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).