Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Angel Heart


1987 • Dir: Alan Parker • St: Mickey Rourke, Robert DeNiro, Lisa Bonet

Premise: New York, 1955. Private Detective Harry Angel is hired by the somewhat strange Louis Cyphre to find pre-war crooner Johnny Favourite. His investigation unveils black magic, evil and increasingly brutal murders.

Analysis:
Angel Heart is excellent. I don't say that lightly, but this film is incredible. The worn and grubby look of 50's America is still a refreshing change from the usual wholesome Rockwell-esque take on the decade most films continue to use. The cast are incredible in their roles. DeNiro is unsettlingly creepy as Cyphre, Rourke is back in his heyday here as Angel. Lisa Bonet broke free of her Cosby Show wholesomeness in this role, causing Bill Cosby to publicly criticise her for playing the voodoo laden, highly sexualised role of Epiphany.

The film builds carefully, and is very visual. Every shot is a beautifully framed composition. From the get-go when we meet Louis Cyphre we realise there's something very eerie about him. Prior to meeting Cyphre, Angel sees a fundamentalist Christian revival meeting, the pastor loudly and unashamedly demanding his flock to give them all their money "I should be driving a ROLLS ROYCE!" he cries. The various insanities and inanities of religion are prevalent in this film. Religion is NOT presented as a stainless force for good, it is shown to be selfish, authoritarian, creepy and a haven for the simple. This is a refreshing change in this sub-genre of film, which tends to present the church and its footsoldiers as incorruptible warriors in the army of All-That-Is-NOT-Naughty.

Harry Angel's search for Johnny Favourite builds a disturbing picture of Favourite in fragments. He is described as almost completely evil, a capable black magician and a wicked lover. Returning from the war Favourite became amnesiac and horribly scarred. It is revealed that he had been taken from hospital and released.

As Angel follows the trail, people start turning up dead in horrible and brutal ways. Dr Fowler, the junky doctor who had been covering up Favourite's disappearance from the hospital, is shot in the eye. Toots Sweet, the musician who'd known Favourite has his junk cut off and stuffed in his mouth. Margaret Krusemark (played with great subtlety by Charlotte Rampling), who'd also known Favourite has her heart cut out. her father is drowned in a massive pot of gumbo, and finally Epiphany, the child of Favourite and a voodoo witch named Evangeline Proudfoot, is shot in a place no-one should ever have a gun inserted.

SPOILER!! Type is in black below (select to read)


So.
The big reveal in this is a kick in the guts. The first time you see it, it WILL f#ck you up. It is revealed that Harry Angel IS Johnny Favourite. The evil Favourite placed his soul inside shell-shocked Harry Angel's body as a way of cheating the Devil, who it turns out is Louis Cyphre (get it? Louis Cyphre - Lucifer). Angel is told all of this by DeNiro's charming Lucifer, after Angel has had some pretty brutal sex with Epiphany, now revealed as his daughter. He races back to his hotel room, only to find her, shot (urg) with Angel's gun and wearing his long-lost dogtags. The cops stand there. "You're gonna burn for this Angel." one says.

Angel replies "Yeah, in Hell."

END SPOILER!!

This film is incredible. Even knowing the twist, it keeps you hooked, making a re-watching continually enjoyable. The cinematography, the subtle direction, the brilliant performances from the cast, everything adds up to make a truly memorable and classic devil flick.

Stars: 5 out of 5

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Comics Interlude


An addendum to the brief retrospective of Buffy and Angel.

Buffy and Angel both managed to live on in comic format.

Buffy The Vampire Slayer was continued in 'Season 8', set 1 year after the end of Season 7, presumably to allow for fleeting references to Buffy that were made in the final season of Angel, which ran in the year after Buffy the TV series finished.

Buffy is in charge of a worldwide army of Slayers. Besides the occasional feud with local vampires and side-trips to Tokyo, Tibet and New York, the Big Bad of Season 8 is a masked superhuman called Twilight. Regular characters are present, with Buffy's enhanced gang of Scoobies represented by Dawn, Xander, Willow, Giles, Faith, Andrew and Kennedy. A lot happens in this series, and as it is still going I am reluctant to comment in too much detail on the events of the series. Where Buffy in comic format excels is in doing crazy, big-budget things: the far future, exotic locales, teleporting a sub, 3 gigantic goddesses, Dawn becoming a giant, a centaur and finally a porcelain doll, flying, super-speed, the madness is frequent and breathtaking. The character dramas haven't stopped either: Buffy's fling with one of her Slayers, a romance between Dawn and Xander, Willow's ongoing worries about her power levels, Giles going rogue on Buffy before being accepted back into the fold. A lot happens, and is still happening in this season, so much so that it feels like a 'season and a half'.

Angel: After The Fall takes place the second after the TV show finishes, in a back alley with our heroes confronted by wall to wall monsters, intent on killing the hell out of them. Things get much worse quite sharpish, with all of LA turned into Hell. Like Buffy's Season 8, After The Fall benefits from its limitless budget, with dragons in the sky, LA's skyline turned hellish, a floating telepathic fish, and a talking T-Rex demon. After The Fall feels a lot more balls-to-the-wall insane than Season 8. True to the Angelverse, few of the characters have really entered Hell-LA unscathed: Gunn's vampirised, Illyria/Fred's slowly losing her mind, Angel's human, Gwen's electrified again, Wesley's shackled by contract as a ghost to Wolfram & Hart.

Some of the crew are doing well for themselves: Lorne's running Silverlake as a Demon Lord, Connor and the Groosalugg are doing very well for themselves and Spike is accompanied by a scantily clad gang of kickass women.

After The Fall is accompanied by a series that explains every character's first night in Hell. When After The Fall wraps up, LA returns to normal, with the one exception that now Angel is a celebrity. The mock-official movie adaptation 'Last Angel In Hell', based on the in-universe film made by hack Hollywood scriptwriters in the wake of LA's return to normal, is absolutely hilarious. Its missed beats should be no surprise to anyone who's seen their favourite comic mangled by Hollywood. It makes me wonder whether the Angelverse Jon Peters produced 'Last Angel In Hell'.

Angel is also still continuing, and I'd say more but my wallet only allows me to catch up with so many trade paperbacks a month.

In tone and approach, both comic franchises continue their TV counterparts admirably, even upping the scales, with bigger effects and a bigger cast. If you've been pining since the cancellation of both TV shows, you could do worse than catch up with the comic series.

TV Interlude



So recently I finally finished watching all of the Angel TV series - the spin-off from Buffy The Vampire Slayer. Without going into episodes and really specific details, I thought I'd do a very quick comparison between Buffy and Angel.

Buffy The Vampire Slayer ran for 7 seasons. Its initial theme 'High School as Hell' produced some very intriguing episodes, using the vehicle of the supernatural backdrop to explore some very personal issues for the teenaged characters, and other kids at Sunnydale High School. As the characters grew older, finished high school, started college, got jobs, the various apocalypses, 'big bads' and monsters of the week all managed to provide a backdrop for the ongoing character dramas the characters were going through.

Buffy was very solidly structured. In addition to each episode's drama, and villain, each character had an ongoing season arc, and faced a series finale 'end boss', labelled the 'Big Bad' in Buffy parlance. New characters came and went, but the core of Buffy, Willow, Xander and Giles were (almost) always present. The lighter tone served to make more serious episodes, including 'The Body' - the episode that dealt with the death of Buffy's mother, Joyce - truly heartbreaking to watch.

Angel spun out of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and ran for 5 seasons. Its tone was definitely darker, dealing as it did right out of the gate with adult characters, and their various dramas and problems. Angel's biggest differences with Buffy, apart from general tone, were a decentralised approach (no real Big Bad or overarching season plot), and a much more frequently revolving cast of characters. The core characters in Episode 1 are Angel, Cordelia and Doyle. The last episode of season 5 by contrast has Angel, Wesley, Spike, Lorne and Illyria with Gunn, Connor and Harmony in tow. Buffy in comparison starts with Buffy, Willow, Xander and Giles and finishes with those same characters, with Dawn, Faith, Robin Wood and Andrew in tow.

Angel also really upped the ante with shocks, betrayals and deaths among their heroes. Doyle is killed off in season 1. Wesley betrays the group and is abandoned before going a little mad and being killed in season 5. We are introduced to Gunn, who ends up making some very dodgy deals, and ends the series with an aparrently mortal injury. We are introduced to Fred, a much-loved geek-girl character, who is then hollowed out and possessed by the demon Illyria. Cordelia goes through an amazing character arc. Just as she has reached a high point, she dies, comes back inhabited by the evil Jasmine, dies again and ends up an invisible, remote Higher Being TM.

My wife gave up watching halfway through series 5, simply because she was tired of being "ass-punched by Joss Whedon".

Angel has a dedicated following and many people prefer it to Buffy. I'm not so sure. Angel feels confused, a little random, and seems to enjoy shock for shock's sake. Buffy feels like a more tightly plotted series, and its emotional highs and lows seem to work in the broader scope of the series much better.

Both have been continued officially in comics format - Buffy as 'Season 8' published by Dark Horse comics, and Angel: After The Fall published by IDW. A 'Season 9' for Buffy has been announced and Angel will be crossing over to Dark Horse, so both series can intertwine a little more closely.

Both series are always worth watching, but I lean towards Buffy as the better series.

And Now The Screaming Starts


1973 • Dir: Roy Ward Baker • St: Peter Cushing, Stephanie Beacham, Herbert Lom

Premise:
Virginal young Catherine arrives at the Fengriffen mansion to be married to her prospective husband Charles, latest scion of the Fengriffen family. No sooner are they wed than Catherine starts seeing ane eyeless, handless ghost, a painting that exerts a horrible mesmerism, and a ghostly creeping severed hand. What is it that haunts the house of Fengriffen?

Analysis:
This film is from Amicus the low-budget studio that rivalled Hammer and also shared many of their stars, such as Cushing and Lom, who despite their high-ranking billing, only make small appearances in the film - Lom in a flashback, and Cushing not until half way through the film. And Now The Screaming Starts was directed by Roy Ward Baker, also a Hammer alumnus, whose Hammer credits include; The Vampire Lovers, Scars of Dracula and Doctor Jekyll and Sister Hyde.

Let me say straight up that this is not a good movie. It is cheesy, silly and the effects are laughable. That said, it is also a good old-fashioned ghostly revenge flick, the kind that nobody does anymore. Stephanie Beacham is delightful as the virginal Catherine, swooning and screaming her wide-eyed way through material that is as flimsy as wet paper. Herbert Lom is beautifully vile as the long-dead Henry Fengriffen, a cad, blackguard and bounder of the first order, and Peter Cushing is on safe ground as the scientifically minded, anti-superstition Dr Pope. Cushing looks frail and gaunt in this, but he still went on to do 35 more films and TV episodes after this - more than some actors do in their entire career.

The plot revolves around a curse levelled against the Fengriffen family by a woodsman whose wife is raped by Henry Fengriffen on their wedding night. The curse is directed against the first virgin bride to enter the Fengriffen house. Little of the twists and turns of the film make any sense at all, and the ghost hand is hilarious, seeming as it does to spy on people without the benefit of ears to hear or eyes to see.

The hand busily kills everyone it can get its clammy grip on, who comes between Catherine and the curse.

I'm not going to reveal the end, partly because this is a film few people are likely to have seen, and also partly because it's very silly - like something out of an old EC horror comic.

Do I like this film, well yeah, in a guilty pleasure kind of way. I wouldn't rewatch it very often, and it's really not very good, but not bad for a chuckle.

Stars:
2 out of 5

After a long hiatus

I'm back. Laziness and life in equal measure have intruded on the horror-lovin'.

That being said, a new review should be up today. Fingers crossed.

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

An American Werewolf In London


1981 • Dir: John Landis • David Naughton, Jenny Agutter, Griffin Dunne, John Woodvine, small appearances from Frank Oz, Brian Glover and Rik Mayall

Premise: David Kessler and his friend Jack Goodman are hiking through wild and woolly rural England. Jack is set upon by what looks to be a wild wolf and killed, while David is merely scratched. Waking in hospital, David soon receives a visit from the ghost of his friend Jack, who tells him the horrible news - David has been injured but not killed by a werewolf and at the next full moon, he too will become become a werewolf and kill.

Analysis:
This is John Landis in top form. Written and directed by him, this film is not only one of my favourite films, but also a classy werewolf flick, and one of the best examples of comedy horror around.

David's plight is a sublime mixture of black comedy and true fear for his sanity, and this is what makes this film a real joy - the perfect mixture of horror and comedy. While David's nightmares are horrible, while Jack's slowly rotting appearances are horrible, and the murders David commits while in Lupine form are bloody in the extreme, the moments of comedy are so deftly handled, and so seamlessly intertwined with the horror, that Landis hands you a perfect package.

Of course, David does not want to believe that Jack is really talking to him, or that he's going to sprout hair, run on all fours and eat people at the next full moon. He's much more interested in romancing his caring and considerate nurse (Alex Price, played by Agutter), who seems very archly English compared to the very American David. David's culture clash is bought hilariously to the fore when, after he has realised he HAS shapechanged and killed, he runs up to an English bobby and screams 'The Queen's a man', 'Prince Charles is a faggot!' in order to get arrested. Which, of course, fails.

While a little dated now, Rick Baker's effects are still solid and impressive. The nightmare Nazi demons, the rotten Jack Goodman, and the David/wolf itself are all brilliant pieces of SFX from an age where CGI simply wasn't used because it looked awful.

The customers of the English pub David and Jack visit just before Jack's death - The Slaughtered Lamb - are also a treat. Sullen rustics in almost a James Whale-ean bent. Brian Glover is especially sullen and local.

There's a lot in this film about Landis' obvious love for the Universal golden age of monster cinema, especially The Wolf Man, as the film frequently references The Wolf Man. Landis' frequent in-joke of 'See You Next Wednesday' also makes an appearance in the form of a slightly surreal English porn film, where David goes to meet Jack, and gets introduced to his other victims, who then launch into a plethora of suggestions on how to top himself.

SPOILER (in black type below-select to read)


Well if you haven't seen this film, and don't want the ending ruined, you have no excuse - it's been out since 1981! An American Werewolf In London shows Landis' love for The Wolf Man pretty clearly in the ending. David, having professed his love for Alex, is now in the porn cinema and begins to change. Discovered by a policeman in lupine form, having turned the rest of the cinema-goers into small piles of sticky gore, wolf-David escapes into the London streets, and is cornered down a dead end alleyway. Alex breaks through the police line, who are ready to shoot him dead the second they get a clean shot. She professes her love for David, and for a split second, you get the impression that even in bestial form, he understands, as the beast's expression softens. It is not to last however, and the wolf snarls, the police open fire and David dies, naked and bloody in a dirty London alleyway. Alex cries. The End.

The theme of this is of course, The Wolf Man's theme that only love can truly kill the werewolf. Alex's declaration of love for David foreshadows his death - suicide by cop perhaps? - by only a split second.

End Spoiler

An American Werewolf in London is a classic film, and if you haven't seen it by now, you should, before other people find out and mock you.

Stars: 4 out of 5

An American Haunting


2005 • Dir: Courtney Solomon • St: Donald Sutherland, Sissy Spacek, Rachel Hurd-Wood

Premise:
In the early 19th Century, the Bell family of Red River Tennessee begin to experience violent haunting phenomena in their home, seemingly centred on their daughter Betsy.

Analysis: This is based on one of America's most enduring haunting legends. The film, while a visual treat, and featuring some top shelf acting talent in the form of Sutherland (playing John Bell), Spacek (his wife Lucy) and radiant young actress Hurd-Wood (playing their daughter, and the focus of the film, Betsy), feels a little fragmented.

The film opens with a modern-day framing sequence, with a young woman pursued by some sort of spectral pursuer. Her mother discovers a letter written by Betsy Bell, which tells her story of the famous haunting. This then segues us neatly into the events that make up the primary narrative of the film.

Betsy lives with her family. Her father, John Bell, is a local community pillar, and she has a budding romance with her school teacher, Richard Powell (played by James D'Arcy). John Bell angers his neighbour, who curses him and his daughter - cue the supernatural phenomena.

The ghostly torment of Betsy takes up most of the film, with the family and their friends all witness to much of the phenomena. The lead cast all do a very good job - Spacek is good as the weary, caring mother, Sutherland convincing as the vaguely creepy father, and Hurd-Wood very good as the chief protagonist.

I guess the thing that got to me about this film is that it felt like it was being pulled in too many directions. The modern framing sequence, while having a parallel with the story beyond being a mere 'letter from the past' introduction technique, felt intrusive and a little pointless at first. The reveal of the cause of the haunting that comes at the end also felt tacked on. Don't get me wrong, I'm very skeptical of most haunting stories, and the reveal made a modicum of sense, BUT there was very little in the film to support the reveal, which I found to be a bit of a cheat.

SPOILER (in black type below-select to read)

As it turns out, the cause of the haunting is Betsy herself. Through some sort of telekinetic out of body astral thingummy, she has been tormenting herself and her family. The cause? She is revisiting trauma visited upon her by her father, who it is revealed has sexually assaulted her for at least a year. This makes no sense. Why did the phenomena only just start recently if the causal trauma has been underway for a year? Why was Besty bright and bubbly for a year beforehand if she had been abused by her father? The modern framing sequence hints to us that this sort of torment continues today, which though grim, is not really surprising, and seems to belabour a point that we do not need belaboured, as it already hits us hard enough.

There is a theory that poltergeist phenomena is prevalent when an adolescent is present, and moreso if the adolescent is undergoing some form of trauma or depression. This theory seems purpose made for the events of this film, but at the same time, the desire to play the film as supernatural and parapsychological and psychological all in one breath seems clumsy.

END SPOILER

I like this film, and I want to like it a lot more, but the confused direction holds me back.

Stars: 3 out of 5

Monday, July 19, 2010

A question...

This is a question for my thriving, teeming audience of 4. Should I throw in some horror/supernatural TV at the end of this project? Should I avoid horror/supernatural TV? Should I establish a parallel blog?

Stuff I COULD cover includes;
• Buffy The Vampire Slayer
• Angel
• Moonlight
• True Blood
• Unsolved Mysteries
• Kolchak
• X-Files/Millennium
• Forever Knight

It's a dilemma alright...

The Swag


A random selection from the swag of films I picked up recently - some DVD replacements for old VHS copies, a bit of giallo, some devil horror, Rollin vampirism, and The Cell - a good film to watch with the sound off and industrial music played over the top of it.

Alone In The Dark



1982 • Dir: Jack Sholder • St: Dwight Schultz, Donald Pleasance, Jack Palance, Martin Landau, cameo from NY punk band The Sick F*cks


Note:
I had borrowed this recently, and this weekend I purchased a copy, so now it meets the criteria for me to review it (ie I own it and it sits on my horror movie shelf). This means it just manages to jump in before I get to An American Haunting.

Premise: Dr Dan Potter (Schultz) starts his new job at a mental asylum run by the eccentric Dr Leo Bain (Pleasance). He is introduced to the asylum's four maximum security patients - Frank Hawkes (Palance), 'Preacher' (Landau), 'Fatty' and 'The Bleeder'. A power blackout across the whole town frees the four lunatics, and sets them loose on their mission to kill the new doctor and his family.

Analysis: I really enjoyed this film when I borrowed it off a friend (a co-conspirator from the mad and deranged Cult of the Chainsaw), and when I saw it lurking on the shelf in one of my favourite haunts (nerd paradise Minotaur) I picked it up.

The plot revolves around the belief formed by the four loonies that Dr Potter has killed their previous head-shrinker, and now plans to kill them. When the power goes out in the town, the four loonies escape and stock up with guns, crossbows and garden tools to stalk, hunt and kill Dr Potter and his wife, sister and daughter.

There are such top shelf talents in this film - Donald Pleasance is wonderfully kooky as Dr Bain, Jack Palance his usual good self as the deeply insane Hawkes, and it was a treat seeing just what a deep level of crazy Martin Landau can achieve. I was truly spooked by him, which was a bit of a revelation, as I only had hazy memories of him from Space: 1999. Dwight Schultz, who usually plays the kooky, funny guy, played a sensitive, staid psych doctor quite well. It made me realise there may be depths to him I'd never recognised before.

The set up of the film is really quite simple, but is enriched by great performances from solid actors, and some nicely paced direction from Sholder (of homoerotic subtext Nightmare On Elm Street 2 fame).

After visiting a local punk band (cameo from NY band The Sick F*cks) at his sister's behest, Potter and his wife return home to find the plot to kill them underway. We know Hawkes, Preacher and Fatty are nearby, but The Bleeder (so named because he gets nosebleeds when he wants to kill) has split off from the group and disappeared. The loonies have already visited the house and killed the babysitter and her boyfriend in the archetypal 'they who screw first, die first' horror movie rule.

Meeting up with a stranger in prison, where Potter's wife and sister were taken after attending a protest, the family, the stranger and a cop concerned for their welfare all converge on the house. What follows is pretty standard fare, but no less engaging for that. Potter's sister, recovering from a bout of mental illness, starts to wig out, as the attack of the lunatics heats up.

SPOILER (in black type below-select to read)

Okay so I guessed this pretty early one, but the friendly stranger is in fact the Bleeder, whose face had been obscured through the film to date. He gets a nosebleed while holding Potter's sister which gives him away. There's a reasonable body count. The babysitter and her boyfriend are finally found dead, Preacher and Fatty both get done in, as does the cop and the Bleeder. Bain gets killed as well. Finally the power comes back on, and a TV new bulletin shows Hawkes' former doctor alive and well, taking the wind out of his sails.

Hawkes escapes to the punk club, where the power is back on as well. Watching The Sick F*cks sing 'Chop Up Your Mother' he beams and says how he feels right at home.

END SPOILER

This was a good film. It has some pretty run of the mill twists and turns, but all up it's a good solid effort.

To close, I will relate something from the interview with three of the leftover Sick F•cks which was a special feature on the disk. One of the band members ran into Jack Palance in New York some years after the film. He ran up to him "Jack! Hey, Jack! Remember me? We were in that film Alone In The Dark together. I was one of The Sick F*cks." And Jack replied in that characteristic voice of his "I think we were ALL sick fucks in that film." Classic.

Stars: 4 out of 5

Thursday, July 15, 2010

Next



Next up we've got three little sweet gems;

• An American Haunting - Donald Sutherland meets the Bell Witch legend.
• An American Werewolf in London - John Landis does lycanthropy.
• And Now The Screaming Starts - Amicus ghostly revenge film.

And thus does the enthusiasm come flooding back...

Monday, July 12, 2010

Amityville Sequels

Amityville Horror II: The Possession
1982 • Dir: Damiano Damiani • Some folk, meh


Okay, so I'm going to keep the reviews short for each of the three Amityville sequels I've got.

Amityville II is (very) loosely based on the original DeFeo murders. Substitute DeFeo for Montelli and Ronnie for Sonny, add demonic possession, badda-bing badda-boom, you got Amityville II.

As supernatural horror, Amityville II is kind of silly. As a portrait of a brutally dysfunctional family, it's pretty much spot on. Some of the intra-family violence in the film is reputed to actually have occurred in the DeFeo family, which lends a very nasty frisson to the film. Ronnie's dad is supposed to have beaten up Ronnie, and Ronnie's mother quite often. Ronnie DID pull a rifle on his father at one stage. There the similarity pretty much ends. Amityville II was based on well-known parapsychologist Hans Holzer's book on the Amityville house and name-drops a few of the other 'theories' - indian burial ground, witch, etc - as to why the house on Ocean Avenue is 'haunted'. By the way, no Indian burial ground has ever been found under or near the Amityville house, no evidence that a witch ever lived on or near the site has likewise ever been found.

Amityville II is pretty much a battle of wills between the 'demon' that is 'possessing' Sonny, and the local priest Father Adamsky. The battle of wills is pretty much at the end of the third act, and is meh, okay.

Quite possibly the biggest ick in the film is the incest between Sonny and his younger sister Patricia. I feel oogy just thinking about it. The only thing that made it a meagre fraction more bearable was learning that Diane Franklin who plays Trish Montelli was 20 yrs old when she did the film, because boy howdy does she look about 15. Ick. Until today, I didn't piece together that she's the french chick in 'Better Off Dead' - one of my favourite 80's teen films. Cool.

As a devil film, Amityville II is highly derivative of The Exorcist. If you've seen both, you'll know what I mean. As a domestic abuse film, the supernatural content cheapens it. As a dramatisation of the DeFeo murders it's highly fanciful, and too saturated with Hans Holzer's peculiar theories.

The only thing that scared me in this film was the incest. The rest made me nearly go to sleep. When I have to go outside in the 5º cold to have a cigarette to wake up, I know the film is seriously boooooring.

Stars: 2 out of 5


Amityville III: The Demon aka Amityville 3-D
1983 • Dir: Richard Fleischer • St: Tony Roberts, small role w/ Meg Ryan


I'm well into hating Amityville by now. This film was the 3D entry into the series. In a nutshell, reporter for mysticism debunking magazine and friend unveil seance fraud at Amityville house. Reporter later buys house and moves in. House tries to kill him and family with standard Amityville hauntedness. Well/gateway to hell in basement. Flies. Spooky photos. Stuff. Drowned girl seen in house moments before reveal that she is dead. Oooooooooooh!

I felt lightly brain damaged after watching this fiasco. Tony Roberts looks like Frankenstein with jug ears and poodle hair.

No point, no meaning, lost, lost in world of Amityville shittiness. Please rescue me before I lose my mind. When I'm done with this project, I'm taking a hammer to this disc.

Stars: 1 out of 5


The Amityville Curse
1990 • Dir: Tom Berry • St: Kim Coates


This time we're still in Amityville, but not at the famous shack on Ocean Avenue. We're apparently drawing from a Hans Holzer book still. The set up for this, the SIXTH Amityville film (yeah, seriously, I know), is a bunch of yuppies invest in a house - you know, to clean it up and sell it on for more cash - before falling victim to the spoo-doo-dookiness of life in the quiet town of Amityville.

Two couples and a single have many spooky experiences - dreams, visions, sounds. Oh and one of them is going seriously bonkers.

The background is that their house was once a parochial house for the local dog-collar sky pilot. He gets killed in the confessional booth, and all the stuff from the local church, where he died, is now stored in the basement of his old house. This includes a haunted confessional. Yes, go back and read that again. Why would you be a priest in Amityville? It has to suck major dog's balls. "Well father, we're shifting you to Amityville." "What in the FECK!"

Murders happen, and the sins of the past are about to be exposed.

I'm not going to reveal the ending, but what I will say is simply this: This one wasn't that bad. It suffers from having the Amityville tag attached, and could easily be set anywhere else, and be a mildly pleasant little horror film.

I may spare this one the hammer of filmic justice.

Stars: 2 out of 5

Monday, July 5, 2010

Another Amityville Addendum

So I made a mistake, the Amityville house is not for sale for 1.5M USD. Still, check it out, now renumbered as 108 Ocean Avenue, and without the weird quarter circle windows: http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/108-Ocean-Ave-Amityville-NY-11701/32596605_zpid/

Sunday, July 4, 2010

Amityville addendum

Something I should have added to the wrap-up on Amityville. In one of the doco special features, Margot Kidder talked about meeting horror fans because of the film. She said that she liked meeting horror fans because, unlike a lot of other movie fans, horror fans were actually quite intelligent and seemed generally quite knowledgeable about cinema.

That's really nice isn't it? Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Margot Kidder, I salute you.

And now, shower me with your pity...



For next I must contend with not one, not two but THREE, THREE Amityville sequels.

(from the ever-helpful Wikipedia)
• Amityville II: The Possession (1982) based on the DeFeo story, and with some fascinatingly repulsive incest thrown in.
• Amityville 3D (1983) (made in 3-D, and has also been released as Amityville III: The Demon) Meg Ryan in trouble again.
• The Amityville Curse (1990). Where someone buys a haunted LAMP or some shit from an Amityville garage sale. EDIT: It's not a lamp, I just had no recollection of what happened in this film since I saw it 5 years ago.

Wikipedia also reliably informs me that nine Amityville movies have been made in total. NINE. The mind boggles.

The Amityville Horror


1979 • Dir: Stuart Rosenberg • St: James Brolin, Margot Kidder, Rod Steiger

Premise:
George and Kathy Lutz move into their new home, but no sooner than they do, than the usual raft of 'my house is possessed by satan' phenomena begins occurring. This is based on a true story. Though the truth of the story is more than a little dubious...

Analysis:
The Amityville Horror is the scariest movie in the world... about mortgage fraud. Like Altered States, I saw this film when it first came out when I was a kid. I was 8 when I first saw The Amityville Horror at a drive in, and at the time it scared the living shit out of me.

But I'm 30 years older and wiser now, and The Amityville Horror just seems kind of... hokey to me now. Let me first say, that I don't get 'house haunted by satan' films. Why? If you're the 10,000-odd year old rebel Lucifer, why in the name of all that's shitty would you want to haunt a house and scare the bejeezus out of a surveyor, his wife and her 3 kids by a previous marriage? Why would you appear to the little girl as a walking on two legs pig motherfucker called Jody? Why would you manifest to a priest as the strong scent of feces? I would credit the Devil with a little more integrity than that.

Of course, the house was never haunted. Yes Ronnie DeFeo did kill his family. Yes, he did say he heard voices in the house telling him to kill. But snorting all that coke, like 'Butch' DeFeo did provides an alternate reason. Satan or drug psychosis? Why not let Occam's Razor decide kids!

The families who've lived in the Amityville house since have never had a problem, apart from incessant armies of gawkers and amateur exorcists and ghost hunters wanting to 'investigate' the house. It's up for sale now if you're curious, at the sweet price if 1.5M US$.

Here's what many believe to be the true story of the Amityville house. Drugfucked, bullied son Ronnie DeFeo decides to kill his mum and dad one night, with help from the older sister. She kill their younger siblings as well. Ronnie cracks, kills his sister as well. Ronnie gets dragged off to the booby hatch. Here's a hint kids, don't push for an insanity plea if you're actually crazy. Someone might believe you and sling you in a rubber room for the rest of forever.

Sometime later, George and Kathy Lutz move in to the Amityville house, now with a nice price reduction due to the 'a multiple murder happened here' discount. George, whose business is doing poorly, and has just taken on the expense of a new wife and family, ever so wisely massively over-extends his finances with a crippling mortgage as well.

George and Kathy want to default and bail after a month, but Mr Bank Kill-Joy says 'No'. With the help of their lawyer and several rattan-covered bottles of 1970's chianti, they concoct the 'my house is haunted, so, er... by the way, I shouldn't have to pay off the mortgage' story.

The end.

There's really a lot that's terrible about this film. James Brolin's limp attempt at crazyeyes, Rod Steiger's ferocious, hammy scenery-chewing acting, and just the sheer nonsense of most of the phenomena - 'Hey there's a glowy eyed pig standing in the window waving at me, better axe it to death! Who wants bacon?' - makes The Amityville Horror a film that massively suffers from a nostalgic re-viewing. Do yourself a favour and watch instead the documentary that comes with most versions of the original film, the documentary that makes out what big-ass LIARS George and Kathy were.

Stars: 1 out of 5

Saturday, July 3, 2010

Altered States


1980 • Dir: Ken Russell • St: William Hurt, Blair Brown, Charles Haid

Premise: Eddie Jessup begins experimenting with isolation tanks and hallucinogenics to see if there is some underlying common race memory of mankind that explains spiritual phenomena. Or something.

Analysis: I can't really call this film horror, but then again it's also called science fiction, which I don't think fits either. In the end, I keep it on the horror shelf because it scared the piss out of me when I saw it as a kid.

This is William Hurt's first feature film, and also quietly features the first film appearance of a wee Drew Barrymore. Adapted from Paddy Chayefsky's first, last and only novel (Chayefsky himself adapted the screen play) and directed by the renegade director Ken Russell, Altered States is one incredibly messed-up crazy movie.

The central plot of the film revolves around Prof Eddie Jessup's experiments in a sensory deprivation tank while knocking back shooters of a hallucinogen that may be intended to be ayahuasca.

Eddie's first trip is a cue for the usual gaudy visual madness of director Russell, including a trip to the Garden of Eden, and the occasional side trip into a flaming Hell. Not much of a one for drugs myself, I watch Altered States so I don't have to take peyote or acid. To my dying days I will probably imagine that acid trips must be like a Ken Russell film.

The film really does feel pulled in two directions - the intelligent dialogue, original John Lilly research, and search for purpose in man's evolutionary history is Chayefsky's, while the lurid, gaudy and religious overtones are undeniably Russell's. The two are said to have argued quite a bit during filming, causing Chayefsky to have his screenplay credited as 'Sidney Aaron'. To be honest, while Russell's satanic, crucified goat-head figure is what I mainly remember seeing from when I was a kid, it is Jessup's obsessive drive to find this shared genetic memory of humanity, and the idea of physical regression that I find most intriguing.

With an adult viewing, Ken Russell's Garden of Eden and devilish/hellish imagery look, well, a bit silly. One moment everyone's talking soberly about DNA, anthropology and evolution, and the next a snake/Edenic serpent is choking Jessup/Adam to death under an umbrella. You've got to give credit where credit's due - Ken Russell's an amazing lunatic.

The film still leaves me pondering: the notion of storing a genetic memory of the entirety of physical and mental evolution in all of us, is a heady idea. It makes even the humblest person feel like an incredible repository of the tragedies and successes of the human species. The idea of accessing this heritage is a staggering one. If Altered States teaches us anything it's how much more amazing it would have been if not helmed by the sexy nun/heaven and hell obsessed Russell.

Is it horror? Change, mutation, murder, fundamental questions about human existence, an underlying nothingness to existence that could swallow you whole - sounds sufficiently horrific to me.

Stars: 3.5 out of 5

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Another interlude

Supernatural Romance must be stopped.
Look, I'm not averse to a Sookie Stackhouse book. They're a fun combination of mystery and soft porn, with monsters and mayhem thrown in for jollies. But I see bookstores increasingly dispersing their horror content across the store into thriller or general fiction settings, to replace that prime shelf space with 'Supernatural Romance'. Twilight books and books with covers where Fabio has been turned into a vampire or werewolf are becoming horribly predominant.

It is a pretty common thing for people to rip on Twilight. I confess, I am more often than not the ringleader of such discussions. But Stephanie Meyer, you have up-ended a proud and noble literary tradition with your series of twonk young romance novels. There's more to horror and the supernatural than getting shagged by a bare-chested vampire.

If you are reading this and care about horror, I urge you, grill your bookstores about why they have no horror section any more. Twilight and its ilk are a passing blip, a trend. Shonky hand shandy material for teens and soccer moms who should know better.

I don't mind if these books try to hang out IN a horror section, but the day they displace the horror section is the day the world goes topsy-turvy. I refuse to see why Poe, Lovecraft, Bierce, LeFanu, Stoker, Barker, King, Rice, Brite, Koontz and everyone else should stand aside for an illiterate Mormon with a penchant for writing domineering vamp boyfriends.

I implore you, stop them before the only place we can find a vampire is writhing on black silk sheets with a blank cypher Mary-Sue. It's not too late.

Rant over peeps. Go back about your business.

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Laziness

So I was meant to do those two reviews (Phibes and After...) last weekend. I am a creature of terrible laziness. Still, to make up for it, I'll try to squeeze one extra in today if possible. Just don't hold your breath, is all I'm saying.

After...


2006 • Dir: David L Cunningham • St: Nobody of any note.

Premise:
A crew of 'extreme urban explorers' consisting of Nate, his wife Addy, and her brother Jay embark on an exploration of Moscow's subway in search of Stalin's rumoured Metro 2 and Ivan the Terrible's secret torture chambers. Along the way, things go wrong, as you'd expect really.

Analysis:
Looking over my notes from watching this and Phibes, I see that my notes are limited to one word on this film - 'balls'.

Maybe I'm being harsh. My wife picked this up, because she is interested in the actual Metro 2 rumours, that Stalin literally DID have a secret underground rail network. The Russian government deny this. I can't fault her for this. Whether Metro 2 or the Parisian catacombs, underground secrets hold a strong allure for many people. I am not immune to this myself, which means my disappointment in After... was even stronger.

In a nutshell, Nate, Addy and Jay sneak into a building illegally to basejump from the roof. Before she jumps, Addy tells Nate she has something to tell him, some news she'll tell him 'after' the jump. Security arrive on the roof as Nate is last to jump, and and he jumps off the building.

Cut to an indeterminate time later, and the crew are flying into Moscow for their planned exploration in search of Metro 2.

What follows is a ramshackle wander through tunnels that could be anywhere, mysterious appearances by a faceless man and gasmasked soldiers, and fleeting ghostly hints at the presence of Nate and Addy's daughter, who you are led to believe has died.

Things go from bad to worse, as they realise at some point they have been exposed to radiation. Jay sickens, and later dies, Addy also goes away, leaving Nate alone, wandering the tunnels hoping to find a way out.

In my opinion, this is a film we've seen before, done better. The Metro 2 angle was almost pointless - this film could have been shot in any claustrophobic rotten locale. The claustrophobic angle has been done better in such throwaway films as Descent, and the main point of the film, which I'll get to later has a much better parallel as well. The filming itself is horrible to watch. Lots of grainy handycam, rapid choppy cuts, and poor sound quality unassisted by a soundtrack by the Crystal Method, that while a nice soundtrack, does not suit this film at all, lead to a film which is confusing to watch, and much of the time makes little sense.

Now, I am the guy who is all about the filmic mindf@#k. I love films that set out to bewilder and confuse you. I love Inland Empire by David Lynch after all. After... does not stack up. I got the very definite sense that if the film is confusing, it is not because it is intelligently or intentionally confusing, it's just bad.

SPOILER (in black type below-select to read)


Okay, so you're sure you want to know? Okay, it goes like this... Nate and Addy's daughter disappears at a playground after he is distracted by a Russian woman. It is inferred that she is distracting him, so an associate can kidnap his daughter. Presumably the kidnap was for purposes of child slavery or child rape, or some other such loathsome thing, because it becomes clear that the kid is gone and not coming back. Addy is going to tell Nate she's pregnant after she basejumps. He, in turn, had planned to commit suicide on the basejump, because he couldn't take the guilt of his daughter's death. He jumps off, sans parachute, and the whole film is a psychodrama played out in the moments before his death. One is left to presume that the imagined trip to Moscow's Metro 2 is some dubious connection to the Russian couple who kidnapped his daughter. Or something.

END SPOILER

After... has many parallels with Jacob's Ladder. The sad truth is that Jacob's Ladder does all of them better. After... is confusing, messy, ugly and hard to watch. Still, it could be worse, I could have watched Cannibal Holocaust again (which I'm dreading having to do when I get to the C's).

Stars: 2 out of 5

The Abominable Dr Phibes


1971 • Dir: Robert Fuest • St: Vincent Price

Premise:
Doctors start turning up dead, killed in novel and bizarre ways. It is discovered that the long-believed dead Dr Phibes is killing the doctors he holds responsible for his wife's death in ways descriptive of the 10 plagues of Egypt.

Analysis:
The Abominable Dr Phibes is many things: a black comedy, a lush and over the top revenge film, and also the 100th film done by Vincent Price.

Perhaps something that is overlooked by people when they discuss this film is the silence of Dr Phibes and his assistant in revenge, the terribly gorgeous and terribly named Vulnavia. The first 10 minutes of the film has no dialogue, and indeed Vulnavia remains mute throughout the film. Phibes himself only speaks via a cord plugged into his neck. I found myself wondering how Price dealt with acting a character that at no point in the film actually opens his mouth.

Is The Abominable Dr Phibes even a horror film? Many books I own on horror cinema refer to it, and the fact that it's on my horror shelf has caused me to analyse how I define horror. True, Phibes kills people in a number of cruel ways, that if they had some gritty sepia tones and a ton more gore, would not be out of place in a Saw or Hostel, particularly the last averted kill, where the last doctor has to operate on his son, to retrieve a key that will unlock his gurney from a position underneath a rig designed to drip acid on the son's face in 6 minutes. Phew!

The plot of Phibes is very simple - a revenge film through and through, with the largely comical and bumbling police desperately trying to catch up to Phibes as he works his way through his shitlist. Naturally they fail again and again, until they arrive in time to mop up after the last kill is averted. In many ways you could phone this plot in, and in many respects the ending is no real surprise to anyone, so no spoiler section this time.

What is remarkable is the lush visual insanity of the film - Phibes in a black robe churning out dirges on a pipe organ, clockwork musicians, and an impeccably dressed gorgeous mute assistant make this film highly surreal. Price as Phibes is also a treat, though he does get to verbally ham it up, he must do so while only using his eyes to express anything, his face is completely impassive.

So is Phibes a horror film? A question I ask myself over and over again. More properly it is a comedy in the blackest vein. I would probably include it in my horror collection for only two reasons - one, despite the humour, the murders Dr Phibes commits are actually pretty cruel, even if some of them are just plain silly or hilarious to see played out on screen, and two, I'm coming to the opinion that horror is a pretty broad church. Let's face it, Phibes would look pretty sinister sitting in the comedy section of your local video store, just as Jacob's Ladder isn't quite a simple thriller. Horror, I think must be defined as a genre which expresses feelings of despair, dread, terror and/or cruelty, and often but not always features an over the top or even outright supernatural antagonist, that could not sit comfortably in what we like to call real life. Phibes is definitely an over the top antagonist, and the film definitely portrays Phibe's anger, despair and his cruelty.

All up, The Abominable Dr Phibes is fun. Not one of my all-time favourites, but still worth a laugh with a glass of adult beverage in your hand.

Stars: 3 out of 5

Monday, June 14, 2010

Merchandising interlude



So, I've ordered some more t-shirts. I ordered the first two off MiniCasette Tees, and they're very awesome shirts. MiniCasette can be found up in the Fiends section in the sidebar if you want to check them out.

Oh, and first person to match implement to monster and film in the 'Personal Effects' t-shirt gets a banana*.

The third tee is from the supremely excellent Last Exit To Nowhere site.

*Note: you will have to buy your own banana.

The tyranny of boxed sets

Something else I should also mention. I have a few boxed sets. I really didn't want to go through those as well when I was going alphabetically, so I've decided to leave them to the spot they're in on the shelf at home - ie last. I have a couple of Hammer boxed sets, so this means that the single films I have that tie into them, the Draculas and the Frankensteins notably, are going to wait until I get to those boxed sets. Life would be much simpler if I had all these just sitting on a hard drive, but I am a good person who purchases original copies, so my job is a little more complicated.

*sigh*

Next 3 films



Next up are the following;
• As mentioned earlier Vincent Price's classic 'The Abominable Dr Phibes'.
• The film that really, really wants to be Jacob's Ladder but isn't, After…
• And I know it's not really horror, but Altered States scared the shizz outta me when I was a kid, so it's on the list.

The Abandoned



Note: When I file my DVD's away, I do that library thing where you skip the 'the', so The Abandoned is filed as Abandoned, The. That's why it's here, and not under T.

2006 • Dir: Nacho Cerda • St: Anastasia Hille, Karel Roden

Premise: A woman is told that she has inherited property from parents she never met in Russia. Going there to learn more about her mother and father, she is plunged into an inescapable fate.

Analysis: I'm coming right out and saying it: I love this film. It is a genuinely creepy offering from Spanish director Cerda.

In essence, this film is a claustrophobic loop, where the main characters Marie Jones (played by Hille) and her long-lost brother Nicolai (played by Roden) are pretty much doomed the moment they appear. In the old, rotten house where they were born Marie and Nicolai are constantly haunted by ghosts of the past and future. I especially like the two leads. Hille and Roden are convincing as very ordinary 40-somethings. They don't have the artificial polish that characters in a Hollywood film would have. Hille especially is refreshingly realistic as a 40-year old woman.

What is most scary in this film is the appearance of the doppelgangers of Marie and Nicolai. The film sets up their existence, and rationale relatively early, though that does not detract from their pure creepiness one iota.

I cannot discuss this film in too much detail. The events of the film, and its conclusion are so intimately bound, that to unveil too much in one place is to undo the film in another. I will say that it is a bleak and horrific film, but one that you will enjoy, if - like me - you're fond of a good ghost story. It also deals with a truly dysfunctional family dynamic, where possessiveness and resentment reach a point where obsessiveness is too small a word to describe just how screwed up it is.

This is well worth a play on a dark and stormy night, with the lights out. Just make sure you're wearing your adult nappies when you do.

Stars: 4 out of 5

Sunday, June 13, 2010

30 Days of Night



2007 • Dir: David Slade • St: Josh Hartnett, Melissa George, Danny Huston

Premise: The tiny Alaskan town of Barrow goes through 30 days without sunshine every year. This year, a gang of vampires decides to take advantage of the 30 days and engages in an orgy of blood-drinking. Only the local Sheriff and his estranged wife can stop them.

Analysis: 30 Days of Night is based on the IDW graphic novel of the same name by Steve Niles and Ben Templesmith. Steve Niles contributed to the screenplay as well.

The set up for this film is pretty straightforward and does not veer too far away from the graphic novel. Early on, seemingly random events conspire to make the already remote Barrow almost inaccessible - the town's mobile phones are stolen and destroyed, the sled dogs are brutally killed, and eventually the power is killed just after the final sunset for a month.

Josh Hartnett plays Sheriff Eben Oleson (Olemaun in the comic), and Melissa George plays his estranged wife Stella (both are happily married in the comic). While Eben is dealing with the strange, random events that will eventually isolate Barrow, Stella becomes stranded in Barrow when an accident causes her to miss the last flight to Anchorage for a month. Hartnett is quite convincing as the heartbroken but diligent Sheriff, and seems to carry a repressed weariness in all his early scenes.

I don't really need to cover the events of this film too closely - a community of 150-odd people stranded in a remote town with no sunshine for 30 days, plus a gang of hungry vampires led by Danny Huston's truly creepy vampire leader Marlow. Yep, it's pretty much what you think it's going to be - a savage and brutal war of attrition, with most of the attrition on the side of the helpless humans.

What I will touch on are some of the differences between film and graphic novel, as well as the portrayal of the vampires.

As noted above, there are some differences in the two leads between their comic and film incarnations. Usually film adaptations of comics make me want to pull my hair out. Some are note perfect, or thematically strong (Sin City and The Dark Knight leap to mind) while others miss the point in small or often catastrophic ways (Watchmen and A History of Violence leap to mind here). 30 days of Night the film does leave out one important subplot from the comic, namely the notion that not all vampires think slaughtering a whole town is really a good idea. In place of this sacrificed subplot is a much more detailed focus on the survivors in Barrow. The sacrifices they make, the grief they suffer, the fear that dominates them. 30 Days presents us with survivors who look, tired, dirty, hungry and mournful, rather than a group of pretty 20-somethings with designer dirt that other films like to give us *cough* *Michael Bay* *cough*.

The term 'survival horror' gets bandied about a lot these days, and while its origins and definition in console games are quite defined, its filmic parallels are not always so neatly identified. In fact survival horror in film has become almost synonymous with the zombie. I think 30 Days of Night presents an almost text book example of what defines survival horror - helpless people in helpless circumstances facing a horrific rate of casualties to the enemy, and an enemy that is implacable, relentless and bloodthirsty. Watching not only the deaths, but their knock-on effects - panic, helplessness, fractiousness, shame and disgust - unfold in 30 Days, leaves me convinced that Steve Niles not only translated his comic to film, but in some regards drastically improved it.

Which leads me to the fangers. The vampires of 30 Days are truly horrifying. No elegant European Counts, or whiny sparkly things here. No, the vamps of 30 Days are snarling, black-eyed, shark-toothed monsters. They move like agile predators. Their guttural vampire language sends shivers down your spine, and the tactics they have used to isolate Barrow engender a feeling of creeping unease long before you even see them. The blood splattered over their very pale skin, and all over their clothing only reinforces their savagery. They look, and act, like monsters. And not a moment too soon I say. 30 Days delivers what was sorely needed for vampires - an iteration that makes you remember why vamps are supposed to be scary. 30 Days' undead fangers are true monsters in every way, and restore vampires to their spot as the kings of the horror monster. The helplessness of the humans before these monsters is made truly stark when Huston's Marlow and his gang have captured one of the helpless Barrovians. Tearfully, she begs God to save her. Marlow angles his head quizzically 'God? No God.' he merely says before she is ruthlessly slaughtered. Marlow's statement leaves us in an almost Lovecraftian universe, a world that is godless as well as actively hostile to mankind. When his female off-sider is hideously burned with a UV lamp, he mutters 'What can be broken must be broken' before killing her - a truly shark-like ethos. The savage predation of these vamps extends even to their own kind.

Special mention must be made here of Ben Foster's character 'The Stranger', the henchman who paves the way for the vampires' arrival. His psychotic demeanour, almost English like teeth and peculiar accent make him a 'Renfield' above Renfields. Though his fate is the traditional fate of all loonies who choose to serve vampires, he still stands out as a truly unsettling henchman.

The violence is not tucked away quietly either. After some early scenes where the vampires hunt from the shadows, glimpsed briefly before vanishing again, the last half of the film does not shirk from splattering the old ketchup around, mainly from Eben's handy fire axe. Mark Boone Jr's character Beau Brower (the town recluse) also dishes out a spectacular action scene that slices and dices no small number of the interloping fangers.

Spoiler Alert: the Ending

Well actually, this time I'm not going to spoil it. The ending makes sense in a very selfless way, that I think fits in very neatly with the survival horror ethos.

So, is this film worth seeing? Hell yeah. If you're after a vampire flick, you could do far worse than this gem. The comic and the film make good companion pieces, rather than necessarily fuel for an argument as to which one got it 'right'.

Stars: 4 out of 5

Saturday, June 5, 2010

What's next


Up next are the following;
• 30 Days of Night, a classy modern vampire film based on the excellent graphic novel of the same name.
• Abandoned, a nice little film set in Russia, exploring the doppelganger legend.
• The Abominable Dr Phibes, starring the undisputed king of cheese horror, Vincent Price.

28 Weeks Later


2007 • Dir: Juan Carlos Fresnadillo • St: Robert Carlye, Rose Byrne

Premise:
The sequel to 28 Days Later, London has been mostly cleared of the infected by the Americans, and Londoners are slowly being returned to the city, as a second outbreak occurs.

Analysis:
With the success of 28 Days Later, it was perhaps inevitable that there would be a sequel. 28 Weeks continues the use of the rapid jump-cuts of the first film, and also the very moody and haunting music of 28 Days.

I will be perhaps briefer with this review than I was with 28 Days. This is largely because, while 28 Weeks is entertaining, the tone of the film is much more frenetic, feeling like it does as one long chase.

In essence, Don (Carlyle) and his wife Alice (Catherine McCormack) are holed up with some other survivors in a farmhouse. Their kids have been sent away in one of the big evacuations that had been carried out before the UK became quarantined. In the space of about 3 minutes, one of the infected break into the farmhouse, and everyone dies. This is an excellent start to the film to attempt to establish it's credentials as a worthy sequel. Don tries to help the others and save his wife, but in a wrenching moment chooses survival over love, and makes good an escape.

Later, Tammy (Imogen Poots) and her little brother Andy (Mackintosh Muggleton) are entering London, along with a large number of other evacuees, to stay in a safe area on the Isle of Dogs and Canary Wharf. This was ostensibly done to contrast the 'old' London of 28 Days, with the 'new' London of 28 Weeks. They are reunited with their father, Don and processed by an American military scientist Scarlet (Byrne), who is annoyed because no screening process had been approved yet for children.

Tammy and Andy ask how their mum died, and Don lies to them, ostensibly to mask his guilt and spare their feelings. Don tells them they can't go back to their old house. Naturally, movie kids being movie kids, they do the exact opposite and sneak out the next day. At this point, it's also worth mentioning the paranoia the film evokes by having everything constantly under surveillance. We are introduced to scenes often by seeing them on a security camera first, and one of the snipers who protect the area, the American Doyle (Jeremy Renner) routinely scans the area through his rifle's scope.

When the kids escape, they are spotted almost immediately after they've left the safe zone. After a sobering introduction to what post-infection London really looks like, they make their way back to their old home. Inside, they find the film's bombshell - their mother, infected but not affected by the rage virus. The army swoops in and the film's rollercoaster ride toward sweeping oblivion begins.

Scarlet is fascinated by Alice's immunity and thinks she could find a cure from Alice's blood. The disinterested Gen Stone (Idris Elba) wants none of it, and orders Alice to be killed. After a resentful reunion with his kids, Don has to face his shame and admit he left his wife to die. He sneaks in to see her, and one kiss starts an apocalypse that will destroy the Isle of Dogs. Don becomes infected, and the second aberration of infected behaviour appears - Don seems to retain some memories and actively hunts down his kids.

From here on out 28 Weeks is a non-stop chain of massacres, gore, explosions, and brutal but necessary military crackdowns. Unable to pull the trigger on Andy, Doyle teams up with Scarlet and the kids to escape London with his chopper pilot friend Flynn (Harold Perrineau). I found this half of the film entertaining, but to be honest also a bit ordinary. 28 Days engaged you with drastic shifts in mood and tone, while the latter half of 28 Weeks is like Michael Bay Brundle-Flyed with Renny Harlin.

I will make one exception for the helicopter lawnmower-style kill of a horde of infected. That was just so implausibly crazy, it made me laugh.

SPOILER (in black type below-select to read)

As with many survival horror style films, we get a steady attrition of characters, losing Doyle to fire, Scarlet to Rage-Don, and finally Rage-Don to Tammy. Finally only Tammy and an infected Andy make it to Flynn's chopper, and escape, flying past Dover, over the channel to France. At the end, we are left with a shot of Flynn's abandoned chopper and a mob of infected running toward the Eiffel Tower (I guess they wanted to be the first in line when the ticket box opened, or at least see it before Destro and Cobra melted it with nanites).

END SPOILER

28 Weeks Later is not a bad film by any means. It is quite entertaining, but it's also a little flabby, and the headlong run into a pointless ending does let the film down. While it felt like 28 Days and sounded like 28 Days and looked like 28 Days, the double whammy of infection immunity and retained memory during infection did little to improve the film and only really bogged it down with elements that ultimately led nowhere. Still, watch it for the f@#king awesome helicopter scene.

3 out of 5 Stars

28 Days Later



2003 • Dir: Danny Boyle • St: Cillian Murphy, Christopher Eccleston

Premise: Bicycle courier Jim wakes up to find that London is deserted, except for those infected by the Rage Virus, people who have been turned into mindless, brutal killers.

Analysis:
28 Days Later was, I think, the only film that had a valid use for the sort of rapid, jumpy, quickly cut camerawork that has turned up in other horror films, most notably the remake factories. This style is prevalent in the film and is an integral part of the 'Rage Zombies', whose jerky, twitching movements, and rapid speed let you feel like you're getting an infected's-eye view of the action.

The film starts with animal activists breaking into a facility where chimps have been wired up to watch looped feeds of human brutality - wars, riots, hangings and so on. A lone scientist (obviously stuck working graveyard shift because he's the newbie) tries to warn the activists that the chimps are infected with rage, hatred distilled down into a viral weapon. Activists being who they are in films, they don't listen and let a chimp free, which promptly savages the crap out of the activist who let it free.

I have some issues with the way scientists and activists are sometimes presented in film. The military are more likely to want to weaponise rage, and I fail to understand what the experiment was all in aid of anyway. The activists also become the scapegoats for the release of the rage virus, which is pretty standard for a world that likes to shoot the messenger a lot more often than the author of the message. I would still point out that someone was trying to turn emotions into viruses, which sounds like the sort of idiot plan a corporation or military organisation is more likely to come up with. Who signed the work order on that piece of nonsense, that's what I'd like to know.

It's then that we cut to Jim (Cillian Murphy), waking up in hospital. What follows is simply breathtaking, as we follow him through a deserted, hastily abandoned London. A silent, empty London is quite unnerving. I lived there for a year, and I have to say - London is NEVER silent. What is perhaps most heart-breaking is when Jim finds a wall of final messages - notes from the damned. There are cries for the whereabouts of loved ones, photos of those who have been lost to the virus, letters, declarations, testaments, confessions, drawings. The few glimpses you get of each letter or photo ram home the idea that these are not numbers. Every Londoner killed or lost to the virus was a person with hopes, dreams and fears. This is quite atypical for a 'zombie' movie.

This is when Jim enters a church. As he ascends a staircase, we see graffiti on the wall 'The end is extremely f@#king nigh'. The church is also where we see our first Rage Zombie. As Jim is calling out, he sees the floor of the church littered with hundreds of bodies. His shouting attracts the attention of 2 people who simply stare at him wide eyed, faces contorted. Jim is distracted by banging at a door, and a crazed infected priest bursts out and runs at him, before Jim beans him in the head with a shopping bag full of pepsi cans.

The thing I found interesting about all this is that the film is slowly destroying every institution known to man. Science is destroyed by being shown as immoral, activism is shown to be misguided and foolish, and then the church is shown to be a refuge which only allows people to destroy each other. Think about it, who killed all the people in the church except the church-goers themselves? One drop of infected blood in there and it turns into a massacre.

Running for his life from the church, Jim is eventually saved by Mark and Selena, two other survivors. Jim's protestations that there must be a government or military doing something are flatly rejected, adding to the theme that human civilisation has been completely destroyed. Mark and Selena give Jim (and the audience) a potted history of the rage virus and its effects.

During an abortive attempt to find Jim's parents, Mark gets infected blood in an open cut. Selena, without hesitation, hacks him to death with a machete. This scene hits you like a sucker punch. It is raw, relentless, and once you think about it, absolutely necessary within the bounds the film has established.

There are three kinds of survivor presented in the film, that fit into three key arcs in the film. Mark and Selena's scavenging, ruthless, no-hope method is presented first. We see that the weakness of it is that it is without purpose beyond survival. They play a war of attrition just to live day by day. It is fitting then, that soon after Mark's death, we are introduced to two more survivors - Frank and his daughter Hannah, and the middle arc of the film starts. Frank and Hannah are introduced when Jim and Selena enter a tower estate block, that they have seen lights coming from. Running a gauntlet up a staircase, pursued by infected, they are saved by Frank in full riot gear who fights off the infected. Inside, the scene is quite a domestic one. They get to sleep, eat, drink, and Jim has a scratchy attempt at shaving.

Frank introduces us to a broader idea of survival. The tower block has been rigged up like an impenetrable fortress. He has every receptacle you can imagine on the roof to collect rainwater, although it hasn't rained for 10 days. He then reveals a plan. There has been a recorded message playing on the radio directing survivors to an army base, just outside Manchester. He admits that they need Jim and Selena more than they need him and his daughter, but he urges them to join him in heading north. Hannah then says one of the sagest things she'll say in the film - that Jim and Selena need them more, that they all need each other.

Hannah is correct. In their occasionally hazardous escape up north in Frank's London cab, the four of them get to feel normal again. They find connections in each other. Cold and ruthless Selena finds a little sister in Hannah. Jim finds a father figure of sorts in Frank. They stop in the ruins of an old church, and see 4 wild horses running free. Frank comments that they're a family. The connection between the survivors and the horses is an obvious one. The four survivors have also become a family.

It is appropriate then, that just as they are at their most blissful, everything is about to go straight to $hit again. They find the roadblock/army base and it is completely abandoned. Frank cracks up, the let down too much for him to deal with. Before long, Frank is infected, a single drop of blood falls in his eye. Frank pushes Hannah away from him, knowing what is coming, Selena screams at Jim to kill him, and finally Frank is shot down as the army make their belated presence felt.

The family unit is shattered. The weakness of their kind of survival is shown to be optimism. Their happiness had distracted them from the harsh reality they live in.

As Jim, Selena and Hannah are driven to an old country estate, now occupied by the remnants of the army, we enter the final arc of the film and are introduced to a third kind of survivor in the form of Major Henry West (Eccleston) and his men. They seem to have rigged up their stately country mansion as an impenetrable fortress as well - what Frank did, but on a higher budget. It's not long before we get the feeling that something is deeply wrong. Despite the initial sense of camaraderie among the soldiers, we are told that one has attempted suicide and another, Sgt Farrell is shown to be particularly bleak and at odds with the other men. West also keeps one of his infected men chained up in a yard, as a ruthless, but practical experiment to see how long the infected live.

A few hints are dropped, but finally West baldly informs Jim of his plan. There is no cure, no hope of rescue, so he has promised his men women. Selena and Hannah are to become sex slaves of his men. Jim and the dissenting Sgt Farrell are to be taken away and shot. When they are taken out into the woods, the spot they are taken to is already littered with bodies. An understated message that West and his men have been kidnapping and abusing survivors for a little while now. Farrell is shot, and in the confusion Jim escapes.

SPOILER (in black type below-select to read)


We have seen a desperate and ruthless method of survival that had nothing worth fighting for. We have seen a co-operative, happy method of survival, that proved to be too optimistic for its own good. Finally Maj West has shown us a cruel and delusional method of survival, where the survivors are little better than the infected. Now we see the lessons that Jim has learned from all of these methods.

Jim attracts both infected and West's men to the abandoned roadblock by sounding the alarm there. With brutal efficiency and a kind of guerilla warfare, he kills off a couple of West's men, before heading back to their base. In the streaming rain, he not only frees the infected soldier, but kills any of West's men he can get his hands on. He is out-soldiering the soldiers. Selena and Hannah meanwhile have been dressed up in pretty dresses, as a prelude to what the audience can only presume will be a gang-rape by West's men. Hearing noises, Hannah tells the soldiers that they are going to die. As chaos breaks out in the house, they try to escape, but finally Selena is trapped in a room with one of West's soldiers, as Jim comes in and brutally bashes the soldier's head against a wall, before ruthlessly thumbing his eyes out. It is extremely brutal, and Selena is initially unsure if he is one of the infected, as is Hannah who beans him over the head while he and Selena are kissing.

In their escape, they leave West to the tender mercies of his infected men, and Jim gets shot. We then cut to many days later, where Jim wakes once again, echoing the start of the film. Selena, Hannah and Jim have survived and have made a sign out of bedsheets to attract the flyover of an American jet. They will be rescued, finally.

The escape from West's mansion is, for me, the ultimate point of the film. Jim shows ruthlessness, even a degree of sadism, and finally complete rage to rescue Selena and Hannah. He has united Selena's ruthlessness with West's sadism in the cause of Frank's compassion. His final weapon is rage, the rage he uses to kill a soldier with his bare hands. He uses the weapon of infection without being infected. Finally it tells us that the infection is really a ruse. We don't need to weaponise rage, we only need the right cause to let it loose. The use of this potent weapon enables Jim, Selena and Hannah to escape and become the family they need to be to truly survive.

END SPOILER

The English, I feel, have a better grasp on the true bleakness of horror. They can reveal a number of subtleties in horror, that many American film-makers would bludgeon with hammy fists. 28 Days Later is the best non-zombie zombie film you can treat yourself to.

4 out 5 Stars

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Some more recent purchases


Some more recent purchases to round out the collection;
• The Australian bizarre zombie film 'Undead'
• John Carpenter's cult classic 'They Live'
• and the 'based (loosely) on a true story' ghost film 'The Haunting In Connecticut'

Three Mothers trilogy



Finally got my hands on a copy of Inferno, so this means I can review the complete 'Three Mothers' trilogy. Sadly this Argento trilogy is going to have to wait until I reach 'S' for 'Suspiria'.

What's up next


Up first is the British Zombie apocalypse film '28 Days Later' and its sequel '28 Weeks Later'.

Monday, May 31, 2010

Format

After some thought, I'm going to try and follow a standard format in my reviews. Which will be something like this;

Title of post will be the films being reviewed.
First lines will be film name, year of release, director and any notable stars.
Premise: What the film is about in a nutshell.
Analysis: What I think of the film, the 'meat' of the review.
Rating: I generally don't like ratings, as I think they're a bit arbitrary, but I'm going to do them anyway. Each film reviewed gets a rating out of 5, which works on the following scale;
1 - Absolutely f#@king dire. Do not watch unless you are masochistic or insane.
2 - Not good. Could have been made by an alcoholic in his sleep.
3 - Not too bad. Enjoyable and entertaining.
4 - Quite good. Definitely worth watching.
5 - Excellent. A must-see, the dog's bollocks and the cat's pyjamas.

EDIT: I've subsequently decided to do a rating based on MEH (1 Star), OKAY (2-3 Stars), COOL (4 Stars) and AWESOME (5 Stars).

Okay so soon, I'm actually gonna put up reviews. First on the shelf is 28 Days Later and its sequel 28 Weeks Later.

Remakes

I'm not over-fond of remakes, in fact with only a few exceptions, most remakes seem to be glossy attempts to cash in on a viewer's nostalgia and line Michael Bay's pockets. With this is mind, I am going to try and give remakes somewhat of a fair go, and watch them back to back with their originals, and try to find any areas where they are actually better (this might be a bit of a fool's errand). There are a lot of remakes out there, especially of the big classics, and quite a few just in recent years.

I hope you all appreciate the sacrifice I'm making for you. I watch Platinum Dunes remakes so that you don't have to...

Sunday, May 30, 2010

Welcome

Okay, so this idea is a bit crazy, but I've decided to review every film on my horror shelf, which is running to about 400 at present. Largely so I don't pick favourites, I'm going to do it more or less alphabetically. I say 'more or less' because I'm also going to try and cover a film's sequels at the same time as the original, so rather than do Dawn of the Dead at 'D', I'm going to get through to 'N' for Night of the Living Dead, and try and do Night, Night (Remake), Dawn, Dawn (Remake), Day, Day (Remake), Land, Diary and hopefully Survival (if i've picked it up by then) in one epic session.

Edit: Even if a trilogy or series has an overarching title, eg Argento's 'Three Mothers' trilogy, I'm going by the name of the first film in that series, so in that example, I cover Three Mothers under 'S' for 'Suspiria'.

An ambitious, perhaps insane, plan I know. Now I'm going to review each film in a retrospective sense, so this means I'm going to post SPOILERS. I'll try and put any notes on the ending of the film after a spoiler warning, but everything else in the film is completely fair game.

Anyway, hope you enjoy the show...