It Follows (2014)

"A young woman is followed by an unknown supernatural force after getting involved in a sexual encounter."

I've tried several times to get all the way through "It Follows" in one sitting, but I can't do it. Either I don't have the attention span anymore (which is unlikely) or it's just too boring as shit for me to want to. Thus, this isn't going to be a review as much as it will be some general bitching about the parts of "It Follows" which I noted before hitting fast-forward to get the torture over with.

From reading through what some of my online friends had to say about this movie, I understand that "It Follows" is supposed to be all "faux retro"—and it clearly seems to appeal to the hipstery "millennial" demographic who ironically weren't even alive back in the '70s, '80s, or even the '90s—but surely it should be meant for people my age (mid-40s) in that case too? So why doesn't "It Follows" generate all those happy nostalgia feelings for me? What's wrong with this picture?

The simple fact of the matter is that "It Follows" isn't to my taste as a movie. Not only are its non-specific retro qualities forced, pretentious, and inconsistent, but the slow-paced story is a load of meaningless and padded drivel with no satisfactory explanation for the "creature" or any danger of a cathartic payoff at the end.

Although the acting and dialogue is fine, the characters are somewhat flat, unlikeable, and sexually unappealing, and are too young and from the wrong country to have any cultural relevance to me even with my obligatory suspension of disbelief. As I can't identify or sympathise with American teenagers, there's no development of pathos possible.

Most importantly, however, as is the case with all new horror movies, "It Follows" is not in the least bit scary!

You'd have to tie me to a chair to make me watch this movie ever again.

I've often encountered arguments where someone says that "scary" is subjective. Well, it is to a point. Some people have varying degrees of phobias about certain things, for instance, big hairy spiders, and some people don't have any fear of those things at all. But in the case of any "scary movie", it's pretty much failed in its purpose if it doesn't have a percentage of scary for even the lowest common denominator. There are also universals which can be identified as potentially scary for other people even if you aren't scared of those things yourself, but "It Follows" doesn't contain any of them. It may be R-rated, but it's not even worth bringing the extremely sparse and still not scary "gory bits" into this discussion.

What "It Follows" does have is a decent score which sounds like John Carpenter composed parts of it (except he didn't, it was Rich Vreeland), and some initial visual similarities to "Halloween" (1978). Of course, you can film nearly any residential streets in America during Autumn and they'll look a lot like the ones in "Halloween" because nothing architecturally important has changed in the last 40 or more years. Arguing about that aspect is clearly redundant. "It Follows" is set in Detroit, Michigan, rather than Haddonfield, Illinois (or really South Pasadena, California), which only reinforces my point that America looks the same everywhere anyway.

Another big homage is to Jacques Tourneur's "Cat People" (1942) which is apparent with the indoor swimming pool scene, but it's hardly an exact match and isn't meant to be. In fact, "It Follows" owes way more to "Final Destination" (2000) for the core of its narrative, plus Brundlefly's vain attempt to delay the inevitable from "The Fly" (1986), than anything which it tips blatant nods towards. Let's face it, if you really need an allegory about sexually transmitted diseases, Bram Stoker's "Dracula" will always be the classic. It doesn't exactly take a genius to see the similarities between vampire legends and "It Follows" either.

It needed more cats. Any cats. Cats would have made it better.

I'm not the kind of philistine who would ever be stupid enough to argue that David Robert Mitchell doesn't know how to make a movie or hasn't done a great job with "It Follows" when it comes to the outstanding cinematography (which only has a few glaringly ragged handheld shots), but it's the languid pace of this thing which kills it. I'm not joking when I say that if I had to watch this movie more than once, it would soon become my go-to fix for insomnia.

One final little rant and I'm done.

I've read a ton of stuff about Maika Monroe being the new "scream queen" of horror and all that usual crap, but I don't get it. Yeah, she's an above average actress as well as being a pretty-ish blonde with only occasionally annoying lapses into vocal fry and all that jazz (for those who care), but she's certainly no Fay Wray, Ingrid Pitt, Delphine Seyrig, or even an Edwige Fenech (who wasn't blonde). I think many people need to think before throwing that "scream queen" title about willy-nilly.

And since I've accidentally mentioned it, I couldn't care less about the nudity and "sexy bits". For one thing, I'm British and nudity doesn't bother me in the slightest, and second, even the tamest porn site on the internet will show you more than "It Follows" has to offer. I have to admit that Leisa Pulido playing Greg's mother is quite the MILF though.

There are simply some movies which you know right away aren't meant for you, and lamentably, I'll have to concede that "It Follows" wasn't meant for me.

If you feel like pointing out exactly which parts of "It Follows" an adult should find shit-yer-pants-scary, you can post them in the comments section below.

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.

Carrie (2013)

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

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

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

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

"Plug it up! Plug it up!"

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

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

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

"Eve was weak! Eve was weak!"

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

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

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

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

"They're all gonna laugh at you."

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

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

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

Time of the month?

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

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

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

Nice poster.

The Dirties (2013)

"Two best friends are filming a comedy about getting revenge on the bullies at their high school. One of them isn't joking."

If you're expecting "The Dirties" to be another "Rampage" (2009), think again. "The Dirties" is amateur handycam crap of the highest order with semi-decent acting wasted on an unoriginal plot which ultimately peters out and stops dead just as the excitement begins. It's all talk, very little action, and mostly unconvincing characters.

Apart from the location, "The Dirties" is far too similar to Samuel N. Benavides's "None Left Standing" (2005) for those of us who know our low-budget movies. Although "The Dirties" isn't a blatant rip-off and doesn't focus on a descent into madness as well, it's certainly in the same vein. Both are about a trio of students making a film with one of them being dangerously obsessive.

The difference, of course, is that "The Dirties" uses a no-budget student film within another no-budget student film as its novelty "meta" contrivance. The levels of metafiction reach their peak with Matthew Johnson not only acting as himself but also being the director and writer of this disappointing drivel. He doesn't do a bad job for a jack-of-all-trades (and master of none), but I would love to see Canadian filmmakers come up with something more original rather than lazily reworking American movie tropes to death.

Because of its borrowings, I'm not sure if "The Dirties" is supposed to be "found footage" of some kind or if it's meant to be a bizarrely filmed "fly on the wall" drama. Either way, it failed for me aesthetically and stylistically. The unseen cameraman (who I think is called "Ed" at one point) brings up too many questions about who is filming what and why, and it threw me out of the movie several times.

As far as stories about high schools and bullies go, "The Dirties" is full of the usual clichés; jocks versus nerds and all that bullshit which, as a Brit, I never encountered and can't identify with no matter how many times the same stereotypes are forced on me. There's nothing that any of the kids do in this movie that a good old-fashioned punch in the mouth wouldn't have solved if only the emasculated characters stood up for themselves. I know this is Canadian, but Americans and Brits are usually so mouthy about expressing everything that I can't even get my head around the internalisation which leads to isolation, self-destruction, or murder. In Canada, where the myth is that everybody is nicer and less selfish, the frustration caused by repression is maybe less puzzling.

Prior to watching "The Dirties", I came across an interesting documentary called "Bullied to Death: The Tragedy of Phoebe Prince" (2010) which covers the subject of American high school bullying and its psychological effects a lot better. But, as someone whose only experience of attempted bullying has been as a "victim" of the online geek-cliques of hypocrital prudes, their whiteknights, and "flaggots" who I laugh at for being so childish, I still don't quite understand how such things are allowed to escalate. Maybe kids need to find better ways to deal with their frustrations like going outside once in a while, helping someone less fortunate, or stroking a cat.

Teenagers are nasty buggers anyway, and every modern movie and documentary which shows the younger generation and their infantilised parents is an argument to bring back corporal (and capital) punishment. In my day, a few hard whacks with a cane would've sorted everything out. But enough of me on my soapbox. Suffice it to say that the predictably violent but very brief (and punch-pulling) ending of "The Dirties" is the culmination of what happens when you spare the rod and spoil the child.

"The Dirties" isn't a movie recreating Columbine or any of the other famous school shootings, nor is it meant to be, but what it's trying to say as a drama about teenage relationships, loneliness, and a kid who can't tell fiction from reality anymore doesn't work either. It's all too tame, and even an old British kids' TV show like "Grange Hill" dealt with the topics in a more controversial and satisfying way over 30 years ago.

If you're looking for something gritty, I recommend skipping this one.

Fright Night 2: New Blood (2013)

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

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

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

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

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

Nice teeth!

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

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

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

British nerds playing American nerds.

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

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

uwantme2killhim? (2013)

"A teenage boy's descent into the dangerous world of the Internet and the harrowing consequences of his actions. A true story."

Based on a news story originally published by Vanity Fair, "uwantme2killhim?" is the off-putting txt-speak title of Andrew Douglas' somewhat flawed dramatisation. It's written like that for reasons which will become obvious (except that spaces are used in the chat room scene), but those of us of a certain age who have never succumbed to typing like an idiot are more likely to pass this movie by as something which is meant for teenagers. That's a real shame too, since there's a semi-decent psychological thriller lurking within.

It's not the best movie in the world (it looks like a cheap British soap opera), but "uwantme2killhim?" tries hard to present a true story which is far stranger than fiction in an entertaining manner. Artistic licence intentionally prevents you from seeing the whole picture until the end, and depending on how much you think the story could have been more realistic, you will probably still agree that it's quite cleverly done. For anyone taking the movie at face value, however, the ending will feel like an enormous cheat.

The biggest problem though, other than changing the names, ages, and location to protect the not-so-innocent, is that the characters feel "wrong" in every scene. It's not just the clichés, everything they do and say reeks of fakery. To some extent it's intentional, but a lot of it is simply because the casting is questionable and the acting stinks. Not knowing how much is meant to be one way or the other until after the movie ends would be metafiction genius if handled better, but it's more likely to throw you out of the story than draw you in.

Who cut your hair? Dewhursts?

It isn't an issue that the characters talk to their computer screens as they type their words into a chatroom, we've all done that before. One character uses speech recognition software anyway, but it's easy to accept the movie convention when the others are clearly not using Microsoft NetMeeting or the yet to be invented Skype. I remember using Microsoft NetMeeting and a webcam at the end of the '90s, so the use of 2003 technology is spot-on otherwise. If you're feeling nostalgic for 2003, this is about as good as it gets without watching a movie which was actually made then.

Similarly, the school scenes may seem contrived and particularly horrible, but they are awkwardly realistic and familiar too for some bizarre reason which I can't quite put my finger on. Maybe it's because I've tried to forgot what it was like to be a very British teenager. The sad truth is that we're all complete dicks between 14-18 (and older!) with no exceptions, and I can recognise a lot of myself and my former school friends in the characters. Not that we were teenagers in the 2000s, but some things are universal. For the sake of not committing libel, all I can say is that we were some vile and immature little buggers.

While Channel 4's much shorter docu-drama version, "Kill Me If You Can" (2005), is slightly better overall, "uwantme2killhim?" isn't a bad "remake". Andrew Douglas' "The Amityville Horror" (2005) wasn't as strong as the original either, but as he's hardly a prolific director, maybe it's too early to say if there's a pattern forming.

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.

Ghost Shark (2013)

"It's a shark that's a ghost. Need anything else?"

A lot of people avoid reviewing "Syfy Original" movies, and after watching "Ghost Shark", I can see why. Not only is this one not a patch on "Sharknado", but it doesn't even try to be anything better. "Ghost Shark" is just a lazy piece of made-for-TV filmmaking with no redeeming qualities other than the silliness of its premise and several blatant homages to "Jaws".

Knowing that there's nobody in "Ghost Shark" who I've ever heard of apart from morbidly obese Shawn C. Phillips (aka "Coolduder" from YouTube) should have been my warning not to proceed any further once the "good stuff" in the opening five-minute scene was over, but I foolishly left it playing for company as I clipped my toenails and arranged them in jars. It has to be done, and I came to the conclusion a long time ago that this is the best use for Syfy channel movies anyway.

As expected, the acting in "Ghost Shark" is all over the place, from feeble to mediocre, and the youngest-looking girl mumbles her lines so badly that the movie would benefit from subtitles. For obvious reasons including the budget and casting choices, it looks and feels like a glorified YouTube video, albeit one filmed with high-end equipment. The cheap gore effects and CGI are the only things which are somewhat entertaining in spite of themselves, but this isn't an intentionally made to be "so bad it's good" movie, it's just plain bad.

As usual, there are no characters to care about, the clichéd "teenagers" (several of whom are pushing 30 in real life!) are annoyingly entitled and selfish, and the adults aren't any better. The story is so rushed that none of them are given any time to grieve over their best friends or relatives who've been eaten by the ghost shark, but I doubt that they'd even know how to display those emotions if they were given the chance to.

You're going to need a bigger shed!

The scenes with the ghost shark go from mildly credible (considering the nature of the story) to ludicrous as this Great White doesn't remain in the sea. Taking things several steps too far, our piscine villain pops up in a freshwater swimming pool, comes out of burst pipes, and even leaps out of the rain! Yes, "Ghost Shark" really does exploit the term "jumping the shark" quite literally, which I suppose is kind of the point.

I'm not sure who the target audience is for this crap, but it certainly isn't me. Although I admit to being out of touch with "kids today" and what passes for entertainment in their ADHD world, I don't understand why or how these Syfy movies keep getting made for the two or three hundred people who watch them. I don't think I'll be watching any more.

Durr dumb... durr dumb...

Beneath (2013)

"Six high school seniors celebrating with day's excursion find themselves on rowboat attacked by man-eating fish and must decide who must be sacrificed as they fight their way back to shore."

As much as I would like to write "Beneath" off as nothing but a load of bickering teenagers who you've never heard of (plus Mark Margolis in a creepy cameo) being menaced by a more evil version of the big fish from "The Singing Ringing Tree" (1957), I really can't. For what it is, which is another highly sanitised Chiller TV movie, "Beneath" is far more entertaining than most of the sources it homages, but not in a good way.

Essentially, what director Larry Fessenden has done is rip-off the only good segment of "Creepshow 2", throw in a healthy dollop of "Lifeboat" (or "Lifepod"), and then stir-it all up with some pop culture references, a little bit of social commentary, and even some trendy GoPro camera product placement. All this without any nudity or swearing too! The guy is clearly a genius! Or not, as the case may be.

The biggest problem, other than the ridiculously ginormous piranha-style fish, is that the script isn't very good. The characters are so poorly written that even though you can see that everyone is trying their hardest to act and take it all seriously, there's nothing much for anyone to work with. As a result, there's not one likeable character, and the story becomes little more than a "slasher in water" as you just wait and hope for each annoying idiot to meet his or her demise.

All of them are toast fish food.

The great thing about "Beneath" is that it isn't a comedy. Of course the giant fish is one of the most poorly realised practical creature effects in any movie about giant fish since "Jaws", but as the story progresses, it becomes easier to accept its existence than to believe that the teenagers are really teenagers or were ever friends with each other. Their reactions are more wooden than the bored hosts who used to take the boats of tourists round the "Jaws" ride at Universal Studios, which, alas, is no longer a future employment option for anyone involved in this production.

The gore is surprisingly good for a hypocritical American TV movie with various cuts, bites, slashes, and dismembered limbs oozing blood all over the place. It's not to the same standard as "Piranha 3D", but "Beneath" obviously didn't have the same $24,000,000 budget to play with. I'd be amazed if this movie had even a third of the $1,000,000 budget that The Asylum sets as a maximum for each of their mockbusters.

As with every low-budget abomination nowadays, the camerawork isn't exactly brilliant, and the oh-so-important GoPro inserts make things look even worse. If you can get past that, there's barely any tension in the teenagers' predicament either. There is some, but it's mostly ruined by the stupidity of their childish behaviour. A different director might have got a better balance, but it is what it is. I've got a feeling that Larry Fessenden knew exactly what he was doing. I just can't prove it.

If you're a grumpy old misanthropist like me who is always on the look-out for something else to hate about people, "Beneath" has a lot to say about smartasses, snarkiness, white knighting, entitlement issues, relationships, cliques, and, basically, how disgustingly selfish today's teenagers are. It's almost as good as reading through the online dramas on horror message boards! The only difference is that everyone gets what they deserve this time! And it's glorious! Absolutely glorious!

"Das singende, klingende Bäumchen" has a lot to answer for!

The Demented (2013)

"Six college friends unite for a weekend getaway where they find themselves fighting for their lives after a terrorist attack turns the local residents into rage infused zombies."

Gah! Another generic zombie movie which unfolds as a checklist of every formula, trope and cliché. Having said that, "The Demented" is put together more competently than most of these "Night of the Living Dead" and "28 Days Later" clones.

I'm not sure what the budget was for this movie, but apart from too many quick cuts during the action scenes, it looks quite professional. The locations are good, the pacing doesn't lag, the gore is realistic, and it even has some fairly decent acting in it. Unfortunately, there are no characters to care about unless you think any of them are hot. The pretty "teenagers" are as poorly defined as ever; the curse of trendy teen horror strikes again!

Everyone makes the same stupid decisions that you've seen a thousand times before although, in fairness, these are young Americans so what do you expect? There's hardly a brain cell among them considering that they are supposed to be "college students". I'd hazard a guess that they attend a community college rather than a University though, and they clearly haven't seen enough zombie films to know how to survive. How the latter could happen in a world saturated by zombie movies is anyone's guess.

One contrived scene where the black guy (yes, you know what is bound to happen to him!) swerves to avoid a little girl Rage-zombie after just running over an adult male Rage-zombie only a few minutes earlier is shark-jumping of the highest order. This same character also has no problem with using a baseball bat on an infected dog! Aw, but zombie kids are sacred. The ethical double-standards and levels of hypocrisy in this movie know no bounds!

I like pretty girls!

"The Demented" stars Kayla Ewell, Richard Kohnke, Ashlee Brian, Brittney Alger, Sarah Butler, and Michael Welch, but I have no idea who any of them are apart from the two girls in the picture above. Kayla Ewell is from "The Vampire Diaries" and Sarah Butler had the lead in the "I Spit on Your Grave" remake. It's safe to assume that everyone else is from TV shows.

As this is Christopher Roosevelt's directorial debut, I'm willing to let a few things slide and even admit that the "double-ending" of a dream followed by the more downbeat reality is a nice touch. It's not original, of course, but it's satisfying. Did I just spoil it? No, along with everything else, it's even in the trailer!

The bottom line is that "The Demented" is a rather entertaining but instantly forgettable "beer and pizza flick". You can play a good drinking game by taking a shot every time somebody refers to the rest of the group as "guys" too. Just be prepared to have your stomach pumped afterwards.

If you haven't seen any other running Rage-zombie movie EVER, you'll enjoy "The Demented". But what are the chances of that?

"The Demented" will be released on DVD and Blu-ray on July 30th, 2013.

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.

The Collection (2012)

"A man who escapes from the vicious grips of the serial killer known as The Collector is blackmailed to rescue an innocent girl from the killer's booby-trapped warehouse."

If you can survive the migraine-inducing, pop video-style opening credits or you're a teenager, you might enjoy the latest "Aliens" remake known as "The Collection". Okay, so there are no aliens in it, but for those of us who are a bit older, it's exactly the same story as "Aliens" (1986) give or take a lot more gore and torture.

I'll be honest, I didn't like "The Collector" (2009) apart from the alternative ending. I much prefer the 1965 cat friendlier version. Arkin isn't a character that I can relate to, and to be blunt, "The Collector" is too far-fetched, has no tension, it looks cheap, and it bores me to tears.

So why did I watch "The Collection"? Well, I suppose I had to since it's the last horror movie of the year with a worldwide theatrical release. I still didn't really want to review it, but I needed to justify my reasons for hating it as much as all the other grumpies.

Here we go again!

Let's begin with the completely alienating characters. No, they're still not aliens, but they might as well be. What do I have in common with teenage nightclubbers or rich people? Since at least 1994, nothing. 1994 was the last time I set a foot inside a nightclub, and even then I only had one pint of beer before I left. I can't remember the music that was playing, but it was loud enough to make my ears ring for the next four hours so I decided to call it a day. As for rich people, yeah, I wish. I certainly don't have anything in common with Newt, I mean Arkin (Josh Stewart), either.

I love torture movies or "torture porn" (if you want to call them that) so I will admit that the giant lawnmower shenanigans in the nightclub are kind of cool. Of course, it's all as ridiculous as any of the traps in "The Collector" or the "Saw" movies so take any praise I give with a huge pinch of salt.

The other torture scenes in "The Collection" are more about the aftermath than really seeing anything so it's a huge bait and switch for the most part. A tongue gets pulled out and there are a couple of scary spiders in the first half hour, but that's it until the Space Commandos, I mean "small private army" on a rescue mission, are led into The Collector's lair by Arkin. In formulaic slasher style, the barely-defined cannon fodder start getting picked off one by one in various unpleasant ways by old Gimp-face and his drugged-up or booby-trapped victims.

The next 20 minutes up the ante with some decent impalements, but there's still nobody to care about or anything that you haven't seen before. Like I said, there isn't that much to see anyway, just a lot of screaming to make up for it. Our kidnapped heroine, Elena (Emma Fitzpatrick) befriends an instantly predictable blonde nutjob who you know is going to be trouble, and the grunts all look worried or intense as they manage to get themselves decimated. Surprisingly spry for someone just out of hospital, Arkin decides to ditch the grunts in favour of whatever his own agenda may be.

At around 50 minutes in (I know because I was timing it), some tension is generated as the remaining cast members locate and rescue the pretty member of the Space Commandos before she's cut to pieces by a net full of razorblades. It's easily the best part of the movie, but it's too little and far too late.

The resulting scene is just an excuse for the poetically-justified demise of the kooky blonde, more animal cruelty (but who cares because it's only dogs this time anyway), and the loss of the reason why they all went into the hotel for all of a minute. On the bright side, thanks to Arkin being clever, a S.W.A.T. team shows up but does nothing except call the fire department! Boring, boring, boring!

Lock her in a cage until her hair grows!

The final minutes contain some of the most ludicrous things I've ever seen in a horror/action movie. After escaping from a cage by having his already broken arm rebroken, Arkin then has it reset and heals in a way that Bruce Wayne in "The Dark Knight Rises" would be proud of. As if there wasn't enough lack of realism in "The Collection" in the first place!

The climax is then like something out of a console game with The Collector (Randall Archer) very much as the "final boss". There's a "surprise" self-sacrifice by the lead Space Commando, the female Space Commando (who just happens to be black!) has been on borrowed time anyway so she's out, and the now seemingly superhuman Arkin metamorphoses into Ripley to beat the crap out of The Collector without even the need of a yellow space forklift! All that's missing is the famous "Get away from her, you bitch!" line.

In its favour, "The Collection" isn't bad looking (it looks better than the "Saw" movies anyway), and Elena is far from being the most annoying or useless heroine in a horror/action movie. She doesn't do a lot until the end, but what she does is important even if the result of her actions in saving Arkin allow The Collector to escape his fiery death too. Talk about unsatisfying!

But wait, there's more! Not content with one ending which promises a sequel, there are actually two! Worse than that, there's a small loophole in the epilogue which might mean that Arkin has the wrong man! It's doubtful, but now there'll probably be a second sequel, a third, and God knows how many more every year to replace the "Saw" franchise. Oh, no, that's all we need!

I don't know about you, but I can barely wait for the next installment set in a prison full of English skinheads.

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.

Night of the Demons 2 (1994)

"High-schoolers throw a Halloween party in a mansion haunted by a young demon."

You've probably guessed it already from my last post, but this week is "Night of the Demons" week for me. Although I don't particularly like any of these movies, I thought it was about time to get them all out of the way so that I never have to watch the stupid things ever again.

"Night of the Demons 2", directed by Brian Trenchard-Smith (of "BMX Bandits" fame), is arguably the best of the 'Night of the Demons" sequels but it's still not a very good horror film and is very much a product of the '90s when nobody was really watching serious horror anyway.

In 1994, everybody was into vampires of one kind or another and, of course, Brian Trenchard-Smith wasn't silly enough not to notice the trend. The trouble was that he chose to work many stupid bits from "The Lost Boys" (1987) into "Night of the Demons 2" while, obviously due to his own nationality, also homaging a certain New Zealand movie - Peter Jackson's "Braindead" - from a couple of years earlier.

So, instead of being a real horror movie, once again "Night of the Demons 2" fell flat on its face into the horror-comedy genre and we all know how much I hate those. It's lamentable that it could have been a very good film if it had been treated more seriously or maybe had a bigger budget rather than equalling that of original.

I suppose what gives this movie a special place in a lot of horror fans' "guilty pleasures list" is the abundance of nudity and the softcore sex scenes. I was pleasantly surprised by all the hot actresses including Cristi Harris, Christine Taylor (yes, the one married to Ben Stiller), and Zoe Trilling (from "Amityville: The Evil Escapes"). I'm not going to say anything much about their acting since nearly all the actors in this were only eyecandy, but they weren't too bad.

In case you are thinking that it's all boobs and blood, "Night of the Demons 2" does have a slightly better story to it than the first movie, a lot of teen romances going on, and, of course, a nun who "kicks ass for the Lord" even more than Father McGruder.

Sister Gloria, played by Jennifer Rhodes, was easily the most famous member of the cast at the time and was still kind of hot for her age. Is it wrong to fancy nuns who wear make-up and lipstick? Maybe that's why they don't. You'd think that someone would have pointed that out during the filming but, like so many other goofs, plotholes and flaws, I doubt that anyone even cared.

Things which stood out for me in a really bad way were Merle Kennedy's awful haircut, the cat scene which promised something very evil (but, fortunately, didn't go that way), the demonic Angela (once again played by Amelia Kinkade who looked too old for the part) failing at being sexy, and, because it was trying to be "The Lost Boys" at the end, the demons were now very much vampires who could be defeated in the same ways.

Squirt guns and balloons full of Holy water, crucifixes, sunlight, and even an overused offer of self-sacrificing substitution lifted from "Salem's Lot" (or "The Exorcist" to give credit to the original source) really hammered home the lack of originality throughout this very commercial pulp horror product.

The practical effects were okay. For those who loathe CGI, there was even some early use of that too but certainly not of the same calibre as "Jurassic Park" from the year before. It was cheap, nasty CGI which really jumped the shark (or the snake) especially right at the end.

Even though I pretty much hated 90% of "Night of the Demons 2", it was actually quite watchable. I didn't have to switch it off a couple of dozen times and come back to it, and I'm quite proud of myself for making it through in one sitting. I was going to put it in "The Dungeon" but, in fairness, it belongs in the "Just Average" category due to the time it was made. There were far less entertaining films which came out in 1994, and, unfortunately, I've seen those too.

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.

Jennifer's Body (2009)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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