The Best Of 365 Days Of Horror

A "Best Of" list from all the movies I have reviewed

Better than all the rest

Greetings fellow horror fans. Have you missed me? I sure missed you. I know I posted back in January that I was going to post a few more things, but life always manages to get in the way. To make up for my lack of posting, here is my "Best Of" list where I break down some of my favorite movies from the past year. If you think I should add another genre or missed out of something, leave me a comment. I'll be doing a "Worst Of" list soon as well. Hopefully it won't take me four months to get to like this post.

Zombie Movie (Romero)

Dawn of the Dead

George Romero sure does love his zombie movies. Most people split them up into two categories: The original “...Of The Dead” trilogy of Night, Dawn, and Day and then the recent trilogy of Land, Diary, and Survival. Most would agree that the second trilogy is far inferior to the first three movies. Each of those movies have their moments, but they have too many flaws to even be mentioned in the same breath as the original trilogy. While Night and Day are both entertaining, Dawn Of The Dead is really head and shoulders above the rest. The action starts off right away, the characters are good, and the violence is great. The movie really picks up when they get to the mall, fulfilling the audience's fantasy of doing whatever they want. As is common with Romero's other movies, Dawn has a lot of smart social commentary and really positions people as the real monster.

Runner-Up: Night Of The Living Dead

Zombie Movie (non-Romero)

Pontypool

Pontypool really caught me by surprise. I watched the movie on a whim with no prior knowledge. I saw no trailers, read no reviews. I hadn't even heard of it until I started watching. It's a smart zombie movie that is also incredibly scary. While it may not have as much blood or violence as your typical zombie movie, it stays true to the basic tenets of zombie horror. There is a true sense of panic and utter hopelessness as the movie progresses. I also appreciated that the zombies come about not because of radiation or the dead coming back to life, but because of “infected” words that change people. It's abstract and unique, yet still plausible.

Runner-Up: Exit Humanity

Vampire Movie

From Dusk Till Dawn

Despite almost half the movie having no vampires, From Dusk Till Dawn is still an incredibly entertaining vampire movie. It doesn't hurt that the cast includes George Clooney, Harvey Keitel, Juliette Lewis, Quentin Tarantino, and a bikini-clad Salma Hayek. The movie has equal parts action, suspense, and horror, all of which make for an incredibly fun watch. It's over-the-top entertainment thanks to the great performances and director Robert Rodriguez's incredible eye for action.

Runner-Up: John Carpenter's Vampires

Werewolf Movie

An American Werewolf In London

Director John Landis manages to create a werewolf movie that is both scary and funny. The movie is best known for it's werewolf transformation scene. Unlike previous movies, the transformation takes place in clear light for an extended period. Thanks to incredible special effects, the audience practically feel the pain of the transformation as well. It's your traditional werewolf movie, but thanks to good acting and solid direction, An American Werewolf In London is a great watch.

Runner-Up: Ginger Snaps

Monster Movie

The Host

The Host is fashioned after the classic Godzilla movies from Japan. The movie has plenty of emotion and lots of social and environmental commentary. The monster itself looks very good thanks to some great special effects work. The characters are all likable and relatable. Thankfully the movie is in it's native Korean and not dubbed. It's a little long, but it's worth it.

Runner-Up: Monster Brawl

Foreign Movie

Frontier(s)

Frontier(s) came out of nowhere for me. I had never heard of it before and decided to watch it on a whim. It is shockingly violent, but does not rely on gore alone. It's brutal, grim, and gritty, and not for everyone. The sets and natural locations both look very good and transport the viewer to another place, fully enveloping them in horror.

Found Footage Movie

Cloverfield

Cloverfield manages to put the audience directly in the path of a gigantic monster. The movie uses Manhattan to it's advantage with scenes on bridges, on the streets, and in subways. You really feel like you're right there with the characters. There's even a decent love story thrown in for good measure. The monster looks great and some great camera work makes Cloverfield more than just another shaky-cam headache-a-thon.

Runner-Up: Quarantine

Favorite Slasher Movie

Satan's Little Helper

I have a special love for Satan's Little Helper. It's cheap, simple, and occasionally stupid, but it's still incredibly fun. The mask for “Satan” looks great and I love that we never see the killer's face. Technically, we're not even sure of the killer's true identity. The ending manages to be both scary and depressing, a high accomplishment for a lesser-known movie. While it might not make it on many (or any) lists, I enjoyed it immensely and have given it multiple views.

Runner-Up: Halloween

Favorite Universal Monster

Dracula

The classic story is full of horror, romance, and romantic horror. Bela Lugosi is the one and only Dracula and everyone else after him is just holding his place until he inevitably rises from the grave once more. The movie is over 80 years old and hasn't lost anything to time or changing trends. The movie is drenched in shadow giving it an unshakable creepiness that stands to this day.

Runner-Up: Frankenstein

Favorite Horror Comedy

Dracula: Dead And Loving It

It's Mel Brooks and Leslie Nielsen. What more could you want? The movie stays pretty true to the Dracula story, but still manages to cram in loads of laughs. While it may not be Brooks' best movie, it's still far better than any sort of “spoof” movie that has come out in the past twenty years. Comedy doesn't always work in horror, but Mel Brooks manages to do the impossible.

Runner-Up: Suck

Favorite Satanic Movie

Prince Of Darkness

I don't know why, but something about this movie legitimately scared me the first time I watched it. The slow descent of the outside world, the race against time, and the supernatural elements all work together to create something awkward and unsettling. We only see the arm of the Prince of Darkness and it still manages to be frightening. An unsung gem by John Carpenter.

Runner-Up: The Omen

Favorite Stephen King Movie

Misery

Misery is scary because it is very real. There's no supernatural elements, no aliens, no magic powers. Just a man trapped in a room with a psychopath. The real praise goes to James Caan and Kathy Bates who put in award-winning caliber performances. Director Rob Reiner does a great job giving us both thrills and chills. Misery proves that you don't need wild stories and fantasy to make good horror. Sometimes a person is the scariest monster.

Runner-Up: The Shining

Favorite Sci-Fi Horror Movie

The Thing

One of my all-time favorite movies. What can be scarier than an alien creature that can look like anything? An alien creature that can look like hideous twister monsters. Thanks to some great special effects, we see a monster straight out of our nightmares. The movie has plenty of mystery, action, suspense and horror. Kurt Russel is great as well as the rest of the supporting cast. One of John Carpenter's best.

Runner-Up: The Fly

Favorite Horror Anthology

Creepshow

When you combine two great horror minds like Stephen King and George Romero, you know you're in for a good time. Each story in Creepshow is highly enjoyable and could stand on it's own as a full-length. There are great performances from a myriad of talented actors that aren't necessarily synonymous with horror. People like Leslie Nielsen, Ted Danson, Ed Harris, Adrienne Barbeau, Hal Holbrook, and even Stephen King himself make the movie that much more enjoyable. The stories are all different and avoid falling into the usual horror cliches. Highly recommended.

Runner-Up: Trick R Treat

Favorite Masters Of Horror

Cigarette Burns

This was the one Masters of Horror episode that actually gave me the chills. I actually regret reviewing it so early because I feel like I probably missed some things. I really like everything about this movie; from the concept, to the acting, to the execution. Everything about it is as good as it is terrifying. The idea of a haunted video isn't new (The Ring anyone?), but once we actually see clips of said-haunted movie, everything becomes that much more terrifying. This could easily have been a full-length movie and could have even become a new horror classic.

Runner-Up: Family

Favorite Remake

The Crazies

The Crazies took a decent, if somewhat forgettable, George Romero horror movie and improved on it in just about every way. It manages to achieve both reasons for remaking a movie: Exposing the audience to something they might not have originally scene and making it better. The movie has lots of great action and some good scares. There are some memorable scenes and some pretty good acting that help the story along. I'm not the biggest fan of remakes, but The Crazies gives me hope for future ones.

Runner-Up: Fright Night

Most Shocking Moment

Eye-gouging scene from Zombie (Zombi 2)

Wow! This scene completely and utterly shocked me when I saw it. I was literally on the edge of my seat as I saw a woman pulled closer and closer to a piece of broken wood. Movies tend to cut away, leaving the brutal violence to the audience's imagination. Zombi stays with the scene, showing exactly what happens when the human eye meets something sharp. Here is the scene if you are morbidly curious.

Runner-Up: The “hobbling” scene from Misery

Day 271: House Of Wax

House Of Wax

More like the Outhouse of Wax

When is a remake not really a remake? When you use the same name as a far better movie and the most basic of premises. In recent years, there has a been an avalanche of classic horror movie remakes. While I'm not entirely for remakes, I will admit that sometimes a fresh prospective or updated effects can do wonders. The Thing and Dawn Of The Dead are two prime examples. Ultimately, what makes these two remakes work is that they are still true to the source material. Some characters may change, some events may be added, but the story and the heart of the movie is still the same. A lot of these new remakes, though, take the name of a much-beloved classic horror movie, along with a loose interpretation of the material, and crank out a movie in hopes that people will see it on name recognition. One of these movies is House Of Wax.

House of Wax is a 2005 horror remake of the 1953 Vincent Price classic of the same name. Completely forget what you know about the original because this one does as well. The movie stars Elisha Cuthbert (The Girl Next Door, 24) as Carly Jones and Chad Michael Murray (One Tree Hill, The Haunting In Georgia) as her brother Nick. Nick, Carly, her boyfriend Wade (Jared Padalecki, Gilmore Girls, Cry Wolf), her friend Paige (Paris Hilton, Repo! The Genetic Opera, Veronica Mars), Paige's boyfriend Blake (Robert Ri'chard, Coach Carter, The Vampire Diaries), and their goofy buddy Dalton (Jon Abrahams, Scary Movie, Meet The Parents) go on a road trip to see a football game in Louisiana. As night falls, the group decides to pull over and camp out in a field for the night. A truck drives up to their campsite, shining it's headlights on them, but the driver refuses to get out. The truck flees when Nick throws a beer bottle at it and the group goes to bed. In the morning, Carly and Paige go exploring in the woods. Carly falls down a hill into a pit full of dead animals and what appears to be a dead hand. the group tries to leave to find out that Wade's car will not start thanks to a broken fan belt. A disheveled redneck comes buy and pulls the hand out of the pile, revealing it to be fake. He drives Carly and Wade to the town of Ambrose, but they become uneasy being in his presence and decide to get out and walk to town. When they arrive in Ambrose, the town is virtually deserted. They find Bo (Brian Van Holt, S.W.A.T., Black Hawk Down), the town mechanic, who offers to fix their car. While they wait, Wade and Carly explore the House of Wax, a wax museum where literally everything is made out of wax. The statues are incredibly lifelike and downright scary. When they go to Bo's house, Wade is attacked by a long-haired man in a wax mask named Vincent (also Brian Van Holt). Vincent covers Wade in wax, turning him into a living wax sculpture. While waiting for Wade, Carly notices the truck from the night before in Bo's yard. She tries to escape, but Bo eventually captures her. At the same time, Nick and Dalton arrive in town looking for their friends. Dalton meets the same fate as Wade while Nick fights off Bo and gets to Carly. They discover that Bo and Vincent have been turning people into wax figures for years since the death of their mother. Meanwhile, Vincent goes to the campsite and kills Blake and Paige before pursuing Carly and Nick. How will they survive with two homicidal maniacs chasing them in a ghost town filled with creepy wax figures?

Whiter than a party at Mitt Romney's house

If you've seen the original House of Wax or just watched the movie's segment on Bravo's 100 Scariest Movie Moments, you know that this remake has almost nothing to do with it. To say this is a loose interpretation is in fact a loose interpretation of the the saying “loose interpretation”. Other than the name of the movie and the setting in a wax museum, these two movies really have nothing in common. They try to give a nod to the original by naming one of the characters “Vincent” but that's not nearly enough. I wasn't expecting anything near the quality of the original movie (I mean, Paris Hilton is in the movie), but I assumed this version would at least have the same basic story. That's my fault for having common sense when it comes to remaking a horror movie. Instead, we get a borderline slasher/torture horror movie more in line with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre than House of Wax.

While that's incredibly disappointing, it's actually one of the few things the movie does right. It has a surprisingly good amount of gore and violence, far more than I expected. The blood and effects used in the movie are very good and made things entertaining. I was impressed with the actual house of wax in the movie, especially during the final chase scene. The story is rather plain and uninspired, playing out how you would expect. The movie tries to go for a few surprises, but the only garnered a mild shrug from me. House of Wax is actually a well-made movie, despite not actually being a good movie. The sets look great and the direction is quite competent. The acting ranges from decent to bad and I probably don't need to tell you which actor belongs to which rating. While Paris Hilton isn't good, she's fairly tolerable in the movie, thanks in part to not being the main focus. 

What the hell are you smiling at?!

The idea behind remaking House Of Wax is a sound one. The younger generations have probably never seen the original and it's not ingrained in pop culture, like Friday The 13^th or Halloween. It was a chance to bring a good horror story back to the screen, with updated effects and a fresh take. Unfortunately, this version decided to take the name, throw in some pretty actors and hope that people go see it. Well, they were right because the movie made about $70 million, so I guess I'm the idiot. Regardless, the movie is much closer to the slasher genre with it's chase scenes, jump-at-you surprises, and extreme violence. If you like blood and gore, you may actually appreciate certain scenes in House Of Wax. The acting is mostly tolerable, but the direction is good and the special effects are great. Maybe in a few years, we'll get a House Of Wax remake that will be more faithful to the source material.

4.5/10

Day 238: The Fly

The Fly

Got you where I want you

Not all remakes are created solely to make money off a well-known movie. Some are created in order to elevate an original to new heights through better special effects, modern storytelling, and better acting. John Carpenter's The Thing is a prime example. Most people are unaware that The Thing is a remake, one of the highest compliments you can give to a remake. David Cronenberg's remake of The Fly, while sharing the basic premise of the original 1958 film of the same name, is really it's own movie. Beyond the basic premise of a scientist accidentally merging with a housefly during a teleportation experiment, this version of The Fly goes way beyond the original with effects and horror. The real question is if it is equal or better than the original. (Incidentally, The Fly's "Got You Where I Want You" has been in my head all day)

The Fly is a 1986 horror sci-fi remake co-written and directed by David Cronenberg (Videodrome, Scanners). The movie stars Jeff Goldblum (Jurassic Park, Independence Day) as brilliant, but eccentric scientist Seth Brundle. Seth invites Veronica “Ronnie” Quaife (Geena Davis, A League Of Their Own, The Long Kiss Good Night), a journalist for Particle magazine to his warehouse lab/apartment to see his new invention. Seth touts it as an invention that will change the world as they know it. His new invention is a set of “Telepods” which allow instantaneous teleportation of inanimate objects. Seth demonstrates his invention by teleporting one of Ronnie's stockings. When she starts recording Seth, he becomes nervous and agitated because he is not ready to unveil his invention to the world. The telepods are not complete as they are unable to transport living matter. When Ronnie takes the story to her editor and ex-boyfriend, Stathis Borans (John Getz, Blood Simple, Zodiac) rejects the idea as a magic trick. Ronnie soon begins a romantic relationship with Seth, much to the displeasure of Stathis. One night, Seth has a breakthrough, transporting a piece of steak through the telepods. Following his breakthrough, Seth becomes worried that Ronnie is secretly seeing Stathis again. Drunk and jealous, Seth sends himself through the transport. Unknown to him, a housefly is inside the telepods when he transports himself. Everything appears normal at first, but Seth begins to exhibit what appears to be beneficial enhancements: strength, durability, and energy. He believes that the telepod has given him a new rebirth, stripping away his flaws and faults. He soon becomes angry and violent, though, breaking a man's arm at a bar and cheating on Ronnie. Seth allows begins to grow coarse hair and his face begins to change, finally realizing that something is wrong when his fingernails begin to fall off. Checking his computer, Seth learns that he has in fact been genetically combined with a housefly. His body continues to change and mutate, causing body parts to fall off and forcing Seth to vomit on his food in order to break it down for his body to consume. Is there any way for Ronnie to help save Seth before he completely turns into a monster and what will she do now that she has learned that she is pregnant with his baby?

Oh, God! It's hideous!

The original 1958 version of The Fly is regarded as a science-fiction classic. People who have never seen the movie still know the classic “Help me! Help me!” line squeaked out by the main character about to be devoured by a spider. It's a pretty chilling scene over 50 years later. The 1986 version of The Fly has the distinctive Cronenberg flair of commonly known as “body horror”. Seth's deformed transformation is the main attraction of the film as Jeff Goldblum becomes a disgusting mass of flesh and insect. Much like in Cronenberg's other film “Videodrome,” the special effects used in the movie to transform the main character are fantastic. Seth's various mutations are hard to look at, yet we cannot turn away.. It helps that Jeff Goldblum is already bug-eyed and his 80's-style mullet helps convey his awkwardness. The makeup, done by Chris Walas, Inc. received an Academy Award for their word and deservedly so. The transformation goes through various stages, first subtle and then horrific, but each stage is believable.

The story is surprising simple as I was expecting something more complex like some of Cronenberg's other films. There is more suspense than action, but the movie is still interesting and compelling. The scares are still prevalent throughout, with more psychological fear than quick jolts and startles. Seth's transformation begins rather quickly as most of the movie is about his mutation. The entire transformation can be seen as an allegory for cancer or any disease for that matter. We are all afraid of uncontrollable change and death which makes the film all the more unsettling. The love story is classic romantic tragedy as both characters love each other until the inevitable end. The dream sequence where Ronnie gives birth to a giant larva is quite terrifying and could give nightmares to expecting mothers. Jeff Goldblum is perfect for the role of Seth Brundle as his quite awkwardness fits the character like a glove. Geena Davis is good as both the love-interest and as the audience's avatar. We, the audience, are sharing the same feelings as Ronnie, wanting to help Seth, but also worried about the baby growing inside her.

Who ordered the large Meatlover's with extra Goldblum pizza?

The Fly is able to take the original movie's idea and make it into something greater. The movie has a good mixture of both science-fiction and horror which play off each other well. The movie's dark tone and atmosphere makes the hideously wonderful transformations even scarier. The special effects and makeup are superb and the solid acting of Jeff Goldblum and Geena Davis help make for a solid movie. David Cronenberg leaves his unique mark on the film with his usual brand of horror. The story is good, though I was expecting greatness. Maybe that's because I've seen The Simpsons “Treehouse of Horror VIII: Fly vs. Fly” episode so many times. Regardless, The Fly is still a fun and unsettling watch that does the original justice while still being it's own movie.

8.5/10

Day 232: Hollow Man

Hollow Man

Is that Jason Vorhees? Michael Myers? Ken Dryden?

Dracula, Frankenstein, The Wolfman, The Mummy. Everyone knows these classic monsters from the Golden Era of horror movies. They have had countless adaptations, remakes, and re-imaginings. One monster, though, has been looked over more than the Creature From The Black Lagoon. I'm talking about the Invisible Man. Perhaps it's because the Invisible Man is, well, a man or maybe he is not as visually appealing as the other monsters, but for whatever reason, the Invisible Man is just not very popular. Maybe a modern take on the story would breathe new life into the character just like The Mummy series with Brendan Frasier. Having Kevin Bacon involved is a good start.

Hollow Man is a 2000 science-fiction horror movie inspired by the H.G. Wells story, The Invisible Man. The movie stars Kevin Bacon (Tremors, Apollo 13) as Dr. Sebastian Caine and Elisabeth Shue (Adventures In Babysitting, The Karate Kid) as Dr. Linda McKay. They are part of a team of scientists, including Dr. Matt Kensington (Josh Brolin, No Country For Old Men, W.), working on an invisibility serum for the Pentagon. They test their serum on animals and are capable of turning them invisible, but cannot return them to their visible state. Sebastian has a breakthrough and injects an invisible gorilla with the new serum, making it visible again. When asked by his government superiors about his progress, Sebastian does not tell them about the breakthrough. He believes that in order to keep control of his work he must test the serum on himself. Sebastian asks Matt and Linda to lie to the rest of the team for him in order to convince them to test the serum himself. Unbeknownst to him, Matt and Linda are secretly seeing each other romantically. With his group's help, Sebastian, through a great deal of physical pain and psychological stress, becomes invisible. Unfortunately, they are unable to turn him back, and the added power of being able to go anywhere undetected affects Sebastian's already fragile mental stability. Sebastian begins to harass his co-workers and people out in public, even molesting Linda in her sleep. When Linda and Matt tell their superior, Dr. Kramer, about what has happened, Sebastian drowns him in a pool. With his sanity slipping, Sebastian begins killing the members of his team one by one. How will Linda and Matt be able to stop someone they can't even see?

Six degrees of Kevin Bacon looking like a Jack O'Lantern

Most incarnations of the Invisible Man suffer from a lack of visuals. They show nothing and we just have to take their word for it that someone is there. They have to rely on bandages and clothing to show the Invisible Man, even thought there is no real point for him to have clothes on. Hollow Man uses modern special effects to actually make that weakness into it's greatest strength. The effects used throughout the movie look great, from highly detailed muscles and nervous systems to Kevin Bacon's transparent eyes when he wears synthetic skin. Special effects can only go so far, though. The movie starts out promising with good character development and a believable basis in science. The movie slows down once Sebastian becomes invisible, exactly where the movie should speed up. It takes too long for things to happen and when they finally do, it's very predictable. This is also around the same time that the movie goes from interesting and suspenseful to typical horror movie, complete with a race against time to stop an explosion. The movie poses interesting questions about absolute power corrupting absolutely and then just kind of forgets about them.

Director Paul Verhoeven is no stranger to science fiction/action movies with a resume including Total Recall, Starship Troopers, and Robocop. The action isn't the issue as there is plenty of it, with a good amount of blood and violence. The science fiction is fine, but not great as the movie loses it's direction in favor of action and special effects. It doesn't help that the movie is at least 20 minutes too long for no particular reason. The horror is pretty straightforward, which is unfortunate, because the Invisible Man has the potential to be scary in a cerebral way. Why not have him whisper in someone's ear rather than just charge at them with a weapon? That's just lazy writing. Kevin Bacon makes for a very good villian as the he is able to capture the egomaniacal nature and rage of Sebastian. Elisabeth Shue is good as well, pulling off the vulnerable yet confident Linda. Josh Borlin is fine, though he is just kind of “there” throughout the movie. 

"You spilled my cranberry juice! I'll kill you!"

It's always nice to see a horror movie use a classic character, especially one that doesn't receive much attention. Hollow Man gives the Invisible Man a modern spin, basing it in the modern world and giving it a heavy dose of science. The special effects are fantastic, even 12 years later. The violence is good and there is enough action to keep things interesting. The movie is a bit too long and tends to slow down in the middle. There are some missed opportunities for good scares as the movie goes for a more straightforward horror feel. The acting is good, but the story laves something to be desired. The movie did very well at the box office, and I can see the appeal. It's a good popcorn flick, but it is missing that something special to make it memorable.

6/10

Day 231: The Crazies

The Crazies

If you lived in Iowa, you'd  be crazy too

In previous reviews, I've talked about how horror remakes are not necessarily a bad thing. Many horror remakes nowadays are a simple cash-grab, piggybacking off mostly well-known movies in hopes of making a buck. A great example of this is Michael Bay's Platinum Dunes production company, who have remade the decent A Nightmare on Elm St, the passable Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and the horrendous The Hitcher. For every 5 terrible horror remakes, though, there lies a great one, bringing a lesser-known movie to a new audience with an updated take. The 1982 version of The Thing was probably the best example of an a horror movie remake being better than the original. Can the same be said for a remake of a lesser-known George Romero film?

The Crazies is a 2010 remake of the 1973 horror movie by George Romero (Night Of The Living Dead, Monkey Shines). This version stars Timothy Olyphant (Deadwood, Justified) as David, the local sheriff in the small town of Ogden Marsh, Iowa. During a high school baseball game, when Rory Hamill, a local resident, wanders onto the field brandishing a shotgun. David clears the field and approaches Rory while his deputy, Russell Clank (Joe Anderson, The Ruins, Across The Universe) covers him. Rory, unresponsive to demands to stop, raises his gun and David shoots him dead. David is shaken, but comforted by his wife Judy (Radha Mitchell, Silent Hill, Pitch Black) the local doctor. Other townspeople begin to exhibit strange behavior, including Judy's brother-in-law, who kills her sister and nephew and sets their house on fire. The next day, David and Russell are called out to a swamp where a dead pilot was found by hunters. David discovers the pilot's military plane submerged underwater, the same body of water that supplies the town. David manually shuts down the water after being denied by the mayor. When he returns to town, he finds it deserted, save for a black SUV that speeds off when he gets close. The town is then swarmed by the military and scientists, quarantining the area and separating the townspeople by who is infected and who is not. Judy is deemed infected despite explaining her fever is due to her being pregnant. David and Russell are able to rescue Judy and Becca, her assistant, before an infected person, or Crazy, is able to kill them. On the run, the group has to hide from the soldiers and fight off the Crazies. Becca is killed when they get stuck inside an automatic car wash and their car is blown up by a helicopter. Russell becomes more agitated and aggressive as the continue on and uses spike strips to stop an oncoming SUV, causing it to flip repeatedly. David questions the official inside and learns that the town is infected with a biological weapon called “Trixie”. Enraged, Russell shoots him in the head. Between the military and a now infected Ruseell, how will David and Judy escape and survive.

Wizard of Oz gets grim and gritty

While this version of The Crazies does have the same basic story, names, and overtones as the original, it really is it's own movie. The original had a subplot involving government officials and delved into some other themes that the remake skipped over for the better. This version is more streamlined with an easily to follow story, likable characters, and better action. The Crazies is essentially a zombie movie without the traditional zombies, but still maintains the political and social commentary. The movie smartly raises the question of government involvement, suppression, and biological war. The infected people can no longer control their actions and almost anybody could become one, pitting neighbors against neighbors. We the audience are conflicted because while we want David and Judy to escape the containment, but put the rest of the world at risk. It's this conflict that makes the movie both thrilling and compelling.

The movie is highly entertaining thanks to solid action and great acting. There is danger around every corner in The Crazies making for some very good scares. There is a good amount of violence with lots of blood and some gore. The Crazies look very good with specific, believable makeup. Director Breck Eisner (Sahara, Fear Itself) made sure that the makeup for the Crazies came from real-life diseases. This attention to detail made the movie more believable and maintained the Crazies human traits. As someone who has seen a lot of zombie movies, it was a little weird to hear the Crazies speak and be coherent, but since this isn't a traditional zombie movie, it's fine. Breck does a good job of capturing both the action and fear in the movie, making for a fast-paced and exciting watch. Timothy Olyphant is great in his role, which should be no surprise since he plays a law officer in Deadwood, Gone In Sixty Seconds, and Justified. This isn't new ground for him. Radha Mitchell is good as well, exuding confidence and love. Joe Anderson puts in the best performance as Russell, becoming more and more unhinged as the movie progresses. As someone who has spent an extended period of time in Iowa, the location for the movie is a great choice. It is isolated, plain and boring, an unsuspecting “All American” place where nothing can seemingly go wrong.

"Uh, I'll just ask someone else for directions."

The Crazies is able of breaking the horror remake curse by bringing a lesser-known horror movie to a new audience while improving upon the original. This version maintains the strong social commentary and the heart of the original movie. It is essentially a zombie movie without all the brain-eating and head shooting. The action is much better thanks to a bigger budget and effects. There is a good amount of blood and gore with lots of variation. Timothy Olyphant, Radha Mitchell, and Joe Anderson all put in very good performances which help make the movie believable. When a movie is as good as The Crazies, it's hard to completely be against horror remakes.

8.5/10

Day 223: The Hitcher

The Hitcher

Shouldn't he have his thumb out or something?

Another day, another horror remake. These days, remakes are everywhere. Remaking a movie is not a new concept, but Hollywood has officially run out of ideas. A majority of the movies are either comic book or novel adaptations or remakes. Was the world really clamoring to see a big screen remake of 21 Jump Street? In horror, sometimes a remake works out like Dawn of the Dead and The Thing. It can bring a formerly unknown horror movie to a new audience or make a mediocre horror film better. It's important not to write off a movie just because it's a remake. You need to see it for yourself before casting it into the fiery pits of hell.

The Hitcher is a 2007 remake of the 1985 movie starring C. Thomas Howell and Rutger Hauer. This version stars Zachary Knighton (Happy Endings, FlashForward) as Jim Halsey and Sophia Bush (Stay Alive, One Tree Hill) as his girlfriend Grace Andrews. Jim and Grace go on a road trip for spring break across the American Southwest. On a rainy night, Jim almost hits a hitchiker on an empty road, but keeps driving. Eventually, the hitchiker, John Ryder (Sean Bean, Lord Of The Rings, Silent Hill) catches up to them at a gas stop and asks for a ride. Caught in the awkward position, Jim agrees. Things quickly turn bad as Ryder is revealed to be a murderous psychopath, taking Grace hostage and trying to force Jim to say “I want to die.” Jim thinks fast and is able to kick Ryder out of his moving car. The next day, Jim and Grace see Ryder inside a station wagon with an unsuspecting family. They try to warn them, but are run off the road, crashing Jim's car. They start to walk when they come across the station wagon which is now covered in blood. The father is still alive so they drive the station wagon in search of help, only to be attacked by Ryder in a pickup truck. When things look grim, Ryder stops the assault and drives off. They reach a roadside cafe where Grace asks a waitress to call for help, but when the police arrive, they arrest Jim and Grace. Ryder arrives at the station, killing the police officers and free Jim from his cell, allowing he and Grace to escape. Lieutenant Esteridge (Neal McDonough, 88 Minutes, Walking Tall) investigates the crimscene and determines that a third suspect, not just Jim and Grace, has killed the police officers. On the run, Jim and Grace are confronted by another cop, whom Ryder shoots in an attempt to frame them. A high speed chase ensues, with Ryder killing all of the police officers in pursuit. What does he want with Grace and Jim and how can they stop him?

"I miss my hobbits."

It's important to acknowledge right off the bat that Michael Bay was a producer for this movie. Normally, I don't point out who produces a movie, because it usually doesn't matter. It matters a hell of a lot with this movie because it reeks of Michael Bay's horrendous style of directing. Despite Dave Meyers sitting in the director's chair, you would be hard-pressed to differentiate The Hitcher from some of Bay's other movies like Transformers and Armageddon. The best way to describe this movie is “Explosion, explosion, high-speed car crash, gun shots explosion, pretty girl running, explosion, high-speed car crash, pretty girl running, more gun shots.” Everything else is just window dressing. There is a gratuitous amount of violence and blood, but it's not very thrilling. The movie certainly doesn't lack in the action department. Unfortunately, the movie forgets that it's a horror movie and ignores the tension from the first film. The original was engaging and creepy while this version is made for the MTV generation, down to the unappropriated choice of music. During a car chase scene, they actually play Nine Inch Nails “Closer”. It's a great song, but it's completely out of place with the scene. It's downright insulting that they chose to use this song, especially considering what this song is actually about.

The movie follows fairly closely t o the original material, with one big exception being the inclusion of Grace. She is simply not in the first Hitcher and I question why they felt they need to include her. This version does switch things up with the female character being portrayed as the hero, which is always good, but this doesn't happen until the last 15 minutes or so. She can barely keep it together for most of the movie and we're supposed to believe she is able to escape burning cars and wield a shotgun? Why bother doing that if you're not going to commit the entire movie to that notion? Sean Bean puts in the best performance despite not being on screen all that much. Rutger Hauer was a far more sinister version of Ryder than Bell, who was more like an unstoppable, Terminator-like villain. There is not much in the way of character development, especially in the case of Lt. Esteridge. He just kind of shows up at certain times and Neal McDonough chews so much scenery that I'm surprised the sets don't have teeth marks.

This gets the "Michael Bay Erection Of Approval"

Remaking The Hitcher wasn't a bad idea. It isn't a particularly well-known horror movie from the 80's that could play well with a modern audience. The original was smart in it's creepyness, playing on the fears of picking up a stranger. This version ignored the nuances in favor of lots of explosions and car chases. Michael Bay's stink is all over this movie, so if you hate his style of “KABOOM! BLAMMO! POW POW!” storytelling, you'll be annoyed by this as well. The characters lack the appropriate mount of development and the inclusion of a new character was unnecessary. Sean Bean is decent as Ryder, but doesn't get much help from his fellow cast members. What was once a decent horror movie has now become another run-of-the-mill action movie for unremarkable teenagers to watch when Fast and the Furious isn't on.

2.5/10

Day 222: Day Of The Dead

Day Of The Dead

Nothing makes sense in this picture. Nothing.

In “Shaun of the Dead,” Ed asks Shaun, “Who died and made you fucking king of the zombies?” Despite still being alive, the answer to that question would have to be George Romero. Romero is the father of the modern zombie genre with his original trilogy of Night Of The Living Dead, Dawn Of The Dead, and Day Of The Dead being the litmus test for all other zombie movies. While many zombie movies try to achieve the same greatness of Romero's movies, most of the time they end up just ripping them off. There are countless “... Of The Dead” movies out there just hoping that an unsuspecting horror fan will pick it up in hopes of a good zombie movie. I know that's true because I've done it before. In 2004, Zack Snyder directed a remake of Dawn Of The Dead to wide success and acclaim. It took the essence of the original along with some important scenes and made it a modern horror movie. It was only a matter of time before we got a remake of Day Of The Dead.

Day Of The Dead is a 2008 direct-to-video remake of the 1985 George Romero movie of the same name. The movie stars Mena Suvari (American Pie, American Beauty) as Corporal Sarah Cross. An outbreak has occurred in a small town in Colorado, leading the army to quarantine the area. The town also happens to be the home of Corporal Cross, who travels with Private Bud Crain (Stark Sands, Six Feet Under, Generation Kill) to her mother's house to check up on her. There, she walks in on her brother Trevor (Michael Welch, Joan of Arcadia, Twilight) making out with his girlfriend Nina (AnnaLynne McCord, 90210, New Moon). Sarah checks on Trevor's friend, Kyle, and discovers that his parents have been brutally mauled. She takes her sick mother to the hospital along with Trevor and Nina. The hospital is overrun by sick people who all stop moving at the same time. The infected suddenly reanimate, turning into super-fast, super-agile flesh-hungry zombies. Trevor and Nina are able to escape while Sarah and Bud hide in a storage room along with Dr. Logan (Matt Rippy, Torchwood, Boogeyman 3) and Private Salazar (Nick Cannon, Drumline, RollBounce). They are attacked by a zombified Captain Rhodes (Ving Rhames, Dawn Of The Dead, Pulp Fiction) who bites Bud on the hand before they are able to kill him. Trevor and Nina find safety in a radio station while Bud, Sarah, and Salazar fight their way out of the hospital. Dr. Logan makes a run for it on his own. Bud eventually turns into a zombie, but through his strong feelings for Sarah, retains some of his human traits and is helpful in fighting off the zombies. They pick up Trevor and Nina and head to a supposedly abandoned bunker. Inside, they find a laboratory with Dr. Logan inside. How is he connected to the outbreak, what is “Project: Wildfire” and how will they survive?

I don't think the camouflage is working

Calling this a remake is a real stretch of the imagination. The Dawn Of The Dead remake, while not exactly the same as the original, kept the same themes and general idea intact. I mean, a majority of the movie takes place with the humans holed-up in a mall, just like the original. This remake has a completely different story and only a tenuous connection to the source material. Just because you use the same names as the original, have the main characters be soldiers, and having a zombie remember things doesn't mean you have a remake. The movie also lacks the serious political and social commentary that made up so much of the original. All of this could be forgiven if the movie itself was good. There is plenty of action to go around, so if you like exploding heads, you'll be entertained. While it does have some entertaining moments, the story is too much of a mess to be overcome.

Things happen too conveniently in Day Of The Dead. The main characters survive too easily while everyone else dies around them. The last 15 minutes or so when they randomly find this bunker that had never been previously mentioned is when things get out of hand. They try to cram in an explanation that should have been addressed earlier and then throw in some horrifically unrealistic action. I've come to accept fast zombies, but I can't allow zombies that can crawl on ceilings and make Super Mario-like jumps. These things are so fast that it's hard to believe anyone would survive. The fun of having slow zombies is the crushing realization that a character is surrounded and no matter what they do, they are dead. Some zombies look good while others look like a pizza from Domino's. There is a good amount of blood and gore, enough to please most horror fans. To put it lightly, the acting is just not very good. Mena Suvari does her best, but I just can't believe that she is a Corporal in the army. Ving Rhames is only in the movie for a few brief scenes, which is a shame, because we know he can be very good. Between this and Zombie Apocalypse, I don't know what Mr. Rhames was thinking. The real problem comes from Nick Cannon who spits out contrived, cliched lines with all the conviction of a rapper-turned-actor. The special effects look particularly fake and they would have been better off using traditional effects and makeup.

I didn't know zombies could smile

If you enjoyed the original Day Of The Dead, you will be greatly disappointed with this remake. It does have more action, blood, and gore than the original, but lacks the story and commentary that made the original so enjoyable. There are a few connections to the original, but, for better or worse, this Day Of The Dead is really it's own story. The acting is questionable and the special effects are worse. The super-fast zombies add more fear to the movie, but look silly as they sprint and flail about. If you like lots of violence in your zombie movies, you'll really enjoy this one. If you need a little more substance to your horror, you should look elsewhere.

4.5/10

Day 184: Don't Be Afraid Of The Dark

Don't Be Afraid Of The Dark

Just turn on a night light and you'll be fine

The entire world is devastated by the news of the breakup between Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. I thought those kids would make it last forever. If they can't make it work, can any of us find true happiness that involves jumping on a couch on national television? It's tough, but we'll have to persevere. May Lord Xemu grant us the strength and may out thetan levels reach maximum Hubbardedness. In honor of their magical time together, I thought it was only right to review a movie involving Katie Holmes being attacked by mythical creatures. Grab on to your e-meters and let's go!

Don't Be Afraid Of The Dark is a 2011 horror remake of a 1973 film of the same name. Co-written by Guillermo Del Toro (Hellboy, Pan's Labyrinth), the movie stars Katie Holmes (Batman Begins, Dawson's Creek) as Kim and Guy Pearce (The King's Speech, Memento) as Alex Hurst. Alex has purchased and is restoring Blackwood Manor, an old mansion in Rhode Island. His 8 year-old daughter Sally (Bailee Madison, The Haunting Hour, Just Go With It) arrives to live at the house and immediately hates it. Kim, who is dating Alex, tries to connect with Sally, but is unsuccessful. Sally is depressed and on Adderall, thanks to her mother. She wanders the grounds of the mansion and comes across a basement hidden by trees. Mr. Harris, the groundskeeper, warns her not to go in the basement, but she ignores his warning and explores the room. She is drawn to a fireplace and begins to hear voices coming from deep inside, beckoning her to let them out so they can play. The creatures soon reek havoc throughout the house, with the blame going to Sally. They soon begin to attack her and even put Mr. Harris in the hospital. Her increased fear and anxiety prompts Alex to call a psychiatrist. Meanwhile, Kim visits Mr. Harris in the hospital who tells her to go to the library and research Lord Blackwood. She discovers artwork by Blackwood that depicts dark, evil creatures, strikingly similar to pictures that Sally draws. These creatures feast on the teeth of children and occasionally turn a human into one of them to replenish their ranks. Will Kim be able to save Sally before it is too late?

I miss Dawson and Pacey so much right now

Don't Be Afraid Of The Dark is different from a lot of R-rated horror movies in that the main character is a child. It's kind of odd considering the original didn't do this and you have two relatively big stars in more supporting than starring roles. While this adds a different level of fear and suspense, it also adds a new level of annoyance. I don't know what it is, but it feels like every child in a horror movie is either extremely annoying or extremely stupid. The Sally character is more the former than the latter. She is far too moody and made me cheer for the creatures to get her. By having the main character be a child under duress, the movie felt like it was geared more towards pre-teens than adults. This movie would be better suited for a sleepover party than a midnight movie. The movie tends to drag between action scenes

That doesn't mean it isn't scary. The movie focuses on good old-fashioned atmospheric horror than outright startling moments. If you like Vincent Price-style haunted house movies, you'll probably get a kick out of certain scenes. There is good usage of shadows and sound as the whispering creatures are creepy to listen to and leave the audience with an uneasy and unshakable feeling. The creatures themselves look decent for CGI special effects, but I couldn't help but feel that a swift kick to a few of them would have solved a lot of problems. There is some violence, but not as much as you would expect. Katie Holmes' and Guy Pearce's performances are both fine, but nothing special.

Looks like a Chupacabra mated with an alien

Don't Be Afraid Of The Dark had a lot of potential, but just didn't fully succeed in execution. While it was nice to remake a movie that a good amount of people have not seen, the new version didn't improve upon the original. There are some good atmospheric scares and a general creepiness, but nothing shocking and truly haunting. Focusing too much on the little girl took away from the story and made me look at a character I found very annoying. The performances are all passable, but there wasn't much in the way of character development. The movie lacked an appropriate amount of blood and violence, which would have made everything far more enjoyable. Don't Be Afraid Of The Dark is watchable, but it's not very enjoyable. We'll miss you, TomKat.

5.5/10

Day 174: A Nightmare On Elm Street

A Nightmare On Elm Street

Hat's off to horror

1, 2, Freddy's remade for you. Horror remakes are usually met with fear, anger, and derision from the horror community. Heck, just regular remakes are met the same way. We love our originals and hate to see them re-cut, altered, chewed up, and spat out onto the big screen in hopes of making a few million. A lot of us grew up with these movies and while it's great to see a new generation get into these movies, it's hard to see our favorite things be changed. But not all remakes are horrible. The Dawn of the Dead remake, while different, was still a pretty good horror movie. Could the same be said for a movie based around an iconic character?

A Nightmare On Elm Street is a 2010 remake of Wes Craven's 1984 horror film of the same name. It stars Rooney Mara (The Girl With The Dragon Tatoo, The Social Network) as Nancy Holbrook. Nancy is a waitress at a local diner and serves classmates Dean and his girlfriend, Kris (Katie Cassidy, Black Christmas, When A Stranger Calls). Dean hasn't slept in days, suffering from nightmares that a mysterious burned man is trying to kill him. He drifts into sleep and is killed in his dream by the man, but appears to kill himself in reality to those around him. At Dean's funeral, Kris sees a picture of them together as children, but doesn't remember knowing him when they were young. Kris begins to dream of the burned man and has her ex-boyfriend Jesse (Thomas Dekker, Laid To Rest, Kaboom) stay with her to keep her company. In her dreams, she meets the burned man, and in reality she is supernaturally slammed all across her room before being slashed to death. Jesse flees to Nancy's house, who reveals she also dreams of the man. Jesse is soon arrested for Kris's murder. He tries to stay awake in jail, but falls asleep and is brutally murdered by the same man. Joined by her classmate Quentin (Kyle Gallner, The Haunting in Connecticut, Jennifer's Body), Nancy discovers that they are all connected through the preschool they attended. There, the gardener named Freddy Krueger (Jackie Earle Haley, Rorschach from Watchmen) sexually abused the children and named Nancy as his favorite. Their parents took justice in their own hands and burned Krueger alive. Now he is back, killing the children who told on him through their dreams. Nancy and Quentin try to stay awake, thinking of a way to beat Freddy, but constantly drift in and out of sleep as he gets closer to killing them. Will Nancy, Freddy's favorite, be able to stop him?

Better moisturize

It's hard not to compare the remake to the original and it's impossible to replace Robert Englund. Robert Englund IS Freddy Krueger. Freddy is all personality and hard to recreate whereas a character like Jason, who is essentially just a big, unkillable bastard in a mask, can be played by anyone meeting the height and weight requirements. That being said, Jackie Earle Haley is very good as a different Freddy Krueger. Gone are the one-liners and funny quips. This Freddy is a darker character, staying more true to Wes Craven's original vision in which Freddy was a child molester. Rooney Mara is good in her role, but her characters reminds me of Raven from the cartoon Teen Titans; drab and kind of bland. As far as horror remakes go, A Nightmare On Elm Street isn't that bad. It's a good introduction for viewers who may not have seen the original. Even Freddy's face is different as they went for a more traditional burn victim look. Unfortunately, it looks stiff and a little boring, more closely resembling a cross between an alien and a burnt English muffin.

The movie itself focuses more on stylistic action and cool violence than comprehensive plot. Now that I think about it, I don't know if they ever explained just how Freddy was able to come back from the dead and haunt dreams. The new Nightmare lacks the proper amount of depth and creativity that helped make the original great. By not being a complete movie, this remake just comes off as a good, but typical supernatural slasher. The special effects are actually pretty good and some of the scenes are quite impressive, such as when the floor in a hallway becomes a pool of thick blood that drags Nancy under. The movie has a good amount of blood, gore, and action. There are a few jumps and scares, but nothing overall terrifying.

What do you mean Phish is sold out?!

Horror fans will always be wary of remakes. We hold our horror close to our gorey hearts. A Nightmare On Elm Street probably didn't need to be remade so soon, but in this day and age, it's amazing it took this long. The basic story and some characters are the same as the original, but it's the specifics that are different, similar to the Dawn Of The Dead remake. I was happy to see some scenes recreated, so at least they did that right. Jackie Earle Haley is a very good, if different, Freddy Krueger and Rooney Mara plays her part well. The movie has some great special effects and lots of blood, but the story feels empty and flat. Thankfully, this remake is not bad. It's just not great.

6.5/10

Day 140: The Wolfman

The Wolfman

Na na na na na na na na, Wolfman!

I remember seeing previews for The Wolfman remake and thinking that it looked pretty cool. They had a good mixture of horror, action, and excitement. It didn't hurt that the cast included Anthony Hopkins, Benicio del Toro, and Hugo Weaving. When the movie came out, though, the reviews were not good and I decided not to see it in theaters. It was time to see if the reviews were right.

The Wolfman is a 2010 loose remake of the 1941 horror classic, The Wolf Man, starring Benicio del Toro (Sin City, Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas) as Lawrence Talbot. In the late 1800's, Lawrence has received a letter from Gwen Coliffe (Emily Blunt, Wind Chill, The Adjustment Bureau), his brother Ben's fiancee, stating that Ben had been killed. Lawrence returns to his family's estate, which he hasn't seen in many years. He is also reunited with his estranged father, Sir John (Anthony Hopkins, Silence of the Lambs, Amistad). Lawrence views Ben's body which has been horribly mutilated by some sort of beast. Among his personal items, Lawrence finds a medallion with three wolves on it, apparently purchased from gypsies that camp near the town. During a full moon, Lawrence speaks with a gypsy named Maleva to gain answers for his brother's death. At the same time, local townspeople come into the gypsy camp to claim their dancing bear, whom they believe is the cause for various animal attacks. A werewolf tears through the encampment, brutally killing people and biting Lawrence. Gwen cares for him and he makes a miraculous recovery. Inspector Abeline (Hugo Weaving, The Matrix, Lord of the Rings) visits the manor and implies that Lawrence is behind recent murders in the area. That night he turns, and kills local villagers trying to capture him. Lawrence is committed to the same asylum he was in when he was younger, due to seeing his mother's suicide. The doctor's believe his lycanthropy is psychological, but are proven very wrong when he turns into a werewolf and goes on a killing spree. It is revealed that Sir John is also a werewolf and had in fact, killed Lawrence's mother. Lawrence and his father have an all-out werewolf throw-down with Lawrence killing his father. Will Gwen be able to set Lawrence free from this horrible curse before it's too late?

This is my war face!

I have seen the original Wolf Man, but it has been so long that I really shouldn't try to compare the two that much. Why some say that there was no need to remake the original, I don't really have a problem with it. The remake certainly has of elements of the original, but goes off into it's own territory about halfway through. That's fine with me because the story needed an update in terms of today's audience which needs more action and sleeker production. I'm happy that the kept the general look of the original Wolf Man and didn't go for a straight werewolf look used in more recent werewolf-based movies like Underworld. They also keep the basic werewolf rules, following the full moon, silver bullets, and being released from the curse by a loved one. I'm not sure why they changed the name from The Wolf Man to the Wolfman. Maybe they made him Jewish. L'Chaim!

The story itself is decent, but it suffers from being uneven. One example of this is the character of Gwen. It felt like she was missing for about half the movie and her romance with Lawrence came out of nowhere. The movie also tries explain Lawrence's relationship with his father, but it barely scratches the surface and comes off more as filler. It's not particularly clear why Inspector Abeline suspects Lawrence of the murders, which comes off as convenient to the story and not logic or reason. There are some moments of horror and a few jolting moments of surprise, but nothing particularly scary. The movie makes up for the lack of horror with lots and lots of bloody action. There is a large amount of blood and gore for a mainstream movie. The Wolfman enough blood and guts for me to think they knocked over a butcher shop before filming certain scenes.

"Oh shit, I left the oven on!"

The acting throughout the movie is pretty good, but that's no surprise with this cast. Anthony Hopkins is pretty great in his domineering, sinister role as Sir John. We know we should be fearful of him, even if he's not a werewolf. Benicio del Toro does well as Lawrence, creating a sympathetic character for the audience to both root and mourn for. I could have used a bit more Hugo Weaving, who's mustache makes him look like a more dapper Lemmy from Motorhead. As I've said before, Emily Blunt's Gwen isn't in as much of the movie as you'd expect, but she is fine in her role. I'm still a bit annoyed from that terrible movie Wind Chill she was in, but she didn't annoy me here. The other big star in the movie is special effects. The transformation scenes look great and the makeup artists won a well-deserved Academy Award. Unfortunately, the movie relies too heavily on other computerized and blue-screen effects, making it look particularly fake in certain scenes. It would have been better to use the real night sky instead of a clearly fake moon. 

 

The Ace of Spades!

Despite a good amount of bad reviews, I didn't find The Wolfman to be particularly bad. It's not as good as the original, but it wasn't an abomination unworthy of the name. There are plenty of differences, but they do keep some of the heart from the original. The acting is very good and there is plenty of blood and violence. The story is uneven and could have gone much smoother for my liking. Overall, The Wolfman was an OK monster movie with some fun scenes. Is it worthy of the Wolf Man legacy? Maybe, maybe not, but it's still a decent watch.

6.5/10