Carved (2007)

CARVED: THE SLIT-MOUTHED WOMAN
2007
Directed by Koji Shiraishi
Starring Eriko Sato, Haruhiko Kato, Chiharu Kawai and Rie Kuwana

Horror is a genre that seems to move at light speed.  Trends come and go quicker than the rotating members of Menudo, and this has resulted in a great many things that are only a few years old having a lot of quaint nostalgic value for yours truly.  One of those things is the great Japan-style thriller brigade here in the States in the 00's, beginning with The Ring and ending (arguably) with the awful remake of Takashi Miike's One Missed Call.  As evidenced by those two titles, the spectrum in quality with these flicks ranged from the heights of awesomeness to the absolute depths of crap.  In some roundabout way, these movies had a big impact on my life, because they made me seek out a lot of the movies that they were based on.

Which brings me to Carved.  It's one of the few Japanese ghost movies that hasn't gotten the remake treatment yet, and that's understandable.  While it is about a ghost, it's really much more of a slasher flick, with plenty of killing and other sorts of debauchery to go around.  That's not to say that it lacks for atmosphere, however.  Far from it.

PLOT:  From what I can gather on the great grand interwebz, one of the most prevalent Japanese folktales is that of "the slit-mouthed woman," an angry, vengeful female ghost who kills anyone unlucky enough to cross her path.  This movie is essentially a modern retelling.  It begins with an earthquake that awakens a corpse matching the traditional description of this ghost.  From here, the woman begins causing all sorts of havoc at a local school, curiously enough asking the question "am I pretty?" before the butchering begins.  While these scenes are sporadic, they are effective.  Much of Carved consists of a core group of characters attempting to get to the bottom of the ghost's identity, and while there are portions of the story that drag (and really, guys, dragging is something that Japanese horror films specialize in), the surprisingly creepy score and atmosphere are enough to keep you lulled in.
PLOT RATING: *** out of ****.

CHARACTERS AND ACTORS:  The most important character in the movie is Noboru, a student at the school who seems to know a bit more about the slit-mouthed woman that he initially lets on.  Slight spoiler alert, Noboru has a heavy emotional background that gets explored in detail during the movie's "reveal" scenes, and the emotional resonance kind of hinges on this actor (Haruhiko Kato, for anyone who cares) being able to pull it off.  And...he doesn't.  Really, in all honesty (and man do I hate that phrase), the victim characters aren't especially captivating.  Having said that, Miki Mizuno is aces as the slit-mouthed woman herself.  Much like Takako Fuji does with Kayako Saeki (Google it, kids, if you're not one of my legions of readers or know what the hell I'm talking about), she takes a role that is mostly silent and fills it with danger and menace.
CHARACTERS AND ACTORS RATING: ** out of ****. 

COOL FACTOR:  There are more than a few very well-staged murder sequences throughout this movie.  As far as body count goes, Carved has the vast majority of J-horror epics that I've seen beat, as its tone is much more in line with what we here in the States are used to when the word "horror" is mentioned than the typical Onryo ghost film.  In addition to having lots of good red stuff flying around, this is one of the few movies I can think of where the dark/gray color palette is used to great effect, casting a pretty damn foreboding mood on the entire proceedings.  Countless American action movie directors, take note.
COOL FACTOR: *** 1/2 out of ****.

OVERALL:  While not exactly a classic, Carved is a fun little flick.  The first time you watch it, you will likely be riveted by the first thirty minutes and spend the next thirty wondering when the characters will shut up so you can watch the thrilling conclusion...and I say this mainly because that's exactly what happened to me.  Yes, the middle third of the movie has an almot suicidal dry spell.  But if you stick out this bit of tedium, you won't be disappointed by this movie's amazing and suspenseful ending sequence.

OVERALL RATING: *** out of ****.  Worth a look for both J-horror AND slasher fans.  How many movies can you say that about?

C.H.U.D. II: Bud the Chud (1989)

There's been a few films in my moviegoing life that I walked away from feeling that they were infinitely better than they had any right to be, and the original C.H.U.D. is one of them.  I went in expecting a good early-'80s style body count flick with lots of corny characters and dialogue.  The last thing I expected was a genuinely well-written and acted flick that did an amazing job maximizing its budget.  I also loved the serious approach that it took to its amazingly craptacular material.  Making a movie about human flesh-eating subterranean humanoids and managing to make it decidedly NON-cringe-inducing might seem like a very tall order indeed, but the flick managed to pull it off.

The sequel, though?  Not so much, because C.H.U.D. II: Bud the Chud just ain't very good.  Gone are the actors who were able to milk every bit of emotion and resonance from their characters and the simple-yet-effective story.  In its place are a group of dopey kids and a whole lot of cheese.  And not the good kind. 

PLOT:  Some indeterminate amount of time after the events of the original film, the military have taken control of the government's C.H.U.D. project and are looking - and failing - to mine the CHUDS as biological weapons.  The final remaining CHUD (named "Bud", hence the title) is stolen from the facility by cool teen Steve and his nerdy friend Kevin after they lose their soon-to-be-dissected cadaver for their biology class and need a replacement.  Of course, Bud soon springs to life and begins causing havoc, creating more CHUDS in the process while also acting out a whole bunch of nonsensical comedy scenes.  Most of the movie concerns itself with Steve, Kevin and their cute chick friend Katie tracking down Bud after he pulls his best Logan's Run routine, as well as the military guys trying to clean up their own mess.  All in all, not the most captivating stuff.
PLOT RATING: * 1/2 out of ****.

CHARACTERS AND ACTORS:  This was by far the saving grace of the first movie, as John Heard, Daniel Stern etc. put a whole lot of energy and honesty into their characters and managed to squeeze a lot of genuine emotion out of the proceedings.  While I can't necessarily fault the actors in this flick, the characters are all paper-thin stereotypes.  The kids are just as one-note as I described above, and the military douchebags...yeah.  That's all I'm going to say.  I will throw this tidbit out there, however: Steve is played by Brian Robbins, a guy who went on to direct movies like Good Burger, Varsity Blues, Hardball and....Ready to Rumble.  All hail the king!  Finally, Tricia Leigh Fisher (Carrie Fisher's real-life half sister), who plays Katie, looks pretty damn good in a swimsuit, so there's that.
CHARACTERS AND ACTORS RATING: * out of ****.

COOL FACTOR:  There's not much redeeming factor to the film in this regard, either.  It IS possible to have a movie that is "so bad it's good," where a film's cheesiness actually lends itself to group viewings and MST3K-style quips.  This movie, though, doesn't work in a crowd setting.  There just isn't enough in the way of over-the-top violence or cheesy sex scenes, and since the movie itself seems to be a self-parody, it's not really possible to mine it for more comedy with whatever friends (read: victims) you can con into watching this thing with you.
COOL FACTOR: * out of ****.

OVERALL:  Ouch.  At only 84 minutes long, this movie was a damn chore to sit through.  Tepid characters, bad scripting, and bad comedy would have been bad enough, but it's made all the worse by just how different the tone of this movie is from its far superior original.  As such, C.H.U.D. II didn't make much of a wave with the horror-going audience, hitting video store shelves (no theatrical release this time) in 1989 and vanishing from the public consciousness in short order.  Having said that, it was still better than, say, Leprechaun. 

OVERALL RATING: * out of ****.  It's times like this that I'm REALLY happy I don't do the mega-sized reviews anymore, because doing a total blow-by-blow of this film would have been torture.

Daybreakers (2009)

2009
Directed by Michael and Peter Spierig
Starring Ethan Hawke, Willem Dafoe, Isabel Lucas, Claudia Karvan and Sam Muthafuckin' Neill

God, it's almost been four years since this movie came out already?

I remember seeing the advance ads for Daybreakers and being very jacked about its prospects.  After all, it was released during the absolute height of Twilight-mania, when it seemed like every goddamn vampire in the entertainment world looked like they belonged on the cover of GQ and not, you know, in dark and dank places doing things like scaring you and sucking your blood.  A movie featuring vampires so starved for blood that they are attempting to craft an honest-to-goodness BLOOD SUBSTITUTE seemed like a very welcome proposition.  Throw in good production values and solid advance reviews and it sounded very intriguing indeed. 

For whatever reason, I didn't catch it in theaters, but I took the advice of a good friend and waited until procuring a Blu-Ray copy to check it out.  Needless to say, it was worth the wait, as this is one movie that looks freakin' glorious in 1080p resolution.  As I said a couple weeks back, directors of the world, take note.  THIS is how you take a film of somewhat limited budget and make it look epic and captivating.

PLOT:  A vampire plague hits humanity at some point in the future, and the creatures now rule the world.  This obviously presents many problems, the largest of which being a dwindling blood supply, as the vampires utilize their Army to capture the few scattere remaining humans in order to harvest them for blood.  The movie does a pretty damn admirable job painting this fictional world as well as the rules that it entails, as these vampires typically adhere to all of the usual literary rules - they burn like roman candles in the sun, they die by staking and beheading, they are scientifically undead, etc.  It's also got a pretty damn clever hook as far as its conflict, as a prominent hematologist finds himself kinda-sorta kidnapped by a band of surviving humans in order to find a cure for vampirism.  Having said all that...there is a fair stretch of Daybreakers that drags in the middle, as this is where a good portion of the "outside the mainstream vampire world" story takes place.  There's a fair bit of scientific lingo being thrown around here as blood testing becomes a focal point of the story.  However, sandwiched in between the fascinating first and action-packed third acts, it's forgivable.
PLOT RATING: *** 1/2 out of ****.

CHARACTERS AND ACTORS:  Ethan Hawke plays Ed Dalton, the hematologist for Bromley Marks pharmaceuticals and the man most directly responsible (not unlike Miles Bennett Dyson) for attempting to manufacture a "blood substitute" for the masses (and that early testing scene, by the way, is a doozy of unexpected gore).  He's also sympathetic to humans, and as your strong center of the film, Ed is someone who is easy to attach to.  But the real glory of this flick lies in the supporting characters, with Willem "Captain Manic" Dafoe playing the leader of the human resistance, Claudia Karvan as his loyal assistant...and then there's this guy.

Now, there are actors in the horror genre that I'm a fan of, but as far as I'm concerned, Sam Neill is the equivalent of the gold seal of approval.  He's done plenty of flicks of other types, but the sheer ability to vanish within dark characters is second to none, as evidenced by The Final Conflict, In the Mouth of Madness and Event Horizon.  In this film, he plays Bromley Marks himself, the business tycoon who virtually rules over this fictional world with an iron fist and serves as your star villain.  It's a role that suits Neill like a glove, and while he is only onscreen for perhaps fifteen minutes of Daybreakers, he owns it.
CHARACTERS AND ACTORS RATING: **** out of ****.

COOL FACTOR:  As previously mentioned (I won't say it this time), the Spierig Brothers are masters at getting the most out of their budget.  The dank world, while not quite a dystopia for most of the run time, has its own distinct look very different from the countless "steam punk" landscapes that seem to be all the rage with the kids these days.  There are multiple over-the-top gore set pieces in this film, the best of which occurring at the beginning and end of the film (and I think you'll know what I'm talking about when the scenes hit).  In addition to that, Dafoe's character is your classic "vampire hunting" action hero, a former vamp himself who has taken the name "Elvis" as his moniker.  While not quite as bitchin' as the King himself, I've got to say, he looks damn cool holding a crossbow.
COOL FACTOR: **** out of ****.

OVERALL: In the 3.75 years since Daybreakers was released, the "monster of the moment" has changed considerably in Hollywood.  Vampires are out, zombies are in.  This movie is nothing short of a wonderful return to form for the former, bringing them out of the "cool teen" dark ages and bringing the welcome tropes back with a vengeance along with a cool story involving plenty of tension and non-Michael Bay-ADD action.  I can only hope that, sooner or later, we get something different from the zombie genre, which has effectively been stuck in "rinse, lather, repeat" mode for what seems like eons now.  Here's the template to follow.  This is a flick that fires on all cylinders, and it comes with my highest recommendation.
OVERALL RATING: Bah Gawd, King, **** out of ****.  I'm trying to be a tougher judge now, and the four-star rating does not come lightly.

C.H.U.D. (1984)

You know, when I popped a movie whose title is an acronym for "Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers" into the ol' DVD player, the last thing I expected was a fairly well-shot, decently written, and well-acted flick that - gasp - might actually qualify as a legitimately good flick.  Lo and behold, that's just what I got, and after absorbing the 96-minute director's cut I can report that C.H.U.D. is one movie that deserves its "cult classic" status. 

Since this was my first time watching the film, there's also some additional good news: no long-winded boring story involving my long childhood history with the movie in question.  With that out of the way...

PLOT: Shot entirely within New York City, the movie's plot is basically a modernization of the fascinating "terror in the sewers" urban legends.  A substantial number of the homeless population living in the subterranean bowels of the city have disappeared, and a massive government cover-up as to the "why" of the situation is going on.  A large portion of the movie involves various characters attempting to get to the bottom of this conspiracy, which involves the transportation of nuclear materials and a few weasely figures in power who summarily make every wrong decision along the way, as is customary with movies of this nature.  Oh yeah, and large monsters with big eyes and really sharp claws who sporadically attack people.  It might not be The Shining in terms of material, but it's all executed well, with plenty of slow burn and attention to the characters.
PLOT RATING: *** out of ****.

CHARACTERS AND ACTORS: This is where the movie really roped me in.  The movie introduces us to several people connected to the conspiracy and the monsters.  There's George Cooper (John Heard), a sarcastic fashion photographer who lives with his pregnant girlfriend (Kim Greist).  There's Captain Bosch (Chris Curry), the officer in charge of the precinct where the majority of the disappearances have taken place - and one of those disappearances is his wife.  And then there's A.J. Shepherd (Daniel Stern), the guy who runs the local soup kitchen, has seen firsthand the dropoff in the number of his customers, and knows something big is amiss.  All of these protagonists are fleshed out very well, extremely likable, and portrayed with tons of energy by legit talented actors.  The human villains (largely bureaucratic government types) are a little one-note and predictable, however.
CHARACTERS AND ACTORS RATING: *** 1/2 out of ****.

COOL FACTOR: So now we get into the "horror" aspect of the movie.  The general premise when it comes to the C.H.U.D.'s is that they have run out of available food (read: the subterranean homeless population) and now have to come to the surface for their meals.  The attack scenes are sparse in the movie, and truthfully are not particularly scary.  When we do get to see the creatures, the makeup effects seem to be fairly well done.
COOL FACTOR: ** out of ****.

OVERALL: Go figure.  I watch a movie with the express purpose of shuffling a negative review amongst my usual moronic bits of positivity, and the movie surprises me by actually being good.  From what I could gather on Wikipedia, Daniel Stern and Chris Curry rewrote more than half of the original screenplay, and their passion for the project comes through in their performances, as their characters really are the strong center that holds the film's admittedly preposterous plot together.  If you're looking for a horror movie with a VERY heavy emphasis on story over scares, you could definitely do worse than C.H.U.D.
OVERALL RATING: *** out of ****.  Worth a buy at a decent used price.

Chopping Mall (1986)

We're taking a trip firmly back to my youth today with Chopping Mall, a movie that used to get played A TON on one of my local channels circa 1991-92.  As such, it's got a lot of nostalgic value for me.  Back then, I thought it was cool to see robots roaming around killing people (including Murray Fudderman, no less).  Today, while it's not QUITE the classic that I remember, I still think it's a relatively fun way to waste 75 minutes. 

Useless background info: This flick was directed by Jim Wynorski, a guy who has a pretty decent cult following and a well-deserved reputation as a man who slathers on his cheese as thick as it can go.  Not to say that that's necessarily bad, but it's best to know what you're getting into when you see this dude's name in the credits.  It was also produced by Roger Corman, which acounts for the AFOREMENTIONED Murray Fudderman, a.k.a. Dick Miller, making one of his many appearances as a character named Walter Paisley. 

PLOT: You know how Dawn of the Dead was set in a shopping mall?  Well, so is Chopping Mall.  Clever, huh?  But instead of zombies, the villains in this film are three havoc-causing security robots, accidentally activated by an electrical storm and hellbent on eradicating a group of partying teens from the premises.  Yeah, it's not the deepest thing in the world, and the execution occasionally wanders into dopey territory.  But if you're watching a Jim Wynorski movie for Shakespeare, you're looking in the wrong place. 
PLOT RATING: ** out of ****.

CHARACTERS AND ACTORS: Other than Miller, there's one name that I recognize - Russell Todd, best known to me as the would-be camp counselor attempting to get into Kirsten Baker's pants in Friday the 13th Part II.  I'm actually kinda surprised that this guy didn't make it bigger during the '80s, as he was both talented and handsome enough to rise way higher than the B-level shitfests he's primarily known for.  The characters themselves are your typical horror movie mixed bag, with nerds, jocks, pretty people and shy girls all represented, and none of them made me want to throw my remote at the screen, although none of them were particularly memorable.  Well, except for Suzee Slater, who (a) has gigantic breasts and (b) is the recipient of this death scene.
CHARACTERS AND ACTORS RATING: ** 1/2 out of ****.

COOL FACTOR: A movie with a 77-minute running time has precious little time to waste, and this film wastes absolutely no time getting right to the meat portion of its story, as the characters play cat-and-mouse with the ultra mean battlebots.  The robots themselves are designed very well, rolling around on tank treads and talking in the requisite deep, scary voice, and are able to shoot tranquilizer darts, electrodes, and laserblasts at their quary.  It amounts to a couple admittedly coolly staged deaths and some sporadically tense chase sequences inside the mall.
COOL FACTOR: *** out of ****.

OVERALL: This is one of those movies that were a dime-a-dozen during the '80s.  Come up with a basic premise, throw a relatively attractive cast together, commence series of deaths, go.  Some of them were better than others, and Chopping Mall has managed to rise above the pack over the years and get a cult fanbase with its quirkiness and sense of humor.  It may not be quite as good as I remembered during my childhood, but it's still worth a watch if you've got a couple bucks and slightly over an hour to spare. 
OVERALL RATING: ** 1/2 out of ****.

Restoring Mount Rushmore

Ordinarily, this is where I post some long-winded introduction and give some background information on the movie that I'm about to review.  That's not the case this week, as, much like Chuck D, I got so much trouble on my mind.  Last Saturday, I rewatched the remakes of Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street on AMC Fearfest.  It was my first viewing of both since seeing them in theaters, and the thing that struck me like a lightning bolt was that I had never ONCE felt the urge to revisit either movie since that day. 

It doesn't stop there.  Going to all of the latest horror releases at the multiplex used to be practically a requirement for yours truly.  No matter the genre - ghost stories, found footage films, modern-day slashers, remakes - I would eat them up.  September and October, in particular, were circled on the calendar months in advance as the time when Hollywood unrolled its latest batch of big-time horror offerings to placate all of us Halloween-induced fanatics.  And it didn't feel like a job.  This is very noteworthy considering that Friday night is my designated "movie night," a move that resulted in a "20 hours without sleep" me struggling - and actually managing - to stay awake in a movie theater.

It's been a long, slow process, but I'm not the horror guru I used to be.  There was a time when I would regularly check out websites like Dread Central and Bloody Disgusting for the latest release dates, trailers, rumors etc., all with the express goal of getting the good, nasty details on upcoming horror movies with the end goal of being an informed theater viewer.  Those days, it seems, are long gone, and when I think about the timeframe that this attitudanal switch took place, I can pinpoint pretty accurately what it was.  So allow me to come back full circle from that first paragraph and say that I really miss the Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger of my youth.

Horror is a very vast genre consisting of many varied and defined subgenres.  If you like to be scared and you've got a decent stomach, odds are that pretty much ANYONE can find something in the horror genre that they will enjoy, from over-the-top splatterfests to realistic films about serial killers.  I don't think that many people would disagree, however, with the statement that the horror movie really has an unholy trinity of modern villains as its singular God.  There's the father (Michael), the son (Jason) and the unholy ghost (Freddy).  These three have come to define the scary flick for myself and two generations of horror fans, much like Dracula, Frankenstein and the Wolf Man defined it for past generations, and the fact that it has been more than three years since any of these three legendary characters have graced our theater screens is very troubling to me.

A very good online friend of mine once put what has happened to these horror icons in professional wrestling terminology.  If he's reading this, hopefully he doesn't mind me outright stealing his point - suffice to say, it's perfect.  All three of the AFOREMENTIONED characters have been recreated and reimagined in the past decade in remake form, and all three reimaginings (while varying in quality) have one similar characteristic.  Instead of simply updating the familiar story for today with modern characters but similar styles and execution, these films have devalued their aces in the hole with stylistic shifts, changes just for the sake of change, and some truly head-scratching creative decisions.  Here's where the wrestling metaphor comes in.  Watching these films is like watching a wrestling company take its main event stars and continually job them out and/or put them in wacky, contradictory storylines, effectively killing off the drawing power of the chief reason why the fans pay their money to see the product in the first place. 

Your opinion might vary, but the fact that only the redone Halloween universe made it to a second film (and depending on who you believe, the only reason that The Sequel That Shall Not Be Named even came to fruition was because Rob Zombie felt like making a 97-minute "fuck you" to critics of his first film) is very telling.  If there was demand for more of them, Michael Bay and his goons would see to it that they would exist, believe me.  My online buddy was right.  42 months after the release of the last film featuring any of these characters (the 2010 Platinum Dunes Nightmare remake), nobody is talking about them.  And that makes the Lick Ness Monster a very sad panda.

But fear not, citizens.  Nothing is beyond saving.  Since this is October and we're trying to keep it positive, here's a guide for how we can bring these horror luminaries back to the forefront where they belong.  Consider it "horror booking for dummies."

1.  JASON VOORHEES
First things first - I don't think the 2009 F13 reboot is terrible.  Having said that, it's not that good, either.  For me, the true staples of the Friday the 13th series are fun, quirky victim characters and cool kills, and I think this movie failed to deliver in a big way in both of these departments.  Instead of yet another reboot, what Jason Voorhees needs at this point is the one thing that the series has always prided itself on - reinvention while also being comforting and familiar.  The movies started off being serious and scary and later morphed into being completely batshit "so bad it's good" entertaining, and I think it would be loads of fun to see a movie that goes back to basics and tries to be both.  My answer?  Jason Takes Christmas, with a group of teens spending the holiday at a cabin near Camp Crystal Lake only to run into the most uncheerful holiday spirit anyone has ever seen.  It sets the action back in the familiar confines of the series instead of, you know, outer space, yet the very simple aesthetic shift of different weather conditions and the Christmas setting adds an entirely new dynamic to the story.  Not to mention weapons (think pick axes, ice skate blades and tree toppers).  One of my real-life friends once complained that this would mean losing the series' much-loved gratuitous nudity dynamic, but I respectfully disagree.  How hard would it be for a couple of the more amorous teens to find a hot tub?

2.  FREDDY KRUEGER
The Platinum Dunes Nightmare film did many things wrong, chief among them the harebrained move of making it seem for the majority of the film as though Freddy was FRAMED for the horrific crimes that got him summarily torched and turned into a dream demon.  It also didn't help that the victim characters (and Rooney Mara in particular) showed about as much raw charisma as Jessica Alba on sedatives.  This series was at its best when Freddy Krueger struck a good balance between schlock and slasher, exemplified best by Dream Warriors, the insanely popular third film.  The template is there.  Why not use it?  Thus, this would be a different take on the Nightmare on Elm Street origin, starting the next film in the midst of a brutal string of mysterious suicides instead of the usual Freddy-Nancy story.  Of course, these deaths would be the handiwork of the familiar guy in the red-and-black striped sweater.  It would be a good idea to amp up both his manicness (but not to an over-the-top degree) and his power in this film, as he has two very determined and very charismatic final girls to contend with who make it their mission to rally the remaining teens to victory - Kristen Parker and Alice Johnson.  Throw in a few interesting quirks for the remaining teens, some hard-hitting deaths, and this guy as Freddy and you've got a real winner with some solid sequel potential.

3.  MICHAEL MYERS
This is perhaps the tallest order of all.  Folks, the damage done to the character of Michael Myers in Rob Zombie's films is just simply mind-boggling, as the dreadlocked rocker took a character who was "the shape of evil" and humanized him.  We spend almost 45 minutes with the unmasked, talking child version of Michael in the first movie, a move that takes away every bit of mystique and sense of danger that the guy in the Shatner mask possessed in the Carpenter-helmed originals.  Still, it could be done.  In this case, I don't think it could be anything less than yet another complete reboot, as the latter movies in the original series are also decidedly character-killing in their own regard.  The best way to accomplish this would be to set the entire film in modern-day Haddonfield, Illinois, starting with Laurie Strode (who in this version is NOT introduced with a ridiculous series of vulgar jokes) going about her daily routine and eventually arriving at young Tommy's house to babysit.  Commence series of killings, and introduce Sam Loomis midway through the movie.  This way, Michael's past survives only in legend and in second-hand retelling by Loomis, restoring the mystique of Myers while also presenting the material in a slightly different manner.  Another wise move would be to make Laurie's friends something other than completely detestable, F-bomb-spewing catty bitches who we actually, you know, DON'T want to see wind up chopped into bitty bits.

Ordinarily, this is where I would throw a summary paragraph in to wrap this little diatribe into a bow, but that's not the case this time, as much like New Beginning Tommy Jarvis I've got nothing to say.  The above are my ideas to give these horror movie main eventers the push they deserve, and if anyone in Hollywood wants to use them they are welcome to do so free of charge.

Dark Water (2002)

Anyone who has followed my reviews for any amount of time knows that I'm a big J-horror mark.  It was the first subgenre that I actively sought out once slasher movies started to wear a little thin, and the VAST (and that word is capitalized for a reason - it can't be overstated enough) difference in setup, pacing and character development from what I was used to popped and resonated with me in a big way. 

Going through some of my archives, I can't believe that I haven't reviewed Dark Water yet.  It was directed by Hideo Nakata, a guy that is held in a pretty high regard in Lick Ness Monster land, considering that he is also the guy behind the certified modern classics Ringu (for my money, one of the ten best horror movies of all time) and Kaidan, as well as the unintentionally hilarious Ring Two here in the States.  Gotta love that deer attack.  In this flick, he's fully in his element, slathering on the foreboding atmosphere like some sort of Little Dooey's style baste.  Award for worst metaphor ever accepted.

One more thing - do not confuse this with the Jennifer Connelly remake.  Not that it's terrible or anything, but it's forgettable as all get out.

2002
Director: Hideo Nakata
Starring Hitomi Kuroki, Rio Kanno, Mirei Oguchi and Fumiyo Kohinata.

PLOT: Let's see if you've heard this one before - a recently divorced mother and her six-year-old daughter move into a new apartment.  Said apartment has slightly creepy but definitely very annoying problem in that it keeps randomly filling with water from the dripping ceiling.  In a surprise that does not come as much of a surprise to the audience, this is connected to some sort of ghostly shenanigans connected to the apartment building.  In other words, you won't remember Dark Water for its minty freshness if you have seen any other number of J-horror epics.  While it has a lot of familiar tropes, however, the specifics make for some great story, as the subplot that runs throughout the entire movie involving motherless daughters elicits a ton of emotional investment.  Oh, and water girl makes one badass villain.
PLOT RATING: *** 1/2 out of ****

CHARACTERS AND ACTING: This is the movie's true ace in the hole, but then again, that's the way it goes for many Japanese horror films.  The vast majority of American horror films I've seen in the 21st century feature a main stable of either hopelessly bland or dislikable characters.  Not so here.  The main characters Yoshimi and Ikuko Matsubara, the AFOREMENTIONED mother and daughter combination finding themselves occupying living space with a vengeful spirit.  Hitomi Kuroki plays the former, and while she is not quite as engaging as Nanako Matsushima in Ringu, she does a fantastic job as someone who is truly desperate on several fronts.  Rio Kanno is Ikuko, turning in one of the better child performances in any horror movie I've seen.  Right up there with the kid from House by the Cemetery, even.  I kid, I kid.  She's way less shrill than that. 
CHARACTERS AND ACTORS: **** out of ****.  Great stuff here.

COOL FACTOR: Much like the slasher subgenre, there is definitely no shortage of cool villains in the J-horror ghost pantheon.  My personal favorite horror villain of all time fits this mold - Kayako Saeki of Ju-On/Grudge fame, the modern day equivalent of the traditional Onryo folktale.  Hideo Nakata operates on an entirely different level from Takashi Shimizu - his horror is in what you DON'T see.  Few guys on the planet are better at keeping a massive slow burn going leading up to a big reveal, and that aspect of Dark Water does not disappoint.  For the vast majority of Stateside viewers, this movie might come off as a little slow, and you won't get much (as in, any) in the way of cool, imaginative Kayako-style deaths.  I will say, however, that this movie has one of the best sustained, gut-wrenching sequences of silence in cinematic history during its finale, and that there are a LOT of directors obsessed with "LOUD NOISES" scares who could learn a thing or two from this scene.
COOL FACTOR: ** 1/2 out of ****.

SUMMARY: If you're a fan of J-horror, it's hard to go wrong with anything Hideo Nakata.  One of this guy's better-known quotes is that a good director can make nothing other than a ghost standing near someone and looking at them scary.  Nakata can accomplish this in his sleep.  Even if you're not a J-horror freak like myself, you can find much to like in Dark Water, as it has an engaging story, a very leisurely pace, likable characters and a truly awesome final five minutes or so consisting of soul-splitting tension without a single drop of blood being spilled.

OVERALL RATING: *** 1/2 out of ****.  Check it out.