nb. I am going to write this review without a plot summary as any true horror fan would have already seen Carrie and if you have not, get off this blog immediately and watch it now!

Hmmm a Carrie remake? Who’s hair-brained idea was that?

How did the pitch go? 

Lets take Stephen Kings undisputed horror classic directed when Brain De Palma was at the pinnacle of his talents, starring two actresses who were both Oscar nominated for their efforts and was also the big screen debut of John Travolta, and then ask the director of Boys Don’t Cry to put a cast of unknowns behind two very well known and respected actresses in an insipid and pointless remake.

We can enhance the possibly dated but pretty perfect filmic rendering of 1977 with the addition of making Carrie fly. Yes, you read that right people, in this version she flies, that is not a typo.

Once you’ve got your head around that little tidbit of ridiculousness, riddle me this batman, why would a girl who CAN FLY not just fly her ass straight out of that town? Why would a girl who can manipulate, literally and physically, her own mother be afraid of her and ever bow to her will – and therein lies the rub.

Sissy Spaceks Carrie from the original was a vulnerable bullied teenager with no sense of self or worth who was just beginning to take her first very tentative steps out of the nest (a poisonous and hateful nest to be sure, but the only one she has ever known) just reaching out from the crushing oppression of her mothers fanatical religious fervor and discovering her own strengths and talents. We could see how she became the girl people loved to hate and pick on, we could see the bind she was in and wanted her to succeed. In this version, the wildly miscast Chloe Grace Moretz (a fine actress but no Carrie) struggles to find the underdog in Carrie and instead of inhabiting that sad downtrodden character she tries to define her with tics such as hunched shoulders and downcast eyes but with no real person behind those things they are empty mannerisms that come off as disingenuous and we never champion her succeeding because we never believed she was failing in the first place. Her confrontations with mother never seem to be the matriarchal wielding of power that they were in the original but instead the pouting of a strong and petulant child, she never seems in danger and there is no build up of dread – a vital ingredient lost.

Julianne Moore fares better here – her Margaret White while less forceful than Piper Lauries, at least feels like a true characterisation; and while less unpredictably brutal than her predecessor, here is coiled disappointment, curdled hopes, resigned to end this ‘abomination’ she birthed.

The supporting cast are all fine and do their jobs with perfunctory good grace, no stand outs but no lemons either.

There are some improvements – the use of mobile phones and social media elevate the opening shower scene and give a new angle to the bullying, the prom scene is filmed with delicious delight, the scenes of horror clearer and this time the people Carrie liked are spared, Tommy’s fate is less ambiguous which I liked. I had hoped that this film would allow itself to stand from the original by perhaps following the book more closely but it instead followed the original film, not a wise move considering it could never better it.

And there was no final jump scare – you know the one I mean, the one we all screamed over the first time we saw it? gone! and thats real sacrilege in my book..

4/10

A horror film brought to you from the strong pedigree of ‘Paranormal Activity’s Oren Peli and ‘Saw’s James Wan should be fright perfection.

Is Insidous chapter 2 perfection? Not really, but it is fun.

Picking up from the precise moment that the first Insidious ended, we are back with Renee (Rose Byrne) and Josh (Patrick Wilson), Elise (Lyn Shaye) has just died and young Dalton is back with his family, returned from The Further. This next chapter explores where the whole saga started – Josh’s childhood haunting and how it was resolved, and how this past is impacting on the present haunting situation. We also look at the Bride in Black, the entity that haunted Josh in the first chapter, and why/how this ghost manifested with a background story that fondly recalls horror classic ‘Sleepaway Camp’

There are some neat doubling back into the story twists that gave the writing a bit more zing than yur usual horror fare, and its an admirable thing to get back the entire original cast, particularly when it is populated by such Hollywood heavy weights as Byrne, Wilson and Barbara Hershey.

The film itself does well with real make-up and the minimal cgi is welcome, the acting of course is well above average and the comic relief care of Leigh Whanell and Angus Sampson as intrepid ghost hunting collegues of Elise is one of Insidious Chapter two’s most obvious strengths, comedy lacking in most horros these days and utilised beautifully here to relax the viewer between scares so they hit harder when they happen.

As for the scares themsleves – fairly pedestrain and well telegraphed but one or two of the more subtle frights are effective and the use of music in both parts one and two of the Insidious franchise, is clever and memorable.

This film wont give anyone nightmares or stay with you after the credits roll – jump scares usually dont, but this is a film made by experts and the quality and sure-handedness make this a good, fun night at the movies.

7/10

I have never considered myself a Rob Zombie fan, I dig his name, liked his Halloween remake but that’s about it. I hated House of a Thousand Corpses because I felt it revelled in it’s grotesqueness, made heroes out of the detestable, and to be honest, it made me feel bad for liking horrors. I did not see The Devils Rejects as it seemed more of the same, Halloween two was a ridiculous over the top abomination of a movie and all that is why it took me this long to watch Lords of Salem.
I wish i’d seen it sooner.
This movie has restored my interest in a film-maker who I had given up on, mostly for his overindulgent excess and willingness to lose any moral compass.
Set in Salem, Massachusetts, this is the story of Heidi – a rock dj who works mostly nights on an alternative radio show. Receiving a strange wooden box with a record inside labelled ‘The Lords of Salem’. Assuming it’s a new band, Heidi decides to play the dubious music on air, thus putting in motion events that have been brewing since 1696. Suffering trauma flashbacks and quickly disappearing into a drug haze she had previously worked her way out of, her friends growing concern is palpable and sad. This is something unique to good horrors – real relationships that give the characters weight and authenticity onscreen. Odd things start happening about her apartment block – who is the new tenant in number five? why is she having visions that are making her feel crazy? who are the slightly sinister seeming sisters who seem to be almost insidiously infiltrating her life.
Another thing unique to good horrors – an ordinary setting; scary happenings are always far scarier when they happen in homes that look like they could be ours, in lives that we know..
This is a tale of witches, and covens, and devil worship, it is surreal in places, dreamy in places, almost artistic and impressionistic at times but its also bloody creepy!
It looks incredible – so much thought went into the set design, even down to the art on the walls and the framing of certain shots.
Beautifully directed by the aforementioned Rob Zombie and believably acted by Sheri Moon Zombie (with some lovely arch turns by horror veterans such as Meg Foster, Patricia Quinn and Dee Wallace) this films most obvious companion piece for me would be Rosemary’s Baby. Though not of the same league as that horror masterpiece, it certainly recalls it.
I found this film haunting, frightening, intriguing, powerful and unlike any I’d seen before.
Highly recommended!
9/10

As of this writing ‘The Conjuring’ is breaking box office records – the biggest domestic opening ever for an original R-rated horror movie, the first horror movie to surpass $100 million domestic.

This is wonderful news for horror fans, more studios will fund horrors now, more distributers will take a chance on indie horror, more cinemas will screen them instead of delegating them to the straight-to-dvd route. 

It’s about time studios realise what a cash cow horrors are – most horror fans will see any horror movie, they don’t care if it’s big budget, if it has stars, if it is well received by critics; they’ll fork out their hard earned money to pursue that ever elusive thrilling scare that any small gem of a horror film may afford them.

Cause to celebrate in my opinion. 

‘The Conjuring’ is based on a ‘true’ story from the 1970’s about the family Perrone and their five daughters (too obscure to not be true!) and how the DIY dream house they move into has it’s own ghostly inhabitants that take none to kindly to the Perrone’s moving in. Finally after tolerating more than the average person would, they find and engage the services of the Warrens – Paranormal Investigators, to battle and finally rid themselves of any and all demonic forces as swiftly as possible.

How much is truth and how much is fiction is a debate for another time and not entirely relevant to how I feel about the movie (though it seems to give an added chill to some audience members to ‘know’ its based on a true story). 

As portrayed by Vera Farmigia and Patrick Wilson, the Warrens come off as well rounded despite their immersion in the occult, they are affectionate and supportive with each other, warm and concerned with the Perrones, and it certainly helps to have actors of such calibre play these real-life investigators.

The Perrone’s (expertly played by Lili Taylor and Ron Livingstone) are equally compelling with a loving marriage and true sense of family with the girls (when they play the hand clap game it feels like a ‘family favourite’ they’ve been playing together since the girls were young).

The direction is more cinematic than we’ve come to expect from a horror though I must admit that negatives creep in for me at this point with most of the jumps feeling familiar and almost formulaic, telegraphed from a mile away.

Nicely scripted with a good building pace and an ease of dialogue that makes you feel these people are real, there is something quite tangible to lose here.

The problem for me was that it just wasn’t scary. The posters gave me a thrill, the trailer made me jumpy, and so there was, I admit, a great deal of anticipation on my part, but the film itself did not scare me once. Worse, I went home to my old creaky house where I live alone, and didn’t think of the film at all.

I cannot fault the ingredients of this film, it was executed marvellously, all the elements were there even down to the set decoration, all the period pieces intact and that 70’s groove a strong thread throughout. Well acted, directed and scripted.

A non-scary but well-made, superbly acted, box office busting horror film – how do you rate that??

7/10… I guess..

This film was not what I expected, and to be honest, not what I wanted. I went to the screening expecting a hard, nasty home invasion story and instead I got a strange-toned movie about survival skills with a comedic streak right through the middle of it.

I like horror-comedies when I know thats what they are and what they are meant to be. I left this film unsure if the laughs were intentional or not, which makes it hard to review. If this was meant to be a horror-comedy the film-makers almost succeeded, though it didn’t embrace the comedy nearly as much as it should have in order to earn that title. If the comedy aspect was not supposed to be there and this was supposed to scare me – they failed miserably.

Aside from the uneven tone though there was much to embrace such as the animal masks (though familiarity over the course of the film neutered their impact somewhat by the midway mark), the cinematography and direction were beautiful and luscious especially for a horror film, the set (though contained to almost one house) never became boring or claustrophobic and the twists were not telegraphed and worked well as something fairly new for the genre.

This is a home invasion tale where a family is essentially hunted by men in masks using a variety of different tools to get the job done. The family is pretty dysfunctional (the first kill happens when the family is distracted by a heated argument between the brothers, and quibble and whine is what these siblings seem to do best!), the deaths are savage and wince-inducing.

But the strongest asset of this film was Sharni Vinson of Home and Away fame, her Erin was one of the most substantial female characters I’ve seen in a horror, and she got to keep her accent! Never less than believable, she imbues this character with a survival instinct so strong you can’t help but root for her.

There are a lot of things I enjoy about horrors – the roller coaster ride, the reflection of current fears and events, the good vs evil basis of them all, but my favourite thing is the way a strong female protagonist (or two) has become the norm. Sure there are usually a bevy of barely dressed nymphomaniacs as well, but they are nearly always matched by an equally morally-bankrupt male counterpart (unlike a lot of other genres) and they usually both meet the same fate. Horrors allow women to be strong, fully realised characters who do not exist purely to fawn over the male lead or move the plot along, these characters have lives that extend beyond the film and horror does not demand that they lose their feminism in order to be a tough kick ass character.

‘You’re next’ reminded me of this unique quality in horror and for that I am grateful. 

6.5/10

Ok, lets get this out the way first: if you’re a fan of the original ‘The Evil Dead’ and you go to the remake expecting the same irreverence, the same gleeful gore, the same Ash; you will be disappointed. This is a re-imagining more so than a remake and things here do not make you laugh in that same squirmy manner as the original… though yes, there is plenty here to make you just plain squirm.

Though tonally like apples and oranges, the bare bones of the story are basically the  same – five friends head to a cabin in the woods, read aloud a book that specifically tells them not to read it (in blood and in bold letters on the human skin pages no less), and unleash demons that make their little getaway resemble hell on earth.

Imagine the original with no tongue in cheek dialogue or gurning to the camera, Ash replaced by a cold-turkey drug-addicted  kick-ass young woman and gore that was previously so OTT as to be laughable now shockingly real.

The acting is much better than expected for this type of fare, with the entire cast throwing themselves fully into every obscenity they must endure with full enthusiasm and talent. This is not a perve-fest with bare breasted airheads at each turn and the male characters are allowed to do more than try to get laid amongst the carnage and flex their muscles while doing so. The direction is assured and confident – Fede Alvarez (in his first english language film) knows what works and what will scare you and he’s not afraid to show it to you albeit when you least expect it. 

This movie did not scare me, but not many do, so that’s hardly a criticism especially as the people around me certainly seemed to be getting enough bang for their buck – the jumps and groans were certainly in evidence.

Yes people do stupid things in this film, and in a more realistic movie I find this less than tolerable but dammit somebody’s gotta read that book aloud and really, in a film where the leading lady is raped by a tree I can stretch my imagination and accommodate some stupidity… besides, where would horror be without some idiotic people to move the plot along.

I love the original ‘The Evil Dead’, Ash is awesome, I dig the comedy mashed potato and play dough special effects and think it’s infinitely quotable lines make it more fun than it has any right to be. Is this ‘Evil Dead’ as good? Probably not, but it’s made for a different audience and a different time. Judging it based on that, it works for me.

7.5/10

There have been some very strange movie plots over the years – Greek muses open a roller rink: Xanadu, Norwegian deer farmers catch evil Father Christmas: Rare Exports, Michael Jackson impersonator falls in love with Marilyn impersonator on an Irish island commune: Mister Lonely and now Sightseers – two sociopaths fall in love and murder their way through the British country side on a caravan getaway.. 

Have you seen Rec? the 2007 Spanish found footage virus zombie extravaganza which was applauded by fans and critics alike for it’s literal edge of your seat thrills and terrors. That movie spawned an equally good sequel, Rec 2, which expanded on the original concept and added layers of information to round out the story to a more satisfying whole. Rec was remade for American audiences as Quarantine which was also beloved by the horror masses and had, in my opinion, an even clearer and tighter plot and through line which made it even easier for the film to draw you in and give you nightmares.

Rec 3 is nothing like those movies. It has none of the nasty, knife-edge, jump at shadows feel of the first films and in fact, it’s connection to them is tenuous at best. It has a different cast, a different writer and a different tone. The only real similarity here is the title.

And while this would usually be enough to make me, in my admiration of the first films, turn away, I have to say, I loved this movie!

I understand the disappointment of fans who wanted more of the original story/direction/style, I sympathise with their protestations that this is not what they had expected or desired; but that does not make this anything less than a fun, scary, gory, cheeky, romantic (yep, that’s right) thrill ride.

The storyline, slim as it is, concerns the wedding and reception of our two fresh faced leads – Leticia Dolera as Clara and Diego Martin as Koldo. During the celebrations an infected uncle starts biting the party guests and so it goes, everyone infecting everyone else like wildfire while the two newlyweds are separated by a twist of fate and spend most of the movie trying to find each other. The two intrepid bands of survivors that each separate newlywed joins (including the children’s entertainer – NOT Spongebob, in a running gag that made me laugh out loud) attempt to make it out alive.

There is so much to enjoy here, from the truly splendid performances from all involved but particularly the two leads, to the splashy gore; from the gorgeous set design to the bravery of the film-makers to subvert everything the first two films had us expecting; from the genuinely heart felt moments between the couple to the kick-ass bride, all ripped dress and attitude.

With real humor, real horror and real heart, this was the film I wanted Cabin in the Woods to be and could’ve been if it’d just had the balls to push a little further.

I have friend’s who are put off by foreign horror movies as they feel that ‘reading’ the dialogue interrupts the flow of the movie and horrors are so dependent on atmosphere this could prove damaging.

Trust me guys, this movie is worth the subtitles.

9/10