Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children (2016)

"When Jacob discovers clues to a mystery that stretches across time, he finds Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children. But the danger deepens after he gets to know the residents and learns about their special powers."

Really fucking good! I'm amazed at how much I enjoyed this, especially considering that it's a kids' film by Tim Burton.

Obviously, I only watched it because Eva Green is in it, and she does not disappoint. In fact, I don't think I've seen her give a bad performance in anything so far. She's not as sexy as she was in "Dark Shadows", "Sin City 2", or "300: Rise of an Empire", but then again, she's not playing that kind of role this time either.

Even though "Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children" is more or less a ripoff of Marvel's "X-men", it's beautifully filmed, almost flawlessly acted, and has lots of surprises in the casting. Samuel L. Jackson chews scenery brilliantly, Terence Stamp is used far too sparingly, but you can't complain when Rupert Everett is in it too!

As expected, the characters and plot (based on yet another YA novel which I have no intention of ever reading) are a bit weird here and there, and the CGI Slender Man/Jack Skellington-wannabe (a lot like the one in this year's "Blair Witch") makes several appearances (because that's the scary thing now, apparently), but it's not an excessive Tim Burton fantasy. In other words, there's no Johnny Depp or Helena Bonham Carter being overly "eccentric" to spoil it.

I'd even go so far as saying that "Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children" is an "epic" children's adventure. A few nods to (or obvious "borrowings" from) other well known classics for the same age group are noticeable without being cliché, and it all just works. Admittedly, a major part of the story involving "time loops" falls apart under closer scrutiny at the end, as happens with every "time loop" sci-fi or fantasy movie ever made, but the target audience are unlikely to notice.

Highly recommended for all ages, and definitely one to buy when it gets released on DVD and blu-ray. If it's still playing at a cinema near you, catch it while you can.

Oh, and [SPOILER] Judi Dench's character dies in it, which is always a bonus!

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016)

"The adventures of writer Newt Scamander in New York's secret community of witches and wizards seventy years before Harry Potter reads his book in school."

Meh, there's nothing too original or exciting in "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them". As many have noticed, it really is like a "Doctor Who" special mixed with "King Kong" mixed with "Pokémon".

The lead who I can't be bothered to look up the name of (Edit: it's Eddie Redmayne) channels Matt Smith so much that he might as well be Matt Smith. He has the same mannerisms, awkwardness, and dress sense. He even has a bowtie, uses his wand like a sonic screwdriver, and carries a suitcase with Tardis properties. I'm not calling J.K. Rowling a plagiarist, but... yeah, this is either plagiarism or a really blatant homage, take your pick.

For those who care, Colin Farrell is more than tolerable, and Johnny Depp gets less than a minute of screen time roughly 5 minutes from the end.

Other than that, and the abundance of CGI, "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" isn't the worst thing I've ever seen. The period setting in New York works well, and I expect American Harry Potter fans will love it. But because I'm not ten years old, and I loathe all things Harry Potter, it didn't do anything memorable for me.

As theatrical family films go, it's okay-ish. The creatures aren't very scary, and the story is easy to follow. It's just so below average in every other way that it's hardly one of this year's "must sees".

Byzantium (2012)

"Residents of a coastal town learn, with deathly consequences, the secret shared by the two mysterious women who have sought shelter at a local resort."

It looks as if the tiny pool of new horror movies has dried-up again for this year, so I've decided to start rewatching the older ones as and when they appear on Netflix. I have no idea why. I'm not even "into" horror movies anymore, but I keep on backsliding when I'm bored.

At least the choice of things to watch is slightly better than when I used to write my "Crap I've Watched on Netflix" posts, but I'm still not saying that the very small selection of horror movies available on Netflix is particularly great. This month's biggest new addition to Netflix is, as you must realise, Neil Jordan's "Byzantium".

As some people will be watching and reviewing "Byzantium" for the very first time, I thought that I should finally write something about it here too. It's not that I haven't reviewed it before, but my critique was only two or three sentences on another site which no longer exists. Back then, I honestly thought that I'd spent more time on my review than the movie actually deserved, and I'm sure that I'm not going to say anything more informative about "Byzantium" now either.

Although I've recently seen a certain "critic" (who I have zero respect for) write that it's impossible to "hate" a movie, I'm pretty sure that I actually do hate "Byzantium". It's not just a case of "disliking it intensely" either. I loathe nearly every pretentious frame of "Byzantium" in its overly long running time apart from the sexier bits with Gemma Arterton.

Easily the best part of "Byzantium".

Yes, there really is only one good reason to ever rent or buy this movie, and it's simply to ogle Gemma Arterton channelling Kat Slater from "Eastenders" as she plays a vampire. Gemma's sexy performance as Clara, plus her deliciously violent and bloody cheesewire decapitation of a very arrogant character early on, are the only truly memorable parts of "Byzantium" for me.

Of course, "Byzantium" might be remembered by some people for being two hours of tedious yet undeniably beautiful camerawork. Nobody sane can deny that Neil Jordon's desire to make every cinematic shot equally valid as a still picture is admirable, except when that technique is clearly overused and stifles the flow of the narrative. The same thing happened recently with "It Follows" (2014), and there have been several more "slow burn" products which have made me wonder if horror directors are intentionally trying to bore their audiences to death nowadays instead of scaring them.

"Byzantium" should, however, be even more remembered for Caleb Landry Jones mumbling his lines so unintelligibly that you have to switch the subtitles on to understand what he says. Any clues as to what accent he's meant to be doing hinge around the facts that he's a Texan in real life and his Frank character has certain health problems and "issues", but it's still no excuse for such a bizarre performance. If it's any consolation, I thought that he sounded Irish.

Once again, a very tiny minority who nobody takes seriously anymore might rave about the blatant misogyny or misandry (depending on which side of the SJW fence they sit) in "Byzantium", but I won't. Make no mistake about it though, "Byzantium" is equally full of both. It's certainly not subtext here either but right in your face!

Having said that, "Byzantium" not only summarises the most common attitudes in its historically accurate depictions of the genders in certain time periods, but give or take the fantasy elements, it contains a fairly accurate depiction of how some people act in the present day. Outside of this imaginary world of the internet where he or she who shouts loudest and most often is the one who gets noticed, there's a gritty reality which isn't pleasant, and you'd only be deluding yourself to think otherwise.

Eleanor is an even more depressed teenager than Bella.

As usual, I have no time for that pseudo-philosphical and political bullshit. I only watch movies for the storytelling. To me, "Byzantium" is just another plodding vampire story where humans are considered second-class citizens and a source of food for the immortals. It's this general misanthropy of "Byzantium" which is the point that all those "reviewers with agendas" are missing.

Similarly to "Interview with the Vampire" (1994) which was also directed by Neil Jordan, and just like in Anne Rice's other novels, to be a vampire is a reward. To be mortal is only to suffer and be used until your purpose is served. In the midst of this, at least Clara thanks the lorry driver who gives her and daughter a lift, but underneath her facade, she's still a cunning, manipulative user and a deadly predator who only does things for her own benefit and personal safety at the end of the day.

Rather than providing a counterpoint, Clara's daughter Eleanor (played by the unpronounceably named Saoirse Ronan) is a 200-year-old teenager with nothing inside her but 200 years years of teenage angst, feeling sorry for herself, a holier-than-thou attitude, and general mopiness. She's still a killer though, and no matter how she might legitimise how she selects her victims in her own mind, she doesn't have any discernable conscience about it. In fact, Eleanor truly believes that she's doing her elderly victims a favour. Roll out the pro-euthanasia bandwagon and preach that message in a movie, why don't you? Not to me, you won't, because I'm not listening.

Eleanor is not the most irritating character in "Byzantium" by any means, since that role is well and truly taken by Frank, but I wouldn't want to watch any more of her than this story allows. Eleanor's romantic subplot with Frank is not "a better love story than Twilight" no matter how it brings that meme to mind. The thought of them doing the nasty makes me cringe.

Passive-aggressively bashing Twilight will not make this movie scary.

The smaller but important supporting roles (including Jonny Lee Miller as Ruthven, Sam Riley as Darvell, and Maria Doyle Kennedy as Morag) are extremely well played and provide the gravitas for "Byzantium" which prevents it from being watched on titter alert for at least the first viewing. Noel the hotel owner is as tragically comedic as any Mike Leigh character (mainly because Daniel Mays is recognisable for playing those roles before), and there are some comical scenes—one of them possibly being intentional—even so. As much as I usually hate it when people do it, "Byzantium" can't stand up to repeat viewings without making it a necessity to ridicule every scene mercilessly.

The bottom line is that "Byzantium" is an extremely slow vampire movie, and as much as it attempts to be, it is not some "high art". Credit is due when it tries to ignore the traditional vampire movie tropes and rules (except for one), and it has a decent enough but predictable story if you like vampires. You really can't and shouldn't expect anything else. It's a hundred times more entertaining than "Only Lovers Left Alive" (2013) anyway.

Ex Machina (2015)

"A young programmer is selected to participate in a breakthrough experiment in artificial intelligence by evaluating the human qualities of a breathtaking female A.I."

If you are looking for a really talky but R-rated version of Steven Spielberg's "A.I. Artificial Intelligence" (2001), or just want to see Kike Maíllo's far superior "Eva" (2011) rehashed with a couple of different twists, "Ex Machina" is for you.

It's not that "Ex Machina" is a bad movie per se, since the camerawork is great, the sets and effects are perfect, and the acting is totally convincing. It's just that there isn't really a lot to this extremely slow-moving sci-fi, and there isn't enough of anything apart from some brief nudity and a nifty disco-dancing routine to make it memorable. It's definitely more of a drama than anything else, and like "Maggie", it makes you wonder if the story and its tropes couldn't have been played out on a purely human level without any gimmicks.

Why make the robot a beautiful girl? Why make her sexual? All that is explained in the dialogue at some length, and it's important to the plot, but I'm sure that the fauxminists will still bitch and whine about this aspect to get pageviews. Good luck to them. Nobody cares. It's only another movie with no deep and meaningful political agenda unless someone wants to make more out of it than they should. And sadly, with over 300 external reviews of "Ex Machina" currently posted on the IMDb, I know that at least one person already has done. Pathetic.

Obviously, Alicia Vikander almost steals the show as the beautiful robot Ava, but it's fair to say that Domhnall Gleeson (as Caleb) and Oscar Isaac (as Nathan) hold up well against her. In fact, the double-twist makes the whole ménage à trois (albeit with some minor characters) worthwhile. It's very predictable in the the way that you kind of expect what happens to happen but not in the way it does, and most people probably won't see the ending coming. In that respect, the story is very well played indeed.

Directed and written by Alex Garland (of "28 Days Later" and "Dredd" fame), what "Ex Machina" lacks in originality, it makes up for in uncluttered calmness and downplayed spectacle. There's even a bit of sexual tension here and there but not too much. Kids could watch this. They won't understand most of it, of course, but an R-rating seems unnecessarily harsh. Oh wait, it's America, so healthy nudity is the most heinous evil ever and violent death is perfectly acceptable. I get it now.

In short, "Ex Machina" is another robot with artificial intelligence movie but is none the worse for that. The better robot movie is still "Eva", and "Bicentennial Man" (1999) is arguably the emotional best, but "Ex Machina" is a competent addition to the sci-fi genre.

Recommended for a rainy Sci-Fi Saturday night.

Escape from Tomorrow (2013)

"In a world of fake castles and anthropomorphic rodents, an epic battle begins when an unemployed father's sanity is challenged by a chance encounter with two underage girls on holiday."

As someone who has never set foot inside a Disney theme park or watched any Disney cartoons in his life, I have no idea what the conspiracy theory fuss is about "Escape from Tomorrow". All I know is that Disney has made a couple of classic feature length cartoons to keep little kids quiet, and a few mediocre G-rated "family" movies for everyone else. I do remember a scandal about part of a castle on some VHS artwork looking like a dildo, back in the day, but I couldn't tell you the name of that movie without looking it up, or why it would even matter to anyone. Disney is nothing to me, never has been, and never will be. In fact, the only time I was ever in Orlando, Florida, I went to Universal Studios, Busch Gardens, Seaworld, and Gatorland instead.

Why am I telling you this? Well, it's because "Escape from Tomorrow" is set in a conflated, fantasy version of Disneyland and Disney World, and huge parts of the footage were filmed in both without Disney's consent. Thus, the novelty factor of this movie is for people who've never been to them and wonder what they look like inside. Although you could learn just as much by browsing YouTube videos, this is supposed to be better because it's in black and white, is all so subversive, and is likely to get sued, even though it isn't. No, I don't get that last part either.

There's also a lot of faux intellectual bullshit being spread about "Escape from Tomorrow" suggesting that it's like the works of David Lynch, but I didn't notice any similarities to "The Elephant Man", "Dune", "Blue Velvet" or "Wild at Heart". Some of the scenes were clearly filmed using greenscreens, but the overall effect isn't distracting. Is that what David Lynch does? Maybe they are talking about a different David Lynch who goes round theme parks with a handycam. Having said that, "Escape from Tomorrow" isn't a bad movie, but it's far from being a great one either.

SPOILERS!

"Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?"

The crux of the story is that a henpecked, middle-aged man named Jim (Roy Abramsohn) is looking for a bit of the other on the final day of his vacation. Fired from his job, emasculated by his wife Emily (Elena Schuber), and with his mid-life crisis kicking in, he uses his kids (Jack Dalton and Katelynn Rodriguez) as a cover to clumsily stalk two teenage French girls who attract him by being so high on life (or whatever illegal substance it is that makes them unable to stop laughing). As clichéd and unoriginal as this rather neat borrowing from European-style dramas may be, this is the only bit of "Escape from Tomorrow" that's really good. The acting is decent, the stereotypical effects of a mid-life crisis are portrayed perfectly, and it's all quite believable.

A second "story arc" begins after Jim pervs on a nurse (Amy Lucas) who puts a bandaid on his daughter Sara's scraped knee, and then has an affair with a fairly attractive woman (Alison Lees-Taylor) of his own age instead of the Lolitas who, deep down, Jim knows that he doesn't stand a chance with anyway. Again, this is acceptable storytelling and nothing to strain your brain over. Maybe hooking-up with a stranger in a Disney park for a bit of kinky afternoon delight is far-fetched, but I'm sure stranger things have happened.

Later, although this is my interpretation rather than what is actually shown to happen, the two French girls (Danielle Safady and Annet Mahendru) and their boyfriends realise that Jim is a bit of a sad/creepy pervert, and send the plainer girl with braces on her teeth over to boldly spit in his face and end his little game. Everything else can be written off as Jim's fantasies, daydreams, his mind wandering, his "fever dreams" as he dies from flu, or whatever else you want to call it. Because, if you accept anything else as Jim's reality, the rest of the movie falls apart afterwards.

The trouble is that, for God knows what reason, writer/director Randy Moore decided to completely bollocks-up everything (after the "intermission" at the 61 minute mark) with a totally incongrous scene set inside a mini version of the Epcot dome, wherein it's revealed that Jim is some kind of "sleeper agent" who is being used by the Siemens company to monitor the effects which exposure to the Disney park at a young age would have on his adult life, and in particular, his imagination. So it's all a big experiment being run by the technologically advanced powers-that-be behind the scenes a la "The Cabin in the Woods"? Some might say that this is "intentional misdirection" or playing with the rules of filmmaking, but I call it a gyp! What a pile of horseshit!

"It's a giant testicle!" ...on his head!

The story would have played out better if Jim had been tasered by park security for being a creepy stalker, and he then had to explain to his wife how he lost track of their daughter. The events which follow, including how he works out that his daughter has been kidnapped by the woman who he had an affair with, would then have a more satisfying flow to them and a solvable mystery rather than creating a load of headscratching for the hard of understanding. Unfortunately, I'm sure somewhere out there, there's an original European movie with precisely that plot (I just can't remember the name of it right now, but trust me, I will!), and Randy Moore didn't want to get sued by those filmmakers for plagiarism instead of being non-sued by the Disney corporation who couldn't give a damn about him. Scandal will sell a movie, but only if it's the right kind of scandal, eh?

There's more hogwash at the end in the form of Jim coughing up hairballs because he has "cat flu" (WTF?), and a group of "men in black"—or rather "men in overalls"—who take Jim's dead body away, implant his son Elliot with false happy memories of the Buzz Lightyear ride which he never went on instead of the sadness he probably doesn't even feel over the death of his father (if Jim even was his father), and clean everything up as if nothing ever happened: because nothing bad ever happens at Disney. Oh, it's all so "meta" and pseudo-philosophical that it makes you want to puke!

After two days of thinking about the epilogue and wasting my time by writing out a ten page ecphrasis of the movie to see if I'd missed something which would tie it together better, I can now happily explain it as nothing more than "a tragic reminder of the real life ambitions which the evil Disney corporation stole from one man". Jim isn't reborn, it isn't the afterlife. It's just a flashback to the "real" Jim in the part of his imagination which he never used, i.e. it's what we saw earlier in the mini Siemens minidome, hence why the Epcot dome is shown again just before the epilogue scene happens.

Yup, that's the big intellectual message of the movie and, give or take insulting the Disney Princesses/cosplay girls for being hookers for Japanese businessmen, and saying that the turkey legs (which are sold in the theme parks, not just Disney!) are really made of emu, that's all "Escape from Tomorrow" has got: Disney's brainwashing will stop you being what you are meant to be.

So will making or watching overhyped, shitty independent horror movies. Jog on.

My Top Ten Sexiest Witches

In case you've forgotten. Hallowe'en (when referred to by its original Gaelic/pagan name "Samhain") is one of the four big witches' sabbats. What the other ones are, I have no idea, but they probably all end in "mas", "ane" or "fumblebum". Witchcraft outside of a closed society is a load of bullshit anyway.

But with the big day approaching, what better way is there to celebrate the non-event/non-holiday than with a top ten list of the sexiest witches I've ever seen?

Okay, so trying to stuff four bags of Funyuns in your mouth at the same time and then washing them down with Tizer is equally entertaining, but I'm a blogger and this is all I've got. Enjoy!


1. Willow (Britt Ekland) from "The Wicker Man" (1973)

I honestly don't care if she's fully clothed, topless, or using a body double, Willow is the sexiest little witch ever! I would have kicked the bloody door down or smashed a glory hole in the wall if I'd been in Edward Woodward's place!


2. Angelique Bouchard (Eva Green) from "Dark Shadows" (2012)

I'd never even heard of Eva Green before I watched "Dark Shadows" last year, but as she's very unlikely to repeat her sexy performance in anything else, I don't suppose it matters. My God, she's hot! Angelique likes things a tad too rough to be my number one though.


3. Mirror Queen (Monica Bellucci) from "The Brothers Grimm" (2005)

It's a pity that "The Brother's Grimm" is such a crappy movie apart from having the most beautiful woman in the whole world in it. There's definitely something supernatural about the way Monica Bellucci never ages.


4. The Witch (Cassandra Gaviola) from "Conan the Barbarian" (1982)

Back in the days of renting VHS tapes from Blockbuster, I wore the section with Cassandra Gaviola and Arnie out so badly by rewinding and pausing over and over again that they had to buy another copy! I only know this because they made me pay for the one I wrecked.


5. Mater Lacrimarum (Ania Pieroni) from "Inferno" (1980)

While it's true that I also like Moran Atias in "Mother of Tears" (2007) because she gets nude, I couldn't find a decent (SFW) picture of her online. Ania Peroni is equally sexy as Hell, plus she has a cat. Purrfection!


6. Prue Halliwell (Shannen Doherty) from "Charmed" (1998)

Since it's all about "The Power of Three" with the Halliwell sisters, I wouldn't turn any of them down, but Shannen Doherty (in the middle) is the one who really does it for me. I've watched every season of "Charmed" and still don't know the names of the other sisters!


7. Willow Rosenberg (Alyson Hannigan) from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" (1997)

Ordinarily, Willow is a bit of a mouth-breathing drudge, but the day she turned into evil Willow, everybody perked up! It's hard to tell whether she's hotter as a bad vamp or a bad witch, but being bad is always good for Willow!


8. Muriel (Famke Janssen) from "Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters" (2013)

48-year-old Famke looks a bit worn here, but you can't deny that she's gorgeous for her age! That kinky black outfit with feathers kinda rocks too! She can keep it on or take it off, I'm hers either way.


9. Bonnie (Neve Campbell) from "The Craft" (1996)

The best bit for me is when she turns her hair blonde! "OMG, that's like so kewl! LOL" Neve Campbell looks fantastic as a blonde, but I couldn't find a screencap which didn't pixellate badly when resized. This is just the standard pretty Bonnie after her fizzog is fixed.


10. Princess Asa Vajda (Barbara Steele) from "Black Sunday" (1960)

It was too difficult to find a photo of Barbara Steele from "Black Sunday" which wasn't scary-looking, so I gave up and used this one. It's not her sexiest moment in the film, but bizarrely, the bit where parts are falling off her is.


Just to make up a full coven of thirteen, here are three bonuses:


Bonus #1: Circe (Bernadette Peters) from "The Odyssey" (1997)

She gets between Armand Assante's knees and blackmails him into sleeping with her to save his men. I know that's the story of Odysseus and everything, but most of us wouldn't have needed such coercion. "Odysseus, the only way I will turn your soldiers back into men is if... you take me to bed," she purrs. Alrighty then.


Bonus #2: Medea (Maria Callas) from "Medea" (1969)

It's been so long since I've seen Pier Paolo Pasolini's adaptation of Euripides' play that I'd forgotten how beautiful Maria Callas used to be. From the IMDb: "It's a movie about a woman who beheads her brother, stabs her children, and sends her lover's wife up in flames. For Maria Callas, it's a natural." And yes, Pier Paolo Pasolini is the same director who made "Salo", in case you wondered.


Bonus #3: Morgana Le Fay (Helen Mirren) from "Excalibur" (1981)

When it comes to John Boorman's "Excalibur", it's usually Cherie Lunghi who floats my boat, but I can't deny Helen Mirren her finest hour either. Incest with King Arthur is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the sexual nastiness in Morgana's mind, and her scenes with Merlin (the late Nicol Williamson) are priceless. Let's say the "Charm of Making" together: "Anáil nathrach, ortha bhas betha, do cheol déanta..."


Who are your favourites? And why?

Embrace of the Vampire (1995)

"An 18-year-old college freshman is seduced by a handsome vampire lover who introduces her to a dark world of carnal desires."

Since "Embrace of the Vampire" is just an excuse to see Alyssa Milano get her boobs out several times and laugh at Martin Kemp licking a door (the only thing more wooden than his performance), I'm not going to go into any depth about this awful movie. "Embrace of the Vampire" is little more than softcore porn with "Mills & Boon" dialogue, and everybody already knows that it stinks.

The only reason I've brought it up on my blog is because there's now a remake which I'll be reviewing later, and I needed to reaquaint myself with the story (such as it is) to be able to compare and contrast the two. I know some people erroneously think that I'm dead set against remakes, but in the case of "Embrace of the Vampire" anything would be an improvement. A ten-minute YouTube video of a toilet roll being unspooled by a puppy would be more horrific!

If you're not familiar with "Embrace of the Vampire, firstly, good on you for skipping it. Secondly, you'd be wise to keep things that way. There's hardly any story here apart from the blatant homages to "Bram Stoker's Dracula" (1992) and, in particular, the saucier bits. Bisexuality is the name of the game with lots of girl-on-girl, boy-on-girl/girl-on-boy, and even a bit of "The Rocky Horror Show" gender-impersonation action. At one point, there's a full blown orgy going on in a nightclub! So don't even try to argue that is supposed to be a horror movie!

Martin Kemp is terrible as a lonely vampire who needs his re-incarnated lost love to survive and is, quite frankly, embarrassing. He pops up occasionally with his shirt off, but mercifully, he has less than five minutes of screen time overall. Similarly, sexy Jennifer Tilly has a small role with some of the most cringeworthy lines she has ever been asked to deliver. I'm not going to say anything worse about Jennifer Tilly though, because she's still uber hot in spite of her character's not very well hidden identity.

The late Harold Pruett and Alyssa Milano.

As far as Alyssa Milano's performance goes, well, it's all about gazing into space, looking at the floor shyly, and not needing much prompting to get naked or succumb to any other character's sexual advances. Some of her scenes are admittedly erotic, but the pacing is all wrong for "Embrace of the Vampire" to be a truly erotic movie. There's no sexual tension, no chemistry, and the novelty factor of seeing Alyssa Milano topless gets boring pretty quickly unless you're a megafan of "Charmed".

Because this is a very '90s production, the late Harold Pruet plays Alyssa Milano's boyfriend, and there are small roles for Jordan Ladd and Rachel True who have both gone on to better things. None of them stand out in either a good or bad way, but it's mildly interesting to see such a gathering of "teen" stars in one place. The fact that none of them were actually teens at the time is just the way things are in the movies, and it's not worth making a fuss over.

I don't have anything good to say about "Embrace of the Vampire", and I've noted all the important bits, so now I can move on to the remake. Apparently, it's produced by the same people behind "I Spit on Your Grave" (2010), and there's supposed to be a more coherent story to go with all the boobs and blood. We shall see.

Don't you just hate it when they put the wrong names above the heads?

The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones (2013)

"When her mother disappears, Clary Fray learns that she descends from a line of warriors who protect our world from demons. She joins forces with others like her and heads into a dangerous alternate New York called Downworld."

Based on the YA fantasy-horror novel by alleged plagiarist Cassandra Clare, "The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones" is yet another wannabe "Twilight" replacement which has turned out to be a huge flop at the box office. I can't say that I'm surprised.

Since I'm not a reader or a "young adult", I've never heard of the series of books which this movie is based on before. I also have no idea if the allegations of plagiarism against the author are true or due to "cloning" and homaging, but either way, "The Mortal Instruments" appears to be little more than a bland conflation of "Night Watch" (2004), "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", "Percy Jackson and the Olympians", the "Prophecy" series, and a plethora of clichéd offerings from the "demon-hunting" subgenre. Ironically, given that "The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones" is produced by Constantin Films, there's a very slight feeling of "Constantine" (2005) about this too. Unfortunately, that's where the good stuff ends.

"The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones" is overlong at 130 minutes, and pacing problems don't help to alleviate the boredom between brief and confusing action scenes. Harald Zwart's previous effort, "The Karate Kid" remake, also suffered from the same issues, but it's probably not entirely his fault this time. I imagine that producer and author interference influenced things quite badly; conflation of characters, casting choices, accent changes, rewrites, and the desire for a PG-13 rating to get more asses on seats were all contributing factors.

Thus, "The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones" is a visually pleasing big-budget production, but if you think that "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy is bad news for your bladder, this movie will literally, figuratively and actually bore the piss out of you too. I lost track of the number of toilet breaks I needed, but I think it was over half a dozen. The two cans of Rockstar which were necessary to keep myself awake took their toll, but at least I didn't wet myself like I did during "The Golden Compass" (2007), and I didn't miss anything important either.

Clary and creepy Jace share a mundane moment.

The cast of pretty "teenagers" do okay in their roles although Jamie Campbell Bower (who has been in the finales of the Harry Potter series, and played Caius in "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn") is quite creepy-looking as Jace. Not looks-wise but accent-wise, he's very Paul Bettany, which brings up another irony since the star of the show, Lily Collins, was also in "Priest" (2011).

As she's not really a teenager, there's no problem with complimenting Lily Collins for being hot as Clary. Hell, even if she was sixteen instead of twenty-three, Phil Collins' daughter would still be pretty, and there's nothing wrong with saying so. She's slightly upstaged in the sexiness department by Jemima West as Isabelle, but she uses her huge eyebrows and nearly always open mouth to good effect. The "teeth and eyes" acting-style strikes again, albeit slightly less so than in typical teen soap operas. I also have to mention here that there's nothing more confusing than older actresses playing younger "jailbait" characters, so be prepared to feel as grubby as I did for ogling them. Or not, as the case may be.

Apart from Robert Sheehan as scrawny Simon gratuitously taking his shirt off, there's nothing for girls to see here unless they like their Jacob substitutes to be less ripped. Needless to say, his underdeveloped bare-chestedness did absolutely nothing for me, and I didn't like his character.

Kevin Zegers (recently in "The Colony") is very underused as Alec, yet he's got nothing to be ashamed of. Being unconscious on a bed for half the movie covers a multitude of sins. MILF-tastic Lena Headey is wasted even more since she disappears very early on in the story, and several other underwritten characters also suffer from clearly being reduced to bit parts for their respective actors. "The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones" truly equals "The Twilight Saga" in trying to pack too much in and rushing through the characters, and that's its downfall.

The problem with any of these "Young Adult novel" adaptations is not only that "Young Adult" is a curiously self-contradictory term and genre which pleases nobody—least of all its target audience—but that characterisation is never a strong point. It's hard to care about characters just because they are pretty, especially if there's none of the fleshing out which presumably occurs in the original literary medium. Having never read a "YA" novel in my life, I can't honestly say if the authors of these papery abominations make more of their "Mary Sues", and I'm not prepared to infantilise myself to find out. Just judging them by their movie adaptations, everything from "Harry Potter" and "Twilight" through to "Beautiful Creatures", "His Dark Materials", "Camp Half-Blood" and "The Hunger Games" must be some very low-brow reading material in the first place. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Sexy Isabelle has a big pair of swords.

As an aside, I don't care how much flak I get for it, but the unrequited gay love triangle which I assume to be one of the selling points of "The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones" is very bizarre and completely out of place in a movie (or book) meant for little kids. Most of the target audience simply wouldn't understand it except as an insult, or they might not notice its insidiousness at all, but others are surely going to say, "What?"—and therein lies a problem. For me, the trendy, politically correct acceptance of homosexuality shown here as something completely normal rather than applicable to a minority is about as realistic and subtle as decorating half the cast with tribal "magical sigil" tattoos. It's controversial propaganda aimed at an age group which shouldn't even have a sex life, and it's not done in way that provides any explanation for differences from the norm. Briefly mentioned as it is, the Achilles-Patroclus thing comes across as contrived as an episode of "Torchwood", especially as there's another more traditional, heterosexual, and "age appropriate" love triangle going on. If you really want children to see gay romance in a movie, you should let them watch dramas such as "Another Country", "My Beautiful Laundrette" or "Brokeback Mountain", not a kiddified action-adventure/supernatural-fantasy. No? Maybe it's they're R-rated! It's not worth pressing the point however, because there's no sexual tension or chemistry between anybody in this movie. It's all very tame.

With the MacGuffin-laden plot taking a back seat to the equally superficial teen romance, "The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones" reeks of blandness throughout. Rather than losing focus, it never has any to begin with, and it has no vitality, inertia, momentum or any other words which you can pull out of a thesaurus to describe its lack of "oomph". Maybe if the producers had gone for an R-rating instead of a PG-13, some realistic violence, goriness and horror could have spiced things up considerably more than the borderline adult dialogue and situations, but I highly doubt it. The bad guys are so underplayed that there's never any real threat to the safety of the main characters, and as I already said, it's impossible to care about any of them anyway.

"The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones" is insipid, often tedious, and confusing with it, so I don't recommend it at all.

My Region 1 Non-horror DVDs

Click the picture to see it bigger and sideways.

Although I posted this a couple of days ago on my Facebook page, not everyone who reads my blog uses Facebook, and I don't want to waste the picture. Don't worry, I'm not going to go through all the titles from arche to telos as I did with my Region 1 horror DVDs.

Yeah, I know that I suck at photographing shelves full of DVDs (my camera distorts the angles of the shelves for some reason which I can't work out), but I've seen worse on Blogger. Just to make it easier to read the spines, I've also uploaded a much larger sideways view which you can see by clicking on the picture.

These aren't all my DVDs, of course, but just the Region 1 non-horror ones from my cat room. My cats do, in fact, own the entire house rather than only one room so don't go thinking that I lock them in with my cast-off DVDs or anything. Sometimes we hang out in front of the 48 inch widescreen TV in this room and watch movies together. At least we used to before Suzi started surreptitiously peeing on the futon.

Some people like these little insights into my life, and who am I to blame them? I'm awesome in every way, and I have great taste when it comes to films. As you can see from the picture, I'm not always so precise with alphabetical arrangements, especially as the top two shelves here have their own nebulous order, but I did try to tidy the bottom two a year ago. There's no reasoning behind it other than laziness.

The second shelf down is also my "movies in the process of being watched" shelf and a dumping ground for some which I'm getting rid of. Thus, there are also a few horror DVDs here which I've already reviewed. This shelf is simply at a convenient height when I'm on a marathon or sorting.

If you see any obvious movies missing, the bottom shelf of this 5 shelf bookcase (which isn't shown) used to contain my Case Logic folders full of thousands more. I moved them to a closet because Willow likes to hide on the bottom shelf when there's a storm or it's too hot.

I also have a tiny collection of VHS tapes. Add these to my various downloads, screeners, Region 2 DVD collection, and the streaming services on my Roku box, and you'll realise that I have just about every movie ever made available to me in one form or another. I'm glad that I'm not into collecting cartoons, comedies or boxsets of every TV series though. Well, not yet anyway.

The majority of these DVDs came from FYE when I had more money to waste than I do now, but several were from my pawn shop and yard sale adventures. Either way, I've still spent a small fortune on them. Five years on, they're now practically worthless. Physical media is dying out so I won't ever buy Blu-rays.

Let me know what you think in the comments section below, and also tell me about what you collect. What's the most expensive DVD that you've ever bought? And which DVD do you most regret buying?

Man of Steel (2013)

"A young itinerant worker is forced to confront his secret extraterrestrial heritage when Earth is invaded by members of his race."

Due to unforeseen circumstances yesterday with storms knocking out my internet connection, I couldn't post this review as a "Fantasy Friday" update where it belongs, but since it's more about aliens anyway, I now have the first "Sci-Fi Saturday" post in months. It's not that any superhero movie meant for 10-year-olds and 40-something comicbook nerds is a priority for me anyway, so who cares, right? I'm not a fan of Superman in the first place.

Back when I was the right age, I saw "Superman: The Movie", but I wasn't impressed. Out of all the superheroes, Superman always struck me as a bit of a wussypants, and Christopher Reeve only confirmed my prejudice. I mean, he has every superpower possible and could rule the Earth if he wanted to, yet he chooses to hide behind the bumbling façade of Clark Kent (as if people can't tell it's the same guy with glasses!), and just stops a few "bad guys" from time to time. It's pathetic! Superman and everything he stands for makes me want to puke.

I never watched more than one episode of the Dean Cain version because of his girlie voice and the fact that Teri Hatcher makes me cringe, and I certainly never watched "Smallville" either. I've seen parts of the other Christopher Reeve movies, but my interest came and went with Ursa (Sarah Douglas) in the first sequel. Thus, even though I'm not an authority on Superman, I've seen enough to know what it's all about, and I just don't care for it. As flawed as it is, I prefer "Hancock" (2008).

The trouble is that I sometimes have to watch other genres when the horror genre dries up just to keep abreast of who's who and what's popular. I'd be an even shittier reviewer if I only watched horror movies and nothing else. Thus, I gave "Man of Steel" a chance to change my mind about Superman.

Unfortunately, apart from Antje Traue looking hot as Faora-Ul (an updated version of Ursa), Zach Snyder's "Man of Steel" is easily the worst Superman movie ever made. While I can appreciate the darker tone and Michael Shannon's exceptional performance as General Zod, there's nothing here story-wise that I haven't seen before. As dated as they are, I would've been better off rewatching "Superman: The Movie" (1978) and "Superman II" (1980) instead of this "Transformers" wannabe.

"Man of Steel" features such things as disjointed storytelling which is ridiculously hard to follow, visuals which might look spectacular but make no sense, a script written by Christopher Nolan so you know it'll be crap, and lots of CGI buildings being demolished... but that's about it. With a running time of approximately three days, it's far too long and monotonous with it. It's all bang, bang, boom like a Michael Bay film with 90% of it made of swirling computer-generated battles, explosions, and gut-churning aerial shots of places which don't even exist.

It's not worth mentioning the big names who have small parts in "Man of Steel" because the only fun for anybody is spotting them and thinking, "Oh my God, so-and-so looks so old now!" I'm not going to take those suprises away from you. Just enjoy them for what they are, and savour the brief moments with Ayelet Zurer who plays Superman's real mother (Lara Lor-Van) at the start because she's really beautiful. She can't act, but she looks great.

I didn't think there could actually be a more disappointing superhero movie than "The Dark Knight Rises", but there is now.

Beautiful Creatures (2013)

"Ethan longs to escape his small Southern town. He meets a mysterious new girl, Lena. Together, they uncover dark secrets about their respective families, their history and their town."

Based on the "acclaimed bestseller" that I've never heard of, "Beautiful Creatures" is yet another bland teen romance meant to fill the gap left by "Twilight". Apparently, it has bombed at the box office, but I decided to watch it anyway because I'm a masochist like that. It's not as if there's anything else related to the horror genre to see right now. We're still over a month away from the "Evil Dead" remake and whatever dubious joys it may bring to the table.

Although "Beautiful Creatures" is overlong, a bit slow, and contains too much exposition instead of action, with a $60,000,000 budget there's plenty to look at this film especially the hot actresses, Alice Englert and Emmy Rossum as Lena Duchannes and Ridley Duchannes respectively. If you're a lot older, even Emma Thompson looks nice with her shoulders bared. I still like her anyway.

Green screen effects were allegedly kept to a minimum with a lot of practical effects such as the changing colours of Macon's living room and the spinning dinner table being highlights. I'm no expert, but I'm certain that a lot more was enhanced afterwards. When it comes to the obligatory magic lightning bolts trickling out of fingertips though, "Beautiful Creatures" doesn't contain the worst examples.

Like theatrical releases should be, it's beautifully filmed, looks the part in nearly every way, and even the CGI is acceptable when it happens. Thus, "Beautiful Creatures" certainly lives up to its title. In other ways, not so much, but I'll come to them by and by.

Hot sexy witch. 'Nuff said.

The biggest problem is that "Beautiful Creatures" really is all about how it looks. The story is too messy, obviously conflated from a piece of literature which must be even more character driven, and is instantly forgettable. In fact, it's rather tedious even if you are into romance. Despite a promising start, it soon becomes "Southern American Cliché: The Movie" with bad accents and every available teen movie trope other than farting for comic effect lifted from something better. At one point, I thought it was going to turn into "Footloose"!

Given the lack of risk taking in Hollywood (or Summit/Lionsgate) at the moment, I almost want to let the lack of originality slide as something which we've all become far too used to, but I can't. Due to the nature of the movies I usually watch, I immediately noticed that the most important plot point about choosing between light and dark borrows heavily from "Night Watch" (2004). There are even moments when the protagonists step into "the gloom" to discuss things or do battle outside the world as perceived by mortals. If that isn't enough to create the stench of plagiarism, the cursed "coming of age" cliché has been done to death by nearly every trendy supernatural drama since the 1970s. Depending on your era, if you've seen "Alison's Birthday", "The Craft" or "The Covenant", there's nothing new here.

With its credible acting, witty moments of dialogue and genuine attempts at characterisation, "Beautiful Creatures" probably isn't a bad movie if you're twelve or younger and haven't seen anything else like it. It may be possible to actually care about the smart-talking characters, think they're kind of cool and hope that love will conquer all at the end, but anyone older isn't going to be so easily pleased or lenient even given the internal logic of the fantasy itself. Let's face it, witches and wizards aren't real, never have been, and never will be. The whole premise of the film is undoubtedly silly and, in my opinion, would have worked better as a more obvious '80s-style comedy. Please note that I say that as someone who detests comedies.

"I hope you kids are using protection."

The story is a horrible mixture of being contrived and timid at the same time albeit with a couple of scenes which push the boundaries regarding underage sex. The twenty-four year old Alden Ehrenreich (as Ethan) and nineteen year old Alice Englert (Lena) aren't that convincing at acting younger than their ages in spite of valiant efforts to do so. The whole relationship between Ethan and Lena suggests paedophilia (or statutory rape) in no uncertain terms. Not that any of us necessarily want to see them bumping uglies on screen, but cutting to a sign burning in the background at one point like something out of the 1950s is also likely to incite more groans from the audience in displeasure than anything else.

Unlike "Twilight", these "kids" can't wait to lose their cherries. But if you're going to show "teenagers" getting it on then show it! And if you're going to get us excited about Emmy Rossum walking around in a black négligée at least be nice enough to provide a money shot after she's been writhing on a blanket with a sickly looking youth! If there's one thing crucial to a story in this genre, it's a deflowering or two! Given the PG-13 rating, obviously that doesn't happen. I have no idea if it happens in the book either although I assume it does since normal teenagers rarely read books aimed at their age group unless there's something saucy in them. I'm sure they won't miss the insinuation of incest between Macon and Sarafine either. I don't want to digress too much so I'll get on my soapbox about the pointlessness of "YT" horror fiction another time.

"Stop! In the name of love... before you break my heart..."

I'm not sure how to fit this into my critique, but I really need to hop on my soapbox for a moment about something else in "Beautiful Creatures" which bugged the Hell out of me (no pun intended): the depiction of Christians. Since they are made out to be a bunch of small town puritans with hillbilly superstitions, could the writing really be any lazier? And could this feeble clichéd jibe be an indication of a much bigger problem behind the scenes of the media as we know it? I'm not going to push this any further, but it's something to think about. I'd say the agenda was more in the mind of the authors, Kami Garcia and Margaret Stohl, than director Richard LaGravenese, but either way, it's lame. In a book or movie about witches though, you have to have something wrong with you to be attracted to this guff in the first place.

Suspending your disbelief about immortal witches (instead of vampires or werewolves) isn't the only hard part. If you're American, the plethora of fake Southern accents in "Beautiful Creatures" will definitely drive you insane. They are even harsher and less intelligible to British ears especially when delivered from the mouths of the very British Jeremy Irons and Emma Thompson. Through no fault of his own, Jeremy Irons makes my flesh crawl at the best of times even when he isn't trying to sound like Foghorn Leghorn.

Other cast members are more in the background apart from the better looking of the stereotypical clique of "popular girls", Zoey Deutch, who deserves to go further. I can't wait to see her in "Vampire Academy: Blood Sisters" next year. I'm not sure who Viola Davis is because I've never knowingly seen her in anything else, but apparently it's kind of a big deal having her in this movie. Thomas Mann, who plays Link, was also in "Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters" recently, but Pruitt Taylor Vince, Eileen Atkins and Kyle Gallner are almost completely wasted in their bit parts. It's not worth going through any more of the actors because you won't have heard of them and are unlikely to see them in anything else. Having said that, you barely get to see any of them here either. You do get to see massive CGI thunderstorms instead though.

I love excessive, big budget wastes of money like this because it almost justifies the price of the ticket. I'd rather pay $10 to see something with high production values than the same amount for some half-arsed camcorder crap no matter what the subject matter may be. Unfortunately, "Beautiful Creatures" isn't all explosions, bangs, and the kind of spectacle which makes for a true cinematic experience. It has its moments, but it's mostly a drawn-out romantic drama with a kind of "Harry Potter" aesthetic and dialogue which wouldn't be out of place in "Jennifer's Body", "Juno" or some other pop-culture reference filled piece of pseudo-hipsterishness for little girls.

My advice is to wait for this to come out on DVD and then rent it.

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters (2013)

"In this spin on the fairy tale, Hansel & Gretel are now bounty hunters who track and kill witches all over the world. As the fabled Blood Moon approaches, the siblings encounter a new form of evil that might hold a secret to their past."

Sometimes there's nothing wrong with a bit of low-brow, action-horror full of CGI if you're in the right mood for it, and that's precisely what you get with "Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters".

Directed by Norwegian Tommy Wirkola, who was also responsible for the dreadful and vastly overrated "Dead Snow" (2009), "Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters" continues his love for over-the-top gore and allows him to throw in some light-hearted touches which make it a rather fun experience if you are the kind of person who can switch off your brain enough to enjoy the ride. It's not a movie which will stand up to any kind of critical deconstruction because it's predictable as can be and contains so many anachronisms that it makes "Van Helsing" look like a historical documentary in comparison.

Of course, it's impossible to say anything about "Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters" without mentioning "Van Helsing" (2004). Both movies are firmly in the "fantasy action adventure" category, they look almost identical, and, to be honest, if it hadn't been for Stephen Sommers, I doubt that this genre of movies would still have a market. There really are some people who actually like "Van Helsing" and, presumably, the Paramount and MGM executives have been looking for a way to emulate Universal's cash grab for some time. Thus, "Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters" has similarly cool weaponry, wire work, and CGI in bucket loads. What it does differently, however, is up the violence and profanities. It's also a lot quicker over the ground.

Don't go into this thinking that you are going to see the quintessential dramatisation of the "Hansel and Gretel" fairytale or you will be severely disappointed. That part is dealt with so quickly that it's almost shameful. There are so many ways that it should have been lengthened to show the kids being tortured and force fed by the cannibal witch that I'm sure someone will do precisely that eventually to redress the balance. The Brothers Grimm are probably spinning in their graves at the liberties which have been taken here.

"Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters" isn't really a film that's either about kids (except as a plot point) or for kids anyway. It's only meant to be a throwaway, January, popcorn flick which showcases the talents of Jeremy Renner ("Hawkeye" from "The Avengers") and gorgeous Gemma Arterton (from "The Disappearance of Alice Creed") as they get into some severe badassery in an overblown 3D pop video. As someone who has already learned to expect very little from Paramount and MGM, I can't say that there's anything wrong with them making a film like this at all. I'm only surprised that they didn't wait to release it during the Summer.

While "Haweye" and "Alice" turn in some fairly decent and potty-mouthed performances, this isn't a film that's concerned about acting or characterisation so much as it is about stunts, automatic weapons, and spectacle. It easily excels in all three of the latter and makes an ideal replacement for the "Underworld" franchise. Just like "Underworld: Awakening" (2012), you really need to see it in 3D for the full experience even though the gimmicky effects are too fast and too dark in some places.

For me, Famke Janssen stands out the most as Muriel the evil witch, but that's probably because I'm biased and fancy her even with her horror face on. Your mileage may vary especially with Pihla Viitala looking equally lovely as the good witch Mina. It's a pity that Ingrid Bolsø Berdal isn't allowed to have a glamorous moment, but that's karma paying her back for being in "Chernobyl Diaries" which I still haven't managed to get through. If I want to see Ingrid looking hot, I'll just rewatch "Cold Prey" anyway.

I would like to say something good about Derek Mears (Jason Voorhees from the "Friday the 13th" remake) as Edward the troll, but I can't. I'm not sure how much of his costume is practical and how much is enhanced with CGI, but it's not really important. Either way, his character is rather pointless after one scene and isn't a million miles away from being a clone of the Frankenstein monster from "Van Helsing".

A lot of stuff is shot against a green screen which makes a bit of a mockery of the location filming in Germany, but to give credit where it's due, the forest and faux mediaeval village setting look perfect. If you want all the "smoke and mirrors" spoiled for you, watch the video below.



I highly recommend "Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters" particularly to "horror-lite" fans. If you fancy a bit of instantly forgettable fun this weekend, you could do a lot worse. At the very least, it's a mainstream theatrical release which delivers a substantial amount of adrenaline-pumping entertainment.

Witchville (2010)

"In the Middle Ages, Erik and Jason seek out his compatriot Malachy and force him to return to his homeland."

Well, since it's "Fantasy Friday", here's a nasty thing from the SyFy channel for you starring Luke Goss, Ed Speleers, MyAnna Buring and Sarah Douglas. You'd have to have spent your life under a rock like my Blogger/Twitter stalker to not know who any of these people are, but I'll remind you anyway.

Luke Goss is, of course, one half of the Bros boyband from the late '80s who now fancies himself as an actor. In fairness, he isn't too bad in any of the movies that I've seen him in although he's reached the age where he looks like a poor man's Jason Statham rather than the pop idol he once was. As King Malachy in "Witchville", he's credible enough especially as it's only a B-movie anyway.

Allegedly, Ed Speelers is famous for playing "Eragon" in the 2006 movie of the same name, but I haven't watched it yet. Maybe I'll do that next week since I've heard a few good things about it. If it has big CGI dragons in it then I can't wait! Yes, that was sarcasm. He doesn't have the biggest role in "Witchville" apart from being tied up and tortured, but that's good enough for me.

MyAnna Buring is someone who you should know from "The Descent" and a few other horror movies that I've reviewed on this blog including "Credo" and "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2". She's a very good looking girl and always adds a nice bit of blonde allure to whatever she's in even though her acting skills seem to be minimal. She's underused once again here as a warrior-sorceress, but at least she looks the part.

Finally, Sarah Douglas started off as one of the brides of Dracula in Dan Curtis' 1974 adaptation but only achieved real fame in the "Superman" movies as Ursa. In "Witchville", she plays "The Red Queen" quite adequately even if it's just a case of dressing up in feathers like a big, scary chicken version of Darth Vader.

There's not much to like in this movie other than the serious tone and the background music. The CGI effects would have been okay in "Hercules" or "Xena: Warrior Princess", but there aren't many of them, and they look dated. The oversized leeches are the highest point with the lightning bolts of magic and glowing eyes which change colour being the lowest.

If you are into "sword and sorcery" B-movies then you might also get a kick out of this one. It's rather slow and very formulaic, but some of the action sequences are interestingly choreographed, and the filming location in China suits the story well. Unfortunately, "Witchville" is still as instantly forgettable as all the other SyFy movies.

King of the Castle (1977)

There are some TV programmes from my childhood which I thought I'd only imagined even though I fondly remembered important parts of them. On the other hand, there are quite a few which I wish really did only exist in my imagination because watching them as an adult makes me cringe. HTV's "King of the Castle" has a foot in both camps because, having spent a few hours today rewatching it, it's not something that I ever want to see again.

If you've never heard of "King of the Castle", here's the blurb from Amazon:

Macabre, fantastical and a benchmark production for children's television in the 1970s, King of the Castle was created by Doctor Who stalwarts Bob Baker and Dave Martin as one of the run of outstanding children's dramas HTV produced in that decade. Featuring strong direction and a script which expertly melds fantasy and reality, the series boasts solid performances from genre stalwarts Fulton Mackay, Milton Johns and Talfryn Thomas as well as Philip Da Costa as the series' hero, Roland. One of the most memorable television series of the '70s is available here, for the very first time in any video format. Episode three no longer exists in the archive in any format and the version included on this set is taken from an off-air VHS.

I'm not sure what I was looking for on YouTube when I discovered that the whole "King of the Castle' series had been uploaded by several people, but I was in one of those moods where I randomly click on the recommended videos until I end up watching some very strange channels indeed. Before I found "King of the Castle", I'd been watching highly embarrassing episodes of "Grange Hill", "Chocky" and "The Tomorrow People" and feeling dirty about doing so. If there's anyone of a similar age to me who didn't see at least one of those when they were originally shown then they probably didn't have a television.

Since I didn't recognise the title of "King of the Castle", all I remembered from the series to identify it was that the kid who got beaten up by bullies had a model kit of Frankenstein's monster, and somehow he ended up in a dungeon ruled by some ratty-looking guy who told him to always go up if he wanted to escape. What I'd forgotten was how the story was filled with clever socio-political subtext and commentary which I'm ashamed to say that I still don't quite understand even as an adult.

The big messages of the fantasy part of "King of the Castle" are apparently that work is pointless, comfort and ignorance is bliss, and there's too much bureaucracy in the world. There's a lot of Oedipal stuff going on too whereby the hero, Roland, has to take his father's role by force and has a crush of some kind on his stepmother. The latter doesn't surprise me in the slightest since Angela Richards, who plays the dual role of June and the Lady, is absolutely gorgeous.

Very recognisable faces include Fulton Mackay (the prison officer from "Porridge") as a Frankenstein-style scientist, Milton Johns as his monster, creepy Talfryn Thomas as the ratty-looking caretaker, and Jamie Foreman (who now plays Derek Branning in "Eastenders") as Ripper the bully. Bizarrely, I didn't recognise the lead, Philip Da Costa, as being the same guy who went on to play Jackson in "Scum" (1979).

In spite of the badly-timed, obviously stagey acting, and cheap sets which look better than the cardboard and curtains that they are really made of, "King of the Castle" isn't a bad piece of kids' entertainment for the time. Unfortunately, as a grown-up, I can see that it's really just a slightly darker, and very British, rip-off of "The Wizard of Oz" with the genders of the protagonists changed. Both nostos stories go back to Homer's "The Odyssey" anyway, but let's not get too highbrow about them.

One thing which really irritated me, perhaps because I've been away from Britain for so long, was the choirboy singing the "I'm the king of the castle, and you're a dirty rascal" theme tune which is full of the mispronounced "Estuary English" which I despise. It sounds like "I'm the king of the CARsul, and you're a dirty RARscul". Ugh. I hate that and "BARth" instead of "bath", "GLARss" instead of "glass", and the "someFINK" instead of "something" which even Gordon Ramsay has fallen prey too. I've always noticed it, but maybe it doesn't show up so much when you are constantly surrounded by it or you're a bit thick.

I don't recommend "King of the Castle" although I've embedded it as a playlist at the top of this post. It's not an accurate reflection of life in Britain in the late 1970s or anything, and it's certainly not scary for anyone over 7 years old. If you are into nostalgia, it's interesting to see a "Hammer Horror" magazine and a "Howard the Duck" comic at one point, but that's about it really.

Isn't it funny what you can find on YouTube when you are looking for something else? If only I could remember the name of that weird poltergeist story with a load of cushions flying around a room which I caught the last five minutes of. Whatever it was that left the image of someone tied to a chair with a washing line and a bottle of Sarson's malt vinegar stuck in their mouth is another matter.

Brazil (1985)

"A bureaucrat in a retro-future world tries to correct an administrative error and himself becomes an enemy of the state."

It's not often that I don't know what to say about a movie, but having watched "Brazil" for the very first (and second) time today as part of my Christmas movies selection, I don't know how to categorise it. I'm not even sure if I enjoyed it or not. I think I did in some ways, but I still wanted to hate it all the way through.

"Brazil" is a surreal, sci-fi fantasy set in an Orwellian future which annoys me almost as much as "1984" itself. I've been watching a few sci-fi movies on the side lately and, since I'm a natural pattern finder, all these dystopian futures are the same from one movie to another. There's always a big, bad government and some neo-noir style lead character who turns out to be the unprepared hero of the piece amidst a load of technology which makes absolutely no sense.

I'll eventually review them, but I've also rewatched "The Matrix" (1999) and "Dark City" (1998) this weekend for absolutely no good reason at all other than entertainment. I'm not sure if that's the purpose behind them, but I keep feeling that I've seen the same story over and over ever since "Metropolis" (1927). It makes me glad that I'm not a real sci-fi fan because the clones and lack of originality in that genre even outweigh the current problems with horror.

In some ways "Brazil" is also a horror movie. There's some nice gore and definitely a nightmarish atmosphere to the arty-farty nonsense which makes it suitable for a horror fan, but there's comedy too which really messes things up. If it wasn't for the slapstick and satire, I think I would rate "Brazil" as a great film rather than a turd trying to be cleverer than it is. As I said, I don't really know how to classify it or rate it properly because it's not in a style that I'm used to.

The funny thing is that I got caught up in the story even though the plot is as simple as they come with a predictable twist at the end which I thought was going to be an even bigger cop-out. I honestly expected it to be another "it was all a dream" movie or to go into "brain in a vat" territory. I hate those "we don't know what reality is" pseudo-philosphical stories especially as the whole concept is "meta" in the first place. If I'm willing to suspend my disbelief to watch a movie, I don't want any more layers of unreality to throw me right back out of it. That's where bullshit like "Inception" (2010) failed to impress me.

All I can say for sure about "Brazil" is that it has a great cast of some bigger names than I thought I'd ever see in the same movie, and it pretty much wastes the talents of every single one of them. I'm surprised that they ever worked again. Robert DeNiro? Well, he's never been that good anyway, but Bob Hoskins playing Mario before actually playing Mario is just plain weird.

Kim Greist, who plays Jill (the girl of Jonathan Pryce's character's dreams), looks a lot better in a wig even though she does nothing for me, but I could say that about any of the actors and actresses in this. They all look the part, but their characters' reactions to each other and their lack of depth ruins everything they do. It's impossible to care about any of them except in short bursts and then it's like they never existed. I swear it's possible to forget about everyone in the movie within seconds of hearing their last line.

"Brazil" is all style over substance at the end of the day and not very memorable except for the way it looks. I get that it's a satire or parody of some kind, but it's not funny. If it's a satire of the sci-fi genre itself, it's kind of insulting.

Sci-fi masochists everywhere who want to enjoy a combined brain-numbing and ass-numbing can now appreciate the new Criterion Blu-ray of the 142 minute long "fifth and final" director's cut which was released last week. Allegedly, it's better than the Universal version and my DVD version, but I'm sure that's like saying eating hot vomit is worse than eating cold vomit. I never want to watch "Brazil" again.

Deathstalker (1983)

"The warrior Deathstalker is tasked by an old witch lady to obtain and unite the three powers of creation - a chalice, an amulet, and a sword - lest the evil magician Munkar get them and use them for nefarious purposes."

Filled with a plethora of monsters, boobs, blood, decapitations, and no acting ability whatsoever, "Deathstalker" marks the beginning of my new "Fantasy Friday" series in a way that no other '80s sword and sorcery adventure ever could.

There's certainly no other which co-stars Richard Brooker, the third actor to play Jason Voorhees in the "Friday the 13th" series, and the first Jason actor to wear the hockey mask. Did you really think that I would choose a movie which had no association with horror on my blog? Shame on you. Richard Brooker is also very British so that's another good reason to mention him although it's Rick Hill who plays the lead role of Deathstalker.

I was never a huge fan of the "fantasy" genre, but there were some titles which had to be watched back in the day simply because they came from the same Roger Corman stable as a lot of horror flicks. The awesome "Deathstalker" poster was also so proudly displayed by my local video store that I just had to rent the VHS tape to see if anything on it remotely resembled what the artwork suggested. It didn't really, but I was too young to understand why. God help me, I even looked forward to the sequels as they came out over the years.

Obviously, "Deathstalker" is an even lower-budget clone of "Conan the Barbarian" with lots of manly posturing, surprisingly well-choreographed swordplay, and hardly enough plot to keep it going for an hour and a quarter, but what more do you expect from any B-movie apart from cheap entertainment? If you want gratuitous nudity, hot chicks, or just some weirdly homoerotic costumes and a bizarre, magical sex-change, "Deathstalker" has it all. There are some nice gory bits dotted around too.

I'm not going to go into any great detail about the story because it won't stand up to any serious critique. Instead, I've embedded the full movie at the top of this post for you to enjoy.

Let me know what you think of "Deathstalker" in the comments section below.

Frankenstein Created Woman (1967)

"Abetted by the elderly Dr. Hertz (Thorley Waters) and handyman Hans (Robert Morris), Baron Frankenstein (Peter Cushing) determines that the soul does not immediately leave the body upon death, and can be transplanted from one body to another with a special apparatus he has developed."

Since "Frankenstein Created Woman" is yet another overpriced and OOP R1 DVD, I've embedded the full movie from YouTube above. It's also another old Hammer movie which you've probably seen anyway so I don't need to spend much time reviewing it.

Set in an unnamed European country (either Austria or Switzerland) during an equally difficult to pin down historical period, "Frankenstein Created Woman" is a "fantasy" movie which is more about the drama than terror.

As ever, Peter Cushing provides a lot of class as Baron Frankenstein in this huge departure from Mary Shelley's original piece of science fiction. Thorley Walters also gives an exceptionally good performance as the amusingly named Doctor Hertz. In many ways, he's channelling Nigel Bruce's bumbling Doctor Watson throughout.

The real attraction, however, is Susan Denberg as Christina who evokes sympathy right from the beginning as she hides her disfigured face with her hair. It's not enough to hide her true beauty from her lover Hans (Robert Morris) or anyone else other than three excellently played but spiteful bullies.

In fact, the cruelty which the bullies inflict on poor Christina is one of the most harrowing parts of "Frankenstein Created Woman" which deserves far more attention than I'm going to give it. Suffice it to say that "Frankenstein Created Woman" is a great piece of wish-fulfilment fantasy for those who have ever been bullied themselves. Revenge is apparently best served cold in a mended body with a transferred soul.

Even though "Frankenstein Created Woman" lapses into the usual scientific silliness about resurrecting the dead, it deals with themes of injustice and vengeance quite admirably. It also unwittingly throws up a few questions about transgender issues which I'm sure get discussed on sites with an axe to grind about such things.

"Frankenstein Created Woman" is a sparsely populated, slightly stagey, and obviously low-budget production which looks better than it should do thanks to the geniuses at Bray Studios. While it doesn't have the great atmosphere of earlier Hammer horror movies and some of the camerawork could be better, it's a kind of in the middle deal due to having a much better story.

As a big fan of Hammer horror movies, I rate "Frankenstein Created Woman" quite highly despite its rather tame exploitation scenes which in no way match up to the promotional stills. Although "Frankenstein Created Woman" is listed as "Unrated", I wouldn't class it as more than a PG-13. There isn't much gore or anything too scary about it even for children so, apart from a very minor sex scene, it's almost good wholesome family entertainment.

If you are looking for something cosy and not too extreme for Hallowe'en, you can't really go wrong with horror movies from this period. If, like me, you grew up seeing everything by Hammer and Amicus repeated ad nauseum by the BBC, you might not be quite so eager to revisit them. Trust me though, it's always worth giving them another airing if only for the pretty girls and the nostalgia.