Tales of Halloween (2015)

Summary :
Named "the best horror anthology since Trick 'r Treat" by Fangoria and "among the best Halloween-themed horror movies ever made" by DailyDead, this critically acclaimed film weaves together ten chilling tales from horror's top directors. Ghosts, ghouls, monsters, and the devil delight in terrorizing unsuspecting residents of a suburban neighborhood on Halloween night.

Genre : Horror
Country : USA

Cast :
Booboo Stewart : Isaac
Cerena Vincent : Ellen Bishop
Barry Bostwick : Mr. Abbadon
and many more .....

Director : Darren Lynn Bousman, Dave Parker, Axelle Carolyn .......

My opinion   

"Attention, all you trick-or-treaters, it's time to get your ghoul on, for tonight is All Hallow's Eve, my favorite time of the year. Our little town really comes alive on October 31st, when witches and devils, imps and monsters roam our town. As the holiday activities begin, the streets are filled with all kinds of creatures of the night. Some wear masks to disguise their dark intentions, while others choose to hide in plain sight. So warning to those of you collecting your treats and filling your bellies. Keep your wits about you and don’t forget to check your candy.”

 

I thought I'd traditionally watch a fun horror with Halloween. The title of this movie fitted perfectly and also the cover seemed convincing enough. Sadly enough it was far from scary or creepy. A succession of short horror stories with the theme Halloween. They all turned out to be pretty innocent stories. Maybe they can serve as reading material. Preferable reading it to a gang of kids who are already scared silly when you raise your voice. The only effect it had on me was that I was yearning to see the credits. I was fed up with Halloween after the fifth movie.

It's a film resembling the "Tales from the crypt" episodes. An anthology series, based on the eponymous comic books, you could see on television in the 90s late in the evening. A series that consisted of a weekly short horror story told by the crypt keeper. The crypt keeper is replaced by a local radio DJ (Adrienne "Creepshow" Barbeau) who uses a ghostly voice to read some binding text for the 10 short films.

 

As expected, the level of these stories alternated from high to (unfortunately in general) disappointingly low. Are you a fan of cameos (guest appearances)? Well I can definitely recommend this movie if so, because there are plenty of cameos in it. Among others you can see the following persons: John Landis, Greg Grunberg, John Savage, Booboo Stewart and Kristina Klebe. Apparently even the legendary John Carpenter appeared somewhere, as I've read. Are you hoping for some creepy stories that give you the chills, you'll be disappointed I bet. It's rather all playful and downright comical.

 

For me the most successful short stories were "Friday the 13 st" (a comic slasher story), "Trick" (a typical story with a subtle twist) and "Sweet tooth" (typical Halloween story in an attempt to look gory). But especially "The night Billy raised hell" I found amusing and surprising. Particularly the rendition of Barry Bostwick as the personification of evil. A satanic caricature. The least successful stories were "Ding Dong" (absurdly exaggerated) and "This Means War" (the most ridiculous and out of place story).

 

It's not exactly "Scary movie", full of ridiculous, predictable references to infamous horrors, but you'll soon be giggling instead of shivering. But if you get nostalgic feelings while thinking of "Creepshow" and "Tales from a crypt", this will delight you, even though these classics outweigh this attempt. It should have been a bit scarier, darker and more frightening. As a real Halloween night should be. Woehahahahahahahahahaha ....

My rating 5/10
Links : IMDB

No escape (2015)

Summary :
When Jack finds an opportunity to move to Southeast Asia to head his water manufacturing company's new plant there, he immediately jumps at the opportunity and moves his family there. When they get there; they seem to be having problems, the electronics don't work and rarely any cars are seen in the streets. When he goes to the market the next morning, he finds himself caught in the middle of a violent rebellion headed by armed rebels executing foreigners. Jack must get back to the hotel and with the help of a mysterious British "tourist", must get his family to the American Embassy in the midst of the chaos. But is there any escape?

Genre : Action/Thriller
Country : USA

Cast :
Owen Wilson : Jack Dwyer
Pierce Brosnan : Hammond
Lake Bell : Annie Dwyer

Director : John Erick Dowdle

My opinion    

“Look I came here more for the women…
Well … partially for the women. 

I came here to pave the way for you.”

"No Escape" puts the spotlight back again on the undervalued discipline of dwarf-tossing. This favorite bar sport, as practiced by Aragorn in "The Lord of the Rings" (first in the mines of Moria, and then at the Battle of Helm's Deep), is also used here in the most nerve-provoking moment. Let me briefly mention that this film is definitely not suitable for heart patients and pregnant women. You can expect this movie to be extremely exciting. Up to a certain point that is. Because ultimately this film evolves into an implausible story. The number of desperate situations are shown one after the other in such a fast pace, that it feels like an ultra long survival film. The moments that the unfortunates were saved in the nick of time, are uncountable.

The cover of the film immediately reveals which way this is going. It gives you the impression of being a cheap B-movie from the 80s. You might expect something different after noticing that Pierce Brosnan and Owen Wilson are playing in it. No way! It is and it remains an ordinary, mindless escape-movie. A type of movie with very exciting scenes and recurring situations where the imminent victims are saved out of their predicament at the very last moment.

 

The only thing that made me curious for this movie, was how Wilson would handle a more serious role. He's known as an actor in funny ("Wedding Crashers" for example) and less funny ("The internship") comedies. Also joining corny tearjerkers (like "Marley & Me") is something he likes to do once and a while. So I wanted to know how this would end up. And surprisingly he did his job reasonably well. Besides some educational moments with Wilson relapsing into his familiar style, he still manages to play convincingly as the concerned father who'll do anything to save his family from a certain death. Even his prominent nose couldn't distract me (which is usually the case). On the other hand you have an actor like Pierce Brosnan, who frequently appeared in lame comedies (except "A long way down". I personally thought this was a successful film). And now he takes on the role of an secret agent once again. To be honest, this was the most exciting character although his appearance was a bit limited. And it wasn't really a big surprise when he showed up at the right moment.

Eventually this is just a fairly superficial and not very innovative film. Take any zombie movie, replace the zombies with Asians and let it happen in a fictional country, you get something similar. And add two scared teenage daughters who have stupid requests at the wrong time over and over again. I don't think I would be nagging about being hungry when I was in such a life-threatening situation. There are also some absurd, ridiculous fragments in this film. Among other things, the moment Jack enters a conference hall where a meeting is in progress. Despite the threatening crowd outside the hotel, slaughtering innocent citizens mercilessly and attacking the hotel, the Asian participants calmly proceed in following the presentation. That was a little bit unlikely.

It was to be expected that this film would cause some commotion in these particular regions. Because of its alleged political incorrectness and the tactless portrayal of the local population as primitive, bloodthirsty plundering barbarians. Apparently some Asians were offended by that. But that's the only fuss this film will make. The image of an average family that ends up in an extremely dangerous situation, is correct. But the image of the fearless hero who can guide them through it unscathed, doesn't fit Wilson. What remains is a ridiculous movie.

My rating 4/10
Links : IMDB

Mad Max : Fury Road (2015)

Summary :
An apocalyptic story set in the furthest reaches of our planet, in a stark desert landscape where humanity is broken, and almost everyone is crazed fighting for the necessities of life. Within this world exist two rebels on the run who just might be able to restore order. There's Max, a man of action and a man of few words, who seeks peace of mind following the loss of his wife and child in the aftermath of the chaos. And Furiosa, a woman of action and a woman who believes her path to survival may be achieved if she can make it across the desert back to her childhood homeland.

Genre : Action/Adventure/SF
Country : Australia/USA

Cast :
Tom Hardy : Max Rockatansky
Nicholas Hoult : Nux
Charlize Theron : Imperator Furiosa

Director : George Miller

My opinion   

“Witness me Blood Bag!!
Witness!!!
I live, I die,
I live again!!”

There's one word that comes to my mind after watching "Mad Max Fury Road", and that's the word "madness". This is a perfect visualization of what the term madness means. I truly believe that the creators and writers of this hallucinatory trip were fed with hallucinogens. A spacious cocktail of exotic mushrooms, barbiturates and other drug-related products. Otherwise I wouldn't know how they could think up this crazy, wacky post-apocalyptic film. A film that feels as if it consists of a single action scene. You're not given a moment to catch your breath. It's undeniable that this movie adopted the concept of "Mad Max" from 1979, a legendary cult film with young Mel Gibson in a leading role. The same desolate and parched Australian landscape with a shortage of water and petrol governed by fanatical gangs.

I must confess I've already watched this film a while ago and I never saw the need to publish my review. I thought that my opinion would contribute nothing to the general opinion that you could read here and there on the internet. Everyone uses the same superlatives and glorifying terms for this extravagant action movie. In general, everybody agrees this is an insanely great, explosive, ingenious and never tedious re-boot.“It's loud. It's unrelenting. It's crazily exciting, and, at times, it's just bloody weird”. "Why repeat this again?" I thought to myself over and over again. But recent events forced me to rewrite it a bit and highlight an additional aspect that's applicable to today's events.

We return to the scorching desert in a post-nuclear world where people struggle to survive and follow crazy figures that rule over vital resources such as oil and water. Someone like Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne), who thinks he's a kind of god and tyrannically keeps his followers in his grip. He rules the Citadel (an old water reservoir) and has his own private army of fanatical War Boys. This Mad Max episode shows how this lawless gang of lunatics start chasing Imperator Furiosa (Charlize "The Italian Job" Theron). She kidnapped Joe's harem (including Zoe Kravitz, daughter of). She's later assisted by Max Rockatansky (Tom Hardy) who serves the first half hour as a living blood supply for War Boy Nux (Nicholas Hoult).

After the terrorist attacks in Europe and hearing a debate about the motives of a suicide bomber, I came to the conclusion that the creepy War Boys exhibit similar characteristics. They follow blindly a charismatic leader and sacrifice themselves for the greater goal. A hero status is awaiting them when killed in battle. They earn a one way ticket to a paradise they call Valhalla. By sacrificing themselves they become immortal in one fell swoop. Strange, but after the IS attacks, I immediately thought of this brainwashed gang. A similar motivation and the same destructive self-sacrifice.And then there's the guitarist firmly attached with elastics who's stirring up the troops into action, while he's playing his flame-throwing guitar. An absurd image amidst total chaos. Similar to the drummer at the forefront during the battles at Waterloo. Or "Piper Bill" who walked undisturbed on the beach with his bagpipes at Normandy landings in WWII.

It's evident that every fiction film contains comparables with reality sometimes. But beyond these serious digressions that overtook me, I can only recommend to watch and enjoy this macho blockbuster, filled with action-packed chase scenes with futuristic cars. A with diesel and gun smoke smelling stunner that deserves to be titled "Furiosa: Fury Road". Charlize Theron effortlessly outperforms Nicholas Hoult. It's not Mad Max who demands the lion's share of attention. You can call him Mad "Drip feed" instead.

My rating 8/10
Links : IMDB

Mr. Holmes (2015)

Summary :
The story is set in 1947, following a long-retired Holmes living in a Sussex village with his housekeeper and rising detective son. But then he finds himself haunted by an unsolved 30-year old case. Holmes memory isn't what it used to be, so he only remembers fragments of the case: a confrontation with an angry husband, a secret bond with his beautiful but unstable wife.

Genre : Mystery
Country : UK/USA

Cast :
Ian Mckellen  : Sherlock Holmes
Laura Linney : Mrs. Munro
Milo Parker : Roger

Director : Bill Condon

My opinion  

“Take this diary.
Each day you don’t recall a name or place, make a mark on the page for that day's date.
What if I forget to make the mark?”

Once again a movie about the world famous British detective. Apparently they've made already nearly 200 films about this fictitious figure (only Dracula reaches this number). The latest Sherlock films are those with Robert Downey Jr. starring in it. But don't expect mysterious developments, gunfights or wild chases. They could have called it "Mr. McKellen", because this brilliant actor plays the very old Holmes with enormous panache and class. The film doesn't show Sherlock Holmes as a mythical figure but seeks to create a realistic portrait of the man. A surly ex-detective struck by amnesia who spends his last days on a farm in the countryside. Frustrated because he wasn't able to solve the last case he was working on.

"Mr. Holmes "is more a biographical film than an exciting thriller, starring a legendary figure who suffers from old age ailments. A man who decides to stop being a detective at the time his phenomenal memory lets him down and who tries to find a remedy against further decay. A realistic portrait of the figure Sherlock Holmes who dissociates himself from the fictional character as described in the literature. He even says that the typical attributes such as the "deerstalker" and his pipe are grotesque fabrications devised by Dr Watson.

The main part is about his passion for bees and the relationship he has with Roger (Milo Parker), the curious son of the housekeeper Mrs. Munro (Laura Linney). Slowly we see the surly, sober Sherlock changing. A man who never showed any true emotions in his life and approached everything in a logical and reasoned way. And slowly you see him turning into a sensitive and humane person. Eventually there are three different storylines that are interwoven with each other in an ingenious way. On the one hand we have the last unsolved case he's trying to immortalize with the help of Roger. On the other hand, there is a Japanese chapter about the quest for a medicinal herb. And all this is embraced by the story in the present time with the mythical Sherlock slowly fading away.

 

The film is a collage of excerpts from these three storylines. Needless to say McKellen, better known as Gandalf from "The Lord of the Rings", delivers a masterful performance. It's wonderful to see how he sets the 93-year-old Sherlock opposite to the thirty years younger detective. A legend whose memories slowly fade compared to a spry, intelligent man who observes and interprets everything in detail. Sublime and majestic. Also, one should not hesitate to heap praise on young Milo Parker. He seems very natural and the interplay with McKellen is at times really enjoyable. Sadly enough Laura Linney had little scope to shine. However, the rare moments you can admire her, were sufficient enough to show she's a brilliant actress.

 

Although the film is situated in an era which is characterized by a quieter life without hectic situations, the overall pace can seem rather enervating. The pace is similar to the rhythm of life of the elderly Sherlock: lethargic, timid and calculated. In addition, the sets of Victorian England are pleasing to the eye. As well as the beautiful scenery of the English coast. But the biggest achievement was that in the end I was firmly convinced that Sherlock wasn't a fictional character sprong from someone's imagination. Let me quote Sherlock as a conclusion : "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains,however improbable, must be the truth?".

My rating 7/10
Links : IMDB

The Martian (2015)

Summary :
During a manned mission to Mars, Astronaut Mark Watney is presumed dead after a fierce storm and left behind by his crew. But Watney has survived and finds himself stranded and alone on the hostile planet. With only meager supplies, he must draw upon his ingenuity, wit and spirit to subsist and find a way to signal to Earth that he is alive. Millions of miles away, NASA and a team of international scientists work tirelessly to bring "the Martian" home, while his crewmates concurrently plot a daring, if not impossible, rescue mission. As these stories of incredible bravery unfold, the world comes together to root for Watney's safe return.

Genre : SF
Country : USA

Cast :
Matt Damon : Mark Waney
Jessica Chastain : Melissa Lewis
Jeff Daniels : Teddy Sanders
Chiwetel Ejiofor : Vincent Kapoor

Director : Ridley Scott

My opinion  

"Dear America, remember that astronaut we killed and had a really nice funeral for?
Turns out he's alive, and we left him on Mars.
Our bad,
sincerely NASA."

I hope NASA draws its conclusions after watching this film. Namely rearranging their budget. First, they can scrap these expensive looking airlocks and replace them by locks made of cellophane which is attached with use of duct tape. Now they can use that extra budget for a reserve communication system in the base station so that any abandoned crewmember can still contact the control center in Houston if the initial one fails. They would hear for the first time: "Houston, I have a problem". That was the first thing that flashed through my mind after watching this otherwise smashing great SF, created by the unsurpassed, "my all time favorite" brilliant director Ridley Scott. The (for me) blatant misstep "Exodus", is hereby forgiven.

   

Mars is hot. Not literally, of course. But the recent revelations of NASA about flowing water and solar storms that changed Mars into a cold, dry planet, made sure Mars came to be the center of attention. It's not really science fiction anymore, because there are plans already to built settlements on Mars around 2023. Contrary to what's shown in "The Martian", these settlers will depart with a "one way ticket". Best those volunteers say goodbye thoroughly because their final destination is the local crematorium on Mars. Initially this wouldn't happen with the scientists in "The Martian". Until there's a terrible storm showing up which forces them to pack their bags and catapult themselves from this red planet. But they weren't expecting debris flying around, causing Mark Watney (Matt Damon) to be impaled like a delicious souvlaki. And then he sits there alone on that damn planet, light years away from his home planet. Remi on Mars. Or the new Robinson Crusoe. But this time without an ocean.

Matt Damon apparently prefers to play the stranded space traveler, since he also did that in "Interstellar". The big difference with "Interstellar" lies in the scientific accuracy. The solutions Mark comes up with to survive and the circumstances on Mars, are theoretically possible (only the devastating storm at the beginning is fiction). This in contrast with "Interstellar" where everything is based on theories which aren't tested in reality. We know about "black holes". They are kind of interstellar hatches. But we still don't know for sure where you end up, after tumbling in such a hole, and what effect it has on time. I guess this is still a mystery. Sadly enough, "The Martian" also has some points of comparison with "Gravity", that other space-epos that turns into a survival trip avant la lettre. Just like in that movie, the setbacks follow in rapid succession. The only difference, in "Gravity" it's grossly exaggerated.

What I liked the most was the perfect balance between scientific gibberish, the tension and the perfectly dosed humorous moments. The scientific part was even for a layman like myself perfectly apprehendable. Partly thanks to the sometimes reliable explanations from the videolog which Mark kept from day one. Needless to say the film is filled with nerve-racking, exciting moments. But especially the comic moments made this an enjoyable film. A perfect task for Matt Damon with his charming, boyish smile who solves every problem with a casual quip and a dose of positivism and perspective. Even the control center of NASA, which is filled to the brim with humorless, serious science nerds, made me smile from time to time. I never thought that the combination of queery disco music, old episodes of "Happy Days" and aluminum-wrapped human excrements, could amuse me.

 

Money wasn't an issue for making this blitz film. Not only is this demonstrated by the used images, but also by the starcast. Besides Damon there's also Jeff "Dumb and Dumber" Daniels, Sean "Boromir" Bean, Chiwetel "12 Years a Slave" Ejiofor, Jessica "Interstellar" Chastain and Sebastian "Winter Soldier" Stan. Each and everyone performs brilliantly. And furthermore, the images of space, the landscape of Mars and the spacecrafts are beautifully portrayed. Sadly enough at the apotheosis, the MacGyver-level was extremely high. Let's hope that the Soviet Union isn't offended in their honor because the Chinese salvaged the situation. Fortunately we were spared from a mass of waving American flags in the end. But despite the "We love NASA" and "We will prevail" atmosphere, this was a superb movie, worth a rewatch. A top survival drama.

My rating 8/10
Links : IMDB

Uncanny (2015)

Summary :
A technology reporter gets a week of exclusive access to the world's first perfect artificial intelligence. When the reporter begins a relationship with the scientist who created it, the A.I. begins to exhibit startling and unnerving emergent behavior.

Genre : SF
Country : USA

Cast :
Mark Webber : David Kressen
David Clayton Rogers : Adam Kressen
Lucy Griffiths : Joy

Director : Matthew Leutwyler

My opinion  

"This kid the next big thing?
Some Asperger's cousin of yours ready to get all Good Will Hunting on coding and change the world?”

Was "Ex Machina" according to you the epitome of future technology and a demonstration of potential consequences of it, "Uncanny" is for sure a level higher. Not because of the shown interior design or the futuristic technologies, but because of the surprising denouement. Despite the austere imagery and decidedly lower budget, this film managed to captivate me pleasantly. Especially because of the interactions between the characters. Ditto as in "Ex Machina", the number of protagonists is limited, so the focus is on the dialogues. Eventually they didn't end up in a tangle of irrelevant side issues. And despite the limited display of high-end technologies, the intellectual level was boosted by a series of (for me anyway) incomprehensible, technological gibberish such as aerated titanium, convert a hemispheric image into a planar representation, chambered baths of synthetic hymotrips, proloanaprotiese that demolishes gluten, pesinium vibo receptors en propuseptive information. I'm not an engineer. That became clear after a while, because it went over my head at certain times.

It seems that artificial intelligence and robotics are the new, sexy hype. During the last year we were bombarded with films which had this as a central theme. Besides "Ex Machina" we were also treated to "Automata", "Chappie", "Transcendence", "The Machine" and "Her". Every movie demonstrated the dangers that lie in the further development of A.I. Should we worry about these self-developing machines getting a self-consciousness? And what about certain ethical issues? How will these highly intelligent beings operate in our society? And how will these artificial individuals react and act towards humans? This latter aspect was subtly elaborated in this rather excellent, low-budget film. A complex interplay between human individuals and an artificial,eerily human-looking robot. What takes place before your eyes, is a complicated love triangle with an android whose feelings resemble those of humans. With jealousy playing a major role.

The most striking is obviously the acting performance of David Clayton Rogers as Adam, the autonomously operating robot designed by David Kressen (Mark Webber). The way he plays Adam is sublime throughout the film. He acts in such a way that you're convinced that he's truly an artificially intelligent being. That puzzled look and the astonishment about the way David and Joy respond to him. That lost look while he's scanning all possible feedbacks in his mind, after which a stream of words follow as if he's quoting from a Wikipedia page. His designer sometimes exhibits the same characteristics. So you start to wonder if he isn't an android as well. The way he formulated his response whether or not joy is pretty for example:

Her hair is nice.
Good facial symmetry.
Delicate features.
Nice fashion sense.
Yes, I do. I think she's pretty. 

And finally there's Joy (Lucy Griffiths), an intelligent journalist who studied robotics (but as far as I understood she didn't graduate) and someone who worked on or designed a game called "Aquaria 3". Apparently this game was so successful, it wasn't necessary for her to continue her studies. This was the only thing that bothered me. Why was she chosen to be the person to write a report about such a highly technological issue? Or was there an additional plan specially created for her? Anyway, her performance were convincing enough.

 

I'm sure many will say this film is as slow as a snail and there's an absence of action and excitement. But the gradual build up, brilliant dialogues and subtle interplay of the characters is necessary so that the denouement will come as a surprise. Although I had two specific outcomes in mind, it still was an intriguing film with a disturbing result. Let me end with a slightly humorous remark: I'm sure that Adam is the ultimate dream for a woman ... a sophisticated home-garden-kitchen robot with "Tarzan" -like features ... Well, I guess the vision of the future will look appetizing for some. 

My rating 7/10
Links : IMDB

Mercy (2014)

Summary :

A single mom and her two boys help take care of their grandmother with mystical powers.

Genre : Horror
Country : USA

Cast :
Chandler Riggs : George
Dylan McDermott : Jim Swann
Shirley Knight : Mercy

Director : Peter Cornwell

My opinion 

"Mercy" is based on a short story by Stephen King (original titled "Gramma"). In the past they made a series of movies out of Stephen Kings stories, with varying success. "Christine", "Carrie", "Misery" and "Pet Sematary" are all gems and timeless classics. And of course "The Shawshank Redemption" is a masterpiece. I wasn't so thrilled about "Cujo" and "Firestarter", both in book form as the eponymous film. And I'm waiting for "Cell" impatiently  (even though John Cusack plays a leading role). After I've read that "Mercy" was based on a story by King, I had to check if it was any good. And once again it shows that a short story is never a good basis for a feature film. The reason why it resulted in a short story, is just because there isn't enough material to turn it into a long story. The result is a miserable slow film with not much to see in it. And to be honest, I didn't understand in the end what it actually was about anyway.

Judging from the opening scene, I expected a rather good film. The brutal, "in-your-face" beginning, with an ax striking devastatingly, left little to the imagination. Bloody images aren't directly shown. You'll only see a play of shadows. This was already an indication that you'll be spared from gore, gruesome images. This doesn't mean this is really necessary for such movies, because (for me) the best horror is where you also need to use your imagination a bit. This is also the strength of the literary work of Stephen King. The imagination and the underlying anxiety. Unfortunately, I needed a lot of imagination to make a horror out of it and there was hardly a sign of subcutaneous anxiety or tension. It was obvious that it's a sort of Machiavellian tale with someone selling her soul to a demonic entity to achieve certain goals. Only the demon wasn't convincingly elaborated.

For once I liked the extraordinary performances. And that for a horror story. Shirley Knight plays an excellent part as the creepy grandmother Mercy and equals effortlessly the scary Annie Wilkes in "Misery." Chandler Riggs plays the loner, who had a special bond with his grandmother, in a convincing way. Even Dylan McDermott as the handsome neighbor (or acquaintance) wasn't so bad (contrary to what he did in "Freezer"). The only letdown was the appearance of the demonic entity Hastur with his "led lamp"-like eyes. This looked so pitifully bad. Even a haunted house at the fair has more frightening things.

Despite the onset being full of suspense, the end result is still abysmal. "Mercy" won't frighten you or give you nightmares. In addition most scenes are much too dark, making it difficult to follow. And understanding the story alone is a problem anyway. I'm still wondering what Hastur was! As a short story it's probably a successful concept (and it's from King ultimately), but as a film it failed in all areas.

My rating 2/10
Links : IMDB