Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Jay Hunter's Journal of Horror Films
Options
Comments
-
Microsoft Kinect presents Paranormal Activity 4
Plot :
When an odd boy stays with the family across the street, odd happenings start to occur around the house.
Cast :
This time the protagonist is also the film's target demographic, a young teenage girl Alex (Kathryn Newton). What little exposition is done by herself and her typical douchebag male friend, Ben (Matt Shively). Her younger brother Wyatt becomes increasingly distant as he spends more time with creepy kid Robbie.
Thoughts on the Film :
The film leans HEAVILY on startling, lots of quietly walking around, people appear/there's a bang. There is actually a scene of Alex walking around in the dark, slowly, waiting for the jump scare. When her mam asks her why, she literally says "I don't know". We know - lazy writing.
There's numerous blatant advertising in the film (pepsi, Kinect etc). It's very noticeable.
New Film PoV : From one static camera (PA1), to security cameras (PA2), to a camera on a rotating fan axis (PA3), to now, multiple static cameras, "webcam view" (someone's face takes up most of the screen, we also see the background behind her) and infrared Kinect vision. Both are actually quite cool, with great potential for scares. Unfortunately the film never delivers.
Pragmatic things like the parents don't mind everyone's laptops running 24/7 and their Kinect/laptop/light switch setup wouldn't work in reality bugged me. It's more noticeable if the film is poor. They must have two laptops in Wyatt's room as there's two different static camera positions.
Time spent with young American teens is grating, but I'd imagine it's accurate.
Nobody listens in this film, so the film can progress like the writer/director wants. Sigh! We get a shoe-horned "parents don't get along" to explain why they dismiss these shocking occurances. "Hey! This thing almost killed me!" "Just go to bed." It's annoying at this point.
Audio-wise, I get it's part of the scare, but the combination of people whispering far away from the camera, and really loud bangs make the film a frustrating experience.
Plot Wise :
PA3 expanded on the background of the franchise but this one offers almost nothing - very disappointing. What's (not) happening in the house can't carry the film by itself. There's about 4 lines in the film that deal with backstory.So... Hunter? After Katie killed her family and her sister's family, she abducted Hunter. But apparently she left the woods, put on her Sunday best and went to the adoption agency. And who's the f**k is Robbie? Katie didn't have kids, Hunter is the first born male child in generations. This annoyed me - I held judgement until the film was over but it was never explained. BOOO.
The film ends the same way as #3, except much crappier. The all-female PA fan club show up - it was really very lame. As is the really played out "my face is a demon face" effect.
Overall : This film should never have been made - this is the definition of a cash-grab. The film has plot retconning just to make the film - they're clearly out of ideas. Avoid this film.0 -
-
-
The Pact (2012)
Plot :
Annie (Caity Lotz) returns to town for her mother's funeral. When her sister Nicole (Agnes Bruckner) goes missing, and strange occurances happen in her late mother's house, she pledges to uncover the mystery.
Thoughts on the film :
- "The Pact" itself is never referenced or explained. What was it?! :mad:
- There is minimal exposition, it feels like we're missing the first 20 minutes of the film. Although you find out the story by the end, there's very little to go on for a while. Hearing a bump every now and then isn't really enthralling.
- They start with the less pretty sister, then move the film's focus to the prettier one. I wonder if that was a conscious decision.
- Annie believes her sister has left town, but is surprisingly cool with going back into an obviously haunted & likely malevolent house.
- Getting a medium that looks like a human 'corpse bride' was pretty good.
- There is a storyline reason for it, but the film is aggravatingly shot in the dark. Protagonists shuffle around in the pitch black house for no reason other than for the film to grasp some atmosphere.
- About the unnaturally dark house, they say that electricity attracts the spirit...wouldn't it brighten the house then? Maybe it absorbs the light/electricity.
- I've never seen a makeshift Ouija board before. And it works!
- Weaving in a much bigger story, and the twist that takes the past into the present was pretty well done, definitely best part of the film.
- They go for some really obvious scares, and decide not to in other circumstances. Couple of groaners.
Overall, it's a very average forgettable film, but it's not a bad film. The impromptu revelation that leads into the finale makes the film an acceptable watch.0 -
The Wicked (2013)
Cast : Nobody you know
Plot : Scary folklore in the small town of Summerset becomes the talking point after a child is snatched from her bed. The tale goes that there's a (wicked) witch that lives in the woods. If you smash a window of her cabin, she hunts you down & abducts/kills you, especially young children, which maintains her lifeforce. Teenage douchebags head to the woods to see if it's true.
Thoughts on the film:
- The most obvious problem is Don't Show The Witch! She looks incredibly hokey. It's plainly some cheap prosthetics and is wildly unimpressive! I know the CG smoke must be expensive but it's a hard sell seeing the state of the supposedly scary witch. As soon as you see her hand and she looks to be dressed like a drunken hobo, it's hard to take it seriously.
- The characters are mostly unlikeable (most prominently there's a stereotypical college guy and his bland/quieter/more sensitive teen brother, and a bratty teen girl who wants to make prank calls, breaks people's things and doesn't bother to show up for her friends' grandfather's funeral)
- There's no nudity to distract you from the flaws.
- Characters go from 'I'm scared I can't move' to 'I've got a plan let's go' and 'i'm terrified' to a calm 'sure no problem' a bit too fast.
- Sets, set dressing, props etc are all bog standard so (like the brown cob-webs) look pretty hokey.
But what was good about the film?
- There's a lots of different people, and only one witch, who doesn't kill people straight away (she has a ritual) so there's a continual merry-go-round of who gets caught, who gets free and frees others & tries to escape, gets caught/who dies, who gets freed etc etc and that really does keep the storyline ticking over.
- The opening bits with the typical blurry spectre (dis-)appearing and the kids smashing the window (invoking the witch - who was minding her own business by the way!) and shadows in the window were pretty cool. The 'oh sh** it's real!' aspect was good fun.
- I always find the gimmick of folklore interesting, and that it's true, and deal with it right now! Imagine if the Blair Witch Project was just the opening half hour of a horror film, and they tried to escape! That's pretty interesting, right?
Overall : There's nothing particularly redeeming about the film, it's a big shame about how cheap the witch is - it really breaks suspension of disbelief. It's just some clumsy woman in a costume! The characters aren't particularly likeable and I can't recommend the film, but...I found it an easy watch. The will they/won't they escape cycle was fun.
0 -
Advertisement
-
This review contains some minor spoilers, but nothing beyond what the trailer shows.
Dark Skies (2013)
Cast :
Father Daniel Barrett (Josh Hamilton - Robert Irwin in J. Edgar), wife Lacy (Keri Russell, the kidnapped sister from The Marine 3), older son Jesse (Dakota Goyo, Max from Real Steel) and younger son Sam (Kadan Rockett).
Plot :
Daniel Barrett has a typical American family, but money problems are putting a strain on everyone. A series of odd occurrences happen around the house & (initially) their youngest child. These increase in severity and lead them to believe something malevolent is targeting them.
Thoughts on the Film :
- It's blatantly obvious that this flim has ties to Insidious and Sinister (same producer), since this film combines the two and adds aliens (called "The Greys"). Thankfully it's shot traditionally and NOT 'found footage'! From the way the characters learn more about what is causing these disturbances, to setting up many cameras around the house and reviewing it the next day, it might feel like you've already watched this film.
- The film does a good job at building tension. The first visible sighting of The Greys in the film is a great shock. The dialogue stops when it needs to.
- Shock-horror? There is use (but not abuse) of the 'startling' loud bang moments.
- There's some cringe-worthy coming-of-age dialogue with elder son Jesse but it's not much of the film.
- I enjoyed the ominous signs & 'things that can't be naturally explained' such as birds converging on a particular house.
- As with these 'haunted house' films, it seems incredulous that the family would not move when such obvious bad things are happening in their home - I appreciate the film quickly mentioning that moving house would not solve the problem.
- There's somewhat heavy-handed commentary on family : Financial woes are causing strife between the parents, the husband wants to internalize his worries and denies problems, dismissing the child's explanations, and parents failing to communicate with their children. This is mirrored with the unsettling events in the house causing upset & denial, and when temporarily possessed, the family members literally can't talk (to each other). The Greys want to tear the family apart, much like their own problems. The film comes right out and preaches to the audience when the parents are told that a strong family unit will save them from The Greys. Hilarious jump-cut to the father disregarding that and buying guns and has no idea where his kids are. I also thought it was hilariously shoe-horned that the final act takes place on July 4th with Stars & Stripes/fireworks playing.
- There's an unnecessary somewhat SAW-like 'revelation/explanation' at the end that the audience would've figured out by then. But hey -best be sure everyone in the audience understands why.
Overall :
The build and tension increases throughout the film, and it's well done, but it's a rather short pay-off and the film as a whole isn't particularly scary (like most horror films). The protagonist father isn't that amiable either. This was a better than average sci-fi/horror film but it's main problem is that it really does feel unoriginal. A mix of previously-worn ideas with a fresher idea on top. But it is a decent watch...You won't be enriched by it, but it'll easily hold your attention.0 -
Mama (2013)
I included a clip instead of the trailer. Whoever made the trailer doesn't know anything about horror, or playing to this film's strengths. The trailer would actually turn you off seeing this movie.
Plot :
2 young, newly-orphaned children are left in the woods. When they are eventually found 5 years later, they are feral and speak of a protective force called "Mama".
Cast :
Written/Directed by Andrés Muschietti, E.P. Guillermo del Toro.
Nikolaj Coster-Waldau (aka King Slayer/Jaime Lannister from Game of Thrones) plays both the father & uncle to the kids. Jessica Chastain (Maya, Zero Dark Thirty) plays his girlfriend Annabel, the daughters Victoria & Lilly (played by Megan Charpentier - Red Queen from Resident Evil 5, and Isabelle Nélisse - Simone from Whitewash respectively).
Thoughts on the film :
• Within minutes of the film you'll see how creepy and higher-quality this film is.
• Excellent use of shot composition (like shooting the hall, while being able to see into rooms in front of and behind it) and wonderful camera movement, giving a really very creepy atmosphere. There's a scene where the camera pans watching Annabel, but in the darkness, Lilly (the younger, more detached, feral girl) comes out of a box - sounds contrived but it's unsettling, the film has lots of 'em and it's great. Seeing the two kids in the new house walking around is sad and captivating.
• The foreboding by odd-happenings/presence around the house is great, such as Lilly gleefully playing tug-of-war with a bedsheet with something off-camera.
• Del Toro's 16:9 aspect ratio. Thank you.
• Perfect mix of expected scares, jump scares and building tension/creepiness.
• Gradual unveiling of Mama (who is CG) is done really very well. You know how Jeepers Creepers went terrible when you saw the ghost? This is the opposite of that. Short bursts used judiciously throughout the film, increasing as you find out more. It couldn't be done physically so doing this was the best you could do. Top notch stuff.
• Lilly is FANTASTIC. And I hate child actors. The use of CG with the kids being ferral is brilliant. Her unnatural movement, emaciated/disheveled look is constantly unsettling. They only need them to be animalistic/contort for a handful of shots and it's very effective and freaky.
• Annabel has a great story arc. She's the girlfriend, bassist in a rock band helping out as a good girlfriend, becomes a completely reluctant mother figure.I was surprised and intrigued how she became the primary 'good guy'. She literally starts off her story saying thanking God she's not pregnant/not a mother! How she continues on at the end does seem a bit odd seeing how powerful Mama is.• As if rehabilitating these kids and apparently their protector isn't enough, there's Lucas' brother's mother-in-law looking to gain custody of the children. You hate her in the short amount of screen-time she gets.
• There is a nice but not-altogether-that-important plot twist/revelation.
• Use (change & lack of colours) for flashbacks are beautiful.
• The use of children, and protecting them against a supernatural foe, use of insects (moths instead of flies), the way information is uncovered, use of psychiatric tapes, recalling shots from earlier in the movie, splicing past with present footage, and where the final act/confrontation takes place is very reminiscent of The Ring. Considering that's my favourite horror movie, that's a great thing. It's perfectly laid out, makes sense, an unexpected explanation, the characters evolve/change, and all comes back around. Excellent.
Ok I must have some negatives....!
• They re-use the 'saw'/Read Window use-a-camera-as-a-light-source terrifying trick that does work, although it's not that new, it's still creepy.
• It was lame when "M-A-M-A-M-A-M-A-M-A-"[etc] showed up on a hospital display. Boo!
• Lucas (Jaime Lannister) had a smaller role than I would've hoped. But this gives way to a much better story arc (Annabel's) so again, not really a complaint!
• There's a scene that overstays it's welcome a little and shows their kids' acting up.
These negatives are all very small compared to the wealth of positives of this film.
OVERALL : Go and see Mama! It may remind you of other films, but it's one of the creepiest films I've seen in a long time. Lilly is brilliant & for once the child actors are great! HIGHLY recommended.0 -
The Box (2009)
Yes. For some reason the marketing department added the SAW theme to the end of this trailer.
*Note : This review contains spoilers*
Cast :
Cameron Diaz, and James Marsden (Cyclops). Written/directed by Richard Kelly (Donnie Darko) and Richard Matheson.
Trivia :
This film is based off a short story called "Button Button" by Richard Matheson in 1970. It was used in a Twilight Zone episode in 1986.
Plot :
A mid-30s couple with a son is delivered a box with a button. Push the button, a stranger will die, and you receive $1,000,000. Do you push it?
Thoughts on the film :
- The premise of the plot has me intrigued. Unfortunately they only spend a few scenes deliberating this moral quandry, and well, the story wouldn't be any good if they didn't push it and went on with their lives. So they do, and the story unfurls out in a parade of piece-it-together explanations, extra-terrestrial plot developments, some lame attempt at social commentary & finger-wagging, and you're left with a rather unsatisfactory film that pitched something interesting but quickly ran in the other direction, involving pod people and some other tripe.
- It's set in the 70s, so there's lots of set-dressing/nods of "hey this is the 70s".
- Runs 1hr 55, far too long for a convoluted story that devolves into a boring sci-fi story.
Overall : The initial question is something to chat about over a pint (and spice it up by asking if you'd push it, if it was someone you met over the course of your life) but this film is a waste of time, and about half an hour too long. Avoid.0 -
Evil Dead (2013)*Don't watch the trailer if you haven't already. Some really cool parts are in this trailer that are best seen while watching the film. Go see it!*
Production :
Directed by Fede Alvarez, produced by Sam Raimi, Bruce Campbell and Robert G. Tapert
Cast :
Not Bruce Campbell, just accept that he's not in it. Hey! Did you know, the names of the main characters (David, Eric, Mia, Olivia, Natalie) form an acrostic spelling of the word Demon? How about that.
Plot :
For all intents and purposes, this is a 'group of Americans in a cabin' movie. But it happens to be the Evil Dead experience. These friends are here in order to help one member, Mia, beat her drug addiction and become clean. They find some occult objects in the cabin cellar. When things get unnaturally weird, two things compel them to stay : They have no intention of failing to get her clean again, and it's raining so hard the road is out - they can't leave.
Thoughts on the film :
• This film doesn't have Bruce Campbell, just accept it, don't take it out on this film! I feel that people may be basing their love of him because they had 3 films with Bruce, as opposed to just the first film, which seriously did not age well.
• This could be seen as a slasher flick, as a deadly force terrorises and picks off the group one by one.
• As with most slashers, the cast is largely unmemorable. They dress very plainly, and they do have a hippie douche, so it well could be the 70s, even though it's present day. A small point, but I took umbrage that it was the calm nurse that took the lead in health treatment of the group and not the 'scatterbrain' doctor.
• The unveiling of the Necronomicon is pretty cool. It's not a big thing but I thought the gravity given to getting to open the book was great. The images in the book are cool, and in some instances they herald what's coming next; a great way to anticipate the next nasty shot.(Specifically thinking of the 'victim will cut her face off', and in the dark you can hear the girl furiously cutting with a small knife)• I did feel getting the Evil Dead spirit into the house & possession/torture did happen pretty quickly. Some things (like in the thorn bush) I expected to happen later in the film. That said, the pace is kept up, things happen quite quickly and there's little down time.
• There is some really wonderfully gratuitous gore. Some of it is quite over the top but any horror fan should love what they've done. Funnily enough there were more people wincing at the stunts (eg hitting your back off the toilet) rather than the nasty stuff. Some of the coolest parts are seen in the trailer, that are not as impactful in the movie since you've seen it already.
• I appreciate there was no cheap "BANG! SHOCK!" horror bits. They preempt any shock contrivances (eg reflection in the mirror, nothing's there, something's there!) so you know it's coming, and don't go for the loud-noise scares.
• I was hoping to hear"Klaatu barada nikto" and "dead by dawn" so that was a little disappointing.• There is little to no CG, the gore is all practical effects, and it's really wonderful. It gives it so much more realism, something that'd be very lame in CG.
• They drop a few plot points that are easy to remember and I like how they were used later in the film. For people who've seen some weird stuff, they sure don't gather their weapons or even keep an eye on them. It works better for the plot but after it happens a few times you start to side with the demon...
• The last 20 minutes of the film were great. It was like an extra bonus, some cool stuff.I loved the blood rain, and the tease and getting the 'end of days', but the Abomination from hell turned out to be not as awesome as the name suggests! The chainsaw finish was really very enjoyable.• In the credits, there's some audio from the original evil dead from the first film, and a snippet afterwards - nothing huge but you should stick around if you see the movie.
Overall : This is the best cabin horror movie I've seen. Ok, it's no Evil Dead 2 and the characters are forgettable, but the pace, gore and Evil Dead routine is a lot of fun. Go see it.0 -
Texas Chainsaw 3D (2013)
Cast :
Alexandra Daddario (Annabeth Chase from Percy Jackson) as the protagonist, Heather Miller, and 6'6" Dan Yeager as Leatherface.
Plot :
This slasher flick is about Heather Miller, a regular 20-something girl, who receives word of her inheritance. She heads down to her new, large, old house in a small Texan town with her friends...Turns out it has a sordid past & deadly secret.
3D :
I saw the 3D version. There are a lot of parts where the film just looks 2D, but there are definitely some "hey look it's 3D!" parts, so it's best watched with those uncomfortable glasses.
Thoughts on the film :
• This is a sequel to the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) and not the other 5 TCM films.
• Opening credits : recaps the main scenes from the original, now in 3D, which was pretty cool to see.
• Prologue : picks off right at the end of the original, which is also pretty cool. It plays into this film's storyline, which is nicely weaved.
• Characters : your stock care-free Americans waiting to be picked off, but they aren't as annoying as in other films.
• I'm surprised despite the film being Rated-R, and the protagonist having large breasts, there is no nudity.
• We all know there's gonna be a scene where Leatherface (who's never actually called that) is going to be running after Heather with a chainsaw. Thankfully it happens about 40 minutes into the film, and so the film is past that, and can continue.
• Why he uses a chainsaw as his weapon of choice isn't explained. It just feels a bit odd as he has a cupboard full of them.
• There's only a few gory bits, it's not a gore-fest.
• Grating use of "the car won't start!" hackneyed tension spot.
• Not too much stupidity in the film, beyond two instances(the sheriff is evil, but you get into the back of a police car, and the other girl having a shotgun, using it, but not bringing it with her)• Some suspension of disbelief is required when a police officer checks the house, holding up his iPhone with the video function on so the lads back at the police station can see what he sees. This severely limits his attention and steadiness of his gun. Ridiculous! But it made for an interesting scene - probably the best scene in the film.
• I chuckled when "the letter that explains everything" was given at the start of the film, but not opened until the end so it provides a fitting conclusion/revelation.
• The final 20 minutes make sense and a satisfying conclusion. Nothing great, but better than expected.
Overall : Pretty average slasher film. Don't go out of your way to see it.0 -
Advertisement
-
Irish film : Dead Bodies (2003)
Synopsis :
Not so much a horror as it is a dark thriller/drama starring Andrew Scott (Jim Moriarty, BBC's Sherlock Holmes). Tommy (Scott) is a regular 20-something Irish lad whose ex-girlfriend accidentally dies after a fight. Fearing he'll go to jail, he decides to hide the body instead, and things spiral out from there.
Thoughts on the film :
- Always enjoyable to see Irish films & actors
- Not large budget
- Starts as quite comical before taking a turn
- Some bits require suspension of disbelief
- One quite unexpected scare
- Lots of twists/developments
- No real standout moments or quality drama but perfectly fine.
Overall : Decent watch but nothing special.0 -
Warm Bodies (2013)
Cast :
Directed & written by Johnathan Levine (50/50, All The Boys Love Mandy Lane) , and Nicholas Hoult (Beast in XMen First Class) as "R", an atypical zombie, and Teresa Palmer (Number 6 in I Am Number Four) as Julie.
Plot :
Looking for his next meal, the undead R feels something for a human survivor (Julie). When he saves her from being eaten by others, they strike up a friendship...and maybe more.
Thoughts on the film :
• This is a film aimed at teenagers. Only teenagers. Did you know that love and feelings can undo being undead? The world's prettiest zombie started feeling! Maybe I can change him!
• Musical interludes and dialogue are very teen-centric as well. From "stop shrugging, shrugger", why vinyl sounds better, to "you rescued me, like, a bunch". Her ditsy friend Nora is the typical gal-pal comic relief. OMG Make-over!
• There are two types of undead, zombies (who still contain some humanity) and "Bonies", skeleton-like creatures which have lost all humanity, just coldly devour and kill.
• "Bonies" are here give the movie a real non-human threat. The Dad character is quite the 2-dimensional villain, and gives the movie a human threat.
• The tone is quite light-hearted. R has a few irreverent monologues about daily life as a zombie and there's never a real sense of danger.
• Zombie speech patterns/comprehension etc is inconsistent. Like R can understand and think quickly but can only grunt words slowly to verbalize. Some zombies try to communicate, some are mindless. This could've been explained but as is, the film just feels sloppy. The zombies/bonies having collective will/plans (we gotta find him!) adds to this.
• Blatant advertising for the Sony PSP, and Call of Duty : Roads to Victory. More aggravating, the player says "I'm on level 5". COD has MISSIONS, not levels, a**hole. I assume the screenwriter hasn't played a videogame for 20 years. Aiming towards teens again.
• To keep the movie progressing, Julie unnaturally gets quickly accustomed to being rescued by, and chatting to, the first ever talking zombie. It's a bit jarring.
• Some of the acting is quite dodgy in parts (like when Julie returns to the bunker and hugs her dad)
So! What's good about the movie?
• R is quite likeable. His want to not come off as a creeper to Julie (despite being a zombie!) is entertaining.
• R's friend M (Rob Corddry) gets a few laughs.
• There are a few funny lines in the film (eg "nice watch!")
• I did enjoy the gimmick that if you eat someone's brains, you gain their memories. It gives rise to flashbacks and progressing the story.
Overall : This is a horror film for teens. It's not very serious, the storyline revolves around a budding romance and some stock perils for them to overcome, but it's decent enough. Whether you can get over that it's aimed specifically at teens is up to yourself!0 -
-
The Colony (2013)
Plot : Laurence Fishburne stars amongst a bunch of survivors in a post-apocalyptic, snow-bound world, which has possibly some new human-ish threat.
Thoughts : I watched this film. It's horrible. Slow, boring, and cheap. I didn't realise Fishburne did this kind of low-budget garbage. Lazy, generic writing and characters, run-of-the-mill plot - it's been done many times, and far more effectively in every aspect. Bit of Lord of the Flies, bit "man is the deadliest of all", just a mish-mash of cliches. Poor makeup for the zombie-ish guys and naff special effects was the final nail, really. I've seen reviews being kinder to it, I just don't see it. I tried - I saw it through to the end, and it failed miserably. I just wanted to post about it to tell you to avoid seeing it.
Overall : Please, don't watch this.0 -
The Conjuring (2013)
Plot: Exorcism horror film about a family whose house is inhabited by a demon. A married couple/demonologists check it out.
Thoughts on the film:
• Nice use of expected horror anticipation, when/how the scare is going to happen. The children playing a clapping game is ripe for future scares.
• The music box with mirror is a great idea, used a few times throughout the film
• It's unprofessional (;)) that Ed Warren (the demonologist) suggests patterns "knocks always in threes? Stops at dawn?" to the tenants as opposed to asking for information.
• We know the place is haunted but we're not too far ahead of the cast.
• It's set in the 70s. There's some "hey it's the 70s" moments (one scene especially, where teens say "groovy" and "far out") but it's nice to have a different setting than the norm, and also being limited to older equipment. Not that exorcisms have changed that much since then!
• I enjoy the repetitious nature of hauntings, similar incidents that get more sinister, the exposition, explaining the rules and past instances.
• It's explained that demons need to make the host more vulnerable before possession, I think it comes about a little quickly. It's a bit odd that the demon haunts different family members rather than isolating one.
• There's a scene where the ghost haunts laundry (it's better than it sounds) and should've been given to the mom, rather than the female Demonologist (Lorraine Warren)
• Great use of sound, the noise of a noose tightening is nasty!
• They do give some kind of explanation for ways out that you might think of, the most obvious being "just move". The dad explains their financial woes and nevermind, the demon is haunting the family, not just the house.
Anything else?
• I would've liked to have seen what Lorraine saw that mentally scarred her.
• If you didn't eat or drink for 8 days you'd almost certainly die.
• The reveal of the demon couldn't make good on the great anticipation/build it got.
• The cop (John Brotherton) sounds just like Seth Rogen. Seriously!
• Nobody says the word "conjuring" in the film. Good or bad, you decide.
Overall I really enjoyed it. It doesn't break the mould or do anything new, but it is great at being creepy and it's rare you feel for the family being haunted. Quite entertained. Recommend watching.0 -
jaykhunter wrote: »The Conjuring (2013)
Plot: Exorcism horror film about a family whose house is inhabited by a demon. A married couple/demonologists check it out.
Thoughts on the film:
• Nice use of expected horror anticipation, when/how the scare is going to happen. The children playing a clapping game is ripe for future scares.
• The music box with mirror is a great idea, used a few times throughout the film
• It's unprofessional (;)) that Ed Warren (the demonologist) suggests patterns "knocks always in threes? Stops at dawn?" to the tenants as opposed to asking for information.
• We know the place is haunted but we're not too far ahead of the cast.
• It's set in the 70s. There's some "hey it's the 70s" moments (one scene especially, where teens say "groovy" and "far out") but it's nice to have a different setting than the norm, and also being limited to older equipment. Not that exorcisms have changed that much since then!
• I enjoy the repetitious nature of hauntings, similar incidents that get more sinister, the exposition, explaining the rules and past instances.
• It's explained that demons need to make the host more vulnerable before possession, I think it comes about a little quickly. It's a bit odd that the demon haunts different family members rather than isolating one.
• There's a scene where the ghost haunts laundry (it's better than it sounds) and should've been given to the mom, rather than the female Demonologist (Lorraine Warren)
• Great use of sound, the noise of a noose tightening is nasty!
• They do give some kind of explanation for ways out that you might think of, the most obvious being "just move". The dad explains their financial woes and nevermind, the demon is haunting the family, not just the house.
Anything else?
• I would've liked to have seen what Lorraine saw that mentally scarred her.
• If you didn't eat or drink for 8 days you'd almost certainly die.
• The reveal of the demon couldn't make good on the great anticipation/build it got.
• The cop (John Brotherton) sounds just like Seth Rogen. Seriously!
• Nobody says the word "conjuring" in the film. Good or bad, you decide.
Overall I really enjoyed it. It doesn't break the mould or do anything new, but it is great at being creepy and it's rare you feel for the family being haunted. Quite entertained. Recommend watching.
Not seeing that really pissed me off!:D I really wanted to see something terrifing.
I have not been impressed by any of the demon reveals from these type of films, they never live up to hype, the flashing image in the exorcist was about the best.0 -
Carrie (2013)
Plot: [This review is based soley on this film's merits and not the original.] Starring Chloë Grace Moretz (Kick Ass 1&2) as Carrie, an extremely timid teenage girl, sheltered by her ultra-religious mother, begins to develop telekinetic powers.
Thoughts on the film:
• Not unique to this film but a pet peeve of mine is Hollywood's "ugly duckling" casting. Chloë Grace Moretz is pretty, but just everyone in the film pretend she's ugly...until the night of the big dance.
• I always enjoy a religious slant to horror films, as the mother believes the Devil possesses her.
• Some uneasy use of blood and her overbearing mother is particularly convincing - it made my life seem so much more stress-free!
• Stock horrible "mean girls" who are unbelievably cruel, spear-headed by sociopath Chris (a girl) who records said cruelty and uploads it to youtube. I couldn't believe a normal girl would do these things - I would've liked to spend more time with her to get inside her head, how she justifies her actions
By the end she's the highschool equivalent of a homicidal backwater hick. For the film to work the writers just made the entire school out to be real heartless arseholes.
• Despite her abusive upbringing Carrie 'grows' as a character extremely fast (from shy social-outcast to happy, well-adjusted teen). By the end she's hurting everyone indiscriminately - so I'm not with or against her, it's just stuff that happened. Her tirade is done without a spoken word - and looks hilarious as the actress widdles her arms about - so it was just alright. Some insight into her rage would've been great.
• I was surprised they didn't make a great effort to have the film be a metaphor about menstruation, emotion, coming of age etc., it's more just something that happened to get the ball rolling.
• The telekinesis power with a teenager feels a bit like Chronicle, which is a much more enjoyable film.
OVERALL: Nothing wrong with the film, just nothing laudable. It's fine but I wouldn't recommend watching it. More of a drama with horror elements.0 -
Insidious (2010)
*Minor spoilers but it's to brace you, trust me it's for the best*
Director & writers of SAW (James Wan and Leigh Whannell) team up with Paranormal Activity's Oren Peli to bring us the supernatural horror Insidious: A couple's young child falls into a coma, as his spirit is in a dangerous place called "The Further", while malevolent beings hope to inhabit his physical body. His parents try to save their son before it's too late.
Thoughts on the film:
● Starts off as a lot of horror films (move into new house, kids don't like it) but it takes off in a different direction. Mother Renai (Rose Byrne aka Moire from X-Men First Class) sees things, but the father, Josh (Patrick Wilson aka Ed Warren from The Conjuring) doesn't believe. You can see the parallels with Paranormal Activity!
GOOD THINGS:
● Astral projection is a cool idea and a great excuse to step outside reality.
● Big fan of the creepy grandmother-in-black-dress ghost
● You can tell it's quite low budget as the Astral Projection is mostly fog and a lamp against a black background. Really effective use of the $1.5m budget.
● I enjoyed the sarcastic bit-players surveying the place for paranormal activity (Leigh Whannell is one of them). The jaded co-workers talk about the equipment they use, which I always like hearing about.
BAD THINGS:
● Extremely heavy-handed with the strings, this-is-scary shock music, which gets really grating.
● Relies a bit much on shock scares, but some of them are really well done.
● Not a big point, but the use of still/creepy contorted smiles is a bit naff.
● Sadly, the main demon really hurt this film. He's like a camp Darth Maul. I don't think I'm ruining the movie telling you this, I'm bracing you for it so you can accept it so it doesn't ruin the movie! He's properly shown in an almost comedy-style old timey music piece, and the CGI for his wall-walking is really rough. It's such a shame as the Astral Dimension/ghost house stuff is really very cool.
OVERALL: Knowing to expect to groan when the main demon appears, I recommend seeing the film. The postives outweigh the negatives: There's some effective scares and great anticipation, and astral projection is a more unique storytelling device. Go see it!0 -
Insidious Chapter 2: Outsideous (2013)*I recommend not watching the trailer, it makes the film seem worse than it is. But sure here it is.*
Plot: Insidious: Chapter 2 is the follow up to James Wan & Leigh Whannell's successful branching out from the SAW franchise & teaming with Paranormal Activity's Oren Peli. All the major cast return. The story picks up where the first ended, with the mother (Renai) being fearful that her husband Josh has been possessed.
Thoughts on the film:
GOOD THINGS:
● I appreciated the film's efforts to tie itself around the first film, making sense of prior strange happenings. At the centre of it is Josh, seen in flashbacks as a child, but mostly as an adult in the present, and it works very well. I wish the story had been written as a trilogy straight off so they could've implemented more of that.
● The film fleshes out a lot of the backstory - focusing on Josh's (malevolent) "friend" - the old woman in black, and completely dismisses Darth Maul (thank you!).
● While uncovering the plot the film splits into two - traditionally shot in the house, and 'on location' handheld cameras.
● Evil dad with the baseball bat feels very Shining!
● Some very creepy scenes that I won't spoil. After moving the bookcase was my favourite part!
BAD THINGS:
● I still hate the overuse of quiet-then-deafeningly-loud scary strings used to shock you. It is cheap and breeds contempt.
● 3 new haunted tropes - baby roller (meh), tin cup walkie-talkies (one really great use) and ghostly dice (fine, not great).
● The sarcastic investigator duo return, but in some scenes they lean too heavy on buffoonery, and it actually detracts from important, tense scenes. I imagine the writers/directors love these bits but they jar with the rest of the film.
● It was a big selling point in the last film, but Astral Projection isn't all that special in this one.
● As before the contorted smile gimmick really isn't that creepy. Definitely less is more...some shots linger too long on the ghosts - the more you see 'em, the more it's some actor in white makeup instead of a ghost - and that's a shame as it's cool in itself.
OVERALL: A bit more scattershot than the first, fixes some problems of the first but continues on with others, but still a decent movie. You are not missing anything by skipping it though. Regardless, it was impressively made with $5million, it grossed over $150m. See you 2015!0 -
Darkroom (2013)
Plot: A wayward girl takes a modelling job in a mansion. Whilst there she is trapped by three people who 'cleanse' waywards of their sins. I recommend never watching the film so I'll recount the story: Michelle can't come to terms with being the only survivor of a car crash that left her 3 friends dead. The film employs frequent flashbacks to show this, and though her mental/physical torture, she can admit what happened, overcome her current and past situation so she can now move on with her life. That's what the film is trying to portray.
Cast/Crew: Starring Kaylee DeFer as Michelle (Ivy Dickens of Gossip Girl), Directed by Britt Napier (Redirect), and written by Michaelbrent Collings of WWE's The Barricade fame. The trailer made this film look much better than it was.
GOOD POINTS:
● It's shot in 16:9, my favourite aspect ratio.
● There's a shot of nipple. I'm glad the film didn't think it was above nudity.
● They give a bit of backstory for the antagonists motivations so that's something.
BAD POINTS:
● The storytelling is quite shallow not well executed.
● The Michelle character is unlikeable (they also only use the takes where her voice breaks)
● The dialogue is average at best
● The acting's naff
● The film is cheap. In a grimy/grainy way but also poor lighting and sparse sets so it looks quite generic.
● There's a bit of SAW in there with her holding 'cell' and showing footage of light torture but there's little gore and no moral revelation.
● The film uses religious overtones to explain the antagonists' actions (which in general I like) but never show any actual religious iconography (crosses etc).
● The antagonists' backstory is shown through archival footage of the siblings being brow-beaten by their religious mother. I appreciate that but the child actors are HORRENDOUS.
OVERALL: Please don't watch this film. IMDB gave it 3.7/10 which I feel is a bit harsh - probably backlash from the cast and crew influencing the score, giving it a hilarious initial 7.8 rating. 4-4.3 is about right.0 -
Advertisement
-
Paranormal Activity 4B - The Marked Ones
Plot: PA get a spin-off centering around a group of Mexican friends, Jesse, Marisol and Hector. A suspected witch dies in her apartment and one of the group finds a mysterious bite on his arm...
Thoughts on the film:
• The film is aimed at the Latin America demo. Appreciated the new setting, a small Mexican apartment complex in Oxnard, California (as opposed to a white family in the suburbs)
• The film is shot in hand-held first person (instead of security footage)
• It's very low budget with minor practical effects - this works well as when they do something it's more impressive.
• One of the hallmarks of PA is obscuring your view so to build tension - there's a series of semi-translucent sheets they walk through, and the protagonists (who aren't cameramen) hold the camera lower and raise it up. It works, although poor camerawork isn't that nice to look at.
• HORRENDOUS audio presentation - the film is apparently shot without a boom mic and the constant whispering is not levelated. You will watch the film with your remote in hand. It's not scary, just frustrating.
• This film is not above nudity. Good! Peeping into next door's apartment was quite funny.
• New gimmick - a magic gateway door, a 'portal to only bad places'. Ok that sounds crap but it's great.
• They communicate with the demon through a Simon Says machine. Very well used.
• Hector (the dumb friend) is keen to put himself in physical danger which is intentionally hilarious. Jesse's family and friends do seem like nice, loving people.
• For most of the film it felt like this was unrelated to PA until they bought PA sequel rights! But that changes.
• FINALLY someone brings a gun to a knife fight!
• Well impressed that the lads can convince two pretty girls to get laid in a dilapidated 'empty' murder house.
• They find items, locations relating to previous films which is pretty cool.
• The ending sequence was great. Doesn't 'fix' the rest of the film but I loved it.
SPOILER THOUGHTS:• Nods to previous films: Not going to the police for help, VHS tapes of Katie & Kristi as kids, demon version of them, black magic ritual items from the previous film, pic of Jesse's mom with Katie & Kristi's grandmother.
• Simon machine - It's brilliant when they ask if it's Jesse's Guardian angel and it chimes "No.".
• The thugs that hassle Jesse & Hector are real obvious plot devices to show off Jesse's new 'super-powers'.
• Demon kids and old women are not scary. Whatever initial fright from PA3 is long gone.
• The magic door - fantastic use! Warps back in time to Katie & Micah's house.
• Street thugs bringing guns to the Coven farm was great. Flipped out when they started blowing the women away.
Overall: Better than the horrendous PA4 but you're not missing anything here. Good tension and intentionally funny bits, but scares generally don't hit the mark. Too much time spent faffing around with family in unnecessary scenes, so ultimately the film is quite slow moving and not that interesting. Strong finish though.0 -
Los ojos de Julia ("Julia's Eyes") (2010)
Spanish horror film directed by Guillem Morales, produced by Guillermo del Toro
Plot: Twin sisters suffer from a progressive degenerative eye disease. Whilst Sara's death is declared a suicide, clues leave Julia convinced she was murdered. She battles stress attacks which render her temporarily blind, as tracks this 'invisible man'.
Thoughts on the film:
• We're treated to a psychic incident at the start (Sara's death results in Julia collapsing), and there's a question mark over the invisible man is just a man or something supernatural. The answer is not really satisfying. It's explained but I needed more to be happy with it.
• The film starts off quite strong. As the story unfolds, it doles out exposition at the perfect pace. Finding items/clues to continue the search is done very well.
• Some nice camera movements and fitting score.
• Unfortunately the film is 2 hours long, which means by the second half they repeat spots and shoe-horn in this (sentimental) love angle.
• A few too many "Oh God he's in the shadows" chase scenes that it becomes a bit funny.
• The disability of blindness is expounded really well, about just how helpless you can be. I've never been more grateful for my sight watching a film.
• While Julia is blind, her care-giver's face is always out of shot, so you can't see it - much like Julia herself. Great touch.
• When she's in a possible killer's house, she feigns being blind and it's very interesting and enjoyable.
Overall: it's a good film that peters out - it would've benefited from being half an hour shorter. Great premise, but it's execution doesn't live up to it's potential: by the end it's just ok.0 -
No One Lives (2012)
Plot: After a burglary gone awry, a group of thieves kidnap a tourist couple. Detained, the woman intentionally kills herself and the man deftly kills his assailant and escapes. Who are they? Do the hunters become the hunted? AND WHOSE SIDE IS HE ON?!
Full disclosure, this is a WWE Studios film. Yes, the wrestling. They make films. Bad ones. These days they generally finance all or part of the film in exchange for having a wrestler in a bit part. One of the thieves is the wrestler Brodus Clay, who only has a few scenes before being knocked off. It features Luke Evans (aka Bard the Bowman from The Hobbit) and Emma (the escaped victim) is played by Adelaide Clemens (aka Heather Mason from Silent Hill 2).
GOOD POINTS:
• As a wrestling fan, I enjoyed seeing a wrestler doing some acting. Brodus plays a dancing fool on TV, in here he drops the 'F' bomb three times, threatens a woman with a knife, and has a rather cool death reveal.
• The music guy for WWE does the soundtrack - he sneaks innocuous wrestler & PPV themes into the background (Big Show, Drew McIntyre, SummerSlam 2002)
• The film turns into a slasher flick about 20 minutes in, and some of the deaths have nice physical prop-work and prosthetics.
• This is an extremely average film that knows it's not above nudity - I appreciate that.
• The words "No One Lives" is uttered as the last line of dialogue. Yes.
BAD POINTS:
• "Driver" (Luke Wilson) plays a type of Terminator/Rambo role (in a less than subtle fashion), slowly and relentlessly stalking these people to kill them in gruesome fashion. He tries to fill out his reasons but it's quite ham-fisted. Emma (the victim who escaped) is supposed to be playing either a woman with PTSD & resignation, or strong with steely resolve, but plays neither really, just throwing out ominous warnings between moments of clarity. Neither really worked for me.
• The biggest problem is that we're immediately taught that the criminals are bad people, so when the tables are turned, we don't feel sorry for them. We don't spend enough time with Driver/he's not shown in a light to make us root for him either.
• The film is intentionally overly grainy to the point of poor quality. That's cool for some but I didn't like it.
• Of course the dialogue, characters and motivations aren't great but hey, it's wasn't awful, I didn't groan once.
Overall: An extremely average film. I'm happy to watch horror films with wrestlers in it, but I recommend you stay away!0 -
We Are What We Are (2013)
Plot: Saw this film originally at Horrorthon. For the most part it's a creepy drama that gets increasingly malicious. A mother dies during a downpour right before her religious family's grizzly annual ritual. The grieving father (Frank) continually & sternly convinces his two protected daughters and son to stay the course. There is a side plot of the girls (Rose and Iris) plotting to get free, and a budding romance between Iris and the Sheriff suspiciously investigating the area for missing people. The latter sounds meh but it was done well. The film builds to a satisfying and fitting conclusion.
Overall: An enjoyable film, although it's skirting on the edge of drama and horror, rather than your traditional horror. A little slow moving but it held my attention, and the final scenes are tense and well played out.0 -
Stoker (2012)
Cast: Mia Wasikowska (aka Alice in Alice in Wonderland), Matthew Goode (Ozymandias in Watchmen) as her uncle, and Nicole Kidman as the mother.
Plot: India (Mia)'s father suddenly dies and she is devastated. Her 'new' uncle Charlie offers his condolences and ends up staying with them. Something about him seems off but that just draws her closer...
Thoughts on the Film:
This film is incredibly pretentious. It's also heavy on the drama. Lots of sentimental smush and shots clearly designed for the director to pat himself on the back (e.g. when India poses, lying on her bed, encircled by perfectly-placed open shoe-boxes around her). There are many shots like this that intrude on the film. I found the film quite aloof and the characters unlikeable. There is a strange sequence of awkward, violent set-pieces that bring the two together. One of her schoolmates continually tries to rape her, even when he's getting killed. WHO DOES THIS?
Overall: I get the feeling that if you're in tune with this, you'll absolutely love it. I didn't. At all. It's going for mysterious characters and striking imagery, I'd say unappealing characters and obnoxious camera shots. I'd avoid.0 -
VHS2 (2013)
^Not a great trailer. I'm going to recommend this film so I also recommend not watching it.
The horror anthology returns with 4 short found-footage films (~20 minutes each) place-carded by a film-long story of two people breaking into a house and watching these videotapes. They're all mostly shot from 1st Person PoV.
1) Phase I Clinical Trials: A man gets an ocular implant, which allows him to see/record out of his left eye...but also allows him to see the dead. That sounds corny but I thought it was really well done. He meets a girl who can hear the dead and it ends well (initially!). Only the pay-off is a little disappointing, doesn't stop it from being quite entertaining with some freaky moments. Strongest of the 4.
2) A Ride in the Park: A cyclist on the park trail comes across a woman in distress. He sees zombies and is attacked and bitten. The rest of the story is told from his perspective (great idea). I won't say more, but quite enjoyed this one too.
3) Safe Haven: A group of reporters convince a cult leader to film an interview on his compound full of children. It has a different feel than the previous two and is creepy and interesting. It goes a bit far to the point of humorous by the end but still definitely worth seeing.
4) Slumber Party Alien Abduction: An alien abduction during a sleepover in a suburban home. Sadly the aliens look like dudes overacting in lycra stock Alien suits, so it's more of a light-hearted finish. There's a lot of flashlight-only darkness and A/V blow-outs that make it feel cheap. The average-ness of the 4th story doesn't stop the overall package being much stronger than the first film.
The conclusion of the placecard storyline shown in snippets between the short stories has a bit of levity too - this is a horror definitely suitable watching with friends.
Overall: The budget isn't huge but they make do and it works. There is a slight comedy slant on #2 and #4, as some bits are done for intentional comedy and work. I appreciated the different styles and storylines - recommend watching!0 -
Contracted (2013)
Plot: After Samantha has unprotected sex on a one night stand, she develops increasingly worrying, unnatural symptoms.
Thoughts on the film:
• The movie chronicles her worsening zombie-like condition, which is fine but ultimately slow-moving, alongside how her life professionally and personally falls apart. It's more of a drama.
• The subplot of her sexuality (trying to woo back her obnoxious "pshaw, men!" ex-girlfriend, dealing with her nice-but-unaccepting mom, and new love interests, both male and female) didn't do her any favours. She's mean and destructively uses people, making her unsympathetic, the opposite of the intention of the film.
• I can't help thinking this is an innocuous PSA about unsafe sex. The film does not show lesbians in a favourable light (I'd hope the characters are just ar**holes who happen to be lesbians).
• The film makes me glad I'm not a girl, as I don't menstruate. Some scenes, for example when in the restaurant restroom, are simple and effectively unpleasant. ("Oh God there's lots of blood in and all over the toilet")
• A point that annoys me about most films that have doctor scenes, is that they never consult an actual doctor on procedure or terminology. Samantha has an appointment where the doctor's technique is HORRIFIC. For starters, he listens to her STERNUM for breaths. If he were a student I'd fail him. His flippant diagnosis/treatment could easily get him sued - which would help Samantha, so every cloud...
• At least she sees a doctor, even if it's insane that she didn't go to A&E (which'd take the film in a completely different direction).
• I wish I knew this going in - the source and nature of the disease is never expounded on, which is a shame, I love that stuff. All we hear is "the cops wanna find the guy and talk to you about it". The focus on the film is her worsening symptoms and erratic behavour, which is fine, I kept hoping for exposition that never came.
Overall: Watch the trailer, see if it interests you. There's emphasis on how her disease affects her relationships. It's average, forgettable drama, not my cup of tea.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Lords of Salem (2013)
So what is it?
A grimy independent horror film by Rob Zombie featuring his wife, Sheri Moon Zombie, the supporting cast feature other Rob Zombie films (Halloween 2, 2009 and The Devil's Rejects, 2005). Heidi (Sheri) is a recovering drug addict DJ. She lives in Salem, home to witch burnings hundreds of years ago. After listening to a satanic drone on a vinyl record, she and her listeners are entranced. 'Someone' moves in down the hall, and she gets mentally haunted by witchy imagery and beings. Coincidentally there are 3 old women downstairs.
Thoughts on the film:
• Lots of grungy, off-putting imagery, like medieval filthy, elderly witches stripping naked, goat heads and bloody rituals. Gritty and weird. You really pay for seeing more favourable nudity.
• Conversely there's some lovely striking shots and locations, like the beautiful grand hall.
• They HAMMER home this hypnotic drone 'song' - a grinding 4 note dirge like a bad acid trip.
• The film's distaste for religion comes through (eg a shock scene where an archbishop forces oral sex and mock up of religious puppets masturbating)
• They look to have made the most of their budget (eg old-timey surgeon outfits with cloth covering distorted faces look great) Sadly other costumes are "midget in a suit. A bad suit".
• Unbelievable (!) exposition scene where a writer recites phrases from a book he once read to explain the plot. It hilarious how flippant the film is about how they're doling out the backstory!
• Lots of freaky occurrences and when they get too crazy she jolts out of her sleep/trance etc the film, you assume whatever's happening is just in her head.
Overall: I didn't really enjoy this one. The overly grungy-cult look isn't my cup of tea, as are naked elderly women. The story and characters are just average and forgettable. It's intentionally an unpleasant experience. Avoid.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7Xn2JqH5ng
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ztc5Nq1JL4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jlPK19XlVY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8iLp1xQtPQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aHQMJjdZ_U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEysX-cgRFA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceBXUyuv4Q0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO9vXTMvzL0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syjgS9sp4E4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07s-cNFffDM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZENI7UC3WQo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejMMn0t58Lc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-VcPDkTySQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf0FJW6Hp_0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8B9hisNcuw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1jLsDlxpRU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6DYsGTMkCU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJcvwXfL9NQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Eiko_J6mfE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXKogr0O-Zc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btm7WjSwPmQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63Tv0lhD1fw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chqtOlOEdsY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y606RoSur8oAdvertisement