Anna (Christina Rondano), a single woman and bookkeeper for a New York firm, can't believe that she's won the bid on a house in a small town in Massachusetts -- a house that was vacant for a time after being abandoned by previous owners. When Anna arrives she finds that the house seems to be haunted. She soon makes discoveries about her house and her neighbors that are more than unsettling in "Next Door".
I stumbled upon this film by accident via Facebook one day after noticing a number of various friends had "liked" it, fast forward to earlier today and I was pleasantly surprised to see that it had already found its way to my mail box, I went directly into the house and sat my ass on the couch and prepared to view "Next Door". What can I say? I'm a sucker for ghost stories and even bigger sucker for indie ghost stories, combining two of my favorite things in the movie world.
Script wise I felt this film was incredible, the story was fascinating and authentically spooky, it does an remarkable job of not going to over the top with the haunting, making it very possible in the mind of even the biggest skeptics, which is a very potent method for creating fear, when it comes to a movie dealing with the supernatural world. "Next Door" is a great take on the age old ghost sub-genre; sadly it will be lost on some viewers due to its low budget and sometimes very bad acting.
Yes, "Next Door" appears to be an very low budget production, and don't get me wrong I don't believe any film should be condemned for their budget, we are strong supporters of the Indie scene and have promoted many micro budget films with rave reviews, but I do believe in being honest and pointing out flaws when they are present, so with that being said the down fall of "Next Door" comes in the form of at times horrible acting that is hard to ignore and sometimes really sucks you out of the story because a scene comes off so fake and unemotional. My other complain was the insanely bad sound effects, and I know what you're saying that can't be that big of a deal, but it is to me, and when its during a kill scene I find it double important, it should sound gritty and horrifying not like a Saturday morning cartoon getting stabbed with an acme knife.
"Next Door" could of been a great Halloween season theatre release if it only would have been given more of a budget to work with, but even with its flaws I really enjoyed this movie and had a good time watching it, would be a excellent film to watch on a dark fall night with all the lights turned off and the sounds of fall frolicking outside your home. On behalf of The Liberal Dead I give "Next Door" a solid 5.5 out of 10 and can't wait to see what the director does next.
* Note: This review is based on the special edition DVD that is unrated, this film will be airing on the Chiller network in October, felt I should clarify so there is no confusion as I have not seen the TV cut *
When a merciless bear poacher is caught and arrested deep in the woods of a state park, he and his truck are taken to a neglected precinct in the heart of a dying city. Unbeknownst to the authorities, the impounded truck holds a deadly cargo in the form of the legendary Sasquatch. Now, stuck in an unfamiliar world, the creature will let nothing and no one stop it from coming face-to-face with the unscrupulous man who ruthlessly ripped it from its environment in "Assault of the Sasquatch"
Growing up I always loved creature features and monster movies, both of these sub-genres don't get nearly enough love these days, and part of it I strongly believe is thanks to SyFy's non-stop horde of half assed animal versus animal flicks. When I got "Assault of the Sasquatch" in the mail I must admit I was excited to sit down and watch it, I hoped for three things, gore, laughs, and more gore and that is exactly what it delivered.
The story is your typical cookie cutter cryptozoology story, hunters bag the big bad Sasquatch, it gets brought into town, and havoc ensues. I wouldn't change a thing about it, it's basic, campy, and fun, I hope many of our readers will give this movie a chance and go in not expecting something serious and Oscar worthy but simply a fun blood soaked creature feature, made to be watched with a bowl of popcorn and a room of friends.
The special effects are your average buckets of blood and latex, nothing special but all done well and should please any gore hounds looking for a quick fix of entrails and various dismembered limbs thrown about by a very pissed off Sasquatch. One of my favorite kill scenes involves the Sasquatch throwing various objects at a young man ending with a very large surprise to finish him off that I will not spoil, but anyone who follows real life cryptozoology knows they have been known to throw rocks and such when threatened, I thought little details like that really added to the overall feel of the flick and was great fan service for crypto fans out there.
One thing that surprises me is the fact that this isn't being marketed as a horror/comedy but instead just a straight up horror flick, while I understand the horror/comedy market has become way over populated with everyone trying to create the next "Shaun of the Dead" or "Zombieland" but where most of them fall flat on their face devoid of laughs, "Assault of the Sasquatch" has some great laughs and while this film would be a great choice for any stoners out there looking for a hazy eyed flick to enjoy, the laughs would not be loss on the general public, no beer goggles or smoke clouds required for this one to get you chuckling a time or two.
Growing up scanning mom and pop video rental shelves for crazy 80s/90s cover art often lead me into the arms of various humorous flicks that were made for the sole purpose of having a blast with some friends, "Assault of the Sasquatch" breathes life into that experience and for that it earned my respect, it's cheesy, silly, over the top, poorly acted, and one hell of a fun ride for any fans of gore and laughs, you won't see this film winning awards but if you give it a chance you'll have a good time with a good flick.
On behalf of The Liberal Dead I give "Assault of the Sasquatch" a solid 6 out of 10 and award for most humorous use of "Fuck" as a one liner in a while, and an second award for best hand to hand combat against an Sasquatch in cinema history.
A small independent news crew investigates a series of unexplained disappearances in a small Midwestern county. They find themselves interviewing a man who possesses an all too intimate knowledge of the details of "The County Line Cannibal" in Mark Vadik's "Cyrus".
Based on true events, normally that phrase will send me running at top speed in the opposite direction of a film, because let's face it nine out of ten times it has very little to do with any "true" event and more often than not is simply a marketing ploy to reel in a few more unexpecting suckers. But here lately as some of you may of figured out by now, I have been on a serial killer themed horror kick, so I strapped myself in and prepared for the worse, but in the end was pleasantly surprised that "Cyrus" is in fact a solid and entertaining flick. The presentation may come off a bit cheesy with its blend of typical movie footage, mock television footage, and a twist of found footage for good measure, but after a bit it starts to grow on you and you adjust and accept the fact its borderline made for TV as far as presentation values go. Once the movie starts to build momentum and get to it's dirty and gore infused dark side you'll see where the made for TV similarities come to a halting screech.
The gore really picks up near the movies conclusion and it also has its moments during the building up, my only real complaint special effects wise in "Cyrus" is in a scene that involves a headshot, it is clearly done using CGI and it was done so badly any glimmer of realism was destroyed, other than that the special effects are nice and grimy just the way I like them, loads of latex and buckets of warm crimson ecstasy.
Over all I enjoyed the time I spent watching "Cyrus", while it's nothing special and breaks no molds it is none the less a fun watch and deserves to be checked out. On behalf of The Liberal Dead I give "Cyrus" a 6 out of 10 and recommend you give this one a chance.
"30 Days Of Night: Dark Days" is the follow up to the 2007 zompire flick "30 Days Of Night" based on a graphic novel of the same name by Steve Niles, and Ben Templesmith. In the first film, a sleepy Alaskan town is invaded by a horde of bloodthirsty vampires(zompires) during a 30 day stint of complete darkness.Some sources blame Sarah Palin for the event, but as of yet that is strictly speculation. The source material has possibly given birth to a new breed of vampires. No longer will the ghouls attack with precision to extract your blood, they'll just tear your ass limb from limb and lick it from their chops. they are quick, mean, dirty, and vicious, and at no point to they sparkle.
Before the film even gets started, it already has a few strikes against it. The setting has been changed from the dark, desolate Alaskan location to sunny Los Angeles. Much of what made the first film what it was was the sense of isolation. It managed to take a wide open space and turn it into a claustrophobic nightmare. Gone is this aspect, having been replaced with a bland urban terrain.
Strike two is that none of the original actors have returned to reprise their roles. The story centers entirely on Stella, and does so sans Melissa George. I'm sure this all boils down to money, as this time around it's a complete straight to video affair, but seriously, Melissa George couldn't have taken a day out of her busy schedule? Was she working too hard on her unimportant cameo in three episodes of the TV series "Lie To Me"? Whatever the case, and however interchangeable her presence was in the first film, recasting is never a good thing, and it does hamper the experience a bit.
Strike three, and the most unforgivable flaw in my opinion, is the use of ridiculous looking CGI for most of the FX in the flick. No squibs or blood packs are used for bullet hits, it's all been added in post production. There are some scenes of practical gore, but it sandwiched in between some of the worst looking CGI blood splatter I've seen since Romero's "Survival of the Dead". Decapitations are also handled this way, and it's completely laughable. I realize it's become cheaper to use digital effects than to mix up a batch of kayo and food coloring, but if you're already hindered by the lack of "star power" from the first film, and being dumped directly to DVD, why not pay a little extra attention to the effects, since that is usually the saving grace for flicks like this. Films like "30 Days Of Night" are a guilty pleasure for most of the horror fans I know. We're not looking to the series for deep prophetic life lessons, we want to see some fuckers eviscerated.
Kiele Sanchez, though she looks like the skanky crack-whore version of Amy Smart in "The Butterfly Effect", does an okay enough job as Stella this time around. After the initial annoyance of her recasting, she's generally easy to absorb. The story follows her as she travels to Los Angeles, trying to alert people as to what actually happened in her town. Along the way she meets up with a diverse, ragtag group of survivors of other attacks, so naturally they join up to hunt the vicious demons that they narrowly escaped once before. One of the most annoying characters in the film is Amber, played by DIora Baird. Amber is a shit talker, and insists that Stella will get them killed if they get into vampire combat. Of course, at the first sign of vampires, Amber flips her shit, screams and runs costing a team member their life. In fact, the entire cast of characters portray themselves as some kind of hardened veterans, but when the shit hits the fan, most of them are left with their cocks in their hands.
As a side story, the gang are being pursued by a dirty FBI agent, whom is apparently working with the vampires in order to be turned. Troy Ruptash plays Agent Norris, whom is apparently dying of lung cancer, and trying to be turned vampire before it happens. There actually isn't much pursuit, and his character isn't really pivotal to the rest of the story. Much like the rest of the characters, he's never developed, and is ultimately hanging around as a bit of cannon fodder.
The ultimate goal is to find and kill Lilith, played by Mia Kirshner. Lilith is apparently the horde's "queen" as it's stated numerous times that the horde doesn't make a move without her say so. The odd thing is, if she's so important, why is it she's running around out in the open when the "battle" is taking place. One would think you would protect your queen. Maddeningly, Lilith is never developed either. As for what her purpose is, other than showing off her naked, blood covered ass, I'm not sure. The lack of character development makes this film play out like a video game, and not a good one.
Even as guilty of a pleasure as the first film was, "Dark Days" can't even find it's way to that status. It's not all bad, there's a tad bit of fun to be had. It's good to see vampires being vicious and dirty once more, I just wish it was handled with a bit more finesse. Some script tweaks, a few returning actors, and some practical gore FX could have turned this into a must see. As it stands though, it falters in at a flick you may want to see if there are nu re-runs of House MD currently on one of the 10 different channels that run daily marathons. Fans of the first film will be annoyed, but likely be able to stomach their way through to the end. Those that hated the first, will no doubt hate the sequel even more. "30 Days" was a solid premise, and appeared to be a franchise with promise, but in the end, they went the cop-out route, and just vomited some shit on paper to try and cash in on the success of the original.
Turn down the lights, grab your popcorn and join your host, the master of the macabre Scarlet Fry, for a hellishly wicked fright-fest guaranteed to freeze your blood! Vengeful ghosts, walking dead cowboys and other ghastly beings abound in seven tales of shock and terror from beyond the grave. Equally horrific and humorous, "Nightmare Alley" is an over the top exercise in shock. Presented completely uncut and uncensored, it will scare the living yell out of you!
Unfortunately the claims above are far from backed up in "Nightmare Alley", compared to such films as "Creepshow" and "Grindhouse" via the back DVD cover, it will only take a few minutes with this film to make you realize you have been duped into watching another very poorly executed, overall just bad film that is marketed as campy low budget fun, when in reality it's simply a shitty film that tries to use its lack of budget as an crutch and reason to go ahead and be as cheesy and uninspired as humanly possible. What could of been a entertaining and fun Tromaville type film ends up falling way short due to lack of effort and a horribly written script that is packed with stereotypes and attempts at being "edgy" and "offensive" that may of shocked viewers in the 80s, but by today standards are all gags that can be accomplished with items found in your local chain store's Halloween seasonal isle.
Every last one of the stories included in "Nightmare Alley" are completely mind numbing and devoid of any creativity, punk and psychobilly fans are made to look like glue sniffing homophobes, something that I personally did not find amusing at all, honestly it felt like a group of twelve year olds who had just discovered punk rock and indie horror went to their local Target with 30$, wrote up a brief script with crayons, then proceeded to steal mom and dad's camcorder for an afternoon of goofing off with Halloween supplies for laughs.
The special FX are so poorly done that the "Uncut and Uncensored" marketing ploy really made me laugh, as I said above this may of been a shocking gore film in the 80s but today it simply came off as half assed and poorly thought out. I honestly could not find one redeeming quality to this film, from the dime store grade host, who looks like a blend of the emperor from "Starwars" and a meth head you'd see begging for change at the train station, to the sad attempts at shock humor, to the poor quality of special effects, there is really no reason for any human to pick up this film.
I watch a lot of indie and low budget horror films, trust me when I say this, there are far better films out there that deserve your dollar, if you see "Nightmare Alley" sitting on some random shelf or perhaps a table at your local horror convention just keep walking, save yourself the disappointment and yourself from losing time that can never again be regained.
On behalf of The Liberal Dead I give "Nightmare Alley" a 1 out of 10, and award for most likely to be used as target practice by an angry consumer who was hoping for an authentic "Creepshow" experience based on the back cover.
A young man tries to help a teenage European girl whom escaped from a clinic hospital after witnessing the murder of her parents by a serial killer and they try to find the killer before the killer finds them, in Dario Argento's "Trauma".
As much as I enjoyed this movie I do have one complaint, the pace in "Trauma" seemed excruciating slow at times, to be fair this also may be caused by the fact that I had watched "Sleepless" not too long ago for the site, which is a far more exciting and fast paced serial killer based film from Dario Argento. As far as Argento film's go this is one of the less impressive ones in my opinion, while it's not a bad movie it's also really nothing special at the same time, just you're average serial killer flick with the added bonus of some fun old school make up effects from the master himself Tom Savini.
Story wise I really was not a fan of "Trauma" for some reason it just seemed a bit silly to me, once again this may be caused by such a recent viewing of "Sleepless" which I feel is far superior to "Trauma" in every way. A lot of the time things just seemed to drag on, and even though it's not an extra long movie of any sorts it felt like it would never end by the time it all came full circle and in a very sudden way that seemed ultra rushed in my book, which made me think back and try to figure out why it felt so long yet the ending felt so short and tacked on at the last minute.
The special effects has its moments but it's clearly not Mr. Savini's best work, there is a few head decapitations that stand out from the rest but other than that nothing special once again just your average practical effects. After awhile I grew bored of the same old kill over and over again, I guess that is something one has to consider when pigeon holing your killer by giving them a certain method they always use to dispatch their victims with.
There's really not much I can say about this one, while I don't think it is a bad movie it is also nothing to get excited about really either on the other hand. If you find yourself bored one night and have yet to see "Trauma" toss it on I'm sure you will enjoy it well enough just don't expect to be blown away or go out of your way to see this one, in all honesty you won't miss much.
On behalf of The Liberal Dead I give Dario Argento's "Trauma" a 5 out of 10, and award for most humorous decapitation I've seen in a while involving an elevator.
As many of you already know by my review of "Resident Evil : Afterlife" I was very disappointed, well after I write my own review and have it up on the site often I like to go around the web and read what other critics had to say. Over and over again I see various websites saying sure it's got a terrible storyline, overuse of action movie gimmicks, a insanely hard to understand storyline, and characters with zero depth beyond the main Alice, but who cares you should expect this by now followed by most of the time a very high score. Is that really an excuse to make a bad film over and over again? The fans should be use to this by now? Is that really how a lot of movie goers feel at this point? I have never found myself saying oh well I know this is going to be a piece of shit movie but its I have no other options so I guess it's pretty good if you ignore all of its faults. If a movie has faults it should be held accountable for them plain and fucking simple, you can't sit there and tell me how many holes and how bad most areas of a film is then give it a 7+ score and expect me to not go what the fuck? And this isn't just something I saw with "Resident Evil: Afterlife" I see it time and time again, another prime example is the "Saw" series, let's face it people it's been pointless and simply a mindless oh look I have neat traps movie for a very long time, honestly "Saw" didn't need a sequel much less to become a yearly franchise of the same old movie repackaged again and again. And what kills me each time a new "Saw" is released, a lot of sites will talk about how needless the latest sequel is and how it's simply a showcase of creative ways to kill someone and go on and on about how uninspired the film is but then give it an amazing score and say but that is what you get with you see a "Saw" film after all and sometimes even end up saying they can't wait for the next one right after telling everyone how needless the current one was.
And don't get me wrong I'm not saying don't watch movies that make it to the theatre, but when you do if it's bad be honest about it, don't make excuses and candy coat the fact that the movie did not satisfy you as a viewer. And as I mentioned before on my Facebook, please stop watching movies solely based on the fact you think some popular sex symbol is hot and is featured in a movie, and once again if you can't resist and the movie is bad don't try and act like it's the best thing since sliced bread because fucking Mrs. tiger beat shows her boobs or because Mr. heart throb has killer abs.
If you want better movies, and are sick of being spoon fed the same old scripts with new pretty faces inserted to replace the last, simply stop watching them or at least make them accountable for what makes them bad movies and fall short of expectations of many.
And before anyone tries to accuse of me of not being a fan of the "Resident Evil" games or expecting the movies to follow the game storyline, don't bother, I have played all of the games, and after the first one become very aware of the fact that the films are very loosely based on characters from the game and the similarities end there. I'm simply just not willing to excuse a film for being bad for the sake of being loyal to an IP that I hold dear to some degree. And that is all I will say on the subject, talk to you all again next time I decide to rant.
First, a precursor to my thoughts. Yes, I enjoyed the “Resident Evil” video games as much as the next guy. I, however, was able to completely separate my feelings for the games, from my feelings for the movies. I didn't expect characters to stop once an hour and mess around with a typewriter in order to save their progress. I don't care that the movies don't follow the game's storyline. I knew going in to the first film that it was simply based on the game's likeness, and not meant to be a companion piece. I would also like to state that, unlike my partner in crime, I enjoyed the third film. I was perfectly aware that it was the weakest in the series up to that point, but was still able to enjoy it for the brain dead popcorn action flick that it was. I have no biases going into “Resident Evil: Afterlife”. I wasn't going into the film looking for things to hate. I just wanted to be entertained. So before anyone tries to discredit my opinion with such silly arguments, realize that you are wasting your breath. “Resident Evil: Afterlife” picks up where “Extinction” left off. The survivors are en route via chopper, to a supposed sanctuary in Alaska. Alice is on her way to the underground Umbrella headquarters with her army of clones. The opening scene leads the viewer to believe that there is going to be non-stop, gore soaked badassery. Despite it clearly borrowing(heavily) from every other action film made since John Woo's “The Killer”, Alice and her clones destroying a massive army of Umbrella foot soldiers was exciting to watch. Blood and body parts drenched the screen, and we felt like we were in for a hell of a good time. If you're planning on seeing this movie, hit a matinee up, and leave after this scene ends, because after this, it becomes completely incoherent, and somehow, in a world completely overrun by the walking dead, I found myself bored.
For a movie about zombies, the scenes involving zombies are practically non existent. A good portion of the film is set on top of a building surrounded by hundreds of thousands of the undead, so one would think that this horde is going to be utilized at some point throughout. One would be wrong. Aside from a very brief encounters with the diverse cast of characters, and some off-screen kills, the zombies are used as a backdrop. A means to justify making a zombie movie, but never turns into a tangible entity.
One thing I did enjoy about this film is the 3D. Those of you that have ever spoken to me will know, that this is really saying something. The 3D boom as of late has left a bad taste in my mouth. Films that have no business being in 3D(Step Up?) are being churned out by the metric fuckton. I think filmmakers would do themselves a service to claim beforehand, whether the film was originally intended to be in 3D, or if it was converted afterward to be so. Before “RE:A” my last 3D experience was with Alexandre Aja's “Piranha” remake. While there were a couple of scenes that made the 3D aspect of the film interesting(Piranha burping a penis toward the screen) for the most part it was headache inducing. Long, background heavy wide shots have no business being in 3D, it does not make for a pleasurable experience. The only film I had seen at the theater in this new 3D technology that I had enjoyed up until this point was the remake of “My Bloody Valentine”. The 3D in “RE:A” is very impressive. It blows away every other attempt at 3D cinema. The “RE” films have always looked gorgeous. Crisp, clear picture, with ultra popping colors, and supreme elements of detail have always made these films stand out. The original “RE” film on DVD looks better upscaled than a lot of Blu-Rays. Couple that with competent 3D technology, cinematography, and knowing when and why to use 3D, and you have a genuinely good experience. It's too bad that the film it's self was so terrible, otherwise this would have been the ultimate popcorn movie.
The one unforgivable mistake a film like this can make is to be boring. Aside from a couple of entertaining scenes, “RE:A” manages to be completely boring. It's hard to condemn a “Resident Evil” film for being unoriginal, but I think one of the main reasons it fails is because of the fore mentioned heavy borrowing from other films. Had the matrix style slow motion scenes been removed from the movie, it probably would have subtracted 20 minutes at least from the run time. One scene in particular brings the entire film to a halt, completely pauses, and then spins around showing us various angles of nothing happening. It's completely unnecessary. There are several scenes that were lifted directly from the matrix. One scene in particular that is shown in the film's trailers is a scene where our lead character dives out of a window backwards, and dual fires guns in bullet time, dodging falling glass. The film is riddled with this nonsense all throughout, and actually becomes even more unbearable in the final act. Something else you may recognize is the creatures look an awfully lot like the super vampires from “Blade 2” face splitting and all. I am aware that these are based on characters from the game, but they could have done a better job with the design. When Ted and I came out of the theater, I told him I thought Paul W.S. Anderson got really stoned one night, watched The Matrix, and Blade II, passed out and woke up the next day with a head full of ideas.
The acting is fine for the most part, but Shawn Roberts puts in a nauseatingly terrible performance as Albert Wesker. It may not be his fault, he may have just been told to give the camera his best Agent Smith impression, regardless, it's so bad that even if you've enjoyed the movie otherwise it will kill the mood for you.
If your film already has an R rating, why not use it? Despite a few random F-bombs here and there, and a couple of scenes of graphic beheadings at the beginning, the film is virtually bloodless. A lot of the deaths/kills are off-screen. There IS however, a very cool headshot. Brain matter flies at your face, and I must give credit where credit is due, that as pretty badass. Other than that though, there aren't any graphic deaths, Mila doesn't go gearless. The whole affair probably could have been given a really hard PG-13 if it weren't for the random F-bombs. If you've already went through the trouble of alienating the 12 year old demographic, why not give the audience you are now catering to what they want? I'm not saying more gore would have saved this terrible, terrible movie, but it couldn't have hurt.
“Resident Evil: Afterlife” may well be one of the worst films I've seen all year. It doesn't deliver any of the things that we've come to expect from the franchise. The previous films were never high art, but they were entertaining, which is the purpose of movies to begin with. If you can't hook your core audience, who are you making your film for? I'm giving this film a 3/10, which is fairly liberal. If it weren't for the excellent 3D effects, it would probably be closer to 1.5/10.
I'm not sure where to start when it comes to "Resident Evil : Afterlife", I went into this film totally unaware what it was about beyond it was the next Resident Evil film, I had avoided trailers and spoilers and sneak peeks successfully hoping that it would be a solid addition to the franchise, but at the same time was worried it would be more of what the third one served up, to my surprise the situation was much more dire as this is hands down the worse movie of the franchise thus far.
"Resident Evil : Afterlife" moves at such a slow and uninteresting pace that by the time you even see a "zombie" you are half asleep and wondering if you have been duped into a zombie less world. Don't fret this is not the case there are in fact billions and billions of flesh eating horde roaming the streets of the world, but you won't get to see many of them because the only time their interjected into the main story arch is when they need to dispose of a unneeded character, always in a sudden and unimaginative fashion and to the shock of myself with very little gore, but I will go into that later on in this review. The story felt thrown together and just void of any effort, with so many cases of "six months later"," 2 years later" etc it's hard to figure out the timeline during the first watch. And the ending felt so tacked on I started to have flashbacks from the "House of The Dead" film as quality comparison.
Where the fuck was the gore? Honestly the only real gore you see is when it comes to dispatching various umbrella baddies, most of the time when anything interesting occurs the camera cuts away and you are thrown away from the action into a new scene, very disappointing for any zombie fans out there hoping to see some people get eaten and such. The movie has a few nice special FX moments but not nearly enough to warrant seeing it, and to be fair some pretty awesome 3D scenes.
The over use of slow-mo, freeze frame, and bullet time made the movie feel like it would of been a better 45 minute short to be released as fan service, I honestly felt like I had been tossed into a time machine and transported to when "The Matrix" was first released and everyone and their mom was using the bullet time and slow-mo gimmick in their action flicks.
Over all I really disliked this film, from the bad use of outdated gimmicks, to the uninteresting disposable characters that felt like they were added in just so they could justify killing someone, to the sporadic time line the film attempts to create , it was all in all just a bad movie. My score on behalf of The Liberal Dead is a very weak and below average 3 out of 10 and award for most occurrences of "jumping the shark" I have witnessed in a single film to date.
Scars opens with the aftermath of a huge drug deal turned bloodbath. Bodies everywhere. A whole room painted with violence.... and an ominous 55 gallon drum in the corner. As it turns out the dealers where using dead babies to smuggle the drugs overseas. 1st page! This isn't even giving anything away. This is just a taste of the madness to come in following pages. This is just the first morning wake-up call for Detective John Cain, and partner Detective Amersham. The real story begins when a worker for a Christian charity shop finds 3 small card-board boxes after closing up for the night. Upon opening one she discovers something much more gruesome than moldy cloths, or expired can goods.
John Cain is a man coming back to the force after suffering a huge emotional loss, one he will never get over. For him this case hits close to home, and he obsesses over finding the person who could reduce an 11 year old girl to enough meat for 3 small boxes. He retraces her steps, and interviews everyone she knew. Tiffany is a very proud & privileged little girl. Her parents trust her enough to let her walk 3 blocks to her friend's house. She went missing for 3 months. 90 days. All of which she was alive for - enduring a slow torture, claims the pathologist. Worst part is that this was just the first. The cruel craft of a serial killer who just recently realized what he liked to do. John Cain will not rest until justice for Tiffany is served.
This comic IMO is a brutal modern day noir. Warren Ellis, (Transmetropolitan, No Hero, Black Gas, and Black Summer) shows how sometimes a good cop needs to get dirty, because sometimes even justice can't make things right. Sometimes evil must be made to suffer. His dark look at humanity, and how the world really is, does wonders for this story. Making it better, more horrific, honest, & human then anything CSI could ever flash at you. Teamed up with Jacen Burrows (Chronicles of Wormwood, 303, Crossed) who lends his clean, crisp, matter-of-fact, pencils to this savage crime-drama. Sharply rendered in black and white giving it that gritty, urban, concrete, feel of the beat. It provides a dark, dead-serious tone to the plot.
This is a great way to get introduced to both/either of these talented writer/artists. It's short. Only one TPB long, but god damn is it powerful. I would give it a 9-10 solely based on the fact that I could read it forever, and the end seemed a bit rushed so I had to subtract a point to be fair. Do yourself a solid and get this. You won't be sorry, and even if you are it only took about 1 hour to read.
Horror fans are a loyal bunch of freaks. Maybe, because our chosen genre is sneered and looked down upon by highbrow critics who prefer costume to cannibal epics, or because we’re seen as the unwashed armpit of the cinema body, we feel the need to stick together and fight it out. And we love it when one of our own breaks out from simply being a fanatic and becomes the filmmaker. Like a faithful dog, if you throw us a bloody bone and tickle our ears, we’ll be with you and support you until the bitter end. When Adam Green walked on stage at Frightfest to introduce Hatchet II he received a hero’s welcome that almost took the paint from walls of the Empire theatre. Green is one of us, a thirty-five year old splatter-fanatic who grew up idolizing Romero and Raimi and then proved his chops with the excellent Hatchet, a film that was a delicious throwback the glory days of 80’s horror and set up an instant icon in the psychotic hulk of Victor Crowley. It may have been pure old-school and may have ticked many of the obvious boxes, but Hatchet was a rough little gem that deserved the reception it got. Like Trick R Treat, it was proud of its roots, and proud to be a gore flick.
It’s this simple. If you didn’t like the first, you won’t like the sequel. Hatchet II picks up where the first left off with Marybeth (Danielle Harris from those pissy Halloween sequels) escaping from the deformed arms of Crowley (Kane Hodder) following the slaughter of her swamp tour. Back in town she secures the services of Reverend Zombie (Tony Todd, who’s obviously having a great time) to bring the bodies back from the swamp. The strange Zombie agrees, assembles a motley gang of mercenaries that would give Stallone and his expendables a run for their money, and together they head back to the wetlands on a mission to exterminate Crowley for good.
Green takes time to flesh out his characters and introduce the next band of victims to enter Crowley’s gut-drenched house with a cracking ‘found footage’ sequence, and we learn more on the back story of Crowley with scenes of his Father, also played by a prosthetic-less Hodder, that echoes old stalk-and slash classic The Burning and a thousand others but is none the worse for it, as Hatchet II (and Green) isn’t afraid to blatantly show it’s influences. The film is also shot through with some good humor and great gags, a hysterical sex scene being a highlight.
Where the movie really shines though is with a series of brilliant kill scenes that showcase some of the best gore effects seen in years. Keeping in tune with the past they’re all done practically and in camera, with belt sander and the biggest chainsaw I’ve seen since Leatherface in operation. This film delivers the splatter in spades without any hint of the CGI so common for lazy filmmakers and so hated by fans who know the real uses of karo syrup and latex on set. Hatchet II is a throwback to the era Green came up, a love letter to the VHS generation. It’s not perfect; Harris’s performance grates in places and occasionally it does feel like we’re biding our time until the next death, but these are very minor gripes in a film that improves in every way over it’s predecessor.
Green rocked Frightfest four years ago as a no-one with the original Hatchet and has returned every year since, feature or not, to watch films and pass the time with fans. He promised the World premiere of Crowley’s bloody return would take place in London and was good to his word. Hatchet II might not have the sophistication of his previous picture Frozen but it does show respect, passion and a love for our down-trodden genre. It’s easy to get caught up in the enthusiasm of a festival screening but Hatchet II really was the perfect way to kick off the weekend. A slick, sick thrill-ride, and buckets of grisly fun.
Upon the release of the campy slasher sub-genre tribute "Hatchet", director Adam Green because a horror movie rockstar, practically overnight. Some say he deserves it, some say the opposite. Regardless, Green had instantly become a household name. "Frozen" wasn't treated with the same level of hype that "Hatchet" was. So far, the biggest push for the film's success has come in the form of positive reviews across the horror blogosphere. In the interest of full disclosure, I hate it when people compare films to "Jaws". Any time I see "Does for blah blah blah what Jaws did for blah blah blah", I instantly want to hate the film. I think it's a tired comparison, but maybe that's just a peronsal pet peeve. If I were to compare the film to anything, I would say it's "Open Water" on a ski lift. That may or may not sound appealing to you, but it really is an example of solid film making.
"Frozen" follows three friends as they visit a mountain resort for some skiing/snowboarding. Not having enough money for all three of them to purchase ski lift tickets, the girl of the group sweet talks the lift operator into a discount price. Arriving late in the day, and spending most of their time on the bunny slopes, the trio talk the operator into letting them go up the mountain one more time, even though they are shutting down the mountain for the week. After granting their request, the need to take a leak causes him to pass the proverbial torch to another employee, he makes sure and tells him to not shut it down till the last three come down the hill, unfortunately, there are actually three on the hill, and three still on the lift. After the operator sees three skiiers clearing the bottom of the hill, he shuts the lift down, and begins to shut the lights down for the long week. Our three friends are now trapped in mid-air, and have just realized that there will be nobody to save them till the following Friday.
If you're looking for a brutal hack and slash, campy slasher, or grizzly revenge tale, you're looking in the wrong place. "Frozen" is terrorizing from a psychological standpoint. Yes, there are some cringe inducing moments, but they take a backseat to the overwhelming sense of dread. It's quite an accomplishment to take a concept such as three people stranded on a ski lift in the middle of it's run, and keep people on the edge of their seats. Jaws references aside, this is exactly what Green does. The range of emotions that are portrayed by the characters are cognate to those that one would feel if in the same situation. Add the isolation to the height, and the harsh weather conditions, and it creates an absolutely dreadful scenario.
Luckily for us, Green insisted on filming everything practically. This means, not only are scenes of body damage genuine, and lacking in CG, but there is no green screen to give the actors a sense of relief while filming. Personally, I think this added to the performances, dangling in the air would have to increase one's sense of anxiety, which pays off well when that is what the actor is trying to relay to the audience. Not to mention that the few moments of gore presented in the film are that much better. Some filmmakers don't realize what a difference this makes. Sure, in some cases CG may be easier on your budget, but if it's handled poorly(which most instances of CGI are) it takes the viewer out of the film. It's hard to create a creepy atmosphere, or dreadful, tense situations when your audience is busy laughing at your cartoony, piss-poor excuse for special effects.
The acting is superb across the board. Emma Bell, who has scored a role on AMC's upcoming comic-based zombie epic "The Walking Dead' turns in a particularly convincing performance as Parker, the intruding girlfriend. Emma brings a sense of authenticity to her role, and I look forward to seeing what she can do in the fore mentioned series. Shawn Ashmore, who some may remember as Iceman in the X-Men movies, or for the horror buffs, he played Eric in "The Ruins", puts in a pitch perfect performance as the quirky, jealous best friend.Kevin Zegers, whom some may recognize from the "Air Bud" movies, or more to the point, Evan, from "Wrong Turn" plays the boyfriend trying to keep the peace between his girlfriend, and his best friend. Also making an appearance as a staff member of the ski spot is Kane Hodder. It's a hell of a cast, and they work well together to create a genuinely terrifying cinematic experience.
Despite the lack of hype this time around, I was worried that "Frozen" would get a little more praise than it deserved. I enjoyed "Hatchet" as much as the next slasher fan, but there are those out there that treat it as the holy grail of horror. "Frozen" proves to me that there's a superbly talented filmmaker within Adam Green, and I look forward to his more serious entries into the genre. "Frozen" is a slow burning, psychologically terrifying film, so it may not be for everyone. Fans of "Hatchet" will most likely be disappointed if they're going into this picture expecting the same level of comedic campiness. Fans of slow paced thrillers, almost in a Hitchcockian sense will be pleasantly surprised. I am comfortable to highly recommend "Frozen" . Actually, if you have the means, pick up the Blu ray when it drops on September 28th. The picture, filmed in 35mm really pops in it's crisp full 1080p presentation.
I’ve seen The Abomination about five times now, which means that it’s the movie I’ve seen the most out of my collection gore/exploitation/bad movie flicks—not counting Manos: The Hands of Fate, which I’ve seen about fifteen times. The first time I saw it was by myself—the second, with a friend and my family, and then with a group of friends, and finally twice again by myself. It’s good. It’s not the perfect gore film—that honor, in my humble opinion, goes to Don’t Go in the Woods—but it’s very good. I almost feel bad saying that—that it should rightfully be more, but I can’t go that extra mile. Lemme talk about it a little bit. Cody Lee is a teenager (I think) who enjoys barbecue, his girlfriend, and ignoring his religion-crazed mother. She is a little crazy and if the lighting’s just right she looks like she’s rotting. She can’t take her eyes off Brother Fogg, a televangelist who talks about the Whore of Babylon. Cody has dreams about killing his friends and feeding them to a mouth-in-a-cupboard called the Abomination, which he states (to his psychiatrist in a frame story I failed to mention), is that described the “Prophecy of Daniel” (weren’t there several?). “Max Raven”, in reality Bret McCormick, obviously has something against religion—let’s keep watching.
Cody’s mom believes she has a lung tumor, which Brother Fogg heals her of—she coughs it up. Then, it crawls inside Cody’s mouth while he sleeps, and he begins to become fond of wearing sunglasses. Those sunglasses mean trouble for anyone who gets in Cody’s path, and soon he starts committing the murders he sees in his dreams, taking small periods in between to cough a lot and yell at his mother. And that’s essentially the whole movie up until the climax—killing, yelling, killing, yelling. Cody’s mom goes to Brother Fogg to pay him for removing the tumor, and mentions that she wants him to exorcise Cody, whom she (correctly) deduces to be possessed. Here the sound sync on my tape goes a little off, so a silo laughs instead of Brother Fogg—one of Cody’s friend’s head hits the ground and makes the noise of the shovel that killed him, while the blow itself is completely silent. It’s mildly amusing.
It’s around this time, too, that the movie starts to get a little weird. Remember how I said that Cody was explaining everything to his psychiatrist in that frame story? Throughout the entire film, Cody appears desperate to find peace from the demonic thing living in his head—but after this point, his voice deepens and he starts preaching about how humanity should exist only to be sent down the gullet of the Abomination. I understand that he’s supposed to be possessed, but it’s a weird shift overall. It’s off. I can’t quite properly explain it.
So, to wrap things up, Cody feeds his mom to the Abomination in a long (very long) sequence, stirs a pot of viscera, is impaled by his girlfriend who gets eaten anyway, and then it was revealed that yes, Bret McCormick was one of those exploitation filmmakers who thought that taking the concept for an ending from The Wizard of Oz was original (no offense, Bret). Still, the ending dialogue between Cody—now revealed as a lunatic (shock!)—and his doctor leaves me satisfied.
I couldn’t hope to bear a sixth view of The Abomination—it was great at first but now I just need to rest. I guess that means it’s not one of my favorite movies, because when I designate a movie as my favorite I could watch for the next sixty years nonstop and never get sick of it. Maybe I’ll review one of my favorites someday. Still, finding a copy of this beast is about as tough as it gets—I got lucky. Shortly after I got my copy I actually had the honor of communicating with Glen Coburn, the director of the 1984 Bloodsuckers from Outer Space, who is a close friend of Matt Devlen, creator of The Abomination’s sister film, Ozone! Attack of the Redneck Mutants; via him I communicated with Matt, now the owner to the rights of both films, to try to secure some kind of DVD release for The Abomination. Unfortunately, that went nowhere, making this a sort of Holy Grail, one of many in the horror film biz. We can all dream, can’t we?
An elderly and retired police detective and a young amateur sleuth team up to find a serial killer whom has resumed a killing spree in Turin, Italy after a 17-year hiatus in Dario Argento's masterpiece "Sleepless".
Strangely enough, I had not seen "Sleepless" before hand, after viewing this movie I now consider it not only to be the best serial killer sub-genre horror film I have ever seen, but also my new favorite Dario Argento creation. To start things off I have to mention the fact this film contains one of the best soundtrack's ever, by the notorious Goblin. The use of their music in key scenes is just as important as any line of dialog in this film when it comes to understanding what's going on, an art form that today is mostly lost. You feel each note, turning it into unadulterated fear and high tension, each stanza bringing you closer to an outcome that you can feel in your bones will be nothing short of petrifying.
My top three favorite horror sub-genres are as follows, the alien abduction, the haunting, and the serial killer sub-genre, by far this is the best example of the serial killer genre I have ever had the pleasure of viewing. The script can only be described as fine art that deserves to be cited and analyzed within the walls of film schools across the world. Dario Argento is a genius plain and simple, and takes you on a who done it journey that will leave you flabbergasted when all the pieces fall together, and the killer is revealed to all. "Sleepless" has just enough plot twists in just the right places to keep your attention at all times, never does it feel like the film is killing time, or that it was wrapped up suddenly with a bad tacked on ending like many of today's films. Also I really enjoyed the use of the nursery rhyme it really added to creepy factor, and as a writer made the killer that much more interesting to me.
The special FX as always in a Dario Argento film are ultra gritty and intensely graphic, gore hounds will not be let down by "Sleepless" all though its story is more crime / drama / thriller than horror, the kills are nothing less than pure splatter in its purest and rawest form. "Sleepless" features some of the most aggressive kills, I have ever seen in a movie of its kind, there were many times where I had to scream "holy shit" out loud during various kill scenes.
Dario Argento was always a inspiration to me do to him being very Hitchcock like, but unlike Hitchcock he also has a real eye for creating some truly gory, stomach churning scenes of violence. All the studios out there today trying to make movies as shocking as possible but fail due going to over the top and unrealistic should take note of "Sleepless" and its very believable and jaw dropping gore, sometimes less is more.
Overall I loved this film, I found not one thing to complain about, which is very rare when you watch as many movies per week as I do. On behalf of The Liberal Dead and Dario Argento month I give "Sleepless" a well deserved 10 out of 10 and award for most brutal headshot ever in film, yes more impressive than "Maniac" and "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" remake.
Next to zombies, the "body-snatcher" sub genre of horror is one of my most guilty of pleasures. Generally, I can be entertained by even poorly made examples of this type of film making. In my mind, two flicks within the past several years have pretty much set the benchmark for the modern parasitic romp, those being "Splinter", and "Alien Raiders". The advertising for Anchor Bay's "Growth" led me to believe that I would be in for a treat for this one. Based on their explanation, and several outside reviews, it seemed right up my alley. Unfortunately, this was not the case.
"Growth" never really establishes what it's actually about. We follow a family as they travel to a remote island to sell off a piece of real estate that they've received in the will of a dead relative. Meanwhile, some of the most bland looking CGI parasites are creeping around in the woods, ready to take a host. Apparently, some years ago a scientist was doing some sort of experimentation with parasites. First, to engineer the worlds most perfect pearls, and next to create the perfect human. Of course, things didn't go as planned, and an outbreak ensued, leaving the townsfolk to forever defend themselves from the creatures, killing any one of them that becomes infected.
This is one of the slowest burning body-snatchers style film that I've ever seen. As I staggered through to the one hour mark, little to nothing had actually happen, nor had characters been busy developing. We're never really formally introduced to any one character, nor are we given any reason to either sympathize, identify with , or learn anything from any of them. Most of what some would consider "action" doesn't take place until the final act, and even then, it's fairly boring, and leads to an anti-climactic ending.
A film that Gorezone magazine called "Grim, bloody, and unsettling" were none of the three. Aside from a few scenes that last fractions of a second, it was virtually bloodless. There is one scene that felt tacked on just to draw the gore fans in, but it's definitely not enough to save the rest of the movie.
There was nothing particularly wrong with the performances, but the script was as weak as it could be. Some of the dialog felt like it was lifted straight from "General Hospital".
Generally, I love slow burning films. Ti West's "House of the Devil" is one of my all time favorites, and 9.9/10 percent of that film is strictly build up. If handled well, you can smack the audience in the face with the shovel in the final act, and have them feel it that much more. That is, if you spent the first hour plus of your film developing characters for us to care about, or at least creating a mood. "Growth" does neither. It may be better than whatever is currently running on the SyFy channel, but surely there are better films that you could waste your time with. "Growth" gets a 4/10, and an award for the strangest use of the Grandfather from "Grounded For Life".
Three years ago in Mexico, determined Federally Machete (Danny Trejo) is betrayed and set-up by his boss, resulting in his wife and child being murdered by drug kingpin Torrez (Steven Seagal). Now, in Texas, Machete resurfaces when hired to assassinate Senator McLaughlin (Robert De Niro), an extreme advocate against illegal immigration in the 2010 masterpiece "Machete".
I want to start off with a quick cast rundown, Danny Trejo, Robert De Niro, Jessica Alba, Steven Seagal, Michelle Rodriguez, Cheech Marin, Don Johnson, Lindsay Lohan,and the great Tom Savini all featured in the same film, and not your typical bullshit Hollywood action flick but a gore infused grind house experience that will leave you speechless and dying to take the ride it provides again and again. Every real movie fan has a selection of films that they saw in a theatre setting that they will never forget, films that provided experiences that would be forever embed into the subconscious of the viewer for the rest of their days here on earth. Honestly I have to state right now that I have not had as much in a theatre as I did watching "Machete" since I viewed the first Crow film on the big screen, which means a lot coming from me ask anyone who personally knows me and they will inform you of my obsession with "The Crow" franchise.
Danny Trejo's portrayal of Machete can only be described as the blending of El Mariachi and Jason Voorhee into one unstoppable killing machine. The brutality of this film is far beyond even what the red band trailer gave hints too, I at some point lost count of the number of severed limbs that were present in this blood soaked special FX work of art.
Every last person involved in this film stood out and created memorable characters that will be quoted and referenced too for decades to come. Michelle Rodriguez's performance is one I will not soon forget; she really impressed me with her role as Luz. But in the end my favorite character in this film is Padre played by the legend himself Cheech Marin, his dialog and just over all screen time in "Machete" are nothing short of incredible.
Bottom line, if you are a fan of grind house action films, you will not be let down with "Machete" it's everything you could want rolled up into one neat package, I am beyond comfortable saying that this is the best movie I have seen in 2010 so far, and to go even further the best movie in general I have seen in many years. I had so much fun watching "Machete", I highly recommend it be viewed with a handful of popcorn, an ice cold beverage, and perhaps with bloodshot eyes for full enjoyment, but whatever you do make sure you see this movie the way it should be seen on a big screen with crisp high def surround sound.
On behalf of The Liberal Dead I give "Machete" a well deserved 10 out of 10 and award for most effective male enhancement, this movie packs so much testerone that you'll balls will increase in size three fold during your viewing.
Aside from everything else going for it, it’s worth seeing The Last Exorcism purely for the astonishing performance of Ashley Bell. Without the aid of any effects, CG or wirework Bell twists, contorts and burns her vocal cords out in her effort to become demonic. Watching her go from raging maniac to sweet and innocent in the space of seconds is remarkable. In a just world she would scoop every acting award available. Her role is central to the film and like everything else about this production it’s spot on.
The problem making any movie with exorcism as it’s key element is it’s always in competition. It may be 37 years old, it may have been lampooned in numerous forms and it may now seem dated to the playstation generation, but The Exorcist is still, and will always be, king of the hill. Sensibly director Daniel Stamm takes us down a different route. Cotton Marcus is a protestant minister who has got into the exorcism game to con the weak-willed and religious-faithful out of their hard-earned cash, proving that as long as his subjects truly believe in his power he can say anything during his act. When Marcus invites a camera crew to follow him and document his work it becomes apparent that he is a fraud, and the documentary is to be his confession. He picks one letter from the many hundreds he receives yearly and his plan is to show the audience his tricks while driving out the devil one last time. The letter he chooses is from southern farmer Louis Sweetzer, whose teenage daughter Nell (Bell) is killing livestock on midnight walks around the farm with no memory of doing so. The Sweetzers seem like perfect targets. The family are heavily religious, with the Father not allowing his kids to school because he feels the world has too many bad influences, and it doesn’t take long for Marcus to convince him that Nell has a demon living inside her. If she does or not is the primary question.
Patrick Fabian plays Marcus as a showman, an actor putting on a fine show who is starting to believe his work may be harmful to his subjects. His loss of faith is pivotal and the scares really begin when he realizes that his words may be pushing Sweetzer to take Nell’s life for her own good. Possession or a mental illness, regardless, are much the same thing to Sweetzer, and when Marcus tries to admit he may not be able to help Nell he’s told that the Father will deal with it himself, by shotgun The girl’s Brother initially protests against Marcus’s involvement, only backing off when he realises that the preacher is a fake, which sets up a superb third act that turns everything against Marcus, including some hard-to-argue with supernatural happenings, that very quickly spiral out of control.
The docu-horror genre has been flogged to death but The Last Exorcism keeps I fresh, with much of that credit coming from a quality screenplay that never steps over the line into absurdity, subtle performances and a style that harks back to seventies thrillers. It’s been suggested that a horror film shouldn’t be PG-13 (12 in UK) but if there was ever a film that can work with that rating it’s this one. The Sweetzers are religious people, and the movie features little violence, no profanity and no nudity, because in their lives there aren’t any. The horror of The Last Exorcism comes from the situation Cotton Marcus finds himself in, the deep and hidden problems from Nell’s past, and where the film takes us.
Ah yes, the end. The final few minutes of this film have been much discussed, and certainly divided a portion of the audience during it’s premiere at Frightfest. Good movies are as much about misdirection as anything else, and those who don’t fully understand the last few shots haven’t been paying attention throughout. It pulls the rug from under your feet without cheating you and without destroying the movie, as some voices have claimed. You may not like the ending, you may not even agree with it, but it is a conclusion that you will talk about. Ultimately, on a low budget with very few of the tricks employed by Hollywood for cheap, throwaway thrills, The Last Exorcism emerges as a very frightening film. It is also one of the best of the year, in any genre, and is highly recommended.
A successful Wall Street trader returns to England with her new husband and five-year-old son, but their new start together turns into a nightmare when they move into a country house which contains a terrible secret in Anthony Hickox's "Knife Edge"
Regular readers of the site know that I love paranormal / haunted location flicks, I spent over two years doing investigations with a paranormal team when I lived in Ohio called R.I.P Ohio *Waves to V and all the old crew* so naturally I'm drawn to this subgenre like a fly to a bug zapper's hypnotic glow.
This movie plays out at such a slow pace you'll find yourself asking "what the fuck am I doing" on more than one occasion as if your brain is trying to forget the movie as you watch it as an attempt to save valuable brain cells from committing suicide to end the dull drool inducing pain caused by "Knife Edge"
For some reason and it may just be a case of bad dubbing but everyone in this movie speaks in a very quiet almost golf announcer like voice. It's like a blend of golf and late night poker on your television, I found myself fighting sleep like I just ate a handful of Lunesta's on multiple occasions.
The story is a blend of all the great 70s and 80s haunted house films, you'll see hints of "The Changeling", "Burnt Offerings", even a little dosage of "The Shining" and various others. Sadly though this movie is nothing like any of the films it borrows from, sometime so blatantly you'll find yourself shaking your head in disbelief.
The cover art is very misleading, it makes it look like you're in store for a real blood bath but in reality there is very little gore in this film with only a bit at the last moments for the most part, but nothing that really stands out beyond just your basic special FX.
Honestly this film had zero redeeming qualities and see no reason for anyone to bother looking for this one unless they are simply desperate for something new to watch. On behalf of The Liberal Dead I give "Knife Edge" a 2 out of 10 and award for best multimedia sleep aid I've ever experienced.
