Bml93's Film Diary for 2013: October

John Carpenter's classic is a traditional example of how often "less is more" in order to create suspense or horror. Halloween might, today, never be truly frighting, but it's easily a successful and suspenseful slasher film. Carpenter does know how to use his iconic villain, in the fact that we always see him lurking around and the combination with his iconic musical score is a winning formula for this film.

So, Halloween is never scary, but it's a really good example of how to create a moody, atmospheric and suspenseful horror film. It's also a perfect film to see at Halloween.
8/10

I'm not quite sure about what I should say about Stoker. It's a gorgeously shot film with some overall good performances. I guess that everything starts off quite nicely. Quite mysterious and atmospheric, with some unsettling, underlying tension there. But I'm never fully satisfied.

I guess the problem is that the film concludes itself in a way that doesn't fully live up to the expectations it kept on building throughout the first hour or so.
6/10

Definitely more of a cinema experience. Anyway, it's actually rather fun, despite it being absolutely dreadful and illogical. It's just fun to see a maniac running around with a chainsaw.

The completely lack of common logic in this film opens up for a rather interesting narrative twist, which I'm not quite sure what to think of. But it's certainly not what one would commonly expect.
4/10

The real problem with every Superman-film so far is that Superman is actually a very boring hero. He's simply too perfect, and when Man of Steel decided to put in some very obvious Jesus metaphors in here, it gets even duller. Man of Steel tries to create a complex Superman character, but Zack Snyder's skills as a director has never been about characters. He's a visionary, a special effects artist. That's what he does. He creates empty, decent, entertaining films. And despite Man of Steel trying to reach true heights, that's ultimately what Man of Steel is. Decent entertainment.

Henry Cavill doesn't have anything interesting to do as Superman. Amy Adams feels wasted as Louis Lane. Russell Crowe is great, and so is Michael Shannon. The rest of cast are just there for being there's sake. The musical score is good. The film looks good. The special effects are spectacular. It's OK.
6/10

Obligatory viewing in the days around Halloween and Christmas. It's one of my favourite films. Gorgeous stop-motion animation. Beautifully detailed and well-crafted characters put into a wonderfully weird world, which is spun around an amusing and charming story. A story that manages to be as entertaining as it's emotionally affecting.

It's a film that I could really watch any day, and love it equally much every time. It does always bring a smile on my face, even if I'm in the worst possible mood. It makes my real life issues go away. That's magic.
10/10

Unlike Bride of Chucky, which I partly enjoyed as some sort of guilty pleasure, Seed of Chucky did not work for me at all. It's in some ways quite similar, only a bit more stupider and there's much more Jennifer Tilly in it (which is not cool.) But I just couldn't enjoy it.

I guess much of the problem lies with me and not necessarily the film itself. That I actually really was not in the mood for a film like this, or actually any film at all. But I did sit it through, and I didn't have good time. So my personal problems at that moment is probably why I'm giving it such a low score.
2/10

One has to appreciate the fact that The Woman is a a breath of fresh air in its genre. But I can imagine that this is a film that's going to split audiences. Some are likely to see it as nothing but bad taste and pointless sadism, while others are more likely to embrace it for trying to be more than just another horror film. I guess I would say I'm somewhere in the middle.

I'm not turned of by the violence nor the provocative stuff in it, and I appreciate what the film is trying to say and there's no denying that it's a well-crafted film. The problem is this: I was bored. That's simply it. It did not engage me. I just never got into the film. It left me cold on the outside of it. Despite it being a rather different horror film, it barely touched my interest.
4/10

Don't know why I saw it again, but oh well. It's not really as sick as the hype would let you to believe, and it's "tamer" second viewing. But it's still a pretty fucked up film. The big surprise lies in how well-made it is. Every technical aspect of it is almost top-notch. The performances are mostly great and the soundtrack is bloody awesome. The problem with the film doesn't really lie in its graphic content. Because it does certainly serve a purpose, and I don't buy the "it's only there to provoke for the sake of being provocative or disgusting". It's disgusting, but there's a hidden layer to it.

The problem is however that the actual script is not good enough to be able to convey the political (or satirical) message the film tries to give in a convincing way. And seeing as the script is not sharp enough, the film gets a bit drowned in its own shock value. Which may lead people to think that it's just another meaningless entry into the torture porn genre.
5/10

I'm ashamed to admit that there were perhaps two or three things in this, otherwise, dreadful film that had me chuckling. Which is why it barely avoids the lowest rating possible. Because honestly, these films are among the worst things ever. Which I guess is why I constantly seek them out. It's one of my human flaws unfortunately.

The film is basically what you would expect. Just a bunch of references to better films or other pop culture, hastily thrown together without any spark or comedic timing to make them funny. This should be the final nail in the coffin.
2/10

This film is incredibly stupid and pointless. Which is why it's so funny. This is a case of "so bad it's good". It's just a bizarre experience. With the next scene topping the other and so forth. The first three Child's Play films ranged from mediocre to bad, but this is easily the most enjoyable of them. It's just hilarious.

But despite me laughing a lot, it's important to remember that I'm laughing at how bad it is, and just how fucked up the entire film is. But I do sit here with a feeling that the people involved knew that they were making shit, and just decided to play along with it. It's nonetheless a pretty messed up experience.
5/10(!)

Season 1 was quite good. Season 2 is not that good. The problem lies in the pace. There are moments, even whole episodes, where nothing remotely interesting happens. It also adds some uncessary, annoying melodrama in to it, that breaks the flow of the series.

Luckily, things improve during the few final episodes, and they get rid of some annoying characters. Season 3 should be much better.
7/10

Season 3 on the other hand is much better. I love that they killed Lori early on. The characters are far more interesting this time around, with some few exceptions. David Morrissey is terrific as, what can surely be called the series villain.

The conclusion is a bit underwhelming. Not giving us the finale we've been teased throughout the entire season, but the series is now mostly back on track.
8/10

Horror/comedy with giant bugs. It's like Drag me to Hell only with bugs in it instead, the cover said. I don't see the comparision at all. There's absolutely no horror element in this film. It's an action/comedy. Pure and simple. And it's a mediocre one at that.

It's short, simple and straight-forward. The humor if very hit-or-miss. It's never hilariously funny, but it's never terribly bad either. It's sure to produce some chuckles, just as surely it is to bore you at times.
5/10

It might be a bit campy, goofy and cheesy by today's modern standards, but it's still quite atmospheric and effective in its few scares. Making it a much better alternative than many recent horror films. There were for instance one scene that actually made me jump.

So I guess you could say that I found the actual horror elements in this film to be quite good, while I'm not exactly sold on the rest of the film. But it was a good, short little creeper.
7/10

V/H/S is another entry in the tired found footage genre, but at least it feels somewhat fresh when compared to other entries in the same genre. Unfortunately though, seeing as it's also an anthology film, it's pretty damn uneven, leading V/H/S to be a slight disappointment overall.

The things is, with anthology films, there are always certain segments that are better than other. Which is easily the case. I found two of them to be rather enjoyable, that being Ti West's Second Honeymoon and Joe Swanberg's The Sick Thing That Happened to Emily When She Was Younger". The rest of the were boring, or undeniably silly and meaningless.
4/10

From my review:

"Well, what can you actually expect from a title with the name of Bikini Girls on Ice? It's not really a film you put on if you want to see top-notch quality. But is it a crime to put on a film like this, in hope for it to be entertaining? No, it's not. Bikini Girls on Ice is exactly what it sounds like in one way, and it's far from what one would expect in another, more crucial way. It's what you would expect in that the title delivers exactly what it says. Girls walking around in bikinis, only to be put on ice later. Unfortunately, the film doesn't deliver where it should deliver. It fails to fulfil the number one rule of slasher films. It's not entertaining.

When you seek out films like this, there's only two things you need in order to be entertained. Some well-placed nudity (these are films for guys after all) and some cheap, imaginative and gory kills. This is supposed to be cheap entertainment in almost a "so bad it's good" way. If those two things are delivered, it's very easy to forgive things as atrocious actors portraying not particularly likeable characters and an idiotic plot. But when the film fails to deliver those two things, you're left with a real turd..."
2/10

As a complete film, it's better than the original. The kills are not as brutal and entertaining as they were in the original, but here they're thankfully spread across the whole film, and not only just in the beginning. The plot itself is nothing fancy, but miles better than what the original dished up.

It stumbles a bit in the middle. The pace is a bit slow and it gets a bit uninteresting. The kills could've been more savage. It's a bit disappointing that they're not more brutal, seeing as Tobe Hooper directed this, but I would say that this is a decent film nonetheless.
5/10

The problem with this film is that it's extremely dull. Stallone's character is boring. Julianne Moore is generic and Antonio Banderas energetic performance is cringe-worthy. So the film is basically three awful, lifeless and idiotic characters put in generic action sequences.

Worse is how silly and moronic the actual plot is. It starts of all right, but it quickly develops the same silly action plot that you'll find in dozen of similar films from this time. And let's not even start on the outrageously long running time. Boring.
3/10

The only positive thing that I will say about A Haunted House is that its not as obnoxious as a many of the other spoof films, like Epic Movie and such. Those films are just things like "Oh look, it's Captain Jack Sparrow fucking Paris Hilton while Lindsay Lohan is smoking crack, and the chipmunks are singing in the background." This film is thankfully not that. But it's still a huge pile of crap, and I'm not really sure if this should be considered a film. It's that bad.

Basically, it's exactly what you would expect from it. It's stupid, low brow and annoying. There are no jokes in this film. No set ups, and absolutely no payoffs. The "funny" things in this film are things like "he's gay and attracted to men, hahaha". "He's a racist, hahaha". And that's basically what the "jokes" are. The rest of the film is just Marlon Wayans embarrassing himself.
1/10

Mama does have its share of effective, creepy old-school scars. But when you're looking at other horror film in the recent years, that also have gone for old-school horror rather than gore, Mama turns out to be just a decent film.

It problem lies in the fact that some of the tension vanishes every time the film changes focus from one character to another. Three characters trying solve their own puzzle turned out to be to much to handle. My rating is weak.
6/10

This film was absolutely no fun. Odd, the director managed to create a fun snake film, so it's strange that he didn't create an equally funny shark film. But I guess that's partly where the problem lies. Bigger budget, bigger studio and a more known director than what most of these shark film have. So they obviously had to get so many as possible to see it, and created a shark film with a PG-13 rating to cash in on kids. The result is poorly made snorefest.

The PG-13 rating basically means that they can't show us any good gore or nudity. None of the things we really want from a shark film. Which is (unless you're Spielberg) scantily clothed teenagers being eaten by sharks in a violent and gory way. We don't get that from this film.
2/10

This is the kind of film that one hopes falls into the "so bad it's good" category. Expecting great acting and layered stories from a title with the name of 2-Headed Shark Attack is a game you'll end up losing. So the value of this film lies in how bad it can get. And luckily, it's for the most part so bad that it ends up being pretty entertaining. Unfortunately, it's also very often just cringeworthy bad.

It's amusement lies in how horribly bad the CGI of the shark is, and how terribly looking the shark attacks are. I found myself laughing for a minute every time the shark ate someone. It's also amusing that they got Aaron Eckhart to play a leading role in it. Of course I know it wasn't him. But despite the hilarity in the shark attacks, 15(?) unattractive, bumbling idiotic teenagers turned out to be more annoying than fun. And that ruins 2-Headed Shark Attack on an entertainment level.
3/10