Movie Review: Saw II (2005)

Directed by: Darren Lynn Bousman

BBFC Certificate: 18

Running time: 93 mins

Saw II follows on from the original film – The Jigsaw killer (Tobin Bell) is still at large but close on his tail is Detective Eric Matthews (Donnie Wahlberg), a no-nonsense cop with a reputation for cutting corners and not playing by the rules. Whilst Det. Matthews tracks down Jigsaw, a new murderous game is taking place involving a group of strangers in an abandoned house.

Saw II builds on everything that was great about the original film. The plot is larger, the traps are more deadly and the gore is definitely stepped up a notch. The film develops on the Jigsaw killer, giving us a name, a back story and an insight into his motives. This gives the character more depth, and even allows the audience to empathise with his actions to a degree.

The characters this time round are a mixed bag. Jigsaw is represented well by Tobin Bell, it is impossible to think of anyone else playing the torturous killer more effectively. Wahlberg steals the show as Detective Matthews, a man who begins as an apathetic lost cause but transforms into a savage beast with the loss of his son.

Many of the other characters, especially those trapped inside the house, are included as more than just an increase to the body count. Each of the characters are developed well, although the run time of the film means that we learn less about the victims than we may have liked.

Yes, the gore is increased but it still isn’t tasteless. At times the boundaries are beginning to be pushed and parts of the film will certainly cause shivers down your arms, but the franchise hasn’t yet reached the level of ‘torture porn’ that they become associated with.

Saw II is an improvement over the original, which in itself was a great film. The film still feels like a tense thriller rather than an out-and-out horror film and the twists and surprises are unexpected and clever.

Overall opinion: Saw II is the best of the series – it encapsulates everything great about the franchise before the films started getting silly.   There are other great Saw films but none ever quite reached the potential that Saw II did.

Available now on: DVD Blu-Ray

If you enjoyed this, why not try: Saw (2004) Saw III (2006)

Movie Review: Saw (2004)

Let the games begin…

Directed by: James Wan

BBFC Certificate: 18

Running time: 103 mins

Every now and then a film emerges from nowhere and becomes a real game changer. This is a rare commodity, especially in the horror genre; a genre plagued with half baked sequels and recycled ideas.

When Saw was released in 2004, it was a game changer. Appearing overnight to a silent release, the reception was originally mixed. Despite this, however, it went on to spawn one of the most popular horror series of all time.

Saw is a horror thriller that introduced The Jigsaw Killer to the world. Jigsaw is a man who kidnaps victims and then places them in horrifying situations to test their will to survive. The traps that the victims find themselves in are designed to be ironic – the man who cuts himself is made to crawl through a maze of barbed wire, the doctor who has spent his life saving people is required to kill another human.

The film follows two men who wake up to find themselves in a Jigsaw trap, chained up in a bathroom. Each of them finds a cassette tape in their pocket which explains that they are being tested but they only have a short amount of time to succeed in their task. What follows is a suspense filled story as the two men attempt to escape whilst simultaneously figuring out who the elusive Jigsaw killer may be.

The performances are relatively solid all round; the two men (played by Cary Elwes and Leigh Whannell) are completely different characters and the contempt they have for each other is evident but they are forced together in a common goal. The supporting cast do a solid job but the film is carried by Elwes and Whannell, who do a great job of such a basic premise.

The Saw series has been criticised over the years for being ‘too gory,’ ‘glorifying violence’ and ‘torture porn.’ Many forget the fact that Saw was far less violent than the films that followed it, instead being hailed more as a ‘mystery thriller’ rather than the horror that it became known as. That’s not to say that the film doesn’t have its moments – a number of key scenes are fairly nasty – but Saw is a far cry from the ‘torture porn’ that becomes prevalent later.

The film is not without its flaws. The plot can be a little disjointed as the film jumps around between present day and previous events. Some of the assumptions are a little far fetched (The clue ‘sometimes you see more with your eyes closed) leads one of the men to turn the lights off – seems a little psychic) and the level of violence may put some fans of mystery thrillers off. The film, however, is a masterclass in horror mystery thrillers and balances the tension well throughout the story.

Overall opinion: Saw is a great film from start to finish. It is tense, the action is well paced and the performances are all-round solid. Highly recommended

Available now on: DVD, Blu-ray

If you enjoyed this, why not try: Saw II (2005), The Collector (2009)

Rant time: Why found footage films no longer work

I have never hidden my distaste for found footage films. Read any of my reviews where the film utilised found footage and I make no secret of the way I feel about them. Unfortunately, Horror is the genre that lends itself best to the found footage style film technique – it allows the filmmakers to create a sense of foreboding for the characters being introduced. If the film is presented as found footage, then we automatically assume the worst for the characters who could not present the film themselves as a documentary.

Watching a ‘new release’ found footage film is a lot like buying the newest FIFA game – sure, you may enjoy it for a short time but eventually, it is going to become superfluous and you will have to sever all ties to move onto better things. Found footage films only work in the present. They require hype and media frenzy to make them both interesting and believable.

No, they didn’t

CASE STUDY ONE: THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT

Often considered to be the first found footage film (although found footage dates back at least to Cannibal Holocaust (1980), ‘The Blair Witch Project demonstrates everything good and bad about the genre. The hype for this film before its release was HUGE. Everyone was talking about it being the scariest thing ever. When you watched the movie, you lived through the entire experience with the cast members. You truly believed that these were real life events that these people were going through. The entire film was dark, mysterious and throughout the entire movie only just enough was shown to convince the audience.

And then there was the ending: the ending that made everyone go, ‘oh, this is just a movie then?’ BWP killed any atmosphere it had built up when it made the ending so obviously fake. Not only that, it also destroyed any reason to watch the film again and the hype now became superfluous. Why try to convince me that this film is real? It’s obviously only a movie. Next time I watch it, why will I feel for the characters? They convinced me that these were real things that were going on and now I know they aren’t.

Not only did BWP destroy its own hype, but it also brought found footage films to the forefront. From now on, every film that came out labelled as ‘found footage’ was a waste of time. Any hype that accompanied the film was pointless as we knew what to expect – a film that claimed to be true events and in fact were nothing more than a film using a shaky cam.

Blair Witch Project: A film that began the craze but also succeeded in killing it.

——-

Nowadays, so many films are created in a ‘found footage’ way that is entirely unnecessary. Once you have established that all found footage films are fakes, the FF becomes superfluous. Why not just film the movie as you would any other movie? I no longer feel the fear I once did as we have established that this is just a movie so I don’t need to run alongside the characters.

CASE STUDY TWO: CLOVERFIELD

Cloverfield was a film released in 2008 to huge hype. The trailers hinted at a huge event taking place but mentioned nothing about what the film was about. Even the actors were kept in the dark until they had fully signed on to the project. On release, Cloverfield was good although underwhelming. It did such a great job of building its own hype that the finished article was never going to live up to expectations.

However, Cloverfield is a good film. It is tense, atmospheric, the actors are convincing (although a little ‘hammy’) and it is an enjoyable story. However, it could have been all these things (and maybe more) without having to be found footage. At times, the shakiness of the camera distracts from the plot, deaths are missed because of the FF style and at no point does the FF improve the movie. If anything, it detracts from it at times, slowing down the action and distracting the audience.

I feel that Found Footage films lose all integrity as soon as they use obvious CGI.

——-

Having never filmed a found footage movie myself, I cannot comment on the filming process. I would hate to imply that FF films are easier and more lazy to produce – I imagine in fact that the opposite is true: having to capture all the key moments of a film whilst also trying to deliver a ‘genuine’ feel to the movie. However, found footage horror films are so generic that the ideas feel recycled with little inspiration. Typically, FF horror films fall into three categories: FF monster movies (Cloverfield, Troll Hunter), FF Supernatural investigation films (BWP, Mr Jones) & FF haunted house films (Paranormal activity, Grave Encounters). Once these three categories have been established, it is evident that all FF movies are victim of same plot, different characters.

CASE STUDY THREE: PARANORMAL ACTIVITY

Before I start, let me say that Paranormal Activity is one FF horror film that I think genuinely works. The first time I saw this film, despite knowing that it was just a film and not real FF, I found it disturbing. The silence of the camera, the short unexplained shots and the feeling of dread waiting for something happen combine to create a genuinely decent experience.

That said, Paranormal Activity has fallen into the horror grave pit: Sequel spawn. At most recent count, I think there are four paranormal activity films; not an unhealthy number for a horror franchise. However, what this doesn’t count is the number of PA clones in existence as well: Paranormal Entity (four of those films), Grave Encounters (two of those), The Paranormal incident, Paranormal asylum, Abnormal activity (four of those as well), Paranormal calamity, Paranormal parody, Supernatural activity, Paranormal movie, A Haunted House (two of these as well), Apartment 143, Chasing the devil, Death of a ghost hunter, Hollows grove, The Amityville haunting, The Borderlands etc.

What is so unsettling about these films is just how similar they all are. Each one claims to be ‘true events’ (which we have already established, is bullshit) and each claims to be scarier than the last (which is also often bullshit). I have seen a handful of these films and have never felt particularly convinced by many of them.

Wow, I bet doors opening by themselves won’t be cloned a million times in rip off films!

——-

Overall I think that found footage has had its day. With the ever growing popularity of the Internet, found footage will only continue to die a long overdue death: “this film says its true events. Better Google search. Nope, it’s bullshit.”

Do you disagree? Do you know a FF style film that I should try, as it will completely change my opinion of the genre? So far, my list of decent FF films consists of Paranormal Activity (the first movie) and REC. Educate me!

I’ve never seen it, but I hear that Apollo 18 is one of the worst!?

 

Movie Review: Cloverfield (2008)

Directed by: Matt Reeves

BBFC Certificate: 15

Running time: 85 mins

Who remembers when ‘found footage’ movies were effective? When the media hype of such films worked really well in building excitement for the movie? And remember when the films came out and every single one of them sucked hairy dog testicles? This is Cloverfield.

Cloverfield is a ‘found footage’ film about an attack on New York city by a giant monster. The camera follows a group of friends as they begin by throwing a surprise going away party and end up taking to the streets to survive the destruction and devastation.

 

The acting is generally good although the characters are so cookie-cutter: the ‘funny man’ best friend, the emotional brother who will blatantly bite the bullet first, the forbidden love who will lead our main character to ignore better sense by escaping and instead, search Manhattan for  her. A list of generic characters who we don’t care about as we know they will all die; why invest any time in getting to care about them?

The monster divides most viewers – those who believe that the creature is horrifying, effective and well created using subtle CGI, and those who think otherwise. Being entirely honest and fair to the film creators, it looks like shit. In many of the scenes, the monster appears as if it has been painted into the scene, belonging more in a monster movie of the 1950s than film released in 2008.

The biggest flaw with ‘Cloverfield’ is that it is filmed as a ‘found footage’ movie, complete with warning label at the beginning of the film explaining where the tape was found. The issue with this is that these events never happened. For a found footage film to be truly effective, it needs to leave a sense of unease with the audience. Blair Witch Project, although not a good film, at least convinced the audience that the three filmmakers actually went missing in a secluded wood one weekend. Clover field cannot hope to achieve the same as the events are too huge to be filmed as ‘found footage’ any sense of belief instantly disappears when it is obvious that New York has never been attacked in the way that this movies claims.

That isn’t to say that the found footage isn’t totally ineffective: the way that the camera is passed from one character to another as they meet their demise is clever and the majority of the recording makes sense – there is very little ‘pointlessly filmed’ sections where you wonder why the video camera was still on (although they do still exist – the bridge is collapsing as you are on it, why are you still holding the camera capturing other people’s reactions as you run for your lives?)

Overall, Cloverfield suffered in 2008 from its own hype – it was well advertised, showing just enough to allow movie goers to be interested without revealing anything of the plot. For such effective hype, a movie that is anything less than incredible will fail spectacularly, as Cloverfield does. Is it the worst ‘found footage’ film ever released? No. The acting is good, bordering on great at times, many shots look good, particularly when the Statue of Liberty’s head rolls down the street and there are times when the movie is genuinely scary. However, none of that saved the reputation of the film in 2008 – after seeing it in the cinema I remember someone shouting ‘well, that was shit!’ as the film finished. Although Cloverfield is better than many people remember it being, it should never have been a ‘found footage’ film.

Overall opinion: Cloverfield isn’t awful. It is better  received now than it was when it first came out but has stolen a number of ideas from other films, which were far better in many aspects. If you enjoy ‘found footage’ movies or generic monster movies then you may find something enjoyable here. It will probably not be a film that you watch more than once though.

Available now on: DVD, Blu-Ray, Netflix

If you enjoyed this, why not try: Godzilla (2014), Super 8 (2011)

Movie Review: Grace (2009)

Directed by: Paul Solet

BBFC Certificate: 18

Running time: 85 mins

Sometimes a film will come along that breaks the boundaries of what our beloved genre is all about. The horror will be well dispersed – a necessary inclusion that develops the plot whilst at the same time adding an edge that leaves audience spell-bound: unable to watch but unable to look away at the same time. And then there are other films that are just horrific for the sake of it: with that in mind, let’s discuss ‘Grace.’

I first heard about this film when my wife was six months pregnant with our first child. Although we did not know the gender of the unborn baby at that point, we had decided that Grace would be a suitable name if the child was a girl (as it so happened, we did have a girl and so chose to call her Grace). With that in mind, I made the sensible decision not to watch this film whilst my wife was six months pregnant. Nine months later I have returned to finally give this film the credit that it may very well deserve.

The very premise of ‘Grace’ is horrific: a pregnant woman (Madeline Matheson, played by Jordan Ladd) is involved in a car crash in which her husband is instantly killed and her unborn child is miscarried. So distraught by the events, not to mention the fact that she is a crazy hippie vegan who’s all into hugging trees and not washing, the woman decides to carry the baby full term anyway. Although the baby is still born, it miraculously comes back to life and appears to be happy and healthy… until Madeline discovers a dark secret about her new daughter Grace.

‘Grace’ is one of those films where you have to ask yourself why it exists. The story is horrific, nonsensical and never needed to exist. The plot is stupid, the characters are idiots and nothing makes any sense. This baby, who attracts swarms of flies and smells putrid, is check by numerous doctors and found to be perfectly fine. The baby, who by all professional accounts should not be alive, requires human blood to stay healthy. Although a little belief needs to be suspended during films (after all, these aren’t documentaries), the movie never even tries to explain anything away. “The baby should be dead but isn’t, deal.” “The baby drinks human blood because…”

Onto the characters themselves: Madeline is your typical loving mother. She changes, cares and feeds her baby, not to mention killing people to be able to extract their blood to feed her freaky child. Her best friend, Patricia Lang (Samantha Ferris) is a hippie lesbian mid-wife lady who goes along with the whole thing, never really questioning what the fuck is going on (after all, it’s just because…) The main ‘monster’ in the movie is obviously the baby but the issue here is that this baby cannot even crawl yet – how can a film possibly build fear around an immobile monster that is about as threatening as a tea-bag?

Have we discussed the mother-in-law yet? Where to start on the mother-in-law. Madeline has a crazy over-judgmental mother-in-law (played by Gabrielle Rose) who dislikes Madeline and criticizes everything that she does. Mummy dearest decides that Madeline is abusing the child and so decides to steal her away. Brandishing a hammer, she attacks Madeline, but only just before having her throat bitten out and dying from blood loss (probably being fed to Grace afterwards). Oh, and she is obsessed with breast-feeding her husband during some kind of kinky foreplay thing (because old ladies need to whip their tits out in films as well of course).

If you are at all confused by the plot then welcome to ‘Grace’ – we haven’t even begun to discuss the gall stones that her doctors decide must lead to premature delivery – a plot that goes nowhere. Or the final scene of the movie which is only there to demonstrate exactly what this movie is about – grossing the audience out so much that they won’t notice how much of their lives they are wasting on this shite.

To try and review Grace is like writing an article on that one bowel movement you had which for a short time convinced you that you might have colon cancer. It is disgusting, makes you feel uneasy for an hour or two, but in the end is just a meaningless pile of crap. I would end by saying that you should not watch this film if pregnant but I think it covers more ground to just say that no-one should watch this film ever. The 85 minutes that you waste watching this abomination of film could have been spent instead watching any of the original three Evil Dead films – that’s perspective that makes you re-evaluate exactly what you will get out of Grace: The answer? Very little.

Overall opinion: A gross film with a stupid plot and wooden performances. If you are a fan of horrific films, try the first two Saw films or Hostel 2 – you’ll get to witness just as much gore but with a story line as an added bonus. Stay away from ‘Grace.’

Available now on: Netflix

If you enjoyed this, why not try: Re-evaluating your life.

Movie Review: Stigmata (1999)

Directed by: Rupert Wainwright

BBFC Certificate: 18

Running time: 103 mins

Religious cult-y horror films are a dime a dozen. There is something about religion that appears to make a large number of people shit their pants – whether it is due to a fear of the unexplained or the hysteria that so many religions rely on to control the masses. However, that is a discussion for another day. Instead, we are here to discuss Stigmata.

Stigmata was released in 1999 and contains a number of fairly recognizable  actors in lead roles: Patricia Arquette (The fucked up crazy girl from ‘A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors’), Gabriel Byrne (The ringleader from ‘The Usual Suspects’ who we are led to believe is Keyser Soze although *SPOILER* it’s the cripple all along) and Jonathan Pryce (The baddie from ‘Tomorrow Never Dies’ whose dastardly plan is to cause World War 3 so that he can sell more papers). The story centres around Frankie Paige (Arquette) who begins to demonstrate stigmata – five body marks associated with Jesus Christ that indicate the second coming. This sensation is investigated by Father Andrew Kiernan (Byrne), who is sent by the Catholic Church to decide if the stigmata is genuine or false.

The film is exceptionally well paced. Stigmata moves the story on well, allowing time for character development but never slowing down for too long. The action is well dispersed, often coming out of nowhere to ensure that the audience are kept on their toes – one minute the characters are enjoying coffee in a cafe and the next minute, the girl is having nails driven through her feet.

Although not an outright horror film, Stigmata is a combination of a number of genres. The action scenes are well done and before long the film develops into a mystery crime thriller with Father Kiernan racing to discover the truth before Stigmata ends up killing the girl.

The performances are solid. Having only ever seen Arquette in ANOES before, it is refreshing to see her in a part that actually requires some acting – she certainly holds her own in this film, switching between the athiest young woman who doesn’t want to believe, and the pain-induced victim who finds it difficult NOT to. Jonathan Pryce plays a convincing villain, a man forced into making difficult decisions to protect the religion he has devoted himself to.

As the film draws to a close, the story gets a little confusing. It is difficult to follow all the twists and turns of the story, remembering the names of characters that were barely hinted at an hour ago and now are suddenly an integral part of the plot. The last twenty minutes is a bit of a slog, and the final message – about God being present in the minds and souls of people and not necessarily in the bricks and mortar of a church, is thought-provoking but perhaps could have been delivered better: the message gets a little lost in the convoluted plot at the end of the film.

Overall opinion: Not a typical horror film, meaning that those looking for a genuine Horror-Religion may be a little disappointed. However, as a mystery / action film with horror elements intermingled, Stigmata delivers well. Worth a watch.

Available now on: DVD, Blu-Ray, Netflix

If you enjoyed this, why not try: The Reaping (2007), End of Days (1999)

Movie Review: The Human Centipede (2009)

Directed by: Tom Six

BBFC Certificate: 18

Running time: 92 mins

Human Centipede became infamous in 2009 for its shocking and disturbing plot – a German surgeon kidnaps three foreigners and reassembles them into a ‘human centipede’ by stitching them together, mouth to rectum. Rumours were widespread of viewers vomiting and passing out on seeing some of the tasteless scenes in the movie. Despite this (or perhaps due to it) the Human Centipede spawned two sequels (released in 2011 and 2015).

There is little doubt that the film’s premise is disgusting – the very thought of what the insane Dr. Heiter is attempting will repulse even the hardest of horror fans. The main issues with films that aim to shock is that often the shock is all that matters. With the Human Centipede, it would be easy to expect there to be little plot and for the action to begin straightaway. What we get instead, is a nice tense forty minutes of film, including a well executed cat-and-mouse sequence between Dr. Heiter and the main protagonist, Lindsay (played by Ashley Williams). The Dr explains his plan to his victims in a surgically professional way (including some informative self-drawn slides)

Although it may be hard to believe, the film manages to keep its discretion even once the human centipede is revealed. At no point does the film venture too far into the ‘hideously disgusting realm, instead choosing to be more subtle than many people would expect. The suggestions are still vile but the delivery of the film is less so.

The acting of the two girls during the first fifteen minutes of the film is atrocious. They have zero chemistry and are entirely unconvincing as two close friends. They over act every second of the movie and it is so relieving once they become part of the Human Centipede as they are unable to deliver any more crappy lines.

Dr. Heiter, on the other hand is played superbly by the dominating presence of Dieter Laser. His every appearance on the screen is a master to behold. He plays the character with a perfect blend of professional curiosity and insanity. He methods are matter of fact – there is no soul searching here but merely a matter of fact passion about his work.

When all is said and done, the film is not a masterpiece of the genre – it is not revolutionary, it does not break new ground and, if you are a horror fan, it will probably not be the most disgusting film you’ve ever seen. Much of the controversy was billed before the film even came out and it would come as no surprise to discover that many of the nay-sayers have never even watched the film. Personally, I found myself a little underwhelmed by events in the film – at times it came off as slow moving and even a little dull. That is not to say that the idea is not disgusting – the first time that the front character defecates would turn anyone’s stomach – but for a film that was supposed to be hideous, it lacks a little something.

Overall opinion: The Human Centipede is an unsettling premise that on the most part, is delivered well. The main character is well played and the film has a good combination of tension and horror. It is a little self-appreciating at times – the film has illusions of grandeur that it does not quite fulfill – and generally it does not deserve the reputation that it seems to enjoy. If you haven’t seen it then it is an interesting, although not ground-breaking, horror film.

Available now on: DVD, Blu-Ray, Netflix

If you enjoyed this, why not try: The Human Centipede II (2011) The Human Centipede III (2015)

Movie Review: See No Evil 2 (2014)

Directed by: Jen & Sylvia Soska

BBFC Certificate: 15

Running time: 90 mins

See No Evil 2 was released straight to DVD here in the UK and the film is littered with continual reminders as to why this was the case. There is little tension aside from the ‘false jump scares’ and stupidity from so many of the characters. As with so many slasher films that fail, the viewer will find themselves rooting for the killer. None of the cattle characters are developed in any way and so you will probably spend the majority of the time hoping that someone else dies soon.

As with so many cliché films of the genre, we are forced into a ‘secret love’ that we care little about. Seth (Kaj-Erik Eriksen) is secretly in love with Amy (Danielle Harris) who it appears, is entirely oblivious to the fact – despite the fact that he spends the majority of the film wagging his tongue at her (not just his tongue). This sub plot would be bearable enough if it wasn’t for the simple fact that Seth is the only likeable character in the film whilst Amy is an annoying bitch who spends the entire film making stupid decisions and putting her friend’s lives in jeopardy. At two thirds of the way through when Amy confesses that she knew all about Seth’s secret crush from the beginning, the audience can do nothing but face palm. Firstly, Amy should know never to try and create a tender moment when a sadistic killer is after you as this now will guarantee that at least one of them has to die. Secondly, why has it taken until now for Amy to admit to this? In a parallel universe, she does the sensible thing by telling Seth that she likes him too, neither of them are trying to impress each other by working on this fateful night and as a result of this, the only person who dies is the old fellow in the wheelchair whom no-one was sad to see go to begin with.

Next, onto Kane as the psychopath Jacob Goodnight. Anyone who has seen the original See No Evil will no exactly what to expect from the WWE star’s performance – some great stunts, ripping biceps and little else. Kane has a number of lines in the film, although they don’t particularly extend further than a series of grunts and lines read through gritted teeth. With this, I can’t help but feel that the directors missed a trick – anyone who watches WWE will know that Glenn Jacobs is a particularly talented (not to mention, intelligent) individual who, although not the best in ring performer, delivers a show well. Rather than this Jason Voorhees lumbering mass of muscles and little else, what if they had gone down the intelligent psychopath route? Making Goodnight more akin to Freddy Krueger’s sadistic wit may have made for a more enjoyable film.

Unlike the first film, See No Evil is pretty uninspiring as far as deaths go. There is very little to see aside from slashed throats and strangulations. Nothing feels particularly original, only strengthening that this is a ‘body count’ film.

The plot is non-existent – barely anything is explained about the killer apart from a quick exposition at the beginning of the film. The movie wants to presume that everyone saw the first ‘See No Evil’ which would be fine if it wasn’t for the fact that few people have and those who have probably had the sense to stay away from this sequel.

Aside from the dull characters, lack of plot and general dull-fest that See No Evil is, what is difficult to ignore is the glaring plot holes in the movie. Whilst it is explained that employees of the morgue have to lock their phones away, where are the phones of the all guests who snuck into the morgue? Are you trying to tell us that this people were rebellious to break into a morgue but had the decency whilst doing so to lock their phones away? What about the fact that Jacob Goodnight comes back to life after the ECG and two paramedics pronounce him dead? There’s definitely an internal investigation that needs to happen there. How about the fact that Goodnight is pumped full of so much embalming fluid that his eyes explode with blood, yet he somehow manages to appear at the end of the film to kill off more people? Nothing in this movie makes sense, including the question ‘why I am still watching this?’ – a question I asked myself time and time again.

Overall opinion: See No Evil 2 is a cheap cash in on the name of Kane and the WWE franchise. This film adds nothing to the original or to the character of Jacob Goodnight. Many slasher films are guilty of this but at least most of them have the decency to wait a few films in until their monster is well known before churning out pointless sequels – the See No Evil franchise (if you can call it that) is not infamous enough yet to be creating lack lustre films like this yet. Kane is good as the villain but he does it so much better on WWE. Avoid.

Available now on: DVD, Blu-Ray, Netflix

If you enjoyed this, why not try: Hatchet (2006), See No Evil (2006)

Movie Review: Pet Sematary (1989)

Directed by: Mary Lambert

BBFC Certificate: 18

Running time: 103 mins

Pet Sematary features the Creed family moving into a new house next to a busy main road. One morning, the family’s cat is killed and their friendly neighbour Jud Crandall tells the father, Louis, about the Pet Sematary. By burying the cat in a specific area of the cemetery, the cat is brought back to life but is far more feral than he was previously. When tragedy strikes and the youngest member of the Creed family, Gage, is killed on the road, Louis does the unthinkable in a desperate attempt to resurrect Gage.

The film is a tragic horror that questions how far a father will go to protect his family. Some of the decisions made are questionable but that is partly the point that the film is trying to make. When Louis makes the same mistakes time and time again, you can understand his reasoning – he is a man who has too much to lose.

The casting of many of the main characters is disappointing. Dale Midkiff and Denise Crosby as Louis and Rachel Creed are particularly bad choices. Both actors play their characters with little enthusiasm. They do not convince the audience that they are a loving couple whose relationship could survive this tragedy, choosing to sleepwalk through the majority of the film. As a result, Louis is never hugely convincing as a desperate man and so his actions are more difficult to defend.

However, two of the characters are cast spectacularly. The young Gage Creed is played by Miko Hughes. Although his performance is minimal, his casting is spot on. He is such a sweet and innocent looking child that once his transformation is complete, the tragedy of the situation is even more apparent. Here is a child who was the epitome of innocence until his father’s desperation caused him to become an evil spawn of his former self. The best casting however, is the performance of Fred Gwynne who plays the rambling neighbour Jud. Gwynne nails the character spectacularly – every scene containing him is a delight to behold and he single handedly carries the rest of the cast through the movie. Although supposed to be a supporting character, his screen time is easiest the most enjoyable part of the film.

The story itself is thoroughly enjoyable. Stephen King himself wrote the screenplay, ensuring that the film stays fairly loyal to the book of which it is based. The horror aspects don’t necessarily begin to manifest until the last twenty minutes or so, but the plot development before then is enjoyable and moves at a complimentary pace to the story being told.

Finally, Pet Sematary is relatively notorious for one scene in particular – this review won’t ruin it for those of you who haven’t seen it but suffice to say that 25 years later, it is still as unnerving as it must have been in 1989.

Overall opinion: Pet Sematary is a really great film that delivers on Stephen King’s style of horror superbly. It has aged well and still tells an emotional story in the modern day. If you haven’t already seen the film (which you should have) then you should do so soon. Highly recommended.

Available now on: DVD, Blu-Ray

If you enjoyed this, why not try: Pet Sematary 2 (1992), Cujo (1983)

Nostalgia rant: Goosebumps TV series (1995 – 1998)

Despite my developed infatuation with the genre, I haven’t always been a huge horror fan. In fact as a kid, I was fairly scared of everything, much to my father’s frustration. The first memory I have of a horror film is 1979’s Salem Lot – I made it as far as the scene with the child at the window when I ran screaming from the room (incidentally, it’s a film that I still haven’t watched, although I’m saving it for a special occasion!). The year after, I began watching a TV adaptation of Stephen King’s ‘The Stand’ with my older cousins. These were too lads who were pretty unflappable and who I spend a lot of my time trying to emulate – my screams from the room certainly didn’t help on that night.

However despite being a bit of a wimp, I loved reading as a child, particularly supernatural stories – two of my favourite authors during my pre-teens were Christopher Pike (who wrote supernatural tales that were often fairly depressing, full of murder, suicide etc) and R.L. Stine’s Goosebumps series.

Books never scared me the way that films evidently did. I loved Stine’s tales of horror because they were often so extraordinary – my favourite was ‘Say Cheese and Die’ – a story about a killer camera. This love has developed into adult life – I now read adult horror authors such as Stephen King, but my love for Goosebumps has not wavered. I have fully stocked my classroom with many of R.L. Stine’s classics and am part way through reading ‘Stay out of my basement’ with the children in my class. Some of my more reluctant readers have even found their way to the school library for the first time to check out some of his other works to read for themselves.

When the television series was released in 1995, I remember being hooked. The opening title has always stuck in my head – the ominous music alongside creepy images that never appeared in the actual show (a la X-Files). Some of the episodes have stayed with me for years – one of the best being ‘Welcome to Camp Nightmare’ which was an amazing book to screen adaptation.

For Christmas one year, I was given one of the VHS tapes with the episode ‘Night of the Living Dummy III’ as well as the tape of ‘The Haunted Mask II’ and from there, my fascination with horror finally sprouted. I watched both tapes religiously, until I knew all the words and the copies were faded and skipped regularly.

Recently, I have been fortunate to pick up the entire Goosebumps collection on DVD and have begun to watch certain episodes again. Many of them have definitely not aged well and are no way as scary as I remember (although that is probably more my desensitised personality than anything) but they still hold a special place in my heart for setting me down a path that I have never regretted. I am a little concerned about the new film being released (starring Jack Black as R.L. Stine) but I also believe that if it does nothing more than introduce a new generation to a great series of horror fiction, then that cannot be a negative thing. Only Time will tell. Reader beware, you’re in for a scare!