We Are What We Are (2010)

(AKA "Somos lo que hay")



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

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

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

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

Meh. Whatever.

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

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

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

I Spit on Your Grave 2 (2013)

"Katie is trying to make it in the cutthroat world of modeling. When she innocently accepts an offer to have new photos taken for her portfolio, the experience quickly turns into an unthinkable nightmare of rape, torture, and kidnapping. When a twist of fate finally frees her from her captors - beaten, battered, bruised, and broken, she will have to tap into the darkest places of the human psyche to not only survive her ordeal, but to ultimately find the strength to exact her brutal revenge."

Starring Jemma Dallender (from "Hollyoaks") doing an American accent, Joe Absolom (from "Eastenders") with an Eastern European accent, Mary Stockley (from "The Woman in Black" remake), and a load of Bulgarians who you've never heard of, Steven R. Monroe's "I Spit on Your Grave 2" is not only the underwhelming sequel in name only that you would expect, but also the rape-revenge clone that nobody asked for or needs.

Annoying handheld camerawork which refuses to stay still, more screaming than is strictly necessary, multiple black screens to show the passage of time, and bucketloads of mean-spiritedness don't add up to anything remotely enjoyable. "I Spit on Your Grave 2" is just a time-wasting mess of predictable tropes, bad acting, and generic torture porn.

As someone who makes no secret of loving "extreme horror", even I have my limits when it comes to poor quality dreck like this. I was, by turns, bored, disappointed and thoroughly dissatisfied. All the criticisms of the first "I Spit on Your Grave" remake which I defended are now totally applicable to this movie instead. It's gratuitous for the sake of being gratuitous, soulless, and not even as entertaining as "Hostel" with its clichéd xenophobia.

Although things start off realistically enough, the whole raping, drugging and kidnapping shenanigans progress into being more ridiculous than harrowing. I'm sure that there are certain "Women in Horror" bloggers who will have a field day with the rape scenes because, let's face it, they've got puritanical sticks up their asses about this kind of thing, and their whole pointless lives are dedicated to seeking out the controversial so that they can pretend to be morally superior. As it's all they have to attract readers to their hypocritical blogs anyway, I'll let them have at it this time because nothing here was able to float my boat.

"Tell me how much you want to watch my showreel from Hollyoaks!"

Jemma Dallender isn't as attractive as Sarah Butler, her vain character is instantly dislikeable, and her change from being a haughty, prudish model to a semi-feral sewer-dweller has to be some of the laziest storytelling that I've ever had the misfortune to see. Aside from dozens of lapses in logic, her incredible character changes are unintentionally comical unless this movie is supposed to be a comedy. Given that the 1978 original is one of my top ten horror-comedies, maybe this isn't meant to be taken too seriously either, but how someone frail enough to be described as weighing about as much as a "leaf dripping wet" can develop superhuman strength after only eating half of a spit-roasted pigeon and three cans of beans is still absolutely mindboggling!

Despite being extremely graphic, the gory revenge elements are equally uninventive and lack the poetic justice which would make them memorable. All the background noise and screaming which obliterates the payoff lines is beyond irritating, especially as there's no way on Earth that anyone could decipher the most important one. I replayed it ten times before giving up!

I hate to say it, but after looking forward to "I Spit on Your Grave 2" ever since I first heard about it, I can't recommend this movie to anyone.

The Eves (2012)

"A Spring Break beach trip turns into a waking nightmare in this indie shocker based on true events. When car troubles lead a group of students to seek shelter in an abandoned lodge, dark forces emerge and blood is spilled."

Ever watched a horror movie just because of the picture on the DVD cover? Yeah, me too, all the time. That's how I ended up watching "The Eves" after promising to only watch good movies from now on. Oh well, as far as slasher clones go, it's not that bad. At least the scene with the shotgun-toting blonde occurs eventually.

Thus, although I was expecting something more like "High Tension" or even "Baise-moi", I ended up with yet another bunch of teenagers breaking down in the middle of nowhere and falling foul of a serial killer (or two) in a movie which shamelessly borrows from "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" (1974) and every slasher made since. Presumably, that's how it's "based on true events".

All the usual clichés are ticked off including cell phones not working, teenagers with entitlement issues getting drunk, doing drugs, and having sex before being murdered one by one, and of course, there's the inevitable twist which I have to admit is nicely done here and not predictable at all. It's not overly original either, but it works.

The funny thing is that I actually enjoyed "The Eves", albeit not entirely in the way it was intended. I've never liked the original version of the "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre", and if it wasn't for R. Lee Ermey as Sheriff Hoyt in the remake and its sequel, I wouldn't have watched those. I'm glad I have though, because it amused me to see the same setup being used again by one of these so-called "groundbreaking and innovative" indie horror movies, and my cynicism was constantly being justified.

To give credit where it's due, the acting in "The Eves" is more than acceptable considering that the characters are quite poorly differentiated. Out of the teenage guys, there's a serious one, a quiet one, an even quieter one who looks identical to the previous quiet one, a prankster, a smartass, and all of them are assholes. The three girls are basically two slutty ones (a blonde bimbo who shows her boobs and a kinky brunette who doesn't) plus a more serious blonde who is as normal as any of these stereotypes can be. What their names are doesn't even matter until near the end.

I like the pretty girls.

As in all modern slasher movies, there's exactly enough shown of the potential victims to make you hate them but not enough to allow you to sympathise with them, and then the lacklustre killing spree begins. In fairness, the kills are more realistically handled than having blood spurting everywhere or intestines wriggling all over the place, and the make-up/effects are okay, but there's nothing memorable about them in and of themselves either. The blinding scenes only made me feel a bit bad because they reminded me of a recent news story from China which I wish I'd never read about. "Man's inhumanity to man" is often much worse in real life than anything you'll see in a silly low-budget horror movie although a similar scene at the start of "Borderland" (2007) is just as gruesome.

While "The Eves" isn't particularly scary, some of the scenes manage suspense competently and the background music which accompanies them is complimentary. Unfortunately, nothing here is likely to get a hardcore horror fan's pulse racing. Considering that I am an example of that aforementioned "hardcore horror fan", I watched this movie calmly and patiently without a flicker of emotion whatsoever.

A casual viewer or someone new to the genre might get a kick of "The Eves", but he or she would have to be American and around the same age as the victims to avoid feeling alienated. When all's said and done, "The Eves" is just a cookie-cutter teen slasher aimed at cookie-cutter teenagers rather than someone like me anyway.

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!

Maniac (2012)

"The owner of a mannequin shop develops a dangerous obsession with a young artist."

I don't know why so many people revere William Lustig's "Maniac" (1980). For me, it's a below average slasher with one memorable Tom Savini effect and little else. Thus, I watched this remake with absolutely no feelings of nostalgia or any idea what it would be about. The truth is, I barely remember the original and have no desire to watch it ever again anyway. The time when a movie like that could be considered shocking is long since past for everybody.

Giving a remake a fair chance is, obviously, a lot easier in a case like this. There's no way that the original could ever be considered a classic of the horror genre, and there's no army of loyal fans who are going to be polarised. "Maniac" (1980) is still a rather obscure, cult movie especially if you aren't an American of a certain age, and so it wouldn't matter if this version was a scene by scene remake as far as I'm concerned. It isn't, but I'm sure you get my point.

Unfortunately, once you remove all the gimmicky killer's POV shots, and get over the fact that Frodo is now a serial murderer who collects scalps, there's very little to commend Franck Khalfoun's version of "Maniac" for. It's a little bit gory, but the kills are too samey and repetitive, there's no tension, and it's not scary. Despite featuring the Q. Lazzarus song "Good-bye Horses" which everyone knows from "The Silence of the Lambs", that's as far as the homage to any better horror movie goes. Everything else is just an updated rip-off of "Psycho" (1960) and its lesser sequels.

Wish you hadn't thrown the ring away now, dontcha?

It's not that Elijah Wood makes a bad serial killer. He did well enough in "Sin City" (2005) albeit as a comicbook villain, but a couple of gormless-looking reflections in the mirror don't provide much room for any depth of characterisation here. Given what he had to work with in this "Psycho"-clone, he's okay but a long way from the subtleties of Norman Bates.

America Olivo as Frank's mother provides some very nice eyecandy yet she's only in the movie long enough to provide us with the unrealistic motivation for Frank's psychosis. If every kid whose mother was some kind of prostitute whom he accidentally saw having sex, there'd be a lot more maniacs running around for sure. Mind you, they'd certainly have to look like America Olivo too for that to happen.

Instead, it's all down to French actress Nora Arnezeder, who plays Anna, to carry the majority of the story insomuch as there's anyone to care about. Even then, her character is flaky and easily dislikeable. Her performance is not outstanding either but simply the best of a bad lot.

Say "Fromage!"

SPOILERS FOLLOW!

The only things that I can really give "Maniac" credit for are the moments which seem intentionally designed to bring out the viewers' prejudices should they have any. The first may only be my own so I'm prepared for the backlash, but I saw Frank's online dating victim as being a huge disappointment to him in the flesh due to her tattoos and piercings. The fact that she's "easy" (plus sexually aggressive) and stupid with it is all part of the stereotype. With typical "horror movie morality", she kind of gets what she deserves.

The interracial couple comprised of blonde Anna and her black boyfriend will definitely annoy racists even though it's also only a trope. The fact that the boyfriend is a total asshole is the real issue rather than the colour of his skin especially as he escapes punishment. Contrarily, the old, drunken socialite and the obligatory gay character are merely cannon fodder despite being slightly more memorable in their roles than anyone else.

As ever, the KNB practical effects are the biggest stars. While mostly effective, they seem to be of the cheaper variety so gorehounds will be divided. I'm really desensitized and didn't think "Maniac" was gory enough, but a more squeamish (and younger) audience might still get a kick out of it.

I'm kind of on the fence about recommending "Maniac" since I don't see it as a horror movie. Psycho serial killers really belong to crime dramas, and "Maniac" is more likely to appeal to the "CSI" crowd rather than the "vampires, zombies, and ghosties" aficionados. Even though the weird ending includes all those supernatural elements for a few seconds, real horror fans (other than die-hard slasher fans) should probably avoid this movie.

4 Films Horror Collector's Set: 3

This pack and the following one were both released at the same time in March 2010 so it's pretty much impossible to give them a chronological "volume number". Amazon calls this "Vol. 5", but it's the third of these packs that I saw and bought. I didn't really want yet another copy of "Night of the Living Dead" (which I now have 14 times!), but I got it cheap in a "4 for $10" pawn shop deal.

Even though "Night of the Living Dead" is a space-filling reissue from their first series of classic horror multi-feature DVDs, Echo Bridge Home Entertainment put together quite a varied set here. The three "new" films are ones which most people wouldn't have gone out of their way to buy previously.

There are several known stars in these movies, but as usual, their performances (and the movies themselves) vary in quality. Let's face it, if these were top-notch horror movies, they wouldn't be in a $5 multipack.


Night of the Living Dead (1968)

"When a brother and sister visit the gravesite of their deceased father, the dreaded trip turns into a terrifying nightmare when night falls and a flesh-eating zombie attacks. Starring Russell Streiner and Judith O'Dea."

If you don't know this classic George A. Romero movie by now, you can consider your "horror licence" revoked. I'm not going to review it again.

There's an apology about the print quality before "Night of the Living Dead" begins which is nice. You might think it's unnecessary since they've used the same Public Domain master as every other DVD version, but this transfer is particularly bad.

If you've honestly never seen "Night of the Living Dead" before, this is the cheapest way of getting it on DVD other than downloading it and burning it to DVD yourself. Ideally, most fans would rather pick up for the true "remastered" Elite Entertainment version instead.


Hindsight (2008)

"When an unexpectedly pregnant—and broke—couple lists their unborn baby for adoption on the internet to score an upfront payment, they're lured into a twisted, sadistic game of desperation and deception. Starring Jeffrey Donovan, Leonor Varela, Waylon Payne, and Miranda Bailey."

"Hindsight" is a solid but very slow thriller with some violence and a creepy twist that almost makes it a horror movie.

The production values are good, the acting is decent, and Leonor Varela is beautiful. Does that save it from being a bit boring though? Not really.

Give or take some of the more adult scenes, this is almost Hallmark Channel stuff. With its cast made up of actors who have all been quite successful in TV dramas fairly recently, "Hindsight" is a contemporary non-horror genre movie which would be better in a "4 Films Thriller Collector's Set" if such a thing even exists.

A very recognisable face in this movie is Richard Riehle who plays Peter (as in "Saint Peter" if you haven't guessed the twist from the title itself).


Cruel World (2005)

"A vengeful reality show reject traps nine co-eds in his own sick version of reality TV—where the challenges are bizarre, the danger is real and death is just a competition away. Starring Edward Furlong, Jaime Pressly, and Andrew Keegan."

Having never heard of it before, I wasn't expecting a lot from "Cruel World", but it's only supposed to be a fun "Ten Little Indians"-style slasher film with a decent budget anyway.

Just because it has some humour, "Cruel World" isn't really a horror-comedy in spite of how some sites categorise it. If you hate reality TV shows, the satire is kind of cool in places, but you'll still hate reality TV shows just as much afterwards. The drawback is that everything looks, feels and sounds like a slick teen movie rather than a reality TV show so there's no catharsis possible.

Sadly, Jaime Pressly is only in it for the first 15 minutes, but it's enough to get your fix if you fancy her. There are several other pretty girls with very little characterisation (or clothing) to make up for her absence otherwise.

Much maligned Edward Furlong really seems to enjoy his role as a slob, but how much of that is acting or a result of how things were for him at the time is hard to tell. Whatever the case, he definitely stands out more than anyone else and gleefully chews the scenery.

The kills in "Cruel World" range from mildly amusing to effective although, ultimately, this movie is a huge waste of acting talent. The epilogue/end is nothing but hastily cobbled together nonsense.


Razor Eaters (2003)

"A lethal mix of Fight Club, Jackass and Natural Born Killers, RAZOR EATERS follows an anarchistic gang on their week-long rampage of violence, death, and destruction. Based on shocking true events."

Based very loosely on the exploits of the Hedge-Burners gang who plagued Melbourne, this violent Australian movie provides a powerful and very serious finale.

The trouble is that it looks cheap and nasty like a film school student's project. It probably is one too, but I don't really know any of the details about how it came to be made. All I can say is that if you're expecting this to be another "Romper Stomper", "Chopper" or "Snow Town", you'll be very disappointed.

The switching between handheld cameras and badly lit, grainy film makes a mockery of the decent $1,500,000 budget (which the IMDb claims it had). Windowboxing it to save space on the DVD doesn't help either.

Crime films aren't really my thing no matter how much bloodshed there is in them, so "Razor Eaters" is the least watchable of the movies in this pack for me. I didn't get very far into it before switching it off through boredom. Your mileage, however, may vary.


As entertaining as it might be overall, once again, we have another weak link in these multi-feature sets. While offering very good value, the three newer movies can only be rated as 3.5 out of 10 on a good day, and less than that on a bad one.

Even with the inclusion of "Night of the Living Dead", I wouldn't recommend buying this "4 Films Horror Collector's Set" unless you are a completist. Now that these movies make up half of "The Midnight Horror Collection: 8 Movie Pack Vol. 6" (with the others being the final "4 Films Horror Collector's Set" from June 2010), the 8 pack is the better way to go.

It has to be said that "The Midnight Horror Collection: 8 Movie Pack Vol. 6" (the final obviously numbered one) is pretty weak too though. You may want to save your money for a newer one with a good combination of Full Moon and Miramax horror titles in it instead.

Hidden in the Woods (2012)

(AKA "En las afueras de la ciudad")



"After their abusive father is jailed, two sisters being raised in a remote area of Chile find they have to answer to their uncle, a drug kingpin who wants his missing product back."

Yeah, I'm back again but only briefly. I've had another non-eventful birthday (apart from James Herbert dying on it!) last week, finally figured out how to turn off all the annoying random characters that were being added to the names of the images I uploaded to Photobucket, and I've been spending way too long playing on Twitter. Let's face it, as much fun as Twitter is, I'm primarily a blogger so I can't be confined to 140 character limits forever.

Anyway, I missed out on Patricio Valladares' "Hidden in the Woods" last year so I watched it yesterday. I can't say that I was overly impressed although it's certainly gory enough for most people and has a couple of nice-looking Chilean girls in it.

Thanks to "Hidden in the Woods", I had to look up where Chile was on the map. I always thought that Chile was an island somewhere near Portugal rather than a long, straggly country in South America so I learnt something. Geography has never been my strong point, but I had to Google where Chile was after watching this film so that I never accidentally go there. It's probably a great country, but this film makes it look like a horribly uncivilised place to be. There are too many trees and violently insane people living among them for my liking.

Siboney Lo as Ana

The real trouble with "Hidden in the Woods" though is that despite all the shock scenes and gore, it isn't so much a horror movie as just another rape-revenge, "faux-grindhouse", exploitation movie with a ludicrous crime story forced into the mix. I'm not a big fan of this subgenre and always fail to see the joke. That's assuming that this was put together as a bit of fun and not meant to be a serious drama. "Inspired by true events" doesn't seem that likely unless Chile really does contain so many rapists in its sylvan areas or have police even more useless than the ones in "Inside".

Paradoxically, acting and filming wise, "Hidden in the Woods" isn't a bad movie as such. It's obviously ragged in places, but it doesn't reek of someone trying to intentionally make a "so bad, it's good" abomination (although a few comic touches particularly during Ana's short career as a prostitute may make you wonder). I liked the gore effects and almost got into what Patricio Valladares was trying to do about two-thirds of the way through, but by then, it was too late. Homaging dozens of better horror movies (including "Spider Baby", "The Hills Have Eyes", "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", "Frontier(s)" and even "The Woman") isn't so clever when there's hardly any originality used elsewhere.

Having willingly suspended my disbelief during the schizophrenic tonal changes and poorly realised plot, I can't easily put my finger on why the story didn't work for me except that the lead female characters were either too flat or too inconsistent and didn't really evoke any kind of sympathy. It's pretty hard to sympathise with an inbred family of hillbilly cannibals anyway even if you imagine that the girls might clean up rather nicely. The men in this film are all one-dimensional and despicably vile as well.

Carolina Escobar as Anny

Basically, "Hidden in the Woods" is a misogynistic tale of murder, rape, incest, prostitution, cannibalism, drug dealers, torture, and even more rape and murder. If any of those combined elements interest you then knock yourself out. If you want to actually feel something for the victims in a mean-spirited movie then I recommend watching something else such as "I Spit on Your Grave" or "The Last House on the Left" (either the originals or the remakes). Even "A Serbian Film" has more pathos than "Hidden in the Woods".

The "Reservoir Dogs" ending just ruins any time invested in trying to get involved with the characters, thus leaving the experience unsatisfying and forgettable. In fairness, the characters are such damaged goods that no happy ending is possible, but it still feels like a cop-out especially with the clunky twist during the end credits.

Inevitably, there is already an American remake planned which will, surprisingly, also be directed by Patricio Valladares. With a few changes, it might be okay, but I highly doubt it.

The Tall Man (2012)

"When her child goes missing, a mother looks to unravel the legend of the Tall Man, an entity who allegedly abducts children."

Don't you just hate reviews which start with "From the director of" and then proceed to recount all the details of the director's previous works as if that will make any difference to any opinion of their latest offering? I hate that too, but, in this case, I do think it's necessary to mention that, of course, Pascal Laugier also directed "Martyrs" (2008) and "House of Voices" (2004) as I have noticed a slight pattern forming with these movies, and it isn't something good.

To cut a long story short and probably spoil "The Tall Man" before you've even seen it, what is the deal with Pascal Laugier and all these films about children? In "House of Voices", it was all about ghostly orphans, "Martyrs" gave us kidnapped and tortured children, and now "The Tall Man" is all about the little brats disappearing for yet another reason.

Let me just remind everybody that I cannot stand any movies about children, movies starring children or meant for children, or, basically, anything to do with children in general. I hate kids, I have no paternal instincts whatsoever, and I'd rather have a house full of adult cats who I treat as cats rather than little "fur babies". So can you possibly imagine how disappointed I was by "The Tall Man" when the story turned out not to be about the "Slenderman" who abducts and tortures children?

Although the odds were against it with "The Tall Man" being Canadian and having an R-rating, I wanted this to be sicker than "A Serbian Film" (2010) or "Salò" (1975), but obviously without the paedophilia because that doesn't float my boat. What I wanted was something like an adult version of "The Witches" (1990) but with more extreme torture and death. Alas, it was not to be.

If you don't want any spoilers, stop reading now!

"I smell... dogs' droppings."

In spite of borrowing heavily from the "Slenderman" myth and spooky computer game to create a few visual red herrings, "The Tall Man" turned out to be a thriller with two twists which put it almost into the M. Night Shyamalan category of dramatic nastiness. I'm not an M. Night Shyamalan hater apart from loathing his more recent films, and I hasten to add that the key word in the previous sentence was "almost". As a movie, rather than specifically a horror movie, "The Tall Man" was actually pretty good. It also wasn't anything to do with the shitty "Phantasm" franchise.

Coming to it after just watching Rob Zombie's "Halloween II", I was impressed by the run down, recession hit look and atmosphere of the Canadian mining town which was obviously doubling for America. Everything looks like that where I live so the reality pleased me. Whereas Rob Zombie had his own agenda for using white trash characters, you can be sure that Pascal Laugier (like most Europeans) was definitely including some major social commentary here. I'm not going to spoil it for you too much because it's actually the motivation of the main characters and a very weak link in the plot, but if you take the idea that people who can't afford pets shouldn't have them and upgrade it to people, then you'll get the idea.

The acting was very good with Jessica Biel really standing out. I haven't seen many of her films, and I think she may have a reputation for not actually being that great, but she was fantastic in "The Tall Man". Ultimately, "The Tall Man" was her "vehicle", as they say.

I was very impressed by Jessica Biel's action scenes even though the aftermath of a few of them wasn't all that realistic. Her lack of make-up, or rather her lack of glamorous make-up, seemed to increase her screen presence as I found myself able to concentrate more on what she was showing rather than what she was trying to hide, if you know what I mean. The increasing number of scrapes, gashes and other wounds her character sustained pleased me even more. Some of those make-up effects were done very well indeed.

I didn't particularly care about any of the other characters, least of all the oddly mute girl played by Jodelle Ferland who, obviously, is no stranger to real horror films. Having her do the narration was a little bit weird, but the reason was revealed at the end.

Other recognisable faces included the now very old-looking "Cigarette Smoking Man" from "The X-Files" TV series, and Stephen McHattie who appeared to be channelling a slightly younger version of Lance Henriksen in an attempt to shake off his minor role as Hollis Mason in "Watchmen" (2009). I'm tempted to think that Pascal Laugier must have been a huge Chris Carter fan as "The Tall Man" reeked of "The X-Files" and "Millennium" right down to its British Columbia filming location.

As a movie with some quite unexpected twists, I was entertained by "The Tall Man" even though the final reveal of his identity and motivation was very weak. I was kind of hoping that he would turn out to be Jeff Goldblum just so that I could make some feeble joke, but, unfortunately, Pascal Laugier already beat me to the punchline with his lacklustre ending.

I'm going to rate "The Tall Man" as slightly above average. It's not really a horror movie, but it did have several reworked tropes taken from the horror genre in it. The similarity of the setting to the "Slender" game, which I've included a video about below, really made this a bit of a naughty cheat in the same way that "The Mothman Prophecies" (2002) also promised much more for horror fans than it delivered.



Have you seen "The Tall Man" yet? What did you think of it? Let me know in the comments below.

The Black Dahlia (2006)

"Two policemen see their personal and professional lives fall apart in the wake of the Black Dahlia murder investigation."

Sometimes, although it's very rare, I'm just not in the mood to watch horror especially given the still very lacklustre selection available on Netflix. Instead of torturing myself with yet another piece of crap directed by somebody I've never heard and starring a bunch of equally anonymous non-actors, I went into a slightly "film noir" mode and revisited some classics over the weekend.

I started off by trying to watch Stanley Kubrick's "The Killing" (1956) but realised very quickly that I'm not actually a "film noir" fan and switched it off after less than ten minutes due to boredom. I prefer "neo-noir" so I did a quick search and found Roman Polanski's "Chinatown" (1974) which is still one of the greatest films ever made. It wasn't quite enough though. I was still in the mood for more of the same afterwards but Netflix didn't have "The Two Jakes" (1990) so I went into the uncharted territory of things by James Ellroy to watch instead.

Before I launch into a review of "The Black Dahlia", let me just say that after watching the BBC's "Arena" documentary back in 2001 about James Ellroy, I don't like the man. He came across as an arrogant asshole and he may even have a right to feel that way but I'll never read any of his books to find out due to his attitude.

I did like the movie adaptation of "L.A. Confidential" (1997) and, because I'd heard of "The Black Dahlia" (pronounced "Day-lia" by Patrick Macnee) from the "Hollywood Ghosts" documentary, I thought that Brian De Palma's movie would provide me with some worthwhile entertainment.

Unfortunately, although "The Black Dahlia" looked absolutely beautiful and had everything in place to make it outstanding including some gore, it was confusing as hell and didn't really have a lot to do with "The Black Dahlia" murder story at all other than it being weirdly relegated to a subplot.

The acting was really good, of course, but then you shouldn't be able to go wrong with the likes of Josh Hartnett, Scarlett Johansson, Aaron Eckhart, and Hilary Swank. It was just that the story made hardly any sense and the focus changed so often from what was important to what wasn't that I still have no idea what I watched or what the point of any of it was.

Since Hilary Swank had more screen time as the Black Dahlia's double than Mia Kirshner did as the "real" Elizabeth Short, I was very disappointed. As horrible as it may be to speak ill of the dead, both actresses were considerably more attractive than the genuine article which I've seen in photographs so it wasn't anything to do with their looks. it was simply the complete disregard for what could have been an interesting (if highly fictitious) account of Elizabeth Short's life which was the wasted opportunity.

As I've mentioned, "The Black Dahlia" looked the part with its excellent production values, sets, costumes, camerawork, music and all that other good stuff but the story wasn't well written enough to keep me interested. I doubt that it was James Ellroy's fault as I know that he has his own very personal obsession with the Black Dahlia murder which I'm sure makes a better book than such an appalling screenplay.

I noticed afterwards that there were a couple of other Black Dahlia movies on Netflix and I attempted to watch the Ulli Lommel version but barely made it through the opening titles before that crap went off. The other, "The Devil's Muse" (2007), went off just as quickly once I realised that it was some arty low-budget dreck starring more of the same kind of "actors".

I would love to see someone make a real period piece out of the life and death of Elizabeth Short because it's a fascinating story which needs to be told properly. After even the great Brian De Palma couldn't do it justice though, I doubt that it will ever happen.

Borderland (2007)

"On a trip to a Mexican border town, three college friends stumble upon a human-sacrifice cult."

Loosely based on a case which occurred in Mexico in 1989 where a satanic cult called "narcosatanicos" killed at least 20 people, "Borderland" actually turned out to be little more than a clone of "Hostel" (2005) and "Turistas" (2006). So now you have another country which you know never to visit.

It's not a bad story and, considering it was one of the "After Dark Horrorfest" films, it's actually very well made. I wasn't too keen on the look of it to begin with as it went the clichéd route of using lots of browns but I found myself getting drawn in by the characters who weren't such complete assholes as you'd usually find in something of this nature.

Of course, the biggest attraction for me was Martha Higareda who played Valeria. There wasn't much else to look at since it was a mostly male film with three pretty boy TV actors, one a bit rougher round the edges than the others, and a load of sinister Mexicans. Sean Astin was in it as one of the bad guys but I couldn't tell if he was acting or not.

The torture and gore scenes were some of the most evil which I've ever seen, not because of the effects per se, but just in the mean-spirited way that they carried out. These were probably the sickest bunch of satanists that I've seen portrayed on film to date.

Although it was all rather slow, the only place "Borderland" really fell down was towards the end when it just got messy and didn't follow the normal formula for doing things. The dynamic changed in a very extreme way and the last fifteen minutes or so felt like a whole new film had been tacked on.

The ending itself was very unsatisfying as it ran out of steam and used title cards to say what happened afterwards rather than neatly tying up all the loose ends within the action itself.

Overall, I enjoyed it but it was just another slightly below average "torture porn" with different actors and locations.

The Woman (2011)

"When a successful country lawyer captures and attempts to civilize the last remaining member of a violent clan that has roamed the Northeast coast for decades, he puts the lives of his family in jeopardy."

I really don't know where to begin with reviewing "The Woman" because, although it's quite unlike anything that I've seen before, it's still somewhat derivative of a lot of other dysfunctional family stories in places.

With anything written by Jack Ketchum, you know it's going to be a little bit "out there" and, by having Lucky McKee direct it, it's likely to be even more so. Paradoxically, everything is extremely very well reigned in here and doesn't ever become bizarrely unrealistic or comical. I find that to be a very welcome and refreshing change.

Now as much as I want to say that "The Woman" is unique, it isn't. If you've ever seen "The X-Files" season one episode called "Jersey Devil" then the idea of a feral human being won't be much of a surprise to you. It was even done more recently in "Shiver", a Spanish film from 2008.

Demented, dysfunctional families aren't all that new either. You only have to look up "Spider Baby" (1968) to see how that all began. But, as I've said, "The Woman" is no comedy or, at least, not a comedy that I can categorise as one. It's amusing in places but there really aren't any major chuckles to be had out of it unless you are as sick and twisted as I am.

Combining the two elements by having a dysfunctional family kidnap a feral woman, and then to have their characters being further revealed by their interactions with their captive, is an ambitious idea which actually works fairly well. Of course there are flaws and quite a few moments which are too reminiscent of Dario Argento's "Jenifer" (from the "Masters of Horror" series) for comfort.

One thing which I'm puzzled over is whether or not "The Woman" is a kind of feminist movie or a totally misogynistic one. I wondered the same thing about Lars Von Trier's "Antichrist" (2009) although I gave up ever trying to analyse that director's mind a long time ago.

If I had to pick a side, I'd say "The Woman" is very feminist yet it shows misogyny in all its ugliness. I'll leave all the stuff about whether the message of the film is that women can only survive against men by reverting to their animal natures to people who actually give a damn plus I don't want to give away any spoilers.

For me, the nudity, torture and gore are far more important when rating a horror movie plus the effect that the characters have on me. "The Woman" isn't the most brutal movie that I've ever seen but the effects are certainly worthwhile and the acting is pretty decent too.

Angela Bettis stands out (as she always does when directed by Lucky McKee) but Sean Bridgers isn't too shabby either. Think of "The Stepfather" (1987) but take it up several notches and you have Chris Cleek. Although none of the characters are very much more than caricatures, it's how the full extent of their relationship is slowly revealed that makes the drama so engrossing.

The star of the whole thing though is, of course, Pollyanna McIntosh as the nameless feral woman. She may not look as pretty here as she did in "Exam" (2009) but she certainly knows how to pull off a purely animal look. Getting to see her completely nude is a bonus too.

Neither Pollyanna McIntosh or Angela Bettis are the best looking women in this film though. That honour belongs to Carlee Baker whose acting, unfortunately, is so bad that she can't even pronounce her own character's name properly. You never know with Lucky McKee so the bad acting and mispronunciation may well be intentional.

If you've already seen "The Girl Next Door" (2007), "The Lost" (2006) or "Offspring" (2009), Jack Ketchum's style will be quite familiar. Although I don't think that "The Woman" is nearly as controversial as any of those, it still continues the same style of dealing with taboo subjects in a more horrific format than some people will be used to.

You can read as much or as little into "The Woman" as you like but it won't change the fact that it's an immensely satisfying experience.

Hobo with a Shotgun (2011)

"A homeless vigilante blows away crooked cops, paedophile Santas, and other scumbags with his trusty pump-action shotgun."

Having just watched "Hobo with a Shotgun", this isn't going to be a review so much as a rant against intentionally making movies "so bad that they're good". It seems to be just a lame excuse for having poor filmmaking skills and I'm sick to death of this trend. I'm also getting increasingly annoyed by the word "grindhouse" and its frequent use in the claim that a movie wasn't supposed to be any good in the first place.

Until the box office failure of "Grindhouse" (2007), I had never even heard the term "grindhouse" used before. For me, it conjures up an image of porn cinemas full of dirty old men in raincoats with hats on their laps not low-budget action flicks. I'm still not entirely convinced that the word wasn't invented by Quentin Tarantino and thrown into the world as if it was something that everybody should know just so that he could plagiarise ideas from old movies. In all the years that I'd been reviewing, I'd never heard it mentioned once in relation to exploitation movies and I've come across some pretty obscure terms.

So if the word "grindhouse" is bogus, it's obvious that the films themselves don't really belong to that category especially not these new faux-grindhouse B-movies such as "Planet Terror", "Death Proof", "Machete" and now, based on another fake trailer from the theatrical release of "Grindhouse", "Hobo with a Shotgun".

There were, of course, a lot of badly made low-budget films from all genres back in the '60s and '70s ranging from "spaghetti westerns" to "kung fu" and "peplum" epics, and, obviously, there was a good proportion of sci-fi, horror and crime dramas among all the exploitation films otherwise I wouldn't have any knowledge of them. Most people have never seen or have any interest in this dreck unless a particular title has a cult following. However, these films weren't only shown in seedy fleapits but also in drive-ins and mainstream movie theatres as supporting features because they were cheap to hire. The whole suggestion that there was ever a certain type of movie other than porn which was specifically designed to be shown in a "Grind House" is therefore flawed.

To lump a group of these films together as "grindhouse" and then to try to emulate their failings rather than their good points is also just plain wrong. Those bygone filmmakers didn't set out to make bad films but they often simply didn't have the budget or talent to make them any better. The European clones of better American movies were, however, another story entirely.

"Hobo with a Shotgun" really sickened me because it was just another part of the Tarantino-inspired hipster trend to intentionally make crappy films based on the worst examples from the '70s and hype them as if they are something "cool". It's the Emperor's new clothes over and over again. Absolutely anyone can make a bad movie, just hand me a camera and I'll show you. It's the combination of talent, discipline and hard work needed to make a good one which people should find more impressive not lazy efforts like this.

Choose (2011)

"A journalism student tracks a killer with the help of her detective father and a therapist."

You would think that a combination of "Saw" and "Untraceable" featuring a killer who forces his victims to choose between one gruesome fate or another equally as bad just couldn't go wrong. Unfortunately, it did.

This was yet another absolutely awful film on Netflix which was so badly done that it deserves a special mention rather than being passed over quickly in a list. Somebody on Reddit was watching it last night so, even though they didn't recommend it, I had to check it out for myself.

Featuring quite a few well known actors (such as Kevin Pollak, Bruce Dern, and Talia Balsam) but actually starring two who you've probably never heard of (Katheryn Winnick and Nicholas Tucci) was the least of this film's problems.

"Choose" must have seemed like a great idea on paper, but the amateur execution and off camera kills made this R-rated horror look like a PG-13. Some people might like to use their imagination, but I wanted to see the gore and I felt cheated. There was just no real shock value to any of it without actually seeing the brutal acts themselves and, it almost goes without saying, there was nothing scary at all.

The choices which the victims had to make were so predictable that they made even the most unimaginative traps from the "Saw" franchise look good. I'm not a fan of the later "Saw" movies, but I'd actually rather watch any of those again than a sanitised clone like this.

In fairness, I didn't get completely bored with the story until 45 minutes in. Since the running time was around 100 minutes that was still nearly an hour of tedium. I just didn't care enough about the main character even though she was alright to look at, and there weren't enough vignette kills to keep me entertained. Even the unrealistic use of computers and the internet washed over me.

Some of the acting was simply atrocious even though the dialogue wasn't too bad. The delivery was often bland and emotionless which, I suppose, wasn't any different to anything else in the film. I could see that the script would probably have made an excellent book about 20 years ago but it failed miserably as a modern horror film. As a cure for insomnia though, I'd still give it full marks.

There was one really good jump scare which almost woke me back up, but the denouement was as contrived as could be. There wasn't even much of a mystery either as it was impossible to predict what the killer's motivation was until quite late. All the detective work was merely padding and, when the reveal came from the killer's own mouth, it was all wrapped up far too quickly.

The ending itself was particularly lame, and was even followed by another clichéd ending just in case the first one wasn't good enough. Neither one impressed me although the intention was clearly to be clever. With better pacing, it might have been good, but as it was, it was simply disappointing.

"Choose" is available to watch through the Netflix stream right now, but if at all possible, I suggest that you choose something else.

Shuttle (2008)

"A late night airport shuttle ride home descends into darkness."

I have no idea how I found this recently or why I didn't watch it when it came out in 2008 but I'm sure it had a lot to do with "Shuttle" being marketed as a "crime drama" rather than the gory horror film that it actually is.

Somehow I must have just started randomly adding things to my Netflix queue just to see what they were about and, to be perfectly honest, I was quite prepared to switch this off after the first 60 seconds or so because it looked like it was going to be a "Turistas" rip-off like "Train" (which was also from 2008).

I'm glad I stuck with it though as it was definitely the best film that I've seen this month, full of suspense and only slightly annoying characters. If people doing all the wrong things to escape from the killers in horror movies annoys you then this will frustrate the hell out of you too but in a good way. You can learn a lot from "Shuttle" by imagining yourself in the same situation and thinking about how you would handle it differently.

Among all the obvious formulas, tropes and clichés, there are many elements of "Shuttle" which you know you've seen hundreds of times before. Everything from cellphones not working (in downtown LA!) to not making sure the villain is really dead before he comes back to get you again is thrown into the mix but it's all done so well that, if you haven't watched that many horror films, you could almost fool yourself into thinking that you are watching them for the first time even if it is all a bit far-fetched.

Where "Shuttle" lacks a certain amount of credibility is in how the characters react to obvious chances to escape from their ordeal. You can tell from the start that this is going to be mainly about the two girls in the story more than the others and they do the stupidest things. I'm trying to avoid spoilers here but, seriously, if you are being held against your will by someone you've already seen kill other people and you get their gun, you know what you have to do. Also, should you ever get the chance to be released for just a moment, it's all about self-preservation and screw everybody else.

Things that stand out in a positive way are that all the actors are really good though none apart from Tony Curran as the bus driver seem to be famous for anything other than TV roles. The two girls, Peyton List and Cameron Goodman, are very easy on the eye too.

The whole story may be somewhat ludicrous but the internal logic of the film is flawless and doesn't break the "willing suspension of disbelief" enough times to make you not want to watch it all the way to the end. The gory moments are surprisingly effective and quite realistic even though, again, there's really nothing that you haven't seen done before.

Because I had no idea what "Shuttle" was about or how it was going to end, I actually thoroughly enjoyed it. It just isn't the most original movie of its kind especially as it reminded me in some ways of "Judgment Night" (1993) and "Final Jeopardy" (1985) which I highly recommend even though they aren't horror movies at all. I suppose you could almost class any of these films as "survival horror" rather than "thrillers" but usually that term is used for things like "The Hills Have Eyes" or "A Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and none of them are in the same league as those horror genre classics.

As controversial as it may be, I'm actually going to add "Shuttle" to The Vault. I'm not sure that I would watch it again for quite a while (if at all) but it was certainly better than any of the other "Hostel" clones without being "torture porn" at all.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009)

(AKA Män som hatar kvinnor - "Men Who Hate Women")



"A journalist is aided in his search for a woman who has been missing - or dead - for forty years by a young female hacker."

Since I'm in a defending Swedish movies mood, I decided to watch all three of the "Millennium Trilogy" DVDs, based on the novels by Stieg Larsson, back to back. Sadly, just like "Let the Right One In", there are remakes on the horizon which nobody sane should ever want to watch so I advise you to pick these titles up now before all the confusion and online fighting sets in.

I know I'm a bit late reviewing "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo", but to be perfectly honest (as I always am), from the description on the IMDb, it didn't sound like something I would be interested in. The funny thing was that every time I went to post an Amazon link to this blog, "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" kept popping up first in the affiliate link iframe so eventually it wore me down enough to give it a try. I added it to my Netflix queue, fell asleep watching it online, and then decided to get the DVD because it was actually very good. I just couldn't be bothered with all that "buffering" nonsense from the Netflix stream and wanted to watch this on the big telly anyway.

I also acquired the two "made for TV" sequels starring the same actors but with a change of director and screenwriter. The less said about them the better really as, although they were entertaining enough in their own way, they lacked the freshness and brutality of the first film.

So who is the "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"? Her name is Lisbeth Salander and she is played by a very skinny/athletic looking actress called Noomi Rapace. Never heard of her? No, nor me either. Her character is a hacker who has recently been released from a mental asylum for reasons which will become more obvious and important as the story progresses and she has a massive dragon tattoo on her back for no reason which is ever explained. It's interesting to note that the dragon tattoo is only a little one on her shoulder on the book covers but a massive big beast all over her back for the film even though it has no significance whatsoever to the story. I have a feeling that it was going to be explained sooner or later but the author died before completing the ten volumes he was planning to write so the trilogy leaves a lot of things unanswered.

Anyway, the film begins with a middle-aged reporter named Blomkvist getting convicted of libel and facing a jail sentence for a piece he wrote about a crooked businessman. None of that is overly important as it just provides a convenient way for him to leave the Millennium magazine which he writes for to do some freelance private detective work for an old rich guy whose daughter went missing forty years ago. This is the main story but because of how badass Lisbeth Salander is introduced it becomes far less interesting than her life. It's like having two main stories running at the same time which throw up hints and clues to the other story. Yes, it's hard to explain but pretty easy to follow even though the missing girl story becomes little more than a cipher to get Blomkvist and Lisbeth bonded together.

All three films have the same structure so I would hazard a guess, having never read the books, that the main story is only ever used to focus on the two leads. The second film brings up "human trafficking" and then doesn't really go anywhere with it once Lisbeth's story comes to the fore again. I don't see this as a flaw though. It's just a different way of doing things and can really only work when you have interesting characters like her in the first place.

The acting in all three films, though particularly "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo", is really good and has to be since everything in them dispels the myths that Sweden is full of tall, beautiful blondes. The actors are ordinary looking to say the least and wouldn't be out of place in a British soap opera such as "Eastenders". It's all about pimples, skin pores, acne scars and wrinkles rather than the plastic beauty of Hollywood. These people have lived-in faces and it makes the whole thing a lot more realistic even if some of the coincidences in the plot strain credibility to the maximum along the way.

Of course the most memorable moments from "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" either involve sex scenes, brutal violence, or a mixture of the two. If you've seen "Eastern Promises" then think along those lines. When something happens, it's so not what you are expecting considering the almost "CSI" nature of the rest of it. One thing is for certain, you won't see this uncut on American television any time soon. To say any more would give too much away but suffice it to say that what happens in the first film continues into the second and third parts as well.

The missing girl story of "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" actually becomes a quite convoluted tale about a serial killer with a bit of a twist at the end. I've been trying to think if I'd ever seen anything like it before and I have to admit that it seems to be original. I'm sure it has been done before somewhere especially as all these films have an element of Greek mythology about them which is even mentioned, but I can't remember where. Again, to start trying to make parallels to similar plots in other films would ruin it for you so I won't.

Things you will notice because they are glaringly obvious is the amount of product placement for lots of Apple, Sony and Nokia electronic equipment along the way. Maybe I'm nit-picking a bit but would a hacker really use an Apple computer rather than a PC? I've always thought of them as being computers for people who can't really use a computer, but I may be wrong. Since I'm one of those people who uses Ubuntu for everything, I'm in no position to criticize their choice of operating systems anyway even if they do seem to be easily hackable.

But I digressed. "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" is an amazing, classy, iconic and quite powerful film in places let down by a made for TV feel and a few plotholes that were better left unfilled by its definitely made for TV sequels. You don't have to watch the sequels, "The Girl Who Played with Fire" and "The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets' Nest", if you don't want to because "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" works as a complete standalone movie in itself. I watched all three and was a little bit disappointed, but I got addicted and had to see how the story turned out. After watching the "Bourne" and "Matrix" trilogies, I should have known better really.

I'm going to give "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" an 8 out of 10. I haven't given a numerical score to a film for ages so think of it as a novelty. The only reason it loses marks is because it didn't really go far enough with the serial killing angle and went too far in other ways without a satisfying conclusion. I rate both the sequels as 6 out of 10 because they felt like the first and second parts of a miniseries rather than separate films and were certainly long enough to be so.

Baise-moi (2000)

The Blurb on the box: "Described by the British press as 'the most sexually explicit film to ever reach our cinema screens', 'Baise-moi' is the brutal and shocking tale of two young girls, who after being subjected to violence, rape and humiliation in the degenerate society in which they live, break free to embark on an ultimately self-destructive road trip of sex and murder, always staying one step ahead of capture, but always hell bent on taking more and more risks."

Now when you read that, you usually think "Yeah, whatever" but I'm telling you now, you won't believe your eyes when you see this!!!

This is another one from 2000 when I'm sure the BBFC must have let its classification guard down. This is also complete and utter hardcore porn, with the parts played by real prostitutes (so I've been told but I actually think the people who told me that meant "porn actresses"), with lots of big guns and blood everywhere just for good measure.

Ok, so it's more like an uncensored reality television version of "Thelma and Louise" than a real hardcore porn ...but it still has lots more sex and violence than most people will be used to. Only one moment is truly gratuitous though and this is possibly the only film where the porn elements are not merely padding but are an integral part of the story.

The two girls, Nadine and Manu, are interestingly attractive and, although not overly gorgeous, are two certain "types" that most men go for. Whereas Nadine is tall, beautiful and sexy, Manu is short, cute and crude. Both will satisy the needs of 99.9 percent of male viewers anyway.

I prefered Nadine but that's because she has a certain Shania Twain quality about her from time to time that I liked. She also starts off as quite a cold calculating prostitute rather than a victim who seeks revenge, so she is the more interesting of the two characters.

As a sad aside, Karen Lancaume who played Nadine, committed suicide in 2005 by overdosing on sleeping pills.

Anyway, apart from the porno moments which are very explicit, there's lots of blood, guts and guns to drive the film firmly into the urban horror zone and almost, but not quite, to Tarantino level.

At one point the girls take out an orgy going on in a sex club which involves severe amounts of splatter and nastiness which can only be equalled by the "120 Days of Sodom".

On a storytelling level, the film falls down badly. It's only average and the script is below average at that. Characterisation is inconsistent and I get the feeling that the only reason the film is so watchable is due to the charisma of the leads rather than what they actually do or say. One of the main points of the original novel was that all murder is wrong whether provoked or not. This message is largely lost here.

Strangely enough you will find yourself drawn in by these girls and you will sometimes sympathise with them. Sometimes though they will alienate you completely as you wonder just what their motivation is later in the film. The feeling that they've really gone out of control is probably the point that the director is making. There is no hope of redemption for either of them and it is slightly sad that things turn out the way they do.

Anyway, I think this is another one which you will enjoy if you aren't in a full on horror mood. It's something that will make you think, but not too hard, and it's certainly something more extreme than you will have ever seen before!

By the way, the title "Baise-moi" means "Rape me!"... hmm, nice. Based on the 1993 "Feminist" novel of the same name, this is gritty, brutal stuff!