Reviews

Sorry but could not make head or tail to this garbage. I was expecting something along the lines of the Wicker Man but no.... This makes no sense & I am wondering who else thinks this? I really enjoyed Heriditary but ths is like from another director. Come on we can do better than this. It is not even vageuly defied as a horror movie. Horror movies are supposed to be scarey. This is about as scarey as going to work in the morning! Please come up with something better. It is no wonder there are so many unhappy people giving this a one star as it is simply NOT HORROR. Just my honest opinion!

Don't waste your time & money.

Sorry.

The true horrific Holodomor story is often buried by mainstream history, so when I heard that this was coming out I was excited & was really looking forward to this film, but what a dissapointing snore fest this turned out to be, & yes I did actually fall asleep!

This movie tries way too hard to be "art-house" & while I don't mind art house movies, this one is so arty it makes it distracting & difficult to follow. Our hero the eponymous Mr Jones is something of an idiot, bumbling about in odd states of confusion (which confused me!?) He is supposed to be the foreign advisor to the then Prime Minister so surely he should be a smart educated man with diplomatic skills & while I was not expecting a James Bond character, I was expecting to see a well developed character befitting the job he was doing. We are never told why Stalin & the Marxist regime wants to starve & murder people, instead we are told that these genocidal Communists are simply "modernizing" Russia (?) which makes no sense. The true horror of the Holdomor does not quite come across in the movie, nor does it give us any sense of what was happening at the time. In this sense it shows the sets & make up were all well below par, which is a shame. The acting is ok but the story is dreadfully slow & the pacing drags on & on.

Well I am still waiting for an honest telling of this story, but it is not a subject that comes up often for some reason. We must be super wise to real history as history in particular the horrors of WW2 hold many lessons to be learned.

Four lives tells the real life story of the horrific murders of 4 young men on the very cusp of thier lives, & where the utterly shocking police incompetnce & failure to investigate, which lead to more lives being cruelly snatched away.

Stephen Merchant is utterly chilling as murderer Stephen Port. His performance is spine tingling yet almost muted making the whole persona seem eerie & sinister. Sheriden Smith as the mother of Anthony Walgate (Sarah Sac) is highly emotive & brought a tear to my eye as the mothers that lost their sons are my age & made me realise this could have happened to my son. So her performance gave me a personal connection. The supporting cast are also excellent, where I could find no fault. This deeply upsetting story is told with tact & a certain grace which I appreciate & respect, however I feel the side of the story dealing with the incompetent police investigation was slightly lacking & needed more depth. The blatent homophobia displayed by the police during the real investigation was disgusting & staggering but this is not touched upon untill part 3 of the drama.

Overall this is a great drama though & highly compelling with terrific performances. The pacing is smooth, direction is almost flawless & the photography is superb. We can also take comfort that the real killer, Stephen Port is now safely locked away on a whole life term so he can no longer terrorise the Gay community & law abiding society. Thank goodness!

8 stars for all the cast & crew. X.

Killdozer 1974 starring Clint Walker, Carl Betz, Neville Brand.& James. Wainwright & directed by Jerry London, is a terrific sci-fi horror made for TV movie showcasing just how good movies could be on a very tight budget compared to the rubbish muli million dollar movies we have today. It was completely panned after it's release, but has gone on to attain cult status as being one of the best examples of 70's straight to TV movie making. Sadly though today it will never be shown on TV as it contains square jawed rugged hard working men which may offend the global citizenry educated social justice people. If you are so inclined avoid this movie.

The movie begins with a metorite which hits earth on an island off the coast of Africa. On this same island a team of construction men are building an air strip, but in their way is the meteorite blocking their path. When they try to remove it, it begins to hum & a blue light floats from the rock.into the Caterpillar D9 bulldozer. Said bulldozer now takes on a life of it's own & goes on a murderous rampage!

Many people have said this film is silly becuase humans can out run a huge lumbering bulldozer (which is true!) but you have to look at the context of this story. They are on a small island (not many places to run to?) Humans get tired & need food to sustain themselves. The construction workers have limited supplies so they will get tired & become exhausted, Admittedly these points don't come across well in the story, which could have been done better in my view, when in fact their only way of escape would have been by sea. The script is very weak in places & the acting is nothing to write home about, but it is well paced,contains nicely done suspense & the camera work (often hand held) is absolutely superb. These is no sex, nudity or foul language & no blood or gore, but beware if you are social justice inclined as this movie displays rugged men hard at work, doing mens stuff in a manly manner making this movie "patriarchal" however I am a woman & I just adore this movie!

This is a terrific made for TV retro horror/scifi which is begging for a 21st century mini series!

Sadly remakes rarely live up to the original & veiwers will always compare the remake to the classic it tries to imitate, hence the low rating for this movie which in all honesty I think is a little unfair. Poltergeist 2015 is NOT a bad film. It's just not that great either. The good points are the pacing, an imaginative retelling, & a classic non relience on buckets of absurd fake blood & jump shocks. The bad points are mediocre acting, a very weak script & a terrible overly loud sound track. Some of the story is very disjointed (what is the electricity pylon connection?) but there are some nice chills in places which carries this movie quite well, however the CGI in places was very poor. This just maybe my taste in my favorite horror movies as I am no fan of excessive CGI.

I wont go into the story line, as I feel the original was such a huge hit, most people already know its about a normal suburban family who are terrorised by poltergeists. In fact the original Spielberg hit is my number 1 favorite movie of all time. But this update adds some nice alternative angles to the story, which I enjoyed & the use of modern tech to aid in the resuce was quite interesting, too.

I think the overall take out of this movie is "Don't compare it to the Tobe Hooper, Spielberg masterpiece!" as it is like comparing pearls to marbles. The music in this remake is one of the biggest let downs, with souless, droning tones repeated over & over which was very irritating, does not contain suspence or mystery unlike Jerry Goldsmiths velvety haunting score from the original. This movie I would rate at a PG - 13 as there is no violence, bad language or gratuitous sex scenes & older teens may like this. There is no Hollywierd social agenda in this either, which is very refreshing for movies today, & in places this is very engaging, creepy & decent watchable stuff. Just a good piece of entertainment which certainly doesn't deserve to be panned by Poltergeist 1982 purists. These purists should remember that Tobe Hooper (May God rest your soul sir x) was a MASTER of the macarbe & a brilliant director. Gil Kenan (Monster House 2006) who directed this version, is ok, but he is still quite young & still needs to find his feet in the horror genre. But oh how I miss the genius of Tobe Hooper... *sighs*

....It is now perfectly fine to mock & bully 8 year old, 6 & 3 year old children!

I just caught the first episode of this & it's unfuny, dull & very boring. I could not get a laugh out of it. Now don't get me wrong I loved Family Guy when it was on & never missed an episode. But the Prince is just painfull. Would it be acceptable to do a cartoon that mocks & bully's disabled children or children living in desperate poverty. Of course it would not be! I also think this cartoon has a nasty, spiteful political ring to it because after we dared to vote for Brexit, socialist globalists have vowed to get rid of the monarchy & split the British Union, in petty revenge. So sad.

Don't waste you're time with this cods wallop. You have far more important things to do with 14 minutes of you're life!

Before I start I must say I am a woman who has backpacked to over 40 countries & I am also an adventure travel consultant of over 20 years expierence (before covid) & I can say with hand on heart this is a terrific movie, but it's social message, which enourages women to travel alone abroard is a VERY bad message!

I adsolutely adore Pauline Collins & I am even a fan of the original stage play which I saw several times years ago. The movie version does lack the intimacy of the live play, but the movie carries it's self very well, has excellent pacing & is really well directed. On film the "breaking of the forth wall" (a theater acting technique where actors directly adress the audience) does not come across so well on camera which can even look slightly amaturish in places. But the humor is still good & the flow of the story is very easy to follow. The music is also excellent & I enjoyed the glimpses into local life on a Greek island. Alison Steadman is also terrific as the selfish faux feminist friend.

Saying all this though I am marking this down to a 4 because of it's rather risky social messages. Travel has litrally been my life & I have learned in that time women should never travel alone. Recently there has been a kind of massive promotion encouraging young women to travel solo as part of a globalist "female empowerment" drive, but ladies don't be fooled. Year after year, tragically young ladies end up raped & murdered all over the world. Your backpacking solo selfies might look good on instagram girls but it is not worth the risk. I beg women not to do this!! I also diden't like the English holiday makers clichés in Shirley Valentine. I have no doubt that some English tourists are this dumb & bigoted but I believe it is a minority. I know back in 1989 when this was made we could have a laugh at our dumb, bigoted British holiday makers, but today it's a bit more serious because it has become VERY fashionable to denigrate, mock & discriminate against British people, British culture & British history. Today we are simply 3rd class global citizen "Little Englanders" who dared to vote for Brexit! Anyway, no worries as I doubt this will be shown on TV today.which is almost a shame as it is a very watchable film, with decent humor & an uplifting theme. But we need to remind ourselves that this IS fiction & should not be taken too seriously. We must remember that time back then was totally different to the world we live in today. It was more innocent back then & we could have some fun, & Shirley Valentine absolutely reflects this.

This has to be one of the better productions which centers on the life of Elizabeth 1st. The costumes, sets & character development are all superb & Anne Marie Duff puts in an outstanding performance as the eponymous "Virgin Queen" Tom Hardy also gives us a great performance as Robert Dudley. Several hand held camera shots work wonderfully & put you in the very center of the action in particular the scene with Elizabeth & Kat Ashley arguing from episode two. Kat Ashley in reality was a de facto mother to Elizabeth & looked out for Elizabeth's interests like a hawk, & that scene literally sent shivvers down my back!

The series music while outstanding & original, I feel, was let down by the absolutely nerve grating main theme "My care is like my shadow laid bare benith the sun" (this comes from a famous poem written by Elizabeth in real life) which to me, comes across as a mocking school yard bully chant. Sorry I was not a fan! I even turn the sound down on the DVD. However this is perhaps my only gripe with the whole production as the direction is solid & the photography is beautifully shot. Anne Marie Duff's performance is brilliant & I can not fault it, but as her character ages the makeup could have been better making the elder Elizabeth a little more believable, which is a shame, but I love the scene where the older Elzabeth is looking whistfully around her court & sees a young couple in love, holding hands & she remembers her life long love Robert Dudley. I also enjoyed the script as it replicates Elizabethen grammar very well without making it difficult to understand.

Overall this is a terrific little series which is written so well even those without knowledge of history would still enjoy this & this may even fire an interest in Elizabthen study for the next generation. I have studied Tudor history all my life & its rich, culture is utterly fascinating, often nerve racking & occasionally horrific, but never boring. There is always something new to learn & The Virgin Queen could be an excellent start for younger people who may also wish to step into Tudor times. This will certainly interest today's feminists who will adore Elizabeths story of how one woman spent her youth terrified of the axe as both her mother & her step mother had been beheaded. She was so terrified she vowed never to marry! Yet she was vastly intelligent, was sublime in state craft, politics & economics, who went on to become one of Englands finest monarchs who really did say... "There shall be one mistress here & no master!"

Of all the mountineering movies out there, this movie stands over them, head & shoulders for it's photography, absolutely stunning landscapes, added with very clever CGI that has been researched to perfection. However it is heavily let down by bad character development, little character back stories & the real human elements involved on that terrible day back in 1996. It also tells the story in a very skewed manner with an approch almost exclusivly based on Rob Hall's POV. It portrays Scott Fischers character as a bit of a simple drunk hippy, which does nothing to honour the memory of Fischer as the extreamly talented climber he was as he had alredy climbed both Everest & K2 without supplimentle oxygen. Fischer had also sustained several climbing injuries, which he all but ignored & at the time of the '96 disaster he had an on going gastro problem. Non of these are explored in the movie. Socialite Sandy Pittman is also all but missing form the story. In short for a better & clearer perspective of what really happened that day, I recommend the book "Into Thin Air" which is an awesome read.

I am not a mountaineer, however in 1995 - '97 I did both the Everest Base Camp trek & the Annapurna Circuit with my husband & while these were awesome expierences I was privileged to do I suffered terribley with altitude sickness on several occasions. The effects on the human body at altitude are not clearly explained in this movie, which is a shame. Altitude is the real killer & it can set in so fast it takes you off guard. I first expierenced it at 11,000 ft at Lamjura La where I could hear my heart beat in my ears & worse still at Gorok Shep 17,000 ft where I was dizzy, was vomiting & hallucinating. It is not just unpleasent. It is deadly! Well I might not be a mountaineer, but I adore trekking & mounatineering stories, both tragic & triumphant absolutely fascinate me. To this day I will never understand why anyone would want to climb Everest. I have looked at her & that is enough for me.

This movies is certainly a good one though if you enjoy the majesty of the Himalayan mountains as this is the best aspect of this film. The acting is all top notch although I think the brilliant talent of the ladies was somewhat wasted & the character development was poor, but otherwise this is watchable although I do think it helps, if like me you enjoy mountaineering stories. Just keep in mind this is a "story" told about a real life disaster that took the lives of 11 people which does not really capture what really happend on that terrible day.

The Black Nun. What can I say without giving the ultimate spoiler? But this episode of the superb Antiona Fraser book, absolutely scared the heck out of me when it first aired in April 1978 (I was just 11) in fact I had trouble sleeping for weeks, however this only fueled my adoration of well made supernatural horror films which stuck with me for life, so I guess the end of episode 3 of Quiet as a Nun was my gateway drug of my love of spook!

In this episode our hero investigator Jemima Shore, determined to unravel the mystery of the death of a nun at a convent, takes her torch & goes off to investigate the Tower of Ivory where the nun died in strange circumstances. She is intrigued by stories of a spectral Black Nun that is said to appear just before someone dies. However she is sceptic, & is suspicious that she is being thrown off scent because she is getting a little to close to the truth of the mysterious death. That night the sound of a rocking chair moving echos from an attic room.

This whole series of 6 episodes is an absolute must for fans of murder mystery. It is a decent well told tale which has hardly aged. The acting is a little average but the direction & the pacing are excellent. The ending of this episode earned a spot on on Channel 4's Top 100 scariest moments at number 63 & when I saw this as an 11 year old it gave me nightmares for weeks!

Deep Rising is pure creature feature entertainment which has all the elements of action adventure, sci-fi, & horror told in a solid story, featuring giant snakey tentacled sea monsters, sea pirates, a sassy lay thief & even some decent humor. What is there not to like? Of course it's very much a B movie & it is not over bloated by taking itself too seriously, so the audience shouldn't either. It is simply refreshing entertaining fun, which is well put together with some good acting & compelling story telling. There is some violence, gun play & even some gore, but it is appropriate to the story & not badly done.

It goes like this: In the South China Sea on stormy waters a heavily armed speed boat hired by ruthless pirates rushes to meet its target. An enormous luxurious cruise ship on her maiden voyage on board there is a villan preparing to sabotage the ship. What neither the pirates or the cruise ship villan don't know is massive prehistoric sea monsters are rising to the surface to give all concerned a terrifying date with destiny...

The odd thing about this movie is a complete lack of hero's. The main characters are all villans in some way, whether pirates or thieves. This does not distract from the story however, & just adds interesting elements to the sceenplay as non of them are very nice, but likeable in other ways as the character development is good. We even have a comic relief character in the form of Joey played by Kevin J. O'Connor & a delicious performance by Anthony Heald as our villan. Monster genius Rob Bottin (The Thing 1982 & The Fog 1980) brings us our horrific sea monsters, both puppeteered & CGI which was quite impressive for the time & there are lots of nicely executed action scene. Today's viewers should be aware for violence, some gore & lots of shooting but bad language is minimal & there is no sex or nudity. I would rate this as a 16+ as I feel older teens would like the monsters. This is just a nicely made creature feature that does not look dated, & can still entertain today!

First off I must say I am not "fan" of the John Carpenter version (but I do love the film!) I AM a fan of the "Thing" story from the original short story "Who Goes There" from 1938 which I read when I was just 12 years old after seeing "Thing from another world" 1951 (on tv in 1977) I just adore the story! & because of this I can see what the makers of this film were aiming at with this, quite frankly superbly done prequal. The makers here clearly show a huge respect & love of the Thing story (novella) the 1951 movie & John Carpenters version as they demonstrate all the best aspects of the three very different stories very clearly. I have even watched this before watching the Carpenter version & the stories fit together beautifully.

Set in 1982 an alien spacefraft is discovered in antartica & a young paleontologist Dr Kate Loyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is recruited to help investigate. They find a creature in the ice & cut it out in a huge block & take it back to the Norwegian base. In the evening while the crew are celebrating their alien discovery, the alien bursts out of its ice tomb & all hell breaks loose...

I really enjoyed this but I do have some criticisms. Like the Carpenter version the character development suffers & the 1982 setting really does not work because the hair & clothes fashion is very 2010's. John Carpenter kept the costumes very low key in his version because he wanted the special effects to fly, so the makers may have just gone with this idea, but in the 21st century it looks like it was filmed last week & not 35 years ago. Also I am no fan of excessive CGI. The thing (pardon the pun!) that made the Carpenter version so chilling were the very real puppeteered monsters created by some of the most fantastic monster makers ever (Winston & Bottin) but I feel that CGI monsters just don't have the same effect. However there are other reasons I enjoy this one such as a very imaginative script & screeplay (I really tip my hat to the writer Eric Heisserer on this!) some fairly decent acting & solid pacing, but most of all the makers really do show their love of the Thing story & this movie is a salute & a tribute to all the previous films. When this prequal idea was first pitched to Universal the producers said they did not want to do a remake as it would be like "Painting a moustashe on the Mona Lisa" which I must agree with.

Finally in the future I would like to see some really talented moster makers using a combination of puppeteered, CGI & animatronic monsters for future films. Monsters only work when they are creative & aritistic as this is what made the Carpenter film glitter. Fans of that version should try & watch this before watching the 1982 version, as I did, for the real prequel expierence. You have to watch the end credits BTW. I will rate this as a 16+ for CGI gore but there is no bad language & no sex or nudity (except monster CGI nudity) so be prepared for a fast paced "Thing" ride for the next generation, & a massive will done to all the cast & crew. Thank you x.

John Carpenter's 1980 "The Fog" comes in at number 3 in my all time top favorite horror movies, just behind Alien 1979 & The Thing 1980. Yet this could be the number one "atmospheric" horror films of all time, with tension, suspence & a certain grace that is threaded together in a classic ghost story which could have come from a genuine American folk tale. The pacing packs a punch & the screenpaly is beautifully concieved. Heck. This movie also gave me a fasination with lighthouses which lead to a vacation stay a the haunted Souter lighthouse near Newcastle in Britain. It is a shame that John Carpenter himself did not rate this movie much, but just like the Thing it went on to have a cult following worthy of any classic horror movie. John Carpenter makes a cameo appearence as the handyman Bennet for the alcoholic Father Malone, but he is clearly better behind the camera than in front of it!

We begin with an old sailor Mr Mechin (John Houseman) telling ghost stories to a group of children on a beach at midnight. He tells the story of a ship called the Elizabeth Dane which crashed on the rocks of Antiono Bay 100 years ago, where it's dead would rise up & seek revenge on those responsible or the sinking. That night the small town suffers incidents of a paranormal nature confusing & frightening the residents. The next day there is a planned dedication for the towns founders 100 years ago with a ceremony & a statue, but the towns vicar Father Malone finds a 100 year old journal hidden in the walls of his study, begins to read & realises what tonights celebration really means...High in her lighthouse at dusk Stevie Wayne (Adrienne Barbeau) hosts the towns radio show, but as she looks out to the ocean a weird glowing fog hangs malevolently on the horizon...

Special effects genius Rob Bottin (The Thing 1980) worked on the Fog & even had his own cameo in the form of the ghost of Blake, however there is not much indication in the Fog that this man would go on to create some of the most awesome & gory special effects that he did for the Thing just two years later. In fact there is not much in the way of gore in the Fog. What carries this movie is a very errie, spooky atmospheric ghost story, great acting & gorgeous location shoots. The music too is superb, but what is hardly ever mentioned is the contribution of composer David Lindup & the lovely big band sound of his "Midnight Serenade" (also used in Halloween 3 Seaon of the Witch) which is heard being played by Stevie in her lighthouse radio room. Well if like me, you love supernatural horror this movie is an absolute must. If you saw the 2004 version & hated it do not let this put you off watching the original. This is a classic with all the right chills in all the right places suitable, I feel for 14+ with minimal bad language, some suggestive gore & no sex or nudity (although there is a suggestive bedroom scene which is harmless). I am giving this a 10 as this is a real sacrey movie which does not rely on buckets of fake blood, gore & cheap jump shocks to tell a VERY bone chilling tale of murderous ghosts hell bent on revenge!

Enjoy this but be careful...There is something in the Fog!

My love affrair with the story of The Thing began on a Saturday night in 1977 (I was 10 years old) when "Thing from another world" was being shown on TV as a double sci fi feature. I was hooked & it inspired me to read the original short story "Who goes there" 1938 which made my imagination explode. This first film version (there is still debate about who directed it) has terrific characters, great acting & a wonderfull script. It tells the story of a journalist visiting an Anchorage Air Force base, looking for a story & meeting Captain Pat Hendry & his crew who recieve orders to fly to expidition 6 near the north pole where an unknown object has crashed. At the crash site they discover it is actually a flying saucer under the ice & they quickly decided to dig it out with thermite bombs (bad idea!) the bombs destroy the ship but they find a frozen 8 foot long body incased in ice & transport it back to the base for examination. The journalist is refused permission to tell the story to the world, & he is trapped at the base where the block of ice containing the alien body is inadvertantly defosted by an electric blanket.

& there I will stop as spoilers will ensue. This story departs quite a lot from "Who Goes There" (Carpenters version is closer) but it is still a great story & a classic example of 1950's sci-fi film making. My main critique is about the speed that the characters retrieve the body in the block of ice as this is not actually shown in the movie. All we see is them picking up pick axes & then the movie cuts to the plane taking off supposedly with the alien body ice block on board. Also the part where they are examining the severed alien hand on a table where an actor, with his back to camera is clearly directed to stay stock still & not move an inch, so we can't see whats going on with the hand on the table. However, this is a solid story & very entertaining. I really liked the character of the mad scientist Dr Arthur Carrington played by Robert Cornthwaite & Kenneth Tobey who plays the lead Capt Pat Hendry, excellently. For most of the film the alien monster is hidden so this plays on the imagination & most of the horror (if any) is suggestive. We also see a dead Huskey but this is a rather badly stuffed prop (people horrified by Stan Winston's Dog-Thing sock puppet from 1982 will be relived!) & overall this film does not look that dated, apart from the fact it is in black & white & it still stands today as a great piece of classic movie making!

For some bizzare reason my 83 year old mother loves this movie! Perhaps its a generation thing as my mum is from the era of the "Carry On" films (50's 60's) which frequently used sex & innuendo humor. Ted is "Carry On" 2.0 & then some! Don't get me wrong I am no prude, but this movie is just a little too smutty (British slang for sex comedy) for my taste. I did not like the offensive humor against women, gays, & minorities & feel some sections of the community would find this movie offensive too. The plot? Well there is not one. Characters devoid of character & unlikeable. (what was the lovely Mila Kunis thinking!?) & a script that sounded like it was written by a bunch of giggling 10 year olds! It tries hard to appeal to 80's nostalgia, but not in a good way, with many references to 80's movies, & if anything it even made me long for the heady days of superb 80's movie making.

It tells a story of a boy & his Teddy bear from a nostalgic past Christmas, & the boy wishes his bear would come alive & be his best friend forever. The next day the bear is alive & for the next 27 years they are friends, however the gown up bear is a bad mouthed, crude, bong smoking, sex maniac. Fun & laughter is meant to ensue.... But it dosen't. We not sof me at least.

Most of the comedy falls incredibley flat. The John Bennet (Wahlberg) character is a man-child of 15 going on 35 who is having a bromance with his alcoholic teddy bear. Lori (Kunis) is his long suffering girlfriend who's character development is shallow & not explored deep enough, which leaves her coming off as a simple plot device, rather than a person. & Johns boss is a celebrity obsessed weirdo. The acting is not that bad, if I am honest, but it's simply not enough to turn this movie into a watchable piece of entertainment. This movie will only appeal to teens who enjoy, what we call in the UK "sex humor" & cheap giggles at the expense of an silly script. Be warned here for F words, sex & innuendo as well as groping, drug use, & lots of various profanity. There is no actual nudity & audences of 15+ may like it. I hear Mila Kunis declined to act in the sequel Ted 2 (sensible lady!) & I will certainly decline to watch the sequal either! Vulgar nonsense does not appeal to me, sorry.

Oh how I remember the pure brilliance of "The Car" when I first saw this as a kid which I found hauntingly scarey. It showcases the real creative talent of 70's movie making, which you don't find today, yet I remember when this was first released it was almost universally panned. I am not sure why as I have always enjoyed this movie. It is beautifully shot in a most stunning landscape in Utah. There are exciting car chases, superb stunt driving & we have a sinister, creepy demonically possessed car on a murder spree, pulling all these elements together to make a great film. What more could we ask for? This is pure entertainment! It is what I term a "minimalist horror" story & by this I mean there is very little blood & absolutely no gore, which I enjoy because it forces the audience to use their imagination & challenges us to draw our own conclusions. There is also no sex or nudity so this is a rare kid friendly horror, I believe suitable for children over 12+ although it will certainly scare smaller kids, as it did me, when I first saw this.

On a mountain desert highway a young couple are enjoying a bike ride & challenging each other to race through a tunnel. In the distance a huge matt black car is fast approaching.... Later this same car begins to terrorize a small town community & the police are at pains to catch & arrest the driver, however they decided it is safe to allow a marching band parade to rehearse the following day. The car terrorizes the kids in the parade & everybody runs to take shelter in a nearby church yard, but the car stops short of the gates because it is holy ground. A woman taunts the car which is a very bad idea...But how can the police arrest the driver when there isn't one?

James Brolin plays our hero cop & family man, very well but the character development for almost every other character is very weak, however it is as well acted as it could have been. There is also a lovely performance by Ronnie Cox (RoboCop's "Dick Jones") too. The direction is solid but the script is a little shaky in places, but I feel the awesome driving stunts, car chases & a spectacular mountain desert back drop, make up for most of this movies bad points. The car its self is as creepy as it could be. It has blood tinted windows, no handles on the doors, no license plate & a front grill that resembles lower jaw fangs. I believe this was inspired by "Duel" 1971 & the mythical legends of Route 666 built near sacred Navajo grounds, which are utterly fascinating by themselves. A word of warning though to our sensitive, gentle youth. There is a nasty character in this in the form of a wife beater & racist which may offend, however his scenes are brief, thankfully. Anyway, if you have not seen this & like retro horror, you will find this movie fun & well made. Horror fans who enjoy gore however, will not like this film because there is non. This is simply a great creepy movie that still stands well today!

This absolutely brilliant film fits so many genre it is almost impossible to characterise, however I think it fits action thriller formost, as well as horror & slasher all tied up in a neat bundle of a road movie where things go hideously wrong. The awesome & very sadly missed Rutger Hauer is our quintessential psychopathic murdering monster (some how the word villan is too tame) yet at the same time he is very intense, almost sexy, forboding & mysterious. There is almost a supernatural quality to the John Ryder character in how he pops up when you least expect him, which gives this movie an edge of your seat, adrenaline rush like no other movie. I have adored well made horror movies since I was a toddler & although this is not a horror technically The Hitcher is one of only a dozen films that actually scares me, & always has done.

Most very good movies have a simple plot & this is no exception, which starts with 19 year old Jim Halsey (C. Thomas Howell) delivering a car from Chicago to San Deigo & while driving across Texas on a dark stormy night he spots a trench coat wearing hitch-hiker at the side of the road & gives him a lift. The hitcher is John Ryder & he is broody, evasive & sinister. He threatens Jim with a knife, but Jim manages to push him out of the door of the car. Believing he is now safe Jim is elated. However the next day things take a bloody & deadly turn...

If you are of the younger generation & love this kind of thing, you're in for an awesome ride if you have not seen this before. But be warned: It is horrifically violent & gory in places & I could only reccommend this to ages 17+. The 2007 remake of this is just a hollow, shallow shadow of a movie when compared to this masterpiece. It's fast paced, includes some breath taking car chases (Rutger Hauer did his own stunt driving!) & the overall screen play grips you like a vice. The acting is top notch, but the huge glittering star of this movie is Hauer himself in this roll which I think he was born to play. His intensity is almost suffocating & you simply don't know where he will show up next. It sounds like a cliché but they really don't make movies of this quality anymore!

If you're Mom told you to never pick up hitch-hikers....then DON'T!

First off I will admit I am a massive fan of the Hitcher form 1986, so when this version came out, against my better judgement I bought the DVD & I have just given it a refresh viewing. Conclusion? It is really not good. Now Sean Bean is an amazingly talented actor but because he is a very prolific well known actor, this really works against him in this movie. Also playing a past middle aged movie villan with perfect sparkling white teeth is very distracting. Do slasher murders have the worlds best dentists? & the American accent is not very good either. The script is very weak in places & the editing is also very choppy which hurts the continuity some what. I am giving this movie a 3 for the excellent acting from Sophia Bush & Zachary Knighton as they really give this their all.

I wont go into the plot much because I think most people have seen the original with the spinetingly awesome Rutger Hauer as the premis is basically the same. This version does have some slight differences, but there is not much suspence & instead it relies on jump shocks & badly done gore, which I feel is a bit of a sell out. There is no sense of isolation & desperation unlike the 1986 version, & instead of a pre-slasher suspense build up (like the first) the viewer is dropped straight into the action without much preamble. Suspense must be built for it to be successful. Another problem is the simple fact this is a remake of an original, brilliant movie & those of us who loved the 1986 version will forever compare it to this poorer quality version so to be fair we should not compare them. This movie is not a total disaster & it is watchable....just. But film makers should not rely on cheap gore & jumps without putting any effort into suspence building, character developent & good stroy telling. Stop treating us horror fans as if we are idiots!

Finally this was certainly not the roll for Sean Bean. For a start he is too famous, but dare I say he is unconvincing here. He is not scarey, & infact I just want to make his character a nice cup of tea & ask him what his problems are. I still love Sean Bean's work, but this movie was a bad choice. For young people today who may not have seen the 1986 Hitcher I would say watch it instead if you want a real thrilling ride with a psycotic, murdering maniac as your in for a real treat! This movie though....forget it!

People who watch this have to be reasonably familier with writer Richard Curtis' work, to really undertand what Notting Hill is really about, Curtis who also brought us the equally vapid "Bridget Jones Diary" is a socialist who deplores British values & culture. I think once you understand this, it becomes clear what this movie is all about, & it is certainly not about a cute movie star romance with an idotic book store owner. Worse still are Hugh Grant & Julia Roberts in the duo leads, because they have absolutely no chemistry & the script is incedibly weak, which does not explain why they fall in love with each other. Why are they attracted to each other? What do they like about each? Etc. Grants character is horribly unbelieveable. He is a baffoon, dim witted character of little substance, who calls his friends nasty names to impress his movie star love interest. To be fair some of the supporting characters/actors are much better & indeed colourful, but Curtis writing really lets this film down. Richard Curtis wants the whole world to believe that the English, in particular white middle class Londoners are toffy nosed hooray Henry's, obsessed with dinner parties & practically tripping over their stiff-upper-lip, which makes them comical charactures riddled with English clichés so bad it is cringe worthy! I am a British northern born working class woman, & I have never met any fellow English person who is anywhere near as bad as they are protrayed in Notting Hill. Any decent famous American actress would run a mile when faced with Thacker & his crew of jolly hockey-sticks, Ohkay YAH! Do gooders.

The plot goes like this: WilliamThacker (Grant) owns a travel book shop in Notting Hill & one day world famous American actress Anna Scott (Roberts) enters incognito, but later they meet in the street & he spills his drink over her. There is some shenanigans with her changing clothes at his place. She invites him to her suite at a posh hotel where he is mistaken for a reporter. They go scramblining over fences & end up at his sisters for a birthday dinner party...."Oh-Kay YAHhh!" hooting commences!

They only two characters I felt any warmth for were "Spike" (Rhys Ifans) & the dizzy "Honey" Thacker played beautifully by Emma Chambers, but dispite some solid efforts by the rest of the cast, there the warmth ended. The only other good aspect of this movie I did enjoy was the excellent soundtrack & I remember it was hugely popular at the time. But as a supposed star of British RomCom, for me this failed. Notting Hill also presents a wholly fairy-tale, rose tinted vision of London, which is actually one of the worlds most dangerous cities for women & girls so it is very unrealistic. It also failed to give a fair diverse, relaistic demographic of the area of London where it was filmed which did not truely represent the ethnic Afro-Carribean community & this aspect was criticised in the Independant newspaper at the time saying "only Curtis could write a movie about Notting Hill, London's most diverse borough, and not feature a single black face in it."

In short Notting Hill was empty, vapid & it's comedy was as outdated as a Carry On movie from the 1960's. Curtis simply can't hide his contempt for British culture & while he was considered to be a top comedy writer of the 1980's, by 1999 his writing was very outdated as well as racist & sexist. I honestly hope we have seen the last of his writing. If you like basic romcoms this could still please. But I wont waste my time with it again!

Having been brought up on a televisual diet of British Hammer Horor & Ray Harryhausen stop motion monsters of the late 60's, early 70's, I came to apprieciate the diligence, artisty & elegance of stop motion animation, so it comes as no surpize to me, when I got my paws on "Puppet Master" video in the early 90's, I absolutely loved it!

Puppet Master begins in the 1930's at a hotel where a puppeteer is hard at work creating his dolls while a Samuri doll keeps look out. 2 strange men enter & tiny puppet feet can be heard scrurrying through the hotel lobby. In the supposed present day psychics meet up to plot against a former collegue who use puppets brought to life via a ancient Egyptian spell. When they arrive to find the collegue dead, however he has left spacific instructions for the others to follow. That night at the hotel the puppets stir & a creepy night of fun, capers & horror follow....

This movie is imaginative, entertaining & funny. It blends these together with a well told story, even if some of the acting is just above average. But the photography is superb, & plays on the viewers imagination in many scenes. However our little horrific puppet friends are an absolute delight! They are all animated with Harryhausenesque "stop motion capture" & rather than make this look unsophistocated & dated, this actually ADDS to the malevolence & sinister characters to the hideous puppets. This movie simply would not have worked with CGI, even though the tech (although basic) was avilable at the time. It's pacing, with classic horror tropes like mainical laughter, creaking doors & pianos played by unseen forces, is carried well & the script, while weak in places, is rather good. & Although this movie could be classed as a slasher, I would say it's more spooky, than slasher, but all the elements are there. Overall this is a well made, entertaining retro horror film. It is by no means a mark of genius, but you do get the sense a lot of love, care & attention to detail went into making this movie. I am sure even today's older teens will like it too, if they enjoy the genre. This is not a long movie so will not bore, & there is only mild sex, partial nudity & slight foul language, which is a complet breeze when compared to today's movies. There is no socialist agenda either, making Puppet Master a literal no stings attached, pure entertainment movie!

It amazes me today that those of us who have spent a life time studying history, are expected to turn off that knowledge, just so we can enjoy shows like "The Borgias" because just thinking of historical inaccuracies in series like this could actually drive one quite loopy. So this is my first point, the Borgias, much like the Tudors is NOT accurate history. Ok. Now I have got that off my chest. The good points. There is some terrific acting from Jeremy Irons & Sean Harris as Micheletto. Lotte Verbeek makes superb use of her classical renaissance looks & I enjoyed François Arnaud as Cesare. The costumes & setting are absolutely gorgeous, the pacing is good & at times it is very engaging. However much like the Borgias stable mate "The Tudors" it suffers from far too many unnecessary sex scenes & even has full frontal male nudity, which makes this very much an adult drama. I seem to say this time & time again. Soft porn sex scenes in mainstream drama adds absolutely nothing to the story, or the enjoyent of the show & when we add in the mix of such high caliber acting giants like Jeremy Irons & Derek Jacobi, I feel this cheapness just insults the efforts of their superb work. Anyway this is certianly in the "R" rated catagory.

On many levels however this show is very watchable as it is well put together & in many ways it is better than the Tudors for production value. I continue to enjoy the diligent work of method actor Sean Harris which sparkles in the Borgias, even if his character comes across as having weird sado masochist leanings, but his role here is terrific to watch. There is not much bad language, but be prepared for full frontal nudes & sex scenes, which I feel lets down the tone of the story. There is some violence, but it is not too excess, & the stories are generally good. Put it simply this is just a decent binge worthy watch for a rainy day!

For historical accuracy though, you really need to open a book.

I like this one. I really do! & if I was to say this was Blair Witch in the desert, I would not be wrong, as the writer behind the BWP also wrote & directed this well made desert oasis of creepy sci-fi/horror. Yet here we have a great script, minimal special effects & the film relies on the imagination of the viewer to form our own opinions. This movie is a classic case that proves you don't need buckets of fake blood to make a good horror film. However it helps if you do use fake blood, to at least get the colour right, which is my criticism in this film when one scene is supposed to show obliterated body parts that are actually coloured PINK! I also dont get the connection between the Inca airplane artiact, & why is it in Afghanistan? Oh well I shall just have to adjust my poetic licence feelers & carry on reviewing.

Since 1980 the CIA have been studying anomalies in the Afghan desert. During the present day (?) the CIA sends Agent Keynes to work with a crack group of hardened special OPs team, to investigate, but who have no idea what they are looking for. Agent Keynes must make contact with a local holy man call Mohammad Abhan who may hold some answers. But one evening one of the soldiers sees Abhan talking to shadowey djinn...

The whole movie is also narrated by the Keynes character, but he gives nothing away & is rather commenting on their circumstances, by Keynes is filming the whole time which begins to irritate the rest of the team. This movie has subtle hints about djinn (Genies) & more hints about Vemanas which are the chariots of many Hindu gods, although these are only briefly seen. So most of this film is suggestive, which is surprizingly creepy. However you can't help thinking if Agent Keynes is a bad guy or a good guy? But overall this is an effective desert, mystery thriller with elements of the supernatural. The cast playing the soldiers are believable & there is some bad language but there is no sex or nudity & gore is very minimal (& the wrong colour!) which I think would be suitable for over 15's. The end is a little annoying as we are left withs tons of questions, but does this mean there will be a sequal, but after 13 years since this was made, well probably not!

The sadly late producer Debra Hill really wanted the Halloween franchise to be an anthology, of all aspects of horror & not just a continuing story of Michael Myers, so instead of continuing with the slasher story, they decided to do a creepy, sci-fi/horror, with elements of witchcraft set the week before & including Halloween. & here in lies the problem people have with this movie. It bombed at the box office since it departed from the slasher Myers story & veered off an a less slasher more creepy tangent. The result (for me at least) was a superbly, sinister supernatural creep-fest, which became one of my favorite films of all time!

The plot starts with a man being chased while carrying a rubber latex Halloween mask. He is persued by non descript men in suits. Eventually he is driven to hospital where he is under the care of an alcoholic Dr, but the suits men find him & murders him, yet a few days later the mans daughter finds the Dr (Tom Atkins) is a bar & she want an explanation. The two then investigate the company that makes the Halloween masks. The masks are manufactured by Silver Shamrock Novelties & its owner Conal Cochran who is no kindly Willy Wonka character, but he has a deadly obsession with paganism & clockwork toys, that are anything but!

I really liked Tom Atkins in the Fog, but he is terrific in this, however the star of TSoTW is Irish actor Dan O'Herlihy who is wonderful as the sinister Cochran. The script is well done & the pacing is good. Viewing this today though the soundtrack comes across as very dated, but this is distracted by the excellent screenplay, some shocks & even a bit of gore. Saying all this though I would not recommend this movie to anyone who suffers from epilepsy as there are flashing lights scenes. But there is no sex or nudity & bad language is minimal. I would also like to add a warning about creepy crawlies. If you are really concerned with creepy crawlie critters, snakes & bugs, this movie will surely give you nightmares! You have been warned!

Simply put this is a terrific vintage sci-fi/horror which can still chill the bones, just don't view this as part of the Halloween franchise & appreicate it as a stand alone horror flick. & if I am honset I think this movie out ranks ANY of the other Halloween films, by a country mile, but perhaps this is just me as, although I love horror, I am not really a slasher fan. So if you are going to watch this & are not sqeemish about creepy crawly things, you are in for a excellent retro horror, trick or treat!

Considering the superb acting talents of Matt Damon & the lovely Jodie Foster, you would not believe how bad this movie is. The character development is not developed, the direction is shaky & the script reads like a school kids school play. The special effects however are very well done, but there was nothing much in this movie that I warmed too. It's far left political messaging is also annoying. If you wish to make a movie with a social agenda then please do a documentary on it, rather than dressing it up as science fiction. Otherwise you will just ruin what could have been the basis of a good movie.

Well in my honest opinion the only thing this movie has to offer are the special effects which are well well done & easy on the eye. They are imaginative & creative but there it ends. I still love Jodie Foster, but I believe this role was not challenging enough for her. & Even Matt Damon is certianly not at his best here, as he is a little wooden & quite distracted. Anyway, there are far better sci-fi dystopian movie out there, I think I shall go & find some!