buddypatrick

Leading up to the release of Bogan Pride in 2008, there was a substantial effort of promoting the series. It was anticipated, it aired... then all went quiet. A few minutes into the first episode reveals why.

It misses the mark! It merely brushes upon the essence of bogan, which is for a while brilliantly showcased by the family home living room in which Sally-Anne Upton's character is chair bound. The kitsch collectables, the thrift shop furniture, and of course the wall of cheap ugly toys lovingly displayed truly nails the interior of a standard bogan home very well - all the main leads are obese, too, which is quite accurate; but what isn't realistic is Rebel Wilson's character being an A grade christian intellect. Bogans are typically severely unintelligent which is a huge contribution that makes them bogans - and they are often spiritually void, filling their sense of soulfulness with consumerism, Bundaberg rum, or football. So these aforementioned elements from the main characters don't really link up with the construct as to what an Australian bogan is which honeslty can be many things, but an well spoken grade A intelligent christian schoolgirl is not one of those things at all. I've lived in north Queensland. I absolutely know what a bogan is.

The show is also poorly written. Each episode features main characters somewhat stumbling around their script, never really achieving anything, and each character's subplot usually has no point whatsoever. The main plot of each episode doesn't have any substance to go by. This is just not entertaining! The musical aspect is also more cringe than funny, which are edited and coreographed incoherently; I wish I could say this added to the silliness but it just hurt my head. Speaking of the humour, there are indeed some laughs, and some clever jokes - - but overall, it flops, having little to no substance at all.

Sitting here in 2022 writing a review about Bogan Pride, it's without a doubt that the screenplay couldn't be pulled off today with it's derogatory portrayal of obesity, racial stereotypes, and the mentally disabled. Yes everyone now is too sensitive, but of course, the show certainly couldn't be made today with the condescending mockery of disabled people above all else, and that's honestly a good thing. Rebel and her family are a cast of overweight women making self depreciating jokes about their weight and eating issues and, well, who... honestly wants to see that...? It gets old, and quick. It does in 2022 and obviously did in 2008.

TLDR; Rebel Wilson is not funny.

A film that lacks any form of substance is going to get a very brief review from me. This is another found footage film, a genre which I totally disapprove of.

I can't even think of anything to say in a review as there really isn't anything to point out in the movie other than how crap it is. This movie is an hour and half of shaky camera work and screaming with all the actors arguing over the top of each other non stop. Its painfully frustrating.

Its unforgivably awful. Think of all the time, effort and money the cast and crew could have been investing into other recreational activities instead of giving birth to this frightful abomination of celluloid.

Why am I even reviewing this movie? Why am I giving it any more attention that I already did by falling into the trap of watching it!?

If you have never seen a single horror film in your entire life, then perhaps the Woman in Black is for you; however even the average film goer can identify this is tired, worn out, done-to-death story we've seen hundreds - - if not thousands - - of times before.

The story is simple. In the superstitious turn of the 19th Century to the 20th Century, a solicitor/lawyer/whatever has business with a scary old house that local village people fear and believe to be haunted. It turns out the house is very much haunted by a ghost, a woman in black, who inflicts murder and grief upon the village folk because of her sons death at the house as Daniel Radcliffe's character discovers by snooping through desks and drawers whilst staying at the house. The plot escalates quickly, which leads one to believe a large portion of the script had been removed in the cutting room floor. Radcliffe's character catches on and becomes cluey all too soon into the story.

The only problem with this film that writes it off as a success is that it is so, so, so very unoriginal. I can't imagine how many times I've seen this type of story before; maybe I'm just neck deep into horror films but as previously suggested, even someone with the slightest idea of horror and thriller knows this textbook ghost story. There is nothing original about the film, which I could overlook if there were redeeming characteristics like a uniqueness in film making, musical composition or script writing but the Woman in Black falls flat in all aspects of this. Furthermore, the jump scares and attempt to create a sinister, spooky vibe are some what embarrassing.

With the overall film being taken into account, it isn't actually bad. The style is superb, with brilliant cinematography and quality acting (not so much on Radcliffe's behalf) and what I really liked about this movie is its location setting – the swampy causeway leading to Osea Island and the general countryside of Essex set a lovely and gloomy mood for the remaining hour and thirty minutes.

I would never recommend or even bring this title up in conversation, as I can think of plenty of other classic ghost story titles at the top of my head that are far more interesting than this brilliantly developed, but unforgivably run of the mill story.

Creepshow III is not as bad as its infamous reputation. Taking into account the creators behind this film are in fact those responsible for the abomination known as Day of the Dead 2: Contagium, their second attempt at a devote homage to Romero is in fact successful - - as a devote Creepshow/Romero fan; it really is not that bad of a film.

The original Creepshow is fantastic as is Creepshow 2 and Tales from the Darkside is also another entertaining segmented hit from the same group of creators. I personally love these movies; they're parodies and spoofs of their inspiration source yet faithful homages at the same time so wonderfully portrayed it brings back childhood memories of being scared of nonsensical jibber jabber such as ghosts and zombies and monsters hiding under the bed. In the 80's and 90's Romero and King worked alongside on these films inspired by E.C comics, shorts by Stephen King - what have you. Let's look at Creepshow III in that way; after Romero and King's series of segment-based horror/comedy film they therefore set new grounds for new film makers to indulge and be inspired by and I think Creepshow III is exactly that - - taking into account its restrictions of pushing boundaries which I am sure the film makers would have intended to do but this is clearly an incredibly low budget film so there are bound to be set backs in script, acting, special effects … even though I don't think those particular structures in the film are that bad at all. AJ Bowen in "The Radio" is particularly good as is Camille Lacey in "Call Girl" as a serial killing prostitute.

My main point is that there are movies out there that are far worse than this. I have intentionally seen a lot of horrible movies so I can appreciate a wider range of cinema, some movies I have seen have $0 budgets and are shot on a digital home videos; Ben & Arthur (2002) comes to mind, and then there is Tommy Wiseau's The Room (2003) that is screened all the time at my local cult theatre so teenagers can get drunk/stoned and laugh at how appallingly awful everything about it truly is. Think Monster A Go-Go (1965) where the film ran out of funding, so the movie abruptly halts halfway and finalises the ending with stock footage. What about Santa With Muscles? Anything by Ulli Lommel is also worth burning and burying – my point being is that Creepshow III suffers a bad rap and I fail to see why, the first segment is probably the worst segment of all three Creepshow movies perhaps, but the film picks up with The Radio, Call Girl (which is reminiscent of the first Creepshow's "Father's Day" and "Something to Tide You Over" and the second movie's "The Hitchhiker) and even "The Professor's Wife" has a good sense of gory humour to it. After all this movie *is* intended to be a comedy/horror – it is probably more comedy based though with minor childlike horror elements. It reminds me of Goosebumps or Freaky Stories.

So did I enjoy Creepshow III? Apart from the failure of a coherent "Alice in Wonderland" reference that is the first segment "Alice" (even though there is good humour behind it) the movie is actually quite funny particularly "The Radio" and "Call Girl" being my favourite segments. The movie is a good cousin to the original two films and as a devote Romero/King/Creepshow fan I say that in all confidence. If one had a broad and open mind toward low budget cinema then you would understand that the infamous bad reviews that Creepshow III receives are in fact inflated and exaggerated by the horror community that are forever expected every horror movie that is released to be the next Rosemarie's Baby or Halloween, people are always demanding too much of horror.

The reason I love horror so much is its capability to be so diverse and so broad that one can manipulate fantasy, mystery, action, sci-fi into the mixing pot and whatever the outcome you can still optionally chose comedy as its strongest feature. So whether you think Creepshow III is good or bad, just take this film buff's advice; there is always *always* something far worse than whatever you have seen, so keep looking – when you find that ultimate bottom of the pit failure of celluloid it will help you appreciate movies like Creepshow III more.

"Inside" is a highly recommended French horror film, yet totally unengaging and run of the mill. We start out with a wonderfully crafted and shot opening, a tragic tale of a mother who lost her husband in a catastrophic collision with another car in the pouring rain, however she and her unborn baby survive. Living home alone with not many family members or friends to visit she is suddenly stalked by La Femme (Béatrice Dalle) who mysteriously wants her baby.

This film receives so much hype and anticipation from the English speaking audiences because it is French. American film makers are always doing something wrong in horror cinema, whether it be riddled cliché's, poor characters, predictability, take your run of the mill pick – either way all these half handed techniques tend to push away horror buffs and we slowly lose faith and are often dubious to upcoming horror movies (especially with the USA making every remake under sun and sky) in the American horror field - - so it seems to me that if a foreign movie is made in their cinematic ways it makes the English speaking audience assume it's better than anything American. Well this is wrong, Inside is proof of that.

During the 2000's there was a definite movie craze in torture and gore. First we had Saw - spawning several sequels - then Hostel and then a whole group of other viciously gory movies to match the rest and cash in on what was current at the box office – Inside is no exception to the likes of the pictures I have just mentioned because it practically is in the same category however it lacks solid script writing and replaces it with lots of red ooze instead. I feel not for the characters because there is a severe lack of character development so we can't necessarily sympathise with the heroine when she is under attack and is confronted with people being brutally murdered in front of her – it just notifies the audience that there is going to be an entire hour of nasty stabbings and blood; nothing more. The main actress also doesn't seem to care very much about her yet to be born child nor does she seem to suffer much psychological damage from the horrific events that happened only four months ago involving the loss of her husband; there is only one scene that depicts this. There are several more characters that enter *inside* the house and would you believe it - they don't have any brains! So when they meet their tragic end as consequence of their moronic actions it is no surprise, its just more stabbing and red liquid. Then after La Femme's entire face is burnt off but still survives there is a scene involving a zombie police man and, well, I really don't need to say more because I feel there is not that much more that actually happens in the film for me to talk about.

Despite the fact I did not enjoy this, I must note Béatrice Dalle's portrayal of a mysterious woman in black is excellent; she sets the mood of the film at the beginning before it all goes downhill into a slaughter slasher mess of a movie. If this film were to be a psychological thriller, with gripping tension and a better script the potential really could have shined.

So, what is the point in watching movies like this? Unless you like constant gore, then there is none – I guess I fell into the trap of over rated hype and good reviews only to find that this movie just another soulless gore feast for people who like no plot whatsoever and just blood blood blood – it goes to prove one must make up their own mind. I am convinced that Western crowds (I mean English speaking audiences) rate this above the rest because it is not American and people hold prejudice of American horror and have this assumed preconception that it will be hammed up and clichéd – well "Inside" is hammed up and clichéd and it is not American so make up your own mind.

The 2000's have been a time when the horror community fuelled with rage and hate, as the mainstream film industry took over beloved classics such as "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", "Halloween", "Day of the Dead" etc only to rehash them with modern film equipment and technology which usually insults the original film and its fans. Because of this horror buffs and film lovers in general, hesitate when a "Escape From New York" or "Fright Night" remake is in the works and typically it will be slandered as "one of the worst films I have ever seen". This 2005 remake of John Carpenter's 1980 film "The Fog"

is listed as one of the worst, however when I watched it I didn't really see anything that wrong with it other than typical horror cheese and its lack in effective substance.

Of course most horror films have cheese. When I watch the original "The Fog" (which I adore) I can't help but feel a little embarrassed when I see ghosts with glowing red eyes but that is all a part of the dating process so that isn't really anything to hold against the film. This version does the exact same only with cheap computer graphic ghosts and burning, rotting flesh – it's cheesy and it dates a lot faster than effects from the 1980's. It really backs me up when I say the film industry jumped ahead of itself before truly mastering CGI whereas today we have films like "Avatar" and "Clash of the Titans" which do have quite impressive computer visuals. Other than these moments in the film which occur in the last thirty or so minutes, there isn't really anything too horrendous that the original didn't do other than its lack in atmosphere and scariness.

What this movie was missing the most was suspense and thrills. It has a good opening, twenty minutes of opening shots of the island, the sea, crashing waves, fog horns etc. which create a serene, creepy setting accompanied by a particularly chilling piano score, only the film moves on from its focus on horror and atmosphere and moves into a series of events plodding around with uninteresting characters rather than creating any truly suspenseful scenes. Even when it's trying to create suspense and creepiness you can't help but care less as the characters are so plain and boring to watch.

The acting is passable but it doesn't redeem the poorly crafted characters. We have pretty boy Tom Welling who has no character development at all, the script attempts it but not well enough. He is the main character and couldn't be more uninteresting and forgettable although luckily Tom Welling isn't a bad actor otherwise that would be a real problem. Maggie Grace is no better but fortunately enough isn't droll to watch on screen. Then there is Selma Blair who I really wish was written into the script more as she was the only person in this film I came close to liking; however as Stevie Wayne she doesn't quite cut it. Then we have the token African American comic relief; DeRay Davis's character "Spooner" which by the year 2005 this textbook joker should have left out of screenplays.

Rupert Wainwright's remake of The Fog certainly isn't one of the worst remakes out there. It is quite cheesy at times but personally I found it stuck sensibly to the 1980 version rather than humiliating itself and insulting the original like many remakes do. It is a rather forgettable film as there are no overwhelmingly great moments, it didn't really go anywhere further than the original film did and the cast of characters are flat and have no substance - this movie is bland not bad. Still, there are far worse out there that deserve heavier criticism than this 2005 remake gets.

Student Bodies is one of the most over-hyped and acclaimed films by the horror loving public. Personally, I think it suffers the "unheard of gem" syndrome because it's a horror parody that is fifteen to twenty years ahead of movies that set out to do the same idea like Scream and Scary Movie...but there is no way on this earth that it's a better film than those two. Just because a movie is ahead of its time, that doesn't mean it'll be good.

The movie starts out okay only for its script to jump into a whirlpool of unfunny scenarios and jokes. The comedy of this movie is overwhelmingly tedious as the jokes are all dragged out more than three times and often resort to potty humour and sex jokes – not a good move, immaturity can be fun as it's always great to find the child inside us, but really, there are limits and Student Bodies goes way beyond them as the film thinks it is so much funnier than it actually is. The opening scene may mislead you as it parodies the horror "rules" and clichés perfectly but as soon as the first ten minutes are over, bam; here comes the cringe-fest.

The parodies are okay however they're swallowed up by the god awful humour. If the creators knew how to parody "the unseen killer" cliché they would have properly leave him as "The Breather" and occasionally give him jokes to make, not talking throughout the whole film every time he has a scene and especially not noticing the audience – that's annoying and it becomes unbearably unfunny. It's so disappointing seeming as the spoofs and parodies of the clichéd slasher formulated sub-genre seem to be going so well, only to leave you cringing in frustration due to how tediously unfunny the entire film is.

That's all there really is to say. Student Bodies is a parody that relies on its jokes and the jokes are bad so where is the fun in that? There seem to be good ideas to parody the cliché's in horror but they're thrown out the window because the movie is so focused on cramming its humour in your face...and it isn't even funny, it's all ten year old humour. It's a shame as I was really looking forward to where Scary Movie started and sure I saw it, but man was I disappointed. I'd choose Scream over this any day. 3/10

To make it clear I'm not necessarily a fan of the original though I can definitely see why horror fans love Feast and I can most certainly relate to why they are so extremely disappointed by this completely and utterly offensive sequel that doesn't work at what it wants to do.

I'm all for vile and offensive movies and humour – I'm a fan of John Waters and his trash movie's like Pink Flamingos and Desperate Living, though a movie that sets itself out to be grotesque and extremely offensive needs to be handled very, very carefully and not by butter-finger producers and writers. Much like Uwe Boll's Postal, Sloppy Seconds pushes its immoral boundaries beyond infinity in a self indulgent manner and fails miserably only serving up jokes where the joke is purely on the film and creators. Babies being murdered and eaten, cats being raped, bodily fluids, gigantic rubber penises, little people wrestling, female bikies who let their breasts hang out the whole movie etc etc. I could go on but I won't because that'd be just as much of a waste of time as this whole movie is, especially when you're watching a whole cast of characters you actually wish would hurry up and die ending the movie.

The original film had characters who were basically self centred people too. The only difference between them and these characters are that they didn't kill babies and leap in joy when rotting old women splattered to pieces and the cast of the original hesitated over sacrificing other people to save themselves, they also helped one another out. Feast II however has every single character as a useless waste of soul. Even characters from the original are turned into monsters. Note also that this movie has a different introducing style for its characters, which is completely weak and underwhelming unlike the first which played out like some sort of "bad ass" western themed video game and let you knew what you were in for.

The original was pure survival comedy/horror where comedy came into the script at the correct times but it was still pulled off well as you rooted for the right character's and had self admitting fun the whole movie through because you see; no one really wants to admit laughing at a baby being thrown in the air, splattering on the ground then being eaten by a monster which is something the first Feast did not have – humour like that isn't shocking in a good way, it's just disgusting and sad that people actually put it in their movies.

The gore and humour relies solely on grossing out its audience. As I said, bodily wastes such as urine, farts, vomit (and a lot of it) are constantly present in the movie which makes the film live up to its subtitle, but that isn't to say it's good – yeah, all these things are gross but not when the special effects are so poorly done all you can do is remember when you were young and bought fake blood and slime from discount shops for $1.50.

This movie tries too hard to be offensive, repugnant and grotesque which it is but not in a good or successful way. The original had black humour but it never went too far which Sloppy Seconds certainly does – and in a really bad way. Sloppy Seconds is a sloppy sequel and even though I couldn't care less for the entire franchise this movie is another late 2000's "let's be as offensive as possible in a funny and risky way" that does nothing but rub everyone the wrong way. The first was just a decent film, it certainly didn't need sequels. 2/10

The Changeling isn't too unique and doesn't offer too much for the genre however what helps this forgotten 1980 horror stand out from the rest is the brilliantly executed atmosphere; unfortunately that is about it. The film opens with a slap-in-the-face scene that holds up well though the more the film progresses the more it becomes a bore to sit through and one can't help but predict the entire story (which in itself is weak) and notice to tiresome ghost story clichés. Yes it has some great scenes and some captivating execution here and there however the over-all result of the film doesn't really hold up as The Changeling succeeds in some accepts and then utterly fails at others.

Perhaps it's the atmosphere that echoes classics like The Innocents and The Haunting that make this film highly acclaimed amongst the horror crowd; then again this may be blinding people from what else is going on. The movie involves John Russell (George C. Scott) who loses his wife and child in a car accident. He moves out of his small city apartment into a ridiculously huge house in the country. Once there he is terrorised by a spirit and the more he investigates the more the mystery unravels – sound familiar? Even in 1980 this story was already one giant predictable cliché. The screenplay handles the ghost concept rather well and there are no stupid laughable moments or anything of the sort; until the last twenty minutes where doors begin to burst open, wind comes from nowhere, a little spontaneous combustion, shaking chandeliers and so on – this doesn't work and it makes the film seem pumped cheese, therefore weak and illogical – it sometimes relies in silliness to scare which I've never understood why so many horror films do that; The Changeling is no exception.

The mystery surrounding the spirit is never emphasised or explained enough; the spirit doesn't seem to have a motive to haunt this particular man. It's like the director forgot to go into even brief detail about the ghost and that is another major element that the film lacked quality in. The story is unoriginal and typical, sometimes that is passable but The Changeling doesn't provide anything to excuse its neglected story. It's a disappointing film because the movie works itself up to be a logical ghost/haunted house tale with some nice backup stories but the final result turns out to be a typical mess riddled in sad clichés to the extent where the atmosphere, camera-work, acting and score can't redeem its silliness.

The atmosphere is utterly terrific; although the mansion the story takes place in is too big it still works as there are some great cries, banging and moaning that echo through the house at night; throw in a bit of special camera-work (the tracking, the stills) given the well light sets and cinematography you know the director knew how to unsettle his audience – the film also features creepy antique wheelchairs and toys that work and fit into the script at the right moment but then unfortunately take a wrong turn and become unintentionally hilarious.

The performances from the cast are fine and never really become too unbearable. This is great as so many horror films have acting that is never up to scratch however The Changeling is a film where one can sit back and relax to acting that isn't at all worthy of a cringed face, even if George C. Scott pulls some hilarious expressions at times.

The score by Rick Wilkins is fantastic. The gorgeous orchestral music really fits with the traditional ghost/haunted house story and the director really knew when to use it so that it would be effective. See, when one takes in these parts of the movie you can see director Peter Medak had talent for a haunting and eerie horror; disappointingly enough the story and characters are utterly weak and that is where one can't help but notice the overall incompetence of what you just watched.

So if you're sick of worthless predictable ghost stories with a typical story that doesn't work, too much unintentional humour and a bucket load of clichés that doesn't offer anything to the genre then The Changeling isn't really the film to watch; however, if you're in the mood for the run-of-the-mill ghost story where the atmosphere is actually done right then and the acting is bearable perhaps this is for you. Don't expect too much from The Changeling, it isn't really anything special and in all honesty the only element it has going for it is the atmosphere which is not enough to redeem the overflowing flaws. 5/10

I can understand if people think this is a stupid film, or if it's forgettable, idiotic, whatever; but you have to admit that is has one pretty crazy plot. People are being gruesomely decapitated on a golf course by a evil killer lawn mower. Come again? Personally, I didn't find it bad – it's a comedy/horror and it doesn't necessary fail at that.

The movie isn't entirely hilarious, it isn't mind numbingly unfunny either, turn off your brain and you can have some cheesy, low budget 80's fun as it packs a few witty jokes, it's a great parody of Jaws and has fun deaths - saying that, a massive problem I had with the film was its constant resort to silliness which is what a lot of comedy/horror's do, still – you get over it because the movie is pretty fun.

For such a miniscule budget the movie is quite impressive and I kind of enjoyed it – it's crazy, stupid, and one of those movies you come across on the last existing VHS section in your video rental shop and discover some really obscure stuff. Other than everything I have written in this tiny review, there isn't that much else to it but that doesn't mean it's bad. The entire point of this film is to turn off your brain and enjoy a slasher where the villain is a killer lawn mower on a golf course; nothing more, nothing less. Have some self admitting, cheesy 80's fun.

Unlike the "old horror is good: new horror is bad" audience I'm a person willing to accept any horror for what it is. I love old horror movies like Halloween, Phantasm and The Shining and I like new horror films such as Saw, Altered and even The Strangers but...The Unborn gives modern horror a really bad reputation. It's a pity you can't see a drop of influence from any horror classic in The Unborn where opportunities for influence are replaced with painful (yet laughable) clichés making The Unborn one of the worst films I have ever seen.

It is evident the "Guide to Horror Cliché's" manual played a huge part in the making of this movie. Sometimes a Horror can get away with unoriginality or being typical – by today's horror film standards clichés are heavily frowned upon and The Unborn is swimming in them. These are the types of clichés you have seen thousands and thousands of times before to the extent where they become painful – typical jumps scenes, the old "You think I'm crazy don't you?", ludicrously happy flashbacks, the flamboyant and bubbly best friend, useless priests, the paranormal discoveries, possessions, the "taking action" montage scene; the list is never ending and these clichés stand out so much you can't help but laugh in hysterics at them. I have never seen a movie pack itself up with so many cliché's; this is 2009 and by now the Horror genre knows better than to repeat such things; sadly, The Unborn isn't aware of this.

The use of advertisement and modern teenage culture doesn't help either; this will make the film date terribly. Internet chatting, text message gossiping, webcam, i-Pods etc – see this is all fine but not when advertising technology is done through film as in-your-face as The Unborn does it, it becomes irritatingly painful – you could watch an i-Pod commercial on television and then this movie and not know the difference. Looking at how rapidly technology changes and how much of an impact it has on youth culture these days the movie is going to date at the same pace and that will make it even funnier than it already is – then again, who will be watching this movie in ten years? All this advertisement incorporated into the film promotes the overall sleazy money-grabbing atmosphere of the movie. Just look at the poster if you don't believe me when I say this movie was made to grab our consumerist attention.

Knowing the movie's sole purpose was money all characterization, acting, story etc are thrown out the window (though it's cute when the movie tries to create a climatic ending). In the magical land of horror characters are never meant to immediately confess to believing in spirits – in horror movies, ghosts, ghoulies and goblins exist but characters are meant to live in naivety and ignore that – I laughed out loud when a character said "You know I believe in ghosts" – this is nitpicking, but it adds to the overall idiocy of the movie. Although, there are some cool ideas here and there (the dogs) for a split second but they never amount to anything and if they do its pure cheese. The movie isn't even self-aware, it's like listening to an unintelligent 13 year old blabber on – it isn't logical, it isn't self-admitting cheese – it's just stupid and it doesn't even know it.

Oh, and this movie being a horror film and all I should mention that nothing is scary; I'd say this is a comedy more than anything else.

If this movie was slightly logical with some serious atmosphere and tone and a decent script, acting, characters, direction and execution it could have been a nifty little horror...but the final result is none of those. The Unborn is one of the worst films of 2009 and one of the worst films I have ever seen period – it is everything that is wrong with modern (and definitely horror) cinema. Just see for yourself and you will understand the mountains of bad reviews and criticism.

We have all seen Stagefright before; it's a predictable typical slasher with an unconvincing killer and young pretty people being axed off though this hasn't been done by Michele Soavi. The most noteworthy elements of the film are the camera-work, cinematography, score and it's violent, brutal deaths which are ranked by horror fanatics as some of the most vicious kills in the slasher sub-genre. It isn't a movie to be taken seriously and a massive 1980's cheese-fest which is what makes it so fantastic.

First off, what Stagefright fails at is classic slasher rules; drugs, sex and language which is all absent from this movie. However I don't think the Guide to Making a Slasher Handbook was Soavi's inspiration as this is, after all, a directional debut. This isn't another Friday the 13th and it isn't another Sleepaway Camp – this is a Michele Soavi movie loaded with outrageous, loopy visuals, bizarre dialogue, bad acting and savage murders. When Soavi came out to the film industry as "Argento's protégé" he really meet expectations and Stagefright along with later films such as The Church and Cemetery Man go to prove it. Yes it does not have naked bodies, the characters are not drug inducing menaces and there is a lack of foul language but so what – this is far better than a lot of other slashers that came out in the 80's because it is just so fun and we can thank Soavi's style for that.

Whilst the movie is completely silly it's still entertaining, especially for the eyes. The visuals are completely wonderful with cinematography exposing colour through the lens in a flamboyant fashion, especially when all the characters in the film are wearing such eccentric clothes. The camera-work is professionally solid and stands out, the panning is soft, the stills are (not always) very still and it's the style of camera-work one would assume would come from Argento's protégé. The score is 1980's cheese but it works a wonder and it fits well in a movie such as Stagefright, it's also a hoot to listen to as you watch a woman being torn in half from the waist down.

I will not spoil the deaths in this review. There are some really nasty eye opening kills in this movie which are illogical, nonsensical and completely derivative but that's Italian Horror for you, and as a matter of fact – that's the movies for you. If someone is into violent slashers then this is perhaps the film you've been looking for though the movie isn't overflowing with gore and eye cringing kills which can be a letdown for gore fanatics.

Stagefright is typically predictable like one would find in any slasher, but it offers something quite unique – it's artistic cinematic elements are fantastic, the music is a thrill ride to listen to, it's easy to watch, the characters are all wearing eccentric 80's fashion like you'd expect from a metropolis stage performer in that era and its environment is at least not a camp, beach, cemetery, small town, or anything you've seen one hundred times before in a film which requires the protagonist to take of their clothes. Stagefright is another run of the mill slasher, but it is Michele Soavi's run of the mill slasher and that is what makes it unique. It's cheese but it isn't like this movie is taking itself serious, so sit back and enjoy this reminder of what Italian slashers were like in the 1980's.

Whilst I understand the basics and sole purpose of Sacha Baron Cohen's character films, he doesn't deliver a well structured social commentary with Brüno. In fact Brüno offers vile, disgusting and obscenity more than Borat or any other recent comedies I have seen; I can't really recollect a film that features or will feature a scene involving a speaking penis. It's this kind of asinine humour that goes to prove that Brüno is cheap idiotic laughs and nothing but. Little intelligent social commentary wit and lots of a vulgar and repugnant laughs; this is not comedy – this is idiocy.

The character of Brüno isn't really something one would call complex. Like Borat, Brüno's goal is to catch the ignorant off guard and on film however Brüno does not do this. Brüno "interviews" rednecks, Christians, seen-before ignorant Americans and he even harasses the Westboro Baptist Community however he doesn't really do anything with or to them but makes bulge, fashion and orientation jokes. In fact he just makes his entirety the equivalent to a streaker ranging from obscene jokes and obscure behaviour. Society's homophobia isn't depicted in this film; it actually catches uncivil people off guard and makes everyone look like a joke more than a homophobic bigot which is what this films purpose was all about, like Borat with America's xenophobia. There is no message behind the film, pretty much what you see is what you get and that is why Brüno fails at what it was meant to do.

When I was in grade four at age eight the boys would put on impersonations of the homosexual stereotype which is pretty much exactly what Brüno is; this is outsider humour, straight people making jokes about homosexuality and it's very boring and very typical with no new twists. If Cohen indulged in the homosexual community to the extent of capturing the essence of the stereotypical homosexual male then perhaps this film would have worked, though Brüno is just an insipid character that people are not homophobic of but more so disgusted by due to the obscenity that is Brüno. Everyone acts relatively calm to Brüno's pushy and in your face orientation though when they snap its excusable as no one would quite want to be caught on film with another naked man attempting to enter their tent or make love to an imaginary phantasms genitals – anyone would react in such a way, they are not being homophobic in any way, shape, size or form.

The scene with Ron Paul is genuine nastiness. With politics aside Ron Paul is a seventy five year old man who is pro-gay marriage. Perhaps Cohen's sole purpose for this scene was to offend and exploit a pro-gay marriage politician by getting him to call Brüno a "queer" and react in an offended manner to Brüno's seductions? Either way Paul is put into a demeaning position where only Cohen ends up looking like the fool because after all, Paul came to Bruno expecting a serious interview only to be sexually harassed in a bedroom which is beyond humour, it's cruel. This scene did not offend me or make me laugh, it just made me think how much of an idiot Cohen is by doing such things and once again, the scene failed to make me scoff in shock at Brüno's outrageous stunt.

This film felt weak, flat, dishonest and reliant on grotesque humour instead of causing social uproar and didn't focus on society's off-guard discrimination towards homosexuality which is what I thought this film was all about because that's what I saw in Borat. Instead we get this soulless production of a comedy with nothing behind it other than cheap laughs and repugnant sexual imagery/stories that I was exposed to by peers in grade five. Brüno will also date at a miserably fast rate featuring current celebrities, politicians, technology, current Hollywood, references to fashion, music, films and I could go on. It's a shame too because I thought Cohen was going deliver stupidity on the outside but actually an intelligent commentary on the inside where as Brüno had me checking the time every five to ten minutes. All this coming from a gay reviewer.

I felt cheated. The film started out with fantastic camera work and charming cinematography, the photography was great and the build up of the tenants was well thought out and their characters unique. Everything indicated I was in for a black comedy/romance that revolves around cannibalism due to the post-apocalyptic economy. Suddenly this sub-plot comes into play about underground rebels called "troglodytes". Once this comes into the film things get out of hand with nonsensical comedy (jokes involving large people and toilet water) and an uninteresting scattered pace, also, our intriguing tenants disappear from the story and become seemingly useless.

Some of the creativity and style seemed over worked. I didn't like the way Jeunet got his actors to act, I mean don't get me wrong I didn't think they were bad actors, it was just the direction from Jeunet that seemed like I was watching a theatre play for five year olds; spitting at a photo frame so hard that it shatters, the squeaking all the tenants created all at the same time, a bourgeois character constantly attempts and fails suicide – little things like this irked me from time to time. I did however enjoy the scene in which Louison, the films protagonist and another tenant squeak the springs of a bed in rhythm to the music on television and I enjoyed the creativity of Louison's circus-like acts.

I adored the visual style but I didn't like the way the comedy was brought out (or the comedy at all, really) and the direction of the actors. It was a great film with flaws I would have overlooked. Unfortunately the "trog's" were introduced, when they came in I lost all faith and interest in this being something I'd consider brilliant.

So much for spiritual discovery! Did I have to be intoxicated to appreciate this? I appreciate independent film making, I really do – but this isn't easy cinema viewing for one who hasn't got drugs circulating around in their system. In fact it's absolutely horrible. After all that isn't what cinema is about. You can make a movie trippy for intoxicated viewers, but it still has to be enjoyable for the sober; there are lots of critically acclaimed drug based films that do this and lots of people like them. Harvest does not do this, Harvest is boring regardless if you're intoxicated or sober.

The story is about a man who lives in secluded hills on an island in St. Lucia territory seeking personal and spiritual wisdom. It doesn't really go anywhere. The spiritual discovery element relies too much on trippy 1960's-esque visuals and relatively modern reggae music by Psycho Key. If one were intoxicated it isn't soothing and serene, but bland and uninteresting. Viewing this movie sober you really don't gain anything at all.

To simply put it, there is no story. You only get to see about three to five minutes of story and then ten minutes of music footage. Some scenes had potential to build story and character; for an example when our two leads are stuck in middle of the ocean and panic...only to smoke weed and enter a music montage scene. Hmm...but it isn't just that one scene; it's the whole film. Any part of the script where the creators could have developed something threw it all away instead of going somewhere with it, replacing it with trippy visuals and music footage.

There were only three characters and they are completely rushed. The protagonist visits his beloved mother where we are introduced to a woman who supposedly became wise raising so many children. Do we see it? No. All the characters seem overly rushed. The main character at one point says "To escape from ghetto life, George sold his soul to the army. What he never imagined was that he would find himself swimming for his life" well, in this circumstance joining the army is a more productive life style than getting stuck at sea and the only conclusion to have is smoking pot. In a very biased attitude, a soldier is saved by hippies and then abandons his military position. How droll and immature.

I like a film based on drugs and trippyness incorporated into it but I prefer characters, story and meaning behind a film instead of mindless acid trip-like scenes constantly occurring for sixty minutes that are actually quite generic. No inventive drug related cinematic style what-so-ever; it is insipid as one would find in a low budget music video. The creators didn't completely fail but they sure could have gone to some more effort.

Another bone to pick with this film is that there is more footage of Psycho Key than there is footage of story and characters. Perhaps I have too much of a strict attitude of cinema but this film did not move me and in all honesty I don't think it would if I were high either. The worst thing about this film is that five minutes was made into an hour and hour was made into two minutes with narration of the main character summarizing the aftermath of his journey which was, let me see, leaving his home, entering a village to see his family, go to a party, then get stuck at sea. That's it. So much for spiritual discovery! What a ridiculous film. In fact this movie is so inept I'm laughing about it as I conclude this review.

"Phantasm: an apparition of a ghostly appearing figure" Simply put Phantasm is a visual nightmare transformed into a person's sketchy reality. The emphasis on sleeping and dreams is exactly the message it is getting at. With a perfect score and a quintessentially frighteningly written Horror villain 'The Tall Man' the only downfalls of Phantasm are its lack of quality acting, script, pacing and cheap 1970's horror clichés. In fact the acting and characters become so irritating it is the only element of Phantasm that takes it away from being considered a true Horror classic by most Horror buffs (or maybe it's George Lucas' unauthorized use of Jawa's?).

When one scans the Horror elite those films have pretty atrocious acting problems too, so why should Phantasm fail so much? It shouldn't really because Phantasm is just as good as the classics. One of the reason why Phantasm is such a unique film is the well established characters unlike most Horror films; whilst the acting is somewhat absent from the strongly written character it's still enough to redeem the awkwardly delivered lines, odd facial expressions and comical snappy reactions. The films score is also perfect and mesmerizing that fits well by Fred Myrow, it was in fact one of the most powerful elements of the movie that really had me engaged. The stunning visuals and the concept and imagery of The Tall Man (wonderfully portrayed by Angus Scrimm) are authentically creepy, like something one would encounter in a nightmare. (in fact, I had a dream where I was in Hell and I encountered a priest that had been shrunk and dissected by a demon and this was before I saw Phantasm) I know I would be pretty hysterical if The Tall Man was stalking me.

It's these points of the film that for me makes Phantasm an atmospheric and creepy horror gem, in fact it brings me back to when I was a five year old child in a video store in the 90's, traumatized by the VHS covers for Hellraiser and The Blob only to eagerly await the day I was old enough to view them. Another reason why Phantasm's atmosphere works so well is the use of white and brightness instead darkness Phantasm's surreal mortuary is a nightmarish treat of white marble walls lined with drawers of the dead, gaping large hallways and The Tall Man's shoes trudging along the tiles that make you feel he's going to jump out of the television screen. From the flying silver balls to the void to another dimension, Phantasm's concept of a ghoulishly eerie tale about a soul keeper is wonderfully mastered and pulled off.

No matter how jammed with 1970's horror clichés the use of the shoestring budget and surrealism incorporated into Phantasm makes it a pure Horror gem. It seems all the love goes to over rated films only because they're so talked about and not actually analysed. This movie has creeped me out more than any other Horror classic ever could now and I'm far from the age I was when I used to be scared those films. Phantasm is highly recommended to surrealist, horror and cult fanatics.

Terror Firmer is an exercise in bad taste; self-indulgent bad taste mind you. Don't get me wrong, I love the trash and exploitation films like John Waters'; yet at least in his bizarre mind he makes his movies innocent and genuine and behind them all is actually pure brilliancy in character and script. With Terror Firmer, director/producer/egotistic actor Lloyd Kaufman goes to prove that he can push the boundaries of filth to infinity; so far in fact that it becomes seemingly irritating and noticeably self loving. With hyperactive actors (example: Toddster) and an over written script Terror Firmer packs itself up with as many obscene and vile scenes as possible; a foetus being ripped out of its mothers belly, a man eating faeces from another's anus; a hermaphrodites scarred bits. It's just too much and it doesn't want you to not realise it. Terror Firmer is a two hour, self indulgent, egotistic pile of crap with an in your face "look how much of a disgusting and vile independent film I can be" attitude. Make a vulgar and repugnant film by all means, but never go too far and too cocky as Terror Firmer does.

How does a film be so good? Well every one of them has their flaws, and I'm sure even this, The Wicker Man, does, yet it's guaranteed that you'll surpass whatever flaws the film may hold due to the pure brilliance it beholds. Written by Anthony Schaffer (Sleuth, Frenzy) and directed by one hit wonder of film, Robin Hardy who is previously working on a somewhat another adaptation of his 1973 work called 'Cowboys for Christ', The Wicker Man is one of the best any could ever see.

The Wicker Man is a great film; that's basically what I'm going to try to get across. The messages and themes in this movie are so phenomenal and elements bizarre, that its hard to believe people out their actually hate this movie. Whilst at first the film gives a some what biased message against Christianity, the movie unfolds into a matter of religion being some what a muddle in general due to human kind's way of behaving upon it. A film that strikes a message across over mans obsession over religion? Yes, it works, and oh how it does.

The plot is as follows; Sergeant (Neil) Howie receives a letter from anonymous from Summerisle, a small secluded Scottish island consisting of a community with some what odd and different believes from the mainland's religion and culture which possibly fall into Paganism. The letter explains of a missing girl called Rowan Morrison. Howie, being an incredibly strict Christian, so strict that he refuses to have sexual intercourse before marriage, and strict to his career as a police officer, is given nothing but "nonsense and rubbish" as he asks the whereabouts of Rowan Morrison, and other questions to follow, which ends with a festival called May Day which lives up to the films poster art work. This is where the questioning of your personal beliefs comes in. Howie seems to be very closed minded and strict about the culture of the people on Summerisle, and although you may think the people of the island think the opposite back, they too are quite ignorant and "insane" due to their beliefs and religion hence "God is dead, he had his chance".

The film has an amazing pace, and along the whole feature there are scenes such as a girls nasal passage wrapped around a tree on her grave, and a jar of foreskins in a local shop which makes this film so different and obscure like no other because of its exploration into unheard territories of religion(s) and culture that we as the majority of society may be very unaware of. Another thing about The Wicker Man is its incredible realistic portraying of "pagan" cultures, where as in the remake we see people running around in brown and white robes, and in this film we see them as normal and well presented people living on an island isolated from their culture, but not living in the 1800's or anything ridiculous and far-fetched. The film does play on its characters to represent the message of accepting one another's cultures, religion, beliefs etc.

Not only has this but the movie has a certain spark of music to it. Along the whole movie there is folk like music that occasionally makes its way into the film and suits in very fine to what scenes it connects with, such as the scene between Howie and Willow (Britt Ekland) and their moment despite their separation of different rooms. The music adds more to the islander's crazy, fun yet somewhat enlightening religion.

The acting from almost every character and actor in the film is remarkable. Edward Woodward does an absolute spectacular job as the strict, up tight "no fun" police officer, and his character works so well with him, its not only convincing, but you begin to get annoyed by his character for being so, as many would say "boring" and yet we as the audience can understand just how he feels about the way things are run on Summerisle, and in the end there is a complete character change, that makes you feel so gloomy over the ending of the film. Even Edward Woodward's character went on to inspire the Simon Pegg's character of Nicholas Angel in Hot Fuzz (2007) in which Woodward himself stars in too. Christopher Lee has always has a certain enigma about him as an actor, in the James Bond film The Man With the Golden Gun he plays a mysterious and intellectual man which is convincing, not only due to his acting abilities but his facial expression, height and so on. Even today in films such as Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) he still has a morbid yet intelligent character about him despite he is only on screen for a few moments. All the extras of the film that appear on Summerisle also have this mysterious character about them. The sort of "they know something I don't" act is seen through whole movie by all the citizens of the island. Christopher Lee's role as Lord Summerisle has got to be one of the most influential and amazing performances I have ever seen on screen, and I'm sure there's more than a handful that agree with me.

The Wicker Man, no matter how unheard of the film may be, should be seen by everyone who actually has a care left about film. This movie toys with personal beliefs and religion, and doesn't necessarily portray specific messages, but gives the viewer their own thought on the subject of religion, culture and beliefs. This land mark in film history will never be forgotten as long as people uphold its pure brilliance, no matter how many people say it isn't a horror film, and no matter how many remakes it may have. The Wicker Man has stood the test of time and as long as religion stays on the planet, this film will always stand the test of time.

German director Ulli Lommel randomly emerged into the direct to video horror genre in the mid 2000's and has since then delivered the worst films anyone could ever lay their sorry eyes on. They are actually literally painful to watch where no one gains a thing from them – not even unintentional so-bad-its-good comedy. However, there is a chance that in the distant future his films will become iconic with a cult film formula growing from nothing-but-trash to weird-that-it-was-made, though it's a little unlikely for now as he is making fans of the Horror genre puzzled and confused as to how anyone can create such atrocities of cinema.

If H.P. Lovecraft were still around and saw Lommel's adaptation of The Tomb he would probably be a very sad man and never write ever again; there are just one too many directors who take his well structured stories and utterly destroy them in a demeaning manner through their saddening execution and lack of cinematic talent -- Lommel is a very unoriginal man once again he goes to prove it by creating The Tomb. An unoriginal story is fine granted successful execution, art direction, style, acting, pace – whatever works as long as it isn't in-your-face done before tripe which is exactly what The Tomb is. A major comparison one cannot pass up is the 2004 hit "Saw" with The Tomb having one too many similarities that helps this film fall into the category of either rip-off or cash-in. People are very well aware of Saw by now, the seriousness of their lives, the fact anyone can fall into the trap at any time and you can even wind up dead – whilst The Tomb is an adaptation of another medium its unoriginality is shocking in terms of cinema. Yes The Tomb is quite a seen before pile of crap with many terrible aspects about it like no other.

On top of the films unoriginality is its astonishingly terrible special effects, poor casting and acting, mind numbingly boring music, poor editing, ugly cinematography, shaky camera work that at times is as though the cameraman was drunk and oh how the list just goes on. The Tomb is so much like a home video that someone without a clue about film making could quite possibly pull off a better film that is more watchable. Even a home video can be interesting if it has something to it, something bizarre, appealing and unnatural. An example would be John Waters' Pink Flamingos – its borderline home video and has next to nothing of a budget yet still has international appeal as it's like no other movie out there. The Tomb doesn't have that. It's a prime example of just out right bad horror that hopefully will be forgotten as time goes by as it is just another shot on a camcorder horror film released straight to DVD. This film will make you psychically sad or angry – or hey, even both!

Though Ulli Lommel is a very interesting cinema figure; how anyone can make such terrible, terrible films confuses me, yet draws me to them. He is notorious, a criminal against film and yet still manages to release more than one film at least every year. As the saying goes "It's hideous, yet I cannot turn away" which somewhat summarises Lommel's work – he is so terrible yet sometimes I feel myself renting his movies just to be gobsmacked over how terrible they are. I mean, why has he directed two films based on the Zodiac Killer and released them the same year? It's so bizarre that it almost alienates me from my entire understanding and knowledge of cinema. Still, Lommel is a very bad film director and its movies like The Tomb that make this a fact more than an opinion.

I never thought the television series would have strayed so far away from itself, but The Simpsons Movie goes to prove it has. I have a feeling that deep down inside the producers of this film somewhat knew they were going to make a terrible film that would sweep the box offices pronto, and it did. 74 million on the opening weekend in the USA. Of course people are going to see it, it's the Simpson's Movie! The Simpson's, the classic television series that defines a portion of our modern generation. When one quotes the Simpson's, everyone knows where it is from, at least, in our age group. This movie however has strayed so far away from the real Simpson's that it's as thought it doesn't know its own self anymore. You compare this film to the original early 90's episodes and there is a lot of stupidity, character change, dumb humor and so on.

Remember when you came home and watched the Simpson's in the afternoon like everyone else in the 90s? You'd be fed amazing subject matter, themes, and messages week after week, time after time, and this subject matter was made into witty intelligent humor that striked out a message to your average modern day dysfunctional family. The Simpson's was so relatable to almost everyone who watched it. For an example: when Bart enters the golf putty tournament and Homer pressures him into it, it was so relatable to so many people but in the end it would clean up with Homer and Flanders wearing their wives dresses mowing their lawns. Something serious with a punch of humor, which was what the Simpson's, was all about. The episode where Bart and Lisa fight over Bart destroying Lisa's thanks giving ornament and Bart runs away from home yet only to return to his family who loves him dearly despite all the fighting and such. This was it! This was the Simpson's that everyone loved!

Week after week people would never get upset over their loved television show involving Homer strangling Bart, Homer falling down the stairs, Lisa giving out some intelligent remark only to be ignored by her family, Marge groaning or Maggie falling over her dress. If you pay attention, this is all disappearing in the new episodes…as sad as it is, but our lovable characters are being disfigured into something and someone else. Look at Bart in the film for an example, Bart is upset because his dad isn't enough of a father figure, therefore he turns to the Flanders family?!?! Bart, the boy struggling at school and the boy who has the sling shot in his back pocket, is a trouble maker! He doesn't want a father figure! Not only the enormous change of characters has been happening, but far fetched, random, Family Guy-esquire humor has been occurring in the Simpson's, when shouldn't the Simpson's stay as the Simpson's and not turn into something its not, Family Guy?

There's some really terrible jokes in this film too. Homer pours a silo of pig excrement into a lake so it mutates animals? Yeah…okay…that's realistic and funny…and the spider pig joke, people, it isn't funny!! This movie just goes to prove that the producers shove the Simpson's on our plates and we gobble it up laughing our heads off because it's the Simpson's in the 21st century, now they can do anything they want because they were defined enough in the 90's! No! I'm sick to death of the Simpson's going to foreign countries and encountering some danger or misfortune along the way that winds them up in some absolute ridiculous situation – ending up on a game show, discovering a diamond mine topped with monkey slaves. Its stuff like this that the producer's are clearly saying "We have run out of ideas…you're on your own!"

Its sad when you look at the classic Simpson's and then look at the modern times of the Simpson's, and you'll see that its all going down the drain, that the "dumb" shows are being shown over and over and the classic ones which I have mentioned are being pushed into oblivion aka Sunday afternoons. Another thing, Futurama's film is being released direct to video? Futurama should be the new Simpson's in all honesty, its loaded, and I mean loaded, with tonnes of emotional episodes, characters and its actually pure genius! Shame what they've done to the Simpson's, it truly is

"Mondo Trasho" stars a lot of the original Dreamlander crew; Divine, Mary Vivian Pearce, David Lochary, Mink Stole -- you name it. This is about the only thing that kept me watching Mondo Trasho was seeing our beloved cult actors prance across the screen and of course Divine shop lifting (who would have thought?). It's interesting to see the Dreamlander crew get up to their old guerrilla tricks, but tedious to sit through its long, silent and uneventful duration.

You can see John Waters used this a reference when he made Cecil B. Demented as the cast and crew were arrested during the making of this film for public obscenities (I won't spoil it). The biggest problem with this film John Waters said himself; this was made a ninety minute film when it should have been twenty minutes. With scenes dragging on and on making you skip about you wish it was a short film. Due to bad pacing a lot of scenes drag on after the humour has gone, the music becomes repetitive and there is no dialogue which is a huge letdown because it's a hoot to listen to Dreamlander's have conversations – whether it be arguing or bonding John Waters always writes hilarious dialogue – but as I said, there is none so it's a letdown. There are of course some redeeming aspects (David Lochay's character) and other scenes with public nudity which provide some insight to the early Dreamlander years.

Mondo Trasho isn't the most perfect movie Waters made, it's littered in amateurish film making but this is a perfect look into what Waters and the Dreamlanders were up to before feature film making. If you aren't a die-hard fan of Waters' films or the Dreamlander's then this will be a waste of time because this is definitely something to be seen by the fans of Waters. This will never see the light of day for a DVD release as copyright laws will forever forbid it (the soundtrack) but you can download it thanks to the internet; it's rare but nowhere near as rare as the early 60's short films. So if you're enough of a fan-boy and you've seen all of John Waters' movies and wanted more like I did then see Mondo Trasho because you're never going to see Divine or David Lochary act ever again.

Ghost World (2001), by cult director Terry Zwigoff (Bad Santa (2003)) is aimed at the intelligent, open minded and cultured teenagers who are aware of what is ahead of them, yet choose to enjoy the life of a child and not wanting to grow up. Keeping in mind it is a film, it could be enjoyed by anyone.

Amazing to see a teenaged-based film that doesn't revolve around titties, toilet humor, beer and drugs but more so revolves around culture and intelligence and pushes the fact that not all teenagers are useless. In fact there are many teenagers out there who are rather intelligent, mature and wise beyond their years yet still like their basic humour associated with other peoples demise, which in this film, is done amazingly well and it is quite relatable when we see Enid and Rebecca laughing at the "satanists" in the diner. My friends and I usually laugh at that typical fat, dirty old man in the city who hits on young girls or those freaky-looking folks who have no sense of fashion, which, as mean as it is, is just a little fun, which is exactly what these girls do and this relates to modern teenagers.

What Ghost World also holds is mountains and mountains of culture all dating way back to the 1960's Bollywood films and the 1970's underground music which is so satisfying to see now as so many people my age don't comprehend or care for, they prefer trash that MTV spits in our faces and know we'll love it and buy but the thing is, because the majority is rather culturally inept and likes anything dating from 2001 to modern times, leaves the other types left out, where do they go? They must dig and dig under all this modern pop culture to find the real hip stuff, the real cool stuff that our mothers and fathers listened to and watched when they were kids, and Ghost World is satisfying because its so up to date with the minority and yet references so many musicians, artists and films and its striking out to those MTV kids and others, the MTV kids who don't know who Pink Floyd is, or the ones who've never heard of the film Midnight Express or 8½ which is even mentioned in this film. It's a relief and leaves a smile on such non-conformist types, the ones who aren't "emo" or "gangsta" or this or that. It could be for everyone of course, but this film is clearly aimed at particular audiences.

Now, on with the actual film itself. I would say apart from the great style and culture of the movie, its still great; acting, characters, story, ending, everything. The whole movie is brilliance in a bottle. Enid and Rebecca, best friends, alternative hip kids, have just graduated school rolling their eyes over their fellow pop loving peers but Enid doesn't want to grow up, she doesn't want to change herself for a bunch of customers at a job, she doesn't want to move out of home. She wants to be in a kid forever, which so many kids our age can relate to. Many of us don't want to grow up. Where Rebecca is mature and all, she's waiting for Enid to move into an apartment with her and get a job but Enid is far too busy with her nerdy record collecting friend Seymour who she previously stood up for as a joke. As time goes on Enid spends more and more of her spare time with Seymour, and ends up losing her school certificate because she didn't turn up to the art show and everything for her falls apart. "Ever wanted to just disappear and no one would ever ask what happened to you" Enid said to Rebecca. "No." She replies.

As we saw previously in the film, an old senile man waits at the bus stop for a bus that doesn't come by anymore. Enid says to him at some stage "ever since my life fell apart you're the only one I can rely on because I know you'll always be here" or something along those lines, where as, this somewhat explains that Enid's entire world is changing, except this one lonesome man at the bus stop but once he says he is leaving this means her entire life is changing. He catches the bus symbolizing everything has changed for Enid. Even in the end, Enid has caught that same bus which represents after all the things Enid has put herself through she is finally accepting to grow up and start her life. A great, relatable and cultured film, with for me ranks grade A marks in my book. This film is beyond recommendation; this film should be seen by everyone, whether you like it or not, you can't just be ignorant, you have to look into this film and analysis it.

To start off the movie's title 'The Dread' is not captivating as it sounds like a terrible remake of a Japanese Horror. However the dingy title matches the cinematic quality as the film is utterly abysmal. With a shoestring budget that's been used depressingly bad its evident the creators of this film had no idea what they were doing; the plot, copious amount of cliché's, dreadful acting, screenplay, special effects; the whole movie is a giant train wreck that I'm surprised was ever released to DVD.

The film starts out with a wannabe opening from Halloween; homage or not it's executed in a very uninteresting way and it is almost as though the creators are trying to pass it off as their own with an alter ego addition. The story is about a child's "inner evil" that murders his parentals in their bed whilst his real body sits in front of a scratchy pictured television screen whilst playing a video game – little tension and atmosphere as it seems to be shot on someone's digital home video. A decade or so later the now grown up child is locked away in a derelict mental clinic – does this not sound familiar already? Teri, the protagonist discovers that her long lost brother is the same boy who killed his parent's year's back and she decides to see her apparent brother with her own eyes. As the night goes on in the clinic with supernaturally locked doors the film turns into a very typical, badly written and ugly acted slasher. Even if the film had been executed professionally it still would have been insanely unoriginal and mind numbingly dumb. This is Halloween with minor alterations only this time it's very hard to sit through and even see as the picture quality is so bad.

The picture quality is very terrible ranging from unintentionally too dark attics and hallways to audio that goes up and down throughout and the actors are as though they were taken from a bus stop. My drama class back in school could have done a better job at blocking and delivering lines than anyone in the film did. The only person who is acceptable is The Evil Deads cult star Ellen Sandwiess, possibly because she has about one or two lines and even then is the only actor who is mildly convincing. The special effects look like tomato sauce and water and even looked like water at times however at least the gore was there even though in an over the top fashion. Torn up torso's that look like mannequins made of foam with gore that looks like dried up PVA glue spilling from it is nonsensical. The paranormal being an element of the film is not an excuse either. It's pathetic and tries to use gore to make a scary villain which is a huge no-no. There is no budget that is an excuse for such a terrible film like this.

Absolutely everything in this film was pathetic and I am surprised I sat through its entire duration. It makes one agitated that there are people out there in the industry with real talent and well structured ideas that never get their way into film. The Dread is a bad film and this is coming from a reviewer who has intentionally seen hundreds of films with bad reputations. The dread is way at the bottom of the barrel and won't even form into a so-bad-its-good cult film. Nothing can save you from the dread of The Dread. Avoid.

Craven promised an interesting career in the Horror genre with The Last House on the Left and The Hills Have Eyes during the 1970's. He made rough, hardcore, groundbreaking grindhouse cinema – regardless if they're good films or not they were unique and opened doors for a great director. Unfortunately throughout the 20th Century Craven went on and off from horror to comedy, to drama to thriller and so on but what I never knew about was his sequel to the original The Hills Have Eyes; reading up on The Hills Have Eyes Part 2 I came across an article stating Craven made the film for some extra cash. Well, I'm not surprised.

Craven poured his heart, soul and love into the original movie The Hills Have Eyes –hate it or love it, it is evident Craven put effort into it; did he with this sequel? No. Here you can see talented film makers, writers and actors putting in laughably weak efforts with a cruddy script, paper thin characters, an obscure and ill fitting Friday the 13th-esque score/vibe, silly special effects and overwhelming mountains of unintelligence. For an example; every character has a flashback within the first twenty minutes of the film and to make the movie more inept than it already is, even a dog has a flashback! This movie is a flashback extravaganza! The acting is irritating to the extent where it is painfully unbearable. One character is blind though you won't know it until she actually says so as she is so poorly written and unconvincingly acted. There is also a scene where she is running through a cabin, note: a cabin she has never been to in her whole life yet she runs through the house as though it is her very own home – blindness can mean second sight with senses perhaps, but not the way this movie does it; it just looks silly, as I said, its poorly written. Do not expect Michael Berryman to have slurred words, a speech impediment and borderline brain damage as you see here in this film he speaks quite fluently and walks like an average person; was this the Pluto we saw in the original film? Nope. If you're looking for any incestuous, inbred, radioactively mutated hill killer like the first film this is certainly not the place to look for it; especially when the mutants in this film can drive motorcycles (stylishly so). This film has no character development, bad acting and a story copied and pasted from the first and slasher formulated – this is Friday the 13th mixed with The Hills Have Eyes. For 1985 I guess that is where the money came in.

Something that really irritated me (amongst everything else) was this spontaneous introduction of Reaper. Who is he? Where did he come from? Sure, the hillbilly father in the original film could have kept something from Big Bob Carter and not told him of his other mutant offspring but it's just...illogical, especially when Reaper is so unintentionally funny. Also, whatever happened to the other characters from the first film? What happened to Brenda, Doug or the mama mutant or any of the other surviving mutants? Not only the lack of character explanations but these new characters are simply put; murder dolls – as I said, this is Friday the 13th though the only problem in saying that is that these teenagers don't have sex, smoke drugs, drink alcohol, be naked – nothing. They're so unbelievably boring and they don't even have the classic slasher teen formula going for them – what a waste.

The film has cheesy special effects (just look at the cover) and the script is the exact same as the first. This movie isn't even entertaining – it's just painfully awful. You see it is films like The Hills Have Eyes Part 2 is why horror is very overlooked and under-rated as a genre. The non-horror viewing public slander horror films as predictable, cheesy and stupid however there are a lot of horror films out there that prove such a statement false – though The Hills Have Eyes part 2 not only encourages the "all horror movies are dumb" idea but takes it ten steps further. This movie has no soul and that's where I question Wes Craven as a director. It has one too many Friday the 13th elements to it and it's so unbelievably bad – but not in a good way like Troll 2 or Manos: The Hands of Fate. For me, Craven is a hit-or-miss film maker but when you read up that he needed quick cash then you should be well aware of what you're in for; The Hills Have Eyes Part 2 is it.

Les Diaboliques is amongst the greatest thrillers of all time without a doubt, right up there with Psycho, Rear Window and Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?. Set and made in France in the 1950's, no other director but Henri-Georges Clouzot himself could have done better, not even the master of suspense Alfred Hitchcock, who intended on making this film via the novel.

Although I did see the 1996 remake first starring Sharon Stone as Nicole and Isabelle Adjani as Mia (Christina in the 1955 version), no one can quite describe the magic this film had in comparison to the remake. The evil atmosphere, the foreign feel, the setting and time it was made make this film so enjoyable to watch. It has wonderful scenery and really fine interior settings.

If anything I noticed, it was the amazing lack of music which caused heavy suspense and scares one at moments due to the silent vibes, thus creating almost a realistic feel of being there at the time the character is wandering down dark hallways and through spooky rooms at night. Another thing that stands out is the incredibly amazing cinematography. The art and picture quality used in this film is fantastic, not to mention the fact that this film is in black and white causing more of a spooky atmosphere.

Acting and character from actress Simone Signoret is amazing. Her character is very mysterious and yet we get to know who she is and what she is like about twenty minutes into the film. Her character is very likable and has its humorous moments, how her character does not care, how her character hides herself up so well. Her acting is superb and almost masterful.

The time I waited to see Les Diaboliques was worth it, making this film more than just another movie I bought from the store, but a masterpiece, a classic in film history. Let it be known that Les Diaboliques is one of the most masterful crafted films ever to be made and one day may its superb elements influence hundreds of directors.