Category Archives: Horror

Movie Review: Evil Dead (2013)

Leave a reply
Image via YouTube

Well, if you’re going to remake a classic that didn’t need to be remade, then you might as well remake it like this.

“Evil Dead” pulls a Sean Parker and removes the “The.” While it would be funny if this was the only change made in this remake, “Evil Dead” defies a lot of expectations by actually being its own movie. Unlike the recent “Carrie” remake, “Evil Dead” knows exactly what kind of movie it wants to be: a spectacularly gory horror movie. At that, it definitely succeeds.

Once again, “Evil Dead” begins with a group of young adults heading up for a pleasant weekend in a cabin in the woods. At this point, you’d think that people would watch enough horror movies to know that you’re probably screwed if you go to stay in a cabin in the woods.* Even if reminders of “The Evil Dead” past abound, including the car, a deck of cards, and that ticking clock, this new group has no clue what they’re in for.

You could sit there and try and figure out which character is supposed to be in the place of which character from the original, or you could look at them as separate people. The characters in “Evil Dead” are definitely more fully fleshed out than in the original, even though their paper-thin nature is what made the characters originally so funny. The most important characters here are David (Shiloh Fernandez) and his sister Mia (Jane Levy). Their mother had died, David wasn’t there for them, and Mia tries to get off drugs once and for all.

While the original almost immediately jumps into demon play, “Evil Dead” takes its sweet time, which allows for some solid buildup. During this time, we learn that Olivia (Jessica Lucas) is a nurse who is somewhat helpful to Mia, even though she doesn’t realize that her possession isn’t actually withdrawl. Meanwhile, Eric (Lou Taylor Pucci) finds the infamous Sumerian text and begins to piece together what is really going on. You see, Eric is smart, and we know this because he has long hair, a beard, and glasses. Meanwhile, we learn that Natalie (Elizabeth Blackmore) is an attractive blonde who is in this movie because she is an attractive blonde. At least Fede Alvarez gives his caricatures decent backstories.

These cabin dwellers are certainly a little less oblivious than the first bunch, or at least they are the victims of some plausible misdirection. Also, the demons themselves are a little different this time around. It seems to be more clear where they come from, and they are also much more personal in their taunting. This comes back to how well developed the characters are at the beginning. Yet David, like Ash, doesn’t have much more of a comeback beyond “Shut up!”

Once everyone figures out what exactly is going on, “Evil Dead” is relentless. It relishes it buckets of blood and shocking violence. I don’t use the word “shocking” lightly because that is something that is nearly impossible to do nowadays. “Evil Dead” shows everything from discarded flesh to mutilated arms. Normally, this would be just too much and if this already sounds like too much for you, then you definitely should not watch “Evil Dead.” Yet, “Evil Dead” earns the right to show too much, as the film tries to replicate the experience of hell literally breaking loose on earth.

“Evil Dead” also highlights how well the original film holds up today, despite many sequels, knockoffs, and raised stakes in gore and torture porn. There’s still nothing as perplexing and weird as a tree coming to life and committing rape. That scene is handled quite differently in the remake, as if here it is actually trying to give itself a purpose for existing. Maybe it just really felt the need to be in the remake, given how infamous that scene is. The great thing about “Evil Dead” is that you don’t need to be a fan of the original trilogy in order to enjoy it. Yet, those who are will find themselves rewarded. “Evil Dead” was produced by Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell, who clearly knew which scenes fans were dying to get recreated.

“Evil Dead” might be even more bloody disgusting than the original, but its also surprisingly more hopeful. “Evil Dead” is as much a redemption story as it is a horror film. Independent from the original, it is a high quality horror film, mining screams from the utmost depths of unimaginable fright. It is just as scary to see an arm pop out of the ground and scare someone as it is to see someone saw off their own arm in order to save themselves. These are two things that happen in “Evil Dead,” many times over.

Unfortunately, “Evil Dead” loses a few valuable traits in its translation from 1981 to 2013. It lacks the visceral sense of humor of “The Evil Dead” as well as its audacity and simplicity. The original felt like commentary on all of horror in general. Through a bleeding projector and some off-putting point of view shots, the film transported the viewer right into it and then asked if they still enjoyed watching a horror film as it tore itself apart from the inside. The new one is a bit more of a back-to-basics horror film, often asking the audience to just sit back and be scared. That is not necessarily a bad thing, because “Evil Dead” delivers damn well on that promise. Still, it sometimes feels like “Evil Dead” homogenizes a revolutionary cult classic.

Nonetheless, “Evil Dead” is a fine practice in plausible insanity. Despite a lack in laughs, it never takes itself too seriously. “Evil Dead” is a sometimes fun, sometimes scary, practice in developing a bunch of characters, and then trying to find ways to kill them all off.

*Come on, guys. This is why Cancun was invented!

IT’S JUST LIKE “THE HAPPENING” LULZ. Image via Bitch Magazine

Movie Review: Carrie (2013)

Leave a reply

Poor Carrie White. 37 years later, and she still can’t catch a break. The latest update of “Carrie” is not a total facelift, but it does take the White family and places them in the present day. If you’ve already seen the original, you might be interested to see how much more the White family feels out of place in 2013 than 1976.

Even for newbies, I believe the story of “Carrie” is well known enough at this point that I shouldn’t use too much time to lay it all out. Carrie (Chloe Moretz) is still a misfit, and her mother Margaret (Julianne Moore) is still a religious fanatic. Carrie still gets bullied, gets covered in pig guts, and then gets sweet, sweet revenge.


Unlike the original though, director Kimberly Peirce decided to focus much more on the bullying aspect. This is important, as the Internet has made bullying both much more prevalent and scarier than it ever was in the past. On the one hand, Peirce handles this topic with restraint, rightfully not cluttering the screen with texts and Tweets. This is what sets “Carrie” apart from most modern teen films, even if it is sometimes feels like a gorier version of a CW show. On the other hand, Peirce doesn’t explore the bullying idea enough, and it often feels more like an afterthought than an insight. Also, even somebody as maniacal and dumb as Chris (Portia Doubleday) wouldn’t post a video that incriminating on YouTube for anyone and everyone to see.

I’ve begun to shake off my completely negative attitude towards remakes. The best thing about them is that they can shed light onto the filmmaking of both the past and present. The “Carrie” of 1976 creates tension with a slow buildup. It is more a work of the Hitchcockian school of terror (indeed Brian De Palma was a big fan of paying homage to Hitchcock). The “Carrie” of 2013 throws the ideas of patience and subtlety out the door. The action scenes in the new “Carrie” are well choreographed and plausible, but they are never surprising and they never keep you guessing. At one point after a big explosion I said to myself, “oh they had to do that just in case we weren’t sure that character was already dead. Now they’re just more dead.” The more “Carrie” shows, the less scary it becomes.

While a movie about telekinesis obviously isn’t going to offer the most realistic portrait of high school, there could have at least been a little more effort. I would have liked to see Carrie in the same high school I saw in “The Spectacular Now,” where the teens at least speak the way teens actually do. “Carrie” feels less like a horror movie set in high school, and more like a superhero movie. In fact, at several points I felt reminded of “The Amazing Spider-Man.” While I really enjoyed that movie, Carrie shouldn’t be a superhero movie. It is more interesting, and more tragic, to watch her struggle with her powers. Carrie is a tragic anti-hero, not Wonder Woman.

There’s also a lot of problems with the dialogue, which rarely replicates the way teenagers actually talk. However, the actors make the best of the script they are given. Chloe Moretz, the most mature actress her age in Hollywood, embodies all of Carrie’s silent rage. Meanwhile, Julianne Moore is sometimes unrecognizable in her performance as Carrie’s mother. They both portray madness in two different ways: one implicitly, and one explicitly.

As director, Peirce definitely respects the source material, and does her best to remain faithful while inserting her original voice. It just doesn’t seem right to turn “Carrie” into such an on-the-nose anti-bullying film, when the original story did that so well without having to state the message. The latest version of “Carrie” is a fine introduction to the story, but its existence still doesn’t seem merited enough for me. Throughout its entire run, it had my attention. However, it never had my full curiosity.

SPOILER SECTION- Read on if you’ve seen “Carrie”

  • I think it was the new ending that bothered me most about “Carrie.” It is not even that Sue (Gabriella Wilde) going to court is less haunting than her having a breakdown in her mother’s arms. It is that they took the memorable final image of Carrie’s hand popping out of the ground and replaced it with what felt like the beginning of a music video. I am all for ambiguity, but I don’t even think this ending knew how it wanted to make the audience feel. 
  • This version decides to spare Ms. Desjardin. Her death in the original showed the consequences of Carrie’s revenge, and how little control she had over her own body. Now, her revenge is much more calculated. 
  • I think Richard Kelly would have been a great choice as director for this remake. He hasn’t made a great film since “Donnie Darko.” He really could use a comeback. 
  • Of course Mrs. White is crazy enough to give birth to Carrie all by herself.
  • Their last name is White. White…Walter White? Lot’s of evil…are they related?! Guys, I miss “Breaking Bad.” 

Rosemary’s Baby: My Favorite Horror Film

Leave a reply

Three years ago, I released a list of the five best horror films in honor of Halloween. However, three years is a long time and I am certainly not the same person I was back then. Naturally, both my opinions and taste have changed since then.

In 2009, I hailed “The Silence of the Lambs” as the best horror film ever made. I admit that I have never been the biggest fan of horror films. Zombies and slashers have never quite done it for me. So I think it would be more appropriate to say that this new post is about my favorite horror film. Seeing as I have yet to watch “Night of the Living Dead,” I don’t feel totally qualified to judge which horror film is the absolute best ever made. While I still consider “The Silence of the Lambs” a masterpiece, I have come to realize that “Rosemary’s Baby” is truly my favorite horror film of all time.


One of the biggest complaints made against of modern horror films is how the genre has substituted true suspense for blood and guts. Maybe that is why the horror films which effected me most usually have a supernatural element to them. Ironically though, I hate “The Exorcist.” Giving a character powers that they do not understand and cannot handle can say a whole lot thematically. For example, in “Carrie,” her telepathy is partly a metaphor for her ignorance of her journey into womanhood. “Carrie” does not get enough mentions in top ten lists.

“Rosemary’s Baby” isn’t even that frightening throughout its running time. Then again, there shouldn’t have to be someone hiding behind every door in order to make something scary. A scary idea can be more frightening than a few cheap screams.

“Rosemary’s Baby” is also one of the films that proves that Roman Polanski is a master filmmaker. Few directors have ever been so bold as to view humanity as so overwhelmingly dark. With the exception of “The Pianist,” the endings to most of Polanski’s films are devoid of optimism. However, they are never devoid of meaning.

The film is set mostly in one location. More horror films should use less locations, as giving characters less places to go for safety can make a story all the more chilling. The film centers around certified New York yuppies Guy (John Cassavetes) and Rosemary (Mia Farrow) Woodhouse who move into The Dakota. The Dakota would become the sight of a real tragedy 12 years later, as it was the home of John Lennon, and he was murdered just outside of it. One scene in the film showing a dead body just outside the building feels all the more eery when seen through the lens of history.

The film begins more hopefully than it ends. The young couple is ready to have a baby, yet Guy is struggling to make it as an actor. Their neighbors are the overly hospital Castevets (Sidney Blackmer and Ruth Gordon). Gordon deservingly won an Oscar for this role. It has always been difficult for me to decide which version of Ruth Gordon she should best be remembered by: the crazy, spritely old Maude of “Harold and Maude,” or the crazy old witch who acted like anyone’s grandmother in “Rosemary’s Baby.”

Guy will do anything to make his acting dreams a reality, and he may or may not have made a deal with the Castevets to transform Rosemary’s seed into the son of Satan. Besides one scene early on in the film which is presented with a nightmarish quality, “Rosemary’s Baby” is mostly grounded in reality throughout. It is also a detective story, with Rosemary investigating her own pregnancy and trying to find out whether her deepest fears are actually all too real. I am not sure how this film was advertised when it was first released in 1968, or whether people knew what the ending would be like going into it. I do not believe saying this is a spoiler, but anyone going into this film would automatically believe that Rosemary is right in her suspicions. If she wasn’t, then there wouldn’t be a film at all.

Keeping that in mind does not managet to ruin the power of “Rosemary’s Baby” in any way. “Rosemary’s Baby” possesses the greatest trait of American films from its era: building up and up and up to a devastating conclusion. Letting things sizzle for longer than they should always leads to great results. The unseen is most terrifying, and that is why we are kept in the dark for so long about this Satanic mystery.

Many horror films play on the idea of how frightening the unseen can be. What makes “Rosemary’s Baby” so unique is the way in which it plays on common fears. “Rosemary’s Baby” asks whether or not we can really trust the people who are supposed to help us unconditionally, such as our family, friends, doctors, and neighbors. In true Polanski fashion, “Rosemary’s Baby” shows that even our loved ones could be working against us because human selfishness knows no boundaries.

Polanski’s films always center around one character who are pulled into evil despite never wanting to be a part of it. The final shot of “Rosemary’s Baby” is both haunting and strangely sublime. Rosemary is that moral center, and she comes to grips with the idea that even if the world were ruled by absolute evil, evil would not be able to exist without love. In Polanski’s eyes, a world without love is more terrifying than staring Satan directly in the eyes.

“Rosemary’s Baby” may be so unforgivingly dark, but there is a reason that I want to keep revisiting it. It is a continuously engaging story that is never ruined by knowing the twists. The script, based on the novel by Ira Levin and adapted for the screen by Polanski himself, shows Polanski’s overlooked gift for humor. “Rosemary’s Baby” is populated by an array of colorful New York high society stereotypes that nearly border on satire. I have not read the original source material, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Polanski crafted many of these exaggerated characters himself, as he always enjoyed spinning our views on the wealthy. Polanski had a reputation for being difficult to work with, but it seems as if his boldest decisions usually end up being for the better. If it wasn’t for Polanski’s change to the ending of Robert Towne’s “Chinatown” script, that film might have been just another detective story.

Believing in the existence of a demon child might seem ridiculous, but the world created by this film is so well crafted that I actually felt stupid believing that the opposite could be true. People seem to only want to talk about horror films around Halloween. “Rosemary’s Baby” is perfect for any time of the year. Because it is as frightening and daring today as it was 44 years ago, it remains timeless in every sense of the word.

People please tell me, which horror classics are your favorites? Which ones do I still need to watch?

Movie Review: Splice

Leave a reply

Some movies are too weird for their own good. Other movies find ways to be good through all the weirdness. “Splice” balances on the line between these two.

“Splice” is the latest film from Vincenzo Natali. Natali has the name of a great horror director, and he could just become one. I have never seen any of his previous works, but “Splice” shows that he knows this genre, and the several other ones that the film navigates.
“Splice” is infatuated with low angle, and usually subjective, shots. One of the best choices it makes is opening through the blurry, confused eyes of a newborn. This is no newborn, this is the birth of a new species. This is a creation from scientists (and lovers) Clive (Adrien Brody) and Elsa (Sarah Polley). The two figured out how to isolate the DNA of various types of animals and morph them into one, new species. The new species is active, healthy, and can even produce medicinal milk. It turns out to be both a scientific and economic wonder.
Clive and Elsa want to take their experiment to the next level: they want to add human DNA. However, the company isn’t looking for scientific breakthroughs, but rather profit, and forces them to continue research on the milk the new creature produces. They go ahead with their experiment anyway. The result is a creature with the face of a human, the body of a small kangaroo, and the skin of a salamander. The clone, named Dren, starts off sweet and innocent enough. Then she turns, quite literally, into a monster.
The film is proceeded by some noteworthy shots, a few corny lines, and a few great thrills. It is a mixture of scientific intrigue and fictional ridiculousness. Despite some flaws, “Splice” is still miles ahead of most sci-fi films released in recent years. It draws upon, rather than steals from, classics.
On that note, the thing I enjoyed most about “Splice” is how inspired it was. Natali is a film lover’s filmmaker. The slow, creeping doom that occurs alongside the speedy development of the creature feels right out of “Alien.” A later scene involves a chase through a dark, snowy, forest reminiscent to the frozen maze chase that occurs in “The Shining.” At one point, a character even shouts “It’s alive!” just like Rosemary mistakenly shouted in joy in “Rosemary’s Baby.” It might just sound like I’m merely throwing out every film reference I can to look cool, but I’m actually throwing out compliments. Natali doesn’t just know great films, but he knows what makes them so great. And those things influence his work in the best way.
Don’t get the impression from this that Natali’s work is nothing but a lot of pop culture reference. He is also a great director for individual reasons. The sci-fi works great because he understands how the sci-fi genre operates. The horror aspects work especially well because he understands how to create real thrills. As usual, it is not about the gore. What is crucial is atmosphere. He can create a moment of suspense either threw loud, overbearing music, or pure silence. One of the most impressive ways that he creates an environment of dread is through very tiny details. The most significant is a light swaying back and forth overhead, as the couple waits to see if there creation has survived.
“Splice” also displays some impressive cinematography. It contributes to the atmosphere as much as the sound and music. Best of all, it doesn’t rely on an unnecessary large amount of shaky cam to try and frighten the viewer. Any horror you might feel comes organically.
As I am not Natali, I can’t say what his true goal was with “Splice.” If it was simply to thrill us and weird us out, then mission accomplished. But if he was looking for something even deeper, which I suspect he was, then he just missed the mark.
At times, I thought “Splice” was going for the “Brave New World” message that there’s a line in science, and sometimes we just shouldn’t toy too much with our own DNA. Then there’s also this whole thing about how science is being ruined by corporate greed. These are themes that have been explored again and again, and I wish “Splice” did it in a slightly more original, and even more three-dimensional way.
The reason these two things don’t work so well might just be because of the weakest aspect of the film: the writing. All of the arguments about the place of science and moral judgement just sound contrived. Such eloquent directing could’ve used much more eloquent writing.
While I obviously appreciated this film as a thriller, I wish Natali had gone and made it a little more satirical. There is one moment in the film (you’ll know it when you see it), that’s so gruesome and unexpected that it ends up being uncomfortably hilarious. Some might find it horrifying, others might find it to be the most genius moment in the entire film.
“Splice” certainly isn’t your average sci-fi horror film, as Natali certainly isn’t your average director. And even though the film falters on several points, it’s hard not to recommend “Splice.” After having to sit through “Robin Hood” and endless “Sex and the City 2″ ads, any actual story is welcome.

Movie Review: Zombieland

Leave a reply

There is a little, important secret of horror filmmaking I’ve been picking up on lately. That little secret is that less is more, that what we don’t see is scarier than what we actually do see. Even though much blood and guts is spilled in “Zombieland,” much is still left up to the imagination. This helps keep the film from being wannabe shlock to a totally satisfying horror satire.

“Zombieland” takes place in a post-apocalyptic Earth, long after a virus has turned most humans into cannibalistic zombies. The world has now become a Darwinian society, where all you need are a few basic skills to get by. One of those people lucky enough are Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg). Columbus is a scrawny, awkward college student who manages to get by unscathed because he’s so used to loneliness.
While trying to reach his parents in Ohio, Columbus meets the tough, potty-mouthed, yet ultimately tender Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson). As they head east, they meet two con women: Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin). The rest of the plot mainly consists of them traveling cross country, searching for safe haven as Columbus begins to fall for Wichita.
As you’ll notice, each character is named after a different city. They each name themselves after the destination they are headed to, whether it still exists or not out of confidentiality reasons. It seems kind of ironic that they want their names to be secret though, as they end up becoming something of a family in the end.
In my introduction, I made the film seem like too much of a pure horror film. That, it isn’t. I only felt frightened at a few moments in the film, but then again, “Zombieland” was meant to be a satire, and not a horror film. That doesn’t mean it’s not directed like a good horror film though. Take the convenience store scene. The most brutal death involves Tallahassee, a zombie, and a pair of hedge trimmers. We don’t see what exactly the trimmers do, but we do see them slide across the floor, covered in blood. It’s inferring what happened, rather than actually seeing what happened, that challenges the viewer, builds suspense, and just makes it even creepier to ponder. However, “Zombieland” does show us a good amount of graphic blood and guts. However it’s much more sparse than you might imagine, and it mainly happens at the way beginning. It’s almost like director Rubin Fleischer’s way of saying “there’s the gore. Happy now? Can we just move on?”
I can’t forget that “Zombieland” is first and foremost a satire. Unfortunately, I’m not well-versed enough in the zombie genre to say whether or not “Zombieland” effectively both pokes fun and pays tribute to the popular genre. However, the film may also be a satire of the horror genre in general (I picked up a reference to the banjo scene in “Deliverance”). I could spot even smaller possible satirical spots. Some of them could even be the more predictable moments of the film, possibly mocking how formulaic the genre has become.
The humor of “Zombieland” is buoyed by its two central performances. While it might be cool at this point to bash Eisenberg for playing the same character he played in “The Squid and the Whale” and “Adventureland” I’m going to go against the tide and say he gave a good performance because I like him and well, if someone is good at playing a certain personality, why shouldn’t they be allowed to keep playing it?
Mainly, Harrelson’s performance as Tallahassee steals the show. The writers give him a few great lines (“That’ll do, pig”), and he does such a great job at delivering each one. Harrelson plays Tallahassee slightly like Mickey from “Natural Born Killers,” if Mickey had a soft spot and a love for Twinkies.
Stone doesn’t bring a huge amount to the table, but she doesn’t really detract from the story at all either. Breslin, however, does a great job with the material. After this and “Little Miss Sunshine,” she proves that she can handle more adult material better than most girls under 18 [Editor’s Note: Let’s say for example, Hannah Montana, who’d I’d love to see be eaten by zombies]. The film also includes an extremely random, yet hilariously and even refreshing cameo. I dare not give it away here; I don’t want to ruin the fun for you.
“Zombieland” isn’t perfect. It’s short and it isn’t the first zombie satire ever made (there’s also “Shaun of the Dead” which, for the record, I still haven’t seen). But why did I like it so much? Mainly, its 81 minutes of pure, blissful, escapism. It’s the kind of escapism that will draw you out of reality and further and further into the world of movies. This isn’t a Seltzer-Friedberg satire, it’s the kind that has a deep knowledge, and even a deep respect, for the subject its consistently mocking. Not only that, but it stands as a comedy in its own right, with its own, original jokes, as well.

In Honor of Halloween: The Five Best Horror Films

Leave a reply

I’ve always had an admiration for horror films because, when done right, they can quite simply define what it means to be entertained. You might forget why you cried at the end of “Titanic,” but you’ll never forget that final shock in “Carrie,” or that shower scene in “Psycho.” Quite simply, a good scare proves that our emotions remain intact.

What better time is there to celebrate the best films that make you scream than on Halloween? If you’re looking for some real horror this Halloween, check out these films; the five best horror films:

1. The Silence of the Lambs- To date, this is the only horror film to win Best Picture at the Oscars. And for good reason. “The Silence of the Lambs” boasts two of the creepiest villains ever and one of the most troubled heroes. You might be most shocked by the cannibalism and you might be most shocked by the well scene. Point is, there’s enough shock here to go around. As violent as it is, “Silence of the Lambs” is the rare horror film that truly uses character for thrills. And not cheap thrills. Anthony Hopkins performance as the brilliant cannibal Hannibal Lecter is one of the greatest in all of cinema. “A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti.” Hopkins delivery of this line makes it all the more chilling. They say some movies truly have to be seen to be believed. If you want to understand truly why this horror film tops all others, then sit down and watch it, frame by frightening frame.

2. Psycho- Skip the 1998 shot-by-shot remake. Head toward the original instead because almost five decades later, Alfred Hitchcock’s classic hasn’t lost its power to make audiences scream. In discussing this film’s qualification for the list, only one scene is necessary: the shower scene. This scene still delivers goose bumps because of its hyper-fast cuts and shrieking musical scores. Try showering alone again after watching this, it won’t be easy.

3. Se7en- This contemporary masterpiece is also one of the bleakest films ever put onto the big screen. The film follows two cops hunting for a certain John Doe, a psychopath who kills his victims based on the seven deadly sins. “Se7en” is so distinct in the fact that it can frighten you for days not by what it shows you, but what it doesn’t show you. The audience never sees any of the victims die, but the aftermaths are even more horrible.

4. The Shining- The master of every genre, Stanley Kubrick, deserves at least one mention on this list. Only someone like Kubrick could take something as simple as a ghost story about a writer going mad from isolation and trying to kill his family to something so frighteningly complex. In this movie, it’s not just the axes and the blood that are so scary, but the eerie musical score, and those stunning tracking shots. “The Shining” was released 20 years after “Psycho.” This time audiences weren’t so much afraid of being stabbed in a motel shower by Anthony Perkins, but axed in the face in a hotel bathroom by Jack Nicholson.

5. Carrie- Some horror films try to scare you with cheap thrills like oozing blood and bumps with the night. Not this one. What starts off as your typical drama about a bullied high school girl, until she gains super powers and uses them for revenge. “Carrie” is a slow building horror film, with the greatest not occurring until well over an hour in. Brian De Palma uses Hitchcockian techniques to create slow-burning suspense leading up to its unforgettable climax. “Carrie” is an essential horror film for those with patience. To top it all of, this movie has the best final scare. Ever.

And, a few other classics: Rosemary’s Baby, Jaws, Deliverance, Alien

Movie Review: The Final Destination (3D)

2 Replies

When did audiences stop caring about life and start cheering on merciless, unnecessary death? I didn’t realize this was the case until I sat through “The Final Destination.” In 3D. And felt myself cheering too.

Maybe it wasn’t such a bad thing that we were all cheering. After all, what sympathy could be felt for the characters? Not one felt the least bit developed. Well, maybe a little bit. The most I could say is that Nick (Bobby Campo) goes to a race car event with his friends. There, he has premonitions of a disaster in the stadium causing brutal death. Him and his friends, along with a few others, narrowly escape the carnage. They have cheated death. This sets off a chain of events that leads to each of them being killed off in the most unpleasant ways imaginable. Oh, and Nick also has a friend named Hunt (Nick Zano) who’s kind of a tool. I don’t remember any other of the characters’ names. And I don’t really care. 
The actors certainly don’t help bring sympathy to the characters. Their dull and lifeless delivery bring nothing to the script; not that there’s anything good to the script. The dialogue is nothing but a series of platitudes and cliches. At one point, one character actually says “you only live once” and tries to pass it off as original, moving, and insightful. Of course, it is none of these things. 
The film’s director, David R. Ellis, has a strange resume that includes “Final Destination II,” “Snakes on a Plane,” and “Homeward Bound II.” In directing “The Final Destination” he breaks the rule that makes a horror film great: waiting. Don’t try to hit your audience with so much in so little time, you have to let the characters grow. You have to let the fear grow. That’s what makes horror films like “Psycho,” “The Silence of the Lambs,” and “Carrie” so effective: they grow on you. And then, suddenly, they give you and incredible jolt out of the dark.
The debate “The Final Destination” covers is one that has been argued for centuries on and off the screen: fate vs. freewill. Can you cheat death? And if so, will death find you again? “The Final Destination” obviously leans towards the latter. However, it seems to believe that spilling blood and guts is an effective way to prove a point. Believe me, it’s not. If you’d like to see this topic discussed much more eloquently, watch an episode of “Lost” or read “Man’s Search for Meaning.”
Now, most of you wanting to see this movie aren’t looking for a sophisticated debate; you’re looking for escapism. Well, you won’t find it here. Escapism is enjoying a film that provides a sort of world you know can’t exist, but for a limited amount of time, you’ll believe it does anyway. The kind of escapism “The Final Destination” provides is the kind where you can laugh at the ridiculousness of the film. But this is not enjoyment. For real escapism, go see “Inglourious Basterds” instead.
I will admit, this is only the first “Final Destination” movie I’ve seen. I felt confused at first, so my friend explained the premise of the other three to me. The premise was the exact same for each movie, and he seemed to have a good feeling that this installment would go the same way. I doubted him for a second, thinking nobody could possibly carry out the same idea and get away with it three times. He was right.
Note: Don’t let the title fool you. Even though it’s called “The Final Destination,” the film is truly “Final Destination 4.” This just marks a weird trend where studios try to wipe out a franchise history by leaving out the number of the film (ex: Fast & Furious, Rambo). Sorry guys, it isn’t working.