Reviews

It always makes me smile when a psychological horror drama sticks to the concept all the way through. "Clock" does this rather successfully. It is not the greatest movie ever made but I found it to be thought-provoking, intelligent and best of all - contained. Well done for a debut feature from Jacknow.

The movie portrays a childless woman's struggle to "fix herself" after succumbing to the societal narrative that "women should have children".

Naturally; visceral horror fans will hardly find anything to their liking here - as the many negative reviews are a clear example of. It is puzzling to me why people reach for psychological horror movies and leave surprised and angered by the lack of gory brutality. To me it's like watching a romantic comedy and complaining about the lack of slapstick elements - it's just not supposed to be there.

Anyway "Clock" is rather successful when it comes to cerebral horror. It leans a bit too heavily on very obvious visual metaphors, but I'd say the only real downside to this, is that it feels a bit like Jacknow is carrying us through the movie wanting to make sure we don't miss anything. Playing it safe like that did take a bit of the fun out of it, but at least Dianna Agron's brilliant acting makes up for that. She really does a great job here and even though the performance isn't quite up there with the performances of say Sosie Bacon in "Smile", Rebecca Hall in "Resurrection" or Essie Davis in "The Babadook", it is still a thrill to watch. Well done!

I definitely recommend this movie to fans of psychological horror, however visceral horror fans should probably steer clear. FAIR WARNING THOUGH... If you yourself are stuggling with childlessness for whatever reason, watching the societal pressure in this movie might not be an enjoyable watch for you.

This movie had me sitting here smiling while watching... not because I've gone slightly mad from all the horror movies I've sat through (I don't think so anyway), but because "Talk to Me" actually felt fresh and I didn't expect that.

It's strange because we've seen most of it before. Group of teenagers, sure. People being possessed by spirits, yep. An inclusive female lead, you got it. A kangaroo though... I can't say I've ever seen a kangaroo in a horror movie before but what a wonderful way to emphasize the movie's Australian origin.

What really strikes me as refreshing though is that the spirit possession is unlike those of "The Exorcist", "The Conjuring" and even the "Ouija" movies. The Philippou twins chose a more tongue-in-cheek approach here that is both light-hearted and gruesome at the same time.

The beginning is almost comedic until the breaking point where the tone changes to something much more sinister and concludes in poetic irony - it's quite impressive considering the mere 90ish min runtime.

We get a bit of depth with the backstory of Sophie Wilde's character - who by the way does a terrific job. The acting is mostly fine but she definitely stands out with her expressive face. Great cinematography and a piercing sound design that reminds me of Raimi's "Drag Me To Hell" (some people like that, some don't).

"Talk to Me" is not up there with the best of the best but it delivers much more than I thought it would and therefore, to me, is a great addition to the horror genre - don't skip this one!

I didn't really know much about "Watcher" before I started watching it. In truth there's not all that much to know to be honest:

A couple moves to Romania. Husband works while wife sits around waiting for him to come home. Wife believes that somebody is stalking her and husband thinks she is going crazy.

It sounds ridiculously simple because it is. We've seen it before - HOWEVER - Okuno clearly set out to make a brilliantly executed suspense flick and did just that.

The movie is contained and everything in it is there for a reason. Cinematography and especially the sound design is incredibly well done and makes the simplest thing like shopping for groceries an unnerving experience.

And finally the biggest praise has to go to Monroe. She has come a long way from "It Follows" and here she brings this simple movie to life with outstanding (and very believable) acting that successfully makes you question her sanity. Hopefully she'll bless us with her talent in many more (horror) movies to come.

Now obviously "Watcher" isn't the perfect movie even though everything is done so well. The fact is that we've seen it all before - countless times - and Okuno plays it extremely safe here by taking no chances whatsoever. This makes for an underwhelming movie experience as a whole and will no doubt bore some viewers.

Do I recommend "Watcher"? If you love suspense - YES. To witness Monroe's brilliant performance - YES. If you're looking for a great movie - NAH, go find something else.

Let me start out by saying; I have now watched "It Follows" twice. I was sure that I had missed something obvious the first time I saw it (on release) considering the hype and postive ratings... turns out I didn't and I'm still not impressed.

"It Follows" uses the same "tag, you're it" formula as did movies like "The Ring" and "The Grudge" before it as well as "Smile" and "Mara" after... Needless to say the formula is tired and unoriginal, but I have to admit; the way they pass "it" along in this movie is not something I've seen before - a sexually transmitted ghost... really?

It's an interesting premise but sadly it didn't work very well as a horror concept. It created too many unanswered questions and let's face it - there's no tension when it comes to bedroom shenanigans unless the raincoat breaks. Luckily the cinematography and sound design was great so the movie wasn't completely devoid of suspenseful horror whenever "it" was following our young cast.

One thing I absolutely enjoyed though was how there was so many opportunities to throw in some cheap jumpscares, BUT THEY DIDN'T. A lesser movie would have done so in a heartbeat, but "It Follows" tried to keep the suspense going instead, so way to go here!

I don't think I will go as far as to recommend this movie though. In my opinion it doesn't bring anything truly worthwhile and in the end we're left with too many unanswered questions they clearly couldn't figure out how to address. However people do seem to like it, so maybe you have to see for yourself.

Significant Other was a strange movie indeed. Initially I was taken aback by the setting - the shots of the forest are absolutely stunning and throughout the movie the editing is great as well.

However beautiful scenary is not enough for a successful movie. The script seemed a bit off to me. On one hand; it was very thin, but on the other; it gave me a feeling of something that could have been a much bigger movie... sadly though - the result was very underwhelming and didn't really land.

Neither did the acting if I'm honest. The acting was not technically bad, but it was oddly theatrical - Lacy's performance especially - which didn't fit this kind of movie all that well in my opinion.

All in all; I think Significant Other was incredibly beautiful but ultimately failed to deliver any real impact. I won't go as far as to say you should avoid it, but I can't really recommend it either.

The Babadook is nothing short of absolute brilliance. It is hard to fathom how good the result is considering the seemingly low budget and mere 94 mins runtime.

This is not your typical Hollywood horror movie-of-the-week - and thank God for that. The Babadook is carefully thought out and not only does it play on tension rather than actual scares; the character build-up is so strong that the actual "monster" (the Babadook) takes a back seat and becomes a mere supporting character to the mother-son relationship - something that is seldom achieved in the horror genre.

Naturally this notion makes the movie play more like a drama with horror undertones for the unsettling atmosphere and tension - strongly emphasized by the cinematography and sound design as well as Essie Davis' outstanding performance.

The way Davis portrays a woman fighting to meet her responsibilities and keep her head above water while slowly being dragged down by grief is both chilling and beautiful. I dare you to try and watch this and not feel sorry for her.

To me; the Babadook is a clever tale of grief in several (if not all) of it's stages. We're shocked by it, we deny it, we succumb to it until finally we accept it and learn to live with it.

If you're looking for jumpscares, blood or gore this is not the place for you, but I absolutely recommend The Babadook if you're into story-driven horror - Enjoy!

Let me start by saying; I do remember how much people were talking about Sinister when it aired in cinemas. I didnt go myself back then but I expected more since everybody was praising it much like the reviews in here... Sadly though, I hardly have any praises myself for it is basically just another movie-of-the-week.

Sinister starts out just fine - we've seen it countless times before. Moving day for the happy family, new house, one of then stumbles upon something strange left behind, now it's bedtime... and then it starts. The formula is tried and true so I guess we can't fault it for that. At least we got some backstory which is always nice.

However now starts the Ethan Hawke Show. The family is practically sleeping for the rest of the movie while Hawke walks/runs/sits around in the dark - apparently forgetting that he can turn on the lights. Horror clichés work for a reason - darkness is scary I suppose... but it's getting a bit old, so what we need now is a random jumpscare for no other reason than why not. Horror 101 you know.

The whole thing was way too predictable and sadly (in my opinion) fell horribly flat. The only reason I can think of for the many praises Sinister got, was because everybody and their mom went to see it and for most of them, this was probably their first horror movie experience.

So I guess the TL;DR here is... if you are familiar with horror movies, I recommend that you skip this one. However if you are looking for your first horror movie to watch, Sinister might be fun for you.

(PS: the very last scene is about as movie-of-the-week as it gets; if you know you know)

Cleverly positioned as a prequel instead of a remake The Thing (2011) is not completely unjustified. I can fully understand the urge of wanting to expand and explain these kinds of Lovecraft-inspired stories but the thing is (pun intended) they are not supposed to make sense. We are not supposed to be in the know.

That being said, The Thing (2011) is still not explained so much so that it makes perfect sense. It just tries to shine a little more light onto everything as to give us more of a clue and yeah... I didn't really appreciate that.

However the acting is where the movie really drops the ball. Unbelievable grotesquery is upon us and yet the actors walk around instead of running, they are standing around in seperate rooms alone doing God knows what and when the monster shows up they fail to make us really feel the horror.

This time; instead of an all male cast we now also have a strong female lead which I'm not opposed to but it kind of turned the whole thing into a Beauty vs Beast action movie situation and made it frustratingly predictable.

Lets end on a good note: The Thing (2011) substitutes tension for action and shovels in even more gore and grotesque CGI, so if this is your cup of tea you'll likely enjoy it.

If you are here because you enjoyed Carpenter's 1982 "The Thing" you will probably leave with more of a meh-feeling.

Even though the prequel - Escape Room (2018) - was no masterpiece, it did do a few things well. This one however tries way too hard to be something it is not and thereby losing it all in the process.

The acting was horrible but really I think the script is to blame here. Actors running around (fake) screaming, overexplaining (to the audience) what theyre about to do and yelling the same four-letter-word every time something happens. Especially the latter just seems too lazy to have them express themselves like that in every situation and for me it ruined the immersion.

The "rooms" didnt seem as well thought out as they were in the prequel which was a shame. They did try to keep the same pace but whenever the "players" entered a new room they seemed to know what do to immediately which made their need to get out a drag instead of a thrill.

I could go on about plotholes and stuff that just didnt make sense, but I think I will just say this; I do not recommend Escape Room 2: Tournament of Champions. There are much better ways to waste 90 mins.

Escape Room's premise was intriguing at first sight but after a few minutes of introducing the setting and the characters, sadly, it settles into what basically is just a cleaned-up "Saw" movie - kind of disappointing. This doesnt mean that the movie is boring by any means. The pace is kept high from start to finish and it does a good job at keeping the tension going as well. The acting is mostly fine - fine for this type of movie at least - nothing extraordinary.

I appreciated the attempt to give the characters a bit of dimension with the backstories, even if it wasnt done all that well. It would have been easy to leave it out which we see all too often, so I'm glad they included it.

Also Escape Room has a contemporary feel to it which I thought was appropriate - and maybe this is the real take-away here. I'm not sure I would recommend it for people who are familiar with movies like "Cube" and "Saw". It feels too much of a ripoff. However it may be the case that this movie was intended for a younger audience who might not be familiar with those and therefore would be more inclined to appreciate the production of this one.

I really wanted to like this remake.

The big 'ol scary house, the descent into madness and a backstory to carry it all - even great acting - The Amityville Horror (2005) has it all... why doesn't it work?

Lets start with the acting. If every horror movie was blessed with acting this good, the genre would be unrecognisable. What a vivid and wholehearted performance from Reynolds and George. Just beautiful!

Sadly acting on a bad script is a zero sum game. The whole thing felt extremely rushed - like they forgot part of the movie somewhere. There is a backstory but theres hardly any time to unpack it - we touch on it quickly and then back to the main story which by extension is also rushed. The madness, the scary house, the basement... we are presented with all of it. All of it has potential for an atmospheric build-up but ultimately it falls flat because theres no time to give it any real attention. Instead focus falls upon cheap scare tactics which it so often does in mediocre horror movies. What a shame!

That being said I will still recommend this movie. Even though I felt that it squandered its potential, it is still a horror movie through and through. It does what it is supposed to do.

The Boogeyman (2023) was a pleasant surprise and a worthy addition to the horror scene. It does exactly what The Boogeyman (2005) failed to do - it delivers suspenseful horror and does it brilliantly.

The story is nothing special, but it is contained and explained enough as to not leave any ends untied - after the loss of their mother, two girls and their widowed father struggles with grief and this makes it possible for the boogeyman to latch on to them.

What is produced from this very limited script is nothing short of impressive though. The atmosphere is dark and suspenseful throughout and you always have the feeling that something is lurking in the shadows. The movie succeeds at keeping you on your toes with jumpscares - however, I was very surprised of how they managed to make them feel different than the jumpscares you find in the majority of cheap horror movies today. These were mostly very effective and had me making wrong guesses more than once.

Also I have to mention the acting. Horror movies are so often riddled with soulless acting and casts we dont care one bit about, but that is not the case here. The actresses (Sophie Thatcher and Vivien Lyra Blair) do very well and make it both visible and believable that this is a family. Well done here.

I absolutely recommend The Boogeyman (2023). It is not perfect, but I really enjoyed it.

Watching this movie was chilling and absolutely terrible in the best possible way.

It is one of those movies that dares to put something on display that we, as viewers, really dont want to see - something unsettling. It doesnt feel good to watch - it is effective that way - and that is exactly why its brilliant.

In Resurrection we get no white picket fences or happily ever afters. Instead we are thrown into the deep end with serious matters such as deteriorating mental health, abuse, emotional suppression, gaslighting and grief. A woman (Rebecca Hall), who lives a seemingly successful life, stumbles upon a psychological trigger that starts an avalanche of past trauma.

Rebecca Hall's performance is breathtaking - hands down. The way this woman portrays the chaos of downward spiraling mental health while being a victim of gaslighting is both maddening and incredibly beautiful. At times it is so well done that it is hard to tell what is actually real and what is happening in her head.

Resurrection is absolutely worth a watch. FAIR WARNING THOUGH... if you yourself have experienced mental abuse it might be triggering and may not be an enjoyable watch for you.

I hadnt heard anything about this movie - Jagged Mind - so I went into it completely blind and I guess I figured out why this was the case.

To call this a horror movie is a stretch - even calling it a thriller is kind of a push. To me it was a drama, but anyway... the movie was very picturesque and modern looking with some beautiful timelapses and great use of lighting most of the time. The acting was mediocre and sadly there was nothing really there in terms of intensity to indicate that this was supposed to be a thriller/horror. Everything was just kind of slow-paced and rather boring actually (and I really don't use that term often).

Jagged Mind has a runtime of only 90 min but it felt like an eternity. There was definitely potential to be found, but in my opinion they didnt make much of it and there was nothing really there to keep you engaged.

Whether you are into thriller or horror movies I wouldnt recommend this one for you. You might be able to enjoy it if you are into dramas though.

This was such an entertaining and, at times, utterly confusing movie which tied up nicely in the end. I absolutely enjoyed the originality and the minimalistic setting.

Every time you sit down to watch a Lovecraftian movie, the same thought is going to pop into your head - what the hell am I watching - and thats kind of the whole point, right. It is unfathomable. You will go mad if you look at it or try to understand. But in my opinion this was very well done, and definitely not without meaning. Wes IS going mad. He HAS experienced something he cant un-experience, but what? You will figure that out for yourself.

Glorious doesnt have a big budget setup or an intricate story. The movie is short and if you took out the Lovecraftian elements, the story would be pretty straight forward so luckily the tentacled god is adding a little more to it.

I definitely recommend Glorious. If you can appreciate Lovecraftian horror, you will enjoy it, and if you cant, it is likely that you wont.

1408 didn't seem like much from first glance, but I have to admit; it was very effective.

In a nutshell the movie is about a writer who visits so-called scary places and then writes about them in his books. He is told to stay away from room 1408 at the Dolphin Hotel, but he goes anyway and that's about it - pretty straightforward.

The acting is alright - not bad nor particularly good. The movie looks kind of old, but after a while it's not really noticable. There is a backstory and while it's very simple and unoriginal, it does play a significant part throughout the movie, which was very nice to see.

To me; the significance of the backstory became obvious with the different "phases" of the hotel room and our main character's inability to accept the past. The symbolism here was very well done so the simplicity of the backstory was probably a good choice rather than overcomplicating it.

Also the effects - especially the sound - were extremely well done, and do a great job keeping you at the edge of your seat.

All in all; I fully enjoyed 1408. Even though it seemed simple, it had a lot more depth to it which is nice to see in a horror movie. Definitely worth a watch!

This was quite an enjoyable movie. It's definitely not up there with the best of movies, but I went in with an expectation that this was just another cheap movie-of-the-week, and I was mistaken.

The cinematography is great and the overall setting looks very modern which of course is appropriate given that M3GAN is about comtemporary technology. Also the acting from both actresses - Violet McGraw and Allison Williams - is very well done.

The movie is about an orphaned girl and her guardian aunt, but it also portrays the conundrum we may come to face about AI-technology, where we can build an entity that can continously learn and act by itself essentially becoming smarter than its creator. This subplot is chilling even though, of course, it is seen before but M3GAN does a great job keeping it entertaining while also giving us food for thought... how far must pseudo-human techonology advance before the relationship with it is no longer considered parasocial?

The movie does take a silly turn in the end and the conclusion - while obvious - sadly is a bit of a let down. However, M3GAN is worth a watch, but it might be a bit of a stretch calling it a horror movie.

First of all I want to say I'm sad and I'm sorry. After watching the 2018 prequel I gave my review where I stated my optimism and newfound hope for the franchise. Needless to say I am no longer optimistic and after watching this mess of a movie I'd say hope is pretty much gone.

It's kind of funny how Halloween (2018) set out to build on the original Halloween and act a as "better" sequel and it actually did a fairly decent job. However now they had to make their own sequel and all they could up with was this... it just goes to show - sequels are a b*tch.

Was this supposed to be a horror movie or a comedy? The acting was laughably bad... I mean there's really nothing more to say here. I started rooting for Michael because he was the only one acting calm and collected. Also I found it mildly amousing that they iterated on the original storyline and ended up placing Laurie in a hospital bed for the majority of the movie... déjà vu no?

Also I dont know who thought it was a good idea to substitute the well known Halloween suspense for action-packed violence. It doesn't even seem like a Halloween movie anymore. At least the soundtrack is still solid.

All in all I really don't have anything positive to say about Halloween Kills. This one was brutal to sit through. Don't let it kill your night too!

Halloween (2018) was actually better than I expected, but of course the bar was not that high anymore.

This movie takes yet another spin at the storyline, building on the original Halloween (1978) movie and disregards all the others. It's no wonder people gets confused when talking about the Halloween franchise as a whole now, but to clarify... Halloween (2018) is a sequel specifically to Halloween 1 (1978) and Halloween 2 (1981) never happened.

This movie introduces a new timeline set in todays society - 40 years have passed since the events of Halloween (1978). Micheal has spend this time in a psychiatric hospital while Laurie Strode has had her hands full with both a daughter and a granddaughter. Immediately it feels a bit strange to get tossed into yet another story, but it quickly settles and everything becomes almost familiar. This maybe has something to do with the many similarities there is between this movie and the original. By no means is it distastefully copied, but some scenes will feel very familiar to fans of the franchise and I actually appreciated this a lot.

Speaking of familiarity we see a friendly face return to the franchise as Jamie Lee Curtis returns to her role as Laurie Strode. For some reason this felt extremely natural and even though I didn't fully agree with how they turned Laurie into a gunslinging loner-type character, it felt very appropriate to continue the story with Jamie Lee Curtis as Laurie now both grown up. Considering how the franchise developed after Halloween 1 and 2 (the originals), the return of Jamie Lee Curtis actually makes me hopeful for the progression of this "new" timeline.

Halloween (2018) is definitely worth a watch - even if you're not familiar with all the previous Halloween movies. This movie does a pretty decent job at standing on its' own so you may not even have to watch the original - but I implore you to anyway.

I was struggling with this one. I love the franchise. The fact that Evil Dead Rise tries to stand on its own with a new setting and a modern take on the cast was peculiar but I was ready to give it a chance to see if it would work - TLDR sadly it didnt.

The beginning scenes by the lake were absolutely pointless - I have no idea why they put that in there, but at least the first demonic voice was quite chilling, so I stayed hopeful. Cut to the main story; the atmosphere in the apartment building was on point and I thought I noticed a hint of storytelling with actual depth between the sisters... however this light was quickly extinguished. We were treated to a lot of action and gory grotesquery but for some reason not a lot of "scary" horror.

The acting to me was very mediocre. I realise it may be difficult to really spread your wings as an actress when you are basically just screaming and running but I found myself not caring for any of them except the little girl (Nell Fisher) - her performance was believable to me. She did a great job. Also the sound editing was very good.

All and all Evil Dead Rise may be worth a watch if you like horror movies but its probably not a movie you want to rewatch.

After watching The Strangers - I can't really say anything other than it felt extremely pointless. I mean if you're bored on a sunday afternoon you might want to give it a watch with half an eye while scrolling social media but other than that, no... This movie delivers nothing of value.

To be fair, Liv Tyler gave it everything she could - she was the only light in this movie, but alas... it was not enough. The script was so thin I started to wonder if there even was a script. Maybe it was all just improv? One can speculate but sadly watching this was not time well spend... at least it was a short movie.

From the beginning it is very clear what Alone wants to deliver - tension. Girl ventures out on her own and meets a creepy guy - tension builds. She continues on her journey and she meets him again - more tension.

Even though we have seen it before I'd say Alone does a decent job when it comes to building and holding the tension - at least for the first 1/3 of the movie.

After this the movie takes a strange turn for the worse and becomes this absurd chase through the woods where the creepy guy puts even the best hunters to shame. I mean... tracking down his prey in a vast forrest, at night, in a thunderstorm while rain is pouring down... come on... even the Predator would have had a hard time with that.

It is hard to believe that adults have actually created this mess. The only interesting thing in this movie is how the quality continues to decline.

We actually do get some decent shots of the environment in the beginning but maybe those only stand out because the rest of the movie look so terrible in comparison. I mean sometimes it seemed like they just edited stuff into the picture for fun. The CGI was really bad - it made the whole thing look like a school project.

Theres not much positive to say about this movie. The storyline was extremely simple and the acting was very poor. All in all a shockingly bad movie.

This movie far exceeded my expectation going in - Well done!

First and foremost it is definately not for faint of heart. There are a lot of gruesome and gory scenes but Raw does a remarkable job at keeping it authentic which is why - to me - it cuts so much deeper than your typical bloody horror movie. Not that Raw even compares to a typical Hollywood horror movie.

The thing that absolutely baffled me was the atmosphere though. It was masterfully done throughout and it really seemed that the objective of the movie was kept very clear from start to finish. There was also some interesting use of different camera techniques plus some solid acting and really the only critique I have to give was that I found the unpacking of the premise so engaging that the movie could have been a little longer.

Definately worth a watch!

Another copy-paste horror movie for the bonfire.

If you, like me, enjoy the horror genre, you have definately seen this movie before. Maybe not this exact one, but Smile piggybacks on the same tired, old formula as did It Follows, Mara and so on. To say Parker Finn "wrote" this movie seems vaguely sarcastic but hey - tried and true is supposed to work right?

Smile starts out as you would like to see. Great atmosphere, great lighting and great setting. Mental hospitals always make for plausible hallucinations and what not. This is where we encounter Caitlin Stasey and her "Smile" and let me tell you - this smile is truly the stuff of nightmares so well done here. From here we follow Sosie Bacon's performance throughout the movie and she really does a fantastic job.

Even though Smile as a whole is hardly worth your time, I'd still recommend you watch it for Sosie Bacon's performance. My stars go almost entirely to her.