Reviews

Paramount seems to think that every game and comic book adaptation works well for them. So when TMNT's rights came to them they went ahead and started productions on a feature film. For this they used the present day's golden egg laying goose Michael Bay. Bay didn't direct the film, he had his hands full with somehow making a billion dollars on the new Transformers for Paramount but he did agree to becoming the producer. Everything still was prepared for the turtles to get a Michael Bay makeover. In my opinion this is not the biggest info that needs to be known about this film. It is more important to ask whether this film needs to be made at all, but this could be asked about Transformers too. But there at least there was a major difference. When the first part was made already the trailer had everyone convinced that visual fx wise we hadn't seen anything like it before. Then came G.I. Joe that was almost built on the same foundation but the results weren't as positive. It didn't flop but it was even questionable whether the sequel would ever be made. It did, but why?... Same with TMNT. I think no matter how hard the trailer tried to convince us that this would be cool and we would all be interested… it kind of didn't work. Not to mention that the people who back in the day, no matter how lame it was or its mistakes, still remember the first trilogy and maybe even think back on it nostalgically with love, don't need a remake. Plus those who liked the original did so because they thought it was funny and we all wanted to be a Turtle on Halloween. Will it be like that now? Somehow I doubt it. There's not much new in the story, just maybe a few characters: Darkness has settled over New York City as Shredder and his evil Foot Clan have an iron grip on everything from the police to the politicians. The future is grim until four unlikely outcast brothers rise from the sewers and discover their destiny as Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. The Turtles must work with fearless reporter April O'Neil and her cameraman Vern Fenwick to save the city and unravel Shredder's diabolical plan. I have to start with the fact that the original trilogy is kind of lame, with its rubber turtle costumes, but it was still much more believable than this CGI band of ninjas. The problem is that the whole thing sort of seems strange. Yes the film visually pleasing but the turtles are so not life like. It's a little like a cartoon on nitro. Of course I do know that in 2014 they can't exactly dress up people in rubber costumes, but they CGI to me just doesn't work. The action and the visual fx do, but the question does arise if this should be the most important aspect of a TNMT film, of course Michael Bay would think so. I don't. For me the cast and the script should be forefront in a turtle movie, because in the original that was what grabbed us, not the visuals. Unfortunately the script isn't the best, it does have a few jokes that the turtles crack, but the rest is pretty cliché. The actors are okay but there were even a couple that where totally the wrong choice, but mostly they are all annoying. MB made TMNT into Transformers and it didn't suit them. 4/10

When a European director heads over the pond to make a film that usually doesn't work out so well. Of course there are exceptions and those are usually horror film directors. It's enough to mention Alexandre Aja who did a great job with both the Pirana and The Hills Have Eyes remake. Tommy Wirkola the director of Dead Snow took a whole different route. Despite the fact that I think Dead Snow wasn't a life altering film, max only an entertaining horror, he got an opportunity to work in the States for a large studio. And it wasn't even some hokey project they gave him but Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters with a 50 million dollar budget. Unfortunately the film didn't live up to expectations in America, though world wide it was better received and in the end it made 200 million. The only reason for this was that I think no one really got that they were watching a comedy with lots of blood. The viewers didn't know that the director didn't mean it to be serious so they shouldn't consider it that either. After the Wirkola couldn't find a decent project and he wanted to make the sequel anyway so he traveled back to Norway and made Dead Snow 2. Despite the fact that the first one wasn't bad I didn't feel like it needed a sequel. But honestly the director shocked me. It did not just need a sequel but that sequel far out gunned the first one. Continuing from where the last film ended, Martin wakes up in a hospital after he crashed his car while trying to escape from Colonel Herzog after finding one of Herzog's coins and placed under arrest when the police suspected that he killed his friends, laughing off the zombie explanation. The good news is that the arm he sawed off to halt a bite infection has been replaced — though that's kinda bad news, too, since he discovers it's Herzog's undead limb that's been attached to his missing appendage. He then escapes from the hospital and his zombiefied arm kills a police officer with a Mercedes star. He thought it was over and that everything would go back to normal; he was wrong. The gruesome Nazi Zombies are back to finish some 70-year-old business: completing Hitler's order to wipe out an entire town in retaliation for Norwegian anti-Axis subterfuge. Why do I think that it was better than the first? The most important reason that while the first was and okay horror, with an average story and a few jokes, plus blood, the second one is a damn funny comedy with buckets of blood. Though the director changed concepts with this brave decision he made the sequel interesting. I think the best way to describe it would be to say that Dead Snow 2 is a tip of the hat to Braindead. Of course it would be hard to dethrone the king, but getting this close is a huge deal. At the beginning of the film after the first 10 minutes you can feel that this is something big. The escape from the hospital with the little boys help already sends you into fits of roaring laughter. Most of the jokes are situational comedy but the script is still a huge step forward from the first film. The actors are more believable. Maybe only the American Zombie commandos were too much sometimes. And then there is the blood. Cause it was great to laugh myself silly but never forgetting that this is a horror parody. That was a step forward too. The film is filled with gore and its pretty disgusting here and there too. Like the scene with a zombie being driven around. And if all that wasn't enough there is a point in the film when it ups the shock value, there are kids dyeing, gas siphoning with a colon, handicapped people getting killed. All in all Dead Snow 2 is one of the most entertaining films I've seen in a long time. If you have the stomach for it then you'll be entertained. Hats off to the director for being brave. 8/10 https://www.youtube.com/user/Videodromeblog

Martin McDonagh made a huge splash in 2008 with the film In Bruges. It was not just that a whole lot of people saw the film but also the first time director and writer got an Oscar nomination. But few may know that he has a younger brother who may even be more talented than him. In 2011 he had his directorial debut with The Guard which was also outstanding. It may not have made a big a splash as In Bruges but it was just as interesting. His style may not be easy, but when you get used to it totally grabs you. And now 3 years later his new film is here. It's interesting to see the latest work of a new director and the films story totally grabbed my attention and the star is again Brendan Gleeson. The director wrote the script again so all was there for it to be a quality piece of work again. Despite the fact that I was already counting on a good film this honestly was way past what I expected. One of the years greatest works comes from Ireland. Father James (Brendan Gleeson) is a good priest who is faced with sinister and troubling circumstances brought about by a mysterious member of his parish. Although he continues to comfort his own fragile daughter (Kelly Reilly) and reach out to help members of his church with their various scurrilous moral - and often comic - problems, he feels sinister and troubling forces closing in, and begins to wonder if he will have the courage to face his own personal Calvary. The basic concept is great. I don't really understand how come no one has made a film about it yet. Even without the major conflict it would still be interesting to watch the priests trials, the life of his parish and his strength of faith or lack thereof. But an interesting basic story is just one thing you need for a film to work. You need more for a good film and even more for the years best. McDonagh's first direction was more of a comedy, but here he really was able to spread his wings. It wasn't the jokes that got the emphasis (even if there were a few morbid ones) but the questions the film raises about life, death, faith and forgiveness. Instead of clichés the questions are thought out and the film is filled with great metaphors. But even that would still not be enough for the best film you need characters too. More often than not a great script lacks really good characters. But here there isn't a second when you feel that its forced, all the characters fit into the story and their lines move it forward deepen it. The film doesn't just have a great script, but it's also directed well. If I had to name a mistake all I could really say is that it's a little short and that Brendan Gleeson steals the show sometimes even from the deep meaning too. He is a great lead, they couldn't have found a better actor for this role. The films story is hard hitting and with its many hidden layers its deep, but it never tries to be too artsy and that's mainly due to the tasteful jokes. They totally were able to lighten the films heavy theme making it never go over the top. It really is a great film, but I have doubts as to whether it will find an audience. I for one would love it if it does well at the box office, so the director will do more films like this. All in all Calvary is a spiritual journey laced with beautiful metaphors to a place not many people have traveled, and it's even entertaining and funny. Definitely one of the years best, it's not easy to take, but if the theme is interesting it will live up to expectations. 9/10 https://www.youtube.com/user/Videodromeblog

Something new is never bad when it comes to comic books, but riding the waves of other successes works too, cause nothing says there has to be a change, maybe one and that's vision. It would be a mistake to think that Disney has no idea what it's doing. They know they need to keep the comic book wave alive and grab new viewers and Guardians of the Galaxy is perfect for doing just that. The new blood infusion comes from James Gunn the script writer, he's proved himself all geek with Super and Slither. Neither were outstanding pieces, but both were entertaining and very funny. But what did he end up doing with a big project and what can we even expect from him? Based on the first trailers it looks like the year's biggest blockbuster even if the Guardians don't have a strong foundation like the Avengers. Though it is a popular comic, it's not as known a brand as Thor and gang. But as more and more trailers came out and info was leaked expectations rose. The hype machine was churning. So only one question remains. Can they jump the huge hurdle that they built? Lássuk a sztorit: After stealing a mysterious orb in the far reaches of outer space, Peter Quill, a half human/half alien is now the main target of a manhunt lead by the villain known as Ronan the Accuser. To help fight Ronan and his team and save the galaxy from his power, Quill creates a team known as the 'Guardians of the Galaxy' to save the world. First off it's a visually pleasing action, the story is fast paced, but between two action scenes there is time for character development. It's finally not a problem that there are a lot of heroes in the story and they don't know what to do with them. They all have their place. The story may not be all that, but there aren't major problems with it either and the one liners are great. I laughed myself silly at the teasing going on between the characters. They constantly have a go at each other. The script is definitely designed to have the jokes and the characters as its focal point. And that's not a bad thing. It's entertaining. The films music is awesome, we hear a bit of it in the trailers but it works really well in the film, despite it seeming to be not suitable to a film like this. It totally pulled off what few would have thought possible jumping that proverbial hurdle. But hey with a film with a raccoon sitting on a moving tree while said raccoon machine guns everything in sight you kind of know that it will be huge. But the point I'm trying to make is that Hollywood finally came up with a good script. It's good visually but for me it was a comedy. I for one laughed more than with many of the so called comedies that came out in the last little while. Disney has reached the high point in Marvel films. So the question remains what now? It might sound strange but Guardians has totally given Avengers 2 a new hurdle to jump over. Marvel films stayed high quality this is true but they didn't have any daring, guts to them and that's what Guardians has. I think the film will be a huge success and that's good for a lot of reasons. Hopefully Disney will continue to be brave with the Marvel rights and will dip into some more interesting projects beside the new Captain America. All in all the film gives what can be expected maybe even more. I was counting on it being a visually pleasing fast paced action sci-fi with humor, but it was a surprise how good the actors were, the characters were and the script was. So it became the best Marvel film and that I wasn't expecting. It surprised me. It can't be less than a 10/10. Ironman, Thor time to get cracking. https://www.youtube.com/user/Videodromeblog

It's a great thing when seemingly lost genres are mixed with overused filming techniques or it's a catastrophe and not the positive sense of the word. Let's see all the things that made this possible. First the genre they picked never really worked much: The catastrophe film. It was pretty popular in the 90s but there was never any really stand out films. It's enough to just remember the volcano films that came out sometimes two a year where one was worse than the other. I think the genre only works when Roland Emmerich destroys the whole world. The visuals are what makes the film. It's not just a storm, but the burning of the world. This film though is kind of like the catastrophe genre film Twister. There are two problems with this one is that Twister didn't really have a story and two it only worked because of the visuals… back in 96… today you'd need a little more. The creators came up with a "creative" idea. Let's make the film a "found footage" movie. Just like they are trying to sell every low budget horror film with. So original. My worry about the film peaked when I read that the entire budget was 50 million. Unfortunately today you can't make a serious visual film out of that much. The story: In the span of a single day, the town of Silverton is ravaged by an unprecedented onslaught of tornadoes. The entire town is at the mercy of the erratic and deadly cyclones, even as storm trackers predict the worst is yet to come. Most people seek shelter, while others run towards the vortex, testing how far a storm chaser will go for that once-in-a-lifetime shot. The thing is that this film is bleeding from a lot of scars. First off cause I didn't expect more I thought it would be a film based on visuals. On this front there are a lot of problems with this film. The visuals just aren't good enough. This type of film needs to be made much better and out of more money. Plus cause there is stuff flying all over the place it's a film that calls for 3D. It's unfathomable why it wasn't done that way. Maybe then it would have something original, but then they could have just rereleased Twister as a 3D movie. Then there is everything else apart from the visuals. Well those all posed serious problems too. The Found Footage method really doesn't work in this film. It's only one problem that it's unoriginal, it's even worse that it doesn't suit the film. The cast more or less does their jobs, but they don't really add anything to the film. They don't really have any other job anyway except to stand around starring at the storm. Not that hard. Obviously everybody knows that in a catastrophe film the storm or whatever isn't supposed to be the lead role. It is here, but cause it looks bad… it's just bad all around. And then there's the script that so deserves an Oscar cause it was just written so well. But hey that's not even necessarily the needed in a film like this, but they still could have come up with something a little better than one that even Asylum would have tossed. All I all I just don't know why this film was made. With all the summer blockbusters it hit the movies with a film with such a low budget has no chance plus the trailer is even bad. If you go to the movies watch Guardians of the Galaxy cause this film is 3/10 https://www.youtube.com/user/Videodromeblog

Luc Besson is an interesting director. He has unbelievably cool films: like one of my favorites Leon the Professional, but I could also say the Big Blue and the Fifth Element. The there are some of his later films The Family that wasn't totally lame but it wasn't outstanding either. So it's strange that even if he's said in the past that he won't be doing anymore films now all of a sudden he comes out with a new film. And it can be said that it's similar to the later ones. The film's story is pretty typical which makes it fit more with the films he's produced like The Transporter or Taxi. But it's characteristic of these types of directors that viewers are always interested in what they do 'cause their films always have the potential to be something great. When news 1st hit of the film being in the works Angelina Jolie was attached to it as the star and it seemed like the story would be a good fit for her, like her roles in Wanted and Salt. Unfortunately she jumped ship and Scarlett Johansson came aboard. Of course Johansson is a talented actress but these types of action films are only just now becoming part of her repertoire but it's interesting to see her have a go at it. The script of course is credited to Besson, who can be hit and miss with them. But one can hope that it won't end up bad. The film was shot in France with French money but Universal purchased the rights for the States. In any case Besson doesn't usually run into quality problems with his French projects so it was expected to work. But what was the actual result? A pretty positive one. In a world run by the mob, street gangs, drug addicts, and corrupt cops, Lucy (Scarlett Johansson) is a woman living in Taipei, Taiwan who is forced to work as a drug mule for the mob. A drug implanted in her body inadvertently leaks into her system, which allows her to use more than the "normal" 10% of her brain's capacity, thus changing her into a superhuman. As a result, she can absorb information instantaneously, is able to move objects with her mind, and can choose not to feel pain or other discomforts, in addition to other abilities. It's kind of a basic requirement to have a good idea, being that there is something hidden in the far reaches of the mind. So the films story doesn't sound half bad, what causes problems is that all of it is buried in an action film. So then what do you need a good idea for? It gets lost amongst the big and effective action scenes. That's kind of how you can categorize Lucy. It's filled with cool stuff and action. Probably Besson had the idea and thought he is good at doing action films so he'd merge the two. The film does do a good job with the action stuff, it's filmed well, it's has tight cuts, and it's directed well. But the other side is lacking. The film as just an action film works. Scarlett Johansson is surprisingly good as a war crazed Amazon. The film suits her and she suits the film. The other actors are there too. The problem was the film didn't get to be more than an action flick. It's just what I said an average film but a cool and well made action flick. Despite the good acting the characters are kind of shallow and the script could be deeper. Of course that does depend on what you expect of the film. Besson makes me want more. I just didn't get it. It's good work and it's entertaining, but just don't expect to get deeper meaning. If you don't you won't be disappointed. All in all Lucy is a perfect mindless action flick but no more. Though it must be noted that it doesn't want you to think it's more and trick anyone it just wants to entertain and that works. I had fun watching it but Big Blue and Leon well they made me expect more. 7/10 https://www.youtube.com/user/Videodromeblog

It's an interesting year in regards to the Hercules legend. 2014 sees 3 films about the Greek hero, though maybe its pushing it to call the Asylum beauty a film. At the beginning of the year The Legend of Hercules came out, which is jockeying for the position of worst film of the year. It was bloody horrible. But now we didn't have to wait any longer for The Rock to try and reestablish his demigod status, this week sees the release of his film. But did he manage it? Well that's the big question. One thing is for sure all signs point to the fact that they took it more seriously than the film from the start of the year. First off Paramount gave the film a pretty high budget. Then they took the filming to Hungary where they could get even more for their money without really messing with the quality, 'cause already with Hellboy 2 the Hungarians have proved they know how to put together a visually pleasing film. Brett Ratner got the director's chair who's proved that he knows how to make a blockbuster. It's true he's not really a very original director with few truly original movies to his name but somehow a lot of producers have his name pop into their heads when they need someone to put together a project they are convinced will be successful. You can make a case for the script being placed in the hands of untried writers but obviously this film isn't even going to be known for its scripts depth. Not that we'd want it to be either. Then we get to the film's star The Rock it can be totally said that he's pretty much a hot name right now. Even if his name right now isn't a guarantee for success, 'cause really his biggest successes came for brands that were pretty established. Either way the afore mentioned signs pointed to this being an entertaining trash movie. And the result? Unfortunately mediocre. Fourteen hundred years BCE, a tormented soul walked the earth that was neither man nor god. Hercules was the powerful son of the god king Zeus, for this he received nothing but suffering his entire life. After twelve arduous labours and the loss of his family, this dark, world-weary soul turned his back on the gods finding his only solace in bloody battle. Over the years he warmed to the company of six similar souls, their only bond being their love of fighting and presence of death. These men and women never question where they go to fight or why or whom, just how much they will be paid. Now the King of Thrace has hired these mercenaries to train his men to become the greatest army of all time. It is time for this bunch of lost souls to finally have their eyes opened to how far they have fallen when they must train an army to become as ruthless and blood thirsty as their reputation has become. There is a twist to the film that sets up the whole thing in the first scene. That is that the hero is just a normal mortal, but he is a mercenary who with the help of his brothers in arms talks up his legend and makes himself a demigod claiming he is in reality Zeus' son. The film starts with his cousin talking him up and telling tall tales about how he fought with a bunch of mystical beings. Brett Ratner keeps playing with the audience, anytime you're convinced something supernatural is happening it always turns out that this is just a trick and an illusion. Let's be honest that's a pretty interesting twist of the story. It is pretty much in line with what was expected a mindless action parade. The films basic story is flat and the script is filled with weird one liners but it's okay 'cause that's also what was expected. The actors do a good job with the 1D characters, there is never a second of development and definitely no depth to them. Of course whoever got the bright idea that The Rock should be the star had to have known what they were getting. Dwayn Johnson is like Schwarzenegger. He doesn't act they kind of just write films around him/ for him. The Rock fills the screen and owns the movie. He's really cool and badass. That's it. Nothing more but that works for him and it's pretty entertaining. So if you like The Rock's films this won't disappoint either. But it has to be said that despite the many negative things in the film it works. It's fun, fast paced and visually pleasing. Unfortunately the makers made a mistake that could have derailed the whole thing and that was they tried to make the ending serious. That was a mistake. Then the entertaining film became lame. They shouldn't have done it. Hercules until the last quarter of the film is a typical mindless entertainment summer flick, brainlessly visually pleasing and action packed, but likable and enjoyable. Then it just goes off course. So it's a 6/10 that could have been more without the ending. https://www.youtube.com/user/Videodromeblog

Two young Canadians thought it was high time to reform the horror genre, though I'm pretty sure even they had the idea that this wouldn't exactly be an easy feat to pull off. So they kind of lost some momentum and ended up with a film that follows in the steps of Canadian films but is something a little new, it's not genre changing but it will give the fans a few entertaining moments. Kind of like The Cube or Ginger Snaps. It was made with a really small budget and it was kind of tossed together by two guys who wanted to use a little twist to pull it out of the usual cliché that is Canadian horror flicks, by that I mean the hand-held camera horrors and vampire films. But with these two clichés the problem is that they both are trash worthy, hand-held horrors even more so than vampire flicks, I really think there are quite enough Blair Witch Project type films out there. So it begs the question right from the start what the hell is going to come out of this and do I even care? The story is about to friends Derek and Cliff who are backpacking it around the world looking for a good time, while they still can seeing as Derek has some brain disease and doesn't have much time left. They try to milk the most out of life in the time they have left and they film their antics for a web series. The twist comes in the form of Derek sleeping with a mystery woman, who infects him with something. He's sick but his strength is also increased and after a while he starts craving blood… The film makers didn't want to just make a classic vampire flick with a documentary techniques, they mixed in a little of the superhero genre too. Unfortunately they achieved this in a way that had me thinking of the Chronicle right off the bat. Which was a great film and brought real freshness to the superhero films with a little hand-held camera thrown in for good measure. Well with this film that freshness is nowhere to be found. I even started felling nauseous a few times from the shaky picture, which I felt didn't suite this type of horror at all. And Chronicle could achieve what no other hand-held had done before… that the documentary style filming didn't bother me there and all. Here though it really bugged me and I think that's because it's a horror, but because it only has a few scary scenes and some blood, so its only a mediocre one. By my standards the films weakest point was the documentary style. It's one thing that the genre has killed this whole format already so stop with these films, but for this film it didn't even suit it. I for one have had it with hand-held cameras. Oh and even the mistakes in logic in the film come out because its filmed the way it is. I'm kind of at a point where the next hand held film I start watching, I'm just going to turn off. But if you forget about this, it does have a pretty okay basic story, I mean it's not bad, it held my attention, if the camera would have been stabilized it would have been made well too, the scrip and the effects were good, it was even scary sometimes, so the lack of funds didn't hold it back. I really liked the fact that it wasn't long and even that wasn't drawn out, you don't have to wait long for the action sequences. All in all I didn't regret watching it, but the whole hand held thing drives me up the wall. It was a desperate effort to bring something new. 4/10 https://www.youtube.com/user/Videodromeblog

Somehow I always get the feeling that they just aren't capable of making a really good horror flick anymore, but thankfully sometimes I'm surprised. Unfortunately that happens less and less so most of the time if I want to see a good horror I have to bust out my DVD collection. One of these older classics is House. Back in its day it was one of the VHS era's big films, it's out on DVD too but it didn't sell as well. It's a hidden cult horror. It doesn't have the following of say Evil Dead, but people who like the genre probably know about it. The film was made by Steve Miner, Sean S. Cunningham and Roger Corman. The first two names should be familiar to Friday the 13th fans, as Cunningham directed the 1st part and was the producer on the 2nd making a carrier out of the House and Friday franchises. Oh he did direct Deep Star Six that was a tribute to The Abyss, more or less successfully. Miner directed the 2nd and 3rd part of Friday, so we have him to thank for Jason's hockey mask, but he's also responsible for a heap of successful horror flicks like Lake Placid, Warlock, Halloween H20: 20 Years Later. So if really can be said that House was made by professionals and that's why it's one of the 80s classic horror flicks. The story: Roger Cobb is a Vietnam vet whose career as a horror novelist has taken a turn for the worse when his son Jimmy mysteriously disappears while visiting his aunt's house. Roger's search for Jimmy destroys his marriage and his writing career. The sudden death of his aunt brings Roger back to the house where his nightmares began. The evil zombies in the house force Roger to endure a harrowing journey into his past. The film's big value is the undeniable 80s vibe. It's great to see monsters made for real and not out of CGI. The technical parts are cutely lame, but that's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just a part of that era of film making. The story is a little cliché, the terror in the huge house wasn't a new concept even back then. Plus even the start credits remind me of The Haunting. The directors work shows all his experience in the horror film genre, so despite the cliché of the basic story House isn't just a typical scary, ghost house story, but is closer to Sam Raimi's Evid Dead. The screaming of demonic beings, the Chaplin- esc situational comedy and the seemingly hopeless ministrations of the lonely hero all prove this. The actors work well within what we expect from the genre, but don't expect anything outstanding with the characters. William Katt was okay, but he doesn't come close to Ash's (Bruce Campbell's character in Evil Dead) genius. Mac Ahlberg the cinematographer though worked almost perfectly. His experience in horror films (Dolly, Re-Animator) showed here too. I have to also mention, that the monsters in House and the effects were outstanding, but that's not surprising considering the experience of the effects guys with films like Back to the Future 2 and The Fly. The film is a perfect example of what comes about when professionals get together to make a film in their favorite genre. When I first saw this film I didn't really know what to make of it. It was filled with humor, monsters, drama… it seemed like a cocktail of genres… watching it again now it lost this effect, so the films biggest problem is that if someone isn't watching it out of nostalgia they'll probably be quite disappointed. I was reliving the 1st time I saw it when I gave it a 7/10 https://www.youtube.com/user/Videodromeblog

One of his years most interesting and most strange films. Alex van Warmerdam directs his newest creation a story about a family whose idyllic life is disrupted one day to the next by a mysterious stranger's Camiel arrival, who seems to be homeless at first sight. The events take on a surreal twist and you're left unable to guess what'll happen next. It turns out the homeless man isn't what he says he is and the friendly woman whose been hiding him in her house without her abusive husband's knowledge soon realizes that the man's presence slowly turns everything on its head. The kids start acting strange, as does the whole family. Everything just seems to be off and bizarre. During the films 113 min. so many questions are raised that I found myself not even caring what will happen with the family in the end I just wanted answers already, then the director, not to kindly, kind of leaves the whole thing up to the viewers so I ended up kind of just sitting there after the film ended thinking WTF? Warmerdam is basically an unknown director, but in the Benelux States they quite like him, mainly for his grotesque humor that he is able to mix with drama intelligently. Borgman is like that too. You can tell that they definitely didn't want to make a film where they explained everything like they were talking to a child. When we find out information it's a long slow process and just brings up more questions. Because of that the whole film can be described as uncertainty. There are a lot of things that are hard to categorize, whole characters too, but what was really missing was the motivation. It's clear that there is some sort of evil beyond that which can be found in humans and the film is laced with religious imagery (Camiel, was the angel who banished Adam and Eve from paradise). While being able to feel predict the ending you still don't get a sense of why all this is happening, it's even hard to determine at the end who were the "good guys" and who weren't. One thing is for sure you can't really feel sorry for the family, but Camile and co.'s methods are exactly right either. Even with the genre classification we run into trouble. Though it does you typical thriller characteristics it doesn't take the anxiety levels to the extreme. I would say it was an art film, or maybe a drama. The black, grotesque humor is absolutely in a dominant position when naming characteristics, without becoming melodramatically cliché. When there is humor its funny. One of the most interesting things is how Warmerdam tells the story, with mysticism. Its something you can never see, but its always creeping in the background. It kind of reminds me of Twin Peaks. I also have to mention the sterility of the set that really suits the film. The film is minimalist, its stripped and uses basic techniques, and calming shots that just seem to emphasis the absurdity of the film. None of the actors really faced a challenge with their characters, that all seem to repress their frustration and emptiness. The wife is the true protagonist, she sits at home all day and paints, but they have a nanny, who takes care of the kids instead of her. It shows the emptiness of the materialistic western world. They all seem to fear the stranger but never notice they are destroying their own lives on their own without needing outside help. That's kind of the point of the film, that the evil is inside we kind of let it take over. All in all it remains to be decided if this is a serious, symbolism filled thriller or a big head trip and bluff. There is evidence of both so its worth watching to decide for yourself. But don't be surprised if you end up confused. One thing is for sure, it's one of the strangest films of the last little while. If you don't feel like tearing your hair out at the mention of European art films then its worth a look. It will make you think about it for a few days at least. So for that I gave it a 7/10, but this is a pretty sick film so it's not for everyone. https://www.youtube.com/user/Videodromeblog

Since most horror films just to minimize risk are made on a tight budget a case can be made that since being able to watch films at home came about these films will all be successful. This is also why the most sequels are made for horror films. Cause if they make a little more money than expected, then that success is already so big that it can easily be made into a franchise. Then things changed the larger studios noticed that there is money to be made here. Obviously not as much as they are used to but it will be fine for petty cash. So they started making straight to DVD horror film sequels. They even went as far as not just using their own films as the basis but brought other studios rights too even goings so far as to having the sequel that went straight to video have nothing to do with the original. ie Wild Things 2-3 or Single White Female 2. The films paid for themselves so the practice has been kept alive. We can thank this system for this film too. Its original was the 2001 film Joy Ride with Paul Walker and Steve Zahnn. Basically it was a tight thriller that really only had one problem that despite using a well known story as its basis and transposing that to the then popular "teen world" it really couldn't come up with anything original. Being terrorized on the road is not a new idea, think back to the 86 The Hitcher, but anyway it was a watchable film. In 2008 the second part came out only on DVD and it was unfortunately a flop. It was boring and it screamed low budget and lack of ideas. And now 6 years latter with the 3rd part…. The story… Rusty Nail is back on the road again looking to punish injustice at every turn - and this time it's with a group of hotheaded street racers on their way to the Road Rally 1000 Canada. As they drive through a desolate shortcut on the way to the race, an encounter with Rusty turns sour and soon he is tracking, teasing and torturing them until the end of the road. First off surprisingly the film isn't that bad. There are a few reasons for this. First Fox allocated the necessary funds to not make it lame. Then they left the direction and the script up to someone who has proved themselves with sequels before Declan O'Brian who is known for Wrong Turn 4-5 and they weren't bad. He did a good job on them. Of course don't expect a life changer, but despite the fact that it's a part 3 it is pretty good. I mean the script is pretty basic, but it would be out of this world unreal if it wasn't. And you really can stomach the actors too. Especially Ken Kirzinger in the role of the truck driver who was Jason in Freddy vs. Jason. Oh and the film is pretty bloody, and the slasher scenes are depicted well, there's one with a hand which looks really good and one with someone getting tied to a truck. Of course the film could still be empty despite these but it ends up being nerve wracking and exciting, but this is all relative. Obviously it doesn't come close to the 1st part and even that was lukewarm but at least that had a story. Anyway all in all its exciting, bloody and if you liked the 1st one you'll probably be okay with this one too. To me it was an average film so I give it a 5/10. https://www.youtube.com/user/Videodromeblog

I've always been a big fan of Steven King's novels. Almost all his books have been successes. Unfortunately a good book is never a guarantee that the film adaptation will be reach the quality of the book. And out of the many King adaptations only a few have succeeded in bringing the same quality as the book. Its enough to remember the horrible Tommyknockers and the even more pathetic Langoliers. But there have been awesome adaptations The Green Mile, Misery. Though it can't be mentioned with the best ones but Romero's and King's dual work Creepshow is up there with the okay ones and then we also have Dark Half from these two. Stephen Kings three books (Dark Half, Shinning and Secret Window) are connected on a few levels, all feature a writer the protagonist, which is popular with King… and they feature the fear of something, an unknown person (which symbolizes the dark half of our psyche) or higher power. The question is are the directors faithful to the books like Romero and Kubrick, and what twist and film techniques do they use to bring the adaptation to the silver or small screen. When Thad Beaumont was a child, he had an operation to remove a tumor from his brain. during the operation, it was discovered that far from being a tumor, the growth was a twin brother of Thad's that never developed. Years later, Thad is a successful author, writing his serious books under his own name, and his pulp money-makers under the pseudonym "George Stark". When blackmailed by someone who has discovered his secret, Thad publicly "buries" George Stark. From that point on, Thad increasingly becomes the prime suspect in a series of gruesome murders. Despite the films being filled with clichés from the 90s, they are consistent with the books. Romero really captured the depiction of reality and non-reality. The camera work is idea filled and tight, the film is done with rhythmic cuts making it a true Romero film. All this would not have worked without Christopher Younge (the composer of film scores like Hellraiser and Nightmare on Elm street), whose score drives your adrenaline to the max. with a unique many layers soundtrack. The story in itself is a typical SK story, that doesn't clear up until the last twist whether the protagonists twin really has come to life by certain higher powers or not. Timothy Hutton's duel performance is absolutely convincing. He plays the balanced father well and is merciless as George Stark, who after spiking his hair up, goes around killing people, with a cigarette hanging from his lips and a bottle of whiskey close by. The large group of sparrows give the film an air of strangeness right from the start. The sparrows are there as a medium: they connect the earth and the other side and they are instrumental to the ending, which is, without being overly dramatic, THE WORLDS MOST DISGUSTING SCENE, it's a must see. Though it can be said of the film that there is more blood than the typical King adaptation this is not detrimental to it. Dark Half SK adaptation is to Shinning as Carlito's Way is to Scarface. Though Dark Half and Shinning work with similar material, they speck to difference audiences, their devices and budget was different so Dark Half remains a cult film amongst a certain section of horror fans. Romero tried to do his job perfectly, but unfortunately this only worked partially. Romero fans, who are more prone to like films that have a more serious mood with like it, King fans… well I'm not so sure… To me it's a 6/10. https://www.youtube.com/user/Videodromeblog

Cronos is a story about vampires, but not anything like we're used to. First off this is probably due to the fact that it was made not by a known American film studio but has come to us from Mexico. The film of course carries the director Guillermo del Toro's thumbprint, who has left his mark in the histories of film with his dark fairy tales and fantasies. Films like Pan's Labyrinth, Hellboy 1-2 and Mimic, okay so there not all fantastic films and I didn't even mention Blade 2, but you can't dismiss the fact that they all show the director's unique style and it's kind of interesting to see how early these stylistic markers showed up in his earlier work. Cronos was his first feature film, for which of course he also wrote the script and it's not surprising that it began his carrier. The film was a powerhouse and nabbed a heap of awards too, the critics loved it and that's not surprising, it didn't become one of horror fans favorite classics by accident. The story: In 1535, an alchemist builds an extraordinary mechanism encapsulated into a small golden device. The invention, designed to convey eternal life to its owner, survives its maker until 1997, when it shows up with an antiques dealer. Fascinated with the strange device, Gris doesn't note that there's more than one person looking for it. The promise of eternal life has become an obsession for old and sick Mr. De la Guardia . He and his nephew (Ron Perlman) will do anything to get the Cronos Invention.. This film isn't just a horror it's a drama, which is mostly the case with films not made in the States, it almost has the same arch as European horror films usually do. Its first objective is not cheap thrills but rather a story being told, which carries within it the darkness, violence and death which is scary. It's a more art film representation of horror and it achieved a level of beauty that helps you really feel the drama of the contrast between life and death. So in this sense it isn't that far away from the usual vampire films, take for instance Interview with the Vampire which has a similar central theme. Cronos' story is about the pain and suffering of living forever, so it reminds me of The Hunger that Tony Scott directed. Del Toro was spot on with the direction and the script was fabulous. He took the casting seriously too, with his favorite Argentine actor Federico Luppi and the very characteristic Ron Perlman, who was perfect in the role of the violent, little bit crazy cousin. The not too complicated basic story is compensated by the effects that are pretty disgusting, just think at one point the Jesus character rips his own skin off. It was an added bonus that they sneaked some humor into the morgue scenes, that type of thing is where del Toro's genius lies, despite the serious theme, message and the monsters he can still be humorous without making the whole thing pathetic. The director paid for some of the film from his own pocket (with a bank loan) and the masks were made by his own effects co. he even has a cameo as and his wife walk their dog in front of the protagonists house. Though artsy beauty sometimes stamps out the apprehensiveness and thrills of a horror and doesn't make us release adrenaline, this film is not boring, rather its deep and serious while still being entertaining. It's unique so I give it an 8/10 https://www.youtube.com/user/Videodromeblog

I'm not a big fan of either Cameron Diaz or newer comedies. There are few quality works coming out in this genre now a days. When in the 80s classic comedies were born one after the other. Now it's just shallow mostly and there are only a few exceptions 21 and 22 Jump Street, and a few of Cameron Diaz's films, not The Other Woman but Bad Teacher was a good one that entertained me and was the best comedy in a long while. When the news 1st broke on the film there was even gossip that it would be Bad Teacher 2 then it turned out it wasn't that but all is good BT 2 is coming too. When the 1st trailer came out we got exactly what the title suggests and they blew all the funniest jokes in the trailer too. I felt disappointed.

When Jay (Jason Segel) and Annie (Cameron Diaz) first got together, their romantic connection was intense - but ten years and two kids later, the flame of their love needs a spark. To kick things up a notch, they decide - why not? - to make a video of themselves trying out every position in The Joy of Sex in one marathon three-hour session. It seems like a great idea - until they discover that their most private video is no longer private. With their reputations on the line, they know they're just one click away from being laid bare to the world... but as their race to reclaim their video leads to a night they'll never forget, they'll find that their video will expose even more than they bargained for. The whole time the advertised the film with the line from the creators of BT. It would be good to know that if the film wasn't missing the most important aspect of a comedy: The script. They didn't right it. Neither did they write BT 2 and the script was what was good about BT1. The actors did their job, but what really made it good was the script, so here it's a major problem that there was no script or at least I didn't feel like there was one. There are 3 names the script is credited to, Jason Segel being one, but it's really like there isn't one. So what do you need for a script? A basic concept – it has one but it's not too great – and good characters – and that's really lacking in this film. Most of them are unrealistic and over emoted so the script is lacking here. And 'cause this is a comedy it wouldn't hurt the script if it had a few jokes maybe a one liner? Anything? Something? Anything that is remotely funny is spoiled by the trailer anyway. The amount is on the level of the jokes in The Other Women. Which honestly wasn't a high level. If this was an indy cos production that was being made for TV then I wouldn't be surprised but in the last little while this is the 2nd big budget Cameron Diaz comedy that is basically subpar at least compared to what they boasted. I have no problem with the actress but I have the feeling that she doesn't even read the scripts she's offered cause they just keep getting worse. Maybe the biggest problem is Jason Segel who is supposedly a good comic but it just doesn't come out here even if he had a hand in the script. All in all if you want to see a good comedy watch 22 JS again even the 2nd time around it'll be funnier than this. 3/10 https://www.youtube.com/user/Videodromeblog

In 2013 Purge despite the fact that it had flaws was totally a watchable film. I would even go so far as saying that I liked it. For one because of its theme, the basic concept is really good and they got good actors too. Even if it was called a horror I don't consider it on, maybe just a heavier thriller-drama? A survivalist film. The film wasn't brutal it just the topic that was that. It was also made with small change, which it made back in seconds so there was going to be a sequel of course. There was nothing concrete when the producers were already hyping it up. At this point it has to be said that the story is totally built to be continued. Then they went about convincing the 1st movies director to tackle the 2nd one and they gave him a pretty short window to get it done that they couldn't keep to in the end, but now finally the film is here. And am I happy? Good question. The 1st film didn't exactly change the world, but it was entertaining. If that's all it was then I'm not sure that it should have a sequel. I would say no. But hey it wouldn't be hard to make it better than the 1st one. The story: A couple are driving home to their kids when their car runs out of gas just as the Purge commences. Meanwhile, Leo goes out into the streets to get revenge on the man who killed his son, and a mother and daughter run from their home after assailants destroy it. The five people meet up as they attempt to survive the night in Los Angeles. Let's assume that we liked the 1st one, okay there aren't too many who did, 'cause it got such bad press, but let's just stick with that for now cause people did go see it, so then if it was liked and the director is the same then what's different to look forward to? One thing it doesn't play out in a big house but out in the open. Is this a big change? Well not really. What really is a big change is that it's ½ an hour longer. That wouldn't be a problem per se but the shorter running time helped the 1st one, less time for stupidity and plot holes, so here all these come out. The film is more drawn out when there isn't half as much action than before and just more annoying faults. There are more violent scenes, but what extra that gave it, didn't end up doing it any good. And they didn't get any bigger names to act in it, so pretty much idiot actors got the roles of idiot characters, excluding a few. Somehow the whole film seems to lack concept. Apart from the idea that it should play out on the street now that was kind of all they thought up. Maybe if someone really really liked the 1st one they won't be too disappointed. All in all The Purge : Anarchy is kind of a pointless sequel and definitely in the way it was made. It was just an average part 2 with the typical "let's just make it bigger" idea used. Here bigger meant longer running time and more idiot logic lacking scenes. Since I would have given the 1st part a 6/10 I can only give the 2nd a 3/10 https://www.youtube.com/user/Videodromeblog

If the franchise would have ended with the 2nd part, then there already would have been too many films, but the 3rd part is even more out there. Barker must have thought that too, 'cause after Anthony Hickox's 3rd part Barker jumped ship and back away from the whole thing (even if he was only just the executive producer on this one already) So he didn't have much to do with the story and he didn't hide that fact or the fact that he wasn't too pleased with the sequels. Hellraiser III made the biggest mistake it could make. It lowered Pinhead to the level of all the other baddies, he only differed from any other typical killer by looking better and having a few good one liners. So they successfully made a slasher movie out of the series. Pinhead is stuck in a block after the Big Confrontation in "Hellbound," The block containing Pinhead and the puzzle cube is bought by a young playboy as an art piece. Pinhead busies himself escaping by getting the playboy to lure victims to his presence so he can use their blood. Once free, he seeks to destroy the puzzle cube so he need never return to Hell, but a female reporter is investigating the grisly murders thus standing in his way. After the pointlessly dragged out beginning (you have to wait till almost half the film for Pinhead to escape) he is ridiculously quiet and spends the rest of the film running from the other Cenobits with the cube in his hand. Barker's pain and pleasure theme is gone, in its place we get the very original "we have to stop the bad guy before he releases chaos onto the world" theme. After the first film that's totally of logic. The makers must have wanted us to just forget that he was neither evil nor the bringer of chaos before. So this part brings to fruition what Hellbound started: in other words stripping it of meaning. Then with no original concept it just adds itself to all the other stupid, pointless horror sequels. This also meant that the terrifying Pinhead becomes someone who chases a woman how? by walking menacingly slowly behind her! He becomes a supernatural baddie in a slasher movie, who kills without discretion or reason anyone who gets close just not the one he should be killing. And the Cenobits who are made from his victims are just plain lame. The killings at the disco that were promising in the beginning of the scene quickly turns to something with which it's easy to see that the whole film should have landed in the garbage. In the bloodcurdling calm Pinheads place we got a hysterically laughing, over emoting Freddy clone. In place of the weighty, brutal atmosphere we got a silly, cartoon parody of itself kills just to shock viewers. So even the gore doesn't end up meaning too much. All in all the only thing positive that can be said about Hell on Earth is Pinhead's awesome church scene. And its true, if you forget there was a first part, that it's a perfect slasher film. 5/10 https://www.youtube.com/user/Videodromeblog

With HR 2 something interesting happened. The creators themselves broke apart the first one and made something almost completely new. HR 2 though only credits Barker as producer and co-writer, and Tony Randel was in the director's chair so he's not totally responsible for this newish scene. But it still is strange that he let the mythos he created to veer off in a new direction and for different things to be emphasized. Hellbound only starts a few hours after the first film and they started filming it a few weeks after they filmed the first one, it's still so different as the story allows despite the fact that it follows so closely on the heels of the first one. Of course that doesn't mean that the film is bad, in fact in a lot of ways it's really good. It's just that that original genius is lost and it sways to a whole different dimension. Doctor Channard is sent a new patient, a girl warning of the terrible creatures that have destroyed her family, Cenobites who offer the most intense sensations of pleasure and pain. But Channard has been searching for the doorway to Hell for years, and Kirsty must follow him to save her father and witness the power struggles among the newly damned. Peter Atkins with his first film and Barker didn't spend time on the script. A little bloodshed, a little chase and there you go the film is done. It's a typical sequel in the sense that it just needs to be more: more brutal in this case. But hey you can't complain when there is so much that can turn your stomach, blood is spilling, meat is tearing right? And when an insane guy goes ahead and tries to cut the bugs and creepy crawlies from his skin with a razor even the most tried and tested horror geeks have a second of feeling they would rather hide their eyes. But you won't and that's the beauty of it. And it must be said that a few of the effects really look good. Unfortunately along with the gory stuff there isn't time for the horror elements used in the first one, that means that the characters are less defined than the effects. Even if we get to see Julia deskined she still isn't as scary as in the first part with just a hammer. Tiffany is kind of a pointless character, Frank's short scene is that too. So only the quiet at first then scary as hell Dr. Channard carries the film. Kenneth Cranham is awesome. The demons of the first film that were scary when they just stood in one spot and stared at the camera get an origin story in this film. That's kind of a mistake with a character whose whole creepiness lies in the mystery surrounding them. And we meet a new Cenobite that wrecks the old ones in a minute. I thought they were scary, immoral, untouchable, unbeatable demons? What gives? The idea of them being defeated would have been laughable in the first film and even if they try to give all this a logical expanaition it doesn't change the result. Hell's depiction though is great for a while, but running around in the same darkened hallway and tunnel gets massively boring and repetitive in the end. Less would have been more. But the whole asylum's basement halls being a kind of hell is a great idea All in all Hellraiser's sequel has traces of the first part but looses what was so unique about it. But if you don't use the first as a jumping off point then this is a great film that horror fans will like. 7/10 https://www.youtube.com/user/Videodromeblog

There are some horrors that though they don't reform the genre they do have a lasting effect on it. HR is like that and there are many reasons for it. This film can't be and no one has even really dared try copying. No one had the guts to do it. The horror genre was in the midst of its slasher film era when Clive Barker decided to adapt to the screen his 1986 book The Hellbound Heart. The stories style didn't fit at all with the trend of the movies coming out at the time. Amongst Freddy's, Jason's and Michael Myers's antics Hellraiser hit the movies that knew no humor and no irony. With precise and merciless effectiveness it showed the viewers what a real horror, filled with monstrosity and terror is like. In an unknown country in North Africa Frank Cotton buys an antique puzzle box. Back at his house in England, he solves it, gets skewered by hooks and demons called Cenobites appear. Everyone's favorite Pinhead makes everything disappear so when Frank's brother Larry Cotton (Andrew Robinson) in with his second wife, Julia Cotton (Clare Higgins) won't know Frank died. Larry cuts his hand on a nail and Frank uses this blood as nourishment to partially regenerate his body. Later, Frank (Oliver Smith) convinces Julia to help restore him to his full physical form. Its Barker's first feature direction it could best be described as an S&M love story wrapped in a horror, with sexual frustration and family tragedy in its center. There is the constant dissonance of pleasure and pain. The Cenobites aren't the enemy here yet, they're just doing their thing – which is unstoppable and not over-emoted and in your face but damn scary with their creepy appearance and cause you barely know anything about them, so they represent the fear of the unknown. The real evil of course is man: desires, sex, murder. It's one of the most gut churning love triangles ever to be brought to screen and the participants are perfect at self-destructing. Special mention must be made of Christopher Young's music. Barker himself said that Young brought the most to the film out of all the crew and listening to his music you really can't disagree with that assessment. Just like the writer-director he went against the grain and unlike films of the time he didn't have synthesizers instead he got a huge ass orchestra and made dark, beautiful, Gothic music that was at once creepy and strangely uplifting. And you'd be hard pressed to find something similar. With all its afore mentioned virtues Hellraiser wouldn't be half as strong without the fantastic effects that is enjoyable by today's standards too. The legendary mask-maker and fx guy Bob Keen had a bunch of opportunities to excel in this film and it just elevates him to a whole other level that he had a laughable million dollar budget to pull it off. But the best horror of the 80s in opposition to a lot of its counterparts today and then wasn't born from money but from excitement, will and creativity. And that usually brings its return: Case in point: The movie made 15 times its budget. Doug Bradley's utterly creepy main Cenobite Pinhead became one of the most iconic characters of the genre and Hellraiser has cemented its place amongst the greats of horror. 10/10 https://www.youtube.com/user/Videodromeblog

I like exorcism films, thought this genre is really starting to disappear. It reached its definite low when they started mixing it with hand held cameras. The mixture of the genre and the filming technique to me was too much. But either way I like religious mystical horrors. I also liked Scott Derrickson's previous films. The Exorcism of Emily Rose is one of the best things to happen to this genre, all the while by brining seriousness to it by using the whole trial story in it. His most recent film with Sinister, which I thought was one of the scariest films I've seen in the last little while. Not to mention that I really liked its story. So I can honestly say, that when I found out that Derrinckson was doing a new exorcism horror then I started having high hopes. And then it came out that my countryman Eric Bana will be the star well you know, and the trailer looked really good. So everything was set up for the film to work for me.

The story. In DELIVER US FROM EVIL, New York police officer Ralph Sarchie (Eric Bana), struggling with his own personal issues, begins investigating a series of disturbing and inexplicable crimes. He joins forces with an unconventional priest (Edgar Ramirez), schooled in the rituals of exorcism, to combat the frightening and demonic possessions that are terrorizing their city. Based upon the book, which details Sarchie's bone-chilling real-life cases.

When I saw the first trailers I thought the film would be interesting. I knew the director would be okay with the horror and the whole cop story part would work well with it. Unfortunately I was only partially right. First off the horror, or the scary parts were okay, not as good as in Sinsiter but okay none the less. In this film there is a monster at almost every turn but exactly for that reason after a while you kind of just shrug and move on, but I mean it wasn't bad. It does after all have an R rating. And the cop story line though isn't nearly as developed as it should be and while it does give it an interesting twist all in all its not much more than that. The whole genre mix didn't work well enough. It's just a simple horror with an average cop story line. So the advertised basic concept is present but it doesn't make the film better.

The script is okay we get the quality of Sinister, but even there it wasn't the script that carried the film. The actors are okay too, they don't shine, but I think that wasn't their job though. What they needed to bring they brought. Last but not least the direction: I think Derrickson wasn't able to completely get the job done, but he tried. He wasn't far off the mark it was almost something unique. The atmosphere is great. There are quite a few really creepy pictures in the film and it really shows the underbelly of New York. A few scenes are really grim and depressing. But what surprised me was that the horror scenes didn't work as well as was expected from this director. Not because there isn't enough but because it kind of lost its seriousness, maybe less would have been more.

All in all Deliver Us From Evil isn't a bad film, but it didn't work out that great either. This is kind of what I call an average horror. If someone likes the genre then they probably won't be disappointed. It's worth a go once, but I'm pretty sure that the majority of viewers won't be watching it over and over. Not like Sinister or Emily Rose. So 5/10 https://www.youtube.com/user/Videodromeblog

It's interesting when get on radar because of something that should not be the reason for it being there. The media whipped itself into a frenzy about this film for one reason Scarlett Johansson flashing her tits. This is a pretty negative thing, without this would we even have heard of this film? I don't know if anyone heard anything else about it and that's a huge problem. Jonathan Glazer isn't an easy director to take when he makes a film you sit up and pay attention. Unfortunately he's only done this 3 times and the last time was 10 years ago. For me that's a more interesting angle to promote a film with. The directors previous 2 films were unique experiences. Sexy Beast was pure genius and Birth was very special. When you put all this together with the fact that the genre of Under the Skin is SCI-FI drama, then you kind of understand why so many young actors clamored for the opportunity to get leading roles. Scarlet Johansson won the role, returning a little to the art world after diving into the comic book world and is genius in the role. The story: An alien takes the body of an attractive young woman and travels Scotland in a van picking up men. As she lures her victims into a trap with the promise of sex, the men are immersed in liquid and their flesh is harvested. She is monitored by another alien, who has the body of a male motorcyclist. When she seduces a lonely and sexually inexperienced man who has facial neurofibromatosis disfigurement, she takes pity on him and begins to feel more conscious of her human body. She is helped by a man who takes her to his home, cooks for her, and gives her a room. Right off the bat let me say that Under the Skin is a genius film and exactly like what you would expect from a director like this, but it's not for everyone. The average viewer will probably find it boring and a little out to left field but that's kind of what can be expected from Glazer. There isn't a whole lot of dialog in the film the pictures drive the story instead. The cinematographer did an amazing job not to mention the set designer. You can feel the influence of other directors, but obviously it's not a sin to use the ideas of the greats especially if you make something good in the end. The films music is another thing that stands out as it beautifully underscores the pictures. Though the film is surreal, but maybe that's why it's not like anything we've seen before. For me that's one of the biggest virtues of a film if they can make something that hasn't been seen before. That's really asking for a lot though in the age of sequels and remakes. The film is an adaptation of a book that's been declared a modern day classic. It takes you on a ride sometimes it's tempo is calm sometimes the pictures rile you up so much they get under your skin. All in all the film is an original SCI-FI but that doesn't mean that it's just the fans of the genre, more like for film and art film fans. The film is filled with metaphors and they'll enjoy it. It's not an easy film, but it will give you an interesting experience. 8/10 https://www.youtube.com/user/Videodromeblog

It's interesting to watch what happens to child stars, usually not much or they need to totally rebuild their carriers. Of course there are a whole lot of actors who think they have enough money already and don't have the will to build their carrier. Thankfully that wasn't Dakota Fanning despite the fact that I doubt she had any money problems when she turned 18. She started building a carrier in low budget films, mainly ones that teetering on the edge of being called art films. In a few films she even goes so far as really acting well like Now is Good and The Runaways. Even her role in Twilight was kind of one of the better ones. So it's kind of self evident that she would be in a film like Very Good Girls. It has a low budget and it's a romantic coming of age story. Plus she teamed up with someone worthy Elisabeth Olsen, who unlike her sisters is very talented. The film is credited to a new director, who has a few outstanding scripts but is new to directing. The story: Two New York City girls pact to lose their virginity during their first summer out of high school. When they both fall for the same street artist, the friends find their connection tested for the first time. David plasters his photo-based graffiti art all over the neighborhood while yearning to take off and see Paris for real instead of just looking at pictures. The two girls' families complicate a bunch of things too. The film is similar in a lot of was to the genius The Way Way Back. The biggest difference though is that the love story is about a boy. I like the types of films that are about the hardest time in becoming an adult. First loves, families, coming of age. Unfortunately they don't make enough of them, but at least what is made is high quality. Just like this one. I think more films like this should be made, ones that will make a 14 year old think a little and not making it that their greatest entertainment is films with fart jokes. The films basic concept isn't too complicated, but it doesn't need to be, the point is the message and the characters. The message is a good one, of course it's not a new concept because many many moons ago a film came out called Stand by Me and we heard this message there. The characters and the actors were good. All the characters were likable, but maybe they could have been more developed. The director did his job well. I doubt the film will be making a lot of money, but that usually doesn't decide a films quality. All in all Very Good Girls is a pretty good film, but there were a few missed opportunities. With a little more character development, a little more drama and making their idiot family more prominent it could have been a great film. 6/10 https://www.youtube.com/user/Videodromeblog

Last week I did a review of Brett Simmon's new direction Animal. I mentioned that he had previously done a film with this production company, which according to critics wasn't the best film either. Well I gave the film a go at proving them wrong. It was made by Chiller Films and was released not long ago. It's genre? The one that seems to go hand in hand with the director. Horror. Monkey's Paw had a lot of the same going for it as Animal, but I'd be hard pressed to call any of it positive. While it's true that the story isn't about a wild beast, but an ancient horror legend, we end up with a zombie story, with a dash of voodoo, and a pinch of modern day America. The problem with stories like this is that they are cliché and not really all that interesting. The story: The film centers on Jake Tilton, who acquires a mystical "monkey's paw" talisman that grants its possessor three wishes. Jake finds his world turned upside down after his first two wishes result in co-worker Tony Cobb being resurrected from the dead. As Cobb pressures Jake into using the final wish to reunite Cobb with his son, his intimidation quickly escalates into relentless murder-- forcing Jake to outwit his psychotic friend and save his remaining loved ones. First off granting wishes, voodoo story is a little overused, there have been oodles of films about this topic and if that's all they were about they didn't really stand out of the crowd. The whole story and atmosphere would work great in say a Tales from the Crypt episode, but not in a feature film. Plus the film has a bunch of things wrong with it too. First off it's so TV movie. It's not really that it's just reminds me of one and the script helped in that department. Not to mention that it's so riddled with logical holes it's Swiss cheese. Sometimes they were made out of stupidity, sometimes it just seemed they weren't really paying attention. The next problem is something I spoke about in relation to Animal too – though it was a lot more annoying in that film – is the fact that there is no blood. Yeah you can make a case for that not being too important and it really isn't if the film has something else going for it, if it has squat? Then at least it could be bloody no? Unfortunately it's sorely lacking here. The one positive thing are the actors, who did a solid job, other than that I don't really have anything good to say about it. It seems like this production company is predominantly going for broke in horror stories that can be easily shown on TV. But then I kind of don't get how come they don't just make films for the SCI-FI Channel. All in all the director Brett Simmons was true to himself. Animal was a kind of pointless, but watchable once, mediocre horror and so was Monkey's Paw. I think the whole thing took a left turn at Albuquerque when they picked out the basic story. Sure that makes it hard to go anywhere good, so then why the hell make the film? 2/10 https://www.youtube.com/user/Videodromeblog

For those of you out there who like the Transformers films I have good news. No big changes happened in Michael Bay's alternative universe. There are still the usual pictures of the setting sun, his characters are flawlessly beautiful, the visuals are fantastic, the sound effects are earsplitting and the action sequences has never met a physics law that they haven't broken and the American flag keeps on flying and flying relentlessly. The few minor changes that did happen, without a doubt helped the franchise a long. Though they did promise us more, what we got was at least a step forward.

After the relatively quiet first half hour, Bay really goes to town with the next two hours and 10 minutes of non-stop action. There are is no down time or slowed pace, it's just destruction, shaking cameras, some Matrix-type slow-mo and dramatic turns underscored with a epic tunes oh and action… lots of action… where the robots hit, cut, tear, kick and kill EVERYTHING. So if that's the type of film you want to see, you won't be disappointed. Of course there are a lot of functions of a film like this. One: You never have to think during the film. Two: If you like this type of film it will be a fun ride. Though the hyped Dinobots only got maybe 15 min. screen time, but just enough for kids to want dinobots for Christmas. And if we are on marketing the continuous product placement in the film is damn annoying. It's not enough that the whole film is a Hasbro ad, but even that ad is filled with ads for other products. Anyway let's talk about what Michael Bay is great at. He makes us forget and have a great time doing it. And what are we forgetting? Well the script and a basic story. This gives the film an interesting dichotomy. The visuals, the music, sound and the whole film is very professional, but the script is utter garbage. It's like Monster Truck races. It's great and all visually, but why are the trucks bashing into each other exactly? Who knows… But who cares right? It's so damn fun to watch. So that's kind of what the new Transformers is like. It was a step forward in some respects. Despite the script seeming like it was just an empty stack of pages, at least they stop trying to get laughs with utterly lame jokes. Not much took their place but at least that was tossed. The other thing I thought was a positive step forward was getting rid of the cast from the 1st 3 films. Of course don't expect Mark Wahlberg do deliver and Oscar worthy performance, but it has to be said that he is much better suited to a film like this than Shia LaBeouf. In every other aspect we basically get more of the same. Of course why would Paramount let a recipe that has been working so far be changed? None of the previous films have lost money, why would they start doing it now? And it is true that this is a solid brand and those are hard to change. But if nothing else they could have got a really good script writer, I don't think that would have caused any problems. Then of course we have to talk about the most important aspect of a film like this: The visuals. When Pacific Rim came out everyone said that despite the script being way lame and the actors couldn't act themselves out of a box, it was unbelievably visually pleasing and has raised the bar for Transformers 4. Well Transformers accepted the challenge and they had a good go at it, even if they didn't take huge strides forward. All in all Transformers: Age of Extinction, though by just a small step, did move forward compared to its predecessors. I think those viewers will be the happiest who loved Optimus Prime and crew before, 'cause they'll love his adventures now too. They won't be disappointed. If you're not a die-hard fan this will probably not convince you to love them. For my part I love the big robot battles and Monster Trucks so 7/10 https://www.youtube.com/user/Videodromeblog

It's been almost 9 years since Frank Miller and Robert Rodrigez gave us something that even if it wasn't for too long, was the cause of many a surprised intake of breath. The first part of Sin City tried it's hand at a genre that was almost considered dead, the film noir and it did so successfully and also it adapted a comic book's visuals in a way that before it we all thought was impossible. The film looked unbelievably good and the story was fantastic. It ran along a few story lines that all came together well because of the characters and the interesting, twisted and really brutal story. Sin City was a comic book film that wanted to be more and was. What was even more surprising was that the film was even monetarily successful, which of course meant that the gossip mill started up about a sequel and like it sometimes happens they just kept putting it off again and again. There was a positive and a negative side to this, one the creators only started working on it when they really had something good to give us story and visuals wise. Negative because there was a stable fan base that was waiting for a sequel, but the wait is over, it just took 9years. That may have been an error… I mean in the past 9 years others have tried similar things (not with much success) and it's a new generation now that the sequel has to pull into the movies not just the original fans. But of course this will only matter when looking at how much the film will make and not so much with its quality. The film is again a few parallel stories that of course meet on a few points and not just to each other but to the first film too, but don't worry the film makers made sure that if someone didn't see the first part they can still enjoy the second. We get a few characters back like Bruce Willis's and Jessica Alba's oh and Mickey Rourke. But we get new characters too played by Eva Green and Josh Brolin and Joseph Gordon Levitt. The basic concept is the same as the first film minus a few changes here and there. But the devil is in the details. Unfortunately the films biggest problem comes out when you compare it to the two biggest values of the first film. First the films visuals. It hasn't changed. It's exactly like the 10 year old film. On the one hand that's great, cause it worked back then but that was 9 years ago, not being able to add to the visuals, modernize them, not so good. Back then the visuals were impressive, unique and genius, now it's just nostalgia. That's not really the films fault though cause you know what could they have done differently right? But when the magician pulls the rabbit out of the hat we clap, but if the next trick is the same thing… well not so much. The second thing is the story or stories. The really good stories from the first not only couldn't be topped but really they couldn't be copied either. That doesn't mean the stories were bad, just not as hard hitting as in the first part. Because of these two things Sin City 2 kind of makes me feel like it didn't end up being bad or anything it's just that it's a typical 2nd part and maybe they shouldn't have bothered. It was nowhere near the first part. But I really am not saying that it's bad it's still a lot better than 70 % of films getting sent to the movies now a days. Powers Boothe and Jessica Alba's characters are great, the dialogue is too and Rodrigez shows he's a good director when he's not messing around with Spy Kids. But the first part was better. All in all Sin City 2 will be an enjoyable film for those who liked the first and Rodrigez fans, it just isn't better than the first, but then again what is that really blew us away back in 2005. So it's a 6/10 https://www.youtube.com/user/silverscreenreviews1