Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children (2016)

"When Jacob discovers clues to a mystery that stretches across time, he finds Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children. But the danger deepens after he gets to know the residents and learns about their special powers."

Really fucking good! I'm amazed at how much I enjoyed this, especially considering that it's a kids' film by Tim Burton.

Obviously, I only watched it because Eva Green is in it, and she does not disappoint. In fact, I don't think I've seen her give a bad performance in anything so far. She's not as sexy as she was in "Dark Shadows", "Sin City 2", or "300: Rise of an Empire", but then again, she's not playing that kind of role this time either.

Even though "Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children" is more or less a ripoff of Marvel's "X-men", it's beautifully filmed, almost flawlessly acted, and has lots of surprises in the casting. Samuel L. Jackson chews scenery brilliantly, Terence Stamp is used far too sparingly, but you can't complain when Rupert Everett is in it too!

As expected, the characters and plot (based on yet another YA novel which I have no intention of ever reading) are a bit weird here and there, and the CGI Slender Man/Jack Skellington-wannabe (a lot like the one in this year's "Blair Witch") makes several appearances (because that's the scary thing now, apparently), but it's not an excessive Tim Burton fantasy. In other words, there's no Johnny Depp or Helena Bonham Carter being overly "eccentric" to spoil it.

I'd even go so far as saying that "Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children" is an "epic" children's adventure. A few nods to (or obvious "borrowings" from) other well known classics for the same age group are noticeable without being cliché, and it all just works. Admittedly, a major part of the story involving "time loops" falls apart under closer scrutiny at the end, as happens with every "time loop" sci-fi or fantasy movie ever made, but the target audience are unlikely to notice.

Highly recommended for all ages, and definitely one to buy when it gets released on DVD and blu-ray. If it's still playing at a cinema near you, catch it while you can.

Oh, and [SPOILER] Judi Dench's character dies in it, which is always a bonus!

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.

Nightlife (1989)

"A beautiful female vampire awakens after a hundred years of slumber to find herself in modern-day Mexico City, in this tongue-in-cheek thriller from director Daniel Taplitz."

Not to be confused with the zombie-comedy "Night Life" (with a two word title) from the same year, "Nightlife" is a made-for-TV vampire-comedy starring Maryam d'Abo, Ben Cross, and Keith Szarabajka.

As far as I know, "Nightlife" is not available on DVD, and although you will find it to watch online in all the usual places, the VHS version has become ridiculously expensive. For a low-budget TV movie which is only slightly above average, the price has obviously been driven up by VHS collectors rather than vampire movie fans. Having said that, there's still a lot to like about "Nightlife".

Dealing with the most obvious thing first, "Nightlife" has Maryam d'Abo in it only two years after her breakthrough role as a Bond-girl in "The Living Daylights". Although I don't have a "thing" for her, many people do, and she's certainly very attractive as the vampire Angelique.

"She's in better condition than my wife!"

The coincidence that there's also an Angelique (played by Lysette Anthony) in "Dark Shadows", and Ben Cross went on to play another vampire, namely Barnabas Collins, in the same 1991 TV series, won't be wasted on collectors of such trivia or vampire aficionados. As Vlad (no originality there!), Ben Cross delivers an often menacing and scenery-chewing performance, which clearly got him noticed and typecast as another vampire later.

Because "Nightlife" is a romantic-comedy at its core, Keith Szarabajka, who I've occasionally confused with a young Nick Nolte or even John Heard, plays Dr. David Zuckerman in a traditional yet occasionally comedic manner as he falls in love with his vampire patient. While not the most charismatic or heroic actor in the world (although he was great in "The Equalizer" TV series), he suits the part, and his chemistry with Maryam d'Abo mostly works.

Blurry VHS makes everyone look younger.

Having mentioned John Heard, "Nightlife" has a noticeable similarity to "Cat People" (1982), especially the relationship between Oliver Yates (John Heard) and Irena Gallier (Nastassja Kinski). Just replace Paul Gallier (Malcolm McDowell) with Ben Cross, and the "eternal triangle" is complete. I'm not saying that anyone copied anyone else here. The sexual rivalry is simply a standard element of most "rom-coms".

As a PG-13 rated vampire movie, "Nightlife" doesn't have a lot of blood, and its comedy is subdued enough to cause the drama to be slightly more serious than it should be. Glenn Shadix from "Beetlejuice" (1988) turns up as an unnamed vampire, Camille Saviola gives an over-the-top performance as Angelique's maid Rosa Mercedes, and there are a couple of witty lines, but there's nothing which will make anyone laugh out loud. I think the lack of comedy works in this movie's favour, however, and makes it a lot more palatable for those of us who don't like horror-comedies.

There's not much else to say about "Nightlife" other than it was filmed on location in Mexico City. It doesn't have many sets (and the few it does have are a bit sparse), some of the camerawork is dodgy, and the "I Put a Spell on You" song by Jay Hawkins is overused. Apart from those minor quibbles, it's fine.

With my rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia firmly in place, I'm going to rate "Nightlife' slightly higher than most people would. "Nightlife" was one of the first vampire movies which I reviewed for a magazine many years ago, and I've enjoyed it watching it again.

Terminator Genisys (2015)

"John Connor sends Kyle Reese back in time to protect Sarah Connor, but when he arrives in 1984, nothing is as he expected it to be."

I watched "Terminator Genisys" on Friday afternoon, but I'm writing my critique during the small hours of a Sunday morning and will backdate it to Saturday night. Why? Because time travel, that's why. If any of that confuses you, you probably shouldn't watch this movie, but you can still consider my introductory sentence to be a segue into yet another half-arsed review of a PG-13 Summer sci-fi/action movie which I don't really care about.

Yes, to cut a very long and convoluted story short, "Terminator Genisys" is pretty bad apart from all the 3D gimmicks, big bangs, and explosive action scenes. Fans of "The Terminator" will not be disappointed because, let's face it, if you are a true fan of this genre of craptacular spectacle then nothing anybody says will (or should) prevent you from liking it if you want to. Moviegoers who are used to such subtle things as sympathetic characterisation or a narrative which makes any bloody sense whatsoever should look elsewhere for entertainment.

The nostalgia brigade will undoubtedly be marvelling at the CGI which makes Arnold young again and then be lamenting at how old he looks in reality. The line, "Old but not obsolete!" gets repeated a number of times to make all the infantalised middle-aged men who are watching a movie meant for children feel better about their hero and themselves. I picked up on it too and thought it was sad.

Terminator Genipiss in 3D! That's not gimmicky at all!

On the plus side, the recreation of scenes from previous Terminator movies (particularly the first one) seem spot-on to me without being able to physically compare them side-by-side. Apart from Arnie, the other actors are completely different, but as continuity has never been an important factor in the Terminator series, criticism of this aspect is redundant. "Terminator Genisys" still looks the part and feels like a real Terminator movie, and it's much better action-wise than "Terminator 2: Judgment Day". I'd rather rewatch "Trancers" or "Timecop" than that kiddified shit ever again.

The action scenes and all the clever CGI nonsense in "Terminator Genisys" are actually pretty great, and there's hardly any lag in what really only amounts to a "chase movie" overall. Among the numerous tropes, the "Which one is the real one?" gag also gets played out just to remind those of us of a certain age of how many times "The Six Million Dollar Man", "The Bionic Woman", and even "The Gemini Man" TV shows pulled the same thing back in the day. Lazy writing, clearly, but this is only another typical Summer cash-grab after all. "Iron-Man 3" was much worse, so bite me (to coin a phrase).

It's not worth trying to get your head around how the alternative timeline doesn't match up to anything already known, negates the majority of the other sequels, and won't ever provide an answer to the paradoxes about how and why John Connor can be conceived by a couple who are in the wrong time for him to reach the right age to be a leader in the future war with Cyberdyne or Skynet (or whatever the hell it is), but then again, maybe he's no longer meant to exist. I can't work it out, and I really don't care that much to try to. It's all a load of horseshit anyway.

One ironic quirk is that Matt Smith from "Doctor Who" turns up in a small but important role which made me almost chuckle. I absolutely loathe the "Doctor Who" episodes which he starred in (not only because I'm a David Tennant fan), and in my opinion, none of them make any sense either. It's not Matt Smith's fault but the writers, of course, yet it provides an unfortunate in-joke for those of us in agreement about the matter.

Nerdy computer users waiting for Microsoft's much anticipated Windows 10 on July 29th will also grin at how the Genisys operating system is worked into the storyline, but all I could think of was how "Genesis" is spelled wrong and has nothing to do with the Sega Megadrive. Didn't get the last part? It's a Brit thing, don't worry about it.

Yes, she gets nude again. No, you don't see anything.

Ultimately, the best thing which "Terminator Genisys" has going for it is the chance to see Daenerys Targaryen from "Game of Thrones" as a brunette. Emilia Clarke is a worthy new Sarah Connor in that she's much better than Linda Hamilton but not quite as strong as Lena Headey. Yes, I really liked "The Sarah Connor Chronicles", and I'm still pissed off that it was cancelled.

Emilia's acting abilities aside, she reminds me a lot of Danielle Harris from certain angles but much sexier. She kind of gets nude too, but you don't see anything because this is a PG-13. Boo! Mind you, I'm sure there'll be a porn parody. "Sperminator Genitalpiss" anyone?

But that's quite enough of that. You can watch "Terminator Genisys" in 3D or 2D theatrically if you want, or save your money for the Blu-ray or DVD later in the year. You won't miss anything important by waiting.

"Terminator Genisys" is a polished turd, but it's still a turd like every other theatrical release so far this year. It makes me glad that I'm not reviewing movies anymore.

Jurassic World (2015)

"Twenty-two years after the events of Jurassic Park, Isla Nublar now features a fully functioning dinosaur theme park, Jurassic World, as originally envisioned by John Hammond. After 10 years of operation and visitor rates declining, in order to fulfill a corporate mandate, a new attraction is created to re-spark visitor's interest, which backfires horribly."

I remember way back in the far distant past of 1993 that I was sixth in a queue of eager moviegoers over a mile long which ran all the way down the street from the cinema, past a park, and over a bridge. The original "Jurassic Park" was so hyped that the world went a little bit crazy that opening weekend for dinosaurs, and I'm proud to admit that I was part of the insanity. I may have been too old for it, but I still bought the action figures, books, and anything else labelled with the "Jurassic Park" brand.

Twenty-two years later, nothing seems to have changed apart from the age of the original audience. With box office takings of over $551 million so far, "Jurassic World" has become an unprecedented success for a third sequel, but it's not only due to my generation's nostalgia.

Dinosaurs have and always will be one of the biggest draws for audiences of all ages. Everyone loves dinosaurs! Stick a dinosaur in a movie and it's almost guaranteed money in the bank. A couple of dud sequels in the "Jurassic Park" series have done nothing to diminish the yearning to see more of the same.

Velociraptors and motorcycles are cool.

Since I'm trying to be not my seemingly negative and jaded self, let me just interject the obvious fact that "Jurassic World" is a PG-13 Summer movie meant for little kids and family audiences. As such, it's no better or worse than any other movie released to get asses on seats for money this year, and it's full of all the spectacle that you would imagine.

Unfortunately, "Jurassic World" is overlong at 124 minutes, and it often suffers both from lag and unsympathetic characters. In fact, the action doesn't even get going until around an hour in, so if you haven't seen it yet, you can arrive late and not miss anything very important. Apart from a load of exposition and crowd scenes of visitors to the new Jurassic theme park, the CGI dinosaurs mostly mill around aimlessly and aren't nearly as impressive or groundbreaking as in the original.

Chris Pratt plays an ex-marine who has semi-trained a bunch of velociraptors in one of many "Chekhov's Gun" tropes which predictably play out later on in the story. As the most charismatic actor in "Jurassic World", he tends to steal the show, especially from the younger actors who are more or less forgetten during the second-half.

Bryce Dallas Howard provides some corporate eye-candy with a heart, but minor characters and the other co-stars tend to remain minor and one-dimensional with no surprises or chemistry whatsoever. Having none of the original "Jurassic Park" cast members even in cameos, "Jurassic World" appears to have thrown the baby out with the bathwater for the sake of making everything "new".

And now for some SPOILERS. Stop reading here if you don't want to know!

Imodium Rex will scare the shit out of you.

SPOILERS

The best part of "Jurassic World" is undoubtedly a death scene at the 80 minute mark which almost rivals the opening sequence of "Jaws" (1975) in terms of excitement. Yes, it's the one with the aquatic Mosasaurus which is heavily featured in the marketing. Being CGI and rated PG-13, all the deaths are quite bloodless, but this one is rather good despite those limitations.

All the predictable fights ensue, and the Pterodactyls or Pteranodons which are a big part of Michael Crichton's novel are nicely used. Fans of flying reptiles will be pleased.

Obviously, the biggest thing in "Jurassic World" is the much touted super-dinosaur which is called Imodium Rex or something similar made-up for the sake of it. There's no great educational exploration of dinosaurs or any apparent scientific accuracy here, but the story works as a fantasy-adventure for the intended audience.

END OF SPOILERS

Overall, there's nothing really to hate in "Jurassic World", but there's not a lot that most people haven't already seen before, either in the previous "Jurassic Park" movies or clones. A few "in-jokes" and homages don't detract from the considerable retreading of the same ground as "Jurassic Park", but they don't add anything new or memorable either.

If you just want to relax, switch off most of your analytical brain functions, and enjoy a kids' movie (or have a family to take with you), you won't go wrong by choosing "Jurassic World" over the other theatrical offerings this month.

Including nods to similar scenes at the end of "Jurassic Park", this love letter to the fans (both young and old) is a worthy finale, but it will cause déjà vu.

Poltergeist (2015)

"A family whose suburban home is haunted by evil forces must come together to rescue their youngest daughter after the apparitions take her captive."

Oh God, here we go with the unnecessary remakes again! 'Tis the season! Not that I'm opposed to every remake. Some of them have been better than the originals, particularly in nearly every case of the Asian horror movies which I once collected.

Yeah, some of those remakes are on the Ghost House Pictures label, the same company who are the producers of this movie, so you'd think that they would know what they were doing by now. You'd be wrong, of course. So very wrong.

Look, I'm sure that you know exactly what I'm going to say about "Poltergeist" before I even write it, so let's cut straight through the chase here.

The remake of "Poltergeist" is
complete and utter shite!

Print that on the eventual Blu-ray slipcase!

I don't feel the need to back this up with any reasons. It's already bad enough that I wasted my time and money by watching this soulless piece of crap, and I don't want to torture myself more by writing about it. And no, it has nothing to do with nostalgia.

I've always disliked the original 1982 version because it only has one scene in it which even resembles real poltergeist activity, i.e. the stacking chairs one, and thus even the title of the movie was a bait and switch con job. Fundamentally, the rest of "Poltergeist" is a padded and updated ripoff of the "Little Girl Lost" episode from "The Twilight Zone" TV series anyway.

I can't stand the dope-smoking parents, or the irritating kids, and jump scares don't work on me. On top of that, the smug ghosthunting team and that awful Tangina thing grip my shit. The only two things which I care to remember fondly from the whole ordeal are JoBeth Williams' beautiful shiny legs. That's it.

In my opinion, the original "Poltergeist" is a stupid but fairly harmless, family-friendly Spielberg fantasy in everything but the director's name. I have no idea if Tobe Hooper really directed it or not. I don't care. I simply don't like "Poltergeist". I'm not an American, I don't connect with the suburban situation or the characters, and I have absolutely no nostalgic feelings about it whatsoever. Just waves and waves of bitter disappointment that it isn't actually about poltergeists.

And you know what? I don't like the sequels either.

"Poltergeist II: The Other Side" (1986) seems like an inferior ripoff of John G. Jones' genuinely terrifying "The Amityville Horror Part II" (1982) novel to me, and "Poltergeist III" (1988) is nothing but a badly made final cash grab which isn't worth piss. Back in the day, I only got through that mess of a movie because I didn't want to completely waste the VHS rental fee. It then turned into a waste both of money and part of my life. Fuck that movie too!

As for this "Poltergeist" remake. I've said all that I want to. If you need further validation, I recommend that you read round the other independent reviewers rather than the "big name" sites carrying those enormous "Poltergeist" advertisements. We all feel much the same way. There's probably nothing different on any of the free blogs which I wouldn't have said about "Poltergeist" myself if I even gave two shits about it, but the most condemnation that the shill sites will dare to write is "Well, it's not bad for a remake..." Fuck that noise!

Just watch the IMDb score drop over the weekend as more people find out the truth for themselves. It's only on 5.8 now! The comments on the official Facebook page are hilariously illuminating too. "Poltergeist is bad, it's really bad. It's "A Nightmare on Elm Street" remake bad! It's too modern, truncated, the ending is rushed, the acting/characterisation is horrible, there's no chemistry, no emotion, it isn't scary... Oh, you nearly got me there. No, I'm not doing this anymore. No more negativity!!! I'm outta here!

If you're really that desperate for a "Poltergeist" remake, try "Grave Secrets: The Legacy of Hilltop Drive" (1992) or "Insidious" (2010) instead. I haven't reviewed them either.

Maggie (2015)

"A teenage girl in the Midwest becomes infected by an outbreak of a disease that slowly turns the infected into cannibalistic zombies. During her transformation, her loving father stays by her side."

It's no good, I've bitten my tongue for far too long about the continued decline of so-called "horror" movies. So behold, I'm writing an actual movie review for the first time in nearly two years, even though I honestly don't care about any of it anymore. Unless something as equally dire as this zombie crap comes up later (not including the inevitable remakes and sequels which loom before us), I don't think I'll write another horror movie review this year either. Horror is creatively dead, and there's no point.

I didn't write about the hypocrisy of all the "Twilight" haters who sucked up to "Spring" (2014), even though it's little more than one of those talky "Before" movies with a couple of minutes of monster, nor did I feel obliged to climb back into my online persona like a dog returning to its own vomit to comment on the softcore teen-porno known as "It Follows" (2014). So boring! But I've digressed. I have no beef with any of these people, even if their egos may cause them to manufacture one with me. I don't know any of them personally outside of how annoyingly they act on the internet, and really don't want to. We aren't friends, and we never will be. That's just how the cookie crumbles.

Let's get down to the subject in hand. In the case of "Maggie", it's yet another PG-13 "genre" film with no scares or any horror in it, indicating that the whole concept of "scary" has apparently been abandoned forever now. Just calling a movie "horror" is enough for some people, I guess, whether it bears any resemblence to the dictionary definition or not. Still jaded, I highly doubt that there will ever be a genuinely scary movie again from anyone.

Boasting the same horrible faux-handheld camerawork (with the everso slightly shakiness of such movies as "The Reaping") and a mostly washed-out colour palette, "Maggie" won't make you throw up with motion sickness but will fill you with nausea by utilising such a recognisable "shakycam" contrivance to add "realism". LOL (I never used to use acronyms in my reviews, but I have to this time). Realism in a zombie movie? Give me a break! Why even bother? It's all FICTION, geddit? I hate to break it to you, but zombies aren't real!

To say that everything about "Maggie" is predictable would be an understatement. Aside from the obvious outcome, there's much amusement to be had when Joely Richardson touches her neck to show anxiety JUST LIKE SHE DOES IN EVERY EPISODE OF NIP/TUCK! Get some range Joely, for the love of God! LOL She's still undeniably gorgeous but seems to be no longer capable of doing an American accent or even act anymore. Shame.

Look, I can't act worth a shit either, nor can I bake a cake, but that doesn't mean that I can't spot bad acting or know what I like to eat. For that reason, the less said about Arnie's dozen lines of anguished dialogue and constipated expression throughout, the better. I still like his previous work, I just wish he would actually learn to do some acting one day. I won't deny that there are some attempts at acting here, but it's not very convincing.

I don't really want to write anything about the girl who plays Maggie, but I will. I don't know her name, Abigail Something, and I can't be bothered to look it up on the IMDb either (oh, it's on the poster... Breslin). I think she was nominated for an Oscar once. I don't remember or care. The Oscars are total bollocks anyway. For someone who is supposedly dying, Maggie just behaves like a typical mopey teenager. Oh, so sad! She didn't even register on me, and she's supposed to be the lead! Superficial characterisation or generally bad writing? Who knows? LOL again. I found that I was more interested in how old Arnie looks now, the makeup, locations, and the sets than any of the dramatic performances.

It's true what Wes Vance often said on Deadpit Radio back in the day when I used to listen to it, "If you continuously feed people with a diet of shit, eventually shit doesn't taste so bad to them anymore." In fact, a lot of them now consider shit to be their staple diet and greedily gulp it down willingly.

"Maggie" really is another plateful of steaming turds which the hard of understanding and easily pleased will undoubtedly find very satisfying. The Aristotlean "art is best when hidden" rule is thrown out of the window like a Parisian chamber pot with this movie, and forget about any of this bland crap "causing emotion" or "the catharsis of such emotion". It's tropes, formulas, flat characters, and languid storytelling all the way. OMFG (sorry about another acronym which I would never use in real life), "Maggie" is utter shite!

Slow, boring as fuck, and with a shit ending, the "horror nasties" will undoutedly ADORE and LOVE "Maggie" (since it's impossible for any of them to merely LIKE a film with their affected and constantly gushing written style). They all write the same way and repeat each other ad nauseum. I bet they are all SUPER EXCITED about this too. Bahahahahaha! Fucking tools! I bet none of them will have the balls to admit that even "Contracted" (2013) has better effects and more emotion to it than "Maggie".

I would say that I can't wait to read their reviews to see my predictions proven right, but I'm not that interested enough to do so. Let's face it, you know that the "big names" (in reality, nothing but unemployable ex-students who write purple prose for less than a penny a word) and their asscrawlers will be praising the shit out of this because it gets them page views, reciprocal promotion, a quote on the DVD cover, and access. There's very little honesty among them, and there never has been. "It's all marketing" is their hackneyed excuse. Whatever. They are nothing but gaslighters and clickbait. Let them eat zombie cupcakes!

"Maggie" is vacuous rubbish of the highest order which is presumably aimed at younger teenagers who aren't allowed to watch "The Walking Dead" on TV. Entertainment-wise, this isn't for "horror buffs", traditional Arnie fans, or for anyone expecting lots of action. It's not even badly done enough to laugh at in a sneering way like so many scathing reviewers love to do.

Supposedly a character driven piece and an allegory about terminal illness, the dialogue is so lame and the execution so ploddingly dull that "Maggie" fails to deliver the goods there too. With or without the zombie gimmick, "Maggie" is simply null and void on all emotional levels.

For something more invigorating, I suggest that you go old school and watch some vintage Romero or Italian zombie movies instead. Vote with your wallets and give this one a miss unless you've exhausted everything else to watch.

The Lazarus Effect (2015)

"A group of medical students discover a way to bring dead patients back to life."

Remember "Flatliners" (1990)? How about "Pet Sematary" (1989)? Yes, of course, you do. So does everyone else, especially Blumhouse Productions. Thus, it comes as no surprise that "The Lazarus Effect" is a quick and dirty remix of the two fondly remembered "millennial generation" movies from the poorer first-half of the 1990s, and seems to be another product designed to grab some easy money by using nothing but predictable formulas and tropes.

Yes, all horror movies are mainly repeated formulas, clichés, and tropes anyway, but Blumhouse have been working on getting this down to a fine art for some time. You have to give them credit for studying the genre and at least trying to create the "perfect" formulaic horror movie, although they do still seem to fail at it more often than not. The better movies which they homage are too recognisable and way too fresh in the minds of the target audience, and that makes these Blumhouse products fairly redundant.

In this case, "The Lazarus Effect" is yet another in a long line of Frankenstein-genre (or "science run amok") movies where Man plays God and things go very wrong. A little bit of pseudo-scientific babble and the old "science versus religion" chestnut get another outing to create depth, but nobody really cares one way or another as long as there are some gimmicky special effects to look at.

Adding Evan Peters who is currently in vogue by being eyecandy for teenage girls in "American Horror Story", and American TV staple Olivia Wilde (who I really only recognise from her movie roles in "Turistas", "In Time", and for wearing a very sexy costume in the horrible "TRON: Legacy"), is another stroke of Blumhouse genius to attract these actors' fanbases to this movie. Knowing how easily pleased some people are, I'm sure that it works too.

For what it is, "The Lazarus Effect" is an okay watch with very good production values, effects, and above average acting. However, despite an effective set-up, the narrative is a bit thin overall, and it obviously plays out like at least two stories mashed together badly because it is.

"The Lazarus Effect" is hardly the worst sci-fi/horror ever, since it does entertain and delivers exactly what it was created to do, so it's hard to find fault there. It even has a decent atmosphere and a couple of attempts at jump scares, but due to being PG-13, it's just not very scary or destined to be memorable.

I don't recommend it.

Gravity (2013)

"A medical engineer and an astronaut work together to survive after an accident leaves them adrift in space."

I don't know about you, but the thought of being stranded in space gives me the heebies. The mixture of claustrophobia, agoraphobia, and vertigo would drive most people insane, and let's not forget about the possibility of being captured and tortured by aliens! Unfortunately, "Gravity" doesn't go into those areas, so it's not very satisfying for horror or sci-fi fans.

"Gravity" is a disaster movie for science nerds who love movies such as "The Right Stuff" (1983) or "Apollo 13" (1995) and believe that there really are space labs orbiting Earth, Man landed on the moon, and all that other rubbish. It's not another "Event Horizon" (1997), "Mission to Mars" (2000), or even "Armageddon" (1998), except for some very superficial similarities and, of course, being set in space. Thus, if you're expecting something other than a potential Oscar winner, look elsewhere.

To say that I wasn't impressed by "Gravity" is the understatement of the year. I was, by turns, bored out of my mind, nauseated by the shocking waste of money that went into something which the BBC could have filmed for the price of a couple of bags of prawn cocktail crisps back in the days of "Blakes 7", and because it's hard to tell what's going on unless you have some kind of astronautical doctorate degree, I was even more confused by all the confusing things which Sandra Bullock was confused by. Basically, I hated it.

Maybe it's also because I read Ray Bradbury's short sci-fi story "Kaleidoscope"—which everyone claims isn't the inspiration for "Gravity" until they are blue in the face (even though it clearly is!)—when I was a teenager, and it stayed with me. Or maybe it's just because I can't abide movies about astronauts in the first place. Either way, I felt like I'd seen the best and worst parts of it before.

Here come the spoilers!

What a load of Bullocks!

I have no idea how much of "Gravity" is CGI or filmed against a green screen, nor do I care about the smoke and mirrors behind the scenes. The result is very clever, and with such great effects now available, I'm sure we'll get a fake Mars landing from NASA eventually. What I do know is that Sandra Bullock is hot for her age, and her 3D acrobatics look cool, but neither is enough to make any of this movie exciting.

Using the "running out of air" trope is the closest that "Gravity" gets to having any tension, and a couple of dead astronauts provide the only horror. If only Sandra Bullock could've been persuaded to strip completely like Barbarella rather than just down to her t-shirt and underpants like Ripley, it would have perked things up a bit. Alas, this is a PG-13, and she doesn't do anything particularly sexy apart from grunting, groaning and gasping. Okay, so she also barks and howls like a dog at one point, but you have your fetishes and I'll have mine.

What really pissed me off, however, was the lack of scientific accuracy about how things work in space. Not only does the whooshing and swooshing make no sense in a vacuum where sound doesn't carry, the biggest cock-up is that Sandra Bullock could have just given George Clooney a little tug (no, not THAT kind of little tug!), and there would have been no need for his predictable self-sacrifice. I've seen this cliché done to death (quite literally) in American movies so many times that it's guaranteed to make me cringe and grind my teeth in anger now. In this case, it's also a terrible waste of George Clooney!

"Look, Mom, look! A falling star!"

Frustratingly, George Clooney doesn't ever get to finish his Mardi Gras story about the "hairy guy", although I've got a feeling that the punchline would have involved some kind of monkey. I just thought I'd throw that in here because I'm sure everyone else with a normal brain felt cheated by the lack of closure too. I even Googled it to see if it was an old joke by a comedian who I've never heard of, but I couldn't find anything.

Nerds will probably love "Gravity" for the various spaceships with their big boards of switches and flashing lights, but I couldn't make head nor tail of which was which or how they are supposed to work. Apart from the Cyrillic in one and Kanji in another, everything looks the same to me. You also have to laugh at how years of training and millions of tax-payers' dollars are proven to be completely wasted when Sandra Bullock makes her "Eeny, meeny, miny, moe" choices. I guess that NASA will be changing their astronaut training program accordingly, unless of course, that is their astronaut training program already. Mind you, it's not as if man (or woman) has ever managed to leave this planet in any way other than a coffin, so it's all bullshit.

My biggest complaint about this whole boring mess, however, is that there are no apes riding horses and catching humans in nets when Sandra Bullock finally gets back to Earth and crawls out of the lake. I'll never understand why they left out that very important detail, but hopefully, it'll be available as an extra on the DVD and Blu-ray later.

The alternative DVD ending.

As far as anything called "Gravity" goes, I still prefer Zlata Ognevich's sexy Eurovision video.

Insidious: Chapter 2 (2013)

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones (2013)

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

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

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

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

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

Clary and creepy Jace share a mundane moment.

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

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

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

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

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

Sexy Isabelle has a big pair of swords.

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

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

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

Pacific Rim (2013)

"As a war between humankind and monstrous sea creatures wages on, a former pilot and a trainee are paired up to drive a seemingly obsolete special weapon in a desperate effort to save the world from the apocalypse."

Do you want to know what irritates me beyond belief? Films like this and the fanboys who overpraise them.

For a start, "Pacific Rim" is a kids' Summer movie meant for little ADHD kids who like lots of robots, whirling things and huge explosions. It's not meant for adults even though there's a growing subculture of "weeaboo", "otaku" (Japanese for "idiots"), games console loving, overweight, comicbook convention nerds who all live in their parents' basements, grow neckbeards, and refer to the big robots as "Mecha" for some reason that I don't fully understand.

"Pacific Rim" is clearly not a movie meant for anyone of my generation (or the one below) except that a few sad acts who think it's hilariously ironic to praise utter shite have bought into it. It's those same hipsters who think that "Sharknado" is "kewl" and spend their entire lives collecting other ironically named movies and little dollies of Japanese cartoon characters. I despise them all.

So guess what I thought of the film after having been duped into watching it by Cosplaying internet friends who need to stop playing dress-up and grow up instead? Yes, that's right, I HATED IT!

Having never been a fan of Billy the Bull (Guillermo del Toro) or Michael Bay's "Transformers" movies, and being a hater of 99% of sci-fi movies anyway, there's nothing in "Pacific Rim" for me other than a lot of boredom.

I tweeted my displeasure throughout the movie, but I'm not going to repost all my Tweets this time. I may have only done that twice before, but the novelty has worn off. However, because it's Saturday, it's hotter than balls again, my neighbours' noisy brats are screaming outside my window, and I can't be bothered to dissect a movie from a genre that I have no interest in, I'm going to give you a list of bullet points of everything wrong with "Pacific Rim" instead of writing a real review.

SPOILERS FOLLOW.

Everything I hated about Pacific Rim.

I have no idea who any of these people are.

• Rated PG-13. Gah!
• Pathetic faux Jap-comicbook crap turned into live action for little kids and weeaboos.
• The rift in time and space which aliens pop through sounds just like "Torchwood" 6 years ago.
• Naming the robots after an alcoholic beverage was a smart move, but even if I was drunk, I still wouldn't enjoy this movie.
• The alien monsters look stupid and are named after turds.
• 75% of the film is all "yak yak yak" with no action.
• Unrealistic, clichéd dialogue.
• It's 4 days too long! Actually, it's only 2 hours, but it feels like more.
• Gormless-looking Owen from "Torchwood" is in it... as a German.
• Psycho Sean Slater from "Eastenders" is in it... and he clearly still has anger issues.
• Basically, Billy the Bull got the cheapest actors possible and spent the majority of the budget on computer game effects.
• Ron Perlman got millions of dollars for showing his big hairy face for all of 5 minutes.
• It's a sausagefest! No eyecandy for heterosexual men.
• Memento Mori (or whatever her name is) isn't bad looking if you like that kind of thing, but I don't.
• No sexy fun time or other nudity.
• The acting is horrible. The accents are all over the place.
• Americans playing Brits, Brits playing Australians, Brits playing Americans, Australians playing Americans... and they have Asian surnames because presumably there weren't any male Asian actors available at the time.
• In the fight between Psycho Sean Slater and the other guy who looks just like him, you can't tell who is who.
• It's "Starship Troopers" but without the humour or exciting action.
• The scientist isn't Doogie Howser but he still mindmelds with an alien.
• No characters worth caring about.
• Psycho Sean Slater kisses a dog. Typecast much?
• No originality whatsoever. The plot is much the same as "Oblivion" but without Tom Cruise or the twist.
• The action is like watching the cutscenes from a computer game which somebody else is playing.
• Big robots that weigh more than several skyscrapers are (and have to be) carried into position by little tiny helicopters which could never support their weight in real life.
• Making tunnels under the city for people to hide in saves a fortune on CGI-ing little people.
• Watching two guys wearing spacesuits play Dance Dance Revolution inside a giant robot while fighting the "Cloverfield" monster is not fun.
• Almost as many buildings get destroyed as in "Man of Steel".
• Too many quick cuts, too much confusion, and it's hard to tell who is doing what to who or why.
• No one cares about who is doing what to who or why anyway.
• The cooler robots get destroyed before they have chance to do anything.
• It's all very, very loud just to keep you awake.
• 100% predictable and instantly forgettable.
• I would rather watch WWF/WWE with two fat dudes in Godzilla suits fighting each other than this crap. Same result too. Dull and fake.
• The Asylum could make a better movie. Oh wait, they already have: "Atlantic Rim".
• "Pacific Rim" is more boring than "World War Zzzzzzz".
• Even "Iron Man 3" is better than this!
• Inevitably, there will be a porn parody and a sequel.

I could go on, but you get the idea. I don't have anything good to say about "Pacific Rim" whatsoever.

Transformers + Torchwood + Cloverfield + Starship Troopers + Oblivion + cheap TV actors (and a couple of former Eastenders) + CGI robots fighting CGI monsters = Pacific Rim.

Don't waste your money!

World War Z (2013)

"United Nations employee Gerry Lane traverses the world in a race against time to stop the Zombie pandemic that is toppling armies and governments, and threatening to destroy humanity itself."

It's not often that a Summer movie is so boring that I can barely bring myself to write a review of it, but "World War Z" has easily earned that dubious honour for this year. I'm not so secretly still hoping that someone will announce how the movie is meant to be a high-brow meta-parody of the zombie subgenre just so that I can stop feeling disgusted with myself for wasting two hours on this utter shite. Given its lack of tension or scares, the unintentional laughs which certain scenes are likely to provoke suggest that has to be some multi-million dollar trolling, right?

Very loosely based on a novel by Max Brooks which I've never heard of and have no intention of reading, "World War Z" is little more than several CGI-fuelled action set pieces (which are given away in the trailer) padded out with a whole lot of nothing else. Fundamentally, it's a big-budget attempt to cash-in on the success of "The Walking Dead" and all the other apocalyptic-virus/zombie movies which sheep-like teenagers have ironically bought into.

The running zombies from "28 Days Later" (which I also loathe) are back again, but this time they have a hive-mind like ants or the numpties who waste all day posting on Reddit. That, in itself, should give "World War Z" a minor claim to originality except not really. If you ever watched a certain episode of "The Burning Zone" TV series back in the day, the concept of a sentient virus has been done before but better. It's not exactly a new idea. Philosophers have been speculating about this very thing, vis-à-vis mankind's relationship to the planet, for centuries.

The other big difference between "World War Z" and the thousands of zombie clones already in existence is that this movie is appropriately named as a cure for insomnia. I assume once again that the "Z" is meant to be some kind of in-joke about sending the audience to sleep rather than standing for "zombies" or Z-grade which it most certainly is.

Glasgow has become so Americanised!

Contrivances abound such as using the liability of an asthmatic kid to bring Brad Pitt's character into a direct, street level confrontation with the world gone mad, but the worst part of the "adventure" (for that is what it is) is the wild goose chase all over the world to find the answer to how the outbreak started. It serves no purpose other than to show zombies running amok in more countries.

As with every Summer movie, there's lots of gunfire, vertigo-inducing aerial shots, huge explosions (including the obligatory exploding helicopter and a plane crash), and it's all very loud. Unfortunately, even with the mid-range turned up to deafen everyone, Brad Pitt is still a mumbler, the African actor who plays his United Nations boss has an accent that's almost impenetrable, and the lack of characterisation means that nobody cares what anyone is saying anyway. Apparently, the actors were told to improvise their own dialogue, and it shows badly. Just a minor quibble, but isn't this why movies have writers?

With its predominantly blue, green and beige palette, and no bright red blood or gore to get excited about, "World War Z" is particularly bland visually. The camerawork is awful, some scenes are way too dark, and the quick cuts in the action scenes mean that its impossible to tell who is doing what to who. The fact that so little time is spent on characters who randomly appear only to disappear again just as quickly render the whole movie emotionally inert so why would you even care in the first place?

Characterisation is actually so flat that if you aren't looking out for it, you're unlikely to catch the name of Brad Pitt's character let alone anyone else's. It's Gerry, by the way, but I couldn't tell you the names of his wife or children despite the story pointlessly cutting back and forth to them onboard an aircraft carrier. Whoever his ginger-haired wife is, she doesn't do anything except look mopey and hug her greasy-haired brats so what's the point of her? Gingers have no souls anyway and neither does whoever made this horrible movie. Ah yes, it's Marc Forster, the same guy who made the equally unwatchable "Quantum of Solace". Case proven.

I could bitch about "World War Z" all day, but I'm not going to. Nine paragraphs is more than enough to critique a boring, PG-13 rated zombie movie which wouldn't even be worthy of the SyFy channel if Brad Pitt wasn't involved in it. Forget the 3D gimmick too, it's a waste of the extra $3 which you could use to buy a DVD of a real horror movie meant for adults instead.

Although I could have summed-up "World War Z" in one four-letter word with an optional seven-letter expletive preceding it, I'll leave it with an even better three-letter word:

Meh.

Dark Skies (2013)

"As the Barrett family's peaceful suburban life is rocked by an escalating series of disturbing events, they come to learn that a terrifying and deadly force is after them."

While other people were getting all excited about the "Evil Dead" remake which, undoubtedly, will be reviewed on every horror blog this weekend until you are sick to death of reading about it, I chose to watch something different last night. There were no "Evil Dead" marathons for me because I don't even like the original anymore. Instead of getting caught up in the circus of Bruce Campbell grinning like a lunatic, chopping bits of himself off and waving a chainsaw about, I decided to watch something completely alien to me in more ways than one.

I endeavoured to find enjoyment in yet another Blumhouse Productions movie which has already been slammed by discerning horror critics from one side of the internet to the other. I heard that it had cats in it at one point, and really that's all a movie needs to keep me entertained nowadays. Well, that and a decent bit of storytelling, of course.

I'm not going to get into the finer details because I could easily sum up "Dark Skies" in a couple of choice expletives after it gave me another bout of "Juno Syndrome". For those of you who never read my blog regularly when I was more prolific, "Juno Syndrome" is my own term for when I enjoy a movie throughout its running time then realise 2 minutes after it ends that it was a load of contrived crap which doesn't stand up to any kind of critical deconstruction. "Dark Skies" has good production values, quite a few creepy moments, and I got fished into the Spielberg-esque suburban family problems, but almost as soon as the credits were over, I realised that I had been well and truly misled.

Already people will think, "Ah, but you're just a hater and don't like any PG-13 movies!" That's not entirely true. I didn't even know that "Dark Skies" was a PG-13. I also didn't know anything about the story beforehand other than it might have "extra terrestrials" in it. As long as a PG-13 movie doesn't intentionally have its punches pulled to earn that rating, I'm actually okay with it.

An anorexic teenager with a big head is behind you!

A lot of people also think that I'm totally against PG-13 rated horror just because horror shouldn't be PG-13. That's not actually true either as there are quite a few PG-13 horror and sci-fi movies which I've enjoyed over the years including "Poltergeist" (1982), "Signs" (2002), and even "The New Daughter" (2009). It's just as well really since "Dark Skies" is little more than a fusion of those three all over again. Unfortunately, with it being a Blumhouse Production, "Dark Skies" also shares the same plot construction as "Insidious", "Paranormal Activity" and "Sinister", and I really do hate those.

"Dark Skies" is "Poltergeist" with more discovery contrivances and the ghosts changed to evil grey aliens who look like "Slenderman". If you think you've seen it all before, you have. The only thing which stands out in a good way is the Apple product placement because I'm pretty sure that my next computer really will be an Apple after all the trouble I've had with Linux recently. It's refreshing to see the computers in use rather than being pawed by a certain immature blonde on YouTube.

No, I'm joking. The highlight of "Dark Skies" is actually the cat-owning "alien expert" Edwin Pollard, played by J.K. Simmons, whose exposition is up there with the best of them even if it borrows a lot from the scene between Roger Wayne (James Gammon) and John James (Kevin Costner) in "The New Daughter". I've seen J.K. Simmons in a lot of things. He's a great actor, but he'll still always be Vern Schillinger from "Oz" to me.

The rest of the acting is fairly decent too. I couldn't understand a single thing the little brother said, and the unnecessary close-ups of Keri Russell's upper lip mole distracted me, but it's fine otherwise. I can't abide kids in movies anyway, and Keri Russell is still fairly hot without any lipstick so I'm not going to condemn the cinematographer of "Dark Skies" for wanting to get near her. The characterisation is very good to the extent that the family and their lifestyle are more interesting in themselves than any of the alien abduction nonsense which comes along to ruin it.

The trouble is that aliens and alien abductions simply aren't real. It's total bullshit. If "Dark Skies" had been about a demonic house possession (which it really is anyway given so many "Poltergeist" homages) then it would be a worthy (albeit very generic) entry into the genre. Apart from an awesome (but borrowed) bird scene and one genuinely terrifying (also borrowed) moment near the end, "Dark Skies" is long on tension but disappointingly short on scares.

There's barely a trace of originality in "Dark Skies" other than the "twist" ending which should have quit while it was ahead. It seems to be a trademark of Blumhouse to deliver a great punchline and then ruin it all by adding too many anti-climactic minutes afterwards. It's not as if they care. Movies are just a pop product to them. As long as they make as much money as possible (as quickly as possible), to Hell with leaving the audience feeling satisfied.

Beautiful Creatures (2013)

"Ethan longs to escape his small Southern town. He meets a mysterious new girl, Lena. Together, they uncover dark secrets about their respective families, their history and their town."

Based on the "acclaimed bestseller" that I've never heard of, "Beautiful Creatures" is yet another bland teen romance meant to fill the gap left by "Twilight". Apparently, it has bombed at the box office, but I decided to watch it anyway because I'm a masochist like that. It's not as if there's anything else related to the horror genre to see right now. We're still over a month away from the "Evil Dead" remake and whatever dubious joys it may bring to the table.

Although "Beautiful Creatures" is overlong, a bit slow, and contains too much exposition instead of action, with a $60,000,000 budget there's plenty to look at this film especially the hot actresses, Alice Englert and Emmy Rossum as Lena Duchannes and Ridley Duchannes respectively. If you're a lot older, even Emma Thompson looks nice with her shoulders bared. I still like her anyway.

Green screen effects were allegedly kept to a minimum with a lot of practical effects such as the changing colours of Macon's living room and the spinning dinner table being highlights. I'm no expert, but I'm certain that a lot more was enhanced afterwards. When it comes to the obligatory magic lightning bolts trickling out of fingertips though, "Beautiful Creatures" doesn't contain the worst examples.

Like theatrical releases should be, it's beautifully filmed, looks the part in nearly every way, and even the CGI is acceptable when it happens. Thus, "Beautiful Creatures" certainly lives up to its title. In other ways, not so much, but I'll come to them by and by.

Hot sexy witch. 'Nuff said.

The biggest problem is that "Beautiful Creatures" really is all about how it looks. The story is too messy, obviously conflated from a piece of literature which must be even more character driven, and is instantly forgettable. In fact, it's rather tedious even if you are into romance. Despite a promising start, it soon becomes "Southern American Cliché: The Movie" with bad accents and every available teen movie trope other than farting for comic effect lifted from something better. At one point, I thought it was going to turn into "Footloose"!

Given the lack of risk taking in Hollywood (or Summit/Lionsgate) at the moment, I almost want to let the lack of originality slide as something which we've all become far too used to, but I can't. Due to the nature of the movies I usually watch, I immediately noticed that the most important plot point about choosing between light and dark borrows heavily from "Night Watch" (2004). There are even moments when the protagonists step into "the gloom" to discuss things or do battle outside the world as perceived by mortals. If that isn't enough to create the stench of plagiarism, the cursed "coming of age" cliché has been done to death by nearly every trendy supernatural drama since the 1970s. Depending on your era, if you've seen "Alison's Birthday", "The Craft" or "The Covenant", there's nothing new here.

With its credible acting, witty moments of dialogue and genuine attempts at characterisation, "Beautiful Creatures" probably isn't a bad movie if you're twelve or younger and haven't seen anything else like it. It may be possible to actually care about the smart-talking characters, think they're kind of cool and hope that love will conquer all at the end, but anyone older isn't going to be so easily pleased or lenient even given the internal logic of the fantasy itself. Let's face it, witches and wizards aren't real, never have been, and never will be. The whole premise of the film is undoubtedly silly and, in my opinion, would have worked better as a more obvious '80s-style comedy. Please note that I say that as someone who detests comedies.

"I hope you kids are using protection."

The story is a horrible mixture of being contrived and timid at the same time albeit with a couple of scenes which push the boundaries regarding underage sex. The twenty-four year old Alden Ehrenreich (as Ethan) and nineteen year old Alice Englert (Lena) aren't that convincing at acting younger than their ages in spite of valiant efforts to do so. The whole relationship between Ethan and Lena suggests paedophilia (or statutory rape) in no uncertain terms. Not that any of us necessarily want to see them bumping uglies on screen, but cutting to a sign burning in the background at one point like something out of the 1950s is also likely to incite more groans from the audience in displeasure than anything else.

Unlike "Twilight", these "kids" can't wait to lose their cherries. But if you're going to show "teenagers" getting it on then show it! And if you're going to get us excited about Emmy Rossum walking around in a black négligée at least be nice enough to provide a money shot after she's been writhing on a blanket with a sickly looking youth! If there's one thing crucial to a story in this genre, it's a deflowering or two! Given the PG-13 rating, obviously that doesn't happen. I have no idea if it happens in the book either although I assume it does since normal teenagers rarely read books aimed at their age group unless there's something saucy in them. I'm sure they won't miss the insinuation of incest between Macon and Sarafine either. I don't want to digress too much so I'll get on my soapbox about the pointlessness of "YT" horror fiction another time.

"Stop! In the name of love... before you break my heart..."

I'm not sure how to fit this into my critique, but I really need to hop on my soapbox for a moment about something else in "Beautiful Creatures" which bugged the Hell out of me (no pun intended): the depiction of Christians. Since they are made out to be a bunch of small town puritans with hillbilly superstitions, could the writing really be any lazier? And could this feeble clichéd jibe be an indication of a much bigger problem behind the scenes of the media as we know it? I'm not going to push this any further, but it's something to think about. I'd say the agenda was more in the mind of the authors, Kami Garcia and Margaret Stohl, than director Richard LaGravenese, but either way, it's lame. In a book or movie about witches though, you have to have something wrong with you to be attracted to this guff in the first place.

Suspending your disbelief about immortal witches (instead of vampires or werewolves) isn't the only hard part. If you're American, the plethora of fake Southern accents in "Beautiful Creatures" will definitely drive you insane. They are even harsher and less intelligible to British ears especially when delivered from the mouths of the very British Jeremy Irons and Emma Thompson. Through no fault of his own, Jeremy Irons makes my flesh crawl at the best of times even when he isn't trying to sound like Foghorn Leghorn.

Other cast members are more in the background apart from the better looking of the stereotypical clique of "popular girls", Zoey Deutch, who deserves to go further. I can't wait to see her in "Vampire Academy: Blood Sisters" next year. I'm not sure who Viola Davis is because I've never knowingly seen her in anything else, but apparently it's kind of a big deal having her in this movie. Thomas Mann, who plays Link, was also in "Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters" recently, but Pruitt Taylor Vince, Eileen Atkins and Kyle Gallner are almost completely wasted in their bit parts. It's not worth going through any more of the actors because you won't have heard of them and are unlikely to see them in anything else. Having said that, you barely get to see any of them here either. You do get to see massive CGI thunderstorms instead though.

I love excessive, big budget wastes of money like this because it almost justifies the price of the ticket. I'd rather pay $10 to see something with high production values than the same amount for some half-arsed camcorder crap no matter what the subject matter may be. Unfortunately, "Beautiful Creatures" isn't all explosions, bangs, and the kind of spectacle which makes for a true cinematic experience. It has its moments, but it's mostly a drawn-out romantic drama with a kind of "Harry Potter" aesthetic and dialogue which wouldn't be out of place in "Jennifer's Body", "Juno" or some other pop-culture reference filled piece of pseudo-hipsterishness for little girls.

My advice is to wait for this to come out on DVD and then rent it.