LEMON TREE PASSAGE IS THE MOST ANNOYING FILM I'VE SEEN IN AGES

I can put up with a lot of nonsense in horror films. I can suspend my disbelief to quite a substantial extent. But only if the filmmakers give me some compelling reason to do so, and having a flagrant disregard for narrative is most definitely not a reason. Say hello to LEMON TREE PASSAGE (2014).

And then quickly say goodbye to it, because it's confusing rubbish.

It starts promisingly enough, and is a fantastically lovely looking film throughout (which you'd expect, since this comes from two former ad men) but it's like finding out that pretty girl at the party has a habit of missing out entire sentences during conversation, and as such leaves you wondering quite what she's on about. EXACTLY.

Three American backpackers are chilling out on a beach in New South Wales, where they meet two friendly Australian lads. Soon they're swapping spooky stories around a campfire and this is where we're introduced to the tragic story of Lemon Tree Passage (which is a real place). Apparently, if motorists speed down it they see ghostly phenomena, in part due to a supposed accident in which a motorcyclist was killed by another vehicle.

Of course, they all decide to go speed down this road and, sure enough, they all (well, almost all of them) see a weird bright light behind them. "Okay," you think, "they've disturbed the motorcyclist's ghost and now it's going to get them." That's even what the official synopsis says. But hang on just a minute!

The film starts with this rubbish Youtube clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmAynGPEL9w

and then a kind of 'prologue' in which a skinhead is bothered by a ghost in his garage. Then we meet the main characters and it all flows quite naturally. Although, hang on, back at the nice Australian lads' house we find out they live with the skinhead from earlier. THAT'S WEIRD. And now what's this? The one tourist who claimed not to see the ghostly light is now having visions of, it appears, a car of teenagers? THAT'S WEIRD.

Deciding to properly document the spooky light, they go back to the road in question, where one of the Australians promptly disappears. Meanwhile, back at the house, Skinhead Housemate is being bothered by more ghostly visions. Wait, what. But he didn't go with them before, so why is he...? THAT'S WEIRD.

It doesn't take long from this point for the characters to stop acting even remotely like real people and purely as creatures who serve the plot. No explicit spoilers, in case you're mental and feel the need to find out for yourself, but you would think that, after finding your friends dead, the last thing you'd do is take the time to set up a campfire (a big no-no in Australia anyway) and sleep in the very same woods your friends were just MURDERED IN.

And if it's a ghost they've woken up, why is bothering Skinhead Housemate? Is it even the same spirit? And why was it bothering him before they drove down the road? And if it is capable of giving people scary visions to fuck with them and make them truly believe they're bleeding, etc, before abruptly reverting everything back to normal (which is actually a pretty cool idea) AND it can move objects like, you know, a ghost, why OH WHY does it then feel the need to make a really, really lame booby trap? THE GHOST MAKES A BOOBY TRAP.

IT MAKES A BOOBY TRAP.

I can't even.

Okay, so the person killed in this manner is shown to reference another death, except that death doesn't actually involve an actual booby trap set-up. I just...WHAT IS GOING ON.

The biggest sin LEMON TREE PASSAGE commits is that it purposefully withholds information from the audience. This does not generate tension, but instead is a slap in the face to that very same audience. Is it just one ghost? Why is it being, apparently, sympathetic to that one person but then acts vengeful towards others? Why is Skinhead Housemate now in the same woods? Why is the ghost telling him to find one of the characters when it, er, has clearly found them already? Why, after two people are shown running away, in the next scene is one of them now inexplicably tied to a tree? AND WHERE IS ALL THE ROPE COMING FROM?

Why is all this happening?

It's because the filmmakers hate you. They hate you, and think that pulling all these "tricks" and refusing to establish clear rules for the threat (or even the clear nature of it, as suddenly this ghost can possess people so OH WHAT I GIVE UP). I give up. All they had to do was include a few extra scenes to show exactly how Skinhead  scratch all that. No amount of extra scenes could stop the characters from acting like non-people, or adequately explain why the filmmakers are so hellbent on pretending to tell two completely different stories when the actual story would be a fully worthwhile idea if properly focused on.

But something that really bothered me is, the road just doesn't feel remote. There are plenty of places here (in Australia) where you could drive for a while and only see trees (typically when you're driving past/through a national park), but there are several points in the film where I got the impression they were remarkably close to civilisation (including an end shot that shows adjacent farm fields). I thought "Maybe that's just me. Maybe it is a surprisingly remote road." But it isn't. Look at this map. There are very few points where there's just trees/fields - ie. it really wouldn't take a person on foot too long to reach help.

LEMON TREE PASSAGE starts with a decent idea but then thoroughly pisses it away. Or rather, pisses in the face of the audience. It's riddled with confusing scene transitions, incoherent structure, far-too-coincidental clues (a bloody PHOTOCOPY OF A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE? Are you serious? Not only AN ARTICLE THAT EXPLICITLY STATES WHO THE GHOST IS but for some weird reason it's a PHOTOCOPY. Why has the ghost PHOTOCOPIED IT?) and oh yeah A GHOST THAT MAKES A BOOBY TRAP.

I give this film -657908 out of a possible 100968745.

WHITEDAY: YOU GOT SILENT HILL IN MY KOREAN SCHOOL!

There are a whole bunch of wildly different things I'm going to post about, including my thoughts on STRANGER THINGS (I loved it!) and MONSTER TOYS (I love them!) but for now, here's a quick bit of guff about WHITEDAY: A LABYRINTH NAMED SCHOOL (I love that title!).

WHAT IS IT?! 

It's a Korean survival horror computery game from 2001 that was never released. So how did I get my hands on it? C'mon, this is the internet; you can get ANYTHING on here. A new version of this is currently being worked on, but for now those with the gumption can (pretty easily, to be fair) find the original.

But WHAT IS IT?!

You're a Korean schoolboy (I called my character Jimmy Jimjams) who pops to his school at 10pm with the intention of returning a diary belonging to a girl he fancies (she drops it near him in the intro cutscene). And also to plant chocolates in her locker or on her desk or something. White Day is March 14th, and is basically a second Valentines Day, which explains the chocolates, but not why little Jimmy Jimjams is doing all this at night time like a mini Korean Cadbury's Milk Tray Man.

The instant Jimmy steps into the school, someone OR SOMETHING WOOOAAAHHH locks him in! But, levelheaded and realising things will probably get quite weird pretty quickly, I sent Jimjams into the toilets to open all the stall doors. Maybe someone would have left something useful in one of them, because video games. But no, all I found was flatly painted floor-toilets:

Shortly after this, I bumped into two female classmates having a giggle. Why were they in the school after hours? I do not know. They didn't seem very impressed by Jimmy's presence though, especially when he started asking them about the girl he fancies. However, all this was cut short by the sudden blare of the fire alarm. One girl legged it, the other hid by a vending machine and covered her ears. I don't think Korean schools have the most effective fire evacuation plans. Being the incomparable Jimmy Jimjams, I used a stepladder and wirecutters to enter the air vent in the ladies bathroom, through which I crawled like Tom Cruise in all the Mission: Impossibles until I reached the room with the fusebox. Which was full of scrap and looked all rusty until I turned the alarm off, then it magically turned spacious and neat. UH OH SPOOKY STUFF.

Oh yeah, and when Jimmy was in the vents he saw the janitor beat the shit out of a man and drag him into the stairwell. STRANGER DANGER.

Jimmy rightly felt like a hero and the girl by the vending machine...didn't really treat him like one. Nevertheless, she did tell him how to get out of the school and gave him a key to aid in his utterly ridiculous quest. But terror reared its bald head! The janitor reappeared and chased Jimmy! Luckily, the girl who'd legged it grabbed Jimjams and pulled him into a hiding spot. Once the coast was clear, the girl did what she did best and ran off again. I was all alone. Jimmy was all alone. We were all alone.

I explored a few rooms and found a few ominous notes concerning ghost stories tied to the school. Ten minutes into the game and I'm already convinced this place is more haunted than every castle in England combined. The sound design also does a good job of giving you the willies, as it's all non-musical eerie effects and whooshy low-pitched loops. But I, and Jimmy Jimjams, will soldier on and brave this creepy, near-empty building in the name of...infatuation? Slightly creepy junior love? Misguided romance? Yeah, let's go with that. 

However, the next thing standing in little Jimmy's way is this suspiciously dark hallway:

I just know there's going to be a spooky noise at some random point along here. I just know it. 

Until next time, here's this:

GHOSTBUSTERS: EASY ON THE EYES AND BRAIN

'One sentence' review:  

A clumsy start gives way to a fun, if insubstantial, explosion of neon ghosts.

'Significantly more sentences' review: 

"Please don't be the Mayor from Jaws" is probably my favourite line from the new GHOSTBUSTERS, and it creates an interesting parallel for the film itself. It's delivered by Erin (Kristen Wiig) as she pleads with the Mayor of New York (Andy Garcia) to do something about the impending ghostly apocalypse. The joke works because we know what the Mayor from Jaws was like, as it is an archetype used in multiple films right to this day - it is familiarity and expectation wrapped up into a one-liner, things that plague this new version of everyone's favourite paranormal investigators in both good and bad ways.

For instance, the NY Mayor knows about the ghosts, and actually has Homeland Security working on the problem. That's a bit different (although later on it looks like HS expect to take the ghosts on with conventional firearms, which doesn't make any sense at all). It's a shame this neat twist on expectations isn't full realized over the course of the film.

After a video of a ghostly encounter in a mansion comes to the attention of her boss, Erin loses her respectable Physics teaching job and ends up forming a paranormal investigations team with her old childhood friend Abby (Melissa McCarthy) and Abby's new colleague Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon). Soon enough they're joined by Kevin (Chris Hemsworth) a fantastically dense beefcake receptionist, and Patty (Leslie Jones) a subway worker who turns up at their office after witnessing a weird glowing bomb-thing explode, followed by an apparition.

Turns out a creepy janitor called Rowan (Neil Casey, all bug-eyed and pasty) is planting the 'ghost bombs' around New York in order to summon spirits. Once he's done this enough times he plans to unleash the aforementioned spooky apocalypse, for reasons and in a manner I won't spoil. I actually quite liked this "villain" even though he wasn't scary or anything, because there are clear echoes of Janosz, the pasty creep from GHOSTBUSTERS II - he's just a weird, vaguely pathetic guy who's finally found a way to get power over those around him.

Of course the general plot will be familiar, since this is a remake (although why on earth they didn't just make a sequel I'll never understand, as it could work so easily) - but the biggest criticism I have is everything's a little too easy. For example, two or three times the Mayor's office publicly labels the Ghostbusters frauds (in an effort to cover up the ghosts, because they don't want mass hysteria) - except this has literally no impact on them at all, save for bemoaning the fact they've been labelled frauds. It doesn't stop people calling them with ghost sightings; it doesn't see them getting booed at or ignored. No effect at all.

Patty displays extensive knowledge of New York, which would make her a perfect fit for the team - except this knowledge is only used to present interesting facts for places the team go to anyway. You could argue she provides context, but it would have made a lot more narrative sense had her knowledge been called on to help figure out where Rowan was using as his 'apocalyptic nexus point' 

ie. "He needs somewhere with an extremely high psychic disturbance, but this is New York so that could be anywhere, arf arf!" 

"Hey, I can think of a few places, such as THIS and THIS. Let's go INVESTIGATE!"

Erin and Abby, too, start off as enemies (or frenemies) as Abby published a book she wrote with Erin about ghosts, without telling her. This is swept under the carpet pretty quickly and provides zero further tension. Abby does say she's doing it as a revenue stream, except the team have got no money worries at all, aside from not being able to afford the iconic fire station as a base. In the original, they form Ghostbusters as a business as much as due to a desire to investigate ghosts. This version never feels like a business, which might be an odd nitpick, but it ties in with the whole 'easy' notion. They can magically afford to hire a receptionist, rent a place and buy all the clearly specialised scientific stuff Holtzmann needs, even though they've lost their jobs and have no funding. 

Holtzmann is this team's Egon (with all her own entertaining idiosyncrasies), and comes up with all the equipment they use to bust the ghosts - although pretty soon all the weapons are capable of obliterating the spirits completely, so they don't even need to bother trapping them. Just zap 'em and move on. Part of the fun/tension of the originals was whether they'd successfully capture the ghosts and just how much damage they'd cause in the process - it was chaos every time they fired up the proton packs. There is also, sadly, no reference to 'crossing the streams' this time around.

Having said that, a couple of the new weapons are pretty cool and Holtzmann gets a moment to shine in the climax with her own special equipment. This sort of trade-off happens throughout - there'll be a weak riff on the original film, followed by a decent use of the new version of things. I do particularly like the way they get their logo, how Rick Moranis's panicked knocking on the fancy restaurant windows is referenced and how the villain's final form is requested/chosen. Almost everything Kevin says or does is delightfully idiotic and the four ladies have excellent on-screen chemistry (as you'd well expect, given their comedic histories). GHOSTBUSTERS is a very easy film to watch, which is both part of its charm and downfall.

It's also easy to just point at the original film and go "that was better", but why? How? I loved the original ghost effects (and being around 6 years old when I first saw any of it, they scared the crap out of me but also fascinated me - as in "What IS that?"*) but I also like these new neon ghosts, despite the lack of variety and scariness. Are the original films scarier? I would say so, partly due to the general lack of tension and unsettling weirdness in the new version. Plus, there were a few little kids in the screening for the new one, and none of them sounded or looked too bothered by the ghosts, so I'd hazard a guess they didn't find it scary. Although to give credit where it's due, the first ghost made me jump when she changed, even though I knew it was coming haha.

What I do think this film should definitely have kept from the originals is the rich sense of mythology. They could have very, very easily used a copy of Tobin's Spirit Guide to reference the types of manifestations. In the originals, there's 'real' history and menace to the ghosts - in this one, they're just ghosts. Not ancient gods or conquerors. Just...ghosts.

However, and in case it reads like I'm being grumpy in a "the original is far superior wah wah wah" way, this lack of substance is actually what helps make the new version so easy to take in. The special effects are cool to look at and it doesn't tax your brain to figure anything out. Stuff just happens. The team feels like a team. Some jokes are terrible but there are more than enough decent ones thrown in - the script is at its funniest when the humour comes from the situation, rather than when a character is clearly making a joke. The cameos from the original cast (minus Moranis) are fun to look out for. 

As a final thought, despite one (actually decent) joke involving terrorism, this film is remarkably free of any real world terror. You'd think finding a bomb-like thing shooting out weird neon light in a subway tunnel would cause total panic, or there might be the suggestion that the ghosts could be a symptom of a chemical weapon, etc etc etc but thankfully the film never goes this route. They're ghosts and they're real. It is refreshing, in a world where news and social media offer a constant barrage of horror and fear, to be able to spend two hours soaking up pure escapism. And I cannot see anything wrong with that at all.

I give the new GHOSTBUSTERS a rating of ONE AND A HALF THUMBS UP or IT HAS IT'S FAULTS BUT THAT DOESN'T DEPRIVE THE FILM OF ITS OVERALL FUN IMPACT AND IF YOU THOUGHT THE POST TITLE WAS GOING TO MAKE SOME REMARK ON GENDER SHAME ON YOU.

nb. from what I heard of it in the movie, the new theme tune by Fallout Boy and Missy Elliott didn't sound too bad (and if you've been eyeballing this blog long enough it's pretty evident that my taste is a lot darker/weirder than them), although I do really enjoy this "trailer" theme:

* I distinctly recall being at junior school in London and one of my friends brought a Scholastic Ghostbusters book in to show us all, that had loads of photos from the film in it. We were all scared by the library ghost's  monstrous form and took it in turns daring each other to open the book at that page and look for as long as possible at the photo. And now look at me hahaha

THE ONE WHERE I TALK ABOUT A BOOK SERIES I'M READING

Hello there. I don't have an awful lot of internet access so I don't get to update this as much as I want. However, here I am right now so make the most of it, like I'm your partner and you haven't spoken to me in weeks. Cherish me, Internet. CHERISH ME AND MY WORDS.

I like to read. Of course I do. What sort of writer doesn't? A TERRIBLE ONE, that's what! I mean, who! In order to broaden my horizons, I started to actively pick random books from my local library to read. Some were so mundane I can't even remember them, but others were a lot more intriguing. Case in point: the work of John Connolly. Or more precisely, his Charlie Parker series.

I stumbled across this author by searching on the library's database for 'horror anthologies' – they didn't have his Nocturnes collection checked in, but they did have THE WHISPERERS, so I gave that a go. The premise sounded a little dull – someone's smuggling artefacts stolen from the Middle East – but the promise of 'unnatural' horror reeled me in none-the-less.

The book itself took a little getting into, as it takes several chapters before it turns to the point of view of ex-cop Charlie Parker – in this book, he's lost his PI licence after the events in a previous book, and is trying to figure out quite what to do. And then he's asked to look into the suicide of a former soldier, which sets him on a path that ends in very explicit supernatural horror (though not a gratuitous amount). All the stuff in the Middle East was a bit boring, but as soon as we're in Parker's head the story comes alive. He's a man transformed by past tragedy into a relentless machine fuelled by the pursuit of justice, but this is leavened with a sharp wit and down-to-earth approach to the more macabre elements of the story/his world that really appealed to me.

THE WHISPERERS is the tenth Charlie Parker novel and has plenty of mentions of past adventures, and those he encountered. One such character in particular plays an integral (though low key) role in this story. I enjoyed the book but only really when Parker's narrating events – this was a character I wanted to spend more time with. So, back to the library where I found THE LOVERS (as luck would have it, the ninth book in the series).

This was a lot better. Some chapters still abandon Parker's point of view in order to detail events, but the overall plot of two, apparently resurrected, killers with ties to Parker's familial past was far more engaging than the follow-up book. Was this a sign that John Connolly's work is better earlier on? I wanted to find out (as well as learn more about the various cases touched by the unnatural that Parker finds himself embroiled in).

This time the library had THE KILLING KIND and THE WHITE ROAD available. Both from earlier in the series and, as luck would have it, the third and fourth Charlie Parker novels, respectively. I've just finished THE KILLING KIND and, although there are touches of the supernatural, it's more about twisted humans than any kind of demonic entity or group – yet, it still felt refreshing and exciting to read. Basically, when a load of human bones are uncovered by a remote lake, it sets off a chain of events involving a 1960s religious commune, a conspiracy, and a creepy maniac obsessed with deadly spiders and insects. There are very few interstitial chapters removed from Parker's POV, which I think greatly helped the flow. Not that I think John Connolly's writing suffers when he turns to a typical third person omniscient view, but when you're leaving behind someone with as much character as Parker, you feel it.

In any case, it's exciting (for me) to have a new series worth checking out and hunting down, especially considering it's classed as a contemporary 'thriller/crime' series, which typically I find quite boring (though I enjoy older pulp crime stories). I'm going to start on THE WHITE ROAD today, and have just picked up THE REAPERS (which is set just before THE LOVERS) and EVERY DEAD THING (the very first Parker novel) so have those to get stuck into, too. Watch out for more opinions! WATCH OUT!

DARK WAS THE NIGHT [REVIEW] aka TIME FOR A SENSIBLE POST TITLE

Something's in the forest around Maiden Woods, and it's up to the grief-stricken sheriff and his former big city deputy to figure out what. Shot through an icy blue lens and set in a small town on the verge of a snowstorm, DARK WAS THE NIGHT (2014) is as much a character study as it is a creature feature and is all the better for it.

Sheriff Paul Shields (Kevin Durand from Vikings, Real Steel, a whole ton of stuff) blames himself for the death of his young son, even though every single other person in town (including his estranged wife and other son) know it was a terrible accident. I've read other reviews that point out Durand carries the whole film on his shoulders with his performance, and I'm inclined to agree; though I'd say he wears it on his face more than anything. He spends the entire film looking knackered and on the verge of tears, yet holds it back with no small effort so he can concentrate on protecting his town...even though this is also something he doesn't, privately, feel equipped to do.

A dark shape stalks around the outside of his home at night, startling his son and leaving weird hoof-like prints that stretch from the woods all the way through town. Once the townsfolk wake up to these, they're suitably unnerved and straight away, the film's blanketed in a sense of unease as subtle as the gently falling snow. At first, the rational response is someone's taking a creepy prank too far, but once evidence starts piling up involving claw marks and dead bodies, Paul and his deputy (played by Lukas Haas, Touch) start to suspect old monster stories told by good-natured barman Earl (the always reliable Nick Damici, Stakeland) might have some basis in fact.

DARK WAS THE NIGHT may have a borderline generic title, and you could argue the plot itself follows familiar beats, but this doesn't stop it from being an atmospheric, occasionally tense film. Director Jack Heller (a producer on Bad Milo and The Scribbler) shows he knows how to handle suspense and the monster by giving us glimpses of it in the background and as it darts behind trees/into the surrounding darkness. I even got one really good, genuine jump scare out of the film that has everything to do with careful framing and delayed expectation, rather than a blast of loud music. Writer Tyler Hisel papers over any b-movie familiarity with strong characters and the clever decision to offer clues as to the creature's origin rather than a concrete reason.

The only two places the film stumbles are when Paul's wife talks about her son's death, and when we finally get a good look at the monster. Regards the wife's conversation, although it's not a deal-breaker, it does feel heavyhanded in a film that shows otherwise commendable restraint. The monster might elicit more than a groan, though. I like the design a lot (though I can't really picture it surviving in the freezing temperatures), I'm just not keen on the CG fx as it breaks the immersion (mainly through slightly wonky animation). It's a shame, too, because up until the end, the most we see of the monster is delivered through shadow-drenched practical effects, like this:

I won't reveal the creature here as that'd spoil half the fun of this film, but I do think it's pretty unique – in look, if not form. There're some nice gore fx that serve the story and you really get a sense that this monster is powerful, lithe and smart; in other words, a worthy enemy. For the human characters: aside from the Sheriff, Deputy Donny also gets just enough backstory to flesh out a good-natured personality that shows hints of a recent, troubled past. There's a lot to like about DARK WAS THE NIGHT, and I think it's a real testament to it that I already feel like watching it again. I'm sure I could have come up with a far snappier conclusion, but sometimes a perfectly solid sentiment is just as good, if not better. A bit like this film, really. Oooooh there we go.

OBLIGATORY MUSIC VIDEO THAT HAS NOTHING DIRECTLY TO DO WITH THE REST OF THE POST!

BEAM ME UP, B MOVIE!

I'd like to start this post by asking you a few simple questions:

• Do you wake up in the middle of the night to find the contents of your kitchen rearranged in spectacular fashion?

• Have all the family photos inexplicably vanished?

• Did something set off your burglar alarm, yet every door and window remained locked?

• Has your youngest son blamed weird behaviour on an "imaginary" friend?

• Bleeding from your face? Headbutting windows? Doing a wee in your pants in public?

• Are financial problems providing both familial stress and a convenient way to brush off all this weirdness?

• Did you use the internet to find answers to these problems, and discover that you're being targeted by aliens?

If you answered YES to most or all of these, then I'm afraid you're stuck in the fantastically generic DARK SKIES (2013). If you're also in love with sound design that blasts music and sound fx at a volume 50% louder than everything else, then buddy you're really in trouble.

Nope. Wrong one!

The Somethings are a Typical American Family. Mum's a realtor, dad's a I-don't-know-what-but-it-involves-getting-contracts, the youngest son is prone to talking about a character from his dreams and the oldest son is hanging around with an older boy and discovering girls. They've got Normal Everyday Problems, just like you or I sometimes face! Dad's hoping he gets some contract for something, mum's trying to sell a shitty house, the youngest thinks their arguments mean they're splitting up and the teen is quite bland, really. Boy oh boy, what these squares really need is some excitement in their life! Like, cheap jump scares and horrific dream visions!

Nope. Still the wrong one!

Not only that, but they should probably get lumbered with The World's Most Patronising Cop. But they're not alone, as these guys only really seem to work in horror movies. Weird things happening? "It'll be the kids playing pranks!" they say. But the shit going down here is fucking MENTAL, like LITERALLY UNEXPLAINABLE BY NATURAL LAWS.  "It'll be the kids playing pranks!" they say. "Mine were like it ha ha ha! Kids, eh? Seesh!"

Maybe their friends and neighbours will help? Not if the house is bombarded by hundreds of suicidal birds, they won't! Suddenly, you're all 'dangerous' and 'suspicious'. Better than 'knee-jerk reactionary', pal! What can a family facing such a dilemma possibly DO? What can they DO? Oh lordy there must be something they can DO!

WAIT.

The internet! That knows everything!

Okay, let's cut them some slack. Fifteen years ago you'd have asked a librarian. Nowadays, you ask the internet. But, like medical self-diagnosis, it can't always be trusted. So that's when you turn to the experts!

Nope. STILL WRONG!

You find the dude who played J. Jonah Jameson but who now looks like Miguel Ferrer doing an Indiana Jones impression. Who lives in a dingy house filled with newspapers. Clearly, the man knows his stuff. If he has a handkerchief, you just know it'll be embroidered with 'EXPERT'.

So he tells the family some stuff, and my attention wandered for a considerable amount of time and then the aliens are attacking the house! OH NO. There they are, all shadowy and spindly, yet flooding everywhere with bright white light and altering reality for some reason that only comes into play now and not at any point before. For instance, a door is shown bulging and straining unnaturally as some terrible blinding white force pushes through--but it was actually the dad, desperate to rescue his sons! Oh no that's not the aliens messing with reality, that's cheap and lazy filmmaking. But then they DO mess with reality and for some reason make the SPOILERS. Oooof, nearly ruined it! I mean, in a way the filmmakers couldn't. But god bless 'em if they didn't try! The film then ends in a way that appears to set up events that I think would be infinitely more interesting to examine than every single thing that came before. Paradoxically, the conclusion is also something those of us in the business refer to as "bullshit".

Oh, I give up.

Should you disparage a film for being so predictable you could set your watch by the story beats? Or is this simply reliability? Can something be a guilty pleasure if you don't derive pleasure from it, nor feel guilty about watching it YET don't actively hate it? That's your homework for this week as I'm still struggling to figure it out.

Argh. And this is wrong, too. Ridiculous.

WHOOPS! WHERE DID THE TIME GO?

Hello, internet!

I've been a bit quiet on here as of late, due to having too much damn fun. I visited Paris with my better half and showed her the desolate sights of Scunthorpe, which in turn have inspired me to take a crack at a straightforward crime story (albeit one with horror undertones). There's a lagoon here called Ashby Ville that used to be a quarry. Now it attracts swimmers, jetskiers and sunbathers in the summer months. It has also swallowed up a lot of children, their young bodies caught in hidden currents and tangleweed. It's a peculiar location that elicits both joy and despair in equal measure, as adults casually splash around above the place someone's son or daughter drowned.

If you've never been to Scunthorpe, this picture tells you all you need to know.

Due to my recent gallivanting around, I spent a lot of time looking out train windows as scenery blurred past. There are a lot of forgotten places beside train tracks. Old station and utility huts, barns, houses, warehouses and office blocks. All now reduced to piles of broken bricks, empty shells and derelict symbols of failed businesses. If a body were to be hidden in one such place, I think there'd be a strong chance the local wildlife would find it before the police. How many murder victims, homeless adults, runaway children, have met such fates? Lost in one way or another, before time and environment causes their body to fade. The train tracks are littered with bones, but they're buried so no one knows they're there.

And what if it was your job to find these bones? Where would you start? Where can you start, when even the memory of who they belonged to is dead and buried? And what if instead of hopelessness, you felt motivated by a relentless need for justice, for answers? I hope to answer these questions. In story form! I've not turned detective in real life. Or have I?

LIGHTS...CAMERA...RUN LIKE FKKK

Pardon the badly censored swear in the title. Recently, I watched two films that have a lot in common but couldn't be more different. THE INNKEEPERS is a recent haunted hotel story by Ti West and GRAVE ENCOUNTERS is a fairly recent 'found footage' type effort about a (supposedly) haunted asylum. Both feature protagonists obsessed with documenting supernatural events, both have a palpable sense of tension and suspense, and both are horror, but are in many ways opposite sides of the same coin.

"Am I dead? Of CORPSE I am!"

THE INNKEEPERS focuses on Luke and Claire (a very funny Pat Healy and super sweet Sara Paxton), as they staff a hotel on the last weekend before it closes its doors for good. A very small number of guests are in attendance, but otherwise Luke and Claire don't have much to do other than joke about and get drunk. Luke's working on a website about the hotel and its tragic past, and Claire convinces him that now is the perfect opportunity to try and get solid proof that a woman's ghost haunts the place. So, it's with audio recorder in hand that she starts (by herself) recording the ambient noise in each room to see if she can capture any peculiar activity.

The Innkeepers appears indicative of Ti West's M.O.: very slow, deliberate pace, before a final blast of energy. His previous film HOUSE OF THE DEVIL utilized this approach, but whereas I found it got a bit silly (I know, this coming from a guy whose favorite book is Night of the Crabs) The Innkeepers is far more successful. I wouldn't call the majority of it a comedy, so much as humorous. Luke and Claire's dialogue is written to be realist (not realistic; there is a difference) and positively sparkles. Hmm, that was an unnecessarily fruity sentence. When an angry female guest complains to Luke, and says "I'm in room 254" he responds with "I know. I work in the hotel." There are brief moments of fear, but these are achieved mainly through a fantastic use of long stretches of time in which you're certain something is bound to happen. It is that rare film: one that makes you question if what you saw was real. Were those eyes in the darkness? Was there something wrong with that shadow? Probably not, but you can't help but wonder...

The only things that let The Innkeepers down is the slightness to it - it very much feels like a set-up to a punchline, its predictability and a couple of potential plot holes (that I won't mention as they incorporate major spoilers). Maybe there are more themes at work, and sometimes the journey is more important than the destination, but these things stopped the film from being a 'must-recommend'. The last five or so minutes are pretty intense, though.

Something on your face, mate.

Next: GRAVE ENCOUNTERS. If the words 'found footage' make you die a little inside, then you've probably avoided this. I did, and at a great disservice. It's brilliant, but deceptively so. The set-up is no great shakes: a documentary film crew for a ghost show (Grave Encounters) film in different 'haunted' places. For this, their sixth (and ultimately final) show, they spend the night in an abandoned mental hospital. The first half an hour, maybe, is a little boring and doesn't do much to get your attention as the crew (belligerent presenter Lance, cute 'occult specialist' Sasha, tech guys TJ and Matt, and 'psychic' Houston) set up, do cut-aways, and basically do very little. We get some insight into the bullshit behind the scenes - bribing a gardener to make a ghost story up; the psychic is an actor - which is interesting, but it's when they start to explore the building that things really kick off.

Are there ghosts in the building? Several shots are set up to reveal very clear (and obvious) answers, such as a window opening on its own and a moving wheelchair, but it's as the night progresses that things get more messed up. The caretaker is supposed to let them out at 6am, so where is he? Why is it still dark? Why can't everyone hear each other over the radios, even though they apparently work fine? What "manipulated Sasha's hair"? [Which leads to one of the many fun elements as everyone else tries to convince the 'spirit' to manipulate their hair]. These are people who want to believe, but are too cynical to take things seriously. Or rather, the potential danger seriously. If there are ghosts, what harm can they do? Plenty, it turns out.

I thought Cabin in the Woods goes balls to the wall (it does) but Grave Encounters takes its premise and delivers again, and again, and again. Just as you think they're going to stick with typical 'fleeting glimpses of things' the filmmakers dial it up a notch. Then another notch. Then go "Nuts to this" and throw in ideas that were (to me) completely out of left field but utterly ingenious (let's just say, that although it's established the building is very big, that's not the reason everyone gets lost).

This film also makes you watch for things that probably aren't there, although I'm CONVINCED that there are points when something is literally over a character's shoulder. Just for a moment. It's as suspenseful as The Innkeepers, with an effective a pay-off, but more so. The Innkeepers unnerves you, Grave Encounters scares the shit out of you. I didn't think a horror film (let alone a modern one) could do that (although Insidious was really creepy in places) so for that alone it should be applauded.

Final note: don't ever, ever use a building's service tunnels if you can help it.

TRICK OR TREAT, SMELL MY FEET, GIVE ME SOMETHING GOOD TO EAT!

It's Halloween! Yippee! Let's start proceedings with a naff metal song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOAl0enE7kI

Now that's out the way, make yourself comfortable whilst I bombard you with film and game recommendations for this most spooky of days. BOMBARD!!!

IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS (1995) is brilliant. WHY? OH GOD WHY? you scream. The premise is ripped right out of the Twilight Zone but filled with enough ideas and style to make it more, oh so much more: Top-selling horror writer Sutter Cane has disappeared. Insurance investigator John Trent (Sam Neill) is called in to find him and make sure it's not all some sort of hoax. Unfortunately for Trent, and the rest of the world, Cane has found a way to alter reality via his writing.

Although Cane's editor and publishing house make a big deal about how he outsells Stephen King (making King the reference point for Cane's brand of literary horror), I think this film is best summed-up by the notion that it's "the best story H.P. Lovecraft never wrote" (as stated by a critic, but I can't remember who). You get people turning into monsters, stories that can send the reader insane, ancient monstrous gods, the strong suggestion that what's unfolding can not be stopped...it's all solid horror gold.

Sam Neill turns in one of the best performances of his career (but to be fair I can't remember the last film I saw him in where I thought he was rubbish) and most of the supporting actors are also decent. Jurgen Prochnow plays Cane with a streak of blasé arrogance, with just a touch of pity for those who can't appreciate how powerful he is. Julie Carmen isn't bad as Linda Styles, Cane's editor, even though there's a section where it's difficult to tell if she's acting weird because she's being affected by Cane, or if she can't actually act in the manner she's supposed to be acting, if that makes any sense. And you've got Charlton Heston as the boss of the publishing house, who doesn't really do much but then he doesn't need to - he's Charlton Heston!

There's so much to love about IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS that I can't even tell you. And almost all the samples used on the Hard Wired album by industrial band FrontLine Assembly came from this film, which is also pretty cool. "Giving me the power to make it all real" indeed!

TRICK R TREAT is a more recent film (in regards to appearing on DVD - it was actually made in 2007) and follows the citizens of a small American town one Halloween night as their individual stories and paths cross: a family man has a killer secret; a reclusive old man meets a relentless trick or treater; a college girl is apprehensive about her 'first time'; some kids play a mean prank and get their just desserts.

Some of the stories are a little obvious, in that you can guess where they're going before they get there, and there's the feeling that a couple of segue scenes are missing, but other than that TRICK R TREAT is a solid and entertaining horror film with a surprisingly stellar cast. And a cute (and deadly?) main character called Sam (the kid on the poster), who pops up in most of the stories, or hovers on the periphery of them. Which leads me nicely onto my next film:

SATAN'S LITTLE HELPER (2004) tells the darkly humorous story of a young lad, Dougie, who unwittingly teams up with a serial killer who's dressed like his favourite videogame character. Well, I say "unwittingly", but when it becomes apparent how sinister 'Satan Man' is, Dougie's own mental stability is called in to question...

SATAN'S LITTLE HELPER is a really fun film, that relies on black comedy more than gore for it's thrills, and is quite a nice change of pace from a lot of other Halloween-themed horror films. There, that was nice and succinct. What's next?

How about some honourable mentions? --> MORTUARY (2005) is a Lovecraft-tinged film set around...well, a mortuary. It's got it all: creepy black mould, zombies (well, near-enough), an ancient monster, excellent set-design and decent lead actors (let's ignore the sleazy laughing man who ruins the film every time he appears on screen. Seriously, Tobe Hooper, what were you thinking letting this guy act like this?!).

MAN-THING (also 2005): I don't care about all the remarks that this is Marvel's "Swamp-Thing rip-off", or that the blurb on the DVD case has bugger-all to do with the film itself, it's still awesome. When a dodgy oil company starts drilling in the 'dark heart' of a swamp, it awakens Man-Thing, a humanoid plant monster with burning red eyes and a habit of killing people by growing trees out of them. I mean literally growing trees out of their bodies. One of the rare examples where the CGI is handled well (particularly in the Man-Thing 'birth' scene).

That's enough films for now. How about video games? You crazy kids like to play your video games, don't you? Of course you do, it's all kids do nowadays. That, or go to a park and get drunk on cheap cider.

RED DEAD REDEMPTION: UNDEAD NIGHTMARE - just in time for Halloween, it's a sexy zombie add-on for the rootin- tootin' RDR! Saddle up on your undead steed and find out why the Wild West is being overrun with flesh-eating ghouls and partially-rotted animals (not to mention various mythical beasts). The zombies can only be killed by a headshot, which is easy enough when there are only one or two after you, but once they start to swarm...I don't mind telling you that, as with any decent zombie film, that's when things get pretty hairy. Luckily they can't climb ladders so get to a high spot and shoot their bastard heads off. Do it!

DEAD RISING 2 - I'm going to tell you everything you need to know about this incredible zombie game in one gloriously ridiculous sentence: Motocross celebrity Chuck Greene needs to uncover the reason for a zombie outbreak in the Vegas-like Fortune City (and find anti-zombie drugs for his infected daughter), and he can do this whilst wearing a dress and bunny slippers and headbutting zombies to death with a lego head topped by a lawnmower blade.

LIMBO - for a more sedate change of pace, but in a manner that's no less horrific, you could do worse than give this side-scrolling puzzler a go. You're an unnamed boy, wandering a mist-shrouded, monochrome world, looking for his sister. The game looks beautiful, and the sound design (almost no music, practically all ambient fx) is top-notch.

I've yet to complete it, but so far I've wandered through a creepy forest, an industrial zone and a desolate town, all of which merge seamlessly into one another, and all of which contain new ways in which you can die. And you will die - a LOT. There are hazards and enemies just waiting to impale, eviscerate, decapitate or drown you. Plus, some of the deaths can be caused in a brilliantly sadistic manner, in that the thing that crushes you is supposed to be the thing that helps you continue on...if only you'd stepped to the left a little quicker...But every time you restart a short distance away, so that you can learn from your mistake and carry on.

But, is this possible because you're playing a videogame, or because the world the boy is in allows him to suffer violent death over and over again? Exactly where is he? Early on, you'll encounter other people, and there's a disturbing suggestion they're also children...but these are followed by worms that stick to your head and force you to walk like a zombie in one direction, and giant spiders that stalk and creep towards you at a deceptively fast pace. None of the puzzles are mind-bending, but they will tax your noodle a bit. Interestingly, quite a few can be 'solved' via physical manipulation, eg running from one side of a beam to another so that it rocks high enough for you to jump off and onto another beam.

I get the distinct feeling that I'm not going to like it when I reach the end and find out where the boy is, but this is precisely why I want to get to the end. Is this how the game really tortures the player? I think so.

Phew! What a massive post! I think I'll go downstairs and see if my housemate wants a hand getting things ready for tonight. Happy Halloween, scumbags!