Great stunts, brilliant use of CGI, and there are even one or two love stories going on amongst all the action. This is simply one of the best films that I have ever seen. Watch out for the very important drop of blood!
Some interesting ideas and very charismatic acting will keep you interested especially as it's a film that you may have to watch more than once to understand everything that is going on.
The action is real edge-of-your-seat stuff which doesn't let up until the end. Until the final 10 minutes you don't really see or find out who the "them" are. What makes it worse is that it's all very believable!
Definitely the best Stephen King miniseries and the most memorable. David Soul does a credible job as Ben Mears, James Mason is also suitably icy as Straker, but not enough is made of Barlow, his Nosferatu-like master.
Thought by many to be the best haunted house film ever made, it is sadly becoming quite dated. Great use of sound makes up for never actually seeing the ghost and adds to the dark and uneasy atmosphere.
For those of you who are familiar with Robert Wise's "The Haunting", it will be no surprise for you to learn that "The Legend of Hell House" was little more than a 70s remake of the same story. Even the title was similar to Shirley Jackson's "The Haunting of Hill House" (which of course was the novel that "The Haunting" was based on). Some might call it plagiarism but I'd rather think of "The Legend of Hell House" as writer Richard Matheson's homage to a work of fiction which has inspired every director of a ghostie film ever since. In this case, director John Hough, who is better known for his TV work and Hammer's "Twins of Evil" (1971), set the story during the week before Christmas in a fog enshrouded Blenheim Palace. No New England "Hill House" here but the birthplace of former Prime Minister Winston Churchill no less. Changing the location was largely due to APC moving the whole production to England hence also the cast of British actors rather than Americans. Yes, Roddy McDowell, who plays psychic Benjamin Fischer, was British in spite of being a staple of American TV for over three decades. Interestingly, the other psychic played by the gorgeous Pamela Franklin was actually born in Japan, Clive Revill was a New Zealander and Gayle Hunnicutt was born in Texas. Even Michael Gough who goes uncredited as Ernest Balasco was born in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. It's funny what you find from a bit of Googling when writing a review. Perhaps this movie isn't quite so full of British actors after all. One thing "The Legend of Hell House" is full of, though, is atmosphere. It's so intense that you could almost cut it with a knife although at just over an hour and a half long the claustrophobia of the apparent five room set does tend to get a little bit wearying after a while. Every ghost story cliché is used but this was before we even started to think of them as clichés. For the most part, it's all very original in spite of the aforementioned homage to "The Haunting". There's hardly any gore in this apart from one important scene featuring Pamela Franklin but there are a couple of sexy moments. Gayle Hunnicutt's attempted seduction of Roddy McDowell is the most memorable for me but, without spoiling it for anyone, Pamela Franklin is the real star of the naughty bits here. Just think along the same lines as "The Entity" and you'll figure out exactly what happens to her in this film. Possession and psychic abilities play a much bigger part in the story than I would have liked especially if you try to think of this as a true haunted house genre movie. The ending really felt like a bit of a letdown considering Roddy's speech about all the horrors (including rape, torture, and even cannibalism) which supposedly occurred in the house during its former occupancy. Like most films of this time a lot more is implied than actually occurs on screen so you just have to use your imagination and dig Roddy McDowell's performance instead. All the acting is first class in fact with the characters being a lot less annoying and dated than the ones in "The Haunting". Clive Revill as scientist Lionel Barrett was overly stubborn to the extent that he almost became another Dr Frankenstein with his ardour to prove his techniques correct (with similarly disastrous consequences). The use of his machine to rid the house of ghosts, of course, became an important part of "Ghostbusters" later on and the science versus the supernatural theme is always an important part of any haunted house movie anyway. There'll always be a sceptic, a psychic, a control and a scientist in any of these stories. You can almost, but not quite, swap any of the characters for the ones in Stephen King's "Rose Red" too to see how much "The Legend of Hell House" has had an influence. I expect you all want to know if it's actually scary or not. Well, depending on the age at which you first see it, it is definitely scary. Only "The Others" comes any way close to the same scariness for a modern audience although really that movie has more in common with "The Innocents" than anything here. Some scenes work better than others including the jump scares and twists. The ones which don't work usually involve Gayle Hunnicutt to some extent but it's more the fault of the dialogue than anything else. I also found Roddy McDowell to be a rather odd choice for a hero but I really couldn't see anyone else capable of filling that role either. "The Legend of Hell House" is all very tense more than anything else (and a little bit too wordy rather than graphic) but it's still one of the best haunted house movies ever made.
Chic French beauty Anne Parillaud is possibly the best reason to watch this romantic comedy/thriller but all horror buffs will love it for the endless in-jokes and clips from the classic Dracula films.
This is one of the best vampire action films I have ever seen, if not the best. Wesley Snipes is perfectly cast as the laconic comic book hero and Stephen Dorff makes a great adversary. The action sequences are amazing.
A great atmosphere, Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing fighting it out, beautiful actresses, rubber bats on wires, and all done on a budget which wouldn't even pay for Keanu Reeves' voice coach in a modern production!
When everybody believed that it was a true story, this was a terrifying film indeed. Now that it is known to be a hoax, the film is still pretty damned scary in its own right.
Apart from lots of bleeding "ping-pong ball eyed" victims, and a couple of autopsies where you get to see a rubbery brain, the film is low on gore but high on entertainment value.
This is a much better film than it sounds. Lee and Cushing play their famous roles perfectly and the 1970s background gives new life to an almost worn out Hammer tale.
Once a great horror film but now looking considerably dated in places. Loads of blood and screaming and a claustrophobic atmosphere to boot. John Hurt has a really bad case of indigestion...
Even if the denouement means that you could never watch this film twice, the steamy sex scenes will undoubtedly have you hovering over the rewind button.
Anne Rice's book was hardly brilliant but this film tries hard to recreate the best bits even though it doesn't quite manage to make them any more interesting.
More of a remake than a sequel, this version was made due to the censor's banning of the original. This is also by far the better of the two films with more style and a black sense of humour.
This is one of those thriller type films that should have been more horrible than it is... but it has its moments. The girls in this are very pretty and the practical jokes are wonderfully sick.
This comic finale to the "Evil Dead" series loses pace occasionally but has some great one liners, loads of action, and the best skeleton army since "Jason and the Argonauts".
This is far from being one of my favourite Hammer Dracula films simply because Christopher Lee isn't in it. Peter Cushing almost makes up for it on his own but it's like having Laurel without Hardy. Baron Meinster played by David Peel just doesn't work for me though some people consider this to be one of the best Hammer films because of all the action. The latest DVD versions all seem to have missing scenes which make it even more disappointing.
Criticism has been levelled at certain actors not quite managing to retain their assumed nationalities and accents, dude, but the Oscar winning music and costumes tend to cover such lapses.
This version is not much more than a remake with some different actors and the names of the victims changed. Still good in places though, and the ending isn't bad either.
The late Oliver Reed gives such a stunning performance as the wolf man that it is obvious that only a true wild man such as himself could have made this role work.
If you are familiar with the Sherlock Holmes story of "The Hound of the Baskervilles", you may notice a few plot similarities. But Sherlock Holmes never had so much action!
The effects and gory dream sequences are done superbly but it isn't overly scary as there is a tendency for most people to cheer Freddy on rather than feel any sympathy for his victims.
Even though the sequels have been heading this way, I didn't expect "Seed of Chucky" to be a comedy! I also didn't expect it to be quite so good. Jennifer Tilly is excellent, as is the puppetry, and everyone did a fantastic job. There's loads of satire about Hollywood and horror buff in-jokes, plus all the obligatory cameos. It was the perfect end to the "Child's Play" series.
The 1931 black and white Universal monsters movie is still the best version of Mary Shelley's classic novel. Boris Karloff creates great pathos even with all the heavy and uncomfortable makeup.
This is an absolute classic of Universal Horror filmaking. Everything is done right. The acting is typical of the time but if you are a fan of the genre, as most of us are, it doesn't detract at all from the emotions raised by the story.
Christopher Lee looks odd as the monster because Universal had copyright over the traditional ''bolts through the neck'' makeup. Some say the improvisation is better but you can't help feeling that it would have been nicer to have had the Karloff monster in it.
Dr BloodOk, ok, so it's not really a horror film... except for that one scene where the bad guy is dragged off to hell by demons. However, as a supernatural romance this is the best there is.
Hailed universally as "the supernatural comedy of the year" in 1984, this was responsible for such spinoffs as a hit record, hundreds of little plastic figures, a cartoon series and, worse, a not very good sequel!
Very much a product of the late 1980s, this gruesome fantasy from Clive Barker introduced the world to the hideously mutilated Cenobites and possibly the most stomach-churning rise from the dead ever made!
The drunken toymaker played by Mickey Rooney is named Joe Petto and he has an odd son named Pino... once you make the connection, you then realise that this is hardly a Disney movie.
Ok, so it's more like an uncensored reality television version of "Thelma and Louise" than a real hardcore porn ...but it still has lots more sex and violence than most people will be used to. Only one moment is truly gratuitous though and this is possibly the only film where the porn elements are not merely padding but are an integral part of the story.
Apart from having to use the subtitles because some of the dodgy fake accents were a bit difficult to understand at times, I thoroughly enjoyed this prequel. It really needed to be gorier to be classed as a real horror film as it was more like James Bond than "The Silence of the Lambs". But it was still something to get your teeth into... with some fava beans and a nice chianti.
It's not without its flaws (especially as it's all filmed in Finland rather than Russia) but "Gorky Park" was one of the "must see" films of the 80s. Some of the action is a little bit rushed and, unlike the book, the plot tends to lurch along rather than develop smoothly. William Hurt does a good job with the material available though.
This was the first film I ever bought on VHS and I've lost count of the number of times I've watched it. Everything about this movie is first class and Rutger Hauer gives the most charismatic performance of his career. It's powerful stuff and I'm always surprised that so few people have even heard of it.
When I had the choice recently to see this or "The Golden Compass" I chose the latter because I just knew this would suck with a PG-13 rating. I thought I might as well at least watch a real kids' film rather than another kiddified non-horror vampire/zombie movie. Alas I finally did watch this pile of crap as well though. It wasn't just bad compared to the two previous versions of the same story but was particularly crap in its own right. Even "The Omega Man" is better than this tedious mess! Will Smith was okay in it but everything was very below average. There were too many pointless flashbacks and not enough action to keep anyone with more than one brain cell entertained for very long. As a slightly zombified version of "Cast Away" it was equally as dull. Mercifully it was all soon over even if the pacing of the movie was so slow that it felt like I'd been watching it for a week by the time it ended. It's one to avoid. Watch "The Last Man on Earth" version instead.
Not scary at all but an imaginative story and definitely worth a watch. Very British filmmaking with a very British cast... apart from Vincent Price that is.
If you ever needed proof that to spare the rod spoils the child, this is it! Based on Maxwell Anderson's play, this picture was the inspiration for 1994's "The Good Son".
Thousands of real birds and nearly 400 trick shots make reality of the seemingly impossible, and lend an air of sheer terror that you will never forget.
Olivia Hussey and Margot Kidder both give impressive performances in spite of the slow start. The lag is short lived however as the action soon builds to a very satisfying climax.
The film is composed entirely of reportedly "found" footage and has some very scary moments which unfortunately lose their lustre once you find out that the whole thing is completely made up rather than being based on a true story at all.
A real treat for gorehounds this one! The effects are much better than in the 1958 original version of this film, including one that'll make you think twice about unblocking the sink again.
Very scary in places with a chilling atmosphere and some great camerawork. Candace Hilligoss is highly watchable and makes the whole thing very believable.
Possibly the best adaptation to date of a Stephen King novel. Although some of the camerawork and effects look dated and amateur, the story is very evocative.
A young girl, in the closing and the best narrative, has difficulty sleeping. Though her parents suspect the family cat of wrongdoing, the girl knows better - especially after she spots a foot-high troll coming out of her bedroom wall!
This is one of the scariest ghost stories ever filmed. Full of suspense and a nasty feeling of dread. The ending is a bit of a let down as things move towards a predictable denouement.
Yet another Stephen King story and, unfortunately, not exactly one of his best. However, this film is full of both enough tension and atmosphere to keep you watching to the end.
One of Stephen King's best stories turned into a superb film in spite of a seemingly ludicrous plot. The Plymouth Fury oozes evil more than you could ever believe.
The sexual tension between Stamp and Eggar sometimes does not quite work and the format is more like a stage play than a film, but, for all its flaws, it is better than most thrillers on offer today.
It wasn't just the demon that was left unsatisfied with this movie. It wasn't bad but it could have done with having a higher certification and more gore.
If you must have a Dario Argento film in your collection, this is the one to have. Stylish and sometimes difficult to follow, it nonetheless delivers the goods horror-wise.
Based on James O'Barr's black and white comic book, this film's revenge plot borrows heavily from Clint Eastwood's ghostly "High Plains Drifter" but is offset by a strong cinematic style.
Based on M.R. James' short story "Casting the Runes", this is an intelligently scripted and superbly atmospheric chiller which achieves several frightening and memorable sequences.
A cross between "Titanic" and "Tremors" with parts of "Aliens" tossed in for good measure. Yet another computer generated effects film and none the worse for that.
Still a great story and Christopher Lee acts his heart out, though if you want something even better you need to read "The Haunting of Toby Jugg" which is by far the best of Dennis Wheatley's work.
Sexually charged yet undeniably difficult to grasp in places, this pseudo-South African fable creates a myth, runs with it, and terrifyingly draws you in.
An eerie science-fiction ghost ship story sort of like "Hellraiser" in space. In fact, "Hellraiser 4: Bloodline" was set in space which only goes to show that you can't keep a good idea down!
The rollercoaster stuff as the start was great. The death scenes throughout the film were well worked out and can really only be described as "Lush!" - but the rest of the movie stank! This was just not as good as the first or second "Final Destination".
Based on the Virginia Andrews novel but without the really juicy bits, this is still very compulsive viewing if only for the fact that Kristy Swanson is in it.
I wasn't expecting much from this remake and so I wasn't disappointed in what I got out of it. As usual, it wasn't as good as the original. Adrienne Barbeau was far sexier as Stevie Wayne than Selma Blair... although I think Selma wins hands down on the wearing of disturbingly tiny pants in the vicinity of the child actor playing her son. It just seemed very wrong to me for some reason.
A superbly creepy ghost story which, despite often slipping into slasher movie mode, is still full of enough supernatural shocks to keep you on the edge of your seat.
It is just so 80s and kitch. Just look at the clothes and the hairstyles! Maybe it's not the greatest horror film in the world but it's certainly one of the funniest.
Not only is Roddy McDowell superb as the vampire hunting Peter Vincent (his name made up of the Christian names of two other horror stars!), but Chris Sarandon plays his vampire role with such suave evil that he is almost as charismatic as Christopher Lee.
Although "The Elemental" is the weakest vignette in this Amicus anthology, "From Beyond the Grave" is still one of their better ones. It was also their last. "The Gate Crasher" is genuinely scary in places, "An Act of Kindness" (which features Donald Pleasence's equally scary daughter, Angela) has a nice twist, and "The Door" is suitably spooky to the extent that it is arguably one of the most entertaining Amicus ever made. The tales are uneven though and, as ever, the wraparound with Peter Cushing is still the best part.
Without an ounce of originality, pathos or interesting story, what are we left with? A couple of good axe deaths and a waste of a couple of hours. It has some appallingly overpowering and unneccesary background music as well.
All I really want to say is that the gore was "Lush!" I can't really think of any other reason to watch this but, then again, if you aren't into gore then this isn't the kind of film for you in the first place. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Of course, it's a sequel to a remake and the title makes things as confusing as hell. The original "Hills Have Eyes 2" was completely crap though so perhaps it's better to think of this as the replacement. Anyway, I loved the gore, wasn't interested in the acting or characterisation, and found the soldiery stuff to be totally unconvincing. Having said that, the action scenes were great, the jump scares worked and, yet again, although it's not scary to anybody over the age of 13, it was quite a decent try at getting the "Hills" franchise back on track. I have no idea why they filmed it in Morocco using equipment from London or why KNB only admit to doing the make-up effects rather than all the practical effects. It all looks like KNB work anyway... and it's lush! This was much better than the first remake and I'm now quite looking forward to "The Hills Have Eyes III".
Certainly this is one of Boris Karloff's best and most villainous acting roles apart from "The Black Room" (which isn't in the database yet). The atmosphere and historical accuracy in this film is incredible but is no less than you'd expect from Robert Wise who also went on to create the scariest ghost story of all time with "The Haunting".
It may well be only a souped-up "creature feature" but the witty script, loveable rogue heroes, scary "grab-oids", and silly bluegrass background music make it all feel a lot better than its basic subject matter.
It's got everything you could want from a horror movie - from zombies running amok in London to rotting corpses and energy bolts to signal the apocalypse to come.
Some of the situations are a bit forced and Richard Benjamin is more irritating than usual but overall the comedy does work and the story isn't too bad either.
Kathy Bates won an Oscar for her performance as Annie Wilkes but James Caan is equally superb as the celebrated author who must literally write for his life.
Many people will not have seen this film due to it being released about the same time as "Blink" starring Madeleine Stowe. This is the superior film and has a less contrived plot though admittedly a very similar storyline.
All this Stephen King "set in a small New England town" stuff can get a bit humdrum after a while, but this is one of the better "the devil comes to town..." stories.
My cousin gave this movie the best review, "That was just stupid... if you really did that to someone they would die!"... er, yeah... that's kind of the point. :o)
Piranha boasts some very tongue-in-cheek direction from Joe Dante, making this far more amusing than (and sometimes just as scary in places as) "Jaws".
More a moral fable about two wrongs not making a right than anything else but well done all round with an outstanding performance by Lance Henriksen. It's a pity that none of the sequels have been as good.
Lots of gratuitous horror for Wes Craven fans but little real investigation into the practice of voodoo almost turn this into yet another run-of-the-mill zombie movie.
Not overly scary but very well done. It would have been even better if, instead of Frank Deasy's excellent script, they'd used James Herbert's book of the same name as the storyline.
The "Mad Max" feel of the outback adds to the isolation and vulnerability of the main characters as they hunt the dreaded "razorback" before it finds them.
Seriously gory and unpleasantly funny. This near masterpiece only loses out because it has been hacked about so much (no pun intended!) by censors on both sides of the Atlantic.
It's a disappointing sequel to the original "Re-animator" because it really copies the "Bride of Frankenstein" storyline too much and still has nothing to do with H.P. Lovecraft's tale. It's still quite good though because you get to see lots of Fabiana Udenio. She isn't much of an actress but she's quite a babe. With its larger budget, you can't fault the film for gore effects or humour either but it's just not as fresh...
Overlong for what is really an extended "Outer Limits" story reworked as a hoodoo/occult mystery. The twist at the end is no great surprise and hardly worth waiting nearly 2 hours for.
Lots of blood, gore and splatter abound in this comic homage to such films as "The Blob", "The Thing" and "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"... and there, of course, lies the main problem - it just isn't very original.
Although the plot is just a variation on the denouement of The Wicker Man, Kelly Preston's loveliness more than makes up for the superficialness of the plot.
All the performances are superb and it is a shame that this movie was so overlooked at the time. Unfortunately now that it actually is the 21st century, it's a bit anachronistic.
There are no really gory bits unlike the appalling remake that went all out for shock value without any humour, and you never actually see anything nasty happen.
One noteable observation is that all the blood looks like Hershey's chocolate syrup - a trick used in the black and white "Psycho" to show up better on film - this film, however, is in colour.
It all starts out promisingly, in many ways not unlike a good episode of "Buffy" with nudity, but then it all goes horribly wrong when Grace Jones appears.
Julian Sands is very much the personification of an evil warlock but it is Richard E. Grant, cast very much against type as a heroic witch-hunter, who steals every scene he is in!
It's really long at just over two hours and although there are a couple of scary ghostie bits, for the most part this could have been wrapped up in a quarter of the time.
The greatest British youth film ever made. Even if you know nothing about mods or rockers in the 1960s, you can still identify with Jimmy's ultimate discovery that the world he is trying to belong to is just as empty and phony as the one he is rebelling against.
The annoying teenagers in this actually get more than they deserve and Leelee Sobieski looks even more like a young Helen Hunt than usual. Very derivative of "Duel" and "The Hitcher" though still very enjoyable.
I enjoyed this almost as much as "Scum". There's just something about movies that show really messed up kids that sums up exactly what we all think and, dare I say it, fear about them. I'm not sure if I would count this as a horror film but it's certainly very disturbing.
It's "Moby Dick" but with a rat instead of a whale. It is also not scary at all. I'm not saying that you won't enjoy it but it isn't a horror film. I could leniently say it is a "horror spoof" but that would be to do the genre and this film a disservice. Peter Weller does a great job as he gets more and more obsessed but some bits are too silly.
It's so derivative of things like "Misery", "Sleuth" and "Teaching Mrs Tingle" (but with a paedophilia angle) that I can't actually give it any marks for originality. But I can give it full marks for a decent script and, apart from a couple of seriously ludicrous and unbelievable fight scenes, fantastic acting ability shown by the two leads.
Anyone who knows anything about making independent movies will see the funny side of this. It is also full of really pretty girls and has some quite credible gore scenes even though it is primarily a spoof. For what it is, it's very entertaining.
Based on the writings of the infamous Marquis de Sade, this is quite heavy going and severely stomach-turning stuff. It is certainly not for children in any way even if it does feature a great many of them in its cast. As the original "Les 120 Journées de Sodome" was written as a revenge against the society which put the Marquis de Sade in the Bastille, you can only suppose that this film was also meant as some kind of political statement by Pasolini. What that statement was though escaped me completely amidst all the unrelenting nastiness. This is the torture movie that makes "Hostel" seem like Disney in comparison.
Anyone who has ever dropped salt down a razorfish hole on the beach will often shudder at the thought of what else could be underneath their feet. "Blood Beach" provided a possible answer to all those imaginative seaside musings back in 1981. It also came out at the time when "unexplained disappearances" were a very popular subject for media attention. The market for this film was there and so it was inevitable that it would be made. It's not great but this was very much a "Jaws under the sand" for the overly paranoid and is certainly still quite entertaining today. Many years had to pass before "Tremors" did it a lot better.
It's not very scary but "The Asphyx" is very entertaining in an E.C. comic books kind of way. It reminded me a lot of one of the better stories from the Amicus anthologies but is, of course, considerably longer. In many ways it is a bit too long and some of the dialogue is slightly annoying but everything is well filmed. The big similarity between the ending of this and "The Green Mile" is probably not accidental as I'm sure Stephen King has seen this too.
It looks good, it sounds good, and, even if the first story is a little bit weak, it is still the best and most influential horror anthology apart from the "Dead of Night". You do have to watch the Italian version though to fully appreciate how ground breaking this film was at the time even if Boris Karloff's horse was so obviously fake.
Probably the only Mario Bava film worth a damn even if it isn't very scary or gory by today's standards. Barbara Steele is the only good reason to watch this anyway and, since she plays two parts, you get twice as much of her for your money. It's just a pity that it wasn't filmed in colour.
There is very little shock value now to this film as the idea of 10 year olds running amok and killing people for fun has pretty much become a reality in today's society. It was quite novel back in 1981 though. How times change! There isn't a lot of gore in this but the death scenes are reasonably inventive even if unrealistic. Although this is just another B movie slasher pic, it's different enough to be entertaining. Just don't expect it to have any great acting in it or for the plot to explain anything.
After all the annoying over-promotion on MySpace, I wanted this to be bad and to really have something to get my teeth into here but I ended up quite liking it. I think that I must have been feeling a bit fragile at the time because it almost scared me once or twice. It was as predictable as could be though. Every scare and jump scene was telegraphed and most of the dialogue was pretty awful too but it was nicely filmed and had a genuine creepiness about it that just worked. The dolls themselves didn't really do a lot but the ghost of their owner was suitably scary in a "Toothfairy" kind of way. Yes, this has a lot of similarities to "Darkness Falls" but it was done a hell of a lot better. Whoever did the set dressing was very talented indeed. I really liked the twist at the end too. The backstory helped to create a lot of suspense and I didn't see the final revelations coming at all. Unfortunately, because of the ending, it really isn't something you'd watch more than once. It was very entertaining while it lasted and at least tried to be different but it should have been slightly better.
Apart from "Ace Ventura" and his role as the Riddler in "Batman Forever", I've always found Jim Carrey to be a bit hit or miss. I certainly never rated him as much of a serious actor and so got a nice surprise with "The Number 23". He was great! In fact, it was all a very welcome change from the usual nastiness I watch and I wasn't bored for a moment. I've never been good at working out "whodunnits" and I was so sure about who I thought had committed the murder that I got quite a surprise at the end. A lot of people have said that the ending was predictable. Well, I didn't find it so. I don't think you could possibly work out the ending in this case before it happens. "The Number 23" wasn't without its flaws though. There were a few places where scenes didn't entirely work. Perhaps the flashbacks to Jim Carrey pretending that he was younger were the worst of these since he looks his age. I also found some of the editing to be a bit odd in spite of some really good camera effects. It had the feel of "Sin City" about it at times. I can't quite put my finger on it but it just didn't gel with the "Donnie Darko" quality of the rest. The acting was good throughout though. I didn't recognise Virginia Madsen at all and was amazed to see Rhona Mitra. I'd forgotten all about her after she lost out on the "Tomb Raider" role. The script certainly had me thinking too. I didn't know all that stuff about "23" before and so I may have to look into it some more now. Anyway, I recommend this film to anyone who wants to see a better version of a similar story to "The Dark Half" or "Secret Window".
This has been the best horror movie that I've seen so far this year. From only a few minutes into the opening scene with Robert Englund, I just knew that I was going to love it. There was nothing all that original about "Hatchet" since it "homages" just about every 80s backwoods slasher but it was all very well done. With Kane Hodder on board as the bad guy and stunt coordinator, how could it fail? Apart from jump scares, it's not really scary though as it is very much in the same vein as "Slither". It is very wittily scripted and has over the top gore which just makes you want to say "Lush!" and cheer. Tony Todd's cameo was priceless too. There is a certain amount of suspense here and there though it doesn't really last all the way to the end. This is more of a comedy-horror with lots of action, running around and screaming, and lots of boobs and blood. The characterisation was surprisingly effective for this kind of thing and I really missed some of the bigger players after they had been bumped off. The girls in particular were very good especially Mercedes McNab (Harmony from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer") and Tamara Feldman. Everything was shot well and I'm sure most of the night shots were done in a studio to save money but this doesn't look like a cheap movie at all. There is some CGI mixed in to good effect with prostethics though you won't really notice anything detrimental from it for once. If you like good old fashioned slasher movies then this is one for you. "Hatchet" is just old school horror at its finest.
If you can put up with the variations in pitch of the Korean voices (and having to read subtitles) then this is really quite good for a CGI monster based comedy-horror. In many ways I'd say this does for Korea what "Night Watch" did for Russia. There are some bits which will undoubtledly lead many to love it and others to hate it. The heroes are from the poorer working class and you'll see a way of life and culture depicted in the background which is quite a bit different to how we are in the west. One major problem which I found was that it was very hard to judge acting ability as this isn't a 100% serious film. It isn't quite a comedy either but it certainly has comic moments (maybe too many). It's also really quite hard to place this in any genre apart from "cult" as it certainly felt as if it was intended for that niche. The monster of the title ("Gwoemul" just means "monster") is totally CGI. It is done very well but, as ever, it is still horrible and would be equally at home in a computer game. It's a very nasty looking thing though and is one of the most original creatures that I've seen for a while. The way it moves is quite impressive. It's a pity that the same can't be said for the messy plot. The pacing is upset as there is way too much time spent on the family members' subplots rather than the monster and the race against time to save the girl suffers as a result. It also often moves too far into obvious anti-American political satire. Having said that, it has some quite touching scenes here and there and is a film with many layers. The girl who plays the archer is very pretty too but I wish more use had been made of her. The bottom line is that I enjoyed most of it. The ending was very predictable, it needed just a little bit more action and certainly could have done with some more gore. If you like monster movies, you'll like this but don't watch if you are expecting it to be scary.
This is now the best horror movie that I've seen not just this year but for many years. I don't understand why this turned out to be a straight to DVD release as it's certainly good enough for a theatrical distribution. I can't find enough good things to say about this at all. Not only does it do for witches what "Ginger Snaps" did for werewolves but everything is perfectly executed from the 1960s period setting to the outstanding acting by everyone involved. The director, Lucky McKee, was also responsible for the more lacklustre "May" but don't hold that against him. This time he really got everything right. Again, he has used a very strong lead, Agnes Bruckner, and she will definitely enchant you (pun intended) throughout. It has a sufficiently spooky atmosphere, great characterisation, a good storyline and excellent gore scenes at the end. Don't believe anyone who writes bullshit comments about this being "derivative" and "unoriginal". Yes, it does have similarilties to "Carrie", "The Initiation of Sarah" and a great many others but it does it all so much better and mixes the elements in a far more entertaining way. You'll be drawn in so much by it that you won't even notice the "clichés" that the nitpickers like to point out. The plot is indeed also similar to "Suspiria" but only in the way that "Suspiria" is the same as "Rosemary's Baby", i.e. they both have a coven of witches involved. But whereas "Suspiria" is an unwatchable boring crapfest, this is a much smoother affair and much more enjoyable in every way. Even the music is good!
Proof that us Brits can make a better film than "Halloween" and do it many years before! Well, alright so it's not really better but it is certainly more believable! There's no way that John Carpenter didn't have knowledge of this either. Susan George looks amazing in it and acts her heart out... almost literally! She goes from just scared to full blown hysteria in about an hour! And then things start getting really sadistic... It's also interesting to see George Cole and Dennis Waterman in a film together ages before they were partnered as Arthur and Terry in ITV's "Minder". Don't expect any humour here though. I think the PG rating severely underestimates the scare factor of this movie. You'll be on the edge of your seat with suspense nearly all the way through. The housebound action is all very claustophobic and atmospheric with a really good Amicus quality too even though it isn't actually by them. The director, Peter Collinson, also made "The Italian Job". If you can find it anywhere this really is the perfect thing for Hallowe'en.
Now it's not often that I watch an animated feature, and I never expect very much of them if I do, but this was really good. CGI has certainly got more advanced in recent years and this was state-of-the-art stuff all the way. Even though it still looked pretty much like an elongated cutscene from a computer game, I really enjoyed it. Maybe it's because I was already familiar with the Beowulf story or maybe it was seeing Angelina Jolie naked, but, either way, I got thoroughly engrossed in it all and it didn't seem to matter after a while that Ray Winstone's character looked more like Sean Bean than Ray Winstone or that Anthony Hopkins was a strangely Welsh sounding Danish king. Really the only place I can fault this is with the sound. Some of it was too shouty and unintelligible. I know the Danish language bits were supposed to be but I got a bit confused at times when I couldn't even understand what was being said in English! This film also loses points with me for Angelina's fake Russian accent. I don't understand why a Danish demon should have a Russian accent. Oh well, if the king can be Welsh and Beowulf can be a Cockney then I suppose it all makes sense. I would still recommend this to anyone though as the action scenes are really impressive.
If you want an alternative Christmas movie this year instead of the usual "Die Hard", you may want to give this one a try. Rachel Nichols, who was the spiteful blonde in "The Woods", does a great job as the victim who is trapped by an insane car park attendant on Christmas Eve. Wes Bentley, who plays the aforementioned psychopath, also gives a good performance but somehow is not quite in the Christian Bale league to which his character aspires. Everything is done really well and, although it is very reminiscent of "made for TV" films like "Final Jeopardy" (1985), it is actually quite an original story for once with a stronger than usual female lead. It certainly has enough action and a brisk pace that keeps you from getting bored. It's not really a horror film though and isn't particularly scary. It's more of a thriller with some excellent gory moments. Rachel Nichols has some lovely cleavage on show too for those of you who appreciate such things. I know I do.
I watched this on the plane from London to New York and thoroughly enjoyed what I saw of it before the announcements about landing cut in and I missed the end. I still have no idea what the denouement amounted to but I liked the acting and the situation seemed credible enough even though it was yet another not very scary ghost story. The girl in it, Emily Blunt, was in "The Devil Wears Prada" but she had a bit more depth to her here and didn't just rely on her looks so much. The characterisation is really well done and the relationship that develops between the two leads is what keeps your interest since the ghosts aren't all that spooky. When I find this on DVD, I will probably give a fuller appraisal as what may be entertaining at 37,000 feet may not hold up when back on solid ground.
I lost my original review of this and so had to watch it again. I'm glad I did too as this wasn't a bad movie at all really. Yes, it's a PG-13 remake of a remake but I'd rather think of it as a more action packed update. People turning into plants (which I always found a bit bizarre) is hinted at later in the film but the story has changed somewhat to make the transformations more akin to a virus. Everything is filmed well and there is a good fast pace even though it's quite long at 99 minutes. I probably could have lived without the moral pontification of three specific scenes but Nicole Kidman looks incredibly beautiful in it. You'd never guess that she was 87 in real life. Her acting performance is pretty damn good as usual too. I even liked Daniel Craig in this though I loathed him as James Bond. He's growing on me as an actor. The whole thing was quite refreshing. I think I hated it the first time and fell asleep more times than Nicole Kidman tried to but, compared to the rubbish that has come out since, this was one of the better science fiction films of 2007. I do actually recommend that you see this.
I'd forgotten all about this until I was looking up a list of made-for-TV horror movies on another website. This was apparently Steven Spielberg's last TV movie before he went on to direct "Jaws" and in many ways is a scarier prototype for his later "Poltergeist". It seemed to get shown on ITV in the UK at least twice a year in the 1980s. Now that I've discovered the Steven Spielberg connection, I can understand its longevity. Sandy Dennis looks gorgeous in it. It's a shame she died before making a bigger impact on the film world. Darren McGavin of "Kolchak, the Nightstalker" fame is in it too but mercifully he doesn't get that much time on screen. The plot description on Flixster is slightly wrong. All the action really centres around the barn and the couple's little boy. It's all very supernatural; not quite a ghost story and not quite just a witchcraft story either. It's something different... it's "Something Evil"! Unlike modern horrors, it's actually scary too! If you haven't ever seen it, this is something you should track down. I think there is a special edition DVD out there somewhere but it must be quite rare as I've never seen one for sale ever.
This was the most amusing animal based horror-comedy that I've seen since "Revenge of Billy the Kid" (1991). It was silly when it needed to be silly and gory where it needed to be gory. It wasn't laugh out loud funny at any point nor was it even the slightest bit scary but it was filmed beautifully and acted perfectly. Even the orchestral background music worked. It's a very classy product which pretends to be just another B movie. I don't usually even like horror-comedies but, since the humour in this was so gentle, it wasn't ruined by the over-the-top comedy excesses of something like the awful "Shaun of the Dead". Everyone will undoubtedly compare "Black Sheep" to Simon Pegg's efforts though it is really better to see this as in the same vein as old school Peter Jackson. I suppose that is no big surprise since not only is it a New Zealand film but the effects were created by Peter Jackson's Weta workshop. Anyway, the story was just as ridiculous as you would imagine any film about zombie sheep to be. There were even a few mutating were-sheep thrown in as well due to the nature of the DNA altering serum which caused all the trouble to begin with. I'm sure there was supposed to be some comment there about genetic research and New Zealand sheep farming but this was hardly hardcore political satire. Every possible sheep joke was used anyway even the baaaad ones. The action sequences were all really well done. The gore was nice and visceral with lots of blood and guts everywhere. The sound of stampeding sheep in the distance created a nice bit of atmosphere from time to time although there wasn't really any tension or suspense to speak of. I couldn't really find any other fault with it except that sometimes the sheep looked a bit too fake so I'm giving it 8 out of 10. It did exactly what it set out to do and I found it all very entertaining.
I absolutely loved this film. Not only was Jess Weixler gorgeous to look at and very believable but everybody involved gave outstanding performances. Yes, it's quite gory in places but it's not without a sense of humour too. This is no horror-comedy though. Everybody plays it so straight that you forget the silliness of the whole idea. It's a real "back to basics" horror film too with no nasty grainy, shaky handycams or computer generated gimmicks. Everything looks like a movie should do with nicely framed shots. I'm sure this was low-budget but it certainly doesn't look like it. It even has John Hensley (Matt from Nip/Tuck) in it and not just as a five second cameo either. This is real indie filmmaking not glorified YouTubing. Gorehounds might be disappointed that you don't actually see the teeth in action, just the reactions as they chomp down and the practical effects used for the aftermath. A lot of men with a more nervous disposition than myself probably won't want to see either though. Girlfriends and wives everywhere can now get revenge for being dragged along to see all those "Torture Porn" films over the last couple of years. If you haven't seen it or even heard about this yet then look out for it. You won't be disappointed.
Directed by Timur Bekmambetov of "Night Watch" and "Day Watch" fame, this is the best action film so far this year. Lots of blood in it too. There are, of course, many similarities to "The Matrix" and even "Shoot 'em Up" but it does its job and certainly kept me interested all the way through. Fans of the original comicbook series may be whining that it isn't 100% faithful but who the hell still reads comics anyway? As a movie in its own right, there's nothing wrong with it at all. Oh yeah, and it has Konstantin Khabensky (from the Dozor movies) in it too for a while so I recommend it to everybody. Ignore the plot holes, enjoy the action and marvel at the special effects. This is probably the only film this century (other than "Sin City") which will manage to give you the post-movie buzz which we are forever chasing.
For those of you who don't know, back in 1975 there was a woefully inadequate futuristic car racing movie called "Death Race 2000" where the drivers got points for running over pedestrians. In fact that's pretty much all that it is remembered for apart from David Caradine playing a "not disfigured at all" character named Frankenstein. Others remember it for one of Sylvester Stallone's earliest roles. The least said about that the better. The whole thing was low-budget and only attained "cult" status because the idea was better than the execution. This "Death Race" is totally different. Rather than being a direct remake, it borrows heavily from the idea of televised (or webcast) executions as used in Stephen King's "Running Man" and the Japanese "Battle Royale". The "pedestrians as points" idea is abandoned completely in favour of some other gory death scenes, big loud guns, lots of explosions and, most importantly, some high-octane car racing action. This is big-budget stuff and, even if you don't like cars, guns, sci-fi or Jason Statham, you'll still find something to enjoy in this film. I don't particularly like any of those things myself yet I still got the post-movie buzz which I haven't had since the days of "Robocop". This remake of "Death Race" has also pretty much allowed Paul W.S. Anderson to do the impossible. Not only is it 200% better than the original but he has created a decent film at last after all those awful "Resident Evil" movies. Those people who have written him off lately and placed him in the Michael Bay category will now need to re-evaluate their opinions. I do agree with the critics that say that 'Death Race" is derivative. Every prison story from "Spartacus" through to "Papillon" and from "Brubaker" to "The Shawshank Redemption" has had an influence on this movie and none of those are very original either. The idea of a futuristic prison where an innocent man gets the better of the evil warden has been done to death by films like "Running Man", "No Escape", "Fortress", "Wedlock", and even "Battle Royale". They are all much the same. For fans of less talky pseudo-political bullshit who, just like me, prefer movies like John Carpenter's "Escape from New York" and "Escape from L.A.", this is great. It's about a million times better than Neil Marshall's "Doomsday" as well. I certainly don't agree with the critics who have been slamming this film for being a live action version of the "Twisted Metal" computer game. For one thing, I've never even heard of that game, let alone played it, but I can imagine that it was itself based on the infamous "Carmageddon" which we all played about 12 years ago. Since "Carmageddon" (especially "Carmageddon 2000") was inspired by "Death Race 2000" anyway, it's obvious that there would be similarities. Nothing is original in this movie or anywhere else nowadays anyway so get over it. What else is there to say about "Death Race" other than it has a minimal plot like all action films and just routine performances? It's not that you need to be able to act to be an action hero anyway, Schwarzenegger and Stallone proved that years ago by churning out the same pulp over and over again. All you have to do to be an action film hero is look the part and Jason Statham certainly does that. In fact, he just does his usual "hard man" act which was started in "The Transporter" and is none the worse for it. The only person who could possibly have done a better job is Vin Diesel and he looks much the same as Jason Statham anyway. The accent is an important part of the film though. The only thing that really annoyed me as a fellow Brit was the irritating pronounciation of the words "offence" and "defence" by Ian McShane. Overstressing the first syllable for "OFFence" and "DEfence" is jarring to the ears and really makes our Lovejoy look like a fool. He did the same thing in "Kung-Fu Panda" recently by completely forgetting how to say his Ts and replacing them with Ds. Ian McShane, you are not an American in spite of being in "Dallas" for all of five minutes so please pick an accent and stick to it! "Death Race" is currently showing at a cinema near you and online in the usual illicit places. I don't endorse piracy or copyright theft of course but I can see why people wouldn't want to pay the extortionate prices nowadays for a movie theatre ticket especially after the year full of crap that we've had so far. Give it three months and an "Unrated Director's Cut" will undoubtedly be available on DVD anyway. But if you must see a theatrical release this year, I recommend that "Death Race" is the one you watch.
Although "Let the Right One In" may be overlong for those with small brains and no ability to enjoy anything other than the trend of grainy, low-budget, shakycam nasties which we have been subjected to over the past few years, for me it was very nearly perfect. In fact I wish that it was even longer as it is yet another film that you get so caught up in that you really don't want it to end. Everyone mentions the "beautiful cinematography" but the sad thing is that this is just how films used to be shot and should still be shot to get audiences back into the movie theaters again. There are no bits that are too dark to see and nothing which will leave you with a splitting headache. It's just how a movie ought to be. The plot is a simple one, not overly original but not too derivative either considering it is really just another vampire story. There is an independent movie by Jay Reel called "Dawn" (available from Tempe) which is pretty much the same thing but I doubt that anyone will have seen it so the best analogy is to say that "Let the Right One In" is like a children's version of "The Hunger" mixed with the kids' scenes from "Near Dark" and "Interview with the Vampire". It also pays a fair bit of homage to a few scenes from "Innocent Blood" as well. There isn't a lot of humour in this, in spite of some bad CGI cats in a scene straight out of "Sleepwalkers" but it isn't overly scary either. Gore effects are realistic and minimal so think drama rather than horror and you'll be on the right lines. It's a hard film to fit into any genre really as it does tend to straddle quite a few non-horror themes most of which it deals with very effectively. As far as the acting goes, since this is a Swedish film, it's hard to tell if the performances are anything other than just ok. I've heard from Swedish friends that some of the dialogue is a bit weak, verging on humorous, but, in translation (and with subtitles), this doesn't seem to matter to any English speaking audience. From what I could tell, the boy who played Oskar was a bit expressionless but seemed to have good chemistry with the girl who played Eli. This is, without doubt, the best vampire film that I've seen for years and is one of my top films from this year alone. Apart from "Teeth" all this year's horror movies have been awful so this was a pleasant surprise at the end of the year. I recommend "Let the Right One In" to everyone who likes good movies not just good horror movies. There's something here for everyone.
Although hardcore fans of Stephanie Meyer were a bit nonplussed, to say the least, over this movie adaptation of her bestselling vampire novel, I thoroughly enjoyed it. I can imagine that I'm going to take a lot of flak for my opinion, especially as "Twilight" is a movie meant primarily for teenage girls, but I'm willing to take that risk since the story and chemistry between the leading actors is so beautifully done that, if you are willing to overlook some minor flaws, you can't help but fall in love with this film too. Yes, this film has flaws. Some of the camerawork early on is a bit amateur and some of the stunts are a bit cheesy but, even if this was to be judged by bad movie standards, it was still very entertaining. I really didn't notice any major goofs though as the relationship between the incredibly strong leads of Kristen Stewart (as Bella) and Robert Pattinson (as Edward) really drew me into the fantasy in ways that only fans of something like "Buffy" or "Angel" could truly appreciate. Yes, this is all very much like a more serious and romantic version of the relationship between Buffy and Angel in the TV series but with a bit more of a "Romeo and Juliet" feel to it. "Star-crossed lovers" is, I believe, the correct expression for this situation. Underlying the dominant love story though is also a subplot of good vampires against bad vampires and even the hint of werewolves on the horizon. With at least one sequel about to occur pretty soon, it's obvious that as much was being packed into this film as possible to create hooks. It all worked too. There wasn't too much given away but just enough to leave this as a stand alone movie while making the viewer wish there was more. A delicate balance has been achieved and this makes it such a commercial masterpiece that it has the potential to outsell "Harry Potter" now that the original audience of those books and films has grown up and moved on. I'll mention again that what really drew me in was the acting. The vampire actors are all beautiful rather than just attractive while the humans are shown to be a lot more unkempt and immature even though everyone looks about the same age. Kristen Stewart is the middle ground between these two polarities as she is beautiful yet not quite fully formed as a woman. Her performance was exceptional albeit with some moments of unrealistic dialogue. The character of Bella was just such a paradox that she had to stand out as an attraction for Edward the vampire. She was a lot more controlled and mature than any of her peers yet still awkward enough to be one of them at times too so her reactions were realistic even if her words were not. At 122 minutes, "Twilight" is a long film which, due to slow pacing, feels even longer. For once though this isn't a bad thing as if it had been trimmed then it could have ended up as just another MTV style teen flick. The added length adds some substance to things and allows the greater character development which will undoubtedly continue into the sequels. Cinematically it is a beautiful film to watch. Only one rough piece of camerawork on the beach distracted me for a moment but everything else was framed perfectly and all the aerial shots, zooms and pans were done effectively. A baseball game used to show the speed and strength of the vampires was a moment of almost comic relief which didn't really work out too well but at least it is possible to see what was intended. The director, Catherine Hardwicke (of "Lords of Dogtown" fame), still seems to be learning about what works and what doesn't but, since no movie is ever perfect, the pros outweigh the cons especially considering the length. The biggest problem with this film for horror fans, of course, is not the technical achievements or production values but that, like every other vampire film in recent years, it just isn't scary. I can't honestly remember a vampire film apart from certain scenes in "Salem's Lot" ever being scary though. When a lot of Edward Cullen's lines consist of the question, "Are you scared?", it does tend to provoke the audience, in this case me, to say "No" instead of waiting for Bella's equal response. Really though, "Twilight" is more of a romantic drama with some action rather a real horror genre movie. The potential was never even there in the books, it seems, to make this into anything other than a kind of "Dark Shadows" for the 21st Century so you can't honestly go into this expecting another "30 Days of Night" because it's not going to happen. There isn't a lot of blood in this considering it is a vampire movie and any death scenes are pretty much off-camera. I imagine that this was done intentionally to keep it within the PG-13 rating more than anything else. For my tastes, it could have used some harder and more gritty bloodletting but the target audience should be more than satisfied with what is there. I've rated "Twilight" as 8 out of 10 based mainly on its value as an entertaining movie. As a horror movie, it is only worth half that score. I still recommend that you watch it though.
Jesus wept! If you've never seen "Hellbound: Hellraiser II" (or even if you have!) then "Martyrs" is likely to be the most brutal and horrific movie you've ever seen. Following in the tradition of other French horrors such as "Haute Tension", "Ils", and "A L'interieur", 'Martyrs" is tense, disturbing, violent, and somewhat ludicrous (if you think about it too much) yet absolutely sickening (and very entertaining) in ways that only true horror fans can fully appreciate. Yes, "Martyrs" does provide that horror "buzz" that we've all been chasing for years and is unlikely to disappoint anybody. It's half revenge story and half "Hostel" but with much better acting than any of Eli Roth's films contain and with considerably more realistic effects. In fact it's this realism that gives it the edge over most American movies in the same almost "torture porn" sub-genre. There's real drama here too and, for the most part, believable characters who you can actually empathise with without overlong introductions so to even start to think of it in the same vein as something like the "Saw" franchise would be a big mistake. In many ways, it's more like a logical progression from the more arty European films like "Salo" or "Calvaire" but follows the Aristotlean rule that "art is best when hidden". "Martyrs" will, by turns, shock you and give you something to think about which is both its strength and its weakness but more on that later. The practical effects and make-up are outstanding and there are no over-the-top CGI blood spurts like a lot of these gorefests have contained lately. There's nothing much here to break the "willing suspension of disbelief" although a certain scene involving a hastily dropped sandwich almost ruined it for me because I thought it was wasteful. It's funny how the little things like that can throw you right out of the story when you notice them and you will now too because I've just mentioned it. You'll find others along the way but hang in there as they are all "blink and you'll miss them" moments. For those who are less eagle-eyed, pedantic and geeky, there are lots of boobs and blood. Oh God, there's so much blood! There are slicings galore, scenes of extreme torture, body-shredding gunshots, and a denouement which will absolutely amaze you. The ending itself will fly over most people's heads though and cause a lot of internet searching for others who want to know and can't work it out. I admit that I went vainly in search of answers too as the one I'd made up in my own mind was the least likely to be correct. There's some kind of nihilistic philosphical message at the end of this which I just can't get my brain around. If you think you've seen everything with the "Saw" movies or "August Underground" then think again. Imagine any of those films with much better camerawork and without the grainy look and you'd only be a fraction of the way there. This is real cinematic stuff which, because it's never likely to be shown anywhere theatrically, really needs to be watched alone on the biggest widescreen TV that you have available even if it's just to see every facial expression of the lead actresses. Almost every shot is perfect and the actresses are beautiful even if they don't stay that way for very long. It's not a sexy film by any means though. This is all bleak, mean-spirited stuff but done so well that you just can't turn it off even though you know that you'll end up thinking about it for a long time after. There are very few films that I've enjoyed yet wished that I'd never watched and this is one of them. Yes, it's a paradox. Films like "Martyrs" leave a nasty taste in your mouth afterwards and make you wonder what the hell is wrong with the people who make them to begin with. That said, it does exactly what a horror film should do - it "horrifies". I can't criticise the makers for creating exactly the effect that I want from a film but I wish there had been a happier ending. Yes, I'm back to that ending again. In spite of all the shocks and gore, the ending is left to the viewer to interpret. I've encountered this before with such films as "The Univited Guest" and it really is annoying if you're used to having stories handed to you on a plate in Hollywood style. Some arty-farty people will see it as one of "Martyrs" strengths but from a purely entertainment point of view, I found it to be a major weakness. The catharsis that should have occurred is left to work itself out by gnawing away at the viewer long after the film has ended and that simply isn't a good way to do things. It leads to a great deal of dissatisfaction which, translated into normal viewing terms, would probably elicit a "That sucked!" response in 75% of cases. Maybe I'm wrong here though and people will get it or maybe I'm right and "Martyrs" will end up in the same pile as "Haute Tension" with comments like "Good film apart from the ending" attached to them for all eternity. It's not a polarising film by any means though so even if you don't "get" the ending, I don't suppose it'll matter. I didn't get it either but I still think "Martyrs" is one of the greatest horror movies ever made. For that reason, I recommend "Martyrs" to everyone. This is one of the best movies so far this century and more than makes up for the overhyped "Inside" and "Frontière(s)" which have caused so many message board arguments. Couple it with "The Girl Next Door" as a double feature and I guarantee you'll have nightmares for a while no matter how hardcore you think you are.
I thoroughly enjoyed it. No big review as it's just another slasher but it was very well done. The star of it all is Ingrid Bolsø Berdal who plays Jannicke. She looks a bit like a mixture of Sigourney Weaver from Alien and Milla Jovich from the Resident Evil films depending on the camera angle. She's definitely hot whatever the case though. If you want to see how the Europeans are doing horror now then this is for you. Do not watch the dubbed version though, use the subtitles! Sympathetic characters and brutal deaths in snowy Norway. Just what you need during the unbearable heat of summer.
This was completely different to what I expected. I thought it might be a cross between Deathline and Midnight Meat Train but it ended up being all about a load of religious nutters believing that demons are going to take anybody who they leave alive. There was a kind of twist where the demons could actually be real (as shown on the DVD sleeve which ruins it for everybody) but it's still one of those films where you are left to wonder a bit at the end. Performances were very good and it had some nice gore too. I wasn't completely happy with the ending but it all entertained me. It's Canadian so it has that "feel" about it if you know what I mean but it could just as easily be European because it's a lot better than any of the American films that I've seen this year or last year. The heroine of the film, Ilona Elkin, reminded me a lot of Shannen Doherty which is no bad thing. In fact it's just down to her performance alone that I liked this a lot more. Some of the other characters were a bit "two-dimensional" but that's just the way of horror films anyway. "End of the Line" is a solid 6 out of 10. There's some good use of tension and atmosphere. I recommend it.
I enjoyed this almost as much as the first one. Some of it was a bit ludicrous as it started to become like another Halloween or Friday the 13th sequel but Jannicke was a kick-ass hottie again and that's all that I really cared about. Good gory death scenes and characters you care about. You can't go wrong really.
Jesus wept! I just watched this movie after getting it from Netflix and it was brutal!!!!! Now I've seen a lot of horror movies in my time but nothing prepared me for what was probably the closest thing we'll ever get to a movie version of mass murderers Fred and Rosemary West. I'm not ashamed to admit that my heart was pounding all the way through because of the tension. I was totally empathizing with the Polish Girl (Lena/Angel). In fact, it got so bad I thought I was going to have a heart attack! I couldn't wait for the tables to be turned and the most satisfying ending that I've seen for a long time. Admittedly I would have liked to have seen a bit more and watch Lena get some really good cosmetic surgery to repair all her scars but, as it was, it was satisfying enough. I expect a lot of people might be put off by the British accents and be on titter alert at the "commonness" of the "family" but it all worked for me in a completely serious way. It's no "dark comedy" and it's a lot more than a Brit "torture porn" version of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre". It's realistic and believable. I have to give it 10 out of 10. I recommend you rent or buy this right now. If you are at all squeamish then just rent it because you will never want to watch this again afterwards. I'm still buzzing from the shock of seeing more evil on screen than there even was in "Martyrs". This is the best British horror film ever!
In case you didn't know, "The Human Centipede" is yet another in a long line of "torture porn" atrocities which, on a purely personal level, I think are absolutely fantastic! What happens this time? If you didn't click straight on the trailer above, here's the synopsis from the IMDb: In Germany, two American women and a Japanese man fall victim to a demented surgeon who plans to recreate a horrific operation with humans that he performed on his three beloved dogs: reverse-engineering Siamese triplets by attaching their digestive systems. So can you figure it out yet? How would you attach three human beings together? Obvious, isn't it? ASS to MOUTH! Yes, that's the bloody deal here. It's a bit of a one joke act but that's the be all and end all of "The Human Centipede". For those of you expecting a real gore fest, you are going to be sadly disappointed. Most of the horrific operation stuff occurs off screen presumably due to budgetary constraints. I suppose that accidentally makes this very "old school" in that what you imagine is actually worse than what you will see. But, rest assured, you do get to see the centipede in all its glory for the next two-thirds of the film. The real horror of it all is from empathising with the two girls and man who have been sewn together. The only problem is that the man is Japanese (and doesn't speak a word of English) and the girls were both a pair of annoying airheads who nobody would feel sorry for anyway. It's not as if there really could have been any better characterisation because these girls are pretty much in "Hostel" territory, out for a good time and not using any common sense. How the Japanese guy was captured is anyone's guess but it undoubtedly involved a tranquilizer gun. He does have a backstory which comes into tragic effect later but he isn't a very sympathetic character either. None of the victims do anything particularly wrong to get themselves captured by the mad doctor (played admirably by Dieter Laser). He's a first class psycho who has it all worked out. What he wants, he gets and they really didn't stand a chance. Again this is a recurring theme in the "torture" genre. Bad things just do (and will) happen to good people. Is that scary or just life? I'll leave that for you to decide. Seeing the human centipede being trained like a dog and the obvious nastiness of how it eats is nothing compared to something like "Salo". But, yes, the predicament of the three people is horrible and you wouldn't want to be the middle one! Again, it's all down to how much you could think yourself into their place and what you would do that makes this horror either work or fail. You'll just have to watch this yourself to see what I mean. It's the kind of film that makes you question a lot of what you've seen after it ends and that's always a very good thing. Whether or not it scares you or just makes you feel a bit ill is another matter. Technically everything is really good. It doesn't look "low-budget", the camerawork is professional/steady, the sound is clear, and the effects are nicely done but underused. The acting is actually pretty good too. There's due to be a bigger budget remake next year so who knows what other horrors the director, Tom Six, will have for us. I think you'll like "The Human Centipede" when you get chance to see it mainly because it's something a little bit different. I liked it anyway.
Well, I'm pleased to say that "Eclipse" was actually better than "New Moon". Despite most people telling me that none of the Twilight films belong in the horror genre even though they have vampires and werewolves in them, I can now say for sure that they do. Yes, this is a horror movie, rather than a horrible movie, with a teenage love triangle at the heart of it all and I'll tell you why. It has a full on "werewolves versus vampires" war in it! War is horror, death is horror, and giant CGI werewolves ripping pretty teenage vampires to pieces is horror! So it probably won't go into anybody over the age of thirteen's top ten movies but this was a pretty decent offering for the intended audience. Even those of us who it wasn't really intended for can tune out of the awful soap opera dialogue and revel in the beauty of Rosalie (Nikki Reed) and Alice (Ashley Greene). I think we are all over Bella now even though Kristen Stewart was great as Joan Jett in "The Runaways" recently too. I really don't care what women think of the boys in the film since I'm not wired that way. I am, however, glad that, even though the werewolves still seem incapable of owning a shirt when they are together, nobody has to see Jacob's chest or abs until well over an hour into the film. If that's all you want to see then I suggest arriving late. None of them apart from Bella's father can actually act, of course, and there's still very little chemistry between any of them especially in the love triangle itself. Edward (Robert Pattinson) still looks miserable most of the time and Jacob (Taylor Lautner) just seems to be angry. I would probably be angry too if I'd chosen such a totally awful girl as Bella to be in love with rather than one of the pretty vampiresses. She's still hardly the kind of girl that most people would go for and so I suppose it's only fair that two supernatural monsters are the only ones competing for her attention. Once again Bella is all confused about who she loves most and it's all talk and/or glib comments for nearly an hour. There are a couple of flashback stories for some of the seemingly unimportant characters at this point (just to vainly try to put Bella off wanting to be a vampire herself for five minutes) plus a couple of moments where Edward and Jacob stand really close to each other angrily. The camera stands even closer to everybody though as I don't think I've ever seen so many headshots and close-ups since the last Clearasil advert I saw on TV. But then things start getting good. No, I don't mean Jacob getting punched in the face when he tries to kiss Bella. Yes, that does happen and I did enjoy it. The Volturi bit part players have turned up and the gang of newborns is homing in on Bella so you just know that big trouble is about to kick off left, right and centre... or as many camera angles, slow-mos and quick cuts as the director, David Slade, can work in. Of course, before any of this happens, we just have to have one of the most embarrassing and non-erotic teenage fumbles on a bed ever filmed. Nothing really happens of course because Edward wants to wait until they are married even though Bella wants to be diddled before she becomes a vampire. How sweet yet very lame. Better to keep on begging Bella to marry him while the werewolf keeps pushing himself on her too than to give her the good seeing to that she needs. The kiss between the evil vampiress Victoria and whoever the other guy was (Riley?) a few minutes later was twenty times hotter and lasted all of a few seconds. I probably should also mention the 20 minute three-in-a-tent scene where Edward had to call a still shirtless Jacob in because he didn't have any body heat to keep Bella warm. Yeah, that was his excuse. It all turned into a bit too much of a male bonding session for my liking. Oh, if only this had been an adult film! It did remind me of that really bad "Blair Witch Project" porn parody even down to Bella's woolly hat but I digressed. Yes, once again Edward's idea of keeping Bella safe is to take her where it's most dangerous, on top of a freezing cold snowy mountain. No wonder she decides to give Jacob a proper snog before he goes off trying to kill himself in battle because she agreed to marry the vampire after all. But, yes, it's all out war from then on. Cullens, werewolves, bad vamps and Uncle Tom Cobbly all run at each other swiping heads off, biting, clawing, pulling off arms and breaking necks. For a PG-rated film this was pretty good!!! Aw, but I'm giving away the plot. It's not as if you are going to see this anyway since you are reading this review on a horror film blog. Suffice it to say that the final battle between Edward and Victoria is good but nothing to lose your head over. It is amusing how the vampires seem to be made of bone china though and the only blood involved is Bella's. Jacob manages to get himself injured in another epic CGI werewolf battle and, since there's nothing like kicking a big smelly dog when he's had his back broken and is down, Bella tells him that she has finally chosen Edward over him. There I just saved you $10. Everything ends with a scene that mirrors the start but now there's a promise of a wedding and some hanky panky to look forward to next time. So there you have it. Did five minutes of brutal horror action justify nearly two hours of boring teenagers angsting over who they fancied? Well, if you use the same ratio of soap opera to violence that "Wolf Creek" used to qualify as a horror film then yes. I'm standing by my original statement. "Eclipse" is a horror movie. Not a very horrific horror movie I grant you but it does belong in the genre.