The worstest worst film of the year, which you shouldn't see, cuz it's bad.

You know, there has been an awful lot of stinkers this year, but I thought nothing could be the incredibly atrocious The Devil Inside. I was wrong. In the interest of sparing someone from buying this film for a dear friend as a Christmas present, allow me to warn you, the worst film of the year, possibly of the last ten years even, is The Chernobyl Diaries.

The word on the street for this film was pretty bad off the bat, but you know, the trailer was intriguing. It's a simple but effective story (a group of tourists visit Chernobyl, the site of one of the worst nuclear meltdowns ever, on an adventure holiday, end up stranded, and stalked by something not quite human...). I like found footage. Basically, it seemed like Hills Have Eyes meets Cloverfield in Chernobyl. I wasn't expecting a masterpiece, but that's hard to get wrong. I was impressed... Impressed at just how wrong it went.

First off, it's not found footage (I know a lot of people will let out a sigh of relief at that, but screw you, there is the potential for amazing found footage films, and by God, we will eventually get that standout!). Instead, it is documentary style, to the extent that it looks cheap and cheesy. The actors are alright, but they all seem to know just how ridiculous a film they are in. The crux of the film is that they are trapped, but even a blind monkey could see just how little an effort they make to get to safety. When a group does set off for help, they decide to turn back about 100 metres down the road, yet it takes them hours to make it back. Something is able to completely destroy a van, yet the mutants (oops... spoiler... actually, you should never watch this film, so you should know, it's mutants) are completely incompetent and harmless when we see them, even in crowds. The plan of action should never be back yourself in to a corner. Why does a mutant not attack people right in front of them? Even if they're blind, why can't they hear them? Why is the best scare in the trailer really poorly executed in the film itself? How come the people can be trapped without any chance of contact to the outside world, yet a prepped and planned army shows up? Does the film think its twist is good? Cuz it's not. It's lame. Why does this film just suck so much?

Like I said, the film seemed good. It's such a simple idea; mutants attack in Chernobyl. How can you get it so wrong? Now, obviously there is a big issue with the fact the idea of mutants in Chernobyl is actually really offensive, but when you can distance yourself from that and take it as a nuclear movie, every other single nuclear exploitation did this better. This film was boring. Flat out boring. People walk around. They run around. Then they run around again. Seriously... Don't put yourself though this film. It's not even so bad it's good (for that, see Zombie Flesh Eaters 2). It is just a pure waste of time. Easily the worst horror of the year, and it has been a year of stinkers.

Also, I think it might give you an STD.

30 Day Horror Challenge-Day 25: Excellent use of soundtrack

For the next 30 days (or whenever I stop being lazy and finish it), I will be giving my fingers short bursts of exercise by completing the 30 Day Horror Challenge, found here. Hopefully it will give you a bit of insight into what horror is for me. Don't forget to check back every day for a new installment.

Day 25: Excellent use of soundtrack.

The Devil's Rejects use of Lynrd Skynyrd's ridiculously well-known hit, Free Bird. Without spoiling things, the song is used in the climax in the (much better) sequel to House of 1000 Corpses, when our antiheroes are involved in a shootout with the authorities on a desolated road up the sun scorched mountains. Helicopter shots, slow motion, and a looooong drawn out scene to fill a good portion of the song make for a fitting ending to the Firefly family's journey over the two films. The sequence moves in tone with the song, being lazy and contrary until it moves up to the frenetic energy of the machine gun solos. Director Rob Zombie states he couldn't find any use of the song in a film where it defined the use of the song in a motion picture, where, if anyone was to hear the song from then on, would invoke that film. For my money, Zombie has claimed Free Bird. Any time I hear the song now, I see images of beaten up murderers driving through the mountains. 

30 Day Horror Challenge-Day 24: An effective jump scare

For the next 30 days (or whenever I stop being lazy and finish it), I will be giving my fingers short bursts of exercise by completing the 30 Day Horror Challenge, found here. Hopefully it will give you a bit of insight into what horror is for me. Don't forget to check back every day for a new installment.

Day 24: An effective jump scare

A classic scene, and my favourite; the blood testing scene in The Thing. I remember being completely caught off guard by it, when Kurt Russell's MacReady was performing a test on each of the team's blood, trying to weed out who had been replaced by The Thing. The test was simple; they had realised the monster hated fire, and every molecule seemed to act independently, so by putting a red hot poker in the blood, the monster would try to save itself and be exposed. The scene plays out insanely slowly, and every member of the ensemble cast is on edge, giving the performances of their careers. There is nothing big and flashy about the scene, it is all matter of fact. These men are fighting for their survival using what can be their only recourse at this point. We are not even near the end of the test when BOOM, the antagonistic conversation is interrupted by a reveal. Very unassuming. Very unexpected. Very effective. The remake/prequel tried to do a similar scene, but with their own convoluted twist, showing that it was the simplicity and subtlety of John Carpenter's direction that made for one of the most effective jump scare ever in cinema.

30 Day Horror Challenge-Day 23: Graphics that pull you out of the movie

For the next 30 days (or whenever I stop being lazy and finish it), I will be giving my fingers short bursts of exercise by completing the 30 Day Horror Challenge, found here. Hopefully it will give you a bit of insight into what horror is for me. Don't forget to check back every day for a new installment.

Day 23: Graphics that pull you out of the movie

I'll take this as a chance to talk about a classic that a lot of people will know, and those who don't, should get to knowing; Cube. I've been in love with this film ever since I first saw it. Such a simple yet undone idea executed in an intelligent but not inaccessible way, with strong characters, acting and dialogue, but with one horrendously obvious incongruity; the computer generated effects. Now, there are a lot of well executed set pieces and effects in the film, but the moment you see the poorly rendered wire grate that sliced the first victim, you immediately step back and wonder 'Is this film some sort of Doom crossover?'. It really is this bad, too. The effects stand out like a (fake looking) sore thumb. For a film that is executed so well otherwise, the bad CG, such as seeing between the cube walls, are just underwhelming and tragic. Seriously, you'd be tempted to do your own pass at it and send it to Vincenzo Natali and crew, just to help em out. The film was insanely low budget, and the effects house that did the shots for them did it as a deal, so you have to appreciate it from that angle. From another angle, Cube is one of the greatest scifi films ever. Thinking about it, Cube would be one film I would almost encourage a filmmaker to go back and 'George Lucas'. Imagine, a rerelease with better and more realistic CG shots (and possibly some score tweaking. It dates a bit). I know them's fighting words, but have a think about it. Wouldn't it be amazing to have a version of Cube that will hold up 50 years from now?  

30 Day Horror Challenge-Day 22: A frightening child actor

For the next 30 days (or whenever I stop being lazy and finish it), I will be giving my fingers short bursts of exercise by completing the 30 Day Horror Challenge, found here. Hopefully it will give you a bit of insight into what horror is for me. Don't forget to check back every day for a new installment.

Day 22: A frightening child actor

This is a pretty tough one. The obvious choice is the kid from Pet Sematary and Wes Craven's New Nightmare, but I thought I'd try a less obvious choice (as has been my wont to do for the entire '30' day challenge), so I am going to go with Daeg Faerch, the young Michael Myers in Rob Zombie's Halloween remake. In a role that was always going to be questioned by Halloween fans, Faerch holds his own and brings an intensity that ranges between sympathetic to all out rage. We are given a look at his troubled childhood, showing us where the darkness began, and we are on his side all the way, from abuse father, to schoolyard bullies. It makes it all that more conflicting when we see him begin his viciousness (which I will refrain from going in to, for those who might still check out the flick). When the boy is institutionalised, we see the poor kid drift further and further away from us and from reality, as he grasps to understand what he has done. Even though we have flat out seen him be a cold-blooded murderer and know he is mentally deranged, we still feel for him as we see him etch closer and closer to the Michael Myers we all know. Through an exploitation by his doctors, and the loss of his mother, the only one who was there for him, we see him become nothing more than The Shape.

30 Day Horror Challenge-Day 21: A horror movie that only makes you laugh

For the next 30 days (or whenever I stop being lazy and finish it), I will be giving my fingers short bursts of exercise by completing the 30 Day Horror Challenge, found here. Hopefully it will give you a bit of insight into what horror is for me. Don't forget to check back every day for a new installment.

Day 21: A horror movie that only makes you laugh

Zombie Flesh Eaters 2, or Zombi 3, as it is otherwise known, is pure gold. Initially starting out as another zombie movie for horror master Lucio Fulci, the legend dropped out days in to the shoot due to health problems, and the film was completed by an uncredited Bruno Mattei. I'm not sure if the film was ever intended to be terrifying, but nothing hints at it being the comedy it came out as. The simple and familiar plot is a virus escaping a research facility and the military quarantining the area, with the story centring around a few survivors and the scientists trying to find a cure for the infected. The film has all the survival horror beats, and is action packed, but throughout, it only comes out as a laughable film. There is an inherent ineptness to everything. Dialogue is ridiculous (and really sounds like the script was written, translated, and translated again before being delivered), and characters constantly do stupid things, like back themselves into zombie infested areas. Performances are terrible, ranging from wooden to bipolar. People switch gears at the drop of a hat. And the scientists (who seem to be hold up in a hotel ballroom), who are more focused on being nihilistic and antagonistic to the soldiers instead of actually trying to find a cure (seriously, they seem more insulted that they have to do work than actually trying to save lives!). Oh, the zombies... They are either completely awful at their zombie job, or else fantastically effective (oh the luck of a character standing between a load of hay that they hide under...). People turn like no ones business, and are about as creepy as the zombies in The Last Man on Earth (as in, not at all).

Best laughable moments; when everyone from maids to hotel staff runs in to an infected man's hotel room without knocking or asking permission, but when the army show up, they can't open the door. Genius. 

30 Day Horror Challenge-Day 19: A horror movie that gives you nightmares

For the next 30 days (or whenever I stop being lazy and finish it), I will be giving my fingers short bursts of exercise by completing the 30 Day Horror Challenge, found here. Hopefully it will give you a bit of insight into what horror is for me. Don't forget to check back every day for a new installment.

Day 19: A horror movie that gives you nightmares

I'm sure that with this horror challenge people are losing respect for me by the post, so let me through any last cred I had out the window and answer today's challenge with the 2004 remake of The Grudge. Let's be uber clear here, I AM talking about an American remake of a decent Japanese flick, with Sarah Michelle Gellar in it. I stand here, unashamed (ok, slightly ashamed). There is a bit of a disclaimer here though. I have never watched a horror that has completely freaked me out to the point of giving me nightmares, or having leave the lights on. Never. But The Grudge was one of the first truly scary horrors I saw in the cinema. I had seen plenty of others before this, including the other somewhat slicker remake, The Ring, and though it had jumps in it, it was an easy bared experience. But The Grudge? Hell no. I have a brilliant audience to thank for one of the greatest cinema experiences I have had, as people were uneasy within minutes of the film, and quick off the mark to scream. 

Sure, everyone laughed at how silly we all were jumping at this silly little film, but we were still all in the zone for it, still jumping, still wringing every moment of tenseness we could from the film. I didn't have bad dreams after it at all, or even feel uneasy walking home in the pitch black dark, but one odd side effect of this group hysteria was I found myself on edge with some other films I watched, even if I had seen them before. Case in point, Resident Evil, a film I bemoaned as a bad adaptation of the great video game and just generally a bad zombie film in general. I had seen it before, with no worries, but I vividly remember lying on my couch, knowing exactly where the film was going to end up and- GAAAHHH! Where did those crows come from!? What the heck!? Why did that freak me out this time and not before? 

It wasn't a great film, but The Grudge was scary, at least with the crowd I saw it with, and it left a lasting effect at that informative time in my horror education.

30 Day Horror Challenge-Day 16: A frightening dream sequence/hallucination

For the next 30 days (or whenever I stop being lazy and finish it), I will be giving my fingers short bursts of exercise by completing the 30 Day Horror Challenge, found here. Hopefully it will give you a bit of insight into what horror is for me. Don't forget to check back every day for a new installment.

Day 16: A frightening dream sequence/hallucination

This entry comes care of Wes 'responsible for some of the arguably greatest horror films of the last 40 years, so you shouldn't need any titles here to help you out' Craven; The Serpent and The Rainbow. Starring Bill Pullman (or is it Bill Paxton... whichever blew up the aliens. You know which aliens I mean, right?), The Serpent and The Rainbow is Craven's most underrated work, possibly because a lot of viewers thought they were experiencing some mass nightmare and not a film. Now, I'll admit, this film isn't scary, and there are more terrifying dreams sequences out there, but there is no film that captures the essence of a dream as this film. There is never a moment where you are able to be sure if you are in the sane, waking world, or on your way down the rabbit hole. One moment, you're walking through the forest, the next, you are plummeting into a pit with disembodied hands reaching out for you. The film is an examination of drugs that turn people in to zombies and a Westerner's entitled ignorance in the subject, so not only is the topic rife for crossing boundaries, there is an added element of an entire culture resenting this man who is questioning their beliefs. It is difficult enough to tell the real world from the dream, but  the frequency and intensity of the movement between the two makes The Serpent and The Rainbow one of the most masterful displays of unreality in cinema. 

30 Day Horror Challenge-Day 10: A Great Sequel

For the next 30 days, I will be giving my fingers short bursts of exercise by completing the 30 Day Horror Challenge, found here. Hopefully it will give you a bit of insight into what horror is for me. Don't forget to check back every day for a new instalment.

Day 09: A great sequel.

I'll take some flack for this, but here it goes; Alien 3. That's right, widely considered the worst of the original trilogy (until Resurrection came along), disowned by future amaze-balls director David Fincher, and regarded as destroying so many elements of the films that the previous instalments had built up. And I love it. I hate seeing that Fincher disowned the film, because it has all the hallmarks of his future best works; dark and starkly beautiful photography (returning to the cinematic scope of the first film), a gritty narrative, and an abstract score. What really makes this film for me is just how much balls it has. Hicks and Newt were well loved characters from the preceding Aliens, and this film just completely does away with them. Ellen Ripley is, once again, alone and must fight to survive in a hostile environment (here, it is an all-male prison planet that has no weapons). The original theatrical release is actually missing a lot of material that has since been reworked and released as the 'workprint' version, which you can find in the Quadrilogy and Anthology boxsets, and would be my preferred version, as it covers several plot holes and just gives me more of this dank and cold film (I will make a side note, a friend of mine maintains he prefers the theatrical cut, as the workprint feels long and wandering, a complaint I can understand). I really think a lot of people didn't like this film on its release because it was such a 180 compared to the previous, more action orientated Aliens, but this is much more in keeping with the industrial feel of Ridley Scott's masterpiece, and is, to boot, tense. You never know which to fear more; the streamlined, panther-like alien, or the prisoners, who are always on the border of being loyal allies or murderous rapists. Not a popcorn film by any stretch of the imagination, this film is a dark masterpiece.

30 Day Horror Challenge-Day 09: A movie that you like to show people

For the next 30 days, I will be giving my fingers short bursts of exercise by completing the 30 Day Horror Challenge, found here. Hopefully it will give you a bit of insight into what horror is for me. Don't forget to check back every day for a new instalment.

Day 09: A movie that you like to show people.

No hesitation; The Ruins. This film is about the survival of some 20 something year olds trapped on top of some ancient ruins in South America (or central, I'm not 100%), with locals refusing to let them leave, the reason quickly becoming apparent; killer plants. Yes, this sounds eerily like The Happening, but this film could not be further from it. It is a survival horror in all senses, with the viewer put in the position of the kids trapped right out in the open, with the choice being between the killer locals or starvation and killer plants. Shot beautifully, acted convincingly, effects shown viscerally, the film is the whole package and belongs on best-of lists. The biggest shame is that it isn't, and a lot of people aren't even aware of its existence, a wrong I try to set right by showing it to people.

So go watch it!!! 

Martyrs: The Most Important Torture Porn?

The hope would be that by now, you would know of the 2008 French horror film Martyrs. Directed by Pascal Laugier (whose The Tall Man has just been released), the film is notorious for being an intense and violent piece. I have yet to meet someone who has not said it was a harrowing experience but, most importantly, ends in a way that makes it completely worthwhile.

Contrary to popular opinion, I am not a massive torture porn fan. First off, I think it is a label that was used to generalise and degrade a lot of horror, but secondly, I don't find enjoyment in watching films that are violent just for the sake of being violent. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy a good violent film, but only with context. I will happily enjoy vocal chords tearing in the military/science bashing Day of the Dead, or the unbridled slaughtering in the 1984-with-a-twist Dredd, but I cannot enjoy films like The Tortured, where plot is eschewed in favour of impressive special effects. I'm sure a lot of people would argue some films I enjoy border in to this territory, but I will stand by most of my choices. What I am saying is that I have not liked a film simply because it is violent.

A lot of torture porn films tend to go on the 'hey, dude, look how sick this is!' side of the tracks, but Martyrs has absolutely none of this. It is a tough film to watch, and does not let you enjoy the violence on screen (and it is ALL on screen). Instead, it forces you to sit and wait, uncomfortably, feeling dirty for watching to see where it goes. And this is the challenge it sets for you. About an hour in to the film, I was very tempted to just turn it off, a cardinal sin, and something I have never done owing to intensity before. Thankfully, I stomached it up and continued on, and, I'm not giving it away here, it is worth watching to the end.

Countless critics have made this observation, that the film is a tough watch, but ultimately rewarding, and I must agree. Like I say, I wouldn't be a massive torture porn fan, and the New French Extremity movement of films (including films like Haute Tension) have never sat overly well with me. I am fine with violence used to further or enhance plot, but not in place of it. Martyrs very clearly walks a fine line where it could just be violence for the sake of shock value, and it definitely fits in the torture porn classifications, but it directly challenges them, and the viewer. You do not walk out of Martyrs looking for your next gore hit, but with reflection on what you have just seen, and how it relates to you and your place in the world.

Martyrs is an incredible watch, and one you should put yourself through, but be warned, you do have to watch the whole thing. It is a fine piece of art, whole and complex. If you leave when it starts to raise the intensity levels, you will end up with only half the story you need to savour the experience. And you should go in knowing as little as possible. All I knew going to see it was that it was an intense and violent film, and I am glad that's all I knew. I know people who haven't seen the film who have read spoilers about the ending so they could judge if they should watch the film. This is a BAD IDEA, because the power is in the journey and the conclusion, not one or the other.

So, in what seems to happen with every film trend, Martyrs has become a benchmark in torture porn, and has probably closed the door on what can be done with the genre. There will be plenty more films. There will be exploitation. There will be intensity. There will be blood. But there will never be another Martyrs*.


*Except for the alleged US remake, which can automatically be filed under 'bad ideas'.

Why are we only seeing Joe Dante's The Hole now?

I thought maybe IMDb was glitching or something, but no, it is true, Joe Dante's The Hole is only about to be released in the US market! 

This completely shocked me, because not only was the film made in 2009, but it actually had a proper UK cinema run, with trailers and posters and a release an all. Heck, I have had a copy sitting in my DVD collection for a year. It's not the best film ever, but it certainly didn't deserve to sit on the shelf! I can't seem to find any real reason why it has taken so long to come out, so I'll assume it has to do with no one wanting to put out a horror that isn't found footage, up until that genre was whipped out of sight over the past year.

Do yourself a favour, and see this film. It is a horror aimed at a younger market, but I'll be damned if it didn't bring back the same kind of shivers I got when I first saw Poltergeist. It's a genre legend making a purely entertaining genre film, reminding us of why Joe Dante is considered a legend.

You can read a big fanboy rant for The Hole here, and then get your ass to see it!

The Awakening (insert 'will put you to sleep' pun)

I thought I had missed the boat with this, but since it is about to make its US theatrical debut, I can make a few timely words about Brit horror, The Awakening.

Set in the early 20th century, the film follows sceptic Florence Cathcartas as she proves seances are baloney, and that ghosts are nonsense. She is then asked to come to investigate the death of a student in an isolated boarding school, which appears to have happened under supernatural circumstances. The film plays on elements of whodunit, giving way to the possibility that Florence, in her scientific ways, may be wrong and the supernatural may, in fact, exist.

Sound familiar? It should do. Let's acknowledge the elephant in the room, because it is a very done plot that has never been executed better than in Robert Wise's The Haunting and the more recent 1408 (which is dramatically underrated). So originality is not in this films favour, and you can pretty much guess where it is going from the moment Florence heads to the school. And it must be said, the journey is about as predictable as the destination. 

The Awakening has a great vibe of the classic Hammer horror, and is one of the more successful suspense films I have seen recently, but the film peaks early with a tension-filled sequence involving a chase and a dolls house and there isn't enough here to make it rise above the (poor) spate of competing genre films. It also has a rather tight kinship with Harry Potter and The Woman In Black, owing to similar subject matter in a short time period. 

I've seen a lot written about it being a return to form for British horror, but really, this is nonsense. In our technologically driven, hand held, zombie world, it is refreshing to have a throwback to a more classic period, but this is no excuse for simply retelling the same old tired story. This film is almost immediately doomed to fall into the netherworld of horror, not necessarily forgotten, but not necessarily remembered, even though it's not that bad. It is just more of the same.

Woo! Shorts!

It is a solidly built film and will pass the time happily, especially for those who like their Hammer or a load of chills, but once it is over, you will struggle to remember the name of the film. Instead, you will be saying 'no, not that one. The other skeptic hunts ghosts film. No, the OTHER one'.

If there's nothing else on, you could go worse, but otherwise, just wait for it to come on TV.

After the long wait comes REC 3: Genesis

Recently released on VOD and with a US theatre engagement next month (and a UK DVD release at the same time), REC 3: Genesis finally arrives after quite a lot of anticipation and build up. And, of course, is a massive let down.

Paco Plaza, one half of the directing team behind the first two instalments, brings the horror of the 'possessed' zombie-like people to a wedding setting, where the newly-weds are separated in the hoopla and try to get back to each other, and the different group of survivors struggle to survive in the melee yadda yadda yadda. Infected people attack a wedding, that's it in a nutshell. Whereas the first two films are found footage flicks, this one, while initially seeming to start out that way, becomes a proper cinematic endeavour.

Now, the film does this in a kind of clever way, where the weddings videographer wants to keep filming, but the groom destroys the camera, thinking he is a fool. It is quite a nice comment on the stretch of the imagination of all found footage films and if you were just expecting another REC sequel, it would have been quite the turn, but come on, it has been one of the biggest talking points about the film so far. And THAT is the ace in the hole for the film; a surprise switch of format, which was already revealed before most of us will see the film. Apart from that, there is fuck all going on here.

Before I rant, let's see if I can point out what I liked. I liked the way the videographer was a bit of a douche thinking he was a big shot with the camera. I liked the cheesy uncle who is the man who brings the infection to the wedding (not a spoiler). I liked that, even though I hated the religious element brought in to the second film, it is built on here with some detail, including some work with mirrors and a priest, and there is one reasoning put forward by the priest that I cannot say that might make the religious shoehorning in the film worthwhile.

That's about it for what I liked.

Look at this picture. You can almost guess where I'm going with this...

I mean, the acting isn't so bad, but the script is dire. I like how the infected are sometimes reminiscent of the classic George Romero zombies, but you have to remember, the terror of the first two films is that these are fast moving people in closed quarters, whereas here, they are inexplicably ambling and wholly unterrifying. I can understand the want to have the groom and bride get back together in this chaos, but it is a frustrating storyline that isn't in any way well developed, and will have you yelling at the screen when they spend so long lovingly chasing each other instead of getting the fuck out of dodge. If they loved each other so much, surely they could set aside their 'amore' long enough to make sure they can escape together. Do you think you could put off hugging each other till later, you know, when crazy infected people aren't chasing you? Oh, and there's the 'surprise' news from the bride, which is about as subtle as a speeding semi...

Making sure I wasn't the only one who thought this, other reviews have pointed out the annoying lack of seriousness in the film. While the groom searches for his bride, he adorns knights armour, and has a bumbling sidekick. The bride finds a chainsaw and cuts her dress, not to make it easier to run in, but to look like a sexy badass. It seems odd that a film that initially was intent on scaring the wits out of you decides to go one step away from a rubber chicken. And this is the major problem with the film; it is one massive misstep.

Though Sponge-John is pretty awesome.

You can almost feel the director going 'Hey, I can make something that looks like a real film!', and then he gives us a technically ok movie (and it is only ok), replacing what was so good about the first films with a tired storyline, cliché characters and pretty much a lack of anything else. There are no good scares. I hated every character. Everything had a been there done that feel to it. Some parts were incoherent  in their execution (the resolution to the videographers character, anyone?). The film felt incomplete, and not in a 'ooh, there is something not being told to me to build up tension' way, but in a 'this film is all idea and absolutely no thought' kind of way. Trying not to spoil it, there is also one way to stop the infected that stops the film dead in its tracks and pokes holes in the second instalment. The only silver lining is that it reaffirms some of the ideas from the second film, but that is nowhere near enough to make a full film.

This film wastes a good setting and premise and tries to be Evil Dead 2 (which it is NOTHING like, mind), but ends up being another forgettable horror flick. What's sad is that its best moments are when we see action from security cameras, showing that this would have been a great film to have been found footage, but the filmmakers dropped the ball by trying (and failing) to be subversive. It's not horrific enough to be a horror, and it's not funny enough to be a comedy.

I didn't hate this film, it certainly has its moments, but I hated it for letting the REC film series down. It is easily the weakest entry, and only ranks above the abysmal Quarantine 2 in all the films. Hopefully REC 4: Apocalypse will get the series back on track for a good finalé, but for the first time, I am very worried.

Prometheus One Word Review

Unmissable.