P3n-E-W1s3

Story: 0.50/2 - Direction & Pace: 0.50 & 0.50/4 - Performances 0.50/2 - Entertainment 0.25/2

Total - 2.25/10

Let's cut to the chase - or instead, agree to cull this movie out of your watchlist. "Haunted Trail" is a cinematic misstep that feels like it stumbled into the world from the reject pile of '80s slasher films. You know, the ones with enough cheese to make Wisconsin jealous? Yeah, this one's got more holes in its plot than a Swiss cheese factory.

The plot? Well, it's as groundbreaking as reheated leftovers: A killer on a Halloween trail picking off the characters like ripe apples from a tree. But hold your breath because here comes the cardboard-cutout characters straight out of a bargain bin: The stereotype druggie fellas making you root for the killer to shut them up - Materialistic divas whose priorities are as shallow as a puddle in the desert - And an explanation for the killings so trivial you'd think it was a rejected subplot from a Scooby-Doo episode. And oh, the ending! Prepare yourself for a dose of unrealistic, eye-rolling closure that's about as satisfying as a deflated balloon.

The director, in an impressive display of sheer audacity, managed to turn sexist stereotypes on their hideous heads. Congratulations, gentlemen of the cast, you've out-screamed the scream queens! The performances? Dire would be an understatement. The men flounder around like headless chickens doing a parody of the pigeon dance. While the women, well, they're their usual scream-and-run fodder selves. There's an Asian cheerleader zombie who actually breathes some life into the mess of a movie, but she's criminally underused. Why not put her in the driver's seat instead of this train wreck?

As for the production value, if "rushed" had a visual representation, it would be this film. Scenes look like they were patched together in a hurry, leaving the whole thing resembling a mishmash of half-baked ideas struggling to find their footing. And the cherry on top? The unceasing screams of the male cast will make you wish for a mute button faster than screaming out, "Bad horror movie," in an annoying, shrill, whining voice.

Would I heartily recommend "Haunted Trail"? Not even to my most amoral enemy. It's a cinematic black hole where precious time irretrievably goes to die in ear-bleeding agony. Ten minutes in, you'll be questioning your life choices and ruefully contemplating angrily pressing that stop button, like it is the salvation switch on a sinking ship's lifeboat winch. Bestow yourself a favour - skip this haunted mess. Your sanity will sincerely thank you.

Story: 1.25/2 - Direction & Pace: 1.25 & 1.25/4 - Performance: 1.25/2 - Entertainment: 1.25/2

Total - 6.25/10

"Assassin," a precious relic from the golden age of TV movies, brings forth a heady concoction of spy intrigue and sci-fi zing, akin to the diplomatic clash of two distinct genres at a quirky drive-in cinema. Picture yourself in the mid-eighties: A lovely time when lustrous hair was big, and TV effects were typically somewhat more modest.

Our fantastic tale unfurls in a world where assassins, red tape, and cyborgs collide in a whirlwind of procedural pandemonium. A shadowy figure, not your average assassin, roams the agency's halls and government chambers, wreaking havoc like a bull in a china shop, albeit a cybernetic one. The crème de la crème of retired operatives is recalled to action, much like a reunion of veteran heroes pulled back for one last tango in the espionage dance. But hold your horses; this cyborg isn't one to be pigeonholed by mere programming.

The ingenious plot, a labyrinthine maze of deft twists and violent turns, carefully unfolds like a skilled magician's reveal, teasing revelations one breadcrumb at a time. Moreover, it's like a favourite old card trick; you admire the sleight of hand, even if you've witnessed it before. However, the beauty lies in the execution, mirroring the precision of the cyborg's window-jumping antics - sharp, effective, and depositing you on the edge of your seat.

Directorial finesse elevates this TV movie beyond its small-screen limitations, graciously offering a unique spectacle that bellows "big budget" with every well-choreographed leap. Sure, the effects might typically draw a chuckle from modern audiences accustomed to CGI wonders, but remember, this was the classic era of VHS and neon leg warmers.

The ensemble cast shines a constellation of talent without a solitary star outshining the rest. This humility serves the story well, focusing on the riveting narrative where intrigue reigns supreme.

"Assassin" is the perfect Sunday night caper or a rainy afternoon escapade, a rare blend of creative intellect and chuckles wrapped in a cyborg's enigmatic cloak. While its ending might not raise eyebrows, its journey is a rollercoaster of realism and astute wit. Take a seat, prepare for an '80s throwback and embrace this thrilling ride - an overlooked gem well worth unearthing from the annals of television lore.

Story: 0.50/2 - Direction & Pace: 1.00 & 0.75/4 - Performances: 1.00/2 - Entertainment: 1.25/2

Total - 4.50/10

"Alien Apocalypse," ah, where do I begin? This 2005 cable Sci-Fi endeavour is like a homemade dish gone wrong - interesting ingredients but a catastrophic blend. If Bruce Campbell didn't grace the screen, this would've realistically been a two-hour nap on a Sunday afternoon.

So, picture "Planet of the Apes" with a humorous twist: instead of the primates, we've acquired these head-chomping woodworms masquerading as grasshoppers, devoid of any moral compass. Four spacemen jet back to Earth to discover a chewed-up landscape and humans on leashes. Naturally, two space-dudes instantly turn worm food in Olympic record time, inevitably leaving us with a love interest and the overly confident chatterbox, courtesy of our saviour, Bruce Campbell.

The script tries to be clever with its banter, but crafting believable characters is not their forte. It starts as a quirky charm but swiftly morphs into an irritation before you can blink twice.

The direction is standard and occasionally snooze-worthy. The tempo is slower than a snail on a Sunday stroll. When the so-called action hits, brace yourself for the prolonged agony of repeated scenes. However, hats off to blending live models with the effects; it's the one remarkable thing that feels remotely real.

Except for the glorious Bruce Campbell, the cast is a tumbleweed of talent. Even the B-listers failed to deliver, causing us to naturally wonder if the director's vision veered into 'comedic' land and missed the mark by galaxies. Campbell nails the wry humour, but the rest? It is like watching a comedy where you're unsure if they're poorly written jokes or the actors missed the "It's a comedy" memo.

The comedic touch, unfortunately, proved the film's Achilles' heel. Were these peculiar characters purely concocted for derisive laughs or merely a terrible mix of writing and acting? It's an eternal mystery. Loyal Campbell fans might salvage a delighted chuckle or two. I suggest the rest of humanity stay away like it's a cosmic quarantine.

In conclusion, "Alien Apocalypse" is the rare train wreck you might watch for the sheer fascination of disaster - think wistfully of it as a B-movie cult item. However, unless Bruce Campbell is your spirit animal, steer clear and spare yourself from this intergalactic misfire. Four-and-a-half out of ten stars, and that's me being generous!

Story: 1.00/2 - Direction & Pace: 0.75 & 0.75/2 - Performance 1.00/2 - Entertainment: 1.00/2

Total - 4.50/10

"Mr. Wong: Detective" walks a tightrope between apparent homage and identity crisis, leaving audiences pondering if it's more Sherlock sans the pipe or Charlie Chan minus the family dinner anecdotes. A tale more tangled than a bowl of spaghetti, it yearns for the tender embrace of emotional depth but settles for a procedural dance that pirouettes around a twisty plot.

Promptly forget family picnics or heartwarming tales. The writers serve us a stew of peculiar characters plucked from the stereotypical grab bag - Including the obligatory shouty police contingent. Yet, amidst the potluck of predictable personas, the story weaves an intriguing web, exploiting a rogues' gallery to invariably keep us guessing like contestants in a mystery-solving reality show. Kudos to the scribes for their sleight of pen, although a touch less shouting from the cops wouldn't have gone amiss.

As for the directorial prowess, it's a pedestrian waltz through potentially noir alleys. The attempt at developing the shadowy underbelly feels like someone's dabbling in painting with shades of grey but forgetting to bring the paintbrush. The pacing laboriously drags the film like a reluctant sledge through slush, missing opportunities for cinematic pizzazz that could've instantly turned this snooze-fest into a pulse-raiser.

Boris Karloff's shoes as Mr. Wong genuinely seem a size too big, committing us to an unsettling sensation akin to witnessing Sherlock masquerading at a costume party. While he does his best, one can't shake off the feeling that he'd have fared better in a different detective guise. And let's not forget The Countess, whose portrayal leaves you wishing for an odd bit of dynamism, or at least an iota of royal demeanour beyond that of a cardboard cutout.

This cinematic endeavour embodies 'average,' a rainy-day watch when you're on the umpteenth day off because of COVID-19. The story might tickle your mystery bone if you can overlook the wasted opportunities and the feeling of Sherlock Holmes experiencing a wardrobe malfunction. Ultimately, "Mr. Wong: Detective" inevitably feels like a lukewarm cup of tea - it might do in a pinch, but you'd rather have something more stimulating.

Story: 0.50/2 - Direction & Pace 1.00 & 1.00/4 - Performances: 1.00/2 - Entertainment: 0.75/2

Total - 4.25/10

Lantern's Lane ambitiously sets out to be the quintessential slasher flick. It's as though the writers navigated with a broken GPS, leading us down a lane more haunted by missed opportunities than any spectral presence. Unfortunately, it misses the mark on the gut-twisting and psychological intrigue that genre fans require.

The premise of a reunion gathering in a supposedly haunted lane sounds like a recipe for frightful fun. Sadly, it's more like hosting a party in a condemned building just for the aesthetic, which strangely is the truth. Their town is so dreadfully dire they could not find a more inviting venue. The trouble, dear viewers, lies within its foundation - The story. It's as if the filmmakers stumbled upon a dusty old script labelled "Generic Slasher Plot 101" and decided, "Ok, close enough." The writers promise a spine-tingling reunion in a spooky locale, which is more akin to trying to sell a beach vacation without sand. The setting lacks the chilling allure that could've made this gathering ominous.

In addition, there's the practical joke, which, let's be sincere, could've easily backfired into a horrific mess that might've salvaged the film. Alas, it's a missed chance for some much-needed drama. And don't get me started on the slashers' principal motives - they're fainter than the Wi-Fi signal in a haunted house. It's challenging to fear what doesn't feel remotely threatening.

Direction-wise, it's as if someone intentionally hit the cruise control and tossed the keys out the window. There are opportunities galore to crank up the tension, but they drift by like missed exits on a deserted highway. The tempo stays as steady as a tortoise in a marathon, invariably failing to inject the much-needed variety that could've fired up the adrenaline. The tension and chills are MIA, lost in the maze of wasted opportunities, failing to give the audience goosebumps or the slightest anxious shiver.

As for the performances, they're as passable as microwave popcorn at a theatre. The villains lack that unhinged, truly menacing vibe, while the camaraderie between the friends appears more forced than a bad game of charades and feels about as authentic as a Hollywood smile. Backstories are non-existent, leaving the characters about as deep as a shallow puddle after a one-minute shower.

In conclusion, Lantern's Lane is like a flashlight with dying batteries: it flickers with potential but leaves you stumbling around in the dark. Sure, voluntarily give it a watch when you've exhausted all other options, but be prepared for more eye-rolls than shivers. Here's sincerely hoping your watch list stays vibrant enough to persistently avoid this lukewarm tale of missed scares and lost potential.

Story: 1.25/2 - Direction & Pace: 1.25 & 0.75/4 - Performances: 1.00/2 - Entertaining: 1.00/2

Total - 5.25/10

The House of Secrets is a film that swings between the elegance of a meticulously laid dinner table and the chaos of a toddler's art project. Picture this: an unknown inheritance, squatters claiming residence and criminals lurking in the shadows. The plot thickens more than a Thanksgiving gravy gone wrong, leaving everyone - audience included - scratching their heads harder than a novice trying to solve a Rubik's Cube.

Now, let's talk about tangled webs. This story's knots are more intricate than a macramé enthusiast's latest creation. And, just when you think you've grasped the situation, buried treasure and a madman swoop in like uninvited guests crashing a party. But wait, there's more! The resolution unfolds like something out of a Saturday matinee, complete with the creative flair of The Rocketman or Flash Gordon. Cue the theatrical music.

The film's creative direction is like a skilled conductor leading a symphony orchestra on a rollercoaster ride. Excellent shots and smooth pans try valiantly to salvage the chaos. Sadly, even the best directorial finesse struggles to wrangle this narrative rodeo.

Yet, amid the storm, the cast stands tall. Picture a group of acrobats navigating a circus tent collapse - they manage to keep their composure and deliver performances that, against all odds, make the film bearable, if not entirely lucid.

So, is The House of Secrets worth your precious time? Well, imagine this: a rainy afternoon or a lazy Sunday morning where your entertainment options are as barren as a moral desert. In those moments, this film might be the quirky oasis you're seeking. It's a whirlwind adventure - albeit a perplexing one - that could leave you bemused, bewildered, but strangely entertained. Therefore, if you're up for a cinematic rollercoaster with more twists than a pretzel, give House Of Secrets a look-see.

Story: 1.25/2 - Direction & Pace 1.25 & 1.25/4 - Performances 1.25/2 - Entertainment: 1.00/2

Total - 6/10

Nails is like a horror cocktail mixed with a twist of spectral spookiness and a shot of inconsistency. Picture this: an "Angel of Death" ghost prowling around a Rehabilitation Centre, still busy with the killing business post-mortem. Sounds chilling, right? Well, it has its moments, some of which might leave you with goosebumps, while others make you scratch your head in bemusement.

Let's start with the positives, shall we? The premise is intriguing. An "Angel of Death" ghost lurking in a Rehabilitation Centre adds a sinister twist to the care-giving setting. The varied characters are like a mixed bag of nuts - some crunchy, some bland, but enough to keep you munching through the plot. And their portrayers, especially Ross Noble as the orderly, shine brighter than a full moon on a foggy night. The cast maintains their ground, ensuring you're not left rolling your eyes when things bump in the dark. And that ending is a delightful cherry on top, leaving you simultaneously satisfied and spooked.

But oh, the hiccups! The film stumbles right out of the gate, the beginning feeling like a wobbly sprinter unsure of which lane to sprint down. You might try to figure out why it's not all clicking together like a well-oiled scare machine. And speaking of missteps, there are the plot holes the director left open for ghosts to sneak in unnoticed. Take, for instance, the unfortunate demise of the orderly. By this time, we've established the ghostly rules - ghosts share their shyness of cameras with vampires. But apparently, someone missed the memo, abandoning us in a haunted maze of contradictions when the spook shows up on the webcam but not in the room.

Let's talk about realism or the lack thereof. The hubby's reactions to his injured wife are as believable as a unicorn wearing a top hat. It's like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole - It might work if you whack it hard enough with a sledgehammer, but effectively leaves you wondering what went wrong.

The director's prowess in increasing tension is commendable. Incorporating the security camera footage was genius and added an extra layer.

So, Nails might be the ideal creepy companion for a pleasant night in, snuggled up on the couch with someone you won't mind clutching onto when things get a bit too eerie. But have your ghostly rulebook handy because this movie might relax a few established rules to keep you on your toes.

Story: 0.25/2 - Direction & Pace 0.25 & 0.25/4 - Performances 0.75/2 - Entertainment: 0.25/2

Total 1.75/10

Crone Wood - or should we say, the unholy union of The Wicker Man and The Blair Witch Project? It's a Frankenstein's monster stitched together from good intentions but lacking the surgeon's finesse. This film embodies what happens when you have a bright idea after a late-night horror movie marathon and an abundance of hubris but none of the skill to execute it.

The most glaring sin of the script is laziness. Writers nudging the protagonist along like a puppet on strings? Nothing he does is of his own free will. He's guided through the day by a woman professing love. It's insulting when, at the ritual, they proclaim he's done all of this out of his own free will. It smacks of lackadaisical structuring.

Now, let's talk about the missing village kids. The premise orbits around the Green Man and the Witches trying to perpetuate their community with little ones, yet the playgrounds are empty. Someone forgot to hire child actors, maybe? When the Green Man boasts of a job well done, I'd contest that, given the lack of pitter-pattering ankle-biters echoing through those woods - though it was a commendable premise.

Supposed amateur enthusiasts capture the story on their handheld video cameras. It's a choice as perplexing as it is agonizing. A directorial preference to showcase bad filmmaking as intentional is as bold as it is misguided. It's almost like they said, "Why bother with second takes? Let's throw it together and call it avant-garde!" Embracing the warts-and-all approach to filmmaking might've been novel if it didn't feel like watching someone's terrible home videos - and not the heartwarming kind, mind you. Most amateur filmmakers would sooner poke out their eyes than release something resembling this mess. Scenes drag like a tortoise with a limp, and the pace is non-existent. Brace yourself for boredom with a side of frustration.

The performances deserve a reluctant golf clap - they exist, albeit in the murky depths of mediocrity. The cast seems to have had a jolly time rambling through the woods. Alas, the joy doesn't translate to the screen.

"Stay Away! Don't Watch!" Please consider this the most earnest advice I can dispense. Your time is precious - Don't fling it haphazardly into Crone Wood's profound abyss. Mercifully spare yourself and revisit The Wicker Man; it's a masterclass when justly compared to this horror misfire.

Story: 0.75/2 - Direction & Pace: 1.25 & 1.25/4 - Performances: 1.00/2 - Entertainment: 1.25/2

Total - 5.50/10

In the sizzling cauldron of gore-fueled escapades, "Death Ranch" emerges as a blood-soaked tale that's part gore-fest, part revenge fantasy and a smidgen of a dysfunctional family reunion. It's comparatively like a picnic with a tornado forecast-messy, unpredictable, but strangely alluring.

Picture this: a runaway convict and his kin find refuge in their dear ol' grandpa's rundown barn. But lo-and-behold, their sanctuary becomes ground zero for a KKK killing spree. Surprise, surprise! The Klan's got the unfortunate family in their crosshairs faster than you can sarcastically say "bed sheet & pillowcase." Cue the brutal torture, molestation, and all that grim jazz.

Before you label this a dissertation on character depth, let's acknowledge the obvious: The characters here are thinner than the paper-thin crust on a pizza. It wouldn't have hurt to add some meat to their bones, metaphorically speaking. However, the absence of robust character development might be a tactical move to focus on the visceral rollercoaster ahead.

Praise goes to the director for engaging in peekaboo tactics with the gruesome bits. Instead of shoving the torture scenes in our faces, they opted for a "less is more" approach. The true horror is our imagination conjures far more ghastly images than any CGI could muster.

Sure, the pacing's as wonky as a marathon runner unsure of the finish line's precise location. And that slow-mo during certain scenes is more hindrance than enhancement, particularly when it's unwittingly used during uncomfortable moments.

But ah, the saving grace-the soundtrack: In a world where low-budget flicks often sound like a cat strumming a battered guitar, "Death Ranch" surprises. It's a symphony of pleasant sorts, harmonizing chaos and tension seamlessly.

Now, the cast, bless their kind hearts, realistically is a mixed bag. Thankfully, the director decently bids farewell to the weaker links early on. Survival of the fittest, or maybe the most entertaining?

In conclusion, "Death Ranch" is akin to that spicy taco you gobble down despite knowing it'll scorch your taste buds. It's a one-time thrill ride, especially if gore is your cup of cha. This flick's self-awareness is its unique charm-it never truly takes itself seriously, endowing you with a macabre grin and maybe, just maybe, contemplating a replay when the prevailing mood for blood-soaked antics strikes again.

Story: 1.25/2 - Direction & Pace: 1.50 & 1.75/4 - Performances 1.50/2 - Entertainment 1.50/2

Total - 7.50/10

In a world where sequels multiply more rapidly than tribbles, "Terminator: Dark Fate" waltzes onto the scene - Presumably aiming to breathe new life into a successful franchise that's been sorely put through the cinematic wringer more times than we can count. Much like that stubborn family reunion crasher, the sentient robots are at it again - not content with their previous failed attempts at world domination.

The film ventures into the near future, where AI's running amok is the new norm. While the unique AI angle instantly feels like a tantalizing possibility, the writers explore it deeply as a shallow puddle after a rain shower. However, though it sorely lacks in adequately exploring intriguing possibilities, it delivers a CGI spectacle that would cause most sceptical viewers to raise an impressed eyebrow. The action sequences are the undoubted stars of this show. They'll leave you clutching your armrest and wondering if your popcorn will miraculously survive the on-screen whirlwind.

Now, let's talk about the emotional return of Sarah Connor and the OG Terminator. It's like a high school reunion - sure, they've aged, but they've still got that brilliant spark. Linda Hamilton and Arnie invariably manage to inject nostalgic adrenaline into the heady mix. Instantly making you feel you're back in the '80s and sporting questionable fashion choices.

The iconic villain, V9, is a robot struggling vainly to find its bad-boy swagger. It's like an edgy teenager attempting to rebel but ending up with a vaguely menacing pout. Yet, credit where it's due; the apparent attempt to recreate the T2 vibe with a liquid-metal exterior is a valiant effort.

But fear not, fellow moviegoers, this isn't just another crash-and-burn sequel. The direction is slicker than a buttered eel, with CGI so convincing that you'll only question reality a handful of times. The lively tempo of the extraordinary action is like a symphony of controlled chaos. If it doesn't glue your eyes to the screen, I suggest visiting your doctor - You might want them to check for a pulse.

In a nutshell, "T6: Dark Fate" is a joyride down memory lane with a turbocharged engine. They're not reinventing the wheel, but how they spin it is extraordinarily entertaining. If you have a soft spot for the originals or merely want to witness marvellous mechanical automatons duking it out in spectacular fashion, this one's worth a peek. So buckle up, embrace the nostalgia and prepare for a rollercoaster of metal and mayhem.

Story: 0.50 - Direction & Pace 1.25 & 1.50/4 - Performance: 1.25/2 - Entertainment: 1.00/2

Total - 5.50/10

Under the Bed, a 2012 horror flick that promises to keep you on the edge of your seat, or at least hovering somewhere near it, delivers a rollercoaster of scares and head-scratching moments. Let's start with the elephant in the room - the story. Straight away, I don't want to be the bearer of bad news, but the narrative here is as solid as a house of cards in a wind tunnel. It's not just a plot hole; it's more like a plot crater with floating objects that seem to have detoured from Hogwarts. Was the writer a fan of levitating furniture, or did they positively endure a wizard of a time coming up with something remotely interesting?

And, speaking of extraordinary noise. Apparently, the entire house is throwing a clandestine rave, with walls shaking and windows rattling. It's like the rest of the family got invited to a silent disco because nobody hears a thing. Maybe they're all hard of hearing or just exceedingly polite. Who knows?

But let's not dwell on the negatives. The real hero of this horror tale is the director, who managed to turn a questionable script into a visual feast. The camera work deserves a standing ovation, with angles so captivating they could make a documentary about paint drying riveting. The lighting is on point, the panning is a symphony of motion, and close-ups are so intimate you might want to check your personal space afterwards.

When the effects burst onto the scene, they do so with the subtlety of a sledgehammer - gore-drenched and head-tearing, leaving little to the active imagination. Kudos for opting for wet work over CGI; it's like choosing a quality wine over a fruit punch - way nastier and much more satisfying.

The pacing, orchestrated by the directorial maestro, deserves a gold medal. It's a delightful blend of sprinting and strolling, hitting the right beats at the right moments. The performances rise above the murky waters of mediocrity despite the wonky characters. The shouty, quarrelsome father might be a cliché, but the actor behind the character delivers his lines with enough ardour to cause you to forget seeing this act many times before.

In conclusion, if you're in the mood for a horror flick and fortunately possess the unique ability to suspend disbelief like it's on a bungee cord, Under the Bed might be your cup of spooky tea. Sure, the storyline is as holey as Swiss cheese, but the director's considerable prowess and the gory effects generously offer a distraction juicy enough for a wet winter evening. But I'd rather wrestle with a poltergeist armed with a feather duster before revisiting this flick.

Story: 1.00/2 - Direction & Pace: 1.00 & 1.00/4 - Performances: 1.25/2 - Entertainment: 1.25/2

Total - 5.50/10

In the timeless annals of cinema, where the noble craftsmanship of storytelling meets the visceral thrill of martial arts, there exists a gem that teeters precariously between genius and absolute absurdity. Behold, dear cinephiles, the symphony of madness that is "American Ninja 2 - The Confrontation."

Picture this: genetically enhanced ninja clones sprouting like mushrooms in a villain's secret garden. Yes. You heard that right: The scriptwriter seems to have stumbled upon a whimsical idea during a vivid dream and decided, "Oh, what the heck, let's roll with it!" Kudos for bravado, but the plot is as coherent as a jigsaw puzzle missing half its pieces.

However, in a delightful paradox, amidst the ludicrous premise lies a surprising oasis of decent characters and setups. It's almost commendable how the cast manages to navigate this sea of preposterousness with a straight face. One can't help but admire their commitment to the cause, even if it appears to be acing "How to Perform in a Ridiculous Martial Arts Flick 101."

The direction and pacing are standard issues. The camera work is sadly lacking in creative ambition. Sure, the fight scenes muster some adrenaline, but they woefully lack the zest that typically comes from various camera tricks. No shaky-cam chaos, though, so hurray for small mercies!

Let's talk about satisfactory performances. They're there, like the seasoning on an otherwise bland dish - Not Oscar-worthy by any stretch, but hey, it's an '80s martial arts movie! You're not watching "American Ninja" for Shakespearean soliloquies.

Now, the martial arts: They're the delicious bread and butter in Kung-Fu Flicks. But alas, they hover somewhere between "meh" and "could've been better." Choreography and filming squandered an excellent opportunity to shine fiercely, forsaking us with a middle-of-the-road spectacle of feety-cuffs.

Verdict time: "American Ninja 2" represents a movie that demands you surrender your critical faculties at the entrance. The mad movie might tickle your fancy if you're a connoisseur of so-bad-it's-good B-movies or have a penchant for the absurd. Newbies to the martial arts genre? Look to the ever-reliable Jackie Chan for your initiation.

Story: 1.25/2 - Direction & Pace: 1.25 & 1.25/4 - Performances: 1.25/2 - Entertainment: 1.25/2

Total - 6.25/10

Ah, the mystique of made-for-TV movies! Enter the realm of "Run To Me," a 2016 TV thriller that packs a punch and resolutely keeps you glued to the screen like a fly on honey-coated paper. Picture this: a self-made woman, competent at her demanding job, devoted to her charming family, and yet, the universe seems to conspire against her by tossing in a bullying boss who could use a personal lesson or two in civilized manners. Our protagonist, whose resilience could give a diamond a run for its money, becomes tangled in a web of manipulation spun by her therapist and trainer. It's like a Shakespearean play but with more cunning and fewer monologues. The film's strength lies in this intriguing concept, which is entertaining and a mental obstacle course for your ponderings.

The director, embracing subtlety like a well-worn coat, opts for a minimalist approach, graciously allowing the narrative to flourish sans flashy camera stunts. However, don't be fooled by the understated direction; key moments appear crafted with the finesse of a master painter, scenes that twinkle with exquisite lighting and setups that could make Hitchcock gently raise an impressed brow from beyond.

Now, let's talk about impressive performances. The superb cast efficiently delivers with the finesse of a well-practised orchestra. Each portrayal breathes life into the clever script, making you root for, empathize with, and occasionally yell at the screen at these well-crafted characters. They're the decent folks next door, the people you might bump into at the local grocery store, and that's what undoubtedly makes the immersion so darn easy.

As for enthusiastically recommending this TV movie wonder, count me in. Mystery thriller fans, gather around! "Run To Me" might not be a cinematic masterpiece, but it's the cosy, well-worn blanket of thrillers-familiar, comforting, and a guaranteed two hours of constructively engaging entertainment.

Story: 1.25/2 - Direction & Pace: 0.75 & 0.75/4 - Performanes: 1.00/2 - Entertainment: 1.00/2

Total - 4.75/10

In the vast realm of horror, sometimes you'll stumble upon a film that wields potential like a double-edged sword, promising an engaging narrative only to leave you scratching your head and muttering, "What devilry did I just witness?" Enter "Good Night God Bless," also released under "Lucifer".

Imagine a tale ripe with the allure of a vicar-turned-child-killer, perhaps not even human-a premise that could induce goosebumps in the most apathetic of souls. Sadly, the execution of this promising premise feels akin to a low-budget stage play held together with duct tape and prayers to the cinema gods for salvation.

Straight away, this celluloid escapade struggles like an odd fish out of water. Inadequately structured scenes and a carelessly scattered sequence placement inadvertently create a mosaic of bewildering confusion, leaving viewers in a perpetual state of "Am I watching the right film?"

Character development, or distinct lack thereof, undoubtedly adds to the dilemma. These underdeveloped characters appear as if plucked from a dusty shelf of generic horror archetypes, slightly dull and about as realistic as a unicorn at rush hour. If only the script doctor had arrived to tighten the narrative screws and buff the dulled story to a shine!

But wait, there's more-oh yes, the direction! An odyssey of a tempo so leisurely that a sloth would cry out, "Pick up the pace!" The highlight of suspense inadvertently becomes a five-minute trudge through two tiny warehouses, a scene so lacklustre it could lull a caffeinated squirrel into a profound slumber.

Performance-wise, it's a rollercoaster of mediocrity. No one stands out, trapped in a quagmire of inconsistent portrayals. It's comparatively like attending an amateur theatre showcase where everyone reluctantly abandoned their lines and randomly remembered them at the most inconvenient intervals.

Yet, amidst this cinematic circus of missteps, "Good Night God Bless" retains a unique charm. It's the peculiar charm akin to inadvertently discovering a misshapen rock on a beach littered with magnificent diamonds-a delightful novelty to ponder, though not one to rush back to.

So, should you willingly pay "Good Night God Bless" any regard? Well, if you've exhausted all other forms of entertainment and find yourself in dire need of a welcome distraction on a cold, dreary day, it might just pass the time. But don't expect a revelatory experience-consider it more a curious artefact of cinematic misfortune.

Story: 1.25/2 - Direction & Pace: 1.25 & 0.75/4 - Performances: 1.50/2 - Entertainment: 1.25/2

Total - 5.75/10

"Sudden Fury" offers a passable evening of entertainment, dodging the usual pitfalls of a TV movie with a commendable story and credible performances. This thriller isn't your neighbour's gossip; it's an unfolding tale that keeps your popcorn-crunching self glued to the screen. With a concept as old as time - can you rightly know the person next door, or are they simply a facade draped in neighbourly pleasantries? - it tickles the imagination.

Direction-wise, this one doesn't have you squinting in the dark or fiddling with the brightness control. Kudos for faithfully keeping the scenes well-lit and visually engaging. Structured scenes and camera angles are the candied cherries on top, ensuring you're not nodding off or checking your watch every few minutes.

But then, here's the jarring part - the tempo. It's like that one dull person in a conversation who takes forever to get to the point. Some scenes could've invariably used a swift kick in the editing room to keep things moving. We're not asking for Formula 1 pacing, just a gentle nudge to prevent viewers from tentatively reaching for their knitting needles.

The ensemble cast deserves a pat on the back, though. No one's hogging the limelight, which is both laudable and a bit like watching a magician without a show-stopping trick. It's delightful to behold those budding stars in their early gigs. Consider it a time capsule moment.

In conclusion, "Sudden Fury" is undoubtedly worth a peek when your Netflix queue hits a lull. It's a solid enough ride but not the kind you'll rush to replay. Reserve it for a rainy day or when you're desperately avoiding cleaning the attic.

Story: 1.00/2 - Direction & Pacing 1.00 & 1.25/4 - Performances 1.25/2 - Entertainment 0.75/2

Total - 5.25/10

"The Haunting of Ellie Rose" cautiously emerges like a phantom from the ethereal realm of psychological thrillers, teasing audiences with its splendid promise of eerie vengeance, only to hazardously trip over its feet in a chaotic dance of cinematic storytelling.

This film's structure is a puzzle and not an intriguing kind. It is like wandering through a labyrinthine maze only to find yourself back at the same dead-end three or four times. Yes, repetition can be an artistic choice. Regrettably, it feels like they are trying to stretch a short story into an epic, and it is as pleasant as stubbing your toe on the same piece of furniture repeatedly.

Let us talk about the elephant in the room - or rather, the decaying animals being feasted upon by insects. While some might find these shots avant-garde artistry, they are more like misplaced ornaments in a Christmas tree. They look stunning but add nothing to the story, causing you to wonder if the director possessed a morbid fascination that spilt onto the screen: A waste of film, time, and probably a few lunch breaks for the effects team.

Kudos to Lucy Benjamin for her silent prowess in the initial sequences. Her ability to convey depth without words is commendable, building a character worth investing in amidst the narrative chaos.

Location, oh dear, location! You would expect the American backdrop to scream "Stars and Stripes", but instead, it is a mishmash of international flavours - the house is English, the cabin Australian, and the beach seems to have gone on a sabbatical away from the sea. It is a geography lesson gone wrong.

Now, to the impressive cast - the valiant knights vainly trying to salvage this sinking ship. Bless their kind souls, they do their best, but their collaborative efforts cannot fully hoist this troubled film from its self-imposed chaotic predicament. They are paddling heroically in murky waters.

Would I recommend this movie? Well! If you inadvertently discover yourself staring wonderingly at the bottom of the barrel of entertainment options and perhaps have a drink or two to buffer the jarring experience, "Ellie Rose" might be the oddity to laugh about with faithful friends. But otherwise, tread cautiously in these haunted halls of cinematic missteps.

Story: 0.75 - Direction & Pace: 1.00 & 1.00/2 - Performances: 1.00/2 - Entertainment: 1.00/2

Total - 4.75/10.

"Pumpkins" is a cinematic endeavour that left me questioning the very existence of horror as a genre. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, this film is a love letter to every Halloween cliche conceived. It's as though the writers raided a horror movie clearance rack, grabbed whatever tropes were left and decided to throw them together in a pumpkin patch.

The plot stumbles with the speed of a zombie with a limp. A couple of miscreants commit the ultimate sin in a horror film-disrespecting a farmer's pumpkin patch. The reanimated farmer, now sporting a fashion-forward pumpkin head, embarks on a killing spree. Enter the obligatory group of middle-aged teens, employees from a boot camp that seems more like a rejected reality show concept, and pub locals who make you question the hiring policies of this movie's producers.

The director seems to have followed a page from the horror filmmaking handbook but forgot to add the essential elements of excitement and innovation. The deaths are handled with a certain panache but can't compensate for the lack of a coherent tone. Is it a serious horror flick, or should we be laughing? The film's identity crisis progressively becomes a profound horror of its own.

The erratic performances are passable, with none rising above the mediocrity of the weak material. One minor actor, however, seems to have taken a masterclass in cringe-inducing overacting. Whether a deliberate choice or a possible failure in direction, it's a mystery that lingers like a ghost in the celluloid.

"Pumpkins" manages to entertain, but more in a guilty pleasure, B-movie way. The rolling pumpkins are an oddity. They're a visual atrocity that fortunately possesses a strange allure, like a car crash you can't look away from. I won't go so far as to say I regret watching it, but the conscious thought of a repeat viewing is as appealing as a pumpkin spice latte in mid-July. If the mood strikes for a horror experience teetering precariously on the ragged edge of self-awareness, "Pumpkins" might be the patch for you. Just don't expect a bumper harvest of cinematic brilliance.

Story: 0.75/2 - Direction & Pace: 1.00 & 1.00/4 - Performances 1.25/2 - Entertainment 1.25/2

Total - 5.25/10

Ah, 'Alone at Night,' the film that promised a thrilling journey into the world of intelligent slasher cinema but left me questioning the characters and wondering if they penned the script during a blackout.

To begin with, let's address the elephant in the room - the script. I haven't seen a narrative this cringe-worthy since accidentally stumbling upon a high school play. The damsel in distress complaining about the lack of internet while being online every day is a plot twist even M. Night Shyamalan wouldn't dare attempt. It's as if the writers attended a crash course in irony and failed spectacularly.

Now, let's talk about the electrocution scene, a masterpiece in unintentional comedy. I haven't laughed that hard since my grandma tried to use a touchscreen phone for the first time. The prolonged shock-fest should've been intense, terrifying, and exciting but resembled a botched attempt at electrifying the audience with awkward chuckles.

The direction had its shining moments, like a diamond in the rough, but it desperately needed smoothing out. I appreciated the lighting and the above mediocre composition, yet it suffered from a single pace.

As for the performers, they almost saved the day. Alas, overacting and weak character construction proved to be their kryptonite. The bad guy, in particular, felt like a rejected Bond villain auditioning for a community theatre production. I half-expected him to break into a monologue about world domination while sipping a martini.

'Alone at Night' is a modern sexploitation film that tries to rise above mediocrity and, in some aspects, succeeds. The cinematography is commendable, and the presentation is solid, like a B-list actor giving their all in a C-list movie. It's a one-time watch, an experience that will make you raise an eyebrow and ponder the choices that steered you to this cinematic crossroads. Return for a second viewing? I'd sooner elect a turkey for the presidency.

Story: 0.75/2 - Direction & Pace 1.25 & 1.25/4 - Performances: 1.25/2 - Entertainment: 0.75/2

Total - 5.00/2.

Well, dear cinephiles, 'Terror Trips' takes us on a ride that, much like my last attempt at assembling IKEA furniture, starts with great promise and ends in mild confusion.

The premise, oh, the premise! One could imagine the potential being as boundless as a teenager's appetite for pizza. Trips to horror movie locations sound like the perfect recipe for a horror buff. What horror fiend wouldn't want to visit the town from Friday the 13th? It's like a horror-themed vacation with a side of nostalgia. Sadly, the glimpse of that iconic town is shorter than my New Year's resolutions list, and before you can say 'Bloody Mary,' we're thrust into mediocrity.

Now, the trip advisors stumble upon a rare cult gem, 'The Black Vulga.' - a film within a film - and suddenly, we're exploring the notion that movies mirror reality. It's an intriguing concept that hooked me like a fish on a philosophical line. But, alas, what could've been a decent horror flick metamorphoses into an action suspense flick that's about as thrilling as waiting for your toast to pop. The picture promised thrills and excitement. Sadly, it's like expecting a rollercoaster as the big ride at the amusement park and finding out it's the kiddie train.

Credit where credit's due; they did opt for a bleak, naturalistic ending. I appreciate the commitment, but it's like applauding a magician for pulling a rabbit out of a hat when you were expecting a Bengal tiger.

Now, the creative direction and pace - well, it's a mishmash that had me thinking of a grab bag at a carnival where you're not sure what you'll receive. There's an amateurish touch, as though they genuinely thought allowing the neighbour's geeky kid to be the cameraperson was a grand idea. While attempts at various tempos to establish atmosphere are evident, it's like a musician with multiple instruments trying to find the right tune but missing the mark.

The talented cast, however, stands out like a lighthouse in a raging sea of impenetrable fog: They're the movie's saving grace, carefully steering the helpless ship through the raging storm of mediocrity. Admittedly, there are odd moments when a few performers appear as enthusiastic as a miserable cat at a water aerobics class, but their collective effort deserves generous applause.

Ultimately, 'Terror Trips' is a passable escape for an hour and a half, but only if your watch list strikingly resembles the Sahara - barren and requiring cinematic hydration. Here's to hoping the sequel secures its footing and conveys us on a journey more thrilling than a bungee jump off a cliff - 'Terror Trips 2: Electric Boogaloo,' anyone?

Stories: 0.75/2 - Direction & Pace 0.75 & 1.00/2 - Performances: 1.00/2 - Entertainment 0.75/2

Total - 4.25/10.

"Drive-in Horror Show," the 2009 anthology that claims to be a horror movie, is about as spine-chilling as a cup of lukewarm decaf on a rainy Monday morning. The four stories bundled together here are less horror and more of an attempt at psychological thrillers. Sadly, the only psychosomatic effect they induce is a profound sense of regret for hitting the play button.

These tales had potential, like a cake left in the oven for too long, but unfortunately, the writers seem to have mistaken mediocrity for suspense. The plots dangles before you like a carrot on a stick, tempting you with what could have been, only to deliver a bland buffet of missed opportunities: You're expecting a roller coaster and get stuck on a slow-moving merry-go-round instead.

The direction, or lack thereof, is like watching a confused GPS trying to guide you through a maze blindfolded. The director seems to be attempting to conjure some semblance of interest and atmosphere; however, all that materializes is a numbness that spreads faster than a bad joke at a funeral. The slow pace of the stories only adds insult to injury, making the viewer yearn for the sweet release of the end credits.

The performances, while marginally better than the rest of this horror misadventure, are the equivalent of polishing a turd. The cast stumbles through their roles like sleepwalkers in desperate need of caffeine, and the best actor in this dreary carnival of disappointment is the host. Kudos to him for trying to inject life into the cinematic corpse, but even his valiant efforts are like putting lipstick on a zombie.

In conclusion, if you possess an insatiable desire to experience boredom on an existential level, "Drive-in Horror Show" is the perfect prescription. It's the kind of terrible movie that undoubtedly makes you wish for a selective memory eraser to erase the unpleasant recollection of wasted time. Stay away unless you have a portable defibrillator on standby because you might necessitate an urgent need to revive your enthusiasm for horror after this cinematic coma.

Story: 1.25/2 - Direction & Pace: 0.75 & 0.50/4 - Performances: 1.00/2 - Entertainment: 1.00/2

Total - 4.50/10.

Have you ever found yourself trolling through the depths of low-budget horror films, desperately seeking a cinematic experience you'd describe as "unique?" If so, "Kill, Granny, Kill" might be the deranged masterpiece you never knew you needed. I won't lie; this movie is a wild rollercoaster of absurdity, armed with a cannibalistic granny wielding an axe and selling meat pies that would make even Sweeney Todd reconsider his career choices.

Let's start promptly with the positives because, believe it or not, there are some. In their quest to blend horror and humour, the writers have concocted a darkly delightful tale: Picture this - a granny with a penchant for butchering people and transforming them into culinary delights: Martha Stewart's cooking show meets "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre," with a sprinkle of grandma's secret seasoning. Lamentably, the story's brilliance gets overshadowed by the film's less admirable quirks.

Now, let's address the wounded elephant in the room - the filmmaking. It's as if the director attended a workshop titled "How to Make Your Audience Dizzy 101." The too-close close-ups, the out-of-focus shots, and the shaky camera work are not just stylistic choices; they're an avant-garde exploration into the realm of "What on Earth did I just watch?" If you've ever wondered what a film would look like should the director have thrown the rulebook out of a moving car, look no further.

The pacing of the movie is a unique experiment in testing your patience. It's like a cat playing with its prey, dragging out scenes longer than Granny needs to cook a tasty treat. Tempo? It would appear the director never heard of it! But who needs a well-paced film when you have a granny on a killer cooking spree? Right?

The cast, ranging from average to okay, seems to have embraced their dreadful moments on camera, making for a bizarre mix of charm and annoyance. Granny, in particular, is the unsung hero, typically delivering a passable performance, which's a mile-and-a-half away from perfect but strangely captivating.

In conclusion, "Kill, Granny, Kill" is a cinematic oddity, a must-watch for fans of truly terrible B-movies. It's not quite the Plan 9 of the horror genre, but it successfully gains its Sergeant stripes for deliciously dreadful filmmaking. Therefore, grab your popcorn - or maybe a meat pie - and dive into the chaos. Just don't expect to rush back for any possible seconds.

Story: 1.25/2 - Direction & Pace: 1.25 & 1.00/4 - Performances 1.25/2 - Entertainment 1.25/2

Total - 6.00/10.

In a cinematic era saturated with gumshoes, femme fatales, and enough trench coats to rival a department store's winter collection, "One Body Too Many" emerges as a gem, albeit one polished with the finesse of a vaudevillian's punchline. Set against the backdrop of a will reading - the epitome of glamour, intrigue, and the occasional dust bunny - this 1944 comedy thriller is a delightful escapade into the art of inheritances and hilariously morbid misunderstandings.

The plot, while comfortably nestled in the bosom of the stereotypical, unfolds with a comedic finesse that rivals a masterful chef whipping up a soufflé. An unexpected guest waltzes in just as the potential heirs are gearing up to outdo each other in a financial grab-fest. The mystery is kept as mysterious as a magician's secrets, and you're not overly concerned that this film is less than Hitchcock because it's more about the ha-ha.

The comedy, my dear reader, is the pièce de résistance. Sharp and witty like a well-honed blade, it outshines the diluted humour of today's offerings. There's no crass language here, just good old-fashioned wordplay, slapstick, and visual gags that make you snicker without resorting to the comedic equivalent of a sledgehammer. It's a delicious breath of fresh air in a modern world where humour often seems synonymous with vulgarity.

The direction, a relic from when movie cameras weighed more than your grandma's antique wardrobe, exudes class. The setup scenes are a visual feast, smooth pans efficiently create a dance of effortless elegance, and the lighting is practically a supporting character. Sadly, the film stumbles slightly with its single tempo - a varied rhythm might have elevated the comedic beats and intensified the suspenseful moments.

The cast, a motley crew of characters, delivers a top-notch performance. Jack Haley, trading in his Tin Man gear for the role of a bumbling yet witty insurance salesman, is a delight: An honourable mention to Professor Hilton, portrayed with impeccable charm by William Edmunds. Even the ever-enigmatic Bela Lugosi manages to steal scenes as the charismatic butler despite being a secondary role.

For those craving a generous dose of good-natured hilarity, "One Body Too Many" is the prescription. It's the kind of film that makes you chuckle over your leisurely breakfast, setting the tone for a pleasant weekend of fun. A classic that amply proves, sometimes, the best humour doesn't need an expletive-laden punchline - it merely requires a decent plot, a dash of wry wit, and perhaps one body too many.

Story: 1.25/2 - Direction & Pace: 1.50 & 1.50/4 - Performance: 1.25/2 - Entertainment: 1.50/2

Total - 7.00/10.

Ah, "Blood Vessel," the vampiric delight that sails us through the choppy waters of World War Two, generously offering a refreshing twist on the well-worn horror genre. Finally, a horror film that doesn't solely rely on cheap jump scares and overly dramatic violin screeches but transports us on a blood-soaked journey aboard a deserted German boat.

From the pivotal moment the survivors hop on this eerie vessel, the film grabs you by the jugular and doesn't let go. The conflict among the ragtag group is like a dysfunctional family reunion at sea. Will they overcome their fundamental differences and miraculously survive until rescue arrives? I'll invariably say you might want to place your bets on the sharks circling below.

The varied pacing is perfect. The talented director masterfully manoeuvres between moderate speeds and warp drives, carefully composing a symphony of suspense that faithfully keeps you on the edge of your seat. And kudos for the diverse camera work - from spine-tingling close-ups to jerky action, they've got it all. It's like a rollercoaster ride across the seven moonlit seas of unspeakable terror.

However, the performances might not receive any Oscars, but they're like the B-movie charm you secretly adore. However, the distinctive country accents could use a GPS. And a little more "oomph" in the cast's portrayals wouldn't hurt, but we're not watching the film for Shakespearean soliloquies; we're here for the blood-sucking shenanigans.

Major props to the victorious FX crew - the Strigoi mask deserves its own star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. The unique makeup on the female vamp and the aftereffects of the vamp bites are like a gore-filled buffet for the eyes. It's clear the talented FX team undoubtedly had a bloody good time.

In conclusion, "Blood Vessel" is a must-watch for vamp lovers and horror fans. It's a cinematic voyage that doesn't suck (well, except for the Vamps), and I've already booked my return ticket. I hope you join me on board, and let's sail into the crimson sunset together. I'll see you there, my fellow blood-sucking enthusiasts!

Story: 1.00/2 - Direction & Pace: 1.25 & 1.00/4 - Performance: 1.25/2 - Enjoyment:1.00/2

Total - 5.50/10.

Cautiously enter "Assault on Station 33," a film that boldly proclaims, "Who needs a generous Hollywood budget when you can perform magic on a shoestring with some disappearing FBI agents?" Not too shabby, considering the economic circumstances - money and COVID conspire to create continuity errors to rival a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure novel. Witness the grand vanishing act of the FBI and police around the Veterans Hospital, a feat so impressive it'd make David Copperfield envious. Picture this: a car park packed with vehicles and officers in one frame, and poof! They're gone, leaving the bad guys and their hostage to casually stroll onto the street, ready to jump on the Number 22 Getaway Bus.

The writers gift us the classic tale of revenge and escape gone haywire, featuring our lone hero heroically battling both antagonists and the odd budgetary hiccup: While the direction and editing appear to have taken a detour to Confusionville. The varied camera angles, an attempt at sophistication, end up feeling like the director played pin the tail on the shot list, resulting in an amateurish vibe that's as subtle as a marching band in a library. Then we have the fight scenes, featuring the dynamic duo of Mark Dacascos and Sean Patrick Flanery: They're a cringe-worthy masterpiece, as hits and kicks miss their targets by a mile, turning the action into a choreographed ballet of close encounters. And let's be honest, some rather unpretty strained faces that easily rival modern abstractism.

On the upside, the cast emerges as the unsung heroes, navigating the murky waters of amateur angles and poorly executed fight choreography. Flanery, in particular, shines as a PTSD-suffering soldier, complete with nervous ticks and a dislocated kneecap that makes you wince in sympathetic pain. Alas, the makeup artist seems to have embraced a 'more is more' philosophy, resulting in close-ups that could turn a layer cake green with envy. A round of applause for Richard Gabai as the flippant ruthless killer and Rob Van Dam, the whimsical whiner - the two inject a much-needed dose of humour, providing comic relief as we navigate the twists and turns of Station 33.

In conclusion, "Assault on Station 33" is undoubtedly an imperfect B-Movie that dangles on the precipice of potential greatness. It's a delightful distraction for a rainy day, humbly offering a pleasant hour and a half of semi-delightful entertainment amidst the mayhem of budgetary constraints and creative missteps. It's not a cinematic masterpiece, but hey, who needs perfection when you've got unpretty close-ups and vanishing cops to provide excellent company to you?

Story: 0.25/2 - Direction & Pacing 1.00 & 1.25/4 - Performances: 1/2 - Entertainment 1.25/2

Total - 4.75.

Ah, "Shortcut," the cinematic masterpiece that makes you question your life choices and the entire concept of movie-making itself. The film proudly declares, 'Who needs a coherent plot when we can throw in a psycho-killer for no apparent reason?'

The storyline is so basic your GPS would yawn sleepily. A lovely bunch of typical teens, each a living, breathing stereotype, embark on what is incorrectly labelled a "Shortcut." They encounter a dead sheep because nothing invariably screams abject horror like woolly cadavers. Enter the tongue-eating psycho-killer. Why? Well, that's a question the movie doesn't bother answering. Because who needs a motive when you have a murderous maniac around?

Though the characters tick all the hackneyed teen stereotype boxes, they get along like a perfect family at a Utopian Thanksgiving dinner. Apparently, bullying has gone extinct in this parallel universe. Come on! Who knew a fat kid, a brainy lass with glasses, and a bad boy could coexist without a single eye roll or sarcastic comment? The writers must have raided a high school yearbook for inspiration but forgot to add any semblance of real human interaction.

And let's talk sensibly about the abandoned WWII bunker in the middle of nowhere, still miraculously powered. What are the odds? I'd say it's about as likely as finding a gripping plot twist in this movie.

Strangely, "Shortcut" manages to redeem itself, thanks to the director's skilful handling of the sinking ship that is the script. The hectic pace keeps you on your toes if only to distract from the unfortunate fact that the tragic characters are as believable as a unicorn in a tutu.

The performances are as average as your everyday breakfast cereal. Blame it on the dialogue and characterization, not the actors. They did their best. It's a shame the writer didn't give them much to work with.

Ultimately, "Shortcut" is a guilty pleasure. Turn off your brain, blithely ignore the stereotypes, and brace yourself for the predictable bolt-on ending. Luckily for the viewers, boredom isn't on the table.