Tag Archives: Halloween Horror Nights

INSIDIOUS: OUT OF THE FURTHER horror movie review

Posted on by
Reply

Should’ve Left the Red Door Locked

The newest installment in the Insidious franchise is a reminder that atmosphere, mythology, and strong individual ideas are only the ingredients of a motion picture—not the motion picture itself. Jacob Chase clearly has several intriguing concepts at work: a story rooted in grief, characters shaped by trauma, supernatural elements designed to expand the mythology of the franchise, and the return of horror icon Lin Shaye. Yet those ideas rarely connect into a cohesive dramatic experience. Instead, the film often feels like a collection of scenes and sequences searching for the narrative that will bind them together.

Insidious: Out of the Further introduces Gemma, a young mother who discovers she possesses the ability to enter the Further—the purgatorial realm of lost souls established throughout the franchise. However, Gemma’s ability comes with a dangerous consequence: she can bring the entities she encounters back into our world.

The simplest description of the film may be Insidious meets Poltergeist, with a little A Nightmare on Elm Street mixed in for good measure. Chase clearly understands the lineage of these films and the horror traditions from which they emerged. There is an appreciation for the genre’s history and an attempt to build upon familiar ideas. Unfortunately, the film’s vision would have benefited from a stronger screenplay—one capable of shaping those influences into a more dramatically compelling narrative.

Horror has always been a genre where atmosphere can compensate for many shortcomings. A haunting location, unsettling sound design, frightening imagery, or a memorable performance can carry an audience through imperfect storytelling. But atmosphere cannot replace character development, and franchise recognition cannot substitute for emotional stakes. Even the presence of Lin Shaye—whose portrayal of Elise Rainier has become one of the defining elements of the Insidious universe—cannot overcome material that struggles to transform its concepts into meaningful drama.

The result is a film containing many of the elements audiences expect from an Insidious installment, but without the dramatic foundation necessary to make those elements resonate. There is simultaneously too much happening and not enough meaningful material to sustain the film’s 105-minute runtime. The story introduces several promising concepts but rarely develops them beyond their initial premise.

At the center of the problem is the screenplay. Allowing the Further’s entities to cross into the physical world is an intriguing expansion of the franchise mythology, but the film never fully explores the possibilities created by that idea. Instead, it becomes another extended attempt to escape the supernatural dangers lurking beyond the red door.

That weakness extends to the characters as well. Outside of Gemma, her daughter Maya, and returning paranormal investigator Elise Rainier, several principal characters function almost like non-player characters in a video game. They appear when the protagonist needs assistance completing a specific task, but they possess little independent dramatic identity or purpose.

What ultimately saves the movie—and makes it watchable—is Lin Shaye.

Shaye remains the heart of this franchise, bringing warmth, credibility, and humanity to its supernatural mythology. Unfortunately, she is given surprisingly little to do. Her presence occasionally feels less like an essential component of the story and more like an acknowledgment that longtime fans expect Elise Rainier to be present.

Atmospherically, however, the film succeeds. The Further remains an effective nightmare landscape, populated by disturbing entities that longtime fans will immediately recognize. In fact, the world created here feels almost perfectly suited for a Halloween Horror Nights attraction—perhaps even a stronger haunted house than a feature film.

The scares themselves are competently staged, although many of the strongest moments appear to have been revealed in the marketing. I generally avoid trailers, but even the limited footage I encountered made several major scare sequences feel familiar before they arrived.

Insidious: Out of the Further contains numerous individually effective ideas, memorable imagery, and another welcome appearance by Lin Shaye. What it lacks is the dramatic structure necessary to connect those elements into a satisfying whole.

It is another example of a fundamental truth about filmmaking: a director’s vision requires a screenplay capable of refining, organizing, and transforming that vision into a complete story. Without that collaboration, even promising concepts risk becoming little more than a stream of ideas.

Fans of the franchise may enjoy another atmospheric journey into the Further. Everyone else can wait until this door opens on streaming.

Ryan is the morning host on WLRH Public Radio in Huntsville, AL and host of the show  ReelTalk  “where you can enjoy the cinematic conversations frame by frame each week.” Additionally, he is the author of the upcoming film studies book titled Monsters, Madness, and Mayhem: Why People Love Horror. After teaching film studies for over eight years at the University of Tampa, he transitioned from the classroom to public media. He is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry

SPEAK NO EVIL horror movie review

Posted on by
Reply

An entertaining and terrifying thrill ride. Blumhouse and Universal’s Speak No Evil, starring James McAvoy, excels in plotting and atmosphere but falters in character building and development. Based on the Danish film by the same name, director James Watkins’ version is a methodical and spellbinding descent from dream to nightmare. The highlight of the film is McAvoy’s completely manic performance that is simultaneously comedic and unsettling. Whilst Watkins attempts to bestow upon the high concept narrative thoughtful social commentary on image, isolation, and identity, the commentary is inconsistent and lacks the gravitas to truly be compelling or provocative.

A dream holiday turns into a living nightmare when an American couple and their daughter spend the weekend at a British family’s idyllic country estate.

That which is most personal is most relatable, and can be the most terrifying. And what can be more personal and relatable than the need for a relaxing vacation in the peaceful countryside? That is precisely where this decent into a nightmare begins. Speak No Evil may take its time (albeit justified) in setting up the conflict, but once that second act kicks into gear, it is a nonstop thrill ride into isolation and violation. Keep the cast small, the film is able to spend sufficient time in developing the plot and keeping with proper pacing for the tight storytelling. From the very beginning, the piping is laid for everything that audiences will encounter in the second and third acts, with every shot, scene, and sequence pointing towards the shocking conclusion.

Violence on screen is minimal; however, when it hits, it HITS. But that hit isn’t always visual; many times it is psychological in nature, which in many ways, is even more terrifying. Throughout this film, the terror on screen is transferred into the minds of the audience. Part of that is because of the degree of relatability in this story. Many of us have been on vacation in a new place or even moved to a new place unfamiliar to us–perhaps in or to another country–and we are often desperate for friendship or companionship of any kind in order to begin to feel more at home. Therefore, the setup of this film is one to which many of us can relate–and that’s what makes it particularly terrifying. The thought that we could unwittingly befriend a monster.

While the social commentary on isolation, identity, and image is inconsistent and weak, I appreciate what Watkins was trying to do; although, there is one aspect of the film that was screaming for a redemption arc that was so obviously squandered (and actually hurt the quality of the film). Speak No Evil depicts many expressions of isolation. Isolation from friends and family, isolation from the urban core, isolation within one’s family. And it’s this isolation that greatly heightens the level of suspense and terror.

Additionally, the film depicts the identities (or facades) that we project to the world when we are hiding something or feel insecure because we wield it like a sort of armor. Moreover, this identity can also harbor inconsistencies that lead to a lack of authenticity and meaningful motivation. Perhaps this identity is merely a facade that is intended to make others feel uncomfortable or to project an image that sets one apart simply out of fear of being found out as little more than keeping up with what’s trending on social media. Furthermore, the attempted commentary on image is depicted in a variety of ways throughout the film.

The weakness in the film is found in the character building and development. Not with all the characters, but enough that it mitigates the potential of the film to deliver a compelling story. Without getting into spoilers, I want to discuss where the film had an opportunity an an effective character redemption arc, but pandered to what’s presently trending in movies instead of providing a constructive character arc that would’ve benefitted the film by adding a since of compelling meaning. Strong characters are not strong because those around them are weak; to craft a strong character through that methodology makes for a weakened (and less compelling) character because ostensibly standards have been lowered.

Strong characters are at their strongest when other characters are strong, complete with dimension as well. There is a character in the movie that lost their job, and have been personally struggling with feelings of anger, inadequacy, and failure–that is completely relatable as it is very much a human response to losing ones income and livelihood. Where the film fails is setting this character up to overcome the feeling of failing their family and at life, but never doing anything with it, and merely reinforce weakness. I imagine this was done to make their counterpart appear stronger. But it amounts to lazy storytelling that reinforces negative imagery.

The character that is the most entertaining is James McAvoy’s Paddy. I cannot think of any other actor working today that could’ve brought this character to life nearly as well as McAvoy. In an otherwise par for the course performative dimension in the film, he brings a kinetic energy that draws audiences into the macabre, twisted tale. From the very beginning, we can tell that there is something a little off about his character, but never enough to know precisely where he stands. When he goes full-on manic mode, we are in for the ride because he makes us laugh and gasp in horror all at the same time.

Everything about this movie would make for a fantastic house at next year’s Halloween Horror Nights at Universal Orlando and Hollywood. The farmhouse at the center of the movie is a labyrinth and hints at a variation of the hillbilly horror aesthetic. I can see how this film’s characters and setting could adapt well to an HHN house, so I would not be surprised if we see this intellectual property featured at next year’s HHN.

Speak No Evil may lack dimension that could’ve made it a more compelling narrative than what we received; however, it’s still an entertaining thrill ride that will have you laughing and screaming. A solid popcorn horror movie that has some degree of rewatchability.

Ryan teaches Film Studies and Screenwriting at the University of Tampa and is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter. If you’re ever in Tampa or Orlando, feel free to catch a movie with him.

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry

ABIGAIL horror movie review

Posted on by
Reply

Fangtastic! Universal Pictures’ Abigail is a wildly entertaining, classically-inspired horror movie that you can really sink your teeth into. It delivers old school vampire movie elements with a contemporary sensibility. Ostensibly, it’s the metaphoric child of Dracula (1931) and The Horror of Dracula (1958). From beginning to end, the terror and laughter continually draw you into the story. Tonally, it strikes a great chord. The narrative never takes itself too seriously; however, it never devolves into parody either. It’s an effective blend of the atmosphere and music of an old school Universal monster picture and the increased gore of Hammer studios. Underscoring the blood-curdling outside/action story is an internal story with a redemptive message and even a little heart.

A group of would-be criminals kidnaps the 12-year-old daughter of a powerful underworld figure. Holding her for ransom in an isolated mansion, their plan starts to unravel when they discover their young captive is actually a bloodthirsty vampire.

From the moment the film opens, I was hooked! It opens with a solitary ballerina gracefully dancing on the stage in an empty auditorium; but what makes this scene particularly alluring is the original Dracula score (selections from Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake) underscoring the entire opening sequence. It’s a deceptively simple scene that draws us into the beauty of the dance and music. Not only does the iconic music play at the beginning, but variations of it serve as a significant part of the movie’s score. This scene could be made greyscale, and edited to look like it was shot on 1930s 35mm film stock, and I’d almost buy that it was shot nearly 100 years ago.

While the movie may start out in the city, it doesn’t take long to venture into the countryside where a foreboding Tudor style estate serves as the main location for the events of the film. Again, Abigail is channeling Universal’s roots in classic horror by placing our relatively small cast in an isolated expansive estate that could’ve very well been used in a Carl Laemmle/James Whale motion picture. All that was missing was the eerie setting being draped in a dense fog rolling off the moors. As the characters wander through the imposing countryside mansion, the movie effectively established the rules by which the film will live by as it delivers its screamtastic narrative.

Without getting into plot specifics, I can tell you that it’s a simple plot with complex characters–so the best kind of cinematic story! Each and every character is sufficient developed, and quickly. The movie wastes no time at any point. It’s a lean, mean script that snaps, crackles, and pops. Not only is the world build, complete with rules, but the logic of the movie follows the rules and boundaries that it setup for itself during the first act. And while the movie does adhere to many classic vampire tropes, it also subverts some expectations. But not too many. There is one, in particular, to which I feel that it should’ve adhered but identified a way around it for dramatic purposes. But otherwise, I like that it pretty much stuck to the vampire playbook that has been used since Bram Stoker penned the seminal novel.

While there is a lot of blood, I wouldn’t say that it is a particularly violent picture. When the violence and gore hit–they hit–but it’s not gratuitous to the point of exhaustion from the visceral gore and projectile blood. I’d say it’s along the lines of Ready or Not levels of violence/gore. It’s never delivered in a manner that feels disturbing or disgusting; like with the tone, there is a consistent tongue-in-cheeky quality in the fighting or kill scenes. There are some fantastic skills and scenes that I hope make their way into the HHN (Halloween Horror Nights) house that this movie is destined to become this year or next.

the comedy is effectively delivered scene after scene. There is a great combination of humorous dialogue and visually-driven humor. Lots of hilarious image juxtapositions and an over-the-top quality to much of what is experienced. The movie is full of exaggerations, twists, and reversals. Whether the punchline is delivered in an argument or a sight gag, it’s done incredibly well by writers and directors that care. There is one scene that I particularly enjoyed, and it’s the vampire dancing with a headless corpse to the Dracula score. It’s just so ridiculous that you will undoubtedly laugh!

Despite the wildly entertaining qualities of this movie, it is not without some heart. One of the characters learns that constantly feeling like the victim of their circumstances is not constructive, and sometimes the best thing to do is move forward, freeing oneself from the prison of victimization. It was a nice touch that didn’t feel forced, but rather earned by the character.

You don’t want to miss seeing Abigail on the big screen, because the experience will not be the same at home. If you’re a fan of both Universal and Hammer horror, then you’ll want to make sure to watch Abigail in cinemas.

Ryan teaches Film Studies and Screenwriting at the University of Tampa and is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter. If you’re ever in Tampa or Orlando, feel free to catch a movie with him.

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry

FIVE NIGHTS AT FREDDY’S horror movie review

Posted on by
Reply

Fun-filled and creepy! Blumhouse’s Five Nights at Freddy’s is surprisingly good! From the unnerving atmosphere to the practical effects, it’s entertaining and even thoughtful with its exploration of childhood trauma. However, for everything I liked about the movie, I do feel that it should have leaned a little more heavily into Gremlins or Chopping Mall territory because it is a little too serious at times. All in all, the movie is smartly written, with just the right amount of suspension of disbelief. There are even influences of Nightmare on Elm Street and Freddy Krueger’s MO in this movie. If you’re looking for a entertaining time to spend at the cinema on this weekend before Halloween, then you can’t go wrong with Five Nights. After watching the movie, I will now be anticipating Universal Orlando & Hollywood to feature this house at next year’s Halloween Horror Nights.

A troubled security guard begins working at Freddy Fazbear’s Pizzeria. While spending his first night on the job, he realizes the late shift at Freddy’s won’t be so easy to make it through.

I had no idea what to expect since I knew very little about the game. In fact, when I first heard of the game many years ago, I thought it was about the Freddy–Freddy Krueger. Nope. The game is about surviving an abandoned not Chuck-E-Cheese. It’s been probably twenty or more years since I’ve been to a Chuck-E-Cheese–come to think of it–I think the last time I went was when it was known as Showbiz Pizza. When I think of environments and settings that would be naturally creepy whether abandoned or not, Chuck-E-Cheese is one of them. I would imagine that on any given Tuesday night, a Chuck-E-Cheese is unnerving, let alone if it was haunted.

Since I’ve never played the game, I will not be commenting on the translation from interactive media to cinema, but from what I have learned, there is a lot of lore in the game, so I hope that lore is what was brought into the movie version.

Five Nights at Freddy’s benefits from a small cast and few locations. Furthermore, what the movie lacks in the screenwriting department, it makes up for in Emma Tammi’s directing. That’s not to suggest that it is poorly written–quite the contrary–I like how well it was written, given that it’s adapted from a video game and written for (primarily) teens that played the game as kids. Reminds me of a more mature version of Are You Afraid of the Dark? or Goosebumps. As much fun as I had with the movie, I feel that it could’ve used a little more camp in the storytelling–the movie would have benefitted from channeling Gremlins or Chopping Mall to bump up the dark humor and playfulness. The plot is simple and our central character is complex–the recipe for solid cinematic storytelling!

Our central character of Mike (Josh Hutcherson) is relatable, and his behavior feels natural considering the trauma of his younger brother being kidnapped when they were kids. The devastation of the loss of his brother, and later mother and father, has gravely impacted his ability to manage his own life and younger sister (and this is where the movie should’ve made her his daughter because a 20+ year age difference is a little hard to buy). Facing the loss of custody of his little sister to his overbearing, condescending aunt (played by Fried Green Tomatoes‘ Mary Stuart-Masterson), he must survive nights as a security guard at Freddy’s to prove he can care for his little sister. Within the first few minutes of the movie, we have our central character, their external goal, and opposition to the goal. I love when I witness established screenwriting conventions followed–because they work!

While the movie depicts very little on-screen violence and little to no gore, it successfully transfers that fear from the screen into the mind of the audience. That which is suggested in image association or shadow is more terrifying than witnessing it plainly on screen. By keeping most of the violence, death, and gore off-screen, and the adult language to a minimum, this movie works as a gateway horror for older kids and teens that are considering diving into the genre.

The setting is fantastic! I don’t know whether this was an abandoned Showbiz Pizza or Chuck-E-Cheese in real life or not–hope it was–but the setting is ominous and creepy! And because it’s representative of places in real life, it’s easy to imagine ourselves in the same environment. Perhaps it’s not as unnerving as being stalked in your own home like in Halloween or When a Stranger Calls, but there is definitely something naturally scary about being trapped with kids’ toys and animatronic characters at night in a setting haunted by ghosts of its glory days.

I also appreciate the practical effects, puppetry, and character performer costuming in the movie. While I imagine that it’s a combination of CGI and practical, I kept studying the animatronic characters to determine whether it was character performers in costume or of it was exceptionally good CGI–so much so I feel that I could reach out and touch the fur. Had the CGI been overt, then the scares would’ve been far less terrifying as CGI rarely packs the same punch as actors reacting to real props, costuming, and effects.

You’ll not be disappointed if you chose to watch Five Nights at Freddy’s this weekend. Go in with an open mind, and just enjoy a fun horror movie! Don’t overthink it, just be entertained by it!

Ryan teaches Film Studies and Screenwriting at the University of Tampa and is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter. If you’re ever in Tampa or Orlando, feel free to catch a movie with him.

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry

THE EXORCIST: BELIEVER horror movie review

Posted on by
Reply

The Exorcist: Caricature. Believer? How’s about unBelievably bonkers. The soulless derivative sequel to the original Friedkin masterpiece manages to be everything and nothing simultaneously. It’s a bastardization of the source material that demonstrates a gross lack of understanding on so many narrative and theological levels. Honestly, this movie could easily be Scary Movie 6.66 because of how unintentionally laughable it is. The characters are flat, the plot is all over the place, the tone is criminally uneven, and it’s disrespectful of the thoughtfulness of the original at every chance it gets. Representation matters. If David Gordon Green did not have plans to respectfully (albeit creatively) represent spiritual warfare and demonic possession, then he should’ve chosen another property to destroy.

When his daughter, Angela, and her friend Katherine, show signs of demonic possession, it unleashes a chain of events that forces single father Victor Fielding to confront the nadir of evil. Terrified and desperate, he seeks out Chris MacNeil, the only person alive who’s witnessed anything like it before.

I saw a comment on Twitter today calling for a petition to keep Green away form the horror genre, and I concur. Other than his surprisingly good Halloween H40, he has proven to be inept when helming a legacy horror project. William Friedkin’s The Exorcist remains the definitive possession film. While Friedkin was critical of the new religious right in the 1970s, he was still respectful of the rite of exorcism; he crafted a cinematic story about loss of innocence, crisis of faith, overcoming fear, the limitations of science, and the obstacles of religious bureaucracy. But at the end of the day, the film was grounded in Christianity wherein we find the rite of exorcism. Similar practices may be observed in other cultures and religions, but if you’re going to depict the rite of exorcism specifically, then the story needs to be respectful of and grounded in Christianity–not become a mockery of.

Ellen Burstyn is completely wasted in this film, and her character is in no way connected to the Chris MacNeil in the original. Last we say her, she underwent a journey of faith, going from someone mostly agnostic to someone that believed in the existence and power of God after the events of the original Exorcist. Now, she has no belief system and is rather laissez fair about faith, exorcism, and the like. She is a character without any conviction, therefore she has no drive and lacks spiritual grounding in any real sense of truth. If what you believe doesn’t matter, then there is no urgency to believe or batter personal demons in order to battle the real demon in the possessed girls. Furthermore, if it really doesn’t matter what one believes than it devalues all belief systems. Just because you don’t believe doesn’t mean it’s any less true. Besides the hodgepodge of MacNeil’s worldview, her character is greatly lacking in any dimension that would even help to hint at some modicum of compelling character.

When a movie tries to be everything to everyone, then it becomes about nothing and is for no one.

The cardboard character profile isn’t limited to Chris MacNeil, all the characters in this movie are lacking in anything that would make them compelling for the audience. I cared not whether any of the characters lived or died. Personally, I would have preferred the demon win and kill all the useless, lifeless characters. Although, that would only interest the nameless demon if the characters (or this film) had a soul. As it stands, the film and characters therein are soulless. Speaking of the demon being nameless, this is in direct conflict with the rite of exorcism. Whether one chooses to believe the demon possession (is incredibly rare but) real, the demon always has to be named, because having the demon’s name gives the exorcist power over the demon. The least Green could have done is give the demon a name. We are led to believe that it may be Pazuzu, because it recognizes MacNeil, but the name is never uttered by any character.

I found the movie unintentionally funny. With a few tweaks, it could have easily been Scary Movie 6.66. The plot and characters are just so unrealistic and ridiculous that the story and experience plays out at comedic proportions. Moments that were supposed to be scary were funny, moments that were supposed to be empowering were ludicrous, and the showdown was something straight out of Avengers: End Game. The Exorcist: Believer is Avengers meets The Rite meets a SyFy Channel original movie. The only meaningful connection this movie has to the original is the name, Ellen Burstyn, and a brief vomit-inducing cameo by Linda Blair. I’ve seen many other possession films that were way more interesting, entertaining, and thoughtful than this one.

Do yourself a favor, and if choose to watch this travesty, you should rewatch the original to cleanse your cinematic spirit of the demon that this movie will force upon you. While I suspected Halloween Horror Nights at Universal Orlando featured the The Exorcist: Believer house as a means to get people interested in the movie, clearly it was a move to compensate for how bad this movie really is. If it wasn’t for the house, I imagine far fewer people would want to see this abysmal use of a legacy intellectual property.

Ryan teaches Film Studies and Screenwriting at the University of Tampa and is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter. If you’re ever in Tampa or Orlando, feel free to catch a movie with him.

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry