MMM Day 5: #338 -- Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

Director: Francis Ford Coppola
Rating: 3 / 5

I wanted to include Dracula in this week's monster madness, but I already reviewed the 1931 movie a while ago. I found this on demand, and I jumped on it. I've gone against everything I believe in. I have now seen two Dracula movies, and I haven't read the book. The shame!

I love Bela Lugosi as Dracula. To me, he is Dracula, and he always will be. This variation on the Count was interesting, to say the least. I thought Gary Oldman did a good job with the role, and the character was definitely creepy and different. But I just couldn't let myself believe that it was Dracula. He was a monster out of a child's nightmare. He could transform his looks at the blink of an eye -- from young to old, from human-like to werewolf to giant bat-creature. I'm familiar with vampires being able to transform into other beasts, but...the way I like it, they turn into regular bats and wolves. It seems more natural that way, if that makes any sense. The reason that I love Bela's Dracula is because he is natural. He was a monster disguised as a human; very sophisticated and romantic. This Dracula tried to be those things, but I just didn't feel it like I did with Bela. He lived in an enormous castle in Transylvania, he wore extravagant clothing, and he spoke with eloquence. But it just wasn't the same.

The love story at play here felt more like Romeo and Juliet than anything. In the beginning, we see Dracula with his lover, Elisabeta. Assuming (for reasons I didn't catch) that Dracula was dead, she took her own life. Dracula then stabbed a cross, from which gallons of blood spewed, and somehow turned himself into a vampire, swearing that he would avenge her death one day. How you can avenge someone's suicide is beyond me. Jump to the 1800s, and the story picks up in familiar territory. Jonathan Harker traveling to Transylvania to meet with the Count with real estate business. He ended up seduced and held captive by Dracula's three brides, while the Count went to London to seduce Jonathan's wife-to-be, Mina. Even though she barely knew him, and was apparently deeply in love with Jonathan not long before, she fell in love with Dracula. She married Jonathan anyway, even though she knew that she wanted someone else. Then she let Dracula transform her, and tried to protect him as Jonathan, Van Helsing, and some other people set out to kill him.

It sounds good, now that I write it out. And I guess the story is pretty good, it just wasn't executed in a way that I could get behind. The love story wasn't developed quite enough, and I couldn't feel the love that they supposedly felt for one another (neither Mina and Jonathan's, nor Mina and Dracula's). It didn't leave a mark. That love story is actually the only part of the movie that I was able to follow, since that was the main plot point going on here. The rest could have been cut out and I wouldn't feel any differently. I felt like I just couldn't follow the movie. Every couple of minutes, I felt like it had skipped and that I'd missed something. I just didn't get it. Though I did like Gary Oldman somewhat, the rest of the characters just didn't sit well with me. His was the only one that was actually developed; the rest were dull and forgettable.

Visually, the movie was great. I loved the atmosphere at work, and the cinematography looked good. The special effects were also striking, and it felt like a gothic fairy tale. A low budget movie with no effects or fancy camera work can still be a great movie if it has a great story to back it up. But a movie with all the technology to its disposal will still fail if the story is lacking that special something. That is the case with Bram Stoker's Dracula. Again, I haven't read the book; but those who have say that this is an awful adaptation. I'm not sure how the 1931 movie holds up for those people. But for me, sixty years, a lot of money and fancy equipment did not make a better movie.

#288 -- Mirrors (2008)

Director: Alexandre Aja
Rating: 3.5 / 5

First of all, I want to say that I liked this movie. But I'm pissed. After watching it, I did a little digging - as I often do - and realized that it has happened to me again. I have watched (and enjoyed) a movie that I had not realized was a remake. Ugh. But I don't know why I'm acting so shocked, since the reason I even did a little digging in the first place was because I had a feeling it might be. Pretty much everything is these days, but still! Mirrors is a remake of a 2003 Korean movie called Into the Mirror.  I've looked on Netflix and Blockbuster and wasn't able to find it, so it looks like I'm going to have to do some serious digging if I'm to watch the original. One day I will, and we'll see how this one stands up when that day comes. But until then, let's take a look at how it stands on its own.

Kiefer Sutherland stars as Ben Carson, an ex police officer trying to get back on his feet and hold his family together. He takes a job as a night watchmen at a burned down, abandoned old department store in order to make ends meet for the time being. Why an abandoned building that's no longer in use even needs a security guard, I'm not sure. Regardless, Ben shows up to take the place of the old watchmen who is now dead. When he arrives, the man who works the shift before him says something about not looking at the mirrors, and that the other guy was obsessed with cleaning them constantly. So we know immediately (as if the title wasn't enough to clue us in) that these mirrors are not normal. Pretty soon, Ben starts to see some strange things in the mirrors; like, when he moves, his reflection doesn't, or vice versa. He also sees charred bodies in the mirror that are not actually there. He gets good and scared, and he finally realizes that it's not just the mirrors in the building; that whatever this is, whatever is trapped inside, can travel between any mirror that it wants to. It can follow him home. It can torture and kill his family if he doesn't do what it wants him to. And what it wants him to do is find a person who the whole world believes is dead. Many before him have tried, but none have succeeded. Will Ben be able to find this person and save his family from what's trapped inside the mirrors?

The story behind the mirrors was pretty interesting, though it's a little bit weird. None of that really mattered, though, because what I was interested in was the alternate dimension aspect of the movie. The fact that Ben could see things in the mirrors that he couldn't see normally was very intriguing. That and the fact that these spirits, or demons, or whatever they were, could travel to his home was also interesting. Oh, and not only could they travel through mirrors, but they could make themselves visible in windows, and water - anything that could make a reflection. Nowhere was safe. Ben and his wife painted all the mirrors and put newspaper over all the windows and photos, but they forgot about the doorknobs and the bathtub. So even though they went to all these measures to make sure they'd be safe, they still weren't. Ben still had to go find this mysterious person who wasn't extremely willing to help him. It was a race against the clock when it came right down to it, and it almost cost his family their lives.

Amy Smart gets a face lift.

I thought pretty much everything about the movie was good. The effects were great, and there were some pretty grisly murders going on here. Amy Smart played Ben's sister, Angie, and her death was the most gruesome and fantastic. It was absolutely phenomenal. The spirits inside the mirrors looked pretty wicked as well. The ending was sad, and not at all what I'd hoped for. But it was good, and I can understand it, so I can't really fault it for going in a direction that I didn't quite agree with. It's only because I'd hoped for a happy ending, and I didn't really get it. But oh well, shit happens. I wasn't disappointed with the ending; just sad.

Even though it is a remake, and probably mainly because I didn't know that at first, Mirrors is definitely not a bad movie. I have to fault it a little bit for not being original, but other than that...I dug it.

#254 -- 13 Days of Creepmas Day 8: Black Christmas (2006)

Rating: 2 / 5
Director: Glen Morgan

I have officially changed my opinion of the original Black Christmas. It was only a couple of days ago that I watched it, so it's still pretty fresh in my mind. I remember the problems I had with it, but none of those issues seem valid any longer. This just goes to show that a higher budget and better effects doesn't always make a better movie.

This is going to have some spoilers because I'm assuming, if you're reading this, you've already seen the original. If you haven't, then you should, and this review won't really ruin too much of the original for you. Okay, so there's sorority girls getting murdered. That much doesn't change. But it's different from the original in almost every other way.

Let's try something different today and make a list. So, here are the ways that it differs from the original.

1) I was on the lookout for the very first kill in the movie. In the original, it was the "virgin" character, and she was suffocated in her closet. I couldn't really tell which murder was supposed to resemble that one, except for..all of them. The only time someone wasn't suffocated was when they had their eyes gouged out. These two things did play a part in the story, though, so I guess it's okay.
2) You'll remember that, in the original, we knew absolutely nothing about the killer, Billy. And I mean, nothing. Aside from the fact that he was crazy, of course. But this one starts off with telling us all about him. So we really do get a look into his mind and memories, perhaps a little too much (most notably when he was raped by his mother, creating an inbred spawn that would grow up to help him kill the sorority sisters. That would be the mysterious "Agnes," by the way). Oh, and Billy had some sort of liver disease that caused him to be born with yellow skin. Does this play an important role in the story? No, not really. The only thing I could get was that was the reason that his mother hated him. Maybe. Or maybe they just thought he'd be scarier if he was yellow? I really have no fucking clue why they decided on taking that route. It honestly makes no sense whatsoever. But who am I to question their motives?
3) There was no red herring in this one. In the original, we were made to believe that it was Jess's boyfriend killing the girls and making the weird phone calls. But here, we knew right off the bat who was doing it. I did see something that seemed like an attempt to throw us off, but it was a terrible attempt and only lasted for two seconds.
4) It wasn't able to build suspense like the original one, I think mostly because we knew everything about Billy within ten minutes of the movie. They all had cell phones, and a caller ID, so when the phone calls came, they automatically knew they were coming from their friends' phones...inside the house. So there was no, "Oh shit, he's here!" moment.
5) In the original, Billy's phone calls were disturbing and terrifying. Not here. They consisted mostly of, "she's my family now," and "I'm going to kill you." Whoop de freakin' doo da. He did change voices occasionally, but it was nothing like the original. Where, originally, the phone calls were the most interesting and terrifying aspect, in this one I just didn't care. About anything.
6) They actually decided to check the attic for their missing friends!

Let's talk a little more about Billy, since that's really the only thing worth noting. So, he was born yellow, we got that. His mother hated him, and she hated her husband as well. She and her lover decided to kill her husband by suffocating him with a trash bag. Billy witnessed this murder, and so his loving mommy locked him up in the attic (which explains, I guess, why he decided to lock everyone up there.) One night, Billy's mom and stepdad were getting busy on the staircase, and the guy fell asleep. Angry, but still horny, his mom went up to the attic and got some from him. Nine months later, Agnes arrived. Mom loved Agnes, for whatever reason. When Billy realized that other children (including his sister) had a normal Christmas, while he was stuck in the attic, he lost his marbles and decided to kill everyone. He succeeded with mom and stepdad, but Agnes got away with just a missing eye.

Oh, another thing that's different: there are two killers. Yep. When you see someone get suffocated with a trash bag, that's Billy. Missing eye? That's Agnes' handy work. Agnes grew up to be one ugly bitch who looked an awful lot like a man--probably because she was played by a man. There were no cops. No John Saxon to save the day. Just Harriet the Spy, one of the "Mean Girls," and a bunch of other characters no one cares about. Even the "Barb" character, who stayed drunk the entire time, wasn't entertaining.

I now have a better appreciation for the original movie. Then, I thought knowing nothing about Billy was a problem. Now I see that it was better that way. Maybe if they had created a better character for him in the remake (one who wasn't yellow for no reason), it could have been better. I couldn't feel sorry for him; I couldn't be angry with him. I just didn't care. The only thing I could do is wonder why in the hell he was yellow. Seriously, what the fuck?

So, this is a remake I can honestly say was far worse than the original. But I'll give it some thanks for making me realize how good the 1974 movie was.

#230 -- Halloween (2007)

Rating: 4 / 5
Director: Rob Zombie

Last year on Halloween, I reviewed the original movie. So this year I figured it was fitting to watch this one. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I'll probably get some shit for this review, and I might lose my credibility as a horror fan...but I don't care.

I saw a couple of the original movies when I was a kid, and I can honestly tell you that Michael Myers never scared me. I was scared shitless of Jason Voorhees; I was creeped out by Freddy; and some of my childhood nightmares featured good 'ol Ghostface. But Michael? Not once. My whole life, I've found the character boring and stupid. The only feelings I had for Michael were hatred, and I scoffed at the mention of his name. But not anymore. I really love Rob Zombie's version of Michael, and I have a new appreciation of the character; though it's more of an appreciation for a new character. A lot of people have a lot of different issues with this reboot, but I share none of them. In my opinion, this is a 100% improvement upon the original movie. I actually like this one!

I think the biggest problem most people have with the remake is that it made Michael a sympathetic character, and they feel that made him less terrifying. But I completely disagree. Personally, I love sympathetic killers. In the original movie, we were told that Michael was crazy; in this one, we got to see it. A good chunk at the beginning of the movie was dedicated to telling the story of Michael's childhood. It began much like real-life serial killers, and we can kind of understand what drove him to become so crazy. His stepfather was a dickhead. His sister was a bitch-whore. He loved his mother, and she loved him; but she was a stripper, and this caused Michael to get ridiculed in school. He was bullied at school and home alike, and it was quite sad. I felt bad for him, really. So I wasn't surprised when he killed his stepfather, older sister, and his sister's boyfriend while his mother was at work one night. For a child, the murders were very gruesome. He slit his stepfather's throat, stabbed his sister seventeen times, and bashed her boyfriend's head in with a baseball bat. He also killed one of his school bullies, by beating him to death with a tree branch. See, he was fucking vicious, even as a child.

After murdering three people, he was sent away to a mental facility, where he murdered at least one more. His mother visited him regularly, up until the point that he murdered a nurse with a fork. Why in the hell they let him have a metal fork, I'll never know. I think I'd make him eat with his hands. But after that, his mother decided to end her own life. I'm not sure if she blamed herself for the way he turned out, or if she just couldn't handle the situation any longer.

Cut to fifteen years later, and Michael was a giant hulk of a man who wore creepy hand-made masks. He was getting ready to be transported to prison finally, but he killed all the guards and escaped. Of course, he made his way back home to find the little sister that he left alive. In the original movie, we didn't even know that Laurie was his sister. In this one, they mention something about it, but it's still a little bit vague until the end. He didn't want to hurt her at all. He just wanted to find her, because she was one of the only two people he actually cared about. But of course, Laurie, having been adopted as a baby, knew nothing of this. So when this giant man killed her friends and came after her, she was terrified. Honestly, I would be too. One part that really showed Michael as a sympathetic character was when he finally got Laurie to himself. He sat down, almost like he was waiting to be punished, as he showed her a picture of him holding her when she was a baby. She didn't understand, though, and stabbed him in the neck with his own knife. It was an extremely sad moment, and I almost teared up a little bit. After that, it did seem like he was trying to harm  her, though I'm not sure I believe it. Maybe she did piss him off; maybe he changed his mind and wanted to kill her. But I think he was afraid that he was going to lose the last of his family. I think he just desperately wanted to show her who she was and stitch what little family he had back together.

People think that making him a sympathetic character, and making most of the other characters assholes, was a problem. But not every other character was an asshole. Laurie and her friends were just kids, so they were the ones we were really supposed to be rooting for. People also feel that it makes him less frightening, because the killer is the one we can sympathize with and relate to. Did you not notice that he was fucking seven feet tall? And he was played by Tyler Mane, a former professional wrestler. So that's not a trick of the camera; he actually is that big. Personally, I don't care how much was abused as a child; I don't care if he's sad. If I see a seven foot tall giant coming toward me with a knife, I'm shitting myself and blubbering like a fool in a corner. Not only is he huge, but he's stronger than any normal man should be. And he's angry, and fucking vicious as hell. People say the original Michael was scarier, and I'm wondering if we're watching the same movie. In no way, shape, or form is this Michael less terrifying than the old Michael. In my opinion, he is better in every way. Finally, I can think of Michael Myers and feel something other than anger at how stupid he is. Sure, I can relate to this Michael, but the difference is that I'm five feet tall, out of shape, and I could never hurt anyone. He's huge, and he could rip me in half with one hand tied behind his back. I don't care how much I can relate to his story; I don't care if we have a couple of things in common, or I feel bad for him. It's his size and strength that make him terrifying, and it's his history that makes me like him. The old Michael had none of that going for him. I love that it sufficiently explained Michael. It explained his home life and what drove him to become a killer; and it explained small things, like how he got the mask. The mask, too, is another thing I believe was better in this movie.


Even if you don't care for this new Michael, you've got to admit that young Michael was creepy as hell. Daeg Faerch did an absolutely amazing job, in my opinion. I think I'd put him in the top five of creepy kids. He was very good at acting like a crazy little nutjob, and the murder scenes were very disturbing. It's unsettling to think of a child doing such grisly things.

I do understand what everyone's saying, though. A lot of people grew up with Michael Myers, so in their eyes, no remake could ever compare. I get it. I feel the same way about Friday the 13th. But I didn't grow up with Michael like I did Jason, so I don't have that emotional attachment to him, and I can recognize that this was an improvement. So, go ahead. Stone me if you wish. Call me bad names, whatever makes you feel better. But I definitely prefer this remake to the original Halloween.

#225 -- The Uninvited (2009)

Rating: 3 / 5
Directors: Charles Guard & Thomas Guard

I hate when this happens, I really do. I can't stand seeing a remake before I see the original, but it happens so often to me. When I first saw this, I just knew that it was originally an Asian horror movie. But when I looked around, I couldn't find anything. So I just figured I was wrong. This time around, though, I found it. It's a remake of a 2003 movie from South Korea called A Tale of Two Sisters. I've known about the movie for a while, but I never put two and two together, and now I feel like an ass. I know that remakes very rarely live up to their Asian originals, but with this one, I don't have any real reason to say that it's not as good--except for that I just assume it's not automatically. Eventually, I'll see the original. But as for right now, I think this one is all right. It has its issues, but it's not a completely un-entertaining movie.

It's about Anna, a girl whose sick mother died in a tragic house fire. She can't remember the accident, and she's been in a mental hospital ever since, and she's plagued by nightmares she can't explain. Her doctor decides, though, that she's ready to go back home. I'm not really sure why. She was still having the nightmares, and she still couldn't remember what happened. She didn't seem insane, but I don't think that she was quite ready to go back home. Maybe he just thought being back home would help her remember. So, she returns home to discover that her father is going to marry the woman who helped take care of her mother. She doesn't like Rachel, and neither does Ann'a sister Alex. She slowly begins to remember bits and pieces of the accident, and she and Alex are convinced that Rachel had something to do with it. They do some digging, and discover that Rachel isn't who she says she is. They think that she is actually a woman named Mildred Kemp, a nanny who murdered the children of her employer, because she had become obsessed with him. They believe that's what she's trying to do to them: kill them so that she can have their father all to herself.

When their father leaves for a business trip, things get out of hand. The girls are drugged, the police are involved, and Rachel ends up dead. There's a twist at the end that really should have been expected all along, but I think they did a good job masking it. There were actually two parts to the twist, one of which was a little more obvious than the other. It's not entirely shocking, and it's not one of those "Oh my god!" moments, but it's okay. Overall, I thought it was a pretty good movie.

I think remakes of Asian horror have one main problem: that they're remakes of Asian horror. For fans of the genre, even if you haven't seen the original, I think some will go into it assuming that it's bad. If you assume something is going to be bad, you're probably going to find reasons to prove yourself right. I know I'm guilty of it, especially with Asian horror. So, I think it might actually be good thing that I haven't seen the original. I went into it not really expecting anything, so I enjoyed it. Had I seen the original first, I probably wouldn't have liked it. Maybe it's not a good thing. Maybe I'm just making excuses because I feel like an ass for not having seen A Tale of Two Sisters before I saw this. But either way, I thought The Uninvited was an interesting movie, with a few problems that made it kind of dull--but not completely. Emily Browning, who went on to star in Suckerpunch, was Anna; Arielle Kebbel, from American Pie's Band Camp played Alex; and Elizabeth Banks, who everyone knows, was Rachel. So it had some pretty good actors in it, but I don't think they fully got into their roles. Elizabeth Banks was pretty creepy, and I think it might have been better as an original movie with her as a crazy serial killer. But alas, it is what it is.

Okay, final words. If you're a fan of the original, honestly you probably won't like this. I don't say that because I know anything about the original; I say it because I know how people are, including myself. But, if you're new to it, like me, you might just enjoy it.

#223 -- Fright Night (2011)

Rating: 3 / 5
Director: Craig Gillespie

I was kind of hesitant about this one, because I really enjoyed the original. That being said, it really wasn't as bad as I feared. I know a lot of people probably  hate it, but I'm not one of them. The difference, I think, is that I didn't grow up with the original. I didn't see it until I was probably around sixteen, so I don't really have any emotional attachments to it. I'm not saying the remake is better than the original, because it's not even close. I'm just saying that it really wasn't all that bad. I had a couple of problems with the movie, mostly the characters, but for the most part, it was okay.

My biggest problem was the relationship between Charlie and Evil Ed. In the original, they were best friends. I could tell that they hind the kind of relationship that I had with my best friend in high school. The rip-your-head-off kind of best friends, but they're there for each other when the time comes. But in this one, they weren't friends at all. They had been friends at one point, but Charlie abandoned Ed to get in with the popular crowd. Amy was one of the hot girls, but she wasn't annoying. I actually liked her better than the original Amy, because she was a strong female character. But Charlie was a cool guy; he wasn't the dorky kid we remember from the original. Ed was still a nerd (he was played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse, who was McLovin'), but he was kind of an asshole, and he wasn't as awesome or silly as Stephen Geoffreys. It was Ed who believed that Jerry was a vampire, not Charlie. Charlie thought he was nuts, and it wasn't until Ed disappeared (because he was changed really fast) that Charlie started to believe him. I didn't like Jerry as much, either. Sure, Colin Ferrell is much better looking than Chris Sarandon, but that didn't make the character more likable. Jerry, in the original, was a classy fellow. He was polite, and he pretty much stayed to himself until Charlie started digging around. In this one, he wasn't afraid of letting people know what he was. And he was kind of a whore. When Charlie caught up with Peter Vincent, I wasn't too fond with the direction they took with him either. I liked Peter in the original. Here, he was a sort of Criss Angel wannabe, and he was a drunk whore too. He was really quick to believe Charlie's story, unlike the real Peter Vincent, who took quite a bit of convincing (and for a while only pretended to believe to appease Charlie).

So, the only characters I didn't really have a problem with were Charlie, Amy, and Charlie's mom. Charlie was different, but not really in a bad way. I liked the dorky Charlie, but cool Charlie wasn't bad. Amy and Ms. Bruster were cool chicks, and I didn't have a problem with them at all.

Even though I had some problems with how they changed it, overall, I didn't think it was that bad. It still had a little bit of humor, though not nearly as much as the original. It didn't have the awesome cheesy gore, like the original either. I did think that Jerry's true vampire form looked better in this one (I really didn't like how he looked in the original), but Amy...Amy was fucking awesome in the original. When she transformed, it was weird and terrifying. They tried to keep it that way in this one, but it just didn't quite work as well. This one didn't have quite as much charm as the original did, but I can't really fault it for that. The '80s was a decade full of awesome horror movies, and they just cannot be copied.

It is absolutely impossible for me to watch remakes and pretend they're not remakes. I can't look at them as if they're original, because they're not. So, I don't even try anymore. I have to compare the two. So, did I think the remake lived up to the original? Not by a long shot. But as far as remakes go, it really wasn't all that bad. I've definitely seen worse (like A Nightmare on Elm Street, for instance). I would choose the original any day.

#222 -- The Grudge (2004)

Rating: 4 / 5
Director: Takashi Shimizu

I'm finally starting to recognize a few Japanese directors. It's a really good thing, because I love Japanese horror, but I never really know what to look for as far as who knows what they're doing. I did notice that Sam Raimi is one of the producers, which always gives me high hopes. Ted Raimi had a small role in the movie, too, of course. But anyways, back to the my Japanese directors. I know Takashi Miike is wonderful, but I'm still on the fence about Shimizu. The only other of his films I've seen is Marebito, and I didn't enjoy that one very much. Ju-On, however, I really did enjoy. I wouldn't call it one of my favorite movies, though, which is why I also really enjoy the remake. This is one of the few remakes (especially of Japanese horror) that I feel is just as good as the original, and that's probably because they were both directed by Shimizu. I think that, if an American had tried his/her hands at the remake, it wouldn't have been as good. Americans are very good when it comes to blood and guts and a lot of gore, but the kings and queens of creepiness definitely goes to the folks in Japan. Maybe Japanese people are just creepy by nature, I'm not sure. But they sure as hell know how to creep the fuck out of me.

I think at this point, people know what this is all about. Whether you're a fan of the original, or you've seen the remake, everyone knows about Kayako. It is Japanese legend that when someone dies in anger or sorrow, that the anger remains. So, when Kayako was murdered (along with her son and their cat) by her jealous husband, that rage stayed in their house. A family moved in three years later; two of them were killed, and one was left mute and presumably insane. Karen (Sarah Michelle Gellar) and her boyfriend, Doug (Jason Behr) were exchange students from America, and Karen volunteered at a care center. She was sent to the house to look over the elderly woman I mentioned earlier, because the woman's former care-taker was missing (she was up in the attic with Kayako). As soon as she entered the house, she knew something was wrong. She finally met Toshio, the young boy who had been murdered, and Kayako. The old woman was killed, and Karen was hospitalized briefly. It didn't leave her insane, but it did leave her with a sense of purpose. She was determined to learn the story of Kayako and Toshio, and to figure out why their spirits couldn't leave the house.

She did some digging, and found that Kayako had fallen in love (or was obsessed with) an American college professor (Bill Pullman). The professor was married, and probably didn't share her feelings. But when Kayako's husband learned of it, he was outraged. He killed her, drowned their son and his cat, and then hung himself. Karen thought burning the house to the ground would end the curse. But the house was not destroyed, and neither was the grudge. Because we all know that the only person who can end a grudge is the person who holds it. And, personally, I don't think Kayako will ever get over being murdered by her own husband.

I think this series of movies has become a legend if not only for its sound effects. As if corpse-like women crawling down stairs in very unnatural positions isn't scary enough, there had to be even more terrifying sound effects. There was Toshio's angry cat sounds, and Kayako's death rattle. That death rattle is completely terrifying, because...well, I don't really know why. I think that might be what it sounds like when someone's dying, and it definitely meant death to all who heard it. Maybe just because it's so foreign; we don't hear sounds like that everyday, and we know what it means for the characters. When we hear it, we shudder, because we can imagine the long, black hair and the deathly woman who comes crawling from around the corner after it.

If you take nothing else from The Grudge, it at least gives you a new way to torture your easily frightened friends. Just throw a little death rattle at them, and watch them piss their pants waiting for Kayako to get them.

#210 -- Mother's Day (2010)

Rating: 3 / 5
Director: Darren Lynn Bousman

I didn't realize when I first started watching this that it was a remake. I didn't know until afterwards that it's a remake of a Troma movie. Now I feel like an ass because I watched this having known nothing about the original, which was released by my favorite film company ever. From what I can tell, this one is pretty different from the original. It's got a couple of the same characters, but I think the old one probably leans more toward horror than this one. This one was more of an action-thriller to me, and there wasn't really much horror to it.

Three brothers attempted to rob a bank, only to have their fourth accomplice betray them and run away with the money. They return to their home only to find out that it's not their home any more. The Sohapi couple won the house in a foreclosure, and the boys' mother was not able to let them in on it. They were not happy when they realized someone else was living in their house, and they took the new owners and their friends hostage. One of the brothers was badly injured and, thankfully, there was a doctor in the house. They needed him to ensure that their brother lived, so he was safe...for a while. In fact, everyone was pretty much safe. Until Mother arrived.

Mother was one sadistic bitch. The hostages were each tortured, by burning water, by being lit on fire, and other things. There was even some attempted rape, where Mother tried to help her injured son get some lovin'. That was the most disturbing part for me. To see this woman actually taking down her son's pants so he could rape a girl...it was truly disgusting. The thing was...the three boys, plus a young girl who didn't seem to belong in the family at all, were not actually her children. She'd abducted them from hospitals, which is why she refused to take her dying son to one. She didn't want anyone to find out what she'd done.

The woman who lived in the house was pregnant, and this caused her to become quite vicious herself. Mother only wanted to get her children to safety. She wanted her injured son to be taken care of, and she wanted to get her other children out of the country so she didn't lose them. She was only looking after her own. Beth was doing the same. She became a monster in her own right while trying to save her unborn child. This was especially important to her since her six year-old son had died not long before, and this was her second chance at being a mother. Beth and Mother actually had a lot in common. But would Beth's attempts prove successful?

I actually thought this was a good movie. I don't know how I'll feel about it once I've seen Troma's version, but as it is right now, I enjoyed it. It wasn't really much of a horror movie, but it was enough to keep my interest the entire time. It never got boring. I would have liked to see more suspense, though.

#176 -- The Bride (1985)

Director: Franc Roddam
Rating: 3 / 5

If you know anything about me, you know that I expected absolutely nothing from this. I wanted to watch it to see just how much I hated it. But, surprisingly, I didn't hate it. I didn't love it, but I was surprised that it didn't make me foam at the mouth with rage. The Bride is a dramatic re-imagining of the classic film The Bride of Frankenstein. It is dramatic in the sense that it is very different, and in that it is a dramatic movie. Where the original ended when the monster met his bride, that is where this one begins. The first thing you'll notice is that the monster isn't the hideous creature we've come to associate with the title. He's no hunk, but he is not frightening and repulsive. The monster's bride, Eva (Jennifer Beals, Flashdance), is very beautiful, but she is frightened by him at first. After being rejected, the monster accidentally starts a fire which presumably leaves him dead. However, he escapes into the woods, where he meets a dwarf named Rinaldo, who names him Viktor, and they run away to the circus together. At the circus, they develop a cute little trapeze act, in which the monster wears a dress and screams, "My baby!" as Rinaldo dangles from the trapeze. Rinaldo then fakes dizziness and falls, only to be saved by a harness. On one instance, though, a fellow carny tampers with his harness, and Rinaldo is killed. Outraged, Viktor kills the man who took his only friend's life, and then flees back home, with jewels to give Eva as a token of his love for her.

Meanwhile, Dr. Frankenstein (Sting) is teaching Eva to be a very respectable woman. She is beautiful, elegant, and sophisticated. His plan was to create a woman who was equal to man; a woman who was strong and independent with her own mind. He succeeds in his plan, but soon discovers that he doesn't like this woman very much. She is too rebellious, and she refuses to obey his every command. He wishes to marry her, but she wants no such thing. Eva meets Viktor in the woods, but she doesn't remember him at first. When Dr. Frankenstein decides to make Eva his, whether she approves or not, Viktor barges in to save her from the attempted rape, killing Dr. Frankenstein in the process.

I found this movie on Fearnet On Demand, so I suppose it is classified as a horror movie, but I'm not sure why. Probably because it is based on the famous Dr. Frankenstein and his creations. The originals were undeniably horror, though they were beautifully tragic stories. This one is more of a sad drama. The monster did meet his mate again at the end, though I'm not sure if there was any love between them. There was definitely friendship, as they were kindred souls created from parts of the dead. It was a nice, happy ending that worked really well with the rest of the movie. It was different, but that wasn't really a bad thing. I expected to hate it, but it really wasn't a horrible movie. It was well made, and all of the actors were great. It was a different view of a classic story, and it worked. It's probably one of the best I've found On Demand so far. So don't go into this close-minded, as I did. Sure, it's a remake of a movie that we all know and love, but it's so much different that it can almost be considered a different movie entirely. It's not the best thing in the world, but it's by far not the worst. The only problem I had was that it was a tad bit boring. It was slow, but I guess that's because of the dramatic atmosphere of it. There wasn't a lot of action, and there wasn't any horror whatsoever. If you go into this one with an open mind, and don't expect it to be garbage, you might be able to appreciate it.

#163 -- Night of the Living Dead (2006)

Director: Jeff Broadstreet
Rating: 3/5

I think it's safe to say that every horror fan loves, or at least appreciates, the original Night movie. It was, to me, the original zombie movie. I know there were others before it, but none that made quite as much of an impact. It was a wonderful movie, and it will always be one of the greatest horror classics. So, of course, people feel the need to do it all over again. I've known about this remake for a while, but I didn't know that there was another in 1990 directed by Tom Savini. Apparently there will be another this year (or maybe it's already done, I'm not sure). Apparently no one's ever heard of the phrase, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Anyways, this one was on Fearnet On Demand. The description said something about it being better because it was filled with gratuitous nudity. I saw one set of tits, so that hardly qualifies as gratuitous. Even if it did, it wouldn't make it better than the original. Sid Haig is in this one, so that's good. He actually plays a big part in the new story line, which is kind of interesting. But it doesn't make up for the fact that the whole thing fails to live up to its name. They call it a re-imagining, which is just a way for them to say, "I remade this movie, but it's still original, guys, 'cause I put some new shit in it." It's still a remake, you just decided to fuck it up even more. Okay, so it does follow a woman named Barbara, but she's just annoying. She and her brother Johnny take a trip to the cemetery. In the original, I believe Barbara and Johnny were there to put flowers on their father's grave. In this one, they're at the cemetery for their aunt's funeral. When they get there, though, the place is deserted. They're attacked by zombies, of course, and Johnny drives off and leaves Barbara to fend for herself. She runs and finds herself at the mortuary, which is run by Mr. Tovar. After finding a shit ton of dead bodies inside, and being attacked by even more zombies, Mr. Tovar kicks Barbara out. She runs some more, and is picked up by a guy on a motorcycle who takes her to a farmhouse and to safety. The farmhouse is owned by Mr. Cooper, and they're not growing vegetables at this farm. This is an updated version of the movie, so of course Barbara ends up at a pot farm. The family at the house are against calling the cops because, of course, they'd find their stash. So instead, they just tell Barbara she's crazy and try to calm her down. That is until the zombies show up at the house. Three people are bitten, then Barbara and Ben (motorcycle boy) escape.

The interesting part of this one is the explanation of why the dead are returning. Mr. Tovar is a bit of a whack job. His father died two years ago, he brought it back to life and keeps him tied up in his house. He's been busy for the past two years, bringing bodies that were supposed to be cremated back to life. Apparently he's afraid of fire, and he just couldn't bring himself to burn them. He feels like he's giving them a second chance; letting them be "reborn." He acts like they're his children and he loves them. So he's creating zombies just because he likes zombies, it seems like. Of course, zombies don't have emotions, so they don't give a shit that he created them. That's kind of interesting, and I think it would have been good in a different movie, rather than one that was trying to live up to a classic title. Since they slapped the Night of the Living Dead title on it, and called it a re-imagining, it was doomed to be compared to the original--and not positively. People just don't seem to realize that, if they remake a great movie like this, it's just not going to live up to it. As a remake, it's a piece of shit, honestly. As a movie on its own, it's just okay. So, classic title or not, it's really not that great of a movie. The acting was pretty bad, except on Sid Haig's part. He is always enjoyable. I will say that the effects were pretty decent, but that's really all it had going for it. What I was most upset about was the use of the famous line from the original. Everyone remembers, "They're coming to get you, Barbara!" This time, though, it was used via text message. If that isn't lame enough, they made it seem like Johnny was just telling Barbara that he was on his way to pick her up. The text message said "Coming 4 U Barb." I'm really glad her cell phone got smashed. This one gets a 3 point rating because I liked the whole crazy mortician thing. Other than that, this is garbage. Oh, and it was released in 3D. So, there were all sorts of gimmicks going on here, and none of them worked. So, what's my advice to the viewers? Skip it. My advice to film makers? Come up with your own ideas, assholes. Just because you say it's a re-imagining, not a remake, doesn't change the fact that you're re-using someone else's movie. You're playing off of something that's already been done. Sure, everyone takes inspiration from other people. But we don't all flat out take their ideas. So just stop. Write your own movies, create your own characters, and stop feeding off of other peoples' creativity. Use your imagination. Be a fucking film maker, instead of a recycling bin.