Reviews

What typically happens when a prestigious Asian Director makes the transition to their first English language film is that the resulting feature is a stylistically watered down, less edgy affair and the worst film of their career. Presumably, Hollywood studios interfere so much they end up robbing them of what people loved in the first place. I can firmly say with utter relief that this is not the case with Chan- wook Park's 'Stoker'.

Stylish, artistic, beautiful, controversial and feeling much more like a movie from his native South Korea; Chan-wook Park is bang on form. All that's changed is the actors are American and speak in the English language, and the location of course. I sincerely hope Hollywood takes note that this is how to do it right! Don't interfere with the artist and corrupt and americanise their vision. However, I have heard there was a 20 minute enforced cut made to the film by an editor for the studio. Here's what the Director has to say about it:

"It's just such a different animal from what I've experienced in Korea," he says, "but it's just like how you can't really complain about the weather in the States when you're going over to shoot a film. The Searchlight people had good taste, though. There were some differences of opinion, but at least they didn't make any nonsensical remarks."

Chan-wook Park is responsible for such acclaimed movies as 'Oldboy', 'Lady Vengeance' and 'Thirst'. Until now at least, 'Oldboy' was his most famous movie, and an American remake nobody wants is due for release soon. 'Stoker' is admittedly less violent and more subtle than those movies, but only because frequent action isn't suitable for this particular script. It's primarily a character study focusing on the loss of innocence, and I'm sure some less contemplative people hoping for frequent action will be disappointed. When it comes to style and controversy though, this movie delivers and was everything I'd hoped it would be. It's stunning to look at and almost every shot is symbolic. More often than not it's sexual symbolism regarding loss of innocence, and the same goes for the frequent symbolism in the dialogue. Furthermore, there's a wonderful Hitchcock feel to it and clearly pays homage to 'Shadow Of A doubt' with a character called Uncle Charlie.

The writer is Wentworth Miller, an actor, and this being his first screenplay makes it all the more impressive. Erin Cressida Wilson (Secretary, Chloe) is credited as contributing writer. Based on the quality of this movie, Wentworth Miller needs to get writing some more screenplays.

I also felt the subject matter was a perfect match for Director Chan-wook Park, who's no stranger to controversial themes. It's a really rather pervy film, even if done subtly, artistically, and almost entirely non-explicitly. However, there's one particular scene I found gloriously wrong and solidified my opinion that the filmmakers had at least been respected and the goal of the studio wasn't to tame and americanise the Director. However, it will be interesting if a Director's cut comes out, or at least deleted scenes to see what cuts were made and if they were a good move making it less baggy or toning it down. The important thing as of now is that the result is a great movie. Movie critic Chris Tookey, for The Daily Mail, was disgusted by the film, so it can't be that toned down. A one star review from this man almost guarantees greatness.

The title and characters' surname 'Stoker' has obvious vampiric connotations, so some will be wondering if it's a vampire movie. Well it is and it isn't There are no fangs or capes or turning into bats, but the name 'Stoker' is certainly no coincidence. Vampire mythology, literature and movies are loaded with symbolism of the sexual predator seducing the innocent. Furthermore, one of the definitions of the word 'vampire' is non-literal, simply meaning a person who preys on others. Vampires are also natural hunters and killers and there's a nature verses nurture aspect. These themes are essentially what the movie is about.

Nicole Kidman plays mother 'Evelyn Stoker', and Matthew Goode plays charismatic, creepy Uncle 'Charles Stoker', but there's simply no argument as to who steals the limelight and it's Mia Wasikowska (Alice In Wonderland, Jane Eyre), as 18 year old 'India Stoker'. The actress is 23 but easily passes for an 18 year old. Her character is the main focus of the film and I feel she was perfectly cast for the role. She's old enough to be sexy, yet young enough looking so you feel a little conflicted about thinking so, and, despite her innocent appearance, has a facial quality that you can believe hides a personality more sinister. The character she plays is deeply intriguing and her acting as a dark, sexually ripe, moody introvert was magnetic and convincing. If it happened to be awards season, I'd say she was in with a chance of some nominations, but then when does subtle acting as a quiet introvert ever get nominations?

It may only be the beginning of March, and there's been a lot of great movies so far in 2013, but I think 'Stoker' is the best film of the year at this point. It's not only the exception to the rule that Asian Director's first English language features are watered down missteps, but it's a film I thoroughly enjoyed and left the cinema genuinely excited about. You know that feeling when you find a movie that you really connect with and you can't wait to tell everyone about it? It's one of the best feelings in the world. Produced by Ridley and Tony Scott, 'Stoker' is an example of Hollywood getting it absolutely right, so please go and support it.

As a big Argento fan I was eagerly anticipating Giallo. I was disappointed then when it received some rather harsh reviews from fans and critics. Upon seeing it with rather low expectations I have to say I was pleasantly surprised.

Whilst it wasn't one of his best works it was a fine movie and even a second rate Argento movie is better than the vast majority of movies. If I'd have seen it with high expectations maybe I'd have been a little disappointed but I thoroughly enjoyed it. It could have done with more deaths and more twists and a better climax but the characters were interesting and it was engaging and intriguing throughout.

His unsurpassed use of camera angles and panning is still there and a joy to watch even if a little more subtle than some of his classics. A lot of people tend to overlook such things and criticise plot and acting in his movies but his use of camera is perhaps as important as plot in his movies and certainly more important than acting. You don't watch an Argento movie for acting, although the acting in this is much better than in some of his older movies. It could have done with a more memorable score but the music was still very good.

So not one of his best movies but not his worst and not deserving of the harsh criticism. Worth giving a chance; didn't blow me away but I was gripped from start to finish and I'm not going to turn my nose up at that.

Cabin Fever 2 is directed by TI West who directed the rather excellent House of The Devil. He has disowned the movie however as the producers didn't like his vision of an over the top gross out comedy horror so re-cut it and added new scenes. He now considers it an awful movie. It has also received a lot of criticism from fans of the original.

I have to say though that I never understood the love for the original; it had a real identity problem not knowing whether it was a serious movie, a comedy, or, in one mind-boggling scene, a weird David Lynch type movie. I thought it was alright but it irritated me and so did Eli Roth's unlikeable characters who considered everything 'gay'.

So I'm in a minority here who thinks that Cabin Fever 2 is no worse a movie than the first. Even with the producers trying to turn it into something else it's still clearly a gross out comedy horror. The characters are a lot more likable than in the first too. There are even some rather long and charming animations at the start and end of the movie and a great soundtrack.

The problem is that nothing is ever resolved by the end. The plot is really as simple as a disease is spreading and gross things start happening to everyone. The strong character development is wasted a little as it doesn't lead anywhere much. I thought it was grosser and funnier than the first movie though.

So if you're a big fan of the original you will most likely be disappointed. If you thought the original was overrated and had some problems you might find you enjoy this one just as much if not more. I would give them both 6 out of 10. I just really hope a director's cut comes out someday.

I remember when I first read about 'The Human Centipede (First Sequence)' being made and thought the plot synopsis sounded rather silly. Looking into the story in more depth and it's not quite as far fetched as you might first think. It's about a scientist called 'Dr Heiter' who is well known for separating Siamese twins and now likes to experiment joining people together instead. He has a plan to create what he calls a human centipede.

The movie is very silly and certainly not based on a true story but is possibly based on or inspired by a true scientist 'Josef Mengele' who, under Nazi rule, was allowed to carry out sickening experiments on twins. He'd attempt to attach twins and transplant their organs and alter eye pigmentation. Of the 1,000 pairs of twins used, only about 200 pairs survived.

So in the movie we have a similar warped German scientist. Two very beautiful American girls' car tyre bursts in the middle of nowhere and, as they're both apparently incapable of even attempting to change it, they go to look for help; guess whose house they come to? Yeah bad luck girls.

You've probably heard this movie is sick, and it is, but it's not as graphic as you might expect. In a way I was disappointed that they didn't show the joins between the people properly and had them wearing these bandages throughout. This was partly to cover up genitalia I expect but it seemed like a cop out in an otherwise uncompromising movie. Still it's the idea that is the disturbing thing.

Another problem is that you already know what is going to happen pretty much due to the title and plot synopsis so all the time one of the three was trying to escape I knew they wouldn't. I felt there wasn't enough plot to fill an hour and a half so it was quite drawn out.

I have to give this movie credit for at least trying something original. It's not that scary but is rather gross, disturbing and works well as a horror because in most horror movies the threat is death; in this the threat is a fate worst than death, especially if not the head of the centipede. It ends with a situation that I really hope I'm never in.

It's a truly horrible movie, so horrible that you just have to laugh and I think the humour is intentional.

Vinyan is a film by writer/Director Fabrice Du Welz who brought us Calvaire (The Ordeal). The French/Belgians have been bringing us a lot of gritty, uncompromising horror in recent years and I heard a lot about Calvaire. When I first saw it I thought it was gripping but was initially disappointed when it turned into a rather oddball movie that wasn't exactly scary, but I don't think it was really intended to be. Still it was clear Fabrice Du Welz had talent so I checked out his latest movie Vinyan (which is English language set in Thailand) and it easily surpassed my expectations; however, this is one which is guaranteed to divide its audience and one look at IMDb confirms this ( the typical"worst movie I've ever seen", "give me two hours of my life back" blah blah blah by people who's idea of a good movie is Transformers 2.)

The basic plot: "A couple are looking for their child who was lost in the tsunami - their search takes them to the dangerous Thai-Burmese waters, and then into the jungle, where they face unknown but horrifying dangers."

Like Calvaire, Vinyan is not a standard horror movie, and, most certainly isn't typical of most modern horror with fast cuts, loud noises and scares every two minutes. This is a slow burning epic piece of film-making and one of the most immersive pictures I've ever seen. I felt like I was there in Thailand after the tsunami searching for the couple's missing son and it was difficult not to feel for them, particularly the mother who refused to give up and was a complete wreck.

The slow pace will lose people with short attention spans and there isn't really much in the way of horror until near the end, but I didn't mind at all as it was such a strange and beautifully shot piece. People will question whether this is a horror movie at all but I don't see why that matters; it perhaps has more in common with David Lynch movies, Apocalypse Now and Art house cinema than modern horror but I found it more disturbing than most recent horror releases. It was a real experience and I highly recommend it, just not to everyone.

Watching this movie was love at first sight; the late 70's/early 80's setting and yellow titles reminding me of classic exploitation movies of that era. It made me realise just how much I missed old school US horror film making. It was so refreshing to have a slow build up of tension without any false scares for quite some time. The atmosphere and premise was really creepy and I was more excited watching it than I had been over a horror for a while. I felt I'd discovered a new classic.

Unfortunately the movie does suffer from some problems. Firstly, whilst I love a slow build up, many consider it to have pacing problems and a little too slow moving. I can totally see where they're coming from but I have enjoyed repeat watches of this movie and the slowness doesn't bother me.

When the climax arrives it's satisfyingly horrific but was perhaps over a little too quickly considering the length of build up.

The main issue for me was that characters did really stupid things on occasions, especially the leading lady. The worst case is when she could have taken a gun from someone unconscious but chose to run up some stairs without it, essentially trapping herself.

I give this an 9 out of 10 for a great attempt at bringing back classic US horror film making when it is sorely needed. I was really impressed with House Of The Devil and like it more with each viewing. I do think TI West is a Writer/Director to watch out for.

It bothers me when movies are mis-marketed. I understand why they do it but it's misleading and annoying. Many movies that don't quite fit a genre are shoehorned into one.

As was the case with 'The Hole', 'Dorothy Mills' is more of a psychological thriller marketed as pure horror. The quote on the cover, "A contemporary take on the Exorcist", the tag line 'Evil chose her" and the typical horror imagery would have one renting this with hopes of hiding behind a cushion from a pea soup vomiting demon. Probably achieves more rentals/purchases but it also inevitably disappoints many, but not in my case.

In reality this is not really about 'evil'. It's a chilling and intriguing tale that deals with the multiple personalities of a girl called Dorothy Mills and/or the dead speaking through her. Set in Ireland, Dublin based psychiatrist Jane Van Dopp travels to a small island where the troubled girl lives. Whilst working on the case she begins to suspect the multiple personalities are more than just figments of Dorothy's imagination.

It's not entirely original but a very interesting plot regardless. The strongest aspect of the movie is Dorothy's various characters: the transformations being startling! Furthermore,Jenn Murray, the actress who plays them, is absolutely brilliant and it's difficult to believe this is her first role.

I feel this movie is deserving of some decent exposure; I'm just not sure misleading marketing is the right way to go about it.

Frank Henenlotter the writer/director who brought us Basket Case, Brain Damage and Frankenhooker makes a much anticipated comeback with 'Bad Biology' and doesn't disappoint one bit. The very first line of the movie is "I was born with seven clits" and it just gets more and more messed up as the movie progresses. His lowest budget movie with terrible actors and appalling special effects but none of that matters in the slightest.

I'd imagine that most people who see Bad Biology will consider it the most messed up movie they've ever seen. It's about sex addiction and the unlikely meeting of a woman with seven clits and a man with a monstrous penis with a mind of its own. It could viewed as dealing with sex addiction issues and an allegory of sex predators but most likely you'll just find it good, very silly fun.

A random scene of a junkie chick looking for her "ziggy jig"(?) or something has me in fits of laughter every time as do the penis attack scenes and the vagina faces photoshoot.

It's a movie guaranteed to polarize it's audience. You'll either consider it sick, disgusting, tasteless trash that's a whole world of wrong, or, if you have a particularly perverse sense of humour, revel in the sick mind of Frank Henenlotter in this glorious return to form.

Brain Damage was always my favourite movie of his but now I think I may actually like this one best.

Psychiatrist Dr. Samantha Goodman has an incurable brain tumour which was stable but has now began to grow. She retreats to her cottage for a break where her writer husband David and her younger sister Melody are staying. It all spirals into a hellishly insane movie: gripping, intriguing and paranoid.

'The Dark Hours' is NOT a movie that everyone will appreciate. Those wanting a simple movie spoon fed to them should avoid like the plague. This is a trip into insanity with a non-linear narrative and multiple interpretations. It will frustrate those who aren't willing to give it thought and, perhaps, numerous viewings. If you enjoy the weirder David Lynch movies and films that mess with reality/non-reality like 'Jacob's Ladder' then you'll probably appreciate this low budget Canadian horror/thriller.

It's a little on the short side and ends fairly abruptly which disappointed me at first, but the more thought I gave the movie the more I liked the it and its ending. You can end up thinking about it and discussing interpretations until you too feel like you're developing a brain tumour. I highly recommend it, just not to everyone.

'Feast' begins in a bar introducing the viewer to characters with still frames stating their name, occupation, life expectancy and a supposedly amusing fact about them. It's a nice touch like a computer game but not a valid excuse for a lack of character development. Suddenly monsters turn up with no explanation and attack them. It's rare that a movie has zero plot but I think perhaps this is something original and give it the benefit of the doubt.

Unfortunately the remainder of the movie holds no originality or surprises, just an abundance of uninteresting, undeveloped characters battling uninteresting, unexplained monsters in an unscary, unfunny slapstick gross out "comedy" horror.

I totally get what the film makers were trying to achieve; a monster version of the second half of 'From Dusk Till Dawn' with 'The Evil Dead' trilogy style slapstick horror. However, 'From Dusk Till Dawn' worked because of Tarantino's clever dialogue and The Evil Dead movies worked because Sam Raimi is the master of slapstick horror: simultaneously inducing fear and laughter. There is no such genius involved in making this movie.

I'm sorry to say that 'Feast' fails on every possible level: zero plot, zero scares, lame characters, boring monsters and all attempts at humour fall flat on their face which is, at times, embarrassing to watch. This is coming from a fan of silly monster B movies, even bad ones, I've read positive reviews for this stinker but 'Feast' had absolutely nothing to offer me as a genre fan and the end couldn't have arrived quickly enough.

What makes the epic failure of 'Feast' all the more tragic is that it has a reasonable budget and some good actors. Balthazar Getty and Henry Rollins: what were you thinking!? You'd have to actually pay me to sit through the hilariously aptly titled sequels, 'Feast 2: Sloppy Seconds' and 'Feast 3: The Happy Finish'. Well I for one am happy this crappy franchise has finished.

I feel conned/misled/ripped off.

I bought 'Island Of The Damned' which is clearly a horror title. It was deliberately renamed to make it sound like a horror because nobody was interested in 'Private Property'. What I'm most annoyed about is the unattributed quote on the front which states, "At last... a film as spooky as 'Cabin Fever' and as chilling as 'Saw'." As it doesn't state who the quote is from I can only assume it was made up by whoever was marketing the movie which surely is illegal?? If not it should be! Because the film was in no way spooky or chilling. It wasn't a horror and wasn't even passable as a thriller. It's more likely to slow your pulse right down. It's more of a mish-mash of drama, weird art-house, crime and comedy. It also laughably had 5 stars above the quote and after seeing the film nobody in their right mind would ever give it 5 stars so that is further confirmation that it is a complete fabrication.

It wasn't even a good film but I'm not annoyed at seeing a bad movie; I see lots. To be fair this had its moments actually and some potential, but ultimately it was pretty dull and dragged on. I'm just annoyed that I was conned into buying a horror that turned out to not be a horror.

I don't like being lied to and the unattributed quote was obviously a lie as it in no way describes the film on the DVD. Furthermore, the inappropriate renaming of the title was done deliberately to mislead.

Whoever marketed this needs their ass suing!

I know this is a cliché thin to say but this is quite possibly the worst film I've ever seen. I loved Scary Movie - it was stupid and sick but funny. Date Movie is stupid, sick but every single joke falls flat on it's face.

This is supposedly written by 2 of the 6 people who wrote scary movie. Well the other 4 must have been the funny ones because the 2 who wrote this managed to write the most unfunny comedy in the history of cinema. I expected this film to be bad because it got such terrible reviews but I got dragged to see it and it was way worse than I could possibly have imagined.

I like Alison Hannigan but she should be ashamed of herself for agreeing to do this film. The same goes for the other actors. One read of the script and it would be blatantly obvious this would be an absolutely terrible film. Some people will do anything for money it seems.

I can't believe this unfunny mess even got made never-mind got a cinema release! AVOID AT ALL COSTS UNLESS YOU'RE A MASOCHIST!!

If you like having your eyes relentlessly pounded with special effects for an hour and a half then you may possibly think Val Helsing is a satisfactory movie. Personally i was bored to death. The worst film i've seen at the cinema since queen of the damned. Now i'm a lover of special effects but not when they are grossley overused to overcompensate for a complete lack of story. I really am struggling to believe what i have just witnessed - the scenery, the effects, the costumes - must have took so long and cost so much. Instead of being impressed it just makes me think, "what a dreadful waste!" Not even hot vampire chicks could save this stinker!

The acting was bad, it wasn't scary or funny, the characters i didn't even remotely care for - infact i didn't care about anything i saw on the screen throughout.

And its the little things that really annoy me. I like some realism in fantasy - the vampires in this movie morph into nudity and then morph back into clothes. Clothes aren't living flesh, clothes don't change into vampires and back!

What an utter rubbish film! You know the only people i can imagine liking this film are very young boys who love computer games because the whole film is like watching a computer game - non stop monsters and action. Sound exciting? Trust me on this one - it isn't!! It's just a piece of turd in fancy packaging trying to be a thorntons luxury truffle. Well it left a nasty taste in my mouth!

A film ONLY for kids too young to go see it.