With just a few more weeks until Evil Dead releases across North America, Tristar today released three new images from the anticipated film.

 

Take a look at them below, and let us know what you think! Evil Dead hits theatres on April 5th; once you’ve seen it, be sure to let us know whether you loved it or not!

 

EDNew2 EDNew3 EDNew1

Source: ShockTillYouDrop

If you’re a regular around these parts, the title Milo may ring a bell; Jonathan spoke rather highly of the film (among others) on last week’s live episode.

 

Milo premiered at last week’s SXSW, and is an original horror-comedy that blends the gory elements of a classic critter film with the lighthearted comedy of an unlikely friendship. According to the press release, Milo was one of the most talked about films of the festival.

 

Magnet Releasing announced today that they’ve picked up the North American distribution rights to the film, and will be releasing Milo later this year.

 

If you were at the festival and managed to see the film, let us know what you thought! We’ll be keeping you updated on Milo as we learn more!

 

Duncan’s (Ken Marino) life is a real pain in the ass.  Tormented by manipulative, crooked boss (Patrick Warburton), a nagging mother (Mary Kay Place), a deadbeat new age dad (Stephen Root), and a sweet, yet pressuring, wife (Gillian Jacobs), his mounting stress starts to trigger an insufferable gastrointestinal reaction.  Out of ideas and at the end of his rope, Duncan seeks the help of a hypnotherapist (Peter Stormare), who helps him discover the root of his unusual stomach pain: a pintsized demon living in his intestine that, triggered by excessive anxiety, forces its way out and slaughters the people who haveangered him.  Out of fear that his intestinal gremlin may target its wrath on the wrong person, Duncan attempts to befriend it, naming it Milo and indulging it to keep its seemingly insatiable appetite at bay.

 

2-Milo-poster-watermarked

After a week off, we are back from SXSW with a bunch of reviews, news and updates about all things Geekscape! I share my love for the new ‘Evil Dead’, the insane ‘Milo’ and the incredible ‘Zero Charisma’! Shawn calls in to talk news, including the return of Veronica Mars, a director for Jurassic Park 4, Guardians of the Galaxy news and Kick-Ass 2! Brent Moore gives his report on ‘Spring Breakers’ and ‘Lords of Salem’ and former-NFL player Otis Grigsby calls in to talk Skyrim and Powerpuff Girls! PLUS! Stone Cold Steve Austin provides us with some of the weirdest callers yet!

 

A few weeks ago we had filmmakers Katie Graham and Andrew Matthews on the show to talk about their SXSW film Zero Charisma, the story of a tabletop RPG obsessed 20-something living with his grandmother who begins to lose control of his gaming group (and more) when a new table member threatens to sway his carefully crafted social order. At the time, I didn’t know Katie and Andrew, and they didn’t know me, but I really responded to the sincerity, and humor, of the Zero Charisma trailer and wanted to help them with their IndieGogo campaign to finish the film before the premiere. Sure, I had fears that most trailers are better than their actual films and that Zero Charisma might follow in a long line of indie films about our geek culture, and specifically the tRPG sub-culture, that have missed the mark. And every single one of them, from The Gamers to Role Models, have missed that mark, choosing the safety of goofing on the film’s subjects to actually compelling the audience to feel for them.

And not to say that it’s an easy temptation to avoid. We geeks and our and social idiosyncrasies are so particular that it’s just easier to point a camera at what’s loud and funny than what’s true. We spend so much time in fantasy (especially when tabletop roleplaying is concerned), that it’s almost always more appealing to narrate the fantasy of our lives than the oftentimes painful inadequacies underneath. But something in the trailer for Zero Charisma and its anger possessed main character of Scott, told me that Katie and Andrew’s film might just avoid those trappings and get right to the heart of the cultural and social re-appropriations that fantasy culture is all about. Going in to the film’s premiere on Monday night, and as the lights dimmed in the theater, I had hope (for all us geeks).

ZeroCharisma2

I’m happy to report that my hope in Zero Charisma was beyond well placed. Katie, Andrew and company knocked this one out of the park. Before there was even an image on screen, the music hit and I knew I was in good hands. The first thing that you hear is shrieking fantasy metal. I let out a loud “fuck yes” (which most at the after party admitted to hearing… sorry!). I’m a huge Luca Turilli and Rhapsody fan and the music that starts Zero Charisma off was right in line with the heavy metal songs of wizards and fantasy that inhabit his music. I even let out another shout when an extra in the film wore a Rhapsody shirt later on. The movie opened up and there was Scott, alone and head banging down a grocery aisle stocking up on snacks for his gaming like a playable character would on questing supplies. The journey was about to begin and I was thrilled knowing that I was in good hands.

The actual plot of Zero Charisma is simple. Scott lives with his grandmother and runs a tabletop RPG a few times a week for his similarly geeky group of friends. He invests everyting into the game and the experience he is creating. So when one of the longtime players drops out, it leaves Scott (and his sidekick Wayne), searching for a replacement. They find their fifth player in Miles, a hipster geek who is just looking for a group of guys to play with. Miles brings beers (and levity) to their first game, and quickly becomes its most popular and successful member and Scott’s alpha grip on the game begins to erode. Scrambling to keep the script that he’s written for everyone else on track, Scott wrestles to take back control and things go from bad to worse.

ZeroCharisma

 And that’s what Katie and Andrew got the most right: the personal nature of who we are. The group of gamers are a surrogate for Scott’s powerless role in a family that doesn’t really exist. His father is non-existent and his mother abandoned him long ago to move out of state. His Grandmother has had to look out for him long past the expiration date on his social maturation and he is angry. The failings of others in his life, and subsequently the excuses that have led to his own, have turned Scott into a short fuse who doesn’t see the dangers in scripting friend’s lives or trying to control others. From the opening metal music, he is both alone and ready to explode and watching newcomer Sam Eidson portray him is awesome. Sam’s not an actor playing a geek. He is a geek, and he gets the pain that makes our lots in life so compelling and Katie and Andrew don’t avoid going there. In fact, they go there a lot.

Other reviewers have said that when Scott’s mother shows up halfway through the film, that it feels like a plot device, because she only shows up to complicate things for Scott and his grandmother. I think those viewers need to re-role their Perception checks because you don’t need to hit a 20 to realize how wrong this is. The very antagonist of Scott’s fantasy quest is The Goblin Queen, a shadowy matriarch of a dark kingdom who rules from a distant tower. He’s enlisted his friends in helping him destroy the Queen and when that obsessive goal is challenged by Miles “just wanting to have fun”, Scott’s fuse is lit. Everything Scott does in the film is informed by the pain he feels towards his mother’s abandonment, and her showing up only makes a bad situation worse as he scrambles for a way to cope with a rapidly deteriorating social order that he had only a fabricated control of in the first place. Andrew’s script is fantastic on a character level and I urged he and Katie to continue Scott’s story in whatever other ways they could.

I know I’ve given a pretty serious review for a movie that is being showcased as a comedy. And I don’t want to give you the wrong impression. Zero Charisma is hilarious. The crowd responded vocally to the many jokes in the film and I watched it in a constant state of losing my shit laughing. If I hadn’t had to return to Los Angeles, I would have caught the rest of the screenings in Austin, I am that obsessed with the film. I even B-lined it for the filmmakers and gave them a hug for how incredibly moving the movie is. It just does so many things right in regards to a subject matter that we care so much about (almost similar to Scott’s obsession!). From skewering hipsters for their misappropriation of Geek culture (that scene in amazing) to our intensely passionate debates (like if the USS Enterprise is faster than the Millennium Falcon), Zero Charisma does everything right. The comedy flies pretty frequently but never at the expense of what makes Zero Charisma work the most: its sincerity.

As I said to Katie and Andrew Monday night, I’ve been attending the SXSW Film Festival since it began playing films in 1994 and this is one of my favorite SXSW films that I’d ever seen. But beyond that, and probably more importantly, Zero Charisma is one of the best Geek culture films of all time. We will definitely be championing it here on Geekscape. Come to think of it, I can’t think of a quest more worthy of the undertaking.

It’s been awhile since I have seen a truly atrocious movie. One of those films where you can’t tell whether you should pity or punch the people responsible. One where your only real choice is to walk out or just start laughing. Experiencing a film like this is like staring death in the face, either you give in to the hilarity of the unrelenting awfulness and your inability to change its course or go mad. These experiences are important. They harden you. They prepare you for the worst life has to offer. For this, I’d like to thank Rob Zombie.

 

Zombie’s latest, The Lords Of Salem, is truly one of the worst films I’ve ever seen. I spent half the film confused and enraged. Utterly unable to comprehend a world where someone could present this to an audience with a straight face. Eventually my resistance was quelled. The act of giving up and giving in was a physical one. A slow deflation as my previous view of the world was washed away by the slow tide of Zombie’s juvenile vision. By the end of the film I had almost entered a state of euphoric delirium. A constant slow chuckle. A chuckle turned into a full gut laugh by the perfect punchline, “Written and Directed by Rob Zombie”. Then the lights came up, the real world came rushing back in, and I looked back on what had occurred with a newfound clarity. I stopped laughing. Perhaps forever.

 

the-lords-of-salem

 

 

The Lords Of Salem tells the tale of a radio DJ Heidi Hawthorne, played by Sheri Moon Zombie, who is the descendant of Salem witch hunter John Hawthorne. One day she receives a mysterious LP from a band called The Lords. The record is just a simple set of notes repeated indefinitely but it has the power to awaken an ancient witch coven who then targets Heidi and tries to make her the vessel through with Satan will be reborn. Or something. It doesn’t matter.

 

The Lords Of Salem is just an excuse for Zombie to indulge in all of his worst tendencies. To open his junior high notebook and use his margin scribblings as storyboards. And of course to show his wife in various states of undress. One scene even has he waking up a couch with her shorts pulled down just enough to expose her ass. She stands up and pulls them up as she walks away from the camera. I just love the idea of Zombie composing the shot and feeling like something just wasn’t right before having a eureka moment before yelling, “Sheri, pull your pants down a bit. This is important…. Perfect!”

 

He fills the film with ridiculous “evil” imagery, but it’s a Halloween shop version of evil. It’s evil as envisioned by children, while the adults are having a laugh. That in and of itself isn’t a bad thing, and Zombie himself has used that to great effect in his music career and first couple of films. It can be fun when you know its being presented in a playful manner. The trouble with Lords of Salem is that it is dead serious. It presents everything with an air of import. It’s meant to be a slow and unsettling build of tension before unleashing true hell at the end. You’re meant to be disturbed.

 

The-Lords-of-Salem-2012-Movie-Image-2-600x302

 

 

Zombie even goes so far as to blatantly mimic the style of some of the few directors who genuinely had the ability to disturb, namely Stanley Kubrick and Alejandro Jodorowsky. The films climax is stylistically beholden to those influences but only manages to understand the aesthetic, and not what really made them effective. So by the time you’re watching Sheri Moon ride a goat like an electric bull in slow motion or watching masked nuns stroke their bloody erect penises or seeing a hilarious and weirdly adorable tumor baby waddle around in a cheap costume you aren’t disturbed at all. You just have to laugh. Which the audience did… a lot. One of the only enjoyable aspects of Lords of Salem was witnessing the slow build of incredulousness in the crowd. Seeing the eyes dart around that said, “This is ridiculous, right? You guys see that, right? Should we be laughing? Yeah… I’m laughing.” It built slow and climaxed with the truly stupid final images followed by that Rob Zombie credit.

 

It’s unfortunate, because Zombie is a truly capable director that has the capacity for some striking visuals. He’s just undone by his horrible taste. The Lords Of Salem is the film that finally killed my hope that he would one day make something great.

Modern art makes me uncomfortable. I often feel like an imposter and intruder at museums, as I scan the wall, desperately hoping I’m not found out. Hoping no one asks me what I think of a piece and finds out I have no idea how to process the information. It’s just not a language I’m comfortable with. So much modern art seems to be trying to create meaning in a purely sensory way. I don’t operate well in a sensory world. I tend to be introverted and withdrawn. I interact with my environment in an intellectual and emotional way, but always a step removed. I don’t seek out hallucinatory or mind altering drugs. I have a hard time listening to many forms of electronic music whose main purpose to move you on a physical level. I rarely let myself just experience, I always analyze. I need a narrative and a context.

As such, I have been guilty of dismissing many forms of this sensory art, whether it be music or painting or film. I’ve called it lazy. I’ve accused it of only giving the illusion of meaning. But really the problem lies with me, and my dismissal is a shield.

So, what does that have to do with Spring Breakers? Spring Breakers, like most of Harmony Korine’s work, is an almost totally sensory experience. It is an art film through and through. It’s a barrage of color and shape and there is clearly meaning there, it just requires a different brain than mine. That’s not to say I don’t take anything away from it or that I dislike it, it just works on a different level than I’m comfortable with and requires extra effort on my part to derive meaning from it.

spring-breakers-1

This may seem like a strange disclaimer for a movie that seems to be marketed as a fairly conventional crazy party film filled with popular starlets, but anyone familiar with Harmony Korine should know better. The eccentric writer/director has never been anything close to conventional and he doesn’t start here.

The story of Spring Breakers, such that there is one, is about a group of four girls who are sick of their town and mundane lives and dream of going to Florida to experience the spring break that MTV and Girls Gone Wild have always told them about. Unfortunately they don’t have the money, so they do the only logical thing and rob a fried chicken joint. Now, with pockets stuffed, they head down to Florida and quickly find themselves in with a bad crowd. Sex and violence ensues.

The way this story is conveyed is what makes Spring Breakers unique. Korine makes heavy use of repeated imagery and sounds. Sometimes the same line of dialog will loop 4 or 5 times, usually juxtaposed with imagery that reveals a hidden truth about what’s being said. Much of the dialog comes in the form of voice over. We hear the girls talking dreamily about how perfect and life changing this trip is. About all the great people they’ve met. About how they’ve finally found themselves. All the while we are seeing images of slow motion bouncing breasts as alcohol is poured over them or images of violent crime.

There are some truly depraved images and sequences in this film, but they are set against this backdrop of naive musings and pop music that you would expect to see in a typical teen coming of age comedy. The film clearly has something to say about the misguided aspirations of today’s youth and the perversion of the American dream. It shows that there is a very thin line between the mind of a teenage girl and a hardened gangster. It shows the hidden danger of innocuous pop culture. Does it really have a concise message about any of this? Maybe. I’m honestly not sure, but it gets you thinking.

springbreakers_03

This effect is reinforced by the casting of popular “safe” teen starlets. The casting of Disney alums Selena Gomez and Vanessa Hudgens could be seen as a stunt, but I think it helps drive home a message. In a typical movie, these girls would be in over their head and see the folly of their ways but Spring Breakers is out to surprise you. It shows that the mind of a teenage girl “pretending it’s a video game” and trying to be a “bad bitch” is much more depraved and dangerous than a criminal just trying to make some illegitimate cash. Basically, Gucci Mane has got nothing on Ashley Benson.


The girls go a long way towards destroying their teen image, or at least using that image to disarm you. The only one who gets off clean is Selena Gomez who plays an innocent christian who gets out before things get too crazy. Gomez doesn’t so much as say a single curse word in the film, while her co-stars go all in with sex, nudity, drugs, violence, and true amorality.

Their spirit guide on this journey is James Franco as the rapping drug kingpin “gangsta mystic” Alien. Franco has an incredible amount of fun with the role and its exciting to watch. It’s impossible for him to be too over the top in a movie such as this and he takes that as a challenge.

All this bad behavior is backed by some truly incredible visuals and music. Korine has said that he wanted to world to look like it had been lit by candy and this definitely shows. The neon glow of the world calls to mind films like Enter the Void, which unsurprisingly used the same cinematographer, and the soundscape is straight out of Drive, which also utilized the genius of Cliff Martinez.

All in all, this is an audiovisual sensory experience that you should definitely seek out. You may, like me, have some trouble making logical sense of everything but perhaps approaching the movie intellectually is completely misguided. Just take it in and let yourself feel, if you can.

a_560x0

So by now you likely know the story behind this latest stab at Shakespeare’s, arguably minor, work. Joss Whedon, fresh off of directing mega blockbuster The Avengers, decided to restore a bit of his sanity by making a small movie with his friends. Luckily enough for him, his friends just happen to be a stable of charming and loyal actors that commonly get together at his place to do Shakespeare readings. Much Ado About Nothing is the result of 12 days of hanging out at Joss’s house, drinking a copious amount of alcohol, and playing with friends.

It’s also worth noting that Whedon made the, not entirely unique, choice to set the play in modern day and using modern speech patterns while maintaining the original text. Shakespeare is not as difficult as many make him out to be but when his words are set to a modern cadence it can be a bit hard to follow if you are not intimately familiar with the words already. I’m a fan but by no means a scholar, and as such it took me a little while at the beginning to get my bearings.

much_ado_about_nothing_still_a_l

Once it gets going, it becomes clear how perfect a match Shakespeare is to Whedon. Whedon, despite his history of horror and sci fi and recent turn as action blockbuster director, has always lived and died by dialog and character. Seeing him bring his sensibility to the some of the best dialog in literary history is quite exciting and his troupe of actors are clearly having a blast with it.

And they really are having fun with it. This is no reverential work. Joss and crew allow for improvisation. They alter some text and characterization. They attack the play from a different angle to allow for a darker interpretation. They even poke fun at some of the bards more curious lines and archaic ideas. It never quite breaks the fourth wall but it comes close at times.

The cast is full of Whedon regulars who, if you are familiar with their previous Whedon roles, get to play wonderfully against type. Alexis Denisof, who played the stuffy and awkward Wesley Wyndam-Price in Buffy and Angel, gets to play a showboating lothario as Benedick. Amy Acker, meek and vulnerable in Angel, gets to be a strong independent woman in Beatrice. Fran Kanz, geeky comic relief in Dollhouse and Cabin In The Woods, makes a revelatory turn as a dramatic and romantic lead with Claudio. Sean Maher, virtuous and protective in Firefly, turns villainous and deceitful with Don John. The list goes on, but nearly every actor brings a unique element to the film and gets their own moment to shine.

Tom-Lenk-and-Nathan-Fillion-in-Joss-Whedons-Much-Ado-About-Nothing

There is a downside to all this fun and camaraderie, however. Much Ado About Nothing never quite feels like a real movie. Never quite escapes the feeling that you’re watching a bunch of friends goof around. It often times feels like the actors are seconds away from laughing and breaking character. It sometimes feels like a skit. It veers wildly in tone between heart wrenching monologues, slapstick humor, dark sexuality, self aware camera winking, and wide eyed romanticism.

It’s a strange conundrum. The reason the movie is worth watching is the fact that it explores a myriad of interesting ideas and allows itself to have fun with them, but that also keeps it from feeling real or substantial. It’s all a bit of a goof, but it’s a damned entertaining one.

At last year’s South by Southwest, the Joss Whedon/Drew Goddard instant horror classic Cabin in the Woods played the Paramount theater to a packed and rapturous audience. It was a movie about that audience. A movie that pulled back the curtain, revealed the tricks, and asked, “Why are we here?”.

 

Our 'Cabin in the Woods' showrunners.
Our ‘Cabin in the Woods’ showrunners.

 

It feels a bit strange then to be back a year later in the same theater with the same audience and watching a ‘cabin in the woods’ horror movie. Evil Dead, disregarding its pedigree, is a movie that would have been concocted by the string pullers in Cabin. It is a movie whose only purpose is to indulge its audience. It succeeds and was greeted with the same enthusiastic approval, but it still struck me as odd and got me thinking about the nature of fandom and what exactly a horror movie is supposed to be these days.

 

If you have no interest in my personal ramblings on the subject, I’ll get the review proper out of the way here so you can go about your lives. If you’re on a site like this, you already know about Evil Dead or, at the very least, the concept of a ‘cabin in the woods’ horror flick. Some kids go out to a secluded cabin, usually for the purposes of drinking and fucking, they encounter some evil shit, someone does something stupid, everyone dies. This is that movie, except this time their reasoning is an undercooked DIY rehab plan for an addict friend instead of the usual partying.

 

evil-dead-red-band-full-trailer

 

Evil Dead wastes very little time with exposition or character development and jumps right into the mayhem, and it is indeed mayhem. This is an over the top fun gore fest the likes of which we haven’t seen in decades. If you’re only interested in seeing blood splatter in inventive ways, there is no way you’ll leave disappointed. Apparently, the initial rating of the film was NC-17, and it’s easy to see why. What we saw was the R rated cut but let me assure you it does not feel compromised. I can’t imagine what they were forced to cut given what they were allowed to keep in. It’s fun and refreshing, which is slightly troublesome.

 

It’s also incredibly slick looking. Director Fede Alvarez takes plenty of cues from Sam Raimi and injects the film with plenty of energy without quite going full cartoon. It’s an admiral job of keeping the kinetic fun house vibe of the original series while also having the sheen of a studio flick with a budget. It’s worth noting that practical effects prevail here, with CG used fairly sparingly.

 

 

The lovely Jane Levy
The lovely Jane Levy

 

The actors all do a serviceable job of screaming and spewing viscera, but lead actress, and potential franchise star, Jane Levy is the only one allowed to really shine. No one is really given enough meat to chew on, metaphorically speaking. There’s plenty of literal meat. Levy is the only one with a real central conflict, as an addict trying to kick the habit and mend a broken relationship with her brother, but it’s just an excuse to get to the bloodshed. It’s not important and therefore doesn’t pay off in a satisfactory way.

 

It’s a lowest common denominator movie, but I liked it. I actually liked it a lot, and thats my problem. Is this good enough? I recognize it as an empty piece of fan service but I was entertained, so why try harder? Why care about theme and characterization when empty indulgence brings down the house?

 

The poster for the original film.
The poster for the original film.

 

You may be saying to yourself, ‘Well, it’s not like the original Evil Dead was anything different.’ You would be partly correct. Raimi’s classic barely had a skeleton of a plot and no concern for character. The only reason it’s protagonist became an icon is due to the idiosyncrasies and charm of Bruce Campbell. But the thing people forget about that first film is how god damn INSPIRING it is.

 

The Evil Dead, like many no budget horror films of the time, succeeds solely on the blood, sweat, tears, and imagination of a small group of people. There wasn’t endless studio money, there weren’t experienced cast or crew. It was just some kids with a dream. You can watch it and be amazed at their ingenuity and resourcefulness and think ‘Maybe I could do that’. Horror and exploitation cinema was really “indie” before that was a buzz word. Before Clerks and Slackers, there was The Evil Dead.

 

 

Sam Raimi on the set of 'The Evil Dead'
Sam Raimi on the set of ‘The Evil Dead’

 

It’s no coincidence that many of our visionary directors got their start in low budget horror. It’s the perfect playground. You can do whatever you want. Find a voice. And you can do it cheap and without the burden of expectation.

 

No one is going to walk away from this new iteration with that inspiration. You can’t do what this movie does without the resources. It loses some magic as a result. It’s a product instead of a labor of love.

 

But horror movie audiences have been all too eager to praise the product for years. It’s hard to think of a less discerning crowd. It seems just about any horror movie gets love just by existing. It doesn’t have to be good, it just has to cater. I’ve definitely fallen victim to this myself. Oh its got practical effects and a cameo from Tom Savini? Give it all the stars. Hell, I had a framed picture of Bruce Campbell displayed as if it was a family photo in my college apartment.

 

This blind adulation was on full display during Friday night’s screening, and I found it quite sad. There was no way the audience wasn’t going to love it, it caters as hard as it can. A shot of a chainsaw or a recognizable line of dialog insures that it will be beloved. I can’t help but feel we should require more. That we should force filmmakers to try harder. That we should desire horror to be about something other than shameless pandering.

 

Until that day, though, we have Evil Dead.

 

For another opinion, check out Jonathan’s review here!

 

EDNewPoster

We caught up with Steve Carell at the premiere of his new film, The Incredible Burt Wonderstone, and he shared with us what he thinks is the next video game that should be adapted into a film. And he did go on record and say he would be in the Minecraft movie if they made it. Yeah, we don’t know how you could adapt that one either.

 

We caught up with Olivia Wilde at SXSW yesterday and she revealed to us that she’s a huge Wonder Woman fan. She’s been a fan favorite for the role for awhile now and the actress enthusiastically stated that she would love to play the role in Warner Bros. upcoming Justice League film. Hell, she even did the pose. Should we just start the petition now?

 

Not long ago it was rumored that Marvel was looking at Jim Carrey and Adam Sandler for a role in James Gunn’s Guardians Of The Galaxy. Well, we caught up with Carrey at SXSW and asked him if he was going to be involved with the film. Check out his response below. Oh, and Carrey did confirm that he is indeed alive. Whew! We were kind of worried there for a second.

 

 

Now, this doesn’t mean that Marvel wasn’t looking at the actor for the role. It just means he probably never heard about it because it didn’t even get past his agents.

Right off the bat, put your fears aside about the new re-imagining of Evil Dead, because the movie rocks. And then prepare to have a whole bunch of new fears put right back… because it’s terrifying in the greatest way you can imagine. For over two decades we’ve been wanting a return to the Evil Dead franchise, but was what we wanted the serious horror of the original film or the colorful, comic book personality of the second and third? Or, like the evil book bound in human flesh that starts off each Evil Dead film, were things really best left untouched altogether? The idea of a revisitation to The Evil Dead has been with us so long that many of us no longer knew what we wanted. Luckily, Fede Alvarez’s “rebirth” (as he stated to a packed house last night) of the franchise in Evil Dead (just Evil Dead, to separate it from the previous The Evil Dead films) answers all of these questions in the best, most carefully designed way possible.

 

Evil-Dead

 

I’m as scared of ruining some of the great moments in the film as I was sitting in my seat watching it but I’ll give you the broad axe strokes. This is a completely new story, with a new cast of characters… who through their dealings with the book happen to sometimes run along similar actions to the events of the original (in some of the most satisfying ways). The movie is very much a straight horror, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t moments in which we see story elements or imagery from the first three films. The line between remake and original is walked so well that when the movie establishes itself as its own original story it’s refreshing and is allowed to cut loose in a lot of brutal and modernized ways. The last twenty years of horror trends, from the torture porns to the found footages to the Japanese films, have educated this new Evil Dead, and like the original did, it knows what it is, knows the landscape that it exists in and rises above anything else currently out there. This is the best (and coolest) horror movie I’ve seen in years and people in the theater were crawling out of their skin during more moments than I can count (I enjoyed watching the audience’s anguish and elation almost as much as I did the film).

 

Again, the characters are new, with a new band of fresh faced 20-somethings brought to the remote cabin for some time away from the city. But unlike the previous group’s weekend of drinking and smooching, this new group is driven by the need to intervene in their friend Mia’s addiction to heroine. Early on, as they watch Mia drop the last of her drugs down a well, they swear that no matter how bad her withdrawal systems get, they will not leave the cabin until she’s really clean… which obviously works to keep them there until long after the book has been discovered and it is much too late for any of them to leave.

 

evil-dead02

 

I loved this new grounded take. Not only did it work to humanize the characters beyond what we typically see in most cabin horror films, but it set up a lot of the mechanics of the story perfectly. The characters aren’t motivated to stay in the cabin just to artificially service the story (usually long past the point of common sense). They’re motivated by a real need that they are all focused on. And once the book has been activated, when the evil spirits of the Evil Dead begin to manipulate Mia, her first cries for help and possessed actions are written off as withdrawal symptoms or an attempt to get the group to abandon their intervention so she can return to the city and relapse. Really, the entire cast is great and do a solid job of making these characters believable even as the actions of the plot start to fly off the rails. Jane Levy as Mia and Shiloh Fernandez as her brother David really center the story with their family history of tragedy and estrangement. And when each of them are asked to step up and play the action hero, they do it fantastically. Unlike the literally fashioned, but still enjoyable, character stereotypes of last year’s Cabin in the Woods, Evil Dead does a great job of having you root for each of the central five characters, and when they fall victim to its horrors, every terribly brutal event is both horrifying and heart breaking.

 

And the movie is horrifying. It’s violent. It’s visceral. At times it is completely unrelenting. Evil Dead does not waste time getting to the point at all, and you’ll be satisfied by how soon after you’re sitting in your seat that you are reacting in terror. The story is economic and the scares are loud. Again, I’m desperately trying not to spoil how awesome so many of these moments are. Just think of it like this: in almost every horror films, you have heightened moments of horror that are alleviated by lower scenes of inter-character drama that help invest in the story. Well, this film is revved up early, and the rest of it roars like a chainsaw. The heightened moments of complete terror, with violently, brutal imagery and intense sound design, are only alleviated by smaller horrific scenes and desperate character moments. There really isn’t any part of this film that feels like a safe respite in any way. It epitomizes “edge of your seat” and should be seen in a crowded theater in the best way possible. People reacted to this film in a huge way.

 

Dead4

 

I’d love to spoil some of the details of the film, to tell you about all of the ways that it pays fantastic homage both literally and spiritually to the originals. I’d love to share these things with you if only to exercise some of the insanity that I experienced for myself. I’m still making sense of some of it and need help understanding (and appreciating) how a film this brutally graphic and violent possibly got released in this PG-13 day and age. But I won’t. I can’t. The best way to see this movie is to go in completely fresh, with only your love of the originals as your guide. This really was the best possible reinterpretation of the original The Evil Dead. Producers Sam Raimi, Rob Tapert, Bruce Campell and the rest of Ghost House Pictures really hit this one out of the park for both longtime fans and a new generation and they’ve proven themselves yet again to be master manipulators at the tops of their game. And as refreshing as that is, they’ve also put on notice anyone in Hollywood who wants to take something like a Friday the 13th or Nightmare on Elm Street franchise and simply repackage old ideas with a modern style. The success of these “rebirths” lies in their spirit, and that’s something that you can’t just point a music video director at and hope it survives. Fede Alvarez and company knocked this one out of the park in gut-wrenching fashion, through the story’s many twists and turns, surprises and scares, and I’m happy to report that the spirit of The Evil Dead absolutely lives on.

 

Looking for a second opinion? Check out KeyserSoze’s contrasting review here!

 

85-evil-dead-redband-trailer-2

Most geeks will remember Mark Webber as playing Stephen Stills in Edgar Wright’s ‘Scott Pilgrim VS The World’, but on this episode we barely talk Scott Pilgrim at all (sorry)! We spend most of it talking about Mark’s career, his new movie ‘The End of Love’ and his life before acting. How did he avoid becoming a Hollywood jerk? How has raising a child changed his view of video games and Star Wars? Plus, would he ever turn down a superhero or Star Wars movie? This interview rolls deep so get ready for it! And of course, my wife Laura calls in to give me some grief!

 

‘The End of Love’ love opens  in theaters today in Los Angeles and New York. For more information, visit the film’s website.

 

Did you know that Mondo has an art gallery in Austin, TX?

 

The gallery’s next event is just around the corner, and sounds absolutely amazing; Mondo has partnered with HBO for the event, which will be all about Game of Thrones. If you’re a Game of Thrones fan and either live near Austin or are heading to SXSW this year, you really need to check this out. The event will run from March 8th – March 12th.

 

Check out all the info in the press release below, and let us know if you’ll be attending! I’d love to check this out, but alas, I’m stuck up in Canada.

 

Mondo, the collectible art division of Alamo Drafthouse Cinema, is partnering with HBO’s “Game of Thrones” for a poster series and gallery event running March 8 – March 12, 2013.  The gallery will be open to the public on March 8 from 7:00 – 10:00pm with regular hours to follow for the show’s duration.  The Mondo Gallery is located at 4115 Guadalupe St. in Austin, TX.

Last year, Mondo and HBO’s “Game of Thrones” collaboration at San Diego Comic-Con was a huge success and this series takes that partnership to the next level with a wide range of spectacular original works and poster art from dozens of Mondo’s world renowned artists including Craig Drake, Daniel Danger, Jason Edmiston, Horkey, Jock, Phantom City Creative, JC Richard, and Ken Taylor. This special gallery event will also launch a Mondo poster series for the acclaimed HBO series, with 8 limited edition screen prints that will be available for purchase.  The exhibit will feature the first two posters in the series along with original fine art. Following the gallery exhibit, two posters will be released digitally each week leading up to the “Game of Thrones” Season 3 premiere on March 31, 2013.

“GAME OF THRONES is a favorite of ours at Mondo.  The gallery event is intended to honor the show’s attention to visual detail and the beautiful world that George R.R. Martin has imagined and series creators David Benioff and D.B. Weiss have brought to life. After the success of our San Diego Comic-Con initiative with HBO in 2012, we thought this was a perfect fit.  We hope the fans feel our work has done justice to the show,” says Mondo CEO Justin Ishmael.

The gallery event will also see the premiere of Brewery Ommegang’s new “Game of Thrones” beer where attendees, 21 and older, will be the first to taste the new beer.  Launching in tandem with the season three debut on March 31, Iron Throne, a Blonde Ale, is the inaugural beer in the series and the result of a creative partnership between Ommegang and HBO.  The collaboration is focused on developing unique beers that tie into themes and nuances of the medieval-like fantasy realm of Westeros. Iron Throne is a delicate, but piercing Golden Blonde Ale with Noble hops, a nod to having a Lannister currently on the Throne.  The beer will be nationally available on draft and in 750ml bottles, for the suggested retail price of $8.50 per bottle, beginning in mid to late March and will be followed by the launch of additional beers.

 

GOT image002

Writer Ken Kristensen drops by to talk about his Image book ‘Todd: The Ugliest Kid on Earth’… and he brings gifts! Jonathan talks ‘Warm Bodies’! Star Wars spin off movies! The Luna Brother’s ‘Sword’ is getting made! The filmmakers behind ‘Zero Charisma’ call in to talk geek cred! Paul Walker is the new Agent 47! There’s a vigilante cop loose in Los Angeles… is it Frank Castle? Plus! Can you be a hero after smashing someone in the head with a hatchet?

This was too awesome not to share. If you like monster flicks and B-movies, this is for you.

 

Today marked the release of the first trailer for Mike Mendez’s Big Ass Spider. If the name didn’t give it away, the movie features a giant spider hellbent on destroying Los Angeles. Greg Grunberg and Lombardo Boyar play the exterminators who must defeat it (after the army fails of course).

 

Sounds pretty awesome right? Watch the trailer below, and let us know what you think! Big Ass Spider is set to premiere during SXSW’s midnighters program!

 

I sit down with director Ciaran Foy to talk about his psychological thriller ‘Citadel’ and its autobiographical roots. Is it a horror movie? Is it not a horror movie? I really enjoyed this conversation, getting to talk to another director about motivated camera movements, externalizing the internal character beats and working to make an original piece of cinema. Did Ciaran succeed? Well, ‘Citadel’ won the midnight audience award at SXSW and comes out November 9th so be ready to find out for yourself! And in the meantime, I’m pretty sure you’ll enjoy this Geekscape!

Subscribe to the show on iTunes!

Much has been said about the strange career trajectory of Bobcat Goldthwait, the funny-voiced comedian who seem destined to be a relic of the 80’s, so I won’t waste too much time telling his story again. I love the story though. I love the idea that a respectable career grew from the least likely of places. At least, I’d like to be able to love the idea. As it stands, I have no idea how Goldthwait has garnered all the praise that he has. Is he being given a pass because people want to love the story as well?

I find Goldthwait’s movies painfully juvenile in the way he presents his angry diatribes about modern civilization. He lacks any sign of subtlety. He makes no effort to create characters that feel like they exist in anything resembling a real world. His grievances, which I 100% agree with by the way, are presented in a blunt inelegant manner that reminds me of conversations me and my friends would have when we were fresh out of high school and thought that we had the world figured out. It’s self-important soap boxing with no interest in presenting a balanced and realistic look at the troubles plaguing our society.

Now, this might not be so bad if he fully embraced the lunacy of his world. A lot of the complaints I have with Goldthwait could also be applied to Oliver Stone, who is certainly no stranger to soap boxing. However, in Natural Born Killers, Stone goes so over the top and so weird that the blunt messaging and unrealistic characters felt natural and had the intended impact. The cartoon world served as a good parody of ours. Goldthwait doesn’t go that far, his film worlds are not far removed from our own which makes his preachy characters and wooden dialogue stand out all the more.

I know I’ve written a lot without really saying anything about the movie in question but my criticisms of Goldthwait can be applied to any of his films, God Bless America just happens to be the latest and most egregious.

God Bless America is essentially one part Falling Down and one part Super (substitute Kick-Ass if you’re out of Super, it won’t alter the taste too much). A middle aged man gets fed up with the stupidy he sees in his neighbors, his workmates, his television, and even his kid. So he decides to go on a killing spree, targeting those he feels are most guilty for turning the world to shit. These targets range from spoiled teenagers to reality show hosts. He picks up an adoring 16 year old fangirl along the way who proves to be even more enthusiastic about this bloodshed than he is.

This lack of originality is one of the main reasons God Bless America ranks as the worst of Goldthwait’s films. Another major reason is his misguided attempts at being “edgy”. You get the sense that Goldthwait truly believes he is pushing envelopes with the “extreme” content of his films, but it mostly comes off as tired and laughable. His past movies have dealt with beastiality and auto-erotic asphyxiation but his approach to these topics just feels like a junior high kid who just learned how to curse.

It was funny seeing this film after talking to Mike Birbiglia about his film Sleepwalk With Me. Mike talked about how comedy has changed and how its hard to be edgy because at this point everything has been said and done. You can’t just say ‘cunt’ and get a reaction. He said really the edgiest thing you can do now is just to be honest. To let people in and tell your story. To open yourself up to scrutiny and criticism. To drop the facade of trying to be cool.

Goldthwait isn’t edgy at all, precisely because he’s trying SO hard to be.

I had the pleasure of sitting in on a roundtable interview with Mike Birbiglia to discuss his new film, Sleepwalk With Me. Sleepwalk is the latest, and perhaps final, version of a story Mike has been telling for years. You may have seen his one man show, or heard it in his stand up act, or heard it on This American Life, or maybe you read his book.

It’s a testament to his storytelling ability that it has managed to survive all these iterations and continues to garner interest.

The film is surprisingly sure footed for a first time director and the power of the tale has not diminished in the retelling. Mike’s unique voice shines through despite the more collaborative nature of film.

The interview is shown in full below. The questions have been paraphrased.

How did you decide that you wanted to make this a film, and how did you decide to direct:

No one else was available for the amount of money we had. For any of the positions. For all the positions. I took as many positions as I could. As much as that’s a joke, it’s also very true.

There’s a lot of questions in that.

How did we decide to make it a film? I guess that’s the first question. I’ve wanted to make a film since I was 18 years old. I directed shorts in college but I found it to be prohibitively expensive. It’s a money pit, making films. We have stacks of master tapes in our closets and our parents’ basement of films that aren’t done, shorts that aren’t done, and will never be done. That’s discouraging. I veered towards standup comedy around that time because there’s no overhead. I was able to perform my writing and I was able over time to sculpt my writing from something that was kind of short and joke based into something that had more of an arc to it. Just on stage with no cost, really. Film is so expensive, and its really because I’ve built up enough of an audience over the years that someone was willing to take a chance on financing my vision for a film. It’s the very rare company that’s willing to do that.

How has the story evolved over the re-tellings and does this feel like the final stamp on it:

No, I think this is the final stamp. Unless we make Sleepwalk 2. 2 Sleepy. 2 Sleepy 2 Furious. Or Sleepwalk 3D, of course. And the video game, obviously. And the line of pizzas. Pizzas and pizza pillows are of course on the way.

No, I think it’s the final one. It was definitely the hardest. Writing a book is hard, making a movie is unimaginable.

Does the line between reality and story get blurred the more you tell the story:

My life doesn’t have cinematography that good. The color palette in my real life isn’t that interesting. The clothes are better in the movie. I’m not nearly so fashionable.

No, that’s a really interesting question. Everytime I see it, and I watched it last night again, I shudder during the jumping through the window scene. It really makes me cringe, and fortunately the audience as well. There’s a little bit of blurring, but at the same time there’s so many decisions that go into every frame of the film that you just know so well how you got there. I feel like that actually kind of solidifies it. One of the things that struck me when I watched it last night was that we shot it so recently. We shot the movie in August, we wrapped in September, we edited it in October, November, and December. We got into Sundance with a cut of it and now we’re here. So it’s really recent, to the point that I remember the takes. I remember the takes that are on the screen. I don’t think a lot of filmmakers have that. I thinks is all kind of a blur because it was so long ago and they went through so many things. That final scene where I’m talking to the camera and I say I went to visit Abby and she said I didn’t want to hurt you, I remember that take. I remember the parking problems we had. When I pulled in we had to keep going around the block and in that take, I remember driving and remember seeing that there was an intern that had an orange cone and he was running away so I was trying to slow down so he wouldn’t be in the frame. So I’m directing and acting in my head all at the same time. I remember that like it was yesterday and I’m watching it on screen and thinking ‘This is forever’. This memory that I have is as real as going to CVS and picking up a toothbrush. It’s immortalized and that’s such a weird feeling.

Comedy these days is more personal, is your film part of that tradition:

I’ve been doing it for a while. It’s really just an extension of what I’ve been doing. I love Larry David and Louis CK’s work. I think what they’re doing is great. I’d like to think that we’re part of a comedy movement right now that’s moving away from observational comedy into something more personal and real. It’s just one person’s opinion, but it’s what I prefer because I feel it has more heart to it. It has more teeth. I feel like it’s a response to what was the Seinfeldian era or comedy, which was observational to a point of brilliance. Seinfeld did it so well and there were so many mimeographs of that style. At a certain point those mimeographs became so boring. Not only do you see it in stand up comedy, you see it in TV commercials. That’s kind of the ultimate way that you know when something is done. If it’s in a TV commercial, it’s over. I feel like observational comedy is a little bit over right now.

I interviewed Marc Maron on his podcast, and I asked him a question John Mulaney and I had come up with together. ‘What is edgy in an era where nothing is edgy anymore? In an era when everything seems to have been done or said?’ And Marc said being honest. It’s always hard to do. It’s always hard to be honest with an audience, because you’re taking a risk. You’re taking a risk of the audience not liking you. He said, and it’s not paraphrasing, people think it’s edgy to get up and say ‘cunt’ or ‘I fucked your cousin’ or whatever thing that raises peoples tether that are over 60 and are uncomfortable with words. But it’s actually more difficult to just get up and tell your story, and tell it honestly, and admit that you’re kind of wrong about things in a way that’s entertaining. And chances are those first few drafts of that are not entertaining.

And of course this period of comedy will also become watered down and mimeographed and it will become a Doritos commercial and it will be over. We’ll have to figure out some other form of comedy, but for now I think there’s a lot of really great examples like Doug Stanhope and Louis CK.

How did you find your voice as a director, there are some tracking shots that are impressive for a first time director (Mike Birbiglia requested we add this preface – This is a boring answer unless you already love the movie. If you love the movie, this is your question. If not, then don’t read further into this self-indulgent bullshit):

That was actually a funny day when we shot that, because our cinematographer just goes ‘We’re not shooting that’. We had scouted it and we had photo storyboarded the whole film. Our cinematographer was this brilliant guy, Adam Beckman, who had shot This American Life the TV series. Very meticulous, really brilliant. Understanding of light and color. Very meticulous. We had scouted that shot, came up with that shot and we were psyched when we came up with it. The more we thought about it we were like ‘This is going to be awesome’ because it’s going to get across the fact that he’s going to be on the second floor without telling the audience he’s on the second floor.

It’s interesting because it’s telling the story that he’s exhausted, he’s getting pressure from his parents, and he’s on the second floor. So when you come out of the dream your kind of know that in the back of your mind. So we thought it was a really interesting device and we were really excited about it. But then when it came to shooting on the day, the logistics of that shot were so hard. This was a low budget film. We didn’t have the time or resources to shoot that shot.

There’s a moment in that that we actually came up with on the day which is, on the elevator, the guy who is in the towel was a PA on the film. We got on the elevator and realized nothing happens on the elevator. I’m just on the phone. Elevators are boring. We hadn’t accounted for that. So it was me and Jacob and Seth going, ‘Well, what can happen on the elevator?’ I think it was Jacob who said ‘What if there is a guy going to the pool?” So I just said to James ‘Just keep talking to me, just keep trying to talk to me and I’ll blow you off and in ADR we’ll figure out how to choreograph the phone conversation with whatever we improvise.’ So in post we had Carol Kane come in and we did this really involved… basically the other side of that scene, audio wise. It was really time intensive to figure out the choreography of the phone call and that walk at the same time.

That was a really boring answer that is only for people who just love the movie. If you don’t love the movie don’t read this answer. You need a preface to that question. If you love this movie then this is your question, if not, do not read any further into this self indulgent bullshit.

When did you know you had a story worth telling:

The first time I told the actual sleepwalking and jumping out of the window story was at the Just For Laughs festival in Montreal, Canada. I had told it on the road, I was on this Comedy Central Live tour and I had come out with an album called Two Drink Mike and I found that for the first time in my career I showed up to places and people knew my jokes. So I couldn’t tell those jokes anymore. Comedy is not like music, once you’ve heard it you’ve heard it. You’re done. So people were kind of like ‘Alright, what else?’

I had been developing this one man show, Sleepwalk With Me, so I just started telling the stories from the show. I had written them never imagining that they’d be in standup. That was good but I had never done it in front of my peers in the industry at a festival. That’s a whole different thing. At The Just For Laughs festival is this show called Confessing It where you just tell a story you’ve never told in front of people. I told this story and it just killed in this way that was getting monstrous laughs and also was really connecting with the audience. It felt emotional. It felt like an emotional connection with the audience. I came offstage and Doug Stanhope said to me ‘Do you tell that story on stage?’ and I said ‘Yeah, I’m trying to.’ He was like ‘Yeah, that’s your thing. You should tell that. That’s great standup.’ That was a big summer for me. That was the moment I felt I was on to something.

There are four credited screenwriters, how did you keep it in your voice:

That’s because those guys didn’t do anything. You heard it here.

No, I appreciate that. Truthfully, there are four credited screenwriters but I have the document on my computer. I have the master document. I’m making sure that every contribution is fitting into a singular voice. That’s always the case when I’m working with collaborators. I’m always taking their suggestions and ideas and joke pitches and filtering them through what I was writing. It was weird. There’s all these weird WGA rules where we couldn’t write Written and Directed by Mike Birbiglia because there were other writers on it and because it was based on a play. I thought it was weird because I always thought it would say Written and Directed by  and then Screenplay by these people. That was kind of disappointing.

It also wasn’t a formal four person collaboration. It was like, I would work with Joe for a day, then I’d work with Seth for a day, then I’d work for a day with Seth and Joe, then I’d work for a day with Seth and Ira or with Joe and Ira. So it was very fluid and the crediting was weird. We didn’t know how to credit it, honestly. We had to talk to the WGA people and be like ‘How does this work?’ I was like ‘Here’s what happened.’

The action movie genre has been stagnant for quite some time. Sure, we get plenty of “action” movies full of posturing and special effects, but films like Taken or The Losers are lazy, sad excuses for action. We’re far from the golden days of Jackie Chan and John Woo, left with only the occasional Tony Jaa or Jason Statham movie to sate our appetite. Nothing makes this lack of quality more apparent than a movie like The Raid.

The Raid drops like an atomic bomb on the genre, completely destroying the competition. It’s simple and to the point. This is a movie about shooting and punching, and how cool those things are. We don’t get special effects laden video game cutscenes that lack any real thrill. We get real stuntmen doing real stunts, and doing them with an intensity and inventiveness that I haven’t seen since Jackie Chan was in his prime. You’ll absolutely see things here that will make you want to stand up and cheer.

One of the best things about the raid is how direct it is. The plot synopsis is the whole plot. Police officers need to “raid” a criminal owned apartment building. The movie starts as they begin the raid, and ends when the raid is over. There is no build-up, no bullshit. This is nearly two hours of non-stop action.

There is also a fun transition from a guns and explosions film to a martial arts film. The first half of The Raid is all intense firefights and has a frantic warzone feel. As the numbers and ammunition dwindle though, we start getting into the incredible hand to hand fights, all building up to one of the best fights ever committed to screen.

Most of these martial arts displays are courtesy of Iko Uwais, a new face to the action scene and the most exciting thing since Tony Jaa. Unlike Jaa, however, Uwais actually has charisma. You like the guy as a character, not just as a stunt machine.

Uwais is pitted against some of the best villains in recent memory. The main crime lord has a wonderful easy-going confidence with just the right amount of sleaze, and his diminutive henchman proves to be an equal match to Uwais’ fighting skills.

If I was forced to find fault here, I would say that the action peaks a bit too early. While the last half hour or so is a nonstop brawl, the individual moments within fights become less memorable as time goes on. You could also criticize the lack of depth in both the characters and the story, but that would be stupid. Character and depth are not why you are here. You get just enough to know who you are supporting and to possibly care about them enough that you’d want to see what happens in the sequel, of which two are planned.

If director Gareth Evans, who also directed Uwais in the film Merantau, can keep up the same level of insane action for the entire Raid trilogy, action fans have something to be very excited for indeed.

Every year at SXSW there is at least one “secret screening” which becomes a main topic of conversation for all festival goers.The debate and anticipation over what will be shown is almost always more enjoyable than what you end up getting. This year the exciting, and entirely improbable, rumor was that, since Joss Whedon was in town for Cabin in the Woods, we’d be getting The Avengers. People always seem to shoot for the stars with these predictions, even though history has shown that tentpole films NEVER show up in these slots.

This rumor was crushed early, however, as it was leaked that we’d be getting Sinister, an upcoming horror movie from local Aint It Cool critic C. Robert “Massawyrm” Cargill and Exorcism of Emily Rose director Scott Derrickson. So as delusional comic book fans shuffled away to other screenings or cheap drinks, I got in line to see if this critic turned screenwriter could add something new to the haunted house horror genre.

He could not.

Sinister tells the tale of a true crime author, played by Ethan Hawke, chasing the success of one of his early books, a success he’s been unable to repeat. He latches onto a new case of a bizarre family suicide and decides to make that the topic of his next book. He also decides the best way to get a feel for the crime is to move his family, unbeknownst to them, into the house where the event occurred. You can probably take it from here.

The problem with Sinister is not that it’s a bad movie, it’s really not. It’s just exactly what you’d expect from this kind of thing. The scares are telegraphed. The glossy filmmaking takes away from any visceral thrills. The supernatural villain is a bit silly. It’s just unmemorable in every way.

There is potential here for something truly unique and haunting, which makes the blandness all the more disappointing. The opening scene is truly unsettling and promises a different movie than the one you get. The opening shows a super 8 film of the suicide that is to become the subject of our leads next book. It’s shown in full and with minimal music or sound other than the clicking film reel. The method of suicide is different than anything I’ve seen before and I was really hoping that I was in for something not quite like anything I’ve seen before.

These super 8 films, more of which are discovered in the house, play a big role in the film and are all equally unsettling and shown in full. These are easily the best moments of the movie. They add an injection of style and horror that’s absent from the rest of the film, although their impact is lessened as the filmmakers decide to replace the unnerving silence with overwrought music.

The performances are solid and the personal drama of a writer so desperate to re-attain fame and glory that he endangers his family is actually well done. All the elements for something great are here, but they are just used as window dressing.

If you don’t mind the familiar formula and are just looking for an unchallenging horror flick to watch on Netflix with your girlfriend, you could certainly do worse than Sinister. It’s just hard not to pine for the movie it could have been.

It was more than two years ago that I first thought I would get a chance to see Cabin in the Woods. The film, shot in 2009, was rumored to be a secret screening at Fantastic Fest here in Austin. They were even handing out posters, each with phrase poking fun at horror tropes. “If you hear a loud noise outside….have sex.”

Alas, the rumors proved false, but the movie was supposed to come out in a few months anyway. Then MGM went bankrupt and Cabin in the Woods was shelved. A tough blow for the movie, and for the legion of Joss Whedon fans excited to see him and his crew take another shot at a feature length movie. Cut to this past weekend, two years later, where Cabin opened SXSW to near universal praise. I’d say it was worth the wait.

It’s tough to talk about the movie since much of the joy lies in the surprise. The less you know, the better. Unfortunately, the initial trailer, which I managed not to see until after viewing the movie, already gives away slightly too much. I’ll just say that Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard take your standard horror set up of a small group of college kids taking an ill advised vacation to the backwoods, and then proceed to deconstruct and then expand that into something jaw droppingly awesome.

The deconstruction is fun but, despite a unique premise, isn’t something particularly new. Ever since Scream this kind of meta commentary has become commonplace and audiences are well aware of the cliches. The recounting of horror movie rules doesn’t have the same effect as it did a decade ago. Just recently, movies like Behind the Mask and Tucker and Dale have found equally unique ways to cover the same ground. So while that bit is enjoyable, if that’s all Cabin was it wouldn’t have made much of an impact. The expansion, however, is spectacular. Just when you think you know what the movie is, it turns to something else and rides a geek adrenaline high all the way till the end.

Joss and Drew, writer of Cloverfield and many Buffy/Angel episodes, are masters at creating “the moment”. The build up and pay off of set pieces are absolutely perfect. It’s musical in the way everything flows together and builds to a climax. This is a movie where they somehow made the ‘ding’ of an arriving elevator one of the most exciting things you’ve ever seen. It’s impressive.

The cast is a mix of Whedon regulars and new faces, and maybe a surprise appearance or two. Kristin Connolly is perfectly charming and sympathetic as the ‘virgin’ lead. Chris “Thor” Hemsworth takes a backseat in this pre-fame ‘jock’ role and it’s interesting to see him play a college kid after larger than life turns as a god and Kirk’s dad. Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford are wonderful and provide the films biggest laughs. The only performance I had an issue with was from Dollhouse co-star Fran Kranz. Fran is the ‘stoner’ of our stereotypical group and is given some of the best lines, but he overplays the “I’m so high, man” thing and is never believable. This is particularly unfortunate since his character is essentially the audience surrogate. He’s the one who speaks for us, just in a silly voice.

Even Kranz is redeemed by the films incredible climax, though. It’s something that must be seen, preferably with a group of like minded friends. It’s a fist pumping, spontaneous clapping, holy shit celebration. During the Q&A, an audience member asked the crew if they knew they were making the last horror movie ever. In some ways that feels accurate, as this takes the genre and blows it sky high. It’ll be interesting to see what future filmmakers make from the rubble.