The story focuses in on three longtime friends who get together for the funeral of another old college buddy. It’s been years since this group has been together, and reuniting for the funeral of a friend is obviously not the greatest of scenarios. It’s also the signaling point for the script to get a little murky.

The cast can’t quite seem to decide if they’re happy to be reunited, overrun by sadness or spiteful of each other. The dialogue and demeanor of the performers just seems to clash in terrible fashion; the irony is the combination of emotions is actually very realistic, it’s just the idiosyncratic chemistry between the three focal actors (I’m not comfortable saying “characters” as there’s some wooden acting on display here).

Heading back to the (shaky) story itself, this trio of 30-something friends decide it would be a wise idea to head back to the cemetery in the middle of the night to visit their deceased friend’s grave. An honorary notion quickly turns into dancing and urinating on random graves, and as you might have guessed, this overtly unnatural series of events kicks off the serious trouble for these three.

The film makes a marked improvement at this point, as our main players shift from mental midgets to haunting victims. Some research leads the group to some disturbing facts: their not only being hunted by those whose graves they pranced upon, but those specific soil inhabitants happen to reside amongst the cemetery’s most nefarious.

The dialogue improves dramatically as the third act gets underway, and this group of actors (Dominic Purcell, Josie Maran, Marcus Thomas ) seem to find their natural groove (almost as if the picture was actually shot in chronological order, and the trio finally got comfortable working together), but there’s still enough clichés at work to syphon a few snickers, and they only become more pronounced as the film rolls.

For all the flaws this After Dark Horrorfest installment comes attached with, there are actually some noteworthy qualities to the picture. First off, David Armstrong does a pretty solid job with the cinematography, and Mike Mendez’s editing work isn’t perfect, but there are some nice cuts on display. Those who may be due the greatest nod however are Roland Blancaflor and Nikki Carbonetta, who do a fine job with the special FX; there are a few truly chilling shots during the picture, and without these two they’d be as lost as the chemistry between Purcell, Maran and Thomas.

Keep an eye out for some excellent lighting in the latter portions of the film, an appeasing appearance from Tchéky Karyo and a few CGI shots that look about 1000 times better than they probably should.

All in all, there are plenty of awkward moments on display during the brisk 95 minutes The Gravedancers runs, but there are some chilling shots, creepy concepts and a few visuals that pay off big. When compared with most of the other Horrorfest offerings, this flick is actually a bit of a diamond.

OVERALL SUMMARY
The Gravedancers is a tale of desecration and haunting that suffers from a slew of plot holes. However, ultimately this one battles back to do a fair job of redeeming itself courtesy of a big finale and some chilling special FX.

Matt Molgaard

The post The Gravedancers (2006) appeared first on Horror Asylum.

The story itself – one of King’s more emotional efforts – centers on a strange invasion; massive prehistoric (appearing) creatures roll into a small rural town, masked by an ominous mist that makes John Carpenter’s Fog seem like a miniscule weather oddity. Of course the unsuspecting inhabitants of Bridgeton, Maine never suspect what this eerie mist envelopes, but they’re about to learn the harsh realities of the unrealistic.

After an outlandish storm destroys a decent chunk of the town, patrons rush for the local grocery store, eager to stock up on all the necessities that come along with devastating weather. Once inside the crowded store however, things take an immediate turn for the worse.

“There’s something in the mist!” Announces a local, as he rushes into the grocery store, a frantic mess. Most inside are rational enough to accept this warning as a truth, but of course there wouldn’t be much friction without a few doubters. And those doubters act as the pictures deepest conflict igniters. They set the store’s segregation in motion, and the invisible partitions that separate these individuals become equally as horrific as the hungry creatures that linger outside.

As these hideous creatures and overgrown insects force their way into the store, the panic level escalates at a very realistically startling rate; these people are losing it, and rightfully so. Acting as a natural leader, David Drayton (Thomas Jane) attempts to use logic to survive the event, keep his son alive, and maintain some form of order in the process. On the opposing side of the spectrum is Mrs. Carmody (Marcia Gay Harden), an overzealous Bible-thumper who’s reached the decision to act as God’s voice, albeit an extremely savage and convoluted voice.

Before long, Mrs. Carmody has built a congregation of eager lynch-mobbers, all convinced that human sacrifices must be made in order to survive the attack. Things get particularly disturbing at this point, and for the sake of those who haven’t seen the movie, I’ll refrain from disclosing too many details; believe me, it is better seen than read (unless we’re talking about King’s actual novella).

In the end, David and a small handful of survivors choose to attempt escape. The logic of course is simple: better to die trying than waiting. This last ditch effort however leads to an extremely harrowing finale. It’s been quite some time since I read the story, but I believe King’s original conclusion differs from Darabont’s vision (though I wouldn’t quote me on that), but it’s a gut-wrenching climax all the same.

What makes The Mist such an electrifying film is the level of character development squeezed into a fast-paced picture. There is virtually zero downtime during the flicks full 126 minutes running time, and to be able to flesh out as many characters, as thoroughly as Darabont does is damn near unfathomable.

Just the same, Frank and the cast and crew come together to achieve complete cohesion, and it’s a wonder to behold. Thomas Jane provides one of the very best performances of his career, Laurie Holden is remarkably sympathetic, Andre Braugher takes paranoia to a shocking level of realism, but Marcia Gay Harden is the show stealer, without a doubt. If you don’t loathe Mrs. Carmody by the time the credits roll, you somehow fell asleep during a fantastic feature.

OVERALL SUMMARY
Frank Darabont brings Stephen King’s terrifying tale of invasion to startling life. The conflicts of man are explored as thoroughly as those of the otherworldly, and the combination makes for one of the more memorable horror films to land on earth in years.

Matt Molgaard

The post The Mist (2007) appeared first on Horror Asylum.

The film has its flaws, but to Zombie’s credit, it’s a fair reimagining that did what a reboot should do: expanded upon an already successful story, without removing too many familiar puzzle pieces. I’d really hoped Zombie’s Halloween II would replicate the formula, and give us a more in depth vision of the 1981, Rick Rosenthal helmed Halloween II, but it was not to be. For one reason or another, Zombie ventured so far from the beaten path that his 2009 remake hardly feels like a Halloween installment at all.

First off, the structuring of the film is terrible. We’re “treated” to what feels like an introduction within an introduction (the opening ambulance scene works great as an intro, until we spill right into the hospital scene, which would have also made a fine intro, had it not been tacked onto the ass end of another intro), and from here we enter a second stage of the film that drags far too long, and introduces us to completely different characters from those introduced in Zombie’s first Halloween film.

Now, I can definitely understand Zombie’s rationale here; all parties have been involved in an extremely traumatic experience, to expect some differentials in their personalities is completely plausible, and should actually be expected. However, to take virtually every surviving character (save for Brad Dourif’s Sherriff Brackett, the only positive to be found in H2) from the first film, and flip their personalities 180 degrees just doesn’t work. Yet, that’s precisely what Zombie does.

The still somewhat innocent Laurie Strode is now addicted to pills, inclined to full blown schizophrenic behavior, and, in general, just a flat out bitch, even in the extremely rare scenes in which she appears “stable”. Annie Brackett is suffering some form of mental malfunction similar to Laurie, however her extreme’s differ, and she comes off slightly less erratic. She is however now a genuine power freak with a sharp, humorless edge about her. Of course, how could this new structure stand without a massive transformation to our original icon of hope, Dr. Loomis?

Loomis (Malcolm McDowell) has gone from focused, sympathetic doc, to complete sleazeball star seeker. His care for Laurie, Michael or any others involved has completely disappeared. He’s no longer well spoken, he’s traded that in for a crude, insulting habit of dialogue. What’s worse, nothing matter’s to this once admirable character beyond the success of his new book, which details the life of Michael Myers. Zombie not only transformed our most distinctive victims, he also massacred the film’s key figure of guidance, and it all feels rather…blasphemous. It also leaves this long time Halloween fan feeling oddly detached from one of my favorite franchises in cinematic history.

Now that you’ve got a feel for the mistreatment this ensemble has received, I’ll get back to the pacing of the picture. As aforementioned the body of the film drags on endlessly, managing little more than confusing viewers with the unpredictable behavior of our focal faces, and introducing the ghost of Michael’s mother, and her ghostly white horse she keeps as company. Again, I understand the idea behind these awkward “dream sequences”, as their supposed act as a basic honing beacon for Michael Myers, after all he wasn’t born a navigator, and he’s got to get back to the task of slaying the now troubled Laurie somehow; why not toss in ghostly family images to guide him (and why not drag out the process to the point of boredom)?

Wait a minute, I’ve got an idea why not: because it feels horribly contrived and convoluted as all hell! You’re probably lucky if you even grasped the concept properly, as it comes from so far out of left field it takes viewers by surprise, to say the least.

During this extended period of down time, which should be ratcheting up the action, leading up to what could have been a quality finale, we learn the Michael’s mysterious aura died in the first film. In its place is a mind numbing killing agent that manages to deliver some excellent gore (and traditionally this would please me in a major way, but for me personally the tradeoff of mystery for blood and guts was a losing deal); you can’t become emotionally attached to grotesque gore, but you sure as hell can get tangled up in deep curiosity and ominous mystery, but Rob buries that concept early.

By the time we reach our finale, the film’s gotten stale, and nauseating. The characters have become nearly disgusting, and as a viewer, I found myself hoping that the new Terminator version of Michael Myers would just slaughter them all in brutal fashion and call it a wrap; if I can’t have the quality atmosphere of earlier Halloween installments, I’d rather not even attempt to continue putting up with the least likeable protagonists to invade the entire 30 plus year franchise.

However, things aren’t wrapped up in such tidy fashion, and the film’s final moments (somehow) manage to toss a little bit more confusion on the fire. At this point, as I’ve stressed, it’s clear Laurie Strode’s mental competence is long gone, but leave it to Zombie to throw in one more awkward scene that could be interpreted 20 different ways.

As the credits run – even after multiple attempts to find the qualities of this picture – I still find myself annoyed, and insulted by Halloween II. I give a nod to Zombie for leaving us with one sole character to cheer for: Sherriff Brackett, and I sincerely applaud Brad Dourif for playing the role with perfection (it’s almost as if Dourif could sense that his character might be the only shining light of the film, which drove him to provide one of the best performances of his career). But beyond the last remaining sympathetic character on screen, there’s nothing but franchise betrayal, and a complete disregard for the legend of Michael Myers to mull over here.

OVERALL SUMMARY
Unlike Rob Zombie’s 2007 Halloween reboot, Halloween II abandons all things familiar in regards to the franchise. The shift in the film’s direction is so absurdly dramatic it’s nearly impossible to find the film engaging. All the same, if you enjoy ultra violence and extreme gore, you may find something to cling to in Halloween II. A single star is awarded for the work of Brad Dourif, the film’s only hope from the beginning.

Matt Molgaard

The post Halloween II (2009) appeared first on Horror Asylum.

It’s mere moments before we realize that not only Royce, but a solid handful of rogue characters are falling from the sky, and screenwriters Alex Litvak and Michael Finch waste no time getting our key players acquainted with each other. The character structuring follows John McTiernan’s 1987 layout seamlessly, as we get a feel for a solid handful of personalities quickly, each of whom possess unique traits that make then memorable with little actual character development exercised; a challenging feat accomplished with seeming ease in this specific case.

The landscape resembles the original picture well, rather than depositing our story in a futuristic Los Angeles setting, or some archaeological locale, it’s back to the jungle. It’s a nice effect that conjures an unmistakable feeling of nostalgia, which most Predator fans should enjoy quite a bit. There are certainly differences between this jungle and the Central American foliage of McTiernan’s vision, but the similarities stand strong just the same.

Like the original Predator film, our group (which turn out to all be professional assassins of some sort) is isolated and picked off one-by-one. But this journey features some newly modified predators (that make the original hunter look like a bona fide alien sissy), some nasty looking “dogs” and a few other surprises for our protagonists to deal with. With the exception of a couple questionable shots of the CG “dogs”, these revamped villains look insanely cool and noticeably more menacing than the models of past.

There’s a handful of twists that separate Antal’s vision from past Predator directors, and a lot of the credit for said surprises is owed to the writing crew, who clearly took a step out on a limb; fortunately that limb held firm. I’ll refrain from dropping any serious spoilers in the case that you haven’t seen the film, but I’ll tell you this much: expect some sinister deception and human savagery that rivals the intent of the predators themselves.

Overall, the pacing of the picture is excellent, and the cast truly shines; Topher Grace turns in one of his best performances to date, former mixed martial artist Oleg Taktarov is great as the sympathetic Russian, Walton Goggins is a true diamond as the vile Stans, and, forgive me if you consider this blasphemy, but Adrien Brody is a far superior lead to Arnold Schwarzenegger. He may not be as big (though he did put on a very noticeable 25 pounds of muscle for the role) as Arnie, but what he lacks in size, he more than makes up for with high caliber acting chops.

Purists put your doubts away and open your minds, this is one of the best contemporary reboots to hit the market.

OVERALL SUMMARY
While most reboots tend to miss the mark with viewers, Nimród Antal’s vision of the modern day Predator is satisfying on a number of levels. The action is relentless, the cast is stellar, and the final product is on par with John McTiernan’s epic original. If you miss this one, you deserve to have your spine ripped out.

Matt Molgaard

The post Predators (2010) appeared first on Horror Asylum.

The picture starts off with a powerful punch of parody, and a quick string of cameos that franchise fans will not only appreciate, but expect. The setup is solid on all fronts, as a public appearance to promote her new self-help book brings Sidney Prescott back to Woodsboro, where she reunites with fellow franchise staples Dewey Riley and Gale Weathers (who’s now married to Dewey). Of course, along with Sydney comes Ghostface, hell-bent on disposing of our three focal figures along with a whole new group of youngsters that this particular viewer had a load of trouble caring about.

While the first act is entertaining while self-aware, the second act stretches, feels strangely pretentious, and paints virtually every supporting character the red herring; there’s some mystery in the early development, but by the time we’re really working to solve the puzzle of logical Ghostface contenders, just about every single new character introduced has already met the blade, and our antagonists are almost absurdly evident. In fact, this is one of the film’s most glaring flaws; if we’re launching a “new trilogy”, shouldn’t we be witnessing the torch passing, or at least something new other than the usage of the world wide web?

Unfortunately the inclusion of tech heavy talk and contemporary lingo (that, in my opinion could have been more effective if delivered in a more passive tone) feels more forced than natural, taking dialogue in the direction of a parody mocking a parody; a point that’s further evidenced by the complete lack of atmosphere the film carries. The picture actually feels a bit convoluted and confused, as though it’s struggling to find an identity most of the time; stuck somewhere between 1996 and 2011. I’d go so far as to say that watching Scream 4 almost feels a bit like watching a rerun you can remember, just not too vividly.

Now, with all that said, there are some strength’s to Craven’s fourth franchise installment that are well worth praise and note. As a massive Scream fan, it was great to see the MPAA hadn’t completely had their way with the picture; there’s plenty of blood and intestines, and a pair of murders that really resonate long after the final credits roll. I’m not as quick as most critics to call it the bloodiest of the series – as I found the finale of the first film to be excessively gruesome, and as stomach turning as any scene you’ll see in Scream 4 – but it’s damn nasty, and if you’re a fan of the sticky stuff, you’ll find the feature satisfying for certain.

The final act, I want to note, is also extremely well assembled, and almost manages to erase the immediate memory of the pacing and atmospheric problems that arise during the second act. The big reveal isn’t as jarring as the actual final showdown (which features one of those extremely cool kill scenes I mentioned) itself, but the action unfolds without a hitch, and there’s plenty to mull over as the story comes to a climax. Kudos go out to Wes Craven who utilizes experience and heaps of genre prowess to close on one of the film’s highest notes.

There is (of course) big praise in store for a few specific performers in tow, as Hayden Panettiere, Alison Brie and Erik Knudsen all offer strong memorable performances. Panettiere is exceptionally convincing as the head strong, unspoken “leader” of the film’s youthful crew. It’s unfortunate to see Emma Roberts fall completely flat, but that’s a risk any director takes casting opposite a personality as dominant (and talent as refined) as the already seasoned Panettiere. In the end, you get one fantastic performance in exchange for one drab performance, and in this case I suppose you could call it square.

In closing, I want to stress two major points; First, I did indeed enjoy Scream 4. It’s a fun film that – while not perfect – has some witty, entertaining moments and manages to do a fair job of touching down on contemporary trends, pop culture and of course, horror cliché’s. It’s also always great to see Neve Campbell, David Arquette and Courtney Cox on screen together (reprising what may end up being each of their most memorable career roles). My second point; I didn’t love it to the extent that the majority of critics seem to have. The nod to modern pop culture was, as aforementioned, a sound concept. To push the obvious angle of nostalgia just feels awkward and forced; it’s not 1996 anymore. Knowing how focused, and relevant the first Scream was while successfully avoiding being overbearing or obnoxious, leaves me wishing this installment felt a bit less contrived. In the end, Scream 4 is worth the $10 ticket, though it won’t garner multiple visits to my local cinema, as Scream did for me some 15 years ago.

OVERALL SUMMARY
Scream 4 puts franchise fans back in the world of Woodsboro, Sidney Prescott, Dewey Riley and Gale Weathers. While it’s a wonderful world to be in, it’s an equally dangerous realm…Just about as dangerous as franchise fourth installments.

Matt Molgaard

The post Scream 4 (2011) appeared first on Horror Asylum.

As the title suggests, the story obviously focuses on the most annoying day in existence, and coincidentally enough, just about every character on screen is equally off putting. The “action” begins on a rickety vessel that transports a group of friends to a small island where Muffy, a longtime friend of the crew, awaits their arrival. While Danilo Bach’s script outlines each character clearly – displaying a wide variety of personalities – the only likeable character in tow is Kit (Amy Steel, who you’ll likely recognize as the female lead in Friday the 13th Part 2), and even Kit, our obvious heroine, is a bit on the dull side.

The pranks begin on the boat, as prop knives fly and sticky syrup spills. While we’re supposed to get a laugh out of the situation early and often, the film just unveils countless clichés that feel tired from the beginning. However, if you hope to make it through this one in its entirety, expect plenty of lame, overused gags that wouldn’t keep a 10 year old child entertained.

Once this group of friends (there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of camaraderie between the bunch as a whole, which leaves me feeling strange even labeling them “friends”) arrive on the island Muffy (Deborah Foreman, whose hauntingly robotic performance seems to be the only element of the film that works) is ready and waiting to host the weekend from hell.

While the bodies pile up with startling frequency, not one single murder ever satisfies. We’re treated to plenty of cut-away shots, off-screen kills and cheap hack job effects that seem to be more afterthought than focal point, which I find strange for a film centered around the slaughtering of reckless youth. In fact, the best effects April Fool’s Day has to offer are seen in the form of prosthetics, and one early shot on the boat before this bunch of rogues ever get to the island. Perhaps the worst part of the entire ordeal is the finale. There’s anticlimactic, and then there’s lazy and anticlimactic, which is just plain offensive. April Fool’s Day falls under the latter category, and the “it was all a dream” type of climax will leave you angered at having sat through this compilation of rubbish.

Despite the fog of lackluster effort that looms over April Fool’s Day, there seemed to be potential on hand. Between Steel, Foreman, Ken Olandt and Thomas F. Wilson (you know, Biff from that little flick Back to The Future?) there’s enough acting talent to compile a quality picture. Unfortunately for just about everyone involved (including those of us who wasted 90 minutes of our lives watching this crap) a rudimentary script, limited budget and lack of heart keep the film from ever leaving the ground, let alone soaring.

OVERALL SUMMARY
This forgettable slasher features an impressive cast and some great scenery. Sadly, it lacks the spirit of many slashers to come before, and after, and misses the mark in terms of story, gore and fear. Steer clear of this clunker, unless you’re attempting to pass it off as the best slasher ever made, as an obvious April Fool’s Day prank.

Matt Molgaard

The post April Fool’s Day (1986) appeared first on Horror Asylum.

When five children discover a woman dressed in a Santa suit has fallen into a well, they rush to obtain aide. But when two of the children spot a wanted poster donning the woman’s face, claiming theft of a large sum of money, innocent intentions sway. Rather than helping free the captive criminal, they blackmail her, and demand all of the money in exchange for her freedom. After spending a few days in the hole, Santa begrudgingly forks over the cash. The children however, begin to question their safety, and the ramifications of keeping the woman enslaved, and decide to leave her in the well. Ole Saint Nick eventually manages to escape captivity, and she’s damn angry. It seems those annoying kids will have to face the consequences of their actions.

The cast is perfect. There’s an efficient blend of dark humor, compassion, and most important an acute viciousness, that keep this story rolling at a steady and enjoyable pace. Every character in the story has a strong, unique personality (including Tito, played by Pau Poch, one of the youngsters who happens to be obsessed with The Karate Kid), and every prepubescent in the film provide convincing imitations of seasoned veterans. Maru Valdivielso is terrific in the shoes of the villain Rebeca Exposito, but the kids really steal the show. A wonderful script written and directed by Paco Plaza, terrific performances from a group of extremely talented youngins, and an eerie score composed by Mikel Salas earn this one a place in my ‘favorites’ stack of DVD’s.

You can check out the film, along with five solid others in the collection FILMS TO KEEP YOU AWAKE. The set features work from filmmakers Alex de la Iglesia, Narciso Ibanez Serrador, Paco Plaza, Enrique Urbizu, Mateo Gil, and Jaume Balaguer. With AFTER DARK’s HORRORFEST and Sam Raimi’s GHOST HOUSE PICTURES, it’s easy to see how this horror compilation may go unnoticed. I urge you to not let this happen; FILMS TO KEEP YOU AWAKE is better than both of the aforementioned collections. The season may be behind us, but it’s no reason to miss this joyous occasion.

OVERALL SUMMARY
For a surprisingly unique twist on seasonal horror, check out Christmas Tale, as this film delivers, and delivers big.

Matt Molgaard

The post The Christmas Tale (2005) appeared first on Horror Asylum.

Well this one here is quite interesting really. It’s got some CGI that invokes a feeling of nausea that surpasses the worlds worst hangover, some horrific dialog, and a script as creative as those Gucci handbags your girlfriend picked up at the local auction. And I love every last minute of it. From the unbelievably fake looking tarantula prancing around, to the goofy demeanor that David Arquette never leaves home without – itâ€s just a load of fun, from beginning to end.

While it may seem I’m painting the image that the film is a technical disaster, believe me when I say it’s not. The film is intentionally over-the-top, nothing here is incidental, and honestly: writer/director Ellory Elkayem crafts a pretty damn good tribute to 1950’s B monster movies. The golly-gee innocence of yesteryear is present, though not obnoxiously pronounced, the action moves at a rapid fire pace and there’s a solid handful of likeable characters scattered throughout the picture. To add a little icing on the cake, Elkayem made sure to include plenty of goofy comedy that really separates EIGHT LEGGED FREAKS from so many other attempted homage’s, as this one is actually funny as well as fun.

Take note that EIGHT LEGGED FREAKS will not satisfy everyone. For some, the film will (without a doubt) be to cheesy; for others, it’s bounds to summon a nostalgic dose of grand entertainment. I personally know a few who are completely indifferent to the picture. For this cornball of a writer, it’s a blast that’s worth revisiting, time and again – and if you enjoy old school monster movies, it’s not unlikely you’ll dig EIGHT LEGGED FREAKS.

OVERALL SUMMARY
When it comes to cheesy action horror, few films top this goofy adventure. Come on, the already silly-beyond-belief David Arquette given free reign? I’m all in.

Matt Molgaard

The post Eight Legged Freaks (2002) appeared first on Horror Asylum.

Writer/Director’s Àlex and David Pastor do a wonderful job of capturing the savagery of mankind, while still keeping a trace of compassion alive in even the film’s most vile characters. More than gore, startles or meaningless moments of excessive violence, the Pastor’s manage to focus on the idiosyncrasies and darker nature of mankind; while it’s a bit of a gamble in terms of pure thrills, it’s a gamble that pays off in a major way.

The cast is not only good, but excellent; each character is well defined via a natural onscreen presence. They are, quite simply put very well developed and extremely believable performers. It’s easy to imagine this as a factual experience, and the documentation of one of groups harrowing journey. That’s what is often referred to as extremely high quality acting. Given the relative youth on display, I’d call that a borderline act of perfection.

Now, don’t get me wrong, as there are certainly a few elements of the film which feel a little less than realistic. For example, the world’s been overrun and humanity destroyed by a viral pandemic, yet virtually every location looks to be a ghost town; extremely few bodies riddle the roads, abandoned cars are a thing of near nonexistent, not so much as stray animals wander the scenery. Rather than complete isolation, the effect feels a bit forced, and gains noticeability as the picture moves forward.

On the good side, that’s about the extent of negatives to find within this picture.

This tale of survival amongst half-dead-practically-zombie-freaks is beautifully memorable. The extend of emotions demanded by this young ensemble surpasses challenging. Their executions of each respective role is magnificent. Chris Pine is terrific as the sharp tongued tough guy who keeps this group of misfits alive. Lou Taylor Pucci is also quite engaging as the only human in the film still in touch with humanity. And both Piper Perabo and Emily VanCamp act as some of the strongest supporting characters you’ll find in contemporary horror. It’s a magnificent collection of talent, and every single performer turns in a job worthy of respect and praise.

The film, in a nutshell follows four youngsters in search of salvation. A virus has spread, humanity is extinct, constant danger looms and emotions run high. Throughout the film a few scenes feel like open tributes to late 70’s grindhouse films. While a few others (such as the primary encounter with the stranded Frank Holloway – Christopher Meloni – and his infected daughter, and a close encounter with a contaminated pool) offer a high level of drama, a close look at a few characters moral values, and some realistic scares. In the end it’s about who can manage to keep a piece of compassion alive, as they’re the few likely to manage to escape with their lives.

The ups and downs fall in frequent succession. The frights emerge in awkward moments that make them, ironically far more frightening and we’re provided pivotal moments that bare heavy relevance of the film long before the pictures finale. There are a few small surprises in store for viewers, but this one isn’t about suspense; it’s about the study of human nature, and the extent man is willing to travel to ensure self-preservation.

OVERALL SUMMARY
One of the most compelling post-apocalyptic journeys in years, Chris Pines performance is moving on a multitude of levels; amazingly the rest of the cast keeps up!

Matt Molgaard

The post Carriers (2009) appeared first on Horror Asylum.

Gary Brandner’s story is really an unorganized, sloppy tale that’s too descript when it shouldn’t be, and completely inexhaustive when it should be particularly descript… it’s a mess. But I’ll be damned if it’s not a truckload of fun! Scott Curtis turns in a haunting performance that speaks of far more experience than his age would even permit; It’s a performance that lingers with you a bit. There’s a few quality supporting characters in the fold, but the real magic is the goofiness of the script, fused with the brilliance of Scott Curtis’ surprising performance. It’s an unorthodox coupling, but it works well.

This paranormal monster tale is one of the few of it’s kind (there really aren’t all that many to begin with, that I know of) that has managed to stand the test of time. More than 20 years after it’s release the picture enjoys a (still) growing cult following. Given it’s 2004 DVD release and recent cable network resurgence (including a stint on Fearnet On Demand) CAMERON’S CLOSET is as popular as ever. And really, it’s hard to imagine why it wouldn’t be; kids with powers – check, cool decapitations – check, cheesy 80’s monsters – check. Come on, what more can you really ask for?

Wait a minute, there is more one could ask for: bonus features dammnit! That’s my big beef (I’m hood – remember that, and expect ebonics to work their way deeper into my future writings) with this DVD. No commentary of any form, no deleted scenes, blooper reels, picture galleries, exclusive interviews – nada. No draw beyond the film itself, which is unfortunately featured in full screen transfer. If there’s a widescreen release floating, I have yet to spot it.

OVERALL SUMMARY
While there’s plenty to critique here, there is a campy quality that draws viewers back, despite how goofy things tend to get. Do yourself a favor and try to ignore the outrageous improbabilities.

Matt Molgaard

The post Camerons Closet (1988) appeared first on Horror Asylum.