Reviews

Summary: Gerald's Game is a well-directed, beautifully shot thriller. The last 10 minutes may turn some people off, but those who don't care will enjoy every second of them, as I did. 81/100 (B+)

I waited for this film for so long, I'm glad it did not disappoint me. I haven't read the book but I had an idea of what the movie was about and I know Mike Flanagan really well. I really like the way he directs horror movies, Hush was awesome, Oculus is in my all time favorites and Ouija: Origin of Evil was fun. So I was very pumped for this.

I was surprised for how fast the first act went. It may seem a small scale movie but Flanagan managed to make this movie entertaining. The first 40 minutes went really fast. So moving on, the performances were really good, Carla Gugino as Jessie carried the entire film, she was perfect from beginning to end.

The film has many flashbacks and dreams sequences that I really loved. I was confused at first with the pessimist dead guy "Gerald" and the optimist Jessie, talking to the real Jessie. I felt the cringe during those scenes, but then I understood how traumatized and desperate she was in this situation that she started to see this hallucinations.

I love Mike Flanagan, he makes us care about the characters and their backstory. The entire eclipse sequence was so beautifully shot, and also disturbing in not a conventional way, I'm also happy to see Flanagan's wife Kate Siegel back in another movie from him even if she had very few minutes of screen time.

This movie had an awesome scene in which me and my sister screamed our lungs out (I'm serious). It's one of the most gruesome moments I've seen in a horror movie since Bone Tomahawk (2015). I do not know why so many people complain about the last minutes of the film, I thought the ending was fine and it did not ruin the whole experience, at least for me.

So in conclusion, I think this is a pretty good choice if you are a Stephen King or a Mike Flanagan fan. It's a small-scale, well- directed movie. I would have loved to see this movie in theaters. I hope Flanagan continues directing and writing more awesome horror movies. I can't even decide which one is my favorite now! (B+)

Summary: It was a pleasant surprise, probably one of the most memorable horror films I've seen in the past 5 years. 86/100 (B+)

First of all, it's great to be back with you guys after almost 3 years of zero reviews. So moving on, I was not expecting this movie to be good at all, the trailers did not convince me and it did not look scary at all to me. But holly hell! I did not do any research about this movie so when it started to get many attention and praise from critics I was interested. So I found out later that the guy who directed Mama made this. I liked that film in general, so I was even more excited. Anyway let's get to the film. This review will contain minor spoilers if you haven't see the film. I will not reveal anything too important.

I was really surprised with the opening scene, the movie introduces us to Georgie and his brother and then we move on to… that scene. Pennywise looks scary as hell and his dialogue is funny at the same time also the saliva coming out from his mouth adds a little creepy touch to that specific scene. Then we move on to the rest of the first act which introduces us to these kids and their bullies, this movie does a great job developing its main characters which are performed by many talented kids who did an excellent, magnificent work on their roles.

It was pretty cool to see the individual scary scenes with the red balloons for each kid, all of this moments packed many jumps and jolts which I found extremely well directed. I noticed that this movie still keeps the "Mama" flavor from director Andy Muschietti. Both films have similar creepy imagery and effects. Both movies look very similar in style, color and art direction, I absolutely loved that the movie kept that aspect. I cannot wait to watch more films coming from him.

The second act is slick, dreadful, a brutal explosion of blood (literally). I loved every second of it, my movie theatre was screaming and laughing all at once during this act. This is definitely one of the best movie theatre experiences I've ever had. The projector scene was so freaking good, (I will not spoil anything) let's just say that it is one of the best moments in a horror movie in years. Also, my favorite scene was the first bathroom scene with the incredibly talented Sophia Lillis (Beverly), her screams and overall performance during that scene was mind- blowing.

Another moment from the movie which involves a scary looking house was very intense too. It was one of the sequences who got the most gripping reaction from my audience. Muschietti directs with energy, it is a sea of memorable scares and surprises. Oh, man this movie has so many great moments! Also, the film does a great job mixing the comedy and horror aspects together. When the film is doing horror it's scary, and when it is doing comedy it's hilarious. Mainly because of the genius and sleek dialogue between the characters.

I want to stand out Nicholas Hamilton's performance as the bully guy (Henry). He did a fantastic job and he was very scary in every moment he was on screen. I actually felt very frustrated as the characters themselves. I also felt a great connection between the characters, there was good chemistry among them. That beautifully scary house sequence left me breathless, because it's the moment where shit's going down. The moment where everything goes to hell, amazingly orchestrated by Muschietti.

Third act is shaky but still fun. I wish it did not have all of that shaky cam during the final fight, it was very difficult to see what was going on. It was similar to what happened with the horror/action scenes in the movie Krampus, way too dark and shaky. But whatever it was still entertaining. The resolution of the film was very accurate, I was very happy with the ending and I cannot wait to see the sequel which I hope is as good as this film.

As with flaws I would say that it takes some time for the film to start the horror aspect. It takes a lot of time to develop these characters. But I don't complain after all, movies need great character development. Another minor flaw I have is some of the VFX used in the film, in a couple of moments they look kind of weird. But hey! It's from the same guy who directed "Mama" so I get why he decided to use that type of strange CGI in this film. Anyway, this is one of my favorite horror movies in the past 5 years. It is so extremely well directed, acted and shot. It has so many memorable horror moments and it definitely deserves to be the highest grossing horror film to date! (B+)

Summary: REC is scary as hell, well-acted and dreadful. 90/100 (A-)

Spanish is my first language and I just loved to watch such a good film in my language. It is hard to find a film like this one. REC is consistently frightening and well-executed. Each character is well-developed, and you care about all of them. Its running time is very short, but in those 80 minutes there are so much stuff to watch and you will be completely satisfied. The movie starts quickly, straight to the point. The best thing about REC was its final act, seriously the last ten minutes are mind-blowing. This movie is unique and surprising. It is a must watch, even if you are not a horror fan. It is one of the best found-footage films I have seen.

Everything looks so real, you feel a connection with the characters and its ending is just brutal. I watched REC at night with the lights turned on, but that did not help to decrease the horror. It delivers suspense, disturbing images and some bloody scenes. The performances were excellent: Manuela Velasco and Pablo Rosso were quite believable. The supporting cast was terrific too. Each character had something to contribute, and all of them were interesting. They all looked like average people, and this brought me an awesome sense of realism. It is extremely hard to make a masterful found-footage horror film these days, but REC nailed it. It is an instant horror classic. (A-)

Summary: Gravity is stressful, well-acted and consistently frightening, despite its thin plot. 94/100 (A-)

The film takes you into a suffocating atmosphere and plays with your mind at times. The visual effects are mind blowing and it does not matter if you watch it on 3D or 2D, the experience is great. It does not have the greatest plot ever, but it is quite curious that a movie does not need to be rich in storyline to be great. Gravity has enough visuals and superb performances to succeed. I watched it with very high expectations and it did not disappoint me. This film definitely deserves its high ratings on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic (96/100 and 97% respectively). It was worth the hype. I could not breath during the whole movie and my heart was racing. I almost had a heart attack watching this.

Gravity is undoubtedly the most thrilling film of 2013. The movie kept me on the edge of my seat all along. I am calling it now one of the best movies of the year. It did not need a complex storyline or a brainy script to be a good movie. The plot was quite easy to follow and understandable to me. I felt connected with the characters. They are not boring scientists, they are humans, and the dialog between them felt very genuine to me. Moving on, it does not matter if you watch Gravity on a small TV or on your laptop the experience is still great. Damn, I could watch this film like a hundred times and never get bored. I also want to add that the musical score is astonishingly masterful.

On the upside, Gravity is highly entertaining, scary and unforgettable. It has top-notch visual effects, and its final act is neat. Watch it if you have high expectations or if you are a fan of the horror genre, also if you liked some other films from this amazing Mexican director. I am pretty sure that fans from the writer-director Alfonso Cuarón will not be disappointed. On the downside, the plot may seem short for some people, but as I said above, it does not need a vast plot to be an excellent film. In conclusion, Gravity is a terrific piece of work that boasts: the best CGI I have seen in a film, a heartbreaking performance by Sandra Bullock, and an impeccable direction by Cuarón. (A-)

Summary: Final Destination 5 delivers mind-blowing special effects, suspense, and an unforgettable bridge collapse sequence. 84/100 (B+)

Directed by Steven Quale, Final Destination 5 is undoubtedly the strongest installment of the franchise. Why? The script was improved and the movie is well-directed. The special effects were astonishing. The bridge collapse sequence was epic and unforgettable. This scene has the best CGI I have seen, everything looked so real. Also, the sound mixing and the editing were surprisingly well done. Final Destination 5 has the right director, writer and cast. The main character played by Nicholas D'Agosto did a good job, and his co-star Emma Bell clearly knows how to scream out loud, I loved her final scream in the bridge collapse scene. The rest of the cast was good enough, nothing special. Moving on, most of the characters were likable and I cared about them. There was only one character that was painfully annoying, Isaac performed by P.J. Byrne. He was unnecessary and silly.

This is my favorite movie of the franchise. Final Destination 5 may be as messy and pointlessly gory as the other installments of the franchise, but the difference here is that the script is better, and no line is wasted. Also, the movie had no jump scares, I loved that. The director created a suspenseful and scary atmosphere throughout the film. The death scenes were amazing, intense and sometimes exaggerated. Steven Quale has potential. He did a pretty good job with this movie, and must do more movies like this in the future. Anyway, my conclusion is that this entry is as messy as the previous installments, but the writing was improved, the suspense and the direction were neat too. I have heard that the 3D effects here were eye-popping, I can not wait to see it on 3D. Surely FD5 has flaws, but I do not care, it was entertaining as hell to me. I highly recommend it for fans of the franchise. (B+)

Summary: Night on the Galactic Railroad is a very dull ride, but it is still extraordinarily dark and has a lot of heart. 60/100 (C+)

On the night of a cat village Festival of the Stars, a kitten and his friend go on an celestial journey on a magical space locomotive. On that trip, they have various stops where they meet strange sights, even more unusual fellow passengers and learn some lessons of life on their trip to the terminus of the Galactic Railroad. First of all I want to say that it was not as depressing as I thought it would be. It was a good movie, but it did not live up to my high expectations. I am not a fan of anime, but I liked this film, it was dark and deeply uncomfortable. The film is slow, very slow. Also, the character development was pretty confusing because I did not felt a connection between Giovanni and Campanella they were supposed to be friends. But I did felt sorry for Giovanni, the whole story about his father and his sick mother was touching.

The second act was less dull to me, but still slow. There was a scene where Giovanni is quite surprised as he sees the train for the very first time and it was loudly effective. The second act continues having some boring issues and confusing moments. The third act was profound, unexpected and extraordinarily dark. Some people say that the film itself is disturbing and children should not watch it, but for me it was not disturbing at all, it was poignant. Moving on, the voice actors did a great job. The animation was stunning and looked fascinating. My only issue with this film was its boredom and inactivity. Anyway, I am glad that I watched it. While at times it lacked direction, and it was slow-paced, this little animated feature delivers a payoff and a reflective message. (C+)

Summary: The Upper Footage is extremely boring at times, but its impressive final act compensates for it flaws. 60/100 (C+)

If you are not a fan of the found-footage sub-genre, you will be disappointed with this flick. The Upper Footage is strictly for hardcore found-footage movie fans. It was quite boring and requires lots of patience. It relies on realism and it did a good job because everything looked very real, even though it was obviously fake. The dialog was repetitive at times, also the profanity was constant and annoying at a certain point. But the film boasts enough intense moments and drama to mildly succeed, most of it was in its third act. I watched the first half of the movie with my sister, she was bored, extremely bored. I was a bit disappointed with the first half of the film because nothing happens. However, the second half is impressive and the tension begins, although it is still somewhat slow.

The first half was a total bore, the second half was a little bit more entertaining but quite slow too. Another problem is that the characters were not interesting enough to keep us entertained. There was not enough entertainment here, 60% of the film is people saying the F word like a thousand times... literally. I was like "meh" during the first 40 minutes, and some other parts in the second half. The entire movie was filled with people arguing about things that I did not care. It was just dull, but then I was shocked. The last 20-30 minutes were very impressive, the final act was very similar to The Blair Witch Project. It was shocking to me because I am a huge fan of that movie and this film was very close to it, in terms of realism.

Surprisingly, most of the characters in the final act became kind of likable, especially that blonde girl and the dude that was recording, they were quite smart and believable, the other guys were good too. I also loved a line near the end of the movie from the blonde girl: "I can smell her". If you have seen the movie you know what I mean. The payoff was good enough to me. There was a scene involving a chilling scream near the very end, it was pretty neat, well-done and brilliantly directed. In conclusion, the last act was a decent payoff. While most of the film is a total bore, the final act was impressive, refreshing and looked very realistic. Director Justin Cole has a new fan, I am looking forward to his new projects. (C+)

Summary: In spite of being a very flawed film, Grave Encounters deserves some credit for its terrific scares and claustrophobic setting. 80/100 (B+)

For their ghost hunting reality show, a production crew locks themselves inside an abandoned mental hospital that's supposedly haunted - and it might prove to be all too true. Grave Encounters is written and directed by The Vicious Brothers. I have to admit that in spite of its flaws, it is one of my favorite found-footage films of all time, it has a very scary atmosphere and unforgettable scares. Grave Encounters is an audience pleaser. It is that kind of horror film that you re-watch every Halloween with some friends and snacks. It is suspenseful, memorable and bloody; I love it. It's an amazing ride, and of course a guilty pleasure. Moving on, the film starts slow and introduces us to its characters, also there were some silly and bad-acted moments in the first act.

The main character, "Lance Preston" performed by Sean Rogerson was quite objective, you don't hate him, but you don't like him either. The rest of the characters were somewhat likable, except for the black guy called "T.C. Gibson", performed by Merwin Mondesir. His character was annoying and cliché, but the script helped him a lot, and you can empathize with him sometimes. The only female in the film "Sasha" performed by Ashleigh Gryzko, was quite believable, her acting was realistic and effective. The acting in this movie was generally good. After the introduction of the characters, the crew locks themselves inside of the abandoned mental hospital and the fun begins... for us. It is bloody, twisted and messed up. It is a pleasant found-footage film. The excitement that produced in me was just incredible.

The Vicious Brothers direct with precision, and they build a consistent atmosphere throughout the film. I loved the skepticism of the characters during the first half of the film. The first creepy scenes were effective, for example: wheelchairs and creaky doors moving by themselves. All of these scares were cliché, but Grave Encounters is still effectively creepy because it has the right amount of suspense in its scares, it has a great build-up suspense. I also want to add that its found-footage execution makes sense, and the footage looked very realistic at times. Moving on, the second half of the film is a huge disaster (in a good way), it has lots of effective jump-scares and bloody violence. The payoff was astonishing, it delivered so many good scares. This movie boasts one of the most eerie settings I've ever seen in a found-footage film.

This second half was constant, it was a huge climax that never stops. The sound effects were awesome, but I have to admit that the special effects were a little bit crappy because of the budget. The CGI was awful. However, it doesn't matter because the film keeps the intensity all the time, scare after scare. The whole asylum is a scary maze. Some of the characters were annoying, but the whole situation was understandable. If I were in that situation, I would be as angry as them. As I said in the summary, this movie deserves some credit for its strengths. It has flaws, such as: lots of non- scary ghosts with big mouths, annoying characters, a few bad performances, dumb actions by the characters, and average special effects. But who cares? It's still creepy as hell. (B+)

Summary: Curse Of Chucky delivers a compelling story, quality performances, and a memorable post-credits scene. 81/100 (B+)

After the events of Seed of Chucky, Nica, a young woman forced to a wheelchair since birth, has to regroup her sister, Barb and her brother-in-law, Ian for a funeral after the death of her mother. While dealing with Barb, Ian, along with their 5-year-old daughter, Alice; Nica receives an odd package - a creepy doll. After people start showing up dead, the fearless Nica soon suspects that the creepy doll is much more than just a doll. Curse Of Chucky was a fun movie that surprisingly exceeded my expectations, it left me very impressed. The star of the film was Fiona Dourif, she did an excellent job with her character, the rest of the cast was generally good. Brennan Elliott and Danielle Bisutti were the only ones who did not give a solid performance.

If you are a fan of the Child's Play saga, you must see it. Curse of Chucky is a fun, violent and bloody ride. Even though it was flawed, stupid, and manages some clichés of the genre, it is still an enjoyable flick. It uses some CGI effects, but I really don't care, the doll looked realistic enough. The new design of the doll was remarkable, Chucky looks scary again! Moving on, the first act was a bit slow for some people, because the doll does not speak. He said his first words until the second half of the film. During the first half we can see him walking through the rooms, moving his arms, frowning, etc. This could be boring for some people, but it was effective and suspenseful to me. I loved how the movie built up the tension.

I liked the setting of the film, the house was creepy. The score was great too, it increased the suspense at times. The movie kept the tension all the time. I was so interested in the plot and characters. Don Mancini's direction is imaginatively clever, the movie made me feel intrigued and amused. On the plus side, we have an impressive return from the cast of the previous installments; also, the performances were pretty good. Fiona Dourif gave an awesome performance as "Nica". Brad Dourif did Chucky's voice, he was excellent as always. I also want to add that I spent my whole childhood watching the Child's Play franchise. I am a huge fan of these movies, and I absolutely loved this one because it knows what fans want.

Even though it has some silly moments, Curse Of Chucky surprisingly delivers more tension and seriousness in comparison to its predecessors; Chucky is creepy, strong and revengeful again. I will not spoil it, but there is a great post-credits scene that you don't want to miss, it was completely unexpected for me. If you're a huge fan of the Child's Play saga, you will love this movie. Also, in the second half of the film there were so many surprises, and some questions about Charles Lee Ray (the spirit who lives inside of Chucky), will be finally answered. On the negative side, the movie has lots of silly and stupid moments, and some of the characters were so dumb. I still enjoyed it though. (B+)

Summary: The Purge: Anarchy has some nice shots, a creepy atmosphere and Frank Grillo's dynamic performance; also, James DeMonaco is becoming in a better director. Sadly, it is still not good enough. 60/100 (C+)

A couple are driving home when their car breaks down just as the Purge commences. Meanwhile, a police sergeant goes out into the streets to get revenge on the man who killed his son, and a mother and daughter run from their home after assailants destroy it. The five people meet up as they attempt to survive the night in Los Angeles. The movie started very well, but some of the characters were a bit annoying and unlikable such as Shane (Zach Gilford), he was so annoying. There was a lack of connection between the audience and Shane. Also, there was another crappy character called Liz (Kiele Sanchez), she is a good actress, but her character was uninteresting. Nobody cared about her story and she is not engaging enough. Then, we have Frank Grillo as Sergeant, he is the star of the film, his performance was great.

Carmen Ejogo performs Eva Sanchez. Ejogo gave a reliable performance and you care about her character. The young actress Zoë Soul performs Cali, her character was smart, strong and sympathetic. The script, camera work and direction are way better in comparison to its predecessor. James DeMonaco is becoming in a better director. The Purge: Anarchy was quite ambitious, but it is still not good enough. The last act was messy and confusing. Some scenes in the final act did not make any sense, everything felt surreal and awkward. Frank Grillo enhanced the film at times, but the movie still lacked a payoff. Also, it is a thriller, so I do not know why they classified this as a horror film. Anarchy is smarter and fresher than its predecessor; but it is still not recommendable enough. (C+)

Summary: Sometimes silly and effectively creepy. Grave Encounters 2 is just a mixed bag, great poster though. 44/100 (C-)

Grave Encounters, film student Alex Wright is out to prove them wrong. Alex is as obsessed with the first film as the 20 million people who viewed its viral trailer on YouTube. While he and his friends research the events and visit the real psychiatric hospital depicted in the original film, they find themselves face-to-face with unspeakable evil, banking on the hope that their knowledge of the original film will help them survive the sequel. Grave Encounters 2 doesn't quite live up my expectations and was not as scary as the first one, but it was a very entertaining sequel. It was scary, but sometimes silly. I saw it in theaters, because I like supporting indie-horror films like this one. I actually enjoyed some moments of this movie, but as a whole is just a mess.

Most of the scares were predictably bad. Just a few scares throughout the film were effective and well done. A good example was that scene involving a Ouija board, it was the best scene in the film; I found it scary, suspenseful and effective. At times, a lot of moments with scary potential were ruined by the terrible direction, and the bad acting. Most of the scares as I said were very predictable, even though the suspense was quite effective and creepy. Poliquin does not take risk and goes for the easy way... jump-scares. Also, there were too many ghosts with big mouths into the film and they were so repetitive and annoying. The acting was uneven, the pretty young actress Leanne Lapp (Jennifer) was the only one who gave a believable performance and she's the only one who caught my attention.

The rest of the performers were awful and annoying. Some of the special effects were horrible and the CGI ruined some scary moments. The direction was hit and miss. The scares have a good build-up suspense, but the climax of these was not effective. In the positive side the gory scenes were enjoyable and there were a few surprising moments. There was a highly effective twist in the second half of the movie and I found it very original. In the negative side, the script was sometimes laughable and the acting was generally bad. Grave Encounters 2 is a mixed bag, not as good as the first one. Some horror fans will love it, it has some thrilling and seriously messed up moments. I wish good luck to The Vicious Brothers they have potential writing stories, but they have to make them less messy. (C-)

Summary: Chernobyl Diaries boasts an eerie setting, but its screenplay is awful and the characters are forgettable. 40/100 (C-)

Directed by Bradley Parker and written by Oren Peli. Chernobyl Diaries is a horror film released in 2012. It was filmed in Hungary and some other close locations. Its whole location is scary and the plot is quite interesting. Its first act delivers some false jump- scares; so, if you're a person who gets scared easily, I recommend it. Even though it has 86 minutes of running time, it was pretty boring, mainly because the suspense was awfully handled. Also, the script and all the situations were very cliché. The worst thing about it is that it had lots of potential, this is such a waste of premise.

There was a huge lack of screenplay, the direction and the writing were so lazy. The camera work is cheap and crappy. It's good to see a film talking about this catastrophe, it was a good idea, but "Chernobyl Diaries" fails to give us interesting characters and genuine scares. It definitely has its moments, but the plot was very confusing, especially in its last act. Sometimes the movie is way too dark. It's almost unwatchable. It seems that they recorded this film with a potato. Well, at least the performances were decent and a few scares were effective, but it's just another mediocre Blumhouse production.

I recommend it only for very curious horror fans and people who get scared easily. The first time I saw it, I really liked it, but after the second viewing I realize how bad written it was. In conclusion, Chernobyl Diaries boasts a frightening setting that is wasted by an awful script, lazy direction and horrible camera work. Anyway I recommend it if you're a curious horror fan and you have low expectations. I don't recommend it if you're not a huge fan of the genre and you expect lots of scares, originality and surprises. Spooky location, bad script and poor execution, that's it. (C-)

Summary: G.B.F. is highly entertaining, original and likable; even though it doesn't succeed when it tries to be a deeper film. 67/100 (B-)

In G.B.F., social warfare erupts when three high school clique queens battle for supremacy: drama diva Caprice, Mormon princess 'Shley and blonde fashionista Fawcett. When unassuming Tanner is outted, he finds himself cast as the hottest new teen-girl accessory: The Gay Best Friend. The clique queens immediately pounce and makeover Tanner into their ideal arm candy, forcing him to choose between popularity and the true friends - including his own B.F.F. Brent - that he's leaving behind. G.B.F. has an interesting and original premise. I enjoyed it, it was very funny and doesn't deserve an R rating at all. This movie was hilarious and what I really liked about it was the amazing supporting cast, Taylor Frey as "Topher" had the best scenes in the movie, he was great.

G.B.F. has a mostly unknown cast, but there were some famous young actresses such as: Sasha Pieterse (Pretty Little Liars), Molly Tarlov (Awkward) and the actress/singer Joanna "JoJo" Levesque (RV, Aquamarine). They were quite likable, and I'll be honest, I saw this film mainly because I am a huge fan of Joanna's work, and she was good in this movie. G.B.F. is everything but predictable. I liked its execution, the first 15 minutes were laugh-out-loud and straight to the point. The whole first act was kinda of sad, and deep sometimes. The rest of the movie is more about the prom and some funny stuff. The film at the third act tries to go deep again, but it feels forced and ineffective. Some sexual scenes in the film were very awkward to watch, so if you are not familiar with this stuff, just don't see it.

G.B.F. has its funny parts, some of them were very funny. I enjoyed it so much and I was entertained. The movie leverages its uncommon premise and you care for the main character, he's shy and likable. G.B.F. is like a very good T.V. film. You will laugh a lot and is enjoyable. It's just a small, remarkable, indie film, hard to forget. I know that this is a very low-budget film, so don't expect many locations. I recommend it if you like teen comedies. The drama and the deep stuff doesn't work, but the comedy was quite well done. The script is sometimes laughable, but it works, it was amusing and mostly effective. Sometimes in the second act the direction was messy and the relation between the characters was confusing. But overall, I still recommend it. (B-)

Summary: The Den is an underrated horror flick about the dark side of the internet. It's creepy, violent, and tense. 80/100 (B+)

The Den is a 2013 found-footage film directed by Zachary Donohue. There are now a lot of found-footage films, most of them are trashy. The Den is that rare, little and non famous found-footage film that surprisingly works. I saw this film at night with the lights turned on. My sister was using her laptop beside me and she said to me "Why are you jumping so much?" I replied to her "I'm watching a horror film called The Den and is scary as hell". This film is definitely one of the best found-footage films of the year, and one of the scariest ones ever to me. Horror is my favorite genre, but horror films don't scare me at all, I just like the genre. The Den scared me so much, I couldn't sleep that night. This movie was a real frightening experience. This is my kind of film. It was very impressive, quite scary and unforgettable.

Elizabeth Benton (Melanie Papalia) logs onto a video-chat site known as the Den, on a mission to explore the habits of its users. During one of her random video-chats, Elizabeth watches in horror as a teenage girl is gruesomely murdered in front of her web cam. While the police dismiss it as a viral prank, Elizabeth believes what she saw is real and takes it upon herself to find the truth. Well that's basically the plot of the movie. I literally couldn't sleep that night. That's when you realize that you just watched an effective horror film, one of those scary movies that keep you awake at night. This film is scary because all of the situations that these characters experienced could be actually real. The Den is also extremely violent and messes with you. I jumped, I was engaged with the protagonist and I was entertained.

Its execution was impressive, it has flow and I was never bored. It's a very entertaining film. It could be a little bit silly and mediocre for some people and I totally understand that, if you didn't enjoy this film as much as I did, it's fine. The horror genre needs more films like The Den. Also, I think that this movie was inspired on a true story about the mysterious "deep-web". To me, this was a very different and original horror flick. Compared to all these trashy found- footage films such as: Mr. Jones and Alien Abduction, The Den is a remarkable one. The characters were pretty likable and you care about them. The performances were excellent, Melanie Papalia did a great job with her performance. The direction was stunning, vibrant, energetic and so twisted. Zachary Donohue has to make more horror films.

There were a lot of disturbing and unforgettable scenes. I liked the opening scene it was funny and effective, the first act was creepy as hell and has some suspense. The second act is more violent and filled with lots of effective jump-scares. The third act is an explosion, lots of action and violence. It kinda reminded me to movies like Saw and Hostel, it was quite similar. Watch this film in your computer, it will be a full experience. It will blow your brains out. The Den explains some things about a very important issue like the mysterious "deep web". Just one tip for you before seeing the movie, search on Google "Deep Web", read some articles about it, and then... watch this film. Don't watch any of the clips or trailers, just go see it. (B+)

Summary: The Fault in Our Stars compensates for its flaws with Shailene Woodley's performance and tear-jerking moments. 63/100 (C+)

The Fault in Our Stars is a pretty passable and forgettable film. That's why I give it a 6/10. It's far from being a bad film, but it wasn't very special either. I read the amazing book few days before watching the film, and I have to say that the book was breathtaking and deeply emotional. It is filled with lots of funny moments and also, painfully sad moments. The last chapters made me feel so many emotions at once. Then appears this mediocre and sometimes heartless adaptation. It was so disappointing because it does not reach that emotional impact from the book. The movie feels so rushed (even with its 126 minutes of running time).

It was so straight to the point, there was not enough character development. My major issue with this film is that each scene feels so mediocre and emotionally empty. Also, when it tries to be funny ends up being awkwardly humorless. Another problem is the lazy screenplay, the writer changed a huge part of the original script and some of the scenes were so badly scripted and awfully directed. I mean, the actions and the way that this talented actors interacted between each other in dramatic scenes were not similar to the book at all. What a shame because the book took more risks. It was braver.

Another problem is that there were not enough characters. A lot of important characters from the book were not in the film. Come on, the director had enough running time to put them in, but he didn't. Also, I didn't feel that connection between Hazel, Gus, and that book called "An Imperial Affliction". You don't know anything about this book that they love, they just barely talked about it throughout the film and there were not enough conversations about this beloved book in the film. But I'm happy that there were some decent moments here. All the scenes in Amsterdam were beautifully shot and very similar to the book in all the right ways. It was definitely the best part of the movie.

All those moments in Amsterdam were very enjoyable and beautiful because there was a lot of chemistry between these two main characters. Shailene Woodley was terrific, she was born to play this role. It's sad that this director went for the easy way and didn't put lots of important and crucial moments from the book in the film. The DVD version has some extra minutes, but it's just not enough. Overall, The Fault in Our Stars is a mediocre and empty film compared to the book, but it definitely has its moments and the performances were terrific. Sorry if I mentioned the word "book" so many times in this review, but I can't stop comparing them. (C+)

Summary: The Cabin in the Woods is refreshing, complex, wicked, and its final act is the dream of every horror fan. 94/100 (A-)

Directed by Drew Goddard and starring Fran Kranz and Kristen Connolly, The Cabin in the Woods is definitely the best horror film of 2012, not only for its excellent reviews, it's the horror film of the year for its refreshing and original screenplay that revolutionized the horror genre. Although it has a slow start and the first 35 minutes are character development, the whole film was quite interesting. The characters were likable and friendly. Also, it is a very confusing and strange flick, but do not worry, everything made sense at the end.

It was complex as hell and is difficult not to spoil it, but I will try. The direction was superb, the writing and the actions of the characters were smartly written and the movie is filled with lots of epic twists and memorable moments. It's not more of the same crap, everything in the film feels so fresh and original. The performances were amazing and effective. Shout out here to Fran Kranz, he's definitely the star of the film, he makes us laugh again and again, his performance was excellent. He's so underrated. It's sad that Chris Hemsworth gets all the attention and he's not even the protagonist of the movie.

The rest of the cast was hilarious and extremely likable too. Richard Jenkins, Bradley Whitford and Amy Acker were terrific and they added some weird humor to the film. It was made with a budget of $40 million and that is very high for a horror flick, I believe that half of the budget was used in the last 30 minutes. They were truly impressive, believe the hype. In addition, I want to add that the special effects were just good enough, do not expect mind- blowing or extremely-realistic effects. The horror genre needs more movies like this one, I mean horror films with a decent budget.

On the upside, the CGI was good enough, it has unexpected twists, comedy, tension, and gore; mostly in the last act. The second half was a bloody explosion of horror, there was a perfect balance between scares and comedy. It is a must see if you love the horror genre or if you want to watch something so messed up and different; seriously, it exceeded my expectations and it is not overrated at all. See it if you want surprises or violence, also if you want to laugh out loud. On the downside, some of the jump-scares were unnecessary and predictable, but that's my only issue with the film. I can't wait to buy it! (A-)

Summary: I really liked The Bay, because it looked realistic and its plot is thought-provoking. 61/100 (C+)

Directed by the academy award winner Barry Levinson and produced by Jason Blum, "The Bay" is an above-average, found-footage horror film. First, let me say that the trailer is great, the premise is terrific and Barry Levinson is a very talented director. The entire film feels quite genuine, the found-footage adds lots of veracity and the acting is quite good. I really liked the performance of the news reporter. Moving on, even though its running time is very short (84 min), it didn't deliver enough scares or entertainment to me. Everything was kind of boring, but I give it credit because it looked extremely real the whole time.

I'm pretty sure that a huge part of the audience that disliked The Bay did not even try to understand the message of the movie. This ecological issue could actually happen in real life! It was so thought-provoking. Moving on, as I said the performances were great, just some extras were kinda weak. Kether Donohue's performance was excellent, she's a news reporter in the film and is documenting all the catastrophe in this little town; her character was dynamic and smart. In addition, she's not the only one important here, throughout the film we can see some scientists talking through Skype about this parasite and all these scenes were quite effective and interesting.

Do not expect jump-scares or lots of gore. This movie is more about scientists, laboratories, death fishes, people infected in hospitals and stuff like that. The Bay boasts a thought-provoking story about public services, in this case water contaminated, eww. Levinson cares about the human perspective and he gives us some nice camera shots in hospitals and streets. He smartly uses a found-footage style to present us his intriguing tale. Although at times he forgot how to maintain the film entertaining, I was satisfied by the end of it. I remember that I kept looking at a glass of water for minutes thinking... where does it come from? How clean is it?

It was very thrilling sometimes and it had two or three effective jump- scares, but two of them are in the trailer. A huge part of the scares and surprises were spoiled by the trailer, so please don't see it. Overall, it's one of the most believable found-footage films I've seen, even though it was not as entertaining as I thought. I only recommend it if you like documentaries or movies about ecological issues, pandemics or virus. The Bay is a horror film for a very specific audience, this is not that type of horror movie which you watch with some friends at night. I recommend you to see it alone, and judge it by yourself. (C+)

Summary: This movie was so messed up... but I liked it anyway. 70/100 (B-)

Even though it's not even close to the awesomeness of the first movie, still a good movie. The animation was great and the jokes were funny enough. The whole audience was dying of laughter! There were a lot of strange and messed up moments in the movie, there was also a reference to "The Shining" and I was like: What the hell am I seeing? Anyway, this movie is anything but boring. I couldn't take my eyes of the screen, I was so entertained the whole running time. The first SpongeBob movie was already surreal and weird, this one... *sigh* has crossed the line.

The 3D was incredible, well done and eye-popping. There's a great action sequence near the end of the movie with the pirate involved (performed by Antonio Banderas), and it was so damn funny and fast-paced. On the downside, some repetitive jokes become tiresome as the running time goes, the above-water stuff was way too short and well... actually the whole movie was very short to me, I don't know why, this movie should be longer! Again, the whole above-water stuff that you can see in the trailer was actually 20% of the movie, seriously WTF, I wanted more.

I left the theater a bit unsatisfied. I felt like I just watched a movie that's 50 minutes long. Also, another of my issues was the ending, the songs in the ending were unnecessary and a little bit annoying. In addition, another issue was the villain. Antonio Banderas was great, but his character is not very well developed, he was a quite uninteresting villain. Leaving aside its flaws, I noticed one thing, the editing is really well done and even though it has some messed up moments the movie is never confusing because its premise is so short and easy to follow.

The editing makes the whole film more dynamic and easy to understand. So, in conclusion this SpongeBob movie is not even close to the 2004 film, but it has enough visuals and clever gags to satisfy the audience in general. The above-water sequences are so damn enjoyable, the 3D looks fantastic and there are a lot of moments in the movie that are so damn surreal and messed up! Think of an animated version of Interstellar. Also, I don't want to spoil it, but I'm just gonna say that first scene with the dolphin was so strange.

I'm pretty sure that a lot of people will dislike this film, mainly because of the ending, some annoying songs, the strangely uncomfortable moments and the shortness of the film. But to me, it is not a bad movie at all. I highly recommend it, especially if you're fan of the TV show. If you're going to see it, you must see it in 3D and on a huge screen. It is a pretty good spectacle. It is great that the movie took advantage of its 3D format, it looked great. Also, do not forget to see Squidward's dancing in the end credits, it will remind you to the old times. (B-)

Summary: Spring Breakers is a strange flick about promiscuous teenagers, drug dealers, guns and sex. 60/100 (C+)

Directed by Harmony Korine, Spring Breakers tells the story of four attractive students planning to raise money for the spring break trip stealing a fast food stand. But that's just the beginning. During a party night the girls are arrested with drug charges. Hungover and dressed just with their bikinis, they see a judge, but they are unexpectedly liberated by Alien (James Franco), a rare local thug which takes the girls to his home and they have the craziest spring vacations of their lives. All the girls are very happy with him, except one girl called "Faith" (Selena Gomez) she does not trust in Alien at all.

This movie wasn't as good as I thought. The first half was quite enjoyable and crazy, but the second half is darker, slow and violent. Also, the last 30 minutes of the movie were very awkward to watch. Moving on, all the choices and decisions of the characters in Spring Breakers felt genuine, but there was not enough plot in the film; it was boring and uninteresting to me. You don't care about the characters, because most of them are stupid and annoying. I also want to add that since the departure of Gomez in the second half of the movie, the film became in a disgusting pornographic mess, filled with bizarre sex scenes and repetitive dialog.

On the upside, the whole cast did a great job. James Franco's performance was astonishing, he nailed it. However, Spring Breakers is basically 94 minutes of strange pornography to me. Yes, I enjoyed some moments of this pornographic mess, the first act is somewhat enjoyable and funny at times, but most of the movie is just uncomfortable. Maybe you will enjoy it more, I don't know. If you like movies about drugs, teenagers acting like prostitutes, guns and sex, Spring Breakers is your best choice. If you expect an entertaining film about some likable girls in their vacations, you'll be disappointed. This is just a strange crime flick.

It has a well-known cast. Vanessa Hudgens was good, but her character was unlikable and dull. Seriously, watching the film I was like... who cares about this whore? Nobody! Also, she just said two lines in the whole movie. Good job, screenwriter! Another one is Ashley Benson, she's beautiful, what else can I say? Well... at least her role was a little bit more interesting. Another girl is performed by Rachel Korine. I think that Rachel is way too old for her character, and she was actually the only one who showed her breasts. Finally, the most decent character and the most engaging performance was Faith (Selena Gomez), she was smart and believable.

It's a slow film that boasts an original plot, a talented cast and a bunch of crazy moments. My favorite moment in the movie was a scene between Selena Gomez and James Franco, their performances were excellent. The message of the film is also very thought-provoking and sincere. It shows how some teens just want to have fun, no matter what. In conclusion, most of Spring Breakers is odd and boring, but I still recommend it if you like movies about parties, guns, sex and drug dealers. Do not see it if you expect lots of entertainment or friendly characters. It is just a movie about promiscuous teenagers. The ending was quite good though. (C+)

Summary: Awfully acted, but stupidly enjoyable. Sharknado is a very insane TV movie that will entertain horror buffs and beyond. 67/100 (B-)

A freak hurricane hits Los Angeles, causing man-eating sharks to be scooped up in tornadoes and flooding the city with shark-infested seawater. Surfer and bar-owner Fin sets out with his friends Baz and Nova to rescue his estranged wife April and teenage daughter Claudia. Sharknado is an awful film, but I enjoyed its stupidness. Critics are right, it is so bad, it is good. The visual effects looked intentionally bad, and the performances were laughable. It is kind of a guilty pleasure.

But there is something that I really liked about Sharknado, and it was its humor. This movie was hilarious and so damn entertaining. It reminded me a lot to Zombieland, because both have the same sense of humor and insanity. I dare to say that Sharknado is the most hilarious horror-comedy since Zombieland. Even though some scares and deaths were very predictable, I still enjoyed this flick. It is great to watch a film that knows what it is doing and does it well.

Tara Reid is probably one of the worst actresses in recent memory, she sucked in this movie. But that was the point, right? Sharknado is awfully good and I do not know if that makes sense to you. In addition, Ian Ziering was amazing, he was a badass in this film. Also, the direction was interesting, especially in its final 10 minutes, there was a strangely awesome moment that blew my mind. In conclusion, the first half was somewhat boring and predictable, but the second half was bloody-fun, unpredictable and highly entertaining. I liked it. (B-)

Summary: The Pact is spooky, well acted and just a bit slow. 78/100 (B)

The Pact is an indie horror film directed by Nicholas McCarthy. It is a small flick and it has a decent running time, eighty-nine suspenseful and terrifying minutes. Moving on, it starts very well, the opening scene has lots of suspense and some lean scares. It delivers suspense, chills and a sense of anxiety. The movie boasts great performances by Haley Hudson and Caity Lotz, their performances were genuine and believable. Lotz and Hudson did a good job with their roles, but for me the star of the film is Hudson. She was terrific. Anyway, The Pact is such a good horror film that doesn't even need gore or violence to be good. It is a slow movie but it requires patience.

The movie has enough blood and violence to satisfy discerning horror fans. Also, the special effects are surprisingly well done in spite of being a low-budget film. On the downside, the camera movements are annoying at times, the director wants to show you all, it's a very explicit movie, it shows you all the shadows and 'spectrums' with an unnecessary camera zoom, he thinks that you're blind or something. All those 'zoom' moments are so ineffective and not scary. I wish it could be more implicit. In addition, sometimes the camera moves stupidly and makes a scene funnier than scary, for example that scene in the trailer where Caity Lotz is attacked from behind by a ghost, was kinda funny.

Leaving aside its flaws, I highly recommend it for horror fans. You can watch it online with some friends or rent it, it's a very spooky flick. The premise is intriguing, it has a good script and the performances are believable. Thumbs up for the loud-chilling screams, the excellent acting (Haley Hudson you were awesome) and the interesting premise of the film. Thumbs down for a few boring scenes, clichés of the genre and the crappy camera direction. In conclusion, it is a must see if you love the horror genre, I'm pretty sure that you'll love it. Just don't see it if you have very high expectations or if you think that it will be a masterpiece. The Pact is just a little horror gem. (B)

Summary: Insidious: Chapter 2 delivers a few decent scares in its first act, but unfortunately the rest of the film is a strangely awful comedy. 40/100 (C-)

Insidious: Chapter 2 is directed by James Wan. It was one of my most anticipated horror films of 2013. Wan impressed me so much with The Conjuring, it was memorable, thrilling and well written. Unfortunately, Insidious: Chapter 2 is exactly the opposite, the script is filled with annoying and unfunny jokes, the direction is lazy, the production is cheap and some situations are extremely surrealistic. The opening scene and the first act are quite enjoyable, but there's a horrible lack of suspense and the scares are not so effective. I just can't believe that Wan directed this one, he forgot the most important thing in a horror film... the suspense! A horror film without suspense is utter crap.

The first act contains two or probably three extremely creepy moments, but seriously, the rest of the film is a stupid comedy, and it's so rare compared to Wan's previous work. Also, it has an intentionally funny script, the dialog was so cheesy and overcooked. Chapter two is a failed amateurish experiment by Wan and screenwriter Leigh Whannell, it's a joke. It is definitely one of the worst films I've seen at the theater so far. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed some scenes during the first act, but the rest of the movie is just a strange, awkward comedy, literally. I really don't recommend it, maybe two or three moments are worth watching on YouTube or HBO, don't waste your money in this.

I'm a huge fan of the first Insidious, it was amazing, even though I had some issues with its final act, it was a solid horror flick with a well handled suspense. On the other hand, chapter two lacks of scares and is short on suspense. Well, at least, the performances are still fine, Patrick Wilson and Rose Byrne are awesome as always and the young actors are excellent too. Chapter two boasts an original story and I'm glad that it delivers some fresh ideas to the horror genre, but its execution could have been better and the script could have less unfunny jokes. Moving on, it has a good camera work, Wan gives us some creepy shots, and at times it looks like a James Wan film! But that's not enough.

I'm really concerned about this movie, chapter two is a strange flick, I'm not even sure of what it is, maybe an awful mix of genres, such as: comedy and psychological horror. Whatever, it sucks. As I said above, yeah, the plot of the film is quite original, but it doesn't offer enough scares nor entertainment. I really want my money back, this was a truly awful flick. I don't even recommend it for fans of the first Insidious starving for horror, because chapter two is literally a comedy film, a very bad one. The trailer is amazing and scary, but unfortunately all the scenes in the trailer are the best parts in the movie and that's it. In conclusion, chapter two is well acted but it delivers more laughs than scares. (C-)

Summary: In spite of its messy final act, Insidious is clever, well- acted and suspenseful. 73/100 (B)

Insidious is a low-budget horror film directed by James Wan. The first act of the movie looks like Paranormal Activity 2 (without the found-footage), but after the first 25 minutes it becomes more original and some scary stuff start to happen. Wan directs very well, the movie boasts a nicely handled suspense, especially in its first act. In addition, it has terrific sound effects. The acting is superb, Rose Byrne and Patrick Wilson were great in their roles. The two main characters performed by Byrne and Wilson were believable and very well developed. Insidious is a spooky, well-acted flick and probably Wan's first good film.

As I said above, the plot is refreshing and the scares are effective. The characters are well developed and some of them are funny (in a good way), a great example are the two male paranormal experts, both play a hilarious role without being annoying. The film scares you with some creepy noises and unexpected images. Its final act keeps the tension although it's a bit weak in comparison to the last two acts. During its final act there is a scene where this demon is revealed. It was very surprising for me, the demon itself looks very scary and that whole scene was so terrifying.

On the upside, Insidious has some thrilling scenes, good performances and unexpected scares; also, its second half is strangely original. James Wan is a director with experience in the genre and creates here a truly scary atmosphere that is reinforced with strong performances by Rose Byrne, Patrick Wilson and Lin Shaye. I also liked the camera work, this movie has lots of creepy shots and a good illumination too. See this film if you're a fan of the genre or if you're interested on seeing a strange, weird ass horror film. Also if you like jump-scares. Insidious is a jump-scare fest, a very good one.

On the downside, its final act is strange, sometimes confusing and it almost ruined the whole film for me. During its first half, the movie kept the suspense and delivered lots of scares; however, in its final minutes the suspense was totally gone and the movie was not as terrifying as it was before. I liked it anyway, the whole production design is awesome and the special effects are well done in spite of being a low-budget flick. In conclusion, Insidious is a great, scary flick that boasts a creepy demon and originality. My only issue is the final act, it's such a mess. (B)

Summary: Gareth Edwards' impressive debut "Monsters" is an interesting, original, and economically-effective sci-fi flick. 84/100 (B+)

Six years ago NASA discovered the possibility of alien life within our solar system. A probe was launched to collect samples, but crashed upon re-entry over Central America. Soon after, new life form began to appear and half of Mexico was quarantined as an infected zone. Today, the American and Mexican military still struggle to contain "the creatures". Our story begins when a US journalist agrees to escort a shaken tourist through the infected zone in Mexico to the safety of the US border.

I really liked this film, maybe because I live in Saltillo, Mexico; my location is part of "the infected zone" and I found it exciting for some reason. Gareth Edwards is one of my new favorite directors; all his films (this one and Godzilla) have something in common, both rely on the human perspective in a devastating situation. Edwards is the only one who knows how to make a film about monsters, without showing too much of the monsters themselves. The movie had a very low budget, but it didn't look crappy at all.

The two main leads have chemistry between each other and I also loved when the girl and some other characters in the film talked in Spanish, the script was very well done. This couple was likable and their relationship ended up well without being too predictable. Overall, it was a very interesting journey. A must see if you're a huge fan of indie movies. The special effects are modest and wisely good, of course they are not mind-blowing and you will not see monsters destroying cities but it is still a pretty great indie flick. (B+)