Under the Skin

Genre: Horror/Thriller
Directed: Jonathan Glazer 
Starring: Scarlett Johansson 
Running: 108 minutes

As silly as it may sound, Jonathan Glazer's take on modern alien-ism is so realistic it is truly frightening. A horror movie it is not, a sci-fi is questionable also; let's just say Under the Skin is a bag of everything, including drama and sentiment from a female alien seeking humanity in oneself. Giving very little away in its advertisement, judging by its James Cameron style poster, the opening scene is one of true remembrance, even if there is very little to show. Jonathan Glazer makes an alien assumption and what we are about to follow through-out this 100 minute slideshow of fascinating images.

A machine is seen slowly making its way toward what we eventually make out to be a human like eyeball, constructing our female protagonist to be (Scarlett Johansson). From there we witness a compelling concept of the hunter and the hunted through an aliens-eye-view. Prowling the wet streets of Scotland with a motive that is never fully explained, Laura is on the look out for vulnerable men with no direction other than the dark depths of what appears to be a concept of alien abduction. The murky human world is what captivates this movie to its full realism as hidden cameras are used to show the mundane streets featuring pedestrians at their typical. A transit van supplied by a mysterious biker is used to distract Laura from her manifestation; unrecognisable beneath her 80s retro hairstyle, Laura routinely distracts men at their most isolated, inviting them back to her abandoned house where they will meet their demise, revealing the most fascinating image and the "horror" of the movie. However Under the Skin feels purposely divided into a movie of two very different chapters, one that reveals sentiment in Laura with a dramatic outlook on what happens when the tables are turned on our leading star. It goes on to focus on a clever concept, one of much relevance in today's society. For me, Jonathan Glazer kills the darkish mood of its first 45 minutes to give us a sense of humanity and sympathy but again going back to what the movie offered at the beginning, making for a fantastic intro, a strange and not too comfortable middle and a brilliant ending.

Scarlett Johansson does very little here, yet it is the performance of her career no doubt. As strange as that may sound, that is exactly it; her cold and calculated expressions, her movement and her overall commitment to a film revealing more nudity than we would have expected, she is dedicated to her robust character from the get-go. Scarlett showcases a method side to her acting that the blockbusters of the past have not aloud her to do. Her robotic persona is scary and seductive making Under the skin spine tingling at times, yet heartfelt for both herself and her victims - she leads the line in fantastic fashion in this very rare one-women-show.

The chilling soundtrack helps set the atmospheric tone this movie thrives off from the beginning. Scarlett's on screen presence creates something so unnerving, you could cut the cinematic atmosphere with a blunt knife. The oblivious folks appearing in the backdrop of midnight Scotland gives this movie a sense of realism, with its stalker concept being of much relevance. Jonathan Glazer sheds some light on just how the average male can be vulnerable in the dead of the night; one scene shows just how far Laura will go to lure a victim to a misty grave.

Those looking to enjoy a movie of dialog will be very disappointed. Under the skin is an artistic outlook of hunter seeking its prey using a plethora of images; featuring deserted highways, wet and windy pavements and grizzly houses, while the sci-fi also comes into play in Laura's lair. Unfortunately the same concept is used toward the middle of the movie and the end, substituting gritty streets for the country woods and more. I for one found the images fascinating and self-explanatory.

Very little can be said in regards to how the movie plays out, and some people may be disappointed in that sense. It is probably the most realistic take on alien-ism I have seen in modern film so far. However so realistic that it may prove boring for some, and virtually unexplained. I for one tend to keep an open mind, therefore enjoying this visionary bag of mixed treats from Jonathan Glazer.

The Original Nightmare Returns

Fans of Robert Englund's Freddy Krueger will get the opportunity to embrace the original Nightmare on elm street this Halloween. Coming to UK cinemas (no word regarding us Irish), A Nightmare on Elm street (1984) will re-emerge to celebrate both the creepiest night of the year, as well as the movie being regarded as one of the best horror movies to date.

Fans of the horror genre were left bitterly disappointed in what was quiet an obvious, yet bluntly dissatisfying remake that saw Jackie Earl Ray play the scarred child slasher in the remake of 2010. While I for one saw it as nothing other than entertaining, the majority of fans will want to quickly forget the attempted re-creation directed by Samuel Bayer.

For one night only, on October 31, Wes Craven's A Nightmare on Elm Street will darken cinemas with ultimate frightfulness in order to give audience a satisfying scare, something that is very rare in modern horror.

A new HD trailer is available to support the release, in which you can see over on Empire. In the meantime, check out one of the many iconic scenes involved with this horror classic.

Evil Dead

Let's start by admitting something that I am quite ashamed to admit; I have never seen the original that was "The Evil Dead" (1981). While this can be viewed as quite an appalling statement, it serves me a slight benefit. Why? well, while I plan on watching the original sometime in life, I was happy to have the courtesy of going to see Evil Dead without being too fussy. While I am normally the "oh, how it's just not as good, or even near enough the same as the original" type of guy, it was nice to change the scenery a bit, leaving me with no knowledge of the franchise and lots of curiosity (you have come to the right place). I was optimistic in every way. So all I can say is this; Evil Dead 2013 is quite possibly the finest, most astonishing horror movie since The Exorcist. Below is an anti pedantic review on a movie being hailed as one of few horror remakes worth remembering.

Brief: A group of friends head to an isolated cabin in the woods, where a book of the dead will decide their inevitable death.

Mia (Jane Levy) is determined to quash her drug habit. She agrees to go cold turkey in the company of her trusty friends. Considered an ideal spot for Mia to rehabilitate, Mia's brother David (Shiloh Fernandez) and co are weary of her consistency. Just as Mia gets cold turkey, so do the surrounding woods, as dim-wit companion Eric (Lou Taylor Pucci) discovers a book of the dead, unleashing a demonic force beneath the cabin as a frightening history returns to strike its victim; that victim is Mia. Mia is possessed by a girl of the past, but the illogical the crew put her possessive behaviour down to "cold turkey" - their lack of logic (taking into account the cabin has been isolated for years) results in a game of death worth witnessing.

Evil Dead is a fine throwback to 80s horror - with an element that relies on frightening you through the use of graphical images, rather than jump scares. While there are many attempts at surprising the viewer with a screech or two, Evil Dead survives on disturbing the mind rather the art of suspense.

The movie's introduction is excellent, giving you a taste of what your in for; chopped limbs, blood is vomited and nails pierce every part of the human body - all extreme fun and a great reference to the meaning of true horror.

While Evil Dead depends on its grotesque element, it should by no means be attached to the brain-farts that were Hostel and Saw 3, 4 and the rest.  It differs from "torture-porn", adding a touch of dark humour and scenes of over top sprees of violence.

One or two cast members are beyond irritating; David and his "Everything is fine" attitude becomes annoying and quite illogical considering the circumstances. Jane Levy, who plays protagonist Mia, shows great onscreen potential, specifically in scenes that show evidence of her being realistically frightened.

A modern horror remake can hardly show one trailer without critics of old an new slating it, asking the question - why? I am one of them, and pessimism can be a second language of mine. And while I have not seen Sam Rami's (complete control) 1981 creation, I can't honestly ask the question as I and many have, and will continue to ask - why?

Never the less, Evil Dead convinced me, showing no sign of laziness, while the  production did a great job re-kindling some creativity in terms of crafting the props we see through-out. The involvement of CGI here is minimum, which in my mind shows proof of the productions desire to show, that at some stage, we can't keep living in the past. While the 80s will never be forgotten, Hollywood can be forgiven at some stage - and while we are quick to set a light to The Thing, A Nightmare on Elm st and Halloween (dam you Rob Zombie), I am confident that Evil Dead will get the respect it deserves - at least from a large minority of horror movie buffs. Why shouldn't it? It's the type of horror we have been asking for. And if you think that the minor change in plot was unnecessary, think again. It is vital that remakes of good and bad switch it up slightly in order to show its creativity, and some what "balls" by expanding on what we already know and hope to enjoy.

Overall: There is a plot here, but it tends to go missing on occasions, but horror fans will adore this movie, as the grotesque element is both hilarious and exceptionally disturbing.

Movie Quote: "Why don't you come down here and let me suck your cock, pretty boy?" - A possessed and horny Mia

7/10

Maniac

Elijah Wood has been off the grid lately. Sure he appeared in the Hobbit (obviously), but he hasn't
pitched a starring role in quite a while. So when a small time trailer connecting Elijah and serial killer, I was surprised; not of his return, but his role choice.

Maniac - have you heard of this movie? you are about to, not only through my opinion, but many others. Directed by Franck Khalfoun, Maniac is best described as outlandish, introducing a dark and gritty concept that takes grotesque to a new level.

An introduction of retro style music and dark scenes of mean streets, Maniac delivers a sequence of pure class upon the introduction of Frank (Elijah Wood); a deranged stalker of the streets. From the off we see this kid lacks everything except his skill for murder. Visioned through the eyes of Frank, the grotesque method is forced upon as he stalks, whispers and inevitably chases his first victim through the hallway of a hotel - BOOM - slashed in epic style, the retro music enforces the title of the movie to bolder the screen, Maniac, in thick red old school font. What I was in for? I thought I knew, I was wrong.

Tormented by his nightmarish upbringing, Frank lives in a shop occupied by mannequins; which seem to be his only company. However things change for Frank has his obsession for collecting human scalps is unwillingly put on hold as he meets Anna (Nora Arnezeder); a cute little french girl who takes a liking to the mannequins in his the shop. It is when she requests to rent the mannequins for an exhibition that sees a relationship evolve, but not the way Frank would have wanted it. Struggling to maintain his murderous obsession, Frank continues to slay the women of the streets, while trying to be a friend to Anna - which Frank knows mentally, can never happen.

Sure, people walked out of this movie and rightly so. But I on the other hand loved it. Maniac is a respected horror movie, shot using first person angles. I though that was bad ass because it provided and maintained a level of realness throughout the entire movie. We only get to see Frank in mirror reflections, which in most cases he is seen puking into the toilet as his horrendous physique gives off a shock-horror premise that pumps up the gore in every scene. Not to give too much away, but there is a scene when Frank is pursuing another female, chasing her through a train station and ending up in a car park. Thinking she got away Scott-free, we are with Frank under a car as he slashes her ankle, revealing the entire bone that just popped out of her skin!

There are moments in the movie that just spell unnecessary and down right haunting. We get a fine insight into what potentially drove this kid to insanity and yes it does include his mother in scenes that I can only describe as shock-horror. You might walk out remembering this movie for the wrong reasons. I had to overcome the fact that the deaths in this movie could of actually been the sacrifice of real humans - It is horrifically realistic.

Maniac arrived under the radar. I like those type of movies. Elijah Wood gives a brutal, yet static performance, even though the majority of sequences provide you with nothing other than his bloody hands. Was the plot logical? sure, in a way. I mean it is based on the mind of a serial killer suffering with problems bigger than female hatred. I have to agree with the poster; "a modern horror classic". We are too used to paying into movies that offer the potential of a good scare, but really, chances are, we have seen it time and time again. Maniac forcefully delivers a blender of ingredients mashed up of Michael Myers and Drive. Yes, if Drive was a horror, it would be this.

Overall: A strange movie, but one that is easy to follow. The stalking premise and grotesque scenes will send shivers down your spine. Forget ghosts and demons, Maniac has provided a window of opportunity for producers to follow a similar path.

It is a joy to watch if your squeamish...

8/10

86YWQR6NC2FU

Box Office 2013 - Predictable America

Texas Chainsaw 3D is continuing to out-do the crafty work of both Quentin Tarantino and Peter Jackson.

 

The box office has released a shocking yet quite predictable outcome in terms of the American audience. Texas Chainsaw 3D is the latest (desperate) attempt at reviving a franchise that is well and truly deceased. The fact director John Luessenhop is calling this a sequel to the 1974 classic is not only laughable, but a clear cut creation that lacks serious initiative. Towering above critically acclaimed movies such as The Hobbit, DjangoUnchained and musical lovers - Les Miserables, Texas Chainsaw has gathered a whopping 23million - Really!

 

Although Texas Chainsaw has leaped due to its lonesome release in American cinemas, it would be logical for it to fall quickly, unless the audience continue to throw away their money!

 

In second is Django Unchained at 20million followed by The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey at 17.5 million; read my review here.

 

Les Misérables sits at 4th with 16.1million while Parental Guidance holds 5th with 10.1million (Jesus).

 

I do agree on the positions above as Tom Cruise's latest flick Jack Reacher holds 6th with 9.3million; and rightly so! I am sick to death of seeing the trolls of Tom Cruise claiming this to be so "awesome", really? are we really that gullible? Anyway I am yet to go and see Jack Reacher. Anyone who has please give me an honest review...

 

Check out the full chart at box office mojo!

 

 

 



A Trick-or-Treat Review; Carrie (1976)

As we continue to celebrate Halloween, let's look at another classic of the 70's; a year in which most original concepts of horror had come about.

Released in 1976, Carrie is a tale of vulnerability at the highest as we follow the path of Carrie (Sissy Spacek); a reclusive high-school student who through-out has had her fair share of incidents regarding her lonely persona which seems to attract malicious bullys.

Not much help in her troubled life is her mother Margaret (Piper Laurie) who has strong, sadistic religious beliefs. The controlled paranoia of Carrie's mother is particularly seen when she features in one of many sinister moments between mother and daughter; Carrie is sent home early due to a scene in the schools showers when she freaks out after getting her first period, attracting the attention of heartless students to laugh and throw things at her. (Yep, quite sad really).

Margaret can only see her daughters situation as a sin, while constantly revealing her regrettable desire of killing Carrie as a child. Margaret condones intimate relations, viewing such an act as extremely sinful.

While Carrie is sometimes forced into repeating her mothers religious chants and locked in the "Sin" room for forgiveness, Carrie begins to notice a telekinetic change in her mind, revealing an extraction of movements and powerful forces.

While not fully understanding the sheer power behind this, it is when Carrie is suddenly asked to the dance by Tommy Ross (William Katt). Carrie mistakenly sees this a glorious opportunity to be accepted and for once in her life, sociable. However the events concerning Carrie and a minority of bully's change the course of her haunting ability.

From start to finish Carrie offers an original spookish concept of ones desire and utter portrayal that leads a reclusive to believe in sociability outside the home her mother continues to rule. The constant Psycho resemblance is seen through-out an plays a wonderful tribute to Hitchcock's masterpiece, referencing the "Eeek" almost slash sounds occurring through-out the films time line.

Directed by Brian De Palma, with Stephen King's novel at hand, Brian creates a fantastic jerk of back-forward scenes that involve Carrie at the happiest of times, even though you know deep down this girl is tormented by pretty much everyone surrounding her. The terrifying jingles of emotions are heard and witnessed by Carrie alone in her bedroom, then a couple of brief reflections of the teens in high-school who are truly enjoying themselves but oblivious to Carries haunting presence.

I was quite surprised to see a goofy John Travolta appearance. He plays Billy Nolan; a puppet alongside high-school popularity queen Chris (Nancy Allen) who some might know as Murphy, aka Robocop's annoying partner. It is more so the antics of Chris who is hell bound on destroying further-more the reputation of Carrie.

The haunting element of this classic are carried out by the freakish chemistry between Carrie and her brain-washed mother. Although the finale results in a memorable cinematic climax, you never forget the performances from both Sissy Spacek and onscreen next of kin, Piper Laurie.

Overall; Another horror classic that leaves a frightening taste before bed. If it isn't the conclusion of this short masterpiece that gets you, it will be the onscreen performance of Carrie's mother that will stay with you for a very long time.

John Carpenter's Halloween

John Carpenter's suspenseful masterpiece consisted of some real quality, cold blooded quotes. Quite simple ones also, and very misleading to the eyes of some; Tommy - " Laurie, what's the boogieman?   Laurie -  "There's no such thing."

How wrong was Jamie Lee Curtis's vulnerable high school sweetheart to think that. 1978 brought absolute terror to cinema-goers around the world.  A good ten years before my time, Halloween night never appealed to me very much, however the video tape of Carpenters classic, in which was kept hidden from me for years due to child-hood trauma, the creation of sheer terror was really upon me the day I watched it. (I was brave, but not enough to watch it at night)

The quiet suburban neighbourhood of Haddonfield was about to become quite an iconic scene; a young Michael Myers is about to lay the path for a dramatic return to his home town 15 years later.

Only 6 years old, nobody knew what drove the mind of such a young boy. His dark and twisted mind would drive him to stab his 16 year old sister, carving a whole new perspective to the way the town would celebrate Halloween.

Institutionalised for almost 15 years, Michael Myers escapes the outskirts of Illinois as he makes his way back home, hoping to arrive on a very convenient date; October 31st, 1978, Halloween.

Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) is your stereotypical book worm slash high school virgin who chooses babysitting over drunken nights any day of the week. Softly spoken and well behaved, she is unaware of the danger about to curse Haddonfield that very night.

Michael Myers, played by Tony Moran is off the grid, however it is the introduction of his doctor, Sam Loomis (Donald Pleasence) that makes the night a nerve wrecking cat and mouse chase as he seeks to find Myers before he reeks havoc in Haddonfield. Desperate for assistance, Loomis contacts Sheriff Leigh Brackett (Charles Cyphers) to warn him of Michael's presence to be, believing that Michale will reenact the murder of 1963.

Dr Loomis - I met this six-year-old child, with this blank, pale, emotionless face and, the blackest eyes... the devil's eyes."

Sheriff Brackett is not fully convinced of Sam's accusations, however it is no convenience of the friendship between his daughter Annie (Nancy Kyes) and Michael's target, Laurie.

A series of events leads to the category of classics Halloween will forever remain. When Loomis finds out Michael's motive for escape, he is hell bound on preventing the murder of another family connection, Laurie Strode, who is oblivious to any past the psycothic killer had created.

Hot on the trail of Michael, Loomis is adamant to get in contact with Laurie as she spends her Halloween night babysitting Tommy Doyle (Brian Andrews). However it is not all horror movies and pumpkin making as Laurie converts into survival mode as when Tommy told her he had seen the boogieman previously, she should have believed him.

My favourite horror movie, if you want to call it horror? unlike a majority of Horrors of that era, Halloween was so original in terms of frightening you with nothing other than suspense. John Carpenter did not need a truck full of fake blood to convince the audience of the dangers of someone with a psycothic frame of mind. A simple concept; an average joe in a Captain Kirk mask. Let's not forget the anticipation of the classic theme tune which proved another simple way of terrifying the audience without revealing anything.

Halloween is also one of the originals to introduce what lurks in the background. Like I said, Michael Myers is an average Joe with a twisted heart. The concept of someone watching you, but yet not knowing, will always give me goose bumps. Of course a lot of movies are created on the monsters of our dreams, and done it so well, but Halloween will always frighten me with its short, yet mediocre plot that proves a possibility along with a more realistic chance of being stalked by the unknown.

In so many parts of this movie, Loomis sums up what he is feeling, and somehow you believe in his disturbia, hoping his presence will prevent the horror that eventually follows.

Dr Loomis - "I spent eight years trying to reach him, and then another seven trying to keep him locked up because I realised what was living behind that boy's eyes was purely and simply... evil."

The acting is mundane but acceptable. Jamie Lee Curtis was so amateur in this movie but some how I believe there could have been no other. The sequels, threequels etc that would follow eventually made Laurie strode out to be some sort of "Sarah Connor" when in fact the original shows the conversion of  vulnerability to survival mode that leads to a dramatic conclusion in the film. However it was not fully a bad thing they opened the door for a sequel, I enjoyed the follow up, but the rest were pure garbage. In fact I think it is sometimes fun to watch the apparent trilogy to really embrace how much a qualitative piece of work John Carpenter created back in 1978.

Overall; John Carpenters Halloween is and always will be one of the best horror/suspenseful thrillers ever made. Along with The Thing and Psycho, this can not be missed come October 31st.

Sinister

                                           "Once you see him, nothing can save you"

Sinister is written and directed by Scott Derrickson, who judging by his resume, this guy loves his horror movies; that I don't have a problem with! I was really looking forward to this flick for two reasons; Insidious was one of my favourite horror movies of the last ten years, so my anticipation grew with the production of Sinister carrying the same producer. And B, prior to seeing Sinister, I watched "House at the End of the street" which left me desperate for something fresh.

Ellison (Ethan Hawke) is an accomplished writer who brews his career through the premise of true-crime stories. His obsession is based on the majority of murders and mysteries surrounding them with a weight of controversy surrounding his Journalistic morals.

Ellison is hell bent on reaching a peak he is yet to discover in his career while trying to convince himself of the stories he covers are for the people, and not for fame. It is no convenience when he moves his family into their new home, a suburban crime scene; a freakish killing spree that resulted in the hanging of an entire family. Desperate for his big break, Ellison has to manage the Ora surrounding the town and its unspoken crime and his wife Tracy (Juliet Rylance) who is convinced of a refreshing start to a troubled past.

Although the Sheriff (Fred Dalton Thompson) voiced his own opinion on Ellison's reputation, it doesn't stop the willingness behind Ellison's personality as he stumbles across a box of horrific surprises that hold a motive behind his current investigation.

Without hesitation, Ellison puts the mysterious reel of tapes together as he is disturbed but yet satisfied to witness a plethora of found-footage images that take him on a journey through a nightmare worse than he could have imagined.

Desperate to fulfil is unwanted duties, Ellison discovers a dark figure within the murders; a supernatural spirit that haunts those who discover the tapes.

Ellison's insight into the murders reveal an origin of secrets that is sure to shock the town as he believes, in cliche journalistic fashion, "the people must to know". Although Ellison is not prepared for the danger he could place on his wife and kids as a demon lurks behind his projector of evidence.

Judging a book by its cover is not my thing, but by its introduction, that is how I roll!. On the off, Sinister invites you down a dark and twisted path, most likely a journey that you will have never witnessed before. The first scene reveals a taste of refreshing initiative. Originality is not the main key to Sinister because to be blunt, it ain't original, but it is really scary.

The main premise is the constant suspense that is revealed within the tapes. It is not graphically gory, just down right disturbing with each video backed up with a frightening tune. Just like Paranormal Activity, the majority of scares are within the backing of found-footage. But apart from the mundane routine events in 21st century horror movies, Sinister succeeds in disturbing the mind of the viewer without actual "Jump-Scares".

The plot is fascinating in it's own sick way, following a puzzle that I had no idea how it would come together, but it did, and it did so in original fashion.

Looking at the majority of Horrors this year, it is obvious to label Sinister as the best and certainly the scariest movie of 2012 thus far. I adore my horror movies so I was quite satisfied with a concept that is not entirely fresh, but revealed scenes with simple ideas and found a way of visually implanting an image into the viewers head. It is not always about the full on graphic that disturbs the mind, it is the motive behind it that really gets the viewers asking questions, and better yet, remembering something that almost feels a supernatural reality.

Overall; Not entirely original with the folks behind the scenes nit-picking at Insidious and Paranormal Activity. However, the overall creation of horror is really frightening, with scenes that some viewers may find disturbing. Sinister is a successful result of a genre that has unfortunately been the subject of poor and effortless movies lately. Halloween is approaching, don't hesitate with this one!

7/10

House at the end of the street Review

I have come to learn what was once described a "Horror" genre is now a word that is well and truly deceased. We think Horror and reminisce on classics such as A Nightmare on Elm Street, The Thing and many others I am sure to think of once I sign off! Suspense thriller is now a descriptive genre that has been around for a while, but I still find myself phrasing horror. The fact the majority of poor Suspenseful horrors have torched us over the years, I think I am finally ready let go of a genre that will always be remembered for its recognition through-out the 70's and 80's.

In terms of the review ahead, let's start off by referencing the quotes in the image above; The following movie is NOT deeply scary with a twist that is far from awesome but is in fact decent, a word equivalent to acceptable where I come from.

 What seems an ideal family dream home, Elissa (Jennifer Lawrence) is the first to find conspicuous events surrounding the landscape of their new home and the rural town within. Her mother Sarah (Elisabeth Shue) is desperate to remain optimistic and sees the move a fresh start from a troubled past we know little about.

Elissa is more than a little helpful after learning a murder had occurred in their new home, leading to flirty chats between herself and ideal genre heartthrob Ryan (Max Thieriot), the son and last remaining member of the murdered family. The long time suspect is Ryan's younger sister who, since the killing has never been seen. While a myth of the demented sister lurking the backyard of the woods, we see Ryan is holding her on basement arrest to savour himself of any further troubles.

With the plot praying on a routine escape from the enslaved sister, most of the movie focuses on a developing relationship between Elissa and Ryan, despite the despicable weight from the locals. Just like your basic romance concept, the mother isn't happy for obvious reasons, Elissa wants to be with him so there is nothing anyone can do. The film gets to the point where you forget there is a girl being starved in Ryan's basement. The movies backbone is depending on the occasional fright from the sister while trying to balance a chemistry of love that blends together like Tabasco and tea!

There is a twist that you feel quite privileged to have witnessed first off, but give it time. You ever find leaving a movie and thinking "yeah, somewhere in the back of my mind I enjoyed parts of the flick", but the more you think about it, clever twist or not, the majority of the film was rubbish. There is more suspense slash horror in the Gremlins, honestly.

Note; The House at the end of the street is indeed at the end of a drive-way surrounded by a concept of creepy woods. You won't find a street associated with any house in this film.

So with an old school introduction that was quite pleasing in terms of scary, it quickly changed course trying to develop something completely different to what the trailer had revealed. A twist at the end does not make up for the first 95 minutes.

Overall; A typically mundane attempt at a tiring genre. Just another cheap concept that although supplied an okay twist, the overall suspense and characters involved where downright careless. Wait for Sinister!

The Imposter

The Imposter is a dark and twisted tale that follows the heartbreaking events of a Texas family who describe their path of betrayal in what was supposed to be the homecoming of their 16 year old son.

Narrated by the perpetrator himself, Frédéric Bourdin invites you to follow his devious yet genius plan to disguise his personality. Frederic claims to be 16 year old teenager Nicholas Barclay who despite disappearing 3 years prior, has now turned up in Spain. With very little known of Frederic Bourdin, the french national labels himself a humble guy who was brought up in unfortunate circumstances. He tries convincing the audience to see a positive motive behind was to become a media sensation.

The concept follows an element of two sides consisting of reenactments from Frederic's trail, to actual footage of his time with his new family. On the other hand, the movie focuses on the bereavement and public outcry as members of the family, including the sister of Nicholas, Carey Gibson.  Carey continuously reveals how foolishly tricked she was, as well as numerous relatives being suckered into believing Frederic is 16 year old Nicholas.

Frederic Bourdin's position on the streets had to be convincing, selling the Texas based family a story that might not convince your average Joe, but certainly worked due to an in depth fictional mindset. Frederic sells Carey a 3 year biography of torture and abuse, his pupils being discoloured to prevent him being recognised is just one of many sickening lies from Frederic.

What is originally a straight forward and a surprisingly achievable lie, it is when the story of the boy's return goes viral, inviting people that Frederic and the family did not want. This leads to a nail biting twist and some serious consequences for both Frederic and the Texan family.

Director Bart Layton provided all the ingredients in making a well shot, factual based documentary that unfolds the origin of a qualified fabricator and blending it with a tragic tale of a young boys life. Although the characters involved are highly relevant, one can not help in thinking Bart Layton could have gathered more individuals to explain what is still a mysterious story. Instead, we are left listening to Carey Gibson and the mother who come across annoyingly gullible. In fact they are stupidly fooled into believing they are reunited with Nicholas who, as we can clearly see is not the boy he was 3 years ago. Still, the story is extremely interesting and highly memorable for the narration of Frederic Bourdin who reveals the "in your face" presence that is felt through-out the film as well as the screen your sitting in.

The Imposter is deluding and some what a disgusting portrayal of a con artist that would be forever recognised for misleading an oblivious family awaiting the return of their son, Nicholas Barclay.

Overall; For the lack of documentaries in cinemas, this one, like many, is worth a watch. If you can see past the idiotic family, you will find the Imposter is both enjoyable and very frightening.

7.5/10

Insidious Review 2012

Insidious is a classic piece of work released in 2010. It follows the Horror slash chiller path, representing a genre that has failed cinemas for the past 10 years . Certain Horror movies have made a significant mark in cinema history, dating as far back to the genuis work in "It"(1990), Halloween (1978), "Friday the 13th (1980) and "A Nightmare on elm street"(1984). Those few of many classics are fine examples of the word, "Horror" as they were successful in frightening the audience, leaving visual implants into the brain of the average viewer. If you are still thinking of a movie that scared you mentally and physically before you go to bed at night? that movie had done it's job. If you find yourself watching it for the next 20 years or so, it is indeed a classic. Similar to my examples above. Another example, Insidious.

Dalton Lambert (Ty Simpkins) falls suddenly into a catastrophic coma following an accident in the family's abandoned attic. The parents, Josh and Renai are bewildered to the result that follows as Dalton is hospitalised before being transferred home to be treated further more.

The Coma appears far from basic as several months on reveal Dalton is no closer to being revived. It is when spiritual happenings occur through-out the house that Renai (Rose Byrne) begins to question the possible relation to the apparent haunting and her son, Dalton.

Josh (Patrick Wilson) is your typical male, ideal father. Although he is paranoid for the safety of his son, he does not believe in Paranormal activity. The films disturbing plot is seen through the eyes of Renai and Josh as we watch their creepy situations come to life. As Dalton lies lifeless in his bed, both parents are caught up in haunting visions and disturbing sounds as whatever it is stalking the family home, it appears to be coming from Dalton's room.

In a desperate bid to seek and rid the house of the evil spirits, Renai invites paranormal doctor Elise (Lin Shaye) in a last ditch attempt to convince herself that she is not going insane. The Inclusion of Lin Shaye proved a touch of class as the result of her inclusion is highly memorable, offering a more darker feel than her character "Elise" originally intended.

A haunting tale with a slight twist, Insidious looks and feels awesome. The movie is shot with a dull shade of grey, giving off a depressing feel to what seems ever so real. There are some jumpy scenes that will guarantee the awakening of the average viewer.

A great introduction with a snip of relation to the vintage Hammer production, with a frightening violin tune that the mind will struggle to erase once the movie comes to a climax. Without saying too much about such a clever and tense concept, it is a plot that should be truly revealed in a dark room, by yourself!

This review is based off my viewing of Insidious the second time around. I am delighted to say it scared me senseless, just as it did upon its original release.

Taking into account what we have seen over the years, Insidious finishes top with one of the best horror movies of the past ten years. The last movie released that blends into this category is "Drag Me to Hell" by Sam Raimi . Also a must see for all horror fans.

Insidious did all the right things for me. It had me shook in a disturbing way, a way that makes me want to witness its crafty work over and over again.

The Grey Review 2012

"There is blood in the air, and death. They can smell it... they know we are wounded...just hope they don't f**k with us"!

Those are the chilling words from Ottway, Liam Neeson's relentless character, who stars in The Grey.  A group of Oil riggers are flying over the Alaskan outskirts when horrific turbulence causes the plane to crash, leaving numerous casualties. 

The crew of twenty something, cut down to seven survivors, are left to survive in the blistering cold, heavy snow, with a slim chance of finding home. One of the survivors Ottway (Neeson), is trying to come to terms of what had just happened. Considering himself lucky, he is determined to get home safely.  As the group of men begin planning a way out, it isn't long before they realise they are not alone. The abandoned scenery is hunted by Alaskan wolves.

We soon learn a bit of Ottways past, as we get brief flashbacks, almost haunting images of life back home. His skills are surprising as we learn just how beneficial he could be to surviving the wrath of killer wolves.

The Grey is a fantastic survival movie. The horror concept and the teasing plot puts it up their with The Thing (Not the remake!). Liam Neeson dominates his role of leadership. One genius starts to question Ottways suggestions, in believing if they stay at the plane wreck, they will be found. Ottway tells him  "No one is coming for us! If we don't move, we will freeze to death...that's one thing that will come for you". Cold, yet honest words from Neeson's character.

The movie offers brilliant performances from all the cast, with the vicious wolves looking ever so real. The scenery is quality, both in the haunting night, and day. The viewer is left wide-eyed when you hear the wolves calling for their prey!

I was shocked to find the gruesomeness in some scenes, but it suited well to the movies chilling concept. I mean let's face it...the aftermath of death from a murderous Wolf isn't exactly like a poop left unflushed? This is full on. And it rocks!

This will be, surprising to most, one of the best movies of the year. (I know, I am way to early, ah well).

As for the ending? Of course I won't go into that, but to say this. A lot of viewers will despise it, after such a thrilling beginning. I for one had no problems with it. In fact, I got so much enjoyment from the first 110 minutes, that it just breezed over my head.

See for yourself.

The Thing Review 2011

The Thing. Not John Carpenters cult classic, but an apparent prequel to the original. Let's face it, last year when myself, as well as most heard of a new release of the Thing? automatically I thought, okay, another horror remake. Horror remakes, or any remake if you like have an awful habit of staying a float in the sink for a good hour or so before quickly releasing the plug as we watch, happily, as it flows down the drain! It surprised me a couple of days ago before seeing the movie that they had set it out to be a prequel to the first. That was the reason I decided to push myself into seeing it without having to judge it based on John Carpenter's version.

So here we go. Kate Llode (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is a graduate student who some how finds herself tagging along side a Dr Sander Halvorson, who's played by Ulrich Thomsen. The two, also accompanied by a group of scientists and pilots are held together at an Antarctica Research facility (a couple a miles from the 1982 base might I add).

It becomes clear that Dr Sanders is after something not yet known to the rest of the crew. The movie eventually lifts off after they discover the alien life form frozen in one giant ice cube! The find quickly lights up the eyes of Sanders as he sees this as a great discovery that could possible get his name down in history. Himself and the scientist pitch an idea of moving the alien from outside into a Lab inside were they can run some tests and try discover what exactly they are dealing with.

Kate, who seems paranoid over the idea of running tests on the alien creature quickly makes it known to Sanders about her feelings and safety. We get introduced to Carter (Joel Edgerton) who is a pilot for the facility. Kate turns to Carter after failing to talk to Sanders out of his plans. According to Dr Sanders, they have made the discovery of a life time as he fails to understand why Kate is blind to that.

A good half hour into the movie was all it took for the Thing to be left alone. The crew had left it out back, still in the ice cube. I am guessing to let the ice melt? Then Boom! the Thing is released and goes on a rampage. The idea of it's agility to kill and transform by embracing human cells is quality. It was nice to see it keep the same isolated scene...kind of like in Alien? Were in space it said no one can here you scream? yeah, kind of along the lines of that. But not as amazing...obviously. The idea of any group of people being picked off one by one by anything always makes for an entertaining movie.

The CGI in the Thing, was in fact horrific. There was one part, without saying, that was pretty decent, but the rest was hideous. In modern day effects in movies, especially one that's supposed to involve a gruesome looking alien? they should have done miles better with the look of the Thing. I did not want to rub off the original too much, although I might have had already, but the director labelled it a prequel? A lot of what you see in this is exactly what you will find in the 1982 version.

As for characters, there is no one in this movie that you grow to like, or even dislike. They are all quite anonymous. Joel Edgerton, who is clearly supposed to be the equivalent to Kurt Russel's character just never takes off. It is fair to say Joel is the best actor in the movie, but in fairness most of the characters never got a look in. My point is there was never a character in the movie you find yourself rooting for. Maybe the Thing? but that's it.

Overall the movie stuck to some important spectacles of the original. The chilling base isolated in the middle of the Antarctica definitely succeeded in adding horror to the movie. I was delighted to still hear the creepy tune that plays through-out the movie. There were scenes I did find myself jumping to, to be honest. The cinema can do that to you sometimes!

So fans of the 1982 classic might find this movie hard to avoid. I would advise them to see it to judge themselves. The Thing is also for any horror fans just looking for a good scare mixed with the entertainment of watching humans get splattered! This was in no way a bad movie, but unfortunately fails to be anything other than mediocre.

I believe, if this was meant as a prequel? it should have been giving a title, with a title. So instead it is just the Thing? just like, the Thing in 1982. But hey, don't be fooled...apparently it isn't a remake.

A horror movie that is worth a watch, but don't expect to remember it after your next movie of choice.