Bedevilled (2010)

Bedevilled starts off as a slow, dramatic piece, develops into something harrowing and even difficult to watch and then moves to full-blown horror for a finale that actually provides quite a welcome relief from the casual brutality and nastiness of the preceding hour or so.

Ji Seong-won plays Hae-won, a stressed out bank worker who decides to take a vacation at an island she used to live on as a child. She gets to meet up with her childhood friend, Kim Bok-nam (played by Seo Yeong-hie) and soon starts to appreciate her chance to relax. It's just a shame that she didn't take up the offer from her friend a long time ago. Kim Bok-nam has written many letters but Hae-won didn't reply. After only a short while on the island it soon becomes clear why Kim Bok-nam always seemed so desperate to hear from her friend and why she likes to think about life off the island. She is being constantly abused by her unfaithful husband (Park Jeong-hak) and none of the other women in the small population seem to think that there's anything wrong with the way that she's being treated, even while it is happening in front of her daughter. But there are many years of resentment and anger just waiting to burst out of that victimised woman and it may only take one tragic moment to unleash it all.

Directed by Jang Cheol-soo and written by Choi Kwang-young, Bedevilled becomes quite horrific even before it tilts into the standard genre moments. There are times when it looks beautiful, including quite a gorgeous final shot, but it's hard to appreciate the aesthetic beauty of the setting and the cinematography when so much being shown is just downright ugly.

The film shows how communities can allow abuse to go unchecked through a mixture of inaction and even, good grief, approval. It's hard to decide who the worst person onscreen actually is: the abuser, the community not taking the abuser to task or the outsider who knows that it's wrong but doesn't do anything to help. The film actually, on the surface, gives viewers nobody to root for. Hae-won is selfish and unlikeable and, even worse, lets her friend down when she's needed the most while Kim Bok-nam suffers too much for too long without trying to better her situation. And, of course, the abusers and those who allow the abuse to happen are vile. BUT, and I hasten to say this before complaints start flooding my email inbox, the depiction of someone so horribly victimised here is horribly and sadly realistic, I'm sure. Having endured hardship for so long, it becomes the norm. With such a controlling partner and nobody able to help her start afresh, Kim Bok-nam is resigned to her fate. She wants a better life for her young daughter but she thinks that it's too late for herself. It's quite heartbreaking to watch.

Bedevilled is a fantastic film to watch if you're either a horror fan who can handle a very slow burn on the way to a big finale or if you're a fan of pain-filled drama who can also handle a few more extreme moments. Fans of world cinema will be very pleased to see yet another great outing from South Korea.

8/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bedevilled-Blu-ray-Yeong-hie-Seo/dp/B004EMS0P2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1350727759&sr=8-1

The Sentinel (1977)

If Michael Winner was anyone else he'd surely have a bit more recognition from people. But he's Michael Winner. He's the annoying windbag who went from directing movies to critiquing restaurants and telling people in the most patronising manner to "calm down, dear" while advertising insurance. And he had the cheek to do that after "glorifying" vigilante justice with a the first few Death Wish movies. Here's the thing that's easy to forget. Death Wish was a very good film. As was The Mechanic. And The Jokers. The Sentinel is an unfairly neglected horror that manages to throw in some real mystery, real shocks and some great performances. Unfortunately for those who hate him, it was developed into a screenplay (based on the Jeffrey Konvitz novel) by Michael Winner, produced by Jeffrey Konvitz and Michael Winner and directed, of course, by Michael Winner.

The Sentinel is all about a beautiful young woman who moves into an apartment and then starts to worry about her sanity as she starts to see stranger and stranger things happening around her, things involving her strange and creepy neighbours. Maybe it's all tied in to the old man who lives upstairs, the one that she never sees out and about because he never goes out and about. He seems to just sit there, gazing out of his window, like some kind of sentinel.

The script and direction don't really seem to be all that spectacular here but as the movie builds towards a fantastic and horrific climax it becomes easier to see that, in fact, everything is almost perfectly crafted. The film has a real sense of mystery and develops the plot beautifully. Even if you remain a step ahead of the film, it's a pleasure to see how every detail is revealed and how the unreal horror continues to pile up in a surprisingly realistic manner.

Another pleasure here is the cast. Winner managed to get himself a superb cast here, with some big names even in small roles. There's a fleeting appearance by Jeff Goldblum before he became a well-known actor, Christopher Walken gets a bit more screentime but was also in the very early days of his career and then you also get to see Ava Gardner, Beverly D'Angelo, Burgess Meredith, Eli Wallach, John Carradine, Jose Ferrer, Martin Balsam, Sylvia Miles, William Hickey and Jerry Orbach. Each and every one is a great actor, with Burgess Meredith being one of the very best. Then there's Chris Sarandon in a main role, doing an okay job, and the beautiful Christina Raines playing Alison Parker, the beautiful young woman. Heck, Tom Berenger even appears in the last minute or so for perhaps the smallest role of his career.

There was (and, indeed, still is . . . . I suppose) quite a controversy regarding the decision made by Winner to use people with real deformities during a scene in which "denizens of Hell" appear but, for some reason, I didn't find this bothersome. Perhaps I should have, and future viewers have been forewarned, but I didn't. In fact, that sequence felt as strange and disturbing as the rest of the movie, which meant that it felt as if it belonged right where it was.

I really like The Sentinel and I encourage others to at least check it out. It might be fashionable to automatically dislike and mock any Michael Winner movies but it's a lot more enjoyable to give them a chance and maybe even be entertained by them.

8/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Sentinel-DVD-Chris-Sarandon/dp/B00149XOVI/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1350167969&sr=8-2

The Curse Of Frankenstein (1957)

Okay, before the review starts let me just ask you one question, based on a supporting performer in the movie.

Tell the truth now, is this not the best "direct look to camera" that you've ever seen?

I think it is, hence its inclusion here.

But let's get to the entire movie.

The first proper Hammer horror that set the template for many movies to come (the Technicolour horror, the updating of the Universal classics taken mainly from literary forerunners, the greatness of Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee, etc), this also remains one of their best movies.

It's a pretty familiar tale, with enough changes made for everything to feel fresh and exciting. Peter Cushing plays the obsessed scientist and it's not long before one small success in the ongoing battle against Mr G. Reaper sees our protagonist getting quite obsessed with actually creating life and playing god. His long-time companion, and former tutor Paul (Robert Urquhart) tries to keep things from getting out of control but Hammer fans will already know how things will unfold.

Directed by Terence Fisher, and written by Jimmy Sangster, The Curse Of Frankenstein has plenty going for it. The pacing is perfect, the character of Victor Frankenstein is brilliantly portrayed by Cushing and it's easy to quietly root for him even as his methods become more and more unhinged, Urquhart makes for a decent friend/voice of reason and the script and cinematography are both well above-average for something that people could easily dismiss (both then AND now) as pulp genre fare.

Hazel Court is lovely enough as Elizabeth, though she doesn't get all that much to do, but Christopher Lee is a bit of a disappointment as the creature. Not his fault really, it's just hard to top that original design and performance with Boris Karloff in the role. Hell, even De Niro didn't manage it so Lee shouldn't feel too badly as he certainly doesn't embarrass himself either. It's also fun to see a young Melvyn Hayes (probably best known to UK TV viewers from his role in It Ain't Half Hot Mum) in the role of young Victor and Valerie Gaunt is great as a housemaid who dares to threaten the baron when she realises that she will never be more than his secret mistress.

A great success when first released, this movie deserves to be seen and enjoyed by fans for many, many years to come and deserves all of the adoration it has received over the years.

8/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Curse-Frankenstein-Blu-ray-DVD/dp/B008LU8MME/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1350081696&sr=8-1

Spiders (2000)

Yes, Spiders is a bad film in many ways. It's a horror movie about giant spiders so you should know what to expect. However, Spiders is also great fun in many ways. It hits absolutely every beat that you expect and it shows no shame in doing so. In fact, there are even a few laughs and self-aware moments in the script - especially when one young man realises the situation developing and says that it's "like a bad science fiction movie" - as well as the required amount of spider mayhem.

The plot involves a bunch of young folk putting themselves in peril by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. A space shuttle crashes and they go to investigate the wreckage. When a bunch of government types turn up to remove bodies and help any survivors, the young folk try to keep hidden and go along for the ride to find out just what's going on a la the Scooby gang. Unfortunately, what's going on turns out to involve conspiracy theories, meddling with things that shouldn't really be meddled with and, of course, some big, ugly bastards with eight legs.

Directed by Gary Jones, working from a script by Stephen David Brooks, Jace Anderson and Adam Gierasch that was based on a story by Boaz Davidson, Spiders isn't going to be the first film choice for anyone seeking high art but it's surprisingly good for what it is.

The special effects, for starters, are very good at times. That will probably have something to do with the fact that KNB Effects worked on the movie. Not every practical effect is convincing, and the CGI is pretty poor in places, but there are some great moments of gore and gloopiness.

The acting is also . . . . . . . . . oh wait, nope. The acting isn't that good BUT everyone involved somehow manages to give the impression that they're being a good sport about it all, going along with every ridiculous turn of events. Leading lady Lana Parrilla is likeable enough, even if her character does lose her glasses about a third of the way into things and then never needs them again (a hilariously obvious war to show the transition from brainy to brainy beauty). Josh Green is okay, if a bit bland, and Oliver Macready and Nick Swarts both do well, it's just a shame that they didn't get more to do. Mark Phelan is good enough in his role and the spiders go about being very spidery.

There are people who never want to see these kinds of movies being made, ever. But if you're going to make a film like this then THIS is how to do it. With a sense of humour, a number of moments that meet audience expectations and no limits on where the craziness could end up.

5/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spiders-DVD-Lana-Parrilla/dp/B003H9MXVK/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1350419460&sr=1-1

Familiar (2012)

Sometimes I look around and smile at my loved ones, inhale the scent of roses and remember how good life is. Sometimes, of course, I look around and scowl at people, inhale the sick aroma of yet another fart from the dog and moan about how there are never enough hours in the day and how I always have so much to do. Thankfully, when I'm in the latter situation there is usually a point at which a little voice in my head will tell me to buck up and appreciate all that I have and all the good things that come my way. The little voice directs me back to the first option.

This way of thinking, and good quality of life, ties in with Familiar, a short film written and directed by Richard Powell. I was sent an email asking if I'd check it out and, as ever, I thought this was very nice of whoever would make such a request (in this case it was producer Zach Green). It's great to see something that I've heard absolutely nothing about beforehand and it's even better when the film turns out to be great, as this one did. See? It's a good life. The little voice is often right though it never used to be so positive.

Familiar is all about that little voice inside. It's not a nice little voice but it's quite constant and determined while speaking inside the head of John Dodd (Robert Nolan). John isn't a happy man and the voice keeps reminding him of that fact. Maybe he will be happy soon, his daughter (Cathryn Hostick) is about to head off to college and he can then leave his wife (Astrida Auza), or maybe people and circumstances will seemingly conspire to keep him miserable.

There may only be a cast of three for this film but at least all three do a good job, with Robert Nolan the obvious highlight - the focus is on his character and the near-constant inner monologue is his. The script is sharp, twisted and also horribly believable in many ways. Anyone who has at some point sat at home and tried to blame everyone and everything else for holding them back in life will recognise the venom on display here.

The whole thing is also beautifully shot, which helps draw viewers in as the anger and paranoia of the main character quickly turn into something potentially dangerous. In fact, the film expertly builds from standard domestic unhappiness to real horror so cunningly that viewers may well find themselves, quite rightly, stunned by the time the end credits roll.

It runs for just over 20 minutes, which is enough time for layer upon layer to build up en route to the great finale, but I would love it if this was expanded into a full-length feature somehow. I don't think it's an impossibility. As a decent alternative, I'll definitely head along to see ANY feature that writer-director Richard Powell comes up with so I encourage everyone to lend their support to a considerable talent that I hope to see much more from in future.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Dragon Wasps (2012)

I have started noticing lately that there are a few golden rules to adhere to if you ever find yourself in a potential b-movie situation and want to avoid trouble. Dragon Wasps illustrates a few of them, which I will mark and then expand upon in footnotes.

An entomologist* named Gina (played by Dominika Juillet) is a young woman working in an area of rain forests*. She is, however, just there to find her father* as opposed to the real reason that she gave. When her friend, Rhonda (played by Nikolette Noel), finds out about this she has a bit of a moan and a sigh but then agrees to help find the missing man. It's not long until the two women find themselves in military territory but, thankfully, they manage to persuade a team* led by John Hammond (Corin Nemec) to help them on their quest. There are some local baddies in the area not afraid to shoot at the military but dodging bullets becomes a secondary concern when the sky suddenly fills up with . . . . . . . . . dragon wasps.*

It's hard to imagine how much further these movies can go. I'm still afraid of wasps (I'm a wuss in real life, I admit it) but the brains behind movies such as this one obviously don't think normal wasps are scary enough. So they make them big. And THEN they also make them able to shoot flames. I'm wondering just how long it is until we see the movie Gorgon Bees appearing on the Syfy Channel.

The strangest thing about Dragon Wasps, however, is that it's not actually that bad. Oh, it's bad. I've not lost my mind after watching too many of these creature features. The acting from Nikolette Noel is pretty godawful and I can't really find anything too complimentary to say about Dominika Juillet or Corin Nemec either. In fact, the supporting cast members did a better job. Benjamin Easterday was fine, Cosondra Sjostrom was the prettiest soldier I have seen in some time (it's a shame that she didn't get more to do) and Gildon Roland was an intimidating villain.

Direction from Joe Knee was fine, I suppose, and the script by Mark Atkins and Rafael Jordan was mildly amusing in places. The pacing may not have been perfect but the special effects a) weren't as eye-searingly bad as is often the way of these films and b) weren't overused. Those big, bad dragon wasps get enough screentime but the movie isn't full of cutaway shots to them and a lot of the plot deals with the soldiers having to deal with the local guerrillas.

There are also some fun moments to do with the effects of cocaine, some fun incubation/hatching scenes and a nice line in over the top bravado from Nemec's lead character. The movie is bad but it has the good sense to be bad with some fun in the mix.

4/10

Footnotes.

*Entomologist - choose your career carefully. Never become an entomologist. Try becoming an etymologist instead. Nobody ever got themselves murder death killed by a mutated strain of words (well, if you don't think too much about Pontypool)

*Rain forests - there are some places on our planet that are safe and secure and rarely see problems caused my crazy local wildlife. Rain forests are NOT those places.

*Lost family member - give it up. They're either gone or in a very bad way or helped to cause the damn problem in the first place. Drop them like a hot potato and adopt other people who can fill that role. Preferably choose someone not working in the field of genetics.

*Enlisting army help - if you're doing something that you can ask the military to help you with then maybe you shouldn't be doing it.

*Last but not least - if you spot any bad CGI then run in the opposite direction. Those computer effects are probably out to kill you.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dragon-Wasps-DVD-Corin-Nemec/dp/B008H43XVE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1350378109&sr=8-1

The Secret Cinema (2012)

Written, produced, directed and shot by Jason Coffman, The Secret Cinema is a nice slice of intrigue with plenty of potential horror left to the imagination of viewers. Tying in to a previous short film from Rabbit Room Productions (the excellent Tape), I am going to brace myself here for some possible repercussions from the film-maker and just blurt out the fact that I didn't quite like this one as much as the previous film. I didn't really dislike it but I just wasn't as impressed with the general premise this time around, perhaps because it felt more familiar to me while Tape felt quite fresh.

Anyway, here's the plot. A man wants to see something new and edgy and so is taken along by a friend to the secret cinema of the title. There he sees something wild, something offered to audiences by the masked Mr. Lake. The next day he has the opportunity to process the film that he saw and do something about it, though probably not in the way that you expect.

The Secret Cinema is a good watch but it's hampered by a few flaws throughout. The first problem is the acting from Neil Calderone and Tyler Pistorius, the two main characters who visit the cinema. I don't want to be unnecessarily cruel but the two men aren't the best actors I've ever seen, though Pistorius pulls off an amusing double-take. The second problem comes from the script. It just doesn't feel right because it often feels like it's trying too hard, especially when one or two of the lines sit at odds with what has previously been said (something I can't go into further detail with as I don't want to spoil anything).

However, the film is about imagery, both seen and implied, and it gets things right in the visual department. This is helped in no small part by the presence of Stephanie Leigh-Rose and Heidi Foland, playing beautiful but slightly creepy women, but really hits its stride when it comes to the work of the mysterious Mr. Lake.

But let me end by explaining why I watched this short. It's made by someone I know through a lot of online chat, involved the talents of many other people I know in the same capacity, and has been highlighted by quite a few people as something worth seeing. Whether I loved the end result or not doesn't take anything away from my admiration for Mr. Coffman and co. and the work that has so far been released by Rabbit Room Productions. They at least try to create something entertaining and unique and you can't say that about everyone making movies out there. So keep up to date with their output and give them your support necause they deserve it.

6/10

The site for Rabbit Room Productions is a work in progress at the moment so I'll end with this link here, once again - https://www.facebook.com/tapeshortfilm

Haunted (1995)

James Herbert is a fantastic horror writer and, arguably, the best writer within the genre to come out of the UK in the past 50 years. Okay, there's very stiff competition from writers as varied in style and content as Clive Barker, Graham Masterton, Shaun Hutson, Kim Newman and Ramsey Campbell but, to me, Herbert is at the very top of the tree. And deservedly so. Yet very few of his works have been made into films and even fewer have been made into great films (at the last count, by my estimation, that figure would be . . . . . . . . . . zero). I stumbled upon the works of Herbert like so many others of my generation. Basically, I saw copies of The Rats at almost every jumble sale and eventually picked it up, along with a copy of The Fog. Puff your chest up if you like but I'm pretty certain that many people born in the mid- to late 70s, as I was, thought that The Fog by James Herbert and The Fog by John Carpenter were one and the same until they eventually got around to reading the book. In fact, there may even be some people reading this now who never realised that the two stories were very different. Which brings me, in a ridiculously roundabout way, to Haunted, a movie based on the novel by James Herbert. I read the novel many years ago and really enjoyed it. It was a great read, not Herbert's best but very enjoyable nonetheless. I never managed to see the movie until now. Perhaps if I'd seen it back when it was first released I may have found it a bit more enjoyable but I strongly doubt it. Because the film is pretty rubbish.

The story is a pretty cliched one, but cliched doesn't always mean something bad. Aidan Quinn plays someone who doesn't believe in the paranormal and he's asked along to a large country house to help prove to an elderly woman (Anna Massey) that the ghost she thinks is haunting her house isn't a ghost at all. When he arrives at his destination, he meets a beautiful young woman (Kate Beckinsale) and then is soon introduced to her two brothers (Anthony Andrews and Alex Lowe). The siblings seem to take very little seriously and there are moments when they seem to be a little bit too affectionate to one another. But whatever is going on with this slightly strange family, there's a ghost to be disproved and that should remain the top priority.

Directed by Lewis Gilbert, who also co-wrote the script with Timothy Prager and Bob Kellett, Haunted has very little to praise. The acting is okay, with the lovely Kate Beckinsale being a highlight and a wonderful, though small, appearance by John Gielgud but the script is clumsy and awkward (in terms of exchanges of dialogue and the way details are revealed), the pacing is off and everything feels very . . . . . . stagey, despite some outdoor scenes. As much as I disliked, though certainly didn't hate, The Awakening, I now recommend that movie instead of this one to fans of Haunted, the novel.

Despite my disappointment in the movie, it's a hard one to rant about. The setting and some of the cinematography is lovely and it doesn't seem to deliberately try to insult the intelligence of viewers. Oh, except when it comes to using body doubles for nude scenes. Yeah, you know how body doubles work. You have stars that don't want to do nudity and so "inserts" are shot that give audiences a bit of naked flesh while the stars actually didn't disrobe, providing a nice (though I've always thought unnecessary) illusion. That's how using body doubles is supposed to work, at any rate. Not in this movie though, oh no. This is the film in which you get to see the faces of the doubles too. In fact, in one scene "involving Aidan Quinn and Kate Beckinsale" I actually saw that Aidan Quinn was no longer Aidan Quinn and I wondered if some different footage had been slipped in to the film as either some kind of joke I wasn't getting or some psychological horror that was never again mentioned. The simple fact is that it was all down to bad shot choice.

I'm sure that Haunted will appeal to some people but I can't think of any horror fans that it will appeal to. As a big James Herbert fan, I just grow more and more disappointed every time I see his work mistreated and not given a chance to connect with moviegoers. Maybe one day that will change. I've never stopped hoping that one day someone would, at the very least, see sense and adapt the superb Creed.

4/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Arachnoquake (2012)

Arachnoquake - that's a great title, isn't it? Up there with the likes of Piranhaconda, Sharktopus and Frankenfish (which, don't laugh, is actually better than the title would make you think). Okay, I admit that a title like that probably wouldn't get everyone excited but most people know by now that a title like that will get me excited. My childish little mind starts to fill up with fluffy dreams of naive potential. I'm not completely stupid, despite how it may appear, and I know that these movies are more than likely to be horrible nonsense full of bad CGI but I also know that a lot of them make up for their failings with big helpings of humour, sometimes intentional but often not.

Arachnoquake starts off with a sense of humour accompanying the preposterous premise and bad CGI but quickly slumps to become just another horrible creature feature churned out for the Syfy Channel.

The biggest name in the cast would be Edward Furlong and it's a shame to see him in something this bad, especially after his appearance in the excellent Below Zero. Sci-fi fans might also enjoy seeing the likeable Ethan Phillips (best known to many as Neelix in Star Trek: Voyager) getting a decent amount of screentime. There's not much else here though.

Directed by Griff Furst, with a script by Paul A. Birkett based on a story by Eric Forsberg, Arachnoquake is a tale of giant, dangerous spiders released from an earthquake and the people who are thrown together and try to survive and escape the situation. Things start off ridiculous and fun but the movie just spirals down and down until it's nothing but ridiculous, sadly.

Aside from those already mentioned, Bug Hall plays a lead role and Tracey Gold is the person who just happens to know a thing or two about spiders. The rest of the cast is full of the hopeful and the hopeless, all playing characters that it's almost impossible to care for.

I suppose that I should grudgingly concede that things are okay on a technical level but I'm not even sure if that's true. The camera is usually pointing the right way and the audio is fine but when so many other aspects are poor or missing (such as the not-so-special effects, shot composition, the bland score from That's What I Call A Syfy Movie Vol. 4) it's hard to even admit that there's a minimum level of competence on display, though I suppose there is.

3/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Arachnoquake-DVD/dp/B008KYOFPE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1350074503&sr=8-1

Dracula (1958)

I am about to start a long and enjoyable journey through the entire collection of Hammer movies (or as man as I can get my hands on anyway) and encourage fans of the great studio to stop by now and again. I watched a number of these movies last year but feel that I know more now, in terms of the roster of great actors and my own writing style, to be able to deal with them in a more deserving manner. Here's something to keep in mind when reading any of my Hammer reviews. There's a simple formula that makes up at least half of my ratings for these movies. If Christopher Lee is present then there are 2 bonus points. If Peter Cushing is present then are 3 bonus points. So any film featuring both stars, as this one does, automatically starts off as a 5/10 movie even before the title has appeared.

Anyone wishing to join in, you'd do well to pick up this absolute bargain of a set. You know it makes sense.

Anyway, enough of the introduction. What can be said about Hammer's first use of the most famous vampire in fiction? It's a solid adaptation of Bram Stoker's tale with some changes made here and there, some understandable and others (such as the changing around of the characters Mina and Lucy) somewhat puzzling.

Christopher Lee puts on the cape and shows his fangs for the first time while Peter Cushing is a fantastic Doctor Van Helsing. Michael Gough gets a small but enjoyable role while Melissa Stribling and Carol Marsh are the ladies put in jeopardy. And Valerie Gaunt makes quite an impression as the first vampire encountered by Jonathan Harker (played by John Van Eyssen, an unmemorable actor given less screentime than you'd expect). Stakes are sharpened, garlic is hung around and blood flows.

Directed by Terence Fisher, and written by Jimmy Sangster (adapted from Stoker's novel, obviously), this movie may seem tame nowadays but it still has some great moments and there's no denying the affection that fans of Hammer horror can have for any of their movies when the deep red starts to spill over and the characters find themselves having to show what they're really made of. In fact, blood spattering over the name of the title character is the very first image to be given the screen all to itself just as the opening credits end.

We also get some moments throughout (one involving a vampire victim trying to lure away an innocent child) that remain effective despite the age of the film. There is a mythology established that Hammer would then go on to adapt to fit whatever the future movies required and you just can't watch the film without really feeling that it holds an important place in the history of horror. It wasn't the first big genre name to be given the Hammer treatment but it easily showed that all of the classics could be entrusted to the studio and turned into icons for modern audiences. Lee is as commanding a presence as he often is, Cushing is as wonderful as ever and a climax involving the two men in a fight to the death provides a satisfying end to yet another quality Hammer product.

8/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dracula-DVD-Peter-Cushing/dp/B00006JMP9/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1350068548&sr=8-1

Feed (2005)

Directed by Brett Leonard and written by Kieran Galvin (based on an idea by the two leads, Patrick Thompson and Alex O'Loughlin), Feed is a standard thriller in many ways but it takes things to such extremes that everything soon becomes quite horrific. It's also, sadly, a bit muddled in pretty much every other scene. The movie clearly wants to do a good job, make some interesting points and mix a lot of psychology in there with the more visceral stuff.

The basic plot sees an investigator of cybercrimes (Phillip Jackson, played by Patrick Thompson) trying to capture a twisted sicko (Michael Carter, played by Alex O'Loughlin) and put him where he belongs. The sicko runs a website that features ladies of a larger size. Nothing wrong with that if that's where it ended. Oh no, Michael keeps feeding and feeding these women and eventually starts taking bets on just when they will die. Phillip becomes more and more determined, some might say obsessive, in his attempts to catch Michael but the potential killer always seems to be one step ahead of him. AND he finds it easy to justify his actions. Hell, even his victims don't really see what he's doing wrong. He looks after them, he shows them affection and he always, always feeds them.

It's an interesting idea and it makes for, as you might expect, a number of grodd moments but Feed fails to make the most of the interesting psychology that it has going on. The fact that those being fed are so content and don't even realise that they are being slowly but surely moved towards their death.

The varying quality of the acting doesn't help. O'Loughlin is the best onscreen, possibly thanks to getting most of the best lines in the script, and Gabby Millgate is very good as the latest food lover but Patrick Thompson is pretty lousy, Jack Thompson is just as bad and Matthew Le Nevez is just . . . . . . there.

Leonard doesn't do too bad in the role of director, he's just let down by the muddled script and the uneven acting. The first 5-10 minutes contain the best moments but there's enough unpleasantness in the story to make it worth a watch for those who can stomach it (no pun intended), the ideas of the story are interesting and the movie has a fair selection of interesting covers on the soundtrack to accompany some of the startling imagery.

Not awful but it could have been so much better.

6/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Feed-DVD/dp/B000F7M6R8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1350028082&sr=8-1

Intruder (1989)

A bunch of people are working in a store at night and someone starts to kill them off in a number of imaginative ways. That's the plot of Intruder. It's flimsy, it's simple and it's all that is needed to get from one gory death to the next.

Let me start by saying that I didn't LOVE Intruder. In fact, there were a few scenes that had me wondering if everyone who had ever recommended the movie to me had suffered from a temporary lapse in taste. The characters, for the most part, aren't all that appealing and the structure of the film sticks so rigidly to the slasher formula - people go their separate ways to be picked off without anyone noticing until the big reveal in the third act - that it borders on parody.

Then I started to get the vibe of the thing. It was a good time on a disc, nothing more and nothing less. There may be no standard logic to the whole thing but it's unnecessary. This is a movie all about providing viewers with the best in gory mayhem while also playing around with camera angles that show you the action from the inside of a telephone, for example. It's a lot of fun and that's all it aims to be.

Sadly, it still suffers from that bland cast. Dan Hicks is superb in his role, and it's always good to see both Ted and Sam Raimi popping up in horror movies (this was written and directed by Scott Spiegel, from the story idea by himself and Lawrence Bender, and that's why the a lot of the folks comes from the Evil Dead II talent pool) but Elizabeth Cox, sadly, doesn't give her character any warmth, which means that viewers don't really care all that much for her while she's in peril. Renee Estevez isn't much better. The rest of the cast are pretty much interchangeable, with the exception of David Byrnes who plays an ex-boyfriend who can't accept that things are over. The character played by Byrnes is also, of course, the main suspect but is he the killer?

But, oh boy, those death scenes. Never mind the mixed bag of actors onscreen, once the kills start up this is one slasher movie that may instantly barge its way into your Top 10. The 30-45 minute middle section is about as good as it gets when it comes to this kind of stuff. It's just a shame that the start isn't all that great and the final 20 minutes are pretty damn boring but this is still the best movie that Spiegel has directed and he can easily be proud of the final product.

Highly flawed but also highly entertaining.

7/10

This Bluray is suitable for all regions - http://www.amazon.com/Intruder-Directors-Cut-Blu-ray-Combo/dp/B005S2F8LQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1349684857&sr=8-1&keywords=intruder+blu+ray

Phenomena (1985)

When I first saw Phenomena many years ago I didn't realise that I was watching my first Dario Argento movie. I didn't even realise that it was called Phenomena. You see, when I was about 16-17 years old, Phenomena was available here in the UK in an edited form entitled Creepers. When I picked up the videotape for £3 and took it home to give it a watch all I knew was that a) it had the lovely Jennifer Connelly in it, b) the soundtrack was a mental mix of random metal from someone I didn't know - Goblin - and bits of Iron Maiden and c) it was quite ridiculous but entertaining.

The years have passed and I am older, though not always wiser, and can view the film in a different way now. First of all, I can't really admire Jennifer Connelly as I used to because she's about 14 or 15 in this movie and I'm now far too old for her (though in real life I'll always have a tiny little dream that won't die about me being in with a chance to woo her if only she'd coincidentally bump into me here in Edinburgh). Second, the soundtrack is still a mental mix but I am now very familiar with the great work of Goblin. Third, the film is still ridiculous but just as entertaining in a slightly different way from when I first saw it.

The plot sees Jennifer Connelly as young Jennifer, starting her time in a remote school for girls. There have been a number of murders in the area so Jennifer may want to try and curb her pesky sleepwalking habit. The other girls in the school aren't very nice to her at all but Jennifer soon befriends an entomologist, Professor John McGregor (Donald Pleasence), who lives nearby and when the professor notices that Jennifer seems to have a way of somehow communicating with insects he starts to think that she could be the one to find out who is behind the murders.

Phenomena, like many of the later films from Argento, is not a wholly satisfying movie but it has moments of style and nastiness to make it well worth a viewing for horror fans. It also has a moment in which Jennifer Connelly calms down a bee and a moment in which she follows an insect to try and track down a killer.

The acting is a real mix. Connelly is quite good in her role, Pleasence is the best of the lot and Daria Nicolodi gets to act a bit over the top, as does Dalila Di Lazzaro. Patrick Bauchau is quite good and there's a smart chimpanzee (though not that smart as, apparently, it took a dislike to the lovely Miss Connelly and, apparently, tried to bite her finger off).

There are also, as you would expect, one or two excellent set-pieces to enjoy as the mystery killer goes about their business. A climax that is as sanity-shattering as it is truly horrific ensures that things at least end on a high note.

I'll always have a soft spot for this movie and it has its fans but it's not a film that I would unwaveringly recommend to any and every horror fan. If you ever have the time and opportunity then do give it a one-time watch and see what you think of it. Just don't blame me if you absolutely hate it.

6/10

Phenomena is available in this excellent Bluray which, be warned, changes to Italian audio every now and again to make use of the most complete print - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Phenomena-Blu-ray-Region-Jennifer-Connelly/dp/B003OCFJ7U/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1349463645&sr=8-1

The Amityville Haunting (2011)

EASILY one of the worst movies that I've ever seen. EASILY. And I think that people know me well enough by now to know that I'm a very generous reviewer who can put up with a lot of rubbish. If something looks like an effort has been made or has some heart then I'll go easy on it. If something at least has fun despite a low budget then I'll admit that I was mildly entertained. Many bad movies can still have some good points. This film, basically, had absolutely nothing going for it at all.

The laziness is easy to spot from the very beginning. The movie brings up some title cards that tell viewers about the infamous Amityville house. One piece of information concerns the Lutz family and how they were plagued by paranormal activity during their two year stay there. Sorry, two years? Anyone who has seen either of the movies featuring the Lutz family or who has read the book or who even just knows of the story knows, surely, that the family lasted 28 days. That was it. We then get some footage taken by people pottering around a house at night and then, eventually, we get to the main part of the movie - a family moving into the accursed house and suffering from some activity of the paranormal type.

It's a real shame that this movie is SO bad because I have enjoyed the other found footage films from The Asylum. In fact, Paranormal Entity, Gacy House and Anneliese: The Exorcist Tapes were easily among the better titles churned out by the company that specialises in cheap 'n' cheerful rip-offs. It's easy to think that found footage movies are the easiest kind to make but, in reality, they take just as much (and sometimes more) planning and effort as any other movie. Sometimes. Though we can assume that nobody told director Geoff Meed that.

To call the people onscreen actors would be insulting to others in the profession. Too harsh? Okay, maybe Gracie Largent and Amy Van Horne do better but Jason Williams gives the worst performance that I can recall, and that includes my memory of Troll 2. He's not helped by a horrible script but that's not an excuse for just how bad he is. Speaking of horrible scripts, I couldn't even find out who wrote this film so maybe it was plotted out and then improvised or maybe the writer has had an attack of shame and gone into hiding. Young Devin Clark also fares poorly and he's stuck with being the character who films everything despite almost everyone else telling him every few minutes to just put down the damn camera and give them some space.

It's always the biggest problem in films of this type - why would someone keep filming? - and there's no moment in this movie that even remotely comes close to making a decent excuse for it. Some security cameras are also used but most of the footage comes from this young lad always being told to stop filming.

I could have been generous to this movie and given it a 2 or a 3, some of the effects are okay and . . . . . . no, that's all I can think of, but I was so angry by the time the end credits rolled (despite the absolutely hilarious scene in which the father of the family goes into military mode) that I knew I had to warn everyone away from this sloppy, amateur, unscary cash-in. Avoid at all costs. I hope that either Geoff Meed took a HELL of a lot of notes while working on this movie and aims to keep getting better at his job or that he just realises being a director isn't for him and gives up.

1/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Amityville-Haunting-DVD-Luke-Barnett/dp/B007JI9B6A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1348212190&sr=8-1

Grave Encounters 2 (2012)

Grave Encounters is a found footage movie written and directed by The Vicious Brothers (AKA Colin Minihan and Stuart Ortiz) that was released last year to a pretty warm reception from horror fans. Of course, some people hated it (many are sick, by now, of the whole "found footage" subgenre anyway) but a lot of people were very impressed. I really enjoyed it but it was almost the very definition of a ghost train/funhouse movie. The jump scares were enjoyable, things were occasionally intense, but it didn't really live up to the promise that it had. In my view, anyway.

That didn't stop me from looking forward to this sequel. I was even more optimistic when I found out that the people involved, and John Poliquin is credited as the director this time, were going to be taking an interesting approach. They were going down the Book Of Shadows route which sounded just fine to me as I am one of the 5% of the population who loved that sequel to The Blair Witch Project.

Richard Harmon (a young man who looks far too much like Robert Pattinson for his own good, sadly) plays Alex Wright, a young man who uploads movie reviews on to the internet and also keeps people up to date on his own blossoming directorial career. He's directing a horror movie with some fellow students involved and he wants it to be something truly memorable. Hopefully, he can make it as memorable as Grave Encounters, a movie that he advised people wasn't really worth a watch but that has played on his mind ever since he saw it. In fact, Alex has become a bit obsessed and thinks that the events depicted in Grave Encounters really happened. When his online videos start receiving replies from a user going by the name of "deathawaits" he decides that he should follow his gut and find out more about the movie. He talks to a number of people and soon becomes more and more convinced that his theory - that the movie shows real events - is correct. But the final proof required will only be found by going to the location and checking it out. The five members making up the group have packed plenty that they think will see them a lot better prepared than the first group.

Surprising as it may seem, I enjoyed this even more than the first movie. The script by The Vicious Brothers is very clever and allows them to have their cake and eat it. When Book Of Shadows was released years ago anyone who liked the film, such as myself, would defend it by reminding people that simply providing another bunch of people getting lost in the woods would be a boring and horrible retread of the first film. In Grave Encounters 2, aspects of the first movie are looked at and the premise gradually moves to what viewers think will simply be a retread of the first movie before it all gets wilder and wilder. That's the real beauty of it. Grave Encounters set things up for a horror movie that had some crazy moments here and there but the sequel basically kicks into gear after half an hour or so and then says "well, if you thought THAT stuff was out there then just strap yourself in and enjoy this lot".

The cast aren't really great but they do good enough. Harmon carries most of the scenes but Stephanie Bennett, Leanne Lapp, Dylan Playfair and Howie Lai make up the full group bravely venturing where things do more than just go bump in the night. Fans of the first movie will be pleased to know that Sean Rogerson returns (though I won't say in what capacity) and has a lot of fun in his role as he gets to act quite differently from how he was in the first movie.

The first movie was enjoyable but slightly disappointing. This sequel has a better script, the courage of its convictions to completely run with the ideas put forward and ends up being slightly better. That's rare in the land of sequels. It's almost impossible in the land of horror sequels.

7/10

http://www.amazon.com/Grave-Encounters-2/dp/B009KOE64I/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1349374636&sr=8-4&keywords=grave+encounters+2

The Phantom Of The Opera

It's time to go back to the stage once again for a recommendation of, arguably, one of the most enduringly popular stage musicals to have entertained audiences in the last few decades. Oh yes, there are many other contenders and some fans of the theatre even frown upon something as popular as "Phantom" but there's no denying that it makes for a very worthwhile evening and provides more spectacle in two and a half hours than even the disappointing 2004 movie adaptation could provide. To put it simply, it deserves the praise that has been heaped upon it over the years.

In fact, I wasn't even going to put a review here because it feels quite redundant. Unlike the shows that I went to, and reviewed, during the Festival a couple of months ago, The Phantom Of The Opera really doesn't need help gaining positive word of mouth. However, I am now so in the habit of trying to review everything I see worth reviewing that to not even put a few words together for this stunning stage musical would have been a missed opportunity, if only for my own sense of self-satisfaction.

The story is known to most people. The Phantom (played in this production by Earl Carpenter) haunts the opera house, keeping himself hidden and letting everything go smoothly as long as things are done his way. He has been training up young Christine (played by either Katie Hall or Olivia Brereton) and wishes her to become a great success in a leading role. He also wishes that she might one day love him. Needless to say, the handsome Raoul (Simon Bailey) is against this plan because he is in love with Christine himself. A number of other people are against the plan because, well, because they already have experienced singers in place and don't want to spend their lives catering to every whim of The Phantom. Maybe a mishap or two, with the occasional unfortunate death, will change their minds.

Fans of the source material will already know that this is based on the novel 'Le Fantome de l'Opera' by Gaston Leroux. This particular production has been overseen by Matthew Bourne and Cameron Mackintosh, choreographed by Scott Ambler and directed by Laurence Connor. Special mention must be given to set designer Paul Brown but I will also go out of my way to remind folks that a production of this magnitude take the skill and talent of many, many people, all of them deserving recognition for their contribution.

Now I have to get my controversial statement out of the way; The Phantom Of The Opera is not a perfect musical. I've seen/heard much better. The first half contains the unforgettable titular tune and The Music Of The Night, both absolute highlights of the show, but the second half has very little that stands out after the opener, Masquerade. There are also major problems when different characters are brought into different songs with their themes intertwining. To me, it just didn't work and I was left frustrated by a) not hearing what certain characters were singing and b) having to endure a rather tuneless mix. Of course, I don't really mean that it was completely tuneless but it was certainly a horrible mess compared to what I was expecting. Thankfully, these moments are few and far between. But they are there.

Everything builds to a moving finale, a crescendo of both music and emotion. There is a little bit of humour here and there but the story is built on a macabre foundation and keeps a dark heart beating behind all of the exchanges and songs. This is also shown in the wonderful sets and when I say wonderful sets I mean WONDERFUL sets. In my limited exposure to live theatre shows, I have yet to see set design quite as impressive and interesting as this. Believe me, if I'd been able to sneak a decent camera in and take photographs every few minutes then this blog entry would have been a lot more picturesque. Sadly, it wasn't to be. I selfishly wanted to be allowed to stay in my seat and enjoy the whole show rather than be ejected from the theatre for breaking the rules.

The cast are all pretty fantastic. Earl Carpenter really wins over the whole audience as The Phantom, despite being such a cruel and bitter figure at times, and his singing is flawless. I must confess, and apologise, that I don't know if it was Katie Hall or Olivia Brereton playing Christine in the show I attended but whichever of the two it was - bravo. A likeable portrayal of the character and more flawless singing. Simon Bailey wasn't quite on the same level but he was very good nonetheless. Elizabeth Marsh was a little disappointing as Madame Giry but that didn't matter when there was so much to enjoy in the performances from Angela M. Caesar, Andy Hockley and Simon Green. Hannah Cadec doesn't get to do too much with her role, Meg Giry, but does it well while Vincent Pirillo, as Ubaldo Piangi, is another delight.

If you're sitting there and thinking just how I can write this review and have the sheer gall to criticise any element of an insitution created by Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber over 25 years ago then don't worry, I already gave myself a stern talking to while writing this piece. I felt bad, I really did, even putting down such minor criticisms but I always call 'em as I see 'em. It doesn't matter anyway. Those flaws pale into insignificance when the whole production piles spectacle upon spectacle and, for the duration of the show, audience members are taken from the heights of Box 5 to the dark and dangerous depths of the Paris Opera House.

*****

P.S. Fans of the show may like this sequel (??), Love Never Dies - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Love-Never-Dies-Double-Blu-ray/dp/B005QVVL2Y/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1349557260&sr=8-2

Tickets and tour dates are here, the show runs at The Edinburgh Playhouse from Thursday 20th September to Saturday 20th October - http://www.atgtickets.com/shows/phantom-of-the-opera-tickets/

The Woman In Black (1989)

Remade and released to great box office success in 2012 (that review is here), The Woman In Black is a very traditional ghost story adapted in a very traditional style from the novel by Susan Hill. Directed by Herbert Wise, and written by the very talented Nigel Kneale, I had high hopes indeed for this one. Sadly, it turns out that even though I didn't love the remake as much as some people did I have to say that I found it a more enjoyable experience than this version, overall.

That's not to say that there isn't plenty here to enjoy. It's a solid piece of work with at least one or two memorable scares. Adrian Rawlins stars as Arthur Kidd, a young solicitor who is sent by his demanding boss to settle the affairs of a deceased old woman. This means quite a journey and a few days away from his loving wife and children but Arthur must do what seems like the best for his career with the firm. When he gets to his destination he soon finds out that the old woman had no friends and that nobody will be attending her funeral, bar legal representatives. However, when Arthur turns around during the funeral service he spies one mourner - a woman in black (Pauline Moran) - but he seems to be the only one seeing her. When he goes to the house of the deceased woman to start sorting through her effects he soon finds himself scared out of his wits by strange noises and the occasional presence of . . . . . . . . . . The Woman In Black.

With a cast that also includes Bernard Hepton, John Cater and Fiona Walker, this isn't a TV movie full of big names but every role is perfectly cast. There are even great supporting turns from Steven Mackintosh and Andy Nyman (two of my favourite British actors). No, there's no denying that this is an earnest and handsome attempt to provide an intriguing story with a number of chills on a limited budget. It's not as terrifying as the infamous Ghostwatch or even as constantly eerie as The Stone Tape (another fine example of Nigel Kneale's writing) but it's still a very nice slice of spookiness that makes for perfect viewing on a dark, winter evening.

Director Herbert Wise doesn't do too badly, it's just a shame that the whole thing has to be kept well within the limits of what was acceptable for UK TV work back in the late 80s. With things ever so slightly amped up throughout, this could have been a terrifying experience. As it is, there is at least one scene that still haunts many people to this day (pun intended) and there's a very good ending but the rest of the film isn't all that memorable.

6/10

Sadly, The Woman In Black isn't available at a bargain price at the moment but if you have money to burn you can pick up a copy here.

Thankfully, you can also view it on YouTube for free here.

Bloodlust Zombies (2011)

Written and directed by Dan Lantz, who also stars as an office security guard, Bloodlust Zombies is a low budget slice of zombie action, as if you couldn't guess from the title. It features some blood and gore that seems cheap and fake, pretty bad acting from everyone involved (with the exception of Lauren Todd, who is stuck delivering some poor lines but makes her character a very likeable one) and a general feeling of the thing overstaying its welcome even though it just clocks in at about 72 minutes in length.

The problem with zombie movies nowadays would seem to be that everyone thinks they can make one for very little money and with very little effort. That's maybe being a bit harsh on Lantz, who does actually pepper his film with some amusing little moments and lines, but it's a fair point to make in an age when anyone can pick up a digital camera at a fairly cheap price and try to create something that they hope will launch their career in movies.

Bloodlust Zombies takes place entirely in one building, a building in which people have been making a biological weapon. Can you guess what that biological weapon does? Oh yes, this is something that has been created to drop on wartime enemies and make them mindlessly attack each other instead of American soldiers. The testing has gone well and the staff are celebrating with champagne and shenanigans when an accident occurs that puts the building into lockdown and starts a small scale zombie epidemic.

There are a number of people onscreen but most of them are hard to care about. Adam Danoff is occasionally amusing as a ridiculously horny male office worker, Lantz has some fun in his security guard role but spoils it by constantly bemoaning about how it should have been his day off (an obvious reference, I assume, to Clerks) and Robert Heath, Catherine White and Janice Marie are average at best in their roles. As mentioned above, it's only Lauren Todd who makes a good impression.

The biggest name in the cast is Alexis Texas, best known for her work in the adult movie industry. Thea Alexis Samper, to use her real name, couldn't have been picked for her acting because she is, I'm sorry to say, absolutely awful. She's easily the worst offender onscreen and it would seem that nobody told her that acting in movies requires a slightly different approach to acting in hardcore adult movies. In fact, I have no idea why she's in the movie. She spends quite a bit of her screentime topless but a) there are many actresses trying to make their way into movies that will do nudity so it couldn't have been hard to find someone sexy AND able to act and b) anyone wanting to see the lady in a state of undress will be able to see far more of her in the likes of Naughty College Schoolgirls 42, Bad Ass Booty, Apple Bottom Snow Bunnies and The Naughty Cheerleaders Club (all titles randomly selected from her filmography on IMDb and all titles I was completely unaware of until writing this view so keep your sniggering to a minimum, please).

So with the poor script, bargain basement production values, lack of characters to care about and a main role that allows for a porn start to . . . . . . . . . . . get topless what does the movie have to offer undemanding film fans? There are, as I said, a few amusing moments and lines in the script but that's about all that the film has going for it and it's not enough to make a viewing worthwhile. Far from the worst thing that I've ever seen, but that's only because I've seen so many really BAD movies over the years, but not one that I'd ever recommend to others.

3/10

http://www.amazon.com/Bloodlust-Zombies-Alexis-Texas/dp/B004ZQJ5I8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1349190857&sr=8-1&keywords=bloodlust+zombies

The Hamiltons (2006)

Ah, The Butcher Brothers. The assumed name (their real names are Mitchell Altieri and Phil Flores) clues you into the fact that these guys want to have fun and provide the goods for horror fans. The first movie I saw from them was the very enjoyable The Violent Kind and I then sat through their surprisingly tame remake of April Fool's Day. The Hamiltons is one the movie that, essentially, game them their big break. Directed by the boys, and co-written with Adam Weis, it made quite an impact while doing the rounds at numerous horror festivals and therefore I was expecting something pretty good when I finally got around to sticking the DVD into my player.

It WAS good but it's not something that I'd rave about or quickly recommend to others. The Hamiltons is all about a family unit fending for itself after the parents have passed away. David (Samuel Child) tries to play the father of the group while young Francis (Cory Knauf) does the typical, troubled teenager act. Twins Wendell (Joseph McKelheer) and Darlene (Mackenzie Firgens) don't help to keep things in a state of domestic bliss either, especially when they get carried away and kill people. Oh yeah, The Hamiltons have quite a big secret. They kill people, sometimes quickly and sometimes slowly. Are they a bunch of psychopaths or is there any method in their madness? It would seem to be the former but things aren't always what they seem.

It's hard to see exactly why so many people raved about this movie a few years ago. There is some nastiness shown onscreen, the dysfunctional family provides as much black humour as tension and there is one decent twist that makes everything feel a bit fresher than it actually is but it's not quite enough to make it into a fantastic entry into the horror genre.

First of all, the acting is a real mixed bag. Cory Knauf does well and I also enjoyed the exchanges between McKelheer and Firgens but Samuel Child is a bit of a weak link and one or two of the supporting players, such as Al Liner, stick out due to their inability to act naturally. Brittany Daniel is onscreen for a few minutes so that gets the film a bonus point right there (I'm a fan, so sue me).

Then we've got the script. It's okay, I suppose, but it doesn't really have one line that sticks in the memory after the credits have rolled. Not one.

The direction is competent and the material is well-handled but it's nothing, for the most part, that we haven't seen a hundred times before. A psycho family who have some victims chained up on their premises and are trying to deal with neighbours and visitors in a pleasant and civil manner while cracks are appearing in their thin facades? It makes up at least one scene in every psycho thriller out there and to be really effective nowadays it has to be played out with maximum tension or maximum nastiness. The Hamiltons does neither, which is why it ends up as a film that just rises above average. I almost rated it lower but The Butcher Brothers always seem to have good intentions so I am always willing to give them a little bit of leeway.

6/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Hamiltons-DVD-Cory-Knauf/dp/B000PY51Y6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1349130831&sr=8-1

Species (1995)

Species is a delirious b-movie given an (at the time, anyway) a-list cast. There are many ways in which the whole thing could be written off as complete nonsense unworthy of your time, and I'm sure that many people feel that way, but there are also many ways in which it just keeps piling on the fun until viewers give in and go along with the whole ridiculousness of it all.

The plot is all about contact with alien intelligence. Yep, scientists searching for extraterrestrial life have hit paydirt but this isn't so much a flowing dialogue as it is a fractured exchange of ideas. Earth has been sending up a message for a long time now and aliens finally respond with a formula that leads to a great new energy source. The second message from somewhere out in the universe contains information about alien DNA and how to splice it with human DNA. So the science folk give it a go. They end up with a young girl (Sil, played by Michelle Williams). Sadly, when Sil starts displaying some worrying behaviour in her sleep it's decided that the project must end. Which means destroying Sil with cyanide. Sil doesn't like that plan and escapes, just in time for her body to change as she metamorphasises into her adult form (Natasha Henstridge). She needs to be found and stopped so a team is assembled consisting of an anthropologist (Alfred Molina), an empath (Forrest Whitaker), a molecular biologist (Marg Helgenberger) and a mercenary (Michael Madsen). They are given their instructions by the team leader Xavier Fitch (Ben Kingsley) and the hunt is on. Meanwhile, the rapidly-maturing Sil starts to get broody.

Roger Donaldson directs from a script by Dennis Feldman that throws a few smart lines in with a number of laughable clunkers (the context of the moment that has Forrest Whitaker saying "something . . . . bad . . . happened here" remains one of my favourite unintentional laughs ever). Yet it seems clear throughout that all involved knew how preposterous the core idea was - a gorgeous alien is on the prowl for a mate while a group of folks try to get to her in time - and had a lot of fun with it.

The whole movie is lifted immensely by the presence of the gorgeous Natasha Henstridge in the lead role, as averse to clothing as she is beautiful. The rest of the cast all get to have at least one or two great moments - whether they are supporting actors being seduced by Henstridge, Whitakler and Molina enjoying a number of Long Island Iced Teas, Kingsley trying to stay cool and calm under increasing pressure, Helgenberger flirting with Madsen or Madsen just being a cool hardass.

But the big bonus that the movie has is the presence of the great H. R. Giger in the design department. Yes, the visionary who gave us the main creations in the Alien universe here lends his considerable talents to a project that sees him creating something equally arresting, even if the surrounding movie isn't quite the horror classic that the Ridley Scott film was. Not every film making use of such talent needs to be a classic and Species doesn't pretend to be anything more than it is - a gloriously demented, sexy, sci-fi horror with some great (and not so great) effects here and there, some enjoyable nastiness and a great main character.

8/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Species-Special-Edition-DVD/dp/B0002ADWYY/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1347484116&sr=8-3

The Amityville Horror (2005)

Ryan Reynolds and Melissa George play George and Kathy Lutz respectively in this remake of the much-loved 1979 haunted house movie. While it may lack some of the original's more memorable moments and Lalo Schifrin's haunting score it certainly does enough to entertain modern audiences and at least keeps the character of the house, and it's "face", intact.

Many people already know the (in)famous tale but for those who don't it's relatively simple to recap. A couple bought themselves a house with a troubled history (most notably, the murder of the DeFeo family by Ronald DeFeo, Jr) and only managed to stay there 28 days before fleeing a place they claimed was evil and full of demonic influence.

Let's be very clear about the aim of this movie; it's an entertaining horror and not meant to be an accurate depiction of something many people are already very well-informed about. Yes, it takes liberties with certain truths and even puts its own spin on certain character motivations but the gist of the matter is still all about the effect the house itself purportedly had on those living within and, in that regard, the film does a very good job.

One of the main, and most interesting, differences between this movie and the original is one of its strengths. The original Amityville movie was classed by many as a "mortgage horror", one of a subset of movies detailing how horror could impact on day-to-day activities and social standing, whereas the remake weaves a more interesting strand in adding to the financial strains the family experiences with the weight of Reynolds' character stepping into the shoes of a much-missed husband and father. This group dynamic really helps to create small divisive cracks that look set to become chasms with only the smallest of help from the malevolence residing in 112 Ocean Avenue.

Director Andrew Douglas doesn't do a bad job at all and, in fact, manages to create one or two moments that are arguably better than anything in the original movie. He gets decent performances from everyone involved, especially the child actors (though a bad child performance from Chloe Grace Moretz seems impossible now that we've seen her in so many great roles). Reynolds really only manages to show what he can do when allowed to show the darker side of George Lutz but he's very entertaining while he does it. Philip Baker Hall plays a priest, and you can imagine his presence not being very welcome in the house, while Rachel Nichols plays a pretty irresponsible babysitter who gets a comeuppance way too harsh for her misdeeds in a most memorable manner. Reynolds is probably the weakest of the cast members but it's unfair to really be too negative to the guy when he still manages to make so many scenes work as he gets more and more freedom to succumb to darkness.

Scott Kosar has crafted a screenplay that nicely updates the  material for a new generation. It has a lot of familiar moments for fans of the original movie but also hits a few, enjoyable, fresh beats and does plenty to avoid feeling like a pale imitation.

Many people have found that this was yet another horror movie remake they could easily complain about with an abundance of computer effects and a few scenes involving far too much snappy editing. It is easy to complain about, agreed, but it's also quite an easy movie to enjoy and provides some enjoyably entertaining scares in a way that may not change the face of the genre but may remind some people of the "ghost train" reaction they can get from simple, well-executed scares. It's also worth noting, in the film's defence, that one of the more tense sequences actually sticks to a simple set-up with no visible flashiness or major CG histrionics. I certainly enjoyed it and hope others do too, though it's definitely not a movie to be taken seriously and it's not for anyone interested in the argued actual history of the case (from the DeFeo murders to the Lutz's ordeal). Just turn on and let yourself be entertained for 90 minutes.

7/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Amityville-Horror-Ryan-Reynolds/dp/B000AND8L0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1348168741&sr=8-1

Captivity (2007)

The beautiful Elisha Cuthbert stars in this disappointing movie, one of many to try and make some money after the success of movies like Saw and Hostel. It's basically a thriller but there are enough moments of nastiness to edge it over into horror territory, albeit light horror territory (hardcore gorehounds should look elsewhere for their fix).

Elisha Cuthbert plays Jennifer, a beautiful young model who is kidnapped and awakens to find herself in a pretty secure holding "pen". Her kidnapper seems delighted to torture her in a variety of psychological ways and things only start to look ever so slightly brighter when Jennifer realises that she is not the only person being held against her will. There's a young man (Daniel Gillies) being kept in a room beside her and the two of them work together to try and make good their escape.

I didn't hate Captivity and I could, if I had to, watch it again but let me be clear about something - that's only because of the presence of Elisha Cuthbert, a gorgeous woman who would I would marry today if it wasn't for the fact that a) I'm already happily married, b) I'm probably not her type and c) the restraining order forbids such a joining together, as well as stopping me from ever walking along her street again.

Captivity is just lame. There are a couple of decent moments throughout but barely enough to keep the average viewer alert and interested. The script by Larry Cohen and Joseph Tura is pretty weak, for the most part, and things only pick up in a third act that throws in a couple of twists and turns that don't really surprise as they should. It's a shame because I like Larry Cohen, as do many other horror and thriller fans, but this is far from his best work.

Director Roland Joffe isn't particularly well-suited to the material and it shows. He fails to create any tension, the few fake-out moments cause groans as opposed to gasps and everything feels safe and slick as opposed to full of potential danger. It's watchable but it's a thriller with no real thrills.

Elisha Cuthbert is lovely in the lead, absolutely convincing as a young, attractive woman who makes money from looking young and attractive. Daniel Gillies is okay in his role though he proves to be quite disappointing as things unfold. Pruitt Taylor Vince is pretty good, as he so often is, and Laz Alonso and Michael Harney do just fine with their small amount of screentime.

There are, of course, a lot of movies out there that are a lot worse than this one. There are certainly a lot worse movies that have been "inspired" by the Saw franchise (*cough* Nine Dead *cough*). That doesn't change the fact, however, that this one is simply average at best.

5/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Captivity-Blu-ray/dp/B002BD9DN4/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1346921917&sr=8-2