Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2010)

Director:

Troy Nixey

Writers:

Guillermo del Toro (screenplay), Matthew Robbins (screenplay), and 1 more credit »

Stars:

Katie Holmes, Guy Pearce and Bailee Madison

A young girl sent to live with her father and his new girlfriend discovers creatures in her new home who want to claim her as one of their own.

When reviewing  DON'T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK, I found myself in a state of internal conflict. Its been my hardest review to articulate by far, so bear with me and by the end it'll all make sense, I hope...

Anything with Guillermo Del Toro's name on it is usually a guaranteed work worth experiencing. Whether he's in the directors chair, (PAN'S LABYRINTH, THE DEVIL'S BACKBONE), or working in a producing capacity, (EL ORFANTO, JULIA'S EYES), his unique vision, cinematic aesthetic and storytelling prowess are always upfront. DON'T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK is no different, at least on the surface.

Taking on the role of both Writer and producer, this time Del Toro is dipping his toes into the shark infested water that is ' THE REMAKE'. Yep, DON'T BE AFRAID is a remake of a TV movie from the 80s that made quite an impression on many who saw it. I caught it for the first time last year and I really couldn't see what all the fuss was about. It had a cool concept that plays on a whole host of childhood fears, yet I found the execution to be severely lacking. In my mind, its a film that was ripe for a remake. After all, instead of remaking all the stone cold classics like HALLOWEEN, why not take a flawed work and push to make it better; make it what it could have been?

The plot for DON'T BE AFRAID fits snugly into Del Toro's cinematic vision of the world. Much like PANS, it plays out like an extremely dark fairy tale. One in which the solid 'reality' of the adults existence is offset by the fantastical view of our world as seen through the eyes of a child. Both films feature children in their central roles, and both deal with the vast rift between the perception of adult and child. The difference, and its a vital one, is that Del Toro directed PAN'S LABYRINTH, and with that film, he was far more successful in portraying the two worlds than he is here, as a producer.

In fairness though, PAN'S was reaching for the level of high art. It achieved it with aplomb. The fantasy elements served as a metaphor for the rise of fascism, and the films inherent intelligence, shocking violence and disturbing sexual undertones marked it as a fairy tale made specifically for adults. DON'T BE AFRAID, while carrying an R rating, is a film that I believe will be far more accessible to the young members of the audience. It's an enjoyable, suitable creepy ride for us old folks, but I believe for a child it will be one hell of an experience.

DON'T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK is a film getting wildly mixed reviews, and I think I understand why..

I want to review this film in complete fairness. I honestly believe it requires a specific outlook in order to fully understand/appreciate it. Some will say I'm being an apologist for bad writing, but the longer I think on it, I really don't think I am. The writing in this film will help it soar, or sink it completely, depending on the viewers standpoint. This situation could have been avoided, and I believe its totally down to false-target advertising, a ridiculous rating, and an expectancy from an audience its not really created for. Let me explain...


First of all, from the perspective of an adult, I left the movie with, at first, a sense of real disappointment. I went in expecting a full-on, violent hell-ride, (the totally inexplicable R-rating lent itself to that expectation, of course), but what I got was an almost bloodless, occasionally infuriating experience. A very enjoyable experience, for sure, but one I felt. (key word there; felt), was almost scuppered completely by its script. When I hear that Del Toro is writing a screenplay, I obviously expect the cream of the crop. The mans a genius, and among the most visionary artists we have living on our spinning world, and he's proven with PANS and DEVILS BACKBONE that he can inject what would be child-centric horror with an artistry and maturity that most can only dream of, and elevate it to the highest echelons of deeply adult Horror. Here, though, the screenplay makes many choices that my 'adult mind', just couldn't gel with. DON'T BE AFRAID is one of those films where the actions of certain characters are so dumb, so UNTHINKABLE, that the experience can lose its grip on you. This is fantasy, yes, and I can happily get on board with small creatures rising from the netherworld to claim innocents, (in fact, I think that's an awesome concept), but I'm also an adult, and what I have a harder time getting on board with are choices made by 'humans from our reality', that defy any and all common damn sense. This film has many such moments. Yet they can be overcome, and even viewed as a strength. Its all just a matter of perspective.

Before I go into that side of things in detail, let me inform you of what immediately works here. First of all, its a Del Toro movie. The pitch black whimsy, dreamlike imagery and vivid attention to story and pacing that were so brilliantly displayed in his previous works, are all here in full force. And the setting is just remarkable. Its an absolutely beautiful location for a film with such Gothic overtones. The mansion is a character in itself, alive with foreboding...its endless corridors wreathed in shadow and its surreal decor, it really feels like the 'forbidden mansion of lore' where kids can simply disappear forever. Its beautiful, and is shot with a precision eye. The film looks every bit as stunning as EL ORFANTO. I should note that first time director Troy Nixey does a brilliant job here. Not all credit should go to Del Toro.

Also, the cast are uniformly solid. Guy Peirce plays his role as the neglectful father rather fearlessly, (you WILL hate this guy, more on this later), and its good to see Kate looking and acting like a member of the human race again, after so many years trapped in the Horror movie that we all imagine is marriage to Tom Cruise, (I'm guessing she pulled her head together enough to reclaim her self-worth in between all the Scientology bullshit he force fed her). Shes as charming and as capable as she always was back in the day. More so, in fact, as her role is the most fleshed out, with the strongest arc. Its hard for me to get on board with anyone who's chums with Mr Cruise, but I really felt for her here. Shes great.

The real star of the show, though, is newcomer Bailee Madison, who's performance is every bit as effective and nuanced as Haley Joel Osmond's was in THE SIXTH SENSE. As the child terrorised by demonic forces, she runs the gauntlet of emotions from childlike glee, to insolent anger, to outright paralysing terror, and she's incredible in every moment. Her character, at first, appears very unlikable, but by the end of the film, you'll be terrified for her, (and wishing her dad a horrifying death, but more on that later). She carries the whole film on her shoulders, and makes the rest of the cast, however good, look like amateurs. Lets hope this cute, talented kid manages to avoid the Hollywood trappings that so expertly fuck up most child actors. If so, she can and will go a very long way.

The films pace is perfect, though some will find the first half uneventful and ponderous. Anyone who knows Del Toro's ouvre will be accustomed to this focused style of storytelling. Things do take time to get going, but with good reason. The build up of suspense is something all too damn rare in Horror cinema, these days. And its nice to be able to sink your teeth into a tale that cares about building atmosphere and tension. Troy Nixey appears to be a filmmaker in the most traditional sense, talking great care to craft a solid, complete story. The second half, on the other hand, is full of memorable moments and set pieces, as the monsters expose themselves to the little girl, and become far more threatening. There are some really creepy moments awaiting the open-minded viewer here, and I thought the finale was both sad, and exciting.

Now, a film like this will stand or fall on the strength of its creatures, I'm sure you'll agree. And that's yet another thing DON'T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK does incredibly well. The nightmarish, demonic, whatever the-hell-they-ares, are kept mostly in shadow, and the CG matches Del Toro's usual top-tier standards. The design  of these tiny beasts is brilliant too. They look every inch the nightmarish creation of a Brothers Grimm tale, or a childs night terror. Theres a palpable sense of evil in their movement, their sinister yet enticing voices, and their impish appearance, that make them among the most memorable onscreen horrors Ive seen in a long time. These guys are universal childhood fears writ large, representing more than simply little goblins. They are the creature under the bed, the beast in the basement, the very real fear every kid has of being dragged away from their family. I can only imagine the trauma such creatures would have inspired in the kid-version of myself, and that's where I come to the characters actions....

The one issue that I'm sure most people will have with the story being told here is that of the fathers behavior. He appears to either be the most idiotic ass hat on Earth, or a complete and utter asshole, and makes choices that do stretch the boundaries of believability, AS AN ADULT. Yes, you could argue that his utter idiocy is a simple case of poor writing, or even a lack of respect towards the audience and their intelligence on the writers part. You could argue that the story simply asks us to accept these moments of stupidity, and shut the hell up like the mindless drones we are. And if you look at the film in that sense, you'll be angered, feel cheated, and most likely hate the damn thing.

Now, from a child's perspective, these things are completely believable, and inherent in the traditional storytelling mould. Theres a horror lurking in your home, and your parent is so distant and self absorbed he cant see past his own world, and into yours. The creatures your conversing with are offering you more than your distant, egocentric parent ever has, and your tempted....

If you pay attention to the tale being told, its stated that the daughter is dosed up on medication before the tale begins, so it makes sense that her old man would think she was making all this up. His actions may be insufferable, but if you look at this as an (extremely) dark fairytale, then that becomes the whole point. Lost children having to face the evil in the world, without the help of a trusted adult, is what those tales are all about. Also, theres a clever twist on the 'wicked stepmother' of many fairy tales, as the fathers younger girlfriend becomes something of a companion for the child. Filling the role the absentee father cannot or will not. That in itself is a terrifying notion to a child....that the parent doesn't want to understand them, and dismisses their every thought as nonsensical. Add into that mix a healthy dose of creeping, lurking figures that stalk you in the night and want to drag you off and eat you....you have a near perfect childhood nightmare scenario. 

Now, as an adult, the scenario  wont hold a great deal of fear for you, but imagine seeing this film as a child. Remember THE GATE? Well, this plays on those same fears, yet is far more effective. If you can still touch base with your inner kid, this film will most likely delight you. And I really believe that it will grow and grow in stature until it becomes a classic of its kind. This is a film I would allow my daughter to watch around eight or nine, and while I know it would terrify her, its exactly the sort of film that leads to a love affair with Horror for a kid. It plays on all those long-repressed fears we have, and that kids are still in full sway to, and it forces the kid to face them. Fear of the dark, the unknown, the monster in the closet that stalks us at night, isolation, loveless parents...its all here.

After sleeping on it, my initial disappointment at the film has vanished, and Ive come to see it as a wonderful, though misunderstood work. I would have loved to see this as a child. It would have upset the hell out of me, but man, would I have ate it up. Is there such a thing as intelligent Horror aimed at children? I don't know if I've ever come across it, at least not so fully realised. Childlike Horrors aimed at adults, yes, but not vice-versa. DON'T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK is tense, creepy, visually stunning and focuses on story and atmosphere over effects. Go in expecting another PANS LABYRINTH, full of adult themes, political and spiritual insight, and its game over; but if you view this film through the prism of that little Horror lover you once were, you may just love it. I do, and I hope my daughter does too, once she forgives me for having her watch it...

Reade more >>

Fright Night (2011)

Director:

Craig Gillespie

Writers:

Marti Noxon (screenplay), Tom Holland (story), and 1 more credit 

Stars:

Anton Yelchin, Colin Farrell and David Tennant

In a suburb on the outskirts of Las Vegas, young Charlie Brewster's High School life is finally coming together. He has a stunning girlfriend, his acne has cleared up, and he's distanced himself from his nerdy friends. Yet kids are going missing from school, and soon Charlie begins to believe that his strange new neighbour may be responsible, and may well be a lot more dangerous than a garden variety serial killer....

I really didn't want to see this film.

I won't rant on about my love for the original, you can read all about my reasons for adoring it in my review here. I will say though, that my loyalty to the original clouded my mind on the idea of a remake. Its the sort of shit that puts hate in a mans heart...

The trailers infuriated me. The casting of Colin Farrell as Jerry Dandridge infuriated me. The damned 

setting infuriated me. This film had 'cash-grab' written all over it from day one. Over the years we've all suffered through abysmal remakes of many of our most beloved classics, but I actually assumed FRIGHT NIGHT was safe. After all, its name alone wasn't enough to guarantee huge box office. Its not NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 2010 or FRIDAY THE 13TH 2009. This was a film beloved by a small pocket of discerning and loyal Horror fans, not a commercially viable franchise. So why remake it? Why not just create a whole new vampire movie and leave my cherished classic the fuck alone? It made no sense then and it makes no sense now. In fact it makes less sense now that I've seen it, as it basically is an entirely new movie.


Lets get something straight, right off the bat.....This is not FRIGHT NIGHT. It has the same basic template as the 80's classic, but makes completely different creative moves and grooves along they way. The setting is different. The characters are different. The mythology is different. Other than the title, a vampire moving in next door, and a few very loose references to the original, this is its own beast. No one claims that the original FRIGHT NIGHT is an official remake of Hitchcock's REAR WINDOW, do they? It has the same bare bones concept with which its foundations are laid, and then it blazes its own trail. That's what we have here. Much like Snyder's DAWN OF THE DEAD really isn't a remake, (other than locale and name), FRIGHT NIGHT 2011 should be, and in time, I'm sure will be taken on its own merits. I'm at a loss as to why they named it FRIGHT NIGHT at all. This is a beast with its own unique bite.

With that in mind, and for the purpose of reviewing this film as its own entity, I'm renaming the fucker. From here on in, it will be called.....RANDOM VAMPIRE MOVIE. That way I can come to terms with my feelings about this film as I review it.

Normally with a remake, I'd compare it to the original constantly. I'll still have to make the odd reflection, but will keep it minimal. I want to get it out of the way very early on that almost everything I loved about the original is gone. No more spooky old mansion, no more fond looking back at the Hammer Horror classics, no more old fashioned spook-show theatrics. All of what made FRIGHT NIGHT such a joy, is gone. And yet, shockingly, unbelievably and despite all universal laws, I REALLY ENJOYED this movie! 

It was a very clever move to go in a whole new direction here, as FRIGHT NIGHT could never be topped. Taking the template and running with it, allows the viewer to quickly adapt to this film as stand alone piece. I haven't had this much fun with a Horror movie in a long, long time. I cant believe I'm even writing this, but its true. RANDOM VAMPIRE MOVIE is freaking great! Once your mind is able to overcome the issue of 'remake', the film quickly proves itself to be a unique, fresh and vibrant Horror film that treats the source with great respect while courageously running wild in its own way. Some will suggest that by changing so much it shows a lack of respect, but I disagree. This film allows the original to remain untarnished, and due to the quality of this film, it will surely open up a whole new generation to the joys of the 80's movie. Now, can you say that about anyone who's introduction to NIGHTMARE was through Brad Fuller's shitster-piece? I thought not. By creating a whole new plethora of characters, situations and environments, RANDOM VAMPIRE MOVIE shows respect by avoiding cheap plagiarism for a buck. Sad then, that this film bombed at the box office while SHITEMARE ON ELM STREET done relatively well.

The setting is perfect. The small suburbs, completely isolated in the middle of the desert, makes for an eerie, desolate and very atmospheric hunting ground for our killer. And fits perfectly with his M.O, People are transitory there. People are not missed. And in this film, Jerry isn't concerned with fitting in for long. He's concerned with causing as much damage as quickly and as violently as possible. And while it makes little sense that Jerry would move into a house and then slaughter the entire neighborhood, it makes for a helluva lot of fun. This is sheer entertainment. Fast, frenetic and funny.

And its scary too. RANDOM VAMPIRE MOVIE is genuinely creepy at times, and has a handful of scenes that work brilliantly. Most notably a scene in Charlies doorway as he and Jerry enter an unspoken psychological game of cat and mouse, as Jerry pushes for an invite and Charlie tries not invite him in, while at the same time not giving away the fact the he suspects Jerry's a bloodsucking killer. Its downright excellent. Another early scene as Charlie attempts an improvised rescue in Jerry's lair drips with tension and provides real Horror goods. How about a car chase, (in a vampire movie!), that's as funny as it is intense. Yet the whole thing is also very playful, and has a real sense of fun.

While the writing and direction is great, much of the frightful fun is down to the stellar, (and I cant believe I'm saying this), performance of Farrell, as Jerry Dandridge. He's just brilliant. He's a very different beast to Sarandon's suave, seductive killer. This guy is far more animalistic, and far less sympathetic. This is a vampire 

who appears to be taunting his neighbour for the sheer fun of it all. A self satisfied smile is never far from this undead badass' face, even as his plans go awry. He's amused that a young kid could even assume to be any match for him, and he acts accordingly. I've never been a fan of Farrell, in fact Ive actively avoided his work, but here he really is the star of the show. If Sarandon was a vampire in the classic mould, then Farrell's incarnation is a serial killer who loves his work, and just happens to be immortal and superhuman. And he's gleefully aware of the advantage this gives him. His Jerry is a perfect antidote to the shiny emo wimps that have infested cinema since those goddamn Twilight 'movies' hit the scene. If for no other reason, this film should be celebrated for bringing the 'monster' back to the 'myth'.

Yelchin is great as Charlie too. Playing him as a nerd who's finally on the cusp of being accepted, and has became something of a douchebag in the process. Its a bold move to have your hero display such asshole tendencies, and its testament to Yelchin's ability that he remains likable, even as he turns his back on his friends and his true nature in order to, frankly, get a little pussy. His character arc is believable and interesting, as we watch him discover that the person he wanted to be was who he was all along. Good stuff.

The much hyped casting of David Tennant as, 'Peter Vincent', is a fine fit for this character. Channeling Jack Sparrow and remaining somewhat high as a kite for the whole duration of the film; he provides much of the comic relief. He even has a certain depth to him as the story progresses and we learn just why hes such a wreck of a person. Again, the creators of RANDOM VAMPIRE MOVIE are well aware that Roddy McDowell's beloved performance can't be beaten, so they avoid it altogether and recreate the guy from the ground up. Clever folks, those creators...

a little word on Evil Ed, he's okay. He's used very sparingly and mainly serves as a plot device, but I enjoyed him as he was. Mintz-Plasse does his usual routine, which works fine. Although I feel the character could have been used a little more, if only to please the fans.

In a film that gets practically everything right, theres only one issue. And its an issue us Horror fans have been complaining about since the inception of its technology. Yep, you guessed it...CGI. There are numerous moments where the CG is pretty cheap looking, and that really shouldn't happen with a production with such financing. We see this time and again in cinema, but it never fails to disappoint. Whats even more grating is that Farrell's vampire is so fearsome and magnetic that he doesn't need any digital enhancement. Thankfully, he's mostly in 'human form'. The few scenes where we see his true face aren't bad per-say, just rather unnecessary. And if a scene or two of Jerry in 'full vamp' was needed...why not go with prosthetics? The gore is also augmented with CG, but its far less jarring than the work we've seen before, however pointless. We all know squibs are far more effective than anything a  PC can rustle up, and I'm sure the creative team behind the film know it too. I'm willing to bet this is on the heads of those creative vacuums at the studios, who seem to believe the only thing the younger generation will respond to is computer graphics. Will they ever listen to what the fans want? I doubt it.

Overall, RANDOM VAMPIRE MOVIE is a real treat, and the most entertaining mainstream Horror of the year. Its fast paced, funny, atmospheric and frightening. It has some moments of brilliance, some unforgettable characters and it has the balls to groove to its own tune. FRIGHT NIGHT can rest easy. Its legacy is secured.

Reade more >>

Panic Button (2011)

Director:

Chris Crow

Writers:

Frazer Lee, John Shackleton, and 2 more credits 

Stars:

Scarlett Alice Johnson, Jack Gordon and Michael Jibson

Four strangers win a competition on the popular social-networking website All2Gether, and are offered a trip to New York via private jet. When they get on board, however, a new game is presented to them. One that will show them for who the really are, and in which their lack of participation will have serious consequences.... 

"Facebook - Never has there been a more wretched hive of scum and villainy" - Me

I hadn't heard of PANIC BUTTON until the day I watched it, (yesterday as it happens), and had no idea what it was dealing with, other than the fact that it had something to do with social networking, and was British. Now right away, that combination inspires dread in me. You see, Ive seen CHAT ROOM, and it was ninety odd minutes of my life and my sanity that I can never reclaim. That film tried as hard as can be, to be on the pulse of today's widespread self-whoring media obsession, but managed to be about ten years too late. Has anyone even been in a chat room since the early noughties? I didn't even know the things still existed.

Where that film was filled to the brim with upper class English wankers whom you wanted to eviscerate on sight.....PANIC BUTTON is filled to the brim with upper class English wankers who you want to eviscerate on sight, too....

Five minutes into this little Brit thriller and I was ready to hit 'stop' and make my way to the nearest pub to drink away the thought that these types exist. Thankfully, I stuck with it. The initial setup will have your ray gun set to 'fuck off', but very soon the plot kicks in, and these four disparate characters begin to take on real personality. As the stories central conceit comes to the fore, we find that these people are entirely human, and we relate. Its not a comfortable relation, but its a damn pertinent one.

Its hard to discuss a film like PANIC BUTTON without giving away the many cool plot twists, or many of the situations that occur during the show. What I will say is that the premise of the film is one in which a light can be shone on many current weaknesses and flaws in our 'self-aggrandisement', based society. And it shines a light very brightly into some pretty dark corners.

We all love the Internet. Its a source of vast information. Yet we all know it can be a place of darkness and depravity just as readily as a beacon of enlightenment and intellect. PANIC BUTTON takes a pretty vicious look at a few aspects of the worldwide web, and one that has grown to massive proportions recently; the social networking world.

Almost all of us are willing victims of these sites. Myspace and Facebook being the two most prominent, which we all know sell on our information to third parties, and which we keep coming back to, like fucking idiots. The human hunger for self worth, and social acceptance knows no bounds, man, and this nefarious form of communication has allowed us free reign on 'who' and 'what 'we want others to perceive us to be. You may be sitting at home eating Pizza and jacking off to Sasha Grey, but on Facebook, your a fucking astronaut. We're slowly becoming the Borg, folks. PANIC BUTTON takes an intelligent look at some aspects of this 'craze'.

Its a fast moving little film for its type. That's to say there is very little by way of action, but its very well written, and works more as a think-piece than an outright Horror movie. Its most definitely Horror, and is often a harrowing experience, but it uses situations and character to convey its uncomfortable truths to the viewer. There is some serious violence, but its never up-front, and its never the focus. The focus here is on 'us lot'. The sheep, the consumers, the media whores.

As the 'game' our four fuck-wits find themselves forced to play begins, it becomes immediately obvious that the protagonist/s is taking a moral stance on the spiritual and moral side-effects the Internet has had on us as a collective. Why these four have been chosen is up in the air, but as he begins to pick apart the online persona's of his victims and reveals the ugliness beneath the surface, things become very interesting. From the benign to the perverse, many subjects are touched on. Early on, we see a video on YouTube of a real murder, and learn that one 'game participaant' sent it to friends with noticeable glee. We then see that persons judgement in the eyes of the others, as the 'game host' questions her relentlessly on why she watched it over and over. Its very gruelling to watch.

The freedom of information act, and the disclosure act, (all but completely wiped out in today's corporate fascist society), are also held up to the light, as the contestants every online move is scrutinized and exposed. Its disturbing to know that this shit goes down all the time, yet the scene dealing with this issue is among the only glimmers of light in the whole show, at least for a fleeting moment. Its hilarious to watch as one guys online searches are shown to reveal a serious hunger for porn, but it rapidly becomes darker as more and more is revealed. Again...real Horror, no violence. Excellent.

When the action does kick in about fifty or so minutes in, the film takes something of a turn in quality. The absorbing study of human nature turns, perhaps necessarily, toward a more recognisable Horror scenario. Its still very gripping, as your on-board with these misfits one hundred percent by this point, (you may not like these fuckers, but theres far more at risk than just their images and lives). As the stakes are upped and the game becomes far more terrifying, the dialogue and ideas take a time-out as things get physical. Its not a bad move, in all truth, as things could perhaps get a little slow for the casual viewer expecting 'SAW on a plane', (some reviewers have NO imagination, man), and it gives the more discerning viewer a chance to breathe.

The cerebral among you can rest easy, though, as PANIC BUTTON's finale leads us back down the dark path and into a thought-provoking and very tragic conclusion. The film opens with 'Based on real events', for a very good reason. If your someone with an understanding of certain behavior in the upcoming generation, its very sad stuff.

PANIC BUTTON is a damn fine film. Its well worth watching for its insights into modern culture, and it sure as hell helps that the whole show is very gripping, disturbing stuff. The cast are all excellent in their roles, and manage to elicit a degree of sympathy in their altogether human natures. For a film with essentially four actors and one set, this thing flies, (no pun intended), and its a ride you really should think about taking. It may reveal some home truths that make for a squirm-inducing watch, but that's the point. Between this and TERRITORIES, Horror looks like its growing its brains back. I'll drink to that.

Reade more >>

Final Destination 5 (2011)

Director:

Steven Quale

Writers:

Eric Heisserer, Jeffrey Reddick (characters)

Stars:

Nicholas D'Agosto, Emma Bell and Arlen Escarpeta

Survivors of a suspension-bridge collapse learn there's no way you can cheat Death.

 

Calling FINAL DESTINATION 5 the best of the sequels isn't really saying too much, or in any way an indication of quality. After all, its the fifth part in what has been until now, a series travelling in ever decreasing circles. The first was great, the second was campy fun, the third was Mouse Trap with gore, (although often funny) and the fourth, well, I cant even remember the fourth, other than remembering I hated it. Its not a great track record, and like most Horror franchises, your most likely going to expect yet another drop in quality. Its great news for Horror fans then, that the fifth film does a whole lot right, and goes quite some way to putting the franchise back on track. Its easily the best since the first, yes, but its also just a damn fun film in its own right.
Whereas arguably every film since the original, (and the first sequel),  has forsaken all character beats for cool looking death scenes, this one actually makes an attempt at creating some likable, semi-rounded people to root for. It helps that they got on board some actors who can actually act this time. This ain't Laurence Olivier but it's a long damn way from the rage inducing douchebaggery of the fourth film. Of course, theres little real depth here but this isn't a character study, its not fucking RAY, its a film about hapless randoms having their asses handed to them by the Grim Reaper. People watch these films for one reason only, and that's the gruesome and inventive kills.  But as the last two films proved, you have to have at least some fucking story, or else your just watching what amounts to a high budget snuff movie. The first film grasps this amazing concept, the second looked it up and down in the bar, then flirted with it some, and the third and fourth may as well have had crash test dummies as its cast. I cant remember a single one of those characters/actors  besides that hot chick from SCOTT PILGRIM, and that was only because shes that hot chick from SCOTT PILGRIM.

FD5 tries a little harder, and manages to create some sympathetic characters. The lead, and this  films 'psychic' is identifiable as an average guy who loves his work and loves his gal, and seeing as his gal is Emma Bell, (FROZEN), you'll most likely love her too, and get right on the guys side. His best mate is well played too, by Miles Fisher. You believe these guys are buddies. The rest of the cast do well enough too, and you'll be sorry to see some of them go, even though watching them go is a damn blast. Also of note, the mighty Tony Todd reappears here as the creepy ass coroner who seems to relish telling each group of survivors they're fucked, without being in any damn way helpful. Love the guy, and its always a trip to see him onscreen, however brief. That's all you gotta do, Tony, just show up and freak the cast out with your 'Death has a plan' riff, and I'm sold, sir.

Todd's behaviour isn't the only familiar thing here though. The film feels more like a remake of the original than a continuation. Theres very little new plot elements here, and the film follows the originals template beat for beat until the third act, when it tries to do a few things differently. We've seen it all before, we know the huge accident is coming, we know theres a funeral to end act 1, and an interrogation scene with the lead and some feds, we know there'll be thirty second discussion that helps explain the plot to anyone who's been living in a rain forest for eleven years. We know all this, yet its familiarity feels pretty welcoming. The formula still works. These films are akin to a fairground ride, and when done well, as this one most certainly is, they're a hell of a lot of fun. Its nice though , that they still make attempts at doing things a little differently in the final act. And its refreshing to see a fifth part in a series have so much care go into it. The writers and directors really ought to be kept on board for the inevitable sixth entry.

And what of the main attraction, the kills? They're pretty damn great, and as mean spirited as you would hope for. Of course I wont give the gags away, but theres a real sense of glee in the slaughter, and its hard not to grin like an idiot as the blood, gore and body parts are liberally splashed across the screen. Every death is a crowd pleaser, and the opening accident is the best in the entire series, and is pretty damn frightening, much as the first two disasters were. This is probably the goriest of all the movies, and its also the most cruel. In other words, good times. And while the deaths are very graphic, the setups for Death's traps have wisely been pulled back and made simpler,  much like FINAL DESTINATION 1 and 2. The ten minute long Mouse Trap bullshit is gone, and it helps give the film a greater sense of urgency. Paranoia makes a welcome return too, and theres a nice scene in a kitchen that hearkens back to Devon Sawa's suspense riddled attempts to eat a can of tuna in the original. It all adds up to a very fun experience. And without giving anything away, the films ending is a nice surprise for the fans, and it pretty frightening in its own right. It makes no damn sense, but who gives a shit.

If your worried that the franchise can only sink lower after part 4, don't be. This is a solid genre pic that goes back to the series' roots and ups the stakes in some pretty amusing ways. Its cruel, graphic, well directed, smartly written and is a real treat for the faithful. Who'd have thought a fifth part in whats essentially a slasher series could aim so high? This ain't high art, hell, it ain't even low art, but its an enjoyable ride while it lasts. Grab your bud's, grab some beers and give it a chance.

Reade more >>

Blooded (2011)

Director:

Edward Boase

Writer:

James Walker

Stars:

Nick Ashdon, Neil McDermott and Oliver Boot

A group of hunters, led by a prominent Pro-Hunting lobbyist, Lucas Bell, are abducted in the remote Highlands of Scotland by animal rights activists, and given a taste of what its like to be hunted themselves.

This is a film site, so I'll discuss the movie on its merits before commenting on what I see as a very upsetting agenda within this film. Feel free to read and enjoy only the critique on the technical aspects of the film, and I'll let you know when it'll move on from that....

If your working on a low budget, and you happen to be based in the UK, there are worse things you can do than film your movie in my home land of Scotland. You need a sense of total isolation? You got it. You need a landscape so untouched by civilisation that it commands respect even when viewed through the lens of a camera? Well, you got that too.  You need a sense of majesty in your cinematography? An epic sweep that can make your humble little indie film look like a million bucks? Yep, got it.

Recently, Writer/Director, Neil Marshall, (THE DESCENT/DOG SOLDIERS), filmed his latest work, CENTURION in the Highlands of Scotland, and it done the film absolute wonders. His blood drenched tale of the missing 'Ninth Legion', of Rome, utilised the untouched, desolate and utterly beautiful landscape of my home, to essentially create a danger for his desperate Roman Brigade that was every bit as dangerous as the Scottish Pict's who were hunting them. Its a trick our old pal, Mel Gibson, missed when he decided to film a biopic of Scottish hero, William Wallace, in Ireland. Ireland is a beautiful country, but Scotland has its own irreplaceable character, theres a sense of sadness and mourning that lies over its more remote lands that can't be found anywhere else in the world.  Perhaps its her history, perhaps its the way the light and the weather interact here that creates such a haunting beauty. Whatever it is, its unique. And its a perfect environment for a survival horror film.

The team behind BLOODED have made a wise decision in their filming location. Though that's not to take anything away from the absolute brilliance of Kate Reid's cinematography. Her work here is simply stellar, and is reason enough to see this film at least once. She manages to capture the essence of what makes Scotland such a beloved country to so many around the world, much as Peter Jackson captured New Zealand's untouchable beauty in his LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy. But perhaps theres a finer comparison can be made; that of Australian Horror Autuer Greg McClean, who's films, WOLF CREEK and ROGUE managed to capture not only the wonder of Australia's outback, but also its ferocity. The cinematography here is that good, and the film looks utterly brilliant. Reid's eye for a shot is surely going to set her career on a very successful path, and as I said, it really is worth viewing BLOODED for her work alone. Its a shame then that so many other elements of it feel lukewarm. And some I actually found downright insulting.

Stylistically, we've seen this type of film many times before; the pseudo-documentary that uses 'real' footage, interviews with the survivors of the ordeal and 'recreated footage' to tell its story. And its all done fairly well. The acting is solid enough, the standout  being Adam Best as 'Interview version Ben Fitzpatrick', who pulls out a very real performance as the loyal, regretful mate of our focal character, Lucas Bell. All the performances are believable enough, and the film has a solid, focused pace, but its undercut by two lethal errors for a film of this type, or any for that matter.

The first is the use of interview's with the survivors. You know from the get go, who's going to survive, so its goodbye tension. The similar, yet superior, 'THE TUNNEL' suffered from the same problem earlier this year. In that case the setting and the sense of mystery helped pull the film through, and it remained a scary experience, but in BLOODED, there is no mystery, we KNOW why these people are being hunted, and we know who's doing it, so all sense of surprise and apprehension is lost.

I'll give you an example. In the pivotal, (and best) scene in the film, we follow our hunting pals as they wake up, half naked and completely disoriented in the wilds of the Highlands, with no idea how they got there. The scene bristles with atmosphere, and should be completely unnerving, but we KNOW they'll all be home in time for Pizza before too long. These moments are very well directed, just as the whole film is, but they lack the power to scare. If we had no idea what was coming, we would be 100% in the scene, but instead we're left wondering what the point of it all is.

Theres more though, even if the outcome was unknown, you just might be begging for these people to die anyway. Its hard to garner sympathy for a bunch of spoiled rich kids who get a kick out of killing wild animals. Your far more likely to find yourself cheering on the activists. And here's where the film became insulting to me. I'm loathe to discuss this, but I feel I must.

You see, theres a HUGE difference between a barbaric and cruel sport such as fox hunting, and the act of hunting for reasons of survival and population control. Yet here, we're asked not only to sympathise with a guy who supports fox hunting with all his heart, but we're asked to admire him! Now, this isn't a political sight by any means, and never will be, but I have a moral code, and its one which my taste in cinema has never before encroached upon. I do not believe in any form of censorship in cinema, and I rarely find anything insulting outside geopolitics and the lies of our governments worldwide, but this shit was going too far. For me, to watch a film that I can only see as blatant pro-hunting propaganda, was pretty damn infuriating. If it had been left to the audience to decide what side to take, I would have no problem with it, but to attempt to paint 'sport killers' as noble men of the land, and paint animal rights activists as lunatics, just doesn't sit right in my heart. Whether it sits right in yours is your own issue.

I can't recommend this film. It has much to admire, and I wish the cast and crew all the best, but for the first, and hopefully last time in the Hotel, I have to take a moral stance. The solid technical attributes of this film cannot mask its clear agenda, and so if your in any way opposed to animal cruelty, you may want to avoid this film or risk an ulcer. It's a real shame to see such beautiful cinematography wasted on such a biased and compassion free endeavor.

1 Disgusting Propaganda Tool out of 10

(Authors note : After writing this review, I decided to look a little deeper into this matter of propaganda, that I felt was implicit in the film. I've come to learn that the film was promoted as having really taken place. In other words, animal rights activists were used as scapegoats to promote this trash. Quite rightly, they are offended and disgusted by the actions taken by the production team. Its a free country, but FUCK this movie. You wanna see the Highlands? Come visit Scotland and I'll take you for a pint, but we ain't goin' fox hunting).

Reade more >>