Mother's Day (2010)

Director: Darren Lynn Bousman (2010)
Starring: Rebecca De Mornay, Jaime King, Shawn Ashmore
Find it: IMDB

Note: this review has lost a Screaming Scream Queen since I watched it in 2013. Between then and now, I have seen the original Mother's Day and this, sirs and madams, does not compare well. 

A family of criminals break into a house full of the bickering middle classes and their also bickering, also middle class friends (plus crap toupee) looking to recover a stash of money they left there years ago. Leading the criminal clan is Natalie 'Mother' Koffin (the hand that rocked the cradle, Rebecca De Mornay) who proves to be just as ruthless and violent as her horrible sons. Mother's Day is a heartwarming tale of the bond betwixt mother and child.

Mother's Day also continues a recent trend in horror movies in which Shawn Ashmore (Iceman from X-Men) plays useless characters in horror movies and lets everyone he loves die around him. Here he plays a doctor, but not a good one, like The Doctor or Doctor Dre; no, a sad, wet one, like Doctor Jack from LOST.

He's not alone though: all of the characters in Mother's Day are either unlikeable or ineffectual. Sometimes they're both. The house guests (the invited ones) argue and lie and throw one another under the bus at the slightest chance of survival. It's little wonder that Mother Koffin gets so frustrated with the lying bastards. In its treatment of the characters and depiction of its villains, Mother's Day feels very old-fashioned, like an authentic video nasty or exploitation flick. Darren Lynn Bousman does a great job with this remake; it's far more enjoyable than any Saw movie (of which Bousman directed the best instalments) - it's tense, thrilling and a lot of fun, even in its more unpleasant moments. It also stars Briana Evigan, which I most definitely approve of.   

Mother's Day is a remake, but it is one of the decent ones. It's nowhere near as intelligent, inventive or original as the film upon which it is based, but then it doesn't take much from that movie other than a few character names, death sequences and a title. It's largely content to go off and do its own thing, which is infinitely preferable to scene-for-scene robbery or cheap imitation. Stack this among such remakes as The Hills Have Eyes and Dawn of the Dead, in that they do justice to their predecessors without completely re-inventing the wheel.   

Happy Mother's Day, mummies! This review is not dedicated to my mother though, because she most definitely would not approve of this movie. She's more of a Walking Dead woman, herself.

Maniac

Director: Franck Khalfoun (2012)
Starring: Elijah Wood, Nora Arnezeder, Genevieve Alexandra
Find it: IMDB

He's not sick, but he's not well. Frodo Baggins plays the maniac of the piece, mannequin collector and restorer Frank. Now, Elijah Wood doesn't look like a man that might be called Frank (few people do, Clint Eastwood and Frank Butcher aside) but he does look like a fellow who collects mannequins. I once helped sell some mannequins on eBay (not in a dodgy way, alright) and the men who turned up to collect them were all as dodgy as fuck. One man's eBay feedback is another man's sex offenders register. It's no mean coincidence that the creepiest episode I've ever seen of Criminal Minds involved a man who (sort of) collected mannequins.

Wood, meanwhile, has proven himself more than capable of playing outside of the Baggins box. Following his loony turn in Sin City and surprising chavviness in Green Street, I had him earmarked as a good psycho. With Maniac, he does an excellent job of fulfilling that potential.

Yes, it's a remake, but it's one of the good ones. I saw the original Maniac once, and don't remember anything but Tom Savini and being disappointed by it. With this Alexandre Aja written remake, I was most definitely not disappointed. Like Aja's Hills Have Eyes and Piranha remakes, it blows the original out of the water. It's the done thing to dismiss horror remakes offhand, but I think there are parties out there finally getting the formula right - take that basic template, add plenty of new elements and some new-fangled filmmaking techniques, and you may just be able to retain some credibility.

Maniac does more than most in that the story is told almost entirely from the killer's perspective: literally. We see the film through Frank's eyes, like some sort of (more) grotesque horror Peep Show. It could only have been improved by swapping Wood's internal monologue for David Mitchell's and playing a bit of Flagpole Sitta every now and then. There's even a moment where Frank stops and looks at himself in a shop window television. Tune in for series 9, in which Mark murders Jez and scalps Dobby for dessert. Maybe he is quite sick, after all.

More so than the film upon which it is based, Maniac reminds me a lot of Donald Cammell's White of the Eye. It's psychedelic, highly disturbing and darkly amusing. The kill sequences are very nasty and well realised, Wood's performance cold and scary. He's well supported by Nora Arnezeder, playing the adorably cute apple of his eye. It loses the plot a bit at the end, but is otherwise great. It's one of the best slasher movies I've seen this year.

Come out and Play

Director: Makinov (2012)
Starring: Ebon Moss-Bachrach, Vinessa Shaw
Find it: IMDB

Not just any remake of Who Can Kill a Child? It's Makinov's remake of Who Can Kill a Child? I have no idea who Makinov is, but since the opening credits refer to this specifically as Makinov's Come out and Play, in great big capital letters, he must be important. Like Madonna, or Adele or Fergie. On the evidence of all those people I just named, there seems to be a direct correlation between folks I don't like and folks who don't have a last name. Apart from Batman. He's cool, in my book.

The thing is, Makinov's Come Out and Play is almost exactly like Serrador's Who Can Kill a Child? It looks good and sounds incredible (it's one of the best-sounding horror movies I've ever seen) but plays like a scene-for-scene remake of its predecessor. If you're going to market a remake as being your version of a film, you had better make sure it's damn distinctive. The only way Come out and Play could be distinctive is if you've never seen Who Can Kill a Child? And even then, The Children did it better.

A young couple expecting their first child (Bachrach and Shaw) holiday at a remote Mexican island where the streets are mostly deserted and children roam, looking suspiciously like the birds from off've The Birds. It's not long before Beth and Francis realise that something is very much amiss. Remember that episode of Star Trek? It's like that, except really gory. As with the earlier movie, the best scene is the one in which Francis finally loses his shit and attacks the village children with a plank of wood. It's only the scenes of gore and violence that manage to better Serrador's film, which are genuinely cruel and nasty at times. Well, battering children to death with a plank of wood is a bit of a taboo.

In spite of its good looks, vicious kills, sharp direction and fancy acting (Hills Have Eyes victim Vinessa Shaw shines) Come out and Play is a waste of time. If you've not seen the original movie, I'm sure you'll love it. If you have, however, it's a vapid disappointment. Come out and play? Thanks, but, um, I'm washing my hair. Or something.

Rob Zombie Revisited: Halloween II (2009)

Director: Rob Zombie (2009)

Starring: Scout Taylor Compton, Malcolm McDowell, Danielle Harris, Brad Dourif

Find it: IMDB

Revisiting Rob Zombie's Halloween, I was stunned to discover a newfound appreciation for this remake and its director, Mr. Robert Zombie. With his Halloween being much better than I remember it being, imagine my surprise when I found Halloween II to be much worse than I had remembered.

The action picks up immediately where the previous movie left off - Michael Myers is apparently dead, Laurie (Compton) understandably quite traumatised, and Loomis (McDowell) and Annie (Harris) are seriously injured from Michael's vicious attacks upon them. To the hospital, then, where Zombie proceeds to condense the events of the first Halloween II into the space of twenty minutes, sort of. It's a shame that it's all a dream sequence, then, because this is where Halloween II is at its best.

One year later, and Laurie is now living with Sheriff Brackett (Dourif) and fellow survivor Annie. Michael is presumed dead (his body missing in action after the meat wagon hits a cow in the road) and Doctor Loomis has become a media whore celebrity, selling his lurid Michael Myers murder book. Michael's not dead though, and as another Halloween rolls around, he decides to come home. Again. This spells disaster for poor Annie, who, for the second Halloween film in a row, is brutally stabbed full of holes by Mike while stark naked. It's Laurie's story, but Annie and Sheriff Brackett are the only characters you'll actually care about. Certainly more so than Loomis, who spends most of the film acting like an asshole and then being surprised when people call him out on it. It's a real waste of a good character and great actor, especially considering that his eventual redemption ultimately comes to nothing. Compton is good as Laurie, but, like Loomis, not given good enough material. The Bracketts are the only likeable characters in the movie. I found myself genuinely, surprisingly affected by their fates in this film. 

Meanwhile, Rob Zombie has a hot wife and he wants you to know it

Then there's Michael himself, transformed from a silent boogeyman into a bearded, furious (probably quite stinky) tramp. His physicality is still the most impressive thing about this Myers, who might just be the angriest psycho we've ever seen in a slasher movie. That's not always a good thing (his guttural screaming whenever he stabs or stomps a fool to death gets annoying fast) but it does make this iteration of Michael imposing, if not scary.

It's in Halloween II that we also see glimpses of the Rob Zombie who would go on to direct Lords of Salem. Some of the imagery is great. It's a shame that it doesn't actually gel with the film (Sheri Moon Zombie and her white horse never ceases to be ridiculous) since it's a really interesting direction for a sequel to take. Fair play to Zombie for not resting on his laurels and attempting to do something different with the story. It's awful, but a different kind of awful. Like Texas Chainsaw 3D awful.  

Better this than kung-fu Busta Rhymes, or the original Laurie Strode being murdered in an embarrassing, insulting manner in the first twenty minutes. Halloween II may have killed off the franchise again, but at least it did so with style.

Rob Zombie Revisited: Halloween (2007)

Director: Robert Zombie (2007)

Starring: Malcolm McDowell, Tyler Mane, Sheri Moon Zombie

Find it: IMDB

All the way back in the depths of 2009, I described Rob Zombie's Halloween as a "shit feast". You know how it is, when you first start blogging and reviewing things - you try to be edgy. You read a Charlie Brooker book, and you try to emulate that. Only you're 22, and your idea of being "edgy" is swearing a lot and saying that something sucks the balls of some various animal or other. Bad reviews, they say, are the easiest to write. With that in mind, I found Halloween very easy to review.

It's a bad film - I stand by that much. Is it a shit feast though? Well, while no-one ever needed to see Michael Myers sitting on a kerb crying while his mother pole dances to 'Love Hurts', I can confirm that it is indeed not a 'shit feast'. That whole review was a fuckin' shit feast. What is a shit feast, anyway?

The film kicks off in the depths of the 1980s, where young Michael Myers finds himself in the bosom of a degenerate stepfather, slutty sister and stripper mom (played, obviously, by Sheri Moon Zombie). One Halloween, after murdering a school bully with an exceptionally large stick, Michael gives in to his terrible urges and slaughters his dad, his sister and her boyfriend. The only survivors are his angelic mother (because if you were married to Sheri Moon Zombie, you'd put her in every film you made too) and infant sister. Here's the point where, in my original review, I wrote the phrase "some other stuff happens". Some other stuff does indeed happen, but still, shut up 22-year-old me. You're not nearly as funny as you think you are.

Skip to grown up Michael, now incarcerated in a mental hospital, under the supervision of Doctor Loomis (McDowell) and friendly nurse Danny Trejo. While I would have killed to see a Halloween movie in which Danny Trejo and Michael Myers duke it out for ninety minutes, that's not what we're getting. Instead, Michael breaks free from the asylum and returns to Haddonfield, to find his baby sister. There the story turns into a fairly close adaptation of Carpenter's original movie. In terms of the things Michael Myers does, anyway. Zombie's script turns Laurie (Scout Taylor-Compton) into a foul-mouthed little goon and her friends into foul-mouthed assholes. Everyone in Halloween is foul-mouthed, except for Michael (who doesn't speak) and Loomis (who is too classy for that sort of thing). While it hurts the film that Laurie isn't introduced until quite late into play, it works better if you view it as a telling of Michael's story and not hers.

Kill it, as they say, with fire.

This new, extremely vicious Michael Myers is an effective boogeyman, whether he's drowning Danny Trejo in a sink or stealing Ken Foree's overalls. I can't say I was pleased to see two of my favourite cult icons murdered in such a manner, but it does set Mikey up as a force to be reckoned with. I'd like to see kung-fu Busta Rhymes try to beat up on this Shape. Maybe get his leg torn off. I had, in my earlier review, called the acting in Halloween "bad, across the board." It isn't. It's fine. Maybe Malcolm McDowell does phone it in a little, but his performance is worthwhile for his 80s hair and trendy sunglasses alone. Sheri Moon is good too, although she does seem a little crowbarred in. Although if my mom was as sexy as Sheri Moon Zombie, sure, I'd have an Oedipus complex too.

Much to my dismay, revisiting Rob Zombie's Halloween (or Zombieween, as I hilariously called it back in the day) , I didn't hate the film at all. In fact, I actually quite like it. It's a crummy Halloween movie, but a decent offbeat slasher film. There's too much swearing, the characters are annoying and the depiction of young Michael is a definite misstep, but I can't bring myself to hate Zombieween as I once did. Who knows, maybe I'm finally becoming soft, in my old age. Well, that sucks. It sucks massive giraffe balls, is what it does.   

Evil Dead (2013)

Director: Fede Alvarez (2013)
Starring: Jane Levy, Shiloh Fernandez, Lou Taylor Pucci
Find it: IMDB

Boo hoo, another horror remake. Yes, but a halfway decent one, this time.

Evil Dead is the most terrifying film you will ever experience, apparently. Not really, but it's an experience, all the same. A remake of a highly regarded horror classic directed by the great Sam Raimi and starring the greatest Bruce Campbell, Evil Dead faced an uphill struggle from the start. With the fans rallying against his remake and clamouring for an Evil Dead 4, director Fede Alvarez was in an unenviable position. Despite my being an enormous fan of Raimi's Evil Dead trilogy, I was more open to the idea of this remake than most. Well, The Hills Have Eyes remake is one of my favourite horror movies of all time, so it would be a tad hypocritical of me to whine about remakes now, wouldn't it?

Alvarez ships his own group of pretty teenagers out to a little cabin in the woods, where Mia (Levy) is trying to kick her drug addiction. Also present - her estranged brother (Fernandez) and supportive but hippyish friends. Not present - Bruce Campbell or Ash. But this film didn't need them. It needed space to be it's own thing.

Another question on everyone's lips: can I struggle through this review without calling the film 'groovy'? Probably not, but I'll try. From beginning to end, it's a non-stop gore rollercoaster, full of incredible violence and beautiful mayhem. Evil Dead might be the most violent cinema release of all time. It's certainly the bloodiest. Limbs are torn off, dogs brutally murdered, tongues slit and bodies punctured with all manner of torture instrument. Best seen at the cinema, the screening which I attended was packed full of terrified gasps and shuddering. A press screening for Starburst Magazine (my classier review can be read here), bottles of beer and whole pizzas were handed out for free before the film. I can think of no movie less suited to having stuffed your face beforehand. Perhaps the publicists were hoping somebody would throw up or something - that always does wonders for a horror film's credibility.

Nobody chundered at the screening I attended, but everyone seemed to enjoy it. And for good reason: Evil Dead is a success. Like most remakes, it struggles a little to justify its own existence, but the constant onslaught of gore and violence will win over a great deal of horrorhounds - myself included. There's an obvious reverence for the original, and a lot of winks and nods in that general direction. Occasionally it gets a little too much - just do your own thing already! But largely, it works. Others won't be swayed (especially what with the dodgy script, bad acting and silly twist towards the end) but it's easier to watch than most horror remakes. Oh, and be sure to say in your seat after the credits roll, for the motherlode of all treats*.

Alright, I'll bite: it may not be the "most terrifying film you'll ever experience" (not even close) and nor is it as good as the original, but Evil Dead 2013 is groovy as hell.

*May not be an actual motherlode.

Fright Night (2011)

Director: Craig Gillespie (2011)

Starring: Anton Yelchin, Colin Farrell, David Tennant

Find it: IMDB

All-American teenager and sometime Chekov Charley Brewster (Yelchin) discovers that he might be living next door to a vampire. And not just any vampire. Colin Farrell in full Bullseye mode, making eyes at his mom. He seeks the help of useless TV personality Peter Vincent (Tennant) and together they set about taking down the beautiful bloodsucking bastard.

As a remake of one of my favourite 80s horror movies, I approached Fright Night with some hesitation. I was hopeful - the cast was intriguing (Chekov! Bullseye! McLovin! Doctor Who!), the story ripe for re-visitation. Thankfully, it lives up to the promise. Any urge to go Twilight with its vampires has been resisted. Colin Farrell is sexy; but it's scary sexy as opposed to sparkly sexy. Well, as scary as one can be whilst wearing a wifebeater vest and gurning at every opportunity. Yelchin makes for a good Charley. He's less goofy than the 80s' William Ragsdale, but is a likeable protagonist, playing it relatively straight whilst all around him chew the scenery. David Tennant's Peter Vincent is less Peter Cushing and more Russell Brand. The constant overacting will annoy some, but I thought it was enjoyable. And as a fan of Doctor Who, I found it endlessly hilarious to see the most cuddly Doctor dropping F-bombs and calling people "douchebag".

The action, too, has been upped considerably. There's a great sequence in which Colin Farrell explodes a house and throws a motorbike at a car. It has a lot less time for Charley's paranoia than the original film. But who needs slowly building tension when you can have Colin Farrell throwing a motorbike at a car? There's a great fight scene between Evil Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) and Charley, and the re-do of the nightclub scene really works. And there's a part of me that's always wanted to see Colin Farrell and David Tennant duke it out. That fight scene is something of a letdown, as is the finale as a whole. Farrell throws a pebble at David Tennant's head, and that's it. At least it brings the film's funniest line, though.

Where 80s Peter Vincent was a cowardly type, Tennant is more of a selfish arse. His helping Charley actually feels disingenuous. There's also a personal connection to Jerry and Vincent that has been added which seems pointless and tacked on. The CGI gore too, is a distraction. But as a whole, Fright Night overcomes its flaws enough to be a very entertaining ride. Well, Colin Farrell does throw a motorbike at a car.

Fright Night is not as good as its predecessor, although it is still a lot of fun in its own right. After all, Colin Farrell throws a motorbike at a car.

24. Black Christmas (2006)

It's your Horror Review Advent Calendar.

25 Christmas themed movies.

Ho, ho, ho.

Director: Glen Morgan (2006)

Starring: Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Katie Cassidy, Michelle Trachtenberg

Find it: IMDB

Better than you'd expect it to be. Much better than the Prom Night and Sorority Row debacles, which I didn't think it would be. Black Christmas doesn't entirely besmirch the original piece's name. It stars Mary Elizabeth Winstead who is literally amazing in literally everything (she was the best thing about The Thing, even better than The Thing itself). There's even a bit of gore and some faintly disturbing scenes of cannibalism and biscuits. And yes, the movie might, but I'm not calling this Black Xmas. 'Xmas' isn't a word. You don't call him Jesus X, do you? 

Black Christmas follows the original movie's template, having a sorority house being stalked by someone who may or may not be an escapee from a lunatic asylum. I love asylum escapee horror. It's delightfully retro. Some impressively cruel and creepy scenes are hidden amongst the chaff. I particularly enjoyed a bathroom scene in which a hidden eye spies upon one of the drunken girls. The sleazy pupil staring through a hole in the floor is a bloody chilling bit of imagery. Once more, the bin liner kill is the most memorable moment in the movie.

Aside from The Winstead, the acting elsewhere is perfectly fine. Michelle Trachtenberg is in this Black Christmas, but try to forget about that; just like you forget about those seasons of Buffy she ruined. Katie Cassidy is in it too, playing out yet another movie that should have starred John Saxon in a rollneck jumper. 

If you only watch one seasonal horror called Black Christmas this festive period, then it should obviously be the one that stars John Saxon. But if you're planning a seasonal feast this holiday season, Black Christmas '06 might as well be on your list.

The Thing (2011)

Director: Matthijs van Heijningen Jr (2011)

Starring: Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Joel Edgerton, Ulrich Thomsen

Find it: IMDB

A remake and prequel at the same time. More remake than prequel though, because it's exactly the same story as John Carpenter's The Thing, except less good and with a crappy CGI finale tacked on at the end.

An alien spacecraft is discovered near an Antarctica research site. When alien remains are pulled out of the ice, paleontologist Kate Lloyd (Winstead) is called upon to assist in the excavation. No sooner have they returned the alien remains to their research base than it comes to life, breaks free and starts murdering scientists. The team quickly burn it to death, but not before one of their number becomes infected. Tensions become fraught, a helicopter crashes and soon Kate has a fight for survival on her hands. Unable to decide who's human and who's an alien, the stupid humans bicker and fight until only Kurt Russell can save the day! Bully for them, Kurt Russell isn't in this movie.

Mister Eko from LOST is in it though, which pleases me. Anyone who knows me knows that I have a massive fetish for ex-LOST castaways in my movies. I'll even take Matthew Fox in Smoking Aces with a giggle of delight. Eko isn't given much to do, but he rounds off a solid cast along with Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Ulrich Thomsen. Joel Edgerton is fairly bland, not even managing to muster a decent beard out of it all. There are some manly beards that are nearly as good as Kurt's though, worn by the Norwegian characters. The most interesting thing about this Thing is the decision to make the cast (and director) so Norwegian. It's an effect that's spoiled, however, by the Norwegian fellows essentially being cannon fodder for the Americans.

The creature designs are fine without being as iconic as the original monsters. There's far too much CGI; none of the kills as fun as the 'hands through the chest' moment in Carpenter's bit. But they sound very good, and I particularly enjoyed a scene in which a man's hands fall off and attack the rest of the humans. If only it hadn't all been CGI, I would probably have enjoyed the monsters more. Rated a mere 15, there isn't enough gore to make up for the crappier effects. I much preferred the videogame sequel for the PS2 - the only sequel or remake that The Thing really needs.

The Thing is a serviceable piece of sci-fi horror, similar in quality and design to the likes of Aliens vs Predator and Whiteout. Even if you've never seen Carpenter's Thing (WHAT), you won't be wowed. The thing is, the best thing about The Thing is that it made me want to watch The Thing again.

8. Tales From The Crypt: And All Through the House

It's your Horror Review Advent Calendar.

25 Christmas themed movies.

Ho, ho, ho.

Director: Robert Zemeckis (1989)

Starring: Mary Ellen Trainor, John Kassir, Larry Drake

Find it: IMDB

A chilly segment of the horror chocolate orange that is Tales From The Crypt. But not the one starring Joan Collins. ...And All Through the House is an episode of the television series, directed by Robert Zemeckis. Despite telling the same story, this version does it in an altogether more colourful fashion (befitting the original garish EC Comics). There are even jokes; all of them funnier than anything in The Santa Clause. One of them is even a "Santa Clause" joke.

One merry Christmas Eve, Joanne (Trainor) murders her husband, smashing his head in with a poker. Those Tales From The Crypt people; always murdering their bloody relatives. As she's hiding the body, she hears a news bulletin announcing that there's a murderous bastard on the loose wearing a Santa outfit. Joanne runs into the killer outside, scoping her house with an axe. She fights him off and barricades herself indoors. But she can't call the police on account of her serious case of dead husband. Doom is brought about when her greedy little fuck child lets 'Santa' into the house. With a nasal cry of "where are my presents?" mummy's death sentence is signed. Children; little shits would start the apocalypse if they thought there was a present in it for 'em. They don't tell you that on the John Lewis adverts.

The wonderful Larry Drake plays psycho Santa, trashing the set with the same glee as he did in Darkman and Doctor Giggles. This version lacks the original's creepiness (and Joan Collins' disturbing 1970s' sultriness) but tries to make up for it by being louder, more melodramatic and funnier. But like any scene-for-scene remake, if you've seen the original, it all feels a little predictable and pointless. I hoped for some sort of twist on the ending, but it's pretty much the same. If anything, it's less graphic. But if you've not seen the original Tales From The Crypt movie (WHAT) ...And All Through the House will be a treat.

Inferior or not, it does have its uses. When I was but a wee brat, my grandmother used to have a phrase saved for whenever we misbehaved. "Father Christmas is up that chimney," she'd say, "he's watching you." Ever the atheist, I believed even less in Santa than I did god. But my stupid cousins, they were shitting themselves. Like clowns, Santa is every bit as terrifying as he is jolly and lovely. Just imagine if my dear old gran had let us watch Tales Of The Crypt. Parents take note: Used correctly, Larry Drake Santa Claus will keep your kids in line for years to come. Next time that little ponce refuses to eat his or her sprouts, show them this episode. Larry Drake's up that chimney. He's watching you.

And Soon the Darkness

Director: Marcos Efron (2010)

Starring: Amber Heard, Odette Yustman, Karl Urban

Find it: IMDB

A whole movie predicated around Amber Heard and Odette Yustman being in their bikinis. And Soon the Darkness is a Turistas remake of a British thriller from the 1970s. Most remakes are pointless, but the 1970s version of this didn't have Amber Heard and Odette Yustman in bikinis. If you're not inclined towards enjoying Heard & Yustman in bikinis then consider your enjoyment lessened. By The Elder Gods, I actively enjoy Heard & Yustman in their bikinis and even I was bored.

During a cycling holiday in Argentina, Stephanie (Heard) and Ellie (Yustman) start bickering about blokes. When Stephanie storms off, Ellie is kidnapped. With the help of Karl Urban, Stephanie sets about tracking her friend down. It has some good actors, but And Soon the Darkness is not a good movie. I would call it predictable, but there are only two or three plot points to predict.

Amber Heard and Karl Urban are usually good, but the movie must have been an off-day for them both. Heard looks completely lost, whilst Urban mumbles a lot. Thankfully he has the sort of face that looks intense all the time, naturally elevating his crappy surroundings. There's nothing for either of them to do until Heard gets herself kidnapped too. I won't insult your intelligence by labelling that a spoiler.

It's exploitative rubbish really, people hoping that you'll come for the half-naked heroines but stay for their crappy horror story. Well, you've already paid by that point. As soon as its heroines get dressed, all colour drains out of the film. Nothing to see here, move on. And Soon the Darkness. Indeed, I turned the TV off.

Piranha (2010)

Director: Alexandre Aja (2010)

Starring: Elisabeth Shue, Jerry O' Connell, Kelly Brook

Find it: IMDB, Amazon

The most entertaining 3D movie ever made. And, unlike that shitty Pocahontas remake with all the blue bastards (The Smurfs, I think it was called) this one actually still works in 2D and on home cinema. Sure, some of the actings might suck and there's a flabby midsection full of teenage idiocy, but what this movie understands is that 3D was practically made for high octane gore, nudity and dismembered penis. And not fucking 7ft Smurfs flying around on dragons and shit. Well, not exclusively.

An underwater tremor releases scores of prehistoric Piranha into the heaving Lake Victoria, just in time for Spring Break. Sheriff Julie Forester (Shue) investigates, aided briefly by Ving Rhames, Christopher Lloyd and the asshole brother (but not a stepbrother) from off've Stepbrothers. Meanwhile, her kind of annoying son finds himself on a yacht with a porn director (O' Connell), some girl who looks like a High School Musical kid and two pornstars (one of them being Kelly Brook). All this, her two young children have gone missing and there's a cameo from Eli Roth.

Everything after the cameo from Richard Dreyfuss and before Christopher Lloyd is disposable guff. There are moments of gore and quite a lot of nudity, but none of it particularly compelling. I was just about to write Piranha off as a disappointment, when it finally amped up several notches. And how.

Like his Hills Have Eyes remake, director Alexandre Aja isolates everything that made the original movie good (in this case, lashings of gore and nudity) and amplifies it tenfold. When the piranhas make their big setpiece attack, it feels positively apocalyptic: there's gore and mutilation everywhere. If this is what you look for from a horror flick, then you'll in no way be disappointed by Piranha. I thoroughly enjoyed the fishy carnage and disgusting splatter. Even the terrible CGI has its charms.

Also with considerable charm is Elisabeth Shue, who doesn't do nearly enough these days. Her role as town sheriff hardly gives her much room to flex any actorly muscles, but she's a welcome presence. The lack of a tangible threat for much of the movie means there's nothing for Ving Rhames to punch, but he manages to get in at least one instance of the baddassery that we've all come to expect from the actor. I like the Adam Scott guy from Stepbrothers too, although the movie could do without the Sheriff's annoying kids and the girlfriend. Jerry O' Connell makes a fine sleazebag and Kelly Brook is... well, she's Kelly Brook.

No flying fish though. Maybe they're saving that for the sequel.

The Hitcher (2007)

Director: Dave Meyers (2007)

Starring: Sean Bean, Sophia Bush, Zachary Knighton

Find it: IMDB, Amazon

There are only but a handful of movies I'd describe as 'perfect'. That is, five-star scoring, wouldn't-change-a-thing pieces of wonderment. Movies I can watch time and time again, and still not find a single fault. To date, I can count but a handful; The Evil Dead, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Dead Man's Shoes and Robert Harmon's The Hitcher. I've seen those movies on very numerous occasions, and they never seem to get boring or old.

Unlike Dave Meyers's The Hitcher, which seems boring and old even on the first occasion you watch it. You won't find yourself arranging a subsequent viewing anytime soon, if ever. Heck, even The Hitcher 2 has more merit than this remake. And by 'merit', I mean a brother Busey.

Not content with half-assing a remake of one perfect horror movie (that one would be the one with the chainsaw and the massacre in Texas), Platinum Dunes proceeded to half-ass all over another. Like the Texas Chain Saw remake, this one shares a vague plot but dumbs it down and amps up the gore and action. The Hitcher of 1986 is already pretty action packed, but Meyers manages to add a bit more here. That sounds like a compliment, but it isn't.

Instead of Rutger Hauer, this hitchhiker is Sean Bean. Sean Bean, whose name looks like it should rhyme but doesn't. Sean Bean who usually makes period pics or mobile phone adverts. I like Sean Bean - almost as much as I do Rutger Hauer - but his hitcher (John Ryder) isn't even nearly comparable. Where Hauer was genuinely menacing, Bean just looks like a dickhead putting on some shitty hardman act. The hitcher of '86 is an unhinged psycho. The hitcher of '07 is a bully with a silly buzzcut and a crappy accent that he can't quite pull off.

Sean Bean aside (well, he is the best thing in it), everyone else delivers performances you've seen a hundred times before in movies that are virtually identical anyway. Leads Sophia Bush and Zachary Knighton scream and run their way through scene after scene, but they might as well be pursued by a Platinum Dunes Jason or Leatherface as they are the Hitcher. The only difference is that John Ryder drives a car and occasionally speaks. Neal McDonough is typically classy, but brings nothing besides a cool hat. Well, he says "I don't give a rat's cockbag" at one point, which I enjoyed. Oh, and shouts "you gotta be five-finger fucking me."

If there's one thing The Hitcher '86 was missing, it's a scene where John Ryder totally blows up a helicopter and flips up some cop cars whilst hella cool rock music is playing. Who needs all that overrated tension or subtlety when you can look at Sophia Bush's boobs? It completely misses out everything that made the original good, save for some nifty action sequences and a cool trenchcoat.

I've been overly harsh here, I know. The action scenes are decent, Bean is fun and there's a nice amount of carnage to be found here. Your enjoyment of The Hitcher 2007 will probably depend on your level of reverence for the original movie. With that in mind, I did not enjoy The Hitcher '07. Not at all.

Let Me In

Director: Matt Reeves (2010)

Starring: Kodi Smit-McPhee, Chloe Moretz, Richard Jenkins

Find it: IMDB, Amazon

Thankfully the only thing dumbed down by the Let The Right One In remake is the title. The moniker is clunky and a bit silly, but thankfully doesn't portend the thorough shittiness one might expect from this movie. Its biggest crime, as you might expect, is merely an unavoidable but constantly pervasive sense of pointlessness.

Owen (McPhee) is an unhappy child. His parents' marriage has broken up and he is routinely terrorised by bullies at school. And the weather's always crappy, which is bound to put a downer on anyone. Bonding over a rubik's cube, he meets Abby (Moretz) a kooky young girl who enjoys walking barefoot in the snow and shouting at her useless guardian (an almost unrecognizable Jenkins). But Owen's new girlfriend is hiding a secret. No, she's not a purple-haired superhero; the girl's a vampire.

But you know all that. Because you've seen Let The Right One In. Like the Hollywood Quarantine to Spain's [REC], Let Me In is a respectful, faithful piece that - in theory - is everything you'd want from a modern horror movie. The problem being, you don't know where the original stops and the remake begins. It's hard to praise a movie like Let Me In or Quarantine when the template is there for all to see. Let Me In is almost a scene-for-scene remake with improvements made only on a superficial level.

The things Let Me In does better than The Right One (wait for it, there's a King Pun payoff in the last paragraph) are technical type things. So Not-Daddy's serial killings are better, Abby is scarier, Owen is weirder and the crap CGI cats are gone. However, I actually liked the crap CGI cats. The scene in which the woman is attacked by cats was one of the best things about Let The Right One In. Every movie should have a scene in which a woman is attacked by crap CGI cats. Let Me In has no such scene.

Nevertheless, it's an eminently watchable piece. The performances are all very good - particularly McPhee and Hit Girl. Professional That Guy Elias Koteas and Richard Jenkins bring yet more gravitas to the already heavily loaded table. Director Matt Reeves does a great job in the directorial chair. It's just a shame he chose to lend his talents to such an overtly unnecessary flick.

Let Me In is a good start to the re-emerging Hammer brand. It's a very good piece, and if its subtitled predecessor didn't exist, I'd probably give it 5/5 stars. This is a story worth telling, make no mistake. But if you're going to feed just one vampire love story to your DVD player, please make sure you Let The Right One In.

The Experiment (2010)

Director: Paul Scheuring (2010)

Starring: Adrien Brody, Forest Whitaker, Cam Gigandet

Find it: IMDB, Amazon

Adrien Brody continues his streak of making surprisingly good genre movies with The Experiment, a remake of a German thing set in a prison. Brody and Forest Whitaker are amongst 26 men chosen to participate in a psychological experiment in which they take on the roles of guards and prisoners, presumably to see who will break first.

Despite being cuddly Forest Whitaker, it doesn't take long for head guard Barris (Whitaker) to get his Idi Amin on. Chief annoyance is hippy prisoner Travis (Brody) who refuses to eat his dinner and stands up for the weaker prisoners. As this power struggle ensues, the other prisoners and guards stand around looking bemused. It's really a case of two men spoiling things for everyone else. Although Cam Gigandet does try to rape someone.

I don't remember enough about the original movie to try to compare the two pieces, although I seem to recall being more disturbed by Das Experiment. As with all translations from world-to-Hollywood cinema, a certain something is lost in seeing well-known faces go through the same motions. There's not a bad performance to be found in The Experiment, although the characterisation is a little too black and white for my tastes. Too quickly, Whitaker switches to all-out nutter and never really looks back. There's room for introspection and moral dilemmas, but Barris rarely seems bothered by his own actions.

Still, The Experiment is a thoroughly enjoyable, fast-paced and gripping prison thriller. I think a part of me has always wanted to see Forest Whitaker go potty on Adrien Brody's head.

I Spit On Your Grave (2010)

Director: Steven R. Monroe (2010)

Starring: Sarah Butler, Jeff Branson, Andrew Howard

Find it: No, really, don't.

So good a story they told it twice. Now with better acting and inappropriately competent direction. But still irredeemably shit and possibly more morally bankrupt than the original. Where Mier Zarchi's 1978 original was, well, original and saw itself as a feminist piece, this remake just looks and feels like an exercise in moneyspinning unoriginality. Zarchi was trying to make a statement about rape (not very well, I should say). This hunk of horseshit is motivated entirely by "you know what'll make us some money? Let's remake I Spit On Your Grave."

If you don't know the plot, I recommend you go away now. It'll leave your mind an infitely better place. I wish I didn't know either version of this movie existed. I resent having the plot of I Spit On Your Grave stuck in my memory. Jennifer Hills (Sarah Butler) is a writer who heads out to an isolated cabin to get some work done. Instead, she runs into a gang of Hillbilly rapists determined to do what they do best. But because Zarchi's brand of 'rape, rinse, repeat' just won't cut it nowadays, we have to have torture too. Physical and psychological and with a baseball bat and a bottle and then a gun. Once all the rape is done with, revenge commences (reluctantly, I might add. Much like the original, Spit '10 is far less interested in Jennifer's revenge than it is her rape). There are 60 minutes of torture/rape and about 40 minutes of revenge. Revenge which is just more torture, really. Day Of The Woman my arse.

There's a scene 10 minutes in where Jennifer is spied upon whilst dressed only in her underwear. But the way it's framed isn't creepy or scary; it's like a scene cut from The Unborn. The camera makes us complicit with the rapists without even realising that it's doing so. It letches gleefully off've Jennifer, unironically and like any other silly horror movie would. But I Spit On Your Grave isn't supposed to be any other silly horror movie. By sleazing on her thusly - and inviting us to do so too - director Steven Monroe is as complicit in her rape as the rapists themselves. For all of its faults (and it has a fucking lot) Spit '78 is a remarkably unsexy movie. This version should have starred Megan Fox or Odette Yustman. It's designed to titillate as much as it is terrify. Which misses the point entirely.

The Hollywood sheen, rather than improving the story, more highlights its faults. With all the money and talent at hand, they chose to make this lump of shit? They chose this as a story which needed telling again? There are jump scares, twists and a creepy horror movie soundtrack. Which miss the point even more. The first forty minutes are all buildup to the rape itself. That's 40 minutes waiting to watch someone get raped and then there are about 15 minutes of the act itself. Day Of The Woman? Fuck off. Never before has that alternate moniker seemed so condescending. "Oh we just spent 50 minutes raping and torturing the girl: but it's okay, she chops his willy off at the end. BTW, she gets naked."

Admittedly, the revenge is better done than before. It'd be satisfying if you didn't just hate the film itself so much. Plus Jennifer talks a lot and her dialogue really isn't very interesting. She wisecracks far too much.

RAPIST: Fuck you.

JENNIFER: I already did that. I didn't like it very much.

[Hold for applause]

JENNIFER shoves shotgun up RAPIST'S arse.

RAPIST: Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh

JENNIFER: I thought you were an ass man.

[Applause]

She's a regular comedian and nowhere near as scary as Camille Keaton, who actually seemed pissed off. Sarah Butler is a good actress, but fails to really nail anything other than kooky emo.

It's nihilistic and stupid and horrible and unpleasant (which, I suppose, it's supposed to be) and boring and offensive and literally a punch in the face to every real horror fan out there. Much as it did during the video nasty era, I Spit On Your Grave makes us all look bad in the process. It'll be called sick and depraved and people will want it banned. And fans of horror will get the blame. I expect to be on some sort of register now, simply for having watched it.

I Spit On Your Grave 1978 is a legitimate piece of horror cinema history. I Spit On Your Grave 2010 isn't. It achieves precisely one thing, which I thought no movie ever could: it makes me hate the original flick ever so (very) slightly less.

A Nightmare On Elm Street (2010)

Director: Samuel Bayer (2010)

Starring: Jackie Earle Hayley, Thomas Dekker, Kellan Lutz

Find it online: IMDB, Amazon

Not quite as bad as everyone says it is. But still pretty bad. A Nightmare On Elm Street is a remake of, well, do I really need to say any more? I will a bit, just so's you know where I stand. Wes Craven's 1984 piece is arguably one of the finest slasher movies in cinema history. And this remake isn't. At all. It gets some things right but most things wrong. Behold.

The characters that aren't Freddy Krueger all suck. Freddy Krueger kinda sucks. There's no John Saxon. There's no Robert Englund. New Nancy is incredibly bland. The did-he-or-didn't-he subplot is stupid (he did). The dream sequences are unimaginitive. The kill sequences are too reminiscent of those from Craven's original. There aren't enough kills. Freddy looks like ET crossed with a puppy. His voice is stupid. He's very rarely menacing. The pacing is off. For the first half, there's a sense of disconnection between the scenes; there's no flow and the introduction of Nancy is hashed. There's no subtext - it's just Freddy growling like Batman and acting like some torture-guff reject. Wes Craven had his Nightmare represent Nancy's awakening as a sexual being. When Freddy's glove emerges from the bathwater, it's heading for her Vajayjay for a reason - Bayer has it happen simply because Craven did it.

And this is the movie's biggest mistake: it tries far too hard to distance itself from previous Nightmares (the casting of Jackie - new makeup for Freddy) but uses too much of Craven's original material to defy comparison. It's not a re-imagining - bar the finale and a few bits and pieces inbetween, much of it is scene-for-scene copying.

The students' reaction to finding Twilight on the semester's reading list wasn't a happy one

There are good bits too, and a few more of them than one might expect given the movie's reputation. The use of the Everly Brothers is stunning. The redo of the flying bed death thing is technically very good. There's plenty of grue. The showdown between Freddy and Nancy is brutal. For all his new faults, it's good to see Freddy again and it's nice to see an attempt to make him properly scary. I liked the return of the "...my world, bitch" line. And the final bit (a homage to the 'pulling-mom-through-the-window-door' shot) is amusing, if only because it looks as shit as it did the first time around. Given the years of improvement in CGI and filmmaking technology, why couldn't they give us some Inception style nightmares? Surely we've seen enough boiler rooms and smelly teenage bedrooms?

Ultimately, it's not quite as bad as many will say, although it does pale into insignificance next to its mighty predecessor. This is Nightmare for people who've never actually had a real Nightmare.

Night Of The Demons (2009)

Director: Adam Gierasch (2009)

Starring: Edward Furlong, Shannon Elizabeth, Linnea Quigley, Michael Arata

Find it online: IMDB, Amazon UK, Amazon US

An all-growed up but still quite cherubic Edward Furlong battles demons in a haunted house on Halloween. There are also breasts, sex and quite a lot of gore. What more do you need to know? Furlong plays a harrassed drug dealer trapped in a New Orleans mansion where demons are unleashed and dangerous games of spin the bottle are played. A demon shags a woman up the botty until she turns into a demon too, and unpleasant things are done with a tube of lipstick. Can Furlong and his crew of fellow partiers survive until daybreak? For all its gross-out horror and, um, Shannon Elizabeth, Night Of The Demons is like American Pie crossed with From Dusk Till Dawn.

If that sounds terrible, it's because Night Of The Demons '09 is pretty terrible. But in the very best way. It's tasteless and horrible and the pacing sucks - it takes too long to get going and there are too many lulls in the action -but it makes for an eminently watchable movie. Sincerely, this is Shannon Elizabeth's best performance to date. Make of that rather odd sentence what you will. For all its considerable faults, Night Of The Demons is a fun movie. It's a funny but unironic splatterfest in the tradition of such classics as Evil Dead, the original Night Of The Demons and Braindead. It's not as good as any of those movies, but infinitely more preferable than yet another modern torture bit. I loved Night Of The Demons. But yes, I am ever so slightly ashamed to admit that.

Not what it says on the tin: Funny Games

[About as funny as Family Guy: The Video Game]

A film so great that Michael Haneke made it twice. Or one would think so, judging by the obsessive attention to detail in its remake. Near enough a shot-for-shot, word-for-word remake, Funny Games '07 only avoids complete pointlessness thanks to it being slicker and directed by the same fella as the original piece. Shitty remakes have come before and shitty remakes have come after, but few will be shitty on quite the same (shitty) level as Funny Games.

Arthouse torture porn, that's how the broadsheets describe Funny Games. A bit like AntiChrist or Martyrs, but more pretentious, self-regarding and with a tabloid mentality. If you enjoy any of Funny Games' goings-on, then you're a bad person. To his credit, Haneke puts Naomi Watts in her underwear and makes it unenjoyable. For that, I think Michael Haneke is a bad person. Tim Roth and Naomi Watts are pretty much the only watchable people in the '07 version of the movie. The killers are too smug and twattish, whilst the family's kid is just a cheap gimmick.

In the '97 original piece, there's the advantage of having relative unknowns playing out the cast. It makes the movie feel a little more powerful, creepy and less Hollywood. All involved give good performances although, again; the killers are too smug and twattish, whilst the family's kid is just a cheap gimmick.

There's nothing wrong with subtexts that critique violence in movies, but Funny Games is just heavy handed, judgemental nonsense. I'm not sure who the target audience is supposed to be: it's too intense for those who don't like horror, and spends too long insulting those who do. It'd be like someone making a romcom and then having the male lead be an emotionally abusive sparkler asshole who sparkles treats the heroine like crap. Although I daresay its US cinema release may have confused the occasional gorehound looking for another cheap torture guff fix. Bollocks as Funny Games is, this thought kinda amuses me.

Both versions do have their worthwhile moments. Haneke's use of tension is exceptional, particularly during the antagonists' initial conversations with the respective couples. Likewise, his use of violence works very well. There's very little physical violence depicted onscreen, although you'll think there was. Perhaps It'd work better if Haneke had let his work speak for itself, rather than having the characters lecture us throughout. But therein's the problem with auteurs, I suppose. Technically brilliant - ego up the wazoo. In not liking Funny Games, its detractors are easily dismissed by Haneke as bloodthirsty horror idiots. The following score stands for both versions: