Book vs. Movie: The Lords of Salem

The Book

I wasn't aware that Rob Zombie had released a novel version of his film, The Lords of Salem, until after I watched the movie. I put a hold on the book at the library immediately, hoping that it would clear up some scenes I found confusing in the film - which it did.

I'm unsure how much of the book Rob Zombie actually wrote, since it says "with B.K. Evenson" in smaller letters on the cover. I'm assuming that Rob Zombie wrote the film script and B.K. Evenson turned it into a novel.

The Lords of Salem begins in 1692, with John Hawthorne and a few others executing a group of witches. But before the men have a chance to kill the coven, one of the witches puts a curse on their descendants.

In the present day, radio DJ and recovering addict Heidi Hawthorne is seeing things in the vacant apartment at the end of the hall and is having intense, realistic nightmares. Things keep getting stranger when a package arrives addressed to Adelheid Elizabeth Hawthorne in a wooden box with an odd symbol on it. Inside is a record from an unknown band called The Lords. When the song is played on Heidi's radio show, it puts the women of Salem into a trance which drives them to mutilate themselves and anyone near them. The Lords of Salem are back and ready to get their revenge.

The book adds a lot of scenes that are omitted from the movie. The first 40 pages are dedicated to the execution of the coven in 1692, which is only shown briefly in the film. The book also shows what happens to a few women when the song is played on the radio, while the film only focuses on Heidi. There is also more detail on Francis, the Salem Witch Trial expert, in the book than in the movie, which only shows him in a few scenes.

The story is the same as the movie, but there are still enough differences to enjoy both. It's not like other books made into films I've read that are identical to each other.

The Movie

I love Rob Zombie's non-Halloween horror films, so I knew I would probably enjoy this one, and I did. The Lords of Salem is very different from his other films. It's not a slasher and it doesn't have buckets of gore. Instead it relies more on atmosphere. I watched this alone, late at night, and it gave me the creeps. It has lots of disturbing imagery and made me jump quite a few times.

The cast in the film was awesome: Dee Wallace, Patricia Quinn, Judy Geeson, Meg Foster, Ken Foree, Jeff Daniel Phillips, Sheri Moon Zombie...and the list goes on.

The only thing I didn't like about the film was that it could be confusing at times. Especially the ending, which was the main reason I wanted to read the book.

I actually prefer the movie over the book (possibly for the first time ever) because the imagery in the film trumps what I could imagine in my head while reading the book. The book is still worth a read because it adds more details and it's entertaining, but if you only have enough time/money/effort for one, I would go with the film.

A soundtrack for The Lords of Salem was also released.

Book: 3/5

Movie: 4/5

Book vs. Movie: Valentine

Happy Valentine's Day! In honour of the special day, here's a post comparing the book Valentine to the film adaptation of the same name.

The Book

I saw the film version of Valentine before I read the book written by Tom Savage (I only recently became aware of the book's existence), so I was surprised to find that the book is a thriller and not a horror novel. It focuses more on suspense than gore while the film is a slasher. The plot in the book barely resembles the plot in the movie.

The book is about Jillian Talbot, a bestselling mystery author, who receives threatening Valentine's Day cards and is the victim of other unsettling pranks in the days leading up to February 14. She becomes convinced that an old classmate, Victor Dimorta, is the one behind it.

In college, Jillian was part of a clique where each member was named after a different element: Earth, Wind, Fire and Water. On Valentine's Day, they played a cruel prank on Victor, resulting in his expulsion from college.

When the police tell Jillian that they can't help her, she hires a private investigator to find her stalker, but the closer it gets to Valentine's Day, the less time there is for Jillian.

There are so many parts of the book that I love and wish they had included in the movie. In the book, the killer elaborately plans the murders, using the clique's nicknames - Earth, Wind, Fire and Water - to end their lives. He also plays the song "My Funny Valentine" before he kills them because it's the song that was playing when they pulled the prank on him.

The killer also has a better motive in the book. By pulling a prank on Victor, the girls essentially ruin his life (or so he thinks). When he's expelled, he's sent home to his abusive father and things just get worse from there. College was his chance to get away from his family and the girls ruined it. This makes his character more believable than in the film.

The biggest difference between the book and the movie is that the murders take place over the span of a few years instead of in succession. The murders in the book each have their own chapter, shown from the killer's perspective while he reminisces about them. 

My favourite part of the novel was the twist at the end. When I saw the quote on the cover of the book from James Patterson - "Suspense with a twist." - I spent the entire book trying to figure out what it could be. I thought I knew the identity of the killer since I had already seen the movie but I didn't think that was much of a twist. Eventually I started to think maybe they changed the ending for the movie and I was blown away by the ending of the book.

Seeing the film first didn't take away my enjoyment of the book and I recommend anyone who enjoyed the movie to check out the novel.

The Movie

Five young women who have remained friends since middle school are the targets of disturbing pranks - creepy Valentine cards and chocolates filled with maggots - before Valentine's Day. When one of them dies, they realize the pranks are more than sick jokes.

The Valentine cards are signed with the initials J.M. which leads them to believe they're from Jeremy Melton - a boy who asked them all to dance at their middle school Valentine's Day dance and they all rudely rebuffed. But one of the girls kept a secret from the others. When some boys caught her making out with Jeremy under the bleachers, she was humiliated and lied, saying he attacked her, resulting in him being sent to reform school.

While their friends are being picked off, they try to figure out which man in their lives could secretly be Jeremy Melton.

Since they turned the novel into a slasher, the body count is higher than what it is in the book and the deaths are more gruesome and unusual. But I enjoyed the gory death scenes. I think the only thing missing from the novel is gore and that's the reason why I tend to choose horror novels over thrillers. I especially like the death by Cupid's arrows and the maggot-filled chocolates.

In the book, the killer is cold and calculating, taking several years to think of the perfect plan for revenge - going to lengths to incorporate their nicknames into their deaths and ensure the deaths happen on Valentine's Day. The killer in the film is the typical slasher psycho - he wears a mask (a Cupid mask that was worn at the middle school dance) and kills several people in a row as gruesomely as possible with little thought behind it.

In the film, the women remain friends, whereas in the book the girls stop being friends after college (Jillian doesn't speak to them after the prank). Each character in the movie is a cliche. There's the Smart One, the Sexy One, the Fun One, the Nice One and the Fat One (or the Formerly Fat One). The characters in the book are described more realistically, although the book doesn't focus on the other women nearly as much as on Jillian.

There are a lot of differences between the book and the movie, but these are the major ones.

The Verdict

The novel is much better than the film. They took a suspenseful psychological thriller and turned it into a run-of-the-mill slasher. The only things the two have in common are the basic plot - a spurned classmate gets revenge on the girls who rejected and humiliated him - the disturbing Valentine cards and the climax taking place during a Valentine's Day party.

I still do like the film (I have a thing for slashers), but when comparing it to the book, I realized that it's just your typical slasher, nothing special. Unlike the book, which has a twist ending which I didn't see coming even after seeing the movie first.

I would give the book a 4/5 and the movie a 3/5 rating.

MOVIE REVIEW: Scream 4

I was only nine when the first Scream film came out in 1996. I'll never forget the first time I watched it. I rented it with my family and my dad had to leave during the movie to pick up my uncle. My mom, my brother and I were too scared to be left alone, so we piled in the car with him.

The first scene got under my skin, particularly when Casey says "I'm two seconds away from calling the police!" and Ghostface replies "They'll never make it in time." Which is a disturbing thought, especially since I lived in the middle of nowhere at the time.

After watching Scream, I became obsessed with it. In addition to watching it enough times to recite the dialogue, I did other obsessive things. At the time, my hair was very long and I got it cut into a bob, just like Drew Barrymore in the movie. I invented a game called "Scream" which I played with my friends and was basically just hide and seek except the seeker would "kill" you when found. And I had to go see Scream 3 in the theatre, which was a big deal for me because I rarely watched movies in the theatre as a child (I don't know where I was for Scream 2). I was only 12 at the time, so my best friend and I had to go with her grandpa and I felt like a baby, but I didn't care because I wanted see Scream 3 that badly.

So, 11 years after I sat in a theatre and watched Sidney Prescott try to get on with her life in the aftermath of the Woodsboro murders, I was psyched to do it all over again. And it was great to revisit Woodsboro and catch up with the characters. Sidney's just as tough as I remember, kicking ass against Ghostface, Dewey is just as dumb and Gale is just as bitchy and ruthless, doing whatever it takes to catch the killer.

Sidney (Neve Campbell) seems to have pieced her life back together and has written a self-help memoir, Out of the Darkness. She returns to Woodsboro for her book tour, on the anniversary of the murders. Meanwhile, Sidney's cousin, Jill (Emma Roberts), begins getting sinister prank calls. And then the murders begin. Sheriff Dewey (David Arquette) is on the case and his wife, Gale (Courtney Cox), is there to help.

While Scream 4 isn't as good as the first Scream film, it comes close and is definitely better than the other sequels. It has more gore than the previous movies - probably more than all of them combined. And more humour than the others, making me - and the rest of the audience - laugh out loud several times.

Scream 4 is more like a reboot than a sequel. Instead of focusing on Sidney, the storyline follows the new generation of teens, which are very similar to the original cast. There's Jill, the good girl (Sidney), Trevor, the creepy boyfriend (Billy), Kirby, Jill's hot best friend (Tatum) and Charlie, horror movie fanatic (Randy). This is probably the only aspect of the film that disappointed me. I was expecting the film to centre around Sidney, Dewey and Gale, and instead it's about a whole new set of characters. But the film is still entertaining and still includes Sid, Dewey and Gale, even if it doesn't revolve around them.

The film boasts an impressive cast, including appearances by Hayden Panettiere (Heroes), Rory Culkin (Signs), Erik Knudsen (Scott Pilgrim vs. the World), Adam Brody (The O.C.), Anthony Anderson (Urban Legends: Final Cut), Alison Brie (Community), Anna Paquin (True Blood), Kristin Bell (Veronica Mars), Shenae Grimes (90210), Lucy Hale (Pretty Little Liars), in addition to the actors I've already mentioned.

Scream 4 is a lot of fun and has everything you've come to expect from a film in the Scream franchise: a shocking opening sequence, creepy phone calls, a surprising ending and lots of self-referential horror humour. Definitely a must-see for Scream fans.

Rating: 4/5

MOVIE REVIEW: Saw 3D

I'm not a huge fan of the Saw franchise. I think the first one is okay, the second one is good, but the third one kind of sucks and made me lose interest in the subsequent sequels. ...Until a few months ago when Saw V and Saw VI were playing back to back on Super Channel and I decided to watch them, expecting nothing more than gore. And, to my surprise, I actually enjoyed them. Not as much as Saw II, but pretty close. They actually made me want to see the newest installment, Saw 3D. And when my favourite actress from Scream Queens Season 2, Gabby West, won a role in the film, I wanted to see it even more. So after finally convincing my horror movie hating boyfriend to go with me, I've seen it and think it was just okay.

The plot is the standard Saw fare: lots of gore and inventive traps, but with a few twists thrown in. I was surprised by the major plot twist in the movie, but it didn't make sense in context with the rest of the films in the series. In general, there wasn't much of a plot, just massive amounts of gore, which is what I expected and was looking forward to.

The 3D was unnecessary. It definitely wasn't worth the extra $2.50, since it was barely noticeable save for a few instances of blood and guts flying at my face.

But the biggest disappointment in Saw 3D was Gabby West's role. She had no lines - other than screaming, of course. Chester Bennington (from Linkin Park) even had more lines than her! If I had to endure catfights with bitchy actresses, John Homa's brutal acting class and just generally working my ass off to win a part in a film where I didn't have any lines and was only onscreen for 30 seconds, I would not be impressed.  Especially while the previous winner of Scream Queens, Tanedra Howard, had several lines in Saw VI, and in Saw 3D. Oh well, hopefully we'll see more of Gabby in other films.

I probably would have enjoyed Saw 3D if Gabby had a larger role, they had made more use out of the 3D and the big plot twist wasn't disappointing. But it's not a terrible choice if you're just looking for lots of gore.

Rating: 3/5

MOVIE REVIEW: Borderland

Watching this movie made me realize how awful it will be to watch films without my mom. Her love of horror is the reason I got into it. Everyone I know is a chicken and refuses to watch them with me. Oh well, enough of the sob story, onto the review.

I've wanted to see this film for ages because I heard it's one of the better Horrorfest flicks and I love Rider Strong. It was released as a part of After Dark Horrorfest 2007, so it's only been out for three years.

The After Dark Horrorfest films always have intrigued me because they're "too graphic, too disturbing, and too shocking for general audiences". Or so they claim during the previews of the Horrorfest flicks. And it's exciting to have eight brand-new, never before seen horror films released all at once. Unfortunately, the few I've seen have been hit and miss. I still want to watch them all, though.

Borderland wasn't a complete miss, but I'm still disappointed after having sky-high expectations.

Based on true events which took place in 1989, Borderland tells the story of three college graduates who head to Mexico to party. But when one of them goes missing, the fun stops and their search for their friend leads them to a Satanic cult.

The plot isn't anything new, but the fact that it actually happened is chilling. And despite a few scenes of brutal violence, this film could be considered more of a drama or thriller.

But my biggest complaint is that Borderland takes awhile for something exciting to happen, and even then the pace is sporadic.

The performances are great, especially from Rider Strong, who I know as my crush on Boy Meets World, but most horror fans should know him from Cabin Fever. Apparently Sean Astin plays a bad guy in this film as well, but I didn't even notice until I looked up Borderland on Imdb later. If you're not familiar with Astin, I think he was Sam (?) in Lord of the Rings (not sure of his name because I'm not a big LOTR fan), but I know him best as Dave in Encino Man.

While it wasn't horrible, it wasn't great and I don't highly recommend it. It would make an okay rental, just don't set your expectations too high like I did.

Rating: 3/5

MOVIE REVIEW: 13: Game of Death

Remember that reality show Fear Factor where contestants would perform crazy stunts and eat disgusting things to win a whopping $50,000?

Well, 13: Game of Death is like that show crossed with a Saw film. But instead of getting a new lease on life after you've finished your gruesome challenges, you win one million dollars.

Chad just got fired from his job and is deeply in debt. When he gets a call from a stranger offering him one million dollars in exchange for completing 13 challenges, his money problems are solved. ...If he can push aside his morals to do horrible, difficult and disgusting things, that is.

But with the exception of a few challenges, the film isn't gory. There was a lot of potential for crazy gore scenes because essentially the story-line is about forcing Chad to do the most gruesome things imaginable (he is getting a million dollars out of it, after all), but the film doesn't deliver.

The film is more of a drama with a few gory scenes thrown in, making the pace sporadic. There would be an exciting challenge, then a dull one, then another exciting one. I found it hard to pay attention the whole time because it is very boring at times.

And the big "twist" ending is a big disappointment. It's not that I saw it coming, I just didn't think it was interesting because there was only three minutes of back-story to explain it.

13: Game of Death has an interesting concept, but I would've enjoyed it more if it had been 100% horror. This is a Thai film and the version I watched was badly dubbed, so if you decide to check this one out make sure you watch the subtitled version.

Rating: 2/5

MOVIE REVIEW: Return to Sleepaway Camp

Sleepaway Camp is one of my favourite horror films. So when I found out Robert Hiltzik, the writer/director of the first film, was making a sequel which would star Felissa Rose, Jonathan Tiersten and Paul DeAngelo (Angela, Ricky and Ronnie, in the first film) I was thrilled. So thrilled that I waited two years until it came on TV so I could watch it for free.

I read several negative reviews of Return to Sleepaway Camp prior to watching it, which is one of the reasons I waited so long to see it. I ended up enjoying it a bit more than everyone else - probably because I lowered my expectations so much. But it's still not a great film or comparable to the first Sleepaway Camp.

It's summertime at Camp Manabe - formerly Camp Arawak - and a series of unfortunate "accidents" take place, causing co-owner Ronnie to suspect that Angela Baker is back to continue the gory murders she started 20 years ago.

The main character, Alan, was so irritating I just wanted him to die a slow and painful death the entire time he was onscreen. Alan was an immature asshole who was constantly whining about everybody picking on him. But everyone only teased Alan because he was a jerk, so it was impossible to emphasize with him. In the beginning of the film, I thought Alan was going to die first because he was so annoying and everyone hated him. Sadly, I was wrong.

The film doesn't focus on any of the other characters. When some of them were killed off I didn't even remember seeing them earlier. And all of the campers looked like they were 18, while all the counselors looked like they were 30.

The death scenes were pretty creative, but in order to happen the characters had to be unfathomably stupid (after seeing a sharp stick poke through a hole in the floor, one brilliant character decides to peer through the hole for five minutes), which took the fun out of them.

I already knew the "twist" ending because it is revealed on the Return to Sleepaway Camp IMDb page. But it's obvious, and I (hopefully) would've figured it out quickly, had I not already known what it was. I didn't expect this film to include a surprise ending though. The first film already had one of the most shocking endings I've ever seen and I don't know what other surprising secrets could be revealed about Angela.

The most exciting aspect of the film is also the biggest letdown. Felissa Rose reprises her role as Angela but she's only onscreen for a few minutes at the end of the film! Same with Jonathan Tiersten, who stars once again as Ricky, but is only in a few brief scenes. And the late Issac Hayes (voice of Chef in South Park) appears in his last role as Charlie the Chef. Which was awesome, except for the fact that he was barely in the film either.

Okay, all I've done in this review is bitch even though I've already stated that I didn't hate the film. And I didn't - it mildly entertained me, so I'm going to give it a 3/5. But I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else, unless you lower your expectations as far as they will go, like I did.

Robert Hiltzick is currently making a 3D follow-up to this film, Sleepaway Camp Reunion, which stars Alexis Bledel (Rory from Gilmore Girls!) and will be released in late 2010 or early 2011. It will show the return of Aunt Martha as well as Angela and Ricky Baker.

Rating: 3/5

MOVIE REVIEW: Zombie Strippers

I just got Bell satellite and for the next two months I get the Super Channel package (consisting of four movie channels) for free! They show tons of horror movies and I also just got a PVR, so I'll have lots of reviews to come. The first horror film I watched is Zombie Strippers.

I don't know what I expected from a movie titled Zombie Strippers. I guess I hoped it would be funnier than it actually is. What you get is zombies and strippers. That's it. Not much humor, or interesting characters or passable dialogue. Just zombies and strippers - oh, and eventually you get zombie strippers.

When the American government develops a virus that brings the dead back to life, a soldier gets bitten by a zombie. Later, he checks out a strip club and ends up biting one of the strippers, Kat (Jenna Jameson). Instead of killing her, the owner of the strip club, Ian (Robert Englund), allows her to continue stripping and she becomes the most popular stripper in the club. Soon all the girls must become zombies to compete and the strip club is making loads of money. Even when the girls start eating/turning patrons into zombies, Ian looks the other way. But soon there are more zombies than humans in the club. Will they be able to kill the zombie strippers before they get eaten?

There isn't much of a plot. As I already mentioned it's about zombies and strippers, and strippers who eventually become zombies.

The characters are all stereotypes - the Mexican janitor, the Christian stripper who desperately needs money for her Nana's operation, etc. This wouldn't matter if they had been funny, but they weren't. And the acting is awful - except for Robert Englund as the sleazy owner of the strip club. At least he has a few funny lines.

There are so many other zombie comedies out there that are actually funny (Shaun of the Dead, Zombieland, Dead Alive, Dance of the Dead, Attack of the Vegan Zombies, just to name a few), so I would skip Zombie Strippers and watch one of those instead.

Rating: 2/5

MOVIE REVIEW: Contact

Jeremiah Kipp's short film, Contact, shows the horrors of a bad drug trip and is like a twisted version of a PSA. The freaky hallucination the young woman experiences will definitely make you think twice about doing drugs - at least it did for me.

When a couple buys drugs and takes them together, it leads to a terrifying trip. Meanwhile, the young woman's parents set the table and anxiously wait for their daughter to come home for dinner.

Contact uses the drug trip gone wrong story and takes it to the extreme. I don't want to ruin it for anyone, but the hallucination is definitely twisted.

The short is filmed in black & white, with almost no dialogue, giving it a surreal quality, almost like a nightmare.

The acting is superb, especially from the female lead, played by Zoe Daelman Chalanda. There is very little dialogue, so the viewer must rely on facial expressions to understand what the characters are feeling (namely terror), and she clearly conveys her dread.

If you have 11 minutes to spare, check out Contact here: www.contact.shroggle.com.

Rating: 4/5

MOVIE REVIEW: Wages of Sin (Horror Collector's Set Part 4)

The last film left on the Horror Collector's Set, Wages of Sin, makes me think if something this awful could get made, I could make a movie too. I could just write down gibberish and call it a script, grab my friends - or even random people off the street - get my camcorder and there's Wages of Sin 2. I really wish I didn't waste my time watching this garbage.

A young woman who was adopted inherits a farmhouse from her biological family of whom she knows nothing about. But she quickly learns they were bible thumping psychos and now haunt the house.

Wages of Sin features an outstanding number of cliches. There's the creepy farmhouse, an Ouija board, ghosts, possessions, crazy Christians who punish "sinners," etc. And these cliches equal zero scares and zero gore.

I loathed the characters, especially the main couple's two friends. If I had to spend a weekend with them, I would go insane. They were ridiculously immature compared to the other couple, especially the blonde guy, who was also the dumbest character I've ever seen. Oh how I wanted him to die.

Remember how much I hated Bloody Mary? Well, Wages of Sin is much worse. Probably the worst movie I've ever seen. Trust me on this, never watch it.

To sum up what I thought of this Horror Collector's Set, Memory was the only descent film of the four, and that's probably not even worth $5. I would pass on this DVD, even though it's a ridiculous price...it's that cheap for a reason.

Rating: 1/5

MOVIE REVIEW: Memory (Horror Collector's Set Part 3)

Memory is more of a thriller/mystery film than a horror film and I don't know why they chose to include it on a horror collector's set. Plus it's not a bad film and doesn't deserve to be lumped together with the other crap in this collection (that I've watched so far...still keeping my fingers crossed that Wages of Sin won't suck).

Dr. Taylor Briggs (Billy Zane) has dedicated his life to curing Alzheimer's for his mother, who is afflicted with the disease. While giving a presentation on the disease in Brazil, he encounters a substance used in ancient tribal rituals to evoke memories of ancestors. This substance enables Briggs to relive memories of his ancestors in dreams. In particular, he sees young girls kidnapped and murdered, becoming obsessed with solving the mystery of the killer's identity - and of his own ancestry.

This film includes the requisite thriller features:

• Gaining information through Google searches/old newspaper articles
• The doctor friend who can get his hands on coroner's reports
• Breaking into houses to find more information
• Realizing the killer is onto you
• Confrontation with the killer, but getting away unscathed
  
• A twist ending, complete with a big showdown with the killer

Although it follows the standard thriller conventions, the main plot idea is unique. Even if it's far-fetched, the thought of reliving your ancestors' memories is interesting. It makes you wonder what you would see if that were actually possible. And just the thought of one of your ancestors being a killer who was never caught is chilling.

It's pretty slow in the beginning and takes a long time for Memory to grab your interest. I didn't really start paying attention until at least 1/4 into the film, but once it grabbed me, I was very engrossed in trying to figure out the identity of the killer. Unfortunately, there weren't many characters to suspect. But somehow the identity of the killer and the twist ending still took me by surprise.

The characters are a little bland (especially the Dr.'s love interest) but I empathized with Briggs since Alzheimer's runs in my family. Plus, I just love Billy Zane (especially as the bad guy in Demon Knight). Dennis Hopper, Tricia Helfer and Ann-Margret also have roles in the film.

Memory is a thought provoking thriller albeit slow and by the book. I wouldn't go out of my way to watch it. Check it out if it's on T.V. or you can grab it cheap enough.

Rating: 3/5

MOVIE REVIEW: Mortuary (Horror Collector's Set Part 2)

Alfalfa (Bug Hall) from The Little Rascals movie (1994) plays a punk/zombie in Mortuary, which excited me because I adored that movie when I was growing up. Unfortunately, that is the only excitement I felt during the film. I don't know what happened to Tobe Hooper, but he is no longer reliable as a horror director. From now on I will proceed with caution on all his projects.

Leslie Doyle and her two children, Jonathan and Jamie, move to a small town so she can take over as mortician at the Fowler Funeral Home and cemetery. But there's a town rumour about the Fowler family and their son, Bobby. As the story goes, Bobby is horribly deformed and supposedly murdered his parents. Now he lives in a tomb, only coming out at night. Soon the Doyles realize that the story isn't just town gossip.

There were a few so-bad-it's-good scenes in the film, but not enough to make it good, so it's basically just a bad film. Seeing the mortician mother onscreen was usually good for a laugh. Especially her attempts to embalm dead bodies while consulting her medical text.

The plot is the same old zombie plot with a few weird quirks - such as zombies puking on people to turn them into other zombies.

The acting isn't bad. The film features a few horror movie veterans like Denise Crosby (Pet Sematary) and Lee Garlington (Psycho II & III).

Mortuary is pretty awful, but at least it's not as bad as Bloody Mary.

Rating: 2/5

MOVIE REVIEW: Bloody Mary (Horror Collector's Set Part 1)

The Easter Bunny left this DVD in my Easter basket this year. And he left the Wal-Mart sticker on it, so I know it only cost $5.00, which I think is a steal for four films...well depending on how good they are.... The DVD is called "Horror Collector's Set" and it includes Wages of Sin, Mortuary, Memory and Bloody Mary. This week I plan on watching and reviewing all of them. There are several other DVDs in this series of 4-pack horror films which you can view here.

I watched Bloody Mary first because I wanted to see how it compared to Dead Mary, another film that borrows the Bloody Mary legend, which I watched last week. It is much worse, which is saying something because I didn't enjoy Dead Mary much.

When Natalie's sister, Nicole, disappears, she starts her own investigation leading her to something called "The Mirror Game," which supposedly summons Bloody Mary. Could it have something to do with Nicole's disappearance?

The plot of Bloody Mary is cliched and dull. I don't know why they keep making movies with the Bloody Mary legend, because it has already been done so many times. If you're going to make a film using Bloody Mary, at least give it an original spin, like Candyman or the Biggie Smalls episode of South Park.


The only character I could keep straight was Natalie (maybe because she was a brunette), all of Nicole's friends were blonde sorority girls and they all looked identical to me. And the acting is atrocious. Usually I don't even notice bad acting thanks to a lifetime of B movies, soap operas and teenybopper dramas on the WB, but I could barely stand to watch these people "act." They show no emotion.

But the worst part of this film is the gratuitous nudity. I'm not new to horror movies and I know they all show naked women, but in Bloody Mary the reasoning behind it is just absurd. I already mentioned how the girls play "The Mirror Game," but I never explained what it entails. The girl in question has to strip buck naked and then repeat "I believe in Bloody Mary" in the mirror. Why do they have to be naked? "Because that's how it's done," explains Blonde #1. But I have a better reason: because they needed an excuse for them to get naked.

The gore is the only descent part of this film, featuring gouged eyeballs and mirrors exploding in people's faces. But I never watch a film just to see gore, so I would recommend skipping this one.

Rating: 1/5

MOVIE REVIEW: Attack of the Vegan Zombies

If a zombie had the choice between a human's delicious flesh or a glass of wine, you would think that it would choose the former. Not the zombies in the hilarious indie horror flick, Attack of the Vegan Zombies, who only have a thirst for wine. But when they run out of wine and you've been drinking - watch out!

Dionne and Joe, a couple who own a vineyard, have a dismal year for their grape crop, so Dionne enlists the help of her mother, who is a witch. Together they perform a ritual to ensure better crops next year, taking some of Joe's blood for the potion while he's asleep. But Joe's blood has wine in it and makes the plants hostile (i.e. drinking people's blood and turning them into zombies). These zombies aren't your average zombies, instead of having a hankering for brains, they crave wine. And when all the wine is gone, they're so desperate that they resort to drinking human blood, which has alcohol in it.

The concept of "vegan" zombies turned the usual zombie film into a unique experience. The killer grape plants being the reason for people becoming zombies was refreshing compared to the standard infectious disease.

The pace is a little slow, taking time to establish the characters, which I didn't mind because I was entertained by the funny characters. And even though the zombies don't make an appearance until near the end of the film, I was too interested in the killer plants to care. When the zombies popped up it was just a bonus.

The characters are the best part of the film. While Dionne, her mother and Joe are normal, the people they hired to pick grapes (two nerds and two cheerleaders) are hysterical caricatures. Especially the nerds who are even nerdier than the gang on The Big Bang Theory.

Attack of the Vegan Zombies is the perfect film for a horror fan looking for a zombie movie with lots of laughs.

Rating: 4/5

MOVIE REVIEW: Dead Mary

Oh how I love to watch movies on TV. Instead of wasting 1 hour 40 minutes on a crappy film, I spent 2 hours 20 minutes watching Dead Mary on Dusk, a channel which has a commercial break every 10 minutes. Definitely not worth my time.

A group of old friends - a recently broken up couple, a new couple, a married couple and a single friend - reunite to spend a weekend at a remote cabin in the woods. One drunken night they decide to play Dead Mary. Dead Mary is a game which is basically a clone of Bloody Mary, except as they explain in the movie, "Bloody Mary is the lame version." They take turns repeating Dead Mary in the mirror three times and go to bed afterward, only to be woken up in the middle of the night by screaming. One of them is dead and one of them is a killer. But what would possess someone to murder one of their friends? Or who?

As you can see, the plot is fairly cliched and unoriginal - except that instead of having a ghost/demon/ghoul/zombie summoned from the repetition of her name in the mirror, she possesses one of the friends and the film becomes a sort of whodunit, with the group trying to figure out who the killer is. But too much of the film concerns a dull subplot about who has been sleeping with who, which drastically slows the plot, having murders interspersed with heated arguments about cheating.

Dead Mary has only one setting and very little action, so I looked to the characters to immerse myself in the film, but not a single one was likable. They were all cheaters or self-centered or weak or stupid. Actually they were all pretty stupid (let's wait for 24 hours and when it's nighttime, everyone is almost everyone is dead and it's pouring rain, we'll go for help). The unlikable characters made an already weak film almost unbearable.

And the ending gave no answers, or even a resolution. There was no explanation of who Dead Mary was, how the legend started or why she possesses and kills people.

But for all my complaints Dead Mary has some redeeming qualities. A few scenes are atmospheric: walking through the pitch black woods in the middle of the night, hearing strange noises barely audible over the sound of crickets, but knowing that something is out there and then: BAM! it jumps out of nowhere. Although that scene gave me chills, the whole film isn't worth watching just for it.

Rating: 2/5

MOVIE REVIEW: Leprechaun 2

"She sneezes once, she sneezes twice, she'll be me bride when she sneezes thrice."

On Leprechaun's 1000th birthday, he gets the chance to make a woman his bride by getting her to sneeze three times. But her father spoils his attempt, so he has to wait another 1000 years before he can try again. He decides to make the woman's descendant his bride, but her boyfriend isn't going to let him have her without a fight.

The film is slow and drags a lot. I was bored and kept wondering when the leprechaun would kill someone. When that finally happened, it was disappointing because the gore was shown off screen.

The acting from the two leads is atrocious. Leprechaun's bride is one of the worst actresses I've ever seen and I could barely watch her - even her scream is terrible. But there are funny cameos from Michael MacDonald (MadTV) and Clint Howard.

This film isn't as funny as its predecessor, but it still provides a few laughs. Especially the scene where they trick the leprechaun into getting drunk. But I didn't find the few laughs I got from this film to be worth witnessing the horrible acting and dull scenes.

Rating: 2/5

MOVIE REVIEW: Leprechaun

St. Patrick's Day is this Wednesday, so I'm going to review a Leprechaun movie a day until then.

While in Ireland, Dan O'Grady (Shay Duffin) steals a leprechaun's (Warwick Davis) pot of gold. But the leprechaun follows him to the U.S. to reclaim his gold. Luckily, O'Grady knows how to trap the leprechaun, but then he has a stroke. 10 years later, J.D. (John Sanderford) and his daughter Tory (Jennifer Aniston) move into the house and the leprechaun is still locked in a crate in the basement. They inadvertently release him and now he'll do anything to get his gold back.

After the leprechaun gets locked in the crate in the opening scene, the pace of the film slows drastically. If it weren't for the comic relief of characters Alex and Ozzie, I would've been bored.

Jennifer Aniston plays the exact same character she would later play as Rachel in Friends: a spoiled brat. She is fairly irritating in this film. But the characters Alex (Robert Hy Gorman, Don't Tell Mom the Babysitter's Dead) and Ozzie (Mark Holton, Teen Wolf) make the film. Alex is very mature despite being only about 13 and Ozzie is slow and childlike, and together they make a great duo. Definitely the comic relief of the film - other than the leprechaun.

The comedy makes Leprechaun great. There are some hilarious lines in the film, for example:

Deputy Tripet: "Say, aren't we a little young to be out this late?"
Leprechaun: "No, I'm 600 years old."

"Fuck you, lucky charms!" - Alex

There isn't much gore, but when there is it's pretty nasty (the leprechaun on a pogo stick jumping up and down on a victim's chest, for example).

Leprechaun is a film to check out if you like horror with a bit of comedy.

Rating: 4/5

MOVIE REVIEW: Dog Soldiers

A group of soldiers training in the Scottish Highlands encounters a pack of werewolves. They meet a zoologist and all take refuge in an abandoned house to try to survive until the sun comes up. What happens when men who are trained to fight humans face a monster?

The pace of Dog Soldiers is insanely fast. After the first gory scene of the movie, there is only about 15 minutes establishing the plot before the soldiers meet the werewolves. And despite the film almost entirely taking place inside a house, it's never boring.

The werewolves are different than the ones featured in all the films I have reviewed so far. Instead of simply being a wild beast, these werewolves are intelligent and work together, making them more terrifying.

The film is pretty gory. There's a dog playing tug of war with a man's intestines, a head decapitated and a stomach super glued together, just to name a few.

I didn't care much for the characters and even though each solider was introduced, I had difficulty keeping straight who was who because there wasn't much to differentiate them.

Dog Soldiers was written and directed by Neil Marshall, who went on to make another great film, The Descent. This is definitely a film to check out.

Rating: 4/5

MOVIE REVIEW: Ginger Snaps

Ginger Snaps is not only my favourite werewolf flick, it's one of my favourite horror films period. I watched it for the first time - and have watched it a dozen times since - when I was in Grade 10 and I could definitely relate to the characters, sort of being an outcast myself.

Sisters Ginger and Brigitte have a twisted relationship. They're obsessed with death and have a suicide pact - "Out by sixteen or dead on the scene, but together forever." Meanwhile, a wild animal is ripping dogs to pieces. The girls take this as an opportunity to get back at a popular classmate by tricking her into thinking her beloved dog is dead. While they're scooping up the carcass of a freshly slaughtered dog, a werewolf attacks Ginger. She's okay, but afterward she sprouts hair in funny places and has an insatiable craving for...something.... Ginger attributes these changes to the fact that Aunt Flo has visited her for the first time, but quickly realizes there's something wrong with her when she grows a tail.

The plot of Ginger Snaps is a unique spin on the werewolf tale, using becoming a werewolf as a metaphor for getting your period. I like how instead of just changing into a werewolf when the moon is full, Ginger gradually becomes one. She grows claws, a tail, sharp teeth, etc., slowly evolving into a werewolf and then turns into a full-fledged animal during the full moon.

Ginger doesn't kill many people, but the few murders are fairly gory. There's also tons of blood and guts shown from the several dead dogs in the neighbourhood. The girls' morbid art project, shown during the opening credits, of photos depicting them dead in several creative ways is my favourite gore scene of the film. It shows you right away what kind of fun film Ginger Snaps will be. In a special feature on the Collector's Edition of the DVD, they show all the photos.

Despite the gore and death-obsessed sisters, the film manages to be quite funny. It had me laughing several times.

As I already mentioned, when I first saw this film, I really related to the characters and I still do, to some extent. The characters are all realistic, flawed, interesting people with real issues (besides the whole turning into a werewolf thing), instead of the usual boring stereotypes so often shown in horror flicks. Ginger and Brigitte are easily two of the most interesting characters I've ever seen in any film, not just horror.

The performances in Ginger Snaps is one of the best aspects of the film. I have become a huge fan of Emily Perkins and Katharine Isabelle since I saw their superb acting abilities displayed in this movie. They're sort of scream queens too. One of Emily Perkins' first roles was in Stephen King's It as Beverly Marsh at age 12. Most recently she has played the fan girl who is obsessed with the Winchester brothers in Supernatural. Katharine Isabelle has also been in a few episodes of Supernatural and appeared in Disturbing Behavior, the made-for-TV Carrie remake, Freddy vs. Jason and Ogre. And sexy Kris Lemche (Final Destination 3) is great as the local drug dealer/ lycanthrope enthusiast.

The Collector's Edition of the DVD has a ton of Special Features, including cast auditions, rehearsals, trailers, the making of the werewolf, cast and crew bios, deleted scenes, photos of the girls' school project (as I already mentioned) and artwork they designed for the film (logos, town maps, etc.).

Ginger Snaps is more than just a werewolf film. It's also a dark comedy, a film about the bond sisters share and a story about growing up. Definitely a must-see.

Rating: 5/5

MOVIE REVIEW: Silver Bullet

I was planning on watching and reviewing this film before I found out about Corey Haim's death, which is weird. I've had it since before Halloween and this is the first time I watched it, so it's about time.

Based on Stephen King's novella, Cycle of the Werewolf, Silver Bullet tells the story of young Marty (Corey Haim), who is paralyzed and confined to a wheelchair. People in his hometown are being brutally slaughtered and the sheriff (Terry O'Quinn) can't find the identity of the killer. But Marty knows. The murderer is a werewolf and he needs the help of his sister (Megan Follows) and his uncle (Gary Busey) to kill it.

The first half of the film is very suspenseful. Lots of characters are killed by the werewolf, but for the most part, the gore is shown off-screen. But after Marty's encounter with the werewolf the pace slows down. The film felt longer than 90 minutes.

The identity of the werewolf was very surprising. I had no clue. And I was shocked at his reasoning to kill certain people. He really didn't need to have a motive, he's an animal, but I still thought it was an interesting twist.

Everyone in the film gives a great performance. I've loved Megan Follows since Anne of Green Gables. Corey Haim does a fantastic job as Marty. I can't believe he's gone....

Rating: 3/5