Poltergeist (2015)

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

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

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

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

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

Print that on the eventual Blu-ray slipcase!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We Are What We Are (2013)

"The Parkers, a reclusive family who follow ancient customs, find their secret existence threatened as a torrential downpour moves into their area, forcing daughters Iris and Rose to assume responsibilities beyond those of a typical family."

I'm just going to do a couple of quick reviews today to get them out of the way. To be honest, I've found it a bit of a struggle to fill this month with something horror-related every day, and I'm looking forward to my time off on Hallowe'en.

The first of today's movies is Jim Mickle's reimagining of "Somos lo que hay" (2010) with the genders changed of the protagonists for no good reason whatsoever. Changing the sons from the original into daughters and having the mother dying instead of the father doesn't add much. Actually, it downgrades the social commentary of the original to such an extent that there's nothing here which you haven't seen before in any generic American horror movie from the last 3 years.

In many ways, "We Are What We Are" reminded me of "Flowers in the Attic" (1987) although its story is closer to being a non-comedic version of Jack Hill's "Spider Baby or, The Maddest Story Ever Told" (1968). As with all new horror movies, some scenes are very formulaic, and because this is only a special kind of remake anyway, its borrowings are fairly obvious.

Julie Garner and Ambyr Childers.

Decent enough cinematography and above average acting are becoming de rigueur in remakes, and are the reasons why I'm not going to pan this one completely. It's always nice to get a movie which looks like a real movie. I was impressed by the camerawork in the opening scenes, and that was enough to hook me into watching the rest of it. If "We Are What We Are" had looked like another low-budget nasty, I would have ditched it after 5 minutes.

The biggest problem is that "We Are What We Are" is extremely slow over the ground and plays as a drama/thriller until the final scene. Mystery elements including a decoy murder and a doctor working out that the family are cannibals by looking up the symptoms of Kuru (or spongiform encephalopath for the more medically minded) are added to pad the running time, but a lot more gore spread throughout would have been better. I don't mind a languid pace in some movies, but this one made me want to scream, "Hurry up and do something!" at the screen.

The ending finally brings the much needed gore to the table (literally!), but it's so over-the-top and from out of left field that it completely ruins everything which preceeds it. The gore effects themselves are nothing to write home about either.

Worth a rental, I suppose, but neither of the "We Are What We Are" movies are as shocking as Pete Walker's "Frightmare" (1974).

I liked the setting with all the rain.

Carrie (2013)

"A reimagining of the classic horror tale about Carrie White, a shy girl outcast by her peers and sheltered by her deeply religious mother, who unleashes telekinetic terror on her small town after being pushed too far at her senior prom."

What can I possibly write about this remake that hasn't been said before about every remake which doesn't match up to the original? If you avoid the notorious shill reviewers, you can pretty much pick any negative review of "Carrie" (trust me, 99% of them are very negative!) and they will all say exactly the same things as I want to: This remake of "Carrie" is a soulless and generic cashgrab.

If you've done the same thing as me and rewatched Brian De Palma's 1976 version recently, comparing the two movies is a bit like explaining the difference between Coke and Pepsi to other fizzy cola drinkers. Both use the same source material, but the American classic is bolder and more effervescent than the flatter and milder newcomer. The allusion is a good one, but it has to end there because some would argue that it's about taste rather than universals and discernment. If you don't know what those are, it's time for you to go back to Aristotle and re-aquaint yourself with basic aesthetic criticism. Some dramatic elements can be qualified, others not so easily, but at the end of the day, it's all about how the combination of elements evokes emotion and the catharis of emotion.

Before I begin my dissection, let me remind you that I'm not a nostalgist. I am just as willing to accept a new movie as I am an older one as long as it's good. I'm certainly not going to buy into the bullshit about a remake being better and more suitable for the younger generation than the original unless there's been an improvement. Sadly, the new version of "Carrie" adds a couple of extra scenes, removes a few others, and doesn't improve on anything.

"Plug it up! Plug it up!"

The first problem with the new "Carrie" is the age of the actors. In Brian De Palma's version, everyone was older playing younger. Sissy Spacek (the original Carrie White) was 27 years old at the time, not 16 like Chloë Grace Moretz. I'm not sure who the youngest cast member was in the original, but it's probably a toss up between John Travolta and Michael Talbott who were both in their early 20s. Consequently, they had a certain physicality, presence, and expressiveness about them which these younger pudgy-faced actors don't.

I know that if you use Nancy Allen as an example, things tend to not match the pattern, but despite only having two screen credits to her name before "Carrie", Nancy Allen (a 26-year-old) playing the bitchy but sexy Chris Hargensen was from a different world and fleshed out her character with natural charisma. Her replacement, Portia Doubleday, even though she's 25, is not only plainer but would be completely miscast if she tried to pull off the same role. Substantial changes to the character have made Chris Hargensen more cowardly, deceitful, and unlikeable, but turning her into little more than a stereotypically bully is at the expense of what made Nancy Allen's performance outstanding.

The same is true of every re-imagined character in this remake. The characters in the 1976 version simply have more depth to them which comes from who is playing them more than what they do or what comes out of their mouths. The originals have a look, an attitude, and vitality which the newcomers don't. The casting choices for this remake are okay-ish, but there's no star potential here. The cookie-cutter actors and actresses are as bland as the ones from the "trendy teen" slashers of the '90.

"Eve was weak! Eve was weak!"

Chloë Grace Moretz is a tiny, pretty girl, but she's not convincing as Carrie White. Her portrayal has no change from ugly ducking into a swan like Sissy Spacek's, and she only turns a pretty girl into a vengeful witch who can make CGI things float in mid-air and Hulk-stomp cracks into the road. The new Carrie doesn't sparkle with delight at the prom or make you want to fall in love with her when she smiles. Sissy Spacek nailed that role, and Chloë Grace Moretz is like a reject from "Charmed" in comparison.

Carrie's relationship with her mother is much the same as in the original, and Julianne Moore is occasionally better as a religious nutjob than Piper Laurie, but they don't resemble each other physically. Perhaps that's why a birthing scene was added to stop any speculation about whether the new Carrie might be adopted because, lamentably, there really are people who haven't seen other "Carrie" movies or read Stephen King's novel. As I'm not in that category, all I noticed was that Julianne Moore has the freckliness about her which would have made her a good match for Sissy Spacek, but if you tried to do the same thing with Chloë Grace Moretz and Piper Laurie, the mismatch would be more ludicrous.

The scenes between Chloë Grace Moretz and Julianne Moore are the best in the movie, give or take some stupid CGI levitations which aren't as good as the more realistic effects from the original, but they still feel like parody re-enactments when compared to the powerful and iconic performances by Sissy Spacek and Piper Laurie. Judged on their own merits, they work.

The next problem is the pacing. Everything seems to be much faster, although if you time it, the acts are almost the same length. So what went wrong? The most obvious answer is the additional scenes of Carrie's birth and the posting of a YouTube video of Carrie being bullied in the shower. Neither of these scenes add anything to the story, and the latter isn't made as much of as it could be in light of recent media attention about bullying cases involving the internet. It's a contemporary update which some kids can relate to, but Carrie doesn't know about it or have any reaction to it, so what's the point? Adding these superfluous scenes just shortens the time which should have been used on better characterisation.

"They're all gonna laugh at you."

For something which is mostly a scene-by-scene remake in other respects, the new "Carrie" reveals some bizarre directorial decisions in what it ignores from the 1976 version. Admittedly, the scene with Tommy (William Katt) and his friends renting tuxedos (which is harshly remembered for the silly speeding-up in the middle) isn't very important apart from creating some comic relief, so I'm kind of glad that it's gone, but it did show that Tommy was just as happy to hang out with the nerdier kids as he was with the popular ones. The new rich kid, limo-hiring Tommy, played by Ansel Elgort, however, doesn't seem to have any friends!

In fact, the same could be said of all the kids in this movie. There's no rhyme or reason why any of them would want to know each other except for going to the same school. None of them are very friendly, and they don't behave like mid-teenagers normally would. They are so poorly differentiated that there's not one who you can care about either in a good way or a bad way; most only exist to fill space on the screen. Maybe it's because of the notable loss of lingering shots on the actors' expressions which makes the kids in this look like a bunch of console-gaming Aspies who don't have any contact with other people in the real world, or maybe it's bad acting, but there's no chemistry between them.

Let's also not forget the more "adult" stuff such as the opening shower and locker room introduction from the original with all that lovely nudity! That's gone due to a combination of Chloë Grace Moretz's age and what some might say is prudishness by a woman director. I'm not being misogynistic about it, it's a fact. Based on this director's grittier previous work, however, I suspect a lot of producer interference. You can clearly see for yourself how more "politically correct" hypocrisy is responsible for giving short-shrift to Chris Hargensen and Billy Nolan's memorably fiery relationship from the original "Carrie", and it's turned their new versions into two-dimensional bullies with no motivation for what they do to Carrie White other than being bullies for the sake of it.

Time of the month?

I'm not going to go into any great detail about the prom scenes and the ending because you'll go to see "Carrie" no matter what I say, and I've given you far too many spoilers without warning already. Suffice it to say that there's no heart involved in the scenes between Carrie and Tommy, and you won't feel Carrie's joy or see Tommy's temptation turn into wish-fulfilment. They don't even dance to a song with words which complement the moment! There's beauty and depth (and lots of flute music) in the original which you won't find here.

When the action kicks off, some of the stunts are rushed and others are too drawn out, but as the original "Carrie" is flawed with dated split-screen effects, the final third may seem cleaner overall. Because of test screenings, the much publicised additional scenes from Stephen King's novel were left out of the theatrical release. Hopefully, they'll be on the eventual DVD and Blu-ray, but they'll probably be as "Special Features" rather than a director's cut if they get included at all.

At the end of the day, this is a remake which replaces subtleties and characterisation with spectacle, so I'll concede to personal tastes about that. I didn't care for it—too many punches are pulled horror-wise to make it satisfying for me—but your mileage may vary.

Nice poster.

Embrace of the Vampire (2013)

"Sharon Hinnendael stars as Charlotte, a timid and sheltered teen who has just left an all-girls Catholic school for a new life at a co-ed university. But an ancient evil has followed her here, tormenting her with disturbing nightmares and tempting her with forbidden desires."

Not so much a remake of "Embrace of the Vampire" (1995) as it is a remix of scenes from "The Initiation of Sarah" (1978), "Carrie" (1976), and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" (1992) with more boobs, at least this version has a better plot and some decent horror moments. It's still mainly an excuse to be sexy as Hell though, and it plays out as a typical exploitation movie, so trust me, you won't be disappointed!

Sharon Hinnendael does a fantastic job in the lead role and is certainly not ashamed to be kissed and fondled by nearly everyone she meets, no matter what their gender, age, or state of monsterdom might be. In this way, "Embrace of the Vampire" stays true to the original in terms of its softcore porn elements. The usual clique of hypocritical prudes will probably hate the female nudity because nothing is toned-down, and the infamous lesbian sex scene is even more explicit and engorging, but the target audience will be grabbing their box of tissues in delight!

For those who care about the story, many details have been added and fleshed-out (no pun intended) including Charlotte's convent school upbringing, the courses she's taking at University, her part-time job in a coffee shop, and a genetic blood disorder which causes her to have hallucinations. Although this Charlotte is more modern and less of an easy lay than Alyssa Milano's version, Sharon Hinnendael repeats some of her predecessor's annoying mannerisms such as avoiding eye-contact and looking at something more interesting on the ground either through shyness or a mild case of Asperger's Syndrome. Obviously, that's just the character and a homage because there's no way that Sharon Hinnendael is shy about anything!

Further plot changes include a creepy fortune-teller type who seems to have escaped from a Val Lewton movie, a ton of bitchiness from the snobby/jealous members of the fencing club, a sorority-style hazing, and a camping trip in the woods which ends badly for Charlotte's friends. Fortunately, these clichés aren't as annoying as you might think, and there are no bizarre orgies in nightclubs or gender-changing shenanigans to spoil things either.

I am not Buffy! I just look like her and do Buffy things.

The vampiric moments are beautifully violent and gory, and to give credit where it's most certainly due, Victor Webster (channelling a mixture of Chris Sarandon and Billy Zane) is a much better vampire than Martin "Spandau Ballet" Kemp. His cover as a University professor isn't a million miles away from the new Gerri Dandridge in "Fright Night 2: New Blood" however, but as the latter's desire for a virgin victim also borrows from the original "Embrace of the Vampire", it's only fair. Nothing is ever original in the vampire genre anyway, but it does make you wonder what awful experiences the filmmakers must have had with their teachers to perpetuate this trend of undead academics.

As with most Canadian movies, there's some obvious typecasting to compete with American productions. Kaniehtiio Horn (yes, that really is her name) looks and sounds a lot like Tiffany Shepis (complete with horrible L.A. affectations), and I've always thought that Ryan Kennedy (the new Chris) looks amazingly like a younger version of fellow Canadian Joshua Jackson (from "Fringe"). Somebody really needs to put Ryan Kennedy in a movie as Joshua Jackson's younger brother or earlier self one day! Other lookalikes such as Robert Moloney who plays the University's bursar as a Bob Newhart type, and Olivia Cheng who reminds me of one of the "Star Trek" girls whose name I can't remember, are surrounded by further stereotypical characters for padding.

Maybe it was because I was tired and easily pleased when I watched it, but I actually enjoyed "Embrace of the Vampire" considerably more than I thought I would. It's nicely filmed and paced, but it loses points for the rushed ending which goes in a different direction than the more interesting and happier one that I expected. Thus, I'm going to rate it as "average" for a horror movie, but the sexiness makes it worth purchasing for purely sinister reasons.

Fright Night 2: New Blood (2013)

"By day Gerri Dandridge is a sexy professor, but by night she transforms into a real-life vampire with an unquenchable thirst for human blood. So when a group of high school students travel abroad to study in Romania, they find themselves ensnared in her chilling web of lust and terror."

Er... this new "Fright Night 2" isn't a sequel, it's another remake! Should I call it a "requel" or a "semake"? Naw, I'll just call it "another piece of straight-to-DVD crap" because that's exactly what it is.

Directed by Eduardo Rodriguez who made "Curandero" (2005), and starring a load of Brits and Romanians who nobody has heard of before, this sequel in name only isn't that bad in places, but it's still not very good overall. It's better than the the 2011 remake (which I refuse to review) and the real "Fright Night Part 2" (1988), but it's a lot less entertaining than the first "Fright Night" (1985). Having said that, I'm not a big fan of that movie either.

The new Gerri Dandridge is played by Jamie Murray, aka the hot chick from "Devil's Playground" (2010) and "Botched" (2007), but I didn't recognise her until I looked up the cast list. It's been far too long since I reviewed her previous movies, and she hasn't cropped up in anything else that I've seen until now.

The benefit of keeping a blog, of course, is being able to look up such details and make myself look like an idiot, but in my defence, even someone with an enormous brain like mine can't be expected to remember absolutely everything about the thousands of movies which have come and gone in the last three years. "Dexter" and "Warehouse 13" fans on the IMDb seem to know all about Jamie Murray for some reason, but I've never watched an episode of either TV series in my life and have no intention of doing so. She's an acceptable vampiress in "Fright Night 2", but it's due to her model looks and Kelly LeBrock accent rather than her acting.

Nice teeth!

The second major difference is that this "Fright Night 2" is full of boobs. Not just one or two boobs, but lots and lots of boobs! Combine them with some lesbian canoodling, a visit to a stripclub, bathfuls (or indoor swimming pools) of blood, and an animated comic strip, and it's got everything today's teenagers could want, right? Who cares that you've got Brits with fake American accents (that are probably looped), a load of crappy CGI, nobody you could give a damn about, and a completely unoriginal story? None of that matters. The morons will see the title on the DVD and rent or buy it anyway, won't they? That's what 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment are hoping will happen.

In its favour, "Fright Night 2: New Blood" at least attempts to put a new spin on things by taking everything to Romania. Why? Probably because it's traditional to set vampire movies in Romania, and it's a lot cheaper to film there! It also brings Countess Elizabeth Báthory into the story and gives her bat-like sonar, which I don't think I've ever seen in a vampire movie before. I mean, obviously I've seen "Countess Dracula" (1971) and other movies with that character in, but the sonar thing is a novelty.

Far less entertaining is the new Peter Vincent, played by Sean Power, who is now a "monster hunter" in some bogus reality TV show rather than a horror host or even a magician. Mercifully, he doesn't have much time on screen. In comparison, David Tennant wasn't that bad. Okay, he was still awful, but he just wasn't as bad as this drunken oaf. Sean Power (who has a great name, by the way) is only in this movie for the sake of having a Peter Vincent of some kind, and doesn't do anything important one way or another. He doesn't even kill Evil Ed!

British nerds playing American nerds.

It's not really worth mentioning the new Evil Ed except to say that the kid behaves like such a dick that I'm surprised Stephen Geoffreys' bat-sonar (i.e. gaydar) wasn't buzzing! He almost makes the new Charley Brewster look mature! Charley Brewster is still a horrible character though and his girlfriend Amy isn't any better. I couldn't care less what the names of the actors are who played them as I don't expect they'll be in anything else but British soap operas which I'll never see.

As much as I can usually find something of merit in any vampire movie, I had quite a struggle with this one. It's another sign of how creatively dead the American horror industry has become. "Fright Night 2: New Blood" is simply a pointless and unnecessary third remake disguised as a sequel to a remake which nobody wanted. Sadly, I expect there'll be a fourth one eventually too.

Man of Steel (2013)

"A young itinerant worker is forced to confront his secret extraterrestrial heritage when Earth is invaded by members of his race."

Due to unforeseen circumstances yesterday with storms knocking out my internet connection, I couldn't post this review as a "Fantasy Friday" update where it belongs, but since it's more about aliens anyway, I now have the first "Sci-Fi Saturday" post in months. It's not that any superhero movie meant for 10-year-olds and 40-something comicbook nerds is a priority for me anyway, so who cares, right? I'm not a fan of Superman in the first place.

Back when I was the right age, I saw "Superman: The Movie", but I wasn't impressed. Out of all the superheroes, Superman always struck me as a bit of a wussypants, and Christopher Reeve only confirmed my prejudice. I mean, he has every superpower possible and could rule the Earth if he wanted to, yet he chooses to hide behind the bumbling façade of Clark Kent (as if people can't tell it's the same guy with glasses!), and just stops a few "bad guys" from time to time. It's pathetic! Superman and everything he stands for makes me want to puke.

I never watched more than one episode of the Dean Cain version because of his girlie voice and the fact that Teri Hatcher makes me cringe, and I certainly never watched "Smallville" either. I've seen parts of the other Christopher Reeve movies, but my interest came and went with Ursa (Sarah Douglas) in the first sequel. Thus, even though I'm not an authority on Superman, I've seen enough to know what it's all about, and I just don't care for it. As flawed as it is, I prefer "Hancock" (2008).

The trouble is that I sometimes have to watch other genres when the horror genre dries up just to keep abreast of who's who and what's popular. I'd be an even shittier reviewer if I only watched horror movies and nothing else. Thus, I gave "Man of Steel" a chance to change my mind about Superman.

Unfortunately, apart from Antje Traue looking hot as Faora-Ul (an updated version of Ursa), Zach Snyder's "Man of Steel" is easily the worst Superman movie ever made. While I can appreciate the darker tone and Michael Shannon's exceptional performance as General Zod, there's nothing here story-wise that I haven't seen before. As dated as they are, I would've been better off rewatching "Superman: The Movie" (1978) and "Superman II" (1980) instead of this "Transformers" wannabe.

"Man of Steel" features such things as disjointed storytelling which is ridiculously hard to follow, visuals which might look spectacular but make no sense, a script written by Christopher Nolan so you know it'll be crap, and lots of CGI buildings being demolished... but that's about it. With a running time of approximately three days, it's far too long and monotonous with it. It's all bang, bang, boom like a Michael Bay film with 90% of it made of swirling computer-generated battles, explosions, and gut-churning aerial shots of places which don't even exist.

It's not worth mentioning the big names who have small parts in "Man of Steel" because the only fun for anybody is spotting them and thinking, "Oh my God, so-and-so looks so old now!" I'm not going to take those suprises away from you. Just enjoy them for what they are, and savour the brief moments with Ayelet Zurer who plays Superman's real mother (Lara Lor-Van) at the start because she's really beautiful. She can't act, but she looks great.

I didn't think there could actually be a more disappointing superhero movie than "The Dark Knight Rises", but there is now.

Maniac (2012)

"The owner of a mannequin shop develops a dangerous obsession with a young artist."

I don't know why so many people revere William Lustig's "Maniac" (1980). For me, it's a below average slasher with one memorable Tom Savini effect and little else. Thus, I watched this remake with absolutely no feelings of nostalgia or any idea what it would be about. The truth is, I barely remember the original and have no desire to watch it ever again anyway. The time when a movie like that could be considered shocking is long since past for everybody.

Giving a remake a fair chance is, obviously, a lot easier in a case like this. There's no way that the original could ever be considered a classic of the horror genre, and there's no army of loyal fans who are going to be polarised. "Maniac" (1980) is still a rather obscure, cult movie especially if you aren't an American of a certain age, and so it wouldn't matter if this version was a scene by scene remake as far as I'm concerned. It isn't, but I'm sure you get my point.

Unfortunately, once you remove all the gimmicky killer's POV shots, and get over the fact that Frodo is now a serial murderer who collects scalps, there's very little to commend Franck Khalfoun's version of "Maniac" for. It's a little bit gory, but the kills are too samey and repetitive, there's no tension, and it's not scary. Despite featuring the Q. Lazzarus song "Good-bye Horses" which everyone knows from "The Silence of the Lambs", that's as far as the homage to any better horror movie goes. Everything else is just an updated rip-off of "Psycho" (1960) and its lesser sequels.

Wish you hadn't thrown the ring away now, dontcha?

It's not that Elijah Wood makes a bad serial killer. He did well enough in "Sin City" (2005) albeit as a comicbook villain, but a couple of gormless-looking reflections in the mirror don't provide much room for any depth of characterisation here. Given what he had to work with in this "Psycho"-clone, he's okay but a long way from the subtleties of Norman Bates.

America Olivo as Frank's mother provides some very nice eyecandy yet she's only in the movie long enough to provide us with the unrealistic motivation for Frank's psychosis. If every kid whose mother was some kind of prostitute whom he accidentally saw having sex, there'd be a lot more maniacs running around for sure. Mind you, they'd certainly have to look like America Olivo too for that to happen.

Instead, it's all down to French actress Nora Arnezeder, who plays Anna, to carry the majority of the story insomuch as there's anyone to care about. Even then, her character is flaky and easily dislikeable. Her performance is not outstanding either but simply the best of a bad lot.

Say "Fromage!"

SPOILERS FOLLOW!

The only things that I can really give "Maniac" credit for are the moments which seem intentionally designed to bring out the viewers' prejudices should they have any. The first may only be my own so I'm prepared for the backlash, but I saw Frank's online dating victim as being a huge disappointment to him in the flesh due to her tattoos and piercings. The fact that she's "easy" (plus sexually aggressive) and stupid with it is all part of the stereotype. With typical "horror movie morality", she kind of gets what she deserves.

The interracial couple comprised of blonde Anna and her black boyfriend will definitely annoy racists even though it's also only a trope. The fact that the boyfriend is a total asshole is the real issue rather than the colour of his skin especially as he escapes punishment. Contrarily, the old, drunken socialite and the obligatory gay character are merely cannon fodder despite being slightly more memorable in their roles than anyone else.

As ever, the KNB practical effects are the biggest stars. While mostly effective, they seem to be of the cheaper variety so gorehounds will be divided. I'm really desensitized and didn't think "Maniac" was gory enough, but a more squeamish (and younger) audience might still get a kick out of it.

I'm kind of on the fence about recommending "Maniac" since I don't see it as a horror movie. Psycho serial killers really belong to crime dramas, and "Maniac" is more likely to appeal to the "CSI" crowd rather than the "vampires, zombies, and ghosties" aficionados. Even though the weird ending includes all those supernatural elements for a few seconds, real horror fans (other than die-hard slasher fans) should probably avoid this movie.

Evil Dead (2013)

"Five friends head to a remote cabin, where the discovery of a Book of the Dead leads them to unwittingly summon up demons living in the nearby woods. The evil presence possesses them until only one is left to fight for survival."

I have good news for you! In six months time, if you can't find the "Evil Dead" remake/sequel (requel?) in Wal-mart's bargain bin then you'll easily be able to pick up a copy from your local pawn shop. Trust me, there will be thousands of "Evil Dead" DVDs sitting proudly alongside all the "Saw" sequels, Platinum Dunes remakes, "Masters of Horror" episodes, the After Dark Horrorfest collection, and the budget Echo Bridge multipacks.

Even though there are many people in the "Uuuuh" generation who will buy "Evil Dead" on DVD and Blu-ray for the full price, you can be sure that the majority of them will kick it to the kerb just as quickly once they actually see it again. This "Evil Dead" isn't going to go into anyone's top 100 or even their top 1000 list unless they have something severely wrong with them.

"Has anyone seen my dentures?"

Starring another bunch of TV non-actors who you've probably never heard of (Jane Levy, Shiloh Fernandez, Lou Taylor Pucci, Jessica Lucas and Elizabeth Blackmore), "Evil Dead" has brought horror full circle for the "hobby horror" brigade who claim Sam Raimi's original "The Evil Dead" as the inspiration for their own half-arsed handycam masterpieces. You have to laugh, you really do.

If the "Evil Dead" remake is the pinnacle of everything these so-called "indie" filmmakers would like to achieve, it makes me glad that I was born in a time when we had real horror movies instead of this slew of shit. It also makes me glad that I have less years ahead of me than behind me so that I won't have to suffer many more of them. RIP Roger Ebert, by the way. He was lucky to escape when he did.

Rather than write yet another boring review telling you all about the lack of characterisation, the plot holes, the poorly written and delivered dialogue, terrible acting, hard to see "quick cut" action scenes, the homages, tropes, and all the "excessive gore" which didn't even begin to redress the balance, I'm going to do something completely different this time. I'm going to repost my Twitter timeline from when I watched "Evil Dead" with a huge audience of only two other people in the movie theatre.

A SPOILERIFIC COMMENTARY WILL FOLLOW.
Do not read any further if you want to watch "Evil Dead" on your own.

He clearly loves tofu and drives a Prius.

Here are my Tweets in the correct chronological order. Timings are only approximate since I was trying to watch a shitty movie at the same time.

There's a little bit too much "vocal fry" in the new Evil Dead for my liking. #mushmouths #valleygirls #horrible #evildead

Jessica Lucas = vocal fry to the max
Jane Levy = mumble, mumble, mumble

No dialogue coach was available for Evil Dead obviously. #evildead

I wonder how long it will be until the characters start saying "super" instead of "very". Hating it already. #evildead

13 minutes into Evil Dead... BORED BORED BORED BORED BORED. #evildead

NO! Not dead cats hanging in the basement! I'm done here. :( #evildead

"youshudnttavetouchedanyfingfromdatbassment" - mumble, mumble, mumble #evildead

The Book of the Dead looks like a 5 year old made it... or if I drew the pictures... lol... This is crap. #evildead

20 minutes into Evil Dead... is this 90210? LOL The soap opera drama... #evildead

22 minutes in... "Evil Dead" POV through the trees and a big scary monster.... bored.

22 minutes into the Evil Dead. Why does this bitch makes so much noise? Grunt, gasp, grunt, gasp... SHUT UP! #evildead

23 minutes... and now she's shrieking too... cliché after cliché... :( #evildead

24 minutes into Evil Dead... TREE RAPE... pussified toned-down tree rape. I wanted to see it going in and out! Utter crap. #evildead

At least the black girl has stopped that vocal fry shit. She did enough to have her own chip shop earlier. #evildead

Couldn't they find any pretty actresses to be in this film? #evildead

Dead dog 29 minutes in. Good. I hate dogs. Still boring as shit. #evildead

"Everything's been getting worse every second"... Yup. This film is shit dipped in shit and sprinkled with shit croutons. #evildead

33 minutes in... Gayest shotgun blast ever! #evildead

"You're all going to die tonight." Try that again with some emotion, please. #evildead

Blood vomiting. Lame. #evildead

"I'm scared that what happened to Mia has something to do with the fucking witchcraft in the basement." Aw, scared little beardy puss.

R-rating achieved through swearing! #evildead

36 minutes in... exploding mirror trope... #evildead

37 minutes in... Olivia pisses her pants. She's the only one who will over this film. Sucks. #evildead

Converse product placement. Overpriced plimsoles. #evildead

The pacing is all out. No tension whatsoever. Bit like the original really. #evildead

40 minutes in... frenzied, quick cut stabbing scene, hard to see who is doing what to who. Horror is dead. #evildead

Beardie little pussy just grew some balls and killed Olivia with a broken bit of toilet... now he'll be all PTSD about it. #evildead

42 minutes in... duct tape on stab wounds doesn't actually work. Just so you know. You need superglue. #evildead

"I released something evil, Dave, I released something evil." Yeah, stutteryguts, keep repeating yourself some more. Dialogue. #evildead

If he says, "My mind is going, Dave, I can feel it!", I am walking out. #evildead

Natalie is kinda hot. Nice hair. #evildead

"I can smell your filthy soul." Yeah, right, there's no soul in this film at all. Soulless crap. #evildead

I don't care about any of the characters. At all. #evildead

Quick cut locking and chaining the cellar... oh my God... please end! #evildead

Did this movie only get an R rating for saying "Fuck" a lot? #evildead

Beardie weirdie is now William Shatner... "This book... iswrittenin... some... ancientalphabet..." #evildead

Don't waste your money on this film. I think there's something wrong with people who have been praising it.

48 minutes in... EXPOSITION... yeah, we know the story. This is the second remake and 4th Evil Dead film after all. #evildead

49 minutes. Nice blonde gash. LOL #evildead

Yeah, right. Blame the dead cat in the basement for all the problems with the evil dead. LOL #evildead

Cutting her arm off with an electric carving knife.... hmmm, "I Drink Your Blood" (1970) much? Rip-off! #evildead

LMFAO MOAR DUCT TAPE! #evildead

Yeah, nailguns don't actually fire nails like bullets. EPIC FAIL! 54 minutes in... #evildead

I'm glad that they are pulling the nails out. Those big six inch nails are too expensive to waste. #evildead

Beardie got beaten to death with a tire-iron/crate-opener thingy. Kewl... if you're 12. #evildead

57 minutes... "David, my face hurts..." Yeah, it's killing me too. Die already, you one-armed freak! #evildead

58 minutes... "I'm going to do what I'm going do... I'm going to do what I'm going to do...okay?" Do it! We heard you the 1st time. #evildead

I wonder what David's going to do...? I'm sure he's gonna do what he's gonna do though. Poor excuse for Ash. #evildead

Had to have a Zippo lighter, didn't he? Do you know how expensive those are? You don't throw them away like a Clipper! #evildead

I am watching "Evil Dead" the remake. 59 minutes in... please end... please end... please end this shit. #evildead

Is she singing a Justin Bieber song???? "Baby... baby..." NO!!!!! #evildead

"I can't do this... I can't do this...." Repeating every line twice is getting annoying. Repeating every line twice is... #evildead

60 minutes in... that's an hour... the ARISTEIA... arming scene for you plebs... Toolshed! Chainsaw! Groovy! NOT! #evildead

1:03 Water scene in cellar is watery. BORED. #evildead

Is Beardie dead now? Good. Dirty hippie. #evildead

1:06 Mumbling even worse with a plastic bag on her head. Mumble, mumble, mumble... bitch. #evildead

"Your mama sucks... " Wait! Haven't I heard all this before in "The Exorcist"? #evildead

"Stop it... I'm begging you." Who says that? Really? Really? And with no emotion or any act of begging to accompany it. LOL #evildead SUCKS

Adrenalin to the heart and de-fibrillation doesn't work on corpses, you know. FAIL #evildead

"You're at peace... you're at peace now." And you couldn't even say that in just one try? #evildead

Buried her... dug her up... buried her again... MAKE UP YOUR MIND! #evildead

1:11 Dirty hippie came back! Predictable. #evildead

"Go!" "I'm not going anywhere. I'm not going to go anywhere." GAH! Double-line padding AGAIN! #evildead

1:13 Did they really just turn Mia into a final girl? Are you fucking kidding me? #evildead

Bound to be a twist now she's found Linda's magnifying glass pendant thingy wotsit. #evildead

1:14 End of Carrie-style jump scare. Fell flat. #evildead

It's raining blood... Hallelujah... It's raining blood... #evildead

Hellraiser music? #evildead

1:15 Blair Witch shot from poster art. And they really have made her the final girl. :( #evildead

Yeah, right, girls know how to use chainsaws. LOL LOL LOL Would be more believable with a spoon. #evildead

1:16 Paul Daniels used to do the sabres in a box magic trick too. LOL #evildead

LOL Superhuman evil dead HULKS out, throws car! LOL #evildead

1:18 Okay, so cutting her own hand off was nice. She could've just waited for the Evil Dead demon to get closer though. Stupid. #evildead

"I'll... feast... on.. your... soul..." "Feast on this, motherfucker!" Samuel L. Jackson strikes again. #evildead

1:19 Chainsaw thing quite gory... BUT I've seen worse (or better as the case may be). OTT like Tarantino. :( #evildead

1:20 Please end... please end... please end... please end... please end... please end... please end... please end... please end... #evildead

1:22 THANK YOU, JESUS! it's over! Time for a piss. I couldn't care less about anything after the credits. Seen it all before. #evildead

Kilroy was here.

Yeah, I think my Tweets sum up everything I need to say about "Evil Dead". Unlike the actors in this movie, I'm not going to repeat myself. I'll never watch it again either.

"The Most Terrifying Film You Will Ever Experience", my arse! More like 17 million dollars spent on marketing minus $100,000 spent on an instantly forgettable movie without a single scare. I've seen out-of-date food rotting in my fridge that's more horrific.

The "Evil Dead" remake is the last ironically named six inch nail in the coffin of the horror genre.

Horror is dead. RIP horror.

Total Recall (2012)

"A factory worker, Douglas Quaid, begins to suspect that he is a spy after visiting Rekall - a company that provides its clients with implanted fake memories of a life they would like to have led - goes wrong and he finds himself on the run."

Due to my current Kate Beckinsale addiction (and growing disinterest in reviewing nothing but horror movies), I watched the "Total Recall" remake yesterday. It was certainly a lot different to how I imagined it would be.

While not as entertaining as the original "Total Recall" (1990), it was visually superior in nearly every way. With an estimated budget of $125,000,000, it had to be as spectacular as "Blade Runner" to look at. I was amazed at how the action scenes were done, and, willing suspension of disbelief aside, I couldn't even get my head around some of them.

I think a lot of the problems people have had with the remake were caused by nostalgia. Of course, Paul Verhoeven was at the top of his game back in 1990 and Len Wiseman is still regarded as a hack, but neither film is perfect. I always thought that the Martian terraforming stuff in the original "Total Recall" was very derivative of too many other sci-fi movies, and, if you watch it today, most of the effects haven't stood the test of time. Even the updated "girl with three breasts" was more realistic in this remake.

Having said that, Colin Farrell lacked the charisma of Arnold Schwarzenegger, and his version of Douglas Quaid wasn't a character that I particularly cared about. As an action hero, he kind of sucked, and, as a top secret agent, he wasn't very convincing either. Let's be honest though, Arnold Schwarzenegger was hardly an Oscar winner, but he just fitted into the overall campiness and excessiveness of Paul Verhoeven's vision.

As an upgraded version of Sharon Stone's character from the original, Kate Beckinsale wasn't bad. Nobody could ever surpass the sexiness which Sharon Stone exuded in that role and, to her credit, Kate Beckinsale didn't even try to. She was a lot colder, a more professional killer, and, ultimately, she was just a slightly more dislikeable version of Selene from "Underworld" in a different costume.

What made the new Lori Quaid less interesting was that Jessica Biel as the new Melina really eclipsed her and everyone else. In the original "Total Recall", Rachel Ticotin's Melina was quite annoying and I really wanted Sharon Stone to beat the crap out of her. Somehow, probably by just being a better actress, Jessica Biel turned out to be one of the highlights of this remake, and I was mostly on her character's side even though she had poor taste in men.

This "Total Recall" also lacked the magnificence of Michael Ironside with its conflated version of Richter and Edgemar played by Bokeem Woodbine. That was a shame although there was a certain creepiness to Richter and Lori's relationship in the original which turned my stomach. I didn't miss that at all, but had the same thing been done here, it might have given their characters more depth.

There were no "larger than life" characters in this at all other than the "Star Wars"-style stormtroopers which just had to be robotic to get the PG-13 rating. The original Cohaagan, played by Ronny Cox (who was, basically, reprising his Dick Jones character from "Robocop"), was one of the better action movie bad guys, but Bryan Cranston will always be the father from "Malcolm in the Middle" to me. I thought he was completely miscast as the more one-dimensional Cohaagen, but his age has made him look like a politician.

With the setting changed to Earth, there were no stupid-looking mutants so Kuato wasn't needed, and, as another example of Len Wiseman's nepotism, Bill Nighy was cast as a new rebel leader named Matthias for all of five minutes. Apart from wearing Selene's RAF greatcoat from "Underworld: Awakening" to appear more "military", he might as well have just been named "Cipher" for all that he brought to the part.

I didn't completely hate this "Total Recall" remake, but it was mainly style over substance, had no depth to the characters, and simply wasn't very memorable (no pun intended). The twists and turns involved in Quaid's identity were done much better in the original, the pay-off lines were delivered better before, and it didn't have any "popcorn flick" fun to it. If anything, it was all a little bit soulless and far too serious.

Halloween II (2009)

"Laurie Strode struggles to come to terms with her brother Michael's deadly return to Haddonfield, Illinois; meanwhile, Michael prepares for another reunion with his sister."

I started writing this post at 5 o'clock in the morning while I was still trying to process what I saw when I watched Rob Zombie's "Halloween II" for the first time last night. After another nap, I've even slept on it twice now, turning it over in my mind as I drifted off to sleep, and, now that I'm fully awake again, I still can't get past the fact that I really enjoyed it.

The thing is, I really hated Rob Zombie's "re-imagining" of "Halloween" (2007). I'm not even joking when I say that I use the DVD for a coaster. It keeps my cold Monster energy drinks from ruining the surface of my computer desk, and that's a far better use for that movie than any pleasure which I got from watching it.

I'm no dummy and I realise that Rob Zombie seemed to go back on his word many times over the years about hating remakes or having anything to do with ever making one. I even know that he claimed to not want any part of directing a sequel until, of course, somebody made him a financial offer which he couldn't refuse. I can't blame him for it. To be honest, if somebody offered me millions of dollars (or just one million for that matter), I'd turn heel and throw all my integrity out of the window for a comfortable lifestyle too. There's not one of us who wouldn't do the same thing, so let's not be hypocrites, okay?

Contrary to what all the major critics and ranters on YouTube would have you believe, "Halloween II" isn't actually a bad horror movie at all. Give or take a few flaws, it's also far from being the worst of either the old franchise or the rebooted one. Not that I need to defend Rob Zombie's decisions, but let me just address some of the criticism in an attempt to show you what I liked about the film.

The biggest problem for most people was that Michael Myers (AKA "The Shape") as played by Tyler Mane, didn't look or behave much like the old version, but why should he? The original 'Halloween" series was supposed to be made up of different stories, hence the existence of "Halloween III: Season of the Witch", and it was only because the fans demanded it that the idea was abandoned in favour of more Michael Myers and all the continuity errors which followed. None of the versions of Michael Myers are exactly the same, and silliness abounded with his supposed supernatural strength right from John Carpenter's "Halloween" in 1978. The people who are still that hung up on the look of the mask, Michael's physique, or his mannerisms, simply weren't paying enough attention to the other movies.

I saw nothing wrong with the new version of Michael Myers at all other than the continuity being lost a little bit by replacing the younger version with a different actor, namely Chase Vanek instead of Daeg Faerch. As for the adult Michael looking like a mixture between a bum and a wrestler with a beard like Rob Zombie's, does it really matter? All anyone wants from Michael Myers is to see him kill everybody in his path in the most brutal manner possible, and he certainly did that.

If, like me, you've watched the "Unrated Director's Cut" of "Halloween II", a major problem seems to be that the adult Michael speaks one word at the end. It's a bit odd but not something which couldn't be explained. After all, he could speak before and during his time in the asylum. He just chose not to.

Yet more haters really disliked the "White Horse" motif, its psychological implications, and the fact that a physical white horse appeared along with the deceased Deborah Myers and the young version of Michael Myers. It wasn't supposed to be supernatural but a glimpse inside Michael's mind. Most people didn't get it.

Some people just don't like Sheri Moon Zombie anyway and hate the nepotism whereby she gets cast in all of her husband's movies. Again, why shouldn't Rob Zombie do exactly what he wants? He's the director and if he wanted to throw a giant bunny into the middle of the film for no reason whatsoever, that would be his decision. It wouldn't make a whole lot of sense if it was just random, but the "White Horse" motif and the ghostly-looking Deborah Myers were supposed to be a link to another aspect of the story which, if you have a brain which hasn't been addled by watching no-budget backyard epics, you start to realise a long time before the end.

I will also defend Sheri Moon Zombie for a number of reasons. Not only is she absolutely gorgeous, but she's a damned good actress. Maybe she doesn't get as much opportunity to show her range in the "Halloween" movies, but people seem to forget how great she was in "The Devil's Rejects" (2005) as Baby. I don't even like the film that much, but I liked her in it. I'll put it bluntly, I probably wouldn't have watched any of Rob Zombies films if Sheri Moon Zombie hadn't been in them. Would I have watched "Halloween" or "Halloween II" for the dubious charms of Scout Taylor-Compton or Danielle Harris? I think not.

The stupidest comments I've heard or read online about "Halloween II" have all centred on Scout Taylor-Compton's performance as not being the same as Jamie Lee Curtis'. While she might not be the best actress in the world nor was Jamie Lee Curtis either. Do people not realise that there's a script involved in movies which might not bring the best out of an actor or actress? As much as I like the original version of "Halloween", Jamie Lee Curtis was as wooden as she could be in it and didn't exactly light up the screen with her presence. Laurie Strode was never a very interesting character anyway.

In the original version of "Halloween II" (1981), not that this was a remake in much more than name and the initial setting, Laurie Strode was far more unrealistic. Call me cynical, but the only reason anyone even cares about that film is because of Pamela Susan Shoop's boobs in the hot tub scene.

Scout Taylor-Compton gave a very realistic performance as Laurie Strode considering what her character had been through. If you had been stabbed, disfigured, seen your friends get killed or hacked about in front of you, would you not become unstable too? The whole premise that she was low-class (for lack of a better term) to begin with, and didn't have the greatest coping mechanisms, just made her more real to me. The more unrealistic character was actually Danielle Harris' version of Annie Brackett who seemed to be either in complete denial or far too confident for her own good. Why she gets defended by "Halloween" fanboys just because she was in the earlier "Halloween" movies is a mystery to me since her acting ability is also minimal.

The "white trash" aesthetic of Rob Zombie's movies gets a lot of flak for no good reason too. Since I've been living in America and encountered so many people like that, I can say that these characters are representative of the norm rather than an exception. Unlike the middle-class comedy movies which the more political part of the Hollywood machine throws at the rest of the world to encourage the myth that America is so great, the uneducated, constantly swearing, drunken "white trash" of Rob Zombie's movies are the reality. Maybe they aren't all as psychotic, but even that is debatable from my own experience.

I'll get off my soapbox just as quickly as I got on it to say something about the "Dr. Samuel Loomis" character as played by Malcolm McDowell. I thought he was great as the "prima donna" which everyone who gets a little bit of fame is likely to become. He even worked to some extent as comic relief between some of the most savage kills I've ever seen in a horror movie. The only valid criticism which I will uphold about "Halloween II", was that Loomis didn't contribute a lot to the plot other than revealing a secret in his book which Laurie Strode wasn't prepared for. I never thought Donald Pleasence was all that great in the role so Malcolm McDowell was a decent upgrade.

Since this review has turned out to be a lot longer than I wanted it to be, I'll just wrap it up by saying that I now consider "Halloween II" to be one of the greatest modern horror movies of the last decade. The gore is outstanding, the tension maybe not so much, and, as usual, there are no scares, but, as much as I wanted to hate all the characters, I ended up caring about them to some extent. The characters were interesting to me rather than likeable, and that set 'Halloween II" apart from nearly all of the more contrived horror movies which I've endured so far this year.

If you were also deterred by Rob Zombie's first "Halloween" movie, the haters, rumour mongers, and message board arguments, you might want to watch (or rewatch) "Halloween II" yourself now that it's had a few years since its release. I'm going to surprise you all by putting "Halloween II" in "The Vault". For $5 from Wal-mart's bargain bin, it was a nice surprise, and I highly recommend it.

Quarantine (2008)

"A television reporter and her cameraman are trapped inside a building quarantined by the CDC after the outbreak of a mysterious virus which turns humans into bloodthirsty killers."

It's funny how horror movie tastes can change as you get older, isn't it? I had actually written "Quarantine" off as a movie which I would never review due it being an inferior remake until I watched it again before I did my recent mini-podcast on the "[REC]" series. Not only did I watch it twice more after that, but I really liked it.

Obviously, I didn't like it as much as Brad Miska who was quoted on the DVD sleeve as saying, "Quite possibly the best horror film this year." Although the word "possibly" gives some room for not appearing to be a total sellout, there's no way that "Quarantine" was even in the running for being the best horror movie of 2008. I'm pretty sure that "Let the Right One In" had that honour plus "[REC]" (2007) was being purchased as an alternative to the remake by just as many people.

The trouble with "Quarantine" will always be that it was a dumbed down remake with too many recognisable actors in it to ever compete with the more realistic (and less staged) look of "[REC]", but four years on, it's now quite entertaining for those very reasons.

What I liked most was how a lot more was made of the scenes with the firemen in "Quarantine". The American version of Angela Vidal, played by Jennifer Carpenter (from "The Exorcism of Emily Rose"), came across as a lot more genuine and playful with the firemen than the Spanish version who gave away that she was very two-faced quite early on. It was also interesting to see how only 6 minutes of extra footage in the fire station helped to flesh out the characters and make it possible to care about them.

Casting Jay Hernandex from "Hostel" (2005) as a fireman was a huge giveaway for horror fans that the found footage wasn't real, but Greg Germann from "Ally McBeal" who played the vet was a far too recognisable face for other viewers. To their credit, Sony didn't even pretend that this was anything other than a remake.

One thing which was definitely improved was being able to put a name to the falling fireman. Having got to know Fletcher (Johnathon Schaech) a little bit beforehand made that moment quite tragic. Changing the nationality of the immigrants to Africans rather than a Japanese family was unnecessary though since the xenophobic comment about them would still have worked and come across as just as racist anyway.

For some reason, possibly jealousy, a lot of "[REC]" fans didn't think much of Jennifer Carpenter at the time. Either it was her looks or her acting ability (or both) which got them bent out of shape, but I didn't find anything wrong with her. She was slightly better looking facially than Manuela Velasco, but her body wasn't quite as toned or sexy, so it's a case of swings and roundabouts there. As for her acting ability, she did really well before her character was forced into conforming to the scene for scene remake process. Hysteria even made the Spanish version of Angela Vidal inconsistent.

Ignoring the supernatural explanation at the end of "[REC]" made the newspaper clippings and tape recorder scene far too rushed (and a little bit redundant), but really that was the only obviously bad part of the whole film. The jump scares were all the same.

As for everything else in "Quarantine", including the practical effects by Robert Hall and his team, there was nothing wrong with any of it. "Quarantine" just wasn't original and so it will always be the weaker of the two films for most people.

Night of the Demons (2009)

"A group of kids go to a Halloween party, only to have to face down a group of demons."

Okay, I've reached the end of my "Night of the Demons" week and I've saved the best until last. Ironically, since I'm not the biggest fan of remakes, this 2009 update was well worth enduring the torture of the original movies for.

The remake takes all the best elements from the trilogy (and the worst) but recreates them so slickly that it's actually rather brilliant in its accuracy. Of course, a lot of that is due to director Adam Gierasch and writer Jace Anderson, who both know their stuff and have an impressive list of credits behind them. Some of it is accidental or lucky too, but that's always the way with movies. There will never be a perfect movie, horror or otherwise.

Although Hull House is abandoned in favour of the Broussard Family Mansion in New Orleans, complete with an opening scene in the style of a silent movie (which gives a better backstory than any characters could with their own exposition), everything important from the previous movies is here.

In many ways, "Night of the Demons" isn't so much a remake as another sequel. Maybe it should be called a "semake" or "requel" even though neither of those is as catchy as the "premake" term which we all used for "The Thing".

Call me shallow, but what I enjoyed most was having all the "hot chicks" from the other films replaced with truly hot ones rather than the "girl next door" types who the nostalgic fanboys all rave over. The most beautiful modern horror actresses are all here including Monica Keena, Shannon Elizabeth, Bobbie Sue Luther and Diora Baird. I don't include the cameos by Linnea Quigley or Tiffany Shepis because neither of them does anything for me, but I'm sure they suit the tastes of others.

There's no cameo by the original Angela which is surprising but not really necessary anyway given that the new "Angela Feld" is a completely different character to "Angela Franklin". For those who like trivia, according to the IMDb, Amelia Kinkade is now some kind of literary "Doctor Doolittle" and loves cats. I can't fault her for either of those things, but as I've never found her very attractive or scary as Angela, I was pleased with the upgrade.

Having mentioned cats, seeing both Diora Bird and "Boobie" Sue Luther dressed as catgirls for Hallowe'en, really ups the eyecandy quotient for me. As much as I love Monica Keena, their costumes really upstage her. Their roles may be a bit two-dimensional, but at least they are played by real actresses with some current popularity rather than a bunch of wannabes or has-beens who were dragged in off the street only to disappear into obscurity again.

I'd also never realised just how beautiful Shannon Elizabeth really was until she was all Gothed-up and, should I ever do a top ten list of hot Goth girls in horror movies, she'll definitely be number one.

But enough about all that sexiness, what you really want to know about is why I thought this was such a good remake. As much as I would like to tell you everything, such a list would create so many spoilers that it would ruin the film for you. Instead, I'm just going to briefly describe some of the most outstanding points.

Just like the original and the second sequel, the story begins with a "home scene" of girls getting ready for a party. This also sort of ties in with part of the first sequel, but the setting there is obviously different.

I've already mentioned the cat costumes, That idea came, of course, from "Night of the Demons III". Angela in the remake also has a pet black cat which was reminiscent of the one from "Night of the Demons 2". Cats are very important to me, as you know, and I look out for such details.

Even more pleasing to me is that much more was made of the stupid lipstick trick from the original "Night of the Demons". I always thought it was completely random and out of place, but in the hands (and breast) of Diora Baird's character, it's reworked into something extremely gruesome, and as weird as her demonic sex scenes in the movie.

The faux-lesbian kissing scenes and other seductions are all done as expected, although a wine bottle replaced the pistol of the second sequel in a much hotter way. There's a lot more nudity and sex overall, but, hey, it's the 21st century now and that's exactly what we want! The gore, the scares, and the horror (especially the horror) take second place to the sleaziness, but on the plus side, at least this movie has a plot. In spite of some borderline "gratuitous fillers", it never appears to be making things up as it goes along.

I also noticed that the sets really looked the part. They hint at the disused funeral parlour of the first two movies, but it isn't the same place, and it feels like a real building this time. It's all much darker and creepier, and, as far as Hallowe'en parties go, it's the perfect setting.

Although the characters in the other movies are teenagers played by older actors, there isn't even any attempt to make the thirty-somethings in this appear any younger. They don't have to act all nasty and rebellious for the sake of their dialogue. What comes out of their mouths is often quite witty and endearing. I wasn't alienated by any of the main characters, and that's a very good thing. I even liked Edward Furlong's role!

Even though it keeps the uneven quality of the trilogy and goes for the light-hearted approach more often than outright horror, there are some great effects. Some of the goriest, weirdest and bloodiest effects that I've ever seen are made up of both practical effects and such nicely done CGI that it's hard to tell which is which. I expect, if really looked into, a lot of what I thought was CGI was actually practical (and vice-versa) except in some extremely obvious cases. I've been fooled before, and I'm not a "practical effects Nazi" anyway. As long as it looks good on screen, it's good enough for me.

I enjoyed "Night of the Demons" so much that it's going into "The Vault". If there's one movie which is typical of everything (and everyone) in the American horror movie industry from the first decade of the 21st century, this is the one.

My Asian Horror Remake Collection

Here are the American remakes of Asian horror movies which I've bought so far. I'm not a big fan of Asian horror or remakes, but I got them cheap.

One day, I might review some more of these, but, every time I look at the growing number of remakes on my list, I just can't find it within myself to actually bother. I've only reviewed "Shutter" and "The Uninvited" on this blog.

Suffice it to say that I do like most of these films with the exceptions of "Dark Water", "The Ring Two", and "Mirrors". I think the remakes of "The Grudge" are just as good if not better than the originals and "The Uninvited" was simply a lot easier to understand than "A Tale of Two Sisters".

Which do you prefer? The remakes or the originals?

The Thing (2011)

"At an Antarctica research site, the discovery of an alien craft leads to a confrontation between graduate student Kate Lloyd and scientist Dr. Sander Halvorson."

Well, I finally got round to watching "The Thing" prequel last night. As my only eagerly anticipated film this year, I was so excited about it that I'm probably going to rate it a lot higher than I should do. Even so, it still turned out to be a huge disappointment overall.

Since I'm not one of those people who suffers from nostalgia, I'm not even going to compare the prequel/premake with John Carpenter's 1982 remake too much. To do so would be unfair to both movies as, although the two films look somewhat similar at first glance, apart from the title they are very different entities.

Taking "The Thing" (2011) as a standalone movie is, however, impossible. It's little more than "Alien" (1979) all over again but set in Antarctica rather than outer space. Mary Elizabeth Winstead plays a Ripley character with a lot less balls than Sigourney Weaver but, with all the action scenes, the similarities are too in your face not to notice.

Another film that "The Thing" is like is "AVP: Alien vs. Predator" (2004) due once again to the formulaic female lead and the overall feel of the movie. Just like "AVP", there's not much tension and the plot tends to lag when it should be full of suspense.

This version of "The Thing" is supposed to be an action movie at heart so it abandons suspense round about the middle of the film in favour of becoming yet another slasher. I found this to be a major weakness and, without giving away any more spoilers than I have to, the monster is revealed way too early and the action is confusing as hell. The sheer number of bearded characters are too many and too undifferentiated for you to care about any of them particularly.

Another big problem is the use of CGI which isn't bad but is hardly groundbreaking or imaginative either. A lot of the time the flaws are hidden by the darkness of the background but this is computer game stuff. Coupled with the extremely loud "boo scares", it's pretty obvious which generation "The Thing" is made for and it's not the older fans of the original.

I'm going to rate "The Thing" as just average for now. It's a prequel after all so it's meant to compliment John Carpenter's version rather than replace it. It was a nice try but, once I get this on DVD, I know that I'll be able to find dozens of anachronisms and plot holes which I didn't even notice during the theatrical experience.

The Thing (1982)

"Scientists in the Antarctic are confronted by a shape-shifting alien that assumes the appearance of the people that it kills."

A lot of people class this as sci-fi and I can see their point, but I think of it as horror and absolutely love it.

John Carpenter didn't so much remake "The Thing From Another World" (1951) here but completely reinvented it as a practical effects laden gorefest. The alien creature effects truly are the star of the show but there's still the tension and paranoia of the original.

I first heard about "The Thing" while listening to trailers for it on the radio. I could only imagine what it looked like because I was too young to see it at the cinema but a couple of years later it was on TV completely uncensored (because British TV is always good like that) and it was exactly as I expected it to be.

When VHS came along it was one of the first I bought. I've watched "The Thing" more times than just about any other movie in my collection especially since getting the "Collector's Edition" on DVD.

There's just something about being trapped in a hostile, snowy environment with a shape-changing alien who could be anybody (or anything) that ticks every box in the "survival horror" category for me.

I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm really looking forward to this year's "premake" so I'm definitely including "The Thing" in my Hallowe'en countdown.

House of Wax (2005)

"Six friends are stranded in a ghost town where a towering wax museum looms ahead. And inside are two brothers who have a special way of making the wax figures look real..."

If you are a regular reader of my blog, you'll already know that I've got a soft spot for Paris Hilton. No, not the compost heap at the bottom of the garden or anything nasty like that. I genuinely like Paris Hilton even though, based on her performance in "House of Wax" and a couple of other horrors that I've seen her in, she can't really act. I had to put the subtitles on several times to find out what she was mumbling.

What Paris can do really well though, apart from the obvious, is promote a film. If it hadn't been for her, and knowing in advance that her character was going to die horribly in "House of Wax", I doubt that as many people would have gone to the cinema to see this re-imagining.

"House of Wax" was one of the first batch of "re-imaginings" rather than "remakes" to hit us as Hollywood ran out of ideas six years ago but it wasn't a totally awful one unlike the dreck we are getting now. In fact, "House of Wax" is still actually quite a decent film as I discovered when I watched it again last night.

If you can make it through the first ten minutes, where you just feel like slapping some acting ability into everybody, then it gets much better and, surprisingly, it's far more entertaining for a modern audience than its 1953 namesake. The use of suspense is almost unbearable in places but exceptionally well done.

Even though most of the characters are extremely unlikeable and do many of the predictably stupid things which you'd expect, at least the two leads, Elisha Cuthbert and Chad Michael Murray, are a little bit more credible than the rest of the cast and I almost cared about what happened to them. I say "almost" because there isn't a whole lot of character development or even consistency to them.

Of course, nobody really cares about any of that, least of all me, since "House of Wax" relies mainly on the use of outstanding effects from KNB as its main selling point. The gore scenes range from brutal to some which actually make you feel sorry for the characters even if they were the most annoying assholes to begin with.

One scene in particular which involves Jared Padaleck's character Wade getting turned into a waxwork is probably the most memorable for everybody especially as the aftermath is one of those things which gets stuck in your head for a while and leaves you thinking about how horrible it would be.

Without giving away any more spoilers for those of you who haven't seen "House of Wax", there aren't any big twists but there are certainly some very original touches and surprises which will make you want to revisit certain scenes again to see how the characters were initially fooled.