BEETLE'S 2ND ANNUAL FRIGHT FEST: JOHN CARPENTER'S HALLOWEEN

Tonight, I bring my Fright Fest to a close with a film that helped to breathe life back into a sub-genre and helped to create a horror icon. Here's my review for Halloween.

This is the shining example of what an atmospheric horror film should be. John Carpenter has always been the master at creating a good, rich atmosphere and it really shows here. The film takes place on Halloween night in 1978 and the darkness of the night overshadows the film, creeping into every corner so that the main antagonist can really be just about anywhere, he could jump out from any darkened corner or room and anyone is fair game.

If you don't know by now, the main antagonist is Michael Meyers (not to be confused with Mike Meyers the comedian). Halloween is truly his film above anyone else's and it is within these confines that he ultimately emerges as an unforgettable horror icon. He will not stop, he will not rest, until he finishes off the target of his killing spree: Laurie Strode (played by Jamie Lee Curtis). In Halloween, Michael is portrayed as an unstoppable force of evil and also as an engine of fate. Here, he is almost a supernatural force, as he pops up and disappears in short bursts (this effect is a bit overdone but it sure does drive the point home). I like that Michale isn;t really given a backstory here and is just an unhinged being that is driven to kill others for reasons we may never fully understand, and I LOVE that about him (if only all killers in films were handled this way). Another interesting to note about Michael is that, while he's not above killing off males, his primary targets seem to be teenage females. This raises an interesting question: Is Michael turned on by these girls and is killing them his way of attempting to rid himself of his sexual desires (was he turned on by his older sister when he killed her as a child, maybe Michale himself is at the mercy of his sexual desire, a driving force that he himself may not understand. Could Michael himself be a twisted victim of sorts as well?)

One of the film's main themes (as it is subtly pointed out in an earlier scene) is fate and how it cannot be avoided. No matter what you do, your fate will always catch up with you and so it goes for Laurie.

There isn't much story to Halloween. A crazed psychotic madman escapes from an insane asylum 15 years after he murdered his sister as a child and heads for home with the determined psychologist, Sam Loomis (Donald Pleasance), hot on his trail. Unfortunately, nothing can stand in Michael's way as he slowly and methodically kills off each of Laurie's friends before finally making his way to Laurie herself.

Halloween has almost become a sort of modern day fable....a classic story that can be told around a campfire late at night. Due to it's numerous sequels and the reboot films made by Rob Zombie Halloween has become deply rooted in just about everyone's psyche...as it well should.

On display here are just about every trope we have come to know and loe in moder day horror films. Dark, creepy houses; a crazed knife happy killer (even though Michael likes to use his hands too); sexually loosed teen females, and the virginal pure girl that is destined to be the only one left to fight the monster in the end. The only trope this film misses is nudity, which I find curious. There are several scenes of implied nudity and there are some pretty hot sexually suggestive shots of the females in here, but in reality the film doesn't need nudity to make it good. It does raise one question though: What film helped to create the trend of naked girls in film?

Halloween may not be outright terrifying but I DARE you to try and have a peaceful night's rest after seeing this film. It's pretty much the definition of a psychological horror film. Set in a small town pretty much like yours or mine, the horror that inevitably occurs here feels like it could also occur where you are at the current moment and because of Michael's tendency to hide in dark shadows it's just about a guarantee that a night light will be required to get a full nights rest. This film will crawl under your skin and lodge itself deep inside the recesses of your subconscious...it's unforgettable.

Halloween is not only an important horror film since it helped to revitalize the slasher genre, it's also one of the more effective ones that can be sampled today. It makes for strongly recommended Halloween night viewing. Feel free to give the re-boot and it's sequel a viewing just as long as you see the original one FIRST.

5 STARS

So just like that, my fright Fest has come to an end. I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did. Here's wishing all you ghosties and ghoulies out there a very happy Halloween. Until next time, stay safe

BEETLE'S 2ND ANNUAL FRIGHT FEST: TRICK 'R TREAT

Hey there beetleheads, It's officially Halloween. Tonight I will be reviewing two films in honor of the occasion. We start off with Trick 'r Treat.

Trick 'r Treat is one of the better horror anthologies out there today, but hasn't gained the wide release it so badly deserved. Instead, it was released straight to DVD after a long battle to find a theatrical distributor (That's right, this film was SUPPOSED to hit theaters).

Trick 'r Treat is the story of one small town on Halloween and focuses on 5 unique tales that all occur on this special night and are interwoven and intertwined with each other.

There's a tale about a married couple, a crotchety old timer, three tricky kids and an idiot savant, three sexy females and their virgin friend who is looking for someone to be her first time, and their's a seemingly friendly school principal.

One of the neat things about Trick 'r Treat is that one of it's main themes has to do with adherence to the age old rules of Halloween (dressing up, trick or treating, never blowing out the jack o' lantern, and checking candy). It's also neat that all stories occur on the same night.

All in all, Trick 'r Treat may not be much scary and it may feel like it's trying too hard at times, but it is creepy enough to warrant a Halloween night viewing.

4/5 Stars

BEETLE'S TRAILER REVIEW: THE LORAX

I, like many, was raised on the books of the classic author Dr. Suess. I had been in theaters to see every film that was based on one of his books. I was there for the great film version of Dr. Suess' How The Grinch Stole Christmas, the super crappy Cat In The Hat, and the highly enjoyable Horton Hears A Who. Now, another film version of one of his classic tales is set to hit theaters Spring 2012: The Lorax. The trailer has just debuted and honestly, it looks pretty promising.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M_T6SsDvO7Q

It looks like this film's got everything I remember being in the book. Truffula Trees (The trees, the Truffula Trees!), Bar-ba-Loots (with their Bar-ba-Loot suits), Swome Swans, Humming Fish, and even what appears to be an environmental message of sorts. To me, it looks pretty incredible.

Despite the oddball song playing in the background, it looks like this film gets it. As far as I can tell the film sticks fairly close to the story of the book: Kid visits Once-ler and is told a tale that involves the Oncer-ler's past and mistakes he made that he now regrets. Of course there is some backstory given to the kid (pretty much he has a crush on a girl and he wants to bring her back a real life truffula Tree, and it is his quest for one that brings him to the Oncer-ler's doorstep which sets the events of the book into motion...it all feels very natural, which is a plus). Of course, trailers can be misleading but you can call me hopeful (I always expect great things from the studio that brought us Despicable Me). Chalk me up as one of the people who will definitely be seeing this film when it is released next year.

BEETLE'S 2ND ANNUAL FRIGHT FEST: HALLOWEEN HORROR NIGHTS 21

Hey there Beetle-heads! Today I bring you my trip report from scare central: Halloween Horror Nights 21. This year, I'm doing my usual trip report in a different format. You see, I had the great fortune of being able to buy a frequent fear pass for HHN 21, this little ticket allows you to visit HHN 21 multiple times for the price of one admission. Pretty much what I'm saying here is that I got to visit HHN 21 a total of four times, and got to go with different people each time so, instead of recounting one night's trip I will be instead going over each house and scarezone individually, assigning a score to each and rating them from 1 to 8 (for the houses) and from 1 to 6 (for the scarezones). Ready or not, here's my trip report from HHN 21.

For each area/house, the description I give will be the official description from the HHN website. The review will be my own though.

SCAREZONES

Let's start off with scarezones. The scarezones this year are one of the weaker parts of the overall event. Usually the scarezones are pretty well developed and designed, not so much this year. Apparently, all the money went into another facet of the event that I will get to later. So for now, let's delve into the scarezones to be found at HHN 21

ACID ASSAULT: For decades now the city has been degrading from the effects of Acid Rain that still falls today. Those that have lived and survived the blistering decay are all alone in the city. Survivors have stripped the city of all life to sustain their own...Dare to enter the Acide Assault!

So, pretty much self-explanatory here. We are entering a city that has been under a constant acid rain that has warped the citizens into homicidal freaks that are out to get us. Sounds like an average theme for a scarezone, but Universal stepped it up here. Acid Assault is located in the New York section of the park, and HHN takes full advantage of the setting here. Acid Assault is easily the best looking scarezone to walk through. Universal has a specual projection system set up to give off the illusion that the buildings in this area are crumbling down as we walk through, it's pretty damn neat. The scarectors are pretty cool here. I didn't get many scares but the makeup and costume design are superb. That said, I do have one major complaint: when the event first began there was a neat acid rain effect they had going on, but as the event continued this effect vanished. True, it was only soap suds they had falling down (I think that's what it was), but the effect really helped to cement the theming in this zone and with it gone it detracted a tad bit from the overall experience.

Rating: 8/10

Rank: # 4

CANYON OF DARK SOULS: Upon entering into the Canyon of Dark Souls, you will feel like a small spec of humanity as the overwhelming sense of death surrounds you. Creatures that dwell within the Canyon are not welcoming so walk slowly as to not disturb them.

This zone was pretty fun. There's not much design here, just two black walls that are on opposite sides of each other but close together creating the feel of a long, dark canyon. Despite the lack of theming here, the scareactors here are the hardest working ones I've seen at the event. Their costumes look bad ass (like hulking skeletons with black hoods) and there are ground walkers and stilt walkers creating a good sense of variety here. The whole canyon is filled with thick, all encompassing fog that easily disorients the visitor. Walking through this zone freaked me out because I didn't want to stumble into one of the scareactors. The scareactors would occasionally roam further outside their zone and thus extend the zone by a little bit (so cool to see this). Overall, this was one of my personal favorite zones of the event and it was always a joy to walk through it.

Rating: 8.5/10

Rank: #3

GROWN EVIL: Enter, if you dare, into our garden where Evil grows. Nature has taken this once well manicured sanctuary back from the humans who once kept it. Now the creatures that inhabit the garden are making any human that enters their prey!!!

I have always loved the central park area during HHN. Usually this part is filled with fog, darkness and glowing pumpkins. This year, Universal went the extra mile and decided to turn it into its very own scarezone. The Central Park area is beautifully themed to an overgrown park that has been invaded by evil winged creatures (alot of whom are played by females, HAWT females.). While the park is wonderfully realized, there wasn't a whole lot of scare potential to be had here. Sure, it was definitely creepy, but I only got maybe a few scares here and there, even less as the event rolled on. That said, it was always fun to walk through and marvel at the ladies in this zone and the costume design. Truly beautiful. I hope they continue to work on this area and perfect it with each proceeding event.

Rating: 8/10

Rank: #5

7: As daylight shines upon our temptresses, their appearance, though evil, allows you the spectacle of beauty. As night falls, these 7 temptresses will show their true colors and take on their true fatal evil forms!! Beware of your own temptations!

Now THIS...was a neat scarezone. Truly original and innovative. I love the theme of the seven deadly sins taking on human form and slowly degrading on throughout the night. I only got to visit this like, once, but it definitely made a lasting impression. While it would appear the sins would be the stars here (each portrayed by a beautiful female), in reality it's the numerous minions that steal the show. The sins themselves are confined to a small stage and have to strike poses throughout the night. they aren't much scary, but they are fun to watch. The minions however, are given free reign to roam around the zone. Each sin has her own special batch of demons (themed to the sin they serve), and each are pretty scary looking. I got a LOT of scares in here, and I loved it. This is also one of the only scarezones that had chainsaws inside it.

Rating: 9/10

Rank: #2

NIGHTMAZE: Journey through the ever changing maze of darkness! This all black maze will change and morph as you walk through it!!! You will not be scared the same way twice!

This area has pretty much NO theming to it. Inside it is pitch dark and there are a bunch of black moveable walls and scareactors clad all i black that easily blend into the darkness and the walls. WHAT A GREAT SET UP! True, I never had many scares in here, but the atmosphere created inside is super tense. Every corner you turn there could be a scareactor waiting to meet you or a wall that slams shut in front of you or moves to take you on a different path. The scarezone changes and re-arranges itself (with help from the scareactors) as you walk through it, which is pretty neat. It's very different from what your typical scarezone is at HHN. Most I talked to really didn't care for this one, BUT I LOVED IT!!!! I like how different and ambitious it is and is definitely my favorite scarezone of this year ( and one of my al time favs in the history of HHN).

Rating: 9/10

Rank: #1

YOUR LUCK JUST RUN OUT: Enter if you dare into the lair of the Lucky. Your choices will determine if you make it out alive! Witness Lucks deadly wrath. Will she choose you to be her next victim?

More like this SCAREZONE'S luck just ran out. This has got to be one of the worst scarezones I have ever seen in HHN. Sting Alley is a great, small, claustrophobic area that is full of great scare potential but HHN squandered that potential by putting in scattered theming, never putting any great scare opportunities in here. This is the Icon zone, and the Icon his year was Lady Luck (by far the worst Icon I think we've had thus far, but I'll get into that later). In here there are 3 characters you WILL run into: Sexy Luck, Monster Luck, and Luck's Minion's. The Sexy Lucks are mainly up on the catwalks and can't really do much from there except beckon to us and look pretty damn sexy. They wear a long green dress, and that's pretty much it. The Monster Lucks wear a badly designed mask that is neither frightening nor scary. They have scare cues (a loud pre-recorded roar/scream) that they jump out on, but that;s about it. The scariest and best part of the zone are the Minions: they are dressed in black suit-like outfits and carry axes and chainsaws, I really liked them and they got me quite a few times in here. I was seriously disappointed in this scarezone, It's always sad when such a rich area like Sting Alley isn't used to it's full terrifying potential (like it was last year in Saws n Steam). I don't blame the scareactors here, I know they tried to do the best could with what they were given to work with.

Rating: 4/10

Rank: #6

HOUSES

I said before that most of the money in HHN 21 seemed to be diverted into a specific area of the event...this area was the houses. HHN 21 played host to some of the best, most well-designed and well themed houses I have seen in HHN history. Without any further ado I present: the houses of HHN 21

NIGHTINGALES: BLOOD PREY- Within every war, the Nightingales have appeared. Able to transform themselves to fit any setting, these savage banshees feed on the weak and helpless. Patrolling WWI era trenches, you discover that you are more than just at war...You are being hunted.

This house was amazing on every damned level. As soon as you step inside you are face to face with a WW1 trench, a battle tank perched on top, the sounds of machine gun fire, and strobes. When i first saw all this I took a step back so I could better take it in. Right from second one, it feel like you have just stepped into the middle of battle. It would appear that you would find safety in the trenches as the war rages on above and around you...no such luck because the trenches are wear the fatal creatures of the house's title lurk. By day they look like normal hospital nurses, by night they transform into hidious beings that slowly suck the life force out of the weak and injured. The theming is superb, and the backstory is haunting and exceptionally well-done (I will be repeating this in just about every house review). The Nightingales are terrifying and tend to jump out when the machine gun fire climaxes in an explosion of light and sound (an effect that always sent me running). Definitely one of the scariest houses I have seen at HHN. I love how, as we travel on through the house, the Nightingales grow more monstrous and violent. It's a superb house that I'm sure will never leave my memory.

Rating: 9/10

Rank: #4

H.R. BLOODENGUTZ PRESENTS HOLIDAYS OF HORROR:Join creature feature host H.R. Bloodengutz in his final televised broadcast as he presents a scare-athon of holiday-based horror that is guaranteed to cleave you screaming for more.

In this house, a washed up actor has found work playing a late night B horror film host. When the manager of the television station he works at fires him right before one of his shows, The actor snaps and kidnaps the manager and slowly tortures him (eventually murdering him) during what will be the actor's last broadcast. Probably the best part of this house is the queue video in which we get to watch the actor's (his tv show name is H.R. Bloodengutz) last show as he tortures the manager. In the house, we get to walk through the horror films he is hosting, which are all holiday themed. It's pretty well-themed but ti's never laugh out loud funny or run away screaming scary. It's an enjoyable house nontheless and is worth a wait just to watch the superbly well-done queu vud and to get to meet HR in person (in the opening room of the house).

Rating: 7/10

Rank: #8

SAWS N' STEAM: INTO THE MACHINE- Spinning blades and massive, crushing pistons await you around every corner as you are forced deeper into the bowels of a mechanical nightmare. Give yourself to "The Machine".

If you visited HHN 20 last year then you should remember the scarezone that took full advantage of Sting Alley, Saws N Steam. In this scarezone, the small seaside town of New Yorkshire fell victim to steam vents that opened up around the town and drained the area of all water. It didn't take long for citizens to panic and begin to mutilate each other and visitors, extracting the water from bodies so they could survive. The house Into The Machine is a continuation of that story. In New Yorkshire a new cultish company named Horizions Extraction Company (I'll give you one guess what they are extracting, tee hee) has opened up promising citizens of New Yorkshire a better life if they join the company. We are playing citizens of the town that have decided to join the company, and of course the Horizon's promise of a better life is all bull. As we travel further into the bowels of the company it is revealed that the Horizon is killing citizens who join and sucking the water out of their bodies. This house was soooooo cool. It's got a very steampunk vibe with neat machines and saw buzzing and whirring and crazed Horizon workers chasing after us all the way through. yes, this house does have a fair amount of chainsaws, so that was a plus. I got many, many scares in here and even got to travel through all by myself during one visit (a true highlight for me, since all scareactor's full attention was on me, I LOVED IT). If ever there was a house to break the curse of the Jaws Queue, this one is it. The house feels fairly lengthy and manages (amazingly) to tell one complete story. It's also got a lot of great water effects (probably the wettest house I've been through, definitely refreshing on a hot night). Of course we do see people getting tortured here, but for most of the house the scareactor's attention is fully on us. Most of the scareactors here are on their A game, and there are some pretty cool SFX to be sampled here as well (like the room where the walls are turning saws that close in on us, the room where water seems to shoot up from the floor, the scuba scareactor that jumps out from a curtain of water scaring us and getting us wet...the whole house is truly superb in every single flippin way). All in All, this is one of the top houses of the night. If you missed Into The Machine then you missed much (It's also one of my favorite houses in HHN history).

Rating: 10/10

Rank: #2

THE THING: Paranoia spreads like an epidemic among a group of researchers in an isolated Antarctic outpost as they are infected, one by one, by a horrifying creature from another planet. In a place where there is nothing, they found something.

While the 2011 film was bad, this house was fantastic. Much like the HHN 19's The Wolfman, this house succeeds at making visitors feel like they have stepped into the 2011 film and the Thing universe. There are little details here and there that won't mean much unless you have seen the film. The atmosphere is great, and getting to see the "pure" form of the Thing was a thrill. Wonderfully themed, and thoroughly freaky The Thing makes for a fun house that is fun to re-visit.

Rating: 8/10

Rank: #6

WINTER'S NIGHT: THE HAUNTING OF HAWTHORN CEMETERY- As snow falls on this normally serene gothic cemetery, the deceased souls that occupy its confines have their sights set upon you. Insuring that the chill you feel up your spine is more than just the cold of night.

This was my personal favorite house of the night (it's not the top house though). The house feels like you're classic haunted cemetery, but at the same time it's so much more than that. The facade is beautifully serene as snow falls around us and a biting chill nips at your neck. This house has got the most elaborate backstory I've seen to a house in HHN. Pretty much a rich newly wed couple (Elizabeth and Johnathan Hawthorn) are looking for an area of land on which to build their home/mansion. Given 2 choices, they make the wrong choice and soon Elizabeth falls ill. Johnathan calls upon a slew of doctors but none can fix her, so he eventually calls upon Trumbull, a shady alchemist to cure his wife. Even Trumbull's attempts fail and eventually Elizabeth dies, after her death Trumbull uses a strange concoction as a substitute to formaldehyde. Johnathan turns the land into a sprawling cemetery in memory of his late beloved wife, and it is discovered that Elizabeth's ghost (apparently unable to rest due to the strange concoction placed in her body) and all the other dead rise to walk the grounds once every year. We happen to visiting on that night. With Johnathan long dead, one of Trumbull's descendants is now in care of the cemetery and has created a liquid which he uses to light the area, which creates a blue light that keeps the spirits in the cemetery. The whole area is beautifully themed, the cold helping to cement the illusion that we are up north. It really does feel like we are traveling through an actual cemetery, and there are some pretty neat effects sampled within. All scareactors are on their A game here, and wear really cool looking costumes. This is definitely another one of my favorite houses in the history of HHN and I made sure to visit it every time I attended this year's event.

Rating: 9/10

Rank: #3

THE FORSAKEN: Four ships began Columbus' fateful voyage, only three became legend. Condemned to a watery grave, the mutinous and cursed crew of that 4th ship has returned with a vengeance. For within the walls of a spanish fort, A maelstrom has brought from the depths...death itself.

This house is loosely based on john Carpenter's The Fog. To get into this house, you have to walk through a screen of fog, and once you do you find yourself in the dungeons of the spanish fort. This house was really cool, but was never really scary. The reason i continually traveled through this house was to marvel at the theming inside and at the movie quality sets inside. Throughout the house we are walking in the middle of a hurricane and there are gusts of wind and water that really help to add to that illusion and were probably my favorite part of this house. We start out navigating through the Spanish fort, then travel outside into the courtyard and eventually wind up on the Forsaken's ship. The costume design for The Forsaken were some of my favorites with their glowing green eyes and watery sailor garb they were truly a sight to remember (It was also fun to get to interact with them, I had a staring contest with one). This was another memorable house and another one of my personal faves of recent years. We don't ever get to see the Forsaken and the fort's resident's fighting (we do hear sword fighting though), we mainly see the after effects that mainly include mutilated soldiers. Overall, this was a really neat house that I thoroughly enjoyed walking through.

Rating: 9/10

Rank: #5

NEVERMORE: THE MADNESS OF POE- The madness of Edgar Allen Poe's greatest works has come to life. Step into the mind of the iconic writer, where every turn of the page takes you closer to the brink of insanity.

I really dug this house. I have been a fan of Edgar for a while now and it was a true treat to be able to enter his stories. Probably the best part of the house though was whenever Poe showed up, whether it be in his home (first scene of Nevermore) or in one of his stories. There are several Poe's in here, and somehow they all felt like the same guy...a real treat. Yeah, Poe does try to be scary but I just couldn't be scare by him. Every time he showed up I wanted to hug him and on my last trip through the house I would call out to some of he Poe's, saying I loved them. In this house we get to travel though Several of Poe's famous stories, including but not limited to The Raven, Masque of The Red Death, The Tell-Tale Heart, Pit and The Pendulum, and The Black Cat. For me what was the best aspect of the house was when Poe would appear in his stories, acting almost as a twisted tour guide to us. the last room was also fantastic with a completely crazed Edgar dancing around. This yet ANOTHER of my favorites in HHN history, it was truly a dream/nightmare come to life and I loved every second of it. That's why this nabs the top house title of the event for me.

Rating: 10/10

Rank: #1

THE IN-BETWEEN: An ominous portal reveals a 3rd dimension where all is not what it seems: A realm where our world and another collide. Surrounded by fiendish creatures, your eyes will deceive you with every step through this phantasm of terror.

This house was my first ever 3D house, and DAMN was it cool. As soon as you walk inside you find yourself traveling down a college dorm hallway and right into a dorm room adorned with posters, in the middle of the room is a pulsing red Ouija like board that emits bursts of smoke occasionally. It's a great opening that immediately throws you right into this houses world. The story here is that a college student steals a professors cool looking game board, unaware that it is actually a portal into a terrifying dimension known as the In-Between. In this house we are sucked into the In-Between and get to explore this new and mesmerizing realm. The whole house plays like an acid trip gone very very bad. The highlights were the spinning tunnel (in 3D, i felt like I was about to fall over on myself and vomit. It was especially bad when the line was slow and it took forever to get through this part...I wanted to curl up in a ball and sob to myself), the spinning head room, the lazer room, a room FULL of multi-colored yarn, and a never-ending hallway effect that was particularly effective. The scareactors here were on their A game, taking every opportunity to scare guests when they were off guard or dizzy, their costumes were absolutely demonic. The 3D made them seem closer to you than they actually were (I think?) and their red eyes seemed to float out of their heads (a very neat creepy effect). Every time I got out of this house it would take me a while to catch my bearings and I loved that. This house thrilled me, chilled me and fulfilled me (like the unneeded Rocky Horror Reference here?).

Rating: 8/10

Rank: #7

Let me just say that every house this year was absolutely FANTASTIC and blew me away like other years never could have imagined. The only house i felt was lacking was Bloodengutz , and event that was entertaining. Pretty much every house that came in at 1- 7 ranking were tops and some of the best I have seen.

SHOWS

BILL AND TED'S EXCELLENT HALLOWEEN ADVENTURE: Party on as those two most excellent dudes return to skewer the biggest names in entertainment and pop culture.

I'm a huge fan of Bill and Ted, so I always make a point to attempt to see their show every year. That said, this was one of the weaker shows I've seen but it was still mounds better than last year's show. The plot this year is that a green alien (strongly resembling The Great Gazoo for whatever reason) lands on Earth with a mission to destroy it due to the terrible pop culture found here and he's going to start with Bill and Ted (because they celebrate mediocrity or something like that). It's up to Bill and Ted to get a group of pop culture and entertainment icons together from last year and prove this alien wrong.

PROS: Conan/Coco, an amazing finale (best one I've seen in my 3 yrs attending), Kickstart My Heart (It was awesome on so many levels to see the whole group ganged together jamming out with Bill and Ted in the lead with guitars), Mr. Chow from The Hangover/Hangover Part 2 (Delivered the best opening I have ever seen), Smurfette (this sequence made me feel like a pervert, but WOW was she hot. There was also a part where she was dancing and you could see her panties), Osama Bin Laden (Definitely came out of left field but every time he was on i laughed my as off), Bush and Obama/Seal Team 6 (Great surprise), Charlie Sheen (barely used but it's still good to see him in the show), Captain Mexico (I would seriously buy a Captain Mexico shirt, this guy was awesome and shows that the writers still got it), The set ( Straight out of the film, resembles a Circle K but is called a 69 for whatever reason, maybe legal issues?), and there's also a great joke about the audience being drunk and another audience pleaser about little kids at the event.

CONS: Many characters seemed out of place or completely random, many jokes didn't hit their mark like they should have, the way they wrap up the villain's storyline was really weird, and the villain for this year's show was lame (but fun, better than last year's villain).

So yeah, the show was one of the weaker ones I've seen but I do enjoy it for what it is. I think of this year's BnT show as good, campy fun which is why I was able to have a blast with it despite it's shortcomings.

Rating: 7/10

ICON: LADY LUCK

I had to take time out to talk about the weakest part of the event for myself. The Icon for this year: Lady Luck. It felt as if the designers had the event planned out and threw her in last second because the public loves Icons. Well HHN, may I be Frank? Please don't throw in an Icon if you can't find a use for her. They had her tie into each house in a way that felt forced and unecessary ( she doesn't appear in the houses though. In In-Between's backstory I guess she was the professor, in Bloodengutz's backstory she was the girl who offered HR the job at the TV studio, in Forsaken's backstory she was Queen Isabella, In Nevermore's backstory she was the girl who sold Edgar the ticket to Baltimore, in Winter's Night's backstory she was the one who offered The Hawthorn's the two plots of land, I don't even know who she was in Nightingales and Saws N Steam!). From now on if uni. can;t come up with a good Icon they should just stick to an overall theme. This year I felt she failed to tie together the event like she should have and only dragged it down. So, those are my thoughts on that.

OVERALL EVENT

Despite the scarezones and the lackluster Icon I feel that this is the best HHN since 2008's. This year's event plays host to some of the best, most well-themed, elaborate, and strongest houses I've seen in my 4 years of attending HHN. I'm almost depressed that this year's event has to end, because I'm having a hard time imaginging how they could possibly top these houses next year. I guess I just have to have faith in the designers and co-ordinators of HHN, I'm sure they'll find some way to surprise me. So, till next year, this has been your Ghost Host with the most most Beetlejuice, signing off from Scare Central! See ya next year, same time same place!

Final Rating: 5/5

OVERVIEW

SCAREZONES

1. NIGHTMAZE 9/10

2. 7 9/10

3. CANYON OF DARK SOULS 8.5/10

4. ACID ASSAULT 8/10

5. GROWN EVIL 8/10

6. YOUR LUCK JUST RAN OUT 4/10

HOUSES

1. NEVERMORE: THE MADNESS OF POE 10/10

2. SAW N STEAM: INTO THE MACHINE 10/10

3. WINTER'S NIGHT: THE HAUNTING OF HAWTHORN CEMETERY 9/10

4. NIGHTINGALES: BLOOD PREY 9/10

5. THE FORSAKEN 9/10

6. THE THING 8/10

7. THE IN-BETWEEN 8/10

8. H. R. BLOODENGUTZ PRESENTS HOLIDAYS OF HORROR 7/10

BEETLE FILM DISCUSSION: PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 3 (HEAVY SPOILERS)

Hey there, I recently reviewed the film Paranormal Activity 3. I haven't been able to get this film out of my mind for the past few days (a sign of a good film). This film raised so many bizzare questions, questions that weren't even addressed or hinted at in the previous two films. How come Katie and Kristi talk about their house burning down when we never see footage of this actually happening (maybe the cult they go to live with in the end of the film burned it down, maybe they were lying about it but why would they lie to their spouses, maybe they were brainwashed into thinking various things including the burn down of their house), why don't they ever mention their mom and stepdad dying and going to live with the grandmom (Surely they would have mentioned that IMPORTANT FACT in the previous films), why don't they ever mention being raised by a cult (This is easily explained away though, I imagine they were probably brainwashed either into not remembering these events or believing the cult was some big family, but if this were the case why is this "big family" never brought up in the previous films), Since Katie is clearly possessed by the end of the film did the demon unpossess her or did the cult drive him out of her because she wasn't fully ready yet? Do you understand why I say in my review that PA 3 only serves up more questions (questions we wouldn't have if the film had actually STUCK TO WHAT WAS SET UP IN THE PREVIOUS FILMS)?

Why is just about none of the footage from the trailers shown in this film (The trailers actually included footage of a house burning down, so it seemed like the footage from the trailers stuck closer to the mythology than the actual film did)? Well, there are two possibilities: Possibility #1 is that originally they had a whole different film prepped for release, this means that 2 different versions of the film had been created but in the end they decided to go with the version we saw in theaters (maybe test screenings of the original footage weren't as positive as they had hoped, maybe they wanted to do something different?). Possibility # 2 (and the possibility that is way more probable) is that they shot all that footage specifically for the trailers and never had any intent of actually inserting that footage into the film, if true, this pisses me off. It's a brilliant strategy to mislead audiences but that also means that they were purposefully misleading and lying to audiences, showing them a film they would never see. NOT. COOL. In the end, we'll just have to wait for the dvd release to see if they release an alternate cut along with the theatrical release.

In fact, the film fails to follow the mythology and events established in the first 2 films so badly I wondered if they brought a new screenwriter onto the film. I did some investigating online, and the screenwriters for PA3 were Christopher B. Landon (who helped to write the screenplay for PA 2 along with 4 others) and Oren Peli (He wrote the screenplay for the original and helped write the screenplay for the sequel). Now, I can understand why Landon could have inadvertently messed up. Maybe he didn't fully understand the events that had been alluded to in the other films, but that's why Oren Peli was there...to set him back on the right path but he apparently failed to do that. I am seriously disappointed, we could have had a really cool origin story but instead we got a fake one that doesn't make sense when viewed with the rest of the films in the franchise.

I assume the reason they decided to deviate from previously established events (if this was even a conscious decision and not an accident) was to make it a more interesting, unpredictable film. Well, it does succeed (PA 3 is really quite thrilling) but at what cost? PA 3 asks us to take what

we have been told was fact and truth in the previous films and throw that all away. I say: "But movie...you made all that out to be true". Movie responds: "I was lying". I fire back with: "But the characters seemed to believe what they were saying, they seemed to be speaking from what little memory they had of the events". Movie responds with: "They were mistaken, they were lying too". I respond: "So, let me get this straight...in the previous two films you were lying to us and you had the characters lie to us too"? Movie responds: "Yes". Angry, I respond a final time: "...fuck you". You see, I understand what the film was trying to do, but they went about it the wrong way. I would say maybe this is a reboot of the franchise, but THIS IS ONLY THE 3RD FILM!!!! It's too early for a reboot and frankly I don't want one!

Now, besides all my negative harping on the ending (I actually screamed "What" twice, once when the screen cut abruptly to black, a 2nd time when the credits started rolling) I must say that I really did enjoy the film....I'm even contemplating if I may actually love it. The whole film before the ending is superbly well done, well acted, and well filmed. It's definitely the best film in the franchise thus far...but it's got the worst ending I've seen for the franchise (hence why I had said best film and worst film). Stripping away it's affiliation with the Paranormal Activity Franchise and judging it as its own film...I would honestly give it 5 out of 5...it was better than sex and was one of the more original, innovative, and wildly ambitious horror films I've seen in recent years. Unfortunately, you HAVE to judge it as part of the Paranormal Activity Franchise because it's, you know, PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 3 and unfortunately that's where the film ultimately falls apart. Because the film fails to follow pre-set events (God, how many times have I used this phrase in this discussion?) it just doesn't work as a Paranormal Activity film and that's why it ends up failing as a film overall. Yes, my final score is still 2.5 stars and GOD do I wish I could give this film a better rating. I love that it's so ambitious and clever, I love how the characters are fleshed out, I love how it tries to be original (in it's own weird way) and I love how it ( FOR ONCE, THANK GOD) doesn't rely solely on jump scares to get the audience scared. I also have to give props to Henry Yoost and Ariel Schulman (the creative minds behind Catfish, one of the most realistic documentaries I have ever seen). They are some of the most ambitious, creative and clever filmmakers I have seen and I wish them the best of luck on their future endeavors (I'M ROOTING FOR YOU GUYS!)

So there you have it, my full thoughts on Paranormal Activity 3. I hope this helps to explain my rating on the film and maybe will either encourage you to see this cool controversial little flick or to give it a skip for the time being. It's up to you, but personally I'd wait till DVD (it's always viewed better when you're in a house alone with all the lights off...no bothersome audience members to distract you), where I'm still holding out hope for some cool dvd extras and maybe an alternate cut (a dim hope, since no other Paranormal Activity DVD comes with anything except the finished film).

BEETLE'S 2ND ANNUAL FRIGHT FEST: THE POUGHKEEPSIE TAPES

The Poughkeepsie Tapes is one of the scariest films I have ever seen, playing heavily on society's fear of murder, torture, serial killers, and the chance that some killers may escape scotch free.

The Poughkeepsie Tapes is a mockumentary (the film is NOT based on a real killer and the events depicted in the film did NOT occur, so sleep safely in this knowledge) about a brutal, sadistic serial killer that ravages the small town of Poughkeepsie for a good number of years. Eventually the FBI manage to uncover his home, but when they make a raid on it they discover that it's empty, the only thing left behind being stacks of tapes on which the killer recorded his murders.

The film is made up of fake documentary footage about the killer and some of the footage found on the infamous tapes, both taking up equal portions of the film. The Poughkeepsie Tapes plays like a documentary you would find on The Discovery Channel or Tru TV, and that makes it feel all the more real and terrifying. Helping with the suspension of belief are the tapes themselves. the footage viewed from the tapes are grainy, and at times hard to make out..in other words: it looks like actual footage from a VHS recorder.

The acting in the documentary portions is pretty bad, and the actual footage is made up of torture porn-esque sequences of victims screaming, crying, spitting up blood etc. All in all, while The Poughkeepsie Tapes is competently filmed and directed, I couldn't recommend it to anyone except those who are die-hard fans of the real life crime programs on Tru TV, those who are currently working in the forensics and investigative services, and those who are studying to become a forensics detective or such.

Probably the only part that came across as forced and fake was the ending where the film pulls the typical: He's still out there, he could be living in YOUR town, but steps it up a notch too far by adding in that HE COULD BE IN THIS VERY THEATER. Ya, suuuure movie, sure.

The Poughkeepsie Tapes is a really hard film to watch, and if by some miracle you do make it through to the end then I promise you it will stay lodged deep in your mind long after it's over. Yes, many sleepless nights await you, so watch this at your own risk.

2/5 Stars

ONE FOR ALL AND ALL FOR FUN: BEETLE JOINS THE THREE MUSKETEERS

I have been looking forward to this film for quite some time now, ever since I first heard about it's being made. The film is somewhat personal to me, and no, I won't explain why. Besides that though, the tale of three friends that band together to kick ass and save lives has always appealed to me (at least, the idea has, I have never actually read The Three Musketeers).

The Three Musketeers follows our three heroes; Athos (Matthew Macfadyen), Aramis (Luke Evans), and Porthos (Ray Stevenson); shortly after a failed mission that has just about ruined their reputation and their spirits. A young wanna-be Musketeer named D'Artagnan (Logan Lerman) sets out to join his heroes and in the process revitilizes their spirits. Little do the foursome know that a nefarious plot is being hatched by Athos' ex-lover Milady (Milla Jovovich) and the Cardinal Richelieu (Christoph Waltz) to throw France into a war with Britain, a plot that only the Three Musketeers plus D'Artagnan can thwart.

The Three Musketeers is a very fun film, but it's one I'd dare say most would probably dislike. Musketeers is one of those films that is best viewed with your brain in the off position, and it is this that most probably would dislike. Personally, I think some just don't know how to have a good time. The Three Musketeers plays like a Saturday morning cartoon; It's goofy, campy, silly and lots of fun.

What surprised me most about the film, is that despite it's mindlessness the main characters are actually pretty smart. The Three Musketeers always are ready with a plan up their sleeve, and are fast on their feet. Not only are they notoriously good fighters, they are also notoriously smart and cunning, and that's one of the things that really appeals to me about them. Sure, their characters may not be fully fleshed out (D'Artgnan is bold and brash, running head first into battle, always ready for a fight; Athos has just been betrayed by a lover and thus doen't really believe in anything anymore; Aramis is pretty religious and believes that everyone has got to believe in something; and Porthos is the sarcastic brute with a heart of gold) but the actors characterizations are strong enough and believable enough to keep most firmly interested in their going-ons and to keep audiences rooting for them. They have a strong bond of brotherhood, they kick ass, and they are pretty smart and that's why I love every one of them.

Milady is the femme fatal of the film. She slinks her way into people's lives that she can use to her own advantage. She only ever has her own best interest at heart (even though it is slightly implied that she does indeed love and care about one of the main characters) and is only ever truly on her own side. As played by Milla Jovovich, Milady oozes sexuality (especially in one scene where she does a fast striptease) and cunning, willfully turning the men in the film against each other for her own betterment and amusement. She is a real bitch, but one that I actually found myself enjoying.

Richelieu is played by Christoph Waltz, and he is another smart character in the film. He and Milday devise a plan to turn the young King Louis XIII (Freddie Fox), his queen (Juno Temple), and The Duke of Buckingham (Orlando Bloom) against each other and thusly spark a war between Britain and France. In the ensuing chaos, he hopes to usurp the throne. Christoph Waltz does a really good performance, but it's honestly nothing we haven't seen before. I'm beginning to get worried that Waltz is starting to get typecast as the villain. This man is a super talented actor and he doesn't deserve to waste his acting abilities on typical villain roles. That said, he does bring his character to believable life and definitely has fun with his role, but is still just your average villain in the end.

Freddie Fox is pretty fun as the dimwitted, fashion obsessed young king (his failed attempts to keep up with the current fashion of the times comes across as a clever social commentary). He has a youthful enthusiasm about him and he attacks his role as king like a young, excited boy would. This makes for an interesting character that is super fun to watch, and also is easy to root for. His standout scenes are one where he is supposed to punish the Musketeers for some rash behavior but instead does something completely different (His youthful enthusiasm shines through here. It is clear he idolizes the Musketeers and looks upon them like a kid would upon real, living superheroes) and one where he asks D'Artagnan's for advice on how to woo a lady and then tries to impress the queen (he stutters through the scene with the queen like a lovesick puppy , but it is obvious that the two do share a love and they do indeed make quite the cute couple).

Orlando Bloom plays the villainous Duke of Buckingham who is a sworn enemy to The Three Muskateers, and a lover to Milady. Of course, he doesn't realize he is being used to ignite a war. He is an interesting character, but doesn't really leave a lasting impression. He's not very smart, doesn't appear to be able to think for himself, and tends to react with violence and threats of vengence...in other words he's the perfect pawn for Richilieu and Milady.

Gabriella Wilde is Constance, the love interest for D'Artagnan and one of the royal ladies. Besides helping the Musketeers at a crucial moment, she isn't given much to do in the film. A shame, becuase she does seem somewhat talented, and she is definitely very pretty.

Yet another character in the film is the captain of the guard, Rochefort, played by Mads Mikkelson. Rochefort is a true villainous knave who prefers to fight with guns instead of swords and doesn't like to fight fairly. Shortly after he insults D'Artagnan and his horse, D'Artagnan challenges him to a duel and is promptly shot in his shoulder. It is after this that D'Artagnan makes it his goal to seek revenge against Rochefort ( a goal that culminates in an ok duel between both characters). Rochfort acts under the commands of Richelieu, and thus acts as a secondary villain in the film.

In case you haven't noticed, most of the cast is made up of unknowns, and I like this about the film. It's always good to have a few fresh faces in the bunch. While most haven't been in much (except for the obvious big names), they still manage to pull off their roles brilliantly (especially the Three Musketeers and D'Artagnan).

Despite my general goodwill towards this film, there were a few things that bothered me. The first thing is that there is a good chunk of the film (maybe 20 minutes or so) where we focus solely on Milady and Richelieu and the Musketeers disappear. I understand this was done to develop the plot of the film, but it does detract a bit from the film overall. The good news is I was just beginning to notice that they had gone missing right when the Musketeers returned, so right when I started craving more of them, they returned.

The 2nd thing that annoyed me about the film is that there are too many villains in it (a whopping 4 in total). The film can never quite make up its mind who the main villain is, and so instead chooses the least likely candidate to focus on during the climax and lets one of the bigger baddies get off scotch free (it even allows him to play fake hero at the end). While this did scratch at me, it kind of made sense that The Musketeers would allow this person to take credit for the heroics so that they could remain in the shadows.

The 3rd thing that annoyed me about the film is that it focuses mainly on the story of D'Artagnan. While the character is a complete bad-ass and super easy to like, and while he definitely has what it takes to be a Musketeer it still doesn't make complete sense why he would be such a huge role in the film. The main advantage of this decision is that it allows the audience to view the Musketeers through his eyes, and that makes them seem larger than life and infinitely cool, so I guess that's a plus. At least this did not diminish the roles of the Three Muskateers, they still appear in the majority of the film and are the main characters along with D'Artagnan....it's almost like the four share lead billing, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's definitley noticeable.

The last thing that annoyed me about the film is the last segment that is tagged onto the end of the film. It doesn't really make sense, and seems to set up a sequel. I have feeling that a sequel will not be made because most seem to really dislike this film, so the epilogue of sorts comes across as pointless. Just leave when the screen fades to black.

I imagine the main reason anyone would go to The Three Musketeers would be for the action, and this film delivers that in droves. There are numerous action scenes within the film, and all are pretty thrilling (my personal favorite would have to be the fight between The Three Muskateers and D'Artagnan against Rochefort and the royal guard). All the action scenes are competently filmed and directed, successfully being thrilling, exciting, and cool all at the same time. Perhaps one of the best parts of the film is the climax, which takes place on an airship (Don't tell me that's not awesome. There are a good three or four action scenes that take place on this neat craft, and these scenes make up the climax). I went in wanting action, and I got alot of it, so I'm sure you action junkies will be quite pleased with this film.

I saw The Three Musketeers in 3D and it plays fairly well with this added demension. Mind you, it wasn't really necessary to add a 3rd dimension to the film, but what the film does with the new tech can be impressive at times. I'd say see this one in 2D instead though, that way you can save a few bucks.

So, was The Three Musketeers what I had been hoping for? The answer is a resounding yes. I never expected the film to be of a superb quality, I knew from the trailers that it was going to be silly fun and if anyone thought otherwise then they must have misinterpreted the trailers. While it is sure to divide audiences, I tend to fall on the positive side for this one. It may not be a superb film, but it accomplishes what it set out to do: show audiences a fun, mindless time at the movies. The Three Musketeers is like a better version of the previous G. I. Joe film, playing like a saturday morning cartoon version of the classic tale. It's definitely not a film for everyone, but I loved it nontheless. In the end, The Three Musketeers is fantastic fun.

3.5/5 Stars

BEETLE'S 2ND ANNUAL FRIGHTFEST: PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 3

WARNING: THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SOME SPOILERS, SO READ AHEAD AT YOUR OWN CAUTION

I have some serious mixed feelings about Paranormal Activity 3. I love it, yet I don't love it...you dig? Ok, maybe I'd better explain.

Paranormal Activity 3 takes place several decades before the events of the first and 2nd films, occurring around 1988. The two sisters from the first two films, Katie and Kristi, are living a good life. Katie (Chloe Csengery) has just celebrated her most recent birthday, and her mom Julie (Lauren Bittner) has just gotten together with amateur videographer Dennis (who acts as a cool stepfather to the sisters, played by Christopher Nicholas Smith). All seems to be fine until young Kristi (Jessica Tyler Brown)makes a new imaginary friend named Toby who is (OBVIOUSLY) not what he appears to be. As more and more strange events occur at their house, an intrigued Dennis sets up several cameras in an attempt to catch footage of whatever is going on.

Paranormal Activity 3 is the best film in the franchise thus far...but at the same time it is also the worst (It;s also the most clever and the most ambitious as well). In Paranormal Activity 3, the characters of Julie and Dennis are fully fleshed out and actually manage to come across as real human beings in this film. By the end of the film, I found that I had grown to care about them and their fate. It is believable that Dennis would grow excited over the events he is catching on film, and it is fun to watch his reactions change from excitement to horror and worry as the events he captures on film grow more and more violent until he is thrust into the middle of them, it being up to him to save his new family. Julie is also great as the non-believer (a great role switch, since in the Paranormal Activity films it is usually the male who is the nonbeliever, and the female who is trying to convince him of the truth. Here, it's the other way around) who does care about her family but doesn't have time for Dennis' silly antics. Both Smith and Bittner do a superb job of acting out their roles, bringing a believability to them. Both of the adults are pretty smart (especially Dennis, except for at the end where he has to act dumb for the sake of the plot and whatnot), which wasn't really seen in the previous two films.

Another great role is that of Randy (Dustin Ingram), Dennis' younger videographer helper. He's not in the film for long, but he does serve an important role in that he lends Dennis books on demonology, and is the first person to warn Dennis of the very real danger that Toby is. When inevitably Randy has his own first hand encounter with a pissed off Toby, he gets while the getting's good....a surprisingly wise idea.

PA 3, as I had said before, takes place in 1988, but it's not nostalgic in any way. This is the way throwbacks to the 80s should be handled. Character's clothing resembles the fashion in the 80's, decorations resembles that from that era, etc. By focusing on the story and throwing in small 80's references the film succeeded in making me feel like it was actually taking place in that era. I'd call that a success.

Another thing that was interesting about this film was that the trailers were FULL of scenes that were nowhere to be seen in the finished product. This set me up to expect the film to go one route when it actually did a 180 and went in the complete opposite direction. This was neat becuase I never really knew where we (the film and I) would end up, but at the same time it kind of felt like the trailers were lying to me.

Paranormal Activity 3 builds itself up to quite the climax. It takes longer than it did in the other films for shit to get real, but when it does...oh boy, hold onto your hats (one scene rivals the kitchen explosion in PA 2). I can't explain why, but for some reason Toby seems more angry than he does in the previous films, and his actions are much more violent this time around (not to mention he's also an asshole and a cockblock, you'll see what I mean). The film is never very scary, but it's filled with a thick tension that finally explodes during the last act.

The climax of Paranormal Activity 3 actually takes the road less traveled, and has humans be the main antagonists for most of this part. Somehow, this was scarier (I'm definitely more scared of cultists than Toby) and came across as a fresh, smart, fun choice for the film to make. I commend it for choosing to stand away from the previous films and become it's own. At the same time though, this hurts the film as well...in a big way (I have literally never seen a film crash so hard and so fast). The climax doesn't wrap up the way you think it would, and several huge events occur that neither sister even bring up in PA one or two (pretty sure they would have mentioned the death of their parents and going to live with their grandmother and other huge stuff I'm not at liberty to divulge here). I walked out of the theater furious with the way the last minutes play out, it was almost like a big FUCK YOU to fans of the franchise. I honestly feel that this film would have been better if it changed the character's names and chose NOT to affiliate itself with the Paranormal Activity name, I think I would have liked the ending more that way.

Paranormal Activity 3 is a competently made horror film that is filled with tension and some good jump scares (unlike the other films, it doesn't JUST rely on jump scares though, this time around there is some genuinely freaky stuff we see going on). Most of the characters are well written and believable ( the young sisters do an ok job, the best one being Jessica Tyler Brown as Kristi. Still, their not breakout performances by any means), it moves along at a good clip and takes it's time building itself up, if only the ending fit in with what the franchise had set up thus far. All in all, while most will walk in expecting answers, Paranormal Activity 3 only serves up even more mind-numbing questions (some of which don't even make sense or only make the franchise that much more needlessly confusing and complex). It is at the same time exactly what the franchise needed, and exactly what it didn't need. See this film at your own risk.

2.5/5

I was going to give this film 4 stars, but becuase of that ending I wound up giving it the current rating instead, think about that.

WHERE WE'RE GOING WE DON'T NEED ROADS: BACK TO THE FUTURE NEWS

I'm sure you all remember back when I got all crazed over the prospect of actual self-tying Nike's, well get for that all over again.

I come here today with 2 pieces of super cool back to the future technology news, this time revolving around Hoverboards and Deloreans.

First up: Deloreans. It would appear that electric BTTF-esque Deloreans are all set to be released sometime 2013. The estimated price is 90,000-100,000 simoleans, top speed will be around 125 MPH (there should be no problem hitting 88 MPH), will have 260 horsepower, and perhaps coolest of all will actually come with GULL-WING DOORS. Judging from the numerous pics I've seen, I must say that these babies look EXACTLY like Doc Brown's famed flying Delorean in the BTTF films (except these don't fly and can't travel through time, of course). I'll save myself the trouble and start saving up my money now.

LINK: http://www.slashfilm.com/back-future-real-life-electric-deloreans-coming-2013/

Next up: Hoverbaords. While Hoverboards have not been crearted yet, it looks like we may be closer than we were before due to a new process called Quantam Locking, which locks an object in space and time. How exactly this is done I have no idea, but the possibilities are quite literally endless if this catches on and is commercialized (maybe we really will have flying cars one day?).

Link: http://www.slashfilm.com/future-real-life-working-hoverboard-amazing-science-quantum-locking/

So that about does it for Road news today....till next time remember: In the future, roads will be a thing of the past.

BEETLE'S 2ND ANNUAL FRIGHT FEST: MOVIE NEWS

Hey there Beetle-heads, it's time for a Fright Fest edition of Beetle's Bug Juice. Today, I go over some depressing news regarding the Piranha 3D sequel.

The Piranha 3D sequel (titled Piranha 3DD) was originally set for a November 23rd 2011 release date. The plot was to follow the carnivorous fish as they somehow made their way into a brand new highly hyped water park where they would begin to gobble up incoming guests. Christopher Lloyd and Ving Rhames supposedly were to reprise their roles from the first film. Sounds like it could be fun, right? With a different creative team behind it, Piranha 3DD was to break away from its predecessor and actually was to be filmed in 3D and not post-converted. Of course, the film shoot has already wrapped and it seemed to be all set to be released.However, I have just gotten word that Piranha 3DD has been pushed back to sometime in 2012...a death sentence.

I don't know when it will be released, but till then I anxiously await the day when I can finally see this film in theaters. Till then I'm Beetlejuice and you've just been bugged

BEETLE IS CONFOUNDED, CONFUSED, AND ULTIMATELY ENLIGHTENED BY TERRENCE MALICK'S THE TREE OF LIFE

I'm going to get this out of the way right off the bat. Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life is definitely not a film for everyone. It never makes a whole lot of sense to the mind, but it makes sense to the soul. The first 30 minutes and last 20 are a symphony of seemingly unrelated images, the part in-between follows the life of one American family in the 50's , focusing mainly on a mother (Jessica Chastain), a father (Brad Pitt), and one of their sons (when young played by Hunter McCacken, when an adult played by Sean Penn although he barely appears in this film) who goes through a worldly crisis as he tries to make sense of this world, who he is, and how he fits into it all. It's a moving story, but it can be downright tough to sit through and is hair-rippingly impossible to make much sense of. It really feels like you are going through the womb when you watch this film, it's unique, different, startling and unsetlling but is brilliant nontheless.

All the actors do a great job here, no surprise there. I can't help but wonder how Brad Pitt and Sean Penn got wrapped up in this film though, they don't seem the types to appear in a film such as this but their prescense strengthens the film overall.

If you're not religious there is a good chance that you will not enjoy this film, there is a constant undertone of religious themes in this film, and at times it can be somewhat off-putting even to a christian such as myself. The film also has long periods of music, silence, and bits of voice over narration synced to beautiful but almost detached images that don't really seem connected.

The Tree of Life is a very different film, but it is a masterpiece nontheless, and if you can find a way to sit through the first 30 minutes without fidgeting then I salute you. I wouldn't reccommend it to everyone, but it still is worth a hesitant viewing if you're curious about it like I was.

4/5 stars

BEETLE IS SWEPT AWAY BY MIDNIGHT IN PARIS

Many films came out in the summer of 2011, most were pretty bad and few were good. Many I talked to claimed that Midnight in Paris was the best film of the summer, possibly the year. Of course, this intrigued me and so I sat down to give this cool little film a watch.

Midnight in Paris is the story of struggling screenwriter Gil (Owen Wilson) who is engaged to the stunningly beautiful Inez (Rachel McAdams). When Inez's parents travel to Paris on business, Inez and Gil trail along. Gil, who has always had a thing for Paris, is happy as a clam. His itinerary and Inez's clash, and after a night of wine tasting Gil (slightly inebriated) goes off on his own to wander the streets of Paris. At midnight an old fashioned vehicle pulls up and transports Gil back to the era he has always fantasized about: Paris in the roaring '20s.

Midnight in Paris is easily Owen Wilson's best film. In it he plays starry eyed Gil, who is all fantasies, dreams, hopes, and naivete. He is thrilled to be back in Paris and wants to see the sights and take in the atmosphere, unfortunately Inez has different plans and wants to do all the typical things Americans do when visiting this city, and this bores Gil. When he is inevitably whisked back to the 1920's, his initial reaction and his slow comprehension of what is actually happening are convincing and enjoyable to watch. Gil quickly becomes like a kid in a candy shop, and it is a joy to watch his joy on screen.

Gil is easily Wilson's best role of his career thus far, and it is a true treat to be able to see him tackle a role that doesn't require him to be overly annoying or whiny. Gil is a very funny character, but it's never comedy overload, and this is balanced by the fact that Gil is actually quite smart and witty. Owen Wilson is convincing, believable, and lovable in his portrayal of Gil, who is clearly meant to represent Woody Allen and to a certain extent the audience as well. I have enjoyed Owen Wilson in the past, but for the first time he really shines here.

Inez is played by the stunningly beautiful Rachel McAdams and the film isn't above reminding us of this fact. There is one scene where the camera focuses on her ass as she walks down a street and another as she bends over a car.It isn't obvious in the way the film does this, the camera doesn't zoom right in on it, but it's clear what we're supposed to be watching in these scenes. I have no problem getting to ogle some McAdam booty, but these scenes go on for a little bit too long.

McAdams character is really boring, but this is done on purpose. This is the way her character is written, and we are supposed to be bored by her, so it's ok. This is done to place us inside Gil's shoes so we can sympathize with him and understand his point of view. He is just as bored by her as we are, which begs the question: why is this guy getting married to her in the first place? It is clear from the get go that these characters are mismatched and are not meant for each other, even though it takes Gil a while to finally realize this.

Michael Sheen plays the "pseudo-intellectual" Paul and acts as a source of divide between Inez and Gil. Inez adores Paul and we can tell by Gil's behavior when Paul is around that he feels uncomfortable around him. It is made clear (without a word of dialogue, even though this is brought up a mere scene later) that Inez had a past history with Paul and that is the source of Gil's discomfort. When Paul is around, Gil acts defensive, tends to hug on Inez more, and disputes what Gil clams to be fact. All this is ok though, because deep down Paul really knows nothing about nothing.

By far the best scenes come when Gil is transported into the past and gets to meet various historical artistic figures including Cole Porter (Yves Heck), Zelda and Scott Fitzgerald (Alison Pill and Tom Hiddleston), Ernest Hemingway (Corey Stoll), Gertrude Stein (Kathy Bates), Salvador Dali (Adrian Brody, who is enjoyable and wacky here), Pablo Picasso (Marcial Di Fonzo Bo), and T.S. Eliot (David Lowe) among various others. At times it feels like the film is crowbar-ing too many historical figures into it at once, and it does get a bit hard to believe. For all I know, these men and women may actually have lived in Paris at the time...but even if they did it still feels a bit forced to have them all make an appearance in the film. The cameos in these sections are so numerous that the film really doesn't have the luxury of being able to focus on one historical figure at a time, but once again...that's ok.

The few that stick out are Kathy Bates as Gertrude Stein(who does a fantastic job as usual), Alison Pil and Tom Hiddleston as the Fitzgeralds (Both of whom are completely believable in their roles here, Alison Pil has also been seen in Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World as Kim and Tom Hiddleston has most recently been seen as Loki in Thor and will reprise his role in The Avengers. I find it amusing that the man who played Loki also makes for a convincing F. Scott Fitzgerald), Adrian Brody as Salvador Dali (He is only in one scene here but manages to really sell his role here, easily one of the best of his career), and Corey Stoll as Ernest Hemingway (completely captivating here, probably the best one out of the bunch). While the characterizations aren't the most historically accurate, they are all super and definitely get the job done. These sections also act as wish fulfillment for any literary die-hard such as myself. Really, who wouldn't love to go back in time and meet all these influential figures, have them read over your work, critique it, and then proceed to have a conversation with them about anything and everything.

It is also during these sections that Gil meets a young Parisian named Adriana, who is an art groupie and has spent some time as both Picasso's and Hemingway's mistress. She is portrayed here by Marion Cotillard, who is easily at her most beautiful and best here. She (like every other period character in these parts) actually looks like she is from the roaring '20s. Gil quickly becomes smitten with her, and this leads to a conflict between him, Adriana, and Inez. After all, how do you tell your fiance you've fallen for a woman from a different era?

Adriana is a free spirit that changes lovers often and seems to be skilled at making love. I fell in love with her as Gil did, it's really hard not to. Her character arc ends up being a tad bit dissapointing, but it's done in this way to draw a parallel to Gil before he goes back in time to Gil after he's gone back in time. I'm not usually a big fan of Cotillard and I've never really been wowed by her beauty (until now that is, you won't believe how gorgeous she is in this film until you see it for yourself), but she easily dominates each scene she appears in and Wilson and her make for a cute and believable couple.

While Owen Wilson has main billing here, the real standout star of the film is Paris itself. The cinematography sampled here is the best I've seen all year. Every single solitary shot of Paris is beautifully shot. We see various Paris locations during the day, at night, and (perhaps most beautifully) during the rain. It is not hard to see why Gil has fallen in love with Paris and by the end of the film you will have fallen in love with this beautiful city as well. This film could easily act as a 90 minute long ad for the city.

While in the end Midnight In Paris is not without it's flaws, it's actually these flaws that make the film stronger. I must agree, Midnight In Paris was indeed the best film of the summer, and it very well could end up being the best of the year (it's my personal favorite of the year, and is guaranteed to be a sure Oscar contender). I believe everyone can find something to like about this film, but it's really made for the idealists such as myself, Gil, and Woody Allen himself. If you do take the trip to Paris, I promise you will not be disappointed.

5/5 BETTER THAN SEX

BEETLE'S 2ND ANNUAL FRIGHT FEST: THE THING (2011)

I honestly don't know where to start with this review. I guess the beginning would make sense.

I have been a big fan of John Carpenter's The Thing for a long, long time, so when a prequel focusing on the Norwegian camp was announced I was fairly psyched. At least their not going the remake/re-imagining route with this, I thought. The original Thing was a true masterpiece, and while I never expected the prequel to be anywhere near as good as John Carpenter's version I never thought that it would have the balls to spit in its face. BAD MOVE

The Thing 2011 follows a group of Norwegian and American scientists at a Norwegian outpost in the Antarctic who have made the discover of a lifetime, little do they know that their discovery is about to turn on it's finders and slowly, painfully assimilate every last one of them. Ain't Science a bitch?

The cast here is a mixed bag. Mary Elizabeth Winstead looks bored as the main protagonist Kate Lloyd, an American who is summoned to the Norwegian Outpost (called Thule Outpost) to help dig up and examine the creature that the Norwegian crew have discovered. She does the whole take charge thing that Kurt Russel did in the original (except she is SO NOT a bad-ass), but doesn't quite pull it off like she should. I was expecting much more from this truly talented actress, so I was super disappointed with her performance here (maybe it's the scripts fault?).

Eric Christian Olsen plays Adam Finch, research assistant to Dr. Sander Halvorson. He isn't really given much to do here. That said, he is one of the few character's I really liked and felt I had a connection with. He's the good natured American who is kind of like a normal Joe you'd meet on the street. Warm, friendly, and kind...it's pretty hard not to like this character, and that's why one of his scenes is so agonizingly painful to watch (you'll know which one I'm referring to when/if you see the film).

Ulrich Thomsen plays the head scientist at Thule Outpost, Dr. Sander Halvorson. I couldn't believe how much of a raging asshole this character was. He is the typical ego infused scientist, but his portrayal of this role goes waaay over the top to the point where I really wanted to punch him. Adam Finch says it best with a line that goes something like this: "So now you're an asshole?" (that's as best as I can remember it).

Joel Edgarton is one of the best actors here, he's got some real emotion and a believability to him in this film, both things some other characters lack. He plays the American Pilot for Thule Outpost, Braxton Carter. He is another Kurt Russel-esque character, but like Kate he's really not a bad-ass. He doesn't really enjoy being at the Thule Outpost, and just wants to go home so he can enjoy his basketball games. Unfortunately for him, what occurs when he's at the research outpost may prevent him from ever returning home again. He's another super-likeable character and it's a damn shame what happens to him in the end. Joel Edgarton is really proving his acting chops this year, this guy has got the shine.

Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje is another great actor here. He plays another American at the Thule Outpost, Jameson, the best friend to Braxton. While he isn't in the film much, he does make somewhat of a lasting impression.

The last actor/character I'm going to talk about is my personal favorite. Jorgen Langhelle is great as Lars, the only real bad-ass character in the film. He doesn't speak a lick of english, but is unwavering in his determination to destroy every single Thing he comes across. He also plays a big role in a sequence that plays out during the credits that ties the prequel directly to the John Carpenter film (I'm sure you Thing Fans can guess what I'm referring to, sadly this is the best part in the whole film). Right from the moment he says "Get Back, Demons!" (subtitled, of course) I was hooked on his character.

While The Thing prequel does succeed in coming up with believable explanations for what we see of the Norwegian outpost in John Carpenter's film, The Prequel doesn't understand The creature or the message in John Carpenter's version. In the prequel, The Thing has been dumbed down to a mindless alien that blindly attacks whoever is closest to it at the time. It doesn't plot or plan, it just slashes, kills, and assimiliates anything and anyone it can get it's claws on (perfect example: one of The Things in human form sets Kate up to suspect someone else as The Thing and even gets her to go to a room to get some keys which Kate will use to disable some snowmobiles. However, as Kate is searching for the keys the Thing attempts to assimilate Kate...WHY WOULD IT DO THAT??? KATE WAS ABOUT TO DO EXACTLY WHAT IT WANTED HER TO DO!!! SHE WAS ABOUT TO SPREAD SUSPICION AND STRAND EVERYBODY THERE!!!! WHY ATTACK HER, WHAT DOES THE THING GAIN FROM THIS???!!!! IT JUST THWARTED ITS OWN PLAN!!!!! ARGH!) This is the single biggest sin the film commits, it destroys everthing the Carpenter film set up. Gone is the smart, intelligent monster from another world and in its place is essentially a mindless monster that only cares about killing/assimiliating as many people as possible. This was not what the original Thing was like, and thus it detracts ALOT from this film.

As I said in the previous paragraph The Thing not only gets the monster wrong, it also fails to create any real sense of paranoia, tension, or suspense. Don't get me wrong, the film does try to create these things...it just doesn't know how to correctly do this. The result is the audience ends up feeling empty during these scenes. What is a Thing film without Tension, paranoia, and suspense? Nothing, that's what. Don't believe me? Go see the prequel.

Another thing that turned me off of this film was it's insistence on using CGI (most of which was just ok, to be honest). Now I'm kind of tired of seeing CGI being used so heavily in films, and The thing unfortunately continues this trend. For me, it runs the illusion of "this is real". As far as The Thing goes, when the CGI kicks in, all you'll see is CGI... not a cool Thing, but "oh, that's CGI...ok." Yeah, I was disappointed.

A troubling thing about this film is no matter how much it insists it's a prequel, it still manages to replicate events found in the first film. Man who gets injured Things out and attacks people, CHECK! Head scientist is assimilated and attempts to escape in a spacecraft, CHECK! Crew stand around a burning thing and talk about the problem at hand, CHECK! A test is concocted to see who is human and who is Thing, CHECK (in The prequel, they try to come u with a blood serum test but someone sabotages it so instead they come up with a filling test. Since The Thing cannot replicate inorganic material, they decide to check and see who has fillings in their teeth. Of course, this test has many variables and by no means truly points out who is Thing and who is not...it's pretty useless). The Thing may bill itself as a prequel but it's got the spirit and feel of a remake. Think of it as a hyrid of prequel and remake, a not too successful hybrid if one must be honest.

While the first half of The Thing is slow and plodding as it goes over stuff Thing fans already know, the second half is all action, kills, blood, gore and gross-out moments...but there is no meaning or message here. The thing prequel is all surface, no substance. What I'm saying is that it's an empty thrill, and while I did catch myself having fun at some moments I had to stop and remind myself that I was watching the bastardization of a classic horror film. The Thing prequel is all mindless kills, gore and gross outs purely for the sake of mindless kills, gore and gross outs, there's no reason or meaning in the film. In the end, The Thing is in reality a cool piece of fan fiction done by people that never fully grasped what John Carpenter's The Thing was and what made it such a huge success. It will piss off die hard Thing fans (such as myself) and will tarnish the legacy and meaning of Carpenter's version to newcomers, thus I can't really recommend it to anyone, it really should not have been made. What does it say about your film when the best part happens during the credits, and the best character disappears for most of the second act (I'm talking about Lars).

The Thing prequel really is just a lame assimilation of Carpenter's classic horror flick and thus there is only one thing left to do...Torch the fucker and walk away. Good thing I brought my flamethrower.

As a Thing Fan I'd give it 0.5 / 5 STARS FUCK YOU (got everything about the classic film wrong)

As a normal moviegoer I'd give it 1.5 / 5 Stars (mainly a dull film, but did have some mindless action scenes and kill scenes near the end...admittedly some were kind of cool)

IN PREPARATION FOR THE THING (2011)

Hello beetle-heads....this your Ghost Host with the most-most here...and I'm currently ripping my hair out.

If you have read my review of John Carpenter's The Thing, you will know that I am a HUGE fan of the original film. I remember after I saw it for the first time I had the thought pass through my mind: This is my favorite horror film of all time (it still is). So, of course I've been following the prequel quite closely ever since it had been announced. I had high hopes for this film. I had always been curious about what had actually occurred in the Norwegian camp and it had seemed like I was finally going to get my answer.

Well, The Thing (2011) officially opens in just a few short hours (2 hrs and 54 mins to be exact) and already my high hopes have been dashed against the rocks by my fellow reviewers. Currently, The Thing (2011) sits at a low 31 % on Rotten Tomatoes (LOWER THAN THE WOLFMAN REMAKE!!!!). I am crushed. Could it be that the film I have been so avidly looking forward to not only will be bad, but could possibly ruin the legacy of the original film for newcomers? OH SAY IT AIN'T SO!!!!!

So, here I sit, fists clutching handfuls of dark brown hair and eyes misty and wet. I'm still going to see The Thing (2011), and have decided that I want to treat it like a band-aid. Rip it off quickly so it doesn't hurt as much (let's hope it doesn't hurt at all...PLEASE FILM GODS...should I go in with a flamethrower in case The Thing is actually an assimilation of the first?) I will be back tomorrow with my review and my recommendation, but for now your usually genial ghost host is looking more pale than ever.

WISH ME LUCK (I'LL NEED IT)

BEETLE'S 2ND ANNUAL FRIGHT FEST: MOVIES I LOVE- THE THING

Welcome to a special Fright Fest edition of Movies I Love. This edition WILL CONTAIN SPOILERS, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

With the 2011 prequel to The Thing (which is confusingly enough also titled The Thing) due out this Friday I figured that now would be a good time to curl up under the covers and take a look back at my personal favorite horror film of all time: John Carpenter's The Thing.

The year was 1982. Before bluescreen and cheap looking CGI effects were the norm (both of which have been a thorn in my side for quite some time, give me old fashioned practical effects any day). It was this year that a new kind of horror would be unleashed onto this Earth and movie going audiences everywhere.

The Thing follows a group of twelve American scientists stationed at a research post in Antarctica as the harsh winter season starts. Soon enough, the cold won't be the biggest problem they have to face. Shortly after two crazed and frantic Norwegians from a nearby research outpost chase a sled dog into camp (shooting and throwing grenades at it all the way there, both are killed for safety reasons), a foreign invader is set loose upon the unsuspecting American camp creating tension, fear, and paranoia amongst the crew as it slowly becomes clear that one or more crew members may not be who they say they are.

The Thing takes its time building itself up, the big reveal of the film's main antagonist coming in at minute 28 of the 109 minute run time. These 28 minutes give us time to build connections with these characters, and also gives us some backstory for the film. When The Thing begins, tension has already grown considerably among the crew of outpost 31 (the name of the American camp), they have been stuck in Antarctica for a while so it is safe to assume that most of the crew are already suffering from cabin fever. They are tired and weak, making them the perfect victims for The Thing (This is the creature's universally agreed upon name, it is never referred as anything else in the film besides It and that Thing).

Among the crew members, most fans seem to latch upon R.J. MacReady as their favorite. Mac is the main helicopter pilot for the camp, and appears to suffer from alcoholism. We first meet him while he's playing a game of computer chess, when the computer outwits him Mac mutters that it is a "cheating bitch" and pours alcohol into it, frying the computer ( a nice parallel and foreshadowing to the end). When things get rough, he would appear to be the last person who would take control, but he is in reality the first. As crew members point fingers at each other and tempers flair, Mac remains the only one with a clear head and so ends up becoming the captain of sorts for the camp. As played by Kurt Russell, Mac is all too human and is not without his faults. Although an apparent alcoholic (in fact, most crew members can be seen drinking alcohol throughout the film) Mac is able to sober up enough so that he is able to take charge as only he can. The great thing about The Thing is that anyone could be infected, even the hero. Despite this possibility, most (myself included) still latch onto MacReady, and is it really hard to imagine why? Not only is Mac bad-ass, but he's also smart and is all too aware of The Thing's purpose in spreading paranoia among the group. With a flamethrower at his side, Mac easily emerges as one of the coolest characters that can be sampled in a Carpenter film.

The Thing deals heavily with themes of paranoia and trust. When anyone could be a traitor, even yourself....who do you trust? It is this basic idea that results in the camp's ultimate destruction. The beautiful thing about The Thing, is that it wants paranoia to spread, and does it's part in framing certain members of the camp. If everyone is pointing fingers and fighting with each other, it makes the group as a whole weaker and thus makes The Thing's job that much easier.

The Thing is a creature from a far away world that crash landed in Antarctica and promptly froze in the harsh climate. Norwegians discover it, and presuming it to be dead, dig it up and drag it into their camp thinking they have made the discovery of a lifetime (this leads me into another theme in the film, Greed and curiousity will ultimately be our downfall). Once in camp it thaws out and proceeds to wreak havoc on the area, eventually getting chased into the American camp. It's fatal weakness is fire (hence the large use of flamethrowers in the film). The Thing is an inherently selfish being, it will sacrifice one of it's own without a second thought if it means it's own survival. The Thing is also very smart, it creates a plan and carefully follows it through. Every action The Thing takes is calculated and thought out in advance.

I love The Thing because it is one of the rare intellectual horror films that manages to mix in a good deal of gross out gore into it's proceedings. The Thing's transformations are stomach turning in all the right ways. It's completely revolting to see human limbs stretch and twist into other worldly shapes and contours, but it's so fascinating that it's hard to look away. Most will probably feel their stomach twist into pretzel shaped knots during these parts. All of the effects seen in The Thing are practical, remember, this was before CGI and bluescreen were super popular like they are today. To me, seeing practical effects being used in a film makes the proceedings more believable. It's like a breath of fresh air (Unfortunately, The thing prequel will be using lots of CGI...such a shame).

The Thing is also neat because the paranoia spreads out to the viewer as well. During the first viewing, most will find themselves pointing fingers along with the crew. During repeated viewings (and trust me, there WILL be repeated viewings. there's so much to digest and think about in this film that repeated viewings are just about guaranteed....myself, I must have seen the film at least 5 times thus far) they will find themselves thinking about when someone got infected or why one of the Things acts the way it does.

The power of The Thing comes from it's refusal to provide any answers to the numerous questions encountered in the film, including it's satisfyingly ambiguous and dark ending. Viewers are encouraged to come up with their own answers and explanations to what is witnessed in the film. Perhaps that's what I love most about this horror classic: it doesn't talk down to it's audience. It presumes that the viewer has some semblance of intelligence and leaves him/her to create answers for him/herself.

The Thing is one of the best horror films you can find today. It deftly mixes intelligence, sci-fi, horror, ample gore, and even has a surprising message in the end. It's my personal favorite horror film. Chalk it up as another great film from master director John Carpenter.

5/5 STARS BETTER THAN SEX

Fun fact: The character names of Mac and Windows are also names of popular computer software we use today. Macintosh and Windows.

BEETLE'S 2ND ANNUAL FRIGHT FEST: DEAD SILENCE

Beware the stare of Mary Shaw

She had no children, only dolls

and if you see her in your dreams

make sure you never, ever scream

Dead Silence has quickly become one of my personal favorite horror films of all time.

Dead Silence is the story of Jamie Ashen who is happily married. One day after receiving a mysterious ventriloquist doll dropped off at his door, he steps out to grab some takeout and returns to find his wife brutally murdered. With a nosy detective hot on his trail, Jamie hi-tails it back to his hometown of Ravens Fair to bury his wife. Shortly there after he begins his own investigation into his wife's murder, and into an age old mystery that surrounds the town that may hold the explanation to everything.

Dead Silence is yet another film that's main appeal to me is it's outstandingly creepy, tense atmosphere. The town of Raven's Fair seems to be in an eternal state of night and is filled with fog. Ravens Fair is just about deserted when Jamie finally arrives there, shops are boarded up and there is barely anybody in the streets. This gives the whole area an almost sleepy ghost town sort of vibe that I really dug, not to mention there is also a creepy cemetery and an old abandoned theater that play pretty big roles in the film. Ravens Fair is a perfect setting for the film, serving to keep the audience on edge throughout the film.

As with any sleepy old town, Ravens Fair has its own mystery/ghost story surrounding it, that of Mary Shaw. The legend of Mary Shaw resembles that of your "classic" ghost story that you could probably hear around a campfire late at night. The story goes that Mary Shaw was an aging ventriloquist who was murdered after a young heckler at one of her shows mysteriously disappeared a few days later. Now, according to legend, she lives on in her dolls and if she should pay you a visit and you scream she'll rip your tongue out. This is where the horror aspect of the film comes in. I love that the main storyline centers around this old ghost story, this makes Dead Silence almost a throwback in a weird way.

Another great thing about Dead Silence is that at first glance it would appear to be about killer dolls. In a way this assumption would be correct, and in a way it wouldn't. The dolls don't have a mind of their own, each is controlled by the spirit of Mary Shaw so in reality Dead Silence is really an old fashioned ghost story of sorts. The dolls do quite a bit of killing, and for most of the film they serve as the scary antagonists. The audience is made well aware of the fact that Mary Shaw's spirit is probably behind the whole thing, but we don't see her until the end of the film.

Another neat, original aspect of the film is the killing scenes. Most of the scenes take place with absolutely zero background noise, creating a great deal of suspense and tension as we wait for the inevitable scare and kill. Once a person's tongue is ripped out, Mary Shaw steals away their voice and tends to use it to trick people. This adds a whole other scary dimension to the film, it's extremely unsettling to hear the person's voice and know that it's not them speaking. This alone will probably give me enough nightmare fodder for several years.

I guess it's time to talk about the actors for a bit. Ryan Kwanten plays Jamie Ashen, the protagonist of Dead Silence. He has a good deal of intelligence to him even though he does make a few dumb mistakes (like in one part where he attacks a cop for taunting him, and another where he follows a disembodied voice even though he already knows not to do this after the first scene in the film). Donnie Whalberg plays Detective Lipton and is completely unlikeable. The character is a complete dick that taunts Jamie about his loss and is just an all-around jerk. I couldn't wait for this character to die (and interestingly enough Jamie does more detective work in the film than Lipton does, what up with that). Judith Roberts plays the ghostly Mary Shaw and nails it, probably being the only truly memorable actor in the film. She doesn't say much, but she succeeds in creating plenty of tension and scares. She is perfect at embodying the ghostly central figure to this ghost story, and is sure to stick with most after the credits run.

Dead Silence is one of the few really good modern day horror films. It succeeds at creating a great atmosphere, great tension, a fantastic score (Mary Shaw's theme is definitely one of the more memorable modern score pieces I've heard), and some pretty good scares. I think it was an ingenious idea to have the central focus of Dead Silence be a "classic" ghost story, an original idea in an era full of rip offs. Probably my only complaint with Dead Silence is nothing really happens until the end of the film, luckily the atmosphere here is strong enough to keep most happily distracted until the final 20 mins or so. With a cool gimmick in the form of a bunch of killer dolls (although we have seen this one before, it still works here and surprisingly doesn't grow old after the first few kills), a great ghost story, superb creepy atmosphere, and a killer stomach turning twist Dead Silence has all you could want in a good horror film and it makes for highly recommended viewing during the Halloween season.

4/5 STARS