“Frankenstein 1970” is a seriously bland horror film. It’s a real shame because it’s another “Frankenstein” film with Boris Karloff, who played Frankenstein’s Monster in the iconic 1931 “Frankenstein” from Universal and its first two sequels (“Bride Of Frankenstein” and “Son Of Frankenstein”). “Frankenstein 1970” was not made by Universal but it is notable for being the last time that Karloff would be on the big screen in a “Frankenstein” film.

In “Frankenstein 1970”, a film crew set out to make a film about the gruesome history of the Frankenstein family at the castle where it all happened. The place is now inhabited by Victor Frankenstein (Karloff), a descendant of the original mad scientist Frankenstein. It soon becomes clear that he’s out to continue the work of his ancestors.

Karloff does a decent job as Frankenstein. We’ve seen him play the Frankenstein Monster in the early Universal “Frankenstein” films but he also played a mad doctor in Universal’s “House Of Frankenstein”. That means we’ve seen this role reversal before and it was done better in “House Of Frankenstein”. The new creature that he creates here in “Frankenstein 1970” is really disappointing as it’s covered in bandages so it’s really more like the Kharis Mummy in the Universal “Mummy” pictures. The other characters are forgettable.

This is a “Frankenstein” movie so we want to see a creature that resembles the Frankenstein Monster. This movie definitely disappoints on that front. The whole movie is just really unremarkable. All the older Universal “Frankenstein” films are better than this. There are other “Frankenstein” films I’ve seen that I enjoyed much more including “Frankenstein Unbound” so this one just feels really disposable. It’s not the worst “Frankenstein” film (I’ll gladly sit through “Frankenstein 1970” again than sit through as little as 5 minutes of “I, Frankenstein”) but it’s underwhelming.

“Scary Movie 2” is about as good as a sequel to “Scary Movie” could ever hope to be as it is actually better than the original film. The first one was so unbelievably bad that pretty much anything would be better than it. Instead of taking on pre-dominantly the slasher genre (like the first film), “Scary Movie 2” mainly focuses on haunted house films such as “Poltergeist” and “The Exorcist”.

In “Scary Movie 2”, a bunch of teenagers find themselves in a haunted house. Creepy ghosts show up and we’re subjected to an endless stream of bodily fluids flying towards the screen as the film pokes fun at (or rather merely references) “Hollow Man”, “Hannibal”, “Charlie’s Angels” and a ton of other films.

The characters in this film are pathetic. There are some big names such as Tim Curry (“Congo”), who I would say is easily the most entertaining but he gets very little screen time. Most of the characters sit around taking drugs, performing sexual acts and all the sort-of crude stuff but nothing remotely funny. I remember spoof films such as “Airplane!”, “The Naked Gun”, “Spaceballs” and “High Anxiety” and those films had amusing characters but “Scary Movie 2” doesn’t offer any amusing characters.

If you wanted to see a man sexually assault a toy clown, another man put his privates inside a turkey and a woman urinating for a long period of time then I’m sure that you’ll want to see “Scary Movie 2” but for everybody else, this is an awful film from beginning to end. Hardly any of the jokes here work. The only thing really impressed me in this film was that it wasn’t as bad as the first “Scary Movie” and that’s about the highest praise that I can give this picture. Apparently the series doesn’t end with this one and maybe each new one is better than the last but even if that’s true, it will be some time before there is a “Scary Movie” entry that is worth watching.

“Scars Of Dracula” is my first time with a Hammer “Dracula” picture and I think I had a pretty darn good time with it. Although it seems to indulge in violence and nudity like many of the worst horror films, “Scars Of Dracula” is done with a playful style that somehow makes it enjoyable to watch.

A young man, named Paul (Christopher Matthews), gets chased out of town after being wrongly accused of raping a girl and ends up in the company of Count Dracula (Christopher Lee “Dracula: Prince of Darkness”, “The Wicker Man”). It’s not long before Paul’s brother, Simon (Dennis Waterman), goes in search of him.

The Paul and Simon characters aren’t remotely interesting but they don’t really need to be. Christopher Lee does a good job as Dracula. However, I think I prefer both Béla Lugosi from the 1931 version of “Dracula” and Gary Oldman from “Bram Stoker’s Dracula”. Patrick Troughton (“The Omen”) plays Dracula’s henchman and does a reasonable job but I feel as if the character could’ve been made a lot more interesting and as a result feels rather underused. The other characters aren’t very interesting as we get the generic angry villagers and a priest.

“Scars Of Dracula” is not likely to scare many people but I’m sure it will entertain many. There’s plenty of blood and guts but it manages to create a suitable atmosphere to justify them. For those that have seen other versions of “Dracula”, this is unlikely to be one of the better versions you’ll see (and I hear some of the other Hammer “Dracula” pictures are superior to this one) but I still think you’ll have a good time. The film has plenty of highlights and I think the ending is done very well so if you like fun old-fashioned horror pictures then “Scars Of Dracula” is worth looking out for.

A lot of people don’t know that 1983’s “Scarface” is actually a remake of a film from the 30s (I’ve not yet seen that version). “Scarface” is a fantastic crime film directed by Brian De Palma (“Mission: Impossible”) with enough passion, energy and style to justify the violence and sleaze.

In “Scarface”, Al Pacino (“The Devil’s Advocate”, “Heat”) plays Cuban immigrant Tony Montana. Montana. He has spent time in prison in Cuba but sees opportunity to change his life when he gets to America. Montana works his way up in the world of organised crime in Florida. He soon becomes a big crime boss but it isn’t long before the law and his enemies catch up with him.

Al Pacino is terrific and highly memorable as Tony Montana. Montana is despicable and incredibly lively… you also have to love his smart suits and colourful shirts. Michelle Pfeiffer (“Batman Returns”) plays Elvira Hancock, who Montana quickly sets his sights on. Pfeiffer gives a good performance and the chemistry between her and Pacino is rather impressive. The other characters are okay but Pacino totally steals the show as he dishes out lines such as the classic ‘Say hello to my little friend’ before blowing away a bunch of rival gangsters.

“Scarface” is a highly competent crime thriller that has gone on to inspire countless imitators, not just in the film industry but also in the music and videogame industries. The shootout near the end of the film is absolutely amazing and the film’s ending is rather clever and poetic. The most infamous scene in the film is rather early on and features a man being sliced to pieces with a chainsaw. You don’t see too much yet it is far more intense and thrilling than any of the “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” films. “Scarface” is definitely worth watching for fans of the crime genre and moviegoers in general should enjoy it too.

Based on H.G. Wells’ “The Island Of Dr. Moreau”, “Island Of Lost Souls” is an entertaining sci-fi/horror flick. It reminded me a lot of “The Most Dangerous Game” with its setting on a mysterious island run by an eccentric madman.

In this movie, Edward Parker (Richard Arlen “Wings”, “Forced Landing”) survives a shipwreck. He soon gets trapped on a mysterious island, which isn’t on any maps. The place is run by the charismatic Dr. Moreau (Charles Laughton “Spartacus”). Parker discovers Moreau is carrying out sickening experiments to create human and animal hybrids. Parker must try to escape the island and return to his fiancée. However, Moreau has sinister plans for Parker.

Charles Laughton steals the show as the mad scientist. The character feels like a combination of Zaroff in “The Most Dangerous Game” and Dr. Frankenstein in the 1931 version of “Frankenstein”. Béla Lugosi (“Dracula”, “White Zombie”) has a role as one of the creatures created by Moreau. The monsters actually look pretty unsettling for a film from 1932. Still, it cannot compare to the horror of the real circus freaks in “Freaks”, which came out in 1932. The Edward Parker character is pretty forgettable but then again, how can he compete when you’ve got a mad scientist and monsters?

This adaptation of the H.G. Wells story is certainly more enjoyable than 1996’s ill-fated “The Island Of Dr. Moreau” with Marlon Brando as Moreau. “Island Of Lost Souls” maybe doesn’t get quite as much attention as it deserves but you have to remember that it came out in the early 30s when audiences had “Frankenstein”, “Dracula”, “The Mummy” and “White Zombie”. This is a satisfying movie with some disturbing themes and concepts. It’s old movie so just don’t expect anything particularly graphic. Also, don’t expect to see too much of Lugosi.

“Angels With Dirty Faces” is a gangster movie classic that needs to be seen. This fantastic picture from 1938 perfectly captures everything I love about crime movies. The movie is also notable for inspiring the “Angels With Filthy Souls” sequences in the first two “Home Alone” movies.

In “Angels With Dirty Faces”, two kids commit a petty crime. One is caught and while the other escapes. It’s something that changes their lives. Now, Rocky Sullivan (James Cagney “The Roaring Twenties”, “Yankee Doodle Dandy”) is a gangster, who has just come out of prison, while Jerry Connolly (Pat O’Brien “Some Like It Hot”) is a priest. Connolly hopes his old friend has reformed but soon fears that Sullivan maybe helping to lead a group of unruly youths on the wrong path in life.

Cagney is great as Sullivan. O’Brien is also brilliant as Connolly. I love how something that happens in their adolescent years leads them to become very different adults; it’s fascinating. Ann Sheridan (“Shine On Harvest Moon”) is entertaining as Laury Martin, a young woman that falls for Sullivan in the hopes that he’s no longer a menace to society. Humphrey Bogart (“Casablanca”) has a small role here as James Frazier and he’s good. The young boys are all great and I love the way they all talk.

This is a movie about crime, morality and faith. It’s a powerful movie with strong performances. I really enjoyed some of the shootouts too. They’re actually pretty violent for a film from the 30s. If you like gangster movies then don’t forget about this one. I hear so much about “The Godfather” and “Goodfellas” but more people need to talk about “Angels With Dirty Faces”. If you’re also wanting to show gangster films to your kids, you mind find that this is a good introduction as it doesn’t have all the drugs, sex and bloodthirsty violence associated with more recent crime flicks.

“Dr. Giggles” is the ideal title for a movie that is clearly not meant to be taken seriously. This is a horror/comedy and it works on a very similar level to “Re-Animator”. This is essentially a spoof of both slasher films and mad scientist movies. It’s very silly but it’s quite fun.

Evan Rendell Jr. (Larry Drake “Darkman”) is a madman suffering from the delusion that he’s a doctor. He escapes from an asylum and sets out to carry out more unnecessary surgery than you can possibly imagine. Returning to his hometown, he terrorises the local community as he uncontrollably giggles to himself while carrying out one act of murder after another.

Larry Drake is clearly having a great time as Rendell. Sadly, I don’t think anybody actually calls him ‘Dr. Giggles’ during the movie. Rendell’s father was actually a doctor but this son never seemed to make it to medical school. However, that won’t stop him from using a variety of contraptions to kill those that he sets his sights on. He reminds me a lot of Jeffrey Combs’ Herbert West in “Re-Animator”. The other characters are very similar to those found in other slasher films but it works here because they have a killer that we’re actually interested in. Holly Marie Combs (“Born On The Fourth Of July”) is decent as Jennifer.

“Dr. Giggles” is a movie with ridiculous kills and cheesy one-liners. It’s so much more satisfying to watch than the vast majority of slasher films that take themselves too seriously. There is more enjoyment to be had here than with any of the “Friday The 13th” pictures. This movie could almost be a Troma movie because it is a lot like “Toxic Avenger” and “Class Of Nuke ‘Em High”. If you want a funny horror flick then book appointment to see “Dr. Giggles”.

I thought “The Legend Of Titanic” was absurd but now comes a sequel. “In Search of the Titanic” (also known as “Tentacolino”) is a movie that defies explanation. This is a movie where a talking dog, who is seated in underwater chariot, fires a laser pistol at a talking rat while being cheered on by a giant octopus.

A couple, who survived the sinking of the Titanic, go in search of the wreckage of the ship but find themselves brought to Atlantis. It’s a bizarre place with a faceless ruler and toys that sing and dance like “Toy Story”. Unfortunately, this underwater kingdom is about to be under attack from an army of rats.

If you saw “The Legend Of Titanic” then you may vaguely recognise some of the characters including the talking dog and the talking octopus. The prison shark gang are also back. There are also loads of new characters including the singing and dancing toys that are basically stolen from “Toy Story”. Sadly, none of the characters are interesting and all their dialog feels awkward. The animation here is actually a little better than the previous movie. It’s not exactly a film that looks good but there is a noticeable visual improvement here.

This is a movie that has kidnapped logic and locked it in the basement. Nothing in this movie makes any sense whatsoever. It’s a stupid, stupid, stupid movie but at least it’s not as mundane as the other animated films based on the Titanic. Very young children may get some enjoyment out of this movie but why show them this when you could show them “Toy Story” or so many other family movies that are far superior. This is a laughably bad movie that is so ridiculous that almost feels like it was made with the intention of being the stupidest film ever made.

I thought the first “Rampage” film from director Uwe Boll (“BloodRayne”, “Alone In The Dark”) was about as despicable as you could get. It was essentially a guide showing you how to plan and execute a shooting spree. This sequel plays like outright terrorist propaganda. Parts of it feel indistinguishable from videos of Osama bin Laden.

Bill Williamson (Brendan Fletcher “Freddy vs. Jason”) is back. He takes hostages at a television studio so that they can broadcast his message of rebellion against the rich and powerful. He rants about the evils of the criminal justice system, corporatism, military interventionism and a host of other loosely connected subjects. He doesn’t care who he has to hurt to get his call to violence out there.

In the first film, we discovered Williamson wasn’t actually that interested in politics and orchestrated the whole massacre as a cover to steal money. Now, he’s suddenly wanting a revolution. The character is just boring. He’s a nihilist as he never actually explains what kind of society he does want; he just knows he wants to kill rich folks. The other characters are bland. Boll even has a cameo as the studio executive. His acting is as bad as his directing.

You can explore themes of violence against society’s elites but there is a world of difference between this and a brilliant movie such as “Joker” and even “Battle Royale II: Requiem”. “Capital Punishment” has nothing interesting to say, it’s just an angry and hateful movie. This film isn’t even that graphically violent yet the ideas here just come purely from a place of anger and hatred. If the first film supplied the methodology of terrorism, this sequel supplies the ideology. I don’t normally like to link films with real-life violence but the “Rampage” movies to seem to strive to bring the two together.

“Hitler: The Last Ten Days” is just one of several films to focus on the final moments of Nazi Germany’s Hitler. Here, Hitler is played by Alec Guinness (“Star Wars”, “Kind Hearts And Coronets”) and it’s certainly an interesting performance. Really, the performance is central just as it is in other films so focused on Hitler.

The movie of course takes place near the end of WWII. We see the once unstoppable German military is making its last stand. Hitler hides away in a secure bunker as he become s increasingly detached from reality. Unwilling to admit defeat until the very end, we see Hitler remain defiant. He still has ambitions to conquer the world for the glory of his nation and his Nazi movement.

Alec Guinness gives an interesting performance as Hitler. In some scenes, his British accent creeps in. During some of his rants, he’s unable to quite capture Hitler’s way of speaking. I certainly preferred both Anthony Hopkins in “The Bunker” and Bruno Gantz in “Downfall”. That being said, Guinness was apparently very passionate about getting this role. It’s still a really good performance; it just isn’t consistent. The other characters are not too memorable with the focus really being on Hitler.

“Hitler: The Last Ten Days” is not as polished as some other films on the same subject matter but it is still entertaining. If you are interested in WWII history than I think it’s still worth a watch. Again, this is not a movie with big battle, it takes place inside a bunker and it’s about the performances. Those looking for something with more action better look to “A Bridge Too Far” or “Saving Private Ryan”. If you’ve seen some of the other Hitler movies, it can also be really fun to compare the performances.