10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)

"After getting in a car accident, a woman is held in a shelter with two men, who claim the outside world is affected by a widespread chemical attack."

We all know how trendy it is for the jealous never-will-bes to bash J.J. Abrams (or any of the other successful producers/directors such as Michael Bay, Zack Snyder, Alex Proyas, or Neill Blomkamp) with their cowardly passive-aggressive tweets and boring podcasts which nobody but their equally slimy friends listens to, so don't think for a moment that I'm going to pander to any of their kind of audience with my review. This movie was directed by a new addition to the Bad Robot team, Dan Trachtenberg, rather than Abrams himself anyway.

Although it's no secret that I absolutely hated "Cloverfield" (2008) when it came out, and think that "Gwoemul" (2006) is far superior in every way, there were some bits of it I liked. I would have liked those bits even more if "Cloverfield" hadn't been filmed in the motion-sickness inducing faux "found footage" style. Thus, the fact that "10 Cloverfield Lane" (a sequel in not much more than name only, since it started life as a standalone story called "The Cellar") wasn't filmed with shakycams makes it a whole lot better than I expected without having to do anything else.

I used to have a piss bucket this size too.

"10 Cloverfield Lane" is more or less a triple-hander featuring John Goodman, Mary Elizabeth Winstead (from "The Thing" remake), and John Gallagher Jr. (who I've never seen or heard of before). There are a couple of other cast members who appear briefly, and a few voices on the radio, but the bulk of the story is really about the interactions of the aforementioned leads, how they cope with their confinement, their suspicions of each other, and all that kind of thing. There's a hint of romance too, but not much. There's no sex or nudity, barely any "bad language" (oh, so edgy!), and not much of anything scary either. I think you can guess the certification.

As a psychological thriller, "10 Cloverfield Lane" is as full of clichés and formulas as most modern movies. If you haven't seen many movies, you'll probably think it's pretty good, but those of us who are older and have seen just about everything the genre has to offer will find it all very predictable and somewhat irritating. Let's face it, we aren't the target audience for products like this anyway, so it's likely to make us even grumpier than usual.

Despite this, the cast does a great job with what is essentially a ripoff of at least one famous episode of "The Twilight Zone", and John Goodman plays the "evil all along" trope in much the same way as Chuck Connors in "Tourist Trap" (1979). All Howard (John Goodman) needs is a limp, some creepy dolls, and telekinetic powers, and "10 Cloverfield Lane" would almost be the same movie. So yeah, it's really not the same at all, but you'll see what I mean.

It's a 550 piece jigsaw puzzle called "Catfish". That is all.

Once again, there were no cats in this movie. I'm obviously not on the right blog to make a big deal out of that at the moment, but at least Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.) and Michelle (Mary Elizabth Winstead) spend some quality screentime putting together a puzzle of a surreal snorkelling cat.

Apart from bonding the two younger characters, does the puzzle have any significance other than being a puzzle? Who knows? I'm sure there are a few theories floating around the nerd sites, but I couldn't care less about any of them. Looking for subtext in a throwaway movie like this (or any movie for that matter) is absolutely pointless unless you are one of those stooges on the "big name" sites (and in magazines) who are desperate to publish absolutely anything to vainly stay relevant, spoil other people's hobbies, and get money out of their sheep.

For that reason, I don't really have anything else to say about "10 Cloverfield Lane" except that it's better than the first "Cloverfield", it's not "groundbreaking", and it certainly isn't very original. It's entertaining, the production values are way above average, and John Goodman is awesome, and you can read what you like into what I haven't written about or said in this sentence.

Clever graphics, but the bunker isn't really that far underground.

Minor Spoiler
Do we really need yet another "final girl" trope? Puh-lease! Just fuck off with this trendy "progressive" shit. We get it! Women, just like all human beings, can do stuff. Now all the SJWs can clap their manginas with glee. Oh yay, she's a "strong woman". You go, girl! Bahahahaha! Jannicke in "Cold Prey" (2006) is still much better than all of them. And Sarah Connor is pretty fantastic too. Well, when she was played by Lena Headey anyway.
End of Spoiler

I suppose, given the fact that there's nothing any better to watch right now, I have to concede that I enjoyed "10 Cloverfield Lane" more than I thought I would or ever should. There's no lag, the story plays out quite nicely until the extremely annoying ending, and it's not quite as shit as most American or Canadian movies.

If you're looking for a psychological thriller rather than a pure horror or sci-fi movie, "10 Cloverfield Lane" is okay. Just don't expect it to be as great as something like "How I Ended This Summer" (2010) though.

It Follows (2014)

"A young woman is followed by an unknown supernatural force after getting involved in a sexual encounter."

I've tried several times to get all the way through "It Follows" in one sitting, but I can't do it. Either I don't have the attention span anymore (which is unlikely) or it's just too boring as shit for me to want to. Thus, this isn't going to be a review as much as it will be some general bitching about the parts of "It Follows" which I noted before hitting fast-forward to get the torture over with.

From reading through what some of my online friends had to say about this movie, I understand that "It Follows" is supposed to be all "faux retro"—and it clearly seems to appeal to the hipstery "millennial" demographic who ironically weren't even alive back in the '70s, '80s, or even the '90s—but surely it should be meant for people my age (mid-40s) in that case too? So why doesn't "It Follows" generate all those happy nostalgia feelings for me? What's wrong with this picture?

The simple fact of the matter is that "It Follows" isn't to my taste as a movie. Not only are its non-specific retro qualities forced, pretentious, and inconsistent, but the slow-paced story is a load of meaningless and padded drivel with no satisfactory explanation for the "creature" or any danger of a cathartic payoff at the end.

Although the acting and dialogue is fine, the characters are somewhat flat, unlikeable, and sexually unappealing, and are too young and from the wrong country to have any cultural relevance to me even with my obligatory suspension of disbelief. As I can't identify or sympathise with American teenagers, there's no development of pathos possible.

Most importantly, however, as is the case with all new horror movies, "It Follows" is not in the least bit scary!

You'd have to tie me to a chair to make me watch this movie ever again.

I've often encountered arguments where someone says that "scary" is subjective. Well, it is to a point. Some people have varying degrees of phobias about certain things, for instance, big hairy spiders, and some people don't have any fear of those things at all. But in the case of any "scary movie", it's pretty much failed in its purpose if it doesn't have a percentage of scary for even the lowest common denominator. There are also universals which can be identified as potentially scary for other people even if you aren't scared of those things yourself, but "It Follows" doesn't contain any of them. It may be R-rated, but it's not even worth bringing the extremely sparse and still not scary "gory bits" into this discussion.

What "It Follows" does have is a decent score which sounds like John Carpenter composed parts of it (except he didn't, it was Rich Vreeland), and some initial visual similarities to "Halloween" (1978). Of course, you can film nearly any residential streets in America during Autumn and they'll look a lot like the ones in "Halloween" because nothing architecturally important has changed in the last 40 or more years. Arguing about that aspect is clearly redundant. "It Follows" is set in Detroit, Michigan, rather than Haddonfield, Illinois (or really South Pasadena, California), which only reinforces my point that America looks the same everywhere anyway.

Another big homage is to Jacques Tourneur's "Cat People" (1942) which is apparent with the indoor swimming pool scene, but it's hardly an exact match and isn't meant to be. In fact, "It Follows" owes way more to "Final Destination" (2000) for the core of its narrative, plus Brundlefly's vain attempt to delay the inevitable from "The Fly" (1986), than anything which it tips blatant nods towards. Let's face it, if you really need an allegory about sexually transmitted diseases, Bram Stoker's "Dracula" will always be the classic. It doesn't exactly take a genius to see the similarities between vampire legends and "It Follows" either.

It needed more cats. Any cats. Cats would have made it better.

I'm not the kind of philistine who would ever be stupid enough to argue that David Robert Mitchell doesn't know how to make a movie or hasn't done a great job with "It Follows" when it comes to the outstanding cinematography (which only has a few glaringly ragged handheld shots), but it's the languid pace of this thing which kills it. I'm not joking when I say that if I had to watch this movie more than once, it would soon become my go-to fix for insomnia.

One final little rant and I'm done.

I've read a ton of stuff about Maika Monroe being the new "scream queen" of horror and all that usual crap, but I don't get it. Yeah, she's an above average actress as well as being a pretty-ish blonde with only occasionally annoying lapses into vocal fry and all that jazz (for those who care), but she's certainly no Fay Wray, Ingrid Pitt, Delphine Seyrig, or even an Edwige Fenech (who wasn't blonde). I think many people need to think before throwing that "scream queen" title about willy-nilly.

And since I've accidentally mentioned it, I couldn't care less about the nudity and "sexy bits". For one thing, I'm British and nudity doesn't bother me in the slightest, and second, even the tamest porn site on the internet will show you more than "It Follows" has to offer. I have to admit that Leisa Pulido playing Greg's mother is quite the MILF though.

There are simply some movies which you know right away aren't meant for you, and lamentably, I'll have to concede that "It Follows" wasn't meant for me.

If you feel like pointing out exactly which parts of "It Follows" an adult should find shit-yer-pants-scary, you can post them in the comments section below.

An interview with Maria Olsen

Just a relaxed midnight chat and interview with filmmaker Maria Olsen from MOnsterworks66 including some stuff about "Percy Jackson and the Olympians", energy drinks, South African movies, vampire novels, remakes, indie movies, and crowdfunding campaigns, plus additional random banter.

I'm obviously not a very good "podcaster", I have no idea how to edit stuff with Audacity, and the Pulse Audio system on Ubuntu made my microphone all crackly and scratchy, but it is what it is. You might enjoy some of it.

Please also check out my review of Maria's latest movie "Live-In Fear", and keep up to date with further information by subscribing to the official MOnsterworks66 Facebook page.

Bad Milo (2013)

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

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

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

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

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

Everybody Loves Milo.

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

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

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

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

The Colony (2013)

"Forced underground by the next ice age, a struggling outpost of survivors must fight to preserve humanity against a threat even more savage than nature."

If you're Canadian, I'm sure you saw "The Colony" (and hated it!) when it was released theatrically back in April. It's not due to be released in the US for another four weeks, and it'll be October before it's available on DVD and Blu-ray. As usual, the pirates have already leaked it online, and it doesn't take much to find it on any of the major video streaming sites. Shame on you, pirates, but thank you too.

One thing which really aggravates movie reviewers is how some areas get to see movies before others. Even more irritating is the privileged clique of usually sycophantic movie reviewers who get access to new movies and can write their spoiler-laden critiques before anyone has even heard of the movie that they've written about. Such is the case with "The Colony" as it already has over 30 external reviews on its IMDb page, and it isn't even officially out yet!

Even some online Canadian friends of mine hadn't heard of "The Colony" before I mentioned it, yet it has a ton of negative reviews surrounding it for no apparent reason other than it was partially funded by Telefilm (or the Canadian equivalent to the BBC) and people feel that their taxes were wasted on it. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about the name of the company and their level of involvement because I only skimmed those reviews for obvious reasons.

The thing is, I enjoyed "The Colony" and have no reason to hate it whatsoever.

"I say we grease this rat-fuck son-of-a-bitch right now."

Okay, so "The Colony" is only "The Day After Tomorrow" (2004) with feral human cannibals in it, and superficially, it has a bit of a "28 Days Later" (2002) and "30 Days of Night" (2007) vibe to it as well, but there has never been an original Canadian movie in the entire history of movies, so it's nothing to get too upset about. In every case of a Canadian horror movie that I've ever seen in my life, all they've done is take three or four existing movies and mix them together with a big stick and some maple syrup.

Owing to the fact that I did read some of the review headlines accidentally, I will agree with the majority opinion that Bill Paxton is mostly wasted in his role as a power-hungry asshole, but he's still Bill Paxton, and he's awesome anyway. Laurence Fishburne also doesn't get to do a lot except for one very important action—an overused trope which is one of my biggest pet peeves in any American action movie ever—but again, Laurence Fishburne is still cool and always will be (apart from "Predators" which is best forgotten about). These two stars add some class to a movie otherwise filled with "no-name" TV actors, although to be fair, a few of us have heard of Kevin Zegers because of "Wrong Turn" (2003) and "Frozen" (2010).

I've never heard of Charlotte Sullivan before, but now that I've seen her—noting that she looks like a hybrid of Melissa George and Avril Lavigne—I wouldn't mind seeing a lot more of her. Yes, a pretty girl can save almost any movie that I watch, and I really am that shallow. She's a very good actress, and her chameleon-like ability to resemble so many other known actresses will surely help her career enormously. She doesn't have the biggest part in "The Colony", but her performance is nothing to be ashamed of.

Not Melissa George or Avril Lavigne when you get up close.

Cinematography-wise, "The Colony" looks fantastic. It was all filmed around an abandoned NORAD base in North Bay, Ontario, Canada, so the location is everything. It certainly looks the part, unlike some of the jarring CGI-effects and Dru Viergever who plays the feral leader as a pointy-teethed escapee from one of the "Mad Max" films.

Yes, I had to go there, and having gone there, I am now forced to mention the ever multiplying ferals who create all the lapses in logic possible. Breeding in bizarre numbers according to how many are needed in each scene is the least of their problems. How and why adults would turn en masse into cannibalistic maniacs who've lost the power of speech over presumably only ten years is a plot hole which doesn't even bear thinking about. Sometimes you just have to take things for what they are and ignore the lack of realism if you want to enjoy an action movie. At least it doesn't suffer from the magically reloading guns nonsense.

There's definitely plenty of action and a surprising amount of gore in "The Colony" which pleased me no end and is sure to please you. Having watched the movie cold (no pun intended but still acknowledged), I thought it was just going to be a predictable sci-fi movie about survivors in a frozen apocalyptic future such as a short story I read many years ago in one of the "Mammoth Books of New Horror" (sorry, I've forgotten the name of it, but it's not the Tim Lebbon one!), so I was extremely happy when the ferals appeared. Some of the scenes are rushed, but not enough to matter. You can forget about suspense or scares though because it's not really that kind of horror movie.

I'm going to rate "The Colony" as average, although it becomes a lot less than average once you factor in the $16,000,000 budget and wonder what it was spent on. There's been no big marketing campaign or buzz about this movie, so I really can't see how it cost that much to make a Canadian sci-fi/action adventure in the first place. I thought filming was supposed to be cheaper over the border even if you have some famous names attached.

I'll probably buy "The Colony" when it comes out on DVD, but I suggest seeing it theatrically (if you can), or as a VOD or Redbox rental, before going for a blind buy. If you like "The Day After Tomorrow" and "30 Days of Night", this is almost a sequel to the former and a half-way house to the latter. It's not very original, but it's not as bad as some people want you to believe.

Beneath (2013)

"Six high school seniors celebrating with day's excursion find themselves on rowboat attacked by man-eating fish and must decide who must be sacrificed as they fight their way back to shore."

As much as I would like to write "Beneath" off as nothing but a load of bickering teenagers who you've never heard of (plus Mark Margolis in a creepy cameo) being menaced by a more evil version of the big fish from "The Singing Ringing Tree" (1957), I really can't. For what it is, which is another highly sanitised Chiller TV movie, "Beneath" is far more entertaining than most of the sources it homages, but not in a good way.

Essentially, what director Larry Fessenden has done is rip-off the only good segment of "Creepshow 2", throw in a healthy dollop of "Lifeboat" (or "Lifepod"), and then stir-it all up with some pop culture references, a little bit of social commentary, and even some trendy GoPro camera product placement. All this without any nudity or swearing too! The guy is clearly a genius! Or not, as the case may be.

The biggest problem, other than the ridiculously ginormous piranha-style fish, is that the script isn't very good. The characters are so poorly written that even though you can see that everyone is trying their hardest to act and take it all seriously, there's nothing much for anyone to work with. As a result, there's not one likeable character, and the story becomes little more than a "slasher in water" as you just wait and hope for each annoying idiot to meet his or her demise.

All of them are toast fish food.

The great thing about "Beneath" is that it isn't a comedy. Of course the giant fish is one of the most poorly realised practical creature effects in any movie about giant fish since "Jaws", but as the story progresses, it becomes easier to accept its existence than to believe that the teenagers are really teenagers or were ever friends with each other. Their reactions are more wooden than the bored hosts who used to take the boats of tourists round the "Jaws" ride at Universal Studios, which, alas, is no longer a future employment option for anyone involved in this production.

The gore is surprisingly good for a hypocritical American TV movie with various cuts, bites, slashes, and dismembered limbs oozing blood all over the place. It's not to the same standard as "Piranha 3D", but "Beneath" obviously didn't have the same $24,000,000 budget to play with. I'd be amazed if this movie had even a third of the $1,000,000 budget that The Asylum sets as a maximum for each of their mockbusters.

As with every low-budget abomination nowadays, the camerawork isn't exactly brilliant, and the oh-so-important GoPro inserts make things look even worse. If you can get past that, there's barely any tension in the teenagers' predicament either. There is some, but it's mostly ruined by the stupidity of their childish behaviour. A different director might have got a better balance, but it is what it is. I've got a feeling that Larry Fessenden knew exactly what he was doing. I just can't prove it.

If you're a grumpy old misanthropist like me who is always on the look-out for something else to hate about people, "Beneath" has a lot to say about smartasses, snarkiness, white knighting, entitlement issues, relationships, cliques, and, basically, how disgustingly selfish today's teenagers are. It's almost as good as reading through the online dramas on horror message boards! The only difference is that everyone gets what they deserve this time! And it's glorious! Absolutely glorious!

"Das singende, klingende Bäumchen" has a lot to answer for!

Hatchet III (2013)

"A search and recovery team heads into the haunted swamp to pick up the pieces and Marybeth learns the secret to ending the voodoo curse that has left Victor Crowley haunting and terrorizing Honey Island Swamp for decades."

Gore, gore, gore, gore, gore, and even more gore! Yes, "Hatchet III" delivers what everyone has been craving for a very long time!

Three years after the instantly forgettable "Hatchet II", where Adam Green failed, BJ McDonnell's debut as a director breathes new life into a series which most of us had written off. Having said that, this is still Adam Green's baby and, unfortunately, there are places where it shows.

The thing is, you shouldn't be able to go wrong with a slasher film anyway. All you need is a group of people and a monster with supernatural strength to hack them to pieces in the most painful-looking and bloodiest ways possible. Who cares if "Hatchet III" has a thin and formulaic plot? The practical effects are absolutely lush with brutal dismemberments and blood gushing everywhere.

Where the previous "Hatchet" movies went wrong is that they had too much humour and none of it was funny. "Hatchet III" isn't perfect either although the balance is much better this time. It's still meant to be a "fun movie" rather than something to be taken seriously, but at least it is actually fun rather than a chore to sit through.

This is not a SyFy channel movie!

Not to spoil the big surprises for you, but all the usual convention circuit suspects apart from Tony Todd appear again. As Victor Crowley, Kane Hodder proves that he can still do a lot more than sign his autograph, which is nice.

Zach Galligan makes a decent attempt at playing a sheriff, Parry Shen turns up as a paramedic primarily to deliver an anti-racism jibe, and Derek Mears adds the visual in-joke of two former Jasons fighting it out for anyone who cares about remakes. The confrontation between Hodder and Mears could also be taken as "Victor Crowley is better than the new Jason" which, in this case, he really is. In many ways, "Hatchet III" is what the "Friday the 13th" remake should have been.

Even the acting is better this time although I doubt that the target audience of teenagers and "Friday the 13th" nostalgists will notice or care about such subleties. I noticed, particularly in the case of Danielle Harris whose scenes would lag if she wasn't so good in them, and I'm grateful for it.

Now approaching middle-age, Danielle Harris looks really good in this movie too apart from showing her huge, disfiguring tattoos in a hosing-down/shower scene which would be moderately erotic otherwise. At first, I thought she had some terrible wound inflicted on her by Victor Crowley, but then I realised what she'd done and it threw me right out of lust with her. What a shame. I'm sure she'll recover though.

Probably best if you keep your tracksuit on in future, babe.

I'm not going to go into further detail because I know that you'll want to see "Hatchet III" for yourself. I highly recommend that you do so as soon as possible before the usual negativity hits whatever message boards and Facebook pages you're subscribed to. "Hatchet III" is easily this Summer's best horror movie no matter what the "negative Nancies" might have to say about it.

It's taken three attempts, but we finally have a "Hatchet" movie which lives up to the original's tagline of "Old School American Horror". The third time really is the charm.

Horror Christmas Presents for Paupers - Part 4

Does the horror fan in your life love monsters? Does he or she also love Monsters or any other energy drink? In that case, recycling some old energy drink cans could make a perfect Christmas present and will allow you to play the part of Baron Frankenstein for a few minutes without spending any money at all.

In fact, when you take these cans back for the deposit refund, you can even make money from doing this! It's a win-win situation!


Make Your Own Monster

Absolutely terrifying, isn't it?

You will need:

1. Old energy drink cans. Monsters, of course, are best for this, but any will do.
2. Glue or sticky tape.


Instructions

Assemble the cans into a monster figure roughly the same as the one in the photo above. This one needs 18 cans. You can use glue or sticky tape to do it.

Note: I didn't actually glue these cans together owing to lack of time so please ignore the ruler.


Option 1

If you are very rich, present your horror fan with full cans in this arrangement.


Option 2

Draw a monster face on a piece of paper and stick it on the top cans to make your monster more realistic. If you can't draw, just download and print one out. It doesn't have to be the Frankenstein monster unless you want to be a purist.


Warning!

Do not attempt to do this with parts of dead bodies. They may be free, but the results will be unpredictable. Plus, if you get caught, you will end up in Federal ass-pounding jail forever!

The scariest part of Hellraiser!

The Engineer!

I don't know about you, but this monster (whatever it is) scares the piss out of me. It's like a newborn rat which has inherited some horrible physical deformities and yet still lives. Ugh!

Whoever thought this thing up must have some terrible nightmares. By deciding to have it chase people along corridors, they caused several nightmares for me too.

Kill it with fire!

Rawhead Rex (1986)

"Ireland will never be the same after Rawhead Rex, a particularly nasty demon, is released from his underground prison by an unwitting farmer."

I'm sure the more astute of you will have noticed a pattern forming over the last week, or at least you would have done if I hadn't replaced "Wishmaster" with "Phantasm II". I didn't plan it, but I seem to have been picking out a lot of movies for Hallowe'en which are about releasing demonic beings from their prisons either accidentally or on purpose.

It's all a coincidence, but when patterns start turning up like this, it makes me wonder if I'm being warned about something by "the other side". Hallowe'en is definitely a time when all sorts of nastiness could be unleashed so be careful with those ouija boards, chalk circles on the floor, or trying to pull standing stones out of your field with a tractor.

Anyway, this post is just a recommendation for the movie which I use as the divider between what I find acceptable to watch and what I deem to be complete crap. If a movie looks worse than "Rawhead Rex", I kid you not, I will throw it in the bin without watching more than 5 minutes of it.

Having said that, "Rawhead Rex" doesn't look particularly bad to me. It's obviously low-budget, and Rawhead is just some guy in a badly made ape costume like the ones in "2001: A Space Odyssey" (which is highly overrated, boring beyond human endurance, and absolute crap), but the camerawork is decent.

Clive Barker might not like "Rawhead Rex", but I don't really care what he thinks about anything after seeing what he has on his Tumblr page. Trust me, you do not want to check that out no matter how curious you may be.

I really like the "Rawhead Rex" story, the Irish setting, and even some of the characters. The late David Dukes as Howard Hallenbeck is pretty good, Kelly Piper has a few decent moments, and, of course, Ronan Wilmot as the nutty Declan O'Brien stands out way more than anyone else just because he's awesome in the part.

Thankfully, even though "Rawhead Rex" appeals to those retarded folks who would laugh to see a pudding crawl, it's not a comedy. There are a couple of genuinely disturbing moments, and it definitely doesn't pull any punches when it comes to gory kill scenes. Considering the budget and the time it was made, "Rawhead Rex" is probably the best monster movie from 1986 (other than "The Fly"). If you don't believe me, just go back and rewatch them. Nobody had anything too brilliant in the way of practical effects that year.

As usual, when it comes to these ridiculously overpriced OOP DVDs ($299 for "Rawhead Rex" on Amazon? I think not!), I've embedded the movie from YouTube at the top of this post so you can watch it for free. Enjoy!

Pumpkinhead (1988)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeepers Creepers (2001)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

King Kong (1933)

"A film crew goes to a tropical island for an exotic location shoot and discovers a colossal giant gorilla who takes a shine to their female blonde star."

Although "King Kong" hardly counts as a horror movie and is more of an adventure story, it was groundbreaking at the time, and is still one of the greatest monster movies ever made. I've already reviewed it on one of my other blogs (which I have now abandoned), so I'm just going to repeat the bulk of that post again with a few changes.

I have always enjoyed this version of "King Kong" more than any of the lacklustre sequels, clones, or modern remakes. I'm not sure what it is about the stop-motion animation or the improbability of any of it which appeals to me so much, but maybe it's because I first saw it on television when I was a child. It brings back cosy memories of random things like making toast in front of an open fire while the wind whistled outside, cuddling my first cat, collecting comics, and looking forward to a future which turned out to be not so great.

Even without the rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia, I still appreciate everything which the then uncredited directors did with "King Kong" as they made a timeless story which has enthralled generations ever since in whatever format they've watched it on.

As an adult with the luxury of DVD, I've noticed a few things which a lot of people might not pick up on, although not the alleged "nipple shot" of Fay Wray as she gets out of the water at one point. I was stupid enough to fall for that hoax and spent some time fast-forwarding, rewinding and freeze-framing the DVD, but all I got was a pixellated blur at best. To be honest, I don't really need to see Fay Wray's nipple to enjoy the movie, especially as I most certainly saw Jessica Lange's in the 1976 remake.

No, what I noticed most was how incredibly flawless Fay Wray looked in every scene. This really was the time of beautiful film stars, not ones covered up with so many layers of make-up that they don't even look real anymore.

Of course, the other outstanding thing from the movie was Kong himself. I have very little knowledge of exactly how much work went into his scenes but, without even looking it up, I could tell that it was a lot. Yes, I know that's kind of a redundant sentence, but I would estimate that many thousands of hours were put into animating Kong using one tiny movement at a time.

"Jurassic Park" may have had more bells and whistles, not to mention a plot which borrowed heavily from "King Kong", but nothing is more amazing than seeing a giant ape fighting dinosaurs from back in the 1930s. Even watching "Metropolis" again fairly recently, although obviously not quite the same thing, really highlighted the artistic skills which have been lost in this age of computer generated images.

I'm going to wrap this post up with the biggest message that I got from the whole thing. Basically, back in the '30s, Americans must have thought it was their God-given right to invade other cultures and steal their monkeys. You would have thought that a film like this would have at least given them a good warning to stop, but alas, it still goes on and the whole country has more entitlement issues than ever before. Even in the midst of now being a third-world country itself and suffering from the worst economic crisis since the time "King Kong" was made, still nobody seems to have learned their lesson. Just replace giant monkeys with oil and you've got a great political allegory here.

But I've digressed. I'm all about the movies not politics even though there are socio-political implications to so many films which we all take for granted.

Having said that, isn't it strange that Kong climbs the Empire State Building with his beloved or that the Twin Towers replaced that symbol of capitalism in the 1976 remake? Obviously, it was intentional in both cases.

I'm giving "King Kong" a huge 9 out of 10 for being as enjoyable today as it was when it was made. I wish I could say the same for Peter Jackson's remake. but that one is best forgotten about.

Doctor Blood's Coffin (1961)

"People are mysteriously disappearing near a remote Cornish village, where a scientist is experimenting with reviving the dead."

Since it was 18 years ago today that I first named my video review column in "The Demeter" magazine after a movie which I had never actually seen at the time, I decided to watch a remastered version of "Doctor Blood's Coffin".

There are two things which I have to get out of the way before I begin my review. The most important of these is to tell you that, in spite of the name, "Doctor Blood's Coffin" isn't a vampire movie. Yes, I did feel rather silly when I found out. I was writing my first published reviews for a Dracula magazine back in the day but nobody else realised my mistake either.

The second thing is that when I first watched "Doctor Blood's Coffin" on television in the late '90s, I thought it was horribly dated and boring. I didn't even make it to the end. Like a lot of younger reviewers nowadays, I only wanted the latest thing and had yet to develop any real taste or discernment.

"Doctor Blood's Coffin" has one of those somewhat embarrassing titles which would make you believe that it was yet another of those "cheesy" (I loathe the use of that word, by the way), over-the-top, campy horrors which today's hipsters like to get off on because they think it's "so bad, it's good". Fortunately, for me, although some of the acting is a little bit clumsy, the film is way more intelligent than the crapfest which it could have been.

The big draw here for movie lovers of the time is Kieron Moore who plays one of the two "Dr Blood" characters in the story. As Peter Blood, he is the younger, handsome, research scientist son of Ian Hunter's Robert Blood.

Kieron Moore was a very recognisable face during the '50s and '60s although his acting style was always rather more shouty than subdued. If you think of him as a constantly smoking prototype of Brian Blessed but without the beard and with an Irish accent which sounds German then you won't go far wrong.

The other even bigger draw for horror fans in particular is the late Hazel Court who plays Nurse Linda Parker. Hazel Court was one of the most beautiful of Hammer's horror actresses and was previously known for her role alongside Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee in "The Curse of Frankenstein" (1957). It's ironic (and probably no coincidence) that "Doctor Blood's Coffin" is, basically, another Frankenstein subgenre story.

One thing which I find fascinating (and here I'm going to get a bit spoilery even though the trailer gives it away) is how "Doctor Blood's Coffin" deals with the subject of human heart transplants six years before the first successful one was achieved by Christiaan Barnard in 1967.

There's a lot of outright moral condemnation of the whole organ donor thing here especially as Peter Blood comes across as quite a psychopathic bad guy and none of the donors are willing. There's even a big argument between Dr Blood and his nurse later in the film which doesn't present his case in a very good light at all although both sides of the case are treated somewhat childishly and it's hard to tell who was more insane.

The style of the film is very Hammer-esque but is nothing to do with them. The location filming really was done in Cornwall rather than the Bray Studios version as in "The Reptile" (1966). What horror directors had against Cornwall, I have no idea. It's hardly the most desolate place on the planet. The trope goes back to "The Uninvited" (1944) and is a bit like how New York city people think that anything upstate is all farms.

Another thing which stands out for me is the love the cameraman must have had for the old cars. I'm not entirely sure but I think at least one of them is a Hilman. There's definitely a Wolseley and a Ford Zodiac in here too. You can see them on the IMCDb (yes, an "Internet Movie Cars Database" really exists). As I grew up in the '70s and most of these cars were still going strong back then, it's a nice nostalgic moment.

Of course, what you really want to know about is whether or not "Doctor Blood's Coffin" is gory or scary. Well, it's definitely gory in a couple of places and, if you are the right age, the last ten minutes could be quite scary. I think it's more of an intriguing serial killer kind of thriller until the story really jumps the shark at the end. It would probably have been a minor classic if it hadn't gone so bizarrely into the absurd.

I don't want to give a major spoiler about the ending, but I will say that it isn't how anyone with a brain would expect this film to end. Of course, the producers were counting on that shock factor to get bums on seats in the cinema, but it's too unrealistic and doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

If it wasn't for the last ten minutes, "Doctor Blood's Coffin" would get at least a 7 out of 10 rating. The trouble is that those last ten minutes put the movie in a whole other category, and so it only gets a 6 out of 10 from me.

Snowbeast (1977)

"A Colorado ski resort is besieged by a sub-human beast that commits brutal murders on the slopes."

I actually remember watching this TV movie on British television about a year after it came out and I was still the right age to appreciate it. I now have about half a dozen copies of it scattered throughout my Mill Creek (and EastWestDVD) collection. It's not my favourite film or anything ridiculous like that but it does have a great late '70s vibe to it and is still a pretty solid Yeti movie.

"Snowbeast" suffers from a plot so derivative of "Jaws" that you just have to laugh at the sheer cheek of it all. It's not the only movie to do this as "Blood Beach" was even more of a ripoff and, later, the "Alligator" movies could just as well have been called "Jaws On Land". To be fair, there aren't many ways of making a "Creature Feature" but you would think there would be some attempt back then to be original. For those of us who weren't old enough to see "Jaws" back in the day, "Snowbeast" was a very welcome substitute.

One of the main criticisms about any of these films is either that too much or too little of the creature gets shown. "Snowbeast" actually falls into the latter category since the Yeti (or whatever it is) gets all of a couple of minutes of onscreen time. It's a shame really because, when you do get a close-up, it isn't too bad at all for a guy in a hairy suit.

I nearly always feel sorry for the creature with these kind of movies but somehow I just couldn't in this case because there wasn't enough shown of it to empathise with. Without that, Bo Svenson's change of heart from arguing for the creature to finally joining in the hunt for it is nothing more than formula.

Bo Svenson is the big star in this, of course, and he really is a big guy too. He's massive for an ex-Olympic champion skier and his flared yellow skisuit isn't too flattering. I don't know if he did his own stunts or not, presumably not, but if he did then he skis really well. It's a pity that he doesn't really fit his character. Clint Walker tends to steal all the scenes out from under him although whether he is actually acting or not is another matter.

I didn't really care about either of them too much though because I was trying to place Yvette Mimieux. It dawned on me that she was the dopey Weena from "The Time Machine" (1960) although I really remember her most from a terrible TV movie remake of "Bell, Book and Candle" (1978) which I watched one rainy afternoon. She's very pretty though.

There isn't really much more to say about "Snowbeast" other than there's a lot of snow, some pretty dangerous looking snowmobile driving at one point, lots of skiing, and the creature doesn't have a very happy ending. The final scene was horribly rushed.

The only major problem with "Snowbeast" (which means that I'm only rating it as average) was that there were plenty of places where some tension, jump scares or just some action of any kind could have made a big difference. It's still worth watching for a dollar.

The Incredible Hulk (2008)

Although I do actually recommend that you see "The Incredible Hulk", there are just a few annoyances about the film that I have to share.

Firstly, the CGI. Now I know that it would be pretty difficult to create the Hulk any other way but this was really very bad indeed. In the shorter bursts the animation doesn't distract too much. It still doesn't look real but it is almost acceptable. However, in the longer action scenes, it all just looks like a computer game which spoils it.

Secondly, Tim Roth's character is absolutely ludicrous. Not only is he much too short to be a soldier (especially in comparison to the giant-like William Hurt) but he tends to lurch from side to side when he walks which also doesn't gel with any military training that I can think of. He was totally miscast and his performance was just embarrassing.

On the other hand, even though he really looks his age (40) at times, Edward Norton does a great job as Bruce Banner. He'll never be as good as the late Bill Bixby but having a top notch actor in something like this really makes a difference. It may cause a bit of a stretch of the old "willing suspension of disbelief" that he could actually get Liv Tyler as a girlfriend but she's no spring chicken now either so I think their onscreen chemistry works for the most part.

One thing that bugged me a lot though was the way that the initial "accident" that caused Dr Bruce Banner to become the Hulk was just rushed through during the opening credits. The same thing happened with the Iron Man movie in that the bits you want to see are left out with the assumption that everybody already knows the story. I think it was probably done to give the audience time to warm to Edward Norton and to save our first negative impressions of the Hulk CGI monstrosity until later. It almost worked so I suppose I should grudgingly give credit where it is due for not showing "the monster" too early.

The best thing about "The Incredible Hulk" is that it is 100 times better than Ang Lee's 2003 version. You can pretty much forget that it even exists now. There are frequent nods in this to the classic TV series which is really how it should have been done in the first place. Bill Bixby gets shown briefly on a TV screen and, apart from voicing the Hulk, Lou Ferrigno also plays a pizza-loving security guard for a minute or two. Even the haunting theme music that we of a certain generation all know and love is included.

Stan Lee has a cameo just to make sure that we all know that this is an official Marvel update and the ending with Robert Downey, Jr., as Stark promises yet another entry into the canon later on.

It will be interesting to see how the new Captain America film turns out before they launch into a full-blown "Avengers" series though.

Cloverfield (2008)

I absolutely hated it. It's just "The Blair Witch Project" but in New York with monsters.

Not only was it yet another kiddie-rated PG-13 unscary monster film, but it sucked on all levels. The acting was pure Hollywood drama school stuff where everyone pauses and tries to convey as much emotion as possible with eyes and teeth before delivering a line, the dialogue was poor and as unrealistic as could be, and the camerawork was so bad that I imagine a lot of people would throw up in the movie theatres or suffer some kind of epileptic seizure from all the whirling and spinning.

It was 18 minutes of wedding party, 30 minutes of "Oh my god... oh my god... oh my god... oh my god... boom... bang... shriek... boom... oh my god... oh my god", and then the rest was all "Run... oh my god... shriek... boom.... rarrrr... boom... boom... shriek... bang... run... run... oh my god... rarrrrr... oh my god... oh my god.... oh my god... boom..."

I give it 1 out of 10 for the ability to con so many people into watching it. It's just another crappy motion-sickness-inducing-shakycam film with about 5 seconds of CGI monster in it. It's more overhyped and poorly executed rubbish!

I can see it being used for the "Oh my god" drinking game in future though. Alcoholics will love it!


OMG! The Blasphemous Cloverfield Drinking Game

Here are the timings so you can print them out and keep track.

18.14 "Oh my God"
18.18
18.30
18.40
19.43
19.56
20.28
20.40 "Oh my God, Oh my God" BONUS!
20.48
21.09
21.10
21.21
21.22
21.48
23.00
24.20
28.00
29.21
29.29
30.17 "Oh my God, Oh my God" BONUS!
30.43
35.19
36.24 "Oh my God, Oh my God" BONUS!
37.41
43.22
43.26
50.10
51.28
51.38
51.42
51.46
54.06 "Oh my God, Oh my God, Oh my God, Oh my God" 4 in a row DOUBLE BONUS!!
55.40 "Jesus" (If he is your God - BONUS!)
56.23
56.53 "Jesus" (If he is your God - BONUS!)
56.54
56.55 "Oh my Gosh" PENALTY! Eat something!
57.28 "Jesus" (If he is your God - BONUS!)
59.13
59.25 "Oh my God, Oh my God" BONUS!
60.35
61.17
61.39
62.00
62.01
62.13
62.22
62.37
62.42
63.59
64.02
64.40
65.14
65.21
65.30
65.39
66.00 "Oh God, Oh God, Please God, Forgive Me" BONUS!
68.13 MONSTER CLOSE UP BONUS! Say "Oh My God" for him!
69.59
70.00

Extra drinking BONUS for spotting the "Blair Witch Project" line at 70.32 - "I'm so scared, I'm so sorry!"

There are 66 OMGs in "Cloverfield" yet when the monster appears full frame no one says it. The audience.is encouraged to say it because the character with the camera keeps saying, "Oh... oh.... oh...."


I think the whole film is a work of the Devil to get everyone to worship the Beast! :)

Revelation 13:1 “And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.”

Seriously, it has to be intentional! The devil is a master of chaos and confusion which is pretty much the subject and the style of the film too.

Just look at the timing for the "God forgive me!" line. 66 minutes in!!!

And clover? A four-leafed clover is a good luck charm, i.e. it's witchcraft. Anything "lucky" derives from the word "Lucifer" which is again equated with the Devil! We only see the monster's face at sunrise in the film. Lucifer is the "bearer of light". The monster is therefore the DEVIL!

We're all going to HELL!!!!!!!!!!!!