Live-In Fear (2014)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eric is not a very nice man.

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

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

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

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

Nothing Left to Fear (2013)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you don't want spoilers, stop reading!

Rebekah Brandes and Ethan Peck as "teenagers".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tough luck, kid, you're screwed!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bad Milo (2013)

"A horror comedy centred on a guy who learns that his unusual stomach problems are being caused by a demon living in his intestines."

If you've ever wondered what would happen if you mixed "Office Space" (1999) with "Basket Case" (1982), "Bad Milo", the latest horror-comedy coming to VOD services in a couple of weeks' time from Magnet Releasing ("the genre arm of Magnolia Pictures"), is the answer. According to their official website, "Bad Milo" will also be released theatrically on October 4th, but I'd hazard a guess that it'll be limited.

As usual, some unscrupulous screener-monkey has already uploaded "Bad Milo" to the streaming sites. I would moan about how it's about time that distributors stopped giving out screeners willy-nilly to all these lame horror bloggers who either just want freebies or to upload the movie illegally—especially as I've never asked them for anything myself—but as it's only from Magnet Releasing (who kept following and then unfollowing me on Twitter every 2 days until I blocked them), and I hate horror-comedies, I couldn't care less. "Bad Milo" isn't something which I would have gone out of my way to watch otherwise.

It's not that "Bad Milo" is badly made or anything—in fact, it has very good production values for a low-budget comedy full of puerile toilet humour—but it's a one-trick pony. Once the "hilarious" joke about a demon that lives in a guy's ass has been beaten to death (almost literally!), this predictable crap has very little to offer other than remixing scenes and elements from more famous movies in ways which frequently cross the line between homage and blatant ripoff.

As you can see in the picture below, Milo the ass-demon looks a lot like Baby Sinclair from the kids' TV show "Dinosaurs" (1991). He also has the big-eyed cuteness and a few other characteristics of Gizmo the Mogwai from "Gremlins" (1984). Writer/director Jacob Vaughan's influences are extremely obvious, especially his homages to the more evil gremlins, "Ghoulies" (1985), and Belial from "Basket Case". Basically, the horror parts are a throwback to all the little creature/puppet movies of the '80s, and consequently, "Bad Milo" brings nothing new to the table here whatsoever.

Everybody Loves Milo.

Clearly, "Bad Milo" is a product of the same creatively bankrupt culture which allows these so-called comedies and parodies to elude prosecution for copyright infringement, and it begs the question of how much is really "fair use" before someone starts throwing the word "plagiarism" around? When you can so easily identify the "borrowings" from other movies, how is that not theft? At the very least, it's extremely lazy filmmaking. If Mike Judge, Joe Dante, Frank Henenlotter, and Charles Band gave Jacob Vaughan their permission to "re-imagine" their movies then forget I said anything, but I highly doubt that such a thing ever happened.

Apart from casually noticing that the lead, Ken Marino, is channelling Ray Romano and Zach Braff at the same time (which may just be his normal acting style for all I know), it's pretty obvious to me that the situational comedy of "Office Space" forms the core of this movie. There's the slimy boss (in this case played by Patrick Warburton), firing/leaving interview scenes, embezzlement, retribution, and all the poetic justice of "Office Space", plus... wait for it... Stephen Root aka Milton "Stapler" Waddams is in this too!!!

Since I'm considered such a pariah by modern filmmakers and the distribution companies that I had to watch the "Bad Milo" screener semi-legally, the irony of the whole situation isn't wasted on me, but I'm still going to call this movie out for its lack of originality even though I haven't been swindled out of anything other than my wasted time. Needless to say, I didn't find any of it particularly funny.

The scenes with Peter Stomare (Satan from "Constantine") playing the new age therapist/witchdoctor Highsmith are mildly amusing, and I thoroughly enjoyed ogling Gillian Jacobs who plays Ken's sexy wife Sarah. Other than that, you can shove "Bad Milo" up your ass!

The Conjuring (2013)

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

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

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

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

BORING CRAP!

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

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

A metaphor just waiting to happen.

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

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

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

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

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

Vera Farmiga is so hot in her granny clothes!

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

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

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

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

The Entity (1982)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pumpkinhead (1988)

"A man conjures up a gigantic vengeance demon called Pumpkinhead to destroy the teenagers who accidentally killed his son."

'Tis the season for all things pumpkin-like after all, so what better film to begin the final week before Hallowe'en than "Pumpkinhead"? Okay, so it was originally filmed in Springtime and given a January release back in the day which kind of killed it, but it's still as Hallowe'eny as you could ever want.

"Pumpkinhead" was, of course, the late Stan Winston's directorial debut following years of work in the industry as one of the most well known creators of make-up effects. His credits include "Edward Scissorhands", "Batman Returns", "Interview with the Vampire" and "Constantine". As a director, however, he was still a bit of an unknown quantity at this point which is probably why there were, allegedly, so many mixed reactions to "Pumpkinhead". I can't understand how it could possibly polarise any audience. From the first time I saw it, I thought it was awesome.

"Pumpkinhead" is quite simply an underrated classic. The quality of the full screen DVD (which is the only one available as far as I know) probably doesn't help matters much, but before all the HD and widescreen shenanigans started, it was perfectly acceptable. It's an '80s movie which was a "must rent" on VHS, and is one which most of us originally watched on a standard ratio TV anyway.

With its combination of pathos, tragedy, teenage cannon fodder, creepy hillbillies, a "big scary monster", and even a terrifying old witch, it goes far beyond a standard "cabin in the woods" slasher. It's a harrowing journey from point A to point B no matter how tired you may be of the same formulas.

Just look at the creature (below) for one thing. How great is that? It's about as monstrous as you could ever make Lance Henriksen look without actually being Lance Henriksen! Sometimes people are just really stupid when it comes to rating movies, and the 6.0 score on the IMDb just highlights the lack of taste of the 12-14 year olds who get all "click happy" on that site. "Pumpkinhead" deserves at least an 8.0 and maybe more, but it won't get it because there are too many idiots raised on "haha, it's so bad and so funny" horror movies that their tiny minds can't even cope with a decently made and totally serious one.

Every element needed for a horror movie is brilliantly put together in "Pumpkinhead". The storytelling, effects, camerawork, and acting are all far above what you would expect for $3,500,000. That was a reasonably good budget back in 1988 too, but only if you were making a TV episode.

There's even perfect casting with stereotypical "teenagers" who create just as much depth with how they look as anything they say or do. They may all be clichéd, but in which other horror movie could you look at the characters individually and know exactly what purpose they would have right from the beginning? The asshole/badboy looks like one, his brother looks as if he will be the half-way house between right and wrong, the good "preppy" guy and his girlfriend are realistic, and the actress who is "slightly plainer than the other girls" is so obviously going to be some kind of easily freaked-out Christian. Of course, they are predictable, the actions they take are going to be the wrong ones, and they are doomed, but this is one of the few times where their innocence makes any of them likeable.

The relationship between Ed Harley (Lance Henriksen) and his son is also so well acted that it's actually touching, and it makes the tragedy which follows even sadder. "Pumpkinhead" is a story about loss, grief, and not thinking clearly enough to avoid making some very bad decisions. There isn't a day that goes by when I wish that I'd understood the message of the film more and heeded it myself. There are no winners in this, no characters (except one) who deserves retribution, and the vengeance is excessive for the accidental crime.

"Pumpkinhead" is a good old-fashioned morality play which, unfortunately, is lost on the "popcorn crowd" by its reliance on spectacle. It's not a "creature feature" for dummies, but it appeals to the lowest common denominator who only want to see the monster and the kills. I can't blame them for it either. I like the monster too.

I highly recommend that you rewatch "Pumpkinhead" right now. I've even embedded the YouTube version at the top of this post so you don't have to go looking for your DVD. Don't bother with the straight-to-video or made-for-TV sequels unless you are a masochist, but just sit back and be amazed by an '80s horror movie which is actually good.

Paranormal Activity 4 (2012)

"It has been five years since the disappearance of Katie and Hunter, and a suburban family witness strange events in their neighbourhood when a woman and a mysterious child move in."

It's such a turd that I can't be bothered to review "Paranormal Activity 4". There's nothing to it but a lot of MacBooks, bad acting, boredom, and a few lame jump scares. It's all much the same as before only less so. I certainly don't recommend watching it even out of curiosity.

Instead, just look at a couple of nice pictures of sexy Katie Featherston and save yourself $10.

Let's face it, Katie Featherston is the only reason why anyone sane (or over 17) would choose to watch the "Paranormal Activity" movies in the first place.

I'll add a list of reviews from other bloggers below as and when (or if) they are posted:

Grimm Reviewz - Paranormal Activity 4 (2012)

Sinister (2012)

"Found footage helps a true-crime novelist realize how and why a family was murdered in his new home, though his discoveries put his entire family in the path of a supernatural entity."

I've just come back from seeing "Sinister". What a pile of crap!!!

My overwhelming feeling right now is a mixture of anger and disappointment which I can barely put into words, not that it's going to stop me trying. Honest to God, if this is what mainstream horror movies have come to, it's time to give up on the genre completely.

I went into "Sinister" completely cold. I hadn't read any reviews or even watched the trailer. When I was setting up this post beforehand with the trailer and the picture of Ethan Hawke below, I still didn't accidentally spoil anything for myself. All I knew was that it was directed by the same Scott Derrickson who directed "The Exorcism of Emily Rose" and that it had Ethan Hawke in it. I had no idea what the plot was, who any of the supporting cast were, or what kind of horror movie it was supposed to be. Hell, I didn't even know what MPAA rating it had.

To cut a long story short, I saw this movie for free at my local cinema. I went to the 10.35pm screening to avoid the kids and their cellphones, and got lucky there because only 10 other people were watching the movie with me. My first thoughts were, "Oh, this doesn't seem to be very popular. Maybe everyone went to see Looper or Frankencock instead." I now wish that I had gone to see something else too.

My next thought as the movie started was, "Couldn't they afford a lighting crew?" "Sinister" was so dark that I desperately wanted to adjust the brightness and contrast. Unfortunately, this was a movie theatre and I had no access to such controls. Then it dawned on me that it was probably meant to look this way to cover up the lack of budget. If the producers spent more than $10,000 on this whole sorry excuse for a horror movie, they were robbed.

Basically, "Sinister" almost bored the living piss out of me. I say almost because after drinking a Monster and at least a litre of icy cold Coke, it obviously had an unfair advantage to do so which I had to fight against for the last 20 minutes of the film. Still, for the first 30 or 40 minutes, "Sinister" was so dull and thick with unnecessary padding that I wanted to walk out. I almost fell asleep twice in that time too.

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

I had the same expression on my own face throughout.

Ethan Hawke is totally miscast in "Sinister" and his character is horribly one-dimensional. I would like to say two-dimensional, but there's not enough to earn it other than inconsistencies. He's a true-crime writer who is more interested in fame and money than his family, and he doesn't really do anything except watch a box full of old Super 8 movies while drinking whisky until he starts to see Gene Simmons (or another member of KISS with the same kind of make-up) appearing at the end of each reel. You know a horror movie is bad when the main character is watching silent Super 8 movies accompanied by an ambient sound track with a deafeningly loud bang at the end.

In the background, Ethan's character (whose name I didn't catch or care about) has an English wife who isn't English enough to know that the correct term for someone being hanged is "hanged" not "hung" (which isn't corrected by our "famous writer" either!), a very long-haired son called Trevor (Trevor!!!) who looks like a girl and has nightmares, and a psychic daughter who paints on the walls of her bedroom. Hmmmm, talk about dysfunctional! No need to wonder why they have no chemistry with each other since it's intentionally written into the plot! Just smell the cannon fodder!

It's all so predictable. The KISS demon (Mr. Boogie or "Booger" as far as I could tell) is bound and determined to get everybody just like all the other victims in the home movies. It's simply a case of when and how. It's not much of a plot but admittedly still acceptable to the masses when done correctly or doesn't wimp out at the end.

Even with the telegraphed "pop-up from nowhere" jump scares and ridiculously loud noises, I sat in the cinema stony-faced but weeping on the inside that I was watching this generic dreck. Given the insane amount of similarities between "Sinister" and "Insidious", I suppose I should've been thankful that Darth Maul wasn't in this. I don't think the budget stretched to buying the mask after spending so much on cheap Hallowe'en make-up from Dollar Tree for all the ghostly kids who were lurking around the house.

"Yay! We love the dollar store!"

The only outstanding moment came with the appearance of "Deputy So-and-so". I kid you not, that is the character's name even to the point that it's shown to be listed as such on Ethan Hawke's iPhone. Oh yes, product placement meant that he just had to have an iPhone and a MacBook. Much use was made of them too, but I'm still not going to buy one.

Deputy So-and-so is so well played that I just had to look up the actor's name on the IMDb when I came home. I'm still none the wiser now that I know it's James Ransome because I've never seen him in anything before. It's a really well written role though and somewhat amusing. Not quite as amusing as seeing hanged people dancing at the end of their ropes, but I digressed. Deputy So-and-so is also very likeable which makes a huge contrast to everyone else. It's a pity there isn't enough of him to save the film.

I can't say that Ethan Hawke is bad in "Sinister" except that his range really only extends to wearing a cardigan, looking worried and painfully hiding his eyes from the scenes of brutality which he's watching. That irritated me. Not only would you expect a true-crime writer to be hardened to such things, but all the money shots of potential goriness were pulled by turning the camera back to his wincing fizzog. In fairness, the same thing happened in "8MM" (1999), but it's lame stuff and hardly worthy of an R-rating.

Forget any bullshit about using your imagination (or the "old school" suspense and thrills which "Sinister" has precious little of), with no swearing, nudity or extreme gore, I thought I was watching a PG-13!!! I was very surprised when I checked the IMDb to find out that I hadn't been! Studio interference which ran out of time and didn't work in their favour? You betcha. It serves them right for intentionally trying to make greedy, money-grabbing, kiddified products in the first place.

I'm not going to spoil the ending for you, but let me just say that the punchline falls flat by sauntering on to spell out what was going on for the hard-of-understanding who might not have picked up the in-your-face clues. I haven't felt so patronised or condescended to ever. That really takes some doing because I'm blond and I get that a lot. I also know that my tenses have been all over the place, but whatever. I'm still angry!

Since I know that you'll all go and watch "Sinister" no matter what I say, I'll just urge you to reconsider it and save your money for "Paranormal Activity 4" instead. Better yet, wait for "Texas Chainsaw 3D", "Mama" or whatever the name of the new Arnold Schwarzenegger movie is which was shown in the trailers before "Sinister". I'm not saying this to be mean or to get a rise out of people. "Sinister" really is an absolute turd.

The Possession (2012)

"A young girl buys an antique box at a yard sale, unaware that inside the collectible lives a malicious ancient spirit. The girl's father teams with his ex-wife to find a way to end the curse upon their child."

Even though I watched this a few days ago, I thought I'd better wait for the whole week since its release to pass just to give you all chance to see it before I mercilessly ruin it for everyone with spoilers.

The thing is, with a formulaic horror film like this which was put together with so much contempt for the audience, why should I even care if I give away all the details and help to deprive it of a few overpriced cinema ticket sales? Obviously, I don't.

So what was "The Possession" really about? Was it simply the fictional story of a dybbuk who looked like Gollum from "The Lord of the Rings" or was any of it based on the true story of a possessed item bought from a yard sale? I have absolutely no idea, but I do know that this was yet more lazy filmmaking which created a product designed to appeal to stupid teenagers with more money than sense.

There were two huge warning signs for this movie which I chose to ignore. The first of these was that it was yet another Sam Raimi produced "Ghost House" picture. Has there even been one film carrying that label which was half-way decent? I think not. The second was that it had a PG-13 rating. Although it's completely possible to re-rate an older scary movie as a PG-13 and retain its scariness, modern filmmakers are physically incapable of creating anything which we could call "horror" when restricting themselves to the whims of the MPAA. What the hell is the point of a PG-13 horror movie anyway? What do you expect to see in it apart from a CGI monster? Or do you just want to be jolted awake by an obnoxiously loud jump scare which drowns out all the texters and chatters in the cinema?

When I saw that the director was none other than Ole Bornedal, who had a minor success with the original Swedish version of "Nightwatch" (1994) but less so with the 1997 remake starring Ewan McGregor, I was still prepared to give "The Possession" a chance. Even though Ole Bornedal's "Nightwatch" wasn't a patch on Timur Bekmambetov's fantasy movie of the same name (which has created a lot of irritation for me when I've been trying to buy memorabilia from eBay over the years), I let that pass. I shouldn't have forgotten about the other kiddie-friendly movie which he made for "Ghost House Pictures" called "The Substitute" (2007), but anyone who has the courage to put the gorgeous Lene Nystrøm from Aqua in a horror film, such as he did with "Deliver Us from Evil" (2009) still deserves some respect even if that thriller wasn't very good either.

Of course, the other big draw for me was the chance to see Jeffrey Dean Morgan, who I only know as the "Comedian" from "Watchmen" (2009), in something that had the potential to stretch his acting muscles a bit more. I had no idea he was also from that lame horror TV show for girls, "Supernatural", or that would have been the deciding factor in favour of not watching "The Possession" at all. Alas, it wasn't the only mistake I made this week, as you know.

I've chosen the picture above as typical of everything that was wrong with "The Possession". It had children in it, stupid CGI effects, adults who were looking the other way most of the time and who couldn't see the obvious until it was right in front of them, and, basically, it was totally ridiculous.

Although it started off well with all sorts of domestic situation problems which promised to be interesting later plus some quite likeable characters, everything took a turn for the worse when the father, who was named after Clint Eastwood's monkey, decided that the most fun thing he could take his daughters to was a yard sale. What did they buy there which little girls would love to have? An iPhone? A rare Barbie? Justin Bieber CDs? No. Instead, the littlest of the little girls decided that she wanted a crappy old wooden box with Hebrew inscriptions all over it. This was based on a true story, right? Oh, yes, I can see how all this really happened. Not.

It's not that I haven't heard of possessed items being bought from yard sales or thrift stores before. I once heard a story on "Talk Radio" (back when it was good and wasn't "Talk Sport") about someone who bought a haunted chest of drawers which made everyone feel suicidally depressed. I've even seen cursed lamps, dollhouses and mirrors bought from yard sales at Amityville, but, of course, the latter were all in crappy horror movies too.

One thing I'd never heard of before "The Unborn" (2009) was a "dybbuk" (or "dibbuk") which, apparently, thanks to "The Possession", I now know can be banished into a box just like an evil genie into its bottle (provided, of course, that you know its name which is hidden behind a mirror in the aforementioned box). A dybbuk is therefore a djinn without any of the three wishes fun and games. Thanks for that, Sam Raimi.

I also now know that if you want to get rid of a dybbuk, traditional Jews won't help you but their rebellious popstar offspring will. I must admit that I thought Matisyahu as Tzadok was pretty great in his role, and I just loved his impersonation of a drinking bird toy from the '70s when he was exorcising the dybbuk.

Let's face it, this film was utter trash. It stole all of its ideas from older exorcism movies including the big one, "The Exorcist", with everyone trusting in the psychology crap followed by an MRI and all that other nonsense instead of just believing in the supernatural like any normal person would. When Clyde, who, to his credit, was the first to believe, offered himself to the dybbuk in place of his daughter, I could see William Friedkin and William Peter Blatty spinning in their graves, and neither of them is even dead yet.

And what about that hospital? Would you ever want to be in a hospital where someone could make that much noise, scream their lungs out and smash the place apart without anyone coming to see what was going on? I know it was an American hospital and medical care in the States is non-existent unless you pay $1,000,000 an hour for it, but this was just bullshit. Oh, I forgot for a second there that this was based on a true story.

Possibly the only part of "The Possession" which was true was the ending. Yes, you probably will die if you are talking on your cellphone instead of concentrating on driving, and I'm sure I could find some statistics to prove that it has happened to thousands of people already if I could be bothered. Whatever, just don't do it.

So what do you think my rating will be for "The Possession"? It's not even out on DVD yet so I can't physically throw it into "The Dungeon". But, since this is the internet and I can cast this dybbuk-filled mess into any virtual box I like, that's precisely where it's going. True story.

Lovely Molly (2011)

"Newlywed Molly moves into her deceased father's house in the countryside, where painful memories soon begin to haunt her."

According to one my friends on Twitter, there was a lot of hype surrounding "Lovely Molly" at the London Frightfest. I'm not sure how that same friend missed the chance to see it, but I assume that there either must have been a programming clash with something else which he wanted to see more or he simply missed that day of the convention. Whatever the case, he wanted to know what I thought of "Lovely Molly" so, in spite of never having heard of it before, I gave it a go.

I had no idea that "Lovely Molly" was directed by Eduardo Sánchez or I probably wouldn't have watched it. I've never had anything good to say about "The Blair Witch Project" (1999), and "Altered" (2006) wasn't very memorable. Maybe I shouldn't be prejudiced against certain directors (since most of them are only hired for their ability to boss everyone around on set), but, in the case of Eduardo Sánchez, he's always tried to be something of an auteur. The problem is, of course, that if you set yourself up as such, trying to be all groundbreaking, innovative and original, your movie is either going to be a huge success or completely suck.

However, "Lovely Molly" really surprised me in a good way especially as it was yet another low-budget entry into the horror genre. I wouldn't call the estimated $1,000,000 budget all that low, but, in movie terms, it was the minimum amount which would allow all the bells and whistles for acceptable production values or to hire decent talent both in front of and behind the camera.

I'd hazard a guess that most of the budget was spent on the cast as my one major gripe with "Lovely Molly" is that it seemed to lack a lighting crew. Maybe the intention was to add atmosphere to the already neglected-looking setting, but the gloominess comes across as annoying and a product of some very amateur camerawork particularly in daylight when the sun was behind the actors.

That nitpicking aside, the acting is phenomenal. Gretchen Lodge, in particular, is not only very beautiful and realistically so, but she is outstanding in her role as Molly. Although, physically, she occasionally reminded me of Cécile De France from "High Tension" (2003), she really brings her character to life, and her personality change as the story progresses wouldn't be out of place in an Academy Award nominated movie. According to the IMDb, this is her first movie, and that makes her performance even more incredible. If only every horror actress was this good, we wouldn't have all those embarrassing wannabes in the "Women of Horror" clique who I'm sure you've all encountered over the years.

I didn't really bother to look up the credentials of the other actors and actresses involved as there are no bad performances from any of them. Obviously, Alexandra Holden as Hannah, Molly's sister, has another superb yet far too brief role, and Johnny Lewis as Tim, Molly's truck-driving husband, delivers a sympathetic performance which made me feel quite sorry for his otherwise spineless character.

"Lovely Molly" is a very character driven story so it might seem slow to a lot of people. When it started with a wedding, I feared another "[REC]³ Génesis" about to happen, but, fortunately, it was completely different. There are some superficial similarities as, once again, a video camera plays an important part, but this is not a found footage movie or a parody of the genre. "Lovely Molly" is a serious, ballsy, taboo-laden amalgam of admittedly derivative themes set in a very real and low-income environment.

Because this is a fairly recently released movie which you probably haven't seen yet, I'm avoiding the spoilers (and details) as much as I can. Suffice it to say that there is a lot of nudity, some extreme sexiness which I really didn't expect, and all sorts of horrific nastiness, violence, bloodshed, and murder along the way. You can find out a lot more by visiting the official website which I suggest that you do anyway before you watch "Lovely Molly" as there are some "Blair Witch"-style features on there which add a lot of details to the backstory.

I will just add that one of my favourite scenes is between Molly and Pastor Bobby (played by Field Blauvelt), but I'm not going to give away any more than that.

Now that I've had time for it all to sink in, "Lovely Molly" is absolutely the best and most original horror movie that I've seen so far this year. It's a little bit slow to begin with, very confusing near the end, and slightly overambitious, but the acting is worthy of a horror Oscar if such a thing existed.

Jeepers Creepers (2001)

"A brother and sister driving home for spring break encounter a flesh-eating creature in the isolated countryside that is on the last day of its ritualistic eating spree."

Can you believe that "Jeepers Creepers" is 11 years old now? I still think of it as one of the newer horror movies and, just to compound my error, I've always considered it to be a teen movie when, on closer inspection, it really wasn't.

I'm not the only one who thought that the lead characters were supposed to be teenagers. With over 900 reviews of "Jeepers Creepers" on the IMDb which (as far as I could tell by skimming them) all seem to copy each other, not one of them pointed out some of the things which I'm going to tell you now.

To start with, the older sister, Trish, who occasionally looked like an even hotter version of Brooke Shields, was way closer to thirty than she was to her teens. In fact, Gina Philips was slightly over thirty when she played the part not that it really showed or mattered that much. She still had incredibly sexy arms. Justin Long, as Darry, was about the right age for being a student, but even then he was still too old for the part in spite of his boyish looks. So, basically, people can all stop calling "Jeepers Creepers" a "teen horror movie" now.

One thing everyone agrees on is that the beginning of the film looked a lot like Steven Spielberg's "Duel" (1971). If you listen to the commentary on the DVD, you'll discover that it was intentional. Victor Salva liked Spielberg's early TV movie and decided to create an homage in his own. There's nothing wrong with that at all when done correctly. I don't see any problem with the lack of originality in those scenes especially as the rest of "Jeepers Creepers" was vastly different to anything Spielberg ever came up with.

There were some nice touches even in the first ten minutes with the playfully squabbling siblings actually coming across like a real brother and sister in spite of not really looking very much like each other. I'm not entirely sure, but I think Darry was supposed to be gay. That facet of his character was surprisingly underplayed considering Victor Salva's sexual preferences.

I'm not going to get into the Victor Salva bashing which so many other reviewers dwell on. If you don't know about his past, just look it up. I will just say that no matter what anyone has done, if they've served their time, it's over. None of it should negate the good things they've done before or after. If people hate "Jeepers Creepers" because Victor Salva directed it, it's their loss. Similarly, I'm not even going to despise "Leader of the Gang" just because of Gary Glitter, and I'd be an idiot to write any of Roman Polanski's films off. I may, of course, change my mind about this later.

With that slight digression out of the way, the only truly weak point in "Jeepers Creepers" was the stupid decision 14 minutes in which was completely unrealistic. Without it, there wouldn't have been any more movie, but it could have been handled better.

After that, things settled down nicely to a slightly contrived and somewhat action-packed "cat and mouse" adventure. I wouldn't say that it was the scariest or goriest movie that I've ever seen, but it had quite high production values, some impressive stunts, and came across as a very well thought out piece of work. Since it had a budget of $10,000,000, there was a good reason for all that too although I must say that the "Creeper" (played by Jonathan Breck) could have looked better. There was too much of a resemblance to the Djinn from Wes Craven's "Wishmaster" (1997) and, in some scenes, it just looked like a guy in a rubber mask (which of course it was).

I think the intention was to make an very iconic and unstoppable creature which would appeal to the same fanbase that enjoyed Freddy and Jason. Maybe that aspect of "Jeepers Creepers" was too ambitious especially as the sequel was pretty horrible overall.

Where "Jeepers Creepers" fell down a bit for me was by including a psychic to give some exposition. Patricia Belcher, who is better known now for playing the judge in the "Bones" TV series, didn't seem believable as Jezelle the psychic. She didn't play the part very well and had the weakest character in the whole movie. If you edited all of her scenes out, you wouldn't be missing anything. It's a pity that her character hadn't been conflated with the crazy old cat-lady played by Eileen Brennan since she rocked!

"Jeepers Creepers" might have been an even stronger movie if it had ended at the one hour mark without giving any more explanation. I've seen a lot of reviews which say that the first half of the movie was better than the second, but, clearly, the reviewers weren't timing things properly. In movie terms, it's only the final reel which wasn't as good as the rest. Anyone who had seen "Salem's Lot" would have known that the last place you could be safe was in a County police station so it was a tad predictable. The final ten minute (or less) epilogue was also unnecessary.

All things considered, "Jeepers Creepers" was easily the best horror movie from 2001 although, to be blunt, it didn't have very much competition.

Noroi: The Curse (2005)

"A documentary filmmaker explores seemingly unrelated paranormal incidents connected by the legend of an ancient demon called the 'kagutaba'."

Before I begin, I just have to point out that the Amazon affiliate link which I've used to display the DVD cover art (to the left) is wrong. "Noroi" is a Japanese horror movie not a Korean one. I know that won't matter to any of you who have the Amazon links blocked with Adblock Plus (which I'm sure is most of you since I never get any money), but I thought I'd point it out anyway.

You aren't going to need to buy "Noroi" if you want to watch it anyway. It's all over YouTube either in its entirety or in parts, and I even have the English subtitled version embedded above for your viewing pleasure. Be aware that it's nearly 2 hours long though so that "pleasure" might just turn into boredom and frustration if you are anything like me.

I settled down to watch this last night after what seems like years of people telling me that I had to see it and "it's the scariest film ever!". Obviously, I didn't have to see it and, to be honest, it wasn't the scariest film ever either.

Having looked up the names of the characters on the IMDb, I can tell you that chubby Jin Muraki played the paranormal investigator named Masafumi Kobayashi, ex-porn star Maria Takagi (who you really do need to do a Google image search on) played herself for all of a minute, and Marika Matsumoto also played herself in a role comparable to Sarah Greene from the BBC's "Ghostwatch" (1992).

I know you've never heard of any of these people and nor have I. We can all cut the pretence out straight away. Thus, the biggest thing that "Noroi" has in its favour is that it looks more like a real found footage movie (until near the end) simply because there are no recognisable faces in it for a Western audience.

Call me a pervert ("Hey, Dr Blood, you're a pervert!"), but I really enjoyed watching little Marika Matsumoto getting possessed by a demon and stuff. She was playing "herself" so I assume she's a known actress or TV personality in Japan. Strangely, considering Japan's internationally famous TV shows, she didn't come across as stupid and self-deprecating unlike how Western presenters always do. I liked her.

The paranormal investigator/journalist Kobayashi was a bit dour and I didn't warm to him at all. I really think he was the least credible character in the whole thing although, obviously, he wasn't more annoying that the crazy, tinfoil-wearing psychic, Mitsuo Hori (Satoru Jitsunashi), who completely overdid the comic relief.

Kobayashi's wife, Keiko (played by Miyoko Hanai), was far too pretty for him, and, without giving too much away, that marriage was destined to not last past the end of the film. There were some very good-looking women in this, for sure, even though most of them only had small roles.

As you will see for yourself, "Noroi" looked just like every other faux found footage movie complete with shakycam moments and bits where you wonder why they were still filming. It was done better than most until it jumped the shark with an almost "Trollhunter" moment 20 minutes before the end. Such silliness meant that it could never recover so, of course, the ending was then ruined by even more excesses.

"Noroi" dragged on far too long, had too many silly moments to be scary, and the whole "demon summoning" thing wasn't very interesting to me. I think it was unnecessarily complicated for something with a core plot which was so basic, and I don't recommend it at all.

Paranormal Activity 3 (2011)

"In 1988, young sisters Katie and Kristi befriend an invisible entity who resides in their home."

Obviously, since I can't even bring myself to review the first "Paranormal Activity" (2007) and my "review" of "Paranormal Activity 2" (2010) is more a serious of spoilers than anything else, you can already guess that if I had anything better to write about, I wouldn't be reviewing this one either.

As much as I like paranormal horror films more than any other, none of these cheap looking "found footage" ripoffs of "The Amityville Horror" have done anything for me. I don't find them scary and, for the most part, I don't even think of them as being real films.

Even though I didn't think it could be possible, "Paranormal Activity 3" is by far the weakest in the series. It's so bad that it actually makes the second one look good especially after revisiting it on Netflix, but don't take that as an endorsement. They are all crap.

One of the things which really bugs me about the "Paranormal Activity" series is that I don't really know anything about anyone involved in them. The directors and writers seem to keep appearing out of nowhere with no obvious past achievements and, based on the quality of the films themselves, they don't deserve to go any further either.

Another thing is how contrived everything is to include parts of the story which there is no good reason for anybody to be filming. In "Paranormal Activity 2", the switch to a handheld camera with nightvision was forced in due to the power going off. In "Paranormal Activity 3", there isn't even that much respect given to the audience.

But enough of the general bitching. "Paranormal Activity 3" is pretty much identical to the last one except that it is supposed to be set in 1988 and be filmed on VHS tapes which it clearly isn't. If the premise had been that the found footage had been filmed on Betamax then there may have been less criticism of the way the film looks since Beta was a higher quality than VHS, but even then, this is high-definition digital camerawork with no attempt to disguise it.

Another problem which everybody is moaning about is that two-thirds of the scenes in the trailer aren't even in the film itself. It doesn't matter to me since I barely look at the trailers anyway but it's a simple "bait and switch" gimmick which eventually is going to get somebody into a lot of trouble if the trend continues. The same thing happened with "Paranormal Activity 2" and "Piranha 3D" (2010) but to a much lesser extent. False advertising is still false advertising no matter how trivial it may be.

The thing which really kills "Paranormal Activity 3" though is that it's boring as shit. Katie Featherston only appears briefly so fans of her big boobies will be disappointed, and since this is another prequel—which I admit is a novel approach to doing things—it's all about childhood versions of Katie and Kristi. The adults in the film have more screen time than the kids, but even so, you have to have exceptionally good child actors to pull something like that off, and the two girls in this just aren't.

The effects are really lacklustre this time. There's a bedsheet ghost which is a bit stupid, some excessively loud bangs which hurt my delicate little ears, and what I can only describe as a "Falcon Blast" (after seeing it in a YouTube parody of whichever computer game it comes from) which was used near the end of "Paranormal Activity 2" as well (depending on which version you saw).

The box office results are already showing that "Paranormal Activity 3" has made so much money ($54,000,000 from the opening weekend) that there will undoubtedly be another one next year. Impressive as that may be to some people, I think they should quit while they are ahead as, presumably, "Paranormal Activity 4" will have to be shot on high-definition Super 8 cine film if they are going to keep doing prequels.

I highly recommend that you do not waste your money going to see this film and save it for "The Awakening" (2011) should it ever get a theatrical release.

Jennifer's Body (2009)

"A newly possessed cheerleader turns into a killer who specializes in offing her male classmates. Can her best friend put an end to the horror?"

You can say what you like about Megan Fox's weird thumb nails, how bad her skin looks close-up or how she isn't the greatest actress but I think we know that it's only because you are jealous. Megan Fox is hotter than 90% of the rest of the world except, perhaps, where I am right now which is still over 100°F at 7.30pm. Yes, the weather is slowly killing me and any desire I have to write horror movie reviews.

Remember that "Twilight Zone" episode called "The Midnight Sun" where the world keeps getting hotter? Not only does the current heatwave remind me of it but so does "Jennifer's Body". Everything about the film is uber hot to begin with but Megan gets even sexier as it continues. Thus, I had no choice today. I had to rewatch it.

Yes, I like Megan Fox, ok? She can do no wrong as far as I'm concerned. Even getting kicked off that stupid "Transformers" movie was, albeit involuntarily, one of the best choices she has made in her career. "Transformers: Dark Side of the Moon" (2011) royally sucked so she was better off not being in it.

"Jennifer's Body" has been described as a satire rather than being a serious horror movie but, since I have no sense of humour, I don't see that at all. Although there are a lot of darkly comedic moments here and there, it's stylistically not a million miles away from "Ginger Snaps" (2000). It's a girls' horror movie for sure, written and directed by women, but it's still definitely a horror and not a comedy.

It may surprise a few people, since "Jennifer's Body" isn't really the kind of thing that I normally like, but, having watched it a few times now, I've actually enjoyed it more each time. Of course a lot of it has to do with ogling Megan Fox rather than paying attention to anything else but that doesn't exclude the fact that it has excellent production values, is well written, and is a very watchable film.

I know everybody says that Amanda Seyfried is the real star of the show but I disagree. I didn't like her performance as Needy at all at first though repeated viewings have changed that slightly. Needy is not an attractive character to me nor is her boyfriend or any of the other teenagers for that matter. I can't identify with them anyway because of my age and cultural differences but I'm pretty sure that they are nothing but two-dimensional, disposable stereotypes. If American high schools are really like the ones I've seen in movies, full of jocks, nerds, and emos, then I'm glad that I never went to one.

Another thing is that I often side more with the bad guys in movies than with the weaker heroes and heroines. I'm probably the only person who wanted the Empire to win in "Star Wars". The villains are often so much more interesting anyway. Thus, it's the Satan-worshipping indie band, "Low Shoulder", and their frontman Nikolai (Adam Brody) who stand out the most for me.

Yes, as much as I love Megan Fox as the evil Jennifer, her gory kills and banging body are nothing compared to Adam Brody's ability to make his character so believable, completely two-faced and, basically, an asshole. At the same time, he's a talented asshole too so that makes him rather endearing.

I know it's only a bit of fun but I can really imagine certain indie bands being in league with the Devil. How else would the crappy music that they play become so popular? That, of course, is the main satirical "joke" of the movie and I get it. I think most of the negative reviews of "Jennifer's Body" have been written by people who didn't.

There's nothing else I really want to say about "Jennifer's Body". Although derivative of at least half a dozen other movies including "Tamara" (2005), it's simply a very good example of its type and I recommend it.

Amityville III: The Demon (1983)

(AKA "Amityville 3-D")



"A reporter moves into the ominous Long Island house to debunk it of the recent supernatural events and becomes besieged by the evil manifestations which are connected to a hell-spawn demon lurking in the basement."

Call me crazy (I know a lot of my haters do) but I decided to watch the weakest of the Amityville sequels just to see if it had any cats in it. It was the first time that I watched it on the flipper DVD which I bought from Big Lots and I've had it in my collection for two years. Not only did it not have any cats in it whatsoever, I should have left it shrink wrapped. It was awful.

Originally "Amityville III" was filmed in 3D but I've never actually seen a 3D version of it available. I doubt that it would enrich my viewing pleasure in any way especially as it's still painfully obvious from the purple-edged images which scenes had small 3D enhancements in them. It's interesting that the gimmick has come into vogue again fairly recently though.

Just like all the other sequels with Amityville in the name, there is no attempt at any continuity with the story. Apart from mentioning the Defeo murders, there's no acknowledgement of George and Kathy Lutz's story at all. Of course, this was mainly due to avoiding any copyright infringement. If you thought that all the inferior modern remakes just cashing in on the name of well known franchises were a recent phenomenon, well, it obviously happened in the 1980s too.

So, yes, "Amityville III: The Demon" is yet another reboot of a pretty tired haunted house scenario. This time though it has the addition of several horrific and tragic "accidents" before ripping off five minutes of the scenes from "Poltergeist" with a team of paranormal investigators taking over the house. The plot lurches from one thing to another and at least two scenes seem completely out of place with no attempt at continuity or consistency whatsoever.

Since some people moan that I don't give away the details when I write something like that due to not wanting to give spoilers, in this case, the movie was so bad that I don't care. The first scene which had me wondering if I'd missed something was when the mother, played by Tess Harper, just appeared at the paranormal investigators' lab. What the hell was she doing there? How did she know the scientist? Was he supposed to be a family friend or just an acquaintance of her ex-husband? That's right she'd divorced her husband, Tony Roberts, and the miserable thing was still giving hanging around to give him grief! When she turned up at the Amityville house and wouldn't leave after their daughter's death, it was another moment where I was completely bemused. Why didn't Tony Roberts just kick the nutter out?

Now Tess Harper might be absolutely lovely to look at but every time she opened her bossy mouth, I couldn't stand her. Not only was the character she played absolutely horrible but her acting skills weren't up to the job either. Nobody else did much better either.

Lori Loughlin played the tragically doomed daughter, Susan. I've honestly never heard of her before but I think she may be kind of a big deal in TV now. I think the only reason that this film continues to be available as a DVD is because it also had Meg Ryan in it in what I think was her first film role. After an embarrassing start, Meg Ryan, playing Susan's friend Lisa, isn't too bad really and at least displays emotion unlike Tony Roberts.

I really can't get over how bad Tony Roberts was in this. I know the script was awful but, really, with his best female friend/work partner horrifically killed and then his daughter getting drowned, you would think he'd show some grief!

In a vain attempt to be positive, I could say that Candy Clark, who got top billing on the credits, did a good job with the only believable supernatural scenes in the movie but she wasn't exactly brilliant either. The only other thing to mention is that the jump scare with the demon and what it did to scientist Elliott West (played by Robert Joy) worked quite well too though it was still pretty ridiculous.

Anyway, I really don't want to say any more about this cheap and nasty rubbish. The effects were horrible, the death scenes were stupid, and there wasn't one genuinely scary moment in the whole abomination.

If anything stood out from "Amityville III: The Demon" (especially in 3D), it was all the purple-edged flies. And you don't need me to tell you what flies are usually found on.

Do not even be tempted to watch "Amityville III: The Demon" out of perverse curiosity. I'm locking it away in The Dungeon now and will never watch it again.

Season of the Witch (2011)

"14th-century knights transport a suspected witch to a monastery, where monks deduce her powers could be the source of the Black Plague."

I wasn't really expecting much from "Season of the Witch" and was at least hoping to be entertained in a completely anachronistic action-packed way. I like films about witches and medieval witchcraft but this wasn't even as much fun as Full Moon's "The Pit and the Pendulum" (1991) which I watched a couple of nights ago just to get myself in the mood.

The highlights for me were Ron Perlman's character and, of course, Claire Foy as the witch. I just wish that the story had gone a different and more witchcraft based way rather than ending up with a messy CGI demon. Given the amount of effort that was obviously put in to make everything else look right, it was a shame.

Although I'm a big fan of Nicolas Cage, I have to say that "Season of the Witch" is far from his finest hour. He occasionally does the action hero role really well but this was not one of those times. Apart from getting a bit shouty and looking really awkward in his armour, I can't say that I'll remember his role as Behman. It was just so two-dimensional that he was eclipsed by everyone else that he shared a scene with.

The dialogue is what really let "Season of the Witch" down the most though. Sometimes it was all mock-Shakespearian hyperbole and then everyone seemed to forget what time period the film was set in completely and it all got jarringly modern. With too many comedic elements thrown in anyway, this kind of bathos just doomed the whole production to lacklustre B-movie status.

I don't recommend "Season of the Witch" unless you are really bored and can't find anything better to watch. Bear in mind that it's just a PG-13 film released in January with all the other movies that the studios don't really know what to do with.

Hopefully the year will get better but, from what I've seen so far outside of the horror genre, I don't think it will.