The first was excellent, the second was a bit too gothic in places (I appreciate the irony there ) and the third was [LIFTED] apart from the funny bloke who's now Deadpool in the new Wolverine. Which is supposed to be a mess

Drag Me To Hell

Trumpeted as Sam Raimi's return to his horror roots, this film tells the story of a loans officer at a bank who makes the mistake of turning down an old gypsy woman's request for an extension on her mortgage. The banker is cursed by the old lady and has three days to find a way out before her soul is claimed by a demon. Well, this is a return to Raimi's Evil Dead movies with its combination of horror and humour and if you are familiar with the first two Evil Dead films you will find many references here including some of the splatter effects. Drag Me To Hell is nowhere near as groundbreaking though and if you are a horror fan you may well get the feeling you've seen it all before.

This has the distinction of being the loudest film I have ever sat through. Some sequences are so loud I thought I might have tinnitus later! Every shock and surprise is enhanced (if that's the right word) by very loud music/sound effects and if anyone else out there has seen this film I would like to know if they had their eardrums assaulted in the same way.

Overall I did enjoy it.....there are a few creepy moments and jump in your seat shocks but despite an interesting story and some good effects I was never that involved.

6.5 out of 10

I am just working my way through "The Hammer Collection" - a 21 disk box set featuring some of the Hammer films from 1965 through 1975. It doesn't contain all the greats but does show the evolution of the studio's trademark style.

I'm only 4 films in but here are my thoughts so far

She (1965)
Based on the H. Rider Haggard novel and starring Ursula Andress, Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing and Bernard Cribbins. A fantastic "Boys Own Adventure" rather than the horror the studio is known for. Lavish sets, with parts actually shot in Israel made this the most expensive Hammer film at that time.

The Nanny (1965)
A psychological thriller Bette Davis as the titular nanny. Fairly pedestrian by today’s standards, and suffering a little from the acting of the children, this still works on many levels.

Dracula Prince of Darkness (1966)
The first sequel to the original Dracula with Christopher Lee reprising his role as the Count. This is much more the typical fare expected from the Hammer Studios with vampires, heaving cleavage and stakes a plenty. This tries to recreate the original Dracula story with just enough changed to avoid the lawyers and does suffer for it. Christopher Lee is silent throughout the film other than a few snarls, apparently due to his refusing to speak a line of the script because he considered it so bad.

The Plague of Zombies (1966)
This is the most B-Movie film of the collection but not a bad one for all that. Conceived as the support feature for Dracula Prince of Darkness it is actually the better film. A Professor is summoned by an old student who is now Doctor to a remote village where people are dying for no apparent reason. Scenes such as the decapitation of a zombie with a spade, and the finale of fire had the BBFC requesting a number of cuts.

Those of us who grew up on the Hammer films and the BBC2 late night Saturday horror double bills will appreciate these both for themselves and as reminders of our younger days. For those not yet exposed to the wonder that is Hammer, they are enjoyable films that give a hint of the Golden Age films soon to come from one of our most prolific film houses.

(Edited for spelling)

I was thinking of buying this set so please do continue to review. I've recently been buying DVDs of the Dracula films, etc and have enjoyed them. Just starting the films and seeing the names of Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing is great and does take me back to the late night double bills.


There you go.

Angels and Demons

Quite simply, I enjoyed this, but it was long.

The story line was complicated but fairly easy to follow, there was all the twists I expected after the Da Vinci code and there wasn't many times my attention drifted from the screen throughout the 135 minutes.

From what I overheard on the way out of the cinema you'll probably be dissapointed if you've read the book and want the film to be exactly the same, but when does this ever happen?

In summary, a pretty good watch, but take a cushion.

7/10

(Ok, crap review I know, will write something a bit more meaningful when I can)

I really want to see this, I saw the Da Vinci Code before reading the book and (as with the HP Films and Starship Troopers) this was the right way round to do it. I plan to do the same with Angels & Demons.

Good review though, told me what I needed to know without giving anything away.

Thanks Zippy

I read the Da Vinci Code before seeing the film, but haven't read Angels and Demons. I think you're probably going the right way about it, as the book is always going to be a bit more in depth than the film version.

And rightly so. I think someone said that if they'd tried to copy the books word-for-word, Lord of the Rings would have taken 30-odd movies of 3 hours each!! The films were brilliant and hung together really well, conveyed the gravity of everything really well, while keeping it's sense of humour. I don't think you could ask for more really. Da Vinci Code did the same thing and I have high hopes for Angels & Demons.

I haven't seen it yet, but I believe, from what I've read, that the reason readers of the book will be disappointed is that they have done a Hannibal and re-written the ending, so it bears no relation to what happens in the book...

Well then I doubt you'll be dissapointed. (Unless you sit near the same people we did,being loud and playing on their mobiles for the first half, until someone basically said "We paid to watch the film not listen to you." Oddly enough they left with about half an hour remaining. Strange)

Dave: I think you're right, I did hear someone say as they were leaving, "Well the book didn't end like that!"

The Host

South Korean take on the Godzilla/Cloverfield genre with a chemically-mutated monster running amok. The Korean slant on the subject matter does much to allay the feeling you've seen this sort of thing many times before and the effects are very impressive especially in the early sequences when the monster first goes on a rampage. The acting is good (subtitled) and the script is quite funny too. The monster looks great and is like a truck-sized version of that halfway stage between tadpole and frog. Recommended.

7.5/10

Just a quick post regarding book/film adaptations - pick up the Highlander novel if you like the original film, it's class, and adds to the film . The author is Garry Douglas (Kilworth)...

Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs

IMDB Page

Went to see this film with my 7 year old daughter and we both thoroughly enjoyed it. 94 minutes of harmless fun and she sat still and paid attention from the beginning of the film right to the end credits which, given that she is a bit of a fidgeter, says more about this move than me prattling on could.

I don't want to say too much about the plot as I am wary of spoilers but my advice is if you've got kids take them to see it. Same goes for nephews and nieces.

Vella rating 8/10

Did you see it with the 3D glasses?

No, as I have a dodgy eye, (the left one if you really need to know and yes, that's my left not yours!) and the 3D galsses don't really work for me.