Month: October 2012

October 22, 2012

31 Nights Of Halloween, Shocker

Shocker: Mess

The Idea is fun, The Content is weak

This is a review and also a questionnaire if anyone knows the answers to. I have so many question on this film. The first time I ever knew about this film was at the dollar store years ago. I had found the soundtrack there for just a dollar and thought it would be a cool film to watch. After listening to the disk I just had to watch this film, which brought up a ton of question. Never has a film left me with so many questions before.
“I eat this wimp’s will power for breakfast, John-bo.” Let me say first I know its a comedy-horror hybrid. It just doesn’t work for me this time around. Peter Bergs acting is not the greatest, lets just say that. Mitch Pileggi is the only reason to watch this poorly made film. Wes Craven is a favorite of mine mostly do to, A Nightmare on Elm Street, a horror masterpiece (In my opinion). This film isn’t even close to good let alone a masterpiece. Craven seems to wanna recreate that magic that was on Elm Street and as well as a new franchise. By trying to recreate, they created a film that so bloated it seems they tried every idea they could think of. It’s almost 2hrs long and thats way too long for this film, just way too long. The idea is so stretched out it gives stretch armstrong a run for this money. That line there might of been bad, but its nowhere near the cheesy dialogue in this film.

Here is a film that knows its not suppose to be good (at least I think so) and goes with it. Only redeeming value is watching this with friends do to its stupidity, other then that is hard to watch by yourself. 

The scene that sticks out for me, is the Park scene, in which we get a odd “gun shooting count”.
This is how it goes…
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10, 11, 12
(Reloads)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
(Reloads)
Throws Gun
New Gun
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
“It’s no good, Pinker; Alison told me the secret. Maybe you *were* my father, but you know who my father is now? You know who’s responsible for me? Me; no one else.”(Spoilers if you care ahead!)

Side notes: Nobody seems to care that there is a cop trying to kill a kid at this park. Also the children continue to play as gun shots ring out. And why does Jonathan seem to be running in a circle that whole time? Really lets just say, the whole direction of this film is a Mess. Doing this creates many plot-holes and makes the movie not a movie but a joke. The script needs a line of time to stay on its course, like a train on a track. The film seems to have its scenes written individually, thrown in a bag then picked out one by one for the film. This makes things tough to follow and allows the viewer to really not care. As you watch this film things just pop up for no reason, like Alison talking from the dead, did I miss something? And the damn necklace that Jonathan gives to her, apparently it has a bit magic, how? And didn’t he get rid of the necklace 6ft under? How did it come back from being 6ft under? 

“It smells like the goddamn electric chair in here.” 
So as I watch this film I asked myself, if Pinker is apparently Jonathan’s father, then why is he trying to kill his own son? Because his son shot Pinker in the leg? Seems a bit much I think. Also why the hell is Jonathan so damn hard to kill? Because Jonathan doesn’t seem so bright, I mean he does run in circles as Pinker tries to kill him. Oh and I don’t think anyone will disagree on this one, but Jonathan’s adapted father is a idiot. Why was he written so badly? He doesn’t realize anything, even when Jonathan proves to him he knows things that can help catch Pinker, he keeps shooting down his adapted kid who knows things he shouldn’t know.

How could he travel into bodys, because of the devil worshiping he did? Is that why he can’t die? And how can Jonathan see into the future? I found it funny the cops have to read the miranda rights from a piece of paper, they don’t know it by heart yet?

And why was finding one killer so difficult? Seriously they had a shitty group of police in that town.
Why? Why? Why?
Maybe I just don’t remember, but I do believe they didn’t explain this stuff. Hey possibly I had passed out or something because I’ve never had so many question after watching a movie.
Listen I usually don’t care so much about stupid films like this, I really like stupid horror films for the comedy side of it but this film had too many questions on this one.

Like I said in the beginning watch it with friends or if you can’t sleep one night pop it in.

October 21, 2012

Simplistic Reviews Presents: Word Association

The second feature for the upcoming Simplistic Reviews Podcast proves that all you need to make a great game show is a simple concept, catchy music, and a rather unorthodox announcer.  Welcome to Word Association.

October 19, 2012

31 Nights of Halloween, Psycho (1960)

Psycho (1960) – Prodding

Slasher films have been around for a loooooong time, and have had plenty of ups and downs.  Take “Halloween” for instance, it pretty much invented “the formula.” Then you have “Friday the 13th” that perfected “the formula.” After that you had plenty of other slasher fodder, including any holiday being translated into slasher fare.  Let me illustrate.

I digress, I’ll continue this rant in another review, but it does bring me to a point; recent slasher films (and I use that term loosely) are awful.  There is nothing iconic about the sub-genre anymore.  Gone are the days of Michael Myers, Jason Vorhees, and Leatherface.  However, it does bring me to the most recent review on the “31 Nights of Halloween” and that is Alfred Hitchcock’s proto-slasher film, 1960’s “Psycho.”

You might think that I’m going to laud “Psycho”and say how great a film it is, well, it’s just okay.  While there are many redeeming aspects, namely the cinematography, music, and the balls Hitchcock had (spoiler alert, c’mon this is a 50 year old movie) to kill off his star, Janet Leigh, “Psycho”doesn’t hold up as well as some people think, and watching it again as an adult with more of a appreciation of the genre and film in general; it’s prodding.

Maybe I’m committing blasphemy (I must be, because there is nothing negative out there about this film).  I’ve besmirched the greatness that is Alfred Hitchcock, The Master of Suspense.  Sorry Alfie, no hard feelings I hope, but “Psycho”just seems antiquated in this day and age.  It’s almost a procedural serial killer/cop drama, which wouldn’t work for the genre today.

“Psycho,” based on Robert Bloch’s novel of the same name, and loosely on 1950’s serial killer, Ed Gein, is about Marion Crane (Janet Leigh), whose on the run with $40,000, and finds her way to the Bates Hotel, run by Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) and his domineering mother.  Crane is soon murdered by what seems to be a woman while taking the most famous shower in cinema history.  Bates finds the body, and disposes of both it and Crane’s car.  Worried about her sister, Lila Crane (Vera Miles) hires private detective, Milton Aborgast (Martin Balsam), to track down her sister.  The P.I. meets a grisly fate at the hands of the same woman that murdered Marion.  Hearing nothing from their detective, Lila and Marion’s lover, Sam Loomis (John Gavin), take matters into their own hands and head to the Bates Hotel. Lila, while investigating the Bates’ residence, stumbles upon the basement revealing the skeletal remains of what seems to be Norman Bates’ mother, revealing the twist that Bates was actually acting as his mother, thus committing the murders of both Marion and Aborgast.

When you break the movie down that way it sounds great; simple, effective, and trendsetting.  No one had seen that level of violence from a mainstream film, especially one done by Hitchcock.  The problem with “Psycho” is the pacing.  The interactions between characters seems forced (granted, I’m looking at this from a 2012 perspective as opposed to the 1960s) and it takes a while to move the story along.  I understand that is the point of a suspense film, but “Psycho” comes off as more of a noir, and when you think about it in that sense, it’s an excellent study in noir film making.

What drives “Psycho” lies in the director and the composer.  Hitchcock brings an eeriness unlike any film before it and Bernard Herrmann’s score brings a sense of dread in every scene, and “the shower scene” speaks for itself.

The point I’m trying to get at is this; would “Psycho” make it in today’s horror market?  No, and the proof of that is the 1998 remake.  It’s the same exact movie, only with different actors and in color.  If it didn’t work then, it won’t work now.  You also have to take into account what movies studios are pitching; found footage films.  You might say, “Hey Matt, you just watched “V/H/S” and you said you liked it?!”  Yes, I did enjoy “V/H/S”, but when it comes to the horror genre that’s all you’re going to get.  That, and another “Final Destination” and something else that has something to do with demonic possession.  No matter how bad the film is, people will eat it up, and a relatively smart film like “Psycho” wouldn’t stand a chance.

“Psycho” is a film that you can call timeless in it’s direction, tone, and music, but the way the story is constructed and once the twist ending is out there is little replay value from a shock standpoint.  If you want an education in film study, sure, “Psycho” is great, but it’s a time capsule film what worked then, but doesn’t really work now.

Fun Fact:  John Carpenter named Donald Pleasence’s hero psychiatrist from the “Halloween” series after Sam Loomis from “Psycho.”

October 17, 2012

31 Nights Of Halloween, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

RIDICULOUS

When I first heard that they were making a live action adaption of Seth Grahame-Smith’s novel Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter, my ‘BAD IDEA’ alarm went off like a tugboat horn.  When I found out that Timur Bekmambetov, the director of Wanted, was helming the project, my ‘GIVE IT A CHANCE’ indicator light began to flash.  But after watching Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, I’m saddened to see my ‘SATISFACTION’ tank is on E.  I drive a really strange car.

Whew!  Where do I start?  The acting?  Honest Abe is played by Benjamin Walker.  Walker plays him as bland and boring as you might imagine Abe Lincoln to be.  But that is the problem.  You’ve resigned to the fact that your hero will be boring, and yet, give him no one fun to play off of.  Well, they do but he is very underutilized.  And that character is Henry Sturgess played by Dominic Cooper.  You may remember Cooper as a young Howard Stark in Captain America.  Now there is a film with a patriotic hero who could have easily been boring but wasn’t, while still not betraying his character.  Though, Benjamin Walker is no Chris Evans.  I digress.  Cooper has the only performance in this film that seems to feel right.  He is having fun.  Everyone else is either sleepwalking or overacting to the point of mugging at the camera.  Even the love story between Abe and Mary Todd seems forced.  Yes, they made one of the most historically famous romances seem forced.  

Visually?  I’ll be frank.  The special effects in this film, whether it be because of budget restrictions or laziness, are surprisingly awful.  I cannot emphasize that enough.  The worst vampire effects I have ever seen, by far.  And that includes Van Helsing.  The CGI face transformations for the vamps in this make them appear more like cheap cartoons than creatures of the night.  You remember in Who Framed Roger Rabbit when Christopher Lloyd…..24 YEAR OLD SPOILER ALERT….reveals he’s a cartoon and becomes an amalgamation of live action man and Chuck Jones animation?  That is what these vampires look like when they go all savage.  Any moment that they are supposed to be scary is sabotaged by these lackluster effects.  They could have gone practical for much cheaper and garnered a better result.

What about the action?  Well, the action scenes are poorly staged and executed   Which baffles me seeing as this, AGAIN, is the director of Wanted.  There is a fight scene in this film that takes place during a stampede of horses.  And I have no hesitation saying that it is the most RIDICULOUS action sequence I have ever witnessed.  It is a perfect storm of horrible CGI, horrible action staging, horrible acting, and a horrible payoff.  This was when I knew I was in trouble, because this laughable scene happens only 40 minutes in.

Despite all these things, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter’s number one flaw is it’s tone.  It is something that, if they had gotten right, would allow us to ignore the other mistakes.  This is a story about Abraham Lincoln, perhaps our greatest president, being a vampire hunter.  And they play this film entirely serious.  The title, let alone the concept, screams ‘tongue and cheek’.  Yet, this film tries to invoke an emotional response from you.  And they do it haphazardly.  Middle of the road doesn’t work for this material.  If you want to go dark with this…go really dark.  If not, you have to go campy.  Instead, it tries to stick with the same tired, cliched, tropes you can probably see coming from a mile away.  So, here is an equally tired, cliched, summation of this film that you can probably see coming from a mile away.  Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter has no fangs, no teeth, no bite…it just plain sucks.  Watch it…bring your garlic…then tell me I’m wrong.

October 15, 2012

Simplistic TV 31 Nights of Halloween, The Walking Dead, Season Three Premier

The Walking Dead, Season Three Premier – Solid

It’s about damn time AMC gave “The Walking Dead” the money it deserves.  Listen, I know that people love “Mad Men” and “Breaking Bad,” I understand that, but out of the big three shows on AMC the last few years, “The Walking Dead” really got the shaft.  Season two came out of the gates strong, whimpered in the middle, and after AMC found some money to throw at “Dead,” it ended with a bang, literally.  If the first episode of Season Three, entitled “Seed,” is any inclination of what is in store for our survivors, I’d say this is a solid start.

*Keep this in mind while reading further; there might be a few spoilers from last season so if you’re new to “The Walking Dead” I would advise watching the previous two seasons.*

When we last saw our survivors the farm had burned down, Andrea was separated from the group, Rick got the pleasant news that Lori’s baby wasn’t his, and the rest of the group had found out that they were all infected with the “Walker Virus.”  Just another day in the zombie apocalypse.  We pick up roughly six months later with everyone grizzlier, Lori looking a little more pregnant, and Carl looking way older.  The one thing I found interesting, and real cool, was that no one spoke in the first five minutes of the show before the opening credits.  It shows what the group has been through and one of two things; there is a lot of resentment towards Rick after his bombshell at the end of Season Two, or the group knows what it needs to do and verbal communication has gone out of the window.  It was a nice touch and not something you see too often in character-heavy dramas.

This episode is probably one of the goriest episodes to date, with a ton of zombies meeting their demises, again, and a shocker of an ending that I won’t spoil, but I’m sure those who have read the comics (I’m not one of them) might have an idea, but apparently it deviates (cryptic, huh?)

Overall,  this was a solid episode, and it’s certainly planting the “Seed” for things to come.  What will happen to Lori’s baby (zombie baby), what will become of Herschel, who are the armless, jaw-less zombies on a leash, and so much more.

Fun Fact:  Robert Kirkman, the creator of “The Walking Dead” comic series is also a co-owner of Image Comics, known for it’s comic series “Spawn.”

October 14, 2012

31 Nights Of Halloween, Red Lights

INTERESTING

The fun part of Halloween is embracing and being caught up in the frightening lore, eerie superstitions, and wild hocus pocus of the holiday.  The INTERESTING part of Halloween is if you really begin dissecting some of those paranormal activities we take for granted as innocent fun.  Do things actually go bump in the night?  Is there something under your bed?  Are there powers at work that are actually supernatural?  Red Lights is a film that delves into these questions head on.

I had first heard that Red Lights was like watching a serious take on Ghostbusters.  And though, the irony of having Sigourney Weaver play the lead in such a film is not lost on me, Red Lights is not really Ghostbusting.  Its mythbusting.  Deconstructing the paranormal and determining whether strange phenomena and psychic prophets are just a bunch of explainable coincidences and con artists, or if other worldly spirits are truly at play.

I first heard of director Rodrigo Cortes after I watched and swooned over his previous film Buried with Ryan Reynolds.  I marveled at how much tension he filled into a two hour film with only one actor, a cell phone and a dark casket.  One could only imagine what he could do with multiple locations, multiple great actors, and a budget.  Red Lights, though dealing with very INTERESTING subject matter, ultimately comes off as only a great tv pilot.  Cortes had an opportunity to do some really creative things visually with this film, but he unfortunately plays it really safe.  Something, I think, that causes Red Lights to fade into the background of films of this genre instead of shining brightly.

I was surprised by the quality of the cast in Red Lights.  De Niro’s mug is the only one on the poster, so I was not expecting Sigourney to be the lead.  I also wasn’t expecting the very talented Cillian Murphy to carry a lot of this film.  Even Toby Jones sticks his head in at at times.  They all do a really good job, especially Murphy.  A lot of attention and build up is given to De Niro in this, but you’ll be more captivated by Murphy.  He rarely gets to play a part that isn’t…well…Scarecrow.  But there is something about his commitment and intensity in all the parts he plays that makes it hard to keep your eyes off him.

Red Lights squanders its potential by not entirely pushing the envelope as far as it could.  However, it still is a film that is worth a watch entirely on the concept alone.  Don’t be a skeptic….watch it…then tell me I’m wrong.

October 12, 2012

31 Nights of Halloween, Grindhouse

Grindhouse – Ambitious

Here’s the problem with kids these days; they don’t appreciate shit!  I’m an old-school type of guy (and if I’m already a curmudgeon at age 28, well, you know what you can do), that’s why I hate crap like “Twilight”and any other abomination that co-ops things that were once bad-ass and turns them into little emo-bitches who sparkle, or shoe-gaze for over two hours.  Has any “scene kid”or emo kid seen “Dracula” from 1931 or maybe even “The Wolf Man” from 1941 (once again dating myself).  If Lon Chaney, Jr. or Bela Lugosi were alive to see what had become of their beloved characters, well, I’m sure Lugosi would get hooked back on morphine and Chaney would gladly take a few silver bullets to the heart.  I’ll give you this, if you’ve seen “The Lost Boys” I’ll give you a bye….but that’s it.

By the way, this review isn’t even about werewolves (well kind of) or vampires, I simply had to get that off my chest.  However, there is something special about taking something old and making it new again.  Take 2007’s “Grindhouse,” the two-movies-in-one masterpiece by Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino.

“Grindhouse” while fantastic, was a flop, and to me, that’s frustrating.  People, and unfortunately the studios, either prefer shitty remakes (there are a few exceptions) or…….gulp……PG-13 horror (and shame on you if you dare defend PG-13 horror).  Rodriguez and Tarantino gave a big “F You” as they usually do, and decided to dig up old exploitation movies from the 1960s and 70s and make a three-hour epic of sleaze, blood, guts, sex, and even more sleaze.  Throw in some fake trailers, done by the likes of Edgar Wright, Rob Zombie, and Eli Roth, and you have something special.  Too bad people have the attention spans of circus fleas because I would love to see more films like “Grindhouse” make a comeback.

The first film, “Planet Terror” directed by Rodriguez, deals with, SICKOS, not zombies, but SICKOS, kind of like psychos, but instead they eat flesh and their balls melt.  Here are the major plot points; there is a chemical weapon unleashed, people get sick and start eating and killing each other, there’s a government conspiracy, a stripper loses her leg and has a gun reattached to the stub, and we have some “From Dusk Till Dawn” references.  Simple, right?  Yeah, it is.

The second film, “Death Proof” directed by Tarantino, is a take on the slasher genre which stars the awesome Kurt Russell as “Stuntman” Mike who kills young women with his “death proof” stunt car.  People say this is the weaker of the two films, but I highly disagree.  While it might not pack in as much action as “Planet Terror” the dialogue is good, acting solid, and like I said before, it has Kurt Russell.  What else do you need?

Rodriguez and Tarantino go back to basics for “Grindhouse” and it works so well.  It’s simple, stupid fun that is lost upon the modern horror audience.  Not everything has to be a love story between Kristen Stewart, a vampire, and a werewolf.  Or a ghost story shot with a shaky camera.  Or…….”The Wicker Man.”  Maybe that was too easy, but I will give Nick Cage props for this.

If you haven’t already, please check out “Grindhouse,” it’s so good, it’s scary.

Fun Fact:  Grindhouse cinema derives from the defunct burlesque theaters located on 42nd Street in New York City.

October 10, 2012

31 Nights of Halloween, Tales From the Crypt Presents: Demon Knight

Tales From the Crypt Presents: Demon Knight – Schlock

There is nothing wrong with schlock horror, especially when its well made schlock horror.  The schlockiest of schlock was back in the late-80s when “Tales From the Crypt” premiered on HBO, modeled after the controversial comic books from the 1950s.  There really isn’t a need to get into “Tales” right now because I’m sure I’ll talk more about it down the line.  In the meantime, let’s keep the good times going on the “31 Nights of Halloween” with “Tales From the Crypt Presents: Demon Knight” from 1995.

By the time 1995 rolled around the final season of “Tales” had already ended (sadly) but HBO still had a relatively lucrative property, so the most logical step for the series had to be a movie; and thus “Demon Knight” was born.  “Knight” borrows a lot from other splatter films, and the creature designs have a “Evil Dead” “Hellraiser” and “From Dusk Till Dawn” influence all over them, (“Dawn” came out a year later in 1996).

The film takes place in the fictitious Wormwood, New Mexico where a mysterious drifter named Brayker, played by William Sadler, is on the run from a mysterious collector, played by Billy Zane.  Without giving anything away, Brayker is forced to band together with a group of misfits in a church-turned-boarding house against a demon horde looking to obtain a mysterious key filled with blood (there is a lot of mystery in this movie as you can tell).

All in all, “Demon Knight” is a crap ton of schlock, but fun schlock.  It has chills, spills, thrills, and a ton of blood.  Zane is a standout as “The Collector” and eats up all of his scenes, and the rest of the cast hold their own, including a young(er) Thomas Haden Church, and Jada Pinkett.before she added the Smith.

The shlock factor is in full effect for the entire movie, and actors are hamming it up, but it makes the movie fun and moves swiftly without getting bogged down in too much exposition (it’s there, but it doesn’t dampen the tone).  There’s no reason not to check “Demon Knight.” It’s good clean, bald Billy Zane, fun.

Fun Fact:  Schlock, derived from Yiddish, means something cheap, shoddy, or inferior

October 8, 2012

31 Nights of Halloween, Trick r Treat

Trick r Treat – Tradition

I know, I’m an anthology whore.  It started when I first got the box set for “Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark.”  Reading those stories had a profound affect on me and how I saw and understood horror in general.  I still go back to those books every once in a while and re-live the good old days.  What can I say, I love short horror stories, and it works perfectly for the horror genre.  You really don’t see drama or action anthologies, it just fits with horror.   From “Creepshow” to the under appreciated “John Carpenter’s Body Bags” it had been a while since a reputable horror anthology had come out, until “Trick r Treat” was finally released, on DVD in 2009.

I say finally because the film was a wrap in 2007 and it showed up at a few film festivals, however, Warner Bros. had no idea what to do with the movie for two years, kind of like MGM with “The Cabin in the Woods.”  The travesty is that “Trick r Treat”never made it to the theaters, where I think it would have made a killing with audiences. But it did finally see the light of day in 2009 when it was released on DVD, and the cult following started from there. The movie has some credentials; it was directed by Michael Dougherty, who wrote the excellent “X2” and the sub-par “Superman Returns,” was produced by Bryan Singer, and we all know what he’s known for, and stars the likes of Brian Cox, pre-Sookie Anna Paquin, and the underrated Dylan Baker.

“Trick r Trick” is more so the “Pulp Fiction” of horror movies since the stories are interwoven as opposed to the separate stories with a wrap around formula, giving the film some teeth, and making it more thoughtful than your average horror fare.  The basic idea of “Trick r Treat” revolves around Halloween tradition and mythology while introducing the audience to a brand new Halloween mascot “Sam.”  He is the one constant in all the segments and, in my book, the most recognizable horror icon since Freddy Krueger (sorry “Saw” fans, Jigsaw doesn’t really rank up there for me).

The acting is solid, it has great atmosphere and, for my money, should become a Halloween movie tradition right up there with “Halloween” and “Creepshow.”  “Trick r Treat” is tons of fun, without all the filler, and with the right distributor (I’m looking at you Lionsgate) could turn into a yearly (clever) Halloween franchise.

Fun Fact:  “Trick r Treat” is based on a cartoon short created by Dougherty called “Season’s Greetings” from 1996. 

October 7, 2012

31 Nights Of Halloween, Kill List

WEIRD

If this was Simplistic Reviews, the place for THREE word reviews of movies and tv…I’d definitely want to add AS HELL to the end of WEIRD.  As I’ve stated before, I’m not a huge fan of horror.  Its like vegetables to me.  It has its place in my movie diet, but I’m not running out to enjoy them.  So, this month I’ve been trying to watch and review horror films that throw the genre somewhat on its ear.  Atypical horror films that stray away from the more usual fair.  Imagine my pleasant surprise when I stumbled upon Kill List.  How could a movie about a hired assassin be categorized by IMDb as a horror film?  I was anxious to find out.

Now, I’m not one of these ADHD filmgoers that hate setup and backstory.  I appreciate a film that fills out the characters and strongly builds the story.  However, one of the things that threw me with Kill List is that the setup in the beginning is VERY long.  So much so, I was wondering if I had put on the wrong film.  It takes maybe fifteen minutes before you have any indication that something is rotten in Denmark.  No clues, no hints, no nothing.  An argument can be made that because there is so much innocuous setup, the hints and clues they drop for the ominous story to come catch you more off guard.  Though, I think there might have been a more efficient way to give us this backstory and get us into the WEIRD story that follows faster.  A story I don’t want to ruin because when it does get going, Kill List is a very interesting watch.  All you really need to know is that two assassins, one with a mysterious past, take on a rather peculiar assignment that leads them into a very strange world.  A world where agreements are made with blood and victims say “thank you” before their demise.

Kill List comes from relative newcomer Ben Wheatley.  I can only presume his goal for this film was to relay unease.  And with that he succeeds.  From the first frame you are made to feel uncomfortable.  From the shrieking score, to the jarring editing.  Kill List is cut very much like a found footage film, wherein it’ll constantly jump moments later in a scene.  There are also moments of such stark, graphic violence, you’ll be hard pressed not to look away.

You may not know the performers in Kill List but their performances are still top notch.  Neil Maskell was well deserving of his accolades for playing Jay.  He has to convey so many different things in this film and he does so perfectly.  The relationship between him and his best friend Gal, played by Michael Smiley, comes off so earnest and real to me.  Friends that can try and kill each other one second and then share a laugh and a beer the next.  They are the foundation of this film and the main thing that keeps Kill List afloat.

So, does Kill List qualify as a horror film?  Well, the definition of a horror film is an unsettling movie that strives to elicit the emotions of fear, disgust and horror from viewers.   Kill List surely does those things.  Just in a WEIRD way.  Watch it…don’t let the cat out(Trust Me)…say thank you…then tell me I’m wrong.

Welcome to the new home of SimplisticReviews.net - We're currently still working on the site. You might notice a few issues, please be patient with us. Thanks! (Store also in testing — no orders shall be fulfilled.)
Scroll to top