Reviews

I watch many a horror film, some good and some bad - I know what I like and I liked this very much.

Whilst Resurrection County won't win any awards, my personal opinion is that it rose above many other films of its ilk by putting a different slant on the "rednecks" usually seen in movies of this type. The inhabitants of Enoch, in my opinion, were more of a religious/survivalist type who would for the most part, leave intruders alone - unless of course, they interfere in their world.

I have no complaints about the acting or the effects and was surprised by the ending... my only complaint was the character of Lucy whom I found a bit irritating and Dayton Knoll reminded me of Corey Feldman - other than that, a rather solid little film.

Being a lover of movies with a good story, this started out promising. I am also a sucker for "teen horror" and initially I thought that this was going to be great. The acting was decent and it looked like it had a bit of a budget behind it, unlike others I've seen.

However, it all went downhill rather quickly for me. I thought the make up effects for the witch were rather amateur and the splashes of CGI blood when the witch put kids through the meat grinder contraption was laughable at best.

Sometimes less is more and for me, it would have been better if the makers of this film has spent more time developing the story than blowing their budget on CGI blood. Pity.. as some of the actors were pretty decent.

I will skip the plot details as so many other reviewers have done that part for me. I want to start with correcting a couple of errors some other reviewers have made - Butler's character George Dryer is Scottish, not English and it is his love of (Glasgow) Celtic, not "the Celtics" that is mentioned in the movie.

I am a huge football (soccer) fan, and Scottish, so perhaps I'm slightly biased! I liked the fact George kept his accent and referenced Celtic and Liverpool FC, instead of other more well known teams. There was even a Celtic shirt hanging on his son's bedroom wall, which made it more authentic for me.

While there were comedy elements to the film, I felt it was more of a drama and enjoyed watching how George's relationship with his son unfolded throughout.

The supporting cast including Dennis Quaid, Catherine Zeta Jones and Una Thurman all played convincing characters and provided a few of the more funnier moments.

Predictable? Sure... entertaining - absolutely.

I've read all the reviews of First Born on here and some other reviewers share my opinion that this is a good film, which builds intensity leaving you wanting to know what happens in the end.

However, the more I try and analyse the film (which isn't always a good thing)the more confused I become.

It's well made, acted and scripted. Elisabeth Shue plays the role of the anxiety filled new mother well, as an actress of her calibre should. Some reviewers perception of the film is that Shue is a new mother struggling with PPD whilst others seem to see it as a haunting/possession type scenario.

For me, I perceived this film to be portraying the struggles of a new mother - the anxieties progressing to psychosis. Having suffered from post natal depression myself after a c-section, I instantly felt a connection to Shue's character, however I never descended into psychosis, thankfully.

But throw in the whole "curse" angle to the mix, along with the character of Jenny who is referred to as having previously lived in the house, then that's when things got a bit confusing for me. When the nanny attached the bundle under the baby's crib, I thought that was to protect the baby. But then when Laura comes back from the black-tie dinner and asks why she didn't answer the phone, the nanny said she hadn't heard it ringing - although the phone could clearly be heard ringing in the background, whilst the nanny was attaching the bundle under the crib.

That said, I still enjoyed the film and couldn't wait to see how it ended. Supernatural thriller or psychological thriller? You decide.

I'm not going to bother giving the plot details as other reviewers have done this already. I am going to give you what I liked and disliked about this film. I love all horror films and will give anything a go. I always read reviews on here first but try not to let them colour my judgement before I watch.

Having read quite a lot of negative reviews about Staunton Hill, I wasn't sure what I was in for. Personally I feel some of the reviews were a bit harsh, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. My opinion, is that this could have been so much more, but sadly the film ended up being a confusing mess. That's not to say it didn't have its positive points and I actually enjoyed some of it.

Firstly I loved the look of the film, whether this is down to direction or location, I'm not sure. I liked the fact that the Staunton family looked relatively normal. The gore scenes were, for the most part, realistic and well done.

However, I have no idea what the intermittent scenes of the doctor and the young girl were all about and I feel these were not explained at all. Also, as other reviewers have mentioned, we are left with no idea whatsoever what happened to some of the characters.

All in all, Staunton Hill had potential, but ended up confusing. The decent gore scenes bumped up my vote.

Australian horror film about a group of friends out in the wilderness to look at some ancient rock drawings. One becomes infected with a strange type of virus which turns her into a man-eating wild woman with super-strength and the rest of the group have to deal with fending her off whilst dealing with the possibility the rest of the group may suffer the same fate.

For me, I rather enjoyed the film. Characters were interesting, dialogue good etc, but the CGI effects at the end of the film ruined it for me as they were not very well done and just made the whole thing rather unbelievable. I'm not a huge fan of CGI anyway, but when it's done badly it makes it worse.

Thought I would give this film a go, as I love a bit of horror-comedy and am familiar with most of the British cast. Kill Keith, for me, had plenty laugh-out-loud moments and surprisingly good acting from all the cast, especially the celebrities playing themselves and I thought Keith Chegwin did a great job.

My only criticism is the whole Tony Blackburn thing, not sure why the whole alter-ego thing was going on...

Unfortunately for non British viewers, this might not be to everyone's taste but for those of us who will "get" the whole GMTV premise and the in-jokes, its well worth the watch.

I always try to find something to like about every horror film I watch, being a huge fan of the genre, and I am usually able to find something that justified the 90 mins or so spent on a movie. However, having just watched this film I am at a loss as to find any redeeming qualities about it. I'm no expert, just a movie lover but this has honestly got to be one of the worst films I have ever seen.

I quite like the grindhouse feel to movies, with the crackling film reels etc (told you I'm not an expert)and was quite taken with the opening ten mins or so, purely on the way it was filmed. But I have to say, I have no idea whatsoever what this was about, other than four people in the woods being terrorised by some blokes with tights on their heads....

The dialogue was awful, the acting a hundred times worse, but for me, being left with no clear idea of what I had just watched, left me very disappointed. My mind may have wondered slightly and I missed the whole explanation to the whole thing, but the audio quality was all over the place also, so that maybe explains it.

I give this 2 out of 10 and the 2 is purely for the grindhouse look to the whole thing.

I saw this last night as it premiered on Sky Movies. Synopsis sounded intriguing and I've enjoyed quite a few Austrialian "horror" films in my time.

The storyline kept me engaged and I wanted to carry on and see what the outcome was. Some other reviewers have made negative comments about the ending but I had no problem with it and thought everything came together at the end.

The only problem I did have with this film however, was the female characters, having just had Cesarean sections, were running and jumping around, climbing, etc. As someone who has had a Cesarean, I know from experience that you can not move around like that, in some cases for weeks afterwards! Although this might not be a problem for any other viewer, I just wished that had the women acted in such a way as a normal woman would having undergone such surgery, it might have added an extra element to the film.

Doesn't make it a bad movie though, especially the actress who played Beth, she was excellent. Definitely worth a view for the story.