Red State (2011): Get off My Lawn

Over the past year or two, a slew of onetime Kevin Smith fans have been pouring out of the woodwork claiming they no longer appreciate the writer/director, some even going as far to say that they now hate him and everything he has done. While much of his post '90s work is sketchy at best, everything beforehand is note worthy for individual reasons, and I find it highly misguided that some would take away what Smith had done early on due to the gradual downfall in the quality of his films as his career has progressed and sanity deteriorated. I understand the fact that some have outgrown his brand of humor, and his films just don't speak to some people anymore, something that is a fair assessment for an aging/maturing film fan who grew up with Smith's movies. But to full on rain hate on the man and everything he has done seems like it's more about bandwagoning and one-upmanship than anything. It's become chic to dislike Kevin Smith, and that bothers me.

The reason I am yapping on about all of this is because I still consider myself a fan of Kevin Smith. I don't cherish him as I once did when I was younger (and often baked like a potato), and I have certainly outgrown him in many ways, but I still appreciate what he did for Independent film back when he burst onto the scene. I'm what you could consider a fair and balanced fan of his work, unclouded by fanboydom and not unjustly critical.

Enter Smith's latest film Red State (2011), an oddity in the director's repertoire due to its serious tone, subject matter and its lack of dick and fart jokes. Red State is Smith's attempt at making a film unlike anything he has done before and, coming off Cop Out, it comes at a time when he is probably at his lowest in terms of fan acceptance and critical discontent. Being fair and balanced about Smith, I look at Red State with an open mind and no unfair expectations.

Based on what I have heard and read about other movie fan's opinions of Red State, the film has received extremely mixed reviews, collectively leaning more towards the good side of the equation. I've read from some that Red State is one of the worst films they have ever seen, while others proclaim it to be one of the year's best genre offerings. For me personally, the fair and balanced guy, I cannot get behind either sentiment in the least.

You probably already know the basic plot, so I'll spare you the details for the sake of review length, but the quick rundown is Red State is sort of like if From Dusk Till Dawn met the opening to The Devils Rejects and the two moved to Waco, Texas for a nice little brunch with David Koresh. Now, as good as that sounds, it doesn't necessarily reflect upon Red State's quality as a film, but that's not to say it's a horrible movie, either.   

Something that really stands out about Red State is its pacing. Smith picks his audience up and drives them right out of the gate, guns a blazing, and as soon as the film's three teen protagonists are introduced, they find themselves in some seriously deep shit. The quick cut-to-the-chase pace is something I really appreciate about the film's opening, but from there, Smith makes what could be looked at as a bold move by hitting the breaks on this breakneck pace, bringing the film to a complete and total halt. Smith takes this time to focus on developing a character and his beliefs by giving him a sermon that must last at least fifteen minutes long. I appreciate Smith taking such a chance by slowing things down as much as he did, giving Michael Parks character, Abin Cooper, plenty of time to deliver a sermon for the ages. It worked for me, but I'm not surprised in the least that it doesn't work for everyone. It's a bit alienating, but in a way, that is the point. Smith was trying to alienate viewers, trying to make them think - trying to make them angry. So, take that as you may.

Red State is very much about keeping the audience on its toes. Specific events occur, changing the plot's focus from out of nowhere and without much warning, and when you think the movie is going one way, it goes another. Now, while that works in the moment, it's hard not to look at Red State as being a bit too jumbled after the fact. It's two or three different movies that gel together in theory, but don't fit in a way that makes an interesting, cohesive story worth caring about past the film's final moments, let alone even the midway point. I was along for the ride for most of the movie, but by the film's end, I was simply left empty, like as if Red State left almost no real impression on me outside of having to start processing this overly long review.

While I believe that all films should be judged on their own merit, as opposed to a director's previous work, the departure from normal (aka flat-out comedy) for Kevin Smith with Red State is surely fascinating. He has tackled religion in the past (with much better results), but never has he been more serious than with Red State, and that is very much reflected on screen with how the film was crafted visually. Red State is most definitely Smith's best-looking film, or at least the most visual film he has done thus far. And, to his credit, it's well put together for someone who is not that type of director. With that said, it's all mostly standard fare, and if you've seen one gritty, low-budget, digitally shot film with a case of Parkinson's, you've pretty much seen them all. 

Smith is clearly saying something with Red State (and, at times, saying a little too much), and some would rightfully claim he was being more than heavy-handed in his approach. Granted, there is nothing being said in Red State that hasn't been said before, but I feel as if Kevin Smith really felt the need to get this all off his chest, and he was being genuine and true to himself in doing so. That truly shows with just how drastically different the film is from any other he has ever done before. I don't think he was trying to prove anything to anyone; he wanted to make this film for himself, and I fully applaud the attempt, regardless of its many flaws. 

My overall feelings about Red State perfectly reflect my overall feelings about Kevin Smith. There are things about the film I enjoyed, but there are so many issues to be found throughout. There is no sort of emotional impact whatsoever, and the amount of time spent explaining shit that didn't need to be explained was quite tedious, if not simply uninteresting. Both Smith and Red State are terminally confused in many ways, and it seems as if Smith has issues with expressing himself coherently, and that bleeds deeply into the final product. Red State is a movie that, unless it comes up in conversation, I will probably never think about again, and that's because it really didn't give me enough of a reason to.

Valhalla Rising: Losing My Religion

"We raised the cross, now we bring the sword!"

Part 1 Precursor

Often after I watch a film that either interests me or possibly gives me something meaty to chew on in either a positive or negative way, I'll take a peak at what other people across that vast universe known as the internet think. I like to get an idea of what others like or dislike about a film that I myself either like, dislike or am not fully sure about yet. While this is clearly a mistake as IMDB is mostly a cesspool for idiots (only to be outshined by YouTube), I still find myself checking out a few of their user reviews (both positive and negative), which can be a way of getting the average film fan's thoughts, as opposed to the cult/genre geek who may be too well aligned with my wavelength to get a solid differing opinion. 

Part 2 The Issue

This would happen most recently with Nicolas Winding Refn's Valhalla Rising, a film that, for me, cements Refn as one of the most visually present and thought provokingly interesting filmmakers working today. Soon after I finished the film and processed my thoughts for a few moments, I took to the net, did some research (interviews with Refn, etc.), then read a few quick reviews. One of the recurring negative complaints about Valhalla Rising that stuck out like a sore dick was the proclamation that the film is all style and absolutely no substance. 

Now, in my experience with his work (and I have seen most of his films), I find that Refn is a virtual beast when it comes to what he presents on screen. Refn has an ability create astounding visuals; he commands powerful, next level performances from his actors; he captures a Neanderthalian brutality with a ferocity that simply pummels the audience; and most importantly for the sake of this piece, Refn delivers deep subtext in a way that doesn't stick its ass out at the audience.

Part 3 We're On A Mission From God

As for the film's story, Wikipedia describes Valhalla Rising's plot as such: "The film takes place in 1000 AD and follows a Norse warrior named One-Eye and a boy named Are as they travel with a band of Christian Crusaders in pursuit of a Crusade. Instead they find themselves in an unknown and unfamiliar land."

Valhalla Rising is very simplistic as far as the characters' physical journey goes, yet, it is the intricacies of what lie just at the surface that give it incredible depth. You read that description and you know this band of Christian Crusaders are on a Crusade, but it is what they are Crusading for that brings about the film's connotations; the overbearingly high-handed religious connotations that litter the film from front to back. High-handed religious connotations that greatly reflect many of the biggest challenges faced by mankind in the world in which we live today.

Their Crusade is for one thing and one thing only, to go back to Jerusalem and take back their land in the name of God. Their God.

For as long as mankind has dwelled upon this earth, (some) people have, do and will put themselves in positions of power by sending false messages of superiority. They use faith as a way of gaining trust as well as instilling fear in those who are without the ability to think for themselves. Those who are led to believe that if they follow the flock and fight for their God, they will be ensuring themselves a spot in heaven, safe and happy, while all those that dare to follow the wrong beliefs rot in hell. Or worse, a 9-to-5 job without benefits. Yikes.

Part 4 Driven by Fear

These Crusaders are only slightly more naïve than many who comb our Earth in present day and every day between now and the time in which Valhalla Rising is set. Their idealistic beliefs cause them to, deep down, fear those who do not share in their faith, and as the wise old Yoda once said, "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering" In this case, the suffering is meant for those who do not support, who do not follow and who dare to stand opposed to a certain belief.

The symbolism is as simple as the line, "We Raised the cross, now we bring the sword!," when referring to the strange foreign land in which the Crusaders now inhabit and plan to overtake. Filled with unseen, indigenous natives who must be eradicated because they are not them. They are not Christians. They are not Crusaders of God.

And they wipe with leaves. Gross.

The symbolism is as simple as one character holding up two short swords to form the most iconic of Christian symbols: the cross. Using weapons of destruction as a representation of faith; the very same weapons that are also meant to take down those who oppose their ideology. Brandishing these instruments of death in such a way is reflective of the misguidance and lack of understanding that some people have for religion. They also represent the one choice that is given to anyone who comes within their reach. You're either with us, or against us, and if you're against us, well, we brought the sword if that should answer your question. 

Part 5 The Lamb

The vastly more obvious religious undertones come specifically from the character of One-Eye himself (played with a silent brilliance by Mads Mikkelsen of the Pusher films), as he is presented in a Christ-like fashion. However, while his character is used to represent a specific event for a specific religion, he represents sacrifice in a way that is not selfish, a way that is not driven by fear, greed, power, or a specific belief – but driven by faith, period. His sacrifice is propelled by selflessness, which is what many religions can easily preach,  yet, it always seems so difficult for people such as the Crusaders to actually live like those who inspired their beliefs. In fact, they do the exact opposite, and I guess that's just human nature for you.

Part 6 Resolution

I can see not enjoying Valhalla Rising because it's not what you want from a Viking film, but if it were just what you wanted, it would be no different from what has already been done in other Viking movies. If someone were to say to me they do not enjoy Valhalla Rising because it's too slow (and it is very slowly paced), or that they just aren't into any of this underlying, and possibly pretentious to some, subject matter that I have gone over here, then that's certainly fine by me. To each his own, and that is what subjection is all about. On the other hand, to classify Valhalla Rising as having no substance is completely and totally off the mark, as there is much more substance than one can easily see on the surface, if only they bothered to focus on something other than what is directly in front of them.

Stake Land: Putting Teeth Back Into the Vampire Genre

"It's JUST like Zombieland but it's not funny, and instead of zombies it's vampires that are causing everyone so much grief!"

Barf.

I don't know how many fucking times I read that description whenever reading a review for Jim Mickle's latest film, Stake Land. The two films (Zombieland and Stake Land) have NEVER had ANYTHING to do with one another, and I believe that should have been obvious (especially to horror fans) right from the film's first teaser trailer that was released before Zombieland had even come out. Sure, there are some similarities with the post apocalyptic setting, something that was never done in any other film outside of Zombieland. The Last Man on Earth, Omega Man, Phantasm II, The Road Warrior, 28 Days/Weeks Later, Night of the Comet, Carriers, etc. None of those films were set in a time when the world was riddled with either zombies, vampires, infected, crazy people or even some concoction of the four. Is the name Stake Land is a bad choice? Well, it's not a great movie title by any stretch, but the film was initially conceived around the same time as Zombieland, so the comparisons are simply ridiculous if you ask me, especially when every Tom, Dick and Harry felt the need to make the exact same comparison when reviewing the film. 

Sorry, I had to get that off my chest. Shit has been bothering me for months. Let me reign things back in here and get back on track now that I've probably offended someone I like...

Directed and co-written by Jim Mickle - who made a nice little splash with his solid, original take on the zombie film with 2006's Mulberry Street – Stake Land is set sometime after the world had become infected by a deadly virus. But this isn't your typical airborne type of contagion; instead, the deadly plague comes in the form of vampires. Without any back-story to how it all started, the vampires have quite easily taken over the planet, leaving few survivors behind and their victims to come back as their allies.  

Now, these vampires aren't the type of chiseled abs adorned hotties that make out with chicks and style their hair (You know, like me). Nope, these are vicious, man-eating vampires filled with aggression and a certain level of survival smarts and tactics. The idea of a plague by vampirism is a smart choice, as most of us are already aware of how vampires work and how they can turn people into fellow vampires. Therefore, there is no need to explain how the disease has spread; it's a part of the monsters mythos. Though, there are some things that separate the film from the by the book characteristics of vampires, one of them being that they seem to either have evolved or there are at least a few differing breeds of them with some being more powerful than others.  

Stake Land follows a man simply known as Mister (co-writer, Nick Damici) and a teenager named Martin (Connor Paolo) who Mister befriends after saving his life from a vampire attack that left Martin's entire family dead.  Mister – who hates being referred to as Mr. Mister – is what you could call a badass motherfucker who is skilled in the ways of vampire slaying. He and Martin are traveling to Canada (which has been dubbed New Eden) which is supposedly a refuge free of vampires and filled with at least a small sense of normalcy.  

Not at all the most original of ideas in anyway. Regardless, I will always attest to the fact that originality is not an issue if a film can bring something to the idea. There is a reason why classic stories are classic stories. In the hands of the right filmmaker, a classic story can always be told well. That would most certainly be the case with Stake Land. 

Despite the lack of background - which is actually appreciated by myself - Stake Land is a cinematically poignant and deep film that resonates in its situation. Despite the vampiric elements, the circumstances feel real as do the characters. I found myself drawn to the people of Stake Land, as they are somewhat relatable as is the way in which they are dealing with their plight. The characters are who they are and they aren't filled with overly dramatic traits that would mean to alienate the audience or even themselves. I specifically enjoyed the subtle father son relationship between Mister and Martin that is vastly more enduring and somber than any single moment found in the highly overrated and often compared to, The Road. The emotional impact is better conveyed because it's not being forced upon the viewer; it happens naturally. 

Stake Land is filled with very strong performances by all those involved, but the stand out in the film is certainly Nick Damici, who also stared in and co-wrote Mickle's Mulberry Street. What I love about Damici is the fact that he is a real person, a man's man, someone that you would find littering tough guy cinema of the '70s. He's a rarity in these cinematic times, and to see someone like him in a film such as Stake Land is simply awesome. I also must give credit to his character of Mister. He is a true tough guy, but he breaks the mold and never acts so tough that his exterior cannot be broken. Without hesitation, he is compassionate, sympathetic to others and is not at all selfish despite the fact that it could result in his own undoing. He isn't simply trying to selfishly survive, he is trying to fight back the evil that surrounds him.

Mickle has constructed a film that is technically nice to look at on what is supposedly a teeny-tiny budget ($625,000 from what I have read). Stake Land isn't some slick, blue hued vampire film that is overly stylized and hyperkinetic, nor is it a sepia toned apocalypse movie littered with slo-mo shots. It's a straightforward and nicely crafted piece of cinema, filled with wide landscape shots that convey the rural, vast and almost completely devoid of life world that Stake Land is set in. Between the character of Mister and the way in which Stake Land is filmed, it has almost has a Western sensibility to it.   

In what is yet another case of the 'unoriginals', the whole 'people are so much worse than the monsters' commentary is in full effect here in Stake Land. It does work for the most part, but it is a tad over done and also feeds into a portion of the film that might be a point where it loses its footing a little. However, where the film does falter is minute and not nearly enough to affect my thoughts on the film as a whole. Which to me is a near perfectly made and very subdued modern horror/vampire film. There was a time when I was young and vampire films and the creatures themselves were some of my favorite things about horror. Therefore, I am incredibly ecstatic to have a film such as Stake Land come out. Stake Land shows us that the vampire can still be used in a way that is interesting, and proves yet again that the genre is alive and well. We just have to look outside the cinema to find it. 

$2 Dollars Saved. Thanks Netflix!

I knew this email was on its way after reading about all of this nonsense online, so I was already pretty furious of such inevitable news from Netflix. I like having the one DVD sent to me, as that one DVD is what fills the void that Netflix's streaming service has in their library. But if you want to charge me an extra six bills a month to do so, then how about I save that money and rent the two or three new films I rent from the Redbox and still have a few beans left over to buy a taco and a delicious fountain drink?

I understand the fact that Netflix isn't quite making the profits they would like with the streaming/DVD bundle package, but to go and make such a bold price change is simply ridiculous. And sure, some of this money could be used towards investing into more content and a better service at some point, but the point is, this pisses people off and could very easily force many to jump ship entirely from the service. Especially with options such as Redbox and Hulu Plus being out there, with Hulu Plus being just as available as Netflix instant is.

Personally, I see a major benefit from the streaming service over the mailed-in DVDs, so that is where I will be going as of September 1st, and I assume many others will be sure to follow. If that's the case, Netflix not only loses a handful of subscribers, they will also be losing $2 of income from each and every person that drops the DVD plan altogether. That collectively could be a huge loss for the company, unless the ones that decide to keep both services can carry the rest. Either way, I will be losing something, sure, but I will also be saving $2 dollars a month, which is nice. Maybe I'll go to Bermuda.
 

Splice's Flawed Finale

As much as I enjoyed Vincenzo Natali's Sci-fi Horror hybrid, Splice, the film is littered with a number of minor issues that, for me, can be overlooked in the big scheme of things. However, one major problem I have with the film - and something that truly holds it back, in my opinion - is the final act where the viewer is given the long awaited opportunity to see what the man-made monster, Dren (Delphine Chanéac), is truly capable of. Obviously, this will be a complete spoiler, so go away if you've not already seen the movie. Don't get all pissy about it…you can come back later on after you've seen the movie. Anyway, as you know, Splice ends with a scene where it is believed that Dren - the creature created by Genetic engineers, Clive (Adrien Brody) and Elsa (Sarah Polley) - is dead. Clive and Elsa take Dren's body and bury it outside of their secluded farmhouse where they had been hiding Dren from the always-pesky pesky-people that love to do pesky things. You know the type.   

Soon afterwards, Clive and Elsa's poorly fleshed-out boss, William Barlow, shows up along with Clive's brother and co-worker, Gavin, when Dren - who underwent a metamorphosis that transformed her from a female, to a male - suddenly attacks both men. After killing both Barlow and Gavin, Dren goes on to rape Elsa and kill Clive after he stabs her with a branch. Elsa delivers the final blow with a rock to the head and that would seem to do it for Dren. Now, I should mention that this whole scene is very well put together - outside of the ridiculously handled rape, of course - and should work in a way that is a sort of a payoff for the slow moving, character driven time spent leading up to this action filled finale. The wooded setting is absolutely gorgeous, with how the moon's rays cast ominous shadows, illuminating the snow-covered ground to make for quite the incredible backdrop for a scene of violence and action.

So, where exactly does my problem lie with the ending of Splice? Well, as I mentioned earlier, before Dren attacks she makes a drastic transformation into a male. She becomes a different creature (despite being played by the same actress), and it's very clear that the monster known as Dren is not present in any real way that translates to film (because her internal thoughts and feelings clearly do not translate to celluloid). All of the time spent with Splice is time spent with Dren as she is. A female. We watch her grow and mature into what may be one of the finest looking monsters I have seen in quite some time. A truly original creature that is almost, dare I say it, sexy (I know, gross), but in a way that is dangerous and frightening at the same time. Dren has a horrifying elegance as a monster that goes well beyond Splice as a film, and it's a complete shame to sit through an entire movie with this wonderful creation, only to have it taken away at the last minute for the sake of a plot device.

And what was that plot device again? Earlier in the film, Clive and Elsa's purple booger experiment goes awry when the female hybrid creature they created turns into a male and the two purple boogers kill each other. This would seem to be the clue that Dren would also swap sexes, but the question is, why? Why does the purple booger have to change into a male to become volatile? Is it to show that the male is more aggressive than the female thus the male Dren attack scene at the film's end? Dren already showed intense signs of intense aggression and a lack of rational thought, so that throws that theory out the window. The only reasonable explanation to make Dren a man is solely to impregnate Elsa. Regardless of it serving the purpose of a cliffhanger/plot-twist, I really do not see any reason why Dren, as was, couldn't be capable of impregnating someone herself. 

To ask your audience to suspend their disbelief and accept the fact that a female gendered science experiment, complete with a serious phallic symbol, could impregnate a human woman, is not the tallest of orders. No one knows how this created creature would mate, procreate, or do anything for that matter. If anything, I find it more believable to just have Dren be able to do this because she isn't a human and can quickly adapt to move her new brand of species forward. Evolution for the sake of survival. Her aggression, as well as that of the purple boogers, can be as simple as that, an experiment that resulted in chaos, which is sort of the film's point, correct?! Therefor, this entire unnecessary plot point serves no real purpose but to try to be smart, but instead takes away a major piece of the puzzle from what is essentially a monster film. It takes away the monster.

What sayeth you?!

Moon: You Saw Me Standing Alone

Duncan Jones nostalgic sci-fi space romp, Moon, is a mostly well known film in certain circles, with those circles mainly consisting of people who are passionate fans of cinema in one form or another. Outside of those too cool for film-school film fans, Moon is not a recognizable name (unless you're talking New Moon, of course), and the general public has little to no clue about the movie. At least that is what I assume but my assumption is more than likely spot on.

That alone somewhat speaks for how the film was completely neglected by the Academy this year - in a ceremony that applauded ten films instead of five - so they could make room for movies more along the lines of the summer blockbuster. Or, to put it in simpler terms, make room for films that the general public know about, thus, drumming up better ratings from the "average person." Basically, popularity over substance becomes even more prevalent.

Most passionate film buffs that have seen Moon have applauded actor Sam Rockwells' performance as Sam Bell, often saying he was criminally snubbed by the Academy. After finally seeing the film for myself - with abnormal expectations mind you - I could not agree any more. Rockwell's performance is a multilayered one, and his range makes him more than capable of pulling off such a complex and well written character. If he couldn't, the film would falter greatly.

Sam Bell is a character that faces tough questions about his actual being and is forced to do so with only himself to try and answer them. He is incredibly sad in many ways, and the bleakness that comes from ones questioning of their own existence when one lacks that existence is more than simple food for thought. However, the average moviegoer would prefer comfort food as opposed to something made with a complex recipe and foreign ingredients. Not that there's anything wrong with a little comfort food, but a good and healthy diet it certainly does not make when that is all that one consumes.

Robbed of an Oscar nod, sure, but Rockwell is not the only crater on Moon's surface that was more than deserving of some golden love, and I'm not talking about the R. Kelley kind. Moon is astonishingly made on every technical level with an eye pleasing 'aged future' set design that harkened back to the Science Fiction cinema of yore – the smooth and engulfing emptiness that is captured by the film's DP, Gary Shaw, is top notch – and the story, originally written by Jones, has the capability to rope in the viewer, giving just enough slack so that the narrative remains captivating until the film's reveal and ultimate conclusion. And all of these things were achieved with a $5 million dollar budget?! Wow, who would have thought that a wonderful film could be made for less than $50 million dollars. But it wasn't about the money (what?!), instead, it was about using the muscle in most everyone's head (neglected or not), the brain, to transcend budgetary restraints.

If you ask me, and you did by reading this, Moon - based off the other films that I have seen that also were awarded the prestige of being recognized by the Academy - was deserving of a Best Cinematography, Art Direction, Director and Picture nomination. Shit, the very subdued but powerful score by Clint Mansell may even be worth at least a thought for Best Score. Getting back to the "big award," though, I just don't understand how with ten spots for Best Picture, there is no room for a film like Moon? I mean, it was smile inducing to see District 9 on there - it was a great movie, and I, as most were, was surprised by the nod it received for best picture. But was it better than Moon? Not at all.

The general audience might not get it and while that can be frustrating since it is they that determine what the Hollywood machine cranks out…they don't know any better. They are mindless cattle that would rather go and see a film to have something to do, like text and giggle at shit on the screen. On the other hand, the Academy of ARTS and SCIENCE, a group that is meant to honor the BEST that cinema has to offer, most certainly should know better. Shame on them for ignoring such a fantastic film, but kudos to Duncan Jones for making one.

Diapers In A Bunch

It has recently dawned on me that I hardly get excited by most horror news anymore. Don't get me wrong, there are times when I am swept up by some big announcement, new trailers, stuff like that, but that doesn't seem to happen too often lately. I like to have my interest piqued, and it takes a lot to grab my attention, and then keeping my attention is even more difficult. Once in a while there is a film that begs to be ingested and has me clamoring for more. But more often than not, there isn't all that much I really need to know about a movie past a trailer or two, a couple of posters, and eventually a review.

I find a major annoyance with most internet horror news sites and what they deliver as "relevant" horror news, as it's mostly just boring and pointless filler. For example: "Hey horror fan, watch 96 new clips from Splice!" or "Oh snap, Jennifer Aniston is gonna be in Scream 4?!" or "C'mon, of course Jennifer Aniston's Scream 4 casting is a rumor. Duh?!" or "Here is another new trailer for REC 2! It's the brand new UK trailer, and it's new!" How about, I don't fucking care about a new trailer for REC 2 - how about, I only care about the DVD release date for REC 2, so I can go to the store and buy it. How about that? I saw trailers for REC 2 two years ago, and I can buy it on Amazon UK. A new trailer is not news to me.

I'm not even trying to place blame solely on the horror sites, even though it seems as if I just did. Obviously, being a fan of horror, I love horror sites, I just wish there wasn't so much bullshit on them sometimes. I notice and get most annoyed by it when news is especially slow. Being that this is mainly a horror blog, I receives some press release stuff from different companies here and there. Not like a website, or even like many of the bigger blogs, but I get mines. Now, it's cool getting those emails because it makes me feel…well, kind of special, but most of these emails are giving me news that is on par with what I just complained about in that last paragraph. It's pretty rare that I get one with something interesting and worth doing a post about. So I don't.

I guess a lot of the blame for that should be placed on marketing and companies throwing movie sites teeny tiny bones that have no meat, but they are still eaten up anyways and plastered as the newest headline. It's how these companies are keeping their product on the minds of horror fans with out giving up anything of real substance. Why do we need 6 boring new clips from so and so movie? We don't. Well, I don't, I just want to watch the movie, that's all.

Yeah, I know…waaah.