B-Movie Appraisal: Plaguers (2008)

The cheapest movie you will ever see.

So. This is something, let me tell you. This here is a movie among many other movies. It is a horror film. It is, in a word, something. I can't say if it's a good something or a bad something. All I can say is that it is something and leave it at that. I call this a B-movie as well, even though it isn't necessarily such because of the acting, the way the movie is shot, and, mostly, because it absolutely is. Unlike many of the movies that I review that are put into this October month of reviews, this one is wholly terrible. It rips of Alien and Aliens so bad it is actually physically painful. There is nothing good in this movie. There is no dialogue that is worth your time, money, or effort. There are no characters that are going to give you new thoughts and motivations throughout your life. There are, in fact, no redeeming features of this movie. It is, quite possibly, the worst horror movie I have ever seen. I would even go so far as to say it definitely is the worst horror movie I've seen, even worse than those crappy Japanese horror movies I review sometimes while I sigh and hate myself.

And yet.

I think I must have something wrong going on in my head. I think I must be seriously deranged and damaged. Because despite all the negatives about this film (and the film is nothing but negatives remember) I had a goddamn great time watching this movie. Its effects are laughable. The "zombies" or plague victims or whatever are laughable. The acting is literally almost painful. The script is terrible. The premise is simply awful. But there is something under the surface that makes it interesting despite the fact that it is a movie made of flaws. It is an enjoyable trainwreck.

Is it ever scary? No.

Will you ever have nightmares over the gore, the make-up, the situations, or anything else? No. Nothing is scary. The characters are never fleshed out enough to be interesting. The dialogue is so wooden and flat that it sounds like these "actors" for the most part are just reading off of a half-finished script. Steve Railsback is good as the android character. I'll give the movie that. It did have one legitimately decent actor in it.

But I think calling this movie terrible goes against all of my instincts. Is a movie terrible if it still entertains? Is it terrible when it is absolutely memorable? Yes, everything about this movie is bad. But at the same time I was never bored, never uninterested. Hell, I watched some scenes more than once simply because I wanted to laugh at them again. And some scenes played twice in the movie because the editing was literally that terrible. I'm looking at you, scene(s) where Riley's chest gets pulled open. The same shot of his rip-cage being exposed twice? Wow, movie. Did you really think I wouldn't notice? You must have. And yet, I still loved it.

There must be something wrong with me.

I will say that you'll know exactly what you're getting into in the first scene. Oh boy is that opening scene terrible. As soon as you see that you'll know what this movie is. It's schlock, pure and simple. It's a "horror" movie with terrible dialogue, terrible acting, sexy women because why not, an android because if they're going to try and rip-off Alien thirty years after the fact they'd better damn well use an android. Who is even going to notice? Besides everyone?

Oops, I meant to say syndroid there. Syndroid. Yeah.

There are moments of actual interest to me as a human. I think there is something to be said of each female character being strong in various ways and each male character being weak in various ways. The women are the strength of this movie and the male characters are paperthin and very horny caricatures of what a man might look and act like if sex were the only thing on his mind constantly.Which some might argue is completely true. I simply found that interesting. The male characters are in the background, with only Tarver the android (not really male) being interesting or compelling in any way. The rest of the characters who are interesting are all female. The captain who is the tough one. The psychotic pirate. The pirate who wants to be in charge. And... yeah... I'm sure there are others.

This movie makes me need a drink.

Any movie I've complained about before is nothing compared to this. This is the single worst horror movie I've ever seen. Why I enjoyed it I will never know. Why I can complain about and hate The Innkeepers and like this movie I will never know. That movie was at least shot competently and for its budget. This movie was not. And yet I liked this movie so much more. It had so much more to offer despite crappy visuals and everything else. It never talked down to me or asked a ton from me at all. It was a gory fun stupid horror film. I mean, no, it was never scary, but it had some life to it.

I don't know. I don't even know where to start. Or end. Or whatever. I guess the story is about these spaceship people who take aboard a mysterious object they found one day. They thought it was heading to a planet named Thanatos. Don't ever call a planet Thanatos. Seriously. You're just asking for trouble. Why it was called Thanatos nobody will ever know. Because that place has been dead for two years. Thanatos. Ugh. WHY? (For people who don't know Greek, Thanatos mean Death, usually in reference to the personification of Death.)

Anyway, these spaceship people find another spaceship in need of help. On board that ship they find four "gorgeous" women who appear dirty and awkward in terms of acting. These women turn out to be pirates who activate the zombie effects of the mysterious device. Then everybody turns into an awkward zombie (and some are awkward alien zombies for some... reason that none of us will ever understand). And that's it.

I have no idea what to say about this movie. I thought it was really something. While terrible in every way, it made me laugh. I had a good time watching it, and I get the feeling that watching this movie with friends would be really enjoyable. It's never scary or horrific, but it is substantially gory. There's no nudity even though parts of the movie look exactly like what a porn film looks like. You know, those stereotypical bad porn films about the pizza man coming into the house awkwardly asking to show the barely dressed bored woman his big sausage or whatever they do these days. Yeah, with how this movie was shot, I was literally expecting that. Anyway, we have Brad Sykes to thank for the way this movie was filmed and directed. I guess, good job? I have no idea. I said way too much about this movie already.

Movie Appraisal: Splinter (2008)

Well, this sure was a movie. Why did I want to see this again?

For whatever reason I had bought this movie, clearly intending to enjoy the hell out of it. For reasons unknown I didn't watch it until now and have completely forgot the reason I wanted to watch it in the first place. Not that it's a bad movie at all, it isn't, but it's also certainly not the kind of movie I usually enjoy.

It's another movie with few scares, little true fear shown, and much more about characters, zany snarky lines, and gore effects. And yes, the gore effects are good. No, the CGI is not. And oh man, is that Ax from the Animorphs TV show as an adult?

Ax

ADULT

Man. He's exactly what I expected him to be. He looks almost literally exactly the same. He has almost the same face on and everything. That's freaking uncanny. Wow. I like the film for him alone. Him as an actor. Not him as a character. Because his character, Seth, is a dumb person. PhD in Biology, my ass.

Anyway, while this was a fun film to watch, it was incredibly frustrating. As you may or may not know, I am a biology man. I did biology in school, specifically microbiology. So, it's kind of my thing. This movie either does not understand biology or has a character who has forgotten everything about being a biologist. I mean, seriously. Wow. This kind of incompetence is inexcusable.

The premise is simple. There's a biology experiment gone awry. A spiky mold fungus of some sort or another has gotten loose and is infecting animals. Enter Seth (Paulo Costanzo (Ax)) and his girlfriend Polly. They are a nice normal couple who fails at camping in the woods and succeed at getting their car hijacked and getting kidnapped by a strange couple: Lacey, who is addicted to some drug or another, and supercopetent Dennis (Shea Whigham). Well, eventually their shared kidnap car runs into a spiny beast on the road, setting up the whole idea of the "splinter" as seen in the title. Dennis gets the splinter in his finger while moving the tire away from the car.

The splinters and the creatures seem to be some kind of mold or fungus of some sort. They take over the biological elements of a body and can live completely independently of a brain. While this is wholly in the realm of science fiction, it's kind of an interesting idea. Technically a mold could infect something and use nerves, temperature sensors, and biological elements of the "body" or "limb" to reanimate it. You would expect a brain to be the focus of an attack (and with mind-altering parasites this is ALWAYS the case in real life), but these can and do reanimate limbs, fingers, and pieces of the body.

Okay, scientifically suspect, but I'm interested.

Continue.

Anyway, eventually they get to a gas station where the rest of the movie takes place. Lacey and a cop who comes to "help" them get killed by the murderous mold. The other three hold up in the gas station's convenience store and are completely ineffective at doing anything for most of the rest of the movie.

It's here that I should mention that mold has a few things that can easily dispose of it, which would probably exist in a convenience store. One is bleach. The other is fire, which they use at the end of the movie to kill the mold zombies. The problem is, why didn't Mr. PhD in biology Andalite Bandit figure this out? I know it from the biology I've seen, which should be quite a bit less than a PhD student. Mold doesn't like fire. Well, most things don't like fire. Why didn't they make a torch, or douse the creatures in flames and watch them burn? Why did he have to go to a complicated plot of having his body temperature lowered nearly ten degrees when all they had to do was burn things until they no longer moved? It just seems so needlessly complex and idiotic. I would have gotten in there, seen that the things were mold or fungus based, looked at the lighters, matches, kerosene and GAS STATION, and went, "Let's burn these fuckers."

I was screaming that most of the movie. It was a bit annoying that they didn't figure it out until almost the end.

Well, those are my complaints about the biological elements of the plot. Besides that I actually had a good time watching it. While it is basically a zombie film, it handles the situation differently enough that it stays fresh and interesting, being reminiscent of Pontypool in that respect. The movie also somewhat reminds me of The Last of Us, that new-ish video game by NaughtyDog that I'll be reviewing shortly. Both have "zombies" based off of molds or fungi, even though both are incredibly different in the way that they behave. I like how the spines work here, basically as syringes to inject into hosts. It makes sense to work that way.

One other thing I should mention is part of the movie reminded me of The Evil Dead movies, specifically when Dennis' hand/arm starts going haywire and needs to be chopped off. I liked that scene a great deal, and it was the only piece of the movie that actually made me uncomfortable in a good way. While incredibly gory and completely expected, it worked very well from a viewer's standpoint.

I do have one other complaint before I get into performances. I did not like the directing of this movie at all. I understand that there was probably a conscious effort by the director to hide the budget (or lack thereof) by any means necessary, but shaking the camera every which way and clearly not showing important details like WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON IN EVERY ACTION SCENE is a pretty big problem. I did not like that one bit. So, Toby Wilkins, the director of this movie, shame on you for using such terrible shots in this fine movie. I would recommend this movie if it weren't for that.

The acting is pretty solid though, and does a lot for this movie that other elements simply cannot do. While there is very little tension in the film, and even fewer scares, the characters are interesting to watch, and each of the main three actors' performances are really fun and full of energy. Shea Whigham and Jill Wagner are both very good in their roles, with Paulo Costanzo being more of a silly buttmonkey, but he is Ax, so... no surprise there, I guess.

Anyway, I won't recommend this movie even though I liked it just fine. I think it's a solid film, but I have no idea who it would be made for. Gore fans would think nothing of it. Horror fans wouldn't be scared. And normal people would avoid it. Maybe biologists would enjoy it? Maybe that's the demographic it's trying to appeal to. Well, if that's true then I hope every biologist goes out and watches this movie. I recommend it to biologists and only to biologists.

Goosebumps Review: Welcome to Dead House

It will just kill you.

Hey! Saquarry here. So, I'm starting up a new review series where I plan to review every Goosebumps book and books kind of or semi associated with that series or R. L Stine in general. This is quite the endeavor, I hope you understand, but it's something I've been wanting to do for years. And now I finally have the energy and the resources to see it through to the end. And when I say end, I do mean even the current stuff- eventually.

I'm going to review these books chronologically when they were published, so it may seem all over the place at times, but that's what I would like to do. I also have some teen R. L. Stine books I'd like to talk about at some point, most notably some of my favorite of the actual Fear Street books. But we'll get there. I'm excited for the possibilities and the reviews. For the most part I haven't read any of these books in about twelve years or so, but I still have them all from the original run of the series. Now, I may have to buy a couple, most notably in the Ghosts of Fear Street books (especially the later books int hat series which were nearly impossible for me to find back then) as well as some of the short story collection if I decide to do them.

Anyway, this whole review series will involve everything with the Goosebumps name, even the Give Yourself Goosebumps choose your own adventure stories. And that's about it. I won't be touching any movies or television shows of Goosebumps though. I never watched them as a kid and have no real interest in them now. I guess I could talk about them at some point if interest is shown in this review series, but I'm not biting to do it.

I grew up reading these books, and they certainly have had a sizable impact on the person I am today. I probably wouldn't love horror half as much as I do without these books. They led me to many other avenues and other great books and movies as well, since a decent portion of these books play off of more famous actual horror or sci-fi movies, books, television shows, etc.

The series as a whole is fairly reminiscent of The Twilight Zone for kids, specifically the books with the crazy twists at the end. I will spoil these books as well, so read at your own risk. Since I'm sure people are terrified of having a twenty year old children's horror novel spoiled for them. I'm sure that keeps them up at night.

As for formatting, these reviews will come in two sections. The first will be what I recall of the book. I'll talk about my memories, whether I was fond of it or not, if it ever scared me, and how well the book stuck with me. Sometimes this section will be very long. Other times it may not exist at all. The second section will be my impressions and thoughts about the book now after reading it.

And that's about all I have. So, without further ado-


-let's go to Dark Falls.


"I'm surrounded by death, I thought."


Welcome to Dead House was published in 1992, the month of July. It was the first Goosebumps book released, and was numbered 1 in its original binding. It is the only book of the entire series that really felt like it was written for an older audience back when I first read it. The imagery, the nightmare that Amanda has, and the dog, Petey, dying in the book makes this one both memorable and slightly more intense than any other books in the series, in both my opinion and in my memory.

Now, for whatever reason this is probably the only book from the original series that ever scared me as a kid. I did not like some of the content, and the writing, to me back then, was so different than the other books of the series, that I tended to liken it much more to the older audience R. L. Stine books, like the Fear Street books or those Babysitter books. I didn't read this book very often, and tended to avoid rereading it unlike some of the others that I absolutely loved. It was probably one of my least favorites of the original series, but only because I felt that it was so different from the rest.

I have no real fond memories of it, and my memory of this book (not pleasant memories) was the biggest hurtle to actually starting these reviews in the first place. I tend to remember most of the other Goosebumps books having a lot of personality, but for whatever reason this one always struck me as very flat. The characters and the story barely seem to be able to work in a real world setting, and, in fact, the whole premise falls apart if you think on it too much. I did as a child, and I didn't like the answers my mind came up with.

I will say that the name Dark Falls was something I really enjoyed and remembered for years afterward. I would use the name to describe any town or area near me that had heavily shaded roads for miles around. Where I live has a ton of thick forests and trees that cover over the roads throughout the year. So, Dark Falls was a very real place to me, just not by that name.

Reading it again, I found this book interesting. It read better than I remembered, giving a ton of characterizations I simply didn't remember, mostly to Amanda, the main character and first person narrator. She starts a trend of R. L. Stine leaning (from my memory) to more female protagonists than males. Usually the protagonists are twelve and their sibling is ten. Their sibling is generally the opposite sex to them as well.

Amanda easily has the most characterization in the book, with her brother, Josh, a distant second as the annoying sibling who sometimes does useful things. The book moves slowly in the beginning, establishing the move in a long-winded way that grew tiresome. The slow build to the house being haunted was also flat, as nothing truly seemed to happen that wasn't also explained away. Nothing seemed scary exactly so much as slightly annoying. Even Amanda doesn't truly act scared. She seemed to think away most of the spooky elements so that nothing in the early part of the book really ever seemed ambiguous or actually creepy.

Once they're actually in Dead House and have met the other kids in town, that's when the story both picks up and grows much more interesting. I mean, it still largely falls flat around the edges, but it also starts having some personality. The set-pieces are well done, starting with Amanda's nightmare and the way she vividly describes it. Her not being able to move in the nightmare is a sticking point for me since that actually happens in real life, and it is legitimately terrifying. I know this from personal experience.

Petey's "death," or at least the kids finding him dead is also awful. I can't think of many other children's horror books (or adult horror books) that have the steel determination to actually do that and pull it off well. It's awful, but effective at being the turning point of the book.

Honestly, the second half is much better than the first at being an action piece, but the beginning is much better at having a creeping fear in the back of the mind. Both parts of the book undermine one another though, with neither coming off quite as effectively because of the other. The heavy characterizations of the first half are thrown out for action set-pieces in the second, whereas the action set-pieces are fun but are undermined by the slow-paced trudge of the first half. Many elements of the story never come back into play, for instance Kathy, Amanda's bets friend who she talks about at decent length in an early chapter, has no significance to the story besides showing up in her nightmare. The parents likewise have no real use to them, only showing up as damsels in distress at the end of the book, but having no real characterization besides that.

The cemetery, while a good set-piece, literally is never scary. There is never one moment that the cemetery is supposed to be scary. It is almost the most friendly and inviting part of the entire story, which should never be the case. It's a graveyard. They're supposed to be creepy and uninviting. Part of that is in the descriptions, which seem so strong for the nightmare and the skulls of the dead people, but seems very flat for the environments and locales. From my memory R. L. Stine fixes this very soon, but right here it's very evident that he had very odd priorities while writing this one. The transition from teenage horror and adult horror to kid horror must have been a difficult one, and this book hasn't seemed to quite hit the mark.

The story is pretty obvious. Parents and two kids move into a house supposedly left to them by a great-uncle. It's in a town called Dark Falls surrounded by shade. They meet some odd kids, see that the town is kind of dead, think that the house is haunted, and eventually are surprised when all their worst fears are realized. Their dog is killed because it can sense the dead people. And the family is ready to be put up as a sacrifice for the town, the newest dead people to enter and never leave, but Amanda and Josh save the day, the dead people are killed yet again, and they leave the house forever just as another family goes to check it out.

The twist at the end, with the question of whether or not everybody in the town is truly the at rest kind of dead, is a good one, but this town is not truly scary, and I never found investment in the story anyway.

This book is okay. It leads me to many questions about the logic of the story, but that's to be expected at times, especially with stories of this nature. I can't really use those problems as sticking points though. It would be as unfair as using cold hard logic against a Twilight Zone episode. It would unfair. And it would not be what the story was trying to do or say. Instead I focus on the parts of the Goosebumps books I used to like, and where I think this one didn't hit its marks. The characters are mostly very flat, the set-pieces, although good at times, are not consistent, and the goriness seems to be there for shock value but not really for good writing or storytelling. It's a quick, non-nonsense story that has little to offer beyond a little shock and awe and some dry characters.

As a kid, I didn't like it. As an adult, I'm not in love with it, but I see its value. It's not bad even if it has a ton of problems. The writing is mostly solid, and the issues there are seem more related to the nature of a kid's horror novel and what that means than to anything else. I think I appreciate this book slightly more now than I did as a kid, but I doubt I'd ever read it again. I don't really like it so much as tolerate it and understand its important as the first one. It's a weak book of the original series, but one worth starting out to read. They seriously can only get better from here.