The Cell 2 really surprised me. Just by looking at the trailer I figured this was another low-budget direct-to-dvd movie that would be awful, and since the The Cell had an endless amount of gore in it, this movie would be no different.

Well, I was mistaken in some presumptions. There is very little gore in the The Cell 2, and while the typical cliches are there, this movie does have some decent acting in it. So ordinarily I would give this movie a decent rating. But guess what? I'm still going to give it a very low rating. Because it has the balls to compare itself to the The Cell even though it's not a sequel in any way, shape or form.

First of all, a word about The Cell, and that word is awesome. It was really one of the first horror movies I had ever seen, and it scared the crap out of me. In a nutshell, a psychologist uses virtual technology to enter the mind of coma patients to try and help them. She uses the same technique on a serial killer to track down a missing victim, and we the audience are given a look into his mind. As I mentioned before, there is a lot of gore in this movie, but that actually enriches the film and, at the same time, also explores a more innocent side of the killer in the form of a child. It's scary, disturbing, beautiful, and scores a perfect 5 stars from me.

With that in mind, I'm going to do a step-by-step comparison as to how the The Cell 2 is nothing like the The Cell.

1) Main Character: First paragraph of the movie: In the most extreme brutal and violent cases traditional forensic investigations can be inadequate. In these instances to hunt down these most vicious and elusive killers and psychopaths we solicit the assistance of civilians with extraordinary gifts. Catherine Dean was one of them. 

Um...no, jackasses. Catherine Dean was a child psychologist who used virtual technology to enter the mind of others. This was doubly true when other people started using the same technology. She doesn't have the gift on her own. Did anyone watch the first movie? That's usually a good step to creating a sequel.

Anyway, The Cell 2 stars a psychic named Maya, who developed her gift when she died at one point and was resuscitated. How does she use her gift? Virtual technology? No. Does she enter the mind of killers? No, she can only access their memories through touching personal items. Do we get to see the serial killer's inner demons and fantasy-type world? Yeah, wouldn't that make this movie interesting! And, no. We really don't. We only see recent memories, as in, things the killer did five minutes ago. In addition, Tessie Santaigo does a decent job as Maya, but she's no Jennifer Lopez. Just saying.

2) The antagonist: In The Cell, the serial killer Carl Stargher is a complex villain. While he is torturing and murdering young girls, part of him did suffer a great deal of abuse as a boy, and it is this inner child who tries to kelp Catherine Dean as she journeys through his mind. In The Cell 2, the antagonist is evil because...because...

Um...

Oh, I know! It's because he's insane! He doesn't need a backstory or any reason at all. He's just insane. Not only that, he spent a great deal of time studying physic ability, which means that he's physic too (Because, as we all know, people can get extraordinary talents just by studying about them. Off-topic: next week I'm going to take a class on how to mentally freeze people!). Again, the actor is decent and if weren't for a fact that this is supposed to be The Cell 2, this wouldn't be a big issue.

3) The setting: The Cell had a budget and for the most part had an artistic scenery, whereas the The Cell 2 had a limited budget and, well, most of that was spent on a chopper scene at the very beginning. Oh, but we have to try and be true to The Cell, don't we? So if you're looking for the same sort of visual weirdness and insanity that goes through a serial killer's mind, you'll get this scene-Maya goes into a cave. That's it. I hope that was worth waiting a whole hour for!

4) Overall plot-So, is this movie anything like The Cell? No, it isn't. The Cell was about a psychologist entering a serial killer's comatose mind to find the location of a final victim. The Cell 2 is really a whodunit mystery as Maya tries to discover the identity of an active serial killer who is torturing a victim. And because of a plot convenience, Maya never ever sees his face. But since the The Cell 2 has three supporting characters, it naturally has to be one of them. So is it FBI agent Dickweed? Deputy wallpaper? Sheriff reasonable-but-will-literally-grab-your-balls-if-you-override-his-authority? Buy the movie to find out!

Final Grade:
The Cell 1-5 stars
The Cell 2-1 ½ stars.

Yet we never get an answer to the most important question of the Cell 2-did Maya ever find that lost dog?

Well, since 2009 is drawing to a close, I'd thought I'd reintroduce myself to the new members of this blog.

My name is Natasha Bennett, and I am the author of the science fiction series War of the Soulites, which was published by Lyrical Press back in May. While I do hope to have a career someday as a full-time author, for the most part I write because I genuinely enjoy telling a story. I also like to write horror and fantasy as well.

As you can probably tell from this blog, I have watched a lot of movies in the past, usually in the horror genre. Again, I write the reviews because I enjoy them, and hopefully I can offer a more detailed opinion other than ‘this movie sucks'. I also occasionally review books and games, although not as often because it takes considerably longer for me to do that. Whenever I have free time I like to help other writers get published, which is why you might occasionally find snippets about writing also in this blog.

So what are my New Year's resolutions for 2010? For starters I would like to finish off a dozen half-completed stories that have been patiently waiting in my hard drive. You can tell from the list on the left that I still have some movies/books/games that I need to praise or rant about, and more will be added to that list. Oh, and one of my New Year's resolution is to avoid the 2010 Olympics, which is right next door to where I live.

Details about my books can be found at: http://www.lyricalpress.com/natasha_bennett

Ah, The Spirit. It cost so much to make and made so little back in revenue. Since it's Christmas Eve I'll be generous and give it a few positive points-Death is HOT.




Seriously, I wouldn't be surprised if a half-dozen young men jump off a building everyday in The Spirit universe just to spend five minutes in her loving embrace. The visuals from the Spirit range from decent to surprisingly well done, my favorite being the mudflats at the start of the film. It was written and directed by Frank Millar, the same man who wrote Sin City and in the same comic-book visual style.

The synopsis is this: The Spirit is a superhero fighting criminals in Central City. In reality he is Danny Colt, a man who mysteriously cannot die. His mission is to destroy his arch-nemesis the Octopus, but the arrival of his old fling Sand Saref complicates matters.

As I mentioned earlier the visuals are excellent. However, this is the problem with The Spirit-the characters are bland and never go beyond their designated roles. Danny is a womanizing hero with a love for cats and nothing else. Dolan is a grumpy police chief and nothing else. Ellen is a sweet mortician in love with Danny (no matter how many woman he's going after) and nothing else. Morganstern is...is...



OH MY GOD THAT'S SANDRA BULLOCK FROM DEMOLITION MAN!

I mean, wow, this is a blatant rip-off. Her appearance, her personality...everything! But my biggest problem with the characters has got to be Samuel L. Jackson as Danny's arch-nemesis the Octopus. I've seen a lot of movies with crazy people in it, and all of them portray insanity better than he does. How much did this guy make in this movie? Probably more than I do. Another problem with this movie is the jokes. They're childish, stupid, and at times even clash with a scene.

There's not much more to say about this movie, or even the ending. It's just as bland and unoriginal as everything else. Will there be a sequel? Well, compared to how much money they lost paying for Samuel L. Jackson, I kind of doubt it.

Stars: 2 out of 5. Good for visuals, not good for anything else.

So can I get my five dollars back from Samuel L. Jackson?

Here is the first line in the movie Catacombs:

"My sister, Carolyn, sent me a postcard that said 'Come to Paris. It'll do you good.' Within 48 hours of arriving, she and everyone I had met was dead.

Yeah, you can tell this movie is going to be upbeat.

This is the premise: Victoria is an anti-social girl. Her sister, Carolyn, invites her to an underground rave in Paris filled with actual walls of human skulls.

Wow, this place actually sounds awesome.

However, it turns out there is an evil, sadistic murderer dwelling underneath the catacombs. Victoria is separated from her friends and is trapped alone with him.

Since I'm not exactly spoiler-free in my reviews I'm just going to spoil two-thirds of the movie for you right now-Victoria searches for an exit. Yep, she spends a lot of time doing that. Aren't you glad I saved you three dollars? This movie is awful, probably because it's a direct-to-dvd movie made originally for fear.net. The cinematography is bad, but then there is only so much you can do with just one character spending most of the movie just wandering around.

As for the characters? In my movie review of the Abandoned, I mentioned that Marie was a selfish woman, but I didn't really get into why. Well, the reason was because in one part of the movie, she leaves one of the main characters to die, even after he just saved her life and took a bullet for her. This movie is no different. Victoria abandons the only one other character after he injures himself (stealing his map in the process of course) and leaves him to die. These chicks sure do love them and leave them in a hurry. Why are we rooting for them again?

Is it scary? Let me put it this way-towards the middle I was so bored I fast-forwarded through most of the movie looking for the scary parts! I found only one, and it's more like a WTF moment then anything else. Not only that, it didn't make any sense. 

The ending has two twists which are both equally stupid. I'm not going to spoil either one, but let me lay down a hypothetical situation for you. Say you're a respectable cab driver trying to earn a living for your starving family. Suddenly, a person steps into your cab splattered from head to toe in blood. It is also painfully obvious this person has no money. This person calmly asks for a lift to the airport. Do you:

A) Take this person to the airport and assume that everything's fine. This won't raise eyebrows with customs at all.
B) Take this person to the nearest police station and have their ass arrested or
C) Drive them back to the catacombs rave because it's the coolest party ever! WOO! PARTY!!!

Stars: 1/2 out of 5. They get half a star for um...um...having a rave with human skull walls. That's just cool.

I want to go to a rave now...

Warning: minor spoilers.

     For me, The Abandoned is an interesting movie. First of all, the main protagonists are middle-aged (Ha, take that teenagers! Now it's time for older people to get horribly murdered!). Another reason is the overall style of the movie. I wouldn't call this a breakthrough in the horror genre, but more thought is put into this than other movies...at times.

    Marie, a forty-year-old woman who was abandoned as a child now finds that her parents are deceased (boo) but she owns a new house (yay!). Unfortunately for her it's a bit of a fixer-upper. While investigating this house, she runs into Nikolai, who claims to be her twin brother. They also run into their own dopplegangers, which signifies their own deaths are very near. Unfortunately, escaping the house might not be so easy...

    So here are the good points-this movie does have some scenes which are genuinely terrifying. The set design of the house has been done effectively well and in more detail than other movies. I also have to admit that the idea of two newly-discovered siblings is rather interesting. Unfortunately this, like many other ideas, falls kind of flat.

    We don't know nearly enough about Marie and Nikolai to care about them. Marie is a selfish woman whose only characteristic is fighting with her daughter, and I think Nikolai has a copy of the script stashed in his back pocket. Many times he knows exactly what is happening in the house, and the explanation behind it is vague at best.

    Several plot ideas are created but then subsequently dropped. For example, there is a hallway in a basement which is horribly evil, but the two decide not to explore it, and it's never brought up again (huh, I guess that actually is a smart idea on the character's part...).

    But it's towards the end of the movie that it really falls apart. In a lot of horror movies, there is an element of hopelessness. For example, a character might escape a haunted mansion only to get stabbed by the evil man with a chainsaw who mysteriously teleports from one end of the house to another. While this does create tension, it does get pretty annoying if you see it enough times. In this movie it's *cue dramatic music* time travel.

    That's right, the ghost from The Abandoned has the ability to send you back to the past. He can also be tangible, teleport, hold a government position, turn into a naked women, and has his own radio station in his spare time (yes, I am completely serious here).

    This is the most awesomest ghost ever.

Stars: 2 1/2 out of 5-this could have been a good movie if they tried harder and been more realistic.

Whatever did happen to Anitoly anyway? Don't one-dimensional characters have the right to their own gratuitous death scene?

 (Blogger's note: For the review of the first two films, please scroll down to my earlier post. Also significant spoilers ahead!)

Okay, first things first. BHA HA HA! Look...

Do these actors look anything alike? I guess despite being dead Toshio hit puberty. Okay, some backstory. Basically the actors from the Grudge series didn't want to be in it, the writers didn't know where to take the story and therefore didn't want to be a part of it, and this movie never made it to theaters. The only thing that attracted me was the fact that Shawnee Smith was in it, and the Saw series is my guilty pleasure, so there you have it. Actually, we also have Counselor Troi from Star Trek: The Next Generation in it too. She dies horribly (minor spoiler warning) and I'm going to start a list of Star Trek: The Next Generation actors who die so far in other movies. Why? Because I can.

1) Captain Picard exploding in X-men 3
2) Counselor Troi choking paint in Grudge 3
3) Data getting impaled by an alien in Independence Day

All right, back to the movie. A whiny landlord family are going through a surprisingly rough patch after Kayako kills most of the residents (I honestly don't know why-hell, I would want to live in a haunted apartment building. But then, I'm pretty morbid). They also have a very cute little girl named Rose with a severe medical condition.

Oh great, we got another Toshio in the making. If Rose doesn't kill anyone in this film, I will be very surprised.

But as it turns out, Kayako has a sister named Naoko DUH DUH DUHHH...it would be interesting to know where she was or how she reacted when her whole family died, but the movie decides it's not important and we move on. Naoko has the means to kill Kayako through rituals their grandmother preformed (why couldn't grandma do this again in Grudge 2?) but only if Rose is ready to consume Kayako's spirit and become evil.

LOL who called that?

Long story short plan works, but not before people die. So will there be a Grudge 4? Honestly, I doubt it. There's only so much you can do with an avenging ghost. First Kayako is contained, then released, then contained again. It's time to let her rest.

Stars: 2 out of 5 because I kept laughing every time I saw Toshio and Kayako, which I'm sure if not what this film intended for me to do!




What is that strange clicking noise behind me?

Warning: Minor spoilers ahead!

When Grudge 1 first came out, I wasn't really interested in watching it. The idea of a spooky ghost trapped in a house wasn't really groundbreaking, and while Sarah Michelle Gellar was okay as a protagonist, she wasn't exactly great either. I gave this movie a pass until the Grudge 2 came out, and that looked more interesting. So of course, I had to watch the first movie to understand the second.

First of all, the Grudge series is a remake of the Japanese version (Okay, seriously, are most of my reviews going to be based on remakes?). Usually each movie is split between two or three parts. One part revolves around someone directly linked to the plot, and the second revolves around a group of innocents who are somehow linked to the plot later on.

Anyway, in this series a woman named Kayako falls in love with an American professor. Her husband, Takeo, doesn't take this bit of news too well and kills her, their son, Toshio, their family cat, their goldfish (it's not in the movie but I bet that happened too!) and finally killing himself. Kayako, Toshio and occasionally Takeo come back as spirits and enact their revenge by...killing people who had nothing to do with this chain of events.

Yeah, that makes sense.

It should be noted that Kayako is supposedly the one doing all the killing, while Toshio usually watches the victims. Seriously, do not believe that bullcrap. The kid is a little bastard. If Takeo hadn't killed him, he would have grown up to be a serial killer.

For the most part, they can only make the last noises they heard when they died. In Kayako's case, it was the sound of her screaming while her neck snapped, and Toshio heard the sound of the cat dying. And you know what? I'm glad it was those sounds. Could you imagine what would have happened if Toshio was watching t.v. and the last thing he heard was the Looney Tunes theme? Anyway, onto the movies:

The Grudge 1:

Most of the movie is spent establishing what I just explained above. As I said earlier, this for me is an ‘okay' movie. Not bad, but there's not a lot of surprise or suspense either. In a nutshell, Buffy goes to a house, realizes there are ghosts in it, and destroys the wallpaper somewhat. Turns out this is a bad idea.

Stars: 3 out of 5




The Grudge 2:

Here's a quick synopsis for the Grudge 2-Buffy is in a mental institution for redecorating Kayoka's house. Amber, Buffy's sister, is sent to help her. I won't really spoil what happens next (despite it being in the movie trailer), but suffice to say haters of Buffy the Vampire Slayer will have a reason to tune in to this movie.

I liked the Grudge 2 more for two reasons. One was that the main character (Amber) actually had some depth, and also because there were some genuine freaky moments in this movie, the photo lab being the best.

Unfortunately the flaws of the actual series are really highlighted in this movie. Supposedly Kayako is released from the house because of the fire, and she's now free to go anywhere. Or is she? She follows one of her victims to America, and terrifies a family who were never in Kayako's house to begin with. So what, did she also kill all the people who shared the same flight as the victim? Also, why do the victims of Kayako always have to be alone for them to die? Is Kayako really worried about multiple people seeing her at this point?

There's also one aspect of this series that is really, really annoying-you can't win against Kayako. Not even her grandmother, an expert on dispelling evil spirits, can do anything about her. All you can do is either run or plan to be in a group of people for the rest of your life.

I have to admit that the scene I most liked was the ending, when Kayako's actual human form looks down at one of her latest victims, perhaps wondering what she's doing. Why is she killing people again? I guess because she's evil, and as we all know, evil people have no conflicting morals or judgment. They're souless bastards.

Especially Toshio.

Stars: 3 1/5 out of 5.

But wait! We're not done yet. You see, there's one more movie in this series, and it's worth so much attention, it gets a separate post.

Stay tuned.

Seriously though, if a terrible curse was created every time someone died a horrible death, we would have a serious pandemic on our hands people.

A few months ago, a friend asked me to review his book and gave me a copy of the first chapter. I took a quick look, and to be brutally honest, it was full of grammar errors which made it virtually impossible to read. The problem? This book was already on sale as a softcover edition.

In this day and age, anyone can publish a book, and I do mean anyone. Traditional publishers receive thousands of proposals every day, and reject most of them. Therefore authors decide to either self-publish or create publishing companies of their own with their book included.

So here's what I think about self-publishing. First of all, you're going to need money, because it costs a lot to print those suckers. Then you have to pay for the cover, editing, and binding. A self-published book gets zero distribution. Some bookstores and reviewers don't take these books at all. Lastly, it gets you no points with traditional publishers in case you want to write another book.

You can probably tell I'm not a huge fan of self-publishing. I would honestly love any self-published author to tell me how I'm wrong. But before you start quoting the number of successful self-published authors, let's compare them against the number of unsuccessful ones first, shall we? Admittedly with self-publishing you have creative control, but if you do that just for the sake of getting your book 'out there', you're not going to get very far. Again, this is not meant to offend any of you. This is based on my own personal experiences with self-publishing, and if you can provide me with some success stories I'll gladly post them.

However, this is my advice to new writers-exhaust every opportunity before going to self-publishing. It is free to query an agent or publisher. You will need a lot of patience to do this, because even really good books can take years to be picked up. Finally, if you are going to self-publish,  get a marketing plan together and for crying out loud, don't cheap out on editing services. You're not doing your fellow writers any favors.

Warning: This review has significant spoilers for the movie, including the ending. I had to dig really deep to explain why I hated this one.

Before I can really start the review, I first have to explain what a POV is.

POV (or point-of-view) is a viewpoint of one character that cannot be shared. In the writing world, it's okay for different POVs to be in a novel or story, but not okay for them to be in the same scene. Say for example you and I were in a room talking about an accident you had from work. I could talk and think about the accident, but I couldn't know your thoughts about what happened. Sure, you could tell me about it, but that still wouldn't be the same since I wasn't there. To be fair, multiple POVs is an easy mistake to make in writing, but that's why we have editors (or should have, anyway). You would think that in a movie, it would be virtually impossible to break this rule (since movies are usually told from no one's POV), but trust me, Room 6 finds a way. 

Room 6, not to be confused with 1408 or the number 6, is told from the perspective of Amy Roberts, a teacher who has hospital phobia. After a horrific crash, Amy's boyfriend, Nick, is taken to St. Rosemary's hospital, which supposedly doesn't exist and Amy can't find. While at St. Rosemary's, Nick realizes that all isn't quite right when fellow male patients start disappearing, and the hospital is in fact run by half-naked lesbian vampire nurses. Yeah, you heard me. This is a plot point which has absolutely no significance later, but hey, we need a reason for Nick to hate St. Rosemary's.

I have to admit, the idea of people being taken to fictional hospitals is an interesting concept, but that's the only redeemable feature in this mess. The acting is bad. The only one who tries is Jerry O'Connell, who is at that point still trying to find a career after Sliders. But his character is both predictable and completely pointless, so it's irrelevant. We have typical cliches, the worst being a cop who *gasp* doesn't believe Amy's story of a kidnapped boyfriend. But the real reason I hate this movie has yet to come.

Long story short, Amy overcomes her fears and enters the hospitals (which now has zombies too apparently). Nick is paralyzed and is about to be operated on. Why? I don't know, the villains are obligated to be evil. Fortunately Amy finds him just in time and saves the day. They escape the hospital and...it all fades to white and Nick wakes up at the car crash scene. In fact it has been Amy who is gravely injured and about to die. Since she killed her dad (sort of) the whole movie was a test to see if she joined heaven or hell.

So here's the million dollar question-if that was true, then why the hell was half the movie told from Nick's POV? At no point did Amy give any indication that she knew things from Nick's POV. If she did she would have known exactly where he was hours ago, and which floor he was on when she entered Saint Rosemary's!

There are more problems than just that. For example, why was Amy having a dream about being paralyzed on the operating table if it happened to Nick hours later? Why were other male patients introduced if they were going to disappear five seconds later? Why did we bother to learn the history of St. Rosemary's if it wasn't real to begin with? Why bother showing Nick proposing to Amy at the beginning of the film if she was just going to die at the end? Why did I bother to watch this movie????

Bottom Line: 0 stars out of 5.

Coming soon:  horror movies sequels you probably didn't know even existed.

It figures. The first softcover book I have bought and picked up in probably three years, and I can't finish it. Why did I even pick it up to begin with? Because I was a fan of the first book, the Talisman, written by Stephen King. And it only took me about six years to realize it was a sequel. Although in many ways, there is no resemblance between this and the Talisman, besides the main character.

First, the premise of the book: Jack, our hero is a retired Los Angeles homicide detective living in the small hamlet of Tamarak, Wisconsin (sorry, Maime, I know you were hoping for another gruesome experience, but it's not just King's book this time). He is also retired. However, a series of gruesome murders occur in western Wisconsin by a killer dubbed 'The Fisherman.' The local chief of police, begs Jack to help his inexperienced police force find him. The investigation takes place in at least two parallel universes, one of which is called the Territories.

As I wrote earlier, this book is written by not one but two authors-Stephen King, and Peter Straub. Although King has been pretty heavy on descriptive language, this time it's so bland it's almost unreadable. But don't take my word for it. Here's the first paragraph. By the way, it should be noted that for any author, the first paragraph is your best shot of captivating the reader and drawing them in. Anyway, here it is:

Right here and now, an old friend used to say, we are in the fluid present, where clear- sightedness never guarantees perfect solution. Here: about two hundred feet, the height of a gliding eagle, above Wisconsin's far west edge, where the vagaries of the Mississippi River declare a natural border. Now: an early Friday morning in mid-July a few years into both a new century and a new millennium, their wayward course so hidden that a blind man has a better chance of seeing what lies ahead than you or I. Right here and now, the hours is just six a.m, and the sun stands low in the cloudless eastern sky, a fat, confident yellow-white ball (Reviewer's note: yeah thanks book, I had no idea what a sun looked like until now) advancing as ever for the first time toward the future and leaving in its wake the steadily accumulating past, which darkens as it recedes, making blind men of us all.

Don't expect the story to pick up after this paragraph by the way.

In fact, guess when the main character Jack is introduced: page 75, ladies and gentleman. I hope you really want to know what Tamarak is like, because you will have plenty of opportunity to read all about it. It might sound like I'm dissing Stephen King, but I actually like the guy, and I don't believe this his usual sort of narration. Maybe it's Peter Straub? Whoever did it, there's another aspect that I haven't even mentioned yet-the narrator also has a personality as well. Usually it will say things like, ‘oh, let's go here!' ‘Let's ignore this sex scene because we're not peeping toms.' I suppose this is to make the book cute and bearable, but by the end of it I wanted to throttle the invisible narrator and explore the book my own way. Maybe I wanted to see more of the gruesome murder scene. Or maybe I wanted to listen to the DJ some more. Who knows?

I really skimmed through this book trying to find something, any scene to hook me in and want to read more. Unfortunately, they are few and far between. To make things even more difficult, the characters are pretty bland and uninteresting (and Stephen King's a master of characterization as well!). Maybe one day I will pick this up, especially considering it's the only book I have not in storage.

Eh, hell, I'll just buy some e-books.

BOTTOM LINE: No grade, didn't finish.

In accordance with new FTC guidelines, I just want it to be known that every single book/movie I have reviewed I have also bought either recently or a very long time ago.

That is all. :)

-Natasha

First of all, let it be known that I really love this movie so I won't harp on it too much. The movie I'm reviewing is actually a remake of the 1997 version (which I haven't seen yet, so I can't comment on).

A happy family-George, Ann, and Georgie (junior) go to a lake house. They are soon visited by two neighbors, Paul and Peter, who ask for eggs, break them, and ask for more. Unfortunately for the family, it soon becomes clear that they're looking for a lot more after they break George's leg and declare that the family will be dead by the next morning.

I have a small confession to make-during this movie, I fast forwarded through some parts. I love character development as much as the next critic, but these parts were just dry. A significant time in the beginning is spent playing ‘guess that opera song on the radio' and there was a scene in the middle of the movie that literally took ten minutes of Ann untying herself. Unfortunately, it seems that the director somehow knew what I was doing and thoughtfully broke the forth wall to scold me a couple of times and rewind a scene (no, really).

But there's a lot of good things in this movie. I almost hesitate to even call it a movie, but a study in how normal civilized people don't work in the world of psychotic serial killers. In fact politeness is just a weapon as anything else in this movie. George, angry at Paul over an inappropriate comment, slaps him, then Peter breaks his leg. Peter shrugs, states that it wouldn't have happened if he was slapped, then Paul offers to help him if George is willing to take his pants off.

My only quirk with this movie is that there is a tad sense of unrealism. The fourth wall I already talked about, but I also have to wonder how Paul and Peter can literally terrorize the neighborhood over the past few days and still stay awake? Most of all, how can they wear all that white and not get bloodstains on it?

But it's really a minor issue and I have to say that I do love the kind of horror movies that play mind games rather than being gross. There is a small amount of gore for people who are into that too.

Yet for some reason I like saw...

Stars: 4/5