Category Archives: Reviews

Movies, Reviews

Kageoween: Devil in the Dark Movie Review

Leave a comment

INTRODUCTION
     The poster looks like a cross between Donnie Darko and The Knights of Ni from Monty Python, but this is a serious movie. It’s a character piece, dealing with the trials and tribulations of family and strain that the past can cause, that sees two brothers, reunited after 15 years, on a camping trip, that results in supernatural horror.

CHARACTERS
     I like this trend that I seeing when picking movies for reviews. A lot of them are old school in storytelling, with putting suspense and storytelling at the top of the list. This movie really works to establish a bond between the two main characters and showcase a rift between brothers that could start to mend during a hunting trip.

     From the first frame, we’re thrust into two brothers so fraught with tension, you could cut it like a knife before you’re even 15 minutes into the flick. One brother is more than hinted at as being a leftist, with his conspicuous Che Guevara shirt as he shoots pool with his friends at a bar, the flashback to childhood and his anti-hunting stance, his inability to let his childhood die and a line about his deceased father thinking he was a homosexual. The other brother is straight, family man, with hunting in his blood. They shy away from making him a full on conservative, though. The typical brotherly divide will make up a majority of the movie and it is believable that these two are brothers.

ACTING
     The acting is kind of weak in the beginning, with the flashbacks being the best, but by the time we get into the middle of the film, it seems as if both actors have found their bearing and are more than comfortable with their characters. The rest of the cast a decent in their roles with little to complain about, for the short amount of time they’re on screen.

STORY
     There is only so much you can do with a story about two brothers going into the woods on a hunting trip, even with supernatural elements, but this did very, very well in regards to character building. Sadly, it kind of fails in the suspense category. While they built up characters well, they missed a lot of opportunity to really amp up the tension and give the characters a battle. It never seemed like their lives were in jeopardy for us to ultimately care about the climax. At one point, the younger brother falls and breaks his arm, but this would have serviced the movie better, earlier on. The older brother moves from barley skeptical, to scared with little to be scared off, minus a cave filled with deer antlers. The movie reminds me of a standalone X-Files episode, where the editor forgot to add in footage of Mulder and Scully to round it out. I’m not sure what the creature is, but clearly it is after the youngest one, for unknown reasons. Also, there is this weird false finish a few times, which seems more like no one was paying attention to continuity as opposed to a part of the story, especially with the younger brothers arm, now fine.

     The climax was a cliché and a bit of a letdown, as they both get away too easy, but at the same time, it leads to a weird twist, that is just kind of there, before ending abruptly, leaving more questions than answers.


VISUALS
     This movie looks great, it is lit well. This isn’t filled with anything fancy, short of a few crane shot, giving us a wide eye view of the beautiful, but eerie forest. Not too much to write about, it.


CONCLUSION
     This movie despite its flaws, has charm and merit to the story. It could of use a bit more friction from the antagonist of demon, ghost, thing a bob, whatever the hell it was, to build up the suspense and give our desire to care about these characters getting to safety. Ultimately, this movie does the opposite of what most movies do and develops the characters too much and leaves the tension building on the cutting room floor. I think making this a horror movie was a mistake, as it might have worked as anything but. Overall though, another nice throwback to older films, when the audience who enjoyed them didn’t have ADHD and could pay attention to story.
This gets a 3 out of 5.

Movies, Reviews

Kageoween: Hell House LLC, Movie Review

Leave a comment

INTRODUCTION

     I cannot stand found footage films. I loathe this genre with every fiber of my being. One might think that being 13 when the film that started it all, The Blair Witch Project, came out, would of impacted me. It would be like being around when the original Halloween came out and propelled one of my favorite genres in Horror, the slasher, into the stratosphere. It wasn’t the same for me. In fact, the only influence The Blair Witch Project had on me was making me realize that any idiot could do a film and that made me want to make a movie more. Otherwise, I thought the flick sucked. I have seen the majority of movies in this genre up until Paranormal Activity 3 and that was when I stopped bothering. Those films were way too polished and obvious in set up.

     This film, on the other hand, I found to be pretty decent and not just for a found footage film, but I mean for horror in general. This is one of the more unique films out there at the moment.

CHARACTERS
     So we have our typical group of decent looking, young twenty something’s who run a business. You have the leader, his girlfriend and couple of his friends. Instead of partying though, these kids are Hallopenuers! They’re looking to set up another haunted house and make money, like any typical young capitalist. I would mention their names, but they’re slightly forgettable. That is actually a slight problem with this film. The characters are slightly shallow. Thankfully, they’re real characters and not your run of the mill, drink, fuck and bone types, albeit, some beer is imbibed.
None of the characters are really developed either, this is a typical horror aspect at work and a really sad aspect of the film because it would of made the movie feel like a lot more was at stake and we would care, but atlas, that t’was not to be.

     The leader is an awkward character, it’s hard to believe he cares too much about his girlfriend or if he does care, it’s poorly expressed. One dude has a slight thing for the leader’s girlfriend, this is about as much depth as a character gets and is very weird to give a B character the character flaw. Normally flaws are reserved for the hero, not the first victim on the chop block. At one point, we’re told through exposition, about the deep boyhood friendship shared by two of the characters. I know showing this through hours and hours of video tape would be a pain in the ass, but it should have been better than some random being interviewed who is an expert on this case, maybe? I don’t know, it doesn’t really mention his credentials or why the hell he would be interesting to us to listen to, but by today’s “standards”, random internet trolls are all over the documentary scene, so it works. Regardless, the characters, while not as full or well-rounded as they could have been, worked out well enough for the story being told.

ACTING
     The acting was unusually better than most these films have. Although the actors seem like actors, as opposed to genuine characters. Perhaps the fault of a rookie director or maybe just the best take they could muster. Either way, I’ve seen much worse and don’t find this to be a horrible display of acting.

STORY
     The story was very interesting and well thought out. The tension building was right, it was slow and methodical, with each moment heightening the tension. It’s an old school horror movie in a modern skin and it shows, crafting a fantastic throwback to older 70’s and 80’s horror, where suspense and story was king. This does old school well and only those with a love for the genre of horror will really appreciate this detail, I think. Especially with all the Saw style editing. The only two flaws with the story is the twist, which I saw coming a mile away, but that didn’t detract from the fact it was interesting, even if done before. Also, the last year the hotel being active was late 80’s or early 90’s. It hasn’t operated in nearly 20 years, yet a modern bottle of Jack Daniel’s can be seen, among the artifacts.

VISUAL
     This movie looks like shit and that is part of its charm. It is hard to call your movie found footage when your lighting is professionally done and that has always been a gripe I had with these films. This movie feels like a compromise between being able to see the film and what is going on, but looking home movie like and keeping with a home video quality at the same time. In fact, only a few scenes looked awkward, one after a freak out moment in the field seemed out of place, like they didn’t bother to edit it in post, but besides that, it was very well shot and very well lit, creating a great balance between practical lighting and storytelling.

OVERALL

     The film, despite its flaws, is very enjoyable. One could point to any number of flaws in the classics and those are still held in high regard, which is why I am focusing on what it did right, as opposed to some of the weaker aspects. This film nailed storytelling. It knew suspense as well as atmosphere, it built well, even if the climax didn’t shock me. Overall, this movie is a welcome addition to the horror genre, regardless. It’s been a while since I’ve seen a film not rely on jump scares, music in place of suspense and a lack of gore, in order to tell a story. This is where it stands out and what it ultimately did best.

     I give the movie 3 ½ stars out of 5.

——————————————
Minor edits to the text: 10/2/18 11:35 pm

Books, Reviews

Kageoween: Frankenstein Book Review

Leave a comment

INTRODUCTION

     Frankenstein, for all the pop culture surrounding it, isn’t a horror novel. Not in the traditional sense anyways. I see that as a shallow view of the book and a literal interpretation. Much has been said over the years about it dealing with fear of technology, science and modern advancement and given the history of the era, one cannot be faulted for thinking such, especially because Christianity still had a massive foothold. What about the book in 2018 though? If anything, Frankenstein is about the horror of humanity and its decrepit ugliness towards anything that is left of center or queer and the plight of humanity vs growth.

     The book follows multiple narratives and interweaves an intriguing story that really only drags in the middle. The rest of the book advances at a great pace and tells the story with prose that is stylistic, as opposed to seeming outdated. It’s quite easy to understand, although the narrative switch for me, wasn’t exactly clear at one point. Despite all that, the book and its central themes are fantastic with very little to complain about.

CHARACTERS
     The book has three main point of views, Victor Frankenstein as told through a primary narrator named Robert Wolton, the monster itself and various others through letters. Legend has it that the book was created as the result of a party were all guest agreed to write a horror story and this is the result of such. Marry Shelly was alleged to have struggled with coming up with an idea, which the multiple point of views tend to allude to.

     Victor Frankenstein has the most development of all the characters with the monster coming in second place. Everyone else, even when they seem important to the plot, are kind of just there. Not like background characters, but given the fact they have names and we’re exposed to some of their history through exposition, one would think they would have been important enough to warrant more development then they had.

STYLE AND PLOT
     Having been written 200 years ago, the prose hold up, very well. It’s similar to the modern novel in a lot of ways by exhibiting concise, basic prose, but still with evocative imagery, so that allows anyone to follow along with the story. Very accessible to the average reader with enough depth to satisfy anyone who demands more from their lit.

     The overall plot, if you can call it that, is as follows: Dr.Frankenstein created a being from unknown science, his monster took on a mind of his own. The monster taught himself to read, speak and learn. Unable to live in society, he is basically exiled and doomed to a life of loneliness, when returns to ask the good doctor to make another in his image and is refused, turning the monster to enact revenge upon him, which results in the death of both.

THEMES
     Besides writing, the themes is where the story is truly at. One could cull so many different interpretations from this work. It could be seen as the story of Lucifer, cast from heaven, making the renegade angel of enlightenment a lot more sympathetic. Given the time frame though, I doubt Mary Shelly or anyone would of consider admitting to such. One can view this as being a woman in the time frame, constantly turned away from manly endeavors that they’re just not built for, which is why this book was originally published anonymously, I’m sure and only bore her name years later.

     Other interpretations could be relating to being a monster or outcast as a teenager or in our modern area, being an Incel, since the monster is very much Incel like in demeanor with similar demands for a wife.

     Still, none of these seem like very good interpretations, but a few are dated. My own personal interpretation is the monster is representative of intellectualism, which is why the monster’s story is similar to Lucifer in the bible. There is innumerable evidence to back this up, including, but not limited to: The monster rebelling against his creator, the love for learning, being cast out and most importantly being misunderstood by the more emotional humans that plague the lands of this tale. Frankenstein is doing his best to live in a world that values emotion over logic and intelligence and is doing a poor job at such. No matter what, he is constantly exiled and seen as a monstrosity.

     When a young woman is executed for murder of a young child, the monster is undoubtedly to blame. This is fantastic use of metaphor, since the monster is intellect and the child is innocents and people fear that knowledge would lead to a loss of that innocence. So not only are the townspeople enraged, but they are also hasty to point the finger and hang an innocent woman.

     Almost every negative thing in this book is a direct cause of others letting their emotion rule them as opposed to being in control of themselves. They project their worst habits on the monster, enough though the monster is never really described. It leaves one to see the monster as the hero instead of everyone around him, who are all too willing kill, point the finger, flip out or destroy someone without due cause. It is the intriguing concept of humanity in all forms that really drives the narrative and makes it an enjoyable read.

CONCLUSION
     Frankenstein isn’t horror and the idea it is, 200 years on, is ashame. It’s called the original science fiction novel and while it has those tropes, I wouldn’t call it that either, since Sci-fi is often denoted by its obsession with technology. In a lot of ways, it is a gothic weird tale, but even that doesn’t really do the story justice in terms of describing it. The only way to really describe it, would be to call it what it is, that is character driven lit and our attitudes, prejudices and intolerance to difference in this world, no matter the era that keep this book being reprinted over and over again, to be enjoy and inspire future generations.
Five out of Five Stars

Books, Review

Ghostly: Book Review

Leave a comment

     This is going to be one of my shortest reviews. Ghostly, the anthology is a collection of older writers and modern writers. Most the stories are excellent, but Audrey’s is where i’m perplexed by its consideration for inclusion.

     You may know her from the movie based on her book The Time Traveler’s Wife as opposed to horror, although, she has a few credits in that genre.

     The books central theme is ghost. Although the cover would make you think it was cats, especially since her story and Edgar Allen Poe’s The Black Cat are both printed in this. The art on the cover is beautiful and the book is bound with sturdy binding. The text and pages are bright and easy to read.

     Each story has a introduction blurb to the story you’re about to read and all stories are a great inclusion into this set.

     The problem I’m trying to figure out, as stated above, is the reason for the inclusion of her story. Out of all the stories, this one is by far the most amateurish of them all. It lacks suspense, character, story and most of all, everything is told, as opposed to show. This wouldn’t be a bad thing if this collection was like Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark but it isn’t. It seems like the only reason to bother with this anthology was to publish this one story of hers. I cannot see any other reason she needed to put this together. I would presume that she had a lot of emotion invested into that story and as such, she wanted it published somehow and this was the only way to get it to the reader, editor be damned!

     Interestingly enough, the story still works, albeit, with extremely poor prose and structure, but I can only imagine how much more powerful the climax might of been had she attempted to build up suspense, instead of this awkward telling which ultimately leads to a let down and cliched ending.

     Had this just been an anthology with works that influenced her style that had introductions and maybe even scholarly notes about each individual work, it would of been a fantastic book. As it stands, it just an unnecessary collection using work of other authors to push her own into the spotlight and that is one of the saddest take away besides the list of notable authors who go second billing to herself.

     I give the collection 3 out of 5 stars.You won’t be saddened for having spent your money, since almost every story is excellent, but you’ll scratch your head as to why this book even needed to be made in the first place.

Books, Review

Lolita:Book Review

Leave a comment

INTRO

What can be added to a book that is over 50 years old? What new insight, Easter eggs, subtext or discussion could matter? Very little, I would presume, so I’m just going to go over the book and give my opinion on what I took away and if it is worth the time to read.

SUMMERY
Lolita see protagonist Humbert Humbert, who has suffered a grave childhood trauma of losing his first love come upon a family of two in the 1940’s. Humbert is instantly smitten with young Delores Haze, who he affectionately refers to as Lolita. Humbert is unable to woo his would be child lover into his arms in the beginning, so he marries the sexually aggressive mother, just to stay close to Lolita. One day, the mom gets struck by a car and H.H. decides he and Lolita are to take a road trip, where they would make dozen of stops, as a May-December version of Bonnie and Clyde, but with less tommy guns and more sexual deviance. One day, while hospitalized, Lolita is kidnapped by a man who had been following them and H.H. spends the next several years attempting to track her down. In the end, a message from Lolita and her new husband, that allows for the reconnection between her and H.H. and the resulting down fall of our protagonist, whom cannot handle having lost his beloved.

Ultimately, Lolita is a “serious comedy” if you will and funny, even to those who won’t get the references and Easter eggs the Nabokov left within the text. I have never read any of the romances for which the book parodies, but I could help but laugh out loud at the right times. The fact that young man such as myself, can pick up on the humor, being 31 years removed from the publication date and still laugh out loud, is the hallmark of a brilliant writer.

STYLE
The prose is fantastic and very vivid, for a guy who wasn’t a native English speaker, he really, really understood how to woo us with the beautiful word choices and evocative imagery. There are natives of the language that can barely utilize English to craft a book report, let alone an entire novel and do it so well, that one has to wonder about their own prose and if they’re using their native tongue to its fullest. Nabokov really seems to love English and it shows.

CHARACTERS
The characters is where we run into a slight bit of trouble, but not too much. Lolita is barley developed, no pun intended. She has no internal monologue in regards to the adventure these two are one, this isn’t a new criticism but a valid truth hood. Would it have suffered to give her an internal monologue? No, because there is enough exposition to let us be aware what she is thinking. Albeit, internal discussion for the character in regards to a development of Stockholm syndrome, may have made the poignancy of her kidnapping a tad bit more shocking and sad to the reader.
Humbert is the narrator and unreliable at that. He is charming, witty, well read and ultimately a lovable protagonist when he should be reviled for his sickness. This is great character development, since writing likable characters requires a flaw they possess in order to make them enjoyable, just as the villain must have a likable trait to make him less than one dimensional. There can be no greater flaw than pedophilia and the fatal attraction between H.H. and his love interest.

With the exception of Cue Quilty, whom needed far more development than he had so the ending resolution would carry far more gravitas than it ultimately did.

The rest of the characters were merely background.

CONCLUSION
We shouldn’t like Humbert, but we do. The interesting character arch from pedophile to actual dad has got to be the most unqiue arch in history. His liveliness draws us and takes hold as we become party to sexual assault. The beautiful prose is used to merely cover up the indecency of an adult man having kidnapped and forced Lolita into a life of running and rape at every motel and hotel they could afford and would have lasted until Humbert was done with her. The down ending is really an upbeat one, as Lolita has managed to escape her past to an extent, but since Humbert is writing this as memoir, she will never truly be able to escape it, always looming over her, like a black cloud. Not long after getting away from Humbert, she starts to already exhibit some symptoms of PTSD and for something that wasn’t as well known in the post-World War Two era, it is shocking how Nabokov could understand it so well and enhance his work with it. No to mention that little was known on Pedophiles and yet, he created the grandest of profiles on exactly how a lot of Humberts ilk are. This is FBI profiling in prose form and excellent at that. It should be taught in those courses, if it isn’t. The fact that it was decades ahead of people who analyzed criminals for a living is a testament to the genius of Nabokov. You are better off for having read this book than you would be by advoiding it, the fact that it has survived over 50 years is widely read is very telling. Nabokov is ultimately the Shakesphre of his time period, with only a fistful of others living up to such a moniker. Five out of Five stars!

Books, Reviews

Heffalumps and Woozles: A Review of Stephen King’s book, IT

3 Comments

     32 years ago, a book was released by a pretty well-known writer. The book was called IT and the author is Stephen King. Maybe you heard of him? Stephen King is the guy who wrote fantastic books like Carrie, Salem’s Lot, The Shinning and The Stand. When it comes to his early professional works, 1974-1980, King really knew what he was doing. He developed great characters, top tier concepts, vivid but accessible prose and took on subjects like an author of Literature.

-Click to read more>