Reviews

Hardware is an 80's/90's sci-fi classic. That it isn't better known, talked about and referenced more often, held up as one of the great sci- fi films of its time, is a terrible shame; a terrible shame, but, as some of the other reviews and board messages attest, not entirely a mystery.

Hardware is, for want of a better word, 'artsy'. This alone (regardless of how vague and amorphous a term it is) will scare off many. It is of its era and chooses to explore the cyber-punk/industrial aesthetic to the utmost. This will also polarize. Some here speak of a lack of character development. Perhaps. But in place of that, we get a kickass movie with a beautiful look, a wonderfully grimy feel, and an extremely effective sound(track) (among other things). Lack of character development matters when it matters but when there are other elements at play, doesn't need to be the be all and end all of a film's effectiveness. Those who cling to 'the rules' of movie-making (and who aren't film-makers themselves) have sucked too long at the teat of Mickey Mouse film studies courses and their pompously self-assured pseudo-intellectual creators. Sometimes we should just let a film and its maker 'be' what/who they are, without having to super-impose the rules and regulations we've received from elsewhere.

All that being said, here's why I think Hardware is a great film: it looks beautiful--in this regard, it doesn't hide its dues to Blade Runner; but if you wish to follow the lead of the greats, Blade Runner is a supreme model; I have no trouble with such a homage (copy). It delivers gore aplenty--as such, its a sci-fi/horror rather than straight sci-fi; horror fans should rejoice. The special effects are very good-- the director knows his limitations; he shows just about as much as he can without pushing it; the drab junk-techno design choice helps enormously in this regard. It's well-paced--everyone will disagree with me here; it lays down the beginnings of its minimal plot and sets out to share its aesthetic; it does this, I believe, at just the right pace; halfway through the film, when the mayhem begins, we've had the right amount of time to enjoy the dusty red wash, the archaic/high-tech computer consoles and their LED dials, the orange post-apocalyptic skyline, the detritus of a self-destructed society: all the elements from which the Mark 13 will reassemble itself and wreak its inevitable havoc.

At least, that's how I viewed it and how I managed to enjoy it and be greatly impressed by it.

If anything you might describe as being 'artsy' is a turn-off for you, don't watch it. If lengthy elaborations of characters and their motivations and relationships and inner turmoils etc. (prior to their being gotten at by a rogue drone killing machine) are resoundingly a MUST for you, don't watch it.

While no devotee of the nunsploitation sub-genre, I am a fan of Italian horror and have also watched as many of the "Video Nasties" as I can find.

"Killer Nun" was ultimately a fairly disappointing experience. As a video nasty, one wonders why it was put on the list. The killings are hardly graphic and while there is nudity and sex scenes, they're not that frequent, extended, or graphic. We see boobs, a couple of shots of verdant 70s bush, and the flaccid penis of a morgue slab cadaver, but not much more. I suspect the name itself was enough to raise the ire of video store raiding bobbies; combined, perhaps, with the notion of a drug-addled, homicidal, lesbian nun! (Having typed all of that out, it almost seems like plenty of reasons to bother the censors! But really, the scenes are brief, not especially graphic or gratuitous, and few-and- far-between.)

Highlights are an occasionally entertaining score by Alessandro Alessandroni, the presence of a curvaceous former Italian Playmate, Paola Morra, and some pleasantly surreal morphine hallucination scenes. Other than that, it's a pretty forgettable hour and a half; probably worth watching only by completists or die-hard fans of Italian B cinema. I've certainly seen plenty worse, but there are also many better...mind you, if lesbian drug-addicted psychotic nuns are your thing, maybe this is the one-stop film for you!

'Gone' kept my attention and kept me interested for the majority of its length. Fast pacing, serviceable dialog, and pleasant visuals were part of the reason. The main reason, however, was the work of Amanda Seyfried who was quite excellent as Jill. She stole every scene she was in. There's some interesting quality she possesses that keeps you hanging off everything she does. Yes, she's attractive, but it's much more than merely that. Frankly, without her this movie would have been far less enjoyable; for the following reasons...

What makes 'Gone' a less successful film than it should have been is the manner in which the plot unfolds.

Here there be spoilers!!!

Our credulity is stretched to breaking by how clues/information just fall into Jill's lap. She quizzes the "squirrely" neighbor across the street about what he heard the previous evening and his curt denial suddenly yields to the most detailed information about a van, its color, how long it was parked, and what was written on it. This isn't so implausible, I suppose, but when this leads to what looks like a Google image search resulting in finding a van that matches the description, followed by a drive downtown which leads to one of the vans in question driving past her and leading her to the offices etc. it's all just too easy. I suppose it allows the movie to move along apace, but it doesn't bear a viewer's scrutiny. When a store owner not only verifies and names the mystery customer she's searching for, but has his car make, model, year, and color as well as address and future plans because he told him absolutely everything, it's getting plain ridiculous! To top things off, the ending is hardly satisfying. One aspect of the small twist is clever enough, but the rest of the finale is just so underwhelming.

Despite what sound like crushing criticisms on my part, I've given this a solid 6/10. That's mostly for Amanda Seyfried and the fact that she kept me entertained--against a wealth of silly plot developments as mentioned above.

An enjoyable action movie let down only by the predictability of the denouement.

All involved do a great job: acting, cinematography, the South African locations, everything is top class. Best of all--and this is where this film really delivers for action movie fans--the chase sequences, shoot-outs and fight scenes are all fantastically well done. Even the sound effects--the sound stage I believe is the correct term--are so realistic and very effective in making you feel every bullet whiz by and thud into a door frame or shatter a window. When Ryan Reynolds grapples with an assailant they are so convincing in their struggle, that you can feel the stress and strain of every muscle pushing back the blade from plunging into your throat.

While I most certainly enjoyed watching "Safe House" (and my 7/10 score reflects that), I was disappointed with the identification of the 'baddy'. At the very beginning of the film I knew it would be him. When it was finally revealed to us that it WAS him, it felt cheap and clichéd. Perhaps I've seen too many of these type of movies, but I can spot basically from the actor choice who it will be. Maybe I'm wrong in knocking a point off just because of my jaded cynicism. But the fact remains, I was right! Many others too, I'm sure, will make the same prediction.

Nonetheless, it was an enjoyable action-packed ride through the streets and townships of South Africa.

"The Tapes" begins slowly...and proceeds at a slow pace...and remains in first gear for roughly the first hour until things start to happen in the last twenty minutes or so. And much of what does finally happen happens in near-total darkness. It's the film's boringness and lack of interest and action, primarily, that makes it such an unrewarding watch and impossible to recommend.

I say 'primarily' because there's also the whole hand-held camera thing. And there's also the fact that the main characters are such annoying w***ers that it's a real ordeal trying to stay the distance.

About this last point first. The evening prior to watching "The Tapes" I happened to watch Barbet Schroeder's "More" (1969) (featuring a Pink Floyd soundtrack, incidentally). The most irritating thing about watching "More" was that the male lead was the most obnoxious a**hole I'd encountered in quite a while. It really made the film hard to persist with and near impossible to care about his fate. Then, the very next day, I was treated to this trio of d***s. Do film-makers not realize that their audiences have to 'hang out', so to speak, with their characters for about an hour and a half and, as with real life, if they're too annoying, too whiny, too much like complete f***-heads, you'll soon want to get the heck out of there! I understand if it's the point of the film or if the annoying ones get killed off in gloriously brutal manner, drawing a cheer from the audience, but to have us sit with them till the end is just trying our patience!

There have been plenty of these hand-held, home video type films recently. I've enjoyed some but, as with most fads, if the gimmick's over-done it soon becomes tiresome. I feel there are actually two closely related sub-genres at work here. One is the 'found footage' premise. "The Tapes" makes a half-hearted nod in that direction. As does "Gacy House". "The Poughkeepsie Tapes" is a more concerted example. (Both are terrible films, by the way.) I believe Ruggero Deodato's "Cannibal Holocaust" is the progenitor of the conceit, while "The Blair Witch Project" brought it into current favor. The other sub-genre is the actual hand-held 'video style'. Perhaps Michael Powell's controversial "Peeping Tom" (1960) is the distant relative here. There have been plenty of examples of this style over the last few years: "Rec.", "Cloverfield", and the "Paranormal Activity" films (though these last feature CCTV rather than hand-held video) to name but a few.

These two sub-genres tend to co-mingle often. One of the flaws in "The Tapes" is it belongs to the latter group but makes a half-cocked attempt to play into the former. At the very beginning a police officer tells us about the tapes and a little later a brother of one of the soon-to-be victims has his say too. But as the film goes on these elements are forgotten and the film plays out (in darkness!) as a hand-held video (notwithstanding the on-screen text at the very end). And of course, if you don't like the jumpy, jerky hand-held style, as many don't, this will annoy also.

This review is getting out of hand! I was struck to say something about the connection with the idea of a 'snuff' film that comes with these video style hybrids, but I'll save that for another day.

In short, this film attempts to cash in on the hand-held video and found-footage fads that are current at the moment. It fails at being a convincing example of the latter and ends up being just another run-of-the-mill example of the former. For horror fans, it's the sheer boringness of "The Tapes" and the almost complete lack of either gore or scares that will render it entirely dismissible. The 'chav' characters (for 'chav', see Wikipedia) are the 'icing on the cake' that make the film entirely unpalatable. I gave it 2/10 as I tend to reserve a score of 1 for Ulli Lommel films. But 0 or 1 would actually be appropriate scores for this rubbish. Even the fairly decent acting, which, in fairness it kind of is, isn't enough to save this drivel. Hopefully the next would-be film-maker with a lame-o idea for a film will spare us the hand-held found-footage melange and do something less passé. Please!

I wish to reinforce what several other reviewers have striven to persuade potential viewers of "Super Hybrid": that it is not a bad film--certainly not as bad as its low IMDb rating would suggest. I won't go so far as to say it's a great film, or even a very good one, but it does supply what so many other recent horrors do not: genuine entertainment.

A large part of the success is the kick-a** shape-shifting car. In what I presume is its 'base' form, it's a matte black '77 Chevy Nova (I think!). But it transforms itself into various other familiar muscle cars or pickups. If you love sweet rides, this movie will appeal. The driving chase sequences in the parking station are really well done also and the tire-squealing and rubber burning are further bonuses for rev-heads.

The car's biggest problem is under the hood. The CG effects for the big blobby gelatinous turtle-without-a-shell thing that is the actual creature 'unmasked' are pretty...um...poor. But hey! It doesn't matter so much. The whole film has a made-for-TV look to it, and some of the acting is pure daytime telly, so a viewer shouldn't really expect too much effects-wise.

Besides, the acting isn't so bad. The worst is the boyfriend in the beginning, but we don't see much of him. The a**hole boss, Ray, has his moments too, but you can put up with it.

One small thing I liked about this movie is that certain common sense idiocies that film makers often perpetrate, and which infuriate viewers, are avoided in "Super Hybrid". For example, when escaping the car in the parking lot, some characters run behind pylons to avoid being hit, instead of just running straight ahead to get chomped up; that's the smart thing to do, but so many film makers don't seem to like common sense choices like that. In one scene they try to ride some big dumb-a** police Harley (?) up some stairs. In "Ghost Rider" they may have pulled something like that off, but here the makers say, "No", and stupid ungainly bike just topples over a coupla steps in and riders are unceremoniously deposited on their a**es. As I said, it's a small thing--and there are plenty of other things that make no sense at all--but I noticed it and thought it was a smart touch.

Comparisons have been made in these pages with 1977's "The Car" and, while the earlier movie is far better in my estimation, it's not an invalid proposal. The key with both these movies is the car itself. As the stars of the show, they need to be as cool and bad-a** as they are. While not quite as awesome as the car of the earlier film, this shape-shifting mo-fo is still pretty darn cool and, as stated above, THAT is the real drawcard here. "Super Hybrid" is pretty much a success in this all important department. It's this coupled with decent pacing, well conceived and executed action sequences, and a solid score that elevate this above the dross it could so easily have been.

I want to mention the score once more. It's not something you expect to praise in a film like this, but I thought it was effective, unobtrusive when required, and well-suited to the scenes it illustrated. The opening aerial shot makes particularly effective use of the music.

So, for a silly, low budget, B-grade flick, "Super Hybrid" ticks the important 'Entertaining' box and a few others besides. Ignore the nay-sayers. Car buffs will likey and true horror fans (despite the lack of gore) will find something to enjoy. A solid 5.5 to 6 from me.

I must confess I am new to Pete Walker and this is only the second of his films that I have seen, the other being Frightmare. Regarding the earlier film, I was extremely impressed by his handling of the story and stylish visuals and direction throughout. Quality acting--better than is usual with this type of film from the era--was a surprising bonus. The same can be said for Schizo--well, mostly.

The acting here is also very good. Lynne Frederick as Samantha was really quite excellent as the doe-eyed (and very attractive) young newlywed figure skater who is the film's central focus. The actors around her do admirable work also. It seems--and other reviews here mention this--that Walker had a particular talent for drawing good performances from even the most unhailed actors; this was clear in Frightmare (e.g. Kim Butcher as Debbie) but is also clear here.

Where this film is arguably weaker than Frightmare, is with regard to the storyline. While red herrings are quite amply peppered about the place--or, rather, the viewer is lead to suspect various possible culprits: the cleaning lady, the new husband etc.--the ultimate answer is hardly surprising. BUT, I must confess that I didn't realize until quite late in the game. This is something of an embarrassing admission as, when I did realize, it was an "of course, how stupid of me" moment. That being said, the cliché in question was less of a cliché in 1976 and jaded horror film viewers in the decades since are less likely to not see it coming (myself excepted, I suppose). In my defense, I think I allowed Walker to take me on his trip and I blindly followed. Perhaps this is why I enjoyed the film so much and was so impressed with his direction. In short, if you let him suck you in, Schizo will impact upon you; but, if you see through the smoke and mirrors early on, the film can only underwhelm, at least plot-wise. Unfortunately, let's face it, most experienced horror/thriller viewers probably WILL see through the plot early on. I say, unfortunately, because it will then take something away from what is a well-crafted film.

One feature that interested me was the focus on the relationships in the film; particularly the notion of infidelity. The characters of Leonard and Beth are friends of the newlyweds and are presented in the midst of an extra-marital affair. Leonard has a wife somewhere who we never meet. There are suggestions of intimacy beyond mere friendship between Samantha's husband, Alan, and Beth also. Furthermore, Samantha's suspected tormentor is her mother's boyfriend at the time (her childhood), not a father or even a step-father. Now, I know these things are all quite normal and commonplace in the real world, but film-makers rarely take these paths, certainly not in what is just a slasher/shocker/horror flick after all. That the Leonard-Beth infidelity is almost wholly accepted; that the Alan-Beth relationship is merely suggested and never played up or focused on; that mention is never made of the role of Samantha's ACTUAL father; these elements interest me as a departure from the cinematic norm, especially in the Britain of the mid-70s.

Another feature that impressed me with Schizo (and Frightmare also) was Walker's visual alacrity. It's remarkable how fine direction can lift what could have been a very run-of-the-mill thriller to something a little finer. Walker's camera does a fine job following Samantha around the house with jump-scares ever suggested but never occurring, at least not where and when we expect them. Watching the film, I came to feel that the intimacy with which we come to know that house, with its several layers (and wonderfully kitsch 70s decor!), corners at the tops of stairs, closets under stairs, and ample places for shadows to hide, suggests something of the schizophrenic mind--a suggestion that I should possibly have seen as a big fat signposted clue! Possibly, but Walker is quite subtle here. Certainly subtler than Nicolas Roeg's earlier masterpiece, "Don't Look Now". Having mentioned that film, I wonder if Samantha's raincoat is a nod to Roeg's classic. Considering the muted grays, browns and dark colors usually preferred by our protagonist, I highly suspect the raincoat is a very literal reference to "Don't Look Now", especially as it will be worn by a creepy psychic.

Aside from Roeg, there is plenty of Bava, and Italian gialli in general, on display here. As a huge fan of this sub-genre and the work of Bava in particular (that's Mario, of course, not Lamberto!), that may further explain my enjoyment of Schizo.

There are certain questions that could be asked. What happened to the ice skating? Why didn't the mother's boyfriend 'take certain steps'? How could nobody suspect/see/catch the often bumbling tormentor? But these are small matters that can probably be adequately explained away by most viewers.

To conclude, Schizo is a stylish film that shows the touch of a quality director. Many aspects of the characters that it presents are intriguing and interesting to the point that it raises the film well above average fare of the era (and since!). Walker does a superb job of slowly building a sense of menace throughout the film and sprinkles enough red herrings for us to (perhaps) convince ourselves that really we're not at all sure who the killer is. However, the storyline and how it unfolds will most probably make it of break it for most viewers. I do hope nonetheless that those who see the end coming can at least take notice of how classily Walker gets us there.

Why do they keep making this cr*p?!

Some reasonable actors a bit of atmosphere...but that's it! And that's not enough!

I seem to have watched too many of these completely unoriginal B-grade turds of movies that they keep churning out recently. They're all the same! Loathsome characters, idiotic dialog, plots that you can pencil down before the film even starts and then check off as the film unfolds, complete absence of either gore or genuine scares (instead you get clichéd soundtracks and some jump edits)...and to make things worse, utter tedium. "Crazy Eights" had a little something extra: a premise that is so full of holes you spend half of the film asking "Now, hang on, how could they...?". The gaping chasm of this flick even extends to the title which, as others have pointed out, makes no sense once you give it a bare moment's thought. Are there 8 or 9 of them? Surely the girl in the box is the 9th! But, no, only 8. How can that be? It BE because the writers didn't rub enough brain cells together to get a spark and figure out what should have been glaringly obvious. And, what's more, the film takes itself seriously! Ugh!!!

There are too many of these sloppy, lazy, cookie-cutter horrors. Bring back the 70s and 80s! I know there's PLENTY of crap there too, but at least we got Tom Savini head explosions, Lucio Fulci outrageousness, John Carpenter suspense, Dario Argento cinematography and over-the-top set pieces, Jason Vorhees axes scythes spears and Terminator-esque unstoppableness...SOMETHING! Instead, we get "Crazy Eights"! Look, After Dark people, just stop. Or at least get rid of the 8 films requirement. There aren't 8 films good enough. Just release one kick-a** film whenever a good director/story/writer comes along. No more "Crazy Eights"!

Charges of unoriginality and predictability are often leveled against your average B-grade horror pap, but rarely have I seen a film so deserving of these criticisms.

Without even a touch of hyperbole, almost every plot turn could easily be predicted beforehand. Even the smallest things. The tree planted in the backyard, where she ends up at the end, Nate's paintings, the fates of Nate and her friend, even the bathroom scene near the beginning of the film - all utterly predictable. Certain events that occur are so sign-posted that even a horror film novice will see something coming later on. A good example is the intercom. The scene where it is introduced is such an obvious set up for what the director/writers must have thought was a cool creepy bit later on. The problem is, when it comes, it just isn't cool or creepy. We'd known it was coming all along and it just ends up being lame. The most glaring example is probably the box of old photos and stuff they find belonging to the early ancestors who had lived in the house. "He looks just like you", she says to Nate. Hmm, I wonder where this is going?! Seriously, it's all so predictable I even found myself mouthing dialog before the characters did on a couple of occasions. I swear, if you simply told the title - "Fertile Ground" - to a horror film buff who hadn't seen it they'd soon be piecing together something very close to the plot after not very long.

Positives? Well, I found the whole exercise of predicting all the goings-on to be entertaining in itself (hence the quite generous 4 stars). It might make a good drinking game: chug a beer every time your prediction comes true. You'd be smashed 40 minutes in! Genuine positives? The actors do OK. The female lead kind of looks like the attractive "Sex in the City" character. (Not horse-face, not the old one, not the ginger one - the other one.) Settings, camera work, lighting...Geez! What horror fan wants to pick out 'lighting' as one of a film's few merits?!

So, overall, not many positives here. Certainly not for a seasoned horror fan. The whole thing is far too cliché-ridden, far too predictable and unoriginal. The odd jump scare and syth-stab soundtrack tricks and the few glimpses of ghostly former tenants are not enough to produce genuine scares. Avoid "Fertile Ground".

Whoah! This is a very very bad film. Really, very very bad. In almost all aspects of the cinematic arts. Almost all? All! Decent, sensible folk (who wouldn't have rented it in the first place), will turn off after just a few minutes. And understandably so. But... for such a low-budget flick, "The Stink of Flesh" is actually fairly entertaining. Its biggest plus (and a pretty surprising one) is that it's decently written, again relative to its low-budget origins. The humor employed is mildly amusing - rising to 'quite' amusing on the odd occasion. And the plot, while glaringly unoriginal and dripping like a sieve, has the fun twist of characters who 'enjoy' taking on zombies - even seek them out - and having at them with hammers. Good stuff.

Alongside the cheesy goofball humor, though, is plenty of dumbness. One particularly exasperating example is when one idiot character opens the door WHILE ZOMBIES ARE TRYING TO CLAW THROUGH IT, not only to meet her own inevitable death, but also inflicting death upon an old man and a young boy who had been sheltering in the cabin. One of those groan-inducing idiot characters you are glad gets wasted. Then, more dumbness: immediately following this, Matool is saved (well, he's knocked unconscious with a car door and thrown in the back of truck) by Nathan, who we met previously, who also has the other young boy from the cabin in the car with him. We should assume, I suppose, that Nathan had swung by the cabin and saved the young boy before smacking Matool in the face with his car door. I guess that's what happened, but on first viewing it just isn't convincing. It smacks of sloppy plot hole or, more likely, deleted scene. This movie is full of such stuff-ups. There's some woeful acting (young boy number 1), some misdelivered lines (the girl who escapes to certain death), some unconvincing writing (I said it was fairly well-written, considering, and it is, 'broadly' speaking; but it's certainly not without its gawkish moments), inconsistent and wrong-headed pacing (action action action followed by way too long showing pieces of wood being nailed across a door; or too long of a man laying in a hot tub etc.), and REALLY unconvincing make-up.

But to focus on these negatives (and there are plenty more) is to do this particular film an injustice, in my opinion. This is a REAL low-budget job, made by some dudes for 'sh*ts and giggles' as they say - for the love of it! - and in doing so they've, yes been unable to include convincing special effects and expert acting, but have managed to make a fun film that doesn't take itself too seriously and reflects the fun had by those involved in its creation - as well as some future writing potential.

By contrast, I very recently watched (and reviewed) "The Hidden 3D" which was made by experienced industry professionals with a much larger (though still not very large, admittedly) budget and access to CGI and many other benefits "The Stink of Flesh" didn't have the luxury of. Yet, on the level of creativity and writing and enjoyability, "The Hidden 3D" was a MUCH worse film. In fact it was utter cr*p! "The Stink of Flesh", while clearly flawed (understatement) ends up being an entertaining piece of C-grade 'home brew' and more worthy of this viewer's plaudits than sloppy, cookie-cutter snoozeramas like "The Hidden 3D" (and many others of similar ilk).

In short: kudos to the makers. Hope you guys had fun. An open mind and VERY low expectations render this (barely) watchable schlock. But, hey, it's still better than...anything with David Caruso in it, for example. Cr*p, yes, but not the stinkiest kind. (Still, my vote is 3/10. I can't in good conscience grade this any higher.)

Never mind. Just my two cents.

As almost every other review here has pointed out, this is not really part of the "Demoni" series of films, despite its US release title. It would be much better off with its real title, 'The House of the Ogre' ("La casa dell'orco") - or, perhaps even better, just plain 'The Ogre'.

As a fan of Italian horror and gialli, I have watched plenty of films by the luminaries of the genre and plenty by less than bright sparks. In general, Lamberto Bava has always been a director who has underwhelmed this viewer. While he shows some stylistic touches no doubt gleaned from his father and friend-colleagues such as Dario Argento, he also shows the touch of the hack. There is a lack of attention to detail, of high enough standards, that shows through into the final product. As such, I am not that keen on the first "Demoni" (despite its popularity among fans) and loathed the horribly sub-par "Demoni 2". That this particular film isn't actually related to those predecessors is no great loss to me.

This film's worst mistake is that it is tediously boring. When Bava thinks he's building tension or rapport with his characters, he is merely succeeding in inducing narcolepsy. However, it's possibly a good thing that we don't see much in the way of horror action as the special effects, the ogre in particular, are so dreadfully done. I know that we can't expect TOO much from Italian schlock of this era, but much better has been achieved on budgets as small as this film likely had. One reviewer suggested the ogre's dress was reminiscent of Shakespeare. James Brown came to mind for me. Again, it's just sloppiness on Bava's part. Anyway, if a director knows he can't deliver on the visuals front, he can focus on tension and suspense. But, as mentioned earlier, Bava fails completely in this regard also.

There are some positives I can mention. The script isn't too bad. And it isn't dubbed. The locations are quite gorgeous (as are certain female actors) and the whole is predictably well shot. The plot too, while patently ridiculous, does actually hold together quite well and the viewer does come to understand what has been going on. Possibly the biggest highlight is Virginia Bryant as Cheryl. She does quite a good job considering what's thrown at her, and that she holds the screen for much of the film's length.

I have to mention one small thing that I'm not sure if anyone else noticed but which I found hilarious and was easily my favorite part of the film. In a scene about 30 mins. from the end, where Cheryl and Tom (Paolo Malco) are arguing in the kitchen, Tom slaps her. This in itself is hilarious as Cheryl seems to forget about that little bit of domestic battery a short time later. But when Tom slaps - intending a fake 'movie' slap, obviously - he very noticeably recoils in a kind of 'oh my god I hit you I'm so sorry' kind of way. Virginia Bryant keeps on acting and the scene remained in the film. But I am positive that Paolo Malco must have actually hit her by mistake. If you own the DVD/video check it out and see what you think.

Considering that this possible goof is my highlight for the movie, it gives you an indication of how good "Demoni 3"/"The Ogre" really is. It's not a COMPLETELY rotten movie, just one that's not worth watching. (Except for the slap, which some kind soul may extract and put on You Tube so no-one has to bother watching the movie at all.)

There should be no surprises here. The film begins in a manner that suggests a tired retreading of very familiar horror ground: man inherits disgraced mother's monastery-cum-clinic in the mountains, he and a group of friends venture out there and are met by a vaguely creepy guide; whilst poking around we get some jump scares and synth stabs suggesting we should be scared...oh, and there's no cell phone reception either, surprisingly...then our band of friends discover a secret passage leading down into the bowels of the building...etc.

With that being the opening 30 minutes, we're not expecting much we haven't seen before, but, we perhaps tell ourselves, there lays ahead some creepy ghoul-kids, some gory killings and a few good old-fashioned scares - SOMETHING to give a horror fan some cheap entertainment! As you may have guessed, this film ends up giving us nothing. The creepy kids are under-utilised and usually only half-seen in shadow. The 'gore' scenes are few and far between and barely anything is shown anyway; they are far from gory. Then comes the 'twist' ending which, even if you hadn't seen it coming, feels wholly predictable and unimaginative. It succeeded only in eliciting a long groan from this viewer. Whatsmore, the CGI 'fireflies' swarming about the place are never explained and, as the other reviewer noted, most probably serve only the film's 3D aspect.

On the plus side...well, there's not much. One of the lead actors is familiar from Dario Argento's "Third Mother". Incidentally, the Argento connection goes deeper. One of the co-writers (Coralina Cataldi-Tassoni) was in "Opera", "Phantom of the Opera" and "Third Mother" as well as the Argento produced "Demoni 2". One could unkindly jibe that her involvement in the 'disappointing' half of Argento's career brings commensurate mediocrity here.

In my opinion, this was a complete dud. Only the young or easily pleased will find enjoyment here. If you consider yourself to be a horror fan and have sat through the schlockiest B-grade fare for a few smile-raising beheadings and impailings and Fulci eye gougings etc., this film will only underwhelm - AT BEST!

As most of the other reviews here suggest, this isn't terrible movie, but it isn't a great one either. What I did like about it is the way it treats its main character. His serial killing is presented in a kind of run-of-the-mill way; like it's all just part of his day: chat with the wife, cup of coffee, maybe some ham, pick up a prostitute, torment torture and dismember her, then greet the wife when she returns. For what it's worth, I'm not sure if I've seen a psycho movie that takes quite this approach. Having said that, I did find it a tad dull. This pseudo-mundane, quotidian approach also tends to make everything seem a little unremarkable (outside the torture and dismemberment, that is). The killer's fascination with the diary of Landru, a notorious French murderer from the early 20th century, and his wish to emulate him, had the potential to be interesting, but nothing much comes of it, other than certain events at the very end of the film (which I won't give away; I'll let the viewer be underwhelmed without my *spoiling* it).

The single most irritating thing about the movie--and this may seem really shallow and dumb--is that the lead character REALLY looks a lot like Brad Garrett (you know, the big dopey brother from Everybody Loves Raymond). He even kind of sounds like him! (in Spanish, of course!) Profile, hair, even certain mannerisms--Brad Garrett! As you may imagine, it's pretty hard to take 'Robbie' seriously as he wields a chainsaw over a strapped-down Spanish prostitute in a splatter-proof room.

Overall, it's not SO bad a flick, but there's no way it belongs on your must-see list. 4 apathetic stars.