Chris Scullion is a Scottish video games journalist who's been covering video games professionally for 16 years. For the first six years of his career he worked at the Official Nintendo Magazine in the UK, then became the Games Editor of CVG before its untimely end. After setting up his own site, Tired Old Hack, Chris then joined Video Games Chronicle (VGC) where he is currently Features Editor. He has a passion for retro games and cataloguing their history, hence his ongoing series of console encyclopedia books (search his name on Amazon).
Starring (voices): Tom Weiner, Cam Clark, Robin Beth Levenson, Joe Perry
“This is a real emergency: the super monsters have sent a triceratops to the outer suburbs of the city.” (Dr Carmody, Attack Of The Super Monsters)
This film is fucking nuts, so let me try to take you through the plot. It turns out that the dinosaurs didn’t actually die out millions of years ago: instead they’ve been living underground. In that time they’ve managed to learn how to speak English by reading humans’ minds and have appointed a leader, the evil Emperor Tyrannus (a T-Rex).
Tyrannus summons Eddy the allosaurus and tells him to go up to Earth to start up some shit. Eddy shoots some beams out of his eyes at some dogs, causing them to turn into evil red dogs and maul their owners. Oh, by the way, the dinosaurs are guys in suits (Godzilla-style) but the dogs and humans are anime cartoons. Think Roger Rabbit.
The Gemini Squad – a right bunch of knobs
Things get even weirder when we’re introduced to the Gemini Squad. They consist of Jim and Gem (who are brother and sister), Gerry (a fat guy) and Wally (a science officer with a weird face). Oh, and a doctor guy called Carmody who somehow knows everything that’s going on and has an explanation for it all.
Anyway, it’s clear while watching Attack Of The Super Monsters that it’s actually four episodes of some Japanese TV show haphazardly edited together to make a movie. Four different dinosaurs are summoned throughout the film and they’re all defeated in the same way: Jim and Gem merge their energy to form Gemini, a non-binary mash-up of the two who can somehow pilot a spaceship a bit better or something, then proceed to kill the dinosaur (which then blows up for no reason).
“Oh, hello there”
It’s a bizarre mix of live-action “man in suit” shenanigans, anime-style cartoons and crap model vehicle shots reminiscent of an even lower-budget version of Thunderbirds. Yet despite how rubbish it all looks it’s got a charm that makes it fun to watch throughout. The script is so awful it’s hilarious, the dinosaurs have amazingly hammy voices and it’s all just a good bit of fun.
In all, it’s worth a watch, if only so you can say you’ve seen a pterodactyl command some bats into turning some men into skeletons before said pterodactyl slams into a skyscraper over and over again. And who doesn’t wish they could say that?
(If you liked this review and you’re viewing it on its own individual page (not the main blog page), you should see little share buttons below. If you’re on Twitter or Facebook, please share this review with others. The more people read my blog, the more reviews I’ll be encouraged to write. Cheers!)
Starring: Radha Mitchell, Sean Bean, Laurie Holden
“Mother is God in the eyes of a child.” (Cybil Bennett, Silent Hill)
Most movies based on video games are, to put it bluntly, a pile of shite. Super Mario Bros, Double Dragon, Dead Or Alive… all horrible. It’s probably for this reason that I’ve somehow managed to go five years without checking out the Silent Hill film, but having finally watched it yesterday I was reasonably happy.
Silent Hill‘s plot is loosely based on that of the first game in the series. The game started with a chap called Harry Mason going on holiday with his daughter. When a girl steps in front of the car, he swerves to avoid her and crashes. When he comes to, he realises his daughter is missing, leading him to explore the nearby town of Silent Hill to see if he can find her. Cue lots of fucked-up monsters.
Standards at the NHS were clearly slipping
The movie, meanwhile, replaces Harry with a female character, Rose. Her adopted daughter has been sleepwalking and talking about a place called Silent Hill, so Rose takes her to Silent Hill to see if it triggers any memories about her past. Then, as in the game, they crash on the outskirts of the town and the daughter goes missing. It’s a small difference but an important one, as it makes it harder to sympathise with Rose when you know she deliberately chose to go to Silent Hill rather than ending up there by accident.
"Don't ever take me to that fucking hairdresser again, mum"
Silent Hill is a beautiful movie. Obviously when I say that I’m not referring to the horrible, mutated monsters that sometimes look like wriggling human-sized acid-apitting condoms, I mean the way it’s shot. The town of Silent Hill almost feels like a character itself, such is the detail with which everything’s been designed. The moody, empty streets look like they haven’t been updated since the 1950s and the constant fall of ash from the skies gives everything a surreal, otherworldly feeling.
Combine this with Akira Yamaoka’s stunning music (the vast majority of the movie’s score consists of music from the games) and you’ve got a movie that’s a treat for the eyes and ears when there aren’t freaky monster things shuffling about.
For a film based on such a grim series of games there are only a couple of visually shocking moments in the film, the most notable being someone having their skin ripped off and flung against the wall of a church. A normal occurrence on a Thursday night in Liverpool, sure, but something rarely seen in the world of cinema.
"That must have been one hell of a Nando's"
Silent Hill is enjoyable until the final 30 minutes, when everything starts to go a bit mental (well, moreso than usual). The plot starts getting needlessly complex and confusing, and it all gets a bit silly. This of course is nothing new for those familiar with the Silent Hill games, but at least there the plot took a back seat to the whole ‘shooting things and trying not to die’ challenge the player faced. Since most movies are very much plot-focused, there’s nothing for the convoluted story to hide behind.
As a video game movie, Silent Hill is one of the better ones out there. It perfectly captures the tone of the games, right down to the silly plot. As a movie judged on its own merits though, it’s a gorgeous film that unfortunately runs out of steam when its story becomes as messy as the habits of its monsters.
Starring: Lance Henriksen, Jeff East, Matthew Hurley
MAGGIE: “Don’t worry, God will help us.” (loads shotgun) TRACY: “Then what’s that for?” MAGGIE: “In case God doesn’t show up.”
Ed Harley (Lance Henriksen) is a bit of a hillbilly. He lives in a house with his young son, who makes him a necklace thing for seemingly no reason. The next day a few bikers come to the village and run his son over, killing him. Lance is clearly pissed off (and rightfully so), so he seeks out a crazy old woman who teaches him how to make a demon based on his rage that will seek vengeance. And so Pumpkinhead is born. Cue mindless killing of the bikers.
I had always wanted to see Pumpkinhead ever since they made an action figure of him in my favourite action figure series, Movie Maniacs. After all, it had to be memorable if someone took the time to make an action figure of it. As it turns out, Pumpkinhead is at best an average film which lacks a set of balls.
Pumpkinhead is a huge monster (even the action figure dwarves the other ones in the series), but all it seems to do to the people it kills is put its hand over their head and pick them up a bit. That’s extremely fucking weak. The plot’s also a bit simple. Boy dies, man goes mad, enlists the help of a demon which then kills people. Meh.
The fact that it’s from the ’80s is no excuse. Pet Sematary still scares me to this day. But this was just poor. There are two ‘jump’ scares in the film. One just isn’t scary (Henriksen’s dead son sits up in the car next to him) and the other’s poorly timed (a dog wanders slowly into the frame to a dramatic musical sting). And as impressive as Pumpkinhead looks, it doesn’t seem that it could do any harm at any point, especially given that its main party trick is the old “picking people up by the head” routine. Give me a pointy stick and I could probably take the bastard.
Yes, there are a couple of deaths, but they all happen off-screen so we don’t really know what happens. The only one that’s sort of shown is when Pumpkinhead uses the tried and tested “pick up by the head”, climbs a tree then drops the person he’s carrying. Naturally however, we don’t see the impact. To be fair, there’s one clever moment where an unfortunate chap is impaled on a rifle, but that’s about it.
Incidentally, the story for Pumpkinhead was based on a poem by Ed Justin. Here’s how it goes:
Keep away from Pumpkinhead, Unless you tire of living His enemies are mostly dead, He’s mean and unforgiving Bolted doors and windows barred, Guard dogs prowling in the yard, Won’t protect you in your bed, Nothing will, from Pumpkinhead
Oddly, it doesn’t mention anything about Lance Henriksen’s son getting his head caved in.
Sorry to say, Pumpkinhead isn’t too great. If you’re a special effects junkie it’s certainly worth a watch to see the great Pumpkinhead puppetry (with Stan Winston directing it’s no surprise the monster looks great), but I wouldn’t make it top of the priority list if I were you.
Starring: Charlton Heston, Roddy McDowall, Linda Harrison, Kim Hunter, Maurice Evans
“Get your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!” (Taylor, Planet Of The Apes)
The last time I saw a film with an ape riding a horse the police came to my house, confiscated it and fined me £1000. I wasn’t willing to take the same chance again so I did plenty of research beforehand to ensure Planet Of The Apes was above board.
Planet of the Apes is one of those movies that most people know a lot about but many haven’t seen. Many know the twist ending, partly due to the numerous spoofs of it that have emerged over the past years with the likes of The Simpsons and Kevin Smith taking their own crack at it. Yet not many people who haven’t watched it are aware that there’s actually a lot more to this film than Charlton Heston being kidnapped by apes, escaping and then realising where he is. It’s rife with social commentary and other such shenanigans.
"NO OFFICER, I'M NOT HIDING TWO MONKEYS IN MY HOUSE. Right, get in the fucking cupboard you pair of monkey pricks"
An astronaut crew crash-lands on a mysterious planet 2000 years in the future. Commander George Taylor (Heston) is captured by a group of intelligent apes, who believe that they are the dominant species and man is the beast. Two chimp scientists are startled however to realise that Taylor can speak (unlike the other humans on the planet) and so they attempt to help him gain his freedom.
The first fifteen minutes are fairly boring, reminiscent of the sci-fi b-movies of the 50’s where a crew of two or three men crash-land on a planet then look at all the strange things on said planet. Thankfully Taylor’s crewmembers are disposed of quickly (leaving us in no doubt as to who the star is here) and the film begins to swing in a wildly different direction when he’s kidnapped by apes on horses.
"He called us what? Pricks? I'll give him a piece of my monkey mind"
Taylor is thrown into a cage alongside some fellow humans, and soon realises that such is the bitter irony of this new world, the humans can’t speak and the apes can, meaning their roles are reversed somewhat. The apes see the humans are mere pets, mindless animals incapable of communication. Conveniently, Taylor’s voicebox was damaged while he was being kidnapped so he can’t speak when he’s initially captured.
I would say that to give more away would be spoiling it but let’s face it, we all have a rough idea where this is going. We know he’s eventually going to speak and that all hell’s going to break loose. We know he’s going to be seen as some freak of nature and he’s going to end up splitting the apes into those that believe he’s from another planet and those that don’t. And if you don’t, well, you do now.
One frustrating annoyance is the character of Nova, played by Linda Harrison. As a love interest she’s pretty weak, mainly due to the fact that she’s mute and doesn’t really seem to understand what Taylor is saying. Indeed, it almost feels wrong to me whenever he tries to instil some sort of romance in her, because she doesn’t really know what he’s doing. It’s pretty close to animal porn in my opinion (and, as noted above, I would know).
Doctor Zaius, Doctor Zaius, ooh ooh ooh Doctor Zaius (Doctor Zaius Doctor Zaius)
One cliché we do expect with mute characters in films, however, is that in a dramatic scene near the end (usually when the hero’s getting the shit kicked out of him) they’ll suddenly talk, or at least make some kind of “ugh” sound. This isn’t the case here. You keep waiting for it, but once the credits hit you think “well what was the point of her?”. Unsurprisingly, this was corrected in the sequel.
Heston gives a performance that’s as needlessly dramatic as you’d expect from a ’60s sci-fi film, regardless of its otherwise high budget. In the scenes where he can speak, every line’s chewed and spat out through gritted teeth in order to make him seem like a gritty hero who takes no shit. Her annoying lack of chat aside, Linda Harrison does do a good job and at times you believe she actually is mute. And despite the makeup, the ape actors are still extremely convincing, in particular Maurice Evans as Dr Zaius and Roddy McDowall as Cornelius.
If you still haven’t seen it Planet Of The Apes is highly recommended, as long as you don’t mind overdramatic sci-fi. The make-up effects on the apes have stood the test of time, and they look as impressive more than 40 years on as they did back when they were created. It’s therefore still somewhat believable (within reason), as opposed to merely a historic landmark in film history that our generation can look back at and giggle at how cheap it all looked. If you’re after a good science fiction film with moral undertones and spectacular cinematography for its time, then Planet Of The Apes is the one for you. Besides, it’s got monkeys on fucking horses.
LISA – “I hear you bought yourself a haunted house, John.” JOHN – “I just bought the house, not the ghost.”
(Note – This review is based on the Sanctuary Region 2, 3D version of the film (pictured on the right), so any references to the 3D effects may not necessarily apply to the version you watch. The film is also available in a 2D version, which inevitably affects how entertaining the film is. That said, on with the review.)
Put quite simply, had Amityville 3D not been in 3D it would be quite the stinker. As it is however, it’s actually quite entertaining to watch and some of the scenes of sheer tedium (including the frankly overly-repetitive discussions on whether or not the house is evil) aren’t quite as boring due to the distraction of the 3D effect.
Don't really remember there being monsters in the first one
3D aside, this third instalment in the Amityville series is a pretty run-of-the-mill, scare-free ghost story which makes little or no sense and never really makes you care for the actors. Indeed, most of the film will be taken up by you either saying how good or bad the last 3D bit was or, if you’re watching the 2D version, guessing which bits would have been in 3D (answer: all of them).
The plot isn’t too different from that of the original film. A couple of fake psychics are kicked out of the old Amityville house by John Baxter (a paranormal scam investigator) for trying to trick people into thinking they can contact their dead relatives. This leaves the house empty for Baxter to buy it and move in. Naturally, strange goings-on then begin to happen to everyone around Baxter (including his ex-wife and daughter), but he’s not having any of it and he’s determined to move in. Cue numerous people entering the house on their own and meeting grisly deaths.
Got a pair of 3D glasses? Give the image a click and try it out
There are, quite simply, no scares to be had whatsoever in Amityville 3D. Some of you watching in 3D may jump ever so slightly the first time a fly comes towards you, but after that it’s pretty ineffective.
There aren’t too many deaths here either, yet what’s there is reasonably inventive. “Death By Flies” is quite good if a little confusing (how can flies kill you?) and “Death By Accidentally Setting Your Car On Fire” is pleasing to watch, but the real star is easily “Death By Getting Pulled Into A Hole In The Floor Of The Basement By A Random Monster”.
Look! It's a young Meg Ryan in one of her first acting gigs
The 3D technique used here is the classic “red and blue glasses” effort. Of course, this means it’s not true 3D and instead the actors still look 2D, albeit on different 3D planes. It looks a bit like there are cardboard cut-outs walking about in a pop-up book. It’s still pretty cool looking, though the closer things get to you the poorer the effect becomes. Its ironic that the most effective examples of the 3D effect are scenes where very little is happening other than dialogue.
If you can get a hold of the 3D version of Amityville 3D, it’s highly recommended if only for the cheesy fun you get watching it with the full 3D effect. However, if all you can get is the 2D version, do not under any circumstances expect anything approaching a decent film. The characters are flat and dull, the scares are almost non-existent and the effects are poor at best. In 3D though, it’s enough of a distraction to prove enjoyable.
Starring: Robert Englund, Heather Langenkamp, Johnny Depp, John Saxon
“One, two, Freddy’s coming for you…” (freaky as fuck children, A Nightmare On Elm Street)
It’s unfair for me to give a fair and objective review of this film because it was such a big part of my childhood. The majority of my years as a wee boy were spent shitting myself at the very sight of Freddy Krueger (unlike my fearless younger brother who idolised him). The Nightmare films affected me so much that they remain the basis for my love of horror to this day. Quite simply: no Nightmare On Elm Street, no That Was A Bit Mental. So it’s to blame if you think this site is pish. Therefore, anyone expecting this film to get any less than a full 5 out of 5 can stop dreaming (as it were) and just accept it. I fucking love this film, and I always will until the day I die. Now let’s dissect it.
Johnny Depp in his first ever role. Awwww
Nancy and a couple of her other high school friends have started sharing the same bad dream about an impolite chap named Fred Krueger. Mr Krueger has a glove with long razors for fingernails, which must be an inconvenience when he has to use toilet paper. Naturally, he’s not a happy man (not necessarily because of the toilet paper though) and terrorises Nancy and her friends every time they dream about him. Once Nancy’s friends start dying in their sleep, however, it soon becomes clear that whatever Freddy does to you in your dream affects you in real life, and if he kills you in your dream you’re fucked in real life too. It’s up to Nancy and her boyfriend Glen to figure out how to stop Freddy before all the Elm Street children die in their sleep.
Freddy's makeup was a little nastier than it was in later films
Everyone talks about how the original Friday the 13th isn’t scary anymore because (with the exception of Kevin Bacon’s death and the ending) you’re pretty much warned about all the deaths in advance (the shadow of the axe against the curtain before it’s slapped into someone’s head, for example). A Nightmare On Elm Street, on the other hand, still provides the odd chill to those who have yet to watch it; be it Freddy bursting out of a mirror, Tina’s death or Glen’s unfortunate bedroom experience. It’s safe to say that 27 years after its release, despite showing its age a little in terms of special effects, A Nightmare On Elm Street can still hold its own fright-wise against much of the emotionless bullshit that’s being released in cinemas these days.
This scene actually merges slow motion into normal speed without the viewer noticing
Part of this is also down to the film’s concept in general. It’s often hard to care much about slasher films because not many of us have been chased down a street by someone wielding a knife (unless you’ve spend a Friday night in Glasgow of course). Everybody has nightmares though, and everybody knows how powerless they feel when they’re having them, so building a film around that idea was a genius move by Wes Craven.
Of course, this film would be nothing without Freddy Krueger, one of the greatest horror characters in history. The idea of a dodgy chap burnt alive by the parents of the children he killed who now seeks revenge is great, and the innuendo and suggestions that he may have been more than simply a child murderer adds an underlying sense of nastiness without ever actually confirming anything.
Gore fans will be reasonably happy with A Nightmare On Elm Street because there’s a good deal of the red stuff spattered throughout the film, most notably during the famous first kill where Freddy drags the helpless Tina onto the ceiling. Plus Freddy seems intent on causing himself harm in every scene he appears in, be it by slicing his fingers off or cutting his stomach open. Quite gory then. The deaths are also extremely inventive, given the film’s low budget. It’s a credit to the special effects crew that the aforementioned ceiling death is very surprising when it happens, because you don’t expect to see something as cool as that happening in a film that seems fairly cheaply made. Here’s the scene if you haven’t seen it before:
The acting is possibly the one area where the film could theoretically lose some points. As much as I love this film I have to admit that it’s undeniably ’80s and most of the actors (with the exception of Johnny Depp, Robert Englund and John Saxon) either play their roles in an over-the-top manner or simply are’t convincing enough. As a lead actress, Heather Langenkamp is simply not good enough in this film and her shonky delivery of her lines tends to take the viewer out of Craven’s world and throw them back into reality. This is more due to her inexperience as an actress when she starred in this, however: indeed, her later roles in the third and seventh Nightmare films were much more believable as she gained maturity as an actress.
A product recall for Marks & Spencer's new line of bath mitts was inevitable
Maybe I’m being biased, maybe I’m being nostalgic, but I am of the honest opinion that anyone who hasn’t seen A Nightmare On Elm Street before they died better have a good reason like being Amish or something. Not many horror films can be considered classics but in my opinion among the true classics you have your Dawn Of The Dead, you have your Halloween, you have your Friday The 13th and you have your Nightmare On Elm Street. Yes, the acting is poor and the fashion is sometimes scarier than Freddy himself (witness the camp might of Johnny Depp’s crop-top and bouffant hairdo), but these are merely documents of the film’s history.
Does anyone question Nosferatu‘s lack of sound? No, because all films at that time were silent. Therefore, should anyone question A Nightmare On Elm Street‘s dodgy acting and dodgier clothes? No, because all ’80s slasher films had Oxfam wardrobes and stars who couldn’t act their way out of a nutsack. It comes with the territory. What doesn’t however, and makes A Nightmare On Elm Street better than its countless competitors is that it’s a clever, well-directed horror with great special effects for its budget and inventive deaths that involve more than just someone else getting their throat slit every five minutes. If you haven’t seen it, take it from me and remedy that situation. Here’s the trailer to help drive the point home:
Starring: Tom Atkins, Dan O’Herlihy, Stacey Nelkin
“Halloween, the festival of Samhain. The last great one took place 3000 years ago, when the hills ran red with the blood of animals and children.” (Conal Cochran, Halloween III)
Despite the success of the first two Halloween films, rather than sticking with the same formula the third movie went in a completely direction and scrapped Michael Myers, opting instead to tell a completely different story altogther. It was a move that in my opinion paid off, even if it’s a film that’s not really remembered these days.
Indeed, had this been simply named Season Of The Witch and not contained the word ‘Halloween’ in the title, it would have probably received a much better response from horror fans. As it is however many people tend to see this as the bastard son of the series despite the fact that, lack of Myers aside, it’s one of the stronger Halloween films.
Ashley Olsen's eating disorder wasn't getting any better
A hospital patient is brutally murdered and his attacker dies soon after when his car blows up. Dr Dan Challis witnesses these events and decides to investigate, along with the daughter of the murdered man. They soon discover that Silver Shamrock (a Halloween mask-making company), led by the evil Conal Cochran, is plotting to revive the original idea of Halloween: mass murder. How does Cochran plan to do this? By triggering all the masks they’ve sold to kill whoever is wearing them at a certain time on Halloween. Now that’s a quality idea.
From the opening credits we know we’re still in Halloween territory, despite that key missing ingredient of Mr Myers. As a crude pumpkin is drawn on screen using an old computer (probably an old BBC Micro or something) the music is reminiscent of John Carpenter’s score from the first two films.
It was the hottest curry Susan had ever eaten
The idea of how Cochran plans to kill the children of America is also sheer brilliance. Using the addictive power of hype to control these impressionable children and lead them Pied Piper-like to their eventual demise is a stroke of genius which really should be used more often in films. It isn’t for the simple fact that the killing of children is still fairly taboo in cinema plots, so when Halloween III‘s most grisly death involves an eight-year-old boy it’s ruddy effective stuff.
There are some nice death scenes throughout, including a genuinely jump-inducing scene in a motel room (with a grotesque aftermath) and the infamous, aforementioned child death. Needless to say this is a very uncomfortable moment to watch, and while some may complain about it, I instead feel it’s a very powerful image and is perfectly handled.
There's nothing more disturbing than walking in on your partner having sex with a Coke bottle
Tom Atkins is great in every film he appears in and here he is no different. The fact that he looks like a normal Joe and not a well-built stereotypical “hero” figure allows us to connect with him on a better level than we would with, say, Busta Rhymes in the later Halloween: Resurrection. At times his acting borders on over-theatrics, but it’s so cheesy and typically ’80s that you can’t help but love it.
As for evil super-villain Conal Cochran (well, he must be a super-villain if he plans on killing every child in the country), Dan O’Herlihy plays him as well as possible given the script he has to work with. After all, no human being on this planet could successfully manage to explain how the masks are powered with rock from Stonehenge without some hint of cheese and scenery-chewing involved.
In all, Halloween III is top class ’80s horror. As long as you go into it with an open mind you should enjoy it. This is not really a Halloween film, so don’t expect one. Block Michael Myers out of your mind for 92 minutes, settle down with some Doritos and Coke, and enjoy a good slice of ’80s terror. You won’t regret it.
Starring: Michael Parkinson, Sarah Greene, Craig Charles, Michelle & Cherise Wesson
“What big eyes you have… what big eyes you have.” (Susie, Ghostwatch)
Picture the scene. It’s Halloween night, 1992, and the BBC has decided to present a live, hour-long broadcast from the most haunted house in Britain in an attempt to catch the first live, on-camera footage of ghostly events taking place. Well-respected presenter Michael Parkinson is hosting proceedings at a nearby studio, accompanied by parapsychologist Lin Pascoe (there to give an expert’s view), and TV host Mike Smith manning the call centre and taking calls from the public if they see anything odd.
But the real focus of the show is the outside broadcast live from the haunted house, as popular children’s presenter (and real-life wife of Mike Smith) Sarah Greene plans to spend the night with the Early family, who are being terrorised by a ghost going by the name of Pipes (so called because the noise he initially made sounds like old central heating pipes clanking and warming up). Finally, outside the house will be comedian and star of popular sci-fi sitcom Red Dwarf, Craig Charles, who will be interviewing witnesses and generally adding some comic relief to what should be an otherwise nervy night. They are all expecting to have a laugh with the audience and make light of the situation, but that’s until things start to go wrong. The eldest daughter’s voice is taken over by Pipes, photo frames fly off the wall and Pipes starts taking over the studio.
Except he doesn’t really. The whole thing was a fake broadcast filmed in the style of Orson Welle’s famous War Of The Worlds radio drama, presented as genuine in order to terrify the audience into thinking it’s really happening. It was perhaps too successful, because it ended up with the dubious honour of being the first TV programme to genuinely inflict post-traumatic stress symptoms in children, and caused one mentally unstable viewer to kill himself.
As a result, the BBC has never shown Ghostwatch again in the eighteen years since it was released for fear of the same thing happening again, but it’s now available on DVD and while the acting is a little less credible these days it’s still a spooky little tale.
I vaguely remember Ghostwatch’s first broadcast in 1992. I never saw it at the time (I was only 9 and still kept my distance from ‘scary’ things), but my uncle phoned up my house, convinced it was real. These days it’s fair to say that Ghostwatch is not the most convincing ‘hoax’ of all time, primarily due to the poor acting ability of the actresses playing the mother and her two daughters. Despite the generally believable performances from the actual TV presenters playing themselves, these two actresses still manage to bring you back to reality as you realise this isn’t possibly genuine, simply because nobody talks like they do. The eldest daughter and mother in particular are unconvincing.
Can you spot the ghostly figure of Pipes?
However, for those who missed the opening titles and tuned in halfway through, this could have very easily passed as a genuine piece of reality TV. Hindsight makes it difficult to determine whether people would have been gullible enough to buy it, because when I recently watched it I was fully aware that it was fake and was looking for signs of this. Perhaps it didn’t even enter the minds of people watching it at the time – bear in mind this was the early 90’s, long before the wave of both reality TV and famous hoaxes such as The Blair Witch Project, The Last Broadcast and (in my opinion) Living TV’s Most Haunted.
Nevertheless, there is no denying that regardless of its believability, it’s extremely well-produced and successfully mimics the format of real-life TV broadcasts long before Chris Morris and Armando Ianucci attempted it with spoof news shows The Day Today and Brass Eye.
The tension is well-built with the initially slight unease of members of the public phoning in and claiming they’ve seen a shadowy figure in some footage that was played earlier. This progresses to some subliminal appearances of a strange person in the background, in a number of blink-and-you’ll-miss-him shots. Eventually it all comes to a head, the audience gets the most blatant sighting of the figure, and from then on the viewers are hooked as all hell breaks loose.
To say any more would cruelly spoil things, and this truly is a DVD that has to be watched with as little knowledge of events as possible, but the internet is buzzing with those who have already seen it and are comparing sightings of the ghost, trying to get the definitive list of how many times he appears (the correct answer? Nine in total).
Ghostwatch may not be everybody’s cup of tea – the acting is occasionally dodgy, the ending is ridiculous and the whole thing smells faintly of cheese. But anyone willing to let that slide and consider that nearly two decades ago this scared the hell out of a gullible country (and unfortunately led to a suicide) will thoroughly enjoy watching this. If possible, watch it in a large group and play Spot The Ghost.
In short, Ghostwatch inspired a hell of a lot of ‘fake’ reality programmes that followed, and for this reason alone should be worth a view. At its best it’s a fantastic study in the human mind and how it deals with subliminal imagery and belief. At its worst it’s a bloody good ghost story. It’s a win-win situation!
Here’s a feature on Ghostwatch from Channel 4’s 100 Greatest Scary Moments, which helps explain why it’s so enjoyable:
“Have you ever had… an EGYPTIAN FEAST?” (Ramses, Blood Feast)
Herschell Gordon Lewis is often referred to as the Grandfather of Gore. He was the first filmmaker to make a truly bloody movie, at a time when the likes of Psycho and The Birds were shocking mainstream audiences with their relatively bloodless terror. While nowadays we’d think nothing of a horror film where someone dies a bloody death, in 1963 it was a shocking sight.
It’s surprising then to see just how far Blood Feast goes, considering many credit it as the first ever gory movie. Eyeballs are stabbed, tongues and hearts are pulled out and heads are bashed in, leaving brains scattered on the floor. The effects aren’t very convincing (the blood is the reddest thing you’ll ever see) but it’s probably a good thing because it makes the film more entertaining. Had it had the realism of something like Saw or Hostel it would have been disturbing rather than enjoyable.
That's no way to do your lipstick, you daft mare
The plot’s fairly kooky. Ramses is an Egyptian caterer who has been asked by a wealthy woman to provide an Egyptian-themed feast for her daughter’s birthday party. Ramses is happy to help, mainly because he’s been killing lasses left, right and centre to prepare for an ancient Egyptian ritual in which he wants to bring an Egyptian goddess to life, and he reckons the party will be a great time to do it.
Despite the gore effects, the most entertaining aspect of Blood Feast is the bad acting. And when I say it’s bad I mean it’s absolutely atrocious. From the killer’s terrible accent and seeming inability to say a sentence properly (not to mention his laughably bizarre silver hair and eyebrows) to the mother of one victim who sound like she’s laughing when she cries, the performances are incredibly terrible. By far the worst/best of the bunch though is the chap playing one victim’s boyfriend, whose abysmal attempt at showing grief makes him possibly the worst actor I’ve ever seen. Here, see for yourself (if you think he’s bad at the start, wait until you see him when the police turn up):
The script’s great too. From the unfortunate euphemisms (talking about the murder case, one detective tells his partner “well Frank, it looks like one of those long, hard ones”) to some truly bizarre reactions (“Ramses was the killer we’ve been looking for, Mrs Fremont.” “Oh dear, the guests will have to eat hamburgers for dinner”) there are plenty of chuckles to be had.
Blood Feast is well worth seeing for a laugh, and at a brisk 68 minutes it won’t take up too much of your time. The gore is satisfying if unrealistic, but the acting is so bad that you’ll be laughing too much to care.
HOW NASTY IS IT? – I can understand how it would have been considered nasty back in the day but given how horrifiying the likes of Saw are these days this is laughably tame by comparison now.
AVAILABILITY – It’s now available uncut in the UK, but it’s out of print. There’s an uncut American disc which is region-free (so it plays on UK players), is cheap (about a fiver) and has good extras. If you fancy it then you can click here to buy it from Amazon UK and I’ll get 40p or something for recommending it. So not only can you enjoy a laughably bad film, you can also help me rob Amazon of some of the profit. Finally, as ever, here’s the trailer:
“The time has passed! We are winner the game!” (Choi, The Ring Virus)
You’re probably aware of The Ring, the American remake of the Japanese blockbuster Ringu, but before that Korea had a crack at it with The Ring Virus, a film that is interesting if a little disappointing.
The plot is similar to that of the original version of the film. A female journalist decides to investigate the deaths of four teenagers who mysteriously died at the same time. It emerges that they all watched a strange video tape exactly seven days before their deaths. Intrigued, the journalist watches the tape (as does her ex-lover and her daughter) and thus begins a race against time to solve the tape’s hidden secret.
Obviously being a Korean film the character names have changed. Female Journalist Reiko Asakawa/Rachel Keller is now Sun-ju, her ex-husband Ryuji/Noah is now Choi Yeol and the creepy Sadako/Samara has been renamed Eun-suh. Replace the annoying too-smart-for-his-own-good son with an annoying too-smart-for-her-own-good daughter and your Korean remake is complete.
Bob wasn't a fan of Vanessa Feltz's Playboy photoshoot.
The whole film gives off a strangely calm vibe, as if your death at the end of your seven-day deadline isn’t actually that bad. Whereas Ringu/The Ring had corpses with faces displaying either sheer terror or grotesquely warped features, the dead folk in The Ring Virus seem to just sit there bored.
The characters are also ultimately unlikeable. In Ringu, Ryuji (the main male character) doubted the existence of the tape but took little persuasion to be convinced, and in The Ring, Noah didn’t believe it until he saw himself smudged in a security camera, The Ring Virus has Choi Yeol, the most annoying prick in the history of film. I don’t care if he is the hero male, I will never like this man.
A trick like this will make you the life and soul of any party.
The Korean version of the cursed tape looks like shit (however the accompanying sound effects are excellent, much better than the “bees” sound from the Ringu tape and the sound of Samara singing in the US remake tape. It also stays faithful to the book by providing a message at the end that says “if you watch this tape, seven days later you will die. To prevent the curse you must…” with the end taped over by a TV programme. While that happened in the book, the Japanese and US film versions left it out.
The ending of the Japanese film is also intact, and is actually handled slightly better until the bit where the ghost shows the “eye”. You know that trick where someone turns their eyelid inside out? That’s all they’ve really done here. It really isn’t horrific in anyway and instead of being a great ending to a interesting film it ends up as a weak ending to a boring film that’s badly acted on top of it.
"Don't worry, I'm sure they'll make another Alvin & The Chipmunks film".
Basically, the whole film lacks emotion. Even as the final famous death takes place, the victim does not look scared for his life. Instead, he seems somewhat bored with the whole thing and is probably imagining what his next TV or movie role will be (and judging by the quality of his acting throughout, he’d be lucky to star in a tampon commercial).
In all, The Ring Virus is an adequate and by-the-books attempt at adapting the Ringu storyline, but when you have a book and two films out there that do the same job infinitely better, this really isn’t worth wasting your time with. It’s worth a watch if you’re interested in seeing a different take on the source material, but of the three versions of The Ring this is by far the weakest.
irector: Tom Weiner
That Was A Bit Mental 