characters are people I don't really care that much about. The daughter did have good interests in the film, but for the rest of it she's...kind of meh. I think part of that comes from Stefanie Scott's performance, where she looks to be trying, but feels disinterested in this film. The father, I couldn't give a fuck about him.

The biggest problem with this film, which is the same problem I had with the remake of "Poltergeist," is that it's not scary. There are bits and pieces of good atmosphere, but the rest of it is packed with jump scares that aren't executed as well as they were with the first film, and there were even bits in the final act of the film that felt downright silly. If you've seen the film, you'll know the bits I'm talking about: the stomping that causes a trap door effect, the part where Elise says "come at me, bitch" when encountering the woman in black from the first film, it's all out of place and ruins the tone.

Not much else to say except the film wasn't good. If you've liked all the films, good for you, more power to ya. Maybe I'm just the odd man out on this film, as a lot of other people seemed to have enjoyed it. Not me though.

Rating: 3/10

Poltergeist (2015): 13 Nerdy Nights of Horror Year 2 - Day 6

            “Poltergeist” is remembered by many as one of the most memorable haunted house flicks of the 1980’s. Written and produced by Steven Spielberg and directed by Tobe Hooper, the film became a landmark for future ghost films to draw inspiration from as time went on. It’s also been noted for being a cursed franchise, as several complications and deaths have happened to people who had some relation to the film, with the most noted being Dominique Dunne’s murder at 22, five months after the film’s release, and Heather O’Rourke’s death at 12 from septic shock during “Poltergeist III.”

            Word of a remake had been going around constantly since the beginning of this decade, and it was said to be produced by Sam Raimi and Robert Tapert, directed by Gil Kenan of “Monster House” fame, and written by David Lindsay-Abaire who wrote “Rabbit Hole.” Soon enough, the film was made and released after much delay, and…it was really pointless, like almost every other bad remake.

            Much like the first film, the remake-oh wait, I mean “reboot,” centers around a family who moves into a new house, only to discover paranormal things happening about. When the youngest daughter of the family gets abducted by these spirits through the closet, they call up professionals to help them deal with this entity to get their daughter back.

            When you really look at the film, there isn’t much reason to call it a reboot, as this could have just been called “Poltergeist 4,” and we would have dismissed it as just another shitty sequel. Hell, the family’s names are different, so instead of the Freeling family, we have the Bowen family. Instead of Carol Anne, we have Madison. Sure, there’s the clown scene, the tree scene, and the going into the portal through the closet, but they’re so horribly executed they’re made, the film would have been better off without it. Not only that, but it also goes against Spielberg’s theme of the original movie, on how people then were so addicted to television, hence why Carol Anne talks to the spirits through static on the TV. If they were to properly update this film, they would have done it with the gadgets that connect to the internet, which would have been perfect to do, but they don’t!

            There are also points where this film tries to be a mix between “Insidious” and “Fright Night,” by having a group of paranormal experts, ala “Insidious,” and the host of a popular TV show about hauntings from “Fright Night,” with a few key moments of “Poltergeist” added in. Which furthers my question: What’s the point? “Insidious” is already the modern day version of “Poltergeist,” without having to actually BE “Poltergeist.” I just don’t get the logic behind this!

            I will at least give credit to some of the cast. Sam Rockwell and Rosemarie DeWitt do a great job playing the parents of this family to the best they can. They’re fun, they have great moments, and I do buy them as loving a couple who care about their children. Same with Jared Harris as the TV host they call in to help. He has his moments, and I did buy him as a guy who knows more than what you’d expect. The kids however, I couldn’t give a shit about. The oldest sister, the middle brother, and the little girl, they were all expendable and are terrible in their performances. What made the original so enticing was how good the performances were with the kids, especially Heather O’Rourke as Carol Anne. Spielberg is a master of bringing the actor out of any child, as proven in almost all of his movies that feature children. Here, you can tell that the kids’ performances are just that: performances, and bad ones at that.

            Also my biggest problem with this film is that it’s not scary and completely BORING. In fact, if it wasn’t for the jump-scares that they put in this movie (which were a lot), I most likely would have fallen asleep like I did at ”Jurassic World,” another film with Spielberg attached to the original film. But whereas “Jurassic World” at the very least had Chris Pratt and a couple good action scenes, this movie barely has anything that sticks out and will mostly likely be forgotten and buried into obscurity.

            Overall, Gil Kenan and Sam Raimi’s “Poltergeist” is not worth the trouble. If you want to see a good haunted house flick, go and watch the original film. It is far superior and more deserving of your time.

Rating: 3/10

Also, if you want to see a modern day haunted house flick, go and watch “Insidious” if you’re interested. Oh, but don’t waste your time on the recent third film, because…I’m reviewing that one next, aren’t I?

NEXT TIME: Insidious Chapter 3

Hotel Transylvania 2: 13 Nerdy Nights of Horror Year 2 - Day 5

            Back in 2012…AGAIN, I gave a lot of praise to the Sony Animated film, “Hotel Transylvania.” And why not? The film had bright and luscious colors, the animation was really good to look at, the characters were very likable, and it was really damn funny. The film was Genndy Tartakovsky’s movie directorial debut, after trying to find work after “Symbionic Titan” was cancelled, and luckily the film was a big hit at the box office. It even garnered praise as being one of the better Adam Sandler films of the past few years, and I do agree with them, as the jokes really do hit well with me.

Because of this, a sequel was put into development, and Tartakovsky returned to the directing chair, but at the cost of passing up his long desired “Popeye” movie…oh well, maybe he’ll change his mind on that, like he did with this film. So how was “Hotel Transylvania 2?” Well, I really enjoyed it. It’s not as good as the first film, but there are a lot of redeeming elements that make it worthwhile.

In “Hotel Transylvania 2,” Mavis and Jonathan get married and have a little boy, Dennis. Despite not fully confirming if Dennis is a vampire or not, Mavis feels that Dennis would be a lot safer out in California where Jonathan was raised. So while on their honeymoon, Drac and the gang try to figure out the best way to have Dennis’s vampire powers come alive…if he has any that is.

Much like the last film, the animation is really damn good. It’s eye-catching and fast paced, with the characters and backgrounds blending together perfectly for the visual humor. It really is neat to see Tartakovsky’s style of animation translate extremely well into 3D animation.

The characters are still just as likable as they were last time. I like how since Mavis and Jonathan are married, Drac has become more lenient to having humans check into the hotel and be more up to date with today’s technology, showing his progress since the first film. That, and it’s really funny to see him struggle with a smart phone. And with Mavis and Jonathan, they really do have some good comedic timing together. I love seeing these two work off of each other, especially in the California scenes, where Jonathan’s attempts to show Mavis how boring California is constantly backfires.

I also really like the addition of Jonathan’s parents, Mike and Linda, played by Nick Offerman and Megan Mullally. The two really work well to the film’s advantage, with Mullally being the open-armed mother who tries to please well, and Offerman being a bit stern but honest dad. That, and it was also hard not to think of him playing this character as Ron Swanson, which is a plus for me. Even Mavis and Jonathan’s kid, Dennis, had some really good moments, especially with his friendship with Winnie, one of the werewolf children. Their scenes were cute, the acting from Asher Blinkoff and Sadie Sandler was good, and it did feel right in place with the rest of the movie. And of course, who could forget Mel Brooks as Drac’s father, Vlad. With what he’s given, Brooks gives it what it needs, funny and energetic. I find it fitting that Brooks plays Dracula’s father, since he is one of Adam Sandler’s major influences in comedy. I find that to be very fitting.

Now if there is anything that I didn’t like about the film, it would have to be how the message was handled. It wasn’t a bad message, don’t get me wrong, but I thought the way it was represented in the ending felt a little off. If you’ve seen the movie, you’ll understand what I mean.

Overall, “Hotel Transylvania 2” is a very enjoyable sequel to show kids for the Halloween season. It may not be as good as the first, but it does have a lot of redeeming qualities to it that I’d say is worth seeing in theaters. Give it a watch, and see for yourself.

Rating: 9/10

The Green Inferno: 13 Nerdy Nights of Horror Year 2 - Day 4

            Eli Roth…yeah, here’s a name that you don’t normally think too good of. As a member of “The Splat Pack,” a group of independent horror film makers who focus on ultra-violence, Roth is one who is on the lower part of the chain. I mean, as an actor he’s really good, but not so much when he’s writing and directing his own films. Films like “Cabin Fever” and “Hostel” are prime examples of films that only appeal to gore-hounds, but as a whole are fucking garbage.

Despite this, I grew some interest in seeing “The Green Inferno,” a film that he finished for the 2013 Toronto International Film Festival that didn’t see the light of day until two years afterwards. Reason for it was because it’s original distributers, Open Road Films, had a falling out with Worldview Entertainment, and it wasn’t until Universal and Blumhouse bought the distributing rights to publish the film.

            So, after a long overdue intrigue, how does “The Green Inferno” hold on its own? Well…it’s an Eli Roth film, what do you expect to happen?

            The film is about Justine, a college student who finds interest in a protest group on campus that plan to go to the Amazon rainforest to fight against the corporations that are cutting the forest down and endangering the natives. Once there, they stop one bulldozer session and head back celebrating, only for their plane to crash into native territory. Then it becomes Eli Roth’s version of “Cannibal Holocaust.”

            If I had to list any highlights, one would be the gore effects. As much as I dislike Eli Roth’s movies, I will give props to his effects teams, as they do deliver on practical gore effects that do get a reaction out of people. They’re gruesome, they’re deadly, and they are believable, as opposed to when other horror films use CGI. I also enjoyed Justine, played by Roth’s wife Lorenza Izzo. She really gives the film her all, and she does make you care for this character.

            As for the rest of the film, it’s typical Eli Roth schlock. I feel like one of the biggest flaw with Roth’s films is his writing, because he writes up some of the most stereotypical cliché assholes who you don’t care about. And then when they do end up being killed, you don’t care about them getting out alive, you’re just uncomfortable that you’re seeing such torment happen to anybody. That, and the dialogue they say is just atrocious to listen to, making you care less about what these characters do.

            Because of this film’s delay, it’s the first of two Eli Roth films that come out this year, with the other being “Knock, Knock.” Will I be seeing that too? Hell if I know. Oh, and did I mention that this film is getting a sequel? Yeah, apparently back last year, it was already confirmed that this film was getting a sequel, this time directed by Nicolas Lopez, one of the first film’s writers…yeah, I think one’s enough for me.

            Overall, “The Green Inferno” is…it’s an Eli Roth film. I don’t think I need much else to say.

Rating: 2/10

The Gallows - 13 Nerdy Nights of Horror Year 2 - Day 3

            What is it about found footage movies that just spells “disaster?” Almost every single film in this category has turned out for the worst, yet it's still around, like the film equivalent of booze. It's terrible for you, yet we still keep coming back to it. Found footage films have been especially bad in the horror genre, with our newest example being “The Gallows.”

            "The Gallows" is a film that centers around the curse of a play called The Gallows. In 1993, at this particular high school, one of the students, Charlie, was actually hung, leaving future students to believe that his ghost haunts the school. Cut to twenty years later, when the show is being performed again, and four students taking part in the play get trapped inside the theatre by the ghost of Charlie.

            While the idea of being trapped inside a haunted school at night is an intriguing idea, it's nothing short of a basic creepypasta. Hell, even creepypastas have scarier stuff than what's in this film, considering the only scares in this film are jump scares...which are the only form of scares you can find with a found footage movie. The only moment that actually did have tension to it, is the one that's advertised in the poster, but even THAT scene is ruined by a jump scare!

            This should have been a story I wanted to get behind, since the idea of horror stories in theatre has always been intriguing. Sadly, I can't get invested in this story, because of how aggravating these characters are. One character in particular, Ryan, was an incredible pain in the ass to sit through. His antics throughout the whole thing had one mode: douche. Not once did he have a good joke, act like a person, or having any value of being here, other than to be the first victim. Hell, he pretty much makes a fucking jumpscare on his own accord to the camera FOR NO REASON! And as somebody who has worked in high school theatre, I kept wondering why the teacher didn’t deal with this asshole for all of his schtick?! In real life, he would have been kicked out of working on the play, and most definitely expelled! Also, his girlfriend, Cassidy, is not worth wasting time on. She’s on the poster, and she ends up dead…spoiler.

            Reese and Pfiefer, the two characters who are the leads in the play, while they do have character development, are boring to sit through. There is a bit that does connect Reese to Charlie and the play, but it’s such a cliché thing to do in a film like this, that it just shows how lazy these writers got with their film. And it turns out that Reese’s dad, who didn’t want him in the play, was cast as the main lead in The Gallows, but called in sick and left Charlie to understudy for him. But that begs the question, why did he have to kill the other two, if all he wanted was to get revenge on the one who left him? But even if that were the case, it wasn’t HIS fault he got sick. Also, and more importantly, why didn’t Reese’s dad tell Reese about this? I mean, it’s not like the whole thing was a secret, since a cast photo of that performance was in display in the hallways of the school!

            But that’s not even the dumbest part of the film. The dumbest part about this film was the ending. And people…not even at the comedies I have been to this year, did I come out of the theater laughing as hard as I was at this movie. When it rolled the credits, all I could say was “WHAT?!” as loud as I could in the theater. I was so confused by that ending that I and the entire audience burst into laughter. I even told the cashier when I went to get a ticket for another movie, that it was so bad. I’m almost tempted to say go and find this film on DVD, and watch it for yourself. It’s that kind of movie. Hell, I’m giggling at it as I’m typing this out, and it’s already been three months. So, if you can, find some friends, pop in this movie, and experience it for yourself. You’ll feel mad at first, but then it turns into something magical.

Rating: 1/10 (film on its own)

Rating: 7/10 (incredibly stupid ending that you need friends with you to laugh at how bad it is.)

Chappie: 13 Nerdy Nights of Horror Year 2 - Day 2

            Neil Blomkamp is one of those directors that...I don't really have any feelings toward. When his blockbuster hit, “District 9,” came out, everyone was saying how phenomenal and fresh it was. It even garnered Oscar acclaim, being nominated for Best Screenplay and Best Picture. Looking back to when I first saw it, I didn't really care that much about it, and even after watching it a second time...I still don't care about it. The film was okay, but much like James Cameron's “Avatar,” I just don't see the appeal they had. When “Elysium” came out a few years later, I again had the same feeling toward it, like I did with “District 9.” It was okay, but nothing really special. I thought the acting was good, the production value was decent, but it didn't really have that much wow to it.

            So yeah, I don't really have that much love or hate for Neil Blomkamp's work...until earlier this year, when I saw his newest film, “Chappie.” And the best way I can describe it is, it's one of those films that gets worse the more you think about it.

            In the future not that far from our own, robots have taken on the task of police force in the city of Detroit. One scientist, Deon Wilson, implants an A.I. he’s worked on for years into one of those robots, which is then put under the care of a group of criminals. The robot, named Chappie, starts to learn under these criminals, but is then targeted by Deon’s rival, Vincent, and their boss, Michelle Bradley. Will things turn out well for Chappie, or will everything turn out for the worse?

            Now the major thing people noticed from the trailers is that the film feels like a rip-off “Short Circuit,” right down to the Indian scientist and his friendly robot that’s alive. And whenever it’s not ripping off “Short Circuit,” it’s ripping off “Robocop” with the ED-209 being in the movie, just with a different paint job.

Now I’ve said in the past that rip-offs aren’t as bad, if the rest of the film was good, but the film doesn’t provide that much likability to it. The worst part about it are the characters, especially the criminal family played by the band, Die Antwoord. Disregarding the terrible performances they give, I couldn’t give a shit about any of the characters they play, if you can even call them that. What’s Ninja? The asshole. What’s Yolandi? The aggressive bitch. What’s Amerika (yes, he’s called that)? The third wheel. I know, they’re supposed to be the bad guys you grow to like, but with how their dialogue and actions are performed, the only sympathy we can get is from their relationship with Chappie and Deon.

However, Chappie himself isn’t that interesting, and we barely get enough time to get familiar with his character, before suddenly bad things happen. Same with Deon: while we get to know him more than Chappie, we still don’t have as much of a connection to him as we should. Compared to Johnny 5 and Ben from “Short Circuit,” we had plenty of time to get used to their characters and relationships with other characters, that whenever bad things DID happen, it worked. They were likable, you bought their characters, and you wanted to see them come out well in the end. Though, I will give credit to Shartlo Copley and Dev Patel for their performance. Even if I didn’t like their characters, I did buy their relationship together and felt invested in what there was.

As for Vincent and Michelle, played by Hugh Jackman and Sigourney Weaver, they were a bore to sit through, and that really bugs me. These are two talented actors, Oscar nominees at that, and you couldn’t make their characters interesting? That’s just pathetic!

The action scenes, while not bad, aren’t very memorable. While Neil Blomkamp has done plenty of action scenes in both “District 9” and “Elysium,” there wasn’t anything that stood out in any of those films, and this is no exception.

Personally, I thought the remake of “Robocop” was a superior film. Yeah, it was tamed down from the original, both in tone and violence, but compared to the other remakes of 80’s action films, at least it put more effort into it as a film in general. With “Chappie,” it gave me the feelings I thought I was going to have with the remake of “Robocop,” only worse.

Overall, “Chappie” is not worth your time. The characters are unlikable, most of the acting is piss poor, the direction is lackluster, and the writing is weak. Just go watch “Short Circuit 1&2” and either the original or remake of “Robocop.” Either way, it’s better than sitting through “Chappie.”

Rating: 2/10

The Rocky Horror Picture Show 40th Anniversary: 13 Nerdy Nights of Horror Year 2 - Day 1

            Guess what everybody? It’s October once again, which means it’s time for the 13 Nerdy Nights of Horror once again, dabbling into some of this year’s horror films and give recognition to a few horror films of the past. So to start things off, we’re going to be looking at a horror comedy musical that is celebrating its 40^th anniversary as a cult classic, “The Rocky Horror Picture Show.”

            Based on the Broadway musical “The Rocky Horror Show” by Richard O’Brian, the film tells of a couple, Brad and Janet, who seek shelter during a stormy night in November, and find a castle. What they soon realize is that the castle is owned by Dr. Frank N. Furter, a mad scientist from Transexual Transylvania, who allows them to stay overnight, on the evening he brings to life his ultimate experiment, known as Rocky.

            I’ve talked about this film in a brief summary earlier this year in my Top 10 Broadway Musical Movies, and I still hold to what I said: This is by far one of the strangest films that anyone could possibly make. I mean, at first it feels like something made to challenge the Hollywood system, all the while playing tribute to science fiction flicks and B movies prior to its release. If you were to tell anybody the synopsis without any knowledge of what it's about, they would think you're crazy. Hell, even the soundtrack alone gives off that vibe of “What the fuck?”

            Upon its original release, the film was bomb that came and went, but within time gained possibly the biggest cult following of all time. The following is so big that even shows like “The Simpsons” and “The Drew Carey Show” have made references to it. Whenever movie theaters show midnight screenings of it, you’ll see people dress up as the characters, the audiences makes snarky commentary (most of which are necessities to say), all kinds of shit that would make you either annoyed by people who are disrupting the movie or look back in shock at where you are right now. In fact, the only other film to have a cult following similar to it is Tommy Wiseau’s “The Room”…but that’s another story.

            So what is it about this film that makes it so treasured by people with every passing generation? I mean, when you really look at the film on its own…it really isn’t that good of a movie. For one, it feels dated, there are plot points that come out of nowhere, characters do things that are completely left field and inconsistent, it has some repetitive scenes…but in a bizarre way, it works. Though that does tend to raise a big question: why is it okay for this film to have such senseless chaos, yet NOT okay when other films afterwards do it? In my eyes, I feel like it has something to do with how far off from reality it is and sticks to it. This film never tries to bring itself down to a more realistic tone, and just ends up getting crazier and crazier without any apologies. The film makers were passionately daring to make something that defies all possible logic and normal reasoning you’d see in the typical play or movie that you can’t help but respect and appreciate what they did to make this happen. That, and this was the film that sky-rocketed the careers of Tim Curry and Susan Sarandon, and look where it got them down the line.

            Overall, what else can be said about “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” that hasn’t been said already? It’s a film that has essentially defined the term “cult classic,” and it’s kept its crown for forty years at this point. Is it for everyone? Probably not. But if you haven’t seen it and you feel like giving it an optimistic chance, then I’d say go for it. Whether you watch the film at home with a few friends, or you go out to one of its midnight screenings at a movie that plays it, there’s a chance that it will leave some kind of an impression on you. Give it a watch and see what you think.

Rating: 10/10