Cabin in the Woods

Ingredients: One part Evil Dead, one part Tucker and Dale Vs Evil, and one part Truman show.

Plot: Five teenagers go to a cabin in the woods, and they proceed to do the typical teenage thing. Party, smoke weed, and have sex. As their first night of partying proceeds, the cellar door slams open When the enter the cellar they find a room full of crazy objects. From a book of a deranged family with latin words written in  it, to a puzzle orb. Upon  reading of the book, they release unspeakable horrors. This is the premiss, and I can't and won't speak anymore about it. To talk more about it would be to ruin it.

Review:, So this is the new film from Drew Goddard (of Cloverfield fan) and Joss Whedon (Firefly, Buffy, and Dr Horribles Sing along blog). It is also Joss Whedons first time producing and co-writing a horror film. So how does this go for him? Joss Whedon passes with flying colors. He has made a truly original, funny, and suspenseful film. What works so well with it? 

The good, ninety eight percent of this film works amazingly well. The humor at times is very understated, throwing slight nobs at classic horror films and at other times is very obvious using great jokes better than most mainstream comedies. This film doesn't take itself series and that's one of its stronger. The characters are likable, while they are the stereotypical characters from most horror films they work very well as there own characters while still falling into the tropes and filling their own comical roles. Okay so how about the horror? As most people would think, that would be the most important part of a horror movie. Well, it does work really well and keeps up the suspense at all the right moments. Unlike a lot of slasher films, zombie films, ghost stories, and most other horror films, it doesn't use nonstop jump scares. It uses some but not enough too really cause irritation. It also uses enough gore to keep the gorehounds happy, it uses more gore in the final 45 minutes than most horror films in the last year.

The bad is that final few moments are a bit off. There is a decision made with in the last act of the movie that really don't fit the characters personalities. Outside of that minor issue, there are some plot holes that arise due to the concept. They do affect the overall immersion. While neither issues are major in the overall scope of the film, they are there.

Recommended?: Yes, yes, and yes again. It does so much right that when a few minor issues show up they aren't enough to take away from the good. Check this one out, it is one of the best horror films from the last couple years.

Scar 3D

Ingredients: 1 part torture porn, 1 part thriller, 1/2 part bad production quality, and 1/2 part "3d"

Plot:In the small town of Ovid Colorado, Joan Burrows (Angela Bettis) awakens in the basement morgue of Ernie Bishop, a local undertaker who secretly tortures, mutilates and kills teenage girls. Before becoming Bishops latest victim, Joan manages to kill him and escape with her life. Sixteen years later and still bearing the scars of her torment, Joan returns to her hometown in time to see her niece, Olympia, be crowned Prom Queen. Soon after Joans arrival, murders by an alleged copycat killer begin targeting Olympia  and her girlfriends. *

* Summary taken from Dvd  *

Review: Scar 3D tries hard to ambitious. It is a horror film shot in 3D instead of a bad transition like most movies now. But does that mean ambitions are the saving grace of this film keeping it out of forgotten corners of the mind?

I'll start with the good aspects of this film. Well it is bloody and for a horror film in the torture porn that's sorta a must. It also has a little bit of originality hiding in its bones. Mainly the killer, plays a game (I know, I know bear with me),, and he will torture one person at a time and wait for them to say to kill the other person (usually the best friend). While the "game", aspect is nothing new, the "game" they play is very intense at times.

Now for the bad, its plot is nothing special, it is horribly silly at times (the prom queen scene is the girl wearing a giant fish costume), and the "red herrings" are pretty obvious. Also, the production quality is a major issue in this film. I watched this off a Blu-ray player that upscales and this movie look terrible. Not only was it just low production quality, the 3D shooting makes it look pretty bad, and its all kinda wasted because there was only one scene that used any sort of 3D. While these aspects of the film are usually enough to ward people off a film like this, there was one major aspect that hurt it the most. Its utterly forgettable, nothing sticks with you after the credits.

Recommend: No, this is a film that I honestly wanted to like. Was it bad? No, you can just see a lot better of a movie in this genre. I think the Torture porn genre is a genre that can easily explore the darker side of the world and of human nature. This does neither. Take a pass, and go watch something better.

The Human Centipede

Body Horror. What is it? Well, honestly, it could be any type of horror film that deals with unusual bodily harm or modification- be it having another limb put onto your body, or having limbs removed. While the aforementioned removing of limbs sounds like Slasher films, Body Horror is a different genre; it's a different type of removal. Slasher films are limb removal and then wholesale slaughter, while bodily horror is removal and then dealing with loss of limbs. Instead of immediate death, we see more of the disturbing aftermath. From the description of this genre, many would place the later Saw films in it, but they aren’t. Body Horror is a difficult genre to describe. I honestly can't think of many films that fit the genre. Only two come to mind; a German film by the name of Autopsy, and the title I’m reviewing today, The Human Centipede.

Plot: Okay, how do I explain this without grossing you out or confusing you?

The Human Centipede is about a mad doctor who grafts an Asian man and two American girls together, mouth to rectum.

Have you stopped reading yet? No? Okay, let me elaborate a bit more.

So the real story is that an award winning surgeon, famous for separating many conjoined twins, has a mad idea to form a human centipede: 3 humans sharing the same digestive track.The beginning of the film allows us to see his first subject via drugging. He is later killed for the sake of the girls and a Asian man who we never see caught.His other two subjects fall into his hands. He drugs two American tourists who come to his house looking for assistance with a flat tire. The human centipede is formed, and what follows in the final 45 minutes of the film is the centipede trying to escape.

Review: So… yeah. That’s all I have for a plot, because that’s all really anyone needs to hear to say either "Weird! This I've got to see," or "Um, ew! Count me out."

Let me start out by saying that this really isn't that disturbing of a film. Yes, some will watch it and be disturbed by the concept alone, and some will not be because it’s just so bizarre. The concept really is the most disturbing part. There is not a lot of gore, and what is there is never extreme or over the top. It’s just there because it’s showing the consequences of someone being shot. The most violent part of the film is the surgery that takes place. It’s graphic, but no more than you'd expect.

Okay, so on with the actual review. One question a lot of people ask is, "Gore and everything else aside, is this a good movie that actually stands on its own merits rather than the concept alone?” The answer is a sort-of. It’s a decent horror film, but not exactly a scary one, nor -once you get over the overall concept- is it very disturbing. It fails in several aspects. The first fifteen to twenty minutes are almost painful to watch because of the two leads. They can't act, plain and simple. It’s just rough to watch these girls. The director, Tom Six, is not from America and it shows. You can tell the girls were originally meant to be American. They are clichéd, bland, flat, and annoying. They’re airheads. The doctor, however, is brilliant. He is so darkly funny at times that you have to remind yourself what you’re watching. I won't say much because i don't want to ruin the weirdness.

Where it succeeds is that it’s about as original as it gets. They idea is grotesque, and it keeps you watching.

Recommended? Well, yes and no. It's easily one of 2010's most original horror films, but it rode a hype train from its first trailer to its last trailer, setting up expectations that it fell short of. Not only are the lead girls annoying, but they are hard to root for. Dieter Laser, who plays the mad doctor, does a great job being crazily over the top. So it's a recommend title for Netflix viewers who need something different and aren't too grossed out by the concept. Other than that, take a pass if you would have to buy it or rent it and are still uncertain of the plot or idea.