Reviews

	Sign In Sign-Up

We sent our raving horror nut, Gerard, out into the real world in his quest to find the best horror film ever.

- A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET- TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE - FRIDAY THE 13TH - HALLOWEEN - HELLRAISER

- SCREAM - -THE EXORCIST - CANDYMAN - THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI - NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD

- DAWN OF THE DEAD - DAY OF THE DEAD - ZOMBIE FLESH EATERS - THE PEOPLE UNDER THE STAIRS -

- HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER - POLTERGEIST - THE EVIL DEAD - JAWS - DELLAMORTE DELLAMORE -

BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA - INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE - THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS -

Rough plot outline: A paedophile and child killer called Freddy Krueger is burned to death by vengeful parents in vigilante mode, and so he returns from the dead to live in the dreams of their children and to kill them in their sleep in order to get revenge. Gets a bit complicated and even stupid in the later Nightmare films.

Gore Factor: Some straightforward gore mixed in with some of the craziest shit you are ever likely to see unless you are on acid. Very slick too. Take for example the scene in the first one where Freddy cuts the girl up and you can't even see him. Hmm. Demented? Yes.

Scare Factor: The first one is well scary, while the others are occasionally scary. It's like Wes Craven took all the bits that scare people in their dreams then made them into Freddy. If you've ever had a nightmare about anything, Nightmare on Elm Street will make you feel uncomfortable. That whole 'Don't go to sleep thing' is as unnerving as shit.

Funny Bits: Most bits with Freddy in. He is both scary and funny at the same time, but I think that detracts from the scare factor a bit. Towards the last films, they are on the verge of becoming comedy horror, for God's sake!

Bad Bits: The Nightmare films can get particularly stupid and very cheesy. Usually I wouldn't mind that, but the plot becomes thicker than Arnold Schwarzenegger's arm at times and this means you have to be in the mood for it.

Overall: Worth seeing, as it is a modern horror classic that has a bit of everything for horror, fantasy and even comedy fans alike. Cool stuff.

Marks out of Ten: Seven, cos the sequels are patchy. Iron Maiden are in the soundtrack to part 5, if I remember correctly. (GT)

Released: 1974 (it didn't turn up on video in the UK until 2000! The buggers!)

Rough plot outline: A bunch of hick teenagers in the Mystery Machine from Scooby Doo go way out into the sticks in deepest, darkest, dankest Texas on a sunny afternoon. They run into a family of the most demented inbreds ever seen (no, not the Royal Family!) and are killed one by one by the enormous, retarded, skin-wearing, transvestite cannibal known to his family as Leatherface. If you haven't seen it, you will be disturbed immensely.

Gore Factor: Surprisingly tame on the gore front, as the title wouldn't have you believe! The most shocking part of it is the implied violence. I mean, to your average film censor, the idea of a 6'7" simpleton sawing a wheelchair bound hillbilly in half is a bit extreme. It sounds worse than it looks, but they got away with some extreme shit by using implication rather than full on gore, which is well cool.

Scare Factor: You jump a few times, but it isn't a really behind the sofa affair. It's more like a "What the hell is happening to me?" kind of thing. It is disturbing as hell, so if you are a delicate pussy, you won't like it.

Funny Bits: Most of the bits with Franklin, the cripple. Especially when he gets killed, because he gets so annoying you actually want to kill him yourself! And the bit where Leatherface is dressed as an old lady. Crazy.

Bad Bits: You don't see Leatherface until 43 minutes into the film, which is over halfway through it, but the Hitchhiker makes up for him at the start.

Overall: Blinding. An amazing film. If any other film was made on a budget of 30 pence with borrowed props and shite actors, it would do little to make it much better. But for TCM, it enhances the realistic and gritty feel that director Tobe Hooper obviously wanted. Classic. Pity about the absolutely pathetic sequels, which actually do make Leatherface turn out as stupid as he sounds.

Rough plot outline: A kid called Jason Voorhees drowns at a summer camp. His mum goes nuts and tries to kill those responsible. Then Jason comes back from the dead just in time to see his mother killed, and so he wreaks his vengeance on every teenager he comes across in the next seven films (he wasn't in the completely piss part 5). How the producers managed to get this many sequels out of a plot which is as thin as a pair of 60 year old panties I do not know...

Gore Factor: You name it, it's been done in Friday the 13th. Three of the films' special effects were done by Tom Savini, a man who knows his gore and FX. They are often cut to ribbons on the home video releases, particularly the UK versions. But most of the time, the brutality is still there, which is good.

Scare Factor: Well, Jason's mum is about as scary as your average middle aged single parent, but Jason is the hardest damn bugger ever put on celluloid! You just can't kill him, and you can never run away from him or anything. You can't even kick him in the nuts, for Christ's sake! He just keeps on going! The scariest thing about him is definitely his hockey mask. It gives him the emotionlessness and mysteriousness that many imitators could never even come close to.

Funny Bits: Lots of them. The bit where he batters the girl off a tree while she's in a sleeping bag is a classic (even though it is cut short in most versions). Another notoriously funny scene is the one where he literally knocks Julius' block off in part 8. Most of the time though the funny bits come from the hilariously bad acting in nearly every film! The good thing is the fact that they didn't let Friday become comedy horror like Nightmare on Elm Street.

Bad Bits: The first one is shite, as are the fourth and fifth. And the ninth one is just stupid.

Overall: Cool. You can just switch your brain off and chill it to Friday the 13th. No Mission Impossible storylines, no fancy Coen brothers stuff, just good old horror with lots of gore and hammy acting. What a horror series should be.

Rough plot outline: A guy called Michael Myers (no not Austin Powers!), who killed his big sister when he was a kid, returns to his hometown after escaping from a loony bin. Some classy horror ensues. Then after the second film, the plot disappears up its own arsehole.

Gore Factor: Some nasty stuff, particularly in the second one which was slated for scrapping the tension of the first film in exchange for gore. It does the job though. The director, John Carpenter, isn't afraid of a little bit of gore to liven things up. It really is the tension that makes the first film though.

Scare Factor: The first two are well scary, particularly the first. It gets so damn tense at times you are on the edge of your seat! I really love the first one because it is so damn scary. I watched it loads of times, then once I realised that there are scenes where you can see Michael Myers lurking in the background. That is particularly scary, knowing that he was there all that time and you never actually notice. Wow, man. I like Michael's mask too, like Jason's, it takes his emotions away and you are like alienated from him. Cool.

Funny Bits: None, unless you are called Beavis or Butthead, in which case you can sit and go "Huh huh huh, he stuck a knife in that guy, huh huh!". A deadly serious horror film, that lost that seriousness after the second film and just becomes stupid and cliched. Goddamn.

Bad Bits: It is often frustrating as hell because it is very slow moving at times, and the fact that the other five Halloween films are completely shite. Another example of sequels murdering a perfectly good film.

Overall: Top notch film to watch at Halloween, and always good if you are bored, but seeing as there are only two Halloween films worth watching, you can get bored with them real easily.

Rough plot outline: Oh, sweet jesus! Er, some guy has this little puzzle called the lament figuration box or something, and he can open the gate to hell with it. I think. The first one is particularly weird, about the little box and some guy who has no skin being reborn with every person his girlfriend kills. Confusing as shit, and I've seen it loads of times. It still makes no sense at all.

Gore Factor: Very, very gory. If you ever wondered what someone without skin looks like, well it's in here. As are some of the most bizarre killings and what have you. It is completely mental to say the least. I've never been able to understand it so the gore holds it together.

Scare Factor: Scary in places and even sickening with some seriously gruesome shit going down. Again, it is a bit to complex to be classed as a straightforward horror film, but it is scary. If you watched it when you were a kid, you were no doubt well scared.

Funny Bits: Er, no. Serious as shit, but with the odd chuckle thrown in for you sickos out there (like me!!!)

Bad Bits: It's too bloody complicated. The storyline starts out moderately straightforward, then runs away into the corner and turns into a steaming heap of shite on the floor.

Overall: Good gory bits, and some really sick stuff, but the concept is lost on me. It's like a more complex version of Nightmare on Elm Street without the fun, aimed at a specific group of horror fans (comic book nerds mainly, seeing as it is by Clive Barker). I really love the cenobites though cos they are well twisted. Like the chatterer up there. He's cool. He's a pussy, but he's cool.

Rough plot outline: Kids into horror films start getting slaughtered in ludicrous pile of shit from Wes Craven. Shame on him. The storyline is useless.

Gore Factor: Not good enough to save it from the shite storyline. Some nice killings indeed, but nothing new, really. The dude uses a knife. That's like, so original, man.

Scare Factor: Nope. If it was 'hilariously bad cash-in on other films factor', it would have something going for it. But no.

Funny Bits: The fact that people think it is any good. They can just piss off and get some taste in my opinion.

Bad Bits: Shite storyline, shite killings, takes the piss out of films that I like, and the fact that it is by Wes Craven, who really should know better. The worst part is the way that there are famous actors in it. Courteney Cox (no, not recently, mate) from Friends, Skeet Ulrich from a load of films, David Arquette from the Arquette family, Jada Pinkett from, er, I don't know, but she's famous, Jennifer 'I'll get my kit off for 20p' McCarthy from nearly everything in the world, Jerry O' Connell from Sliders, and even your woman out of Roseanne, what's her name again? Oh yeah, Jackie. That's it. The whole point of horror films is to have little known actors and a low budget to enhance the realism. In my opinion anyway. The fact that every time you see Monica, oh sorry, I mean, Courteney Cox (no, not recently, mate) in a scene, you start going "Hey, where's Chandler and Phoebe and Joey and the rest of the crowd?". That's never good. It's like Keanu Reeves in Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Marks out of Ten: 1, because it is better than having your kneecaps nailed to your lungs.(GT)

Rough plot outline: Girl gets possessed. Then amid lots of nasty scenes and bad language, she gets exorcised. Thankfully Mr Motivator isn't in it.

Gore Factor: Not gory as in Friday the 13th gory or anything, but some nasty shit happens. The little girl is a right mess by the end. That crucifix bit makes you go all kind of "Ow, I bet that's gonna sting in the morning." Some bits do make you feel really uneasy, too.

Scare Factor: Scary as shit. The younger you were when you watched it, the scarier it probably was. I always heard it was scary, but I never saw it until I was about 14, and by then I had watched nearly every horror film under the sun! And I saw it on a shite copy too. It is still well scary, particularly the bits where you actually catch a little glimpse of the demon. I feel jittery every time I watch it, admittedly, and I don't actually think it is that scary. It is disturbing. You never do feel quite the same after watching it.

Funny Bits: Oh, if you are twisted (like me), most of the really sick bits. Other than that, it is even more serious than a big serious thing. The bit where she pisses on the carpet keeps getting funnier.

Bad Bits: Some of it just seems to go on and on and on and on and on and on etc. It's just as well when something cool happens, something cool actually does happen! And you could never watch it with your granny.

Overall: Top notch. Admittedly, I was a little disappointed when I first saw it, after I had heard how good it was, but it does grow on you. The reason it probably seemed so interesting was the fact that it was banned, and that I was never ever allowed to watch it when I was younger. Considering I saw The Texas Chainsaw Massacre when I was about 3 years old, that is something...

Rough plot outline: An urban legend among inner city folk actually turns out to be true in the nastiest possible way imaginable. And a girl doing a study on it gets a little too tied up in it than she would like.

Gore Factor: Oooh, yes. Very gory. Not nice kind of 'ha-ha' gory like any other slasher, more kind of 'oh my god' gory. This shit is really shocking in places.

Scare Factor: Very, very scary. The whole film is so creepy, especially the music. And it is really gritty and nasty too. The Candyman himself is terrifying. He is very, very cool, but scary as hell. If you have seen this and not had at least one bad dream afterwards, there's something up with you! The most disturbing bit, I think, is when you see the lady getting burned to death. It is so unsettling to watch. And the ending? Oh yeah. Cool shit. Clive Barker doesn't half know his shit. Thankfully, it's more straightforward than 'Hellraiser'.

Funny Bits: Not at all, and you don't miss them either. This ain't no damn feelgood movie. Well, unless you count the amusing 'We hear you're looking for Candyman, bitch' police lineup scene. I like that bit.

Bad Bits: It is quite depressing in places because it is so damn dark and unnerving, and can get boring if you watch it too much, but that's not all that bad, really.

Overall: Spanking film. Let down a bit by the iffy sequel, which was set in the particularly nice town of New Orleans, but still not the worst horror sequel I've ever seen.

Rough Plot Outline: A mad doctor uses a sleepwalker who can predict the future as his sideshow freak. A man asks to have his fortune told by Cesare, the Sleepwalker, only to be told that he will die. Sure enough he dies, and both Cesare and the doctor are held to blame. A lot of running about in truly bizarre silent movie fashion ensues, and at the end there is a weird as hell revelation. Wierd.

Gore Factor: Not very. It is a silent movie after all, and it does carry a PG certificate.

Scare Factor: Very scary. One of the most surreal and atmospheric films ever. The sets are just cool. They take you into a weird world where nothing seems real, but it is at the same time. The music (which goes on all the way through it) is excellently spooky. It goes to show you don't need gore or none of that shit to make a well scary film.

Funny bits: None as such, unless you count the super-hammy silent movie melodramatic acting, but it is pretty much serious.

Bad bits: The fact that it is silent, but that isn't really a bad thing, unless you don't like silent movies, which really are an acquired taste these days.

Overall: A well spooky film, and a brilliant example of how you don't need gore and nudity to make a good horror film. Of course, those who don't like silent movies will hate it, but there is no denying that it has style considering it was made in 1918 where there was no such thing as horror films (even before my granny was born!!!).

Rough Plot Outline: Zombies (lots of zombies!) cause a bunch of panic-stricken hillbillies to hole themselves up in a house. Tensions have them not only fighting the zombies, but each other.The original zombie movie.

Gore Factor: Not the goriest, though there are some well nasty scenes. A moderate pussy could take it alright, but any woofters and delicate girls will be going 'Eeew!' a lot. Even the remake, by Tom Savini, Mr Horror Special FX himself, isn't really gory. But it is gory, just not as much as you'd expect. There's enough to do the trick.

Scare Factor: Scary as hell. The zombies are real spooky, and the black and white of the original makes them even spookier. Some parts make your stomach go kinda weird. The tension and the storyline aren't rejected in return for gore, either, which is cool.

Funny Bits: None, unless you find zombies funny. They aren't really as comical as they are in other zombie movies, which makes them more menacing.

Bad Bits: You really do have to be in the mood for it. Though it is a very thoughtful horror film that seems to always make you say, "I wonder what I would do if that really happened?", it isn't really cheerful or funny. Despite it's straightforwardness, it isn't really a chill-out horror movie. But when you are in the mood, that's a whole different story...

Overall: Scary as hell, the original zombie flick, and the first in George A. Romero's Godlike 'Dead' Trilogy, it has always been known as one of the top horror movies. Uneasy, unforgiving, unequalled - UNREAL! One of the best films ever made. And it has a moral too!

Rough Plot Outline: Zombies (lots and lots of zombies!) force a couple of soldiers and two grumpy people to hole themselves up in a shopping mall. They actually get on quite well, but this time the zombies are even more of a problem. Bugger.

Gore Factor: Lovely and gory. Enough blood to fill a swimming pool, and not only is there lots of it, but the wonders of technicolor mean that it's a fantastically funky bright red! It looks like cartoon blood, but in a real film. How cool is that? Very. According to Adam's wee bro, it looks like they used melted red crayons to make the blood. Well, it was cane sugar, food colouring and water if you really want to know. Lots of it. I'll remember that for our music videos...

Scare Factor: Certain scenes are very, very creepy, like the ghetto scene at the start. It has a great mix of super gory action scenes (with bright red blood!!!) and extremely tense full blown spooky bits. Which is cool. Most of the film is very unnerving indeed.

Funny Bits: The funniest parts come from how cheesy it gets at times, because the zombies are so bloody stupid. Some of them are menacing (like him up there), then other just look like your average white trash Yank after a few beers. And I laughed with bemused joy at how bright red the blood was.

Bad Bits: There should be more bright red blood!!! And it's a bit glum sometimes. But aren't we all?

Overall: Lots of zombies. Lots and lots of them. Lots of bright red blood. Lots of gunshots. Lots of people being bitten. Lots of fun. Could this be the greatest movie ever made, solely on the sheer coolness of it? It could just be, you know.

Marks Out Of Ten: 9.5 - It is seriously that good! It's on par with TCM! (GT)

Rough Plot Outline: Zombies (lots and lots and lots of zombies!!!) force a load of soldiers and a couple of science chaps to hole themselves up in a missile silo. They don't get on well at all. Oh no. Have you noticed a pattern? It's just the first film times ten, but who's complaining?

Gore Factor: Very gory. The blood isn't as bright red as 'Dawn Of The Dead', but there's enough of it to fill about twenty swimming pools. And there's lots more nasty stuff too. like "Dr. Tongue" up there. Ouch. (In fact, I've got a picture of a person who REALLY looks like that - wanna see it?!)

Scare Factor: Again, a spanking good mix of violence and shocks. George Romero knows how to make a zombie film, it seems. He should do it more often.

Funny Bits: The soldiers, definitely. Thay are portrayed as real blokish blokes. They probably read FHM. And drink beer. And watch 'the footie'. And they curse loads. They are well cool. The zombies are funny at times too.

Bad Bits: For some reason, the plot disappears up its own arse halfway through the film, then reappears later on. The middle gets a bit boring because of this, but it could be worse. At least Tom Hanks isn't in it.

Overall: Top notch end to the trilogy, though not as popular as the previous two. I suppose it's very hard to top a film like 'Dawn...', but either way I love it. More gore keeps it nice and cool too.

Rough Plot Outline: A zombie on a boat in a New York harbour kills a police man and this causes a girl and a reporter to go to some caribbean island in search of her father. Lots of dubbed zombie funnery ensues.

Gore Factor: It was cut to ribbons when they first released it on video, but it was re-released with all the super gory scenes intact, especially the infamous eye-piercing scene which makes even the most hardened horror fan feel queasy. Lots of gore makes it gruesome to the max.

Scare Factor: About as scary as any other zombie film, really. The horrendously bad acting does detract from the scariness of it, but it is saved by the fact that the zombies are real 'zombie' zombies, like rotted and coming up from graves and stuff, a part of zombie film culture that even Romero just totally ignored.

Funny Bits: Any scenes that are supposed to have acting in them. The acting is pathetic, and the dubbing does little to help this. Apart from that there are no intentionally funny bits.

Bad Bits: After the initial zombie exposition at the very start, the film takes quite a while to get going. There's too much dodgy acting, and not enough zombies for quite a while at the beginning. And it's dubbed.

Overall: Zombie Flesh Eaters has its flaws, but it is still a top class zombie film. Lucio Fulci considered himself to be the Italian George Romero, and he actually intended this to be an unofficial sequel to 'Dawn Of The Dead'. Though it turned out to be sub-Romero standard, it is still a damn sight better than a lot of the shite I have witnessed over the years. And the amount of gore easily makes up for any lack of acting talent. Which is good.

The 'AAAARGH! I'm getting a Headache this film is so bad!' Award goes to...

Rough Plot Outline: Some little street urchin breaks into a big fortified house in an attempt to find the mad owner's riches. He discovers that the owners also have a house full of kidnapped kids who they didn't think would be the perfect child. A lot of frantic running about and totally weird stuff happens from then on.

Gore factor: Gory in places, but relatively tame. There is some real nasty shit that happens, but it seems too slapsticky to have the sort of brutality that would make you go "Ouch."

Scare Factor: No. It's too frantic. There's the odd place where you would jump, but apart from that you could watch it with a group of OAPs.

Funny Bits: The guy who owns the house runs about in a bondage suit with a shotgun for most of the film, which is so sickly funny, it is one of the films saving graces. Apart from that, it's too cheesy for you to laugh, unless you are mocking it.

Bad Bits: The fact that the threat of something cool always looms, but nothing cool really happens when it should. The whole idea of the guy in the gimp suit is bloody hilarious, though...

Overall: It is just too cheesy. There is something about it that screams 'X-Rated Disney!' at me, particularly the stereotypical cruel parents, the stereotypical streetwise little urchin, the pile of shite that it turned out to be, etc. I had never seen this film until recently, and having heard nothing but good things about it, I had expected great things from it. But great things were not what I got. What I got was an 18 rated remake of 'The Goonies'. Somehow Wes Cravens reputation as the master of horror doesn't seem to be quite apt. After 'A Nightmare On Elm Street', the man hasn't made a decent film, yet people still think he's the shit. Well, admittedly, people also think that Titanic was great and that The Phantom Menace actually was a Star Wars film...

Marks Out Of Ten: 3. Another quality piece of piss from Wes 'I made up Freddy Kreuger' Craven.(GT)

Released: 1986, but it took 3 years to get released on video because of the sheer brutality of some of it.

Rough Plot Outline: A weird loner called Henry, based on infamous American serial killer Henry Lee Lucas, meanders around the streets of Chicago killing quite a lot of people (women mainly) with disturbing ease. Nearly every time you see him near a woman, she's dead in the next scene! He lives with his friend Ottis (who is based on Lucas partner in crime, Ottis Toole) and Becky, Ottis' sister. And lots of nasty stuff goes on.

Gore Factor: Well, the version I have, like many others, is cut to shit. It is still very graphic and particularly disturbing. Many extreme horror fans perhaps would prefer to see more actual gore, instead of the results of implied violence, but there are a load of well nasty scenes. One such scene in particular is the scene where Henry and Ottis stab a big fat guy with a soldering iron, then smash a TV over his head and turn it on. Quality viewing for all sickos out there.

Scare Factor: Not horror film scary, but more scary in that it is very disturbing. In fact there is a rape scene that is so damn sick that the woman playing the victim went into shock after filming it! Some parts of 'Henry...' are very sick indeed. That gives it a twisted edge.

Funny Bits: The TV on the head scene makes most people titter a little, despite the brutality. A lot of the scenes with Ottis are either really sick or so sick they are funny, so it appeals to people with a twisted sense of humour. Not really a laugh a minute though, because there are some very harsh scenes that deal with some very sensitive subjects.

Bad Bits: It sure as hell isn't cheerful, and it is one of those films that is quite bleak in parts. Henry himself, as a person, despite being a serial killer and all, is actually quite likeable, which is strange. And it is not for the faint hearted either.

Overall: A really well made semi-biographical flick about one of America's sickest serial killers, with some really extreme bits that make it the type of film that you would rather not settle down to watch with your girlfriend. A kind of a lads film that you would watch in a mental institution.

Rough Plot Outline: As the title suggests, there's a poltergeist in a families house and lots of really weird and nasty shit goes on, until the really bizarre ending that involves the daughter of the house (that little blond haired kid who says "They're here!") going inside the TV.

Gore Factor: Not very gory, but there are some parts that are quite gruesome. The scene where the guy pulls the skin off his face is particularly unpleasant, though it really is very tame in comparison with a lot of the things in all those other films. It is only 15 rated anyway, so nobody could be expecting anything too nasty (though strangely Braveheart and Saving Private Ryan get away with lots of gore - must be because they are true stories).

Scare Factor: This film has always been very scary for me, considering I watched it on the old Betamax when I was about three, but there are some parts that I still feel uncomfortable watching to this day. That whole scene with the clown doll coming to life always freaks me out. It's more than likely the same with 99% of the people who watch it, considering clowns scare everyone anyway! I suppose that's part of the reason I hate Puppethead so much...

Funny Bits: None really, except for that funny little woman with the squeaky voice. She always makes me laugh.

Bad Bits: There's lots of product placement for Star Wars toys, which always makes me link it with E.T. And it makes me want to watch Star Wars all the time. The Ending is bloody confusing, and really bright too, so if you watch it with the light off, it hurts your eyes!

Overall: Not bad at all. Everyone has seen it, and nearly everyone agrees that it is scary. Another plus point for me is the fact that Tobe Hooper (Texas Chainsaw Massacre) directed it. So there.

Rough Plot Outline: A bunch of teenagers go to a spooky old house in the country, and some crazy assed things happen in true Scooby Doo fashion. In the end, that cool bugger up there, Ash (played by Bruce 'If I had long hair I'd be Steve Harris' Campbell), manages to survive for two more sequels, one of which involves him still being stuck at the house, while the other involves him travelling back to medieval England!

Gore Factor: Some truly cool, though a little slapsticky, gory bits in it. Though there are some truly gruesome scenes, they are very tongue in cheek, which makes 'The Evil Dead' often verge on comedy horror, but this doesn't detract from the blood 'n' guts factor too much.

Scare Factor: Minorly spooky, but somehow it doesn't really seem to be out for scares, just a good old bit of tongue in cheek horror nonsense. Some bits could be scary if they weren't so damn cheesy.

Funny Bits: Lots of them! A lot of Ash's one-liners in parts two and three are so damn cheesy they are funny, but at the same time they are cool. Part one has it's moments, but the comedy factor is much more evident in 2 and 3, such as the scene with the headless zombie dancing around, or the part where everything in the house comes to life, or in fact most of part 3 (Army of Darkness - The Medieval Dead).

Bad Bits: Well, if you have a stick firmly up your arse, the fact that it is actually very funny can take from the horror of the film as a whole, but that isn't really a bad thing. Cheesy horror films that take themselves seriously are pish, quite frankly, and you usually end up laughing at them, anyway.

Overall: A nice bit of cheesy horror that proudly says "This film is cheese-on-toast, and we like it!". There's not too many films that can get away with that. Totally cool shit that you can switch your brain off to. If you want a film that will challenge your big IQ, then piss off and watch a courtroom drama or some shite like that.

Rough Plot Outline: A feckin' HUGE Great White shark kills lots of people in a wee seaside town. Basically. Then Grisly old Chief Brody (that guy from Seaquest DSV - Roy Scheider) goes out and hunts the big bugger down. Yay!

Gore Factor: Really gory. Lots of that funky looking blood in water stuff, where everything goes red and cloudy. Oh, some bits are well nasty.

Scare Factor: Even though it isn't a full blown horror film, it is possibly the scariest film I've ever seen in my life. I watched it when I was really young, and ever since I've been shit scared of sharks, and I even get freaked out in swimming pools because of it! I'm sure I'm not the only one who is shit scared of falling into deep water in case there's a shark in it. Aaaargh! I'm still fascinated by them though. I remember once, I was on the boat to the Isle of Man when I was about 4, and watching Jaws 3 on the way! Good viewing choice, boat guys...

Funny Bits: Irishman Robert Shaw is cool as the mad old shark hunter, but apart from that it is very serious. Tense as a fat bird's knicker elastic.

Bad Bits: There's not enough of the shark in it! There's too much acting and stuff! And in the later films, though the shark is still pretty scary, the makers don't even try to make us believe that it is real because you can almost always see the rigging holding it up!!! For Christ's sake!

Overall: Aaaaargh! It's scary as shit! I love it, but I hate it! The idea of being eaten by a shark is terifying, and this film was the epitome of scariness for a lot of people - because sharks are real, and they are mean buggers! It may not strike a lot of people as being a horror film, but it doesn't fit into any other categories does it? Drama perhaps, but that's a very general category. It is scarier than most horror films. Nuff sed. 'Jaws - The Revenge' and the 3D one are pish though.

Rough Plot Outline: A grave yard keeper Francesco Dellamorte (Rupert Everett) looks for love, finds this class looking bird, she gets bitten by the reanimatd corpse of her dead husband, and dies. Oh, and every night, bodies come back from the dead in this guys particular graveyard. Then things get very weird indeed.

Gore Factor: Mmmm, satisfactory, I guess. It doesn't really have anything to write home about, except for a guy getting his head squished under a bus. It's too campy too be shocking, but it's not bad.

Scare Factor: I love the atmosphere of this gothic little Italian town that it's set in, but it isn't really scary either. Spooky, yes. But not scary. You could eat a bucket of cheese and go to bed and probably not get a nightmare.

Funny Bits: Oh, a lot of it, actually. Black humour. There's a good bit when Dellamorte's assistant, a silent Uncle Fester lookalike, goes to town to meet the mayor with him. He sits in front of the Mayor's bitchy little daughter (who looks like Reese Witherspoon...mmm) and promptly vomits all over her. Funny. Or the bit where Dellamorte goes to the hospital cos his mate is in a coma, and starts shooting nurses. This nun comes up behind him and without looking at her, he just turns round and says 'Fuck Off' in his super-cool English voice and blows a hole in her head!!! It's amusing in that sense.

Bad Bits: Er, there are some really shit parts that put me off it a lot. The guy who gets his head squished comes back from the dead and it is so shit looking cos he has a motorbike and everything. Or the mayor's daughter whose head the assistant falls in love with. It sings to him and everything! It is so cheesy, and thus it kinda spoils the atmosphere. But it's not that bad though.

Overall: Cool film. Some bits I was disappointed by, but the rest of the film made up for them. Everett's cut-glass English narration sets it off nicely, and the scenery looks great. The only thing I hate about the film as a whole is the soullessness of the cast. Everett pulls it off nicely, put the rest of the cast just look like bad actors. For example, on finding his daughter's head singing to a fat idiot, the Mayor starts talking to it as though it were an everyday occurrence. A good film with just a bit too many annoying bits.

Rough Plot Outline: My personal favourite Dracula because it is the version that is closest to the book, and the cast is brilliant. Except Keanu Reeves being a bit dodgy.

Gore Factor: Yup. Nice and gory. No real implication of gore, like Texas Chainsaw Masssacre or something similar. If you are expecting it, it's there. Dead on.

Scare Factor: Scary indeed. Very gothic, and fantastically directed by Francis Ford Coppola. Some bits are truly weird. Pretty much anything in and around Dracula's castle is spooky.

Funny Bits: Keanu Reeves. Apart from him though, it's pretty much very serious. Though Anthony Hopkins as Professor Van Helsing is funny. He's got this brilliant bluntness and that rocks.

Bad Bits: Keanu Reeves. I think he's cool, but I think someone else would've been better as Jonathan Harker. I can't think who, like, but Reeves didn't cut the mustard for me. Rupert Everett would have been good, maybe. A bit long winded in bits.

Overall: Excellent film. Not a horror film in the vein of Friday the 13th, but still scary, gory and slick. Lovely jubbly. Whereas in Scream, the cast of well-known actors (I'm using that word loosely) let it down, 'Dracula' has some of the best actors around, thus enabling it to be really good. Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing, Gary Oldman as Dracula, Winona Ryder as Mina and so on - the cast is brilliant.

Rough Plot Outline: Christian Slater meets Brad Pitt, a vampire called Louis, for an interview. Louis tells him of his past life and of his incredible adventures with his rival vampire, Lestat, played by Tom Cruise. Lots of big actors, and a wonderfully gothic setting.

Gore Factor: It is very gory. There seems to be something about recent big budget horror films - they aren't afraid of using lots of gore at all. Snazzy. Some bits make you go 'Eeew', like the scene with the rat, or the bit where Louis chops up a fellow vampire with a scythe. Oh Yeah.

Scare Factor: Yeah. It is scary. Lestat is one scary bugger. He's real nasty. And the brutality of a lot of the scenes involving the vampires are shocking. And the bit where the statues come to life is really spooky.

Funny Bits: Ummm, not really. The odd light hearted moment. Nothing too severe.

Bad Bits: Not much either. It's really enjoyable. Admittedly this is another big budget, big actor favourite of mine, and even though I said low budget is better, you couldn't have made a classy Anne Rice book into a stonking film on the same budget as Friday the 13th. I'm a big hypocrite, so I am. A bit glum too.

Overall: Brilliant. I love this film. To be honest, I couldn't be bothered reading the book, cos I prefer films, so this does the trick. Gory, scary, well acted, stylish. It rocks. I bet the ladies love it - Christian Slater, Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, Antonio Banderas... Pity the female cast isn't as strong. D'oh.

Rough Plot Outline: A serial killer called Buffallo Bill is killing women (in a very Ed Gein inspired way - though thankfully Ed wasn't as gay as him!) and an FBI trainee, Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) enlists the help of the charming, polite Dr Hannibal 'The Cannibal' Lecter, played to perfection by Anthony Hopkins. Lots of fun ensues.

Gore Factor: Yeah, it's bloody. Some very nasty scenes, but not overwrought in order to shock.

Scare Factor: Very. My personal fave bit is the bit where Lecter wears the dudes face. Hell, it made me jump.

Funny Bits: Oh, the bit where Miggs, the guy in the cell next to Lecter wings a handful of love shampoo (you know what I mean) at Clarice. He he he. Sick I know, but it's kinda funny. And lots of Buffallo Bill parts are funny too, like the bit where he dances. A bit mingin' like, but funny nonetheless.

Bad Bits: Too much of the ol' X-Files FBI shite, but well, it is a story about an FBI manhunt, so it's to be expected I guess.

Overall: Truly cool. Anthony Hopkins rules. Pity after this film he went and did 'Shadowlands'. Poo. And thank Christ for the sequel, cos I've missed ol' Hannibal (and again, I didn't read the book, cos books are poo. Well, a lot of them.)

More reviews to come. Any films you'd like to see featured here, e-mail GERARD and say "Hey, hippy, do this film for me!"