Poe (John Cusack) ponders once upon a midnight dreary what went wrong with "The Raven".

Literary history and Hollywood go together like… well, like two things that go together particularly well. With the exceptions of perhaps Hemingway and Hunter S. Thompson, writers lead notoriously uninteresting lives. Thoreau may very well have plucked the phrase “quiet desperation” from his own life to describe the life of your average writer. So, for Hollywood to attempt to mine the life of a writer – in this case, the godfather of American Horror, Edgar Allen Poe – for an early summer popcorn muncher, they must have something special on their hands.

Well, at least they have Poe and we, in turn, get “the Raven”.

John Cusack stars as Poe, who we first see as a bit of an abrasive and penniless boozehound, trying to wrangle brandy from a barkeep. The picture isn’t pretty. Drunk and in dire need of validation, Poe wanders out into the night. Meanwhile, in another part of ol’ Baltimore town, two women are found dead inside a locked room with no way for the assailant to escape – though miraculously, he had. The inspector leading the case (Luke Evans) recognizes the murder as something from one of Poe’s stories. After questioning the writer, they find out there is a killer using Poe’s work as inspiration for his handiwork and challenges both the writer and the detective to stop him.

And, to coin a phrase, the game is afoot.

Directed by James McTeigue, better known for stylish actioners like “V for Vendetta” or “Ninja Assassin”, “Raven” is a beautiful diorama of a movie: beautifully crafted surroundings for tiny wooden figures. It’s occasionally entertaining but only occasionally. More often, it is just frustratingly mundane and I’d be hard pressed to say where exactly the fault for that lies. McTiegue presents us this bleakish tale in a desaturated palate at a pretty even pace. Writers Ben Livingston and Hannah Shakespeare give us and interesting concept and a mostly solid script.

Could it be the actors?

If I were to find any flaw with this film – and I most certainly did – I would find it with the actors. Cusack isn’t one of my favorite actors but I can’t really think of an occasion when I didn’t enjoy his work. And even here, I thought his work was good, but for some reason I just couldn’t get past him; I could only look at the screen and think, “That’s John Cusack in a fake beard.” For whatever reason, his performance just screamed John Cusack and not Edgar Allen Poe. And while some actors may be able to get away with that (Yes, I’m looking at you Mr. Connery); Cusack is not one of them. He also got no help from his female lead, Alice Eve. Many times, she seemed like not much more that a pallid mannequin in a pretty dress. Evans’ Inspector Field was generally inoffensive and feels like a distant cousin of Poe’s own C. Auguste Dupin by way of Patrick Warburton.

It should almost go without saying that one shouldn’t go see “the Raven” if you are looking for historical accuracy; as always, Hollywood plays fast and loose with the facts. It could almost be said that one should not see “the Raven” at all – almost – though if you choose to plunk down your hard earned cash for this, you may experience a “quiet desperation” of your own.

The gang's all here in "the Cabin in the Woods".

Welcome to quite possibly the shortest review I’ll ever write.

At the risk of overhyping by way of under reporting or spoiling it in any way, I will say only a few things about “The Cabin in the Woods”. Yes, you have your five archetypical pretty people who go off to the titular cabin for your usual “happens-in-every-slasher-film” party weekend. A creepy local attempts to warn them off, but of course, he’s ignored. They get to the cabin and things go downhill in short order.

What happens next?
Well, that’s where it gets complicated.

Written by certified Geek God Joss Whedon and “Cloverfield” scribe Drew Goddard (in his directorial debut), “Cabin” takes concepts we all know – and in some cases grown tired of – and makes you look at them again in a fresh light. True, other movies have done this to a degree: you have a movie like “Hatchet” which competently updates the formula or one like “Tucker and Dale Vs Evil” which twists things around and adds a liberal dose of humor. However, I think it’s safe to say we have a new beast altogether with this. What Whedon and Goddard have created here is something that feels like the slasher film that we all know and love, but it is also whip-smart on all fronts. Ordinarily, when you get smart and clever in a slasher film, it turns out to be fairly bloodless and focusing more on suspense elements. Not so much here. “Cabin” serves up buckets of blood and most likely not how you’d expect it.

So, what do we have now? It’s fresh. It’s smart. It’s bloody. Surely, a horror movie can’t get better than that? Wrong again, Sparky.

“Cabin” is also a fun movie. Love or hate Whedon for his previous work, but there’s no denying that the man can turn a phrase. In this movie, he uses that skill to create wonderful characters that – at first blush – seem like the standard slasher-movie characters until… well, you’re just going to have to see it. Speaking of characters, the cast swings for the wall and puts it in the upper deck. Kristen Connolly, Chris Hemsworth (before his star-making turn in “Thor”), Anna Hutchison, Fran Kranz, Jesse Williams are perfect in their respective roles and I’d be hard pressed to find a clunker anywhere in this cast.

“Cabin in the Woods” isn’t the one your mother warned you about – it’s the one you’ve been waiting for – literally. Are you still reading this? Go see it already!

Sarah (Elizabeth Olsen) seeks out the secrets of the "Silent House".

If you can’t have good actors, have a good story. If you can’t have good actors or a good story, have good effects. If you can’t have good actors, a good story or good effects, have a good gimmick.

And when all else fails, have boobs – lots and lots of boobs.

The horror genre has a long history of using gimmicks to get people into the theaters. Most likely, these saw their halcyon days back in the late 1950s but even today, we appreciate the lure of the gimmick – whether it is the earnest whisper of “Based on a true story,” or the promise of terrifying found footage. The latter – the found footage film – is everyone’s darling these days but even it’s starting to show signs of wear; much like a bow-legged streetwalker after the fleet’s been in port for two weeks.

How about a real-time horror movie?
It seems to work for “Silent House”.

Shot in 2010 and a remake of the Uruguayan film, “La Casa Muda”, the film follows – quite literally – Sarah (Elizabeth Olsen) as she, her father (Adam Trese) and her uncle (Eric Sheffer Stevens) try to renovate and pack up their creepy old house so they can sell it. Of course, you can’t have a big, dark creepy house in the middle of nowhere without strange things being afoot… and afoot they are.

Directed by Chris Kentis (who wrote and directed “Open Water”) and Laura Lau (cinematographer and with Kentis on “Open Water”), “Silent House” takes the unusual tack – but one also used in the original film – of shooting in what looks like a single continuous shot. While many of you out there may shrug it off as no big deal, here it’s an effective tool for the film maker in taking what would have been a fairly pedestrian film and making something different and entertaining. How does this help? It essentially forces the audience into the shoes of Sarah as she creeps through the house, searching for answers and a way out. There are no cutaways from the tension or her situation. It effectively immerses you in the situation. However, this method isn’t a cure all. Much like 2010’s “Buried” when you’re focused on essentially one character in an enclosed space, there’s only so much you can do. Eventually, watching our heroine feel her way through the house gets to feeling a little tiresome. Granted, there is more to the story, it just seems to take a while to get there.

Performance-wise, the cast does well – both Trese and Stevens do exactly what’s required of them for their roles. Olsen, however, is the one that does all the heavy lifting. Initially, I didn’t make the connection between her and her more famous twin siblings. I think if I had, my expectations would have been far lower than they already were. I found myself pleasantly surprised though. I am not familiar with her turn in “Martha Marcy May Marlene” but here she does the genre no harm and actually carries the movie well.

“Silent House” is a perfectly serviceable date movie, perfect for when you absolutely, positively have to have your date claw your arm or jump into your lap in a public place. Genre fans should have a good time discussing the merits of the film but may find it just a technically beautiful film and not much else. Gorehounds will be disappointed with the blood and, sorry, there are no boobs.

It already has a pretty good gimmick.

Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe) shines a light on the mystery of "the Woman in Black".

For those who live in and around the Dallas area, you might think that growing up in Oak Cliff is a lot like growing up somewhere just outside of downtown Bagdad. While I can’t necessarily speak for the conditions today, I can say it wasn’t as bad as some might expect. We would play in the schoolyard, climb trees and engage in some friendly games of “Oak Cliff freeze tag” – which involves a lot more rock throwing that regular freeze tag. However, there was one thing we didn’t do and that was go anywhere near the old Ravina Mansion.

The most I ever knew about it was that it was the only house in the neighborhood with a gate and wall around it And supposedly, it was haunted. I remember it had a narrow driveway, congested with overgrown brush and trees, that led up a hill and seemed to disappear into darkness. For years, it remained an inscrutable mystery and the inevitable fodder for ghost stories.

“The Woman in Black”, produced by the legendary Hammer Films and adapted from a book by Susan Hill, is ghost story that follows Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe), a young widowed (and father of a young son) lawyer who must venture out to a small town to settle the estate of a deceased woman. He arrives only to find that he’s not welcome and it seems that people would much rather that the woman’s affairs are just forgotten. Unfortunately, that’s not an option for Kipps as he journeys out to the shunned and isolated manor and encounters the titular “woman in black.”

The second feature from director James Watkins (his first was “Eden Lake”), “Woman” is a classic ghost story that draws liberally from its Hammer pedigree. It’s a darkly atmospheric, somber, gothic ghost story. Cinematographer Tim Maurice-Jones gets an full marks for every minute of beautiful minute of footage that flickers across the screen. Jane Goldman (who also penned “Kick Ass” and “X-Men: First Class”) provides a nice solid script that’s the cherry on top.

So, why didn’t this movie just blow my socks off.

Ordinarily, a film like this is right in my wheelhouse, but this one just didn’t make a connection with me. None of the major elements were lacking; it was exactly what a good ghost story should be. Ultimately, I think that was it’s greatest crime. “Woman” had the potential to be a great film – instead, it was just good. This was compounded by its over-reliance on cheap jump scares. A few times could be considered acceptable in a horror film, but once that number crosses into double digits, it shows the weakness of either the script or direction or both. I counted about eleven jump scares probably in the span of about 20-25 minutes. Many of them were clustered within a minute of one another (Yes, I timed it). After each one, I felt myself becoming more and more disappointed with the film. Even though they were doing a great job of building suspense and tension, it seemed like they were in too much of a rush to spend whatever fear equity they’d earned.

“The Woman in Black” is a perfectly serviceable, perfectly ordinary ghost story. While I’m sure most will find this enjoyable, I find it just another inscrutable mystery as to why this good movie wasn’t so much better.

While scrolling through the horror titles on Netflix the other day I came across Intruder. Just from browsing over the description I found two things that intrigued me enough to hit play. Right off I was interested at the thought of a slasher flick taking place in a grocery store. Not something you see everyday.

The second was the Raimi brothers and Bruce Campbell. I’ve had a celeb crush on Bruce since I saw Army of Darkness for the first time. I said to myself, “Can’t be too bad if those dorky Raimi brothers are in it”

The premise behind Intruder is a group of grocery store clerks are getting ready to close up shop when one of the cashier’s ex-boyfriend decides to pay her a visit. Because of his violent past everyone is quick to assume he is behind the bodies that start to pile up. Girl rejects boy. A fist fight breaks out and our rebellious felon is removed from the store. Everyone goes back to shutting down the store and all our forlorn felon wants to do is get his girl back so he repeatedly calls the store and proceeds to linger outside the store in a creepy stalker-ish way. But soon, the clerks start dropping like flies – killed by a mysterious… killer.

Clean up on aisle one.

“Intruder” is your garden variety 80’s slasher with a few things added that set it above other films like it. One, it’s has the Raimi Brothers and Bruce – and that’s a Chuck Norris roundhouse kick of awesome. On top of that, it also has an amusing scene where our heroine decides to hide from the killer in a Jiffy Pop display. For some reason as she stood there screaming like an idiot, I couldn’t help but think about that old SNL “commercial” about the Jiffy Pop airbag (“Crashed the car? It’s cool, your airbag is full of POPCORN.”). There’s also a pretty cool kill with a box bailer which was pretty awesome. Though the rest of the kills were pretty predictable, I found myself feeling slightly squeamish with anticipation over some of them.

I liked this film simply because it was the first slasher flick I’ve seen to take place in a grocery store. There are plenty of opportunities for creative kills not to mention plenty of handy weapons to use for self-defense. If you’re a Raimi brothers and Bruce Campbell fan like yours truly, then you’ll want to Instant Queue this one.

Albert Wilmarth (Matt Foyer) unfortunately finds "the Whisperer in Darkness".

Nothing good is easy.

I’m sure I’m not the first person to say that but I will tell you to carve that in stone. Be it in work, play, life or love; it’s just one of those universal truths. And while we’re on the subject, let’s add this little nugget onto that list: the stories of H.P. Lovecraft are difficult to adapt to film. There may be some of you snickering at that remark because you know the vast amounts of understatement I just used. For those who haven’t clambered aboard the Lovecraft bandwagon, please allow me to explain. Lovecraft’s favorite themes had to do with the vastness of infinity and how unknowable it was to mankind’s limited existence. Often, his protagonists would encounter something so mind shattering that it could not be described, explained or even named.

Now try filming that on a typical Hollywood budget.

And not even a big typical budget, but the below ten million dollar budget usually relegated for horror films – which with the current popularity of the cinéma vérité movement in horror, that number is probably closer to just one million dollars. Especially since Hollywood and mainstream audiences demand spectacle from their movies: you have to show the monster. Unnameable and unshowable usually lead you straight to unfilmable.

Unless you’re the H.P. Lovecraft Historical Society.
In that case, you get a wonderful adaptation of “the Whisperer in Darkness”.

As in Lovecraft’s original story, we follow Miskatonic University professor Albert Wilmarth (Matt Foyer) as he attempts to disprove the existence of aliens who supposedly occupy the hills of New England. A series of letters from a man (Barry Lynch) in an isolated part of Vermont lures him out to find the truth out for himself.

“The Whisperer in Darkness” is the second film put out by the HPLHS (their first, a silent film version of “The Call of Cthulhu”). As with their first film, the philosophy they have it to shoot the film in the period style of when the story was published – which in this case is 1931. So, we get this gorgeous shadow-heavy, noir-style B&W film much in the style of the classic Universal monster features. I have only two real gripes with the technical side of the film and they are mostly aesthetic. One, as I mentioned before, the film is beautiful and even in standard definition the picture is sharp and clear. However, since I’m expecting the film to emulate the period style, the clarity felt out of place. My other nitpick – and yes, I feel these are nitpicks – is that the CG is a bit dodgy in more than a few spots. There’s a lot of rain in this movie, most of it is CG and it just doesn’t look very good. There are some practical effects glitches as well, but they don’t take away from the whole.

Otherwise, the movie works exceedingly well – as one would expect when you have a group as passionate and knowledgeable of the source material as the HPLHS. One thing particularly noteworthy is the last third of the film. In the original story, Lovecraft ended it after one particularly shocking revelation. In a “standard three act” film, that would have been the end of the second act. And it was here as well, but screenwriters Andrew Leman and Sean Branney (who also directed “Whisperer”) did an excellent job of creating the additional material that felt organic to the original story.

Additionally, the cast does a good job, from top to bottom. Foyer is perfect as the prototypical Lovecraftian hero, Wilmarth. Lynch, as the mysterious Henry Akley, is likewise great and – thanks to some amazing practical effects work from Dave Snyder – doesn’t even need all of his body present to be effective.

“The Whisperer in Darkness” is a respectable sophomore showing for HPLHS Films. It is a “must-see” for fans of all things Lovecraftian and a nice throwback feature for horror fans in general. It’s safe to say their hard work paid off in a nice little film.

Netflix Instant is a great way to catch up on a lot of films that you might not have had time for or might not have even knew existed before. However, the sheer number of them available might make choosing one to watch difficult. Our latest addition, Carol Rogers, gives you the quick and dirty of what lurks in the Netflix depths.

In ‘the Stay Awake”, a group of students at an all-girls school are having a stay awake in which they are supposed to stay awake all night long while under the supervision of a female teacher and an older male chaperon. Little do they know a supernatural killer – the Angel of Darkness – is watching them from the shadows waiting to slay them one by one. One horny teen decides to sneak off to the “toilet” so meet a boy and this is where the slaying begins.

The gore was disappointing and cheesy. The demon critter just used its tail to stab people and in one scene, you could tell they used a wax head. The music doesn’t do you any favors either. It didn’t evoke fear but rather a headache. And what is up with the cheesy romantic song at the end of the movie?

In addition, if think that a movie set in a girls’ school would give you more than average boobage, you will be sadly disappointed as the most you get to see is a flash of leg. The ghost type mist needed a little something extra as well but considering the special effects of that time they just went with what they had. Personally my favorite parts were the electrical appliances catching fire and melting.

Overall, I give this film 2 stars and that’s because I liked the melting appliances. “The Stay Awake” should be “the Stay Away.”

Right now, somewhere in the dark, cobweb-dusted recesses of my mind, a rabbit and a duck argue. Familiar voices bicker back and forth…

“Rabbit season!”
“Duck season!”
“Rabbit season!”
“Duck season!”

It goes on like this for some time until a disheveled young girl in a pea soup-stained nightgown approaches, slaps them both senseless and growls, “exorcism season.”

Who knew? I must’ve missed the memo but it seems for the last couple of years that January has become the time to release exorcism movies. On the one hand, I’m pretty happy about having some of my favorite kind of supernatural horror to start the year. On the other hand, last year’s inaugural celebration of internal deviltry, “the Rite” was no great shakes.

This year’s entry, “the Devil Inside” sets the bar even lower.

The film starts in 1989 with a recording of a 911 call and “police footage” of a triple murder. More exactly, it’s an unauthorized exorcism of Maria Rossi (Suzan Crowley) that leaves two priests and a nun dead. Fast forward twenty years and we find Maria’s daughter Isabella (Fernanda Andrade) working with filmmaker Michael (Ionut Grama) trying to get to the bottom of what’s going on with her mom. Their efforts take them to the Vatican where they meet Ben (Simon Quarterman) and David (Evan Helmuth), a pair of rogue exorcists. They introduces Isabella and Michael to the world of spiritual warfare and agrees to examine Maria in order to determine if she’s possessed.

Of course, she is.

“The Devil Inside” is the first feature from director William Brent Bell since 2006’s “Stay Alive”. “Devil” is a movie that sleepwalks through most of the first half before it stirs groggily in the middle and then stumbles through the last act before it finally lurches abruptly to a stop. Fortunately, its journey isn’t difficult one since it cribs earlier exorcism (“The Last Exorcism” and “the Rite”) and found footage (“Paranormal Activity”) films. As I’ve said before, “great directors pay homage, lesser directors steal,” and brother, does this movie feel stolen. Plot points and signature shots are lifted from better movies and they aren’t hard to spot. And if that weren’t enough – despite the claims of its marketing – the movie just isn’t scary. If anything, it’s predictable: you can almost pick out where the jump scares are coming. Granted, it’s not all bad but I’d pin it close to about 98% bad. There were a few nice touches which I think only made things more frustrating..

The acting – as I am fond of saying – was solid. The actors did well with what they had but it wasn’t much. You could have just as easily pulled any of their characters from the Big Book of Horror Clichés: the Daughter Searching for Answers, the troubled Priests, the hapless Cameraman. This is a movie that simply gives us placeholders that simply move us through the story but no one to care about. Of course, that’s an unfortunate conceit of horror stories: you don’t need characters, just someone to walk through, make bad decisions and get abused. You certainly get that here.

“The Devil Inside” is what we’ve come to expect from big studio horror: a tired formula in new togs. It’s a disappointing start to the New Year. Maybe next season will be better.

"All American Zombie Drugs" screening to help Operation Kindness

Most years, the period between Halloween and Christmas was pure seasonal anthrax. Usually, holiday tunes had already bludgeoned us senseless and we were all already looking forward to the alcohol-blasted forgetfulness of New Year’s Eve. This year isn’t a whole lot different but now we have a chance to briefly revisit the halcyon nights of October and get our zombie on for a good cause.

The horror comedy “All American Zombie Drugs” will be playing two charity screenings at the Angelika Dallas December 9th and 10th with the proceeds going to Operation Kindness. Described as “Dude Where’s My Car” meets “Pineapple Express” with zombies, it’s an award winning feature film from this year’s AOF International Film Festival written and directed by Alex Ballar and stars Beau Nelson, Wolfgang Weber and Susan Graham.

Tickets for the event are $10 at the box office. A Q&A session with Ballar, Nelson and Weber will follow each screening. For more information, please visit http://www.twistedcentral.com, http://www.operationkindness.org, or http://www.zombiedrugs.com.

If you’ve been a regular visitor for the last year or so, maybe you’ve noticed that content here has thinned out a little. Ordinarily, I’d just chalk that up to my own laziness and I think for a good portion of this time, I have. I think the reality of what was going on hit me this past weekend during the Blood Bath 3 film festival. It all started with an innocuous enough statement from my friend Tammy Dupal of Twisted Central fame. She tweeted:

Because of the obvious conflict of interest I will not be reviewing any films played during @doabloodbath.

Even then, I didn’t recognize the statement for what it was. Maybe it was later that it started to seep in. Maybe it was when Andrew Rose asked me if making a film had changed the way I review films. Of course, I responded that it hadn’t: no, it still hadn’t kicked in. It wasn’t until later as I sat at the bar, my face not nearly as red as it was earlier from overexposure to positive reinforcement, that it finally hit me.

I couldn’t do it anymore.
I couldn’t sit in judgement of who were now becoming my peers.

My peers? Yeah, I went and said it. My peers. I kinda consider myself a film maker now. Quite bluntly, I feel a bit shitty when I’m sitting in a theater picking a movie apart, writing it down and putting that criticism up to the world when what I may be watching may very well be a films I could be in competition with at a festival. To that end, it’s ends up being a conflict of interest. Otherwise, it feels the same as a beer-league hockey player telling Gretzky how to play the game. OK, maybe not Gretzky but certainly some level of professional. It just doesn’t feel right to me.

So, what am I going to do now?

Well, I can still turned my patented “Jaundiced Eye” to studio fare. There is still a pretty big difference between a film made for a few thousand dollars and one made for a few million dollars. I don’t have a problem speaking out on that. Beyond that, I’m not sure. I guess I can pontificate on the journey of a budding film maker. It’s already been a strange and wondrous journey. Maybe I can even find the words to do it justice. Whatever happens, please stick around. I promise to make it interesting.