Unfriended (2015) review

The recent advancements in technology over the past few years have allowed us to further connect with people in ways we never could before, especially with the creation of social media networks like Facebook and Twitter. However, this isn’t always a good thing. If I haven’t said it before, I’ll say it now; sometimes the internet can tend to be really negative. I’ve seen that plenty of times when it comes to film discussions but then you also have something much, much worse like cyber-bullying. As if bullying wasn’t bad enough, now bullies are able to torment their victims online, in many cases anonymously meaning that the bullying victim could potentially have no way of finding who’s doing it to them. This whole practice sets up the plot of Blumhouse Productions’ newest film, ‘Unfriended’, in which an extreme act of cyber-bullying comes back to haunt a bunch of teenagers who were at the forefront of it all. As I’ve mentioned before, I’m really not the biggest fan of horror films. I don’t really go see horror films in the theater unless the premise intrigues me. Hence why last year, around this exact time in fact, I went to go see the film ‘Oculus’ which, if you recall, I wasn’t the biggest fan of (though I do promise that I’ll give that film a second chance in the future). So ‘Unfriended’ was another case of a horror film that actually did interest me based on its premise; either that or I’ve been inundated with its ads online for the past month, which sort of made me obligated to check it out.

It is established that, a year before the events of the film, a high-school student named Laura Barns (Heather Sossaman), committed suicide after being mercilessly tormented by her peers after an embarrassing video of her passed out drunk at a party was posted online. Exactly one year after this, a bunch of her former classmates; Blaire (Shelley Hennig), Mitch (Moses Jacob Storm), Jess (Renee Olstead), Ken (Jacob Wysocki), and Adam (Will Peltz), have a group chat on Skype. Everything seems to be going well until they realize that there’s another person in the chat with them; ‘billie227’. They soon realize that this anonymous account belonged to Laura and despite all of their efforts, they have no way of getting rid of this mystery caller. Soon enough, the caller starts to become much more threatening towards them, demanding them to tell it who was responsible for posting the video of Laura and threatening to kill them if they sign out of Skype. As time goes on, and the mysterious force begins to take them out one by one, the friends’ dark secrets begin to be uncovered. Not only do these reveals test their friendship, but it’s shown that they actually played a major part in Laura’s harassment, including the fact that one of them was the one responsible for posting the embarrassing video of her in the first place.

So the idea behind this movie is that it all takes place on Blaire’s computer screen as the main characters are chatting on Skype. As gimmicky as that sounds, and let’s be honest it sort of does, it is actually done to pretty great effect here. It’s not like it all takes place on Skype, which definitely could’ve become really boring after a while. Throughout the film, we see Blaire do other things on her computer, like watch videos online, send messages to her boyfriend Mitch and later ‘Laura’, and so on. And because it centers on Blaire more than the other main characters, we do definitely see the whole situation from her point of view, like how sometimes she re-types some of her responses to people online. The film also does a good job establishing a sense of ‘realism’ (you know, as ‘realistic’ as a horror film can get) through the way the Skype conversation is presented. Having used Skype many times before to record podcasts with my group ‘The Feature Presentation’, we have experienced problems such as lag and audio/video cut-offs. In any other movie, the ‘call’ that the characters are in probably would’ve looked ‘perfect’ without any issues arising with the technology. But that’s not the case here, as we do frequently see the video lag and cut off video and audio at times. Technically speaking, this is sort of along the lines of being a ‘found-footage’ film. As such, it actually does do something new with the genre, which I think we can all agree has been generally overdone in the past few years.

I loved the ways that ‘Laura’ messed with her victims, like in one scene she has them play the game ‘Never Have I Ever’ and as the game goes on, some of their dirty secrets are brought up, from rumors that they’ve spread about each other to affairs that they’ve had behind their friends’ backs. Heck, at one point, as they start to argue, ‘Laura’ starts playing a song about liars that can’t be turned off, which I thought was pretty funny. The film does highlight why cyber-bullying is a bad thing, but that also results in some of the film’s shortcomings. Because the thing is, being that this film is about a bunch of teens who are being targeted by a supernatural force because of their participation in the bullying that one girl had to deal with, the main characters aren’t exactly likable. But then again, they’re basically just your standard horror film character stereotypes so we don’t really care about them anyway. This is one case where you do actually find yourself rooting for the killer. But ultimately, we don’t ever really learn anything about this ‘killer’ either. I mean I know the film is implying that it’s Laura but at no point do we ever get an official answer on that or how this is all being done. Heck, at one point, I thought it was going to be that the killer was revealed to be Laura’s uncle, who’s mentioned at one point in the film during a conversation between Blaire and Mitch. I’m not spoiling anything when I say that it isn’t.

In the end, I guess you can say that I admire this movie more for its execution than I do in regards to the writing. Because while this film does show why cyber-bullying is just bad on all accounts, this also means that the main characters, who are all horror stereotypes, are unlikable because they played a part in the cyber-bullying of their classmate Laura, who ended up killing herself because of it. And as much as this is a case where, given the situation, you’re actually rooting for the killer due to what happened to her, we never get a clear idea of who this killer is supposed to be or how this is even happening in the first place. Without the whole ‘online/Skype’ angle, this would’ve just been your run-of-the-mill clichéd teen horror flick. It still is, but because of the inventive direction they took with telling the story, as well as its solid establishment of realism primarily though portraying the typical Skype conversation, it’s not as big of an issue here compared to a film like ‘Annabelle’ or ‘Ouija’. Of course keep in mind I’m not a fan of horror films so these aren’t the kind of movies I usually see. But even with that said, I did like ‘Unfriended’. I may not have been ‘scared’ by it, per se, but I will give it credit for actually doing a really good job in terms of suspense and paranoia through its solid execution of its online-themed set-up. As far as horror films go, I can’t say that this is an absolute ‘must-see’ but given some of the other horror films that have come out over the past few years, this one does have more to offer.

Rating: 3/5

Scream Retrospective

With Halloween upon us once again, it’s time for another retrospective post on an iconic horror film franchise. Like last year, the decision on what franchise I would do for this year’s post came down to two choices. The one that I decided to go with for this year’s post was actually the franchise I was considering to do last year before I decided to review the ‘Evil Dead’ movies; the ‘Scream’ franchise. I was originally considering doing a retrospective on the ‘Paranormal Activity’ franchise mainly because I figured that it would be more relevant considering that this franchise is still going compared to ‘Scream’ given the last film in that series was released three years ago. But, at the suggestion of my co-panelists on ‘The Feature Presentation’, I decided to do ‘Scream’ instead due to the fact that ‘I would have more to talk about’ with these movies. Plus, there have been reports of a ‘Scream’ TV series in the works so I guess this franchise can be considered ‘relevant’ right now. I’ve noted before that I’m not a huge fan of horror films, mostly just because it isn’t really my thing. But ‘Scream’ is the first major horror film franchise that I’ve watched completely so at this point, I guess you can say that this franchise served as my main introduction to the horror genre. So without further ado, let’s look back upon the series of films that posed one simple question; ‘What’s your favorite scary movie?’ These are the ‘Scream’ movies.

SCREAM (1996)

The first ‘Scream’ movie, directed by iconic horror director Wes Craven and written by Kevin Williamson, served as the revival of the horror film genre when it was released in 1996. Before that, the genre had grown tired and clichéd. So what did ‘Scream’ do? It made fun of this fact as the characters within the movie were all very much aware of the clichés of the genre. In other words, this was a screenplay that was full of meta dialogue and it is done to great effect here. But at the same time, ‘Scream’ is also a legitimately scary movie. Craven does a great job of establishing the mood and atmosphere right from the get-go with an opening sequence that back then clearly must’ve surprised anyone who thought that Drew Barrymore’s character Casey was going to be the main character. Although it is just a movie, this does feel like it could happen in real-life; after all, this was inspired by the case of the Gainesville Ripper. This film also benefits from where it’s set; in the scenic valleys of California. The finale takes place in a house in a rather secluded area, which really establishes a sense of tension and suspense as it feels like the characters are on their own, cut off from the rest of the world. All in all, ‘Scream’ is not only a great horror film but also a very smartly-written horror film that was very much self-aware of how repetitive the horror genre had become at the time.

Rating: 5/5!

SCREAM 2 (1997)

Just like its predecessor, ‘Scream 2’ pokes fun at the many clichés of the horror genre but with this, there’s an added layer when it comes to parodying the genre; horror sequels. As we all know, most sequels are never as good as the originals, especially when it comes to horror films. Thankfully, ‘Scream 2’ ends up being one of the best horror sequels to date. It maintains the same level as suspense and tension from the original as well as the ‘self-aware’ nature that made the first movie so great in the first place. Of course, as is common with pretty much every sequel, ‘Scream 2’ also ‘ups the ante’, moving from the quiet town of Woodsboro to a college campus while also progressing the story and characters (more specifically, those that survived the events of the first ‘Scream’) further. It may not ultimately be as good as the first film, and as we’ll soon see, the decision to kill off Randy (Jamie Kennedy), arguably the best character in the entire series, will ultimately end up working against the series. Still, ‘Scream 2’ manages to be another solid horror film and if anything, it’s one of the best sequels of the horror genre.

Rating: 4/5

SCREAM 3 (2000)

‘Scream 3’ is the only film in the series not to be written by Kevin Williamson… and that is one of the key reasons why it is ultimately the weakest entry in the entire series. There are quite a few reasons as to why this is but the biggest reason is that after two films that did a great job of parodying the horror genre and its clichés, this film now falls victim to a lot of those clichés to the point where sometimes you wonder if this is even supposed to be in the same universe as the first two films (as I noted earlier, killing off Randy… not really a good move). And while the first two films both had a memorable cast of characters, this one doesn’t. Well, Parker Posey does manage to stand out amongst the new additions as the actress playing Gale in the fictional ‘Stab’ movies originally based off of the events of the first film (a ‘movie within a movie’) but for the most part it’s just your typical cast of ‘horror movie characters’ just there to be killed off. Save for Posey, you’re not going to remember any of them, especially the one who ends up being the main villain. Not only that, but the filmmakers also add in a twist connecting the killer to Sidney. This twist tries to connect the film to the events of the first film but ultimately comes off as being sort of unnecessary if you really think about it.

The film also does a poor job in handling the characters of Sidney and Gale. In the case of Gale, she’s gone from being the hard-nosed reporter that she was in the last two films to being incredibly dependent of Dewey for pretty much the entirety of this film. As for Sidney, it’s nothing about her actual character but more of the fact that she’s not in the movie as much. This is due to the fact that, at the time this was being filmed, Neve Campbell was busy with other projects. This means that she was only on set for about 3 weeks, resulting in a much more limited screen-time compared to her fellow cast members. I didn’t note this with either the first or second film but I feel that Campbell and the character of Sidney are the main highlights of the franchise. Sidney is a very likable character and we sympathize with her given her tragic backstory; that being the death of her mother. That and Campbell does a fantastic job in the role so in short, the best scenes are ‘Scream 3’ are when she’s on screen and the movie genuinely loses something whenever she’s not on-screen.

I’m guessing that with this film, most people will put the blame on writer Ehren Kruger, who has since gone on to write the much maligned ‘Transformers’ sequels and while I have made it very much clear that I do like those movies, it’s never been for the writing. However, in the case of ‘Scream 3’, it’s not really Kruger’s fault as he was brought into a franchise he was unfamiliar with. In reality, the main one to blame here is the studio, Dimension Films. They were basically rushing the film so that it could be finished on time for the planned release date. This is why Kevin Williamson was unable to return to write the film as he was busy with another project. This is why Neve Campbell was only able to be on set for 20 days, hence why the character of Sidney isn’t in the movie as much. ‘Scream 3’ is, to put it quite simply, the Hollywood-produced version of ‘Scream’ and not the smart referential meta-horror movie that its two predecessors were. What the studio should have done was wait a bit so that Williamson and Campbell could both be involved in the project full-time. Whether or not that would’ve actually made the movie better is up for debate but if you ask me, it would have been a step in the right direction. As is, ‘Scream 3’ is a pretty weak and incredibly disappointing follow-up to two rock solid horror films. I don’t really hate it as much as others might but that doesn’t mean I like it that much either.

Rating: 1.5/5

SCREAM 4 (2011)

A decade after the release of ‘Scream 3’, the series returned for one more film with ‘Scream 4’. This time, Williamson returned as the film’s writer, resulting in a film that improves on many of the problems of the previous film. The ‘self-aware’ nature of the first two films returns with this one, which now focuses on how nowadays the horror genre mostly consists of remakes. Because of this, this film can pretty much be referred to as a ‘remake’ of the first film, even though it’s technically a sequel, right down to the fact that this film even re-creates certain sequences from the original ‘Scream’. It also does a better job in regards to handling the characters of Sidney and Gale. Gale’s ‘no-nonsense’ attitude returns here, having been sorely missed in the last film, and Sidney has much more screen-time here than she did in ‘Scream 3’. As for the new cast of characters, they’re much more memorable than the ones in ‘Scream 3’, with the main stand-out of them being Hayden Panettiere as Kirby, who you can pretty much refer to as the ‘Randy’ of the new cast given the similarities between the two of them. The reveal of the killer is much better than in ‘Scream 3’ and also makes much more sense, without any awkward twists. And while I’ve heard some people say that the finale is just ‘crazy’, I’ll admit I like it if only because of one awesome line said by Sidney; “You forgot the first rule of remakes… don’t f*** with the original”. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

But despite all that I just said, why then is this film ultimately not as good as the first two films? Well, ultimately I think it’s because of one simple reason; ‘franchise fatigue’. It’s not really the fault of the film; this happens to a lot of franchises with more than three films. If you really think about it, ‘Scream 4’ wasn’t exactly needed. Sure, ‘Scream 3’ wasn’t really that good but at least it was the finale to a ‘trilogy’. Granted, ‘Scream 4’ is a far better film, but it’s sort of one of those cases of ‘one film too many’. After all, all four ‘Scream’ films have almost identical plots with not many differences amongst them. So in other words, like how the horror genre had become tired all those years ago before the release of the original ‘Scream’ due to the fact that a lot of them were pretty much the same, ‘Scream 4’ doesn’t really offer much new compared to the first two entries in the series and it rather lacks the same amount of scares and suspense that the first two had. Still, this film at least manages to get the bad taste of ‘Scream 3’ out of our mouths for the most part and, if anything, it’s a far more fitting conclusion to the series than ‘Scream 3’ was. Thankfully, it seems like this will be the last ‘Scream’ film… we really don’t need another one.

Rating: 3.5/5

Evil Dead series retrospective

With Halloween coming up in the next few weeks, I decided that it would be a good idea to do a retrospective on a horror franchise. However, I’ll admit that I’m not particularly a fan of horror films. Sure, I’ve seen some of these films, but not many and in that regard I haven’t really watched many horror franchises. In the end, it came down to doing one of two series; at first, I was considering doing a retrospective on the ‘Scream’ franchise, which was one of the few horror franchises where I actually did see every film in the series. But since the last ‘Scream’ film hit theaters two years ago, I decided to look at a franchise that had a more ‘recent’ film release; the ‘Evil Dead’ franchise. After all, its remake was released back in April and is now on Blu-Ray/DVD. Also, there are plans for a sequel to both the remake and the last ‘Evil Dead’ film, ‘Army of Darkness’, with further plans for a  crossover film after that. So, without further ado, it’s time to look back at the ‘Evil Dead’ franchise from the original trilogy to its recent remake.



THE EVIL DEAD (1981)

‘The Evil Dead’ served as the feature-length debut of director Sam Raimi (who has since gone on to direct the original ‘Spider-Man’ trilogy and ‘Oz the Great and Powerful’) and was made after Raimi attracted the interest of investors with a 1978 short film he made, ‘Within the Woods’. Filmed on a budget of around $400,000, the film was released in 1981 (the film was shot in 1979) and helped launched the careers of both Raimi and star Bruce Campbell. It has been more than 30 years since this film came out, and it still stands as one of the best horror films ever made. Sure, it was made on a low budget and to some extent some aspects of the film are pretty dated. Still, the movie is an effective horror film; it’s very suspenseful and utilizes its chilling atmosphere to the full effect. Bruce Campbell does a great job in the lead role of Ash and while the other characters are sort of more in line with the traditional characters we see in plenty of slasher films (though for the record, this is not a slasher film); the other four leads are good as well. While the following two films began to move away from horror, this one stands as a true horror film and as such, it’s a must-see in the horror genre.

Rating: 4/5



EVIL DEAD II: DEAD BY DAWN (1987)

After the success of the first Evil Dead, Raimi then began working on his next film, ‘Crimewave’. The film… didn’t turn out so well, but that was mainly due to studio interference, with Raimi being unable to cast Bruce Campbell in the lead role or even edit the film in post-production. So, in response to that and with their careers on the line, Raimi, Campbell, and producer Robert Tapert returned to the franchise that jumpstarted their careers with ‘Evil Dead II: Dead by Dawn’, one of the rare sequels that not only manages to be as good as its predecessor, but even better. That’s even more impressive when considering that the intro to this film pretty much redoes the whole first film again. The only difference here is that only two of the first film’s five characters return for this film and yet this film is not a remake of the original film.

So why is this film better than the first? For one thing, I actually consider this film to be scarier than the first film. The atmosphere and suspense is just as effective, but there’s just something about this film that makes it scarier, and I can’t explain why. But another thing that this film does very well is blending horror with comedy. My favorite moment is when Ash is forced to cut off his hand after it becomes possessed and the hand starts acting on its own, resulting in Ash trying to shoot it with a shotgun. Bruce Campbell goes through quite a lot in this movie (figuratively in the movie and also literally while filming it apparently) and once again, he and the supporting cast members are all great. You also have to appreciate the creativity present in this film, from the creature/set designs to the camera shots. That is why Evil Dead II is not just one of the best sequels ever, but one of the best horror movies ever made.

Rating: 5/5!



ARMY OF DARKNESS (1992)

When looking at the series as a whole, something that is clearly evident is a change in tone over the course of the original three films; we went from a straight-up horror film to a horror-comedy and then with the third film, it’s a whole different genre. ‘Army of Darkness’ is a mix of fantasy, adventure, and comedy with really little to no horror in the film at all. Because of this, some might consider this as ‘the black sheep’ of the franchise for not being an Evil Dead movie… but not me. In fact, this is my personal favorite film in the series. I guess that’s because I’m not really a big horror fan, meaning that this film appealed to me more. It’s incredibly entertaining, funny, and highly quotable. And now, here are some my favorite lines from the film:

“Well hello Mister Fancypants. Well, I've got news for you pal, you ain't leadin' but two things, right now: Jack and shit... and Jack left town.”

“Woah… Wrong book”

And of course, who can forget this classic…

“All right you primitive screwheads, listen up. You see this? This… is my BOOMSTICK!!!”

Those quotes come from good old Bruce Campbell, and really he’s the best part of this whole movie. The character of Ash has gone through quite a change over the course of these three films. In this film, he’s got an arrogant swagger that he didn’t really have in the last two films but yet he’s a doofus, forgetting the words (‘klaatu barada nikto’) that will help keep the dead from taking over. Sure, in the end, ‘Army of Darkness’ may not really be an ‘Evil Dead’ movie, but it’s still a great movie nevertheless and my personal favorite of the series.

Rating: 5/5!



EVIL DEAD (2013)

(For my original review of the film: http://www.rimoviecorner.blogspot.com/2013/07/evil-dead-2013-review.html)

As far as horror remakes go, this new Evil Dead is one of the better remakes in recent years, but it still has some flaws. First off, the good; the writers actually give a legit reason as to why the main characters are going to an abandoned cabin in the woods, because the main character Mia is going through recovery from a drug addiction. Also, in this current age of horror remakes that utilize a lot of CGI, this film relies on practical effects, which look far better. But this new film suffers from a problem that a lot of current horror films have; it tries way too hard to ‘one-up’ its competition in terms of its violence to the point where it’s not scary anymore. Believe me, this film does succeed at doing that, but it lacks the humor and charm that Raimi’s films had, particularly the former. This is just a bleak film, not just because of the tone and atmosphere but because of the grisly violence which, like I said, is not really scary; it’s just disturbing. Also, character development is really lacking, aside from a pretty decent brother-sister relationship between the main two leads. The character of Natalie, David’s girlfriend, is completely unnecessary and could have been written out of the film altogether without having any real effect on the story. Jane Levy does a fantastic job in the lead role of Mia who, spoilers, basically serves as the ‘Ash’ of this ‘series’ (we’ll consider the Raimi trilogy and this new film as separate storylines for the moment). The rest of the cast is fine as well, but she is really the standout of the film and her performance is perhaps the best part of the whole thing. In the end, the new Evil Dead is not a bad film but it’s a flawed film. Still, to its credit, it does do some things right.

P.S. This film also has one of the worst post-credits scenes ever, which is even more disappointing when considering that Bruce Campbell returns as Ash for the scene.

Rating: 3.5/5