The Gallows (2015)

"20 years after a horrific accident during a small town school play, students at the school resurrect the failed show in a misguided attempt to honor the anniversary of the tragedy - but soon discover that some things are better left alone."

Rather than immediately writing yet another scathing review of a lacklustre movie in a subgenre which I've grown to despise as soon as it was released, I thought it better to wait until all the gushing mouth-breathers got their overwhelming praise of "The Gallows" out of their systems before watching this latest Blumhouse production.

I'm glad that I waited a few weeks (and avoided reading any of the now seemingly mixed reviews) because I actually liked some of "The Gallows" in spite of myself. I was in the mood for a simple ghost story which didn't take up too much time to watch, and "The Gallows" pretty much delivered exactly what I expected.

Unfortunately, after a very strong start which utilises as many American high school tropes and clichés as possible, I'm grateful that the running time of only 81 minutes seemed to fly by even faster. There's only so much chaotic bickering, screaming, noisy jump scares, and running around madly with a shakycam that I can stand nowadays.

Pfeifer, Cassidy, and Reese get filmed by Ryan... a lot.

Given that the best parts of "The Gallows" involve stereotypes such as jocks and nerds and cheerleaders being as jocky and nerdy and cheerleadery as can be, the story moves along at a brisk pace with decent enough acting for what it is. The primary "cameraman" is a total asshole who defies logic with his constant filming, his best friend is a nicer and dumber jock, and their girlfriends are physically very attractive. So there's not a lot to dislike about the talent or characterisation except for the lack of originality.

Ambient sounds in the background create an unsettling atmosphere when the teenagers are up to the necks (often quite literally) in the spooky shenanigans, and the first 40 minutes of "The Gallows" are quite engrossing. Sadly, the atmosphere and quality of the storytelling doesn't last.

The loud jump scares and overuse of the gimmicky "being dragged through the air by something invisible" stunts which were made so popular by "Paranormal Activity" become irksome soon after the first one kicks in. Although fans of these "haunted house" style features won't be disappointed, they come across as a cheap way of avoiding any attempt at creating tension and genuine frights for the rest of us.

The pity of it is that the first traditional jump scare (when a TV pops on conveniently with the news story of Charlie's death) really does work. After that point, the rest of "The Gallows" turns into a de rigueur Blumhouse mess of obnoxious teenagers blaming each other and themselves, shrieking, panicking, making stupid decisions, and just being bloody annoying until they are bumped off.

With scenes edited in such a confusing manner that it's almost impossible to tell what is happening to which character and in what order, most of the exposition is given way too soon, and the denouement involves a very predictable reveal rather than a twist. Having said that, "The Gallows" may not be remembered for anything other than attempting to leech off the viral "Charlie Charlie" game for its marketing, but it's still surprisingly entertaining overall.

As much as I generally detest "found footage" movies, I guiltily have to admit that I mostly enjoyed this one. It certainly hasn't changed my very negative opinion about faux found footage or Blumhouse Productions, but I imagine that "The Gallows" will be thought of as "the best horror movie this year" by the big name sites and their unreliable "critics". Given the appalling state of the horror genre at the present time, however, I have no choice but to second their recommendation.

Apart from all the clichés, confusing scenes in the second-half which don't progress logically from each other, and of course, the ridiculous ending, "The Gallows" is quite good. It's worth a rental anyway.

Carrie (2013)

"A reimagining of the classic horror tale about Carrie White, a shy girl outcast by her peers and sheltered by her deeply religious mother, who unleashes telekinetic terror on her small town after being pushed too far at her senior prom."

What can I possibly write about this remake that hasn't been said before about every remake which doesn't match up to the original? If you avoid the notorious shill reviewers, you can pretty much pick any negative review of "Carrie" (trust me, 99% of them are very negative!) and they will all say exactly the same things as I want to: This remake of "Carrie" is a soulless and generic cashgrab.

If you've done the same thing as me and rewatched Brian De Palma's 1976 version recently, comparing the two movies is a bit like explaining the difference between Coke and Pepsi to other fizzy cola drinkers. Both use the same source material, but the American classic is bolder and more effervescent than the flatter and milder newcomer. The allusion is a good one, but it has to end there because some would argue that it's about taste rather than universals and discernment. If you don't know what those are, it's time for you to go back to Aristotle and re-aquaint yourself with basic aesthetic criticism. Some dramatic elements can be qualified, others not so easily, but at the end of the day, it's all about how the combination of elements evokes emotion and the catharis of emotion.

Before I begin my dissection, let me remind you that I'm not a nostalgist. I am just as willing to accept a new movie as I am an older one as long as it's good. I'm certainly not going to buy into the bullshit about a remake being better and more suitable for the younger generation than the original unless there's been an improvement. Sadly, the new version of "Carrie" adds a couple of extra scenes, removes a few others, and doesn't improve on anything.

"Plug it up! Plug it up!"

The first problem with the new "Carrie" is the age of the actors. In Brian De Palma's version, everyone was older playing younger. Sissy Spacek (the original Carrie White) was 27 years old at the time, not 16 like Chloë Grace Moretz. I'm not sure who the youngest cast member was in the original, but it's probably a toss up between John Travolta and Michael Talbott who were both in their early 20s. Consequently, they had a certain physicality, presence, and expressiveness about them which these younger pudgy-faced actors don't.

I know that if you use Nancy Allen as an example, things tend to not match the pattern, but despite only having two screen credits to her name before "Carrie", Nancy Allen (a 26-year-old) playing the bitchy but sexy Chris Hargensen was from a different world and fleshed out her character with natural charisma. Her replacement, Portia Doubleday, even though she's 25, is not only plainer but would be completely miscast if she tried to pull off the same role. Substantial changes to the character have made Chris Hargensen more cowardly, deceitful, and unlikeable, but turning her into little more than a stereotypically bully is at the expense of what made Nancy Allen's performance outstanding.

The same is true of every re-imagined character in this remake. The characters in the 1976 version simply have more depth to them which comes from who is playing them more than what they do or what comes out of their mouths. The originals have a look, an attitude, and vitality which the newcomers don't. The casting choices for this remake are okay-ish, but there's no star potential here. The cookie-cutter actors and actresses are as bland as the ones from the "trendy teen" slashers of the '90.

"Eve was weak! Eve was weak!"

Chloë Grace Moretz is a tiny, pretty girl, but she's not convincing as Carrie White. Her portrayal has no change from ugly ducking into a swan like Sissy Spacek's, and she only turns a pretty girl into a vengeful witch who can make CGI things float in mid-air and Hulk-stomp cracks into the road. The new Carrie doesn't sparkle with delight at the prom or make you want to fall in love with her when she smiles. Sissy Spacek nailed that role, and Chloë Grace Moretz is like a reject from "Charmed" in comparison.

Carrie's relationship with her mother is much the same as in the original, and Julianne Moore is occasionally better as a religious nutjob than Piper Laurie, but they don't resemble each other physically. Perhaps that's why a birthing scene was added to stop any speculation about whether the new Carrie might be adopted because, lamentably, there really are people who haven't seen other "Carrie" movies or read Stephen King's novel. As I'm not in that category, all I noticed was that Julianne Moore has the freckliness about her which would have made her a good match for Sissy Spacek, but if you tried to do the same thing with Chloë Grace Moretz and Piper Laurie, the mismatch would be more ludicrous.

The scenes between Chloë Grace Moretz and Julianne Moore are the best in the movie, give or take some stupid CGI levitations which aren't as good as the more realistic effects from the original, but they still feel like parody re-enactments when compared to the powerful and iconic performances by Sissy Spacek and Piper Laurie. Judged on their own merits, they work.

The next problem is the pacing. Everything seems to be much faster, although if you time it, the acts are almost the same length. So what went wrong? The most obvious answer is the additional scenes of Carrie's birth and the posting of a YouTube video of Carrie being bullied in the shower. Neither of these scenes add anything to the story, and the latter isn't made as much of as it could be in light of recent media attention about bullying cases involving the internet. It's a contemporary update which some kids can relate to, but Carrie doesn't know about it or have any reaction to it, so what's the point? Adding these superfluous scenes just shortens the time which should have been used on better characterisation.

"They're all gonna laugh at you."

For something which is mostly a scene-by-scene remake in other respects, the new "Carrie" reveals some bizarre directorial decisions in what it ignores from the 1976 version. Admittedly, the scene with Tommy (William Katt) and his friends renting tuxedos (which is harshly remembered for the silly speeding-up in the middle) isn't very important apart from creating some comic relief, so I'm kind of glad that it's gone, but it did show that Tommy was just as happy to hang out with the nerdier kids as he was with the popular ones. The new rich kid, limo-hiring Tommy, played by Ansel Elgort, however, doesn't seem to have any friends!

In fact, the same could be said of all the kids in this movie. There's no rhyme or reason why any of them would want to know each other except for going to the same school. None of them are very friendly, and they don't behave like mid-teenagers normally would. They are so poorly differentiated that there's not one who you can care about either in a good way or a bad way; most only exist to fill space on the screen. Maybe it's because of the notable loss of lingering shots on the actors' expressions which makes the kids in this look like a bunch of console-gaming Aspies who don't have any contact with other people in the real world, or maybe it's bad acting, but there's no chemistry between them.

Let's also not forget the more "adult" stuff such as the opening shower and locker room introduction from the original with all that lovely nudity! That's gone due to a combination of Chloë Grace Moretz's age and what some might say is prudishness by a woman director. I'm not being misogynistic about it, it's a fact. Based on this director's grittier previous work, however, I suspect a lot of producer interference. You can clearly see for yourself how more "politically correct" hypocrisy is responsible for giving short-shrift to Chris Hargensen and Billy Nolan's memorably fiery relationship from the original "Carrie", and it's turned their new versions into two-dimensional bullies with no motivation for what they do to Carrie White other than being bullies for the sake of it.

Time of the month?

I'm not going to go into any great detail about the prom scenes and the ending because you'll go to see "Carrie" no matter what I say, and I've given you far too many spoilers without warning already. Suffice it to say that there's no heart involved in the scenes between Carrie and Tommy, and you won't feel Carrie's joy or see Tommy's temptation turn into wish-fulfilment. They don't even dance to a song with words which complement the moment! There's beauty and depth (and lots of flute music) in the original which you won't find here.

When the action kicks off, some of the stunts are rushed and others are too drawn out, but as the original "Carrie" is flawed with dated split-screen effects, the final third may seem cleaner overall. Because of test screenings, the much publicised additional scenes from Stephen King's novel were left out of the theatrical release. Hopefully, they'll be on the eventual DVD and Blu-ray, but they'll probably be as "Special Features" rather than a director's cut if they get included at all.

At the end of the day, this is a remake which replaces subtleties and characterisation with spectacle, so I'll concede to personal tastes about that. I didn't care for it—too many punches are pulled horror-wise to make it satisfying for me—but your mileage may vary.

Nice poster.

The Dirties (2013)

"Two best friends are filming a comedy about getting revenge on the bullies at their high school. One of them isn't joking."

If you're expecting "The Dirties" to be another "Rampage" (2009), think again. "The Dirties" is amateur handycam crap of the highest order with semi-decent acting wasted on an unoriginal plot which ultimately peters out and stops dead just as the excitement begins. It's all talk, very little action, and mostly unconvincing characters.

Apart from the location, "The Dirties" is far too similar to Samuel N. Benavides's "None Left Standing" (2005) for those of us who know our low-budget movies. Although "The Dirties" isn't a blatant rip-off and doesn't focus on a descent into madness as well, it's certainly in the same vein. Both are about a trio of students making a film with one of them being dangerously obsessive.

The difference, of course, is that "The Dirties" uses a no-budget student film within another no-budget student film as its novelty "meta" contrivance. The levels of metafiction reach their peak with Matthew Johnson not only acting as himself but also being the director and writer of this disappointing drivel. He doesn't do a bad job for a jack-of-all-trades (and master of none), but I would love to see Canadian filmmakers come up with something more original rather than lazily reworking American movie tropes to death.

Because of its borrowings, I'm not sure if "The Dirties" is supposed to be "found footage" of some kind or if it's meant to be a bizarrely filmed "fly on the wall" drama. Either way, it failed for me aesthetically and stylistically. The unseen cameraman (who I think is called "Ed" at one point) brings up too many questions about who is filming what and why, and it threw me out of the movie several times.

As far as stories about high schools and bullies go, "The Dirties" is full of the usual clichés; jocks versus nerds and all that bullshit which, as a Brit, I never encountered and can't identify with no matter how many times the same stereotypes are forced on me. There's nothing that any of the kids do in this movie that a good old-fashioned punch in the mouth wouldn't have solved if only the emasculated characters stood up for themselves. I know this is Canadian, but Americans and Brits are usually so mouthy about expressing everything that I can't even get my head around the internalisation which leads to isolation, self-destruction, or murder. In Canada, where the myth is that everybody is nicer and less selfish, the frustration caused by repression is maybe less puzzling.

Prior to watching "The Dirties", I came across an interesting documentary called "Bullied to Death: The Tragedy of Phoebe Prince" (2010) which covers the subject of American high school bullying and its psychological effects a lot better. But, as someone whose only experience of attempted bullying has been as a "victim" of the online geek-cliques of hypocrital prudes, their whiteknights, and "flaggots" who I laugh at for being so childish, I still don't quite understand how such things are allowed to escalate. Maybe kids need to find better ways to deal with their frustrations like going outside once in a while, helping someone less fortunate, or stroking a cat.

Teenagers are nasty buggers anyway, and every modern movie and documentary which shows the younger generation and their infantilised parents is an argument to bring back corporal (and capital) punishment. In my day, a few hard whacks with a cane would've sorted everything out. But enough of me on my soapbox. Suffice it to say that the predictably violent but very brief (and punch-pulling) ending of "The Dirties" is the culmination of what happens when you spare the rod and spoil the child.

"The Dirties" isn't a movie recreating Columbine or any of the other famous school shootings, nor is it meant to be, but what it's trying to say as a drama about teenage relationships, loneliness, and a kid who can't tell fiction from reality anymore doesn't work either. It's all too tame, and even an old British kids' TV show like "Grange Hill" dealt with the topics in a more controversial and satisfying way over 30 years ago.

If you're looking for something gritty, I recommend skipping this one.

Tamara (2005)

"Tamara, an unattractive girl, who is picked on by her peers returns after her death as a sexy seductress to exact revenge."

Years before "Jennifer's Body" came out (although I didn't even know of its existence until the same time), "Tamara" was a mainly Canadian production with a somewhat similar story and setting. The tagline, "Revenge has a killer body", on the Lionsgate DVD gives away the re-marketing of this film.

Once again a "teenage" girl is killed and comes back with supernatural powers to get revenge on her High School peers. There's nothing original about the story but it's done really well and the lead, Jenna Dewan, is almost as beautiful as Megan Fox except when she tries not to be.

A great source of amusement for me is that all of the teenagers are really in their twenties with Jenna Dewan and my lookalike Chad Faust being the oldest at twenty-five. Yes, I have a "celebrity lookalike" who resembles me when I was that age. Poor guy.

Chad Faust, no stranger to various Sci-Fi TV series, is also in another film where his character meets with a horrific fate, "Descent" (2007). Don't confuse it with "The Descent" (2005) about a bunch of butch women who encounter CHUDs as it's actually rather good. I'm not going to tell you anything about it as it's not a horror film per se but the ending is every heterosexual man's worst nightmare.

Anyway, there isn't much to "Tamara" other than the obvious set-ups to gain sympathy for the titular character at the start and the various set pieces of revenge later. If you've already seen "Carrie" (1976), "The Initiation of Sarah" (1978) and "Prom Night II" (1987), expect more of the same. The plot is also similar to "The House on Sorority Row" (1983) and "I Know What You Did Last Summer" (1997) in places. As you can tell from this list, nearly everything is cribbed from other genre movies. Even "Salem's Lot" (1979) gets an homage at one point.

Although "Tamara" is the epitome of derivative, the performances are pretty good and it doesn't feel like a knock-off of any other movies at all. One seemingly original scene involving two guys has been done before but I can't remember the name of the film that I saw it in. Suffice it to say that I watched part of a German film on "Kabel Eins" many years ago where a prostitute turned the tables on two of her clients in a similar manner. I've also read (yes, read!) that same scene again in Sergei Lukyanenko's (and Vladimir Vasilyev's) "Day Watch" novel. In the book, Alisa Donnikova, a witch, does the same thing as Tamara from this film who is, of course, also a witch. Given the date of the novel, it's just a coincidence but an interesting one nonetheless.

I've probably given away a few spoilers but since "Tamara" is five years old now and you can even buy it as part a four movie compilation from Wal-Mart for $5, I'm sure you've seen it by now anyway. If you watch the trailer above, you can say that you've seen most of it.

Just one piece of trivia before I wrap this up. Matthew Marsden who plays Tamara's crush, Bill Natolly, is actually a British actor most famous for starring in soaps such as "Emmerdale" and "Coronation Street" which are both set in the North of England. Seeing him in an American/Canadian horror movie years later is wonderfully surreal.

"Tamara" has a few gory moments and some of them are quite realistic but, like so many horror films in the last ten years, nothing here is going to shock or scare you in any way. For that final reason alone, I'm rating "Tamara" as slightly below average even though it's a very entertaining film which horror aficionados should watch just to spot all the copycat scenes.

Jennifer's Body (2009)

"A newly possessed cheerleader turns into a killer who specializes in offing her male classmates. Can her best friend put an end to the horror?"

You can say what you like about Megan Fox's weird thumb nails, how bad her skin looks close-up or how she isn't the greatest actress but I think we know that it's only because you are jealous. Megan Fox is hotter than 90% of the rest of the world except, perhaps, where I am right now which is still over 100°F at 7.30pm. Yes, the weather is slowly killing me and any desire I have to write horror movie reviews.

Remember that "Twilight Zone" episode called "The Midnight Sun" where the world keeps getting hotter? Not only does the current heatwave remind me of it but so does "Jennifer's Body". Everything about the film is uber hot to begin with but Megan gets even sexier as it continues. Thus, I had no choice today. I had to rewatch it.

Yes, I like Megan Fox, ok? She can do no wrong as far as I'm concerned. Even getting kicked off that stupid "Transformers" movie was, albeit involuntarily, one of the best choices she has made in her career. "Transformers: Dark Side of the Moon" (2011) royally sucked so she was better off not being in it.

"Jennifer's Body" has been described as a satire rather than being a serious horror movie but, since I have no sense of humour, I don't see that at all. Although there are a lot of darkly comedic moments here and there, it's stylistically not a million miles away from "Ginger Snaps" (2000). It's a girls' horror movie for sure, written and directed by women, but it's still definitely a horror and not a comedy.

It may surprise a few people, since "Jennifer's Body" isn't really the kind of thing that I normally like, but, having watched it a few times now, I've actually enjoyed it more each time. Of course a lot of it has to do with ogling Megan Fox rather than paying attention to anything else but that doesn't exclude the fact that it has excellent production values, is well written, and is a very watchable film.

I know everybody says that Amanda Seyfried is the real star of the show but I disagree. I didn't like her performance as Needy at all at first though repeated viewings have changed that slightly. Needy is not an attractive character to me nor is her boyfriend or any of the other teenagers for that matter. I can't identify with them anyway because of my age and cultural differences but I'm pretty sure that they are nothing but two-dimensional, disposable stereotypes. If American high schools are really like the ones I've seen in movies, full of jocks, nerds, and emos, then I'm glad that I never went to one.

Another thing is that I often side more with the bad guys in movies than with the weaker heroes and heroines. I'm probably the only person who wanted the Empire to win in "Star Wars". The villains are often so much more interesting anyway. Thus, it's the Satan-worshipping indie band, "Low Shoulder", and their frontman Nikolai (Adam Brody) who stand out the most for me.

Yes, as much as I love Megan Fox as the evil Jennifer, her gory kills and banging body are nothing compared to Adam Brody's ability to make his character so believable, completely two-faced and, basically, an asshole. At the same time, he's a talented asshole too so that makes him rather endearing.

I know it's only a bit of fun but I can really imagine certain indie bands being in league with the Devil. How else would the crappy music that they play become so popular? That, of course, is the main satirical "joke" of the movie and I get it. I think most of the negative reviews of "Jennifer's Body" have been written by people who didn't.

There's nothing else I really want to say about "Jennifer's Body". Although derivative of at least half a dozen other movies including "Tamara" (2005), it's simply a very good example of its type and I recommend it.

Fear No Evil (1981)

"High school student turns out to be personification of Lucifer. Two arch angels in human form (as women) take him on."

I had very fond memories of "Fear No Evil" (even though I couldn't remember the name of it for the longest time) and so I'm sad to report that I have now ruined them all by rewatching this new Anchor Bay DVD.

It's hard to believe that the writer/director, Frank LaLoggia, was also responsible for one of my favourite ghost stories from the '80s, "Lady in White" (1988). There's not even a suggestion that he would have even been capable of such nostalgic brilliance in this lacklustre and confusing cheesefest.

Mitigating circumstances, including Frank LaLoggia's youth and the woefully inadequate budget for what he wanted to do, are no excuse for how lifeless the story actually turned out to be. If you pay close enough attention to the dialogue, it's all either contrived or somewhat pompous depending on which characters are involved. The high school students don't sound like any that you would have encountered in real life at that time and there's far too much "speechifying" (for lack of a better word) from the angels.

Aside from the exceptionally poor acting from a cast who were mostly too old to be real teenagers, "Fear No Evil" is notable for having a pretty good soundtrack full of late '70s and early '80s bands. I'm not going to list them as it would spoil the fun of playing "Name That Tune" should you ever rent this yourselves from Netflix. Even if you are too young to remember the '80s, you'll still recognise the songs as they are all very well known.

The thing which I remembered most from "Fear No Evil", though I'll freely admit that I remembered it wrongly, was the shower scene where the evil and effeminate Andrew got kissed by the school bully. Some people might think that a "gay kiss" in a horror movie was somewhat groundbreaking at the time but I think we should all know better than that. It may have been controversial in American movies but European filmmakers had been putting stuff like that in (and much worse) years before especially in the vampire genre. Although undoubtedly there are a lot of homoerotic moments in "Fear No Evil", it isn't a "gay" film as such and, even from my own heterosexual perspective, I think it fair to say that Andrew (Stefan Arngrim) was far too creepy and weird to be attractive in that way.

I actually falsely remembered the shower scene with Tony the bully turning into a woman during the whole snogging session. Obviously I couldn't have payed too much attention to it when I watched the film on VHS back in the day as that part came much later. Not to put too finer point on it, the macho John Travolta wannabe wasn't exactly thrilled with his free boob job.

As far as other horrific moments go, there wasn't anything particularly scary about "Fear No Evil" so it was appropriately named. There were a few gory moments here and there but they weren't all that realistic looking. A death by dodgeball defied even more laws of physics than the infamous basketball decapitation in "Deadly Friend" (1986).

The most annoying thing about "Fear No Evil" was the confusion caused by all the gender swapping archangels and how they were referred to by different names depending on who they were sharing a scene with. I could watch this film half a dozen times over and still not be able to tell you who played who or what their names were if quizzed on it afterwards though I can't say that I would even care to try to either.

The whole religious "devil versus angels" angle to this film was far too ambitious and not handled at all well. As much as I've moaned about "The Final Conflict" (1981) before now, all the Omen films were far superior to this. The final battle in "Fear No Evil" was a mixture of some of the worst effects since the end of "The Manitou" (1978) plus a ton of equally dated animation. Even worse than that, it was also a very lame anticlimax.

To say that I was disappointed by "Fear No Evil" is an understatement especially as I waited over 20 years to watch it again. Like so many '80s horror films which a lot of us look back on with rose-tinted glasses, "Fear No Evil" was actually quite a poor product even when it first came out but I just didn't realise it. I don't think that a modern audience would be capable of watching it without much beer-induced mockery and it's probably for the best. "Fear No Evil" wasn't a fun film at all and was far too serious in tone for something that dealt with such far-fetched subject matter.