"Prepare to Die"

The video game industry itself is larger than both films and music combined, so it was inevitable that I would write about it at some point. I'm a huge fan of video games. I've been playing since the days of Atari 1600, and have owned a next gen system ever since. I imagine that I always will. I love RPGs (Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy), survival horror (Silent Hill, Resident Evil), and first-person shooters (Call of Duty, Halo). The only question for me in terms of this blog has always been, "which video game would compel me to knock out an entire article?"

That question was answered when I picked up Dark Souls a few weeks back. Dark Souls is the spiritual successor to Demon's Souls, a PS3 exclusive from 2009 which at the time was being described as, "one of the first truly great Japanese RPGs of this generation, and certainly the most remarkable." The spark that ignites the human race is slowly burning out. People are dying, and returning to life all over Lordran. They become immortal and slowly lose their sanity, becoming violent monsters in the long run. You play as a chosen undead who must battle the forces of darkness and reignite the flames of humanity in order for the human race to thrive. The opening cinematic for Dark Souls lays out the bleak history of Lordran, and offers up a creative (albeit extremely dark) mythology. Once you actually get started, you'll quickly learn that this game isn't going to hold your hand with some tutorial. That's right, no handshake. Just a punch to the gut. Within the first 10 minutes, you'll encounter the Asylum Demon, the first boss that you are expected to beat. This isn't a cheap battle with a strong boss that you are supposed to lose either.


The only way to truly describe this game to you is to say "baby steps." Those who enjoy an entertaining, story driven experience taken at a brisk pace will probably snap their controller in half. This is a game that forces you to learn from your mistakes. Each enemy is different and requires a different strategy to defeat. Every enemy from the first you encounter to the last, has an equal chance at killing you, so finding a place to relax is difficult. Did I mention there is no ability to pause the game? That's right, you had better be paying attention because there is nothing forgiving about this game. You'll quickly find this out when you've died more times in the first 10 hours than you have in your collective gaming career. The enemies also become more difficult with every death. The game also saves CONSTANTLY. Ever play a game and make a mistake, only to hit the reset button? Dark Souls laughs at your cowardice. Accidentally kill an important NPC, or miss the opportunity to obtain a weapon from a major boss? Oops, better luck on your second playthrough (which is about 60-100 hours away. Sorry losers, only one save slot per character). All of this sounds cheap, maybe even unfair, but it never truly feels that way. Dark Souls is never unfair. It gives you every opportunity to succeed, thus making the mistakes all your own. Every death can be avoided by learning the pattern of your enemy.


The multiplayer system in Dark Souls is among the most original and creative I have ever seen in a game. Instead of sending a game invite to a friend, the game will only allow random encounters. Players can draw symbols on the ground in a certain location, and if a different player makes contact with those symbols, the original player can be summoned to assist a person in defeating the area boss. By the same token, if you choose to take a darker tone, you can invade other people's games and steal their currency, or items. This system can be extremely rewarding as I have tackled some of the more difficult areas of the game by summoning more experienced players. I think the best part of this feature is that there is no voice chat allowed in-game. If you summon a player, it will be all non-verbal cues. You won't be completely in the dark however. Players can draw messages on the ground warning other players of an ambush ahead, a safe location, or a hidden room.

This has been an extremely exciting time for video games. In the fourth quarter alone, we've seen games like Uncharted 3, Batman Arkham City, Battlefield 3, Modern Warfare 3 and Skyrim. For me, Dark Souls came out of nowhere. I had never heard of the original, and all I was looking for was a time filler until Arkham City was released. What I found was one of the best all around gaming experiences out there. I can't imagine that I'll be putting as much time and energy into any other game in the near future.

Movie Review: Paranormal Activity 3

Oren Peli must feel like a million bucks. His film, Paranormal Activity, was almost never seen by general audiences. The former video game designer decided to get into movies, so he purchased a high definition camera and wrote a rough outline for what the film could be (these movies are largely improvised). He financed the film himself ($11,000-$15,000) and used his own home as the setting. The film was finished in 2007, but sat for two years before Steven Spielberg saw a rough cut and decided that this needed to be seen by the masses. Slam cut to October 2011 and we have the hottest horror franchise of the last decade about to unleash a third entry. By most accounts, horror sequels are merely quick cash-ins with little to no love for the audience (ie. Friday the 13th, Hellraiser, Halloween, etc). Paranormal Activity 2 seems to have broken that trend by proving that creatively and financially, lightning can in fact strike twice. As with each new entry in a series, there is always a question of, "can they do it again?" Not only is Paranormal Activity 3 a scary movie, but it tops the previous entry in just about every way.

Much like PA2, this film is a prequel. It goes even further back in time than the second entry by showing us the events of what happened to Katie and Kristi when they were kids. The girls live with their mom, Julie (Lauren Bittner), and her boyfriend Dennis (the immensely likeable Christopher Nicholas Smith). Dennis is a videographer, which quickly explains why we have so many cameras available to us right from the get go. Dennis manages to catch "something" on camera during a small earthquake, and wants to see if this is related to Kristi's new attachment to an imaginary friend, Tobey. What follows is a series staple consisting of several nights worth of footage that in the end tie most of the plot up.

PA3 is first and foremost a horror film, and it delivers some of the best scares in the series. This is in large part due to the oscillating camera that shows us the living room and the kitchen. What made this so genius is that it played the audience with each and every pan. You could hear the nervous laughter and feel the tension amongst the packed house. Several of the film's biggest scares come from this device. Of course, no PA film would be complete without expanding on the mythology. PA3 gives us a few more pieces of the puzzle as to why this is happening to just one family. I believe that the person who deserves the most credit for this is Christopher Landon, who wrote the last two entries. For him to craft these sequels around the first movie is nothing short of amazing, and I believe that he is the key to success for the longevity of this franchise. I also believe that when Paranormal Activity 4 is officially green-lit, he should be given a chance to direct it as well. Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman (who made last year's Catfish) also deserve a lot of credit for upping the stakes this time around. The pacing is faster, the tension is higher, and the characters are extremely likeable (which helps when you want your audience to care what happens. Take note, horror genre). The four principle actors (Bittner, Smith, Brown and Csengery) all do a great job with their characters, with the true stand out being Smith, who really comes off as likeable, especially in his scenes with his business partner Randy (a very funny Dustin Ingram). No Paranormal Activity movie is complete without a cameo from the beautiful Katie Featherston, who returns along with Sprague Grayden and Brian Boland from PA2, to open the film (albeit briefly).

My friends and I knew this movie would be huge when we arrived for the midnight showing. The film was proving to be so popular that the theater added four more additional showings that night to keep up with the demand. When all was said and done, PA3 had grossed $54 million in its opening weekend. This has become the highest opening for a horror movie of all time, and the highest opening for a movie in October. This franchise shows no signs of slowing down, and really, why should they? This begs the question: where do you go from here? PA3 gives a few answers, but also leaves a lot of questions to be answered in a future entry. Do we finally get the true sequel about Katie and Hunter, or do we do a sequel to PA3 that is set in the 90s. Either scenario works out well as the filmmakers have planted hints that could go in either direction, or a new one altogether. Regardless of what they decide, I think the people who make these movies have earned our trust that no matter what happens, we'll be leaving the light on.

Your Guide to Paranormal Activity 3

The Paranormal Activity series has got to be my favorite franchise in the horror genre. The Blair Witch Project might have introduced me to found footage movies, but it's the hope that I can find one as good as Paranormal Activity that keeps me searching. The first film was made in 2007 and finally released in 2009 (thanks to the help of one Steven Spielberg), and on a budget of less than $15,000 went on to become the most successful film that year. It also did something that no other film could do: put a dent in the Saw franchise. By the time Paranormal Activity 2 hit the following year, Saw was an afterthought and officially died to make room for the new blood. For those not familiar with how these films are marketed, I wanted to write an article looking at the in-depth viral campaign that takes places late into the summer and continues all the way up to opening day.

The first news of a third film came on July 21, 2011 at the San Diego Comic-Con. Patrons were given fliers for a video conversion service by the name of Darren's Timeless Memories. The flier that people were given is features below:

When you actually went to the website listed, you were given a commercial for the business, as well as Contact information and several video examples of the quality that Darren provides. When you poked around, you were taken to the official teaser for the film. You could have also contacted Darren himself (as I did), but all you got a was an email in return stating that eventually Darren will send you more examples of his work. Sadly, nothing ever came of this, which is a missed opportunity in my opinion. When PA2 was being marketed, a website received a copy of the police report stemming from the ending of the first film. If you read carefully, you were able to find a phone number for the home of the characters in the first film. I called and got a message machine for the characters. I left my contact info and waited patiently. After a few weeks, I got a call from one of the characters warning me that something was in the house, and that I should take the kids and get out. This is the kind of creativity that more movies should be employing.

Once the teaser hits, it can be awhile before the actual viral videos are released. So far to date, five viral videos have been released, in addition to the official trailer. What makes these viral videos so cool is that they've followed the same model as PA2. Essentially, you get about 10 seconds of a clip before static takes over and plays roughly 5 seconds of something weird. You'll get the idea when you watch some of the clips. Of course, another marketing aspect that I love is the audience reaction cam. I believe this takes place earlier this month at Fantastic Fest in Texas. This footage, as well as every viral video from the first film, second film, and now the current entry (including the Darren material), can be found here. A fan was kind enough to compile everything into one YouTube channel, so you won't have to dig around for all of the good stuff.

It takes a lot of balls to show a film three weeks early, but it seems to have paid off for the filmmakers. There are already more than a dozen reviews online for PA3, and they all seem to indicate that lightning can indeed strike three times:

• "But the most impressive aspect of PA3 is that it's basted in a series of memorable moments that rival that of any franchise. The audience will remember scenes from PA3 and be talking about it for years to come." (bloody disgusting)
• "Paranormal Activity 3 defies all odds and delivers yet another hellish reason to be afraid of the dark." (dread central)
• I like this series. I like the sort of horror it represents. I like the audiences it seems to attract, audiences that aren't typical horror audiences. I like that it killed the Saw franchise. Sorry, but I am. I like ghosts more than I like people torturing other people. I like being in a theater watching a haunted house movie that's working on audiences and I like hearing screams and seeing jumps and the nervous laughter after something works. I like that. That's one of the things that attracts me to horror." (hitfix)
• "The last fifteen minutes of Paranormal Activity 3 will fuck you up for life." (movie buzz)

This year my friends and I are continuing the tradition of opening night at midnight. We've got our tickets, and we're looking forward to (hopefully) being scared out of our whits just as we have been since 2009. Look for my official review on the film next Monday.

Trick 'r Treat: the Quintessential Halloween Movie That You Haven't Seen

If your house is like mine, you have a lot of holiday traditions. One of the traditions in our house revolves around movies (shocking, isn't it?). Halloween certainly has its fair share of movies to pick from year to year. People often point to John Carpenter's Halloween, and rightfully so. The original movie is a classic, and still packs a punch to this day, but I have a discovered a movie that represents everything that Halloween is about.

You may or may not have heard of Trick 'r Treat. It was made five years ago, and basically sat in post-production hell as Warner Brothers had no idea what to do with it. The film was written and directed by Michael Dougherty (who based it on his short film Season's Greetings) and produced by Bryan Singer, who were fresh off their take on Superman Returns. The film features Dylan Baker, Leslie Bibb, Rochelle Aytes, and Singer's X-Men alumni Anna Paquin and Brian Cox. The film takes on the classic horror anthology format made famous by Creepshow and Tales From the Crypt. The film tells four stories: The Principal, The School Bus Massacre Revisited, Surprise Party and Meet Sam. What separates Trick 'r Treat from other anthology movies is its ability to have each story intertwine towards the end of the film, and often with extremely fun and creative results. The film also introduces, what I consider, to be one of the more memorable horror film mascots: Sam. The child size creature is featured on the film's official poster to the left. You're never given a full on explanation as to what Sam is exactly, but he often acts as the observer of each story until the very end when he joins in and gets his own spotlight. The character has become so popular over time that this year FearNet had Dougherty create holiday themed commercials starring Sam himself. They can be seen here, here, and my personal favorite, here.

The film was pushed back several times in 2007, only making its way through a handful of showings at film festivals and test screenings, where it often ranked among the best tested. Despite the critical acclaim and growing internet cult following, Warner Bros shelved it until late 2009 when it finally hit DVD and blu ray. I managed to rent it after years of reading about how much people loved it, and I have joined in their affection. Trick 'r Treat is definitely a movie that will be shown around our house every year.

What makes this an instant classic in a genre that has flooded the market every October is its ability to have fun with itself. The movie itself isn't the scariest, but you instantly get a sense of the love and fun that went into the way it was made. Every story is well crafted, well acted and shows that all you have to do in order to survive is simply follow the rules of Halloween. Plus it is a nice change from all the blood and gore that's been dominating this time of season. I highly recommend this film to anyone who loves to break out horror movies during this time of year.

A Genre Worth Revisiting

A few weeks ago I wrote an article dealing with my favorite subgenre in horror: found footage. A lot of films were left out of that post, so I decided that this will probably become an ongoing series as I obtain a list that deserved to be discussed. Not only do I have a new batch of films to discuss, but I wanted to go in-depth on one in particular that I recently watched.

The Last Exorcism is a little difficult to review. It's a great concept with great performances, but it doesn't have very many scary moments. The film is about an evangelical Reverend by the name of Cotton Marcus who used to make his living by performing exorcisms. Cotton doesn't believe in demons, but he does believe he provides a service by "healing" people who believe they have a demon. After he reads about the death of a child via a botched exorcism, Cotton decides to expose the fact that exorcisms are fake, and that demons truly do not exist. It’s in the first half of TLE that the movie really shines. Patrick Fabian, who plays Cotton, deserves a lot of credit for making his character an extremely likeable guy. I don't believe the first half of the movie would have worked as well as it did with a different actor in the role. Ashley Bell, who plays Nell, also shines as the young girl who may, or may not be possessed. There is also a lot of humor to be found in the first half an hour or so, but when it comes time to scare the audience, The Last Exorcism is hit or miss. The film does well in creating tension during certain scenes, but it never feels as though the filmmakers capitalize on that tension. The Last Exorcism is far from a bad movie, but it certainly could have been a lot better if more time was spent on the last half of the script. The ending leaves it open for audience interpretation, and I for one really enjoyed the last 5 minutes or so. The film did garner enough attention at the box office to get a sequel (in which Ashley Bell will return. No word on Fabian), so we'll see what mistakes are corrected when it hits theaters.

The United States has been remaking Japanese horror films for years, so it was a little surprising to see Japan take one from us for a change. Right around the time that Paramount released Paranormal Activity 2, Japan was releasing their own version of a sequel, titled Paranormal Activity: Tokyo Night. This movie follows a foreign exchange student who returns home (bringing the demon with her, of course) and experiencing her own bumps in the night. The Japanese really know how to create a creepy environment on film, but this is another movie that fails to recreate the original and falls flat on its face. There are a handful of interesting scenes, but for the most part the filmmakers just recreated a lot scenes and recycled a lot of the sound cues from the original and then tacked on an extra few minutes to the ending. Nothing new or exciting here, which is disappointing considering Paranormal Activity 2 completely changed the way in which you watch the original. I do have high hopes for Paranormal Activity: Tokyo Drift though.

Troll Hunter, as ridiculous as it sounds when you first hear about it, is actually a very charming and well made movie dealing with Norwegian folklore. The film essentially follows a group of students who are researching bear attacks when they discover a man who they believe to be a poacher. They follow him around in an attempt to expose him when they find out that he is in fact hunting something that they never could have imagined. The film has several different designs for its monsters and feels harmless for the first half, but about midway through the movie it takes a shift in tone and becomes very engaging. Again, the premise sounds so cheesy, but it is very well made and very entertaining. It took awhile, but it finally hit blu ray in the US and just appeared on Netflix Instant, so I highly recommend checking it out if you can.

Megan is Missing is a film that I wasn’t sure I wanted to bring up when I first watched it, but it is a film that needs discussion. Thus far for me, the "found footage" genre has mostly been about the unexplained. Ghosts, demons, monsters, why George Romero can't make a good movie anymore, etc. Part of the reason I find them so interesting is because they are treated as if they really happened. The use of unknown actors, the film quality, the absense of music are all apart of what makes the genre so successful. Megan is Missing deals with a real subject, is based on actual police cases, and as a result it feels a little too real. The movie is made up of video phone chats, webcams, security footage and (extremely cheesy) newscast reenactments. The film itself deals with online predators and child abduction. Megan is Missing has its share of questionable acting and cheesy scenes that could have been left out, but it’s the final 45 minutes of the film that really make you look past all of that. The plot is as follows: Amy and Megan are best friends and polar opposites. Megan has a bad relationship with her mother, no father, and a stepdad who is in prison for reasons that better explain why Megan is the way she is. She’s a party girl, drinks, does drugs and is promiscuous. Amy, on the other hand, lives in a loving home with two parents and for the most part is a normal 13 year old. Due to her low self esteem however she idolizes Megan and her lifestyle, which is ironic because Megan herself idolizes Amy because of her innocence. The first 30 minutes is essentially setting up the friendship and exploring Megan’s horrible past. Getting through the first part of the film is dependant on whether or not you want to see a group of 14 year old girls making bad decisions (when a few of them should have been taking acting classes instead). Eventually, Megan begins to chat online with "Josh," who Megan falls for easily due to her constant need for male attention. They agree to meet up one night, and it turns out that it is the last night Megan is heard from again. Amy suspects that "Josh" might know something, and goes to the police. As a result of putting "Josh" in the public eye, Amy is taken and never heard from again. The last 22 minutes of the movie are the most difficult to get through. In this last section of the movie, we’re shown (in an all too graphic display sometimes) what Amy goes through (which I will opt not to print here). Once the film was over I was definitely shaken and upset. It was easy for me to dismiss the film because I was pissed off, but after thinking about it a lot I truly believe the overall message of the film is important. The violence that occurs doesn't hold back, but it doesn't need to. This type of subject matter should not be sugar coated.

I spent a lot of time thinking about this movie after it was over, and I did a lot of research about why it was made. I even discovered that Richard Klass endorsed the film (my generation may remember his daughter Polly Klass in the 90s) and that some of the profits from the film go to KlassKids charity. I spoke to a few friends about the film, and it brought up parallels in the recent Jaycee Dugard story. I can give credit to the film for sparking a discussion that should be had amongst good parents, and while I recommend the film to people who can stomach it, be warned that it can be very uncomfortable. As I mentioned earlier, the last 22 minutes are brutal, and the ending brought me as close to being truly depressed as a movie ever has.

Now that we’re all officially bummed out, let’s once again look to the future of cinema verite. Platinum Dunes are the remake kings in the modern world of cinema. They’ve done A Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and its sequel, as well as The Amityville Horror starring Ryan Reynold’s beard. The biggest success in their vault of "unoriginality" was Friday the 13th. Ever since then they have been looking at a new spin for the sequel. The one getting the most attention lately is a "found footage" approach. With every Friday the 13th movie essentially being the same thing over and over again (except Jason X because that was awesome) we’re probably looking at Footage Found on the 13th movie, which means same old same old…now with a cheaper camera. Another sequel in the works is The Amityville Tapes, which will also feature a new found footage format. A trailer for Tape 407 was released last week and appears to be about a group of people who survive a plane crash. They discover that they're stranded on an island of some sort, and soon learn of some form of government experimentation taking place. To be honest, it looked like a found footage version of Jurassic Park. If you seek out the trailer, tell me those monsters don't look like velociraptors. Anyway, look for Tape 407 to hit at the end of the month.

ABC is even getting in on this with Oren Peli’s The River, which plays out with a Bear Grylls type character "traveling down the Amazon River in the middle of South America and disappeared without a trace" (wiki). His family then sets out to find him and discovers something more supernatural at work.

I Hate Rocky IV And So Should You

The Rocky franchise is my favorite creation in Hollywood. We take our Rocky movies seriously in the HWAV household. We have movie posters of Rocky and Rocky Balboa framed and displayed in various rooms. Our daughter's middle name is Adrian. I even made my wife watch the films to see her reaction before the topic of marriage could even be seriously discussed (I knew she was a keeper when she watched Rocky II on her own, then proclaimed it "her favorite"). Behind all of the love and admiration for the series, there is one thing keeping it from being considered true perfection: Rocky IV. When I meet a person who instantly refers to Rocky IV as their favorite movie in the series, I know that the rest of the conversation isn't going to be pleasant. I've had more than my fair share of arguments with people about why this movie sucks, and they all end the same: "Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." Since I'm tired of having this conversation with people I thought it would make a great "end all" article. So once and for all, let's examine exactly why Rocky IV is the black sheep of an otherwise perfect franchise.

Let's start with the obvious: the opening sequence. Instead of the title rolling across the screen with Bill Conti's Fanfare for Rocky playing, we're forced to watch as an American boxing glove and a Russian boxing glove smash together explosively. This is a hint and a half for your ass that you are about to watch something very different, and not in a good way. They also use Eye of the Tiger for the opening, which is a great song...that was used to open Rocky III. Speaking of Bill Conti, he is nowhere to be found in this movie. His iconic Gonna Fly Now isn't featured once. At the time the film was made, Stallone and Conti had a dispute, and the movie definitely suffers for it.

The plot of the film is probably the aspect most out of character for the series. Russia wants to get in on the world of boxing, so they bring in Ivan Drago (Dolph Lundgren) for an exhibition fight. Attempting to prove that he is still relevant to the world, Apollo Creed accepts the challenge. During the fight, he is killed and Rocky sets out to train and take Drago down. The way I describe it to people is by saying, "picture a Rocky movie starring John Rambo." I get that this movie was made in the 80s and it was popular to showcase our feud with Russia, but Stallone had done that with Rambo: First Blood II and would do it again in Rambo III.

It's during the middle of the film that Stallone apparently decided to ignore who his characters were in previous entries when writing Rocky IV. The voice of reason and motivator for Rock is his wife Adrian, but in Rocky IV, she's the one telling him that going against Drago is impossible and that he "can't win." Not only is this out of character, but it completely negates the "believe in yourself" speech from Rocky III, but hey who cares about character continuity, right?

By the end of the movie, Rocky manages to win the hearts and minds of the people in Russia. He gives a cheesy speech about how if he can change his opinion on the Russians, and vice versa, then the world can change. That's right; Rocky Balboa just ended the Cold War singlehandedly. So when all is said and done and the smoke clears, you'd think Rocky would mention the reason for all of this (i.e. his friend Apollo), but no, no he doesn't. The movie forgets why it even exists by the time the credits roll.

The Rocky series has never been about boxing. It has always been about character, relationships and personal struggles. The series has always boiled down to Adrian, as she is the key to the series. Even Rocky Balboa, a movie that Talia Shire wasn't even in, had Adrian's imprint all over it. Rocky IV is about boxing, revenge, and having so much money that you can buy a robot. If the film has any saving grace, there would be only two things that come to mind: Rocky IV has a great training sequence in which Rocky is among the elements in Russia. Climbing a mountain, running in the snow, and growing a beard (anyone who hasn't done these 3 things cannot call themselves a man). The only other redeeming quality the film offers is the iconic picture of a battered Rocky Balboa draped in the American flag. Other than that, Rocky IV will always be the movie that my wife makes excuses on why she can't watch, and I end up envying her for it.

But Who Is Gonna Play Ash?

For those of you not familiar with Sam Raimi’s Evil Dead movies, let me bring you up to speed. The first film, The Evil Dead, is a by-the-numbers horror flick about a group of friends who take a vacation at a cabin in the woods. Skip it (you will not miss any key story elements as the opening of ED2 is a quasi-remake). The real fun begins in Evil Dead II: Dead by Dawn and continues in Army of Darkness. This is the series that brought us Ash, the shit-talking’ hero with a chainsaw strapped to his arm. Ever wonder where Nuke Nukem gets his hilarious one-liners? They are lifted straight from this series, among others. This is a film series recommended to people who love over the top horror movies that don't take themselves seriously. If you love any of the following things, then this series is for you:

tree rape (you heard me)

possessed body parts

gallons of green, purple and red blood

physical comedy ala The Three Stooges

unexplained continuity changes from movie to movie

skeletons playing bagpipes

Army of Darkness was released in 1992, and ever since that time fans of the series have been wondering, "what’s next?"

Since 1992, the series has gone from cult classic to main stream in many ways. Bruce Campbell will forever be associated with Ash. He’s played him in 3 movies, 3 video games and the character has been featured in many, many comic book spin-offs. Ash even routinely shows up the NECA toy line as well. It can be argued that this character has gotten more and more popular as time has gone on, which is impressive considering we're just about two decades removed from the last movie.


So why hasn’t he returned to the screen at all? It has almost happened a couple of times. Before Sam Raimi hit it big with the Spider-Man movie series, there were talks of moving ahead with another sequel (for legal reasons it would have been Army of Darkness II). Bruce Campbell shares that it would have been based on the alternate ending (because what is an Evil Dead movie without skewed continuity?) and featured Ash fighting machines in the future. This was quickly scrapped and not much else was heard until August 15, 2003. I still remember that day because it was the day that Freddy vs. Jason hit theaters. It was tracking well at the box office, so naturally a sequel was being touted. Not just a FvJ 2, but a Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash. Without getting into the long history of how that came about, it fell apart when Sam Raimi stated that he wasn’t comfortable allowing someone else to have creative control over a character that he may want to use again once day. Fair enough I say. He’s all but confirming another sequel. Fast forward to 2007 – 2009 in which Raimi begins dropping hints that he and his brother have begun laying the foundation of another sequel.

Finally, in 2011, we have the official news that there will be another Evil Dead movie! Sam Raimi is producing, Fede Alvarez is directing and Diablo Cody is putting the finishing touches on the script! That’s right; The Evil Dead is coming – wait. The Evil Dead? As in…A REMAKE?! Surely this is a mistake as Bruce Campbell is coming back as Ash, right? A cameo? Not as Ash? Really? What a terrible, terrible idea. Hey Sam Raimi, let’s ask New Line how well the remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street did. Well received? No? It essentially killed the franchise when you left out Robert Englund? Surely they wouldn’t leave out Ash, who IS the franchise. What’s that? It’s about a new generation of kids? Ugh. I can’t wait for this movie to bomb at the box office. Not only were we screwed out of this, but Raimi essentially screwed us out of a fun popcorn sequel to FvJ.

The people defending this have all basically said the same thing: "Look, if you want a new Evil Dead movie, then this is the way to go." That’s the same bullshit line they used when remaking Nightmare on Elm Street. How about instead of giving the fans what they want, you leave it alone? I’m guessing that Bruce Campbell is thrilled that he won’t be back as Ash. Everywhere this guy goes, he gets asked about a new Evil Dead movie. Some friends and I saw him speak about one of his other films a few years back and he immediately wanted that question out of the way. I’m sure this remake solidifies the fact that he’ll never have to talk about it again. I’m getting a real "Bill Murray & GB3" vibe here, and it sucks.

At one point one has to wonder if Ash will even be included, and if so, who will play him? This is a role that Bruce Campbell made famous, so would anyone accept a new actor in the role? This question was answered as of September 15, 2011 when it was reported by Campbell himself, "No Ash character currently. ED remake is a re-telling. All bets are off & all involved love the new approach." Everyone but the fans, Bruce. Remember when I told you to skip the first film? The remake sounds just like it, so guess what I recommend you do here, too?

Very few remakes have a chance of living up to the original (in this case sequels), and even fewer can hack it when they exclude what everyone loves about the original.

A Genre Worth Finding

The horror genre has been a favorite of mine ever since I was a little kid. I still remember watching Tales From the Crypt on HBO before I was old enough, or seeing Childs Play, A Nightmare on Elm Street 4-7 and even Leprechaun (don't judge me) while they were still in the theater. As I got older, it became increasingly difficult to identify what was considered scary. In fact, it is different for everyone. I’ll never forget being at the Greenback Cinedomes and seeing the movie poster for The Blair Witch Project. I can still remember the blurb from Peter Travers at the top of the poster: "Scary as hell." Now that's what I'm talking about! I remember begging my mom to take me on opening day. I was beyond excited, which was intensified when I saw the usher handing out "barf bags" to people (due to motion sickness). Up to that point, I'd never seen a movie like it. The fact that this was shot with a hand held camera only made it all the more real. I never saw a "trailer" in the conventional sense. When BWP was advertised on television, it was treated as a real event and that these people were truly missing. Nothing like that had ever been done, to my knowledge. I still love everything about BWP and had hoped that one day other films would follow in the "found footage" format.

Today we're literally flooded with this subgenre of horror. This is largely, if not exclusively, due to Paranormal Activity. When The Blair Witch Project was first released, it spawned a lot of spoof movies instead of imitations. When Paranormal Activity became the most profitable film of all time in 2009, other studios wanted in. It didn't take long before other people figured out that a low budget "found footage" movie could produce a lot more in returns. When lightning struck twice with Paranormal Activity 2 the DVD market was flooded with other similar titles.

What I want to do is look at some of those titles and help people to avoid some of the really terrible ones that are floating around out there, as well as point out what appears to be some solid upcoming films.

Let's start with the bad. I reviewed George Romero's Diary of the Dead a few years ago and was utterly disappointed by just how terrible it was. Romero, having learned nothing, followed it up with Survival of the Dead, which again utilizes a hand held format. I love this subgenre, but when the opening narration explains that "music was added for effect, and to scare you," it isn't looking good. Another film making the festival rounds right now is Atrocious, a film that essentially can be described by looking no further than the title. This Spanish-made film has been geeting decent reviews, and has been hailed for being "terrifying." I managed to see this one, and even at a running time of a little over an hour, it was awful. The basic premise is that a family vacations together on the countryside and is found dead just days later. The movie follows the children as they investigate a local urban legend about a ghost that will guide you out of the forrest if you ever find yourself lost. Not only is this urban legend barely touched upon, but it actually has nothing to do with the actual plot twist or "carnage" that ends the film.



Of course for every few dozen horrible movies you sit through, you manage to find a couple of gems. Noroi: The Curse could be the crowning jewel of J-Horror. I consider the final moments of that film to be some of the scariest I have ever seen. Another great import is the Rec series. Rec plays out like the Spanish 28 Days Later with a virus infecting an apartment complex. The survivors must fight their way out, blah blah blah. Once you make it to Rec 2 (and I highly recommend that you do) you learn that it is nothing like 28 Days Later and nothing like what you imagined it would be. The two most recent films I've seen are definitely worth noting. Grave Encounters begins extremely cheesy and gives the impression that this is going nowhere fast. Think Ghost Hunters meets House on Haunted Hill. The wife and I were quite surprised at how effective this movie was. One thing that creeps me out in these movies is face distortion. Noroi uses it, and Grave Encounters uses it. If you don't know what I mean, take a gander at this.

The other film that I think deserves credit on so many levels is The Tunnel. The film raised money from online donations so that it could be released and downloaded for free. I recommend going to the official website (http://www.thetunnelmovie.net/) and watching it. This "found footage" movie takes a documentary approach with the survivors retelling the events of an investigation into abandoned tunnels underneath Sydney. I don't want to give away too much because the less you know the better, but be warned it is quite effective.

Of course it is always uncertain whether movies like this will be any good, but some of the upcoming released I am keeping a close eye on. Paranormal Activity 3 is a given for me, and I won't go into too much detail on it because it'll be the focus of a future article. Other films I encourage people to watch out for are Unaware, Evidence, Rec 3: Genesis & Rec 4: Apocolypse, as well as Oren Peli's Area 51.

Conan the Letdown

Let me start by saying that I am a huge Robert E. Howard fan. I love his characters, his horror stories, his connection to the Cthulhu mythos and his descriptive writing style. His work on paper is nothing short of amazing, but when his creative properties make the leap to the big screen they are butchered. That isn’t to say that some of the media is bad, but they certainly aren’t of the REH variety. The original Conan the Barbarian, made in 1982, is still one of my all time favorite movies. It barely resembled the character, but it was one of the most well made movies I have ever seen. Since that time we’ve gotten the atrocious Conan the Destroyer, and generic (but still enjoyable) Solomon Kane. Back when Arnold Schwarzenegger decided to run for Governor, he decided to do so in place of making King Conan: Crown of Iron (a script which eluded me for a decade, but I finally found a copy and loved it). At that point my hope of seeing Conan again was crushed. So imagine how excited I was in 2007 when it was announced that Nu Image/Millennium Films purchased the rights and planned to make a faithful adaptation of the source material. Would it be more REH than Destroyer? Well after 4 years of waiting I’m here to explain why Conan might be better suited to stay on the page.

First of all, Conan is a bad motherfucker. “Hither came Conan, the Cimmerian, black-haired, sullen-eyed, sword in hand, a thief, a reaver, a slayer, with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandaled feet.” Whether it be the black giants from “The Pool of the Black One” or Belit from “Queen of the Black Coast,” nobody stands a chance in war or love. We’re talking about a guy who uses his brain, and not some half-wit with a sword. Where was this in the reboot of Conan the Barbarian? As I sat in the almost empty theater, I kept wondering that. I saw a glimmer of hope every now and again with lines lifted straight from page (“I live, I love, I slay, and I am content” or “I will tear apart the mountains to find you. I will follow you to Hell”). Unfortunately, these moments were too far and few between. When they did happen, it was awesome. For example, in one of the earlier scenes in was mentioned that Conan ascended the Tower of the Elephant and slayed Yara. I was hoping for more of these little nods to REH, but they rarely ever came.


Beyond that, it was a pretty uneven experience, but did it have to be? I mean come on, how hard is it to screw up a movie based on Conan? Did director Marcus Nispel have any clue as to how much source material was already written and waiting to be adapted? Apparently not because in the end he decided to make a movie that rehashes the old “revenge for murdering my parents storyline” that John Milius already tackled in 1982 when he made the first (and superior) adaptation. A storyline which isn’t even from the books, by the way. What do we care where Conan comes from? So we're stuck with a movie about Conan and his friends, which is odd because in the books he doesn't need any, going after a cut and paste villain. What a shame.

For some people, Arnold Schwarzenegger has always embodied what Conan should look like. For me, it is a mixed bag. I think Arnold is great in the role, but it had been so long that I knew what this franchise needed was a fresh start. People needed to forget about Arnold in the same way people need to get over Christopher Reeve as Superman. When Jason Momoa was cast, I was in the dark because I had never seen his stint on Stargate Atlantis. He was eventually cast as Drogo on Game of Thrones, and it is here that he won me over as Conan. The character of Drogo is similar to Conan in a lot of ways, so it was a great role to show fans what he had in store. Too bad none of that was brought to the table when filming Conan. Now I’m willing to place the blame on both Nispel and Momoa here. Nispel explained the character as “more like Sean Connery’s version of James Bond.” In a way, this is true. Conan has always been a charismatic, likeable character who is also capable of very dangerous things. What ultimately ends of happening is that Momoa plays it too lighthearted in certain places. He’s not angry enough. Not by a long shot. He didn’t command the attention and respect of people in the way that the character does. The only thing he really got right was the look of Conan and his love for war. I could easily buy into this guy as the Cimmerian King.

Finally, the new adaptation had nothing iconic about it. Sure, the original had Arnold, but he wasn’t the icon back in 82 that he is now. Arnold was practically a new face who had appeared in Pumping Iron and little else. I remember the original movie for so many reasons: the soundtrack by Basil Poldouris that I still listen to today (as I write this actually), the design of the swords by Ron Cobb, the narrative by Mako that fueled the movie, and of course my personal favorite, Ben Davidson’s enraged “You…” dialogue. What did new Conan have? A forgettable soundtrack, recycled and generic sword designs, the biggest WTF moment when I realized that Morgan Freeman was the narrator, and throw away dialogue (the good dialogue was written in the 30s by REH).

Conan the Barbarian opened to mostly negative reviews and a terrible box office take. This is for the best as I for one don’t want to sit through another Conan the Destroyer of a sequel, which is to say watered down, poorly directed and marketed for children. I wanted to like this movie so much, and I was so excited going in, that it didn’t really sink in for a few days that I still don’t have a definitive version of one of the best characters ever written. It took just shy of 30 years to get this far, so I’m not holding my breath for something faithful anytime soon. If anyone looking to see the new movie, I’d say don’t bother. I recommend picking up any story by Robert E. Howard instead. “Queen of the Black Coast” is a great starting point and is often pointed to as one of the greatest stories that Howard ever wrote.

HWAV Is Back!

It's been three and a half years since I have written anything for this site, and I have to admit that I missed it. I'm back (until HWAV 3.0 in 2015) and with a pretty good looking site design courtesy of my wife, Allison.

I may not have kept up with writing, but I can promise you that I've kept up with my bitching. Look for a lot of articles to hit sooner than later as I offer up my views on:

-The "Evil Dead" reboot. Really, Sam Raimi? You won't allow Bruce Campbell to star in "Freddy vs Jason vs Ash," nor will you use the character in the sequel that everyone wants to see. Really? Let's remake "First Blood" without using Rambo and see how well that goes over.

-Bill Murray and Ghostbusters 3. Is he in? Is he out? He dislikes GB2, but he's wearing the gear for the Scream Awards.

-Looking through previous articles, I was pretty high on the "Saw" franchise. I plan to write about the franchise killing "Saw 3D" and how "Paranormal Activity" took its place.

-2012 is probably the biggest year for movies of all time (and possibly the last...X-Files invasion, anyone?). Look for me to tackle as many of them as I can.

-I watch as many "found footage" films, for better or worse, and will share with you my frustration in a film like "Atrocious" getting rave reviews when it was simply...atrocious <---see what I did there?

In the meantime, take a moment and check out some of my older posts and feel free to comment and let me know that you'll be reading.

-Steve