Insidious

There was quite a bit of talk surrounding Insidious when it first came out (2010, for what it's worth). Suffice to say, I ignored most of it as I don't typically get caught up in horror movies. But this one kept coming like a slow moving train in the distance. The singular light of this train was something I could easily walk away from, so I did. I had friends go see it, then promptly tell me about how I may not be able to handle it. This is most very true.

Then, I went on a couple of dates with this one girl, and she mentioned the movie. She seemed to be in a similar predicament, in not wanting to watch it alone. Well, you can see where this is going, but you should also know that this is me acting here, and we never did end up watching it (I blundered it up well enough, for your information, but that's practically a given as well). So I had this movie sitting around for a couple of years waiting to go, and it seems the mood struck right. I mentioned my horror movie bunker, where I was able to work up enough courage and turn this film on.

I was incredibly impressed. I didn't realize the film was full of great talent, including the beautiful Rose Byrne and the always interesting Patrick Wilson. Apparently the writer, Leigh Whannell, had handy a list of horror movie cliches that he forced himself to avoid, and the result is a fairly original film that worked on many more levels than just cheap thrills. It reminded me of Cabin in the Woods, where horror movie cliches were exploited and turned on their head. Insidious avoids the head on collision of those same cliches, but doesn't bother to poke fun while they pass in the other direction. Insidious pushes through a new path; it may not use entirely new ideas, but it does use those ideas (astral-projection, hauntings, etc) in an entirely positive way. While watching it, I couldn't help but feel like I was watching a classic: it's a movie I could go back to twenty years from now and appreciate in the way that I go back now and appreciate the "classic" horror movies from the seventies and eighties.

This is a genuinely scary film, that when I step back and think about it, keeps pulling me in. The director is able to convey everything required with what seems to be pretty practical effects. The music is full of striking chords. Was I scared? Let's say the bunker did a good job and I didn't have any dreams about apparitions, entities hiding in the shadows, or demons trying to take over my body.

World War Z

The Empire Theatre that opened recently in my home town is a bit of an enigma, or perhaps it’s a bit of a

theatre wrapped in disappointment. There is a ten screen Cineplex that has been around for a decade or so, that serves its purpose. However, my friends and I have gotten used to the AMC (now another Empire) loaded with twenty four (24!) screens. When the Empire was announced, we surely expected another spectacle like that, but what we got instead was another ten screens inside a dull gray on top of gray building. The seating is somewhat uncomfortable (why must all seats recline?) and there was no points program similar to SCENE from Cineplex. In all, there is little reason to go across town to the brand new theatre.

Since we weren’t going to the Empire very often, we decided to enter all their contests, in the hopes of scoring free tickets (or any other prize). Somebody has to win, right? Then it finally happened: he called me a few days ago to let me know that he had won advance screening tickets to World War Z. It is probably the first time that either of have won anything, and it proved that people do actually win at these things. For a lifetime it felt like a potential scam.

Monday night we found ourselves heading to the theatre with a host of questions. This is a step outside our normal theatre experiences: neither of us had been to an advance screening before. And for a movie that we were genuinely excited to see is the icing on the cake. Our main question was: who would be there? How many people won the contest? As it turns out, a whole bunch. We were seated next to two officials of some sort, as indicated by their (dress) clothes, badges and that they had a buffer between them and the rest of the theatre folk. The theatre gave out a couple of prizes (zombie apocalypse bug-out bags). Generally, the theatre was brimming with excitement. The lights dimmed, then brightened, then dimmed and so forth. Technical problems were resolved after a few moments, then the movie started.

It was such a pure experience: no advertising, no movie trailers. Instead, we go straight into the film without hesitation. Everybody stumbles to put on their 3D glasses as they are caught unprepared, but the satisfaction of getting the movie going was felt throughout.

World War Z starts off strong and keeps going, keeping me on the edge of my seat throughout. It’s a quick introduction to Pitt’s character and family, then straight into the zombie action without any hesitation. It does feel a bit familiar at first to other zombie films, but then we catapult into a bit of Bourne territory. When the chaos begins Gerry (Pitt) is in his element and we’re treated to smooth, controlled chaos amongst a sea of panic. It’s a lot of fun, and it’s also terrifying. I thought the fast zombies in the remake of Dawn of the Dead were scary, well; this is something else right here.

The zombies are animals, and original. Perhaps the source material is incredibly brilliant (I haven’t read the book) but I was really impressed with the “zombie rules” they have established. They are relentless, ruthless, uncompromising and brutal. As my friend pointed out, the zombies will pile through a doorway to get through, and you can hear their bones breaking as they pound and force their way in, without regard for themselves. And that’s what sets it apart from other “fast” zombies in movies like 28 Days Later, and what makes them even more terrifying. If a zombie movie can be described as realistic, well, then this is that movie.

The realism doesn’t extend to just the zombies, but everything else as well. Here, I can see them drawing from the source material. Wrap magazines around your arms to protect from bites. Move off-shore. It’s all quite clever, and brought to the big screen in ways that make sense and believable.

So we walked away from the screening very happy, and there was much discussion afterward about the film. Now, it’s time to enter some more contests.

The House of the Devil

If you're into eighties style horror films, then you need to check this film out. I wasn't entirely sure myself, but
I also wasn't entirely sure this was in the eighties style. My co-worker told me to take a look whenever I had the chance, and as it turns out, the moon was in the right phase and I was able to do just that. And I was seriously impressed.

It can take a lot for me - sometimes - to watch a horror film by myself, so I reverted to my horror movie bunker: a bright, sunny Sunday afternoon on the couch, tablet in hand to distract me from the scary moments.

But I didn't need the second screen.

Something about the film grabbed me from the beginning. Perhaps it's the way the movie was shot. According to IMDB it was filmed in 16mm, just like many horror movies of the past. To say it felt retro may be an understatement. I really couldn't figure out throughout the film if this was a modern film made up to look old or it really was just an old film. I never did consult my tablet throughout to find out: I didn't want the mystery to be ruined, nor did it matter. The film grabbed me.

We follow the beautiful college student Samantha through her peril of living with a terrible roommate and not being able to afford a place of her own. It drives her to look for work and take whatever she can: a basic ad for a babysitter catches her eye and we immediately know it's bad news. She knows too, but keeps pushing into the unknown.

The slow pacing of the film is ideal and a welcome change from the fast edits and action of any modern horror film. It builds up tension, which is something that could very well be missing in modern film making, but also understandably frustrates some viewers. You can get confused: there is our main protagonist, who takes center stage at all times. She has a friend - briefly - but in the back of your mind (or at least, mine) I couldn't help but think that a modern film would load up the screen with your generic horror stereotypes, to ensure that we can have a solid murder every fifteen to twenty minutes. And somebody always survives, right? So what happens when there is only one?

Another thing I found great about this film was the brief yet completely unexplained supernatural elements. I certainly don't want to spoil anything for you here so I won't go into any detail. Of course. Especially near the end of the film, where we see some odd behaviour in both people and nature that defies all logic, but we let it go. As the viewer, you're in on it and don't mind.

Anyway, that may not do the movie justice. Just know that this was the perfect Sunday afternoon movie, and a perhaps a great experience from your own horror movie bunker.

Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood

There was some hesitation before playing Brotherhood. One day, I took the plunge. And I'm not sure I came
up for air again until two weeks later.

Hesitation because Assassin's Creed II was one of the best games I've played in quite some time. It improved upon the first in every way imaginable, and surpassed my expectations greatly. So fantastic, in fact, that I was only a few "sequences" into the game when I bought nearly all available downloadable content. Now, my memory is hazy but I think the main DLC was composed of a few sequences between the main game: for instance, the game may have went from 12 to 16, where the DLC was composed of 13, 14 and 15. Those downloaded sequences weren't quite up to par with the rest of the game, but it didn't sully my experience. I played all that I could.

Then, Brotherhood came out and I was unsure: mainly because the game looked like an expansion of II. Some sources were citing that it was more of the same, which in my books has never been a bad thing. Brotherhood also only takes place in one city: Rome, and by that would seem like a shorter title.

I was relatively wrong.

Rome in Brotherhood is filled to the absolute brim with gameplay and exploration. There is no shortage of activity to undertake and people to assassinate. I was looking for a game to play and upon hearing that my friend had taken up the challenge of Assassin's Creed II, I had to jump in. If anything, it would be a short game, but I was dead wrong about that.

The completionist in me came out, and I had to do as much as possible in the game before finishing the next main sequence. This involved rebuilding Rome, discovering ancient shrines and taking on the Borgia on any front that I could. And every bit of it was brilliant.

The gameplay is pretty smooth; there are moments of frustration as you accidentally run up a wall but generally, the fighting is fluid and the acrobatics are good. There are lots of ways to kill, many of which I didn't even bother with throughout most of the game. When it was all over I continued to play in order to score a couple of achievements but mainly because I couldn't let Rome go. During this time I undertook a few of the guild challenges that I didn't pay attention to before, of which many had me performing some interesting tasks. I couldn't help think though that the main game wasn't much of a challenge in regard of variety: for the most part you keep spamming the attack button and you'll breezing through the game in no time.

Only in the end did the game seem to falter. I won't spoil it for you, but I will say that the last portion has you in control of the controller, just as you have in previous games. I've seen comments saying that this unique aspect of the series - the big reveal in the first game - is also the weakest part. There are some relatively straightforward ways of stringing together the characters (they are ancestors of one another, after all). In any event, we have the series and so far, each game is getting better and better, although apparently that's coming to and end (if some sources are correct). The question quickly becomes, do I play Revelations now? I have to, of course. I need to see what happens to Ezio and his crew of assassins. Which makes me wonder why we don't get more Altair. Was his story really complete? Perhaps with some better gameplay we could revisit that period. I want more...I need more.

Brotherhood was brilliant.