Late again as usual, but the publishing date will show I was right on time, because I am a technologist...I reject your reality and substitute my own.
October Horror Season is once again upon us. So here's the plan.
The week themes are: Werewolves, Home Invasions, Really Really Bad Movies, and Sequels.
For movies we have:
Werewolves week:
Dog Soldiers - Neil Marshall's feature debut! I'm excited!
Red Riding Hood (2011) - Ok, I'm not a tween girl, but we'll see.
Ginger Snaps - Cult classic. And periods. Let's do this.
Skinwalkers - I love Psych, and Jason X is hilarious. So we've got a werewolf movie co-written by Shawn Spencer and directed by the director of Jason X. Let's do this. Too. Again.
Werewolf Hunter: The Legend of Romasanta - No idea here.
Transylvania 6-5000 - Classic genre cheese with Jeff Goldblum. I'm told it has werewolves. We'll see.
Silver Bullet - WARNING: STEPHEN KING.
Home Invasions week:
Funny Games
Silent House
When a Stranger Calls
The Strangers
Dream Home
The Collector
Torment
Really really bad movies:
Gingerdead Man
Sleepaway Camp
Killer Klowns from Outer Space
Troll 2
Halloween: Ressurection
Trick or Treat (1986) - Trick 'r Treat is actually a really good movie.
Leprechaun
Sequels:
House of the Dead 2
Phantasm 2
Silence of the Lambs
The Devil's Rejects
Wolf Creek 2
Cube 2: Hypercube
The Collection
And that's the month. Let's see how it shakes out. Sporadic updates will follow.
Showing posts with label pre-season. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pre-season. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
Monday, September 30, 2013
Horror Pre-Season: The Conjuring & Insidious 2
Alright, so I'm a bit late to the plate this year with the pre-season, but I have been watching movies. While I anxiously await Ti West's newest endeavor, James Wan has proven he's one of the genre's best directors.
The Conjuring came out in July and I saw a lot of similarity between it and what Wan was trying to do with Insidious. They're both stories about average families that move into a new house and begin experiencing a series of terrifying supernatural events they're unprepared for until in a last-ditch effort they call on the services of a paranormal investigator. However The Conjuring remains much more rooted in reality than Insidious did, and by doing so avoids repeating many of the issues I had with the original Insidious.
The Insidious franchise deals with evil spirits that exist in a supernatural realm called the "Further" who aim to possess the living. In its world there are mediums who can communicate across the veil and astral projectors who can send their spirits into the Further and directly interact with the spirits therein. In The Conjuring there is no spirit realm and so the ghosts in its story are just behind our reality, sometimes manifesting in the darkness and gaining strength to affect our world by the fear of their victims.
So The Conjuring is the story of the Perron family played by Ron Livingston and Lili Taylor who move into a new house in the country. Immediately after moving in the family is plagued by night terrors, the wife wakes up with odd bruises, things rattle, pictures fall, the family dog refuses to enter the house and is killed. Until the family contacts Ed and Lorraine Warren played by Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga. The two are noted paranormal investigators and conclude the house is haunted. They discover historical records about a witch who attempted to sacrifice her children to the devil and then killed herself on the property, which has now been divided up into several plots which have all been haunted. The witch possesses each family's wife and drives them to kill their own children, leading to the plethora of tortured spirits which haunt the house.
The movie is absolutely top-notch and very frightening. Some of the most effective scary scenes being carried on the performances of actors freaking out at literally darkness with nothing in it at all. The pacing is pretty good and Wan does a pretty great job balancing the haunting story with the possession plot and extra setting when some of the haunting begins to affect the Warren's home. The only thing I can really think of that plays against the movie's favor is one or two moments of feel-goody "love and happy memories save all" stuff and a few instances where it was hard to grasp the internal layout of the house due to the heavy use of tunnels behind the walls in the climax. But aside from that it's pretty damn great movie. When I watched it the first time I had thought that it was pretty much another crack at the same basic thing as Insidious, just with a more Catholic and 70's angle, and on that note I found it pretty successful.
But then they actually made more Insidious. Chapter 2 starts off probably a few hours after the original ended and goes from there. Off the bat I'll disclose that out of both Insidious movies and The Conjuring this is probably my least favorite. While it was fun to watch and had some good scares some of it just felt a bit flatter and already-trod. Which I suppose is the issue with horror franchises, once you reveal what's going on your sequel either needs to provide something new or MOAR! To its credit Insidious 2 doesn't try to pad around pretending there's still a mystery as to what's going on and it's story is much more of a continuation of the original than another Insidious. However the tone never quite seems to match up, while Insidious and The Conjuring had great natural peaks and valleys to the tension Insidious 2 seems to be permanently ratcheted about halfway up, in this perpetual slightly strange haze. The Conjuring had a similar sense of muted colors that I recall but for Insidious to adopt it after the original was so visually striking seems like an odd move.
It also seemed like a lot of the makeup on the iconic characters from the first movie was somewhat lacking. The guy with the slicked back hair was really imposing in the original but when he shows up here he just seems like a sickly dude. This may be hinting that the characters are perceiving him differently since they know a lot more about the supernatural elements so he's not as threatening anymore. The elephant in the room both makeup wise and story wise is the old woman that's taken possession of Josh's body at the end of the original Insidious and is now wandering around in a Patrick Wilson suit. Without going too into detail on the twisted origin story of this installment's big bad, it's a bit trite. I've seen the twist a few times before this and probably the only time it was really well done was the first time I saw it, which is unlikely to have been the first time it was done in horror/mystery. There are definitely more interesting things they could have done with their setup, which was actually pretty good. Also compared to the crazy chase through the Further in the original, the climax of this one is a bit of a letdown. It's over just a few minutes after they realize what needs to happen and it's decidedly un-supernatural.
All that said I wouldn't say it was bad. The performances were decent and it was an entertaining movie, still better than the vast majority of the horror I watch. Just comparatively it falls flat against its predecessor and The Conjuring feels much more like a spiritual sequel to Insidious.
The Conjuring came out in July and I saw a lot of similarity between it and what Wan was trying to do with Insidious. They're both stories about average families that move into a new house and begin experiencing a series of terrifying supernatural events they're unprepared for until in a last-ditch effort they call on the services of a paranormal investigator. However The Conjuring remains much more rooted in reality than Insidious did, and by doing so avoids repeating many of the issues I had with the original Insidious.
The Insidious franchise deals with evil spirits that exist in a supernatural realm called the "Further" who aim to possess the living. In its world there are mediums who can communicate across the veil and astral projectors who can send their spirits into the Further and directly interact with the spirits therein. In The Conjuring there is no spirit realm and so the ghosts in its story are just behind our reality, sometimes manifesting in the darkness and gaining strength to affect our world by the fear of their victims.
So The Conjuring is the story of the Perron family played by Ron Livingston and Lili Taylor who move into a new house in the country. Immediately after moving in the family is plagued by night terrors, the wife wakes up with odd bruises, things rattle, pictures fall, the family dog refuses to enter the house and is killed. Until the family contacts Ed and Lorraine Warren played by Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga. The two are noted paranormal investigators and conclude the house is haunted. They discover historical records about a witch who attempted to sacrifice her children to the devil and then killed herself on the property, which has now been divided up into several plots which have all been haunted. The witch possesses each family's wife and drives them to kill their own children, leading to the plethora of tortured spirits which haunt the house.
The movie is absolutely top-notch and very frightening. Some of the most effective scary scenes being carried on the performances of actors freaking out at literally darkness with nothing in it at all. The pacing is pretty good and Wan does a pretty great job balancing the haunting story with the possession plot and extra setting when some of the haunting begins to affect the Warren's home. The only thing I can really think of that plays against the movie's favor is one or two moments of feel-goody "love and happy memories save all" stuff and a few instances where it was hard to grasp the internal layout of the house due to the heavy use of tunnels behind the walls in the climax. But aside from that it's pretty damn great movie. When I watched it the first time I had thought that it was pretty much another crack at the same basic thing as Insidious, just with a more Catholic and 70's angle, and on that note I found it pretty successful.
But then they actually made more Insidious. Chapter 2 starts off probably a few hours after the original ended and goes from there. Off the bat I'll disclose that out of both Insidious movies and The Conjuring this is probably my least favorite. While it was fun to watch and had some good scares some of it just felt a bit flatter and already-trod. Which I suppose is the issue with horror franchises, once you reveal what's going on your sequel either needs to provide something new or MOAR! To its credit Insidious 2 doesn't try to pad around pretending there's still a mystery as to what's going on and it's story is much more of a continuation of the original than another Insidious. However the tone never quite seems to match up, while Insidious and The Conjuring had great natural peaks and valleys to the tension Insidious 2 seems to be permanently ratcheted about halfway up, in this perpetual slightly strange haze. The Conjuring had a similar sense of muted colors that I recall but for Insidious to adopt it after the original was so visually striking seems like an odd move.
It also seemed like a lot of the makeup on the iconic characters from the first movie was somewhat lacking. The guy with the slicked back hair was really imposing in the original but when he shows up here he just seems like a sickly dude. This may be hinting that the characters are perceiving him differently since they know a lot more about the supernatural elements so he's not as threatening anymore. The elephant in the room both makeup wise and story wise is the old woman that's taken possession of Josh's body at the end of the original Insidious and is now wandering around in a Patrick Wilson suit. Without going too into detail on the twisted origin story of this installment's big bad, it's a bit trite. I've seen the twist a few times before this and probably the only time it was really well done was the first time I saw it, which is unlikely to have been the first time it was done in horror/mystery. There are definitely more interesting things they could have done with their setup, which was actually pretty good. Also compared to the crazy chase through the Further in the original, the climax of this one is a bit of a letdown. It's over just a few minutes after they realize what needs to happen and it's decidedly un-supernatural.
All that said I wouldn't say it was bad. The performances were decent and it was an entertaining movie, still better than the vast majority of the horror I watch. Just comparatively it falls flat against its predecessor and The Conjuring feels much more like a spiritual sequel to Insidious.
Monday, October 1, 2012
October Horror 2012 Movie List
We're back to October once again, so horror movies are back in season. And! My apartment decorations are finally appropriate again.
So we've made our list, checked it Se7en times, or 666, or whatever.
Anyway, as is tradition we've split October into 4 weeks, each with an oddly specific theme.
This year we've got:
First on the list, kicking off Lovecraft week and going up in a few hours is going to be the 1970 "The Dunwich Horror".
So we've made our list, checked it Se7en times, or 666, or whatever.
Anyway, as is tradition we've split October into 4 weeks, each with an oddly specific theme.
This year we've got:
- H.P. Lovecraft adaptations - Anything obviously Lovecraftian or directly inspired by a story by Lovecraft.
- Internet Horror - Any movie where a computer game or the internet is a major plot point.
- Anthologies - Mostly just an excuse to watch Trick 'R Treat again, also V/H/S due to Ti West's involvement.
- Stephen King adaptations - Any movie based on a story by Stephen King.
First on the list, kicking off Lovecraft week and going up in a few hours is going to be the 1970 "The Dunwich Horror".
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Horror Pre-Season: The House at the End of the Street
I'm going to be back-publishing this entry so it's chronologically near when I actually watched the movie, so that it fits into the pre-season and doesn't bloat the 28 movies in the actual October viewing list.
Hoo, boy.
House at the End of the Street is a psychological thriller directed by Mark Tonderai and starring Jennifer Lawrence, Elizabeth Shue, and Max Theiriot. It was filmed mostly in mid-2010, and originally intended for release in April 2012 before being moved to September 2012. What's interesting about that is that had it been released in April, another Jennifer Lawrence movie would have still been playing in theaters. The Hunger Games was released in March 2012 and made an absolutely absurd amount of money, also making a massive star out of the then relatively unknown Lawrence. They then enacted a 6 month advertising campaign heavily focused on letting us know Jennifer Lawrence is in this movie, also moving the thriller's release into that late-September to early-October timeframe I mentioned in The Possession's review.
It's quite clear that this movie was never intended to have such a major release, but decided to capitalize on its star's suddenly heightened profile. The major problem again is the characters don't feel real. This time I don't think it's a problem of acting, I think the writing is just poor. The things people do just doesn't make sense, their motivations are practically non-existent and the relationships absolutely don't work. A significant amount of the first act is devoted to showing off Elissa's (Lawrence) multiple artistic and devious talents and how utterly charmed her life is. Instead of the traditional new-kid difficulties settling in and problems fitting in at a new school, Elissa immediately makes friends with everyone. Getting invited to a massive drinking party with all the "popular" kids seemingly on the first day, and being invited to join a band by the second day. She plays guitar, keyboard, sings, has a popular myspace music page, looks amazing, lives in a gorgeous house and the only enemy she has is the slimy alpha male that tried to force himself on her but had the decency to stop when asked. The only tension seems to be between her and her mother, who she deliberately antagonizes presumably because of some past faults or indiscretions which are never elaborated on and just mentioned as existing in passing.
Also, I'm pretty sure there was a bit that included the phrase "trying to do this mom thing" 3 times in as many minutes. The mom also said that Elissa liked to "make projects" out of people or "fix" them and tended to "find the most damaged" person around so many times I lost count. It almost felt like lines where just copy-pasted around. To say the movie repeated itself is an understatement.
The look of the film jumps from ultra-realistic handheld camera to this repeated shot where the camera cranes from below a character up past them and then shoots them from some point above the house to this "artsy" style with psychedelic colors, POV shots, and fast cuts. It's jarring, but the worst part is that all of it fails to convey internal geography. I don't know where locations are in relation to each other, and I don't even know what houses are shaped like.
As to the plot, if you're at all familiar with the Paul_Millander plot from season 2 of the original CSI series, that's basically what's going on. There are some twists to get there but it's pretty predictable. There's also a bit of some other TV plot in there, but I can't actually remember enough specifics about it. And that's the problem, really. This is a 100 minute long movie that tried to create an effective mystery centering around a serial abductor. They've tried to include a well-characterized lead character, add a lot of psychosis to the antagonist and create a complex plot of misdirections to avoid their twists being obvious. This is something TV shows have been able to do really well recently, since they have a few episodes to do it. The movie tried to do a lot, but managed its time poorly and wound pulling out a lot of random "oh yeah...his parents also did meth!" things that came out of nowhere, didn't add much, and were sometimes inconsistent with previous scenes.
I don't know why I was expecting a lot out of this movie, but I really feel let down and the problems were so myriad and obvious I felt really bad about seeing it.
Hoo, boy.
House at the End of the Street is a psychological thriller directed by Mark Tonderai and starring Jennifer Lawrence, Elizabeth Shue, and Max Theiriot. It was filmed mostly in mid-2010, and originally intended for release in April 2012 before being moved to September 2012. What's interesting about that is that had it been released in April, another Jennifer Lawrence movie would have still been playing in theaters. The Hunger Games was released in March 2012 and made an absolutely absurd amount of money, also making a massive star out of the then relatively unknown Lawrence. They then enacted a 6 month advertising campaign heavily focused on letting us know Jennifer Lawrence is in this movie, also moving the thriller's release into that late-September to early-October timeframe I mentioned in The Possession's review.
It's quite clear that this movie was never intended to have such a major release, but decided to capitalize on its star's suddenly heightened profile. The major problem again is the characters don't feel real. This time I don't think it's a problem of acting, I think the writing is just poor. The things people do just doesn't make sense, their motivations are practically non-existent and the relationships absolutely don't work. A significant amount of the first act is devoted to showing off Elissa's (Lawrence) multiple artistic and devious talents and how utterly charmed her life is. Instead of the traditional new-kid difficulties settling in and problems fitting in at a new school, Elissa immediately makes friends with everyone. Getting invited to a massive drinking party with all the "popular" kids seemingly on the first day, and being invited to join a band by the second day. She plays guitar, keyboard, sings, has a popular myspace music page, looks amazing, lives in a gorgeous house and the only enemy she has is the slimy alpha male that tried to force himself on her but had the decency to stop when asked. The only tension seems to be between her and her mother, who she deliberately antagonizes presumably because of some past faults or indiscretions which are never elaborated on and just mentioned as existing in passing.
Also, I'm pretty sure there was a bit that included the phrase "trying to do this mom thing" 3 times in as many minutes. The mom also said that Elissa liked to "make projects" out of people or "fix" them and tended to "find the most damaged" person around so many times I lost count. It almost felt like lines where just copy-pasted around. To say the movie repeated itself is an understatement.
The look of the film jumps from ultra-realistic handheld camera to this repeated shot where the camera cranes from below a character up past them and then shoots them from some point above the house to this "artsy" style with psychedelic colors, POV shots, and fast cuts. It's jarring, but the worst part is that all of it fails to convey internal geography. I don't know where locations are in relation to each other, and I don't even know what houses are shaped like.
As to the plot, if you're at all familiar with the Paul_Millander plot from season 2 of the original CSI series, that's basically what's going on. There are some twists to get there but it's pretty predictable. There's also a bit of some other TV plot in there, but I can't actually remember enough specifics about it. And that's the problem, really. This is a 100 minute long movie that tried to create an effective mystery centering around a serial abductor. They've tried to include a well-characterized lead character, add a lot of psychosis to the antagonist and create a complex plot of misdirections to avoid their twists being obvious. This is something TV shows have been able to do really well recently, since they have a few episodes to do it. The movie tried to do a lot, but managed its time poorly and wound pulling out a lot of random "oh yeah...his parents also did meth!" things that came out of nowhere, didn't add much, and were sometimes inconsistent with previous scenes.
I don't know why I was expecting a lot out of this movie, but I really feel let down and the problems were so myriad and obvious I felt really bad about seeing it.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Horror Pre-Season: The Possession
Late August through mid-September is when studios like to release horror movies outside of the shadow of whatever late-October juggernaut franchise is popular. I guess either because they're unsure of the movie's ability to stand up to the competition or they want to give something a bit different a chance to flourish. I'm honestly not entirely sure which The Possession is.
Don't get me wrong, I liked the movie. I thought it was pretty decent and a largely unexplored concept with a pretty great 3rd act. However, there was something about it that made it hard to take seriously, and if you can't take a horror movie seriously it loses all ability to scare.
Firstly, I really enjoy it when a possession story takes a different approach to the mythology it's going to use. Most entries in the genre focus on the Catholic rites of exorcism, so I take particular interest whenever a movie bases itself on a different culture's possession myths. In this case, the Jewish dybbuk, which is more of a ghostly possession than the traditional demonic one. I recall The Unborn being about a dybbuk as well, and though the movie wasn't too creative with its scare design it had a few really good ones and I thought the unique concept elevated it a bit.
So The Possession is a story about broken family and their experiences after one of the daughters convinces her father to buy her a Dybbuk Box at a garage sale. She falls under the influence of the box and becomes increasingly dangerous to herself and her family as the dybbuk takes hold, while her father tries to convince his ex-wife that something is wrong with the girl and eventually to get an exorcism.
Jeffery Dean Morgan does a decent job as the ex-husband, Clyde, conveying a real sense of a father who just wants his kids to like him. His character is pretty well developed, without spending a lot of time on him which is really nice. Another standout in the cast is Natasha Calis is Clyde's daughter Em. She reminds me a lot of Chloe Moretz, and has some real acting skill. She does a great job here developing the character's mannerisms as the possession continues. There are some nice creepy moments that rely on her acting being convincing in order to carry them, and she sells them well. I wish there were actually more bits in the movie like that.
The sound design is also pretty unnerving. I've noticed this is something that does a really good job scaring me when it's done well. It's probably why I like Ti West's movies so much, he had the same sound designer (Graham Reznick) on House of the Devil and The Innkeepers, and he's really good.
The exorcism sequence itself was also very nicely done, being chaotic while still clear and focused. There are some contrivances to set the scene, but it is an effective setting once you forget how we got there.
However, I think the movie falters at a few points. One being Kyra Sedgwick is pretty unconvincing as the ex-wife. There are only one or two scenes where she seems to be putting the correct emotions into her lines. It's heavily implied she's angry at Clyde, and really into her new boyfriend and the various yuppie lifestyle trappings he brings, but the way she behaves never conveys that. She actually seems to be happy to see her ex most of the time.
Another issue I had is that the dybbuk is absurdly powerful, even when it's still trapped in the box it's able to send a grown woman flying across the room and snap her back. It ruins all sense of proportion, so nothing can escalate properly and the whole movie winds up feeling pretty flat. There are peeks and valleys with the action, but the average line doesn't move much.
It feels like the script had been rewritten or heavily edited several times. They make a lot of hints at what would have been really interesting bits of mythology to play around with, like in one scene Em finds a small carving of some sort of animal in the box, like a dog or a boar. A few scenes later some sort of animal you never see is shown having wandered into Clyde's house and raiding his fridge. Could it have been related? I dunno, would've been cool, though. They have a similar thing with a moth from the box, but then moths are made really prominent. I wish they had given some indication of why moths were so important. As nocturnal creatures they have obvious symbolism, but is that the intent or is it just "bugs are creepy"?
Scenes alternate tone drastically as well, and that keeps breaking the immersion, which makes the attempts at drama fall a little flat. You kindof lose the tension they're trying to develop, so the whole things feels a bit scattered. They also didn't really make use of the dybbuk mythology, and treated it more like a standard demonic possession with a sprinkling of Judaica. So yeah, it was entertaining. Not nearly as bad as everyone seems to be making it out to be, but it does fall a little flat. It's got a few good scare moments, but it never comes together as anything so it winds up being pretty forgettable.
--PXA
Don't get me wrong, I liked the movie. I thought it was pretty decent and a largely unexplored concept with a pretty great 3rd act. However, there was something about it that made it hard to take seriously, and if you can't take a horror movie seriously it loses all ability to scare.
Firstly, I really enjoy it when a possession story takes a different approach to the mythology it's going to use. Most entries in the genre focus on the Catholic rites of exorcism, so I take particular interest whenever a movie bases itself on a different culture's possession myths. In this case, the Jewish dybbuk, which is more of a ghostly possession than the traditional demonic one. I recall The Unborn being about a dybbuk as well, and though the movie wasn't too creative with its scare design it had a few really good ones and I thought the unique concept elevated it a bit.
So The Possession is a story about broken family and their experiences after one of the daughters convinces her father to buy her a Dybbuk Box at a garage sale. She falls under the influence of the box and becomes increasingly dangerous to herself and her family as the dybbuk takes hold, while her father tries to convince his ex-wife that something is wrong with the girl and eventually to get an exorcism.
Jeffery Dean Morgan does a decent job as the ex-husband, Clyde, conveying a real sense of a father who just wants his kids to like him. His character is pretty well developed, without spending a lot of time on him which is really nice. Another standout in the cast is Natasha Calis is Clyde's daughter Em. She reminds me a lot of Chloe Moretz, and has some real acting skill. She does a great job here developing the character's mannerisms as the possession continues. There are some nice creepy moments that rely on her acting being convincing in order to carry them, and she sells them well. I wish there were actually more bits in the movie like that.
The sound design is also pretty unnerving. I've noticed this is something that does a really good job scaring me when it's done well. It's probably why I like Ti West's movies so much, he had the same sound designer (Graham Reznick) on House of the Devil and The Innkeepers, and he's really good.
The exorcism sequence itself was also very nicely done, being chaotic while still clear and focused. There are some contrivances to set the scene, but it is an effective setting once you forget how we got there.
However, I think the movie falters at a few points. One being Kyra Sedgwick is pretty unconvincing as the ex-wife. There are only one or two scenes where she seems to be putting the correct emotions into her lines. It's heavily implied she's angry at Clyde, and really into her new boyfriend and the various yuppie lifestyle trappings he brings, but the way she behaves never conveys that. She actually seems to be happy to see her ex most of the time.
Another issue I had is that the dybbuk is absurdly powerful, even when it's still trapped in the box it's able to send a grown woman flying across the room and snap her back. It ruins all sense of proportion, so nothing can escalate properly and the whole movie winds up feeling pretty flat. There are peeks and valleys with the action, but the average line doesn't move much.
It feels like the script had been rewritten or heavily edited several times. They make a lot of hints at what would have been really interesting bits of mythology to play around with, like in one scene Em finds a small carving of some sort of animal in the box, like a dog or a boar. A few scenes later some sort of animal you never see is shown having wandered into Clyde's house and raiding his fridge. Could it have been related? I dunno, would've been cool, though. They have a similar thing with a moth from the box, but then moths are made really prominent. I wish they had given some indication of why moths were so important. As nocturnal creatures they have obvious symbolism, but is that the intent or is it just "bugs are creepy"?
Scenes alternate tone drastically as well, and that keeps breaking the immersion, which makes the attempts at drama fall a little flat. You kindof lose the tension they're trying to develop, so the whole things feels a bit scattered. They also didn't really make use of the dybbuk mythology, and treated it more like a standard demonic possession with a sprinkling of Judaica. So yeah, it was entertaining. Not nearly as bad as everyone seems to be making it out to be, but it does fall a little flat. It's got a few good scare moments, but it never comes together as anything so it winds up being pretty forgettable.
--PXA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
