Tag: scary cinema

Leprechaun: Origins Review

by Finn the Brave, posted in Movies
Photo by Elias Tigiser on Pexels.com

Introduction

Leprechaun: Origins (2014) tries to take the franchise in a darker, more serious direction, but ends up stripping away everything that made the original Leprechaun movies fun. Instead of Warwick Davis’ mischievous, wisecracking killer, we get a generic, snarling creature that barely resembles a leprechaun at all. The story follows a group of American tourists in Ireland who stumble upon a cursed village and quickly become prey for the monstrous leprechaun.  As always, I watched this one twice, so let’s dive right in.

Horror Elements

The horror in this film leans heavily on dark, claustrophobic settings, as the characters find themselves trapped in a remote village where the locals have been offering sacrifices to keep the creature at bay. The filmmakers rely on a mix of creature horror and survival horror, creating a tense atmosphere as the protagonists try to escape an enemy they barely understand. Unfortunately, while the setting and setup have potential, the execution falls short, making the film feel more like a generic monster movie than a true Leprechaun reboot.

One of the film’s main horror elements is its creature design, which trades the recognizable, mischievous leprechaun for something more animalistic. The new leprechaun is barely seen for much of the movie, with quick cuts and shadowy glimpses used to build suspense before its full reveal. When we finally do see it, the design is underwhelming—it looks more like a hairless goblin or some kind of subterranean monster rather than a mythical Irish creature.  Honestly it reminded me of the cave-dwelling creatures in the movie “The Descent”, just not as scary. 

The film tries to use this more monstrous approach to create fear, but it lacks personality and memorable traits, making it hard for audiences to feel any real attachment or terror. The kills, while brutal, are mostly standard fare for creature features, with slashing, mauling, and the occasional gore shot, but none stand out as particularly inventive or shocking. Without a compelling villain at its core, the film struggles to maintain real tension or excitement.  

In case my previous two paragraphs weren’t clear enough, let me just emphasize: the monster in this movie does NOT resemble a Leprechaun in any way, shape, or form whatsoever. Honestly, it’s baffling. Not only does it completely abandon the leprechaun’s traditional look—the little green suit, the mischievous grin, the obsession with gold—but it also ditches all the playful, trickster qualities that made the original films so fun. Did I mention they gave this creature thermal vision? Yes, you heard that right. A leprechaun with thermal vision. In what corner of Irish folklore does it ever mention leprechauns being able to see heat signatures like a predator? I’m still scratching my head over that one. It feels like the filmmakers just slapped the Leprechaun name on this generic creature-feature without any understanding of the source material. 

I’m genuinely at a loss for how a movie with the Leprechaun name could get the entire concept of the monster so completely and utterly wrong. It’s not just a misstep; it’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes the franchise, and leprechauns themselves, memorable. The whole thing feels disconnected, like they tried to create something terrifying without any regard for the iconic myth they were supposedly working with. Did the film makers even watch any of the original movies?  Experience a St. Patty’s day celebration??  Eat a bowl of Lucky Charms???

Okay, done venting, back to my review…

The final major horror element is the sense of isolation and helplessness, as the characters find themselves hunted in unfamiliar territory. The Irish countryside, with its dense forests and eerie ruins, could have been used to great effect, but the film doesn’t fully take advantage of its setting. Instead, much of the action takes place in dimly lit barns and underground tunnels, which, while claustrophobic, don’t add much to the atmosphere. The villagers, who know more than they let on, provide a brief folk horror element, but their role is minimal and lacks depth. Without strong world-building or an engaging antagonist, Leprechaun: Origins fails to deliver the chilling, folklore-infused horror it aims for. Instead, it feels like a generic creature feature that just happens to use the Leprechaun name, making it a disappointment for both fans of the franchise and horror lovers looking for something fresh.

Movie Elements

Leprechaun: Origins seriously lacks creativity, which is a huge letdown for a franchise known for its weird, over-the-top fun. Instead of putting a fresh spin on the classic leprechaun myth, the movie strips away everything unique and replaces it with a generic monster flick that could’ve been about any random creature. The leprechaun itself doesn’t even look or act like one—it’s just a mindless, growling beast that spends most of the movie lurking in the shadows. There’s no personality, no clever kills, and no fun mythology to make it stand out. Even the setting, rural Ireland, could have been used to add some eerie folklore vibes, but the film barely takes advantage of it. Instead, we get a by-the-numbers survival horror movie that could’ve been called anything else and no one would have noticed. For a reboot, it plays things way too safe, making Leprechaun: Origins feel more like a forgettable SyFy Channel creature feature than a fresh take on a cult classic.

The acting in Leprechaun: Origins is as forgettable as the rest of the movie. The cast, made up mostly of unknowns, delivers bland and uninspired performances, with characters that feel more like horror movie stereotypes than real people. You’ve got the standard group of clueless American tourists who make dumb decisions and spend most of the movie either screaming or arguing. There’s no real chemistry between them, and since the script doesn’t give them much to work with, it’s hard to care about anyone’s survival. Even WWE’s Dylan “Hornswoggle” Postl, who plays the leprechaun, is completely wasted since the creature is barely seen and has no personality. Without a strong villain or interesting protagonists, the performances fall flat, making the movie feel even more lifeless than it already is.

The cinematography is just as disappointing as the rest of the film. Instead of using the Irish countryside (it doesn’t look like Ireland) to create an eerie, atmospheric horror vibe, most of the movie is shot in dark, cramped locations that make it hard to see what’s going on. The filmmakers rely way too much on shaky cam and quick cuts, especially during action scenes, which makes the few monster attacks more frustrating than scary. Even when the leprechaun is on screen, the camera work and lighting hide it so much that you never get a good look at the creature.  There was a real opportunity to use moody lighting, creative angles, or even some cool folklore-inspired visuals, but instead, we get a generic, poorly lit horror movie.  Side note- why are all the villagers dressed as though they’re from the mid 1900s?  What was the point of that?

Let me just say, it was seriously tough for me to sit through this one twice because it was just so bland and boring. The pacing dragged, the dialogue was lifeless, and there was absolutely nothing that kept me invested in what was happening on screen. Not only was I able to guess the entire plot within the first 15 minutes, but I even predicted the exact order in which the main characters would die—down to the last survivor. There were no surprises, no twists, and definitely no moments that made me feel even the slightest bit of suspense. I kept hoping for something—anything—to shake things up, but it just stuck to the most generic horror formula possible. I mean, come on… if your movie is this predictable, at least make it fun or give us a villain worth watching. Instead, I was left counting the minutes until it was finally over.

Conclusion

While the film attempts to go for a gritty, creature-feature vibe, it falls flat with forgettable characters, dull kills, and a lack of the franchise’s signature campy charm. Honestly, if the movie had been named anything-and I mean ANYthing else, I would have said it wasn’t half bad.  I probably could have enjoyed it a bit.  But they didn’t- they called this movie Leprechaun Origins because this was supposed to be a reboot for the beloved cult classic.  If you’re looking for the goofy, over-the-top fun of the original Leprechaun films, you won’t find it here—just a bland, uninspired horror flick that doesn’t do the series any favors.  

Final Scare Me Please Score:  That is not a leprechaun, out of 100

Link to Official Trailer

Have you watched this movie?  What did you think of it?   Was it just as disappointing to you as it was to us?  Anything we missed? Have an idea for what we should watch next? Drop a comment below to let us know!

Ghost Stories Review

by Finn the Brave, posted in Movies

Introduction

Ghost Stories (2017) is a chilling British horror anthology that blends psychological and supernatural terror into a suspenseful, twist-laden film. Directed by Jeremy Dyson and Andy Nyman, the film follows Professor Philip Goodman, a skeptical investigator of paranormal claims, as he examines three disturbing cases that challenge his beliefs. With its eerie atmosphere, unsettling storytelling, and strong performances, Ghost Stories aims to pay homage to classic horror anthologies while offering a fresh take on the genre.

Let me be upfront by saying I am a huge fan of horror movie anthologies—I seem to enjoy them even when they aren’t particularly well-made. There’s something about the structure of interconnected, bite-sized tales of terror that I find irresistible. However, that doesn’t mean I can’t recognize when an anthology falls flat or fails to deliver a satisfying experience. Some rely too heavily on jump scares, while others struggle with pacing or weak wraparound stories. So where does Ghost Stories rank among its peers? Does it deliver a hauntingly memorable experience, or is it just another forgettable entry in the genre? Let’s take a closer look.

Horror Elements

At the beginning of the movie, the true antagonist isn’t immediately clear, as the film presents itself as a straightforward supernatural investigation. Initially, the cases Professor Philip Goodman examines seem to suggest that the ghosts and demons haunting the victims are the primary sources of terror. However, as the film progresses, it becomes evident that the real antagonist is something far more psychological—Goodman himself. His deep-seated guilt and suppressed trauma manifest through the terrifying stories he encounters, leading to a shocking revelation that reframes the entire narrative. The sinister force at play isn’t just the supernatural but the haunting nature of Goodman’s own mind, making Ghost Stories as much a psychological thriller as it is a horror film.  Honestly, I went into this movie not knowing this (the trailer doesn’t give too much away), so I initially thought this was just going to be another supernatural-scares sort of film.  This made the psychological twist so much more powerful at the end.  

Professor Philip Goodman is a highly believable protagonist in Ghost Stories (2017), thanks to both strong writing and Andy Nyman’s nuanced performance. As a skeptic and debunker of the paranormal, Goodman is grounded in logic and reason, making his descent into fear and uncertainty all the more compelling. His reactions to the eerie events he investigates feel natural—initially dismissive, then subtly unnerved, and eventually completely unraveled. Unlike many horror protagonists who make irrational decisions for the sake of scares, Goodman approaches each case methodically, making his transformation into a man questioning his own reality all the more effective.  This slow suspenseful build only adds to the horror. His backstory, which is gradually revealed, adds layers to his character, making him not just a vessel for the audience but a deeply flawed and human figure whose fears are far more psychological than supernatural.

In addition to having a believable protagonist, I also felt as though the different characters’ reactions were uniquely portrayed by their character and realistic.  With the first case to be examined, that of Tony Matthews, his reaction to the supernatural events reflects what his character would actually do:  turn on a happy song up loud, call his co-worker for comfort, pick up a hammer (weapon), and call out a threat to whatever is out in the darkness tormenting him.  Simon Rifkind, the second case study, reacts in a similar fashion in that he attempts to grab a weapon (a rolled up map is better than nothing).  Instead of going into “fight mode” as Matthews did, he instead chooses to run from the car when the monster enters it.  Considering how fragile his character seems, this fits what he’d actually do quite well.  Finally, Mike Priddle, the 3rd and final character, reacts differently as well.  Being an intelligent business man, he approaches paranormal events with a logical approach.  For example, when the baby diapers fly across the floor in the nursery, he checks all the windows for a potential draft.  Again, it fits his character and I appreciate these subtle differences immensely.  

Movie Elements

While many anthologies rely on disconnected short tales with a simple wraparound narrative, Ghost Stories cleverly weaves its segments into a larger, more cohesive mystery that builds toward an unexpected and deeply unsettling conclusion.  Additionally, its willingness to subvert expectations—particularly in how it recontextualizes its supernatural elements—adds a layer of depth rarely seen in traditional anthology horror. Rather than just telling scary stories, the film ultimately explores the nature of fear, guilt, and the fragile state of the human mind, making it a refreshingly original entry in the genre.  

The pacing of Ghost Stories is deliberate, gradually building tension rather than relying on constant scares or action. The film takes its time establishing atmosphere and character, particularly through Professor Philip Goodman’s methodical investigations. Each of the three cases unfolds with a slow, creeping dread, allowing the horror to simmer rather than explode all at once. While this approach effectively heightens suspense, some viewers may find the film’s measured pace a bit too restrained, especially in the first half. However, the steady buildup pays off in the final act, where the narrative accelerates into a surreal, mind-bending climax. The film’s pacing ultimately mirrors its psychological themes—drawing the audience deeper into Goodman’s unraveling reality—making for an experience that is unsettling, if at times intentionally slow-burning.

Acting is one of the film’s strongest aspects, with each performance adding depth and authenticity to the film’s eerie atmosphere. Andy Nyman delivers a compelling lead performance as Professor Philip Goodman, perfectly capturing his character’s skepticism, growing unease, and eventual unraveling. Paul Whitehouse, Alex Lawther, and Martin Freeman each bring something unique to their respective segments.  

Whitehouse portrays a working-class man haunted by a tragic encounter with raw realism.  In fact ,as I was watching his story unfold, I couldn’t help but be reminded of someone I knew exactly like him that I worked with many years back.  Specifically, when the spooky stuff starts to happen to him during his night shift, he kind of blows it off at first, something I felt to be very much, Lawther’s performance as a deeply disturbed teenager is intensely unsettling, and Freeman adds a charismatic yet chilling presence that lingers long after his scenes. The cast’s commitment to their roles makes the supernatural elements feel all the more believable, elevating Ghost Stories beyond a typical horror anthology into something far more psychological and immersive.

Cinematography was yet another aspect of the film that was done well. The camera often lingers on empty spaces, creating a sense of unease and suggesting the presence of something unseen. The use of dim lighting and shadowy compositions heightens the feeling of claustrophobia and uncertainty, with scenes that seem to be on the edge of revealing something terrifying, but never fully expose it until the right moment. The framing is precise, often focusing on the protagonist’s reactions or the subtle movement in the background, adding to the unease. Particularly effective are the moments when the camera holds on still shots, allowing the audience to linger in the discomfort of a scene, with every shadow or flicker of light amplifying the growing sense of dread. One specific example of this is during a scene with the character Tony Matthews.  After exploring the far end of the basement level of his building and discovering nothing amiss, he tries to calm his nerves by smoking a cigarette.  In the background, the audience can see the lights in the hallway behind him turn off one by one; this was incredibly effective.  

Conclusion

Overall, Ghost Stories is a meticulously crafted horror anthology that blends supernatural chills with psychological depth, offering a uniquely unsettling experience. With strong performances, a slow-burning but effective pace, and masterful use of cinematography and sound design, the film builds an eerie, immersive atmosphere that almost requires a second viewing. While its deliberate pacing and layered storytelling may not appeal to all horror fans, those who appreciate psychological horror and well-executed suspense will find plenty to admire.  As I’ve mentioned in other articles, I have ADHD.  With this in mind, when I say that this movie captured my full interest, it means it was extremely interesting.  I like to take notes during both my viewings of the movies I review, and with this one I actually had to pause it so I could jot stuff down as I didn’t want to miss a single second.  More than just a collection of ghostly encounters, Ghost Stories is a chilling exploration of guilt, fear, and the blurred lines between reality and the mind’s darkest corners.

Final Scare Me Please Score:  Coma from hell, out of 100

Link To Official Trailer

Have you watched this movie?  What did you think of it?   Did you guess the ending? Which was the scariest story to you?  Anything we missed? Have an idea for what we should watch next? Drop a comment below to let us know!

The Hoarder Review

by Finn the Brave, posted in Movies

Introduction

So far the movies I have reviewed here have been decent picks. Then came The Hoarder, a slasher film I watched for free on one of my favorite platforms, Tubi. Directed by Matt Winn in 2015, I was excited to watch this one based on the description:

“When Ella discovers that her boyfriend is renting a secret storage unit, she becomes suspicious. She breaks into the storage unit with her friend Molly and discovers something sinister.”

They don’t give away too much and the use of the terms “suspicious” and “sinister” appealed to me.

Being completely free and having a surprisingly large number of horror films, Tubi pretty much meets all my criteria for a number one app on my TV. What it doesn’t include, however, are trailers or ratings. Now this can be good or bad. This “blind” choosing has lead me to gems such as “Aftermath” and “Wretched”; I’m very thankful to have watched. On the bad side, it’s also caused me to endure The Hoarder.

When I write these reviews, I always watch the film at least two times, just to make sure I didn’t miss anything and give it a fair chance. That means, that since I suffered two times, YOU should have to experience it too. So grab a drink, find a comfy place to sit, and prepare yourself for 1500 words of nitpicking.

Horror Elements

There is absolutely no backstory to this film at all. No reason why the fiancé is so untrusting, no reason for the antagonist’s actions, no reason why anyone does anything that they do. There might be a sentence or two in an attempt to enrich character development/plot, but nothing more. Audio/music was about the same and the only suspense I had was wondering how much longer I had to deal with the characters before they got killed.

Nothing about this movie was realistic; allow me to give some examples (i.e. complain). For starters, why in the world would the main character think her fiancé would keep a journal of him cheating on her at all, let alone in a storage unit. If he actively used it, then he’d stash it at his office and if it was past inequities, then he would’ve just junked it. Overall just a lame plot set-up.

Next, why the heck are there so many people in those storage units right when it’s closing? Is that just where people go to hang out in the evenings? I can understand a couple, but there were seven for crying out loud! Then, the lady sees her friend get killed by the “creature” and she seriously refuses to leave without her- no way. She would’ve ran outside, called the police, and stayed out there while they handled it. While we’re on the topic of the “creature”, why was he even going around killing random people? How were any of them able to eat if their mouths were stapled shut? And why wouldn’t they just pull the damn staples out?? And WHY was a pudgy, middle-aged man who works a sedentary job, able to beat up everyone else so easily, despite them being younger and in much better shape??? I mean in the final scene, it was two against one and the two even had a gun! Sadly, these are questions I may never know the answers to.

I also feel it pertinent to mention how incredibly unrealistic one of the end scenes was: the main character is being chased by what she now knows is the psycho killer. He is attempting to capture her so he can staple her mouth shut and imprison her forever in a storage locker. While madly running away, she stumbles into a box that has her name on it. What does she do? Did you guess: Run right past it to the nearest exit, grabbing something along the way to use as a weapon, escaping outside to her car, driving away while calling the police? If you did, then you were wrong! Instead, she stops to go through her belongings very very VERY slowly, giving the killer ample time to sneak up on her, thus enabling him to add her to his perverse assortment of prisoners.

Tangent

I know I’ve been pretty negative so far in this review, so let me try “The Sandwich” technique for this section. If you’re not familiar with what this is, I’ll explain it to you. “The Sandwich” is used when giving feedback, particularly if there’s a criticism involved. Basically, the person giving the feedback starts with a compliment, or something positive. After this comes the criticism, followed up by another bit of positivity.

For Example:

Compliment: Wow, that’s a really cute hamster at the beginning of the film.

Critique: I can’t stand any of these characters, how long does this film go on for, just be done already, I don’t think I’m gonna be able to make it through another 20 minutes of this acting, why why why did I pick this to watch…

Compliment: Well, it’s not the worst I’ve seen.

Now with that brief lesson over, back to the review.

Movie Elements

To start with a positive, there’s a really cute hamster in one of the scenes. The hamster doesn’t die and looks really happy. It’s also a bit plump, which adds to the cuteness.

Cinematography was “meh”; It wasn’t terrible but it wasn’t great. I have nothing to remark on in regards to the pacing either. Plot, however, is a different story. Let’s start with the event that sparked the main characters even going to the storage unit. Two of the characters are talking at the beginning, one is about to get married while the other is her friend.  

Allow me to just share the first sentence I wrote during my review:

“It’s been 15 minutes and I already hate all the characters.”

Poor acting, stale dialogue, and zero character development. I really don’t know what else to say about this. If the actors would have intentionally tried to be terrible, it would have almost been entertaining, but as they were taking things serious, I can’t even give the “entertainment” factor a thumbs-up.

Despite it’s flaws, I will give the movie credit for originality in regards to the plot’s premise. Did it go in a great direction? No. Did I like the ending? No. Could the idea be redone and turned into something super scary and horrific? Yes. Honestly, this movie could have been really good; the claustrophobic feeling of being stuck within the units, being chased by some humanoid creature, not sure how to escape, no cell service with the thick walls of the building- all this could easily equate to high quality horror.

Conclusion

If the previous paragraphs weren’t clear, allow me to summarize my thoughts: I did not like this movie. As mentioned earlier, it was a good idea that had potential to be a great scary movie… but it just wasn’t. Honestly, it was the details that killed it for me. I can forgive crap acting and lame dialogue, if attention is paid to the small details. This film felt like a family got together for a reunion one year and decided, “Hey, let’s make a movie!”, and slapped everything together over a four day weekend. It just didn’t feel like any passion for horror went into this at all, which leads me to our rating:

Final Scare Me Please Score: The Hamster was the Best Part of the Movie, Out of 100

Have you watched this movie? What did you think? Anything we missed? Have an idea for what we should watch next? Drop a comment below to let us know!

Lit up house with a pool

Suspense and Horror: Why Aftermath Stands Out

by Finn the Brave, posted in Movies
Lit up house with a pool

Introduction

Imagine after months of saving and searching, you’re finally moving into your new dream home.  After haggling with the owners, you manage to knock down the price into a range that you can afford.  You never imagined being able to live in such an upscale house you are ecstatic when the paperwork goes through.  There is some dark history behind the house, but that’s easy to ignore when you jump into the swimming pool, your swimming pool.  Does this sound ideal?  It certainly did to the main characters in the movie Aftermath, a film directed by Peter Winther that was released in 2021.

Just like the theatrical trailer, the film summary provided on Netflix, where I watched the movie, is vague as to what exactly is going to unfold within the story:

“Desperate to save their marriage, a young couple takes a deal and moves into their dream home, but disturbing events reveal the house’s troubled history.”

I very much appreciate when trailers do not give away too much about the film and this one certainly did not.  It was difficult to classify what type of horror this film was as there’s a bit of a twist to it, but ultimately I’d classify it a mixture of mystery/thriller/horror.  

Horror Elements

Based on a true story (which I’ll delve into later), the movie has a captivating introduction of a 9-1-1 call and an unfolding of a crime scene.  This will play a role later on, but for the introduction it provides backstory that sets the stage for the rest of the plot to play out.  Why was the couple able to move into a house that is well out of their price range and yet once the paperwork is done they feel stuck there?  Well, because of the murder/suicide that took place there, that’s why.  

The two antagonists in the film were nothing special; certainly creepy, but not particularly scary once you actually know what’s going on in the story.  Personally, the idea of somebody being that devious and taking away your feeling of safety within your own home was far scarier then when the main characters finally saw the flesh-and-blood person in their home.    

With a lot of the plot being based on a true story, the whole movie felt a lot more “real” than most.  Add great acting, well-developed characters, likable protagonists, and boom- you have a sturdy base for your horror movie to stand on.  Something I wrote multiple times in my notes while watching was “FINALLY SMART CHARACTERS”.  What do I mean by this?  To start, whenever the wife heard a scary noise or saw something spooky, she immediately grabbed a weapon and/or called the police.  None of this “is somebody there?” nonsense you typically see in movies.  Also, the main character was relentless in proving there was something wrong with the house by investing in security cameras and hiding a secret camcorder in her bedroom, an action that eventually leads to the antagonist being caught.  

Photo by Jakub Zerdzicki on Pexels.com

One of my favorite lines from the movie, and one I feel to be extremely realistic, takes place right after the couple wake up in the middle of the night to a loud noise.  Hearing footsteps downstairs, the husband bolts out of the room, leaving his wife alone.  Instead of waiting for him to return, like I’ve seen in countless other movie scenes, she yells, “Kevin don’t f*cking leave me up here!” before running out of the room to follow him.  She also made sure to stab the killer again even after he was presumed dead, just to make sure- thank you! 

 Music and audio cues for each scene are executed extremely well, including the jump scares, in which there were only three in the entire movie, one of which made me scream so loud I got a sore throat.  Suspense, however, is what sets this movie apart from others.  There’s no clear look at the “monster” until the final climax scene which occurs during the last 15 minutes of the film.  Instead, the audience has a full 1:45 minutes of complete dread to sit through until it can finally be released through the final fight scene.  In fact, this tension got high for me, I actually had to pause the movie at about 45 minutes in, to just breathe and let my heart rate return to normal.  

Movie Elements

Though I felt the movie creatively added certain horror elements to an already scary situation, I can’t give the filmmakers full credit for originality considering it’s based on the true story of a young couple from California.  Basically, a young couple ended up outbidding someone on an amazing house in Carmel Valley, CA.  After moving in around November, weird things started happening.   The wife began to receive flowers with creepy notes, their mail kept getting stopped, and hundreds of dollars worth of magazine subscriptions were delivered in their names.  

Things escalated around Valentine’s Day, when eight irate neighbors descended upon the husband; all the wives in the neighborhood received inappropriate gifts that had the young couple’s address/the husband’s name on it.  Finally, things reached their peak when multiple strangers dropped by the home attempting to rape the wife.  It was then discovered an ad had been put in the paper advertising the address with a picture of the wife, inviting men into her home.  It was shortly after this discovery was made that the police arrested Kathy Rowe, the person whom the couple had originally outbid on the house.  

All of this was included within the movie, (in addition to a few twists and additions) which to me, made everything a bit scarier knowing it had been a real story.  The pacing was great and kept my interest the entire two hours, quite a feat considering I have ADHD.  I will say there was a bit too much drama for my taste, but despite this, the movie was still quite entertaining.  I’m not quite sure where to mention this, but I have to acknowledge how much the dog Odie added to the movie too.  There were quite a few scenes (at least five) that were made scary only because of the dog.  For example, at one point the wife is playing fetch with the pupper when the ball rolls under her bed, getting stuck.  She leaves the room (he follows her) to retrieve something long to get the ball unstuck.  When she returns a few moments later, the ball is sitting on top of her bed.  No change in music, no image of the antagonist, nothing dramatic whatsoever, yet it produced the desired effect:  fear.  Fear is at its peak during horror scenes when the director understands and allows the audience’s imagination to take over in place of “special effects”.

Cinematography, though not elaborate, was great, with the entire set feeling “dark”.  Lighting was not an issue either, as despite the gloom, the audience could still see everything going on.  For some scenes, there was a “fisheye” effect used, which at first I thought would be distracting, but ending up making the scene more intense as it hyper focuses on the main character in the middle of the screen, allowing for the edges of the lense to appear stretched, distorted, making anything (or anyone) you see to appear way creepier than normal.  I have seen this done in other films before in such a way that was distracting, I believe because there was too much of the effect, too dramatically done, whereas the effects and angles in this film were subtle.   

Conclusion

After looking around the internet for other reviews, I was discouraged to see Aftermath didn’t seem to do too well.  Though not an award winner by any means, I still feel it should get more credit than it did and is certainly one I would recommend watching.  It did an excellent job building up a thick layer of suspense for the audience, making it an excellent choice for mystery/thriller fans.  This movie did a lot right, but one major critique would be the “why” behind the old lover living under the stairs.  During the final 15 minutes, there was a flashback in conversation that went into it slightly, but there were no details, and the final explanation during the end scene felt rushed at best.  Again the audience has to make some of their own inferences, which is fine,  but certainly it could have been a bit smoother.  All in all, a worthy watch and one that isn’t diminished when rewatched either.  

Final Scare Me Please Score: Just padlock the door under the stairs shut, out of 100

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Have you watched this movie? What did you think? Anything we missed? Have an idea for what we should watch next? Drop a comment below to let us know!

Official Trailer

Sources:

San Diego couple still scared after a year of torment from jealous home   bidder. ABC7 Los Angeles. (2015, February 13). Retrieved March 30, 2023, from https://abc7.com/rape-san-diego-kathy-rowe-jerry-rice/475504/ 

Wikimedia Foundation. (2023, March 23). Aftermath (2021 film). Wikipedia. Retrieved March 30, 2023, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_(2021_film) 

Ouija : Origin of Evil Review

by Finn the Brave, posted in Movies

Introduction

There are a lot of films that use Ouija boards as the main element of their horror, but only a few do this well.  Ouija:  Origin of Evil is now among my top three favorite ouija-themed horror films, Veronica and I Am Zozo being the other two.  Made to be a prequel to the original Ouiji movie, this film came to theaters just two years afterwards in 2016.  Directed by Mike Flanagan, this summary of the film was provided by Paramount Pictures:

“In 1967 Los Angeles, widowed mother Alice Zander unwittingly invited authentic evil into her home by adding a new stunt to bolster her seance scam business.  When the merciless spirit overtakes her youngest daughter Doris, the small family must confront unthinkable fears to save her and send her possessor back to the other side.”

I’m not quite sure what was meant by “authentic” evil, but overall this is a pretty darn accurate preview of what is to come.  The official trailer, on the other hand, I was not a fan of.  I feel as though way too much of the movie was given away, especially certain plot twists that were surprising.  If the trailer was condensed into just the first minute, it would’ve portrayed the lighthearted feel of the beginning and touch upon the fear that will soon intrude on the characters’ lives. 

As this is the first movie review in this series, I’ll include the six horror elements I’ll examine:  Unique Antagonist, realism, backstory, suspense, audio cues, and believable protagonist.  

Horror Elements

Supernatural subgenres of horror films have a tough time coming up with unique antagonists as so many have already been done.  This is probably the weakest element of horror within the entire film.  Essentially, there’s a demon invited into a house that possesses a child; I’ve seen at least 100 scary movies with a similar plot line.  The “monster” in this is not unique in any way, shape, or form.  

Thankfully, the director did an excellent job making the movie seem “real”.  Not only does the music, setting, and speech create a feeling of being in the 1960s, but the character’s actions are realistic as well.  This is prevalent when the board helped the family find money when they were about to lose their house; it creates a believable reason as to why they accepted this supernatural entity, allowing it fully into their lives. 

Another few realistic points I appreciated happened towards the end of the film. Despite wanting to immediately leave the home, the youngest daughter calls for help from downstairs, and, being a close-knit family, they feel it necessary to go after her.  Honestly, if there was a demon in my house and I was calling for help from the basement, I know my family would come for me too (not like we’ve discussed this in great length before), so this was highly relatable.  In addition to this, the characters agree that splitting up would be a terrible idea, they immediately throw the ouija board in the fire, and the priest mentions he has no idea if burning it will actually work, so nobody should let their guard down.  Thank you!  Finally, smart characters!

Though I plan on reviewing the first Ouija movie in detail sometime in the near future, I will say that it left quite a few plot holes that this prequel did a satisfactory job filling.  It gives a reason for the Ouija board being in the house, the reason for the hidden basement, and a reason for why the three main characters appear the way they do in the other film.  Incorporating the post-war story also made the whole plot stronger and feel more realistic.  

The music and sound effects, though nothing special, were effective nonetheless.  Suspense, on the other hand, was done quite well as the entire first 45 minutes (half the movie) didn’t show the supernatural entity at all, leading to a continual build up of tension.  Jump scares were also kept to a minimal level which I respect.  Even the initial introduction of the ouija board was done in such a normal, nonchalant way, it developed a sort of “unsettling” feeling that lingered throughout the entire film.   

Movie Elements

Though not an original idea (it was a prequel afterall), nor particularly creative, I will cite again the great job done in regards to filling plot holes in from the first movie.  I understand this does not encompass the definition of creativity within film; however, I still believe it deserves some credit as it requires imagination and good story telling (both require creativity) in order to accomplish this successfully.  Cinematography also did a great job of progressing the plot in the background as a story was unfolding in the foreground.  

A great example of this is when the family arrives home to a “Foreclosure” notice on their front door.  The mother is sitting on the front steps upset and the older daughter is out there attempting to comfort her.  With the front door ajar, you can see the youngest daughter moving around in the background, and although it’s blurry, ends up being a significant factor within the story.  This was an excellent storytelling technique as it forces the viewer to pay more attention to the story, all well telling more within the same amount of time.  

With no concrete image of the antagonist until 45 minutes into the film, the pacing was also done quite well.  As I mentioned earlier, this creates an authentic feeling of suspense.  Pair this ominous mood, with the minimal jumpscares, and you have the audience on edge throughout most of the movie as there was no way to release tension until they actually start to fight the demon at the end.  To me, this is when things stop being scary, but I understand scary movies like a good final fight scene.   

Pacing direct scares did not make the movie boring by any means; it was quite entertaining and I have now watched it multiple times.  You can enjoy this movie without having any idea there is a second one, though it is kind of fun to catch the references.  The characters are believable and the acting is good.  Overall, the change in personality of the little girl is eerily done, starting small with the cursive scene (since when can you write in cursive?) to the more brutal scene of the slingshot (did that kid lose his eye?).  This only works because of the initial character development done early on in the film when we are shown how close these three women truly are.

Conclusion

Though it’s not on my “Top Ten” list, I certainly did enjoy Ouija: Origin of Evil.  It did an excellent job with foreshadowing and creating a suspenseful mood.  My favorite (scariest) scene was when the priest does a reading with the family where he asks the ouija board questions himself.  Essentially he “tricks’ ‘ it by thinking incorrect answers so as to prove it was not really his beloved wife he was “speaking” with, but a malevolent force of evil instead.  This, to me, was executed so well it still gives me goosebumps when I watch it.  I also enjoyed that it was a bit of a “throw back” to the original film where one of the characters attempted the same thing, with similar results.    

My biggest complaint with this movie was the ending.  It would’ve been acceptably scary if it ended with the older daughter staring at the psychiatrist from within her cell at the mental institution.  He had glimpsed two girls in the room as he walked past, double backed, and made creepy, prolonged eye contact with her.  It should have just ended right there, but unfortunately it did not.  Instead, it ended with a cheap jump scare, showing the demon girl crawling on the ceiling before cutting out.    Is it too much to ask for a subtle ending?  Does no director believe in the “less is scarier” concept?  This was a huge let down for me, contributing to it not being higher on my list of favorite horror movies.  

Final Scare Me Please Score:  Splitting up sounds like the dumbest thing in the world right now, out of 100

Have you watched this movie? What did you think? Anything we missed? Have an idea for what we should watch next? Drop a comment below to let us know!