Body#19 2007 Review

Body#19

waiter, there's a fetus in my soup...

I've been doing a lot of comedy lately, haven’t I? And although it’s been fun and swell, let’s tear away from this comforting zone to let ourselves be embarked on a terrifying tale.

Actual scary movies are hard to find, believe it or not. And to find one that is both scary and pretty damn good? Yeah…that’s pretty rare.

But here we are, Body#19, released in 2007 by Thai director Paween Purikitpanya. This movie might just be my favorite actual scary horror movie, the first time I saw it, coming across it by accident, I was amazed by the storytelling and twists and turns this masterpiece presented before me. But I’m getting ahead of myself, what’s Body #19, or more commonly known as ‘Body sob 19’ or simply ‘Body’ about?

Chon and his sister, a nurse working at the local hospital, found themselves renting a huge house from an unknown owner. All seems to go well until Chon begins to see questionable things crawling through the house. His sister decides to help him to unearth the mystery behind these strange sightings, but all they find is a name belonging to a woman who used to teach at the hospital. Things go from bad to worse as other people begin to fall prey to this monster that takes the form of a dismembered woman. And telling anything beyond this point would be a waste, because believe me guys, you need to see this movie for yourself.

This movie is incredibly hard to talk about because the plot holds so many mysteries and I really don’t want to spoil the fun for those watching this movie for the first time. You might think you've already got it figured out, the teacher is coming back to take vengeance on all those who wronged her as some sort of curse and Chon just so happens to live in one of the prosecuted future victims house, right? Believe it or not, if you thought something like that, you couldn't be more wrong. This entire movie is a rolled up burrito of mystery and twists till the very last second and you’ll never see them coming.

This movie needs to be seen at least twice to be fully understood, and believe me, the second watch will be a completely new experience. You’ll notice some of the expressions on the characters faces that you at first dismissed as just a little bit off to be a major plot point afterward.

But enough about the magnificent storytelling, how does the movie look? Well, pretty damn amazing, for the most parts. I’ll need to get this out of the way, the ghost/curse/grudge’s face looks…well silly for a lack of better term. Mainly the eyes that seems to be two Ping-Pong balls glued on the actress’s face. But thankfully it’s only visible in a few scenes and only when they use the practical effects, yes believe it or not, the CGI in this movie actually works and looks even better that the practical effects, never thought I’d say that.

But the effects, both practical and computer generated look amazing for such an obscure movie and fit the tone very well.

And is it scary? Well, for once yes, granted it’s not the scariest movie I've ever seen, but it did manage to give me trouble getting some sleep for a few days. That and the overall eerie and confusing tone of the film makes it an experience you won’t forget easily.

Soundtrack wise, there isn't a lot to be said except for one song that is repeated throughout the movie more that I’d cared for, but it does somehow tie in the plot so I’ll make an exception.

Even for its minor flaws, this movie is a must-see for all who can appreciate a good story that’ll keep you guessing and actual scares that work in the movie’s context. I love this movie more and more every time I watch it, and although the first view can be a bit confusing and make the movie seem like a bit of a mess at times, those who will stick with it till the very end will walk out of this movie with a smile on their faces.

Personal rating: 9.8/10

Critical rating: 9/10

Things I've learned from ‘Body#19’:

-Releasing someone from a curse is all about timing.

- Checking under your bed isn't always the safest route.

- Trucks are f8cking crazy.

- they missed a great opportunity in not having one of the museum workers scream “I BE PAKINZ BUTTREFLIES!!”, just saying.

- Also, fetus soup…

[SPECIAL AWARD]

The best scare ever, gets you every time

“Chon…”

Zombie Strippers! 2008 Review

Zombie Strippers!

Because there are still people out there wanking to it

Well, time to take a break from nightmares on Elm street and take a look at...stipping zombies. But all is well, I have enough scotch to clear my memory after this and we have a familiar face to lead us through this slightly necrophiliac propaganding  journey, no other than Freddy himself, goddamit Robert Englund, of all the undead joint in all the grindhouse in all the world, he walks into mine.

Well, to be honest, the fact that Robert Englund plays in this movie is one of the two big reasons I picked up this little flick made in 2008, the other would be the name, because honestly, how could I pass on a movie about zombie strippers? Also Jenna Jameson plays in this, here a guilty high five to those who know who she is…

And yes, before you even ask, this movie is exactly what you think it is.

In a not too distant future, one where stripping has become illegal. A small group of commando is send out to take care of a laboratory spill that caused the personnel to become brain-hungry zombies. Of course things get out of hand and one of the zombies finds itself in an illegal strip club owned by Freddy Kruger and bites the hell out of one of the strippers.

And then things get weird, I’m not sure how things will go down in the future, but I’m pretty sure necrophilia will still not be the norm, so why in the name of all that is holy, the crowd goes wild when the returned stripper dangles her rotting flesh all over the dance floor , is beyond me. But Freddy sees an opportunity in this and all goes to hell beyond that point. And yes, it gets even weirder.

Ok, let’s get this out of the way, this movie is funny as hell. Sure it can be classified as toilet humor, but what can I say, it works. On the other end of the spectrum however, when did people start to find dancing corpses hot? I mean all right, I wouldn’t be one to kick Jenna Jameson out of bed, but she’s not so hot that I’d pay to see her rotting pieces splatter all over the dance floor.

But for all the fun this movie is in its juvenile humor, I do get the idea that this movie tries to be much deeper than it actually is, or at least that would be the case if I knew anyone’s reasons to do anything in this movie. They try to tackle multiple questions on the duality of men here and there, but it falls flat when you realize they are just quoting Nietzsche every once in a while, and like a joke without a punchline, this just goes on and on until the end of the movie making you wonder if there was a point to all this, and to save you the trouble, no, there isn’t.

And it’s a shame, because I really don’t want to call a movie named ‘Zombie Strippers’ pretentious, but I can’t see the joke, I mean why have the setup by having one character ask questions about the prosecution of weaker woman in this industry by pressurizing them with impossible standards, eventually wondering if men is born evil, just to never either answer those questions or never have a joke that works. So yes, and I hate to be the one to say it, but Zombie Stripper is, maybe unwillingly, pretentious.

For a movie that hopelessly tries to show us the evil of standards and expectations, something you’d expect would interest more woman than men (not being sexist here, just saying) this movie is 75% striptease, something that, more often than not, does not interest the female demographic. So why have all that talk about the pressurizing of woman in the industry? For f8ck squabble diddle doo, and that’s why this movie falls horribly flat in that regard.

Might want to rethink that lapdance...

But back to the point, the effects are unfortunately really poor, and I mean both they look cheap and they are uninteresting. More often than not computer generated blood spatter and wounds that would make the later ‘Violent shit’ movies proud. The small amount of practical effects are slightly better and the props and sets do their jobs nicely. The acting isn't even worth mentioning, seeing as the lead previous acting jobs were such unforgettable classics such as ‘Buttman at Nudes a Poppin' 7’ and ‘Breast Obsessed 3’. Robert Englund, and no matter how much I like him as an actor, didn’t bring his A-game either, he often seemed like he was lost on the set or really waiting for his paycheck, but even then, he did get a few chuckles out of me here and there.

So, final verdict? This movie is a blast, it’s perhaps poorly acted and has more strip scenes than gay undertones in Brokeback Mountain, but it’s funny as hell and will have you laughing all the way with its ridiculous plot.

However, I am speaking as a proud dong-owner here, and I feel that some of the ladies probably won’t be able to sit through so much of Jenna’s exposed…uhum…acting. And thus would find the movie pretty lacking and/or hard to sit through. However if you don’t mind, the humor is still side-aching and it has more memorable quotes and scenes than I could mention.

Personal rating:    7/10

Critical rating:    5.5/10

Things I learned from ‘Zombie Strippers!’:

- Nietzsche does indeed make more sense after you die

- This future might be a bit short of stupid, but at least it’s not ‘Teenage Caveman’

- I’ll never look at a billiard ball the same way

- Rhino in a thong might be the worst logo for anything since the RE6 title card

- Foaming Chewbacca…seriously internet?

- and I though the teabag from killer pussy was bad…

Update January 2014

Hey guys,
sorry for the lack of updates and reviews the past few days, been kinda busy with a whole lot of stuff, mainly trying to find a job and such. so there might be a less reviews than expected the coming weeks, but i do plan to finish all the nightmare on elm street in less than a week when i get some time for myself.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors 1987 Review

Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors

Freddy vs the supernatural Glee club

Finally the third installment in the series, Dream Warriors, acclaimed as ‘The perfect nightmare on elm street movie’. With a title as that, how can this movie possibly go wrong? Well, why not take a look at this 1987 meet-up of the dream demon Freddy Kreuger and the mighty Nancy dream Rangers…hold on, that’s not right.

A few years after the murders on Elm street, some teens seem to all share the same dream, and of course, parents, always doing what they do best, make things worse by committing them to a psychological asylum. 
And there they are find themselves like fishes in a barrel for our favorite dream murdering maniac, Freddy Kreuger. But it seems that an old friend has decided to make her comeback to finish what she started years ago, Nancy from the first movie. And after noticing one of the patients seems to have the power to control her dreams, she decide to form a team of dream warriors to finally destroy Freddy.
Warriors ranging from D&D wizards to an eighties idea of‘Bad’…ugh.

Sweet god does this one drive off the silly cliff with the quirkymobile. At first it seems to be all right until the whole ‘Dream ability’ thing comes into play, yeah, that’s a thing now. Apparently all the kids have special dream abilities, like one having super strength , the other being able to do backflips, and can someone call the kid who got the superpower to scream real loud like a girl to tell him he’s been screwed over? He can probably join Mati from Captain Planet and Aquaman in the ‘screwed at the superpowers hand-out club’.

But besides the silliness of the second half which let me remind you all, had a freaking wizard, how does the movie hold up? Well, for lack of a better term, it’s amazing.

I’m serious, the effects are incredible and the acting, although hammy at times, is pretty decent. And holy sh8t, is that Morpheus (Lawrance Fishburn)? This just keeps getting better.

The kids are likable for the most parts, and seeing Nancy again was a nice addition, but the real show stealer remains Robert Englund as Freddy Kreuger, who in this movie more than before, really shines. In the previous movie, especially in the second  one, Freddy just seemed like this uncharacteristic evil force, we knew he was evil, but beside that there was very little to add. But in this movie Freddy has much more of a personality (and a pretty, if not very dark, funny one) and we get to know a little of his backstory, and even though it’s contrived and cliché as all hell, it’s at least a step forward. But while on the subject, we learn about Freddy’s birth and the cruel and brutal circumstances of said event, but the movie blames those events for Freddy’s murderous existence as an adult. So instead of focusing on the big question this movie should be asking, is evil something you’re born with or is it something you come to learn trough traumatic events or taught by others, the movie just glances over it and forgets about it like if it was afraid of what it said. Which is something that really pisses me off with nightmare on Elm street 3.

But well, back on track, if you don’t have a problem with the silliness of the second act, this is probably the best movie in the saga so far. I still personally prefer the first one, but this one is a close second. the main antagonist, Freddy is much more refined and funny in a dark and twisted way. The Effects are amazing and a real treat to look at and its characters are varied and deaths are creative and original. Definitely worth a watch for any horror fan.

Personal Rating: 8.2/10

Critical rating: 8/10

Things I’ve learned from Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors:

- How to make it on TV

- "The Freddy Kreuger" is the new drug sensation sweeping the nation after 'The Charlie Sheen'

- Never thought that the idea of Freddy playing with his puppets could be so wicked

- Even in the eighties, “I’m beautiful…and bad” sounds retarded

 

Freddy’s kill count: 20

Best kill in this movie: Killer puppeteer

Best kill so far: Killer pupeteer

Santa Claus conquers the Martians 1964 Review

Santa Claus Conquers the Martians

Beam me up, Rudolph 

Well, I woke up this morning and realized it had been a while since I talked to my old friend ‘reality’, but when I called that tricky mistress she just reminded me of the massive restraining order she had placed on me ever since I started to review movies, so here’s to the Christmas spirit: “Santa conquers the Martians” …in January.

Yes, I’ll have to apologies once more for my lack of reviews the past weeks, due to pesky family members and their silly traditions and habits, if you don’t mind, I’m gonna watch a movie about Martians kidnapping Santa.

Yes, this little trainwreck of a movie was introduced in 1964, and although the title is slightly misleading, it does involve space travel with the fatmeister himself, Santa Claus.

On Mars (never a good sign when a review starts with these two words) the Martian children are obsessed with earth’s broadcasts and culture, especially around Christmas when the good little boys and girls of earth get all kinds of goodies. The Martian adults are worried for the wellbeing of their children and decide that the best way to deal with this issue is to kidnap the fatman and force him to work on Mars to make toys.

Well, if you manage to read all that without banging your head against any kind of surface, you’ll notice that one, Santa doesn’t really conquers anything (well, technically he does, in a Christmas spirit kind of way), and two, this is in no way a horror/action or anything that I would normally review, but to be fair, I’m gonna make an exception for this one just on the name alone.

But yes, this movie is incredibly silly, but I get the idea that the creators actually meant for it to be a charming family picture, which makes me feel kind of bad for them when this movie had me laughing at just how incredibly bad it is.

At first I was hoping that they would go at it in a comedic angle, so that when they come to earth they pick up a mall Santa and highjinx ensue, but they actually kidnaps the real Santa, and two little annoying brats so the little drool-monsters watching this mess can identify I guess. And the whole world is in an uproar, meaning they knew Santa was real, so is this movie meant for children under the age of four? Well I sure as hell hope not, it’ll scare the living hell out of them when strange men painted green in thigh spandex and silly hats walk in the room with their robot made out of tin foil, oh wait, that’s just me and my very specific and somewhat disturbing phobia.

 But yes, the props and the effects are bad, and when I say that, I mean that the kindergarten plays next door looked more believable. But damn if it isn’t entertaining to watch.

At some point in the movie a guy with a long fur coat and a hat slightly resembling something that might have once been a polar bear costume walks in the set and we’re actually supposed to believe that it’s a bear?

But wait till you see the robot the Martians use to attack the north pole, he came in the night, two bright lights in the distance and walked toward the large papier-mâché rocks in all its cardboard glory as I fell to the floor gasping for air so I could somehow laugh harder. Sweet Jesus, if the props would be an actor, they’d be Tommy Wiseau, so bad it hurts in all the good places. I want to find the guy who made the costumes and hand him an award, because god knows we need the challenged persons to feel good about themselves.

Is Santa Claus Conquers the Martians any good? Oh god no, but that didn’t stop me from having fun. It’s a hidden cult classic that manages to do everything wrong and it’s damn enjoyable to see. You might think it’s strange but I actually do recommend watching it, then again, I like bad movies as long as they can keep me entertain.

So yeah, give it a watch if you come across it and feel bad for the people that actually put money into making this movie.

And merry Christmas guys, thanks for sticking with me and these silly movies.

Personal Rating: 6.5/10

Critical Rating: 2/10

Things I’ve learned from “Santa Claus conquers the Martians”:

- Santa bear is a 'thing' apparently.

- The fact that the Martians didn’t even ponder on the question of how Santa was going to breathe on Mars, let alone not explode smearing giblets of gory joy on the faces of the little Martian children quickly realizing something might be wrong, makes me wonder how the hell they even managed to build a spaceship, although then again, how hard can it be to make one out of  cardboard and tin foil.

December Update

hey folks,
I promised I'd let you guys know if there was any delayes on the reviews, so here it is: there will be some delayes in the comming weeks.
yes, who would have thougt I'd fall victim to the thing known as Christmas, but here I am, dragged from my home to a place in the middle of nowehere (also commonly known as Belgium) to spend some time with a sweet old lady that keeps calling me Raoul or Micheal (swear to god I couldn't make it up if I tried). so I'll be without internet for the coming days, and I'm really sorry about that, believe it or not, I had my Christmas review of ''Santa Claus conquers the Martians'' done and ready to go, but expect it in Januari along with the third and fourth instalment of the nightmare on Elm Street.
and if you're asking about the poor quality of this update, both in timing and grammar, i'm sorry to inform that i'm typing all of this on my Phone while hogging the only wifi hotpoint in town like a madman.
See you next year guys, merry Christmas for what it's worth and have a safe new year.
Grimmbreak

A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge 1985 Review

A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge

Letdown sequel and Freddy’s strange obsession to get inside teenage boys

And we’re back with the second entry to the 'Nightmare on Elm Street' saga. And with no other than, according to most, the lowest point in the series, Nightmare on Elm street 2: Freddy’s revenge.

Produced only one year after the original nightmare came out, this is the movie that has fans and critics slamming down their fists in union. But is it as bad as most say? Well, let’s take a look at the plot.

Confused teenager Jesse and his family move to a new house, and it would only be logical that the house would be the same house where Nancy ‘banished’ the dream demon, Freddy Kreuger, and she sure did a lousy job of it, because guess who comes knocking down the walls of Jesse’s dreams? And he wants nothing more than his body for him to play with while they together replay the shower scene from 'American History X' with Jesse’s gym teacher and some whips…wait did we just stumbled into a different kind of movie?

Yeah…it’s gonna get weird, but the gist of it is that dear ol’ Fred wants to take over this whiny little bratty kid’s body to…murder around I guess? Ok, fist question here, why does Freddy want to be mortal again? He does know that the last time he was mortal he got burned harder than Taylor Swift at the VMA’s a few years back, there’s the obvious fact that he’ll walk around like a guy that has stuck pancakes to his face, and this time, people will actually be able to waste his scorched ass. I mean, it’s never explained why he was able to haunt kid’s dreams and become practically a god within his own realm, but it sounds like a hell of an upgrade from kiddyfidler groundskeeper to all powerful dream demon that murders all who sleep.

Just seems like a cheap trick have a possession story, but well, beside that gaping plothole, what else can there be said about this movie? Well, ok, disregarding the fact that Fred’s got a death wish, why does he want Jesse in particular? He even says at the beginning that he’s special or something, how is he special? Was he born under the star of plot convenience when all the BS planets were aligned? It’s never explained, Jesse’s got a younger sister, why didn’t Fred go after her? guessing with his past he’d probably think ’the younger the better’, and kids are much more easily fooled, why didn’t he just show up in her dream as a giant fluffy bunny or goddamn Justin Bieber or whatever.

But no, he wants Jesse, not any other kid in the neighborhood , just him and his awkward teenage romance with the girl next door.

Ah yes, the girlfriend Lisa, played by Kim Myers. She practically carries the movie in the third act, and why isn’t she the main character of the movie? She has a much more interesting personality and she is probably the best girlfriend any one could ever wish for,  you start telling about how you have dreams in which you brutally murder left and right? She accepts it and actually tries to help. You think you might have a spiritual connection with a child murderer that has been dead for the better part of the past decade? She believes you and search for a way to sever the connection. I mean really, faithful, helpful, cheery, nice and cute as a button? Do girls like that even exists?

So yeah, the story and the protagonist aren’t exactly the strong points of this movie, so what is?

Well, the effects are nice. Sure, they ain’t as good as the first one, shocker there, but at times they were creative, well, except for when the movie decide to pull a Hitchcock and redo a scene from “Birds” with an extra kamikaze ending. Seriously, exploding birds, what the hell where they thinking?

But for the rest, I guess credit is due where it is, and some of the effects where interesting. One of my favorite being at the very beginning where a school bus is being driven of the road as the landscape changes into a hellish abyss. Pretty neat scenery, but the whole movie does feel a little cheap. But all that good is being ruined by the fact that the first movie did everything a tenfold better, and the things they try to do just seems strange. For example, the entire movie, Freddy doesn’t have his glove, weird right? The knives just come out of the fingertips . I first thought it might be because the glove actually plays in the movie as an object of both rejection and temptation for Jesse, and is actually a physical object in the real world. But then the vodka started to slowly dissolve from my brain and I remembered that the glove was also a physical object in the first movie, where Freddy did have a glove at all times. It might be a small mistake here and there, but piled up, they do tend to piss off viewers.

But did this movie do anything right? In my opinion it did, I really liked the Freddy in this movie, it seemed like he had more of a personality, and even though he wasn’t in the spotlight much, he does get his times worth in the third act, which gives us a nice rest from our other obnoxious main character

But now we come to the big question, the one that had everyone’s jimmies rusted when they saw this flick:

Are the Homo-erotic undertones of Nightmare on Elm street 2 there by accident or was this really meant to tackle the subject of homosexual feeling during the coming of age of adolescence?

Well, there’s no question that some of those undertones were blatant, if I can say so. Sure I joked about it earlier with my summary of the plot. But to be fair, this movie deals a lot with sexuality, a lot more than in the first movie, ironic seeing as that no one actually had sexual intercourse in this movie, while in the first movie, the act was very much there early on in the movie to set the stamps on the characters of “the whore” and “the jock”, an almost ritualistic scene in every slasher movie, and above all, Wes Craven movie, who would never pass on the chance to have a cliché to then shine an ironic light on it.

But the fact that this movie deals more openly on the theme of adolescence and sexuality is all well and good, but why are the homo-erotic undertones so blatant? But a better question is, are they really there?

I believe that the homophobia of the modern age might have clouded our mind a bit on that subject, we have been crying wolf for so long that we tend to see them everywhere. I’ll admit that there are some scenes that are very much ‘gay’, there is no disputing about that. Like when half awake, Jesse stumbles into a leather bar and runs into his Gym teacher, who obviously has a ‘Dom’ complex, who makes Jesse exercise in the middle of the night only to lure him to the showers, where he gets his own misfortunate encounter with Freddy. There is no question that this scene was very much ‘gay’, yes. But maybe, and I’m just speculating here, this scene was meant more as a way for Jesse to overcome his father issues and fear of school. The strong, masculine, dominating Gym teacher could almost be a textbook description of how most teenagers saw their own father figures. And the fact that Freddy , through Jesse, actually serves what he deems a ‘just reward’ only proves Jesse’s own obsession with his revolting nature against his own father who is actually a very strict masculine figure.

There are many more questionable scenes, such as Jesse’s disgust toward the act of coitus with Lisa, but what most seem to miss is why he is revolted. In the scene Jesse and Lisa are getting it on in a private room at a party, when suddenly Jesse’s tongue turns into a misshaped mess of flesh as he was about to use it on her bosoms, which forces our wimpy protagonist to run away in fear to seek comfort at his bro’s house. This was seen by many as very proving of the undertones of the movie. But lost in translation is actually a much deeper scene than that. The fact that Jesse is disgusted in himself, and not Lisa, seems to actually show us that Jesse suffers from a ‘Hedgehog dilemma complex’ rather than homosexual urges. He is not disgusted by the female body, but is actually afraid of hurting Lisa was he ever to get this close to her.

So is this movie as Avant-guard in homosexual movement for the slasher genre as everyone is saying?

No, I’m not saying that the gay undertones aren't there, because they are. But I think it comes more from the lack of direction from the director’s part rather than actual intent.

So with all this said and done, is this movie any good? Well, it makes for an interesting tale about coming to terms with adolescence by having a demon literally taking over your body, but it makes for an horrible sequel to Nightmare on Elm Street. But I still don’t think it’s deserving of all the hate it’s getting.

Personal rating: 5/10

Critical rating: 4/10

Things I’ve learned from ‘A Nightmare on Elm Street 2, Freddy’s Revenge’

- The ‘Revenge’ part is pretty played down, although the kill count is pretty damn high.

- Jesse’s performance in his bedroom of ‘Touch me’ was still better than Miley Cyrus at the VMA’s.

- Exploding birds invading other movies than ‘Birdemic’

- When a dude breaks into your room in the middle of the night, jumps on you while you’re in bed and put his hand over your mouth while saying that there is something trying to get inside his body so he want to sleep next to you, your reaction shouldn't be calmly giving him relationship advise, no matter the bro-mance

Freddy’s Kill count:

14

Best Kill in this movie:

Exploding birds

Best Kill so far:

Blood geyser 

A Nightmare on Elm Street 1984 review

A Nightmare on Elm Street

Edward scissor hands on acid

A yes, Wes Craven and his strange fixation to deconstruct the ‘Slasher’ genre. His most notorious achievement in that field that would later become his opus moderandi  would be no other than 1996’s “Scream”, but did you know that nightmare on Elm street was originally meant to be an anti-slasher? Believe it or not, one of the most famous face in slasher history was meant to end the entire genre, but it all backfired and Freddy Krueger’s nightmare became what pretty much saved the knife wielding drunken teenagers slumber party killing world.

It also comes to mind that I should do a review on Friday the 13’th, seeing as it was two days ago, but I couldn't be bothered. You want a short review of that movie? Here it is, it’s hella boring and disappointing for the reason Scream spoils in the first five minutes of its movie, and don’t give me that crap “But you saw him at the end of the movie on that boat” well tippy doe and call me Dorothy, cuz I’m tipping down the yellow brick road and beating the wicked witch of the east to death with her broom. When we want to see a zombie behemoth man-child murdering a bunch of helpless teenagers, the movie shouldn’t blueball us like that only to show us that it was a guy at the other end of the glory hole. At least the sequels had all kind of awesome adventures, like going to the hood or into the bloody spacefuture.

What was I speaking of before I got lost in camp crystal lake? Ah yes, A nightmare on Elm street, the original nightmare. I got the whole collection a few days ago and thought, well, why not review the entire saga? So expect the whole month of December to be Freddy related, with a very special something unrelated on Christmas.

Nancy and her friends all seen to be plagued by the same nightmare, a man in a green and red coat and a brown hat with knives at his fingertips trying to turn them into shish kebab. But as they try to have a sleepover in hope that the nightmare will stop, things go awfully wrong as the nightmare becomes reality. Their parents and the whole town seems to know more that they are letting on, and as the kids begin to drop like flies, it’s up to Nancy to find a way to fight this monster, because you know, it’s not like it’s the cops job or anything, who are as useful in this movie as water at a Russian party.

This movie is amazing, for one, Robert Englund kills it as Freddy Krueger. It’s definitely one of his trademark roles and one fans loved for years. The rest of the actors do a solid job for the most part and it’s always hilarious to see a pre-famous Johnny Depp.

The imagery and the effects are some of the best for the time, the fact that a great chunk of the movie happens in dreams gives the art department a whole lot to play with, and play they did. The sets, especially the well-known ‘boiler room’, which is a the realm that Freddy creates as his own personal hunting ground, looks amazing, although there is still work for improvements here and there. And the effects are some of the craziest and mind-blowing that wasn’t meant to be perceived by the human mind at that time. Some of them even creep me out, after 31 years most of it still holds up perfectly.

If a had one gripe with the movie, it would probably be Freddy himself, or better said, what his reputation made him out to be.

Freddy, Chucky and Ash are probably my favorite horror icons, simply because they are quick to the gun and have a whole lot of humor in what they do. I’m not really a fan of the quite, slow walking murder machines, like Jason or Myers. I prefer my crazy psychopath’s with some bite. And even though I hate to admit it, the Freddy of the original nightmare on Elm street didn’t have much personality. But then again, they didn’t really know what they were going to do with him and probably never expected to be such a success. So in the end it’s not really a flaw but rather a character that hasn’t yet been developed.

And although the movie can be a bit slow at times, it always surprises you with a dream sequence you didn’t even know you were in.

Overall great movie, amazing effects, solid acting, especially on Englund’s side. Definitely worth a watch, or multiple even. See you in part 2, Freddy’s revenge.

Personal rating: 8.5/10

Critical rating: 9/10

Things I’ve learned from ‘A Nightmare On Elm Street’:

- All it takes to turn a upper privilege white girl into John Rambo is a lunatic who disrupts her beauty sleep.

- Johnny Depp’s body contains enough blood to fill the red sea, no wonder the rum was always gone.

- Also, his jar of dirt didn’t save him this time either.

- The fact that Freddy Krueger is a well-known child murderer and possibly molester, doesn’t stop the internet of writing romantic fanfic about him. If you don’t mind, I’m gonna scrub the filth of my eyes with sandpaper.

 

Freddy’s kill-count:

4 kills

Best kill so far:

Blood geyser 

Sint 2010 Review

Sint

Bloodshed and Pepernoten

Aww yeah, time to get some culture up in this b8tch.

For those of you who don’t know, I live in the northern European country of Holland, where the weather’s sh8t and the potheads are many. As much as I sometimes dislike the country and its lack of mountains, genuine eatable food, horrible driving habit and overall simply retarded government, if there’s one thing I’m grateful for, it’s the extra holydays (and the beer is also worth mentioning).

Seriously, there are so many holydays in this country, it’s impossible to count, the Dutch don’t drop their pants without taking the day off to celebrate. You’ve got the day big  J was born, the day he died, the day he rose up again, the day he went up to heaven, the day he got his first beer. Hell, they even have a holyday named “Koninginnedag”  (admit it kinda sounds like a Norwegian deathmetal band), but I dare you to find anyone who actually knows what the hell they are celebrating.

But one of these Holyday’s is on the fifth of December called “Sinterklaas”, where an anorexic Santa gets of his cruise ship with his countless racial offensive ‘helpers’ and goes around scaring the hell out of your kids and throwing candy to your face that taste like a camel’s a88 covered in spices.

But technically, it’s exactly the same as Christmas(an holyday the Dutch also celebrates 20 days later), except Santa put down his slim Jim and the elves are literal 18e century slaves who brings presents to all little good boys and girls, which instead of putting them under a tree, they proceed to cram into their wooden shoes because the concept of actually being able to walk was optional in Holland.

So of course, in 2010, someone thought it was a great idea to copy “Santa Slay” and give our friendly bearded friend a makeover, said genius was Dick Maas, who also made a movie about a killer elevator that was awesome and that I definitely recommend ( ‘De Lift’)  , but who now makes movies about killer festivities, how low one can fall…

So in the spirit of December, and one day after Sinterklaas, let’s take a look at the Dutch horror fest: Sint,

It’s 5 December once again it the great capital of the Rastafarian worldwide, Amsterdam, and everyone is busy preparing for yet another holyday. Well, except for detective Hoekstra, although he is also preparing but in his own way, which involves a surprising amount of firepower, because he know that if there is a full moon on the fifth of November, the friendly saint Nicholas, who was a ruthless child kidnapping pirate back in the days, will set port with his nightmarish ship and his army of the death to murder, pillage and burn the city to the ground.

And as the full moon is just about to rise on this faithful night, we follow a desperate attempt to stop this massacre by Hoekstra and other soon to be dead underperformed teenagers.

Lost ya didn’t I? it’s probably around this point that you’ve come to wonder “pirates, ghostship, undead army, is this the Dutch Pirates of the Caribbean??”

And unfortunately I’ll have to answer no, although I’m sure Depp would make this movie quite interesting, the whole pirates thing is pretty easily overshadowed when you see an undead St Nicholas riding on rooftops with his horse to escape the cops.

And before you ask, is this movie mean to be silly, yes. Oh yes it is, but that doesn’t mean it can’t have some great scares here and there.

The acting’s bearable, for the most part at least, the main teenager is a tad bit annoying at times and everybody seems to be reading lines instead of trying to give life to a character, but eh, I had my expectation lowered when I heard about this movie anyway.

The atmosphere in the later acts of this movie are great but I still feel like the ending just kinda happened, very little build up, no real feel of urgency, just disappointing and rushed.

But really it’s not about the characters or the story, it’s about seeing St Nick coming to town killing and maiming and being an all-around badass, and then leaving , kind of a simple summary for the whole movie I guess, and while it lasted, I kind of liked it.

But the biggest problem I fear for ‘Sint’ is the language and cultural barrier, which for non-Netherlanders can be kinda hard to pull trough. As far as I know there isn’t a dub, so if any non-Dutch want to give it a try, brace yourselves, it can be rough.

So at the end of the day, is it worth watching? Well, it’s as good as one would expect. But I’m not so sure that’s a compliment…

Personal rating: 6/10

Critical rating: 4.5/10

Things I’ve learned from “Sint”

- Did they just blow up all those kids at the end?? HOW IS THIS A GOOD THING??

- Zombie ninja pirates are awesome at stealing yo kidz

- Cops are d8cks

The Refrigerator 1991 Review

The Refrigerator

Attack of the kitchen appliances from hell

You know those movies, where the name and the premise is half the fun? Like killer klown from outer space or return of the killer tomatoes?

Yeah, so here’s a movie about a killer fridge from hell, do with that information whatever you want.

Released in 1991, this weird thing I’m unsure to call a movie or a bad joke someone made on a late Saturday night after a whiskey intoxication, is brought to us by Nicholas Jacobs, who unfortunately never really did anything else worthwhile.

A movie about a killer fridge, *sight* seems like just yesterday that I used to review normal movies…wait, I never did review a movie based on any plane of normality, why am I complaining??

Ilene and Michael Bateman (not sure if it’s a reference to the book American Psycho, seen as it was published in the same year this movie came out), a young and ambitious couple decide to buy a place in the less rat infested parts of new York, little do they know that their refrigerator has a minor case of the satanz and goes around munching on unimportant extra’s during it’s free time.

But it seems Michael is getting more and more willing to listen to the little people living in his fridge telling him to kill his wife as the movie goes on, and yes, I wish I could make sh8t like this up as I go along. But thankfully, Ilene gets help from the greatest man alive, Super-plumber Juan, who with his pornstash and epic dancing skills manages to even give Bruce Campbell a run for his money. My god is that man awesome.

So what is there to say about this movie? Besides that it’s about a fridge that goes ballistic that is. Well, I guess you can say it’s about the fear of committing, as Ilene and Michael seem to take each other for granted and their relationship slowly start to break down to the simple factor of mistrust, or you could say it’s about a GODAMN KILLER FRIDGE FROM HELL THAT EATS PEOPLE.

Seriously, do I need to say more? People, there is a motion picture in which a refrigerator eats a man whole by comically opening and shutting it’s door.

I guess I could talk about the needless dialogue or the plot that gets crammed in there too tight like it’s trying to overshadow the killer fridge, like the constant flashbacks from Ilene about her youth that ends up going, guess where? Nowhere at all of course!

I mean we get scenes upon scenes of her childhood trauma that all ends up in a big fat cry and f8ck all else. No character motivation, just the super plumber and his unusual good people skills (I’m serious, I can’t find a single flaw with this guy).

But there are some great scenes, I’ll give this cheap movie that much, there is a scene that just might be the best moment in cinematography of all time. I mean really, how can you even start to top a scene in which a depressed workaholic husband wakes up in the middle of the night with a smile that would put the Cheshire cat to shame just to say: “I am the wafflemaker!”

I tip my hat off to you “The Refrigerator”, you have out random’d me mister, may the blessing of the great space homophobic squirrel lord go with you.
but all joking aside, this movie is silly, really silly. Maybe not in the way that 'Robo-Geisha' is silly in a self-acknowledged way, but more based on the premise, while the movie tries it’s darn hardest to pass a serious story about a troubled falling apart couple that just so happen to have a killer doorway to hell located in their fridge, and also the best plumber I’ve ever seen, seriously, I can’t get over this guy, I think I have a bro-crush.

Death by fridge, now I've seen everything

So should you watch this movie?

Yes, as a matter of fact, you owe it to yourself to see this movie, simply because you’ll then be able to brag to your friends that you've seen everything. But really, it’s kinda slow and a lot of story goes nowhere, but at least you’ll see a guy gets eaten by a fridge, that’s something I guess.

Personal rating: 6.5/10

Critical rating: 4.5/10

Things I’ve learned from “The refrigerator”:

- I knew living in New York was tough, but damn.

- Good names don’t make good movies

- Plumbers are awesome, bonus points for the mustache

- When little people inside you fridge start telling you how to live your life, it’s time to put down the waffle maker belt and seek some help.

- Can’t wait for “the mixer of doom” or “The little toaster massacre"

[special award] 
Greatest moment in cinema history:
The Wafflemaker

Brainscan 1994 Review

Brainscan

Pre Virtual-Boy of doom

I get the distinctive idea that people in the 90’s saw us gamers as a bunch of psychopaths waiting to snap, then again, here we have “Brainscan”, a flag holder for worried mommies all over the nation blaming anything but their own parental skills for their kids sudden homicidal tendencies.

A movie about a violent video game in the 90’s? my my, this sounds interesting.

Brought to us in 1994, a glorious year for us gorehounds, this little movie tackles the question of how far one is willing to fall to erase the consequences of a remorseless act.

So let’s go back to a time where the SEGA CD was still a ‘thing’ and figure out why video games are apparently the devil incarnated.

Peeping tom extraordinaire sixteen years old Micheal finds time between his voyeurism sessions and chillaxing like a baller with his typical ”far out dude!” bro to try the game everyone is talking about, Brainscan, a game that is played directly with your brain. Unfortunately after having finished the first disc and mission, that involved sneaking into some poor sod’s house and going Norman Bates on his ass, Michael realizes that the game seems to have consequences in the real world, and he finds himself screwed when the police don’t buy his puppy dog eyes alibi. Even worse, a strange entity follows him around calling himself “the trickster” to make his life a living hell and force him to continue playing, acting like Micheal’s conscience forcing him to take care of the witnesses and erase his tracks. All while we witness the poor little Micheal make time to ask the girl next door out and Micheal’s best friend recreate dialogue from ‘Bill and Ted’s excellent adventure’.

As Micheal continues playing and digs his grave deeper and deeper, reality starts to shift as Trickster makes the game more and more difficult and detective Mc-coldface abnormally good intuitions lead him to his murderer.

can't tell if his face says
"Let's play some super smash brawl"
or "Squeal like a little piggy!"

Okay, let’s get this out of the way, I frigging love this movie. Maybe strange seeing as that in my review of “Satan’s little helper” I criticized it for shining such a negative light on gamers. But in this movie the subject is approached in a much more mature angle. Sure Micheal and his friend are obsessed by horror movies simply for the gore and will play any game with blood in it, and above all doesn't even question the idea of playing a game where the main objective is to perform ruthless homicidal acts for the Lulz.

But the real question this movie asks is: how far is someone gonna go if they believe that their acts are without consequence. Which is a really good and interesting subject regarding the human psychology and the sick dark place that lurks in the human creativity.

So do I like the story? Yes, it’s a murder case  with a bit of a supernatural angle and seen from the perspective of the killer. The message is maybe a little too preachy for me, video games are violent and so on, but let’s remember that it was a very difficult time then, and the idea of blaming something new was simpler than looking at the truth. The questions the movie asks are interesting and it’s an entertaining situation to watch our protagonist get out of.

The characters were all right for the most part, the kid that played Micheal did a good job, and the Trickster is damn entertaining to see. He’s the kind of devil you could have a good laugh with and that could kill you the next moment, all while abusing your house with his questionable feeding habits. I’ll admit that the Trickster is probably the main reason why you should watch this movie, a strange sadistic entity that forces you to continue murdering with as leverage the fear of getting caught? What’s not to love?

And off course we are treated to pre-perfection 90’s CGI and some great practical effects.

The CGI is actually pretty interesting, at time it’s your average 90’s lightning effects, but sometime it seems like they add a painted effect to some of the morphing effects on the Trickster, which give a pretty interesting combination of pre CGI and other canvas techniques.

I really recommend this movie, the story’s good and the ending always makes me laugh. For anyone looking for a cheezy 90’s horror/gore movie with a good twist, I promise you won’t be disappointed, if you don’t mind the teenage drama sprinkled here and there.

Personal rating: 8,5/10

Critical rating: 7/10

Thing I’ve learned from “Brainscan”:

-Damn, so SEGA was evil back in the days, who knew, well, apart from those who know about sonic.EXE I guess.

- Didn’t know the Goblin King and the Leprechaun had a kid, good to know he went into the gaming industry, instead of kidnapping babies or murdering one sixth of  the cast of ‘Friends’.

-Man, I want Micheal’s room. Kid’s got a own electronic butler named Igor. All I got as a kid was a pet lizard I had to catch on my own.

-Who else thinks that “horror movie club” is the best idea for a high school since forcing girls into miniskirts?

Motor Home Massacre 2005 Review

Motorhome Massacre

Because “trailer park of horror” was already taken

What do you get if you give a redneck a camcorder?

You mean apart from the tons of hilarious videos of them doing stupid sh8t as a result of their intoxication on tasteless scotch? Well, there’s also the fact that one of them might get the idea stuck  in his thick head that he wants to make a movie. And thus, we end up with Motor Home Massacre, I’m sure the stereotypical redneck is highly exaggerate, but movies like these keep slapping me in the face with the cold hard fact that they just might be all too true.

Brought to us in 2005 by an amateur movie director Allan Wilbanks, this shot on crackmera violent schmuck flew right under the radar for, well, more than obvious reasons.

Seeing from the title, an obvious parody of a much better movie, it will come as no surprise that this movie takes itself as seriously as Charles Mason giving Ed Gain a piggy back ride on a peace rally.

But what else can be said about this one and a half hours’ worth of brain cells holocaust?

Well, quite a lot actually.

Seven teenagers decide to take a motorhome to the middle of nowhere and have a good time, little do they know that they are about to embark in a tale filled with every single cliché in the book, creepy store clerk telling them about a horrible series of murders in the area, check, picking up an hitchhiker along the way, check, dumb blonds getting what’s coming to them, check.

Yes, the group gets harassed by an unknown killer, who picks them up one by one and kills them in brutal and cheesy ways, but the real question is: what did you expect from a movie called ‘motor home massacre’? you know it’s a bunch of idiots in a motorhome getting Jason-Voorhees’D.

So is this movie any good? Well the short answer would be no, the long answer would be that this movie doesn’t just fail as a horror, but also as a parody, which is a shame really. They had all the cliches, all the cheesy effects, but they just didn’t use them to their advantage, only one scene of five seconds made me laugh near the end throughout the entire movie, and it was all based on a guy looking down at his newly found amputation and saying “damn” with such nonchalance like he just had stepped in a dog turd on his way to the mall.

But apart from that one scene, nothing really stands out, all the actors seems to have gone to the Nic cage school of acting, which sounds pretty cool, but it really works on your nerves after a while.

The effects were okay, if noting a little cheap, but then again, we’re talking about motor home massacre here.

And now the soundtrack, oh god the soundtrack. I swear to god, if I ever hear the song ‘Truck lovin’man’ one more time I’m gonna personally find whoever decided to put this wretched thing in any motion picture and shove my foot so far up his a** he’ll be shitting boots for the rest of his life.

Apart from that horrid song, the rest of the soundtrack sounds like a emo band trying to slit their wrists with their instruments. Well, that’s what I thought of the soundtrack until the mother of all misplaced great song found its way into this little mess of a movie. Skin-dropped by buttonhook(the first credit song), my god does that gem of a song have nothing to do in a movie like this, unfortunately due to the failure of this movie’s success, that song and that band are harder to find than Shaq’s movie career.

So is this movie worth watching? Probably not, unless if you’re into awkward sex scenes and kindergarten-level dialogue.

Personal rating: 4/10

Critical rating: 3/10

Things I've learned from "Motor home massacre":
- Dating someone who has the voice of Satan might not have been a good idea in hindsight.

- The cops are d8cks in this movie, forcing a group of teenagers to stay in the same woods where there has been a murder? Why not give them giant neon signs with “fresh meat” on them while you’re at it.

- Slasher killers are the best mechanics 

I'm Back!

That’s right, after a short unplanned absence from this blog I finally have some time for myself again.

First off, I’d like to apologies for my lack of reviews the past few weeks, and for not mentioning or warning you all for the upcoming lack of attention. But from now on, I’ve decided to keep a strict agenda, and I promise at least one review each week. I’m not sure of the day yet, and how to deal with the possible delay, but we’ll figure something out, won’t we?

Grimmbreak

It's Alive 2008

It’s Alive

the greatest condom commercial of all times, next to Gary Busey.

We've seen it all, haven’t we? Killer robots, giant spiders, giant robot spiders, zombies, psychopaths, clowns from outer space, ghosts, pissed off elves, maniac leprechauns, killer vagina’s, sharkpedo’s and even goddamn Santa clause seems to have gone homicidal, so really it was only a matter of time before we came across a killer baby.

Yes people, a killer baby indeed. Because apparently the only thing you need to make a movie is half a braincell and the ability to point your finger at a random word in the dictionary, two if you’re feeling fancy, and in this case the lucky words of the day were: Shut the hell up and watch this baby rip this guy’s head of for some reason.

Although saying that the writers of this little mess had the idea all by themselves would be putting too much faith in them, it’s actually a remake. A remake of a movie I’ve never seen. Reviewing a remake without having seen the original? This sounds promising.

So what’s this movie about? A rabbit finds a baby kangaroo and together they go on an epic quest to find the letter Q. it’s about a killer baby dammit! I’m pretty sure you can fill in the blanks. Mother has child, child is the spawn of Satan and kills people in all its CGI glory while the mother looks at him in her useless self, whispering ”That’s a good boy, my sweetheart needs a bath, it looks like you've got some Mr Wilkins on you” and the father is too busy doing f8ck all off screen to bother with the fact that his week old son has rounded up the population of the town to compete with the numbers of good books written by Stephenie Meyers…so to zero pretty much for those out there that though ‘the short second life of bland blander’ was ‘barable’.

All right, so is this movie any good? Well it might come as a shocker but no, really not. Although I am completely behind the idea of a homicidal infant, I’ll have to go with the little voice in my head and say this movie is proper crap.

Why? Well for one, the characters make no sense, the dad is never around and when he finally decide to show his face on set he is as useful as tits on a nun, but that’s at least better than the mother character. I get the whole “motherly love”, but when you’re kid start bringing dead animals home and eat them, I say it’s a good moment to call some help, and hopefully a priest…and an AK47 just in case. (And if the priest “kicks ass for the lord”, all the better)

She is utterly unobvious to the fact that her child is the f8ing resurrection of Patrick Bateman mixed with Ed Gain and a safe dose of goddamn crazy, and when she finally start suspecting something, she does nothing except washing the blood from her friends off her baby.

But the biggest of all flaws is the missed opportunities, for one: you have a movie called “It’s alive” and not a single Frankenstein’s reference? I’d even settle for a shot of Boris Karloff walking in the background, just saying.

And two, and probably most important, having a kid in a wheelchair and not getting creative with it. I mean, in an all-white horror movie, a wheelchair bound character is basically a giant rolling neon sign saying: “gonna die horribly in a really twisted way”. And guess what, the kid doesn't die, he doesn't even get a scratch on him. When the movie “DOOM” does something better, it’s time to take your movie on a date and rethink your marriage.

The effects are laughable, and not in a good way. All CGI, not a single practical effect, except for the blood that looks as believable as spilling kool aid over your buddies. The dialogue is silly at best and the movie takes itself way too serious. If it was trying to be funny I’d give the effects a free pass and see it as a silly little mess rather than a complete train wreck. The story is predictable and feels incomplete, why is that kid a monster? Never explained, so here’s the theory I came up after a half bottle of vodka with my friend from ‘a horror diary’, Melanie: this movie is actually child play 4, Chucky sneaked in the hospital at the time of birth, took care of the doctors with witty comebacks and an ax to the face, told the kid his secret for loophole sake, and got the kid’s body, however unable to speak he still goes on murderous rampages. Honestly tough, my drunken theories makes more sense than the whole movie. But anyway, not a great movie overall, maybe alright as white noise at a party, but I hope the original is better, by the looks of the trailer, they at least had the goofy side of things right.

Personal rating: 3.5

Critical rating: 4

Things I’ve learned from “It’s Alive”

- Good to know the baby from “Braindead” is still getting work.

- I’ve never seen so many people with different nationalities work on one movie.

- The best part are the credits, try to find a name that doesn’t end with a V, I swear to god there are more Droshnikov’s and Popov’s than retards at a klan meeting.