Beautiful Creatures (2013)

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

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

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

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

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

Hot sexy witch. 'Nuff said.

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

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

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

"I hope you kids are using protection."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shiver (2008)

(AKA Eskalofrío)



"Santi, a young high-school student with a serious physical reaction to sunlight, is forced by his health to move with his single mother to a shadowy, isolated village in the mountains of Spain where the inhabitants begin to reveal themselves as strangely xenophobic. When terrible, violent events begin to occur, Santi becomes first a pariah at school and then strongly suspected by the police of hideous murders. Santi himself, however, wonders if he is not the next victim."

It's lovely and cool at the moment, only 55 degrees rather than the days of high 90 degrees weather that we've been having lately, so it put me in mind of this Spanish film which I first watched two years ago according to my Netflix queue. It's not that the film has anything really to do with being cold or shivering, but I had to make a segue into it somehow.

Anyway, if you are lucky enough to still have a Windows operating system, you can watch "Shiver" online. I did precisely that on my laptop since I've long since swapped to Ubuntu on my desktop computer. I'd actually forgotten what a great little story it was and wonder why the hell I didn't review it at the time, but I think I know.

Back in late 2008, we suffered one of the biggest dearths of new horror movies for quite some time. The industry still hasn't completely picked up again yet either. So, like a lot of horror movie reviewers, I started looking round at what the other countries had to offer though it pretty much meant the death of my original website because nobody seemed all that interested. If it wasn't part of the French "extreme new wave" then nobody cared about it. Even "Let the Right One In" from Sweden got passed over by most people and I think only "The Orphanage" (also from Spain) got any real attention. I was so disgusted at how things were that I simply stopped writing reviews and just sat back enjoying watching movies for the last 18 months with no real desire to say anything about them to anybody. But things have changed, I have a new blog and enough time on my hands to write reviews again. So I'm going to go back over some of the little movies like this one which you may not have even heard of.

Firstly, "Shiver" is not a vampire movie. Although the lead character is set up with a few physical problems that would make you think the story is going to go that way, this is something different. It's more of a mystery than a horror film as such with a similar feel to it as "Disturbia". In fact, it did get criticised at the time for being a little bit too American, and I can to some extent agree. The way the characters interact with each other though is very European and, even if the village they are in does look like Forkes, this is certainly not another "Twilight".

What we have here is a teenager who is blamed, for reasons that become more evident later in the story, for murders which he did not commit simply because his health problems make him different. There's nothing like making a convenient scapegoat out of somebody when you are afraid, but there's a lot more to it than meets the eye.

You see our hero, Santi, doesn't take this lying down. He's already had a lifetime of being bullied, rejected and generally treated as an outsider by people. He realises that the only way to clear his name is to find the real murderer, and by so doing encourages the murderer to come after him. As Santi's nocturnal investigations continue, everyone he knows gets put in danger.

But what Santi discovers, in the big twist of the film, is that what he fears most out in the woods isn't what will do him harm. Exposing the cover-up and revealing the true story is what this is all about. Without spoiling it for you too much, the killer doesn't turn out to be at all who or what you think it is.

In spite of the twist, "Shiver" isn't an overly complex film and a lot of potential is wasted by not making more of Santi's medical condition. Of course, the red herring has a dual purpose as it was director Isidro Ortiz' purpose to turn "monsters" into heroes for reasons known only to himself, and Santi's otherness allows him to have a bond of sorts with another "monster" who is revealed far too early in the second half of the film.

The acting is generally pretty good too but the pace is so brisk most of the time that it doesn't really matter anyway. There is some lag occasionally as characters are bonded, and nobody really stands out apart from the lead. The characterisation suffers a lot because of the dialogue which is a result of trying to appeal to a younger audience rather than seasoned horror movie fans.

There are quite a few moments which are genuinely creepy but sometimes the building tension just comes to nothing which is frustrating. A lot of this is to do with bad editing, but I actually felt much the same way about "Disturbia" and "The Orphanage" in places. All these films feel censored even though there was nothing in them to censor in the first place. Maybe, in this case, it's just a Spanish thing.

The old "adults not believing the kids" scenario is also another annoying formula which again suggests that the target audience is really younger teens. Strangely this is an Unrated DVD not a PG-13 so I really can't work out why the horror is so toned down in some places and quite in your face in others. The final scene in particular is a great jump scare.

The general consensus seems to be that "Shiver" is one of the better Spanish horror films, although being in the tradition of "The Devil's Backbone", "Pan's Labyrinth" and "The Orphanage" does not mean that it is nearly as good as any of them. The film tried to go in too many directions at once in what looks like a desire to please everyone from slasher fans to the Twihards and it suffers from a lack of cohesion as a result. It's no good being a jack-of-all-trades because you end up being a master of none, as the saying goes.

Having noted the flaws, it's still an interesting film. It looks like "Twilight" in places, has a cosiness to it like "Fright Night", but ends up being something that "X-Files" fans would appreciate. Spain isn't really known for its horror movies and so it's no great surprise that "Shiver" isn't all that groundbreaking either. It's slightly below average yet a definite step in the right direction from fantasy to more realism in the Spanish horror genre.

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (2010)

"As a string of mysterious killings grips Seattle, Bella, whose high school graduation is fast approaching, is forced to choose between her love for vampire Edward and her friendship with werewolf Jacob."

Well, I'm pleased to say that "Eclipse" was actually better than "New Moon". Despite most people telling me that none of the Twilight films belong in the horror genre even though they have vampires and werewolves in them, I can now say for sure that they do.

Yes, this is a horror movie, rather than a horrible movie, with a teenage love triangle at the heart of it all and I'll tell you why. It has a full on "werewolves versus vampires" war in it! War is horror, death is horror, and giant CGI werewolves ripping pretty teenage vampires to pieces is horror!

So it probably won't go into anybody over the age of thirteen's top ten movies but this was a pretty decent offering for the intended audience. Even those of us who it wasn't really intended for can tune out of the awful soap opera dialogue and revel in the beauty of Rosalie (Nikki Reed) and Alice (Ashley Greene). I think we are all over Bella now even though Kristen Stewart was great as Joan Jett in "The Runaways" recently too.

I really don't care what women think of the boys in the film since I'm not wired that way. I am, however, glad that, even though the werewolves still seem incapable of owning a shirt when they are together, nobody has to see Jacob's chest or abs until well over an hour into the film. If that's all you want to see then I suggest arriving late.

None of them apart from Bella's father can actually act, of course, and there's still very little chemistry between any of them especially in the love triangle itself. Edward (Robert Pattinson) still looks miserable most of the time and Jacob (Taylor Lautner) just seems to be angry. I would probably be angry too if I'd chosen such a totally awful girl as Bella to be in love with rather than one of the pretty vampiresses. She's still hardly the kind of girl that most people would go for and so I suppose it's only fair that two supernatural monsters are the only ones competing for her attention.

Once again Bella is all confused about who she loves most and it's all talk and/or glib comments for nearly an hour. There are a couple of flashback stories for some of the seemingly unimportant characters at this point (just to vainly try to put Bella off wanting to be a vampire herself for five minutes) plus a couple of moments where Edward and Jacob stand really close to each other angrily. The camera stands even closer to everybody though as I don't think I've ever seen so many headshots and close-ups since the last Clearasil advert I saw on TV.

But then things start getting good. No, I don't mean Jacob getting punched in the face when he tries to kiss Bella. Yes, that does happen and I did enjoy it. The Volturi bit part players have turned up and the gang of newborns is homing in on Bella so you just know that big trouble is about to kick off left, right and centre... or as many camera angles, slow-mos and quick cuts as the director, David Slade, can work in.

Of course, before any of this happens, we just have to have one of the most embarrassing and non-erotic teenage fumbles on a bed ever filmed. Nothing really happens of course because Edward wants to wait until they are married even though Bella wants to be diddled before she becomes a vampire. How sweet yet very lame. Better to keep on begging Bella to marry him while the werewolf keeps pushing himself on her too than to give her the good seeing to that she needs. The kiss between the evil vampiress Victoria and whoever the other guy was (Riley?) a few minutes later was twenty times hotter and lasted all of a few seconds.

I probably should also mention the 20 minute three-in-a-tent scene where Edward had to call a still shirtless Jacob in because he didn't have any body heat to keep Bella warm. Yeah, that was his excuse. It all turned into a bit too much of a male bonding session for my liking. Oh, if only this had been an adult film! It did remind me of that really bad "Blair Witch Project" porn parody even down to Bella's woolly hat but I digressed. Yes, once again Edward's idea of keeping Bella safe is to take her where it's most dangerous, on top of a freezing cold snowy mountain. No wonder she decides to give Jacob a proper snog before he goes off trying to kill himself in battle because she agreed to marry the vampire after all.

But, yes, it's all out war from then on. Cullens, werewolves, bad vamps and Uncle Tom Cobbly all run at each other swiping heads off, biting, clawing, pulling off arms and breaking necks. For a PG-rated film this was pretty good!!!

Aw, but I'm giving away the plot. It's not as if you are going to see this anyway since you are reading this review on a horror film blog. Suffice it to say that the final battle between Edward and Victoria is good but nothing to lose your head over. It is amusing how the vampires seem to be made of bone china though and the only blood involved is Bella's.

Jacob manages to get himself injured in another epic CGI werewolf battle and, since there's nothing like kicking a big smelly dog when he's had his back broken and is down, Bella tells him that she has finally chosen Edward over him. There I just saved you $10 which you can donate to my cat food fund on the right if you really want to.

Everything ends with a scene that mirrors the start but now there's a promise of a wedding and some hanky panky to look forward to next time.

So there you have it. Did five minutes of brutal horror action justify nearly two hours of boring teenagers angsting over who they fancied? Well, if you use the same ratio of soap opera to violence that "Wolf Creek" used to qualify as a horror film then yes.

I'm standing by my original statement. "Eclipse" is a horror movie. Not a very horrific horror movie I grant you but it does belong in the genre.

The Twilight Saga: New Moon (2009)

"Edward leaves Bella after an attack that nearly claimed her life, and in her depression she falls into yet another paranormal relationship - this time with werewolf Jacob Black."

What a disappointment. With a change of directors from Catherine Hardwick to Chris Weitz and with what must have been a larger budget after the success of "Twilight", "New Moon" was actually worse not better.

The writers remained the same with Melissa Rosenberg adapting Stephanie Meyer's novel for the big screen but this still wasn't what anybody expected. The pacing of "New Moon" was just far too slow. At over two hours long (actually 130 minutes), it just dragged on and on and was probably worse than reading the book if this was the best that could be made of it.

It seems that fans of the book were again divided with some really pleased that so much was included and others moaning about it being butchered but, honestly, who has the patience for all that? There was just far too much talk which led to absolutely nothing at all apart from more brooding and moping.

The acting was pretty bad this time too so there appeared to be no chemistry between any of the characters. That's a bit of a failure for a romance, I think.

With Edward absent for most of the story, this was Jacob's chance to take over but, having spoiled it all for myself by asking other people who have read the books what happens, I knew it would all be in vain.

All I cared about were the action scenes but there were too few of them. The fight scenes were good but over too quickly and the CGI wolves were actually quite well done too even though they were still obviously CGI.

Cinematically, "New Moon" was filmed well and although it looked a bit different to "Twilight", it was actually easier to watch. There were way to many close-ups which got annoying even if Kristen Stewart is flawless and expressionless enough to stand them. Her constant blinking and twitching was very distracting.

Towards the end, things picked up a little bit with the Volturi but it all seemed to be somewhat rushed. Michael Sheen stood out as Aro but I was so glad that the film was coming to an end by this point, especially after being so bored, that I didn't really even care.

I'm rating "New Moon" as 3 out of 10. If all you want to see is Taylor Lautner's chest then you won't be disappointed.

Oh well, at least I enjoyed my trip to Burger King.

Twilight (2008)

Although hardcore fans of Stephanie Meyer were a bit nonplussed, to say the least, over this movie adaptation of her bestselling vampire novel, I thoroughly enjoyed it. I can imagine that I'm going to take a lot of flak for my opinion, especially as "Twilight" is a movie meant primarily for teenage girls, but I'm willing to take that risk since the story and chemistry between the leading actors is so beautifully done that, if you are willing to overlook some minor flaws, you can't help but fall in love with this film too.

Yes, this film has flaws. Some of the camerawork early on is a bit amateur and some of the stunts are a bit cheesy but, even if this was to be judged by bad movie standards, it was still very entertaining.

I really didn't notice any major goofs though as the relationship between the incredibly strong leads of Kristen Stewart (as Bella) and Robert Pattinson (as Edward) really drew me into the fantasy in ways that only fans of something like "Buffy" or "Angel" could truly appreciate. Yes, this is all very much like a more serious and romantic version of the relationship between Buffy and Angel in the TV series but with a bit more of a "Romeo and Juliet" feel to it. "Star-crossed lovers" is, I believe, the correct expression for this situation.

Underlying the dominant love story though is also a subplot of good vampires against bad vampires and even the hint of werewolves on the horizon. With at least one sequel about to occur pretty soon, it's obvious that as much was being packed into this film as possible to create hooks. It all worked too. There wasn't too much given away but just enough to leave this as a stand alone movie while making the viewer wish there was more. A delicate balance has been achieved and this makes it such a commercial masterpiece that it has the potential to outsell "Harry Potter" now that the original audience of those books and films has grown up and moved on.

I'll mention again that what really drew me in was the acting. The vampire actors are all beautiful rather than just attractive while the humans are shown to be a lot more unkempt and immature even though everyone looks about the same age. Kristen Stewart is the middle ground between these two polarities as she is beautiful yet not quite fully formed as a woman. Her performance was exceptional albeit with some moments of unrealistic dialogue. The character of Bella was just such a paradox that she had to stand out as an attraction for Edward the vampire. She was a lot more controlled and mature than any of her peers yet still awkward enough to be one of them at times too so her reactions were realistic even if her words were not.

At 122 minutes, "Twilight" is a long film which, due to slow pacing, feels even longer. For once though this isn't a bad thing as if it had been trimmed then it could have ended up as just another MTV style teen flick. The added length adds some substance to things and allows the greater character development which will undoubtedly continue into the sequels.

Cinematically, it is a beautiful film to watch. Only one rough piece of camerawork on the beach distracted me for a moment. Everything else was framed perfectly and all the aerial shots, zooms and pans were done effectively. A baseball game used to show the speed and strength of the vampires was a moment of almost comic relief which didn't really work out too well, but at least it is possible to see what was intended. The director, Catherine Hardwicke (of "Lords of Dogtown" fame), still seems to be learning about what works and what doesn't but, since no movie is ever perfect, the pros outweigh the cons especially considering the length.

The biggest problem with this film for horror fans, of course, is not the technical achievements or production values, but like every other vampire film in recent years, it just isn't scary. I can't honestly remember a vampire film apart from certain scenes in "Salem's Lot" ever being scary though. When a lot of Edward Cullen's lines consist of the question, "Are you scared?", it does tend to provoke the audience, in this case me, to say "No" instead of waiting for Bella's equal response.

Really though, "Twilight" is more of a romantic drama with some action rather a real horror genre movie. The potential was never even there in the books, it seems, to make this into anything other than a kind of "Dark Shadows" for the 21st Century. You can't honestly go into this expecting another "30 Days of Night" because it's not going to happen.

There isn't a lot of blood in this considering it's a vampire movie, and any death scenes are pretty much off-camera. I imagine that this was done intentionally to keep it within the PG-13 rating more than anything else. For my tastes, it could have used some harder and more gritty bloodletting, but the target audience should be more than satisfied with what is there.

I've rated "Twilight" as 8 out of 10 based mainly on its value as an entertaining movie. As a horror movie, it is only worth half that score. I still recommend that you watch it though.

Juno (2007)

"Faced with an unplanned pregnancy, an offbeat young woman makes an unusual decision regarding her unborn child."

I'm not sure why I watched this, but I sort of liked it in a "Napoleon Dynamite" kind of way.

It's a Canadian production which is obviously based on the similarly named Korean movie "Jeni Juno". Both deal with the same subject of teenage pregnancy albeit in a slightly different way. No big points for originality here except that nobody is ever likely to watch the Korean version in the first place.

If you think that I've gone soft by reviewing a "girlie film", think again. Ellen Page was the nasty little know-it-all in "Hard Candy" (so no change here!) and there is a section in the middle where she watches a really bad horror movie with Jason Bateman and loses her argument about Argento's "Suspiria" being superior. I hate Argento too so I had a chuckle to myself about that.

Anyway, it was a quirky little film with a soundtrack comprising of those horrible "acoustic guitar and badly sung" songs which you'd find in something like "Weeds" on TV. Everything here was chosen specifically to make this an off-beat cult film for teenage girls who get knocked up everywhere. I didn't like the dialogue too much as it tended to be more than a bit ridiculous for a 16 year old to say half the things which Juno came out with. A lot of it just made me just want to kick her in her big fake pregnant belly.

I did like the overall effort and thought that went into this though even if it did rather ooze with trendy manipulation.

It's all filmed really well and it looks as if a lot more money was spent on it than was probably the case. Good production values in a low-budget independent? Well, there's a first time for everything.

It's no "Ghost World" or "Amelie" but it will certainly satisfy a gap in the niche market for the not-too-arty arthouse film lovers who are really into selfish, wise-cracking, little girls.

Disturbia (2007)

I had to think about "Disturbia" for quite a long time before writing this review. It's yet another one where I was fooled into liking it for its duration but, looking back on it now, it wasn't really all that satisfying.

I remember thinking half an hour into it that it wasn't very good. The opening fishing trip bored me rigid, then the accident was as contrived as possible, and then I sat perplexed as to what happened to Shia LaBoeuf's facial scarring which should have resulted from that accident. He's not the handsomest of young actors anyway so I suppose if he'd had the massive cheek scar that his character sustained earlier on, it would have made him even less appealing to look at. I also didn't care about his Spanish class, his lack of acting ability when he went "berserk" and punched the teacher, and I certainly didn't care about his house arrest or his lack of domestic skills. 30 minutes of all this characterisation was making me ready to switch the film off in disgust.

Then things started to pick up. No, I'm not talking just about the presence of Sarah Roemer who was probably the most beautiful creature I've ever seen. All of a sudden, I just got sucked into this rip-off of "Rear Window" and started to play along. I'm not sure if I was enjoying it or whether I was being duped by the director into thinking that I was watching something cleverer than it was. I started seeing parallels between this and "Brainscan" and then I started to wonder if Shia LeBoeuf would look like Russell Crowe when he was older... and that was it, I was well and truly being sucked into caring about the characters and whether they would manage to foil David Morse's evil plans to insulate his cavity walls with red-headed girls.

Amidst more product placement for Red Bull and Ipods than I've ever seen before, the plot wasn't too bad at all. It couldn't be, it's been done to death a million times before. Once all the finger pointing started, all of a sudden I was thinking of "Fright Night" and then images of Max with Sam's mother in "The Lost Boys" started to fill my mind. Could this film be any more derivative? Could it be any less original? The teenager who nobody believes who has a killer next door is a story as old as the hills.

David Morse was probably the least credible person to play the bad guy. I suppose that was why he cast because he just doesn't look as if he has it in him to do anybody any harm. I just didn't find his trying to be menacing very convincing.

I also still don't believe that Shia LeBoeuf would ever get a girl who looked like Sarah Roemer in real life nor did I totally understand what he did to the video camera to make it transmit a fuzzy signal back to his computer. I'll try breaking some of my expensive electronics later to see if I can replicate it. Maybe not. There were just too many things that didn't add up for me to shake this feeling that I was being fooled into believing what all reason was telling me to reject.

And so when the ever so exciting yet totally predictable finale occurred complete with music pumping away to stimulate what little grey matter was still active in my brain, I could no longer struggle against it any more and actually started to care if Carrie-Anne Moss got rescued or not.

Yup, it got me hook, line and sinker... a bit like the fish at the start of this 105 minute adventure into Stupidland. I'm not giving it more than 3 out of 10. In fact, I'm giving it 3 out of 10 just for Sarah Roemer. I might have given it 8 out of 10 if I hadn't thought about it. That makes me feel dirty inside.