Change Your Image
chrisward46
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Drag Me to Hell (2009)
The Return of the King!
It's always a joy when iconic filmmakers rediscover their mojo and make the kind of movies that fans want to see. George A.Romero went back to basics with 'Diary of the Dead', admittedly with mixed results but at least there was an honesty to its execution, whilst Wes Craven and David Cronenberg have both contributed to movies that bear the trademarks of their talents. Sam Raimi has been a favourite with genre fans since 'The Evil Dead' first terrified and amused audiences at the dawn of the video nasty boom of the early eighties, and even though he has gone on to bigger blockbuster action with the 'Spiderman' franchise, he has frequently returned to more spooky fare with production credits on 'The Grudge', 'The Grudge 2', '30 Days of Night' and 'The Messengers'. With 'Drag Me to Hell', though, the inventive director has come full circle and made a movie that easily stands up against his original 'Evil Dead' trilogy.
The story centres around Christine Brown (Alison Lohman), a loan officer in a bank who is a potential candidate for a promotion, if only she could convince her boss (David Paymer) that she can make tough decisions. She is visited at work by an elderly Hungarian gypsy, Mrs. Ganush (Lorna Raver), who is requesting a third extension on her mortgage. After trying to convince her boss to grant the extension, he leaves the decision in Christine's hands, as a way of testing her credentials. After telling Mrs. Ganush that the bank cannot extend her mortgage, the upset pensioner then gets on her knees and begs. Christine calls security to remove her from the building, but Mrs.Ganush takes this as an insult and tries to attack Christine, insisting that Christine has shamed her. When Christine leaves work that evening, she is attacked by Mrs. Ganush (in one of the best scenes of the movie), who takes a button from Christine's coat, places a curse on it and gives it back. Still traumatized, Christine and her boyfriend Clay (Justin Long) pay a visit to Rham Jas (Dileep Rao), a local spiritualist, who tells Christine she has been cursed by a demon called The Lamia, who will torment her for three days before coming to claim her soul and take her to Hell.
So there's your plot. The first thing to say about this movie is how refreshing it is to see this sort of shocker made by somebody who really knows their stuff. The gore is kept to a minimum, but that's because there's no need for it. Raimi has always been able to shock audiences without resorting to gratuitous tactics - 'The Evil Dead' may have had bucketloads of goo, but as those movies went on there was less and less of it, forcing the viewer to invest more in the story. Although the comparisons to the 'Evil Dead' movies are obvious, as well as the shocks and the 'Three Stooges'-esquire slapstick, it is the overall style that Raimi has developed over the years that shines through here, and other earlier works such as 'Darkman' and 'The Quick and the Dead' would prove to be useful reference points - the quick editing, the camera angles, narrative flow and cinematic scope that are present in both of those movies is here, as is Raimi's 'shaky-cam' style of filming. It's also a very loud movie with loads of bangs crashes and subliminal noises that add to the overall atmosphere.
As with almost all of Raimi's movies, the characters are strong and likable - even Mrs. Ganush to start with - and this familiarity with type adds to the action. Lorna Raver's depiction of the scorned gypsy is the very definition of creepy and if there was ever a category for Best Villain at the Oscars then Mrs. Ganush should win hands down. Without trying to give anything away, even in the later scenes when her physical being isn't doing much, she still exudes an air of ghoulish menace. Alison Lohman is a pretty strong lead, and seems to have a good chemistry with Justin Long, even if he comes across as a bit wet. Christine's rival for the promotion at the bank, Stu (ReggieLee), is also a great character who was used well and came across as pretty detestable.
As a whole, 'DMTH' is an absolute triumph of a movie. There are a few slight issues - some dodgy CGI effects, one or two lapses in the script - but no movie is perfect, and as far as this movie is concerned, it's about as close as you're going to get from one of the genres most consistently inventive talents. The only thing that was missing was an appearance from a certain Mr. Campbell, maybe in the role of Milos, the medium's assistant. Considering how the scene involving him plays out, it would have been a great cameo. Overall, though, this is an excercise from a master in how to shock and have fun in equal measure, and although Raimi made the fatal error of making his first movie a classic against which everything he does is measured, this is certainly the best movie he has made since 1982.
My Name Is Bruce (2007)
Kicks Ash!!!!
My Name is Bruce (2009) By Chris Ward
Let's get this said first - if you don't know who Bruce Campbell is, have never seen at least one 'Evil Dead' movie or aren't really into cult cinema at all, then this movie will go straight over your head. If, however, you can't get enough of the man with the boomstick, then you'll watch this movie no matter what anyone says about it, and no doubt defend it to the death.
For those who don't know, Bruce Campbell is a B-movie actor who is best known for playing the wisecracking hero Ash in the 'Evil Dead' movies, as well as appearing in such cult classics as 'Maniac Cop' and 'Bubba Ho-Tep', and also cameo roles in more mainstream fare such as 'Spiderman 1 & 2' and a voice-over role in 'The Ant Bully'. 'My Name is Bruce' sees him appearing as a bastardised version of himself in a semi-fictional version of his life. By day he makes the sort of straight-to-DVD, trashy monster flicks that he is best known for, and by night he sits in his white-trash trailer getting drunk and phoning his ex-wife Cheryl (a nice cameo by 'Evil Dead' co-star Ellen Sandweiss), who is sleeping with his agent Mills (played by 'Evil Dead' actor Ted "brother of 'Evil Dead' and 'Spiderman' director Sam" Raimi, who also has two other roles in the movie). Meanwhile, over in the small mining community of Gold Lick, a teenage Bruce Campbell fan called Jeff has unwittingly woken an ancient Chinese demon called Quan-Di, who protects the cemetery where the Chinese mining workers are buried, and is also the Chinese god of bean curd! Thinking that Bruce must be the only person who could could defeat the demon - he has, after all, defeated the Army of Darkness - Jeff rushes off to find Campbell. Thinking this is some sort of movie promotion set up by his agent, Campbell agrees to play along and goes to Gold Lick ("the sequel to Deliverance!") where, after a meeting with the townsfolk, he finds the demon to be real, but can he become the character he plays in his movies and defeat the monster?
As previously stated, if you've no idea who Bruce Campbell is then most of the jokes won't make much sense. That said, it doesn't take long to get the idea of what's happening, so maybe it may just be worth checking out those 'Evil Dead' movies after all, just to get more enjoyment out of this movie. Campbell does a brilliant job of sending himself and his career up, and some of the jokes, although slightly crass, are laugh-out-loud funny - the scene where he pushes a wheelchair-bound fan down a hill is hilarious. The supporting cast are great - Grace Thorsen shows promise as the love interest Kelly, who Bruce never quite gets his hands on ("For the love of God, I can smell her Chapstick!"), and the two gay rednecks are great fun - and, of course, the references for all the fanboys are there.
As far as downpoints go, the plot is a bit thin but the jokes and great performances make the movie so much fun it doesn't matter. It really does come down to whether you like Bruce Campbell, trashy low-budget horror movies or the seemingly new trend of movie stars sending themselves up by playing caricatures of themselves, as Jean-Claude Van Damme has recently done in 'JCVD'. In all fairness, Campbell is probably one of the best actors to do this sort of thing, having built up a sizeable cult following over the last twenty five years, as well as having a great screen persona - it would be hard imagining someone like Kevin Costner or Russell Crowe attempting this kind of thing. The gore is fairly restrained considering the subject's history, although there are plenty of decapitations, and the script a bit predictable in places, although Campbell's ability to deliver a line would make some stand-up comics cower in shame.
'My Name is Bruce', then - good fun if you like that sort of thing, and probably a waste of an hour and a half if you don't. Just for the record, I loved it.
Iron Maiden: Flight 666 (2009)
Iron Maiden's gonna get yer!!!!!!
The problem with many on-the-road documentaries and live band footage is that unless you're a dedicated fan, what you're seeing or hearing isn't going to mean much to you, and also, once you've seen the concert/backstage footage, how likely are you to really watch it over and over? What you really need is an angle to make it interesting, so when film makers Sam Dunn and Scot McFadyen took on the task of following Iron Maiden on the first leg of their mammoth 'Somewhere Back in Time' tour they really needed to make more than a standard rockumentary, especially considering the amount of Maiden footage available on DVD and video already. Luckily the band made it easy for them by flying themselves around the world in their own private 757 jet - nicknamed Ed Force One - flown by lead singer Bruce Dickinson himself. As if this wasn't enough of a curiosity worthy of capturing on film, the footage of the band's rabid fanbase, from as far afield as India, Australia, Canada, the US and South America, gives a revealing insight into why Maiden mean so much to so many.
The fact that Maiden are on fire right now and playing the best they've ever played, they're touring some of the best songs off their first - and arguably best - seven albums and putting more bums on seats than in their 80's heyday, is almost secondary to the displays of affection from their religiously dedicated fanbase. That isn't to say that the music isn't central to their appeal - those layered guitar harmonies, soaring vocals, machine gun-like drums and Steve Harris' ever-present bass are still as magnetic and joyous as they've ever been - but it's the way that fans the world over, people from different cultures and backgrounds who are never likely to meet, generate such enthusiasm, passion and devotion towards the band and the whole package that comes with it that makes this movie worth seeing, even if you're not one of the faithful. For instance, in Columbia, where the band are to play in a massive park in the city centre, fans have been camping on the streets for more than a week just so they can get near the stage when it opens. One chap even admits that he and his group have run out of food a couple of days in, what with the military confiscating all the food and even some items of clothing, but still the fans persist in waiting to see the band. The fans in Mexico are equally excited, and seemingly just grateful that this band, who could easily just play it safe and play the arenas in the world's major cities, are coming to visit them in "the ass of the world", as one fan puts it. It must have been dusty in the cinema, as there was a tear in the eye when there was a lingering shot of one South American fan who had caught drummer Nicko McBrain's drumstick and just stood clinging to the barrier, crying in disbelief, long after the band had finished. Make no mistake, in South America a visit from Iron Maiden is comparable only to Beatlemania.
What really comes out in this movie, and what is probably also the single biggest attraction of the band as a whole, is the attitude that the band have towards the fans and the music. Although the personnel may have changed over the years, the one continuing factor that hasn't is the band's commitment to hard rock/heavy metal/ whatever you want to call it, knowing that whatever trends are lurking to leap out of the music business and warp our minds, their craft has been honestly honed to the best of their ability, and executed with a work ethic that means no fan will ever leave a Maiden gig disappointed. That they're millionaire rock stars who, quite honestly, could have retired twenty years ago never comes into play - they may be flying around the world in their own private jet, but they're not exactly the latest X-Factor winners being courted by some record label and having their five minutes of fame. They're flying it themselves, crew and equipment as well, because, as Bruce is keen to point out, they can fly straight to the gig from the previous one and cover more ground quicker, playing to more people. Whether they're playing to 5000 people at one of their charity gigs at Brixton Academy or playing to 250,000 people at Rock in Rio, Maiden will always hit the stage running, looking each audience member in the eye and giving 110%. Anything less would be shortchanging the fans, and it's this attitude that has made them the legends they are, and certainly the best British music export of the last forty years. And, it must be noted, with no radio play and very little media coverage - something that a lot of the current crop of bands could do with taking note of.
Anyway, the movie itself is certainly a labour of love from the makers. Each shot, each soundbite and each edit has been carefully worked over to present a road movie that is a joyous celebration of everything that Maiden stand for - hard work, integrity and never sell-out your principles. If only they'd show this on prime-time Saturday night telly instead of the turgid so-called 'talent' shows. Whether the band will continue with this integrated travel arrangement or whether they'll go back to the traditional tour bus method has yet to be seen, but just to see this most humble of bands hitting the skies and travelling the world to ecstatic reactions just once was nothing short of thrilling, and for two short hours, just for once, it made you very proud to be British.
Brain Damage (1988)
Another great low-budget movie from an excellent director.
I can't believe I missed this one first time around. Having been introduced to Frank Henenlotter via 'Basket Case' in the late eighties, and then being compelled to watch 'Basket Case 2' and the excellent 'Frankenhooker', I must have fallen into a coma at some point because I don't recall having seen or heard of 'Brain Damage' at all.
The one thing that is slightly annoying about writing about movies like this is that when you write down what the movie is about, it looks complete nonsense. If I was to tell you that this is about a small monster that looks like a burnt penis, but can speak perfect English, and that it attatches itself to the back of your neck, injects a drug into your brain that gets you high as a kite while the monster sucks people's brains out, then...well, it doesn't sound like a BAFTA winner, does it? But that is what the movie is about. The monster, or Aylmer as it is known, attatches itself to Brian, a normal young man who has a girlfriend and lives with his brother in the same apartment block as Aylmer's previous owners, and soon gets Brian under his control by injecting him through the back of his neck and into his brain with a blue substance that sends Brian into a psychedelic haze as he staggers around finding victims for Aylmer to feed on. Sounds crazy? Well, it is - and wonderfully so. Anyone familiar with Frank Henenlotter's other works will know what to expect, and anyone not familiar will be in for a shock.
Had I seen this in 1988 when it came out, I probably could have given it an extra mark - for nostalgia's sake. But as I'm watching it with 2009 eyes, it does look very dated. The effects are pretty good for such a low-budget movie, and if it was made now it would all be CGI so I guess we should be thankful for that. The acting is poor, but then I think that adds to the charm of the movie. It is a very entertaining movie, as all of Henenlotter's are, but unless you are a genre fan, and not just a casual window shopper, it may not appeal as much.
Rambo (2008)
What we've all been waiting for
I can remember being a fresh-faced nine year old when 'First Blood Part 2' came out, and at school one of those horrible kids who looked about five years older than what they were said that he'd seen it, and Rambo shoots someone in the face, cuts another guy's head off, etc. Obviously, when I got round to seeing this movie, it wasn't as bad as had been described. Now finally, twenty three years later, Stallone has made the movie that was promised to me back in '85.
'Rambo' starts off with real-life news footage of atrocities in Burma, which segues into the actions of the now-fictional Burmese army - already Stallone has set the tone of the movie, and frankly, if there were no named actors in this movie, you could be forgiven for thinking this was all real footage. One thing that's been great about action and horror films for the last five years is the use of grainy film and lack of colour filters - thank you '...Chainsaw Massacre'.
Plot rundown is pointless, as you already know if you're going to want to watch it or not. Some people have criticized the movie for showing violence against children. Obviously this will upset some people, but as far as the movie goes, it was necessary to show the brutality of the soldiers and their actions. These things do go on in the real world and by cutting them out, you are diluting the impact of the movie. It's there, on the screen, and if you don't like it - don't watch it. As for the rest, there's beheadings, people getting cut in half, flying limbs, disembowelment's - and it's all shown in full, with no cuts or hints of suggestions.
All that's left to say is - 'Thank you Mr.Stallone - you redeemed yourself with 'Rocky Balboa' and you surpassed yourself with 'Rambo'. You've made this lifelong fan believe again.'
The Hills Have Eyes II (2007)
Disappointing
And so it comes round again. What killed the horror movie in the nineties was the inferior sequels that surrounded all the great films of the era (Elm Street, Hellraiser, Child's Play, etc.). Now in the 00's, we start to get a decent run of new horror films (ok, apart from Saw and Devil's Rejects they're remakes, but at least they're actually good) and along comes a sequel that just doesn't do it. The Hills Have Eyes remake was excellent in it's unrelenting brutality. The story of an innocent all-American family defending itself against mutant hillbillies was shocking, violent, full of suspense and had great characters. This sequel was plodding, the violence was gratuitous, the characters bland and even the mutants were below-par X-Men. Come on, a mutant with a serpentine tongue that can camouflage itself against rocks. I was half expecting Wolverine to appear. The plot is fairly similar to Predator. A bunch of soldiers in hostile territory taking on a bunch of mutants. The first film had a bit of history on the whys and hows of the mutants plight. This film had a soldier who seemed to know something but this was never explored further. There is a rape scene in this movie, that doesn't really serve a purpose. It just seems to be there because there was one in the first film, which in itself was far more shocking due to the innocence of the family. Not saying that rape isn't shocking whatever, but to put one in for the sake of it doesn't make the film any more shocking. The fact that this was written by Wes Craven makes it even more of a disappointment. If you haven't seen the first film you'll enjoy it more. For the rest of us it was a wasted opportunity.
Rocky Balboa (2006)
An emotional trip and a fitting end.
Had the privilege of watching this movie on the opening night, and having been a lifelong fan of Rocky and Boxing, did not leave disappointed.
This movie is certainly a lot closer in style and execution to the first two movies in a way that didn't seem as deliberate as Rocky V did. Ignoring the politics of part 4 and the contrived part 5, this is Rocky (the character) back to basics - speaking from the heart, looking out for others, and always ready with a humorous remark but also with a sense of wisdom and sadness that only age and experience can bring (the speech he gives to his son when he is trying to justify fighting again should give Stallone an Oscar nomination - it certainly gave me a lump in my throat).
One of the things that makes this movie work so well is not having the character of Adrian, who has died of ovarian cancer. It is this element that brings Rocky back down to the level he was at when we first met him, and with all the other characters in the film, I guess there wouldn't have been much room for her. It is his grief for her passing that gives him the vulnerable quality he shows throughout.
As usual, Rocky is backed up by his best friend Paulie (I watched the first Rocky the other day - did Burt Young ever look young?) who, unlike Rocky, doesn't spend his time looking into the past and on the one occasion he does, he also offers a glimpse into a side of his character we haven't seen before.
Other characters from previous films show up - Duke (just how old is Tony Burton?), Marie (who gives Rocky a sense of being needed, without being romantic) and Spider Rico (the very first boxer Rocky fights in the first film) - which gives the film a sense of nostalgia without resorting to the obvious, a la Rocky V. Mickey (his original trainer) is mentioned and given the briefest of flashbacks, as is Clubber Lang and Ivan Drago. Apollo Creed is mentioned but not shown (apparently due to Carl Weathers not being paid enough - there's loyalty) and there is no mention of Tommy Gunn.
Antonio Tarver appears as Rocky's opponent Mason Dixon who, like Apollo Creed, isn't exactly a bad guy but has his own reasons for taking on someone of Balboa's caliber. This is a champ who makes all the right moves and beats everybody but doesn't win the respect of the fans and can't understand why (who says the Rocky films aren't realistic? Audley Harrison, anybody?).
The main strength of the film is the fact that the characters on screen are the same characters who we saw on screen thirty years ago, and there is a feeling of having lived their life with them. Usually when a film involves flashbacks and suchlike, we have actors covered in make-up to make them look young/old, or whatever is required. But here we don't need that. We have thirty years of footage to draw back on, and it is this that allows us to enter Rocky's world one last time and get as emotionally involved with the characters as we would if we were looking back at our own old home movies.
The only thing that would have made this slightly better, for me anyway, was if there was more focus on his old opponents. Apparently Mr.T and Dolph Lundgren were approached but both declined. But like I said before, sometimes going for the obvious isn't the right way to go. As it is, we have a film here that can stand up on it's own and not be called 'another sequel', and it is certainly a film that stands proudly alongside the original. Stallone should be proud.
Cradle of Fear (2001)
Not for everybody.
This film has bad acting, terrible special effects and an abysmal script - and I love it! The film is split into four sections, revolving around a locked-up serial killer called Kemper, who is wiping out the children of the people who put him away by using his son as the killer (played by Cradle of Filth's Dani). Cue lots of blood, gore, sex and swearing. If you've seen Cradle's video for 'From the Cradle to Enslave' then you'll know what to expect. This is basically a two hour version of that. You get to see Emily Booth naked, Eileen Daly topless, a mutant baby being born Alien-style, machete's in heads, craniums blown apart, amputees, dwarfs and a whole lot more. For the casual film-goer, this will be terrible viewing, but for those of us in the know, this is great. Watch with caution.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning (2006)
Violent and magnificent
It's all in the title. It's not Shakespeare, Byron or Keates. It's THE Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE. And, boy, don't we get plenty of chainsaws and massacres. If you've seen the 2003 remake, then you know what to expect. The real masterstroke of this movie, though, is having Sheriff Hoyt as the central figure. Although the movie is supposed to show the origins of Leatherface (and to a point, it does), it's having Hoyt (whose presence was never really explained in the 2003 movie) as the key player that makes this movie. R.Lee Ermey gives a masterclass in how to be a big screen villain, and how he becomes 'Sheriff' shows the audience what a twisted piece of work he really is. Although the explanation of how the family became cannibals is a bit lame, it does give a bit of a variant on the usual explanations. There is a couple of flaws in the film, though. The families relationships is still not explained enough. Hoyt is Leatherface's uncle, which means that he is Luda May's brother, even though he calls her 'mama'. Could be a term of endearment? Monty (the old fella in the wheelchair in the 2003 movie) is called 'uncle' by Hoyt, but in the book he's Leatherface's dad. Also, the reason he gets his legs lopped is different from the book. The fat 'tea lady' from the 2003 movie makes a reappearance, although again, this isn't fully explained. There is a possible link with a character from the very beginning of the movie (I won't spoil it too much) but there isn't enough explanation. Henrietta, the girl in the trailer in the 2003 movie who is assumed to be Leatherface's sister, doesn't appear, so the lack of continuity in this area is disappointing. However, what does appear in the film is a chainsaw fans delight. We get chainsaws, meathooks, sledgehammers (the weapon of choice in my favourite scene) and guns. We have a re-installed dinner scene, that was sadly lacking from the previous film, near naked girls and motorbikes. What more could you want? This movie has more in common with the 1974 original than the remake, and that's a good thing. The tone is darker than previous chainsaw films, and certainly more violent. Although the remake is creepier and more suspenseful, and the characters more likable, this movie is the complete splatterfest that we've all been waiting for. Maybe they could do one more, to explain the hitchhiker and the little boy in the remake?
Wolf Creek (2005)
Not the best movie in the world.
Aahh! How the times have changed. It wasn't so long ago that 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3' was cut to hell and then banned because of graphic shots of limbs being blown apart. And now, such is the way of the world we live in today, films like that are embraced by mainstream audiences. Oh well. For hardened horror buffs like myself, it's very hard to be positive about films like this, as I have been seeking out and watching films like this for the best part of two decades. Now that they are readily available in every cinema in the land, they don't seem to have much edge to them any more. The basic premise is as follows. Three backpackers (two female, one male) in the Australian outback stop at Wolf Creek, the second biggest meteor crater in the world. Their car 'mysteriously' won't start but luckily for them, a passing truck driver offers his services. He tows their car back to his 'yard' and starts his repair work. In the next scene one of the packers wakes up bound and gagged... I won't spoil the rest of the film, but needless to say, casual viewers won't be expecting a lot of the violence that ensues. There are a few creepy moments but overall, this film disappoints. If you are looking for gratuitous gore, 'Hostel' would be a better choice, even though that film suffers from the same weaknesses as this. I'll give it a 4 mark as the setting is quite effective, but unfortunately, the end result is never as good as it's initial promise.
Jeepers Creepers (2001)
Waste
I was expecting this to be up there with recent horror flicks like ...Chainsaw and The Hills Have Eyes, but, boy was I disappointed. Two siblings are on their way home and take the long drive across country. It is here they run into The Creeper, a moth-like creature who awakes from hibernation every twenty-three years to feed on anyone he takes a liking to. Needless to say, he takes a liking to our heroes and the rest of the film is them trying to escape. The first twenty minutes of the film are quite creepy - with the exception of the annoying stupidity of the brother - what with only seeing The Creeper as a shadowy figure who drives a monstrous truck (in itself, very bizarre). The middle part of the film drags and quickly slips into predictable nonsense. The main problem is the villain. As soon as you see his face, any air of mystery or suspense disappears. If anyone remembers the early Tom Cruise film Legend, think the red demon played by Tim Curry - only more comedic. The special effects at best are passable, the acting okay and the script...predictable. And then the thing just ends, with not much as way of an explanation. I guess that means we have to watch the sequel (which I won't be doing). The very generous 3 mark is for the scene-setting first twenty minutes. Do yourselves a favor and don't bother.
Dèmoni 2... l'incubo ritorna (1986)
More of the same - but that's not a bad thing.
Yes, this is basically a remake of the original, but set in a block of flats but had it been way different, that would be wrong too. It doesn't quite have the creepy atmosphere of the original, the characters are more irritating, I really didn't get the demon coming out of the t.v. (as if that would happen!) but didn't I enjoy it when the whiny kid got it! If you like the original, then you'll like this. Despite its (obvious) faults this is still way above any of the 'clever' so-called horror films of the last fifteen years. I think it was probably after this that the horror genre started to go flat, what with lame Elm Street and Friday sequels, along with the aforementioned 'clever' films, where you have to guess where the oh-so clever twist is! For all of its faults, I think that this, and the original, represent something that has become very dear to people of my age - the 80's splatter fest!
Dèmoni (1985)
A superb example of mindless gore and violence.
What really annoys me, especially in what passes for 'Thrillers' and 'Supernatural Thrillers' these days, is when films try to be too clever. It all started with 'The Sixth Sense', which was, admittedly, quite a good film, when the film contained a 'twist' - a surprise ending that explained all the meandering, subliminal guff that went on before it. Luckily, there is none of that in 'Demons', which thankfully contains all the ingredients I require in a film - mindless gore! The plot (what there is of it) centers around visitors to a cinema who have been handed free tickets by a mysterious masked man. I don't really need to write a spoiler, as it's fairly obvious what happens but, needless to say, this film is brilliant. Lots of people die in pretty gruesome circumstances by the 'Demons' of the title. There's lots of blood, lots of slime, lots of fangs, ninja swords, motorbikes, helicopters(don't ask!) and a thumping Metal soundtrack. There has been questions raised as to the relevance of the helicopter scene and why it's there, but who cares? A superb example of why we need horror films - to entertain! WATCH IT!
The Hills Have Eyes (2006)
A remake that's better than the original.
Having been an obsessive horror fan for the whole of my thirty years of existence, I must admit I had built up a bit of a purist attitude to remakes. I loved the remakes of Chainsaw, Dawn and Amityville but somehow still couldn't admit to liking them better than the originals. All that has changed now! This movie is stunning. You know the plot, if you've seen the original you know what's going to happen, but the twists and turns in the second half of the film make this essential viewing. The gore and violence is extreme BUT GODDAMMIT IT NEEDED TO BE! How long have we had to wait for a real nasty film of this nature. I really can't find the words to praise this enough - just go see it!
Dawn of the Dead (2004)
Positive
Another year, another remake of a classic horror film. Last year it was The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and now we have a re-working of George Romero's 1978 classic. It seems there really are no original ideas left! Anyway, what we have here is more of an action film than a splatterfest. The basic plot is the same - the world has been taken over by flesh-eating zombies, and a small group of survivors hole up in a suburban shopping mall.
The main difference with the original is the zombies themselves. No longer the slow, stumbling creatures that were easily out-run, these new 21st Century monsters run. And boy, do they run quick! I shan't spoil it for those who haven't seen it, but do yourselves a favour - don't compare this to the original. I know it's hard, but seeing this movie with a biased opinion (we all know it's never going to be as good as the original) will spoil it. I had to watch it a couple of times, but once I got all the comparisons to the original out of the way, I thoroughly enjoyed it. If you haven't seen this or the original, see this one first. You'll love it.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)
Awesome
The main problem with this movie was that, obviously, people were going to compare it with the original. Well, it is a remake. The thing is, such comparisons are redundant, as what we have here is a great example of modern horror film-making. We all know the original movie - the first time we saw it, the infamous, banned Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE, oh didn't we feel naughty? - but let's be honest, the film itself was a bit of a let down. There was no blood, no sex, no full-on cannibalism. Just a suggestion of violence and a style of filming to give it a documentary feel. What this remake does is take the title of the original (still one of the greatest film titles of all time) and actually fit it to a movie that plays out what the title suggests. The plot is simple: five kids end up in a remote Texas town and get stalked by a psychopath called Leatherface. You don't need to know any more than that. While this film doesn't have the snuff feel of the original, it doesn't, thank goodness, have a glitzy, polished Hollywood production. Basically, this film is a nasty bastard, and exactly what horror films need now we seem to have gotten over the dreadful Scream-style teen flicks. Just watch it...
The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1994)
A fair view of a dumb film.
WHY OH WHY OH WHY??!! OK, I admit, I love a cheesy, dumb movie as much as the next person, but why does a film with such legendary status have to have its reputation spoilt by pointless sequels? TCM may not be the only film with a load of crap follow-ups ( the Elm Street series, The Howling series - I could continue...)but surely it's one of the only films (not just horror) that just doesn't need a sequel. The original was so groundbreaking in many ways that it was almost perfect film making, a film that 'does exactly what it says on the tin', so to speak. Alright, TCM 2 had its moments, but was really just a cash-in without any of the style of the original. TCM 3 was pointless, but at least it had a bit of a nasty edge to it. This is just like a 'made-for-tv' style movie (remember how 'Freddy's Nightmares' compared to 'A Nightmare on Elm Street'?). Anyway, basic plot for those who can be bothered - a group of kids get stranded in the woods and run into a family of maniacs. Sounds familiar? A bloke in a mask called Leatherface (Gunnar Hansen, your rightfully legendary place in cinema history is very safe!)wielding a chainsaw does not necessarily make a Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie.
LOOK AWAY NOW IF YOU DO NOT WANT THE PLOT TO BE SPOILT!
There's no actual massacre involved in this film, and any killings that do take place do not involve a chainsaw! What you do get is a confusing story about people who shout a lot and run around in the woods. There's also some rubbish about the Illuminati, but I won't even bother going into that. If you want pure, gritty horror then you could do worse than watch the original TCM. If you want edge-of-your-seat tension and shocks, then watch the very classy 2003 re-make. Just don't even bother with this, as you'll only get disappointed.