Showing posts with label horror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label horror. Show all posts

Monday, October 25, 2010

Paranormal Activity 2

Film: Paranormal Activity 2 (2010)
Dir: Tod Williams
Rating: **1/2 out of 5 stars



In 2007’s Paranormal Activity, Katie Featherstone and her boyfriend Micah were terrorized by an aggressive entity in their home. Katie spoke of her and her sister being tormented by a dark figure as children, too. In Paranormal Activity 2, Katie’s sister, now an adult with a newborn baby, is also being harassed by something evil. It begins with loud bangs and slamming doors but soon progresses into something much more sinister as the evil being takes a special interest in the baby boy. As the family struggles to understand what is happening to them, security cameras document the so-called “true” events as they happen.

Much like the first movie, the pacing is incredibly slow for at least the first half of the film. There is a long build-up where hardly anything creepy happens. Fortunately, there are many characters this time around to keep things more interesting. Watching Katie and Micah alone in the first film got pretty tedious. In the sequel, there is a family of four plus a housekeeper and a dog. As a result, the film moves at a better pace than its predecessor. Furthermore, it looks better – perhaps because most of the shots are from static security cameras (and not Micah’s hand-held camcorder); or perhaps it is the new addition of cinematographer Michael Simmonds, who has worked on other indie favorites like Big Fan and Goodbye Solo.

Paranormal Activity 2 is loyal to its predecessor in mood and style. You would never know the director is different because the movie feels like it picks up right where the first left off. The sequel does add more back-story and explanations, though, which works in its favor. The original film introduced the evil and what it was capable of, while the sequel delves further and explains where it came from and why it terrorized Katie and now her sister. It is nice that the sequel builds upon the first film rather than simply rehashing it.

So is it scary? Sometimes. The first film had scarier moments – albeit few and far between – but the sequel does have two or three genuinely spooky incidents. Unfortunately, some of the better parts in 2 are given away in the trailer. One aspect that does help the film is the inclusion of a baby in peril and a mother powerless to help him. The evil entity often targets the child, making those scenes that much more tense. Also, the film takes on a REC-type quality toward the end that makes for some decent tension. Of course, you would be better off watching REC or its sequel for an entire movie of such tension.

The big problem with both Paranormal Activity films is that the boring stuff outweighs the interesting parts. Both films spend a lot of time showing dull, irrelevant footage. Granted, it is not without reason – the goal is to make the entire film appear as though it was real footage. Real people obviously do dull, irrelevant things much of the time. For a filmgoer, however, it can be tedious. The sequel is a little better than the original because it offers more characters and more exposition. The sequel’s theatrical ending is also better than all three endings from the first film.

This reviewer is not a big fan of either Paranormal Activity film because they rely too much on a gimmick rather than genuine terror. Fans of the original, however, will definitely enjoy this sequel. It is consistent and faithful to its predecessor, and what it adds actually improves upon the first film. Director Tod Williams does a good job imitating the look that Oren Peli established for the first film. The scares may not be as frequent or intense as those of the first film, but there are enough to keep PA fans happy.

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Tucker & Dale vs. Evil

Film: Tucker & Dale vs. Evil (2010)
Dir: Eli Craig
Rating: ****1/2 out of 5 stars



Horror-comedies were big in the 1980s, but sort of dwindled in the 1990s. In 2004, Edgar Wright’s Shaun of the Dead revitalized the sub-genre, and ever since, there have been dozens and dozens of them released. Some are fantastic, but many don’t quite get it. A great horror-comedy requires the right balance of dark humor and a sincere love of the genre. A horror fan can easily distinguish between a hollow spoof and a true horror-comedy. Fortunately, Eli Craig’s Tucker & Dale vs. Evil is of the latter variety, with solid performances, hilarious situational humor, and definite respect for horror.

Tucker (Alan Tudyk) and Dale (Tyler Labine) are two ordinary redneck friends who just bought their own vacation home in the backwoods. Tucker is the leader of the duo, while Dale is a hopeless romantic with low self-esteem. While fixing up their cabin in the woods, they repeatedly encounter a group of college kids on break. Dale’s unsuccessful attempt at talking to a pretty girl sets off a chain of misunderstandings wherein the students become convinced that the two rednecks are psycho killers. As the college kids decide to go after their would-be killers, Dale and Tucker fear for their own lives.

The concept alone of Tucker & Dale vs. Evil is fantastic. It recalls mistaken-identity screwball comedies of the 1930s and 1940s, only it is also infused with everything horror fans love about the genre. It is a hilarious parody of massacre-style flicks (i.e. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre) where the killers are typically rednecks who look just like Tucker and Dale. But these good ol’ boys just want to fish, drink beer, and enjoy their vacation in peace. Meanwhile, the college kids really believe they are being picked off by hillbillies because they are too scared, too dumb, and watch too many horror movies to just shut up and listen.

Tudyk and Labine are both fantastic in their titular roles. They have great buddy chemistry and comedic timing. Some of the actors playing the college kids are also good, particularly Jesse Moss who thinks he is Rambo but looks like Tom Cruise in a popped collar. Even though misunderstanding and miscommunication are comedy staples that have been beaten to death, these qualities are actually really funny here. This is situational comedy at its finest. As a horror flick, Tucker & Dale is not bad either. It racks up quite a body count and delivers some fun gore scenes. Horror fans will also love all the inside references to the genre and its conventions.

At first glance, Eli Craig’s filmography doesn’t inspire confidence with titles like Space Cowboys and The Rage: Carrie 2, but fortunately he only acted in those. As a director, on the other hand, the man has a real future. This movie proves he has the skills to helm either a horror or a comedy with ease - or perhaps another horror-comedy if we’re lucky. There have been tons of horror-comedies released over the last few years, and while some are great, most lack this perfect pacing and wit. Severance was pretty good and parodied the same massacre-horror sub-genre, but Tucker & Dale is better all-around.

Many films have claimed to be "the next Shaun of the Dead" or some variation there of. In the case of Tucker & Dale vs. Evil, it is actually true. Like that movie, this one has lovable characters, lots of blood, and laugh-out-loud humor. This is definitely one of the best horror-comedies of the last decade. The only thing that could have been improved is the film’s title – the “vs. Evil” part misrepresents what the movie is about. The plot is far more clever than the title implies. Of course this is a petty complaint – the film is fantastic. Hopefully it will rightfully achieve the same cult status that Shaun did and keep the horror-comedy genre kicking for a few more years.

Sunday, October 17, 2010

A Horrible Way to Die

Film: A Horrible Way to Die (2010)
Dir: Adam Wingard
Rating: *** out of 5 stars



A Horrible Way to Die is the latest feature from indie horror director Adam Wingard. It is not a well-known title yet, but it has been drawing a lot of attention at recent film festivals, including Fantastic Fest where the writer and lead actors won a few awards. The film was made on a shoestring budget but that fact does not distract from its good writing, fine performances, and even some solid gore. Unfortunately, frantic camerawork does heavily distract from the good parts and therefore drags the movie down a bit.

Sarah (Amy Seimetz) is a recovering alcoholic with a dark past. After moving to a new town, she joins AA in hopes of beating her problem and starting a new life. Although reluctant to begin a relationship, she agrees to go on a date with a fellow AA member, Kevin (Joe Swanberg). As the two grow closer, Sarah knows that she must tell him her dark secret, that her ex-boyfriend is convicted serial killer Garrick Turrell (AJ Bowen). Making matters worse, Turrell just escaped from prison with his sights set on Sarah, killing anyone who gets in his way.

Screenwriter Simon Barrett has constructed a simple yet effective script. The concept and the characters are well-written. The tension is slow-to-build in places, but the story picks up toward the end and wraps up nicely. Complementing Barrett’s writing are some talented actors. Indie darling Amy Seimetz is very good in the lead role. Sarah is 100% victim – she is not a strong female figure but we get the impression that perhaps she once was. Alcoholism and Turrell have seemingly made her this way – a ruined woman. Seimetz is an ideal match for the part of this woman emotionally battered by her own demons.

However, it is AJ Bowen who really steals the movie as Garrick. Like many serial killers, Turrell is a man of few words, but complex nonetheless. In Bowen’s face, you can see how the character struggles with his urge to kill – how he genuinely means it when he promises not to hurt his victims right before he murders them. The kill scenes are brutal and bloody – a stark contrast against the flashbacks in which Garrick is tender with his then-girlfriend Sarah. Bowen delivers the perfect blend of intensity and sympathy for the role.

Wingard’s storytelling style is effective, as the film flows well, but his visual choices are questionable. Most shots are out of focus, shake wildly, or veer away from anything of relevance (actors, scenery, etc.). This kind of nauseating camerawork does nothing to help the film. Presumably, Wingard’s intention was to symbolize the frantic nature of each scene – a filmmaking choice that lacks originality. Whatever his goal, it looks like his cameraman has some combination of ADD and epilepsy. This is not pleasant to watch, nor does it instill a sense of tension or uneasiness. It just comes across as annoying to the viewer. In many shots, the lighting and set design are great – it is a shame to have those aspects hidden by a runaway camera.

The concept of A Horrible Way to Die is as old as the horror genre itself – a girl being stalked by a killer. But this is not a typical cat-and-mouse story, as it deals more with internal menaces such as dark secrets, addiction, and denial. The film makes good use of its meager budget, and despite some eye-straining camerawork, is an interesting little thriller worth checking out.

Monday, October 11, 2010

Let Me In

Film: Let Me In (2010)
Dir: Matt Reeves
Rating: **** out of 5 stars



Check out my review of Let Me In at The Horror Channel:

http://www.xomba.com/let_me_review

Please comment and discuss!

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Hatchet II

Film: Hatchet II (2010)
Dir: Adam Green
Rating *** out of 5 stars



Check out my review of Hatchet II at The Horror Channel:

http://www.xomba.com/hatchet_ii_review

Buried

Film: Buried (2010)
Dir: Rodrigo Cortés
Rating: **** out of 5 stars



Check out my review of Buried at The Horror Channel:

http://www.xomba.com/buried_review

Monday, October 04, 2010

20 Greatest Horror Movie Taglines

Please check out my lists of the 20 greatest horror movie taglines on The Horror Channel:



Part 1 (20-11)

Part 2 (10-1)

Please comment and discuss :)

Saturday, August 08, 2009

Not Quite Hollywood

Film: Not Quite Hollywood: The Wild, Untold Story of Ozploitation! (2009)
Dir: Mark Hartley.
Rating: ****1/2 out of 5 stars



Prior to the 1970s, the Australian film industry was practically non-existent. That decade marked the arrival of important Aussie cinema such as Peter Weir's Picnic at Hanging Rock but the social revolutions of the time also spawned a plethora of genre films, affectionately known as "Ozploitation" movies. Mark Hartley's documentary Not Quite Hollywood explores these lesser-known movies and their impact on world cinema. The film is not only informative, but is as exciting and fun as the movies it's portraying.

NQH begins with the history of Australia's film industry, or rather lack thereof. Few Aussies were making movies, and those who tried were marred by extreme censorship. But in 1971, the R-certificate (rating) was introduced and thus opened the door for sex and violence on the big screen. This documentary breaks the genre films into three major waves - sex romps; exploitation horror; and high-octane action flicks.

The early 70s birthed the iconic "ocker" Barry McKenzie, an Australian looking for sex in prudish England. These comedies were known for debauchery, vulgarity, and gross-out humor. There were also a lot of sex comedies that pushed the envelope with endless boobs and bush. This is the least exciting portion of the documentary, but that doesn't say much, as it is still hilarious and enlightening.

The middle section of the film covers the extreme horror - needless to say, my favorite part of the documentary. Virtually every movie mentioned is a must-see - Patrick, Long Weekend, Roadgames, Howling 3, Razorback, Next of Kin, Dark Age, and more. We get outback thrillers, supernatural chillers, and psychopathic killers. Oh, and a giant ravenous pig. What's not to love?

The third portion of the movie focuses on the wild action movies that were dominated by explosions, kung fu, car chases, and biker gangs. Examples include Mad Max, Stone, Turkey Shoot, Mad Dog Morgan, The Man From Hong Kong, and Fair Game. This is another part of the documentary where you want to take notes so you will remember to watch all these awesome movies.

In addition to an impressive array of film clips, the movie offers hilarious interviews with virtually every major Ozploitation filmmaker, along with actors, critics, and film experts. Their anecdotes are some of the funniest I've ever heard. A few of the better known interviewees include Barry Humphries (Dame Edna), Dennis Hopper, Stacy Keach, Jamie Lee Curtis, and Quentin Tarantino, who bounces with fanboy excitement.

Hartley also injects a lot of cartoony humor into the documentary's look, so it is never boring. With a filmography of short Ozploitation docs under his belt, the man clearly knows his stuff, but his sense of humor is also quite evident here. Nobody could have made this better. If I absolutely had to find one flaw, it would only be the time spent on newer Aussie films (Undead, Wolf Creek) as those films, exploitative though they may be, are neither good nor influential, and people like me know enough about them already. But it's a petty observation - Not Quite Hollywood is an impressive tribute to Ozploitation and one damn entertaining movie.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

The Howling

Film: The Howling (1981)
Dir: Joe Dante
Rating: **** out of 5 stars



Between The Howling and John Landis' An American Werewolf in London, 1981 was a great year for lycanthrope fans. Both films were iconic pioneers of the subgenre, each loaded with black humor, great music, and groundbreaking makeup FX. In comparing the two, my heart still goes to London, but Dante's flick remains an influential and scary horror classic.

Television anchorwoman Karen White (Dee Wallace) is the target of a serial killer known simply as Eddie. In order to help police catch him, she agrees to meet Eddie in person, and consequently she is almost killed. Emotionally traumatized by the incident, Karen is ordered by her doctor to go on a country retreat. She and her husband Bill stay the week at a beautiful but remote colony of psychiatric patients. Howling sounds in the night and eviscerated cows are the first hints that something is not right with this place. Needless to say, the local residents are not what they seem.

Honestly, the werewolves in this aren't even as scary as Eddie is. The opening of the film, where Karen is trapped in a peep booth with the killer, is disturbing and horrifying on a level I did not expect from this movie. Beyond that, Dante keeps the mood a little lighter. Sure, it's all dark and bloody, but he slips in plentiful wolf puns and classic film references. Each time you watch the movie, you are bound to discover another in-joke you missed the last time.

Also worth mentioning is legendary composer Pino Donaggio's chilling score, which captures all the tension and eroticism of a good werewolf movie. You know it's a proper horror film when there is an Italian on musical accompaniment.

Based on Gary Brandner's novel The Howling, the screenplay is tense, witty, and packs an unforgettable ending. The story nails the standard lyncanthrope themes, like sexuality, change, and animal instincts. The script is supported by good performances, not the least of which being scream queen Dee Wallace, and amazing visual effects. The godly Rick Baker was originally hired to handle the film's special makeup effects, but he left to work on An American Werewolf in London. He left the job in the able hands of his assistant, Rob Bottin, who is one of my absolute favorite makeup effects artists (see also: The Thing, Total Recall).

Just like Landis' film, The Howling boasted a werewolf transformation on-camera. Bottin pioneered his own morphing technique, since Baker took his famous "change-o" mechanical head with him for London. Bottin utilized air bladders under latex and makeup to create the illusion of a human transforming into a werewolf. It may seem outdated today but it was groundbreaking at the time, and still impresses me to this day. Furthermore, the finalized werewolves look great - huge, frightening...and a tad adorable.

It is refreshing to know that both 1981 werewolf films did not steal from each other, but instead each film satisfied a niche within the subgenre. Both had amazing FX, great music, and campy humor, and yet they feel like completely different types of movies. Though it may seem a little outdated or silly by today's standards, The Howling nails the werewolf genre conventions while paying fantastic homage to its predecessors.

Thursday, June 18, 2009

My Most Anticipated Horror Movies



I wrote an article on up-and-coming horror films I'm excited about for JohnnyVengeance.com - be sure to check it out :)

http://johnnyvengeance.net/2009/06/heather-shares-her-most-anticipated-horror-films/

And be sure to check out the rest of his site - it's a great source for movie news and more!

Friday, June 05, 2009

Who Can Kill A Child?

Film: Who Can Kill A Child? -aka- Quién puede matar a un niño? (1976)
Dir: Narciso Ibáñez Serrador
Rating: **** out of 5 stars



The idea of children as villains is hardly new to me, after films like Children of the Corn, Village of the Damned, The Omen, Eden Lake, and a certain French film that I won't name to spare the twist. But Who Can Kill A Child? has got to be one of the best ones I've ever seen. It moves a little slow and is sprinkled with 70s cheese, but at its core it is twisted and unique.

English couple Tom and Evelyn take a vacation to a remote Spanish island in search of peace and quiet. When they arrive, the town seems deserted and only children are seen. While looking for assistance, they witness a little girl beat an old man to death. Before long, they realize something is very wrong with this island and its young inhabitants. They try to flee, but the kids won't let them. If they are to survive, Tom and Evelyn must do the unthinkable - well, you know.

The concept is a great one and full of moral conflict. I imagine it was pretty ground-breaking at the time, too. Especially since these children are not aliens, or monsters, or possessed - they are simply evil little fuckers. They seem to kill without reason or remorse. They kill their own parents, who were powerless to stop them because, afterall, who can kill a child? Let alone your own child? Personally, I think I'd have no problem mowing a kid down if he was trying to kill me. But I can certainly appreciate the ethical conflict, especially for Evelyn, who not only has two children back home but is carrying a baby inside her.

Some scenes in this are downright shocking - even 30 years later - but it did not feel cheap or sensationalized. I LOVE the piñata scene and the tiny, adorable child with a handgun, smiling as he points it at Evelyn's head. This is sick shit but it feels totally real and totally relevant. It makes you question your own morals.

I feared the ending would let me down, but it delivers. It manages to be fucked-up without being a total downer (I'm looking at you, Eden Lake!). The only downside to Who Can Kill a Child? is its slow pacing, especially the beginning. There is at least 30-40 minutes before anything tense happens. And the opening credits are a bit unnecessary, showing 8 minutes of real war footage, particularly dead children. I see where the filmmakers were going with it, but it was overkill (no pun intended).

The whole movie reminded me a lot of the original Wicker Man, both thematically and visually. Both are must-sees, especially if you like a film that is scary and unsettling but also well-told and emotionally satisfying.

Friday, May 29, 2009

Drag Me to Hell

Film: Drag Me to Hell (2009)
Dir: Sam Raimi
Rating: ***** out of 5 stars



For me, this is the cinematic equivalent of the second coming of Christ. I don't care if that offends you, I really mean it. This is Sam Raimi's epic return to horror and it more than delivers. It is scary, funny, outrageous, and dripping with Raimi's distinctive style. You'd be hard-pressed to find a better time at the theater this year.

Loan officer Christine Brown (Allison Lohman) is up for a promotion to assistant manager. After her boss informs her that she must "make the tough decisions" to get ahead, Christine denies an elderly gypsy woman an extension on her mortgage. She suffers the consequence when the woman places a curse upon her, whereby a vicious demon haunts the victim and ultimately drags them to Hell. With the help of her boyfriend, a medium, and a seer, Christine tries everything possible to dissuade the demon from taking her soul.

Drag Me to Hell will make you jump, scream, laugh, and possibly gag. This was exactly Raimi's intention, as the director loves the elicit a response from his audience. His self-proclaimed "spook-a-blast" has definitely achieved that goal. It is scary, hilarious, unique, and so damn fun. Do not be deceived by its PG-13 rating - this movie really pushes the envelope with gore and gross stuff. It is completely over-the-top in the best possible way.

I loved Lohman in the lead role. Originally, Ellen Page was cast in this role but dropped out. I am so glad she did because Lohman nails the sweet innocence of Christine. Her progression into desperation and borderline madness is perfect. Page would have been far too angsty and tough for the part. Lohman also takes a couple Bruce Campbell-style beatings. She is a real trooper. The rest of the cast are great, as well, even Justin Long who I usually am not a fan of.

So many moments in this movie recalled the Evil Dead films - even some direct references and recycled sound FX! For a Raimi fan like me, this is pure heaven. Sam is back in original form here with canted camera angles, twisted humor, and brilliant use of sound. He also recruited his friends - the greatest FX team in the business KNB - to handle the practical effects. As always, they did a great job. The only downside of this movie is it makes me literally ache for Evil Dead 4. If you have any doubts that another Evil Dead film could be as good as its predecessors, Drag will completely shatter them.

If you have not seen this film yet, GO! NOW! It is imperative that you see it in theaters with other people because it is one hell of a film-going experience. At each viewing I attended, the audience's screams, laughter, and stomping roared louder than anything I've ever heard. Believe me when I tell you this film is 100% unadulterated fun.

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Zombie Night

Film: Zombie Night (2003)
Dir: David J. Francis
Rating: * out of 5 stars



Everything is wrong about this movie - script, acting, FX, cinematography - everything. But I gave it 1 star because it made me laugh. A lot. It probably wasn't intentional, but this was the hardest I have laughed in a while.

This mess of a movie is supposed to take place post-nuclear war, with the world overrun by zombies and only a small number of human survivors. They only real plot of the film is these characters moving from one refuge to another, and they meet some asshole who wants revenge after being expelled from the group.

Beyond that, there is no story. It is a meandering mess full of plot holes and terrible dialogue. Characters in this say and do the absurd, unrealistic things you can think of. Needless to say, the production value is piss poor. It looks like something I made in my backyard with a home video camera. There are cars on freeways in the background despite the setting being a war-ravaged wasteland. The FX are pretty lame, save for one shotgun-blast-to-a-zombie-leg that not only makes me laugh hysterically but looks pretty good, actually.

Now for the very worst of it (or best, depending on your mood) - the acting. This is priceless. Not a single person in this rises above laughably bad. Honestly, it's so hilariously awful that I almost want to recommend it. If you like bad movies, this is a must-see. If you are morbidly curious and don't want to sit through the whole thing, just watch this instead:

Tuesday, May 05, 2009

The Last Winter

Film: The Last Winter (2006)
Dir: Larry Fessenden
Rating: ** out of 5 stars



The Last Winter follows a team of scientists and drillers who are attempting to lay pipeline in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Bizarre events start to occur, like rainstorms and a rapid temperature increase. When one of the team members starts babbling about a "force" coming after them, the others chalk it up to craziness. But they are soon forced to accept that things are not right here and that someone - or something - will not let them leave.

Many times I have watched films where a perfectly good plot was poorly executed and thus ruined the final product. The Last Winter seems to have the opposite problem - visually, it looks quite good, but the premise is ridiculous and preachy. This movie was doomed from the start. In his defense, I believe Fessenden told this story as well as anyone could have possibly told something this dumb.

There is some interesting camerawork and very nice cinematography, but ultimately, the film turns into a silly mess. There is very little horror involved, and the menace itself is both predictable and lame. If you want horrifying, let's talk about the CGI FX. Ugh. The filmmakers clearly allocated about $100 into their FX budget. Horrible. Just horrible. It's a shame because it cheapens all the nice cinematography throughout the rest of the film.

The pacing also leaves something to be desired. I grew bored very often, and the movie drags on and on before anything interesting happens. Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of slow-boiling tension, but there is none here. On the positive side, leads Ron Perlman and James LeGros are good, as always.

As both a horror fan and bleeding-heart environmentalist, I should have loved this flick. But this movie proves that liberal lectures and horror do not mix. The result is boring, preachy, and ultimately, batshit crazy. Without giving away too much, I'll just say the moral of the story is: don't rape the Earth or she'll rape you back. I wish I could tell you the ridiculousness that comes out of that, but my spoiler ethics overpower me. See for yourself if you're feeling goofy. Otherwise, just skip this one and go watch The Thing again.

Sunday, May 03, 2009

Session 9

Film: Session 9 (2001)
Dir: Brad Anderson
Rating: ***** out of 5 stars



It pains me that there are so few horror movies like Session 9. I guess modern movie audiences don't have the patience for slow-boiling tension. This movie is one of the scariest I have ever seen, and yet it draws upon atmosphere and suggestion rather than jump scares or gore.

The film takes place in a run-down asylum with a violent past. An asbestos abatement crew are brought in to clean the place up. Their foreman Gordon (Peter Mullan) is a working-class guy with a new baby and a lot on his mind. His best friend Phil (David Caruso) is along to help, but constantly fighting with Hank (Josh Lucas), who is dating his ex-wife. As the days drag on, tensions rise among the men and mysterious occurances in the asylum become more frequent. Unbeknownst to the others, Mike (Stephen Gevedon) has been sneaking into the hospital at night to listen to old recordings of a schizophrenic patient's therapy sessions. As the tapes approach the ninth and final session, dark truths begin to reveal themselves.

Spooky old buildings - especially those once inhabited by the violently insane - really creep me out. You just know they are full of crazy, pissed-off ghosts! But Session 9 isn't really a ghost movie - it's as much a ghost movie as Kubrick's The Shining. In other words, there are creepy apparitions, but they derive from the damaged psyche. Or do they? Everything in the film has a clinical/psychological basis, and yet it does hint at supernatural influence. I love that the movie approaches the subject from both angles and leaves the viewer to decide what is really going on.

Session 9 achieves tension and terror with hardly any effort. For starters, the title alone builds incredible suspense. As Mike plays sessions 1, 2, 3, you just know something CRAZY is going to occur at 9. Each new tape reveals something increasingly more dark than the last, and I was constantly on edge wondering what was coming. Furthermore, the setting is spooky, as is Brad Anderson's unnervingly calm cinematography. There are no ghostly children here - just dark hallways, isolation, and implications of shocking violence. There is also spooky voice-over thanks to multiple personalities on the session tapes - very, VERY creepy. Try to get "Simon"'s voice out of your head after watching this movie.

Finally, I want to mention the actors, who are all great. Especially Scottish thesp Peter Mullan, whose performace as Gordon is sympathetic and haunting. And Caruso keeps his hamminess to a minimum (minus one hilarious shot you have probably seen as a .gif file online). I think Session 9's only fault would be a few superfluous details and points left unexplained. But overall, this is an amazing, unique horror film that haunts you long after it's over.