A GUN FOR 100 GRAVES (1968)

Umberto Lenzi is (in)famous for making some of the more violent and sleazy films in the Italian cult movie canon, so naturally when I discovered that he'd entered my beloved spaghetti western genre I just had to see what it looked like. Lenzi plus spaghetti westerns equals A GUN FOR 100 GRAVES. It's a great name, if nothing else.

Aside from the title, the cast certainly showed promise too, being positively bursting with Eurocult talent. Eduardo Fajardo, Piero Lulli, Peter Lee Lawrence and John Ireland all show up, along with many other faces familiar to regular spaghetti western viewers.

It's not a good sign for those hoping to catch some full-on Lenzi mayhem then when it turns out that the lead character Jim Slade (Lawrence) turns out to be not just a pacifist but also some kind of Jehovah's witness, albeit not a particularly convincing one. That's a bit odd for a spaghetti western, which I guess makes it stand out from the crowd a little, however we can thank Lenzi that this unusual approach to characters does extend to the villains too.

We are treated therefore to a band of escaped lunatics whose numbers include a pyromaniac, a rabid sex fiend, an amnesiac and a good old psycho (Fajardo). Thank you Lenzi!

Alas that's pretty much the most memorable contribution to the film as far as Lenzi-esque mayhem goes. Most of the particularly brutal moments happen off screen, but there is still a fairly high body count and we are treated to a final twenty minutes during which there are plenty of shootouts, twists and casual violence. On top of all that, there's a gloriously cynical ending worthy of Sergio Corbucci (DJANGO, THE GREAT SILENCE) himself.

The film isn't completely without humour though - I particularly like the gravestone in the cemetery which is marked simply "bearded Mexican".

I watched this on a German DVD. There are some audio hiccups on the English soundtrack, some minor print damage and the colours are slightly faded but it's probably the best presentation around at the moment. It doesn't deliver the sort of OTT violence you'd want from a Lenzi western but it's enough fun for me to recommend it.

SATURN 3 (1980)

The film opens in outer space... a loud orchestra bursts into life... a gigantic spaceship drifts into the screen above our heads...

No prizes for guessing where the sci-fi horror SATURN 3 took its inspiration. The aim seems to have been to create a claustrophobic horror-thriller but within a STAR WARS-style setting. That might sound like a nutty thing to do and to be honest it's a pretty nutty film. I'd call it a failure but that would be to gloss over how much fun there is to be had watching this turkey.

Firstly the visuals... despite being made three years after George Lucas's groundbreaking sci-fi event, SATURN 3 somehow manages to look much, much cheaper whether it be the flimsy spaceships, the second-rate set design or the futuristic settings that look like LOGAN'S RUN might have done if it had run out of money half-way through. That comparison is only compounded by the presence of LOGAN'S RUN's support player Farrah Fawcett in the female lead role.

There are really only three principle cast members to speak of. Fawcett is accompanied by Kirk Douglas, who somehow manages to be not just her work colleague but also her lover, despite looking more like her dad. They're joined in their solitary, isolated Saturn base by a newcomer, Harvey Keitel.

Keitel is equally aghast at the sight of Fawcett and Douglas being an item, and decides to move in on her. Unfortunately he's also moving in on the work they're doing too. And he's a psycho. And he talks like a robotic William Shatner. And he has a killer robot with him.

The combination of half-finished STAR WARS knock-off material and brightly-lit LOGAN'S RUN sets certainly lend the film an interesting look, which is helped by the accompanying electronic score (just like LOGAN'S RUN again!) but now we have the added fun of a totally insane robo-Shatner as well.

So that's the set-up - Fawcett hangs around looking pretty, Douglas runs around with mad staring eyes and Keitel tries to kill them both with a mental and stupid looking robot. The fact that it's poorly written, shot and edited or that the enticing electronic score is used entirely inappropriately can't completely stop it being fun. In fact, if anything, it just makes it more of an enjoyable experience, particularly since the premise seems mainly to be "let's make it look like STAR WARS, but with nudity and violence". It's ironic that this makes it more adult and yet more juvenile at the same time.

So it may have failed to make the same impact as Lucas's baby, but look at it this way. STAR WARS gave us crap TV spin-offs and ATTACK OF THE CLONES; SATURN 3 has severed body parts and a naked Farrah Fawcett.

So which one is really the more important movie?

Announcement for readers in the UK

You may have missed its previous appearance, so I thought I should bring it to your attention that tomorrow (Thursday 20th November), PLEASE VOTE FOR ME will be showing on BBC4 (as part of the Storyville series). It's on at 11:05pm.

Don't worry, it's less than an hour so you can still watch it and get up early for work on Friday.

I declared it to be the second best film of 2007 and also enjoyed a rare big screen outing at this year's Stranger Than Fiction festival in Dublin.

Documentary fans, or anyone who just appreciates a very fine film, should not miss it.

A Boston double bill

For some reason, my local cinema programmed a Dennis Lehane Boston-isn't-safe-for-kids double bill recently. I'm not sure what the reason for this was, if any, but I'm not complaining as I'd never seen either of them.

So first of all I finally got round to seeing Ben Affleck's directorial debut (after its unfortunate UK shelving / blink-and-miss release), one of the few big Oscar films of this year's ceremony that I hadn't seen. Colour me impressed.

With this kidnap-mystery thriller and that Jesse James thing under young Casey's belt, there's no doubt anymore about which of the Affleck boys is the actor; but that said, it certainly goes some way to proving that Ben may have a shot at better reviews behind the camera than in front. It certainly feels like an authentic Boston film, but any locals from the area will need to confirm since I've never been. I did see GOOD WILL HUNTING though. It's refreshingly unshowy, given that so many debut directors very often try to be a bit too clever, pulling off all sorts of camera gymnastics and dodgy effects.

He also got the best out of most of the cast too, which is far more important. It's a film that doesn't exactly boil over with action, so you really need a good cast of characters to keep things ticking along. While I'm sure Lehane deserves the credit for the characters' creation, there's no doubt that an incredibly good cast really brought them to life.

I've never read the novel so I don't know how faithful the film is. The only flaw seemed to be that there were a lot of characters who were in there because they ultimately had some integral part of the plot hang on them, but were given far too little to do for the rest of the film (Michelle Monaghan springs to mind). That's a shame, as many of the actors involved really deserved better.

It's a cracking film though and the story's twists and turns certainly take the film into unexpected territory towards the end too. If you're one of the countless people who missed out on account of the UK distribution problems then take the opportunity to see it as soon as you can.

The second part of the double bill provided another Boston-set kiddie-threatening Oscar-troubling acting showcase, in the form of Clint Eastwood's adaptation of MYSTIC RIVER.

Like Affleck's debut above, Eastwood is an assured director who shows just enough flair without being flashy and again gets terrific performances from a superb cast. Sean Penn can certainly be accused of having a few too many actorly moments and Robbins doesn't totally convince, but apart from that the cast is terrific. The story (three childhood friends are reunited by the death of one of their children) is powerful, gripping and (again like the Affleck film above) springs plenty of surprises. In the end though, it's let down by going on five or ten minutes after it has reached a logical conclusion, the worst offender being a ridiculously neat and tidy wrap-up of a Kevin Bacon subplot that was needless to begin with. I think we can let Eastwood off with that though, since he does a fine job in every other area (including the understated music as always).

Current Release: DER BAADER MEINHOF KOMPLEX

THE BAADER MEINHOF COMPLEX has been getting a bit of a rough ride in some quarters for allegedly glorifying terrorism. I'd take issue with that. I won't even get into the whole debate about when exactly someone is classified as a terrorist because that's been done to death elsewhere and you're not likely to see anything resolved here.

I do have a problem with the accusation that this film glorifies it though. It portrays the infamous Red Army Faction sympathetically certainly (helped by a cast consisting of a who's who of modern German cinema) - not entirely, but enough to avoid a two-dimensional whitewash of the issues at least. There's always a problem mind you that you're either going to make them sympathetic or you're going to go too far in the other direction and end up with pantomime villains.

The film also makes many of the events look exciting - but where's the problem with that? Maybe it's just me but, right or wrong, I'd imagine robbing a bank does provide a bit of an adrenaline rush. I don't suggest you go out and try it (it's WRONG, people) but it does strike me as being the kind of thing that probably would get your heart racing one way or another.

Neither of these things could really be used as an argument for the glorification of terrorism though. The film doesn't shy away from the unpleasantness that acts of violence involve and it certainly doesn't make killing someone look cool.

As for whether or not its any good... yep, it's good. The first half of the film is in fact absolutely exhilarating. Early on there is a scene of a street riot that is so in your face you can almost feel the spray from the fire hoses. The film does a good job of keeping this kind of excitement going too, up until the second half of the film when suddenly the action and violence gives way to courtroom scenes and incarcerated people bickering.

It's at this stage that it begins to suffer. Devoid of the action that thrilled so much at the start, the story tries to take in terrorism on an epic scale but ends up losing its way. The distinct, colourful visuals give way to the drab greys of court rooms and jail cells and the life seems to be sucked out of the film. It doesn't help that there are moments that call to mind documentaries ONE DAY IN SEPTEMBER and GUERILLA: THE TAKING OF PATTY HEARST, which only reminds you of their superiority at handling the stories and issues raised here.

That makes the film sound like a failure though, and I don't mean to sound so harsh. It's still a film worth seeing and there is still enough on offer to make the second half interesting. Compared to the rush of the opening hour however you can't help feeling that it ends with a bit of a damp squib.

Current release: W.

I've not long finished writing here about SOUTHLAND TALES and how I couldn't figure out if it was a joke or not. Well here we are again.

Watching the original trailers for this George Bush biopic, I couldn't work out what it was supposed to be, which is pretty surprising given that this is the work of Oliver Stone. You'd think he'd be just the right guy to get stuck into Bush if anyone can.

Yet I left the cinema wondering what kind of film I'd just watched.

There are serious points made about all the stuff you'd expect - the war, September 11, oil, religion, etc. - but it's all buried deep within a string of vignettes that seem to be aiming at out and out comedy. This certainly isn't a considered attempt to make it look like there's more to Bush than meets the eye, it's a slapstick farce that seems to have the solitary intention of reinforcing the view that he's every bit the idiot that most of us thought he was anyway.

It's obvious that humour is the route Stone has chosen to take (his choice of music ranges from ironic to just plain piss-taking) but unfortunately along the way it strays into territory where you're just not sure if it's deliberate or if it's genuinely a bad film.

One such example that springs to mind is the supporting cast, who seem to be going more for accurate impressions than believable characters. The down side is that they're treated as just that - impressionists. I lost track of how many occasions people in the cinema started to laugh for no apparent reason other than the fact that the person on screen looks a bit like their real life counterpart. Hey, Thandie Newton's doing an impression of Condoleeza Rice! Ha ha ha! My god, Richard Dreyfuss is so Dick Cheney! Ho ho ho! Etc.

In fact, there were people who, I swear, just started laughing every time Carl Rove (Toby Jones) appeared on screen. This surely can't be what Stone intended. Or can it?

I've no idea. Go and see it anyway and if you can decide be sure to come back here and tell me. And if you can figure out SOUTHLAND TALES while you're at it, so much the better.

Current release: BURN AFTER READING

The Coen brothers follow up their Oscar-winning smash NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN with a lighter affair in BURN AFTER READING, a ensemble romp set in the world of intelligence agencies and gymnasiums.

It's certainly a change of pace, though still put together with their usual flair and attention to detail. Sadly it's also a little underwhelming.

This isn't because of the comparisons to NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, which itself I thought was very good but ever so slightly overrated. Nope, my problem with the brothers' latest offering is that it's a comedy with a very limited idea of what's funny.

The cast - and it's as starry as the brothers have ever assembled - are all game enough, and get as much humour as they can out of the material, but that just isn't enough. Look, it's Brad Pitt - and he's acting a bit silly! And hey, John Malkovich just shouted "what the f---!" again! If this is your idea of funny, then you'll probably find the first half of the film hilarious.

I don't though, so I had to wait until the second half to really start getting bang for my buck. By then, the story and characters have become so intertwined with the ridiculous nature of each other that the humour finally starts to arise, as it should, from a combination of characters and situations, rather than just by Brad Pitt dancing or someone swearing.

In the end, the film gets pass marks despite the shaky first half and one or two of the cast members trying a little too hard in the quirkiness stakes - but I still can't shake the feeling that I've really only got half a film out of my money.

SOUTHLAND TALES (2006)

When I first heard about Richard Kelly's follow-up to cult sleeper hit DONNIE DARKO, I wondered if he was taking the piss. Not so much the story - which, when you look at it closely, is actually very similar to DONNIE DARKO - but rather the casting choices.

Arguably the biggest name in the movie is Sarah Michelle Gellar, an actress who achieved fame in a popular television series but has done little of note since (we all know why people remember CRUEL INTENTIONS, don't we?).

Added to the cast list alongside he we have mediocre pop stars turned bad actors Mandy Moore and Justin Timberlake (the latter also providing the voiceover which, I confess, I thought was actually a woman until Timberlake showed his face).

Then we get Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, a former wrestler who acts every bit as badly as you'd expect him to, and he's in pretty much the lead role.

There's also Sean William Scott, the man who was, is and forever shall be Stiffler from the AMERICAN PIE movies. THUMBSUCKER's Lou Taylor Pucci turns up as a young draft dodger who says "dawg" to everyone a lot. And how about Christopher Lambert, who starred in the HIGHLANDER films before churning out a living from straight to video turkeys? Still not selling it to you? Okay, throw in a couple of cameos from directors Eli Roth and Kevin Smith just to amuse those in the know, and garnish it with Miranda BLACKADDER Richardson sitting at a desk for the whole film and a supporting role from the wee woman with the high pitched voice from POLTERGEIST.

That latter one's particularly ironic given that I'll always associate her with the words "step into the light" - something that anyone viewing this in the dark of their local cinema probably couldn't wait to do.

So, I ask again, was Richard Kelly taking the piss?

I've just watched the film and I still don't know. The story, what I could piece together of it, is as follows: in 2005, America came under nuclear attack. It's now 2008. America are still at war in Iraq; a police officer is searching for his twin brother; a star of adult movies has her own TV show; there's an election coming; sod it, I can't be bothered. There's lot of stuff happening, which may or may not be related to each other.

What unfolds (or rather entangles) is a mess of a movie which actually proves it's possible to have too many ideas. The stories are all over the place but seem to be tied together in some way that eludes me. Kelly appears to have enjoyed the combination in DONNIE DARKO of crazy physics, weird people, odd dialogue and kooky music so much that he's essentially just done the same thing again but on a grander scale and with a bigger budget. Will this film, which also tanked, gain the same kind of cult following?

I doubt it. DONNIE DARKO at least concentrated, more or less, on one story rather than a huge number of stories all fighting for prominence. It also created a coherent mood and atmosphere so that you were in no doubt that you were watching a serious, if odd, sci-fi drama. SOUTHLAND TALES on the other hand is wilfully weird far too often and the combination of ludicrous scenes and bad acting just leaves you wondering, as I already stated, if it's taking the piss. Is the film a sci-fi drama or a comedy? I genuinely have no idea, but lines like "the soul of a monkey can't survive the dimensional threshold" really don't help.

The film has some redeeming features - the opening scene is terrific, there are some nice visuals courtesy of the increased budget and most of the score is terrifically evocative. Sadly, pretty much everything else is way off the mark. Sure, Kelly has obviously made a film that's exceptionally ambitious but then again, climbing Mount Everest on a spacehopper is also exceptionally ambitious but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

I'd love to know what sort of film the cast of this turkey thought they were making. Maybe once they've figured it out they can tell the rest of us.

Scottish & Irish film update (6 Nov)

Time for another little update on my beloved Scottish and Irish film interests. First of all, a couple of things relating to both countries.

There's a strand of Scottish related documentaries at this year's Sheffield Doc Fest, which has just kicked off. They include a whole bunch of short films and the compilation film THE NEW 10 COMMANDMENTS, which premiered at Edinburgh this year.

There are also a couple of Irish documentaries showing as well, specifically SEAVIEW and GABRIEL BYRNE: STORIES FROM HOME. I've written nice things about both of them here before, so go and see them if you're there.

(You might wonder, given my love of documentaries and festivals and the fact that it's a relatively short distance away, why I'm not there. It's because I can't afford it. Maybe next year.)

Incidentally, while reading about the Scottish docs, I discovered the BBC's Film Network which offers loads of short films for watching online, including award-winning Scottish documentary BREADMAKERS and MA BOY, which I saw at a festival. It's lovely and I've no idea why it's taken until now to discover it.

Also relating to both Scotland and Ireland is the documentary film AR DOVER FEIN. It's from 2001 and has popped up on the digital station BBC Alba (under a slightly different title, which I presume is due to going from Irish to Scottish gaelic). It tells the tragic story of a group of Irish immigrants killed in a bothy fire in Scotland in 1937 and raises questions about what actually happened. Fascinating and tragic, it's of Scottish interest and obviously popping up on the gaelic BBC channel, but it was originally a co-production of the Irish Film Board and Irish-language channel TG4.

More Irish stuff further down the page; first it's the Scottish stuff.

Scottish nationalist caper movie STONE OF DESTINY goes on release elsewhere in the UK from 21 November following its earlier release in Scotland.

Presumably timed to coincide with Homecoming, Scottish Screen reports that the BBC are kick-starting a new initiative about Scottish history. This includes a new TV documentary series THE HISTORY OF SCOTLAND which premieres on BBC1 Scotland this Sunday.

The Filmhouse in Edinburgh will be showing the Grampian TV documentary JOURNEY TO A KINGDOM on Tuesday 11th November.

Two days after that (that'll be Thursday 13th then), just up the road from there, the legendary Cameo cinema will have a special whisky-tasting event followed by a screening of WHISKY GALORE.

Then on St Andrews Day (30th November if you didn't know), the Glasgow Film Theatre will have a special screening of a trio of vintage Scottish films including THE ST KILDA TAPES.

Finally (in my Scottish coverage at least), the BAFTA Scotland awards take place this Sunday and as usual what should be an opportunity to celebrate Scottish film ends up reminding us what a terrible state it's in.

The feature film award is between STONE OF DESTINY, SUMMER and OUTPOST. I didn't see SUMMER or OUTPOST, though the latter didn't exactly win much of a distribution. SUMMER will win it anyway.

In the acting stakes, newcomer Alia Alzougbi (TROUBLE SLEEPING) is up against Robert Carlyle (SUMMER again) and Brian Cox (for THE ESCAPIST but should be for RED), although I notice that Peter Mullen gets a TV nomination for BOY A which I saw at Cork last year.
I've seen none of the animation nominees but in the short category, THE ISLAND was quite good.

Now on to a couple of Irish bits and pieces...

After managing to get MISE EIRE added to the IMDb I am now proud to report that I've managed to get its sequel SAOIRSE? added as well. The George Morrison campaign continues.

The Irish Film and Television Network reports that the incredible film EDEN gets a limited opening in the US this month. If only UK cinemagoers were as lucky.

IFTN also reports prize wins for the excellent THE MORSE COLLECTORS by David Cooke and the even-more-excellent JANEY MARY by Paul Brady. As my previous coverage will attest, both films are thoroughly deserving of it, so well done to them.

Elsewhere on the IFTN site, there is a further prize for the documentary FAIRYTALE OF KATHMANDU and GET COLLINS picks up a nomination in the International Documentary Awards. Good stuff.

Filmbase reports the arrival of a new Irish shorts initiative at the IFI in Dublin. This sort of thing always deserves your support.

Finally, a reminder that Irish thriller ALARM goes on release in Ireland this month. I didn't like it much, but see it and make up your own mind.

Horrorthon'08: MIDNIGHT MEAT TRAIN (2008)

This was very disappointing.

It's been so long since I read any Clive Barker that I can't even remember if I ever read the original story or not, so I've no idea how many misgivings about the story are his fault and how many are the fault of the film. Either way, I can't remember the last time I rolled my eyes and thought "that's just stupid" as many times as I did during this one.

I don't like CGI being used for gore as it just doesn't look right, but fair play, I have to admit that the gore in this film is at least very creative and imaginative. If you're going to have CG gore then I'm at least happy to see heads exploding and eyeballs popping out in gratuitous slow motion instead of shaky-cam, hyper-edit, too-dark-to-see-anything kind of stuff. Sadly that's about all the film had going for it.

Bland characters, daft story, and despite being required to do nothing except look mean and not say anything, Vinnie Jones still fails to convince me that he's an actor.

To be fair, I quite liked the ending (but not the final scene - too laboured) but I'd have liked it a lot more if I hadn't stopped caring about an hour earlier.

And that's my Horrorthon coverage at an end!

Horrorthon'08: JAWS 2 (1978)

Directed by some guy whose name I can't even remember, this sequel certainly doesn't scale the heights of Spielberg's classic original.

Although Roy Scheider's back and as reliable as ever, the rest of the cast in this retread of the original offer nothing. Gone is the focus on Scheider, instead giving far more time to annoying kids and teen romance. It's almost a foreshadowing of the formula that would dominate 80s movies - and there's even a nasty property developer, surely the mainstay villain of all 80s films.

As if that wasn't enough of a mis-step, there's also the scenes of the shark attacks, equally botched. Spielberg knew exactly what to show and what not to show - his successor here unfortunately shows no such knowledge. We are shown far too much of the dodgy-looking shark, not enough of the hapless victims and all in all it ends up being depressingly dull for a film that should be all about sharks eating people.

A real misfire that only serves to illustrate how good the original film was.

Horrorthon'08: DAWN OF THE DEAD (1978)

It's many years since I saw Romero's classic zombie film and to be honest I couldn't tell you which cut we even saw at the IFI, but it's always nice to see something like this again anyway, especially with a like-minded audience.

The first of the sequels to the seminal NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, this is the logical progression as the zombies are now overrunning the living and it's all about surviving. For one band of refugees, that means making themselves a base in the local shopping centre, allowing Romero to both spin a yarn about consumerism while also allowing Tom Savini to demonstrate some interesting ways of being killed or maimed.

The film is certainly a satisfactory outing and one of the best of the zombie genre but I'm not sure I'd elevate it to quite the same heights as many others do. I still think that parts of the film - particularly in the middle - are too slow-moving, and some scenes of dispatching zombies begin to get repetitive. After an entertaining opening, it's not really until the finale that we see Romero and his flesh-eating hoards really cut loose for all their worth once again.

It's still a classic though. You can't beat some flesh-eating zombie action, though I'm more of a Fulci man.

Horrorthon'08: PLAGUE TOWN (2008)

This Irish-set horror was actually filmed in America but to be honest it actually does actually just about pass for the Emerald Isle, one out-of-place bus aside.

Like a number of other horror films of late, both at Horrorthon and elsewhere, the film doesn't really offer anything new but at least manages it in a mostly-entertaining way. Americans run into a town of inbred crazies, nasty things happen, etc. but there are some memorable moments and the ugly locals are presented via some reasonably effective make-up effects.

I should applaud the film for trying to develop the characters first - a dysfunctional American family tracing their roots in Ireland - since many other films fail miserably to do so, but in the end this is also a flaw of the film. It's not that it slows the film down, but rather that it does almost too good a job of introducing them. The opening parts of the movie, with all the family members (plus one guest) getting at each others' throats is frequently hilarious and actually far more enjoyable than the by-the-numbers horror that follows it.

I don't see it getting a cinema release but its worth giving it a spin when it hits DVD.

Horrorthon'08: GNAW (2008)

GNAW is yet another new British indie horror and unfortunately, like the others on show this weekend, it was poor.

The tired old story concerns a group of kids straying into the country where - stop me if you've heard this - they meet a horrible fate. There's not a sympathetic character in the entire film, there seems to be a competition between them to see who can act in the most stupid way possible and despite one or two decent shocks the whole thing is just a yawn-fest. Well, apart from the bits where you're too busy laughing (and not in a good way).

Applause followed the film, but it was mainly sarcastic. Avoid.

Horrorthon'08: MARTYRS (2008)

French horror MARTYRS is a somewhat hot title on the festival circuit at the moment, having built up a reputation for being one of the more shocking horror films of recent years.

It's certainly unpleasant, I'll give you that, but since most modern horror films labour under the misapprehension that making something as unpleasant and tortuous as possible means it's great horror it's not exactly breaking new ground in the genre. Truth be told, once you immunise yourself to the unpleasant effects of a woman getting spectacularly beaten up, there's not much else to it.

The plot initially concerns a young woman taking revenge on a family that she claimed subjected her to horrific torture as a child. What we end up with is the first half of the film being a variation on fellow French shocker HAUTE TENSION, followed by a second half in which a woman is beaten and tortured.

The reason for all this is revealed eventually but unfortunately it's limited to a couple of throwaway lines quickly spun out to justify the gruelling torment that preceded it. It's a real shame because, despite probably being a little tasteless, the reason is an interesting one. Unfortunately the filmmakers clearly thought that further investigation of this wouldn't be as interesting as seeing a woman being beaten up some more.

I should confess however that after being left a little cold by it to begin with, it did grow on me slightly in the days following it. However, it's not the masterpiece its being heralded as and if you're a hardened gore-monger there are probably a few scenes to make you squirm but mainly a feeling of "so what".

Horrorthon'08: SURVEILLANCE (2008)

Nasty goings on in small town America; sharp-suited FBI agents; weird rumblings on the soundtrack; lots of characters who seem a little bit kooky; it can only be a David Lynch film.

Except it's not, it's by his daughter Jennifer and, once you get past the above, it's actually a fairly straightforward though well-made thriller.

A horrific incident sees two FBI agents arrive in town to investigate what happened. The remaining eye witnesses are all grilled simultaneously, while Bill Pullman observes them all via a security camera.

Don't let the title full you though. The camera's a gimmick really; the film is basically a bunch of people lying about what happened, while the audience slowly gets shown the real story. There are hints of RASHOMON, of course, but it differs slightly in so far as it shows the audience more than the characters are telling.

There are moments of unpleasantness and overall it's a rather bleak and cynical film; even the good guys are hard to like. It is entertaining though and delivers a neat little story with a satisfying wrap up that will certainly leave people discussing it after the titles roll.

A very good film.

Horrorthon'08: DRACULA (1992)

Francis Ford Coppola's adaptation of BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA seemed like an odd choice for a screening since, firstly, it's more of a romantic take than the traditional Dracula films and secondly, it's not exactly the best-reviewed version of the story either.

That said, I really enjoyed it, this being the first time I'd ever seen it. There are undoubtedly low points - Tom Waits as a lacklustre Renfield, Anthony Hopkins as a Van Helsing who can't seem to decide if he's a serious nemesis or comic relief, and of course anything involving Keanu Reeves.

Kick that lot out the way though and you're left with a decent film. Winona Ryder's surprisingly good, the various supporting men are stupid but entertaining, the score is certainly ominous and dramatic enough and the old-fashioned set design is just a work of art. On top of all that, Gary Oldman, who we already know is one of the best actors alive, is superb as the title character.

I still prefer the Hammer and Universal versions, but I was surprised by how good this film is.

Horrorthon'08: DEMONS 2 (1986)

Last year's screening of DEMONS was a highlight so it was a delight to see the sequel getting an outing this year.

Of course, it's a stupid film, and the stupidity is only amplified (as is so often the case) by the hilarious dubbing on the English language version.

Gone is the first film's cinema setting (although the original is referred to in a nonsensical sub-plot), this time replaced with a modern skyscraper. It doesn't really matter, the end result is the same: lots of people being attacked and killed by crazy zombie-demon-type-things.

Mad monsters, hilarious dubbing, gruesome deaths and a barmy plot, all wrapped up in some delightful visuals and a typically wonderful electronic score. It's exactly what you expect the film to deliver, and it's exactly what you want it to deliver. A great big stupid ninety minutes of fun.

Horrorthon'08: NIGHT OF THE CREEPS (1986)

Once again the new Irish horror (GHOSTWOOD) got ditched for 80s nostalgia as I went to see NIGHT OF THE CREEPS, a fondly remembered zombie-ish teen horror that was every bit as stupid and entertaining as I remember it.

Interestingly, the showing here was thought to be a premiere of sorts. The film never received a cinema release in the UK or Ireland - many people discovered the film either through video or, like me, late night BBC screenings - so this was a special occasion, particularly since it's not available on DVD yet either. It was made all the more special by the fact that the print they showed was absolutely pristine.

The plot essentially boils down to alien parasites turning people into zombies while a bunch of teenagers worry about drinking, getting laid and playing frat pranks. Hilarity ensues. Much of it is genuinely, intentionally funny while parts of it are more funny because of how dated it is. Have you ever noticed that 80s films actually seem to have dated more than most films from the 60s or 70s?

The real star of the show however is stalwart character actor Tom Atkins, who plays the police officer in charge of the case. Having lost his (unfaithful) girlfriend in an unfortunate incident involving a serial killer, an axe and a crashed UFO, he's a washed up, miserable man who gets all the best lines and delivers them with deadpan aplomb, whether he's answering the phone ("Thrill me!") or displaying a real weapons fetish.

Gore, pretty ladies, alien parasites and a bitter but hilarious cop all add up to an immensely enjoyable cinema experience. Thrill me indeed.

Horrorthon coverage to be continued soon...

Horrorthon'08: NOT QUITE HOLLYWOOD (2008)

Or NOT QUITE HOLLYWOOD: THE WILD, UNTOLD STORY OF OZPLOITATION! to give it its full title.

While Peter Weir and his ilk were turning the newly emerging Australian film industry into the darlings of the arthouse film world, a new breed of Aussie filmmakers were ensuring that the country would also leave its mark on the exploitation map. This documentary tells the story of Australian exploitation cinema and is as entertaining as many of the films featured.

The film covers the early days of racist comedy and low-brow sex movies through the more famous films such as MAD MAX, STONE and PATRICK to horror films like RAZORBACK and neglected classics like LONG WEEKEND (one of my personal favourites), eventually ending with a look at how these films that went before have influenced the new generation of directors who have given us films like UNDEAD, WOLF CREEK and the smash hit SAW.

There are interviews with far too many people for me to list here, but they include filmmakers (George Miller, Russell Mulcahy, the late Richard Franklin), critics (Bob Ellis rather amusingly seems to hate everyone), home-grown stars (George Lazenby, Rod Taylor) and those who came to the industry from abroad (Jamie Lee Curtis, Dennis Hopper). And of course it couldn't be a film about cult movies without Quentin Tarantino waxing lyrical about how brilliant they are. These are just a handful of examples of those who are interviewed but there are many, many more.

It's essential viewing for any fan of cult films and is sure to open your eyes to a world of films that you never knew existed.

It'll also open your eyes in other ways. The most entertaining, and yet terrifying, strand of the movie is the story of how the films were made with scant regard for anyone's safety. Although they once again point out that, contrary to popular myth, that guy in MAD MAX that gets hit by the bike was not killed, other films weren't so lucky. People were killed on some sets; George Lazenby got set on fire (one of the funnier stories in the film); Dennis Hopper was, well, Dennis Hopper; and just listen to Steve Railsback describing his time on TURKEY SHOOT.

Not horror per se, but a highlight of the festival and one which every film lover should see as soon as the opportunity presents itself.

Horrorthon'08: CHILD'S PLAY (1988)

More 80s horror, and more dated but fun nostalgia. This one I did at least manage to see nearer the time it was released, just before one of its sequels was wrongly used as campaign fodder by one of the UK's more dangerous press institutions and effectively buried.

I can't say if it's the film that's dated or my tastes that have evolved (perhaps a little of both) but this time round the film just seems to have lost something. I'm not one to let Britain's tabloids tell me what to think, so that's not it. But what is it?

Could it be the fact that Brad Dourif, once so menacing, has now been coloured by some of the absolute dross he's been in since then? Could it be that the horror that once seemed so over the top to my young, impressionable eyes is actually pretty tame when watched again nowadays? Or is it the special effects? Chucky certainly doesn't look quite so menacing as he once did.

That said, there's still much to enjoy. Chucky still has his moments, some of the slapstick violence is pretty funny and there's something simultaneously disturbing and hilarious about watching a small boy violently fighting a psychopathic toy.

Not the horror classic that its maligned UK reputation would normally suggest but still fun all the same.

Horrorthon'08: THE DISAPPEARED (2008)

A teenager returns home after time away following the disappearance and, it is assumed, murder of his younger brother for which he attracts much of the blame. Then he begins to hear the boy's voice on tape recordings...

Acting (including, in the lead role, Harry Treadaway, currently being seen in CITY OF EMBER) ranges from acceptable to bad; the plot throws up twists that are so obvious it's hard to see that they were even envisaged as "twists" to begin with; and the film is populated entirely by annoying teenagers calling each other "bro" or miserable adults who seem to exist just to make things hard for the kids.

The bland run-down housing estate is a setting with great potential for a horror flick, but despite some nice photography and obvious effort the film never maximises the spooky potential.

The whole affair is depressing, by-the-numbers stuff that I was glad to see the back of. It certainly wasn't the worst film on offer but certainly doesn't give me much hope for British indie horror when allied with some of the other dross I saw over the weekend.

Horrorthon'08: THE HUNGER (1983)

I first saw this film in 2004 so I can't use the excuse that I'm looking back with nostalgia towards the 1980s when I say that it's not as good as I remember it.

An interesting attempt to do something different with the vampire film, it was directed by Tony Scott (TOP GUN and other high-octane nonsense) so it's a surprise in many ways. What we have is a story of addiction and doomed romance, with Catherine Deneuve still looking totally hot and David Bowie being surprisingly watchable. It's beautifully shot and boasts some rather haunting music (whether it be the raucous opening courtesy of Bauhaus or the more melancholy classical choices), and really does create a sense of loneliness and sadness amidst all the blood-drinking and lesbian vamp action.

Unfortunately it also has some badly dated fashions and some over-showy direction. Together with the occasional clunker in the script department (try to watch Susan Sarandon spill her drink down her blouse without roaring with laughter) it's not exactly the masterpiece I remember.

As vampire films go it's one of the more interesting attempts and a decent example of 80s horror, but time has not been kind to every aspect of the production.

Fascinating trivia: this is apparently the 300th time I've posted to this blog. How exciting.

Horrorthon'08: NIGHT OF THE LEPUS (1972)

Well what can I say about this "classic" 70s horror film? If I wasn't covering it as part of my Horrorthon stuff, it would almost certainly have made it in here in my Gobsmacking Cinema series of oddities. I just had to pick this one over the Irish horror film SEER which was on at the same time (and, I've heard, wasn't very good).

It's one of those nature-strikes-back films that were so popular in the 1970s, whether it be through classics like JAWS or insanely stupid (but simultaneously brilliant) trash like GRIZZLY.

NIGHT OF THE LEPUS definitely belongs in the latter category - like GRIZZLY at last year's Horrorthon, this definitely needs to be seen with a late night audience. If nothing else, the very concept is too barmy for words. Giant killer rabbits.

Yes, giant killer rabbits. This opens up the floodgates for all manner of classic exploitation moments, whether it be the rather unpleasant archive footage of a rabbit cull while a reporter tells us how much of a threat they are, or a combination of (unconvincing) trick photography and men in rabbit suits.

There's some great grizzly death-by-rabbit action but full marks must go to the human cast as well.

Boasting a cast that includes Rory Calhoun (MOTEL HELL), Janet Leigh (PSYCHO), STUART WHITMAN (lots of cult movies) and DeForest Kelley (Bones McCoy himself), it reads like a who's who of cult. What's so brilliant however is the utterly straight-faced way in which they perform despite being in the most ludicrous of movies.

The moment when NIGHT OF THE LEPUS's wonder is best summed up comes as a policeman gets out his megaphone at a packed drive-in and tells everyone to calmly drive away as there is a herd of killer rabbits heading their way. And they do it! No fuss, no argument! They just accept the fact, without question, that there is a herd of killer rabbits coming their way. Ask yourself how you would react in such a situation.

Totally mad, totally crap, and totally and undeniably a must-see cult classic.

Horrorthon coverage continues tomorrow night...

Horrorthon'08: MINDFLESH (2008)

MINDFLESH is a low-budget British horror about a troubled taxi driver who sees a ghostly woman while out on his rounds (he never seems to actually take any fares though) and begins to get into deep trouble as he investigates.

This film is an absolute turd. Bad acting, dialogue that I can't believe was read with a straight face and generally just lots of weirdness. That's about all I can say really. In fact, it's all I want to say, since this film was so bad that reliving it just makes me angry.

The only time it ever becomes watchable (which is really saying something, given the gratuitous nudity) is when Christopher Fairbank (Moxey from AUF WIEDERSEHEN PET) shows up as a mad scientist. Well, he's not really mad, but Fairbank overacts with such delight that he pretty much feels totally insane.

MINDFLESH screened with the short film INTO THE MIRROR which certainly demonstrated promise and potential from a filmmaking perspective. It was strikingly shot on what one assumes was some very cheap equipment and while there are serious issues with the dialogue the rest of the sound design is impressive. It did however leave me wondering what the hell it was all about. It was certainly a great deal better than the shite it was paired up with.

Actually, you can make up your own mind, as I've just discovered that INTO THE MIRROR is available for viewing on YouTube - click here to see it. While you're there you can also search for a couple of MINDFLESH-related clips/trailers but frankly I wouldn't waste your time.

Horrorthon'08: SAW V (2008)

Have you seen the first four SAW movies? Do you know them off by heart? Do you have a degree in SAWology?

If not, you might do well to revisit them on DVD before you watch this one, as the story becomes ever more reliant on the audience remembering who the hell everyone is and what they're doing.

It's not like other long-running horror franchises in this respect - you can enjoy teenagers getting carved up no matter which FRIDAY THE 13TH movie you see - but at the same time the makers of the SAW films should be applauded for still putting a bit of thought into their movies, elevating them far above the other pointless torture-horror trend that it pretty much started.

I really enjoyed it, despite really struggling to remember who people were on occasion, but it's not really for casual viewers.

If on the other hand you're familiar with the series, you like some quality gore and you haven't already been bored by the other sequels, then this film is definitely worth your money.

Horrorthon'08: EVIL DEAD II (1987)

I don't know if it's because they couldn't find a print or whatever, but Sam Raimi's comedy horror sequel was screened from what appeared to be a DVD source or something like that, and on top of that the projectionist was clearly having some issues getting it in the right aspect ratio.

Technical issues aside however, it was great fun. You just can't go wrong with this one. Regarded as better than the original in most quarters, EVIL DEAD II: DEAD BY DAWN made it into the top 50 of Empire's top 500 films of all time recently, such is its staying power. Okay, so Empire's top 500 films was a puddle of pish in many ways, but for a gory horror to be held in such high regard by so many still speaks volumes.

After a brief intro which basically remakes the original film (no continuity knowledge required here!) Bruce Campbell and friends get terrorised by evil spirits in a cabin in the middle of the woods.

And that's about it really. However, there's endless entertainment in the presentation, from stooge-style slapstick to gross-out gore, stop-motion magic mixing with hilarious Campbell overacting. It's an absolute hoot from start to finish, and possibly the only time I've ever heard a cinema audience spontaneously applaud and cheer the word "groovy."

Horrorthon'08: THE FUNHOUSE (1981)

I'd never seen this old slasher movie before so it was nice to witness it for the first time on the big screen.

Directed by Tobe Hooper, the guy that maybe directed POLTERGEIST depending on who you listen to, it's a very dated film but it's dated in that lovable way that all quintessentially 80s films have dated. While you can't be nostalgic about a film you've never seen, there's still an air of nostalgia for the era and that comes shining through in THE FUNHOUSE.

That's not to say that it doesn't have its moments. The concept of an inbred crazy in a Frankenstein mask stalking youngsters in a deserted funhouse is certainly a winner for a start. It is, of course, all stuff we've seen before though and really it's only the odd moment that elevates it beyond the wasteland of countless other 80s horrors that aren't so fondly remembered. The creature is really cool though.