WOW. My jaw is still dropped. I wouldn't necessarily classify this movie scary, as it takes quite a bit these days to give me a fright, but “Crushed” came pretty damn close. Imagine “Fatal Attraction” mixed with “May” and “Hostel” if you can. There is nothing original about the story itself. Clint Eastwood made his directorial debut in 1971 with “Play Misty For Me”, which is really where “Crushed” gets its roots. There are only so many ways you can tell the same story without diluting its impact, but “Crushed” managed to take things a step further than any of its predecessors. Its originality comes solely from the brutality of the film.  Patrick Johnson managed to immortalize most men's worst nightmare on film in a very real and brutal way (well, “Teeth” might actually take the cake on that one, but I digress....).

Natalie Dickinson takes the role of psychotic female to a whole new level. I am so disappointed that I am just now hearing about about the promotional campaign on YouTube leading up to the films release. For three years Natalie posted videos as Tara showing her slowly start sinking into insanity. Fantastic concept and unbelievable marketing tool taking a remarkable amount of dedication on her part. I must say I found the rest of the cast to be pretty weak with the exception of Ray's friend at work(who's name I can't recall and IMDB isn't telling me). That dude cracked me up.

Overall, “Crushed”, aka "She's Crushed" proves that a good horror movie can still be made for $200 and five cases of beer. The gore and effects aren't great and the acting is nothing special, but “Crushed” is a definite must see. I give it a 7/10 for its shock value alone.

"It's time to do what the good Lord would refer to as a 'cleansing of the wicked'" ~ Sheriff John Quincy Wydell

In today's age of gay, emo vampires that don't hurt anyone, it was kinda refreshing to see a more traditional vampire flick out there. The story centers around Pitt(played by William Forsythe), an extreme southern preacher turned vampire who has decided to use his "gift" to create an army of the undead to do god's work, ridding the world of sinners. The concept showed some serious potential and Foresythe delivers a solid performance (as always), but I feel a lot more could have been done with both the story and the character. Things started off strong, but seemed to fizzle out towards the end. The movie could have seriously benefited from Pitt leading his army on an all out rampage of the small town of Redemption, but his attention was primarily focused on Starla, a local stripper, and her daughter Hope. Yul Vazquez does a decent job as the story's sullen hero, Fortune, who is attempting to make up for his past by protecting Hope from the vampire threat.

The film offered some decent gore effects, but I was pretty disapointed with the fact that the script didn't stick to more traditional vampire lore in terms of death. They did highlight the fact that sunlight will kill a vampire, but last time I checked vamps could not hang out in churches or be killed with guns. With that aside, the death scenes were pretty good considering the obviously low budget.

Overall, Mark Young(Tooth & Nail) could have done a lot more with the concept and talent he had to work with. I appreciate the attempt and things started out great, but really ended up falling flat. It is no suprise that this film was not released on DVD until last month, despite being made in 2007. The movie is certainly watchable, but don't get your hopes up too high as the beginning really did show lots of promise. A mediocre film at best, but a definite improvement from the current trend of shiny ipod vampires. 4/10

DVD currently available from Amazon

Have you ever woken up one morning to find the world as you know it has turned upside down? Suddenly, are all the lights in your house casting a deep blue sepia; Is your house now located next to a spooky cemetery, and more importantly, do the walls in the kitchen seem to be bleeding more than usual? Then you need "How to Survive a Horror Movie: All the Skills to Dodge the Kills." The book, while a survival guide to the world of horror movies, is also a humorous look at all of those cliché's horror movies tend to favor, such as "The 6 Character types in a Horror Movie," "What to do if there are Snakes on your Plane," and the all important "How to Convince the Skeptical Local Sheriff." Mr. Grahame-Smith takes great, and somewhat sarcastic, care to detail every possible situation and the correct response to take when faced with a creature of the undead.

When I first saw this book, I had to admit, I had my doubts. The rules of horror movies have been hammered into our heads again and again since long before "Scream" came out, so what could this book tell me that I don't already know? After reading the first chapter, I was pleasantly surprised. Instead of the same old rules that everyone knows, such as "The Cat is a Forbearer of your Doom," Smith takes his tips for dodging your unceremonious death at the hands at killers to a new level, such as the innovative "Switch Genres," and the 5 steps C.R.A.V.E.N. technique. He also encourages you, the young hero of this film, to use the resources around you to your advantage, such as your friendly neighborhood shop teacher. Another thing that impressed me was the great drawings done by Nathan Fox. I had expected the book to be bland as dish-water like most survival guides, but I often found myself turning to a page and busting out laughing. How often do you see a woman mace a masked killer without even looking up?

Whatever you do you should buy this book, because you never know just where and when you will walk into a horror movie.

For more from Seth Grahame-Smith, pick up "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" and "The Big Book of Porn" Today.

It all started with a little bite, but from there the world soon devolved into chaos. It is through the efforts of Max Brooks that we have, for the first time, an accurate account of the events leading up to Z-day and the impact it has had on our world. World War Z is that account, carefully pieced together from first hand accounts of those who not only survived the plague, but also some of those who ended up being responsible for it’s wide reach. While most of the information in Mr. Brooks’ book was originally taken from unused information for a report created for the United Nations, it has served as a reminder of the 15 year war this world faced against the forces of the undead.

According to Brooks, It was 24 years ago today when the first known case of Zombies (first known as African Rabies) was documented around rural China. It is unknown if this was the true first case, but it is from this point on that the infection spiraled out of control. Many have claimed that the virus was created as some sort of Chinese military experiment, but this has been disproved as the virus has been found in recently exhumed mummies. Whatever the case, the virus still plagues humanity to this very day. The infection, being passed through bodily fluids, spread quickly as those with the virus had the irresistible need to eat the flesh of the living. Through Mr. Brooks’ investigation, it has now been disclosed that the infection was also spread through illegal organ transplants even though china had stopped all official commerce and travel citing internal issues.

As it is now known contrary to reports that came out at the beginning of the war, the virus has no cure. It is 100% fatal to humans and animals, result in permanent death to animals, but reanimation in humans. While there was a ‘vaccine’ available, it did not have the expected results thus leading more people to take risks close to infected area. By the time the public figured out that the vaccine was a fraud, the infection had already spread too far to contain.

The book as a documented history is astounding. Although many of these accounts were spared from the official U.N. Report, it is easy to see that Mr. Brooks took time and consideration to find an accurate time line for the Z-Plague. Even though it has been ten years since the end of the Z-war, the memories of it are still fresh, and this comes through in the first hand accounts Mr. Brooks has amassed. If there is only one critique of this book, it is that Mr. Brooks possibly took a few liberties when he wrote down the accounts from those of different cultures. While they all seem to speak with a similar voice, this could be due to the translators Mr. Brooks had to go through and the subtle differences in languages and cultures. However, this is the only qualm this reviewer has. To this day, the world still has to deal with the zombie plague. Whether it be from the thawing of the ice in spring to the fun day at the beach that soon turns deadly due to a partially decomposed corpse walking up-shore, it will be a long time before the world is free from the virus for good. This book should be read by all World War Z enthusiasts, as it is not only a grim reminder of our past, but a way for us to prepare for our future.

Purchase 'World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War' on Amazon today

Rot Town is a horror short written by Brady Sadler and Directed Justin Lucas. It offers a noirish take on the zombie genre, that while low on budget is still high on ambition. With a running time of 40 minutes, the film delivers a few classic budget kills, some cool locations, watchable performances from Adam Sadler, Mitchell Lucas, James Shields and Chris Hall, and most notably excellent camera work. Overall, I think Rot Town is a little guilty of spreading itself thin, but a very good effort given the budget restraints. There is a creative chemistry between Lucas and Sadler that shows real potential and I would love to see what they could do with a bigger budget. Rot Town is a good start to what I hope will be a bright future for these two aspiring filmmakers.

Rot Town Trailer

Short Scene From Rot Town

This film is currently available for viewing in our Indie Horror Theater. Click here to watch Rot Town now!

Cute, moving and somewhat hot, Masters of Horror Sick Girl is a treat to the viewer. Directed by Lucky McGee, the same sick mind behind May and The Woods, Sick Girl is actually a horror film with feeling. Everything about this film is fresh and original. From the situation to the protagonists, this film takes strange ideas and works them well. Were it not an episode of Masters of Horror, it would have stood well on it’s own. The characters are fresh and original, and oddly even though one of the actresses is a porn star in her day-to-day life (allegedly), she has actual acting talent and beauty to boot.

As I said before, everything about this plot is fresh yet very familiar. Ida is just a girl who wants to find a nice girlfriend, but first she needs to find someone who is ok with her “pets.” Ida is an entomologist by day and bug enthusiast by night. This situation alone is a bit strange, but endearing. The audience, while distracted with the horror elements of the film, is still none-the-less drawn into Ida and Misty’s relationship. Storytelling at it’s finest.

Make no mistake, while the film is cute, it still retains quite a bit of bite. The horror elements of the film are well done and both parts flow together to create an almost perfect film. This film is a 9/10.

I really enjoyed everything about “The House of the Devil”. Ti West did a wonderful job of resurrecting what was, in my opinion, the golden age of horror films. The grainy film texture and overall ambiance create the illusion that the movie dates back to somewhere between “The Amityville Horror”(1979) and “The Changeling”(1982). It actually feels more like an 80's movie than most 80's movies in which you typically see overly exaggerated representations of how people really were during the time period. The dialogue, music, hairstyles and clothing(to name a few) were extremely representational and it would be quite easy to pass this film off as being 30 years old if one didn't know any better. Jocelin Donahue did a phenomenal job of pretty much carrying the movie all by herself, much as Carol Kane did in “When a Stranger Calls”.

The story itself really isn't anything remarkable. A college student takes a job babysitting on the night of a full lunar eclipse only to find out that it was a trap by satanists to use her in some sort of bizarre ritual. The audience knows this going in to the movie and the plot never develops any further than that. The genius comes in to play in how everything is delivered. The sheer nativity of our lead character combined with the slow, tension building pace of the film will leave you on the edge of your seat. There are a couple scenes that will make you jump, but overall the scare comes from knowing what our female lead does not and waiting for the outcome that we all know is coming.

I have read a lot of mixed reviews on this one. In my experience, there are two types of horror fans.; those born before 1985 and those born after. I don't feel the younger crowd will truly appreciate this movie for the gem that it is, but if you are a seasoned vet such as myself, I think you will find “The House of the Devil” to be an incredible throwback to the days when horror was truly great, and actually scary. It is a definite must-see and I give it an 8/10 for being one of the few movies in recent years that can compete with the classics I grew up with.

OK. I really don't even know where to start with this one. Why do the people at Platinum Dunes continually feel the need to fix what is not broken? Most of the readers and visitors to this site grew up with these movies, and I don't think I am alone in saying that what has been done is unforgivable. They have once again managed to take an iconic horror legend and reduce him to a pile of rubble. This new, "re imagined" Freddy Krueger was dull, boring, and lacked the same motivation that made the character such a powerful, frightening entity in the 80's and early 90's. For us hardcore fans of the franchise, Robert Englund is and will ALWAYS be Fred Krueger.

Many people out there rave about what a great actor Jackie Earle Haley is, but honestly I have yet to see any evidence of that. The writers seemed to give him enough one liners that he probably could have made a few people jump had he delivered them correctly. His portrayal was so monotone it would make a Clear Eyes commercial with Ben Stein seem exciting in comparison. The only positive thing I can say about his performance is that he looks remarkably like a child molester when not in makeup. Kudos on that Jackie, you nailed it spot on.

Now on to the story. What exactly was wrong with the original? I could understand updating it a bit to keep up with the times and to appeal to a younger audience, but they totally changed a background story that took 8 movies to develop. Freddy's problem was always with the parents, never with the kids themselves and never at any point did he have a personal relationship with the children in the movies. The whole point was punishing the parents by tormenting the kids. Also, Freddy was a KILLER in life just as he was in death. It was never sexual in nature, so I'm thinking one of the screenwriters at one point had a gardener that was a little too friendly.

Overall, this movie lacked everything that made the original great. Not enough blood, not enough sex, and not one single scare in the whole movie. As a matter of fact, I had to watch it twice just to write this review, as I fell asleep the first time around. With any luck, the sequel will end up dead in the water just as the Friday the 13th sequel did. There are plenty of original ideas floating around out there and it is time to stop raping classic flicks just to make a quick buck.

As someone who watches a lot of zombie movies both good and bad, I would have to rate “Zombies of Mass Destruction” somewhere in the middle of the pack. It had enough blood and gore to make it fun, but ZMD didn't bring anything new to the table. It is apparent that Kevin Hamedani is a huge fan of the genre as most everything (as far as the zombies go) was borrowed from past movies. The zombies were quite Romero-esque, which is always a bonus and you can see a little bit of Peter Jackson's influence as well, as Tom's interactions with his mother is quite reminiscent of “Dead Alive”. Other than that it is a bit of a hodge podge of recycled material found in many a zom-com these days. Unique kill scenes are what make a zombie comedy movie. Show me an extended beating with nunchucks or a group of people beating a zombie down with pool cues while listening to Queen. Now that's comedy.

The one place that ZMD really fell short was in the plot and the character interactions. I watch these movies to be entertained, not to be preached at. This movie basically attacked small town America for being ignorant and got on a soapbox regarding every issue it could, including racism, homophobia, war and religion. I'm sure if the opportunity presented itself, Hamedani would have been promoting left wing economic policy as well. The characters were pretty well developed in a short amount of time and the comedic timing was dead on in a couple places. Playing off stereotypes can be fun in two different scenarios; it needs to be fairly subtle, or WAY over the top. You would think with all of the obvious Romero influence that ZMD would have picked up some of the master's subtlety but it just bombards the audience with its message throughout every line of dialog.

I have become used to AfterDark's consistently solid picks for HorrorFest and honestly, I'm quite surprised they chose this one. I'm not saying it is unwatchable. It certainly had its moments and was not without merit, but I wouldn't recommend going too far out of your way to see it. Overall, I give it a rating of 4/10.

Let me begin by saying that I went into the movie "Cut" not knowing anything about it. Ten minutes in and I was ready to turn it off when I realized what it was that made this movie special. The entire film was shot in one long take with no cuts or edits of any kind. That piece of knowledge instantly changed how I felt about the film. I can only imagine the frustration of the cast and crew if somebody missed a cue or bobbled over their lines, as they had to start filming all over again from the beginning. The camera work was clever and remarkably steady all things considered and the closeups of the clock to show the actual passage of time was a nice addition.

Don't get me wrong, "Cut" is far from perfect. The film revolves around a group of five friends spending the weekend at a mansion in the English countryside, when they are suddenly attacked by a gang of psychotic clowns. Yep, clowns. The same basic plot (just minus the clowns) has been used countless times and is fairly played out at this point. The acting is mediocre at best and at times I would have appreciated subtitles. Lots of yelling and varied accents make them almost impossible to understand at times. My least favorite thing was definitely the score. It gets obnoxiously loud at times and is something akin to a laugh track on a sitcom. I realize they are going for scares but it is way overused and makes it lose impact.

ll things aside, I really did enjoy this movie. I love the concept and I think first time writer/director Alexander Williams did a great job pulling it off. From a technical perspective, it was really well done and I look forward to seeing where this concept goes in the future. Overall, I give it a 5/10, and would recommend "Cut" to the seasoned horrorphile as I think a lot of it's charm and technical merit would be lost on the novice.