Terrorfirmer's Recently Watched

The Lords of Salem (2012)

A solid effort from Rob Zombie, The Lords of Salem avoids the pitfall of most modern horrors which associate horror with in your face shock moments.

It's a slow burner, and the horror that builds arises from deeply instilled unsettling moments that work excellently thanks to a good cast.

It's surreal, and often confusing, but is an overall good effort well worth a viewing if you enjoy slow building horror.

8/10.

Curse of Chucky (2013)

Many reviews have lauded this movie, with several remarking that it should have been a cinema release.

It's certainly a step above the recent Chucky movies, and is an enjoyable affair with plenty of blood letting and quality puppetry, but I'd stop short of a cinematic release- enjoyable, but little more, and if nothing else, proof that there's still life in the franchise.

6/10.

Nurse 3D (2013)

Nurse 3D is an exploitation feature reminiscent of the 80's classics.

Paz De La Heurta plays a nurse both sympathetic and emphatic by day, but a ruthless, man-hating killer by night.

It looks great, the FX are top notch, and if you can stomach the sheer sleaziness of the movie, it's a great entertaining watch that accomplishes what it sets out to achieve.

9/10.

American Mary (2012)

While not quite the genre classic that some reviews made it out to be, American Mary is a good watch with unexpectedly good acting, very decent FX and some disturbingly brutal scenes.

It's hard to define what it was all about, but in the end, but it's a journey worth traveling.

7/10.

The Colony (2013)

This direct to DVD fare was better than it had any right to be - but that's not that say it's necessarily a good film.

The acting is competent, and the effects commendable for a low budget feature, but the plot felt as a couped up as its protagonists. It's rife with cliches, and is rather predictable to the end.

But, given the expectations of it - a straight to DVD feature - it's not a total waste of time and has enough to make it a worthwhile venture.

5.5/10.

Beneath (2013)

IMDB

I'm surprised at the low rating on IMDB for this movie - as a fan of creature features, I have to say it's certainly one of the better ones I've seen lately, and most definitely a step above the SyFy caliber of productions I've grown accustomed to within the genre lately.

There's no CG used, and while the practical effects aren't admittedly any better for it, there's a certain nostalgic charm to them that I really enjoyed.

Acting is decent, and the fact that the flesh eating creature in question plays background to the gradual disintegration of friendships on an over-crowded boat as things start to get desperate works pretty well.

7/10 from me, really enjoyable movie.

IMDB

Hotel Inferno definitely offers something unique, in that the entire film is shot in first person. It seems to want to emulate a video game, and in that, it succeeds - it's frequently difficult to process what you're seeing is actual actors rather than computer generated imagery.

It's a violent film - just to call it a violent film does it a disservice - it's a hyper violent film with scenes of grotesque violence.

The acting and plot are severely lacking, however, and even at 75 minutes, the film felt too long. There's only so long one can watch a psuedo-video game feature without becoming jaded.

But for those appreciative of obscene violence and special effect wizardry, it's admittedly top notch.

A 5/10 from me, just about watchable, but featuring some extremely effective and horrifically brutal violence.

jaykhunter wrote: »

Never heard of Hotel Inferno, sounds great! I'm sure my optimism will come to a grinding hault but you got me interested with the concept. Did you like the FPS part of Doom?

That was about the only part of Doom that I liked :P

Tusk



A movie about one young man's encounter with another who wishes to turn him into something not-quite-human...

Great cast - that Johnny Depp would appear in a film of this caliber actually took me by surprise, as did an appearance by Hayley Joel Osmont.

Therein lies the problem, however. The first hour of the movie is fantastic, with strong performances, effective story telling and extended scenes of abstract dialogue that lend to a building sense of unease....but somewhere after the half hour mark, the film falls apart and aquanders everything that led to that point.

Now, a film of this nature, would have to be taken with a pinch of salt to begin with, but a slow burning first hour collapses and slides into total nonsense after that point. If a film could ever be called a film of two halves, this would be it. The film doesn't seem to know what it want's to be - a tongue in cheek horror, a campy b-movie, a spoof comedy - it tries to tick every box and ends up in a heap.

Not necessarily a terrible film and it has it's positives - more so a massively disappointing one considering what it could have been and an unforgivably dumb and nonsensical finale.

For a far superior film with a similar but far more consistent and effective tone, look at Human Centipede II.

As it is, Tusk - a new low for Kevin Smith. I would give it 4/10.

So it's literally been two years since I posted here and I've watched probably dozens if not a hundred horror movies since, but one I watched last night sort of prompted me to return.



I've always been a major fan of Eli Roth's original 2002 movie, and I also have a soft spot for the sequel.... despite Ti West's public disowning of the end product.

It was hard to understand what the point of this movie was, just 14 years after the original film and barely three years after CF3, but equally it was hard not to be cautiously optimistic of what a re-boot might offer, especially when Eli Roth was so closely involved with the production.

We all know that when it was finally released, it was overwhelmingly savaged in reviews that branded it a totally unnecessary, inferior shot for shot remake of the original - which killed my interest in it stone dead.

But is it that bad? A curiosity that would just not go away so I decided I could probably do worse on a very rainy afternoon.

Short answer - no. It's entirely watchable, goofy, easy viewing that raises a fair few smiles in that way only shlocky, camp horrors of this ilk can deliver.

Longer answer - it is undeniably a lazy remake that manages to accomplish nothing over the superior original, full of plot absurdities even by the low standards of the genre.

It has one or two brilliant, grotesque moments that genuinely rise above even the original film - which are sadly largely squandered by a very inconsistent tone, poor script, illogical behaviors and cheap (albeit good looking) gore.

One thing that stands out for me is that while it is based on the script for the 2002 movie, unless I'm very much mis-remembering how it unfolded, this is reasonably different enough that it's worth a look - there's a lot of familiar stuff in there, granted, but there's both entirely original and altered content in there too.

Verdict - most definitely inferior to the original but not quite the train-wreck I expected, but largely makes a mess of balancing the horror/comedy tropes and is pretty forgettable - no better or worse, I would say, than the 2009 Friday the 13th film.

Still, I'd give it 5/10. Maybe push that to a 6 if you find yourself housebound on a rainy day like I did yesterday.