We are in an odd season. Here we are celebrating things that "go bump in the night". TV and movies have joined the festivities. So, with little hope of finding "Harvest Party the Movie”, what is a Christian to do?  

If we look in the Bible, what do we see in regards to evil and monsters?

From Cain and Abel to the martyring of the two witnesses in the book of Revelation, we see all manner of evil acts by all manner of people. The prophet Daniel sees a vision of monsters attacking the world, John sees a great dragon chase a woman to devour her baby.  Even the living creators that encircle the throne of God have a monstrous edge to them. So if the Bible does not shy away from evil, and even monsters like demons, dragons and Satan himself, what do we do with modern depictions of them?
 

First, the Bible tells us in Ephesians 5:11 "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them."   As Christians, it is not only our duty to avoid participation in evil, but to show evil for what it truly is.

Film writer/director Scott Derrickson told World Magazine "Horror is the genre with the most sensitive moral compass. No other genre defines good and evil better. No other genre allows for spiritual and religious  ntent more than horror...The danger of the genre is that it can easily cross over into exploitation"   So what is being shown to us in the movies?

In "The Screwtape Letters" C.S. Lewis said that demons (the teachers of evil ideas 1 Timothy 4:1) either want us to believe that they do not exist or be obsessed with them. We see this in film today. Most movies that include monsters and images of evil are either harmless because we do not believe in "real” evil. Movies like Scary Movie" and "Casper" just use these images as something to laugh or cue at. Or, in "Tim Burton's Nightmare Before Christmas", darkness is just there for goth teens to say "cool" under their breath. Then there is the other side, focused too much. Movies like "Freddie vs. Jason" and "Scream" present killings and evil in a pornographic manner for us to revel in.  

So do we ever see anyone get it right?

Movies that present evil as something hideous and terrible, and at the same time, not something to revel in? J.R.R. Tolkien said that the best "fairy" stories are not primarily concerned with the fairies themselves, but he people in the stories. The magical element helps us to see a bit of the human condition. The same is true of the best monster movies. It turns out that monsters of the 20's, 30's, and 40's  were just that. The idea of many was that turning from God and His natural order produces monsters.

Dracula  was a parody of Jesus, an anti-Jesus who was stopped by the power of Christ. It was a graphic llustration of the biblical fact that those who are living in their sins are dead, though they live. (1 Timothy 5:6) Frankenstein was trying to take the place of God and create a person in his own image. Dr. Jekyll was trying to separate himself from his evil side without God. Instead he created and fed a monster who was a personification of his "fleshly lusts" (thus the name "Hyde"). Movies made about these characters don’t allways stick to the source material, and thus the original symbolism. (While the 1940's version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde expanded on the Biblical symbolism, “Mary Riley” is  Jekyll and Hyde story that tones down the human nature - sin stuff.) Some just take the monsters and use them for cheap thrills with no real meaning (“League of Extraordinary Gentlemen”, “Van Helsing”).  

You can see a biblical use of monster symbolism in the vampire flick "The Addiction." Here being a vampire is only the full realization of your sin nature. A philosophy student (played by Lili Taylor) deals with the problem of evil in the world as she fights her longing for blood now that she is a vampire. She goes through every philosophy of dealing with her sin nature from Buddhism (with Christopher Walken) to Hedonism
(one of the grossest scenes in the film). Finally (Spoiler) with quotes from "R.C. Sprol" she takes communion and Jesus Christ is the answer to vampirism and our sin nature.  

In "Deceived" a group of scientists, clergy, and military men are trying to contact aliens. Here they are trying to use these communications from the aliens as a source of salvation outside of God (though the more they interact with the alien's messages, the more they are driven to horrible and sinful acts from greed/lust to
murder).  (Spoiler) The source of the transmissions is demons and Biblical salvation is the only way to protect yourself from its influence.  

In M. Night Shyamalan's "The Village" the people are surrounded by woods where horrible creatures live, but  he movie is really an experiment in human nature. It explores the question: "Is society the cause of evil, or is man inherently sinful?".

In his earlier film, "Signs", the monsters are aliens in the sky. As Mel Gibson and the rest of the cast worry and wonder about the creatures’ existence, M. Night's movie asks the question: "If there is something evil coming to you, is God there to take care of you?".  

Aforementioned filmmaker Scott Derrickson invites the audience to consider if it's possible that a spiritual world could exist in the courtroom drama/demonic thriller "The Exorcism of Emily Rose".  

Then, on the other end of the scale, there is the Frank Perettie adaptation of "The Hang Man's Curse". A highly trained Christian family takes on a school that is plagued by cult activities and its curse. The feel is on a par with "Buffy/Angel" style production and speaks to the issues of suicide and the sanctity of life.

Also from Perettie, The Visitation is a “direct to video” horror... e r… creepy film. A Midwest town is put on the map when miraculous signs start invading their benign existence. From supernatural healings to the likeness of Jesus’ face in the stained tile of the bathroom wall, everyone is touched by the accompanying message : “He Is Coming.” Revival meetings start. One pastor (Randy Travis) believes this may be demonic. One former pastor (Martin Donovan) believes this may be linked to the ritualistic murder of his wife. One mom  (Kelly Lynch) is fearful her son (Noah Segan) is in danger and the son, along with most the town, believes that a messiah has come for them… and maybe he has.

You could go back a couple more years to "Bless the Child." Here a little girl is anointed by God to lead many to Him. Thus a demonically powered cult (with a "new age" cover) tries to destroy the girl. It's a b movie with
it's heart in the right place. The problem with this one is that it is not clear if the girl is a "type" of Christ Biblically pointing to Him with similarities) or a "new Christ" (blasphemously replacing Him).

Finaly, we have "Pirates of the Caribbean - The Curse of the Black Pearl". Here we get a ghost story with pirates, and Johny Depp... how cool is that. Once again, going against God creates monsters. There are plenty of refernces to Biblical Christianity to say we are going with that world view. The Pirates have stolen gold from heathen gods, and now, they have wealth and power, but no pleasure. The greed for wealth has poisoned everything else, creating creatures that are not dead, but they are not really living. There is also
a great conversation that goes in very well with Matthew 6:21.

What is Your Recommendation?

Maybe this October 31, you will want to have a little "truth about evil" film festival while you and your friends enjoy popcorn and snacks, as you hand out full-sized candy bars (with invitations to your church youth group and "Do You Want To Know God Personally" books strapped to them) to any spooks that happen to interrupt, as they pass by. Who knows, a "Hey, whatcha watchin’?" may turn into one of the most important conversations of their life.

Oh yeah, I can’t begin to describe how much I like this movie. I've seen it before, but I thought I'd run through the entire Halloween series as I try to cram in all types of horror/sci-fi/fantasy films before the day of Halloween. And yeah, it isn't the greatest sequel, but due mainly to John Carpenter's and Debra Hill's script, it does a really great job of taking and expanding the scope of the first film.

Basically, the film re-establishes the last five minutes of the first film with some minor revisions and additions. Think back to the beginning of Back to the Future 2 or The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, and how cool it was that it did the exact same thing. It immediately replaces us in the thick of the action and re-establishes many of the main characters.

Here, Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis) is rescued by Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasance) from being killed by Michael Myers. However, just as in the ending of the first film, the body of Michael has disappeared despite being shot! six! times! (as Mr. Pleasance shouts, chewing every word like it was a last meal) and falling of a second floor balcony onto the cold hard ground. And, in an interesting writers' choice, we end up in Michael's POV in the moments immediately following this exchange; we abandon our protagonist, Laurie, for pretty much most of the first act. At first I thought this was a mistake, but on reflection, it's actually a pretty cool idea.

What's cool about this decision is that it allows us to experience the flow of news information that slowly expands outward about the killings and the bodies discovered in the house opposite the Strode abode. We get to see how the information affects the neighborhood and how it spreads. And of course, within this first act, Michael gets to kill again.

Another interesting decision made by the writers is the decision to keep Laurie traumatized and on drugs; for a large part of the movie, she is bed-ridden and out of action (similar to Judith O'Dea in Night of the Living Dead). When Michael finally tracks her to the hospital, we understand how extremely vulnerable she is, and yet she still proves very resourceful and capable.

The script also establishes a reason as to why Michael has targeted Laurie. It's a little bit of a soap opera plot involving a hushed up birth and adoption and name change, and yet it remains plausible and acceptable. What doesn't seem plausible is why Michael waited for as long as he did, and how he found out about his relationship with Laurie. Hmmm.

Finally, this film plants the seeds of Samhain and the druish hocus-pocus which, I believe, parts 5 & 6 pick up on.

One of the biggest drawbacks of this film is the music; the score suffers from not being performed by John Carpenter and being an 80s synth update rather than the percussive and haunting piano. Also, there is the killing where MM tilts his head sideways, recalling the same movement after he killed P.J. Soles's boyfriend in the first film; here it is done in close-up and it’s neither effective or creepy.

Still, there are a lot of cool things about this movie: the shoes falling of the nurse as MM lifts her off the floor with a scalpel in her back; the very cool background killing of Bud while his girl sits in the foreground; then there’s the bug-nuts slamming of the cop car into the teenager. And finally, there is Dr. Loomis's last line of this film. It would have been the perfect ending for both characters, except Halloween IV happened.

In any case, this movie back to back with the first, and classic, film makes for a satisfying duology. I give this film three out of five stars.

Once again, I will promise to see The Fabulous Stains. Cross your fingers!

In no particular order:

Tim Burton's legacy will always be tainted by the few stinkers he's done, especially as of late, but I can't hate the man because he's having a bad streak.  Sleepy hollow is an effective little horror period piece that faithfully retells the legend, while spicing things up just enough to make it feel hip and modern.  Add some great use of clever humor, as rock solid cast, brutal and gory death scenes, and Christopher Walken as the Headless Horsemen, and you have yourselves a winner.

The Witches, from the brilliant writing mind of Roald Dahl, is an often forgotten spooky movie that is intended for kids, but comes with a heaping helping of adult size fun and scares.  Incredible make up and effects litter this film, as does a cute story about a boy turned into a mouse who must stop the evil Witches from taking over the world.  A sleeper hit no doubt, and one you probably haven't heard of or never paid much mind to, seeing as the audience it's geared towards.  Take a chance on this one to mix things up this October.

Another sleeper gem that most would overlook due to an overly cheesy cover art and no real hype at it's time of release, this fun little slasher takes place on Halloween, and has a few interesting gimmicks and noble ideas that makes things more interesting than your average slasher.  The well-placed dark humor and twisted nature of the whole tale more than make up for it's other shortcomings.  If you think you've seen every Halloween based slasher flick, pick this up.  It might be more entertaining than you think, even for the diehards.

Call it nostalgia.  Call it being  a Tim Burton Fan boy.  I call it a masterpiece of animated cinema, one of the best holiday themed movies ever made, and Tim Burton's crowning achievement.  Nothing will ever eclipse this, even when people try to enhance with updated soundtracks and 3-d glasses.  I'm begging for the hate mail to come pouring in now, and I may even lose the trust of my co-writer here on Midnight Showing Ronnie, but I still feel as much love and devotion to this film as i did 15 years ago.  A masterpiece.

AS IF YOU DIDN'T SEE THIS ONE COMING...

THE Halloween movie to end all Halloween movies.  John Carpenter's timeless classic is the epitome of how to create tension, atmosphere, and intrigue with simple pieces. Most don't even realize that some of the movie is simply shots of interiors and exteriors of houses and neighborhoods, with just the theme laid over top of them.  That's how genius it is.  He takes a dark stairwell and makes it terrifying.  Combine that with some shots through wide screen and other strange lenses to give it a surreal feel, the most memorable killer of all time, and the emergence of Jamie Lee Curtis as the "door next girl babysitter" and you have one for the ages.  Who would've thought one of the most recognized movies in the history of horror cinema would be as tame and bloodless as this flick?

We hope you enjoyed our picks for the Top 5 Halloween flicks this year, and stay tuned for more themed content coming throughout the month of October.

Sleep tight and remember, the killer about to call you is already in your house.

Clive Barker is a man whose importance to genre pictures is unquestionable, but as far as his actual talent is concerned, everyone has a different opinion.  Celebrated as one of the premiere horror fiction writers of his time, many have blasted him as of late for drifting into the land of fantasy, away from the guts, gore and magic that drew so much attention to his writing.  I'm not sure if that's fair to Mr. Barker, but one thing I am sure of is that his work in the realm of horror, monsters and the supernatural is still relevant and suitable for modern day cinema.  Proof being The Midnight Meat Train.

Directed by Ryuhei "It's a crime I'm not directing in Hollywood on a consistent basis" Kitamura, Meat Train follows the story of a up and coming photographer who under the advice of a powerful player in the photography world played by Brooke Shields (Yeah, that Brooke Shields!) begins to dig deeper into the New York night scape, in particular the subway system.  There he finds a man in a suit who waits until well past midnight to slaughter innocent victims catching those red eye trains home.

Seeing as how this originated from a Clive Barker short story, you know things are never as simple and clear cut as they seem to be from the start.  But those little twists and turns wouldn't be as intriguing if the trio of main characters couldn't carry their roles.  This movie does have some kills and gruesome scenes, both innovative and familiar, but it is still a piece that relies heavily on your investment in the characters.  Bradley Cooper, Leslie Bibb and Vinnie Jones all perform well above the standard for a little horror flick.  Vinnie Jones is especially impressive, since he only speaks ONE word the whole movie, and that line is at the very end.  He is in the movie a lot, and just his presence and body and facial expressions make "Mahogany", his character, really jump off the screen.  Cooper and Bibb make a great couple in descent, and both command their screen time admirably and bring a fair amount of depth to their characters.

The gore and special effects are a mixed bag, because it's a mix of some practical effects like latex and props, and some heavy CGI work.  It's a shame because I personally always love to see innovative kills done without the aid CGI, but you can't win them all.  The kills still work, and toward the end, you see less and less of the cgi blood and gore, and during the climax's TWO fight scenes the brutality is accentuated by make up and karo syrup based splatter.  Even for some seasoned gore hounds, there's still some tricks Barker, Kitamura and company have up their sleeves, and it definitely doesn't disappoint when it comes to kicking the violence up another notch in the final 20 minutes, which is where Kitamura really excels as he is a master craftsman when it comes to staging fights of any kind.

Kitamura is the real star and for the same reasons I described in my Versus review.  He has a great eye for making his version of New York stand out just a little bit from other film interpretations of the famous locale.  His use of different lenses and lengths makes for some interesting shots, and his flashy visuals are usually nothing short of arresting.  Simple, predictable scenes become much more interesting with Kitamura behind the camera.  Overhead shots, POV shots, upside down shots (Don't worry, it makes perfect sense), and playing with lighting and reflections make this ride one that doesn't feel stagnant on a visual level.  He also knows when to reel it in and just play certain scenes straight with no trickery.  It's a delicious balance of confident experimentation and traditional filming that succeeds in exciting your eyes.

Shame that this movie went through the troubles it did in trying to get released.  For those who don't know, it was supposed to be released nationally in theaters, then was reduced to a limited release, then it was announced it would only play in those dollar theaters.  It seems now it will just find a home on DVD.  Again, a shame it probably won't get as much recognition, as it is a fine example of Barker and Kitamuras talents.

Meat Train has  a lot to like, and I recommend you find a way to see this as soon as possible.

Filmik otworzy się po kliknięciu w obrazek

Z całego filmiku, który szczerze mówiąc pokazuje niewiele, najbardziej podoba mi się ciekawy sposób poruszania się głównej bohaterki. Teraz pozostaje czekać na gameplaye pokazujące jakieś sceny walki by przekonać się czy Bayonneta rzeczywiście będzie pure !

And his name is Jason Constantine.  I mention him because on one of the DVD covers, it makes mention that this slasher comes to us from the producer of SAW 1 and 2.  What a hollow and shameless marketing ploy that turned out to be.  Most fans of the genre would see that, and be intrigued.  Sad for us however, that instead of even getting a passable slasher that could at least be considered a guilty pleasure, we served a hot steamy pile of poo that even the Sci-Fi channel would be embarrassed showing at 3 am on a Tuesday morning.

Even if you were stoned and drunk, hanging with your best buds and doing a bad movie marathon, you might want to overlook this.  I'm a very tolerant horror fan, and one things I'm even more lenient toward are slashers.  Why?  Because slashers are very difficult to make.  Pacing, a clever heavy (bad guy), a descent motivation for the killer, a good gimmick for your killer in the way he kills or where and how, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.  Then you have to make sure you have somewhat likable characters that have to face-off against your villain, and somehow mix all this up and create tension and atmosphere on top.

It's a tall order, and that's why we see so many fail.

But even the "bad" ones still seem to have something offer.  Exceptional special effects, gore, and innovative kills can carry an entire movie, or even a series, to becoming successful.  Sometimes a great twist about who or what the killer is can make watching 90 minutes of "bleh" cinema completely worth it.  Or having a killer that the audience roots for instead of fears to make your film rise above it's competitors.  Drive-Thru delivers none of these characteristics, and fails at following the tried and true formula of slasher movie making in general.

The plot concerns a vengeful guy (or spirit, were never told of course) in a "Horny the Clown" costume, fully imagined with a mouthpiece that distorts his voice just like those talk boxes in old run down burger joints, running around killing the children (all teenagers, how original) of the people who wound up killing him when he was a teenager when a prank went horribly wrong 20 years ago.

On paper, this isn't exactly crippled from the start, but you got to expect that a sense of humor would be included to make such a plot, and such a ridiculous gimmick for a killer, easily digestible.  Wrong.  Besides a few stabs at republicans, the American government, epically failed pot and pot head humor, and trying to shit on the "O.C." California lifestyle, Drive-Thru tries to play it straight.  None of the humor comes off as genuine, original or funny, and seems to be there just to fall in line with flavor of the week politics, trends, and habits that the youth they hope will buy this piece of shit will relate with.  Its obvious their target audience was the the anti-establishment kids, the kids who are sick of the "McWorld" we live in, but instead of making astute observations about how, fast food for instance, is a microcosm of our whole country and even world today, we are instead treated to one liners like "Fast food kills, fucker."

How incredibly enlightening.

Delivering this poignant dialogue is a cast and crew full of nobodies, with the exception of Morgan Spurlock who has that "30 Days" show on F/X and did that "I'm gonna eat McDonalds every day for a month" or whatever movie.  Either the actors are to young and talentless to handle even these see through characters, as the case is with the main friend group who is terrorized by the killer clown, or they are just "I'm here for the paycheck" older actors and actresses who you probably have never seen before, and hopefully will never see again.  Throughout the whole ordeal, either over-acting or just not giving a shit is the two varieties of acting we get.  Great.

All this is nothing compared to the directing though.  It makes rap videos look like Titanic.  Every time someone is killed, the director feels its necessary to speed up and slow down the kill, seemingly at random, and BLAST really bad hard rock/heavy metal over top of it.  This means once you hear the butt rock kick in, any suspense and tension has been removed, as the fact that someone will die in the next few seconds is announced.  Not like the director has enough skill to even TRY to create tension and atmosphere.  Nowhere in Drive-Thru is their even an attempt at a stalk and kill sequence.  Sometimes people walk into a room and Horny the Clown pops out and kills them, but that's about it.  Awesome job.

The kills and "gore" are all very poorly done.  Good violence can help almost any movie out, and apparently that memo wasn't passed on to these filmmakers.  The kills just make you shake your head in how they are terribly executed and how talentless you have to be to not even be able to give your audience a serviceable pay off for sitting through your dreck.  Speaking of pay offs, the ending is so mishandled, it hurts to think about it.  It makes no sense, but does...somewhat...answer the "is it a man or a spirit" question, because somehow even though Horny the Clown is killed at the end, one of our main characters takes up the reigns and continues the slashing.  How they came to this conclusion I have no idea.  Unless there's some brilliant plot revelation they will reveal to us in the sequel.  Have no doubt folks, someone will ressurrect this, and I'll die a little inside when they do.

I could go on for a few pages slamming this film, but I won't.  I honestly wanted to like this movie.  I want to like pretty much everything I see.  And indeed I did actually finish watching this movie, however much I now regret that decision.  If you are the most passionate and fanatical slasher freak out there, I still don't suggest you even download this movie for free.  It's not even worth the look to say "Yeah, I saw that."  Avoid it like you would avoid watching a porno with a family member in it.

As for Jason Constantine, hopefully the paycheck for this was worth it, because he's seriously got to redeem himself after allowing his name to be put on a movie he had know was this bad.

I found this movie to be very strange because even though I didn't completely like it, I have to admit that it's well-made and daring. The reason why I didn't buy the whole package is that there's no reason for the film to run for two hours and thirty minutes. It took too much of its time setting everything up, to the point where I scratched my head and wondered where the story was going (or if it was planning on going anywhere at all). But once it gained its footing about an hour and fifteen minutes into the picture, it was very engaging because it was able to touch the macabre. A lot of the scenes are darkly amusing despite the murders perfomed by Jean-Baptiste Grenouille, brilliantly acted by Ben Wishaw. I've been curious about his acting abilities ever since I saw "I'm Not There" so it was nice to see him in this film as the lead and prove himself. The supporting actors such as Dustin Hoffman and Alan Rickman are great here because their characters are memorable and crucial to the picture. I feel like the two of them made the picture that much more serious and important. I also thought the idea of making a movie about the sense of smell is original; not to mention it has one of the most mysterious endings I've seen in a while. So, I must give kudos to the director, Tom Tykwer, who also directed some of the films I loved ("Paris, je t'aime" and "Run, Lola, Run"). However, I must say that some people oversell this flick. It's a good movie but nothing extraordinary.

Last House on the Left (1972)
[ 2 stars out of 4 ]

Even though this was released in 1972, it's still really disturbing compared today's standards (or lack thereof some might argue). This is Wes Craven's first film and though it may seem really dated, it shows a lot of promise when it comes to its story. It's a horror film and a revenge movie wrapped in one. There are three factors that holds this movie back: the comical scenes regarding the police, its low level of cinematography due to its low budget, and the amateur acting. The script is fine because I thought some of the dialogue was interesting to listen to; the direction and pacing are not that bad. I've had my share of violent pictures but when this movie's teeth started to show, I couldn't help but wince. After watching this film, it became apparent to me why this became a template for the slasher flicks that invaded the 1980's. I've heard that this movie is going to have a remake and I can imagine that the upgrade will be just as violent or even more so. Hopefully, the remake will improve upon the flaws that this film had because despite its violence, its impact on the horror genre is undeniable.

Nim's Island
[ 2 stars out of 4 ]

I always like children's movies because I'm a kid at heart but this one is one of those few exceptions. There's not much story that can be found here unless one would like to see fake animals helping out the characters. Even though I did enjoy watching Jodie Foster as an agoraphobic writer (her trip to the island was pretty funny), I feel like she could've been on a different (and better) movie than waste her talents here. I didn't care much for Gerard Butler because I'm not a fan, but I didn't care for his character either. On the other hand, I thought Abigail Breslin is pretty good and I like her in pretty much every movie she's in. It's hard for me to give this movie a bad rating because everything seems to be trying too hard. I agree that they have something here, but only a quarter of it worked. Maybe with a little more focused writing to improve the story and completely remove those distracting fake animals, this movie could've been something else entirely. This is more a children's movie than a family movie because the film pretty much doesn't offer anything to the adults. Overall, it's a good movie if you're babysitting and you want the kids to be quiet in front of the television as you prepare their dinner. Otherwise, it's nothing terribly special.

There were some funny parts in this movie, but there were also parts that dragged on and weren't as funny as it could have been. The backstory is interesting enough: two guys in their forties acting like a duo of eight-year-olds as they drive their newlywed parents crazy. Even though it's a bit creepy at times because of their actions that should make one question their psychology, there's some solid material that pops up once in a while that are laugh-out-loud funny. But more than half of the time, instead of showing us an organic comedy, it all feels too forced. Therefore, it made me wonder if the filmmakers had enough confidence with the material. If they doubt, I don't buy; and if I don't buy, why should I be invested in these characters? I like Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly but this film didn't do them justice. I want to see them in another comedy that's edgy, one of which the story doesn't feel forced, but with enough sentimentality that would make me want to care. This one isn't it. Unfortunately, I have to say skip this one unless one is a die-hard fan of the two lead actors.

Going to Pieces: The Rise and Fall of the Slasher Film
[ 3 stars out of 4 ]

This is a really good documentary about the history of slasher films because it was able to cover so much territory in a span of about ninety-minutes. That said, it failed to reach its full potential for several reasons. First of all, it focused too much on movies from the 1980's, only quickly glossed over the 1990's, and barely mentioned the 2000's. Since this was released in 2006, I expected it to spend equal time discussing each decade because each one is as important as the other. Instead of talking about the special effects of smaller slasher films from the 1980's, it could've analyzed the best slasher pictures such as "Halloween," "A Nightmare on Elm Street," and "Scream." For instance, putting the violence and sexual connotations aside (because it's been talked about a million times before), they could've analyzed about how "Halloween" is more artistic than most horror pictures back then and even today, not just image-wise but also the use of music and suspense, especially with an extremely low budget. They could've delved into how "A Nightmare on Elm Street" is very different from typical slasher flicks because it's able to relate to psychology and Eastern cultures--the role of dreams and internalized emotions in all kinds of society--and how it was able to make the violence aspect secondary. They also could've picked apart "Scream"--its post-modern attitude, how it juggled comedy and horror so well, and why it is one of the best horror movies ever made. I was also looking forward to the interviewees talking about the infamous "Hostel" and "Saw" pictures, but they rushed through them in under ten seconds. The movie became so alive when they showed newspaper articles and film critics, such as Siskel and Ebert, disapprove of slasher movies because they often show women being tortured to the point where it's almost pornographic. In opposition, the documentary showed why the interviewees supported slasher pictures and their claims of such movies serving to empower women. I have my own opinions but it's nice to see opinions clash because both sides bring up very interesting points--that there's is no one "correct" side. This could've been a two and a half hour documentary and it could have been excellent. Instead, what I saw was a Slasher Movie 101 discussion so, unfortunately, I barely learned anything new.

Leatherheads
[ 3 stars out of 4 ]

I expected to like this movie and I wasn't disappointed. George Clooney, Renée Zellweger and John Krasinski are all likeable and brought something special to the picture. I don't know much about football or its history but I was entertained by this picture because it didn't take itself too seriously. In fact, the sport and its setting are always the background and the characters are always the focus. Although the three leads may not like each other all the time, there's no definite good or bad guy. Each of them are flawed but we learn to like them because of their quirkiness. I love the scenes between Clooney and Zellweger because they can talk each other off. Both of them exercise their subtle acting which reminds the audience why the two of them are considered great actors. Although Krasinski still reminds me of his role in "The Office," he more than carried his own here, especially the dramatic scenes which most often involves his character. I think with a bit more experience in other films, he can be an actor that can deliver the charm but still be engulfed in his character. I'm surprised with the number of negative (and lukewarm) reviews of this movie because I found it consistent and funny more than half of the time. Maybe their expectations were too high because of Clooney and Zellweger. I say this film isn't too shabby at all, but it could've been on another level if it had been a little more edgy when it comes to its undertones.

Avoid this lame movie. Despite an interesting first five minutes, this Italian giallo suffers from what all other Italian giallo suffers from — mood and style over coherency, substance and emotional connection. It is interesting to note that the style of gory killings — predating the slasher genre by a few years — and the setting contribute to a loose parallel to Friday the 13th.

Next up should be the UK film, Cashback.

With the horror in general seeing a major revival in the new millennium, horror fans have seen their fair share of documentaries on the subject pop up both on TV and on DVD.  Most are around to cash in on either the Halloween season, or plug their own horror related ventures by recapping all the movies and characters that came before it that it will ultimately rip ideas from.  Going to pieces isn't some shameless ploy to get you to watch something else though.  What it is is a entertaining, informative and passionate look back at how we got to where we are in the slasher sub-category today, while simultaneously showing us a portion of the history of the horror genre as a whole as well.

It opens by introducing us to some of the humble beginnings of horror in the theater, and then rockets us to Psycho, shows us a bit from that time period (the 60's) as a foundation for what's to come.  It really picks up when they begin to discuss the immense success of Halloween, and really champions it as THE slasher movie to see, not only as a perfect example of everything a slasher can be, but as the ignition of societies relationship with killers in film.

The whole gangs here, from Nicotero, Savini, Carpenter, Cunningham, Craven, Winston, Rob Zombie, and more.  Familiar faces talk about their work and contributions to the genre, and talk about how and why they came upon the ideas that wound up shaping the face of horror forever.  The special effects guys run us through some of their favorite and more notable kills, and touch on why people seem to enjoy watching people getting killed in horrible ways.  Coming from the elders of not only the slasher set, but horror in general, this is somewhat of the gospel to us fan boys, and i suspect many of you out there will enjoy just hearing your heroes talk, let alone actually listening to exactly what they are saying.

They also go into the political and social controversy that plagued these films in the 80's, and show clips of Siskel and Ebert claiming that the slasher film is anti-women, misogynistic, and so on and so forth.  Going to Pieces fights back however, standing up for our beloved serial killers by providing some nice commentary on the subject that isn't just your typical "HEY...leave us alone" rhetoric.  It acknowledges the fact that horror films are the easiest to go after, and that many critics have made a name for themselves slamming them and standing up for morality.  Rob Zombie then chimes in with an interesting point.  If you were to show a prison full of criminals Disney movies non-stop, would they turn into good people?  I thought that was a fairly astute observation, and a convincing argument from someone very passionate about our beloved movies.

My major complaint is that in examining some better known movies, they reveal the twist endings to many of them.  So if you haven't yet seen Prom Night, Sleepaway Camp, Friday the 13th, and some others, you may want to watch these first, as the whole surprise will be ruined and you'll never get to experience the thrill of not seeing these fantastic finishes coming.

If you love the masked murderer sub-genre, this is a must see.  Rarely do you see this much care and accuracy in a documentary, and while there are some mistakes, most notably that Halloween wasn't truly the FIRST slasher the American audience had been subjected to as many predated it, it still comes off as an in-depth, and more importantly, highly entertaining look into what has been, what is, and what will be in one of the most extreme types of scary flicks around.

"Ich wollte mich eigentlich anmelden, aber ich wusste nicht, dass es eine Deadline gibt", so der amerikanische Mathe-Genie, Paul "czm" Nelson. "Am Wochenende war ich mit anderen Dingen beschäftigt und als ich zu der Anmeldung kam, war es bereits zu spät"

Etwas ironisch fügt er noch hinzu - "Ich wollte auf den anderen Turnieren meine Geheimtaktiken nicht zeigen und habe sie für Athen gespart... Und jetzt habe ich die Möglichkeit meines triumphalen Comebacks in diesem Jahr versaut."

Noch weiss der czm nicht, ob er sich in die Warteliste eintragen lässt. Ausserdem will er den anderen Spielern, die nicht zu der Erstauswahl der Masters of Athen gehören, wie Saander "Vo0" Kaasjager und Sebastian "Spart1e" Siira, die Chance auf eine Teilnahme nicht wegnehmen.

Zero4 hingegen muss sich komplett seinem neuen Job widmen und kann sich deswegen für solch ein Turnier einfach nicht ausreichend vorbereiten.

-von Oleg "eoe.d1ablo" Kogut

Quelle: SK-Gaming (eng)

I usually like Ewan McGregor in every film he's in but this one is an exception. Not only is this movie without purpose, it goes all over the place in a very boring way. This is one of those films that made me want to go to sleep no matter how much I tried to pay attention to it. The acting is pretty bad but I don't completely blame the actors because the script is even worse. Maybe the actors didn't know what or why the heck their characters are saying what they're saying so the inspiration wasn't there. I feel like the direction, too, is to blame because the story is just so inert. For a movie less than an hour and fifty minutes long, it felt longer than that because there's no progression in the story whatsoever. The scenery may change but the characters don't change in any insightful way. The characters started out very flawed and ended the same way, not learning a thing about their experiences. In the end I said, "What!" out loud because I feel like I was cheated. I urge everyone to stay away from this movie because it does not make any sense.

Incredibles, The
[ 4 stars out of 4 ]

This is one of the many great Pixar films because it's extremely family-friendly and it doesn't get old after one viewing. It's smart enough to focus on characterization during the first forty-five minutes and saving the action-adventure for the rest of its running time. After the audiences are familiar enough with the basics of the characters, each of them are put on the spotlight and shows us their strengths and weaknesses both as superheroes and regular human beings. Even though it's full of energy, it doesn't sacrifice its intelligence when it comes to its script and visual candy. I was impressed with some of the ideas of this film such as the superheroes getting sued because some people did not want to be saved, the superheroes going underground because their actions are no longer appreciated, and the superheroes eventually rising up from the ashes like phoenixes. Finally, I admired its soundtrack which reminded me of spy films like the "James Bond" franchise and television shows like "Alias." Despite all the attractions for children, this film contains adult-oriented jokes found in Bob and Helen's marriage, humour about fashion such as Edna's observations about designers and supermodels, and even a big reference to Eminem's song called "Stan." Suffice to say, this movie is quite, well, incredible.

I Know What You Did Last Summer
[ 3 stars out of 4 ]

It may seem like a typical slasher movie on the outside but I was surprised when I realized how much suspense this movie had. The actual kills are rarely shown, which is a good thing, because the horror lies in the chases and the killer hiding in the shadows. I liked that there's only four main characters: Jennifer Love Hewitt, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Ryan Phillippe, and Freddie Prinze Jr. The audience didn't get to know them as much as we should have but they're not exactly boring either. This movie preys on people's fears: when someone's actively trying to run you over, someone hiding in your house but you not knowing about it, and hearing strange noises in your car when you're driving alone are some effective chills that this film has to offer. I did have a major problem with the script, though, because the dialogue made my eyes roll. I feel like the characters were not that intelligent or they didn't talk like they're in college. This movie kept me guessing who the killer was up until the end and it was suspenseful. Those two alone are enough for me to recommend this.

In sfarsit am dat si eu peste un film de groaza care sa nu fie o teapa. Remake dupa filmul din 1953 cu acelasi nume, acest horror respecta cateva din regulile genului: existenta unui slasher (criminal nebun), cativa "pustani" care se aventureaza ca prostii unde nu trebuie, regretand mai apoi cu desavarsire, atmosfera un pic infricosatoare (mie imi sarea inima din piept la unele faze ca aveam dat volumu cam tare). Cativa "pustani" (o da, cred ca au vreo 25-30 ani, poate au si copii :P) dau peste un criminal dereglat mintal cu un singur scop in viata, acela de a omori oamenii si de a-i transforma in sculpturi de ceara (asta da hobby). Filmul e destul de lung 113 minute, asa ca inarmati-va cu rabdare multa pentru prima jumatate a filmului. Ce va mai pot spune in afara faptului ca sfarsitul e facut, zic eu destul de misto si ca ultima replica din film e previzibila.

(Spoiler mic) Criminalul are o masca gen Jason (din seria Friday The13th) sau Mike Myers (din seria Halloween), numai ca a lui e din ceara. (Spoiler dar mai mare) Sunt 2 criminali, frati, unu nebun de legat si celalalt mai rationeaza un pic.

A da si ca sa mai adaug ceva la respectarea regulilor unui film horror, "pustanii" au ocazia sa-l omoare pe slasher, dar nu o fac. Intrebarea mea e una fireasca.... DE CE? Chiar de doua ori au avut ocazia, in schimb nu o fac.... geez. De ce trebuie sa fie astia atat de pacifisti; ai ocazia? rupe-i ma gatul. Daca e la pamant asigura-te ca nu se mai ridica, nu-l lasa asa de aiurea.
Asa revenim la distributie: Elisha Cuthbert (din The Girl Next Door), Jared Padalecki (din Gilmore Girls), Paris Hilton, Chad Michael Murray (nu stiam eu de unde il cunosc, si asta a jucat in Gilmore Girls) si Brian van Holt (in rolul slasherului).

In ceea ce priveste filmele horror, cam greu in zilele noastre. Totusi, in era tehnologiei, slasherilor nu prea le mai merge. Adica ai net, ai mail, ai mobil, ai de toate, cam greu sa te atace vreun nebun fara sa poti anunta politia (decat daca n-ai semnal, ceea ce e cam trasa de par faza). Eu zic ca slasherii ar trebui sa-si caute alta meserie.

imdb rating: 5.4/10 (uau asta da slabut, mie unu chiar mi-a placut deci vreo 8 pe putin, zic eu)
imdb link: House of Wax (2005)

Trailer:

Shrooms had a lot of promise.  Warm receptions at some film festivals, a crazy good "double-image" poster/box art, and a plot that seemed to be poised to both poke fun at the standard horror formula, and create opportunities a-plenty to "screw" with the audience.

And I came in with hope that, with all that momentum, I would find a very enjoyable experience waiting for me once I hit play.  The dangers of optimism.

The idea I found really enticing when learning of this movie was that while our characters were on Shrooms, we the audience might not be able to differentiate between what's a horrible hallucination, and what is a terrible reality.  Unfortunately, I never felt this way, and the movie seems happy to hold my hand, blatantly pointing out what's real and what's not, thus removing a crucial gimmick that could of turned this into a good flick, even if the trick would only work on the first viewing.

Even without cashing in on the "head-screw" trickery, Shrooms still tries to claw it's way out of the sub par fair we as horror fans see all too much of.  Some of the acting and the personalities were trite, but still well handled.  Jack Huston and Lindsey Haun get top billing, and for good reason.  They are easily out-performing the entire cast throughout the picture.  I'm fine with this though, having TWO descent actors surrounding by a servicable cast is what these movies are all about.  Most of the time we only get one, so i found this to be a treat.  Haun and Huston do what they can to flesh out the roles, but unfortunately, there's just not much they can do to liven up their two-dimensional on-screen persona's.

The pacing was truly the straw that winds up breaking the camels back though.  Inconsistency is abound as the movie rockets you through some pieces, while coming down to a snails pace at others.  Worse is when it shoots you through parts that could have been better if more attention and care had been taking, and it slowed down a little bit.  Case in point, is some of the stalk and kill bits would have been more effective, but as they stand, they feel rushed.  I'm all about getting to the payoff, but the thing about a payoff is, there's gotta be a proper build to it to create excitement.

Speaking of the payoffs, the kills we also pretty lackluster.  I never once saw something I felt was inventive, and I feel if your not going to be inventive about your kills, then you need to execute on par, or better than your comtemparies have.  If you want to stab somebody, there's needs to be something better or slightly different about your particular stabbing sequence in order to make it stand out and memorable.  Horror fans are good at remembering memorable sequences, especially their beloved "kills", and if you kills fail to impress, folks are bound to take notice.

So why did this film get so much love?  Well, the way it looked was very slick, and very colorful.  I've mentioned before that atmosphere can be a key to success in horror, and Shrooms understood this for almost the whole film.  The production is sexy, for lack of a better term, and when things look, they can make everything else easier to digest.  After all, film truly is a visual feast, first and foremost.  Silent films work, proving that sound isn't nearly as important as what your eyes are scanning over.

Finally, the plot was just there.  It would've been more forgivable is they employed the "head-screw" gimmick, but they don't.  Its nothing we haven't seen before, which in itself isn't a death wish for a movie, but we've all seen it done better.  Just like I said earlier about being as good or better than whats come before you, the plot simply feels content to be a reason for events to happen, instead of being a fueling force driving characters, however thin, into harrowing situations, places, and events.

Shrooms just never took off for me, I felt like I was constantly waiting for things to get better, and they never did.  The acting and atmosphere all kept me interested enough to see things through to the end, but when I got there, I was upset about the fact the ride hadn't been more enjoyable.  I can't find myself recommending this to you, unless you really need to see every slasher out there.

Who knows, maybe I need to be tripping to full enjoy Shrooms.

„Słyszałeś o tym, czyż nie? Legenda Capcomu. Dawno temu, w starożytnych czasach developer wystąpił przeciwko słabym twórcom gier dla dobra graczy. Swoją grą zamknął usta wszystkim narzekającym na architekturę PlayStation 2. Nigdy w to nie wierzyłem. Myślałem, że to zwykła bajeczka dla dzieci. Ale ta tak zwana legenda nie była do końca mitem. Capcom istniał. Skąd wiem? Cóż, grałem w gry Capcomu. Wydawało się, że programiści czerpią przyjemność z walki na rynku z innymi developerami…”

Ok, z czym kojarzy się Wam diabeł? Pewnie na dźwięk tego słowa przed oczami mamy rogatą bestię, którą spowijają kłęby gęstego dymu i buchającego ognia, z czerwonymi oczyma i szponami zamiast paznokci. Interpretacji postaci diabła jest mnóstwo – wystarczy przeglądnąć setki książek, filmów, a nawet posłuchać muzyki i być pewnym, że przedstawione wizerunki tegoż jegomościa potrafią być skrajnie różne. Od wspomnianego wcześniej potwora, przez zmieniającą swą postać kreatury do najzwyklejszego człowieka, zazwyczaj eleganckiego. Wydawać by się mogło, że temat jest oklepany na wszystkie strony. A jednak…

Gdy Capcom zapowiedziało projekt o nazwie Devil May Cry nikt nie wiedział, że oto powstaje gra, która na dobre spopularyzuje słabo widzialny w tamtych czasach gatunek slasherów. Wszyscy czekali na to, co zaserwują programiści – zapowiedzi, trailery i screeny były wręcz nieprawdopobonie piękne.. „To tak wygląda?” – nikt nie wierzył w to, co dane było mu zobaczyć. Prawdziwy szok nadszedł jednak odpowiednio 23 sierpnia w Japonii, 17 października w Ameryce i 7 listopada w Europie, bo właśnie wtedy pełna wersja Devil May Cry trafiła na półki sklepowe, z miejsca zostając najładniejszą produkcją na PS2. Naprawdę, takich tekstur, takiego designu (o którym za chwilę) i takiej płynności rozgrywki (60 stałych klatek w wersji NTSC, 50 w wersji PAL) można było ze świecą szukać w innych tytułach z tamtego okresu. Fabuła DMC rzucała nas do starożytnego, gotyckiego zamczyska pełnego posępnych komnat, zagadek i – co najważniejsze – demonów, czekających tylko, żeby je zaszlachtować. A można było to zrobić na wiele sposobów – najbardziej charakterystycznym dla tej pozycji było podbiegnięcie, wybicie poczwary w górę z pomocą miecza i dokończenie sprawy za pomocą dwóch pistoletów, nim delikwent spadnie na ziemię. Zastosowany system walki okazał się strzałem w dziesiątkę – główny bohater, Dante, władał bronią białą i palną, dając graczom pole do popisu w kwestii finezyjnego wykańczania hurtowych ilości wrogów. W sprawnych rękach Dante stawał się istną maszyną do zabijania, wyczyniając na ekranie istne cuda.

Sam główny bohater okazał się niezwykle udanym pomysłem. Shinji Mikami, ojciec projektu, od wielu lat w wywiadach podkreślał, że chce stworzyć tytuł, w którym to przeciwnicy powinni bać się nas, nie odwrotnie. Stworzył więc postać Dantego – cynicznego, doświadczonego i drwiącego z przeciwników łowcę demonów, pół-demona, pół-człowieka. Dzięki takiemu zabiegowi gracz nieustannie czuł, że to on jest panem sytuacji, a każdy następny zastęp demonów, który stanie mu na drodze padnie pod ciosami naszego miecza (lub innej broni – Capcom dał graczom kilka różnych narzędzi mordu, w tym ogniste rękawice i wyrzutnię granatów). Dźwięk również stał na wysokim poziomie – odgłosy broni, otoczenia czy wreszcie muzyka, stanowiąca połączenie rocka z elektronicznymi rytmami – pod tym względem DMC również nie zawodził. Tytuł był rewelacyjny – zarówno pod względem grywalności, jak i niezapomnianego klimatu – mrocznego i posępnego, co było zasługą głównie wspomnianej gotyckiej budowli. Jedyną poważną wadą gry był stosunkowo krótki czas gry – 23 misje przechodziło się zbyt szybko, jednak zawsze można do niej było wrócić, by poprawić wyniki czy zdobyć wszystkie umiejętności.

Capcom dostrzegło w Devil May Cry silną markę i dobry pretekst do zarobienia kolejnych kilku(nastu) milionów dolarów, toteż postanowiono wydać część drugą. Miała ona być standardowym sequelem – czyli „więcej, ładniej, lepiej”. Wydawca postanowił postawić na inny team developerski, co skończyło się na powstaniu najmniej udanej odsłony całej serii. DMC2 został wydany aż na dwóch płytach DVD, z których każda zawierała scenariusz jednej z postaci – Dantego lub niejakiej Lucii, czerwonowłosej łowczymi demonów wspomagającej naszego bohatera w kolejnej krucjacie przeciw poczwarom wszelkiego rodzaju. Gra miała słabszą grafikę, gdyż pod nóż poszły tekstury w zamian za większe tereny działań, które przyszło zwiedzać graczom, jednak animacja postaci wciąż była pierwszoligowa. W drugiej części zaszło sporo zmian, jednak większość z nich niestety była kompletnie nietrafiona. Po pierwsze, klimat – zamiast monumentalnej, gotyckiej budowli dostaliśmy industrialne budynki, miejskie ulice i kawałek autostrady, przez co poczucie mroku straciło na sile. Zmiany w designie dotknęły również przeciwników – nowy wygląd niespecjalnie wyszedł im na dobre – wyglądali bardziej pokracznie, niż mrocznie. Na nieszczęście to samo stało się z bossami – aura ich potęgi została zniszczona poprzez banalne projekty ich postaci i schematyczne sposoby walki z nimi. Sama walka została bardzo spłycona – większość gry opierała się na strzelaniu z dzierżonych przez naszą postać pistoletów, spychając na margines wykorzystywanie broni białej. Nagle Devil May Cry 2 stał się arcade’ową strzelaniną, w dodatku okropnie prostą i krótką– 18 misji Dantego i 12 Lucii kończyło się bardzo szybko (odpowiednio ok. czterech i trzech godzin na postać). Mimo wszystko gra miała swoje plusy - nowe animacje ruchów mogły się podobać (lot głową w dół połączony z ciągłym ostrzałem wrogów i gwiazda z shotgunem wyglądały ślicznie), gameplay był całkiem niezły, jednak cały czas to nie było to, na co przez długi czas czekali gracze. Niestety, Capcom nie spełniło pokładanych w nim nadziei, dostarczając grę zaledwie dobrą, co w przypadku DMC było nie do pomyślenia. Do dzisiaj niektórzy traktują DMC2 jako „alternatywną historię”, tytuł będący raczej ciekawostką, niż pełnoprawną częścią serii.

Po ostrej krytyce ze strony graczy Capcom wzięło się do roboty i dostarczyło Devil May Cry 3: Dante’s Awakening. Tym razem narzekania straciły na sile, a gra zebrała zasłużone wysokie oceny. Można ją opisać jako „powrót do przeszłości w nowych szatach” – ponownie pojawiła się wieża w gotyckim stylu, a przede wszystkim – klimat bardzo mocno przypominał ten z pierwszej części. Fabuła przedstawiała młodego Dantego podczas pogoni za swym złym bratem bliźniakiem i jego szalonym pomagierem. Zaszły zmiany w rozgrywce - system walki niesamowicie stuningowano. Najważniejszą nowością był fakt, że gracze dostawali aż sześć różnych styli walki do wyboru – w zależności od wybranego stylu stawaliśmy się mistrzami szermierki, efektownych uników, czy też wymiataliśmy niczym najlepszy El Pistoletro. Każdy z nich mogliśmy ulepszać za zdobyte orby, co stanowiło swego rodzaju motywację do ponownego przejścia gry. W tej części też Capcom zaimplementował możliwość zmieniania broni w locie, podczas walki – wybieraliśmy po dwa miecze i dwa rodzaje pistoletów, a w czasie walki wciskając L2 lub R2 zmienialiśmy broń na tą przez nas pożądaną. Same starcia stały się niesamowicie widowiskowe, podobnie zresztą, jak i cut-scenki - powszechne jest stwierdzenie, że choćby dla nich powinno się przejść DMC3. Ale cut-scenki to nie cała gra, lecz na całe szczęście rozgrywka oferowała bardzo dużo zabawy i potrafiła zaskakiwać (choćby misja, w której akcja toczy się na szachownicy). Do tego grę uczyniono naprawdę hardkorową – pierwsze podejście do niej potrafi zepsuć sporo krwi. Nic dziwnego, że spora część graczy ponownie odzyskała wiarę w Capcom.

Około półtora roku później na rynku pojawił się DMC3 Special Edition. Wersja rozszerzona podstawowego DMC3 zawierała kilka dodatków, w tym możliwość gry bratem Dantego – Vergilem. Niestety, programiści poszli na skróty, wrzucając Vergila w te same miejscówki, co wcześniej Dantego, nie siląc się na napisanie osobnego scenariusza dla tej postaci. Grało się inaczej, owszem, ale jednak niedosyt pozostawał. Dodatkowo mogliśmy przeglądać przerywniki z gry (przydatna opcja), zanurzyć się w Bloody Palace (czyli kolejnych pomieszczeniach z prostym zadaniem – kill them all) czy też wybrać łatwiejszy tryb rozgrywki (zwany tutaj Gold Mode, podstawowy to Yellow Mode). Samą rozgrywkę natomiast pozostawiono bez zmian, chociaż pojawiły się głosy, że DMC3 SE był kapkę łatwiejszy od DA.

Nastał rok 2008 i Devil May Cry 4 zaatakował czytniki Xboxów, PeeStrójek oraz PeCetów. Na całe szczęście dla grających kolejna część płaczącego diabła okazała się piekielnie grywalnym tytułem, który z powodzeniem potrafi wyrwać kilkanaście godzin z życiorysu. Ale o tym przekonajcie się sami - gra nie powinna być specjalnie droga, a zapewniam Was, że pieniądze w nią zainwestowane na pewno nie okażą się straconymi!

„Ale w końcu tylko jeden z nich stał na polu bitwy… Chcecie znać jego nazwę?”

bzdursky

Lovelli Ariesti, Jakarta

Director Paul F. Agusta doesn't need to be told that horror films are the easiest to do but the most difficult to get right. In fact, he was the person who first said it.

"I know that the film will not pass censorship," 28-year old Paul said of his latest offering, last Saturday at his home in South Jakarta.

He paused, closed his eyes and continued. "But I am willing to stand by every creative decision I've made."

Paul was born in Jakarta and studied film in America before returning to Indonesia in 2003.

After creating 22 short films and video clips -- most of them experimental -- Paul decided it was time he gathered his team and made their first film.

"Every filmmaker eventually wants to step forward and do a full-length film," he said.

He believes the cinema is a voyeuristic and visceral experience. "I wanted to cross the voyeuristic boundary between the audience and the film."

Kado Hari Jadi (The Anniversary Gift) *narrates' the torture of a man -- moving backwards as it slowly reveals the answers to an irking question over the course of a single day.

"I went completely all the way to make the film not only scary, but also scarry," he said.

Sequences of scenes about what happened prior to the torture are shown in fragments, as the film brings the audience closer to learning how the lives of three lovers intertwined.

The movie uses the color pink as a dominant feature in the decorations used for the film to create a false sense of comfort, Paul said.

"I try to dissect it and completely turn it inside out."

Shot with a 20-year old camera, Kado Hari Jadi aims to present reality as close as possible, then butcher it and leave it bleeding -- as the audiences is rarely given room to breathe.

"I'm actually putting the audience at a safe distance. But I go out of my way to make sure that the film leaves them feeling uncomfortable, angry or depressed," Paul, who decided on the story idea with the script writer, Dalih Sembiring, said.

"The script was brilliant, dark and nihilistic, so I try to make the film as dark and as nihilistic."

Meanwhile, the actors and actresses involved gave performances that exceeded everyone's expectation.

Kado Hari Jadi's cast includes young and new actors and actresses, including Jeffrey Sirie, Hukla Turangan, Leha Patricia, Yoggie Richard and Kartika Jahja, a singer known for her articulate and expressive songs.

In order to tighten the budget for the film, the team chose to sacrifice certain things, limiting the budget to what was necessary.

Edo Gimbal, a crew member, managed to make a metal chair, which serves as the dominant prop in the film.

As a result, the HouseofWaves production team was able to cut down the budget to less than Rp 50 billion (US$ 5,705).

The production house uses a fair split system, which gives the team some space to fund their next project.

"The system we used was accidentally a sharia system, and we see it as the most fair and efficient way of making a film, where everybody gains ownership of the film," Paul said.

"We didn't spend too much on lights, locations, catering, and we tried to hire only the necessary crew members for the film; and we were lucky because the story itself is minimalist," he said.

The entire shoot was done in 10 days, which included a day off for the crew.

In the end, the team leaves it to the audience to make the most of the film, which will not be screened in theaters.

It will be released in DVD format in Indonesia in July 2008 by an independent DVD distribution label, the Marshall Plan.

"I think the best horror films are sharp, painful and visceral, not the ones that jump out and scare you," Paul said.

"All I can say to my target audience is that this is it, and your response finishes the film."