Starring: Eric Balfour, Iva Hasperger, Roger Corman
“You’re gonna need a bigger chopper, cabron.” (Trace, Dinoshark)
There are officially somewhere in the region of three and four billion movies about dangerous animals that have been mutated a little, so Dinoshark would have to do something special to gnash its way to the top of the list. It doesn’t.
The film opens with a shot of a baby Dinoshark breaking free from an Arctic glacier that’s been melting (damn you global warming, etc). Obviously ice acts just like a cryogenic chamber because despite having been frozen for millions of years the baby Dinoshark is alive and well. Fast forward a few years and the older, wiser, hungrier Dinoshark has made its way to Puerto Vallarta in Mexico – hey, you’d head for the sun too if you’d been trapped in ice for that long – and is looking to chew on some Mexicans.
The Sausage Killer strikes again, but not before leaving his calling card
Who can stop the Dinoshark? Unfortunately, the answer to that question is suave dickhead Trace McGraw, one of the least likeable heroes in cinematic history. Trace thinks he’s the greatest man who ever lived, but nobody really believes his stupidly exaggerated stories about the adventures he’s been up to since he was last in Mexico. When he sees the Dinoshark ripping a fellow boater to shreds, then, people laugh and tell him he’s making it up.
You see this same shot about eight times throughout
They’re not laughing so much when the Dinoshark starts attacking other people near the beach, mauling swimmers, children and water polo players in a mess of blood and unconvincing CGI, and so off goes Trace to give it a swift kicking.
The quality of the acting in Dinoshark is so bad it actually made me angry to think there are struggling actors out there trying to get a gig while pricks like these are stinking up celluloid. The only decent performance is from cult film producer Roger Corman (who also produced this – how the mighty have fallen). He plays a small role as a scientist and is the only believable thing in a film with an obviously unbelievable plot.
It’s a shame that the best thing about Dinoshark is the title. It’s not well-made enough to be surprisingly adept and it’s not cheesy enough to be a guilty pleasure. It’s just badly made from start to finish and really not worth bothering with. This one should have stayed frozen – just watch the trailer below, have a chuckle, know that you’ve seen the only good bits and move on.
Starring: Linda Blair, Ellen Burstyn, Jason Miller
“I think the point is to make us despair. To see ourselves as animal and ugly. To make us reject the possibility that God could love us.” (Father Merrin, The Exorcist: The Version You’ve Never Seen)
(Note: if you haven’t read my review of The Exorcist yet, it may be best to check it out first.)
Although The Exorcist was a worldwide smash hit and remains Warner Bros’ highest-grossing film at the box office (after inflation), William Peter Blatty remained unsatisfied. As the author of the book on which the film was based he felt some key scenes had been dropped, scenes that would have given viewers the message he originally wanted to express.
William Friedkin, the film’s director, disagreed. He felt the film worked perfectly as it was and told Blatty he was being “a bad winner”, that they were both making a fortune on a hugely critically successful film and he should be happy with the recognition. The two fell out for a while because of this dispute.
"I told you to take your toys off the stairs, now look what's happened"
Time passed and Blatty and Friedkin resolved their differences and became friends again. Blatty still maintained that he wasn’t happy with parts of the film, in particular the ending, which he felt ended too ambiguously and left people leaving the cinema on a downer thinking the devil may have won. Friedkin remained unconvinced, and maintained that the film should stay untouched.
Some other subtle CGI effects (like this face morph) were added to the film
Eventually, around the time of the film’s 25th anniversary, Blatty persuaded Friedkin to dig out the unused footage from the film and put together a new cut of The Exorcist that more closely resembled Blatty’s original vision, a sort of ‘Writer’s Cut’. The result was released in cinemas in 2000 as The Exorcist: The Version You’ve Never Seen.
Despite Blatty’s original intention for the re-release, the most notable change in this new cut is the inclusion of the legendary ‘spider walk’ scene. This deleted scene, in which Regan flips upside-down and walks down the stairs like a spider, had been part of Exorcist lore for years with fans eager to see it as it was originally intended. The scene itself is pretty effective – here it is if you fancy a gander:
So, the spider walk aside, what else is in there? Well, the other main addition is of course the aforementioned alternative ending, which involves an extra scene at the end where Father Dyer and Lt Kinderman have a pleasant chat. This was the scene Blatty wanted to add to reassure the viewer that all was well with the world, and I could take it or leave it really.
There are also a few little trims and additions dotted here and there throughout the movie. Father Merrin has a few extra scenes with Chris MacNeil and Father Karras which flesh his character out a little, and there are some new digital effects where a demon’s face subliminally pops up from time to time.
Do these changes make The Version You’ve Never Seen a better movie than the original? Not necessarily, it just makes it a slightly different one that perhaps feels slightly more modern. Both versions are effective but if pushed I’d recommend you watch the spider scene above then just check out the original version of the film, since its more ambiguous ending leaves a greater feeling of unease.
Starring: Linda Blair, Ellen Burstyn, Jason Miller
“Mother, what’s wrong with me?” (Regan, The Exorcist)
The Exorcist is not a horror film. At least, that’s what director William Friedkin, writer William Peter Blatty and Linda Blair, who played the possessed little girl in the film, would have you believe. According to them, it’s a drama about the mystery of faith that just happens to have disturbing scenes in it. Personally I’d chuck a stern “bullshit” at that theory, but it doesn’t really matter. What’s important is that whatever genre or niche you try to place it in, The Exorcist remains one of the greatest films ever made.
The story’s well-known, but for those who’ve maybe managed to avoid it I’ll fill you in on the basics. Chris MacNeil (Burstyn) gets concerned when her little girl Regan starts showing some odd behaviour. She pees on the carpet, swears at doctors and starts playing with ouija boards. While this may be the normal sort of behaviour you’d expect from an Essex youth, for the well brought-up Regan it’s very uncharacteristic.
"You might want to run this under the tap first, it's been... um, used"
Doctors are unable to figure out what’s wrong with Regan and brain scans come back negative, suggesting she’s not suffering from any sort of mental illness. Meanwhile, Regan’s behaviour gets more and more shocking, culminating in her slapping her mother across the face and ramming her head into her crotch. Remember, not from Essex.
It soon emerges that Regan claims to be possessed by the devil so, at her wit’s end, Chris goes to a local priest and asks him to arrange an exorcism. After a bit of persuasion (mainly involving Regan masturbating with a crucifix and spinning her head 360 degrees), he decides to get in touch with Father Merrin, one of the few Jesuit priests who still perform the rare ritual. Can they drive the devil out of Regan? That would be telling.
Critics felt the latest Derren Brown show had gone a little too far
While its key moments have been parodied time and time again, spoofed by the likes of the Wayans brothers in Scary Movie 2, Leslie Nielsen in Repossessed and even a Danish bacon advert, The Exorcist still has the power to shock. This is mainly due to two things – the believable and realistic special effects and the superb performance by Linda Blair as Regan.
Regan is such a likeable, idyllic little girl at the start of the movie that when she descends into her possessed state and starts saying and doing the most outrageous things it’s all the more shocking. You find yourself siding with her mother as she tries to get help – you care about this once-sweet little girl’s well-being and you want her to overcome this demon who’s possessed her. Had Regan not been so easy to warm to at the start then the audience would have made less of an emotional investment in the movie.
"What do you mean you forgot to buy my fucking Clearasil? It's the one bloody thing I wanted from the shop"
The effects, many of which have only been recently explained, are the work of genius. These days it suffers from the “Beatles effect” – the genre has evolved so much over the years (in this case thanks to CGI) that it can be hard to appreciate the impact it made when it was first released, but at the time it was doing stuff on camera that had never been seen before and without a computer in sight.
The bed shaking was handled by building a bed, cutting a hole in the wall behind it and having a crew of men literally shake the bed from behind the set. The famous levitation scene (where Regan rises from her bed) was done with wires painted grey and white in a dash effect to confuse the eye and make them impossible to see in the film. The spinning head was a robotic dummy, the vomit scene was created with a mouth attachment that fired pea soup… all pieces of technical genius and all remarkably believable.
You could watch The Exorcist ten times and get something new out of it each time you watched it. Legendary critic Mark Kermode famously said he’s watched it over 200 times and it still feels new to him every time. There are so many subtle moments, so many nods to events that will happen later on, so many different ways to consider each scene and so many different interpretations you can give to its open ending that everyone will take away something different from the film. Religious viewers will see the fear in having their faith challenged, parents will see the fear in the helplessness Chris feels as her daughter succumbs.
Whoever you are and whatever your beliefs may be, you really have to see this film. It may terrify you beyond belief (though if you’re a hardened Saw addict it may not), but it’s one of the most important films in cinema and a landmark of the horror genre – whether or not the filmmakers believe it’s a part of it.
Starring: Luke Mably, Chukwudi Iwuji, Jimi Mistry, Nathalie Cox, Adar Beck, Pollyanna McIntosh
“There is one question before you, and one answer is required. If you try to communicate with myself or the guard, you will be disqualified. If you spoil your paper, intentionally or accidentally, you will be disqualified. If you choose to leave this room for any reason, you will be disqualified. Any questions?” (Invigilator, Exam)
Sitting an exam can be stressful at the best of times, but imagine one at a job interview where passing could get you a lucrative job with a top company. Not bad enough? Then imagine how you’d feel if you turned over your exam paper only to find that the question sheet was completely blank.
This weird French chap doesn't have much to say... or does he? Dun dun dunnn
That’s the dilemma facing the eight applicants in Exam, and they have 80 minutes to figure out the answer. There are a few rules in place – if any of them speaks the invigilator or guard, spoils their exam paper or leaves the room they’ll immediately be disqualified.
Within minutes one of the applicants starts writing down why she feels she should get the job and is thrown out for spoiling her paper, making things even more confusing. How do you solve a problem when you don’t know what the question is, and couldn’t write down the answer even if you did?
He was clearly the tallest man they had ever met in their lives
Eventually one of the eight – an arrogant, outspoken chap (Luke Mably) – explains to the rest of the group that there are no rules to prevent them from talking to each other. He assigns everyone stereotypical nicknames – Black, Brown, Brunette and so forth, naming himself White – and starts instructing everyone to try different things. Naturally the others don’t like being bossed around, and turn against White. That’s when things get interesting.
"Now sit there and have a good think about what you've done, mister"
Despite its low budget Exam still manages to look and feel slick throughout. This was clearly a labour of love for director/writer Stuart Hazeldine and it shows. It’s well shot throughout and the score does that rare trick of being effective yet completely unnoticeable at the same time. The only real negatives are some of the performances, most notably from Jimi “East Is East” Mistry who plays Brown and is about as wooden as the desks in the exam room.
Your opinion of Exam is likely to rest on the ending. For some it’s a clever conclusion that comes out of left field, for other’s it’s a silly, almost childish solution that may open up more questions than it answers. Regardless, Exam remains a good example of a film that keep you entertained for an hour and a half using only a single room and eight people.
JESSE – “Grady, do you ever remember your dreams?” GRADY – “Only the wet ones.”
At the time, Jack Sholder didn’t know he was making a gay movie. As far as he was aware, he was simply making a sequel to A Nightmare On Elm Street, which had been a huge box office success the previous year. It was only when the film started getting recognition and critical praise from the gay media that he slowly realised he may have unwittingly created the greatest homosexual film of the early ’80s.
Freddy’s Revenge tells the tale of Jesse (Mark Patton), an effeminate young chap who’s new in town and already trying to win over his new high school lady friend Lisa (Kim Myers, looking remarkably like a young Bette Midler). The problem is, Jesse’s family have unwittingly moved into1428 Elm Street, the house where Nancy lived in the previous movie, and in doing so have provided Freddy with new victims to stalk.
"Haven't you heard, Toots? I'm a metaphor for Jesse's gay side. Ain't got no time for adequate pieces of tail like you"
As Jesse sleeps at night, he dreams about Freddy. Rather than killing him though, Freddy wants to take over Jesse’s body so he can come into the real world and kill all the teenagers in Elm Street. Jesse tries to resist, but finds himself unable to control his body. He goes into his little sister’s room wearing a Freddy glove and only just manages to stop himself attacking her. He sprouts a huge demon tongue while he’s getting down and dirty with Lisa but manages to hide it and leave without her seeing. Freddy’s taking over his body and there’s not much he can do about it.
Ah. Right. Well, I'm not touching this one, you can draw your own conclusions
Of course, as far as the cast and crew of the movie were concerned (well, most of them at least – nowadays Mark Patton, himself a gay actor, claims he knew all along what was happening), this was nothing more than a straight sequel (in every sense of the word) to the previous year’s big horror blockbuster. That wasn’t how the gay community saw it, however. In their eyes, Freddy’s Revenge was a film about a young man struggling to accept his own sexuality and trying to fight it. The funny thing is, if you watch the film with the assumption that Freddy is supposed to be Jesse’s gay side, it’s hard to argue with them.
Everything Freddy does to Jesse can be interpreted as an attempt to bring out his gay side. The aforementioned tongue scene is Freddy’s attempt to stop him being intimate with a woman. At one point, Jesse runs to a male friend’s house, climbs through his bedroom window and tells him there’s someone inside of him he’s trying to get out. Every time Jesse kills someone (while under Freddy’s control), he lets out an incredibly high-pitched scream. When Freddy finally completely takes over Jesse’s body, the only way Jesse can be freed is for Lisa to kiss Freddy, essentially killing off his homosexual side.
The pivotal coming out scene, where Freddy literally "comes out" of Jesse while he's in another lad's bedroom
All these are mere foreplay, however, compared to the scene in which a sleeping Jesse, under Freddy’s control, walks to the nearest gay S&M club and finds his gym teacher there wearing a tight leather outfit. The teacher takes Jesse back to the school and makes him run laps in the gym, but afterwards Jesse, as Freddy, ties him up with skipping ropes in the shower, strips him, whips his bare arse with a towel then gives him the old fingerknives in the back (penetrating him from behind, if you will). If the cast and crew genuinely weren’t trying to make a gay movie, you have to wonder what the hell they were thinking here. I’m not just making this up, you know, here’s an entertaining behind-the-scenes video with the film’s cast admitting they had no clue. They’re incredibly honest and stunned at how gay they made the film. It’s a must-watch!
Either way, the homosexual subtext is neither here nor there – Freddy’s Revenge is simply an odd film however you take it (so to speak). Odd, unexplainable things happen throughout the film, each doing their bit to undo the “rules” and mythology laid out by Wes Craven in the wonderful first film. Jesse’s house suddenly becomes incredibly hot for some reason, to the extent that his pet budgie goes mental, attacking Jesse’s sister and then spontaneously combusting into a tiny explosion of flames and feathers.
"Sorry lads, you don't look gay enough. This film has to be fucking blatant. Back to the locker room"
Then there’s the part where Freddy freely comes into the real world, something that was a big no-no in Craven’s original (only Nancy could bring him out of her dream). This leads to a ridiculous scene at a pool party where Freddy confronts 50 or so teens, most of whom are taller than him and could probably kick his arse.
In a series famous for its bizarre moments and bending of reality, for Freddy’s Revenge to somehow feel a bit off is something of an achievement. It’s entertaining enough however you choose to interpret it, but it’s by no means one of the better entries in the Nightmare saga.
“I’m gonna get me some” (Christine, Drag Me To Hell)
While Sam Raimi is best known these days for being the director of the Spider-Man trilogy, to fans of horror and cult cinema he’ll always be the man behind the legendary Evil Dead films. With this trilogy Raimi took situations that in real life would be blood-curdling beyond belief and presented them in such a darkly comic way that was both horrific and hilarious at the same time. Drag Me To Hell marked Raimi’s return to the genre, and while it could never live up to the Evil Dead films it has a ruddy good go at it.
Peek-a-boo isn't as fun as it used to be
The story begins with Christine (the likeable Alison Lohmann) trying to impress her boss at the bank so she can be promoted to an assistant manager position. Christine is approached by an old gypsy woman who hasn’t been paying her mortgage and needs a little more time to pay it. Though she wants to help the woman, Christine is pressured by her boss into refusing the extension. Enraged, the woman attacks Christine and is dragged away by security. Not to Hell, mind, just out the bank.
Things start to go a little tits-up when Christine, returning to her car, is attacked by the old woman. After a lengthy and ridiculous Raimi-esque battle, the woman tears a button from Christine’s shirt, curses it and gives it back to her, then leaves. From that point on, Christine’s life is filled with visions, hallucinations and attacks from strange beings. It soon emerges that the woman has summoned the Lamia, an ancient demon, who will torment Christine for three days then appear to drag her down to the depths of Hell. Bit harsh, but there you go.
"Well, let's face it, it wouldn't be Glastonbury without bad weather"
The first half of Drag Me To Hell very much concentrates on providing the viewer with jump scares on a regular basis. Jump! as Christine dreams the old woman is lying next to her in bed. Leap! as she’s attacked by the shadow of a demon. Shriek! as a haunted handkerchief floats up towards the screen (seriously). While jump scares are cheap ways to provoke a reaction, Raimi nonetheless times them to perfection here and they’re hard to predict, keeping the audience on edge as shock after shock is delivered.
Eventually though the fun and games have to stop and the small matter of the plot has to be dealt with. The second half of the film, then, is more story-driven and sees Christine trying to figure out how to stop the Lamia from dragging her down to Hell. It’s a little odd because the man giving her advice seems fairly useless (had he suggested in the first place that she do what she does at the end then things would have gone better for her), though she does eventually figure it out on her own.
They suddenly realised they couldn't play Poker without cards
The most memorable moment of the film is its twist ending. Naturally I won’t give the game away but there’s a chance you may be able to figure out what happens anyway if you’re perceptive enough. Something happens in an earlier scene that seems so out of place suspicious viewers may notice it, wonder why the film’s stopped to focused on it, and be able to guess what’s happened as a result. Raimi gambles with it though, and if you didn’t notice it then when the twist comes it’ll all suddenly make sense and seem very clever.
Drag Me To Hell is a Marmite film. Of the people I’ve spoken to about it, around half adored it and half despised it. I personally really enjoyed it but I’m giving it three and a half Trevors out of five because while I feel you should see it, be prepared to be part of the population who didn’t connect with it.
Starring: David Morse, Mark Chapman, Patricia Wettig, Bronson Pinchot
“I hear a really terrible scary sound. And it’s awful. A little like Rice Krispies after you pour in the milk. But I know it’s closer than it was, because something’s coming. Something making that horrible cereal noise.” (Bob, The Langoliers)
As a three-hour made-for-TV film based on a Stephen King book, The Langoliers could either have been compelling viewing or cheesy as hell. Impressively, it manages to be both at the same time. While the story is full of the typical twists and turns you’d expect from a King yarn, the acting is so laughable at times it somehow manages to make things even more entertaining.
On paper, you’d be forgiven for wondering just how The Langoliers manages to last three hours. After all, the plot is the sort of minimalist scenario you might expect as an exercise at an improv class. A group of passengers wake up midway through a flight to Boston to find the rest of the passengers, crew and pilots are missing. With no noticeable damage to the plane and no sign that anyone left, confusion spreads as the group try to figure out what’s happened to everyone. That’s about it.
This guy's a kooky author. He's also patronising to the point that you want to punch his face off
Of course, with the genius storytelling mind of Stephen King behind the wheel twists and turns inevitably ensue, and by the end the film has covered the likes of time travel, telepathy and big CGI balls of fur that eat up the Earth. And it’s a true testament to King’s talents that as mental as all that sounds, it still makes perfect sense when it happens, even when a Maine airport is completely swallowed up whole by a handful of the aforementioned furballs.
These are the Langoliers. They eat things. Just as well, because that's all they seem equipped to do
This being a mid-’90s TV movie, the cheese factor is immensely high. The acting ranges from adequate (David Morse is believable as an off-duty pilot who tries to save the day) to atrocious (pretty much everyone else). Probably the most bizarre example of this is Mark Chapman, who plays the mysterious Nick. Despite actually being a British actor (he’s from London, apparently), he still somehow manages to provide a terrible, fake-sounding English accent. This isn’t helped by his stereotypical English gentleman dialogue, which is so cliched that at times he actually says “jolly good”.
While the plot is engaging and there’s always a desire to find out what’s going to happen to the group, The Langoliers constantly seems like it’s trying its very best to put you off with its embarrassingly poor production. The music is horrible, the CGI effects when the titular Langoliers arrive are laughable, and the final scene is easily one of the worst things ever committed to film. Have a look to see what I mean (don’t worry, it doesn’t spoil what happens):
If you’re looking for a film that takes a great story then buries it in made-for-TV cheese then you’ve got very specific tastes and should probably broaden your search filter. Regardless, The Langoliers will fit your rather niche needs perfectly, and despite its incredible three-hour duration it still manages to whizz by. It’s worth a look, just leave your critic’s hat at the door because it’s certainly not cinema magic. Don’t be fooled by the trailer below, it’s not quite as exciting as it makes it appear.
WHERE CAN I GET IT? UK would-be Langoliers viewers can get the Region 2 DVD at Amazon.co.uk by clicking here. If you live in the US, you can get the Region 1 DVD from Amazon.com by clicking here or get it in a boxset with The Stand and Golden Yearsby clicking here.
Starring: Nathan Baesel, Angela Goethals, Robert Englund
“Never hang out with a virgin. You got a virgin in your crew, either get somebody in her pants or get the hell away from her.” (Jamie, Behind The Mask)
Behind The Mask is a clever movie. It fools you into thinking it’s only pretty clever, then completely turns things upside down in the final act to show you that, in fact, it’s more than just pretty clever. It’s actually very clever, maybe even ruddy clever.
At first it’s a fly-on-the-wall documentary, with a crew following Leslie Vernon (the oddly appealing Nathan Baesel), an up-and-coming slasher villain who one day dreams of being as famous as Freddy Krueger or Jason Voorhees. Leslie takes the crew round his local haunts, introduces them to his parents and shows them his target girl, the one he’s chosen to stalk serial killer-style.
Yes, it's the wee woman from Poltergeist. She's a bit of a legend
Leslie plans to attack this “hero girl” in typical slasher style, by breaking into the house during the party she’s set to throw with her friends and killing them off one by one. He’ll use every trick in the slasher book to get them, from cutting the power off so one of them goes into the basement, to hiding the bodies in a way that they’re found at just the right time.
Every scene had me smiling with its constant nods to previous horror films and its overall attention to horror cliche detail. Leslie shows how many of the typical horror set-pieces are really done – when a girl’s on her own and the door slam shuts behind her, it’s because the killer has already set up the door and pulled it shut with some fishing wire, and so forth.
You can always rely on Robert Englund to put in a good performance
It’s all entertaining until the night of the party, when the camera crew and presenter are forced with a moral dilemma – do they allow Leslie to go ahead with his plan and actually kill all these kids, or do they try to interfere and risk pissing him off? The resulting final act is gripping stuff with a fantastic twist that, while one you’re likely to figure out five minutes before the characters do, is still smartly handled.
Behind The Mask is a surprisingly original movie with a strong cast. A notable mention should go to Robert Englund as he performs his best professor-who-knows-the-killer impression in the style of Donald Pleasance in Halloween, while the rest of the cast is similarly appealing. I strongly recommend this if you fancy something different.
Starring: Devon Sawa, Ali Larter, Seann William Scott
“Beware. The risk of cheating the plan, disrespecting the design, could initiate a horrifying fury that would terrorise even the Grim Reaper. And you don’t even want to FUCK with that Mack Daddy.” (Bludworth, Final Destination)
Final Destination is one of my guilty pleasures. I know it’s a load of hokey shite and I know the plot’s so daft it makes Harry Hill look like a no-nonsense dapper English gent, but I still find myself enjoying it when I watch it.
It tells the story of Alex, a young chap about to go on a flight to Paris with the rest of his class and two of his teachers. Before the plane takes off Alex has a premonition (shown in grisly detail) that it’s going to burst into flames in mid-air, so he throws a hissy fit and gets off the plane, along with a few other students and one of the teachers who get caught up in the commotion.
"Is it a bird? Is it a plane?" "Well, it used to be a plane."
As Alex’s chums have a go at him at the terminal for making them miss their flight, they’re immediately stunned into silence when in the distance they see their plane explode in mid-air, just like Alex predicted.
Naturally, the FBI are a bit suspicious so they decide to keep their eye on Alex, but just as they decide he’s innocent the rest of the survivors begin to die one by one. Alex realises that because he and his friends cheated death by getting off the plane, Death itself is a bit pissed off and is trying to kill them off to sort it out.
"Are you serious? THAT's the in-flight movie? But I hate Mr Bean."
The most entertaining moments in Final Destination, then, are the numerous death scenes, each of which would seem accidental were we not aware that Death’s causing them. Each death scene is a clever “will they, won’t they” balance where it’s not quite clear when and how the victim is peg it. The numerous red herrings keep the audience guessing, turning something as simple as a strangulation into an elaborate game where the viewer spots hazards and tries to figure out which one will lead to each character’s inevitable death.
After an exciting first 45 minutes, the back half of Final Destination loses its steam a little. Once Alex figures out what’s going on and how it all works he becomes a member of the tinfoil hat brigade, opening tins of food while wearing thick gloves and standing candles in the middle of water-filled bowls in case they fall. This is where things start to get a little wayward and eventually the final 20 minutes are a shadow of the fantastic action in the first 45.
Still, Final Destination is worth a look if you’ve never seen it. It was popular enough to spawn three sequels, but you should definitely start with this one. Its tale of an angry death looking to cover up its mistake may be a silly one and the acting may be poorer than Detroit at times, but it’s daft fun.
“Nurse Jacobs, I can’t write a prescription for ugly.” (Dr Farwell, Creepshow 3)
James Dudelson and Ana Clavell should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. In 2005 Dudelson bought the rights to the Day Of The Dead name and released Day Of The Dead: Contagium, an unofficial sequel that completely pissed on everything George Romero’s classic stood for.
After this, having also obtained the rights to Creepshow (the fantastic anthology series previously written by Stephen King and directed by Romero), Dudelson and chum Clavell got to work on a script for Creepshow 3. If the aim was to once again destroy the great reputation of a classic film by releasing an atrocious sequel that’s so bad you actually feel angry as you watch it, then mission accomplished. Creepshow 3 is an embarrassment.
These guys genuinely get this far before they realise they're cutting up a woman and not a robot. Good work chaps
Like its two predecessors, Creepshow 3 is an anthology consisting of numerous short stories (five in this instance) rather than one long film. Whereas each of the stories in Creepshow 1 and 2 were self-contained tales with messages of morality though, the five mini-insults here each make very little sense whatsoever.
The first, entitled “Alice”, tells the story of a teenager whose father has bought a new TV remote. Every time he presses a button on the remote she’s transported to an alternate dimension where her family are black, Hispanic and so forth. Oh, and for some reason she starts mutating and turning into a rabbit. The ending is completely bewildering and explains nothing.
"That sunscreen you got me didn't really work that well, I'm afraid"
Then there’s “The Radio”, which is probably the best of the bunch and the only story of the five on offer that actually makes sense and has a plot that can be followed from start to finish. A guy buys a new radio that talks to him and instructs him to murder people and steal money. It actually ends on a pretty clever note and for a second it looks like Creepshow 3 might have redeemed itself.
This notion is immediately kicked down a flight of stairs with “Call Girl”, in which a serial killing prostitute meets her match when a vampire chap requests her services. This one’s thankfully pretty short: it’s a shame, because while the concept is a good one the execution is weak.
The fourth tale is “The Professor’s Wife”, in which a weird professor chap (easily the worst actor in the film) invites two of his ex-students over to meet his fiancee in advance of their wedding. Convinced she’s a robot, the students proceed to hack her to bits to find how the professor put her together, going so far beyond the point where it’d become clear a mistake has been made that the whole thing becomes ridiculous.
I don't care if you're dying mate, I genuinely don't know CPR. No, it's not because of your mouth, I'm insulted you'd suggest that
Finally there’s “Haunted Dog”, which is among the most cringeworthy twenty minutes you’ll ever experience in a film. An arrogant doctor leaves a tramp to choke on a hot dog and is haunted by him from that point on. Again, it’s a good idea, but it’s ruined by the guy they got to play the doctor, who’s so painfully unfunny during the countless “look how much of a cock this guy is” montages that watching him poorly insult patient after patient for far too long becomes a true exercise in patience.
The film attempts to tie all five stories together Pulp Fiction style by having characters from each story appearing in cameo roles in others, but it only serves to add to the confusion. Why is the doctor attending the vampire kid’s all-vampire party? How come the Hispanic alternate dimension mother is at the professor’s wedding along with the real mother? The whole thing’s a mess.
Stay away from Creepshow 3, especially if you saw and enjoyed the first two. The second story may be half-decent but overall the film is a complete insult to the series and should have been shit-canned at the idea-gathering stage.
Director: Kevin O’Neill
. If you live in the US, you can get the Region 1 DVD from Amazon.com 
or get it in a boxset with The Stand and Golden Years 
.
That Was A Bit Mental 