Farm House (2008)

(AKA "Farmhouse")



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another one for "The Vault".

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.

V/H/S/2 (2013)

"Searching for a missing student, two private investigators break into his house and find collection of VHS tapes. Viewing the horrific contents of each cassette, they realize there may be dark motives behind the student's disappearance."

I wasn't going to watch this after how much I hated the first "V/H/S", but faced with the choice between "V/H/S/2" or "The Purge" (aka "The Strangers 2022"), I decided against the PG-13 claptrap.

Yes, I know that choosing between "V/H/S/2" or "The Purge" is like choosing whether to eat warm vomit or cold vomit, and normally I'd pass on both, but there's nothing else new to watch. One thing is for certain though, it doesn't matter how many good reviews "The Purge" gets about its alleged "social commentary", I'm done with Bumhole Productions. I won't be watching "InSHITious 2" either.

As far as sequels go, "V/H/S/2" is technically better than the original. Even though it's only more faux "found footage" with shakycams aplenty, extra cameras where there shouldn't be cameras, and no explanation or logic behind why any of these movies would be on obsolete VHS tapes in the first place, the excessive gore makes up for it.

Unfortunately, the stories are just as weak as before with lots of bad acting and "WTF" moments which give away its amateurish composition. 13-year-olds or any of the ADHD, games console generation will undoubtedly love it. Giving credit where it's due, the pacing is a hell of a lot better this time though.

I was pleasantly surprised that "V/H/S/2" didn't make me want to toss my cookies within the first five minutes. There's never a good reason why anyone should need to take Dramamine before watching a movie in the comfort of his own home. It's always nice to be able to finish a movie that you've paid to see online (or anywhere else for that matter).

Numerically, I rate "V/H/S/2 as a 3 out of 10, but as it's a new movie which most of you haven't seen yet, I'm not going to go into depth about the reasons why.

Instead, I'll post my Twitter feed (edited into the correct chronological order) so you can read my reactions as they happened. Some people got a kick out of when I did this for the "Evil Dead" remake although I actually put more effort into those.

A SPOILERIFIC TWITTER COMMENTARY WILL FOLLOW.
Do not read any further if you want to watch "V/H/S/2" on your own.

No idea what her name is, but she's very pretty.

I didn't put any timings before each Tweet this time because I couldn't be bothered. You can easily match them up to each segment though.

I'm watching V/H/S/2 (57 others are watching) http://bit.ly/ZBrKvD #GetGlue #VHS2

Nice boobs. It'll be all downhill from here. #vhs2

Eeek! A penis! #vhs2

If another penis shows up, I won't be watching any more of it. :( #vhs2

No acting ability or camerawork ability whatsoever. #vhs2

Apple product placement. ::yawn:: #vhs2

Why is it that the 5 people in the world who use Macbooks all have to be in horror movies? #vhs2

A bionic eye? Really? OMG This sucks. #vhs2

If they can't hold a camera steady, what's the point? This isn't film, it's YouTube. :( #vhs2

This is the worst POV I've ever seen. Where's the camera? On top of his head? Supposed to be in his eye. :( #vhs2

So if you get a bionic eye, you can see ghosts with it? Somebody should have told Steve Austin that. :( #vhs2

This bionic eye guy has a really big house. Probably a rent boy. #vhs2

He lives in a great big house like that but he wears a plastic Casio watch? You have to be kidding me. #vhs2

Oh, God! The girl was born deaf? So she's Jaime Sommers now? Drinks beer too? Low-class skank. #vhs2

Tits ahoy! #vhs2

Scientists capable of creating a bionic eye transfer the data from it to low-tech VHS tape? Yeah, right. #vhs2

I just knew it would have an "If thyne eye offends thee, pluck it out" ending. Gah! Seen it all before in "Body Bags". #vhs2

So who's the meth lab chav in the Macbook video? Probably has an ASBO. #vhs2

iPhone placement. ::yawn:: #vhs2

I think we can see where the camera was mounted on the first dude now that we have the mountain bike nerd. #vhs2

Wait. He has a camera on his handlebars looking at him too? What a whore! Must be a YouTuber. #vhs2

"I've got a big fucking stick!" Really? Am I bothered? Face. Bothered. Face. Bothered. I'm not even bothered. Zombies? Gah. :( #vhs2

Give a film school student a camera and what do they do? Make a zombie film. Shove it up your arse! #vhs2

"He's like covered in blood." LIKE covered in blood? How LIKE covered in blood is that? Ketchup maybe? That's LIKE blood. #vhs2

Self-aware zombie? Fail. #vhs2

Bored with the third story already. No idea what language the guy is speaking. Korean maybe? #vhs2

Translator chick is hot. #vhs2

Blair Witch stick figures? Really? #vhs2

Who put the subtitles in when they transferred it to VHS tape? #vhs2

Who is filming what? Seems to be a lot of extra cameras in the third story. #vhs2

Did they leave a camera filming from the boot of their car? Why? #vhs2

I've eaten a whole bag of Bugles (Nacho Cheese flavour) watching this. #vhs2

Ok, I admit that Stanley knife to the throat was good. #vhs2

Nice bit of splatter in the third story. #vhs2

But now it's turned into Quake. :( #vhs2

Baphomet wants his daddy! "Papa!" LOL #vhs2

Lots of snot. LOL #vhs2

They are making a movie with a dog-cam? 'Murica. :( #vhs2

Bah. Aliens? Aliens don't exist. What utter horseshit. #vhs2

I think they killed the cute little dog. Fuck the makers of this film. #vhs2

The chav shot himself. Flinched. Missed. Blew his face off. Most common accident for potential suicides. Now he's Zoidberg. #vhs2

The wraparound story made no sense. Ah well, another one for the video game generation. :( Crap. #vhs2

It was easier to watch than V/H/S, but... meh. Some nice gore effects, but why all the extra cameras, and who put the films onto VHS? #vhs2

My rating for V/H/S/2 = 3 out of 10. Not scary. Not shocking enough. Seen it all before but filmed with steadier cameras. #vhs2

I'm not sure what the names of each segment in this anthology are, and I don't really care that much to look them up either. The third segment with the cult is easily the best, but the second with the zombies is kind of okay too. In both cases, there are too many extra cameras floating about which makes a mockery of the "found footage" gimmick. The wraparound story is just a waste of time.

My biggest criticism of "V/H/S/2" is that there are too many zombies in it. Two segments and the wraparound story are full of zombies, and like most people, I've already seen enough zombie movies to last me a lifetime.

The Devil's Carnival (2012)

"Lost souls enter The Devil's Carnival where they are each faced with the sins they committed in life."

Yeah, I know "The Devil's Carnival" is a musical and isn't my kind of thing at all, but I was challenged by the Real Queen of Horror to watch it. Once I discovered that it had the beautiful Emilie Autumn (one of my favourite musicians from the heyday of MySpace) and Briana Evigan in it, the idea didn't seem so bad. Challenge accepted!

Unfortunately, apart from providing the opportunity to lust over Emilie Autumn in a very small acting role as Painted Doll, the movie doesn't have a lot going for it.

It all looks very nice, but the three Aesop's Fables underneath aren't used to convey exactly the same moral messages as they were originally intended to. Moral messages are redundant if the recipients are already in Hell, but that little detail never bothered the Amicus anthologies much so I'm willing to make some allowances. The songs which unnecessarily repeat the same tales again are absolutely dreadful though.

"The Dog and his Meat" or "The Dog and her Shadow" doesn't quite match the original apart from being about greed. Let's be brutally honest here, Briana Evigan is far from being a dog! It's nice to see her get topless for a split second although it would be better if she turned round while being whipped. Boobs and blood are sadly lacking throughout.

The second story comes closest to "The Frog and the Scorpion" by showing the danger of trusting someone who is unable to control his nature, but it's still a bit of a stretch. Jessica Lowndes looks amazing in her '50s-style green dress, but her character, Tamara, is the one who can't change her nature to trust people too easily rather than the Scorpion (Marc Senter) who is nothing but a liar.

I can't even place the third story, "The Devil and his Due", among Aesop's Fables, but it's been many years since I last looked at them (plus there are over 650 of the buggers anyway). It could be one of Aesop's Fables or it might possibly be a conflation of any other fable with a Faustian theme. The punchline seems to be from "The Monkey's Paw", but it could even be from one of the fairytales by the Brothers Grimm. Whatever the case, Sean Patrick Flanery is okay in it but not exceptional.

The Devil or Lucifer, played by Terrance Zdunich, is the best of a bad lot. Having a slightly similar appearance to the late Andy Hallett from "Angel" apart from the green is no indication of talent though. Lucifer is no Lorne, and his sing-talking is worse than Ke$ha's.

As with all musicals, I can't help but feel that 'The Devil's Carnival" would've been a lot better without the music. The lyrics of most of the songs are hard to decipher and some don't fit the tone of the movie whatsoever. I doubt that they took more than five minutes to compose, and if they did, they were meant for something else. If you've never seen a musical like this before, just imagine a really crap pop video of a song you've never heard before which has been coupled with burlesque images that don't match the lyrics, then multiply it by twelve, take away the number you first thought of, and try to lick your own elbow.

Even though it's short, the film exceeds in self-congratulatory padding to show off the make-up, sets and costumes. Mercifully, this does limit the number of songs involved but still allows the ones that do exist to be unintelligible and boring. At least there are some pretty girls in bikinis to ogle.

It's no great surprise that "The Devil's Carnival" is from the same director (Darren Lynn Bousman) and writer (Terrance Zdunich) as the equally horrible "Repo! The Genetic Opera" (2008). What does amaze me is that anybody likes this kind of thing or that it has any commercial value outside of a very small niche. Netflix subscribers beware!

For me, "The Devil's Carnival" was 55 minutes of absolute torture compounded by the fact that I also spotted the loathsome Hannah Minx from YouTube as an extra. Yeah, she's pretty and everything, but why have such a talentless waste of space in a movie? Oh, because she has enormous boobs, obviously. Gah! You have to laugh that she's wrongly credited as "Hannah Jinx" instead of her YouTube moniker or real name. Aw, how sad.

After that segue, I'll end this review with an ungrammatical YouTube comment which sums things up almost perfectly: "It's just a bad musical with corny songs, corny dancing with a bunch of girls walking around with their tits hanging out."

Zena, if you truly enjoyed this, what the Hell is wrong with you?

Next!

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.

Rosemary's Baby (1968)

"A young couple move into a new apartment, only to be surrounded by peculiar neighbours and occurrences. When the wife becomes mysteriously pregnant, paranoia over the safety of her unborn child begins controlling her life."

Day 16 of my "Hallowe'en Countdown" brings us "Rosemary"s Baby". Why? Because the story begins in October, and it's full of witches, that's why. Hallowe'en is, after all, still one of the most important of the witches' sabbats whether a new name was slapped on top of the old pagan festival or not.

Although Rosemary is impregnated on the October 4th, 1965 according to her calendar and tells her husband the good news on the 29th, with a further blood test scheduled for November 1st, we can all assume that the witches had a little something extra to celebrate during their Hallowe'en weekend. Bizarrely, no Samhain festivities are shown.

At first, it's surprising that Roman Polanski didn't utilize the obvious cliché, but upon further reflection, maybe not. Even the most superficial searches of the internet reveal many conspiracy theories surrounding Roman Polanski, Satanism and the setting of the movie itself. For those of us who hadn't even been born when the events were going down in real life, it all makes fascinating reading which goes beyond mere coincidence. Did Roman Polanski sell his soul to the Devil in exchange for success or did he get involved with the "pseudo-Illuminati", who knows? If he did either, surely putting a warning message about secret societies into a movie wasn't the brightest idea.

But who even cares about any of that behind the scenes nonsense? We all know that movie people are strange and have pretty messed up lives anyway. If it adds to the appreciation of Polanksi's study of paranoia in "Rosemary's Baby" (which is based on Ira Levin's novel from the year before), so be it. I've always found "Rosemary's Baby" interesting for far less occult reasons.

Longer hair suits her more than a Vidal Sassoon bob.

As shallow as it may be, the main reason I like "Rosemary's Baby' is because Mia Farrow looks pretty in it, and she gets nude several times. I don't like her acting and could cheerfully strangle her character, but this is the only film I've ever seen her in where she looks attractive. Maybe not so much in the picture above, but for a very skinny and almost skeletal girl, Mia Farrow has several moments where the camera really loves her.

Rosemary Woodhouse is a very well written character and suits Mia Farrow perfectly. Having watched "The Haunting of Julia" (1977) only a couple of months ago and noted the lack of her development as an actress, it's clear that Mia Farrow really only played herself anyway. All that nervousness and neuroses are unlikely to be a product of simply being typecast.

As for supporting characters in "Rosemary's Baby", I loathe them all to different degrees which, obviously, is their raison d'être. From the controlling Guy Woodhouse (John Cassavetes) treating his wife like a child to the excessively irritating Minnie Castevet (Ruth Gordon) pushing the nosy neighbour stereotype to breaking point, they are all shown to be horrible people. If there's a warning in this film, it's never move to New York city.

It's pronounced "moose" not "mouse", you old bag!

Ruth Gordon does a fantastic (and Oscar winning) job as the ultimate "neighbour from Hell", but I could never tolerate much of her as an actress. Her voice, her face, and the way she delivers her lines just makes me think of the "kill it with fire" meme. Why Rosemary doesn't just deliver a deluge of the expletives which would fall so easily out of my own mouth to someone as pushy as that is one of the weakest parts of "Rosemary's Baby" for me. No matter how naive Rosemary is supposed to be, Americans are generally not so backward in coming forward when something annoys them. It's all part of the sinister plot though.

Since "Rosemary's Baby" is regarded as a classic movie by the majority of critics (not only by horror fans), I'm not going to make myself look foolish by picking any more holes in it. For one thing, I can't really find anything wrong other than how it never delivers the punchline of actually showing the baby. Bearing in mind that it was released during the Summer of 1968, and the effects for the brief appearance by the Devil himself were the best that could be done, it was a wise decision not to show an infant with glowing eyes, cloven hooves, horns, or a long, pointy tail.

If you've never seen "Rosemary's Baby" before, I've no doubt spoiled a lot of it for you. It's nearly 45 years old now though so you've had plenty of time to watch it. With the number of times it's been shown on television across the world, its almost impossible that anyone doesn't already know the story inside and out. The chances are that you haven't put in on for a while though so plonk it in your DVD player tonight and give it another whirl.

Alucarda (1977)

"A young girl's arrival at a convent after the death of her parents marks the beginning of a series of events that unleash an evil presence on the girl and her mysterious new friend, an enigmatic figure known as Alucarda. Demonic possession, Satan worship, and vampirism follows."

Due to a recent debate on the "Better Geek Than Never" podcast about naked exorcism scenes which nobody seemed to know about, I thought I'd better do a very quick review and recommendation of "Alucarda" for you.

Unless you are the kind of person who loves Jean Rollin, Jess Franco, and most of the "nunsploitation" movies released by Redemption on VHS back in the '90s, you probably haven't heard of "Alucarda" or its director Juan López Moctezuma before. I can't say that all of his movies are worth acquiring if you are just an average horror fan, but "Alucarda" certainly provides a nice upgrade if you were brought up with Hammer.

Juan López Moctezuma's first movie, "The Mansion of Madness" (1973), is on the Mill Creek Entertainment "Chilling Classics" pack, and it's the one which most people have seen. Far fewer people have encountered his second movie, "Mary, Mary, Bloody Mary" (1975). It was a considerably better yet slightly too talky pulp horror movie which led to Moctezuma getting quite a reputation for having lots of blood, nudity, and attractive girls in his films. The badly paced plots of all three of his '70s horror movies were, arguably, more of an afterthought than anything else, but "Alucarda" was the last of these as well as being the peak of Moctezuma's career.

Susana Kamini and Tina Romero (above) are, obviously, the best reasons for watching "Alucarda" unless you just want to see priests and nuns flagellating each other. It's not really worth spending a great deal of time talking about the merits of the rest of the cast, since although they all did a great job, most of us have ever heard of any of them anyway.

Undoubtedly, the most famous actor in this, Claudio Brook, who is highly entertaining in a dual role as Dr. Oszek and the "Hunchbacked Gypsy", will only be known to you as the preacher in "The Devil's Rain" (1975), which is another underrated gem which I have yet to write a review of.

As you can work out from the very poor anagram in the title, "Alucarda" is mostly a vampire movie based very loosely on "Carmilla" by Sheridan Le Fanu. As such, it follows much the same pattern as Hammer's earlier "Karnstein" movies, but it has a possession angle to it which may have been inspired by "The Devils" (1971). Despite some oustanding camerawork and a couple of really nice effects for the time, "Alucarda" doesn't have much originality. It even blatantly borrows from "Carrie" (1976) for one of its later scenes.

Personally, I've always thought that Susana Kamini as Justine was not only better looking but a much better actress than Tina Romero who played Alucarda. Your opinion may differ as, in fairness, neither of them seemed to have all that much acting ability, even though it was more than enough for what the story required them to do.

Satan's Triangle (1975)

"The female survivor of a shipwreck and two Coast Guard helicopter pilots sent to rescue her find themselves trapped in a mysterious part of the ocean known as Satan's Triangle."

I often gets asked which horror films have truly frightened me so I thought I'd better start providing you all with some answers. Although the majority of the really scary ones only worked when I was a child, there are some such as "Satan's Triangle" which not only bring back those memories but are still as terrifying today as they ever were.

In case you haven't ever seen "Satan's Triangle", since it's not available on VHS or DVD, I have embedded the full movie from YouTube above so now you have no excuse. There are several versions floating around, but I chose this one because it still contains ABC's "The Movie of the Week" introduction which I never knew about. I'm English so I saw "Satan's Triangle" on ITV. I don't remember what year that was, but it was certainly a lot later than when it was first shown in America.

I don't think it's possible to recall the shock I had from seeing Doug McClure, the star of such action movies as "Terror in the Sky" (1971) and "The Land That Time Forgot" (also from 1975), in something like this. All references to "The Simpsons" parody aside, he really was in just about everything at the time, but I think this was his first "horror" rather than "horrible" movie. Of course, as a child, I thought he was a great actor and loved his movies so when "Satan's Triangle" changed from a Coastguard rescue mission into something a lot darker, it really caught me unawares.

As for Kim Novak, I vaguely knew that she was supposed to be famous, but I had never seen her in anything else, and, lamentably, I still haven't watched any of her other films. It almost goes without saying that she was absolutely gorgeous in her prime (if you don't look too closely at her teeth) and she's still a very good reason for watching "Satan's Triangle" even if you aren't into horror. Her relationship with Doug McClure in this movie was a little bit forced since he had the looks and charisma of a boiled potato, but such were the '70s TV movies where even the homely guys got the hot chicks as long as they could do something reassuringly heroic, and, of course, there was a big twist anyway which I'm not going to spoil for you.

While the bulk of "Satan's Triangle" was all about Eva (Kim Novak) recounting the events of the storm which came out of nowhere and killed all the ship's crew, and highlighting what an easy lay she was, the creepiness came from a combination of the claustrophobic setting and Alejandro Rey playing a shipwrecked Catholic priest.

With a very short running time of only 67 minutes, the big scares may have only occurred in the final 5 minutes, but there wasn't too long to wait for them. After Doug McClure's character, Haig, had done his best to logically dismiss anything which seemed remotely supernatural, the shocking ending was even more powerful and has stayed in my mind ever since.

I've skimmed over the details so that you can all enjoy this movie for yourself, but you can probably tell that "Satan's Triangle" was something quite special considering it was made for TV. It certainly deserves a lot more discussion than my brief review so, after you've watched it again, feel free to leave your thoughts in the comments section below.

Exorcismus (2010)

(AKA The Possession of Emma Evans)



"A family allows their young daughter's exorcism to be recorded secretly."

Everybody calls this a Spanish horror movie due to the nationality of the director, writer and production company but as far as most viewers will be concerned, it's British. Ninety percent of the actors are British and the dialogue is in English so it's not exactly a typical Spanish film at all. It even has Doug "Pinhead" Bradley in it for all of five minutes.

Far more important than any of that though is that "Exorcismus" isn't very good. I've never been the biggest fan of "[REC]" (or its sequel and remake) but anyone expecting this to have some quality to it simply because it's by the same producers will be even more disappointed.

The biggest problem is that "Exorcismus" is just another in a long line of generic exorcism movies with nothing that really makes it stand out apart from a minor twist near the end. It's not even really a twist as such either but you'll see what I mean if you are ever unlucky enough to make it that far through the film to care.

It's not even worth getting into any of the technical details about the film as the acting is sort of nondescript, occasionally wooden, and just there. Nobody stands out, none of the characters are very engaging, and it's all just quite bland and flat. If you think of a really bad British horror TV show such as something that Channel Four might show really late at night when they hope that nobody is watching, this is about the same quality. Actually, it's a little bit worse because it takes itself completely seriously.

The camerawork is dreadful. It's a mixture of constantly moving handheld and POV shots but this isn't a "found footage" film that would even benefit from those techniques. I advise having a couple of doses of whatever you usually take for a headache handy if you do decide to watch this as you are bound to get one.

It's also very bright and clean looking to the point of being ridiculously so. A lot more gloominess might have given "Exorcismus" some atmosphere as it doesn't have any.

There are no scares or suspense but there are some unintentionally funny moments due to the ineptness of it all. At one point the possessed girl seems to be channelling Dawn French's parody of Regan from "The Exorcist".

Of course, this is going straight into "The Dungeon". It's derivative, predictable and clichéd. Even worse, it's also really rather boring with it.

Fear No Evil (1981)

"High school student turns out to be personification of Lucifer. Two arch angels in human form (as women) take him on."

I had very fond memories of "Fear No Evil" (even though I couldn't remember the name of it for the longest time) and so I'm sad to report that I have now ruined them all by rewatching this new Anchor Bay DVD.

It's hard to believe that the writer/director, Frank LaLoggia, was also responsible for one of my favourite ghost stories from the '80s, "Lady in White" (1988). There's not even a suggestion that he would have even been capable of such nostalgic brilliance in this lacklustre and confusing cheesefest.

Mitigating circumstances, including Frank LaLoggia's youth and the woefully inadequate budget for what he wanted to do, are no excuse for how lifeless the story actually turned out to be. If you pay close enough attention to the dialogue, it's all either contrived or somewhat pompous depending on which characters are involved. The high school students don't sound like any that you would have encountered in real life at that time and there's far too much "speechifying" (for lack of a better word) from the angels.

Aside from the exceptionally poor acting from a cast who were mostly too old to be real teenagers, "Fear No Evil" is notable for having a pretty good soundtrack full of late '70s and early '80s bands. I'm not going to list them as it would spoil the fun of playing "Name That Tune" should you ever rent this yourselves from Netflix. Even if you are too young to remember the '80s, you'll still recognise the songs as they are all very well known.

The thing which I remembered most from "Fear No Evil", though I'll freely admit that I remembered it wrongly, was the shower scene where the evil and effeminate Andrew got kissed by the school bully. Some people might think that a "gay kiss" in a horror movie was somewhat groundbreaking at the time but I think we should all know better than that. It may have been controversial in American movies but European filmmakers had been putting stuff like that in (and much worse) years before especially in the vampire genre. Although undoubtedly there are a lot of homoerotic moments in "Fear No Evil", it isn't a "gay" film as such and, even from my own heterosexual perspective, I think it fair to say that Andrew (Stefan Arngrim) was far too creepy and weird to be attractive in that way.

I actually falsely remembered the shower scene with Tony the bully turning into a woman during the whole snogging session. Obviously I couldn't have payed too much attention to it when I watched the film on VHS back in the day as that part came much later. Not to put too finer point on it, the macho John Travolta wannabe wasn't exactly thrilled with his free boob job.

As far as other horrific moments go, there wasn't anything particularly scary about "Fear No Evil" so it was appropriately named. There were a few gory moments here and there but they weren't all that realistic looking. A death by dodgeball defied even more laws of physics than the infamous basketball decapitation in "Deadly Friend" (1986).

The most annoying thing about "Fear No Evil" was the confusion caused by all the gender swapping archangels and how they were referred to by different names depending on who they were sharing a scene with. I could watch this film half a dozen times over and still not be able to tell you who played who or what their names were if quizzed on it afterwards though I can't say that I would even care to try to either.

The whole religious "devil versus angels" angle to this film was far too ambitious and not handled at all well. As much as I've moaned about "The Final Conflict" (1981) before now, all the Omen films were far superior to this. The final battle in "Fear No Evil" was a mixture of some of the worst effects since the end of "The Manitou" (1978) plus a ton of equally dated animation. Even worse than that, it was also a very lame anticlimax.

To say that I was disappointed by "Fear No Evil" is an understatement especially as I waited over 20 years to watch it again. Like so many '80s horror films which a lot of us look back on with rose-tinted glasses, "Fear No Evil" was actually quite a poor product even when it first came out but I just didn't realise it. I don't think that a modern audience would be capable of watching it without much beer-induced mockery and it's probably for the best. "Fear No Evil" wasn't a fun film at all and was far too serious in tone for something that dealt with such far-fetched subject matter.

Angel Heart (1987)

"Harry Angel is a private investigator. He is hired by a man who calls himself Louis Cyphre to track down a singer called Johnny Favorite. But the investigation takes an unexpected and somber turn."

Many years ago, when I used to religiously collect every horror movie that "4 Front Video" released (due to the lovely golden sleeves on their VHS tapes), I got myself a copy of "Angel Heart". I remember the day like it was yesterday. It was raining, I was in Woolworths, and "Angel Heart" was on the shelves with all the other £4.99 "4 Front Deletions" (as they were also labelled) which I'd already bought. Obviously this wasn't in 1987 but in the mid-90s as I really had no interest in seeing what I'd heard was a glorified pop video at any point before then. It also didn't help matters much that I already knew what the twist was.

Once home, I put this into my old top-loading VCR and prepared for the worst. No matter how many times I tried, I just couldn't get into it, and, though not a difficult film to understand, I just couldn't follow how Mickey Rourke's character was getting from A to B or why. The truth is that I really didn't much care.

Having now watched it again just to review it, I like it considerably more. While "Angel Heart" still has a lot of flaws, and I'll never quite understand how or why Harry Angel ends up in a Harlem church again after his only lead has apparently committed suicide, it did all look a lot better than I remembered it.

The languid "film noir" pace which once simply sent me to sleep was still the same but reminded me of better films such as "Blade Runner" (1982) and "Chinatown" (1974). The score, of course, is very similar to "Blade Runner" in places but, apart from a few blues-filled excursions into pop video land, it all worked for the benefit of the film.

Where "Angel Heart" excelled was in atmosphere and the grimy, sleazy quality of the filming. Where it failed massively was in the transitions from one location to another and, to be perfectly frank, the dialogue. The acting may have been first class but the words that came out of the characters' mouths often seemed more forced than natural. Although it's no understatement to say that "Angel Heart" is not only Alan Parker's masterpiece but Mickey Rourke's as well, that still doesn't make it a great horror film.

I'm not even sure that "Angel Heart" should really be called a "horror film" though. It may contain a huge amount of voodoo, supernatural elements, and some inventive deaths (most of which you don't even see happen but either hear about or see the aftermath of instead) but it isn't actually all that horrific or scary. Having Robert De Niro give an exquisitely sinister performance as "Louis Cyphre" (yes, you can work that one out easily enough!) may be enough for some people though.

What I really liked about "Angel Heart" was the story. You can argue as much as you like about it being predictable but I think that's the point. You are supposed to be able to work out a lot of what Harry Angel doesn't just before the revelatory twist and that is what makes it all worthwhile.

I used to be firmly of the opinion that the ending meant that "Angel Heart" wasn't a film that could ever be enjoyed twice. As much as it's a forerunner of "Identity", "Shutter Island", "The Ward" and even "Skjult" (which I reviewed earlier last week), all those films contain huge plot holes which you can't tie-up no matter how many times you rewatch them. "Angel Heart" has far fewer inconsistencies within its internal logic which means that you can go back and answer any questions that spring to mind although, if you pay close enough attention in the first place, you will never have to.

Undoubtedly there were a couple of surreal moments which completely jumped the shark as far as my enjoyment of any movie goes. Anything that disrupts the flow of a narrative such as dream sequences, flashbacks, hallucinations or any other weirdness really annoys me to the point where I mentally just switch off and, more often than not, eject the DVD and never bother with it again. All the blood dripping through the ceiling during the once infamous Lisa Bonet sex scene was probably the worst of these crimes but I kept watching for obvious reasons. The little boy's eyes glowing at the end were also rather unnecessary but I suppose you have to bear in mind the time that the film was made. "Angel Heart" may be set 1955 but it's still very much a product of the 1980s.

One thing that really stood out for me was all the racial stuff. Being from Britain means that I don't really come from a culture with quite the same history (although you could argue about some of the more dubious Imperial practices) and so that aspect of "Angel Heart" has always been alien to me. On a very personal level, I only met one black person in my entire life before coming to America and he was a medical doctor. Seeing this slice of America's past, albeit fictionalised, is just weird especially as, although the laws about racial equality have changed, I have noticed that the attitudes in real life largely remain the same. I'm not going to digress too much on this subject however or I'll be writing this review for days.

Changing the subject slightly, I really didn't find Lisa Bonet all that attractive but, curiously, I did think Charlotte Rampling looked incredible and I wish that more had been done with her character. It's not that "Angel Heart" needed any more sex in it but there were a couple of erotic moments between Harry Angel and Margaret Krusemark which should have been developed further especially in light of the big secret revealed at the end. The whole thing could probably have been made far more tragic by a different director and, with a remake rumoured, I expect it will be.

Anyway, I'm putting "Angel Heart" back in The Vault not because it's a fantastic horror film but because, in spite of some "Twilight Zone" qualities, it was quite original at the time. Obviously, the "Hellraiser" sequels (particularly V, VI and VII) have redone this story to death now and contain all the goriness that "Angel Heart" itself would have benefited from and it's interesting (and probably not entirely coincidental) that the original "Hellraiser" came out in 1987 as well. Stories about pacts with demons or the devil are far older than even the story of "Faust" but, in the late 80s, well, I'll leave it to your own memories to work out exactly why they became popular again.

I recommend "Angel Heart" to three kinds of people - Mickey Rourke fans, lovers of movies about voodoo, and general film noir enthusiasts. I don't recommend it to a modern audience (who have the same attention deficit disorder as Harry Angel appears to have at times) or to anyone expecting a real chiller.

Something Evil (1972)

"A young couple moves into a farmhouse in rural Pennsylvania. What they don't know is that there is an unseen presence in the house, and that it wants to take possession of the wife."

The IMDb description of this early Steven Spielberg TV horror film is wrong for so many reasons that I have to explain what they are before moving on. For a start, I don't think you could really describe the odd pairing of Darren McGavin and (admittedly younger) Sandy Dennis as a young couple. Secondly, the unseen presence is not confined to the house and it isn't unseen or even unheard either. Does it want to take possession of the wife? Well, I saw no evidence of that but maybe.

I'd seen "Something Evil" being shown on late night TV so many times in the late '80s and early '90s that I was convinced that ITV had run out of money for new films. Actually, one year it was shown three times by TVS which got bought out by Meridian so I must have been right.

Anyway, "Something Evil" has always been one of my favourite Steven Spielberg films not just because it's a "Spielberg" but because it's one of the weirdest horror stories that you could imagine. It's a bizarre mix of a standard haunted house story with possession thrown in which ends with a real vomit-inducing, sickly sweet cop out.

As yet another TV movie without a real trailer available from YouTube (where, once again, you can watch the whole thing if you haven't already seen it) or an official DVD release, I feel justified in giving a more spoiler heavy review than usual.

Basically, the Wordens (Paul, Marjorie and their two little kids) decide to move from the big city to an old farmhouse in the countryside. Even though geographically I suspect that they are supposed to be in the North East of Pennsylvania due to Paul's commuting to work in New York city every day, I think that it was all filmed in California.

While Paul (Darren McGavin) is away doing whatever advertising people do, Marjorie (Sandy Dennis) is left alone with the two brats and spends her time being uselessly artistic until "something evil" starts screaming like a baby from the barn. At first I thought it was a cat based on a blink-and-you'll-miss-it scene in the introduction where the kids are playing with some kittens. I'm not entirely sure that the sound isn't of a cat howling to begin with either until it turns into the most annoying noise on the planet. No, I don't like babies, their noise, their smell or anything about children at all so I would have been disappointed if all Sandy Dennis had found was an abandoned sprog.

Of course, even though she's completely alone without "Kolchak" to protect her, the late Sandy Dennis' character still has to embarrassingly venture out alone to see where the sounds are coming from with all the suspense and tension that you can pack into a walk from one wooden building to another. What she discovers is a jar of red goo which lights up and screams even louder. I don't know about you but I would have taken it straight to a TV station and made myself uber famous but, since this is a horror movie, our heroine just runs away terrified.

Now as much as Sandy Dennis is trouser-arousingly easy on the eye in a proto Ashley Judd way, I really found her Marjorie character to be very annoying. Apart from calling her husband at work (probably 300 miles away!) every five minutes and hysterically wanting him to come home immediately, she then gets involved in all sorts of bogus looking pentagram-painting and talisman-making escapades. Aye, she's all about the arts and crafts.

All this is pretty tame stuff really though until people start dying. In typical TV movie fashion, a couple of morally vacuous victims are set-up for an obligatory exploding car death which is only vaguely interesting because of its unexpected placement and the bad cut to the Worden's reaction to the news of their demise.

Other tropes include an old knowledgeable neighbour who provides a bit of history and help as well as his overly familiar son who does the same. In Classical terms they would be the chorus providing the exposition and so it's clear that Spielberg was still learning his craft at this point. A quick comparison with "Poltergeist" (1982) shows how he later abandoned that use of types as he also reworked this entire story.

Although it is easily possible to watch "Something Evil" without thinking ahead to Spielberg's later horror (and sometimes horrible) efforts, there are a lot of typical Spielberg elements in this film including a pre-occupation with family, cutely ugly kids, and a "love conquers evil" ending which makes you want to put your foot through the TV screen.

I'm just going to ruin the ending completely by telling you that the evil presence that makes the strawberry jam scream eventually possesses the Worden's son Stevie (Johnny Whitaker). You won't see that twist coming at all no matter how astute you are. You also certainly won't guess at the lame way the kid is exorcised even though I've already told you.

Since you have no reason to watch this now (but I know you'll want to anyway), I'll just mention that "Something Evil" is most remembered for containing a scene of "Spirit Photography" which was even more popular in the '70s than the crap about orbs on all those faked paranormal TV shows today. The "revealing something nasty which nobody noticed until the pictures were developed" routine found its way into a lot of famous '70s movies including "The Omen" (1976) where it was a major plot device. I'm sure that there is a shorter name for it and one day I might look it up but, for now, all I need to say about it is that it was a more glaringly obvious contrivance than the glowing eyes themselves.

From all this, you are probably thinking that I'm not going to recommend "Something Evil". Well, au contraire, I'm going to surprise you all by sticking this in The Vault. Although I believe "Something Evil" to be a weaker film than Steven Spielberg's far less supernatural TV movie "Duel" (1971), it provides a great insight into the early creativity of a now world famous filmmaker whether you like his later stuff or not. It even has a few good scares too.

Devil (2010)

"A group of people trapped in an elevator realize that the devil is among them."

I'm not much of an M. Night Shyamalan fan and, even though he only wrote "Devil" and left the directing to John Erick Dowdle, I wasn't expecting much of this film at all.

At 80 minutes long, it was a nice quick ride through some strangely familiar territory. I felt that I'd seen most of it before and done better especially the opening suicide falling from a tall building. I suppose if it worked for "The Happening" then there was no reason not to do it again. Such is the lack of imagination in anything from Hollywood lately.

Many years ago there was a much better German film set in an elevator called "Abwärts" which I have also reviewed. There was no devil or supernatural element at all to that story but it was much more entertaining. Maybe it was that I didn't know enough about the characters in "Devil" to care about them or maybe it was just too quickly paced but I couldn't really get into it at all. Everything was very two dimensional and just too superficial.

The only moment that stood out for me was when the maintenance guy was chasing his hat across the roof of the skyscraper and stopped right at the edge. I thought he was going to run right off the building and go plummeting to his death. I'm scared of heights and that bit gave me the appropriate shudder. Apart from that, there was nothing scary or horrific about "Devil" but I didn't think there would be in a PG-13 rated film anyway.

The big selling point is, of course, the question of who is the devil. It's supposed to be a big twist and nothing you would expect but it just fell flat for me. I could even tell who the devil was going to be from the trailer by a simple process of elimination. I hate it when they do stuff like that. In fairness, there will be some people who will get a surprise out of it and think "Devil" was a good film but, unless you are a teenager, it probably won't be you.

I don't think it's really worth discussing the religious aspects and any questions they might throw up because, basically, this isn't a very memorable or worthwhile movie in the first place. You can't liken this to something like "Angel Heart", "Fallen" or even "Devil's Advocate" because the twist (not that it's really a twist anyway) and revelation which follows isn't enough to make anyone even care. I feel like I just watched a "Hallowe'en Special" of some throwaway TV show that I have no interest in ordinarily.

I don't recommend "Devil" to anyone. It was too short, too uninvolving and, although watchable, was just a whole load of nothing really. I didn't even fancy the girl in it.