Search
Let Me In
Ebba Segerberg and John Ajvide Lindqvist
8.4
Rate It
Book
English version translated by Ebba Segerberg. Let Me In Takes Top Honors at Tribeca Film Festival...
Vampire Sweden Let the right one in
WENDIGO
10.0
Rate It
Book
When something or someone butchers a man and leaves his broken body in the woods, can two friends, a...
supernatural horror story
The Lake House Massacre
Book
18-year-old Tate Robinson should focus on having a relaxing winter break with his friends. Their...
Young Adult Horror LGBTQ+ Thriller
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Condemned: Criminal Origins in Video Games
Oct 24, 2019
Scary Spooky
Condemned: Criminal Origins (known in Europe as Condemned) is a first-person survival horror video game, that is very good but underrated.
Condemned: Criminal Origins places an emphasis on melee combat and puzzle solving, including searching for fingerprints and gathering evidence. Lets talk more about the crime scene's, and gathing evidence.
Condemned directly involves the player in crime scene investigations, offering the ability to, at the press of a context-sensitive button, call upon a suite of forensic tools to find and record evidence. The player character is linked to an FBI lab via his mobile phone throughout the investigation, allowing (almost immediate) remote examination and analysis by his support worker, Rosa. Crime scene evidence can be used to solve puzzles, allowing the player to pass previously impassable barriers, and provide clues to the overall mysteries of the story.
Examples of evidence include fingerprints, footprints, fibers, fluids (such as blood or chemicals), particles, residues, markings/etchings, material, imprints, wounds, small objects, documents, and body parts.
The player character is gifted with the instinctual ability to detect when forensic evidence is nearby, allowing players to bring up the detection and collection tools when appropriate. However, the "instincts" of the character only vaguely highlight the area in which the evidence resides; it is up to the player to methodically sweep the scene and catalog any findings.
Lets talk about the plot: Condemned: Criminal Origins is set in the fictional American city of Metro. The player takes on the role of Ethan Thomas, a crime scene investigation agent with the FBI's Serial Crime Unit, as he traverses the seedier sides of the city. His journey takes him through a number of condemned buildings as he searches for the one who framed him for murder, the evasive Serial Killer X. Along the way, Ethan must use his investigative intuition and technology to examine evidence left behind by SKX, all the while fighting off the violently psychotic denizens of Metro City, who seem to be driven to such madness by a mysterious, yet seemingly extraneous force.
Their are two different ends: but really its the same ending.
If you do like psychological, crime solving horror games than you will like this one.
Condemned: Criminal Origins places an emphasis on melee combat and puzzle solving, including searching for fingerprints and gathering evidence. Lets talk more about the crime scene's, and gathing evidence.
Condemned directly involves the player in crime scene investigations, offering the ability to, at the press of a context-sensitive button, call upon a suite of forensic tools to find and record evidence. The player character is linked to an FBI lab via his mobile phone throughout the investigation, allowing (almost immediate) remote examination and analysis by his support worker, Rosa. Crime scene evidence can be used to solve puzzles, allowing the player to pass previously impassable barriers, and provide clues to the overall mysteries of the story.
Examples of evidence include fingerprints, footprints, fibers, fluids (such as blood or chemicals), particles, residues, markings/etchings, material, imprints, wounds, small objects, documents, and body parts.
The player character is gifted with the instinctual ability to detect when forensic evidence is nearby, allowing players to bring up the detection and collection tools when appropriate. However, the "instincts" of the character only vaguely highlight the area in which the evidence resides; it is up to the player to methodically sweep the scene and catalog any findings.
Lets talk about the plot: Condemned: Criminal Origins is set in the fictional American city of Metro. The player takes on the role of Ethan Thomas, a crime scene investigation agent with the FBI's Serial Crime Unit, as he traverses the seedier sides of the city. His journey takes him through a number of condemned buildings as he searches for the one who framed him for murder, the evasive Serial Killer X. Along the way, Ethan must use his investigative intuition and technology to examine evidence left behind by SKX, all the while fighting off the violently psychotic denizens of Metro City, who seem to be driven to such madness by a mysterious, yet seemingly extraneous force.
Their are two different ends: but really its the same ending.
If you do like psychological, crime solving horror games than you will like this one.
Leigh J (71 KP) rated The Lost Boys (1987) in Movies
Nov 8, 2019
Best Movie Ever
Contains spoilers, click to show
Michael and Sam are Brothers who are moving, with their Mom Lucy, to Santa Carla following a Divorce. Santa Carla just happens to be the murder capital of the world. When they get to Santa Carla, they are met with an eccentric Grandpa and, shock horror!, no TV! Faced with the absolute atrocity that is no MTV, they decide to explore the nightlife of their new town and upon doing this, meet the beautiful and mysterious Star. Michael is instantly besotted and chases after her, leaving Sam at a local Comic Shop... and at the mercy of an intense duo called the Frog Brothers, who give Sam a comic called "Vampires Everywhere" and allude to the fact that he might want to read it to survive which Sam laughs off.
Upon chasing Star, Michael quickly finds out that she is part of a Gang of enigmatic young guys, their leader being the antagonistic David. Desperate to get closer to Star and gain some new friends, Michael goes along to their lair and is coaxed into drinking some "Wine" by the young men. Soon enough, Michael begins changing and finding out more about who David, Star and the gang really are... and who he really is now. Sam is also noticing changes in Michael, and suspects that Lucy's new flame, Max, is also involved with what is happening to Michael. But, after a terrifying reveal and a body count happening at a Bonfire, are Sam and Michael too late to save themselves? Does Max really have a tie to these mysterious Boys? Could they all hold the key as to why Santa Carla is the murder capital of the world?
I remember watching The Lost Boys as a kid and falling head over heels in love with everything about it; the way it looks, the music, The Lost Boys themselves (who became my style icons from then on!), the epic story... everything! It's such a great Movie, mixing Horror and Comedy perfectly and throwing in the most chaotic and horrific Vampire reveal I've ever seen (favourite scene, of course!). It's quite simply a joy to watch... I'm on my 500th watch already! LOVE it!
Upon chasing Star, Michael quickly finds out that she is part of a Gang of enigmatic young guys, their leader being the antagonistic David. Desperate to get closer to Star and gain some new friends, Michael goes along to their lair and is coaxed into drinking some "Wine" by the young men. Soon enough, Michael begins changing and finding out more about who David, Star and the gang really are... and who he really is now. Sam is also noticing changes in Michael, and suspects that Lucy's new flame, Max, is also involved with what is happening to Michael. But, after a terrifying reveal and a body count happening at a Bonfire, are Sam and Michael too late to save themselves? Does Max really have a tie to these mysterious Boys? Could they all hold the key as to why Santa Carla is the murder capital of the world?
I remember watching The Lost Boys as a kid and falling head over heels in love with everything about it; the way it looks, the music, The Lost Boys themselves (who became my style icons from then on!), the epic story... everything! It's such a great Movie, mixing Horror and Comedy perfectly and throwing in the most chaotic and horrific Vampire reveal I've ever seen (favourite scene, of course!). It's quite simply a joy to watch... I'm on my 500th watch already! LOVE it!
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) in Movies
Aug 11, 2019 (Updated Aug 11, 2019)
The monsters. (1 more)
Special effects - blend of CG and practical.
The Pale Lady. (2 more)
Basic rinse and repeat horror formula.
No emotional attachment to characters.
Fishing for Turds
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is probably considered the introduction to horror fiction for anyone who was in middle school in the mid to late 1990s. I distinctly remember checking out at least one of the books before I was a teenager, but the story that has stuck with me multiple decades later has and always will be, “The Red Spot.” The thing about the Scary Stories books is that they were just these random collections of creepy tales meant to make the reader anxious, uneasy, or even frightened, so the fact that somebody attempted to make a coherent film out of a jumbled mix of stories from all three books is kind of incredible.
The horror film directed by André Øvredal (Trollhunter, The Autopsy of Jane Doe) follows a group of teenagers in the small town of Mill Valley, Pennsylvania during Halloween in 1968. Stella (Zoe Colletti) is a die-hard fan of the horror genre, Auggie (Gabriel Rush) is a bit too infatuated with girls for his own good, and Chuck (Austin Zajur) lives on candy and pranks when he’s not driving his older sister Ruth (Natalie Ganzhorn) insane. They cross paths with a mysterious drifter named Ramon (Michael Garza) who joins the group seemingly out of boredom.
They initially use trick or treating as a front for revenge against local jock and full-time bully Tommy (Austin Abrams), which leads them to a condemned and rumored to be haunted house of the Bellows family. Sarah Bellows lived in isolation and dramatically killed herself because of her family. Sarah turned her devastating life into inspiration for a series of terrifying stories. After Stella discovers the book Sarah wrote her stories in, strange things begin happening in Mill Valley and everyone in the Bellows house from that night becomes a target.
The monsters of the film attempt to be as explicitly accurate as possible to Stephen Gammell’s original illustrations from the Scary Stories books. This typically pays off, especially with Harold the Scarecrow and The Toe Monster but it seems to backfire with The Pale Lady. While she does still look like a living incarnation of Gammell’s artwork, the story has the weakest conclusion of the entire film. Scary Stories makes up for this by introducing The Jangly Man, who is seriously worth the price of admission alone even if you typically can’t understand a word that he says. The Jangly Man contorts his body in the most inhuman of ways, can separate all of his limbs from his torso, and has this bloodcurdling voice that rattles your insides.
There’s been an emphasis on the lack of a narrative in Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. That may be true, but the film is based on a trilogy of books that is close to thirty years old and is supposed to be aimed at younger readers. The film adapts the stories in a way that isn’t totally successful, but it is surprisingly great at times. Despite some recognizable names in the supporting cast such as Dean Norris (Breaking Bad), Gil Bellows (The Shawshank Redemption), and Lorraine Toussaint (Orange is the New Black), the main cast is mostly filled with unknowns. Some reviews claim that the acting isn’t up to par, but I was pleasantly surprised. Austin Zajur can be annoying as the mischievous Chuck, but he was also rather humorous the majority of the time. Zoe Colletti goes a little overboard when she cries, but she’s also solid when she gushes over horror. Austin Abrams is seriously nasty as Tommy. He is always sweaty and has no remorse for anyone. He takes bullying to frightening heights.
I guess I expected the film to be corny (pun intended) with lame PG-13 kills and a cast that had no idea what they were doing. The film managed to make me a fan during the Harold segment. That surround sound in the cornfield is masterful with the wind blowing through corn stalks in every direction and the rusty creaking of the scarecrow as he tries to walk. How these teenagers are terrorized manages to transcend what movie ratings typically mean for a given film; this would be unsettling regardless of what it’s rated or how old the viewer is.
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is not a perfect horror anthology since it’s extremely simple in concept. A monster shows up, a kid disappears, and then it’s rinse and repeat for an hour and 47 minutes. At the same time though, it’s probably the scariest film of the summer and could potentially become the next big horror franchise. Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark could easily take over where the Final Destination films left off or even be this generation’s answer to that. The practical effects mixed with just the right amount of CGI for the monsters are what really sell the film. Despite being as disjointed and unnatural as The Jangly Man, Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is way more amusing and eerie than it has any right to be.
The horror film directed by André Øvredal (Trollhunter, The Autopsy of Jane Doe) follows a group of teenagers in the small town of Mill Valley, Pennsylvania during Halloween in 1968. Stella (Zoe Colletti) is a die-hard fan of the horror genre, Auggie (Gabriel Rush) is a bit too infatuated with girls for his own good, and Chuck (Austin Zajur) lives on candy and pranks when he’s not driving his older sister Ruth (Natalie Ganzhorn) insane. They cross paths with a mysterious drifter named Ramon (Michael Garza) who joins the group seemingly out of boredom.
They initially use trick or treating as a front for revenge against local jock and full-time bully Tommy (Austin Abrams), which leads them to a condemned and rumored to be haunted house of the Bellows family. Sarah Bellows lived in isolation and dramatically killed herself because of her family. Sarah turned her devastating life into inspiration for a series of terrifying stories. After Stella discovers the book Sarah wrote her stories in, strange things begin happening in Mill Valley and everyone in the Bellows house from that night becomes a target.
The monsters of the film attempt to be as explicitly accurate as possible to Stephen Gammell’s original illustrations from the Scary Stories books. This typically pays off, especially with Harold the Scarecrow and The Toe Monster but it seems to backfire with The Pale Lady. While she does still look like a living incarnation of Gammell’s artwork, the story has the weakest conclusion of the entire film. Scary Stories makes up for this by introducing The Jangly Man, who is seriously worth the price of admission alone even if you typically can’t understand a word that he says. The Jangly Man contorts his body in the most inhuman of ways, can separate all of his limbs from his torso, and has this bloodcurdling voice that rattles your insides.
There’s been an emphasis on the lack of a narrative in Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. That may be true, but the film is based on a trilogy of books that is close to thirty years old and is supposed to be aimed at younger readers. The film adapts the stories in a way that isn’t totally successful, but it is surprisingly great at times. Despite some recognizable names in the supporting cast such as Dean Norris (Breaking Bad), Gil Bellows (The Shawshank Redemption), and Lorraine Toussaint (Orange is the New Black), the main cast is mostly filled with unknowns. Some reviews claim that the acting isn’t up to par, but I was pleasantly surprised. Austin Zajur can be annoying as the mischievous Chuck, but he was also rather humorous the majority of the time. Zoe Colletti goes a little overboard when she cries, but she’s also solid when she gushes over horror. Austin Abrams is seriously nasty as Tommy. He is always sweaty and has no remorse for anyone. He takes bullying to frightening heights.
I guess I expected the film to be corny (pun intended) with lame PG-13 kills and a cast that had no idea what they were doing. The film managed to make me a fan during the Harold segment. That surround sound in the cornfield is masterful with the wind blowing through corn stalks in every direction and the rusty creaking of the scarecrow as he tries to walk. How these teenagers are terrorized manages to transcend what movie ratings typically mean for a given film; this would be unsettling regardless of what it’s rated or how old the viewer is.
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is not a perfect horror anthology since it’s extremely simple in concept. A monster shows up, a kid disappears, and then it’s rinse and repeat for an hour and 47 minutes. At the same time though, it’s probably the scariest film of the summer and could potentially become the next big horror franchise. Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark could easily take over where the Final Destination films left off or even be this generation’s answer to that. The practical effects mixed with just the right amount of CGI for the monsters are what really sell the film. Despite being as disjointed and unnatural as The Jangly Man, Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is way more amusing and eerie than it has any right to be.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated John Carpenter's Vampires (1998) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
A group of eccentric vampire hunters lead by the rugged and cold-hearted Jack Crow (James Woods) never really stop working. Taking great pride in the fruits of their labor, they work hard and play even harder as their celebrations after a job well done consist of alcohol flowing freely and plenty of women to take their minds off of work. But this particular job didn't go exactly as planned and it's weighing heavily on the mind of Jack Crow. Even after killing what's referred to as a "nest" of nine vampires, the master was no where to be found. Hardly a reason to celebrate in Jack's eyes. Unfortunately, his gut instinct was right as things get a hell of a lot worse for Jack's team when the master shows up to their little shindig. But this master is different from the others; stronger, more powerful, and why does he know Jack's name? There's something more elaborate going on and Jack Crow is going to find out exactly what it is while eradicating as many vampires as he possibly can along the way.
Judging by the ratings this film has (34% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, 5.8/10 on IMDb), I guess it's safe to say that this could be a guilty pleasure of mine. I love most of John Carpenter's work and I really enjoyed his take on vampires. Jack Crow is certainly reason alone to sit through this and although the character originated in John Steakley's novel, I feel Crow is just as strong of a character in Carpenter's world as Snake Plissken from Escape From New York. Even though he's basically a mean spirited SOB, you can't help but sympathize with the character as the film moves on. Considering all that's happened to him in his lifetime, he seems to be a decent guy deep down underneath that extremely thick and rough exterior. His dialogue was also a lot of fun. Gems such as him asking Father Adam Guiteau if he had wood after the fight they just had or when he's explaining the true mythos behind vampires and to "forget whatever you've seen in the movies" was just classic.
Other than Jack Crow, I actually really enjoyed the storyline which seemed to be a breaking point for a lot of people. A vampire seeking a black cross to finish a reverse exorcism, so he can walk in daylight without turning to dust. Only Carpenter could pull something like that off. Their methods of killing vampires were also a bit more original and unorthodox compared to other vampire films of the past. Jack Crow would shoot an arrow from a crossbow, which would be attached to a wire on the bottom of a jeep that would be reeled in by Daniel Baldwin's Anthony Montoya that would drag the vampire into the sunlight where their body would burst into flames. Maybe it's considered cheesy to some, but it was refreshing to see something different for a change. As big of a horror fan that I am, I don't really think of myself as a fan of vampires. I'm not sure if it's because I'm picky or because it seems like everything is being recycled when it comes to storylines in horror films these days, but I like to think when a vampire film does make an impact on me that it says more than the average horror film containing vampires.
John Carpenter, the master of horror, delivers a refreshing and interesting take on vampires with the aptly named Vampires. It also dawns another strong lead character in a Carpenter film in the form of Jack Crow and contains some of the most witty and enjoyable dialogue of any horror film from the late '90s. The storyline is also magnificently peculiar, which is a definite plus in my book. This would definitely make my list of favorite vampire films, if I ever decided to make one. If you're a fan of John Carpenter and haven't seen this gem, I highly recommend doing so. Or if you have, maybe it's time to dust it off and give it another watch.
Judging by the ratings this film has (34% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, 5.8/10 on IMDb), I guess it's safe to say that this could be a guilty pleasure of mine. I love most of John Carpenter's work and I really enjoyed his take on vampires. Jack Crow is certainly reason alone to sit through this and although the character originated in John Steakley's novel, I feel Crow is just as strong of a character in Carpenter's world as Snake Plissken from Escape From New York. Even though he's basically a mean spirited SOB, you can't help but sympathize with the character as the film moves on. Considering all that's happened to him in his lifetime, he seems to be a decent guy deep down underneath that extremely thick and rough exterior. His dialogue was also a lot of fun. Gems such as him asking Father Adam Guiteau if he had wood after the fight they just had or when he's explaining the true mythos behind vampires and to "forget whatever you've seen in the movies" was just classic.
Other than Jack Crow, I actually really enjoyed the storyline which seemed to be a breaking point for a lot of people. A vampire seeking a black cross to finish a reverse exorcism, so he can walk in daylight without turning to dust. Only Carpenter could pull something like that off. Their methods of killing vampires were also a bit more original and unorthodox compared to other vampire films of the past. Jack Crow would shoot an arrow from a crossbow, which would be attached to a wire on the bottom of a jeep that would be reeled in by Daniel Baldwin's Anthony Montoya that would drag the vampire into the sunlight where their body would burst into flames. Maybe it's considered cheesy to some, but it was refreshing to see something different for a change. As big of a horror fan that I am, I don't really think of myself as a fan of vampires. I'm not sure if it's because I'm picky or because it seems like everything is being recycled when it comes to storylines in horror films these days, but I like to think when a vampire film does make an impact on me that it says more than the average horror film containing vampires.
John Carpenter, the master of horror, delivers a refreshing and interesting take on vampires with the aptly named Vampires. It also dawns another strong lead character in a Carpenter film in the form of Jack Crow and contains some of the most witty and enjoyable dialogue of any horror film from the late '90s. The storyline is also magnificently peculiar, which is a definite plus in my book. This would definitely make my list of favorite vampire films, if I ever decided to make one. If you're a fan of John Carpenter and haven't seen this gem, I highly recommend doing so. Or if you have, maybe it's time to dust it off and give it another watch.
Body Counts: A Memoir of Activism, Sex, and Survival
Book
As a politics-obsessed Georgetown freshman, Sean Strub arrived in Washington, DC, from Iowa in 1976,...
Nikitta: A Mother's Story: The Tragic True Story of My Daughter's Murder
Marcia Grender and Geraldine McKelvie
Book
On 5 February 2011, Marcia Grender received a phone call which changed her life forever. The flat...
KyleQ (267 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Jul 20, 2020
I wanted to like it.
Ignoring every entry other than Carpenter's original, 2018's Halloween attempts to reboot the Franchise in anew direction.
Oddly enough, comedian Danny McBride was a writer, while director David Gordon Green (Pineapple Express) directed.
I blame much of my distaste on their overhyping it. They said this would be a slower movie focused on creating suspense ala the original.
In reality, this more than tripled the body count, even surpassing Rob Zombie's remake which was 10 minutes longer.
From the get-go, Michael just wanders about killing people, at one point we just follow him walking down a street randomly killing people. This has more senseless violence then Zombie's outings.
Another thing I didn't like was that, with this only following the original in which after escaping, he killed 4 people. It doesn't make sense that he would be this popular legend still talked about 40 years later.
Also, victims are idiots, it's no shock who gets killed. Honestly, Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis) was the only likable character, and even she pushed it a bit.
For positives, Carpenter's score was great, I liked some of the camera work. Intro credits were cool, throwing back to the original. And Curtis was good returning as Laurie Strode.
I really wanted to like 2018's Halloween, but it lacked suspense, characters were dumb, it felt more like a senseless action/comedy than horror. This would've fit the Friday the 13th franchise better. I really hope that the sequels are better.
Oddly enough, comedian Danny McBride was a writer, while director David Gordon Green (Pineapple Express) directed.
I blame much of my distaste on their overhyping it. They said this would be a slower movie focused on creating suspense ala the original.
In reality, this more than tripled the body count, even surpassing Rob Zombie's remake which was 10 minutes longer.
From the get-go, Michael just wanders about killing people, at one point we just follow him walking down a street randomly killing people. This has more senseless violence then Zombie's outings.
Another thing I didn't like was that, with this only following the original in which after escaping, he killed 4 people. It doesn't make sense that he would be this popular legend still talked about 40 years later.
Also, victims are idiots, it's no shock who gets killed. Honestly, Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis) was the only likable character, and even she pushed it a bit.
For positives, Carpenter's score was great, I liked some of the camera work. Intro credits were cool, throwing back to the original. And Curtis was good returning as Laurie Strode.
I really wanted to like 2018's Halloween, but it lacked suspense, characters were dumb, it felt more like a senseless action/comedy than horror. This would've fit the Friday the 13th franchise better. I really hope that the sequels are better.