The Pact (2012)

To finish off August I'm going to look at a film I wanted to review last year but didn't due to...something, I can't really remember what. So let's have a look at the film which MSN movies gave four stars.

Following the death of her mother and the disappearance of her sister (Agnes Bruckner), Annie (Caity Lotz) goes to her late mother's house. However there is something strange happening in that house, and in order to investigate it Annie might have to dig into the dark secrets of her family's past.

The story, is okay. The main problem is that there are a few too many slow moments which feel out of place. However, while the film does start off slow, once it picks up the pace it is quite enjoyable. And the scares can actually be scary, the problem though is that some of the time when you think about it, the scares don't really make sense. Most of the time you'll be thinking "*Gasp!*...So?" Some bits do make more sense as the film goes on though. Oh, by the way, that 'scare' on the poster which is ripping off 'A Nightmare on Elm Street'? You know, this one?

Yeah, doesn't happen.

The acting, again it's like the story, slow but once the movie gets going, in particular Caity Lotz. I wasn't really that impressed with her at first, but, again, as the film went on she got a Hell of a lot better. Casper Van Dien meanwhile (Yes, Rico from Starship Troopers), you know what, bless him, he is a professional, he gave this film a good performance, but most of the time you get the feeling he doesn't really know why he's there. The only other performance was Harley Hudson, who played Stevie, and that's because I was wondering if she was doing a good performance or a bad performance, I just can't tell.

Despite that, I really can't tell you anything about the characters, because I don't really learn anything about them. I know that Creek (Van Dien) is a police officer who has a personality which is somewhat not expected. For Stevie I can see shades of Drusilla from Buffy the Vampire Slayer but, obviously, not as good. The most developed character is Annie, but even then there are huge chunks of her you don't learn about. You do get a hint that she's an ice queen whose heart grows three times when she is forced to take care of her niece (Dakota Bright), but the niece is easily forgotten about it and is kept out of the film for a big chunk of it.

In all honesty, it's a pretty decent film to watch. It certainly has it flaws, but at the end of the day it's one of the better horror films of the modern age. The opening scene is the best part as it manages to develop the character and generate chills down your spine, but it then feels like it stalled and had to stutter back to life. If you have a chance, give it a try, but don't expect it to haunt your nightmares.

Stranded (2013)

Okay, I know I implied that my next review was going to be 'You're Next' with the Wyatt Family, but from the looks of it I won't be seeing it in time for August. So it will probably be one of the first reviews for September, if I can put it around my plans for next month. So instead I'll be looking at another horror film, but one which has been on my radar for a few weeks now.

A lunar mining base comprising of four crew, Colonel Gerard Brauchman (Christen Slater), Doctor Lance Krauss (Brendan Fehr), Ava Cameron (Amy Matysio), and Bruce Johns (Michael Therriault), comes under a rogue meteor storm (Not entirely sure how it's a rogue storm, meteors hit the moon all the time. How do you think the craters are formed?) and the base is heavily damaged. As the crew attempt to contact Earth for rescue, they discover that they're no longer the only residents on the moon. And no, it's not Space Nazis.

You know, I had so much hope for this. I mean, stranded on the moon? Speculation going into it of course, but running out of oxygen, nowhere to go, with fear and paranoia, unsure as to what's real and what's not. And then, on the box it says "from the Oscar nominated and creative mind behind Alien", and by that Roger Christian was nominated for best art direction which he shared with three other people.

And boy what a disappointment this was. I was expecting a psychological and psychical horror in the vein of  the '82 version of 'The Thing', a dark environment, great character development, the characters not doing stupid things, that sort of thing. Instead we get a lackluster horror which held back its own potential. It should have been darker, more psychological. The premise of the film basically implies that the fear and horror is more what the characters think they see rather than what they actually see. Unfortunately the film doesn't even attempt to play with your mind. Heck, the film basically lays out what's going to happen, and it doesn't help that the film drags on like Hell. Now that I think about it this film seems to be ripping off an episode of Garth Marenghi's Darkplace.

It has been happening a lot with films I have been watching recently, but I don't really learn a thing about these characters. Oh as the film goes by I learn that Brauchmann is a goes-by-the-book kind of guy, and Krauss devotes himself to caring for his crew, but apart from that, they're a blank slate. And it's a shame because I like Christian Slater...simply because it's Christian Slater. As for the other three, you can kind of see them trying, but they're going uphill against a script that really doesn't like them.

My main problem with this was that I was expecting a completely different film. Putting this aside, the film really isn't that good. The acting is poor, especially considering Slater and Fehr are among the cast, the story is underachieving, the structure is bad, the effects and make-up are pretty good concerning the budget, but, once again, there's not much else to praise. Especially when the DVD tries to promote the director by saying he's the creative mind behind Alien. I wonder what else the directed has done?

...I...I really should have looked up what this guy previously did.

Tooth and Nail (2007)

I am not having a good week with horror films. I mean, is it really that hard to make an entertaining horror film? Well, saying that 'The Cabin in the Woods' was a fun film to watch. And 'Evil Dead' was pretty good too. Whatever, anyway this film wasn't that good.

The world has ended, again, this time because the world ran out of oil. This has caused civilisation to break down and a group of survivors take refuge in an abandoned hospital. One day they rescue Neon (Rachel Miner), but find that she was being tracked by a group called the Rovers, a group of sadistic cannibals, including Jackal (Michael Madsen) and Mongrel (Vinnie Jones), who lay siege to the hospital.

You know, it's films like this that really show the worst of humanity. Whether it's a zombie apocalypse, the atmosphere breaking down, a meteor, or simply nature, we generally see the best in humanity. Oh sure, they all have marauders in there somewhere (Okay, maybe World War Z didn't have those) who show the darkest side of humanity...seriously why? The end of the world comes upon us and people lose their sense of fashion and want to be an 80s rebel?

Anyway, the world runs out of oil, kind of a big deal. Obviously. The world runs on oil, literally, it's used to fuel our cars. It's used in cooking, medicines, fertilisers, detergents, paintings, and other stuff. You know what? Nuclear power also helps fuel the world. And hydro power. And solar power. You know what has been in development for over a hundred years and became quite popular a year after this film? Electric cars. You know what helps crops grow? Bees pollinating them. Basically, everything that oil helps to power, there's an alternative. So the fact that, in this film, when the world runs out of oil, you're already losing me when you say food suddenly runs out and the first thing people do is wreck the rest of the planet. I don't see how society can fall apart just because oil runs dry, no matter how obsessed you think society is over the price of a gallon of oil.

Even then, the apocalypse setting doesn't really come into effect. It isn't really the surroundings, or the lack of people, it just doesn't seem to be set in a post apocalyptic world. It could be the fact that the character's seem to have plenty of clothes, nor is there a general lack of supplies. You could set it in the middle of the woods like 'Wrong Turn', and you'd virtually have the same film.

Setting that aside though, the film is boring. It repeats the same sequence three times throughout the film. First time, eh, it can be pretty good to watch, but it can get old really fast. Especially since the characters themselves can be sooooo dull. Only a few stand out, with Jackal and Mongrel probably being the most memorable. And, just like Madsen and Forsythe in 'Infection Z', Jackal and Mongrel only stand out because they're Madsen and Vinnie Jones. Then again you can tell Jones had a fair bit of fun with his role, while Madsen gave a slightly more energetic performance in recent years, even if his whistling seemed out of place and his intimidation forced.

The other two are Neon (Rachel Miner) and Dakota (Nicole DuPort). Rachel Miner stands out...because she's Meg from Supernatural, okay, look

How can you forget that look?

However, as much as I loved Miner in 'Supernatural', she isn't really that good in this. She was predictable, she was flat, I want to like her, I just can't. And Dakota, I just hated her. She just seemed to be so bland I barely noticed her, and then she starts yelling at Neon (God that's a stupid name), demanding why she doesn't have a plan. Basically as the film went on, I hated her more and more. Kind of like Nate. But those two were the ones who got the most development. And I had to look up what their names were instead of watching the film again.

Actually, I lie, Rider Strong is in this as Ford. And Michael Kelly is in this as Viper, who somehow gets shaving equipment in this post apocalyptic world. And I only know about them because Strong has been in 'Cabin Fever', 'Cabin Fever 2', and 'Pulse 3', while Kelly has been in the 'Dawn of the Dead' remake and 'Chronicle'. Though, Strong's character does have a sex scene...which, really does seem out of place, especially since the group were under siege at that point.

So. I did not like this one either. The story has been done and it feels out of place at times, the acting is forgettable, the characters equally so, and it has a very poor ending. I'll actually give a quick note in a spoiler section just after this. Good points, it does well on a short budget and it does good with some gory moments, but there isn't enough to save the film.

I...I'm not sure I can take another poor horror. I need some fear in my life. Something that looks damn scary.

Now there's a thought

Spoiler Section

The film tries to have a twist ending. After everything, with this idea that the Rovers are all gone, the film quickly reminds us that Mongrel is still alive. Which we already knew. And is still locked in a over-sized cupboard. So he's still not a threat.

Infection Z (2013)

It's too soon. It is far too soon. It's too soon to come across yet another awful, scratch that, crap horror film. Especially one that had to rip off the title to 'World War Z'. They aren't even zombies for crying out loud, they shouldn't be putting the letter 'Z' anywhere! Then again, from what I can tell, the original title was just called 'Infected', so really they should have stuck with that.

Louis Hartley (Michael Madsen) and his son Andrew (Tom DeNucci) head to a hunting cabin for a father and son holiday with Dr Edward Dennehey (William Forsythe) and his son Jeremy (Kevin DeCristofano). Insert a whole load of people who you will learn virtually nothing about being slaughtered by a mob infected with mutated Lyme disease. That's right, Lyme disease. Because, that's what you think when you think of zombies right?

You know, there's literally nothing good I can say about the story. You look on the back of the box and see the ruins of a city, tricking you into thinking that we'll see a city under siege, instead of watching the one cabin. Speaking of which, the trapped in a cabin story itself has been done to death since 'Night of the Living Dead' graced our screens forty odd years ago. But, the story still would have worked, if we had actually learnt about the characters, and that only works with a small cast. This film proceeds to introduce a new character about every five minutes so you have no idea who is who. Heck, we actually get a fair bit of time with one of the infected and learn more about him then an a survivor we should be rooting for. The only two people we really familiarise ourselves with are Michael Madsen and William Forsythe. And that's because they're Michael Madsen and William Forsythe.

Speaking of which, talk about being the complete opposite of each other. Michael Madsen gives the same generic performance we've seen him give for a fair few years now, which really is a shame seeing this from the actor who gave us one of the most memorable characters from 'Reservoir Dogs'. We then have William Forsythe, who goes so over the top you need binoculars to see how high he's gone.

The rest of the cast, well, it's like their characters you don't bloody remember it. No-one gave a performance worth remembering, let alone comment on it. Then again, what do you expect when there's a rotating cast every five minutes.I do recall a few bad performances, one from the pregnant woman of the film and the prostitute whose scream had to be dubbed in, the general consensus was that everyone is dull.

But then again so is the film. I'm lucky to think of that much to say about it. Nothing from this film made me want to watch it again, it was just so bland it hurts. The story is old, the acting is off, the characters unmemorable, an ending which unnecessarily went on too long, it was just soooo boring. I wonder what would happen if someone was forced to watch this film multiple times.

Yeah that looks about right.