Movie Appraisal: Oculus (2013)

It is late at night, and I just finished this movie. And I don't know what to do. I'm not alone in my apartment. I shouldn't feel this nameless fear striking me in the gut. My fiancee, who does not like horror movies, is asleep in the bedroom as I write this review. She did not watch the movie either. She probably does not even know that I watched it.

I only say that because I am not even alone here, and yet I feel more alone after watching this movie than I have in a very long time. I have, for the past two years, done as little as possible with the horror genre. Sure, I've watched a few movies that I've definitely watched and reviewed on this blog before, And I've played a few horror video games as well. But for the most part my life has been devoid of horror because I like saying my thoughts on this blog about horror movies, and couldn't bring myself to watch them without being able to write a review up. It's my own failing really. I could have watched them and not had my life of loving horror movies on pause, but I felt that the new horror movies I would watch should have a fresh experience of review, rather than a review of someone who has definitely seen it more than once.

I'm explaining myself too much. Suffice it to say, I was thoroughly terrified by this movie.

It succeeded in being both very scary and extremely unsettling. I'm not sure if I'll be able to sleep tonight. And that's great because I love great and scary horror movies. It's also terrible because I have work tomorrow and my fragile mind should not have to deal with this much psychological horror all at once.

I guess I should get started with my extremely positive review of this film. Oculus is brilliant. This is exactly the type of movie I search for, especially in the more "mainstream" horror movies. It's exactly the type of movie I spend my waking hours seeking. The whole "very old object" horror works so well. It is almost Lovecraftian in nature, something beyond the scope of human ken. And that's a huge reason why this movie works so well for me.

Oculus is directed by Mike Flanagan, the man who also directed Absentia, a movie I look back on a lot more fondly than my review does, I'll say that much. It could be that I think better of it because Doug Jones himself commented on a blog post I had written up for the movie, or maybe I just have a very fond memory of the tunnel idea itself. I still do not think it is a wonderful movie, but time has been kind in my mind to it. So, seeing another movie by the same director was exciting for me. It's seeing how somebody has grown and developed over time.

And grow Mike Flanagan did. His directing chops are really quite something to behold. And so is this film.

The word "oculus" is Latin, It usually means "orb" or "eye." But it can also mean "eyesight" and a couple of other less relevant things. I'm kind of a Latin nerd. Sorry. But I find it fascinating that they focused on a word that means "eye" as the title of the film. I think it might be one of the most telling parts of the movie itself.

Anyway, the plot revolves around a brother and sister, whose parents were both killed when the siblings were younger. Their mother was "tortured" and killed by their father, and their father was killed by the brother, Tim. Tim is put into a mental hospital, which he stays until eleven years later on his twenty-first birthday as the film begins. The sister, Kaylie (played by a manic Karen Gillan), believes that she has all the answers to what happened all those years ago, and she recruits her brother to help her citing the promise they made to one another years before of destroying the evil that plagued their family.

And there's the premise. The thing that Kaylie blames for all their troubles is a very old antique mirror that her parents had purchased and put into her father's study. And the mirror is the true source of "evil" or malignancy or whatever you want to call it. It makes both parents go mad in different ways, but the children don't seem to go mad, not until they have become adults and try to best the mirror themselves.

The film blends both past and present together seamlessly. It is a wonderful mixing of time periods into this terrifying story. It messes with one's own perceptions when watching the film. I love the psychology that has been taken into account in the movie, talking about fuzzy memories  and blocks in the mind. The mirror uses weaknesses and strengths against the siblings and all whom it comes into contact. And that is truly terrifying.

Oculus is a cross between 1408 and Sinister or maybe Insidious or something. That sounds like a vague comparison to make, but there are a great deal of these movies that have come out recently that have very similar design and conceptual qualities to them. It is definitely mainstream-ish 2010s horror is my ultimate point here. I hope that doesn't sound like an insult. While current horror is not my favorite horror to watch, there really have been some amazing gems that have come out in well-known movies. It just so happens that a lot of these movies, if popular, get endless sequels that beat the premise into the ground like a hammer to a stake.

And that is the real problem of these well made and original horror movies. Sequels will ruin the novelty and brilliance of these ideas if given the chance. But, I will say that I am glad that I have avoided most of the 2010s horror sequel craze. So, there's that, at least.

Anyway,  I have to say that this movie was something I wasn't expecting, I can't even deal with the ending right now after just watching it. I won't spoil it here. But having it comparable to 1408 was not a bad thing to me. It just happened to be a lot worse in the end. Maybe. It's hard to say.

I have a few more musings before I wrap up. Obviously, because I liked it, I really don't want to spoil it for anybody. I had heard nothing but recommendations for this movie. And that's all I really have to say about it. The film is really excellent at getting its points across, and while it gets really heavy-handed with some of its ideas, it also is very subtle in its approach of character building, especially if you consider the mirror one of the characters.

Anyway, random musings time. There was a reference to a "South Windham Whale" in the movie as Kaylie is listing the history of the mirror. This reference is an oddity for me specifically. I know the majority of the readers here will literally not think twice about the reference as anything but a one-off joke. But I grew up in a town right next to South Windham, Connecticut. I know that town like the back of my hand. So, it's weird to hear it mentioned in a pretty major horror movie motion picture thing. It doesn't happen very often, and it made me regard the movie with a bit more interest.

It is terrifying and so well put together as a movie. I haven't seen a new horror movie this good in quite the long time, probably three or four years at the least. Holy hell is it good though. I loved this movie from every angle. It is superb storytelling. It gets you involved, . The movement between the past and the present is seamless, and I can't state that enough.

Anyway, it is a strong recommendation. If you are sensitive to gore, realize that, while there isn't a ton, there definitely is some vicious moments of it in passing. But beyond that, I can't say enough good things about it.

Video Game Assessment: Until Dawn (2015)

Hey.

It's been a long time, hasn't it?

Whoops. I seem to have forgotten all about this blog for a great deal longer than I wanted to.

Anyway, getting back into the swing of things can be trying at the best of times, and these are certainly not the best of times. It's been nearly a year since I mysteriously disappeared, reemerging only now for October 1st- and (perhaps) more of October than that even? Who's to say?

I can't promise anything right now. My schedule and my life are way up in the air right now, but I'm going to endeavor to get at least some reviews up this October. Because October Nights is an important series for me. And I care about giving opinions about horror. I think this will be the second year in a row where I don't review something every single day in October, but again, I have no idea what's going to happen. I'm simply going to write opinions and see what happens. No promises though!

So, getting off of all of that trite conversation, let's talk about Until Dawn, the game where you try to get eight playable characters to- you guessed it- survive, UNTIL DAWN.

It is a horror video game of several different genres of horror. It involves eight "teenagers" (and since most of the actors are not even remotely teens, my head-canon is that they're all like mid-twenties) that have seen a fairly awful tragedy strike their group of friends about a year previously. Namely the two sisters of one of the eight characters disappear under mysterious circumstances after a nasty and very mean prank gone wrong.

The whole premise sounds like a crazy and very bad teenage slasher film rip-off. And it kind of is for part of the game. We have a "mystery man," a bunch of clues to find and extrapolate from, and a seemingly deranged killer on the loose. It plays more like a mystery game from the start, following more of an adventure game premise at first, rather than the full survival horror game it kind of becomes in the latter half of the game.

I really don't want to spoil the game, so I'm going to have fairly tight fingers in this review. Don't expect a ten-page diatribe about why _____'s character is extremely tragic or that the _____ design is really creepy and well put together. I'm certainly not going to talk about ______ __________ and his absolute obsession with ______ so much so that he made the movies ________ (2001) and ___ ____ _______ (2006) about the _______ that are so prominent in this particular narrative. Also, Saw (2003) and similar types of movies have has a fairly decent influence on what Until Dawn is.

And it's actually quite good for what it is. While I figured out the entirety of the plot within my first ten minutes of playing, I also found the characters interesting, the plot well put together, and horror very well played in the latter parts of the game. It can be easily compared to other games of similar play-types and genre, like Heavy Rain, Beyond Two Souls, and even Telltale's The Walking Dead (with Clementine and Lee), but it really does stand apart from them on a fundamental level, up to and including that, I believe, this particular game is much better for this type of gameplay and style than any of the other previous games like it. There's a great deal of narrative choice and input from the player to get the kind of story desired. The more you put into exploration the higher the chances are that your characters will survive and have knowledge of what's actually going on. Limited exploration puts the entire cast at risk and leads to a narrative that might make much less sense as well. I like gameplay rewarding narrative though.

The game puts this idea out there that choice is ultimately up to the player. This means that what happens in the plot, how characters react to one another, and the information found out and talked about are all up to the player, who can decide some aspects of the direction the game will take. While it is a fairly simplistic system here, it is much better implemented than a great deal of games of a similar type. I really like choice systems in games especially when the outcome can be extremely varied. RPGs tend to do it best, but even RPGs tend to not go very deep into the system. It's overly complicated to program, I get that, but the payoff is so good when it works right.

Until Dawn takes some time for the plot to get moving, but when it does finally get there, it also never stops. As a horror game, it has everything you might expect, from abandoned mental institutions to abandoned hotels. It has everything from a nearly abandoned ski lodge to a completely abandoned creepy mine. There's also an abandoned fire tower, abandoned ski lift depots, and a nearly entirely abandoned mountain.

So- uh- I think "abandoned" might be the word of the day today.

Just like a slasher movie, certain characters are more likely to die than others. The flirtatious and playful blonde girl who talks about sex more than the other characters, and then screams she is going to have a very good time sexing her boyfriend, is more likely to die than the girl who never talks about sex at all in any context. The (sorry to even bring this up) black guy character is more likely to die and be forgotten than any other character period, especially when a player decides to screw with ______ like the game explicitly tells you not to. The guy and gal that are more central to the plot though, the heroic antihero of questionable values and the brave but detached heroine, tend to both have the most screentime and the highest chance of surviving the night.

The other characters are the two (movie-styled) geeks who are supposedly perfect for one another, the grade-A witch of a girl who constantly browbeats her boyfriend, but has the best gameplay sequence in the game, and the troubled brother of the two sisters who died the previous year. The two geeks are pretty fun, but their whole story relies upon the other.The grade-A witch has the most conflicted nature to the narrative in terms of playable character, but also the most information revealed to her. And the brother of the two missing/dead sisters is a bit of an oddball with some of the most creative pieces of the narrative attributed to him.

A great deal of combinations of these characters can survive or die in the course of the story, including the entire cast or none of our "teens." While this latter outcome can be considered the best ending, it isn't necessarily the end of the story, for good or ill.

The changeable aspects of the genre are also probably the most interesting piece of the game to me. It switches genre constantly, and this is where I'm going to get just slightly spoiler-y, so there's your warning in advance. Jump out of this review with a hearty recommendation from your pal Saquarry if you don't want spoilers.

The game starts out with the isolationist vibe. While it never strays from that, there are certainly moments when you start seeing a larger world, most notably in trying to get some outside help and learning about what befell the inhabitants of this seemingly cursed mountain. There are also a great deal of jump scares in the beginning parts of the game, most of them, I hope, purposefully poorly handled. It seems to me that the game seems to want you off-balance constantly, and the characters are even willing to put each other off-balance for the desired results. Jump scares aside, the game delves into survival horror, supernatural horror, mystery horror, revenge narrative, slasher horror, and psychological horror at any given time. These all can pop up throughout the story, giving the whole thing a very off-kilter vibe to it. I certainly like it. It shows the metamorphosis of the narrative, starting at a place of ignorance and ending at a place that could be called "understanding."

The game itself follows that pattern, showing more fake horror in the beginning, evolving into something much more psychological and not shown, and finally ending on both understanding and a kind of body horror with supernatural elements that explains some things, but leaves enough ambiguity as to be worth exploring later (mostly after one is finished playing the game). That might be an overly complex way of saying that the game starts out with cheap scares, goes for a strong atmospheric feeling in the center part of the game, and finishes out with existential questions and outstanding visual designs.

The understanding the game gives to you in the end isn't just of the plot, but rather of the other characters, the supernatural elements, and the history behind everything around this mountain. The understanding changes the genre, and that is such a cool transition of genre, such a valid way of using genre like a tool to get a desired result.

Again, I'm not going to spoil very much else. Until Dawn is very good as a horror game. While the gameplay can be awkward, don't let that stop you from trying it out or from watching somebody else play it. It has quick-time events (QTEs) and plays very similarly to something like the David Cage games of Heavy Rain and Beyond Two Souls, the two closest comparison pieces. But I think it would be unfair to compare this game to those, if only because the quality and polish of this game is much stronger than those others.

I really enjoyed the game. It was thought-provoking, very creepy, and also very fun. The narrative left me wanting more. I want more games like this, more games that try to scare, but also try to do something beyond simply scaring.

I don't have much else to say other than recommending it. It is one of the best horror games of recent memory. It is also part of a string of horror games that have come out or that are coming out that have been or seem like they will be very, very solid entries into the genre.




I guess I do have a postscript to the review in the form of a little story. When I went out to buy this game the first day it had come out, I was nearly left wanting. I hadn't pre-ordered it because the previews had not impressed me even slightly. I saw a few good reviews come out, and decided that I would go pick it up because (and I even said this at the time I'm so ashamed) YOLO. The problem was I had a gift card at a particular video game store. I wanted to spend as little actual money as I could mitigate, so I found it necessary to go to this EXTREMELY POPULAR game stop if you will to find the game.

The problem arose that the first four stores I went to did not have the game at all. Somehow a video game that shouldn't have ANY scarcity somehow definitely had it. I was shocked at the first store not having it, in awe that the second didn't have it, and actively annoyed and peeved that the others didn't have it either. Okay, the game might be popular for some reason on the first day it's out, but they must have known what kind of response a fairly anticipated horror game would get, no?

I don't know. I guess I found it very sad that it took me nearly three hours to get to one of the only copies of Until Dawn in this particular store franchise in my area (my area being central New Jersey nowadays). AND I had to essentially ask a store that was nearly forty minutes away to hold it for me so that nobody else who also REALLY wanted a good horror would take it from me.

So, why the scarcity, guys? I'll never understand it.

Movie Appraisal: Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me (1992)

Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me directed by David Lynch is probably one of my favorite movies of all time. To put it out there, this movie is not for everybody. David Lynch is not for everybody. If you haven't seen an episode of the Twin Peaks television series, don't watch this until you watch that series. Despite the fact that this movie is mostly a prequel to the TV series, it also has elements of a sequel. And the spoilers provided by the movie would probably be best avoided if the television series is in your interest at all.

If you're reading this review and you like the other movies I've reviewed, Twin Peaks is probably the series for you. It is by far my favorite television series of all time. If I were to write my own series, it would end up looking a lot like that one. But this movie- this movie is where the heart and soul of Twin Peaks truly is. It has it's true capabilities, weirdness, and insanity out there for all to see before the end. It's a gory, visceral, surreal, and introspective look at what would lead up to the television series, but it stands all on its own as something brilliant and spectacular.

David Lynch made his career making movies that pushed the bounds of psychology, horror, and the nature of surreality. This movie has all those elements in it, often becoming quite terrifying if you can parse exactly what's going on. This is the reason the television series is a much watch for understanding this movie fully. It's absolutely needed to understand both the horror and the implications of exactly what's going on. I don't know how much and how often I can proselytize why this series and movie are some of the best works of fiction ever created.

I know that sounds like the ravings of the lunatic. I get that. but nothing this original exists anywhere else. It led to so many other different takes off of the same material. It was also, in my opinion, the Firefly before that show and subsequent movie existed. Cancelled before it should have been (in my opinion), leaving fans stranded with more questions than answers, and having a fanatical fanbase, Twin Peaks was a movement and an expression more than it was ever a simple television show.

The movie should have been there to answer lingering question and tie up loose ends, but when has David Lynch ever done anything of the sort? For every question answered in the movie more arose from it. And frankly, the movie brought me a whole new definition of small town horror when I first watched it quite a few years ago.

So, with introductions over, let's talk about this movie if we can. First off, the movie can be viewed as two different parts. The first part follows around a series of FBI agents (including our good friend Agent Cooper!) as they are involved in some odd investigations. I always found it odd how the FBI is basically comprised of some of the weirdest people imaginable, every one more surreal and interesting than the last. Agents Chester Desmond and Sam Stanley (played by Kiefer Sutherland) are looking into the murder of one Teresa Banks. And the investigation is hampered by an uncooperative police force in the town of Deer Meadow. Deer Meadow is also basically the opposite of the town of Twin Peaks. Anyway, they get their information from a woman named Lil, who dances for them.

And it's weird. They interpret the dancing, and I have to believe it all has something to do with how Lynch and his films (and television show) were received. Most of Lynch's films are surreal, often with the easiest way to view them being to interpret the plots and fill in what you need to from the information provided. A David Lynch film is something to watch. There's nothing else like them, not in my experience anyway. While not everything might have a hard meaning in his movies, I do believe the interpretations can still be there. He's such a deliberate filmmaker that I can't see him not having specific ideas on what he means to do in a film.

The investigation of Teresa Banks murder goes on, but nothing is really found out, besides a missing ring and a missing trailer. And eventually a missing Chester Desmond. And that's where the movie leaves Deer Meadow, going instead to Philadelphia to focus on Dale Cooper for a while, who has had a series of dreams over the course of the movie, prophetic dreams. He tells Gordon Cole (played by David Lynch) about the dreams and a man named Jeffries (played by the man and the legend David Bowie) enters the room only to disappear again. It is surreal and odd, and probably makes no sense at all. I think he's connected with Windom Earle, although I'm not sure why I think that. (Windom Earle is form the latter half of the second season of the TV series.)

Finally we get to the main part of the movie: the lead-up to Laura Palmer's death. And what a lead-up it is. We see a visceral, surreal, dark, and often very salacious as well. I don't think I've ever seen nudity made so ugly, so feral, and so hard to look at. What it looks like to me throughout the film is victimization. And it's obvious that's what it is. Laura Palmer leads a double life. On one side, she's the beautiful homecoming queen with a nice family life, a best friend, and a boyfriend (or two). But beneath it she's a drug addict, a sex addict, a person who has no idea what she wants in her life or from her life, and mostly she's a scared young woman. She admits to being raped since she was twelve, although early on she claims she doesn't know who's been doing it.

But we find out along with Laura, and what a reveal it is. it is one of the few movies brave enough to tackle an incestuous relationship in a believable way. Laura's father, Leland (Ray Wise, basically the second lead of the movie after Sheryl Lee's Larua), has been possessed by an evil creature named BOB. he's been in love with and raping Laura for years as BOB, but we're left wondering whether or not it's been Leland all along... or if BOB is really the perpetrator. The incestuous relationship is definitely an undercurrent of this entire part of the film, with a definite focus on Leland's responses to Laura's relationship, manners, and life. But there is also Laura's odd reactions to her father, so much pointing to the idea that she knows he's been raping her, but is hiding it under the surface. The awkward moments, the nearly broken home, and the appearance of normality- those are certainly themes throughout both Twin Peaks and David Lynch's works in general, but here they are on display for all to see.

In some ways, many ways, this film is the natural progression from a film like Blue Velvet. Both involve "normal" suburban or small town life, but both also involve this undercurrent of sleaze that David Lynch captures so perfectly. And that's what this movie is at times: pure, unbridled, and unadulterated sleaze. The horror is throughout this movie, maybe not in overt murderers or copious amount of blood and gore, but rather in the normal being so awful as to not be able to be accepted. It's about the degradation of Laura Palmer, about the character's final days, and about how she was falling apart because of the sexual abuse, the incest, the being used constantly- even letting herself be used, wanting to be degraded and worshiped because of that sexual abuse. It's so well-handled, not with baby gloves, but as a visceral look at it. And it is terrifying and sickening all at once.

It's meant to be. And that might be the creepiest thing about the movie. The nudity isn't meant to be sexual, it isn't mean to evoke a sexual response. It's meant to invoke a heavy feeling of sickness. I know that's how I felt watching it at least. Leland's rape, eventual capture, and murder of Laura are also sickening. it is so awful to see, but Lynch makes it so compelling to watch. You don't want to see the conclusion, but you cannot look away.

Obviously this movie has many things, little things, that have meaning. The pictures in Laura's room mean something. The angel that was with her has left her once the ring comes into her mind. And the door opening painting that brings Laura to the Black Lodge- it has layers of meaning. The Black Lodge being the worst of entities and "humanity" alike. But the whole movie has layers of meaning- throughout there are moments where you wonder if you're even watching reality anymore. There are moments in the Roadhouse that feel like that, specifically within the Pink Room, which I would say is the absolutely most surreal moment in the film.

To me, this movie is the pinnacle of what it means to be a surreal and psychological horror movie. It brings about elements that are used to evoke emotions. While we follow Laura, we see what kind of person she is. We get to intimately know her, see her struggle, and see her fall. And all the while we get odd moments of comedy, real life, and absolutely blanketed horror- all of which culminate in Laura's murder. I can't say enough good things about this movie. David Lynch is a master as well as being one of my favorite filmmakers of all time.

I've avoided Lynch for the most part in these reviews. There is so much to say about his movies that I feel slightly uncomfortable extrapolating meaning. And since most of his movies are some of my favorite films, I find it very difficult to want to review them for fear of not doing them justice. But I have to talk about them all eventually, one way or another, and this film, one of his more direct films, felt like a good place to start our journey in exploring Lynch as a director, a storyteller, and a true artist of the screen.

This is a complex film, and I don't blame others for not liking it or really any of Lynch's material. While I think David Lynch is amazing, I can see how many think his films are crazy nonsense- and that's really their loss, not mine. So, this is a full recommend for me, but really only seriously watch it if you can get through Twin Peaks. It'll also help if you like Lynch's other movies like I do.

Putting it out there, this is the absolute scariest movie I've reviewed this October, so if you're looking for sleazy and hard-to-watch horror, this is where you should start. Well, Lynch, in general, is very good about that.

Movie Appraisal: Moon (2009)

Moon, directed by Duncan Jones, is a film I've wanted to see for a good long while. And now that I have seen it, I must admit that it's been worth the long wait. I don't know how much I consider this a horror film, even if it does have elements of horror, including gore, tension, claustrophobia, and ultimately death. I think I could put it into that genre of space horror, so often maligned and so often incredible. I can see it in the same genre as smart space movies like Sunshine, and maybe that is where it aptly should sit forever as an idol to what space movies can and have achieved.

Again, I'm not sure how horrific this movie is or how well it would fit in a horror review month, but I think that enough elements are there that if somebody complains I can defend myself by saying, "Look, idiot, this is my review month. I thought this was tense and creepy at times. It could be pretty scary if you look at it the right way. So, deal with it, fool."

This, ultimately, is a movie about love, loss, drama, tension, clones, capitalism, the horror of losing oneself and one's mind, and psychology. There is radiation sickness, seeing what you used to be laid bare, seeing lies and knowing you're powerless, and the moon, always the moon, featured.

M-O-O-N that spells Moon, a movie about a man working on a space station on the far side of the moon, mining helium-3 and mainly being there to oversee the big machines that mine it. He is alone for three long years and starts losing it little by little. Then one day, when he is only two weeks from leaving the moon base, he gets into an accident and wakes up with no memory of what happened. Kind of.

You see, this is where the early twist comes into play. The man who wakes up is not the Sam Bell we started the movie with, but rather a clone, woken up because the other one was "lost." This new clone feels that something's wrong and goes to find what's up only to find the earlier Sam still crashed in the lunar vehicle. He saves him, brings him back, and they learn from each other and figure out a plan to do something memorable.

I don't want to say much more about the plot. It's incredible and worth the watch, even absolutely worth the watch. If there's a single film about space you should watch in your life, it should be this one, absolutely this one, even over 2001: A Space Odyssey. The movie is poignant at times, showing that love is something beyond the mortal bounds, showing that there is more petty evil that humans are capable of than there are stars in the sky. And yet there is also heroism, caring, and again, that love that so often drives us to do stupid things.

The story is meticulously pointed out and paced, so much so that it is as close to perfect as a story can possibly be. It's very tight at times, but it does what it needs to do to tell the most convincing story possible. This is a memorable film, and one I certainly will never forget. I put it up there with Ink as one of the most affecting standalone movies I can think of. It's a bit of a life-changing movie, but one without the great punch of an ending I really wish it would have.

Sam Rockwell shines in his role as Sam Bell, as does Kevin Spacey as GERTY, the AI companion to Sam that seems to know much more than he tells and is much less malicious than HAL, even though the comparisons are certainly apt. Both actors do a great job in being their characters absolutely. Sam Rockwell plays several clones of his own character. His portrayals of the two main Sams is actually incredible, showing both as physically and mentally very different and yet fundamentally the same.

I really want to mention the subtle love story this movie has in it. I don't usually like love stories all that much, but the tragic ones often hit me rather hard, even though the ones with happy endings rarely do anything to me at all. The tragedy here is palpable, nearly breaking one of the Sams, who had waited for three years to go back and be with the woman he loves. The love between Sam and  Tess is absolutely wonderful... but also tragic in every way possible. Again, another comparison to Ink, but one I'd rather not go into very much depth with since its a spoiler for both movies.

Maybe this movie hit me so hard because of its themes of isolation, of psychological torment brought on by loneliness, and by the main character truly loving and missing his partner in love. To me those moments worked so well to bring about some kind of emotion, to evoke a response in me. I like bringing personal input into these reviews, telling why this stuff affected me, why I personally love it or hate it so much. I know a ton of people expect bare bones facts, telling about what the movie is and interpreting it and saying exactly what's going on, and telling EVERYTHING FACTUALLY. Because that's important for some reason.

The thing is, I'm not like that. I meander and go off on other topics. And I don't like people telling me how to write or how to review. This movie, Moon, affects me personally, in a personal way. And maybe that's why I like this movie so much and why I can view it as psychologically horrific. You see, I'm engaged to a woman who lives 200 miles away from me, working a job that leaves me nearly completely alone for ten-twelve hours six days a week. I spend a lot of time by myself. And I spend a lot of time missing the person I love so much it numbs me. So, this movie hits me hard because it's so easy to see how Sam feels, and it's so easy to respond in kind.

I bring all this review stuff up here because I can't stand it. I hate when people expect me to give them answers to movies that are ART that don't necessarily have a singular answer to them. Especially these more psychologically minded movies. Lately I've even gotten people being rude to me, demanding answers to movies, or screaming the answers at me saying I didn't get it. The worst is when people demand I keep personal feelings to myself when reviewing citing it being unprofessional or wrong or just me specific.

Yes, that's the idea, numbnuts. I am personally reviewing and analyzing these movies for me. What I liked and what I didn't like. Seriously, there are many blogs out there to read, many reviewing similar things to what I review. Go ahead and check them out if you don't like the way I review. To me this is fun, watching great or crappy or mediocre movies and just writing about them, talking about them, and having people read them. It's relaxing to watch a movie or read a book or play a video game and then talk about it. It's nice. I like interpreting, but more than that I want to talk about how something hit me about the fiction. Did I like it? Why? Did I hate it? Why?

So, I liked Moon so much because of its story, characters, and setting, certainly. But I loved it so much because it affected me in a more personal way, like Ink or 1408 or other movies that I view as much deeper and more personally affected me than just a movie.

I'm somewhat sorry to get into this in this review, but it's a great movie and I guarantee someone would say something about how this isn't a good review because I should be focusing on the movie, not my feelings on the movie. But that's so dumb. Yes, the movie is about the moon, good old Luna in the sky, but its also about a person, a personality, love, loss, and realization, horrific and disheartening realization. I think this is one of those movies I'll rewatch every once in a while. It's way too good to not watch.

Obviously I recommend this movie. If you haven't seen it already, go find it immediately and watch it.

Movie Appraisal: Infection (Kansen) (感染) (2004)

"But he... He gets inside."

The best way to describe Infection is to call it a psychological horror mindscrew of a movie. I don't even know if the story is coherent enough to truly understand. It seems to be more focused on symbolism and interesting imagery than an actual plot. But I think that's also the point. I think it's an interesting movie, but one that is so utterly jumbled that sometimes it's more difficult to follow the psychology of the plot than just following the horror of it. As the first J-Horror Theater movie, this one is very good, giving the six movie "series" a great start. Director Masayuki Ochiai does a great job with directing, but his editor should be barred from ever editing again. It's a mess, seriously.

I went into this movie thinking it would be gory and awful to watch. I literally had to anticipate the gore effects that I really thought would be highlighting this movie, for better or worse. But this movie has very few truly gory moments to it, more lingering on characters' reactions to the offscreen gore than actual shots of gore. This is probably for budgetary reasons rather than artistic choice, but it worked well in my opinion, leaving more to the imagination and less to the eye, something that I always find effective.

Like Into the Mirror, this movie also has a focus on mirrors, to the point that this movie could have taken that movie's title and nobody would have known. I guess the idea here is that mirrors either tell the truth or give way to some alternate reality where guilt and conscience rule. And green blood. For reasons. I can't really understand the entirety of the plot or the point that they were trying to make. Sometimes these types of movies put symbolism for symbolism's sake into their movies. That could be the case here. I don't really know.

Anyway, Infection takes place at a hospital, following around a collection of nurses and doctors who are on a night shift. The hospital is overrun with patients (even though we only ever see a handful of them) and is financially sinking. Most of the first part of this movie is a medical drama unfolding, seeing how stressed these doctors and nurses are, seeing how difficult their work is, and seeing how exhaustion and the stress can lead to bad decision making.

A burned man falls from his bed, dies, is brought back to life, and then through medical error dies again, this time for good. The acting in this scene is excellent, as the doctors' both try to save one of their own by hiding the evidence of the error and bullying the nurses into accepting what they want to do to hide it. It's effective and eerie, with the whole scene playing out as if it could be pure comedy or pure sickening horror. Sometimes these things are difficult to pin down.

Throughout the beginning part of the movie, we are also treated to a collection of small scenes detailing an ambulance talking about a man with some kind of infectious disease that they found. These paramedics come into the hospital seeking help for the infected victim. Dr. Akiba, who is sort of the main character of the movie and the doctor who admitted error with the burn victim (in the scene after this), turns them away, which will have dire consequences on the rest of the movie. Again, burn victim dies from medical error, and then the chief nurse goes down to check the ER, only to find the infectious disease victim still there, the ambulance gone.

This is when the movie gets strange. Dr. Akai, the director of the hospital, has a collection of scenes being very adamant about studying the disease. His scenes are shocking in a way because of the way he acts. He is always stone-faced (except once), and he is filmed with some kind of filter, a green one, I believe, that leaves him looking washed-out and creepy. The victims organs are shown to be liquefying as well, but the person is still very much alive and coherent, even smiling at the doctors.

The movie rushes on, now being both confusing and disjointed, showing more a focus on horror than story. The nurse, four of them, die horrifically one-by-one, each taken out by the green infection starting from the chief nurse getting infected by the initial victim (whose body disappears) to each one of the others getting infected by one another, I believe. Parts of this movie can be confusing, which is why I'm kind of wondering myself what happened at times. Eventually, Dr. Uozumi, one of the lead characters, is also infected, and shown speaking to a person he had once killed accidentally. This incident cements the meaning of this movie and the infection to basically being something like guilt.

Dr. Akiba is told from the dead Akai (because Akai was the burn victim all along) that the infection is transmitted through the subconscious mind rather than through the air or by touch. This means that they were all infected in turn by the guilt they felt over the death of the patient or the way they treated someone else or how they screwed up medically once. Over this whole part of the film, and maybe I didn't catch every instance of this, but what it seems like is that the movie has the green film over it at times, showing some kind of alternate world... maybe even the mirror world where ghosts are still living as the old woman patient seems to imply many times.

The psychological elements show up near the end, as Dr. Akiba looks through a mirror and sees his blood as green blood, rather than the red blood he has in real life. And as a female doctor enters the hospital in the morning light, the awful truth is learned. The doctors and the nurses are all dead, no longer with the green blood and bile, but rather with red blood covering them, obviously killed by someone. Akiba (and the Pediatrician who wants to be a surgeon) are guilty of the crimes (at least in the eyes of the law).

And the film ends with the insanity of the final female doctor, Dr. Nakazono, after she signs off a boy from the beginning of the movie whose brain was bleeding, thus showing her the green blood world and her own infection. And then the boy with the fox mask shows up again, probably implying something with him, although I have no idea what. As an added thing, Akai, in Japanese, means red. Which probably has some meaning. Perhaps Dr. Akai was never real, more an implied person standing in for the real world or the infection. The final scene is Dr. Akiba, shut in the locker that kept opening earlier in the movie in the room they were trying to speed-decay the burn victim's corpse. His arm falls off with green blood attached. He is fully infected.

As a last point, there are some seriously scary moments to this movie, particularly the background scares that linger. Some of those moments were great visuals and left an impact on me. It will be hard to forget that chief nurse standing on the cot in the background of a single shot, her face as white as paper, knowing what will come next, and being unable to do a thing about it. Great direction all around, really showcasing the horrific elements of the story.

Oh man. This movie is both complex and very confusing at times. There are a great many details throughout the film, the blink-and-you'll-miss-them type of details. Honestly, this is a movie where a second viewing might be required just being of the complexity of detail. I would say that infection is all about guilt and that the infection attacks the guilty part of one's mind. Beyond that, I have no idea what this movie is. It's an effective horror movie, one with really bad editing, but great cinematography and direction. The acting is perfectly fine, although I wouldn't say anybody was particularly awesome in their role. It's a movie I would recommend as a horror movie for J-Horror fans. This movie is certainly not for everybody though, and I feel that to some it might be more frustrating and confusing than frightening. I liked it quite a bit, but also feel that it is far from perfect, particularly in its disjointed nature and focus on nothing at times. Check it out if you want an interesting little Japanese Horror movie. Just remember that it's all over the place in quality.

Movie Appraisal: Hidden (Skjult) (2009)

Well, here's a movie that had a lot of promise, but ultimately gave up very little. Movies like this suck to review mostly because they have the POTENTIAL to be very fun rides, but end up being less than they should be. And it's not like they're terrible either. They're just okay. Mediocre. In some crazy middle ground between amazing and awful. Sometimes it's a bad script, sometimes it's a bad plot, a bad actor, a poorly thought-out character, a director who has no idea what they're doing, and sometimes it's simply how things work out. Hidden (or Skjult for Norwegian readers) is exactly a movie that should be more. It has so much going for it: a very well-done premise, good actors, a compelling story, and a plot heavily hovering in the realm of psychological horror. It's a movie I should LOVE, but instead I find it incredibly mediocre. Maybe it's simply that I've seen this all before and have become cynical. The movie feels lazy. And that's the problem.

Hidden begins with a car accident. A boy's parents are killed in the cold open. The boy survives (maybe), but the reason for the deaths of his parents is another boy running across the road and causing a semi truck to crash into the parents' car. You get the feeling that the first boy (who seems to be Peter) is going to be our lead character, but that turns out to not be the case (I think). The protagonist of our story is KK (Kai Koss), the boy who had run across the road and caused the accident. Apparently Peter disappeared after the accident and was called dead after shoes were found near the scene and underneath a waterfall long after.

The problem is that KK looks EXACTLY like what Peter would look like when he grew up. The boy has long blond locks. KK has the same. While the young KK has a shaved head. The older Peter (if he is Peter at all) has a shaved head as well. It's weird. I feel like it was probably done on purpose, but I can't say for sure it was. It's a movie that explains very little, which I like a lot, but the things it does explain turn out to have really idiotic explanations (I think). And that's the problem. The movie did do a lot very good, but other parts were baffling. I personally think that the original KK was killed by the abusive and disturbed mother after he escaped. Eventually Peter, who later became KK, in this case the second KK, after the mother caught him, came back to the town after his "mother" died. I mean, that's what I think, but I can't say anything for sure. The movie doesn't hit you over the head with it, so it's really up to what you want to think.

You can see my confusion here. I'm sorry. Parts of this movie made little sense. There is a dark-haired woman who I'm pretty sure isn't real. I don't know if she's a random singer or something? I'm told she speaks in Swedish, but I have no idea what that means. Maybe she was the original mother of Peter? Or just an actress? Or maybe she was just an imaginary friend he made up for company in the darkened hole he lived in for years. Again, I don't know.

The funny thing is, while I wasn't happy with the ending of the movie when I first saw it, it's something I'm liking more and more as time goes by. I actually like the movie more now (a few days later) than when I had originally watched it. Maybe I'm the crazy one. I still don't like how KK and Peter are somehow the same person and the murderer, but I'll probably get over it someday. (Read: I will never get over it. It's really dumb. I disliked it, and it should have been better.)

I found parts of the movie interesting. Why was KK looked at with such scorn by basically everybody? Only Sara seemed to like him and give him any benefit of the doubt. And she seemed to like him a lot. All of the men in town hated his guts. Why? Did I miss something? Was there some kind of history there? I have no idea. It was weird. I have no reference for anything and have no idea how to interpret it.

I mean, KK is the killer. It's obvious. Maybe that's why nobody likes him.

Sorry, did I say that too abruptly? It was abrupt in the movie too. KK is said to be the killer. Some kind of weird fugue state probably. Maybe he dissociates? Maybe he knows he's doing it? I have no idea. It's probably brought on by his old house. But man, it makes no sense. Maybe it's not supposed to make any sense. I would've preferred if he weren't the killer... but maybe it makes the movie better if he's both Peter and the killer. I don't know. I just don't know. I don't so, but maybe I'm not who this movie was made for.

The best part of the movie are the psychological scenes though. They're not scary, but their simple weirdness is enough to enjoy by themselves. The phone calls, the odd scenes of KK just by himself and thinking or whatever, and the weird interactions between characters- these are all reasons to see the movie. Just expect to find yourself baffled if you do watch it. I mean, I put a halfhearted recommendation out there. If you REALLY live for psychological horror/thriller, then watch this. Otherwise... it's not required watching, but it's not bad either. I enjoyed most of it. Just remember, it's not scary. There's very little gore. In general, I would think of this flick as much more of a suspense or thriller with psychological elements than anything else. And those always seem a little "eh," I guess.

Pål Øie directs, and does a pretty decent job. I think the long periods without dialogue are some of the best pieces of the film. They work incredibly well. They add to the confusion, but those long moments of suspense and confusion could be small beautiful movies on their own. The dialogue and the writing are mostly not as good. And this being an indie horror film from the After Dark Horrorfest 2010, I was expecting good things. I usually enjoy them, although they usually have some issues. See my review of Autopsy for details. 

Honestly, I liked the film, didn't love it. Kristoffer Joner as KK, Karin Park as Miriaim, and Cecilie A. Mosli as Sara are the breakouts here. I tend to like these Eurpoean horror movies. They do a good job at hitting what I like. This one wasn't quite as great as some, but I was okay with it. I wish I could say more, but I don't really have anything else to say.

Movie Appraisal: Silent Hill: Revelation 3D (2012)

Pyramid Head! What are you even doing here in this movie? Shouldn't you be tormenting James in the REAL Silent Hill 2?

Or Alex in Silent Hill: Homecoming?

Or Rose and Cybil in the original Silent Hill movie?

Honestly... why are you always there, Pyramid Head? Wait... are you... are you operating... a... a...

...carousel? What?

Why...? Why are you operating that carousel, Pyramid Head? Why do you have fish hook looking thing attached to your nipples for some reason? Why do you make it all spin? Why do I feel like I'm losing my mind?

Look the reason Pyramid Head is here is because Pyramid Head is a marketable character/creature. He has basically become the FACE (Uh... Awkward Head?) of the Silent Hill series. Now, how you feel about that can vary. Many think that his being used in every little thing involving the franchise sullies his name, makes his role in Silent Hill 2 lessened, and makes him an incredible gimmick... as well as making him less interesting/terrifying and actually making him a boring character when he actually does show up. But on the other hand, the dude with the pyramid-shaped head is hella awesome. And marketable. AND WE LOVE YOU, PYRAMID HEAD! You are recognizable and I feel comfort in noticing things.

My opinion quite obviously veers to the former. He shouldn't be in this movie. His presence, although decently well-explained away, is somewhat baffling nevertheless. He does very little towards the end and seems to have much of the same role that Valtiel has in the original Silent Hill 3, a guardian and a watcher. This becomes incredibly apparent as he makes the carousel near the end of the movie go around or when he chops men's arms off who are actively attacking and grabbing out for Heather. He is a much more active guardian than the observing Valtiel, but in some ways that works nicely... and in others it's a big, odd gimmick that never really fits or finds a place to feel comfortable in. Once you let Pyramid Head out of the bag like the first movie did, you really have no choice but to use him again, just as Homecoming did. Pyramid Head is a trap, and one this franchise seems to keep falling for. Using him once was incredible. The movie using him in the wrong context was confusing. Using him in a second game for no reason was creatively unacceptable, and bordering on self-plagiarism, and using him here just points out how far this franchise will go to pound that familiar pyramid face into the ground. It's disheartening. Even if he were used well it would be disheartening. And here he is used acceptably, but that doesn't excuse that he's being used at all.

Now, even though this is the second Silent Hill movie, it is actually based upon the third game, Silent Hill 3, which also happens to be one of the games I am not overly fond of. Most of my problems with that game stem from its paper-thin plot, its weak characters, and the motivations behind it all. I don't just mean the motivations of the characters or writers, but I also mean the motivation of the creators making a direct sequel to the original game because they were under a lot of pressure to do so. Silent Hill 2 was initially panned by critics and reviewers because it was no true sequel, rather a self contained story with nothing to do with the first game other than aesthetics. And it worked well. Silent Hill 3, to me, felt like more of a cop-out than an original plot. But I'll get to my opinions when I review the game (if I ever review the game). Right now I'm just telling you that the game this movie is based upon is one I am not overly fond of.

So, imagine my surprise when this movie starts working for me. Imagine my surprise when I found myself enjoying it. Imagine my surprise when I found myself engaged and wanting to see more. Wait, I was supposed to save that glee for later. Dammit. Now the cat is out of that locker. It's wandering the school and probably being hunted by monsters.

The movie, directed by Michael J. Bassett, who also directed Deathwatch, follows the same basic premise as the third game. Heather Mason (played by Adelaide Clemens) is a seventeen year old teenager who lives with her father Harry (Sean Bean). Heather and Harry move around a lot because they are avoiding being found. Heather tries to start another new life just as things all go to hell. While the plot is basically the same as the game major and minor things are changed all over the place, with some things added and some things taken away. Douglas Cartland arrives to meet and greet Heather, but not in the mall like he did in the game, but rather in front of her school bus. He waits for her, somewhat pesters her, and then follows her, trying desperately to warn her of the impending shadow of the Order. Movie Douglas, unlike his game counterpart, dies. He dies in the mall Otherworld sequence. He never even makes the drive with Heather to Silent Hill proper. While this is slightly disappointing, I'm not overly surprised. Douglas is not my favorite character, and the plot flows in a similar manner with or without him there.

Replacing Douglas and his role for the rest of the movie is Vincent (Kit Harrington), who is easily my least favorite character (or actor) here. He is no high school student, looking more like he's in his mid-twenties than his teens. And he can't seem to hide that British accent. He was obviously not from West Virginia is my point here. Sean Bean has similar problems disguising his accent, and seems to forget completely about disguising it at all. Why not? He's still good in the role. Why have him be American when he can be anything he wants to be? Sean Bean also, for some odd reason, will not die. The man, an actor who is known for playing characters that die by the end of the movie, survives this film... somehow... even when Harry, in the third game, is explicitly dead by the middle of it. It made some sense, truth be told, to not have him die, but it was surprising as well.

Vincent and Heather also have this whole romantic subplot going on throughout the movie. I have to mention it because it was creepy. At least one person in the theatre agreed with me. I heard a hearty "Ew" when he kissed her. I concur, person in the theatre!

Most of the movie is fluff. I can't even hide that. I can't say most of the movie is even worth anything at all. The plot is a mess, paper-thin at best... although again, the third game's plot has similar problems. The characters are barely there. The actors are only needed for scary reaction shots and some decent dialogue. Most of the plot and characters could have disappeared and I wouldn't have cared. Hell, the entire movie could have been monster encounters, and I would have been happy. We could have called it Silent Hill: Encountering Monsters, and although fanboys would have hated it, the movie wouldn't have changed much in content.

I loved some of the imagery and designs though. Unlike the first movie, a great deal of the images from this movie seem to be straight from the games. Also, there seemed to be a great deal of trying to make the interiors of buildings look convincing when they are all decrepit and abandoned in the Otherworld, because they succeed a million times in aesthetics. I can't say just how much I loved that the decaying buildings actually looked like decaying buildings. And throughout the movie this was true, with every building having its own unique look and layout. I was impressed.

The monster designs were also really well done. Yes, there were some returning monsters from the last movie, but most here are new, at least somewhat. The Missionary is the really big new monster. She is even a match for Pyramid Head in a fight. She appears throughout the film until she is revealed to be Claudia somehow. This takes fetus-eating right out of the picture, and for that I am truly disappointed. Instead we get Missionary Claudia fighting Pyramid Head. And you know what? It's fun. I liked it. I'm a dumb man who liked watching the monsters fight, okay? And other "monsters" appear as well often faceless, with stitched seams or fleshy... uh... bits all over. They're all kind of hard to explain. Some of the moments in the movie with the monsters are almost hilarious... and I wonder if they were purposefully meant to be funny. I kind of have the inkling they were meant to be humorous. Maybe that's just me.

Two new monsters were absolutely amazing though. The first was a mannequin spider creature who looked absolutely stunning. The idea was brilliant. I loved watching it, and it was almost frightening and horrifying in a way. It had easily the best and most serious scene in the entire movie. And for that, I am seriously glad. I needed that monster. It kept this movie interesting and moved everything along nicely. It was the highlight of my experience except for a moment at the end, which I'll get to shortly. The other "monster" that I really enjoyed was more a collection of monsters. They were under the floor grating, these heads and hands, almost making a floor underneath the floor. I have no idea if they were people, monsters or something else, but I loved the look of them.

As for everything else... Well, Heather merges with Alessa eventually, like in the game. And they do it on a carousel that Pyramid Head is inexplicably operating. Maybe there is symbolism there? Or maybe it's just dumb. I have no idea. I just know I was laughing so hard at Pyramid Head and his ridiculous nipple piercings... His operating of that carousel was less horrifying and more incredibly and ridiculously amusing. I laughed for a while and made jokes underneath my breath constantly.

And I guess that's the BIG PROBLEM of this flick. It never feels serious. It's made for the fans. That's obvious. If you are not a fan of the games skip this movie and never see it. It's not made for people who don't like the games, pure and simple. The moments ripped directly from the games, the jump scares, the decoy characters and plot points, and the gameplay mechanics basically shown in the movie are all there for the fans. My favorite one of those has to be the nurses. Yes, they also make a comeback, but they are impressive. They're there arguably more than the first movie, and they work well. They are intimidating, well acted, and relentless. In every way they were really one of the highlights of the film. And their sequence with Vincent and Heather works incredibly well, being both tense and effective.

But the rest of the movie has hilarious moments scattered throughout, and I have no idea if they were intentional or not. All I know was that I was having a great time. I made fun of the movie, I enjoyed sequences of the movie. I loved the imagery of the movie. And I had a grand old time. Were there problems? Yes. But none of those problems ever took away from my enjoyment of the feature. None of them ever made me want to walk out or stop enjoying what was in front of me. Some character decisions were baffling though... like Heather continuing to run into the darkness under the mall for some reason rather than staying in a populated area where she could yell for help. Yes, I know the nightmare world was nearly there (or maybe was actively there) but it would have made more sense for her to hold back. Vincent running off for some reason near the end of the film is also baffling. No idea why he did that. "Promise (Reprise)," a very good song from the second game, also seems to play constantly throughout the movie, no less than five times it seems. While it is a good song, you would think that thy would have more song selection than that to choose from.

Malcolm McDowell and Carrie-Anne Moss also are in this movie... but I can't really say much about them. McDowell is obviously a bad guy. And Carrie-Anne Moss seems to be both albino and a monster some times. It made literally no sense and I would rather not attempt to parse it.

Now, my favorite scene is the very end of the movie. Vincent and Heather have left Silent Hill for good. They hitchhike on a semi truck. The semi truck is driven by none other than Travis Grady. I called it out before it happened. "Travis?" I nearly shouted. "Travis, what are you doing here?" I was so excited! I have no idea why but that little nod to another game made me happy. And then the next nod made me honestly giddy. I love Silent Hill: Downpour, so when a few police cruisers and then a convict bus speed by the semi as Silent Hill gets all foggy again, I was basically ready to give the movie a standing ovation. Seriously. I don't think I've been as excited for a little nod from a filmmaker to me as a fan as I was here. It made me feel good.

So, overall, this was my best movie-going experience possibly ever. I loved this movie. I loved the parts that were great and the parts that were less great (and there definitely were some of those). I loved almost everything here except Kit Harrington and some of the more boring scenes that seemed to do nothing for either plot or character. I guess I should also mention that this is not a scary film. The first movie is a much more horrific experience. Although I found myself taken in by the plot here, I never found myself scared even a little bit, although I did find myself very engaged. I would call it a suspenseful experience, but not a scary one. While there were jump scares, most were predictable and none had a lasting impact. If I had cared about the plot or characters more maybe I would have cared about the scares more... but this movie wasn't about the plot or characters... it was all about the fans, the imagery, and the games. And I can't argue that. It was a wonderful homage to the games... even if as a movie it did seem to suffer under its own weight. I will stand by the fact that I loved this movie... that neither makes it a good movie nor enjoyable for everybody though. Be ready to go in there expecting the worst if you're going to see it. Be ready to poke a little fun at the movie. And be ready to just enjoy the ride. I did, and I'm nearly as happy as I could be. I would have been happier if the movie were actually scary, but I can't complain.

If you are a fan of the games, check this movie out... just don't take it too seriously, okay? I mean, Pyramid Head is pierced through his nipples... how can anyone see that and not laugh? Also, this is the first 3D movie I have ever seen. My opinion? Gimmicky, and not my favorite thing ever, but it worked a few times in more atmospheric moments. I still would have preferred to not wear the goofy glasses.

(Okay, and now I have a special second part of the review. This is unheard of for me and this blog, but I'm going to introduce a guest reviewer: my girlfriend who bravely sat through the movie with me, expecting to absolutely hate this movie. She knows almost nothing about the series of games, although she has seen the first movie, the first half of the second game, and bits and pieces of Downpour. So, here are her thoughts, as a non-fan of Silent Hill or horror:)

 Okay, so I just saw Silent Hill: Revelation 3D. I will preface this by saying that horror movies put me entirely out of my element. I do not often watch them! I am not the expert Justin claims to be, and I don't know much about the Silent Hill series outside of what I've seen played of SH2, SH3, and SH Downpour.

Inexpertise laid bare, I had fun watching this! I was never really scared, and I am a self-proclaimed weenie about this stuff. It did have some decent jump-scares in predictable places, but jump-scares don't mean much as far as horror goes. There were tense moments, but nothing actually horrific. My heart never really jumped from fear. It was a thriller more than a horror- and, being called a thriller, I thought it was actually pretty entertaining!

The story did nothing for me. Going in nearly cold to this film and not having the Silent Hill nostalgia driving my interest, the plot came across as dry. Very dry! It made sense, especially when explained, but that didn't stop the protagonists' actions from being poorly motivated. I'm sorry, but Vincent, what did catching the Brethren's attention in the amusement park do for you? Why the hell did you kiss Heather? Heather, you're disregarding everything your father has ever told you and blatantly ignoring common sense when you dive headlong into the venture. 'Oh my dad has literally bent our lives around hiding from people chasing us and telling me to never go back to Silent Hill no matter what- so let's just make that little trip, shall we?' It seemed.... shallow. I mean, I get it, but it still came across as much more of a game-reliant plot and movie than one really meant to stand on its own, which was slightly disappointing for someone without that game experience to draw from.

I never really connected with Heather, either. It's hard to, especially when the first major speech she makes is one literally meant to drive everyone away. Effective as a troubled high-schooler, not so much as a movie protagonist I'm supposed to emphasize with. Or is that not a thing for horror movies, and the protagonist is meant really only as a scream-generator? I don't know. I might be off-base.

I liked Robbie the Rabbit. I now want a little plushie.

The monsters in the movie were... interesting. The new ones, anyway. I liked the mannequin-spider-conglomeration! It was creepy, new, and parasitic, while still keeping to the pieced-together-mannequin monster theme in other Silent Hill pieces (the double-legged monster in SH2, for instance). Probably one of my favorite monsters (except for when it opened its head, I would have preferred to not have CGI shoved in my face like that)- and the girl Heather rescued there was pointless. I knew the instant she got ripped out of that plastic thread-sac that she was a moot character, only meant as a forced kind of monster feed to generate screams. That came across as shallow to me, as well. Pointless.

The nurses are a Silent Hill staple- I think they're overused, but at least this time they were used well. They responded to the noise made, and only when noise was made! That part, with Vincent lying on the gurney and trying to silently escape, was a well-done tense moment, in my opinion.

Pyramid Head was... I'm getting tired of his cameos. His original purpose was to be James's torment in SH2, and he's been bastardized from that ever since. What is he doing turning a demonic carousel, chained in place with nipple-clamps? And couldn't he take them out any other way than by ripping them?

VINCENT IS NOT A BRITISH HORMONAL TEENAGE BOY. That seemed fan-service-y to me. I'm not a fan of that.

The rot effects were very cool. They reminded me of every single abandoned building Justin and I have ever explored- especially the Knight Hospital. That, overall, was probably what spooked me the most, the ties to my urban exploration; not the ties to the Silent Hill series, which shouldn't really be the case, I think.

Again, as horror, this movie seems to fall flat even to someone as inexperienced as me. It was thrilling, again, but never really that scary. The scares they tried to pull were predictable, at best. ...Also, it might not have helped that Justin and I were cracking jokes about Pyramid Head's nipple clamps the entire time.

The best part, for me, was actually at the very end. Silent Hill: Downpour is the game I know the most about, save for SH2, so seeing the bus and police escort pass the truck as they were leaving the town was a great stinger for me. I guess we'll see if they follow that up well!

Last note? I HATE 3-D EFFECTS.

Movie Appraisal: The Ward (2010)

This was John Carpenter's comeback film, the movie that might have been able to bring him out of the cellar of not so great movies he had been in through most of the Nineties and early 2000s. I have to say that I was expecting something really bad. I had heard from critics and movie fans alike that this was a bad movie, unfit for the eyes, terrible beyond comprehension, a movie with an odor so bad that it would make every other John Carpenter film bad by comparison.

And... I don't see it. The movie is by no means brilliant. It has a pretty standard premise and the twist is also pretty standard in these kinds of movies. I could compare it to Shutter Island, Identity, Session 9, and High Tension, although I think this movie is a lot better than those. Yeah, I just said that. Let that sink in. If you think I'm dumb you should just stop reading this review now. If you're intrigued then let me carry on. Shutter Island was a critical success, but I absolutely couldn't stand it; while this movie feels like a horror movie, and it acts like one too. Is it great? Does it live up to older John Carpenter films? No, not really. It's good, but I can't say it's better than my favorites of The Thing, Prince of Darkness, Into the Mouth of Madness, and others of the Eighties. That being said, it's still a pretty good horror film, full of twists and turns and some surprisingly good acting performances. Jared Harris and Amber Heard especially shine in their roles, but I have to give a nod to Dan Anderson who played Roy, the chief orderly. His performance was really the breakout one for me.

This is a pretty standard horror film though, and I can't beat around the bush about that at all. I mean, it doesn't do anything that another horror film couldn't, but does have a pretty good director behind it for whatever that's worth. The cinematography was fine, if a little brightly lit at times, and the horror was pretty decent, actually causing me to get into the movie quite a bit. Some parts of the movie were absolutely ridiculous, certainly ridiculous enough that I rolled my eyes a bit, but there was never a moment that I hated the movie or wanted to stop watching it, which is much more than I thought I'd say. I found it entertaining and with enough scares to win me over despite my own apprehensions. I can think of a ton of movies that are worse and a ton that are better, but mediocre is a much better movie than I thought I'd get so I'm happy in general. It is a pretty middling film, but it works and is competent. It never offended me or my intelligence, its pace was good, the acting was perfectly fine, and the scenery was fun to watch. I like how the story is built up, and although the twist is pretty apparent it's still kind of surprising when it happens, I suppose.

I liked this film, but I also tend to like movies like this. I liked Identity quite a bit, although Shutter Island and High Tension were not my thing at all, but these kinds of movies are fun to watch and guess at, and I found myself having fun throughout the movie and liking the little scares. I can't really talk too much about the story because it is just so standard and there are long stretched of time when nothing really happens beyond tension buildup. I like that, but I can imagine a lot of people won't at all. It's not a film for a person who's looking for horrific imagery and shocking awful horror. It's really a film for a person who likes a good psychological horror film and who likes looking for symbolism and such. Not that it does a great job at it, but again... it's pretty okay.

It is a pretty mediocre film though, and I think that's just what I'm going to keep saying about it. You'll just find me typing MEDIOCRE FILM MEDIOCRE FILM over and over a thousand times. I can't see myself watching it again. It's nowhere near good enough for me to care about another viewing. I enjoyed it once, and now I'm done with it. I'll probably forget about it pretty quickly, but I enjoyed it while watching it. Honestly though, this is a movie I could easily tell people to pass right by. It's okay, but not great, and it's not terrible enough to make fun of. It has some fairly dry bits to it as well as cinematography that doesn't quite sync up with the horror that the movie seems to be trying to go for. But I like it anyway, finding it more fun and enjoyable than not. I can't say I regret watching it. John Carpenter, one of my favorite directors, does a pretty good job coming back to helming a movie. My only hope is that he won't play it as safe for his next one.

I have to say that the soundtrack is absolutely banging. By the way. I mean, it's absolutely fantastic, easily the best part of the movie. It makes you feel much more into the movie and gets your blood pumping. Both are good things. I was expecting such a kicking score, but it was really cool.

The last thing I have to say is about the great way they established the mental hospital. I have been doing research on old mental hospitals and treatments for a while now, and they actually did a pretty good job at being fairly accurate. I was both surprised and impressed by that. The DID was a little less than stellar though simply because DID that strong actually rarely happens... hell, it's even heavily debated whether it even could happen. So, there's that in the reality department. But I still liked the film well enough, and if it sounds interesting, take the chance in watching it.

You might be surprised.

Hell, I was.

Movie Appraisal: A Tale of Two Sisters (장화, 홍련) (2003)

I like how there are times when the poster tells you just about everything you need to know about a movie. Well, this poster certainly does, and that's kind of fantastic.

A Tale of Two Sisters is a Korean psychological horror film (eventually remade into an American horror film called The Uninvited) which tells a modern version of an old folktale called "Janghwa Hongryeon jeon." Honestly though, this movie is a pretty loose adaptation of that story and knowing it won't actually spoil the ending to this movie.

Anyway, as a psychological horror film, I really have to judge this film on everything it offers. I thought it had some great elements in it. The acting was superb. I mean that. Watching the main two females act against one another is a joy to behold even if it is in a language I don't understand. You can feel the tension, the hatred, and the struggle between the two women. You can also tell that all is not right.

The mood of the film struggles between serious, somber, and incredibly realistic at times. You never really know what kind of story the movie is trying to tell, be it a ghost story, a psychological story, or a story of an evil stepmother. That makes it very difficult to interpret this film and even more difficult to look at it with a discerning eye. The movie does offer some pretty heavy psychological horror elements to it and does deserve the title, for whatever that's worth. It is a very good psychological horror movie and is often incredibly effective even if it is somewhat predictable at times.

The scares are not amazing, and I say that after watching it alone in the middle of the night as I usually do with these kinds of films. It had a few decent scares, but nothing that I really fell in love with and wanted to scream bloody murder about. It was a tense film more than anything else, one that feels as if something is very wrong, but you just can't place your finger on it.

I believe that this film has at least... oh, let's say three twists to it, and they vary in how well they're all pulled off. I easily called two of them fairly early on from the way that the film was shot and handled more than anything else. It seemed pretty obvious what was going on if you're paying any kind of attention. I also had no idea what the movie was about or what to expect going into it, so being able to find a predictability to the horror and the story was somewhat disappointing, but I do see a lot of these movies and there are only so many twists a psychological horror movie can pull.

The movie is pretty effective overall though and does happen to have a better story and much better acting than most other horror movies out there. The cinematography is quite well done too, often focusing on nearly silent scenes and characters, making that tension really fly off the charts at times. There are even a few very interesting one scene or even one shot scares that really add to the undeniable creepy elements of the movie. There's one scene that involves Eun-joo (played by Yeom Jeong-ah) checking under the kitchen sink only to find a girl behind her as she moves her head. She never sees this girl though since the camera and Eun-joo pan the other way, the girl is gone. It's a quick element and one that has very little to do with the plot, but it works very well in the movie.

The music, when it shows up, is also very good. It doesn't really fit with the horror movie setting at times, but works in its own twisted and special way. I really liked it and thought that both the music and the long periods of silence (without any musical score at all) really added to the aesthetic of the movie overall.

So, I've talked about a lot of great elements of A Tale of Two Sisters, but did I like it? Yeah. I enjoyed it certainly, but not really as a horror film. To me it wasn't scary. It was way too predictable with the scares easy to see long before they happened. There were some decent horrific scenes, but they fell a little flat for me even thought they were decent. Most of the tension comes from the lead actresses, and although they are often very good at what they do, they are simply not scary at all to me. Again, I've never been scared of skinny, decent-looking women, and I don't think I ever will be. All of that being said, the stepmother of the film is pretty decent at being the antagonist here... well, kind of...

I don't want to spoil anything, so I'm keeping pretty quiet on the plot, but I think the director did a great job at keeping everything both consistent and malleable. There are multiple interpretations to the movie and its ending, and because of that I have a hard time classifying this movie into a specific genre. One thing that I will admit is that I grew lost int he movie's almost labyrinthine ending, to the point where I was pretty sure I had no idea what was going on anymore. I still had a decent handle on it, but I did have to reassure myself as to what the hell was going on. I found it not only very confusing, but also a bit too much information all at once at the very end.

I think the movie is overall very good. The acting and directing are both very solid. The story is very interesting to say the least. The ending and the revelations will have you guessing and wishing for more. It isn't very scary though, but does work very well as a tense psychological or ghost story. In general it works pretty well, and when I stopped watching it I was pretty content with the time I spent watching it. I will say that I like this movie a bit more as a bit of a ghost story, and if I have a way to choose to interpret it, I would have to say that having be at least partially a ghost story works better for me than having it all be psychological... but that's just me. Others may disagree. That's cool too. Anyway, yeah, it's a really good movie, and I really hope to see more like it soon. 

Genre Discussion: Horror!

Recently a great deal of my mind has been occupied with thinking about horror- not any particular horror, but more of horror as an actually general idea. I've obviously been watching a ton of horror as well as playing many horror video games, not only for this blog, but for my own general amusement and excitement. As my blog might point out, I don't find much horror particularly scary, but I do find a good amount of it fairly compelling. I love great horror stories. Movies that try very hard to be scary and compelling at the same time can ofttimes be completely brilliant. I love horror that tries to focus on being smart as well as terrifying, trying to blend both into wonderful and thrilling stories or ideas. It's one of the reasons I like both psychological horror and sci-fi horror as genres. They try to scare through both tension and intelligence.

My favorites types of horror have to be those types. Psychological horror can be highly effective in its execution simply because of the emphasis on characters' perceptions. Dreamlike psychological horror can be absolutely terrifying to me because I tend to have dreams that are often disjointed and highly creepy. One of my favorite psychological horror movies is Jacob's Ladder- a film that can be described as both intelligent and gritty. Definitely made in that crazy and wonderful time in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when everything was as gritty as coarse sandpaper and incredibly heavy-hitting besides. I don't usually see it as a really terrifying movie, but I don't know if horror is always supposed to be absolutely terrifying all of the time.

Stephen King has spoken about the whole idea of a differentiation between the different types of horror categories. He pegged it as three different types: terror, horror, and revulsion. The difference between terror and horror may not be obvious, but compare the difference between a "terror" we don't see but know exists and a "horror" we can see while it consumes our senses.

I tend to avoid revulsion types of horror on this blog and in general. I sometimes will find the mood to rush at revulsion and revel in it, but often I find revulsion repulsive and uninteresting, an easy way to get the audience to squirm and puke up guts, but neither refined nor thought-provoking. The epitome of revulsion for me has always been the novel Haunted by Chuck Palahniuk. It was the novel that gave me reasons to squirm at the ideas of pools. Ugh. Revulsion is the basest and simplest of emotional connections to fictional media. Franchises like the Saw or Hostel series and any given gross blood-ridden exploitation film represents this aspect in movies. These revulsion films tend to be incredibly popular, especially today, driving the lowest common denominator of audiences into theatres to watch some absolutely wonderful gore and blood all over the screen. I really tend to look down at these films seeing them as easy to create, easy to make easy to act in, and safe to produce or direct. There are very few real risks involved in those movies and they definitely, these days, are only produced to sell tickets. Blargh! Slasher films, gore films, and even freakout films like the Paranormal Activity films tend to really follow this trend. It's incredibly disappointing and honestly pretty upsetting.

Revulsion may not garner the same support in other media that it does in film though. While slasher films toe the line between horror and revulsion, and gross-out films know exactly what they're going for, books and video games rarely jump into this category of horror. Reading Johnny the Homicidal Maniac recently I could see, in that comic by Jhonen Vasquez, a mixture of all three categories with a definite focus on the revulsion aspect at times, but with an intelligence and philosophy behind it that really drove it into an intelligent revulsion, something I could certainly find myself really liking. In terms of video games, Silent Hill and Dead Space as series tend to have large amounts of body horror within them, trying to both repulse and sicken the player. These are met with all types of success, of course, but often give off a response of terror in their repulsiveness. Most enemies in both games to me look like pieces of meat at this point basically... and I don't find that in the least bit intimidating, but I can see how some people can get freaked out by those monsters.

As for horror and terror, these are certainly the categories I tend focus on in my reviews. Horror could be represented by any number of things... name a space horror movie for example or any given sci-fi horror movie too. Apollo 18 is right there, being fun with tiny jump scares and some small amounts of tension but having little lasting effect on the viewer. And that's the main different here. I find horror to not be a lasting category- one that sticks with you through the years haunting you as you walk down the street at night or during a sunny and smiling day. Horror doesn't make you drop your smile suddenly... wondering if you were imagining Slender Man in the corner of your vision... or a Minotaur somewhere in the bushes just waiting... always waiting... No, horror is something far removed, something that has both definition and a far-off effect. It does not effect you and never will. That doesn't take away its scariness during a movie or video game or novel, but it certainly does limit its effectiveness after the fact. Monsters like Frankenstein's monster or any given older vampire... mummies, scary ghosts and ghouls, swamp things, and weird spider creatures all tend to drive what horror is all about. I mean, hell, even older slasher villains like Freddy or Jason or Michael Myers tend to follow a horror category... at least in their earliest incarnations. Horror tends to focus on being scary in the moment, but I've found that these movies tend to have either happier or absolutely ridiculous endings. The stories don't really stick in your mind and memory as terrifying, but rather as interesting or silly or fun. How many people even find the monsters or weird slasher men scary anymore? I look at Frankenstein's monster and just go: "That was once scary? I don't even believe that."

My favorite of the categories has always been terror, the most defined and elevated form of horror according to Stephen King's list in his nonfiction book Danse Macabre. I find that the media that scares me the most are the ones that I think about often. A creepy dark-haired boy staring out from a window in Noroi, the entirety of the 1981 movie Possession, but especially how the wife acts throughout the movie... I think about what truly scares me, what I find truly terrifying... the psychological torment present in Sauna or 1408, the journey through darkness that James Sunderland has to pass through in Silent Hill 2 as he loses his grip on reality, and Johnny Truant's journey of self-discovery and personal and impersonal darkness in House of Leaves. Hell, even the horse jumping off of the ship in The Ring or the vampire problem in 'Salem's Lot counts. Terror is the highest level of horror and easily the most subjective. It often relies on more telling and less showing- basically the "Nothing is Scarier" principle as defined by TVTropes. I keep seeing that this terror is very popular in very small circles. It is gaining in popularity recently, but also very slowly. I'll get into this a little further down.

Mostly these categories are defined emotional responses to stimuli. And honestly I find that one can easily add more categories as well. I mean do any of these really deal with literal and actual panic? Think back on some of the crazes from the early part of last century with the War of the Worlds radio broadcast... or even more recently at the more prominent and successful found footage films like The Blair Witch Project or Paranormal Activity. There is an element of an association with panic and hysteria from the audience, almost as if they too are caught up in the emotions of the piece just as the characters on screen are. It's not as simple as just watching the horrific proceeding, but becoming a part of something you were originally not part of... self-insertion into the proceedings, something that does not really happen with any other genre. Think about even something like a haunted house (like the ones that exist close to Halloween) and all the teenage girls who go in and scream their heads off. There's an element of belief to that panic. Or do you not believe me?

Well, whether you do believe me or not I have a story to prove my point. A personal story from my personal store of personal stories. I am not simply a weird computer moth creature staring at the screen and typing with my weird wing-fingers. I also like scaring people at night. I was a part of a haunted corn maze group a few years ago. I dressed like a colonial zombie and helped to scare some people. I looked absolutely ridiculous... the Fabio or corn maze zombies with both longer hair and a too large shirt basically exposing me to the elements. Most people inside of that corn maze just found it fun and a good time all around looking at ridiculous monsters while trying to figure out and incredibly easy corn maze, but little children and young women would get absolutely terrified, and I always wondered about it. Children don't know any better. They are young and believe in everything from vampires in their closets to angry mothmen under their beds, but why do young women face the same fears between reality and fiction? Full disclosure: there was also one high school guy who may have been terrified as well, but I couldn't tell if he were serious or not. No one could because nobody expected a decently aged male teenager to be afraid of a corn maze while he was with his friends. My point here isn't some sexist rant or anything either, because... no, I'm not into that... but rather to point out that some people can get so into a fake scene of fear that they can honestly start going hysterical and threatening to urinate their trousers out of pure and unbridled fear from a man who is the Fabio of colonial zombies. I never knew that people would cry from fear by going into a fake scary corn maze with students who had on hastily put together costumes and make-up... but there was that and a lot of it. And you have to wonder about the nature of fear in that circumstance. You have to wonder about what's going through people's head. You have to wonder what causes people to become afraid over things like that.

I live in New England, not too far from Salem, Massachusetts. A few years ago I went into a gimmicky haunted house there. I was probably in my mid-teens at the time.I went in with my younger cousin and we had a good time looking at all the ridiculous costumes. Everybody had a good time and the costumed beings were trying their best to be scary and make people scream. Jump scares can often work for cheap screams, but not for panic... but there was this group of three teenage girls about my age at the time, and the ENTIRE TIME in that haunted house they were screaming their heads off absolutely terrified at costumed beings somewhat reaching out for them sometimes and moaning every once in a while. Yes, there was darkness and monsters... but none of it was real. I didn't actually have to fear for my life. Hell, none of them were even going to touch me. I found most of it funny... enjoyable certainly, but also seriously very amusing. I wonder how a person can seriously find themselves so into a situation they know to be fake. It's something I will never understand.

Of course horror can happen on so many levels from media to real life to inside your own head. I mean, the reason that the Slender Man is so popular today is because of his ability to show up anywhere at anytime and maybe you don't even remember it with the videos featuring him really blurring that line between fantasy and reality. How do you know if you've ever seen Slendy? How do you know if you haven't watched all of those videos of yourself you've taped, combing through each one to find the one with some film scratches and a man in a nicely tailored suit with impossible proportions? YouTube has gone a long way to make those lines incredibly blurry, with regular guys like MarbleHornets really going a long way in helping to create an online mythology. Creepypasta as well does a similar thing with all of the lost footage of crazy TV shows and such. I've always found the Candle Cove stuff really dark and satisfying for its creepy edge. But even look at something as silly as Ben Drowned or the weird Pokemon videos of the weird things that could possibly happen in the world of video games. They can be terrifying. You wonder if something like that could happen to you. I've been following most of these things for years, but it's only recently that many of these scary YouTube things have been gaining an audience. It's still niche and probably will never be mainstream or find any mainstream success, but it's incredibly satisfying to see that people are really finding some of these modern horror mythologies compelling. Some might argue against the value of a creature lie Slender Man, but how many of our own monsters in popular culture are created from movies or books? None of them are actually real... even if we truly want them to be.

What all of this comes down to is that I enjoy my horror like some people enjoy fine wine. I look at it in both a critical and receptive manner. I love finding myself terrified by creepy stuff- be they stories, movies, YouTube videos, or situations. One of the main reasons this blog exists is for me to showcase different horror STUFF and point them out- yes, reviewing them and giving my impressions, but also really broadcasting forgotten or rare gems that should be watched/played/looked at and duds that should be heartily avoided by everybody all the time. I always look at it like this: without this blog I would have never watched two horror movies: Sauna: Wash Your Sins and The Reaping. While The Reaping was a pile of donkey dung and probably one of the biggest wastes of movie time I have ever seen, Sauna was effective and wonderful, being both an absolutely brilliant and terrifying movie in a genre (psychological horror) that I absolutely love. I simply want to share what I love and hate with all of you reading this blog, from the hardcore horror fans to any random dude or gal just surfing and stumbling onto some of my posts. I don't just rely on horror reviews as you might see, but those reviews are the meat and potatoes of what I do on here and they are frankly what I enjoy the most about the whole blogging thing. I can't get enough of looking at some horror and sharing my views in writing to anybody who is willing to read what I put down.

Now, is horror effective and wonderful and just as artistic and important as any other genre? Of course! Even without critical acclaim, horror remains one of the greatest and most lasting genres that exists. The genre usually does not include the super-serious OSCAR MOVIES but who cares about those pieces of crud? I mean, I can still remember Black Swan winning at those MOVIE OSCARS and I found it literally detestable that that movie should win anything but absolutely worst big budget psychological movie ever. I mean, seriously? Anybody who actually likes that movie really should get their cranium checked for leaks because that movie was awful, legitimately and seriously awful. It did not work on any level and attempted to mainstream what was and is essentially niche. It made a genre that when it is good is almost perfect into a big dumb spectacle movie about Natalie Portman needing to get boned for some reason and then having weird issues about said hypothetical boning. And although there were a few decent moments, most of it was just so incredibly shallow, focusing so much more on Natalie Portman's heaving bosom and her fake masturbation than it did on any real substantial SUBSTANCE. And if that's what mainstream horror or thriller or WHATEVER is nowadays then I want absolutely nothing to do with that at all. I'll stick with my obscure and amazing little movies that nobody has ever heard of and that I love completely.

Horror should mostly exist for those looking to be frightened. Horror is there to scare first and foremost. Without fear what is horror except a story? No- true horror... whether it involves terror, horror, or revulsion... or anxiety, panic, despair, or a true unbridled fear... is something that tries to make you shudder in the depths of the night when you least expect it to do so. It takes your mind and throws it to the ground, stomping on your safety and sending you reeling under the covers. True horror, the best horror, only exists to terrify and to be as excellent at that as is possible in the story or idea. And while I complain about movies and games and all other types of horror at times, I absolutely love this genre more than anything else I can seriously think of. And that's why I find it so confusing when horror fans start bashing each other over the heads over which series are the best rather than just enjoying what horror is. I could care less about what a franchise gives me. Silent Hill is full of some wonderful and absolutely terrifying games. Why do I care about canon in a game that essentially focuses on the minds of individuals? So if the franchise changes style with every new game, why should I ever worry? I don't want every game to be Silent Hill 2. I want new and different things every time. Don't give me Pyramid Head in every game. Instead focus on some new and brilliant ways to scare the crud out of me. I could go on a fan rant for hours... so I won't, but I think that every single person who honestly thinks that Silent Hill  is terrible and it's all about CANON CANON CANON CANON CANONCANONCANONCANONCANONCANON should really start thinking about why they fell in love with the series in the first place. It's not about canon. It's about fear. It's about interesting sets, interesting and terrifying creatures, wonderfully macabre environments, and an exploration of a human mind. The games are all unique and wonderful in their own ways... even the one that suffers from trying to be like the movie. And I just don't see why people have to hate on something like Book of Memories when they have no idea what the hell the game even is yet.

And maybe that is a lesson to me as well: to simply enjoy without worry, without ranting... without... yeah, that's not going to happen, is it? I'm chill with Silent Hill... pretty sure I'm anti-chill with a ton of other things. I love horror. Absolutely adore everything about it. I love the sounds, the looks, the tropes, and the worlds of horror. I've been wanting to discuss horror for a very long time, touching upon what I love and what is brilliant about the genre. I do have 31 days of horror reviews coming up in October, so I guess I really do have a crazy focus on horror. Anyway, I'll probably put out a post about October Night III at the end of September, but expect on October 1 that there will be another insane month of horror reviews. And I'll probably pass from exhaustion... but that's okay! I didn't need to survive this October anyway!