The late Sir Christopher Lee narrates a series of four half-hour ghost stories by M.R. James. Originally shown on BBC2 during the last week of December, 2000.
Robert Powell narrates a series of five partially-dramatised ghost stories by M.R. James. Originally shown on BBC2 during the last week of December, 1986, they included "The Mezzotint", "The Ash-Tree", "The Rose Garden", "Wailing Well", and "Oh, Whistle, and I'll Come to You, My Lad".
I've been going through various subjects to find something to write about, but other than a review of "Beautiful Creatures" which I'm still crafting into an acceptable level of hatred, I have nothing for you right now.
I haven't been completely idle though. I've been watching a lot of documentaries about WW2 on YouTube to fill in my lack of education about when the world was in black and white. Now I at least know who was in league with who, why, and how it all turned out. You can blame the British education system for that little foray into the realms of the History Channel because all I knew beforehand was that the Nazis had really snazzy Hugo Boss uniforms.
Also on YouTube, the levels of mental retardation have reached a new low with hundreds of channels making their own version of the "Harlem Shake" meme. In case you don't know what that is, some gimp dances badly for a few seconds then a quick cut reveals everybody around him dancing like maniacs to the same crappy '80s hiphop. It's funny once. Grudgingly, I suppose the "Harlem Shake" is slightly more entertaining than "planking" or last year's "coning". The latter was, quite frankly, just a shocking waste of ice cream.
The highlight of February has actually been the latest song from Blood On The Dance Floor. I probably shouldn't, but I do like these guys. This song makes a great anthem against my own haters out there.
In other news, it looks like Horror Movie A Day is going to come to an end any day now. He's either had enough or scored a better gig. I have no idea which it is because I don't read that blog regularly. Some people might call it a shame, but I can imagine how liberating it must be not to have to write about crappy horror movies every day just for a gimmick. I'm 99% sure that this will be the last year of "Dr Blood's Video Vault" too since I've grown out of horror.
As a prelude to my own abandonment of the genre, I've been rather quiet on the internet recently. I even gave up on the "real women in horror" series that I was doing due to lack of interest. Just to be an ass, I was eventually going to post some really sexist pictures of scream queens in kitchens or cleaning toilets to finish February off, but I can't be bothered now. The whole "women in horror month" is a ridiculous joke anyway which doesn't fool anybody. The fact that nobody in his or her right mind is ever going to donate to the "WIH" e-begging/Kickstarter projects (or any other nowadays) is a big enough victory for all of us who appreciate real talent both behind and in front of the camera. I'm not going to gloat or kick those girls while they're down. I may need one of them to make me a sandwich one day.
Maybe for the rest of the year, I'll do an occasional series of posts about multi-feature horror DVDs which I still haven't got round to watching. Maybe something will turn up at the cinema which amazes us all again and creates a whole new generation of horror fans who will flock to my blog to find out what was worth watching years ago. I doubt either thing will happen.
If you have an idea for something I can write about, leave me a comment below. I'm up for all kinds of movie related challenges other than comedies, cartoons or Disney.
I've seen some stupid things on YouTube in my time (and, no, I'm not talking about Giovanna Plowman), but this guy's purchase of 100 Blu-ray discs has to be up there with the most ridiculous of them.
What could be missing in someone's life that he has to buy 100 (or more) movies in one go with most of them being bad ones that he's already seen and doesn't like? I don't get it. Out of 100 Blu-ray discs in this video, there are possibly only a dozen decent horror films. The rest should be thrown onto a bonfire to do the world a favour.
Far be it from me to criticise anyone for collecting DVDs, but why collect crappy movies on Blu-ray especially when you already have them on DVD? It's not going to make them any better!
How much do you think this lot cost? Somewhere between $500 and $1000 probably. What a waste of money! I would rather buy 100 crappy horror movies in a Mill Creek pack from Wal-mart for $17.99 and spend the rest on pizza and beer.
One very obvious thing which I've noticed about YouTube is that 95% of the people making videos on there shouldn't be. A lot of YouTubers can barely form coherent sentences or just repeat themselves until they become boring while others alternate between being banal and self-deprecating so much that it makes you wonder if they have some kind of mental illness. You only have to look at the comments section under most YouTube videos to realise that the fanboys of the more popular channels aren't much better. Too many little kids are trolling the site, but worse than that, it's like the very worst people from Reddit and 4chan have taken it over.
YouTube has become so awful recently that I don't really like to go on there to grab trailers for my reviews if I can possibly avoid it. If things continue the way they are, I can't see the site lasting more than another couple of years before something better comes along. The sheer amount of cyberbullying which goes on will eventually force Google to lock the vile little kids out of YouTube completely. I'll never understand why they still allow 10-year-olds to make accounts or why parents let their kids watch the crap on there except that, in the first instance, more traffic means more ad revenue. The AdSense scam whereby people aren't getting paid for monetising their videos has also caused a lot of former YouTubers to give up anyway. The bottom line is that it's all about money, and YouTube isn't a very friendly place.
I could be mean and pick out the "worst five" horrible YouTubers who don't have many subscribers, but the subscribers number is only a reflection of the way YouTube manufactured and promoted its own celebrities. Just like the days of Tila Tequila and Forbidden on MySpace, a lot of it is about who got on there first. Subscriber numbers can consist of thousands of dead accounts, and they are certainly no indication of talent.
Instead, I've chosen the people who've been making videos for quite a while and, in my opinion, should know better. Have a look at this lot, and let the horror begin!
There are only two reasons why any of her 435,720 subscribers watch Miss Hannah Minx, and you don't have to be a genius to see what they are. I will give her credit for providing the over-cutesy tease which the unwashed, pre-pubescent masses lap up, but the content of her videos is so devoid of anything satisfying that I can't make it though even one of them. She's a kind of joke character like Elvira except not funny and not entertaining. Unless you are desperate to see cleavage then I don't understand the attraction because, should you ever have a girlfriend who behaves like Miss Hannah Minx in real life, I can guarantee that it won't be a bed of roses at all. Mercifully, she's barely made any new videos this year.
What is this insipid crap? Apparently, it's a serious attempt at recreating the blandness of morning TV in Britain. Yes, serious! It's not even a parody! This also has 413,509 subscribers!!! Ugh! What is wrong with people? If you view this, make sure you have your AdBlock enabled, because mediocrity doesn't deserve any financial reward. I couldn't even make it through 2 minutes of one of the videos on this channel without wanting to vomit.
If you think I'm being mean to someone with only 2,387 subscribers, think again. Sarah Hawkinson has 352 uploaded videos and 38,914 subscribers on her main channel which puts her in the same league as Coolduder (below). She's in this for the money, has no real interest in horror movies, comes across as scared of her own shadow, and is clearly a bag of nerves. It's hard to hate someone you don't know, but I challenge you to get through one of her attention deficit "reviews" without wanting to shake some sense into her. I don't think I've ever seen anyone so vain, self-centred, or as thick as two short planks about a subject since iJustine. On the plus side, she's a cat lover.
According to his stats, Shawn C. Phillips has made over 1,232 videos on his channel and has 38,481 subscribers. That doesn't make him a very big player except physically and, in fairness, he hasn't changed his style since he joined YouTube in 2006, but his movie reviews suck! Not only does he like almost everything indiscriminately, he doesn't so much review as just retell the plot of every movie in his own words. "Coolduder" must be conscious of what he's doing because he's a making a damned good living out of YouTube and getting lots of DVDs for free, so why would he bother to do it properly? Shawn, you are a very tragic man.
Thankfully, the age of the "reply girls" including Alejandra (above) is now over, but it became a huge problem in 2012. Basically, several girls with monetised accounts (some of which, unfortunately, still exist but aren't being watched) started making 10 or 15 second replies (or whatever the very minimum length of a video could be) to anyone who was getting featured on YouTube's front page so that they could make money off the same audience. They used the same tags and the same titles in their own videos just so that they would feature on the front page right next to their target. Cleavage and misleading thumbnails almost guaranteed that little boys would click on them. It was ingenious in some ways, but so annoying and devoid of content that YouTube removed the monetisation and ended the problem after many complaints. If only YouTube would remove the monetisation from every account on YouTube, it would be a much better site.
Matt has almost as many uploaded videos as he does subscribers, and that's a bad thing for someone who has only had this particular account for 2 years. Seriously, 1425 uploads in two years!!! It's insane. Most of his movie reviews are barely watchable due to Matt's pained expressions, whining voice, spitting, expletive-laden rants, and the repetition of the same points over and over again. Even at 15 minutes long, each video is a chore to get through. On the plus side, Matt does actually watch all the movies himself and occasionally comes up with some valid (although second-hand/acquired) criticism. For someone who has made the number of videos which he has, you'd think he would have learned from his mistakes by now. The video above is actually one of his better attempts.
So there you have my worst YouTubers of 2012. Who are yours? Also, would you be interested if I was to review individual YouTube videos on this blog in the future?
With everyone else doing their end of year horror movie lists right now, I've chosen to compile something a little bit different for you.
I've already posted my "year in review" back in November, and since I haven't been watching a lot of horror movies recently anyway, I've just been surfing the monetised cesspit of YouTube for entertainment. I started off with the horror channels, of course, but then clicked on links which took me further away until the content started to be more refreshing than simply watching yet another fat guy with a neckbeard flashing his latest batch of DVDs at the camera and telling their stories in his own words. I found a couple of girls doing that too, and they also weren't up to much.
Anyway, without further ado, here are the YouTubers who I've enjoyed the most over the last 12 months. Check them all out and you might find something to interest you too.
I don't really know a lot about these guys other than they come from the Philippines and lip-sync to popular songs. They also have their own band and have become TV celebrities in their own country. Usually, it's just the two brothers in the videos, but they are sometimes joined by special guests and lots of pretty girls. Their comical expressions make these videos a good "pick me up" for when you're feeling a bit down. It's a pity that they don't make as many videos as they used to, but YouTube removes a lot of them because of copyright issues with the music.
There's so much to this channel that it's hard to know how to describe it. Basically, Victor is a 40-something American ex-pat who owns his own English language school in Japan. He vlogs, gives Japanese language lessons, and many insights into Japanese culture in his own very entertaining and informative manner. If you don't follow J-vloggers because they are all annoying weeaboos, this man may change your opinion. He's kind of like the teacher that you wish you'd had.
You could be mistaken for thinking these videos were just some snarky English guy opening cheap crap from Poundland on his sofa, but you'd also be right. Occasionally, Ashens really annoys me (not least because he's monetised to the hilt), but at other times, he's hilarious. When he reviews older electronics, it makes you wonder why they even existed and who was silly enough to buy them.
There's a lot to this guy's channel including prank calls, crap he gets sent to him through the mail, computer games, and his bizarre collection of Pokemon cards. His swearing will appal most Americans, but it's nothing compared to the reality of living in Britain or Australia. For a young Aussie guy, he's pretty funny and seems genuinely good-natured underneath his trolling persona.
If you hate all the attention-seeking and money-grubbing "whores" on YouTube, nobody can put those feelings into words better than "The Archfiend". He's been around for as long as YouTube has been popular, but isn't nearly as famous as he should be for someone with such great rhetorical skills. There are no jump cuts, his monologues are straight to the point and rational, but sometimes he can be just a little bit too "American" for his own good (which can alienate his audience). He's a pretty decent guy underneath the act, and his various skits/parodies and rants on news items will give anyone with a brain a reason to like him.
Simply the best cat videos on YouTube. Maru is a cat whose antics and love of cardboard boxes are filmed by his Japanese owner for the pleasure of other cat lovers everywhere.
"A young coed (Nan Barlow) uses her winter vacation to research a paper on witchcraft in New England. Her professor recommends that she spend her time in a small village called Whitewood."
Rather than write yet another review of "The City of the Dead" which nobody reads, I've just embedded the full movie from YouTube at the top of this post so you can watch it for yourself. It's ideal viewing for a gloomy Sunday afternoon.
As "City of the Dead" (AKA "Horror Hotel") is in the public domain, I used to keep a copy of it on my own YouTube channel (which I hope you've all subscribed to) until the amount of bogus copyright claims started to get annoying. When they tried to put adverts next to something which even I couldn't monetise, I took it down to stop the thieves from making any money.
I will just say that "The City of the Dead" has a great atmosphere, it's low-budget but looks good in black and white, and it's full of clichés. Maybe those clichés weren't quite so clichéd at the time though. Watch out for a reworking of the "phantom hitchhiker" story around 17 minutes in (and again around the 50 minute mark).
Standouts include Venetia Stevenson as Nan Barlow, Patricia Jessel in a dual role as Elizabeth Selwyn/Mrs. Newless, and, of course, Christopher Lee doing an American accent.
You can hear about the other details from the director, John Llewellyn Moxey, in the video below.
Here are the obligatory screencaps which most people only come to my blog to steal anyway. I don't care. I only took them from the Google image search myself.
I also found this interview with Christopher Lee about "The City of the Dead" (and a lot of his other films) which you might find interesting. Before you ask, no, I don't know what's wrong with the interviewer's mouth either.
Tonight, I'm going to see "Sinister" which I will write a review of tomorrow.
"After discovering an urban legend on 4chan's /b/ board of a demented serial killer that has nothing but a carved 'smiley' on his face, Ashley, a mentally fragile teen, must decide whether she is going insane, or is the next victim."
Every so often I'm forced to watch a horror movie directed by someone I've never heard of and starring a load of people I've never heard of either. Sometimes it's a necessity for writing this blog, but occasionally I just do it for the lulz. Thus, when the chance came to see a movie about a supernatural serial killer on the internet who does it "for the lulz" too, I was intrigued.
Apart from Roger Bart (formerly the creepy pharmacist who fancied Bree in "Desperate Housewives" as well as one of the sickos in "Hostel 2") and Keith David, I honestly have no idea who any of the other cast members are, whether or not they are real actors or YouTube wannabes, or anything other than a vague recognition of a couple of their names.
Allegedly, one of the cast members is named Toby Turner, and he's big on YouTube for something, but I couldn't even tell you what he looks like or who he plays. Shane Dawson is more obvious as I've seen his picture floating about on the internet before yet have never watched even one of his YouTube videos either. From his limited acting ability in "Smiley", I probably never want to. As a non-actor, he isn't that bad, but he's a lot older, hairier, fatter and uglier than I thought a popular YouTube children's entertainer would be. His character name of "Pedobear" might be an in-joke based on his fanbase of 12-14 year olds. If there's something more to it than that, I didn't understand it.
In case I start to sound too negative, let me just say that I didn't hate "Smiley" or anyone involved in it. In fact, I really liked it as a "meta" movie about internet trolling. We all love to troll "teh interwebz", don't we? Imagine if the misery we like to inflict on others with our keyboards could manifest itself in physical form and you get the premise behind "Smiley". I thought that was kind of great.
I can haz cheezburger now? Oops, wrong meme.
Even though "Smiley" first appears to be little more than a ripoff of "Candyman" and the "Bloody Mary" urban myths, it's actually a bit cleverer than that. With a couple of twists at the end, although derivative of "Scream", "April Fool's Day" and "Urban Legend", "Smiley" is quite successful (yet overambitious) in what it sets out to achieve. As a horror movie though, maybe not so much.
It's probably not going to win any awards for originality, scares or gore, but it's still a decent looking movie with good production values, not too many lags, and only a few moments of dodgy camerawork. Unlike the current slew of "found footage" crap, there's certainly no need to take any dramamine before watching "Smiley" unless the jealousy that someone who you don't think deserves it has managed to get their horror movie released theatrically makes you nauseous.
Of course, "Smiley" has some flaws especially in the dialogue which may be a tad too unnatural for most people's ears. If people on the West Coast really speak to each other like that, they need slapping. It's a debut feature by somebody just out of film school, Michael J. Gallagher, who has been lucky enough to be able to make it so you have to make allowances. As much as I will always bash the talentless handycam brigade with their backyard "zombedy" epics, "Smiley" doesn't fall into the same category. It looks like it had a fairly decent budget for one thing, and there's obviously some technical ability behind the scenes.
The killer actually looks pretty good too. I think he'll be a poster on a few people's walls before too long especially if this becomes a franchise. As ever, the characterisation doesn't have much depth to it, and quite a few of the characters are instantly dislikeable, but that's always a bonus for a jaded movie reviewer looking for something to write about. For those people who loathe Shane Dawson's antics as a YouTube money whore, seeing him get his comeuppance is a nice piece of wish fulfilment which will most certainly drive his haters to this film only to be quite surprised.
To give more credit where it is most certainly due, Caitlin Gerard, who plays Ashley, is highly watchable and gives an outstanding performance. Looks-wise, she isn't my cup of tea although I'm sure the intended audience will find her incredibly hot. If I have a type, it's not mental, skinny blondes who scream, cry a lot and smash their laptops to pieces, but to each their own.
I'll take the one on the right, please.
Ashley's brunette friend, Proxy (stupid name but whatever), is sensationally gorgeous. Melanie Papalia is her real name (in case you wondered), and having looked it up, I think it's one to remember. Although I'm torn between her and Nikki Limo (who plays a babysitter at the start) for the "best looking chick in the movie" award, she definitely made "Smiley" more enjoyable for me. She can really act too, and I can't wait to see her in more movies.
As I said right at the beginning, "Smiley" is full of unknown actors, actresses and YouTube "stars" who you either may or may not recognise. The only big YouTuber who I've ever watched regularly is iJustine and, unfortunately, she isn't in this. That was a missed opportunity and a bit of a shame. If she had been in it, maybe the "real critics" wouldn't have been so harsh about "Smiley". Having accidentally read the titles of their critiques, I wonder if we've even watched the same film because I enjoyed it. Although everyone has an opinion, most internet critics aren't honest and a lot have become negative just to stir up controversy and more pageviews. The irony of that in reference to the subject matter of "Smiley" won't escape anyone.
Without checking, I can almost guarantee that Bloody-Disgusting, Dread Central and Ain't It Cool News will be overpraising "Smiley" as the second-coming in horror movie form just to get their names on the DVD artwork. Unless, of course, they didn't get a kickback (in which case they'll be hating it too). "Smiley" is a good film, but please take their nonsense with a huge pinch of salt. Better yet, ignore it altogether if you don't want the hype to spoil it for you.
If you love the internet, like to hang out in video chatrooms or just generally surf YouTube, you'll get a lot of entertainment out of "Smiley". It's not ideal for the older generation or hardcore horror aficionados, but if you are lucky enough to have it playing in a movie theatre near you at the moment, I encourage you to check it out... for the lulz. =)
I've got to say something about this since it's not only annoying but also slightly amusing considering the nature of the material in question.
As you may or may not know, I have a YouTube account where I post Public Domain horror movies. That's all I have on there. I don't have any original content of my own, there are no adverts, and nothing is monetised. Basically, the movies are just a little gift for my blog readers.
I've never been allowed AdSense advertising anyway due to the nature of my blog. It seems that they don't like horror sites and class them as "adult content". I would have thought that would be a good thing since adults are the ones with the credit cards and Paypal accounts after all, but there's no accounting for taste or common sense.
Anyway, here's this week's story for you. Yet again, another company is trying to make money out of something which they are not entitled to and are attempting to use one of my uploads to do it. Here's the latest claim which I have disputed.
It's ironic that they've chosen the video that I've had least hits on. To date, I've had only 46 views of "Night of the Living Dead" which isn't too surprising when you realise just how many thousands of accounts already have "Night of the Living Dead" posted on them. According to the YouTube search, it's "About 35,700 results".
Night of the Living Dead entered the public domain because the original theatrical distributor, the Walter Reade Organization, neglected to place a copyright indication on the prints. In 1968, United States copyright law required a proper notice for a work to maintain a copyright. Image Ten displayed such a notice on the title frames of the film beneath the original title, Night of the Flesh Eaters. The distributor removed the statement when it changed the title.
A limited number of theatrical release prints were distributed by Walter Reade and these copies could have been shelved if Romero and Image Ten had elected. This would have given Romero the opportunity to rename the film, do a few brief "creative" edits, and then obtain a new Copyright. But this was never done and the theatrical releases continued to be distributed until eventually reprinted and distributed by home video distributors.
Because of the public domain status, the film is sold on home video by many distributors. As of 2012, the Amazon.com lists copies of Night of the Living Dead retailing 51 on VHS, 168 on DVD, and six on Blu-ray. The original film is available to view or download free on Internet sites, such as Google Video, Internet Archive, Hulu, and YouTube. As of July 28, 2012, it is the Internet Archive's second most downloaded film, with 1,003,011 downloads.
Of course, in each and every case where some bogus claim has been filed against me for reposting "Night of the Living Dead", I have entered the information above in the dispute box and the claim has been released. Quite right too because if George A. Romero can't make any money from his own film, why should anyone else?
There seem to be a lot of these fraudulent claims happening on YouTube. I don't know if it's some kind kind of automated system or just individual companies, who I've honestly never even heard of before, tracking down what they perceive to be easy and gullible targets to steal a quick buck. I'm sure my 46 video views will be worth millions to them. Idiots.
The really annoying thing about this whole situation is that it takes a month to resolve each case, if the "third party" actually responds, and, in that time, YouTube allows them to have advertising next to the disputed video. I can't have AdSense on these videos, nor would I even if I could, yet these fraudulent claimants can use my account to advertise? What the bloody hell?
Suffice it to say that this is yet another reason why fewer people are using YouTube now except to blatantly upload copyright infringing material rather than staying within the "Terms of Service" or adhering to the letter of the law. Why should the average YouTuber even try to keep their account clean when some monstrous corporation can come along, make a fraudulent claim, and reap the rewards from it?
Since Google have linked YouTube and Blogger, every day I expect to see my both my accounts deleted even though I've done nothing wrong. With the amount of original content I've provided on my blog, AdSense should have been falling over themselves to slap their annoying adverts everywhere, but why would they bother when their system can already give more money to frauds, liars and thieves who don't need it in the first place?
I wish I could say that I found out about this all on my own, but it was actually somebody on Reddit who posted the link to more free horror movies on YouTube than you could watch in a year.
Some of the best public domain horror movies are now available on my YouTube channel. You can either watch them via the playlist above or by clicking the links below.
Since I've been neglecting my blog again this week, I thought I'd better let you all know why. Not only have I got a new early morning job which means that each day is now completely backwards for me, but, also, I've been spending most of my time watching the plethora of full movies on YouTube.
As someone who has never really been into YouTube for uploading videos, I don't know if what I am going to say is going to make me look like a fool or whether something has actually changed on YouTube since the downfall of the Mega channels. I've noticed that there are now a hell of a lot more copyright infringing full movies on YouTube than ever before.
I wonder if this is a conscious effort by YouTube users to annoy the piss out of anyone who supported the SOPA act or if it's just because, with Megavideo and QuickSilverScreen now gone forever, there's nowhere else to easily upload movies anymore. Whatever the case, I'm the last person to complain about free horror movies.
I've found some absolute gems so far which I'm sure you'll enjoy too if you check out my playlist (above or on my YouTube channel itself). There are horrors from the '70s and '80s which I don't think even have a DVD release plus TV movies which I never thought I'd see again.
How long this blatant disregard for other people's copyrights is going to last before somebody steps in and shuts it all down is anyone's guess so I advise you to watch as much as you can while you can, and, of course, if you like what you see, buy it on DVD if at all possible.
If you don't care about any of this, here's an amusing picture which someone posted on Facebook recently. It makes you think, doesn't it?
I found this video on YouTube earlier and, although I've seen about 80% of the movies listed, there's no way that I've seen them all. There are some movies on there which simply don't interest me, not because they are gory (because I love that) but due to being poorly filmed, amateur, handycam dreck which I don't have the patience for.
I'm also not overly keen on Japanese extreme horror movies either because they are just a bit too silly for my own taste but I'm sure somebody likes them or they wouldn't exist in the first place.
Until "A Serbian Film" came along, the nastiest thing I'd seen was "Martyrs" and I still think it's the best of all of them.
Anyway, how many of these extreme horror movies have you seen? Which ones are your favourites? Let me know in the comments below.
It's a bit better than "Friday" but it doesn't make me happy.
In fact, this is even more annoying than when she was just a spoiled rich kid who got her parents to pay for somebody to create a song for her to begin with (allegedly).
I've got nothing personal against Rebecca Black but I would like to know how she managed to acquire the YouTube account name "rebecca" so easily. You would think that would have gone a long time ago. It's as mysterious as the mole which has disappeared from her face.
I'm also curious about who set up her official website and all the other social media outlets which have suddenly appeared overnight and are all professionally branded.
Ever feel duped? I think there's a record company's PR team behind this somewhere that's forcing a female version of Justin Bieber on us. Yes, I do realise the irony of the last part of what I just wrote there.
I'm so excited about the inevitable parody, "My Breath Mint". How about you?
- Note: Does not include Christopher Lee reading "The Ash Tree".
