Aftershock (2012)

"In Chile, a group of travellers who are in an underground nightclub when a massive earthquake hits quickly learn that reaching the surface is just the beginning of their nightmare."

I've been struggling with this movie review for so long that it isn't even funny. But finally, after several glasses of Teacher's and Coke, I'm biting the bullet and writing the first things that come into my head just to get the damned thing out of the way.

The first problem I've been having with "Aftershock" is that it isn't really a horror movie. It's a mean-spirited disaster movie with horror elements. The second problem is, of course, because I'm hardly the biggest fan of Eli Roth. Actually, I'll go further than that, I can't stand his "Hostel" and "Cabin Fever" movies. The weird thing, though, is that I've actually started to like Eli Roth as an actor based on his performance here.

Okay, so Eli Roth is obviously channelling a lot of David Schwimmer and that type into his "Gringo" character, and he comes across as a total wussypants, but he's kind of likeable with it. When the bad things start happening, it's Eli Roth who you're rooting for the most, and I never thought I'd write those words in the same sentence.

Huge spoilers coming!

What happens in Chile stays in Chile!

As the majority of the action in this movie is a series of darkly comedic gags which make as much use of the "no good deed goes unpunished" cliché as possible, it's not worth worrying about the plot too much. Some people have described "Aftershock" as "Hostel with an earthquake" and that's about as deep as it gets. Basically, a bunch of not very worldy-wise tourists in Chile end up dying unpleasantly at the hands of Mother Nature, escaped convicts, or a combination of both.

Eyecandy is provided by Andrea Osvárt (as Monica), Natasha Yarovenko (as Irina), and Lorenzo Izzo (as Kylie). The latter is also in Eli Roth's remake of "The Green Inferno" which I know you're all looking forward to as much as I'm not. These girls really go through it. If it's not bad enough to be shook up by an earthquake and have huge chunks of rock fall on you, they end up getting chased by criminals, one gets raped and then shot, and after making the wrong choice about who to trust, well, not to put too fine a point on it, they all die horribly. The final scene with the "final girl" is hilarious for those of us who are sick of the trope.

The guys along with Eli Roth don't fare any better. Ariel Levy (who keeps his own first name) and Nicolás Martínez (as Pollo) are a very likeable pair whose antics endear you to them even when they are being assholes. They don't make it out of this movie alive either, and nor does our Eli. In fact, Eli Roth's death in this movie is one of the nastiest things I've seen in a long time, not because of the effects, but because of the sadistic and unneccesary nature of it.

Bloody good!

Since "Aftershock" is a disaster movie, it's very frugal with the spectacular effects or people running around in chaos, but it's not too sparse, and there's more than enough to create the right atmosphere. It's $2,000,000 budget was only double that of a movie by The Asylum, so consider the coat cut according to the cloth. It's certainly not disappointing for gore!

I liked "Aftershock" so much that I'm going to put it in "The Vault". It's not the best disaster movie I've ever seen, but it's the best disaster-horror hybrid movie I've seen this year other than "Sharknado".

Baby Shower (2011)

"Four ex-classmates get together to celebrate the pregnancy of one of them. The venue chosen for the party is a country house located one hour away from the city. It has been a while since the four of them saw each other for the last time, and one recently committed betrayal threatens to destroy their long and deep friendship. The revelation of a dark secret and a series of violent deaths transform the baby shower into a nightmare. A very disturbing one."

Something which surprised me after watching "Baby Shower", and then looking up reviews to steal pictures from, is that there aren't any positive reviews of this movie to be found on the IMDb (or anywhere else for that matter). That seems very odd to me, and means one of two things: either not enough people have seen this movie yet, or a lot of copying and pasting has been done from one review to another. Bearing in mind that the "critics" in every case mainly retell the story in their own spoilerific words, I have no respect for any of them, least of all one who hated the movie because it had subtitles, and another douchebag who I know didn't give it his full attention because he practically lives on Twitter.

I have no idea what director Pablo Illanes did to upset these "reviewers" apart from placing non-comedic versions of the "Sex and the City" girls in the middle of a Chilean forest and bumping them off in fabulously gory ways—especially as I think the whole idea is absolutely fantastic—so just because he's managed to bring one of my own sordid dreams to life, I'm going to give "Baby Shower" a thoroughly positive review to redress the balance.

Okay, I admit that in my imagination, it would only be the most irritating characters from "Sex and the City" being tortured in insanely erotic ways that wouldn't ever legally make it to film, but you have to take what you can get. Obviously, nobody would want to see anything bad happen to Charlotte (Kristin Davis), since she's the only pretty one in the show, and I'm pleased to say that her lookalike Ángela (Ingrid Isensee) doesn't suffer too much either (except emotionally!). Everyone else does—oh, yes, indeedy—and there's lots of blood, nudity, and mean-spiritness to enjoy here!

Aside from (but including) the boobs and blood, the cinematography is sometimes quite beautiful, especially for a low-budget foreign movie (if you can call $900,000 low-budget!), and the location looks the part. Where logically there should be spaciousness, the atmosphere is parodoxically claustrophobic, and that takes some doing, especially as the camera looks at everything you want to see and quite a few unpleasant things which most people don't!

"You have to let go of who you were to become who you will be."

With a hint of "Rosemary's Baby" (1968) and a little bit of the craziness from "Inside" (2007), the plot itself isn't the most original, but it's handled in a much better way than either of those aforementioned borefests. Let's face it, I might like "Rosemary's Baby" myself, but it's still 45 years old and has become horribly dated now. It was never very believable to begin with, and teenagers are more likely to laugh at it. On the other hand, "Inside" is simply an overrated idiot play with unrealistic gore, and I'll never understand its appeal if I live to be a hundred.

Thus, even with its stereotypical characters which aren't really developed, and other clichés such as non-functioning cell phones abounding, "Baby Shower" is much more suitable for a modern audience, especially if they're sick puppies like me who appreciate realistic woundings and creative kills. The fact that the actresses are some of the best-looking women in Chile also doesn't hurt. Just pick out your favourite and enjoy her for as long as she remains on screen.

Once again, I'm not going to give any spoilers because I hate it when other people do that. Suffice it to say that the sexy "Samantha" character called Olivia (Claudia Burr) steals the show from creepy lunatic Soledad (Patricia López), but the rest of the cast are still impressive. In particular, Sofía García, Francisca Merino, and Kiki Rojo don't play typical helpless victims; they fight back and scream very well indeed!

The only eyecandy for the ladies is Álvaro Gómez as Julio whose first appearance is shirtless and riding a horse, so you can imagine the impression that makes! He's not quite Marcus Tandy from "Eldorado", but women shouldn't be watching horror movies for hunky men anyway. To be honest, women shouldn't ever watch horror movies like this in the first place because they'll only bitch about the gratuitous nudity, misogynistic violence, and rape afterwards. I've had enough of those prudes to last me a lifetime, and I'm sure you have too.

As "Baby Shower" isn't available on DVD yet (except in Germany), you'll have to be a Netflix subscriber to see it legally anywhere else, but you should definitely check it out if you're into the gory stuff, and unlike some dumbass reviewers, you don't mind reading subtitles.

Highly recommended.

I Spit on Your Grave 2 (2013)

"Katie is trying to make it in the cutthroat world of modeling. When she innocently accepts an offer to have new photos taken for her portfolio, the experience quickly turns into an unthinkable nightmare of rape, torture, and kidnapping. When a twist of fate finally frees her from her captors - beaten, battered, bruised, and broken, she will have to tap into the darkest places of the human psyche to not only survive her ordeal, but to ultimately find the strength to exact her brutal revenge."

Starring Jemma Dallender (from "Hollyoaks") doing an American accent, Joe Absolom (from "Eastenders") with an Eastern European accent, Mary Stockley (from "The Woman in Black" remake), and a load of Bulgarians who you've never heard of, Steven R. Monroe's "I Spit on Your Grave 2" is not only the underwhelming sequel in name only that you would expect, but also the rape-revenge clone that nobody asked for or needs.

Annoying handheld camerawork which refuses to stay still, more screaming than is strictly necessary, multiple black screens to show the passage of time, and bucketloads of mean-spiritedness don't add up to anything remotely enjoyable. "I Spit on Your Grave 2" is just a time-wasting mess of predictable tropes, bad acting, and generic torture porn.

As someone who makes no secret of loving "extreme horror", even I have my limits when it comes to poor quality dreck like this. I was, by turns, bored, disappointed and thoroughly dissatisfied. All the criticisms of the first "I Spit on Your Grave" remake which I defended are now totally applicable to this movie instead. It's gratuitous for the sake of being gratuitous, soulless, and not even as entertaining as "Hostel" with its clichéd xenophobia.

Although things start off realistically enough, the whole raping, drugging and kidnapping shenanigans progress into being more ridiculous than harrowing. I'm sure that there are certain "Women in Horror" bloggers who will have a field day with the rape scenes because, let's face it, they've got puritanical sticks up their asses about this kind of thing, and their whole pointless lives are dedicated to seeking out the controversial so that they can pretend to be morally superior. As it's all they have to attract readers to their hypocritical blogs anyway, I'll let them have at it this time because nothing here was able to float my boat.

"Tell me how much you want to watch my showreel from Hollyoaks!"

Jemma Dallender isn't as attractive as Sarah Butler, her vain character is instantly dislikeable, and her change from being a haughty, prudish model to a semi-feral sewer-dweller has to be some of the laziest storytelling that I've ever had the misfortune to see. Aside from dozens of lapses in logic, her incredible character changes are unintentionally comical unless this movie is supposed to be a comedy. Given that the 1978 original is one of my top ten horror-comedies, maybe this isn't meant to be taken too seriously either, but how someone frail enough to be described as weighing about as much as a "leaf dripping wet" can develop superhuman strength after only eating half of a spit-roasted pigeon and three cans of beans is still absolutely mindboggling!

Despite being extremely graphic, the gory revenge elements are equally uninventive and lack the poetic justice which would make them memorable. All the background noise and screaming which obliterates the payoff lines is beyond irritating, especially as there's no way on Earth that anyone could decipher the most important one. I replayed it ten times before giving up!

I hate to say it, but after looking forward to "I Spit on Your Grave 2" ever since I first heard about it, I can't recommend this movie to anyone.

Dark Tourist (2012)

"A psychological-thriller in the haunting tradition of films like Taxi Driver and Monster, The Grief Tourist takes us into the chilling labyrinth of a man's dark hobby and his even darker mind."

Not a review today but a recommendation. Apparently it's "Labor Day" or something in America, so I'm going to celebrate it by doing as little as possible. Writing a blog post is obviously such hard work!

Anyway, it may interest you to know that Suri Krishnamma's "Dark Tourist", formerly known as "The Grief Tourist" (presumably to differentiate it from Dom Joly's book about the weird hobby rather than the same subject matter), has a limited theatrical release at City Cinemas Village East Cinema, New York. Check it out if you live within range. [It's also available via VOD and iTunes for anybody else.]

As a film noir-ish hybrid of "Chained" (2012) and "Taxi Driver" (1976), "Dark Tourist" might not appeal to everyone unless they are into serial killers or stories about maniacs becoming that way, but if you're reading this blog, it's highly likely that you are the target audience. Even though I'm more into fantasy than real life murders, I think that "Dark Tourist" is a very good movie indeed. It's well written, nicely shot, and has an off-beat, gritty, character-driven feel to it like "Edmond" (2005).

Aside from Michael Cudlitz's outstanding performance which I'm sure is being raved about from one side of the internet to the other, it's also extremely nice to see Melanie Griffith in something on the big screen again. She's still much the same as before except older, wiser, and a better actress than I remember her to be. The scenes involving Jim (Michael Cuditz) and Betsy (Melanie Griffith) are great.

My only minor criticism is that "Dark Tourist" should've been longer. For that reason, the story seems to have some unnecessary additional information near the end which doesn't quite fit in. I won't spoil it for you, but suffice it to say that Suzanne Quast as Iris the prostitute is definitely all woman!

"Dark Tourist" is the kind of bleak and brutal stuff which I'm always willing to recommend. It's not going to make me take up grief tourism—"the act of travelling with the intent to visit places of tragedy or disaster"—as a hobby though. I'm already morbid enough as it is.

Have a great holiday, everybody!

Kick-Ass 2 (2013)

"The costumed high-school hero Kick-Ass joins with a group of normal citizens who have been inspired to fight crime in costume. Meanwhile, the Red Mist plots an act of revenge that will affect everyone Kick-Ass knows."

I'm writing this while still buzzing from the post-movie adrenaline rush—and a can of green apple Rockstar Supersours—so this is not going to be a review as much as gushing fanboy-ish praise for a much darker and more adult sequel than I ever imagined "Kick-Ass 2" could be.

Having barely registered the first "Kick-Ass" (2010) as anything more than a quasi-hipsterish hack job meant for teenagers, the change of director and screenwriter has allowed levels of ultra-violence to rival something which Tarantino would be proud of. "Kick-Ass 2" has lots of bloodshed, multiple murders, and even an attempted rape! It's nearly as ridiculous as an exploitation movie, and I love it!

The cinematography is very good with only a few fight scenes where quick cuts make it hard to tell what's happening. It's not as bad as "The Dark Knight Rises" or "Iron Man 3", so be grateful. The effects are decent throughout, and some of the kills are extremely brutal. Although even more blood and gore would have made me ecstatic, there's enough for an R-rated movie, and it's guaranteed to upset some people. Jim Carrey refused to promote "Kick-Ass 2" because of the violence, but that's his problem. It's doubtful, but I hope there will eventually be an "Unrated Version" which will add more meanspiritedness.

Of course, "Kick-Ass 2" is aimed primarily at the now three-years-older teenage crowd who enjoyed the first movie more than I did, so there are some kiddified comedy bits which are mostly based around Hit-Girl's attempts at fitting into high school. As a fully grown adult of another gender and country, I can't relate to any of that, but I can acknowledge that the "gross-out" puking and defecating scenes are amusingly over-the-top. One thing is for certain, "Kick-Ass 2" is definitely not aimed at little kids, prudes, or comicbook-reading manchildren. Apparently, the latter really hate this movie, as do the mainstream "critics", but that's because they have no taste anyway. Anybody over the age of 12 years old who reads "Spider-Man" and "Batman" comics regularly obviously suffers from some kind of mental retardation, so I couldn't care less what those people have to say about anything.

Unlike the comicbook fantards, I can't find anything wrong with "Kick-Ass 2". As an action movie, it all works, but I suppose you do need to have seen the original for everything to make sense. There are minor attempts to bring a new audience up to speed with who is who, but "Kick-Ass 2" is a faster-paced sequel rather than a standalone story. Given the time that's passed, it's probably better if you don't watch the two movies back-to-back because of the change in tone.

Yes, that is Jim Carrey on the left!

Acting-wise, Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Christopher Mintz-Plasse are much the same as before, but "McLovin" is maybe more comedic than strictly necessary as a supervillain. Jim Carrey is completely unrecognisable in a role which proves that he can genuinely act when/if he wants to, and Chloë Grace Moretz steals the show yet again. She overuses her cute, wide-eyed expressions, but she's absolutely fantastic for a 16-year-old. I'm almost looking forward to seeing her in the "Carrie" remake now.

John Leguizamo has an important supporting role and continues to talk out of the side of his mouth like a champ, Iain Glen has a nice cameo as a mafia boss, Olga Kurkulina is fearsome as Mother Russia, and Morris Chestnut (aka Luke from the first "American Horror Story") replaces Omari Hardwick as Detective Marcus Williams. In another cast change, Todd is now played by Augustus Prew instead of Evan Peters. I can't say that I noticed the difference. I was too busy ogling Lindy Booth as Night Bitch, Lyndsy Fonseca as Katie Deauxma, and Claudia Lee as Brooke the bitchy popular girl. Oh yes, there's a lot of lovely eyecandy here!

While "Kick-Ass" is a semi-parody of more famous superheroes, "Kick-Ass 2" continues that idea although only pays lip-service to a few of them. "Batman" gets a couple of explicit mentions, not because Big Daddy's oft-shown empty costume looks just like Batman's but due to a minor character using his backstory. The nerdy Marvel homages and in-jokes are mostly part of the plot itself rather than shout-outs, yet it's easy to spot them all. If you're inclined to see the whole thing as a rip-off or a clone, it won't disappoint you in its lack of originality. You could also criticise "Mystery Men" (1999) for the same reasons and the things which both films share. Superhero movies are all the same anyway.

Despite the dangers of vigilantism being more of a contrivance and a satirical afterthought than in "Mystery Men" or "Kick-Ass", there's a bigger message here about being what you are meant to be and doing the right thing no matter what the rest of society thinks. Thankfully, that message doesn't extend to encouraging the lameness which cosplayers indulge in though, and their childish "dressing-up for Hallowe'en everyday" bullshit continues to be ridiculed throughout.

As a massive snark about cosplayers, geeks, nerds, teenagers, pop-culture, and American society in general, "Kick-Ass 2" surpasses all expectations. No wonder they had to film it in Toronto instead of New York! Since infantilisation, pussification, entitlement, selfishness, lies and injustice have now become the American way, "Kick-Ass 2" has a counter-culture message which will be hated by its lampooned targets and is subversive enough for me to wholeheartedly support.

I'm not going to deconstruct or spoil anything else for you because you need to see this movie for yourself. I don't often recommend non-horror movies, so just watch it, okay?

Kick-Ass 2 kicks the original Kick-Ass' ass!

Gallowwalkers (2012)

"A cursed gunman whose victims come back from the dead recruits a young warrior to help in the fight against a gang of zombies."

Made seven years ago but still not due to be released until August, "Gallowwalkers" stars Wesley Snipes in a comicbook-style fantasy which is more like "The Crow" being played out on the set of a Sergio Leone western than "Blade" no matter what the promotional posters and trailer might want you to believe.

Pirates have already uploaded this film to the usual sites out of spitefulness rather than helpfulness, but as I'm a huge Wesley Snipes mark and will be buying the DVD anyway, I feel no guilt about succumbing to the streaming temptation. I'm not in the loop of chosen people who was sent a screener copy anyway although I damned well should have been. It's not going to taint my honest review of "Gallowwalkers", but it does leave a nasty taste in my mouth that someone who the distributors did trust with a screener then uploaded it.

Rather than spoil the big surprises of "Gallowwalkers" with a synopsis of what little plot there is, especially as I could describe it in one or two sentences and know that I'd done a good job, I have to begin by correcting an error in the IMDb description which I've quoted above. "Gallowwalkers" is definitely not about zombies. Thank God for that! Instead, it's a $17,000.000 hybrid of spaghetti westerns and "Hellraiser"-style fantasy-horror with laconic Wesley Snipes making a lot of strong poses and looking surly while far less well-known performers attempt to act around him. While not exactly brilliant, it's a typical Wesley Snipes movie.

There are worse things out tonight than vampires.

I say "performers" rather than "actors" because there isn't a whole lot of acting to talk about. Apart from the action scenes, and a fantastic cameo by Patrick Bergin, "Gallowwalkers" is mostly (but not entirely) one of those movies where once everybody got dressed up, they thought it would be enough to carry them through rather than putting any more effort in. Since it was filmed in a desert in Namibia, I'm sure the heat could be blamed for the overall listlessness, but that's not a satisfactory excuse for having the atmosphere of a cheap SyFy channel movie rather than a product designed for theatrical release.

Long camera shots, barren sets, very little dynamism, and stylistic homages to "High Plains Drifter", "Hang 'Em High", and "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" show that director Andrew Goth loves his Clint Eastwood westerns, but none of it comes together in the "cultish" way that I'm sure he wanted it to. I don't know the full story of why "Gallowwalkers" sat on the shelf for so long, but I assume Wesley Snipes' incarceration for tax evasion may have caused so many rewrites and a such a nightmare for the editors that we're lucky to have this movie at all.

To be brutally honest, "Gallowwalkers" is a bit of a mess, and there are some very weird elements in it which aren't properly explained, but as a salvage job, it's actually not bad overall. There are a couple of plot holes and a few loose ends, but I've obviously seen far worse things which other reviewers rave about. The good news is that it's not as boring as "Jonah Hex" (2010).

One intentionally quirky thing which sticks out is that the major characters are never named except in the end credits. I'm not sure if they were named very quickly and I missed it, but I don't think so. I suppose it doesn't matter because, for all intents and purposes, Wesley Snipes is the black version of "the man with no name", and the gang he fights is another generic and instantly forgettable bunch of baddies anyway.

Nice coat, dude!

Kevin Howarth tries hard to inject some menace into his role as the boss of the bad guys, and Riley Smith is likeable as Wesley Snipes' recruit, but everyone else is barely more than eyecandy. Nobody has more than two or three lines each throughout the movie, and the beautiful girls are underused to say the least. Tanit Phoenix, Simona Brhlikova, and Alyssa Pridham all shine in their few minutes of screen time, but none of their characters go anywhere. Simona Brhlikova is the best as the bad girl member of the gang, but Tanit Phoenix's character has almost no purpose whatsoever. Alyssa Pridham only appears in flashbacks for obvious reasons.

Of interest to Brits of a certain age, former children's TV personality Derek Griffiths has a role in this as Mosca. Yes, he's one of the lucky few whose character actually gets a name. His prosthetic make-up stands out more than he does, but it's nice to know that he's still around.

Due to its nature, there's nothing scary about "Gallowwalkers", but the violence and gory set pieces are nicely done. Gunshots which smash large chunks out of their targets and bullet holes with blood spurting out of them are always enjoyable. Decapitations are simply a bonus! There may not be anything here that hasn't been seen before, but the effects are very good, and there aren't lots of quick cuts to ruin them.

If you're a Wesley Snipes fan and can appreciate a very flawed movie which is more style over substance, you'll probably enjoy "Gallowwalkers". You might even find yourself saying the word "Lush!" on more than one occasion. I did, and I'm not that easy to please.

Hidden in the Woods (2012)

(AKA "En las afueras de la ciudad")



"After their abusive father is jailed, two sisters being raised in a remote area of Chile find they have to answer to their uncle, a drug kingpin who wants his missing product back."

Yeah, I'm back again but only briefly. I've had another non-eventful birthday (apart from James Herbert dying on it!) last week, finally figured out how to turn off all the annoying random characters that were being added to the names of the images I uploaded to Photobucket, and I've been spending way too long playing on Twitter. Let's face it, as much fun as Twitter is, I'm primarily a blogger so I can't be confined to 140 character limits forever.

Anyway, I missed out on Patricio Valladares' "Hidden in the Woods" last year so I watched it yesterday. I can't say that I was overly impressed although it's certainly gory enough for most people and has a couple of nice-looking Chilean girls in it.

Thanks to "Hidden in the Woods", I had to look up where Chile was on the map. I always thought that Chile was an island somewhere near Portugal rather than a long, straggly country in South America so I learnt something. Geography has never been my strong point, but I had to Google where Chile was after watching this film so that I never accidentally go there. It's probably a great country, but this film makes it look like a horribly uncivilised place to be. There are too many trees and violently insane people living among them for my liking.

Siboney Lo as Ana

The real trouble with "Hidden in the Woods" though is that despite all the shock scenes and gore, it isn't so much a horror movie as just another rape-revenge, "faux-grindhouse", exploitation movie with a ludicrous crime story forced into the mix. I'm not a big fan of this subgenre and always fail to see the joke. That's assuming that this was put together as a bit of fun and not meant to be a serious drama. "Inspired by true events" doesn't seem that likely unless Chile really does contain so many rapists in its sylvan areas or have police even more useless than the ones in "Inside".

Paradoxically, acting and filming wise, "Hidden in the Woods" isn't a bad movie as such. It's obviously ragged in places, but it doesn't reek of someone trying to intentionally make a "so bad, it's good" abomination (although a few comic touches particularly during Ana's short career as a prostitute may make you wonder). I liked the gore effects and almost got into what Patricio Valladares was trying to do about two-thirds of the way through, but by then, it was too late. Homaging dozens of better horror movies (including "Spider Baby", "The Hills Have Eyes", "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", "Frontier(s)" and even "The Woman") isn't so clever when there's hardly any originality used elsewhere.

Having willingly suspended my disbelief during the schizophrenic tonal changes and poorly realised plot, I can't easily put my finger on why the story didn't work for me except that the lead female characters were either too flat or too inconsistent and didn't really evoke any kind of sympathy. It's pretty hard to sympathise with an inbred family of hillbilly cannibals anyway even if you imagine that the girls might clean up rather nicely. The men in this film are all one-dimensional and despicably vile as well.

Carolina Escobar as Anny

Basically, "Hidden in the Woods" is a misogynistic tale of murder, rape, incest, prostitution, cannibalism, drug dealers, torture, and even more rape and murder. If any of those combined elements interest you then knock yourself out. If you want to actually feel something for the victims in a mean-spirited movie then I recommend watching something else such as "I Spit on Your Grave" or "The Last House on the Left" (either the originals or the remakes). Even "A Serbian Film" has more pathos than "Hidden in the Woods".

The "Reservoir Dogs" ending just ruins any time invested in trying to get involved with the characters, thus leaving the experience unsatisfying and forgettable. In fairness, the characters are such damaged goods that no happy ending is possible, but it still feels like a cop-out especially with the clunky twist during the end credits.

Inevitably, there is already an American remake planned which will, surprisingly, also be directed by Patricio Valladares. With a few changes, it might be okay, but I highly doubt it.

American Mary (2012)

"The story follows medical student, Mary Mason, as she becomes increasingly broke and disenchanted with the surgical world she once admired. The allure of easy money sends Mary into the world of underground surgeries which ends up leaving more marks on her than her so called 'freakish' clientele."

If you watch a lot of horror movies, you'll already know that originality is not their strong point. Even without the blatant ripoffs and clones, the homages and formulas have become de rigueur in the genre. Thus, it comes as no great surprise that Jen and Sylvia Soska's "American Mary", in spite of aiming to be more than a horror movie, is hardly the most original story either.

What lifts "American Mary" out of the ordinary is the fantastic performance by Katharine Isabelle who you'd be forgiven for thinking hasn't really done a lot apart from bit parts since "Ginger Snaps". Maybe it's because she refuses to get naked (which is a shame). As Mary Mason, she provides a multi-faceted character who adds more charisma than the Soska sisters could possibly have imagined in their hastily cobbled together screenplay. This isn't a dig at the Soska sisters, who are currently milking their 15 minutes of fame for all that it's worth (just as any of us would), but a statement of fact in praise of Katharine Isabelle's talents. If you hire such a beautiful actress and let her make the part her own, the task of creating a decent film is 90% done for you no matter how simple and derivative your story may be.

Mary Mason isn't the most likeable heroine though. She either has a mild form of Asperger's syndrome or she's a ruthless psychopath just waiting for something to set her off. Mary's narcissism is a huge indication of the latter. Arguably, the Soskas barely tried to write more into her since any attempts to view Mary as the empowered feminist horror icon of their promotional Q & A sessions are dashed by inconsistencies. As far as horror movie anti-heroes go, "Bloody Mary" certainly has a place alongside Patrick Bateman since both are victims even when they think they're winning, but to read any more into her than that would be silly. Maybe that's why the movie is called "American Mary". I'm still not sure about that detail though, and I've digressed.

A British horror-loving friend of mine on Twitter recently described "American Mary" as a lot of style over substance. Not being mean, but it's actually less than that if you deconstruct it. "American Mary" is a film which relies heavily on Katharine Isabelle's looks and some very neat props from MastersFX to distract the viewer from the competent yet rather ordinary camerawork and thinnest of rape-revenge plots. While it's all very stylish and sexy, the journey from A to B is as predictable as they come with more than a few nods to the movies which inspired it.

Without spoiling it too much for you, "American Mary" can be described as a hybrid of "Boxing Helena", "Hard Candy", "I Spit on Your Grave", the "Nip/Tuck" TV series, and dozens of grittier Hallmark channel movies. Specifically, if you've ever wondered what "Nip/Tuck" might have turned into with another season which focused on nothing but "extreme body modification", "American Mary" is the answer. It has to be said, however, that "Nip/Tuck" covered the same ground several times anyway with just as much blood and gore.

Canadians have always been great "copyists" when it comes to horror movies. As derogatory as it sounds, there's also a compliment buried in there. Even going back to "Ginger Snaps" (which is merely "The Wolf Man" with the genders and ages of the protagonists changed), there's never been a completely original idea from any of Canada's filmmakers except (perhaps) David Cronenberg. Ironically, "American Mary" owes a lot to Cronenberg, but not entirely in a good way. As someone who isn't the greatest fan of his work other than "The Fly" remake, I would call many of his "body horror" movies "style over substance" too.

Unlike David Cronenberg's early movies, "American Mary" looks great. Money clearly goes further when shooting in Vancouver with an ensemble cast of TV actors although (without knowing the exact figures) I'd guess that the Soskas finagled a substantial amount of investment. The last thing you can fault "American Mary" for is being some kind of low-budget "indie" dreck because the production values are very good indeed. Despite taking only 15 days to shoot, this isn't the product of some beered-up, redneck friends in their backyard with a couple of Jazz cams. Professionals were involved in this every step of the way, and it shows.

I wish one of this team of veterans had spoken up about the contrived, downbeat and very disappointing ending which feels like a cheat, but at the end of the day, it's the directors' decision. There are so many ways that the story could have gone to make it more satisfying, but I think the Soska sisters chose the wrong one. Watching the movie again reveals the placement of enough warning signs for the more observant viewer to guess that things are inevitably going to end very badly yet not exactly how. On the plus side, there won't be a sequel. I think we've all had enough of sequelitis to last us several lifetimes, so thanks for that.

Having seen their previous movie, "Dead Hooker in a Trunk" (2009), and noted their own lack of acting skills, I don't think that the Soskas are worthy of the overpraise being heaped upon them at conventions. Nobody is. Generally speaking, horror convention people are mostly sycophantic assholes with their own agendas so you can't trust them any more than a crow with a beak full of cheese should believe the compliments of a fox. While I would like to say that Jen and Sylvia seem to know their stuff when it comes to characterisation, storytelling and pacing, their various interviews give away that the actors themselves worked with them to get things right. In many ways, this flexibility is to be applauded, but in others, it reeks of inexperience and makes me wonder if they'll ever get this lucky again.

The Soskas seem like a nice enough pair and I wish them the best. I also sincerely hope that they make more movies, but unless they continue to employ Katharine Isabelle as eyecandy and muse, it's unlikely that they will become a major force in the horror industry. Realistically, if Lucky McKee and Angela Bettis can't make it, what chance have they got? Even if they don't get any further, "American Mary" is still a solid (but not groundbreaking or innovative) genre entry and one which I highly recommend to fans of Katharine Isabelle everywhere.

It may have nothing new to offer except as a means to ogle Katharine Isabelle looking sexier than she ever has before, but that's still reason enough for "American Mary" to earn a place in the "Video Vault". Yes, I'm a pervert and a hypocrite, get over it.

Hearts and Armour (1983)

"Bradamante, a woman wearing an invincible suit of armour, is travelling the countryside at the time of the Crusades. After ending up in the middle of a web of romantic and cultural tangles, she finds herself in love with a Moor prince, while one of the Christian knights has fallen in love with a Moor princess. Others, however, are against the cross-cultural romance, and Bradamante's love is soon forced into a duel to the death. Will she ever be with her true love?"

Do you remember "Hearts and Armour" from the '80s? No? Nor do I much except that it was the second VHS tape that I ever bought after "Flesh + Blood" (1985). I'd never heard of it before, but the original VHS artwork looked similar so that was enough for me. I practically threw my pocket money at the guy in Blockbuster and ran home thinking that I'd found treasure.

Of course, once I put in in my VCR, I was very disappointed. Although "Hearts and Armour" promised lots of former "Charlie's Angels" star Tanya Roberts (who shows more than she ought to if you watch carefully), I wasn't so keen on Barbara De Rossi, the terrible dubbing, or the really jarring editing. Allegedly, "Hearts and Armour" was cut down from an Italian miniseries, but I've found no real evidence of that. Basically, it was a cheap piece of trash designed to cash in on "Excalibur" (1981).

Nearly thirty years on, I can't say that I've grown to love "Hearts and Armour". It's still horrible, Bradamante (Barbara De Rossi) looks very uncomfortable in her suit of armour, and the fight scenes are ridiculous. There are some nice gory bits with dismembered limbs flying about in the battles, but this isn't really my kind of thing at all. As much as I can appreciate the work that went into making the costumes as historically (in)accurate as possible, I couldn't care less about the Crusades.

Barbara De Rossi also played Helietta Canins in "Vampire in Venice" (1988) which is the sequel to the terrible remake of "Nosferatu" starring Klaus Kinski. That's much more my cup of tea although I can't honestly say that she's any better in it than in this. Let's face it, she was cast in these movies because of how she looks rather than for any other reason. Strangely, I don't have any problem with that at all. Barbara De Rossi was quite the hottie back in the day.

Because I don't pay attention to crap, I can't tell you who played any of the knights in "Hearts and Armour" except by grabbing their names from the IMDb. Ronn Moss plays Ruggero (the pony-tailed object of Bradamante's affections), Rick Edwards is Orlando, and Maurizio Nichetti is the scruffy, little magician called Atalante. As for the others, who cares? It's not like they've ever been in anything else anyway.

The cinematography isn't bad despite attempts to ruin it with the panned-and-scanned VHS transfer (as yet there is no DVD available), but the acting is so dreadful and the pacing so slow that the overall atmosphere is one of boredom rather than excitement. I nodded off several times during the epic ordeal of trying to rewatch "Hearts and Armour" and even had to have a proper sleep before my numbed brain would allow me to complete it.

Unintentional laughs are created by the pompousness of the dialogue and the inclusion of a Samurai warrior for no good reason at all other than he's another kind of sword-fighter. Some of the action scenes do indeed liven things up for a few seconds, but "Hearts and Armour" even makes the "Deathstalker" sequels look good in comparison.

If you've never seen "Hearts and Armour", I'm not going to recommend it to you. Just knowing that something this awful exists should be enough to satisfy your curiosity.

The Entity (1982)

"Supposedly based partially on a true story, a woman is tormented and sexually molested by an invisible demon."

We're on the vinegar strokes now with only two days left until Hallowe'en (although it's really three if you include the final daytime) so here's another supernatural '80s classic to get you in the mood.

Unlike most '80s movies which I've reviewed, I didn't see "The Entity" when it first came out. I'd heard about it and seen the advertisements for it in the newspaper, but it didn't really appeal to me. I think it must have been overshadowed by "Poltergeist" which had similar subject matter, and I made the wrong decision by only seeing the latter theatrically. I don't think I even saw "The Entity" for the first time until the mid-1990s when it was shown on TV.

I've made up for youthful lack of judgement now that I've seen "The Entity" half a dozen times since (including rewatching it only a couple of hours ago), but I have to say that I've never found it particularly scary. The trouble is that I enjoy "The Entity" far more as a means to ogle Barbara Hershey than for any reason. I'm sure I'm not alone in this as the exploitation aspects of "The Entity", and the manipulation of Barbara Hershey's fun bits with jets of air to resemble fingers, are likely to induce even more lecherousness from a modern audience.

Let's be honest here, most people who went to see "The Entity" at the cinema also only did so because they wanted to see Barbara Hershey naked. I can't blame them for it because she was very sexy back then. Although she's started to look as scary as Karen Black nowadays, there was something very attractive about Barbara Hershey in her prime which had very little to do with her otherwise average looks. Depending on the angle and the lighting, Barbara Hershey can appear 10 years younger or 10 years older in "The Entity" which makes her appeal a large range of the horny male population although not without some obvious confusion being caused for MILF fanatics.

Of course, Barbara Hershey used her gifts to full advantage in her role as Carla Moran with facial expressions which either make her look like a vulnerable little girl or an empowered warrior princess depending on the scene. I'm still not sure how much of Barbara Hershey's performance in "The Entity" is actually good acting rather than just the fact that I fancy her, but I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not going to write a thorough review of "The Entity" since it's over two hours long (some would say overlong), and I'm sure you are very familiar with it anyway. I will just say that I never realised until fairly recently that "The Entity" was directed by the same Sidney J. Furie who directed "Doctor Blood's Coffin" and "The Ipcress File" (1965). Neither of them are particularly great movies, but both have a cult following especially by me.

I'm sure you also know that "The Entity" was based on the book of the same name by Frank DeFelitta which, in turn, was based on the true story of Doris Bither. Obviously, quite a few dramatic liberties were taken in both the novel and the movie, but the story itself is certainly very scary if it's really true. If you want to know more, Google is your friend.

"The Entity" adds a few suggestions about incestuous thoughts and their manifestation into poltergeist activity which have no part of the "true story", but they work fairly well dramatically despite being a red herring. Just look at the way Carla touches her son as she's talking to him at the beginning of the film as it's all very icky. Is the boy's later broken arm a metaphorical warning against Oedipal masturbation? Probably not, but I'm sure somebody would think so.

90% of the male characters in "The Entity" aren't very likeable and they all represent "types". I would love to see someone write an article on the subject. Maybe I'll write one eventually since it's on my list of things to do along with one about the relationships in "Stir of Echoes". Suffice it to say that Ron Silver comes across as a bit creepy as the psychiatrist Phil Sneiderman, and Alex Rocco as Jerry Anderson (nothing to do with the late creator of "Thunderbirds") is very sketchy too.

Although I have no problem with recommending "The Entity" to all lovers of the supernatural and paranormal, it isn't without some massive flaws. Not only are the blue, lightning-like, electrical effects (as also used in "Prom Night II") quite dated, but the thumping guitar chords and drums whenever anything spooky happens gets annoying pretty fast. The last 20 minutes are way too far-fetched and do their best to ruin the atmosphere of the rest of the film plus there's no real resolution at the end. Listen carefully to the last words the entity itself speaks for a quick chuckle.

For an '80s "horror" movie, "The Entity" can seem far more like a '70s exploitation flick in places if you are in the right (or wrong) frame of mind. I'm not sure how polarising the experience will be if you watch it in company so be prepared to watch this on your own as a kind of guilty pleasure. If you want to have the willies put up you or just want to see Barbara Hershey get several invisible willies put up her, "The Entity" is the film for you.

The Skin I Live In (2011)

(AKA La piel que habito)



"A brilliant plastic surgeon, haunted by past tragedies, creates a type of synthetic skin that withstands any kind of damage. His guinea pig: a mysterious and volatile woman who holds the key to his obsession."

Far be it from me to suggest that internationally acclaimed Spanish filmmaker Pedro Almodóvar copied Matt Eskandari's "Victim" (2010), but I had an overwhelming feeling of déjà vu when I watched "The Skin I Live In". Give or take a few minor details and a lot more money, they are both essentially the same story.

Apparently, the reason for the similarities is that both movies were based on "Mygale", a French crime novel by Thierry Jonquet which was first published in 1984. I don't know how true that is because I haven't read it. It still seems suspicious to me that both directors waited around sixteen years before making their adaptations, but maybe it was merely synchronism.

"The Skin I Live In" is certainly the better of the two movies dramatically although, I hasten to add, I thoroughly enjoyed "Victim" too. In fact, if really pushed on the subject, I'd have to admit that purely for entertainment value, I enjoyed "Victim" a lot more. "The Skin I Live In" is too slick somehow and there is no real horror in it apart from ideas involved in the subject matter.

One of the huge differences between "Victim" and "The Skin I Live In" is that Elena Anaya plays the transformed victim in the latter. I don't want to give away the plot too much because I know that there are still some of you who haven't seen this, but that is a very severe change which I think is done more realistically in "Victim". The captive of "Victim" also deserves what happens a lot more.

Pedro Almodóvar has admitted that he was also inspired by "Eyes Without a Face" (1960) although, in fairness, there are even bigger differences between the two stories. The homage is actually quite subtle since "The Skin I Live In" has more dramatic and tragic elements rather than horror.

The cinematography is, of course, outstanding with all the steady, well-framed scenes, that you would expect. There are still quite a few flaws because of the almost surreal nature of the situation, and possibly, because Antonio Banderas isn't all that believable as a surgeon. Antonio Banderas has a gift for being more traditionally comedic than the still very dark comedy of this movie required, but I appreciated that he played things as straight as he could.

As a "non-horror" with a horror theme, "The Skin I Live In" is a difficult film to rate overall. As just a Pedro Almodóvar movie, it's one of his better ones and very enjoyable. As a horror, it doesn't have a lot of gore or scares so it's quite weak. I'm going to rate it as "average", but the quotation marks are very important. It's a great film which simply didn't conform to the rules of the horror genre enough to score any higher.

I Spit on Your Grave (2010)

"A writer who is brutalized during her cabin retreat seeks revenge on her attackers, who left her for dead."

As you know, I've seen a lot of nasty stuff in my time both in horror films and in real life, but it still didn't quite prepare me for how brutal the "I Spit on Your Grave" remake was going to be. If you've ever seen the original 1978 version, you'll already know exactly what I'm going to say, but honest to God, the remake makes that film look very dated and tame in comparison.

There are several things which I dislike seeing depicted in horror films and rape is one of them. The problem with any rape scene is that it's either going to be so nasty that you feel sick or so titillating that it makes you (if you are male) aroused for all the wrong reasons. "I Spit on Your Grave" does both. At the end of the day, it's only acting to achieve an emotional response from the viewer. "I Spit on Your Grave" certainly achieved that.

I'm not going to get into any of those arguments about how the film depicts attitudes towards women, feminism or any of that other gibberish which essay writers and serious film critics worry themselves to death about because, for me, "I Spit on Your Grave" did exactly what it set out to do. It shocked me and it entertained me. It even horrified me on more than one occasion. The only thing which "I Spit on Your Grave" didn't do was scare me, but it wasn't designed to.

The problem is, as with any exploitation movie, that the inclusion of an attractive girl makes all the difference. Sarah Butler who played Jennifer is undeniably gorgeous, and it changes the way you look at her character. If she had been a much plainer actress the rape would have been far more awful to watch even though it was pretty damned terrible and disgusting as it was. Of course, it makes you feel like a voyeur, but technically, we are all guilty of that anyway. Did "I Spit on Your Grave" make me feel like a pervert for watching? Yes it did. But do I care? No.

The rape in "I Spit on Your Grave" is right up there with the one in "Irreversible" (2002) for nastiness, and totally eclipses the original version in every way. It's far more gritty and realistic, and you really do feel Jennifer's pain and hopelessness in the situation. It doesn't matter if you are male or female (or what your sexual orientation is), you'll feel angry at what is being done. But, at the same time, it's impossible to watch this without feeling morally dirty. You really don't want to see this, but it's just too compelling to turn away.

Last night, I heard quite a well known internet podcast go into a lot of depth about "I Spit on your Grave" which is all well and good except that I think the host is a bit of jerk who hates new movies just for the sake of having something to talk about. His whole opinion of "I Spit on Your Grave" was negative. Although I'll agree with him that there was no artistic value to remaking "I Spit on Your Grave" (or any other remake for that matter), I don't care about any of that. I deal with each film based on its own merits and whether or not it actually works. I also don't care about reading anything political or otherwise into a horror movie either as, to me, none of them are artistic in the more common sense of the word for it to even matter to anyone.

"I Spit on Your Grave", like all movies, is a product designed to entertain and be so entertaining that you are willing to part with your money to see it. It isn't a piece of propaganda to indoctrinate or even educate its audience any more than a fairy tale would. As such a product, the film works perfectly as it is very entertaining. What kind of entertainment can be derived from it is, however, still down to the audience on a purely individual and subjective level.

And Now the Screaming Starts! (1973)

"England 1795: the young Catherine just married Charles Fengriffen and moves into his castle. She becomes victim of an old curse that lays on the family. On her wedding night she's raped by a ghost and gets pregnant."

The IMDb description of this Amicus horror really gives away everything that you need to know about the plot apart from how slowly the story unfolds.

Due to being filmed at Oakley Court, "And Now the Screaming Starts!" looks like a slightly cheaper version of a Hammer film. Starring quite a few Hammer regulars and being directed by Roy Ward Baker adds to this illusion which, of course, was the intention. On a purely personal level, I've never really liked the majority of Milton Subotsky's productions from the '70s although the Amicus anthologies do have occasional moments of brilliance. I can't quite put my finger on why, especially whenever Amicus tried to do a single story, their movies always came second best to Hammer but I'd hazard a guess that it was mainly due to trying to make them more contemporary that, ironically, dated them all really badly.

I think Amicus must have realised at the time that the period settings were what gave Hammer their edge and you can tell from "And Now the Screaming Starts!" that a lot of work went into trying to create a similar atmosphere. If only as much effort had been put into the script as the costume and set design then this would have been an instant classic. It's bloody gruesome in places, particularly the opening scene (which appears to be lifted from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's "Hound of the Baskervilles"), and has the potential to leave a bad taste in your mouth if you think about it too much.

If there's one thing that angers me, it's the British class system and all the feudalism that it's been built on. The curse that gets put upon the Fengriffen family really is more than justifiable in my own mind and, no pun intended due to the later subject matter, I really have to hand it to Herbert Lom for making me hate the aristocracy even more than I already do. It's probably not a good digression but every time I see this particular opening rape scene, all I can think about is how corporate America with the "fire at will" laws (and other nonsense) are doing exactly the same thing in the 21st century as medieval Britain once did. Make no mistake about it, too many companies think they own their employees even when they aren't working for them and try to take away every constitutional right that they think they have. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine the over-privileged "Lord of the Manor" coming round to rape your wife and cut off your hand even today and if you just substitute "Lord" for "Corporate America" and its potential to take away everything and destroy your life according to a whim then the possibly unintentional social commentary of "And Now the Screaming Starts!" still has some power to it.

Of course, even though Henry Fengriffen's acts were illegal back in the day, you can be sure that such things (and even worse) have happened in the history of every country when the aristocracy have abused their position. I doubt that David Case's gothic novel "Fengriffen: A Chilling Tale" (which "And Now the Screaming Starts!" is based on) made much more of any of this other than a plot device for the ensuing horror story and I haven't ever read it to say for certain. Obviously, the weakness in using such a horrible, unnecessary and polarising act to set the stage for the later action is that most people are on the side of the victim and want justice to be done. None of the later generation of Fengriffens really matter from that point on.

Therein lies the biggest problem with "And Now the Screaming Starts!". There is no way that a logically thinking audience cares one iota about what happens to Ian Ogilvy and Stephanie Beacham's characters other than wanting very bad things to happen to them. There are no innocents when it comes to aristos and there is never any point when you can sympathise with their predicament.

Stephanie Beacham was an incredibly beautiful babe when she was younger (and wasn't too bad when she was a big star in a lot of high-budget '80s soaps either) and, it's possible to argue that her character, Catherine Fengriffen, is an innocent victim. I disagree. Yes, Catherine Fengriffen does all the fainting and screaming when it suits her but her reaction to her own rape is so typically upper class and dismissive that it's impossible to feel any sympathy for her. Her husband, Charles Fengriffen, is such an equally arrogant piece of work that, as much as I liked Ian Ogilvy in "The Return of the Saint" TV series, I absolutely hated him in this.

Now you might think that a film that causes such negative emotions as this would doom it to failure but actually that makes it rather good in my book. If a drama doesn't cause an emotional response from the viewer then it can be written off but "And Now the Screaming Starts!" actually tries its hardest to anger its audience on every level. Unfortunately, as a horror movie it's supposed to be scary too but none of that really works.

The special effects vary from average to ridiculous especially the severed hand crawling around and the whole thing is quite unevenly paced. Some scenes drag while the more interesting ones get rushed and, on a purely horror entertainment level, none of it is particularly satisfying.

I suppose I should mention Peter Cushing as psychiatrist Dr. Pope but only because there is nothing out of the ordinary with his performance apart from it being quite anachronistic. Patrick Magee as Dr. Whittle is much more believable but the man gives me the creeps in every film that I've ever seen him in whether he's playing a good guy or otherwise. I think his best role was in the "Blind Alleys" segment of "Tales from the Crypt" (1972) though I'm sure he will always be most remembered for playing the crippled writer Mr. Alexander in Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" (1971).

Anyway, there's not really much more to say about "And Now the Screaming Starts!" other than it having quite a predictable ghost story underneath it all. I think the intention was to make something completely original and different but it didn't quite happen. As a gothic horror story, it lacks tension and, as an exploitation movie, it lacks all the gratuitous (and not so gratuitous) nudity which really would have livened things up.

I'm moving "And Now the Screaming Starts!" from The Vault to the "Just Average" section but it's still a recommendation. "And Now the Screaming Starts!" is not Amicus' best work but it's different enough from everything else they did to stand out as an anomaly. If you like ghost stories, you'll probably like this but if you want real hardcore grisly horror then you'll be very disappointed.

Baise-moi (2000)

The Blurb on the box: "Described by the British press as 'the most sexually explicit film to ever reach our cinema screens', 'Baise-moi' is the brutal and shocking tale of two young girls, who after being subjected to violence, rape and humiliation in the degenerate society in which they live, break free to embark on an ultimately self-destructive road trip of sex and murder, always staying one step ahead of capture, but always hell bent on taking more and more risks."

Now when you read that, you usually think "Yeah, whatever" but I'm telling you now, you won't believe your eyes when you see this!!!

This is another one from 2000 when I'm sure the BBFC must have let its classification guard down. This is also complete and utter hardcore porn, with the parts played by real prostitutes (so I've been told but I actually think the people who told me that meant "porn actresses"), with lots of big guns and blood everywhere just for good measure.

Ok, so it's more like an uncensored reality television version of "Thelma and Louise" than a real hardcore porn ...but it still has lots more sex and violence than most people will be used to. Only one moment is truly gratuitous though and this is possibly the only film where the porn elements are not merely padding but are an integral part of the story.

The two girls, Nadine and Manu, are interestingly attractive and, although not overly gorgeous, are two certain "types" that most men go for. Whereas Nadine is tall, beautiful and sexy, Manu is short, cute and crude. Both will satisy the needs of 99.9 percent of male viewers anyway.

I prefered Nadine but that's because she has a certain Shania Twain quality about her from time to time that I liked. She also starts off as quite a cold calculating prostitute rather than a victim who seeks revenge, so she is the more interesting of the two characters.

As a sad aside, Karen Lancaume who played Nadine, committed suicide in 2005 by overdosing on sleeping pills.

Anyway, apart from the porno moments which are very explicit, there's lots of blood, guts and guns to drive the film firmly into the urban horror zone and almost, but not quite, to Tarantino level.

At one point the girls take out an orgy going on in a sex club which involves severe amounts of splatter and nastiness which can only be equalled by the "120 Days of Sodom".

On a storytelling level, the film falls down badly. It's only average and the script is below average at that. Characterisation is inconsistent and I get the feeling that the only reason the film is so watchable is due to the charisma of the leads rather than what they actually do or say. One of the main points of the original novel was that all murder is wrong whether provoked or not. This message is largely lost here.

Strangely enough you will find yourself drawn in by these girls and you will sometimes sympathise with them. Sometimes though they will alienate you completely as you wonder just what their motivation is later in the film. The feeling that they've really gone out of control is probably the point that the director is making. There is no hope of redemption for either of them and it is slightly sad that things turn out the way they do.

Anyway, I think this is another one which you will enjoy if you aren't in a full on horror mood. It's something that will make you think, but not too hard, and it's certainly something more extreme than you will have ever seen before!

By the way, the title "Baise-moi" means "Rape me!"... hmm, nice. Based on the 1993 "Feminist" novel of the same name, this is gritty, brutal stuff!