Still nothing good to review

Every so often I think about reviewing something again, but unfortunately, there's been nothing worth watching this year. The quality (and quantity) of new horror movies is even worse than last year, and the year before, and the year before that. There are lots of reasons for this, but the blame mostly lies with lack of talent and new ideas. It doesn't help that the various nepotistic cliques of niche reviewers keep praising utter shit (when they aren't writing lazy nostalgia pieces) because it's all they have left to talk about.

The only "Summer movie" I watched.

Yes, we've had "The Conjuring 2" which deserves some kind of mention for trying to match its sets to how things looked in the Enfield poltergeist haunting videos on YouTube. I noticed the pop posters and had a bit of fun trying to identify the ones which were obviously different or in the wrong places. The Bay City Rollers, David Soul, and Joanna Lumley posters were close, but I don't remember The Kinks pullout poster from Jackie magazine actually being one of the girls' decorations. I also have some concerns over the family owning 1960s-style telephones (especially the wall-mounted kitchen phone) rather than trimphones from the late 1970s, but I can let that pass as "good enough". British telecommunications were not this movie's focus or forte. As for jump-scares, yeah, the nun-demon got me, and old Reg had a good moment.

Some people remarked how "The Conjuring 2" felt like more of a Christmas movie than anything else (duh, because it's set at Christmas), and I have nothing else to add to that uber "insightful" (oh God, that awful low-brow word overused by sheep across the internet!) observation. It's not Christmassy like "Gremlins", but the seasonal trappings are there in the background if you bother to look for them.

Maybe I should congratulate James Wan on trying his hardest to make heroes out of a pair of known charlatans. I'd never even heard of the Warrens before "The Conjuring", mainly because I don't really "do" paranormal investigation bullshit, and of course, I'm not American. According to ghosthunter Harry Price, the Warrens only turned up once, very briefly, and weren't big players in the Enfield poltergeist investigation at all. Patrick Wilson singing an Elvis song as Ed Warren is also a bit weird, out of place, but probably kind of nice for the ladies. So kudos for having very little historical accuracy then. But hey, the whole thing was a hoax anyway, so who even cares?

Not the worst thing I've ever seen but damned close.

I've also watched some horrid Kevin Bacon movie called "The Darkness". It's filled with clichés and the usual predictable possession guff, albeit with a couple of seemingly original "native American" touches which fall flat. Typical Blumhouse shit and as worthless and instantly forgettable as everything else they churn out. I think they tried to make it controversial by having an autistic kid in it and making him even more evil than autistic kids usually are in movies, but it didn't work out too well. Most "reviewers" simply saw Kevin Bacon attached, exclaimed "Doesn't he look old now?", and that was the highlight for them. "The Darkness" was rendered virtually unwatchable, however, by being filmed with a handycam with its very noticeable quivers and judders. Could nobody afford a tripod? Perhaps they spent all the budget on advertising their website. I don't know and don't care.

From other genres, "Green Room" bored me rigid. American Nazis (for lack of a better term) imprison a punk band in their backwoods concert hall and much merriment fails to ensue. I couldn't understand what that Yeltsin guy (who died by running himself over this year) said in any of his mumbled lines, and the namby-pamby feebleness of the instantly unlikable characters frustrated me. A couple of gunshot effects were undoubtedly cool near the end, but "Romper Stomper" is still the go-to movie if you like this kind of thing.

Fuck me, I liked something!

The biggest theatrical release for me was "Gods of Egypt". I actually enjoyed "Gods of Egypt" to the extent that I got threatened with physical assault on Facebook (and one person blocked me) because I dared to like something. The fucked-up-ness of that whole situation is quite hilarious. I've seen people getting all bent out of shape because I didn't like something but never the opposite. Even my infamous and blatant love for the "Twilight" movies never went that far. To this day, people still bitch about how I liked an incredibly successful franchise which they consider to be "non-horror" even though it had vampires and werewolves in it, while at the same time, they rave about their shitty horror-comedies which are even less worthy of being part of the genre. Some people, as we know, are just nuts.

Don't get me wrong, "Gods of Egypt" isn't a great movie, but it's easily as good as "Clash of the Titans" or any of those other adventures meant for little kids. It looks fantastic, the story is okay-ish, and it certainly didn't wreck Egyptian mythology as much as "Immortals" shat all over the ancient Greek legends a few years ago. I saw some SJW bullshit about "whitewashing" with the casting, but since those comments came from people who have no education or faintest idea about the diverse ethnicity in Ancient Egypt, I can laugh that off. There's no point arguing online with liberals, SJWs, or any other brainwashed "causers" because their combined IQs are less than a tin of pilchards. They clearly didn't watch the movie anyway, because if they had, they would have realised that there are more black characters than any other race portrayed. It may be one actor (Chadwick Boseman playing Thoth) repeated hundreds of times, but it still counts!

Starring lots of beautiful actresses whose names I can't remember.

Lastly, as far as new movies go, I watched "The Huntsman: Winter's War" and almost loved it. Again, nothing all that new, and no Kristen Stewart in it, but it has some nice bawdy British humour and a little bit of visual subtext which reduces the current "gender wars" (which really only exist in fake realities such as American college campuses or online, you know) into the minuscule kerfuffle that they truly are. If you don't pick up on it, you aren't good at reading images and certainly shouldn't review movies.

Among many things I've boycotted, I obviously haven't watched the remake/re-imagining/reboot/sequel of "Ghostbusters" because I don't like horror-comedies and didn't ever like the original or its sequel. The original failed at everything I call entertaining, apart from the one scene with the old woman/librarian ghost, and is just too sickeningly "American" for my taste. In other words, its comedy is fucking lame. Big deal that they changed all the genders, I couldn't care less if they replaced the characters with talking bags of shit. I doubt that anyone would notice the difference, but it's possible that I'd be more inclined to watch it if they had. Replace the cast with cats though, and I'd definitely watch the next one.

Please don't make any more of these!

Thanks to Amazon Prime (and a mixture of curiosity and boredom), I suffered through the three "Divergent" movies. I had no idea what to expect, and now wish I hadn't wasted my time. They are full of "pretty" talent, owe a lot to "Starship Troopers", and have some decent eyecandy here and there, but sci-fi blows anyway, and this is particularly shit sci-fi at that. When the kids all celebrated one of their minor victories by self-harming with tattoos, that was enough for me. I'm not the target audience for this crap, and even if I was, such trendy teen sci-fi has really gone downhill since "The Hunger Games" ripped off "Battle Royale".

In other news, I may start a new blog eventually about computer games. Aside from making cat videos and intentionally awful 5-hour podcasts, I've been playing computer games more than watching movies this year because, as I said at the start, this has already been a truly shit year for movies, and it isn't going to get any better.

Warm Bodies (2013)

"After R (a highly unusual zombie) saves Julie from an attack, the two form a relationship that sets in motion a sequence of events that might transform the entire lifeless world."

"Warm Bodies" feels like an unofficial sequel to George A. Romero's "Land of the Dead" (2005) but toned-down to a PG-13 rating for the "Twilight" crowd using a similarly romantic story. Apparently, it's based on a book by Isaac Marion. I probably don't need to tell you that I've never read it and probably never will do either.

Essentially, it's another "Romeo and Juliet" designed to cash in on the last dregs of the zombie craze which has already gone way beyond annoying. On the plus side, "Warm Bodies" is quite decently made and enjoyable enough to watch. The slow pace and teenage comedy will put a lot of people off this one though. Once again, it's not really a horror movie.

Everybody will be comparing "Warm Bodies" to "Twilight" so I might as well get those aspects out of the way. Yes, the lead zombie is English just like Robert Pattinson and even looks a bit like him from some angles. His name, "R", could even be an homage to Robert Pattinson if you are dumb enough to not push it all the way to it's Shakespearean predecessor. The girl is, by necessity, Julie in case you still don't get it. And just like "Romeo and Juliet", "Twilight", and every other love story, they fancy each other but can't be together because they are from different worlds... blah, blah, blah. I can't really complain about "Warm Bodies" too much given my status as one of the few "Twilight-friendly" horror bloggers, but I didn't really get a lot out of it.

Nicholas Hoult (Tony from "Skins") and Teresa Palmer (Vanessa from "The Grudge 2") are okay in their roles. There's nothing special to report about them one way or another. They look the part except that they are both too old to play teenagers now. I'm not sure if they are meant to be teenagers really though. I was going to bitch about them mumbling enough to be teenagers, but I now think that's intentional.

Rob Corddry as "M" (which turns out to stand for Marcus not Mercutio) has the best lines, but isn't very memorable. I have no idea what he's been in before although I'd guess it was a lot of TV shows along with the rest of the cast. Again, there's nothing wrong with his performance. It is what it is.

Hipsters who have never seen any other films starring John Malkovich will love that he is also in this for a couple of phoned-in minutes as Julie's father. He's a bit miscast and would be more appropriate as Julie's grandfather given his age, but then it wouldn't be so obviously a "Romeo and Juliet" knock-off as intended.

Ultimately, it's nice to see that Jonathan Levine has directed something again after "All the Boys Love Mandy Lane" (2006), but "Warm Bodies" is a bit bland and very predictable. It looks nice, the "boney" zombies might scare small children, yet it's not an exciting "zombie gorefest" by any stretch of the imagination.

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 2 (2012)

"After the birth of Renesmee, the Cullens gather other vampire clans in order to protect the child from a false allegation that puts the family in front of the Volturi."

I can't believe it!!! The final chapter of the series which polarised and ostracised me from every other horror fan is over!!! And guess what? They saved the best for last! Oh my God, "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 2" rocks! I hate to say it, but I TOLD YOU SO!

Bella is now a beautiful vampire, her half-mortal child with Edward is growing fast, and Jacob takes his shirt off for the last time. For some of us, the latter is a relief. The romance is still there, but now it's more adult and complicated. Plus the Volturi are back with a vengeance!

The thing which everyone has been moaning and whining about since the very first "Twilight" movie has finally happened... this one is a HORROR movie! Yes, real horror! We're shown a full-on epic battle between Cullens, Quileutes and Volturi with decapitations, dismemberments, gore, and the cruel deaths of several main characters!!!

What will all the fairweather horror fans and douchebag movie reviewers have to complain about now even though they'll all be heading to their local cinemas to watch this film anyway? If any of those hypocrites dare to say that "Breaking Dawn - Part 2" is a pile of crap, they'll just be lying to save face.

Prepare to be shocked, horrified, and maybe even cry a little bit when it's all over. I won't give away what happens until after the next picture, but I found it all very emotional.

If you don't want spoilers, stop reading now!

Okay, so if you've read the books (or watched the trailer), you know what happens anyway. For those of us who haven't, here's a quick summary of the events.

Everything is fun and games for Edward, Bella and Renesmee (their stupidly named daughter). Bella and Edward are working their way through Alex Comfort's "The Joy of Sex" books, Jacob is happily imprinted with "Nessie" (he's nicknamed her after the Loch Ness monster!), and only Charlie Swan's life is in turmoil as he believes that Bella has died. But even Charlie's grief is short-lived after Jacob shows up in his backyard, turns wolfy in front of him, and reveals that Bella is still alive although changed.

Unfortunately, this status quo can't last or we'd have another film as boring as "New Moon". As much as I love "Twilight", I'm the first to admit that "New Moon" sucked. So, to put a spanner in the works, sexy Irina (Maggie Grace) just has to oversee Renesmee leaping high in the air to catch snowflakes. Without giving Bella the chance to explain, Irina runs off to the Volturi to tell them erroneously that the heinous crime of making an infant vampire has been committed.

And so it comes to pass that the Cullens have to assemble an army of witnesses to validate Renesmee's identity and true nature. They travel all over the world (or at least America) to bring their friends together in preparation for a confrontation with the Volturi. Fearing the Volturi's ulterior motives, Alice (Ashley Greene) and Jasper have their own agenda, and have apparently fled.

Thus, just after Christmas, the Cullens, aided by the Quileutes and their other interesting new allies, march out to meet the Volturi. Of course, the Volturi are barely able to accept the truth about Renesmee even when presented with her right in front of them. They want war and are looking for any excuse even when Alice returns and gives Aro (Michael Sheen) her vision as proof that Renesmee is no threat. Her vision half convinces him but then seems to inspire Aro to command a greater punishment. Without warning, Jasper gets his head pulled off and all Hell breaks loose!

It's now that "Breaking Dawn - part 2" stuns everybody and really tugs on the old heartstrings as Carlisle rushes across the snow-covered battlefield to save Alice and gets decapitated, magical powers are unleashed as weapons, and there's bloodshed aplenty!!! Various werewolves die screaming in acts of bravery and, even though we barely know them, the new vampire allies are decimated. It's horrible!!! The Volturi suffer too.

Dakota Fanning is beautifully made up and gives everyone a world of pain to go with her evil looks while Bella protects everyone the best she can with a forcefield. Right, left and centre, the werewolves maul the vampires, and the opposing vampires pull each other's heads off! Just a little drop more blood and this would have earned an R-rating for sure!

The action is top notch, exciting, and has some great choreography. Even the CGI is used well although, personally, I've always thought that the werewolves were a little bit too large to be believable. Jacob's werewolf form is the size of a horse which is taken advantage of by Renesmee as she rides him to safety.

Kristen Stewart finally proves she can change her expression from dour to fierce, and, even though she looks horrid in the process, she really kicks some ass in the battle. If only she'd been this good in "Snow White and the Huntsman" rather than cheating on Robert Pattinson maybe people would still like her. She's definitely got the moves and the looks though so I couldn't hate the Trampire for long.

With everyone dying, Alice wades through the mayhem to take out Jane (Dakota Fanning), and the combined efforts of Edward and Bella destroy Aro... but then there's a twist which is absolutely fantastic!

The battle NEVER HAPPENED! It's all part of Alice's vision! Oh, yes, there will be gasps and cheers from the audience!

Okay, it may be a bit of a cop-out ending - the shocked Aro decides that it's best if they just go home and leave the Cullens in peace - but it's done so beautifully! I didn't know whether to cheer or cry. I was so relieved that I was choked. I'm not ashamed to admit that as a fully grown man rather than a 13-year-old girl either.

The final minutes with Edward telling Bella that he'll love her forever wrap this romance up nicely, but I wish there was more. I want more adventures. I want to see Jacob and "Nessie" get together. I don't want it to end!

I've loved the "Twilight" franchise, looked forward to each new movie every year, and now I really don't know what to do with myself. It's a good job that I have a new blog to play with. The haters will just have to leech onto "The Hunger Games" and try to spoil the enjoyment of that franchise for everyone. I'm tempted to join them, but I probably won't. I've actually started to appreciate "The Hunger Games" too now.

Anyway, it's goodbye to Taylor Lautner, Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson. Farewell to "Team Jacob" and "Team Edward" rivalry (I was always "Team Alice" myself). I've lusted over the pretty vampire girls for the last time and eaten twice my own weight in M&Ms in the process. I'm going to miss "Twilight".

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1 (2011)

"The Quileutes close in on expecting parents Edward and Bella, whose unborn child poses a threat to the Wolf Pack and the townspeople of Forks."

I wasn't going to review "Breaking Dawn - Part 1" until the final installment was also available to me on DVD since I wanted to watch the two of them back-to-back, but with "Part 2" so close now, I couldn't hold out any longer. I've now watched "Breaking Dawn - Part 1" four times, and I have to say right off the bat that Bill Condon made the best sequel in the series.

I was undecided about the whole breaking movies in two trend, but, even though the cynic in me thinks that it was only done to get fans to pay twice over to see the end of the story, there was probably no way that everything from the last book could have been included in one film.

Like all the "Twilight" movies, "Breaking Dawn - Part 1" took its sweet time over seemingly unimportant details. For most people the preparations for the wedding and the wedding itself could have been dealt with in a quarter of the time, but you have to bear in mind that the core audience is still made up of impressionable little girls who want to see all that stuff. As a fully grown man with no romance left in my soul, of course I thought that Bella was beautiful, but I was still glad when it was over.

Basically, I just wanted to see Edward and Bella getting down to some rumpy-pumpy. After about half an hour, I wasn't disappointed either. Although there was some obvious pulling of punches, it was all refreshingly adult, and the devastation of the bed showed that it must have been extremely rough sex too. Poor Bella.

She likes it rough.

The honeymoon period was, sadly, short-lived once Edward realised that he couldn't handle bruising Bella every time he diddled her, and then, of course, the inevitable pregnancy put the kibosh on them just enjoying their holiday.

Once again more time was spent on the details of the pregnancy than was strictly necessary, but it was still something else to behold. The transformation of Kirsten Stewart from beautiful to haggard was quite an achievement, and she really looked like a vampire baby was sucking the life out of her. Pregnant women absolutely disgust me anyway so seeing Bella almost turn into an anorexic-looking, walking corpse with a distended, fat belly is high on my list of the most revolting things I've ever seen in a movie.

Even worse was to come with the Caesarian section birth which was only partly achieved with a scalpel. I've watched the gruesomeness several times over and I'm still not entirely sure that Edward didn't chew Bella open to get the baby out. There was definitely blood all round his mouth and probably more blood in that scene than in all the "Twilight Saga" movies combined. It was lush!

Incidental to all this was Jacob being all moody as usual, a few fight scenes between werewolves, and a lot of other stuff which I had no great interest in. I can't stand Jacob or the CGI wolves anyway. His imprinting on Bella and Edward's baby to save it from the other werewolves was a half-expected surprise (since I've never read the books), but, alas, that means that there'll be even more of him in the next film.

As for the vampire baby itself, who cares? I'm looking forward to seeing her all grown up and pretty, but, unlike the Volturi who appeared during the credits, I had no interest in something that looks like a potato.

With the promise of a lot more trouble heading for the Cullens, I've included the trailer for "Breaking Dawn - Part 2" below. I can't wait!

Blood and Chocolate (2007)

"A young teenage werewolf is torn between honouring her family's secret and her love for a man."

Before "Twilight" existed, there was "Blood and Chocolate", and teenage girls went crazy for the book by Annette Curtis Klause. When the movie came out, it was to mixed reviews. Fans of the book hated the changes while the not-quite-intended "horror-lite" audience thought it was mediocre.

With nothing else on my watchlist, I thought it was about time that I gave "Blood and Chocolate" another try. I'm glad I did because, even though I'm neither the right age or gender to fully appreciate it, I came to realise that Katja von Garnier actually made a very good werewolf movie indeed.

As you know, I have a thing for Agnes Brucker. It's called "Percy" and it lives in my underpants. Thus, when I saw a copy of "Blood and Chocolate" in the DVD section of my local pawn shop a few months ago, I just had to have it. It was still sealed and I could tell that it came from Big Lots due to the price sticker still being on it. That reminds me that I haven't been to Big Lots for ages. I really need to see if they've got any new $3 horror DVDs.

Anyway, for the $2 I paid for it, I ended up with a beautifully shot film which held my interest all the way through. "Blood and Chocolate" certainly changed a few of the more commonly used werewolf tropes and wasn't at all formulaic. Apart from one dirty dog, these loups-garous were more like a peacekeeping force and protectors of Bucharest rather than the more vicious lycanthropes from classic horror movies.

As far as star-crossed lovers go, the parkour-loving, chocolate-maker, Vivien (Agnes Bruckner) and the overly pushy, comicbook artist, Aidan (Hugh Dancy), had enough problems even without the werewolf element, but they overcame all that to generate some of the best chemistry that I've ever seen in a screen relationship. Although it may be some kind of heresy in certain circles to suggest such a thing, they were actually a lot more convincing than Bella and Edward, or even Bella and Jacob for that matter.

With the bulk of the story being taken up by their romance, there was little time for a lot of werewolf action, but it was nicely done when it did happen. The first chase scene which involved Pete Lee-Wilson as a drug dealer who had fallen foul of the loups-garous' private version of the law was very nicely put together.

There were also none of those painful "An American Werewolf in London"-style transformation scenes since the werewolves in "Blood and Chocolate" had a more magical shape-shifting ability which turned them, via only a tiny bit of CGI, into real wolves. I thought that was much better than watching them sprout hair and turn into bad computer game effects.

Everyone did a great job, but the standout in the film was, of course, Olivier Martinez as Gabriel. He was very convincing in his slightly menacing role as an over zealous and not entirely unselfish leader. When he turned up riding a motorcycle at one point, I was amused by the '60s pop song reference as he truly was the "Leader of the Pack".

I'm glad that the DVD had subtitles though because Agnes Bruckner was a bit mumbly at first, and I found Olivier Martinez's accent to often be quite unintelligible. As an aside, no wonder Olivier Martinez's relationship with Kylie Minogue didn't last as, apart from all the other things which went wrong there, she probably couldn't understand half the things he said either (and vice-versa).

Although everything was played straight, there were a few subtle "in-jokes" (for lack of a better term) for werewolf aficionados to pick up on, but I won't spoil any of them for you apart from Aidan's final words which I feel need a little bit of explanation. Because "Blood and Chocolate" was filmed on location in Bucharest, Romania, the "Paris" reference was only a half-nod to "An American Werewolf in Paris" (1997). The replica Arc de Triomphe which they passed through was built in 1922 to honour the bravery of Romanian soldiers who fought in World War I. I know such facts aren't important to the story, but I just thought I'd share that anyway.

Apparently, "Blood and Chocolate" was by the producers of the "Underworld" movies, I didn't know that until I looked it up as, fortunately, there were no similarities in style or mythology other than the "Antigen" pharmaceutical which they must have placed in the latest "Underworld: Awakening" to neatly pull "Blood and Chocolate" into the same universe.

As "Blood and Chocolate" was an exceedingly slick and entertaining movie which had a lot of originality, I'm going to add it to "The Vault". It wasn't exactly full of horrific and bloody slaughter, but I liked it.

The Haunted Airman (2006)

"An injured RAF pilot, confined to a wheelchair is committed to an eerie hospital where he starts to lose his mind"

Based so loosely on "The Haunting of Toby Jugg" by Dennis Wheatley" that it turned out to be another story entirely, "The Haunted Airman" has become a minor curiosity for "Twilight" fans who want to see more of Robert Pattinson before he was famous for being Edward.

I originally saw this when the BBC Four showed it on Hallowe'en way back in 2006, but I wasn't exactly impressed by any of it. In fact, I found it extremely boring and, short though it was, I still didn't make it to the end. There wasn't a lot of attention payed to Hallowe'en by any of the main channels that year, and I have a feeling that I just went to bed rather than look for anything else to watch at the time.

I had actually enjoyed reading the novel many years before and always felt that it represented the best of Dennis Wheatley's work. In comparison, "The Haunted Airman" did little more than use the names of the main characters and Toby's hallucinations of spiders. The rest of the plot involving Satanists who were attempting to drive him insane and cheat him of his inheritance was completely ignored. Toby still was in a wheelchair after being injured in the war, had his letters intercepted, and went mad, but the location had changed and everything was done for different reasons.

Having now rewatched "The Haunted Airman" on the DVD released in 2009 which was designed for Twihards (but one of them must have got fed-up with since I found it in my local pawn shop), I have to say that it was slightly better than I remembered. At least I made it to the end this time.

Robert Pattinson's Toby Jugg was extremely laconic and spent most of his time between being massaged by lighting and smoking cigarettes until he ran out of matches, but he wasn't exactly horrible in the role. As a traumatised and crippled World War II airman, he fitted the part. Maybe he could have added a bit more emotion to his rather blank expression other than occasionally glowering in anger, but he did enough.

Julian Sands as the renamed character of "Dr. Hal Burns" (instead of "Helmuth Lisicky") wasn't quite so credible as a psychiatrist or Julia Jugg's new love interest, but, to give credit where it's due, I don't think anyone else other than maybe Richard E. Grant would have been better. After being in "Arachnophobia" (1990), there was too much of an in-joke when he played with a spider, and I couldn't take him seriously after that.

The story started off okay, it was nicely filmed with only occasional lapses into obviously handheld territory, and it was getting increasingly creepy until Julia Jugg (played by Rachael Stirling) turned up. Then, in spite of the opportunity to ogle a very sexy example of wartime female beauty, everything got really confusing. I couldn't tell which parts of the story were dreams and which were reality. I'd guess that the intention was to convey that Toby Jugg couldn't tell the difference either, but it didn't work so well. This was the point at which I gave up on the film six years ago.

The ending, such as it was, made hardly any sense except to confirm that Toby Jugg had indeed lost his mind completely. The jury is still out on whether that was Hal Burns' intention all along or if it was the accidental result of his inept therapy. Without the bigger occult/communist plot of the novel, Hal Burns' motivation wasn't clear. He had nothing to gain from sending Toby Jugg right over the edge unless he was just some kind of psychopath himself.

At just over an hour, "The Haunted Airman" almost worked within its made-for-TV limitations and internal logic. It definitely succeeded as a standalone movie in its own right, but it was hardly Dennis Wheatley's "The Haunting of Toby Jugg". For a BBC Hallowe'en special, it was more of a wartime drama which dealt with post traumatic stress disorder than the ghost story which a lot of people were expecting from the title.

Red Riding Hood (2011)

"Set in a medieval village that is haunted by a werewolf, a young girl falls for an orphaned woodcutter, much to her family's displeasure.

With the final part of "The Twilight Saga" getting nearer every day, I thought I'd better have a look at some of the spin-offs before reviewing "Breaking Dawn Part 1" and, eventually, "Breaking Dawn Part 2". I know that "Red Riding Hood" came out over a year ago, but I had no great interest in watching it until earlier today.

Despite being directed by Catherine Hardwicke and having a kind of "Twilight"-style love triangle, boys baring their chests, and, of course, Billy Burke playing another father, this wasn't even half as good as "Twilight". It didn't even enough cringeworthy moments for haters to poke fun at. "Red Riding Hood" was just bland.

Even though it was beautifully filmed and the village in the woods started off looking a little bit like the one in Neil Jordan's "The Company of Wolves" (1984), it simply didn't have the same attention to detail. The costumes were nice, but modern American accents never work well in European fairytales for some reason.

Obviously sharing the same fairytale at the heart of the story would cause anyone who had seen "The Company of Wolves" to notice several similarities, but, with "Red Riding Hood" really being just another PG-13 rated werewolf story, it wasn't nearly as interesting as its slightly more adult predecessor. With hardly any werewolf action, I found it to be quite a struggle to stay awake through.

I know a lot of people would only have watched this because they fancy Amanda Seyfried. I can assure you that that she wasn't the attraction for me since I think she looks like a blonde frog with her bulgy eyes, tiny chin and constantly bowed head which makes her look up all the time. I suppose she's pretty in an odd way, but she does nothing for me. I didn't like her in "Jennifer's Body" (2009), and I don't even remember her from "In Time" (2011). As Valerie in "Red Riding Hood", she was hardly my idea of the famous fairytale character who I've always thought of as being a lot younger than a twenty-six year old pretending to be a teenager.

I can't really say that Amanda Seyfried did a bad job in the movie as the script undoubtedly killed any desire to act for everyone involved. Like most of these "period" fantasies, it was just another chance to play dress-up, say a few lines, and take the paycheck for doing so.

Only Gary Oldman tried to do something with his part, but he came across as inconsistent with it. I'm sure he realised exactly what a mess he'd got himself into by accepting the role of a werewolf-hunter in a movie meant for little kids and just didn't know what to do for the best other than play it straight. I could see in his eyes that he wanted to make the character more unhinged, but the words weren't there for him to play with.

The two "boys" in the love triangle with Valerie, Shiloh Fernandez as Peter and Max Irons as Henry, could really only be described as "Dull and Duller". I have to give Jeremy Irons credit though for giving his son such a great porn star name should he ever realise that real acting isn't exactly his forte. Joking aside, Shiloh Fernandez was slightly more interesting than Jacob or Edward from "Twilight", but there wasn't much in it.

It was nice to see Virginia Madsen from "Candyman" (1992) in her small role as Valerie's mother. She was easily the best looking woman in this movie, and I can't believe that she's over fifty now! Time flies, doesn't it?

It's not even worth more than just mentioning Lukas Haas as Father Auguste or Julie Christie as Valerie's grandmother because they were barely on screen long enough to register their presence. I think Julie Christie only had three lines.

There was nothing exciting in "Red Riding Hood" whatsoever. The CGI werewolf looked really good and fitted into its surroundings extremely well, but there simply weren't enough interactions with it. Even when it killed a few villagers, there was only the aftermath to see and not even that much blood at the scene of the crimes. This was hardly a horror movie.

The mystery of the werewolf's identity was revealed in more of a "Scooby Doo" way than something you could ever guess at from clues in the story so "Red Riding Hood" failed to deliver a basket of goodies there either.

"Red Riding Hood" failed as a romance, a horror movie, a mystery or even any kind of decent retelling of the fairytale. I wish I hadn't wasted my time watching it now, but at least I have the pleasure of hurling it into "The Dungeon".

Taintlight (2009)

"When lovely young Stella strikes up a romance with pale, brooding vampire Edgar, the couple must navigate the treacherous waters of human-undead love and fend off the amorous advances of a werewolf named Jack. Meanwhile, another brood of bloodsuckers seeks to impale Edgar and claim Stella for themselves."

It may only have a running time of an hour but "Taintlight" was still 50 minutes too long for me. Although I didn't actually fast-forward it to get it over with, I was sorely tempted to do so.

"Taintlight" has to be the unfunniest and most poorly produced parody that I have ever seen. The only thing which kept me watching was that Meredith Host had some endearing expressions and was quite pretty. There were a couple of moments where she nailed the impersonation of Bella but they were few and far between.

As a more adult parody version of "Twilight" than "Vampires Suck", it was amusing for the first few minutes but it turned out to be a one trick pony and just got boring. The fact that it all looked like a YouTube video (and probably was one) didn't help much either.

I'm sure everyone involved had a lot of fun mugging at each other and making their eyes bulge as much as possible but I didn't get any enjoyment out of watching them.

How the hell did this crap get on Netflix?

Vampires Suck (2010)

"A spoof of vampire-themed movies, where teenager Becca finds herself torn between two boys. As she and her friends wrestle with a number of different dramas, everything comes to a head at their prom."

Although "Vampires Suck" is clearly aimed at all the "Twilight" haters and doesn't really go much further than spoofing the entire first "Twilight" movie with some parts of "New Moon" thrown in, it's not totally without a few merits of its own.

The most obvious thing is that everybody does such brilliant impersonations of the real "Twilight" characters that it's often difficult to tell if this is actually a comedy or not. If you haven't seen "Twilight", you could watch this and and still go on to enjoy the official sequels with no problem at all. Jenn Proske (as Becca Crane) could be Kristen Stewart's Bella even though she's actually slightly prettier.

This attention to detail may be the parody's undoing though. There is a very thin line between what is an acceptable parody and obvious copyright infringement, but we'll just have to wait and see what Stephanie Meyer's lawyers make of it all. Personally, I think this is way too close to simply being a "Twilight" remake in all but name. It looks the same, the characters have 99% identical names, and the story is just far too close to the original for comfort even if everything is clearly played for laughs.

"Vampires Suck" isn't particularly funny though. There are a couple of amusing scenes but that's all they are, just amusing not side-splittingly funny. I'm not big on comedies anyway so it may be funnier to some people than it was to me, but I just didn't think there was anything here that can't already be found on YouTube in smaller doses. If you've ever heard a joke or seen any kind of amusing image lampooning "Twilight" or the Twihards themselves then it's repeated here. It seems that it's all by the same team who did "Epic Movie" and "Meet the Spartans", but since I've never seen either of those films and have no intention of ever watching them, I can't tell you whether this is any better or worse than those. It isn't as good as the last "Scary Movie" that I watched, but I don't think very much of that franchise anyway.

I did like that "Vampires Suck" had really good production values. There's nothing worse than watching an obviously low-budget parody especially when you don't like low-budget movies in the first place. As I mentioned, this really has a lot of attention to detail and it's possible to argue that this is probably how "Twilight" and "New Moon" should have been done in the first place especially when it comes to pacing. At around 70 minutes long, it all flies by with not too many lags. If you discount the two or three somewhat feeble pop-culture references which will date this film horribly in a few years then it isn't too bad at all.

Just because the actors in this did a much better job than the real cast of "Twilight", I am actually going to recommend "Vampires Suck". If you don't like comedies then you should avoid it. It's not a horror film, it's not scary, gory or even as funny as the "South Park" episode about emos, but it is an amusing and completely throwaway diversion.

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.