Latest Crazes

I'm an obsessive kind of guy, so when I find something interesting or what have you I get hooked... and more importantly for those around me, I don't shut up about it. This has been the case, for instance, with my possible overall favourite film The Warriors, many times.

Currently I'm nurturing two new ones. Firstly, Charles Bronson. Big time man-crush mode. What can we say? It's a bizarre thing, often he isn't acting great and he's in bad films - I guess the guy just defines screen presence. Either way I've managed to boost my experience from merely The Great Escape and Once Upon A Time In The West to around 13 titles in the past few weeks. So it's not unusal for me to have Charlie on the brain - I found my self inventing a little graphic novel called "Bronze Man" in psychology the other day.

The new craze would be Hammer horror films, and we're starting gentley but with the experience of being me I am willing to wager this is about to get out of hand too. Especially with the possible advent of a box set on the cards. I have just watched Dracula Has Risen From The Grave and a messy little review is available on Youtube by yours truly, though I'm clearly still getting to grips with the spoken word! Next I shall probably be checking out Plague of the Zombies and then ... every single other one most likely.

Review: The House of the Devil (2009)

Ti West’s throwback horror surpasses expectations for the sub-sub-genre by not only capturing the spirit of the era but being a refreshingly smart and atmospheric video nasty. The 80’s setting allows director/writer/editor Ti West to kick the retro into overdrive – incidentally this film was also released promotionally on VHS... I’m impressed. He starts with a classic story. The film opens telling us of peoples fear of satanic cults in the 1980’s and tells us it is based on true accounts, although I’m near certain that this is just the kinda tripe you’d get in a nasty 1980’s horror. Then we meet Samantha (Jocelin Donahue) who is a college gal looking to make some money to move out of her dorm accepts an ever increasingly odd baby sitting job on the night of a lunar eclipse.

Very shortly into the film the 1980’s feel gets going strong – including a short cameo from horror star Dee Wallace (The Howling (1981), Rob Zombie’s Halloween (2007)) as the landlady of the house she pining for. This is followed by a super title sequence, that admittedly almost comes across as a 70’s cop show with it’s freeze-frames and cheesey music, but was certainly enjoyable with it’s ghastly yellow font, and when a title like “House of the Devil” comes up I’m already sold on a couple of levels.

I bought this film impulsively on a glowing review from my man Mark Kermode. The next thing I heard about the film however wasn’t as encouraging – people complained about the slow pacing. This was what I’d heard was so effective in the film, but some genre fans didn’t seem to be having it. I was a little concerned. It soon became obvious that it was a slow burn and I pondered that this may be due to the director also editing the film. However, in my humble opinion it is definitely the the smart crafting of the build up that makes this film work.

West builds up a sense of uneasiness long before we even get to the creepy house, before we find out that she’s not being asked to look after a child… but Mr. Ulman’s (Tom Noonan) mother. Once left alone in the house the film really shows us how it’s done. Although I was surprised at the length of time the film took before anything “happened” I was glued to the screen for the middle act of the film, as little dialogue played and skilled cinematography created a fantastic tone around the scarce jump scares luring you in as we start to realise that this is not going to end well. Without giving anything away when we do get to the nasty – it’s fucking nasty. I feel that it wouldn’t be so effective without the impressive pacing beforehand.

The masterful work in the build up (perhaps a good two thirds of the film) has been compared to the early work of Polanski (eg, Rosemary’s Baby (1968), Repulsion (1965)) and interestingly for a movie capturing the 80s mood so well it did feel a lot like these films in elements of its tonal quality. The dread we feel, as the film shifts gear continuously, is what you look for in the 70s/80s films but is rarely delivered and the grimy nastiness that ensues is straight out of the DPP list – if not truly disgusting it does the film a bloody slice of justice and compliments the rest of the film with a satisfying contrast. What’s more, the ending which at first seemed odd to myself is, after a few minutes late-night pondering, in fact perfect for a film of that era.

The film looks fantastic, reminiscent of a whole cannon of classic horror films, but hardly derivative to my mind. Jocelin Donehue looks perfect for an 80’s college girl as do her co-stars and Tom Noonan is the kind of shudder inducing character you’re sure you’ve seen before but can’t place, from the moment we hear his voice on the phone to his gangly and wrought presence in the house. However, look out for one character who, in my opinion, looks like Rocky Dennis from Mask (1985). Whereas films like House of 1000 Corpses (2003) and Grindhouse (2007) play on the more over-the-top elements of these exploitation-horror films, West’s throwback horror film is much more subtle in how it cranks up the terror. It stays strongly nostalgic whilst making a fresh horror, that has clearly impressed the crowds looking for a decent modern horror. It is rare to see this kind of film so well paced allowing genuinely effective and enjoyable scares – don’t you ever feel conned by cheap jump scares? Evidently, people expecting a video nasty throwback may be a bit disappointed by the fact that this is a well made, skilfully executed and masterfully paced film. This probably isn’t going to get the gore-hounds going but if you like proper horror films you need to see this. My bet is you’ll be impressed.

Review: Zombi 2 (1979)

Claiming to know a little bit about cult, horror and extreme cinema, it would be something of a conundrum why I haven’t seen Zombie Flesh Eaters. The title always attracted me but I was probably most delayed from watching due to the possibly ethically questionable nature of one of the film – and genre’s – most bizarre scenes, involving an underwater zombie and a shark…

Getting back on the horror scene I decided to check it out. I had never seen a Lucio Fulci – legendary Italian godfather of gore – film, but had some idea of what to expect – thinking mostly that it wouldn’t be for me, myself not being that much of a gore-hound. Probably what spurred me on the most was hearing the incredible theme tune by Fabio Frizzi. At the very least I would get a kick out of the music. However, I went in with low and grimy expectations, thinking I may not even make it very far into a morally bankrupt and poorly made exploitation horror.

The film was marketed as a sequel to George Romero’s classic, Dawn of the Dead (1978) (Dawn being marketed as “Zombi” in europe)but as a fellow “nasty” reviewer, Lampyman101, once pointed out “if it’s Italian and it’s a sequel, chances are it’s probably not a sequel”. The story is straightforward, as is most of the plot development. It opens with an apparently abandoned sail boat floating into New York. When investigated a policeman is attacked by a big fat zombie. The daughter of the owner of the yacht is informed and her and a group (of not fully developed but functional enough characters) head off to the island of Matool, from whence it came, where it turns out a voodoo curse is returning the dead to life as her father’s doctor buddy struggles to work out what’s happening and cope with the plague of the zombies.

Okay, from here on in I might as well just list off the things that impressed me in Lucio Fulci’s Zombie Flesh Eaters. Initially, the gore wasn’t working for me. The fat zombie at the beginning – reminiscent of the big fellow in Shaun of the Dead (2004) or the arcade game House of the Dead III (2002) – looked fairly mediocre, and as the infamous eye scene approached I was scared to watch but when it came to it I was presented with a rather unimpressive, and silly death scene. However, as the film progressed it went from strength to strength as I started to get into the films own world and set of rules. The zombies soon turned out to be some of the best I’d seen on screen. I can’t say I’d ever seen zombies with worms in their heads, and saying that, it isn’t as stomach churning as you’d expect, but it looks about right for the dead returned to life. The make up isn’t in the league of some films, such as Day of the Dead (1985) but the overall impression works really well – they come across as an X-rated version of Michael Jackson’s Thriller. What most impressed me, however, was the zombies rising from the earth. This for me is a key part of the appeal of zombie mythology, and as far as I can remember, is omitted in Romero’s genre staples, and many others who focus on the epidemic of zombies rather than their initial appearance. Moreover, as the film continued I found myself fairly enjoying some of the gore scenes, truly gross but as in the general tone of the film, although explicit, the violence doesn’t come across as as traumatising or malevolent like the majority of films in this field, and makes it seems a little less bannable (the film being a video nasty in the UK) than I would have expected.

The cinematography was very impressive – I expected most of the films creative efforts to be in the make up effects, but very early on the way it was shot really stood out, although I did of course have low expectations. The scale and variety of locations was refreshing given the closed and claustrophobic nature of most films of the genre and meant the general look was great to see. Lush island scenery, and comic book zombies.

Of course I can’t review this film without mentioning the shark scene. A girl goes scuba diving – topless of course – it’s Italian! Whilst hiding from a passing shark she encounters an underwater zombie – WTF!? She escapes but the shark takes on the zombie. Uh-oh! On the surface level it’s a pretty amazing scene but for myself you can’t help but wonder about the treatment of the animal here. The zombie was the shark’s trainer but with Italian’s horrors bad record for treatment of animals we can’t be too certain how ethical the training was. But certainly it is something to behold.

To conclude, the film is of course ropey in places (often the editing diminishes the quality of the cinematography) and has many questionable moments (be it sexism, dodgy animal treatment or just general nastiness) but the tight pace means it all keeps moving along nicely enough and keeps it fairly harmless overall, considering its constituent parts. My mind is nudging me to say, in a top ten zombie films list, this would rank closely after George Romero’s films, this sounds impossible but this is a strange case, and yes I’m pretty impressed. Zombie Flesh Eaters, at least, certainly lives up to it’s name. It delivers the guts but is not of the calibre of its rivals. Whereas Dawn is a film, this is a movie – and a fairly sleazy one a that, but not as depraved as you may expect (in fact probably less squeam-inducing than Romero’s Day of the Dead) and if you enjoy zombie films I’m sure there’s definitely an enjoyable, if lonely, night’s viewing in here.

Review: The Crazies (2010)

You know, giving it some thought, maybe it’s a good idea seeing the remake first. I can see the headlines now… that is if I was a famous film critic – I’ll just expect a scoff from Rory then. Needless to say however, this is a rather controversial viewpoint, that with discussion, I’ve gotten few people to concur with or even continue talking to me afterwards. As I begin this review, I have only a distant memory of the opening ten minutes of the original The Crazies (1973) but don’t worry, thanks to the majesty of written text and the “save” feature on my word-processor I will have miraculously seen it by the end of this page.

As if that wasn’t bad enough walking into a cinema to see a remake of a classic, I have a theory that it may be the right thing to do. Nowadays, it seems nothing sacred with remakes constituting a lot of what is released. Two main categories are most heavily “re-imagined” – foreign horror (the suits evidently thinking the people will not tolerate a film with subtitles) and the golden age of gore, 70s and 80s horror movies. As it stands a lot of my beloved films are set for this treatment, Robocop (1987), The Evil Dead (1981), A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) and most worryingly for me Tony Scott is rumoured to be remaking The Warriors (1979). The justification for this would appear to be that simply there’s only so many “Special”, “Collectors” and “Ultimate” editions people will buy of the originals before they decide enough is enough in their groaning DVD collections. The sad truth is that nine out ten of these movies will disappoint as has been the case – Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003), Halloween (2007), Friday the 13th (2009) and the essential reason for this is that often these films are shameless cash-ins on the original films hallowed name. Let’s remember, however, that “remake” shouldn’t necessarily be a dirty word. After all John Carpenters The Thing (1982) did wonderful things with the original 50’s sci-fi film given the advent of mind bending effects work by Rob Bottin, and Cronenberg’s The Fly took the Vincent Price classic to a whole new level with his body-horror stylings. Remakes can bring something fresh and exciting to the mix.

You’re probably thinking this should be in the “Ramblings” category now given I haven’t really mentioned Mr Eisner’s film yet but what did you expect, I’m not Jonathan Woss. The point I’m trying to get at this weary Saturday morning is that sometimes having to much love for the original may blur your judgement of a film, so logically seeing the remake first should be much less prejudicial approach.As much as I would like to have seen all of Romero’s back catalogue at this stage in my life – I’ve seen all the zombie ones, okay? – the fact that I hadn’t seen the original meant I could judge it without my emotions getting the better of me; as happened with Zack Snyder’s remake of Dawn of the Dead (1978) which I hated but many thought was decent enough. So here goes.

The plot of The Crazies is fairly simple, and influential enough for you to be fairly familiar with it. In a small and fairly isolated town, townsfolk suddenly start acting all weird and violent until before you know it the place is out of control. Sheriff David Dutton attempts to work out what is going on while the whole place descends into chaos around him, his wife Judy (Radha Mitchell) and his deputy Russel (Joe Anderson) and the military become a ever more sinister presence, as the nightmare continues.

Watching The Crazies I did still have the original in my head – “I wonder if that was in the original?” – but I was engrossed enough in the film at hand for it not to bother me. Director, Breck Eisner, as is evident in interviews, clearly didn’t want to do what a lot of these painful horror remakes have done in recent years. The changes in tone from the original, the political undercurrent so strong in Romero’s work, seem justified in the updated form this movie is – reflecting modern issues surrounding America. This is obviously a big plus as this is at the heart of many of George’s films – the novelty of zombies in a mall would wear thin in “Dawn” if there wasn’t the back bone of cricism of materialist 1970’s America. The other key change; shifting the perspective to the small group of characters, seems a good choice to make a more intimate and horrifying journey for our group through the film. And one more thing, I shouldn’t have to say it but this horror film has some pretty good scares in it.

So, now I’ve seen the original and I like it a lot but let’s be honest it’s not like it isn’t a film that benefits from a little big budget magic, in many respects. I’m not someone to be put off by low production value but others might and what’s more Eisner’s remake scales up the film and puts a modern spin on it. This could be justification enough but the real reason the film stands up is that its a really solid horror film and that is all too rare – almost as rare as a good remake. I enjoyed this film a great deal because enough thought was put into and well executed and you can tell it what wasn’t made with just the money in mind or without care of defaming the original. It’s no breakthrough in cinema but a surprisingly good night out at the at the movies – too few films of this genre are worth the ticket price. The Crazies (2010) will always be a companion piece to most but for me as a stand alone film it’s an impressive effort. So looking at it in reverse, as I have, it’s almost a shame this film won’t last anywhere near as long as the original but hey, maybe you should come up with your own ideas, eh?

Review: Hell Ride (2008)

Lately, the phrase “Quentin Tarantino presents” has become enough to ward of the canny film enthusiast. However, when the inanity of the title “Hell Ride” keeps staring at you across the Blockbuster floor, sometimes even the hardened critic may, in a moment of weakness, be reduced to watching this straight-to-Dvd bike crash of a movie. The film is the result of a viewing, by director Larry Bishop and Quentin Tarantino, of violent 60s biker movie The Savage Seven (1968) – apparently near-impossible to find. Bishop co-starred in this film in his youth before rising to hand-picked salvation from the world of B-movies by QT for his role opposite Michael Madsen (who joins him here) in Kill Bill Vol. 2. At this viewing, Tarantino decreed that Larry was destined to write and direct the greatest biker movie ever made. No pressure, mate.

The film has a thin plot that merits little explanation – and the director evidently feels the same. Pistolero (Bishop), The Gent (Madsen) and Commanche (Eric Balfour) – a role originally intended for Quentin who ran off for his part in Takashi Miike’s Sukiyaki Western Django. Ouch, It was your idea Quentin! – are members of The Victors, one of your Hells Angels biker gangs so prevalent in biker exploitation films. After this about all you need to know is revenge and gratuity of all orders and appearances by Dennis Hopper (Easy Rider co-star Peter Fonda turned down the film), David Carradine (although reluctantly) and … Vinnie Jones. Right.

Now, I have a limited knowledge of the genre this “homages” having seen Easy Rider (1969), which surpasses the limitations of the low-budget shock sub-genre to be a counter-cultural cornerstone – and for the record a masterpiece in my eyes. I’ve also seen the Roger Corman (so we’re talking proper B-movie exploitation here) film Wild Angels (1966), also starring Peter Fonda. The film does build on these premises, in some visual references, the general style of exploitation cinema in an updated format (which mostly amounts to tits and guns) and in the music which it borrows from and builds on fairly well. However, it soon becomes apparent that Bishop is trying to make Kill Bill Vol. 2 on wheels. The picture is dragged through the desert dirt of Quentin’s back catalogue, and most of all the movie reeks of macaroni, Quentin’s take on the Spaghetti Western is clearly as much an influence as the biker movie genre. Bishop openly admits the scenes that “homage” QT – how many times does that term get used in relation to Tarantino only to disappoint? – perhaps failing to see their cringe-worthy nature. When he isn’t directly ripping on the directors trademarks, the dialogue – consistently dire throughout – jumps and falls at the witty banter of films like Reservoir Dogs (1992) and Pulp Fiction (1994) and the time-line spooning narrative just makes a mess of a simple, stock story.

Though I find it hard now, and immediately after viewing, the experience of watching Hell Ride itself was not a bad one for me. The film managed to keep me entertained by either surpassing my low expectations – bear in mind I had seen the trailer, and the reviews.. and the title – or being so terrible it’s amusing. The film is indeed a strange mixture of knowingly dodgy i.e. trying to be the epitome of 60s biker movies, and trying to be Kill Bill Vol. 2 – and just bad. However, despite the attempts to directorially body-snatch Mr. Tarantino, which pester the entire movie, this isn’t such a crime given that everyone has done it in the last few years and after all at least Bishop is justified to do this. Furthermore, the film looks pretty good and is shot pretty competantly for a newcomer to filmmaking who has given himself the burden of writer (fail), director (fail) and actor (fail). But just as the film knows its roots in poor quality – the only reason I’m not going to pass judgement on its extensive T&A and porno-movie scenes – Bishop seems more than aware that he is just a puppet for a film Quentin would like to see but can’t be arsed to make. At the end of the day this has the excuse “Quentin made me do it” – which is something the man himself can’t get off on.

So, we may be able to justify the reasons the film is bad but is it worth watching? Well put it this way, I think if you’ve looked into the film this much you’re probably going to get something out of watching it and might be pleasantly surprised, but once its over you will never want to see it again. Given that it’s £2.99 on HMV you can’t really complain. Here’s my advice. Watch it as a supporting feature to From Dusk Till Dawn or one of the Grindhouse (2007) movies and you can have a good evening of morally-messed entertainment. Because, let’s face it, real exploitation films aren’t for everyone and you’ve seen QT’s back catalogue, probably way too many times.

Review: The Princess and The Frog (2009)

The Princess and The Frog has achieved a certain, rightly deserved, sincere interest and film credibility by being Disney’s long awaited but not so easily foreseen return to hand drawn animation.

The Princess and The Frog takes place in a lushly envisioned Jazz-age New Orleans – complete with Randy Newman jazz and blues soundtrack and musical numbers. Tiana (Anika Noni Rose) is a hard working young lady with a gift for cooking – think gumbo and jambolaya – who dreams of making her money-poor love-rich family proud by making enough money to open her own restaurant – Tiana’s Place. Meanwhile, happy go lucky, never-worked-a-day-in-his-life and needless to say handsome Prince Naveen (Bruno Campos) arrives in town jamming with the locals and getting up to all sorts of hijinx much to the dismay of his jealous, puggish servant Lawrence. Soon enough, Naveen gets involved with a classic, and scary in all the right ways, Disney villain, Dr Facilier – the Shadowman – voiced by Keith David, loved over here for his early performance in The Thing back in 1982, but it appears he can turn his hand to many a different role. Facilier offers to use his voodoo powers – his friends on the other side – to help Naveen get his riches now he has been cut off financially by his parents. But of course these deals always have there catches and to cut a long story short he ends up turning into a frog at a hoity toity masquerade ball at which Tiana is making her speciality cuisine. In a very funny scene Naveen, in amphibious form, convinces a baffled Tiana to kiss him only to, in a new twist on an old story, turn her into a frog also. The rest of the film follows their journey to try and change themselves back to their human form as they venture across the bayous in search of magic and help and run from voodoo spirits and treachery with the aid of a few helpful anthropomorphic chums along the way.

The recent leaps and bounds of Disney Pixar’s computer generated animation – from box-office hits (Toy Story, Finding Nemo) to Oscar nominees (Wall.E, Up) – have made it seem to most that hand drawn animation is a thing of the past. Which anyone who’s seen a film by Hiyao Miyazaki knows is wrong. His films are fantastic examples of the warmth and beauty achieved in hand drawn animation – I am yet to see his latest offering Ponyo, an imaginative retelling of Disney’s The Little Mermaid. Ironically, though, it appears that it was John Lasseter – head of Pixar and the director of the Toy Story films, whose success single handedly convinced the bosses that CGI was the future – that helped get this film made. He has also been a international champion of Studio Ghibli’s work so he clearly understands that these two art forms can co-exist. Indeed, although computer animation has taken the limelight other animation has continued to excel; in Japanese animation and also stop motion animation such as Wallace and Gromit and the Curse of the Were-Rabbit and more recently Roald Dahl adaptation The Fantastic Mr Fox.

Disney’s last hand drawn animation, 6 years back, was the forgettable and indeed forgotten, Home On The Range, but Princess and The Frog feels much like a return to the form of Disney’s many golden ages. The film hits that heartfelt note of Disney magic and it does feel watching it as if they set out to make a classic here. Perhaps they really wanted to prove the merits and majesty of a hand drawn animated feature and this film appears to hit it on every level your classic Disney should. Great musical numbers, great characters, the supporting characters add much wonderment to the film in the shape of Louis an alligator who dreams of playing trumpet with New Orleans big bands and Ray, a Cajun firefly who, in a storyline that only Disney could make so emotional, is in love with a bright star in the night sky, Evangeline. The villain is great and I really enjoyed the genuine creepiness of his character and his spirit buddies, there’s got to be a bit of darkness and peril! The film also has a very well crafted clever and original storyline, based on a classic – how many Disney films become the definitive version of those old tales – I myself find Disney’s vulpine representation of Robin Hood to be the best there is. Hell, even Oliver and Company ain’t a bad rendition of the classic Dickens story. While were on the subject who’s idea was it to put Cheech Marin in a kids film?? Twisted genius.

Essentially the magic lies in a film that can put you in a world of pure imagination and still reach you emotionally, young or old and this film does that very well. Surprisingly, well. This film, as happy as I am to see this sort of movie being made again, has some explaining to do for nearly making me cry quite so often, but there you go, that’s the power of Disney – recaptured. The Princess and The Frog features Disney’s first black princess but the film is so embedded in Disney’s lustrous history it doesn’t seem unusual, it never really crossed my mind. Clearly there’s nothing wrong with doing things the old fashioned way and Disney have gone out to prove that, in what will no doubt be one of the classic Disney movies, up there with the legends of the 50s and 60s and the masterpieces of Disney Pixar, this century. It looks like I’ve giving the film a glowing review but don’t misjudge I’m not too soft to bad mouth a Disney film if necessary, this one just happens to hit the nail right on the head and if you ask me this is one of those rare things, a great family film, and a great family film is a film everyone can enjoy.

Review: Cruising (1980)

I probably shouldn’t have to explain my motives for watching a film like Cruising, but for the sake of a few awkward questions, I think I ought to. The first reason I wanted to watch it was that I am yet to enjoy a film by William Freidkin, being unimpressed by The Excorcist (1973) (I will give it another shot – don’t worry), non-plussed by The French Connection and put off by seeing what a dick Freidkin is in real life. Also, being a follower of Mark Kermode however – and I apologise if any Kermodian gobbits ever make it into these reviews, but I am a pupil of his ways – I became aware of the film from references, every now and then on the radio show, mentioning the re-filthed version at Cannes. Needless to say he loved it. What swung it for me, however, was hearing of a minor role, in it, by The Warriors (1979) (and Sex in the City) star James Remar.

The film opens with a series of violent murders in the gay S&M scene and the discovery of severed limbs in the water. Paul Sorvino briefs bright eyed cop, Steve Burns (Al Pacino) on the murders, the victims having something in common; they all look like Pacino – this guy has good taste. Al is asked if he wants to “dissapear” into the gay night, though it is specified that this isn’t mainstream gay society. This is where the controversy begins. The theatrical version featured a disclaimer stating the movie does not represent the gay community but only a subculture. As the film was deemed capable of promoting homophobia it was met with protests and strong criticism, with gay rights protesters even interrupting the shoot of the film with foghorns and mirrors.

The film does well on the surface layer of Al Pacino infiltrating a dark world of sex and violence. Clearly, Friedkin delights in showing us these images of leather boys to shock us, and maybe this is where the homophobia is evident. The night scenes are well shot and the punk music, from artist such as The Germs, suits it perfectly. There is some perverse humour in seeing Pacino ask a shopkeeper about the handkerchief code and there are nastier moments but overall the dark tone makes a very unique experience and an effective thriller. Its hard to say whether its homophobic or not but I can tell you most homosexuals will be disturbed by what is portrayed in the film. The issue really is whether you interpret it as the whole story or just a chapter.

The film plays out interestingly enough, as the (straight) viewer we follow a straight man trying to fit into an aggressively homosexual world for his job and trying to cope. Unfortunately the film seems more convinced in the exploitation of this psychological culture clash than the actual murder mystery, as a result the effort of the film is mostly in portraying this scary nether world through the eyes of Pacino and the film falls short, however, where it could’ve shone. The psychological element of Pacino’s development, apparently amply covered in the book, is only touched upon and certainly left unclear. We end up reading more into his mind than the film really gives us and after a while this aspect is revealed as hollow and ultimately the ending leaves a lot open and doesn’t explain enough to really give us cause to follow the popular interpretations. This may be due in part, at least, to the 40 minutes of sheer depravity removed from the film that apparently touched further on Pacino’s characters descent into the perverse subculture of heavy leather. The film was reportedly submitted 50 times to receive an R rating costing $50,000.

It seems likely enough that the film didn’t turn out how Friedkin intended, but I’m sure this third dimension was aimed for. Friedkin was (finally) convinced to make the film after discovering a former colleague (who worked on The Excorcist) was found to have murdered a gay film critic and linked to other murders – Freidkin spoke with him in prison extensively before filming. Glimpses of Pacino’s acting also touch on a more interesting story of a the cop in a relationship but with a secret life undercover forced to venture into an alien lifestyle and clearly the talents of the director and actor team could’ve made a great piece here, but it wasn’t meant to be. Foghorns can muddle you up a bit I guess.

As it stands the film is definitely and interesting watch. I havn’t seen anything like it before and for most viewers it will be shocking, illicit and disturbing. The gaysploitation plays well as horror and the murders are brilliantly dark and genuinely scary. The seedy, dangerous and edgy tone of the film in a pre-aids time-capsule of gay ’70s decadence does in some ways make up for the lack of depth we know could’ve been there, but as a result the film stands up to little more analysis or subsequent viewing and we simply end up in a dead-end debate over the message of the film. Once the thrill of the thriller wears off, we just have errr….

Review: The Uninvited (2009)

Once more unto the breach. A Saturday night, a trip to Blockbuster, a dull-as-nuts horror film. Groovy.

The plot – stop me if you think you’ve heard this one before – after being sectioned following her mothers mysterious death, Anna (Emily Browning) returns home to her family. Her father is now living with her mothers nurse and Anna’s sister and best friend Alex. Soon, Anna experiences a ghostly force in the house that might begin to explain the truth about her mothers death and she begins to suspect her fathers new girlfriend as a dark history is revealed.

I have no quarrel with the realisation of the story it’s just hard to justify the hard work being put into this story we’ve all seen before. So you’ve thought of a twist on the ending? Big woop. The characters are fair. Emily Browning holds the film together, her relationship with her sister – whilst hitting pseudo lesbian undertones to appease the crotch-grabbing masses – at times is the saving grace of the movie. However, the patronizing tone of the film really distracts you from any real level of involvement. The film is clumsy in its plot developments. There are red herrings, setting up characters in an obvious manner, not unlike Scooby-Doo. Admittedly you aren’t going to work the end out but it’s all you will end up thinking about and by the end you’ll probably be capable of writing a superior screenplay to the film. This is a shame because the film is shot well and has a great mood aside from the awkward horror scenes. The actual horror of the film is one of the weakest elements. This might well work better as a psychological thriller as in the end the nightmarish visions that appeal to reveal the truth of her mothers murder – sound familiar? – serve little purpose and are frankly unimpressive. Certainly, if you’re looking to get scared, this is the wrong movie.

The Uninvited, which incidentally has seemingly nothing to do with its title, is the same horror/mystery you’ve seen a hundred times before. So you spend your time wondering what twist to expect which is a shame; as there is something to be said for the central relationship of the main characters, and also because the ending is so head-bangingly over the top to justify the dredging up of this story, that’s almost a genre in itself. The incoherent bombardment of (largely borrowed) twists in the finale is the final nail in the coffin of the film and proves that you can get away with anything if your central character is a mental.

However, this kerfuffle is understandable. The Guard brothers are very new to the silver screen and considered promising and it would be ignorant to say there’s not potential in this film but perhaps in this early stage there is some issue working with the two-part directing force – unless were talking the Coens its very understandable that the cooks will cock-up the broth. They could’ve made something interesting out of this film and it is almost worth watching for these glimmers but in the end the film merely rests at the top-end of the pile of mediocre horror. Instead of giving this film a look, I will say keep an eye on these directors – they may surprise us yet.

Review: Wild Style (1983)

They call this the film that launched a thousand back spins. It was this premier hip hop feature film, along with the 1984 Arena documentary Beat This: A Hip-Hop History, that helped shape the global consciousness of the world conquering hip-hop eruption. The title refers to the elaborate and near illegibly creative style of graffiti pioneered by these artists and the film features many of the legends of the era; Grandmaster Flash, The Rock Steady Crew, The Cold Crush Brothers, Fab Five Freddy all performing in real life scenarios. It was fascinating then, as it is now, to see the original elements of hip hop culture. There’s little emphasis on guns, bitches and bling but a hyper-verite representation of MC-ing (rap), B-Boy (break dancing) and bombing (graffiti) at its spiritual home – New York. At the time this footage – and it call it so due to the lack of substantial plot – was revolutionary, for the first time people outside of this small but exploding community saw what life was like in the home of hip-hop.

The plot centres around Raymond – Puerto Rican graffiti legend Lee Quinones. Admittedly, I hadn’t heard of him, even with a fair background knowledge of the films topic (hence fancying blowing 50p on this in Save the Children) but he is one of the founding fathers of the art form even having piece in America’s national galleries. Inner city hood by day – if not a very gawky looking one from a 21st century perspective – and mysterious graffiti hero, Zoro, by night. The film follows his life as he tries to get the girl and make some cash and manage to express himself through his spray can, whilst the scene he’s a part of throws itself at the screen. The problem here as usual is that there is a loose plot woven around these real life events. The characters are designed to accurately portray their respective figures. This is in essence an exploitation film … hmm… hip-hoploitation is the best I can do there. The plot is there purely to make a feature of the, soon to be highly lucrative, hip hop culture of the early 1980’s.

The passion of the subculture is captured really well through the looking glass of a cheap debut feature. Ahearn, who wrote produced and directed the film evidently really believed in the power of the source. Another example of this is Tony Richardson’s 1955 short Momma Don’t Allow that captured a night in the lives of the burgeoning youth movement of northern England, pre rock n roll. It shows us everyone’s fight for expression, to be the face everyone recognises, to be a hero for one day. In the gritty majesty of seeing your art, hastily sprayed on a train, in the night under fear of arrest, charge through the city on the highest platform for everyone to see and admire. In the real life performances of these early rap pioneers in murky red lit clubs storytelling and bragging in a new exciting form and having a blast – and the rapping does stand up much better than you’d expect even if it may wear thin after a while. Some of the performances really are brilliant and I’m always a sucker for break-dancing and graffiti murals unfolding before your eyes.

Certainly, to your modern hip-hop fan the film is laughable, it of course dated but to those willing to give it a bit more of a chance its a truly remarkable view. I certainly enjoyed it on some level due to the Warriors-esque vibe going on but Quinones although certainly qualified to represent his generation does look pretty geeky for a supposed hip hop legend. The style was still emerging and dodgy seventies looks still plague elements of this film. Overall its a little short, it’s a cheap ropey movie but it did its job and is rightfully a genre classic. Any film that can capture the spirit of a subculture as it arises deserves a place in history. It’s not really expected to be a good story, a good film, its just a document – but as it happens it’s alright. I enjoyed it, but, admittedly, it will be a while till I fancy watching it again.

Review: Mad Max (1979)

This was the second time I had seen Mad Max. I first saw it about year ago, during study leave for my GCSE’s – it was somewhat marred in the viewing experience by me being forced to watched the second half of it online as I needed sleep for some exam in a subject I couldn’t even recall doing now. I’d seen Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior (1981) as a child and loved it. The post-apocalyptic movie was big news in the 80’s and some of my favourite cult films are of that era – Escape from New York (1981) stands out – the difference with the original Mad Max (aside from the budget, illustrated painfully in the score and laughably in the script at times) is that although it has this post apocalyptic vibe it is not as explicit as in the sequals (the film being of the late 70s – the post apocalyptic craze taking off in the 80s), probably exacerbated by the fact that many non-aussie viewers probably won’t need much persuasion to believe that this is Australia – overrun with violent, clearly homosexual bikers and barren as fuck.

To move things on a little in this rant, the plot follows Max (sane for now) who is part of a dilapidated police force – clad in tight leather with beastly motors for chasing down the rampant criminals that seem to blight George Miller’s low budget world. And if you’re into car chase films, this wont disappoint – it’s a strong suspicion of mine that the majority of the budget for this film was spent at a scrap yard. There are plenty of crashes and ‘plosions. Nice. In a turn for the cringe-worthy, a gang of bizarrely dressed but still genuinely scary bikers move into town. I’m guessing there’s a homophobic undertone in this film seeing as the bad and eventually dead guys appear more than a little gay. But still, it kinda works. Anyway, Max suffers attack after attack on his fellow police men – or whatever vaguely quasi-futuristic title this film dubs them – friends and family until he – you’ve guessed – goes a bit mad and revenge is the best, and most entertaining option.

The film has a great gritty aesthetic which is nicely achieved, considering – but also partly due to – the low cost film making. I wouldn’t say the acting is strong or believable but for a violent cult romp the characters are, shall we say, well played. However, lines that could merely seem as if some 21 year old screenwriter was running it all out in one night, over 20 cigarettes and 6-pack of Fosters; resulting in the romance scenes, that feel like padding at best, are pumped to the brim with cheese, like a melodrama fondue kit, by the god-awful music score. Yet somehow it’s enjoyable to see this hastily built family motif play off when Max is forced to gay-bash… I mean seek justice for his terrible, terrible losses.

Overall the chase/crash scenes are the highlights along with the enjoyability of a thrown together film clearly having the feel of a classic from the start. For such a cult film where there is no trust to be placed in the film maker, the film isn’t overly graphic but feels nasty enough, overall and pretty grisly at moments. In comparison to the sequal it’s full of holes and poorly thought out but nevertheless a must see. George Miller stated that he would consider making a sequal/remake but that “[Mel Gibson] is too busy recreating the works of Hitler”, but one things for sure, he’s cool as funk in this movie.

Review: Drag Me to Hell (2009)

So I’ve finally got round to seeing Mr Raimi’s much anticipated return to horror. Being a long time Evil Dead (and to a much lesser extent, Spider-Man) fan – I’ve completed all the Evil Dead video games, score! – I was excited as everyone else to see what I am still willing to describe as Evil Dead 3 ½.

Christine Brown is loan officer, and one of the most genuinely kind hearted characters to appear in a horror movie in a while. Trying to get ahead in life, with her equally goody two shoes boyfriend Justin Long (who is notable here for his appearance in Jeepers Creepers [2001] which I’m a big fan of ever since it scared the shit out of me on a summers afternoon years ago) she turns down a loan extension to an old woman, in an attempt to get a promotion, little knowing that she is about to be subjected to a pretty kick-ass gypsy curse.

From the buzz at the time I was told to expect a fun and frightening “ghost train” type thrill ride – a scary movie ideal for dates and such. And I have to say this was bang on, the difficulty lies in the following; this is, after all, a DVD release review and this film is made for the cinema. Where this finds a bigger market on the home viewing front is the nerd factor. This film is chocka with references, predominantly to Raimi’s past in gruelling horror and arguably to horror staples such as Night of the Living Dead [1968] (which I gleefully enjoyed this Halloween) and Night of the Demon [1957] (as also referenced in The Rocky Horror Picture Show [1975] “Dana Andrews said prunes gave him the runes”). The great camera work is very reminiscent of the unique attempts of Evil Dead, though refined greatly at this stage in his career, and there are many sound effects and moments – notably the laughing furniture – that will appease the nerd demons. And of course the ever present cameo of the directors 1973 Oldsmobile Delta 88 is not forgotten.

Don’t see this film if you’re the kind of person to say “Oh what a stupid film they heard a noise and went down into the cellar” because this a fun light-hearted and gross-orientated flick. The film continues those horror staple sensibilities and would certainly be more at home in the 80s or 90s – it even uses the 1980’s Universal logo at the start. It does feel like a breath of musty air from the past, I imagine this film was made partially to counter the gorenography wave with a return to a night at the drive in, to suck-face with your score and nearly poop yourself whilst still having a sweet time. Interestingly, the script was written by Sam and Ted Raimi shortly after Army of Darkness [1992] but Sam started off on his road to the big time that would end up in the multi-million dollar Spider-Man franchise. This does however allude to the ongoing question (mainly posed to Evil Dead star Bruce Campbell – now getting some prominent TV work which is nice to see) as to whether he will return to the Evil Dead series. It could be argued that this is merely a warm up but I would guess due to the fact the script was written after Evil Dead, there’s probably little intention to go back, in the meantime unfortunately a remake is expected shortly, as the industry dregs up more and more head-bangingly dull 70s/80s horror classics remakes – they’ll have to run out soon, the barrel scraping will come … and drag you to hell … sigh.

It has to be remembered that despite this return to gruesome form, Sam Raimi never really intended to work in the horror genre. Growing up as a budding film maker with a love of The Three Stooges, often making direct rip-offs with his friends and siblings, his intention was always to work in comedy. However, the most money is made in horror and so Evil Dead (originally titled “Within the Woods”) was Sam’s break – despite being banned under the obscene publications act. Cheeky.

However, this does make a unique viewing experience. Raimi’s comedic sensibilities never left his films, more notably in the follow ups Evil Dead II [1982] and Army of Darkness [1992] horror and comedy are melded very effectively – the scares are there and the laughs are there and very often the scares are funny. This man really understands the comedic potential of someone being thrown, really hard, against a wall by a spirit – though I must say its funnier when its Bruce (who unfortunately has no cameo here), but maybe I’m just being feminist.
Something else that sets this apart from many horror films that have this more fun/comedic approach is the quality of the acting the central cast are all great, have a fair amount of depth but also sum up their characters perfectly. And Dileep Rao is great as the horror movie fortune teller – the film teeters between genre stereotypes and deeper performances. To summarise, if you missed this film at the cinema, like me, you missed out to an extent. That’s this films real home, if not the drive-in double features of the 1970’s. And yes the double feature comment does have something to say about the substance of the film but Sam Raimi’s a more than capable director and the film is without question 95 minutes of fun, frights and “eeeeeewww”s. This horror-comedy dynamic, often totally mishandled by others, still works brilliantly here and makes for an enjoyable film. On the other hand it will very likely disappoint if your looking for a proper horror such as the first Evil Dead, but then with Raimi’s back catalogue you should know what to expect. Evidently the release on Halloween was an apt move. Watch this for a fun night with the lights out and, even without your Oldsmobile, you’ll have a great time. Don’t forget the pop corn – it will fly.