The Gallows (2015)

"20 years after a horrific accident during a small town school play, students at the school resurrect the failed show in a misguided attempt to honor the anniversary of the tragedy - but soon discover that some things are better left alone."

Rather than immediately writing yet another scathing review of a lacklustre movie in a subgenre which I've grown to despise as soon as it was released, I thought it better to wait until all the gushing mouth-breathers got their overwhelming praise of "The Gallows" out of their systems before watching this latest Blumhouse production.

I'm glad that I waited a few weeks (and avoided reading any of the now seemingly mixed reviews) because I actually liked some of "The Gallows" in spite of myself. I was in the mood for a simple ghost story which didn't take up too much time to watch, and "The Gallows" pretty much delivered exactly what I expected.

Unfortunately, after a very strong start which utilises as many American high school tropes and clichés as possible, I'm grateful that the running time of only 81 minutes seemed to fly by even faster. There's only so much chaotic bickering, screaming, noisy jump scares, and running around madly with a shakycam that I can stand nowadays.

Pfeifer, Cassidy, and Reese get filmed by Ryan... a lot.

Given that the best parts of "The Gallows" involve stereotypes such as jocks and nerds and cheerleaders being as jocky and nerdy and cheerleadery as can be, the story moves along at a brisk pace with decent enough acting for what it is. The primary "cameraman" is a total asshole who defies logic with his constant filming, his best friend is a nicer and dumber jock, and their girlfriends are physically very attractive. So there's not a lot to dislike about the talent or characterisation except for the lack of originality.

Ambient sounds in the background create an unsettling atmosphere when the teenagers are up to the necks (often quite literally) in the spooky shenanigans, and the first 40 minutes of "The Gallows" are quite engrossing. Sadly, the atmosphere and quality of the storytelling doesn't last.

The loud jump scares and overuse of the gimmicky "being dragged through the air by something invisible" stunts which were made so popular by "Paranormal Activity" become irksome soon after the first one kicks in. Although fans of these "haunted house" style features won't be disappointed, they come across as a cheap way of avoiding any attempt at creating tension and genuine frights for the rest of us.

The pity of it is that the first traditional jump scare (when a TV pops on conveniently with the news story of Charlie's death) really does work. After that point, the rest of "The Gallows" turns into a de rigueur Blumhouse mess of obnoxious teenagers blaming each other and themselves, shrieking, panicking, making stupid decisions, and just being bloody annoying until they are bumped off.

With scenes edited in such a confusing manner that it's almost impossible to tell what is happening to which character and in what order, most of the exposition is given way too soon, and the denouement involves a very predictable reveal rather than a twist. Having said that, "The Gallows" may not be remembered for anything other than attempting to leech off the viral "Charlie Charlie" game for its marketing, but it's still surprisingly entertaining overall.

As much as I generally detest "found footage" movies, I guiltily have to admit that I mostly enjoyed this one. It certainly hasn't changed my very negative opinion about faux found footage or Blumhouse Productions, but I imagine that "The Gallows" will be thought of as "the best horror movie this year" by the big name sites and their unreliable "critics". Given the appalling state of the horror genre at the present time, however, I have no choice but to second their recommendation.

Apart from all the clichés, confusing scenes in the second-half which don't progress logically from each other, and of course, the ridiculous ending, "The Gallows" is quite good. It's worth a rental anyway.

5 Horror Films Which You Probably Haven't Seen

Many clickbait lists of "Horror Films You Haven't Seen" come and go, but I'm almost willing to bet money that you haven't seen all of these movies.

As usual, I'm sticking primarily to the best rather than the cheap and nasty, no-budget "hobby horror" indie crap. Having said that, some of these movies aren't highly-rated by the unwashed masses, and I haven't put them in any particularly order. None of their stories are very original, and your enjoyment of them, sadly, may differ from mine.

(Because I'm lazy, all the synopses are taken from the IMDb. Yeah, I know. No big surprise there.)


1. Sector 7 (2011)

"Something awaits 2,500 meters under the deep sea off the southern tip of Jeju Island... Directed by Kim Ji-hoon and produced by JK Youn, the sci-fi action thriller Sector 7 revolves around an oil rig crew forced to battle a deadly creature at sea."

If you liked "The Host" (2006), this will fill in some time while you continue to wait for the official sequel. It's mainly all CGI with a few practical effects, but the monster is suitably nasty.

The girls in it are very beautiful, the men are a mixed bag of quirky and handsome, and the setting itself is exactly what you might expect of an oil rig in a fun action movie rather than being in any way realistic.

Similar to: The Host, Alien, Deep Blue Sea, Leviathan, and Deep Rising.

2. The Hotel!! (2002)

"Sarapee and Pun inherit a beach mansion from Luang Narubal, the husband and benefactor whom they betrayed and left to die in sorrow. The two now decide to move in and turn the mansion into a hotel in order to make some money. Twenty five years pass. Sarapee has died. Her two children from her marriage to Pun, Parinya and Patama, are now fully grown and they return from living abroad to take over the hotel. After renovating it, the mystery begins. Deaths occur over and over again, and sometimes Parinya and Pattama witness them. It isn't long before they are the only two people left to uncover the mystery and fight to stay alive. But who is the mysterious murderer?"

It's a Thai ghost story/murder mystery. The story lags in a few places, and overacting abounds, but the effects are surprisingly good considering the obvious low-budget.

There aren't too many scares, but there are a few grisly bits which might surprise you.

Similar to: Spectres, The Green Man, The Haunting of Seacliff Inn, and even parts of The Omen.

3. Blacker Than the Night (1975)

"When four women move into an old house left by one woman's aunt, strange things begin to happen. Bizarre voices, visions of ghosts, and mysterious noises lead them to discover the darkest powers of evil and a horror and agony beyond terror."

Another supernatural murder mystery which borders on being a slasher. It's Mexican and better known by its Spanish title of "Más negro que la noche".

Before anyone starts thinking that the word "negro" is racist, the title refers the colour of the black cat's fur in the movie. And yes, Becker the cat does play a very important part.

Considered a classic in some circles, harsher critics only rate "Blacker Than the Night" as average. Inevitably, it was remade (albeit by another Mexican director) last year. Although it also has its detractors, the remake is okay too.

Similar to: The Legacy, The Amityville Horror, The Woman in Black, and virtually any other haunted house movie.

4. See the Sea (1997)

"Sasha, a young British woman, is living with her baby daughter at Ile d'Yeu, a peaceful beach community. A stranger appears. Her name is Tatiana, she's passing through, and pitches her tent in Sasha's yard. The two women build an odd rapport, and tension builds as events unfold."

Originally called "Regarde la mer" (because it's French), this is a short one in that it's only 52 minutes long. Fortunately, it doesn't feel like a modern short, and for a low-budget movie, the production values and acting are very good throughout.

The story certainly isn't as predictable as you might expect. Some might even say that it's shocking. Either way, it's notable for being a kind of precursor to "À l'intérieur" (2007), but it's far more classy, believable, and memorable.

Similar to: Empty Cradle, À l'intérieur (aka Inside), and The Hand That Rocks the Cradle.

5. The Dark Hours (2005)

"Dr. Samantha Goodman, an attractive psychiatrist in her thirties, joins her husband and sister for a weekend at a winter cottage when an unexpected guest arrives. Harlan Pyne, a violent sexual offender, is convinced that Samantha conducted unethical experiments on him while she was his doctor. With the assistance of his troubled yet eager protege, Harlan forces Samantha and her family to participate in a series of nightmarish games. On this night of terror, escape is not an option, truth guarantees nothing, and revenge will not necessarily be sweet."

It's Canadian (so it borrows from all over the place like most Canadian horror movies) and has great acting.

I have nothing new to say about "The Dark Hours" because I've already reviewed it. It's nice that you can get it for only 50c at Amazon now though.

Similar to: Identity, Sublime, Frailty, Cheap Thrills, and Would You Rather.

So there you have it. I was initially going to list ten movies, but it's too hot today, and as I said previously, I'm far too lazy.

I chose mainly foreign language movies because, let's face it, the slew of crappy American horror has had nothing good to offer anyone outside of the "noobs" and "nyuk-nyuk-nyuk brigade" for many years.

You can buy most of these movies from Amazon or rent them from Netflix. You'll also find them on YouTube, Hulu, Vudu, and other video streaming sites.

Tracking these movies down should keep you occupied, and hopefully, they will stop some people from constantly complaining that there's "nothing to watch".

Amy (2013)

"With the psychic power of clairvoyance, an extra-sensory perception, Amy starts witnessing haunting visions as her entire Amish village begins to fall into demonic control."

Although "Amy" is typical of the low-budget awfulness which I usually tell people to avoid, the Amish setting is rather fascinating. There aren't many horror movies with the Amish in them that I can think of other than "Deadly Blessing" (1981), and apart from "Witness" (1985) and a couple of episodes of "Friday the 13th: The Series" involving a possessed quilt, the Amish haven't really been a source of entertainment for me at all. Consequently, as I don't know much about the Amish way of life except that they are a Christian sect who have chosen to separate themselves from the rest of the world (and have taken John 17:13-16 very literally), the novelty value sold this to me.

Having said that, I've been to Lancaster, Pennsylvania, where "Amy" was filmed and can tell you that the Amish people depicted in this movie are more like Mennonites. Mennonites are the ones who don't mind using a bit of electricity or modern tools to get their jobs done. They also run a lot of stores where they sell baked goods and some quite outstanding gummy worms, which is the only reason I've ever had any contact with them. Truth be told, as much as I admire their simple lifestyle, I find them all to be a bit creepy.

Playing up the creepy factor of their otherness, however, is not this movie's intention. Instead, the agenda is something which you will either find absolutely hilarious or very insulting depending on your point of view. I don't want to get ahead of myself and spoil the ending for you because the way it's delivered is supposed to be a surprise which is impossible to guess before it actually happens, but suffice it to say that there's only one infamous '80s slasher movie I know of where the villain has the same motivation. I'll leave a clue in the labels below this post.

"I see possessed people."

Because I misread the synopsis, I half-expected "Amy" to be a "Carrie" clone, but it isn't. It's a tale of demonic possessions in an Amish village which only one girl, Jessica DiGiovanni as Amy, has the power to see. She isn't believed even when people start dying, which strains her relationships with everyone around her, but then Christopher Atkins conveniently shows up as a magician/exorcist to help her save the day. That, give or take some cheap CGI effects, is as good as the story gets. Remember Christopher Atkins from "The Blue Lagoon" (1980) with Brooke Shields? Even if you do, you'll barely recognise him 33 years on. He's really aged, but unfortunately, his acting hasn't improved to go with it.

Despite "Amy" being a serious (but poorly made) horror movie, there's some amusement to be had around 40 minutes in when Christopher Atkins is speaking in his normal American accent and Amy exclaims, "You're English!" I know the real Amish are a bit cut off from us "fancy people", and some of them speak with a strange German accent, but that's just ridiculous in the context of this movie. Amy doesn't have any accent but an American one either, nor does she do any of the stereotypical Old English "thees" and "thous" which you might expect from religious folks. Thus, I don't know how and why that line was left in when Christopher Atkins clearly had no intention of ever trying to do an English accent. Maybe it's because Indian writer/director R.P. Patnaik (better known for Bollywood movies) was unable to tell the difference.

Blaming the rest of the movie's inadequacies on R.P. Patnaik's nationality and an imagined language barrier which may never have been a problem is the only way I can explain how a production with an alleged $2,000,000 budget turned out to be so horrible. I have no idea what really happened, but as that's twice the budget which The Asylum normally use, I'd guess that the real budget was a lot less. "Amy" looks like something you'd find buried in a Pendulum Pictures or Echo Bridge multipack, and with so many one-off actors and actresses in it, it's more like a $2,000 movie (plus whatever Christopher Atkins' fee for the day might be).

"God - He can't find us any better than Santa Claus."

Apart from Jessica DiGiovanni trying her hardest with a terrible script, everyone around her is either wooden or embarrassing to watch. I'd like to say that the older Amish women are the worst, but they're clearly amateurs and Christopher Atkins is not, so his performance wins a special booby prize for cringeworthiness. Runner-up is Kurt Mason Peterson as Amy's boyfriend Robert because he's so inconsistent. His prize is that he got to kiss and fondle Jessica DiGiovanni in the least erotic way possible during a scene on a bench which looks as if it lasts from morning until evening.

The passage of time is the biggest problem in "Amy". While I don't often tear a movie apart for breaking the Aristotlean rules about unity of time, there's no way I can overlook the mess that's been made here. I have no idea if the events are supposed to take place over a couple of days, a week, or a month. One very noticeable mistake is how Amy's visits to Chris' magic circle in the barn don't match up to the dusk and dawn rules which he explains to her either, but there are plenty more like that if you look for them.

On the plus side, the storytelling isn't too bad, and I'll give everyone credit for trying to make something a little bit different. As ever, it's the execution and production values which let things down, but "Amy" is still worth a rental if you have nothing else to watch.

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.

Hallows' Eve (2013)

"Years after a tragic accident leaves a young child scarred for life, the people responsible pay - with their lives."

When I saw that Danielle Harris had top billing, and then noticed the huge similarity between the little girl (Isobel Rose Costello) who gets run over by a tractor in the opening scene and Danielle Harris at the same age, I expected something a lot different than the horrible mess that "Hallows' Eve" turned out to be. It may sound too predictable, but I honestly thought that Danielle Harris would be all disfigured like she was in Rob Zombie's "Halloween II" and be revealed as the psycho killing the now grown-up bullies in revenge for her face.

Maybe that's one of the red herrings which is designed to sell the mystery element of this feeble attempt at a slasher movie, and I've probably already spoiled the ending for you by telling you that it isn't how things play out, but I don't care. "Hallows' Eve" is so bad that it doesn't deserve to be watched by anyone, and is certainly not worth renting or buying. Unless you've recently become the recipient of a brain transplant operation involving a drunken chimpanzee, the lack of a cohesive story is excrutiating to get through. Even my cats who have brains the size of walnuts couldn't cope with this and left me to it.

There are too many characters to keep track of, and as usual, there's not one of the "teenagers" who isn't such a nasty piece of work that you don't just want him or her to die horribly, but the story jumps all over the place and is completely unsatisfying. Lots of boobs and blood, and an incongruous dream sequence half-way through which adds more gratuitous nudity, is nice but doesn't help matters. It's almost impossible to follow what's going on until the very end, and by that point, you'll be unlikely to care.

Don't worry, babe, you can still get a job in indie horror movies.

Among the cheap gore effects, uncreative kills, and bad camerawork lurk several horror c-listers including Ashley C. Williams and Tiffany Shepis, plus a bunch of male "actors" who are harder to recognise. Apparently, one of them was in "Pumpkinhead" (1988), but the rest vary from being hangers-on in the "indie scene" to fully-fledged TV actors who have some actual talent. Who's who or and who plays who, I couldn't possibly tell you even with the cast list in front of me. They all have generic character names like Nick, Todd, Dave, Brad, and whatever the female equivalents might be. I may be wrong about this because I was bored out of my mind, but I don't think that any of them call each other by name other than the disfigured girl being Eve.

How and why known genre actors get involved in half-arsed projects like this which can do them no good is the biggest mystery. There may be a very small financial reward, but no big-wig is going to look at their work in "Hallows' Eve" and think, "Oh, I really must hire that one for my next muti-million dollar blockbuster!" In fact, it's more likely to be the opposite. Movies like this kill careers, they don't make them! The only excuse anyone can use is that you could put Oscar award-winning actors in this low-budget trash and they would still come away from it reeking of shit because of the script. Having said that, Tiffany Shepis gets the best of the bad lines, and Danielle Harris doesn't have enough screen time to disgrace herself.

The only good thing I can say about "Hallows' Eve" is that setting it in one of the "Haunted Attractions" which a lot of farmers tend to set up every year in America is an original touch. I've been to a few of these Hallowe'en events, so the location felt real to me, and I liked it. Sadly, that's all I enjoyed about this movie other than what you can see in the image below and the bath scene which preceded it.

Definitely a long-leggedy beastie!

Three more weeks to Hallowe'en, Hallowe'en, Hallowe'en. Three more weeks to Hallowe'en. This film sucks ass.

The Dirties (2013)

"Two best friends are filming a comedy about getting revenge on the bullies at their high school. One of them isn't joking."

If you're expecting "The Dirties" to be another "Rampage" (2009), think again. "The Dirties" is amateur handycam crap of the highest order with semi-decent acting wasted on an unoriginal plot which ultimately peters out and stops dead just as the excitement begins. It's all talk, very little action, and mostly unconvincing characters.

Apart from the location, "The Dirties" is far too similar to Samuel N. Benavides's "None Left Standing" (2005) for those of us who know our low-budget movies. Although "The Dirties" isn't a blatant rip-off and doesn't focus on a descent into madness as well, it's certainly in the same vein. Both are about a trio of students making a film with one of them being dangerously obsessive.

The difference, of course, is that "The Dirties" uses a no-budget student film within another no-budget student film as its novelty "meta" contrivance. The levels of metafiction reach their peak with Matthew Johnson not only acting as himself but also being the director and writer of this disappointing drivel. He doesn't do a bad job for a jack-of-all-trades (and master of none), but I would love to see Canadian filmmakers come up with something more original rather than lazily reworking American movie tropes to death.

Because of its borrowings, I'm not sure if "The Dirties" is supposed to be "found footage" of some kind or if it's meant to be a bizarrely filmed "fly on the wall" drama. Either way, it failed for me aesthetically and stylistically. The unseen cameraman (who I think is called "Ed" at one point) brings up too many questions about who is filming what and why, and it threw me out of the movie several times.

As far as stories about high schools and bullies go, "The Dirties" is full of the usual clichés; jocks versus nerds and all that bullshit which, as a Brit, I never encountered and can't identify with no matter how many times the same stereotypes are forced on me. There's nothing that any of the kids do in this movie that a good old-fashioned punch in the mouth wouldn't have solved if only the emasculated characters stood up for themselves. I know this is Canadian, but Americans and Brits are usually so mouthy about expressing everything that I can't even get my head around the internalisation which leads to isolation, self-destruction, or murder. In Canada, where the myth is that everybody is nicer and less selfish, the frustration caused by repression is maybe less puzzling.

Prior to watching "The Dirties", I came across an interesting documentary called "Bullied to Death: The Tragedy of Phoebe Prince" (2010) which covers the subject of American high school bullying and its psychological effects a lot better. But, as someone whose only experience of attempted bullying has been as a "victim" of the online geek-cliques of hypocrital prudes, their whiteknights, and "flaggots" who I laugh at for being so childish, I still don't quite understand how such things are allowed to escalate. Maybe kids need to find better ways to deal with their frustrations like going outside once in a while, helping someone less fortunate, or stroking a cat.

Teenagers are nasty buggers anyway, and every modern movie and documentary which shows the younger generation and their infantilised parents is an argument to bring back corporal (and capital) punishment. In my day, a few hard whacks with a cane would've sorted everything out. But enough of me on my soapbox. Suffice it to say that the predictably violent but very brief (and punch-pulling) ending of "The Dirties" is the culmination of what happens when you spare the rod and spoil the child.

"The Dirties" isn't a movie recreating Columbine or any of the other famous school shootings, nor is it meant to be, but what it's trying to say as a drama about teenage relationships, loneliness, and a kid who can't tell fiction from reality anymore doesn't work either. It's all too tame, and even an old British kids' TV show like "Grange Hill" dealt with the topics in a more controversial and satisfying way over 30 years ago.

If you're looking for something gritty, I recommend skipping this one.

We Are What We Are (2010)

(AKA "Somos lo que hay")



"When the patriarch of the family passes away, the teenage children must take responsibility for the family chores: the preparation of the rituals, the hunting and putting the all-important meat on the table. These newfound responsibilities are even more daunting, however, when you live in the city and happen to be a family of cannibals."

Just a quick one for "Woeful Wednesday". I'm not going to spend much time on this older Mexican movie since the only reason I watched it was in preparation for the American remake which is coming soon.

Although I now love Spanish language movies (whether they be Mexican, Chilean, Colombian or Spanish), I didn't get much out of this one. "We Are What We Are" is more about the family's disintegration after the death of the father than it is about horror. There's plenty of blood and gore along the way. but most of the kills are off camera with only the aftermath shown. Don't believe the quote on the DVD cover about it being "a cannibal gore-fest" because it isn't.

Everything else you need to enjoy a movie is in place including decent (mainly handheld) camerawork and adequate acting, but the story isn't that great. For a family of cannibals, they are more about keeping a superstitious ritual going than appeasing their appetite, and they're pretty stupid in the way they go about it. Despite having some comic relief anyway, "We Are What We Are" might have been better played as a comedy.

Meh. Whatever.

I won't say that "We Are What We Are" is boring, but it does drag from time to time. There's a pretty girl in it, of course, who doesn't get to do as much as the others, so it's also a bit barren on the tottie front. Hopefully, Paulina Gaitan, the aforementioned pretty girl, will turn up in something horrific again one day because, apparently, she's become quite successful in other Mexican movies and TV shows.

I really don't have anything else to say about this movie. It has a few similarities to "Spider Baby" (1968), "The Hamiltons" (2006), and "Mum and Dad" (2008), but it's not even close to being as entertaining as any of them, and the ending is full of clichés. Thus, I wasn't completely disappointed, but I wasn't amazed by it either. "We Are What We Are" is simply an instantly forgettable movie which could have been so much better.

Here's a trailer for the remake (with the genders of the family members changed) which I might not watch now. It does look quite good though.

Atrocious (2010)

"Two teenage siblings endure a terrifying experience while investigating a rural legend near their family's vacation home."

Thank God for "Bloody Disgusting Selects", not because the horror movies they've chosen are any good but because it's easy to write them off with a tirade of abuse.

"Atrocious" is yet another faux found footage movie in much the same vein as "The Blair Witch Project", and we all know how little I think of that piece of shit. Other than being Spanish, the only real difference is that the kids are younger, and that, in and of itself, is a big clue to the intended target audience.

After an exceedingly boring first-half with nothing but a dead dog to show for it, it all becomes a series of poorly filmed night vision scenes of lots of bushes and trees! Give or take some annoying screaming and shouting, it's just like watching a typical episode of "Ghost Hunters" which doesn't have any ghosts in it either.

With nauseating camerawork and no scares, "Atrocious" certainly lives up to its name and is going straight into the dungeon. I don't have time to watch any more shakycam crap like this, and I didn't have the patience to make it all the way through this one.

Supposedly, it has some kind of non-supernatural twist at the end.

Aptly named.

You're Next (2011)

"When the Davison family comes under attack during their wedding anniversary getaway, the gang of mysterious killers soon learns that one of victims harbors a secret talent for fighting back."

I thought it best to wait until the other horror bloggers exhausted their overpraise before watching "You're Next". It's been described as everything under the Sun including a parody and a comedy, but I can't see how this low-budget crap could be either of the latter except unintentionally.

Basically, "You're Next" is a mixture of Mario Bava's "A Bay of Blood" (1971) and Dae-wung Lim's "To Sir with Love" aka "Bloody Reunion" (2006). Despite the masks which the bad guys wear, it's not overly similar to "Ils" (2006), "The Strangers" (2008), or "The Purge" (2013) apart from the home invasion aspect. Hell, if it wasn't being classed as such, I wouldn't even call this a horror movie. It's more of a crime drama with horror elements than anything else.

After 25 minutes of boredom, which was made worse by everything being filmed with a handheld camera, all the shouting and screaming over the top of each other just made me want to walk out. I didn't, of course, because that would be wasteful, but I didn't enjoy anything which followed either.

I wonder what this movie is called?

While "You're Next" might be fine for teenagers who want the kills to occur off camera with only the aftermath shown, I prefer to see the brutality in all its glory. Unfortunately, every time there's the potential for something to be "lush", the punches are pulled. Whether that's due to the budget or because Adam Wingard is a shitty filmmaker is anyone's guess.

Out of the not very inventive deaths, only two deliver a decent amount of blood, and their repetitive nature gets old pretty fast. I suppose stabbing someone in the head either with a crossbow bolt, a screwdriver, or a knife is the quickest way to finish the job, but it doesn't make interesting viewing. It also takes considerably more force to stab anything through someone's skull than some tiny Australian girl is capable of, so there's that too. Female empowerment, my arse!

Even though nearly everybody knows about the twists now, I'm not going to spoil it more for you except to say that the reveal comes far too early at around the 50 minute mark. Thus, there's another 40 minutes of clichés, poorly written dialogue, and bad acting to get through afterwards which I can't be bothered to talk about. As thrillers go, "Panic Room" (2002) is infinitely more entertaining, tense, and scarier than this drivel.

"Our target for this year's purge is hiding in your home."

The only character who I almost liked was Zee played by Wendy Glenn, simply because she's hot! There's no depth of characterisation to anyone though. In generic slasher-style, they only exist to die as quickly and as unpleasantly as possible.

At the end of the day, "You're Next" is just another overhyped home invasion movie in an oversaturated subgenre. No wonder it sat on the shelf for two years. In better days, this would have been straight-to-DVD fodder rather than being worthy of a theatrical release.

Phobia (2013)

"In 1885, a female doctor helping a group of people with their phobias becomes embroiled in a murder mystery surrounding a patient that may or may not be a vampire."

What the Hell did I just watch? It's not often that a movie is so soulless and ineptly made that it leaves me speechless, but this is one of those times. After "Phobia" ended, I sat staring at the blank page on my computer screen for three hours afterwards waiting for the neurons in my brain to reconnect, and then I had to go to bed for a long depression nap before I could bear thinking about it again.

Even though it's only 90 minutes long, "Phobia" feels several times longer because of how dialogue heavy and boring it is. When I say boring, I mean really boring in the way that watching an amateur dramatics production or a high school play is boring. Actually, no, this is worse than either of those; "Phobia" is seven-year-olds-performing-a-nativity-play-boring but in a foreign language which you don't understand. I was familiar with the subject matter, I knew what was intended, but I couldn't process it because it was so shit.

How any movie could be both overwritten and overacted but contain characters so underdeveloped at the same time is a mystery to me, although I'd hazard a guess that it must take some severely misplaced genius to create such a thing and a lot of luck to get it distributed. Maybe not so much luck since "Phobia" is only another one of many Gravitas Ventures VOD movies which I've written off this year, but still... I can't even... I don't know... my head is full of FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU! Sorry for writing like a fifteen-year-old, but honestly, this movie was probably written by a teenager too. With no nudity, swearing, or anything more gory than you'd see in an episode of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", it's definitely PG-13 all the way, and it's impossible to call it horror with a straight face.

She's dressed as a man, but he's wearing a fake beard. WTF?

If you can concentrate on anything in the first half-hour without being distracted by Erica Leerhsen's thumbsucker-mouth which stands out more because she's supposed to be disguised as a man (à la "Yentl") then you're a slightly better person than me. But if you don't wonder why she still wears a girl's wig, or notice that Sigmund Freud (played by Matt Moore) has a ridiculous fake beard, there's no hope for you as a movie critic. I know this is a low-budget B movie of sorts, but what the bloody Hell were they thinking?

Also how can anyone hire Eric Leerhsen—the only girl in "Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2" (2000) who gets naked—and not ask her to get naked again? Wouldn't a clichéd and gratuitous nude shower/bath scene being overlooked by another character make a better reveal of her gender than removing a stupid black wig which doesn't match her ginger eyebrows? It's not as if you can't see that she's a woman anyway, but... oh my God!

Bearing in mind that director Jon Keeyes is only a couple of weeks younger than me and hasn't directed anything worthwhile other than "American Nightmare" (2002), a few shorts, and a couple of horror TV shows for kids, he should still know better. Exactly what age group is "Phobia" intended for? It's too talky for kids and too tame for adults. And what's with all the badly spoken French with subtitles? It's distancing, alienating, and irritating. It certainly doesn't make the period setting more realistic.

You just have to have a bald Nosferatu guy called Guy!

Once there are no more scenes of Americans butchering the French language, things improve slightly, but just to redress the balance towards crap again, half of them now need to have fake Romanian accents which are more like Russian. Has no one ever heard a Romanian speak before? They usually sound Latin (for obvious reasons including Romanian being a Romance language) not Russian! Jesus wept! And was it really necessary to have a bald-headed Nosferatu lookalike just so that everyone knows that this is a vampire movie? Seriously?

Beautiful Tiffany Lonsdale spices the eyecandy up a bit as bald Guy's sister with claustrophobia, but the lack of any family resemblance is uncanny. She doesn't even look like anyone in the family portraits or her cousin Val Drakul! Maybe she was adopted or a lusty milkman paid her mother a visit? Casting decisions were clearly not a strong point, so it's probably better to not overthink these things.

At least everything improves considerably after the location change from Paris to California (although it's really Texas). Once Erica Leerhsen starts wearing big Victorian dresses, lets her hair out, puts on some lipstick, and looks like a woman again, she's actually quite pretty. She's still not believable as a doctor, and her relationship with Nicholas Brendon lookalike Chase Ryan Jeffery lacks chemistry, but to give credit where it's due, her performance gets much better as the story progresses. The fact that Dr. Lesley doesn't get the chance to cure her patients' phobias is relatively unimportant.

Stephanie Rhodes (the Camp Counselor in the "Friday the 13th" remake) steals the show completely in her scenes as sexy Elizabeth, the ward of agoraphobic Annabel Lee (Carolyn Wickwire), but not enough is made of her to be memorable overall. Without any eroticism or some desperately needed sex scenes, why even add a lesbian facet to Elizabeth's character? What's the point? Again, who are the target audience?

The saddest thing is that everyone in "Phobia" can act! They've all been in other things before, whether TV shows or movies, and they don't disgrace themselves once you take into account what they had to work with. The fault rests almost entirely with the script despite annoying background music which outstays its welcome, lethargic pacing, cheap-looking camerawork, and a lot of staginess which doesn't help. Whatever clever period mystery Anne Gibson may have thought she was creating, it would have been better as a pulp YA novel than a movie. To say that "Phobia" is reminiscent of Kim Newman would be an insult more than a compliment, however, since I can't stand that grinnygog or his books.

Okay, she does look a bit better in a dress.

On the plus side, the way the use of hypnotism and vampires are combined into a mystery seems to be fairly original. If my mind wasn't still numb, I'm sure that I could find better examples than "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" or "The Vampire Lovers" to prove myself wrong, but as all roads lead back to Hammer and Bram Stoker's "Dracula", I'm positive that there's nothing new here other than the way it's presented. A couple of homages to Edgar Allan Poe are harmless additions.

Before I wrap this up, I have to mention the effects. Apart from the wig and beard fiasco, the make-up is generally good and a couple of torn throats look the part. Inevitably, there are some very cheap "Buffy-esque" CGI effects near the end which place this movie in the "Syfy Original wannabe" category and will doom it to appearing in Echo Bridge or Mill Creek multipacks one day, but they do provide some horror action. I doubt that "Phobia" will ever been shown on TV unless Chiller (or Zone Horror/The Horror Channel in the UK) get it for next to nothing though.

According to the IMDb, the ensemble cast from "Phobia" is due to reappear in "The Harrowing" (2014) but with the addition of Debbie Rochon instead of Erica Leerhsen. As I'm done with being a masochist after suffering through this borefest, I think it'll be another good one to miss.

An American Ghost Story (2012)

"When Paul, an unemployed writer, decides to rent and live in a house that's rumoured to be haunted, he puts his life and his relationships in grave danger as he obsessively attempts to get the story that will finally make his career."

Whenever a yet to be released horror movie which was made for under $10,000 achieves a 7.5 out of 10 rating on the IMDb, I smell shenanigans. Either not enough non-shills have found it and voted, or the "critics" who received screeners really did find it outstanding. The chances of the latter being true are invariably slim to none though.

Thus, as much as I didn't want to backtrack to another one of last year's movies—especially not one with a title change designed to cash-in on the success of FX's "American Horror Story" TV series—curiosity meant that I had no choice but to check out the ghost story formerly known as "Revenant". I'm pleased to say that I wasn't disappointed by my discoveries either. Although very little has improved since Derek Cole and Stephen Twardokus made "Human Behavior" (2006), at least this movie is in colour like something created in the 21st century should be.

Unfortunately, with annoying, atmosphere-killing background music throughout, "An American Ghost Story" fails to generate an ambience conducive to scares. Things improve enormously when silence reigns, but at its worst, the music sounds like a cat walking up and down a piano keyboard while a tone-deaf 5-year-old child practices chords next to it. Occasionally, it even overpowers the dialogue, and that's a real shame because the acting is fairly decent.

Stephen Twardokus is very good as Paul the obsessive ghost hunter who bites off more than he can chew, and natural beauty Liesel Kopp is ideal as his girlfriend Stella. Liesel Kopp has a lovely, expressive face with big, watery eyes that exude genuine fear in her nighttime scenes. It's a pity that Stella disappears from the movie after 30 minutes, but she's really only in it to represent the sane action which most people would choose when faced with living in a haunted house.

Even Paul's best friend Sam (Cain Clifton) is likeable, so I have to give credit where it's due for the casting choices and characterisation. Wendy Haines is a bit over the top as former resident Sue, and Jon Gale isn't quite so hot as Skip the house-owner, but they only have very small roles which don't add much to the story anyway. Both provide minimal exposition/confirmations about details which have already been said rather than falling into the "idiot lecture" trap.

So where does it all go wrong? Well, apart from the aforementioned awful background music which is only used properly in two action-packed places, "An American Ghost Story" is a very slow burn, and it's full of clichés and homages instead of originality.

There's absolutely nothing here that you haven't seen before, especially if you're a fan of haunted house movies. In particular, "An American Ghost Story" owes a lot to the "Paranormal Activity" series. You could even describe it as a conflation of all the jump scares from the "Paranormal Activity" movies without the camcorders and home security surveillance contrivances.

As much as I would love to praise the "old school" use of tripods and zooms to provide an easy film to watch, there are flaws with the cinematography. Some of the long shots never zoom in enough, and several others are poorly framed. One of this story's biggest contrivances is to have Paul investigating the house at night using a flashlight, which leads to scenes that are too dark to see properly. The intention may have been to cover-up a multitude of effects sins by using the darkness for cover, but it also makes Paul's actions moronic in a house with fully functional electric lights and no power outages!

The house itself is very modern, and amazingly neat and tidy inside. It may have a lot of mismatched wood going on—a mahogany dining table among light oak cupboards is the worst culprit—but it's not a sinister looking house at all. Apart from one of those Crosley Companion radios which is designed to look like an antique one, there's nothing creepy to see. The characters may keep saying how oppressive the atmosphere is, but the "Emperor's new clothes" technique doesn't work when the reality is so painfully obvious.

Even with its flaws, all but two of the jump scares work, but so they should since they've been done to death in other movies! Without spoiling things too much for you, I'll just mention that doors and cupboards open on their own, a basketball is predictably rolled towards Paul by an invisible being, the scary-looking radio switches itself on, and there's a chair-stacking homage to "Poltergeist" (1982) which made me groan. There are a lot of excessively loud bangs to catch you out, and one computer-based moment which I should have known better than to fall for (because I leaned in close to the screen) really works! All I'll say about it, after nearly soiling myself, is that I'm surprised that anyone still uses AOL mail... and you can't animate a jpg image! Well played, Derek Cole, you ass!

As you can see in the trailer, the big thing in "An American Ghost Story" is the use of "sheet ghosts" which, of course, also appear briefly in "Paranormal Activity 3" (2011). The last time I saw sheet ghosts before that was in The Avalanches' "Frontier Psychiatrist" music video. Sheet ghosts are traditionally used for comic effect as in "Beetlejuice" (1988) rather than being terrifying for anyone other than small children, but they work very well here. In its favour, "An American Ghost Story" seriously attempts to make sheet ghosts scary again!

What's my verdict then? All things considered, and with the wind blowing in the right direction, I don't think "An American Ghost Story" deserves its 7.5 out of 10 rating on the IMDb (note: it's now dropped to 6.2 and still falling), but I'm willing to give it a pass mark of 4.5 out of 10 simply because I was entertained. If "An American Ghost Story" was due to be released without any background music, it would be much stronger. It still wouldn't be more than a clone of other haunted house movies, but the sad truth is that the chances of ever seeing any groundbreaking originality in this subgenre is unlikely anyway.

"An American Ghost Story" is definitely worth a rental. If you aren't so enamoured by Katie Featherston that you've vowed never to watch another haunted house movie unless she's in it, you'll probably enjoy this a lot more.

33 horror movies from 2012 which I will never watch

Speaking as someone who tries to watch every horror movie from every subgenre as they become available, there comes a point when the amount left to see is so overwhelming that harsh decisions have to be made about whether they will ever be watched or not.

Sometimes it's the subject matter, sometimes it's the uninspiring artwork and blurb on the DVD—occasionally, it's merely the name of the movie—but every case is assessed individually before I invest my time and money. Due to many years of experience, I can often tell if a movie is going to be a crappy one without even putting the DVD in the player. Mistakes still happen, and some of the slew of shit manages to slip through, but at least they're confined to rentals because I never blind buy.

You can me "narrow minded" if you like, but you'd be wrong. I'm cynical, and I usually do a lot of research before parting with my money. I don't succumb to marketing or peer pressure, so all my movie watching choices are entirely my own. The following, however, are the titles which didn't interest me enough to give them a chance.

Please note that I'm going "old school" with this post. There are no trailers, no pretty pictures, and no Amazon links. I'm just going to write a couple of sentences about each movie to give you a brief insight into how I choose what is worth watching and what isn't. I haven't actually watched even a second of any of these movies, and I never will.


1. 23 Minutes to Sunrise (2012)
Despite having Eric Roberts in it, what looks like a low-budget crime drama set in a diner doesn't appeal to me. The title suggests a vampire movie, but it isn't. It's also a lot more than 23 minutes long.

2. 1920: Evil Returns (2012)
Tempting though it is to watch an Indian version of "The Exorcist", I've done that before with another Hindi movie which I can't remember the name of. It wasn't good. There's novelty value here and a very beautiful actress, but I'll pass.

3. American Horror House (2012)
The SyFy channel's attempt to cash-in on the name of "American Horror Story" suggests that it's about ghosts, but it looks like a TV-rated slasher centred around a University sorority. I suspect it to be yet another load of annoying teenage girls running around and screaming. No, thank you.

4. Bigfoot: The Lost Coast Tapes (2012)
I have no interest in Bigfoot or fake found footage, so this is an easy one to skip. I can imagine that it's all shakycams, some guy in a hairy costume, and everybody will die at the end.

5. Black Forest (2012)
Tinsel Korey, the scarred werewolf-girl from the "Twilight" movies is in this, but so is Ben Cross, and it's another SyFy movie. The blurb says that it's a fantasy set in the Black Forest, Germany, and has something to do with fairytales. If it was about gâteau, I'd be more inclined to watch it.

6. The Caretaker (2012)
A low-budget Australian "cabin in the woods" movie with vampires. That's all the information I need. Vampire kangaroos would be a much better idea.

7. Cockneys vs Zombies (2012)
It's a comedy, so it doesn't matter how many well-known British actors have cameos in it. Also zombies. Ugh! If I was still living in England, and it was shown on a satellite TV channel, I'd probably give it a few minutes just to ogle Michelle Ryan.

8. Community (2012)
Reading between the lines, this may be a British shakycam version of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" set on a council housing estate. It has Jemma Dallender (the pretty star of the upcoming "I Spit on Your Grave 2") in it, but sadly, it's full of angry chavs as well.

9. Creep Van (2012)
Apparently, this is a low-budget slasher rather than the story of a possessed van. Either way, it sounds boring, and it's bound to look like a YouTube video.

10. Crowsnest (2012)
Canadian found footage about nomadic cannibals in an R.V. attacking a bunch of teenagers. Since it's Canadian, I imagine that the acting will be okay, but the plot will rip-off half a dozen more famous American cannibal movies and slashers.

11. The Dead Want Women (2012)
A Full Moon movie full of pretty girls and Eric Roberts. What could go wrong? I'll wait for it to appear on an Echo Bridge multipack, and then fast forward through it for the nudie bits. Not really.

12. Demon Hunter (2012)
There are so many movies like this in existence that I've probably already seen this under another name. Just different girls to see topless, more no-budget effects, and non-existent "acting" to spoil my day.

13. Donner Pass (2012)
This is bound to end up on Netflix. By not having the service anymore, I can ignore another bunch of pretty "teenagers" getting killed and eaten by cannibals. Strange title though. It makes me think of kebabs.

14. Fetish Dolls Die Laughing (2012)
With a title like that, it reeks of being a no-budget horror-comedy.

15. Freakshow Apocalypse: The Unholy Sideshow (2012)
It's one of those no-budget nasties which is directed by, written by, and stars the same person. I'll bet that it's about a bunch of weird-looking friends with more tattoos than teeth as they try to copy scenes from Rob Zombie videos. If I'm wrong, I don't care.

16. Ghoul (2012)
A made-for-TV clone of "The Goonies" and "The Monster Squad" maybe? Nope. I can't stand horror movies with little kids doing a load of investigating and their uncaring parents who don't believe them.

17. Girls Against Boys (2012)
A rape-revenge drama which might be good, but I've seen far too many rape-revenge dramas over the years. I'd be very surprised if it offers anything better than "I Spit on Your Grave" as it's probably a formulaic clone of the same thing.

18. Grave Encounters 2 (2012)
I didn't watch more than 5 minutes of the first one, so I'm not going to watch an obviously inferior sequel. I hate all those bullshit "Ghost Hunters" TV shows which this is supposed to look like anyway.

19. Haunted High (2012)
Another SyFy movie which I've had no interest in since learning that one of the morbidly obese movie reviewers from YouTube has a part in it. That, and the childish story itself, puts me right off wanting to see a couple of minutes of Charisma Carpenter.

20. Lizzie (2012)
Having seen the TV movie version, "The Legend of Lizzie Borden" (1975), I can't see any way that this could offer anything new.

21. Lost Woods (2012)
Because the title suggests a movie about erectile dysfunction on a porn set, I was intrigued for a few seconds. Finding out that it's about an alien creature, i.e. a guy wearing a bear costume and a "Predator" mask, who chases campers through a forest destroyed those hopes. It's clearly no-budget crap of the highest order.

22. Love Bite (2012)
Supposed to be a romantic-comedy version "The Inbetweeners" with a werewolf. Apart from Jessica Szohr, there doesn't appear to be any good reason to watch this low-budget "An American Werewolf in Paris" clone.

23. Monsters in the Woods (2012)
Yet another one of those "film crew shooting a movie" ones with boobs and blood but no-budget. Normally a good choice for a "Woeful Wednesday" post, but I have my limits.

24. The Mooring (2012)
"Every 40 seconds a person goes missing." And he's getting really sick of it now! It's a handycam "Friday the 13th" clone set in Idaho, so it's girls being chased through the woods by a psycho. Probably has potatoes in it too.

25. Night Claws (2012)
I wanted it to be a movie about cats, but it's another one about Bigfoot. It's distributed by Midnight Releasing, so it's got to be worse than something by The Asylum.

26. No Tell Motel (2012)
I have a horrible feeling that I've already seen this one... about 50 times over and made by other people! It's about a haunted motel, but it's not going to be as even half as good as "The Innkeepers". I was very disappointed by "The Innkeepers", by the way.

27. Parasitic (2012)
A Florida nightclub gets invaded by an alien parasite. Alrighty then, it's low-budget sci-fi/horror. Do not want!

28. Poe (2012)
Either a film about Edgar Allan Poe or something about toilets, right? No such luck. The blurb says it's about a serial-killing cannibal. In other words, this is no-budget Hannibal Lecter.

29. Rise of the Zombies (2012)
The SyFy channel does more zombies. Ethan Suplee (Randy from "My Name is Earl") is in this. I like him, but not more zombies! No more zombies ever!

30. Robin Hood: Ghosts of Sherwood 3D (2012)
Just look at the title! You can probably tell me all the reasons why I wouldn't want to watch this! It's got Tom Savini and Kane Hodder in it too, and we all know what fantastic actors they are.

31. The Sleeper (2012)
Supposedly a "throwback to the '80s"-style slasher where another sorority house is killed off. Why would anyone feel the need to make something like this in a market already saturated by no-budget slashers?

32. Snow White: A Deadly Summer (2012)
The girl on the coverart looks beautiful, but I don't think another movie with Eric Roberts in it is going to be all that great. Added to that, it's a modern interpretation of the famous fairytale, and those really don't work well.

33. Vampireland (AKA The 6th Extinction) (2012)
A no-budget version of "Stake Land". In every conceivable way, NO!


Since half the fun of being a horror movie reviewer is finding things which other people may not have heard of, if you've actually seen any of these movies, feel free to let me know if I did the right thing by not watching them.

Do Not Disturb (2013)

"After his fiancee is brutally murdered, Don Malek sets out for revenge."

I've seen some strokes pulled in my time, but this one really takes the biscuit. Although I've never had the misfortune to watch the slightly longer "New Terminal Hotel" (2010), "Do Not Disturb" is simply a recut and renamed version of the same thing! What the bloody Hell?

Was this done just so that director B.C. Furtney could get two IMDb credits for the same crappy, low-budget borefest, or was it supposed to fool people into thinking that a straight-to-video movie made in 2008 is a new one?

Apparently, the recutting and repackaging is all due to a change of distributors, so I suppose we'll just have to accept that as the definitive answer on the subject. To be brutally honest, I don't actually care that much. It's not as if I'm going to write a huge shill-review enticing you to watch either version anyway. You can't turn a sow's ear into a silk purse, and "Do Not Disturb" would still be an overly talky turd by any name.

So, let's see why anyone would be silly enough to watch this movie.

Well, the late Corey Haim has an extended cameo role as a washed-up English rockstar with a constantly slipping accent—the point being that his character is not really English or a rockstar but just an alcoholic bum. Are his less than three minutes on screen worth your consideration? I think not. I'm sure he was only on set because he was allegedly engaged to Tiffany Shepis at the time, and someone thought it would be a good idea to give him something to do while he waited around for her. The biggest clue is that you could cut his parts out of the movie and it wouldn't make any difference to the story whatsoever.

Secondly, there's the aforementioned Tiffany Shepis who fanboys go crazy for but I've never found attractive. It's only fair because she definitely wouldn't find me attractive either. I must admit that she does a better job than usual and seems to be able to act a little bit. How much of her potty-mouthed character is acting and how much is just her, I wouldn't even try to guess at. Yeah, she's kind of pretty, I suppose, and she briefly shows her bra, but it's down to Danielle Fortwangler as a hooker to provide the topless eyecandy.

"Oh, you're so cool, Brewster!"

The lead role goes to Stephen "Evil Ed" Geoffreys who I haven't seen in anything since "Sick Girl" (which was, of course, only filmed the year before). He seems in pretty good shape for an older guy and spends a lot of the movie with his shirt off. If that floats your boat, have at it. His acting here is also better than in anything he has ever done before despite the fact that he's horribly miscast as either a writer or a multiple murderer. A little bit of Evil Ed shines through occasionally, but you can also almost see echoes of William H. Macy's performance in "Edmond" (2005) at times. That would be great if "Edmond" didn't already exist... but it does.

Thus, it's all down to Ezra Buzzington to steal the show as Malek's crippled and equally shirtless neighbour Spitz, an even more boozy and bad-tempered version of Lieutenant Dan from "Forrest Gump" (1994). Easily one of the most prolific and successful character actors around, he doesn't disgrace himself here either. Given what and who he had to work with, the only reason that I could possibly recommend "Do Not Disturb" is for Ezra Buzzington, but that's not enough. For a "Murder Monday", I need lots of blood and guts to set me up for the week ahead.

There's some decent splatter in places, but not that much gore to see as most of the torture and kills occur off camera until near the end. When Malek's revenge surgery starts, the lack of torture porn is overwhelmingly disappointing, but as this is primarily a stagey "crime drama" with horror elements, it's only to be expected that a lot of punches are pulled. While "Do Not Disturb" may have aspirations to be more than something thrown together by the local amateur dramatics group, the lack of budget doesn't help matters.

The camerawork is okay, but the sound is so echoey in places that "Do Not Disturb" feels "studenty" throughout. With unlikeable characters, too much talk, and not enough action, "Do Not Disturb" is tolerable enough to rate as a 2 or 3 out of 10, but it's also hella boring. I didn't make it through in one sitting, and I doubt that you will either.

Make no mistake about it, "Do Not Disturb" should have been renamed as "Do Not Watch".

Do not confuse it with the other 2 dozen identically named movies!

Beneath (2013)

"Six high school seniors celebrating with day's excursion find themselves on rowboat attacked by man-eating fish and must decide who must be sacrificed as they fight their way back to shore."

As much as I would like to write "Beneath" off as nothing but a load of bickering teenagers who you've never heard of (plus Mark Margolis in a creepy cameo) being menaced by a more evil version of the big fish from "The Singing Ringing Tree" (1957), I really can't. For what it is, which is another highly sanitised Chiller TV movie, "Beneath" is far more entertaining than most of the sources it homages, but not in a good way.

Essentially, what director Larry Fessenden has done is rip-off the only good segment of "Creepshow 2", throw in a healthy dollop of "Lifeboat" (or "Lifepod"), and then stir-it all up with some pop culture references, a little bit of social commentary, and even some trendy GoPro camera product placement. All this without any nudity or swearing too! The guy is clearly a genius! Or not, as the case may be.

The biggest problem, other than the ridiculously ginormous piranha-style fish, is that the script isn't very good. The characters are so poorly written that even though you can see that everyone is trying their hardest to act and take it all seriously, there's nothing much for anyone to work with. As a result, there's not one likeable character, and the story becomes little more than a "slasher in water" as you just wait and hope for each annoying idiot to meet his or her demise.

All of them are toast fish food.

The great thing about "Beneath" is that it isn't a comedy. Of course the giant fish is one of the most poorly realised practical creature effects in any movie about giant fish since "Jaws", but as the story progresses, it becomes easier to accept its existence than to believe that the teenagers are really teenagers or were ever friends with each other. Their reactions are more wooden than the bored hosts who used to take the boats of tourists round the "Jaws" ride at Universal Studios, which, alas, is no longer a future employment option for anyone involved in this production.

The gore is surprisingly good for a hypocritical American TV movie with various cuts, bites, slashes, and dismembered limbs oozing blood all over the place. It's not to the same standard as "Piranha 3D", but "Beneath" obviously didn't have the same $24,000,000 budget to play with. I'd be amazed if this movie had even a third of the $1,000,000 budget that The Asylum sets as a maximum for each of their mockbusters.

As with every low-budget abomination nowadays, the camerawork isn't exactly brilliant, and the oh-so-important GoPro inserts make things look even worse. If you can get past that, there's barely any tension in the teenagers' predicament either. There is some, but it's mostly ruined by the stupidity of their childish behaviour. A different director might have got a better balance, but it is what it is. I've got a feeling that Larry Fessenden knew exactly what he was doing. I just can't prove it.

If you're a grumpy old misanthropist like me who is always on the look-out for something else to hate about people, "Beneath" has a lot to say about smartasses, snarkiness, white knighting, entitlement issues, relationships, cliques, and, basically, how disgustingly selfish today's teenagers are. It's almost as good as reading through the online dramas on horror message boards! The only difference is that everyone gets what they deserve this time! And it's glorious! Absolutely glorious!

"Das singende, klingende Bäumchen" has a lot to answer for!