Reviews

Watching this prompted me to recall a recent small domestic moment. We returned from shopping, and I tried one of the delicious looking plums we'd just bought. I was forced to spit it out. The plum, despite looking OK, was rotten to the core. Amityville Moon looks OK right up until you press play, and then, well, it's unfortunately rotten to the core.

How the producers got access to the Amityville name and implied membership to the franchise is beyond me. It certainly wasn't as a consequence of money being splashed around. This movie obviously had a budget just slightly less than what we paid for the plums.

The acting is atrocious, the scares laughable, the production values negligible and the direction directionless. The monster is someone in a hairy suit. The scenes of monster transformation are, in fairness, passable.

There is one scene, perhaps 2/3rds of the way in, when a young woman has her face ripped off. She had obviously been given a sachet of something red to hide in the palm of her hand. Her instructions? Put both hands up to your face and rub until the sachet bursts and continue rubbing the red goo into your face until the scene stops. It is just awful and not in 'good' awful way.

Speaking of goo, the current colloquial term for boxed wine casks among the young here in Australia is goo bag. I would recommend a goo bag to deal with on screen goo. It might eventually help block out the long shot of the monster running, or the stilted dialogue delivery, or the embarrassing pauses as characters recall lines, or the ... I'm certain that you get the idea.

In short, this is an incredibly bad film. I usually include the qualifier that those involved probably didn't set out to intentionally make a bad movie, but this is so conspicuously abominable that they must have known. Perhaps a quick dud for taxation purposes? I don't know. What I do know is that the film finishes with a young woman sobbing on the front steps and I wasn't far from sobbing myself over the time and money I'd wasted in buying and watching this mess.

Oh, the woman mentioned above does the sachet thing again at the end, but tears are intended this time. Her make up runs and for a fleeting moment she actually, and unintentionally, looked scary. She is the heroine of the piece!

An interesting and well informed documentary about Gutenberg's first press and the efforts involved in building a replica.

The researchers have done their best but there are a number of areas where they can only say 'We don't know.' Despite this there is no end of factual material covered.

There is a certain irony, perhaps hypocrisy, in Fry narrating the tale as he has been publicly, and bitterly, critical of Christianity. The Bible is of course what the subject matter has at its core.

Even so Fry is entertaining and presents the researchers' efforts confidently and with a smattering of genuine self-effacing humour.

A very worthwhile watch if you stumble across a copy.

Little Kingdom is a slow burn, a really slow burn, and is more romance than war movie. It is though, watchable.

Peter Magat, the director, holds the reigns firmly in hand, in what aspires to be an art house film. Cinematographer, Juraji Chlpik, captures some beautiful moments. Valgeir Sigurdsson, who was responsible for the music deserves special mention. He almost single handedly, through his musical score, creates a central European ambience.

As will happen in movies Cat, a prostitute, attracts the eye of an evil Bar. There is more tension in this turn of events than in the arrival of the secret police. Though the two events are linked.

Like a Doug McClure western, everyone is impeccably dressed. Not a smattering of mud on the soldiers unforms nor a grease stain on clothes of the factory workers. All sparkle in the most incredulous manner.

The actual little kingdom is the mountain village and the secret police who establish its boundaries. And Bar is the king. It also applies to relationships that develop in the movie. Oh, and the various sexual liasons though these are handled descretely.

Dialogue is minimal which is just as well as several cast members fail to create and convey believable characters. Eva, played by actor Alicia Agneson is, for example not really up to the role. The English accents are very English and one is reminded of a Hammer production.

Much of the 'action' takes place within Bars' munitions factory creating the feeling of a filmed play rather than a film in its own right.

Little Kingdom, is a dramatic talkfest, with just a hint of Days of aOur Lives, rather than an action war movie. As already said, it is watchable, enjoyable even, but not a lot actually happens.

Scarred really is a shocker, but not in a good way. The acting is consistently sub-par. The plot is predictable. The setting unwaveringly bright and sunny which is not conducive of anything scary. And on I could go.

Make-up is critical to a movie about facio-ectomies, face removal. It is appalling in this instance. It is sympathy inducing rather than scarry. The point where Juliane Berlin reaches out in friendship in a positive way to Hannah Lea, the monster only to see Lea attacked, turns the tables. The good guys are suddenly the callous baddies.

To the films credit it does reintroduces the scream queen in a fairly emphatic manner. For volume and hysteria, it's hard to beat. And that's just Jonny Mack! As well as many of the cast engaging in theatrical yelling it is worth noting that the pretty quotient is very high. Particularly amongst the female cast members. There are no normal looking cast members apart from one Hillbilly.

Technically, well, good enough seems to have been good enough. A tent flapping in the middle of the night and letting in daylight with every movement is only one of many glitches.

The movie looks as though it were shot on a mobile phone. The Cinematographer, Eliot Rockett does his best and there are some nice shots scattered throughout.

There are some feeble attempts at jump scares, but these are predictable and are generally lackluster.

It is easy to pick apart a bad film. I could go on and on. I'm certain that directors and writers Jon Hoffman and Dave Rock didn't set out to make a bad film but they must have had suspicions during production that Scarred would be a straight to video then discount store production.

Still, a steady diet of caviar desensitizers us to its delectable and rarefied taste. We need occasionally to sample some cheap seafood filler to help us appreciate caviar. Scarred is cheap sea food filler.

Unhappy Birthday goes under the title Amen Island in Australia. Call it what you like, it is really, not very good. It is a UK production and is sort of experimental but definitely low, very low, budget.

Lots of handheld camera work, gratuitously sexually explicit in parts, random close ups of sheep and other oddities, awkward dialogue delivery, awkward acting and a very large unacknowledged indebtedness to The Wicker Man - and then there are the problems with the film.

Directors and writers Mark Harriott and Mike Matthews have experience in other areas of film making but this is their first stab at the steering of a production. There is a big jump between costuming and directing and both fall a bit short.

There is little sense of building tension or suspense. In fact, at times, there is little sense of coherence.

Cinematography is by Mark Hammond who has lots of experience in related areas but again stumbles a little. He seems compelled to use every cinematic technique in every scene which becomes quite unsettling for the viewer. On their own there are some fine moments but collectively they are a jumble.

The plot belts along at a breakneck pace. There is an incredible i.e. Unbelievable degree of acceptance and accommodation by the cast as things develop.

The film should be characterized by a rural, Gothic, folk horror sensitivity. It's not.

The climax and denouement, the tying together of loose plot threads, are hysterical, not in the funny sense but in the excessive sense.

I watched it expecting a homage to The Wicker Man. I was disappointed.

Madres (mums in Spanish) is a fine movie but is not a horror movie. There is a reference to a curse and some business with amulets, but this is perhaps 3 minutes out of 82.

The movie is about eugenics. This is the improvement of the human race by 'biologically engineering' out undesirable human characteristics. In this case the undesirable characteristics are being Mexican. It is the stuff of horror movies but in fact the movie is a straight drama intended to prick the viewers social conscious.

Production values are good. The film is bilingual and subtitles are liberally used. The cast are committed and characters are well developed. Director Ryan Zaragoza has things well in hand.

We even have the obligatory text roll overs at the film's end summarizing the real statistics and data related to eugenics in the States. As I say, it is a fine movie but just not a spooky one despite its' genre being defined as horror.

Not a big budget production but OK never-the-less.

Evil Takes Root sees a paranormal investigator get involved in a complicated investigation of witchcraft and demonology. It has its moments and is certainly worth a watch.

The more movies I watch the more I appreciate how critical a competent and adventurous cinematographer is. Roy Rossovich is up to the job in every sense. There is an excellent low aeriel shot which encompasses all things wiccan which is typical of his style.

There is an occasional silliness to the plot but director and co-writer Chris W. Freeman keeps a firm hand on things and generally there is a logical coherence to events with in the terms of the film itself.

The cast are solid. Nicholas Gonzalez is Felix Fojas, a failed seminarian and paranormal investigator. He and John Churchill as Sheriff Roy Garland enjoy a lot of screen time, and both are plausible and develop an engaging depth to their characters.

There are several sub-plots involving dead wives and their various relationships whilst alive and their effect on relationships of those left behind. They kick the storyline along.

There are nuns, priests and ministers a plenty. There is even an Amish like presence! You could spend time working out which denomination who belongs to or you could just accept their presence as a counter to demonic forces. It's to the credit of everyone involved that the religious aren't mocked. There is a nun who uses unusual teaching methods, but she serves to advance the plot, not represent current teaching practices in Catholic schools.

Don't be mislead, this is a horror movie not one of those covert Christian movies. I have no problem with Christian movies, The Shack is a great film, as long as they declare themselves as such.

Special effects in Evil Takes Root are 'old school' but effective.

The climax is only a little lacklustre but it does work and there is a hint in the concluding seconds that a sequel could be considered.

Overall, a watchable and worthwhile 91 minutes.

The Bone Garden is pretty bad. I'm certain that all involved went into it with the best of intentions, but the ingredients determine the outcome despite intentions.

Tracie Savage as Alice Hardy's, world starts falling apart when a new neighbor moves in. Even in this briefest of summaries the movie lacks interest.

The acting is stilted and pedestrian across the board. The physical setting is uninspiring. The film has a mid-day made for television movie feel to it. The script by Mike Gutridge is contrived and unimaginative.

Mike Gutridge is also the director. He has two or three movies under his belt as writer / director. He seems to have hard of the maxim that doing the same things must produce the same outcome. He might look at his output with a more critical eye and see if he can avoid some of the issues which keep arising.

A site, AMC Scene, which is sort of how to make a horror movie 101 site, lists the following,

10 Elements Every Horror Film Needs

A Memorable, But Frightening Menace. ... Clear Rules to Live By. ... Plenty of Characters Who Could Disappear at Any Moment. ... The Element of Surprise. ... A Backstory That's Key to the Monster/Villain's Purpose. ... Proper Theme Music. ... The Possibility for a Sequel.

Unfortunately, Mike Gutridge doesn't really address any of these adequately.

Let's get the obvious out of the way - Barbara Hershey, at 73, cuts a very fine figure. Now the film. The Manor sees Barbara, as Judith, suffering a stroke and being voluntarily installed in a nursing home, the Golden Sun Manor. The supernatural soon manifests.

The movie has a made for television feel but there are fleeting moments when it is lifted above this by cinematographer Andre Sanchez. Director, Belgian born Axelle Carolyn, keeps cast and plot under control. Hershey appears to respond well to a female director and hands in an excellent performance.

There is some 'action' but an older cast means there is a lot of talking and that's OK. The script, also by Axelle Carolyn, is engaging and, in the main, natural, well, in natural in Gothic and cinematic terms.

The Manor is a gentle wander rather than a frenetic sprint so be patient. The film is worth it. It's a Blumhouse movie so production line realities impact. It is probably the best in the Blumehouse / Amazon anthology of which it is entry number eight.

The relationship between grandmother, Hershy, and grandson, Nicholas Alexander as Josh, adds an interesting dimension to the film.

It is a classic gaslighting tale with all of the accompanying tropes eg disbelief by family members, a suspect doctor and even brief moments of self-doubt on Hershey's part.

I don't want to give too much away but The Manor is definitely worth investing 81 minutes in. It is enjoyable on a number of levels and when it gets wound up works very well as a horror movie.

Let's get the obvious out of the way - Barbara Hershey, at 73, cuts a very fine figure. Now the film. The Manor sees Barbara, as Judith, suffering a stroke and volunteering to being installed in a nursing home, the Golden Sun Manor. The supernatural soon manifests.

The movie has a made for television feel but there are fleeting moments when it is lifted above this by cinematographer Andre Sanchez. Director, Belgian born Axelle Carolyn, keeps cast and plot under control. Hershey appears to respond well to a female director and hands in an excellent performance.

There is some 'action' but an older cast means there is a lot of talking and that's OK. The script, also by Axelle Carolyn, is engaging and, in the main, natural, well, in natural in Gothic and cinematic terms.

The Manor is a gentle wander rather than a frenetic sprint so be patient. The film is worth it. It's a Blumhouse movie so production line realities impact. It is probably the best in the Blumehouse / Amazon anthology of which it is entry number eight.

The relationship between grandmother, Hershy, and grandson, Nicholas Alexander as Josh, adds an interesting dimension to the film.

It is a classic gaslighting tale with all of the accompanying tropes eg disbelief by family members, a suspect doctor and even brief moments of self-doubt on Hershey's part.

I don't want to give too much away but The Manor is definitely worth investing 81 minutes in. It is enjoyable on a number of levels and when it gets wound up works very well as a horror movie.

A skeptical psychic finds herself 'haunted' on the anniversary of her husbands' death. Compressing 90 minutes into a single sentence hardly does anyone justice but even so, the idea seemed to have merit. The resulting movie, The Visitant, doesn't exploit this merit but it is an OK made for television production.

Set design, in fact all aspects of the production are characterized by 'middle classness' and unrelenting neatness. There is absolutely nothing wrong with middle class but as a consequence, the film lacks anything like atmosphere.

Cinematography is of the, an actor stands, the camera follows them up; a character sits and the camera follows them down, type. It is adequate but pedestrian. The same summation can be made of the script.

Michelle Simms, as Samantha, plays the lead with conviction but not a great deal of range. She was much better in Red Tide which was of a more thriller than something with a supernatural bent.

The actual haunting is low key. Milk mysteriously sours, the television set suddenly stops, several appliances suddenly come to life - you get the idea. The jump scares are lackluster.

About the 40-minute mark things gets fleetingly more adventurous but it doesn't last.

At the hour mark, there is a slight increase in the complexity of the plot as we move into the denouement, the great reveal.

At an hour and 26 minutes, something finally happens! Yes, with four minutes of screen time to go but that something is not enough to lift the preceding nearly 90 minutes.

Director Jon Binkowski might have taken a few more risks with the material he was working with. There is a sequel, ReVisitant, which is actually a weaker film and even more wearisome.

This all sounds very negative, but no one should feel embarrassed about having The Visitant on their CV. It's competent but it's just that it leans so heavily towards the bland.

You won't be able to recall a thing a day after watching it, but The Visitant, is a harmless way to fill in an hour and half.

The Lullaby starts well and stays the course. A new mum succumbs to disturbing visions as she tries to settle into her new maternal role in her own mother's house.

Is it postpartum depression or something more sinister?

Well, it's a horror movie so there are no prizes for coming up with the right answer to the above question. Director Darrell James Roodt is a seasoned veteran with dozens of films to his credit ranging over several genres. He even has a musical with Whoopi Goldberg under his belt. There is more than a smattering of horror movies in his CV. And these show in this production - he knows his way around spools of the spooky stuff.

He has a very competent cast to work with. Reine Swart as Chloe van Heerden, the 19-year-old single mother tackles the lead with conviction and credibility. The same might be said of Thandi Puren as Ruby van Heerden, who plays her hard hearted mother.

Justus de Jager, director of photography, is both capable and adventurous enough to ensure that The Lullaby is a satisfying visual experience.

The names have by now given away that the film is a South African production.

Special effects are adequate, not actually derivative, but there is a sort of 'been there done that' feel to most of the effects. Jump scares are attempted but by and large don't work. There is an atmosphere of the supernatural rising to prominence as postpartum depression takes second place.

The contrast between hysteria and the sinister with the domestic realities and attendant relationships of single parenthood add an interesting dimension to the film.

I can't put my finger on exactly what or why, but there is an odd Australian sensibility to the South African Lullaby.

The Lullaby is certainly worth a watch. It doesn't bring a lot new to the table but it is interesting enough and provides a worthwhile insight into the flowering of a newish national theatre of horror.

A skeptical psychic finds herself 'haunted' on the anniversary of her husbands' death. Compressing 90 minutes into a single sentence hardly does anyone justice but even so, the idea seemed to have merit. The resulting movie, The Visitant, doesn't exploit this merit but it is an OK made for television production.

Set design, in fact all aspects of mise-en-scene are characterized by 'middle classness' and unrelenting neatness. As a consequence, the film is anything but atmospheric.

Cinematography is of the, an actor stands, the camera follows them up; a character sits and the camera follows them down, type. It is adequate but pedestrian. The same summation can be made of the script.

Michelle Simms, as Samantha, plays the lead with conviction but not a great deal of range. She was much better in Red Tide which was of a more thriller than something with a supernatural bent.

The actual haunting is low key. Milk mysteriously sours, the television set suddenly stops, several appliances suddenly come to life - you get the idea. The jump scares are lackluster.

About the 40-minute mark things gets fleetingly more adventurous but it doesn't last.

At the hour mark, there is a slight increase in the complexity of the plot as we move into the denouement, the great reveal.

At an hour and 26 minutes, something finally happens! Yes, with four minutes of screen time to go but that something is not enough to lift the preceding nearly 90 minutes.

Director Jon Binkowski might have taken a few more risks with the material he was working with. There is a sequel, ReVisitant, which is actually a weaker film and even more wearisome.

This all sounds very negative, but no one should feel embarrassed about having The Visitant on their CV. It's just that it leans so heavily towards the bland.

You won't be able to recall a damn thing a day after watching it, but The Visitant, is a harmless way to fill in an hour and half.

Patients and staff in a mental institution are on the rampage and a doctor is trapped. Sort of sounds OK. Unfortunately, the actual execution of the idea fails on a number of levels.

An early reference to the ghost of a girl haunting the institution may explain the demonic possession of some of the inmates and staff. Possession is indicated by eyes turning black and maniacal laughing.

So many questions. Why not untie the rescued doctor? Would a rubbish bin really obstruct a door? Would a throat have a slit before the knife is run across it? And so and so on.

And then there is the homeless girl whose appearance and significance remain inexplicable despite best efforts at explanation.

There is an awkward and stilted gap between many of the dialogue exchanges which destroys tension.

Director, writer and, producer Johnny Johnson is clearly working with a very limited budget and a virtually unknown cast of actors. These tax his own abilities in the various roles he assumes.

Steve Hope Wynne, as fired security guard Thomas Reid, carries the can as far as evil protagonists go. He throws himself into the role with enthusiasm but pulling back a bit, employing a degree of subtly, would have enhanced his characterization. There is something of the Panto to his performance. (Oh, this is an English production.)

Tzevt Lazar, as Leszek Nowicki, the inmate with a story and heart, is the standout cast member but, and forgive the harshness, the bar isn't set that high.

The dialogue is corny, the acting often hammy and the plot at times confusingly incoherent.

I'm certain that all went into the project with the best intentions but Psychotic goes south very quickly.

No Tell Motel is a low budget paranormal movie. A group of friends seek haven in a derelict motel after their vehicle breaks down.

Most of the cast seem attracted to this type of movie or equally micro budget action movies. It's a B movie which serves to flesh out Primes catalogue but really, otherwise, doesn't have much going for it.

Writer T. J. Cimfel doesn't give the cast a lot to work with. He specializes in writing for B movies. I've seen V/H/S Viral which he also wrote, and it is on a par with No Tell Hotel.

Paranormal movies are about the jump scare and such movies set in motels / hotels can work. Ti Wests' The Innkeepers or the more recent The Rental directed by Dave Franco prove that there is plenty of juice in the genre. Just not in this particular instance.

The ghost isn't scary; the plot, if not predictable, is certainly undemanding; there is a gross factor but its to do with drug use and rape, not the supernatural; and so it goes.

There is a lack of strong direction from Brett Donowho. He seems to be enjoying more success as an actor having won the odd award here and there. The 'action' is stilted and there is a tendency to the cliched in the unfolding of several scenes.

The special effects are scarce and to be honest when encountered, are a bit hokey.

I feel I'm being pretty harsh. No one purposely sets out to make a dodgy movie but there is, in truth, not a lot to redeem No Tell Motel.

In summary, a group of older students go on a field trip in search of Big Foot. Sounds straight forward enough but Dawn of the Beast is a very busy movie. There are monsters, cannibals, zombies, terrified students and, several sub-plots including a romance of sorts and an abduction. Oh, and there might or might be a vampire / zombie as well. The character in question certainly exhibits some vampire like traits.

It's a B movie which gets cracking almost from-the-get-go. Once it would have made great drive-in material though it's gore quotient would have made it a stand-out. It's not especially gory by todays standards but it certainly is compared to the days when William Castle ruled the world of window mounted speakers.

It is no great secret, but the film is dripping with Wendigos. Being Australian, I had to look them up. I discovered there is a psychosis called Wendigo psychosis. It is a fear of developing a lust for human flesh or becoming a cannibal. It pretty much sums up the film - fear, experienced by the cast if not always the viewer, cannibalism and, a smattering of gore.

In the end it comes down to a battle between monsters, but an awful lot of stupid decisions are made by the cast of characters before, and after, this. It is difficult to pick a stand-out among the cast. All are adequate, none are particularly brilliant. Perhaps they weren't expected to be. In these days of gender equity, it is nice to see a scream queen and a scream king in competition.

The real stand out is Jared Balog who is responsible for some of the monsters' make-up and I'm guessing the gore and entrails.

Production values are OK. (I suspect there wasn't a huge budget.) Anna Shields' script is also OK, the cast are suitably tongue in cheek and the monsters are quite good. Director, Bruce Wemple, keeps things jollying along.

Dawn of the Beast is OK in its own terms. It's a movie for a few mates (girls are mates too), a few beers and a big bowl of corn chips.

Beyond the Woods was apparently crowd funded so we know it is a micro budgeted effort. Even so, director, writer and, producer, Seán Breathnach, has cobbled together an eminently watchable film full of believable characters.

It is another entry in the group of friends in a cabin the woods genre though the Irish setting and cast give it a distinctive twist. Oh, and there is the ever-present sulphuric stench from a nearby sinkhole, the pungency of which the cast do well in conveying to the viewer.

We are 25 minutes into the movie before anything actually happens. Cinematographer, Paraic English, is up to the job though and the viewer remains engaged. In fact the cinematography is a definite strength of the film. My one small quibble is most evident during this early period. The audio is muffled at times.

Jump cut shots, now you see me, now you don't, are used sparingly but to good effect and mark the gear change from a sort of Big Chill feel into horror.

Whilst mentioning horror, the film is strong technically and in terms of cast but not so much in terms of actual horror. It's too talky to be terribly scary. And the horror tropes are perhaps the main victims of a very tight budget. Whilst acknowledging all of this, Beyond the Woods is not without its occasional but moderate moment or two.

Marissa, Ruth Hayes, creates an unnerving moment when she attempts to escape the holiday house but all roads see her returning to it. Perhaps if Breathnach had done more of this and abandoned the monster, etc and opted for frights created by using subtly and filmic techniques à la Cat People it would have been scarier and avoided the budget constraints.

All in all, Beyond the Woods deserves an audience and those involved with it bear watching in the future.

Reborn is based on an interesting idea but is let down in all of the major areas. An abandoned baby is reanimated in a morgue and things unfold from there.

The opening scenes hold promise but things quickly dissipate.

The first stumbling block is the script by Michael Mahin. It is cliched to the point of groaning. There are lots of lines such as, 'I've suffered and now it's your turn.' Lots! Production values are OK though for a mainstream release it has a dated and made for television feel. Once the ball is rolling, the plot also becomes a bit predictable and, well, cliched. Cinematography is pedestrian.

Director Julian Richards seems to operate out of an 80s aesthetic.

Rae Dawn Chong, daughter of Tommy Chong as in Cheech and Chong, is, I gather, something of a draw card but she doesn't have a big role and doesn't do much with it.

Chas Bono, child of Sonny and Cher, also has a 15 minute role and in a creepy way, is actually OK in it.

Julian Richards specializes in 'discount' horror and probably peaked with Silent Cry, another movie about mothers, babes and unresolved issues. It is more drama than horror and streets ahead of Reborn. Interesting but irrelevant, his next best effort was probably a fairly average documentary on Charles Dickens.

Michael Pare plays the best or luckiest police detective in the States with the largest badge imaginable. He is one of the better things in the movie but having said that, don't expect too much.

The star of the movie, Kayleigh Gilbert, has made a crime drama and a sort of alternative pic about an alternative community. She is not a commanding presence on screen but could be. Maybe she is one to watch for the future. Of her three movies this is the middle one and the by far the shakiest.

The second lead, Barbara Crampton, plays a washed-up B actress. Probably no need to say anymore.

I feel a bit harsh but really, Reborn seems to have been made to fill a quota or for some similar reason. There is a sense that no one is giving 100% and the ending is consistent with this.

OK, there are problems with Killer Under the Bed. The acting is pedestrian, the characters are cliched, there is not a single instance of creativity with regards cinematography and the script is, well, lifeless.

But! It is made for television fodder and so one has to be a little forgiving and modify expectations in these instances. There is nothing more unforgivable in Killer than there is in televisions' popular detective series Murder She Wrote.

Yes, everyone in the movie is physically attractive but that goes with the territory. How many 'normal' looking people appeared weekly in McMillan and Wife? And it was deemed as OK viewing. There is the merest tokenism with regards ethnic diversity which is wrong but again, that goes with the genre.

The voodoo doll itself is a variation on a Ken doll but in fairness it is sort of a little unnerving.

The plot is predictable right down to the sequel invitation at the end, but it is sort of engaging in an undemanding way. Acting aside, Bec Bassinger is personable. That the lacrosse stick has a central role in events is utterly foreseeable but it is a lacrosse stick, and that is a little unusual. The Dr Ryder (Kristin Carey) subplot is sufficiently histrionic to be entertaining. It is a movie of easy going glimmers rather blinding brilliance.

If I had the choice between watching , The Serpent and the Rainbow, a vastly superior voodoo movie, AGAIN or Killer I'd opt for Serpent but that is not to say that Killer is not a harmless and passable little time killer in its own right.

What a surprise! I thought this was a children's movie, right up until the first 'f bomb' that is. During the first few minutes I had no idea what I was watching; children's, horror, fantasy, folk horror, family drama or one of half a dozen other movie genres briefly flickered across my mind. What I did know was that it was very English and pretty good.

Matters quickly settle and we see, 10-year-old schoolgirl, Eternity Winter, played by a larger-than-life Scarlett Rayner, searching for treasure in the forest which surrounds her home, The Gatehouse. She needs the treasure to help her cash strapped and grieving Dad with his finances. The spirit of Eternity's dead mother pops up now and again with timely advice for her. Eternity eventually does find treasure but the forest spirit wants it back.

It's a plot which could be dropped into any woodland setting, but writer and director Martin Gooch applies layer upon layer of Englishness and we quickly find ourselves unable to view The Gatehouse as anything but British. Eternity's father played by Simeon Willis literally walks through 1000s of years of English history, Eternity's school and school uniform are clearly borrowed from Roland Searle's St Trinian's stories and illustrations, there is a scene straight from Boorman's classic movie Excalibur, the humour is of that quirky, peculiar British type, perhaps think Terry Pratchett and, on and on it goes. Oh, and it's all wonderful.

Rayner and Willis bounce off each other as daughter and dad, with humour and pathos. In fact, the film could have been an intense exploration of family grief. But it's not.

The spirit of the forest is perhaps the weakest aspect of the film and may be evidence of a tight budget. It is just a little shonky but is usually seen back lit so its shonkiness is hidden.

The horror tropes are rapid fire but not to the point of numbing the viewer. Conjuring evil, jump scares, alone in a dark house, alone in a dark forest, alone on a dark road, dismemberment, ancient evil, creepy children, hauntings (of sorts), sinister secondary characters, evil under the bed, nightmares bleeding into real life and so on. In fact, a willing drama teacher could develop an interesting unit on horror tropes in general as encountered in The Gatehouse. Jack, the father, even picks up some hack work completing another author's novel after the original author dies mysteriously. The novel, a fantasy / horror work, is referred to as 'legend of the black flowers'!

The pacing is solid and the musical score effective. The cinematography is well above average. It is a beautifully shot film.

I don't want to oversell The Gatehouse. It does have problems. There is the subpar spirit of the forest costume. The film can feel picaresque'ish', a little episodic. There is probably a little too much in the 97 minute running time. Some more brutal editing might have helped this.

In the interest of full disclosure, I must declare that The Gatehouse does tick a few boxes for me personally. It's English, it's a horror movie and it's quirky. If the opportunity presents, give it a try. (I watched it on Prime.) There is a lot in The Gatehouse which is both entertaining and worth watching.

What's good about Angel? The picture quality is excellent. Locations are, in the main, interesting. The musical score is relevant and interesting. The plot premise could, under other circumstances, be passable. And, well, that's about it.

What's not so good about Angel? The cast. I'm certain that they gave it their all but the cast are uniformly inept. Everything from blocking, where the actors stand in a scene, to line delivery has student project written all over it. (Blocking is, admittedly, the directors job.)

Angel does establish a benchmark of sorts for politeness. Actors repeatedly and courteously wait for each other to finish lines before delivering their own. This leaves awkward silences scattered throughout the films 97 minutes.

The acting is stilted, very self-conscious, and so the characters unbelievable. Some cast members are better than other, Bradley A. Myers, might develop but he will need to avoid these types of films.

Even so, and as Dorothy Parker was said to observe of Katherine Hepburn, the entire cast generally run the full gamut of human emotions all the way from A to B.

The plot? After a massacre the remaining residents of the gentle town of Raven Rock pack-up and leave. Despite the abandoned town being securely locked random people start disappearing within its confines. A journalist and her friends investigate the disappearances. Written by Cheyenne Gordon and Tory Jones there is enough meat in this for a much better film.

Without giving too much away, there is a monster; a cheaply costumed, clumsy, and generally regrettable monster.

Tory Jones, the director has a bit of history in micro-budget genre films and has earned applause for some efforts. Angel is not an applaudable film. This project was crowd funded. The same cast and crew were in another Tory Jones Indy, The Wicked One, in 2017. It is a marginally better film with a not dissimilar plot. The point is, Jones et al can do it! Make a credible'ish' film that is. This makes Angel just that bit more disappointing.

Producers The Asylum have several movies like Sharknado, Ape vs Monster and Aquarium of the Dead under their belt. They specialize in a certain type of film. Battledogs does not see them breaking into new territory.

A strain of infection that turns the bitten into werewolves is unleashed in New York. The army is brought in to exterminate or control them for military purposes. The conflict, no drama without conflict, is between Craig Sheffer as Major Brian Hoffman who adopts a gently, gently, they were human once approach and Dennis Haysbert as Lt. General Christopher Monning who is all about termination or harnessing the werewolves. Sheffer has a lot of prior form with this type of movie and Haysbert has a lot of prior form but he moves up and down movie quality scale. Both make valuable contributions to film.

In fact the cast is uniformly strong. You will spend quite a bit of time playing the 'what was he / she in again?' game.

It is ungallant but some attempt to extend their careers by embellishment. Adriana Richards for instance, playing Donna Voorhees' patient zero, claims to be 28 when she obviously passed 28 several years earlier. Similarly some of the service personal in the movie could have made up the first 3,500 Marines to land in Vietnam in 1965.

Perhaps if the conflict were between the werewolves and humankind we might have had a worthier contribution to the sub-genre.

The werewolves are in the main GGI and, as we say down under, they are dodgy. There are though, a lot of them, a real lot of them, and they do generate a reasonable amount of gore. Not as much as the opening scenes promise but enough to maintain interest.

The CGI doesn't stop at the werewolves. It is used very liberally throughout the movie.

Production values are OK; the musical score is both adequate and functional; fast in the exciting bits, slow during the heavy dialogue; locations are at the budget end of the possibilities and; the plot is linear and uncluttered. We even have a MacGyver type moment but I won't give it away.

There is a made for television feel to Battledogs and it probably was made for SYFY or something similar. I watched it on Prime, who have a particularly uneven horror schedule.

As is the way with made for television, there are problems with tension. As a horror movie, there isn't any and there really should be. Things unfold in a fairly predictable manner. There are no effective jump scares. Actually, there are no ineffective ones either. The whole 'fright quotient' hovers just above zero. Still the pacing is good and there a lot of werewolves.

It has been a while since we were offered a really good werewolf movie. The wait continues. Director Alexander Yellen, who is actually an accomplished cinematographer, does provide us with 88 minutes of light entertainment though.

Johnny 2.0 is an OK late '90s made for television, The Sci Fi Channel, movie. If you were shelving a physical copy of the DVD, you would probably put it with Johnny Mnemonic. Despite its humble origins, made for tv, it is actually a cut above Johnny Mnemonic which got the full Hollywood treatment.

Johnny Dalton, played by Jeff Fahey, regains consciousness after being in a coma for several years. He eventually discovers life is an illusion, shades of The Matrix, and that he is a clone. Rebel leader Nikki Holland, Tahnee Welch, helps Dalton to find his original un-cloned self, shades of Bladerunner, despite the secrecy and dangers.

The cast are generally up to the task. Canadian Michael Ironside as Frank Donahue, Johnny's business partner, is probably the standout actor and should be. He has been in everything from Scanners to Total Recall. He deserved more screen time. Fahey seems to have specialized in B movies though he is apparently a gifted dancer, classical and ballroom. There is no evidence of this in Johnny 2.0.

The film is well paced, the plot unnecessarily convoluted, the technical aspects are what one might expect of a low budget movie and the original musical backing, thank you Ed Tomney, and special effects make the grade.

Director Neill Fearnley keeps things well in hand and writer Wynne McLaughlin provides the cast plenty to work with.

The film had a European release as, Fac Simile, and did a little business.

If you are new to the genre or an old Sci Fi hand, Johnny 2.0 is a worthwhile way of spending 93 minutes. It's not earth shaking but OK.

Vampire Bats, a made for television Lucy Lawless horror movie, is quite a passable time waster. Interesting enough but you might struggle to recall much of it a day or two later.

Nightwing, Bats, Bats: Human Harvest, The Bat People - has there ever been a truly good movie about bats? Don't dare suggest Chosen Survivors as being an OK bat movie. It's only OK by comparison. Vampire Bats is better than some others but as we have acknowledged, the bar is not set too high.

Director Eric Bross has his cast well in hand and keeps the action ticking over. Production values are at the better end of the 'made for television' spectrum. Lucy Lawless is easily up to the job.

The plot is just a little cliched even down to the environmentally irresponsible local official but there are enough twists to maintain interest. Without giving too much away, a scientist, Lawless, gets caught up in the investigation of several unexplained deaths in which some of her students are implicated. She does add up two and two pretty quickly but as her characters says, she does have PhD in biology.

The actual vampire bats are a combination of real bats, CGI and practical effects. They are quite credible as 'flitter mice'. Vampire bats are literally flying rodents, well, all bats are, and they are portrayed as being ugly, blood thirsty and generally disgusting which they sort of are. It's the bloodthirsty aspect which is exaggerated in this movie. Bross handles the gore aspects, the actual human attacks, well. There is enough blood and brutalized flesh to get the movie over the horror line but remember that it is made for television.

The first major bat attack sees parallel scenes of a kids rave and an adult soiree. Bross is trying. Writer, Doug Prochilo, pens non-cringeworthy lines though he did a marginally better job in Locusts, the precursor to Vampire Bats also starring Lawless.

All in all, Vampire Bats adds nothing to the bat movie sub-genre but it is a palatable 85 minutes of entertainment.