Black Devil Doll From Hell (1984)

There are moments in your life that make you pause and take stock of everything that you know and love. When you're a movie lover those moments tend to happen during amazing 10/10 movies and complete stinkers. Such a moment happened to me during my viewing of Black Devil Doll From Hell and, let me tell you, this is no 10/10 flick.

The plot, after some horrible and drawn out opening credits, concerns a young black woman (Shirley L. Jones) who buys a black doll from a charity shop and proceeds to have some freaky dreams. Those dreams seem all too real, despite the fact that they involve her making sweet, sweet lovin' to the doll. Once passion is aroused it takes more than just a sex dream or two to quench it and the woman sets about finding some young men to have sex with, desperate to recapture the feeling from her close encounter with the doll. That's the plot. Really.

Even at only 70 minutes in length, with at least 10 minutes of that time used up by the opening and closing credits, this is overlong and a struggle to get through. Absolutely every aspect of the movie, from the script to the acting to the audio quality to the framing of most shots, is unbelievably inept. Writer-director Chester Novell Turner (who also produced, edited, created the irritating score and can generally be blamed for the whole thing) has given the world something unique, a movie about sex between a woman and a doll that's unremittingly dull.

It's so slight and without redeeming features that I can barely drag this review out much further. Thankfully, the premise was reworked into something that at least had plenty of humour and a LOT more gratuitous nudity, Black Devil Doll, and the fact that it led to someone making something better is the only reason that I've doubled the final rating.

2/10

For anyone insane enough to want to own this film I DID find a website selling a DVD release but I have no idea if the site is still fully functional and able to sell so I'd advise anyone to establish contact with the seller before deciding on any further action. Well, after advising them not to buy it in the first place. So here is the link for the old VHS edition just now.

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Devil-Doll-From-Hell/dp/B0019NEAW6/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1337031189&sr=8-4

Alice In Wonderland (1951)

Alice's Adventures In Wonderland by Lewis Carroll is, in my opinion, the greatest book ever written for children. It's a brisk story full of memorable characters and moments of creative brilliance. The sequel is pretty good too. The movie version by Tim Burton, on the other hand, was a horribly inept attempt to put some of that magic onscreen (my unhappy review for that one is here). Of course, that's not the only version of the tale that has been put forth over the years. Like many other enduring classics, Alice's Adventures In Wonderland has been filmed on a number of occasions, sometimes with a number of twists (and, yes, there's at least one porn riff) and sometimes in a straightforward manner. It will probably come as no surprise, considering how well the material suits the studio, that this 1951 animated version from Disney still easily ranks as one of the, if not THE, very best.

If you don't know the story by now then what the hell did you do during your entire childhood? Young Alice goes chasing after a white rabbit who is concerned about his timekeeping, falls down a rabbit hole and ends up in Wonderland, a place where people celebrate un-birthday days, a Cheshire cat can appear and disappear at leisure, Tweedledum and Tweedledee reside, drink and food can change your size and much, much more.

The vocal work here is very good from all involved - Kathryn Beaumont, the wonderful Ed Wynn, Bill Thompson (probably most recognisable to many cartoon fans as the voice of Droopy), Pat O'Malley and many others get the opportunity to voice some of the most memorable characters in children's literature and they all do a wonderful job.

Three directors were also involved with this film and a hell of a lot of writers (at least a dozen, if my maths is correct) but the final product just reflects a group of animators and actors all having fun and conveying that to audiences. Alice In Wonderland is inspired lunacy from start to finish, just as the books are.

I think that's maybe why I liked the original material so much, and why I always will. It's really all about refusing to conform to the accepted norm and shows how much fun people can have when they just embrace moments of insanity. Everything in moderation, of course, and that's a message that infuses the final act. But by that point we all know one thing for certain - going down the rabbit hole is something we all secretly yearn to do, at some time in our lives.

8/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Alice-In-Wonderland-Animation-Special/dp/B004HYGYI2/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1336084513&sr=8-2

The Noose Hangs High (1948)

Another Abbott & Costello movie directed by Charles Barton, The Noose Hangs High is pretty much a joy from start to finish. Even if you're not a big fan of the central duo this one should keep you entertained as it moves from routine to routine with the laughs coming thick and fast.

What's in the mix for this outing then? Well, there's a toothache, mistaken identity, gambling, verbal dexterity and an absolutely wonderful sequence in which the two leads try to get themselves arrested.

The one minor complaint to note is that a lot of the better gags and routines aren't new to anyone who has seen some of the A & C movies from the past but that doesn't matter when they're slotted in so nicely here and performed with such skill. The bet that is made to prove that someone present is actually "not here" is Abbott & Costello doing what they do best. Then there's the routine that sees Lou being confused as someone explains to him how a horse eats its fodder and how some male horses can make great mudders. Last, but by no means least, we have an exchange between A & C that covers a variety of topics from Lou boring holes in walls to disliking mustard and causing mass unemployment to dating a much younger woman to being in a train station with no destination in mind (just see it and all will become clear).

The cast all do great. This is focused on the leads for the majority of the runtime but Cathy Downs is a lovely lady, Joseph Calleia plays the tough guy strong-arming the main duo and Leon Errol is an eccentric with the best luck in the world.

John Grant and Howard Harris are the main writers but about five other names are attached to the process (from story to screenplay). As surprising as it is, this actually just makes the whole thing zippier and more full of gags as opposed to a big, sprawling mess. That may be in no small part due to the direction from the consistently capable Charles Barton, a man rightfully acknowledged as being able to get the best out of A & C.

If you're a fan of great comedy then this is definitely one to watch, even if you don't consider yourself necessarily a fan of those involved.

8/10

http://www.amazon.com/The-Noose-Hangs-High-Abbott/dp/B0007O38ZI

Altered States (1980)

Altered States is a Ken Russell movie and that means it has some entertaining weirdness. If you've ever seen a Ken Russell movie then you should know to expect some entertaining weirdness. If you haven't seen a Ken Russell movie before then you've been warned. Appropriately mourned by film fans when he passed away at the end of 2011, Ken Russell was a man of vision and daring. You might not always like his work but you'll be damned if it's easily forgotten.

The plot of this movie concerns a scientist (William Hurt) conducting experiments on himself with the use of sensory deprivation equipment and a hallucinogenic substance. The results are astounding and unexpected, leading the scientist to believe that he may actually be witnessing lifeforms from way back in time. In fact, he also believes that he is physiologically altered during his sessions. This is something that his colleague/helper (Bob Balaban) doesn't want to believe and neither does the man allowing them to use his lab space (played by Charles Haid). As the experiments continue, everyone becomes more and more worried about the sanity of the scientist. His wife (Blair Brown) can't stop him and fears for his mind but becomes even more worried when she allows herself to be convinced that maybe he's telling the truth.

There's plenty of psychobabble and philosophical musings here, thanks to the script by Paddy Chayefsky (adapting his own novel), and Ken Russell compliments the words with surreal and truly bizarre visuals. The effects throughout are pretty good, often wrapped in a shroud of drug-induced haze.

The onslaught of strange ideas and strange imagery may have been too much to bear if Russell hadn't managed to get himself a great cast to hang everything on. Hurt is, of course, a great actor and someone who possesses the intelligence to convince in a role such as this one. Bob Balaban, Blair Brown and Charles Haid all lend great support and the way they are torn between helping out a brilliant scientist and wanting to keep him safe is fairly well realised, considering the outlandishness of the central premise.

Funnily enough, for those more familiar with the work of Russell, this is actually a more straightforward movie from the man compared to many of his other films. Yet it still has plenty of individuality and personality, certainly enough for you to recognise it as the product of a film-maker who was never less than interesting.

7/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Altered-States-DVD/dp/B000B7KXN6

In The Woods (1999)

In The Woods is so cringeworthy, so awful, so poorly acted, so incompetent in so many ways, so full of terrible dialogue that it's one of those bad movies that becomes comedy gold. Unfortunately, for me it's never the kind of comedy gold that makes you forgive it for all of the sins and clutch it to your heart and rewatch it every time you have a movie-themed party night. But I know that the man who recommended it to me would say otherwise, and I'm sure that he'd be able to gather quite a decent group of supporters.

It's the fact that the movie isn't COMPLETELY inept on every single level that just stops this from transforming into something really superb. Writer-director Lynn Drzick actually knows where to point the camera most of the time. Sadly, that would appear to be the limit of her knowledge as she doesn't seem able to wring even half-decent performances from a cast of uniformly terrible actors and her script is one of the most laughable things I've encountered on film since watching The Room.

I guess I should still attempt to describe the ridiculous plot. Alex Kerwood (D. J. Perry) is a firefighter who turns to the bottle whenever things get too stressful, much to the upset of his wife, Helen (Aimee Tenaglia). At the start of the movie we see Alex leaving a burning building and lashing out at people because someone died. He turns to drink to take the edge off the day. When Alex then goes for a day hunting with Wayne (Jim Greulich) everything takes a turn for the worse when the pair find a grave and Wayne insists on digging the thing up, in an effort to possibly find one of the victims of a killer who has been terrorising the area. Something chases the pair through the woods and they then turn to drink to take the edge off the day. It's not long before body parts are being left in the vicinity of Alex's house and big, bad, stuffed toys are causing havoc and . . . . . . . . . . . you'll probably end up having to turn to drink to take the edge off the day.

There are too many choice moments to tell you about here, too many examples of how laughably dire this whole thing is, I just can't single anything out. Well, maybe one or two highlights would include: the performance of Rachel Walker as she tries to win the award for absolute worst acting in a cast full of terrible actors, the "special" effects used throughout and, my own personal favourite, a serial killer who lets a couple of loose fingers spill from his bag while he's getting money out to pay for a new knife. You're possibly already laughing hard at what I've just told you but, I assure you, it's very, very true.

If you know what to expect from this awful movie then you'll still get some entertainment value from it. Everyone else should approach it with extreme caution or avoid it altogether.

2/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/In-Woods-DVD-D-J-Perry/dp/B000OCYEFG/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1334609268&sr=1-1

The Haunting In Connecticut (2009)

I used to absolutely love haunted house movies. They would always entertain me and also scare the pants off me at the same time. The Amityville Horror (both versions), The Changeling, The Legend Of Hell House and The Haunting (1963) are a few of my favourites. Yet the tide of my opinion has been turning over the past 5-10 years. I think the fact that so many of them nowadays are labelled "based on a true story" or "based on the horrifying truth" or "based on the book based on the facts told to the neighbour by some previous owners" has turned me against them. Because, it seems, the more that they purport to be based on fact the easier it is to spot how false it all feels.

Here are a few common factors to spot in any modern haunted house movie "based on a true story" - the family is already under some kind of stress (emotional or financial), someone always helps them when things get a lot worse and, coincidentally, when the family unit is weakened. Kids are usually at the epicentre of events (this is often explained away by the fact that puberty and raging hormones encourages supernatural activity or some other hogwash). And, of course, most of the facts are based on testimonies as opposed to any actual, ummmm, evidence.

Like Mulder, I still want to believe. It's just getting harder and harder to remain a wannabe believer.

This movie doesn't help.Written by Adam Simon and Tim Metcalfe, and directed by Peter Cornwell, it checks off all of the factors just mentioned and then puts them together to create something dull, unscary, predictable and borderline incompetent (just count the amount of "jump" scares that don't work because of the way that the camera moves and/or scene blocking indicate what's about to occur).

It's a shame because this movie wastes a damn good cast. Virginia Madsen is always someone I enjoy watching onscreen (and sorry to be so shallow but is she getting even finer in her 50s??) while Martin Donovan is solid enough. They play the parents to a cancer-stricken young man played by the excellent Kyle Gallner. Amanda Crew is an acceptable young actress and then we have a supporting turn from the superb Elias Koteas. They're all left floundering.

The poor script isn't laughably bad but it's just dull and seems to be two steps behind the viewer. The CGI is sometimes okay but usually overdone and distractingly fake. The direction is awful. The only fact that rings true by the time the end credits roll is that you shouldn't waste your time on this.

3/10.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Haunting-in-Connecticut-the-DVD/dp/B0027UY836

Plan 9 From Outer Space (1959)

If you haven't heard of this movie then you've led a very sheltered life. Plan 9 From Outer Space is often referred to as "the worst movie ever made" and when you watch the thing you can't help but think of that title. It makes it hard to take the movie seriously and yet it also makes it hard to hate.

The story is standard b-movie fare in some ways - aliens come down to Earth in flying saucers, fly around scaring folks and also reanimate corpses to . . . . . . . scare more folks. The real laughs come when you find out the motivation for all of this and see/hear the plot developments during the second half. It's so preposterous that I properly laughed out loud on a couple of occasions.

The man behind this cinematic lowpoint is, as many of you will already know, Edward D. Wood Jr. AKA Ed Wood. He directed the thing, and shows some tiny iota of competence despite the cheap design, all-too-fake props, bad acting and lack of continuity, but he also wrote the thing, which helps to overshadow that one tiny iota of competence. I've seen a LOT of bad movies (and, for the record, I don't think this is the worst thing I've ever watched) but I can't think of any that have suffered from such a poor script. When the events aren't being narrated as they occur onscreen we get some of the most inane conversations that you'll ever hear outside of any live Big Brother coverage.

The cast includes the brilliantly-monikered Dudley Manlove, the lumbering giant known as Tor Johnson, an old and frail Bela Lugosi, the lady known as Vampira and a selection of other people, some of whom at least try to work with the absurd material and some of them who don't even seem to do that.

The special effects look like they've been made by someone who couldn't even win a Blue Peter badge for themselves, the actions of the characters are almost as bad as the lines of dialogue given to each, Tom Mason is a terrible stand-in for Bela Lugosi and the material bookending the main storyline is ridiculous. I'm sure there are people who could easily nominate this as the worst movie that they've ever seen but I'm not one of them. I was never bored and I couldn't help having some affection for this filmed failure. I still have to say that it's very, very bad though. Just not the worst.

3/10.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Plan-From-Outer-Space-DVD/dp/B00005KH0Y

The Alley Cats (1966)

Directed by Radley Metzger and written by Peter Fernandez, The Alley Cats shows you "the swinging sixties like you've never seen them" according to the DVD cover. Which would be correct if by 1966 people hadn't already seen folk freaking out to crazy tunes and then bedhopping like nymphomaniac rabbits. But isn't that what we've always seen of/associated with the swinging sixties. Those who were around at the time lived it, even if they can't remember most of it, and those who grew up in later years were told and shown just how it was. A mixture of free spirits, free love and freeing fashions.

The Alley Cats gives you all that you would expect as a "time capsule" from this era but it somehow manages to make all of the shenanigans, the sexual encounters and the fluid sexuality incredibly boring. Hard as that may be to believe, this is a dull, dull movie that proves to be about as erotically charged as an episode of Thunderbirds.

Anne Arthur plays Leslie, a young woman who suspects her fiance Logan (Charlie Hickman) of not being entirely faithful to her. Logan, to be fair, isn't being entirely faithful to her as he likes playing around with Leslie's friend, Agnes (Karin Field). Because popular TV shows such as Jerry Springer, The Jeremy Kyle Show, etc weren't around at this time, Leslie decides to solve her problem by "dallying" with Christian (Harald Baerow).  And Irena (Sabrina Koch) isn't looking too unattractive either.

There is nothing I can say about The Alley Cats that really needs to be said. If you see it then you probably won't run screaming from the room, asking for someone to douse your flaming eyeballs. But you probably won't want to ever see it again either. It's just rubbish, quite frankly, but disappointingly bland and inoffensive rubbish. Which, when you think about it, is almost the worst kind of rubbish.

3/10.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Alley-Cats-DVD-US-NTSC/dp/B00000JWWS

Buck Privates Come Home (1947)

Following on from, as if you couldn't guess, Buck Privates, this Abbott & Costello vehicle sees our two leads trying to adjust to civilian life after their stint in the armed forces. This is made a bit trickier by their plan to keep and look after a young illegal immigrant named "Evie" (Beverly Simmons) and by the fact that they haven't really got any trade to fall back on besides their usual quick sales/con work.

Even more so than their other vehicles, Buck Privates Come Home has an air of comfortable familiarity about it. It's a sequel that spends the first few minutes introducing the lead characters with some footage from the earlier movie before going on to recreate the chemistry of that film. Bud and Lou are still the troublemakers with good intentions, Sgt. Collins (Nat Pendleton again) is still the authority figure trying to put a stop to their antics and there are a number of decent comedy moments that are stretched almost to breaking point. Okay, you could almost give that description to every Abbott & Costello movie ever made but the interaction between A & C and Pendleton here works as well as it did the first time around and it feels like a very smooth continuation despite the gap of over half a decade.

Director Charles Barton, working with the script by John Grant, Frederic I. Rinaldo and Robert Lees, does just fine with the material. Lou Costello may have regressed slightly with each movie, going from an innocent and all-too-trusting manchild to a dumb and incompetent  baby, but that fault (for those who view it as such) lies with the development of his comedy persona rather than the director having to shoehorn the personalities into a film. The leads all do their stuff, little Beverly Simmons is a bright young thing and Tom Brown and Joan Shawlee provide decent support.

It's a shame that there isn't more of the better A & C material in this movie but I must admit that the delivery of the standard slapstick and gentler comedy is very well done. It makes for a decent sequel to Buck Privates and an enjoyable vehicle for the comedy duo.

7/10.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Abbott-Costello-Privates-Comin-Mountain/dp/B000GLKNR8/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1333035636&sr=1-1

Four Flies On Grey Velvet (1971)

Fans of Steve Martin, Woody Allen and Dario Argento all have one thing in common. They seem to spend a lot of their time wondering just when their favourites will return to the top form of their earlier efforts. Steve Martin has occasionally almost made audiences forget about the awful Bringing Down The House (okay, okay, I quite enjoyed that one, so sue me), Woody Allen has received apparently well-deserved praise for Midnight In Paris (which I have queued up and ready to watch at some point in the next few weeks) and Dario Argento has . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . well, let's be honest now, he's not really offered his loyal fans anything promising for quite some time. Or am I forgetting something major? If you could enjoy The Card Player, but not love it, then you're on a par with myself. I think his last excellent movie, from the few recent efforts I have seen, was Sleepless but even that one didn't please all of his fans. Not by a long shot.

Despite what some will tell you, not every earlier Argento movie was/is a bona fide classic. He certainly did his best work before the change of the century but giallo fans who have more than a passing knowledge of the subgenre will be able to provide you with a list of names of directors they feel have created a body of work superior to the Argento selection. That's not to take anything away from the man, it's just that perspective is needed when viewing and reviewing his work. I still love many of his movies and I still feel that his better films - Deep Red, Suspiria, Tenebrae, Opera etc - rank up there with the best that the genre has to offer. But that still doesn't mean that there aren't people who can do better.

Four Flies On Grey Velvet is a perfect example of the best of Argento mixed in with a few negatives.

The story, with a screenplay by Argento based on the story that he wrote with Luigi Cozzi and Mario Foglietti,  is twisted and interesting enough - a young man (Roberto, played by Michael Brandon) confronts someone that he believes has been stalking him for a few days, a scuffle ensues and then the "stalker" is accidentally killed. This whole incident has been photographed and the photographer now blackmails Roberto and becomes more and more menacing, also causing some more deaths. Things build to a tense and revelatory finale.

The direction showcases fluid and stylish camerawork that would become, arguably, Argento's main trademark throughout the 70s, 80s and 90s with some amusing camera shots from such strange positions as the inside of a guitar, etc. There are also some enjoyable set-pieces, though nothing really on a par with his best work (with the exception of the very last moments of the film).

The acting is okay. Brandon does what is required, as do the likes of Mimsy Farmer, Jean-Pierre Marielle, Bud Spencer and the other cast members. But okay isn't good enough when the movie is full of too many moments that highlight the weaknesses in between the strengths. The script isn't all that great and a bit of editing could have really helped this whole film become a much more enjoyable, more streamlined thriller/horror. Just when you think things are getting better something comes along to undermine the tension, be it poor character choices or just banal dialogue exchanges.

I recommend this movie, especially to fans of Argento (of course), but it's not the best example of a movie of this type. It's not even in the top 5 Argento movies of this type, in my opinion. Nonetheless, this is a good film with an abundance of style and ingenuity. And some musical input from Ennio Morricone.

7/10.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Four-Flies-Velvet-Uncut-remastered/dp/B005PM6M50/ref=sr_1_2?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1332972873&sr=1-2

Cinderella (1950)

I don't think there are too many people around, over the age of 5 or 6 years old, who don't know the story of Cinderella. It's a classic fairytale and has that status nowadays almost as much due to this Disney movie as to the enduring source material.

I had known of this film for many years but, as is sometimes the way, I'd never seen it. When I was young I went out of my way to seek out more boy-friendly fare. I mean, what young boy wants to see a film about a girl wanting to meet a prince when there's a chance to watch The Goonies instead? Not me, that was for sure. Which is a shame because I've now, at long last, seen this movie and fallen in love with it.

The usual number of directors and writers are involved, adapting the tale by Charles Perrault, and the usual quality shines through in every frame as we watch Cinderella look after her horrible stepmother and step-sisters and get her hopes up when the announcement is made that there's going to be a fancy ball at the palace. Things don't really look good for poor old Cinders, who at least has the friendship of many of the animals around her (the mice and a dog, anyway), but it only takes a little Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo to turn things around.

I think the best word I can use to describe Cinderella is "lovely" but then most people will just think that I'm being polite. So I'll say that it's "really lovely". Once this movie begins you are transported into the onscreen world and invited to watch a wonderful collection of characters, both human and non-human. It's an absolute delight from start to finish. The voice cast is good, if unmemorable when not singing one of the wonderful musical moments, but the real asset that the movie has is the sheer quality and care of the animation and characterisations. I actually forgot I was watching a cartoon for most of this film, which doesn't happen all that often. It's a beautiful gem, a deserving jewel in Disney's crown, and feels like an extra special treat after the numerous "package films" that Disney was forced to release during  the 1940s.

If you think you know this film because you've seen so many clips of it and you can sing along with the most memorable song then I implore you to actually watch the whole thing and get to know it properly.

9/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cinderella-Special-Edition-Ilene-Woods/dp/B000ANDA9K/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1332879688&sr=1-1

All The Colors Of The Dark (1972)

A woman starts to, perhaps, lose her sanity after a period of time in which she is afflicted by recurring nightmares and visions of a man stabbing her to death. Her partner is supportive but also critical of her attempts to sort out the problem. Perhaps he has something to hide or maybe he is just sharing the pain that stems from the car crash they were in that led to the woman having a miscarriage. Regardless of how sane or insane the woman is, or how guilty or innocent the man is, things get stranger and more dangerous.

All The Colors Of The Dark is a decent film. It's stylish and has moments of tension in the second half, building up to a decent finale. It also has a nice mix of straightforward giallo moments and some very surreal, nightmarish sequences. The screenplay isn't bad but this is very much a movie to be watched and appreciated by fans of the director, Sergio Martino. Martino has a nice touch for the material and keeps things watchable and interesting without ever feeling the need to throw some blood all over the screen every few minutes. This sense of restraint means that the film may not please horror fans who simply like the blood and gore elements of the genre but it should certainly please anyone who enjoys stylish and offbeat thriller fare.

Then we have the cast, components of the movie I have deliberately avoided mentioning until now. George Hilton isn't bad as Richard Steele, the man trying to help his girlfriend but not really sure how to go about it, but this movie gets extra points every time the gorgeous Edwige Fenech is onscreen. In mental turmoil or not, Fenech is very possibly one of THE most beautiful women to have ever made her name within the horror genre (or, more specifically, the giallo subgenre) and her presence can elevate any movie. I'd go so far as to say that any movie featuring Fenech in a main role becomes, ultimately, an Edwige Fenech film. Hell, even her cameo in Hostel: Part II gave that film a couple of bonus brownie points. Nieves Navarro, Marina Malfatti, George Rigaud, Ivan Rassimov and many others do good work but they're all sidelined whenever Miss Fenech takes centre stage.

I am biased, obviously, with my love for Miss Fenech colouring my opinion of this movie. But show me a handful of horror fans who don't feel the same way and I'll kindly turn them away and ask them to come back when they've been on the planet for another decade or so. Putting my love for the lead actress aside (oh, if only it were that easy), I recommend this as a good film for anyone who enjoys a stylish and offbeat thriller.

7/10

http://www.amazon.com/All-Colors-Dark-George-Hilton/dp/B0002JP2SO

Harold & Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay (2008)

Just like the first Harold & Kumar movie, this has grown on me since my first viewing. It just hasn't grown on me all that much. I think it's pretty funny in places, sure, but it's not as good as the first film by quite a margin.

Despite the title, the plot doesn't actually revolve around our two leads (once again played by John Cho and Kal Penn) escaping from Guantanamo Bay. Oh, that actually does happen but it happens for only a few minutes. The rest of the movie consists of the boys staying ahead of the zealous law enforcement official (Rob Corddry) who believes them to be terrorist scum. And that's really all you need to know.

Following on immediately from the events of the first movie, the direction is this time handled by writers Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg, there's plenty here that will entertain fans of the original. It's just a shame that most of it is recycled from the first film with the whole thing having an longer runtime and lesser gag ratio.

Some moments still stand out: Neil Patrick Harris is hilarious once again, Christopher Meloni returns to play a Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan, an attempt to draw information out of Harold and Kumar's parents allows Ed Helms to have some fun and Rob Corddry is almost always funny when onscreen (something that can't be said of most of his other movie roles).

While the script isn't as sharp this time around and while the concept may feel like they've already slightly outstayed their welcome, the movie is raised up by yet another great collection of actors all joining in with the fun, even for the smallest of cameo roles. As well as our leads, NPH, Corddry, Helms and Meloni we get David Krumholtz and Eddie Kaye Thomas returning, Roger Bart is good fun, Beverly D'Angelo is always a pleasure to see onscreen (is there anyone who grew up in the 80s who didn't have a crush on her as Ellen Griswold?) and James Adomian shows a lighter side to George W. Bush.

The sad fact is that this makes some mistakes common to most sequels but, thankfully, it also still has enough to keep things watchable and amusing. Just.

6/10.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Harold-Kumar-Escape-Guantanamo-Bay/dp/B001B8CBPC

Born To Raise Hell (2010)

It's been a long and dark path to this point but I'm finally here. This is, until more are released (*shudder*) the last Steven Seagal film that I will have to view and review in my quest to view his complete filmography. Okay, I missed one that was really, really close to impossible to find and I am treating myself to the full 4 minutes of Sheep Impact next week but, essentially, I'm done. And what a giddying feeling it is. It's that last day of school, the time when you got to take in games and didn't have to worry about learning anything other than who had all of the best toys every year. It's that day at work when the boss tells you that there's nothing more to be done for the day and suggests an extended pub lunch. It's a small moment of sheer joy. But before I relax completely . . . . . . . the review needs written.

Actually, there's very little point in writing a review of a movie so tired and bland. It's strange, and more than a little sad, to see that Seagal has taken a step or two back after he seemed to be moving forward with his recent movie choices. He's gone from being a mystery men well versed in the ways of the East to a mystery man well versed in the ways of the Eastern Europeans and Russian mafia types. That's all we have in this film. A bunch of people shoot at each other, Seagal's partner actually goes out of his way to tell him all about how he's due to be a father soon and glimpses of female nudity are interspersed here and there.

The saving grace is the fact that the action does have some decent moments and the tone is gritty and violent even in between the set-pieces. Director Lauro Chartrand may share some of the blame but it's unsurprising to find that this is another movie also written by Seagal, full of incoherence and a lack of care unless it relates directly to something that leads to the leading man kicking and punching people. Dan Badarau is okay, if I'm feeling generous, as Dimitri but I'm not even going to waste time writing about anyone else involved - a bunch of interchangeable rent-a-bods who don't make any impression thanks to a mix of weak material and poor acting.

Just when Seagal fans may have been getting their hopes up, considering a bit of a career resurgence, along comes this movie to make their optimism vanish.

4/10.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Born-To-Raise-Hell-DVD/dp/B003YXZH8A/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1332282326&sr=1-1

Jessicka Rabid (2010)

Jessicka Rabid is a gritty, low-fi, downright unpleasant slice of nastiness. The central concept alone makes it an essential viewing for fans of the sick and twisted - a trio of family members (the ever-excellent Trent Haaga, Jeff Sisson and Cisiany Olivar) make alternately nice and nasty with Jessicka (Elske McCain), a woman they keep caged up and treat as a family pet until they get horny and want to have sex with her.

Sadly, the execution is somewhat lacking. The script and direction by Matthew Reel, based on the concept by star Elske McCain, is pretty weak and leaves viewers frustrated and wishing that they coulf jump into the screen and help with the camerawork. Making an asset out of a low-budget with the look and feel of a movie is all well and good but making the film a headache-inducing feat of endurance is just going a bit too far (unless you're aiming for something like Driller Killer, which this isn't).

Thankfully, the performances help make the movie watchable. Jeff Sisson and Cisiany Olivar are very good but I was most pleased, as a fan of everything I see him participate in, to see Trent Haaga on good form yet again. Elske McCain deserves the most praise though, her performance is genuinely impressive and at times she's almost heart-breaking in the way that she naively puts up with the treatment of her "owners".

It's just a shame that the concept wasn't given the treatment it deserved, perhaps McCain and Reel went too far in another direction to differentiate their movie from Haaga's own Deadgirl (a superior movie with a number of similarities).

If I was only rating this movie on the execution of the material and the style then I'd probably, and generously give it a 3/10 (mainly because of the inspired use of some old footage). But for the cast members I always enjoy seeing, and for the great lead performances, I'm going to double up.

6/10.

http://www.amazon.com/Jessicka-Rabid-Jason-Foster/dp/B0054WPWQG

Creepies (2003)

Anyone familiar with the wonderful comic creation of Garth Marenghi will get a lot of pleasure from this film, especially if you ever saw the TV show "Man To Man With Dean Learner" and laughed your ass off at the clip displayed of "War Of The Wasps", a fictional movie that Garth Marenghi was saddened to never have finished. Creepies IS "War Of The Wasps" but with big spiders instead of wasps. I'm absolutely serious.

Normal spiders can be creepy and horrible so making them big is often an easy way to get some good horror material. Hell, I even enjoyed the laughable Spiders and The Giant Spider Invasion. Creepies is like a combination of those two movies made on a budget of $50 with an assortment of old props the crew salvaged from the set of the Thunderbirds TV show. I remember many years ago when I used to sit up, playing Resident Evil on the PSOne with all of the lights out. Infected dogs jumping through a window made me jump out of my skin but I got REALLY scared when my onscreen character wandered into a room covered in webs. When a large tarantula burst in and I had to defeat it to continue with the game I was genuinely tense. That tarantula, way back in the 32-bit games console era, was scarier than anything seen in Creepies.

But only one of the titles already mentioned features this classic line of dialogue: "Yeah, well, before you pat yourself on the back I remind you that we got a spider the size of J-Lo's ass in Hollywood". Oh yes, Creepies starts off bad and gets worse in a way that leads to comedy greatness. This was the best bad movie that I've seen in some time.

I think many people misunderstand me sometimes. I KNOW how bad this film is, I know that many people would give up on it as a lost cause and I know that it doesn't deserve to sit alongside most of the other movies that it may share shelf space with one day. But I also know that it's bloody hilarious, I know that at least some of the humour is intentional (as long with some references to other movies - also pretty amusing, especially the Jaws moment) and I know that director Jeff Leroy and writer Eric Spudic tried to make up for their lack of budget with enthusiasm and affection. Which, for me, is something deserving a bit of goodwill, even if the movie gets almost everything wrong.

The acting stinks. I apologise is anyone involved reads this (though I seriously doubt that they will) but I think everyone was picked for . . . . . . . . . . . . their cost-effectiveness as opposed to actual acting talent. Though in the case of Ron Jeremy, in the movie for all of a few minutes, it's clear that he was only picked for being Ron Jeremy. Lisa Jay, Jeff Ryan, Phoebe Dollar, Calley Edmunds and everyone else onscreen plays second fiddle to the awful special effects mixing unconvincing rubber spiders with unconvincing special effects.

What more can I say? Do I mention the moment when a couple of people think they're safe from spiders because they've used a ladder to get higher in the building? Or the scene that features a spider communicating to the other spiders and giving orders to destroy humans? If you want some giggles then watch this and enjoy it as I did. If you want realism, however, you may as well opt for A Town Called Panic.

5/10.

http://www.amazon.com/Creepies-Ron-Jeremy/dp/B0009U5FUG/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1402449817&sr=1-1&keywords=creepies

Episode 50 (2011)

Another week goes by and another "found footage" movie rolls past my eyes, this time it's the potentially interesting Episode 50, a film that I was hoping could work as well as Grave Encounters. It couldn't. In fact, many of the flaws in this movie highlight just how good Grave Encounters was in many ways.

Episode 50 is all about a TV crew getting the chance to investigate a notoriously haunted area that people have been kept away from for many years. Once they get there, of course, it's not long until things start happening on camera that are hard to explain. We know, from the introduction to the footage, that something went wrong as this 50th episode was being filmed but exactly what is only revealed by watching from start to finish.

Joe Smalley and Tess Smalley directed this movie, and also wrote the story that was added to by Ian Holt, so we can easily blame them for a number of the bigger mis-steps. There is some good stuff buried amongst the rubbish here, with a few separate scenes in the first half being especially impressive, but as the film heads toward a finale everything just seems to get worse and worse. Dialogue, that wasn't that great to begin with, becomes laughable. The effects become more prominent and exponentially less frightening. All tension starts to drain away. Then we have what may well be the cardinal sin for a film of this type - lazy camera set-ups and improbable shots. The footage may well have been "edited" for the TV episode it never became but that doesn't excuse the many instances that feel far too staged or well-covered when they are supposed to feature characters reacting to something that's making them afraid.

We can't blame the Smalleys for the acting, though they should have worked harder to draw better performances out of the cast, so for Josh Folan, Chris Perry, Natalie Wetta, Keithen Hergott, etc, it's a case of them being left onscreen delivering poor material in a poor fashion.

It's a shame that Episode 50 falls apart so completely by the time the end credits roll because it does have some good ideas and one or two moments of subtle, atmospheric chills. However, it's completely missable and you'd be better off watching Grave Encounters instead.

4/10.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Episode-50-DVD-Josh-Folan/dp/B00512YMKQ

Nothing But The Best (1964)

Aahhhhh, the Swinging 60s. London. A time and a place that, if you believe the movies, easily show a Great Britain that was still GREAT. The music was groovy, the sex wasn't overshadowed by the horror of HIV and the fashions were snappy and dapper. In fact, the more I see of 60s Britain the more I tend to side with people who try their best to incorporate some retro style in their wardrobe and lifestyle choices.

But there was also a battle to move up the ranks, a struggle for class and status more pronounced than anything that happens nowadays. Oh yes, the rich are now far richer than they ever were and the poor probably far poorer. The divide is certainly greater. But that middle ground, that mixture of people and finances and attitudes, is more turbulent and eclectic than ever before. You can work your way up for years but still, ultimately, find yourself in that middle ground.

Back in the 60s you could work yourself up and find yourself way up high, gazing down at the proles you used to toil alongside. Which is what Jimmy Brewster (Alan Bates) wants to do in this enjoyable, slightly perverse, comedy. To achieve his aim he decides to learn from, and model himself upon, Charles Prince (Denholm Elliott, on wonderful form). Unfortunately, tips and advice can only get you so far towards the next rung. To really make it to the top you need to clear some space by throwing others downward. Lucky for Jimmy that he seems to have the determination to go through with it.

A number of films from this decade are, unsurprisingly, about class and the trappings of any privileged social status. Thankfully, many of them are also very good films with this one being no exception. Nothing But The Best has a fun script by Frederic Raphael, fine direction by Clive Donner and a wonderful cast that starts off well with Bates and Elliott in the lead roles and then gets better and better with the performances from Harry Andrews, Millicent Martin, Pauline Delaney, James Villiers and everyone else involved.

Add many little details that make viewing a pleasure, plus cinematography by Nicolas Roeg, and you have a delightful black comedy that deserves to be given an airing occasionally (either on TV or, even better, on DVD) and to find an appreciative audience.

8/10.

http://www.vicpine.co.uk/Nothing-But-The-Best.htm

All Ladies Do It (1992)

AKA Cosi Fan Tutte.

Tinto Brass is famous for his particular brand of softcore erotica that isn't always that soft but certainly keeps things erotic. Think of him as a Jess Franco figure without the over the top sleaziness and torture elements. He does what he does well and fans of his work shouldn't find much to complain about in All Ladies Do It.

I am not a fan. I'm not a detractor either, I've just not seen enough movies from Brass to form a solid opinion. In fact, I think that the only other Tinto Brass movie I have seen in my life is Caligula - a movie that a) I have no major memory of and b) tends to be regarded as far from the best of the director's movies.

All Ladies Do It revolves around Diana (Claudia Koll), a faithful wife who often turns her husband, Paolo (Paolo Lanza), on by telling him tales of flirtations and temptations. It's all fun and games while the tales are fiction but when Diana starts to allow herself some "happy banging" then things get a bit more complicated and Paolo doesn't think he can handle the situation. Is Diana wrong to get some sexual kicks elsewhere while remaining completely in love with her husband?

There are many moments in this movie that are very erotic. Let's be honest, there are a number of moments that probably count as full on pornographic. It's not a film to sit down and watch with the grandparents and it may even prove to be quite a shocking viewing for those who think that they're open-minded enough because they sat through the tastefully sexual Eyes Wide Shut. Hardly 5 minutes can pass by without viewers having an erect penis waved in their general direction or seeing a woman show off her naked ladyparts. A lot of the nudity and sexual content feels erotic. Where that feeling dissipates is in the moments showing Diana active in other ways. Take kissing for example. Kissing can be erotic and very sexy. But kissing while "happy banging" results in two people who look like they are trying to spit pink salmon at each other. Which is pretty gross. And then we have the general attitude of Diana throughout most of the first half of the movie, a sexual confidence that teeters over the edge and well into the realm of arrogance, thus becoming decidedly unsexy (in my view, anyway). A woman unintentionally showing a hint of a slip and coyly hiding it away again is 100 times sexier than a woman getting her jollies by "accidentally" grinding against men on busy public transport.

The screenplay is better than it has any right to be, thanks again to Brass, though he is helped in the writing department by a few others. The performances are okay (the cast are pretty daring, which makes up for any failings in the actual acting) and I'd pick out Ornella Marcucci as someone I particularly enjoyed watching.
And fans of movie music should enjoy the work by Pino Donnagio here. But fans of female nudity will probably get the most out of the film.

6/10.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/All-Ladies-Do-It-DVD/dp/B00005AMF3/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1331412620&sr=1-1

A Dangerous Man (2009)

Steven Seagal plays a guy who used to be in the Special Forces. He plays a guy wrongly accused of a crime, which leads to him losing all that he holds dear to him. He plays a guy willing to help others by kicking the ass of anyone who looks at him with a slight squint. Yes, this is another Steven Seagal movie in which he falls back on the same sketched out plot that he has been rehashing, with varying degrees of success, for the last 30 years or so. To give any more time or space over to describing the plot would just insult the intelligence of both you and me (and I don't claim to be that intelligent in the first place).

Despite the fact that it's just more of the same, A Dangerous Man is yet another of the more recent Seagal movies that ends up being a big surprise - mainly due to it not being a pile of steaming dung. Oh no, this time out we once again get plenty of action and a helping of bone-crunching violence to make everything more enjoyable. And it does the job. Seagal may never reclaim the physique he once had but he has at least gone back to a place that allows him to convincingly show off some decent martial arts moves without calling upon a stunt double every 5 seconds.

Writer-director Keoni Waxman (who also directed The Keeper) puts in plenty of risible nonsense but it's all par for the course for anyone who has watched at least one Seagal movie since the start of the 21st century. The mixed nationalities of all the cast members, the fact that Seagal always seems to get a younger girlfriend with each movie (to paraphrase from City Slickers . . . . pretty soon the guy will be dating sperm), the wise ways of our leading man, etc.

Seagal is as Seagal-like as usual in the lead role but Jesse Hutch, Vitaly Kravchenko and Jerry Wasserman don't do too badly alongside the other, varied, supporting cast members.

Easy to watch and mildly enjoyable, I was about to rate this film even higher than average and then realised that I was just overcome with relief after the many other Seagal movies I have endured over the years.

5/10.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/A-Dangerous-Man-DVD/dp/B002MGJSTY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331334322&sr=8-1