Excellent adaptation.

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Ralphie (Mark Drake) has bad dreams and undergoes life regression conducted by his friend Claudia (Rosie Akerman) reading from a book. Unlike most people undergoing regression and being the King of Atlantis, he was a Nazi. He was involved in a project called "Operation Community" which was designed to create terror in England prior to the invasion. Meanwhile Ralphie's girlfriend Andrea (Sophie Barker) a Brighton girl, is cheating with Lucas (Miles Jovian) who is Chloe's boyfriend,Ralphie's visions takes them to a rural area of England as they search for his past life and giving Lucas and Andrea to do their rabbit thing. In a subplot, there is a unseen man contacting demons(?) through a black mirror with Nazi symbols so he can enact revenge. The two come together in a slightly unexpected manner resulting in a torture scene that was so-so.The film incorporates a unique script, but fails to deliver the goods. The intensity wasn't felt. And PLOT SPOILER what was that scene where we see Lucas' junk as he is clearly naked, and then later he is wearing underwear? Plot continuity, Please.Guide: F-bomb, sex, brief Miles Jovian's junk.

NAZI VENGEANCE is a very low budget British horror flick, shot in Ireland with a budget slightly higher than a typical indie. After some back story about the Akashic records, the story begins properly when a quartet of hikers venture deep into the countryside, only to find themselves mercilessly hunted by a mysterious stranger with a burning desire for revenge. The film's Nazi link is only evinced in a couple of flashbacks and doesn't really tie in to the main storyline all that well. When it comes down to it, this is nothing more than your usual grubby torture porn outing, although the acting isn't quite as bad as you'd expect. The surprise in the cast is the presence of Julian Glover, fresh off GAME OF THRONES and still going strong despite his advancing years.

The story is a complex narrative that his character driven. The drama is an intertwined melodrama of deception, suspense and the clashing of worlds by means of occult practices. "Backtrack" has a well written, very smart component that permeates the dialog, demands a belief in the supernatural, and explores past lives possibilities. On that level the film is excellent, a mature exploration of the ideals. There are elements that begin to wear down the suspense a bit. Dialog heavy, "Backtrack" demands a level of acting that the cast-although all give quality performances- cannot manage in order to keep the energy going from start to finish. The middle part gets a bit boring. The cinematography and direction that Sands brings is a strong, atmospheric show of his talent. Although I longed for a darker, more intense level of storytelling that would have really had me on edge. Unfortunately this film maintains a more PG-13 tone both visually and in dialog. The real excitement shows up in the final act of the film when the stories collide with some visceral, gritty horror driven moments. There isn't really any gore or heavy torture, but the attitude and feel of the final scenes hint to it. Overall "Backtrack" is a "soft" paranormal thriller, that is more closer to films like "The Innkeepers" as far as horror is concerned. On drama and story it is intelligent, contemporary, and yet whispers aspects of classic 60's British metaphysics/ occult thrillers.

The subject of this film could have been interesting, but the production leaves a lot to be desired.It is certainly not the worst film I have ever seen (keeping in mind I am talking about several oh-so-long decades) but it is not a film I would watch twice.The main problem with it seems to be the editing. Several scenes linger far too long without relaying anything to the viewer - they just hang there wasting time. One gets the feeling they were left this long just to fill up the time available.Also in the edit, scenes which seemed about to lead to something interesting just lead to nothing much at all. One is left wondering what the implied drama was all about. A bit like waiting for a big rocket on firework night only to be treated to someone lighting their fag.Continuity is another big problem. Someone (or some people) were not paying detailed attention! If you watch it you will see. Inexcusable in the modern age when a simple mobile phone is capable of recording details of a scene which can be used to set up the next scene.As for the acting, well it is what it is. The cast seemed to stutter along like planks in a fence. A shame, because I am sure there is talent there - it either wasn't brought out because of the lack of director's skill (and editing again) or they didn't have the freedom to interpret their characters.Overall I wouldn't bother with this film unless you have nothing better to do or are distracted by eating a very nice takeaway.