Quite a while ago I saw Pat Healy in the film Cheap Thrills and I knew that this was an actor with potential.  In Carnage Park, Healy returns to the big screen as a psychopath who entertains himself by shooting people in his territory with a sniper rifle.  The story is more complex than the previous sentence, but that's the basic idea.  Healy does a good job as a the maniacal shooter, but unfortunately the film comes off as boring, repetitive, and oddly-toned.

According to the film, this is a true story that occurred.  Honestly, the story is really weird and messed up but the movie lacks any sort of uniqueness.  The film relies heavily on jump-scares and again I will reiterate that this convention is the main reason I hate modern horror films.  I mean come on, there are so many better ways to create a horror film that don't rely on the audience always having to be ready for a loud noise and a flash of action.  Yet even when Carnage Park moves away from using jump scares, which it very briefly does, the horror aspects are less scary as they are just weird and annoying.  

My final criticism for the film is the tone.  Clearly this is a midnight film which relies on a cult tone, but scenes that could have been comedic fall flat in the film.  Oddly, the first half of Carnage Park goes for a Tarantino-esque style of story-telling.  The problem is that Tarantino films have their style for a reason whereas Carnage Park has no reason for telling the story the way that it does.  If you want a comedy horror film, actually add some humor to the mix and actually make the film enjoyable.

The Bottom Line: This one is pretty much a repetitive bore which can only pride itself in casting Pat Healy using him as an extremely boring character.

Score:  4/10

Now that Christmas is over, you probably think that you already have all your gifts.  You thought wrong, here is my review of Krampus:

On December 25, 2015 I had the pleasure of watching this film in theaters.  I must say that it is and isn't what I expected.  I expected the odd CGI that was involved, but I did not expect the sort of quality that the film had.  Also, I expected to be bored of the film within twenty minutes, but the film felt as short as twenty minutes.  As you all know I am not the biggest horror fan around, but horror comedy is a different story.  Krampus had a few jump scares here and there, but overall the film knew what it was trying to be.  Odd interjections of comedy in the fashion of Troll 2 created a laughable, but also creepy product.  Nonetheless, I did like the film for what it was.

Also, the cast was fun to watch with Adam Scott as a father, Toni Collette as a mother, that one creepy actress who played the grandmother, and David Koechner as every other character he usually is.  To be honest, it seems to me that Koechner always plays the same exact role.  This is a shame because he is such a great actor.  I hope he eventually ends up in a situation similar to Steve Carell, where he can get some serious drama roles and show everyone just how talented he really is.  With that little rant on David Koechner, I will leave you guys to watch the film yourselves.  Let me know what you think in the comments below if you want to. 

The Bottom Line: This is a fun horror comedy that could easily have a cult following if it were just a bit lower budgeted in production.

​Score: 6/10

In the 1980s, Wes Craven created one of the most iconic horror characters ever.  Freddy Kreuger is shrouded with mystery as a character who disturbs his victims in the dream world.  Craven was certainly a genius horror film maker whose legacy has lived on through time.  Unlike most modern horror films, A Nightmare on Elm Street moves beyond the basic jump-scare horror convention.  Rather, the film creates a mesh between reality and dream.  For me, this is a film that is more fun to watch than many other horror films.

This film stands out as a classic, but clearly has some dated aspects to it.  A lot of the effects are based on creating a creepy character.  Kreuger is made to be a repulsive creature with burn marks and other oddities.  Certainly I was disgusted by much of the character model, but some of it just seemed out right creepy.  Often, Kreuger seemed more like a pedophile than he did a killer.

I think I am going to finish up this review with a short rant on why horror films do not appeal to me very much.  The last horror film I saw in theaters was The Babadook and I loved it, but I just cannot help but notice that contemporary horror films are not made with quite as much attention to detail as other genres often are.  Most of them just go on jump-scare tangents that get boring to me after a while.  In film history, there have been many horror films that I have enjoyed because they reach a broader approach.  For example, The Shining is a brilliant horror film because it brings in a brilliant soundtrack, engaging cast, and Kubrick's amazing direction.  I just wish that the genre would turn back to its roots and strive to create better films than Paranormal Activity and Annabelle.

The Bottom Line: Wes Craven creates a memorable character that lives on in the horror genre.

Score: 7/10

In the October update, I claimed that I am not a fan of the horror genre.  However, certain horror films do pull me further into the genre, making me want to explore it more.  The Host is a film that transcends the use of constant jump-scares by using many different horror conventions.  This film struck me with its mixture of different techniques used to creep out the audience, but also to help them connect to the characters.  The main characters work very well together to form a dysfunctional family that must unite to save one of its members.  The difference in characters gives the film a comedic value at times, while staying in the horror genre.  Personally, I thought that the use of comedy and drama created a more well-rounded horror film.

Like most horror films, the soundtrack created a lot of the tension, while adding a dramatized storyline.  The music shifts from themes that could be heard in a Hitchcock film to dense string melodies.  The tenser music helps the director to create the creepy monster, while helping add to the audience's fear.  Yet, the string melodies add the emotion for the film.  Overall, Byung-woo Lee adds the right kind of music at the exact right times.

A lot of the camerawork gives the audience a view of a more terrifying world in which monsters and viruses are on the loose.  In one scene, the camera angle is tilted to the side, creating an unstable and uncomfortable feeling.  Also, slow motion is used often to create more tensity as the audience tries to catch up with the quick sea-monster.  The one thing I didn't like about the film is the actual monster.  To me, the model seemed really fake and lame.  I expected to see a bigger creature terrorizing the giant crowd of people at the beginning.  Maybe I am just too used to modern special effects though.

The Bottom Line: This film uses an odd grouping of characters, differing music selections, and creative camerawork in order to keep the story going at a good pace.

​Score: 8.5/10