REVIEW: Paranormal Activity 3

From the directors of Catfish comes a prequel after ... a prequel.


People who know me know how much I enjoyed the first Paranormal Activity, but the second one was terrible to say the least. However, it's somehow clawed back from the edge to give a somewhat entertaining film that does quite well.

It's tough to suddenly take over the third film of a franchise, especially with something like this. The parameters have already been established, people are returning on the basis of expecting something what they've already seen and already you've got to reach some expectations - especially since the first film was the biggest success story since Blair Witch. Luckily, to follow on from the appalling second film doesn't take much.

What makes this film appealing is that it carries a narrative of sorts, something that was loosely applied to the second film and merely mentioned in the first, this film tries to fill in some gaps but still give a good scare. The main difference here is that, different from the second one, the directors have fleshed out the characters a bit more and carried on with the idea that the entity is a metaphor for a deeper anxiety in the family, this being the stepdad's integration into the family. The clear difference however, is that in this one you kind of even 'see' the ghost, it's given a personality, a character and even a name.

The stepdad films weddings, which gives the idea of filming his family some kind of acceptable basis. They have even used the camera pans effectively to create some quite terrifying moments and the children, who are the main characters in 1 and 2, are actually quite convincing. The story as such was pretty good in that it explains a lot about the basis of the Paranormal Activity history, however it also takes away a bit from the whole 'it could happen to you' element that made the first one so popular, the less you know the better, but when number 2 had royally fucked that up anyway, you might as well try and give it some depth in the third one.

So, putting the story aside, how is it as a horror film? The answer is quite good, the suspense was chilling and the pay-offs were ok. I'm still a little bemused by the fact that the 'old' ghost looks like a little child or something, that it has moods and is around during the day. The idea is that this devil creature also spends more time with the children than the parents do, they even have fun together. In a way, this makes it slightly more terrifying and even slightly perverse. I didn't think this was anything amazing, but this was the best effort that I could imagine for a third in the series, and that has to be congratulated. For me, it still doesn't reach the heights of the first one, but it's a great effort and it's nice to see a film that returns to what horror is essentially all about, pure character.

Rating: 6/10

REVIEW: The Ward

After years of doing nothing, John Carpenter returns in a horror that's horrible for reasons that aren't good.


It's been a while since after the first 5 minutes of a film, I can guess the rest of it in what is the most boring, slow-paced unexciting horror film or 'psychological thriller' I've seen. The only thrill was when it was over.

This was the worst kind of film for Carpenter to return on. It's a simple, predictable narrative that is completely uninspiring and lacks tension. What Carpenter surpasses at is creating that tension and release, he's a maestro at it, he tries to summon it up here but unfortunately in uncreative, boring ways that lack any kind of satisfying result. There were probably two bits where I jumped but at no point was I scared and at no point was I enjoying the film.

The story is about a girl who has been put into a psychiatric ward after burning down a house, whilst inside the ward she starts seeing monsters and her (hot) friends in there start disappearing. What follows on is the clumsy, atypical horror-fare that Carpenter should be trying to distance himself from, instead he becomes a pastiche of himself. He wrote the rule-book on modern horror and follows it step by step, forgetting that there have been a million films like this since. His slow pace is something that I would normally like in his films but this time the slow transitions, the two dimensional characters and generally everything about this makes me want to kill myself.

There are a few positive things, Jared Harris being one. There are a few good ol' scares, but it's by no means scary. Amber Heard does her best as the protagonist but apart from that, there really isn't much to this film. It's watchable, but from one of the most distinguished horror directors around, this really could not be more of a let down, let's just hope he's finding his feet again before he wows us with a real comeback.

Rating: 3/10

REVIEW: Don't Be Afraid of the Dark

Or more apt, Be Afraid Of Katie Holmes ....


Del Toro producing? Horror? Little kids? Could this be The Orphanage again? Fingers crossed and jumping up and down I began to watch the film. Only to be thoroughly disappointed and at one point even fell asleep.

The story is about a little girl living with her Dad in a new home with his new girlfriend. There are some clear family troubles with the daughter not really wanted by either parent and poor old Katie Holmes trying to be a mum. During the course of this there are these tiny little critters living underneath the house and they seem to pop up causing mischief which then turns a bit more serious as blood starts to be shed.

The main problem with this film is that it's as confused as Michael Jackson's kids. It's as much for adults than Gremlins was (which was also a 15 certificate), which everyone saw as a kid. These little blighters are even scared of light ("Bright light! Bright light!") and then it tries to take this weird, cutesy thing of these rather unassuming little toy soldier type monsters and make them really, really scary. When in all honesty, if you had any kind of weapon, even a big shoe, you'd probably kill them all in one swoop.

The little girl does well, even with such an annoying face and the stereotypical metaphor for these creatures being the obstacle to overcome to live a happy family life falls flat on it's face after the final scene, which in all honesty, doesn't really make sense. I wish I could say more about the film, but truth be told nothing really happens, it's the girl getting more and more perturbed by these strange little monsters that want to drag her to some weird kind of hell. All the fairy tale type notions (with the inevitable half-way 'reveal' of the history of the creatures) are a bit of a mixed bag and there's no real jeopardy to really keep you on the edge of your seat. It really is a shame that Katie Holmes just can't break out as an actress, but she is so amazingly average in this film that you can't help but wonder if you're just watching someone pretending to act. It's also confusing who you are rooting for and who the protagonist is, is it Holmes or the little girl? They're kind of against each other but not really? Who is the hero?

Director Troy Nixey's debut feature film should be wowing the audience, but instead it feels like a half-hearted effort and with Del Toro's name splashed over it all, it's a shame that the failure will most likely fall onto him rather than Nixey. This film is instantly forgettable and about as scary as realising you've forgotten to pack a pair of pants on your holiday. Do yourself a favour and forget Del Toro had anything to do with this film and keep those expectations low - you'll need it.

Rating: 4/10

REVIEW: A Serbian Film

One of the most depraved films of recent years has shocked the world and, at the very least, put the Serbian film industry (who knew they had one?) on the map.


It's a clever move calling it A Serbian Film. For sheer marketing reasons, it is out-there enough to put Serbia at the front of the torture-porn thing that has settled somewhat now, and it will forever stand alone as that film from Serbia, A Serbian Film. What the people of Serbia might say about this film standing up for their country is redundant and it doesn't make Serbia look like an amazing place to live, though there does seem to be an infinite number of hot women, so can't be all bad.

The film is about an ex-porn star who is brought back into the business by the promise of huge amounts of money. The first hour you can see things aren't looking good in this weird porn film he's agreed to star in, but for that first hour it slowly sets the scene until the final act where all hell breaks loose.

Though a lot of people would say this has been made purely for shock value, it could in fact be viewed as quite a strong social commentary. The crazed director in the film would mirror what people would think of director Srdjan Spasojevic - arguing that all the horrid ordeals he's putting them through is 'art', that there is a finesse to this grotesque horror. We all know that it is in fact not art at all which could also be applied to the film itself making it completely self-aware. However, there's a bit more going on then just torture-porn.

The idea of a 'happy Serbian family' and it's violent history, the way it literally fucks themselves over, it's lack of identity, the idea of the rich controlling the poor and taking away more than just their dignity. The notion that the rich and powerful make brothers fight, families go against each other and that there's no sense of unity. This isn't surprising since it's only just become a stand-alone sovereign republic since 2006 when it separated from Montenegro marking the end of Yugoslavia (thanks Wikipedia). It's also a commentary on it's apprehension with Western, often sexualised, influences in what was a Communist environment. By feeling so restricted, they have gone off the deep end into pure Western freedom - 'free fucking' as they call it in the film.

Anyway, that's enough serious stuff. I have to say that, in a completely non-depraved way, I enjoyed the film. The bleached out colours, the way everything was shot, it's relentless assault on your human condition, the characters and the general plot all serve to be quite a strangely entertaining film. As regular readers might know, I'm a big fan of the slow-burn beginnings if the pay-out is amazing - and you can't say the payout here wasn't intense. There are a couple of stupid bits and pieces that don't make sense, but to be bold and brave enough to deal with necrophilia, (extreme) paedophilia, incest, rape and the idea of just fucking anything and taking it to such extreme levels is astonishing. Even though it's quite horrific to watch, I did find it funny. I'm sorry but killing a guy by driving your boner through his eye and into his brain is nothing to be sniffed at (it is literally quite an eyeful). It has numerous scenes that if spread out across several films, would still make those films the top of disgust, even if nothing else happened. Yet here, they've rolled it all into one fairly decent package.

If none of this shocks you in any way, then you might need to see someone because it really goes off into the extremes of the psyche. However, you cannot take it seriously. The last line of the whole film for instance, I couldn't help but laugh out loud at. After having quite a serious ending, a five minute sequence or so of silent reflection, to end in such a manner is pure genius.

A lot of people will view this film and think it's just a disgusting piece of shit. It's not exactly something you can take someone to on a first date or sit with mum and dad and watch, but if you, like me, are one of those people that joke about disgusting, sick stuff, you'll love this. Otherwise if you like horror films, it doesn't go for the scare, it just pleases to shock.

Keep an open mind and you'll enjoy. I guarantee you that you'll be talking about it for the rest of your life.

Rating: 8/10

REVIEW: Silent House

From Uruguay comes a real-time horror flick which has the unique selling point that it's all been filmed in one take. Come inside and enter The Silent House ... please wipe your shoes.


There's something brave about this film. Is it the sheer bravado that comes with announcing that it has all been rehearsed to such a scale that a horror film can literally be made in ninety minutes? Or the reality of it? There is so much darkness that it would be sheer stupidity if they didn't cut along the way - and so I will end any questions now. Let's presume it wasn't done in one take.

Now that that's out of the way, we can delve through the hype and into whether this is a good film or not. However, I'm slightly on the fence about it. The slow burning beginning might seem a tad too long for some, but I always find that it helps set the scene, examine characters and build up the tension which is always a plus. Once everything starts going wrong, you wander around the house with our protagonist Laura as things start going bump in the dark. I do have a few issues with this . Mainly, she makes a somewhat meagre attempt to escape the house but by no means puts any effort into it, so the initial creeping around the house seems a bit stupid. If there's some kind of killer around, why would you be snooping trying to find him? Also, when she does ever go outside, it's dusk at best, never night-time, which makes it less scary and I question why they were going to sleep while the sun was still up in any case.

However, for it's faults, the film allows the viewer to snoop around the spooky house with Laura as she uncovers stranger and stranger things. Little girls turn up, weird paintings, the staircase leading to the dreaded upstairs, strange photos on walls, noises in the distance, they all create an atmosphere that plays on the audience's imagination by giving you glimpses of things - one inspiring sequence with a Polaroid flash was brilliant to say the least. Once you start nearing the end and you fathom what the hell is going on, you feel cheated and it's a real shame that they couldn't have come up with something slightly better or at least more original. In fact, it means the entire story doesn't make any sense and the strange credits sequence leaves you feeling like the attachment you built up for Laura got severed, that you were perhaps punished for rooting for her.

By going into this in too much detail, I'll be giving the game away. It's safe to say though that I did enjoy the film and is one step further in the evolution of horror, especially modern ones like Paranormal Activity where low-budget scares are more than often the best way to go. Whatever is going bump in the dark in your head, will always be scarier than reality.

Don't mistake this film for the American remake that will be coming out soon either. Apparently it's not much different and, like a lot of remakes, a lot worse. Find this out and have a look because, for the majority of the film, I felt I was with Laura in a horribly creepy house and for that scare alone, it's worth the money. Minus a point for the ending though.

Rating: 6/10

NEWS: Teaser Trailer for Dead Island Released

My friend Simon just showed me this and I have to say it's incredible. It is clearly trying to stay away from the Dead Rising-esque splatterfest usually associated with zombies and give it a bit more heart. The score is haunting and the double narrative here is wonderful, telling a story backwards yet forwards in such a fashion would make the most accomplished of commercial directors blush. Don't dismiss it as a video game trailer because it works on a number of levels and you'll miss out.
It also reminds me a bit of Lost, anyone agree?

NEWS: Alien Prequel Takes A Different Path ...

Alien prequel takes another turn as Ridley Scott ditches it to make an original Sci-Fi horror.


We've all been waiting for more details on Ridley Scott's Alien prequel, well now we've got it but it might not be what people want ...

A direct prequel will now be replaced with a film called Prometheus which will be out March 9th 2012. Noomi Rapace (from Girl With The Dragon Tattoo) is set to star in it and Charlize Theron and Angelina Jolie are fighting it out for the main role. I have to admit neither of them impress me, but Jolie is a much worse actress (apart from maybe in The Changeling but still). Lost's Damon Lindelhof has taken over the script and it will be in 3D, but also HR Giger has announced that he's on board so you never know, it might not be a straight-forward Alien film but it might make some good Sci-Fi Horror nonetheless.

Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale

Finland isn't known for it's film exports, so here truly is a 'Rare Export' but should we return it? It's not exactly in the spirit of Christmas is it?

This film is rather a prequel to two short films that the director made in 2003 and 2005 (both I will stick at the end of this article) where Santa isn't the merry old fat man we've come to know and love but is rather a beast of the wild that is tamed and exported around the world. But deciding that some short films weren't enough, Jalmari Helander decides to make a feature film about his 'hunters' before the events of Rare Exports Inc. & Rare Exports: Official Safety Instructions. I have to put this film into context because when viewing the film, not knowing much about it, it seemed very strange afterwards but now it kind of makes sense. However, it might be worth watching without seeing the videos included here, but it's your choice.

Either way, the story is about how some corporate diggers are excavating something from a mountain near a remote village in the snowy outdoors. But it is a young boy who works out what is buried beneath and is taking every precaution just in case, whether it's taping cardboard to your bum or carrying around a shotgun, he's not taking any chances. I read somewhere that this harks back to the kiddie films of the Eighties like The Goonies where the kids were always right and the adults were idiots, but this has much more of a horror element to it. In fact, it is very funny in different places for different reasons but always keeps a dark, sinister edge whether it's the weird wooden dolls, the crazy rich excavator or the creepy Santa they find, there's always a tinge of horror at all times.

The film is very well directed and, like many have said (mainly because of the snow) reminds people of The Thing, but all the set-up's are there and around the whole thing is the myth of Santa Claus (or Claws in this case). It makes for a very exciting, disturbing experience that is set around a time where people are supposed to get together and for someone who doesn't really enjoy Christmas, like myself, it makes a welcome distraction to all the 'niceness' of the Christmas season. The acting is, for the most part, very impressive and the end sequences with hundreds of naked old men running across the mountains is both funny and breathtaking at the same time. The film finds a great balance between horror, terror, humour and remembering that it shouldn't take itself too seriously, the gag is that it's about Santa after all.

I always found something creepy about a fat, old man going into children's houses at night and giving them presents, seeing if they've been 'naughty or nice' and this plays on people's insecurities especially at a time where paedophilia is all over the news these days. It also has a rather serious, dramatic edge with an obviously painful father/son relationship, a man who is frustrated with the world and a 'coming-of-age' element about sacrifice and becoming independent. It could also be seen as a war of male generations, the son against the father, and the father against his own father, which in this case is represented by Father Christmas, it would make sense seeing as there is no females in the whole film but rather a world of manly hunters where soppy things like Christmas have no place.

Overall, the film is enjoyable and the last five minutes is rather strange but makes sense once you see the short films. It might have a few plotholes but has been well thought out, perfectly directed and for something that could have so easily been one big joke, remains an impressive piece of work that the director clearly cared about. I recommend that you forget the usual Christmas ho-ho-Hell's and delve into a dark place where being naughty or nice is a life or death decision.

Rating: 8/10

Rare Exports Inc. Short Film



Rare Exports: Official Safety Instructions

Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare DLC

Red Dead becomes Undead in this new DLC that successfully combines the Western genre with Horror so that shooting zombies never looked so cool

Rockstar have graced us with an odd add-on that takes the original game and completely changes it by adding zombies into the Wild West without taking itself too seriously. You start as John Marston again on his farm as his dead Uncle attacks his family and turns them into zombies. After tying them up, he vows to find a solution to help them and so the action begins.

Rockstar have taken advantage of the current Grindhouse trend and given this a B-movie cult horror genre feel by exploiting it in all the right places and being completely self-aware. The zombies move realistically and can only really be put down with a shot to the head and when you do shoot, instead of a typical gaming 'blow-up' head shot, instead only that part of the head is blown away giving the game a physicality not often achieved, especially with such fodder as Dead Rising 2. As you save town after town trying to uncover the truth, you bump into the characters from the original story making it a bit of a nostalgic trip as well. Similar to the original game, you have to help strangers along the way, find missing people and other small missions but essentially you're trying to find out what's behind all this.

As fun as it was to play, saving town after town by giving survivors ammunition (something that is scarce at first but builds up rather quickly) becomes a bit of a ball-ache. You have to go up to one survivor and then head to the others giving them ammo before finishing off the zombies. Trying to negotiate a way to get up to these survivors can be taxing to say the least, especially with zombies biting at your tails. However, once you've saved all the towns and done the main storyline (with a great 'few months later' epilogue) I'd imagine unless you're a completist you'd probably leave it there.

They also cleverly use the zombie factor as an excuse to include zombie animals as well as special 'Apocalypse' horses that if you catch, give you a certain special power. Though my Pestilence horse which was supposed to be impossible to kill, died almost as soon as I got it by falling off a cliff but yet I survived, so that was a bit of an anti-climax. However, there are Sasquatches, unicorns and more to find should you wish to do so. But as fun as it was, saving the towns occupied a lot of my time and soon became annoying. Also the final onslaught in a cave wasn't the big finale I expected it to be, instead it fell quite flat. It's also worth noting that you can still use your Red Eye slowing down time meaning you shouldn't really become too overwhelmed with zombies at any one time. The good thing is there is more than one type of undead, you have the normal ones, you have little fast spider like ones, spitting ones and big boulder-like ones. Therefore, it can keep the killing fresh by mixing it up with an assortment of the four. Weapons are also customised for zombie killing including a gun that shoots dead flesh back at them.

The game still sticks to it's open world sandbox roots, with certain Ranked missions, Treasure hunting and outfit collecting so there is something for everyone here. I couldn't justify spending enough time on it to complete it 100%, but doing the main storyline with bits afterward took about 8 hours, perhaps a bit more, and that's saving all the towns as well.


For a downloadable pack, this is great but I still felt they should have eased off saving all the towns constantly and concentrated more on doing missions. It's a nice, strange 'ending' as such with Red Dead Redemption and a great alternative to the Western feel of the original game. It's unique, brave and has successfully won over a lot of the audience, it's also due to come out on disc form in the near future as well. Rockstar have also announced that a Red Dead bundle will come out at the end of November with this and all the other DLC available in one big package. I recommend you buy this, especially if you loved Red Dead Redemption and it's a great DLC but again it's not perfect. Great idea, great gameplay, but felt like there could have been more to the story and saving all the towns became more of a chore as it went along. I'd love to see a DLC to this DLC (if that makes sense) which just opened it out a bit more, but for such content, depth and originality, it's one of the best DLC's out there. Go forth and enjoy - dead or undead.

DLC Rating: 9/10

Devil

Part 1 of 'The Night Chronicles' begins with this yarn about 5 people trapped in a lift and nowhere to go - then they start dying. M Night Shyamalan might have his name all over it, but really he just came up with the (pretty simple) story. In any case, with his films getting progressively worse and worse, is it time to call it a Night?

High concept films like this can sometimes be a blessing. If you can sum the film up in one sentance then you can concentrate on the other elements of the film, the look, the dialogue etc. without getting too bogged down in plot. However, seeing as it's plot that Shyamalan prides himself on, it has instead become his biggest downfall.

Let's be honest, his breakthrough The Sixth Sense was a generally good film. Mainly because of the acting, the sombre mood, the melancholy horror about it all and the well-known twist and hey, I didn't even mind Unbreakable. Sure it was a bit boring, it was predictable, it was slow, but it still kept a sadness that I enjoyed and also Bruce Willis as a reluctant hero is something I'll never get bored of; but it was still a disappointment. Signs I didn't see until recently, and it was awful but did quite well at the box office. The aliens looked terrible and it all felt like a massive joke. However, an invasion from the perspective of a small family in a small farm was an idea I enjoyed. I hadn't given up on him yet. The Village I enjoyed and I would argue might be his strongest film - yes the twist was predictable, the acting so-so and again by the end was a bit of a disappointment, but I enjoyed the first half or so. Then it really did go all wrong, The Lady In The Water might as well have been Shyamalan staring into a mirror and having a wank for 2 hours and The Happening was ludicrous at best. The Last Airbender? I haven't seen it but it's not done well. So after this brief recap, can he gain some more respect by taking a bit of a backseat and letting others do work under his name? Well ... no.

Devil is a tale of Satan taking an excursion to Earth and so, for laughs, chooses to enter the body of someone in a big office building. It's narrated by an idiot who seems to have a weirdo mum telling him horrible stories at night (Shyamalan?) and the main character is a cop who has a tragic past. Boo hoo. It's quite a slow moving film, which I imagine it has to be seeing as it is set mainly in a lift, but at times it's almost excruciating. The lights go off and something weird happens. Again and again. If it wasn't so supernatural this thing could actually be scary but unfortunately, it's mediocre at best.

There are some good aspects though. The shots inside the elevator are so close and intimidating that you feel as closed in as the characters are, the parts in the dark which rely completely on sound are fun, some shots are horrific enough to keep the gore-lovers happy and the general suspense works well, but not well enough that you're at the edge of your seat. You feel like it would make a good short story, or perhaps an episode of The Twilight Zone, but a 90 minute feature? It's definitely pushing it.

It just wasn't that scary, jumpy, or much of anything. The strange figure in the Devil trailer (which again is better than the film) makes the appearance just the once, apart from a lame 'face' in CCTV footage. Why would a scary devil be making lame faces in video footage? Then there's the Mexican security guard who is such a devout religious nut that it becomes absurd. It's trying its best to become a high-tension guessing game but instead it results in a stupid attempt to create horror from, basically, nothing.

Seeing as this is Part 1, you can't help but feel there must be a continuing theme that we will see happening. I imagine the suicide at the beginning (don't worry, it's almost the first thing you see) would probably appear in a later film, but I wish that he would have done perhaps a 2 and a half or three hour feature of his trilogy, Grindhouse style. But then maybe the other two will blow us out of the water? Well, I doubt it. Especially if there's a Lady in it.

Rating: 5/10

Splice

Produced by Guillermo del Toro, directed by the guy who did Cube, this B-Movie monster horror is a bit deeper than others, but should it even exist?

I've got a lot of time for movies like this, a high-concept, no bullshit horror film that plays out slowly and dramatically until a final burst at the end. Unfortunately, this movie feels like it should be so much more than what it has become.

This is mainly due to the director - the shots often feel standard and uninspiring yet there are odd moments where some glimmer of creativity comes through. You only have to look at what he's done since Cube to get a feeling that this is his last big shot, and it is in something that his art department background can justify, the monster horror theme.

But what makes this different, and kudos to Natali for co-writing the thing, is that you're never sure who the real monster is. The set-up is that Brody and Polley (who I don't think I've seen since Dawn of the Dead) are doctors playing with genetics to create animal medicines etc., but when they want to combine human DNA for medicines for us lot, they are quickly turned down. So what else to do but do it themselves? I think you can get the rest of it.

The problem is Adrien Brody just can't really hold a film together, his passiveness in The Pianist was either great acting or non-acting and this proves the latter. Polley I feel sorry for, she always seems to be left behind and doesn't seem to ever age, her acting is mediocre at the best of times and she's a strange choice for the role. It's really Delphine Chaneac as the creature Dren that shines through. Her animal-like behaviour and visual confusion is impressive, the brilliant CG and make-up helps, but Chaneac really makes Dren a complete character.

So what of the 'monster' Dren? From the minute she's born, she's an object of disgust so initially we seem to side with the idea of killing it. However, she starts growing at an alarming pace (not evolving - species evolve not individuals) and soon that disgusting thing with a tail is a little girl. The fact that she's mute and relatively sweet makes it harder and harder to consider her a threat as she turns more and more human. The plot moves nicely so that you're never at ease when she's around, there's a nasty streak in Dren and she tends to lash out with ferocity.

You start to realise that this all one big metaphor for how Polley's character Elsa wants to not let Dren down like her mother did her and soon, after a medical incident in a barn screaming metaphors (Freud would enjoy this film), you start to sympathise more and more with Dren. Is she being kept alive for the sake of Elsa? Is she actually just as bad a mother as her own? It's only about two thirds through the film that things start getting a bit weird, Brody's character Clive soon breaks loose from being the audience's grounding force to start messing with things he shouldn't - and for what reason I have no idea. Then when all hell breaks loose and Dren develops again, it gets really incestuous to the point of sickening. Dren's suddenly changed completely (in more ways that one) and has become a true monster. Was this from the result of her 'upbringing'? Or was this because of her genetics? See what they've done here? Because, to be honest, Dren goes through a lot in a short space of time that would mess anyone up, let alone a creature that doesn't know if it's even human.

So what's wrong with this picture? Firstly, the acting is pretty atrocious from everyone concerned, there's not enough tension as I would have liked there to have been and why the characters are doing what they are doing isn't explained fully enough, or there's not enough reference to any subtext to justify it. The effects, CG, make-up and everything in creating Dren is pretty damn good and looks authentic and it's the disturbing plot that wins it over from being some weird farce.

Overall, this is a great original story that takes a few chances that pay off. But ultimately, there's not enough method in the madness and it all seemed to happen so quickly that we couldn't get close enough to Dren to fully engage with the character. I enjoyed the idea, the story and the film itself but I was left feeling disappointed.

And also Brody's nose kept drawing my attention away.

Great film to kill some time and get you thinking about the morals of messing about with God's work, but ultimately more forgettable than it should have been.

Rating: 7/10

The Human Centipede

The film that I've been waiting for since I heard about it has finally got released. But is it a huge let-down or does it stand up as one of the most disturbing horror films out there?

In case you don't know about this already, The Human Centipede is exactly that, three humans linked up arsehole to mouth and forced to crawl around on all fours by a psychotic surgeon and looks like, well, a centipede of sorts.

The story is very, very simple. Two young American girls are lost in the woods of Germany and stumble upon a house where they are soon drugged and forced to be part of a doctor's sick game. Seeing as you know, inevitably, it will happen that they end up 'together', you still can't but help rooting for the main girl to survive and soon, start hoping they might die to save them this torture.

Strangely enough, first reviews I had read described this as a comedy and, for the people who read the same, I want to assure you it isn't supposed to be but sometimes it does come across as funny. The doctors love for his 'sweet 3 dog' which was his first experiment is quite funny, and the acting, particularly in the beginning is atrocious. But this works perfectly well as a sick horror film that makes for a tough watch at times.

What I like about this film is that despite it's obstacles, you can tell it has been made with great passion. Seeing as most of the action takes place in a house, you imagine the budget is very small and that they have tried to appeal to as global a market as possible. Most of it is in English, it's set in Germany so there's some German in it and a Japanese guy who speaks neither which caters for the J-Horror fans. There's so many holes in the plot that it looks like Swiss cheese but I was able to let these brush off for the most part, but some did get stupid. As they try to crawl up the stairs they are starting to painfully break apart but you think, how the hell was the doctor getting them up and down there then in the first place? When one of them escapes, why had she not done it before? Why do they stay quiet when the doctor is on the phone? A lot of editing tries to patch over the problems but you end up shouting at the screen a lot in classic horror style, which I think is a good thing.

The house is also very reflective of the doctor himself. Clean, medical, white and the only colour of the place is coming from horrific artwork of foetus's or blood. The doctor is tall, skinny and looks like a walking corpse already - the perfect strange looking German you could hope for in such a film. His sociopathic hatred of people would probably have got in the way of helping people as a surgeon and his obsession with his work has clearly driven him insane. The way he explains through a shit slideshow of what is about to happen to his guests is remarkable and the way he seems to be quite careless about leaving his guests unattended is irritating but these are script problems more than anything. He tries to excuse his actions by way of experimentation, a God complex of creating a new being, but really it's through sexual gratification. At one point, he even wears boots and whips his new creature, he likes them being obedient and eating shit and, when he notices blood on the stairs, you wonder if he is actually ejaculating as he licks it up.

The process of creating his new being is horrific, they have stuff taken out of their knees so they can never stand and have flesh grafted on to their cheeks linking them to the arse of the one in front and with all their teeth pulled out, they are sewn literally into the asshole of the person in front. When you see the first shit take place, it's enough to make you sick. A lot of the film plays on the pure idea of this form of torture and so should it. It doesn't confuse itself with trying to be more than it is, and for that I'm thankful. The last 10 minutes is excruciating to watch and the final scene leaves you hanging, thinking of how horrible their situation now is.

This film takes a simple idea, albeit a disgusting one, and runs with it. The acting of everyone but the doctor is diabolical, the set-up is ridiculous, the script is full of flaws but it does the job. It's not as hard to watch, or as good as, Martyrs which I can't help but compare it to, but I did think it was a great idea to horrify audiences in this way and it worked well. Anything that shocks is always a good thing, but as a film, it fails. The sickest film out there? Probably not, but it's up there with some of them and definitely sticks in your head for a while. Worth a watch but nothing more, and if you really want to fuck your mind up, go out and get Martyrs.

Rating: 5/10

Survival Of The Dead

George A. Romero's new zombie flick goes back to it's roots. But is it still alive and kicking or dead on it's feet? The Wild Bore finds out.

I don't even think this got a cinema release and instead went straight to DVD. I remember the time when the Romero trilogy was something that could never be surpassed by a zombie film. He rewrote the playbook and was truly the King of the Undead. However, once horror started coming back to the fray, and Snyder's Dawn of the Dead remake did well at the box office, Hollywood decided to bring Romero back from the grave to continue his zombie franchise and he brought to us Land of the Dead. Problem was, it bombed. With a fair amount of money behind it, some top actors including Dennis Hopper and a decent PR campaign, this looked like it might do well. Unfortunately, not many people liked the idea of zombies forming an army and invading a human city - it just seemed a bit ... stupid. I thought it was OK, had some good bits and followed the path that Romero set up in Day of the Dead where zombies were starting to evolve. But instead Romero's comeback became rather timid. However, he followed this up with Cloverfield cam-in-hand style Diary of the Dead which was probably the most awful zombie film I've ever seen. So anything after that had to be better than his previous attempt, and so comes Survival of the Dead ...

The story picks up from the army guys who invaded the truck in Diary of the Dead. They decide to go their own way and go to an island off the coast where two warring families once stood. One side wanted to kill all zombies, the other side wanted to keep them around in case a cure is found - they couldn't bare the thought of killing their loved ones and so drove the zombie killing ones away - which is how the army guys find the island. Right, so that's the story but is it any good?

Oddly enough, you can see Romero has tried a bit with this one. The shots, characters and inevitable zombie onslaught are similar to his first trilogy but there are a lot of problems. Firstly, you're not sure who you are supposed to sympathise with, which might be good if done right, but here it just feels like the script asks too much of the audience to keep switching sides. Secondly, there's not that much of a zombie presence, the final frenzy is rather short and unsatisfying. There is also a dire case of bad CG at work, and compared to today's standards, it looks totally whack shack Iraq. Also, why do all these guys on the island speak Irish? It makes it feel rather inbred. Which it probably is seeing as there's apparently only two major families on the whole place!

The army protagonist also just acts a bit too macho, to the point where it's a bit weird and cardboard. The lesbian soldier also first comes on-screen by, well, cumming. Why she is masturbating in front of everyone when they're supposed to be looking for zombies I'll never know. You're also not sure why it's called Survival of the Dead. Is it because they're being kept alive? Or because they're being trained to eat something that's not human so they can survive? The title promised so much more. It's also a story about pride and family - but not really. It's a meek attempt to add some backbone to a lifeless piece. The boy who wants to be a man is just an annoying storyline to keep the young un's in with someone they can relate to, they've got the token minorities in there and an old wise man but it just doesn't cut it. Even the gore looks a bit strange and way too 70's - not in a good way either with bright red paint, I mean blood, and a classic post-Nam 'isn't war so silly' kind of vibe.

Overall, this film is a pretty poor attempt to get back on track. Romero has lost whatever it was that he had and even though this is a LOT better than Diary of the Dead, then unless you are fans of his previous work, you won't want to watch it, and to be honest you shouldn't. There was enough to keep me entertained, but it's definitely for fanboys only.

Rating: 4/10

REC 2

A sequel that has a lot to live up to and though it might just about prevail, it doesn't quite hit the heights of the first one. Essentially, you've seen it before.

I was one of the few excited ones to hear about REC when it was released. An original Spanish horror film that builds on the path started by Blair Witch Project of shaky-cam horror madness. The trailer was AMAZING. Though you might think Cloverfield got there first, REC was actually released a good year beforehand and instead of the grand scale of something like New York, it instead takes place, for the most part, in an apartment building.

If you watched the first one, you would know it dealt with issues such as terrorism, racism, government policy, freedom of speech, paranoia, religion, child abuse and relationships in a way that you aren't really prepared for. It was absolutely terrifying in parts and the end sequence was incredible. This was remade, almost shot for shot at times in Quarantine, which got a mediocre response. It was for the idiots who couldn't be bothered to read. So anyway, now I've laid down the initial basis, what of the sequel?

Well at least it's made by the same guys, which always fares well at least, and it picks up pretty much where the first one left off. But instead of a TV crew you're now dealing with a small SWAT team who storm the building with headcams, which (a bit like the Japanese "Siren" game series) you can see what is happening to the other members in the building as they get split up. Lo and behold it all goes kind of wrong as we say hello to some familiar faces (albeit slightly more gruesome) and meet some new ones. As we get some more background on what this 'infection' is all about, we start detangling what is actually happening here. But to be honest, I liked it better when I didn't know. Some things really are best left to the imagination - especially bits like what happened to the main girl from the first one when she got dragged off in the final shot. I didn't want to know that, it was much better in my head!

But then, this wasn't really the problem. The problem is it stalls halfway through as the narrative completely changes direction and you see it from the perspective of three kids from the beginning again, a parallel timeline if you will. These kids are completely annoying and just add more fodder to the horror cannon - you don't care enough about them and luckily you don't have to deal with them for too long. I guess it's kind of good, but it just feels a bit messy, and forced. Whereas the first one felt so natural and flowing, this one feels like they are just trying to recreate everything that made the original so great instead of approaching it from a different angle. Also, as a side note, if you remember the first one when the lady is saying her husband has gone to get their daughter drugs. Let's just say he doesn't get much of a welcome.

The story continues and a few twists happen. Nothing that will blow your mind. But you do get to see that horrible monster girl from the end of the first one proper up close and personal - which is nice. But essentially it feels a bit lame in that it just doesn't have that excitement. But I'm putting it down a lot more than I should - I would definitely go watch it and if you haven't seen the first one, you'll probably be OK not knowing what happened. You'll pick it up quickly enough. It is a lot better than most of the shit horror still banging about these days and I did enjoy it from beginning to finish - the sheer panic, desperation and isolation you feel comes right through and slaps you on the face. Not as good as the first, but pretty damn good.

Rating: 7/10