Review: The Babysitter (2017)

I'm not sure why I never got around to watching this film when I have Netflix and love horror movies.  Laziness maybe?  It's right up my alley - comedic and violent and it has a killer performance from Samara Weaving as the titular babysitter.

Not that it isn't without faults.  While he does a good job as Cole, Judah Lewis is saddled with some stupid characterization as a kid who is scared of everything.  I'm sure there are people like that in real life, but in this film it very much reads as a Movie Character With an Arc type of screenplay writing - and not a particularly engaging version of it.  It's really annoying, because otherwise this is a breezy and witty screenplay.

To give a brief summary, Cole (Lewis) is 12 years old and scared of everything.  His parents go out of town and leave him in the care of his babysitter, Bee (Weaving).  He stays up to see what she does after he goes to bed, and it just happens to be the night that Bee and her friends - who are in a cult - decide to sacrifice someone and steal Cole's blood in an evil ritual meant to give them their wildest dreams and wishes.

Fairly boilerplate as far as horror goes, though the movie does have a few twists and turns to keep the formula fresh.  Cole is forced to defend himself, and the various cult members die as he tries to get to safety.  Their deaths are fairly inventive, and a few - while not anything new to the genre - still manage to surprise in the way that they happen.

But really, this movie is all about Samara Weaving's performance.  She oozes charisma on the screen - necessary to justify her as both the crush object for Cole and the leader of a cult - and she effortlessly switches from cool to sexy to scary with ease throughout the film.  I don't know that she is a villain you root for, but she is definitely a villain that is fun to watch.

If I were to compare this film to anything, it would be All Cheerleaders Die, another horror film with a twisted sense of humor.  Definitely worth a watch - it's a shame it took me this long to get to it.

8 out of 10

Review: The Conjuring (2013)

It's kind of crazy that this movie spawned a legitimate horror universe.  It's also easy, 7 films after the original, to forget just how solid and scary this movie is.  Famously, it was given an R rating despite no real violence, nudity, or swearing - the sheer scariness of the film earned it that rating.

How does it hold up, all these years later?  Pretty well!  Wan has proven himself to be an excellent director when it comes to tense sequences, and it is on full display here.  Whether cutting back and forth between a music box mirror and the person looking into it, or just having terrified characters stare into an impossibly dark corner, Wan is an expert at making the viewer hold their breath throughout the movie.

It is also boosted by strong performances from all of the actors.  Vera Farmiga is best in show, and Patrick Wilson has since deservedly become a Scream King.  Lili Taylor is also strong, and this is a much better haunted house movie than her previous try, 1999's The Haunting.  Really, I cannot single out any performance is lacking: the entire cast is natural and believable in an unbelievable situation.

There's something to be said for a simple, scary film.  It doesn't overcomplicate the plot, it properly and effective escalates the situation, the tone is consistent - I really can't find fault for the film anywhere.  Granted, the real-life Warrens were likely frauds and the movie plays fast and loose with certain historical events, but it's far from the most egregious 'based on a true story' film to use that tagline.

Would I recommend this?  Yes, easily.  I haven't seen most of the sequels, so cannot comment on the franchise as a whole, but this is a great start to it.  Even if it doesn't, in my opinion, make any of the All Time Greatest lists, it is strong enough to merit consideration for a couple.

8.5 out of 10

Review: The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975)

Sometimes, watching a horror movie (or a horror adjacent one, such as Rocky Horror) is all about the communal experience at the theater.  I'll never forget the collective gasp at a certain scene in The Witch involving a bird, or the tension throughout the theater during the opening scenes of A Quiet Place - on occasion, being with others elevates the moviegoing experience in ways that watching at home just cannot compare to.

Which is why, for The Rocky Horror Picture Show, a friend and I went to a live shadow-cast performance in San Antonio for the experience.  As an added bonus, Patricia Quinn - who plays Magenta in the film - was also there and talked a bit about the making of the film.  And this, really, is what watching this movie is about - costumes everywhere, toast thrown into the air, shouts of 'Asshole!' and 'Slut!' scattered through the viewing.  If you are watching this quietly at home, you are missing out on what made this movie an essential watch every October for its many fans.

Indeed, part of the joy even for those that have been to multiple shadow-casts is seeing how different people partake in the movie.  From grand introductions of 'Alfalfa's shadow' to inserted words into the lyrics of the various musical numbers - it's rare that longtime fans don't get to experience something new every time.

This also makes the movie critic-proof.  I'm not really even trying to discuss the value of the sets, or the performances, or even the songs in any critical sense because none of it matters when discussing this movie.  You either get it, or you don't.  The most I would say is that without Tim Curry, I don't think the cult status of this movie would have ever reached the heights it has today.

Which is why I recommend that anyone watching this for the first time, do so with friends.  I can understand not going to a shadow-cast, but any theatrical experience of it would be suggested.  And make sure that at least one of those watching with you has experienced this movie before, to help along with the rituals and the fun.

8 out of 10, factoring in the audience.

Now let's do the Time Warp again!

Review: Friday the 13th (1980)

There's a lot to be said about this movie - it's not the grandaddy of slasher films (I'd give the 'grandparent' titles to 1978's Halloween and 1974's Black Christmas), but in many ways it is the father of modern slashers, with its penchant for sequels and high body counts, not to mention the (for 1980) extreme gore used to shock the audience.  While many have come after - some better, some worse - nothing quite like this movie existed before 1980 in American cinemas, and its success changes the landscape of horror.

Do I even need to summarize this film?  Everyone knows the basics: at a summer camp shortly before the campers arrive, the counselors are stalked and killed by a mysterious figure.  Some people forget it was Mrs. Vorhees (Betsy Palmer) who was the killer in this film instead of the more famous Jason, but otherwise the story for many of these films plays out the same.

I think sometimes modern looks at this film come down a little too hard on it - it is frequently called boring in the first half, with some even questioning how it was 'shocking' with such tame kills.  And while they are not wrong in the first point - not completely - the second point conveniently forgets that these sorts of effects (done by the legendary Tom Savini) were shocking - nothing so explicit was given a wide release in US theatres before.

The problem is, by the time this is being watched and evaluated, most reviewers have already seen movies that improved on the formula that this movie set.  Yes, the whoddunnit aspect is undercooked, but that's mainly because we've seen it perfected with the Scream movies.  The movie is slow and spends time getting you familiar with both the counselors and the layout of the campground, when later movies realized that people were mostly there for the kills and sped along that process to get to what the audience wanted.

I'm not saying the film cannot be criticized, but remember it's place!  I don't think it is one of the great films of horror by any stretch - the best in this series, Part 4, probably wouldn't even crack my personal top 20 - but it's a movie to be watched to appreciate where the genre started.  It's akin to watching a retired Hall of Fame pitcher come out and throw the first pitch of a game: It might not have the heat it used to, but respect should be given for what it accomplished.

How to rate this movie?  In all fairness, it probably is a 6 at best.  But given it due respect, I think 7 is a perfectly respectable rating.  So that is where I will set it.

7 out of 10

Review: Feast (2006)

One thing I love about the horror community is how readily we recommend other horror flicks to each other.  We all have our preferences - like my love for creature features - but ask anyone who considers themselves a horror buff what their favorite movies are or what they'd recommend, and you will get a list and enthusiastic summaries of said movies.  One of the blogs I frequent, Final Girl, has made that very exercise a feature of multiple Shocktober celebrations.

Feast came into my life in such a way.  A now-defunct blog had posted what they considered the 50 greatest horror movie kills, and a scene from Feast 2 happen to catch my attention.  Not long after, I came across collection of the trilogy and made the purchase.  With my brother, I marathoned the trilogy and it became one of my absolute favorites right on the spot.

Set at a remote bar in the late hours of the night, Feast follows the patrons of that bar as the try to survive an attack from extremely tough, extremely gross creatures.  Will they be able to escape, or are they doomed to be killed by the monsters?

Very quickly, the viewer realizes that this is an anything-goes movie: People die left and right - even those you'd expect to last much longer.  And while many movies have aspired to an 'anyone can die' approach, this movie truly lives in that world.  No one has script immunity, which adds to tension of each attempt to kill or escape the creatures.

Despite a limited budget (the filmmakers were the winners of the third season of Project Greenlight), the creatures look great, and the setting is used judiciously.  A lot of horror films have problems with developing the layout of their locations, but Feast very quickly (and very smartly) establishes the levels of the bar and how to get to each.

The movie is also incredibly funny, with each major character getting an intro card summarizing their character and alluding to their potential fate.  Most of them don't even use the character's real names, and quite a few are bitingly mean in giving their rundown with such lines as "Life Expectancy: Losers and dorks go first... ...He's both."

For fans of no-holds barred horror, this is a great movie for you, as long as you can deal with gore.  And this movie is gory - limbs are ripped off, eyes are pulled out, amongst other things - and the movie finds ways to be gross in other ways that are not for the feint of heart.

A great, little-seen movie that is a blast.  Easy recommend for me (the sequels provide diminishing returns, sadly)

8.5 out of 10

Review: Scooby-Doo (2002)

I think critics were unfair to this movie when it first came out.  It was critically drubbed to such a degree that it sits at a sad 32% on Rotten Tomatoes, with an audience score that is almost as low.  And while it might not be the greatest film ever made, I thought it was fun enough, with some fun performances from the main cast.

The movie opens with the humans of Mystery Inc (Freddie Prinze Jr as Fred; Sarah Michelle Gellar as Daphne, Matthew Lillard as Shaggy, and Linda Cardellini as Velma) solving a case and quickly breaking up to go their separate ways after.  Only Shaggy and Scooby-Doo (voiced by Neil Fanning) stick together while the others go to find and improve themselves.  2 years later, they are all called to Spooky Island to solve a mystery with the expected tension.

Now, again, this is not the greatest film ever made.  The CGI for Scooby wasn't particularly great in 2002, and it's aged about as well as one would expect - and that's without mention the many other CGI creatures scattered throughout.  Aside from the main four, no cast members stand out (although Rowan Atkinson as Spooky Island owner Mondavarious is obviously having fun) despite having a few notable actors like Isla Fisher and Miguel Nuñez Jr.  The plot gives about as much information as the original Scooby-Doo cartoons, but spreads it out amongst the 86 minute running time and makes you realize just how compact those cartoons were in comparison.

But dammit, I enjoy this movie all the same.  Prinze Jr plays proto-himbo Fred with just enough charm to make you forgive the character's more boorish behavior, Gellar is having fun as a Daphne who is trying her best not be a damsel yet constantly finding herself in trouble, and Cardellini and Lillard are pitch-perfect casting even before you get into the meat of their performances, which are great.

I love just how late 90s/early 00s this movie is, from the colors to the hairstyles to 'bad slang' to the cameo from the band Sugar Ray.  The jokes are dumb, but they are told well and with energy, and there are enough that aren't for the kids that you don't have to rely on the juvenile ones for entertainment - although those juvenile ones work for me as well.

Hell, there is an extended burp/fart contest between Shaggy and Scooby that is just as sophomoric as it sounds, but I'll be damned if Lillard's facial expressions and the sound of that last, partially-contained fart when Daphne catches them doesn't make me laugh out loud every time.

All in all, this is a fun movie - light and thin and the equivalent of cotton candy in film form.  But you know what?  Cotton candy has its place, as does this movie.

7.5 out of 10

Review: Hell Fest (2018)

So, when reviewing movies, you have to factor in two major things:  Is the movie entertaining?, and is the movie well made?  Just because a movie is entertaining doesn't necessarily mean it is a good production, just as a well-made movie can be tedious and boring.  You might be asking why I lead my review of Hell Fest with such a statement, and it is because the movie succeeds at one of these two major considerations while failing absolutely in the other.

The basic premise is that a (traveling?) carnival called Hell Fest comes to town and a group of twenty-somethings - yes, teenagers get to survive this time, as the movie decides to focus on college-age people - decide to attend while, unbeknownst to them, a serial killer also attends.

I will be upfront:  The movie does not live up to the premise.  It does create some interesting sets and works as a decent MacGuffin for why no one notices all of the dead bodies, but that is about all the gold spun from the straw that is this script.  None of the kills are especially inventive, although there is one scene that works exceptionally well during the setup but makes no sense upon the reveal. Afterwards, the movie shifts into the Final Chase, so it sort of deflates quickly at that point anyway.

The acting is adequate - no one is especially terrible, although it feels like a waste of both Tony Todd and Bex Taylor-Klaus' talents giving them the roles that they have.  But it doesn't have the clunky acting that usually accompanies a slasher with no big names.

On the plus side, the movie moves along at a quick pace and doesn't overthink the premise to the point of distraction.  It actually does surprise a little bit on who lives and how it ends, but still pays homage to the 'rules' of the horror genre.

The movie still manages to be entertaining.  It won't ever make any Greatest Horror Movies lists, and if it fades into obscurity in 2 years time, it won't be a huge loss to the genre.  But if you have an hour and a half to kill and you like horror movies, there are worst ways to spend your time.

2024 Addition: In retrospect, I was a little harder on this than I should've been.  The setting, especially, works really well and is used in more interesting ways than I alluded to in my original review.  I think I was correct in my basic assessment - perfectly adequate but ultimately forgettable - but I've bumped up the score from 5 to 6, and my feelings towards it are much warmer.

6.0 out of 10.