Teeth (2007)

In 7 words or less: Toothed pie eats willies

What's it all About? A girl (I've forgotten her name, the characters are somewhat irrelevant in this film - there's a woman with teeth in her lady bits for gods sake, names are beyond this one), has been born with a genetic mutation - vagina dentata; originally thought to be a greek myth but as this film clearly shows, is actually a hard fact (no pun intended). 

"Sex!"

To add a further deep twist to this bloody tale (sorry), mrs teeth pie herself is part of 'purity'  group. A bunch of teens committed to their keeping virginity until marriage who get together and chat about it. Remember all those teens who went mad for the Jonas Brothers and their purity rings? Yeah, bit like them...but maybe even weirder and less into pop. Unfortunately for our toothed protagonist, despite committing to purity, horny young teens and pervy men just want to get it on with her. But unbeknown to them, the 'monster' insider her will quite simply bite off anything put up there that she's not ok with. And she's not ok with any of it - she has the ring remember?! (ironic? possibly). 

You literally have no idea what you're getting yourself 'into' young man.

The film climaxes (look it's really hard not to pun here!) when her mum dies. This is a sub-plot that doesn't get much attention and is somewhat jarring to the story, but serves its purpose for her to get her sweet sweet revenge on her evil stepbrother who's been an ass their whole lives by perving and sleazing over her. How does she do it? Why by popping on a white virginal dress, seducing him and using her nippy unmentionables to get that penis right off him...the part where it 'falls' out of her and then gets eaten by his dog perhaps wasn't in the original game plan, but hey, it all added to the 'moment'. 

"It's gone! Muuuuuuum!"

Best bits? (Even the questions are punning with me tonight!) hmmmmm...I'm not really sure there are best bits in this one, it's more of a film watch spent somewhere in-between frowning and laughing at the sheer ridicule. I suppose once you get into it, you kind of get convinced that it's quite a cool way of getting revenge on a sleazy predator - 'I bet you weren't expecting that!' type moment -  a comedy trombone wouldn't have been out of place in some of those scenes. 

"Yeah, I'm into all this willy choppin' now."

Did it make you think thoughts? Yes. I am glad I don't have teeth in my pie. Oh and I will be fine if I never see a film with multiple penis' not attached to their owners ever again. 

Would you watch it again? Erm no. It's a novelty, a bit like eating a chocolate Peppa Pig. 

Rating (out of 100%): Teeth is a great comedy b-movie horror. It does everything it should - silly storyline, completely ridiculous in every way, bad acting and nothing really making sense. So in the context of its genre I'd give it a fanny-faboulous 62%

Resident Evil Afterlife (2010)

In 7 words or less: Alice fights zoms in desolate future...yawn

What's it all About? Word of a safe haven has meant survivors are seeking out 'Arkadia' in search of protection, food and shelter. 

Run Alice, run

Best bits? An ok fight scene with a brute berserker in the showers is perhaps the highlight of a lacklustre 'noon-evil' film with no scares.

Can I 'axe' you a question?

Did it make you think thoughts? At the start of the film why is Alice is Japan? How did she survive the totally brutal plane crash? Where does her constant supply of lipstick come from? I had these thoughts among others. Chief video game protagonist, Albert Wesker, is back and in full on game mode. Mutating, not dying, quipping, not dying again, you know the drill. It's a more unbelievable film than the rest (not that they were realistic in any way) and shows that the franchise is really starting to flag. 

Opticians appointment for Mr Wesker

Would you watch it again? Probably not

Rating (out of 100%): Jovovich is good as always but isn't given much to work with. I give Afterlife a 'please don't come back for more...whoops you have done' 35%

Hypothermia (2010)

In 7 words or less: Man in black bin bags scares locals

What's in the lake? Don't worry it's just a rock bottom budget special effect

What's it all About? Two families are fishing on a frozen lake when they discover more than they bargained for in the form of a prehistoric creature swimming in the water.

At least Michael Rooker doesn't get stinkpalmed

Best bits? The poster is brilliant. Kind of like those 80's horror posters that were hand drawn and looked like the film would be a scarefest but were in fact pants.

This guy should have stayed at home

Did it make you think thoughts? Yes. 1. The title doesn't even make sense. No one gets hypothermia. 2. 73 minutes. Are you kidding me? That seemed like an age I can tell you. 3. Worst rubber-suited monster that looks like a man in a black bin bag ever? It's up there.

Would you watch it again? Hell no.

Yowza, it almost looks real!

Rating (out of 100%): A lot of the time I like a good B-movie that tries hard but is obviously crap. Not here. Woeful on all counts. I give Hypothermia a freezing cold 8%

Witchboard (1986)

In 7 words or less: Fake 80's ghost boy terrorises Tawny Kitaen.

What's it all About? An annoying man brings a Ouija board to an 80's party and they contact the spirit of a dead boy (like we did in the eighties). Tawny Kitaen then gets a bit obsessive about using the board to contact the boy. Is the ghost boy, David, who he says he is? ... I smell a possession coming on.

Neighbours lighting.

Best bits? Best bits? David gets a couple of kills in, mostly by dropping things on people. There's also the oddest falling out of the window scene that I've ever seen.

Window Fall. Actual Speed.

Did it make you think thoughts? What a strange 80's curiosity this is. The kind of film, that if you had seen it when you were 8, it would never leave you. Not at all scary now, as it's just acted and produced too weirdly, but all part of what makes these films special.

Terrifying...

Would you watch it again? I will! What an odd film.

Rating (out of 100%): 52% You'd probably enjoy watching this repeatedly to pick up on all the weird acting.

Poor Tawney, after David turns her shower temp up... (really)

Halloween Resurrection (2002)

In 7 words or less: Myers is back again.

What's it all About? Three years after the events of Halloween Water (H2O) Myers (who apparently wasn't decapitated at the end of the aforementioned film) finally catches up with his sister, Laurie in a hospital escape showdown which is directly lifted from Terminator 2. Then the actual story kicks in... An internet entertainment company founded by Busta Rhymes and Tyra Banks sets up a Halloween Webcast show in the Old Myers house with a handful of fame-hungry teens, each fitted with a personal camera to stream their actions to this thing called the World Wide Web. Oh, there's also some kids at a rubbish party watching it on the internet and they end up helping somehow.

Buster's unusual presenting style.

Best bits? I liked how dated all this technology stuff looks in just 10 years. The words 'state of the art' are thrown around everywhere. Not quite as good as the immortal line "Look! An interactive CD ROM!" from Jurassic Park though.

Even if this is dated and a bit rubbish and hilarious. It's still only the forth film in the Halloween series to be competently put together. So it wins a lot of points for that.

Even the Sexpest from American Pie makes an appearance. 

Did it make you think thoughts? Michael Myers, the internet and reality TV isn't the recipe for success. A film maker needs to start again with a film set in the 70's directly after the first movie. It's the only way to fix the legacy of Myers then we can put the rest of these films in a box named 'curious oddities'.

A penis joke, presumably.

Would you watch it again? Probably. It was pretty funny... Busta Rhymes doing Kung Fu on Michael Myers? Amazing.

Gimmie Some Mo'

Rating (out of 100%): 54% It's fun, and entertaining, but make no mistake. This is not a masterpiece.

Saw (2004)

In 7 words or less: Two men trapped in a skanky bathroom.

What's it all About? Two guys wake up in a disused bathroom chained to pipes at opposite ends of the room. There is a dead body lying in a pool of blood in the middle. Riddles, clues, flashbacks and horror ensue.

I wouldn't want to be the cleaner

Best bits? The premise is amazing! The opening 20 minutes are superb. You really feel like you're in that room; trying to figure out the clues along side the characters and thinking about what you might do if you were in a similar situation. The decision to keep it mainly to this one location was definitely a wise one. The flashbacks serve to flesh out the riddles and add gravitas to the insane pressure cooker of being in that situation. 

Saw is chock full of traditional scares. This little chap keeps turning up and gives me the poops!

It's always nice to see Danny Glover pop up in a film and he's on fine form here as an estranged  ex cop with a grudge. The ending (don't worry, this is a spoiler free zone) is amazing! Wild tension and mega revelations keep you sucked to the screen!

Oh hello Mr Glover! We really like you. Carry on.

Did it make you think thoughts? Yes. This film was the birth (or rebirth) of torture porn. A modern day horror genre that has been literally 'bled' dry over recent years. Saw has spawned countless sequels and imitations, all of which wear the torture porn badge with grizzly pride and heartily use it as their USP (unique selling point.) Corporate! But here's the funny thing, there isn't any actual 'gross out' scenes in the original Saw movie. Not one. It's all completely implied. Yes, it's absolutely terrifying and visceral with screaming and smashing music and a general feeling of extreme discomfort. But visually you see nothing. The 'setup' structure doesn't really play out like the sequels where it's all geared around torture scenarios. Saw (the original) uses these as flashback devises to bolster and serve the story of the two guys trapped in the room; they aren't played out in their entirety.

"Nooo! It's a voucher for the worlds last legal super
sized Big Mac meal! Pleaseee!!"

Implied horror is definitely more shocking because it lets your imagination do all the work. Once you've seen it, in my mind, you can then come to terms with it and deal with it. This obviously makes it less scary as the scares end when the credits roll. However, Saw uses implied terror to numbingly shocking levels; you swear you're seeing horrific things but you never do. It sends your mind reeling I tells ya! I don't believe this first instalment shares anything with it's diabolical sequels.

Would you watch it again? Absolutely. I 'saw' Saw when it was released at the cinema and had never seen anything quite like it. It shocked me! This is a great film and should be in everyone's yearly horror rotation.

"It's okay... We'll order a normal large one. We can do this! We'll share the chips out equally, I promise."

Rating (out of 100%): Don't hate the player, hate the game. Stunningly original at the time of release this is now a nailed on horror classic. What came after is regrettable but doesn't stop me giving Saw a blood stained 89%

The Others (2001)

In 7 words or less: Weird lady immediately locks doors behind her.

What's it all About? Grace (Kidman) is rattling around in a big old mansion somewhere on Jersey with her two children when some mysterious new servants come a knockin'. It's in the olden days... Creepy goings on ensue.

As if you'd let that lot in!

Best bits? The general feel is creepy and the acting is first class. The two kids make you realise bad child acting doesn't have to be endured. The scares on offer here are mild at best but do amount to a nice little atmosphere brewing by the end of the film.

If I walked in to a room and saw this scene I'd walk straight back out. Absolutely no way.

The younglings not being allowed exposure to sunlight is a nice touch and keeps the film nice and dark. 

Did it make you think thoughts? Saw this at the cinema back in 2001 and was really impressed. My horror skin has thickened since then and the scares on offer here are a little too Blue Peter based... It's the sort of film your teacher might show to the class as a treat before you breakup for Christmas holidays. It's still a nice little film but if you know the twist it's pretty fruitless on repeat viewings. It feels so small now. It clearly had a minuscule budget.

Your eyes are weird. I don't like you. Bye.

Would you watch it again? No. I think this is done now. The twist is so over explained and rushed. It is literally rammed down your throat. The Others is dead to me.

Rating (out of 100%): 66% A neat little ghost story to break you into the genre. Not for the seasoned horror fan though; this would barley register on your scaro-meter. Well, it might tickle you a little... probably just a mouse sniffing at your toes though.

The Exorcism Of Emily Rose (2005)

In 7 words or less: Courtroom drama/intense horror film? Sort of.

What's it all About? Emily Rose dies during an exorcism carried out by Father Moore, a small town priest. He ends up being defended in court by Erin Bruner, a hot shot atheist lawyer who is determined to convince the jury that Emily Rose was not suffering from a medical condition but was indeed possessed by 6 demonic nasties!

50% off on all kitchenware at John Lewis!

Best bits? The mood in this film is chilling, really impressive. It doesn't ram cheap scares down your throat in the first 15 minutes like lesser spook fests. Instead it slowly dishes them out, creating actual gravitas and not just meaningless 'jumps' that are instantly forgotten. 

Please, Jessie J. I can't take any more.

The flash back structure works really well as different people take to the stand to give their evidence on the death of Emily Rose. The intensity of these flashbacks is insane; you dread them! The slow weaving from flashback scares to current time spookiness is a nice touch as the whole film starts to take on a really eery, creepy feel. 

Where's my pizza?! It's been more than 40 minutes!

The scares come in all shapes here. Hooded figures at windows, faces in clouds, contorted bodies, intense screams and demonic babble. I found them all amazing.

Did it make you think thoughts? Yeah, I'm finally understanding what makes good horror. It requires the exact same ingredients that are needed to make any other good movie. A great story with properly thought out characters that have depth and meaning. I'd say this film is on the right path to having some of these attributes.

Would you watch it again? I might. I just might. You'll probably lose a lot of the creepiness second time around though. 

Rating (out of 100%): I deem 72% to be a worthy score for this creepy courtroom horror. Based on a true story as well! Eek!

Case 39 (2009)

In 7 words or less: Renée Zellweger stops people cooking a kid

What's it all About? Zellweger is a social worker who saves and adopts a troubled girl from some seriously sick parents. But wait! Hang on a minute Bridget. Are you sure this little girl's parents were kid cookin' nutbars? This child is giving me the willies! Carry on.

Best bits? It's chock full of jump scares, micro flashes, and creepy looking kid shots. These are all completely standard for a mid level, run of the mill studio horror and all have the desired effect. I was squinting through many scenes in anticipation for the big "JUMP!" bit. The scary kid does a good job of being a weird scary kid child. It's a big old box ticker.

"Hello, I am pure evil. Nice to meet you."

Weird film for Zellweger to be in but quite enjoyed her in this. She looks a bit squashed though; her face.. I think she was struggling to shift the Bridget Jones face poundage during the filming.

I am Renée Zellweger

Hornet scene is pretty cool. Goes on a bit though. Buzz buzz.... Bored now.

I'm vomming hornets!? 

Did it make you think thoughts? I'm bad at rating horror films. They're different to other genres. What makes a good horror film? Jumping all over the place and being a little bit freaked out? Then Case 39 was awesome! But hang on... It was crap. Confusing. Maybe if you're consistently scared all the way through but feel nothing when the credits roll and have no problem going to bed with the lights off it was a bad horror.

Would you watch it again? I seriously doubt it. Only truly great horror can be watched more than once, you might as well be sticking pins in your eyes otherwise.

Rating (out of 100%): I don't know. I'm positive that Case 39 was rubbish and utterly forgettable despite continually scaring me throughout. Hmmm, I think that deserves a tepid 50%

Resident Evil Extinction (2007)

In 7 words or less: Those dead muthas just won't stay down

What's it all About? Fresh from Resident Evil Apocalypse, the t-virus has now infected the globe. We follow Alice as she wanders the desert wastelands in search of life.

Best bits? The Las Vegas fight scene is good. Full of rampaging zoms who are dispatched with guns, kicks and knives. 

Stockings and hold-ups seem to make good fighting gear

Did it make you think thoughts? This is a bit more of an attempt to create some characterisation compared to the first two Resi flicks. With that in mind the action thinner on the ground and it all feels more like a tv special. The prodcuction is good and the film looks slick but the main problem is there is very little in the way of scares. Also, when did Alice develop psychic powers? I can't remember. 

Hey Doc, I have this problem, I wonder if you can help?

Would you watch it again? I'm kind of getting into this franchise. Light on scares but adequate on post zom apocalypse action means I'll revisit them at some point. 

Good doggie, wanna treat?

Rating (out of 100%): This is par for the course as far as the franchise goes. I give Extinction a solid 60%

Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (1998)

In 7 words or less: Michaels back and he's having fun!

What's it all About? Ignoring the atrocities of Halloween 3 to 6. H20 jumps forward twenty years to Laurie Strode and her Son (Hartnet) living life in Northern California. But it's Halloween night and it's taken Michael twenty years to catch up with them.

Best bits? The first in the sequels to keep it simple. They remembered that this kind of horror should be fun. There's a good cast and even LL Cool J makes an appearance, making this pure nineties nostalgia. It's a romp!

Oh, and you've never seen Michael's hair looking so full bodied and lustrous...

Hi Sis!

Did it make you think thoughts? Yes. This film has the largest number of 'Dry Scares' I've ever seen in a movie. I was laughing out loud at the massive CLANG! noise whenever someone snuck up on someone by surprise etc. I wish I had the energy to put these into a YouTube video. Maybe you can do it for me?

ARGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Would you watch it again? Yeah! Why not. It's a fun way to get kids into horror.

Rating (out of 100%): 71% The 3rd Best Myers Movie.