Hazzer_99

If David Attenborough chose to cover this, the entire episode of would last no more than five minutes and that's on a slow day. Apart from the fact that it is eye-gougingly boring and includes almost no noteworthy cinematography, it also does a pathetic job of actually answering the question in its title.

They explain the premise again and again, probably due to the original airing with intended trailer breaks, but it just makes the "documentary" even more frustrating to watch.

One of the worst documentaries I've watched in years, and far short of the usual Nat Geo standards. Free YouTube videos are many times better than this.

At a press event before The Sandman's premiere, Gaiman explained it was a conscious decision to cast a woman as Constantine, saying "The truth was, we talked about that during the initial sitting and having dinner before we pitched it to Netflix and everybody, that was one of the things that just sort of seemed to make sense. It was big and obvious that we were going to cast a woman."

Jenna Coleman may well portray her character well but that doesn't soften the blow when you have been waiting two years to see John Constantine on screen again.

The series is good otherwise, with an excellent performance by Dream.

In truth, this must be quite possibly the most predictable sequel I have ever seen in my life. It's become almost a fashion now for any and all sequels to just simply be rubbish. I don't know how or why, but I do know that it is one of those facts that everybody knows. Sequels are rarely if ever better than the original (T2 be the classic exception). But this film starts bad and gets continually worse with the predictability getting literally painful as you will find yourself screaming until your throat stings at the screen.

There are a number of pointers which make this film as bad as it is, and they are not surprisingly the exact same problems that haunt every other tacky horror film, but in this film they are present in spades. For one, you have all the stereotypical characters which straight from the outset make the film unbelievable. The tough-guy arsehole jock, who dates the lead girl at the beginning of the film. The lead girl who is pretty, but not the hottest, who thankfully doesn't scream as much as some of her counter parts. The loser who joins the group half way, turning out to be more likable than the arsehole jock would have you believe from the beginning. And the hot friend who serves as eye candy. And of course the deputy policeman who you suspect from the beginning as being a bad guy as he always turns up just after stuff goes down, but you never quite know.

All the characters, despite knowing for some time that the killer is definitely after them, continue to do mind blowingly ludicrous things like wander off on their own time and time again and sit in total darkness with a bottle of liqueur. This guy lives in the shadows, and yet they never turn the lights on. It's like they want to die. They're ALWAYS sitting on their own, wandering off in their own thoughts, swimming in a pool in the dead of night, sitting in an empty changing room, sitting at an empty bar, sitting in their empty bedroom. It's just so totally unrealistic. It's not horror when you are practically waiting for the guy to step out. There's no shock value.

The secret which involves an accidental death is blamed on the legend of the Fisherman and the kids cover it up, but they keep the secret fairly well. Considering they are pretty out the way in Colorado, it's hard to imagine how the Fisherman not only heard about it, but actually worked out who was involved. In fact, I deem it impossible. And of course, as he never talks, he never reveals how he found out. I didn't really realise this until later in the film, but it kind of ruins the whole idea if you think about it too hard.

Naturally The Fisherman is shot on two different occasions in the film. First time it's point black with a pump-action shotgun three times before he kills the wielder (there's bullet proof vests and then there's super human - this is just above and beyond any stupidity I have ever seen) and then again with a pistol about ten times. He always spasms when he's shot as if it's a bb gun. It was perhaps just about bearable in the first film. It was painful at the end of the second film that they didn't shoot him in the head. It was just so old that it's pathetic by this one. What is it with movie makers?! They're GUNS! You can't just shrug off bullets, vest or no vest! And why doesn't anybody EVER shoot for the head. People who don't shoot for the head basically deserve to die which must be, give or take, every horror film hero or heroine ever put to screen. Oh, and I don't remember The Fisherman having glowing red eyes and a zombified face in the other two films either.

It is one hundred percent predictable. You can accurately guess from the outset who will "survive", and to be honest by the end you really won't care if they die. I found myself straight-faced shaking my head in disappointment and total awe at about a dozen scenes of crass unrealism, and if you are the sort of person who can only enjoy a film if it is realistic, then avoid this one. If you're a casual movie watcher who doesn't mind if anything goes, then you might find it bearable. Directing was average, acting was average, score was average. Same old really. But the actual story was full on horror crap. If it's on TV, it's obviously worth a watch. It's not THAT bad, it's just by no means worth a buy.

But beware, if you were a fan of the original fisherman, he has changed. He's now got a more supernatural demeanour. Some may enjoy that - I personally prefer supernatural horror. But when it's the third of a trilogy of films it's not really fair to change the baddie just because the makers think people are getting bored. Had it been a killer in the box office it would be understandable, but instead it was one of those lost-in-the-machine movies which most people only see on the telly, so it's a shame that it's somewhat unfaithful.