review

Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death

2014 / PG-13

Director: Tom Harper

Writers: Jon Croker (screenplay), Susan Hill (story) - Susan also wrote for the first Woman in Black.

Stars: Helen McCroy, Jeremy Irvine, Phoebe Fox


I didn't particularly want to watch this movie in the first place - I mean, no Daniel Radcliffe?! What's the point? Plus, I rather enjoyed the first one; It was a decent, visually appealing "haunted house" movie. Eel Marsh House, where all the spooky events take place, is beautiful despite it's decrepit state and its ghostly inhabitants. The long road, which drives from the mainland, through the marshes and to the large house, is the perfect place to make scary things happen. It's an expansive stretch of land so your eye is jumping all over the place, and the area is almost always covered in dense fog. Despite a seemingly perfect setting, this movie relies too much on jump scares and suffers from an uninteresting plot.

The plot takes place during WWII, about 40 years after the events of the first movie, and it centers around a group of orphaned kids who, along with their Head Mistress and a couple other adults, take up residence in Eel March House. It isn't long before the evil, undead inhabitants start popping up at quiet times (a la jump scares) and raising all sorts of hell in and around the house. It's not a very strong plot and there were a couple too many sub plots that seemed to detract from the main story line. 
          
The acting isn't terrible. In fact, I recognized two other actors from Harry Potter; Helen McCrory (Narcissa Malfoy) and Adrian Rowlins (James Potter in the Deathly Hallow movies). Even the child actors did a fine job, in this movie. But I don't think decent acting is enough to save this movie. The amount of cheap jump scares really took away from this for me. It's really easy to start being able to predict them, after a while. Where the director could have easily used the house, the woods, the marsh - really any part of the setting - to set the tone of unease and build tension to a quality, well thought-out scare, he instead would create a loud noise and have a shadowy figure pop onto the screen. It wasn't very satisfying to this seasoned horror watcher.

As far a sequels go, it's not the worst one that I've seen but it is very far from the best. They would've been better off just leaving the original on it's own and without a follow-up. There wasn't a lot of interesting stuff going on. So....back to some Harry Potter connections, the screenplay writer, Jon Croker, was also a writer on Goblet of Fire and Prisoner of Azkaban

Would I recommend this movie?: Yes. It's crap, to be sure, but if you're looking for a horror movie to watch with your friends that will make you jump, this is definitely a good one for that.

Would You Rather?

2012 / Rated NR 

Director: David Guy Levy

Writers: Steffen Schlachtenhaufen (his last name means "battle pile" in german)

Stars: Brittany Snow, June Squibb, Jeffrey Combs


Would you rather chop off your arm or watch this movie from start to finish? My answer? I might seriously consider the chopping (and then immediately choose to watch the movie because ouch!). Ok so it's probably not that bad - definitely not the worst I've seen - but it is bad.

Brittany Snow is adorable, as per usual, in her portrayal of a sister willing to do whatever it takes to pay for her brother's cancer treatment. "Whatever it takes", in this case, means agreeing to attend an unfortunate dinner party, hosted by some wealthy guy. She becomes one of six participants in a sadistic game of "would you rather." The winner of the game will receive enough money from the host to essentially set them up for life. How could this not be a great idea??

The "game" escalates quickly from a simple "would you rather remain a vegetarian, with your convictions in tact, or eat an entire cow liver for $50,000" to "would you rather electrocute yourself or the person sitting next to you?" Nice, huh? This movie is a representation of torture porn gone terribly wrong. Even as someone who is often a fan of movies from the torture porn genre, I find this to be a pathetic attempt to capitalize on the success of the Saw and Hostel movies (though, to be fair, the third Hostel was embarrassing).

Where this movie seems to stray from the path that Hostel so nicely laid out is really in its overall plot and character development. Now, I'm not trying to say that torture porn films need to make a point to focus on character development, because they generally do not - but what a movie like Hostel may lack in plot and characters, it makes up for tenfold in its brutal and realistic gore. Would You Rather does not do this. Its weak story is coupled with scenes of gore that are almost equally as weak, especially for this genre (with the exception of maybe one scene involving an eyeball and a razor blade...). As for the plot, it's just boring. It wasn't an interesting story and, with nothing else to fall back on, it's easy to find yourself checking out, mentally.

Would I recommend this movie? No. No, I would not.

Sinister

Now it's Karen's turn...We've recently talked about watching Sinister 2 for the podcast and so, being the only one who hadn't seen the first one, it seemed like a good opportunity to take a crack at writing a review.

First of all, I love Ethan Hawke. I know it defies logic, but I've loved him since I saw Before Sunrise. I was really worried we were going to get into a "Dermot Mulroney in Insidious Chapter 3" situation. Luckily, that was not the case. 

Ethan Hawke plays a true crime writer who moves his family into a home where the previous tenants were hung from a tree in the backyard. Conveniently, this is the subject of his new book. Creepy things start to happen around the house and he finds a box of films in the attic that document the previous family's murder.

This movie is a nice combination of found footage and jump scares. It has a perfectly reasonable explanation for why the footage exists and the videos themselves are the best part. I know I'm the wimp of the group, but I had to pause the movie at certain points because I was getting too amped up. 

I'm usually pretty oblivious when it comes to movie plots, but even I could tell how this movie would end. That really didn't take away from it because the exciting part was waiting to see how it would happen. 

Bottom line: Check it out! Then watch Sinister 2 with us.

Clown

Title: Clown
Released: November 2014
Director: John Watts 
Writers: Christopher D. Ford (screenplay), John Watts (screenplay)
Stars: Peter Stormare, Eli Roth, and Laura Allen
Synopsis: A little boy's birthday party is ruined when the clown his mother hired as party entertainment cancels. His father finds an old, completely suspicious-looking, clown suit and decides to try his hand at entertaining the bday kids. However, there's something weird about this suit; it comes with a complementary curse which renders it impossible to take off. Now the father has to figure out how to get rid of the curse before his new-found hunger for the flesh of children takes over. 


Coulrophobia is the fear of clowns. If you suffer from this particular phobia, it'd probably be in your best interest to go ahead and skip this movie. Clowns have never really bothered me but I've always found them to be appropriate villains for horror movies (when done well - a la Pennywise). Clown isn't the greatest clown-themed horror movie that I've seen, by far. I figured, with Eli Roth's name attached to the movie, there would be plenty of blood and guts - turns out, he's only listed as a producer and actor (because, of course...he always is). However, there were more than enough graphic murder scenes to satisfy one's blood-lust.  

We start off with the main character, the dad/clown, scrambling to find an appropriate substitute for the clown who canceled on his son's birthday. How lucky that the house he's working in just happens to have a creepy, locked box containing an even creepier clown suit. If there's one lesson to take away from this movie it's, don't try on strange clown costumes. Especially when they look as if they're made with human skin...

Once the dad gets the suit on and saves the day at the birthday party, he soon realizes the entire costume (including wig and make-up) is stuck on him. Not only does he now have to wear a clown suit everywhere he goes, but the longer he wears it, the more he is taken over by the evil, child-eating demon. At least, I'm pretty sure that's what was behind the whole thing. The entire movie basically consists of the dad/clown running around eating kids, while his wife and a costume salesman try to stop him. 

As you can imagine, what this movie lacks in plot, story-telling, etc., it makes up for in child-eating, gore, and some rather unsettling imagery. Is it a great movie? No, it's not. In fact, I would be hesitant to call it "scary", even. However, it is entertaining enough to sit through at least once. I've definitely sat through worse. The story-line and plot are pretty weak - It's easy to get tired of the "solve the mystery and learn a life lesson" types of movies and this, for some reason, is one of those. Aside from some good effects, the rest of the movie felt sort of generic.
 

Would I recommend it? No, I don't think I would recommend this to most people. Similar to Eat, this is a movie for someone who has the patience for gore over plot & storytelling. 
What would I rate it? 2 stars

 

Eat

TitleEat
Released: 2014 by Pretty People Pictures
Director/Writer: Jimmy Webber
Stars: Meggie Maddock, Nate Bakke, Elena Chin, Robyn Ashley Dennis
Tagline: "The story of a girl who finds herself - and then eats herself."
Synopsis: Struggling actress, Novella McClure (that name, right?!), is really striking out all over: she hasn't landed an acting gig in over 3 years, she is late with rent & on the verge of being evicted, her dating life is pretty uneventful, and to top it all off, she is struggling to manage her ever-increasing anxiety.

 


I was enjoying a quiet evening alone which, essentially, meant I would need to find a horror movie that seemed interesting enough to grasp my attention for the next couple hours. Enter, Eat. I judged the movie by its cover, I'll admit it. Ok, the cover and the tagline. How could I not possibly be intrigued by that?! So the tagline basically gives away the main premise in this film but I figured there would be enough character development or plot build-up to keep it entertaining. Boy, was I wrong. 

I think I'll treat this review by discussing my main complaints/issues with the film and then talk about the couple things I did like.

                           Consider yourself warned, this review is littered with spoilers.

Did Not Like:
Character development & script/dialogue. The character development (or what little there is) is quite lacking and leaves the film with a cast of characters that I don't care about. The dialogue seems pretty unnatural and, at points, just plain laughable. I was very aware that I was watching characters read a script. Anyone who listens to the podcast knows how I feel about movies who use a character's name with unnatural frequency. For those that don't listen, I hate it. There was a bit of that in this movie.
Let's work down the list of characters, shall we?
Tracy: Her character could've been played by any young, semi-attractive woman. I think it was intentional to not make any of the actress characters overly beautiful. Having their looks fall in the more "slightly above average" area of the scale not only gave them a reason for not getting any jobs but made them more believable and relatable to the audience. If these were conventionally "gorgeous" women, it would be harder to believe that they're struggling to find acting work. Then again, I look at a computer all day and know nothing of Hollywood. It's later revealed that Tracy trades sexual favors for roles. It's also later revealed that she is a pathological liar so who the hell knows what's going on with her. Again, it's a character that you don't need to care about and you're only meant to hate because she's obviously setup as Novella's enemy.
Eesha: Eesha is Novella's sweet landlord who, for some inexplicable reason, really seems to care about Novella. Enough so that she keeps looking the other way, each month, as Novella fails to pay rent. There is even a moment when Eesha toughens up and sticks an "eviction" notice on Novella's door. However, she's soon guilted in to taking it down when Novella has to be hospitalized for taking a fucking bite out of her own wrist! Throughout the movie, Eesha is just outside of the apartment but always concerned about Novella and how she is doing. She's always telling her that she knows "she'll get the next one." She's very one-dimensional and serves as the caring motherly-type for Novella. Hers didn't even feel like a necessary character, though.
Novella: It's because of her wrist-biting "suicide attempt" (as the doctors choose to call it because who's going to say that she tried to eat herself??) that Novella is required to see a therapist - that'd be Dr. Simon. Before the wrist-biting, the most we had seen from Novella was some cuticle-chewing. It was some serious cuticle-chewing, though - a la Black Swan. We are told, in a seemingly short amount of time, that Novella has severe anxiety and she chooses to relieve this anxiety by biting off and eating parts of her skin. First it's her wrist, then her foot, then her ankle, then her arm, and, finally, a piece of her heart. She stresses that she isn't a cannibal, just that she has an intense desire to eat her own flesh...yeah. We get next to no explanation as to why she is the way she is. Though I don't feel a back story is always necessary, in this movie, it was and it was needed badly. We do find out, at some point, that her father died tragically when she was young and she's been living off of an inheritance. So, anyway, back to Dr. Simon.
Dr. Simon: He first meets Novella in a bar with her "scary" friend Candice. He's immediately drawn to her good looks and "charm." We get the sense that he's going to be the guy who is able to help her out with her wacky disorder. He's another character that could've been played by any 30-something, semi-attractive man. That being said, I think the actor playing Dr. Simon, did the best acting in the whole movie. That's not really saying a ton, but still...
Candice: Finally, Candice. She's Novella's best friend, yet manages to get her into various types of shenanigans and is never truly there to help her out. Also, why does she call her "baby girl"? That doesn't even sound like natural speech. The two of them do little more than go to bars and get guys to buy them multiple rounds of drinks before excusing themselves to the ladies room. That's when they typically make their escape. I think the filmmakers try to make Candice look tough by giving her character really short hair and darker make-up...sort of a "I don't take shit from anyone" type of attitude. Oh, and she also carries a gun. But I never really bought into it. It all seemed very forced and too many of the other characters had to blatantly describe her as "scary" which took away from any chance of that being a natural characteristic of hers. The gun that she carries in her purse does come in handy after she and Novella are drugged and almost raped in a parking lot - she shoots both guys in the groinal area. When Novella freaks out, eats part of herself, and then tells Candice that she isn't doing well and needs help, Candice just passes out on the bed. She's not the most caring of friends. Finally, it's revealed at the end that she was in love(?) with Novella the entire time. Or at least had more than "friendly" feelings towards her. There was no buildup to that; it just came out of nowhere and didn't make much sense. She does prove her love, however, by committing some murders. Precious.
And that brings me to...

What I Liked
The Killin's & the Gore: It takes a lot to get to me and make me want to look away from the screen and I was tempted to look away multiple times during this movie. When Novella is chowing down on her foot and arm, the effects are really impressive. If only for the fact that they made me feel uneasy...so, "bravo!" to the effects crew on this film. Even the sound effects as she was chowing down were a bit much for me - meaning, of course, they were great.
How she basically chewed two toes off as well as a good chunk of her foot and then still managed to shove said foot into some pumps and walk around is beyond me. Then again, I have all of my toes and no missing chunks and any shoe with more than a 1" heel feels like straight-up torture.
I question, of course, how medically accurate any of this would be. She ate a lot of her foot and never sought medical assistance. At one point, it shows it looking a little gangrene-y (and I swear to god, if she had eaten that, I would've puked) so I'm confused how she managed to just play it off so well.
The majority of the gore is when Novella is eating herself, however, there's a fair amount of blood (and I think brains) when Candice decides to defend Novella's honor, after learning that Dr. Simon is just a jerk who bangs all of his patients (wasn't even true, btw), and goes to the good doctor's house and shoots him in the head. Then she rolls his body up in a shnazzy rug and presents it to Novella like a cat presenting her mouse kill. At some point, Eesha comes in the house to see if Novella is alright and is, sadly, shot in the head by Candice. She pulls the ol' "now we can be together" line. It doesn't work and Novella shoots Candice - for a movie called Eat which is, obviously, about eating, there are too many deaths by shooting. It doesn't seem to fit at all. 
Once basically all of the characters (minus Tracy) are dead and Novella has clearly seen better days, she props herself up against a cabinet and stabs herself right in the chest. She doesn't stop there, though. She twists the knife around a bit to create a larger hole that can fit her hand. I suppose she figures, if she's going to go, she going to go satiated on her own flesh; she reaches into the hole in her chest and pulls out a piece of her heart and dies whilst chewing. Lovely. 

To sum up...this movie had some interesting aspects to it: the actual skin-eating scenes were pretty rough and it actually attempted to cover autocannibalism, which isn't something one sees in a lot of horror movies. That being said, this movie almost felt more like a fetish movie with a slightly porny feel to it. The closest movie I could think to compare it to was Starry Eyes and that's simply because they are both about struggling actresses whose shit starts to go south, real quick. But, IMHO, Starry Eyes runs circles around this movie. Eat just wasn't fleshed out enough (pun was absolutely intended). It had an interesting premise and seemed to have a lot of pieces that seemed promising but just weren't put together in a way that felt cohesive. However, the movie itself seemed to be shot pretty well. There were a couple scenes, in particular, of her sitting alone on a casting couch, that I liked. As well as the shot of Novella lying on the floor of her bathroom, covered in blood - it was, actually, a beautiful shot. So I'd say I was more impressed with the production and effects than the script or the acting. But, to be fair, maybe the actors were just doing the best they could with the script they had. Who knows?

Here's a final image for you to go away with:
 





Would I recommend it? No, I don't think I would recommend this to most people. Those who are well-versed in horror movies or who have a penchant for gore may, indeed, like this movie.
What would I rate it? 2 stars

If you want to learn any more about Eat, here are a few ways to go about that:
Press Kit
Website
Facebook

~ JSS