Paranormal Activity (2009)

Has the best horror film of the decade been discovered? Audiences and critics alike have heaped praise on Paranormal Activity as being one of the scariest movies they’ve ever seen. Steven Spielberg even claims that while watching the film in his home, the door to his room inexplicably locked from the inside, and he had to call a locksmith to set himself free. The film’s producers set up a viral campaign asking for one million signatures if people wanted the film to get a wide release. In less than a week, the million signature mark was achieved. But is this a case of bandwagon hype, or has something special truly been found in Paranormal Activity?

Paranormal Activity is a lower than low budget film that was conceived by video game designer Oren Peli. The story follows couple Micah and Katie, who have been experiencing some strange occurrences in their new home. Shot from the point of view of the camera that Micah bought to document the disturbances, we are placed directly in the house that is supposedly being haunted by a demon that has followed Katie since she was eight years old. After consulting a psychic who claims to be unable to help them, the couple must do what they can to flush the demon out, or at least just survive.

Expecting a let-down after all the hype, I was pleasantly surprised by Paranormal Activity. Though the all out “scares” were hard to come by, Peli does a great job of creeping out the audience using clichés such as “stuff moving by itself” and “loud noises coming from the other room”. He even finds a way to make the worn out handi-cam gimmick seem new again, just by placing the camera on a tri-pod once in a while. Despite a rather dull first 20 minutes, once the paranormal activity in question starts, it is very hard to look away. Rookie actors Katie Featherston and Micah Sloat (I wonder where their characters got their names from) do a well enough job to keep the eerie tone of the film alive. Their dedication to the roles was definitely essential to keeping Paranormal Activity watchable.

However, the claims of Paranormal Activity being something special are a bit of an over-statement. Though it was an effectively creepy film, I would not say it was unnerving enough to keep me up at night. Shortly after leaving the theater, the effects of the film wear off and you can go about your day undisturbed.

Overall, Paranormal Activity is good enough for an unsettling movie-going experience, and is certainly much better than most of the so-called “horror” films being released today. You also may be interested in knowing that there is an alternate ending to the film online, which is said to be Peli’s original ending before the studio made him change it. My rating (7/10)

Se7en (1995)

Lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, envy, wrath, and pride. These are the seven deadly sins as written by Pope Gregory the Great in the 6th century, updating the work of Evagrius Ponticus in the 4th century. These cardinal vices are said to be the seven most objectionable sins a man can commit. However, for the 15 centuries this list has been around, mankind cannot seem to abide by the rules. Millions and millions of people everyday, including myself, indulge in these sins, and feel no immediate consequences (what awaits us in the afterlife, we can never be sure). Perhaps we should look upon this as a blessing, for if everyone in the world that committed one of these sins was chastised for them at once, there would not be much of a population left today. For this, we should thank our lucky stars that we do not live in the world of Detective David Mills (Brad Pitt). Mills has just transferred to a dark, ominous, unnamed city that oozes all things evil. For his first case Mills is paired up with Detective William Somerset, the very man he is replacing, to investigate the strange murder of a morbidly obese man found with his hands and feet bound and his face down in a plate of spaghetti. When another seemingly unrelated murder is discovered, the detectives start to suspect that they are dealing with a serial killer who chooses his victims based on the seven deadly sins. With five more murders to expect, Somerset and Mills have to piece the puzzle together before they, or someone they love, gets hurt. Although the story is unique, Se7en is executed ineffectively and leaves the viewer wanting more (not in the good way).

A friend of mine once described Se7en as "if Fight Club had a baby with Saw, you would get Se7en". For the most part, this is a fairly accurate description, but don't be fooled. Mashing two really good movies together does not always create a great movie. In this case, it churns out a a very average movie that aspires to be something unforgettable. Director David Fincher, famous for Fight Club and recent Best Picture nominee The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (I think he has a thing for Brad Pitt), adds his noticeable touch behind the camera, but without the strength you'd expect. Given the film's unpleasant subject matter, it would make sense for the setting to be a generic rainy city that shows no light, or no signs of hope for its inhabitants. But there is a difference between dark and pitch black, which Fincher sometimes forgets throughout the film. If he wanted to give Se7en the feeling of a film noir, he should have just gone ahead and done the entire movie in black and white. Fincher was not a bust at the position of director, but simply made some mistakes that hindered Se7en's progress. Some scenes were shot superbly, one in particular when the SWAT team and Mills and Somerset discover the victim for Sloth. This scene was one of the few that I felt truly captured the ugliness, grittiness, and severity of this created world.

Se7en may not have succeeded as a whole, but there was one moment in the film where everybody involved surpassed brilliance. The people in particular are director David Fincher, screenplay author Andrew Kevin Walker, and the casting directors of the film. I am referring to the reveal of the serial killer, aptly named John Doe. There is one scene in Walker's terrific screenplay (one of the few things of this film that was terrific) where Somerset and Mills sit at a bar discussing the situation at hand. Somerset turns to Mills and says, "If we catch John Doe and he turns out to be the devil, I mean if he's Satan himself, that might live up to our expectations. But he's not the devil...he's just a man". At that point the viewer thinks this is just a message Somerset is relaying to Mills. Time passes in the film, and we reach the point when Joe Doe presents himself. Fincher sets the camera on Doe's legs and shows nothing more. The anticipation grows because you cannot wait to see who they got to play this maniacal freak. Did they get a tall, lurching actor with a booming voice and a built upper body? Is it an unknown actor done up with makeup and prosthetics to seem deformed? No, it was just...well actually, I'd prefer not to say. It ruins the surprise. But when the camera finally moves up and shows John Doe's face and you discover that it is _____ ______, you understand exactly what Somerset was talking about. This was nothing more than a plain man, one that you would see riding the subway or walking his dog. It just goes to show you that appearances can be deceiving.

Staying with the idea that appearances can be deceiving, the most disappointing aspect of Se7en was the below average acting from a stellar cast. Seeing the names Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman on the poster can trick a viewer into thinking they are watching a film with terrific acting, but alas, it is only a trick. Pitt in particular does little to really invent his character Detective David Mills. More or less, he seemed to simply recite the lines as he read them off the script. At the end of the film, when Mills is faced with a particularly difficult decision, Pitt's acting slips into near comedy as he just contorts his face trying to look emotional. He might as well have been saying, "Oh wow look at how emotional I am being right now. Don't I just look so conflicted?" No, he just looked foolish. Morgan Freeman does a better job with Detective Somerset, but still doesn't put his best foot forward. With Freeman, most of his acting in Se7en came from his countenance. Unlike Pitt, whose face is too young and smooth, Freeman exudes the feeling of a man who has spent way too much time in this unforgiving city. He is tired of the senseless crimes he is forced to investigate, and he wants out. Aside from his face, though, Freeman is a standard addition. The one performance in this film that was complete was that of the man who I'd prefer to keep unnamed, so like his character, I'll simply call him John Doe. Doe's interactions with Pitt and Somerset are truly unsettling. His calm, even voice matched with the simple face will confuse you, because you won't believe that such horrible crimes were being committed by this man. Doe's screen time is hardly enough, and I would have liked to have seen more of him.

Despite all the negatives of Se7en, I would say there are just enough positives to balance them out. But a fair warning to all of you. There are lots of disturbing, realistic images in this film that you may not enjoy. Also, if you are not a fan of depressing endings, you definitely will not enjoy this film. At 127 minutes, Se7en does lag a bit, but like I said, there are just enough positives to recommend this film. My rating (6/10)

The Machinist (2004)

Insomnia is a devious little parasite. It can be caused by any number of things, such as an emotional trauma, withdrawal from drugs, or even just jet lag. Serious sufferers can go weeks without sleep, causing major damage to the person's ability to function. The accepted cure for insomnia is not any type of medicine, but rather a type of therapy. First you must pinpoint what exactly is causing someones insomnia, and then work to relieve that issue. Trevor Reznik (Christian Bale) is having some problems with insomnia. He has gone over a year without sleep and there does not seem to be a reason why. His lack of rest has left him an emaciated shell of a man who's more bones than body. Reznik spends his sleepless nights either with his call girl girlfriend Stevie (Jennifer Jason Leigh) or at an airport diner talking with waitress Marie (Aitana Sanchez-Gijon). During the day he works at a factory operating heavy machinery, an activity dangerous in itself, made even more so by his drowsy state. When new worker Ivan (John Sharian) distracts Reznik while he is helping a friend, a terrible accident occurs that Trevor feels he is being blamed for. His paranoia continues to feed on the accusations from his co-workers that Ivan does not exist. As Reznik's self destructive search for the truth encompasses his life, he starts to learn more than he bargained for. Although not particularly original, The Machinist is a unique thriller deserving multiple viewings.

Christian Bale is without a doubt one of the best actors of his generation. He has consistently taken on various challenging roles and more often than not he is successful. In movies like American Psycho, Batman Begins, The Prestige, Rescue Dawn, 3:10 To Yuma, and this summer's Oscar snub The Dark Knight, Bale time and again takes his roles to the next level and beyond creating unforgettable performances. But what strikes me the most about him is his absolute dedication to his roles. In American Psycho, Bale was in peak physical condition, so much so that when he had to film a shower scene, every woman working on the movie dropped by to watch him. For his role in The Machinist, Bale dropped to a sickly 120 pounds, grossly underweight for his 6 foot frame. That wasn't enough for Bale, who claims to have wanted to drop to 100 pounds, but the filmmakers wouldn't allow him to for health reasons. It got to the point where filming running scenes was painful for him, because he had no leg muscles left. Just one year after The Machinist, Bale starred in Batman Begins, a role that required him to be, once again, in top physical form. Bale put back all his muscle and then some, causing the filmmakers to force him to lose some weight again because he was getting too big. But along with his dedication, Bale's acting ability in The Machinist is impressive. As his character turns from paranoia to hysteria, Bale gives a pitch perfect performance that will ensnare you in his world.

It is very easy to become involved in The Machinist. Director Brad Anderson does a masterful job of giving this film not only just a distinct look, but a feel. The primarily grey and dull atmosphere hypnotizes the audience, drawing them in to the unusual world. It is as though we are looking through the eyes of this poor sleep depraved man and directly at the crumbling world around him. Anderson's expert handle on the pace of the film allowed no room for low points, and only a continuous increase in suspense as every scene passed. The combination of Anderson and Bale brings The Machinist to a status above ordinary, which helps the fact that the script was not exactly fresh. Although not a direct rip-off of any particular film, The Machinist shares numerous elements with numerous films. The twist ending is especially affected by the stale writing because it has been seen countless times. Screenwriter Scott Kosar had only written one film before, and it was the god awful remake The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. After The Machinist, Kosar penned another remake of The Amityville Horror. When one spends much of his efforts copying and pasting the work of others, it obviously seems to get in the way of their original writings. The story is not totally killed by these cliches, but it is definitely damaged.

The Machinist is an above average thrill ride that is guaranteed to entertain. There is no chance to get bored thanks to the stunning direction and solid performances from the entire cast. It's only downfall being it's predictable ending and altogether average screenplay, The Machinist is not an achievement to be missed. My rating (7.5/10)

Below are pictures that show Christian Bale's ridiculous weight transformations for his roles.

Left: The Machinist

Right: American Psycho

Saw V (2008) -- Not an Official Review

If you have read any of my previous reviews, you probably know I can't stand modern horror films. However, my one guilty pleasure when it comes to modern horror is the Saw franchise. I acknowledge the fact that Saws 2-5 are just blood filled nonsense...but I can't get enough of it. Because of this bias, I cannot give Saw V an official review or even a number rating. I just want to say that Saw V is much better than any of the others sequels in the franchise, and David Hackl did a very good job directing. The movie focused more on the killer's point of view and wasn't really shrouded in mystery. The previous sequels were all deep mysteries and ultimately the endings were unsatisfying. Saw V was somewhat different, and I found it to be thoroughly enjoyable.

Quarantine (2008)

Being locked in an apartment building is nothing to get shaken up about. Fill that building with virus infected tenants that want to bite your face off, then you've got a problem. Just ask Angela Vidal (Jennifer Carpenter), a news reporter who is simply trying to find a good story with the Los Angeles fire department. Angela gets her wish when an emergency is called in, forcing every firefighter in the precinct to spring into action. With her cameraman Scott (Steve Harris), Angela joins firefighter Jake (Jay Hernandez) as he sweeps through the building searching for the problem. But when one of their men is fatally bitten by one of the tenants, the group find themselves in a situation that won't play out in their favor. When they try to escape the building, they find the government has sealed them in, trapping them with whatever is causing the strange behavior in the tenants. I watched Quarantine following a strong recommendation from a friend. I now know I should never do that again. Quarantine is as unoriginal, cliche, predictable, and cheap as any other horror movie destroying a cinema near you.

Director John Erick Dowdle is the man to blame for Quarantine. Acting as writer and director, all of the atrocities and incongruities in the film are strictly on his shoulders. In my writing I try to avoid spoilers as much as possible, but for Quarantine, I don't care. What tried to be an innovative horror film was actually a sub par copy of every horror movie you have ever seen. First, the camera. The use of a handicam to shoot a movie has become increasingly popular after its success in Cloverfield. The problem with gimmicks like that though is they wear out their welcome extremely quickly. The camera in Cloverfield was shaky but even at its worst you can still have a general idea of what was happening. However, Quarantine thought it would be a good idea to have the cameraman never stop shaking the camera, perhaps to make it more "realistic". But with realism like that, faces and figures ended up blurring together to create nothing more than masses of differing colors. Second, the creatures. With the splendor of zombie films that are released year after year, it is easy to become exhausted by the genre. Some films recreate these villains, like 28 Days Later. But one thing that all these films hold in common, with the exception of 28 Days Later, is they never reveal why the events you are watching are happening. Usually if a film tries to give an explanation as to why people are suddenly hungry for flesh, they have to try really hard to make it convincing. Quarantine is an example of a film that tried to explain, but didn't do a good enough job. The genius explanation thought up by Dowdle was that a young girl's dog contracted some form of Super Rabies that got out to the rest of the building. Super Rabies. No explanation as to how it became Super. It just is. This leads into the third error of the film: continuity. The reason this Super Rabies is so devastating is because it is exactly like rabies, only people begin to feel the symptoms in a matter of minutes. Yet the little girl who owned the dog, who was shown as sick at the beginning of the film, took over 60 minutes to turn. Not only that, she happened to turn at the exact moment people started thinking, "Maybe the little girl is infected too". So to sound it off, we have bad camera work, bad script writing, and lack of continuity. Sounds like every zombie ever made.

I would love nothing more than to critique the acting in Quarantine. However I feel this may be a futile attempt, because most of the time I couldn't even tell which character was talking due to the awful camera work. All I can say is that the captives were good at screaming and the zombies were good at growling.

When marketing a film, you should do your best to give away as much of the plot as possible to intrigue people, but not give enough away to ruin the entire movie. When it comes to Quarantine, there isn't much of a plot to talk about. It is essentially just people locked in a house with flesh eating monsters. So the only thing this movie could possibly have going for it is hope. You should want people to hope these main characters get out alive (or die, depending on what kind of a person you are). An audience should be stuck to the screen waiting for the characters next move which could at any moment, be their last. Putting aside the fact that I felt no attachment to the characters because I was so put off by the terrible directing and writing, I still didn't feel that hope, because I already knew the ending of the film. No I did not research the ending or ask my friend how it concluded; it was the marketers fault. The fate of the main character is given away in every trailer, commercial, and even the poster. That scene of the woman being dragged away through a night vision lens is literally the last occurrence in the film before the credits roll. The filmmakers and marketing team completely took away the mystery because you knew ahead of time that rooting for them to live was pointless. I sat for 90 minutes watching a bad movie just so I can see what has already been shown in every commercial.

I'm sure many of you are saying "Well Nicholas, it is after all just a horror film. Just let us know whether it was scary or not, because all of these notes on the filmmaking are unnecessary". You are right, perhaps I am being a little harsh and judgemental. I should just worry about whether it was scary or not. Well you know what? It wasn't. Quarantine is nothing more than a pop up and scare you horror film. You could swap this film with any other of the same genre and not be able to tell the difference. If you enjoy cheap scares and terrible movies, I recommend Quarantine. If you want to watch a horror movie that is actually good, steer clear. My rating (2/10)

Dead Silence (2007)

If there is one thing in the world that scares the bejeezus out of me it is dolls. Specifically dolls that talk and blink and all that stuff. To me that is one of the most frightening things imaginable. So when I heard that the creators of Saw were making a film about a homicidal ventriloquist puppet, naturally I had to see it. The result was Dead Silence, a movie low on good acting but high on good old fashioned scares. Dead Silence is essentially a ghost story revolving around newlywed Jamie Ashen (Ryan Kwanten). Jamie is still settling in to his home with his new wife Lisa (Laura Regan) when a mysterious unmarked package is delivered to their home. Like any smart couple, the two open it without question. Inside is a ventriloquist dummy, which for some reason does not freak out either of them. That tune soon changes when Jamie discovers his wife's dead body posed on their bed, with her tongue ripped out. Detective Jim Lipton (Donnie Walhberg) is assigned to the murder to gather evidence against Jamie, who is the prime suspect. But Jamie knows that there is something strange going on, so he sets off to his home town of Raven's Fair, a dreary and dingy looking town plagued by pale backgrounds and eerie wind noises. With the help of funeral home owner Henry Walker (Michael Fairman), Jamie begins to unravel the mystery behind Mary Shaw, a ventriloquist that was murdered because she was suspected of kidnapping a boy. Ever since then, Raven's Fair has been cursed with death, people being found without their tongues. With nothing more than a hunch, Jamie must find a way to make the screaming stop, once and for all. Dead Silence is a B-grade ball of cheese that happens to go great with a box of popcorn and a Big Gulp.

I frequently complain that modern horror films have forgotten what real scares are supposed to be about. (See my Halloween review). I am a big fan of being genuinely frightened or at least surprised by a horror film, rather than just grossed out. Whether people like to admit it or not, the first Saw film was not an all-out torture porn. It was primarily a mystery with an original plot and an amazing twist ending. Dead Silence is by no means original nor is the ending as good as Saw's, but it's mystery was good enough to keep me on the edge of my seat. It was also able to take old cliches such as billowing curtains and "the town where businesses are all closed and the people are all pale and hide in the their homes" and make them poignant again. Its special effects were second rate, keeping the film feeling like a small budget horror flick. It never became too extravagant and never did it glorify blood and gore. With a decently small body count, blood and gore take a back seat to suspense and mystery in Dead Silence. Not to give the film too much credit, Dead Silence is after all a mediocre attempt at terrifying film making. The whole idea that right before a victim is claimed, the surrounding noise ceases is a little ridiculous, considering in the film the only thing that would happen was you would hear the background music stop. But the characters in the movie wouldn't hear that, so the title of the movie wouldn't make sense to them. The only thing that makes this film better than a Hostel, Texas Chainsaw Massacre (the recent ones), or The Hills Have Eyes is the idea that it doesn't splatter blood on the camera at every turn. Unlike the makers of those films, James Wan actually tried to make Dead Silence a suspenseful film rather than a bloodbath. For that, I give him credit.

The idea for Dead Silence came from the minds of James Wan and Leigh Whannel who, like I've mentioned, brought us Saw. You can see in the writing of this duo that they really know how to scare people. They bring their own individuality to what they write, trying to outdo themselves with every page. They will not bring about an award nominations with their stories, but in a world of awful horror films the fact that they provide a slight sense of originality makes them elite. Wan's directorial style is also a plus in all of his films. Much like his past work, Wan delivers a genuine nail biter of a film because of his wonderful ability to pace. He doesn't allow films to go limp for very long, a characteristic I wish every filmmaker had. Dead Silence is not his best work, but is an above average film.

One thing that I wish could have been better in Dead Silence was its cast. Australian actor Ryan Kwanten, who can now be seen sporting a terrible southern accent in HBO's god awful series True Blood, plays the haunted lead character Jamie Ashen. In one's quest for truth in the mystery that surrounds their wife's murder, one would probably convey a plethora of emotions. But not Kwanten. He feels that in this situation, the most reasonable response is to look as calm and unenthused as possible. In a B-grade horror film you don't expect a terrific lead performance, but you at least hope for something. At times Kwanten does a decent job of capturing the moment, but more often than not he is a dud as the lead actor. The rest of the film is also littered with melodramatic performances from the supporting cast. Michael Fairman as the funeral home owner was a total bust. His "scared" face was just hilarious, and I basically laughed at everything he said. The one bright spot in the cast was new kid on the block Donnie Walhberg. As the skeptical Detective Lipton, Walhberg provided necessary comic relief to Dead Silence. He is not their for big laughs, but his cynical disposition makes the air lighter in the film, allowing the viewer to have a good time watching it.

The golden age of horror has been passed for a long time and I have learned to accept this. Never again will there be films like The Shining, Psycho, or the original Halloween. I must admit that it is not the absolute fault of filmmakers, because when you think about it, what hasn't been done yet? Then I also think that it is their job to think of new ideas, and I stop feeling sorry for them. The reason I am a fan of James Wan and Leigh Whannel is because they are innovators in their field. Although I am not particularly happy about this, they did pave the way for a lot of modern horror films with the success of their Saw franchise. They showed it was possible to make good and original horror films that were a hit at the box office. Granted, spawning 4 sequels isn't original, but if it hadn't been for those sequels, Saw could've been considered an innovative film. It is also a problem that although they showed you can still make good and original horror films, nobody else has been able to replicate that idea. So whether you love or hate the Saw franchise, you must give credit where credit is due. With the creation of Dead Silence, Wan and Whannel once again prove they are a horror duo for the ages. My Rating (6.5/10)

Teeth (2007)

Warning: The following post contains numerous references to the male and female anatomy. If you haven't heard about the birds and the bees yet, I suggest clicking on another review.

Are you a parent of a teenage son? Do you live in worry that he will come home one day with the news that he has gotten a girl pregnant after an irresponsible night? Do you wish there was a way to somehow keep your son from making this stupid mistake? Well I have good news for you. A movie has been released that serves as the most potent anti-sex film since the dawn of time. I am talking about Teeth, a film that for some reason won an award at the Sundance Film Festival, and just so happens to have ended up on my friend's television screen when I went to his house. If you have a friend or if you are a person who keeps track of recent releases of independent films, you may have heard of this film as "the one with the girl who's got teeth in her danger zone". Well yes, that is essentially what the film is about. Teeth is the gag inducing tale of Dawn O'Keefe (Jess Weixler), a teenage girl who strongly advocates abstinence before marriage. After becoming the object of attraction for fellow abstainer Toby (Hale Appleman), Dawn discovers that she isn't like normal girls. When Toby attempts to take advantage of her (some nice guy he turned out to be right?), the event is short lived as his penis soon becomes a thing of the past. How could this have happened? You guessed it. Teeth in the va-j-j. Horrified by herself (as she should be), Dawn researches her unusual condition and discovers she has Vagina Dentata, a mythical affliction that seems to have been brought to reality through her body. Although this could possibly make for an effective scary story around a campfire, turning this plot into a feature film was a huge mistake. Then again, voluntarily watching it was a huge mistake on my part.

I saw Teeth a while ago, but am only just writing about it because I tried so desperately to remove it from my memory. I came to the decision that instead of keeping it locked away, I should share with the world the atrocities of this film, so that they could avoid the mistake that I was so foolish to make. I'm sure the makers of Teeth didn't plan on making a film that's sole purpose was to scare the sex drive out of teenage boys, but ultimately that's what they got. Being a teenage boy myself, it took me a day and a half to rationalize that it was just a movie. Looking back I feel silly that I was even affected at all. But in all seriousness, Teeth does not work as anything more than a film preaching abstinence. Even in that respect, it doesn't succeed. Like I said, it took me only a day and a half to get over it. I haven't had sex, but if my girlfriend offered it to me I wouldn't say "No, first I want you to get checked for Vagina Dentata". Teeth also fails as an amusing splatstick film, because I couldn't really find the comedy in watching multiple penises get removed. It just didn't sit right with me. I've grown fond of having a penis, and the thought of it having ripped away makes me very sad. I guess you could say if somebody tried to take it away, I'd have quite the BONE to pick with them =D....no? Nothing? Ok moving on. Director Mitchell Lichtenstein, who has done practically nothing in the past, should never be allowed to work again after bringing us this vile, poorly filmed squalor. Not to mention the most obnoxious and overly dramatic score since There Will Be Blood (I'd give There Will Be Blood a 9 instead of a 10 only because of the score, but that's a different review). In some particularly ugly shots (including the opening shot of the film), Lichtenstein shows a landscape view of the bright and sunny town that the film takes place in. Technicolor that is reminiscent of the early Batman television series makes this shot an eye sore, and it foreshadows the rest of the film as being a terrible viewing experience.

If you are going to be physically and emotionally sickened by a film, one should hope that there were some redeeming qualities that kept you interested. Teeth offers you nothing, and on top of that nothing shows you graphic scenes of penal amputation. Makes for one hell of a movie right!? Wrong. Jess Weixler is annoying and sometimes unwatchable as the girl with the devil's vagina, Dawn. Even though her character is reasonably in hysterics for a lot of the film, she still managed to over-act and sometimes even under-act. Never did Weixler hit the nail on the head. No supporting performances give Teeth an extra boost, not even John Hensley's performance as Dawn's drug taking, sex having, deeply disturbed step brother Brad. The relationship between Dawn and Brad had potential to be intriguing and memorable but instead falls flat on its back. The resolution between the two is predictable and altogether unsatisfying. You see what is about to happen from a mile away and when it is finally done you are left scratching your head thinking, "That's it? I really watched that entire movie just so I can see something that I totally expected to happen like an hour ago? I'm gonna go throw up". Now I didn't throw up when I finished the film, but if they had some kind of memory eraser that I could take to erase it from my head that would be swell. If you know any good ways to remove something from your memory without damaging everything else in your head just leave a comment.

Now underneath the repulsive visuals displayed in Teeth, there lies the foundation of any film, and that is the script. The director Mitchell Lichtenstein also wrote the screenplay for the film, and I must say this man really does not have any talent. He managed to take a completely original idea (something that is very rare in today's movies) and drive it so far into the ground that the heat from the earth's core melted it. Lichtenstein could not decide whether to make his film heavy on the horror and light on comedy or the other way around. Scenes flip flop between scary and comical, and sometimes the scary scenes are more laugh producing than the funny ones. Either way, I didn't find the film to be funny at all. The subject matter is a bit too grotesque to be funny. Beneath his sequences of horror and violence, there is meant to be a feeling of female empowerment delivered by Dawn, who can somewhat be classified as a hero given the film's ending. The idea that this girl is using her "gift" to punish sex driven men (albeit by having sex with them) probably would give a woman a sense of pride and the feeling that she can overcome the oppression of any man. WELL I'M NOT A WOMAN! I fail to see the pride one can gain from having teeth in her vagina! And as a boy, I learned absolutely nothing from this film. The only possible message could have been to not be so hasty with who you become intimate with. But all I learned was to always check the quality of the turf before you step out on the field.

Teeth runs at the longest 94 minutes you will ever endure, and shows you no mercy along the way. I had a feeling going in that I wouldn't enjoy this film, and I was dead right. Perhaps if the film was not as graphic it would have been easier to watch. But the pervasive obscenity of the amputation scenes were unnecessary and in no way entertaining. Maybe if you are a woman you can watch this film and laugh and say "Ha! Take that you stupid man! Chicks rule! Girl power, woohoo!" But other than that, there is nothing that can come from this film except misery and unhappiness. Everybody, especially men, should run away from this film at all costs. My rating (1/10)

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)

Tim Burton and Johnny Depp join forces for the sixth time to create Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. Based on the Stephen Sondheim musical, Burton brings us the darkest and quite possibly the best film of his career. Sweeney Todd is the story of Benjamin Barker (Johnny Depp), a barber who had a happy life with a beautiful wife and a precious baby girl. But there was another man who sought to remove Barker from the picture and place himself at Lucy's (Barker's wife) side. That man is the corrupt Judge Turpin (Alan Rickman) who along with his grotesque confidant Beadle Bamford (Timothy Spall) places a false charge on Barker, sending him to prison for 15 years. When the barber returns to London, he starts a new life with a new haircut as Sweeney Todd. Upon returning home, he meets Mrs. Lovett (Helena Bonham Carter), the purveyor of the self proclaimed "worst pies in London". Lovett tells Todd that Lucy poisoned herself years ago and his daughter Johanna (Jayne Wisener) is now under the care of Judge Turpin. Enraged, Todd begins slitting the throats of his barber shop patrons waiting for the opportunity to get his revenge on the judge and once again be reunited with his daughter.

If you have seen a Tim Burton film in the past, you should know of his keen ability to create a bizarre atmosphere through the use of unusual sets and characters. His work in Sweeney Todd is no exception, as Burton brings a dark and dreary London to life. The streets that are hidden by shadows in the middle of the day is a subtle metaphor for the cruelty and corruption of the men who live there. With brilliant cinematography, Burton entices and disturbs the audience without being too overbearing. The scenes move with fluidity comparable to the blood that streams from Todd's victims throats. Excellent songs placed in the perfect spots during scenes keep the movie at a steady pace without boring the audience.

But Sweeney Todd would not be the great movie that it was without the brilliant performance from Johnny Depp, who plays the titular character. Worthy of an Oscar, Depp epitomizes the vengeful barber with a chilling perfection. The authenticity with which he portrays Todd is almost startling. His stone faced demeanor exemplifies the anger and pain that is swirling around in this character's mind like a tornado. His expressionless eyes are unwavering, showing the bleakness that lies within him. I also must say this his singing is spot on, and his rough voice is perfectly in line with the movies tone. When I heard that Helena Bonham Carter would be playing Mrs. Lovett, I thought "Oh how surprising, Tim Burton cast his wife in yet another of his movies." To my dismay, Bonham Carter actually did a very good job. Perhaps she was cast because she actually deserved it. Although her performance wasn't a knockout, she seemed very fit to play the ever lively Mrs. Lovett. Her vocal range was a bit limited, but she was able to hold a tune well and provide some solid musical numbers. Alan Rickman gives a very strong performance as Judge Turpin. Rickman, who usually has the same facial expression no matter what movie he is in, always manages to put together an entertaining act. Facial expressions mean nothing when he can so vividly show the internal hideousness of this most foul man. Although his voice doesn't seem to be suited for a musical, he only sings one song and it is a duet with Johnny Depp, a favorite scene of mine. Even though Depp gives the best performance in the film, my favorite performance has to be that of Timothy Spall as the Beadle Bamford. A beady eyed, slimy looking man, the Beadle is an outwardly ugly character that mirrors the Judge's inner unattractiveness. Spall is unforgettable and utterly revolting, which exactly what his character was supposed to be. Sacha Baron Cohen also makes an appearance in the film, but it's only for about 5 minutes. Don't worry about it.

When you watch Sweeney Todd, be sure to have the volume up really high so you don't miss a second of the outstanding score. A risk that comes from making a musical is that every song must be good, because one boring song can displace the attention of the audience for an extended period of time. Luckily, Sweeney Todd hits every note and does not bore. One criticism I do have of the film is that the plot itself does begin to wear thin later in the film. You start to feel that anxious feeling that you get when your waiting for something to end, a feeling that no movie ever wants to provoke. This is no matter, as the tragic ending is perfect, capping off a great movie with a surprising end. Watch this film. Twice. In one day. You'll like it. My rating (9/10)

The Mist (2007)

Frank Darabont takes on Stephen King's work yet again by tackling The Mist. Darabont previously directed The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile, two films based on Stephen King works, and two films that were absolutely brilliant. Given these past projects, Darabont has a lot of weight on his shoulders to make another masterpiece. The Mist is by no means a masterpiece, but it is an accomplishment that Darabont should be proud of.

Thomas Jane plays David Drayton, a man who lives with his wife and son in a small town in Maine. After an intense storm strikes, an unexplainable mist begins to float through the town. In the beginning, nobody paid any mind to this strange phenomena. But while David and his son Billy (Nathan Gamble) are shopping at the local supermarket, a fellow townie bursts through the doors raving about creatures in the mist. The supermarket is locked from the inside as the mist engulfs it, cutting off the townspeople from the rest of the world. As the threat of monsters becomes more and more real, the desperate inhabitants of the store begin to look for any possible solution to save themselves. A local bible nut named Mrs. Carmody (Marcia Gay Harden) rises from the crowd to offer salvation through God's will. As the townsfolk begin to choose sides, tension rises in the small store, raising the question, "Who are the real monsters: those outside the store, or those on the inside?"

The Mist is Frank Darabont's first horror film, and he handles the task very well. Acting as director and writer, he does an excellent job of balancing the threat of the monsters and the irrationality of man. With this movie, Darabont shows us what would happen if our life was suddenly cut off by taking away all of our lifelines. The way the characters are shown degenerating into thoughtless drones who flock to anybody that offers hope is an effective commentary on how dependent we are on others. The monsters created by Darabont are in fact scary if not terrifying. The wide variety of creatures that he unleashed to the world kept me eager to see what would appear next. The cinematography was pretty plain, but given the restricted environment he had to work with, Darabont made do with what he had. Fancy camera work was not necessary though, as the true feat was capturing the feeling of desperation and dread on camera. The dialogue at times became stale and sometimes hackneyed, but the rest of the script was well paced and did a good job at getting it's message across.

Thomas Jane does a good job in his role as David, the level headed family man who is just trying to keep his son safe. I say a good job because he neither dazzled me with an outstanding performance nor did he bore me with a terrible one. His compassion for his son felt real and overall Jane was entertaining to watch. But the person who really deserves attention for her performance is Marcia Gay Harden. As God-obsessed Mrs. Carmody, Harden personifies a character who is not particularly likable, but indeed a persuasive and even manipulative hierarch. Chances are you will greatly dislike Mrs. Carmody, but that just goes to show how great Harden's performance is. The rest of the supporting cast provide little as far as entertainment is concerned, with the exception of Toby Jones, who played a supermarket worker named Ollie. Actually, Ollie turned out to be my favorite character of the entire movie. If you watch, you will find out why.

It has been a good year for Stephen King films. First 1408 sent shivers down our spine as one man's life unravels before our eyes, and now The Mist has come to frighten us by showing what happens when you tear the fabric of human nature. Frank Darabont has proved himself to be a great director who has a knack for digging into the core of human emotion. But I cannot say The Mist is without fault. It does indulge in some horror cliches, and Darabont's new ending will definitely be way too much for some to handle. The bitterly ironic ending left me feeling absolutely terrible, and I actually felt like crying when I saw it. Thinking back on it, it wasn't a bad ending, but it was far too depressing to be considered great. Aside from that, The Mist was a very good film, and I recommend it. My Rating: (7.5/10)

Funny Games/Funny Games U.S. (1997/2008)

In recent years, the world's horror movies have become showings of glorified torture that does not scare or disturb, but simply disgusts. Austrian director Michael Haneke apparently noticed this trend, and decided to make his own horror movie as a form of commentary on how our existence has become consumed with watching others struggle for their lives. This movie was the original Funny Games, released in Austria in 1997. But in an attempt to reach out to a more global scale, (more specifically, Americans), Haneke remade his own film shot for shot with English speaking actors and a more American setting. This film was called Funny Games U.S. Very creative. Since the American version was a shot for shot remake of the original just with different actors, I will mainly speak of the actors and characters in this version, for redundancies sake. The story centers on George, Anne, and Georgie Farber (Tim Roth, Naomi Watts, and Devon Gearhart), a typical family that has recently arrived at their beautiful summer lake house. Soon after their arrival, the family is confronted by two young men, Peter and Paul (Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet), who have simply come over to borrow some eggs. After a small altercation, the family realize Peter and Paul aren't there to play around...or maybe that's exactly why they're there. The 2 young men hold the family hostage and force them to take part in a series of games that ultimately result in death. Can the family win the bet and stay alive for 12 hours, or will these psychotic young men get the best of them?

To reiterate something I mentioned before, the reason Haneke made these films was to point out how we've become obsessed with watching others suffer in the fictional world of a movie. This is blatantly obvious as Haneke actually has the characters address the audience directly on several occasions. The only problem with Haneke's mentality is the fact that other than those little asides to the movie-goers, he doesn't do much to show us the "error of our ways". What he does give us is yet another movie that falls into the category of glorified torture. His directing is much more tasteful than other horror directors, as he doesn't actually show any deaths on screen. This happens to be one of the only redeeming qualities of the films. But at other times, his directing becomes dragged out and simply boring. There were long moments without dialogue or even movement that caused me to believe my screen had frozen. I also found it very disappointing that for a movie called "Funny Games", there weren't many actual games. I think Haneke was trying to go for a psychological kind of game, but if so he failed, because he managed to just bore me.

The acting in Funny Games U.S. was better than that in Funny Games, which is the only reason I am going to give it a higher rating. Tim Roth and Naomi Watts were much more believable as the distraught husband and wife who are being subjected to these torturous games. In the original film, the actors didn't make me feel sorry for them. I remained uninterested in their fates. Even though I watched the US version second and I knew what was going to happen, I still felt more involved and had much more interest in their stories. I also really enjoyed Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet as the maniacal pair that hold the family hostage. But even with the slightly better acting, Funny Games US falls prey to the same problems as Funny Games, which lie mainly in Haneke's poor directing and writing.

Both Funny Games films are about an hour and 40 minutes long, which is the typical running time for a movie. But because of the slow pace and boring directing, both films seem to never end. Although neither are anywhere near as bad as other modern horror films, I wouldn't particularly recommend either of them. But if your interest has peaked, I suggest the American version, just for the better acting. My Ratings: Funny Games (4/10) Funny Games US (5/10)

1408 (2007)

If you found hotel rooms creepy before, just wait until you see 1408, the scariest Stephen King movie adaptation since Misery. The story revolves around Mike Enslin (John Cusack), an author that specializes in debunking fraudulent ghost stories that innkeepers tell their customers in order to keep business alive. After Mike receives an anonymous postcard from the Dolphin Hotel in New York warning him to avoid room 1408, he naturally does everything in his power to secure that room. The hotel manager Gerald Olin (Samuel L. Jackson) pleads incessantly to Mike to reconsider, stating room 1408 has claimed 56 lives in the hotel's history. Enslin, who remains uninterested and disbelieves the story, ultimately decides to spend one night in the dreaded room. But what Mike will soon discover is that once you enter 1408, there is no return. He must now decipher what is fact and fiction in this supernatural room that not only inflicts physical pain, but toys with the mental anguish that Mike still has from the loss of his daughter.

It would be misleading to actually call this film scary. The amount of legitimate scares and terrors in the film are very very minimal. The best term to describe 1408 would be creepy. 1408 will send shivers down your spine and will unsettle your mind, but it will not terrify you. But it is for this reason that I extremely enjoyed this film. Living in an age of torture porn, it is very refreshing to see a horror film that will affect you on an internal level, rather than trying to make you flinch or throw up. This is all the more impressive given the fact that 1408 is rated PG13, but still manages to remain effective.

1408 is a bit of a one man show starring John Cusack, since the movie takes place mainly in a solitary hotel room. But unlike Will Smith in I Am Legend, John Cusack is a great actor that is capable of carrying a film on his shoulders. His portrayal of a man whose life is being diminished by this evil room is intensely compelling and heartbreaking. Scenes where we explore his relationship with his late daughter really illustrate the despair that has been tearing him up on the inside. In a way, the real demon of this story is not the room, but the memories that the room brings back to life. Cusack is absolutely outstanding in this role, and I feel he is one of the most underrated actors of our time. Samuel L. Jackson has a small role as hotel manager Gerald Olin, and does a solid job of selling the character as truly afraid of what the outcome of Enslin's stay could be. It is also very entertaining to watch his back and forth with Cusack as they discuss the history of the room.

1408 is a creepy, disturbing, well written, well acted, excellent piece of film work that deserves respect for avoiding the hackneyed gimmicks that modern horror films indulge in. A lot of credit must also be given to director Mikael Hafstrom. Even with the use of a few classic horror movie cliches, Hafstrom carries out these tired commonplace events in an original fashion that makes them seem brand new. Most importantly, 1408 doesn't linger around for too long. Before you begin to feel bored with the unchanging scenery, the movie finishes with one of the best and most fulfilling endings anybody could ask for. Just talking about it makes my heart race and brings back the memories of when I had first seen it in the theater, and stood up applauding as the credits ran. You owe it to yourself to see this film. My rating (8.5/10)

The Hills Have Eyes 1 and 2 (2006 and 2007)

For some strange reason, torture porn becomes more and more popular as time goes on. Two movies that follow this ongoing trend are the remakes of The Hills Have Eyes and The Hills Have Eyes 2. Now, I have not seen the original films, so I am not qualified to compare these disgraceful movies to them. But watching these films as individuals, I am repulsed. Even excellent movies have their fair share of brutal murders (No Country For Old Men, Silence of the Lambs, to name a few). But those films at least have a fitting context to put those deaths in. The Hills Have Eyes simply murders people for the sake of murdering people. I myself have a guilty pleasure when it comes to the Saw franchise, but even I get disgusted by some of the things I see.
Both movies revolve around a group of people who for some reason or another get trapped in a desolate area of the desert referred to as Sector 16. The desert alone is a brutal enemy, but what lurks in the desert is far worse than any heat related ailment. Bands of radioactive mutants still live in the mountains, and decide to kill anything that passes by, for unexplained reasons of course. The groups must then fend for themselves as they begin to get picked off one by one by these ugly beings.
As I have already stated, this movie does nothing but kill people. The plot is practically irrelevant, and the characters interchangeable. The acting and script are atrocious, and the direction doesn't do anything to impress. You feel no sorrow for the victims, and you don't feel anything whatsoever about the killers. The films were written and directed by different people, and none of the original stars returned for the sequel. Actually that isn't true. Michael Bailey Smith was a mutant in the first movie, and also played one in the second. But his character dies in the first movie and they brought him back as a different character. Lack of continuity, yet another reason these movies are terrible.
But you really can't take this films seriously. When they were being made, I doubt anybody involved was very proud of themselves. The story is a joke, the actings bad, the scripts bad, the directing's bad, and the fact that these movies were even made makes me sad. What makes it worse is that I actually watched these films. I don't know what I was thinking. I obviously wasn't. Still, I'd say they were better than Ratatouille. My rating (2/10)

30 Days of Night (2007)

In a decade of awful horror movies, one film tries to be better than the rest. 30 Days of Night attempts to revive the horror genre by releasing a new breed of vampires to the world. Based on the graphic novel, the story takes place in the northernmost town in Alaska, where one month out of the year, the sun does not rise. This particular year, right before this stretch of darkness occurs, a stranger wanders into town seemingly from thin air. After startling a local, he is brought to the police station by the town sheriff, played by Josh Hartnett. Once there, the creepy man begins warning the sheriff that "something's coming". In this case, the "something's" are a pack of vicious vampires who are obviously out for that beautiful elixir that they just cannot resist. As the sun goes down, townspeople begin to be picked off one by one. Eventually, a small group of people meet and decide to ride out the attack together. They must then fight for their lives as they try to find food to last the month, or become food in the process.
According to the commercial, 30 Days of Night was going to "reinvent the vampire movie". The people who came up with that tag line should immediately be fired for flat out lying to America. In truth, this movie does nothing differently than any vampire movie I've ever seen. In a movie like 28 Days Later, zombies were redefined as being able to run just as fast as humans, thus rendering hope lost. But the vampires in this film are much the same as all vampires: quick, agile, violent, and vulnerable to sunlight. The only noticeable difference was the shape of some of their heads. But I'm not sure that's what they meant. Put simply, I've seen all of this before.
30 Days of Night is chock full of the cliches we have all become accustomed to; The band of survivors crowding in one building talking of loved ones and crying about futures that may not come; Somebody saying "It's not safe here, we have to move"; People being killed one by one as they do the aforementioned moving. It seems as though this movie follows the motions of all the films it supposedly is trying to be better than.
It is impossible to rate the acting in this film, as it is after all a modern day horror film. The only reason such a well known actor as Josh Hartnett was cast was probably to attract fans of his to seeing it. Ben Foster plays the mysterious stranger, and pretty much nails the ability to look and speak menacingly. Because of this, he becomes the only character that anybody really wants to see more of. Unfortunately, the stranger has only 15 minutes of screen time, leaving me one extremely pissed off movie-goer.
Overall, 30 Days of Night is a repetition of any other movie of its kind, using the same formula that's been around for years now. The ending lacks substance, and definetly leaves you feeling cheated out of your time. And when it's all said and done, it's basically just watching people get killed in nasty ways. My rating (3/10)

The Shining (1980)

What happens when you combine the distinguished directing style of Stanley Kubrick and the incomparable acting of Jack Nicholson? You get one of the most poignant and effective horror films of the century. Deeply psychological and utterly brilliant, The Shining sends the viewer to a world where evil reigns over all with a chilling force. Jack Nicholson plays Jack Torrance, a recovering alcoholic who is just trying to make ends meet for his family. Shelley Duvall plays his wife Wendy, a woman who has accepted her husbands past mistakes and is looking to move onto better things for her family. His son Danny, played by Danny Lloyd, possesses a special power that he doesn't quite understand yet. When Jack gets a job as caretaker of The Overlook Hotel for the winter, Danny soon begins to feel that the hotel's walls contain more than just comfy beds and colorful carpeting. After a blizzard strikes and separates the family from the rest of the world, Jack begins to feel the strain of seclusion.
Through the use of frightening images and unforgettable camera work, Kubrick guides us on a paranormal journey that is sure to be cemented in our dreams forever. His use of the tracking shots gives an atmosphere of a creeping evil that is lurking around every corner. When we are in Stanley's world, nowhere is safe. Very few people are capable of capturing sheer terror in such a raw form. Fans of the original novel, written by Stephen King, will probably be quite upset with the director, as his adaptation is very different than the source material.
Jack Nicholson is outstanding as his character slowly slips into the murky depths of insanity. His performance seems all too real as he begins to see people around the hotel that aren't really there. The authenticity of his hatred and malevolence will frighten you to no end, as will his devilish smile that epitomizes evil.
The one problem I had with this film was Shelley Duvall. Granted, her job was mainly just to look scared and act helpless, but she did so in the most irritating way. Her over-acting ruined some scenes that were otherwise great. Luckily, Jack was there to make up for every mistake she made. But I will say one good thing about Duvall. She truly looked terrified as she saw that axe drive it's way through the door. That one image does a very nice job of summing up the overall feeling of the entire movie.
The Shining has proved to be a timeless horror film, as it has now been over 25 years since it's release. In this day and age, films of this genre focus on the blood and gore aspects of horror. It is very refreshing when you are able to watch a scary movie that focuses on the suspense rather than the actual kill. As a matter of fact, there is only ONE on screen killing in the entire film. By today's standards, that is considered very tame. But then again, the majority of horror movies released now suck. (See my review of Halloween). My rating: (10/10)

Halloween (2007)

First I must clarify that this is not a review of the original Halloween, which was near pefect. This is a review of Rob Zombie's far from perfect remake of Halloween. With that being said, who told Rob Zombie it was OK for him to direct movies? Bad! That's a bad Rob Zombie! Who told you it was OK to take a great movie and redo it with your own interpretation! You should be ashamed of yourself. Now let me explore the atrocity that is Halloween.
The movie reintroduces us to Michael Myers, part time psychopathic killer, part time mask maker. Unlike the first film that only included a 5 second clip of young Myers, we get to watch an entire hour of original material about him, thought up straight from Rob Zombie's twisted imagination. After living in a degenerate household with degenerate parents and a degenerate older sister, young Michael turns into the maniac that we've come to know and love. Well, at least before this movie was released.
We are then subjected to 45 minutes of uninteresting blather before we finally pick up to where the original film started. At last, we are introduced to Laurie Strode, played by Scout Taylor Compton, and her two friends, played by miscellaneous actresses who were probably cast for the sole reason of needing money and a willingness to be nude in front of a camera. We then get to watch basically the original Halloween only without the suspense, horror, character development, and excellent directing of the original. The suspense was replaced with sex, the horror was replaced with cheap scares, the character development was replaced with sex, and the great directing was replaced with Rob Zombie.
Some of you may feel I'm being unfair because I continually compare this film to the original. Well here's a sentence that describes this film just as a singular movie: This movie had poor directing, bad acting, no suspense, no scares, no characters worth caring about, and overall nothing redeeming whatsoever. Oh yea, Malcolm McDowell is in it too, because apparently his career has spiraled since A Clockwork Orange. My Rating (2/10)

Cloverfield (2008)

Have you ever wondered what it would be like to see a city get destroyed from a first person point of view? Well then today is your lucky day. Cloverfield is just like any other generic monster movie in creation, with a bit of a twist. The entire action is seen from the view of a handicam recorder. It is this cheap gimmick that actually gives this movie a one up over other films of the genre. As far as the plot goes, there is a monster attacking New York City and we get to follow a small group of friends who are trying to escape. There's also a love story thrown in just to give the movie some substance. Didn't I say it was generic?
In the movie we see a lot of the same old, same old. People die, people are crying, more people die, the military comes, even more die, so on and so forth. But due to the cunning mind of JJ Abrams, all of these things are seen in an unchartered way with the use of a handicam. It is this strategem that manages to pull the viewer into New York City and truly feel the horrors that you've seen so many characters go through in other movies of this sort. There was actually a point in the film where I literally jumped out of my seat because of the realism of an explosion that had just taken place. But at times, this camera ploy hurt the film and made it less enjoyable. Times in the film when the director wanted to explore the love story, the handicam angle really removed you from the film and hinders your ability to enjoy it.
There is also one more very important caveat that you must take into account. Those with motion sickness should steer clear of this film. Oftentimes while watching it, I began to feel dizzy and had to look away for a minute or two.
There isn't much to comment on as far as acting goes. Every performer pretty much accomplised the "scared onlooker" role. One thing that impressed me was the actual appearance of the monster. When a new monster movie is released, there is always a fear that the creators will render the beast in a silly fashion. Luckily, this was not the case here. Adding to the list of positives, a short running time ensures that Cloverfield and its handicam gimmick does not wear itself out. Overall, Cloverfield was a solid monster flick, with a few scares, and lots of heart pumping action to keep you interested. My rating (7/10)