Horror

Darke Reviews | The Pyramid (2014)

Posted by

0

This is a 3 review week folks. Today you get the Pyramid, Wednesday you get the Hobbit (Goddess help me), and Thursday or Friday you will get Annie (Its a hard knock life for me). Now obviously, this film came out a few weeks ago, but I had neither the desire nor time to see it when it first came out. Tonight, I really wanted a break from DragonAge:Inquisition (120 hours does that). Only one of the theatre managers at my local cinema was in, but we chatted and he tried to warn me. Was he right?

In what seems to be quickly becoming the trend in found footage genre, Archaeology! Reminder, if I could have any other career – it probably would be archaeology. Archaeologists discover something, go exploring against better judgement, and bad things happen with a hint of a supernatural bent. Archaeologists are our new paranormal researchers. Maybe we will get someone to go to the Mausoleum of Qin Shi Huang? Petra? Some lost site in ancient Persia, with the Iranian and Iraqi conflicts as a back drop? Perhaps the Shore Temple in Mahabalipuram, India? Chavin in Peru? All of these places are ripe for it. I mean we’ve already had the Catacombs beneath Paris and now Egypt.

Really the synopsis is the same. So called Archaeologists, one who prefers old techniques and his daughter who believes in state of the art, uncover an unusual pyramid with only 3 facings amidst the Arab Spring and events in Cairo. They are far enough away and honestly, based on the satellite image they showed, I am not sure they were actually in egypt but it was only a glimpse; yet that provides a pressure based backdrop to allow for poor decisions. Really beyond that and the film crew with them trying to get a documentary on the unusual pyramid and these new techniques for discovery we’ve tread this ground before. They enter the pyramid. They get trapped. Something is in there with them. These are not spoilers, this is in the trailer. Bad things happen.

It’s almost like Thunderdome, X people enter. Y people leave. The uninspired script is by Daniel Meersand (nada to credit really) and collaborator Nick Simon (same deal). I won’t say the script was bad, but it was uninspired. You need to make at least some of the characters likeable for me to wonder if they will live; or more precisely care if they die. I shouldn’t be eager to watch them die just for them to shut up. Every – last – one just needed to die. Combinations of ignorance, self righteousness, and general panic just made for bad combinations in dialogue and personalities. Along with that many of the questions the movie tries to ask are never quite answered. Plots are introduced, but never followed up on satisfactorily or at all. They become just another wasted detail.

Obviously the writers can’t take all the blame, but they will get most of it here. First time director Gregory Levasseur is no stranger to horror, as he was a writer on films such as High/Haute Tension, The Hills Have Eyes, and P2. With that pedigree I expect something more. I also think he might be able to be blamed for script decisions. A writer who is now a director should have seen the script and known to make changes. If he did make the changes that result in this final product, then he is equally to blame. If he ignored problems and filmed as is with only minor edits, then by omission of action he is guilty. I also must blame him for the performances he coaxed out of his actors. None of it worked. Honestly, nothing in this movie worked.

Even the acting was mediocre at best. I would list the actors, but I don’t want to chance ruining them for people if they have actually seen anything these individuals are in. There’s just so many bad decisions made and the performances they give only amplify my aggravation. Compounding that is some fairly horrific CG work at times. It just fails.

TL;DR

This movie fails on every conceivable level, beyond its pure concept. I love the concept, the mystery of a lost pyramid of a design we’ve never seen before? Buried in such a way it must predate the trio on the Giza plateau? Awesome. Then…well failing on every other possible level.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t hate the movie. That kind of vitriol is saved for other films. I was just bored and annoyed.  I would expect to see this as a SyFy movie of the week. Actually – thats about it. This is a SyFy movie of the week with a better production budget. If you want to see this done better – see As Above, So Below.

Do not enter the Pyramid folks. The curse is boredom and annoyance.

Photo Credit Sara Cremer

Darke Reviews | Silent Hill (2006)

Posted by

6

This review is specifically for one of the people in my life that I can say I love and it is wonderful to say that and it not be weird for anyone involved. The cover art today is a sign she made for today’s beautiful annual event. If you haven’t figured it out by now, this is my favourite holiday ever. Growing up as a child with the previous day as my birthday meant cake and presents one day and costumes and candy the next. How can that possibly go wrong? A night where we as children are allowed to be out at night and to celebrate the night. A night where our imaginations and creativity are rewarded. A night where we can become the nightmare or heroes of our own stories to face them or embrace them. What in the name of all the old gods and goddesses is possibly wrong with this?

So when we talk nightmares, let us talk then about a video game that has caused nightmares in many. My ex said this was one of the scariest games she had ever played or watched someone play. So eventually someone was going to make it into a movie. Video Games to movies do not have a particularly stellar track record. Mortal Kombat is probably the least offensive of them, with Resident Evil a close second, and Tomb Raider vying for third place. Of course Uwe Boll got his hands on so many games it hurts on a primal level. This isn’t to say the movies that are made from video games aren’t sometimes entertaining, Doom is positively entertaining, Need for Speed was entertaining; but rather that they aren’t just that good. Frequently this is blamed on the source material being “just a game”, to which I say rubbish. Yes, first and second gen games had the thinnest backstory possible. Hell some third, fourth, and even recent gen games are pretty thin excuses for their own existence in the story department. Then we have games like Mass Effect, Dragon Age, even Assassins Creed (II mostly…I hate 3 and 4), and the recent Tomb Raider game. Games these days probably have more plot and story than films do (thank you Bioware and SquareEnix). Somewhere along the way though, and I am no video game expert by a long shot, Konami put a game out.

Konami the studio who gave us Contra, Frogger, and Dance Dance Revolution delivered unto us a horror franchise. I know little to nothing about the game, so will only judge it as a movie, but I am told it is relatively faithful to the setting material. When I spoke of atmosphere in the Fog movie review I spoke of how important it is. The makers of Silent Hill understood this. I know that the game is inspired by real life Centralia Pennsylvania, a place on Jessica’s short list for urban exploring, a town almost literally swallowed into hell by a mine fire that is expected to burn for years to come – thats where the similarities end.

And you thought the roads in your town were bad?

And you thought the roads in your town were bad?

The movie focuses on the story of Rose Da Silva (Radha Mitchell) and her adopted daughter Sharon (Jodelle Ferland). Sharon has been having dreams of a place called Silent Hill, dreams of course being a light word for nightmares of extraordinary strength. Rose takes her daughter, without her husband (Sean Bean) Christopher’s consent. Whenever she mentions Silent Hill, people get weirded out, except curious officer Cybil (Laurie Holden), who chases the woman into Silent Hill. Driving faster than she can see proves a mistake and Rose wrecks her car at the entrance to the town. When she wakes her daughter is gone and she is in a grey scale landscape of ash and fog. Chasing a girl she thinks is her daughter through the streets of the seemingly deserted town she hears air raid sirens go off. Then the real nightmares begin.

Keeping with my normal rules of spoiler free, even though this one is past embargo range, I want people to enjoy this film. Enjoy the mystery of the truth of who and what brought Sharon to Silent Hill. The truth of what Silent Hill is and of course…the horror of what it is. Ok, one spoiler and a mystery all it’s own is …how did Sean Bean survive the film? This is Silent flippin Hill.

Lets talk about the writing for a moment, we have Roger Avary as the sole credit on the film. Avary has writing credits on True Romance, Reservoir Dogs, and Pulp Fiction, with an Oscar win for the last. He also has a BAFTA for it and a Saturn Award nomination for his work on the mo-cap Beowulf  with Neil Gaiman. What I am saying here is the man knows how to write. He took whatever the game had and wove a rather complex intertwining story of past, present, and future within Silent Hill. I am not talking time travel, but just the levels that the film operates on simultaneously. The story nails it and does something few do, it makes me uncomfortable at times. It also makes me sympathize with the bad guy in this one, but I think you should. Even the way the story progresses makes it still feel like a video game but a logical extension for a running plot as well. When characters find items, use them, or add them to “inventory” it makes sense and feels natural. If you are a gamer, you see it for what it is and it’s hard not  to smile at it.

Taking this script and making it a reality was the job of Christophe Gans. I love this man. I love his work. He doesn’t have much and I consider that a shame. Brotherhood of the Wolf was the first film of his I saw and was a beautiful piece of foreign film making. Five years after he was given this script; and just recently did a take on Beauty and the Beast (which I desperately want to see). We now return to our conversation about atmosphere and sweet ladies of the inferno does he create it. When it is light in the town of Silent Hill, there is the weight of fog and ash that surrounds everything. This place feels like it is on the edge of something dark already just from that alone. Then when it goes dark…you are made uncomfortable. It is wrong and you know it. This is Hellraiser territory at times and you can’t help but shift in your seat once or twice after those air raid sirens blare. The performances he elicits out of his actors are incredible, even if some of them reach campy at times, but the work with Mitchell and Ferland is excellent. Proof that yes, child actors work. Proof that a good director can turn great performances from children. His choices on camera work are also incredible as well, putting them in places and moving them in ways that truly inform the story and help push it and us along on this trip where I think even Dante would go “Pace!”

As for the actors, Radha Mitchell is our center of the story, a mother desperately trying to save her child mentally, physically, and spiritually. She is almost a typical last girl that we see in other films, except she begins strong and only gets stronger as the film progresses. The lengths the town (yes it’s a character all it’s own) drives her to are inhuman. The actress performs marvelously and I wish we got more of her in films. Sure we got her in Olympus has Fallen and Man on Fire, but we also saw her in the original Pitch Black – where she was also very fun to watch. Her…sidekick(?) for lack of a better word is Walking Dead’s Andrea Laurie Holden, so spoiler (rollover) you can watch her die horrifically here too? She is mostly a nick of time side kick of usefulness than anything else, but does fairly well here. Deborah Kara Unger (The Game, Payback), plays the mysterious Dahlia a figure who seems immune to the darkness for unknown reasons. Alice Krige (Star Trek: First Contact, Sorcerers Apprentice) plays the leader of the people of Silent Hill and I think may be channeling Piper Laurie from Carrie for the role. If the majority of the weight falls on Radha, then the remainder falls on Jodelle Ferland (Cabin in the Woods, Paranorman) for her minimal screen time. She handles Sharon well and has to do a lot with very little, but it works none the less.

Now, I talked about how Silent Hill itself is a character? Alright, I will say this first, the CGI here is kinda weak sometimes verging on SyFy weak. The practical though? Incredible. Production designer Carol Spier, who also gave us Pacific Rim and Carrie was a miracle worker. A black miracle perhaps, but miracle none the less. She took a Norman Rockwell town and in daylight it looks broken, in the grey ashfall it looks weighty and wrong, and in the dark is a special hell. The raw amount of practical choices here out weigh any horrific CG work for me. It is no surprise to me that I see Patrick Tatopoulos (Underworld, Stargate, Face Off, Solomon Kane) name on the Creature and Special Make up designer credit, specifically on the Nurses, and it – Pyramid Head. I had no experience with the game, but this thing was a monstrous force on screen that by careful choices of its creators carried real weight that made you know things were about to go terrifyingly wrong. Paul Jones appears to be the other creative lead, considering one of his first films were Waxwork, Hellraiser II, and Nightbreed I can see that he has specialties and they are only getting better. The town is a real thing here because of these people and their crews. It is a living, breathing, entity. It draws and drives the story forward on its own pace as much as any decision the characters make.

Before I get to the TL;DR on one of my longest reviews ever, I want to talk about the music. Pure atmosphere. In another film it could be lighter but when matched with the imagery here the word haunting comes to mind.

 

 

TL;DR

This would make my top 10 list of best horror movies. Many would disagree, but I distinctly remember walking from the theatre with my friend Kevin and looking at him going. “I feel…uncomfortable.”

I wasn’t scared, but I was disturbed. I think that counts for something special here. There is imagery, scenes, and shots in the movie that deliberately are crafted to be unpleasant and uncomfortable. It was just that kind of film where my skin was crawling a bit as I walked into a cool April evening. I cannot complain about a movie that I can so distinctly remember how it made me feel and the night as I left it.

I happily and eagerly recommend this film for October viewing, or viewing on a nice foggy night.

Should you watch Silent Hill? Absolutely, but keep the light switch handy.

 

PS Spoiler Rollover:

I agree with Alessa…and that which became Alessa. I understand her and was cheering for her. Rose’s decision would be mine.

Darke Reviews | Nightbreed (1990)

Posted by

2

This is another by request review to fill out the month and one of the more schlocky films in this months set of reviews. First let me say I am going to be reviewing the newly released (as in today) directors cut of the film. This is also one of the few times I have read the original source material for the film. When it first came out fourteen year old me enjoyed the late 80’s awesomeness of this movie, even in how ridiculous some of it was. I wanted to escape to Midian, I wanted to be with the monsters, I belong there; so I did the most logical thing at the time and rode my bike over to the library and checked out Cabal by Clive Barker. I devoured the book in a night and then found the comics that expanded the universe later – still have the comics, lost a purchased copy of the book over the years and moves.  Now I have watched it off and on over the years and I realized nostalgia glasses needed to be removed, but the world it created was still something intriguing to me. I was delighted to see that a directors cut was coming out this year.

So, it is a film from the end of an era, the end of the 80’s – should it be watched now?

Loaded question, let’s get to the vivisection.

Based on the Novel by Clive Barker, screenplay by Clive Barker, and directed by Clive Barker. This can either be a colossal mess or a colossal success. Turns out that success may not be dependent upon the man, but rather the studio as well. Barker, shortly after the films release and its commercial and critical flop quickly decried the studio. The studio here is 20th Century Fox; now I wouldn’t say Fox was known for its meddling into films (Wolverine, X-3) or that it exerted influence to get what it wanted over the creators rendering the final project lesser or doomed to failure (Firefly/Serenity). I wouldn’t say Fox executives are known for making total hatchet jobs of good works…but then again I don’t have to say it. History has for me over the years. So when someone is quick to blame the studio and that someone is the creator of the original work and the film work, then well…doubts are bound to creep in and hard to ignore.

Barker is noted as saying that Fox wanted to make more of a slasher film riding the wave of the other slashers of the late 80’s. They couldn’t comprehend a story in which monsters could be heroes, which at the time was a fairly alien concept. Some of these decision makers were probably legacy holdovers from the 1930s and 40’s censorship boards that decreed, and I kid you not, that Monsters must die at the end of the film no matter how sympathetic they may be – they cannot win or survive. Obviously these are not the same men, but their influence was still strong and mostly likely had some impact in the botched attempt for this story. Barker, for his part wanted to tell a story about monsters a real story about monsters, one that speaks to a part of all of us.

“There’s a corner of all of us that envies their powers and would love to live forever, or to fly, or to change shape at will.” (Clive Barker / 1988 / Chains of Love )

It’s true and I think this is why the monsters attract us so, Dracula, the Wolfman? Don’t they touch on those loves and those desires? Wouldn’t you have wanted to see a movie about monsters that are beautiful, alien, and attractive on ways that speak to us at a primal level. I know I did then and would now.

“You call us Monsters, but when you dream, you dream of what we can do…you envy us.” – Rachel, Nightbreed

I know that I wanted to see the movie that the comics and the novel brought me, but instead we got Nightbreed. This is the story of Boone (Craig Sheffer), twice loser who has vivid dreams of a place called Midian. A place where the monsters live, a place where he feels he belongs. His girlfriend Lori (Anne Bobby) supports him, while his doctor Philip K Decker (Philip K Dick much?) seems to have ulterior motives. Boone does find his way to Midian and finds the monsters of his dreams. Only to find a worse monster chasing him. Lori follows close behind determined to save her boyfriends life and braves the monsters of Midian to do so. Boone ends up having to make a choice between the life he has or the life he had, with dozens of lives at stake either way. Which does he choose? Which should he choose?

Which would you choose?

The acting is almost painfully bad and sadly what we come to expect of horror movies of this period. Craig Sheffer (One Tree Hill, River Runs Through It) is too corny for words most times.  David Cronenberg (director of Videodrome, The Dead Zone, the Fly) as Dr. Decker is a special brand of sociopath that makes me wonder how he kept his medical license or anyone would be stupid enough to follow him. Anne Bobby (Bioshocks Brigid), pulling her best Jennifer Grey impression, is a highlight of the film with horror movie heroine strength throughout. I rather enjoy and admire her and how unflinching she is. She is a person some could aspire to be who finds beauty in the beast.  The rest of the cast is a mixture of those who can over act and those who can’t act at all. I can’t even begin to discuss how ludicrous act III of the movie gets with the “locals”. Watching this cut of the film it is even more painful.

Effects wise? The movie uses classic matte paintings for many backgrounds and I kind of love it for that. I miss that to be honest, the artistry of them was something to appreciate compared to some of the CG backgrounds we get today. Oh sure, the CG is certainly more photo real in many respects and can blend seamlessly over these matte backgrounds were something special. The computer effects when used are abysmal and that is the best word I can use. The make up effects on the other hand are a mixture of bizarre to disturbingly beautiful.  They can be comically laughable, heart wrenchingly sympathetic, and out right monstrous. Even the worst of them in all their silliness allows you to appreciate the range these monsters, these people can have. Not all of them have special gifts, in fact some are very much like the Morlocks of the X-Men universe, they just had the luck to be born different.

Danny Elfman’s score does not do this movie justice. The man’s use of horns is so completely unsubtle I can’t help but wonder if the movie is worse for it.

TL;DR?

This is not a good movie. Not by a long shot, but how I long to see what it could have been. Even the directors cut does not improve the film and I feel that had we seen what was intended vs. what was allowed to be filmed I could say otherwise.

If you have nostalgia for this movie, please please continue to enjoy it as I do, but I hope you are not blind to its epic badness.

If you need a beer and pizza horror movie that you can laugh at with your friends, now 25 years after this was made, I have a movie for you right here.

I cannot in good conscience say to see the film unless either condition is true, even the directors gut. If, you are a fan though, click here and help celebrate it.

Spoiler – Give me the damn alternate ending any day where she becomes one of the Breed …

Darke Reviews | Hellraiser (1987)|

Posted by

5

This film really feels like it came out earlier than it did. For some reason my brain kept thinking this came out in the early 80’s rather than the late 80’s. Granted some of the fashion in the film does actually date it fairly well. I recently had an opportunity read some interview transcripts regarding the making of this film, courtesy of io9. This makes the film yet another one of the classic great films shot on a low budget (less than $1mm) and considered an indie film. I think that is worthy of some commentary.

Some of the greatest horror movies come from what is not seen vs. what is seen. My best friend, generally dislikes horror, but much of it comes from having a face you can see. It stops being as scary. To quote an underrated movie, “If he has a voice he has a throat, if he has a throat, he has a body.”   These independent, low budget films, can’t afford to show much. The directors and crew need to get creative on how to build the tension and make things scary. Pinhead, by example, probably has less than 8 minutes on screen total out of the films 94 minute running time. Jaws, another example of a monster that is barely shown. Granted Jaws is due to technical issues, but the lack of vision of the monster forced Spielberg to get creative with other kills. This made the film scarier.

Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street, Jaws, Hellraiser, Psycho, Friday the 13th, all of these films are considered iconic, classic, staples of modern horror. Every other film in their genre is compared to them and as you begin to add budget to them and sequels the quality diminishes.Is the secret to successful horror a distinct lack of budget?

Look at the modern day films, such as Blair Witch and Paranormal Activity, both extremely cheap to make and both insanely successful in the box office. Both rely on what they don’t show you and because of that are scarier. As they progress, ok lets focus on PA here, Blair Witch 2 was …godawful, they become less intense and less effective in arousing a fear emotion from us. The bigger the budget, the less scary movies become as the director is able to follow whim than be limited by it. Those limitations are what pushes the creative minds to achieve success. Even Michael Bay worked better with less budget, check out the video for Meatloafs I would do anything for Love as an example.

So Hellraiser? Is it scary?

Well, it is from one of the most beautifully deranged minds in horror, Clive Barker. Based on one of his own stories The Hellbound Heart, which was nearly the title but the studio was afraid someone would think it was a romance. Boy would they have been surprised. He is both writer and director, so any changes from the original story really are on him and those limitations I spoke to earlier.

The movie starts out with the story of Frank, a man so depraved that life itself holds no sensation for him and he explores something to find new heights of pleasure and pain. For this he pays a price, as all things come with one. We cut to some time later when Franks brother Larry and his wife Julia move into his old home. Though Julia has some very specific memories of the place and Frank. Larry’s daughter Kirsty is also moving back close to home and stops by for a visit. A small accident and a little blood later and Frank is freed from his prison and much like the Mummy needs to pull himself back together to be whole again. Julia agrees to help, but as all murder plots go things begin to unravel as the bodies stack up.

Notice, no mention of the monsters? There’s a reason for that. They play such a small part in the film, but are special to the horror. They are the Cenobites, the guardians of a place not dissimilar to hell, a place where pleasure and pain become one. They have such weight on screen their physical presence, even without dialogue tells you all you need to know. But then they do give them dialogue, the figure now known as Pinhead, but then Cenobite leader makes Hell almost tempting as it is terrifying. I don’t normally put quotes from films in a review but honestly…how do you not get chills from some of these lines?

“Oh, no tears please. It’s a waste of good suffering.”

“Explorers…in the further regions of experience. Demons to some. Angels to others.”

It’s just excellent. Sadly, most of the acting strength comes from those few minutes of Doug Bradley on screen as Pinhead. Andrew Robinson as Larry, Claire Higgins as Julia, and Sean Chapman/Oliver Smith as Frank do ok. They don’t sell me anything, other than the build up. I almost feel as if they are going through the motions. Frank probably is one of the more terrifying villains with his look through the movie. Kirsty is our typical Last Girl though, strong in ways she didn’t know she could be. She reminds me much of Nancy from Nightmare on Elm Street. She’s a survivor and when the cenobites show the first time, her mind saves her not any muscle.

From a technical standpoint, the movie is one of the more grotesque out there. The lack of budget forced much in the way of practical effects and we are thankful. Every effect surrounding Frank is a thing of exquisite grotesquery. The Cenobites are iconic images that at one point Barker thought might be too silly in bright light. Even the final creature, the machinist, while you can tell is a puppet by some respects is far more terrifying than a CG version of it ever could be.

TL;DR

Hellraiser is one of the scariest films ever made in the creature feature department. It gives us a manifestation of hell that we can understand and are afraid of. The thought of suffering is bad, but seeing a potential option for its outcome is unpleasant. It is a gore flick don’t get me wrong and some effects do not hold up all these years later (and some didn’t hold up then); but it is an iconic film of horror.

Should you watch it though? Honestly, this one is only for the fans of gore in their movies. Psychological horror fans probably won’t get nearly as much out of it.

Hellraiser is an icon for a reason and it will stand the test of time, but it is certainly not for everyone.

So…what is your pleasure?

 

 

 

Darke Reviews | Psycho (1960)

Posted by

1

I have to admit, I had never seen this movie fully until this day. Oh sure, it was impossible to not be aware of all that comes with it. There’s no twist for it anymore, there’s no real surprise. While there is some argument over what a slasher film is, I will give my definition first:

A film in which the primary weapon used for murder is a bladed hand instrument that can be use in a motion that strikes across the victim (you know a slash). Stabbing is also a method in which the victims may be expirated.

We don’t call it the stabbing genre though. We call them slashers. While Halloween is sometimes attributed as the first Slasher, it’s body count can help support that, Texas Chainsaw Massacre came out four years prior. There had been films in the 40’s and 50’s that dealt with murder, but perhaps the one that inspired the rest since then – Psycho. Because of the nature of this film and it’s influence on modern cinema, I really want to spend some serious time discussing it. So I give you fair warning now, if you just want to know about seeing it – go to the TL;DR; otherwise, let’s talk Psycho.

Consider yourself spoiled. It’s been five decades.

I want to open this with the trailer. I don’t think we’ve ever seen anything like it before or anything since. Let me share first –

Hitchcock himself, just talking on screen. He tells us about the motel, so unassuming, then moves to us to the house. Even the music is light hearted as he speaks about diabolical acts. He then tells us about the movie, I don’t mean lightly – HE DESCRIBES THE DETAILS; all of them, then…he stops. Teasing us with descriptions. He keeps hinting and how horrible it all is. How gruesome and even indescribable some events are. Through out this trailer he masters the concept of the tease, he begins to talk about something then cuts himself off – it is magnificent. The unfinished descriptions leave us wondering, but also tell us when and where to pay attention in the film. He also speaks of this as if it were real. It is absolutely brilliant. Again, to my knowledge nothing before, nothing since. I don’t know that anyone could do it now. I don’t know that anyone is that skilled a director to even try. I am sure some might consider it, but would the studios allow such a thing? Probably not, but I almost want someone to try.

Of course, the trailer just gets us in. Then there is a script by Joseph Stefano pretty much an unknown at the time, but would go on to write and produce for one of the greatest sci-fi/horror shows of all time, the Outer Limits. The script may have been written by Stefano, but it was based on a novel by Robert Bloch one year prior, thus proving Hollywood has always been basing their films on a book. Bloch would also go on to write for Hitchcock himself, on Alfred Hitchcock Presents. Now, not having read the book yet, as is normal for me, I am going strictly by Wiki here. I know how dangerous that is, but the final screenplay is pretty much lock step with the story. It is worth mentioning the story could be inspired by the, at the time recent, arrest of Ed Gein, one of the most famous American serial killers. Texas Chainsaw Massacre was also inspired by Gein, as was Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs. Though it is said Bloch did not research the Gein case beyond the news, it does also prove how much art may imitate reality when the stories are locked at side by side. As an aside, I know way too much about serial killers.

To sell this sort of story you need good actors. We’ve seen in recent decades, now 54 years later, what happens if you try this without mediocre or bad actors. Let’s work up the chain shall we?

John Gavin (Spartacus,  is our start, playing Sam Loomis the fly by night lover of Marion Crane. He is a man we in the modern age that many can relate to. He has debts from his family, debts from an ex wife he needs to pay alimony to, and a woman he loves that he wants to be a better man for. For the 60s, this is fairly racy, as he is not quite having an affair since neither him nor his lover Marion are married, but there’s is a secret relationship which is at its tipping point. He is perhaps the catalyst for the story as much as anything else and it is because of him we reach a, I suppose the word here is, satisfactory ending to the film. He ends up being the one to stop our killer, but not alone. This leads us to Vera Miles, as Lila Crane, the sister to Marion. She is gorgeous, honestly one of the prettiest women I have ever seen. She is also, as Lila, single minded and focused in attempting to find her sister. She will do what it takes to do so and really only has a weak moment when she confronts something that is worth having a freak out over. She also reprised her role in the sequel twenty three years later. She was a force on screen in the film and able to drive those around her. Though this may be her only real characteristic, it is worth mentioning.

The two left of course are Janet Leigh, as Marion Crane. She already was a name in Hollywood having worked with greats such as Errol Flynn, Gary Cooper, Jimmy Stewart, Kirk Douglas, Frank Sinatra, John Wayne, and Tony Curtis.  Of course, as mentioned in The Fog, she is the mother of Jamie Lee Curtis. Much like Miles, she is also one of the most beautiful women to have ever graced the silver screen. The first 45 minutes of movie focuses on nothing but her. She owns it, every scene. Every bit of dialogue, internal monologue, and blocking. She dominates. She is a near perfect actress in this film, worthy of her Best Supporting Actress Oscar nomination and Golden Globe win for this part. So much of the film relies on her and her expressions and it works. Even the opening with her in naught but a bra and a slip – racy at the time and rarely seen but she made it natural. Then..there is her exit stage right.

The shower. That magnificent scene which all other slashers must compare to at some level. Leigh, never took a shower again after viewing it, it was how vulnerable she felt, how vulnerable we are there that drove her this way. Not the filming as some report. She has to sell her death on screen and does so with the hand (or scream) of a master.

This of course leads us to the master of the house. Anthony Perkins

AnthonyPerkins

A face only a mother could love right?

 

It is impossible to not know that face and what movie he goes with. His performance is iconic. He is able to sell us both the dutiful motel owner, the loyal son, and of course Psycho. He is just so much the gentleman, but when the light hits just right you see the glint of madness. Of course, we all go a little mad sometimes, right? It’s both a reserved and manic performance. He demonstrates the insanity perfectly and because of this the final scene is *not* offensive. The police quickly go to “he’s a transvestite” and the doctor quickly corrects them saying no. This is often overlooked, the psychological break within his mind is shown so well, so perfectly by Hitchcock and Perkins that such distortion of the psyche is sometimes culturally benchmarked against this movie. This is what we go to, and unfortunately, as a culture it is for the worst. Despite the film saying what kind of madness it is, we associate the man in a dress one step away from a killer. I blame society not the script.

From a technical aspect, it cannot be understated that Psycho was filmed in black and white intentionally. We love our colour films these days, but there is an artistry to black and white. You have to understand colour to use it. The way to light things and how to make shadows fall on the face are so perfectly done. There is a reason this movie is such a classic and cultural touchstone decades later.

TL;DR?

The movie is a masterpiece. I’ve owned a copy of the poster for years, despite not having seen the film just because of how iconic it is. If you really enjoy the slasher genre and you want to see where it all began – watch this film.

If you celebrate classic cinema and have not seen it, as I had not, watch this film.

If such things are not your forte, I would say – try this film. Appreciate the art, but if you still don’t enjoy it there is nothing wrong with that.

This is a film great. It belongs in the top of any “greatest works of film making” list. It may not make someone’s favourite film list, but thats taste and preferences, regardless of artistry. I am glad I got to see it on the big screen, today.

Psycho – a must see film within anyones life time.

 

Darke Reviews | Scream 4 (2011)

Posted by

0

The final (for now) installment of the Scream franchise. After 11 years of rotting, the producers, director, and studio thought it was time to resurrect Scream. Perhaps they thought they had something new to say? Perhaps they thought they had something new to satire? Perhaps it was about the money. If it was the last, then they failed miserably. With a production budget of $40 million (same as Scream 3) they made a whopping $38 million (domestic). It looked decent out of the gate with a solid $18 million opening weekend, then dropped 62% in the second weekend. Of course, it was against Fast Five that weekend, which pulled in an amazingly stunning $86 million. So perhaps it was the other two?

Well, actually it was. According to an interview Craven actually thought he had a new story to tell. The landscape of horror has changed dramatically over the decade, actually, that is an understatement, the entire landscape of the world has changed since the last Scream film. Not even getting into the geopolitical landscape, lets look at technology:

Remember these cellphones?

Remember these cellphones?

 

Facebook, Twitter, the deceasing size of camera’s, the increasing size and power of phones. Hell, my first two computers were less powerful than my last two cellphones. Horror has changed so much as well. We had the rise and fall of Torture Porn. For those not familiar with the genre, think Saw, Hostel, etc. These are the films that have an overwhelming focus of the gory deaths, pain, and screams for the sake of the gore, death, and screams but not story. The middle part of the decade was littered with these films and we (wisely) got tired of them quick enough, even if we did get SAW 9000. We also had the re-introduction of the low budget horror with films like Paranormal Activity where “everything” is recorded. Young teens absolutely litter the landscape, and morgues,  of nearly every horror movie coming out during this time; so much so that we’ve grown tired of it. It might be part of the reason for the lack of success as well. There is a lot we are tired of in modern movies, horror is no exception. So what do you do if you are a horror film maker since the beginning of modern horror and want to engage modern audiences.

Well, respect them.

You’ve got Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson returning to work together as director and writer. These two need to work more together on other franchises. Please. They actually do as promised and deliver, again, an intelligent thriller where there are stakes, there are risks, and you do worry someone may die. They don’t insult the intelligence of the returning characters. They successfully mock modern media again, modern movies, while making self referential remarks about how self referential movie characters can be within the movies. It’s a weird inception thing, but I approve of the continued awareness of the characters. We are also in the age of the reboot and reimagining, which is also referenced equally. We returned again to the deaths that have a level of simplicity to them.

A knife. A body. It’s not that hard.

They stick to that which becomes another reason the film works. They also went back to the roots by returning to Woodsboro and the highschoolers. They don’t weaken anyone in the film and the kills are not nearly as comical as they were in the last two. There is a driven intensity to the film. Even the lighting and score queues seem to know it with additional near natural looking lighting and shadows for many of the sequences; to the point where I didn’t feel as if I was on a set but instead my own home. This brought the feeling of the modern home invasion horror to play, while still playing with the stereotypical slasher vibe. Media outreach and inherent millennial connectivity were relevant plot points to the film as well as what it takes for 15 minutes of fame and how modern media responds to it. As much as the media was mocked, deservedly so, the millennial generation was not. Ok, there was some just due to the nature of stereotypes that come to play in a movie, but otherwise they were all (mostly) actually pretty interesting characters in their own right.

Good scripting, helps, but of course good acting. Neve Campbell, David Arquette, and Courtney Cox can probably play their roles in their sleep. Sidney is no longer a victim or on the verge of fraying, but has tried to reemerge through a book of her own. She is still as strong, still a survivor, and still a fighter. I am not disappointed in her. Cox, sadly has the weakest role and I am not sure why. Where Arquette who had been the comical role takes on the more serious part and Cox gets the comedy. We have our usual introductions of potential up and comers, such as Lucy Hale (Pretty Little Liars), Alison Brie (Community), Emma Roberts (American Horror Story), and Eric Knudsen (Scott Pilgrim, Continuum). It also features a host of names we do know (or at least I know). Anna Paquin (True Blood), Marley Shelton (Grindhouse), Kristen Bell (Veronica Mars, Frozen), Hayden Panettiere (Nashville, Heroes), and Anthony Anderson (The Departed, Law & Order). Sadly no horror movie great cameo’s as we’ve had in previous films.

The technicals work out in this one fairly well as I spoke before. They wisely didn’t go with shaky cam as many movies these day do and kept with steady cam. The deaths work. So no real technical flaws here and yes when people are severely injured – they go to the hospital!!

TL;DR

As it was a financial wreck, I don’t imagine we will get another. I hope that we don’t unless there is a new story to tell and the landscape changes enough for them to have something truly to satire within the confines of a serious slasher film.

It isn’t a great, but it was a really good send off. I do recommend it, not just as part of a marathon of Scream films, but as a standalone film. It doesn’t treat the audience as an idiot. Its simplistic and complex and it works. I have to say I actually like Scream 4 – I think you might too.

If you don’t, let me know why? I always welcome other opinions on films.

Darke Reviews | Scream 3 (2000)

Posted by

0

Alright,  I figured I should continue the reviews of this particular franchise, you’ll notice by the timing this is certainly not one of the classics. It does some interesting things but really does not quite reach the same level as the first two. I am not sure what the studio was thinking as this does come out a full three years after the last one. Granted the last one did ok, bringing 4 times its budget back in domestic income. Scream 3 comes along and Dimension films, who at the time were throwing anything they could out gives Wes Craven 40 million, nearly quadrupling the original budget. This is continuing proof that additional money given to a director, no matter how good, is not always a good thing. Some directors, especially the talented ones, do better when they have to fight and claw for every effect.

Again, spoilers, as we are talking about a serial killer franchise. Stop now and return from whence thou came if you wish to remain spoiler free!

 

As mentioned Wes Craven returns to direct, but this time without a script by the previous partner Kevin Williamson. Instead Ehren Kruger is brought in. I have absolutely no love for this man. While he may have given us the import of The Ring and Blood and Chocolate  he is also responsible for the last three Transformers films. Yes, all three of the horrible ones. Ones so bad that I offered to pay people to not see the last one. He isn’t entirely horrific as there are some gems in this script that are worth enjoying.

We return several years after the last film and in near traditional fashion for the franchise, we have movie within a movie aspects. Where Scream 2 simply had the movie Stab as a background element, this movie actually has us in Hollywood while Stab 3 is being filmed. Rather than joking about movie in a movie, this one literally is. Sidney has actually chosen to hide from the world as a response to the events of the last two films. I appreciate that they let the weight of all thats happened begin to fracture her. She’s strong, but there’s only so much she can be expected to take. She is still the Sidney we know and love, still very intelligent, strong and a fighter, with some fraying on the edges. Of course, also in Scream fashion they introduce us to the rules of film for Trilogy. These are things we all recognize when they are spelled out, so that becomes one of the beautiful elements of the film; especially when delivered by the Jamie Kennedy’s character Randy. I think the delivery mechanism would have annoyed me had it been any other character, but for him it worked. The continual false leads, twists, and turns work in this but not nearly as strongly. There’s also the introduction of a contrived romance for Sidney, which while cute I think only works because of the two involved.

From an actors perspective, we have Neve Campbells return, who had not had much between 2 and 3 other than Wild Things (I should review that too). She has definitely grown as an actress between films and how she handles walking onto the set of Woodsboro is really well done. We also have Liev Schreiber, Courtney Cox and David Arquette returning as their surviving characters, both of which have as much growth in their characters off screen as on. There’s not as much of a change in the actors themselves as the characters, but they are pleasant and welcome on screen. The movie also brings us some old (non related) faces such as Lance Henriksen, Roger Corman, Jenny McCarthy, and Carrie Fisher. In what also seems to be a trend for the movie, it gives us Patrick (Grey’s Anatomy) Dempsey, before he was McDreamy. He had a smaller fan base, but a loyal one from those who had seen him in Run and MObsters, or even Will and Grace. Scott Foley is another new face, who then went on to appear in several TV series over the rest of his career including Grey’s and True Blood.

Here’s where the movie starts to break down, the technicals. I talked in the previous two films how a slasher if done right doesn’t need too much on the way of effects beyond a good blade or good blood. Maybe a good prosthetic for an injury or slit throat. In traditional Dimension fashion they gave us explosions that look horrific. It was unnecessary and didn’t work. Even the so called science behind an explosion of that size is ridiculous – suspension of disbelief or no. It, and a few other niggling points make the technicals not work. There’s some IQ dropping from the characters (damn you Kruger) combined with this that don’t work either.

TL;DR?

Alright, the movie is watchable. It isn’t good, but it is actually watchable.

It has just a few too many characters to the point where you don’t give a damn who lives or who dies.  Thats a problem, since in the first film you do actually care. The second one you care less, and here you just don’t care at all. There is almost no subtlety in the work and the movie suffers for it. It actually killed the franchise for a full decade. The jokes aren’t as funny, the kills aren’t as interesting, even the bad guy(s) aren’t nearly as strong. It’s almost like a looney toons film for one or two of the deaths.

If you are doing a Marathon, you don’t get a choice here.

If not it isn’t unbearable, but I wouldn’t watch it as a standalone given the choice – at least not without alcohol or nothing else on in the middle of the night.

 

Darke Reviews | Frankenstein (1931)|

Posted by

1

Continuing my reviews of the Universal Classics, I must touch on Frankenstein. It was the second film in what is considered the Universal Monsters set. Dracula was a near Valentines Day release, with Frankenstein being a near Thanksgiving release. This gave the producers and directors time to see how Dracula did and make modifications based on audience response.  There are some really nifty factoids and tidbits worth mentioning so I want to cover them in this review. Please consider yourself warned this review does have Spoilers; at 83 years I think I am beyond the statute of limitations.

The movie was produced by the owner of Universal at the time Carl Laemmle Jr., son of the founder of Universal and heir to the empire from 1928 to 1936. This was one of the first directorial roles for James Whale, which would then be followed by the Invisible Man (1933) and The Bride of Frankenstein (1935). It is easy to see he took a different tact to the film making than those who made Dracula. There’s at times an almost clear sense to take a more clinical and far less romantic approach to it. Even the writing, blocking, and delivery of the actors has started to drift away from the stage plays and silent films before. Not entirely mind you, but some of it is showing, mostly in the scenes with Henry Frankenstein and Fritz. It has more in common with later science fiction than it does with the some of the other horror films at the time; or perhaps more in common with Jekyll and Hyde. For those that like the movie Young Frankenstein, I recommend watching this and then the comedy. You will be amazed at how many references and callbacks were made with all due respect to the original films.

The story of course is inspired by the original work of Mary Shelley, adapted by Peggy Webling, then further adapted by John L. Balderston, and adapted once again to the silver screen by Garret Fort and Francis Edward Faragoh. I would say this suffers from the writers curse of too many writers, but movies were so nascent at this time it is difficult to tell where some of those story issues lie. Of course it is worth mentioning some of what we know about Frankenstein was not in the original film at all. The movie actually begins with the grave robbing and acquisition of the brain. It was not Igor, but Fritz – played by the magnificent Dwight Frye. The doctor is Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive), not Victor; who is played as a friend of Henry. Boris Karloff, was not credited originally. The title card simply read:

credits

 

That sort of thing is unheard of these days. I mean sure actors go uncredited in movies, but a major character within the film? Awesome. The movie also wastes no time getting us into the “action” of the piece with friends and the love of Henry coming to see him concerned about his well being before he even animated The Monster. The movie also couches much of itself in the science of the time; even if it is technobabble, it is the technobabble of the 30s. In a rather interesting twist, rather than turn his people away before the animation he actually shows off his work to the intrigue of his former teacher Dr. Waldman (Edward Van Sloan – again, see I told you he was in everything). His fiancee, his best friend, and his mentor not only watch the animation but help to keep it secret from the rest of the world! There’s no argument. There’s no fighting about if it should or could be done. It has happened and they just go with it. I actually miss the simplicity of that.

The famous “It’s Alive” , is so beautifully done by Colin Clive who does not nearly have the career he deserves; due to a too early death. It gets cut off in most modern clips you hear, mostly due to censorship in the late 30’s,  but when its said in the film its chilling, I am giving you the text, but you just need to see it!

“It’s alive, it’s alive. In the name of God, now I know what it feels like to be God…”

The beautiful arrogance is wonderfully entertaining. I may be the Vampire Princess, but I prefer the acting in this film to that of Dracula, mostly around Clives performance. The conversations between him and Waldman are professional discussions on what has happened, not the moral implications. The science is the conversation. The risk of such an experiment in that name as well. Even as the movie progresses it is still a conversation and a partnership – no matter how dark it goes.

It’s of course worth mentioning that the stiff arms out did not come until a later film (Frankenstein meets the Wolfman 1943) when The Monster was blind, his movements are rigid but not nearly as clunky as we think of. There is such subtlety in the expressions Karloff gives the monster, there is a reason he is considered a legend and a reason we remember him today. The iconic look was created by the infamous Jack P. Pierce – you will be hard pressed to find a make up expert in the industry who was not at some point inspired by Pierce. Even though it is a massive departure from Shelley’s description, it is what we remember. Even the green grey look we consider for the monster was due to the grease paint used to make him look dead on screen and off colour from the other performers. That look, by the way, is under Universal copyright until 2026 and I am sure it will be renewed after. I do, also, recommend the most recent releases to watch as they contain less unedited footage, including what happens to the little girl, Fritz, Dr. Waldman, and more importantly how the monster reacts to them.

Some of the technicals are not as solid as the make up work. You can clearly see it is a backdrop painting on a set, but other than that it is more solid than some of the films we get now!

TL;DR?

Look, this is an awesome film that holds up better than most of the Universal Monster films. If you love the classics you should have already seen this, but if not. SEE IT.

I had an opportunity a year ago to see this and the Bride of Frankenstein as a double feature in a theatre. I do not regret it. If you have options to see this on the big screen take it.

This one is a great and it should be treasured and watched for all time. Here’s to the House of Frankenstein!

Darke Reviews | The Fog (1980)

Posted by

0

I often talk about how atmosphere is one of the most important elements to a creative work, any creative work. Let me give a quite silly example: Picture the Mona Lisa in a circus tent. It no longer carries the weight as if it were in the Louvre. When I spoke of the movie Halloween recently, I talked about how the music was as important to the film as anything else. Give it a different soundtrack or even no soundtrack and much of the important mood setting atmosphere is gone. Also consider the atmosphere Halloween and fall give as a season.  Look at this image from Halloween 3: Season of the Witch. The image alone, with the shades of orange and deep shadows, the witch hat and dim street lights conjure and evoke emotion and images in your head. THIS is the very definition of atmosphere when it pertains to creative works. What does it make you feel when you see the set, the colours, or hear the sounds.

If you don't feel fall and October seeing this, you have no soul! (and I didn't steal it)

If you don’t feel fall and October seeing this, you have no soul! (and I didn’t steal it)

So in 1980 John Carpenter, and his partner, Debra Hill worked together again after the phenomenal success of Halloween to give us The Fog. Now, any of my coastal or moisture ridden geographical location readers know the meteorological event known as fog, is a driving nightmare.  Visibility goes to hell in a handbasket. Sound gets distorted. During the day it will burn off – usually – but in the morning and evenings it becomes interesting as light is distorted and shapes become soft and blurry. A night – well at night, fog becomes a living entity. It swallows things when they move just a little bit away from you. It becomes as if they didn’t exist at all in mere moments when you would expect to see it normally. Normally benign shapes become threatening and light passes through it in all sorts of ways. Look at this photo below, this was just as sunset was happening right before a Ghost Tour. The fog creates something here that wasn’t there…

Want to take a tour? (I did, was awesome, but the fog helped)

Even Stephen King has a story about a similar event in The Mist (one of the few stories to ever scare me). So back to the review, Fog itself invokes feelings and images alone. Add the context of a horror movie which spend so much time at night. Now add a Ghost Story to it. Interested? So were audiences, as this is what Cameron and Hill gave us. Take a small coastal California town and have it be invaded by spectral pirates within the fog (c’mon that sounds too cool), terrorizing its citizens. Shoot on a low budget of the time for $1 million, and spend as much time building atmosphere as you do building story and you have a successful film that lasts decades.

Of course, this also needs good actors as well. Carpenter cast his wife at the time Adrienne Barbeau, who mostly had done TV before, as the “voice” of the movie DJ Stevie Wayne who broadcasts from her lighthouse. Jamie Lee Curtis makes her second film appearance here as one of the film heroines Elizabeth. Carpenter even snagged her mother, the esteemed Janet Leigh, as a role in the film. Heavy Tom Atkins (Halloween 3, Serpico,  Creepshow) plays Nick Castle; the name of the actor who played The Shape in Halloween, our film hero.  Other greats include Hal Holbrook and John Houseman. While the film may have been quickly scripted, shot on a budget, and even been plagued by reshoots, every actor carries their scenes as if it were appropriately life and death.

From a purely technical perspective, the movie is remarkably strong. The use of fog (duh), silhouettes, and super bright white lights does a tremendous job. The fog itself is a living thing and something you become afraid of because you can’t see whats coming, but you know it will be bad. As they were working on a budget so many of the effects and scenes rely on the famous rule of implying without showing. You don’t have to see someone actually killed on screen. A single shape in the right place, a hook hand, and foot steps walking up behind an unsuspecting victim. You know what is about to happen, you find yourself going “No!” and hoping for the best, but know otherwise. This is where some of the best horror comes from – what you can’t see. When you can see something you can fight it. You might have a chance to win. While the effects do work and are strong, they are also dated. I almost want someone to go in and try to clean up or modernize some of the effects on the original film to bring them to more timelessness. I don’t mean to change them, but to clean them. Changing them …well I will talk about that tomorrow.

TL;DR?

The Fog is a beautifully crafted, atmospheric, horror film that is near timeless. It isn’t perfect, it isn’t even “great”. But if you find yourself in the need for a ghost story with real weight and even an outcome that most movies would be afraid of these days, please watch this. It’s a good film for a foggy night. Its a good film for a rainy night. It’s a good film for October.

I don’t know where The Fog would show on my Top 50 horror movies of all time, but it would be up there. It is absolutely worth a shot.

Darke Reviews | You’re Next (2013)

Posted by

3

I have to admit, the trailers for this one did not grab me. Going into it  I was not a fan of the home invasion style horror that is so rampant in today’s horror films. It *is* the new style of horror and is representative of what we fear most as a western society. Someone coming into our homes, taking our freedoms, our things, and our lives – our sense of peace and safety. Thats what these are all about, even many of the ghost stories are just a supernatural take on home invasion. It is still an invader in the home of the protagonists that they must take action against or they risk life, limb, and sanity. So when the trailer for this was released I had no desire to see it. I mean check this:

Yay a film about the 1% being murdered? Wasn’t that the Purge? I suppose there is a sense of satisfaction in it, morbid as it may be. As a non 1% I can at least admit to taking some small satisfaction (not always small) in seeing the “Haves” suffer at the hands of the “Have Nots”.  The trailer though doesn’t offer us anything new. It doesn’t entice. Even the music is off putting and seems to be without reason. This is in the category of Trailer Fails that I am going to start using as a tag on my posts. I may have to go back and add it to others, but we will let this one start it.

So what about the film itself? (This one is new enough to remain spoiler free)

It has a script but Simon Barrett. Barrett for one of his earliest projects gave us the SyFy classic Frankenfish. Yes I’ve seen it. Yes it is as bad as you might imagine. You’re Next is his first feature film, with segments on V/H/S and ABC”s of Death coming after the relative success of this film. I have to admit, I was pleasantly surprised by the movie and its writing. It was a touch on the jaded side in dealing with the Rich, it doesn’t even lampshade it. It calls OUT the fact the family is rich with clear intent by the non rich protagonist. There was a certain bias there, but at the same time it is darkly humorous in moments you wouldn’t expect. It also respects the intelligence of some of the characters.

Some of this is in the first 8 minutes , so I do not consider it spoiler. They get to the house. The door is open. Its rationalized off. A small scene later, footsteps are heard upstairs loud enough to shake a chandelier. The woman goes “Time to go” and is talked out of it by the husband. The fact that “we need to leave” were some of the first words in the conversation is a relief. The movie is almost…almost Scream like in many respects. Where Scream is more of a fantastical realistic spoof on the slasher. This one takes much of the fantasy out and lets it be a tension filled take on The Home Invasion. Almost a Black Comedy in some moments, but otherwise it remains solid horror fare.

Credit should be given to the director, who met the writer on the film A Horrible Way to Die, then Auto Erotic – making their joint cinematic debut with this. Since then their careers seem intertwined.  The script informs the dialogue and scenes, but the director and actors inform the performance and staging. In this case the director does a fairly decent job of getting good performances from all actors involved.

While the cast for the family and invaders is fairly significant for the horror film with roughly 14 between them it is still fairly easy to follow. There are of course notables. Nicholas Tucci (no relation to Stanley) as Felix tends to catch the eye and plays his scenes well. AJ Bowen’s Crispian is also fairly memorable through the film; and he himself seems to live for the horror genre with most of his films in that realm. The two biggest standouts are Wendy Glenn as Zee, who chews scenery fairly well and I find her quite interesting to watch, and Sharni Vinson as Erin. This is the one to watch. She seems to be the most intelligent of the bunch and consistently shows it with her reaction to the high stress situation. I want to see more of her in other films of a decent pedigree.

Within a horror movie technical perspective. There’s some creativity in the pain and death dealing. Nothing too horribly gory. Nothing too sickeningly bloody.  There’s a touch too much motion with the camera work that is designed to be disorienting and jarring for an emotional beat but really just ends up distracting and unnecessary.

TL;DR?

I found myself surprisingly enjoying the film when I watched it. The counter horror movie programming that the film offers within the same genre is surprisingly well executed. Even to the last beat of the film.

If you haven’t seen it and enjoy the modern horror genres or home invasion style movies – I think you should give this one a shot.

If horror, blood, home invasion is not your thing – yeah. Dont watch it. You won’t like it. You won’t understand the jabs it does take at the genre because it isn’t your thing. Just give it a pass.

So despite a trailer fail, the movie is good. (total reverse of Clash of the Titans).

Tomorrow night is linked to October but way outside of the norm with the new release – Book of Life.