Sunday, October 23, 2011

'Grimm' Series Premiere Review

'Grimm' Series Premiere, October 28th 2011 (NBC- Fridays 9/8c)

(As always, with windows you need to right click all links and choose open in new window/tab in order to stay on this page! At least until I figure out how to change that! Clicking pictures will take you to!)

My Synopsis: Grimm's scary tales are real! I f'n knew it!

For those that lament the state of the oldest and greatest broadcast network they have a new offering for us! Some would say their jumping on the bandwagon by running a show steeped in monsters, special effects, and mystery. But for a network whose current best programming is limited to syndicated crime dramas, comedies, and reality competition shows, 'Grimm' could be the show that gives them back some legitimacy. Sure it's up against AMC's 'The Walking Dead,' ABC's 'Once Upon a Time,' 'Supernatural,' and countless CW Vampire et al dramas but it is the only one that brings the closest adaptation of the brothers Grimm fables into the modern world, and that is one thing I have to applaud. So how does the premiere to 'Grimm' look and is it worth tuning in to NBC on Friday, October 28th?

The premier episode pays homage to Little Red Riding Hood. Now The Brothers Grimm's tales are a collection of fables told amongst the villages in which they lived. That is to say they are stories that convey a lesson of the time in which they were created. They are nothing like the Disney bastardizations we have come to love and abhor. So what does Little Red-Cap (aka Little Red Riding Hood) teach? On the surface it's pretty obvious... little girls who walk through the woods are likely to get themselves and their grandmothers eaten by wolves if they don't prove that they and grandmother aren't craftier. There is no Hunstman in this telling and The Big Bad Wolf doesn't get to eat grandma whole and therefore have his stomach ripped open to find a living, breathing grandmother inside. Instead Red and G'ma out smart Big Bad themselves.

In this premiere we have a Red Riding Hood serial killer, no grandma, but a couple of dinner leftovers and an abduction. Our hero Nick would be the Huntsman, out to save the abducted Little Red and rid the world of one Big Bad. It is a well crafted episode that has elements that harken back to Ledger and Damon's 'The Brothers Grimm' (2005). It almost feels like Nick is a present day descendant of the hapless reluctant heroes in that movie without all the frantic slapstick. The humor that does exist is dark and surprising, like we would expected from the producers of 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer.'

Now it's not quite explained why it is that all of sudden rookie homicide detective Nick is capable of seeing the Grimm monsters that live among us but his creepy aunt does offer the explanation that everything we thought were fairy tales are real. He is a descendant of the Brothers whose famous stories were actually a chronicle of the monsters and how to beat them. This is pretty close to how the Winchester brothers got started in 'Supernatural' with the exception that Grimm's stories really exist. We also find out via Eddie that many of those creatures are 'reformed,' carrying on normal human lives, and that he is pretty much the narc of the monster world. In the end, with the help of his partner, his aunts info, and the wolf-narc Eddie, this Big Bad might get caught but the episode also leaves us with a chilling realization that there is more than one non-reformed Big Bad in the world looking for Little Reds to eat. The implication being we haven't seen the last of the Red-Cap chronicles.

Based on the pilot I would say this series has great potential. At first I was impressed and pleasantly surprised by the opening ten minutes which pretty much plays out like every crime show beginning- we meet the victim, the perfect song helps to set the scene ('Sweet Dreams' by the Eurythmics) and then a murder happens. Cut to meet the detectives! I want to comment on the use of 'Sweet Dreams,' normally when it comes to Little Red Riding Hood interpretations the most commonly used song is 'Li'l Red Riding Hood' by Sam the Sham & The Pharaohs. It is a pretty creepy song that implies something a lot more illicit than murder and I must admit I expected it to be used to define the setting of this episode and would have been disappointed by the cliché. Fortunately I was pleasantly surprised, the use of both versions of 'Sweet Dreams' to open and close the episode tells so much! This episode is about Nick's transformation from the ignorant happy dreamer in The Eurythmics to the jaded and creeped out nightmares of Marilyn Manson. Kudos music department!

The episode is also visually stunning. The colors are dark and vibrant, like a fairy tale should be (this could be partly due to the Oregon setting, forget 'Twilight' was also shot there, please), and the effects don't feel strained or over done. My greatest concern with the episode is the acting. With the obvious exception of the masterful Silas Weir Mitchell as Eddie, the others seemed wooden and out of place, Especially Nick's aunt who looked and sounded more like she was reciting the Gettysburg Address than giving important background information. Upon reflection I realize I felt the same about 'Buffy,' 'Angel,' and 'Supernatural' so my hope is that, like them, with a few more episodes the actors will fall more casually into their roles and maybe grow on me more. Of course with NBC's record let's hope the show lasts long enough to get comfortable with itself!

Again, though I do see minor failings with this premiere I have great hopes and expectations for the future of the show. The premise is fantastic, anything that has to do with real life Grimm's monsters would be! In time the show could prove to be worthy of joining the ranks of its predecessors and with over 200 tales to choose from the series could easily last 5 seasons without repeating a story. So if you love closer than normal interpreted fairy tales I suggest not missing the premier when it airs on October 28th and give NBC some love in the hopes they won't shoot themselves in the foot. They have to be running out of feet by now.

As always, check out the links and I welcome comments! I may follow this show for awhile just because I think it would be fun to compare the Grimm's tales to each episode.

'Til next we bleed,

J.P. (Jeff) Hunt

For more interpretations of Little Red Riding Hood...

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Top 5 EXTREME Sex Scenes in a Film

Random Top 5 of the Month!
October 2011

Top 5 EXTREME Sex Scenes in a Film
by J.P. Hunt

The rules: So the goal was to come up with five EXTREME sex scenes and one honorable mention. All genres were acceptable EXCEPT porn, because that would be too easy. In this case we have 2 horror, 2 action, and 1 psychotic drug film. EXTREME is defined by the fact that they aren't your normal chick flick, romantic moment or candles and sheets scenes. They are crazy, unrealistic, and despite the circumstances they take place in... strangely erotic. I'll let the choices below explain what I mean... (click their picture to order the film from As is with all links - right click and choose open in new tab/window to avoid leaving this page)...

Honorable mention goes to:
Dance of the Dead (2008)

This is just an honorable mention because it isn't really a sex scene. It's really just a make out scene between two teenagers in the middle of a zombie outbreak at their high school prom. What makes it extreme is that they are in the process of turning into zombies themselves. So instead of the normal kissing and tongue action they get really turned on by eating each others faces! Ahhh, young zombie love. Check it out here.

#5: Spun (2002)

Mad, kinky, drug sex! Did I mention kinky? Duct tape, tie down, and even forget her for awhile. It's all good in this messed up meth film. It's an interesting mix of drugs and bondage that I wouldn't suggest actually practicing but makes it extreme enough to make the bottom of the list! Sorry there's no link/video of the actual scene(s) but check out the trailer anyway...

#4: Shoot 'Em Up (2007)

This isn't a much loved film despite its spectacle of gun-play and stars. But its that eclectic spectacle that helps make its sex scene one of the most extreme ever! Clive Owen and Monica Bellucci have mad passionate sex that can't even be interrupted by a hoard of assassins! Clive is so good with both guns he can kill twenty attackers without missing a stroke! Such control and concentration is something most men only dream of having! Watch “Talk about shooting your load.”

#3: Mr. and Mrs. Smith (2005)

This one is pretty obvious. A sexually frustrated married couple that just realized they were competing assassins try to kill each other, destroying their home in the process, find themselves uncontrollably turned on. Well who wouldn't in their circumstances! It's easy to see why Brad left Jennifer if sex with Angelina is always like this! If you haven't seen it

#2: Dead Alive (1992)

Zombie sex! Here we have exhibition, face eating, and best of all... an immediate zombie baby! If anything this scene should prove as a public service announcement to horny zombies everywhere on the importance of practicing safe sex!

#1: Crank (2006)

If you were Jason Statham injected by a poison that would kill you if your heart rate falls beyond a certain point what would be the best way to keep your blood pumping? I'm thinking a full on sexual performance in the middle of a city street with Amy Smart can't possibly hurt! In this case it makes it the most extreme on my list. Honestly, depending on my mood at the time, any one of these movies could have made #1. Crank gets it today for three good reasons... 1. Jason's jogging suit is far from sexy; 2. It totally convinced me I was in love (lust?) with Amy Smart; 3. the gathering crowd around them applaud! Finally, like Clive, Jason can multi-task by answering his cell phone. Well, ok, he's not in control since the phone call eventually breaks his concentration, but exhibitionists take note... this is how you do it and get cheers!

So there you have, my top 5 extreme sex scenes in a film. Its only right that I add the disclamer that I am not a proponent of anyone trying any of the things in these films and if you do I refuse to take responsibility for the possible outcomes, be it a beating, jail, death, or even instant zombie baby. I welcome questions, comments, concerns, arguements, suggestions, etc. I also must send out a special thanks to Will and Brian for their suggestions, notice they did make the list! If you have ideas for other such lists you'd like to see me create let me know by commenting here, emailing me at or friend me on Facebook. Since I intend to come up with a new list every month or so I will always be looking for and appreciating your ideas and thoughts!

'Til next we bleed,
JP (Jeff) Hunt

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Headshot! Darabont fired from ‘The Walking Dead’

Ok folks, its time for the Creepercast to weigh in on the latest ‘Walking Dead’ news. Quiet frankly the position here at the creepy writing staff is pretty clear and obvious. It begins with a profound exclamation of WTF! But, before I tirade it’s probably best to fill you in on the actual news, just in case, like me, you’ve been out of the loop for a few days. So here it is…

Prior to Comic Con San Diego, rumors abound declared Frank Darabont was stepping down from the show. He reportedly was at odds with AMC’s desire to cut the shows budget while still requesting 13 episodes for the second season. They even wanted them to be made for less money than the 6 of the first season. Darabont argued it was impossible to maintain the creativity and quality of the show if such cuts were implemented and that the show would suffer creatively. Anybody else thinking duh? After all, the greatest asset of the show is the fantastic cinematic scope Darabont has brought to the small screen. Lets also not forget that Darabont has been a hundred percent invested creatively from the writing (lest we forget he fired his original writing staff seemingly because he was doing all the writing himself anyway) to promotions. I don’t know how much he was getting paid to do his job but it didn’t seem to matter since apparently he lived and breathed ‘The Walking Dead.’

Fortunately for Comic Con these rumors seemed to have been laid to rest as Darabont and crew took the stage and promised more than a fantastic future season. I can almost hear the collective sighs in the calm before the storm. The storm being the news that just came out of the AMC camp a few days ago… ‘Show Runner Frank Darabont Fired from The Walking Dead.’

So lets consider this for a moment… prior to the overwhelming success of the show, who would have ever dreamed a cable TV series about zombies, based on a graphic novel series with a cult following, and in the midst of a decade long resurgence of zombies in film, ever had a chance? Who would dare to believe they could create a TV show that had action, comedy, drama, and zombies, balanced perfectly into 50 minute cinematic segments? Answer: Frank Darabont. And he delivered.

Now lets try this one… Who would dare to ask that such a show, after it broke all time cable premier AND finale records making it their greatest commercial success – perhaps even THE greatest commercial success in cable – to scale back on the cinematic, show less zombies, use inside locations over outside locations, shoot in less time (4 out of the 8 current days per episode), and create 13 episodes with half the budget of the first six? Answer: The wise folks at AMC.

That my friends is how we get to where we are today. You see Mr. Darabont refused to stifle the creativity in himself or the cast. He understands that a show of this magnitude, especially after the success of the first season, needs to be as good or better. He was a trouble maker that needed to be headshot, but did they also kill the show?

Lets see… just before the ax fell Darabont was said to be hard at work fixing the latest episode completed because it contained unusable footage. He did not direct that episode. That’s the kind of guy Darabont was too this show. Now his replacement joined the team near the end of the first season. In fact he penned episode five entitled ‘Wildfire.’ This is the episode where we learned all about the Wildfire project and that Jenner was a hopeless case ready to take the entire cast with him when the CDC blew up. Clearly not the best episode of the six but we did learn a lot about how the zombie virus worked and that Shane is a real bastard when it comes to Laurie. But lets look a little more at writer/producer/director Glen Mazzara’s resume…

‘Nash Bridges’ had a two year run, not bad but the show wasn’t much. Now ‘The Shield’ was a class A award winning show, I’ll give him that one, even though its ending was as satisfying as ‘The Soprano’s’ and ‘Criminal Minds’ is still kicking even without him although no where near as good without Mandy Patinkin. Maybe that’s a sign when you consider his last two projects. Ok, so I cant say much about ‘Hawthorne’ since I haven’t seen a single episode. I do know it stars Mrs. Will Smith and its another one of those medical procedural dramas, right? That’s why I haven’t seen it. It did survive two seasons though and I can only guess its because people still cant get enough of these shows. His latest and greatest failed despite having Dennis Hopper in the cast. ‘Crash’ spun off from the Academy film and barely lasted two seasons. I saw one episode but from what I hear it had great potential in season one that was wasted in season two. This does not bode well for ‘The Walking Dead.’

In the last few weeks AMC has proven themselves really bad decision makers. Some would say it’s a good idea ‘Breaking Bad’ is going to end before it gets bad, but I’m of the opinion that they may be throwing their engine out of the boat. That would leave ‘Mad Men’ and ‘The Walking Dead’ to get them through the coming rapids. The problem is they’ve now crippled ‘The Walking Dead’ and ‘Mad Men’ is another of those shows that may have run its course. So what’s next AMC? Back to reruns of classic movies?

Originally I had this conspiracy theory that involved Mazzara’s and AMC’s ties to New Mexico (‘Crash,’ ‘Breaking Bad’) and that this sabotage of ‘The Walking Dead’ was a way to save tons of money by combining resources. But with the recent news of ‘Breaking Bad’ and USA’s ‘In Plain Sight’ ending (also made in New Mexico) I’m not so sure. I have received insider information that implies that if ‘The Walking Dead’ survives the next season it will most likely move to New Mexico. But that’s not confirmed anywhere, even here. Here’s what I am sure of…

The first season of ‘The Walking Dead’ was brilliant! A TV show about zombies that looked and felt like mini-movies. Each episode was awesomely crafted with the perfect blend of action and drama enough to please any television fan. Under the expert direction of Greg Nicotero it has the best zombies ever seen on any screen. As any true fan would have to attest, there are only three good reasons why the show was so successful, and their names are Robert Kirkman (obviously), Frank Darabont (even IMDB lists him as the ‘creator’ of the show, and Greg Nicotero. The overwhelming success of the show has even gone so far as to cause horror master Stephen King and Joe Hill to want to pen an episode! But what usually happens when you remove possibly the most important force behind the shows existence? You get a very disillusioned crew that fails to give their best. You get far less than what you had before. You have a failure waiting to happen.

Ok, so truth be told, as a fan of the show I will of course be watching the new season and reporting on its inevitable demise. The Creepercast WILL still present the ‘The Walking Dead’ live fancast every Sunday night that it airs. After all, it is the only zombie show on TV and like we are going to miss it. But I sincerely hope AMC reconsiders their position before it really does Crash. Or maybe, by some miracle, the show might survive being castrated. I wouldn’t be against hoping for it to happen.

Farewell for now from the beasts and I,
til next we bleed…
Jeff (JP)

Thursday, June 30, 2011

Help Fund the Completion of a Horror Slasher Film!

That's right folks, I'm asking for help to complete a script that has taken 3 years to get completed. Your monetary donation will give me the ability to take the time necessary to get it done! Here's the info...

Currently seeking funding toward supplementing the completion of the script for 'No Trespassing,' a horror/slasher/thriller intended to be filmed in Oregon upon completion.


Bickering brothers lead their clueless friends on a camping adventure that finds them in a struggle for survival as they are hunted for trespassing.


It’s more than mere sport when an irate hermit struggles to keep wayward misfits from trespassing on his hunting ground.

In a world of horror franchise reboots it's time for something different! 'No Trespassing' uses a blend of traditional and original story telling techniques that pay homage to the masters of the genre while seeking its own place amongst them.

There are once in a lifetime Pledge rewards attached that include everything from heart felt love, adoration, and gratitude to copies of the script. Check out the link below to learn more and thanks in advance!

Fund A Unique Horror Film that Urges 'No Trespassing'

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

I Saw the Devil (2010)

My synopsis: This is a serial killer movie and a revenge movie. It’s mostly a revenge movie. The serial killer is the bad guy. Or is it the cop? It’s definitely the serial killer or the cop.

Yeah, I've really been on this Asian film kick lately and this one comes highly acclaimed from Sundance, Toronto Film Fest and SXSW. It’s been billed as an action, thriller, and horror film. The 'horror' tag is what brought it to The Creepercast and honestly that description is tenuous. But you can hear Jason tirade about that on the podcast (Creepercast Episode 28: I saw the devil and he is Jason!). I am going to discuss all three tags and probably will end up defending it as a horror movie of sorts...

To read more visit!

Thursday, June 23, 2011

No Trespassing (someday soon I hope!)

'No Trespassing' is a horror/thriller/slasher flick Jason and I have been working on since college. Some of you already know that I am an aspiring screenwriter and with Creepercast and all those horror reviews it's pretty obvious what my chosen genre is. If you look through older posts you'll even find loglines to script ideas currently in progress. Being the oldest of the stories working on, 'No Trespassing' haunts my every day/night since it is still more of a concept then a reality. In a world of remakes it's time for some original horror material so it's time to make it a reality! Check out the info...

Log Lines:
Bickering brothers lead their clueless friends on a camping adventure that finds them in a struggle for survival as they are hunted for trespassing.
It’s more than mere sport when an irate hermit struggles to keep wayward misfits from trespassing on his hunting ground!

'No Trespassing' uses a blend of traditional and original story telling techniques that pay homage to the masters of the genre while seeking its own place amongst them. The story itself is comprised of themes like personal struggle, friendships and family, good times, the hunting culture, and the voyeuristic horrors that grace the pages of every daily newspaper. It is intended as a study of the human condition that uses the tried and true slasher style movie mold. It's not all seriousness of course. The script promises the same thrills, and more, than you expect from the genre! Upon completion of the script it is our goal to go into full production using the Oregon wilderness as our backdrop.

As we work to make this script come to life I will constantly keep all you awesome readers informed. Just keep visiting this page, because believe it or not in the end, it is all of you that can eventually make this film happen!

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Some Guy Who Kills People (2011?)

My Synopsis: There’s this guy right, we’ll call him Every-Guy-Who-Has-Survived Childhood-Prosecution But-Not-Without-Several-Years-of-Therapy; or Some Guy works too. More importantly, he kills people. No, really, it’s in the title and this movie title doesn’t lie.

***Getting a hold of this movie was major for us at the Creepercast, written by Ryan Levin, Directed by Jack Perez, starring Kevin Corrigan, Barry Bostwick and Karen Black it is a truly entertaining dark comedic horror. For the full review we ask that you visit

Here's what the creators think of the review!
On Jun 13, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Ryan Levin wrote:

Thank you so much for the incredibly generous review. I’m extremely flattered you enjoyed the film as much as you did, and I’m extremely appreciative that you shared that enjoyment with your readers. I’m really just thrilled that someone would want write such an extensive and complimentary review of the film. Thank you both so much. The podcast will be a blast.
Talk soon.

Dear Jeff & Jason,

Just wanted to thank you for your extremely thoughtful and kind review of SOME GUY. Your examination was superb - you clearly "got" the movie in spades. So happy you enjoyed it. I'm really looking forward to the podcast and speaking with you directly.

Many thanks again!

Jack Perez

So if you do a Google search for the as yet unreleased dark horror comedy - Some Guy Who Kills People - you will find my Creepercast review as the 8th result! If you haven't checked it out yet you should, help make it number 1! ;-)

In the meantime i will keep you all posted on the upcoming podcast review, interviews with Jack Perez and Ryan Levin, and anything else 'Some Guy' related! Follow me here, on the Creeepercast site, or the Creepercast facebook fanpage ( for more info!

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Odd Thomas film news 04/14/2011 part 2

On the lastest news today, comedian Patton Oswalt has signed on to be Oswald "Ozzie" P. Boone, the crazy artist that designs Odds supernatural pendant.

I also keep seeing Emma Stone's name everywhere but no word if she is confirmed or who she'd play. In the meantime I think we have a killer movie developing here with lots of names I could honestly see playing their parts well. In the coming months, once the cast is solid, I will do a character to actor comparison just for fun. Still waiting to hear who will play Elvis, you know it will be epic!

Odd Thomas film news 04/14/2011

The latest news seems to have a confirmed Willem DeFoe as Chief Wyatt Porter!

"The Chief helps Odd many times, acting almost as a surrogate father. He is one of the few people that know Odd sees the dead but he does not know all of Odd's secrets." ( that's right, I quote all my sources).

So I'm truly excited about this development, let's face it, DeFoe is amazing no matter what he does. Hopefully Stephen Sommers (also penned the script) recognizes his brilliance and doesn't try to hard to reign him in.

Other cast likely confirmed...
Anton Yelchin (Star Trek's Chekov, Terminator Salvation's Kyle) as Odd is an interesting choice, although I must admit, he does sort of look how I wold have envisioned Odd.

Addison Timlin (Californication's Sasha) I hate say just about any hot up and coming could play Stormy Llewellyn. So I won't.

Tim Robinson is still rumored, (Robert Thomas "Fungus Man" Robertson anyone?). But Tim and Willem in the same movie? I cannot see a problem with that.

Last bit of character news has Nico Tortorella (Scream 4) in talks to play the head of the Satanists. Not having seen Scream 4 I can't make a call. I guess I better do my homework. Since seeing I Am Number 4 though I'm really liking Jake Abel, that's twice now he's played a 'villain' (counting Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief) and would really like to see him be able to go all out in a villainous role. Even if does have a Kevin Bacon face.

This movie is going all independent, Stephen Sommers (The Mummy movies and GI Joe The Rise of Cobra) took over the reigns as writer/director and all I can say on that is its about time someone did.

As for my involvement, I've already tried to make contact with those close to the production offering my services to help build the furniture they purchased in trade for seeing it get destroyed in a ball of flames. Here's hoping that works out and maybe we can even get cast and crew interviews for the Creepercast! I will, of course, keep all posted right here!

Source Code (2011)

Source Code (2011)

My Synopsis: it's RoboCop, no, wait, it's Time Cop, ummm, no, more like Total Recall! That's not it either. It's Donnie Darko, older, with more facial hair, time traveling to find the terrorist on a train, save the world, and mess with he space time continuum.

Why do I always subject myself to Jake Gyllenhaal movies? Probably for the same reason I always end up watching Shyamalan disasters. I just keep hoping all the hype is for real! Or I'm truly sadomasochistic and have to have the torture. Ok, so he wasn't that bad in this movie. But he'll never be as good as he was in Donnie Darko. But that's another movie entirely. This movie we have all seen at some point. It's like Speed and Time Cop combined. Seriously.

Or Quantum Leap, yeah. And there's a real good reason I think that is the best comparison. The entire premise of the film is based on Gyllenhaal's character traveling back in time and inhabiting another persons body. In this scenario he arrives 8 minutes before a terrorist bomb is to blow up a commuter train his host is on. His mission is to find the terrorist though, not fix things and make them right so everyone lives happily ever after as he leaps on to another host of problems. Of course he makes that his mission eventually after realizing the real him is just a brain left over from a helicopter crash. He even sort of has a Al, though he isn't a wise cracking hologram but rather a female military computer tech whose job it is to monitor his progress and seems to get the bots for him... Er... His brain (interesting play on the that whole 'love him for his brain' thing) Another difference is this point of time is written, everyone dies, Jake's only job is to find out who the terrorist is so the brains with bodies can hunt him down before he strikes again. Unfortunately for Jake he does only have 8 minutes, but he gets plenty of retries so we get to see different scenarios in which the central characters interact and blow up. A little Groundhog Day to keep us interested.

Interwoven in this tale is, of course, the ambitious scientist who developed the technology, or source code, that makes all this possible.  That is the only the technology is explained by the way. It is a merely a source code that only currently works with with Sam... Er... Jake's unique brain. The unfeeling scientist only cares for this mission to be successful so that his careers advances. I don't think I have ever hears the title of a movie mentioned so often in the film as I did coming from this guy and I still don't know what the source code is, only what it does. I've already told you by the way and it will be at least 5 more minutes before I tell you again.

Also Jake obviously has to fall in love with the female lead. This gives him the motivation to actually try and change the known future.

When asked what I thought of this movie, by a TV news anchor looking for to see on her Friday night off,  my answer was simply " it wasn't great, but it wasn't horrible." Which was apparently a perfectly good answer to her. As for you, dear readers, I was sure you expected more. Thus I would further that statement with "it's an interesting, familiar story with predictable outcomes, social commentary, and paradoxical boundary breaking." There were even some cool effects. But I usually find Gyllenhaal pretty bland as an actor so the story just felt like an old shoe that wasn't getting any new tread. Oh, but I'm almost positive the writer and director were well aware of it's comparison to Quantum Leap (as far as I know I am the first to make this correlation by the way). This is made apparent by the fact that the voice of his father on the phone was none other than Scott Bacula aka Dr. Sam Becket.

I don't want to ruin the movie for you since I didn't say it was horrible and I only ruin horrible movies. Plus I've kind of changed the way I approach these reviews by not tipping my hand to early as to what my opinion is and I think they may even be getting shorter. I've seen so many movies lately but it's hard to do a timely review win the schedule so I guess I've mellowed out some on my opinions. Trust me though, if I find a movie I feel passionate about (be it good or bad) I will not hesitate to get long winded. What I will say about the ending is Time Cop. I've probably ruined the whole movie for you now. You're welcome.

Farewell for now,

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Black Death (2010)

My synopsis: God may have caused the black plague (to punish the wayward, of course) but a Celtic witch can cure it, if the people renounce God. God of course can't have that so he sends his best to put an end to it. This movie comes with a 14th century zombie!

A couple of months ago I really wanted to see a medieval movie. That is a movie that takes place or contains subject matter that takes place in a medieval age. To my sadness there wasn't really anything I could find that either interested me enough or that I hadn't seen. That was until I saw an add from our local art house theater boasting Black Death as a brilliant piece of British cinema. This is the same theater that also praised Le Horde which I reviewed around Halloween, so instead of giving them ten dollars, I found it much cheaper myself and gave it a watch. Although I was glad to save the ten dollars I'm still iffy on whether it was worth the two hours. I will of course explain.

First, this movie stars Sean Bean, he's pretty much the go to guy when you need a standard villain or secondary companion for a medieval hero. So I was surprised to see him play a lead even if it was a secondary lead. He was, of course, his usual charming self, which only makes it all the more interesting.

So Black Death follows a young monk who chooses to leave his happy monastery in order to help Sean Bean's crusade to a village known to be untouched by the plague. Rumor is that it is being run by witch and such a den of Satan must be investigated and shut down. Because, as everyone knows, the plague is the wrath of God and anyone who may have found a way to thwart God's plan is in league with the devil.

Ok, so the swordplay was almost non existent and the sorcery was limited to a bastardization of Druidism. Still it was mildly entertaining. The torture device they have is pretty cool. As to the reason why the plague hasn't been to this village it's pretty obvious to the modern viewer. The village is surrounded by swamp. The plague, we know today, was actually spread by rats. I'm pretty confident rats don't choose to swim very often, thus no plague. So not only did God not actually cause the plague but no level of sorcery had anything to do with the village being devoid of plague. It's just that no carrier has been able to get there and spread it. That brings us to the true dilemma of this film.

Artfully presented, and taking into consideration the ignorance of the time period, faith in God is facing off with faith in paganism. And for possibly the first time there isn't a clear answer. Both sides are clearly twisted in their own way. The Druid has managed to turn the monks lover into a zombie and the Christians have a torture devices. In the end I had a hard time picking sides, finding the final outcome distasteful from both sides. It did little make either look worthy of adoration. I choose to believe that was the film makers goal and it was executed brilliantly.

So, if you're a history nut who likes a dilemma in which you find yourself trying to educate the characters on the screen about the follies of science, and witnessing the best and worst of God loving and hating people. I'd say it's worth a watch. No big medaeval battles though which is the best part of the crusades if you ask me. Innocents being slaughtered and such. But there was a zombie! Did I mention that?

Til next we bleed,
To purchase visit:

Odd Thomas 2012

As some know I work two jobs. One is for a... will call it specialty store since I don't want to plug. So anyway I've been working with a local movie company to set them up with about 4gs in outdoor furniture which they ultimately intend to blow up. I love the movies and really want to see this happen to this stores products, lol. So, the movie is 'Odd Thomas' which is being shot in Santa Fe, they are still in pre-production phase (which makes sense, since they reportedly only have one star cast, Addison Timlin, and at least 2 big names rumored, Tim Robbins and Willem DeFoe). As a fan of the books and now having a secret in, I will keep you all informed. Especially if I get to see the explosion, lol. For fans of the books I'm sure you can imagine which scene wold require an outdoor furniture explosion! ~Jeff

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Alice in Murderland (2010)

Alice in Murderland aka The Alice in Murderland Murders (2010)

My Synopsis: Somebody watched a bunch of B-rated slasher movies from the 70's and decided they could do one, while sort of adapting Alice in Wonderland.

I love B horror as much as the next person. Hell, I'm even working on the script for one involving zombies as I write this review. What it is I love about them is their over the top camp (Piranha) overacting (Sleepaway Camp I - ??), insane story lines (Toxic Avenger) and ability to be taken seriously as a cult classic work of art (revisit those movies mentioned earlier). Of course there is also those low budgets that blew away all the usual conventions by being amazing on all levels (Halloween). I've always felt it was best to walk into B rated movies with very low expectations and let the film maker play with their low budget in the hopes that they amaze me with something I never would have expected. Usually that's delivered via fantastic cinematography, bad blood and gore, and/or kitchy humor that tells me even the film makers didn't take their subject matter too seriously. That is what seems to be the formula for the best B movies. Either it's brilliant despite it's low budget or it has no problem making fun of itself and the conventions it's playing with.

Alice in Murderland aka The Alice in Murderland Murders (2010) is, without argument, as low budget as one can get. Now I haven't done the research and don't even remember how it came to my attention. But as is usually the case I'm sure the whole reason I got turned onto it in the first place was the title. It promised some inner workings that payed homage to a literary masterpiece that is scary and disturbing. That can't be a bad thing, can it? I'll answer that in a moment. All I'll say at this time is it looked, felt, and sounded like a student project film. Most likely controlled by one of the many women in it. But first, did it really have anything to do with Alice in Wonderland?

As quick as I can, the real synopsis in brief...
We open with a woman being shown a house to buy. The buyer and the seller don't appear to like each other much and we don't know why. Something that has to do with the buyers daughter Alice who is very young. Eventually the seller kills the buyer in the basement. Flash to college aged Alice and her college girlfriends. All of them have issues from being stupid to being morbid. The popular girl is also dating Alice's ex-boyfriend. Each girl pretty much represents a common stereotype. The 'I don't care about anyone' girl is Alice's best friend and is determined Alice gets an 'Alice in Wonderland' themed birthday party, conveniently enough, in the old house that her mother was killed in which is now owned by her professor/uncle. He is the only guy invited to the party which makes him either gay or extremely creepy. The actor does a reasonably decent job convincing as much. As the party progresses, a half dozen girls, one professor/uncle/house owner (all dressed as Wonderland characters, the owner/uncle insisted on being the Mad Hatter, further misdirection), and the ex/boyfriend who sneaks in, systematically get cornered and butchered by the uninvited Jaberwocky, singling out Alice, of course.

Wasn't it nice if me to not ruin the end for you? Well I guess that depends on whether you not you've been keeping up with the reviews. If a movie total and complete schlock I usually have no qualms with giving away endings. Though this one is far from worthwhile i don't feel the need to ruin it further because I strongly believe it does a good enough job for itself. That kind of self destruction is probably worth finding out for yourself. But I do have some criticism before you do.

The cinematography was less that not specially. There were no interesting camera angles or tricks. I'm pretty sure it sat on a tripod the whole time. The acting is best described as future porn stars trying to act. Yea, even creepy uncle/professor guy. The women all played static stereotypical characters. They didn't even play them well, mediocre at best and as stuck into one stereotype as they were they even failed to over act. With the possible exception of Alice, she started out blame and ended WTF? that is partially the stories fault but mostly cuz she wasn't any good. I think she probably wrote the film. Which brings me to story... The Alice in Wonderland connection was flimsy. It only appears in the form of the lead bing named Alice and that hey have a masquerade dressed as characters. The reason I won't give away the end is because it is your basic whose doing it slasher movie that by the end, given the information you're left with, you may find yourself not really caring. I guess what bugs me the most is the brutalization of a literary classic. Nothing concrete connects! I mean, in all reality I think a writer of porn would do better connecting to it. In fact I've probably seen that one, a Cheshire cat and Alice doing things I thought I forgot. Anyway, let's get to the gore!

Usually the use of gorein a B-rated horror is where you can expect to laugh, but in this I think it just comes off as pathetic. In one notable scene a victim is gutted and their innards explode onto the surface without the evidence of a cut even been made. Speaking of cuts, there was a lot if stabbing and spewing blood, who actually got stabbed and where the blood came from is unknown. Now the girl glued to the toilet seat was pretty funny when she got her butt cheeks ripped off.

So rating this one is a no brainer, which only makes sense because making it didn't require one either. With everything I've said I give 2 out of 5. It would be a great film to show to students as demonstration of what not to do. I give it a two because it does have one my favorite lines I've ever heard in a brain dead slasher spoken by the brain dead girl... "I don't see how she could be a Psychology major. She never talks!" isn't a psychologists job to listen? I really hope this was a student film, but hen find myself lamenting the state of film schools. I was in a better short then this and we didn't have any money or blood and gore. But there i go, making myself sound so awesome again. I do apologize, as the makers of this movie should.
To purchase visit:
Til next we bleed,

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Court testimony NM#100235 10 JAN 2010 PA (Post Apocolypse)

Court testimony NM#100235 10 JAN 2010 PA (Post Apocolypse)

1 (Court called to order)
2 (Defendant present)
3 (Defendant testimony)
4 (9:05 am)

5 MR. JONES: The main reason I am here is because I will miss her. I mean, all it took was a
6 quick blow to the head...
9 MR. JONES: Wait a minute, it wasnt me! I know what you're thinking and your judging me
10 before I can even complete the sentence! I mean, the son of a bitch bit her! Can you believe it?
11 He fuckin' bit her on the arm! The autopsy clearly shows that she was not only bitten on the
12 arm, which ripped away tons of skin, that no one can find by the way, but also the neck, back
13 and torso. Seriously, do you think I did that?
15 MR. JONES: No, no, no, let me finish! You asked for my side of everything, I dont care if you
16 are my lawyer, I intend to tell 'the whole truth and nothing but the truth.' Anyway she fell down 17 the stairs, not just the first flight but all five. With that bastard still attached to her knawing
18 away at her chest. The autopsy shows that too, doesn't it? Human bites that ripped away flesh all
19 over her stomach? I mean shit, he ate her tits man, seriously, what the hell? I even ran down
20 after them screaming bloody murder. I still had the knife in my hand of course, and damn sure
21 bet you I was ready to use it on that bastard! Attacking my wife? I don't care if you never found
22 the that bastard! I stabbed him fifteen times in the damn back. After the first few I even counted.
23 At least fifteen times! If I'm a murderer for killing that freak than so be it. But I did not kill my
24 wife! I love... loved her...
25 DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY: So then you took her home?
26 MR. JONES: Yeah, I gathered up what was left of her and took her home. Laid her down on the
27 couch and even covered her with a blanket. She seemed to be shivering, I don't know what I
28 was thinking, maybe I thought she'd be okay if she had a chance to rest. How was I to know she
29 was already dead. I just sat there, with her legs on my lap like we always do. She seemed to be
30 in such a deep sleep I couldn't I couldn't bare to wake her. She was still breathing then, I swear
31 it, I saw it, what was left of her chest rising and falling like she always does in peaceful sleep...
32 so peaceful I eventually joined her and I dozed there, like I always do, as if nothing was
33 different, accept it was...
34 DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY: Accept it was what?
35 MR. JONES: When I woke she was standing over me, looking down at me as if I wasn't really
36 there at all. As if... I don't know, maybe she thought I wasn't real, wasn't really me or
37 something? I was still groggey, not quite remembering what had happened only a few hours
38 before. So I said... “Hey beautiful” and she said nothing. But she did grin, one of those pit-bull 39 grins that show all teeth, you know what I mean? Then she leaned in towards me, like she
40 wanted a kiss or something, only I wasn't so sure, with that toothy grin and all, and I shrunk
41 back, held out an arm to hold her back, like, hold on honey, you looking like you're a little
42 weird. I think I even said that, “Hold on honey, you don't look good.” then her snapped together 43 and she got more insistant, snapping away those teeth as she kept forcing her way towards me,
44 pushing against my arm like it wasn't even there. Eying me like I was a piece of meet or
45 something. I mean, she looked hungry! I was, like, “hey, I'll make you something to eat!” And 46 she was like chomping away. I don't know, but I suddenly realized the knife was still gripped in
47 my hand. How it managed to stay there so damn long is a mystery even to me. But it came up in
48 reflex, stabbing at her beautiful face... Oh god her face, I stabbed her pretty face, I don't know 49 how many times, I didn't count this time. I just flailed away, stab, stab, stab, until... as the
50 coroner said.. the knife found her ear and entered her brain. So clinical he made it sound. Not
51 like she was a real person at all, a person I love. Then she fell to the floor. Dead I guess. Dead. I
52 miss her so much.
54 MR. JONES: You gotta believe me, if I'da thought she was her... I mean really her, the woman
55 I'd married and love, I never woulda... I mean, I love... loved her...”

Notes: this subject was found guilty of first degree man slaughter. One of many under same types of conditions and for similar crimes.

Addendum: This particular subject was slated to be executed via lethal inject under New Mexico's reinstated death penalty of March 2011. The date of said execution was supposed to take place on May 17th, 2014. This of course never happened since we have documents showing that an outbreak hit the prison he was held in on April 8th, 2012. It is believed he was one of those beheaded in the initial riot there.

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Buried (2010)

Buried (2010)

My Synopsis: Ryan Reynolds is buried alive in a wooden box in order to bring us an hour and a half one man show, and pulls it off!

When my Creepercast cohort (Jason) brought this movie to my attention I was apprehensive. First, it bothered me this movie would only be shown in select theaters and apparently not at any place where either of us could go see it. If you listen to one of our episodes late last year you'll hear he and I make a pact to review both it - to be presented by Jason, and 'Let Me In' - to be presented by me, alas, here it is four months later and I only recently managed to publish a review for 'Let Me In' here but promise to make a show out of it in the near future. Hopefully Jason will still be presenting his take on 'Buried' in an upcoming show as well. In the meantime I will attempt to give my take on the movie in the following paragraphs. Secondly, I had several misgivings as to whether or not even the great Mr. Reynolds could pull off a one man show of such magnitude and still be able to keep the audience interested. As you will soon discover in my review.

I was dead wrong about all my misgivings. At three minutes into the movie I was pretty sure I wasn't. The next time I bothered to look at the clock 45 minutes had flown by. That's how sucked into the movie I had become. Here are some reasons why... The primary fear being played with is obviously claustrophobia. It is one of those fears I have but was sure the director and Ryan wouldn't be able to make me share with them. Unfortunately for me I was wrong, but still I watched spellbound waiting for the spell to broken by something ridiculous. It never happened. With that said...

Ryan Reynolds is trapped in a coffin buried in the Iraqi dessert with a cell phone, a flask, his anxiety medication, a zippo lighter, a pen, and I knife. I hope I'm forgetting anything because each item becomes a character as well. Especially the cell phone. It is the method by which we learn about the man known as Paul Conroy, why he is there and all his strengths and weaknesses. All via his conversations with those he calls in the hopes of someone finding him and rescuing him from certain suffocating death. We share in his frustrations dealing with his employer and government officials, we go through the 5 stages of death with him. We suffer every moment from the realization his team of contractors had been attacked by insurgents, his many arguments with the terrorist that may or may not let him go, and the heartbreaking conversation he finally has with his wife. And as silly as it may sound, I couldn't help but hold my breath and freeze when the black asp crawled in by my...errr... his feet. 

Giving the subject matter the entire film felt like a ripped from the headlines true story. Therefore I pretty much figured I knew how it was going to end and was pretty confident that there wasn't much Ryan and the director could do that would make me feel like it could possibly end any differently. I was wrong about that too. This movie seriously plays with your emotions and I was batting 0 in expectations. On the true story angle I was also wrong, I could find no news articles that could tie in with the story. That's how good this film is. But here's what I did find out...

Nobody wanted to back this movie, mostly because they had as much confidence in Reynolds acting ability as I did. When it finally got some money it was filmed over 17 days in Barcelona Spain by fringe director Rodrigo Cortes and penned by on the edge writer/director Christopher Sparling. The film cost less than 2 million to make. Did amazingly at Sundance but only took in 18 million at the box office (that's after a mediocre short run and less than that national - I can't help but wonder how well it would've done if it was marketed as "ripped from the headlines?') Still, it comes very highly critically acclaimed, it always seems to be those that are truly the best films. All I can say is Van Wilder has turned into an amazing actor under the right direction.

So the next question is how do I rate and recommend this movie? Well the rating is easy and I think, for the first time ever, I will be glad a movie did not meet my expectations, especially when I expected the worst. Ryan and co. took me on an emotional roller coaster that left me struck dumb and hating the guy who suggested I watch it. I let him know by the way. After watching it during my 2 hour break between news segments I was so wrung out the only way I could go back to late night news was by taking out my frustrations on poor Jason. It began with a text in which I simply said "I hate you for sharing!" which I followed up with a post on in which I reiterated such hatred and explained myself for doing so. Then, a few days later, I told my boss (a fellow film lover) all about this hardly known mind screw. I did it in pretty much the same way I am doing so now, without giving away any of the important story elements that will wrench your soul. This was enough for them to put it in the Netflix cue. A week later do you know what they said to me (after obviously having seen it)? That's right, my own words to Jason came back to haunt me. For some reason hearing his gave me some sick satisfaction. It was like my inspiring someone else to be psychologically messed up by the movie that affected me in the same way was strangely cathartic.

Thus I recommend this movie to everyone with all my heart! Leave lots of 'I hate you' messages either here or on the Creepercast Facebook! It is far from the worst movie I've suggested and worth all of  your hatred. Then I recommend you pass it on and see if your friends hatred isn't just as cathartic for you!

Til next we bleed,

Please purchase this or any other movie I have mentioned via the Creepercast amazon link. This one can be found at 

Monday, February 28, 2011

Let Me In (2010)

Let Me In (2010)

My Synopsis: Wimpy human boy meets tough vampire girl who turns him into a man. The movie ‘Twilight’ should have been; dark, disturbing, and with more blood.

If you listen to the Creepercast ( most of last year you would have heard me raving about the fact this movie was made in the state I now reside. You also would have heard me gush about my love for the Swedish original 'Let the Right One In' (2008) and express concerns about an American remake. Mostly I questioned why it was the needed. The original is brilliant in every way, all it could possible be lacking for the American audience is to be in their language and maybe an over abundance of blood and gore. To its credit, the original's DVD release does contain an English overdub track to make it sound more pleasing to he average American's ears. Personally I found it annoying and reminiscent of the old Japanese martial arts movies in which overdub adds a level of humor that is befitting of the films content. That is to say, over the top and unintentionally comedic fight scenes purely for the sake of having said scenes. Therefore I was more than happy to read subtitles in favor of watching this melodrama without thinking of Bruce Lee. Yet I digress as usual, the point is that my expectations of the remake were 50/50. I really wanted it to be spectacular but was apprehensive as to whether it could be any better or would even do the original justice.

Guess I should explain, I am a firm believer that remakes (for the person who has seen the original - there's a reason I make this distinction) should both stay true to the original while adding something (new interpretation, cinematically, characterization, etc) that in some way makes it better than or adds too the original. Take 'Dawn of the Dead' for instance... The remake ramped up the blood and gore, added smarter harder to kill zombies, expanded the characters individual plot lines, and took some major cinematic strides. Though I don't feel it replaces the original it undoubtedly made the story better and added much to the mythos it created. When educating a friend on zombie movies last year it's the first one we showed her before going back to 'Night of the Living Dead' for origination. I didn't go into 'Dawn' for a discussion on zombies though. It was just an example of what people who watch originals come to expect from remakes.

Now back to 'Let Me In,' the child actors were dead on, the movie was almost shot for shot the same only the English dialog matched their lips. In fact, with the notable exception of more blood, a more frantic pacing (as opposed to the deliberately slow build interrupted by scenes of unrest) at least one rearranged scene and several small omissions (I say small when actually they seemed integral to the boy/girl relationship that was blossoming although never to be, and I don't think the relationship between the girl and the old man was really understandable) this would almost be the same exact movie. So, no real addition to the original.

As to the Americanization of the story, it was filmed and takes place in Los Lunas, New Mexico (a fact I constantly raved about) during winter; whereas the original was obviously in a Swiss winter wonderland. The main operative theme deals with isolation. The boy is ostracized by his peers, pretty much ignored by mother, his father is absent, and he lives in place locked into ice most of the time. This is an important dynamic to character that I feel loses potency. First, the average snow fall for Los Lunas, N.M. is about 6 inches from December to March with the highest recorded month of February getting near 14 inches, which is a lot for New Mexico, but hardly constitutes an arctic isolation. Maybe these statistics only matter to me because I live here. Even so, the isolation factor is severely limited. Although I do give the cinematographers props for making it look like an artic wasteland, it isn’t really. And since I mentioned the absentee father in this paragraph I will address it here as well. In the original the father makes an appearance and we discover that he is probably gay, on the same token his mother is a religious zealot. Very important elements that molded this boys character that are absent from the remake.

Now I made a distinction earlier between those who have the original and those who have not. Here’s why… for those who haven’t seen the original, or despise subtitles and don’t want to be distracted by comedic overdub, this is a fantastic movie. Chloe Moretz is more than able to be convincing as the girl vampire and Kodi Smitz-McPhee is an exact duplicate to the troubled outcast boy. Like I mentioned before, it is almost an exact replica to the original in many of the ways that matter. The 80’s time period becomes a even more integral backdrop and the relationship between the two actors is amazing chemistry. This is the movie that ‘Twilight’ should have been, troubled adolescence and a volatile relationship developing between a vampire and a human. We have a real stereotypical vampire and a real stereotypical troubled boy (who could have easily become Dexter if the right conditions were met). Also we have Richard Jenkins as the vampire companion. He’s a perfect duplicate to the original even though the story seems quiet vague as to what his involvement with the girl really is; while the original is pretty obvious.

In all, if you haven’t seen the original, and have to see it as a Hollywood movie that meets the conditions I mentioned earlier (no subs or bad overdub) than it is a must see. But if you want a better understanding of the story that the film is presenting, and are a purist in anyway, this remake has nothing for you. In fact it is cheating you of some integral story points, fantastic acting and exact re-enactments aside.

Notice I didn’t really tell you much about the story. That’s because the summary pretty much fills you in and what I left out is important to be witnessed oneself. As I mentioned before, my expectations were 50/50 on this movie and it delivered. That being the case I can not outwardly condone it because, like I said, if you cant stand the presentation of the original but still want a worthwhile vampire movie then I am all for it. The closest thing I could compare it to is ‘Twilight’ and as far as a worthy addition to the Vampire mythos I am going to back up ‘Let Me In.’ But if I were to choose between the two versions on merit and worth I’m a purist. That being the case, I will leave it up to you to decide which you’d rather see but strongly suggest if you watch the remake and like it, give the original a shot. There’s so much more to the story than the remake can give you.

Farewell from the beasts and I,

Please purchase this or any other movie I have mentioned via the Creepercast amazon link. This one can be found at

Thursday, February 17, 2011

My Bloody Valentine (2009)

My Bloody Valentine (2009)

My synopsis: The guy from Supernatural faces off against a murderous miner, twice! Only to find they are intimately connected (cue dramatic music)!

So, not wanting to buy into the hype this last Valentines Day, Sara and I decided to stay in. I made an (dare I say) awesome spaghetti dinner and using my usual sick sense of humor decided it was finally time to watch the remake of another one of those 80's reboots of slasher films that didn't need it. Yes, I have seen the original (1981) but it has been long enough that I pretty much forgot about what it was about. That is other than a crazy miner killing people on what just happened to be Valentines Day. No, I haven't watched it since seeing this remake. So I will be treating it as a work unto itself. That much said, as usual, my sense of morbidity once again ended in torture. But as I've said before, I do it all for you!

On a side note: am I the only one that is bugged by the fact it's called Valentines Day when it is actually Valentine's Day? It's a day that belongs to someone, not a day in which you receive anything, although Saint Valentine might have given himself to a lot of people. In the form we use it today I imagine it is actually a yearly get together in which the Valentine family gets together for a cook out, play horse shoes, an meet the significant others of cousins they remember as babies. But I digress, this is a movie review after all...

Ok, quick recent history, 2007 is when the great James Cameron and friends revitalized the amazing world of 3D video. Those who listen to the Creepercast ( already know my opinion on this 'rebirth' so I won't get into that now (I know, I know, this from the guy that spouted off about Valentine(')s Day) but just like following it's original conception the horror movie industry was quick to jump on that band wagon. Who wouldn't want to experience the 'real' action of a pick axe flying right at you! Absolutely, everyone! And that's what the makers of My Bloody Valentine was counting when they became one of the first to adapt the new 3D technology. Was this a good ploy? I can't say for sure since we saw it in normal TV D. But it was a fun game guessing where the 3D was. Maybe fun isn't the word, funny is more like it since it was pretty obvious and not very original. It did alleviate boredom though. I'm sure the original theater goers loved the campy-ness even though I don't think they meant it to be funny. That's also where this movie fails the most, it seems to take itself way to serious. Which, when it comes to 3D horror and as I've said before, is an oxymoron (see Piranha 3D (2010) for how it should be). But enough about 3D, this review is in normal D.

First I must admit my stupidity, when I initially saw the main character I thought it was Casper Van Dean. For anyone who knows who he is you understand why I immediately knew that the movie was going to take it self ridiculously serious (for those who don't know who he is I suggest watching Starship Troopers (1997) which brilliantly takes itself seriously, on purpose). I continued to believe it was him because the first ten minutes totally delivered on that expectation. Yes there was great pick axe dismemberments, although an impressive use of the weapon it was really bad effects. Yes, I did eventually realize it was the Supernatural guy, which only caused me to lament his involvement in the rest of the movie. Sadly, he is also the only actor of note, at least to me three days later. There were a few familiar faces. You know, whatshisname/hername that are in everything? Yeah, them.

Ok, let's see, I mentioned Valentine's Day, remake, 3D, and Casper. Whats next? Oh yeah!  The story!

Ever since Halloween (1978) successfully built a franchise around a slasher attack that just happened to coincide with a holiday there has been unsuccessful copycats. Mostly because they work so hard to incorporate the holiday whereas Carpenter somehow managed to make it look like a happy accident. Even so, you'd think fully working the holiday in and a title like My Bloody Valentine would be brilliant! I mean just imagine the possibilities! But, this isn't really. 

As previously mentioned the premise is based on a miner that, while trapped in a cave, freaks out and brutally murders all his companions. We don't get to actually see this, since it is just back back story we get filled in on as the movie the starts. What we get to see is the miner attack and slaughter a bunch of teens that visit the mine some short time later before being shot by a cop that was chasing him.  Now I must admit I don't remember if either of the first attacks happened on Valentines Day, or how much time elapsed from cave freak out to teen slaughter. I do remember the teens being dismembered in interesting ways with a pick axe. It did dominate the first ten minutes which I'm sure contained at least three 3D scenes. Anyway, ten or so years later, somewhere around Valentines Day (we know this because there are Valentines) the only guy to survive the attack (Mr. Supernatural) returns home in the hopes of reuniting with the only girl to survive that use to be his girlfriend before he left. Alas, the rekindle is not meant to be since she has been married to the town Sherif (another guy they more or less grew up with but missed the slaughter). Also, unfortunate for the town and our survivors, the 'dead' freaked out miner has also returned to wreck havoc!

So now we have a Scream style slasher mystery! Complete with bloody Valentines! Now if the history of slasher movies has taught us anything its always to never suspect the obvious culprit and never rule out the least obvious. For those of you who may want to see this movie I won't ruin it, watching the writers try and weave their webs of deception is almost interesting (laughably). What I will say is in the last half hour of the movie they managed to throw a lot of information to confuse, lead, and deceive, only to meet original expectations. Damn, I might have spoiled it for you after all. But come on, the ending is in the title!

So how to rate this one... Well I give it credit for working the Valentines angle although I feel it gave us very little to go on, the love triangle was barely existent and therefor a waste of time. Also no points for making it feel like the holiday was a happy accident since I've already given points for intentionally working that angle (although badly). Giving one acting point for Supernatural guy branching out but taking away two for making me think he was Casper. Going to go five for pick axe killing taking two away for bad effects. Giving ten for campy but they lose seven for taking it too serious (I would have let them keep most of the points taken away if they would have let the camp flow). So that's something like a two out of five. So in final, I'd say if you are believer in the idea that Valentines Day is just another way for greeting card companies, expensive restaurants, jewelers, and florists to make money then spaghetti and this movie isn't a bad substitute. Otherwise maybe you should go to see any chick flick that might avoid you dealing with a bummed out partner. Luckily Sara is understanding about my masochism and enjoys to join in on occasion. At least that is what she let's me think. Best girlfriend ever! Oh, and I did get her a chocolate rose which she finally ate the other night. I have yet to eat the plant she got me, it's just too awesome!

Please purchase this or any other movie I have mentioned via the Creepercast amazon link. This one can be found at