It Follows (2014)

"A young woman is followed by an unknown supernatural force after getting involved in a sexual encounter."

I've tried several times to get all the way through "It Follows" in one sitting, but I can't do it. Either I don't have the attention span anymore (which is unlikely) or it's just too boring as shit for me to want to. Thus, this isn't going to be a review as much as it will be some general bitching about the parts of "It Follows" which I noted before hitting fast-forward to get the torture over with.

From reading through what some of my online friends had to say about this movie, I understand that "It Follows" is supposed to be all "faux retro"—and it clearly seems to appeal to the hipstery "millennial" demographic who ironically weren't even alive back in the '70s, '80s, or even the '90s—but surely it should be meant for people my age (mid-40s) in that case too? So why doesn't "It Follows" generate all those happy nostalgia feelings for me? What's wrong with this picture?

The simple fact of the matter is that "It Follows" isn't to my taste as a movie. Not only are its non-specific retro qualities forced, pretentious, and inconsistent, but the slow-paced story is a load of meaningless and padded drivel with no satisfactory explanation for the "creature" or any danger of a cathartic payoff at the end.

Although the acting and dialogue is fine, the characters are somewhat flat, unlikeable, and sexually unappealing, and are too young and from the wrong country to have any cultural relevance to me even with my obligatory suspension of disbelief. As I can't identify or sympathise with American teenagers, there's no development of pathos possible.

Most importantly, however, as is the case with all new horror movies, "It Follows" is not in the least bit scary!

You'd have to tie me to a chair to make me watch this movie ever again.

I've often encountered arguments where someone says that "scary" is subjective. Well, it is to a point. Some people have varying degrees of phobias about certain things, for instance, big hairy spiders, and some people don't have any fear of those things at all. But in the case of any "scary movie", it's pretty much failed in its purpose if it doesn't have a percentage of scary for even the lowest common denominator. There are also universals which can be identified as potentially scary for other people even if you aren't scared of those things yourself, but "It Follows" doesn't contain any of them. It may be R-rated, but it's not even worth bringing the extremely sparse and still not scary "gory bits" into this discussion.

What "It Follows" does have is a decent score which sounds like John Carpenter composed parts of it (except he didn't, it was Rich Vreeland), and some initial visual similarities to "Halloween" (1978). Of course, you can film nearly any residential streets in America during Autumn and they'll look a lot like the ones in "Halloween" because nothing architecturally important has changed in the last 40 or more years. Arguing about that aspect is clearly redundant. "It Follows" is set in Detroit, Michigan, rather than Haddonfield, Illinois (or really South Pasadena, California), which only reinforces my point that America looks the same everywhere anyway.

Another big homage is to Jacques Tourneur's "Cat People" (1942) which is apparent with the indoor swimming pool scene, but it's hardly an exact match and isn't meant to be. In fact, "It Follows" owes way more to "Final Destination" (2000) for the core of its narrative, plus Brundlefly's vain attempt to delay the inevitable from "The Fly" (1986), than anything which it tips blatant nods towards. Let's face it, if you really need an allegory about sexually transmitted diseases, Bram Stoker's "Dracula" will always be the classic. It doesn't exactly take a genius to see the similarities between vampire legends and "It Follows" either.

It needed more cats. Any cats. Cats would have made it better.

I'm not the kind of philistine who would ever be stupid enough to argue that David Robert Mitchell doesn't know how to make a movie or hasn't done a great job with "It Follows" when it comes to the outstanding cinematography (which only has a few glaringly ragged handheld shots), but it's the languid pace of this thing which kills it. I'm not joking when I say that if I had to watch this movie more than once, it would soon become my go-to fix for insomnia.

One final little rant and I'm done.

I've read a ton of stuff about Maika Monroe being the new "scream queen" of horror and all that usual crap, but I don't get it. Yeah, she's an above average actress as well as being a pretty-ish blonde with only occasionally annoying lapses into vocal fry and all that jazz (for those who care), but she's certainly no Fay Wray, Ingrid Pitt, Delphine Seyrig, or even an Edwige Fenech (who wasn't blonde). I think many people need to think before throwing that "scream queen" title about willy-nilly.

And since I've accidentally mentioned it, I couldn't care less about the nudity and "sexy bits". For one thing, I'm British and nudity doesn't bother me in the slightest, and second, even the tamest porn site on the internet will show you more than "It Follows" has to offer. I have to admit that Leisa Pulido playing Greg's mother is quite the MILF though.

There are simply some movies which you know right away aren't meant for you, and lamentably, I'll have to concede that "It Follows" wasn't meant for me.

If you feel like pointing out exactly which parts of "It Follows" an adult should find shit-yer-pants-scary, you can post them in the comments section below.

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.

Live-In Fear (2014)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eric is not a very nice man.

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

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

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

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

The Lazarus Effect (2015)

"A group of medical students discover a way to bring dead patients back to life."

Remember "Flatliners" (1990)? How about "Pet Sematary" (1989)? Yes, of course, you do. So does everyone else, especially Blumhouse Productions. Thus, it comes as no surprise that "The Lazarus Effect" is a quick and dirty remix of the two fondly remembered "millennial generation" movies from the poorer first-half of the 1990s, and seems to be another product designed to grab some easy money by using nothing but predictable formulas and tropes.

Yes, all horror movies are mainly repeated formulas, clichés, and tropes anyway, but Blumhouse have been working on getting this down to a fine art for some time. You have to give them credit for studying the genre and at least trying to create the "perfect" formulaic horror movie, although they do still seem to fail at it more often than not. The better movies which they homage are too recognisable and way too fresh in the minds of the target audience, and that makes these Blumhouse products fairly redundant.

In this case, "The Lazarus Effect" is yet another in a long line of Frankenstein-genre (or "science run amok") movies where Man plays God and things go very wrong. A little bit of pseudo-scientific babble and the old "science versus religion" chestnut get another outing to create depth, but nobody really cares one way or another as long as there are some gimmicky special effects to look at.

Adding Evan Peters who is currently in vogue by being eyecandy for teenage girls in "American Horror Story", and American TV staple Olivia Wilde (who I really only recognise from her movie roles in "Turistas", "In Time", and for wearing a very sexy costume in the horrible "TRON: Legacy"), is another stroke of Blumhouse genius to attract these actors' fanbases to this movie. Knowing how easily pleased some people are, I'm sure that it works too.

For what it is, "The Lazarus Effect" is an okay watch with very good production values, effects, and above average acting. However, despite an effective set-up, the narrative is a bit thin overall, and it obviously plays out like at least two stories mashed together badly because it is.

"The Lazarus Effect" is hardly the worst sci-fi/horror ever, since it does entertain and delivers exactly what it was created to do, so it's hard to find fault there. It even has a decent atmosphere and a couple of attempts at jump scares, but due to being PG-13, it's just not very scary or destined to be memorable.

I don't recommend it.

Haunter (2013)

"The ghost of a teenager who died years ago reaches out to the land of the living in order to save someone from suffering her same fate."

Remember Vincenzo Natali the director of "Cube" (1997) and "Splice" (2009)? Well, he's back with a supernatural mystery which is available via VOD just in time for Hallowe'en. Don't get too excited, though, because "Haunter" tries to be more cerebral than scary and fails at being either.

The biggest problem is that "Haunter" is another typically Canadian remix of over half a dozen already extremely well known movies and at least two recent TV shows.

The first things I thought of when I started watching it were "Groundhog Day" (1993), "The Lovely Bones" (2009), "Voices" (1973), and "Lady in White" (1988), but there are also some quite blatant borrowings from "The Others" (2001), "Marchlands", and "American Horror Story". Throw in a few tiny homages to "The Collector" (1965), "The Matrix" (1999), and even "Dark Skies" (2013), and you have your movie.

If the wind changes, you'll stay like that. Oh wait...

As "Haunter" is essentially a ghost story, there are bound to be some formulaic similarities to previous ghost stories, but that's still no excuse for all the cloning. It's laziness for the most part, although it's dangerously close to plagiarism in others. I've only read parts of "The Lovely Bones" novel and have never seen Peter Jackson's movie adaptation, but if I can see the resemblances, I'm sure Alice Sebold will!

I'm not saying that "Haunter" isn't fairly enjoyable or well made. The cinematography borders on beautiful, and atmospherically, it's not a million miles away from Spanish thrillers such as "The Orphanage" (2007) or several of the more "girlie" Asian horrors. The acting is competent too, apart from Abigail Breslin who only has one big-eyed expression and is prone to sighing, gasping, and breathing heavily to compensate. Consequently, there are more close-ups than are strictly necessary, but that's a minor niggle.

The three time periods of 1985, the present day, and the late 1950s look the part as far as I can tell. As somebody who has no idea what Ontario looked like in the main 1985 time zone, I assume that kids were into much the same things as I was, but I'm a bit dubious about the Atari games console or Siousxie and the Banshees still being popular in the mid-80s rather than 3 or 4 years before. I've always imagined Canada as being a few years behind everyone else, so maybe it's spot on. My Canadian readers will have to let me know.

Overall, "Haunter" is a decent but very predictable PG-13 ghost story with no scares, no swearing or nudity, and very little violence. It's an upgrade for teenage fans of "Goosebumps" or "Are You Afraid of the Dark", but it's far too kiddified if you're an adult. I'll give it an extra point because it held my interest to the end.

This poster sucks! Why is she in a jar? Why?

Farm House (2008)

(AKA "Farmhouse")



"Farmhouse is a psychological thriller set in the modern day mid-west. We follow a young couple as they leave their everyday lives behind and head out to a new beginning; starting over from scratch. After becoming stranded in an isolated vineyard in the middle of nowhere, the young couple is forced to face the secrets they're running from, all the while trying to escape the malicious intent of the vineyard's mysterious inhabitants."

Here's a blast from the past. Other than the gory torture scenes, I'd completely forgotten about this little gem until I was reading through one of my subreddits and realised that I ought to watch it again. How I forgot to review it is another story, but the end of 2008 and early 2009 wasn't the greatest time for me, and I had far more important things on my mind.

Anyway, having decided to rewatch "Farm House" to refresh my memory, at first I thought, "How many more times is 'Voices' (1973) going to be remade?" Of course, the plot isn't exactly the same, but there are many parallels in the first 30 minutes which should lead you to suspect an equivalent twist ending.

"Farm House" isn't a predictable ghost story though. The majority of the movie is a psychological thriller with extreme torture elements. I know that part of the horror genre has fallen out of favour and died away to nothing, but at the time it was great, especially when coupled with such mean-spiritedness and Kelly Hu being sexy as Hell (pun intended)! It's not that Jamie Anne Allman isn't beautiful in this too, but Kelly Hu is something else! The scene between the two of them involving a cheese grater will haunt you long after this movie ends, and you'll probably never look at a meat thermometer in the same way ever again either!

The acting is superb all round, although Steven Weber's psycho Samael eclipses William Lee Scott's not-quite-heroic Chad and Nick Heyman's valiant attempt at portraing the deaf Alal. The characters are stereotypes to some extent, and clichés abound, but there's actually depth to their characterisation which doesn't happen so much nowadays. How things have gone downhill in only 5 years!

As for the story, it's hard to tell you anything about it without spoiling it for you. Obviously, I don't mind giving spoilers for bad movies, but I prefer to keep them to a minimum for good ones. Suffice it to say that "Farm House" is pretty harrowing stuff and makes director George Bessudo's previous movie "Lake Dead" (2007) seem tame in comparison. If you look up the plot outlines, there are some superficial similarities between the two, of course, but it's like comparing apples to oranges. Everything (including the location, cinematography, and talent) is superior in "Farm House" to anything that was part of the After Dark Horrorfests.

Yes, I know I was going to stick to more "Hallowe'eny" movies this month, but my cunning plan has already been scuppered by a ton of new DVD and VOD releases. I don't suppose it matters much. Any horror movie is good this month, right? But if you want to see something truly horrific, I recommend that you grab yourself a copy of "Farm House" as soon as possible. The "Twilight Zone"-esque reveal goes on for a few minutes too long, but I don't think you'll be disappointed.

Another one for "The Vault".

My Top Ten Hallowe'en Horror Films

In previous years, I've gone through just about everything I like to watch during October, but I'm bored with doing that. Every day is Hallowe'en for me to some extent, and there's nothing special about one day compared to any other. Such is the life of a horror movie reviewer.

For the sake of making a definitive list of "must see" horror movies for Hallowe'en, however, here's my top ten. Click the pics to see what I had to say about them before.


1. The Amityville Horror (1979)

As a child of the '70s, I read all the books about Amityville in the years before the movie was made. It's a pity that none of it was true, but "The Amityville Horror" still holds up well. Margot Kidder was gorgeous back in the day.


2. Dracula (1958)

Hammer's best horror movie. Simple as that. Christopher Lee and lots of hot bloofer ladies. Ignore the rubber bats on strings, this is class!


3. The Wicker Man (1973)

You can't have Hallowe'en without recognising its pagan origin, and "The Wicker Man" is my "go to" movie for all things British and pagan. Britt Ekland topless is a bonus.


4. The Legend of Hell House (1973)

I prefer this to "The Haunting" because of Roddy McDowell. He steals the show despite a valiant effort from Pamela Franklin and horny Gayle Hunnicutt. There's a lovely black cat in it too.


5. The Haunting (1963)

A little bit dated now but still creepy. It's the definitive haunted house movie and a certified classic. I would never have known about it if it hadn't been for the late James Herbert talking about it on a Hallowe'en TV show.


6. The Changeling (1980)

This would be higher up the list if it wasn't for the mystery element. I've found that I can only watch it every couple of years because I know the ending too well.


7. The Others (2001)

The twist dooms this movie to being another that's hard to watch more than once, but it's all about Nicole Kidman as perfect eyecandy for me. As a remake of "Voices" (1973), it's a successful upgrade.


8. Lady in White (1988)

It's a supernatural murder-mystery set during Hallowe'en, and that's more than enough to justify it. It's also very well done. Easily Frank LaLoggia's best movie and full of nostalgia for those who like that sort of thing.


9. The Fog (1980)

The prologue with the old captain telling the ghost story by a campfire makes this movie a lot better than it should have been. Sexy Adrienne Barbeau in her lighthouse radio station is the other good reason to watch it. I always fast-forward through the cringeworthy bits with Tom Atkins and Jamie Lee Curtis.


10. Carnival of Souls (1962)

It's really a rip-off of "The Hitch Hiker" episode from "The Twilight Zone", but it's a little bit more adult. Eerie stuff and very accessible since it's in the Public Domain.


What are your Hallowe'en favourites?

Hatchet III (2013)

"A search and recovery team heads into the haunted swamp to pick up the pieces and Marybeth learns the secret to ending the voodoo curse that has left Victor Crowley haunting and terrorizing Honey Island Swamp for decades."

Gore, gore, gore, gore, gore, and even more gore! Yes, "Hatchet III" delivers what everyone has been craving for a very long time!

Three years after the instantly forgettable "Hatchet II", where Adam Green failed, BJ McDonnell's debut as a director breathes new life into a series which most of us had written off. Having said that, this is still Adam Green's baby and, unfortunately, there are places where it shows.

The thing is, you shouldn't be able to go wrong with a slasher film anyway. All you need is a group of people and a monster with supernatural strength to hack them to pieces in the most painful-looking and bloodiest ways possible. Who cares if "Hatchet III" has a thin and formulaic plot? The practical effects are absolutely lush with brutal dismemberments and blood gushing everywhere.

Where the previous "Hatchet" movies went wrong is that they had too much humour and none of it was funny. "Hatchet III" isn't perfect either although the balance is much better this time. It's still meant to be a "fun movie" rather than something to be taken seriously, but at least it is actually fun rather than a chore to sit through.

This is not a SyFy channel movie!

Not to spoil the big surprises for you, but all the usual convention circuit suspects apart from Tony Todd appear again. As Victor Crowley, Kane Hodder proves that he can still do a lot more than sign his autograph, which is nice.

Zach Galligan makes a decent attempt at playing a sheriff, Parry Shen turns up as a paramedic primarily to deliver an anti-racism jibe, and Derek Mears adds the visual in-joke of two former Jasons fighting it out for anyone who cares about remakes. The confrontation between Hodder and Mears could also be taken as "Victor Crowley is better than the new Jason" which, in this case, he really is. In many ways, "Hatchet III" is what the "Friday the 13th" remake should have been.

Even the acting is better this time although I doubt that the target audience of teenagers and "Friday the 13th" nostalgists will notice or care about such subleties. I noticed, particularly in the case of Danielle Harris whose scenes would lag if she wasn't so good in them, and I'm grateful for it.

Now approaching middle-age, Danielle Harris looks really good in this movie too apart from showing her huge, disfiguring tattoos in a hosing-down/shower scene which would be moderately erotic otherwise. At first, I thought she had some terrible wound inflicted on her by Victor Crowley, but then I realised what she'd done and it threw me right out of lust with her. What a shame. I'm sure she'll recover though.

Probably best if you keep your tracksuit on in future, babe.

I'm not going to go into further detail because I know that you'll want to see "Hatchet III" for yourself. I highly recommend that you do so as soon as possible before the usual negativity hits whatever message boards and Facebook pages you're subscribed to. "Hatchet III" is easily this Summer's best horror movie no matter what the "negative Nancies" might have to say about it.

It's taken three attempts, but we finally have a "Hatchet" movie which lives up to the original's tagline of "Old School American Horror". The third time really is the charm.

The Entity (1982)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Ninth Gate (1999)

"A rare book dealer, while seeking out the last two copies of a demon text, gets drawn into a conspiracy with supernatural overtones."

Nine days left until Hallowe'en so it's time for "The Ninth Gate". See what I did there? Don't worry, it probably won't happen again. I doubt that I'll ever rewatch "The Ninth Gate" anytime soon either.

I'm not a Johnny Depp fan and find it kind of disgusting to watch somebody with $200,000,000 and their own island playing a part which absolutely anyone could have done just as well. I know his fizzog sells plenty of movies, but I find him overrated. Johnny Depp sort of reminds me of somebody I used to work with who had the same stupid little beard and reeked of body odour so, unfairly, I imagine him to be much the same.

I'm not going to get all moral on you but seeing Johhny Depp romp around naked with Roman Polanski's younger wife also makes me feel nauseous. Given Roman Polanski's criminal history, it's no surprise that his wife is half his age, but it's still weird to see her used in this way. I suppose she wanted to do it, but it's not right.

As you probably know, Johnny Depp plays the part of a "book detective" who gets hired to track down the last copies of a Satanic tome. With a neo-noir feel to the story, he's reminiscent of Mickey Rourke in "Angel Heart" to some extent. His employer, Boris Balkan (Frank Langella), is hardly Lucifer in disguise, but there are superficial similarities.

I'm not sure if the intention was to rework the "Angel Heart" storyline because I only listened to a few parts of the director's commentary on the DVD. I do know that "The Ninth Gate" was based on a novel about something less Satanic with an ending which faded out in a way that made it almost impossible to conclude satisfactorily here either. Kudos for at least trying to wrap things up, but after nearly two hours of watching a mystery unfold, it was still weak.

The standout for me is Lena Olin who plays Liana Telfer as one of the more truly vicious femmes fatales that I've seen for ages. Not only is she extremely hot but sinister with it. Corso (Johnny Depp) describes her as "dishy", but scary and mad as a bag of cats would also apply. She's certainly got claws and she bites!

It's amusing that so many rich characters in "The Ninth Gate" are all into collecting old books about witchcraft. It's yet another thing for the conspiracy theorists who drag up even though though it's just a trope. Considering the elaborate measures many of the bibliophiles take to safely store their treasures, the rough treatment which the Satanic book that they are all chasing receives is also unintentionally comical. I can't think of any book dealers who would handle such a valuable item without gloves, and I highly doubt that they would smoke all over it or press it onto a photocopier.

Roman Polanski's wife, Emmanuelle Seigner, who plays "The Girl" or "Green Eyes" does a fine job as a demonic sidekick even though her role is never truly explained. Whether she is saving Corso from destruction or leading him to his destiny is flawed thoughout the story. Ultimately, she's there to encourage his bad side, but it's complicated and open to too much interpretation. She's nice to look at when nude even though she has a Maryam d'Abo thing going on with her eyebrows which is distracting.

As for the plot, well, it's a mystery in the same vein as "The DaVnci Code" or "Angels and Demons" but years before Dan Brown even thought about writing them and without any twists. It's a straightforward, "connect the dots" affair with a little bit of horror action along the way. It's actually rather difficult to classify "The Ninth Gate" as a horror movie except for the supernatural elements and the Satanism because it isn't all that scary.

"The Ninth Gate" is a beautiful looking film with a rather sleazy and grubby atmosphere which makes me homesick, but the ending is such a disappointment that it it spoils what could have been another Roman Polanski classic.

The Devil's Curse (2008)

(AKA "Credo")



"A modern supernatural horror film that explores the dark side of the human psyche, and the terror in facing up to one's darkest fears."

While hunting for something to half-way decent to watch, I remembered that I bought a copy of "The Devil's Curse" from my local pawn shop way back in June and still hadn't opened it. From the trailer, it looked as if it was going to be something shit-yer-pants scary and supernatural so I was really looking forward to it.

Unfortunately, it was another low-budget, Lionsgate distributed title which, in terms of disappointment, turned out to be just like "Spirit Trap" (2005) all over again but without Billie Piper.

MyAnna Buring, who you may know as Sam from "The Descent" (2005) and Lotte from "Lesbian Vampire Killers" (2009), was the big name in this although Colin Salmon had almost a minute on screen as a professor of psychiatry. Colin Salmon's role was so small that I'm surprised he was even credited, but his name was right at the top of the DVD artwork as if he was one of the stars.

Another blink and you'll miss it "star" was the late Stephen Gately, the famously gay member of the Irish boyband "Boyzone", who died in 2009. This was supposed to have been his acting debut, but he only had a couple of seconds sitting round a Ouija board at the beginning. If that was acting then every extra can now claim an IMDb credit. Actually, I think they already do.

I didn't and still don't know the names of anyone else involved in this, but I think the token obnoxious American character wasn't really played by an American. I'd hazard a guess that they were all bit-part actors from various TV shows which I've never seen because "The Devil's Curse" had that vibe to it.

While it was refreshing to hear British voices in a horror movie again, one girl (whose character's name was Timmy) committed the crime of saying "uz" (with a "z") instead of "us" at one point. That nearly made me pull the DVD out and snap it in half! I hated when that Northernism got popular in the South of England back in the mid-2000s almost as much as I now loathe how Americans are hellbent on replacing every instance of the word "very" with "super" in a way that makes them all sound like affected rejects from "The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin". There are now certain blogs and YouTube channels which I can no longer bear to visit because of it.

Anyway, "The Devil's Curse" started off okay, had some interesting if not very likeable characters, and seemed to be on track to be a pretty good "haunted house" kind of deal. I could tell by the sparseness of the sets that my initial feelings were going to be dashed to pieces, but I suffered through the boredom of the story in twenty minute stages during the day just so I could say that I'd seen it.

The funny thing is, I think I have seen "The Devil's Curse" before and probably on "Netflix" when I still had it. It all seemed very familiar and not just because the scenario was so unoriginal. If I had watched it before, I didn't make it all the way to the end. I barely made it all the way to the end this time either.

The main problem was that the script wasn't very good, the story was overambitious and tried to be a thinking man's "psychological horror" with a twist which didn't make a lot of sense, and the pace at which it unfolded was slower than a snail crawling through treacle.

The acting was okay with MyAnne Buring carrying most of the film, but there was hardly any depth to the characterisation. The camerawork was above average too with none of that shaky nonsense going on. It was just so boring without any jump scares, gore or nudity that I have no idea how it even got an R-rating. Maybe there was some swearing which, since I'm English, I didn't even notice.

If the story had been more shocking or, at the very least, scary then it could have been a pretty decent little film. As it was, I didn't get anything out of it.

Cassadaga (2011)

"A deaf girl attempts to contact her sister during a séance, only to connect with the ghost of a murdered woman."

Over a year ago, my friend John Slowdeath was promoting "Cassadaga" on his blog as if it was going to be the best horror movie ever. I was, of course, quite suspicious at the time. Owing to the fact that I'd never heard anything about it before, and haven't seen a DVD of it for sale anywhere since, I'm still not entirely sure what all the fuss was about.

As you know, things move pretty slowly around these here parts when it comes to movie reviews. I watch at least three horror movies a day, but, since I have a life, writing about newer movies isn't one of my priorities. I'd rather watch and review old horror movies from the '70s than anything modern anyway, so it has taken me until now to start playing catch-up again.

The weirdest thing I discovered about "Cassadaga" is that there still doesn't appear to be a US Region 1 release of it on DVD. At least, that's my understanding based on my searches through Amazon for an affiliate link. Instead, it's only available as a Region 2 DVD which is no problem except for the extortionate price. Thanks to eBay, that's hardly an impediment either. You can guess which option I chose.

Is "Cassadaga" even worth $11.99 plus shipping though? Not really.

Although not exactly the same story, if you've ever seen "The Gift" (2000), you'd be forgiven for thinking that "Cassadaga" was a slightly reworked remake. Both movies are set in the South, both involve a kidnapper/serial killer, and, obviously, the psychic/haunting angle is almost identical. Comparing the two movies beyond that would be like comparing apples to oranges, but, superficially, they are just two versions of the same thing done by different filmmakers.

I know that there's nothing new under the sun when it comes to horror movie plots so I'm not going to make a big song and dance about it. The differences in "Cassadaga" were enough to keep me entertained all the way to the end, but I still wasn't really satiated by it.

The best thing about "Cassadaga" was Lily as played by Kelen Coleman. I honestly don't remember the last time I saw a deaf character in a horror movie and so she was something different. There's a mute character in "Mute Witness" (1994), of course, and numerous blind characters have been the victims of thrillers from "Wait Until Dark" (1967) through to "Blind Terror" ((1971) and right up to "Blink" (1994). I'm sure there are more which I can't remember, but deaf characters are still quite a rarity. As ever, if you can think of any, let me know in the comments section below.

I can't say that Kelen Coleman was very realistic in the role, but I think the plot hole was nicely avoided by her hearing loss being fairly recent and due to illness rather than from birth. I'm sure her voice would still have changed though, and I wasn't convinced that she couldn't hear anything. To be honest, I didn't really care that much as I was too busy admiring her long limbs and trying to work out if she was actually pretty or not.

"Cassadaga" spent a little bit too much time on characterisation and tended to focus more on Lily's love life with Mike (Kevin Alejandro) than it did on the horror elements, but I didn't mind that. The characters weren't the most interesting so they needed all the help they could get. I would have liked to have seen more of the serial killer, "Geppetto", doing his thing, but that's just my own sick preference. What was shown of his marionettes was still gory and more than enough to get the point across.

My second favourite character was, oddly, the cop played by Lucius Baston. He actually seemed like a nice guy and less dumb than cops usually are in horror movies. I won't say any more, but one of the most overused tropes just had to ruin everything there. I was very annoyed.

I was even more annoyed by the "Scooby Doo"-style reveal of the killer's identity since, not only was it predictable, there wasn't enough made of that character to even care. The "red herring" suspect was far more interesting.

At times, "Cassadaga" was a little bit confusing. It also lost its pace after about 40 minutes and then floundered for another hour as it swapped the focus of the plot way too many times. Combining a ghost story with a serial killer thriller was a nice idea, but it didn't really work in this case. Justice was served too quickly and far too neatly just to make way for yet another overly sentimental scene before the ending fell completely flat.

The few jump scares did nothing for me, and the epilogue with a final shock was completely unnecessary unless there is going to be a sequel. As much as I wouldn't mind seeing more of Kelen Coleman in movies, I really don't want to see a sequel to "Cassadaga" if at all possible.

Audrey Rose (1977)

"A stranger attempts to convince a happily married couple that their daughter is actually his daughter reincarnated."

From the same source as the last movie I watched, I also found "Audrey Rose". Well, it's not as if she was hiding.

This is yet another film which I don't own on DVD but not because I hate it or anything. It's a little bit dated now but the only reason I haven't bought it is because I recorded it onto a VHS tape the last time the BBC showed it.

Although "Audrey Rose" isn't really a horror movie, it was directed by Robert Wise who did "The Haunting" (1963) and was written by Frank De Felitta who also wrote "The Entity". It also freaked me out a little bit when I first saw it because I mistakenly thought that it was based on a true story.

For all its flaws, somewhat patronising exposition, overly dramatic acting, and extremely slow pace, "Audrey Rose" actually threw up a few questions about reincarnation, life and death, and a belief system shared by over 700 million people which I'd never considered before.

I'm not sure how many years ago it was, maybe in the early '80s, but there used to be a Sunday TV programme called "Credo" on ITV which once did a documentary about twin sisters who appeared to be the reincarnation of their own dead sisters. I'm not sure whether it was just a publicity stunt to sell a few books or if there was any truth to it but it stuck in my mind all the same.

Of course, that case had nothing to do with the "Audrey Rose" story which was all completely fictitious anyway and very much designed to sell as a book. I even had a copy of it myself but I don't think that I read more than the first chapter before I got bored with it. I used to read a lot of books but always preferred the ghostie ones over any other weirdness.

"Audrey Rose" as a film is a pretty weird thing itself. A bit like its recent namesake "The Exorcism of Emily Rose" (2005), almost half of it is set in court. I know court cases are a big thing in America (oh, trust me, I know only too well) but, as a Brit, I find them particularly petty and boring.

The court case in "Audrey Rose" is about as far-fetched as any that I've encountered in a movie and only made a little bit more interesting by seeing Higgins from "Magnum, P.I." playing a prosecution lawyer.

Apart from the obvious, i.e. Anthony Hopkins and Marsha Mason, there are a few other very recognisable faces including John Beck (from "Flamingo Road" and "Dallas") playing the father of the little girl with the reincarnated spirit of Audrey Rose inside her and Norman Lloyd who later played a Catholic priest in "Amityville 4".

Susan Swift (above) has the role of Ivy, the aforementioned little girl, and, yes, in case you are wondering, she really is cross-eyed. If you are easily distracted by little girls who aren't very good at acting then you'll find yourself staring at the screen wondering what exactly is wrong with her face so I thought I'd point that out.

She also went on to briefly appear as a nurse at the start of "Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers" (1995) but, unless, you are an uber fan of that turd of a movie, you probably wouldn't have cared enough to look that piece of trivia up. I'm pretty sure that she hasn't acted since.

Brooke Shields posed for the book cover but, in spite of some false information spread about this movie, she never auditioned for the role of Ivy. If she had done and been cast, I'm not sure if she would have been any better as Ivy than Susan Swift. Nearly every child actor from the '70s played their parts with the same embarrassing affectations including Linda Blair in "The Exorcist" (1973) of course.

Similarities to "The Exorcist" are, unfortunately, rather obvious even though "Audrey Rose" isn't a story about demonic possession. Then again, maybe it is. It depends on your own beliefs. I don't believe in reincarnation although I think it's a clever idea so make of that what you will. Like I said, "Audrey Rose" certainly throws up a few interesting questions.

Anyway, the whole movie is available to watch in several places on YouTube if you've never seen it before. It's not a great film (and it's a little bit too long) but, if you like films about the paranormal or the supernatural, you might enjoy it.

Superstition (1982)

(AKA The Witch)



"A witch put to death in 1692 swears vengeance on her persecutors and returns to the present day to punish their descendants."

Although this was quite a popular video to rent back in the early '80s, I thought of it as just another Amityville clone with a clichéd story about a witch coming back from the dead. Having seen the far superior "Black Sunday" (1960), I was not impressed.

As you know, I've been looking at a lot of VHS collections recently to see what people are still into since new horror movies have dried-up completely. One of the titles which VHS fans all raved about was "Superstition" but I took it with the same huge pinch of salt that I usually reserve for anyone talking about crappy Dario Argento movies.

Having watched it again last night to see if I had been missing anything, "Superstition" was actually worse than I remembered. It's essentially little more than a predictable slasher film with laughable special effects as well.

The acting was particularly bad and the story served only as padding between the various gore scenes. I admit that the amusing gore was welcome but, as I've often said, if you don't care about the characters then it really has no value.

A lot of people moan about this film not being on DVD when in fact it has been out in the UK (uncut) for ages. I'm not sure about the Anchor Bay US release since I'm not part of the loop and they don't send me any free DVDs to review (unlike some of the even crappier review sites on the internet). I assume that it must be out of print again now like so many others.

I've actually reached the point where I'm so bored that I wouldn't mind a few screeners especially from Lionsgate who seem to be sitting on a huge back catalogue of crappy '80s horror movies. I'm sure they would go down really well as some kind of compilation set even in this age of people downloading everything for free and not buying as many films on physical media anymore.

If "Superstition" was part of a "4 horror movie multi-pack" along with "The Witch Who Came from the Sea" (1976) and a couple of other witchcraft-themed "video nasties" then I'd actually recommend it as cult viewing, but alas, on its own, it's just a bit too dated and average.