Category: 2010’s

Directed by M. Night Shyamalan [Other horror films: Signs (2002), The Village (2004), The Happening (2008), Split (2016), Old (2021), Knock at the Cabin (2023)]

As disagreeable as some may find my opening statement, here I go: The Visit isn’t that bad a film.

Sure, it’s far from perfect – though one can expect more jump scares in found footage films (it just seems to make sense), this movie was a bit inundated with them to an annoying degree. Typical Hollywood jump scares can be okay in moderate doses, I feel. But when they make up a large portion of the total scares, something’s wrong.

But the film did many things right, as far as I’m concerned. Throughout the first hour of the movie, tension is built decently well between the grandchildren and the grandparents. In particular, the scenes with the oven and Becca (played by Olivia DeJonge) were quite tense, though the first one far more so than the second.

And while we’re on this topic, let’s talk about the grandchildren in the film.

Some reviews claim that the children are annoying and unrealistic, which gets a bit old. Whenever a child acts differently than people expect, it’s always “unrealistic.” Was Tyler (played by Ed Oxenbould) and his proclivity toward rapping annoying? Yes, but guess what – 13 year olds are often annoying. I know I was. In fact, if Tyler wasn’t annoying to some extent, something would be suspect. Did Becca use a more expanded vocabulary than you’d expect from an average 15-year old girl? Indeed, but so do many teenagers. Some teenagers talk just as Becca did in this film. Is it common? Not quite, but claiming that Becca was unrealistic because of her manner of speaking is utterly idiotic.

Why am I harping on this point? The Visit, when all is said and done, is just an average film. But the one thing they got down pat were the grandchildren. They’re performance, save one scene near the end from Oxenbould, was pretty damn good. The relationship between Becca and her brother was portrayed very well; perhaps Tyler was being a tad more dickish than he should have been when grilling Becca about her self-esteem issues, but then again, how many 13-year old boys are oblivious? I know I was. The relationship between them felt real throughout almost the whole film. For that alone, I applaud these two for their performance.

As for the movie itself, the twist, while expected to an extent, wasn’t that bad. But it did feel a wee heavy handed during the reveal. So what we have here is a tense movie for the first two-thirds, and an average horror film for the last thirty. Great acting from the kids, and decent acting from the grandparents. And, let’s not leave this out, some pretty emotional scenes from both Oxenbould and DeJonge. In the end, The Visit is just about average with some really stand-out points. Factors such as the reveal of the twist, along with the final ten minutes or so, bring it down bit, and what could have been an 8 or 8.5 loses points for an almost over-reliance on jump scares and a flawed final act.

7.5/10

Directed by Travis Zariwny [Other horror films: Intruder (2016), World of Death (2016, segment ‘Manicure’), The Midnight Man (2016), Lensface (2020), Punk Rock Cannibals (2021)]

Prior to reviewing this, I wanted to make sure that everyone knows I have little love for the original Cabin Fever. Aside from a cute actress, I thought it was a good idea butchered by a sloppy direction and overall needlessly comedic. For this remake, a few of the problems are fixed, but it’s not altogether that much better a movie (though I do feel it’s a better movie).

What they did right: most of the comedic elements are taken out of this version (though some of the stupidity remains, such as the Pancakes kid), which is a step in the right direction. The last twenty minutes went in a different direction, and while there were problems (I’ll get into them later), overall, I felt the ending was decently stronger.

Onto the bad, the main issue is that the first half of the film is a scene-by-scene, line-by-line copy of the original, give or take a few lines, which really should not be the point of a remake, in my opinion. Still, it was a better first half than the original, which at the very least is something. Deputy Winston, the party cop, was a major problem I had with the original, and while the character (played this time by a female) still has those party tenancies, there’s a slight redemption near the end. The same hillbilly idiots in the original film are present here also, and do the same idiotic actions.

On the upside, the local authorities seem to be actually dealing with the contagion as opposed to covering it up. Really, the end as a whole is better, but there were two portions that seemed unnecessary, one including the Pancakes Boy and a post-credit scene that seemed beyond pointless.

The main problem with this remake is that it tries to be the original movie, keeping the script, as opposed to using the ideas from the original and crafting a new story, which would have had been ideal. This remake wasn’t something we needed, but it was moderately welcomed. At the very least, it was better than the original. Still lacks much of what I’d have wished for in a movie about a flesh-eating disease, though.

5/10

Directed by Michael Taylor Pritt [Other horror films: Fun Time (2015), Are We the Waiting (2017), Night Howl (2017)]

Miles Before Sleep has a lot of heart, in my estimation. It’s a short film (under an hour, and the last six minutes or so are outtakes anyway), but does a good job of not waiting until the end to pick up. Which is a minor complaint also; while the fun might be in the chase, I’m not sure how much fun I had watching these individuals trying to escape the two brothers (plus their mute sister) over and over again.

Around the forty minute mark, I did feel as though it was dragging a bit. But that aside, the ending was an okay one (and the flashbacks strewn throughout the film were welcomed, because while we didn’t need background information on the killers and their family, I thought it was a nice touch).

A funny thing I wanted to point out: Valentine, who is the hesitant third brother (and infinitely more civilized) was played by the director of the film, Michael Taylor Pritt. No matter how much I tried, every time I saw Pritt on screen, I couldn’t help but think of John Bradley (who portrays Samwell Tarley in Game of Thrones). Doesn’t really change my thoughts on the film at all, but thought it was worth mentioning.

The two insane brothers (being Christian is one thing, but they take it to another level) did their jobs well, and overall, despite the low budget of the film, I thought everyone did a pretty decent job. The story’s nothing overly creative, but I had fun with it (the outtakes themselves were quite enjoyable also), so I’d recommend seeking this out if lower-budget movies are your thing.

7/10

Directed by Michael Dougherty [Other horror films: Trick ‘r Treat (2007)]

I didn’t have a whole lot of expectations going into this one, despite having seen the trailer a few times, and overall, that may have been a positive thing.

Krampus does many things right – the atmosphere is appropriately bleak and frigid, with multiple well-done scenes depicting the cold Hell this extended family has found themselves in. Most of the comedic elements are decent, and I’ve no complaints about the acting of any of the characters, which is of course another plus. The flashback, as narrated by the grandmother, was done in a rather enjoyable animation, and thoroughly enjoyable to witness. The Krampus’ design was pretty solid. Even most of the ending worked for me.

Of course, few movies are totally without flaws. At times, the amount of dangerous creatures got a bit much (a teddy bear, gingerbread cookies, an evil angel, a Jack-in-the-Box, and a toy robot, for instance), and while I’ve no complaint about most of these, I thought the gingerbread men were a bit ridiculous. Toward the end, when the pit to Hell (presumably) opened, I was finding it more difficult to care than I’d hope for (if only because I expected some twist to come up, rendering the whole thing moot).

And while the ending scene itself was actually pretty cool (the snow globe workshop was indeed fun), the last split second was a jump scare, with a bunch of evil toys coming at the screen. I abhor endings that try to scare the audience (not a character in the movie, but the audience) in the last split second. It’s over-done, and ruins any chance that the movie could be spectacular. All-in-all, Krampus is a good slice of Christmas horror. Plenty of the actors and actresses stand out (notably Emjay Anthony, Adam Scott, Stefania LaVie Owen, and Conchata Ferrell), and while not the best Christmas comedy-horror film out there (Santa’s Slay, anyone?), it was certainly worth a watch.

8/10

Directed by Carlo Rodriguez [Other horror films: Long Pig (2008), Psycho Killer Attack (2009), Naked Horror: The Movie (2010), Psycho Killer Bloodbath (2011)]

This movie is thoroughly unenjoyable, which leads me to believe another cannibal film from this director, titled Long Pig (2008), is much in the same vein (and honestly, a part of me wonders if Cannibal Feast isn’t some type of edited version of Long Pig, as reviews for Long Pig mention scenes remarkably similar to scenes from this movie).

First things first, none of the characters stand out from each other. Every other girl looks the same, and so when one is killed and captured, you have no idea who exactly it was. Worse, you aren’t given a clear picture of the relationship between the characters. I think there were two girls who were supposed to be sisters, but I’ll be damned if I can tell you who they were. And related, there’s only two names I remember from the movie, and I just finished it ten minutes ago (at the time of the writing of this review).

Also, this is a dark and dingy film. While likely intentional, the way the film was shot really hindered from both potential enjoyment and potential comprehension. There’s one scene with a girl being tortured, while scenes of two girls getting dressed in Halloween costumes are spliced in. I thought that was a flashback, showcasing the tortured girls’ memories of a sister/friend she’ll never see again, but no, those two getting dressed appear later in the movie. I think. Honestly, it’s not clear, and as the movie was atrocious, I don’t really care to examine it too much.

Religious ramblings, cannibals, unanswered questions as to who is actually behind the group who goes out to kill “sinners and hippies,” this movie is a mess. No amount of nudity can fix this (though, in all fairness, there were some occasionally rather attractive women), and the almost plot-less murder and torture and rape with featureless characters was just awful. In all honesty, I only watched this because there were less than five votes for it on IMDb. I regret that choice, as there’s virtually nothing to recommend here.

2/10

Directed by Michael Taylor Pritt [Other horror films: Fun Time (2015), Miles Before Sleep (2016), Are We the Waiting (2017)]

Night Howl is Michael Taylor Pritt’s fourth full-length film, and first werewolf flick. This Kentucky-based director/actor has been, for not all that long, a favorite of mine when it comes to low-budget horror. Night Howl shows great improvement over his last movie (the disappointing Are We the Waiting), and is perhaps the best movie he’s done thus far.

Pritt’s films are fun, in part, because he almost always uses the same faces again and again. Night Howl’s no different, with no less than six recurring actors from his other three films (one, of course, being himself). That said, some of the strongest acting comes from a new face.

With Night Howl being her first credit on IMDb, Alana Mullins really stole the show, her lines well-done and more so, came across as a really fun person. I certainly hope that this isn’t just a one-off, and she decides to get behind the camera more. She worked damn well with Michael Taylor Pritt, and was overall a fun presences on screen.

As for Pritt, his acting is just as it’s always been. Which I certainly don’t mean negatively – Pritt’s low-key style, in my opinion, is rather amusing, and his wry humor that pops up here and again is always good fun. The only other actor who really stood out was Andrew Potter, who’s one downside was not enough background for his character. Which isn’t to say that all the cast members didn’t put their heart into this one. I adored Pat Roberts, playing a moderately foul-mouthed older woman. She also needed more screen time, alas.

The story itself wasn’t overly unique, but I do certainly like the approach they took. I thought it worked out well, and more surprisingly, perhaps, there was some real feeling toward the end (partially helped by a low-key but enjoyable score). The ending, in many ways, depressed the hell out of me, which goes to show you don’t need a high budget for feels.

The main downside of the film is the lack of inventive, or even interesting, kills. I guess there’s not much you can do with a werewolf to begin with, but I certainly felt as though these kills were more repetitive than those of Pritt’s past movies. Hell, Are the the Waiting’s strongest suit, in my view, were the kills. Still, a good story with solid acting is more important than great gore, but it would have been nice to have something more in this department.

When all’s said and done, though, Night Howl was a well done flick on a low budget. The gag reels thrown in the end were amusing, and I just loved Mullins’ character. I’ve seen all four of Pritt’s movies thus far, and this is up there with Miles Before Sleep (his second outing). Hard to say which I liked more, as both had very strong points, but Night Howl was a strong film that I’d recommend to fans of lower-budget flicks.

7.5/10

Directed by Nick Lyon [Other horror films: Species: The Awakening (2007), Zombie Apocalypse (2011), Rise of the Zombies (2012), Foreclosed (2013), Bermuda Tentacles (2014), They Found Hell (2015), Titanic 666 (2022)]

A military squad is sent to a scientific island base to battle zombies and discover horrifying truths. Now, that’s a terrible description of the film, but as Isle of the Dead is an atrocious movie, it only seems fair. Almost all of the military individuals were interchangeable, and it doesn’t take a palm reader to tell who the survivor of the film is going to be. Predictability aside, though, this movie has a lot of flaws.

Chief among them are the uber-zombies. These super-zombies can speak, hold grudges, and brawl in fist fights. And some characters even inject themselves with a serum to also become uber-zombies to fight against the other zombies. There’s normal zombies too, though. And actually, I’m pretty sure there was even another class of zombies mentioned. Which brings me to another point: this movie, despite having what one might think is a simple plot, got moderately convoluted about half-way through the film.

Why the bazooka launched a nuclear weapon at the end, I didn’t catch. Perhaps they explained it, but the audio quality seemed lacking (which, for a movie on Syfy, was odd). The CGI gore was intolerable (though there was one scene, with a bug crawling out of someone’s eye, that I got a kick out of). The characters were unremarkable (for the most part), and the plot, at least insofar as it could be followed, was just your run-of-the-mill zombie movie.

And don’t get me started on the final thirty minutes of the film; as soon as the uber-zombies started appearing, the movie got much worse. The one highlight of this movie is D.C. Douglas, who played a manic scientist. His sometimes over-the-top acting was deeply amusing, and I rather enjoyed his character (and in fact, he reminded me of Kyle MacLachian’s performance as Cal on Marvel’s Agent’s of S.H.I.E.L.D.). Douglas was a fun character, and I appreciated that, but overall, it couldn’t save this movie. An utterly generic and atrocious film, Isle of the Dead is a movie I’d not at all recommend.

4.5/10