Friday, January 29, 2010

Review: Wishmaster 4: The Prophecy Fulfilled (2002)

This was a joint review by me and Ronnie, otherwise known on here as TheGoddamned Batman. It's about Wishmaster 4: The Prophecy Fulfilled, and we hope this review will dissuade you from ever renting this pile of dung like we did. I guess we had it coming, though. Ronnie's review is in Courier and mine is in the regular font.

Director: Chris Angel
Starring: Tara Spencer-Naim, Michael Trucco, Jason Thompson

When you go to rent a movie like this you enter the affair with an idea of what you’re getting. A direct to d.v.d pile of garbage that was to cheap for the big screen and to shameful for t.v.

People...horror movies are not always supposed to be serious and morbid. Sometimes, they can be funny. Sometimes they can be silly and over the top, and that's part of the fun - they're not quite comedies, but they're close enough to where they're good for a bunch of laughs, even if it is just for how bad they are. But then there are some movies like Wishmaster 4.

This is the kind of movie that makes me want to kill the people who made it. I mean, why? Just why? That's what I want to know. Why are there four Wishmaster movies? Who thought it was a good idea to make a movie where the Wishmaster, a demon from the fiery pits of Hell, falls in love? The entire idea is ludicrous! They play it off like some lost Shakespherian tragedy, without any kind of kitsch or self-parody to it at all, and I guess that was part of the joke (nobody seemed to be taking this movie too seriously, after all). But they missed the punchline, so the result is just a mess of embarrassing crap.

Words fail to describe the phenomenal pile of waste that is Wishmaster IV. The actors are bad and the plot is worse. Shitty “special” affects that are presented more like special ed affects and dialogue that sounds like it was written by a five year old are standard fair in this film flop. The story of an evil genie who murders folks with twisted wishes could have been something worth watching if it had been handled well. It was not handled well. 

Characters are introduced at random, without any kind of real development, and there are two over-long sex scenes that were apparently just put in to pad the movie. What is this, a porno? Imagine if someone walks in when these scenes are on. "Hey, mom!" "Hey, son...what are you watching? Is that a sex movie?" "No, it's Wishmaster 4."

I think that's actually more embarrassing, to tell you the truth.

I mean, it's just so insipid. They don't even name the characters in the first five minutes of pornography without actual nudity, so what's the purpose? The entire thing is shot like a fucking music video! Are we supposed to be...enchanted by this?

So the movie fast forwards three years, to what I think should have been the real beginning of the film, as it actually introduces a plot! Is it a good plot? Not really. Apparently the boyfriend from the porno-tapes before this plotline started crashed his motorcycle and is now crippled. His girlfriend, and the main protagonist of the movie, is trying to settle with the people who want to sue them for something or other, and the boyfriend is jealous because she spends so much time with her lawyer. So what, she's trying her damndest to do everything she can to help him, and all he can do is whine about how he can't have sex? What an asshole! He spends most of the movie bitching, whining, making scowling faces at the camera and going to strip clubs.

Say, wasn't there a murderous genie from hell in this movie? I'm starting to think I rented the wrong movie, because all of this drama and ballyhooing is really busting my chops. Get on with it, movie; just get on with it!

There is a plot somewhere in here about how the Wishmaster needs three wishes from the lead girl because she unleashed him from his little red Jawbreaker thing, or something like that, and how that will somehow evoke Armageddon. Why is it happening now, and not in one of the other three films? Convenience of contrived writing; that's why.

The only redeeming features of the movie come when the Wishmaster grants random peoples' wishes and fucks them up royally. You know, kind of like how the first two did it. Remember those, guys? This doesn't happen near as often in this movie, and it suffers. I do think the lead girl has a nice rack, too, but even then, that's not worth the price of admission to see this.

The absolute nadir of quality has to be when these spirit-demon-guys who want to cause Armageddon unleash this really ridiculous looking Matrix-rip-off samurai reject who carries around a sword so cheap that you couldn't even sell it for half price at Party City. This guy fights the Wishmaster in broad daylight, and good god is it ever fucking boring. Broad daylight; are you high? How is this intimidating or exciting in the least? Oh, yeah, I really want to watch two idiots roleplaying for a rejected Lord of the Rings scene with some of the worst exposition ever laid down! That's my idea of a good time any day.

The genie looks like a Power Rangers villain and the sword fights are laughable. The odds are that you will laugh rather than scream, or maybe you’ll cry over the buck you spent renting this pile of platypus poopoo. Who was to blame for this atrocity? None other than the director of other award winning films such as…. Such as… wait a minute, this film is directed by Chris Angel?! The magician?!!! Suddenly it all becomes clear. Avoid this film and anything else that has to do with Mr. Angel and his directing career. God help us if he decides to do A Rob Zombie and starts directing remakes of classic horror films. Imagine if he tackled “Child’s Play”, oh the pain! I don’t want to keep going on about how unbelievably bad this film is so I'll just sum it all up with a quote from the Wishmaster himself: “ Be careful what you wish for."

This movie is just lame. The story is convoluted and ridiculous, most of the characters aren't that great, the acting is shoddy at best and the whole thing is just embarrassing to watch. If I had one wish, I'd wish that Wishmaster 4 was erased from my memory, because it is just stupid, stupid, stupid. I want my goddamn money back, and I didn't even pay for this thing!

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Review: Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

Dev Patel, Frida Pinto, Madhur Mittal

The story of how impoverished Indian teen Jamal Malik became a contestant on the Hindi version of "Who Wants to be A Millionaire?" -- an endeavor made without prize money in mind, rather, an effort to prove his love for his friend Latika, who is an ardent fan of the show. (This synopsis was shamelessly stolen from Facebook.)

Great movie. Every answer that Jamal tells reveals another piece of difficult upbringing and it all comes together to tell an inspiring story of trying to survive in a world filled with hostility. The actors (virtually unknown to American audiences before the movie came out) are all very impressive, and the depiction of the Indian slums is amazing, though I honestly do not know enough about them to verify the accuracy of it. Still, it was very enjoyable to watch, and I definitely recommend it.

Monday, January 25, 2010

Reflections on a Troubled Time: The Gingerdead Man Review (Undertaken by Three of Us)

It was a strange, dark road we were traveling down, with no end in sight. Colin was at the wheel, his hands jittering madly from some strange ailment...mostly he was just frightened at the prospect of the movie we were about to witness. Ronnie cackled away, his brain likely moving at a hundred miles a minute in sheer ecstasy. I was recording the whole ordeal in my mind. Blockbuster loomed like some shining beacon in the distance, glowing with such a hellish light. The film lay in our possession.

Was this...our fate? The GingerDEAD man? Such a horrible pun should be punishable by death.

We wandered around the FEC towers in the dark after buying some sugary snacks and drinks at Carmelo's. The dark was closing in. We tried two computers at first, neither of which seemed agreeable with the wretched piece of celluloid. Most of the snacks were long finished by the time we decided to pile back in the car and drive all the way to Lewis to watch it in my room. The movie was simply unwatchable so far. We told Joe of our whereabouts in case we did not return. He would spread the word to the masses.

We were ready to enter the tomb. Brace yourselves, dear readers, for you, too, are about to be in a world of hurt.

This film is deprived of anything resembling logic. Just the very idea of it is insane. Who ever wanted to see something like this? Have you ever in your life said to yourself, "hey, I want to watch a movie with a retarded gingerbread man sock puppet murdering people"? I don't think you have.

But apparently some idiot at FullMoon Productions did, so here we are. Gary Busey stars in this cinematic ass-fisting, and I have to say that this is strange...for I have never seen such a worthless, depraved acting performance in all my years. He is insipidly bad. It hurts to watch this performance, even though it only lasts five minutes. Christ. This is terrible. There is really no reason to make fun of this movie, even - it does itself in. Every bit of this is self pitying drivel that anger would be wasted on. So let us commence the review:

No character development can be found here. There is no structure to the story; characters just appear at random, shocking the viewer with how random their appearances are. The acting is atrocious, showing just how low the budget was for this movie, as well as how far a pair of tits can get a female actress in this world. You would think a movie about a killer gingerbread man would be somehow campy and fun, but this is not. Why? Because none of the kills are shown, and there are only like two of them throughout the whole movie. Most of the film is filled with boring dialogue between the bad-acting lead girl and the bad-acting and incredibly ridiculous looking lead guy. Because of course, that is what I wanted out of a movie titled The Gingerdead Man.

We walked out of the film disheartened for the sad state of our country. Was this what we had been reduced to? None of us was coherent. We were disoriented, trying to piece together what we had just seen. The lingering question remained: Who was worse? FullMoon, for releasing this film, or us, for watching it?

Friday, January 22, 2010

Review: Hannibal (2001)

Director: Ridley Scott (you'd think the guy who directed Alien would know how to make a better movie...)
Starring: Anthony Hopkins, Julianne Moore, Gary Oldman, Ray Liotta

Okay, who green-lighted this? I mean this is seriously completely unwatchable - nonexistant pacing, horrible writing, annoying characters, phoned-in psychology...there's just nothing good here, at all. Every single thing this movie does is insulting and putrid, annoying the viewer fiercely. This movie is actively painful to sit through on several levels I never thought possible. I mean, the main villain is a mangled homosexual cripple who will make you want to look at car crash victims as an alternative, and his ingenious plan is to feed Hannibal to a bunch of hungry, rabid hogs. That should be enough for you to skip this stinker by itself, but when you add in a horrible Ray Liotta and a climax that involves watching him stutter through his lines with his brain hanging out, it becomes a certifiable national disaster. This movie is just terrible, and I'd be willing to bet that the director and producer are the ones who really got lobotomized here. Avoid.

Review: Pontypool (2008)

Director: Bruce MacDonald
Starring: Stephen McHattie, Lisa Houle

This is the first movie I've ever had to watch twice to pen down even initial thoughts on it. That is an accomplishment by itself, but this dense and stylish catacomb of insanity and wit packs more than that - it is just downright awesome. It's a zombie film that makes every other zombie film in the last few years look like kids stuff with its originality and creative scope. For one, it's almost entirely a one act play, with only a few characters who interact in subtle ways that show you their relationships with one another without actually coming out and stating it - always a sign of good writing to me, or one of them. You get to know the characters and genuinely like them, as well as being impressed by how well they're painted with the minimal background information provided. Very maturely handled.

And the story, too - people are turned into zombies by hearing words? That's so crazy that it would downright suck if a less talented team did it, but here it just works. It's made ironic by the constant stream of dialogue chucked at you even from the very beginning of the movie, which is well written (yeah, probably adapted from the book, but whatever) and consistently engaging, and I picked up on things on the second viewing that I didn't notice on the first one. This is definitely one that merits re-viewings, and I will be going back to it again in the future.

The tension is built up like a volcano about to erupt, and yet when it's still like nothing else I've ever seen. It's more of a slow burning and beautiful end than a fast, gore-streaked climax that many viewers may go in expecting, and I won't spoil any of it for you, but know this: it is as pure a cinematic gold mine as any I've seen out of my favorite movies, with intrigue and suspense and stellar writing exploding all around you - you won't know what to think, but as you think about it, the mystique of Pontypool will slowly unfold. Haunting, epochal and stirring in every way, probably the best horror movie of the decade.

Review: Nine Months (1995)

Director: Chris Columbus
Starring: Hugh Grant, Julia Roberts, Tom Arnold, Robin Williams

Hey kids, ready to learn to cook? Today we're going to be making a shitty romantic comedy!

*cheering sounds*

You'll need your chef hats, your bowls and your barf bags for this exercise. Do you have them ready?

Yes, we do!

Okay, then! Take your basic romance set up with a geeky, wimpy guy and his strong but blandish wife. Add in the complication of pregnancy and the fact that our prissy hero is not ready for it - can you smell the awkwardness yet? Add in obnoxious acting and horrible, horrible performances by otherwise good actors like Robin Williams and Tom Arnold. Add in some of the most unfunny, uncomfortable and unenjoyable comedy ever laid down, and you have the recipe for disaster that is Nine Months.

God, this sucks. So, what have we learned today, kids?

That Hugh Grant should never be let within fifty feet of a romance movie involving pregnancy!

That's right, kids. And just in case you might be enticed to see Hugh Grant's latest romantic flop Did You Hear About the Morgans?...well, just take your recipes home and study them for next time, when we'll have a test.

Sunday, January 10, 2010

Review: Killer Klowns from Outer Space (1988)

The Funmaster: Stephen Chiodo
The Participants: Mike Tobacco, Suzanne Snyder, John Allen Nelson, John Vernon

Killer Klowns from Outer Space. Just read that title five or six times over, and you'd have enough for a whole review right there. This is not a movie to be taken seriously, and the joke is pretty much evident on anyone who tries. So, let us try to remedy your no doubt burning confusion and review this strange little concoction of human misery and comedy alike. Be prepared, this is about to get stupid.

The movie, or drug trip from Hell, is just filled to the brim with insanity. Can you even get any more silly? This about giant claymation clowns waddling around zapping people with bad special effects to turn them into cotton candy. They shoot popcorn from their guns that turns into venomous demon-worms. The climax involves an ice cream truck, two horny female clowns (Aaaah, get it away!), a giant Godizlla-clown-monster and lots more that you just have to see to believe. There is a clown that uses his hands to make shadows on the wall, I won't spoil it. You have to see this.

What the hell is there to say? Killer Klowns from Outer Space is a film that looks like it was made using techniques from the 60s, and it's really just about as stupid as a movie can possibly get. This movie is Terrible, with a capital T. However, I like it, a lot.

There is a certain energy to this that is just unbelievably fun and maniacal. They have mastered the Art of Shlock. Everything about this is gleefully stupid and doubly enjoyable. It's all so garishly and freakishly colored, and for every time you roll your eyes, there will be another time you laugh or nudge your buddy and crack a joke. Because really, in what other environment is a movie like this passable but with friends? It's perfect for those. Watch it with two friends and it's good, with three friends and it's great.

Killer Klowns is just insane. You haven't lived until you've seen this shit for yourself. It has no shame, but then, it does not ever profess to have any, nor does it operate under any pretension of such. It is a visual representation of every time you were told to not care what others thought.

Okay, maybe not, but still.

Saturday, January 9, 2010

Review: The Bourne Identity (2002)

Director: Doug Liman
Starring: Matt Damon, Franka Potente, Chris Cooper, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje

A few days ago, I was asking myself, where have all the good action movies gone? I missed the spirit of movies like Die Hard and any number of classic Schwarzennegger movies and all of the great classics of yesteryear. As I made these strange, specific wishes, a magical tune sounded, and then I found myself knocked to the ground by an explosive force. As I got up, I gazed upon the wreckage of my room in sheer horror. A giant monster-truck had smashed with a frightening force through my wall, and sitting in the front seat was a ghastly aberration. It looked to be the disembodied spirit of John Malkovich. I bowed in reverence.

But he did not kill me. Rather, after several blood sacrifices and ritualistic practices, I was handed a DVD colored a dark, jungle-like green. It was titled "The Bourne Identity," and it glowed in such a strange radiance.

I popped it into the DVD player hours later, after the shock of Malkovich's sudden appearance wore off. And after the vomiting, which was customary to his appearance, had ceased. I was greeted not by the lovable, immediate action of older films, but by a storm at sea, a lost memory and government conspiracies. This was a different road than those I had previously traveled, but I kept watching as it unfolded into a more subtle and mature jaunt than I had expected.

And indeed, The Bourne Identity is not really a film one can turn on in the background and expect to really 'get.' This is a fast-paced, involving, smart thriller that does not wait up for the viewer to put the pieces together. I really like how mature and sensible this movie is. There's just nothing candy-coated or dumbed down about it. It expects you to keep up, like any good movie should, but like too many do not.

I'm not too sure I like lead actor Matt Damon, as there is just something about his face and acting that just doesn't really do it for me, but as an actor he does a fine job, putting his all, or what I assume is his all, into this performance. I like Franka Potente a lot, as she is just gorgeous as Bourne's semi-unwilling traveling companion. Her character isn't really explained a lot, but it's enough for this movie, and there's just something really likable about her. I also quite liked Julia Stiles as the enigmatic female agent "Nicky" - surely a character I hope to see more of in the future sequels!

The action is definitely cool. It's so fast and furious it's like watching one of those old episodes of Dragonball Z, except without all of the powering up, and most of the alien creatures. This is just really entertaining and fun, making the whole movie more well rounded for all its speedy, complex politics. There is definitely a lot of stuff here that needs answers, and if it needs sequels to do that, well let me tell you...I think this is one of the few series that actually merits it. Pirates of the Caribbean? Pfft, it is officially outdated.

Friday, January 8, 2010

Review: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

Director: Steven Spielberg
Starring: Harrison Ford, Shia LaBeouf, Karen Allen, Cate Blanchett

The last Indiana Jones movie, if I recall, was made in 1989 and left no indication that there was to be a sequel. But apparently George Lucas needed money, imagine that, so he vomited out this new sequel 20 years later, guilt-tripping good actors like Harrison Ford and ones of questionable taste like Shia LaBeouf to whore themselves out for one more ride on the fuck-train that amounts to about two hours of wasted time. This is Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Meth. I mean, Crystal Skull. But what I said first would have made more sense.

Honestly, this is just pointless. Pointless and extremely boring at that. Harrison Ford doesn't even really need to act here - he puts on a scowl for the camera, ruffles up his now-gray hair and growls like he's got a bug stuck in his throat. I think he knew this movie was a stinker; you can just see it in every line he delivers. Despite that, he's still a lot of fun to watch, and is probably the movie's most redeeming factor. Cate Blanchett also phones in her performance as the female Russian colonel, and is never in any way captivating or interesting to watch. Shia LaBeouf does an alright job for what he's given to work with, which is painfully little, as the script is piss poor. I mean, they gave him the name "Mutt" - that sounds like something you'd hear in a parody of the 50s, not the actual 50s. It's like something out of Grease. Ray Winstone plays a pointlessly double-crossing something-or-other who will leave absolutely no impression on the viewer, as I also get the impression that he was not really trying.

The story is kind of like the old Indiana Jones movies, centering around a quest to find the lost City of Gold, except it's incredibly boring. In the beginning of the film we get Indy talking about adventures he's had in the past, and I kept thinking that any of these would be so much cooler than what I was watching here. Kidnapped by Pancho Villa as a teenager? I'd sign up to watch that in a heartbeat! Anything would be better than this movie though.

It isn't even like there's anything that wrong with the whole concept behind this; it's just that the idea of even making it at all is pointless. This is a cinematic dead end. The Indy franchise was dead for close to two decades before this was pushed out. Nothing the film does really leaves any impact on me. So the babe from the first Indiana Jones movie is Shia LaBeouf's mom, and Indy is the dad. Yawn. So some of the soldiers are eaten by giant ants. So the gang all go careening down about three waterfalls in a row while sitting upright in a jeep, Hollywood for dummies, all of it. By the time the aliens show up, you just don't care anymore. The fact that there are aliens in an Indiana Jones movie does not register as more than a silly curiosity rather than the catastrophe I am sure Spielberg intended, although I must note here the incredibly drug-addled way the whole thing plays out, lending credence to the "Kingdom of Crystal Meth" argument. The movie glosses over most of the important plot points like that, without any kind of urgency. Nothing leaves any impact. The characters sit there at the end and smile like they're in a Hallmark commercial, but really they're just smiling because their paychecks are just that much closer.

What ever happened to the days when these movies were blood-pumping, heart-in-your-mouth, non-stop action thrillers? Nothing about this works. It's all pieced together with a sort of self-conscious, ironic gloss that robs it of any real tension, any drive to move forward and excite the viewer. Like that stupid scene at the beginning where he jumps into a refrigerator to escape a nuclear bomb blast. It's so ridiculous that it is literally insulting to the viewer's intelligence; not like the cheesy moments in the old ones where it was fun. Here it's just stupid.

The older Indiana Jones movies were great because they stopped at nothing to take the viewer into the heart of the action. They felt genuine and real, even in their obvious over-the-top styling, whereas this one just sort of directs you to the Gift Shop to deposit your money for further exploitations, feeling more like a tourist attraction than an actual adventure movie. Fuck that.

Thursday, January 7, 2010

Review: Antichrist (2009)

Director: Lars von Trier
Starring: Willem DaFoe, Charlotte Gainsbourg

Lars von Trier is an interesting character who I don't really know much about, other than that his name really does not have a 'von' in it, and that he is known for being an absurdly pretentious yet also visionary director - which I cannot vouch for, as this is the first movie of his I've ever seen. Yes, Antichrist has certainly received a lot of attention, but how good is it really?

Well, the first question I have is, how the flying FUCK did Willem DaFoe go from the Spider-man movies and the fucking Boondock Saints to this?

The second one is, where else can horror go after this? To what new depths can it sink? As far as I'm concerned, this film is more or less the epitaph of horror. It might not be my personal favorite horror film of the last decade, but it is nevertheless a perfect portrait of the depravity that almost was, the squandered potential that could have been rolled up into one ball of misogynistic, livid hatred. It is a middle finger straight in the air at any kind of restraint on the genre. Antichrist is an incredibly disturbing and graphic film that pulls no punches and even adds a metric ton more on top of them. This film is horrifying, in the broadest, most basic sense of the word. Everything about it is unsettling and uneasy, masterfully suspenseful and terribly dire. With every scene, every line of dialogue, every silent moment, the viewer senses an unbelievable, dreamlike terror creeping up like an eruption of the horror genre's collective bowels. Regardless of your stomach for gore, your opinion of this director or whatever else, this film is bone-chillingly horrific. Just the premise behind it is enough: the sudden, random death of a child. There is no turning back.

I do not want to get too deep into the meaning behind this. It is a film in which grief is loosely explored by two people deep in the heart of a horrible tragedy. This makes less sense the more I think about it. It is a hazy portrait of vivid, thrashing evil and occult imagery that is honestly disturbing beyond belief. The woman is clearly the purveyor of the deeper evil, but what of the man? The misogyny here is pretty well spelled out, but I don't know, I took this movie in a broader sense, just a vehement portrait of human savagery in the wild - the devil's church, per se. This is a primal, nihilistic vision of the darkest corners and scraps of the human soul. This kind of story has certainly been done before, but the execution here is masterful enough for that not to matter. I really tried to find some kind of hole here, but the fact is, I couldn't. Those talking animals, the genital mutilation...these things on their own are strange, silly and disturbing, but in the context of the film they add to the dreamlike, hellish atmosphere.

People can say what they will about the implications, the messages, the pretentiousness; this movie will still be a stake in the heart of all lesser horror. Powerful, unforgettable and supremely horrific.

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

Review: Forrest Gump (1994)

Director: Robert Zemeckis
Starring: Tom Hanks, Gary Sinise, Robin Wright-Penn

Yeah, yeah, everyone knows this one. How can you not love Forrest Gump? It's just so wholesome, is what it is. It's practically impossible to not like at least a couple of parts of this movie. It's a life-long epic. Forrest Gump is one of those movies that kind of defined its decade in terms of film, and I can see why - the characters are memorable, there are a lot of quotable lines, and there is a healthy balance between wistful drama and great comedy. It's one of those movies that is sort of a jack of all trades. It does a little bit of everything and does it all reasonably well.

Everyone will have different things to say about this, different characters they prefer or different scenes that stick out to them as memorable, but for me, Gary Sinise steals the show. Every scene this guy is in was just flat out great. I love his charisma, I love his sense of pride, which is conflicted with the fact that he's a cripple - everyone can kind of relate to this in some way - and I love his damned unbeatable energy and conviction on screen. Awesome character, and one I'd watch a whole movie about on his own if he had one.

But Tom Hanks is the main character, and of course he does a fantastic job, too. He plays a mentally handicapped character who is in the tough position of being just smart enough to function in society - although really, he seems a lot more intelligent than people give him credit for by the end of the movie. He's really a lovable guy, just a really good person, and it makes the movie that much more fun to watch. Just watch some of the scenes like the fishing boat scenes, or the running ones - idealistic and Hollywood-ized, but really inspirational. That's the main thing this movie has going for it. And it succeeds wholeheartedly. 

Then again, I do have to say, what is up with the girlfriend character? "Oh, I'm going to leave you and break your heart, then call you to come see me only to dump it on you that I had a child and am dying of a terrible disease. Sorry for fucking up your life. Want to marry me? Thanks." Fuck you, whore! But if the movie can make me care enough to think all of that in the first place, it did its job right.

Sunday, January 3, 2010

Review: Grace (2009)

Director (or, who to blame): Paul Solet
Starring: Jordan Ladd, Stephen Park, Gabrielle Rose, Serge Houde, Samantha Ferris

This movie is about as scary as a horse's ass. I mean it; I have never hated a movie this much just based on the back cover summary alone, and that was before I actually saw this vomited up pile of piss. How low can the horror genre go? Look right here for your answer, folks, a horror movie that spends most of its duration wallowing in pseudo-spiritual hippie feminist crap and family banter that you'd more likely find on some horrible sitcom on TV. Good fucking god.

Most of this movie is like watching some terrible kind of medical TV show. No, movie, showing us scenes of the mother bathing her baby and having it get a rash does not qualify as build up. In no fucked up parallel universe does showing us flies going up the baby's nose equate to anything even remotely frightening or tense. Why do we need to watch the ludicrously boring first twenty five minutes, which are filled with nothing but vapid character writing and flimsy acting? It sure made me hate every single character in the movie more, but otherwise I don't see the point. And it just keeps going. This is excruciatingly bad.

There is nothing good about this, no meaning to the story, no deep horror or tension buried within it. I keep trying to summarize what is so bad about it, but telling you what it did right would be a shorter answer - one word, at that. I mean, really? A movie about a mother trying to nurture a blood drinking baby? How is this in any way frightening? The mother character is never interesting or likable, not showing even one morsel of rational human logic or anything that would indicate we should care what happens to her. The story plods along in the dullest, most hacked up way you could ever imagine. The whole thing is done with this overly crooked, sentimental bent that I despise. Pretentious, unpleasant, condescending to the viewer's intelligence. Intelligent horror? Fuck you, this is the worst. I'd rather have teeth pulled than watch this again.