The WTF? Worst Films Extravaganza Presents: Ring of Darkness (2004)

DIRECTED BY
David DeCoteau

STARRING
Adrienne Barbeau - Alex
Jeremy Jackson - Xavier
Stephen Martines - Shawn
Ryan Starr - Stacy
Colin Bain - B.J.
Matt T. Baker - Jake
Eric Dearborn - Max
Jeff Peterson - Jonah

Genre - Horror/Zombies

Running Time - 85 Minutes


PLOT - Boy band, Take 10, is the hottest group around. They can sing. They can dance. They get hot chicks - well if you're wearing beer goggles, that is. They're managed by Adrienne Barbeau. And they like to eat their lead singers once he learns that Take 10 are really zombies. I'm sure you won't be hearing this story on N'Sync's Behind the Music episode!

Anyway, the lack of a lead singer puts a grind in Take 10's plans. So they conduct an audition to see who can lip sync to their one really annoying song the best [I'm not joking]. The three finalists are confident Max (Eric Dearborn), secret reporter Jonah (Jeff Peterson), and serious musician Shawn (Stephen Martines) - who brings his girlfriend, Stacy (Ryan Starr) along.

The finalists and Take 10 are taken to some secret beach location with a beautiful house, a beautiful view, and a beautiful cave where the group does human sacrificing.
Obviously some of the contestants are zombie food, although Take 10 wants to save Shawn for last because he has the most potential for their future. Can Shawn stop these Boy Band zombies? Can someone turn off that stupid Take 10 song? It's giving me a bigger headache than the actual film itself!

REVIEW

STORY - I have three lyrics for RING OF DARKNESS:

WHAT THE FUCK!?

The WTF? Vault has been busy lately and films like RING OF DARKNESS are extending its stay. I have no idea what possessed to watch this film. The generic, photoshopped poster should have given it away. Plus, the film is directed by David DeCoteau - a man who directed some fun B-movies back in his early career, such as SORORITY BABES IN THE SLIMEBALL BOWL-O-RAMA, CREEPOZOIDS, and several of the PUPPET MASTER films, but now has regulated into making bad homoerotic Z-grade horror films like THE BROTHERHOOD V: ALUMNI. Also, the film stars Baywatch's Jeremy Jackson and American Idol reject Ryan Starr, as well as scream queen Adrienne Barbeau who probably lost a bet to star in this or something. What I'm trying to say is that I saw all the warning signs and still watched this anyway. What does that say about me? Please don't judge...

RING OF DARKNESS is a terrible film from beginning to end. The screenplay written by Ryan Carrassi, Matthew Jason Walsh, and managing editor of Fangoria Magazine, Michael Gingold, is just shallow, empty, and bad. If there was anything positive to say about the script, it would have to be the originality of the concept itself. I have never heard of or seen a film involving zombies who happen to be a member of a boy band. I'm sure there was an attempt of symbolism there, as a lot of us see boy bands as puppets who are controlled by strong marketing teams - similar to the original voodoo zombies who were under the spell of witch doctors and power hungry villains. I just wish more was done with that if that was the intent behind the concept. Instead we get a very cliche film that just meanders until its really silly end.

I don't even know where to begin with this script. The characters are all dull and don't have much dimension at all. The Take 10 members all seem to have different personalities, but none of them are really explored much besides the racist one who didn't want a black guy being their leader. Where that comes from isn't explained at all, making that characteristic ineffective on a whole. All I really knew about these characters was that they had great abs, perform one song, and are supposedly zombies. Alex, their manager, seems to be the one in control of Take 10, bringing them back to life after a plane crash had taken theirs years ago. Yet, we don't know anything about her either. Why would she bring these four singers back? What does she have to gain from this? Why is she so focused on getting a fifth member? I don't have the answers for these questions and neither does the script.

As for the so-called protagonists, they're just as bland. Shawn is the lead character of the film and does have a bit of dimension at times compared to everyone else. He wants to be a serious rock star, but on the advice of his girlfriend, decides to try out in order to gain some fame for a future solo career. He's the film's Justin Timberlake in that case. He's not deep or anything. I don't know why he lets his girlfriend tell him what to do. I don't know why he even goes along with everything when he shows he doesn't give a shit about the contest. But I can understand why he tries out and that's, at least, a small something. Doesn't make the film good though. As for Shawn's girlfriend, Stacy is such an underused plot device that I even wonder why she's even in the film to begin with. She doesn't really do anything at all and is just eye candy for the hetero males and lesbians - but she's not even eye candy you'll remember an hour later. She's pointless really. As for the other contestants, Max is just a cocky dude who happens to be the token black character. Jonah, the reporter, is only there to help Shawn figure out what's going on with Take 10 when Jonah records his death on a tape recorder. He's working for a major newspaper, yet no one from that agency bothered to check up on him to see if he was getting the story they asked for. Journalism is such a caring career, isn't it?

As for the zombie aspect of the film, there's barely any to speak of. Take 10 doesn't eat brains, but do love flesh I suppose. I couldn't tell since most of this takes place off-screen. But they do kill together instead of hunting alone. They also conduct rituals inside a cave, where they cut their victim open and drink their blood. I'm not sure what this is supposed to do - I guess they make them one with this person - but it doesn't seem to work at all the two times they're shown doing it. So I don't get what the point of this whole thing either. Maybe this rituals makes them stay young, but I can't confirm that because the script doesn't know itself. So it fails as a zombie film.

As for the resolution of the film, it's just ridiculous. In fact, a lot of moments in this film in the Final Act really are laughably done. I won't say how the zombies can be destroyed, but you can pretty much guess how since they perform voodoo rituals. The problem with this is that the zombies' weakness doesn't appear until the moment it happens, with no explanation on how Shawn knew how to stop them or that the weakness even existed to begin with! And how does Shawn find out about Take 10? Not only does he hear Jonah's tape, but he goes inside Take 10's cave and finds a drawer with old photos of the group in their different incarnations through the years.

WHY WOULD THAT KIND OF INFORMATION BE INSIDE A CAVE?? IN A DRESSER, NO LESS???

I just laughed at how the information of Take 10's backstory was shared with the audience. I can't believe someone actually greenlit this screenplay. Unique concept but terrible execution.

DIRECTION - David DeCoteau's direction isn't the worst I've seen in my life. The picture does look nice and there is some bit of style every now and then. However, there are too many unnecessary montages throughout this film. When scenes transition, we get clips of a music video that Take 10 did with their original lead singer interspersed with the present action. Why is that needed? It doesn't add anything but grey hairs on my head. There's also a montage of Take 10 walking through some fog at night, with quick cuts and edits that had no place being there. And it lasted TWO FUCKIN' MINUTES!! Talk about filler! Also, we don't see the zombies eating people [I guess due to budget reasons]. And as with most modern DeCoteau films, RING OF DARKNESS has a bit of homoeroticism. Take 10 seem to do everything together: sing, dance, kill, and even have sex with groupies. Plus we get a lot of scenes of men shirtless and in tight underwear. It's not as blatant as in the BROTHERHOOD franchise, but it is there. No tension. No suspense. Not visually interesting either. This isn't DeCoteau's worst directed film, but I have seen him do a whole lot better.

EDGE FACTOR - RING OF DARKNESS is a very tame film. There's barely any edgy going for it. Hardly any foul language. While Ryan Starr is in a bikini and the male actors are shirtless every now and then, there's no sex scenes or nudity. As for violence, the only blood we see is when the victims of Take 10's sacrifice are cut with a knife. Other than that, nothing.

ACTING - The acting is mostly bland. Stephen Martines is probably the best actor as Shawn. He's not going to set the world on fire with his performance, but he's the highlight of an otherwise dead [no pun intended] cast. It seems like he cares about his character and attempts to make the most of it. He honestly deserved to be in a much better film. Baywatch's Jeremy Jackson has a monotone delivery but he wasn't annoying or anything. He tried at least. Adrienne Barbeau probably needed a paycheck because she seemed bored, or embarrassed, while playing Alex. The worst actor, by far, had to American Idol Season One contestant, Ryan Starr. Wow, this girl is really terrible. Not only was her acting not convincing, but I could barely understand 95% of what she was saying most of the time. It's like Starr was talking with a flesh colored microphone in her mouth. If she wasn't decent looking, her performance would be a complete disaster.

MUSIC - There are some generic rock and pop songs in the film. The biggest culprit, however, is Take 10's signature song. It plays a total of 7 times in the film - 4 or 5 times within the first 25 minutes. It's not a great song and it gets really old right away. If I had to pick the most horrifying thing about this movie, this song is probably it.

THE FINAL HOWL
RING OF DARKNESS is just a really awful film. It's a zombie film that barely has zombies. It has boy band music that's terrible. It has actors that have no right acting in a film like this. And as B-movie horror, it fails to scare and be cheesy enough to be so bad that it's good. I'm saying bye, bye, bye, to RING OF DARKNESS as it goes into the WTF? Vault where it will never be watched again by me and hopefully all of you as well. And it won't even get to kiss my ass. I have a feeling Take 10 will like that too much.


SCORE
0.5 Howls Outta 4

Psycho II (1983)

DIRECTED BY
Richard Franklin

STARRING
Anthony Perkins - Norman Bates
Meg Tilly - Mary Samuels
Vera Miles - Lila Loomis
Robert Loggia - Dr. Raymond
Dennis Franz - Warren Toomey
Hugh Gillin - Sheriff John Hunt
Claudia Bryar - Mrs. Spool

Genre - Horror/Slasher/Thriller

Running Time - 113 Minutes


If there's one horror film discussed in film schools today, it's Alfred Hitchcock's legendary 1960 PSYCHO. The film that's widely considered the "Granddaddy of Slasher Films", PSYCHO has become an icon in cinema for its direction, storytelling, and the chills it gave its audiences 51 years ago. While I disagree [VERTIGO is my favorite Hitchock film], many others consider this the ultimate Hitchcock film. This is probably because it's the most well known, due to homages, parodies, and the fact that the shower scene is discussed in length in many universities.

However, there were some people who wanted more of Norman Bates story, feeling there was more to tell. No one really knows whether or not Hitchcock would have been appreciative of a second installment to Norman Bates' life, as sequels weren't really a big deal back in his day. However, after he passed in 1980, Robert Bloch [who had written the novel that PSYCHO was based on] released a second novel, Psycho II, in 1982. Depicting Norman Bates escaping a mental institution dressed as a nun, leading him towards Hollywood once he learns that a film is being made of his life, the novel did quite well on the Bestsellers List. However, Universal Studios [who owned distribution rights to PSYCHO and its sequels if they sought fit] disliked the novel since it criticized the very profitable splatter/slasher film craze at the time. So Universal hired Tom Holland, who would later become more famous for his direction and writing on 1985's FRIGHT NIGHT and 1988's CHILD'S PLAY, to write a script not related to the novel. The studio also hired Australian filmmaker and 1981's ROAD GAMES director Richard Franklin, who was a long time devotee of Hitchcock's and even became good friends with him during the last years of Hitchcock's life. With Anthony Perkins and Vera Miles returning to reprise their roles from the original, PSYCHO II was finally released on June 3, 1983 to generally positive critical and commercial success.

The question, even after 28 years, is whether PSYCHO II needed to exist at all. Was a sequel really necessary? Would Alfred Hitchcock have approved of this? Does the film still hold up after all these years? Let's return to the Bates Motel and see if we can find any answers.

PLOT
Twenty-two years have passed since Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) was arrested for the murders he had committed as his late mother. Being rehabilitated at a mental institution, Norman is considered "sane" by the law and is released to the dismay of Lila Loomis (Vera Miles) - the sister of Marion Crane. He returns to live at the Bates Motel, still somewhat haunted by the events of his past, while trying to move on with his life by taking a job at a local diner.

At the diner, Norman meets a young waitress named Mary Samuels (Meg Tilly). After she splits up with her boyfriend, who kicks her out, Norman offers Mary free room and board at the Bates Motel. As soon as Mary stays at the hotel, weird things begin to happen around Norman. He starts receiving weird notes, supposedly written by his dead mother. He also receives phone calls from his mother. And of course, there are the murders of people associated to Norman in some way or another, making Norman look guiltier even though he proclaims his innocence. This starts to take a toll on Norman, driving him insane and making him wonder if he's picking up where he left off, or if someone close to him is behind this whole mess.

REVIEW
Let me get it out of the way: PSYCHO II should have never been made. While Robert Bloch can write how many novels about Norman Bates he wants since it's his story anyway, to do a sequel to a film that's considered iconic is not only ballsy, but pointless if the original film doesn't need a follow up. The original PSYCHO is a masterpiece that had a story with a clear beginning and a clear end. Norman Bates' story arc went full circle and left you satisfied. PSYCHO II is nothing but a cash-in on PSYCHO's popularity, sort of like TRON LEGACY was to TRON and those STAR WARS prequels were to the original trilogy. Were the newer stories interesting? To an extent. But were they necessary? Probably not. Yet even though it was made for money, PSYCHO II is a very well made sequel that not only manages to continue the story started in Hitchcock's film in a realistic and logical way, but manages to stand on its own through its crafty narrative that keeps you guessing what's real and what's not.

Tom Holland's screenplay is strong in many ways. For one, it never insults the original film. In fact, it embraces the elements and moments that made it such a huge phenomenon and pays homage to them. For example, Mary Samuels is obviously a play on the pseudonym Marion Crane used when she signed in to the Bates Motel in 1960 ["Marie Samuels"]. Speaking of names, Lila Loomis proves that she married Sam Loomis, who was her sister Marion's boyfriend in PSYCHO. Also, PSYCHO II's first murder doesn't occur until 40 to 45 minutes into the film, which follows the original's structure in terms of that film's first murder. We also have director Richard Franklin pulling a Hitchcock by appearing in a cameo playing a video game at the diner where Norman works. Tom Holland does the same, playing one of the Deputies. We also have a similarly structured shower scene, with peep hole watching but no murder this time. A car is pulled out of the same swamp Marion's car was sunk in, with a dead body inside. And someone gets stabbed at the top of the stairs and falls over the bannister, which is sort of similar to one of the death's in PSYCHO. Even some of the dialogue and a lot of Norman's habits seem to be taken right from the original film. It gives the viewer a sense of nostalgia and fondness for the original film, while admiring that the sequel reinvents these things to create its own look and feel.

As for the ending, which many PSYCHO fans still are not fond of, it doesn't bug me all that much. Yes, it sort of changes what was established in the original film. But I kind of feel that it just adds a whole new element to Norman's story. It doesn't take away what was done in the original film. It just puts a new twist on what we know about Norman's family, which really wasn't much at all. Do I think it needed to be done? Not at all. But I think it's an interesting twist that reveals what was really going down once Norman returned home, which gives insight to Norman's character and how things could have been prevented if he was just left alone. Plus, we get a sweet shovel swing because of it. So I'm good!


Another reason why the screenplay works so well is because of the characters, mainly Norman, Mary, and Lila. Norman, in particular, is just written wonderfully in PSYCHO II. Here's a guy we know is certifiably insane and dresses like his dead mother when he murders people. This is a person we should despise and expect will fall off the wagon and start killing people again. But Holland manages to make Norman the hero of the film, giving him a ton of sympathy and purity that the original PSYCHO also did but in a lesser manner. We watch Norman try and be a normal person. He works at a diner. He fires the Bates Motel's new manager because he's running the place to set up people with somewhere to sell drugs and sex, which makes Norman admirable with a set of morals. He invites Mary to stay at the hotel, knowing she needs a place to stay. In fact, he panics when she attempts to leave a few times because he's lonely and wants a friend he can confide in. Norman is quite the likeable guy until he starts receiving the calls and notes that aren't a figment of his imagination. He wants peace in his life, but outside forces won't let him achieve that. You can only push a man so far before he snaps, especially when he was very fragile to begin with. Norman is very much a fleshed out character even before this sequel, but the new problems he faces really give him more dimension.

As for Mary, she also comes across as likeable, even when we learn her true intentions with Norman. She seems like a normal girl with family and boyfriend problems, willing to protect Norman from anything bad by covering for him when cops begin to accuse him or murder and comforting him when he starts to lose it. Yes, Mary has ulterior motives when it comes to befriending Norman due to her connection with Lila Loomis [which I won't reveal how if you haven't seen the sequel for whatever reason]. Her job is to drive Norman mad and make him look bad in front of the community, but she has a conscience and begins to realize that Norman is just a normal person who just wants to be understood and loved. Obviously Norman soon learns what Mary's true purpose for being at the Bates Motel is, which doesn't lead to anything good. But Mary just seems like a regular girl who is caught up in a situation she signed up for but no longer wants any part of. In a lot of ways, she's like Marion Crane - she's done a bad thing, but has enough sense to realize it and wants to change to make things right. But knowing this is a continuation of the PSYCHO story, things don't always happen the way these characters want them to.

The real villain of the film is Lila Loomis herself. Ironically, she was one of the considered "heroes" of PSYCHO, as she helped reveal Norman's crimes to the world in order to get justice for her sister's murder. In PSYCHO II, Lila still wants justice but does it in a way that makes her worse than Norman ever was. She schemes to drive Norman nuts. She uses Mary as a way to find out info on him to use it against the guy. I get that Lila is still upset that the man who murdered her sister was released, but she just takes it a step too far. Instead of letting Norman live his life after he did his time, she wants to ruin everything he worked so hard for 22 years. She comes across as bitter, delusional, and even more crazy than Norman at times. A lot of PSYCHO fans were upset that Lila was changed this way in terms of character, but it's honestly realistic and just gives Lila depth. She believes she has good intentions, but her execution is severely flawed. It's human.

Unfortunately, there's not much focus on the other supporting characters. All of them, especially Mrs. Spool, Warren Toomey, and even Dr. Raymond, all come across as different and interesting. But there's just not enough depth to any of them, coming across more like archetypes rather than fully fleshed characters. Toomey is a sleazeball, a drug, and misogynistic - but that's as far as it goes. Dr. Raymond cares a lot for Norman and is quite likeable, but that's all we really know. And Mrs. Spool doesn't get to do a whole lot, even though she happens to be a very important part to the story when it really comes down to it. Obviously you can't focus the same spotlight on everyone and these characters are really meant to be cannon fodder at the end of it [after all, this is a thriller/slasher film]. But I think more attention on them, especially on Mrs. Spool, would have been great.

I think what makes Holland's script so powerful is that all the twists and turns that the film goes through really work. I won't go into detail about any of them, but they really make PSYCHO II its own film rather than trying to cash in on PSYCHO's success. The connection between Mary and Lila, the reason behind the notes and phone calls, whether Norman is really crazy or not - all these things plus others really structure the movie quite effectively. Just when you believe one thing, it ends up being something else. PSYCHO II feels more like a psychological thriller rather than a slasher film, which this film is and was intended to be. The movie is not about Norman Bates returning to the scene of the crime to recreate it with newer victims. It's about the mystery surrounding his return and the consequences that the answers have on Norman and his future. I wish more slashers had deep stories like this one has.

Speaking of slashers, PSYCHO II was made to capitalize on the slasher film boon of the early 1980s. While it's tamer than other slashers around this time, PSYCHO II still manages to have some sweet kills nonetheless. We get a knife right through the mouth, stabs in the back, a decapitated head, hands getting stabbed, a shovel to the head, and probably my favorite - someone getting stabbed in the chest that causes this character to fall, which pushes the knife in deeper. It's not a gore fest but it's violent enough to be effective, especially when the murder scenes aren't frequent.

The direction by Richard Franklin isn't as good as Alfred Hitchcock [who is really?], but it's still incredibly solid. The film is two hours long and it feels much less than that. The film looks great due to Director of Photography Dean Cundey, who's most famous for working with John Carpenter on HALLOWEEN and other Carpenter films, as well other popular movies. Cundey helps Franklin make every frame and composition matter, washing out the film as well to create a moody atmosphere that Hitchcock would be proud of. I especially love the scenes that focus on the outside of the Bates Motel with the grey clouds moving overhead. Pretty chilling shots. Franklin, while paying homage to Hitchcock in certain scenes [loved the scenes shot overhead, like in the original PSYCHO], manages to make his own mark by maintaining a very focused film that happens to be quite suspenseful and gripping. He should be proud of his work on this sequel. I think Hitchcock would have been as well.

The score by Jerry Goldsmith isn't as good as Bernard Herrmann's in the original, but it works for the most part. Interestingly enough, one of Goldsmith's tunes was used in TWILIGHT ZONE: THE MOVIE when Franklin rejected it.

The acting in PSYCHO II is very good. Anthony Perkins does an amazing job portraying a much older Norman Bates, making him more sympathetic this time around. Perkins has more to play with than he does in the original PSYCHO, truly being able to flesh out Norman as a character - one we can like and wish to succeed, but be scared of at the same time. And when Perkins plays a crazy Norman, it's amazing and captivating to watch. Even though Perkins was typecast in these type of roles, he always made the most of them and PSYCHO II is no exception. Meg Tilly does well also as Mary. Her character isn't complex as Norman's, but it's layered for sure. She comes across as sweet and likeable at times and conniving during others. I thought she did a great job. Originally, Jamie Lee Curtis [daughter of PSYCHO shower victim, Janet Leigh] was offered the part but Curtis was ready to leave the horror genre at this point. Would have been interesting to see how she would have portrayed this character, but Tilly is solid in the role.

Funny bit of trivia: Perkins and Tilly didn't like each other on set. Apparently, Tilly had never watched PSYCHO at the time and didn't see why Anthony Perkins was such a big deal. Also, Perkins didn't like how good of an actress Tilly ended up being, worried that she would get the spotlight over him. The two would constantly bicker on the set, which caused a bit of frustration for Franklin. Pretty funny, if you ask me.

Vera Miles does really well, reprising her original role of Lila Loomis. Instead of playing the worried sister/detective, she's now the antagonist who can't believe Norman was released and will scheme to make sure he goes back behind bars. I really liked the change of character and thought Miles handled it quite well. Robert Loggia was cool as Dr. Raymond. Loggia is one of those guys you'd want in a film because he brings it every time. Dennis Franz played a douchebag quite convincingly. Not a huge cast, but all of them were great actors.

THINGS I'VE LEARNED WHILE ALWAYS LISTENING TO WHAT MY MOTHER TELLS ME

- Lila Loomis wanted people to protest and sign a petition to keep Norman Bates locked up for his crimes. Where was she when O.J. Simpson, Robert Blake, and Casey Anthony were released? Oh, they were "innocent" of their crimes. Allegedly.

- Warren Toomey, the new manager for the Bates Motel, has been using the location as a base for drugs and sex. Even after 22 years, people were still being penetrating at this infamous motel.

- A drunk Dennis Franz scares me. In this state, he's most likely to show his bare ass and I don't need to feel NYPD Blue while watching this.

- Norman's toilet and sink were leaking blood. I guess the bathroom isn't pregnant.

- Mary and Lila are scheming together to drive Norman nuts again by calling his phone, leaving strange notes, and even dressing up like his dead mother. Usually if I dress up as a dead person, it's Elvis Presley. But whatever floats your boat, I guess.

THE FINAL HOWL
While the sequel isn't as classic nor a masterpiece like Hitchcock's original film, PSYCHO II is still a fantastic film that's better than it has any right to be. It takes real balls to follow up such a classic and iconic film, but I believe Richard Franklin and company did a phenomenal job helping create a sequel that's respectful to the original. It didn't change the horror genre like PSYCHO, but it still manages to be film that PSYCHO and horror fans should definitely check it out. Not just a solid sequel, but a solid horror film in its own right.


SCORE
4 Howls Outta 4

The WTF? Worst Films Extravaganza Presents: The Haunting of Molly Hartley (2008)

DIRECTED BY
Mickey Liddell

STARRING
Haley Bennett - Molly Hartley
Chace Crawford - Joseph Young
Jake Weber - Robert Hartley
Shannon Marie Woodward - Leah
Shanna Collins - Alexis
AnnaLynne McCord - Suzie
Marin Hinkle - Jane Hartley
Nina Siemaszko - Dr. Emerson
Josh Stewart - Mr. Draper

Genre - Horror/Supernatural/Satanic

Running Time - 85 Minutes


PLOT - Molly Hartley (Haley Bennett) doesn't have the most normal of teenage life. When she was seventeen, her mother (Marin Hinkle) stabbed Molly in the chest trying to murder her - but was unsuccessful and sent to a mental institution. Her father (Jake Weber), feeling a change of environment is needed, uproots her and sends her to a very expensive private school. While the idea is to start anew, the move just makes Molly worse. While she falls for heartthrob Joseph (Chace Crawford), she has to deal with bible thumper Alexis (Shanna Collins) and Joseph's ex-girlfriend Suzie (AnnaLynne McCord). She also starts hearing voices and seeing weird things, resulting in headaches and nosebleeds. At first she's led to believe that these are symptoms of a benign tumor in her tonsils. But even after it's removed, these voices and visions grow stronger and more evil. She eventually learns that her parents made a dark deal the day she was born - something that will change her life forever.


REVIEW

STORY - I remember seeing the trailers for THE HAUNTING OF MOLLY HARTLEY a few times before its limited release, thinking it resembled one of those 1970s films that involved themes such as demons, Satan, and other evil things like that. It pretty much came and went without much noise, quietly going straight to DVD and cable outlets. Watching it a few days ago for the first time, I can see why. It's 85 minutes of nothing that could cure insomnia. Really, THE HAUNTING OF MOLLY HARTLEY:

WHAT THE FUCK!?

The screenplay was written by Rebecca Sonnenshine and John Travis, who were obviously inspired by older horror films like ROSEMARY'S BABY, THE OMEN, and TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER. Hey, if you're going to influence your script on any films, those three films are great choices. The problem is that just because you've seen those films doesn't mean you could structure a film based on those films and it would still be on the level of those movies. The basic outline of the intended plot sounds great, but there's no filling whatsoever to make it work.

This is a hard review to write because there's absolutely NOTHING going on with THE HAUNTING OF MOLLY HARTLEY. It wants to be a horror film for teens, but it just ends up boring the hell out of you to the point where you don't care about anything that's going on in the film. It wants to be like Gossip Girl, or 90210, but with Satanic references, but it just falls flat in every single way. What I believe was the intention with this film was to metaphorically use Molly's unwilling bond to evil [due to her desperate parents] as a way to express her coming of age from teenager to adult. As Molly grew older, the voices and visions just intensified - as if the stress of having to be a responsible adult was too much for her. This is hardly an original idea, but could make for a decent enough flick if done right. The problem is, there's no depth at all in this film. Things just happen because they're supposed to in order for the climax to "shock" audiences, which it doesn't at all.

This would have benefited greatly if any of the characters were more than one-dimensional archetypes. For a title character, I had no idea who this Molly Hartley chick was or why she was so damn haunted. She was the cliched new girl who had issues with her father, traumatized by her crazy mom, is smart, likes boys, and started having visions and hearing voices that should have grabbed my attention but didn't. Oh, and she happens to be property of the Devil, but even that seems like an afterthought because this revelation is only touched upon during the last 15 minutes of the movie. I know more about people on Facebook and Twitter that I just friended or followed in 5 minutes than I did about Molly in 85. Why should I care about this girl? And why should I care about her dilemma with creepy stuff happening to her when the film doesn't really focus too much on it unless it's meant to create the usual annoying and cheap jump scare? For those who have seen enough of these type of films, it's easy to see what's happening with her. Hell, there were so many religious themes popping up around her through supporting characters, that Molly's problems were being hammered into your skull. And supposedly, Molly was to gain much power out of this deal. I wish I could tell you what it was because the film never lets us in on it. Will she become President of the United States like Damien? Is she going to destroy the world? What's the deal? Hell if I know.

The other characters aren't great either. Joseph was the stereotypical love interest - good looking, smart, caring, and even rich. He's the perfect guy, which means he's too good to be true. Other than that, shallow as hell. Alexis was the preacher, who felt that Molly needed salvation in her life and constantly carried a Bible with her at all times. No offense to people like that, but I disliked her act immediately. A few years older and she'd be Margaret White from CARRIE. Suzie was the bitch of the school who messes with Molly because she's Joseph's ex. And that's pretty much her depth level. And Leah is the typical rebel girl who doesn't really do anything all that rebellious. Add in kooky parents and a strange guidance counselor and that's your cast of uninteresting misfits. Cliche characters that we've seen in countless other films where they were done much better than this. What a waste.

As for the ending of the film, I thought it was the most ridiculous and WTF moment for me. The climax is pretty much the revelation of what Molly is gonna have to deal with due to this pact. If you've seen the ending to ROSEMARY'S BABY, it's very similar and predictable. I felt the people involved in the revelation didn't make a whole lick of sense as there were things that conflicted with the truth. It just felt too easy. Then we get the epilogue, which really made me pull my hair out. I thought I was watching SHE'S ALL THAT - The Antichrist Version or something. I didn't get the tone. Is this a horror film or a teen comedy? Did I miss the jump here? If the film had to go that route, fine. But it was just so bizarre! God, the script was fuckin' terrible...

DIRECTION - In his first director's role, Mickey Liddell can move and shoot a camera technically. But direct this type of film? Absolutely not. While the picture does look nice and it's put together soundly, everything else is a misfire. I swear, I have never seen a horror film that's so concerned with adding a jump scare every ten minutes. Now, I can expect a horror film doing this more than once in a film, but in THE HAUNTING OF MOLLY HARTLEY, it just kept reoccurring to the point where even mail being shoved through the slit of a front door is expected to make people jump. Really? There's also no scares, tension, suspense - nothing. The film doesn't know what it wants to be. Is it a teen drama? Is it a teen horror film? Is it meant to put me to sleep? I have no clue. Even the use of CGI is lame. The only time where there's an attempt to be creepy is during this emergency baptism scene that's predictable as hell, but at least I saw Liddell trying for something somewhat interesting. But nothing else really comes close to that. I believe Liddell's main job is as an executive producer. I hope he didn't quit it. Liddell was the wrong person to direct this.

EDGE FACTOR - THE HAUNTING OF MOLLY HARTLEY is PG-13. It doesn't mean it can't be scary or edgy, yet obviously the filmmakers thought otherwise. There's no sexual situations or nudity. The language is pretty tame. And the violence is mostly off-screen besides someone falling over the bannister of a flight of stairs and a drowning. Nothing to really get excited about here.

ACTING - Probably the saving grace of the film. The acting isn't of high quality, but at least it's decent. Haley Bennett is cute and tries hard to make us care for Molly Hartley. Her fear was somewhat convincing at times, but the dialogue she had to utter was just bland as hell. I wish she had better material to work with. Chace Crawford of Gossip Girl does alright as the love interest, Joseph. He doesn't really do much but look pretty. I guess he succeeds. Jake Weber tries hard too, but he's just alright. AnnaLynne McCord looks bored as hell, but she plays a great bitch. But you could watch 90210 or her episodes of Nip/Tuck for that. Shanna Collins was decent as the religious Alexis. Didn't like her character but she did the best she could with what she was given. I think the best actress of the film was Shannon Marie Woodward, who played rebel girl Leah. While it's a cliche role and performance, at least Woodward tries to give this one-dimensional character some energy and life that's greatly needed in the film. I honestly wish the film had focused more on her.

THE FINAL HOWL
THE HAUNTING OF MOLLY HARTLEY is a piece of crap that should be avoided unless you want to bore yourself to death for 85 minutes. If it wasn't for the acting, this film would be a total BOMB. But the movie is the equivalent of a jelly doughnut without the damn jelly - no flavor, even though all the elements are in place for a tasty treat. I'm sending THE HAUNTING OF MOLLY HARTLEY to the WTF? Vault where it can strike a deal with me to be released on its 18th year inside. But first it'll have to...




SCORE
0.5 Howls Outta 4

The 450th Review: Poltergeist (1982)

DIRECTED BY
Tobe Hooper

STARRING
JoBeth Williams - Diane Freeling
Craig T. Nelson - Steve Freeling
Heather O'Rourke - Carol Anne Freeling
Dominique Dunne - Dana Freeling
Oliver Robins - Robbie Freeling
Zelda Rubinstein - Tangina Barrons
Beatrice Straight - Dr. Martha Lesh
James Karen - Teague

Genre - Horror/Drama/Supernatural/Ghosts

Running Time - 114 Minutes


I'm glad this review, the 450th, just happened to fall on October during All Horror Month. That means I get to review a film many consider a classic due to this milestone. While I do happen to get a lot of requests for more horror films that many have grown up with rather than more modern films many people may not have seen yet or even heard of, I like to save those type of reviews for very special occasions. This month alone, there will be a lot of requests fulfilled, as I will be reviewing a ton of classics as the focus, even though some lesser-known films will probably make their way into this month somehow. I hope you all will enjoy the ride!

As for this review, I felt it was time to discuss a film that's considered a favorite amongst horror fans due to the film itself, as well as the strange history, or "curse", that surrounds this film and its franchise. And since so many have requested this film any time I receive a random e-mail from my readers, I figured it was just the right time to discuss my feelings about one of my favorite supernatural, haunted house movies: 1982's Tobe Hooper's POLTERGEIST. So instead of thinking to yourselves, "It's about time he reviewed this damn movie!", keep your televisions on because the review is heeeeeerrrreeeee...

PLOT
The Freeling family have moved into a new house on the Cuesta Verde development estate due to father Steve's (Craig T. Nelson) job as a realtor. After a few creepy nights involving a strange looking tree outside son Robbie's (Oliver Robbins) window and youngest daughter Carol Anne (Heather O'Rourke) talking to people on a snowy television screen at the same time during bedtime, the Freelings begin to suspect something strange is going on. One night while Carol Anne is speaking to the television, a bunch of spirits exit the television screen and inhabit the house, making everyone believe it was an earthquake due to the huge power that was unleashed.

After this incident, a huge storm arrives. The creepy looking tree comes alive and pulls Robbie outside of his room, while Carol Anne's closet sucks her inside. While Robbie is saved, Carol Anne is lost within the dimension that once inhabited the spirits that have now possessed the house. Mother Diane (JoBeth Williams) communicates with a scared Carol Anne through the television, knowing they're dealing with a supernatural occurrence. Diane and Steve hire a team of parapsychologists, who have never seen any type of spiritual presence this strong or violent before. Introducing a medium (Zelda Rubinstein) who can communicate with the afterlife, they attempt to save Carol Anne from forever being lost in the dimension as well as cleansing the house.

REVIEW
Even after 29 years with countless stories about the "curse", the debate over who really directed the film, as well as all the spoofs and parodies paying homage, POLTERGEIST still manages to be an effective film dealing with the supernatural and the family coming to grips about it. Sure, some aspects are dated and the film isn't all that scary really [creepy sure but nothing that's gonna frighten you to death], I still heavily enjoy it. 1982 happened to be a fantastic year for horror films [and films in general], and POLTERGEIST is definitely near the top of the list.

The screenplay was written by Michael Grais, Mark Victor, and producer Steven Spielberg as well, but you wouldn't tell that three men were responsible for crafting the narrative since the film is cohesive and written so well. While POLTERGEIST is seen by a lot of people as a haunted house film, and rightfully so, the film is really a family drama that just happens to have supernatural forces as the antagonist. From the start, you get the sense that the Freeling family are just a normal unit and very loving with each other. Steve and Diane always make time for the kids, tucking them in at night and keeping the light on so they won't be afraid of the dark. If they do get scared, they let the kids sleep in their bed with them. They don't really share much time with their oldest daughter, Dana, due to the fact that she's a teenager who would rather lock herself in her room talking on the phone rather than spend time with her family. The kids are normal children who love pop culture. And the parents themselves love to smoke pot before going to bed, living the yuppie life while keeping their free-spirited, hippie ways without much remorse. In a lot of ways, POLTERGEIST is a reflection of suburbia in the early 1980s and the Reaganomics that came along with it. Hell, Steve is reading a book about Ronald Reagan. It could also be a criticism about television, as it's the reason why these strange things happen to begin with - the television signal that feeds this ghostly dimension. It's a product of its time and a reflection of how easy life was back then on the surface.

Still, the film is still a horror movie and the screenplay definitely reflects that. While the plot to save Carol Anne from this supernatural world she's stuck in is the main focus, having a realistic family reacting believably most of the time over these strange events helps make the terror more effective because we feel for them and can empathize. But POLTERGEIST feeds on our childhood fears - like that weird tree outside the window that looks like a monster and casts a strange shadow over you as your sleep. Or how about that certain toy, in this case a disturbing clown doll, that just gives you the chills? As for the closet, we believe there are monsters in there as children. Ironically, that's where the dimension is opened, proving that these monsters do exist. The narrative takes these common, innocent fears and gives them an evil edge that would frighten both children and adults. It also focuses on the idea of parents losing their children and not being able to fight back and gain control of the situation. The children are constantly attacked by these poltergeist because they're younger, innocent, and give off an aura of life that's brighter than the adults. With Carol Anne, the poltergeist practically kidnap her and bring her into their dimension. That's probably every parent's worst fear.

The film also has some freaky moments. The clown scene in the final act, in particular, is probably one of the creepiest and more famous moments in 80s horror. I dislike clowns to begin with, but having that chilling clown doll in my room and then having it try and kill me would probably send me over the edge. The tree scene is also a classic creepy moment. Hell, Robbie had it pretty rough in this film. And then all the corpses that come out of the pool and the ground at the end is just spine-tingling. The fact that they actually used real skeletons because it was cheaper than man-made models just makes the sequence more morbid. I also think not seeing what the dimension Carol Anne was trapped in was also a good move. INSIDIOUS tried and showed the dimension in its homage, but it just made the film cheesier than it should have been - taking away some of the mystery. Here, we don't get a clue what this place looks like besides it having a lot of bright lights. So this lack of knowledge actually allows us to use our imagination, making a potentially scary place even scarier.

Are there flaws in the narrative? Yeah, some. The whole burial ground thing is one of them. While I'm sure more than a few homes have been built over a little of buried corpses, I'm really surprised the construction workers and home builders had no clue about the bodies underneath them if they had to dig really deep to make the house's foundation. Maybe they did know and were told to ignore it and build anyway. The thing is, we're never really sure. But then again, bodies are only buried six feet under. You're telling me no one knew about them as they dug beneath to build? Unless they just randomly appeared, I doubt this very much.

Also, Tangina seems to be unsure of her job as a medium. For one, she tells Diane that only Carol Anne can hear her voice because she's the mother and their connection is stronger than Carol Anne's connection to Steve. But then seconds later, Tangina demands that Steve talk to Carol Ann because he's more of an threatening authority figure. And it works better for Steve than it does for Diane. Um...what the hell? Also, Tangina tells Carol Anne to head towards the light and then tells her not to. The girl is like 4 years old...she doesn't need to be confused and frustrated at such a young age! And then Tangina claims the house has been cleansed. Really? Is that why 15 minutes after that scene, the house implodes and sucks itself into that mysterious dimension, Tangina? You may sound cute, lady, but you know jack about spirits and how they work! Yet, Tangina is not the only one to blame since the family still stayed inside the house after Tangina told them that, even though some major traumatic episodes occurred there. Dumbasses.

I also find POLTERGEIST being pretty edgy for a family-horror flick. There's drug use, some foul language, and while not gory still manages to have blood and other frightening images and sounds [like the dude who rips his face off]. I'm surprised it got a PG rating at the time instead of an R [today, this film would be considered very tame]. Still, I wouldn't let small children watch this without some parental supervision.

The special effects in POLTERGEIST are kind of dated, but they still look okay. There's a lot of use of green screen, especially during the scene where the ghost hunters open the door to Robbie and Carol Anne's room and see all the objects inside floating around. The spirits that are seen are a great use of lighting and some computer work. The monster that comes out of the closet towards the end is practical SFX, which I love. The rip face scene looks like it's stop-motion. Plus the dimensional portal stuff and the house imploding still looks good even today.

The direction of POLTERGEIST still remains controversial. While THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE director, Tobe Hooper, has his name on the credits, many speculate that it was producer Steven Spielberg who really directed most of the film. While there is a bit of rawness and great tension and suspense that Hooper is known for in the film, the film does have a lot of similarities with E.T. and CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND in terms of look and storytelling. Hooper claims it was a collaborative effort, but a lot of people say Spielberg overpowered Hooper at almost every move, refusing any of his input. Whether of who directed, POLTERGEIST is still a very pleasing visual film. The movie still looks great after all these years. The mood and lighthearted tone still works within the horror moments. The lighting and pacing is fantastic. The tension and suspense works still. I could do without all the product placement because it gets a bit annoying to look at, but POLTERGEIST is well directed. I'll say Hooper did direct the film, but I'm sure Spielberg had his hand in the cookie jar every step of the way.

The acting is very solid. Craig T. Nelson and JoBeth Williams come across as very believable and sympathetic parents of the 1980s. Nelson plays the semi-skeptic role quite well, while Williams is loving and plays a mom anyone would want. Of the children, Heather O'Rourke is probably the best one here. Unfortunately she would pass away at the age of 12 four months before POLTERGEIST III was released in 1988. But her adorable role as Carol Anne is one of horror's many beloved and famous faces. Dominique Dunne, who played the oldest daughter Dana, plays the typical teenage daughter role. She, too, suffered a tragic fate a few months after the release of POLTERGEIST, as she was murdered by her abusive ex-boyfriend. Oliver Robins does well as Robbie as well. He was the child actor who went through the most crap in the film, but he does a good job handling it all and still coming across as a normal, scared kid. Beatrice Straight does a fine job playing a motherly figure as Dr. Lesh. And Zelda Rubinstein is probably the most memorable actor as Tangina due to her small 4'3" frame and child-like voice. She steals the film the moment she appears, coming across as mysterious, wise, and maybe even a bit sinister at times. Her kookiness is very appealing.

THINGS I'VE LEARNED WHILE DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TO HEAD TOWARDS THE LIGHT

- Carol Anne can hear voices from the television. Who cares? I can hear voices without the help of technology. And we're all doing just fine!

- Steve and Diane like to smoke pot before bed, enjoying their time together. Now I understand the secret of a happy marriage.

- A tree outside grabbed Robbie from his bed. He doesn't have the ring nor does he need to go to Mordor. We've screwed up our environment so much, we've confused the trees!

- Something sucked Carol Anne into the closet. She shouldn't be afraid. Allegedly Tom Cruise has been in there for years and he seems to be doing great!

- The poltergeist are attracted by Carol Anne's strong lifeforce. Young girls...trapped in closets...R. Kelly is behind this, isn't he?

- Teague built the Freeling house over a burial ground, only moving the headstones but not the bodies. Given his history with the living dead, he's the last guy I'd take real estate advice from...

THE FINAL HOWL
As a kid, POLTERGEIST was one of my favorite films and it creeped me the hell out too. Now as an adult, I can see the flaws in the story and it doesn't scare me all that much anymore. But the film is still well-told, has great creepy moments, and solid direction and acting - whether it was Spielberg or Hooper behind it all. POLTERGEIST is definitely one of the better haunted house movies out there and definitely worth watching in October or in any other month. Just make sure you turn off the television after you watch it. Not only will it save energy, but it may save you a trip to another dimension. Just some word of advice.

SCORE
3.5 Howls Outta 4

The Descent (2005)

DIRECTED BY
Neil Marshall

STARRING
Shauna MacDonald - Sarah
Natalie Mendoza - Juno
Saskia Mulder - Rebecca
Alex Reid - Beth
Nora-Jane Noone - Holly
MyAnna Buring - Sam

Genre - Horror/Drama

Running Time - 99 Minutes

Part of The Moon is a Dead World's

PLOT - Sarah (Shauna Macdonald) is still having trouble dealing with the death of her husband and daughter in a car accident. A year after the incident, Sarah is invited by her best friend, Juno (Natalie Mendoza), to go on a weekend getaway deep in the Appalachian Mountains with their friends Rebecca (Saskia Mulder), Beth (Alex Reid), Holly (Nora-Jane Noone), and Sam (MyAnna Buring). The women decide to explore a cave that's a tourist attraction in the area, led by Juno, but find themselves trapped inside the cave without a map. The women learn that Juno lied to them about the caverns, realizing that it's a different cave that no one has stepped foot into - and if they did, they never exited out of it. The women try to find a way out, more so when Sarah sees someone, or something, watching them inside the area. The women refuse to believe Sarah's findings, until all of them are confronted by these cave dwellers. With a new, deadlier obstacle to deal with, the women realize that reaching the surface is the least of their problems.

REVIEW

STORY - 2005's THE DESCENT was director/writer Neil Marshall's breakthrough film for mainstream horror audiences. Even though Marshall had directed an excellent werewolf film, DOG SOLDIERS, in 2003 for European audiences which has become a cult film for the rest of the world, it wasn't until the success of THE DESCENT in both the UK and the US that Neil Marshall got notice as one of horror's must-watch directors. While not a perfect film, THE DESCENT proves that horror is still very much alive in modern times, managing to still creep audiences and maybe scaring a few of them without using many gimmicks, but with old-fashioned drama and atmosphere.

Neil Marshall's screenplay is effective in that it allows the terror to build naturally, rather than forcing it onto audiences because it's what they would expect. I believe the drama between the characters is really what sets THE DESCENT apart from many of its contemporary counterparts, as we get to know these six women somewhat and see how fragile their relationships are with each other as the film rolls on. The focus of the film is really on the friendship between Sarah and Juno right from the start. We learn right away that Juno may be having an inappropriate relationship with Sarah's husband, which Sarah appears to be very much aware of. But before we can learn more about the affair, Marshall instantly eliminates Sarah's husband and daughter from the picture by killing both in a car accident. While this aspect of the film could have been explored more, we shift a year later with Sarah still dealing with the loss of her family under some sort of post-traumatic depression. Juno, feeling guilty for her role in the tragedy indirectly, tries to salvage her friendship by inviting Sarah on this cave adventure like the good ol' days. But as we watch, we realize the relationship is still very strained as both women have differing views on the situation they're in. Once the creatures arrive, both women seem to take a turn. Sarah goes into instant survival mode, using stealth and then her anger, about the tragedy she still can't get quite a grip on, to her advantage. Juno also fights back, but she accidentally betrays one of her friends and leaves them alone to die, knowing she could probably do something to help. When Sarah finds out about this, that's when their unresolved feelings begin to surface. It's a very natural process in how their relationship evolves within 99 minutes. We may not know their entire history and we may have more questions than answers at times, but in that instant we can relate to both women and understand that they're going to have to settle things before they can move forward, even if it does get a bit bloody.

The other characters don't really get much of the spotlight, to be honest. But they all have different personalities, some more likeable than others. But we already know from the start that these women are just the lambs for the slaughter and we shouldn't get too attached to them being around. But they're the usual stereotypical characters who either don't listen, or reveal how "loyal" they are to their friends in need during a horrible situation - all things that end up getting them killed. Not much depth to them, but we get who these characters are. At least they aren't bimbos, but rather mature women who are grounded in reality. Marshall should be applauded for writing human beings instead of terrible caricatures.

I also think the slow build up is fantastic. If the creatures were never shown in the trailers or anything, you'd think the film was just about six women who got themselves trapped inside a cave just by the first 45 minutes of the film. Just the idea of being locked inside an environment that's not only foreign, but deadly and claustrophobic is creepy in itself. The first half of the film is more character driven and subtle, which effectively heightens the tension and suspense of the second half, where the creatures appear. It makes us care about the characters more by this point. It makes us invested in their situation. It actually makes these cave dwellers creepier because they've been in the shadows the entire time without really standing out until that moment we see one of them face-to-face. A lot of horror films try and do this sort of thing, but fail because the writing structure is flawed, or because there's a rush to showcase the villains for that first scare. Marshall, in a way, creates two different films here that act as one and it works great.

I also love how Marshall played around with THE DESCENT title. On the surface, THE DESCENT is about going down into the caves and getting trapped. But honestly, THE DESCENT that's being named is about Sarah's emotional state from beginning to end. The moment she loses her family, she pretty much loses everything. She loses her self-confidence. She loses her best friend, Juno, due to Juno's betrayals. She even loses her mind slowly, as evidenced by the constant dream sequences of Sarah's daughter blowing out candles on a birthday cake. One the creatures attack. Sarah's walls break and she just descends into madness, killing anyone in her way and taking care of her issues with Juno. I won't spoil the ending [the original Director's Cut ending is better, by the way - the U.S. version was a terrible way to end the film], but it definitely reflects the title of the film to a tee. Marshall definitely knew what he was doing here.

I do think having Sarah's accident happen at the beginning does take away some of the tension of the film in a way. From this incident alone, it's already established that Sarah is the main character, meaning she's less likely to die than the other women. It's a great moment and it establishes Sarah's personality well for the rest of the film, but it also takes away from wondering who will live or who will die if there was no main character. Also, I do think that Sarah's and Juno's relationship with each other could have been fleshed out a bit more, especially about their past. Do I need to know every detail? No. But at least answering some lingering questions would have been nice. But other than that, a solid screenplay.

DIRECTION - Neil Marshall does a great job visualizing his script. THE DESCENT has a ton of visual style. Marshall uses a ton of different angle shots to give us a look of the cave, but mostly shoots in medium shots to close ups as a way to create a claustrophobic feel. There are a lot of quick cuts, especially during the last half of the film, as well as some "shaky cam" that actually helps the film rather than hurt it. The colors, such as the reds and greens, are just a nice touch. I loved how he presented the creatures when they first started appearing. They could be off-frame, or hiding in the shadows, making the audience really look at what they're seeing to catch them in the composition. It creates a lot of tension and suspense, especially when these creatures pop out of nowhere to terrorize the female characters. Plus the film looks great, with great set pieces and vibrant colors. Just an amazing job by Neil Marshall, with THE DESCENT proving that he's one of the better horror directors working today.

EDGE FACTOR - THE DESCENT is your typical R rated horror flick. We get the typical foul language at times. There's no nudity, unless you count the cave creatures. As for gore, well THE DESCENT delivers that in spades. We get a bone sticking out through a leg, throats torn, monsters chewing on guts, some eyeball gouging, a bunch of bites and stabbings, and women drenched in blood. More than alright, if you ask me.

ACTING - The acting is very solid in this film. Shauna Macdonald is great as Sarah. She hit every emotional cue she needed to quite believably. Her emotional evolution from beginning to end is gripping and I bought every second of it. Natalie Mendoza was just as great as Juno. I think her performance was actually more emotional than Macdonald's - it was very layered and she really had a lot to play with. She was guilty. She was mean. She was scared. She was everything, and quite convincingly as well. The other ladies also held up their own, as I really believed all six of these women were friends. Just a great female ensemble here.

THE FINAL HOWL
THE DESCENT is one of the best horror films of the 2000s. While not perfect, it comes pretty close in terms of its narrative structure and solid direction and acting. It's hard to find a horror film these days that is hard to creep you out a bit, but THE DESCENT is one of the rare few that's able to elicit a true emotion out of its audience. Even 6 years later, it still holds up extremely well and deserves a slot in any horror fan's movie collection. Stay out of the caves and check this out instead.


SCORE
3.5 Howls Outta 4