Reviews

There was absolutely no reason why this re-make should have been filmed. The original French film L'Interiour, was a brutal assault on the senses while this film is little more than a slap in the face. Like the equally pointless re-make of "Martyrs", this film lacks any real substance, sense of dread or originality. Mainstream Hollywood has obviously run out of original ideas for good, solid horror/thriller movies and has resorted to churning out bad re-makes of superior foreign films. I will avoid any future horror re-makes from now on since my time os far too valuable to waste on poorly executed Hollywood drivel. AVOID AT ALL COST

Yet again, the film industry shows it's lack of imagination and lack of quality scripts by re-making an already great horror film. The original, L'interier, was a terrifying, bloody joyride from beginning to end. The roles were cast well. The story was tight. believable and scary as Hell. The direction was excellent as well. The movie was intense to the extreme yet it still felt like this could actually happen in real life! None of these components can be applied to this pitiful excuse of a re-make. Although Rachel Nichols is an accomplished actress, she struggles through this film like a rookie. It's not her fault as her part has been watered down via faulty script and poor direction. Actress Laura Harring was a poor fit for the part of "The Woman" originally portrayed by the amazing Beatrice Dalle. This film is yet more evidence that mainstream film markets have lost all originality and are increasingly dependent on re-making earlier, preferably foreign films or churning out low budget, poor replicas of successful ones. When I learned that an American re-make of the incredible French horror film "Martyrs" was being made, I swore to myself to never watch it. I broke that promise to myself and watched it. The film, like the new version of "L'Interiour" is nothing more than a milquetoast, re-visioning insult to the original. Gone was the sheer gut-wrenching violence perpetrated on these girls, Gone was the insane logic which help the group together, It took a film that reached out and punched you repeatedly in the gut and turned it into little more than a made-for-TV movie filled with rejects from the O.C. that had far less talent than the roles required. In fact, like "Inside", the re-make of "Martyrs: seemed to have been created solely for the late teen audience due to the removal of many of the key violent and bloody scenes Neither of these films needed to be re-made and the evidence is right in front of you. Forget these abortive attempts at capturing lighting and stick with the originals

I've watched a LOT of movies in my lifetime, from instant classics to bottom of the barrel trash, so I like to think I know how film is supposed to work. Luciferous is at heart, a pretty good film. However, decent acting and limited, but successful settings cannot save a flawed film. Alex and Mahsa live a very comfortable life in an upscale condo with their young daughter, Mina. Life is great until Alex suffers a head injury and after a slow recovery begins to act more and more strangely, eventually putting his family in danger. The movie flows well, with nice transitions from scene to scene. There are a few bumps in the road where situations occur for no other reason than to move the plot along. The main problem with the movie is one which has become more common now that anyone can make a movie for a few grand, a computer and some electronics. The film attempts to sum everything up in too short a time! This flaw almost always leaves the viewer with more questions than answers and not in a good way. I like films than makes me think. I LOVE movies that force me to think outside my comfort zone. A good example would be "Memento". This movie attempts to sway the viewer into believing that supernatural forces are the cause without actually giving any reason to think that. Alex's head injury plus loads of medication easily explain all the bizarre happenings at the home, yet the supernatural element is pushed numerous times. The final 15 minutes are where the film falls flat on it's face. Like too many other movies, in too short a time, we are given a LOT of information which, ideally, is supposed to make us say "So THAT'S why all that happened"? Certain scenes gain more importance and the actions of certain characters become more relevant. That's not the case with this film. Without giving too much away, everything that has occurred to the family is summed up in the final few minutes without really explaining much at all! Logic went out the window and the sense of cohesion we're supposed to feel simply doesn't occur. What is supposed to be an "Aha!" moment is actually a "What the ....?" moment. instead of making me want to watch the movie over again to look for bits that I thought were insignificant or didn't make sense I wanted to ask for my 90 minutes back. ALl in all, the acting, direction and sets were actually pretty good for a low budget film, but the script fails in ways that make the viewing experience unenjoyable. Oh yeah, and Mina constantly whining, crying and yelling for "Mommy" begins to get on your nerves in about 18 minutes.

Overall, I think this movie has been given a bit of a bad rap. Compared to a lot of recent horror films, this one was actually pretty good even with the budget restraints. Daniel has been placed under house arrest for cyberstalking local "weird girl" Mona. The only adult in the film is Daniel's somewhat sympathetic parole officer played by Peter Stormare. Daniel does have 2 friends which visit him daily, help him reconnect with the web and are inadvertently drawn into his unfolding nightmare. After Daniel receives a disturbing Skype from Mona, things turn from boring to surreal and eventually frightening as he realizes that he is being haunted by Mona's spirit. Using technology somewhat out of their capabilities at times, the trio of friends try to figure out what's real, what's simply Daniel's guilt and what just hallucinations. The only real subplot is Annie's unrequited love of Daniel and how it eventually plays out in the end. The primary flaw with the movie is with the script. Everything is just taken for granted that Daniel is placed in a situation where he is trapped and doomed. There had to be a reason why Daniel was "trapped". There had to be a reason why the cast was limited to as few people as possible. There had to be a reason to create a claustrophobic feel. This might have been done better with a better screenplay, but somehow, it was pulled off without too much loss of effect. The movie slows to a crawl in several instances where it is supposed to build tension. In some cases it works. In others, it's merely a ploy to stretch the running time. It's only within the final 20 minutes or so that the trio truly realize what's happening, yet little is actually explained and the viewer is left with far too many questions than answers. I had way too many questions by the time the film ended.

BEWARE, HERE BE SPOILERS

It becomes obvious why Daniel suddenly became smitten with Mona, yet she did little to reciprocate his obvious attention. Was it her parent's that intervened? The lock on the OUTSIDE of Mona's bedroom door was unusual. Did her parent's know what her "hobby" was? Were they protecting her or were they AFRAID of her? Were THEY ALSO into witchcraft? Did they know what their little darling was up to and file charges against Daniel as a way of protecting HIM? Every part of the "possession" spell as aimed at Daniel, yet WHY would she want to possess him? How could she possibly know that Annie would complete the spell? WHY didn't either of them attempt to actually start a conversation with each other? Mona was obviously stalking Daniel for MUCH longer than he was stalking her based on the evidence in her secret room. It would have been a LOT simpler for her to approach Daniel after her initial love spell than to go to the extreme that she did. I neither expect not want to have a movie explained for me, but just a little more information concerning the above could really have made this a much more creepy movie Dark Summer wasn't a great film. It was a pretty good film that didn't waste my time. There were a couple of major plot holes that were easy to overlook, but I would have liked for the characters to have "fleshed out" a bit more so that they were easier to identify with. In fact, the entire story could have used a little more background color. To sum up, I've seen worse, but I've seen much better.

By now, everyone has become familiar with Kirk Cameron's delusional and self indulgent attitudes about evangelical Christianity. Most probably also realize that his ideas and opinions are simply wrong. This movie is simply one of his more self indulgent tirades about the supposed removal of Christian themes at Christmas time and how we are all going to Hell. Or something similar. His complete lack of accuracy concerning the actual beginnings of the Christmas holiday not only make the movie a laughable joke, but also showcase his ignorance, therefore ALL Christian's ignorance (He seems to like taking credit for speaking for all Christians) A 10 minute search on the internet will inform even the most staunch Catholic that EVERY aspect of Christmas including the iconic Christmas tree, gift-giving, yule logs, etc, were all adapted by early Christian leaders from PAGAN sources! Here's another quick fact; Jesus wasn't born in December! He was probably born sometime during the Summer months. He is also apparently unaware that when the Puritans settled in America, they OUTLAWED all Christmas celebrations for almost 80 years! We are also treated to more whining about the removal of manger displays, etc from public areas. Yet not a single display on a truly PUBLIC area has been forced to be be removed by public outcry (at least none that I have heard about) Instead, most manger displays that have been removed were on State or Federal property! And yes, THIS IS a violation of the "Separation of Church & State" laws. All in all, the movie is a complete mess! Loaded with self indulgent garbage, this waste of film is also horribly written and directed with acting so far below par as to make a grade school play seems like Shakespeare in the Round. Kirk needs to keep audiences amused with his fire breathing dragons and keep his nose out of major film-making.

After actually watching the new movie last night, I came to this sight and began reading many of the "reviews" and came to the conclusion that a lot of the reviewers didn't like the movie because they either hate the movie simply for existing or hate the movie because it didn't live up to unrealistic expectations or they haven't actually seen the movie. That being said, I admit that the film ain't perfect, but it was an enjoyable experience and overall, I liked it a lot! Is it a re-make or a re-visioning? IMHO a re-make sticks to the original source material with only very minor changes. A re-visioning uses the source material as an overall premise only but takes it in a different direction. Using that criteria the new film is clearly a re-visioning of the original and should be viewed on it's own merit. I've seen the original films dozens of times. I've even read a couple of books about them. I'm no expert, just a fan, but I can tell a good film from a bad one. On it's own, the new film was well made. The script was lean and fast paced. The gore effects were good. The young cast was as good if not better than some in various other recent re-visioning. The film didn't break any new ground, but it was entertaining and one of the better ones out there. The film begins with a short prequel that attempts to set the mood. Personally, I didn't care for it. I understand why it was included (to explain the presence of the book, etc) yet it looked like it was added at the last minute. There are standout performances from Jane Levy (Mia) and Shiloh Fernandez (David) as well as relative newcomers Lou Taylor Pucci, Jessica Lucas and Elizabeth Blackmore. The characters behave like you would assume. Even Olivia (Lucas) a trained nurse acts appropriately when she finally realizes that she is way out of her depth. Blackmore's character (Elizabeth) could have had a bit more to do though. Director Fede Alvarez, a newcomer to feature film-making does a decent job of pulling together a fast paced, gory ride. Even the obligatory gold Oldsmobile was present! Originally rated NC-17, a few cuts were necessary to ensure an "R" rated film. Hopefully, an unrated version will be available on Blu-Ray. The gore SFX were good enough to convince some people that it was all CGI! There are few jump scares and the pacing is a little too fast to build up a decent atmosphere in parts, but the overall feeling of helplessness does come across in the latter half of the film. Overall, I thought the film was an enjoyable experience and it succeeds in paying homage to the original while still standing on it's own. Now to respond to some of the more negative comments. The new movie takes itself too seriously. The original film was NOT MEANT TO BE FUNNY! Raimi and company wanted to make a serious movie that scared the Hell out of the viewer. What most people find funny in the original film is, actually, due to amateur acting, and a minuscule budget (no re-takes). Several reviewers have even mistaken humor in the 2nd and 3rd films for being in the first! The gore was emphasized over storyline and character development. The gore was the major selling point of the original film! The original film was released with an "X" rating for GORE. It was primarily due to Stephen King's "ferocious" review that it got major distribution. Character development? What's Scott's last name? How do Ash and Scott know each other? There's almost no background given for the original characters. The gore and visual effects were the main concern as per Raimi and Campbell themselves. In comparison, the new version has better character development by far! Too much CGI effects. If you believe that then you haven't seen the movie, nor have you read anything about the making of the movie. Either that or the physical SFX were SO GOOD that you couldn't discern them from CGI. From day one, everyone involved in the new film has stated that CGI was only used for a couple of touch-ups in post-production. The acting in the new movie is terrible compared to the original. Have you seen the original? Richard DeManincor (Scott) blows his lines twice! Ash gets "trapped" under a 10 pound bookcase! Re-watch the scene in the new movie when Mia begs David to take her home. Compare the intensity of her performance against any performance in the original film. The dog and it's death was unnecessary. This is only IMHO but the dog was the one that found the basement door. Also, because of the dog's death, David storms into the bathroom to confront Mia only to find her scalding herself in the shower. This leads him to drive her out of the woods thereby discovering that they were trapped. It was a simple way to get the plot moving in a logical manner. The witchcraft/Satanic angle was dumb. Yeah, the intro could have been done better. The movie simply doesn't go into details and is meant only to explain the presence of the book and all the dead cats. There are other issues I could address but I got other stuff to do and writing this review was a good time killer and hopefully, a bit informative. All I can really say is that everyone's tastes are different and trashing a movie based on misleading or false information is pretty low. I recommend that if you're considering watching this, or any other movie, watch an online preview, read a few reviews, take everything with a grain of salt then decide for yourself. If you think the movie is your cup of tea, it probably is.