Title: May
Director: Lucky Mckee
Written by: Lucky Mckee
Release Date: 2002
MPAA Rating: R
Traditional Rating: 4/10
Buzz Rating: 1-2
Rating: Decent

May never really fit in and growing up with a pirate’s patch to cover her lazy eye did not make things easier. Even as an adult her best friend and sole companion is a doll given to her by her mother… until she sees Adam. In awe of his beauty especially his hands she pursues a relationship for the first time in her life. But she soon finds out that people are not 100% perfect… only certain parts of them are!

May is a story that tries it’s hardest to be about a young woman slowly going mad through the stresses of a life she can’t quite mesh with. What it actually is, is a slow descent from boredom into disgust, and that is even more cliché then what it wanted to be.

This movie sucked. That’s a common theme around here, but this one really just sucks. It was a black hole of terrible timing and nonsensical character development. The movie opens with young May receiving a creepy, terribly made doll for her birthday that her mother built. She is not allowed to play with it, and while that is a dick move considering this is a birthday present for a 7 year old, it certainly doesn’t account for her later blood bath. She is also forced to wear an eye patch at a young age for a lazy eye that over the course of the movie changes sides and then disappears completely with no explanation. The creators seem to think that contacts fix eyes and not playing with toys makes you a sociopath, neither of which are accurate.

However, maybe May is just crazy because of her environment. She either lives in a town filled with sexual sadists and body horror fetishists, or just has really bad luck, seeing as how in two hours time she doesn’t find one healthy person to spend time with. Though, to be fair, that might be because she introduces herself to people by rubbing against them while they’re sleeping, an act that would send an average person running.

One of this movie’s few achievements is the ability to make lesbians completely unpleasant. I sat in a room filled with twenty year old men and watched as they winced or laughed through even the ‘sensual’ scenes. When your lesbians make people groan instead of growl, you have hit a new level of fail.

Of course, one of the main problems with the lesbians is a problem that all the scenes in the movie have, namely the fact that you sit through them thinking ‘where the hell did this come from?’. Over the course of one scene, May’s antagonistic female colleague begins attempts to seduce her, finally achieving it because May’s male beau turns out to be not quite as into blood as he pretends to be, particularly during sex.

Through out all of this, May’s crappy, creepy doll is slowly breaking. By the end that is obviously an analogy for her shattering sanity, but through the course of the movie it is portrayed as a real time event, going so far as to have May react to the sound of new cracks appearing at one point. This adds into the confusion factor, because while it is pretty clear it’s not real, you’re not sure till the end, and character reactions make it difficult to judge. We get to see the creepy doll shattered twice by the time the credits roll, but it doesn’t really make up for the fact that we have to put up with yet another awkward and confusing plot point that does jack squat to actually further the plot. It’s as though they’re saying ‘look here! She’s going crazy!’, a fact we really don’t need a visual aide for.

One of my big problems with this movie is that from the beginning there is an obvious goal; May is your stereotypical loner slowly going crazy. She will eventually begin slaughtering people for their parts, and frankly, that’s what we’re here for. However, in the hour and forty minutes this movie runs, only twenty minutes of it is the gore-fest we all signed on for. The rest of the time is wasted on absolutely incomprehensible plot points. Her love interest is crazy enough to both appeal to her and be interested in her, but not enough to be with her, despite the fact that what she does to break them up is only a little creepier then what she did to get them together. The lesbian hates her, but only until May introduces her to sado-masochism. She starts working at a school despite no previous experience and an obvious shine of crazy in her eyes. And then, finally, she kills everyone, but not soon enough.

And really, that’s the big issue with the movie. More deaths more quickly, and less mind boggling interaction please.

(Side note, for a film that’s so often touted as ‘artsy’, it was put in a list with the illustrious Toolbox Murders by Amazon. Please look this movie up, and laugh with me, long and hearty)

Acting: 6/10
Writing: 3/10
Pacing: 5/10
Music: 5/10
Cinematography: 5/10

Title: Bats: Human Harvest
Director: Jamie Dixon
Written by: Brett Merryman and Chris Denk
Release date: 2008
MPAA Rating: R
Traditional Rating: 4/10
Buzz Rating: 5-6
Rating: You’re kidding, right?

Time: Present day. The place: Russia. The mission: to track down and capture fanatical weapons specialist Dr. Walsh hiding in a research facility deep in the notorious Belzan forest of Chechnya. Specially trained and armed, an elite unit of soldiers is combing through the endless forest looking to bring their target to justice. But what they’re about to find is an enemy they’re not prepared to fight - genetically altered vampire bats programmed to feast on human blood and flesh - in this horrifying action thriller.

Listen soldier, we’re about to send you into a Chechnya, some go’damn heathen commie country. As you know, it’s darn near pointless learning your partners names because you’ll go in alone anyway, you sassy lone wolf, you. By the way, no one’s entered this forest and lived, so…good luck!

The above is what the whole. Damn. Movie is like. Welcome, internet, to our special slice of hell.

What can you say about a movie that has all white al-Qaeda recruits, fake Russian accents, and an unironic use of the phrase ’lone wolf’, all in the first few minutes? Frankly, I…I just don’t know. To say this movie has flaws is to say the US has a little money trouble; that is, an understatement so vast it can’t really be comprehended by the human mind. It is the Pi of understatements.

Bats: Human Harvest makes other Syfy original movies look like Sundance candidates. The animation is atrocious; Halloween decorations in flight at best, blobs of fake fur and garbage bags at worst. Don’t attempt to look for much of a difference, as there really isn’t one. In this situation there really sort of ceases to be a best and worst. Levels and differences have very little importance in this part of hell.

The best thing you can say about the main character is that his death would be satisfying. If he learns an important lesson about team work, the movie sucks. If he proves them all wrong by going the distance as a ‘lone wolf’, the movie sucks. Hell, even if he dies, this movies sucks, but at least then I could enjoy a part of it. Let’s just say that after 20 minutes of exposure to this guy, we were actively rooting for the bats to eviscerate him, down to his frosty-tipped edgy haircut.

The big thing I learned from this film is that the military is strange. If the Gov’t wants a mad doctor retrieved from the heart of a Russian forest, first order of business is to go in without telling the Russians(who want him dead too, might I add). That way we get to….um..because they’re….hmm. COMMIES! Now that that’s settled, You need a team. How about the Russian CIA agent nobody trusts, Cap’n “Lone Wolf” Russo(Fresh out of Afghanistan where he jumped into an al-Qaeda stronghold WITHOUT A GUN.), and a handful of bright-eyed Red Shirts? Heck Yes! Amurrica, fuck yeah!

It all goes down the way anyone could hope; a high body count, and an earth-shaking explosion. For those of you in it for the snark value, you’ll be sorely disappointed. Granted it’s low quality and has bad acting, but it’s just so damn boring. I can only see a swarm of bats descending on someone’s neck so many times before it becomes commonplace. Side Note: The evil scientist started with bats and ended up with fuzzy flying piranhas that can pick a man clean in 15 seconds. Great, right? What’s more, firing bursts of machine gun fire into the swarm only occasionally hits a mark. Bulletproof. Fuzzy. Flying. Piranha.

We gradually learn that the only thing they’re weak against is massive explosions. And even then, it’ll only really do the job if “Lone Wolf” is leaping in the foreground. So not only does this movie feature one of cinema’s most annoying main characters ever, we’re stuck watching the ‘soldier’ become a huge hero too. And then proceed to pat himself on the back at every opportunity. He even gets saved from execution by a deus ex machina. A terrible one, with pouty lips, and a horrible accent.

This movie does not have a human harvest. It is barely even about bats. When I first heard this title, I imagined homely, salt of the earth bats toiling in the fields, harvesting humans to support their bohemian lifestyle. Or perhaps a terrible vampire movie. The title is just a MacGuffin for an arrogant, completely non-flight or farming based main character.

The Stats:

Acting: 4/10
Writing: 2/10
Pacing: 5/10
Music: 2/10
Cinematography: 5/10

Title: Beast Within (Virus Undead)
Director: Wolf Wolff and Omuthi
Written by: Wolf Jahnke
Release Date: 2008
MPAA Rating: R
Traditional Rating: 5/10
Buzz Rating: 5-6
Rating: You’re kidding, right?

A loving homage to Alfred Hitchcock’s THE BIRDS, VIRUS UNDEAD combines our fear of nature with our dread of disease to tell the story of a terrible zombie plague. An infection transmitted by diseased birds is causing corpses to reanimate in search of human flesh. As the army of the undead grows, a medical student and his friends find themselves surrounded by zombies, with nowhere to run.

Two minutes into Beast Within, and there are already laughs a plenty. The movie opens with a creative, enigmatic vehicle shot that quickly becomes the Dukes of Hazzard. We move on from this with no explanation, only to run into a monologue-ing Freud look-alike, a scientist apparently working from a long abandoned greenhouse. Then, the birds arrive. And by birds, I mean card board cutouts that have been modeled after the comic B.C.‘s art style. This is not a fortuitous start.

The main characters are a mockery of themselves. Posh boy, Smart boy, and Biker boy. There is no explanation as to why these three are friends, which there really should be because not only do they have nothing in common, they’re total dicks to each other. It must be a dead body pact ala Stand by Me, because there is literally no other reason they would talk to each other. Hopefully the pact stands as strong when the dead bodies are theirs.

Then, half an hour in, a dude got eaten by what might have been a rabid chipmunk. Thirty minutes and we haven’t seen any sign of the promised zombies, but there have been a hell of a lot of birds, and some nice 28 Days Later music, which I guess is kind of like zombies.

The movie is touted as a “loving homage to Alfred Hitchcock’s ‘The Birds’”, which is accurate for the first ten minutes, after which birds become nothing more then mild nuisances, a far cry from their monumental man slaughtering start. Two minutes in, birds easily break through a sun roof. Twenty minutes in, they simply splatter across car windows. What happened?!

Speaking of what happened, what happened to the plot? We have essentially four movies going on here, and none of them work together. Odd thing is, all of them are promising in and of themselves. But when they’re combined, It’s like watching Repulsion (1965), Planet Terror (2007), 28 Days Later (2002), and The Birds (1963) simultaneously, and everyone has German accents. If Wolff had focused in on any one of these, the scene work and cool ambiance would have carried it. Sadly, the only consistent thread through the film are Dr. Freud’s last words recorded on tape. That tape is repeated at least half a dozen times over the course of the movie for no good reason, and it’s about all that reminds you that you’re watching the same movie.
That being said, if you want to wade through some awful writing and silly actors, there’s a handful of really well composed shots and scenes that are pretty cool. They just leave me wondering what happened to the quality.

The Stats:

Acting: 5.5/10
Writing: 3/10
Pacing: 3.5/10
Music: 5/10
Cinematography: 7/10

Title: The Messengers
Director: Danny Pang and Oxide Pang
Written by: Mark Wheaton
Release Date: 2007
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Traditional Rating: 6/10
Buzz Rating: 5-6
Rating: You’re kidding, right?


Desperate for a fresh start after a tough two years in Chicago, the Solomon family retreats to a desolate sunflower farm in North Dakota. But the calm of farm life is shattered when 16-year-old Jess (Kristen Stewart) and her 3-year-old brother Ben begin to see nightmarish apparitions throughout their new home - visions that nobody else can see. As the visions grow darker they become fear-inspiring experiences and Jess’ parents (Dylan McDermott and Penelope Ann Miller) start to question their daughter’s sanity. Now, Jess must find a way to save her family and win a battle with forces from far beyond the grave.

In an interesting take on the Haunted House story, Messengers takes us into an abandoned farmhouse in Whateverville where if the ghosts don’t kill you, the crows will. To be frank, this did more as a drama/character study than as a scary story.

Unfortunately, the characters it studied were undecided on their feelings and motives, moving through mood swings like a twelve year old girl. They expected things from family members, then complained when they got it. Parents demanded their teenage daughter be happy and adapt to her new situation, then months later when she did, they feigned amnesia, repeated the demands angrily, and then were genuinely surprised when she reacted negatively.

The ghosts in the house are just as flaky and inconsistent. I like their style, but choking out a teenager and sending a flock of crows to eat a well-meaning husband is kind of weird. It’s like if you, the reader, had a ham sandwich; I have a sudden realization that the mayo in your sandwich has gone bad. In an effort to warn you of the impending danger, the obvious protocol is to punch your face in morse code spelling out OH GOD SANDWICH while simultaneously trying to gnaw off the hand holding the spoiled lunch.

However, the inconsistent characterization is held up by pretty decent acting. It’s confusing and nonsensical in a completely convincing way. Even Kristen Stewart (The Flintstones) does a half-way decent job of pretending to care for a child and conveying panic to an equally buck toothed beau. Really, though, that just exacerbates the problem. Who wants to get caught up in a character’s emotions when they make no sense? ‘Breaking from reality’ is not what most moviegoers want to experience, particularly if it’s unintentional.

By far the best performance was carried off by the 4 year old son. He is friggin adorable and is completely content with the bizarre ghosty circumstances in his new house. It’s possible that the greatest accomplishment of Messengers was getting that kid to act mute in all his scenes. Well done. Also, a gold star for a very unexpected pitchfork through the chest and another one for a particularly adventurous shot where Kristen Stewart doesn’t move or speak for a full minute, summoning up the courage to turn around and face the apparition she senses behind her.

It could be that the director was aiming for a surrealist element that just came off wrong. Less like Lynchian emotional conflict and more like four passive-aggressive farmers. What this film lacked in writing, it pretty much made up for in visual elements. the Twitchy-Clickies were both twichy and clicky. Furthermore, many of the elements were obvious and in full view, a la Japanese horror. This was combined seamlessly with America’s skill at great scenery and the total creepification of childhood objects you used to love(in this case a toy tractor. OH GOD TRACTOR).

So, I guess what we’re trying to say is it’s creepy in a Spanish soap opera sorta way. You have no idea what’s going on or why everyone’s screaming, but HOLY SHIT THERE’S A GHOST. Which is really what the genre’s about, at least in the US. Less talking, more stabbing. And hey, they avoided the ‘teenage girl in underwear‘ temptation. That’s something, right?

Acting: 5/10
Writing: 3/10
Pacing: 5/10
Music: 8/10
Cinematography: 4/10

Title: Boogeyman 2
Director: Jeff Betancourt
Written by: Brian Sieve
Release Date: 2007
MPAA Rating: Unrated Directors Cut
Traditional Rating: 3/10
Buzz Rating: 3-4
Rating: Watch Out

Terror invades an isolated asylum when Laura, haunted by a paralyzing fear of the boogeyman, becomes one of many patients who are prisoners to their own phobias. What appears to be a safe haven soon becomes an asylum of the damned when the boogeyman returns, trapping them all inside and beginning his hunt for new victims. Starring Tobin Bell if the SAW franchise, get ready for a terrifying game of cat and mouse where what you fear is what will kill you.

This is a horror movie that really could have used some paranormality. Even as a large fan of psychological thrillers, I wish this had something dead, or even undead, interacting with the main players. With, and this is a spoiler, not that the ending was surprising, but with the main antagonist being the brother, a lot of questions went unanswered. Like, how do you train maggots to eat living flesh, and where did all those tubes come from?

The main problem with this movie is flat, bland characters. You had no idea who to root for, or if there was any character development because literally everyone looks alike. Never before has there been a hospital so filled with one note blondes and swish haired ‘bad boys’. I knew one character’s name, and that was because everyone referred to the main character as “Henry’s sister”. I’m pretty sure something’s wrong if you don’t know the main character’s name. Course, I’m not sure the other characters knew it either; I’m not exaggerating when I say everyone referred to her as Henry’s sister. He is the older sibling, so I’m not completely convinced her easily murdered parents bothered to give her a name. Honest to God, I didn’t know this character’s name till I looked at the back of the box. This is not good writing.

Our main character, Henry’s sister, sets up this goretastic cross section of stereotypical mental disease. At her brother’s urging, she checks herself in to a psych ward amidst a slew of generic actors with badly-researched mental problems. The minute he leaves, the organs start a-rolling. The murders get more and more elaborate as the death toll increases. The first couple deaths are sort of cool, preying on the patients mental instabilities (the germophobe drinks cleaning fluid, etc.) but it all dissolves into elaborate killing machines a la Saw, which is what this movie really wanted to be all along.

On top of everything else, this film manages to hit on one of our largest peeves in the movie industry; sequels that are not. Boogeyman, a decent and distinctly paranormal film, has no connections to this film. No characters have been crossed over, the location has been changed, and the villain is definitely alive, as evidenced by the satisfying ‘thunk’ heard the one time the protagonist had it together enough to hit him with a wrench (which was, unsurprisingly enough, one of our favorite scenes).

Let’s sum things up. The double-twist ending was good. Really good, actually. It was was not good enough, however, to make up for the fact that I just watched a bulemic explode all over a basement. Still, the filmmaker’s motivation was understandable. The Saw franchise has made six movies worth of Ironic Death Cinema(IDC) to the tune of about $700,000,000 worldwide. For fuck’s sake, they even got the bad guy from Saw as a red herring! The fact of the matter is every piece of IDC is exactly the same. Actually, I’d love to see an IDC in…I dunno, a quaint farmhouse? Maybe a theme park? Nope, it’s the same tile floor, dingy white walls, and flickery lights every time. No one likes to see the name of an okay supernatural flick stamped on a semi-witty kill-fest.

Oh, and as a final note, one of the few genuinely creepy parts of this film was the sexual tension laden interaction between Henry and Henry’s sister. What the hell is up with that?

The stats:

Acting: 4/10
Writing: 5/10 
Pacing: 5/10
Music: 4/10
Cinematography: 3/10

In summation, closets are still horrifying, and don’t look at your sister like that.

Title: Dead Silence
Director: James Wan
Written by: Leigh Whannell, James Wan
Release Date: 2007
MPAA Rating: R
Traditional Rating: 6/10
Buzz Rating: 3-4
Rating: Watch Out


Dare to unlock the deadly curse of Mary Shaw…
From the writers and directors of Saw comes a new thriller of relentless terror! Ever since Mary Shaw was hunted down and killed, the small town of Ravens Fair has been haunted by horrific deaths. When a local’s wife is brutally murdered, he returns home to unravel the terrifying legend of Mary Shaw and the reason why when you see her, you should never, ever scream.

What do you get when you mix interesting sets, stilted acting, and a genuinely surprising twist? Dead Silence, a passable paranormal mystery punctuated by moments of ass-clenching terror.

Here, you have a decent plot hampered by sub-par acting. Sure, there are a lot of plot confusions, but what really makes this movie stumble is the actors. Out of the cast, two are less stilted then others, and that’s the kindest thing you can say. Unfortunately, one of those two is detached from reality and the other has a penchant for shaving at strange and socially inappropriate times.

The plot in a nutshell: Happy family, weird doll, chinese food BLEHAGHDEATH!!, mystery, father, detective RAWROODEAD!!, boats, manic searching, shooting BRSGALAGANOTONGUE!!, swimming, mystery,obsessive ventriloquism OOGABOOGATWISTTHEEND!

That’s pretty much it, folks. If you have a desire to see tongueless faces, go for it, but you know what happens now. And really, this movie isn’t terrible. It is, however, awkward. That’s the best word for it, really. The timing, the interaction…it’s like it was planned by a computer that understands all of the basic mechanics, but none of the subtleties. Don’t believe us? Try this: get a bottle of Grey Goose. Or Mountain Dew, if you’re underage and/or a straightedge. Every time someone acts like they’re reading off a script, or stares at their fellow actors with a bug-eyed ‘oh lord what am I doing?’ look, take a shot. You will be wasted and/or wired no more than 1/3 into this movie. And that’s if you’re not paying close attention. Alternately; shots every time someone says Mary Shaw. You’ll be passed out twenty minutes in. For a name you’re not supposed to say, they sure as hell say it a lot. Honestly, it’s like they want their tongues ripped out.

If you’re into wooden acting….speaking of which, ventriloquist dolls! This movie is chock full of those bad boys. James Wan successfully cashed in on everyone’s fear of that doll in the back of your closet. You know the one. You loved it Christmas day, but the minute the lights go out…BLEHAGHDEATH!! Forget that, toss it in the back of the closet! Only you can’t, because it’s EATING THAT POOR OLD MAN OH GOD! And that’s the moral of our story. Dolls. Old people. It gets a little mixed up in there somewhere, but that’s okay, because our inspirations moral seems to be that everyone gets their tongue ripped out. …Yeah. Unless you’re crazy. But if you’re not crazy, your tongue’s coming out. Had nothing to do with old lady? Tongue’s coming out! Doesn’t matter. Bitch loves her some tongues.

Which reminds me, the scene in which our decaying antagonist licks our quivering protagonists cheek (yes, you read that correctly) was both unpleasant and hilarious. To up the hilarious ante, simply add percocet. Frankly, that element made all of the movie better, but it’s good to know that I (Bluebird) get something out of breaking my leg; drugs. Delicious, movie improving drugs. Man, everything is awesome. This movie is 10. Awesome. Shit.

…Sorry about that. Time for the stats!

Acting: 4/10
Writing: 6/10(an extra couple points for the killer twist)
Pacing: 2/10
Music: 8/10
Cinematography:5/10

Check yo closet! Peace.

Title: Carriers
Director: Alex & David Pastor
Written by: Alex & David Pastor
Release Date: 2009
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Traditional Rating: 4/10
Buzz Rating: 5-6
Rating: You’re kidding, right?


Chris Pine (Star Trek) stars in this intense, gripping thriller about a deadly threat beyond anyone’s worse nightmare. Determined to escape a lethal virus, four teens set out in search of an uncontaminated refuge, only to discover that they are far more dangerous to each other then the virus they are trying to survive. Carriers is a pulse-pounding journey into a world where laws and rules no longer apply, and no one can be trusted - not even your friends.


Welcome, sad and lonely people of the internet, which is all of you, to our first real post. Everything you just read? That was a lie. This cover has lied to you. But don’t worry; it lied to all of us, and at least you didn’t have to watch the movie.

Here’s the gist; we follow Chris Pine (Star Trek) and his zany trio on a murderous romp to the coast, outrunning a virus that turns people purple and as a by-product kills ‘em dead. Yeah…yeah, we’re not making this up.

The first law of virus movies states that “there is a negative correlation between the number of survivors and the survival rate for any given person”. Carriers takes this rule, shoots it some steroids, and tells it that everyone alive called it a sissy. That six-year-old? She’ll kill you. Her dad? He’ll kill you. The swimming pool, your brother, the army, China, rednecks, the butcher, the baker, the candle stick maker, all want you dead on a pike.

This movie tries to be original, and fails. Which isn’t surprising. Pastors’ theory of originality goes something like this; make the unlikable douche bag a sympathetic protagonist. This implodes quickly. Chris Pine’s (Star Trek) character is the unlikable douche bag. The man (Star Trek) plays the asshole like Erroll Flynn plays the hero; flawlessly. He’s not just an asshole, either. He’s a stupid, controlling, alcoholic asshole.

But lets make something clear, here; all of these characters are stupid. While some actions can be accounted for due to hysteria or adjustment, the level of idiocy these survivors lay claim to is too expansive to be ignored. The fact that they survived to the start of the film proves serious flaws in Darwin’s work. They start out well, splashing bleach on everything, but end up dumb, as one of them dives into the back seat with an infected child. Literally. There was a ten second period where Bluebird was convinced the character was about to give sick child mouth to mouth. The fact that this is a believable move for these people should tell you all you need to know.

Also, as a side note, assuming the infection happened anywhere close to 2009, the protagonists would have had numerous chances to see 28 Days Later, where they would have learned that the Army’s second function after betraying you is to rape the women. At least, that’s how the world according to Danny Boyle works.

Basically, what we’re trying to say is that the horrible bleeding contusions portrayed in the film are no doubt less painful then the movie itself.

So, here are the stats:

Acting: 6/10
Writing: 3/10
Pacing: 7/10
Music: Forgettable
Cinematography: 6/10

Do not apply movie to face. That is all. (Star Trek)