Haunted houses and questionable children have composed many a horror film, but there’s a reason they work. When they do so despite years of being recycled, it’s usually thanks to talent. “Saw” director James Wan found something of promise in “Saw” writer Leigh Whannell’s story “Insidious” and the same must’ve gone for stars Rose Byrne and Patrick Wilson. Horror films rarely get that infusion of talent, and as such, “Insidious” does not get lost in that dark dimension of forgettable horror.

Josh (Wilson) and Renai (Byrne) Lambert have moved into a new home with their two young boys and infant girl. Like always, paranormal oddities occur in small doses here and there until one morning they find their son Dalton in a coma. A few months pass and they move Dalton back home. The freaky incidences increase and eventually Renai sees the ghosts. She convinces Josh to move them into a new home, but it gets worse, so they bring in a paranormal expert (Lin Shaye) who provides them with some shocking revelations about the state of their son.

Like “Paranormal Activity” (a film thats producers have credits on this film unsurprisingly), the idea is to mount tension through paranormal phenomena and expert suspense. Wan provides a number of perfect angles and color to achieve the various moods. As much as you’ve been spooked this way by films before, you can’t simply shirk the way the film creeps in — Wan won’t have any of it. In fact, nothing here in terms of scare tactics will come as a revelation; many with a higher jumpiness tolerance will likely find it boring in many regards. No gore or horrific images to be found here — “Insidious” does it old school.

Once Shaye’s character Elise and her two employees arrive on scene, the story mutates from paranormal suspense to other-worldly mystery. Elise explains what’s going on — something that involves Dalton’s soul being lost in a realm called The Further — and now they must rescue him. Whannell constructs an interesting mythology here and the story goes from horror to more of a mystery/thriller with demonic elements. In a sense he borrows from science fiction in establishing the rules of what’s going on. It’s mostly interesting, but in many instances flat-out weird to the point that horror purists might not like it.

The best way to describe “Insidious” is first half “Paranormal Activity” and second half something akin to Sam Raimi’s “Drag Me To Hell,” which equates to a nice balance between self-seriousness and horror fun. The “X” factor would be the performances. Byrne keeps Renai from becoming an obnoxious scaredy cat as her role’s importance dwindles in the latter half of the film, in which time she still keeps Renai relevant. Wilson’s character is no typical over- macho father figure or anything. Together they provide an unusual boost for horror, which typically strives for random faces with questionable experience.

In general, “Insidious” possesses a professionalism not often seen in the genre; most horror films go for cheap across the board from the budget to the talent to the thrills. Although “Insidious” lacks distinctiveness in terms of story, not an ounce of it can be perceived as immature or hollow. What a rare (but not unusual) treat.

—

3.5/5 Stars

—

Insidious
Directed by James Wan
Written by Leigh Whannell
Starring: Rose Byrne, Patrick Wilson, Lin Shaye, Barbara Hershey

From an outside perspective, two counts of unoriginality can be charged to “The Crazies.” One: it’s a remake of a George Romero film from the ’70s; Two: it adds another quarantined disease zombie movie to the pile that proliferated this past decade. Yet Breck Eisner’s version does so many little things right. He keeps “The Crazies” suspenseful and elicits our sympathies for the main characters. Next to “28 Days Later,” and its sequel as well as “I Am Legend,” no zombie disease flick of late has done it better.

“The Crazies” does offer some unique trappings to the genre. The story takes place in the small Iowa town of Ogden Marsh where the Sheriff Dave Dutten (Timothy Olyphant) has had a few cases of people going catatonic and then becoming violent. He soon discovers that a plane has crash-landed in the marsh in a location that feeds into the town’s water supply. But before he can do anything about it, the military invades Ogden Marsh and begins to quarantine the local citizens and killing anyone who doesn’t comply.

So in addition to fighting off unstably violent diseased people, Dutten must avoid contact with the military for fear of being killed or separated from his pregnant wife, Judy (Radha Mitchell). Mitchell and Olyphant succeed as likable leads for a horror film. Olyphant (“Live Free or Die Hard”) performs better in the take-charge sheriff role and Mitchell, since her starring role in sci-fi/horror flick “Pitch Black,” has always proved she has more of a knack for the frightened protagonist/heroine than the average actress.

Although not abundantly scary, Eisner keeps the film suspenseful and ominous with patience and strong shot composition. Most noticeably, his “crazies” don’t act like most zombies; they’re quiet and almost methodical and you can tell that they’re succumbing to some uncontrollable impulse. It makes you take them much more seriously as an audience rather than simply enjoy the gory fun. The “scary” scenes also flow naturally and keep you guessing rather than constantly delaying an inevitable “boo!” moment.

When the truth about the government plane and the substance on board gets out, the originality of the “Crazies” story comes through. Suddenly Dave and Judy are out there fighting to survive against the man as much as some diseased lunatics. The film doesn’t resonate much more beyond that, but unlike much of this sub-genre, nothing poor can be said about the filmmaking.

—

3.5/5 Stars

—

The Crazies
Directed by Breck Eisner
Written by Scott Kosar, Ray Wright and George A. Romero (1973 film)
Starring: Timothy Olyphant, Radha Mitchell, Joe Anderson

Going into the Alfred Hitchcock masterpiece “Psycho,” it’s best that you know nothing — in fact Hitchcock wanted it that way — so this review will be succint and devoid of any synopsis beyond that of the basic plot summaries provided for the film. But truth is, the plot is only half the film’s genius. The rest belongs to the master of murder and suspense.

“Psycho” thrives on suspense. Without the constant feeling of paranoia from Hitchcock’s careful camera movements or from Bernard Herrmann’s vigorous string quartet, many parts of the film would feel long. At this point in his career, Hitchcock was so commanding of his craft that he achieves the desired effect from his audience with nearly every shot, whether it’s wanting us to focus on particular items or make specific assumptions about the mystery at hand.

Perhaps the most understated element of the film is Joseph Stefano’s screenplay. From what I gather about Robert Bloch’s novel, Stefano restructured the story to set up a jarring shift in the plot and encase the mystery in an even thicker container for Hitchcock to best utilize his skills. The script’s only major weakness is the scene right after the climax, which is pointless exposition explaining the previous events; something movie watchers don’t need today — though that’s arguably because Hitchcock made this movie.

For those that love Hitchcock’s style, “Psycho” is an instant classic and perhaps no film of his showcases it better. For those unfamiliar with his work, it’s not hard to see while watching “Psycho” what made his films so memorable. Even those who don’t have an eye for good filmmaking can even appreciate the entertaining suspense and constantly twisting plot of “Psycho.”

—

4.5/5 Stars

—

Psycho
Directed by Alfred Hitchcock
Written Joseph Stefano, Robert Block (novel)
Starring: Janet Leigh, Anthony Perkins, Vera Miles, John Gavin

When a zombie film gets a sequel, the assumption is that the producers are looking for ways to make more guts, gore and money. But “28 Weeks Later” is just as sharp as its predecessor in nearly every way, primarily in continuing the sci-fi post-apocalyptic elements that have clearly been thought out and made believable as they were with “28 Days Later.”

“Days” director Danny Boyle stays on in co-executive producer capacity for “Weeks” and it shows. He finds Juan Carlos Fresnadillo to direct, who demonstrates a thorough understanding of Boyle’s vision for the abandoned, infected England all the way down to camera technique.

Although Boyle has no credits for the story, it’s hard to imagine he wasn’t the primary consultant. “28 Weeks” brings us back to London the titular amount of time later, when one area of the city has been quarantined to start the re-population of the country (under the command of the U.S military — what a scary thought for Brits that must be … ). Smartly, the story focuses on one family reunited as the children were abroad during the breakout and the father (Robert Carlyle) managed to survive.

But despite the rebuilding process, little is sunny about “28 Weeks Later.” It’s still more zombie flick than anything else. When the kids’ mother is found, she turns out to be a carrier of the infection without it taking over her body. However, it manages to spread and all descends into utter chaos when the military calls Code Red. The film’s snowball effect of suspense and violence simultaneously acts as both its best and worst attribute. It’s highly entertaining yet absolutely crazy.

Using the microcosm of the reunited family (which doesn’t stay reunited for long) helps ground the film. All post-apocalyptic action films that do well stay focused on the characters and “28 Weeks” gets off to an excellent start in terms of both character development and intensity. Even when the focus goes away from the parents and to Jeremy Renner and Rose Byrne’s characters who try and help the kids to escape the area, you grow to like their character easily because they keep things sane in the midst of panic and a restless script.

Fresnadillo carries an entire arsenal of techniques with him and deploys them all in the hour and a half runtime. Some of the scenes jump around too much and are too dark to make any sense of what’s going on, but some are scarily effective. One scene in the subway is entirely done in nightshot and borrows on “found footage”-style horror techniques while a key infection sequence is a wrenching game-changer.

Zombie fans will be pleased with the follow up to the film that re-launched the zombie genre for the 21st Century and won’t find any brains (as in intelligence), scale or character sacrificed as a result. “Weeks” carries the promise of a franchise that could rival George A. Romero’s zombie empire.

—

3.5/5 Stars

—

28 Weeks Later
Directed by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo
Written by Rowan Joffe, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, E.L. Lavigne, Jesus Olmo
Starring: Robert Carlyle, Rose Byrne, Jeremy Renner, Imogen Poots

Vampirism seems like a disease in Hollywood these days, so “Daybreakers” will fall immediately go under the lens of skepticism. Believe it or not, however, Michael and Peter Spierig’s film separates itself through high concept futuristic science fiction. Although it ultimately spirals into an emotionless bloodbath, kudos to the film-making duo for taking the out-of-control vampire sub-genre somewhere it actually hasn’t indeed been before.

“Daybreakers” hardly falls into the realm of hard science, but it blends the concept of the apocalyptic epidemic with vampire culture well enough for the sake of entertaining science fiction. The film hypothesizes that if in 2019 humanity were to all become vampires (the inevitable outcome of any kind of vampirism epidemic), then humans would become a precious commodity until a human blood substitute could be found, which would cause a myriad of social issues.

Like any respectable sci-fi flick ought to, the Spierig brothers carefully establish their vampire-dominated society and some compelling characters within it. Ethan Hawke stars as Edward Dalton, (seriously, what’s with naming vampires Edward?) the chief hematologist responsible for finding a long-term blood substitute for Charles Bromley’s (Sam Neill) human blood-harvesting company. In fact, “Daybreakers” might have the most intelligently crafted societal context for a film that’s ultimate goal is entertainment through blood and mayhem.

Edward sympathizes with humans and in a chance meeting, comes across some (led by Claudia Karvan and Willem Defoe) who might hold a key to a solution to the vampire problem.

A few subplots try and add some depth to the story and characters, such as Edward’s relationship to his brother, a human hunter with a radically different perspective on being a vampire than Edward as well as Bromley’s relationship with his daughter, who ran away and insisted on remaining human. Bold these attempts are, but they’re counter-productive to the film’s main science-fiction thread.

Eventually as “Daybreakers” continues (especially in the third act) and its primary objective of entertainment becomes gorily evident, it becomes less compelling and more generally amusing. That’s when the Willem Dafoe one-liners such as “we’re the guys with the crossbows” remind you that no matter how creative the set-up, the punchline of every vampire gore flick is still the same.

—

3/5 Stars

Daybreakers
Written and directed by Michael and Peter Spierig
Starring: Ethan Hawke, Willem Dafoe, Sam Neill

The Wicker Man” is a peculiar little film. It begins as a typical mystery: a Scottish detective travels to a remote Island off Scotland’s coast where he is to investigate a report of a missing girl. Then the film mutates into a musical of sorts with numerous shots of topless women. Then it becomes a mystery again, this time fueled by religious beliefs. Undoubtedly paganism was an eye-opening concept in 1973 and while it doesn’t completely translate in terms of effectiveness today, it presents an interesting theistic argument and lays the groundwork for a number of future thrillers that would employ similar twists.

Edward Woodward stars as the police officer investigating into the missing girl, which is suspicious right off the bat. “The Wicker Man” is not particularly good at hiding the vital clues to the film’s mystery, but then again this is thirty-some years and consequently more experience with the thriller genre talking. Presumably the rites and rituals of pagan culture mystified and perplexed people a bit more back then. Anyway, as he starts to look into the mystery the landlord’s daughter (Britt Eckland) attempts to seduce him and the Summer Isle’s lack of sexual censorship becomes ‘celebrated’ in the film.

At first, “The Wicker Man” appears to attack the God-fearing Christian. Sgt. Howie, the detective, is outraged at the lack of Christian morality on the island. He can’t believe that the church is no longer a church and that no priest or minister exists. His ignorance is laughable in a modern context, making his character a bit despicable. It is a film not kind to Christianity or at the least Christians who choose to remain ignorant about faiths that do not believe in Jesus Christ and are appalled that someone can practice them.

Eventually that concept evolves. It still remains a film thematically based in religion, but Anthony Shaffer’s story suggests that we not be so quick to pass judgment on those who believe differently and hold different moral standards than ourselves. The moral guidelines that different groups of people follow are not clear-cut; right and wrong is not so black and white. In that sense “The Wicker Man” is a brave film despite its flaws.

It would be wrong to classify “The Wicker Man” as horror. It is a thriller with non-traditional religious themes that seem cultish and mysterious. It is a mystery that despite not being the most elaborate and impressive of story lines, is nonetheless unique and highly memorable. Undoubtedly anyone that sees this film will remember its final act, culminating in the burning of the wicker man.

—

3/5 Stars

The Wicker Man (1973)
Directed by Robin Hardy
Written by Anthony Shaffer
Starring: Edward Woodward, Britt Ekland, Christopher Lee

I don’t necessarily understand the phenomenon that “Paranormal Activity” became in the Fall of 2009, especially considering the success of “The Blair Witch Project” and “Cloverfield” bringing exposure to the documentary-style and low budget horror/thriller. Yet people demanded this film be shown in their cities and towns and this $15,000 movie grossed more than $100 million. We might never fully understand why, but my hunch is it’s partially because filmmaker Oren Peli is able to effectively do what bigger-budget horror filmmakers can with just a fraction of the resources.

“Paranormal Activity” is not all it’s cracked up to be, but it’s proof again that money is not what makes a good horror movie. You can sink cash into science fiction and action films and that can make them better, but fear is like humor — it’s a part of our brain function, it has no price tag. The pleasure some people get from a scary movie comes with skilled direction; money only dresses it up and allows a filmmaker to execute fear tactics in a different physical context.

The film follows a young couple that has just moved into a new home. The girl, Katie, has had experiences with some supernatural presence much of her life and it has followed them into her new home. Her boyfriend Micah has bought a camera to see if he can get down to the bottom of it and his footage is what we see. Everything takes place in their home (the home of Peli, in fact) and the paranormal events escalate as well as their relationship tension throughout the film.

This premise and screenplay is just head-strong writing. First off, its premise fits its budget. “Found footage” film-making is cheap and provides an artistic excuse to make a film that way while also appearing very real. If at any moment in the film you buy into Peli’s attempt to make it realistic, then you’ll be at least somewhat scared or fascinated with the events.

As far as being scary, Peli’s tactics are simple but executed perfectly. Everything is foot-in- the-door — worked in one scene at a time. A great horror filmmaker knows his audience’s expectations and turns them into his or her greatest tool. We learn early that this “demon” comes mostly at night and so Micah sets up his camera to record them in bed sleeping, the same shot from the same angle countless times throughout the film, the same sound effect cues to trigger our response that something is going to happen. At first just the door moves, or Katie sleepwalks, but it gets a little more intense each time and spooks you just enough before you ever realize what you’ve bought into is kind of ridiculous. It’s relentless in its ways and yet something you were rolling your eyes at five minutes ago now has your complete attention. Sometimes you’re like Micah, just itching for something to happen already and “Activity” insists on just creeping forward to the climax. It’s a plot ramp, not an arch.

In this way we’re tricked into thinking “Activity” is a good movie. In reality, though the relationship between Micah and Katie is believable, the way they handle this situation is kind of weird. First of all, I don’t know how anyone could sleep let alone 21 nights in a row knowing something was haunting them. There are many times where Katie addresses the camera and you feel that the script is really stretching to make excuses for why its on at pivotal points. And as realistic as the movie feels, there’s never a scene beyond the half-hour mark that feels strikingly truthful. It also takes us that long to get our first piece of subtext, that Micah’s a bit upset Katie never told him about her haunting experiences before they moved in.

Yet for its many flaws there’s a brilliance to the fear in us that “Paranormal Activity” preys on. First of all there’s the ageless notion of scary things happening at night when we sleep, then there’s that blurry line that we all experience in our lives like did the door just move or did the wind blow it shut? How did that end up on the floor. Peli works in these daily oddities and slowly shifts them over to completely abnormal events. It’s taking fear where we find it in our everyday lives and exaggerating. That’s the effectiveness of “Paranormal Activity.”

—

3/5 Stars

Paranormal Activity
Written and Directed by: Oren Peli
Starring: Katie Featherston, Micah Sloat

One would suppose if Sam Raimi really wanted to do a masterfully frightening horror film that he could easily do so — but that would be too easy. “Drag Me to Hell” is like a thesis statement for why horror films should stop wasting their time with realism and trying to frighten people in the most “realistic” ways possible. Raimi possesses the ability to scare audiences in that way, but he doesn’t see the point. Instead, the cult classic horror director of the Evil Dead trilogy continues to employ his masterful skills for the sake of audience misdirection, outrageous gore and hysterical thrills.

This was my first Raimi horror film, so now I can understand why there was much clamor for him to set the Spider-Man work aside this past decade and go back to his roots. “Drag Me to Hell” is definitely a throwback to older horror movies and a shout out to Raimi’s fans. With a classic score and even the 1980s Universal logo at the beginning, this is supposed to evoke a little nostalgia.

The film follows Christine Brown (Alison Lohman), a young loan officer who gets cursed by an old gypsy woman when she denies her an extension on her mortgage payments, mainly because doing so will get her closer to a promotion and she’s trying to wipe the slate clean of her redneck past. The curse causes a shadowy demon to torment her for three days and on the third he will come to take her soul into hell. That and the old woman keeps showing up in some form or another to attack her.

Raimi has a fine understanding of suspense and how to get an audience on edge and prey on their expectations. Horror films have such a clear rise-and-fall scene structure and so many of the same techniques are utilized that an audience can predict a film’s movement. Raimi uses that to his advantage rather than just using it period. Twisting it in this way allows him to create unexpected laughs and enhance the interest and entertainment level of the story, even if the plot is quite simple like “Drag Me to Hell.”

Some people, I imagine, don’t appreciate the scary parts of films being diminished by laugh- out-loud gore such as an old lady vomiting maggots and other comedic surprises, but I think it serves more as a reminder that horror doesn’t have to make you wet yourself and give you nightmares to be entertaining. In fact it really celebrates the subconscious pleasure we get from scary movies to use those nerve-racking techniques to lead us where we least expect yet find quite entertaining.

When you look back at “Drag Me to Hell,” you’d be crazy not to find it ridiculous and absurd, but it finds a wonderfully entertaining balance of horror, comedy and realism. Christine feels like a very real protagonist despite the outrageous things that happen to her. She has a boyfriend (Justin Long) who legitimately loves her and she wants a promotion like the rest of us and she has moral dilemmas like the rest of us. Even if the Raimi brothers negate that with bizarre scene climaxes, they’ve done their job to create a complete main character and we can’t label anything with fully realized characters as pulp or trash. It seems dumb, but the intention is clear and anyone who checks their expectations imposed by the bad horror films of late will see that and enjoy “Hell.”

3.5/5 Stars

Drag Me to Hell
Directed by: Sam Raimi
Written by: Sam and Ivan Raimi
Starring: Alison Lohman, Justin Long

George A. Romero’s “Night of the Living Dead” is not standard horror. In fact, there are several minutes where this classic zombie film is just plain boring. There is brilliance, however, in the film’s static nature, like how one of the main characters, Barbra (Judith O’Dea), is in speechless shock for most of the film. And despite the horror fan’s craving for gore, suspense and active characters, “Living Dead” tantalizes its audience and then stuns it with unexpected turns of events instead of using the typical rise-and-fall horror structure.

“Living Dead” could be described as the king of the B horror movie. Its title, flesh-eating half-humans and cheesy violence keep the movie walking that fine line between horror and comedy. The difference is that the plot contains events that break horror conventions. Look past the use of Bosco chocolate syrup and black and white film in 1968 and you’ll notice the film is more about humans vs. humans than it is humans vs. zombies.

The story opens with a girl and her brother visiting their father’s grave when they’re attacked by a zombie. The brother gets knocked out while the girl runs and takes shelter in a nearby vacated home where she’s later discovered by Ben (Duane Jones), the take-charge type of horror movie character. They board up the house and light fires to keep the zombies away and soon they discover five other people were hiding in the cellar. Together, all seven of them argue about survival tactics and things get heated between Ben and Mr. Cooper (Karl Hardman).

“Living Dead” ends up being one of those films exposing how human nature rears its ugly head in these kinds of life-or-death situations. Padded by some probably unintentional racial tension between Ben and Cooper, as the arguing continues you are forced to wonder who the real savages are: the ones outside the house or the ones inside it. Culminating in an excellent and largely unpredictable ending sequence as the zombie threat becomes imminent in the house, “Living Dead” ends up becoming a surprise to everyone.

With sub-par acting, unnecessarily long scenes of the news playing out over the television and nothing that’s actually scary, it’s amazing how “Living Dead” manages to win over its viewers. There are literally just scenes where Ben is boarding up the windows listening to the radio and you wonder if the zombies are just chilling outside playing cards or something. But there’s great effectiveness when Ben keeps telling Barbra to stay calm and not be scared and she just won’t say anything, much to our dismay. “Living Dead” is more psychological than you’d ever expect from something with all these B-movie characteristics.

3.5/5 Stars

“Night of the Living Dead” (1968)
Directed by: George A. Romero
Written by: George A. Romero, John A. Russo
Starring: Duane Jones, Judith O’Dea, Karl Hardman

Played by a 22-year-old Mia Farrow, Rosemary is the young wife of a struggling actor (John Cassavetes) who moves into a new apartment house in New York next to some strange old nosy neighbors, Minnie (Ruth Gordon) and Roman (Sidney Blackmer). Under strange circumstances she becomes pregnant and starts to believe there might be some conspiracy surrounding her baby.

“Rosemary’s Baby” is not really a horror movie. There are no frightful images, only the illusion that you might see one, which is Polanski’s best trick. Its chock-full of suspense and creates the helpless feeling of not knowing what to believe half the time. The French-born and currently exiled director delivers his first big hit with this plodding script that is never too challenging but takes hold of its audience.

Farrow as Rosemary is this wonderfully cheery and naive spirit who we see crumble before our eyes as her intuition and gullibility are at odds with each other. She does the first half- Rosemary quite well but shows some room for improvement in the more dramatic half of the film. Ruth Gordon is an effectively irritating scene-stealer, helping build Polanski’s slow dramatic momentum by arousing our suspicions early.

It’s not altogether poignant other than underscoring this precious bond between mother and unborn baby, but the execution of suspense is second to very few other films of its kind.