Dead Silence (C-)

"You scream, you die."

A movie with ghosts and ventriloquist dummies? How can such a thing be bad? Dead Silence, a film by James Wan, has been soundly panned by reviewers and currently holds a 21% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. All in all, it wasn't as horrible as I thought it would be. I don't think everyone is going to like this movie, but as long as you know what you're getting into, you may walk away pleased.

The first thing that bugged me was the film's presentation. It's a bit in your face and campy, seemingly on purpose. While this was an initial stumbling block for my enjoyment of Dead Silence, the longer I watched it the more it reminded me of an episode of Tales from the Crypt. It's that kind of campy, that kind of cheesy, that kind of over-the-top. And if you enjoyed Tales from the Crypt and accept that Dead Silence is like a very long episode from that beloved show, the more you'll enjoy it.

Dead Silence follows the story of Jamie Ashen (Ryan Kwanten), a rich kid with daddy issues. Jamie and his wife, Lisa (Laura Regan), receive a mysterious package one evening. Opening the package, they find a ventriloquist dummy inside. Lisa recalls a famous ventriloquist, and comments on an old nursery rhyme that she remembers from her youth: "Beware the stare of Mary Shaw, She had no children, only dolls. If you see her in your dreams, make sure you never ever scream."

Lisa has some fun with Billy at Jamie's expense.

After puzzling over the dummy, Jamie leaves to buy some take-out Chinese food while Lisa plays around with the dummy. Things get strangely silent in the apartment, and Lisa suffers at the hands of some malignant, unseen force. When Jamie returns home with dinner, he discovers that Lisa has been killed, her tongue torn from her mouth. The dummy, who we come to know as Billy, is laying on the floor in their bedroom.

The cops come and take Lisa's body away, and Jamie ends up in the office of homicide cop Detective Lipton (genre veteran Donnie Wahlberg). Though Lipton has no evidence proving Jamie's complicity in the crime, he seems self-assured that it's only a matter of time until he digs it up. Jamie spouts some nonsense about the dummy, which only makes Lipton think Jamie's crazy.

Detective Lipton's interrogation techniques are revolutionary.

Jamie leaves for his home town of Raven's Fair, a curiously dead little burg in the middle of nowhere. As it happens, Raven's Fair is where the late Mary Shaw--the famous ventriloquist--lived. He intends to bury his wife there, and drops by his father's house to ask a few questions. In the process, Jamie meets his father's latest wife, Ella (Amber Valletta), and has a heated discussion with his father, Edward (Bob Gunton), who's recently suffered from a stroke.

Learning nothing of interest from his father and step-mother concerning Mary Shaw, Jamie goes about the business of arranging for his late wife's funeral. Things get creepy with the dummy, and Detective Lipton shows up to throw a monkey wrench into Jamie's plans. As time goes on, more is revealed about Mary Shaw, her ventriloquist dummies, and the horrible secret that Edward Ashen has kept from his son all these years.

What a bunch of dummies!

As I said, the film is somewhat campy, but if viewed in a particular light, it lives up to the campiness quite well. The actors' performances are hit and miss, but no one is particularly terrible in their role. If anything, the hammy acting (in some cases) befits the whole Tales from the Crypt vibe the movie gives off. The best performance in Dead Silence is given by Donnie Wahlberg, who becomes Jamie's unwitting ally towards the movie's end.

The cinematography is somewhat overdone, with transitions occasionally involving images of maps which zoom in to the action from above. Likewise, the music can get pretty bombastic. The special effects, outside of the use of fog machines, are competent, and the ventriloquist dummies are actually pretty darn creepy. The storyline itself is somewhat cliched, as is the twist at the end, but I thought it was fun nonetheless.

As far as scares, the campy nature of the movie makes it hard to take it too seriously. That said, there are some suspenseful moments, and the sound and visual effects that take place at these times lend themselves well to the content. It's a movie made in the style of a bygone era, and it's not particularly ashamed of it, either.

Billy's antics sure do turn a lot of heads. His included.

Should you queue up Dead Silence? If you're not expecting a serious or particularly deep horror experience, and especially if you remember Tales from the Crypt with any amount of fondness, you should give Dead Silence a chance. If you're not interested in camp, cheese, and corn, you may as well avoid it altogether. I leave the decision up to you.

Oculus (C+)

"You'll see what it wants you to see."

Oculus is a story about an evil mirror that drains lives and drives people mad. The tale is told through flashbacks which are interspersed seamlessly (and occasionally simultaneously) with the film's modern day component. When they were children, Tim and Kaylie Russel (Garrett Ryan and Annalise Basso) survived a murder attempt by their deranged father (Rory Cochrane). As the story goes, Tim shot and killed his father, saving both his and Kaylie's life. Their mother (Katee Sackhoff) had already been abused and killed by their father, leaving the two of them as orphans.

Following the death of their parents, Tim was sent to a psychiatric hospital to recover while Kaylie was apparently allowed to grow up in the outside world (I assume she lived with relatives or foster parents, but this point isn't real clear). Through treatment, Tim comes to realize that all the supernatural events he and his sister experienced were his own psychological response to the trauma of his father going crazy and killing his mother.

The movie picks up when Tim is released from the hospital eleven years later, having been determined sane. The older Tim (Brenton Thwaites) is finally able to see Kaylie (now played by Karen Gillan), and it's soon revealed that she firmly believes that the antique mirror in her father's study drove him to kill his wife and children. The siblings had promised one another that when they were older, they would destroy the mirror together. Given Tim's belief that the events were all in his head, he's not so easily convinced.

Aside from the dying and going crazy part, it is a pretty nice mirror.

Kaylie, who works for an auction house that has sold the mirror to a bidder, manages to take it back to their childhood home. She intends to prove that the mirror possesses terrible powers before destroying it. She argues at length with Tim, who staunchly refuses to believe her side of the story. That is, until things start to get weird. Soon, the two of them aren't sure what is real as their past plays along beside their present.

Oculus tells a chilling story and it does it well. Given the nature of the mirror and its powers, the viewer is never sure what is real and what is illusion. It makes Tim and Kaylie see only what it wants them to, and they spend some time trying to outsmart it before it can get its proverbial hooks into them. It's often impossible to tell if what is happening on screen is real, or if it's merely what's happening in their minds.

Tim and Kaylie, ready to kick that mirror's reflective butt.

There's this part where Kaylie goes over all the painstaking research she's done in the years since her parents' deaths, proving (at least in her mind) that there's something incredibly deadly and evil about the mirror. Watching her go through each of the mirror's prior owners, as well as the horrible things that happened to them, establishes an interesting history. I almost wanted to see more about these poor people and what befell them, along with the mirror's origins, rather than continue watching a story about Tim and Kaylie. Maybe a sequel (prequel?) will be made that covers more of those details.

The production values and acting are top notch. The characters are believable, for the most part, and it's easy enough to blame any of their less-intelligent actions on the mirror. While this makes sense, it can occasionally feel like a cop out on the part of the filmmaker, and you begin to wonder if the siblings have any hope of success at all. The passage of time, both in flashbacks and in the modern setting, is fairly vague, too. There aren't many big surprises, but there are enough early on to keep things fresh.

The ghosts seem satisfied with Alan's choice of weapon.

As far as frights, I didn't find Oculus to be particularly scary. The ghosts, when they appear, are pretty creepy, and the mirror (practically a character all by itself) is, too. Aside from low-level unease, though, there's not much in the way of big scares or horrifying moments. Maybe I'm desensitized, but any dread you're liable to feel comes from the fact that you never quite know what's going to happen to Tim and Kaylie. The ending is fairly predictable, and when you see it coming you'll know exactly what I mean.

There isn't a lot of gore to be found in Oculus. If you have trouble with the idea of people eating glass and fragments of ceramic, however, you might find that things get a little bit uncomfortable from time to time. Otherwise, much of the violence is understated or implied. The make-up effects used are competent enough, and there's a good bit of non-obvious CGI, as well.

The kids, not the grown-ups, are really the stars of this movie.

Overall, I enjoyed the story of Oculus more than I enjoyed the film itself. I never felt particularly attached to the adult characters, but I don't feel this had anything to do with their performances. It was the child actors and the younger versions of Tim and Kaylie that I found myself caring about, but even then, I knew they'd have to survive so their older selves could come back for the final act.

In the end, I don't think Oculus deserves much more than a C+ on my scale (which is just above average and is nothing to be ashamed of, IMHO). It's worth watching if you're interested in a somewhat languid ghost story involving two attractive people being menaced by an evil antique mirror. The storytelling techniques, as I said, are effectively done. Though it might get confusing at times, it all ends up making sense to one degree or another right up to its weighty conclusion.

They (C-)

Bring on the terror. Bring it.

I was poking around on NetFlix when I noticed They listed with the other horror movies. I couldn't remember if I'd seen it before. I put it on and realized that yes, I had seen it before, but I remembered next to nothing about it. I wracked my brain. It was familiar, but completely strange at the same time. Was the fact that I couldn't remember it a good thing, or a bad thing?

They is a film about Julia Lund (Laura Regan), a twenty-something psychology student coming up on graduation. She has an incredibly understanding boyfriend, Paul (Marc Blucas), and they seem to have a good thing going. She also has a childhood friend, Billy Parks (Jon Abrahams), who isn't so hot in the sanity department. Billy and Julia both experienced night terrors as children, and while Julia has moved on with her life into adulthood (or has she?), Billy is still tormented by his childhood memories and the nightmarish reality he experiences on a daily basis.

One evening, after a date with Paul, Julia receives a call from Billy and he begs her to meet him at a diner. She reluctantly agrees, leaving Paul behind so she can tend to her childhood pal's fragile emotional state. When she arrives, Billy blathers on about a number of dark things before ending his own life as Julia watches. This doesn't do much for Julia's mental state, and things begin to get strange for her, too. Unseen creatures begin to skitter in the shadows and she experiences a night terror at Paul's house--the first she's had since she was a little girl.

Paul is the most understanding boyfriend ever. Definitely a keeper.

At Billy's funeral, Julia meets two of his friends/roommates: Sam (Ethan Embry) and Terry (Dagmara Dominczyk). They, too, suffered from night terrors as children, and they both feel something is terribly wrong. Sam has Billy's diary, which he's been combing through for clues, but none of it seems to make any rational sense. Julia rebuffs them initially and denies that she's had any strange experiences, but as her own problems begin to multiply, she seeks Sam and Terry out for help or support. As the plot continues to unravel, we learn that the night terrors Julia, Billy, Sam, and Terry suffered as children have marked them, and one by one they succumb to the shapes in the shadows--the titular "They" of the film.

The ending will either leave you shaking your head or keeping your lights on at night.

The story presented in They isn't terrible, but it felt like there was something missing. The characters, especially those who are dealing with the prospect of shadowy monsters, don't do much to defend themselves. Perhaps they don't know (or remember) the monsters exist. Even so, if sticking your head into an air vent and seeing a scary shape skittering around doesn't get you to pull your head out of said vent, you deserve whatever happens to you.

Terry takes a swim. Bad idea.

The creature effects in They are interesting, but most of them are obviously done with choppy CGI. You rarely get a glimpse of the monsters in direct light, which isn't a bad thing, but when you do see them they don't seem particularly real. I don't necessarily want to have things spoiled by showing off the creatures too soon, but I would've loved to see more of them at appropriate times. The critters in Don't Be Afraid of the Dark were a lot more interesting and effectively scary than the ones we see (or don't see) in They.

There isn't a lot of gore--very little, actually--and most of it is implied. The cinematography isn't terrible, but there's a lot of darkness in the movie that sometimes makes things hard to see. The acting, for what it's worth, is just alright. Sometimes it feels like the cast isn't really into it, and sometimes they're right on the ball.

When all is said and done, They isn't a bad movie, but I can't help but feel it could have been a lot better. Despite Wes Craven's name being attached to the movie, it's far from the quality of many of his classics. There are some scares, certainly, but I didn't get as creeped out by it as I wanted to.

Patrick: Evil Awakens (D+)

Everyone should have a living will. Srsly.

The fact that Charles Dance was performing in Patrick: Evil Awakens was the prime reason I decided to take a gamble on the film. If you're familiar with Dance, you'll know he plays Tywin Lannister on Game of Thrones. He's been in some of my other favorites, such as the much-maligned Alien 3 and Last Action Hero (one of my very guilty pleasures). The guy's a great character actor, and his performance in Patrick: Evil Awakens is no less genuine than any other movie I've seen him in.

With all that out of the way, I have to admit that Patrick: Evil Awakens had me scratching my head. Did it want to be campy? Did it want to be serious? Was that thick layer of cheese intentional, or was it put there on accident by a production crew that didn't really know what they wanted to do? To his benefit, Dance plays the part of Doctor Roget completely straight, with no attempts at camp. As for the cheese, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it must have been intended.

The plot of Patrick: Evil Awakens revolves around Kathy Jacquard (Sharni Vinson), a nurse with a struggling marriage who applies for a job at a small psychiatric clinic that specializes in caring for brain dead patients. The physician who runs the facility, Doctor Roget (Dance), is supposedly performing cutting edge research to restore brain function in his patients. The other two employees are Matron Cassidy (Rachel Griffiths), who takes care of administrative duties and keeps the nurses in line, and the spunky Nurse Williams (Peta Sergeant), who befriends Kathy and shows her around town.

Doctor Roget's prize patient is the titular character, Patrick (Jackson Gallagher). Patrick's origins are a mystery to Kathy, though you can tell there's something going on behind the scenes between Patrick, Roget, and Matron Cassidy. Kathy, who's expected to assist Roget when he "treats" Patrick, becomes appalled at the methods the good doctor employs. She goes along with it until she finds she is able to communicate with Patrick, at first through a simple "once for 'no,' twice for 'yes'" system. Later, their method of conversing becomes somewhat more sophisticated... but you'll have to watch the movie to learn the details.

Kathy shares a moment (one of many) with Patrick.

Needless to say, Patrick is a lot more than he seems to be. As he grows more attached to Kathy, bad things begin to happen to anyone who is close to her. Matters get worse as time goes by, and Kathy is torn between her desire to leave her job or stay in an attempt to make sure Patrick is no longer subjected to Dr. Roget's experiments. The film is resolved in the occasionally tense climax, though the film's ending suggests that things aren't as clean cut as you might have been led to believe.

Overall, I wanted to like the movie. I nearly shut it off after the opening scene, as the cheese factor was somewhat elevated and I suspected the rest of the movie would be much the same. My thoughts turned to Charles Dance, however, and once he appeared on screen I decided to stick with it and give it a chance.

Perhaps my biggest complaint about the movie, outside of the cheese factor, was the score. The accompanying music was so loud, so overwrought, and so shrill at times, it made me cringe. There was nothing subtle about it. It was as if even the least-creepy revelations, when partnered with this cacophonous music, were supposed to scare me out of my wits. Not so, as annoyance trumps fright pretty much every single time.

Don't let Matron Cassidy catch you slacking off.

About the cheese I keep mentioning: It's there in droves. The thing is, Patrick: Evil Awakens isn't constantly cheesy or campy. Instead, it picks times to be cheesy that almost always feel inappropriate given the context. For instance, there's a part involving an individual and an elevator shaft, and it's a pretty tense moment. And then, WHAM! It's like someone's suddenly doused the movie with the contents of a fondue pot. I found myself laughing at some of this stuff, but not in a good way.

Despite the movie's flaws, the cast did a really good job. Dance plays an excellent villain, and I particularly enjoyed Peta Sergeant as the promiscuous Nurse Williams and Griffiths as Matron Cassidy. Most of the supporting cast is pretty good, too. There were some cringe-worthy moments, though, including one or two Vader "Nooooooooo!"'s. Those sorts of things always feel somewhat artificial to me, depending on how they're done.

As for effects, there's a good bit of practical gore mixed with some very obvious CGI set pieces. The quality of these effects is fine, but many of them are really over the top which only adds to the cheese factor.

Was it scary? Sort of, I guess. There are some creepy moments, and the setting--a hospital for brain dead patients who just sort of lie there and occasionally do things--contributes to these occasionally eerie sequences. The frights are often offset by camp, though, which (in my case) lessens the immersion for me, bringing me out of the movie and into the realm of, "Did that really happen?"

Better to pull the plug than wind up in Doctor Roget's clinic.

I'm conflicted about this one, make no mistakes about it. My gut wants to be brutal with my final rating, but my brain wants to give some credit for the things that Patrick: Evil Awakens got right. At the end of the day, I think I need to go with my gut on this one. Other viewers are certain to have different opinions, and that's totally fine. If cheesy horror is your cup of tea, you'll probably like Patrick: Evil Awakens. If you really like horrible horror scores, then this movie is pretty much solid gold. If you're interested in a more or less consistent fright film, though, you're probably better off watching something else.

Note: Patrick: Evil Awakens is a remake of another Australian film from 1978, Patrick (with no colon). The plot seems similar enough, but I wonder if the original is any better than the remake. It seems that remakes aren't just for American movie-makers these days.

Stevie (C)

Admit it. Imaginary friends are creepy.

Stevie is a movie I've passed over on NetFlix a number of times. I went into it expecting nothing and I came out having mostly enjoyed myself. Only now do I know that it was made for television, but I don't really mind. That's not exactly a negative in my opinion. It's a supernatural horror film with a decent atmosphere and a good cast. Though it does suffer from a couple of tired tropes (see below), and I saw the twist coming a mile away, I still liked it.

Claire (Catherine McCormack) and Adrian (Jordi Molla) are a childless married couple living in Spain--at least, I think so. They met in Los Angeles at a time when Claire's architectural career was really taking off, but something happened that caused them to move to what I can only assume is Adrian's birthplace given the nearby presence of his mother and sister, as well as all the Spanish accents. Adrian's mother has recently lost her husband, and she seems to be something of a bitter woman who clashes with Claire whenever they're in the same room together.

Though it's never really spelled out, one gets the impression that Claire can't have children, so she and Adrian decide to adopt an eight year-old girl, Isabel (Ida Jorgensen), through a social worker. Adrian's mother proves to be appalled by this decision, but her son remains steadfast in he and Claire's decision. Isabel proves to be a sweet child who has spent some time in an orphanage following the deaths of her parents. She takes to her new guardians well at first, but as the movie progresses, things begin to turn sour.

Supportive husband or bloodthirsty bounty hunter?

Isabel claims that a fourth person is living in the house with them, someone named Stevie. Adrian and Claire assume that Stevie is Isabel's imaginary friend and think nothing more of it. That is, until Claire begins to experience strange happenings that Isabel attributes to Stevie.

Adrian, who is now busy growing his own career, tries to be supportive, but he's torn between work and his family. He begins to suspect Claire is having mental problems, feeding off of Isabel's childish delusions (this is one of the tropes I spoke of earlier).

The mystery continues to unravel through a series of flashbacks to the couple's time in Los Angeles. Each flashback starts out in black and white and slowly transitions into full color, which makes them easy to spot once you get used to them. I won't give the details away, but suffice it to say the pieces begin to fall together fairly early, and observant viewers should be able to pick up on the subtext pretty early on. I think the climax could have been better, but it serves its purpose well enough.

The cast of Stevie is good, and they handle their roles well. Ida Jorgensen is young, and this appears to be her first (and last) role. Though she does well enough most of the time, her inexperience is occasionally apparent. If you can get past that, you won't have much trouble with the rest of the film.

"I'll put the girl's head in this box! Oh... wrong movie."

I enjoyed Jordi Molla's acting (you may recognize him as Santana in the third Riddick movie), especially considering he's playing a loving husband as opposed to a space merc scumbag. Talk about night and day.

At the end of the day, I don't regret watching Stevie. As I said, it does get pretty creepy at times, though it might have been better with a little more supernatural weirdness sprinkled in. It's an average film, and though I called the twist early on, it's a twist I've never seen done before in other movies. If you're hungry for another ghost flick, you might enjoy it so long as you keep your expectations in check.

Sinister (B)

"Once you see him, nothing can save you."

My friend Paul and I were talking about horror films the other day, and he endorsed Sinister. I hadn't seen it when it made its theatrical run, but the premise was interesting. After my friend's praise, I decided I'd rent it through Amazon and see what the fuss was about. While I wasn't blown away by Sinister, it's certainly entertaining, creepy, and well-acted.

Ellison Oswalt (Ethan Hawke) is a has-been true crime author. After the amazing success of his first book, Kentucky Blood, his star has dimmed. His next two books flopped, with one of them contributing somehow to a killer going free. He's determined to write his next masterpiece so that he can reap the rewards that come with another runaway success--fame and fortune. Especially fortune.

The film opens with a snippet from a home movie on super 8. Four people, bound and hooded, are slowly killed as they hang in a tree. As the rough footage ends, Ellison's story begins. He and his family have moved to a house in Pennsylvania and are unloading the moving truck. Though Ellison is mum on the topic to his wife, Tracy (Juliet Rylance), we learn that the house they're moving into is the same house where the murders took place. In total, four family members were killed, with the fifth--a little girl named Stephanie--missing and presumed dead.

While stowing stuff in the home's attic, Ellison finds a mysterious box that was apparently left behind. Inside the box is a super eight projector, as well as several film reels. The reels have innocuous names--"Pool Party," "BBQ," "Lawn Work," Sleepytime," and "Family Hanging Out"--and are dated from 1966 to 2011, a span of forty-five years. He takes the films and projector to his office and begins to view them, one by one, and discovers they each detail the graphic murder of a different family.

All he really needs is some popcorn and a Coke.

Shaken by the videos, but unable to help himself, Ellison begins to investigate. As he does so, his son, Trevor (Michael Hall D'Addario), begins to experience night terrors, something the boy suffered when he was much younger. Other strange events take place, mostly while Ellison works through the night. He begins to piece more and more clues together, and with the help of a local deputy/fanboy (James Ransone), light is shed on even more details concerning the other four murders.

Sinister is a tense film, creepy at several points, and it takes a couple of unexpected turns along the way. Even with the depictions of several murders, the content isn't particularly graphic. Despite the movie's R rating, much of the gore is implied. I suspected the film's twist about half the way through, but the validation of my suspicions at the end wasn't unpleasant. Though not a found-footage film in its own right, the film reels certainly add that element to the overall narrative.

There isn't a bad actor in the bunch here. Ethan Hawke is, as always, excellent, and his character motivations are solid. As he slowly becomes more and more unhinged by the events that take place, he remains a human being rather than a caricature. Juliet Rylance is also very good, and James Ransone's unnamed deputy ("Deputy So and So") adds a little brevity to Sinister's serious tone. An uncredited appearance by Vincent D'Onofrio was something of a surprise, too, given I had no idea it was him.

Family Hanging Out, '11

If I had one complaint about Sinister, it's the movie's constant darkness. Ellison often moves through the house, never turning on a single light, in search of an alleged intruder. Though I expect it was meant to add to the creepy factor, the lack of visibility really annoyed me at times. Watching someone walk through the dark once in a while is one thing, but it started to feel overused towards the middle of the film.

Sinister is a solid supernatural horror flick with a great cast. Though the story is somewhat derivative, it has a couple of unique twists that set it apart from similar movies.

Grave Encounters 2 (C-)

It's just his funny way of saying hello.

As you might know, I have a soft spot in my heart for "found footage" movies, even though I've sat through a bunch of really bad ones. Though flawed, one of my favorites is Grave Encounters, a film which documents a team of reality television "ghost hunters" as they investigate a purportedly haunted insane asylum.

One of the things that made the original Grave Encounters work for me was the way the filmmakers handled the team's approach to their show, right down to footage of the show's star bribing a groundskeeper to lie about seeing ghosts through the asylum's windows. It was this irony--that the stars of the film weren't really believers in the first place--that gave the film just the right amount of credibility, just before all hell breaks loose.

Grave Encounters 2 is somewhat less effective than the original for a number of reasons, though it obviously tried to pick up where the original left off and lend some depth to its story and characters. A film student, Alex Wright (played by Richard Harmon) takes a break from creating cheesy torture porn movies with his pals to pursue his personal obsession--proving that the original Grave Encounters actually took place. With the help of a mysterious individual known only by his online screen name, "DeathAwaits666," as well as some actual on-hands investigation, Alex manages to convince his friends to travel to the asylum featured in Grave Encounters and do some filming of their own.

Being chased through ductwork by ghosts must really suck.

The lead-up to the asylum is fairly tedious--I even shut it off fifteen minutes in the first time I tried watching it--but once there, Grave Encounters 2 dives right back into the sorts of events that took place in the original film. The down side to this is that while the original was relatively fresh when it was released, the sequel relies on a number of tropes that were originally established in Grave Encounters. Not only that, but the effects are heavy-handed, and this, combined with the fact that we've seen it all before, makes them feel forced, look fake, and results in a much less creepy film.

However, when one of the characters from the original movie shows up, driven completely nuts after spending 10 years in such a terrifying environment, things get a bit more interesting. The filmmakers even try a couple of new tricks, which are clever and shake things up. Despite this, the majority of ghostly encounters aren't much different than they were the last time... with the exception of the ending, but I won't spoil that for you.

The cast's performances aren't bad, mind you. They do pretty well with what they've been given. Some of the characters are actually interesting, and you might miss them a little once the team has been whittled down. They do a lot of running around, hiding, and we get at least one obligatory, cliched moment where a character talks to the camera about how scared he is, how he doesn't want to die, along with a derivation of, "If you're watching this, I must be dead." At least you're not stuck staring up his nose.

This is what I'd call "Ridden hard and put away wet."

Cinematography is about what you'd expect from a found footage film, with shaky camera work and lots of night vision. The special effects are obviously CG and in your face, so much so that their artificial nature is much more blatant than I would've liked. When it come to CG effects, I really prefer it if they're subtle. Some practical make-up effects are used, too, and these are simple and well done.

At the end of the day, Grave Encounters 2 is a mostly competent found footage film that doesn't quite live up to the original. If you enjoyed the first one, you'll probably enjoy this one, too, and you'll be able to pick up on some of the common story threads that flow through and between both movies. If you've never seen the original, I suggest you track it down and watch it first.

Haunt (C+)

So you want to hear a ghost story?

I really had to give my rating for Haunt a good think before I decided what to rate it. In the end, I felt it was definitely worth my time to watch. It doesn't break much new ground, but it's still a quality film with a lot of creepy moments. I've never heard of the director, Mac Carter, before, but this was his feature film directorial debut. I'm quite interested to see what he does next, as Haunt is a well-crafted film which may lead to more original works in the future (knock on wood).

Like many ghost stories, Haunt begins with a house. A family of five lived there, but something horrible happened to their three children. We meet the father, Franklin Morello (played by Carl Hadra), in the opening moments of the film. He uses a wooden "ghost box" (which appears to be a modified radio) to contact the spirits of his dead children before being violently slain by some otherworldly power. A voice over from his wife, Janet (Jacki Weaver), accompanies the film's opening and sets the initial tone.

Fast forward to another family, the Ashers, who are viewing the house with their realtor. They buy the house, of course, because there wouldn't be much of a movie to see if they didn't. The three Asher children, Evan (Harrison Gilberson), Sara (Danielle Chuchran), and Anita (Ella Harris), don't seem overly thrilled about the place, but their parents, Emily (Ione Skye) and Alan (Brian Wimmer), are immediately enamored by it. It's a pretty nice house, honestly, large and in great shape. The only downside is the mysterious circumstances by which Franklin Morello and his three children met their ends. Local folklore insists the home is cursed, but the place is much too good of a deal to pass up.

She's not really chewing the scenery here. Just wait.

Janet Morello shows up at the house one day, looking for a painting of her son that she left behind in Evan's new room. She meets the Ashers and welcomes them to the home. Still, she's a creepy lady with a haunted look, doubtless the result of losing her entire family to... something. Janet sticks around long enough to get her painting and drum up some pity from Emily.

After the Ashers have moved in, Evan excuses himself one evening to go for a walk. While out and about in his somewhat rural neighborhood, he meets Sam (Liana Liberato). Sam, after taking a beating from her drunken father, is upset, and Evan attempts to soothe her. She rebuffs him, but it's obvious the two are going to end up together later on.

After another night of abuse, Sam sneaks into the Asher's home and slips into bed with Evan. Nothing sexual goes down between the two (at least, not yet), but Sam's presence is discovered by Anita the next morning. Evan's a good, honest kid (almost too good and honest, despite smoking the occasional joint), and he doesn't hide anything from his folks. His parents, though concerned with Sam's sudden presence in their son's life, trust him. Evan's mom, Emily, senses there's more to Sam than meets the eye after noticing bruises on Sam's arm. She tries to talk to the young woman, and offers to help her if she needs it. Sam refuses.

Dental care isn't all that important in the afterlife.

Sam tells Evan that she's been in the house before, though she isn't specific about why or when. She reveals the presence of the ghost box in a small room connected to Evan's. The two use the ghost box and hear something that frightens both of them, especially Evan. Things begin to spiral out of control until Evan decides to pay Janet Morello a visit to ask for help. Janet isn't happy to see Evan, and she wigs out, telling he and Sam to burn the ghost box, which they do. Of course, this isn't the end of their paranormal problems, far from it.

The film's ending is brutal and tragic, and answers the majority of the questions surrounding the haunting and its origin. I'm not sure it will satisfy all viewers, but that's sort of up to you... right?

Haunt contains a lot of ghost story tropes--EVP (electronic voice phenomena), possession, and slamming doors, to name a few. It utilizes them well, though, and the results are creepy and, at times, genuinely frightening. It does resort to a few "gotcha" scares here and there, which I've never been a huge fan of, but they're largely in line with the movie and don't detract from it too much.

Sam's got a few problems to hammer out.

The acting is very good across the board. The cast seemed very talented, though Jacki Weaver does chew the scenery up whenever she's on camera. The cinematography, too, is fine, and the special effects definitely get the job done. Like I mentioned initially, the story doesn't break much new ground as far as these sorts of movies are concerned, but the fact that Haunt is well-made makes up for the lack of innovation.

Haunt is currently available on NetFlix if you feel the urge to watch it. IMDB's reviewers aren't very kind to the movie, but everyone's going to have a different opinion. I, for one, enjoyed the movie, especially after some of the real stinkers I've seen, and I'd recommend it to my friends. And to you, of course.

Purification (D+)

"Unclean souls roam the Earth!"

NetFlix must hate me. It continues to suggest movies that I might like based on my prior choices in cinematic genius. The obvious problem is that I watch so many bad movies, it obviously thinks I enjoy them now. My philosophy is that there are "diamonds in the rough," so to speak, seeded among all the crummy films that find their way into my queue. It's proven correct before, but it's really about stamina. I mean, how many can I withstand before I throw in the towel?

Purification was one of the movies NetFlix suggested I check out. The premise sounded interesting, and I find myself enjoying indie films more and more, so I figured I'd give it the time of day. I nearly turned it off about fifteen minutes in, but I decided to stick it out for the long haul.

Joseph Ciminera plays Bret Fitzpatrick, a well-to-do real estate investor who is more concerned with his bottom line than the well-being of others. In short, he's a complete douche. This is established early on when he delivers an eviction notice to a woman and her special needs child in an apartment building he owns. Afterwards, he discovers his car has been towed, and he attempts to cross town on foot instead. Along the way, he narrowly avoids being hit by a car, after which things turn weird.

Bret continues to walk through the city and encounters a number of strange people. One of these people is a mysterious little girl, and he attempts to follow her. Along the way, he meets other folks, and in instances where he makes physical contact with them he is subjected to visions of the horrible things they've done. These scenes segue into nightmare sequences, which he awakens from.

"Either you pay the rent, or you watch my movie. Your choice."

Bret attempts to contact his psychiatrist, but learns that he is out of town. The man who answers the phone, Dr. Michaels (James Terriaca), says that he's covering the psychiatrist's patients while he's out of town. It is eventually revealed that Bret has been on medication for some time due to the fact that he used to see strange things when he was growing up. His condition apparently included nightmares, and he requests a refill of his prescriptions from Michaels rather than coming in for an appointment. Unfortunately, the dreams and hallucinations continue to get worse, and he transitions from scene to scene seemingly at random, always walking and always seeing strange people doing strange things.

As far as character pieces go, Purification isn't awful. The quality of the acting varies wildly, often feeling forced and artificial, and Ciminera is arguably the best of the lot. Given his prominence in the credits as actor, director, writer, producer, and casting director, he obviously had a lot on his plate. It's an indie film, though, so it's not unusual for the people making such films to perform multiple roles, both on and off screen. It's my personal opinion that such arrangements aren't ideal, but I also understand it's not always avoidable given budget constraints.

Another point on the acting--according to a couple of things I've read online, the movie had no script. Everyone was given their lines the day their scene was filmed, meaning that nearly every line was ad-libbed. Whether you think this adds to or detracts from the film is up to you. My thought is that if the actors had been better, there would have been less risk in such an approach. In my experience, improvisation is a skill unto itself, and not everyone has the knack for it.

The filming and cinematography are a bit rough around the edges, and the movie feels somewhat amateurish. Once again, it's an indie film, so this can be excused. One thing I found odd was that license plates and street signs are occasionally blurred out. I don't think I've ever seen this sort of thing done in a movie before, not even those with low budgets. I found it distracting, and noticing that sort of thing would immediately pull me out of the moment just when I might have been getting absorbed.

Would I rather die than watch this movie again? Uh...

What about scares? Well... there aren't many, if any, in Purification. There are some parts which might have been creepy, but they don't really cause much of an emotional reaction. Towards the end of the film, some of the things going on in the background come off as creepy, but it's not enough. Once you know what's going on (which, for me, was pretty early), there's really no shock factor remaining.

My issues with the film are mostly with the story and how it's conveyed. Purification started with some potential, but it ultimately ended up being a poor man's Jacob's Ladder. Is it the worst movie I've ever seen? Not on your life. That said, it's got a few drawbacks, and observant viewers will be able to spot the twist right away. Your mileage may vary, of course.

After viewing the movie, I checked it out on IMDB. Four of the six written reviews on the movie's IMDB page (each of which awards Purification a 10/10 rating) read like they were put there by people who were involved with the project--maybe just one person, as the writing of the reviews is similar enough that I wouldn't doubt that one person did them all. Whatever the case, this is definitely not a perfect film. Watch Jacob's Ladder, instead.

Jug Face (C+)

The pit wants what it wants.

I seem to remember hearing about Jug Face a while back. I wasn't really sure if it was going to be my type of movie or not, but at 80 minutes, it was a quick fix and I figured I had nothing to lose by watching it. I wasn't disappointed in the film, but it didn't make much of an impact on me, either. I'm not sure why, actually, because it's well done, given the budget constraints. The cast is great, and includes a few folks I didn't expect to see, and the director (Chad Crawford Kinkle) does a fine job of keeping things moving.

Imagine an insular backwoods community that worships a muddy pit in the forest. The pit offers healing powers to the community members, but for a price. Every so often, the community's jug maker is either possessed or put into a trance and forced to create a clay jug representing someone's face. That person is obliged to be sacrificed to whatever terrible thing (you never really see it) is in the pit. This tradition has been going on for quite some time, and the community has come to accept these grisly transactions.

Ada (Lauren Ashley Carter) discovers that she's next in line to be sacrificed to the pit when she finds the next jug. Frightened, she buries the jug in the woods. She also learns that she's to be joined (married) to Bodey (Mathieu Whitman), a boy from one of the other families, a prospect that doesn't exactly thrill her. Virginity is a big deal to these folks, which is especially troubling due to the fact that Ada has been having sex with her brother, Jessaby (Daniel Manche). To complicate matters further, she discovers that she's pregnant with Jessaby's child.

The pit.

When the pit doesn't get the sacrifice it's demanded, it begins to kill other members of the community, starting with Eilen (Jennifer Spriggs), Bodey's sister. The community decides that the pit has been angered somehow, assuming that a demanded sacrifice hasn't been made. The jug maker, Dawai (Sean Bridgers of Deadwood fame), creates the jugs while possessed/entranced. He has no memory of where he might have put the last jug, and is unable to find it. On Ada's advice, Dawai creates a new jug "from memory," which ends up being of Bodey.

Though Bodey is sacrificed to the pit, the supernatural force is still angry and it kills others as the story progresses. Ada, knowing that she should've been sacrificed but unwilling to kill her unborn child, attempts to escape to a nearby town along with Dawai. This is harder than it sounds, and the two are soon back in the woods where they must face the music for what they've done.

All in all, the cast is great. Ada's mother, Loriss (as portrayed by Sean Young) is especially good. Ada's father, Sustin (Larry Fessenden) is also well-played, and his love for his daughter is readily apparent. The special effects are few and far between, but there is some occasional gore resulting from the pit's angry outbursts. As mentioned, the creature (or whatever it is) isn't depicted directly, and there isn't much in the way of actual scares, though there are a few moments of suspense sprinkled liberally throughout.

Ada finds a jug that bears her face. Hilarity ensues.

My score of C+ here isn't a bad thing. I feel that Jug Face is above average, especially given its budget, and I enjoyed watching it. The premise of a muddy pit that demands human sacrifices in the middle of the woods might seem far-fetched and ridiculous, but the movie faces this reality with seriousness and steadfast determination. This makes all the difference, as the plot might have been considered silly if the cast and direction hadn't made it seem so plausible.

The Haunting of Helena (B-)

What a lovely smile she has.

Maybe I've been watching too many bad movies lately. For one thing, they certainly make other movies shine by comparison. Sort of like giving a starving man a piece of dry toast. Insert "Nom nom nom" noises here. Speaking of eating...

The Haunting of Helena (also known by the title Fairytale) was a pleasant surprise. It's a ghost story, for one, and for two, it's got a nice, low-level creep factor to it that results in some pretty solid scares. The acting is competently done (though the young girl who plays Helena, Sabrina Jolie Perez, is occasionally somewhat wooden), the cinematography is nice to look at, and I thought the overall story was pretty good. I only took issue with one special effect, with the rest being pretty well-done.

Sophia (Harriet MacMasters-Green) and her daughter Helena have moved into their own place in Italy. Sophia's husband (Helena's father) has apparently been traveling the world for a couple of years in order to get his head together (or something), and though he occasionally calls via Skype, his relationship with his wife and child are strained due to his absence. Thus, Sophia's desire to move away from what she refers to as his house. The house she and Helena move into, however, proves to be much worse than the one they left behind.

"Sure, the house is haunted. But we live in Italy! Score!"

The two discover a fancy wardrobe in the house, which Helena wants to keep in her room. Eventually, after losing her first baby tooth, Helena claims that the tooth fairy lives in her closet. Following a car accident involving Sophia and Helena, the little girl becomes obsessed with teeth and the tooth fairy. She begins drawing disturbing pictures of the tooth fairy. Of course, some disturbing events take place as the plot unfolds further, such as Sophia's elderly neighbor warning her that she and her daughter should leave while they can.

Sophia takes her to the doctor, who refers her to another physician. The physician examines the drawings, then asks Sophia if anyone has told Helena about what happened in their house back in the days of Mussolini's Italy. The story goes that a gentleman by the name of Battista Greco (Marco Fattibene) caught his wife smiling at another man. To punish her, Battista pulled out all of her teeth and locked her in a wardrobe (yes, that wardrobe) to die.

The mystery begins to unfold bit by bit, and the sanity of both Sophia and Helena comes into question. I won't spoil the details, but by the end of the movie, everything is wrapped up pretty well. There's a neat little twist, too, which I wasn't really expecting, despite the clues that are presented throughout the film.

Those things on the ground? Yeah, they're TEETH.

I really liked The Haunting of Helena despite IMDB's 4/10 user rating of the film (due to a single review). It tells a coherent story, the characters are believable, and the nature of the haunting and its ghost (or tooth fairy, if you prefer) is interesting. It's a little slow at times, but I didn't mind. If you enjoy movies about ghosts and creepy kids that combine supernatural horror with psychological horror, then you should definitely put this one on your watch list. Better yet, go watch it right now, unless teeth (or a lack of teeth, or having teeth pulled) creep you out. As with all my reviews, your mileage may vary.

My only gripe was with Helena's age. I'm a dad, and I know well enough what baby teeth look like. Though the character loses her first tooth in the beginning of the film, it's pretty obvious that she already has her adult teeth. A younger actress probably would have been better for the role, but it's a minor quibble, really.

Evidence of a Haunting (F)

Evidence of a Haunting was one of the movies I found on Amazon Prime. As with most of these kinds of movies, I didn't expect much of anything. Good thing, too, or I might have been disappointed.

The meandering story involves a group of paranormal researchers, members of the Supernatural Phenomenon Research Society (SPRS for short). It's filmed in a found footage sort of style sometimes, but transitions inexplicably to a standard style at will. One such scene takes place in a bar where the characters get to know one another better over vast quantities of booze. There's even a camera shot that bounces between two of the female members' boobs for no apparent reason.

The film follows the crew through a number of different hauntings/manifestations. The first involves a family haunted by a malevolent ghost that ends up possessing a little girl. The priest, Father Bowden, exorcises the little girl and removes the apparent demon (which identifies itself as "Persephone"). The group's psychic, Echo, instead insists it was a particularly nasty ghost, not a demon. They wander the house and declare it to be clean before they move on to their next investigation.

The second investigation involves a father and his two daughters. Their house is haunted by a ghost that, believe it or not, reorganizes stuffed animals and neatly folds and stacks clothes in the closet. When they find the source of the spirit in the girls' bathroom, Echo determines that the ghost really likes it in the house and will fight to stay there.

The proud members of the S.P.R.S.

The group decides to remove the spirit, which they determine is a Choctaw Indian medicine man. He's been turning off televisions and folding clothing, so he's got to go. The Wiccan priestess of the group, Shelley, is dragged around the girls' bedroom by the ghost, after which she locates a wooden Ouija board. It's revealed that the Ouija board was mailed to the house by a mysterious stranger, and the two girls opened the package and played with its contents, thereby allowing the ghost into our world.

Against the ghost's wishes, the group chops the Ouija board into seven pieces and burns them, thereby sending the medicine man back to whatever spirit realm he came from. Though the ghost throws some of the investigators around, it's not a particularly spectacular struggle. With the board destroyed and the ghost banished, the group pats itself on the collective back and proceeds to their next assignment by way of a bar.

The final assignment takes place in tunnels beneath a college in Texas. They speak to the groundskeeper, Mr. Henry, who tells them some tales about kids being lost in the tunnels, and about a teacher who had an affair with one of his students. He got her pregnant, then took her into the tunnels in an attempt to kill her. She survived and was committed to a mental institution before living out the rest of her days in Louisiana. Apparently, though, she's still looking for revenge, but you'll need to use your imagination to decide if she gets it or not.

The team allows the groundskeeper to lock them in overnight (after all, what could possibly go wrong?). Using a device that somehow allows them to speak with spirits, the gang waits until the hour of the dead and strikes up a conversation with the evil ghost of the teacher. The action begins in earnest when Rayne is whisked away by the ghost, and the rest of the group goes after her.

"These are our 'we're really seriously totally scared' faces."

The story then splits between the different groups, and there is a first-person "ghost cam" that chases individuals (like in Evil Dead II, only less interesting) intermixed with the occasional found footage POV. As for the end, well... the gang gets whittled down somewhat, but two of them survive (you guess which two). The final scene is highly cliched, and makes about as much sense as the rest of the film (which isn't saying much).

Overall, Evidence of a Haunting is an amateurish entry into the genre with incredibly low production values. It doesn't quite know what sort of film it wants to be. Is it found footage? Is it a ghost flick? Is it about demons? The film has no idea. It's what I'd expect from an amateur production. Looking at director Joey Evans's credits on IMDB, this is his sixth film (out of eight). I almost wonder how his other entries compare to this one. Then I realize that to contemplate such a thing is to court madness.

You'd be better off avoiding this one, I think. If MST3K was still on the air, this would make one hell of a thrilling addition to its repertoire. Evidence of a Haunting is probably the stinkiest stinker I've ever reviewed here (which isn't saying much, but it gives me something to work towards).

The Crying Dead (D)

"We're a lot scarier on the poster."

Tonight I was checking the movies on Amazon Prime and I came across a few supernatural horror films that sounded like they'd be terrible. You know, right up my alley. I added them to my watch list and started up the first of them: The Crying Dead.

Initially, the film begins with black and white footage of a woman being treated with electroshock therapy. Eventually, the patient uses what appears to be telekinetic powers to bring harm to her shock-happy doctors and nurse. From then, it cascades into what appear to be audition tapes, and this leads to a roughly-filmed sequence where three people are running away from something in what appears to be a hospital.

There is a lot of shouting and screaming, panting, cursing, and indistinct video--much as you'd expect from a found footage-type film. Outside of the stilted acting in the initial black and white electroshock/telekinetic brutality part, the acting isn't terrible. I assume a great deal of it was improvised, rather than scripted, but I could be wrong.

The narrative (if you can call it that) goes back in time to "20 Hours Earlier," where a number of other individuals are introduced in a parking lot. They arrive one by one and are introduced to one another. The group is filming a pilot for a reality show involving ghostly investigations, and the quality of the show will have a lot of bearing on whether it gets picked up or not. Becka Lassiter (Becka Adams) is the show's producer, while Andrew Halstead (Andrew Olsen) and Jeffrey Pierson (Jeff Stearns) are the camera assistant and camera operator, respectively.

Chris Mitchell (Chris Hayes), the actor playing the part of the show's lead investigator, is very serious about ghosts and the supernatural. Angelina Becker (Angelina Lyubomirova), one of his co-investigators, seems open to the supernatural, though she never appears quite as invested as Chris is. The third investigator, Callie Brooks (Callie Cameron), is an admitted skeptic and apparent airhead.

"Don't look at the string! Just pretend it's not there!"

The cast and crew board an RV and ride for several hours. They make a couple of stops along the way, and we get to explore a little more about each of them. There are little snippets of the cast talking, going over what they'll be doing, and the back story of the hospital that they'll be investigating. Three young girls were burned alive when the hospital's boiler exploded in 1924, and a few other stories/legends are touched on. You never really get a feeling for who these people are supposed to be outside of generalities: Callie is a ditz, Jeffrey is a jerk, etc. There's not enough given for me to feel invested in any of them.

Once they arrive, the hospital's caretaker shows them around, and they talk about the place and some of its history. When the caretaker learns that they plan to stay overnight, he refuses to allow it. As far as he knows, they're only warranted a tour. Becka attempts to work something out, but is unsuccessful. Chris, with Angelina's support, suggests breaking into the hospital after dark to film anyway. Of course, they all agree (to varying degrees) and get on with the breaking in (which is mercifully glossed over).

The crew sets up shop in the hospital, placing cameras at certain locations. Initial impressions are that it's all pretty standard fare for this kind of a film. A lot of nothing happens for a good while, and we look at a lot of camera images without seeing anything particularly weird or scary. The characters perform a few gags which, when edited in post-production, should provide "evidence" of a haunting. As they do so, one of the static cams films a gurney moving in a hallway. None of the cast is aware of this, and they continue looking around for things to film. As they do, the static cams capture a child-like shape crawling through a hallway.

When the first victim is attacked by the ghosts, you pretty much see it all. The ghost effects are a little too blatant, a little too unbelievable, which takes away from any residual creepiness. You get a real good look at all the spooks early on, and it ruins any mystery that might've been preserved by being a little more subtle. The filmmakers really tried to make the ghosts look creepy and otherworldly, but it only serves to make the effects seem cheap.

The cast runs a lot in this movie. Miles and miles. Really.

Suffice it to say that when things get rolling, it's nothing terribly original. Victims get tossed around by invisible forces, dragged away, and otherwise abused. One by one they meet their ends, though you never actually see anyone die on camera. It's just sort of assumed they do. Even when the last of the victims is ganked, it's more of a relief than anything. Because it means the movie is pretty much over.

I came into this one expecting nothing, and I guess I wasn't disappointed. A similar story was done before (as in, one month before), and better, by Grave Encounters. It almost makes me wonder if The Crying Dead was a mockbuster of Grave Encounters, or merely an independent project with a similar plotline. I guess the child ghosts make it somewhat unique, but they're not enough to turn a relatively tired concept into a supernatural gem.

Watch this one at your own risk, 'cause there's not a lot to see here. As far as the title goes, the ghosts don't do much crying. I suppose if I'd actually paid money to see the movie in a theater, I'd be the one in tears.