Movie Appraisal: The Collective (2008) (2006?)

"Evil is not traced back to the individual...
But to the collective behavior of humanity."
- Niebuhr

The Collective is yet another odd indie horror film. I say "odd" but what I truly mean is that it is a bit obscure. I say that because I cannot find the exact year it was released. I believe it was released in 2008, but a few websites place it as being released in 2006. It could be that it was shown at some film festival before 2008. I'm not sure. If I get any more research done on this movie before I post this review, I'll update my knowledge.

That being said, it's a bit of a crawl of a movie at times. I won't say it's boring, but it moves very slow with a great deal of tension. I have to say that I enjoyed that aspect of the film. I watched with rapt attention through the front half of the movie, as the lead character Tyler (played by Kelly Overton) tries to find her sister, Jessica, through a network of contacts that Jessica had had in the weeks leading up to Tyler coming to find her and that she has subsequently dropped out of her life.

The camera work in the movie is absolutely great. I have to point that out first. The directors (Kelly Overton and Judson Pearce Morgan certainly knows how to use a camera correctly. It has a very artistic feeling without being pretentious, which I appreciate. The acting in the movie is also quite good. I love these indie ventures because sometimes the acting just feels like regular people interacting, which is what I love in these movies.

BUT! And I hate to be the harbinger of bad news, BUT while the front half of the film is tense and extremely good, once the mystery is out, the film takes a dramatic turn into the mediocre lane. It becomes a case of New York City is too small. The antagonists are around every corner even though there are only four of them searching for the two sisters once they meet up and decide to split the group that's holding Jessica.

I don't want to be a jerk here. The first half of the movie with its intrigue, questions, and ultimate mystery is extremely well done. The feeling of not being able to trust anybody and being paranoid constantly are so well put together. Tyler's first meeting with Jessica is also really well portrayed and acted, showing tension that I wasn't expecting.

But once the story is all put out there, it is much less interesting and much less horrific than it starts out being. I figured the whole cult-group had undergone some kind of "groupthink" thing, hence The Collective, but that wasn't true at all. It's just some shitty name for a group of thirty-somethings who meet up at a random man's cathedral and play-worship and take drugs. And that disappointed me. Why set up everything so nicely only to have it be the simplest and most boring explanation? There is no horror there and the tension only just exists at all.

And when I say that, I mean that because the movie makes NYC into this small place, there is more tension than there would be if NYC had been treated as how it actually is. I live very close to NYC. I'm in the city about once a month or so. It's BIG. If you've never been there, it is so much bigger than you expect it to be, what with the subway tunnels, the vertical building littered constantly all over the city, and mostly the amount of people that exist. NYC is extremely populous. If you dive into a large group of people, you are EXTREMELY LIKELY to not be found. And somebody showing up on the same subway you're taking accidentally is almost beyond the realm of reason.

This is something to focus on because it is a flaw. These four people who are going after our protagonists are not omnipotent. They shouldn't be able to find the girls as easily as they continue to in the last ten minutes of the movie or so. It breaks me right out of the movie and frustrates me completely. They had a perfectly good beginning of a plot, and they ruined it by using the most boring and laziest conclusion possible.

Eh. I don't have much else to say. I wouldn't recommend watching beyond the halfway point of the movie. The front half is really good, but the back half will just make you angry.

Oh, but I do have to admit that I think this is the only movie I've ever seen that portrays the Metro North in a positive light. I love that simply because I used to use the Metro North every once in a while when I lived in Connecticut. So, it's great to see that hope resides in some of the shittiest cities in Connecticut, if only for my own personal amusement.

Movie Appraisal: Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice (1993)

This poster definitely says that this is the "conclusion" of the series.
The seven other movies I have to watch say otherwise.

The second Children of the Corn movie is incredibly baffling before anything else. Why the first movie needed a sequel is beyond me. I assume there was money in the project, but the sequel, this movie right here, adds nothing to the story or the franchise besides a Native American and everything that comes with that, and Hemingford, the town next door to Gatlin.

The movie stars a father, John, and his son, Danny, who hate each other, and the women they start liking for reasons while inexplicably in Nebraska, again for reasons. I actually like the beginning of the plot of the movie, which does explain some of my complaints about the first film. For example we get an explanation about what people did about the disappearances from other towns and avenues of life. While I don't think the three years alone for the children was necessarily retconned, it certainly was downplayed, seemingly being a much shorter time that the children were alone.

The movie begins with an aid response to the children who brutally murdered their parents. They stay, for a time with some people from Hemingford while waiting to see what the world will do with them. Things are okay for a while until Micah, a seemingly nice boy, is possessed by He Who Walks Behind the Rows. Well, I think he is at least. And then he starts the cult up again. Micah is the Isaac of this movie, although a bit less creepy. Micah also has some wonderful facial expressions. Beyond that, the movie involves the children killing some old ladies after harassing them for a bit and planning on killing all of the adults as well.

At the same time the sheriff and some of the other townsfolk are planning to sell nasty corn that would make people hallucinate and be sick. And not only is this corn bad, it has mold all over it. I have no idea about all of you reading this, but I know that I would not buy moldy corn to eat. So, I have no idea what their plan is. John, the main character, finds this out with the Native American character, Frank Red Bear. It seems like everybody is racist against him even though I wouldn't have been able to tell his ethnicity by simply looking at him. Anyway, the sheriff feels some need to kill them both, and they get out of the trap easily.
'
While all of this is going on there is a romantic sideplot involving Danny and a blonde orphan girl from town. They start going out, and I started losing all interest. Danny also becomes friendly with Micah and joins the cult for some reason.

The children burn down the house with all of the rest of the adults in town, like the sheriff, the priest, and a woman or two, and they plan on sacrificing the two remaining love interest girls to the corn. I think this movie stopped making any sense before this, but this is the point where any indication of a plot was out the window. The heroes get away and are captured again multiple times, the main antagonists are killed, our heroes get away and burn the Native American man- again for reasons I don't understand, and then the movie ends.

I don't even know what to say. It's a mediocre and forgettable movie. The acting isn't terrible. The special effects definitely are bad and overused. The scenery and setpieces are fine if a little bare. And nothing is incredibly offensive besides the racism against Native Americans and the way Frank Red Bear is treated, even at the end of the movie. It was inexplicable and very, very odd.

As a sequel to a movie that didn't need one, it's fine. There is one decent gore scene in the church, Micah is enjoyable to watch, and that's about it/ It's not scary, not creepy, and certainly not a movie that's anything more than a curiosity. It has only the barest minimum relevance, and I seriously think that watching it was a waste of my time. I don't recommend it. While not a bad movie, it does nothing that other movies don't do better. It just feels like a waste all around. I can't even muster enough energy to badmouth it because WHY? I'm just going to forget about it in an hour anyway.

Movie Appraisal: Apartment 143 (Emergo) (2012) (2011?)

Apartment 143 (also called Emergo in its native Spain) is a "horror" movie with "ghosts." It's an English language film despite being made in Spain. Its Spanish director, Carles Torrens, made his feature film directorial debut with this movie as well. Starring some pretty solid actors, it is a movie. It probably happens to be about ghosts. Maybe? I don't even know. Sorry for being lackluster about this film, but it seriously is about as mediocre as a horror movie can be. It doesn't do anything new or interesting or, most importantly, scary. It is a horror movie without a bite, a ghost film without a real ghost, a found footage film without any real footage that is found. I mean, seriously, it feels like this film goes by without anything ever happening. That's insane and the biggest problem a horror film could possibly have. It doesn't matter how well acted the characters are or how good the effects look or even how well-directed the movie is. It matters that the plot is boring and the movie is utterly not scary.

*sigh*

I guess we could call this a rip-off of Paranormal Activity and ghost hunter type shows on TV. It's fitting that I can only see those things when watching this film. Fitting indeed. While not a terrible movie by any stretch, Apartment 143 is not what I was expecting. It is neither scary nor does it ever really seem to try. While the acting throughout is very solid, and the direction isn't half bad, the movie suffers from a lack of absolute coherence. The pacing is simply bad. I can't say anything but that. Yes, there is a lead-up to a climax, but it is so spottily done- much like Paranormal Activity, but without that movie's build-up to something. The ambiguity is used as a crutch rather than an featured element. I didn't mind this film as I watched it, but as soon as it was done, I started forgetting everything about it. It's simply generic. It doesn't take chances. It doesn't try to frighten. It just kind of exists in space as a movie that could be horror if it cared enough to be.

Yes, the acting is solid. Honestly this is the part of the movie I liked best. Special mentions go out to Rick Gonzalez, Kai Lennox, and Michael O'Keefe, who, I felt, all turned in brilliant performances. Their dialogue was strong, their characters very well put together, and their situations compelling. The rest of the cast isn't half bad themselves, but these are the real standouts to me. Each had a moment in the film that left me nodding my head.

Do I even have to mention the plot? Seriously?

You already know it.

It's not as if you couldn't guess it.

Ugh.

Fine. I will. Begrudgingly.

Family thinks there are ghosts in the titular apartment. Investigators come. Things happen. No ghosts in the apartment. Teenage girl is schizophrenic and a poltergeist somehow, maybe. Not really. Since there is a bit of a stinger that completely shoots that down. Probably. Ugh. The dad is accused of molesting his daughter, but he probably didn't because he's a good dad. And the daughter is nasty and a little crazy mean herself. Obviously she's supposed to take after the less-than-perfect mother, who was a bad woman.

Some movies can do ambiguity well. This one is not a movie like that. The ambiguity just makes it confusing and annoying. The ending made me sigh. Hell, the movie was so predictable I was finding it difficult to keep interested in it. I was more bored than anything else. The dialogue and acting helped it not be the bottom of the barrel, but even they couldn't make the plot better.

I'll talk theories quickly. Yes, this movie probably has a ghost-thing in it. The doctor or parapsychologist, or whatever he is, is more than likely wrong or slightly off in his theory. The mother is probably evilly haunting the family and possessing the daughter since she has been established as being evil.

*sigh*

And that's that. I wish the movie would have been scarier, would have been more interesting, would have taken more risks, and would have had a better payoff. But it didn't. I found it lackluster and, in turn, I have no real energy to review it.

The direction was weird, with long periods focused on the same thing. I mean, there is only so long I can stare at a wall and not get bored of said wall. One scene with flashing lights made me not actually want to watch the movie anymore. I mean, seriously, it was so awful I didn't even watch the screen. I knew what would happen, and the flashing lights were making me feel sick.

Anyway, this is a highly mediocre film. It has no real relevance and does nothing different to make it stand apart from other, better films. It is so utterly standard and generic that it literally melds into the background, making it just another ripoff of Paranormal Activity, but not as good. I remember so little about the film, but every time I think about it I become slightly angrier thinking that with the strong acting and dialogue it could have actually been something new and interesting. Instead it was a bit of a waste. And the worst part is that I have so little to say about it because it is so mediocre. I would rather complain than say nothing at all, but that's what I have. This movie is so uninteresting that I have literally nothing to say about it.

Don't watch it. While it ha a few good moments, this film is nothing special. It's not memorable. It doesn't wow. And it doesn't frighten. It's just another movie. One that should be avoided.

Movie Appraisal: The Corridor (2010)

Well, you're not shooting blanks ANYMORE!

This movie is different. I wish I could use another descriptor here, but I simply do not have any others to use. It is a very different movie, not at all like anything else I've ever seen. While it has a fairly original premise, it's bogged down by its fairly lofty (I think...) goals. The Corridor consists of too many tonal changes, too many hectic movements without explanation. It simultaneously reminded me of the novel Dreamcatcher by Stephen King and the nonsensical movie Dreamland. It's an odd combination to be sure, and without much true plot to speak of this movie could easily be relegated to the movies to pass right on by.

I can't recommend this movie. I'll say that right now. I need to get that out of the way. I like obscure movies with original plots, but this one was just a little too much even for me. I enjoyed bits and pieces of the movie, but it was like the movie never knew what it wanted to be. Was it a clear and philosophical statement on the ramifications of mental derangement on one's friends? Was it about insanity in general? Visions specifically? Was it about friendship? I don't think so, but the case could be made, I suppose. Was it about horror? Terror? Gross out gore? I still don't know. It's all of those things and none of those things.

I didn't like the movie all that much. It moved too quickly and never really gave me more than a surface feeling of any sort of story or knowledge of what was going on. It wasn't even frustrating because I never really came to care. The characters were wholly paper-thin, with only Tyler coming out as a real human person. The rest just came off as non-characters, caricatures of what real people are. The case could be made that the entire movie was in Tyler's head. Honestly, that's the only way I can interpret it. The signs are all there, with most of the movie being spent trying to figure out what happened to him, why he broke down, and if he killed his mother or not. The premise of the film revolves around his friends becoming as crazy as he once was, each and every one of them in turn. They see what he once saw, but refuse his help. They become worse and worse, eventually succumbing to the insanity. Well, all but one, but Tyler saves him by sacrificing himself.

I have to believe that the whole thing is a speech on the degradation of mental health. Each insanity is different, but they all involve some sort of mantra, something that Tyler once had. Ev is the violent psychopath who eventually takes his own life. Chris is the one left over, the only one there was ever any hope for. He represents a friend, one who cares, one who is taken care of as he has taken care of others. Bobcat and Jim are two sides of the same coin. They are yin and yang to each other. Jim is a coward whose own intelligence feeds the insanity, while Bobcat is taken over by it, consumed by it, and allows the others to abuse him. He becomes the victim just as Jim does.

I'm reading too deeply into this, but I still think some parts are interesting. The idea of the corridor itself is fascinating. It's a conduit to a deeper understanding, the understanding of others, even the insanity inside of others. The movie is almost saying that we are not fit to hold the forbidden knowledge, rather we must understand ourselves before we can ever take a chance in understanding others. I want this movie to have some kind of meaning though, and it's hard to truly and wholly look at this movie as intelligent when so much of the movie is slow plodding through the plot, gore, or terrible special effects. While there are a few good lines, each and every one spoken by Ev, who really is the star of the movie here, very little else stands out. The visuals are nothing really special, just a snowy cabin in the woods. The sounds and music are standard, barely noticeable, background noise. The acting is mediocre, with only James Gilbert as Everett and Stephen Chambers as Tyler really standing out. They both seem to care about the movie and subsequently both give some great performances. Everett is helped by having some great lines, as I said before, while Tyler is helped by his insanity and expressions. The rest are standard horror movie actors, nothing special, just kind of there saying lines.

It had some slightly (and I mean only slightly here) disturbing things, like when Jim's scalp is taken off, but the gore is the really only noticeable creepy mention. It's not much of a horror film besides that. The movie doesn't even look like a horror film should. It's too bright, not enough contrasts. Maybe that's just me.

Anyway, I guess it does have some psychological horror elements to it, but they are so few and far between that it would be difficult to call it a psychological horror movie. It's probably closer to a sci-fi, but branding it that doesn't feel right ether. Because I don't recommend it, I find myself not caring so much about it's labeling. Call ti what you will.

This is basically a very mediocre film with some interesting, but not quite good, ideas to it. I don't think it could have been made better with the same script. The characters were bland, the writing plodding, and I simply did not care in the end. Also, the ending is hilariously bad. I laughed, and it's not meant to be funny.

Movie Appraisal: Psych: 9 (2010)

I'm pretty sure this is supposed to be a psychological horror movie. But it's just so blatant in the way it's trying to be psychological. It hits you over the head again-and-again as if to say, "Hey buddy, I am a Psychological Horror movie that is trying to be like other, better, psychological horror movies, and I want to be crazy and scary and..." And then it just keeps going on and on about nothing for some time, all the while you've stopped listening because you already know what the movie is going to say. It's insanely predicable from beginning to end, so much so that I have to believe that it was the intent of the filmmakers to make it that predictable, despite it taking all tension and horror out of the movie.

While the directing is decent, and some of the acting (especially from Michael Biehn and Cary Elwes) is arguably very good, the movie suffers from an insufferable main character who nobody in their right mind (literally) could ever relate to in the slightest way. This character ruins a great deal of the movie for me simply because she offers nothing to the narrative despite basically being the lynchpin of the narrative. Her entire character exists to redirect any and all suspicion from her character, but it is so badly done that very early on in the movie its apparent that she's the killer, she's making up people in her head, and she's pretty crazy in the head. I certainly sympathize with her plight, but I find that the writing of the character was... not great... not even a little bit great. If you're going to make a movie like this, don't make it predictable. Don't make it so that the main character is definitely the bad guy and it's apparent that the main character is the bad guy early on in the movie. Don't give me fake tension that somebody else close to her is the bad guy when it's apparent that she's the bad guy. Don't show me her doing crazy things like writing "Give me my baby." on a wall a hundred times and tell me that she's perfectly normal and not murdering women.

I know the movie kind of sort of leaves it a tiny bit up to your interpretation, but that's stupid, and anybody who believes that it wasn't her doing all of those awful things actually must be as crazy as she is. I simply found this movie annoying in a great deal of ways. Despite the decent directing, decent acting, and decent imagery, the movie never hits me as anything but bad. It's never scary. NEVER SCARY. There's never any tension, be it plot tension, character tension, or any other kind of tension. NEVER TENSE. There's no way to relate to the character we spend most of the film following around. MAIN CHARACTER DOESN'T WORK. And the backstory is presented in such a hamfisted and awkward way that I didn't care. Of course she's nuts. Of course she was raped as a child. Of course she was a patient at the same hospital she's doing records for. It was all so predictable and all so convenient. And of course she has selective amnesia. I mean, this is every cliche in the book of writing. It's ridiculous. I mean it. I can literally do nothing but make fun of the writing of this movie because it is simply so bad.

Psych: 9 could have been handled better in so many ways that it's actually upsetting that they mishandled it so badly. It could have been a story of a woman coming to terms with an old psychosis, but no, they had to add in that she was murdering women, imagining people, overtly going insane, and basically being a clear candidate for being locked away forever. The fact that Michael Biehn's detective character basically gives up on the case and never pursues her is literally baffling with just how crazy she is coming off. And at the end of the movie she gets her damn baby because that's how crappily written plots work out. The ending was just so standard and off-putting and boring. Hell, most of the film could be described like that but most standard psychological horror movies have some subtlety and are usually not overtly apparent in their plots points.

I watched this whole movie, but I didn't necessarily enjoy it. With all the good psychological horror templates to take from, they came up with this nonsense? And I can't blame the actors. They did a good job with what was there, and the director was very competent and although the movie is never scary, it does have some creepy vibes. It's the writing that really gets me down on this film.

Anyway, this is a psychological horror film to avoid. Also, what is it with the "9" at the end of titles, these days? You have this movie,  Session 9, District 9, 9, and on and on. I have no idea why the 9 had to be in any of those titles really, and it's alarming how prevalent the number 9 has become in movies. I'm definitely overreacting, but it was one of the first thoughts I had while watching the movie.

Movie Appraisal: A Return to Salem's Lot (1987)

This may in fact be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It certainly is an insult to 'Salem's Lot and every adaptation of that wonderful Stephen King book. I could say a ton about how much this movie gets wrong. I could say just how much this insults me as a fan of the original story and the original miniseries, both of which I really enjoyed. I could say a lot of things, and I will, don't you worry, but I'll also say that as bad as this movie is, it does have some decent parts... but none of them have anything to do with the original story or characters. Hell, this movie doesn't even deserve to have "Salem's Lot" in it's title. Besides this movie taking place in the town, it has very little (read: nothing) to do with "Salem's Lot" to the point where I have no idea how this movie even comes to pass as a sequel to the events from the 1979 miniseries.

For a year or more now I've been waiting to watch and review this movie. I knew it would probably be bad, but what I didn't expect was just how bad it would be. It's not that I personally dislike it because it's not the perfect sequel to Salem's Lot that I wanted. It's terrible because almost every aspect of this film is a total and complete failure. The editing is terrible and choppy. The film somehow looks worse than its black-and-white predecessor from eight years prior. The acting is at times astoundingly bad. The direction is awful, just awful. The scenery is cheap and looks terrible. And the plot makes no sense and doesn't work in any sense of that word. And that's not even scratching the surface as to how wholly abominable this movie actually is.

For one, that tagline up on that poster: "Based on characters created by Stephen King." makes absolutely no sense. There are no characters based on Stephen King's stories. There is a town that is wholly different than what King wrote. There are vampires that are totally different than what King wrote. There is a non-burned down 'Salem's Lot, which makes no sense since 'Salem's Lot always burns down when Ben and Mark light the town on fire at the end of any version of 'Salem's Lot. So, why is this town intact? Why no burn marks? Why is it burnt down all over again at this end of this film?

See, the problem here is that this movie is no sequel to 'Salem's Lot or Salem's Lot. It is instead a completely different canon. It simultaneously a remake of the miniseries with different characters and its own story entirely. And that's where I found myself confused. Why didn't they just call this movie something completely different? It has nothing to do with Salem's Lot as a town or a book or a movie. The vampires are wholly different, no longer the shambling zombies they are in the book- they instead are humans with fangs and a hatred of light. The only vampire in 'Salem's Lot who was intelligent and coherent was Barlow, but here that whole aspect is thrown away in favor of talking vampires for some reason. This cuts away all of the horror while also taking away the point of 'Salem's Lot, the message of a charismatic and powerful person taking away the will to think of an entire populace.

I can keep going on about how the plot is ridiculous and the acting is pretty awful. I can keep saying how this movie seems pointless and kind of insulting. I can keep ripping apart every aspect of the film, from the pointless and antipathetic characters to TWO ridiculous "romance" plots... and all the way to some terrible fight sequences... terrible cinematography... terrible editing... terrible direction of almost every sequence. I just found this entire movie disheartening and incredibly insulting. I didn't like it and would never recommend it... but... but there were some okay things in the movie, and although I find the flick wholly reprehensible, I'd like to focus on the more positive aspects of the movie (the few that there are) because I find that there is no point in tearing the terrible and forgotten movie apart. It's already out of the public's memory. I think that speaks volumes about how terrible this movie actually is.

The opening of the movie is actually kind of fun, with a kicking opening tune and a psychedelic LSD vision. I enjoy a good strange opening and this one worked for me, getting me pumped up for a much better film than this one turned out to be. The music in general for this movie is pretty good actually, being one of the few redeeming features to an otherwise completely unremarkable film. The scene with the natives and Michael Moriarty's character, Joe, filming a ritual of one of the native's getting his heart pulled out is pretty good. I had no idea what was going on, but the effects were pretty decent. It had me believing this movie might actually look kind of interesting. In my mind, Cannibal Holocaust kept running through my head... and I guess I must have thought maybe I would get a movie more in line with that kind of film. It would have been a whole hell of a lot better than what there is.

The special effects sure are "special," especially when none of them seem to look good until the very end of the movie. Even then- they don't look good... it's probably more that I actually saw something that didn't make my eyes bleed which was better than this movie had been doing to me. And even though there are scary monster faces sometimes, the movie is mostly boring. There is no horror here, no tension. The vampires show up quickly and do nothing else. Yes, people are bitten with some terrible blood effects, but mostly the vampires stand and talk... and then stand and talk some more. Every once in a while they- wait for it- SIT and talk. WOW. Wow. Oscar calibre performances, people. There is overacting galore, although the kid, Ricky Addison Reed, and Michael Moriarity to a pretty good job at keeping cool. If "keeping cool" is swearing constantly and at the weirdest and most inappropriate times. I can't blame the actors for the odd lines though. The script seemed to be the real culprit here.

So, this is Tara Reid'd first role... if that interests you at all. Doesn't really mean much to me, I have to say. Knowing what movies that girl would be in- well, I'm not surprised this is where she started. Kind of fitting in a way. And kind of sad too. She is easily the worst actor here... and that's saying a ton. I seriously wanted her to stop talking every time she opened here mouth. Her "death?" scene was also painful to watch. I can't believe that that was the take they decided to go with. Did they even know what a good performance was? The sad thing is, they really must have because one actor really shines and rises this movie above absolute garbage. Oh, he's not really even introduced until two-thirds of the way through the movie or so... after you go catatonic because it's that bad... but once Samuel Fuller enters the flick as Van Meer, the Nazi Killer, the movie takes a turn to getting a lot more interesting. Samuel Fuller is wonderful here and seems to be having a great time. The man takes the performance and sells it for all its worth. He easily outshines everybody else. He is the only likable character as well as the only one worth cheering for. He chews the scenery up at times, but he is such a joy to watch that he alone makes the movie a little bearable. For the twenty or thirty minutes he decides to grace the screen with his kooky hair and bad dude stance, he is the greatest thing around. Hell, I would love more stories based on his character alone. Again, he's the only good character here in this movie.

So, the biggest thing that bothers me is the departure from the established lore of the freaking franchise that this movie is a sequel to. How do these vampires know their own history with both Straker and Barlow dead? Didn't Straker and Barlow come from Austria and England (basically Europe) too? Why are these vampires American and like 300 years old? Why are they here when all the vampires here were supposedly made by Barlow? Did they take over the town after Mark Petrie and Ben Mears from 'Salem's Lot burned the whole town down? Did they rebuild it? Or were they always there, these vampires, as Barlow made the whole town under his thrall? Because that would have been stupid. This is one of the big reasons this movie has to be its ow separate canon. It would make no sense otherwise. Why does Axel say that he's 300 years old? What is the point of that? Is it supposed to make him scarier? Or is it some kind of convenient way of saying, "Dude, this vampire's hardcore!" Well, it doesn't work. The line is awful; it doesn't make him more intimidating, it makes him seem like a petty bastard. Barlow was the first vampire there, but he's totally forgotten... well, except for the art of him on the box and poster. Yeah, that's definitely Barlow from the Salem's Lot miniseries. So, these seem to be in canon with one another... which would only really be possible if nothing made any sense any more. They would have to be implying that this town already had vampires in it. Or that they came later? I mean, is this movie saying that it takes place in the far-flung future of 2287? What? What? WHAT? What? I keep saying "what" so often it doesn't even sound like a word anymore...

The vampires were mindless like zombies in the movie, the book, and the canon, not like this... except for Barlow. It was scarier that way and so much more effective. This is just stupid. And then somehow the town name keeps changing between Jerusalem's Lot and 'Salem's Lot... when it's been established that the town name was officially changed to 'Salem's Lot. It's in the book. What am I even saying? They didn't read the book. Why would I give them the credit of reading the book? I must be insane. EVEN THINKING that these numbskulls would have considered reading the book... or (HA HA) watching the movie that this movie was a sequel too. Because they didn't watch that movie either. They didn't care about stupid things like consistency... or canon... or anything established. Hell, how is this even based off of anything Stephen King did? I mean, sure some of the plot is ripped off wholesome from the book... but calling this a sequel is like calling me a sane and smiling person. It's just not true and nobody should ever say things that they can't take back like that.

Oh, at least we get to see breasts... said Saquarry dryly. His face was likened to a rock. Breasts were not going to help this movie. They were just going to tell how bad a movie this was. Trying to distract with breasts was never going to work. There is so little of substance here and... this movie is entirely classless. And clueless. Why even include a scene like this? Are you establishing a romance? No, not really. Are you establishing how it might be difficult for Joe to hurt his beloved? No, not really. Oh, it's mentioned once, but never amounts to anything. The romance and the sex scenes are pointless. These are pointless breasts that make the entire movie worse because they have no point. I'm not saying that naked women are wonderful in movies, but they are usually meant to establish something (or for pure fanservice), and this movie doesn't seem to be doing either. These are breasts for the sake of breasts and there's just no point beyond that... and the shots aren't even good. They don't try to make the act of sex look vicious or terrible or sweet or sexy... the directing does NOTHING AT ALL. This is a terrible movie. This is such a terrible film. 

Wow, it turned daylight very very quickly towards the end of the movie. BAM. Night to day. There we go. That's how the sun comes up. No gradual rise. No tension. Nope. One second as dark as the dead of night and the next it is noontime. Wonderful. I get the feeling nobody associated with this movie has ever seen a sunrise...

Look, let me reason with you, the reader, here. Do not watch this movie. Do not seek it out. Do not think that you should watch this movie in any way. Despite a good performance by Samuel Fuller and a pretty good film score, this movie is a waste of time to watch. It has nothing to do with 'Salem's Lot as the town, the book, or the movie except in name. It has nothing to do with Stephen King either except for stealing some of his plot-points much worse than he ever wrote them. Some of the effects towards the end of the film also look okay, but no better than any other movie out there. Avoid this movie at all costs. This is The Reaping level of bad, and I'm not taking that back. So, I guess this October starts off wonderful... hopefully the next thirty nights go better than this one did or else I'm going to be a very unhappy fella.

Movie Appraisal: White Noise (2005)

I had a very mixed reaction to this movie. It, on some levels, is very competently executed, but on others is simply befuddling. I guess my ultimate thought is that it is a movie that never really needed to exist. It seemed as if it was trying to talk about EVP (Electronic Voice Phenomenon) but really became much more of a ghost or malevolent spirit film by the end. I guess the three malevolent figures could be demons as well. I mean, that right there is hard to get a conclusive thought on. I did somewhat enjoy the film, although, again, I found portions of it to be incredibly unnecessary, which is not a positive.

My biggest complaint would be the persistence of funerals. I have no idea why they kept springing up, but after a while they started to fall very flat, becoming a little too much for this hour and thirty minute movie to handle. The emotional intensity was lost on me after a while, maybe about halfway through the film, maybe a little more, and once it was gone, well, there wasn't much else to care about. Characters kept dying, funerals kept happening, and I stopped caring.

That being said, Michael Keaton is pretty good throughout the movie, and really is the best part of it. I like the idea of the EVP stuff, and the three demonic figures were interesting until the very end. I guess I still don't see the point though. It's just difficult for me to see why the movie ended the way it did or why things happened the way they did. I mean, yes, the "killer" was stopped, but ultimately nothing was solved but that. I think that makes it only a partial story, only a partial victory. So, the movie ends on a down note, which is fine, but also slaps the sacrifices in their faces by showing that no matter what they did they wouldn't stop the three shadow figures, which... okay, I can accept it, but it doesn't make a good conclusion.

So, talking about the movie itself, its plot and such, it really starts out like a weird Michael Keaton romantic comedy. I don't mind that, but it's a really odd way to start a horror movie. 1408 starts a similar way, but really gets so much more effective as the movie progresses whereas White Noise is really only effective towards the middle of the movie when few actual objective facts are known. The feeling of weird romantic comedy never really goes away until maybe the very end of the film. It's the weird bright colors of the cinematography, the slick apartment, and the camera focusing on characters in such a way as to portray a kind of weird romantic comedy effect. I can't explain it fully, but that feeling never truly went away.

White Noise is supposedly a horror movie, but it has very little actual horror. It's not shot like a horror movie as I said above, but that arguably works in its favor, especially at the end of the film when it goes into full horror movie mode. I guess if you like the ending the film is effective, but if you don't, and I fall into that boat, the film really becomes fairly ineffective at bringing across its ultimate points.

I really went into this movie with an opened mind. I had never seen this movie before, nor had I ever learned much about it. I saw a lot of negative reviews for it, but I rarely agree with other reviews, so I figured I'd give it a chance. I liked some of the ideas and some of the execution. The slow beginning was nice as was the middle of the film when everything was still pretty unexplained and spotty. My personal favorite part of the film was when Keaton's character starts reading the old transcripts that state words like "PIG" and "BASTARD" over and over again, trying to tell the EVP investigator, Raymond Price, to give it all up. I don't know why, but I really liked that part of the movie, showing the malevolent entities mixed with an investigation aspect.

My biggest problem was the amounts of deaths in the movie. It really kept me from caring about the characters or sympathizing with them. The lack of characterization in the second half of the film also shows, with most characters being defined with an adjective or two. Very one-dimensional and very flat. All the other major characters really besides Keaton's get shifted to the background and barely make appearances at all. It all feels rather awkward, never really giving enough screentime or care to anybody. I don't know, I guess the feeling that there was a concentration of plot over character didn't work for me. It might have if the characters were insignificant or if there hadn't been more of a focus on characters earlier in the film. Hell, it might have worked if the plot was better, but instead... it just fell very flat for me in general.

All of that being said Michael Keaton is fast becoming one of my favorite actors. The man is an excellent actor, but I feel very strongly that this film didn't let him show off his acting chops which is a real shame.

I also found it strange that most of the victims were women. I mean these demons seem rather woman-specific in their choices of victims. And it seems like it's always men who do the EVP as well. It's a strange kind of sexism that mystifies me. The "killer" is a man listening to the EVP stuff. Keaton's character, Jonathan, does a well, and so does Raymond. All of the other characters are basically female and never really have much or anything to do with the EVP stuff in general except to watch it. Kind of strange. I can't really say anything beyond that. I started noticing it and had no idea why it was chosen to be that way.

I didn't like the ending, not because Keaton's character dies, but because of the way he died. I don't know, mixing bad CGI, another really dumb and unnecessary death, the random killer gunned down by police, and yet another funeral... it felt really strung together and mechanical. I could have predicted it, but if I had it would have been a lot better. It didn't do it for me, hell most of this movie just felt so pointless and ridiculous. I did like parts of it, but overall it left a bad taste in my mouth. I think it's absolutely mediocre, and I also have no idea who this movie could be made for. It's not for the horror audience because it's not scary. It's not for the EVP audience because EVP doesn't work like that at all. AT ALL. So, who was this made for? I have no idea. All I know is that past the halfway point or so the movie really isn't worth watching... maybe a little for the imagery before the climax, with the broken windows of Jonathan's apartment and the three figures darting across a window or two... but mostly the movie isn't really worth it.