The Evil Dead (2013)

For some 30 years now, small groups of movie teenagers have made the journey to countless cabins in countless woods. The return part of such journeys is one surviving, bleeding, traumatized, hospitalized teenager for every 10 dead friends left behind. Also the part of entertaining, original movies about attractive young people and the scary monsters that follow them is about the same. For every smart remake or newly abnormal spin, there are countless stab fests with nothing original to say.

Thus we come to the 2013 remake of “Evil Dead.”

This isn’t a severe remake of Sam Raimi’s incredibly powerful 1981 horror classic, but it does include the basic structure and some visual nods to the original. On its own, it’s an absolute, aggressive torture chamber partying in the bloody, flinch-reminding deaths of some of the stupidest people ever to spend a rainy night in a remote cabin in the woods.

Shiloh Fernandez is the boring and mindless David, who returns to the family’s old cabin along with his new girlfriend, Natalie (Elizabeth Blackmore); his former childhood friends Eric (Lou Taylor Pucci) and Olivia (Jessica Lucas), and his little sister, Mia (Jane Levy). Richard Roeper noted, “Even before we learn Mia's trying to kick smack, we know this kid has problems because she's got a bit of a goth look going, she believes in the spirit world, and she likes to sketch.”

Like most cabins in the woods, this cabin in the woods seems to be so far away from any other cabins or any signs of life. Wow, the family must have an enjoyable time there, especially with Mom fighting insanity, and Dad – well, we never hear about Dad.

Roeper mentioned, “Within a few hours, the dog finds a blood-covered trap door leading to a basement filled with strung-up cat carcasses and a book of evil curses.” Soon after that, Mia starts having visions and speaking in an evil voice. Yet these idiots don’t move. (Roeper mentioned, “When they finally do try to leave, there's a conveniently biblical-style rainstorm flooding the exit road.”)

Roeper was funny when he mentioned, “Olivia's a registered nurse, but she doesn't seem smart enough to know how to register for Google Plus. Eric, who for some reason is groomed and dressed as if he'd just come back from a Kurt Cobain look-alike contest, opens a book that says "leave this book alone" and starts reciting a chant that should never be recited.” I wonder whose smart idea it was to invite Eric on this trip.

Enter the banshee from another universe, who’s possessing Mia and plan on killing everyone in sight in the most disgusting, extended manner possible. Roeper said, “Cue the ominous score, the cheap scares and the increasingly moronic behavior by David and his dunderheaded friends.” The jab factor goes all the way up to 11, with admittedly remarkable makeup and special effects. Over the course of a rainy night that seems like it will continue, we’re given multiple scenes of cartridge throwing up, handfuls of nail-gun shots piercing flesh and bone, black ooze and blood everywhere, tearing apart and stabbings…All shown in agonizing detail.

Save for a few mysteriously funny one-liners, there’s almost no wrong humor here, and there’s certainly nothing original about the plot. The actors do a pretty fair job of expressing terror, but the characters they’re playing are such one-dimensional morons, you begin cheering on the evil banshee from another universe to take them out.

Roeper ended his review by saying, “I love horror films that truly shock, scare and provoke. But after 30 years of this stuff, I'm bored to death and sick to death of movies that seem to have one goal: How can we gross out the audience by torturing nearly every major character in the movie?”

Overall, this remake you don’t want to see, especially if you like the original. This will probably upset you, since horror remakes are horrendous. I don’t think I have seen a horror remake that has been in anyway good, and this is no exception.

Well, that ends my reviews on the “Evil Dead Series.” Stay tuned tomorrow when I look at a very lovable film that is a classic for all ages.

Army of Darkness

I guess Jeffrey Anderson is right when he says that, “Some movies just get the fuzzy end of the lollipop.” “Army of Darkness,” released in 1993, was Sam Raimi’s hilarious third chapter in his memorable “Evil Dead” trilogy, one of the best trilogies, hands down. It was done for Universal Pictures (one of the largest studios) and for producer Dino de Laurentiis. However, thanks to lawsuits completely isolated to Raimi and his movie, and to nervous studio execs, the film was shortened from 96 minutes to 81 minutes and given a pretentious happy ending. Anderson mentioned that, “The original cut has long been a Holy Grail for cult movie fans.”

Thanks to Anchor Bay Entertainment, now the official “Army of Darkness” cut has arrived, and the world feels whole again.

The new DVD has the full 96 minute cut and includes additional outtakes as well as commentary by Raimi, Bruce Campbell, and co-writer Ivan Raimi. Anderson says, “The only thing that's missing is the original happy ending, which I saw in the theater in 1993 but can't really remember now.”

The movie is a jaw-dropper. Anderson mentions, “It was one of the first U.S. pictures to be influenced by the new wave of Hong Kong movies like A Chinese Ghost Story (1987).” Raimi’s camerawork and cutting capture the loose flexibility and rapid movement of those now – classic elements. Anderson goes on to say, “I continually harp on movies that are careless in their photography and cutting, going for a jagged and hard-to-see style instead of clarity.” “Army of Darkness” is an example of how action movies should be shot.

The story picks up where “Evil Dead 2” left off with Ash, reprised by Bruce Campell, being sent through a portal of some kind and landing in the 12^th Century. (Bridget Fonda – a fan of the “Evil Dead” franchise – appears briefly in the flashback, even though she wasn’t in “Evil Dead 2.”) Ash must now get the Book of the Dead so that he can go back to his time period. However, he accidentally awakens an army of dead (portrayed as Ray Harryhausen-like animate skeletons), which he now must fight and kill. He must also save the beautiful girl he’s in love with, played by the lovely Embeth Davidtz, later to appear in Spielberg’s classic, “Schindler’s List.”

This was Campbell’s one big starting role and he should have become one of the most recognizable actors. He has personality to show. He can be tough and mean, or soft and comical. Anderson describes Ash as, “His Ash is a Homer Simpson-like loser with a good heart but a short attention span. He talks in cowboy and detective movie talk ("Gimme some sugar, Baby") and indulges in Three Stooges-like routines.”

However, Campbell’s career and the movie were brutally dumped by Universal. They most likely didn’t know how to market it, falling into a kind of parody comedy/action movie/horror movie. Not to mention that horror films at the time were on the slides, well before the “Scream” recovery.

I understand that many people didn’t really like this movie because they turned the series into some sort of a joke, but I think that the entertainment in this movie is quite suitable. Ash has fully grown into the goofball that we all now recognize and love. This movie has some of the best one-liners that you can quote endlessly. Just make sure that your timing is right when you quote them. Another one of my favorite horror comedies. Definitely check this movie out if you are in the mood for something entertaining, and you loved the previous two movies in the series. Also, make sure to check out the original ending as well because that one is hilarious.

If you can actually believe it, they remade the “Evil Dead” not too long ago. How is it compared to the original? Is it horrible and you should not even bother with it, like a lot of remakes? Only one way to find out: wait until tomorrow when I review it in my conclusion to “Evil Dead-a-thon.”

Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn

“Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn,” released in 1987, is a comedy disguised as Roger Ebert puts it, “a blood-soaked shock-a-rama. It looks superficially like a routine horror movie, a vomitorium designed to separate callow teenagers from their lunch.” However, if you look a little closer and you’ll see that the movie is a properly stylish satire. Level One viewers will say it’s not their type. Level Two viewers, like Ebert, will see that it is about not being your type.

The plot: Visitors (Bruce Campbell and Denise Bixler) to a cottage in the Michigan woods discover a rare copy of the Book of the Dead and accidentally summon evil spirits. Ebert mentioned, “The spirits run amok, disemboweling and vivisecting their victims.” The hero fights like a man with the terror supernatural forces, in the woods and behind every door.

This story is told with wall-to-wall special effects. Skeletons dance in the moonlight. Heads spin on top of bodies. Hands go crazy and start attacking their owners. After they are chopped off, they have a life of their own. Ebert mentioned, “Heads are clamped into vises and squashed.” Blood sprays all over the place. Guts spill. Slime pukes. If disgusting images of horrific blood are not, as they say, up your alley, the odds are good you will not have a great time watching this movie.

On the other hand, if you know it’s all special effects, and if you’ve seen a lot of other movies and have a sense of humor, you might have a great time with “Evil Dead 2.” Ebert said, “I did - up to a point.” The movie demolishes ideas at such a phenomenal rate that it begins to repeat itself toward the end, but the first 45 minutes have a kind of hyper, inspired genius to them.

For example, look at the scene where the hero cuts his hand from his body and the hand takes on a life of its own, attacking him. Leave out the blood and the gore and few of the details, and this entire scene builds like a honor to the Three Stooges. Look at the scene where the hero attaches a chain saw to what’s left of his hand that he cut off. Disgusting, right? However, Sam Raimi styles it as a clever shot at the way Robert De Niro suited himself in “Taxi Driver.”

Ebert admitted, “I'm not suggesting that "Evil Dead 2" is fun merely because you can spot the references to other movies. It is because (a) the violence and gore are carried to such an extreme that they stop being disgusting and become surrealistic; (b) the movie's timing aims for comedy, not shocks, and (c) the grubby, low-budget intensity of the film gives it a lovable quality that high-tech movies wouldn't have.”

There is one shot in the film that must be a masterpiece. There is a force outside in the woods. We never see it, but we see things from its point of view. In one long and very difficult continuous point-of-view shot, this force rages through the woods, crushes everything, crashes through the cabin door, and goes through room after room with invincible violence, chasing the hero until…I would be going into spoilers if I said anything else.

My advice is that I would recommend this movie to everyone, especially if you liked the first movie. It’s really good, I think it would be better than the first one. More comedy is put into the movie and that’s where the enjoyment really kicks in. It might be one of my favorite horror comedies. So if this movie is up your alley, then you will have a dashingly good time watching it.

Now we are going to talk about the third in the “Evil Dead series,” but that won’t be until tomorrow. I know that movie is the one people are mixed about, but I will not say what I think about it until I get to it tomorrow. See you then, in my lighthearted, comedic post for this year’s “Halloween Month.”

The Evil Dead (1981)

Now we get to a trilogy that I was seriously thinking about reviewing this time around. Before wasting any more time, let's get started with the review.

Released way back before cable TV and before VHS' made low budget merchandise available to the average viewer, “The Evil Dead” found its audience with the midnight movie horror festival audience. This did not get a nationwide release. Privately owned theaters bought prints and slowly the film went from coast to coast and even landed in Britain. By this time, videos were getting popular and it was released on VHS at the same time as a very limited theatrical release.

Critics and censors didn't care for the trash and not long after that it was submitted to the video trash can and banned. Gator MacReady stated in his review, “As silly as this may seem, that was the logic of the BBFC.” The fact that it is inventive and well directed was not really looked at by them. Until some years back, only cult audiences appreciated its value. With Anchor Bay's new DVD everyone can enjoy the uncut, standard and best-look of the movie ever presented.

Originally released in 1981 as “The Book of the Dead,” this was a feature length remake of Sam Raimi's short film, “Within the Woods.” The plot and story is about five friends enjoying a few days of quiet at an abandoned cabin in the Tennessee woods. Just to clarify, these are not the same kids as the “Friday the 13th” franchise, they are realistic. All of it goes nicely until Scotty, played by Hal Delrich, finds this hideous looking book (with a face) and an old tape recorder in the basement. The tape is about an archaeologist explaining how he resurrected demons that took over his wife in that same cabin. The professor is nowhere to be found, but the haunting burial rites and magic spells written in Sumerian text in this book, The Necronomicon Ex Mortis-Book of the Dead, are on the tape as well.

Sheryl, played by Ellen Sandweiss, gets scared. She hears an unholy voice out in the woods. “Join us!” Being the naive person she is, she goes out to investigate and is attacked by a tree. Although this part isn't so hard to watch, the film still has the power to disturb and make you move.

Once Sheryl returns, evil stuff happens and Raimi has an enjoyable time firing downpours of polychromatic blood throughout the cabin. Limbs are cut off with untroubled unrestraint and poor old Ash, played by Bruce Campbell, has to take them all alone.

I agree with MacReady when he says, “The supernatural hijinks were repeated to a much lesser effect in the sequel, but here Raimi creates an atmosphere of dread and whatever that force is out in the woods - it's scary.” It does have some humor, but for the first watch, filmmakers obviously wanted the horror first. You'll flinch a few times, undeniably. The raw tone goes hand-in-hand with the low budget and Raimi's eccentric, hardcore comic strip style is very much evident.

More time is spent on building character. Ash loves his girlfriend, Linda, played by Betsy Baker, and an easy little scene between them makes us completely on his side. He is still to become the pathetic clown, as he will reprise in the sequels.

At the very least, “The Evil Dead” has gotten much popularity that it can no longer be called a cult movie. It's not a classic yet, but it is highly regarded and definitely worth sitting and watching multiple times.

With that said, you should definitely see this movie. It was made low-budget, but for the time, this wasn't the only horror movie that was made low-budget. A good handful of horror movies started out that way. If you like Bruce Campbell and want to see him playing his most popular movie character that he has ever played, then you should check out this movie and the sequels. Theresa Tilly is also in this movie playing Shelly, but she was credited as Sarah York.

How is “Evil Dead II” compared to this one? Find out tomorrow when I continue with “Evil Dead-a-thon,” which is the next series I will look at for “Halloween Month.”

The Birds/The Birds II: Land's End

Now we have arrived at one of the scariest, if not “the” scariest, movie ever to be directed by Alfred Hitchcock himself, “The Birds,” released in 1963. It is one of the most disturbing structures in movie history: a woman tiptoes through a house until – in three disjointed shots – she finds the bloody corpse of its resident on the bedroom floor, his eye sockets two black holes drenched with blood.

The scene is just one of several gruesome moments in Hitchcock’s superior horror movie, “The Birds,” made three years after his burning success with “Psycho.”

Alastair Sooke mentioned that, “It begins as screwball comedy.” Melanie Daniels, played by Melanie Griffith’s mom, the great Tippi Hedren, is a determined playgirl who enterprises a smart Aston Martin. After a smart-aleck lawyer named Mitch Brenner, played by the late Australian actor, Rod Taylor, flirts with her in a San Francisco pet shop, she follows him over to Bodega Bay, north California, where he spends the weekends with his mother, played by Jessica Tandy. Sooke credited, “Taylor, who had won acclaim for his role in The Time Machine, died in January 2014 aged 84.”

Soon after she rows her boat over to see him, a seagull pecks at her head – a warning substitute for Cupid’s arrow – and it’s not long before the town is under attack from flocks of seagulls and crows.

The bird-attack sequences are extremely difficult (the movie has more than 370 trick shots), and not having a musical score concentrates the horror more direct: Hitchcock’s long-time composer Bernard Hermann made a creepy soundtrack from caws, vociferous screeches and swishing wings.

Sooke mentioned, “But the true genius of the film, based on a 1952 short story by Daphne du Maurier, is the way Hitchcock makes the malevolent birds seem like manifestations of his characters' mental unease –especially that of Mitch's mother and his former lover, Annie, played by Suzanne Pleshette, now a local schoolteacher.”

What woman wouldn’t feel threatened if Melanie arrived in town? Sooke said, “In her chic green suit, her peroxide hair swept into an immaculate chignon, and her soft lips moulded into a succession of minxish pouts, Hedren makes Melanie the very height of 1960s sophistication.”

Mitch’s mother smiles daggers at Melanie when they are introduced, her hatred perhaps ignited by their strange resemblance. Indeed, many people mistake the famous poster art of a woman attacked by birds (taken from the scene where sparrows flow into the Brenners’ living room) for Hedren. In fact, the smirk belongs to Tandy – her grey hair colored blonde to help the confusion.

If you want to watch this movie, be very careful and don’t say you weren’t warned. This movie will give you the fear of birds for some time and you won’t be able to look at a bird the same way every again. The effects of watching a Hitchcock movie makes a lasting impression on you and you will need some time to recover from it. I first saw this movie when I was a junior in High School in my Spanish class, but it was dubbed in Spanish, so I didn't completely understand what was being said. Even then, I was putting my head down on my desk when the birds were attacking. Then I saw it years later, and it left quite an impact.

Wouldn’t you believe that they made a “made-for television sequel” to this movie? How was that possible? Was there anything in this movie that hinted that it needed a sequel? Well, when it comes to filmmakers, they will do anything to make money and cash in on the success of a very popular movie. That’s why in 1994, “The Birds II: Land’s End” was released on television.

Imagine “The Birds” without the suspense, charm, or acting ability.

A quick lesson in movie credits for those who may not know: If a director does not like a project and wishes to not be recognized for it, they may apply to the Directors Club to do so. If the director is able to convince the club that they were unable to make proper creative control over the project, they can be given permission to remove their name from the credits. They are banned from talking the project, may not admit to being the true director, and their name will be (or was until 2000 at least) replaced in the credits with the pseudonym “Alan Smithee.”

“The Birds II: Land’s End” is an Alan Smithee movie.

The one thing tying this made-for-TV sequel to Hitchcock’s 1963 classic is the return of his lead actress, Tippi Hedren, here in a supporting role as a different character completely. With no connecting characters, locations, or even so much as a mention that this has ever happened before, this sequel is less an unwanted sequel, and more an unnecessary remake.

A family (Brad Johnson, Chelsea Field, Stephanie Milford, Megan Gallagher, and a dog) move to a small island, and birds start attacking everyone.

The dog does at one point bring a bird into the house, and the daughters (Milford and Gallagher) try to make a pet of the bird, but the birds have begun to show odd behavior by this in the movie (in fact, they kill a fisherman before the opening credits start). Once the would-be-pet bird is strong again, it escapes. This does not stop the attacks, and has no effect on the plot.

Apparently there was a son in this family before the events of the movie, but he died in a car accident. This has nothing to do with the plot, is mentioned exactly twice, and does not influence anyone’s behavior.

The mom of the family (Field), who works for the local newspaper, goes out to the bar with her photographer (James Naughton), and the father (Johnson) shows his jealousy at the amount of time his wife spends with her boss. The boss once tries to kiss her but she pushes him back. This also has nothing to do with the plot or anyone’s behavior.

Another thing that has nothing to do with the plot is that the girls are scared of Jan Rubes, which is similar to “Home Alone.” Also, another thing that they stole from a movie is “Jaws,” where the mayor of this town, who also happens to be the doctor, played by Richard K. Olsen, doesn’t believe that birds are attacking so that people aren’t scared to come to this town for tourist attractions.

Will Tingle mentioned in his review, “I always think that if you’re going to re-make a movie, do something different with it, at the very least fix the original’s flaws.” Actually, “The Birds” only had one flaw: the (non) ending. Even though “Land’s End” makes some small attempt to be a little less vague than the original, it’s still a quick, motivation free, end. Certainly nothing acceptable though, and not necessarily different to the original that it was worth the effort of sitting through the movie to get there.

In the positive, (most of) the bird attacks look quite good, using close shots and lots of cuts to both highlight the furious nature of the attacks, and hide any flows in the effects themselves.

Tingle ended his review by saying, “If you want to see a good killer bird movie, see The Birds. If you want to see a bad one, see Birdemic: Shock and Terror. If you want to see a mediocre killer bird movie, take stock of your life, but failing that, see The Birds II: Land’s End.”

My advice to everyone is don't watch this sequel. It's so not worth the trouble to go out and find a copy of the movie, nor is it worth the time and trouble to watch it. Just watch the original Hitchcock movie and not this.

Anyways, just stay tuned tomorrow to see what else is in store for "Halloween Month."

He Named Me Malala

Special treat today everyone: I saw the documentary “He Named Me Malala,” which came out at the beginning of the month, so I will review it tonight.

Robert Horton begun his review by stating, “A few years ago I re-visited a book that I hadn't looked at since an assigned high school reading many years earlier. Which is how I was reminded that Anne Frank's diary is not only an important Holocaust document, but a magnificent piece of writing by a singular author.”

A lot of official worship had stuck to Anne Frank over the years that it was surprising to hear her energetic, humorous, expressive voice come jumping off the page. She deserves better than to be transferred to sainthood.

Horton went on to say, “I had similar thoughts while watching “He Named Me Malala,” the new documentary about Malala Yousafzai.” Malala was 15 years old when she became world famous after getting shot in the head by the Taliban. She had offended their religious beliefs by speaking out favoring education for girls.

Since recovering from the shot, she’s published a book, made a friendship with “U2” singer, Bono, and won the Nobel Peace Prize. Horton mentioned, “And I repeat: She deserves better than sainthood.”

Horton mentioned, ““He Named Me Malala” is directed by Davis Guggenheim, who copped an Oscar for the Al Gore lecture “An Inconvenient Truth.”” The film has the collection documentary approach, with interviews and music and animated sequences.

However, it’s a pleasure to watch, mainly for the sake of seeing Malala in action and in interviews. She still has some nerve damage from the 2012 bullet wound, yet appears just as sharp and expressive (and funny) now as in footage taken before the shooting.

She’s bossy when she is with her two younger brothers, and she’s girly when she refuses to admit that she has a crush on certain handsome cricket players might have something to do with how muscular they are.

The film is meant to be inspirational, so there isn’t much to moderate the affectionate picture. Guggenheim raises a few interested questions: How dark did it get for Malala during her recovery? Did her activist father rush her into being a disobedient spokesperson, a dangerous spot for a woman in Pakistan? (The family now lives in banishment in England.)

Horton is right when he says, “These issues are not pushed — this isn't investigative journalism, but a film with a cause.” (The cause is female empowerment, but it would be nice if we are reminded that offending someone with speech should not be a capital crime.)

The wonderful fact is that Malala is too typical to simply stand on a podium for a do-gooder movie. Her quick, observant personality comes completely out of this project, as though enthusiastic to move past her biographer and get on with it. She’ll be heard from again.

I have to say, I was really looking forward to see this movie. After seeing Malala interviewed by two of my favorite interviewers, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, which is how I first knew of her, I wanted to see this movie. My whole family went to see this, and we all thought that it was good. The only problem that all the critics seem to have is that they wanted a full biography on Malala, which couldn’t be done with this movie. It only showed the before and after effects of what she went through, and I think they did a good job portraying that. Definitely see this movie; it gets a huge recommendation from me.

Well, stay tuned tomorrow when I continue with “Halloween Month.”

American Psycho 1 and 2

Today we are going to look at the scary 2000 movie, “American Psycho.” It’s just as well a woman directed this flick. She’s changed a novel about blood envy into a movie about men’s pride. A male director might have thought Patrick Bateman, the hero of “American Psycho,” was a serial killer because of psychological twists, but Mary Harron sees him as a guy who’s victim to the usual male forces and obligations. He just acts out a little more.

Most men are not chain-saw killers. They only act that way while doing business. Look at the traders clawing each other on the floor of the stock exchange. Listen to used-car dealers trying to unload extra stock on one another. Consider the pleasure where one mega supercorp stock-raids another and takes down its leaders. Roger Ebert advised, “Study such films as "In the Company of Men," "Glengarry Glen Ross," "Boiler Room" and the new "The Big Kahuna." It's a dog-eat-dog world, and to survive you'd better be White Fang.”

Ebert went on to say, “As a novel, Bret Easton Ellis' 1991 best seller was passed from one publisher to another like a hot potato.” As a film project, it went through screenplays, directors and stars for years. It was picked up for Oliver Stone, who planned to get Leonardo DiCaprio, before ending up with Harron who put Christian Bale in the lead. (Ebert said, “To imagine this material in Stone's hands, recall the scene in Ken Russell's "The Music Lovers" where Tchaikovsky's head explodes during the "1812 Overture," then spin it out to feature length.”)

Harron is less impressed by the evil Patrick Bateman than a man might have been, perhaps because as a woman who directs movies, she deals every day with guys who resemble Bateman in everything except his body count. She sense the connection between the time Bateman spends in the morning, lovingly applying male facial products, and the way he blows away people who bother him, anger him or simply have the bad luck to be within his vicinity. He is a narcissist driven by ego and increased by greed. Most of his victims are women, but in a steal, a man will do.

The film observes the male executive lifestyle with the devotion of an engrossment. Ebert mentioned, “There is a scene where a group of businessmen compare their business cards, discussing the wording, paper thickness, finish, embossing, engraving and typefaces, and they might as well be discussing their phalli.” Their passionate lack of confidence is cleared as card desire. They carry on harsh competitions expressed in clothes, offices, salaries and being able to get good tables in important restaurants. It is their uneasy secret that they make enough money to afford to look important, but are not very important. One of the film’s running jokes is that Bateman looks so much like one of his colleagues, played by Jared Leto, that they are mistaken for each other. (Their faces aren’t really identical, but they take up empty space in a lot of the same way.)

The film and the book are infamous because Bateman murders a lot of people in gruesome ways. Ebert admitted, “I have overheard debates about whether some of the murders are fantasies ("can a man really aim a chain saw that well?").” Every murder is equally real or unreal, and that isn’t the point: The purpose of the murders is to make visible the rage of the defensive male when his will is frustrated. The movie gives shape and form to road rage, golf course rage, family abuse and some of the horrifying behavior patterns of sports fans.

You see why Harron has called the film “feminist.” So it is – and a slander against the many sensible, calm and civilized men it does not describe. However, it’s true to a type, all right. Ebert mentioned, “It sees Bateman in a clear, sharp, satiric light, and it despises him.” Christian Bale is heroic in the way he lets the character to jump happily into despicability. There is no character for self-preservation here, and this is one mark of a good actor.

When Bateman kills, it is not with the passion of a villain from a slasher movie. Ebert said, “It is with the thoroughness of a hobbyist.” Lives could have been saved if instead of living in an apartment, Batman had been given with a basement, a workbench and lot of nails to beat.

This is indeed one of the scariest, most messed up movies you will ever see. However, it suits for this month in order to get everyone prepared for Halloween. I would definitely say to check it out, but be aware of all the scary moments in this movie.

Would you actually believe that they made an atrocious direct-to-video sequel in 2002? Well they did, and boy does it suck. Let’s dive into it, shall we?

Almar Hafildason from BBC mentioned, “Imagine if the characters of the animated series "Scooby-Doo" were to turn on one another, and you'll be close to imagining the freakish "American Psycho II".” Looking like a “Scream”-styled take on serial killer thrillers, this horrendous sequel of a movie thrashes floppily between bizarre comedy and pale horror.

If you saw “American Psycho,” then you’ll know what happened to the charming Patrick Bateman. He appears in flashbacks in this sequel, but only as a mixing up mute who’s clearly not Christian Bale but instead is Michael Kremko.

As it turns out, a young woman called Rachael Newman, played by Jenna Perry, had a direct hand in his fate, after ending up at his house courtesy of her babysitter.

Years pass and Newman, now played by Mila Kunis, makes it to college, where she wants to become an assistant to the legendary serial killer hunter, Professor “Bobby” Strickland, played by Captain Admiral James T. Kirk himself, William Shatner, who Hafildason said, “he of mighty red face.”

Only trouble is, she’s got competition from the other students. Her kind of drastic solution is to kill them, getting inspiration from Bateman’s own methods.

Hafildason mentioned, “Morgan J Freeman's roots as a director on the teen show Dawson's Creek shine through heavily in a film that looks like a TV pilot made for a bet.”

Additionally, Freeman must have staggered upon the wrong “Guide to Sequel-Making,” as this movie has little to do with its predecessor.

Hafildason went on to say, “The only charm comes from William Shatner's Rip Van Winkle-esque, bourbon-swilling character, who's very much up for some intimate tuition with his female students.”

Plus, you do get to see his hyperventilating look blown out of a window, and Ricky Martin microwaved (you’ll see), so this film does have its exclusive basics.

Hafildason ended the review by saying, “As for the rest of the cast, a troupe of dancing Coke cans would have more acting gravitas in this deliriously poor spoof of serial killer flicks.”

Want my advice: stay away from this movie as far as you can. It’s a giant slap in the face of what made the first one so great. “American Psycho II” is one of the worst sequels ever, especially since this is direct-to-video, which is set to be doomed.

Now that I got that out of the way, look out tomorrow when I have more scares to deliver to you in “Halloween Month.”