The Disappointments Room (2016)

"A mother and her young son release unimaginable horrors from the attic of their rural dream home."

I'm going to address the elephant in the room straight away: "The Disappointments Room" is aptly named. Everyone can now sit back smugly and chuckle, because saying that is about as obvious and predictable as everything else in this ghostie movie.

It's such a shame when a movie like this fails to deliver, especially as everything was in place for it to be good. The North Carolina location is fantastic, Kate Beckinsale in a blonde wig is still as beautiful as ever, and there's even a cat in the story. Unfortunately, "The Disappointments Room" contains nothing which hasn't been done before, or more importantly, done better.

If you can't guess how "The Disappointments Room" is going to go after the first ten minutes, either you haven't seen enough horror movies (which is possibly a good thing) or you haven't realised the formulaic nature of just about every "ghosts and hauntings" movie ever made. You can be sure that director D.J. Caruso and his co-writer Wentworth Miller have seen everything though, and they've thrown as many tropes as they could into this in arguably not the best manner. Having said that, there are some good moments among the unoriginality, but even then, they aren't great.

Acting-wise, it's okay. Kate Beckinsale seems to have become the Belén Rueda of American horror, and will probably continue in the same vein for years to come. She's always technically been a MILF, but now she's playing one as part of the plot, and there's nothing wrong with that. Her supporting cast, because let's keep it real here, don't have much to do or very much screen time, but they are perfectly acceptable. The storytelling is a bit rushed, and it's that element more than any other which makes "The Disappointments Room" into more of a generic product than something you would want in your collection.

Gerald McRaney's role is woefully small but important, but hey, it's not the size but what you do with it, right? Fortunately, a potentially annoying child in the form of Duncan Joiner playing Lucas is also nipped in the bud early on. The latter has an encounter which is so obviously cribbed from "The Shining" that of course it works, and he's not such an irritating little piss afterwards.

"Bones" fans will spot Michaela Conlin for a few seconds with no discernable lines of dialogue, but who cares? She's in it, it's another IMDb credit, and the point of her character is made. For those who might blink and miss it, Lucas Till's character Ben pretty much nails why the rich, middle-aged "yuppies" have moved to the countryside anyway in a buzzkill, quasi "meta-cinema" line which isn't wasted at all. Some slight socio-political commentary there, maybe? On the plus side, maybe not.

If you want to see more original (although still highly formulaic) stories in the "ghosts/haunted house with a mystery" subgenre, you can choose from "The Uninvited" (1944), "The Haunted" (1963), "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark" (1973), "Burnt Offerings" (1976), "The Haunting Passion" (1983), "The Haunting of Seacliff Inn" (1994), "House of the Damned" (1996), "The Others" (2001), "Penny Dreadful" (2005), "The Orphanage" (2007), "The Abandoned" (2015), and literally hundreds if not thousands more. There's even enough of the "architects renovating a building and setting ghosts loose" movies that they have become yet another subgenre in their own right. One that springs to mind from only a couple of years ago, "Altar" (2014), was almost the same story as this but set in a windswept manor in Northern England.

If you're a Kate Beckinsale fan, you'll love her in "The Disappointments Room". If you're a ghost story fan, you'll watch this anyway for completeness. But if you're looking for originality, something like this (or anything recent in the whole horror genre) is not for you.

Wuthering Heights (1939)

"A servant in the house of Wuthering Heights tells a traveller the unfortunate tale of lovers Cathy and Heathcliff."

It's very tempting to blog about "Wuthering Heights" simply to hit back at the "Jack-of-all-trades and master-of-none" movie reviewers who've tried to invade the horror genre (as they have done with various degrees of success over the last five years), and play them at their own game by intentionally reviewing some of their movies less than favourably, but I'm not going to stoop to their extremely low level by writing off this classic movie as nothing more than a great wraparound ghost story ruined by a load of soppy romantic drivel meant for repressed Victorian girls in the middle.

Somewhere amongst my disapproval of the faux "journalists" who've tried their hardest to destroy what little camaraderie was left in the various horror "communities" (which has resulted in hardly any true horror movies being made now), plus my added dislike of the confusing old books I was forced to read at school, the part of me which can still discern the good found a thoroughly engrossing gem in this adaptation of "Wuthering Heights".

To cut a long story short, I never finished reading "Wuthering Heights" when I was doing my English Literature A levels. The alien setting of the bleak Yorkshire moors, the ever increasing number of inconsistent characters, and the over-complicated style of this sprawling soap opera were even worse to me than reading some middle-English tripe such as Chaucer or the more nebulous poems of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Once given the opportunity to learn about a more straightforward book for the exams, I jumped at the chance by devouring "Pride and Prejudice" instead. I vowed never to read "Wuthering Heights" again (I've kept the promise to myself easily), and I had no interest in ever watching the movie until I started investgating the work of wartime directors as a possible theme for this month's "Hallowe'en Countdown".

What a delight awaited me when I discovered that this "Wuthering Heights" is an abridged version of only the best parts of Emily Brontë's tedious novel! The whole second generation of Earnshaws and Lintons (and God knows who else because that's where I threw the book in the bin) are absent, yet the tragic themes remain the same. Catherine's social climbing still wrecks her love affair with Heathcliff, Heathcliff is still a vengeful savage at heart, and the other characters are all moral weaklings trapped by their various finances, hereditary status, and genders in the class system.

As movies go, director William Wyler obviously did a fantastic job with this Samuel Goldwyn production, albeit with some disagreement about the ending. Behind the scenes, Wyler managed to beat most of the ham out of Laurence Olivier and even contain the disputes with Merle Oberon, although the surprising lack of physical chemistry between the leads is still noticeable until Cathy is on her deathbed.

It's almost possible to feel some sympathy for "milksop" Edgar Linton and his sister Isabella, due to the respective charisma of David Niven and frailty of Geraldine Fitzgerald. rather than wanting them to die horribly from the moment they first appear. Their very American period clothing is a little jarring for anyone seeking historical accuracy where there won't be any, but that's a minor quibble.

Even Flora Robson, known best to horror genre fans as Aunt Agatha from "The Shuttered Room" (1967), and possibly the lesser seen "Eye of the Devil" (1966) starring David Niven once again, comes across as far more human and defeated as the long-suffering housekeeper and narrator Ellen (or Nelly) Dean. Out of all the characters, she's likely to be more remembered than Laurence Olivier trying to pass for a Gypsy with highlights of Kiwi brown boot polish on his face.

Albeit a product of 1939 with affected speech patterns and stagey line delivery, "Wuthering Heights" is considerably more even in quality than Alfred Hitchcock's "Rebecca" (1940), and you won't find yourself cringing. After a few minutes, Greg Toland's Academy Award winning cinematography will make you forget that this is all in black and white too.

"Wuthering Heights" is a dark, brooding story with dark, brooding, and mostly unlikeable characters in its original form as a book, but with over half of it gone, the core works well as a tragic romance. It's not the same thing as reading the book, so you can't just watch the film instead of studying if you are unlucky enough to have it on your syllabus, but the subject matter has been rendered into an easily digestible work of art which is far more enjoyable than it really should be.

Thus, we have another movie for October which isn't something a "horror fan" would normally think of watching. Sometimes you just have to take a chance on something outside of your comfort zone, because life is too short to watch shit movies.

Poltergeist (2015)

"A family whose suburban home is haunted by evil forces must come together to rescue their youngest daughter after the apparitions take her captive."

Oh God, here we go with the unnecessary remakes again! 'Tis the season! Not that I'm opposed to every remake. Some of them have been better than the originals, particularly in nearly every case of the Asian horror movies which I once collected.

Yeah, some of those remakes are on the Ghost House Pictures label, the same company who are the producers of this movie, so you'd think that they would know what they were doing by now. You'd be wrong, of course. So very wrong.

Look, I'm sure that you know exactly what I'm going to say about "Poltergeist" before I even write it, so let's cut straight through the chase here.

The remake of "Poltergeist" is
complete and utter shite!

Print that on the eventual Blu-ray slipcase!

I don't feel the need to back this up with any reasons. It's already bad enough that I wasted my time and money by watching this soulless piece of crap, and I don't want to torture myself more by writing about it. And no, it has nothing to do with nostalgia.

I've always disliked the original 1982 version because it only has one scene in it which even resembles real poltergeist activity, i.e. the stacking chairs one, and thus even the title of the movie was a bait and switch con job. Fundamentally, the rest of "Poltergeist" is a padded and updated ripoff of the "Little Girl Lost" episode from "The Twilight Zone" TV series anyway.

I can't stand the dope-smoking parents, or the irritating kids, and jump scares don't work on me. On top of that, the smug ghosthunting team and that awful Tangina thing grip my shit. The only two things which I care to remember fondly from the whole ordeal are JoBeth Williams' beautiful shiny legs. That's it.

In my opinion, the original "Poltergeist" is a stupid but fairly harmless, family-friendly Spielberg fantasy in everything but the director's name. I have no idea if Tobe Hooper really directed it or not. I don't care. I simply don't like "Poltergeist". I'm not an American, I don't connect with the suburban situation or the characters, and I have absolutely no nostalgic feelings about it whatsoever. Just waves and waves of bitter disappointment that it isn't actually about poltergeists.

And you know what? I don't like the sequels either.

"Poltergeist II: The Other Side" (1986) seems like an inferior ripoff of John G. Jones' genuinely terrifying "The Amityville Horror Part II" (1982) novel to me, and "Poltergeist III" (1988) is nothing but a badly made final cash grab which isn't worth piss. Back in the day, I only got through that mess of a movie because I didn't want to completely waste the VHS rental fee. It then turned into a waste both of money and part of my life. Fuck that movie too!

As for this "Poltergeist" remake. I've said all that I want to. If you need further validation, I recommend that you read round the other independent reviewers rather than the "big name" sites carrying those enormous "Poltergeist" advertisements. We all feel much the same way. There's probably nothing different on any of the free blogs which I wouldn't have said about "Poltergeist" myself if I even gave two shits about it, but the most condemnation that the shill sites will dare to write is "Well, it's not bad for a remake..." Fuck that noise!

Just watch the IMDb score drop over the weekend as more people find out the truth for themselves. It's only on 5.8 now! The comments on the official Facebook page are hilariously illuminating too. "Poltergeist is bad, it's really bad. It's "A Nightmare on Elm Street" remake bad! It's too modern, truncated, the ending is rushed, the acting/characterisation is horrible, there's no chemistry, no emotion, it isn't scary... Oh, you nearly got me there. No, I'm not doing this anymore. No more negativity!!! I'm outta here!

If you're really that desperate for a "Poltergeist" remake, try "Grave Secrets: The Legacy of Hilltop Drive" (1992) or "Insidious" (2010) instead. I haven't reviewed them either.

Live-In Fear (2014)

"In the snowy Utah mountains, an ancient being terrorizes four friends as they try to survive."

There aren't many independent horror movies which I've waited over two years to see (or even cared about for that matter), but Brandon Scullion's "Live-In Fear" is one of them. In fact, it was way back on Friday, October 26th, 2012, that I first mentioned this movie, and earlier today, thanks to Maria Olsen from MOnsterworks66, I finally got to watch the HD screener.

Is "Live-In Fear" all that I expected it to be? Well, yes and no. I was mostly looking forward to the wintery setting, "The Shining"-style madness, and of course, the performances by Maria Olsen, Arielle Brachfeld, and the equally lovely Sarah Greyson. There's undoubtedly nothing to disappoint anyone too badly with these three actresses involved, but—and there's always a but with these things—the "cabin in the woods" (or rather "lodge in the snow") story itself is a tad confusing in places.

The good news is that this movie now exists and it won "Best Grindhouse Feature" at the 2014 Los Angeles RIP Horror Film Festival. Fans of Arielle Brachfeld (from "The Haunting of Whaley House") will also be pleased to learn that she won "Best Actress" for her role as Mallory at the same festival.

The bad news is that "Live-In Fear" is still another C-grade indie horror which isn't for everyone's tastes. You can't compare something like this with a multi-million dollar Hollywood blockbuster, and so I'm not going to be foolish enough to try. However, when despite the best efforts of everyone involved, the story ultimately doesn't make a whole lot of sense, there's always room for criticism.

Nice retro poster. It reminds me of the '70s.

I was fine with everything (sort of) for the first 53 minutes. "Scooby Doo"-style villains and "Cassanda" tropes aside, each of the characters has dark secrets which are revealed in due course. Coupled with the usual low-budget horror bloodshed, this makes for some decent entertainment overall.

Admittedly, I found myself distracted by the scenery and ogling Sarah Greyson (whom, I have recently been informed, was in the "Road Rules" TV show) as Becca with her Bettie Page hair, but the camerawork is competent enough for the most part, and the sound has some unnerving ambient additions which first made me wonder if there was something wrong with my speakers and then caused me to worry that I was hearing things which weren't supposed to be there. Trust me, you'll notice these things too, and many more.

Written and directed by Brandon Scullion, "Live-In Fear" is a co-production between Brandon's Iodine Sky Productions and Maria Olsen's MOnsterworks66.

Maria Olsen is very attractive in her earlier scenes (and a bit scary later) as Seth's mother, and she definitely gives the younger actresses a run for their money, even if the aforementioned Arielle Brachfeld as Mallory is the one who is meant to stand out the most. Aiding and abetting them is David Lautman as Seth and Chris Dorman as Eric, neither of whose characters I warmed to, and with good reason considering the reveals.

The supporting cast of Geoffrey Gould, Myles Cranford, Charlene Geisler, and Nancy Wolfe are okay-ish, but Nancy Wolfe (who played Susan Atkins in the original 1976 "Helter Skelter") is the obvious stand-out here. None of them have very much screen time.

Sadly, "Live-In Fear" isn't a very scary movie, and it kind of takes itself too seriously for what it is. I actually prefer the latter element in a horror genre movie rather than everything being played for laughs (although I know other people don't feel the same way), so that's another point in its favour.

There's some nice blood and gore in places, which we all like, but there could have been more. Practical effects of various qualities appear throughout, several of which are unintentionally comical, but I can't say any more without spoiling them for you.

Eric is not a very nice man.

The only thing which threw me right out of my willing suspension of disbelief was what can only be described as a "WTF moment" around the 54 minute mark. Something far too weird happens with a younger version of Mallory (played by Charlene Geisler) which had me puzzled for the 4 minute duration of the scene. It makes absolutely no sense even with a second viewing, so I'll generously put it down to padding. The scene could be excised with no great loss, although with a running time of only an hour and 20 minutes, "Live-In Fear" isn't a very long movie anyway. It also has, in my opinion, an unnecessary and unsatisfying "Epilogue".

"Live-In Fear" did not quite live up to my expections, and I highly doubt that it's truly "the most disturbing film you'll see in your lifetime" (as the voiceover in the trailer suggests), but it certainly left me shaking my head and wondering, "What the fuck did I just watch?"

I recommend "Live-In Fear" for fans of this subgenre of indie horror movies, but it isn't good for anyone with mainstream tastes. It's hardly "The Evil Dead" despite some superficial similarities, but then again, it doesn't try to be either.

Having said that, "Live-In Fear" is likely to be one of the best micro-budget indie horrors that you'll see this year. Give or take a plethora of unrealistic situations and responses (which abound in all horror movies), I enjoyed it.

Grave Halloween (2013)

"An American college student studying in Japan risks her own life to save the spirit of her dead mother, who killed herself in the notorious Suicide Forest."

Have you heard of Aokigahara Forest before? No? Me neither. Apparently, it's the trendy place to go if you want to commit suicide in Japan, and there's a famous book about it from the 1960s called "Black Sea of Trees" by Seichō Matsumoto. It's also the setting for Steven R. Monroe's vengeful ghost movie "Grave Halloween".

Since Hallowe'en is a Western custom, if you're now wondering what Japanese ghosts have to do with it, remember that this is a "Syfy Original" movie. Even the most tenuous links will suffice when Syfy are putting titles together for their "31 Days of Halloween" month. The Japanese may not celebrate Hallowe'en as such (although many of them are aware of it), but this movie is primarily about a group of American and Canadian exchange students who decide to film their investigation of the haunted Aokigahara Forest on Hallowe'en anyway. Additionally, it was all shot in Vancouver.

Director Steven R. Monroe is, of course, famous (or infamous) for the "I Spit on Your Grave" remake, its sequel, and nearly a dozen more cheap and nasty Syfy Channel movies. Basically, he's a professional director for hire rather than an auteur, but he usually manages to slip a nice bit of gore into his movies as a kind of trademark. Thus, "Grave Halloween" may surprise a few people with the level of gore in a made-for-TV movie. There's a stick through the throat, an "Evil Dead"-style pulling of arms and legs off, and a fairly realistic broken leg among the effects. Obviously, there's no swearing or nudity this time because "Grave Halloween" is another hypocritical MA-14.

Canadian Kaitlyn Leeb and a taller American guy.

Fans of Asian horror will certainly find something to enjoy in this movie even if it's only to ogle half-Chinese Kaitlyn Leeb (the three-breasted woman from the "Total Recall" remake). Her character, Maiko, is the one responsible for everyone going to the forest due to her birth-mother's suicide there and having received a mysterious box of trinkets through the mail which she wants to use for a Sadake (or blessing/atonement) ritual. If you aren't down with the kids who all seem to be obsessed with Japan these days, or have never heard of "Sadake" before, simply replace the word with Sudoku because it's only a MacGuffin. The students never get to perform their ritual or play Sudoku because they're too busy getting killed by long-haired ghosts!

Ignoring the Japanese elements, "Grave Halloween" is essentially a backwoods slasher which homages "The Evil Dead" and "The Blair Witch Project". Unlike the latter, however, it's not a found footage movie, just one that's quickly filmed with slightly shaky handycams. It's bickering "teenagers" getting bumped off, one by one, by various ghosts (some of which look a lot like zombies) with all the usual clichés and tropes.

The main actors are a mix of bit part players from American and Canadian TV, but they do okay in their poorly differentiated and two-dimensional roles. It's not worth mentioning their names because nobody has ever heard of them. One of the more obnoxious Americans says, "That's super comforting!" at 42 minutes in, and if you already know my feelings about this bloody annoying valley girl intensifier, you'll probably be surprised that I didn't switch the movie off right there and then. But I made it to the end (with my teeth-clenched in fury) just so that I could pan it some more.

Apart from being predictable, the worst thing about "Grave Halloween" is that the backstory is more interesting than the mystery which unfolds or the creepiness of the setting. The details about Japan, its laws and customs, and how ignorant gaijin (foreigners) often behave like disrepectful assholes (and deserve to be cursed) are spot-on, but for all the positives, too much relies on xenophobia. Maybe that's a good thing, though, if it keeps people away from the real Suicide Forest.

Paranormal Asylum: The Revenge of Typhoid Mary (2013)

"Mary Malone (aka Typhoid Mary) was committed to a NY insane asylum to live in solitary after being blamed for spreading Typhoid Fever in the early 20th Century. After decades in isolation she died alone on North Brother Island. Now, nearly 100 years later, two best friends and aspiring filmmakers are setting out to find out what really happened. What starts as a simple investigation turns into a battle for survival, as they discover Mary may be dead, but she's certainly not gone."

If you've been wandering around Walmart recently, you've probably seen this DVD a few times and wondered if it's worth watching. That coverart looks spooky, doesn't it? I bet you think it'll be shit-yer-pants scary! But let's cut straight through the chase here, it's not!

"Paranormal Asylum" is also nothing to do with the "Paranormal Activity" movies or even The Asylum's "Paranormal Entity", but you have to give the filmmakers credit for deliberately creating a confusingly named product which someone is going to buy by accident eventually. The thing is, the plot is nothing like any of those movies unless being a clone of "Grave Encounters" or its sequel counts in any way. Unfortunately, I haven't watched more than 5 minutes of either (except on fast-forward), so I can't say for sure. The word on the street, however, is that "Paranormal Asylum" is an even lower-budget knock off of that already low-budget crap, and I have no reason to doubt it.

Judged on its own merits, "Paranormal Asylum" is absolutely bloody terrible. The story barely makes sense, and the camerawork is so godawful that it's tiresome to watch. It's as if whoever filmed it has no idea how cameras work, how to frame anything, or how to position themselves for the best view. Couple that with the editing which cuts too quickly between shots, and it often becomes nauseating to boot. While I can accept that some of the earlier footage is supposed to look amateur due to small cameras being set up everywhere, in scenes where it's not supposed to be obvious that anyone is holding a camera (and close-ups take over which swing back and forth or whirl around characters), it's actually worse!

Like most low-budget horror movies, the acting is okay in some places and non-existent in others. It's so varied this time though, it makes me wonder if there was ever a complete script involved or if scenes were made up as they went along. Apart from a load of exposition, the rest of the dialogue sounds like it belongs in the cut scenes of a computer game or some crappy Japanese cartoon. Maybe it's just because Nathan Spiteri (who plays Andy) has that kind of voice and delivery, but it's more likely to be because everything is so disjointed and hastily thrown together.

Tying up your possessed fiancée and confining her to bed always ends well.

A somewhat hilarious scene (which isn't meant to be) is when Michelle (Laura Gilreath) gets possessed by the spirit of Typhoid Mary and turns into a flickering escapee from one of those bad '80s computer game movies. Watching her teleport between steps all the way to her car amused me for all the wrong reasons, and I couldn't take anything seriously after that. It's a shame because Laura Gilreath is uber hot and tends to perk things up considerably otherwise. There's no nudity, but at least she strips down to her bra and knickers eventually.

The other main character, Mark (Aaron Mathias), who has the best (albeit far too brief) supernatural encounters, does slightly better overall, despite taking approximately 47 minutes to realise that he's been seeing ghosts! Aaron Mathias seems to be a likeable chap with the right kind of borderline leading man looks to stand out although he doesn't do anything very memorable here. I suppose he does "scared" well enough, but he's the only one who is likely to be affected by any of the jump scares.

Outside of the threesome, minor characters randomly come and go with no rhyme or reason behind their appearances other than how Andy sets up appointments with them for Mark. How Andy knows any of these people remains a mystery within another mystery, especially as the ability to tell a story is not this movie's strong point.

I'm not going to spoil the ending for you because it's as stupid as everything else. Although it ties this mess together in the best way it can, it's completely out of left field and really not worth suffering through the rest of the movie to get to.

The artwork is the best part!

In that case, I'd hate to see a paranormal film that gets it wrong!

And some movies are better off not being made.

Don't confuse it with this:

For the love of God, make this cloning stop!

It's just as bad though.

Ghost Shark (2013)

"It's a shark that's a ghost. Need anything else?"

A lot of people avoid reviewing "Syfy Original" movies, and after watching "Ghost Shark", I can see why. Not only is this one not a patch on "Sharknado", but it doesn't even try to be anything better. "Ghost Shark" is just a lazy piece of made-for-TV filmmaking with no redeeming qualities other than the silliness of its premise and several blatant homages to "Jaws".

Knowing that there's nobody in "Ghost Shark" who I've ever heard of apart from morbidly obese Shawn C. Phillips (aka "Coolduder" from YouTube) should have been my warning not to proceed any further once the "good stuff" in the opening five-minute scene was over, but I foolishly left it playing for company as I clipped my toenails and arranged them in jars. It has to be done, and I came to the conclusion a long time ago that this is the best use for Syfy channel movies anyway.

As expected, the acting in "Ghost Shark" is all over the place, from feeble to mediocre, and the youngest-looking girl mumbles her lines so badly that the movie would benefit from subtitles. For obvious reasons including the budget and casting choices, it looks and feels like a glorified YouTube video, albeit one filmed with high-end equipment. The cheap gore effects and CGI are the only things which are somewhat entertaining in spite of themselves, but this isn't an intentionally made to be "so bad it's good" movie, it's just plain bad.

As usual, there are no characters to care about, the clichéd "teenagers" (several of whom are pushing 30 in real life!) are annoyingly entitled and selfish, and the adults aren't any better. The story is so rushed that none of them are given any time to grieve over their best friends or relatives who've been eaten by the ghost shark, but I doubt that they'd even know how to display those emotions if they were given the chance to.

You're going to need a bigger shed!

The scenes with the ghost shark go from mildly credible (considering the nature of the story) to ludicrous as this Great White doesn't remain in the sea. Taking things several steps too far, our piscine villain pops up in a freshwater swimming pool, comes out of burst pipes, and even leaps out of the rain! Yes, "Ghost Shark" really does exploit the term "jumping the shark" quite literally, which I suppose is kind of the point.

I'm not sure who the target audience is for this crap, but it certainly isn't me. Although I admit to being out of touch with "kids today" and what passes for entertainment in their ADHD world, I don't understand why or how these Syfy movies keep getting made for the two or three hundred people who watch them. I don't think I'll be watching any more.

Durr dumb... durr dumb...

Lost Lake (2012)

"A young couple travels to a deserted town to try and find their mysterious uncle, only to discover that ghosts are real and very dangerous."

I'm a little bit flummoxed about how to review "Lost Lake". It's not that I've forgotten how to review movies to the extent that I need to MacDougall one from somebody else, but I can barely scrape together enough enthusiasm to put one word after another after watching this turd.

If I had my druthers (as they say round here), I'd be writing a review of "The Conjuring" right now instead of this one. Unfortunately, due to unforeseen circumstances and the heat, I still haven't gone to the movie theatre since "The Conjuring" started playing, and it's starting to annoy me that I've fallen behind everyone else this time. The worst case scenario will be that I wait for the DVD to be released. I'm bound to buy it based on the very positive buzz that's already flying around the internet, so it's not as if you actually need a review of "The Conjuring" from me anyway.

Just to tide everyone over until I'm back on track, I was looking for other ghostie movies to watch yesterday and came across "Lost Lake" on Amazon. Although I'm sure a lot of people have watched it, nobody seems to have had very much to say about it online. Thus, to redress the balance, I thought I'd give it a try. I thought, "It's only 80 minutes long, it's about ghosties, so what could be the harm in watching it?" Little did I know that it was going to be one of the longest 80 minutes of my life.

For a low-budget movie, "Lost Lake" starts off extremely well. I have to admit that the first jump scare is so well-timed that it actually got me. That rarely happens nowadays so I thought I was really going to enjoy everything which followed. As I was watching the movie "cold" with only a vague awareness of the subject matter and no idea about who was in it, it was all a case of "Thrill me!" and "Let's see what you can do!" rather than the predominantly negative way that I've been approaching "indie" dreck recently. After all the multipack reviews I did a few weeks ago, you can't blame me for being jaded, but I honestly wanted to like this movie.

Anyway, to cut a long story short, everything went downhill from the moment I saw the lead characters. It's not that they are the typical pretty teens in trouble, but bald-chested John Shartzer (who plays Jeff) looks about 12 years old, and I initially thought that his character was incestuously in bed with his older sister or something. When the next scene had him playing on the floor with a toy robotic arm, it took a while for it to sink in that he was supposed to be a nerdy student rather than a mentally retarded pervert. It was only when I scrutinized Katie Keene (who plays Tricia) more closely that I realised she was equally young. I doubt that she is more than 18 or 19, and it kind of made me feel like a dirty old man for ogling her as the story progressed. Katie Keene is very photogenic though.

The next thing which gave me pause was the intentional misdirection about Uncle Vern's identity which could have been good if it hadn't caused me a moment of total confusion and an unresolved question which remained with me for a few minutes after the movie ended. I'm not going to spoil it for you, but once you've seen "Lost Lake" for yourself, feel free let me know in the comments section if you get what I'm talking about. The motivation for a lot of things which happen in this movie is so poorly explained that I don't think there even is a good answer. The realisation of whatever clever ideas evidently went into the script sucks, and it's very frustrating.

A more outstanding example of ineptitude is when what should be a scary supernatural scene just isn't. As the leads investigate an abandoned grocery store, it's a time when some imaginative jump scares could make a lasting impression. For whatever reason, possibly budgetary, the gags aren't even set-up enough to fall flat, so ultimately, this botched non-event adds nothing but a decoy for possessed Uncle Vern (Ezra Buzzington) to do something important which we don't find out about until later. It's a plot contrivance for sure, but it could have been handled so much better.

While the camerawork and acting are fairly decent, it's not only the plot but the lack of horror action which really lets "Lost Lake" down. Apart from a severed finger and some realistic reactions to it, nothing much happens at all gore-wise. When it does, the bits you want to see are either off camera or too dark.

Contrarily, an unneccessary bit of animal cruelty involving a white mouse and a snake is something that I didn't want to see. Yes, I know that there are weirdo reptile owners who have to feed their pets as nature intended, but this scene is both gratuitous and superfluous. I may understand what writer/director Marcus Nash was trying to do, but I don't approve of it.

Filmed in Trona, California, a desolate place which I was intigued enough by to look up on Wikipedia, "Lost Lake" is all about a location which struggles to lift everything a couple of notches higher than the horrible storytelling will allow. Apart from a few tell-tale signs which give away that it isn't really a ghost town, including the electricity still being connected and a physical sign for "Free Wi-Fi" on one of the buildings, I wanted to believe that the setting was real. Well, the town is real, obviously, but you know what I mean.

I suppose that's all I really want to say about "Lost Lake". It wasn't the ghost story that I expected it to be, and I found the ending very disappointing. Suffice it to say that there's something about witchcraft to "Lost Lake" as well, so it's probably best to classify the movie as a below average "possession from beyond the grave" with slasher clichés and leave it at that.

The Entity (1982)

"Supposedly based partially on a true story, a woman is tormented and sexually molested by an invisible demon."

We're on the vinegar strokes now with only two days left until Hallowe'en (although it's really three if you include the final daytime) so here's another supernatural '80s classic to get you in the mood.

Unlike most '80s movies which I've reviewed, I didn't see "The Entity" when it first came out. I'd heard about it and seen the advertisements for it in the newspaper, but it didn't really appeal to me. I think it must have been overshadowed by "Poltergeist" which had similar subject matter, and I made the wrong decision by only seeing the latter theatrically. I don't think I even saw "The Entity" for the first time until the mid-1990s when it was shown on TV.

I've made up for youthful lack of judgement now that I've seen "The Entity" half a dozen times since (including rewatching it only a couple of hours ago), but I have to say that I've never found it particularly scary. The trouble is that I enjoy "The Entity" far more as a means to ogle Barbara Hershey than for any reason. I'm sure I'm not alone in this as the exploitation aspects of "The Entity", and the manipulation of Barbara Hershey's fun bits with jets of air to resemble fingers, are likely to induce even more lecherousness from a modern audience.

Let's be honest here, most people who went to see "The Entity" at the cinema also only did so because they wanted to see Barbara Hershey naked. I can't blame them for it because she was very sexy back then. Although she's started to look as scary as Karen Black nowadays, there was something very attractive about Barbara Hershey in her prime which had very little to do with her otherwise average looks. Depending on the angle and the lighting, Barbara Hershey can appear 10 years younger or 10 years older in "The Entity" which makes her appeal a large range of the horny male population although not without some obvious confusion being caused for MILF fanatics.

Of course, Barbara Hershey used her gifts to full advantage in her role as Carla Moran with facial expressions which either make her look like a vulnerable little girl or an empowered warrior princess depending on the scene. I'm still not sure how much of Barbara Hershey's performance in "The Entity" is actually good acting rather than just the fact that I fancy her, but I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not going to write a thorough review of "The Entity" since it's over two hours long (some would say overlong), and I'm sure you are very familiar with it anyway. I will just say that I never realised until fairly recently that "The Entity" was directed by the same Sidney J. Furie who directed "Doctor Blood's Coffin" and "The Ipcress File" (1965). Neither of them are particularly great movies, but both have a cult following especially by me.

I'm sure you also know that "The Entity" was based on the book of the same name by Frank DeFelitta which, in turn, was based on the true story of Doris Bither. Obviously, quite a few dramatic liberties were taken in both the novel and the movie, but the story itself is certainly very scary if it's really true. If you want to know more, Google is your friend.

"The Entity" adds a few suggestions about incestuous thoughts and their manifestation into poltergeist activity which have no part of the "true story", but they work fairly well dramatically despite being a red herring. Just look at the way Carla touches her son as she's talking to him at the beginning of the film as it's all very icky. Is the boy's later broken arm a metaphorical warning against Oedipal masturbation? Probably not, but I'm sure somebody would think so.

90% of the male characters in "The Entity" aren't very likeable and they all represent "types". I would love to see someone write an article on the subject. Maybe I'll write one eventually since it's on my list of things to do along with one about the relationships in "Stir of Echoes". Suffice it to say that Ron Silver comes across as a bit creepy as the psychiatrist Phil Sneiderman, and Alex Rocco as Jerry Anderson (nothing to do with the late creator of "Thunderbirds") is very sketchy too.

Although I have no problem with recommending "The Entity" to all lovers of the supernatural and paranormal, it isn't without some massive flaws. Not only are the blue, lightning-like, electrical effects (as also used in "Prom Night II") quite dated, but the thumping guitar chords and drums whenever anything spooky happens gets annoying pretty fast. The last 20 minutes are way too far-fetched and do their best to ruin the atmosphere of the rest of the film plus there's no real resolution at the end. Listen carefully to the last words the entity itself speaks for a quick chuckle.

For an '80s "horror" movie, "The Entity" can seem far more like a '70s exploitation flick in places if you are in the right (or wrong) frame of mind. I'm not sure how polarising the experience will be if you watch it in company so be prepared to watch this on your own as a kind of guilty pleasure. If you want to have the willies put up you or just want to see Barbara Hershey get several invisible willies put up her, "The Entity" is the film for you.

Prom Night II (1987)

"When Hamilton High's Prom Queen of 1957, Mary Lou Maloney is killed by her jilted boyfriend, she comes back for revenge 30 years later."

Only three days left until Hallowe'en? October has flown by for everyone who writes a daily horror blog although it's tiring work watching all these old movies again instead of being spoiled by new ones. Yes, I tell my cats how tiring it is every time we are all snuggled up together in front of a great horror film just how exhausting it is. I don't think they believe me, and nor should you.

I imagine that it's boring reading about the same things from everyone because I've noticed right across the board that hardly anyone is getting any comments and the pageviews are surprisingly low. Don't worry, it's nearly over. Next month, there are going to be a lot of changes on my blog including a higher ratio of articles to reviews. I've known for a long time that horror movie review blogs are old hat now, but I may still surprise you with a few dips back into "The Vault" for as long as I have any good films left to talk about.

Anyway, "Prom Night II" is yet another Canadian clone of better American movies which I used to think was very good indeed. I'm not so sure about it anymore even though it's easily the best of the "Prom Night" series.

Although it was originally released a couple of weeks too late for Hallowe'en in 1987, "Prom Night II" is yet another supernatural horror movie which suits the season perfectly. There's even a big plastic pumpkin sitting on a shelf in the school basement at around 19 minutes in.

I have no idea when "proms" actually happen in America or Canada since we don't have them in Britain (occasionally there's a disco at the end of term), but I assume that they are a Springtime event or something which happens after graduation rather than in October when everyone is going back to school. Whatever the case, they are a good setting for lots of teenager shenanigans and the focus of far too many '80s movies.

What makes "Prom Night II" stand out more than the rest is the abundance of so many hot girls all at the same time. While most people rave about Lisa Schrage as Mary Lou Maloney, she doesn't have a lot of time on screen, and she's not actually the prettiest. My favourite is Beth Gondek who plays Jess. She's the girl with the big hair and bad dress sense who is almost guillotined then gets hanged and thrown out of a window before she has chance to shine.

Beverley Hendry is also extremely good-looking and almost perfect in her role as Monica apart from being a little bit too old for the part. Think Charisma Carpenter in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and you'll get the idea. Actually, I don't think any of the actors are really teenagers, but I may be wrong about that. The most memorable is Terri Hawkes as Kelly, the wannabe prom queen, who is desperate to win that fleeting and totally worthless moment of popularity at any price. She's more "cute" than sexy, but she definitely shows more acting ability than her peers.

Surprisingly, the one girl I don't find attractive in "Prom Night II" is Wendy Lyon who plays the lead. The song by The Monks called "Nice Legs Shame About Her Face" is cruel but very fitting. As Vicki Carpenter, Wendy Lyon plays the part as a rather plain blonde who likes frizzy, permed hair and nail polish but doesn't like make-up. Her face really screams for make-up though, and it's a pity that YouTube hadn't been invented at the time or she would have learned a lot from the viral Jenna Marbles comedy video.

Vicki Carpenter is half Carrie White and half Andie Walsh from "Pretty in Pink" (1986) but not as cute or as likeable as either of them. Even when she gets completely nude for five minutes or so in the middle of the film, she just doesn't do it for me. Your mileage, as they say, may vary.

I've been giving plot points away so I might as well just summarise the story completely by saying that "Prom Night II" is, basically, a fusion of "Carrie" (1976), "A Nightmare on Elm Street" (1984) and "The Exorcist" (1973). In fact, the latter even gets referenced in the dialogue in a "meta" moment which seems out of place in anything other than a comedy. The more I think about it though, there's a possibility that "Prom Night II" might be a very dark comedy which doesn't really work. It certainly reeks of John Hughes-style characters even down to a far too good-looking computer nerd played by Brock Simpson (the only actor to appear in all four "Prom Night" movies) who has all the best lines.

The disappointing ending is actually worse than "A Nightmare on Elm Street", "Friday the 13th" and "Phantasm II" which all share the same "now you think they're safe but they aren't" twist. If it hadn't been for such formulaic pandering, "Prom Night II" probably wouldn't have bombed at the box office when it came out. Stuff like that just spoils any emotional investment which you've put in so be advised that you really need to switch the movie off before Michael Ironside gets the kids into the car at the end.

Oh yes, I almost forgot to mention that Michael Ironside is in this too. He's okay, but there's just not enough of him due to having to share his part with a younger actor, Steve Atkinson, who is made-up with a cheek scar to look just like him in the flashbacks. Out of the two Billy Nordhams, the younger one is the more interesting.

I recommend "Prom Night II", but it's one of those movies where you really had to be there at the time it came out to fully appreciate it. Some of the effects are dated now, there are two dream sequences which confuse matters and slightly spoil the flow of the story, and it's not scary. If you are into the '80s and nostalgia, it's still rather entertaining.

Carnival of Souls (1962)

"After a traumatic accident, a woman becomes drawn to a mysterious abandoned carnival."

I don't own any Criterion DVDs because I find them overpriced and don't really have much interest in their selection. If I were to buy one, however, it would be "Carnival of Souls" even though it's in the public domain and I have at least six copies of it in budget multi-packs already.

The reason I would buy "Carnival of Souls" again is the transfer. All the public domain versions are pretty horrible including the one on my YouTube channel which I've embedded above. If Criterion are to be respected for anything, it's that they nearly always find the best print available. There have been exceptions to the rule, but that's another story.

Make no mistake about it, "Carnival of Souls" is hardly the usual pretentious "arthouse" weirdness that Criterion are best known for. Apart from the innovative titles and a few surreal scenes which might indicate otherwise, "Carnival of Souls" is little more than a feature length version of a Twilight Zone episode called "The Hitch Hiker" (which in turn was based on an Orson Welles radio play from 1946). Allegedly, Ambrose Bierce's "An Occurrence At Owl Creek Bridge" may have also been an inspiration for the story, but I've never read it and don't know.

Despite the unoriginality which most people wouldn't notice anyway, "Carnival of Souls" has a lot going for it especially in terms of atmosphere, a funereal organ music soundtrack, and, obviously, one of the most beautiful women to ever appear in a horror movie - Candace Hilligoss.

If the picture of her above isn't enough to get you to endure some old black and white nonsense then there's no hope for you. As Mary Henry, Candace Hilligoss may play one of the most frigid 1960s' horror heroines you ever encounter, but you can't deny that she's gorgeous.

The pushy John Linden (played by Sidney Berger) is certainly enamoured by Mary Henry. At first, Mary does precious little to encourage John's bad chat-up lines, and his drunken, predatory advances become increasingly loaded with menace and potential rapeyness.

These scenes are quite complex in some ways and very uncomfortable to watch. As they develop, there's actually only one way of describing Mary Henry, and it consists of two words ending in "tease". Although there's more to her actions than that, the whole relationship between Mary and John highlights a couple of very damaged individuals indeed, and that's the point. Even if everything was right in the world, they would hardly be a match made in heaven.

For 90% of the film, "Carnival of Souls" bumbles along quite nicely as what appears to be the psychological study of a schizoid personality disorder. It's suggested that because Mary is strong-willed and solitary by nature, her symptoms of depersonalisation and derealisation are the inevitable result. As things get progressively worse, there's a twist which I'm not going to spoil for you.

If you've never seen "Carnival of Souls" before, now is your chance. It's a creepy enough movie at any time of year, but it's especially good at Hallowe'en given what Hallowe'en is really supposed to be about.

Stir of Echoes (1999)

"After being hypnotized by his sister in law, a man begins seeing haunting visions of a girl's ghost and a mystery begins to unfold around her."

Lest we forget what Hallowe'en is really about, it's back to ghosties again with "Stir of Echoes". Although it was overshadowed at the time it came out by "The Sixth Sense", "Stir of Echoes" now stands as the better of the two films.

Very superficially, "Stir of Echoes" and "The Sixth Sense" contain similar subject matter: a creepy little kid who can see ghosts, a murder mystery, and a twist ending. The big differences are that "Stir of Echoes" is set in a far more blue collar environment, the emphasis is more on a psychic adult, and it's not rated PG-13. Given the choice between a PG-13 or an R-rated ghost story, I think most of us would now go with the latter.

Based on a book by Richard Matheson but updated with a modernised screenplay written by the director (David Koepp), "Stir of Echoes" is a very nicely paced thriller which brings out the best from its main characters while not exactly skimping on the supporting cast either. Obviously, Kevin Bacon's character, Tom Witzky, is who the story is focused on, but this isn't just another Kevin Bacon vehicle. Underneath the ghost story is a movie about relationships, and everyone gets a chance to shine no matter how big or small their roles.

As you can tell from the picture above, "Stir of Echoes" has quite a few creepy moments yet it isn't really scary. There are even some genuinely light-hearted touches too. The tone is set when Tom's son, Jake, tells says, "Don't be afraid of it, Daddy." Thus, rather than being terrorised by ghosties as would be more usual, Tom and the audience are encouraged to embrace the existence of the supernatural on a more rational level. It doesn't hurt that the ghostly girl is kind of hot too.

Of course, Tom (Kevin Bacon) still seems to become deranged and obsessional to anyone around him who doesn't understand what he's going through. He's the "everyman" character who we can can all identify with but really wouldn't want to be even if it it meant having the gorgeous Kathryn Erbe as a wife. The characterisation in "Stir of Echoes" is multi-layered and almost perfect. For those of us who moan when there are no characters to empathize with in a movie, "Stir of Echoes" has an abundance of them.

Tom's relationship with Maggie (Kathryn Erbe) is stretched to breaking point, but to her credit, she stands by her man. Her character does get used in a scene which is very reminiscent of "The Shining" to clumsily bring more information about Tom's psychic abilities into the story, but there's a lot more to her than that.

The women in "Stir of Echoes" really deserve a whole article devoted to them on their own. They are all very strong characters who are more than just in the background to suffer the whims of their seemingly "man-child" partners. I'll write a bigger piece about them later, but suffice it to say that Illeana Douglas (who plays Tom's sister-in-law) is also an absolute joy to watch in this movie.

As usual with any kind of mystery, I'm going to cut this short in case I give away too many spoilers. If you've never seen it before or haven't watched it for some time, I recommend that you add "Stir of Echoes" to your Hallowe'en viewing.

The Changeling (1980)

"A man staying at a secluded historical mansion, finds his life being haunted by the presence of a spectre."

I've often wondered if "The Changeling" started off life as a potential TV movie. It certainly has that feel about it, but maybe it's just because it was directed by Peter Medak and it's Canadian. It's not that there's anything wrong with any of those things as "The Changeling" is still one of the most terrifying ghost stories ever filmed and quite possibly the last horror movie from the '80s which is actually scary.

I'm not a big fan of the '80s as far as genuine horror movies go. 1980 itself was the cut-off point after slightly over a decade of horror which lived up to the dictionary definition. Horror became lame for at least another 25 years with only a few exceptions so I always think of "The Changeling" more fondly than I should.

Objectivity has its place, but this is one of the rare occasions when I am going to be almost 100% subjective and merely state my opinion. It's not that "The Changeling" isn't without enough flaws for me to tear it apart, but you should all know by now that I'm not the kind of guy who does that just to attract more page hits. When I genuinely like something as much as "The Changeling", I am far more likely to go to the other extreme. Although the popularity would be great, I have no desire to turn into a sycophant either.

Having said that, the one hugely negative thing which I have to say about "The Changeling" is that I never liked George C. Scott as an actor and felt completely alienated from his character in "The Changeling". Actually that's two things, but they hinge around the same person. The only way I would ever be able to identify with him would be if I was an old musician who suffered the loss of my entire family in a car accident and then went to live in a huge mansion. Apart from getting older, the rest of it is very unlikely to happen. My cats don't drive for one thing. Well, not that I know of. I also have no musical talent, and the chances of me living in a huge house with ghosties in is also not exactly on my list of things to do.

Ghosties terrify me. Seriously, I have four things which I am truly afraid of: spiders, heights, drowning and ghosties. If I was ever stood on the top deck of a ship and a ghostly arachnid appeared that would surely be the end of me. Thus, you can imagine that when I have to face at least two of my phobias in a movie, it's not pleasant. At least "The Changeling" doesn't have any spiders in it.

The ghost rolling a ball trope as shown in the picture above probably goes back even further than "Voices" (1973) although, of course, its most famous use is in "The Shining" which was also made in 1980. If you've seen it used too many times then it's kind of comical, but I think the scene in "The Changeling" where John Russell (George C. Scott) first encounters the phenomenon is by far the best example. If that had happened to me, I would have been out of that place faster than a DVD collector trying to get the closing down sale bargains at Blockbuster. I probably would have screamed like a little girl and wet myself too.

Obviously that isn't even the most terrifying scene in "The Changeling" as just about everything in it once George C. Scott started getting haunted creeped me out when I was rewatching it last night. The séance was also pretty brutal to my bladder, and I'm surprised that we made it through to the end of the film without a flood. What made it worse was that I've already seen "The Changeling" about twenty times over the years and should know better! Maybe with Hallowe'en coming and being alone in the house with two cats who see things which aren't there really got to me.

In case you wonder, there is a bit of a mystery for George C. Scott to solve in "The Changeling" which I can't say anything about without spoiling it for you. I really want you to see this film for yourselves if you haven't already so maybe this post is more about my reactions rather than a real review.

Since "The Changeling" was made in 1980, before the trends of shakycams, bad CGI effects, and overly loud jump scares, there's nothing bad that I can say about the way it looks or sounds at all. I could criticise how the acting is sometimes a little bit TV movie-ish, but given the background of most of the talent involved, it's still high-quality TV movie acting not soap opera stuff.

"The Changeling" is simply one of the most atmospheric (and even claustrophic) movies in my DVD collection. Even if you are one of those stupid people who doesn't believe in ghosts (or anything else), the internal logic of the story still carries it. I'll be blunt about it, "The Changeling" should be in everyone's collection if they want to be thought of as a true horror fan. You won't get much better than this.

The Haunting of Sarah Hardy (1989)

"As a child, Sarah witnesses her wealthy mother's suicide. Later, as a young bride, she is haunted by her mother's voice and other strange manifestations. Is it her imagination, someone playing tricks on her, or her dead mother's spirit?"

Since I made a mistake and watched this because I thought it was a horror movie which I'd never heard of before, I'm going to review this really quickly and get it out of the way.

If you've ever seen "Dominigue" (1979), "The Haunting of Sarah Hardy" was much the same, but with more twists. Some of the twists worked while others were as ridiculous as the ones in the also similar "Double Jeopardy" (1999).

It's interesting that the three films which I've just named are ten years apart from each other. Maybe Hollywood thinks that people are stupid and forget what was put out a decade before, but I'm one of the reasons why they can't get away with it. I wonder if there was a movie which used the same plot in 2009? I'm sure there was.

Certainly, Sela Ward, the star of "The Haunting of Sarah Hardy", was in a another remade thriller which pretended to be a horror movie in 2009. I actually wondered when I watched "The Stepfather", if the mother was somebody who I should know for being famous for something else. Of course, even with the aid of the IMDb, I'm still none the wiser. I don't even remember her from "The Fugitive" and, amusingly, even though she also starred in another movie called "Double Jeopardy" rather than the one I've mentioned, it was from 1992, and I've never seen it.

I'm not going to pretend to know anything about any of the other actors in "The Haunting of Sarah Hardy". I simply haven't watched enough of the American TV shows where most of them came from and went on to work in. Morgan Fairchild was the exception because I used to watch her in "Flamingo Road". She always played the part of a scheming bitch really well and was successfully typecast in this movie too. I thought that she looked surprisingly plain in comparison to Sela Ward, but maybe it's because I prefer brunettes.

One of the unnamed stars of this movie was actually the house where it all took place. If you've ever watched those conspiracy theory documentaries about Stanley Kubrick and "The Shining", you'll be surprised that nobody ever made more of the fact that Pittock Mansion isn't anywhere near an ocean in real life. If the missing maze of the Overlook Hotel means that Kubrick faked the moon landings then surely the director of this film, Jerry London, must have been in on them too. Sometimes I despair of people.

The whole thriller was basically about romantically linked schemers trying to get ownership of the mansion and the rest of Sarah Hardy's wealth. If it had been more original and scripted better, it would have been a classic. Unfortunately, film noir fans had been enjoying this plot over and over again for donkey's years. Apparently, although "Gaslight" (1944) may have been the first to use this story, it was done to death. Even Agatha Christie used it for "Endless Night" which became a movie in 1972.

There were no scares in this, not much suspense, and it was all very predictable. The acting was pretty good though with nobody disgracing themselves with anything but their dated clothing. Shoulder pads, big permed hair and huge glasses abounded; it was all so very '80s.

The ending was too rushed and the final shock which was intended fell flat. I'm willing to forgive that since I was entertained in spite of "The Haunting of Sarah Hardy" not being the ghost story which I initially wanted it to be. Misleading titles really annoy me.

I can't forgive the lack of anything sexy even though I know that this was a made-for-TV movie and American TV is full of prudes. A couple of nice rumpy-pumpy scenes would certainly have made the story more realistic since there wasn't enough sexual tension between the characters or chemistry between the actors to make any of their relationships believable.

And Now the Screaming Starts! (1973)

"England 1795: the young Catherine just married Charles Fengriffen and moves into his castle. She becomes victim of an old curse that lays on the family. On her wedding night she's raped by a ghost and gets pregnant."

The IMDb description of this Amicus horror really gives away everything that you need to know about the plot apart from how slowly the story unfolds.

Due to being filmed at Oakley Court, "And Now the Screaming Starts!" looks like a slightly cheaper version of a Hammer film. Starring quite a few Hammer regulars and being directed by Roy Ward Baker adds to this illusion which, of course, was the intention. On a purely personal level, I've never really liked the majority of Milton Subotsky's productions from the '70s although the Amicus anthologies do have occasional moments of brilliance. I can't quite put my finger on why, especially whenever Amicus tried to do a single story, their movies always came second best to Hammer but I'd hazard a guess that it was mainly due to trying to make them more contemporary that, ironically, dated them all really badly.

I think Amicus must have realised at the time that the period settings were what gave Hammer their edge and you can tell from "And Now the Screaming Starts!" that a lot of work went into trying to create a similar atmosphere. If only as much effort had been put into the script as the costume and set design then this would have been an instant classic. It's bloody gruesome in places, particularly the opening scene (which appears to be lifted from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's "Hound of the Baskervilles"), and has the potential to leave a bad taste in your mouth if you think about it too much.

If there's one thing that angers me, it's the British class system and all the feudalism that it's been built on. The curse that gets put upon the Fengriffen family really is more than justifiable in my own mind and, no pun intended due to the later subject matter, I really have to hand it to Herbert Lom for making me hate the aristocracy even more than I already do. It's probably not a good digression but every time I see this particular opening rape scene, all I can think about is how corporate America with the "fire at will" laws (and other nonsense) are doing exactly the same thing in the 21st century as medieval Britain once did. Make no mistake about it, too many companies think they own their employees even when they aren't working for them and try to take away every constitutional right that they think they have. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine the over-privileged "Lord of the Manor" coming round to rape your wife and cut off your hand even today and if you just substitute "Lord" for "Corporate America" and its potential to take away everything and destroy your life according to a whim then the possibly unintentional social commentary of "And Now the Screaming Starts!" still has some power to it.

Of course, even though Henry Fengriffen's acts were illegal back in the day, you can be sure that such things (and even worse) have happened in the history of every country when the aristocracy have abused their position. I doubt that David Case's gothic novel "Fengriffen: A Chilling Tale" (which "And Now the Screaming Starts!" is based on) made much more of any of this other than a plot device for the ensuing horror story and I haven't ever read it to say for certain. Obviously, the weakness in using such a horrible, unnecessary and polarising act to set the stage for the later action is that most people are on the side of the victim and want justice to be done. None of the later generation of Fengriffens really matter from that point on.

Therein lies the biggest problem with "And Now the Screaming Starts!". There is no way that a logically thinking audience cares one iota about what happens to Ian Ogilvy and Stephanie Beacham's characters other than wanting very bad things to happen to them. There are no innocents when it comes to aristos and there is never any point when you can sympathise with their predicament.

Stephanie Beacham was an incredibly beautiful babe when she was younger (and wasn't too bad when she was a big star in a lot of high-budget '80s soaps either) and, it's possible to argue that her character, Catherine Fengriffen, is an innocent victim. I disagree. Yes, Catherine Fengriffen does all the fainting and screaming when it suits her but her reaction to her own rape is so typically upper class and dismissive that it's impossible to feel any sympathy for her. Her husband, Charles Fengriffen, is such an equally arrogant piece of work that, as much as I liked Ian Ogilvy in "The Return of the Saint" TV series, I absolutely hated him in this.

Now you might think that a film that causes such negative emotions as this would doom it to failure but actually that makes it rather good in my book. If a drama doesn't cause an emotional response from the viewer then it can be written off but "And Now the Screaming Starts!" actually tries its hardest to anger its audience on every level. Unfortunately, as a horror movie it's supposed to be scary too but none of that really works.

The special effects vary from average to ridiculous especially the severed hand crawling around and the whole thing is quite unevenly paced. Some scenes drag while the more interesting ones get rushed and, on a purely horror entertainment level, none of it is particularly satisfying.

I suppose I should mention Peter Cushing as psychiatrist Dr. Pope but only because there is nothing out of the ordinary with his performance apart from it being quite anachronistic. Patrick Magee as Dr. Whittle is much more believable but the man gives me the creeps in every film that I've ever seen him in whether he's playing a good guy or otherwise. I think his best role was in the "Blind Alleys" segment of "Tales from the Crypt" (1972) though I'm sure he will always be most remembered for playing the crippled writer Mr. Alexander in Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" (1971).

Anyway, there's not really much more to say about "And Now the Screaming Starts!" other than it having quite a predictable ghost story underneath it all. I think the intention was to make something completely original and different but it didn't quite happen. As a gothic horror story, it lacks tension and, as an exploitation movie, it lacks all the gratuitous (and not so gratuitous) nudity which really would have livened things up.

I'm moving "And Now the Screaming Starts!" from The Vault to the "Just Average" section but it's still a recommendation. "And Now the Screaming Starts!" is not Amicus' best work but it's different enough from everything else they did to stand out as an anomaly. If you like ghost stories, you'll probably like this but if you want real hardcore grisly horror then you'll be very disappointed.