Season of the Witch (2011)

How can anyone not love Nic Cage?  Add Ron Perlman to the mix and who knows what you're getting, but it's interesting anyway.  These are 2 legends who tend to venture between the awesome and the awful, and as I'm a fan of both awesome and awful movies, everything they do interests me.  In fact, I'd even call Nic Cage one of my favorite actors.  Season of the Witch is neither awesome or awful, but it's pretty damn entertaining.

It stars Cage and Perlman as shamed knights who have been returned from the Crusades after abandoning their comrades to find the lands devastated by the Black Plague.  The Church believe this to be the work of a witch and they charge the knights with a mission to escort her across mystical wilderness to receive trial.  On their journey, they are faced with more problems than privileges to say the least.  You get the idea.

Season of the Witch is an action/adventure fantasy with some horror elements thrown into the mix.  We've seen it before so we know what to expect.  It offers nothing particularly new but it is entertaining.  It is, however, without flaws; the premise on paper is excellent but the execution of it is above average.  Furthermore, the performances lack strong emotion but are adequate nonetheless.  Also, some of the CGI isn't exactly perfect.  However, considering this was a January movie (in other words crap that the studio wanted rid of), it's a very enjoyable way to spend 90 minutes.  Watching this, I was drawn into the story and I wanted to see how it ended.  The adventure was fun and I enjoyed being a part of it.  One thing that was good about the film was the battle scenes.  They would have been so much better with a little blood and severed limbs, but it was PG-13.  Some of the dialogue was good and cheesy and there was a good sense of fun from the actors, who looked like they were having a good time.  Cage and Perlman had some nice chemistry together and it would be nice to see them work together in  future.

Crtiics and the internet panned this one, but don't listen to them, listen to me - the small minority.  This is entertaining fun and nothing more.  It could have been so much better but it could have been a far lot worse.  I'm proud to have it in my collection for the £3 I spent on it.  If you see it going for cheap then pick it up.

Tub (2010)

Think twice before treating yourself in future, guys.

Werewolf: The Beast Among Us Trailer (2012)

Universal's follow up (of sorts) to Joe Johnston's remake of The Wolfman will go straight to disc on October 9th.  I for one am a huge fan of the remake and can't wait for this sequel.  Check out the trailer and see for yourself how great it looks.

Vampires (1998), Vampires: Los Muertos (2002) & Vampires: The Turning (2005)

It puzzles me that horror Westerns aren't popular.  The Old West is an ideal setting for a horror movie and should be utilised more, with decent budgets to execute the concept.  There has been a few entertaining horror Westerns so far, but they've had to work with what they've had and even though some little entertaining gems have come through, they could have been so much more with a little more financial faith.  John Carpenter adapted both genres into his 1998 movie, Vampires and even though it's set in modern day times, it's still a nice amalgamation of the genres.  Actually, if you want my opinion this movie is a classic.

James Woods plays Jack Crow, a vampire hunter who kills the bloodthirsty fiends for the Catholic church.  However, after a job where they clear out a nest, the master vampire Valek comes along and wipes out the whole crew with the exception of Crow and his buddy Montoya, and a bitten hooker with telepathic visions played by the insatiable Sheryl Lee.  They use her visions to hunt down Valek before he gets an ancient amulet that would really spell disaster for the world.

The first thing noticeable in Vampires is the amazing cinematography and setting, which really helps capture the Southwest.  It's the ideal backdrop for a modern Western.  Another strength is the gore.  It's probably his bloodiest film to date, which was probably out of laziness by Carpenter as during this period he felt burn out.  However, even a burnt out Carpenter can deliver a classic and you can tell there was still some enthusiasm put into this.  His casting was great here and I'm glad he gave James Woods the chance to be a bad ass action hero.  Woods delivers here with some amazing lines that are hilarious.  It's a popcorn movie, but it's also a fresh take on the vampire genre.  If this came out today it'd be regarded as fresh.

A fun sequel starring (soft) rock legend Jon Bon Jovi as Derek Bliss, a vampire hunter who needs to stop a vampire princess from getting her hands on the amulet from the first movie.  He's joined by a group of vampire hunters who help feed the hungry vampires with a slice of STAKE!!!

Bon Jovi was surprisingly good in the lead role.  I really enjoyed his performance.  The movie also had some great gore.  Overall, this isn't as good as the first movie but it's a solid, fun sequel that has rewatch value.  Tommy Lee Wallace, who directed this, also directed Fright Night 2 if that helps.  I think he's a good director.  He's not directed a movie since this one though.

Another entertaining sequel that blends kung fu and horror.  It's terrifically paced, action packed and lots of fun.  Considering it's direct-to-video and an obvious cash-in, it still delivers in entertainment value and has an interesting story to go along with it,  I liked it.

The Burning (1981)

A janitor at a summer camp is burned after a prank goes wrong and becomes disfigured.  After being released from hospital, he returns to the camp to take out his frustrations on some pesky teenagers with a pair of hedge clippers.

This is heralded as a classic among slasher fans, and even though I really enjoy it, I think there was much better slashers in the 80's.  There is one moment though that is out of this world amazing where the deranged killer chops up the teenagers on a raft.

I really don't have much to say about this.  For me, it's just a run-of-the-mill slasher that's enjoyable but not spectacular.  It is worth a watch though and has some nice kills.

The Collector (2009)

I need to stop avoiding movies that are advertised as ''From the creators of Saw'' because I might miss out on gems like this (plus the first 2 Saws were good).  A lot of negative reviews also put this film low on my to do list, but finally I bit the bullet and loved the taste of the lead.

The Collector is similar to the Saw franchise in some ways, but it takes what is good about them and crafts a unique movie with a terrific villain.  To start with, the traps used to kill people in this are similar to Jigsaw's from the Saw movies.  However, Saw can always be praised as being a series for gruesome, violent deaths.  The Collector most certainly has gruesome, violent deaths but it doesn't rely on them.  Instead, they're an additional treat in a cat and mouse movie that is full of atmosphere and suspense.  Really it has all the ingredients of a great horror movie about a maniacal murderer; an interesting villain with unique killing methods, a lead character to root for and great kills thrown in the mix.  Furthermore, in addition to the atmosphere and suspense, the film is dark and claustrophobic and isn't apologetic for being so either.  All of these elements are aided by intentionally dirty cinematography that makes it reminiscent of an 80's exploitation film and an in-your-face score that fucks with your mind.  Another great thing about this film is that despite it's unforgiving, relentless horror, it's a fun flick.  If you're not a fan of horror then you're probably going to hate it, but it's the type of film made for the love of horror.  Call it a slasher, call it torture porn, but to me, it's just a fantastic horror movie.

The sequel is out later this year and I for one cannot wait to see it.

The Mist (2007)

Why did it take me so long to watch this?  I'll admit, I'm not one to ever watch things right away, but I'm trying to change and become more regular at it.  But nearly 5 years for The Mist.  I'm a fool.  I always knew I would get to it, and 5 years later I have.  One of the reasons I put it off was a couple of my friends telling me how great it was.  Those friends are pussies when it comes to horror, so I didn't believe them.  Maybe I should get my head out my arse and listen to more recommendations.

As you may know, I'm trying to watch every single Stephen King penned story adapted to the screen. I thought I'd play it safe tonight and go with one I felt I'd enjoy.

Once again Frank Darabont directs a Stephen King story, and rightly so, because he's the best at it (I mean, he did give us one of the best films ever with The Shawshank Redemption) and with the material to work with here, he's brought another classic.  And let me stress the word ''classic'' because it's a modern horror masterpiece.

The premise is simple - a man, his son and their neighbour head into town the morning after a thunderstorm, only to be hauled up in a supermarket with a mysterious mist outside with something even more mysterious lurking in it.  And it's totally different from The Fog.

Everything about this screams generic.  For a start, the title just reminds you of Carpenter's classic I mentioned in the previous paragraph.  In addition, the premise isn't even the most exciting Stephen King story on paper.  However, what is contained within these false assumptions is something special.  The atmosphere is amazing throughout, with a constant feeling of threat and claustrophobia.  Furthermore, the performances are fantastic but that's no surprise considering it stars Thomas Jane and William Sadler., but it's Marica Harden who truly shines. It maintains constant suspense and climaxes with an unforgettable ending.

Classic.