In the arid landscape of derivative and unoriginal horror movies, the sight of something different can act like discovering a wellspring. Saying that S. Craig Zahler’s Bone Tomahawk is a wholly original film would be disingenuous. Zahler hasn’t created something new so much as re-arranged what’s already there into a beguiling and (eventually) nasty combination. First and foremost a western, Bone Tomahawk teases its gradual turn to the sadistic and bloody with its opening sequence before settling into its own unique groove. If anything, Zahler has immediately established himself as one to watch in genre filmmaking right now by creating something no one else is doing right now.

The aforementioned opening finds murderers/thieves Purvis (David Arquette) and Buddy (Sid Haig) stumbling on (and desecrating) the burial ground of a group of cave-dwelling cannibals. Cut to 11 days later, where Purvis takes shelter in the small town of Bright Hope, only to get arrested by Sheriff Hunt (Kurt Russell) and his deputy Chicory (Richard Jenkins). But Purvis isn’t aware that the cave dwellers have been tracking him, and overnight they kidnap Purvis, Deputy Nick (Evan Jonigkeit) and town doctor Samantha (Lili Simmons). Hunt and Chicory decide to head out on a rescue mission to bring back Nick and Samantha, bringing two more townsmen with them: Samantha’s husband Arthur (Patrick Wilson), recovering from a broken leg, and Brooder (Matthew Fox), a handsome gunslinger who claims to have killed more Indians than anyone else in town.

Not that the villains in Bone Tomahawk are Indians, as Zahler is quick to point out through a Native American character who refers to them as “troglodytes.” It might be easy to label the film as a revisionist western given its realism and subversion of genre clichés but, for the most part, it feels like Zahler is just creating his own strange universe within the Wild West. This extends to Zahler’s screenplay, which revels in stylized dialogue that will have fans of Deadwood feeling nostalgic (in this film, “Can you be quiet?” becomes “Is it possible for you to close that aperture?”). Zahler, a novelist making his directorial debut here, has a great sense of humour too, giving his cast plenty of opportunities to revel in his script’s seemingly endless turns of phrase.

It also helps that Zahler has assembled a seriously impressive cast for his first feature. The presence of a familiar face like Kurt Russell as Sheriff Hunt elevates the character significantly, along with the inclusion of character actors in every other major role. Matthew Fox plays directly against type as the ruthlessly pragmatic and vain Brooder, but he sells the role perfectly, looking like he’s thriving on the chance to show off a side of himself that hasn’t really been given the opportunity to shine before. At first, Patrick Wilson looks typecast as yet another portrait of wounded masculinity (this time in a more literal sense), but his casting feels like a subversion of Wilson’s previous roles once he completes his character’s arc. It’s the best role Wilson has had in years, but if an MVP had to be selected out of the cast it would have to be Richard Jenkins. He’s almost unrecognizable as the bearded, oafish Chicory, providing both the comedic relief for the film along with its beating heart once more details emerge about his past. It’s bound to go down as one of the year’s most underrated performances.

But the most surprising thing about Bone Tomahawk isn’t its screenplay or its merging of two genres that usually stay separate; it’s the film’s breathing room that helps the film stand on its own. The 132-minute runtime is a rare sight these days for a low-budget (under $2 million to be precise, an astonishing figure given how good the movie looks) genre movie, but Zahler’s writing skills and his cast make it hard to find a single dull moment. Each scene, no matter how much it might feel like a total non-sequitur or detour from the main narrative, always keeps the focus on character. And, admittedly, this makes the final act’s sudden shift into the grotesque all the more impactful. The less said about Bone Tomahawk’s horror elements the better (it’s best to watch it unfold without knowing anything), but its drastic turn into a bloody gorefest certainly leaves an impression with one of the most brutal death scenes ever put in a film. And Zahler shows his skills as a filmmaker by having this tonal shift work, using the strength of his characters to carry along the change in circumstances. Zahler’s curious approach might not work all the time, and the meshing of two disparate genres doesn’t always come together nicely, but it makes for a fascinating and (mostly) entertaining experience.

When you first watch this story of trickery and deceit, you may perceive it quite differently as you would following a second viewing. After seeing Burn After Reading for the first time in 2008, I was compelled to hate everything about it. I found it hard to enjoy the events that occurred, I was unhappy with the character arcs that Joel and Ethan chose and I was dissatisfied with the ending. Having recently watched it again, however, I was willing to retract my previous judgement and declare that I was quite taken with the quirky, deceitful scenarios that rolled out.

Burn After Reading is a story based upon the idea that when people want something badly enough, they can sometimes go to extreme measures in achieving it; and the Coen Brothers once again demonstrate different ridiculous outcomes to the everyday circumstances these characters endure.

Academy Award Winner, Frances McDormand (Fargo) – a Coen Brothers/Amy favourite, plays as Linda Litzke, a woman who is absolutely determined to undergo plastic surgery to reshape her body and uplift her life. The whole film is molded around Litzke’s unwavering focus on her desire to reinvent herself, and mishap after mishap ensues as her schemes become increasingly reckless (and as a result a lot more dangerous). Initially disheartened by her insurance company refusing to cover the surgery; Chad (Brad Pitt), discovers a disc containing what he believes to be “high quality information” that he presumes will help her money issues. What unfolds thereafter is a series of events that leads up to you finally thinking “so what did we just watch?” It is not a bad movie as a result of this, I enjoyed the fact it gave me time to reflect on what I had just sat through: a story full of real feelings, real emotions and a narrative that never leaves you wanting to drift off face first into your popcorn.

McDormand’s character portrayal is not the only one I wish to comment on, as Brad Pitt’s character Chad, was one of his most versatile performances to date. Playing an energetic yet comically naive personal trainer for a fitness centre, it gave Pitt a chance to step back from his alter ego Rusty Ryan/Tyler Durden persona. Chad’s simplicity gets him in a lot of trouble during the course of the film, but his optimism for life never falters.

Each scene leaves you thinking “what is actually happening” as the story continues to take us in many different directions. Subplots divide and multiply as the film unfolds, yet all are interwoven. You’re not necessarily confused with what the characters are up to, but more so why they’re perhaps building a reclining sex chair or chasing fitness instructors with an axe. There are characters that you’ll come to love or hate, but on some level you’ll secretly empathize with each and every one of them.

Joel and Ethan Coen have such a rich history in filming excellent and unforgettable movies, such as Raising Arizona (1987), Fargo (1996), The Big Lebowski (1998) and more recently No Country for Old Men (2007) and True Grit (2010), that anything they make is classed as unique and creative; and Burn After Reading ticks both those boxes. Because of how interesting the storylines for each character are and how entertainingly painful they are to watch, after every scene you’re constantly questioning yourself as to whether or not you love or hate the film.

The quote that the movie went for, “Intelligence is Relative”, fits perfectly to the references to the CIA, where “Intelligence” is paramount, every character, including those government officials, are clueless as to what is happening within their own lives let alone anyone else’s. It’s a great quote to summarize the plot and the characters alike – that there can be no stupid questions, only stupid answers; cue Burn after Reading.

Let me start off by saying that I love movies of any genre, from any decade, from any country. But I love the horror genre more than any of them. I don’t know what it is about them. Most of them are retreads of other films. But to me there is an enduring quality of watching a group of teenagers entering a house knowing full well only one will make it out and the rest will meet their untimely demise to a demon or a stalker. Or say, zombies rising out of the ground then proceeding to slowly walk over to someone and eating them. Or a vampire intricately seducing a young woman only to bite her as the moon is fully lit.

Having said all this, I will probably make this the shortest review I ever write. It’s not that there isn’t much to say about The Cabin in the Woods, it’s that there isn’t much I want to say about it. The hype going into this movie was pretty big I must admit trying to step around reviews and spoilers in this day and age can be like coordinating yourself through a mine field. But I managed and am so glad I did because what happens throughout The Cabin in the Woods and its final 30 minutes are very, VERY refreshing to the horror genre. As I write this I’m trying to curb any details that will even remotely hint at what happens in the film.

The movie starts out in a massive underground office that looks like a villain’s lair straight out of a Bond movie. Two guys are discussing their lives and their jobs (the latter of which they don’t reveal ANY details). One is played by the ubiquitous Richard Jenkins and the other played by the vastly underrated Bradley Whitford. They both give the film’s best performances. A smash cut to grinding violins over the title of the film stops the scene dead in its tracks.

Now we meet our protagonists as they are packing and getting ready for a trip to, you guessed it, a cabin. The cabin happens to be located in, you guessed it again, the woods. The characters are all here: the athlete, the slut, the virgin, the bookworm and the conspiracy slinging pothead.

As soon as they drive off in their Winnebago, they are being watched. Watched by whom though and for what purpose is the mystery. The movie builds like a normal horror movie interspersed with scenes involving our two mystery men from the opening scene. They sit in a room with tons of monitors and multitudes of buttons and things that go bleep and blop. The cabin our heroes arrive in is being completely watched, bugged and ran by these two men.

What happens from here on out is completely organic and REFRESHING in a genre so stale and mostly bland. Most importantly, the movie is just so much fun. It never for one second takes itself seriously. It has fun with its roots. It embraces the history of its genre and sets out to obliterate it in one foul swoop. The ending does not have a cop out and stays true to its story.

I don’t think The Cabin in the Woods is perfect. It’s just on the edge of being great. Maybe in time, I will appreciate it even more. The movie is tons and tons of fun and like I said earlier, it’s above all refreshing. The movie will probably be appreciated more by horror hounds that get what the filmmakers were trying to do. The movie in my opinion is one of the most original in the genre to come out in some time. And if you know the genre, then you know that is saying something.

Let Me In is an American remake of the Swedish original called Let the Right One In. The film restores faith to those who thought an American vampire film done well was impossible. I must confess that I am not a huge fan of vampire films nor have I seen the original Swedish version, which in return makes it all the more impressive that I found it so entertaining.

Let Me In had a lot going against it from the start. First of all, any time you do a remake you already have an unfair disadvantage, a classic damned if you do damned if you don’t scenario. If you do not change enough from the original, people will argue that the film is too similar. If you change too much, people will think you destroyed the original vision. Most of the time you cannot win and the original is almost always better.

The second thing Let Me In had going against it, is that not only is it a remake, it is an American made remake. Modern day American horror cinema is not exactly looked highly upon by horror film buffs. Lastly, the vampire genre has hit mainstream audiences with cheesy teenage romance films like Twilight, making vampire based films hard to take serious.

Even with all of the above setbacks, Let Me In overcomes each one with relative ease. It proves that Hollywood can produce a solid horror film. Although, some might not even call it a horror film but rather a thriller or even a romance film. In reality, it is a combination of all of those.

Let Me In takes place in Los Alamos, New Mexico in the winter of 1983. 12-year-old Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) is raised by his divorcee mother, does not have any friends, enjoys playing with his Rubik’s Cube and eating Now ‘n’ Laters. His school life is not much better, he is constantly bullied for not fitting in. So when a girl named Abby (Chloe Moretz) moves in to the apartment next door, it is his first chance at making a friend.

Although, his luck does not seem to be getting any better as she tells him right away, “I can never be your friend.” Owen is quick to notice that Abby is not a normal girl. Even though it is winter and there is snow on the ground, she is shoeless. Also she has never heard of nor played with a Rubik’s Cube. When he asks her how old she is, she replies, “12 –years-old more or less.”

Owen does not know it yet, but Abby is a vampire. Like any vampire she needs blood in order to survive and she relies on her so-called father (Richard Jenkins) to get it for her. Validating what Owen suspects that she is not normal and also alluding that she is a vampire, she tells Owen, “I’m not a girl. I’m nothing.”

There was not a lot of CGI in Let Me In, which is a good thing. Because most of the CGI in the film was over-the-top, which hurt it more than it helped it. However, the area that it excelled most in was the cinematography. It was magnificently done. The chilly tone was captured perfectly as we often saw with frosted breath and pale faces.

Dramatic irony, showing the audience the killer before the character sees him, is a technique many older horror films used to create fear and suspense. Many modern day horror films often opt for “cheap scares” by turning down the score and all of a sudden have something jump into the screen. Thankfully, this film went with the former. I also found it interesting that we never see Owen’s mother’s face, she is almost never shown on the screen even if she is in the scene.

Let Me In deserves to be in the list of Top Horror Films of 2010. You must go into it knowing that it is not necessarily scary as it is eerie. Also, it is not very fast paced so be prepared to give it some patience. Being that it is a remake and still quite delightful to watch makes me all the more anxious to watch the original.