Creepy Video of the Moment

Sticks & Stones - The Pierces

Monday, October 31, 2011

The Disappearance of Alice Creed

While some people seem to be impressed with this movie, I wasn't. Sixteen minutes in, and I found myself bored to tears. The movie only focuses on the two kidnappers and Alice Creed.

Again, this was a British film, so the physical violence was pretty tame. They kidnap her, strip her down, take photos, redress her and keep her in a dark locked room with a hood on and she cried every time took the mask off and put it back on, yet when she's supposed to do the ransom video, she doesn't even seem scared, so they feel like they have to hold a knife to her throat.

Then, after the ransom video is finished and it's the middle of the night, she's a basket case again, even if she can kick some ass. Then, a twist that is in my opinion pretty stupid, pops up to change the dynamics of the kidnapping, and then an even dumber one pops up. At this point, I just want this movie to end.

This is a British film, and again it lacks a certain edge that American films seem to have. Whether it's the musical score or what, I'm not sure, but it sure feels like something is missing from this flick.

Okay, she managed to get the guy's gun and get to a phone, yet she doesn't escape first? Seriously, I would have gone for the keys to the place and ran to a nearby house and asked them to call the police. Sheesh!

Something I just have to note here. I read a lot of the comments about this movie posted on IMDB. It appears that many of the people who don't like it seem to be from the U.S., and it appears that many people (non-U.S.) think that this movie requires a brain to enjoy. I happen to be smart and can appreciate a movie that requires thought. However, apparently I like my movies with an edge to them. This movie isn't that hard to figure out and I had a pretty good idea how it was going to end about half-way through (I didn't read the reviews until later, and those I did read didn't really give anything away anyway, lol!). I guess it's just that I've seen this storyline played out before, just in different ways, but the ending is always the same. Like I've said in some of my other reviews, there's just something about British movies that makes them so low-key and tend to lose my attention because I'm bored with the content. I understand it just fine, it's just not catchy. When I can sit in front of the computer with my attention on something else and not miss a thing - meaning my brain processed what was going on in the background while the majority was focusing on something else - a movie isn't that complex nor is it that attention grabbing.

I guess the hook really wasn't there for me. I watched this movie until the end because I was waiting to see if it got any better. Sad to say, it didn't.


I didn't finish this film right away. In fact, we tried to watch it earlier last night, but it just wasn't moving fast enough, and wasn't really the kind of movie we were looking for.

I finished the last half of this movie at 5:02am but dated it earlier so that it would end up on Monday's date. While the movie as a whole was not great, it was passable. I'll admit it seemed forced at times and even trite, but I managed to watch the whole thing, even if I was playing Spider Solitaire at the same time.

Even though I thought it was passable, I'm going to say: Watch this at your own risk because you may find you don't like it. If you really believe in possession, then you might find this one slightly (emphasis on slightly) creepy.

Do You Like HItchcock?

This was the second movie of the night. The first one, Seance, wasn't able to hold both of our interest, so we moved along. I put this one on, and it turned out to be better than expected.

That's the thing with horror movies, you either like them or think they suck and there's never really an in between so when a movie doesn't suck, it's always a pleasant surprise. This year, thanks to Roku and Netflix, I managed to find more horror movies that sucked than were great. However, it was a great experience checking all of the movies out from the comfort of my living room couch.

What makes this film pretty good is that it uses some Hitchcock themes as a backdrop for the plot. The movies that get referenced throughout, Strangers on a Train and Dial M for Murder, were pretty good in their own right, though I don't know that I'd call them horror movies, just good thrillers.

If you like Hitchcock and/or thriller movies in general, you should enjoy this one. It's definitely one I'd consider watching again somewhere down the road, and not too many movies are that way for me.


The premise of this movie seemed pretty cool, and thought my husband who happens to like zombie and/or survival-type movies would like it, so I added it to our Netflix cue on Roku. It was the first movie of this type I've watched this Halloween season.

Neither one of us could get into this movie. We tried, honestly we did, but it really couldn't hold our attention. It seemed to not only crawl along, but the dialogue felt so tired...or maybe it was just the octave. I find this with many British films. I'm not sure why, but something about the speech, even when someone is angry, it just feels so subdued. It's like the rage just isn't really there...strange, but that's what it felt like.

I guess maybe it was the overall lack of genuine fear on the characters' parts. A strange "plague" or airborne virus hit the town and killed most of the population. Maybe it's just me, but I'd not only be freaking out about this, especially seeing people look the way they do - almost like those suffering from the Black Death might have looked like - but I sure wouldn't want to be touching anyone walking around with blood all over them. Seriously, these people just survived something horrific in seeing practically everyone they know die, yet they're so complacent that they're willing to bring a sick person in their midst. Not only that, but no one seemed to panic when they couldn't find a pulse on the body.

Really? This person has dark blood still on her face (so you know it ain't fresh), is still wearing blood-stained clothes, isn't talking and doesn't even seem to recognize that she's surrounded by living, breathing people and no one seems scared by this? Oh, and did I mention she didn't have a pulse? That's right. One of the women who brought this girl into the safe house where survivors were congregating checked for a pulse, but couldn't find one. She mentions it with an "in passing" tone - no fear, concern or anything like that in her tone. She just states it. The men in the group get a low version of angry and want "it" gone, but nobody seems to panic at the fact this body is walking around without a pulse. Haven't any of these people seen any zombie movies of any kind?

To say I had a hard time believing the scenario in this movie is a bit of an understatement. It reminded me of this series we tried watch called Survivors. That had 12 episodes. We made it 20 minutes into episode 1 before we gave up on it. That one was just as bad, and also British in terms of characters, etc. It too seemed to miss that emotion of true fear...

That lack of fear - a crucial element to survival movies like this - is what takes away a viewer's ability to believe in the premise. In other words, the lack of fear breaks the "suspension of disbelief". That's my opinion anyway.

You can give this one a shot if slow moving movies are up your alley, but honestly, I wouldn't recommend wasting your time on it.

Nowhere in Sight

I started this about this time, but finished later, after my husband was asleep. While it was pretty good, it just wouldn't have caught his interest.

Christopher Heyerdahl makes this movie as creepy as it is. Between Heyerdahl's stupendous acting as a creepy killer and Slater's awesome acting in the role of Carly Bauers, this movie ends up better than I ever would have expected.

Basically, the two men kidnap Carly because she's blind and because her uncle works in the diamond business. They figure she's got the combination to the safe - or something to that effect - and they want that info so they can steal what's in the safe.

Either she really doesn't have the code, or she's a really good liar. Whichever the right answer, she's one strong and brave woman. Sure, she's scared, but she doesn't breakdown like you'd expect. Carly does her best to keep her wits about her, and her heightened sense of hearing and smell give her a unique advantage in this story.

The "Of Mice and Men"-esque storyline that intertwines with the main plot adds something a bit more sinister to the story. I recommend this one as more of a thriller than horror, but it was a good one just the same.

Sunday, October 30, 2011

One-Eyed Monster

WARNING: This movie has an R rating, and definitely not for younger viewers! 18 and older are the target audience of this movie

Okay, I don't usually watch movies of this sort, but every once in awhile, one will sound funny enough to catch my fancy, and that's the case here. Honestly, I wondered how the heck they were going to pull "Ron's dismembered member" getting "possessed by a bloodthirsty alien" off (pun totally intended), and just had to watch.

I admit, I had been up all night the night before, but I was awake for the first half of the movie and found it to be "laugh out loud" at many moments. Unfortunately, as soon as there was a slow moment, I was out like a light. I'm going to finish it, but I honestly don't need to finish it to recommend it to those who enjoy watching strange movies of this sort.

The version I saw had an R rating, which means they do not show any real male or female genitalia, just breasts. Basically, breasts and harsh language are the two points that give it an R rating. I have to admit, the acting isn't too over-the-top, it's just good enough to make it funny. Outside of the premise being cheesy - though, if this could really happen, it could be totally scary, lol! :D - the movie was done tastefully enough (despite being a group of people going into the mountains to make a porno) to qualify as a horror-esque movie.

Again, I recommend this movie to anyone looking for a good laugh with their horror, as well as some hotness! :D

NOTE: Check rating before watching to make sure you don't get more than you bargained for! :)

Helter Skelter

I saw this movie a number of years ago, and it creeps me out to this day. Charles Manson, not only looks scary, but he doesn't seem all that attractive to me, so the fact he managed to actually get followers that would do his bidding is the truly scary part.

Charles Manson, one of the most notorious serial killers in history. The fact that he is still alive and has a parole hearing coming up in 2012 should be equally scary.

You can read more about him on Wikipedia.

Clear Lake, WI

Clear Lake is an actual city in Wisconsin in Polk County. You can learn more about the actual city on Wikipedia

Whenever my state (WI) or a city within the state (e.g. Clear Lake, Milwaukee, Rome, Madison) are mentioned, I will tend to actually look up said city for location and facts. Nothing annoys me more than to find that a filmmaker or author has made up said city or area. I understand why they might do so, but seriously, if you want to encourage people to learn about towns, pick an actual town and offer viewers some actual facts about said city.

That being said, there weren't really any facts offered to the viewers about the actual city of Clear Lake, WI. They just used it because it served the purpose of being a remote location for a horror film to take place. For the most part, horror movies do use remote locations rather than large cities, unless a large city is more useful.

Clear Lake is pretty remote, but the irony about the storyline is that, according to there are no pollutants or storage tanks around, nor has it been contaminated by anything - in other words, Clear Lake is clean! :) I bring this up because the storyline is that hazardous waste made the city unlivable and many people died.

As a result, a psychopathic person (played by Michael Madsen) and basketball coach turned preacher (not legitimately a reverend, but that's what he has his followers call him once the problem starts) ends up in the position to influence some of the local teens to do his bidding.

Some critics claim the storyline is not credible or believable. However, I do find the storyline somewhat credible. Young people are impressionable, which is why you'll find that many "leaders" will recruit members as young as they can. Sure, people of all ages can be susceptible, but younger people are the most susceptible to what is considered brainwashing by cult leaders, and lets face it, that's what this movie is about, a cult leader and the aftermath.

This movie isn't as hacky/slashy as some people might prefer, but it's scary none-the-less when it's put in the right context. These kids were twisted into believing that they were the saved ones and that everyone else was "sick" or that they were the "good" guys and everyone else was "bad" and needed "saving".

You want to say it sounds unbelievable? Fine, but watch Helter Skelter (story of Charles Manson), Guyana Tragedy: The Story of Jim Jones, Waco:The Rules of Engagement, fictional American History X or just simply consider the hoopla over Scientology, polygamy, etc. before making your decision, and you'll get the general idea on how the notion of a coach convincing teens to kill can be credible.

I admit that it takes awhile before the killing occurs, but it's setting up the story, as well as giving viewers foreshadowing and omens as to who the killer might be and why. This may not be the greatest movie in the world, but I thought it was decent enough. It held my attention until the end - which isn't always possible with thrillers and horror flicks - so I can honestly say I think this one is watchable.

The Last House on the Left (1972)

I honestly don't understand how this movie could be classified as a horror flick. It's ironic, yes, it's tragic, yes, but horror? Only if you're a guy I guess. But even then I just don't see it.

This movie is from the era when filmmakers were allowed to say, "based on/inspired by actual events and names have been changed to protect those still living" even when it wasn't. Filmmakers were allowed to lie atrociously back then. So grateful they can't get away with this now!

Unfortunately, that's how I got suckered into watching the whole thing - I thought it was about two girls who survive...but that's not even close to what happened. In fact, it's so far from a horror movie it's pathetic. Oh, there's some hacking and slashing, but that's really about the extent of it.

This group of escaped convicts and the woman that helped them out manage to kidnap 2 girls looking to score some pot after a concert (remember, it's 1970's, that wasn't that rare of an occurrence!). What never made any sense to me is why the group felt they needed to run from the apartment they were holed up in, let alone why they'd do it with 2 girls in tow.

It's ironic that, as the group tries to runaway to a different state/country with the two girls (Mari and Phyllis) in tow, they end up breaking down right outside the house of Mari and drag the girls into the woods just across the street from the house. All of this while the cops are in the house talking to Mari's parents about her disappearance.

I wish I could say it got interesting from there, but alas, no. This is where it just kept rolling down hill into the crapsville. If the terrible music score wasn't bad enough, the keystone cops that ignore the broken down car (when they are well aware that there are fugitives on the loose) and run out of gas when trying to return to said car really make the movie that much worse. Seriously, because it said, "inspired by true events," this is where I began wondering. These "cops" couldn't possibly bungle things up this much, could they? If they were based on real cops, the answer would have been no, but because it was a bs premise to begin with, yes.

The idea that two girls could be kidnapped, raped, tortured, etc., is a decent premise, and one that could be scary...if it's done right, and not all focused on gore. Then it just becomes a gore flick rather than horror. There's a point where the "gore" makes a flick absurd rather than scary. That's what happened here. I wouldn't suggest this one. I'm not sure about the remake of this film. I might check out it just for kicks, but I'm not sure. I wish I could get the time I wasted watching this flick back!

The Ward

Okay, I've been barraging the site with movies today, and I will continue to do so throughout Halloween Monday, until roughly 12:01am Tuesday morning, lol! I'll be honest, it might even stretch longer than that! :D

This movie had me hooked from the beginning! It was very well done. They gave you just enough to know what was going on with this girl but kept enough back to make you continue wondering.

Given the short time of 1hr 28min run time, the characters were well defined and seemingly complex. I thought all of the actors did a splendid job. Nothing felt overacted or contrite. The plot had some very cool twists and completely unexpected turns in it!

This is a must see as far as I'm concerned! If you've seen it and want to chat, please be kind and not give away the ending! Thanks! :)

Saturday, October 29, 2011


Not to be confused with Pelts. I know, it can be easy to make that mistake, especially after you've wasted your time with this one. My opinion: Don't waste your time. You have better things to do, movies to watch or books to read. That's just how bad this movie really is.

I can appreciate irony, really, I can, but not for this movie. I had no emotional connection to any of the characters. In fact, all of them annoyed me or were just too stupid to care about. It's as if they tried to take the poor man's version of the American Pie characters and put them in a scary movie. It didn't work.

Sex and teen horror flicks go together, so why did they have to make one of the characters a nympho? Oh, and to make matters worse, they didn't really do their homework as one of the things the nympho repeats is "My pussy is numb" - really? huh? Look it up and that's not something listed. In fact, a numb vagina is considered on the other end of the spectrum. Again, failing to even create a believable character.

Then there was the "beer" guy. That's all he'd say - no matter what you said to him - until his beer arrived. Totally annoying. He was also very stupid.

The rest of the characters were just as useless. I honestly couldn't care less if they lived or died. Not really what you want for a survival/slasher movie.

There are times when irony works, and times it just makes no sense. For example, in another movie I thought was just awful - Stephen King's The Mist - the ending had the people killing themselves and the survivor who hadn't pulled the trigger on himself yet ends up suddenly seeing that US military saved the day. With all the damage done to the bugs in The Mist, the characters would have heard the gunfight, the bombs, the choppers, tanks and whatever else was used to take back the planet. Because of this gross inconsistency with reality, the so-called ironic ending makes the movie even more stupid.

Same thing with Pelt. We decided to fast forward through it just to see if we guessed the proper order of deaths. The ironic ending did nothing to improve the movie. In fact, the ending made the movie that much worse. As if the characters were bad enough, the premise of the movie couldn't really hold water either. There was no plausible reason for these kids to want to go where they went. They tried to make it "sound" all cool, but again it failed terribly in making any point with the premise.

Un-credible characters + un-credible premise = dumb story. Please don't waste your time on this movie.

The Thaw

Thanks to Roku/Netflix for letting me watch this without wasting money on an actual rental. Hey, I was excited about a global-warming based horror/thriller, but I was equally disappointed once I started it.

This movie tried very hard to emulate The Thing and failed miserably at it. That's my impression anyway.

Due to the nature of this type of movie, it would have served better to show the movie in chronological order, rather than having some of the footage shown out of order. I felt the cinematic approach used hurt the story rather than help it.

When I first read the description for this movie, a wooly mammoth was mentioned. In fact, the description made it seem as though the wooly mammoth might be the problem. That would have been a better movie.

Basically, the movie starts with emphasizing the effects of global warming, and that new archaeological finds are popping up. Even though it's next to impossible to tell from what is shown, the audience is supposed to "assume" that this tiny uncovered square of fur is really a small part of a wooly mammoth.

Okay, I can accept that, even though I believe that the researchers would have uncovered the whole thing right away... That's not the only thing I have problems with. The audience, without any actual reasoning or references to known paleontological facts, is supposed to accept that some parasitic organism would be able to survive all this time in the head of the wooly mammoth and then "pop-out" of its head as soon as it's unearthed.

Perhaps it's because of the archaeology classes I took, or all the related shows I've watched, but I found it extremely difficult to buy into the fact that a parasitic worm could survive all that time in the carcass of the wooly mammoth until it found a new host. I understand suspension of disbelief and can appreciate it. This movie just couldn't accomplish that for me. In fact, it failed miserably in holding my attention.

This was one of few movies I didn't waste my time watching. Not only was the premise not carried out believably, but the movie stagnated in so many areas that you could watch in fast forward (no subtitles) and not feel like you actually missed anything. This movie was a waste of Val Kilmer's abilities.

Green River Vs Ice Cream

Thanks yet again to Netflix/Roku, I am able to find a horror movie to watch. At first glance, Green River appears to be something based on the Green River killings - they do mention a ton of missing girls - but once the story actually starts it mentions a cult that steals the girls (A cult, seriously?), and I got about half an hour in before I was ready to look for something else to watch because this movie seemed to stagnate more than once, and never really got into the disappearance of the sister or why Charisma and her friend were even going to Green River in the first place. It's as if they relied on the movie description to give viewers any info. Wrong move! While I might end up trying to finish this movie at a later date, I strongly suggest you skip this one and instead try to find The Capture of the Green River Killer a mini-series based on Sheriff David Reichert's book, Chasing the Devil: My Twenty-Year Quest to Capture the Green River Killer.

Well, annoyed and really needing to find a decent horror flick (Popcorn was okay, but my desire wasn't quenched yet), I strolled through the Masters of Horror series that was shown on Starz (many of the "free" flix on Netflix were once part of the Starz lineup.) and chose "We All Scream for Ice Cream."

This is an interesting take. It reminds me of It crossed with Tales From the Dark Side. Yes, it was a scary clown - albeit not as creepy as the one from It, but creepy just the same - but this clown was different...he was also a former ice cream man. The movie is 57 minutes, but even I found some of the effects scenes to drag on too long. I think they were going for the "ick" factor, but I felt it was just their way of avoiding the gaps in the script. I would like to have seen less of the "ick" - seriously, how many times do we need to see someone melt? - and have a little more of the actual plot developed further. I would definitely say watch this one, even though there might be an overabundance of dairy! :D


Seriously, make yourself some popcorn before you sit down and watch this movie because all the movie theater popcorn you see in the movie creates a strong yen for the stuff!

Basically, the movie begins with the main character, Maggie, dreaming. She interprets the dreams to be just that, dreams, and collects them to make them into a movie for her film class. From the beginning, the audience realizes that the dreams are disturbing to Maggie's mother (played by Dee Wallace), we're just not sure why, but foreshadows make it clear there's some sort of tie between Maggie's dreams and her past.

At Maggie's school, the film classes are considered extraneous and they need to raise funds so they decide to do a horror movie film festival - one night only. They choose some "old" flicks with gimmicks to them such as 3D effects, aroma-rama, etc. Kind of neat concept actually.

By this point, the movie got props just for the creativity so far, even if its age does seem to make it a bit "cheesy". I was drawn in and wanted to watch more.

As the students get ready for their festival, an old reel of a murder filmed by a cult leader believed long dead is "discovered". It turns out to be exactly what Maggie's dreams are about. Seriously creepy! She tries to explain this to the people around her, that she believes that the cult leader - Lanyard Gates - is after her. At first, everyone thinks she's overly dramatic...until the dead bodies start popping up.

Creative kill scenes and a couple very unexpected twists make this an interesting movie to watch, even if it is just once! :)

Queen of the Damned

This time of year always requires a good vampire flick, and I have to say I prefer Stuart Townsend's Lestat better than what's out there. It's a movie I watch whenever I'm getting a hankering for a sexy but dangerous vampire.

After the much hyped Interview with a Vampire, I struggled to get into the series. While I heard great things about the books and do own quite a few of Anne's books, I have yet to read any of them.


Honest Answer:
1. Hated Tom Cruise as Lestat and he completely turned me off the series
2. Brad Pitt wasn't much of a turn on either
3. Antonio Banderas is anything but sexy
4. Kirsten Dunst while a decent actress, I wasn't sold on her part

Basically, I thought the casting sucked so bad that I wondered if the book was really going to be as bad as the movie, so I've avoided reading them. Since I know there are a few more books in the series - I have most of them - I'll complete the set if only to ensure that some day I'll read them. I'm less inclined to read them since I know that Rice gives up on that series for other ventures.

Well, when Queen of the Damned came along, it forced me to take a more objective look at the series because the movie was cast much better. I couldn't find anything disagreeable about any of it. Except for maybe I wanted more. I've wanted to see Stuart Townsend as Lestat and Vincent Perez as Marius ever since, and I strongly feel that Interview with a Vampireshould be redone with Stuart Townsend playing Lestat and Matthew Newton playing Armand. Seriously, much better actors for these roles and if you're going to choose one movie to watch, this one's one of the best! :)


Another classic thriller.

While not completely up to par with Hitchcock, Joel Newton came pretty close.

I love how this film opens! While the opening credits roll, you start at the front doors to the mansion (add some creepy-ish music with some equally creepy singing) then pan to the ground which at first just looks like shadows, but as the ghostly voice "chirps" - for lack of a better descriptor - one of the shadows begins to look like the shadow of a person. As the credits continue, all you see is the shadow-person approach the front doors of the mansion, full circle. The audience never sees who really makes that shadow.

The movie begins by following Agnes Langley as she makes her way to the Gale (or Gayle) Estate.

Basically, Agnes (the main character) is hired as caretaker to replace the "missing" cousin.

Agnes is told by Lorna Gayle to throw away "Jennifer's" Things. However, it feels wrong to her, so she keeps them instead. As time passes, Agnes becomes more and more curious and searches through Jennifer's things. She finds a diary. Some will point out how "convenient" it is that it says "diary" in bold letters on the cover, but it's anything but convenient because diaries actually did have "Diary" printed on the front. Currently, many just say "journal" now. :D

The following was composed by me for a wiki page on the movie - While the diary contains some paltry entries like "oiled the sewing machine" and such, the more Agnes reads the entries, the more she finds herself obsessed with Jennifer and her, "disappearance," and takes on a mission to sleuth out what actually happened. Over time, we see Agnes discover more and more of Jennifer's things and become more and more unhinged as a result as she tries to understand what could possibly be going on in Jennifer's life/mind in the days leading up to her "disappearance."

As almost anyone would, Agnes uses the "facts" she finds to concoct a somewhat plausible scenario for what happened to Jennifer, even if it seems a bit out there.

It isn't until Agnes tells what she believes happen to Jim Hollis (Howard Duff) at the end of the movie that we learn what really happened to Jennifer. Hollis realizes the only way to pull Agnes from the brink of madness is to reveal what he knows as the truth.

The ending, however, shows the same shadow again walking on the grounds. Is it Jennifer or someone else? We never really know, so in truth, the audience never really knows if what Hollis says happened to Jennifer is what really happened to her. - (end of composed material)

The way I see it, the fact that we're never really sure if it's Jennifer's shadow or not adds to the creepiness of the movie as a whole.


While I haven't watched this one yet this year, I always find this one spooky. It's a classic and I always enjoy it! Some of the best horror films come from this era. Movies like this one remain timeless because of the methods used to build suspense.

No matter who you are, you have to admit that a good musical score definitely helps to set the scene, and this movie is no exception. But it goes farther than that. This is a Hitchcock classic and you can read more about it on Wikipedia and IMDB.

What always gets me about movies like this is that they use what they have at their disposal to create the creepiest possible effects. Shadows, music, actors, camera angles - nothing fancy, but extremely effective.

Judith Anderson rocks as Mrs. Danvers. She has to be one of the creepiest characters I've come across in some time. To this day, I shiver just thinking about her! :D

And, of course, who could forget Laurence Olivier! Stunningly hot as Rhett Butler, he's just as hot playing the strong but reserved character of Maximillian (Maxim) de Winter.

Joan Fontaine was no novice either. I found her very convincing as the meek and timid new Mrs. de Winter - she's never actually given a first name, only a last name.

I would recommend this flick to anyone appreciating a good Hitchcock flick!

Ripper: Letter from Hell

This movie sounds a lot better than it actually is. I liked the premise of this movie but had to force myself to watch the whole thing.

If the premise was good, why have to force it?

The entire movie felt miscast. I couldn't handle Bruce Payne in the role he played. It just wasn't working for me, of course neither was Jurgen Prochnow or A.J. Cook. The scenes didn't feel natural, and what happened on screen felt very, very forced - as if the characters themselves had trouble getting into their characters.

Another major problem I found was the overuse of misdirection to the point that the even the audience can realize that this character probably isn't it because he/she is being spotlighted as the possible killer a little too often.

Again, I can appreciate what the movie wanted to do and tried to do, it just didn't really accomplish it. It felt like a waste of time. The movie, Urban Legend was so much better than this one.

Friday, October 28, 2011

Movie Time Again

It's been a bit since I've been posting. Yes, it's bad and unprofessional, but that's where the Mayhem part comes into play. I recently started to get back to my life after almost a year of continuous migraines and the inability to read, let alone use a computer. Depression wasn't so far off either. I finally shook that monster.

At the start of last October, I ventured to watch 1 scary movie a day for the entire month. I managed to watch quite a few before the continuous migraines started, but nowhere near the 31 I'd hoped for. This year, even though the fog of migraines and back pain lifted almost 2 months ago, I found myself strangely lacking the desire for scary movies I usually get.

Well, it bothered me.

A lot.

So much so that in an effort to get that desire for scare to return, I dug out as much of the Halloween decor as I could find and decorated. I also bought some new lights, including an orange bulb for our sensor light that I keep on all night. I guess the constant beam of the light was comforting. Plus, I opted to make use of the black light we had purchased years ago.

Not only that, but I finally managed to clean up the outside garden and incorporate my lovely Rocket Red Snapdragons into the decor. It's October 28th, and they're still in full bloom, with more buds ready to bloom. The deep red is such a perfect color for this time of year. If they are as hardy this year as last, they'll bloom until it snows! :D

At long last, I finally found my desire for scary movies return this past week. Thanks to Roku and Netflix, I managed to find a number of movies to fill the bill. Some were definite duds, while others were passable. In the next few days, I plan on commenting about the movies I've watched. Starting Saturday, posts will be appearing.


Thursday, April 7, 2011

Featured Author - Alexandra Sokoloff! - Part 1

This question of “Why horror?” has been occurring to me myself lately. I have all kinds of answers. For one thing, these dark tastes seem to come ingrained in us. From the time I could read I was always reaching for the books with the spooky covers and looking longingly at the scary movie posters. My Dad had a huge collection of SFF, horror, and mystery, so it was always around for me to reach for.

It may be partly chemical! One theory I’ve heard is that some people are wired to overstimulate very easily, and those people tend to avoid scary movies and high-adrenaline experiences because of the too-muchness. On the other hand, people who are less sensitized crave over-stimulation and that rush of adrenaline – guess which one I am? I do gravitate toward thrillers and horror for the adrenaline rush. Unfortunately that tends to translate to my love life as well.

But also I think from a very early age I was aware of horrific things going on in real life that adults around me tended not to acknowledge. Growing up in Berkeley I was infused with all kinds of political ideas like “Silence = complicity”. So writing horror is partly my way of venting this outrage – of saying – “This stuff HAPPENS. Why aren’t we doing anything about it?”

I’ve said this before: women know what it is to be raped, battered, prostituted, enslaved, disenfranchised, underpaid, demeaned, harassed; we know what it’s like to live in fear of a simple walk out to the parking lot at night. We live horror on a much more intimate basis than most men in non-warring countries ever do. So I write horror, thrillers, the supernatural, the paranormal, whatever you want to call it, from a specifically feminine point of view, and that’s a very conscious effort. Women know a lot about horror. I have a lot to say about it.

To learn more about Alex, visit her website:

[Note: There's a movie called Spliced/The Wisher with a main character, Mary, who watches scary movies who craves the scariness, almost to the point of eroticism. However, she tends to "sleepwalk" after watching some of the scary films. This is just one aspect of the story, though. I discussed this movie in October 2010.

Click here to read my review!
Or, check out it's page on IMDB.]