FILM MARATHON!

I've been having a film marathon! Here's the reviews for everything I have seen lately:

My Bloody Valentine (2009)

OTT nonsense that would have been better if I saw this in 3D in the cinema, but I didn't, so can only comment on the normal 2D DVD. It's crap, but enjoyable crap and the kills are very gory with a cool killer. But still a crap film, and only would have been fun with things popping out the screen. 4/10

Friday the 13th (2009)

This is officially the worst horror film I've seen in recent years and it's even worse than The Unborn. There's just no point to this story, a crap and pointless remake where annoying teens get killed and that's it. A lot of sex and naked chicks which is good, but the film as a whole is atrocious. I really should not have been expecting much (especially since the original was near enough the same), and espcially from hack Marcus Nispel who already made the empty Texas Chainsaw remake. Pure crap, and My Bloody Valentine at least had better, gorier kills. I've never been a fan of the Friday 13th franchise anyway and this film didn't do anything to convert me. Terrible.

It's just an empty, lifeless moronic drivel about cliche teenagers doing what cliche stupid American teenagers do in American movies, they have pathecoally bad and bland personalities and I didn't care in the least about anyone (was that the point?). Now that wouldn't even be a problem if they were brutally killed but I didn't find any of the deaths in the film partuclualry gruesome or cool- they were just straight forward kills and some were even not shown, which is a crime! When compared with My Bloody Valentine at least that film had in your face awesome deaths with blood and guts everywhere. Even The Final Destination looks to have more carnage. Friday reboot was definitly mindless but I did not find it fun in any way, it dragged on far too much and I just wanted it to end becuase I was not having a good time with it. Thankfully I did not see it at the cinema becuase I would have easily walked out of the theatre if I had. Having not seen any of the sequels to Friday the reboot certainly hasn't got me in the mood to visit them. It's not that I am not a fan of slasher films (Friday series encompasses the genre), it's just that I hate bad ones- and this film was beyond rubbish. Just becuase Nispel adds a cool colour filter on it does not make the film itself good- this is a repetivie gimmick he always does (he did it on the Texas remake and Pathfinder). It wasnt scary, tense, suspensful or brutal as it should have been, there was no story and all it was was teenagers messing about and then Jason just popping up predicably and killing them. It's just not good enough, especially for a genere rife in crap like this. A pointless and poor remake.

Pros:

+Sex and hot chicks and plenty of nudity
+Derek mears was good
+music
+visuals were coloured nicely

Crap:

-annoying characters I didn't care about (hated them all with a passion) with no depth at all
-simple bland predictable story, you know what's going to happen even with the "twist" ending we all saw a mile off
-crap dialogue
-uninspiring deaths that could have been so much more
-badly directed with no punch to anything, just a loud mess from start to finish
-crap gore effects!
-gets me angry becuase of how bad it is, goes from bad to worse.
-just a pointless movie, if I wanted to see a psycho go around killing teens there's a dime a dozen out there which are more gory, more entertaining and just more fun- My Bloody Valentine for a start.

In my honest opinion I give it 1/10.

See if it wanted to be a proper reboot then they at least could have added charactes we care about, characters with at least a degree of depth. But we didn't get anything and when I bring that up the #1 excuse for that is "but the originals had generic characters this is just the same". Which begs me to question, what was the point of this "reboot"? It could have just been another sequel, which it basically is, another lame sequel with added flash. The script was horrible (but I guess it's normal dialogue for American teenagers these days) and the characters were the most annoying teens I have yet seen in a horror movie thus far, yes they were that bad. Also they had a black guy, a white guy a korean/chinese guy, hey where's the Indian? They wanted to go PC but no other ethnic minorities? It bugs me that they never have any Indians when these films are trying to be multicultural, lame, i'm shocked that the US doesn't do this (here in the UK it's standard). Annoying.

As with many horror reboots (especially by Nispel) they pride themselves on looking good and its not very hard since the original movies came out in the 70s/80s. Colour fiters are used a lot in horror films (Saw series, TCM etc) it's not hard to put some on and make something look good. But tha does not make it a better movie since underneath the gloss it's still rubbish.
FvJ rebooted the series in a strong and positive manner but I felt this new remake was pointless, it didnt revive anything it just came along as pretty much another lame remake "acting" as a franchise reviver (they could make any sh!tty sequel to anything and that could be a franchise reviver). This could have easily been a new Friday sequel. Like Rambo4, a new "flashy brand new" movie in the series which continues from the past. It's just another tired movie series which has been done to death, brings nothing new and is the same old crap. I guess people want this, then, becuase to me it was completly unneeded. The slasher genre has been revived many times before but this movie is just riding on the back of far superior ones, imo. Theres just nothing stand out or special about the film when compared to other recent ones.

I guess it's down to me not being a Friday fan so I didn't see much to this film, but even as a lover of horror/slasher flicks there was nothing in this film to keep me entertainied. As a simple slasher movie it's okay but there are far better ones out there, far better ones out there worth your money and time. All this movie has for it is the Friday label, becuase if it didn't it would be just another forgettable horror film i a world where plenty come and go every year. Friday 13th may have been a staple king of slasher films but this one deserves to be forgotten as a crap remake and a lame horror film.

1/10

Quarantine (2008)

Pointless American remake of [REC], which is directly redone shot for shot and not much point watching it as the original Spanish version is far superior. Watch it for a few extra scenes which are explain the origins of the source but otherwise this is exactly the same, nothing new, we all saw it before done better. I think it would have been better and cheaper if they just released the original with dubbing instead of wasting money on a whole new production just so they can set it in the US as there is no new spin on this remake. 5/10

Shuttle (2008)

Bad horror film about a group of teens who are kidnapped and taken on a hellish ride by a psychopathic bus driver. It pulls every cliche in the book, it's overlong and very boring and I just didn't care for any of it, the characters or the plot. The good thing about the film is that there is no happy ending, and the end twist is quite tragic. A rubbish film but slightly better than the previous two thanks to some good acting. 4/10

Splinter (2008)

Now this is a decent, low-budget horror film done very well. A group of people are stranded in a petrol station garage store as something unknown stalks them outside. Very cool creature concept, like a mix of The Thing and something from The Suffering. Not great as they are some silly parts but overall an impressive debut from a first time writer/director and some very interesting ideas- and a cool monster. Worth checking out. 6/10.

The Tattooist (2007)

I thought this film was okay, acting like an extended episode of The X Files. A tatooist borrows an ancient Samoan tattoo device only to figure out that it is cursed and hexes him, and whoever he tattoos after suddenly seem to die due to the tattoos itself transforming into something more sinister, killing the person. He must trace the roots of the device back to New Zealand and familarise himself with Samoan culture as he begins to understand how it is linked with the ancient art of tattoing, and how the curse became what it is as dark secrets are revealed. A good, interesting film where I learned quite a bit about Samoan culture and how tattooing originated from it and is a very important part of it! 7/10

13: The Game of Death (2006)

Thai film about a man in serious debt who has just lost his job and his girlfriend, only to get a phonecall from a mysterious company offering him millions of cash if he only passes 13 seemingly simple tests. The tests start out easy and he thinks it's a cakewalk when the money is instantly transferred into his account, but to get more of it he has to pass more- each of which are more sick, depraved and twisted. It takes all his strength to overcome these challenges and find out who is really behind this sick game. Pretty cool, disgusting horror and dark comedy mixed together, I thought it was okay, an original film from Thailand. 7/10

The Good, The Bad and the Weird (2008)

Korean film in the vein of Rodriguez's Desperado about a bounty hunter after a group of bandits who are all on their way to find a map. Also on the search for it are other bandits and the Japanese army. This is a fun, stylish and just very cool action film set as an homage to spagehetti westerns and cool Japanese action films as well as John Woo; with some awesome stunts, fights, set peices and gun showdowns! Highly reccomended if you are a fan of Rodrigeuz's Mexico trilogy. Blazing manga-style fun. 8/10

Traitor (2008)

An interesting thought-provoking action thriller starring Don Cheadle as a former soldier who must go undercover with the US FBI to help them track down muslim terrorists. Only problem is that Cheadle is a devout muslim himself, who previously sided and helped with those very terrorists he's now trying to defeat. 7/10

Repo! The Genetic Opera (2008)

Fun stylish horror rock musical in the vein of The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Half comic book, half horror, all musical, it's a lot of great fun. 7/10

Yes Man (2008)

Typical Jim Carrey nonsense in the vein of Bruce Almighty, though he has definitly lost his touch. 6/10

Haunting in Connecticut (2009)

Bland generic horror film "based on a true story". 4/10

The Unborn (2009)

The only horrfiying thing about this film is how truly bad it is. David S Goyer once again proves that he can write a decent story but can't direct it for sh!t in this uninspired, insultingly cheesy and atrociously cliched horror film. Every cliche in the book is used up in the first 30 minutes and the film just drags on with it's silly, childish nonsense from there. I wonder what the hell Gary Oldman was thinking to be in the film. Bad movie with a lame plot twist you can figure out about half an hour in. One of the worst films of the year, for sure. Not even Odette Yustman in her underwear can save it. 1/10.

Groteseque (2009)

Japanese torture porn in the vein of Hostel, minus any plot. A man kidnaps a couple at the start and then proceeds to fck them up, bigtime. This is two hours of pure torture, which pushes the boundary in plain sickness. Sexual abuse, child abuse, you name it, it's in here- some good special effects in the vein of a grindhouse film but not much else- cliche plot. The only reason I decided to see it is becuase it recently made the news in the UK as the BBFC banned it in the country. Obviously that has done wonders for publicity, and I decided to check what the fuss was all about. For splatterfans only, as this is all the film is. 5/10

Creepshow (1982)

Classic 80s comedy horror. Stepehen King and George A Romero bring us a selection of short horror stories all directed with tongue severely in cheek. Made me feel like a kid again. 7/10

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)

A boring film and an utterly generic story I didn't give a damn about. This is Forrest Gump all over again but done in a more serious, less fun way to try and nab some Oscars. Brad Pitt gives a soulless performance as Benajmin Button, the man who ages backwards, and he has the same expression throughout the whole damn film. Cate Blanchett is better as the woman who helps narrate the story but not enough to save the film. But this is really a film which tries to force us to care and I really couldn't, as character after character presented were boring and uninpsired (half of them we have seen in Forrest Gump, it's so similar becuase it's based on the author who wrote that novel too). David Fincher directs and presents the film beautifully and the special effects are pretty damn impressive (it was only after I saw the making-of doc that I realised that Pitt's face was fully CG in many shots, I didnt even know that, so it's amongst the best i've ever come across), but overall the story is just mind-numblingly generic and I did not connect with anyone or anything. Looks great, but little soul in the film; a generic movie with some gloss, trying so hard to impress the Academy that you can see right through it. 5/10

Transiberian (2008)

Very good suspensful film about two American tourists on the Transiberian train from China to Russia who get involved with two mysterious passengers who hold a deadly secret. From here it's a treacherous rollercoaster ride as they get engalgled with murder, deception and narcotics as things slowly spiral completly out of control- not a good thing when you are in the middle of a harsh, cold (and corrupted) country where you don't speak the language. I thought it was very good and had moments of edge-of-your-seat-tense, though it does suffer from having a few scenes of sillyness. Still, good film. Woody Harrelson, Eduardo Noriega (from the amazing Amerros Perros) and Ben Kingsley star. 7/10

The Devil's Backbone (2001)

Fantastic horror film by Guillermo Del Toro which he calls the twin *brother* sibling to his *sister* film Pan's Labyrinth. A young boy is sent to an orphanage in 1930s Mexico (during the end of the Spanish civil war) only to find that the building is haunted by a spectral figure known only among the children as "the boy who signs". It's when the boy finds small clues as to why does he realise the true mystery as to waht really happened there. This is filmaking at it's finest and Del Toro at his best- a beautifully directed and shot film which combines engossing deep, tragic drama, terror and the harsh realism of war as it's set against some truly unnerving events. There's amazing acting going on as well especially from Eduardo Noriega (again). But the creepy atmosphere, vivid colours and expressive visuals are the tour-de-force here. Del Toro really is a master of beuatiful artwork and its got his trademark vibe all over it. The special effects are also amazing. Defintitly a must see if you want a cracking horror film and even if you are a fan of the director. Puts lots of Hollywood horrors to shame. 8/10

Bronson (2008)

Chronicling the life (and inside the mind) of Britian's most notorious criminal Charles Bronson, this is a tragic, stylish arthouse take of Micheal Petersen's world as he spends his time in prison with dreams of becoming famous- as Micheal dissapears and out comes his alter-ego Charles Bronson. Tom Hardy's electrifying performance has to be seen to be believed- a fantastic gifted actor as he takes you on a journey which is both sad, darkly comic, surreal and full of completle and utter mental violence. The film itself is A Clockwork Orange for the new millenium; was the man a tragic product of the prison system or just a plain insane psycho? You decide. All in all a different, hard-hitting and intruiging kind of biopic. Impossible to not take notice. 7/10

The Killing Room (2009)

Interesting but short thriller about a government expermient which puts 4 random people into a room and puts them up for a series of tests, where one person is elimated in succession- by death. Good acting by Nick Canon (I'd never thought i'd say that!) and one of my favourite actors Peter Stormare. 6/10

Somers Town (2008)

Quaint, simple but beautiful drama by Shane Meadows about a young English boy who befriends a young Polish boy. Though language, cultures and personalities apart, they connect from within on one level- their affection for a young French girl. This is cinema at it's finest, and quite possible one of the most perfect films I have ever seen. Simple story, beautifully told. 10/10

Moulin Rouge (2001)

Simply nothing like it has ever been done before, this is a visually stunning peice of kinetic, mindblowing musical art! Amazing set peices, brilliant fusion of music and some outstanding costumes and designs together with visceral and stylish directing makes this epic romance one of my favourite musicals ever. A feast for the eyes. 9/10

Man Bites Dog (1992)

Sick and disturbing, but a fascinating film nontheless. 8/10

Dead Snow (2009)

Norwegian comedy/horror about a group of friends in a cabin who are attacked by nazi zombies. Good concept, silly film, okay if you don't think much about it- has some good set peices but altogether I think the film could have been a bit better with the concept, but it's dumb fun, a laugh when you are with some friends and have a few beers. 6/10

Dark Floors (2008)

Finnish rock group and Eurovision 2006 winners Lordi make their first movie where they play their own monster characters, in Finlands most expensive film to date about a group of people stuc in a hospital that shifts dimensions as Lordi stalk the halls and kill them all one at a time (or something). Sadly the film doesn't make any sense, has cardboard cut out characters and suffers from a lot of generic acts. Visuals are good but it's a film that will leave your head scratching just for the sake of it. I guess the only good thing was William Hope (who played Gorman in Aliens) playing another annoying character nobody likes who gets killed first by having his heart ripped out! 4/10

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998)

Classic British comedy/heist film which hasn't lost any of it's punch. People call it a British Tarantino flick but I think it's so much more. Classic characters, classic dialogue and classic actors (including a young Jason Statham, in his first film). Good stuff. 8/10

Falling Down (1993)

Awesome. Who wouldn't want to go apesh!t in LA like Micheal Douglas does? The character is truly the voice of the people and is a classic movie character! D-Fens for President! 8/10

Feed (2005)

Sick and twisted but very intelligent horror/thriller about fetishes involving men feeding women till they are beyond obese and then getting off on it, broadcasting it onto the internet where a whole community pay to see it like pay-per-veiw porn. The film brings up some very important questions as it is inspired by true real life occurences which happen every day. The film is shocking in it's visuals and all the more disturbing that the stuff actually goes on. As a film, the director took these real life habits and makes a a film a bit like Seven where a cop is trying to track down the guy who is doing it to all the women. Largely underrated film, too. 7/10

How To Lose Friends and Alienate People (2008)

Comedy with Simon Pegg, i didn't think much of this film even though I like Simon. Kirsten Dunst was an unlikeable bitch and Megan Fox is overrated and talentless. 4/10

In The Mouth Of Madness (1994)

Underrated horror by John Carpenter. Sam Neil rocks. 8/10

Saw V (2008)

I'm a big Saw fan and love the sequels but this one was definitly weak and made me think that now is the time to stop this franchise for good. Boring, repetitive and cliche, the series has now definitly lost all steam. 4/10

The Boat That Rocked (2009)

Decent feel-good British comedy movie by Richard Curtis (Love Actually). 8/10

The 13th Warrior (1999)

It's not a bad film by any means, in fact I think it's pretty good but overall I think it's a bit of a mess and needed to be fine tuned a little bit, though there are moments of coolness. I haven't read the book by Crichton but I like the idea that he gives an explanation of what the Grendel creature actually might be if it were real. The fights are messy but the direction overall is tight exactly what you would expect by McTiernan. There's a good cast and the story I think is a decent adaptation of the Beowulf poem. There are better films out there based on the material of course (like 2005's Beowulf and Grendel starring Gerrard Butler, and even the recent Outlander), but I still think this is a decent, if underrated, action adventure film. Such a shame that the film was a critical flop when it was released in theatres.

7/10

The Last House on the Left (2009)

Sick, disgusting, depressing, shocking, distressing- but altogether brilliant. This is one of the best horror films I have seen this year, and a very good remake that is better than the original. Reccomended. 8/10

Pig Hunt (2008) - 2/10 Could have been great, ended up being a crap monster movie.
Last of the Mohicans (1992)- 8/10 Epic.
Anything For Her (Pour Elle) (2008)- Very good thriller, with Diane Kruger. 8/10
Bloodrayne 2: Deliverance (2007)- 0/10 Uwe Boll
Apocalypto (2006) - 8/10 Brilliant
Blood: The Last Vampire (2009) 0/10 Pure garbage.
Public Enemies (2009) 8/10- very good. Reminded me of Heat, but in the 1930s.
Drag Me To Hell (2009) 6/10 Good, but could have been so much better. This is basically "Evil Dead- lite". Shame that Raimi went from revolutionising a genre, to just plain imitating it (poorly).

Make-up work- in-progress

So follows a series of step by step images showing my character from sketch/design phase to photoshop mock-up and then, hopefully, the actual work which will be gloriously how I imagined it to be (lets hope). Dubbed the "sea witch", she is a mer-creature from the furtherst, most exotic Indian islands and has never surfaced on land before in her true form (something like that, story hasn't been finished yet).

Good news, bad news...

First, the good news, especially for fans of Castlevania, like me! Firstly

The movie has been scrapped (excellent, rather this than let Paul Worthless Shit Anderson ruin it):

---

Sources close to Bloody-Disgusting have confirmed that Paul W.S. Anderson's Castlevania adaptation has officially turned to dust. The project, originally announced with Sylvain White (Stomp the Yard, I'll Always Know What You Did Last Summer) attached to direct, had recently went out to new directors only to take a trip into the abyss of "development hell.

---

http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/16302

I'm ecstatic, as I never wanted a film version in the first place. As we all know, video game adaptations, 9.5 times out of 10, end up being a work of shameless insult- so I'm just glad Hollywood isn't going anywhere near my favourite franchise ever here, especially since Anderson wanted to get his grubby mitts on it. Secondly, some more Castlevania related news from E3- information on the new game in the series- Castlevania: Lords of Shadow.

Originally a new IP entitled Lords of Shadow (and in that form looking coincidentally very Castlevania-like with the protagonist wielding a whip in a Gothic setting), it has now decidedly been turned into an official Castlevania game, produced by Kojima Productions (the game itself is being developed by Madrid-based MercurySteam Entertainment, creator of Clive Barker's Jericho. E3 just showed a trailer for it labelling it as a new reboot of the failing franchise, this time helmed by Metal Gear Solid creator Hideo Kojima himself. Now i've been going on for literally years at how they should change the game and make it more action orientated instead of the usual Metroid/RPG style and it looks like finally my prayers have been answered- this is the type of game I have wanted for years and especially with the popularity of God of War (which I wanted a new CV game to be in the vein of because GoW does the whole Castlevania action/combat really well), Lords of Shadow is obviously looking at it for inspiration and that's a good thing. Kojima's involvement is very important here and I really appreciate him coming on board as I feel IGA, whilst having some solid ideas, has a hard time expanding on them and breaking motiff. Storyline and dialogue is such an integral part of this type of action adventure game and Kojima's got the track record to work with that and take the game to a profound level of immersion. I just hope the game isn't bogged down by 2 hour cinematics and a level of seriously overlong pomposity which borders on the irratating and boredom.

Robert Carlyle will provide the voice for the game's protagonist, Gabriel. It is unknown whether trademark series artist Ayami Kojima returns for the character designs.

Shelving what has come before is a good thing, in some regards. Castlevania needs to become less dependant on its much-laboured-upon timeline/history and its 2D catalogue (let’s face it: every game in the series is always compared to Symphony of the Night) and by putting in a fresh producer you set a new marker point. Konami must feel this game is in relatively good shape, because it will be looked at very closely by the media due to Kojima's involvement. You can't blow it or the series (in 3D) will get tarred with another dirty brush.

Lords of Shadow hints at a deep and meaningful quest with mature themes, its lead character possessing an aura of grit, determination, and solemn poise. It’s hard to pinpoint this and I’m open to critique, but Castlevania in 3D up until now has never really been taken seriously, it’s felt like a “in”-game, you needed to be a fan of the series to get it, or wasn’t accessible enough (or probably just not good enough). It could blow peoples’ pre-conceptions out of the water and Gabriel could become the new Dante or Kratos. Patrick Stewart, Robert Carlyle (as Gabriel) and Jason Isaacs lend their voices, which will now add an even more serious tone to the series, for the first time. It's looking good so far, an i'm very happy for these turn of events after literally years of constant disappointment and waning enthusiasm for one of my favourite game series ever (if not my ultimate favourite).

Castlevania needs a fresh reboot after some lacklustre recent sequels, so I'm happy they are thinking seriously about it now.

Castlevania: Lords of Shadow trailer:




Next, bad news on the troubled Hellraiser remake:

http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/31985/pascal-laugier-no-longer-raisin g-hell

---

Pascal Laugier No Longer Raising Hell

Via his official Twitter account Clive Barker reported that Pascal Laugier is regrettably no longer on the Hellraiser remake. Bummer! Laugier would’ve been a shoe-in to capture some of the most grotesque sights of the Hellraiser universe while keeping an emotional investment in the characters (at least, if Martyrs is any indication). But in the wake of him walking away, the project suddenly seems boring and desperate again. Maybe Dimension will find the right person to take the reins, but c’mon.

I had much, much enthusiasm, respect and hope for Laugier to bring us a definitive and worthy Hellraiser film, having recently enjoyed Martyrs. Damn!

I'd rather the remake just get cancelled right now to be honest, than see it in the hands of a no doubt lesser director (which will probably be the case). Let's hope this production hell makes it fade away for good.

*EDIT*

The movie is officially dead in the water, at least for the time being.

The release date has been postponed indefinitely by the Weinstein's and there is reportedly no development being done.

But Pascal Laugier, the single most perfect director for the movie one can imagine, was most certainly on the right track. He would have given us a movie that maybe could not top, but certainly stand proudly next to, the original.

He also made it very clear that this was a movie he wanted to do right, and early on said that if the ridiculous demands of the Weinstein's compromised his vision, he'd rather not do it.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39602

---

So, I gotta ask you this - HELLRAISER. What are your thoughts, or plans, for HELLRAISER, and how do you feel also about remakes in general?

Pascal Laugier: First of all, HELLRAISER is a child's dream coming true. I saw the first when I was 13, I remember precisely the shock it had on me because it was so new, so fresh, so it's very hard to resist the temptation to do HELLRAISER, you know? So of course. When you come from my culture it's like amazing you're even proposed to do HELLRAISER. So of course I felt about it a lot. Right now I have no reasons to refuse the opportunity because IF I disagree with the producer I would leave the project. You know, I'm not forced to do ANYTHING I don't want. So, let me write the first draft, let me tell you what all the American producers have reacted to the reading of the first draft and I will tell you if I'm in good hands or if I'm gonna leave a hellish experience but in ANY CASE, I won't betray Clive Barker's work. I want to do a fresh film filled with a lot of unexpected and surprising things. At the same time, I want it to be connected to the real, original material.

I'm talking about the novella and the first film that are very close to each other. We'll get the chance to have much more money than even Clive had in the first film, so it will be of course more epic, it will be bigger, and I hope that it won't be softer. And right now I trust the guys in Dimension [Films] You know? It's all a matter of human relationship. I talk a lot with Bob Weinstein, he cares about the projects, he's a movie buff, he knows a lot about cinema. But at the same time he's Bob Weinstein and he's a very realistic money maker. So it will be a battle, and I hope that a balance will be found so the film will be close to my vision. What can I say? I'm not sure. I can't sign with my blood that I'm gonna achieve...

The recent history of the troubled Hellraiser remake goes as follows:

Clive Barker, godfather granddaddy creator of the series and director of the original classic wrote a draft - rejected by the Weinstein's.

The writers of Feast and Saw 4 and 5 also wrote a draft - also rejected by the Weinstein's.

Two french director's whose names escape me signed on, but left due to creative differences with the Weinstein's.

Darren Lynn Bousman, rumured to be attached, but never signed on officially.

Lastly, Pascal Laugier, the PERFECT director for this movie, was attached but left due to the Weinstein's not allowing him to make the movie he and Clive Barker felt was the right movie.

Due to the idiotic parameters decreed by the Weinstein's and their general mismanagement of the property, the movie has been years in development, cost millions, and is back at square one. As of now, the project is dead in the water.

Here's to hoping the Weinstein's go broke, and someone more worthy, like Seraphim, acquire the Hellraiser rights. They have blown millions on this, and are back at square one - all thanks to their own mismanagement of the property and the talent they had involved.

New trailer for Hisss!

Finally, a trailer is released for what looks like one of the most interesting and unusual horror flicks you're likely to see this year, and it's actually turning out much better than I expected! I'm really looking forward to it as it's really quite different from usual run-of-the-mill horror flicks, this time focusing on a well known Asian mythological legend rather than mindless psycho killers stalking teenagers, remakes or the usual exercise in graphic, mindless and excessive showcase of torture porn, which seems to be the current trend right now with horror films.

Hisss is a contemporary retelling of the age old Indian legends regarding the ichhadhari nagin, snake women of the race of serpent shape shifters from the underworld, as written in the ancient Puranic and Vedic texts of pre-Hindu mythology . Many films have been made throughout India on this subject, and for me the most striking was 1986's hit Nagina, which made a huge impression on me as a child (I'll never forget Sri Devi's snake-dance, with her piercing blue eyes literally creeping the hell out of me as Amrish Puri plays the infamously disturbing yet catchy snake-charmer music now iconic to film). Most of these movies usually dabbled in romance and revenge and though Hisss retains the roots of this popular genre aswell it is now also, for the first time, exploring the legend by creeping into the realm of pure unadulterated fantasy horror...which is right up my street!

The movie revolves around a seedy American who travels to India in search of the truth about the nagas and hopefully capture one, as he believes that hidden within the hood of this mythical creature lies a rare gem of great worth. Once there he manages to find and captures one, and takes it back to the modern world for hus own personal gain and to exploit at his will. Unbeknownst to him of course, the naga's mate soon learns of this and, transforming into a human female, embarks on a journey of revenge as she travels in search of her lost love, killing all that stand in her way, as we find out nothing should becoming between a nagin and their lust for power and love. Written and directed by Jennifer Lynch (daughter of cult film director David Lynch and of the recent Surveillance), it stars the stunning Malika Sherawat as the seductive Nagin snake woman out for revenge as well as Irfan Khan, most recently seen in the multi Oscar award winning Slumdog Millionaire.

Malika Sherawat as a mythological Nagin (Snake Woman)

What makes this movie special is that it is joint Indian and American production- an American director is taking the helm (as chosen by the producers) as well as an American special effects company but the story and production is Indian and it's being filmed in India simultaneously in both Hindi and English (although I must add the movie is not Bollywood so there's no need to worry about song and dance acts! This is a gritty terror/drama whose main priority is to shock and awe with it's beautiful horror imagery). Malika as always looks fantastic in the part but when she becomes the snake-creature it's both horrific and...strangely beautiful (don't ask me why, it just looks so fucking awesome). The make-up effects are by the ever-fantastic Robert Kurtzman, who has worked with visionary directors like Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodrigeuz on classic films such as From Dusk Till Dawn, Army of Darkness, A Nightmare on Elm Street Parts 5 and 7, Evil Dead II and Scream, to name a few from his colourful filmography. His work has been pretty incredible throughout and it looks to be no exception here; his designs for the naga are both revolting, scary and sexy at the same time and the pictures had me pumped when I first saw them as it looks to be a groundbreaking piece of work, especially for an Indian horror film. Seeing them within the movie now is even better as the look and feel is perfect, as is the visual tone of the film- very slimy, sticky, hot and sexual- perfect for this kind of movie and it really shows off the excellent make-up work well.

Hisss is in post-production right now but it'll be out in a few months, a perfect tie-in for a hot, sultry and altogether venomous Indian summer. I can't wait!:

Family Guy is shit.

Just a quick rant:

People seem to get massive fanboy hard-ons for this crap and it makes no sense to me as I think it's absolutely fucking terrible, and in my honest opinion it's one of the worst attempts at an animated sitcom I've ever seen (and i've seen too many in my time). The early series' however did have some genuinely good episodes and the show itself did show promise but it quickly turned into an unfunny sketch show which uses a random gag sequence to try and be entertaining but just ends up being too dumb for it's own good.

Typical episode:

"Hey, this reminds me of the time/like the time/remember that time when we [insert random pop culture reference/80s film parody/celebrity piss-take/political statement joke/lame attempt at satire]"

repeat for 25 minutes, along with Stewie saying something gay/cussing his mum, taking the piss out of Meg and Chris saying/doing something stupid as mandatory, with the other characters coming in for a trademark catchphrase/sketch. Not funny or clever. Just annoying, stupid and shit, I fucking hate it and I hate it even more when people go on about how good it is and "quoting" the shitty lines which come from it.

Just about every Family Guy episode ever made.

As far as animated sitcoms go, it's definitly of the worst i've ever seen, I mean this show literally tries too hard to be funny and random does not equal funny, it just shows that they have no actual (or original) ideas to convey. Making fun out of celebrities is funny if you know how to do it right, not just a lame parody of one of their shows/films. South Park does this all much, much better, it completely destroys Family Guy and I find myself genuinely laughing out loud at it- it's consistently entertaining and has just gone from strength to strength, I wasn't a big fan of it at first but now it's just superb; funny, ridiculous and very clever, especially with the topics it tackles. And, even though The Simpsons is very weak now and not as good as it used to be, I'll still say that it is better than the rubbish that is Family Guy.

And both The Simpsons and South Park have both humiliated Family Guy at hilarious levels in some really great episodes; so kudos to them at calling out one of the most tedious, annoyingly random for the sake of being random unfunny animated attempts at satire ever. Give it up, Seth McFarlane. Or think of good material....Oh wait, he can't, becuase when Family Guy got cancelled and he tried to think of a new series he came up with American Dad...which was exactly the same as Family Guy, even down to the same lame characters and sketches. And his voices gets tiresome too.

Hellraiser remake news/thoughts

Just had to comment on this as it strikes me as rather worrying. Director Pascal Laugier (who recently did the well received fantastic Martyrs (review up soon)) spoke to Sci Fi Wire about the upcoming Hellraiser remake (which I'm really excited about seeing as it's one of my favourite horror series' if not my one and only favourite), which he said will be a reboot of the franchise and will retain the "transgressive material" of the original.

"The idea behind Hellraiser is not to do a remake — it's to do what they call a reboot — that is to say, a new version," said Laugier. "So what I am proposing to Dimension, the studio behind Hellraiser, is some elements coming from the first film mixed with brand-new stuff."

He added: "My main problem, honestly, with the Hellraiser reboot is that Hellraiser is very transgressive material. It deals with S&M and gay issues, and I really want to be faithful to the book and Clive Barker's world. I don't want to betray him. So if I have the feeling that I am being asked by Hollywood to soften the franchise, I will leave in a blink."

Now, hold on a second: GAY ISSUES!? Hellraiser has NOTHING TO DO with gay issues, as far as I am aware nothing at all, it's more religious than anything remotely resembling homosexual subjects! Oh, so the Cenobites dress in leather and love S and M, that makes them deal with gay issues? HOW?! Man, this guy has no clue....he's got to speak to Barker and get him involved or he's going to go in the wrong direction.

There's nothing homosexual about Hellraiser, though, whatsoever, not even innuendos. It's about pain and pleasure, S and M fetishes, going beyond limits, beings from alternate universes, religious subtext, fantasy, horror, etc- but there is nothing gay about it, not in the original novel or the film series. Hellraiser is just so much more than meets the eye, yes it's about sex and lust, desire, pain and pleasure but beyond that is is revolutionary in it's ideas, almost mind-blowing; it destroys typical conventions, it explores dimensions, alternate universes, breaking down barriers, going beyond established Judea-christian religious subtexts and limits, it's psychological in it's aspects as it is scientific- it's epic fantasy and horror fused together to create a universe we've never really seen before. It's not just about gore and sex, though it is part of it and relevant it's also completely beyond that.

Unless I'm wrong I totally do not see anything homosexual about the characters; Cenobites or humans, or story for that matter. Barker himself described the Cenobites sporting a sort of "neo-punk" fashion, though they are meant to be beings of a high order; "theologians of the Order of the Gash". There's nothing gay about it, in fact in the novel they are described as sexually ambiguous, conforming to neither gender. Saying Hellraiser deals with "gay issues" just shows that they have no idea or grasp of what the actual concept is about. Yes it is unusual and I guess "queer" in it's sense of difference but "gay issues" is a rather narrow term to use, I think.

People I think have the wrong idea about it if they see gay stuff in it as that is not the premise, and certainly not an issue.

Anyway, regarding the movie I think this "remake/reboot" should be set in London, England, and have 55 Ludovico Street situated there as it is in the original novella. I think it would be brilliant to have it set in as it would also give it that unique gothic horror feel, being among the sights and sounds of London town- it's just too generic to have it set in the US like every other Hollywood movie these days, that's what made the first two films stand out because it looked so visibly different from the other flicks which were set in America.

My thoughts:

-Set it in London, England- like the original movie and the novel.
-get British actors, with the exception of one or two, but Frank has to be British, as does Pinhead, and preferably Julia.
-no dubbing out English voices this time!
-show more of London town, especially when Julia is out picking up victims in bars.

I think it would work really well, even though it's not a British production, I think the setting and background of London is just so much tighter and Gothic for the material than the US. I hope this new re-imagining/reboot goes back to the roots, the later sequels were missing this element.

And regarding my dream cast for the movie:

My picks:

Kirsty Cotton---Emily Blunt (one of my favourite actresses right now though I can also see Kiera Knightly doing an excellent job)
Julia---Famke Jansen
Frank Cotton---Andy Serkis, Dominic West or Jason Isaacs (all fantastic actors who would play the part well though I can't seem to decide who)
Rory/Larry---Richard Armitage (pictured)
Pinhead/Lead Cenobite---Tom Hardy (a popular fan favourite, pictured)

I think Famke would be a perfect choice for Clare Higgins' successor as the woman who kills for her forbidden lover in this version, even though Famke is a bit weary on horror movies.

Well, I'm inclined to think that Hellraiser is a little more than "horror". It's every much a character drama too, a lethal 3 way liaison between two men, a film about lust, betrayal, obsession, desire, the epitome of high Gothic horror/romance, as if something written by Edgar Allan Poe etc...something which Famke can easily get her teeth into and in all honestly something I think is suited to her, made for her even; I can't think of a better person who has such a powerful screen presence, especially when the character itself is turns from a normal loving woman who has an affair and then becomes a cold-blooded icy murderer. Julia is supposed to be a beautiful woman with a hidden secret whose transformation is slow and drawn out, the audience is both on her side and against her, which I also think is a very interesting dynamic. There's just too much in the character and film for her to work with, I think she would be phenomenal.

It is just so much more than a typical horror film, it definitely stands above your normal run-of-the-mill genre stuff and so it needs better than average actors to pull it off, and I think these guys are simply perfect for the roles.

Miley Cyrus was hilarious in the Jonathan Ross interview

Seriously, never seen an interview with this chick before but that was one of the most entertaining interviews i've ever seen on that show- she gave Wossy a run for his money and it's usually him that's humorously intimidating. She was on the ball and made no qualms about anything and really livened it up, especially when she got up to teach him to dance. Very funny to watch, she's really confident and as Wossy rightfully said- she'll go far in the buisness.
I thought she was fantastic and really stood her own. Wossy can be very intimidating but even he was surprised at her quick and very funny quips and comebacks. She's got a very contagious and funny sense of humour and attitude and in all honesty she was an absoloute joy to watch.

So much better than that Lady Gaga, who is quite possibly one of the dullest people i've seen and imo was one of the most uncomfortable interviews ever to grace that show. She just came off as mentally unstable and try-hard. And i'm guessing there was nothing in that tea-cup she was constantly "drinking" out of either.

I don't see why people say she's immature in the interview, if anything I thought she was just being funny and it worked becuase the audience and Jonathan were laughing with her. I loved it when she explained how Disney and herself spent ages coming up with the title to the movie. I thought she was naturally confident which was great becuase it made for a cracking interview. I don't see why people are complaining about it so much, all the issues with it seem completly trivial and trife.

I thought Miley was endearing, funny and charming in a very wacky way though when she settled down she also answered the questions normally. I didn't see anything wrong with her, sure she may be a little loud but why is that a problem? She's got a funny bursting-at-the-seams personality which was destined to be manifested as a stage and screen entertainer. I didn't think she was childish and if I had any reason to i'd equate it to the fact that she is still young, so it's expected. She's still young, and whilst she may not be the quiet, reserved type that doesn't make her any less of a normal person. She is entertaining, loud and funny to watch and imo oozes charisma and screen presence- everything which has made her famous. She wouldn't be where she is today if it wasn't for who she really is, and that was her.

I see a lot of negativity towards Miley and from my understanding it looks as though it's simply for the fact that she is young and therefore falls into the "young teen brat" category, which I don't really think is very fair at all. She definitly showed an entertaining and upbeat personality in the interview but I also thought she kept within limits and relegated to sillyness when it called for it; unlike a certain GaGa who actually was more of a brat than Miley and half a dozen of those Super Sweet Sixteen teens put together, even though she's older than them and should know better. Though I think it's also unfair to regard Miley as a "SS16" teen becuase the people on there are truly horrid and utterly detestable, to the point of making me feel ill, and Miley isn't like that (or doesn't seem like that) at all, at least not in my view of what I have seen of her.

I'm not saying that that's how most 16 year olds are but a large proportion of them do have certain characteristics which Miley has, being the typical teen poster girl for her age group. But she's an entertainer at heart and of course I believe she is also slightly guilty of playing up to the camera as many celebs sometimes do. Selena Gomez, Demi Lovato et al are all different people and they all have different personalities but that does not mean that one is better than the other simply becuase one is louder/more overly confident than the other and doesn't adhere to your tastes. In time Miley will quieten down but as of right now she's riding the fame wave and I say let her; she works hard and is good at what she does and no doubt deserves everything she is getting. It's who she is and its that which has made her come this far, if she wasn't herself then she wouldn't be a star and she wouldn't be here.

Of course I had a whole wealth of preconceptions about Miley prior to this becuase all I ever hear is bitching and detest regarding her so when I sat down to watch the show I was expecting the worst, but when I was very surprised that I warmed up to her quite quickly and honestly couldn't understand the hate. If she is notorious at being one of the worst teen celebs out there then I think that is a gross overstatment and complete over-exaggeration; there are far worse out there- far worse. I simply wonder where this hatred and negativity comes from, most likely jealousy or basic irritation no doubt, along with the world's love to hate things just for the sake of it; a sad habit that will sadly never cease. Miley just seems like a funny, wacky girl and I found her a joy to watch.

Animatronics= dead?

I've just realised that many big-budget CG movies these days don't even use animatronics anymore in the same way Jurassic Park is famous for using. The JP films, as we all know, use a combination of Stan Winston Studio's (in some cases) life size animatronics for close up/midriff shots of the dinosaurs reacting to sets, props and people etc and ILM's CGI for long full body shots of the dinosaurs doing things otherwise impossible to do via practical animatronics. But i've seen recently that many big CGI movies these days don't use animatronics anymore, instead rather going full CG for the whole show, especially if they are huge dinosaur-sized sentients. Recent examples of this are:

Peter Jackson's King Kong (2005): The prime example. I would have expected this movie to be made similar to the JP movies in terms of using practical and CGI effects but no, this movie's creatures are all full CGI, even down to intricatly detailed close-up shots. Usually they have animatronic heads for when creatures interact with actor in close shots, but that's not the case here. Everything is high detailed CG, close up and long shots. The only "animatronics" were props and machines simulating logs or Kong's hands/arms for the actors to work with, all covered in greenscreen ready to be made into real characters on the computer.

Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy (2003-2006): The undead skeleton pirates are all CG, no animatromics, but most importantly Davy Jones and the Kraken are all fully CG- a very big surprise considering I thought they at least used a fusion of make-up, prosthetics and CGI for Davy's face but apparantly not, Davy is full CG, including his clothes and hat. It's all shot close up too, and amazingly still retains incredible texture, movement and density which before wouldn't have been able to be achieved without practical make-up/prosthetics.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy (2001-2003) Whilst the goblins and other smaller human-sized nasties are actors in prosthetic make-up (except Gollum), the bigger creatures are all full CG. With the exception of Treebeard (who is basically just a massive prop), all the huge monsters here do not have animatronic counterparts. For example, midriff/head shots would be animatronic if it were JP, but here everything is done on the computer, from extreme close ups to long shots (Ballrog, cave-troll, Shelob, Wargs, flying fellbeasts etc, all CG, no animatronics).

Transformers (2007): All the robots are fully CG, close-ups and long shots. The movie does use props and some extentions of the characters are animatronic (eg Scorponok's tail when it attacks people) but otherwise the main robots themselves are all CG.



Star Wars: Attack of the Clones/Revenge of the Sith(2002,2005): All the massive creatures here are all full CG, no animatronic counterparts (case in point the monsters in the Geonosis gladitorial arena such as the Reek, Nexu and Acklay and the Varactyl Boga- that iguana thing which Obi-Wan rides in ROTS) all fully CG, even when reacting with actors.

These are just some of the movies of recent years that I can think of which don't use animatronics, i'm sure there are more i've missed.

So cinema and technology have come to a point where there's no need to have huge practical effects anymore- everything from close-up to long shot can now be done on high quality CG and look just as good, where before having CG for everything was costly so they used to split it up between two mediums. Certainly there was never any problem using full CG for everything, even upclose shots (JP has the Rex and raptors merely a few meteres away from the camera and it still looks amazingly detailed) but there were issues of having CG objects interacting with actors and props. Now however it's not a big problem anymore, current technology can deal with everything. It's not expensive anymore either- certianly now it would probably cost more to make animatronics as well as CGI- two different types of things which then involves blending them both together, which is yet more work. Not to mention the hours of difficult labour having massive animatronics on set. It's a lot of work when one can now sort it out with CG which now, in some cases, looks even better than animatronics (when time and effort of course are put into it). Why have an animatronic with limited movement as a close up when you can have a full CG object close up which can do anything and everything? (Imagine having Kong's close ups with a large animatronic head...really wouldn't look as good at all, especially in conveying emotions and expression. This is where CGI for everything works so well as one seamless creature).

All these current movies have no animatronics in there becuause it's now easier and cost effective to do everything with CG and have it looking just as good (King Kong the very best example of this). JP3 was all the way back in 2001 where it made sense by using the traditional ILM/Stan Winston method, but massive leaps in CG technology has been made since then. So, do you think the next JP movie will still use animatronics when films can now be made easily without it? Looking at it now, I really can't think why they should...

I'd like it to keep tradition but the fact is that buisness-wise it would be expensive to do both- they would probably relegate it to one medium to keep it cost effective. Stan Winston Studios would of course still be used in the design process (every dinosaur in the JP films has been designed by them of course) but i'm not sure if they would still make huge animatronic dinosaurs anymore. Maybe smaller ones like raptors and such but still, movies nowaydays use CGI for everything.

The only recent movie I can think of where they had huge animatronics as well as CGI was the Queen in AVP:Alien vs Predator in 2004, but this was mainly becuase their budget didn't allow it to go full CG. The Alien Queen was both animatronic and CG, though I think this was becuase the Queen is a creature which just looks and moves better as an animatronic rather than a CG one (the skin and sheen for example all look more realistic when made out of real material).



Dinosaurs on the other hand are living, breathing animals much closer to today's animals than the Alien Queen..they sweat, they tear, they have much more complicated skin and skin mechanics including muscle, bone and tissue which move and react...all of which can easily be done on a computer these days and, with the right SFX house behind it, can look much much better than a model.



I believe Spielberg is quoted to have said that animatronics solicits better performances from the human actors, as the actors have something to play to. Getting eyeline/eyefocus right when you want a face-to-face shot, that sort of thing. Shooting around that (ie: no face shots of actors looking at CGI on the same frame) limits the director's vision. Perhaps the future is crude models for the director and actor's benefit, and CGI all the way...

But guess what- even Spielberg has moved on since then! His War of the Worlds adaptation in 2005 had no animatronics, not even for the small aliens (especially in the sequence where he replicates his JP "raptors in the kitchen" sequence with the two children in the basement). Whereas in JP he used animatronics and CGI for the raptors, in WOTW it's all CGI aliens, even for the close-ups. The tripods were of course just too big to be made with animatronics, so that's understandable. The only practical effects in this movie were the fallen tripods and weeds. So it looks like Spielberg has embraced the wonders of full CGI now too.

He also produced Transformers, which as I already mentioned had no major animatronics. He will most likely produce Jurassic Park 4 as well, and I think he'll probably give a thumbs up to full CGI there too.

I think it has become easier for actors to work agianst nothing as they are now well versed and experienced in it as opposed to before when it was a new thing and therfore harder, though most of the time it's not really against thin air. SFX guys usually have stand-ins for the actors to work agianst, and though it may not be much it's at least an eyeline. Nowadays of course they have actors who mo-cap the performance of their character; Andy Serkis as Gollum or Bill Nighy as Davy Jones for example, who act as their respective character which will later be replaced with a CG version- this eradicates the problem of other actors with nothing to work with, especially when conveying emotion and drama from their performance as it is all now done in-camera.

I just think that technology has moved on so much that everything can be done with full CGI in a live action movie now- and, as movies like King Kong have shown us, all look good as one seamless art rather than breaking it up between different mediums. Though new technolgy is being created everyday, James Cameron's new film Avatar will have such technology never seen before as it has been invented just for it, and all of that is done on the computer with no practical work whatsoever, not even for the alien characters. A recent magazine writer who some some test footage was reportadly so amazed he said "I couldn't tell what was real or not". So maybe the time of animatronics is coming to an end, who knows. Movies have to keep ahead of the game to impress audiences who know all to well what's CGI and what's not, I don't think a new JP movie could work with traditional animatronics anymore when people demand so much more from their special effects now. People just get turned off when they can see what's "fake".

I think, personally, that this is just down to Weta's lesser results of CGI amongst blue/green screen work. This is of course their biggest problem, and it's been complained about many times; their greenscreen compositing work is just very poor compared to ILM's- take for instance the infamous Brontosaur stampede in Kong which is the best example of their worst work, just really bad greenscreening, especially on the actors in that scene who are so poorly composited it's pretty much embarassing they even left it in. Even The Lord of the Rings films have the same issue.

ILM however don't have this problem- as seen in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies (which I see as some of their best work to date), Davy Jones and his crew are all filmed on greenscreen and superimposed onto real locations and sets- and the result is seamless, much better than what Weta has done. Though one can argue that even ILM have their bad days, as seen in the Star Wars prequels (absoloutly atrocious greenscreen compositing work, especially in Attack of the Clones, but this agian is most likely down to excessive workload which I guess was the case with King Kong, which is why some things look amazing and some things look like crap). However I don't expect a JP movie to have CG output on that huge scale considering the films are usually split greater on the human side than dinosaur action, so the CG work would probably be on a good scale.

Either way Kong is a great example of CG work but a bad example of greenscreening. But other movies (Pirates) have shown that this isn't a problem in the right hands. And considering ILM will be doing the CG work in the next JP film, I don't think it's ever going to be a problem for them. JP3 and even The Lost World: Jurassic Park had a lot of close-up composting done, and it all looked great.

Review: Outlander (Howard McCain, 2008)

Sci-fi, monsters, and medieval vikings- what's not to like?

This really wasn't bad at all! Chronicles of Riddick vs Predator vs Beowulf/Vikings is the simplest way to describe it, and what an entertaining film it was- this is pure B movie hokum executed with panache and surprisingly much better than I thought it would be, and a lot better than the usual nonsense which normally plague our screens. Medieval fantasy, monsters, brutal carnage, explosive action and blood and guts with a sci-fi twist- I had a great time with this film.

The story revolves around Kainen (Jim Caveziel), whose space ship crash lands from a distant planet into medieval Norway- and he's accidentally bought an evil creature along with him. He must gain the trust of vikings and their leader, King Rothgar (played by John Hurt), in order to defeat this monster who destroyed his land and is now threatening theirs. Using brains, wits and, swords and old fashioned brute force, Kainen is also forced to unite warring viking tribes to defeat their common enemy- this monstrous creature known as the "Moorwen".

Acting is solid all round from Caveziel and Hurt, with a small role by Ron Perlman, as well as a cast of unknowns. Production may be cheap but the CGI effects look decent and the visuals giving a good scope of epic medieval Norway. It's not without it's flaws of course (acting and dialogue occasionally leave a lot to be desired and sometimes it's cliché as hell) but sit back and turn your brain off and enjoy it as it's a very entertaining and well made low budget action/fantasy flick which harks back to the time when we fell in love with films like this in the first place.

It's shameful that this is one of the best films of it's type iv'e seen in a long time (since at least Pitch Black) in a time crowded with films like it- films like AVP and AVPR have a lot to answer for when a film like this comes out of nowhere and manages to be better than both films combined- considering both have nearly the same budgets and ridiculous premise, Outlander blows both out of the water. My expectations were low here but I was surprised- Outlander is also at times generic as hell too but it is still far superior to a lot of films today in terms of directing, design, effects and action, and some of the ideas and sequences are also very inspired. It's also got some surprisingly good CGI, art and design as well! The "Moorwen" creature itself was actually well done too and they thought about it's origins well, and even put effort into making us understand it's actual perspective in the fight instead of it just being a random monster out to kill. The characterisation is not deep or anything but the little touches of effort were much appreciated.

It's not perfect by any means but it's definitely of a high class despite it's low calibre production, definitely recommended for those who love a a bit of old-skool monster/sci-fi and medieval action. The execution may be generic and cliché at times but the story is fantastic and the film is just entertaining as a whole, a true classic B monster movie. I wouldn't have minded if it was sci-fi/futuristic action with monsters anyway but the whole old Norse viking/Beowulf aspect sold it for me completely (I love epic myths and barbarians and whatnot) and what a cool mix it was.

This is one of those films that will become a cult classic over time just as Pitch Black did, though it already seems to be garnering positive attention already.

7/10

Review: Ratatouille (Brad Bird, Jan Pinkava, 2007)

I'll be honest, I wasn't looking forward to this movie much as from the surface it looked like yet another predictable Disney/Pixar movie (to which i get tired of all too quickly). However it's actually slightly more than that- but only slightly. As well as boasting excellent animation and visuals as standard for a Pixar film, the film also has a strong story with a simple and assertive moral at it's core. Characters here (well, the human ones anyway) are predictable and, for me anyway, highly unlikeable. The film is set in France and so the characters are all stereotypically French- stuck up, arrogant and full of ego (coincidentally one character's name, a highly detestable food critic, is actually called Ego). Even the careless and clumsy main character Languini who we are supposed to sympathise didn't do much for me, he came across as another predictable idiot in the "hapless moron"role that i didn't care for in the slightest. The animals, in this case the rats, are lovable mostly due to their excellent animations and expressions. The main rat, Remy, was brilliantly animated and his movements were excellent, specially when we see him scurry around as the camera shifts to a low perspective so we can see things from his point of view. The simple story is told well, surprisingly in a slightly more mature fashion than usual (younger children may even find it boring as the pace and tone of the film is actually more suited to a drama aimed at an older audience). Characters aside it's the story that shines and the moral which delivers- both are which entertaining suitably straightforward yet not predictable in their executions. The message it conveys is touching and to the point without being too over-dramatic, contrived and overly sentimental.

Not a classic film in any way but an enjoyable one with fantastic imagery and a nice charm as expected by Pixar, but in my honest opinion nothing really special as to warrant it spectacular.

6/10