SnarkyBlog

D: Brad Anderson
S: David Caruso, Stephen Gevedon, Paul Guilfoyle, Josh Lucas, Peter Mullan, Brendan Sexton, III

Session 9 is one of the most ambiguous horror movies I think I've ever seen.  And I mean that in a good way - the ambiguity isn't present in what happens, but why, and it's between two equally frightening possibilities...the spiritual posession of a normal, working-class guy by a murderous demon; or the slow descent into madness of a normal, working-class guy.

The film works on many levels - the writing is great, the characters and acting are spot-on, and the setting...you couldn't ask for a better location for this type of film than the former Danvers State Hospital in Virginia.  Just the setting alone is creepy enough, and it's this feeling of dread, despair, and disrepair - not only in the building, but in the men working on it - that drives the plot of this movie.

Gordon (Peter Mullan) is an Irish immigrant who has found his lot in life as the owner of an Asbestos removal service.  Unfortunately, times are rough, and he's forced to commit to cleaning the Danvers State Hospital in a week's time, just in order to secure the money that he needs to support his wife and their new baby.  His partner in the company, Phil (David Caruso) watches closely as he sees Gordon making stretch after stretch to keep his life in order.

Rounding out the cleanup crew are: Hank (Josh Lucas), a man who seems to enjoy two things in life - gambling and making others' lives miserable; Mike (Stephen Gevedon), a law school graduate and scion of a legal eagle who feels as though he's "slumming it" in such a manual, menial job; and finally Jeff (Brendan Sexton, III), Gordon's nephew who's new to the whole experience, and just happy to have a job.

The relationships seem straightforward between these men at first, but you find out that Hank has stolen Phil's girlfriend (though when we see him at home, he's paying more attention to the television than her), Mike is considering that it may be time to hang up the protective suits and return to more intellectual pursuits, and Phil is coping with what he thinks may be his last job - not because he wants it to be, but because it's clear to him that the business is failing.

All of this human drama is underscored by the slowly-unveiling story of Mary Hobbes, a former inmate of the asylum.  Mike discovers her records while wandering through the administration offices, and opens up the box (clearly marked EVIDENCE) to discover audio tapes of the interviews (unsurprisingly, nine tracks marked "SESSION 1" through "SESSION 9"). 

As Mike delves into the mystery of Mary Hobbes, the other men are seen to succomb to their own demons.  Hank discovers a cache of silver coins, jewelry, and other items that fall out of a stone wall attached to the crematorium.  Phil copes with what he feels is increasingly erratic behavior on the part of Gordon (while at the same time smoking pot whenever he has the opportunity).  And Gordon finds the strength to admit to Phil that he slapped his wife the night that their contract for the Danvers Hospital was approved.

With a movie like this, it's hard to discuss the details of the plot, because to do so really spoils a lot of very good storyline, excellent characterizations, and ultimately the entire point of the film itself.  This film delivers on its very slow burn, and constantly has you wondering just how it will all end.  Regardless of how you view the events - did Mike unleash some form of demonic evil by opening Mary Hobbes' files...or was the entire audiotape more of a coincidental metaphor for events that were already being unleashed without any supernatural intervention?

This truly is a thinking-man's horror movie, and while opinions vary (and are strongly held on either side of the coin), it's absolutely a movie worth spending some time to experience.

D: Charles E. Sellier, Jr.

S: Lilyan Chauvin, Gilmer McCormick, Roni Nero, Robert Brian Wilson, Britt Leach

First and foremost, I admit that I went into this movie with perhaps the lowest expectations that I've had for any of the classic horror films that I've been finally catching up on.  I expected so very, very little from a movie that's all about a guy dressed as Santa going on a killing spree on Christmas Eve.

And this movie quite simply blew me away.  I would add this to my must-see list of horror movies for anyone who wants to enjoy the classic feel of an 80s slasher film.  Granted, the acting in general isn't exactly the best, but for the time and budget, what can you really expect?  The real genius in this film is, quite simply, the main character.  You know who the killer is from the very beginning - there are no pretensions, there are no Red Herrings.  You watch as the poor little boy gets to be subjected to perhaps the most horrible vision he can see - his parents are viciously murdered by a guy in a Santa suit.  "Where ARE you, you little bastard!?" he screams into the bushes as poor little Billy hides.

Fast forward a few years, and Billy and his brother are now in the care of a stereotypical Catholic orphanage, complete with a caring Sister of the order and an overbearing, mean-as-nails Mother Superior.  Billy behaves himself well enough, but every year around Christmas, he suddenly gets worse...drawing horrible pictures of Santa and refusing to sit on Santa's lap (even punching a visiting "Santa" at the orphanage).  For each of these acts, Billy is punished for being naughty.  When he catches two teenagers in the orphanage in an act that's frowned on by the Bible (undoubtedly, they weren't attempting to procreate), he finds out that is naughty too...and worthy of punishment.

All of this is in place merely to set Billy up for the inevitable...and really the setup is economical, taking only 20 minutes or so.  Then you see Billy as an 18-year old, strapping, hunk of a boy, who the caring, compassionate Sister sets up with a job at a toy store.  Yes, let's ignore the inevitable question of whether it's smart to do so, knowing what happens at EVERY toy store around Christmas...but if not for this small lapse of judgment, the movie would be very boring indeed.

Let me tangentialize for just a moment here - in addition to the story and the gore and the nudity, another little fun part of this (for me, at least) was seeing all the old toys in the store - you have the Jabba the Hutt playset in one scene, Mousetrap in another, even a giant Castle Greyskull playset in another.  Seeing all these great 80s toys in their original packaging made an aging toy geek like me giddy with excitement.

So...as you can probably guess, Christmas rolls around.  Billy's making eyes at a female co-worker, and getting under the skin of his supervisor, a gaudy Lothario-wanna-be.  The boss, however, seems to like him, and when the regular Santa is injured, who does he turn to to take his place?  Why, Billy-boy, of course...who uses his knowledge of Santa as a punisher of the naughty to tame the wildest of children who cry and scream on his lap.

Of course, scaring little kids into complacency isn't what a slasher film is all about...so we have to have something trigger little ol' Billy-boy into a homicidal rage...and what better than some alcohol?  Yep, that's right - after all the little buggers have left the store, Mr. Simms breaks out the booze and everyone starts to celebrate.  Everyone in the store has way too much to drink, and Billy watches his Lothario and female interest sneak back into the back of the store.  Needless to say, he catches Lothario being "naughty" and this is the trigger that causes Billy to begin hunting down and punishing those who are on the Naughty List.

I don't want to spoil everything for you - suffice it to say that the movie is a great watch from beginning to end.  There's no suspense about who's doing the killing, but who and how are always up for grabs.  Hearing Billy grumble "NAUGHTY!!" and "PUNISH!!" in a voice that's not quite his own is just awesome (though I will admit that without context it sounds horribly cheesy!), and seeing everyone else put the pieces together is a pretty good use of dramatic irony.

Overall, this movie is HIGHLY recommended for anyone who is looking for the thrill that only a good 80s slasher flick can bring!

D: Paul Lynch
S: Leslie Nielsen, Jamie Lee Curtis, Michael Tough, Casey Stevens

Wow...just let me say that for a moment.  Wow.  I've always heard Prom Night mentioned as one of the defining films in the 80s slasher history, and I have to say...it SO does not live up to that reputation.  Not even close.  And that's not to say that it doesn't try...but it fails to deliver on almost everything you expect from an 80s horror movie, except boobs.  And there aren't even all that many bare breasts to be seen in this one, even. 

Perhaps it's just that it's such an early film in the genre, but that can't quite be it - it was not only predated by Halloween by two years, but it was released the same year as Friday the 13th, so that's no excuse.  I think it just can't quite be what it really wants to be...it's never really very scary, it's barely gory even for the time, and the entire storyline is telegraphed so far ahead of time that it's really not even very interesting.

A really good horror movie like this requires that the Red Herrings actually be possible...but that's just not the case here.  The movie starts out with phone calls being made to the future victims...but the "escaped mental patient" has just gotten away and was holed up in an abandoned convent...and the "questionable groundskeeper" is hard at work on the grounds of the school.  It doesn't leave many options...and in case you haven't seen it yet, and still want to subject yourself to it after reading this, I won't spoil it.  But it's hardly a surprise.

The writing is bad, the acting horrible, and the dancing...well, let's just say that it reminds you in a way that Saturday Night Fever never will exactly why Disco died.  I seriously expected there to be a dance-off halfway through this movie, which might have actually been more enjoyable overall than watching what was on display.

The bottom line here is that there are many, MANY better 80s slasher/horror films to spend your time watching, and if it weren't for the remake that's sitting in my queue right now, I probably wouldn't have wasted mine watching this...if only I could get that hour and a half of my life back...

Have plowed through almost half of Keep on the Shadowfell in our group, and we went through the level-up process before this past week's session.  A few new thoughts about the new rules, which honestly none of us are really all that fond of at this point:

• The deterministic nature of a lot of the system just bugs the hell out of us.  Gone are Reflex, Will, and Fortitude saving throws...gone are rolled Perception and Insight checks (at least in "passive" situations)...no more rolling for hit points on level-up...it's all based on specific scores.  I'll be honest, I liked the random factors that were in previous editions.  A lot of those are gone now.
• In another move toward "roll-play" and away from "role-play", skills are no longer an effective method of customizing your character...each class gets 4 skills that they're "trained" in (giving them a +5 to their checks), and all other skills grow at +1 every two levels.  So, while some PCs can be better at skills than others, the benefit doesn't seem that great, and PCs focus less on skills.
• Attacks of Opportunity are horribly overpowered in this edition.  I think they pretty much were in prior editions as well.  We're house-ruling the entire thing, so that you only draw an AoO when a creature leaves your threatened space, rather than entering it.  We'll try that out next session and see how it goes.
• Wizards actually appears to have "bent" the rules with their pre-made characters for the Keep adventure - when translating them over to actual character sheets, using the rules in the PHB, there were several things that were completely dropped, ignored, or augmented for no apparent reason (such as the ability of Half-Elves to take any at-will power for any other class and use it as a Daily power).

It's still fun, and we're still trying to see what we like and what we don't...definitely do NOT like using a map and counters/miniatures.  Seems too much like a board game and not like a "true" role-playing game.  I'm also wondering how much of it is due to using the pre-made adventure, which is more of a dungeon crawl than my gaming group is usually used to.  Whether we can effectively build a "real" campaign within these rules is still up for debate right now.  There seem to be a lot of limitations imposed by the rules themselves...so there  may be some chnages needed as we move along.

I was lucky enough to pick up a free copy (actually, THREE copies) of the Keep on the Shadowfell adventure while attending a conference last week, so our first play session used the pre-created characters provided in the adventure, and we went through the first encounter session last night.  We had three players, so we were slightly undermanned (the encounter is really designed for five players), but managed to make it through relatively unscathed.  We had the Dragonborn Paladin, the Halfling Rogue, and the Dwarf Fighter in the party, and the first battle was an interesting one to say the least.

A few impressions before we started playing, between first cracking open the books and starting the adventure:

• The entire ruleset has been revised to support miniatures natively, almost exclusively.  There are no more references to feet or other distances - everything is termed in "squares".  While conceptually there's little different, it really does seem like more of a tabletop game (a la Warhammer 40k) in concept than a true fantasy RPG.
  
• It's obvious that they've leveraged a lot of experience from CCGs into the D&D 4E rules.  Even weapons are considered "at-will" powers, and it's just another thing that detracts conceptually from the "true" RPG experience that many people might be expecting.

As we started playing through, a few additional things became somewhat clear:

• The game is VERY combat-oriented now.  The focus is very strongly on offensive capabilities for most classes, and the ability to heal yourself during combat without using items or potions makes it very much a "munchkin" game.  Granted, these are the first adventures published, and as such it's not surprising that they're action-oriented.  Perhaps as additional rulebooks are published and more adventures become available (and at higher levels), we'll be able to see more variety.
  
• I'm wondering about some of the at-will abilities.  Specifically, some of the Fighter and Paladin at-will abilities pose the question of why anyone would ever use a standard attack.  For example: Reaping Strike, a Fighter at-will ability, gives the standard attack bonus and the standard damage if hit, but on a miss still does damage equal to the character's STR bonus.  There's no reason to ever not use this power...and you'll always do at least 3 points of damage.  Seriously?  Guaranteed damage every round??  That just doesn't seem right at all.  At least the Paladin abilities mostly require the targets be "marked"...but still, seems a little overpowered for 1st level.
  
• The adventure itself, or at least the initial encounter, was pretty well-balanced for our smaller-than designed group.  I think if we'd had a fourth or fifth player, that might not have been the case.  There was danger, there was damage on both sides, and overall it was an exciting experience.  There was a little getting used to some of the new rules, new abilities, and such, but that's to be expected.  Overall, it was pretty fun, a few minor nit-picks, but nothing that ruined the experience for us.

I finally got my hands on my set of Core Rulebooks for the new 4th Edition of Dungeons and Dragons...and while I hope to put together a more in-depth review, unfortunately I don't have any actively gaming friends right now.  The old group wandered off, and don't seem too interested in joining another game, though perhaps the new rules might entice them to at least try it out.  Maybe once I get some table-time under me, I'll be able to post a more in-depth review.

The first thing that strikes me is, quite simply, the vast number of changes in game mechanics and rules.  This is nothing like the switch from 2nd Edition to 3rd Edition.  This is like picking up an entirely new game entirely.  While there were definitely some major changes between 2E and 3E (most notably the noble death of THAC0), the core feel of the game was pretty consistent...wizards memorized spells, clerics were healers, etc.  Many of these core concepts are completely wiped away and re-imagined in the new 4E world.  I can't yet say whether these changes are "good" or "bad" - but they're definitely interesting.

A few of the more notable changes:

• No more multi-classing.  One class, multiple development paths - there are now "phases" to a character's development, similar to Prestige Classes in 3E, but every character chooses a "Paragon Path" upon reaching L10, and then an Elite path upon reaching L20.  I have no doubt that there are going to be some minor revolts and house rules built around this - I kind of liked the idea of mult-classed characters...but the Paragon paths give a little bit of flexibility in the definitions of the classes, so perhaps they will fit that role as characters advance.
  
• Feats and Spells have been somewhat replaced by "Powers" - each character class has a set of "Daily Powers" or "Encounter Powers" that they can use once per day, or once per encounter (respectively).  This includes what were previously automatic effects (such as Cleave or Great Cleave) as well as spells (Burning Hands, Bigby's Grasping Hand, etc).  Characters gain new powers as they move forward, and are given the ability to "replace" powers at each level, which makes character development a little bit less stringent, and allows players more ability to build the character they want, rather than be tied to previous choices.
  
• "Checks" have replaced almost every dice roll that had previously been defined by any number of rules.  The rules for "Checks" apply across the board - to attack, save, and skill rolls equally.  The rules behind Checks are pretty simple: roll 1d20, add 1/2 your character's level (rounded down), then add any bonuses or subtract any penalties.  Compare that roll to the opposing roll, DC, or AC, and you've got your result.  I have to say, I'm intrigued by this particular dynamic - it's nice that as characters advance, all of their abilities increase accordingly.
  
• Overall Feel - They've replaced the Forgotten Realms as the core "world" for the books, and instead describe things much more generically, allowing for a lot more flexibility in a DM's implementation of the rules.  And, having not ever really been a real in-depth fan of FR, I have to say for the most part I like it.  However, it also leaves a lot of room for questions from DMs new to the system.  I'm not yet sure which way this one cuts.

Overall, I think it's a really interesting revision to the system - and I think it's about time that D&D cut ties with some of the less-fun and more time-intensive rules.  They've made some huge strides toward streamlining the experience...but as the system becomes more basic, it also seems to lean more toward a video-game type approach, rather than a table-top RPG approach.  It definitely reintroduces the game to a new audience - and if nothing else, that's definitely a good thing!

Hopefully I'll get some table-time sometime soon, and we'll see how things turn out.

D: Andrew Currie
S: K'Sun Ray, Carrie-Anne Moss, Dylan Baker, Billy Connolly, Henry Czerny