From Beyond the Grave (UK, 1974)

Amicus seemed to like anthology horror movies, this was their last picture in a series of six including the original 'Tales from the Crypt'. The basic outline is as you would predict, the common theme of four spooky tales sandwiched between a bookend plot which is kinda hosted by an eerie narrator type.

The main character throughout the whole film is the horror maestro Peter Cushing who plays the owner of a small antiques store in London. One by one customers enter the store for bits of objet d'art but each one wrongs the shop owner in one way or another. Naturally this causes each person to suffer some kind of nasty cruel fate which appears as though the shop keeper may or may not be behind it...or at least knows of their fate.

The first tale sees David Warner tricking the shop keeper into selling him an expensive mirror cheaply. When he then holds a seance (as you do) he is visited by a spirit from within the mirror who sort of brainwashes him into killing people so he may materialise and travel 'beyond the ultimate'. This is probably the most curious of the tales and is nicely spooky, not much is explained so you're left to make up your own minds which is cool...sorta. Personally I really wanted to know more about the background but the looping twist in the tale is smart.

Up next is a strange one, a nice married man buys some matchsticks from an ex-serviceman (Donald Pleasence) to help him out. He then sees some shiny medals in Cushing's antique shop and wants to impress the serviceman by pretending to be ex-army himself. Unable to buy the medal because a certificate is required to prove you are a real ex-serviceman the man steals the medal. Impressed with the medal the serviceman invites the gent to tea and to meet his daughter (Angela Pleasence). Over time the gent has an affair with the young girl who seems to be some kind of witch. Eventually the kind gent and young girl end up cursing and killing his dominating wife then marrying, but the twist revolves around the gents young boy.

I didn't really understand this one, the gent is a nice guy trying to help the ex-serviceman, he's bullied at home by his wife and gets no respect from his son, his life is a misery. It seems he finds happiness trying to mix with the poorer man, yeah sure he stole the medal but it wasn't a malicious act. He just wanted to make the ex-serviceman happy, feel comfortable around him...he just wanted to be one of the lads really, felt sorry for him. The whole thing with the daughter was just weird and ended up making no real sense, very off the wall, I'm still not really sure what she was, how, what her father had to do with it and why the pair did or do what they do.

The elemental is based around demons or gremlins perhaps. Another posh well-to-do gent tricks the shop keeper into selling him something cheaper than it should be. On the way home a little batty old witch warns him of the elemental sitting on his shoulder...no one can see this creature but animals, small children and...errr other witches or crazy people. In time things happen that are totally out of the man's control and he seeks the assistance of the eccentric 'Madame Orloff'. I liked this short tale because the idea of an invisible little gremlin type thing perched on someones shoulder like a gargoyle and taking control is cool. I also think the short is boosted brilliantly by Margaret Leighton as Orloff who comes across like a character straight out of a Disney movie like 'Bedknobs and Broomsticks' or 'Mary Poppins'. Must just add that the ending is kinda evil though, the whole thing goes from a quirky olde worlde English country witch casting spells to a much darker place.

Finally there is another almost charming ghoulish tale about a young man buying a very old highly detailed carved wooden door from the antique shop. This door of course opens up to another dimension or world where an evil occultist is trying to lure people so he can collect their souls? I think. Again the plot doesn't make much sense and isn't explained too well but its another visually fun tale in that typically old English manner with a large well decorated olde worlde house...suit of armour on display etc...This time the twist ending isn't a gloomy one though, that in itself is quite unique with these films.

Overall its a good little collection of horror tales, three I liked with their old school visuals, quirky characters and stereotypically English gents (although not stereotypical at the time of course). The stars add much gravitas to the whole affair, what old 70's horror flick is complete without Cushing?! and on the whole the special effects aren't too bad considering. Charmingly old fashioned whilst not being too horrific, perfect Halloween fodder and great fun.

7/10

Black Sabbath (aka I Tre Volti Della Paura ITA/FRA 1963)

Yes this is the film that the famous rock band took their name from after they saw how people enjoyed being frightened.  An Italian horror movie with a low budget but an international cast, so a different flavour to the British horror anthologies. This film was also one of the first horror anthologies I do believe, before the likes of Amicus and Hammer got the idea.

The stories are introduced by Boris Karloff who is simply standing in front of a dated psychedelic-esque background and giving a speech about all things creepy basically. The funny thing is he is dressed quite normally in a simple suit and is hammering on about vampires and spectres as if this were a Vincent Price movie. The stories you see aren't really in that classic vein though, these tales are actually much more grounded and genuinely creepy (well two are).

The first short story revolves around a young French call-girl who starts getting terrorised by phone calls from her ex-pimp (spoiler alert). This pimp has just broken out of jail and is threatening her life because she was responsible for putting him away. The young girl calls her female friend around to help and comfort her, little does she know the threatening calls are from her friend who is simply trying to reunite with her. The friend figures this is the only way the young call-girl will allow her back into her life...pretty extreme way of making up isn't it! In the end the real pimp shows up and kills them both just as the friend was writing a note to explain what she has been doing.

This first tale is quite poor I think, its in no way scary or remotely thrilling, especially when you discover the friend is behind it all. The thing is this revelation gave me a better idea, they should of made the pimp the one behind the calls as originally expected. Then in the end when the call-girl discovers this it would have been cool to also find out the pimp was killed in his prison escape attempt so all along the calls were coming from beyond the grave. The fact that the pimp merely turns up and kills both young women is a complete anticlimax, just a basic murder. Its very glossy though, it actually looks like a high production porn flick at times.

Next up is a more kooky traditional tale of ghoulies in the night...well a spin on vampire lore actually. Set in 19th century Russia a young man stumbles across a small family in the wilderness who are battling against a breed of creature known as Wurdalak. These things are undead zombie types that feed on the blood of the living, especially relatives they once knew strangely enough. Karloff plays the father of this family that ventured out to kill a Wurdalak but has returned one himself, naturally the story plays out as a battle of survival for all the living.

Definitely the best looking of the three stories, the sets and props are really sumptuous in this and could easily be part of a full length movie. Great atmosphere with the swirling mist and bleak locations but the actual tale is pretty daft really. Karloff is wonderful as the pale grizzled bearded undead nightstalker but end of the day he's merely playing an unkempt Dracula. Everything goes as you might predict admittedly but thinking back I just can't fault the production values on this one.

The final act sees a woman stealing a fancy ring off another woman who has recently passed away. This sets off all manner of supernatural occurrences such as a mysterious dripping of water, a mysterious fly that won't leave her alone and eventually the dead woman's corpse actually appearing before her. Now this short vignette is the jewel in the crown for this movie, its actually incredibly spooky and very atmospheric with the dripping water echoing around the woman's house. It really does give you the chills...that is until the finale where the corpse appears and really does freak you the fuck out! The dead body has this God awful twisted expression on her face which is enough to keep you up at night I kid you not, that on top of the whole 'Ring-esque' sequence where it  moves towards the terrified woman. The final twist in the tale here is again predictable but oh so delicious.

There is no way an American movie in that era would or could pull off something this scary, at the time this was hard core stuff, the Italians were bold and brave. The mix of half naked ladies, the image of call-girls (hookers), blood and the surprisingly scary final story gave this film a real edge rarely seen in British or American horror anthologies. What's more this entire production clearly has so much class, skill and polish, every segment looks great, sounds great and could work as an individual movie in its own right. The first is standard murder fare, the second is standard ghoulish fare and the third is possibly the inspiration for many modern horror movies ('The Ring'!)...but they are all done very stylishly making other examples look crap in comparison.

Its such a shame Bava chose to end the movie by revealing Karloff astride a fake horse and with all the cameras and crew. The main camera pulls back to reveal the studio floor as Karloff finishes his spooky speech. Not too sure why he's in his Wurdalak character get up either. Can't deny its a fun little ending and very interesting to see how they did that effect, but at the same time I can't help but feel they kinda extinguish everything they managed to created and visualise so well prior to that.

8/10

2010: The Year We Make Contact (1984)

Could Peter Hyams have chosen a bigger task?! Setting himself the challenge of making a sequel to, probably, one of the greatest science fiction movies ever made, which also had one of the greatest directors, brave man. The original movie '2001: A Space Odyssey' was developed at the same time as Clarke was writing his novel (which was based upon one of his own short stories, 'The Sentinel'). Both he and Kubrick collaborated with each other over both of their works, ultimately each project did end up differing slightly. This was mainly down to practical reasons with the movie, actually being able to film things, cost etc...Obviously in the novel Clarke was able to flesh out more content properly where as the movie merely hinted at things, or was more symbolic. With '2001' established as a movie of grandiose proportions, Clarke began working on the sequel to his novel but making it a direct sequel to Kubrick's movie instead of his own novel, which was slightly different. Kubrick passed on the project, which was a mistake I think, instead giving Hyams the opportunity to take the helm, a grand undertaking if ever there was one.

So despite the first movies extremely deep, thoughtful and thoroughly scientific plot, this sequel is actually a lot more straight forward. Put simply, the mission to Jupiter by Discovery One in the original was a complete failure resulting in the apparent deaths of all astronauts under unknown circumstances, plus the large mysterious monolith is still drifting in orbit around Jupiter. Floyd Heywood (Roy Scheider) being the head of the National Council for Astronautics at the time, was blamed for this disaster. A new mission is put together to go to Discovery One and find out what exactly happened. The team consisting of Heywood, HAL's creator Dr R. Chandra (Bob Balaban), Discovery One designer Walter Curnow (John Lithgow), and s selection of Russian astronauts. The US and Russia both cooperating together (despite political unrest) because the new ship Discovery Two is taking too long to complete and Discovery One is set to crash into Jupiter very soon. Upon arrival the team must work out what happened to David Bowman, what happened to HAL, what the monolith is all about, and how Jupiter's moon of Europa figures into all this.

Indeed whilst watching the first half of the film you can easily see similarities to other famous 'grunts in space' type setups such as 'Alien'. Well I say grunts but in this movie the team on-board the ship are actually highly qualified astronauts and scientists, but the way they all interact with other whilst sitting around communal mess rooms or ship consoles does give off that same vibe. At the end of the day these guys (and girls) are on a job, a rescue mission of sorts, but also and probably more so, another scientific investigation (dare I say mystery). These people are the best of the best for America and the Soviet Union, but the general vibe from some of the crew does tend to feel a bit like 'just another paycheck'. I did get this feeling from some of the characters for sure, more so Roy Scheider's character of Heywood Floyd who is the more laid-back, rebellious of the crew, the typical Yank. Others crew members such as Curnow and Dr. R. Chandra have more intense and personal attachments to the mission. Chandra  because he essentially created the super computer HAL, and Discovery One being Curnow's baby.

But as anyone knows a follow up to the original Kubrick classic would have to be about one thing...other than the ultra realistic visualisation of space travel and human advancement. That one thing of course being the special effects, yes I know it sounds shallow but its true. You see, with the benchmark being set so unbelievably high with the original movie this sequel was up against the wall and had to perform just as well, if not better. So did it? well no, unfortunately it didn't. Despite this film performing well in almost every aspect the effects left a lot to be desired quite frankly. The thing is I'm not really sure how this is possible considering this movie was made 16 years later. Although the effects were handled by Douglas Trumbull's company EEG, the man himself was not involved with the film which is a good reason why they simply aren't that good. But wait! the effects were actually supervised by the equally legendary Richard Edlund, so what gives? Well apparently all the original models from '2001'were destroyed back in the day so everything had to created from scratch. Thusly models for Discovery One weren't quite as good as the original, but due to the fact the films lighting is so poor you can't really tell. The ship is often merely in shadow so you only see the basic shape and not much real detail. The other main ship piloted by the Americans and Russians, the Leonov was designed by popular futurist Syd Mead so you know its probably gonna be very sensible and grounded. And that it was, but boy did it look stupid and ugly! The thing just looked like an angled block of Lego in space with a huge rotating mid-section which apparently provided artificial gravity. Now whether this design is scientifically accurate in any way I don't know (I'm sure it possibly is), but man...was this thing shitty looking.

Overall the models were generally fine but the quality was that of a TV show. Had this been a TV series then sure, they'd be great, but in no way do they look anywhere near the standard for such a movie as this. The other issue here was the God awful use of bluescreen and how obvious it was. Its not all bad but there are many shots with a ship composited over other images of Jupiter or the other ship and it just looks bad, really obvious with stark black lines around everything. Sequences where the crew spacewalk are also pretty nasty looking with obvious bluescreen symptoms present. There also appears to be the odd colour discrepancy between various models and space, or other models, which does look pretty terrible these days  All this combined with the use of early CGI and alas the visuals do look very 'made for TV-esque' in my humble little opinion. Back in the day naturally they would have been looked upon way more favourably of course. I remember as a kid watching the swirling, cloudy planet of Jupiter and the monolith black hole, in complete awe. The effects had a more glossy animated feel to them over the more rigid and static effects in the original film which felt more like an educational film at times. But these days unfortunately these effects do look pretty ropy and in no way compare to Kubrick's masterpiece despite using technology that would have been far more advanced for this sequel. 

Luckily the interior sets did not suffer quite the same fate, again they simply aren't up to the original films standard admittedly, but you could say that's down to utilising different types of craft in this sequel. The Leonov being a Russian craft could explain why it might not be quite as slick as Discovery One, less emphasis on comfort and more on practicality. A ship for getting things done with little fuss, a workers ship for tough Soviets. Some of what we saw in '2001' was more like visualising business class travel for executives, regular living quarters in orbit for businessmen, almost like an advertisement by a space based property company.  In contrast once again you can see the strong influence of a certain Ridley Scott movie from 1979 with the long dark, intimidating, narrow corridors. The extreme levels of technical detail on the interior sets from top to bottom such as various panels, pipes, monitor screens both overhead and at eye level, signs, glowing warning lights, cables running the length and breadth of all the sections etc...

The main hub does indeed look almost like a section taken straight from the Nostromo complete with circular table arrangement, familiar looking white padded panelling and with overhead monitor bank (that white/beige padded panelling does seem to be a very popular choice in these old sci-fi flicks, probably because it looks so authentic). I don't blame Hyams though, I mean lets be honest here, that Ridley Scott film changed science fiction forever, how could he not ride those coattails? There was always gonna be similarities sure, but at the same time it still comes across as a modern day (for the time) interplanetary ship complete with fictional futuristic upgrades. What is disappointing and clearly missing are sequences that could match the fantastic moments in '2001' which showcased the actors defying gravity. There are so many moments in the original film that stand out but watching people walk up the walls and upside down was easily some of the most amazing to be seen. Again alas this sequel has nothing that can equal or even come close to such mind blowing visuals tricks, either interior or exterior. Although, despite all that it was nice (and very cool) to see the old sets from the original film recreated for some shots on-board Discovery one, looking pretty faithful too I might add.

In general there are many elements that just don't come close to Kubrick's earlier work. The start of the movie tries its best to match the grandiose opening title sequence of the original but kinda fails miserably to be honest. We get a brief flashback of the plot (key points) for '2001' with subtitles to get everyone up to speed, which does indeed feel like its pandering to people who didn't watch or understand the original. This entire sequence does actually feel a lot like the opening to 'Alien 3' complete with eerie orchestral score and choir. The film then dives into the exact same opening as '2001' with the now famous usage of Strauss's Sunrise (or 'Introduction') to the breaking dawn at the Very Large Array observatory in New Mexico. Now although these rows of huge white antennae are impressive to see, this opening shot still doesn't really capture the utter magnitude of the original opening, but lets be honest, what could?

Once we get past some basic plot setups for Heywood the movie literally jumps straight into space, approaching Jupiter, boom! we're there! I think it would of been cool to see some technical space/sci-fi jiggery-pokery watching this ship take-off from Earth, break into orbit, see the crew settle in, begin its long journey etc...Could so easily have been some nice slow, self-indulgent, Kubrick-esque space porn there. Also the sub plot back on Earth about tensions rising between the US and the Soviets and how it affects the mission. In other words back on Earth the Ruskies are getting a bit stand-offish with the Yanks, so they order their astronauts not to play with the Americans on the ship. Now although Heywood does address this, pointing out how stupid it is because what's going on back on Earth means nothing to them out by Jupiter. But the fact its even in the plot does make you kinda scoff at it, like why the hell would the Russians be so idiotic in such a serious situation when clearly the people back on Earth simply don't matter (at that point).

Then of course you've got the whole alien angle with Bowman. Just what the hell is this guy supposed to be now?? He's presumably an alien now, but did he die? did he evolve? did he get reborn as an alien? Who are these intergalactic super beings? how are they able to control and create life with these weird black monoliths? What are the monoliths? what are they made of? how are they made? do they have some kind of super power? The fact that these aliens are suppose to be non-corporeal, energy-based life forms (or glowing balls of light for short), does make you wonder if they are suppose to be some kind of God's, maybe an original life form from the beginning of time itself. Nevertheless the whole thing with Bowman coming back to see his mother before she dies, appearing before Heywood in various forms, and speaking to HAL in a beyond the grave type way, does all seem very silly. Sure this is a sci-fi fantasy, but the whole Bowman being reborn angle always did go against the highly realistic grain for me. 

Still it was nice to see the equally mysterious Keir Dullea back as Bowman and keeping the continuity up, ditto for Douglas Rain as the voice of HAL. The rest of the cast are all stellar in their performances it must be said. That classic type of early 80's lineup that (to me) just feels like a Spielberg production, it just has that vibe, maybe its just me, or maybe its because of Balaban. Scheider definitely has the look for this movie but his style doesn't quite fit the bill for me, I can't help but picture him in gritty cop flicks or action flicks. Lithgow is solid as usual but like Scheider does seem a little out of place in this type of serious space based picture. For me it was all about Balaban, this dude just has that odd look which intrigues you, is he good? is he bad? is hiding something? You half expect him to be the Ash of the crew and go nuts at any moment. Indeed it was Balaban that gave the most heart wrenching moment for me. As Jupiter is about to literally implode from being eaten from the inside out by the multiplying monoliths, the crew race away on-board the Leonov leaving HAL and Discovery One to be destroyed. Chandra speaks with HAL, consoling him right up to the very end before the computer is obliterated by the imploding Jupiter. Not only does Chandra shed a tear for HAL, I couldn't help but do so too. Who'd of thought the 'death' of a computer could tug on the heartstrings so heavily.

So yes, everyone knows this film is nowhere near the levels of greatness that Kurbick and co achieved back in 1968. Where as the original film felt more like an educational film or maybe something you might see on Channel 4 or at Epcot Centre, this film felt more like a movie movie, if you get me. Not dumbed-down by any means, just more acceptable/tolerable/approachable for a general audience. Even though this film is a very, very competent science fiction mystery, adventure, literally every aspect of it fails to compare to the original 68 movie. The visuals are way behind, the music is stirring but lacklustre in comparison, the cast is big but somehow that doesn't really matter and the overall sheen just can't compare. But as I said, this is still is highly engaging and exciting movie that far outstrips most science fiction offerings. The main reason for this is the plot pure and simple. The plot helps tie up loose ends from the admittedly confusing original, it explains some things, it straightens out some things, but overall its just a damn good sci-fi mystery that just draws you in. It may look a bit like a TV movie in places but you want to know how it ends, I really wanted the crew to survive, I was heart broken when HAL 'dies', I was (still am) intrigued by the ghostly monoliths and what they do to Jupiter, their ethereal creators etc...As for the ending...well, I wanna see more! where's the film adaptation for 2061? 

8/10

ALL THESE WORLDS

ARE YOURS EXCEPT
EUROPA
ATTEMPT NO
LANDING THERE
USE THEM TOGETHER
USE THEM IN PEACE

Sword of the Valiant (1984)

Another 80's flick that I had never heard of but was drawn in by the quite amazingly hokey looking movie poster. I mean look at it, a huge sword emblazoned across the middle with various character images hand-drawn to either side. And is that Sean Connery I see on the right? Why yes it is! The only well-drawn (recognisable) face on the poster I might add. Connery's casting elevated my interest...along with the glorious cheesiness on display.

This film is loosely based on the 14th-century poem Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and is also the second adaptation of the poem by director Stephen Weeks. Interestingly Weeks also recast Ronald Lacey in exactly the same role in this version. 

The plot revolves around a mysterious knight clad in green armour (Sean Connery) presenting himself within King Arthur's court one winters night. The knight offers a challenge to any brave willing knight, one attempt to behead him. After that the Green Knight would have his chance. Naturally nobody steps forward...until the young squire Gawain (Miles O'Keeffe) accepts the challenge. Gawain beheads the Green Knight only to find it has no effect as the decapitated body merely picks up the head and puts it back upon its shoulders. The Green Knight then decides (after recognising Gawain is still very young) to allow Gawain one year to solve a riddle in order to save his life. And that's it! Gawain must then set off on his somewhat random quest of solving the Green Knights curious riddle in order to avoid getting his head cut off in one year.

So yes the plot is rather odd and with little explanation to anything. Alas one must expect this seeing as it's based on a 14th-century poem, albeit loosely. The most obvious question is who or what is the Green Knight? Clearly this knight is some kind of supernatural being. A messenger or tester of men from another world or beyond the grave. He presumably goes around offering these challenges or tests to men in order to see who is worthy of life...or something like that. Why was his armour green? Well after some minor research it seems in old English folklore green represented nature, mythical creatures and witchcraft. So you can see how that would match with the mysterious Green Knight. In this film the knight also has some kind of stag horns on his head which points towards Paganism and Celtic culture, I think. Again all supernatural elements.

Then you have to question the 'beheading game'. I mean seriously, what kind of game is that?! Surely it wouldn't last too long after the first bloke has a hack at the other. Admittedly after some more minor research, it appears that this insane act is merely a trope of medieval romance and not an actual leading sport from the time of yore (I think).

This film is packed with oddities and various mythical easter eggs as it were. Sir Gawain's first trial is a battle with the infamous Black Knight, a character that has popped up in all manner of material. His reward for defeating the dark knight is to be led to the hidden city/realm of Lyonesse (a mythical stretch of land between Lands' End and the Isles of Scilly consumed by the sea). There Gawain meets with another mysterious character, the Lady Linet, who gives him a magical ring allowing him to disappear. She is later kidnapped by a lustful Prince and it falls upon Gawain to rescue her etc...

Problems do abound with this feature unfortunately. The casting is in places impressive and twas clearly a coup to land actors like Connery and Peter Cushing, both of which do fit their roles pretty well. Cushing as the regal Senechal to the lustful Prince and Connery as the towering Green Knight. Both his Scottish lisp and bushy facial hair a big plus factor here. His clearly sexualised suit of armour has to be seen to be believed. On the other hand the casting of O'Keeffe as Sir Gawain felt awkward and wooden. Sure he had the bod but he definitely couldn't act too well and that blonde wig was terrible! He looked like a Ken doll. Wilfrid Brambell pops up in his last onscreen role looking every bit the scruffy medieval peasant type. And then there's the poor man's Brian Blessed, John Rhys-Davies, as a Baron.

To be honest, the film doesn't really look that good either. Whilst filming took place in various locations with actual castles used (France and Ireland) which definitely looked great, overall the film looked fake. It seemed to differ from scene to scene. There are some scenes inside castle walls which looked really authentic with old period looking wooden storefronts, flags, banners, candlelit halls, and whatnot. There are some scenes where knight armour looked pretty decent and genuinely metallic, and there were some costumes that looked realistic. But overall much of the production looks a bit tinny and plastic with stupid wigs and glittery makeup. 

The less said about the score the better methinks, talk about B-movie. And then there's the ending, it just ends, just like that. Sir Gawain rescues Lady Linet, she turns into a dove and flies away back to Lyonesse. We then get a lingering facial shot of Gawain as he looks sad, and in mid-head movement, the film stops and ends. So what happens? Dunno, but can't Gawain just go back to Lyonesse to see Linet again? The original poem is completely different here.

So overall the plot has been tinkered with to make a relatively cohesive plot but unfortunately it simply comes across as generic whimsical fluff. It seems much of the original poem's themes have been jettisoned for a more simplified, trope-laden fantasy. Whilst not a bad film, it's not particularly engaging either.

5/10

In Search of Darkness (2019)

Well what can I say? This documentary is split into two parts and overall is over 8 HOURS long! If that doesn't tell you just how much it will cover then I don't know what will (covers lots!).

What is so impressive about this doc is that it covers almost every aspect of horror, every genre, every sub-genre, even videogames for a small part. Whether you're into the classic 80's bogeymen, Italian clones and rip-offs, horror-comedy, creature features, psychological stuff, mutants, the early blocks of torture porn, or the much-hyped controversial video nasties and apparent snuff flicks, it's all covered here baby.

It really is quite impressive just how many movies get covered in this epic feature. Obviously not everything but virtually a good bulk of it. Each one accompanied by interview sound bites from various people across the board such as makeup artists, the actors, the directors, writers, fans, reviewers etc...

If a movie isn't actually covered then chances are there will be a clip in here somewhere as a reference. The only obvious downside to all this material is quite simply not every movie is given the same amount of time. Some of the more famous and infamous flicks get better longer coverage whilst others are merely skimmed over briefly.

On the other hand, for minor horror fans like myself it's a goldmine for movies I've never heard of and have piqued my interest. Admittedly many of these flicks do look pretty terrible (they haven't dated well in all honesty) but there are definitely some that grabbed me by the ghoulies.

Interspersed throughout this massive highlight reel are segments where specific people are interviewed more in-depth. There are only about four or five of these I think and mostly focus on a few big players like Robert Englund, Kane Hodder, Tom Savini etc...

Again admittedly the info you get here will be either wickedly interesting or so-so. I say this because in this day and age if you're a movie lover (or fan of anything really) then chances are you'll have probably seen and heard much of the stories and behind-the-scenes info/footage from the various people involved. After years of DVD and Bluray extras alongside loads of other documentaries, retrospectives, and YouTube content most folk will probably have seen much of this all before. That was the main issue I had with the sister documentary 'In Search of the Last Action Hero'. There was nothing new, literally seen and heard it all before, multiple times.

So don't go into this expecting all new footage from behind the scenes or groundbreaking stories from beyond the grave, a lot of it is nothing particularly new, for much of the more well-known movies at least. As for the lesser-known titles chances are it's all new, for me anyway.

Overall it's the scope of this thing that impresses so much. The number of people interviewed. The number of clips used. The editing must have been a bitch! And then there's all the copyright tomfoolery! Jesus! Or maybe not? I dunno, seems like it would be.

So, in hindsight, this is well worth your time if you're a horror fan or movie fan basically. It may take you a few sittings to get through it though, but well worth it. Oh and all footage used is uncut, all the blood and gore is right there so all the real fanboy freaks will definitely get their rocks off I'm sure.

9.5/10