Reviews

Horror anthologies are a tricky thing and at this point I've seen just about every type of them, and they all have their highs and lows. I have to say though, XX is one of the most consistently strong straight on through. I was pretty surprised to see this one has a 4/10 on IMDb, but upon reading the reviews that hated this movie site unseen for having the nerve to showcase female directors, I began to get the picture.

I've been on-board with this project since I heard about it, and having now seen the final result, I hope they do another one. The segments here are excellent, and play on a lot of themes facing women on a constant basis in our present culture. Motherhood, gender expectation, family life, control, and many other things are touched on right from the get go, and the movie pulls no punches, managing to deal with these themes through horror, without being overly heavy handed about it.

I found the first film, The Box, to have the most impact, but all four pretty much work. The stylish wrap-around segment is delightfully creepy, and uses imagery to tell a story I must confess that I didn't quite get. That said, I'm sure that there is going to be a whole lot of toxic masculinity bulls**t going around with this one, and I whole-heartedly encourage you to check this out and ignore all of that.

I'll admit I jumped on the hype train with this one, the trailer was great and a non-stop action fest that reminded me of a first person version of The Raid: Redemption crossed with the craziest first person shooter ever.

Hardcore Henry is, however, a nauseating roller coaster that is just as relentless as the trailers promised. It occurs to me now there is a good reason for movies not to be filmed in the first person perspective. With video games it seems to work because we give input into the movements, here though, you're thrown around all over the place while sitting still. Honestly, the gimmick (and that's all it is) just doesn't work here.

With that said, however, there are some great performances from Sharlto Copley, who is just a delightful presence at all times. Danila Kozlovsky is also pretty good, though his character doesn't make a ton of sense, and his having telekenetic powers really doesn't ... do anything except make him a harder boss for us to fight.

Ultimately the movie isn't bad, and it's even pretty entertaining, but make sure you've got a strong stomach. Sure it's gory, but I'm talking about the f***ing camera moving around so much.

Worth checking out if this kind of thing appeals to you, but it's not going to change your life.

Well, this was... something.

There's something so offensive about animated films trying as hard as they can to be edgy. The comic this is based on is certainly a dark piece of work, and really didn't need any help. The story was fine, though I really disliked the origin story given to The Joker, it seemed to cheapen the air of mystery about him.

The biggest problem with this is, obviously, the beginning. The set up with Batgirl, during which she has sex with Batman, she is set up as an over-emotional, bumbling, and all around useless crime fighter. She loses her judgement over a male criminal, she is under threat of rape (which is alluded to later in the film after she is attacked by the Joker), and there is even a "that time of the month" gag thrown in for good measure.

There were any number of ways to give Batgirl a more involved set up so that she wasn't simply a plot device as she is in the comic book, but the route taken was lazy bordering on misogynistic. There is clearly someone involved here who thinks sex and rape equal edgy, and they're completely wrong.

The movie as a whole is fine, and reasonably entertaining. Mark Hamill is great as The Joker, but that's kind of where it ends for me. I really don't need any more dark, broody, edgy work from DC, but that seems to be the bread and butter of their animated and live action film selection right now.

If you are enamored with the story for some reason, then just read the comic book again if you want. I mean, if you love the book you've probably already seen this. If you haven't seen it yet, I'm not recommending it.

Well, it's finally come. The remake that would ruin all childhoods, emasculate everyone, and bring about the complete and total breakdown of society as we know it. I've seen rants, raves, fits, and complaints leading up to the release, but was pleased to see that the critical reviews were pretty good. Of course, it was not without the dissenting voices and man-babies, but I went to the movie expecting to enjoy the work put forward by the cast and the director.

At the end of it all, who was right? I was.

Ghostbusters is fun, funny, and entertaining, while it isn't a replacement for the original, it doesn't seem to be trying to be either. It's a fun expansion, or torch passing even. Starring the 3 living actors from the original film, and delivering fantastic comedic performances from a wildly talented main cast. Let's talk about that then, the cast is a great place to start. This was one of the things that people were inexplicably so irate about, as the cast had been gender flipped, putting 4 women into overalls seemed to be the worst thing anyone could ever do. The new Ghostbusters are played by Kristen Wiig (Brides Maids), Melissa McCarthy (Spy), Kate McKinnon (Sisters), and Leslie Jones (Saturday Night Live). While Wiig and McCarthy are consistently funny, and bring their usual game to this one, it's McKinnon and Jones who really shine. The pair of them are hilarious, and make me wish I was still watching Saturday Night Live. The four have good chemistry, and seem to be really enjoying themselves.

Rounding out the cast you have Chris Hemsworth (Thor) as the hilariously dim receptionist, Neil Casey (Inside Amy Schumer) who plays the rather lacklustre villain; Casey does fine in his particular character, but feels a bit hollow when compared to the original film. You've also got an appearance from the always wonderful Michael Kenneth Williams (The Wire) and a number of quick and funny cameos from the original in the form of Billy Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, Sigourney Weaver, and Annie Potts.

I mentioned that the villain seems disappointing when compared to the original, and I think this might be the problem with Ghostbusters. Not with the movie, but with the fans of the franchise. While I have seen and enjoy the 1984 film, I am not filled with a burning and irrational nostalgia for it, which seems to fuel a good portion of the hatred directed towards this version. No, this movie will not go down as an instant classic, or replace the original, but we have to stop looking at movies like this like they are making an attempt to do either of those things. No one is coming to your house to steal your copies of the original, and no one is forcing you to see this one. Did there need to be a remake? No, there almost never does. Would it have been nice to see these actors work together on something original? Hell yes it would.

However, they did remake it, and now it exists. No amount of tantrum throwing is going to make it go away, so maybe it's time to calm down and let those of us who enjoyed it enjoy it. Also, if your reason for disliking it is the gender flipping, then you need to grow up and I have nothing to say to you anyways.

There are a couple of plot and pacing issues, but none of them stood out in a way that ruined the movie. Kristen Wiig finds herself separated from the team later on in the movie, for no real reason except to set up her heroic scene. The ending is a fun and exciting fireworks show, and makes for a fun final sequence. No, it's not the same as the original, and that's fine. The story is simple, and the movie as a whole is well directed and well shot. The scenes with slimer and lady slimer were stupid visual gags that didn't add or subtract anything and I was engaged enough with the main characters not to care about that, or any of the other pieces that didn't work.

One of the things that surprised me was how effectively creepy some of the ghosts were. The opening scene with Zach Woods (The Office) was atmospheric and, particularly the first few, ghosts were relatively well designed. It's not a scary movie, but then the original wasn't either. The tone leans much farther over to goofy, but I don't have any issue with that to be totally honest. Apparently there are some who were unaware that the 80s film was a comedy… I don't even know how to respond to that.

All in all, Ghostbusters is a fun and entertaining ride with a good director, and some deeply funny comedians leading it. Which is exactly what it needed to be, and exactly what the original is. The 80s version is a funny film with strong comedic actors, that happened to hit at the exact right time. This isn't a new classic or anything, but it's a great bit of fun. Watch it if you want, you'll probably feel exactly how you expect to feel about it, and if you're the kind of person who's nostalgia is so deeply ingrained that you feel the need to ruin it for yourselves or others, then that's got to be a whole lot of work to maintain, and I kinda feel bad for you.

For the rest of you, it's fun, and I liked it. Do with that what you will. Or not.

**More of my reviews at www.barleydoeshorror.com**

I came across this one on Facebook funny enough, and it has to be one of the strongest shorts I've seen in a really long time. Expertly shot, and featuring impressive creature design when it comes to the titular creature, this shows what can be done with 5 minutes of run time. While the film certainly opens itself up for a feature, or for more, it still manages to contain and communicate a full story in a short amount of time.

The Birch is written and directed by Ben Franklin and Anthony Meltin, with a story credit for Cliff Wallace. The trio present a fantastic story set in a very unique and interesting world, and allowing for the development of a genuinely frightening mythology. It feels deep and complete, and almost doesn't need any more than it gives you. It's well directed, and the cinematography is great; it's clear that there is a pretty large budget behind the film, but it was put to extremely good use.

On top of a great creative team, you have a fabulous cast. Corrina Marlow plays the ailing grandmother, her role is small but effective; Charlie Venables plays Kris, and Aaron Ward plays his nemesis Shaun. You also have Dee Sherwood Wallace as The Birch, and her physical performance is great, but it's the make up effects that really add impact to the character.

There are some very clear influences in the creature design, my brain immediately flashed to Guillermo Del Toro's films, and while the design could be accused of copying him I think it has enough of it's own flavour and does feel more like an influence or homage than direct copying. It almost seems to be a merging of Del Toro and Alex Pardee, which isn't something you'll ever hear me complain about. The gore effects are well executed too, and really add to the quality of the film.

There's really not much else to say about this one except that you should check it out. A great short, and I look forward to watching what these filmmakers come out with next.

Having been a huge fan of director Ben Wheatley's past works Kill List and Sightseers, and having been baffled by A Field in England, I approached High-Rise with a mix of excitement and apprehension. There's no denying that this lived up to both of those expectations, and at the end of it I almost feel like I need to watch it again. Not because I missed something, but because I don't really know how to process how I feel about it.

My intention was initially to review this for my horror website but I don't you can peg High-Rise as a horror. IMDb calls it a drama, and I guess that's closer, but it seems to toe the line between thriller, comedy, and drama. This tight-rope act gives the film a precarious and disorienting feel, that I'm positive were deliberate choices.

High-Rise reminds me, on some level, of the David Cronenberg film Rabid. Less (no) body horror, but the breakdown of a building full of people leading to anarchy, death, and chaos did strike me as familiar.

Hemming and hawing aside, the question remains: How was the movie?

Pretty good actually; the base story is simplistic, but the presentation does tread into the bizarre more than once. What really holds the film together are the performances. The cast is incredibly strong, and there is a whole lot of screen presence in one place. Leading the cast is Tom Hiddleston (Crimson Peak), who doesn't seem to know how not to be electric on screen. Alongside him star Jeremy Irons (Batman V. Superman), Sienna Miller (Foxcatcher), Luke Evans (Furious 7), and Elisabeth Moss (Mad Men) with enough actors who will make you go "Oh hey, it's that guy!" to make for a fun scavenger hunt.

There is a familiar level of brutality present in this movie, though significantly less than Kill List, so if you have seen his past films, you will have at least some idea of what you're getting yourself into. The focus does seem to be more focused on the characters in the building over the violence, or even the plot.

One of the most interesting things, to me anyways, about this movie is how out-of-time it feels. I've read a few places that it is based in the 1970s, which makes sense as that is when the source novel was written in the 70s, but the movie doesn't feel explicitly based in any period. The casual clothing seems to be based in the 70s, but beyond that it seems to be nearly dystopian. At least in the high rise.

If you're looking for something a bit strange with some great performances, this is absolutely the one to check out. Wheatley is an interesting filmmaker with a great track record, that along should give you some comfort. Check it out.

Zoolander 2 is one of the most joyless, aggressively unfunny movies that I have seen in an exceptionally long time.

Stiller and Wilson rehash the same jokes about how stupid they are from start to finish, and it gets old and tired within the first few minutes. The joke seems to be that their characters are deeply out of touch, and yet that is the ideal way to be because everyone else in the movie is worse than they are.

The highlights of the film, if you can call them that, are Will Farrell and Kristin Wiig. Wiig is a strong comedic presence, but one that feels so out of place in a movie this weak. The only genuine laugh I got out of this was a scene in which her character and Farrell are reunited and scream into each other's mouth; I do acknowledge that that could have been a laugh of exhaustion by that point in the movie.

Farrell is introduced quite late in the movie, and he attempts to be the "straight man" in the film, constantly calling out how stupid everyone and everything about the movie is, the problem is, however, that the movie is still stupid. Just having his character, and the Derek Jr character calling out the stupid doesn't make the movie less stupid.

On top of that, you have actors here who are better than the roles they are in, jokes about trans people that are uncomfortable and tone- deaf, and the trivialization of the very remarkable Malala Yousafzai, making her the punchline of a joke wherein she is the girlfriend of Derek Jr.

My least favourite film of 2016 by far, and the worst comedy I've sat through in quite a while. This is a complete waste of your time. Skip.

Having been a fan of the sketch work that Key & Peele produce together, I was a bit nervous to see how it would work stretched out into a feature. My main concern was that it would feel like one, over-long sketch.

Thankfully, I was mistaken. Both comedians have crafted a movie here, the scenes feel like they could be their own self-contained sketches, and it's a genuinely charming experience from start to finish. It's definitely silly, and occasionally treads into the land of stupid, but I got some solid laughs out of it, and if nothing else that's what you want from a comedy. You want it to make you laugh, and produce all those feel-good chemicals in your brain.

The premise is silly, the movie follows suit, and Key and Peele are extremely funny and watchable. Not to mention, the cat is heartbreakingly adorable.

Well, this one was a long time coming. Somehow I missed this completely in 2013, and so it was inevitable that I got to it. The first Thor was never my favourite, less because of the quality of the film and more because I've never really connected with, or been super interested in Thor as a character.

Backstory aside, I was pleasantly surprised by The Dark World. Hemsworth is a charming and charismatic presence, and Tom Hiddleston has such a strong screen presence that it's pretty easy to get through on the two alone. That, coupled with the (almost) unrecognizable Christopher Eccleston (Doctor Who) as Malekith give enough to like in the performances to recommend this one.

Honestly, the track record that Marvel studios has for creating entertaining, and quality films is something that almost seems completely unbelievable. At their worst, the movies they put out are thoroughly entertaining, and this entry is far from the worst.

One of the most interesting parts of the movie come in the visuals; particularly in the design of the dark elves, and the other realms. There are some really interesting fantasy elements in the movie that almost felt like they could have been Guillermo del Toro designs. There's some of the most interesting visuals and creature design present in this movie that the rest of the MCU just hasn't come close to yet.

While it might be easy to doubt this one, especially after director Alan Taylor's most recent work Terminator Genysis, but all in all, Thor: The Dark World is a fun, entertaining ride that offers some solid performance and visuals. It managed to get me excited for the upcoming Thor film, so I guess that's something.

Going in to Deadpool I really didn't know what to expect. I knew it would be violent, I knew it would be vulgar, but what I didn't know was that I would enjoy it so, so much. Marvel has proved, once again, that they are incapable of making a movie that is patently BAD. Even the weakest among them are at least entertaining.

Deadpool almost feels like it shouldn't exist in the current (mostly) family-friendly "pool" of superhero movies, and yet, here it is. There's something very satisfying about seeing the violence that would, in reality, be associated with fight scenes in comic book movies. When Captain America throws his indestructible shield into a person very destructible face, and he walks out of the movie a hero who doesn't kill, I find that pretty hard to swallow. This one, on the other hand, embraces its violence, and even the grey area that vigilantes exist in.

Ryan Reynolds is solid as Deadpool, his comic timing works really well for the character, and the fun he pokes at himself throughout actually make him pretty endearing both as the character and as the actor. T.J. Miller is pretty solid, though that might be more because of my affection for him as a comedian more than his performance. Morena Baccarin is great as well, but criminally underused as the love interest.

That does seem to be a continuing issue with the Marvel films, and many action films (barring the recent Star Wars or Mad Max. They just don't seem to know what to do with female characters, and it becomes more and more apparent with every new film. Though Jessica Jones did break away from that a little bit, so it's clear that strong, interesting female characters aren't outside the ability of these writers.

Stefan Kapicic and Brianna Hildebrand are great as the two X-Men who show up in the movie, and I hope to see more of them in upcoming X- Men films.

As Marvel movies go, Deadpool isn't the best, but it's far from the worst. It's certainly opened the door to more adult comic book films coming up in future, with the massive success of this one, and it will be interesting to see how the next films change as a result.

It would be easy to write off the jokes in the movie as juvenile and crass, but they really do work in the overall tone of the film, and they make it pretty unique. No, it's not a work of comedic genius but it's fun to watch and (probably) won't disappoint.

Give it a watch if you feel like it.

This one had come across my desk a number of times, on lists of "Movies you must see" and so on and so forth, but something about a movie depicting a school shooting just didn't strike me as something I was terribly keen to see. Especially given the frequency in which we see the very real, and very tragic event unfold on almost a daily basis these days.

However, more time went by, and more recommendations for the film came through, so I broke down and checked it out. I couldn't be more pleased that I did. The Dirties is gripping, frightening, and devastating, and I would say that if you've been avoiding it like me, it's time to check it out.

One of the things that really makes this movie work is the performances. Director/Star Matt Johnson and Owen Williams are both dynamite in their roles as Matt and Owen. Their chemistry is solid, and the depictions of high school students feel very genuine, and there seems to be a real element of writing from experience. Their time in high school is complicated, and feels a lot like my own experiences with bullying, friends, and just trying to get through.

The mockumentary format is very effective, though there are sections that don't make a ton of sense in terms of where/why a camera man is present. Matt addresses the camera man from time to time, but even still there are times when it's not really established why there is a camera there, such as during a heated argument where the camera man appears to be hiding in a closet, rather than actually hanging out with friends.

The final scene in the movie is one of the most gripping and intense scenes I've had the pleasure of sitting through in a very long time. You know exactly where the scene is going, and somehow that only increases the tension. My heart was pounding in my chest, and I really had a visceral reaction to what I was seeing.

That said, the movie is definitely disturbing. Particularly given the current trend of mass shootings from the United States, and I did find it as upsetting as it was entertaining. I do recommend the movie, but as one for adults who have gotten through high school and realized (as we all do) that those years, ultimately don't matter. Rather than teens stuck in a shitty situation.

There are great performances, a fabulous soundtrack, and a lot of talent on display in The Dirties and, while it's not without its faults, I really look forward to seeing what these filmmakers come out with next. If you haven't seen it, you should.

A dip back into the 2015 pool, to a movie that I just didn't get a chance to see in theatres. Krampus is exactly what it claims to be: a Christmas time horror movie, with a giant monster version of Santa Claus. If you've seen a trailer for this one, then you really do have a good idea what you're in for. It's a dark, funny, and predominantly fun film that doesn't pretend to be anything other than that.

The cast was the first indicator that this would be a movie with more elements of comedy than horror, with Adam Scott (Parks & Recreation), David Koechner (Anchorman), Allison Tolman (Fargo), Conchata Ferrell (Two and a Half Men), and Toni Collette (Little Miss Sunshine) all add up to a pretty funny bunch to drive the movie forward. The lot of them play a family that couldn't be any more cartoonishly dysfunctional, which is the one thing that worked against this movie for me. While there are plenty of families that don't get along, the level that these people operated on, while continuing to still interact with each other, is a bit outside the realm of possibility for me. That said, they're definitely living in some kind of heightened reality, and considering the tone of the rest of the film, I quickly got over my dislike of their characters.

The movie also stars Austrian actress Krista Stadler as the grandmother, Emjay Anthony (Insurgent) as a boy who misses his family and happy Christmases, and Stefania LaVie Owen (The Carrie Diaries) as the older sister who is, surprisingly, taken by Krampus very early in the movie.

One of the things I liked about this movie immediately, is that it hits that sweet spot of self awareness where the tone of the movie matches the absurd tone, without spending 90% of the film winking at the camera. There are enough moments of comedy balanced with enough genuinely creepy or scary moments that there feels like a good balance. Perhaps a bit sillier than Cabin in the Woods, but not quite as silly as Tucker and Dale vs Evil (both movies that I love by the way), if that helps give it a bit of a scale.

Krampus is well designed, and feels massive and intimidating in this brief moments on screen, but its his minions that will make the movie memorable, and probably a fun favourite for the holidays. His tiny, evil gingerbread men are cute and somehow menacing, his evil teddy bear and angel are effective, and probably the most bizarre and upsetting is the Jack-in-the-Box with the disgusting, wet, fleshy mouth. The monster design is a lot of fun, and even more wonderful is the fact that they exist and aren't just thrown together in a computer. There is a great incorporation of practical and digital effects, that really give this some lasting impact.

Perhaps the most important moment, for me, was the ending. It definitely fakes you out, and I found myself genuinely upset up until the full reveal. It's actually a surprisingly bleak end to the film, and overall it works for me. While I'm sure some might not like it, and others might have wanted something a bit happier, there's something really satisfying about a movie that wraps up completely, even if it's not in the most positive way.

On the whole, Krampus is a fun Christmas time monster movie. It's reasonably well acted, and has a really good balance of humour and scares. It's funny, and doesn't take itself too seriously which is a welcome change from so many of the self-serious crap we're forced to choke down as horror fans. Give this one a watch, it's worth the time.

Take a deep breath, surprisingly this is NOT a found footage movie. With that said, I almost wish that it was. What it is, instead, is a combination of found footage elements and traditional narrative film making. Here's the problem: the two do not mix well, and create a bit of a mess. I understand the desire to combine the two, but it just doesn't work, and you get a movie like The Veil.

Perhaps the most bizarre part of the movie are the writer and director. Phil Joanou helmed the piece, and this is the man responsible for that Punisher short that everyone liked, the Dwanye Johnson vehicle Gridiron Gang, and 3 U2 documentaries, while the script was penned by Robert Ben Garant, who wrote Hell Baby, and A Night At The Museum 2 when he wasn't starring in Reno 911. These forces came together to make an ultimately bland mess of a horror film.

The movie stars Jessica Alba (Sin City), Thomas Jane (The Punisher), and Lily Rabe (American Horror Story) along with a lovable cast of dead-meat characters, as they head to the site of what is basically Jonestown (without calling it Jonestown). Once they are here, a weird mixture of horror clichés, jump scares, and lazy tropes lead to their deaths. Spoiler alert, I guess. The performances are fine, everyone brings about as much as they can to this particular script, but all in all the "star power" on show here isn't enough to save it.

The main story, of Alba and her team headed back to the site of the massacre, is edited to be dark, high contrast, however the rest of the film isn't edited to match that. At one point, when looking at photos taken of their campsite, the photos are clearly of the real environment and they clash massively with the look of the film. I understand stylistic choices of editing, and wouldn't even begrudge them that if it all matched up. However, they different parts of the film clash so much that it almost feels like two movies crammed together, cobbled together with fair-ground haunted house level scares.

The scary moments have no cohesion, they simply exist to give you a jolt and to make you feel like this movie is scary, which it really isn't. The movie also includes a lot of "watching the tapes we found in the spooky house", and those really don't worth either. It seems like The Veil can't decide what movie it wants to be, and that really hurts it more than anything else.

All in all this really doesn't work. The story is a mess and flies all over the place, and it feels more like a "Yeah whatever, bro, let's make a scary movie. People will eat up any old s**t in that genre", than anything else. I really hope 2016 picks up from here, but it's hard to feel too optimistic.

A quick history lesson for you, my fun loving readers. Background is important, especially when it comes to this particular film. So, the titular "forest" is called Aokigahara, a 35 square kilometre forest at the foot of Mount Fuji. The forest is also known as Suicide Forest (or the significantly less spooky Sea of Trees). Aokigahara earns its spooky reputation from, reportedly, being an extremely popular site for people to go and commit suicide. According to Wikipedia, 105 bodies were found in 2003. What you have here is a dense patch of forest where people go at their lowest, to be totally alone, and contemplate whether they want to end their lives. These are the "true events" that the movie boasts being based on.

From this alone, it's probably not surprising that ghost stories, superstition, and mystery surround Aokighara, and it is even less surprising that horror film based on this forest has now been released. I want to be clear that I'm not put off by folk lore, or ghost stories at all, and it makes sense that a place that holds such a large amount of tragedy would spawn some genuinely frightening stories, it's even a scary place all on it's own.

So, with all of this history and potential, you would imagine that film makers would find local legends, local ghost stories, and mine from what must be deeply fertile territory. No, instead they made the story about white people, and chucked them into a clichéd garbage fire of a horror movie. While I was wary from the moment I saw the first trailer, as it struck me as tone deaf and in particularly bad taste, I made my usual attempt to stay optimistic and hope that something good could come out of this.

I was wrong.

First on my long lists of disappointments was Natalie Dormer. I became quite fond of Dormer after seeing her as Moriarty in the TV series Elementary. When I realized it was her in this movie, it was the first glimmer of optimism that I had. Unfortunately for me, and for you, she's really not given much to do in this movie. Despite her being the lead character, playing her own twin sister, and having most of the screen time, she's such a bland presence all the way through. Her motivations don't really make any sense, with the exception of wanting to save her sister, and she seems to succumb to the hallucinations of the forest almost immediately.

The other massive problems with this are the scares. There are maybe a handful of "scary" parts in the movie, and of them, almost 90% were the equivalent of someone jumping out and screaming "BOO!" while pulling a scary face. At one point, the scary face was about as spooky as the big scary face filter that Snapchat offers up around Halloween. There's just something so lazy about it, especially when the movie does nothing to set any atmosphere or tone, and seems to assume that just the setting will make it spoopy enough to be memorable. Simply put, the movie is lazy and nothing else.

Perhaps the most egregious aspect of the film is that, despite being set in Japan (and hilariously filmed in Serbia, and Japan), the movies protagonists are white people. There is one Japanese character who offers more than a spooky face to the movie, the character is Aiden and Sara's guide in the forest named Michi (Yukiyoshi Ozawa) and he is present in the beginning and end of the movie, but vanishes through the bulk of it. There isn't one Japanese character who really contributes to the plot, and that's staggering and wildly stupid. There aren't even subtitles in the film, an English speaking person immediately translates to Sara/the audience, so no additional effort needs to be exerted at all. It's also implied, in the end, that the suicides in the woods are more the result of ghostly influence than of depression which diminishes the experiences had by those in the woods who chose to end their lives.

There is one effectively spooky scene in the movie, ONE. As Sara makes her way through the woods, whispers of "Turn around Sara" accompanied by a body that they had earlier cut down standing in the background, actually works pretty well and is the only memorable or even interesting moment in the film. It's also mercifully short, which I always appreciate.

Couple the lazy scares with the incredibly weak writing and you've got the makings of a horror movie with nothing to offer. This is another one of those movies that shows a genuine disdain for its audience and seems to say "Eh, horror fans will watch only old sh*t". I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll keep saying it, demand more from your horror films, and expect to be taken seriously as a horror fan. This movie is lazy, and teeters close to being outright offensive. Skip.

Well, the length of time between original and remake continues to shrink all the time, and this time a remake of one that really wasn't all that good to begin with (controversial opinion, I realize). I've read that this is a shot-for-shot remake of the original Cabin Fever, but because it was that movie that initially put my dislike of Eli Roth into full swing, it's been awhile since I've seen it. Also, who cares?

This is one of those movies that really doesn't bring anything to the table. It's gross, like the original, full of unlikable characters, like the original, and gratuitous, like the original. You would think that a remake would want to take a second crack at a movie and add something that was absent, or maybe take it on a different path and try again. Rather than do that, however, director Travis Zariwny and writer Randy Pearlstein (who wrote the original with Eli Roth) have decided to go the Gus Van Sant's Psycho route, and rehash the same thing all over again.

One of the big problems is that it actually manages to fall short of the original. While I dislike Eli Roth, I won't deny his flair for the disgusting. The original film had some pretty effective, and really gross, gore effects that solidified Roth as king of Gore- Town. This one has put less money into the effects and the result feels like less of a remake, and more like the cheaper version that might have been put out before the original.

As you can see in the image above, the movie is competently shot and has some really effective framing, but looking pretty isn't enough even in the slightest. It feels a bit like an HD re-release, which is problematic, and like with many HD re-releases you can really see the rough edges that were present on the original version. The movie just feels lifeless, and unnecessary, more like another sequel than anything else. There just doesn't seem to be any real reason for it to exist. According to the little reading that I've done, the movie was made using the original script that Eli Roth had written, which he says he wrote at 22 years old. The thing about the writing we do when we're young is that it's almost never any good at all and to rehash it in the same way just seems like an exercise in masturbation more than anything else. Sharpen it up, make the story clearer and more polished… or just release the same old garbage a second time.

I didn't like the original, and I didn't like this one. I don't know what else I could possibly say about it. According to Eli Roth, this remake is smart because "he kept the original script, but he changed the deaths so all the kills are different". So, maybe that's an exciting thing but I really doubt it. I genuinely hope that 2016 improves from here.

Mad Max: Fury Road is one of my favourite films of 2015, and without question one of the absolute best films gracing this years Best Picture category at the academy awards. It's absolutely one of the biggest surprises in the category, I had feared the film would be written off as an action movie, but was overjoyed to see it up for the big prize, as well as 9 other possible prizes.

There's something so special about a movie like this. Proof that strong and interesting female characters can lead one of the most balls-to-the-wall action movies that I have seen in my entire life. The titular Max is present, and Tom hardy does an excellent job, but he plays more of a secondary character in the movie. He doesn't say much, but manages to only keep the badassery up around 150%. Charleze Theron is a force of nature as Furiousa in this movie as well, and leads the movie in a way that women are almost never given the opportunity to do in action films.

Combining feminist overtones, criticisms of the patriarchy, and our reliance on fuel are things that many action films wouldn't touch with a 1000 foot pole, but Mad Max does that and still includes more impressive and amazing action than any other action movie has in years.

The cinematography and visual effects that this movie employs are some of the best I've ever seen, and there seems to be a seamless blending of real and computer generated effects from start to finish. This creates an epic and amazing feeling that so many action films try for, and fall short. If this doesn't win best picture, it would border on criminal to deny it the effects awards it's up for.

An absolutely stunning achievement that needs to be seen by everyone. If you haven't gotten up on this one yet, I can't imagine why for the life of me.

As I have with the previous films, I kept an eye on the number of those characters who were not white, cisgendered, heteronormative characters and even an eye on the Bechdel test. The movie passes the Bechdel test, but unfortunately doesn't have a hugely diverse cast. That said, the presence of immensely strong female characters is a refreshing change and is probably the most unique of the nominees so far.

Another day, another Best Picture nomination. This time around, the romantic drama Brooklyn. So, as I've been doing so far, here's what IMDb says the movie is about:

"An Irish immigrant lands in 1950s Brooklyn, where she quickly falls into a romance with a local. When her past catches up with her, however, she must choose between two countries and the lives that exist within."

This one made me feel a lot like last year's Best Picture nominee The Theory of Everything made me feel. The backdrop of the film is infinitely more interesting than the actual story that the film is presenting. The story of Eilis (Saoirse Ronan) leaving her family to come to America and start over is a genuinely interesting one, and an experience so many could relate to during that time.

The problem arises when you overlay the incredibly bland love story on top of it. The focus of the movie is Ronan's character's finding a man, and it does this in a very unremarkable, and standard way. Nothing about the movie feels especially unique or special. Particularly when you take into account the nominations for Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Lead Actress for Ronan.

Saoirse does a fine job in the movie, but it's the pieces around her that make this feel like nothing special. Just as I've said with the other Best Picture nominees, these are not BAD films. When you put them up into a category that calls them BEST of the year, however, being "Just fine" isn't quite enough.

If you like love stories then check this one out, if not then... don't?

Wonderfully, this is a movie who's cast is almost entirely women. So it does have that edge on the other Best Picture nominations. With that said, the number of characters who make meaningful contributions to the plot, and are not cisgendered, heteronormative, white men or women is *drum roll* ZERO.

A quick Google let me know that this movie does pass the Bechdel Test though, so that's something.

Rounding out the Best Picture nominees that I hadn't already seen (I'll be getting to the rest, don't you worry), is Room. This one is about, according to IMDb:

After five-year-old Jack and his mother escape from the enclosed surroundings that Jack has known his entire life, the boy makes a thrilling discovery."

A strange one, based on a book that I haven't read. So, I won't be making any comparisons to the book in this review. Plus, an adaptation should be able to stand alone, and not require extra reading to be a complete experience. Moving on.

Ultimately Room is a success, it's got some pretty great performances and direction, and the movie is put together really well. Brie Larson does a really great job, and you are pulled into her world and really feel her frustrations. Jacob Tremblay is massively annoying, but I think that falls directly in line with his character. While Jack and Ma are stuck in Room, you feel the tension that the small space creates in very believable ways. Still though, he's really irritating.

One of the biggest standouts of this movie is the editing. Especially once Jack escapes from the titular Room. You see the world from his perspective, and the way the scenes are shot and edited together fill you with a very real feeling of being overwhelmed, and experiencing an entire world that you've never seen. It's nice to see filmmakers who know how to SHOW and not tell.

This certainly won't be making any of my "favourite movies ever" lists, but it really does work to communicate an effective story. It's not my pick for Best Picture either, but I'm not going to pretend that it's unwatchable.

This one is up for Best Picture, Best Lead Actress (Brie Larson), Best Directing, and Best Adapted Screenplay. There's a good chance for adapted screenplay or maybe Lead Actress, but those are the strongest impressions for me.

The main characters are Ma and Jack, so you do have a solid female character driving the movie. She's pretty dynamic and interesting too, the things that she is willing to do (or more specifically, have Jack do) in order to escape are pretty intense and staggering. That said, like Brookyln, this movie is lacking in the department of characters who are not cisgendered, heterosexual, white people. (With that total sitting at zero, once again).

Alright, apparently the 30th was a big movie-watching day for me. I even watched this strange little movie, Pan. So what does IMDb say it's about?

"12-year-old orphan Peter is spirited away to the magical world of Neverland, where he finds both fun and danger, and ultimately discovers his destiny -- to become the hero who will be forever known as Peter Pan."

All in all the movie isn't really that bad. It is well made, and tells a reasonable fun story. Absolutely a movie for the family, although there are some weird violent moments that might make it for the older kids. You also have a dynamite performance from Hugh Jackman, proving that he commits 100% to every role he takes one, and no one in the movie does a particularly bad job. That said, Garrett Hedlund's performance choices as Hook do border on the baffling.

With that said, Pan has some problems. It's absolutely a cute movie, and might even be enjoyable if you're not someone who watches movies and subconsciously picks them apart. The computer generated effects, for example, when Peter flies around are really distracted, as the movie becomes The Polar Express in those scenes. I would almost argue that the flight in Hook was more believable.

Another strange dropped thread in the movie are the musical moments. Upon Peter's arrival in Neverland, the crowd of kidnapped orphan slaves singing "Smells Like Teen Spirit" to Blackbeard. This happens one other time, with the same orphan slaves singing "Blitzkreig Bop" later on, but that's it. It never happens again. It's almost like two different writers worked on different parts of the movie and didn't share notes.

It's a fine movie if you're a kid or a parent, and want something fun and well made to kill some time to, but it's not a GREAT movie by any stretch. Cute, but not without problems.

Another watch on my journey through the Oscar nominees. Spotlight according to IMDb is about:

"The true story of how the Boston Globe uncovered the massive scandal of child molestation and cover-up within the local Catholic Archdiocese, shaking the entire Catholic Church to its core."

This movie is stunning. Plain and simple. It's a very simple film, focusing primarily around the journalists at the Boston Globe, but it is still a movie that, more than once, knocked the wind out of me. The story is disturbing and occasionally unfathomable, and yet the film handles it with a surprising level of tact and restraint, while still communicating the story without being "safe".

Mark Ruffalo is the shining star of the movie, there is no doubt in my mind that he deserves his Oscar for the performance he gives. The man is so much more than The Hulk, and this proves it. The rest of the cast do fantastic jobs throughout, perhaps the most surprising (at least for me) was Liev Schreiber. I sometimes forget what a strong performer he is, and this movie reminded me. While those two stood out, there's no denying that the entire cast delivers strong, and genuine performances throughout. You feel some genuine anger and heartbreak coming through, and given the subject matter that's no surprise.

Again the movie is simple, but effective and extremely well paced. It doesn't feel like a two hour movie, and it delivers an incredible and deep story from start to finish.

There's not much more that I want to say about this, except to recommend it wholeheartedly. The performances are great, the story is fascinating and infuriating, and it's not one to be missed this year.

The movie is nominated for Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Editing, Best Directing, Best Supporting Actor (Mark Ruffalo), and Best Supporting Actress (Rachael McAdams).

As well, in the interest of consistency, I kept an eye on the total number of speaking characters in this movie who are not cisgendered, white, straight men, who offer any kind of significant plot progression. In the case of Spotlight sits at one, being Rachael McAdams, though her character has the smallest presence in the film. Something to think about.

Moving right along with these Best Picture nominees. According to IMDb, The Big Short is about:

"Four denizens in the world of high-finance predict the credit and housing bubble collapse of the mid-2000s, and decide to take on the big banks for their greed and lack of foresight."

As A horror fan I would like to say that this may be the most horrifying, frightening movie I have seen in the last few years. By the end of the film, I was considering pulling all my money out of the bank and burying it in the back yard. Only to realize I have no money, no back yard, and plenty of student debt to fuel the fear. This is the kind of movie that makes people who hide their money in their mattresses seem like they have the right idea.

The cast is great, everyone delivers solid performances from start to finish. Although, I have a feeling that there is something in Brad Pitt's contract that he can never play a bad guy. Even in a movie that is chiefly about terrible people being slightly less terrible than other terrible people, he manages to take a righteous stance in the movie, which felt a bit disingenuous (similar to his character in 12 Years A Slave as "Only Non-Garbage White Guy")

Solid as the story and characters are in the movie, I definitely had some issues with The Big Short. Primarily, the editing of the movie is bizarre. In what is, essentially, a drama like Spotlight but the movie is cut like a Bourne movie. Quick cuts, zooms, shaky cameras, the whole thing. It doesn't make any sense, and only served to confuse me a bit in the beginning of the movie. It also cuts away to seemingly random images from time to time, and it has something of an art-film quality about it.

There are some weird comedic moments in the film as well, like cutting away to different famous faces to "dumb down" some of the more complex things that the movie deals with, which are honestly just as foreign to me now as they were before Selena Gomez told me about them. That said, I didn't mind the comedy in the movie, as troubling as the story is, it helps to go through things like this and be able to laugh at least a little.

I've always been a fan of unpacking horrible things through comedy, which is probably why I was such a fan of Jon Stewart on The Daily Show, or Jon Oliver's new show Last Week Tonight. Those elements here did help to lessen the blow a little bit, while still shaking me up in the process.

Honestly, the movie works, and is worth seeing completely. It's not impossible to get passed the stylistic choices that are a bit bizarre and take in an incredibly disturbing and frightening story. One thing I appreciated was that, at certain points, the movie would stop and remind you that this was in fact real. The level of corruption and fraud at work is definitely pretty unbelievable at times.

Worth the watch, and I could see it taking an Oscar or two home. The movie is nominated for Best Picture, Best Directing, Best Editing (yikes), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Supporting Actor (Christian Bale). While I'm not ready to call this Best Picture by any stretch, I'm sure it will take something

For those keeping score in my reviews, The Big Short's total number of people who are not straight, cisgendered, heterosexual, white, males who make significant contributions to the plot progression is a whopping.... zero. Though, Christian Bale has a glass eye and "awkward social interactions".

You may argue, in this case (I suppose), that they were trying to keep it as real as possible, but at more than one point in the film the characters address the audience saying that "this isn't EXACTLY how this part went down", so I'm not buying that argument.

Well, my watch of this years Best Picture nominees has begun, and I've gotten things started with Bridge of Spies. The synopsis, from IMDb, goes a bit like this:

"During the Cold War, an American lawyer is recruited to defend an arrested Soviet spy in court, and then help the CIA facilitate an exchange of the spy for the Soviet captured American U2 spy plane pilot, Francis Gary Powers."

Starting on the positive end of things, there's absolutely no denying that this movie is full to the brim of wildly talented people, doing work that matches that level of talent. Directed by Steven Spielberg, who knows how to direct a movie, and written by Matt Charman and the Coen brothers. You have a creative team behind this movie who knows what they're doing, and the skill they possess is present in the movie. On top of that, you have the ever-fantastic Tom Hanks leading a very capable cast of actors. Including Amy Ryan and Mark Rylance.

With all of this, and nominations for Best Original Screenplay, Sound Mixing, Production Design, Original Score, Actor in a Supporting Role (Mark Rylance), and Best Picture, it wouldn't be a stretch to have high hopes for this movie. At least on paper.

What's really unfortunate is that the movie is just bland. For clarity, I want you to understand, it's not BORING, or BAD, it's just unremarkable. The people who worked on this movie are capable, and have proved being capable, of very interesting and amazing film making. This is not an example of anyone's best work, especially when you look at the company that Bridge keeps in the Best Picture category.

I had similar issues with the movie The Imitation Game. The presentation is fantastic, the movie is well made on a technical level, and hell, it's even a good movie. It's just not a groundbreaking piece of film, which is allegedly the purpose of the Academy Awards. The stories are interesting, though departures from the real story to be sure, but the movie as a whole doesn't offer a whole lot.

We aren't dealing with a bad movie, hell it's even a good movie. That said, when you put a movie into the category of BEST of the year, a different level of criticism should be used.

It's worth noting, as an aside, that the total number of speaking characters in this movie who are not cisgendered, white, straight men, who offer any kind of significant plot progression sits at zero for this movie. Something to think about.

A woman and her childhood friend seek out revenge on those who victimized and abused them. Directly by the Goetz brothers, Kevin and Michael (Scenic Route), and written by Mark L. Smith (The Revenant), Martyrs feels like a film making a statement that it doesn't quite understand. Exposition delivered from the members of the mysterious organization is clunky, and is said with such gravitas that it would be easy to mistake it for trying to make a point. However, when you step back and look at it, it quickly becomes clear that the movie is saying nothing at all. The original film presented as a slightly more intellectual exercise than it really was, however the first effort in 2008 still managed to back up it's "big ideas" with an intensely brutal film. I hesitate to make too many comparisons to the original movie, as I don't find that helps to have much of a conversation about a remake, but this version has forced me to do so. Despite following, essentially, the same story line as the original, there is something strangely safe about this movie. The brutality and edge has been sanded off of the story, and you're left with something that feels amateurish and a bit like the first feature of a film school graduate. Had this been the directorial debut of the Goetz, this may have made more sense, but they've made films before, and this missed the mark. It seems that in it's Americanized form, Martyrs has become a generic movie that brims to the top with mediocre dialogue, and just-OK performances. The two actors are flat, though I have a feeling they will be given credit for their ability to scream and cry, though it's in subtle parts of a performance that an actors ability really shines and that doesn't seem to be present here. There's a lot of exposition and back story building both between our two main characters becoming friends in an orphanage, as well as the conversation about what Martyrs are. The film's ideas and themes are spoon-fed to the audience rather than allowing for subtlety. The unfortunate thing is, that had this not been a remake and stood alone as a new and unique story, you could make the case for it actually not being a bad movie. That said, it's impossible not to draw comparisons and see the ways in which the original film did the same basic story in a substantially better way. You are taken through the protagonist's suffering and forced to live it with her in the original, in this, we have are shown a few grim scenes and then expected to understand the suffering. It's all very bland this time. Martyrs does succeed in one area, and that is the cinematography. The overall look of the movie, and the way many shots are composed is quite appealing, if not a bit boring near the end. It feels like more time was spent in the beginning of the film, and less and less attention was paid as the ending approached. Perhaps it was shot chronologically and the money just ran out by the end. The final scene, for example, appears to have been thrown together for $80, while the first half of the movie really is well assembled. Most disappointing is the ending of this movie. The original film was bleak, and quite upsetting to watch. The protagonist was flayed alive, and there is a brutal and yet beautiful scene of a skinless Anna having become a "martyr". This time around, however, the flaying has been omitted completely and instead, Lucie has her back sliced up and she is put up on a cross with straps. It removes the punch and the impact of the ending, in favour of a clichéd ending in which Anna escapes death and fights her way back to rescue her friend. They share a loving moment together and the movie fades into a flash back. Creating an ending as bland as the rest of the movie was. This is a case of "I'm not mad, I'm just disappointed". It's not completely incompetent, but it's really just another generic horror movie amidst a sea of generic horror movies. If you haven't seen the original yet, I'd recommend giving it a watch, and if you have, just watch it again and let's all forget about this one. What a shame.

Growing up, I was the biggest fan of R.L. Stine's books. From Goosebumps to the much sexier Fear Street, I was all over it. Even the television show, made here in Canada, was able to get me excited and enthusiastic. It was probably the beginning of my love of the genre really, and with such a massive amount of stories, I was never in short supply of kid-friendly thrills and chills. While my love for that time of my life, and the impact that Stine had on my childhood are certainly held in high esteem, I have no nostalgic blinders on when it comes to the quality, particularly of the television series. Trying to watch the series in 2015 is nearly impossible, with the staggeringly low production values and quality in the performances. I strongly recommend the Jontron video on the subject actually, it puts things into jarring perspective if you ask me.

So, what I had hoped for from this movie was at least a bit of a tickle of the ol' nostalgia-bone, and perhaps some yuks from, the usually charming, Jack Black. What I got instead was a complete and total mess, crammed full of characters who are recognizable-ish, and a story that goes all over the place trying to make things work that just don't. The movie is directed by Rob Letterman, who previously brought the wretched Jack Black vehicle, Gulliver's Travels to the big screen. So, with that track record and THREE credited writers, Darren Lemke (Turbo), Scott Alexander (Ed Wood), and Larry Karaszewski (Big Eyes), the movie quickly devolves into a jumbled mess and can't bring itself out of it.

For some reason, the lead monster is Slappy the ventriloquist dummy, voiced by Jack Black, and there is some implication that this character, more than any other, has the deepest connection to R.L. Stine, to the point that Slappy leads the monster army and they follow him without question. There's an attempt to combine the stories and make them have some relation to each other, but each book was a separate entity unto itself and the fact that Slappy (from the 7th book in the series), is any more or less important than, say, Carly Beth (from my personal favourite, The Haunted Mask). I had a hard time understanding why the story choice to focus around Slappy, beyond the fact that dolls are the "creepy" thing right now. Perhaps some attempt to cash in on Annabelle? Who knows.

There are a couple of creepy moments and the animation used in the movie isn't the worst thing I've ever seen, but it just doesn't work in the grand scheme. I did find the initial encounter with the lawn gnomes effectively creepy, but its soon over and replaced by a ridiculous werewolf in shorts, and it just falls so flat over and over, and I found the complete under utilization of the Haunted Mask offensive to my own personal nostalgic viewing of the movie.

Performance wise, you have Jack Black coasting through most of the movie, giving a fairly ordinary performance. He is a naturally funny guy, and he's not unfunny in the movie, but his presence doesn't add much, which was pretty unfortunate. You also have performances from the relatively bland Dylan Minette (Prisoners), who doesn't have much to do except play "Generic Teen Hero", and his sidekick played by Ryan Lee (Super 8) who isn't terrible, but again doesn't bring much to the hollow movie. You also have Odeya Rush (We Are What We Are) who serves as the hero's prize for a job-well-done in the end of the movie, but does one of the better jobs all around. We spend a considerable amount of time with all of these characters, and they feel so poorly defined and half-cooked that they're as forgettable as the movie itself.

At the end of the day, you have a weak movie that doesn't really do any favours for the series that it's based on. It's a jumbled mess, with too many monsters AND it has the audacity to sequel bait as well. A real disappointment, and not something I would really even recommend for nostalgia's sake. Give this one a pass, and have yourselves a merry little Christmas.

www.barleydoeshorror.com

In the spirit of movies like Evil Dead and Dead Alive, this fabulous little gorefest delivers everything that I want in a movie like this. My hopes weren't exactly high at first, the title feels a little bit film-studenty and felt like it might be one of THOSE movies (ahem… Dude Bro Party…). I was delighted to find that it was closer to movies that I actually enjoy.

First stop, the cast. I could have sworn in the beginning of this one that two of the guys from the band Axis of Awesome were in this, and spent most of the movie being pretty sure of that fact, upon review I realized I was wrong, and they were Australian. So, shame on me for that one. Anyways, the crew we follow through this movie are fun and delightful. Milo Cawthorne is great as Brodie, he embodies that awkward, teenage metal head really well and is really fun to watch in this movie. We also have some great first(ish) timers, and Kimberly Crossman rounding out this cast. Everyone is really likable and funny, and they really do feel very real as these outcast characters.

The story is pretty straight forward, and reminded me a bit of last year's Knights of Badassdom (which I recommend by the way). Swap out cosplay for metal music, and crank up the gore by about 100% and you've got Deathgasm. I mean that about the gore by the way, this movie is all the way over the top in its gore effects, and they are awesome. One of the scenes that I'm sure people will be talking about is an extended fight scene that employs sex toys as a means of stopping the "possessed" (who, really are just zombies with no eyes but that's neither here nor there).

Director Jason Lei Howden comes from a visual effects background, and has worked on some pretty massive movies. He worked visual effects on The Hobbit films, Prometheus, and The Avengers. It appears that he is a rotoscoper, and really does have a lot of experience. It's amazing to see him apply these skills to a substantially smaller movie, and bring his directorial style to it as well. It's also clear from his writing that he's not out to make fun or disparage metal, metal heads or anything like that, on the contrary, it's clear that he has both love of the genre, and also realizes how silly and absurd metal can be.

Honestly, this movie is a blast from start to finish. If you want something that will make you laugh, and cringe you really can't go wrong here. If you're like me, it'll probably make you want to put on the most brutal, blackest, heaviest metal album you have, or at least remind you that it's been awhile since you saw Dead Alive. Give this one a watch, just be ready for all kinds of blood, guts, and eyeless monsters.

Stay metal or whatever. Watch this movie.