Horror Review - The Collector (2009)

 

 

Okay, so it's about time I get back to my roots, I realised that I haven't really been reviewing horror movies on here and I don't really know why. I guess I just haven't felt the urge and I've been reviewing newer stuff for the most part and I don't get inspired to write reviews about many recent horror flicks.

 

The collector has inspired me to write one though, but I don't really know if that's a good thing or not. I'd say not. Here's why.

 

The Collector, co-written and directed by Marcus Dunstan, a guy who's previous screenwriting has come in the shape of sequels to Saw, is a movie presented in much the same way that those films were. I'd go deep into it's plot and the characters but that whole area is very shallow, so it would be like trying to deep fry some breaded fish in a dry frying pan. The story is basic and "samey", following a desperate thief as he attempts to steal from a family he's worked for and get's caught in a house filled with traps being set by a masked guy with a penchant for bear traps and fish hooks.

 

Okay, so I'm okay with the shallow plot and the fact that I couldn't give a shiny pile of dog crap about any of the characters. I can let that pass, because, as a horror fan I understand that looking for depth in many of our genres releases is like trying to find intelligent dialogue in a Wayans brothers film. So, I overlooked that and waited for a cool series of interesting and complex traps and tricks from the unnamed assassin who looked like a long lost member of Slipknot. This is where the film fell flat on it's face for me. The traps weren't interesting and you'd have to be a bloody idiot not to see a chandelier of machetes hanging over your head, wouldn't you? The gaping holes in the story as well as the fact that noone seems to react natuarally to the fact that there are plenty of chances to get out of the house and/or kick the shit out of Joey Jordison when he has his back turned.

 

There's a room of fish hooks that do little damage to the protagomist (who's a thief, nice). There's a room of green sludgy acid, like something from "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" which again does little harm to the guy stepping in it. Wow, nice traps antagonist-in-silly-mask, they're really doing their job. *insert confused face*

 

Speaking of "Who Framed Roger Rabbit", Judge Doom is a much scarier villain than the lip-licking tosspot in this film, I'm sorry but there is nothing scary about a guy who's nine-hundred traps and weapons aren't doing more than leaving a couple of scratches on the fella who encounters them. So, okay, there's a plot going on with the family of the house too, who are being tortured by Corey Taylor in the basement, but that's boring and adds no sort of tension to the movie. The thief realises that there's a kid in the house and he tries to save her, which is fine, at least there's a little bit of reason to want the guy to escape now. This leads to a series of "Baby's Day Out" like close-encounters with sharp things.

 

I won't spoil the ending, the director will do that for you instead. This film left a bad taste in my mouth and confirmed my feelings on most of what comes through the gory train station of horror nowadays. It's all very usual and uninspired, and if it isn't a remake then it's the sort of tedious dumb-fuckery like this that might as well have been done a million times before. I'm not saying that I don't like any horror films that come out in the modern day. Spain, France and Asia have some swell little movies to be found, and I even liked a couple of recent remakes like "Evil Dead" but it's a shame that there is so little originality in a genre that can literally be as "out there" and bizarre as any other genre in the landscape of film. Come on, someone do something new!! It's surely not that hard.

 

I don't have many good points to make about this flick. It bored the pants off me, it made me sad that I'd chosen to waste time on it and it made me question the minds of the people who recommended it to me. Ha, I kid. Kind of.

 

Still, watch it if you fancy yourself a second-rate Saw knock-off, or prequel, or something. I don't know how it fits, or if it fits into the Saw franchise, I don't actually care either.

 

2 large bear traps soaked in viscera out of 10.

The Puffy Chair Review (2005) A Duplass Brothers Film.

 

Simply, to begin, I'll say that I am a Duplass Brothers fan. I like the style of their films and the everyman, modest and down-to-earth quality that each of their films possess. The Puffy Chair, starring brother Mark and directed by brother Jay is no different. Another wonderfully grey film with a soulful integrity and welcoming familiarity that immediately draws you in.

 

I saw this film much later than perhaps I should have, it was made in 2005 and I didn't see it until 2012, a few months ago. I had seen other Duplass-made pictures prior, enjoying each in different ways. Cyrus and Jeff, Who Lives at Home being the two that I most enjoyed and are perhaps the most well known of the films made by these talented indie filmmakers who had their start in short-film. It shows in their fairly short running times of their feature length flicks.

 

The Puffy Chair was made on a tiny $15,000 budget and it seldom shows because this isn't a film that really needs a budget, all it needs are a small amount of talented actors, a van, an open road...oh, yeah, and a puffy chair.

 

The film follows Mark Duplass's character Josh and his girlfriend Emily, played with subtlety by Katie Aselton, who is well-known in the Duplassverse. She does good here. Josh and Emily along with Josh's brother Rhett, plan to travek together from New York to Virginia, picking up a puffy chair along the way, that is identical to one that Josh's father had once owner. Josh plans to take the chair to his fathers house to give his dad for his birthday. An important thing for Josh to do, seen in his expressions and dialogue throughout the film. Rhett, the brother, is a hippy type who doesn't like conflict but also doesn't like to do anything to help anyone either. A fact that intrudes on the relationship of Josh and Emily at times during their road trip.

 

Mark Duplass plays the character of Josh with a mild anger at the world and while he at times seems cold he also backs it up with reason. He's likeable in his own way. His relationship with Emily is the basis for this film, she feels ignored and unsupported by Josh, and Josh just wants things to be fine without explanations needing to be given for things. Emily wants him to be more present in their partnership and she is deeply bothered that he doesn't appear interested in her worried regarding it. Rhett's character is perfect to bring a little insanity (or, at times, alot of insanity) to the mix. His "love for all things" is amusing on various occassions and scened, later in the film, are indeed "wackadoo".

 

The film takes on a documentary style of filming which works with the low budget but makes things seem very real and raw. This allows for improvisation to be done and it works really well, the lack of polish acts in the film's favour. The places that they visit throughout the movie appear real, lived in and used. It's a breath of fresh air to see places that are honest and at times dirty. Hollywood take note.

 

At times the dialogue gets a little mixed up and the Rhett character goes from being a realistic representation of someone who might be a little off kilter and generally happy to lay on the grass and stare at the sky while the world pays for him, but it takes turns that seem out of sink with the film and I would have preferred the subtlety to be constant.

 

The writing is top notch, the performances are excellent and the setting is perfect. It goes to show that all you need are a good script and a few people who can grab it and run with it.

 

It's on Netflix streaming now and I advise you to check it out.

 

8 puffy chairs out of 10.

The Lords Of Salem (2013) - A Rob Zombie Joint

 

Ok, so let's get this first thing out of the way before I start this review. I know that this is a controversial movie in the sense that it has strongly divided opinion and there's alot of negativity out there about it. The following review is my thoughts, pure and simple, on this film. SO, thanks for reading, let's get on with it shall we?

 

Rob Zombie is someone who I like, but I don't love his stuff for the mostpart. I really liked The Devils Rejects for what it was, a slice of nostalgic violent filmmaking with a hint of Americana and grindhouse. House of 1000 Corpses was mediocre but I watched it and accepted it as Rob's love letter to the horror genre, a genre he is obviously passionate about. The Halloween movies were just ok, not as bad as some people painted them to be in my view, but not too special either. When the trailers began surfacing for "The Lords of Salem" I was fairly uninterested and not really bothered about following the production of the film.

 

It was released at a small number of movie theatres in the US and Europe and hasn't done good business. It was released April 2013, last week, here in the UK on DVD. No BluRay release has been mentioned.

 

I was open minded walking in to this experience. I didn't expect the sea and the mountains but I didn't expect the dogshit on the pavement either, and you know what? I got neither, as I thought. But what I did get was something much more interesting, I got a film that was much more than House of 1000 Corpses, The Devils Rejects or the Halloween movies were. Here's why I say that...

 

The Lords of Salem, follows a character named Heidi Hawthorne, played by Sherri Moon Zombie, wifey of Rob. She is a late-night radio talk show host and she lives in Salem, MA. Sherri Moon Zombie, what a strange actress she is. Her performances have always been passable and at times funny and brash. Here though I was suprised at how varied her performance was. She mixed it up for the first time in her film career and that is something that should be praised. Her mixture of normal, run-of-the-mill girl, happy-go-lucky and spunky DJ and then anxious, confused and depressed victim is done with subtlety and a sense of clam I didn't expect from her. I liked her in this film because I believed her in this film. Something I have had trouble doing with any previous character in any previous Rob Zombie movie. They're all very cartoonish and silly without any real layer work being done with their characters. This changes with Heidi, she is a much more real and honest presense, at least for the mostpart.

 

The story itself isn't really too deep or hard to follow. It has a slow build which I liked alot and the tension mounts over the first half of the films 95 minutes. The setting where most of the story takes place is the apartment building in which Heidi lives. It's a typical New England building and works well as a place that is normal and cheery yet could plausably host something strange. The internal shots sometimes reminded me of "The Toolbox Murders" and "The Shining". Am I comparing this film to those films? No.

 

In the past Rob Zombie has taken to being very close-up with his directing. His camera was always in the face of the subject, sometimes even acting as the eyes of a vicitm as they ran away from a villainous character. The Lords of Salem does things differently and this is the main reason I will gladly heap praise on Rob Zombie for this film. He has stepped out of his comfort zone and done something truly different and unique. You dont think so? Look at the long, slow and tense shots on doors, expressions, walls, windows and other things. Rather than being "all up in there", Rob has chosen a more fly on the wall appreoach which adds tension and allows the viewer to see much more of the surroundings as the film unfolds.

 

The film follows Heidi as she takes a listen to a record that had been sent to her at the late-night radio station. The record plays like strings being abused, drums being battered and it's an incomfortable sound and one that works well for it's purpose in the film. I think it had a chance to be very clique wiht chanting or whispering voices and it didn't, it stuck to a very vivid banging and sounded like something that could really become uncomfortable if you listened to it for long enough. The music itself becomes a character in the film and allows you to see change come over Heidi as she listens to it, holding her head like it's forcing it's way inside her mind.

 

We see sporadic flashback sequences with naked witches and the familiar song playing over it and these are effective. The witches too remain subtle in their execution. We don't get over-the-top horror makeup or long warty noses. We get mixed age, mixed size women who are out for blood. It worked well in my view.

 

Now, this is not so much a horror film as it is an "arthouse" picture with satanic imagery, psychedelic sequences and eerie overtones of sinister goings-on. There's no "gore" so to speak, there aren't any jump scares which have become all too common in horror films these days and there aren't any big iconic horror film moments, or at least not obvious ones. Personally, I liked alot of the scenes in this, when Heidi first listens to the record it shows, just with reactions, how powerful it is and it set's up the rest of the film in just that moment. The scenes with the withes are well done and get better as it goes on.

 

I don't want to spoil things so I am avoiding telling of the ending of this film. The story speaks for itself, witches out for blood and Sherri Moon Zombie is the one they need to get where they need to be. It's not the most exciting or fresh premise, but the way it is presented is genuinely new and different and I liked that. I liked that alot.

 

This movie won't be for everyone. It obviously isnt as I've read some scathing reviews in the past month or so. Still, there are some people who will enjoy this and some who might even give it another chance after disliking it the first time. This is the sort of film where a fresh perspective will allow a viewer to see new things they had missed before.

 

The setting is nice, I've visited this area of New England and it's lovely and looks just like it did in the film. The inclusion of Ken Foree as the co-host on the radio show was nice. I like Ken Foree, he is a horror icon and though his part wasn't big it was still nice to see him on screen in something that fit him well. The part of Judy Geeson as Lacy Doyle, the apartment owner, is standout and she plays it perfectly. I was suprised to see her name seldom mentioned in reviews of this film, she did a brilliant job in her role. But I wont say why. The obscure sequences near to the end are just what they intend to be, but I couldn't help but want a little more narritive at those points, just a little more closure and explanation would have been nice. I liked having backstories but I thought it would have been good to have had more character development with the other characters in the film such as the radio co-hosts and the sisters of the apartment owner. I would have liked to have spent more time with them in order to get a better feel for them, but those are minor gripes in a film that for many was hopelessly crap. For me though, it was intriguing and enjoyable. Especially the first half which slowly built the story in a way I always enjoy and have since I first saw "The Legend Of Hell House".

 

See this for yourself because no word from me or anyone else will really help. You might hate it with passion or love it, or like me you might enjoy the experience and respect the decision of the film maker to do something truly different for a change.

 

Not for everyone, but really...what is?

 

7 our of 10 (for now)

 

 

Movie Review Time: Tower Block (2012)

 

The writer of this film also wrote a couple of other cult british horror comedies, Cockneys Vs Zombies and Severance. His name is James Moran, that's all I really know. His name and two films he's also written the screenplay to.

 

I liked Severance I guess, though I can't really enjoy Danny Dyer in any way whatsoever, but he is ignorable if you try hard enough. Tower Block was released in 2012 and got a decent enough nation wide cinema release, though it was only on for a couple of weeks. It looked decent enough but there was too much to see at that point so I waited for the DVD release instead. Well, months on and one BluRay purchase later and I sat down on my couch, coffee in hand, to watch this small budgeted British thriller. Here are my modest thoughts.

 

The movie begins with a look at the various characters that exist in a pending-destruction tower block in East London. It also shows a young man being beaten to death by two masked thugs. The police try to get some information from the people in the tower block about the attack that happened in the halls of their residence. None of them would speak. None of them had any information, and so the thugs went free and the residents carried on with their lives, in a run-down block of flats where only the top floor is lived in. The remainder of the block has been emptied and re-homed. So, thats where the tale begins.

 

Sheridan Smith is the headliner in the movie. Fans of UK sitcoms like The Royle Family, Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps and Gavin & Stacey will know her well. She plays a character called Becky who saw the attack on the boy happen and attempted to save him, but she was beaten up too and didnt have an information for the police. She is the "good" person in the mix, and the film tends to focus on here mostly, which is a good idea because she is likeable and familiar with no real reason to dislike her.

 

I dont know any of the other performers in the film, except for a guy from Gavin & Stacey who plays an alcoholic loner named Paul. The other main character is called Kurtis, a thug-wannabe Derby-voiced drug dealer who has spent years theratening the people of the block and making them pay him money with a promise that if they do he wont attack them and wreck their homes. Nice. So we are introduced to this extremely annoying chap early on. His performance as the skinny little prick chav is well done but the type is done so often in british films that it's getting old and annoying now. I understand that people like this exist, sadly, but it seems that alot of urban films based in Britain have this chracter in them. I know people like this exist, especially in the more downtrodden areas of the country, but it is so typical and over-the-top that it seems too obvious now. Am I supposed to eventually like these one-dimensional nasty characters? Really? I don't.

 

So, months later and the residents of the top floor of the block are going about their lives as usual. An older couple living normally, a couple of little thuggy lads pretending to be "gangsta", a single mother who yells at her kids constantly, a family with a son who plays Battlefield 3, alot. And so on.

 

Suddenly, as the people are in their flats going about their lives, bullets fly through their windows and kill certain people. We see a sniper rifle reloading and aimed at the tower block. The residents all run into the halls, freaking out. They're being picked off and they don't know why.

 

I'll stop there. Thats where the story begins and I wont spoil it. It tells the story of a group of people trying to escape from a sniper aimed at their tower block who has set traps around the building. It's about the way the characters interact as well as why they are being terrorised in such a manner.

 

It's a fun premise and the performances are mostly good. Some are passable but none are actually bad, which I didn't expect. I found the character of Kurtis to be too irritating and obnoxious to tolerate and at times it made me grit my teeth. It was a little too much at times. I enjoyed the film, basically and honestly, it was fun and didn't drag during it's 90+ minutes. My main issue is that there are gaping inconsistancies and plot holes the size of a stella artois factory. It is in these issues that the film let me down. They were obvious plot holes that I cannot fathom how someone could miss. I wonder if the director was even that bothered towards the end. It is one of those films that gives too much away too soon and ends in a very unsatisfying way. Still, the actors did a good job with the mediocre script, the story, or 50% of it, was interesting and at times tense and it was a decent urban brit-thriller of which the country doesn't produce many.

 

I would recommend it to anyone who might like the idea of survival thrillers but the chracter models are dated and the story falls short on many occassions. Still, not all bad and worth a watch.

 

SCORE - 5 pints of cider out of 10.



Review Of Ruby Sparks

 

Zoe Kazan wrote Ruby Sparks and she plays Ruby in the film itself. Her co-star in the movie is Paul Dano who you might know from the cult indie comedy "Little Miss Sunshine". As a real life couple, the two of them present an on screen chemistry that is so strong it carries the movie from being a decent fantasy-rom-com into being a truly special motion picture that has gone under the radar for reasons I can't pinpoint or understand.

 

The story is one of hope, one of social anxiety leading to ideals that are pretty impossible to ever find, to ever meet. It is in this that we meet the main character in the story of "Ruby Sparks", Calvin. Calvin is a young man with social anxiety who wrote a book and it became an american literarature classic and due to that he had been unable to think of the tale in which to follow it up. He was in councelling since he was a child and lived alone in an apartment that appears to be designed for solitude in order to help him to find whatever his second novel would be. One day Calvin begins to have dreams about a girl and in this he begins to fantasise about her. His councellor, played in a loving and knowing way by Elliot Gould, tells him to write about this girl and see where it takes him.

 

Calvin writes about the girl, how she looks, what she smiles like, how her voice sounds to his ears and that her name is Ruby Sparks. He is rejuvinated by his writing and begins to write more and more, loving his time with the girl he is creating on his typewriter. The typewriter becomes a symbol of Calvins' reluctancy to accept his success and attempt to move forward.

 

To cut bits and pieces from the whole story, Calvin eventually wakes up, goes downstairs and sees the girl of his dreams, literally, cooking eggs in his kitchen with a smile on her face and a song in her heart. He immediately thinks he is going mad and hallucinating until eventually realising that other people can also see, hear and touch Ruby. The girl of his dreams had come to life and was in love with him as much as he was with her.

 

The story takes many turns from here, and this is where I'll leave it to you to see where it goes. I wouldn't want to spoil it. It does, however, involve the ability of Calvin to write more detail about Ruby and immediately effect her with the use of his keyboard and his ideas.

 

The mixture of fantasy, romance, drama and comedy is wonderful and makes for a fresh and interesting take on a romantic tale of finding love and coping with all it has to offer, both good and bad, not forgetting the in-betweeny parts.

 

Paul Dano is great in his role, conflicted, messy and troubled by his own mind and the pressure he places on his own shoulders regardless of his loving family. Zoe Kazan adds a childlike innocence and a sparky honesty to the character of Ruby.

 

The supporting cast of Annette Bening and Antonio Bandaras as Calvin's Mom and Step-Dad, Elliot Gould as Calvins therapist and Chris Messina as his brother are top notch and add a variety of interesting dynamics to the story as it goes on.

 

I loved this movie, it was truly entertaining and heartwarming whilst hovering over sinister and dark at times in a way that all great tales of love should do. There is darkness in life and in love and to leave it out is to ignore human emotion at it's truist. This doesn't ignore, it explores and it makes for a wonderful independant dark comedy with fantastical elements seeping through it's edges.

 

Lovingly crafted and beautifully acted, this was one of my favourite films of last year and since it's DVD and BluRay release I've seen it plenty more times and enjoyed it more and more with each viewing.

 

There have been people in other reviews I've read saying that it could have been much more sinister and thus more interesting but I disagree, taking too many dark steps in a film like this would be completely bizarre and wouldn't really make sense.

 

9/10



Review - Bad Boy Bubby (1993)

Netherlands born director Rolf de Heer had been working as a director for nine years before he got behind the camera and made this little known bizzaro-flick entitled "Bad Boy Bubby" though to say I know of his previous works would be a lie, so I won't go there.

 

An Australian film, "Bad Boy Bubby" tells the story of Bubby, a boy, or man if you prefer as seen as he is thirty, kept locked inside a dirty flat by his mother who has convinced him that the air outside it poisonous. Certain circumstances force Bubby out into the world and he discovers things for the first time. He is an unusual cat, so the world reacts to him as such and in turn he sees the world as just as unusual.

 

It's a weird film, but engaging and thought provoking at the same time. It has its moments of disturbing the viewer and it has its moments of warming the viewers heart a little too. Nick Hope plays Bubby perfectly, an English actor from Manchester, he has worked on so many things yet any time I see him I remember him as "Bubby". This performance carries the film which at times borders on being so low budget you wonder if any of the other actors had ever worked in film or television prior to it. There are some bad things about it, with some shock moments seemingly only there for the value of making the viewer uncomfortable rather than progressing the story and the performances of some of the fringe characters are bordering on unwatchable. That shows how strong the lead performance and direction of this movie is, that a viewer can look past the bad things and still thoroughly enjoy the end product.

 

Bizarre, raw, gritty and sometimes utterly disgusting, "Bad Boy Bubby" is a little gem from the land of Aus that doesn't really get a mention. If you happen across it at some point, give it a try, it's worth a watch for sure.

 

Seven and a half cockroaches out of ten.



2012: A Movie Year In Review

 

2012 - A Year In Review : Movie Edition!

 

2012 has been a strong year for cinema and it isn't even over yet. As I write this in early December there are still some movies yet to hit screens and one big epic called "The Hobbit" on its way. Earlier this  year, I think around June, we signed up for Cineworld's "Unlimited" program, which entitles us to see as many flicks as we like while paying about fifteen quid a month. Amazing deal considering the amount of going to see just one movie on regular tickets, we've saved hundreds of pounds already as customers to this program and cannot hype it enough. Early 2012, before getting these tickets, we saw "The Hunger Games" and it cost over twenty pounds, we pay thirty pounds a month for two tickets and we can see whatever we want, whenever we want and as many times as we like. Excellent. Okay...I'll stop fanboying over Cineworld now, I promise.

 

2012 has been a great year for fans of film, lots of great pictures have hit the screens and entertained us. There's been some terrible shit too, but I suppose it's to be expected in a World where Keith Lemon is a popular television character who is given the green light to extend his miserable tripe onto cinema screens. Still, in-between the occasional dud there have been some tremendous flicks that have only gone to morph me into an even bigger nerd than I was 12 months ago. (and so it continues).

 

I've read reviews in magazines like Total Film and Empire throughout the year of movies we've seen in theatres and at times I disagree on so many levels with what the reviews say, one flick that comes to mind regarding this is actually one of the first movies we saw in theatres this year. Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.

 

The reviews for this film were unusual. I read a variety of reviewers label it as "taking itself too seriously" and "lacking in the depth of the novel". Okay, I admit, I haven't read the book in which the film is based. I love to read, I just don't happen to have read this films source material. I don't know if that helped in my enjoyment of the film, but if it did then I am surely blessed in that aspect. I thought there was plenty of dark humour in this movie, and lots of scenes were so well shot and acted that I could hardly find anything to feel angry about as a viewer, yet to my surprise after seeing it and feeling I got my moneys worth out of a thoroughly enjoyable action-gore-fest, I heard so many people say how it bastardised the novel and was acted badly. I disagree. I doubt it bastardised a novel that at its heart is almost a bastardisation of history itself. It might not have gone into the civil rights aspect as deeply as the book but then maybe it wouldn't have been as fun if it had. As a person simply viewing the film as a fun action movie for a rainy day I thought it ticked the boxes. Not every film has to be perfect, or deep, or word for word copies on the book on which it's based. I might be in the minority, but I'm fine with that. I even liked the train scene. There, I said it.

 

2012 also welcomed the first time I've seen a documentary film on the big screen. In the past, and in all honesty, it's been too expensive to see every single film that sounds interesting, so some slip through the cracks and have to wait until they hit DVD and Blu-Ray. Now this isn't the case we saw "The Impostor" for which there is a full review further back on this blog, and "Samsara" which was a mind blasting visual orgasm of a film that I truly loved and cannot wait to see again when it hits BR in early 2013. "Samsara" has no dialogue and plays alongside a vibrant score that makes the whole thing seem like a dreamscape at times. It's beautiful shots of people and places around the world are stunning and the depth of each shot makes the film extremely re-watchable. I felt myself wanting to rewind the film and see things for longer on so many occasions. I cannot say enough good things about it. It blew my mind.

 

Going back to something mentioned earlier, the bad films of the year, in which there have been plenty but I have gladly avoided most. I have liked most of the flicks I've seen on the big screen in 2012. There have, however, been a couple I didn't enjoy. The over-rated "Magic Mike" in which nothing really happens and no character has any likeability, and the frustrating to watch "The Offender" in which the main antagonist in so annoying that I felt like leaving the cinema on more than one occassion, plus real young offenders were used in some scenes and so the performances are very hit and miss. Shame really, the concept was a good one with lots of potential, shame the actors involved were very unlikeable individuals, which makes it tough to root for the people the filmmakers are obviously hoping you will root for. Still, these were utterly terrible films so it's been a good year for good flicks.

 

Superheroes are all the rage. They have been for years now with so many big budget blockbusters hitting the screens each summer featuring different cape wearing, batarang throwing, spiderweb shooting, hulk smashing, hammer pounding, lantern....erm....using......mega powers. This year we saw a knight of darkness end his Nolan-career, a group of avengers smashing up bad guys in the middle of the big city and a red and blue arachnid saving the day once again. These three movies were what the summer of cinema in 2012 was all about. The Avengers broke records and pleased fans around the World with it's mega action and delicious performances. The Amazing Spiderman improved on the previous movies and featured a great cast. The Dark Knight Rises became one of the most popular movies of all time and united fans and critics in a thing called "awe". All tremendous movies in my view, I can't wait to see what 2013 brings from the world of the comic book.

 

2012 also seems to have been the year that horror films were pretty much all about ghosts. I'm a big horror fan and have always loved the variety that comes with the genre. Zombies, ghosts, monsters, serial killers, cults, vampires, werewolves, fantastical beasts, possessed kids, animals with rabies, haunted houses...the sky has always been the limit and horror always surprises fans in the most unusual ways. 2012 however seems to have been a record with a big old scratch on it in the sense that most of the horror flicks have been ghost based. There's been a few that went elsewhere like the psychological thriller "House at the End of the Street" and monster flick "The Chernobyl Diaries" but most others have surrounded hauntings or possession. I don't mind so much but I miss the variety that used to come with horror. Lovely Molly, The Possession, Sinister, When The Lights Went Out and A Night in the Woods all hit screens around summer 2012. I miss the monster flicks and would love the zombie movie to get over the hurdle of being overdone a couple of years ago, there's still plenty of life left in the living dead.

 

My favourite flicks of 2012 is a hard list to create, there have been so many I've enjoyed. Dredd immediately comes to mind when thinking about films that I absolutely loved. It was violent, energetic, funny, dark, exciting and as a fan of 2000AD it did alot more for the world in which it came than the previous Stallone monstrosity in which ole' Sly just HAD to remove the mask and show his handsome dimples even though it was against the whole idea of the Judge himself. Dredd was one of my favourite movie experiences of 2012, and in 3D it was just bloody cool having head splattering gore flying at me every few minutes.

 

"Liberal Arts", "Ruby Sparks" and "Perks Of Being A Wallflower" were all excellent indie dramady's that also come to mind when thinking of enjoyable experiences at the movies this year. Funny, moving and acted brilliantly, all three of these flicks may have gone under the radar for some people, which is a shame considering how good they were. Comparable in the sense that they are all based around people with problems and inperfections.

 

 

There have been a number of reasons to be a paying customer of the cinema this year. There are things that annoy me, like the constant rustling of candy wrappers (eat before you go see a movie, please!), the shining annoyance of peoples cell phones every five seconds, the whispering of people who apparently enjoy wasting money and time by paying to whisper through a film other people are trying to enjoy. But there are also so many nice things, including the fact that showing support to these movies means we can keep seeing them because they'll keep getting made.

 

2013 has lots to be excited about as a film junkie, here's to another year of geeking our on release day!