Amy (2013)

"With the psychic power of clairvoyance, an extra-sensory perception, Amy starts witnessing haunting visions as her entire Amish village begins to fall into demonic control."

Although "Amy" is typical of the low-budget awfulness which I usually tell people to avoid, the Amish setting is rather fascinating. There aren't many horror movies with the Amish in them that I can think of other than "Deadly Blessing" (1981), and apart from "Witness" (1985) and a couple of episodes of "Friday the 13th: The Series" involving a possessed quilt, the Amish haven't really been a source of entertainment for me at all. Consequently, as I don't know much about the Amish way of life except that they are a Christian sect who have chosen to separate themselves from the rest of the world (and have taken John 17:13-16 very literally), the novelty value sold this to me.

Having said that, I've been to Lancaster, Pennsylvania, where "Amy" was filmed and can tell you that the Amish people depicted in this movie are more like Mennonites. Mennonites are the ones who don't mind using a bit of electricity or modern tools to get their jobs done. They also run a lot of stores where they sell baked goods and some quite outstanding gummy worms, which is the only reason I've ever had any contact with them. Truth be told, as much as I admire their simple lifestyle, I find them all to be a bit creepy.

Playing up the creepy factor of their otherness, however, is not this movie's intention. Instead, the agenda is something which you will either find absolutely hilarious or very insulting depending on your point of view. I don't want to get ahead of myself and spoil the ending for you because the way it's delivered is supposed to be a surprise which is impossible to guess before it actually happens, but suffice it to say that there's only one infamous '80s slasher movie I know of where the villain has the same motivation. I'll leave a clue in the labels below this post.

"I see possessed people."

Because I misread the synopsis, I half-expected "Amy" to be a "Carrie" clone, but it isn't. It's a tale of demonic possessions in an Amish village which only one girl, Jessica DiGiovanni as Amy, has the power to see. She isn't believed even when people start dying, which strains her relationships with everyone around her, but then Christopher Atkins conveniently shows up as a magician/exorcist to help her save the day. That, give or take some cheap CGI effects, is as good as the story gets. Remember Christopher Atkins from "The Blue Lagoon" (1980) with Brooke Shields? Even if you do, you'll barely recognise him 33 years on. He's really aged, but unfortunately, his acting hasn't improved to go with it.

Despite "Amy" being a serious (but poorly made) horror movie, there's some amusement to be had around 40 minutes in when Christopher Atkins is speaking in his normal American accent and Amy exclaims, "You're English!" I know the real Amish are a bit cut off from us "fancy people", and some of them speak with a strange German accent, but that's just ridiculous in the context of this movie. Amy doesn't have any accent but an American one either, nor does she do any of the stereotypical Old English "thees" and "thous" which you might expect from religious folks. Thus, I don't know how and why that line was left in when Christopher Atkins clearly had no intention of ever trying to do an English accent. Maybe it's because Indian writer/director R.P. Patnaik (better known for Bollywood movies) was unable to tell the difference.

Blaming the rest of the movie's inadequacies on R.P. Patnaik's nationality and an imagined language barrier which may never have been a problem is the only way I can explain how a production with an alleged $2,000,000 budget turned out to be so horrible. I have no idea what really happened, but as that's twice the budget which The Asylum normally use, I'd guess that the real budget was a lot less. "Amy" looks like something you'd find buried in a Pendulum Pictures or Echo Bridge multipack, and with so many one-off actors and actresses in it, it's more like a $2,000 movie (plus whatever Christopher Atkins' fee for the day might be).

"God - He can't find us any better than Santa Claus."

Apart from Jessica DiGiovanni trying her hardest with a terrible script, everyone around her is either wooden or embarrassing to watch. I'd like to say that the older Amish women are the worst, but they're clearly amateurs and Christopher Atkins is not, so his performance wins a special booby prize for cringeworthiness. Runner-up is Kurt Mason Peterson as Amy's boyfriend Robert because he's so inconsistent. His prize is that he got to kiss and fondle Jessica DiGiovanni in the least erotic way possible during a scene on a bench which looks as if it lasts from morning until evening.

The passage of time is the biggest problem in "Amy". While I don't often tear a movie apart for breaking the Aristotlean rules about unity of time, there's no way I can overlook the mess that's been made here. I have no idea if the events are supposed to take place over a couple of days, a week, or a month. One very noticeable mistake is how Amy's visits to Chris' magic circle in the barn don't match up to the dusk and dawn rules which he explains to her either, but there are plenty more like that if you look for them.

On the plus side, the storytelling isn't too bad, and I'll give everyone credit for trying to make something a little bit different. As ever, it's the execution and production values which let things down, but "Amy" is still worth a rental if you have nothing else to watch.

The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones (2013)

"When her mother disappears, Clary Fray learns that she descends from a line of warriors who protect our world from demons. She joins forces with others like her and heads into a dangerous alternate New York called Downworld."

Based on the YA fantasy-horror novel by alleged plagiarist Cassandra Clare, "The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones" is yet another wannabe "Twilight" replacement which has turned out to be a huge flop at the box office. I can't say that I'm surprised.

Since I'm not a reader or a "young adult", I've never heard of the series of books which this movie is based on before. I also have no idea if the allegations of plagiarism against the author are true or due to "cloning" and homaging, but either way, "The Mortal Instruments" appears to be little more than a bland conflation of "Night Watch" (2004), "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", "Percy Jackson and the Olympians", the "Prophecy" series, and a plethora of clichéd offerings from the "demon-hunting" subgenre. Ironically, given that "The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones" is produced by Constantin Films, there's a very slight feeling of "Constantine" (2005) about this too. Unfortunately, that's where the good stuff ends.

"The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones" is overlong at 130 minutes, and pacing problems don't help to alleviate the boredom between brief and confusing action scenes. Harald Zwart's previous effort, "The Karate Kid" remake, also suffered from the same issues, but it's probably not entirely his fault this time. I imagine that producer and author interference influenced things quite badly; conflation of characters, casting choices, accent changes, rewrites, and the desire for a PG-13 rating to get more asses on seats were all contributing factors.

Thus, "The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones" is a visually pleasing big-budget production, but if you think that "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy is bad news for your bladder, this movie will literally, figuratively and actually bore the piss out of you too. I lost track of the number of toilet breaks I needed, but I think it was over half a dozen. The two cans of Rockstar which were necessary to keep myself awake took their toll, but at least I didn't wet myself like I did during "The Golden Compass" (2007), and I didn't miss anything important either.

Clary and creepy Jace share a mundane moment.

The cast of pretty "teenagers" do okay in their roles although Jamie Campbell Bower (who has been in the finales of the Harry Potter series, and played Caius in "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn") is quite creepy-looking as Jace. Not looks-wise but accent-wise, he's very Paul Bettany, which brings up another irony since the star of the show, Lily Collins, was also in "Priest" (2011).

As she's not really a teenager, there's no problem with complimenting Lily Collins for being hot as Clary. Hell, even if she was sixteen instead of twenty-three, Phil Collins' daughter would still be pretty, and there's nothing wrong with saying so. She's slightly upstaged in the sexiness department by Jemima West as Isabelle, but she uses her huge eyebrows and nearly always open mouth to good effect. The "teeth and eyes" acting-style strikes again, albeit slightly less so than in typical teen soap operas. I also have to mention here that there's nothing more confusing than older actresses playing younger "jailbait" characters, so be prepared to feel as grubby as I did for ogling them. Or not, as the case may be.

Apart from Robert Sheehan as scrawny Simon gratuitously taking his shirt off, there's nothing for girls to see here unless they like their Jacob substitutes to be less ripped. Needless to say, his underdeveloped bare-chestedness did absolutely nothing for me, and I didn't like his character.

Kevin Zegers (recently in "The Colony") is very underused as Alec, yet he's got nothing to be ashamed of. Being unconscious on a bed for half the movie covers a multitude of sins. MILF-tastic Lena Headey is wasted even more since she disappears very early on in the story, and several other underwritten characters also suffer from clearly being reduced to bit parts for their respective actors. "The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones" truly equals "The Twilight Saga" in trying to pack too much in and rushing through the characters, and that's its downfall.

The problem with any of these "Young Adult novel" adaptations is not only that "Young Adult" is a curiously self-contradictory term and genre which pleases nobody—least of all its target audience—but that characterisation is never a strong point. It's hard to care about characters just because they are pretty, especially if there's none of the fleshing out which presumably occurs in the original literary medium. Having never read a "YA" novel in my life, I can't honestly say if the authors of these papery abominations make more of their "Mary Sues", and I'm not prepared to infantilise myself to find out. Just judging them by their movie adaptations, everything from "Harry Potter" and "Twilight" through to "Beautiful Creatures", "His Dark Materials", "Camp Half-Blood" and "The Hunger Games" must be some very low-brow reading material in the first place. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Sexy Isabelle has a big pair of swords.

As an aside, I don't care how much flak I get for it, but the unrequited gay love triangle which I assume to be one of the selling points of "The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones" is very bizarre and completely out of place in a movie (or book) meant for little kids. Most of the target audience simply wouldn't understand it except as an insult, or they might not notice its insidiousness at all, but others are surely going to say, "What?"—and therein lies a problem. For me, the trendy, politically correct acceptance of homosexuality shown here as something completely normal rather than applicable to a minority is about as realistic and subtle as decorating half the cast with tribal "magical sigil" tattoos. It's controversial propaganda aimed at an age group which shouldn't even have a sex life, and it's not done in way that provides any explanation for differences from the norm. Briefly mentioned as it is, the Achilles-Patroclus thing comes across as contrived as an episode of "Torchwood", especially as there's another more traditional, heterosexual, and "age appropriate" love triangle going on. If you really want children to see gay romance in a movie, you should let them watch dramas such as "Another Country", "My Beautiful Laundrette" or "Brokeback Mountain", not a kiddified action-adventure/supernatural-fantasy. No? Maybe it's they're R-rated! It's not worth pressing the point however, because there's no sexual tension or chemistry between anybody in this movie. It's all very tame.

With the MacGuffin-laden plot taking a back seat to the equally superficial teen romance, "The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones" reeks of blandness throughout. Rather than losing focus, it never has any to begin with, and it has no vitality, inertia, momentum or any other words which you can pull out of a thesaurus to describe its lack of "oomph". Maybe if the producers had gone for an R-rating instead of a PG-13, some realistic violence, goriness and horror could have spiced things up considerably more than the borderline adult dialogue and situations, but I highly doubt it. The bad guys are so underplayed that there's never any real threat to the safety of the main characters, and as I already said, it's impossible to care about any of them anyway.

"The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones" is insipid, often tedious, and confusing with it, so I don't recommend it at all.

Cutting Edge Cinema: Extreme Monsters

This is one of several multipacks from R Squared Films which came out during the Summer last year to compete directly with Echo Bridge Home Entertainment's "Midnight Horror Collection". Having artwork designed to fool the less observant buyer into thinking that these are more Echo Bridge Home Entertainment products is only slightly less reprehensible than the quality of the movies themselves.

Make no mistake, most of these "movies" (and I use that term very loosely) are the kind of no-budget, "hobby horror" dreck which give independent horror an even worse reputation than its deluded and easily butthurt fans have already made for it. According to various message boards and blogs, there's one movie in every pack that's tolerable, but the rest are almost unwatchable unless you enjoy the lowest common denominators on YouTube. Some lucky people even have defective DVDs that won't play all the movies listed anyway.

Other titles in the range include "Extreme Horror", "Extreme Vampires", "Extreme Zombies" and an "Extreme Canadian Horror: 5 Movie Collection" (presumably because nobody could find 3 more Canadian horror movies to make another 8 pack). I can't say that I have any interest in the others especially as the titles of each collection aren't entirely appropriate for the subject matter contained within.

"Extreme Monsters" is the first of these collections that I've bought. All the movies play perfectly, but it's likely to be the last of these packs for me based on what's in it.


Little Red Devil (2008)

"Jimmy Lidell is a 'nobody', stealing to earn a living in a dead-end life searching for his long lost girlfriend... until he meets Luc Tyer... a bigger-than-life underworld heavy that makes him an 'offer he can't refuse'. Jimmy accepts, but is leery about the secret motives behind Luc's willingness to teach the business. Jimmy's mother suspects that Jimmy may be running with the wrong crowd, but Jimmy turns a deaf ear to her religious warnings."

Tommy Brunswick's version of "Angel Heart" (1987) isn't too bad apart from the special effects and demon which looks like it escaped from "Legend" (1985). It's a bit slow, the characters aren't very likeable, but it's still very watchable and even has a couple of great performances which are completely wasted due to everything else.

Starring Daniel Baldwin, James Russo and Dee Wallace, "Little Red Devil" is the closest that Tommy has come to making a decent horror movie, but it's probably her last too. You have to give her credit for getting this far as a director though.


Spirits of the Fall (2008)

"This Halloween, the spirits are restless and things that go bump in the night are closer than they seem for Chris, a widower who is coming to terms with his loss. While living in his hotel, strange things begin to happen. Voices in the night and faces at the window are not uncommon and things are about to get a lot worse when he is forced to face the paranormal and save his wife's soul from the evil spirit of her killer."

This poorly acted haunted house movie is the only reason why I wanted this pack. It's a British "indie horror" (AKA crappy amateur movie) which makes it a bit of a novelty. As a country used to only renting real movies from Blockbuster, we don't go in for a lot of these no-budget nasties.

Having struggled to get through it, I can see why we have more sense in Britain than to get involved with such utter crap. Even if this was uploaded to YouTube, it would still be hated. The overused faux "Jacob's Ladder"-style head wobbling and screaming near the end is icing on the cake.

Definitely one to skip.


The Whistler (2006)

"When a no-good band of thugs enter a quiet small town to unleash their terror, nothing could prepare them for the wrath of a gentle giant who would defend the honor of his one true love to the end of his life, and beyond."

Entertaining in places, especially the nudity and gore effects early on, but ultimately "The Whistler" is another pile of zombie crap made by people with no storytelling skills whatsoever.

It tries so hard to be serious that it's often pompous rather than being bad enough to be unintentionally funny. The dialogue and delivery are particularly atrocious, but it's the pacing which kills it.

If I was bored enough, I would rewatch sections of this for the beautiful girls but not as a horror movie.


Where the Dogs Divide Her (2011)

"Where the Dogs Divide Her begins amid the aftermath of a family massacre. A nameless man sits in an unfamiliar bathroom, his bloodied hands trembling as he ponders his crime of passion. An amnesiac without an identity, he goes in search of himself, only to unearth a long-buried family secret surrounding the bizarre deaths of his parents. An abstract ghost story populated by ever-threatening specters, shadowy souls with evil motives who inhabit a nightmare world within a troubled killer's psyche. They might offer a smile or a kind word, but their only purpose is to snare others into their Hell. Before the killer can come to terms with his deeds and escape this esoteric prison, he must confront his dead parents and make good on an infant's promise made thirty years ago."

Great title, but a desperately horrible "experimental movie" full of flashbacks and flashforwards like this isn't likely to satisfy anyone. At nearly 2 hours long, it's quite an endurance test which I don't think many horror fans will tolerate. I really tried to enjoy it, but I couldn't. Sadly, I didn't make it to the end and have no desire to return to it for more brain-numbing torture.

Fans of David Lynch might get something out of it, but the characters were too uninvolving for me. I don't like arty-farty movies anyway, and I wouldn't call "Where the Dogs Divide Her" a horror movie either.

The music used is quite nice though.


They Must Eat (2006)

"Sanford will forever be a socially inept loser. Now approaching the age of forty, his only girlfriend of 3 years has given him the boot and he’s working a dead end job. Beyond despair, Sanford decides to ask his only living relative, Uncle Alistair, to take him in. Alistair is not very fond of his deadbeat nephew but with his failing health he needs someone around to carry on his work after he dies. Unfortunately for Sanford, Alistair’s work involves frequent murders to feed an evil clan of flesh eating ghouls that live in the woods surrounding his house. At first Sanford is terrified by these foul beasties, but then learns to lead them and actually train them after his Uncle passes. Now all those who cross him will suffer the wrath of his monstrous minions."

"They Must Eat" is a very low-budget, slightly comedic Tommy Brunswick movie which is reminiscent of "Willard" but with ghouls instead of rats.

It's definitely not the worst movie that I've ever seen, but it's one of those where it's sometimes more fun to look at the background than the foreground. Checking out what other people have in their houses or places of work in low-budget movies always satisfies a certain nosiness when things lag. Fortunately, the pace improves as the story progresses.

Apart from the gore, the highlight is a hot Jehovah's Witness played by Meshelle Melone (who has a bigger role in "Little Red Devil"). Look out for her nipple piercing!


Closet Space (2008)

"What happens when the quest for knowledge comes up against the insatiable hunger for flesh? Six grad students slowly and horrifically discover the answer as they search for their missing professor."

If you can make it through the irritating "found footage" during the titles, there's a kind of H.P. Lovecraft story struggling to be told in "Closet Space". Unfortunately, like all Lovecraftian horror, it's very boring. Stuart Gordon has nothing to worry about here!

As you might expect, the acting is inconsistent, the dialogue is cringeworthy, and the camerawork is mostly terrible. On the plus side, some of the effects are nicely done.


Dreams of the Dead (2007)

"For 15 years the large estate of Samuel Arnold has stood silent and empty. From its darkened windows, dark and foreboding eyes stare out from behind the glass. But like a midwinter’s breeze in the lonely hours of the night, something stirs in both dreams and reality, unable to find any peace. What is the mystery of Danbury House?"

Originally titled "The Haunting of Danbury House" and taglined as "An Erotic Haunting", this is merely an excuse to wrap up a couple of beautiful girls getting topless with a badly arranged mystery. Natasha Neilsen (from "Bikini Bloodbath") is my favourite, by the way.

Despite that, some of the acting is half-way decent, and it's filmed competently enough. What sets this apart from the other movies in the pack is the location. Although not to my taste, the house itself is outstanding if you like that Victorian sort of thing.

As a ghost story, "Dreams of the Dead" isn't scary or creepy in any way. Possibly the most horrific things are the songs performed by the lead and her band. One of them is apparently called "Lava Lamp of Love"! What the Hell?


Evil Offspring (2009)

"There is a definite balance to the forces of good and evil in the universe. The quiet backwoods town of Angel Falls is home to this great equalizer! Enter two unsuspecting lost souls trying to find their way back to the highway, and become stranded on an old farm. The owners, Pa and Nan are quite hospitable, to the right type of guests, but if you’re a sinner, you wind up on their chopping block and fed to the voracious creatures known as THE EVIL OFFSPRING."

Finally, we have a third film by Tommy Brunswick, but not a very good one. I have a feeling that Tommy just sent all her movies apart from "Mr. Jingles" off to R Squared for distribution and hoped for the best. I wouldn't be surprised to see more of her movies on other multipacks from this company although I haven't checked into it.

Suffice it to say that "Evil Offspring" is made up of the same ensemble cast as Tommy's other movies, homages several very famous horror movies (in particular, "The Evil Dead" at the start), but then turns into a mixture of exploitation and badly done torture porn. At least there's a proper monster in this one again, the practical effects are mostly okay, and it's moderately entertaining in places.

The acting really sucks, and the line delivery often proves to be more than anyone can handle, but "Evil Offspring" tries to have a clever (also unoriginal) twist at the end.


I really don't recommend "Extreme Monsters" to anyone who calls themselves a horror fan. None of the movies deliver any scares whatsoever, plus only half of them are actually about "monsters" unless you stretch that term very broadly.

I got my copy of "Extreme Monsters" from my local pawn shop, but if you're a bit silly and want one for yourself, you're going to have to search the drugstores such as RiteAid or order it from Amazon.

As far as I know, these "Cutting Edge Cinema" collections haven't shown up in places like Wal-mart's bargain bins yet although they are available from Wal-mart's online store from between $5 to $12.

I can't honestly remember where I last saw these packs in the flesh because it was so long ago, but I think they may have been in Kmart. Next time I go, I'll be able to confirm it because I bet there are plenty of them left. Kmart's online store has them listed for $9.99 each anyway.

The Midnight Horror Collection: Road Trip to Hell

I get worse. I bought this collection way back in March 2012 (although it actually came out in August 2010), and I only finished watching it today.

It's not that "Road Trip to Hell" is a particularly bad set of movies or anything, but I had other things to do and newer movies to watch. Time slips aways so quickly, doesn't it?

Despite spending most of the weekend watching the two Alfred Hitchcock biopics, "Hitchcock" and "The Girl" (which I'll review later), I need to finally finish off these Echo Bridge Home Entertainment multipacks this week. They've been hanging over me like a dark cloud for far too long.


Sheltered (2010)

"On the eve of a massive storm, Joey, an awkward but straight-laced bartender, offers a group of vacationers refuge at his house. As the storm wreaks havoc outside, the group slowly discovers why they've been invited to the house, just how disturbed their host is, and that they'll have to fight a crazed killer if they're to see the light of dawn."

Although "Sheltered" is a very formulaic and predictable, the acting is above average for a slasher, everything looks okay, and the story is good enough to sustain anyone's interest until the end. Well, it kept me amused anyway.

The only downside is that the "twist" is given away right from the start so there's no mystery apart from who is going to die and in what order. Like I said, it's a slasher.

The sex scenes would have benefitted from some nudity as well, but that's not really a problem. The girls in this are very beautiful indeed even with their clothes on.


The Craving (2008)

"On a road trip across the country, a group of college friends become stranded in the desert. Miles from anywhere and with limited supplies, they discover that when the sun goes down, a deadly killer comes out. Something that will not go into the night quietly... or without a meal. The group must battle the creature for their lives in a desolate, harsh land that few have survived."

"The Craving" is quite an enjoyable monster flick if you are prepared to overlook some awful dialogue and frequent lapses into slasher formulas. There's enough mystery and tension to keep it interesting although the poor decision-making skills of the characters makes you want to slap some sense into them.

I'd like to say that I enjoyed this movie most of all, but I'd be lying. The concept of the monster and the purpose for luring it to a shack in the middle of the desert is original, but it's only an "Evil Dead" clone otherwise.


Hell's Highway (2002)

"A road trip for four college friends turns into a twisted, bloody nightmare when they pick up Lucinda, a hot, young hitchhiker who lusts for the kill. After she terrorizes them, the group kills her. But around the next bend—and every bend—she appears like a mirage, ready to slaughter again..."

Easy to confuse with "Detour" (also known as "Hell's Highway" in the UK), I mistakenly thought that I had the other movie until I watched it. The plot and tone are completely different.

This is the much lower-budget one with Phoebe Dollar (from "Goth") and Ron Jeremy in it, so it's not as serious as it should be. I must admit that I spent more time looking at Phoebe's slightly wonky teeth than concentrating on the story or lack of production values anyway. Phoebe is still a very pretty girl though, and one scene is genuinely erotic.


Feeding Grounds (2006)

"En route to a weekend at a desert cabin, four young couples find themselves in a dangerous situation that will push them to their breaking points. After a glitch in plans forces them to pull over, they burn time by getting the party started amid the gorgeous desert scenery until a grisly discovery sets them running. But there's nowhere to run, and nowhere to hide..."

"Feeding Grounds" starts off really well, then jumps the shark when it becomes yet another story about bickering teenagers being picked off by monsters in the desert. It could have been scary, but there's too much talk and not enough action.

Taking the low-budget into account, there's still no excuse for the huge plot holes and confusing ending.


"Road Trip to Hell" is one of the best "Midnight Horror" collections if you like low-budget movies. While not exactly brilliant, these aren't "hobby horror" movies like so many which give the genre a bad name.

The best way to look at a themed pack like this is to imagine it as a really long anthology without a wraparound story (and with some of the segments being weaker than others). There's certainly enough variety to keep you from feeling that you're watching the same thing over and over again.

As you can see from the Amazon link (to the left), the best price for "Road Trip to Hell" is only a penny. I can wholeheartedly recommend it for twice that price!

This is one of the few Echo Bridge Home Entertainment multi-features which I intend to keep.

Curandero (2005)

"A journey that takes one man into the bowels of black magic in Mexico City."

While I was out taking my thousands of empty Monster cans to the recycling bin, I decided to have a quick look at the new releases in Target and came across this little gem. By "gem", however, I do actually mean "an obscure 8 year old former Miramax/Dimension title which has finally been released by Lionsgate".

Fearing the worst of any DVD with the words "Robert Rodriguez presents" on its artwork, I didn't buy a copy of it but waited until I got home again to watch it online. It's not directed by Robert Rodriguez (nor is its real director Eduardo Rodriguez any relation to him) so I figured it would be worth a "rental".

Set in a similar grainy-looking, washed-out world as "Borderland" (2007) but played like a gorier mixture of "Constantine" (2005) and "Night Watch/Day Watch" (2004/2006), "Curandero" is very much a product of that time and tries hard to be another cult action-horror. If it hadn't been for those other movies and all the financial shenanigans at Miramax, it may have succeeded back then too.

The characters are actually quite good although very similar to the heroes and villains of Timur Bekmambetov's adaptations of Sergei Lukyanenko's "Dozor" tetralogy. Carlos the charismatic curandero isn't a million miles away from being Anton Gorodetsky from "Night Watch" complete with hallucinations, and his enemy Castaneda (Gabriel Pingarrón) is really only a far more spiteful version of Zavulon. Castaneda is almost as nasty a piece of work as any of the narcosatanicos in "Borderland" but without the good looks of Santillian.

Carlos Gallardo and Gizeht Galatea

Even the plot is quite similar to "Night Watch" and "Day Watch" with a "chosen one", lots of magic in a modern day urban setting, and some scenes which look almost identical. A certain chase through a market only needs "The Gloom" for it to be lifted straight from "Day Watch". It's a chicken and the egg conundrum as to which really came first given the date of this movie.

With hardly anything explained as you go along, nothing is handed to you on a plate immediately. Everything is explained eventually so just bear with it. I like this way of storytelling, but it was a major criticism of "Night Watch" and "Day Watch" from the hard of understanding crowd who tried to cover their ignorance by using words like "foreign mythology" in their reviews when that wasn't really the problem. Suffice it to say that none of these movies have any traditional mythology except that which has been invented for the story itself. Huge exposition scenes may be lacking, but since nobody does exposition properly anymore, that's another good thing.

There's lots of gore, a very Mexican colour palette which you will either love or hate, and a very beautiful heroine in the form of Gizeht Galatea as federal agent Magdalena. The partnership between Magdalena and Carlos is so like that of Olivia (Anna Torv) and Peter (Joshua Jackson) from "Fringe" that I wouldn't put it past J.J. Abrams and his team not to have taken some inspiration from this movie. Oh, yes, there are subtitles too so thickies need not apply.

My only problem with "Curandero" is that the pacing is a little bit quick over the ground. It's no worse than "Constantine", but I could quite happily have watched another hour of the same characters doing their thing. The effects are great, but the characters would certainly have benefited from some more fleshing out (no pun intended).

I highly recommend "Curandero" if you are looking for something slightly formulaic but a bit different. It's not really worth the new release price, but you can watch it online for $3.99 and probably find it in a Redbox kiosk.

Constantine (2005)

"Constantine tells the story of irreverent supernatural detective John Constantine, who has literally been to hell and back."

What the Hell is wrong with Roger Ebert? He only gave "Constantine" 1.5 stars out of 5 and then spent 90% of his review retelling the story in his own words. Pretty lame stuff, but he's already earned a small fortune by leeching from people with the ability to actually make films so what does he care? Probably about as much as I don't care for anything he has to say. Just to do something different on my blog though, I'm going to go through his "negative Nancy" criticism of "Constantine" and refute it.

Let's see how Roger begins his critique:

No, "Constantine" is not part of a trilogy including "Troy" and "Alexander." It's not about the emperor at all, but about a man who can see the world behind the world, and is waging war against the scavengers of the damned. There was a nice documentary about emperor penguins, however, at Sundance this year. The males sit on the eggs all winter long in like 60 degrees below zero.

Hmmmm, nobody thinks "Contantine" is about the Roman emperor who created Catholicism as the vessel to carry the word of God and control the unruly masses. Most people don't have a Classical education and have never even heard of him. Those who do also know that Constantine the Great was emperor from 306 to 337 A.D. and isn't even from the same period as either "Troy" or "Alexander" (which are only a couple of thousand years apart themselves). No, nobody expects "Constantine" to be part of a sword and sandals trilogy, we all know that it's based on a comicbook which we've never read. As for the penguins, what do they have to do with anything?

Keanu Reeves plays Constantine as a chain-smoking, depressed demon-hunter who lives above a bowling alley in Los Angeles. Since he was a child, he has been able to see that not all who walk among us are human. Some are penguins. Sorry about that. Some are half-angels and half-devils. Constantine knows he is doomed to hell because he once tried to kill himself, and is trying to rack up enough frames against the demons to earn his way into heaven.

Actually, Roger, none of them are penguins and you aren't funny. Thanks for retelling the story though because we never would have worked that out by watching the movie ourselves. By the way, "chain-smoking" is when you light a fresh cigarette with the smoldering butt of the previous one. Constantine never does that anywhere, he likes flicking his Zippo lighter open far too much.

There is a scene early in the movie where Constantine and his doctor look at his X-rays, never a good sign in a superhero movie. He has lung cancer. The angel Gabriel (Tilda Swinton) tells him, "You are going to die young because you've smoked 30 cigarettes a day since you were 13." Gabriel has made more interesting announcements. Constantine has already spent some time in hell, which looks like a post-nuclear Los Angeles created by animators with a hangover. No doubt it is filled with carcinogens.

More storytelling? I thought Roger Ebert was some kind of great movie critic not a synopsis writer. Oh dear. "Constantine" is not a superhero movie, it's a supernatural action movie/comicbook adaptation with a huge $100,000,000 budget.

Tilda Swinton is perfectly cast as an angel, really looks the androgynous part, and is completely disturbing in a "Should I fancy her or be terrified of her?" way. It's probably her most iconic role and Roger Ebert dismisses her with one misquoted line. Gah! Constantine smoked from the age of 15 not 13.

As for the "post-nuclear Los Angeles" jibe, that's exactly what it was meant to look like. It's all explained during the "Making of" featurettes on the DVD. "Animators with a hangover?" I doubt it, but all that hard work coding images probably gave a few of them eye-strain and headaches. You should try it for yourself one day, Roger, instead of stuffing your fat face with popcorn. None of it looks bad to me or over 900 reviewers on the IMDb who think the effects are amazing.

The half-angels and half-devils are earthly proxies in the war between God and Satan. You would think that God would be the New England Patriots of this contest, but apparently there is a chance that Satan could win. Constantine's lonely mission is to track down half-demons and cast them back to the fires below. Like Blade, the vampire-killer, he is surprisingly optimistic, considering he is one guy in one city dealing on a case-by-case basis, and the enemy is global.

Yeah, we know. Why don't you just tell us the whole story, Rog? Sure, Constantine is a bit like "Blade", so what? He's not black or a half-vampire. He doesn't even look like Sting or come from Liverpool like his comicbook form. What's the point? His optimism is out of place? He's actually rather pragmatic for a "superhero". Wait. Isn't Constantine supposed to be "depressed" according to the second paragraph of the "review"? "Depressed" and "optimistic"? How does that work?

We also have no idea what the sports reference is to because we're movie fans and couldn't care less about grown men being overpaid thousands of times more than a doctor earns just to fight like little babies over a bag of air on a field. If you are going to use an analogy, make it one that people understand.

Constantine has a technical advisor named Beeman (Max Baker), who lives in the ceiling of the bowling alley among the pin-spotting machines, and functions like Q in the James Bond movies. Here he is loading Constantine with the latest weaponry: "Bullet shavings from the assassination attempt on the Pope, holy water from the river of Jordan, and, you'll love this, screech beetles." The screech beetles come in a little matchbox. "To the fallen," Max explains, "the sound is like nails on a blackboard." Later there is a scene where Constantine is inundated by the creatures of hell, and desperately tries to reach the matchbox and get those beetles to screeching.

Again, we know. How is this criticism in any way? But yes, I do love all the weaponry and the humourous way some of the items are introduced. It's called "entertainment". "Beeman" was a character made-up just for the movie so make of it what you will.

Rachel Weisz plays Angela Dodson, an L.A. police detective whose twin sister, Isabel, has apparently committed suicide. Isabel reported seeing demons, so Angela consults Constantine, who nods wisely and wonders if Isabel jumped, or was metaphysically pushed. Later in the film, to show Angela that she also has the gift of seeing the world behind the world, Constantine holds her underwater in a bathtub until she passes out and sees the torments of hell. No bright white corridors and old friends and Yanni for her. You wonder what kind of an L.A. cop would allow herself to be experimentally drowned in a bathtub by a guy who lives over a bowling alley.

More storytelling and blah, blah, blah. Strangely enough, the kind of L.A. cop who allows herself to be "experimentally drowned in a bathtub" is one who is beside herself with grief/guilt over her sister's death and will try anything to find out why it happened. Did you miss that part, Roger? Nobody else did.

It's also worth noting that Rachel Weisz is awesome in the role. She's English but manages to pull off a perfectly legitimate American accent which is incredibly difficult. She's quite pretty too.

Together, they prowl the nighttime streets. At one point, Constantine needs to consult Midnite (Djimon Hounsou), a former witch doctor who runs a private nightclub where half-angels and half-demons can get half-loaded and talk shop. There is a doorman. To gain admittance, you have to read his mind and tell him what's on the other side of the card he's holding up. "Two frogs on a bench," Constantine says. Could have been a lucky guess.

Nope, it couldn't have been a lucky guess as Shia LeBoeuf's character, Chas Kramer, finds out when he attempts to bluff his way in. You have to know the answer, that's the point. It's a bar full of angels, demons, and psychics with supernatural abilities. What password method would be more appropriate? A secret handshake perhaps for those who have hands not paws?

What would have worked here is some condemnation of how weak Shia LeBoeuf's character is for most of the movie until he gets chance to cast off the comedic aspects and shine for a moment later. That would have been too much like reviewing though, wouldn't it?

There is a priest in the film, the alcoholic Father Hennessy (Pruitt Taylor Vince), whose name, I guess, is product placement. Strange that there is a priest, since that opens the door to Catholicism and therefore to the news that Constantine is not doomed unless he wages a lifelong war against demons, but need merely go to confession; three Our Fathers, three Hail Marys, and he's outta there. Strange, that movies about Satan always require Catholics. You never see your Presbyterians or Episcopalians hurling down demons.

I think you'll find that Father Hennessy is a conflation of three characters from the "Hellblazer" comicbooks, and the one whose name he uses actually eats himself to death originally. Product placement? Hardly. A little word play on his alcoholism? Of course.

Talk about missing the point of the story completely! Constantine can't earn his way into Heaven by fighting demons or repentance. Confession may be good for the soul but Constantine's is already doomed. He's a suicide destined for Hell when he dies. Ever get the feeling that someone didn't watch the movie or remember what he wrote a couple of paragraphs ago?

Of course, most movies about Satan require Catholics. It's the "one true church" and all that jazz. If it wasn't for Catholicism (and the aforementioned Emperor Constantine), Christianity wouldn't have such a recognisable form. Post-reformation times, there are around 500 different Christian denominations, but none of them have the iconography (and idolatory) of Catholism. If you want a Christian minister in a movie, you need to have him in black and wearing a dog collar. It's the first thing people think of. Also, on the contrary, you do see Presbyterians and Episcopalians hurling down demons just not in the movies. Seeing people quietly praying instead of screaming Latin words doesn't have the same entertainment value. Baptists have been shown to be just as effective in "The Last Exorcism", but I'll give you that one because it was only recently.

The forces of hell manifest themselves in many ways. One victim is eaten by flies. A young girl is possessed by a devil, and Constantine shouts, "I need a mirror! Now! At least three feet high!" He can capture the demon in the mirror and throw it out the window, see, although you wonder why supernatural beings would have such low-tech security holes.

Why not give away an entire scene and spoil it for everyone? To answer the question with another, why would supernatural beings not have high-tech security either? They are narcissistic, vain and evil, that's why. They think they are invincible. Pride, however, comes before a fall. It's a proverb, look it up. It's an important plot point.

Reeves has a deliberately morose energy level in the movie, as befits one who has seen hell, walks among half-demons, and is dying. He keeps on smoking. Eventually he confronts Satan (Peter Stormare), who wears a white suit. (Satan to tailor: "I want a suit just like God's.") Oh, and the plot also involves the Spear of Destiny, which is the spear that killed Christ, and which has been missing since World War II, which seems to open a window to the possibility of Nazi villains, but no.

Finally, something approaching a real critical comment!!! Yes, Keanu Reeves does have a "deliberately morose energy level in the movie". It's called acting, that's what he does and what has made him an A-list celebrity. His character is morose for a reason. So would you be if you knew you were going to Hell to be torn apart over and over again for all eternity. He's also a rude asshole with a cold demeanour but a kind heart. Constantine is a multi-layered character hidden under a two-dimensional one which Keanu Reeves excels at bringing to life. That's what should have been said.

So what if Constantine keeps on smoking? It's even mentioned by his doctor. As if closing the stable door after the horse has bolted will make any difference once you have inoperable lung cancer! If you are addicted to smoking, it isn't that easy to stop even though you know it's killing you.

All Roger Ebert got from Peter Stomare's outstanding performance as Satan was that he wore a white suit. Jesus wept! This is what famous movie critics get paid for? I might as well say, "Roger Ebert has grey hair. Now send me $20,000 for stating the obvious!" Why no mention of Gavin Rossdale's equally sinister performance as Balthazar? Wasn't there some snarky comment Roger could make about the dapper way he was dressed?

Yes, the plot involves the Spear of Destiny. It also appears in a lot of other movies which don't contain Nazi villains. Google is your friend for that one. If you want more of the same, read Trevor Ravenscoft's "The Spear of Destiny: The Occult Power Behind the Spear which pierced the side of Christ" or even James Herbert's "The Spear". Those will sort you right out.

Roger Ebert, you are an overpaid idiot! "Constantine" is a great movie with a cult following which you will never have. Your time is over, dinosaur. Go watch penguins dressed up as football players and leave the movies to people who aren't too burnt out to enjoy them.

The Evil Dead (1981)

"Five friends travel to a cabin in the woods, where they unknowingly release flesh-possessing demons."

The trouble with rewatching a lot of the movies from "The Vault" is that they have lost all their shock value. Because I've seen them so many times, the effect is like some gruesome looking wallpaper, and never more so than in the case of "The Evil Dead".

It's not that I don't like "The Evil Dead". It was a serious horror movie with some nicely done gore if you take into account the low-budget and time it was made. It just doesn't hold up too well under closer scrutiny today. There are a lot of people dreading the remake, sequel, or whatever it will turn out to be, but I'm quite looking forward to an update which doesn't involve so much stop-motion animation and plasticine.

Allegedly, "The Evil Dead" was made for $375,000 which was actually quite a large sum of money to put into a horror movie back in 1981. All those filmmakers that use "The Evil Dead" as the inspiration for their own backyard epics with their budgets of less than $2000 really need to stop being so delusional, quit relying on Kickstarter e-begging, and take out some loans just like Sam Raimi did if they want any real credibility.

Even with the huge budget that "The Evil Dead" had, it still comes across as very amateur compared to the more comedic sequel/remake "Evil Dead II" (1987). The acting is atrocious and the dialogue, sparse though it is, isn't exactly a strong point. Any scene involving Scott (Hal Delrich) where he's being an asshole or starts laughing really makes me cringe.

I can't even say that Bruce Campbell as Ash doesn't rub me up the wrong way nowadays either. Given that he's the unlikeliest of heroes anyway, he doesn't have very much charisma in "The Evil Dead". Although it looks as if he's trying to act occasionally, more often than not he's just going through the motions or mugging at the camera.

As for the girls, I don't have anything good to say about them. Cheryl, the one with the big nose who shows her left breast and gets raped by a tree for all of ten seconds, is very annoying otherwise, and Linda (Betsy Baker) looks a lot better when she's in the "scary doll" make-up. Shelly does a little bit better possibly because she was clearly the oldest there, but she hardly stands out even as one of the Dead. Since they were all replaced by "Fake Shemp" people for much of the movie anyway, it's impossible to tell who put the most (or any) effort in at all.

I know a lot of people really like the "groundbreaking" POV camerawork, but it has always irritated me. Yes, it was clever, but it had no effect on me other than causing dizziness. Couple that with all the overly loud music, banging, screaming and shouting, and "The Evil Dead" becomes something designed to cause a headache rather than scare the crap out of you.

Having said all that, you probably wonder why I still consider "The Evil Dead" to be one of the best horror movies ever made. It's simple really. Although the "The Evil Dead" wasn't the first "cabin in the woods horror", it was the first and most supernatural "cabin in the woods horror" that I remember.

Back in the day, I had to watch a bootleg version of "The Evil Dead" after it got banned as a video nasty which made it seem even more special than it really was. Of course, it got re-released with cuts to the "tree rape" and "pencil in the foot" scenes, and those scenes became something of a legend before the internet came along and forced the "uncut" version to get half a dozen different releases.

As you can see, my present copy of "The Evil Dead" came free with a British newspaper. I don't have any of the "Book of the Dead" editions, steelbooks, or however many other versions are currently in circulation because, basically, I don't get anything out of rewatching the copy I do have.

"The Evil Dead" had its time. Although it was supposed to be serious, it was good for a "bit of a laugh" with friends. Now it's just one of those "must have" cult movies that everybody has in their collection and will probably never watch again.

[REC]³ Génesis (2012)

"A couple's wedding day turns into a horrific event as some of the guests start showing signs of a strange illness."

Alrighty then, it's the moment you've all been waiting for. Well, it's the moment some of you have been waiting for anyway. I'm finally going to review "[REC]³ Génesis" - otherwise known as "The Crappy Parody End of the [REC] Series".

As you may have already realised, I don't read anyone else's review of a movie before I watch it for myself. Although I do go to the IMDb afterwards, it's not for the reasons that some lazier bloggers do. I look up the names of the cast to make sure that I know how to spell them correctly (especially if they are foreign), and, yes, I happily admit that I will grab a synopsis there rather than writing one myself since I figure, "Why bother to write another synopsis when 99% of the reviews on the IMDb are actually synopses rather than reviews anyway?" I always put the synopsis that I've taken from either the IMDb, Flixster, Amazon or even the blurb on the back of the DVD sleeve in both italics and quotation marks just so everyone knows that I didn't write it. The one thing, I repeat, that I don't do is read any of the real reviews online. Thus, I watched "[REC]³ Génesis" completely oblivious to anything that had been said about it.

My initial thoughts as I made notes on the back of a piece of cardboard torn from an old cat food box (hey, don't judge me, paper is scarce in my house), were "WTF is this?" and "You have to be kidding me! A wedding video!!!" Was this supposed to be an homage to "Cloverfield" in some way? I know now that "Cloverfield" had a going-away party, but it looked like a wedding to me. Since "Cloverfield" (2008) was also a desperate piece of crap, I was getting a very bad feeling about this movie.

As the dialogue continued to be fairly lighthearted, I didn't think too much of it. I was watching Spaniards who are a little bit more carefree by nature so I just accepted it for what it was. I wasn't at all phased by a children's entertainer called "Sponge John", the almost "meta" talk about the cameras, or the ogling of the pretty girls by the cameraman. I was doing a fair amount of ogling myself while I was waiting for the uncle who had been bitten by Max from the first film to succumb to the supernatural-rabies and start biting people which, of course, he did.

But, at around the 22 minute mark, I didn't expect the "[REC]³ Génesis" title to appear before cutting to a broken camera. What was going on? After a few more seconds, I knew that the director, Paco Plaza, had abandoned the "found footage" idea which hadn't worked quite so well in the previous sequel with co-director Jaume Balagueró. Oh, so this was why the camera got broken? How clever! Was it something to do with "Royalties"? Or did I spot something a little bit too clever here?

Unfortunately, everything which followed was even crappier than "[Rec]²". "[REC]³ Génesis" turned into yet another zombie "comedy". I've put the word "comedy" in quotation marks for two reasons; the first of these is that it wasn't funny. In fact, I started to wonder if "[REC]³ Génesis" wasn't just a parody designed to destroy what little credibility the Spanish directors had achieved with their previous films. Did Paco hate Jaume for leaving him to do this project alone?

I won't say that "[REC]³ Génesis" was devoid of all merits. The over-the-top gore scenes were really well done, the acting was okay-ish considering the style of film that it had become, and, of course, Leticia Dolera who played the bride, Clara, was very nice to look at. I did indeed look at her a lot and discovered that she wasn't quite as flawless as I first thought, but I'll come back to that later. I'm sure girls who watch this film would fancy Diego Martín who played the groom, Koldo, so, apparently, there was something for everyone. Everyone that is except the true horror fans.

Not since "Shaun of the Dead" (2004) have I loathed a film so much while watching it. I despise comedies, and, when they don't have a "comedy" ending, i.e. a happy one, then I hate them even more. Yes, that was the second reason why I put "comedy" in quotation marks. A "comedy" doesn't have to be funny to be a "comedy". The recognisable humour or "joke telling" of most is only supposed to be a by-product. I could go into more detail, but I'm sure you don't want to read a 600 page thesis on the subject right now. Suffice it to say that "[REC]³ Génesis" was essentially a "tragedy" treated in an irreverent and lighthearted manner. So, don't call it a comedy! You can call it a worthless piece of shit, if you like, because it was.

As far as the story went, basically, it was just Koldo and Clara getting separated, going through various struggles, and trying to get together again while everyone around them died. Once again, my Classical education caused me to spot the influence of "The Greek Novel" although I don't think even Lucian would have written something this bizarre.

This brings me back to Leticia Dolera. She's beautiful and will be the only reason a lot of mentally pubescent fanboys give this movie more credit than it's due. They will also think that any hot chick with dripping mascara who kills zombies with a chainsaw while a cover version of "Eloise" plays in the background is "kewl" so let's throw in all the clichés, shall we?

I scrutinized every part of Leticia myself because she looked like she had a 20% chance of turning into Shelley Duvall later on in life. One thing which I spotted early on was her hands (yes, technically that's two things and my grammar sucks). I've noticed that nearly all Spanish actresses have short nails and I'm building a little theory about it in my own mind. A lot of actresses bite their nails because of stress, but the Spanish don't seem to have adopted the false painted claws or French manicures of the rest of the world. If you don't believe me, have a look through a few Spanish movies yourself including the previous "[REC]" movies. In "[REC]", Manuela Velasco had short nails and even drew attention to her hands in the dialogue. Leticia Dolera also had a massive mole on her left hand which was covered with make-up at one point but returned later. Continuity error? If a movie has them I will spot them.

Does any of that really have anything to do with "[REC]³ Génesis" as a horror movie though? Maybe not. Sometimes the tangents my mind goes off on when it's trying to escape a truly horrible movie are actually more interesting than the movie itself. If you've already watched "[REC]³ Génesis" then you may now wonder if what happens to Clara near the end wasn't some more self-referential or wish-fulfilment inspired humour. Do Spanish women all have ugly hands? Is this cultural or a motif of some kind? I have no idea, but I'd rather wonder about those things then remember any of this dreadful piece of filmmaking.

I rate "[REC]³ Génesis" as my first ever -1000 out of 10. Way to kill "[REC]", Paco! You totally wrecked it.

[REC]² (2009)

"The action continues from [REC], with the medical officer and a SWAT team outfitted with video cameras are sent into the sealed off apartment to control the situation."

It's very rare that a sequel turns out to be better than the original movie and, I'm pleased to say, "[REC]²" was no exception to the rule. Why am I pleased to say that? Well, if "[REC]²" had actually been better then I would have been forced to like more Spanish horror movies again, and start collecting everything by Jaume Balagueró and Paco Plaza.

The thing is, Spanish horror movies are so hit or miss anyway that I'm sure most of us can only name about half a dozen of them that we've actually gone out of our way to add to our collections. I know that I only have that amount because, although I have a lot of Spanish movies, I've found that Spanish filmmakers are simply much better in other genres.

The rarity of "[REC]" as a good Spanish horror movie allowed it to become severely overrated by a lot of fans of the genre. It was, therefore, no surprise to me that "[REC]²" wouldn't be quite so fresh or up to the same standard.

I'm tempted to just write "[REC]²" off with the quasi-algebraic equation of "[REC]² = Quake + Demons 2 + [REC] + Satan's Triangle + The Hidden" and leave it at that, but that wouldn't be much of a review. Certainly, "[REC]²" was neither very original or particularly good which is why I've waited until just before watching the second sequel, "[REC]³ Génesis", to say anything about it. I'm not keen on reviewing sequels anyway.

Just like "[REC]", "[REC]²" owed a lot to computer games. The first half not only felt but also looked just like a first person shooter ("FPS" as gamers refer to such things). If you've ever played "Doom", "Blood", "Quake", "Halo" or whatever, you'll know exactly what I mean. While this might work for a movie adaptation of a computer game such as "Doom" (2005) - although, ironically, it didn't - it doesn't feel right in what was supposed to be yet another found footage movie. I will admit that the kills were pretty good though.

In fact, the whole "found footage" thing was a pretty weak link in this. Cameras were just too conveniently placed, and, with everybody filming everything, the threat that nobody would be believed was stupid as well.

For everyone getting bored with the surprisingly skittish SWAT team, a group of kids who conveniently had a camcorder on them tried to bring the same chaotic feel as the original "[REC]" back into the movie, but, by then, it was too late.

Although it was at this point when I realised that both "[REC]" and "[REC]²" were little more than found footage versions of "Demons 2" (1986) in many ways, Ángela Vidal's later reappearance and the denouement reminded me a lot more of "Satan's Triangle" (1975). This kind of thing would normally have made me happy if it hadn't had such a predictable twist.

Without spoiling it even more for you, I'll just say that "The Hidden" (1987) had a lot to answer for with how Ángela survived. Did "[REC]²" jump the shark with this intentionally or was it just a bad film which was beyond saving anyway? My money is on the latter.

I haven't put a movie into "The Dungeon" for a while now but "[REC]²" definitely belongs there.

Amityville 1992: It's About Time (1992)

"Jacob Sterling brings home a mysterious clock from the infamous Amityville house, not knowing that it's haunted by demonic spirits."

This is one of the three straight-to-video Amityville horror movies which I still don't own on DVD and never will because they are all so crap. It's hard to believe that this was from the director of "Hellbound: Hellraiser 2" or that the screenplay was based on a book by the author of "The Amityville Horror Part II".

In fact, if I hadn't found this full movie accidentally on YouTube (above), I would most certainly have never watched it again not even to write a review for this blog. There are some absolutely terrible movies which, in my own little world, simply do not exist because they are so awful and this counts as at least two of them.

There are no good reasons to watch "Amityville 1992" unless you are that hard up to see some middle-aged boobies. Even they are only in shot for a few seconds. As attractive as the owner of those boobies, former Miss Carolina Shawn (yes, it's a girl's name here apparently) Weatherly, may be, the only actress you really want to see get nudie is Megan Ward and she keeps everything covered up.

Honest to God, it's more trouble than it's worth to endure this lacklustre and confusing tale about a possessed clock (which messes around with some family relationships for no reason whatsoever) just to be cheated out of the fun stuff which was thrown in as one of the most annoying teases in the whole Amityville franchise.

Yes, there are a couple of extremely bloody scenes, a load of black goop, and a teenage boy with raging hormones who ends up being melted and sucked down a drain, but all these things sound way better than they actually are. Seeing a microphone being lifted out of shot on at least three occasions is more interesting.

With hardly any atmosphere, no chemistry between the actors, characters so one-dimensional that they barely register, this is a film that should have been all about the jump scares, but there aren't any of those either. The only good scenes are with Peaches, the dog, and even those are below average.

There's no motivation for any of the stuff which happens to be happening, none of the relationships between the characters make any sense, and it's just a complete mess with an ending which will leave you none the wiser.

Night of the Demons (2009)

"A group of kids go to a Halloween party, only to have to face down a group of demons."

Okay, I've reached the end of my "Night of the Demons" week and I've saved the best until last. Ironically, since I'm not the biggest fan of remakes, this 2009 update was well worth enduring the torture of the original movies for.

The remake takes all the best elements from the trilogy (and the worst) but recreates them so slickly that it's actually rather brilliant in its accuracy. Of course, a lot of that is due to director Adam Gierasch and writer Jace Anderson, who both know their stuff and have an impressive list of credits behind them. Some of it is accidental or lucky too, but that's always the way with movies. There will never be a perfect movie, horror or otherwise.

Although Hull House is abandoned in favour of the Broussard Family Mansion in New Orleans, complete with an opening scene in the style of a silent movie (which gives a better backstory than any characters could with their own exposition), everything important from the previous movies is here.

In many ways, "Night of the Demons" isn't so much a remake as another sequel. Maybe it should be called a "semake" or "requel" even though neither of those is as catchy as the "premake" term which we all used for "The Thing".

Call me shallow, but what I enjoyed most was having all the "hot chicks" from the other films replaced with truly hot ones rather than the "girl next door" types who the nostalgic fanboys all rave over. The most beautiful modern horror actresses are all here including Monica Keena, Shannon Elizabeth, Bobbie Sue Luther and Diora Baird. I don't include the cameos by Linnea Quigley or Tiffany Shepis because neither of them does anything for me, but I'm sure they suit the tastes of others.

There's no cameo by the original Angela which is surprising but not really necessary anyway given that the new "Angela Feld" is a completely different character to "Angela Franklin". For those who like trivia, according to the IMDb, Amelia Kinkade is now some kind of literary "Doctor Doolittle" and loves cats. I can't fault her for either of those things, but as I've never found her very attractive or scary as Angela, I was pleased with the upgrade.

Having mentioned cats, seeing both Diora Bird and "Boobie" Sue Luther dressed as catgirls for Hallowe'en, really ups the eyecandy quotient for me. As much as I love Monica Keena, their costumes really upstage her. Their roles may be a bit two-dimensional, but at least they are played by real actresses with some current popularity rather than a bunch of wannabes or has-beens who were dragged in off the street only to disappear into obscurity again.

I'd also never realised just how beautiful Shannon Elizabeth really was until she was all Gothed-up and, should I ever do a top ten list of hot Goth girls in horror movies, she'll definitely be number one.

But enough about all that sexiness, what you really want to know about is why I thought this was such a good remake. As much as I would like to tell you everything, such a list would create so many spoilers that it would ruin the film for you. Instead, I'm just going to briefly describe some of the most outstanding points.

Just like the original and the second sequel, the story begins with a "home scene" of girls getting ready for a party. This also sort of ties in with part of the first sequel, but the setting there is obviously different.

I've already mentioned the cat costumes, That idea came, of course, from "Night of the Demons III". Angela in the remake also has a pet black cat which was reminiscent of the one from "Night of the Demons 2". Cats are very important to me, as you know, and I look out for such details.

Even more pleasing to me is that much more was made of the stupid lipstick trick from the original "Night of the Demons". I always thought it was completely random and out of place, but in the hands (and breast) of Diora Baird's character, it's reworked into something extremely gruesome, and as weird as her demonic sex scenes in the movie.

The faux-lesbian kissing scenes and other seductions are all done as expected, although a wine bottle replaced the pistol of the second sequel in a much hotter way. There's a lot more nudity and sex overall, but, hey, it's the 21st century now and that's exactly what we want! The gore, the scares, and the horror (especially the horror) take second place to the sleaziness, but on the plus side, at least this movie has a plot. In spite of some borderline "gratuitous fillers", it never appears to be making things up as it goes along.

I also noticed that the sets really looked the part. They hint at the disused funeral parlour of the first two movies, but it isn't the same place, and it feels like a real building this time. It's all much darker and creepier, and, as far as Hallowe'en parties go, it's the perfect setting.

Although the characters in the other movies are teenagers played by older actors, there isn't even any attempt to make the thirty-somethings in this appear any younger. They don't have to act all nasty and rebellious for the sake of their dialogue. What comes out of their mouths is often quite witty and endearing. I wasn't alienated by any of the main characters, and that's a very good thing. I even liked Edward Furlong's role!

Even though it keeps the uneven quality of the trilogy and goes for the light-hearted approach more often than outright horror, there are some great effects. Some of the goriest, weirdest and bloodiest effects that I've ever seen are made up of both practical effects and such nicely done CGI that it's hard to tell which is which. I expect, if really looked into, a lot of what I thought was CGI was actually practical (and vice-versa) except in some extremely obvious cases. I've been fooled before, and I'm not a "practical effects Nazi" anyway. As long as it looks good on screen, it's good enough for me.

I enjoyed "Night of the Demons" so much that it's going into "The Vault". If there's one movie which is typical of everything (and everyone) in the American horror movie industry from the first decade of the 21st century, this is the one.

Night of the Demons III (1997)

"A group of young criminals accidentally shoot a police officer. To avoid being arrested they hide out in an abandoned house. When they realize that the house is haunted, they start to wish that they had turned themselves in when they had a chance."

Since both "Night of the Demons" and "Night of the Demons 2" homaged better movies, it came as no surprise that this second straight-to-video sequel wouldn't be any different especially as it was a Canadian production.

For those of us who've noticed a pattern, Canadian horror movies generally rip-off everything with hardly an original moment in their whole back catalogue. Everything is oddly paced, any actors who give memorable performances disappear without trace (presumably for breaking some clause in their contracts for daring to rise above mediocrity), and there's a definite feel to Canadian horror movies which is impossible to explain but instantly recognisable.

"Night of the Demons III" pretty much ticked every box for mediocre sequel, including its mercifully short runtime, yet it was slightly more serious than its predecessor and had a couple of good moments too. It was certainly a lot better than director Jim Kaufman's TV movie "Whiskers" (which, of course, I had to watch for my other blog) from the same year.

Unlike "Night of the Demons 2", this sequel couldn't be watched as a standalone movie in its own right because far too much of the background story from the previous events at Hull House was left unexplained. Although Abbie (played by Patricia Rodriguez) blurted out a couple of lines to fill in some details after the fact, "Night of the Demons III" assumes that you have watched the first two instalments, and then, bizarrely (since this was written by Kevin Tenney), completely ignores them in favour of its own re-imagining.

Of course, Amelia Kinkade reprised her role as Angela, but it was a very different Angela to the original character. Nearly ten years on from "Night of the Demons", she wasn't as scary looking underneath the horror make-up, but Amelia Kinkade never really had the face for such a sexy role as the incubus which Angela had become. Her sexy bits ranged from gratuitous to embarrassing fillers including sucking bullets from the barrel of a pistol and de rigueur faux-lesbian kissing.

She did look the best that she'd ever looked in "Night of the Demons III" but she was still not quite my cup of tea. I'd guess that I'm not hers either so it's only fair.

Anyway, time to get into the plot such as it was. Basically, a group of even more dislikeable teenagers than usual ended up in a van together, caused a shootout at a convenience store, and running from the law with one of them mortally wounded, decided to seek refuge in Hull House. I could fill in all the details, but just like the creators of this film, I can't really be bothered.

Suffice it to say that the "teenagers" were comprised of the usual stereotypes. To give them some credit, a couple of them did actually look like teenagers although, obviously, none of them actually were. I think the youngest member of the cast was twenty-one.

With them all being stereotypes, the angriest and nastiest one just had to goad the demonic Angela into appearing, and so, of course, she did along with a load of footage taken from the original "Night of the Demons" movie. This sequel was so lame, it didn't even have a big enough budget to reshoot those parts!

Curiously, Angela was never addressed by her name so I wonder if there was some thought about making a completely different movie at some point before they took the easy way out to grab a few dollars. Who knows what went on? This was a mess anyway which turned into the same old "teenagers in a haunted house" slasher as all the others.

I did like that it wasn't a comedy and I liked the "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" effects even though they weren't anything you'd ever want to refer to as "special" except in a derogatory way. Unfortunately, I'd seen all this before and done better elsewhere.

Of course, this is going into "The Dungeon". It wasn't just a terrible horror movie but a terrible movie of any kind. It was the kind of thing which most people would fast-forward through just for the boobs, but having avoided it like the plague for years on Zone Horror, I felt that I finally owed it to myself to sit through the whole thing to see how bad it really was. I wish I hadn't.

Night of the Demons 2 (1994)

"High-schoolers throw a Halloween party in a mansion haunted by a young demon."

You've probably guessed it already from my last post, but this week is "Night of the Demons" week for me. Although I don't particularly like any of these movies, I thought it was about time to get them all out of the way so that I never have to watch the stupid things ever again.

"Night of the Demons 2", directed by Brian Trenchard-Smith (of "BMX Bandits" fame), is arguably the best of the 'Night of the Demons" sequels but it's still not a very good horror film and is very much a product of the '90s when nobody was really watching serious horror anyway.

In 1994, everybody was into vampires of one kind or another and, of course, Brian Trenchard-Smith wasn't silly enough not to notice the trend. The trouble was that he chose to work many stupid bits from "The Lost Boys" (1987) into "Night of the Demons 2" while, obviously due to his own nationality, also homaging a certain New Zealand movie - Peter Jackson's "Braindead" - from a couple of years earlier.

So, instead of being a real horror movie, once again "Night of the Demons 2" fell flat on its face into the horror-comedy genre and we all know how much I hate those. It's lamentable that it could have been a very good film if it had been treated more seriously or maybe had a bigger budget rather than equalling that of original.

I suppose what gives this movie a special place in a lot of horror fans' "guilty pleasures list" is the abundance of nudity and the softcore sex scenes. I was pleasantly surprised by all the hot actresses including Cristi Harris, Christine Taylor (yes, the one married to Ben Stiller), and Zoe Trilling (from "Amityville: The Evil Escapes"). I'm not going to say anything much about their acting since nearly all the actors in this were only eyecandy, but they weren't too bad.

In case you are thinking that it's all boobs and blood, "Night of the Demons 2" does have a slightly better story to it than the first movie, a lot of teen romances going on, and, of course, a nun who "kicks ass for the Lord" even more than Father McGruder.

Sister Gloria, played by Jennifer Rhodes, was easily the most famous member of the cast at the time and was still kind of hot for her age. Is it wrong to fancy nuns who wear make-up and lipstick? Maybe that's why they don't. You'd think that someone would have pointed that out during the filming but, like so many other goofs, plotholes and flaws, I doubt that anyone even cared.

Things which stood out for me in a really bad way were Merle Kennedy's awful haircut, the cat scene which promised something very evil (but, fortunately, didn't go that way), the demonic Angela (once again played by Amelia Kinkade who looked too old for the part) failing at being sexy, and, because it was trying to be "The Lost Boys" at the end, the demons were now very much vampires who could be defeated in the same ways.

Squirt guns and balloons full of Holy water, crucifixes, sunlight, and even an overused offer of self-sacrificing substitution lifted from "Salem's Lot" (or "The Exorcist" to give credit to the original source) really hammered home the lack of originality throughout this very commercial pulp horror product.

The practical effects were okay. For those who loathe CGI, there was even some early use of that too but certainly not of the same calibre as "Jurassic Park" from the year before. It was cheap, nasty CGI which really jumped the shark (or the snake) especially right at the end.

Even though I pretty much hated 90% of "Night of the Demons 2", it was actually quite watchable. I didn't have to switch it off a couple of dozen times and come back to it, and I'm quite proud of myself for making it through in one sitting. I was going to put it in "The Dungeon" but, in fairness, it belongs in the "Just Average" category due to the time it was made. There were far less entertaining films which came out in 1994, and, unfortunately, I've seen those too.