The film takes place on the night before Easter and opens with a robbery where a masked gunman mercilessly kills a liquor store clerk. We’re then introduced to a single Mother, Mindy Peters, and her handicapped son, Nicholas, who is obsessed with the holiday – we later find out that his father died on Easter. Mindy has a date with her new boyfriend, Remington, who, unbeknownst to her, is the criminal who committed the robbery and plans on moving in with her despite Nicholas’ objections. When Mindy has to work a double shift and can’t get a babysitter, Remington offers to help but has more sinister plans to party. Unfortunately for him and his friends, a masked killer is on the loose and begins to pick them off one by one.

So what separates Easter Bunny, Kill! Kill! from other recent slasher movies? Firstly, it’s not a remake and even though it’s about a masked killer who chooses to kill during a particular time of the year, I think this is more in homage to classic slashers than an attempt to bring something entirely new to the table. I would have liked it to look a little more authentic (like last year’s The House of the Devil) but this may have been impossible due to budgetary constraints or simply because Director Chad Ferrin wants this to be remembered as an unpretentious modern-day slasher.

There are some gory death scenes which include a drill to the head, plastic wrap suffocation and even a broom to the throat (not the brush end). Muskatell manages to walk a fine line in his portrayal of Remington who’s simply vile but strangely likable (the handlebar mustache and chops complement his pear-shaped body and maniacal laugh for comic effect).

I’m a little uncertain about the direction as the photography is dodgy throughout and certain shots don’t appear to be framed properly – if this was for effect, I don’t know if it always worked. I thought the ending was a little weak and felt rushed but it tied things up nicely.

In the end, though, this isn’t looking to break any new ground; it’s a straightforward exploitation film in the style of the ultraviolent slashers from the 70s and 80s, with unwholesome characters, a thin plot and questionable morals (all of which is good).

His Name was Jason: 30 Years of Friday the 13^th (released this month on DVD in the U.K.), chronicles the legacy of the series with actors, producers, directors, screenwriters and journalists explaining why these simple slasher films have become such a phenomenon. Personally, it was something about the combination of a hockey mask and a machete that helped Jason seem so much cooler than Freddy Kreuger or Michael Myers.

Pretty much everything a casual fan might want to know is discussed in the documentary, from gripes about breaks in continuity to the best kills and how the early releases were loathed by the MPAA and parent groups for their unadulterated violence. Tom Savini serves as host and guides the viewer through a mock-up horror movie set.

While the documentary itself is great, the extra features are where this DVD really shines with four hours of additional footage. People who preferred certain films can watch extended interviews with every director (with the exception of Steve Miner, who was behind parts two and three) or the screenwriters, who all explain their vision for their particular movie.

Sean Cunningham (producer and director of the original Friday the 13^th) notes that the franchise owes a large part of its success to Paramount Pictures who got behind the movie with the necessary promotion, giving it a wide release much like a major motion picture. Cunningham said his goal was to make a simple, low-budget scary movie and, surprisingly, he hadn’t seen any of the classic giallo films of the 60s and 70s, which supposedly influenced the film.

The various actors that played Jason offer some insightful commentary into what they brought to the table. For example, you find out what a sweet old man Ted White is (in contrast to his menacing on-screen presence in The Final Chapter) and that he didn’t get along with director Joseph Zito, whom he felt was being too hard on the young actors. Judie Aronson (who played Samantha) said that she got hypothermia after filming her death scene and White was the only person who stood up for her, demanding that Zito get the shot so that she could get out of the freezing lake.

We’re also told that the memorable theme music was actually made up of the sounds “ki” and “ma”. Composer Harry Manfredini said he got the idea after watching a scene where Mrs. Voorhees is mouthing the words “Kill Mommy” and decided to use the consonants, which were fed through an echoplex.

The fan videos are good but there’s an outstanding spoof of antidepressant commercials that features Jason as the subject who’s experiencing “overwhelming feelings of sadness, disinterest, loneliness, fatigue”, all of which are getting him laughed away from potential murders – he’s ok after being prescribed “Voorexia”.

This is what all DVDs should be like: plenty of bonus features, interviews, Easter eggs and stuff you can’t get anywhere else. Hardcore fans may not find much new stuff here but it’s essential viewing for any Friday the 13^th or Jason fan.

The Last Broadcast is shot as a faux-documentary about the murders of three men in the Pine Barrens of New Jersey – the haunt of the infamous Jersey Devil. Filmmaker David Leigh presents the facts surrounding the incident (dubbed the “Fact or Fiction murders” by the media) in a series of interviews with people who were involved with the case. The three men were carrying out a live broadcast of their supernatural-themed show, “Fact or Fiction”, from the woods when they were killed leaving Jim Suerd (the fourth member of the group) as the sole survivor and prime suspect. Suerd dies in prison under “mysterious circumstances”, which prompts Leigh to set out to find the truth about what happened in the woods that night.

This was the first film to be created in an entirely digital format, something filmmakers Stefan Avalos and Lance Weiler achieved using software borrowed from friends and with PCs they built themselves. I’m not going to take any jabs at the look of this film because it would be unfair and I eventually got used to the “greasy lens” look and monotone narration.

I think some additional editing in the first 45 minutes would have helped to move the story along quicker because things don’t really pick up until the second half when Leigh receives a box of pulled video tape and becomes an important character in the story. Analyzing this footage becomes the focus of the remainder of the movie as he enlists the help of data retrieval specialist, Shelly Monarch, to restore the tape which appears to document the last moments of the men. I thought this last half was genuinely creepy as Leigh prepares to visit the site of the murders and we see Monarch slowly recovering images that include an indistinct shape that was present during the attacks.

Considering the budget they were working with (allegedly $900) the dialogue and acting aren’t bad and there’s some perceptive commentary on how “truth” is shaped by media sensationalism and further distorted in this age of 60 second sound-bites and the constant flow of online information.

I really wanted to like this movie: it merged the internet with a centuries-old legend and the last half of the film is worth the wait. But, in the end, I felt duped and had no way of consoling myself. For fans of first-person POV horror films, this is one of the earliest efforts in the genre and is definitely worth a watch but prepare to be shocked by a horrific ending.

For me, a great horror movie produces similar feelings, though the fear is less visceral and the thrill more cerebral. Some of these on-screen simulations have the power to instill us with a sense of dread and despair that lasts long after the movie is over, but most don’t manage to live up to the hype. If the original [Rec] was as ominous and satisfying as my first rollercoaster experience, [Rec] 2 was like the wait in line before it – plenty of suspense but it left me wanting more.

It takes place immediately after the events of the first film as we follow a SWAT team that’s been called to the site of the infected apartment complex. After arriving on the scene they’re told to escort Dr. Owen (a virologist from the Ministry of Health) into the building as they carry out an “inspect and recognition” sweep of the building. It’s clear from the start that these men are doomed as even the SWAT chief isn’t sure who he’s taking orders from; but it doesn’t take long before the true nature of their mission is revealed.

We get a few different perspectives this time around since the SWAT team is equipped with cameras on their helmets, and there’s also a split in the narrative halfway through when we’re introduced to three teenagers who manage to sneak into the complex with a camcorder. These two storylines dovetail seamlessly but it doesn’t really go anywhere.

All of this does little to further the story and it feels more like a novelty trick to cover up the paper-thin characters and shoddy writing, as we see people we know nothing about get killed on-screen. Dr. Owen (played by Jonathan Mellor) was the only character I found interesting but we don’t learn enough about him.

Many of the details about the infection that were hinted at in the first movie are fully utilized here and this sequel uses almost relentless suspense and frequent shocks to keep the viewer glued to their seat. All this builds to a twisted, if slightly predictable, ending but I missed the slow burn and mysterious nature of the first film, which was the best thing about [Rec]. Once the secret behind the infection was revealed, the movie took on a far more sinister tone and didn’t give you a moment to catch your breath before the suspense was ramped up and the film sent you headlong towards the harrowing climax.

To be fair, I don’t think the duo behind [Rec] 2 (director’s Jaume Balaguero and Paco Plaza) were looking to leave the viewer with any lingering unease but, judging by the enormous critical acclaim they got for [Rec], I guess I was expecting something with a little more substance. Instead, this movie comes off more like a carnival ride, where the cheap fun stops soon after the film ends.

Even though I’d recommend it to anyone who’s seen the first film (which was much closer to the “real” thing), this is more of a crowd-pleaser with some predictable scares and plenty of twists and turns. It’s not as subtle or intriguing as the first movie but the thrills and scares from the first film are multiplied to create a suffocating atmosphere that rivals what we get in many modern horror films.

Discerning viewers will find plenty of flaws and inconsistencies but I don’t think director Ben Rock was aiming too high with this film – it’s a straightforward action/thriller with an alien theme and a few interesting characters. Simply turn off your brain and enjoy.

It opens with a camcorder-shot montage showing a tense group en route to Buck Lake, Arizona, where they’re hoping to find something. We then turn to Hastings Market, a grocery store, at closing time. The remaining employees are waiting for the end of their shift when a heavily armed group of masked infiltrators, led by Aaron Ritter (Carlos Bernard), takes the store hostage, refusing to let any shoppers leave and threatening to shoot anyone who tries. An off-duty cop manages to dispatch a few of the gunmen, including a guy named “Spooky”, before he’s shot himself.

The group eventually reveals their purpose: to stop an alien infestation that’s been traced to the store by their “psychic” (the now dead Spooky) and to kill the “King” so they can stop further infections. The only problem is that, without Spooky, they have no way of detecting who’s been infected or locating the “King”, and have to resort to some grisly methods before time runs out.

This has all been done countless times before and Alien Raiders really doesn’t bring anything new to the table. Apart from Aaron Ritter’s back story and the way the group formed, there’s a lot borrowed from classics like The Thing and Alien and probably a dozen other alien movies. But (judging by the title) I don’t think you’re supposed to be taking this seriously.

Many have complained that the setting of a supermarket got boring after a while but I think it worked well to create a sense of paranoia. It reminded me of Splinter (2008) in that the director used a minimalist approach to get a surprising amount of tension out of the environment he was working with. As a result, the freezer becomes a makeshift morgue, the inventory room becomes a holding cell for hostages and, towards the end, the supermarket aisles became dark, foreboding corridors as you wait for the showdown. The film is very, very dark in places, though I suppose this was to cover up the rough special effects.

Certain characters are surprisingly fleshed-out (for a low-budget flick) and the acting is good even when the dialogue makes you laugh. The fact that they got a bunch of unknown actors to deliver these lines adequately is an achievement in itself, but some of it is pretty bad. It makes the sporadic humor a welcome release in this average action/thriller.

This is a remake of a relatively unknown Romero film of the same name and features an interesting storyline that, no doubt, influenced movies like [Rec], 28 Days Later and even the Resident Evil video games. This updated version wears its influences on its sleeve with several shots that reminded me of some classic sci-fi/horror films and there was also a half-hearted attempt at socio-political commentary, which doesn’t delve as deeply into the climate of paranoia as effectively as it could have (I thought this worked better in the original).

The film begins with an opening sequence depicting a deserted downtown district in flames and foreshadowing the chaos that will come to Ogden Marsh Township – a tiny community of 1,200 in rural Iowa. It then quickly shifts gears and shows the town two days prior with people going about their business, farmers preparing cornfields for the spring, kids riding their bikes (all tastefully set to Johnny Cash’s version of We’ll Meet Again).

It’s at a local baseball game, however, that things start to go awry after a man walks onto the field armed with a shotgun and has to be shot by Sheriff David Dutton (Timothy Olyphant). He initially believes the man was intoxicated but Dutton soon learns that this wasn’t the case and discovers that the local water supply might be contaminated. What caused the contamination and why is it causing people to act dangerously? Dutton finds out that the problem is much bigger than he imagined.

Even though this movie will appear derivative today (how many zombie movies have we seen about a virus infecting a town or community?) it’s still got enough tension to keep viewers engaged. In fact, I thought director Breck Eisner did a great job at pacing the film and having it build towards the climactic finale. A lot of movies today fail to deliver in the end but this was really satisfying.

The script isn’t bad but there were some moments when I thought the dialogue was pretty poor and the performances were similarly hit-or-miss throughout the film (though they did a good job with the casting). Joe Anderson was consistently excellent as Deputy Russell Clank, though. Many horror movie clichés we usually let slide were pushed to their absolute limits (almost to the point of parody), and the way some of the characters cheated death were ridiculous – I’m all for suspending disbelief but towards the end they pushed it a little too far.

If you’re a fan of zombie flicks or are just looking for an exhilarating movie that’ll keep you entertained for an evening this might be worth checking out.

This sounds like a gimmick that would have worked beautifully in a movie about a killer who stalks you in your dreams (and it does) but it becomes too repetitive towards the end to elicit any strong feelings in the viewer. It’s a movie that, no doubt, appeals to fans of the series and film critics because the direction, concept, and writing are all very good and there isn’t anything technically “bad” about this film. But I was, frankly, quite bored by the halfway mark and couldn’t help feeling that the potential to make a truly scary Nightmare flick had been wasted.

The movie takes place in California about 10 years after the first NOES and introduces us to Heather Langenkamp, who played Nancy, living her life as an actress remembered largely for her role in an 80s slasher flick. As with most actors who are remembered for a single iconic role, she distanced herself from the genre but soon becomes caught in a new wave of Freddy hysteria after rumors emerge that there might be a new movie in the works.

Langenkamp, who has settled down with her husband and young son, Dylan, turns down the offer to “play Nancy” again; but the film soon begins to take on a life of its own, blurring the line between reality and the subconscious, forcing Heather into a compromising position.

This was Craven’s attempt at returning his Freddy character to its roots but there’s actually a lot more going on than just that. The film’s self-awareness might be missed by casual viewers or people simply looking to get scared – it’s more of a commentary on the series and on what had become of his original concept.

Apart from a few minor inconsistencies, my main problem with this film was that it got repetitive midway through and dragged itself to a predictable and lackluster finale. Seeing Dylan “possessed” over and over again was unnecessary and the low-budget acting was more evident in a movie with decent production values. The redeeming factors, for me, were the ending (which tied together everything perfectly) and the self-referential humor, which was used sparingly but effectively.

With a remake of the original NOES slated for this spring (I’m not holding my breath), the series is about to undergo another potentially disastrous reinterpretation without Craven. While I didn’t enjoy New Nightmare, I understand that it’s a movie Craven made more for himself than for an audience – a complex, self-aware, therapeutic horror film intended to bookend the series. That’s something I respect even if I didn’t have any trouble sleeping after watching it.

This sounds like a gimmick that would have worked beautifully in a movie about a killer who stalks you in your dreams (and it does) but it becomes too repetitive towards the end to elicit any strong feelings in the viewer. It’s a movie that, no doubt, appeals to fans of the series and film critics because the direction, concept, and writing are all very good and there isn’t anything technically “bad” about this film. But I was, frankly, quite bored by the halfway mark and couldn’t help feeling that the potential to make a truly scary Nightmare flick had been wasted.

The movie takes place in California about 10 years after the first NOES and introduces us to Heather Langenkamp, who played Nancy, living her life as an actress remembered largely for her role in an 80s slasher flick. As with most actors who are remembered for a single iconic role, she distanced herself from the genre but soon becomes caught in a new wave of Freddy hysteria after rumors emerge that there might be a new movie in the works.

Langenkamp, who has settled down with her husband and young son, Dylan, turns down the offer to “play Nancy” again; but the film soon begins to take on a life of its own, blurring the line between reality and the subconscious, forcing Heather into a compromising position.

This was Craven’s attempt at returning his Freddy character to its roots but there’s actually a lot more going on than just that. The film’s self-awareness might be missed by casual viewers or people simply looking to get scared – it’s more of a commentary on the series and on what had become of his original concept.

Apart from a few minor inconsistencies, my main problem with this film was that it got repetitive midway through and dragged itself to a predictable and lackluster finale. Seeing Dylan “possessed” over and over again was unnecessary and the low-budget acting was more evident in a movie with decent production values. The redeeming factors, for me, were the ending (which tied together everything perfectly) and the self-referential humor, which was used sparingly but effectively.

With a remake of the original NOES slated for this spring (I’m not holding my breath), the series is about to undergo another potentially disastrous reinterpretation without Craven. While I didn’t enjoy New Nightmare, I understand that it’s a movie Craven made more for himself than for an audience – a complex, self-aware, therapeutic horror film intended to bookend the series. That’s something I respect even if I didn’t have any trouble sleeping after watching it.

This is a slick-looking horror anthology in the style of Creepshow and Tales from the Crypt but chooses to focus solely on the traditions of Halloween (and what happens to those who don’t heed its customs). The cinematography is excellent and makes this film a treat for the eyes, and the young cast does a fantastic job of adding to the fun and scares that take place on this very special holiday.

Writer/director Michael Dougherty manages to capture the essence of Halloween with this film and he does it by sticking to the basics – costumed kids, jack-o’-lanterns and a few well-placed monsters. Repeat viewings will reveal cracks beneath the glossy surface, but this is a movie about the joys of Halloween so (as long as you’re not looking to get scared) it won’t disappoint.

All four stories take place in Warren Valley, Ohio, a town that takes Halloween very seriously (they host a huge annual parade), though we don’t know how serious until we’re introduced to its strange inhabitants. We have the junior-high teacher carrying on a family tradition, a group of kids who play a prank on a Halloween-obsessed outcast, four fearless young women looking for a good time and a grumpy old man just waiting to die.

Dougherty expertly weaves together these four tales and it all works very well but the non-linear format was a little confusing during my initial viewing. Using the town parade as a reference point helps separate the intertwining storylines, as does the introduction of Sam (the boy in the burlap mask) who is a recurring character. His purpose isn’t immediately clear but it soon becomes obvious and serves to ground the four stories, adding that extra bit of Halloween magic to this movie.

However, while this approach works well in furthering the narrative and bringing the town to life, I felt it also distracted the viewer from the quality of the four tales. The first time I saw this (a couple of weeks before Halloween) I loved everything about it but after watching it again recently, I realized that two of the stories are far superior, in my opinion. It’s not that the other two are terrible but they weren’t as good as I remembered and just didn’t have enough going on to keep me invested in the characters.

Of course, since this is a horror anthology, we usually have our personal favorite story, so this is a minor gripe against an otherwise fine Halloween film. There was one other thing that I didn’t like involving Sam but that would ruin the last part. Most importantly, though, this is a film that was made by someone who loves Halloween and horror movies, someone who’s probably a lot like you and me but has a knack for storytelling and a dark comedic sensibility – this is horror that doesn’t take itself too seriously but is still satisfyingly creepy.

This is a slick-looking horror anthology in the style of Creepshow and Tales from the Crypt but chooses to focus solely on the traditions of Halloween (and what happens to those who don’t heed its customs). The cinematography is excellent and makes this film a treat for the eyes, and the young cast does a fantastic job of adding to the fun and scares that take place on this very special holiday.

Writer/director Michael Dougherty manages to capture the essence of Halloween with this film and he does it by sticking to the basics – costumed kids, jack-o’-lanterns and a few well-placed monsters. Repeat viewings will reveal cracks beneath the glossy surface, but this is a movie about the joys of Halloween so (as long as you’re not looking to get scared) it won’t disappoint.

All four stories take place in Warren Valley, Ohio, a town that takes Halloween very seriously (they host a huge annual parade), though we don’t know how serious until we’re introduced to its strange inhabitants. We have the junior-high teacher carrying on a family tradition, a group of kids who play a prank on a Halloween-obsessed outcast, four fearless young women looking for a good time and a grumpy old man just waiting to die.

Dougherty expertly weaves together these four tales and it all works very well but the non-linear format was a little confusing during my initial viewing. Using the town parade as a reference point helps separate the intertwining storylines, as does the introduction of Sam (the boy in the burlap mask) who is a recurring character. His purpose isn’t immediately clear but it soon becomes obvious and serves to ground the four stories, adding that extra bit of Halloween magic to this movie.

However, while this approach works well in furthering the narrative and bringing the town to life, I felt it also distracted the viewer from the quality of the four tales. The first time I saw this (a couple of weeks before Halloween) I loved everything about it but after watching it again recently, I realized that two of the stories are far superior, in my opinion. It’s not that the other two are terrible but they weren’t as good as I remembered and just didn’t have enough going on to keep me invested in the characters.

Of course, since this is a horror anthology, we usually have our personal favorite story, so this is a minor gripe against an otherwise fine Halloween film. There was one other thing that I didn’t like involving Sam but that would ruin the last part. Most importantly, though, this is a film that was made by someone who loves Halloween and horror movies, someone who’s probably a lot like you and me but has a knack for storytelling and a dark comedic sensibility – this is horror that doesn’t take itself too seriously but is still satisfyingly creepy.