?

Log in

No account? Create an account
steelcorpfilms [userpic]
Review: Wishmaster
by steelcorpfilms (steelcorpfilms)
at September 13th, 2007 (04:29 am)
uncomfortable

current mood: uncomfortable
current song: KMFDM "Itchy Bitchy [Dance Version]"

Wishmaster
-1997

Reviewer: Indy McDaniel
Rating: 7
Director: Robert Kurtzman
Writer: Peter Atkins
Cast: Tammy Lauren
Andrew Divoff
Robert Englund
Chris Lemmon
Wendy Benson-Landes
Run Time: 90 minutes
MPAA Rating: R for horror violence and gore, and for language
Date Reviewed: August 16th, 2007

Plot: A demonic djinn attempts to grant its owner three wishes, which will allow him to summon his brethren to earth.

Comments: Directed by one third of the original KNB team, produced by Wes Craven and starring a full range of legendary horror icons, Wishmaster actually isn't too bad a flick. Without question, the special effects are amazing and there's a huge amount of them, too. Fortunately, although the story is basically one big excuse for gore, there's still a pretty good plotline going. While the whole thing isn't all that grandly original, it is still plenty of fun.

This was Kurtzman's second time in the director's seat (the first time being the Stallone sci-action movie The Demolitionist), and it's pretty clear why they picked him to do this. The movie is all out special effects and gore. Whether it was like that to begin with, or the effects were amped up after Kurtzman become the director, I don't know. But it does work nicely because we wind up with a level of insanely over-the-top gore that probably is best compared to From Dusk Til Dawn (which was more KNB work). Kurtzman proves to be a skilled director, although it's clear where is interests lie, not unlike Stan Winston's direcotrial debut Pumpkinhead. For the gorehounds, there's definitely plenty to see here.

The Djinn has made it onto the list of horror icons, and it's not really all that surprising with the awesome performance of Andrew Divoff. The guy is great at being evil and menacing. What makes this debut of a horror icon even more special is the fact that almost every other actor who's portrayed a horror icon is in this movie. Cameos by Robert Englund, Kane Hodder, Tony Todd and even Angus Scrimm as the narrator. But the horror icon cameos don't stop there. That's just the villains. Ted Raimi and Reggie Bannister are also in here briefly with hilarious bit parts. The acting is generally good, although Tammy Laurn is pretty hammy and annoying as the heroine.

The concept of wishes gone awry isn't a hugely original one, but it's always fun. The old saying "be careful what you wish for" is a big part of the movie and it's fun to watch people's wishes go horribly wrong in increasingly gory ways. While there's the traditional aspect of the person who summons (or awakens) the djinn being granted three wishes, it goes a lot further then that. Instead of the djinn being bound to the single person and their wishes, he's pretty much free to stroll around and grant anyone's wishes, but the person he's bound to has to make three wishes in order to allow his djinn bretheren to come through into our world and invade. It's a nice twist and works nicely.

Overall: A pretty good introduction of a new, menacing horror icon. Plenty of awesome gore and tons of horror icon cameos make the movie that much more fun to watch. If only they'd had Brad Dourif and Doug Bradley in there somewhere.

steelcorpfilms [userpic]
Review: Halloween (2007)
by steelcorpfilms (steelcorpfilms)
at September 13th, 2007 (03:04 am)
creative

current mood: creative
current song: The Pixies "Where Is My Mind?"

Halloween
- 2007

Reviewer: Indy McDaniel
Rating: 7
Director: Rob Zombie
Writer: Rob Zombie
Cast: Malcolm McDowell
Brad Dourif
Tyler Mane
Daeg Faerch
Scout Taylor-Compton
Run Time: 109 minutes
MPAA Rating: R for strong brutal bloody violence and terror throughout, sexual content, graphic nudity and language
Date Reviewed: September 13th, 2007

Plot: After being committed for 17 years, Michael Myers, now a grown man and still very dangerous, escapes from the mental institution (where he was committed as a 10 year old) and he immediately returns to Haddonfield, where he wants to find his baby sister, Laurie. Anyone who crosses his path is in mortal danger.

Comments: At first glance, you'd think there's no way in hell this movie could even be remotely good. The original is just too great, too much of a classic, and even thinking about remaking it is such a blasphemy that anyone involved should be immediately stricken with leprosy. That wasn't my initial reaction, it was more of a sad groan, thinking back to the previous Carpenter remakes and how much they've sucked. Then, thinking more on it, and knowing that they'd tapped Rob Zombie to direct, I started to gather some form of hope that it wouldn't be a total bust. Thinking further, about the last couple sequels to the Halloween franchise, I decided it couldn't get much worse, so I might as well keep an open mind. As it turns out, the remake (or re-imagining or re-visioning or whatever the hell Zombie decides to call it this week) actually is pretty damn good.

The way to approach this flick is to acknowledge that the original exists, but then pretty much forget about it. This version goes in a simular, but totally different direction, with most of the focus being on Michael Myers and how he became a cold blooded killer. It's kind of a look at the birth of a serial killer, with young Michael being shown to have an interest in torturing and killing small animals. His family and school life is pretty awful. It's almost stereotypical and cliche, if it weren't done so gritty and dark with some actual damn fine acting. William Forsythe proves that he can be even more despicable then in his previous Zombie flick and Daeg Faerch is really eerie as young Michael. Sheri Moon plays Michael's stripper mom, which seems to just be an excuse for Rob Zombie to film his wife doing a striptease, but she actually does pull off the role pretty good.

Even if you're totally against even the concept of remaking Halloween, this movie is still worth checking out just for the sheer number of cameos in it. There's horror legends left and right in here. Brad Dourif, Udo Kier, Clint Howard, Ken Foree, Sid Haig, Danny Trejo, Tom Towles, Bill Moseley, Leslie Easterbrook, Dee Wallace, Danielle Harris, Sybil Danning. It's like a game of Spot the Psycho. And even though none of the roles are really that large, somehow the actors all manage to make them memorable. Foree as Big Joe Grizzley is hilarious, as is Sid Haig as the owner of the graveyard. Danny Trejo plays a pretty different role, as a caring janitor who looks after Michael. Brad Dourif plays Sheriff Brackett and, as usual, is at the top of his game. Brad has a way of injecting such intensity into all of his characters, even the ones that aren't totally psychotic, and it's just amazing to watch.

Stepping into the role made famous by the great Donald Pleasance is the equally great Malcolm McDowell. I was a bit worried at first, because, honestly... what was the last genuinely good movie he's been in? It seems he's been reduced to bad direct-to-DVD horror movies like Island of the Dead lately. Questionable recent work aside, though, McDowell is still a great actor and takes Loomis in an interesting direction. He's a lot more kind-hearted then Pleasance's version, but equally obsessive. The majority of the movie doesn't resemble the original at all, since it focuses mainly on Michael and his backstory before finally getting around to his return to Haddonfield years later. The final section bears a strong resemblence to the original film, with a few scenes lifted almost directly, but there's been enough changes added that it becomes a lot more interesting then just seeing a rehash of the original. Rob does break the cardinal rule of slashers, though (but it could be argued he did it on purpose to fuck with people), by allowing a girl who shows her breasts to live.

Overall: The Halloween redux actually works pretty damn well as an alternate version of the original. There's some great acting and tons of gory violence and nudity. It's pretty damn brutal all around and aside from some fumbling towards the end, it's entertaining.

jeustr [userpic]
hey, i'm new - so don't throw things at me
by jeustr (jeustr)
at October 10th, 2006 (10:32 pm)

there aren't too many horror review folks out there and as fellow lovers of all things creepy i just want to let you know about my community the  arkham_tribunewhich has some of the same intrests as you all.  i sincerely hope this post doesn't tick anyone off.  feel free to delete it if it does!  thanks folks!  just trying to meet other like minded fans! 

steelcorpfilms [userpic]
Review: Saw 2
by steelcorpfilms (steelcorpfilms)
at September 3rd, 2006 (06:35 am)
tired

current mood: tired
current song: Wicked Wisdom "Something Inside Of Me"



Saw 2
- 2005

Reviewer: Indy McDaniel
Rating: 7
Director: Darren Lynn Bousman
Writer: Darren Lynn Bousman, Leigh Whannell
Cast: Donnie Wahlberg
Shawnee Smith
Tobin Bell
Franky G
Runtime: 93 minutes
MPAA Rating: R for grisly violence and gore, terror, language and drug content.
Date Reviewed: September 3rd, 2006

Plot: Jigsaw locks 8 or 9 unlucky people in a booby trapped shelter and they must find a way out before they inhale too much of a lethal nerve gas and die. But they must watch out, for the traps that the Jigsaw has set in the shelter lead to death also.

Comments: The original Saw had a pretty cool gimmick and even though the ending was a little silly, it was still pretty creative and different. The second installment could've wound up being a pale comparison but instead, it's actually not too bad. It keeps the styling of the original while expanding on it and changing it up a bit. There's more characters, a larger plot, and just as many twists as the original, if not more. It maintains the grim, dark atmosphere of the first film while managing not to rehash too much. The acting is all pretty much on the good side and the special effects are just as gruesome as before with even more blood and violence on screen this time around.

Jigsaw is quickly becoming a new horror icon. He might not be up to par with the great icons, such as Freddy, Jason, or Michael, but his warped mind and keen intellect certainly put him on a level with Hannibal Lector, even if he's not quite as terrifying in the flesh. Still, Tobin Bell does a pretty damn good job being a menacing psychopath who's philosophies on life and death are a tad bit more disturbing because there's a grain or two of sense involved. Facing off with Jigsaw this time around is Donnie "I Duddits!" Wahlberg. It's kinda hard to take him seriously after 'Dreamcatcher' but he doesn't do too poorly. Danny Glover played a better obsessed cop in the first flick, but then again it's hard to compete with Danny Glover. The only other familiar face in the sequel is Shawnee Smith, the only person who actually survived one of Jigsaw's hellish games. Apparently, winning round one only gets you invited back for more mayhem. A few other noteable recognizables are Dina "Starship Troopers" Meyer as another detective, Beverley "7th Heaven" Mitchell who's only noticeable ability seems to be in her extremely low-cut blouse, and Franky "Italian Job" G as one seriously pissed off thug dude. I'd be pissed off, too, since apparently the rest of the Italian Job crew just dumped his ass off with Jigsaw before skipping town.

The first 'Saw' had a couple cringe-worthy scenes. The sequel pumps up the cringey-ness quite a bit further. The number of victims has increased, so naturally have the number of deathtraps involved. Most noteable are the pit of hypodermic needles and the razorblade wrist trap (which was particularly nasty even though the sequence isn't very long). The blood and gore effects are all really well done and there isn't an overabundance of them so the effects remain shocking when they do occur. You've gotta wonder, though, how a guy with terminal cancer manages to make all these deathtraps. And not just any old simple deathtraps, either, but stuff involving complex tinkering with steel and other stuff. Still, that's easily forgiveable as long as you don't think about it too damn much. Another mildly annoying thing with the plot was the general disregard of the clues and games Jigsaw left for his unfortunates. Granted, it's bound to happen with a group of people freaking out and it just wouldn't have been that realistic if they'd all sat around brainstorming, but part of the cool thing in the first flick was the victims trying to figure out what to do and at the same time trying to trick their captor. This one's a lot more neanderthal and straightforward, which is alright, but it sort of clashes with everything else that Jigsaw's trying to do.

Overall: Pretty good. Fits in with the first one nicely. Some cool deathtraps and gore effects. Pretty much, if you liked the first one, you'll prolly like this one, too.

steelcorpfilms [userpic]
New Emoticons
by steelcorpfilms (steelcorpfilms)
at September 3rd, 2006 (06:29 am)
accomplished

current mood: accomplished
current song: Fade to Bluegrass "One"

All new emoticons featuring all sorts of horror movies. I'm gonna start trying to do some more reviews. I've already got one finished for Saw 2 that I'll be posting shortly. I've got a whole list of other movies I've watched but haven't written up reviews for yet, so hopefully I'll be able to start cranking them out bit by bit.

Anyway, enjoy the new emoticons.

steelcorpfilms [userpic]
Review: Chopping Mall
by steelcorpfilms (steelcorpfilms)
at May 7th, 2006 (10:22 pm)



Chopping Mall
- 1986

Reviewed by: MonkeyButt Amazing
Rating: 6
Director: Jim Wynorski
Writer: Steve Mitchell, Jim Wynorski
Cast: Zoe Kelli Simon
Tony O'Dell
Barbara Crampton
Russell Todd
Dick Miller
Running Time: 77 minutes
MPAA Rating: R
Date Reviewed: 7/1/2005

Plot: A group of teenagers that work at the mall all get together for a late night party in one of the stores. When the mall accidently goes on lock down before they can get out, The robot security system activates after a malfunction and goes on a killing spree. One by one the three bots try to rid the mall of the "Intruders". The only weapons the kids can use are the supplies in other stores. Or...if they can make it till morning when the mall opens back up

Comments: Chopping Mall is one of the many slasher movies to come out in the 80's, riding the popularity of Friday the 13th and Halloween. The twist with this one is, instead of some masked 'human' killer, it's a trio of psycho robots. The robots and other effects are about standard for an average 80's cheeseball slasher, as is the acting. The plot is pretty simple, like all good slasher plots are, with kids boozing and boinking before getting bumped off. The whole thing reeks of cheesiness, including a cameo by the great Dick Miller, and really you can't help but enjoy it at least a little bit if only because of how off the wall and ridiculous a lot of the movie is.

Released a couple years after Terminator, the robots in Chopping Mall are nowhere near as cool looking but they do have a wider assortment of weapons built into them. Laser eyes, electrocution wires, clawed arms, rolling treads. Quite possibly a buzz saw attachment if I remember correctly. Basically, the Swiss army knife usefulness of R2-D2 only in a package of evil. And even if the Killbots aren't the best killer machines around, as far as slasher villains go, I'd say they're a bit more menacing, although less creepy, then that killer Good Guys doll. As for the rest of the effects... some Karo blood, a couple crispy actors, and some mysteriously combustible latex pant are the only things worth noting. Not a whole lot of gore effects.

The batch of young no-names chosen to star in this slasher didn't really spawn any big name actors (like Depp in Nightmare or Bacon in Friday). Instead, the most recognizable faces are Dick Smith and Barbara Crampton playing a less smart and even more eager to get naked character then she did in Re-Animator. The dialogue is pure cheese, almost on the verge of being a satire of other cheeseball slashers. The by far best line in the entire movie, delivered with all seriousness, has to be, "I guess I'm just not used to being chased around a mall at night by killer robots." With a scenario that specific, who is?

Overall: Pop this movie into the DVD player with the expectations of seeing a cheesily entertaining 80's slasher and you shouldn't be disappointed. Sandwich it between Gremlins and Gremlins 2 for a marathon of Dick Miller awesomeness.

Yes I Have One Do You? [userpic]
Review: The Fog(2005) ***Minor Spoilers***
by Yes I Have One Do You? (drmwthnadrm)
at May 7th, 2006 (12:54 pm)





Cast:

Tom Welling - Nick Castle
Elizabeth Williams - Maggie Grace
Spooner - DeRay Davis
Stevie Wayne - Selma Balir
Andy Wayne - Cole Heppell
Kathy Williams - Sara Botsford



Review:

Rupert Wainwright's "Fog" was nowhere near as bad as so many have made it sound. There, I said it. I am literally, to this day, at a loss over the sheer overwhelming barrage of by-the-numbers negative reviews it has received since its initial release. Not just negative, mind you. These people are very literally picking this apart, weeding out each and every individual aspect they feel the director got wrong. What does that say about why we go to movies in the first place? When I pay to see a film, especially a horror film, I go in with the intent of forgetting my troubles and the harsh realities of the world I live in. Most people, I have noticed over time, seem to demand far too much perfection and realism from their films. To them I say, watch the nightly news. You will find all the unpleasant reality there you could ever want.

Wainwright's retooling of "The Fog," while not as overly scary, is a fine companion piece to the landmark original. Some may disagree with that assessment. But, before anybody makes the foolhardy assumption that I don't know what I'm talking about, I will go on record and say that I have been an avid follower of horror for the last eighteen years of my life. I own John Carpenter's "Fog" on DVD and, like many here, hold that film in the highest regard. For the longest time, I have been struggling to understand why people who claim they are so steadfastly against the idea of remakes bother wasting their money to see them. If somebody is already resigned to feeling bad about a remake, logic should dictate that they stay at home or pay to see something else. Such reasoning really doesn't get any simpler.

Having said that, I really must be honest and tell everybody here that I did not see one single solitary thing wrong with this movie. Nothing at all. Spooner, that "token" black character people constantly whined about.......what was supposed to be so annoying about him? I see people far worse than him each and every day. The changes to the story that differ from Carpenter's original were all handled pretty well. The way some of these nitpickers have been talking, I went into this film expecting ninety minutes of audacious hellfire and brimstone. Well, as hard as I looked, I just didn't see anything that backed up all the negativity. Many people, too, it seemed had a problem with this newer film's ending. Why? What makes this ending so stupid and hard to swallow? Considering the dreams Elizabeth was having throughout the film, I thought the ending made perfect sense. Say whatever you want, but it worked.

The main question I feel compelled to ask is: Did the fans who went to see this really believe they were going to see an exact carbon copy of the same original film? Folks, the original film was done twenty-six years ago! The world is a far different place than it was in 1980. Sensibilities have changed just as much as our own individual attitudes towards film. Rupert Wainwright is not John Carpenter. He has a completely different style and approach to film-making. While I do agree that this was not a blockbuster, in any real sense, I also do not believe it was the irredeemable garbage it has been unfairly labelled as. Many of the purists out there complained over the fact that it hit theaters with a PG-13. Why? The tone of this movie was really no different from Carpenter's. Had he released his version of the film today, it too would have received the same rating. Every single horror film, contrary to popular opinion, does not have to be a gratuitous bloodbath to get me in line at the ticket booth. All this idiocy is why I take simple word of mouth for what it is. I'm not disrespecting anybody else's opinion of this film, because that's not what I'm about as a person. But, you'd better believe I'm standing by mine. Regardless of what anybody says, this was not a bad movie. "House of the Dead," yeah, definitely. This one, no, not even close.

Enough with all the nitpicking please. If you can't commit yourself to suspending disbelief in horror, fantasy, or science fiction, you plain and simply have no business watching it. Sorry for this rant, but somebody had to say it.

Overall:

7/10


steelcorpfilms [userpic]
Review: The Redeemer: Son of Satan!
by steelcorpfilms (steelcorpfilms)
at April 21st, 2006 (01:22 pm)
current song: KMFDM "Anarchy"



The Redeemer: Son of Satan! (aka The Class Reunion Massacre)
- 1978

Reviewer: Indy McDaniel
Rating: 3
Director: Constantine S. Gochis
Writer: William Vernick
Cast: Damien Knight
Jeanetta Arnette
Nick Carter
Nikki Barthen
Runtime: 84 minutes
MPAA Rating: R
Date Reviewed: April 21st, 2006

Plot: Six former classmates receive invitations one day to a high school reunion. When they arrive at their alma mater, however, they find that not only are they the only ones to have receved letters, the invitations were actually sent by a deranged preacher intending to murder them all as punishment for their wicked ways. Will any of them escape from the remote schoolhouse alive, or will they all meet their final judgement?

Comments: This thing came out the same year as Carpenter's classic slasher Halloween, and it's also a slasher of sorts, although not nearly as good as Halloween. It still has its moments, though. The killings and the way they transition from one killing to the next is pretty insane and unorthodox for any slasher I've ever seen. The killer doesn't really have a set method of killing (like Leatherface with his chainsaw, or Jason with his machete). Instead, it's a bunch of random crazyness that pretty much leaves you not knowing what's gonna happen next or how the next person's gonna get taken out. So that part was pretty cool. There was a segment that was pretty much the premise of Baywatch, with a chick running in slow motion with her boobs damn near bouncing clean out of her top. That was amusing. Other then that, the flick pretty much sucked. The pacing was awful. It took a half hour before anything really started happening, and it was a pretty boring half hour. And even once the killing started, it was pretty slow and boring.

The whole plot is basically Seven with a slasher motif. All the characters have sinned in one way or another and that's the whole reason why the killer's trying to take em out. For creative deaths and a pretty un-Hollywood style ending, the movie gets points. While the ending isn't quite as disturbing as Seven's, it's still pretty fucked up. Unfortunately, that's where the postives for this flick run out. The actors seemed to be out of some bad 70's porno which made the whole thing cheesier then Friday the 13th even. And all the characters were pretty stupid, too, and they seemed to get over their 'friends' deaths pretty quickly. Everyone seemed pretty disconnected from what was going on, which could be a mixture of bad acting and bad directing. Either way, it just didn't help the movie out much at all.

Also, like I said earlier, the pacing was pretty awful. The movie starts out slow, and it's the bad kind of slow, too. I guess they were going over the character's backstories and why they were getting invited to their deaths but the whole thing was told over a series of poorly done flashbacks that just made everything confusing and boring. After a half hour of this, you're just wondering, "When's the killing gonna start?" Well, not too long after, they finally all get to where they're supposed to be and the killing can now commence. But even once it does, although the deaths are all pretty varied and nifty, it never picks up that rush of moment that other slashers get, where the pace starts getting pretty wild and you don't got time to think about the plotholes cuz you'll miss a decapitation or two. Instead, the scenes between deaths are just as slow as the first half hour of the movie, so it's hard to get into it and stay into it.

Overall: If it had been punched up a bit, it could've been awesome, but instead it's a pretty boring slasher with a few cool kills. Good luck even finding this thing if you're going on a slasher marathon. The best I can find are old VHS copies on eBay that cost like $20 and this movie is definitely not worth it.

steelcorpfilms [userpic]
Review: The Call of Cthulhu
by steelcorpfilms (steelcorpfilms)
at April 21st, 2006 (12:57 pm)
current song: Turbonegro "Gimme Some"



The Call of Cthulhu
- 2005

Reviewer: Indy McDaniel
Rating: 7
Director: Andrew Leman
Writer: Sean Brannery, H.P. Lovecraft
Cast: Ramon Allen Jr.
Leslie Baldwin
Daryl Ball
John Bolen
Runtime: 47 minutes
MPAA Rating: Not Rated
Date Reviewed: April 21st, 2006

Plot: "The Call of Cthulhu" is one of H. P. Lovecraft's best-known short stories, first published in the pulp magazine Weird Tales in February 1928. It is the only story penned by Lovecraft in which the extraterrestrial entity Cthulhu himself makes a major appearance. It is written in a documentary style, consisting of three independent narratives linked together by the device of a narrator discovering notes left by a deceased relative. The narrator pieces together the whole truth and disturbing significance of the information he possesses, illustrating the story's famous first line: "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents."


Comments: Interesting little 45-minute movie based on the H.P. Lovecraft story. Lovecraft's stuff is always interesting, to me anyway, and the way they did this movie was particularly so. It was made sometime last year, but the way it's done is like an old silent film (think the original Nosferatu), complete with the way people look and the music and the scratches in the film. As a result, it's basically no different then a foreign flick with subtitles, as you have to read the dialogue, but if you don't mind that then it's pretty entertaining. The monster was created using stop-motion animation techniques, again like the movies of old, and while it's blatant that it's only a model, it's still pretty cool looking and fits in with the overrall movie. It's more effective then a lot of CGI creatures I've seen in other flicks, that's for sure. Only way to see this thing is either downloading it or buying it directly from the filmmakers on their website. It's definitely worth checking out.


http://www.cthulhulives.org/store/store.lasso

steelcorpfilms [userpic]
Review: The Skeleton Key
by steelcorpfilms (steelcorpfilms)
at April 20th, 2006 (11:27 pm)
current song: System Of A Down "Soldier Side"



The Skeleton Key
- 2005

Reviewer: Indy McDaniel
Rating: 2
Director: Iain Softley
Writer: Ehren Kruger
Cast: Kate Hudson
Gena Rowlands
John Hurt
Peter Sarsgaard
Runtime: 104 minutes
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for violence, disturbing images, some partial nudity and thematic material.
Date Reviewed: April 20th, 2006

Plot: Caroline (Kate Hudson) is a twenty-five-year-old hospice worker who cares for the ailing and the elderly, a job designed to atone for her own mistake for ignoring her dying father in the past, when she had been a rock 'n' roll manager. After her latest charge passes away, Caroline takes a job in Louisiana, caring for Ben (John Hurt), a stroke-victim who is bed-ridden and cannot speak. But Caroline becomes suspicious of the house, and Ben's cold wife, Violet (Gena Rowlands) only adds to the creepy atmosphere. After acquiring a skeleton key, Caroline makes her way into a secret room within the attic where she discovers hair, blood, bones, spells, and other instruments for practicing hoodoo. Violet says she has never been in the secret room, but that the items probably belonged to the original owners' two houseworkers, who practiced black magic and were lynched as a result. Noting that Ben had his stroke in the attic after entering the room, Caroline is determined to unlock the secrets of the house, and rescue Ben from the horrors that hold him captive within.

Comments: Another damn near 1 rated movie. It gets an extra point for an interesting concept and that's about it. Not even John Hurt, who's a cool motherfucker, could save this one, prolly cuz he's not given much to do other then sit around and look freaked out. Sitting through it, I was just bored as all hell and couldn't help thinking I'd seen something simular before. Near the end, it came to me. It's basically a bigger budget rehash of Darkness which came out a year or two back to a short theatrical run. I actually liked Darkness but this movie just seemed lacking any sort of creepy spark or much else to keep it interesting aside from Kate Hudson in her underwear and I'm personally not too into her physically or her acting, so that's probably why I didn't really care what happened.

It's pretty sad how lame this movie turned out, considering the fact that there are plenty of creepy locations and backstories in Louisiana that could've been tapped for this. Plenty of haunted plantation houses and crazy Hoodoo/Voodoo curses and wild Cajuns. Potentially enough to make at least one kick ass movie. Unfortunately, all the potential got wasted on this crapfest. The twist ending and just about every other plot element seemed to be pretty damn predictable and at no time did I feel any kind of suspense or much else aside from a need to yawn. It didn't help matters that they practically gave the entire thing away in the trailer. You pretty much sit around the entire movie waiting for something interesting to happen, and then when it does, all you can say is, "That's it?"

I didn't really like any of the characters. The best actor was John Hurt, and like I said before, he was wasted completely. He did a good job with what he had, but really, they could've gotten any other old man, put em in the same role, and it wouldn't have mattered much at all. They just needed another name to potentially bring in more bucks but they didn't want to fork out enough money to pay Hurt to have a real character so instead they made him an invalid. Kate Hudson needs to stick to romantic comedies that no one watches and not make anymore psychological thrillers that no one watches. I'm sorry, she just annoys me. She's almost as bad as Renee Zellwegger. Almost.

Is there really a reason why PG-13 horror movies these days are nothing more then watered down turds? Who remembers back when it didn't matter if a horror flick was PG-13, that even if it was, it could still be creepy and entertaining? Poltergeist was PG-13 and is probably one of the better horror movies around with a genuinely creepy atmosphere. Instead, these days, the PG-13 horror flicks are just total shit like this, The Ring, and When a Stranger Calls (which I never saw yet, but it looked god awful). Just cuz you can't show full frontal nudity and someone's guts hanging out doesn't mean you gotta be a pussy when it comes to adding in some scare factors.

Overall: Basically, I thought it was boring and sucky. Interesting concept, piss poor delivery. If you'd like to see a decent version of the same plot, check out Darkness with Anna Paquin (chick who played Rogue).