Underworld: Blood Wars (2016)

"The next installment in the blockbuster franchise, UNDERWORLD: BLOOD WARS follows Vampire death dealer, Selene (Kate Beckinsale) as she fends off brutal attacks from both the Lycan clan and the Vampire faction that betrayed her. With her only allies, David (Theo James) and his father Thomas (Charles Dance), she must stop the eternal war between Lycans and Vampires, even if it means she has to make the ultimate sacrifice."

Considering that I've already bitched and whined as much as is humanly possible about how disappointing this entire series of "black and blue films" is overall, all I'm really doing by reviewing "Blood Wars" is repeating what I said about "Underworld: Awakening" four years ago but with a few extra names dropped in. Sadly, I've watched these movies get worse with every sequel (or prequel), and I'd almost forgotten what happened in the last one until I read my own review.

Suffice it to say that with a running time of just over an hour and 20 minutes (including 4 minutes of recaps at the start and several more minutes of flashbacks scattered throughout), there isn't a lot of anything new here. It's already obvious that it's not going to be the last of the "Underworld" series, but it's easily the weakest so far and reeks of being another half-arsed filler. "Underworld" really should have been a TV series after the first theatrical release if this is the way they are going to play it.

Obviously, Kate Beckinsale looks fantastic again. Also of note is Lara Pulver as Semira. She looks like a more perfect version of a young Sigourney Weaver from certain angles, but occasionally she has the air of Eva Green about her too.

It's almost the same deal with Theo James who reminds me of a younger Julian McMahon, Bradley James who looks like Mads Mikkelsen playing Le Chiffre in "Casino Royale", and James Faulkner who resembles Albert Finney way too much. Maybe the casting director thought they were trying to make a lookalike compendium of the latest James Bond films because that's what they've ended up with, give or take a few werewolves and vampires.

Whatever the case, the plot is weak, characters aren't given enough time to develop, and every slow scene seems to be designed as a hindrance rather than an attempt to progress the story. Consequently, if you only see the last 5 minutes, it will be enough to prepare you for the next installment, because the padded action sequences are nothing memorable either. A couple of important characters are completely wasted, but I'll say no more than that. Maybe it's an intentional contempt for the audience, or maybe it's just inept filmmaking, I'll let you decide for yourself.

Although the choreography improves later on, the majority of the action scenes are little more than a bunch of extras who no one cares about getting confusingly slaughtered in the background to the even more confusing duels between the main protagonists. There's never any sense of threat or danger involved due to none of the characters having enough screen time for you to get to know much about them.

The be all and end all of this "Underworld" movie is that it seems to only exist for completists and fans who will buy it anyway. If you haven't seen any of the others, you won't know what to make of it, who anyone is, or why anything is happening, and even with prior knowledge, "Underworld: Blood Wars" will still be very disappointing.

Already showing in Europe since the start of December, American audiences will have to wait until January for the theatrical release. For those who are wise to these things, the fact that it's a "January movie" says it all.

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.

Jurassic World (2015)

"Twenty-two years after the events of Jurassic Park, Isla Nublar now features a fully functioning dinosaur theme park, Jurassic World, as originally envisioned by John Hammond. After 10 years of operation and visitor rates declining, in order to fulfill a corporate mandate, a new attraction is created to re-spark visitor's interest, which backfires horribly."

I remember way back in the far distant past of 1993 that I was sixth in a queue of eager moviegoers over a mile long which ran all the way down the street from the cinema, past a park, and over a bridge. The original "Jurassic Park" was so hyped that the world went a little bit crazy that opening weekend for dinosaurs, and I'm proud to admit that I was part of the insanity. I may have been too old for it, but I still bought the action figures, books, and anything else labelled with the "Jurassic Park" brand.

Twenty-two years later, nothing seems to have changed apart from the age of the original audience. With box office takings of over $551 million so far, "Jurassic World" has become an unprecedented success for a third sequel, but it's not only due to my generation's nostalgia.

Dinosaurs have and always will be one of the biggest draws for audiences of all ages. Everyone loves dinosaurs! Stick a dinosaur in a movie and it's almost guaranteed money in the bank. A couple of dud sequels in the "Jurassic Park" series have done nothing to diminish the yearning to see more of the same.

Velociraptors and motorcycles are cool.

Since I'm trying to be not my seemingly negative and jaded self, let me just interject the obvious fact that "Jurassic World" is a PG-13 Summer movie meant for little kids and family audiences. As such, it's no better or worse than any other movie released to get asses on seats for money this year, and it's full of all the spectacle that you would imagine.

Unfortunately, "Jurassic World" is overlong at 124 minutes, and it often suffers both from lag and unsympathetic characters. In fact, the action doesn't even get going until around an hour in, so if you haven't seen it yet, you can arrive late and not miss anything very important. Apart from a load of exposition and crowd scenes of visitors to the new Jurassic theme park, the CGI dinosaurs mostly mill around aimlessly and aren't nearly as impressive or groundbreaking as in the original.

Chris Pratt plays an ex-marine who has semi-trained a bunch of velociraptors in one of many "Chekhov's Gun" tropes which predictably play out later on in the story. As the most charismatic actor in "Jurassic World", he tends to steal the show, especially from the younger actors who are more or less forgetten during the second-half.

Bryce Dallas Howard provides some corporate eye-candy with a heart, but minor characters and the other co-stars tend to remain minor and one-dimensional with no surprises or chemistry whatsoever. Having none of the original "Jurassic Park" cast members even in cameos, "Jurassic World" appears to have thrown the baby out with the bathwater for the sake of making everything "new".

And now for some SPOILERS. Stop reading here if you don't want to know!

Imodium Rex will scare the shit out of you.

SPOILERS

The best part of "Jurassic World" is undoubtedly a death scene at the 80 minute mark which almost rivals the opening sequence of "Jaws" (1975) in terms of excitement. Yes, it's the one with the aquatic Mosasaurus which is heavily featured in the marketing. Being CGI and rated PG-13, all the deaths are quite bloodless, but this one is rather good despite those limitations.

All the predictable fights ensue, and the Pterodactyls or Pteranodons which are a big part of Michael Crichton's novel are nicely used. Fans of flying reptiles will be pleased.

Obviously, the biggest thing in "Jurassic World" is the much touted super-dinosaur which is called Imodium Rex or something similar made-up for the sake of it. There's no great educational exploration of dinosaurs or any apparent scientific accuracy here, but the story works as a fantasy-adventure for the intended audience.

END OF SPOILERS

Overall, there's nothing really to hate in "Jurassic World", but there's not a lot that most people haven't already seen before, either in the previous "Jurassic Park" movies or clones. A few "in-jokes" and homages don't detract from the considerable retreading of the same ground as "Jurassic Park", but they don't add anything new or memorable either.

If you just want to relax, switch off most of your analytical brain functions, and enjoy a kids' movie (or have a family to take with you), you won't go wrong by choosing "Jurassic World" over the other theatrical offerings this month.

Including nods to similar scenes at the end of "Jurassic Park", this love letter to the fans (both young and old) is a worthy finale, but it will cause déjà vu.

Ex Machina (2015)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommended for a rainy Sci-Fi Saturday night.

Maggie (2015)

"A teenage girl in the Midwest becomes infected by an outbreak of a disease that slowly turns the infected into cannibalistic zombies. During her transformation, her loving father stays by her side."

It's no good, I've bitten my tongue for far too long about the continued decline of so-called "horror" movies. So behold, I'm writing an actual movie review for the first time in nearly two years, even though I honestly don't care about any of it anymore. Unless something as equally dire as this zombie crap comes up later (not including the inevitable remakes and sequels which loom before us), I don't think I'll write another horror movie review this year either. Horror is creatively dead, and there's no point.

I didn't write about the hypocrisy of all the "Twilight" haters who sucked up to "Spring" (2014), even though it's little more than one of those talky "Before" movies with a couple of minutes of monster, nor did I feel obliged to climb back into my online persona like a dog returning to its own vomit to comment on the softcore teen-porno known as "It Follows" (2014). So boring! But I've digressed. I have no beef with any of these people, even if their egos may cause them to manufacture one with me. I don't know any of them personally outside of how annoyingly they act on the internet, and really don't want to. We aren't friends, and we never will be. That's just how the cookie crumbles.

Let's get down to the subject in hand. In the case of "Maggie", it's yet another PG-13 "genre" film with no scares or any horror in it, indicating that the whole concept of "scary" has apparently been abandoned forever now. Just calling a movie "horror" is enough for some people, I guess, whether it bears any resemblence to the dictionary definition or not. Still jaded, I highly doubt that there will ever be a genuinely scary movie again from anyone.

Boasting the same horrible faux-handheld camerawork (with the everso slightly shakiness of such movies as "The Reaping") and a mostly washed-out colour palette, "Maggie" won't make you throw up with motion sickness but will fill you with nausea by utilising such a recognisable "shakycam" contrivance to add "realism". LOL (I never used to use acronyms in my reviews, but I have to this time). Realism in a zombie movie? Give me a break! Why even bother? It's all FICTION, geddit? I hate to break it to you, but zombies aren't real!

To say that everything about "Maggie" is predictable would be an understatement. Aside from the obvious outcome, there's much amusement to be had when Joely Richardson touches her neck to show anxiety JUST LIKE SHE DOES IN EVERY EPISODE OF NIP/TUCK! Get some range Joely, for the love of God! LOL She's still undeniably gorgeous but seems to be no longer capable of doing an American accent or even act anymore. Shame.

Look, I can't act worth a shit either, nor can I bake a cake, but that doesn't mean that I can't spot bad acting or know what I like to eat. For that reason, the less said about Arnie's dozen lines of anguished dialogue and constipated expression throughout, the better. I still like his previous work, I just wish he would actually learn to do some acting one day. I won't deny that there are some attempts at acting here, but it's not very convincing.

I don't really want to write anything about the girl who plays Maggie, but I will. I don't know her name, Abigail Something, and I can't be bothered to look it up on the IMDb either (oh, it's on the poster... Breslin). I think she was nominated for an Oscar once. I don't remember or care. The Oscars are total bollocks anyway. For someone who is supposedly dying, Maggie just behaves like a typical mopey teenager. Oh, so sad! She didn't even register on me, and she's supposed to be the lead! Superficial characterisation or generally bad writing? Who knows? LOL again. I found that I was more interested in how old Arnie looks now, the makeup, locations, and the sets than any of the dramatic performances.

It's true what Wes Vance often said on Deadpit Radio back in the day when I used to listen to it, "If you continuously feed people with a diet of shit, eventually shit doesn't taste so bad to them anymore." In fact, a lot of them now consider shit to be their staple diet and greedily gulp it down willingly.

"Maggie" really is another plateful of steaming turds which the hard of understanding and easily pleased will undoubtedly find very satisfying. The Aristotlean "art is best when hidden" rule is thrown out of the window like a Parisian chamber pot with this movie, and forget about any of this bland crap "causing emotion" or "the catharsis of such emotion". It's tropes, formulas, flat characters, and languid storytelling all the way. OMFG (sorry about another acronym which I would never use in real life), "Maggie" is utter shite!

Slow, boring as fuck, and with a shit ending, the "horror nasties" will undoutedly ADORE and LOVE "Maggie" (since it's impossible for any of them to merely LIKE a film with their affected and constantly gushing written style). They all write the same way and repeat each other ad nauseum. I bet they are all SUPER EXCITED about this too. Bahahahahaha! Fucking tools! I bet none of them will have the balls to admit that even "Contracted" (2013) has better effects and more emotion to it than "Maggie".

I would say that I can't wait to read their reviews to see my predictions proven right, but I'm not that interested enough to do so. Let's face it, you know that the "big names" (in reality, nothing but unemployable ex-students who write purple prose for less than a penny a word) and their asscrawlers will be praising the shit out of this because it gets them page views, reciprocal promotion, a quote on the DVD cover, and access. There's very little honesty among them, and there never has been. "It's all marketing" is their hackneyed excuse. Whatever. They are nothing but gaslighters and clickbait. Let them eat zombie cupcakes!

"Maggie" is vacuous rubbish of the highest order which is presumably aimed at younger teenagers who aren't allowed to watch "The Walking Dead" on TV. Entertainment-wise, this isn't for "horror buffs", traditional Arnie fans, or for anyone expecting lots of action. It's not even badly done enough to laugh at in a sneering way like so many scathing reviewers love to do.

Supposedly a character driven piece and an allegory about terminal illness, the dialogue is so lame and the execution so ploddingly dull that "Maggie" fails to deliver the goods there too. With or without the zombie gimmick, "Maggie" is simply null and void on all emotional levels.

For something more invigorating, I suggest that you go old school and watch some vintage Romero or Italian zombie movies instead. Vote with your wallets and give this one a miss unless you've exhausted everything else to watch.

Gravity (2013)

"A medical engineer and an astronaut work together to survive after an accident leaves them adrift in space."

I don't know about you, but the thought of being stranded in space gives me the heebies. The mixture of claustrophobia, agoraphobia, and vertigo would drive most people insane, and let's not forget about the possibility of being captured and tortured by aliens! Unfortunately, "Gravity" doesn't go into those areas, so it's not very satisfying for horror or sci-fi fans.

"Gravity" is a disaster movie for science nerds who love movies such as "The Right Stuff" (1983) or "Apollo 13" (1995) and believe that there really are space labs orbiting Earth, Man landed on the moon, and all that other rubbish. It's not another "Event Horizon" (1997), "Mission to Mars" (2000), or even "Armageddon" (1998), except for some very superficial similarities and, of course, being set in space. Thus, if you're expecting something other than a potential Oscar winner, look elsewhere.

To say that I wasn't impressed by "Gravity" is the understatement of the year. I was, by turns, bored out of my mind, nauseated by the shocking waste of money that went into something which the BBC could have filmed for the price of a couple of bags of prawn cocktail crisps back in the days of "Blakes 7", and because it's hard to tell what's going on unless you have some kind of astronautical doctorate degree, I was even more confused by all the confusing things which Sandra Bullock was confused by. Basically, I hated it.

Maybe it's also because I read Ray Bradbury's short sci-fi story "Kaleidoscope"—which everyone claims isn't the inspiration for "Gravity" until they are blue in the face (even though it clearly is!)—when I was a teenager, and it stayed with me. Or maybe it's just because I can't abide movies about astronauts in the first place. Either way, I felt like I'd seen the best and worst parts of it before.

Here come the spoilers!

What a load of Bullocks!

I have no idea how much of "Gravity" is CGI or filmed against a green screen, nor do I care about the smoke and mirrors behind the scenes. The result is very clever, and with such great effects now available, I'm sure we'll get a fake Mars landing from NASA eventually. What I do know is that Sandra Bullock is hot for her age, and her 3D acrobatics look cool, but neither is enough to make any of this movie exciting.

Using the "running out of air" trope is the closest that "Gravity" gets to having any tension, and a couple of dead astronauts provide the only horror. If only Sandra Bullock could've been persuaded to strip completely like Barbarella rather than just down to her t-shirt and underpants like Ripley, it would have perked things up a bit. Alas, this is a PG-13, and she doesn't do anything particularly sexy apart from grunting, groaning and gasping. Okay, so she also barks and howls like a dog at one point, but you have your fetishes and I'll have mine.

What really pissed me off, however, was the lack of scientific accuracy about how things work in space. Not only does the whooshing and swooshing make no sense in a vacuum where sound doesn't carry, the biggest cock-up is that Sandra Bullock could have just given George Clooney a little tug (no, not THAT kind of little tug!), and there would have been no need for his predictable self-sacrifice. I've seen this cliché done to death (quite literally) in American movies so many times that it's guaranteed to make me cringe and grind my teeth in anger now. In this case, it's also a terrible waste of George Clooney!

"Look, Mom, look! A falling star!"

Frustratingly, George Clooney doesn't ever get to finish his Mardi Gras story about the "hairy guy", although I've got a feeling that the punchline would have involved some kind of monkey. I just thought I'd throw that in here because I'm sure everyone else with a normal brain felt cheated by the lack of closure too. I even Googled it to see if it was an old joke by a comedian who I've never heard of, but I couldn't find anything.

Nerds will probably love "Gravity" for the various spaceships with their big boards of switches and flashing lights, but I couldn't make head nor tail of which was which or how they are supposed to work. Apart from the Cyrillic in one and Kanji in another, everything looks the same to me. You also have to laugh at how years of training and millions of tax-payers' dollars are proven to be completely wasted when Sandra Bullock makes her "Eeny, meeny, miny, moe" choices. I guess that NASA will be changing their astronaut training program accordingly, unless of course, that is their astronaut training program already. Mind you, it's not as if man (or woman) has ever managed to leave this planet in any way other than a coffin, so it's all bullshit.

My biggest complaint about this whole boring mess, however, is that there are no apes riding horses and catching humans in nets when Sandra Bullock finally gets back to Earth and crawls out of the lake. I'll never understand why they left out that very important detail, but hopefully, it'll be available as an extra on the DVD and Blu-ray later.

The alternative DVD ending.

As far as anything called "Gravity" goes, I still prefer Zlata Ognevich's sexy Eurovision video.

Ghost Team One (2013)

"Two roommates deathly afraid of ghosts both fall in love with a girl who believes their home is haunted."

I don't know why everyone is calling "Ghost Team One" a "comedy". It isn't funny, and it doesn't even have a particularly happy ending. What it does have is lots of awkwardness and the same atmosphere as the American version of "The Office" (which also isn't funny), and of course, a hot chick (or two) to ogle.

"Ghost Team One" is essentially another completely unneccessary "Paranormal Activity" parody which brings the number of such abominations up to an unlucky 13. How and why this has become a subgenre in itself is undoutedly due to the YouTube generation who can't seem to get enough of webcams, shakycams, and mediocrity. For those of us who prefer a real movie, these faux found footage movies are mostly an annoying waste of time.

There are a couple of neat effects in "Ghost Team One" which you don't often see in a glorified YouTube video like this, but it isn't a horror movie by any stretch of the imagination either. In fairness, though, I don't think it was ever intended to be. It's not "found footage horror" per se that this movie is lampooning but the whole "amateur-looking footage" subgenre in general. Even YouTube gets targetted!

The downfall with this, however, is that "Ghost Team One" is as tame as its targets when it comes to the adult situations: Punches are pulled everywhere, e.g. pornographic images on a bedroom wall are pixellated, and the "jokes" (if you can call them that) are little more than schoolboyish. Think Benny Hill but less creepy with it. For a movie which uses the promise of "horny ghosts" as its selling point (especially as the only ghost in it is supposed to have been a Vietnamese prostitute!), it's very disappointing.

Two guys I've never heard of and Fernanda Romero.

As I have no sense of humour when it comes to comedy-horror movies, spoofs or otherwise, I hate to say it, but I was slightly entertained by "Ghost Team One" in a low-rent "Men Behaving Badly" (British version, naturally) way. It's well written, the drama is nicely done, and the characters are stupidly amiable but harmless enough. Once you get used to the awful camerawork, the whole purpose of "Ghost Team One" is only an excuse to lust over Fernanda Romero anyway. If Fernanda wasn't in it, I doubt that I would have made it to the end.

Fernanda Romero (who keeps her real first name and clothes on throughout) steals every scene she's in to such an extent that "Ghost Team One" is best described as her "vehicle". If anyone else involved in this movie is deluded enough to think otherwise, they need to grab themselves a reality check next time they go to 7-Eleven for their taquitos and slushies, and understand that, apart from a few infantilised adults (who were born in the '80s and '90s) and their friends, the majority of people who will eventually buy this movie on DVD or Blu-ray are just going to skip to the parts with Fernanda in and crack open another box of tissues. Yes, she really is that hot!

Putting the novelty value of "Ghost Team One" as a "latino" movie aside, since I often tend to overrate any kind of Spanish or Mexican movie even when they are filmed in Los Angeles, I don't recommend this one. I'll give everybody credit for having a go, but "Ghost Team One" would have been better as a series of webisodes.

Fernanda Romero is the centre of attention.

Escape from Tomorrow (2013)

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

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

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

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

SPOILERS!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing Left to Fear (2013)

"Wendy, her husband Dan, and their kids have just moved to the small town of Stull, Kansas, where Dan is the new pastor. But in this sleepy community of friendly neighbours, a horrific series of occurrences awaits them: Their teenage daughter is being tormented by grisly visions. Her younger sister has been marked for a depraved ritual. And deep within the heartland darkness, one of The Seven Gates of Hell demands the blood of the innocent to unleash the creatures of the damned."

In case you've missed out on the buzz surrounding this debut from Slasher Films—a new horror movie production company created by Slash (the former lead guitarist of rock band "Guns N' Roses")—allow me to tell you that it very nearly lives up to the hype. Of course, there are a bunch of haters out there who will say the opposite, but whatever their agenda is for doing so, you can ignore them. Regular readers of this blog know that I'm not easily pleased by anything, and I thoroughly enjoyed "Nothing Left to Fear".

Dealing with the most negative aspects first (although I will come back to them again later), "Nothing Left to Fear" isn't far from being a remake of Tobe Hooper's "Mortuary" (2005) in that it shares the same Lovecraftian atmosphere, artistic licence with the actors' real ages, a little bit of the plot, and some of the computer-generated imagery. Tendrils spreading out venously from a demonic entity aren't that new, and also appear in the well known Asian horror movies (and their remakes), but these aesthetic clichés are nothing to get bent out of shape over when done properly. If you were creeped out by the long-haired ghosts of "The Grudge" (2004), "The Ring" (2002), or the original Asian versions, you'll soil your pants over the visuals in "Nothing Left to Fear" too!

Thematically and plot-wise, "Nothing Left to Fear" borrows heavily from Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery" (1948), "The Wicker Man" (1973), and is even reminiscent of the "Harmony" episode from the "Night Visions" anthology TV series, but is it really worth playing the lack of originality card for any horror movie in 2013? The questions raised by this movie about human nature, good and evil, and what would you do in the same situation are clearly third or fourth-hand tropes now, so I'm not silly enough to praise "Nothing Left to Fear" for bringing up any of those subjects again, despite debates over such things always being entertaining every time they are presented in a new environment.

Horror has been creatively dead since before the members of the "Horror Haters" clique were born, and I've run out of patience for their foolishness. Of course, the same plot has also been used in "The Reaping" (2007), "The Ruins" (2008), "Jug Face" (2013), and dozens of "The Wicker Man" clones, but none of those movies have ever received as much hate on message boards and blogs as "Nothing Left to Fear"! It's already been downvoted to 4.5 out of 10 by jealous 12-year-olds on the IMDb who probably haven't watched it yet! Christ, what a world we live in!

I'm tempted to go off on a tangent about other bullshit practices which have been going on in the horror community recently involving yet another talentless hack climbing up the ranks of the "Horror Socials" through hypocritically ass-kissing the "big boys", and a couple of respected genre actresses shitting on where they came from amid a cacophony of sycophancy, but I'll save that for another time. Suffice it to say that I'm getting truly sick of other horror fans, particularly the backstabbing, lies, and sneakiness which has infected everybody. It's almost made me want to defend everything new just to be a contrarian! Don't worry though, I won't.

My honest review of "Nothing Left to Fear" will now continue.

If you don't want spoilers, stop reading!

Rebekah Brandes and Ethan Peck as "teenagers".

"Nothing Left to Fear" is the first attempt by Anthony Leonardi III (whose previous claim to fame is as a storyboard artist) to prove himself as a feature length horror movie director. Given the estimated budget of merely $3,000,000, he's certainly achieved his ambition, and made a satisfyingly R-rated (not PG-13!) scary movie. Yes, he's made something for adults! Anything that keeps the little kiddywinks with their cellphones out of the movie theatres is great! I dare you to fault him for that!

Okay, so maybe he messed up a little bit by not giving the bigger stars such as Anne Heche and Clancy Brown as much screen time as their fans would like, and the nepotism which led to James Tupper playing the husband of his real life mother is amusingly incestuous, but you have to laugh at anybody who hates a movie for those reasons. I don't even have a problem with Rebekah Brandes and Ethan Peck who are both in their late twenties playing teenagers because they look the part. It's all smoke and mirrors at the end of the day, and if it looks right on screen, who cares?

While I would like to agree with the naysayers that there's maybe too much time devoted to establishing the characters and the blossoming romance between Noah (Ethan Peck) and Rebecca (Rebekah Brandes) which actually makes you care about them, I can't. I was impressed that, for the first time in ages, I wanted the good guys to survive purely because they weren't the usual stereotypically douchebaggy teens. Give or take a few disapproving looks from Rebecca which hinted at a couple of naive hang-ups that, fortunately, didn't get explored, I liked her as a character. Noah, I didn't warm to as much until later, but you'll see why for yourself.

Contrarily, Rebecca's younger sister Mary (Jennifer Stone) annoyed me instantly for being the epitome of everything wrong with girls her age, but once she got possessed by whatever the Hell kind of demon-thing it was, she also won me over. If any character can affect you emotionally one way or another, the actor or actress has earned his or her wage. I'm pleased to say that the whole cast of "Nothing Left to Fear" were perfect in that respect.

It was so easy for me to willingly suspend my disbelief and accept everyone for being the characters they played, I'm tempted to say that "Nothing Left to Fear" is one of the best horror movies I've seen this year. I won't, of course, because I don't want to end up being quoted on a DVD cover for something that may come back and haunt me by December, but "Nothing Left to Fear" is definitely in with a chance.

Effects-wise, "Nothing Left to Fear" is CGI heavy with just some blood, a couple of nasty-looking wounds, and gallons of oozy black stuff used practically. There are no severed limbs or things being hacked off for gorehounds because it's not that kind of movie. The make-up, however, is very good, and as I've already said, the homage to Asian horror is obvious, but you have to give credit where it's due. Mary's "sick" make-up and its change to "demon" make-up is outstanding.

With it all being shot on location in rural Louisiana, "Nothing Left to Fear" has a "Jeepers Creepers" (2001) look and vibe to it which I couldn't shake off, especially as the plots are based on similar urban legends. But as I like "Jeepers Creepers" (which was filmed in rural Florida), that's another point in this movie's favour. I will also add that the cinematography is decent. Only a few handheld-shot scenes are noticeable in a bad breaking of the "art is best when hidden" way.

Tough luck, kid, you're screwed!

Finally, lest I be accused of being a shill, I wouldn't be me if I didn't point out the bigger flaws with even bigger spoilers. Ignore the next three paragraphs if you don't want negativity, backtracking, or repetition. (Note: I was exhausted when I wrote this review. It got way out of control due to two of the new Rockstar Pure Zero energy drinks, and my mind was racing. But as "Dr Blood's Video Vault" is just another "unintelligible" blog that nobody ever reads—I write it for my own amusement and don't make a penny out of it—I'll probably not bother to tidy anything up later. Enjoy this self-referential chaos which would have worked better as a podcast and remember that even Homer nods!)

"Nothing Left to Fear" starts off as a very slow drama with hardly any clues that it's a horror movie. A slaughtered sheep ("No animals were harmed during the making of this movie", by the way) is par for the course in a rural setting, so it's left to Rebecca's portentious nightmares to hint at something more sinister going on. Even a cake with an large animal tooth inside is diffused with a logical explanation! Consequently, there's no tension or gradual build-up to the supernatural events which kick-off after an hour.

When things suddenly start going bad, the action is perfectly paced, and among other themes, there's a blatant Biblical "Angel of Death" allusion (except it's a "Demon of Death" instead). No punches are pulled with the last kill either. Unfortunately, the third act is slightly spoiled by having a horribly rushed denouement, but I suppose you can't have everything. Basically, a final blood sacrifice causes the monster to revert back to CGI tendrils and go back into its hole, everybody gathers round Rebecca's prone body, there's a flash of white light to symbolise the triumph of good over evil, the end. After everything else, that's rather disappointing.

The epilogue is a standard "Twilight Zone"-esque twist/reveal that another cycle of letting the demon out to feast on a new family is about to start, and it finishes with one shot too many for people, like me, who want everything explained and wrapped up neatly. As all the other questions are answered within the body of the movie, this last minute "question posing" is as irritating as the epilogues to "Friday the 13th" (1980), "A Nightmare on Elm Street" (1984), or "Deadly Friend" (1986), but perhaps the idea behind this hanging "lapse in logic" is another stylistic homage. Cynically, I believe it's only there to cause debates on message boards for people who like to overthink everything.

I'll end this review by quoting Slash from the official "Nothing Left to Fear" Facebook page:

"As a long-time fan of the Horror genre, I want to produce films that are in an older tradition of the genre,” relates SLASH. “That is to say, films that leave more to one's imagination, that are psychologically scary and character-driven, and what scares you is more cerebral then superficial. Slasher Films is my vehicle to realize that aim, and NOTHING LEFT TO FEAR is the first film with more to come."

Good on you, Slash, for keeping it old school. I had a great time with "Nothing Left to Fear", and I'm looking forward to what you and/or Anthony Leonardi III have for us next.

Riddick (2013)

"Left for dead on a sun-scorched planet, Riddick finds himself up against an alien race of predators. Activating an emergency beacon alerts two ships: one carrying a new breed of mercenary, the other captained by a man from Riddick's past."

There's not much I need to tell you about "Riddick". As you can see from the trailer, it's virtually a remake of "Pitch Black" (2000) but with better-looking CGI creatures and some surprisingly effective gore.

To some people, "Riddick" might be nothing more than a sci-fi/action adventure with yet another laconic anti-hero and a second-half which borrows formulas from hundreds of "cabin in the woods" slashers, but at least it's R-rated and much better than "The Chronicles of Riddick" (2004). "The Chronicles of Riddick" was a PG-13 step in the wrong direction, and to this day, I still haven't made it through that movie without falling asleep.

Thus, "Riddick" is a welcome return to somewhat exciting sci-fi which you don't have to strain your brain to enjoy. It's a "popcorn flick" with no illusions about being anything more, and I appreciate the honesty of it. There are no moral messages, or any subtext to worry about, just a straightforward journey from A to B which hopefully will have a sequel.

As you might expect in a Vin Diesel movie, the supporting characters are all full of testosterone and the usual questionable butchness which isn't a patch on Vin Diesel's own. Hell, in "Riddick", it seems that the epitome of badassery can even turn a lesbian straight! I have no further comment to make on that except it's rather amusing.

I'm also not going to give any plot points away—the trailer already does a fine job in that respect—or post a load of screencaps for other bloggers to steal. An old school sci-fi/action movie like "Riddick" simply deserves an old school recommendation rather than a deconstruction.

Even if you're not a big fan of sci-fi, "Riddick" is about spectacle which you need to go and see for yourself on the big screen as soon as possible. You will not be disappointed.

Dark Tourist (2012)

"A psychological-thriller in the haunting tradition of films like Taxi Driver and Monster, The Grief Tourist takes us into the chilling labyrinth of a man's dark hobby and his even darker mind."

Not a review today but a recommendation. Apparently it's "Labor Day" or something in America, so I'm going to celebrate it by doing as little as possible. Writing a blog post is obviously such hard work!

Anyway, it may interest you to know that Suri Krishnamma's "Dark Tourist", formerly known as "The Grief Tourist" (presumably to differentiate it from Dom Joly's book about the weird hobby rather than the same subject matter), has a limited theatrical release at City Cinemas Village East Cinema, New York. Check it out if you live within range. [It's also available via VOD and iTunes for anybody else.]

As a film noir-ish hybrid of "Chained" (2012) and "Taxi Driver" (1976), "Dark Tourist" might not appeal to everyone unless they are into serial killers or stories about maniacs becoming that way, but if you're reading this blog, it's highly likely that you are the target audience. Even though I'm more into fantasy than real life murders, I think that "Dark Tourist" is a very good movie indeed. It's well written, nicely shot, and has an off-beat, gritty, character-driven feel to it like "Edmond" (2005).

Aside from Michael Cudlitz's outstanding performance which I'm sure is being raved about from one side of the internet to the other, it's also extremely nice to see Melanie Griffith in something on the big screen again. She's still much the same as before except older, wiser, and a better actress than I remember her to be. The scenes involving Jim (Michael Cuditz) and Betsy (Melanie Griffith) are great.

My only minor criticism is that "Dark Tourist" should've been longer. For that reason, the story seems to have some unnecessary additional information near the end which doesn't quite fit in. I won't spoil it for you, but suffice it to say that Suzanne Quast as Iris the prostitute is definitely all woman!

"Dark Tourist" is the kind of bleak and brutal stuff which I'm always willing to recommend. It's not going to make me take up grief tourism—"the act of travelling with the intent to visit places of tragedy or disaster"—as a hobby though. I'm already morbid enough as it is.

Have a great holiday, everybody!

Kick-Ass 2 (2013)

"The costumed high-school hero Kick-Ass joins with a group of normal citizens who have been inspired to fight crime in costume. Meanwhile, the Red Mist plots an act of revenge that will affect everyone Kick-Ass knows."

I'm writing this while still buzzing from the post-movie adrenaline rush—and a can of green apple Rockstar Supersours—so this is not going to be a review as much as gushing fanboy-ish praise for a much darker and more adult sequel than I ever imagined "Kick-Ass 2" could be.

Having barely registered the first "Kick-Ass" (2010) as anything more than a quasi-hipsterish hack job meant for teenagers, the change of director and screenwriter has allowed levels of ultra-violence to rival something which Tarantino would be proud of. "Kick-Ass 2" has lots of bloodshed, multiple murders, and even an attempted rape! It's nearly as ridiculous as an exploitation movie, and I love it!

The cinematography is very good with only a few fight scenes where quick cuts make it hard to tell what's happening. It's not as bad as "The Dark Knight Rises" or "Iron Man 3", so be grateful. The effects are decent throughout, and some of the kills are extremely brutal. Although even more blood and gore would have made me ecstatic, there's enough for an R-rated movie, and it's guaranteed to upset some people. Jim Carrey refused to promote "Kick-Ass 2" because of the violence, but that's his problem. It's doubtful, but I hope there will eventually be an "Unrated Version" which will add more meanspiritedness.

Of course, "Kick-Ass 2" is aimed primarily at the now three-years-older teenage crowd who enjoyed the first movie more than I did, so there are some kiddified comedy bits which are mostly based around Hit-Girl's attempts at fitting into high school. As a fully grown adult of another gender and country, I can't relate to any of that, but I can acknowledge that the "gross-out" puking and defecating scenes are amusingly over-the-top. One thing is for certain, "Kick-Ass 2" is definitely not aimed at little kids, prudes, or comicbook-reading manchildren. Apparently, the latter really hate this movie, as do the mainstream "critics", but that's because they have no taste anyway. Anybody over the age of 12 years old who reads "Spider-Man" and "Batman" comics regularly obviously suffers from some kind of mental retardation, so I couldn't care less what those people have to say about anything.

Unlike the comicbook fantards, I can't find anything wrong with "Kick-Ass 2". As an action movie, it all works, but I suppose you do need to have seen the original for everything to make sense. There are minor attempts to bring a new audience up to speed with who is who, but "Kick-Ass 2" is a faster-paced sequel rather than a standalone story. Given the time that's passed, it's probably better if you don't watch the two movies back-to-back because of the change in tone.

Yes, that is Jim Carrey on the left!

Acting-wise, Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Christopher Mintz-Plasse are much the same as before, but "McLovin" is maybe more comedic than strictly necessary as a supervillain. Jim Carrey is completely unrecognisable in a role which proves that he can genuinely act when/if he wants to, and Chloë Grace Moretz steals the show yet again. She overuses her cute, wide-eyed expressions, but she's absolutely fantastic for a 16-year-old. I'm almost looking forward to seeing her in the "Carrie" remake now.

John Leguizamo has an important supporting role and continues to talk out of the side of his mouth like a champ, Iain Glen has a nice cameo as a mafia boss, Olga Kurkulina is fearsome as Mother Russia, and Morris Chestnut (aka Luke from the first "American Horror Story") replaces Omari Hardwick as Detective Marcus Williams. In another cast change, Todd is now played by Augustus Prew instead of Evan Peters. I can't say that I noticed the difference. I was too busy ogling Lindy Booth as Night Bitch, Lyndsy Fonseca as Katie Deauxma, and Claudia Lee as Brooke the bitchy popular girl. Oh yes, there's a lot of lovely eyecandy here!

While "Kick-Ass" is a semi-parody of more famous superheroes, "Kick-Ass 2" continues that idea although only pays lip-service to a few of them. "Batman" gets a couple of explicit mentions, not because Big Daddy's oft-shown empty costume looks just like Batman's but due to a minor character using his backstory. The nerdy Marvel homages and in-jokes are mostly part of the plot itself rather than shout-outs, yet it's easy to spot them all. If you're inclined to see the whole thing as a rip-off or a clone, it won't disappoint you in its lack of originality. You could also criticise "Mystery Men" (1999) for the same reasons and the things which both films share. Superhero movies are all the same anyway.

Despite the dangers of vigilantism being more of a contrivance and a satirical afterthought than in "Mystery Men" or "Kick-Ass", there's a bigger message here about being what you are meant to be and doing the right thing no matter what the rest of society thinks. Thankfully, that message doesn't extend to encouraging the lameness which cosplayers indulge in though, and their childish "dressing-up for Hallowe'en everyday" bullshit continues to be ridiculed throughout.

As a massive snark about cosplayers, geeks, nerds, teenagers, pop-culture, and American society in general, "Kick-Ass 2" surpasses all expectations. No wonder they had to film it in Toronto instead of New York! Since infantilisation, pussification, entitlement, selfishness, lies and injustice have now become the American way, "Kick-Ass 2" has a counter-culture message which will be hated by its lampooned targets and is subversive enough for me to wholeheartedly support.

I'm not going to deconstruct or spoil anything else for you because you need to see this movie for yourself. I don't often recommend non-horror movies, so just watch it, okay?

Kick-Ass 2 kicks the original Kick-Ass' ass!

Frankenstein's Army (2013)

"Toward the end of World War II, Russian soldiers pushing into eastern Germany stumble across a secret Nazi lab, one that has unearthed and begun experimenting with the journal of one Dr. Victor Frankenstein."

As a rule, I loathe faux "found footage" movies, but sometimes there can be an exception. I may moan about the subgenre being oversaturated with crap, but I'll still watch yet another one of these "Blair Witch Project" clones if there's nothing else available. In this case, it's a Dutch horror movie filmed in the Czech Republic with heavily-accented English dialogue. Call me naive, but that sounds intriguing enough on its own. The fact that it's called "Frankenstein's Army" and contains lots of "Soviets versus Nazis" wartime action is just icing on the cake.

Having watched it three times in a row, I'm pleased to report that "Frankenstein's Army" does not disappoint. That's the first time I've ever written that overused, archaic and cringeworthy phrase in one of my reviews, so now you know this movie is even more special.

"Frankenstein's Army" really kind of rocks somewhat, but I'm not going to get too carried away with the overpraise because I still hate the handheld shakycam gimmick. I'm not sure why director Richard Raaphorst took that route for his debut feature, but maybe he wasn't confident enough in his cameraman's ability to use a tripod. The good news is that it isn't even remotely as nauseating to watch as any other found footage movie—well, not in the motion-sickness way—but the bad news is that it doesn't look like real found footage due to the subject matter. The Russians would be speaking Russian rather than English for one thing! It would still look fake if there were subtitles everywhere though because the attention to detail in other areas doesn't try to disguise that it's a modern film. Subtitles would simply alienate the dumber horror fans who don't like to read, so I can accept why it was done this way.

It's probably wise that the "found footage" wasn't made to look too real anyway because I'd hate for any the far-fetched cyborgs to exist in real life. The extreme horrors shown are more than enough for most people without adding another level of cruelty. The monsters are such artfully created nightmares of dead flesh and machinery that I think whoever came up with their designs must have something very wrong with them in all the sick and twisted ways I like, but anyone squeamish who watches this will not be happy. This is certainly not a "date night" movie unless you want to end up sleeping alone. "Frankenstein's Army" is a gorehound's delight, full of truly horrific and gruesome stuff, which makes a refreshing change from the wimpy PG-13s and R-rated punch-pullers lately.

"A man of vision is always misunderstood."

The biggest problem with finding a horror movie which I actually like is writing about why I like it without spoiling it for everybody else. I've also been so negative for so long that having a decent movie in my clutches is a surprise which almost renders me speechless. I want to pull out all the bog-standard descriptive words and phrases such as "awesome", "amazing, "fantastic", "I was blown away", and "the best horror movie that I've seen this year" except that none of them would be applicable in this particular case. "Frankenstein's Army" is very entertaining, practical effects-laden film, and on a purely subjective level, I loved it for its blood and guts, but as usual, there are flaws.

I've already mentioned how the found footage camerawork isn't something which I'm keen on, and the contrivances about who is carrying the camera and why are blatant in every scene. Occasional "Stop filming!" or "Film this!" orders draw more attention to the fakery than is necessary. Once the action kicks in, "Frankenstein's Army" sometimes feels more like playing a "first person shooter" computer game with no ammunition left rather than watching a movie, but that's my only other gripe. Although there's an obligatory "I'm so sorry, Mum and Dad!" homage to "The Blair Witch Project", I can also let that pass because it's quite important to the speaker's motivation.

Apart from the accents and linguistic skills, there's not much to the acting although everyone gets a chance to do something impressive. In particular, Joshua Sasse (a British actor) is very charismatic as the Polish Sergei, and Alexander Mercury is perfectly cast as Dimitri. Andrei Zayats, who seems destined to be typecast as a Russian soldier for the rest of his career, is very realistic as Vassili. Despite having yet more stereotypical character names (Sacha, Ivan, Alexei, etc.), the other cast members are equally strong only in much smaller roles.

The most famous face is Karel Roden as Viktor Frankenstein. Horror fans will probably only remember him as Dr. Varava from "Orphan" (2009), which is a bit of shame since he's been in exactly 100 roles to date. At first, I thought he was Srdjan Todorovic, the star of "A Serbian Film" (2010), because there's definitely a similarity. If there's a weak link in the chain, it's that his performance isn't manic or obsessive enough to appease hardcore "Frankenstein" fans, but this movie is a long way from Mary Shelley's novel in any case.

"Frankenstein's Army" is a nicely paced fusion of classic horror and wartime fantasy which I highly recommend. It's not available on DVD until September 10th, and its very limited theatrical release may not be in your area, but you can watch it now on Amazon's Instant Video service. I suggest that you do so immediately.

The Conjuring (2013)

"Paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren work to help a family terrorized by a dark presence in their farmhouse. Forced to confront a powerful entity, the Warrens find themselves caught in the most terrifying case of their lives."

I've finally done it! I may be two weeks behind everyone else in the world, but I've now seen "The Conjuring"! I even managed to avoid all the spoilers on Twitter and Facebook beforehand, which wasn't easy considering how overhyped this movie has been.

Supposedly based on a previously unpublished case file from paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren, who I've never actually heard of before, "The Conjuring" starts off like an episode of "Friday the 13th: The Series", turns into a clone of "The Amityville Horror" for an hour, and ends up as a twenty minute version of "The Exorcist". As you can imagine, I was not impressed.

In fact, I was so disappointed with "The Conjuring" that I was tempted to only write the following for my review:

BORING CRAP!

If someone perusing the aisles next to me in a DVD store were to ask me what I thought of "The Conjuring", those two words would be the most honest initial reaction I could come up with other than adding whichever choice expletive I might deem appropriate to the situation. I'm not saying that this has happened, although it certainly has done with other James Wan movies in the past, and the response of the person asking has also been equally negative. I'm sure that similar conversations have transpired between other people in various locations.

Maybe I live in my own sheltered little bubble where everyone shares the same good taste, but I've never known of a director other than James Wan whose movies are so consistently underwhelming apart from Christopher Nolan. Even Zack Snyder has double the amount of good movies on his résumé. I'm not going to acknowledge Dario Argento, Uwe Boll, Lloyd Kaufman, or Ulli Lommel because, let's face it, all their movies are guaranteed to be crap from the get-go.

A metaphor just waiting to happen.

The reasons why "The Conjuring" is such boring crap are very easy to list. For a start, the story is unoriginal and clichéd, and it's a messy fusion of far better films that came out over 30 to 40 years ago. We've seen it all before ad nauseum. "The Conjuring" brings nothing new to the table and doesn't even present what it has got in an entertaining manner for adults.

Thus, the second huge problem with "The Conjuring" is that it might as well be a PG-13. How and why it got an R-rating is beyond my comprehension. There's no nudity, no swearing, no sex scenes, no gore, and it's not scary in any way. So how the Hell did it get rated as an R? "R for Rubbish" is my assessment although I'm betting on failed bait and switch shenanigans behind the scenes with the MPAA just to get asses on seats in the movie theatres.

The big giveaway that the target audience was initially meant to be braindead teenagers is the amount of grammatical errors in the script. Both Lorraine and Ed get away with saying "hung" instead of "hanged" without anyone correcting them, and if that's not bad enough, there's Ed's immortal triple-negative, "We ain't never seen nothing like this!" which you can see in the trailer along with all the other "good bits". The terrible dialogue is almost as bad as the "I'm gonna do what I'm gonna do" line in the shitty "Evil Dead" remake. No wonder the mumble-mouthed younger generation are the way they are!

Thirdly, there's no characterisation whatsoever. I couldn't tell you the names of any of the characters even though they were given, what they might be interested in other than ghost hunting or being the victims of a demonic haunting, or any details that would make them more than two-dimensional. The best I can come up with is that "The Conjuring" stars Patrick Wilson with sideburns, Vera Farmiga looking far more beautiful than I've ever seen her look before, the Peter guy from "Office Space", the plain-looking girl who played Nell in "The Haunting" remake whose name I always forget, and a bunch of other people who I've never heard of poncing about in a badly maintained American house. If you think I'm joking, try telling me the names of the family members without looking them up on the IMDb. While you are at it, what are the names of the cop or the Warren's assistant? No idea? Case proven.

Without characterisation, what's the point of a horror movie? If you can't identify with the protagonists, empathising with their situation and feeling the catharsis when it's resolved is completely lost, isn't it? Or is this something that kids today just don't care about? As much as anyone born after 1989 is likely to be a complete moron in my estimation anyway, there are exceptions who must have left the cinema as disappointed as us older guys. Even the ones who only went to see some scary effects must have felt cheated of their $10.

Vera Farmiga is so hot in her granny clothes!

I wish I could find something good to say about "The Conjuring", but it's a typical James Wan movie. There are a couple of overloud jump scares which don't work, the usual creepy dolls which aren't creepy at all, some guy in a latex witch mask which is supposed to be scary, horrible shaky camerawork (but with lots of zooming this time just to be very '70s!), irritating child actors, poor CGI effects, plotholes everywhere, no atmosphere, no tension, total chaos at the end with a lame resolution, and nothing original whatsoever. The tongue-in-cheek acknowledgement of Blumhouse Productions' formulaic style of composition when the family mentions birds hitting their house (as in "Dark Skies") is realised when the birds repeat their kamikaze attack near the end, but you can't make in-jokes like that when you do the same damned thing yourself!!!

I suppose the period setting in 1970s America is well done, but that's not exactly a difficult thing to achieve. Apart from the cars, America looks much the same as it has done since the 1920s when it comes to the crappy wooden sheds which people jokingly refer to as houses. Every house in my town looks like the one in "The Conjuring" only in an even worse state of disrepair! Forget nostalgia, these firetraps need to be knocked down and replaced with some proper bricks and mortar! I'm sure that I've mentioned that several time before on this blog though.

I'm not happy about James Wan using a cover version of "Sleepwalk" with lyrics either. The original Santo & Johnny instrumental from 1959 which is such a signature feature of Stephen King's "Sleepwalkers" (1992) just doesn't belong anywhere else! The guitars in "Sleepwalk" even sound like cats meowing for God's sake! But, in spite of having a witch in the story, there are no cats in "The Conjuring"! There's a collie dog called Sadie who meets her maker off camera, but no cats! Oh, that makes me so angry!

The word on the street is that James Wan is giving up horror movies now to make the next homoerotic installment in "The Fast and the Furious" franchise. I wish him the best of luck, but after "The Conjuring", I can't say that he will be missed.

Pacific Rim (2013)

"As a war between humankind and monstrous sea creatures wages on, a former pilot and a trainee are paired up to drive a seemingly obsolete special weapon in a desperate effort to save the world from the apocalypse."

Do you want to know what irritates me beyond belief? Films like this and the fanboys who overpraise them.

For a start, "Pacific Rim" is a kids' Summer movie meant for little ADHD kids who like lots of robots, whirling things and huge explosions. It's not meant for adults even though there's a growing subculture of "weeaboo", "otaku" (Japanese for "idiots"), games console loving, overweight, comicbook convention nerds who all live in their parents' basements, grow neckbeards, and refer to the big robots as "Mecha" for some reason that I don't fully understand.

"Pacific Rim" is clearly not a movie meant for anyone of my generation (or the one below) except that a few sad acts who think it's hilariously ironic to praise utter shite have bought into it. It's those same hipsters who think that "Sharknado" is "kewl" and spend their entire lives collecting other ironically named movies and little dollies of Japanese cartoon characters. I despise them all.

So guess what I thought of the film after having been duped into watching it by Cosplaying internet friends who need to stop playing dress-up and grow up instead? Yes, that's right, I HATED IT!

Having never been a fan of Billy the Bull (Guillermo del Toro) or Michael Bay's "Transformers" movies, and being a hater of 99% of sci-fi movies anyway, there's nothing in "Pacific Rim" for me other than a lot of boredom.

I tweeted my displeasure throughout the movie, but I'm not going to repost all my Tweets this time. I may have only done that twice before, but the novelty has worn off. However, because it's Saturday, it's hotter than balls again, my neighbours' noisy brats are screaming outside my window, and I can't be bothered to dissect a movie from a genre that I have no interest in, I'm going to give you a list of bullet points of everything wrong with "Pacific Rim" instead of writing a real review.

SPOILERS FOLLOW.

Everything I hated about Pacific Rim.

I have no idea who any of these people are.

• Rated PG-13. Gah!
• Pathetic faux Jap-comicbook crap turned into live action for little kids and weeaboos.
• The rift in time and space which aliens pop through sounds just like "Torchwood" 6 years ago.
• Naming the robots after an alcoholic beverage was a smart move, but even if I was drunk, I still wouldn't enjoy this movie.
• The alien monsters look stupid and are named after turds.
• 75% of the film is all "yak yak yak" with no action.
• Unrealistic, clichéd dialogue.
• It's 4 days too long! Actually, it's only 2 hours, but it feels like more.
• Gormless-looking Owen from "Torchwood" is in it... as a German.
• Psycho Sean Slater from "Eastenders" is in it... and he clearly still has anger issues.
• Basically, Billy the Bull got the cheapest actors possible and spent the majority of the budget on computer game effects.
• Ron Perlman got millions of dollars for showing his big hairy face for all of 5 minutes.
• It's a sausagefest! No eyecandy for heterosexual men.
• Memento Mori (or whatever her name is) isn't bad looking if you like that kind of thing, but I don't.
• No sexy fun time or other nudity.
• The acting is horrible. The accents are all over the place.
• Americans playing Brits, Brits playing Australians, Brits playing Americans, Australians playing Americans... and they have Asian surnames because presumably there weren't any male Asian actors available at the time.
• In the fight between Psycho Sean Slater and the other guy who looks just like him, you can't tell who is who.
• It's "Starship Troopers" but without the humour or exciting action.
• The scientist isn't Doogie Howser but he still mindmelds with an alien.
• No characters worth caring about.
• Psycho Sean Slater kisses a dog. Typecast much?
• No originality whatsoever. The plot is much the same as "Oblivion" but without Tom Cruise or the twist.
• The action is like watching the cutscenes from a computer game which somebody else is playing.
• Big robots that weigh more than several skyscrapers are (and have to be) carried into position by little tiny helicopters which could never support their weight in real life.
• Making tunnels under the city for people to hide in saves a fortune on CGI-ing little people.
• Watching two guys wearing spacesuits play Dance Dance Revolution inside a giant robot while fighting the "Cloverfield" monster is not fun.
• Almost as many buildings get destroyed as in "Man of Steel".
• Too many quick cuts, too much confusion, and it's hard to tell who is doing what to who or why.
• No one cares about who is doing what to who or why anyway.
• The cooler robots get destroyed before they have chance to do anything.
• It's all very, very loud just to keep you awake.
• 100% predictable and instantly forgettable.
• I would rather watch WWF/WWE with two fat dudes in Godzilla suits fighting each other than this crap. Same result too. Dull and fake.
• The Asylum could make a better movie. Oh wait, they already have: "Atlantic Rim".
• "Pacific Rim" is more boring than "World War Zzzzzzz".
• Even "Iron Man 3" is better than this!
• Inevitably, there will be a porn parody and a sequel.

I could go on, but you get the idea. I don't have anything good to say about "Pacific Rim" whatsoever.

Transformers + Torchwood + Cloverfield + Starship Troopers + Oblivion + cheap TV actors (and a couple of former Eastenders) + CGI robots fighting CGI monsters = Pacific Rim.

Don't waste your money!