Amy (2013)

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

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

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

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

"I see possessed people."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Haunter (2013)

"The ghost of a teenager who died years ago reaches out to the land of the living in order to save someone from suffering her same fate."

Remember Vincenzo Natali the director of "Cube" (1997) and "Splice" (2009)? Well, he's back with a supernatural mystery which is available via VOD just in time for Hallowe'en. Don't get too excited, though, because "Haunter" tries to be more cerebral than scary and fails at being either.

The biggest problem is that "Haunter" is another typically Canadian remix of over half a dozen already extremely well known movies and at least two recent TV shows.

The first things I thought of when I started watching it were "Groundhog Day" (1993), "The Lovely Bones" (2009), "Voices" (1973), and "Lady in White" (1988), but there are also some quite blatant borrowings from "The Others" (2001), "Marchlands", and "American Horror Story". Throw in a few tiny homages to "The Collector" (1965), "The Matrix" (1999), and even "Dark Skies" (2013), and you have your movie.

If the wind changes, you'll stay like that. Oh wait...

As "Haunter" is essentially a ghost story, there are bound to be some formulaic similarities to previous ghost stories, but that's still no excuse for all the cloning. It's laziness for the most part, although it's dangerously close to plagiarism in others. I've only read parts of "The Lovely Bones" novel and have never seen Peter Jackson's movie adaptation, but if I can see the resemblances, I'm sure Alice Sebold will!

I'm not saying that "Haunter" isn't fairly enjoyable or well made. The cinematography borders on beautiful, and atmospherically, it's not a million miles away from Spanish thrillers such as "The Orphanage" (2007) or several of the more "girlie" Asian horrors. The acting is competent too, apart from Abigail Breslin who only has one big-eyed expression and is prone to sighing, gasping, and breathing heavily to compensate. Consequently, there are more close-ups than are strictly necessary, but that's a minor niggle.

The three time periods of 1985, the present day, and the late 1950s look the part as far as I can tell. As somebody who has no idea what Ontario looked like in the main 1985 time zone, I assume that kids were into much the same things as I was, but I'm a bit dubious about the Atari games console or Siousxie and the Banshees still being popular in the mid-80s rather than 3 or 4 years before. I've always imagined Canada as being a few years behind everyone else, so maybe it's spot on. My Canadian readers will have to let me know.

Overall, "Haunter" is a decent but very predictable PG-13 ghost story with no scares, no swearing or nudity, and very little violence. It's an upgrade for teenage fans of "Goosebumps" or "Are You Afraid of the Dark", but it's far too kiddified if you're an adult. I'll give it an extra point because it held my interest to the end.

This poster sucks! Why is she in a jar? Why?

Ghost Team One (2013)

"Two roommates deathly afraid of ghosts both fall in love with a girl who believes their home is haunted."

I don't know why everyone is calling "Ghost Team One" a "comedy". It isn't funny, and it doesn't even have a particularly happy ending. What it does have is lots of awkwardness and the same atmosphere as the American version of "The Office" (which also isn't funny), and of course, a hot chick (or two) to ogle.

"Ghost Team One" is essentially another completely unneccessary "Paranormal Activity" parody which brings the number of such abominations up to an unlucky 13. How and why this has become a subgenre in itself is undoutedly due to the YouTube generation who can't seem to get enough of webcams, shakycams, and mediocrity. For those of us who prefer a real movie, these faux found footage movies are mostly an annoying waste of time.

There are a couple of neat effects in "Ghost Team One" which you don't often see in a glorified YouTube video like this, but it isn't a horror movie by any stretch of the imagination either. In fairness, though, I don't think it was ever intended to be. It's not "found footage horror" per se that this movie is lampooning but the whole "amateur-looking footage" subgenre in general. Even YouTube gets targetted!

The downfall with this, however, is that "Ghost Team One" is as tame as its targets when it comes to the adult situations: Punches are pulled everywhere, e.g. pornographic images on a bedroom wall are pixellated, and the "jokes" (if you can call them that) are little more than schoolboyish. Think Benny Hill but less creepy with it. For a movie which uses the promise of "horny ghosts" as its selling point (especially as the only ghost in it is supposed to have been a Vietnamese prostitute!), it's very disappointing.

Two guys I've never heard of and Fernanda Romero.

As I have no sense of humour when it comes to comedy-horror movies, spoofs or otherwise, I hate to say it, but I was slightly entertained by "Ghost Team One" in a low-rent "Men Behaving Badly" (British version, naturally) way. It's well written, the drama is nicely done, and the characters are stupidly amiable but harmless enough. Once you get used to the awful camerawork, the whole purpose of "Ghost Team One" is only an excuse to lust over Fernanda Romero anyway. If Fernanda wasn't in it, I doubt that I would have made it to the end.

Fernanda Romero (who keeps her real first name and clothes on throughout) steals every scene she's in to such an extent that "Ghost Team One" is best described as her "vehicle". If anyone else involved in this movie is deluded enough to think otherwise, they need to grab themselves a reality check next time they go to 7-Eleven for their taquitos and slushies, and understand that, apart from a few infantilised adults (who were born in the '80s and '90s) and their friends, the majority of people who will eventually buy this movie on DVD or Blu-ray are just going to skip to the parts with Fernanda in and crack open another box of tissues. Yes, she really is that hot!

Putting the novelty value of "Ghost Team One" as a "latino" movie aside, since I often tend to overrate any kind of Spanish or Mexican movie even when they are filmed in Los Angeles, I don't recommend this one. I'll give everybody credit for having a go, but "Ghost Team One" would have been better as a series of webisodes.

Fernanda Romero is the centre of attention.

Paranormal Asylum: The Revenge of Typhoid Mary (2013)

"Mary Malone (aka Typhoid Mary) was committed to a NY insane asylum to live in solitary after being blamed for spreading Typhoid Fever in the early 20th Century. After decades in isolation she died alone on North Brother Island. Now, nearly 100 years later, two best friends and aspiring filmmakers are setting out to find out what really happened. What starts as a simple investigation turns into a battle for survival, as they discover Mary may be dead, but she's certainly not gone."

If you've been wandering around Walmart recently, you've probably seen this DVD a few times and wondered if it's worth watching. That coverart looks spooky, doesn't it? I bet you think it'll be shit-yer-pants scary! But let's cut straight through the chase here, it's not!

"Paranormal Asylum" is also nothing to do with the "Paranormal Activity" movies or even The Asylum's "Paranormal Entity", but you have to give the filmmakers credit for deliberately creating a confusingly named product which someone is going to buy by accident eventually. The thing is, the plot is nothing like any of those movies unless being a clone of "Grave Encounters" or its sequel counts in any way. Unfortunately, I haven't watched more than 5 minutes of either (except on fast-forward), so I can't say for sure. The word on the street, however, is that "Paranormal Asylum" is an even lower-budget knock off of that already low-budget crap, and I have no reason to doubt it.

Judged on its own merits, "Paranormal Asylum" is absolutely bloody terrible. The story barely makes sense, and the camerawork is so godawful that it's tiresome to watch. It's as if whoever filmed it has no idea how cameras work, how to frame anything, or how to position themselves for the best view. Couple that with the editing which cuts too quickly between shots, and it often becomes nauseating to boot. While I can accept that some of the earlier footage is supposed to look amateur due to small cameras being set up everywhere, in scenes where it's not supposed to be obvious that anyone is holding a camera (and close-ups take over which swing back and forth or whirl around characters), it's actually worse!

Like most low-budget horror movies, the acting is okay in some places and non-existent in others. It's so varied this time though, it makes me wonder if there was ever a complete script involved or if scenes were made up as they went along. Apart from a load of exposition, the rest of the dialogue sounds like it belongs in the cut scenes of a computer game or some crappy Japanese cartoon. Maybe it's just because Nathan Spiteri (who plays Andy) has that kind of voice and delivery, but it's more likely to be because everything is so disjointed and hastily thrown together.

Tying up your possessed fiancée and confining her to bed always ends well.

A somewhat hilarious scene (which isn't meant to be) is when Michelle (Laura Gilreath) gets possessed by the spirit of Typhoid Mary and turns into a flickering escapee from one of those bad '80s computer game movies. Watching her teleport between steps all the way to her car amused me for all the wrong reasons, and I couldn't take anything seriously after that. It's a shame because Laura Gilreath is uber hot and tends to perk things up considerably otherwise. There's no nudity, but at least she strips down to her bra and knickers eventually.

The other main character, Mark (Aaron Mathias), who has the best (albeit far too brief) supernatural encounters, does slightly better overall, despite taking approximately 47 minutes to realise that he's been seeing ghosts! Aaron Mathias seems to be a likeable chap with the right kind of borderline leading man looks to stand out although he doesn't do anything very memorable here. I suppose he does "scared" well enough, but he's the only one who is likely to be affected by any of the jump scares.

Outside of the threesome, minor characters randomly come and go with no rhyme or reason behind their appearances other than how Andy sets up appointments with them for Mark. How Andy knows any of these people remains a mystery within another mystery, especially as the ability to tell a story is not this movie's strong point.

I'm not going to spoil the ending for you because it's as stupid as everything else. Although it ties this mess together in the best way it can, it's completely out of left field and really not worth suffering through the rest of the movie to get to.

The artwork is the best part!

In that case, I'd hate to see a paranormal film that gets it wrong!

And some movies are better off not being made.

Don't confuse it with this:

For the love of God, make this cloning stop!

It's just as bad though.

Insidious: Chapter 2 (2013)

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

Lost Lake (2012)

"A young couple travels to a deserted town to try and find their mysterious uncle, only to discover that ghosts are real and very dangerous."

I'm a little bit flummoxed about how to review "Lost Lake". It's not that I've forgotten how to review movies to the extent that I need to MacDougall one from somebody else, but I can barely scrape together enough enthusiasm to put one word after another after watching this turd.

If I had my druthers (as they say round here), I'd be writing a review of "The Conjuring" right now instead of this one. Unfortunately, due to unforeseen circumstances and the heat, I still haven't gone to the movie theatre since "The Conjuring" started playing, and it's starting to annoy me that I've fallen behind everyone else this time. The worst case scenario will be that I wait for the DVD to be released. I'm bound to buy it based on the very positive buzz that's already flying around the internet, so it's not as if you actually need a review of "The Conjuring" from me anyway.

Just to tide everyone over until I'm back on track, I was looking for other ghostie movies to watch yesterday and came across "Lost Lake" on Amazon. Although I'm sure a lot of people have watched it, nobody seems to have had very much to say about it online. Thus, to redress the balance, I thought I'd give it a try. I thought, "It's only 80 minutes long, it's about ghosties, so what could be the harm in watching it?" Little did I know that it was going to be one of the longest 80 minutes of my life.

For a low-budget movie, "Lost Lake" starts off extremely well. I have to admit that the first jump scare is so well-timed that it actually got me. That rarely happens nowadays so I thought I was really going to enjoy everything which followed. As I was watching the movie "cold" with only a vague awareness of the subject matter and no idea about who was in it, it was all a case of "Thrill me!" and "Let's see what you can do!" rather than the predominantly negative way that I've been approaching "indie" dreck recently. After all the multipack reviews I did a few weeks ago, you can't blame me for being jaded, but I honestly wanted to like this movie.

Anyway, to cut a long story short, everything went downhill from the moment I saw the lead characters. It's not that they are the typical pretty teens in trouble, but bald-chested John Shartzer (who plays Jeff) looks about 12 years old, and I initially thought that his character was incestuously in bed with his older sister or something. When the next scene had him playing on the floor with a toy robotic arm, it took a while for it to sink in that he was supposed to be a nerdy student rather than a mentally retarded pervert. It was only when I scrutinized Katie Keene (who plays Tricia) more closely that I realised she was equally young. I doubt that she is more than 18 or 19, and it kind of made me feel like a dirty old man for ogling her as the story progressed. Katie Keene is very photogenic though.

The next thing which gave me pause was the intentional misdirection about Uncle Vern's identity which could have been good if it hadn't caused me a moment of total confusion and an unresolved question which remained with me for a few minutes after the movie ended. I'm not going to spoil it for you, but once you've seen "Lost Lake" for yourself, feel free let me know in the comments section if you get what I'm talking about. The motivation for a lot of things which happen in this movie is so poorly explained that I don't think there even is a good answer. The realisation of whatever clever ideas evidently went into the script sucks, and it's very frustrating.

A more outstanding example of ineptitude is when what should be a scary supernatural scene just isn't. As the leads investigate an abandoned grocery store, it's a time when some imaginative jump scares could make a lasting impression. For whatever reason, possibly budgetary, the gags aren't even set-up enough to fall flat, so ultimately, this botched non-event adds nothing but a decoy for possessed Uncle Vern (Ezra Buzzington) to do something important which we don't find out about until later. It's a plot contrivance for sure, but it could have been handled so much better.

While the camerawork and acting are fairly decent, it's not only the plot but the lack of horror action which really lets "Lost Lake" down. Apart from a severed finger and some realistic reactions to it, nothing much happens at all gore-wise. When it does, the bits you want to see are either off camera or too dark.

Contrarily, an unneccessary bit of animal cruelty involving a white mouse and a snake is something that I didn't want to see. Yes, I know that there are weirdo reptile owners who have to feed their pets as nature intended, but this scene is both gratuitous and superfluous. I may understand what writer/director Marcus Nash was trying to do, but I don't approve of it.

Filmed in Trona, California, a desolate place which I was intigued enough by to look up on Wikipedia, "Lost Lake" is all about a location which struggles to lift everything a couple of notches higher than the horrible storytelling will allow. Apart from a few tell-tale signs which give away that it isn't really a ghost town, including the electricity still being connected and a physical sign for "Free Wi-Fi" on one of the buildings, I wanted to believe that the setting was real. Well, the town is real, obviously, but you know what I mean.

I suppose that's all I really want to say about "Lost Lake". It wasn't the ghost story that I expected it to be, and I found the ending very disappointing. Suffice it to say that there's something about witchcraft to "Lost Lake" as well, so it's probably best to classify the movie as a below average "possession from beyond the grave" with slasher clichés and leave it at that.

The Serpent and the Rainbow (1988)

"An anthropologist goes to Haiti after hearing rumours about a drug used by black magic practitioners to turn people into zombies."

It's very windy outside (and inside too now that I've just had a plate full of chips and beans), so what better way to end my "Hallowe'en Countdown" than with Wes Craven's zombie movie.

You don't see the connection in that segue, do you? It's okay, there isn't one other than the tenuous link between Haiti being destroyed by an earthquake a couple of years ago and the current "Frankenstorm" allegedly being about to destroy the East coast of America. It's just like how there's no connection between zombies or slashers and Hallowe'en, but that hasn't stopped other horror bloggers from writing about them for the last month.

Even though I've tried to keep my own reviews on topic during this month with lots of ghosties, witches, and other supernatural entities, "The Serpent and the Rainbow" has been haunting me ever since I got it in Universal's "Cult Horror Collection" 4-movie pack (along with "Phantasm II", "The Funhouse" and "Sssssss"). I remembered it as being a decent thriller rather than a horror so I couldn't wait any longer to see if it would still hold up today.

Inspired by the book "The Serpent and the Rainbow: A Harvard Scientist's Astonishing Journey into the Secret Societies of Haitian Voodoo, Zombis, and Magic", this has to be one of the most overambitious movies Wes Craven ever made. It's certainly a far more realistic and "back to basics" depiction of zombies than George A. Romero's ghouls. The zombies here are the drugged, hypnotised and brainwashed kind as in "White Zombie" (1932) or "I Walked with a Zombie" (1943).

The filming in Haiti and the Dominican Republic adds a lot to the atmosphere even though the voodoo rituals depicted are full of typical Hollywood excesses and clichés. In its favour, "The Serpent and the Rainbow" includes more details about voodoo and Haitian black magic than "The Vineyard" (1989), for instance, but they are still rather minimal and contrived.

Standout moments in "The Serpent and the Rainbow" include Bill Pullman wrestling with a very tame jaguar, Michael Gough being not very different from Alfred in the "Batman" movies for all of five minutes, and of course, the lovely Cathy Tyson constantly forgetting which accent to use and giving a quick flash of her boobs.

Most people rave about Zakes Mokae who is, without doubt, very sinister as Dargent Peytraud, but I found Brent Jennings to be far more entertaining as Louis Mozart. The scenes with Bill Pullman and Brent Jennings playing off each other are the best in the movie.

I wish I could say the same for every other scene that Bill Pullman is in, but I've never liked him as an actor. His role as Dennis Alan is, however, one of his best despite barely rising above two-dimensional. What do you expect though? This is a Wes Craven movie after all.

I'm not sure if it was added as a joke or a cliché, but one thing to remember from "The Serpent and the Rainbow" is that screaming, "I'm a U.S. citizen!" will never do an American any good at all. The rest of the world doesn't care, hates Americans anyway, and identifying himself as such a coddled, easy target in such a foolish manner is more likely to get the shouter's head kicked in than anything else. Oh yes, the xenophobia is rife in "The Serpent and the Rainbow", and with good reason given the political unrest in the background.

If you can't stand Bill Pullman constantly grinning and want "The Serpent and the Rainbow" to end in a downbeat way then stop the movie at 1 hour and 20 minutes. If you want to see a lame and formulaic horror movie ending full of explosions and dated effects, just continue to watch the last 17 minutes. In fairness, the final payoff scene is nicely done, but the silliness preceding it will probably make you groan in disbelief.

Overall, "The Serpent and the Rainbow" is a slightly more cerebral '80s horror movie than all the Freddy, Jason, and Michael Myers tripe, and is well worth rewatching at this time of year (or any other for that matter).

Anyway, watch out for all the blustery winds and rain which the TV news is unnecessarily sensationalising. There's no need to panic, the stores will still be open, and you don't need to buy every can of beans and soup in the supermarkets. If you still have electricity, just stay safe indoors and watch some scary movies. It's Hallowe'en tomorrow!

Prom Night II (1987)

"When Hamilton High's Prom Queen of 1957, Mary Lou Maloney is killed by her jilted boyfriend, she comes back for revenge 30 years later."

Only three days left until Hallowe'en? October has flown by for everyone who writes a daily horror blog although it's tiring work watching all these old movies again instead of being spoiled by new ones. Yes, I tell my cats how tiring it is every time we are all snuggled up together in front of a great horror film just how exhausting it is. I don't think they believe me, and nor should you.

I imagine that it's boring reading about the same things from everyone because I've noticed right across the board that hardly anyone is getting any comments and the pageviews are surprisingly low. Don't worry, it's nearly over. Next month, there are going to be a lot of changes on my blog including a higher ratio of articles to reviews. I've known for a long time that horror movie review blogs are old hat now, but I may still surprise you with a few dips back into "The Vault" for as long as I have any good films left to talk about.

Anyway, "Prom Night II" is yet another Canadian clone of better American movies which I used to think was very good indeed. I'm not so sure about it anymore even though it's easily the best of the "Prom Night" series.

Although it was originally released a couple of weeks too late for Hallowe'en in 1987, "Prom Night II" is yet another supernatural horror movie which suits the season perfectly. There's even a big plastic pumpkin sitting on a shelf in the school basement at around 19 minutes in.

I have no idea when "proms" actually happen in America or Canada since we don't have them in Britain (occasionally there's a disco at the end of term), but I assume that they are a Springtime event or something which happens after graduation rather than in October when everyone is going back to school. Whatever the case, they are a good setting for lots of teenager shenanigans and the focus of far too many '80s movies.

What makes "Prom Night II" stand out more than the rest is the abundance of so many hot girls all at the same time. While most people rave about Lisa Schrage as Mary Lou Maloney, she doesn't have a lot of time on screen, and she's not actually the prettiest. My favourite is Beth Gondek who plays Jess. She's the girl with the big hair and bad dress sense who is almost guillotined then gets hanged and thrown out of a window before she has chance to shine.

Beverley Hendry is also extremely good-looking and almost perfect in her role as Monica apart from being a little bit too old for the part. Think Charisma Carpenter in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and you'll get the idea. Actually, I don't think any of the actors are really teenagers, but I may be wrong about that. The most memorable is Terri Hawkes as Kelly, the wannabe prom queen, who is desperate to win that fleeting and totally worthless moment of popularity at any price. She's more "cute" than sexy, but she definitely shows more acting ability than her peers.

Surprisingly, the one girl I don't find attractive in "Prom Night II" is Wendy Lyon who plays the lead. The song by The Monks called "Nice Legs Shame About Her Face" is cruel but very fitting. As Vicki Carpenter, Wendy Lyon plays the part as a rather plain blonde who likes frizzy, permed hair and nail polish but doesn't like make-up. Her face really screams for make-up though, and it's a pity that YouTube hadn't been invented at the time or she would have learned a lot from the viral Jenna Marbles comedy video.

Vicki Carpenter is half Carrie White and half Andie Walsh from "Pretty in Pink" (1986) but not as cute or as likeable as either of them. Even when she gets completely nude for five minutes or so in the middle of the film, she just doesn't do it for me. Your mileage, as they say, may vary.

I've been giving plot points away so I might as well just summarise the story completely by saying that "Prom Night II" is, basically, a fusion of "Carrie" (1976), "A Nightmare on Elm Street" (1984) and "The Exorcist" (1973). In fact, the latter even gets referenced in the dialogue in a "meta" moment which seems out of place in anything other than a comedy. The more I think about it though, there's a possibility that "Prom Night II" might be a very dark comedy which doesn't really work. It certainly reeks of John Hughes-style characters even down to a far too good-looking computer nerd played by Brock Simpson (the only actor to appear in all four "Prom Night" movies) who has all the best lines.

The disappointing ending is actually worse than "A Nightmare on Elm Street", "Friday the 13th" and "Phantasm II" which all share the same "now you think they're safe but they aren't" twist. If it hadn't been for such formulaic pandering, "Prom Night II" probably wouldn't have bombed at the box office when it came out. Stuff like that just spoils any emotional investment which you've put in so be advised that you really need to switch the movie off before Michael Ironside gets the kids into the car at the end.

Oh yes, I almost forgot to mention that Michael Ironside is in this too. He's okay, but there's just not enough of him due to having to share his part with a younger actor, Steve Atkinson, who is made-up with a cheek scar to look just like him in the flashbacks. Out of the two Billy Nordhams, the younger one is the more interesting.

I recommend "Prom Night II", but it's one of those movies where you really had to be there at the time it came out to fully appreciate it. Some of the effects are dated now, there are two dream sequences which confuse matters and slightly spoil the flow of the story, and it's not scary. If you are into the '80s and nostalgia, it's still rather entertaining.

The Innocents (1961)

"A young governess for two children becomes convinced that the house and grounds are haunted."

It's October! Once again Hallowe'en is on its way and all the horror movie bloggers are frantically scratching around for something to write about. Not me though. I already have my October viewing list sorted out, and I will be bringing you another 31 days of supernatural terror. Wooooo! Ghosties!

Starting off my "Hallowe'en Countdown" is one of oldest ghostie films which is still worthy of rewatching. Having already reviewed "The Haunting" (1963) and "The Uninvited" (1944), it was time to pull "The Innocents" (1961) out of "The Vault". If you are lucky enough to have cable, according to the TCM monthly schedule, all three movies will be shown back-to-back on Wednesday, October 10th with "The Innocents" actually at 3.30am on Thursday morning so you don't even need to buy it.

Based on "The Turn of the Screw" by Henry James, Jack Clayton's version of "The Innocents" has become the best-regarded adaptation of the classic 1898 ghost story. It wasn't the first, however, as there was also an opera and a live television play directed by John Frankenheimer two years earlier. For all of you who hate remakes, "The Innocents" was a kind of remake, but it was a considerable improvement over the TV movie which you can watch clips from on YouTube. Not to belittle Ingrid Bergman's performance, Deborah Kerr is simply much better in the role as a governess.

It probably helps if you haven't seen Deborah Kerr in anything else if you want to fully appreciate her in "The Innocents". Having previously played a nun in "Black Narcissus" (1947) and a governess in "The King and I" (1956), her portrayal of Miss Giddens is occasionally little more than a logical fusion of the two. It's not that she was a bad actress, but as a product of the time, she was a bit limited. The very dated and "Victorianised" dialogue didn't exactly help matters much there either.

Some younger viewers will undoubtedly find the talkiness of this production rather boring in places. At times, I actually found it all to be quite awkward and cringeworthy myself especially with all the clippy-clop, posh English accents. Although I still appreciate "The Innocents" as a ghost story, it lacks realism even considering the period that it was set in. Trust me, I'm English, and I can't imagine anyone speaking like that ever in real life without getting a punch in the throat.

The housekeeper, Mrs. Grose, comes across as the much more credible character due to Megs Jenkin's Northern accent which slightly lessens the jarring quality of the words she speaks. Being no stranger to horror movies since appearing in "The Monkey's Paw" (1948) and going on to "Asylum" (1972), it was no great surprise that Dan Curtis of "Dark Shadows" fame got Megs Jenkin to reprise her role as Mrs. Grose for his own TV movie adaptation of "The Turn of the Screw" (1974).

Staginess aside, the little kids, Miles (Martin Stephens) and Flora (Pamela Franklin), are also really outstanding and genuinely creepy. If, like me, you don't like kids anyway, you can see the evilness behind their façade of innocence which was either brilliant acting or just something naturally horrible about children. A couple of scenes of animal cruelty really made me hate them. There are even suggestions of incest and paedophilia which are downplayed almost to non-existence, but they still deliver some shocking stuff especially in the case of the obviously psychopathic Miles.

The ambiguities raised by the story don't just stop there. In a big change to the novel, it is never truly explained if the ghosts and possessions are real or just in Miss Gidden's head. As much as I prefer the supernatural explanation, the fact that her character seems to be a sexually-repressed "old maid" (for lack of a better term) has tempted numerous essay writers into psychological analysis of her character and her apparent nervous breakdown throughout the movie. Make no mistake about it, "The Innocents" has some very adult elements which were explored further (and rather poorly) ten years later in Michael Winner's "The Nightcomers" (1971).

If you want scares, Freddie Francis' cinematography almost provides enough black and white creepiness on its own without the more startling scenes. I rewatched "The Innocents" during a gloomy and rainy afternoon and, not to put too fine a point of it, pants were nearly shat several times. I say "nearly" because the timing is occasionally a bit off, and I'm too hardcore to really be frightened by anything in a movie.

I still highly recommend "The Innocents" to anyone who loves ghost stories or who loves analysing characters afterwards. While not quite Hitchcock, there's a lot more depth to "The Innocents" than most horror (and proto-horror) movies from the 1960s.

The Possession (2012)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alucarda (1977)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lovely Molly (2011)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[REC] (2007)

"A television reporter and cameraman follow emergency workers into a dark apartment building and are quickly locked inside with something terrifying."

In preparation for my next podcast, I rewatched "[REC]" yesterday, started making some notes, and then realised that I had never written a review of it. So, only about 5 years too late, here's my review of "[REC]".

The first thing which I noticed was that the skinny, rabbit-toothed reporter, Ángela Vidal, was really two-faced. I think this was a very well observed piece of filmmaking and definitely a criticism of all those TV journalists who act all friendly (and a bit stupid) but are quite ruthless underneath. Ángela Vidal, played by Manuela Velasco, came across as someone who thought that she was better than everyone else, who considered that the job was beneath her, and was completely narcissistic. Apart from her sexy upper arms, I didn't like anything about her.

As far as eyecandy in the movie went, I thought that Maria Lanau who played Mari Carmen (the little girl's hysterical mother) was much better looking than Manuela Velasco. Well, she was until she got bitten anyway. Maybe it's because she reminded me slightly of uber hot Belén Rueda who is around the same age and equally well preserved.

Unfortunately, Ángela dominated this film. I don't think there were more than 5 of the 120 minutes where she wasn't on screen, and she was a very annoying character. If she wasn't acting in a controlling way or redundantly telling the cameraman to film things, she was screeching at the top of her voice. I'm glad I had subtitles and could turn the volume down.

"Eeeeh, what's up, Doc?"

As for the story, for another faux found footage movie, "[REC]" wasn't bad. I was a bit annoyed by what I would call "linear gameplay", since a lot of the characters' actions involved going backwards and forwards over the same ground just like in a "Resident Evil" game. Actually, it also reminded me of "Doom" and "Quake" in the way that it was all a lot of running through corridors, or up and down stairs, collecting an item at point A to be used at point B, and unlocking doors etc. The video game influence on "[REC]" were blatantly obvious.

Among all the outstanding gore and make-up effects, there were even a couple of jump scares which actually got me. Both involved the little girl, Jennifer, once she had turned rabid. I didn't find the atmosphere to be particularly creepy, and there wasn't any tension, but the jump scares just happened so unexpectedly that they caught me off guard.

Of course, there were several plot holes which almost spoilt my enjoyment of "[REC]" including how Max, the little girl's dog, got infected when the Portuguese girl had been locked away for years with no contact with any of the other residents of the building. The old woman who was said to have cats didn't actually have any cats roaming around her apartment either which was a huge disappointment for me.

The revelation that the rabies-like virus which was turning everyone into zombies was supernatural in origin was a bit hard to believe so I can see why "Quarantine" (2008), the American remake, left that part out. Having to use newspaper clippings and an old-fashioned tape recorder to explain why everything was happening was either an homage to "The Evil Dead" (1981), or more likely, was something else borrowed from computer games.

Even though it had a lot of faults, I was actually quite entertained and really enjoyed rewatching "[REC]". It was nicely paced, not so obviously staged as "Quarantine", and it looked the part. Due to the subject matter, it was totally unbelievable as a "found footage" film, but I'll still rate it as average.

Amityville 1992: It's About Time (1992)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jennifer's Body (2009)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amityville II: The Possession (1982)

"A family moves into their new home, which proves to be evil, resulting in the demonic possession of the teenage son. Only the local priest can save him."

Since I'm on an "Amityville" kick right now, I thought it was about time to rewatch this much maligned and controversial prequel which some wags refer to as "Amityville II: The Incest" for reasons which I'll come to later.

With a script by Tommy Lee Wallace (based very loosely on the book "Murder in Amityville" by Hans Holzer), this fictional account of the murders allegedly committed by Ronald Defeo is a masterpiece of dramatic license. Although all the names are changed from Defeo to Montelli, the family has more children, and there are a lot more supernatural goings-on, the source material is still pretty obvious.

Set in 1974 but with some anachronisms for the careful viewer, "Amityville II: The Possession" may not be quite up to the same overall standard as the original but it still has a few good moments. The house still looks as scary as ever with its evil-eyed windows plus there is a definite gloominess and feeling of dread for the first 60 minutes or so.

Burt Young from "Rocky" is typecast as a stereotypically thuggish Italian-American father, Anthony Montelli, complete with stained wifebeater and is instantly dislikeable. In case anyone forgot that he played Sylvester Stallone's brother-in-law in the "Rocky" movies, there's even a poster on his screen son Sonny's bedroom wall. Only truly eagle-eyed viewers will notice it though and I didn't until I was told about it either.

Jack Magner plays Sonny Montelli in what I think was the only major role in his career. The IMDb has only one more entry for him as a "Young Serviceman" in "Firestarter" (1984) and Googling doesn't shed any more light onto what happened to him after that. Maybe he just got bored with acting. It happens and it's always a shame but I expect his role in "Amityville II" was something that damaged his career even though he was really good in it. James Brolin, in the "For God's Sake, Get Out!" documentary on "The Amityville Horror" DVD claimed that he found it very difficult to find work for years after his starring role too.

Of course, the real star of the show is, no, not TV regular James Olson as Father Adamsky, but a deliciously young and hot Diane Franklin who you may know from "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure" (1989). Yes, I've now got to the bit you've all been waiting for.

Basically, the possessed Sonny seduces Diane Franklin who plays his sister Patricia. I hate giving away spoilers but the controversy about this vileness and the reactions of some of the most famous movie critics of the time are quite well known. Leonard Maltin called it "alternately dull and disgusting". Surprisingly, Roger Ebert thought that the film was better than the original.

Personally, I think that the whole incest thing was laughably perverted. Sonny showing his sister's knickers to her and admitting that he stole them from the laundry had me smirking for all the wrong reasons. The whole scene is so uncomfortably contrived that quite frankly (no pun intended, Diane Frankin), it's embarrassing to watch.

Because the incest scene totally eclipses the rest of the story for most people, it's quite hard to focus on whether the supernatural and horror elements are any good. The effects are actually pretty decent in the ending which owes far too much to "The Exorcist" but there isn't a lot of gore otherwise.

Some dated but still quite nicely done latex bladder effects don't really have much of a scare factor to them but are amusing to watch. As ever, it really depends on your own point of view if any of them are gross, disgusting or just plain silly. I tend towards the last of those descriptions but I did think that the make-up was much better than the practical effects. While Sonny's transformation was similar to something from "The Evil Dead" (1981), Diane Franklin was made to look uber hot and slutty just when you thought that you wouldn't see her in the film again. That was a very welcome surprise and was almost as trouser-tightening as Linda Blair in "Exorcist II: The Heretic" (where they surely got the idea).

Overall, I think that the director, Damiano Damiani, did a pretty good job with what he had to work with although he really should have spent more time on Rutanya Alda whose Dolores Montelli was simply awful. I don't know what she thought she was acting in.

The ending itself, from the moment where Father Adamsky (whose name I associate with a UK popstar) persuades the detective played by Moses Gunn to let him take Sonny out of the hospital, is something which could only exist in a Dino De Laurentiis production and is necessary once most of the characters who you've got used to for the better part of the film have all disappeared. Some might say that the ending is noticeably tacked on just to up the horror quotient but there are indications all the way through the story that this is what will happen.

So, do I still recommend "Amityville II: The Possession" after all these years? Even in spite of its flaws, I do. If you've never seen "The Exorcist" or any other Amityville film then you will be thoroughly entertained by it.

"Amityville II: The Possession" has a high-quality look to it which hasn't allowed the movie to become too dated at all. Yes, it's full of as many clichés as one of my movie reviews but it takes a lot of chances by not following the predictability of every other "haunted house" movie which preceded it.

If you want a derivative yet somewhat original mix of the best bits from "The Amityville Horror", "The Exorcist" and "The Evil Dead" all rolled into one then "Amityville II: The Possession" is for you.