The Gallows (2015)

"20 years after a horrific accident during a small town school play, students at the school resurrect the failed show in a misguided attempt to honor the anniversary of the tragedy - but soon discover that some things are better left alone."

Rather than immediately writing yet another scathing review of a lacklustre movie in a subgenre which I've grown to despise as soon as it was released, I thought it better to wait until all the gushing mouth-breathers got their overwhelming praise of "The Gallows" out of their systems before watching this latest Blumhouse production.

I'm glad that I waited a few weeks (and avoided reading any of the now seemingly mixed reviews) because I actually liked some of "The Gallows" in spite of myself. I was in the mood for a simple ghost story which didn't take up too much time to watch, and "The Gallows" pretty much delivered exactly what I expected.

Unfortunately, after a very strong start which utilises as many American high school tropes and clichés as possible, I'm grateful that the running time of only 81 minutes seemed to fly by even faster. There's only so much chaotic bickering, screaming, noisy jump scares, and running around madly with a shakycam that I can stand nowadays.

Pfeifer, Cassidy, and Reese get filmed by Ryan... a lot.

Given that the best parts of "The Gallows" involve stereotypes such as jocks and nerds and cheerleaders being as jocky and nerdy and cheerleadery as can be, the story moves along at a brisk pace with decent enough acting for what it is. The primary "cameraman" is a total asshole who defies logic with his constant filming, his best friend is a nicer and dumber jock, and their girlfriends are physically very attractive. So there's not a lot to dislike about the talent or characterisation except for the lack of originality.

Ambient sounds in the background create an unsettling atmosphere when the teenagers are up to the necks (often quite literally) in the spooky shenanigans, and the first 40 minutes of "The Gallows" are quite engrossing. Sadly, the atmosphere and quality of the storytelling doesn't last.

The loud jump scares and overuse of the gimmicky "being dragged through the air by something invisible" stunts which were made so popular by "Paranormal Activity" become irksome soon after the first one kicks in. Although fans of these "haunted house" style features won't be disappointed, they come across as a cheap way of avoiding any attempt at creating tension and genuine frights for the rest of us.

The pity of it is that the first traditional jump scare (when a TV pops on conveniently with the news story of Charlie's death) really does work. After that point, the rest of "The Gallows" turns into a de rigueur Blumhouse mess of obnoxious teenagers blaming each other and themselves, shrieking, panicking, making stupid decisions, and just being bloody annoying until they are bumped off.

With scenes edited in such a confusing manner that it's almost impossible to tell what is happening to which character and in what order, most of the exposition is given way too soon, and the denouement involves a very predictable reveal rather than a twist. Having said that, "The Gallows" may not be remembered for anything other than attempting to leech off the viral "Charlie Charlie" game for its marketing, but it's still surprisingly entertaining overall.

As much as I generally detest "found footage" movies, I guiltily have to admit that I mostly enjoyed this one. It certainly hasn't changed my very negative opinion about faux found footage or Blumhouse Productions, but I imagine that "The Gallows" will be thought of as "the best horror movie this year" by the big name sites and their unreliable "critics". Given the appalling state of the horror genre at the present time, however, I have no choice but to second their recommendation.

Apart from all the clichés, confusing scenes in the second-half which don't progress logically from each other, and of course, the ridiculous ending, "The Gallows" is quite good. It's worth a rental anyway.

Amy (2013)

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

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

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

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

"I see possessed people."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hallows' Eve (2013)

"Years after a tragic accident leaves a young child scarred for life, the people responsible pay - with their lives."

When I saw that Danielle Harris had top billing, and then noticed the huge similarity between the little girl (Isobel Rose Costello) who gets run over by a tractor in the opening scene and Danielle Harris at the same age, I expected something a lot different than the horrible mess that "Hallows' Eve" turned out to be. It may sound too predictable, but I honestly thought that Danielle Harris would be all disfigured like she was in Rob Zombie's "Halloween II" and be revealed as the psycho killing the now grown-up bullies in revenge for her face.

Maybe that's one of the red herrings which is designed to sell the mystery element of this feeble attempt at a slasher movie, and I've probably already spoiled the ending for you by telling you that it isn't how things play out, but I don't care. "Hallows' Eve" is so bad that it doesn't deserve to be watched by anyone, and is certainly not worth renting or buying. Unless you've recently become the recipient of a brain transplant operation involving a drunken chimpanzee, the lack of a cohesive story is excrutiating to get through. Even my cats who have brains the size of walnuts couldn't cope with this and left me to it.

There are too many characters to keep track of, and as usual, there's not one of the "teenagers" who isn't such a nasty piece of work that you don't just want him or her to die horribly, but the story jumps all over the place and is completely unsatisfying. Lots of boobs and blood, and an incongruous dream sequence half-way through which adds more gratuitous nudity, is nice but doesn't help matters. It's almost impossible to follow what's going on until the very end, and by that point, you'll be unlikely to care.

Don't worry, babe, you can still get a job in indie horror movies.

Among the cheap gore effects, uncreative kills, and bad camerawork lurk several horror c-listers including Ashley C. Williams and Tiffany Shepis, plus a bunch of male "actors" who are harder to recognise. Apparently, one of them was in "Pumpkinhead" (1988), but the rest vary from being hangers-on in the "indie scene" to fully-fledged TV actors who have some actual talent. Who's who or and who plays who, I couldn't possibly tell you even with the cast list in front of me. They all have generic character names like Nick, Todd, Dave, Brad, and whatever the female equivalents might be. I may be wrong about this because I was bored out of my mind, but I don't think that any of them call each other by name other than the disfigured girl being Eve.

How and why known genre actors get involved in half-arsed projects like this which can do them no good is the biggest mystery. There may be a very small financial reward, but no big-wig is going to look at their work in "Hallows' Eve" and think, "Oh, I really must hire that one for my next muti-million dollar blockbuster!" In fact, it's more likely to be the opposite. Movies like this kill careers, they don't make them! The only excuse anyone can use is that you could put Oscar award-winning actors in this low-budget trash and they would still come away from it reeking of shit because of the script. Having said that, Tiffany Shepis gets the best of the bad lines, and Danielle Harris doesn't have enough screen time to disgrace herself.

The only good thing I can say about "Hallows' Eve" is that setting it in one of the "Haunted Attractions" which a lot of farmers tend to set up every year in America is an original touch. I've been to a few of these Hallowe'en events, so the location felt real to me, and I liked it. Sadly, that's all I enjoyed about this movie other than what you can see in the image below and the bath scene which preceded it.

Definitely a long-leggedy beastie!

Three more weeks to Hallowe'en, Hallowe'en, Hallowe'en. Three more weeks to Hallowe'en. This film sucks ass.

It's Friday the 13th again!

And I couldn't care less. I hate that stupid '80s crap.

All you're going to hear about today is "Friday the 13th" this and "Jason Voorhees" that until you're sick to death of it too. "Don't forget to buy the new overpriced Blu-ray boxset with crappy packaging that scratches the discs inside!" etc., etc., etc.

Yeah, you can now buy all the movies again on Blu-ray for nearly $90 - Friday the 13th: The Complete Collection [Blu-ray] - as if that'll make them magically better. Yawn! I don't think so.

Seen one, seen 'em all.

Feel free to read my review of the first "Friday the 13th" here though.


A Quick Guide to Friday the 13th
(by Blizzard_Beasts from the IMDb. I wish I'd written what follows, but I didn't.)

Part 1 - Jason's mom kills people, and she is beheaded at the end.

Part 2 - Jason wants revenge and starts killing people, and survives a machete to the shoulder at the end.

Part 3 - Jason still wants revenge and keeps killing, and survives an axe to the face/skull at the end.

Part 4 - Jason still wants revenge, and young Tommy Jarvis kills him by putting a knife through his eye that comes out the back of his skull. At this point Jason is dead and gone.

Part 5 - Since Jason is dead, a copycat killer wears Jason's mask and starts killing people, and he gets killed at the end by being impaled on spikes.

Part 6 - Even though Jason is dead, Tommy Jarvis wants to destroy him by digging up his body and setting it on fire. But for some reason, he sticks a metal pole in Jason's chest during a storm. Lightning strikes it and brings back a zombie Jason, who still wants revenge. At the end, Jason is chained to a rock at the bottom of the lake.

Part 7 - Girl has psychic powers. Her dad dies by mistake. She tries to resurrect her dad with her powers, but accidentally breaks open Jason's chains, and Jason comes out still looking for revenge. At the end, she brings her dad back with her powers, and her dad drops Jason to the bottom of the lake once again just like the end of Part 6.

Part 8 - A power line gets hit by a boat and causes electrical currents to flow through Jason's body, and he's back once again for revenge. He gets killed by toxic waste at the end.

Part 9: Jason Goes to Hell - ignored all the previous parts since the franchise was sold to New Line Cinema.

Part 10: Jason X - ignored Part 9.

Part 11: Freddy vs Jason - ignored Part 10.

Part 12 - reboot, ignored everything.


If you really must watch something about "Friday the 13th", here's Paul Zamarelli's video instead. It's informative but slightly incorrect. "Friday the 13th" jumped the shark long before New Line Cinema took over the franchise!



Bored now.

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.

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!

Do Not Disturb (2013)

"After his fiancee is brutally murdered, Don Malek sets out for revenge."

I've seen some strokes pulled in my time, but this one really takes the biscuit. Although I've never had the misfortune to watch the slightly longer "New Terminal Hotel" (2010), "Do Not Disturb" is simply a recut and renamed version of the same thing! What the bloody Hell?

Was this done just so that director B.C. Furtney could get two IMDb credits for the same crappy, low-budget borefest, or was it supposed to fool people into thinking that a straight-to-video movie made in 2008 is a new one?

Apparently, the recutting and repackaging is all due to a change of distributors, so I suppose we'll just have to accept that as the definitive answer on the subject. To be brutally honest, I don't actually care that much. It's not as if I'm going to write a huge shill-review enticing you to watch either version anyway. You can't turn a sow's ear into a silk purse, and "Do Not Disturb" would still be an overly talky turd by any name.

So, let's see why anyone would be silly enough to watch this movie.

Well, the late Corey Haim has an extended cameo role as a washed-up English rockstar with a constantly slipping accent—the point being that his character is not really English or a rockstar but just an alcoholic bum. Are his less than three minutes on screen worth your consideration? I think not. I'm sure he was only on set because he was allegedly engaged to Tiffany Shepis at the time, and someone thought it would be a good idea to give him something to do while he waited around for her. The biggest clue is that you could cut his parts out of the movie and it wouldn't make any difference to the story whatsoever.

Secondly, there's the aforementioned Tiffany Shepis who fanboys go crazy for but I've never found attractive. It's only fair because she definitely wouldn't find me attractive either. I must admit that she does a better job than usual and seems to be able to act a little bit. How much of her potty-mouthed character is acting and how much is just her, I wouldn't even try to guess at. Yeah, she's kind of pretty, I suppose, and she briefly shows her bra, but it's down to Danielle Fortwangler as a hooker to provide the topless eyecandy.

"Oh, you're so cool, Brewster!"

The lead role goes to Stephen "Evil Ed" Geoffreys who I haven't seen in anything since "Sick Girl" (which was, of course, only filmed the year before). He seems in pretty good shape for an older guy and spends a lot of the movie with his shirt off. If that floats your boat, have at it. His acting here is also better than in anything he has ever done before despite the fact that he's horribly miscast as either a writer or a multiple murderer. A little bit of Evil Ed shines through occasionally, but you can also almost see echoes of William H. Macy's performance in "Edmond" (2005) at times. That would be great if "Edmond" didn't already exist... but it does.

Thus, it's all down to Ezra Buzzington to steal the show as Malek's crippled and equally shirtless neighbour Spitz, an even more boozy and bad-tempered version of Lieutenant Dan from "Forrest Gump" (1994). Easily one of the most prolific and successful character actors around, he doesn't disgrace himself here either. Given what and who he had to work with, the only reason that I could possibly recommend "Do Not Disturb" is for Ezra Buzzington, but that's not enough. For a "Murder Monday", I need lots of blood and guts to set me up for the week ahead.

There's some decent splatter in places, but not that much gore to see as most of the torture and kills occur off camera until near the end. When Malek's revenge surgery starts, the lack of torture porn is overwhelmingly disappointing, but as this is primarily a stagey "crime drama" with horror elements, it's only to be expected that a lot of punches are pulled. While "Do Not Disturb" may have aspirations to be more than something thrown together by the local amateur dramatics group, the lack of budget doesn't help matters.

The camerawork is okay, but the sound is so echoey in places that "Do Not Disturb" feels "studenty" throughout. With unlikeable characters, too much talk, and not enough action, "Do Not Disturb" is tolerable enough to rate as a 2 or 3 out of 10, but it's also hella boring. I didn't make it through in one sitting, and I doubt that you will either.

Make no mistake about it, "Do Not Disturb" should have been renamed as "Do Not Watch".

Do not confuse it with the other 2 dozen identically named movies!

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.

Prom Night II (1987)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ghost Story (1981)

"Four successful elderly gentlemen, members of the Chowder Society, share a gruesome, 50-year old secret. When one of Edward Wanderley's twin sons dies in a bizarre accident, the group begins to see a pattern of frightening events developing."

Okay, you lucky people, since I've neglected "The Vault" part of my blog in favour of some absolutely terrible movies which have made me even grumpier than usual, I have now set myself a "50 Horror Movies Challenge" of only watching good horror movies until the balance is restored.

There won't be any particular order to how I review these movies other than just pulling them off my shelves randomly and rewatching them. All you really need to know is that whatever I choose will be something which you should definitely watch yourself. With only 65 days left until Hallowe'en, it should work out well and provide you with a few recommendations for the big night.

Due to watching a lot of ghostie films lately, I'll begin with "Ghost Story" from 1981.

What can I possibly say about "Ghost Story" which you don't already know or can't find out by looking it up on the IMDb? Probably nothing except that I'm going to say it slightly differently.

I bet you didn't know that every time I watch the film, I can almost smell the mothballs and nasty old man odour of the ancient actors who really shouldn't have got involved in this project at all. I have zero respect for any of them since it was obviously just a chance to them to grab a paycheck by cashing in on their names. Apart from Fred Astaire, all they did was turn up and look a bit worried, but, then again, what would anyone do with such a badly hacked screenplay anyway?

Oh, but there I go being all cynical again which I shouldn't be about an otherwise nicely done film. I'm certainly not going to discredit the entire careers of the veterans based on their performances in "Ghost Story", but the younger actors (which include anyone under the age of 70 in this) and the scenes set in the 1920s were simply far more interesting to me.

I know nothing about the 1920s outside of a few "Sin Cities" documentaries which led me to believe that they weren't quite so "straight" or puritanical as I used to think. Morals were apparently a lot more like today without the threat of AIDS but still with the chance of dying from "the clap", drug taking and alcoholism were rampant, and women had more equality in all these shenanigans than ever before. All this brings me to the character of Eva as played by Alice Krige.

Having never read the original novel by Peter Straub. I have no idea if Eva ever had more to her backstory, but what a fascinating story it would have been. What series of events led her to be the way she was, give her such spirit or the will to come back from the dead to get revenge on the men responsible for her demise? Well, the answer to the latter is contained in the film itself, but the feminist essay writers could still have a field day with this one.

The fact that Alice Krige was incredibly beautiful back in 1981 was a big plus for me since I thought she was absolutely vile in whatever "Star Trek" thing she starred in as a Borg. She was kind of sexy in "Sleepwalkers", for sure, but not so pretty. Couple that beauty with her acting and her final "Pinhead from Hellraiser"-style lines and you have the best reasons to buy yourself a copy of "Ghost Story" right now. As usual, I've found the full movie on YouTube and embedded it above so you don't really have to do that. I don't watch any of these older movies to promote them like a cheap salesman, as you know. If you want that, I can recommend quite a few other blogs for you to read instead of mine.

As I said, the scenes in the 1920s and the actors involved in them were a lot more interesting than their present day counterparts. You can blame all the characters' actions on their youth if you wish, but I found them to be a rather hateful gang of over-privileged wasters with hardly any redeeming qualities. I'm sure they were supposed to be teenagers, but really the actors were older and couldn't quite get away with that.

They weren't matched up looks-wise to the old guys all that well either, so even with the flashbacks, "Ghost Story" often felt like two separate movies edited together. It wasn't badly edited, but the continuity occasionally left a lot to be desired, the characters were inconsistent, a lot of questions were left unanswered, and the resulting plot holes were large enough to drive a snowplow through.

Even the beginning with John Houseman tactlessly telling what appeared to be Edgar Allan Poe's "Premature Burial" story was the kind of thing which should have brought back a lot more memories to the "Chowder Society" who didn't say anything obvious about it. Surely, the similarities to their own shared secret would have prompted some discussion of the past at that point, but the mystery remained until much later in the film. I found this unrealistic, but it was the kind of thing which would have gone unnoticed theatrically for most viewers with no ability to rewind. With no VHS available until much later, I doubt that the original audience would have wanted to pay to sit through this movie again either.

Don't get me wrong, "Ghost Story" isn't a bad movie at all, but like most supernatural mysteries, it's something you should only watch once. Going back over it revealed far too many faults in the screenplay and highlighted how formulaic the majority of it was. With a running time of an hour and fifty minutes, there was a lot of lag and even some padding which was odd considering that there must have been a lot of conflation going on too. The ending came across both as rushed and as a whimper.

I'm still going to leave 'Ghost Story" in "The Vault" even though I would certainly only rate it as average if I was younger and had only watched it for the very first time. The effects have become very dated and the scares which relied on them for their shock value just don't work anymore.

Bear (2010)

"Two young couples are driving through a remote forest when their car breaks down. When a run-in with a curious grizzly bear ends up with the bear being shot to death, the bear's mate arrives on the scene and vengefully attacks their van."

Continuing my season of horror films which I've never seen before, I decided to watch this animal revenge story featuring the least menacing grizzly bears ever.

I don't know why exactly it is that Americans find bears so terrifying especially as you are hardly ever like to see one inside your parents' basement. If you do leave your comfort zone and head off out into the woods, you probably won't see a bear anywhere either as they are mostly shy creatures who tend to avoid humans unless they are desperate for food.

Even though I've heard rumours that there are bears all over the place where I live, I've never seen one in four years and I've been looking hard. It will probably happen on the one day that I don't have a jar of honey with me too.

But I suppose you want to know about the film? The IMDb synopsis which I quoted at the beginning really gives it all away.

What that brief description of the plot doesn't tell you is that the couples in "Bear" are the annoying, bickering kind who do nothing but talk about their uber important relationships all the way through while either hiding in an old water pipe or their car as the vengeful bear attacks them over and over again like a bigger version of "Cujo".

The characters are also absolutely hateful cowards who are over eager to shoot the first grizzly bear at point blank range about a dozen times but, fortunately, for those of us who love justice, they have no idea that you are supposed to stand your ground and make yourself look as big as possible instead of running away with your arms flailing everywhere when they encounter the second bear.

Make no mistake about it, "Bear" is a terrible film with no scares, gore or excitement. The ending makes no sense either as the two brothers just decide to sacrifice themselves to the bear in an act of atonement without even thinking of offering the contents of their tasty pic-a-nic basket first.

At just over an hour and a quarter long, "Bear" is a mercifully short film but still an hour too long for what it tries (and fails) to accomplish.

The Woman (2011)

"When a successful country lawyer captures and attempts to civilize the last remaining member of a violent clan that has roamed the Northeast coast for decades, he puts the lives of his family in jeopardy."

I really don't know where to begin with reviewing "The Woman" because, although it's quite unlike anything that I've seen before, it's still somewhat derivative of a lot of other dysfunctional family stories in places.

With anything written by Jack Ketchum, you know it's going to be a little bit "out there" and, by having Lucky McKee direct it, it's likely to be even more so. Paradoxically, everything is extremely very well reigned in here and doesn't ever become bizarrely unrealistic or comical. I find that to be a very welcome and refreshing change.

Now as much as I want to say that "The Woman" is unique, it isn't. If you've ever seen "The X-Files" season one episode called "Jersey Devil" then the idea of a feral human being won't be much of a surprise to you. It was even done more recently in "Shiver", a Spanish film from 2008.

Demented, dysfunctional families aren't all that new either. You only have to look up "Spider Baby" (1968) to see how that all began. But, as I've said, "The Woman" is no comedy or, at least, not a comedy that I can categorise as one. It's amusing in places but there really aren't any major chuckles to be had out of it unless you are as sick and twisted as I am.

Combining the two elements by having a dysfunctional family kidnap a feral woman, and then to have their characters being further revealed by their interactions with their captive, is an ambitious idea which actually works fairly well. Of course there are flaws and quite a few moments which are too reminiscent of Dario Argento's "Jenifer" (from the "Masters of Horror" series) for comfort.

One thing which I'm puzzled over is whether or not "The Woman" is a kind of feminist movie or a totally misogynistic one. I wondered the same thing about Lars Von Trier's "Antichrist" (2009) although I gave up ever trying to analyse that director's mind a long time ago.

If I had to pick a side, I'd say "The Woman" is very feminist yet it shows misogyny in all its ugliness. I'll leave all the stuff about whether the message of the film is that women can only survive against men by reverting to their animal natures to people who actually give a damn plus I don't want to give away any spoilers.

For me, the nudity, torture and gore are far more important when rating a horror movie plus the effect that the characters have on me. "The Woman" isn't the most brutal movie that I've ever seen but the effects are certainly worthwhile and the acting is pretty decent too.

Angela Bettis stands out (as she always does when directed by Lucky McKee) but Sean Bridgers isn't too shabby either. Think of "The Stepfather" (1987) but take it up several notches and you have Chris Cleek. Although none of the characters are very much more than caricatures, it's how the full extent of their relationship is slowly revealed that makes the drama so engrossing.

The star of the whole thing though is, of course, Pollyanna McIntosh as the nameless feral woman. She may not look as pretty here as she did in "Exam" (2009) but she certainly knows how to pull off a purely animal look. Getting to see her completely nude is a bonus too.

Neither Pollyanna McIntosh or Angela Bettis are the best looking women in this film though. That honour belongs to Carlee Baker whose acting, unfortunately, is so bad that she can't even pronounce her own character's name properly. You never know with Lucky McKee so the bad acting and mispronunciation may well be intentional.

If you've already seen "The Girl Next Door" (2007), "The Lost" (2006) or "Offspring" (2009), Jack Ketchum's style will be quite familiar. Although I don't think that "The Woman" is nearly as controversial as any of those, it still continues the same style of dealing with taboo subjects in a more horrific format than some people will be used to.

You can read as much or as little into "The Woman" as you like but it won't change the fact that it's an immensely satisfying experience.

Hobo with a Shotgun (2011)

"A homeless vigilante blows away crooked cops, paedophile Santas, and other scumbags with his trusty pump-action shotgun."

Having just watched "Hobo with a Shotgun", this isn't going to be a review so much as a rant against intentionally making movies "so bad that they're good". It seems to be just a lame excuse for having poor filmmaking skills and I'm sick to death of this trend. I'm also getting increasingly annoyed by the word "grindhouse" and its frequent use in the claim that a movie wasn't supposed to be any good in the first place.

Until the box office failure of "Grindhouse" (2007), I had never even heard the term "grindhouse" used before. For me, it conjures up an image of porn cinemas full of dirty old men in raincoats with hats on their laps not low-budget action flicks. I'm still not entirely convinced that the word wasn't invented by Quentin Tarantino and thrown into the world as if it was something that everybody should know just so that he could plagiarise ideas from old movies. In all the years that I'd been reviewing, I'd never heard it mentioned once in relation to exploitation movies and I've come across some pretty obscure terms.

So if the word "grindhouse" is bogus, it's obvious that the films themselves don't really belong to that category especially not these new faux-grindhouse B-movies such as "Planet Terror", "Death Proof", "Machete" and now, based on another fake trailer from the theatrical release of "Grindhouse", "Hobo with a Shotgun".

There were, of course, a lot of badly made low-budget films from all genres back in the '60s and '70s ranging from "spaghetti westerns" to "kung fu" and "peplum" epics, and, obviously, there was a good proportion of sci-fi, horror and crime dramas among all the exploitation films otherwise I wouldn't have any knowledge of them. Most people have never seen or have any interest in this dreck unless a particular title has a cult following. However, these films weren't only shown in seedy fleapits but also in drive-ins and mainstream movie theatres as supporting features because they were cheap to hire. The whole suggestion that there was ever a certain type of movie other than porn which was specifically designed to be shown in a "Grind House" is therefore flawed.

To lump a group of these films together as "grindhouse" and then to try to emulate their failings rather than their good points is also just plain wrong. Those bygone filmmakers didn't set out to make bad films but they often simply didn't have the budget or talent to make them any better. The European clones of better American movies were, however, another story entirely.

"Hobo with a Shotgun" really sickened me because it was just another part of the Tarantino-inspired hipster trend to intentionally make crappy films based on the worst examples from the '70s and hype them as if they are something "cool". It's the Emperor's new clothes over and over again. Absolutely anyone can make a bad movie, just hand me a camera and I'll show you. It's the combination of talent, discipline and hard work needed to make a good one which people should find more impressive not lazy efforts like this.

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.

Tamara (2005)

"Tamara, an unattractive girl, who is picked on by her peers returns after her death as a sexy seductress to exact revenge."

Years before "Jennifer's Body" came out (although I didn't even know of its existence until the same time), "Tamara" was a mainly Canadian production with a somewhat similar story and setting. The tagline, "Revenge has a killer body", on the Lionsgate DVD gives away the re-marketing of this film.

Once again a "teenage" girl is killed and comes back with supernatural powers to get revenge on her High School peers. There's nothing original about the story but it's done really well and the lead, Jenna Dewan, is almost as beautiful as Megan Fox except when she tries not to be.

A great source of amusement for me is that all of the teenagers are really in their twenties with Jenna Dewan and my lookalike Chad Faust being the oldest at twenty-five. Yes, I have a "celebrity lookalike" who resembles me when I was that age. Poor guy.

Chad Faust, no stranger to various Sci-Fi TV series, is also in another film where his character meets with a horrific fate, "Descent" (2007). Don't confuse it with "The Descent" (2005) about a bunch of butch women who encounter CHUDs as it's actually rather good. I'm not going to tell you anything about it as it's not a horror film per se but the ending is every heterosexual man's worst nightmare.

Anyway, there isn't much to "Tamara" other than the obvious set-ups to gain sympathy for the titular character at the start and the various set pieces of revenge later. If you've already seen "Carrie" (1976), "The Initiation of Sarah" (1978) and "Prom Night II" (1987), expect more of the same. The plot is also similar to "The House on Sorority Row" (1983) and "I Know What You Did Last Summer" (1997) in places. As you can tell from this list, nearly everything is cribbed from other genre movies. Even "Salem's Lot" (1979) gets an homage at one point.

Although "Tamara" is the epitome of derivative, the performances are pretty good and it doesn't feel like a knock-off of any other movies at all. One seemingly original scene involving two guys has been done before but I can't remember the name of the film that I saw it in. Suffice it to say that I watched part of a German film on "Kabel Eins" many years ago where a prostitute turned the tables on two of her clients in a similar manner. I've also read (yes, read!) that same scene again in Sergei Lukyanenko's (and Vladimir Vasilyev's) "Day Watch" novel. In the book, Alisa Donnikova, a witch, does the same thing as Tamara from this film who is, of course, also a witch. Given the date of the novel, it's just a coincidence but an interesting one nonetheless.

I've probably given away a few spoilers but since "Tamara" is five years old now and you can even buy it as part a four movie compilation from Wal-Mart for $5, I'm sure you've seen it by now anyway. If you watch the trailer above, you can say that you've seen most of it.

Just one piece of trivia before I wrap this up. Matthew Marsden who plays Tamara's crush, Bill Natolly, is actually a British actor most famous for starring in soaps such as "Emmerdale" and "Coronation Street" which are both set in the North of England. Seeing him in an American/Canadian horror movie years later is wonderfully surreal.

"Tamara" has a few gory moments and some of them are quite realistic but, like so many horror films in the last ten years, nothing here is going to shock or scare you in any way. For that final reason alone, I'm rating "Tamara" as slightly below average even though it's a very entertaining film which horror aficionados should watch just to spot all the copycat scenes.

I Saw the Devil (2010)

"When his pregnant fiancee becomes the latest victim of a serial killer, a secret agent blurs the line between good and evil in his pursuit of revenge."

The most obvious thing about "I Saw the Devil" is that it's a very long film. I paused it for a toilet break at the 45 minute mark and the Netflix information screen told me that I still had 1 hour and 35 minutes left! A quick look at the IMDb confirms that it is a 141 minute film or, in real money, that's 2 hours and 21 minutes of this utter drivel.

I like very few Korean films and I really didn't like this one. As usual I couldn't tell who was doing what to who or why and, since there wasn't even any sign of anything with horns, cloven hooves or a pointy tail, I was ready to switch it off in disgust after the first 20 minutes.

Only because I was working on something more important on my laptop in front of the TV, I left "I Saw the Devil" on for company which was a bit useless too as I couldn't understand anything they said without looking at the TV screen to read the subtitles every so often. On a few rare occasions, some young Korean guy was hitting people or a dirty older guy was attempting to rape and murder a few others. Basically, it was mostly all talk with a few moments of really gory action and lots of smacking people round the head with various tools until they were unconscious.

It's not that I don't have the ability to follow a film this long but simply that I don't care. I find films about serial killers completely boring and once you've seen one revenge thriller, especially if it's "The Horseman" (2008), you've seen them all.

Just like "The Horseman", the protagonists of "I Saw the Devil" suffered ludicrously debilitating injuries and still carried on as if nothing had happened. The old guy (or rather "Old Boy" since he's the star of that film) got beaten into unconsciousness, had his arm broken and his Achilles tendon sliced and yet still attempted to get some more serial killing jollies. It was all just stupid.

Since "I Saw the Devil" is Korean, and allegedly cut down from something even more brutal, yes, it's full of nicely done moments of blood and gore. Waiting for these moments to happen, however, is more torture than anything the serial killer or the vengeful secret agent on his trail can put each other through. None of the waiting created any tension, realistic character development, or even made me feel anything for the characters. It's just padding for the sake of padding and the characters remained as two-dimensional at the end as they were at the beginning.

I can guess that the arguments in praise of "I Saw the Devil" might begin with, "Well, if you'd paid attention to it then you would have enjoyed it more!" I disagree. Even if I'd been forced to watch it while wearing one of those eye-contraptions that Alex has to in "A Clockwork Orange", I've seen so many films like this already that I would still hate it. I've seen martial arts and torture in every shape and form, sometimes better but usually a lot worse, but never since "Kill Bill" have I been forced to endure something of this epic length for so little pay-off at the end.

If you were in the same position as the secret agent or cop (or whatever the hell he was) and you went through all that trouble to catch the serial killer who raped and murdered your pregnant wife, wouldn't at least a bit of genital torture or flaying alive be on the agenda? Really, for me, it's got to that stage now where all I want to see in one of these films is someone stripped of every bit of their humanity while still remaining alive and not all this pussyfooting around with baiting and childish mind games. Cat and mouse escapades like this belong to "Tom and Jerry" cartoons not adult revenge dramas.

Obviously there will be some people who will think that "I Saw the Devil" is one of the best films that they've ever seen and I don't doubt for a moment that it is the best that they've ever seen either. It's beautifully filmed for one thing and oddly reminiscent of "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" while being completely different to it entirely. I can't explain that at all so you just have to trust me about the camerawork and pace for that to make any sense. I felt that "The Host" was very similar in style to the Russian "Night Watch" and "Day Watch" movies but, again, was completely unlike them in subject matter. Sometimes movies just have a "feel" to them which you can't ever explain and it's not even to do with some elusive or magical conjuring up of atmosphere by the director.

I suppose that even though, personally, I didn't get anything good out of "I Saw the Devil", I can still recommend it as something that you ought to see eventually. It doesn't go as far as "The Horseman" for sheer brutality and it has nowhere near the entertainment value of any of Michael Winner's "Death Wish" movies but, if you are a fan of Asian cinema, you will probably get some enjoyment out of it.