Horror Club

Horror Club Update

2012-03-05T17:26:00.004Z

Just a quick note on the lack of blog activity recently. Clarky has been living large on the West Coast for the last couple of weeks, so there's been no horror club meetings. Fortunately he's back this week and normal service will be resumed with our weekly reviews shortly. I'll be posting a cinema review of The Woman in Black to celebrate on Thursday (which I've not been procrastinating on writing or anything).

Ally

Clarky's Weekly Review: Inferno

2012-02-22T00:48:00.000Z

I wasn't sure what to make of the news that Fin was bringing another Argento film to the table. On the one hand I really enjoyed Deep Red, his most coherent film (narratively speaking), but I was left cold by Suspiria (a film which has almost no narrative structure). My fears worsened when Fin explained that Inferno was a sequel to Suspiria and is often cited as one of Argento's most incoherent films.

It was with a great surprise that I found myself quite enjoying Inferno, so much so that I am open to re-watching Suspiria. On first viewing Suspiria I had no idea what to expect and as such was shocked by the lack of narrative. Whilst some viewers may find that this is more of the same, there was enough of a gap between me watching Suspiria and Inferno for me to appreciate both of them, especially once I knew what to expect.

As noted above Inferno is a sequel to Suspiria, and is actually the second part of the Three Mothers trilogy that was finally completed in 2007 with The Mother of Tears. Argento took his inspiration from Levana and Our Ladies of Sorrow, a section of the Thomas De Quincey collection of poems Suspiria de Profundis. De Quincey's work suggests that there are three Fates, three Graces and three Sorrows:

Mater Suspiriorum (Our Lady of Sighs) - Suspiria
Mater Tenebrarum (Our Lady of Darkness) - Inferno
Mater Lachrymarum (Our Lady of Tears) - The Mother of Tears

Inferno focuses on Mater Tenebrarum, the youngest and most cruel (although she doesn't appear to be particularly more cruel than Mater Suspiriorum). Mater Tenebrarum lives in New York, Mater Suspiriorum in Freiburg and Mater Lachrymarum (the most beautiful and powerful) lives in Rome. Unfortunately at times the whole Three Mothers backstory became a bit distracting as it wasn't well enough explained and because I was under the impression that Suspiria was set in Rome!

I realise this was my mistake but Argento isn't easy to follow at the best of times. I was especially confursed when Mater Lachrymarum turned up in Rome. She certainly is the most beautiful, but surely Tenebrarum is meant to be the youngest of the Three Sisters! I realise this is nit picking (Fin is sure to pick me up on this) but at times Argento's lack of logic really hinders a viewers enjoyment of the film.

Mater Lachrymarum and Mater Tenebrarum (the youngest!)

Once I finally got things straight in my head I was able to sit back and let the film wash over me. I actually thought that this was more coherent than Suspiria. This may be due to the opening narration describing The Three Mothers, or down to the fact that I knew what to expect. Either way I was able to make (rough) sense of what happened in the film afterwards, just don't ask me to explain it to you as every time I think I have it sorted a plot hole rears it's ugly head (why did the hot dog vendor kill Kazanian? Were the caretaker's feeding the cat's, Van Adler's body, in cohorts with Tenebarum and if so why did she then kill them?).

When thinking back about the film I actually struggled to remember what actually happened, almost as if it was a dream and this is, I think Argento's intention. The whole film has a dream like quality to it, from the colour scheme, to the actions of some of the actors. Storylines are picked up and dropped, actors come and go and no / very little explanation is offered to the viewer, allowing you to make your own interpretation of what is happening (much like in a dream). In fact at times Argento just jumps randomly to different scenes and at one point we see a random woman being hung, much like the hanging scene in Suspiria. It's almost like the film is rooted in the subconscious and isn't a direct sequel to Suspiria, but does share a lot of the same traits and mood.

Whilst I noted in my Peeping Tom review that point of view shots are used by director's are often used to make us complicit with the villain's here Argento uses the point of view shots for the victims. This simply adds to give the impression that we are in the dream / nightmare alongside them. (Although Argento himself, as per usual, commits all the murders in the movie!)

Indeed the first scene in the basement has many dreamlike qualities to it. Firstly, why on earth would you ever wander into a basement by yourself and then swim into a wholly submerged room! Within the room itself we are treated to yet more lurid blues - the water is ridiculously clear allowing for an incredible set piece. This isn't the only instance of dream logic that can be evidenced here - why isn't the room overflowing with water up into the basement? How is Rose able to hold her breath for so long? The trick here, as with all of Argento films is not to think too much and just let the film wash over you. How else do you explain the random woman stroking her cat in the middle of a lecture!

The lighting is simple incredible, as in Suspiria, and the deep reds and blues will haunt your memory for hours afterwards. This simple device helps to set the mood of the film, and acts as a trigger for your brain. Any time you see these colours you know the person on screen is a goner. Again, this reminded me of a dream where you wake up in the morning and you have the shadow of the dream / nightmare hanging over you but you can't quite place what happened, although you know the mood. Eventually, something will trigger your memory and the dream will come back to mind instantly, just as if you see red or blue after Inferno you will be filled with a sense of dread.

As if this wasn't enough Argento has a number of motifs, some of which also tie in to Suspiria, that are evident prior to each death (although some of these seem to be forgotten about towards the end). Running water, broken ornaments and cut's to the hand (even by rat) are all prominent before death. I'm sure there is a deeper psychological meaning to all this (perhaps each one relates to one of the three keys!).

I'm really unsure where to place this on my list as there are aspects I really enjoyed and as a piece of art it evokes a real sense of mood and dread. There are some classic set pieces and some real jumps and I even enjoyed the out there soundtrack! However, it does struggle narratively and ultimately never lives up to the fantastic premise. If the Three Mothers rule the world and Mater Tenebrarum is the most cruel, then how is she overcome by this guy!

Amanda's Guest Review: Mulberry Street

2012-02-13T16:11:00.004Z

(Amanda kindly agreed to write a guest review for the blog this week. She runs an excellent horror blog called Mandy's Morgue of Horror that you must check out here!!)

Rats. Not only do they look disgusting but in the 2007 horror, Mulberry Street, they are cause for a zombie virus that overtakes Manhattan. I pray to God that this never happens.

The film, which was a part of After Dark Films Horrorfest, follows a group of tenants who have just been evicted from their apartment building located on Mulberry Street. To make matters worse, the poor homeless bastards begin to realize that the city is falling apart around them and people are beginning to become violent.

Slowly, things around the city begin to unravel and shut down as reported attacks come pouring in. News reports play in the background, informing residents that rats have been attacking people unexpectedly. It’s only a matter of time before the rat attacks make their way to the soon to be extinct apartment building where our protagonists reside.

The building’s landlord gets bitten by a rat hiding in the boiler room and he starts to notice changes in his appearance as the infection builds inside of him. But does he go to the hospital or say anything? No. Um, I’m sorry but if a diseased-ridden rodent bites me, I’m going to the hospital and pumping my veins with rabies shots and anything else that will prevent me from getting sick. The people in this movie clearly aren’t that concerned about their health. Then again, if they were, we probably wouldn’t have a movie to watch.

Anyway, in the midst of all the rat attacks, the daughter of one of the tenants is on her way home from serving in the war. While on her journey, she experiences the madness that is occurring first hand as she is thrown in the middle of all the violence.

As the virus takes over the city, the tenants seek refuge in their apartment building, trying their best to fight off anyone who has been infected. Soon, they realize that the best way to fight off the infected is through the use of light, i.e. a camera. Eventually, the safe haven becomes overrun as well, resulting in a full on battle between good and evil. Only the strong survive as they fight not only to save their humanity, but their home as well.

Technically, this film isn’t a zombie movie. The infection is spread by dirty rats and in turn the individuals who fall victim to the disease turn into rat-people. These rat-people act like zombies, attacking and eating whoever they can land their hands on. They’re fast and they have not only a good sense of smell and sight, but they can also hear their prey very well too.

I thought the overall concept for the film is very interesting and creative; the filmmakers took an old idea and revamped it in their own way. Although the individuals in the film aren’t exactly zombies, the virus is spread similarly to the way a zombie virus is spread: through a bite. The events that take place in the horror are what audiences should expect to see in a traditional zombie movie, just through a different host.

Although the special effects aren’t overly terrifying and amazing, the aspect that I found scary was the idea that a creature, which can be found anywhere you go, is spreading a disease to people. The movie played on the fear of how quickly a situation can get out of hand and it made me wonder how they would stop an infestation of infected rats in the first place. It would probably be extremely difficult.

I enjoyed the grittiness of the atmosphere and the performances by the actors made the film seem a whole lot more real. The dark colors that the director used for each shot helped to build a sense of dread and anticipation of what was to come.

It was interesting to have the foreshadowing of the eventual chaos with the news reports playing in the background and I enjoyed seeing how the infection began to spread from person to person. It was cool to see one person in the bar become sick after being bit by a person and then get to see how that individual spreads it on to more people. The buildup was nicely done and while all of this is occurring, our protagonists in the apartment building are pretty oblivious as to how badly the situation is becoming.

I didn’t particularly enjoy the storyline involving the war veteran daughter; it just bored me a little bit and I was really more interested in the people living on Mulberry Street. I guess by showing the daughter, the audience was given a bigger view of just how bad the infection was spreading but I still didn’t like it. It would have been even creepier if we were kept in the dark as much as the characters in the apartment.

Overall, I would say that this movie was worth a watch but I wouldn’t go into the film with extremely high expectations. The concept behind the film is a new and creative take on the zombie genre but zombie fans may be a little disappointed in the lack of zombie action. The film is fairly quick; the infection begins immediately, spreading from person to person, eventually overtaking the busy city of Manhattan. Although it is quick in getting the virus started, it is simultaneously slow as it shows how the infection spreads, which I found to be really interesting.

I think that a lot of people are hard on the film and I’ve even heard some people say it was HORRIBLE, however, I think that’s completely untrue. Is the movie a cinematic masterpiece? No. Is it a different take on the zombie genre? Yes. Give it a chance and you might like what you see.

Ally's Weekly Review: Mulberry Street

2012-02-13T16:04:00.003Z

If you are reading this review in Britain and you happen to stumble across the DVD box to 'Zombie Virus on Mulberry Street' then please don't let appearances put you off, this film is not nearly as atrocious as it looks - in fact it's a surprisingly good film. I wasn't too familiar with the movie and once I saw the box I was pretty sure that this was going to a film that would rank very low in our list of choices. I guess the UK distributors wanted to ensure that they made the film as unappealing as possible (not sure why they felt a need to change the name either). However, once Clarky told me that it was from the guys behind Stake Land, I felt a little bit more optimistic.

Mulberry Street tells a pretty familiar story of zombie apocalypse, this time told through the grubby streets of New York. I've not been to New York for almost 10 years, so my memory is a little hazy, but if it's anything like how it's portrayed in this movie then I'll never be back. This film is the worst thing to happen to New York tourism since Jason Takes Manhattan. Fortunately, for the purposes of making an unsettling and visceral horror experience, the depiction of New York adds a wonderful layer to the storytelling.

The familiar zombie story has the added twist this time of the virus being passed on by the bites of the (plentiful) rats in New York, with the infected eventually turning into a sort of half rat/ half zombie creature. The creatures are pretty hideous and the director does a good job of showing flashes of them to make it far more arresting (as well as to squeeze out the impact of the limited special effects budget). I mentioned Stake Land and it's hard not to draw comparisons between the two films. Nick Damici (who also co-wrote both movies) plays a character that is eerily reminiscent of Mister in Stake Land… which isn't a bad thing, as that was one of the most memorable horror leads in years. Damici does the strong, silent type very, very well.

The other characters provide some comic relief, as well as the inevitable zombie fodder. Unfortunately the pace of the film gets a bit bogged down by the increasing onscreen presence of Damici's daughter, who is returning home after a military tour overseas. We are given hints of the relationship between the two (as well as their neighbour) and it's pretty clear that she has post-traumatic stress, but the story doesn't really add anything for me. She's not particularly interesting and the scenes involving her take away from the more compelling action in the main apartment block. I can understand the intentions of the director to create a different dimension to the story, I just think it fell a bit flat.

From the two films that I've seen from Mickle and Damici it appears that creating secondary characters (ones that the audience cares about) is not a strong point. In both films there are death scenes of significant characters where I can remember feeling very little when they happen. A difficult skill to quantify, but the lack of emotive response was characteristic of my experience of both films.

The scares are pretty good in this film: I definitely jumped a couple of times and the creatures are hideous enough to help ramp up the tension. The film did feel like it limped towards the finish line though, which was a shame. I think the increased role of the daughter became a problem, and it honestly felt as though they just weren't sure about what would make a good ending.

Because I went in with very low expectations I was pleasantly surprised by the film. It's far from perfect (probably not a film you will spend much time discussing after the credits roll) but if you are looking for a solid horror film that will entertain, while giving you a few frights, you could do far worse than this.

Clarky's Weekly Review: Mulberry Street

2012-02-13T12:21:00.001Z

As Ally noted, for some reason the UK distributor's of Mulberry Street tried to minimise it's sales by giving it the overlong, and slightly misleading, moniker "Zombie Virus on Mulberry Street" as well as one of the worst DVD covers I have ever seen (especially when you compare it to the rather cool and subdued US DVD cover). Thing's didn't improve on reviewing the quotes on the box with Billy Chainsaw (what a name) claiming that it was "The best Zombie Flick since Romeo's Diary of the Dead". Yes, that's right, Romeo (I'm not sure if it is Juliet's star crossed lover or the one from So Solid Crew) has made a move into directing zombie movies!

As if the lack of attention to detail to spell Romero's name wasn't bad enough, the film that they use for comparison is Diary of the Dead! Woof. Things were not looking good. So why bring this film to the table I hear you ask. Two reasons - Nick Damici and Jim Mickle. The actor and director combo's (who also co-wrote the film together) sophomore effort was the rather enjoyable Stake Land, and I was keen to see more of their stuff.

With this in mind, it was hard for me not to draw comparison's between the two and it is clear to see that Zombie Virus is the film where they cut their teeth. And unfortunately, this means that Zombie Virus is more flawed than Stake Land. Whilst, both film's boast short running times, you can't help but feel that some of what is in Zombie Virus should have been on the cutting room floor. Primarily, as noted by Ally and Mandy, the sub-plot featuring Clutch's daughter (Nick Damici knows how to give himself a kick ass name - see Mister in Stake Land) feels particularly obtuse and I could have done without it.

The main reason for this is that her back story is not fleshed out enough and as such it is hard to feel any empathy for her. Her story feels like a distraction from the main event, and you want the story to get back on track with Clutch. I can't help but feel that this was added to give the film more scope and appear to have a bigger budget than it had. However, for me this had the adverse effect as the scenes weren't as effective and looked lower budget. I also thought that the idea of setting it in a block of flats, like REC, would have been very claustrophobic and far more effective.

In addition to this I would find it hard to tell you the name of any of the other characters without a visit to IMDB and again, this makes it hard to feel for any of the characters. There were a lot of characters that seemed to make fleeting appearances and it made it hard to keep track of them all. Some of them were off screen for quite some time and then seemed to turn up in the last 5 minutes as an after thought! I did like the inclusion of the old man upstairs and I would love to know the back story between Clutch and his flat mate, but the story is never really fleshed out.

Having said all this, there are a lot of positives to take from this film, the main one being the fresh take on the zombie story. By making the cause of the disease something that we all love to hate, the rats bring about a primal fear by themselves and the "zombies" are pretty horrible. The sound design incredible and really makes you squirm in your seat as they eat the flesh. The shot's and editing of the "zombies" is also excellent. Mickle shows us enough to give a sense of what the transformation is like, but at the same time does not hamstring himself by showing too much of them. They don't have much screen time and are always shown in the shadows, much like rats themselves, but this simply helps to increase the sense of disgust as he allows your imagination to run wild. A particularly nice touch is when the rats get into the walls!

Whilst I didn't really connect with the characters and found some of the plot holes too much (Clutch travels all the way to the bar and manages to find the woman downstairs somehow with no inkling of where she is or what is really happening!) there were enough interesting wrinkles to keep it interesting. The end of the film included a particularly nice touch with Clutch and his friend, which also provides an over the top hero moment - but I still enjoyed it.

Like Stake Land, Mulberry Street takes lots of well worn horror trope's and provides a fresh take on them. Whilst there are some issues, it's charm cannot help to win you over and if you can look past the horrible UK DVD design you will discover a B-movie that is punching above it's weight. Not one for repeat viewing, but for the horror fanatic it has a couple of jumps, some tense moments and is an interesting addition to the zombie genre.

Ally's Retrospective Review: [REC] 2

2012-02-01T23:40:00.008Z

The modern film industry is so bereft of fresh ideas that whenever a movie brings something new and exciting to the table it inevitably has to be given a sequel… or a prequel… or (if it's foreign) a remake. Horror is probably the worst genre of them all for churning out sequels, squeezing everything it can out of a great original idea. In that sense, a sequel to the superb [REC] was a dead cert.

[REC] 2 decides to continue where the first movie left off. This time a group of policemen enter the cordoned off Barcelona townhouse. Immediately the film feels very familiar to those who saw the first one. As an audience member you do feel nervous, because you know from experience that you are going to deal with very tense and jumpy moments. It doesn't take long for the action to resume and from that point on you are on a 85 minute roller coaster…

Except the roller coaster's not quite as much fun the second time around. The difficulty that a sequel to [REC] faced was how to move the story on from the first one. Essentially Juame Balaguero and Paco Plaza decided to go through largely the same process as the first one - guys go in largely ignorant of how bad the situation is, lots of carnage ensues, and then we find out more about the cause of it all. One of the problems with creating a movie with such a similar narrative and style is that it loses its potency to shock, frighten and delight the audience.

I was left pretty cold as we left the cinema. The first film not only felt fresh and original, it also had a lot of humour and charm: the characters were pretty engaging. [REC] 2 unfortunately focuses too much on the action and unveiling a major twist on the story. The twist of what actually happened after the events of the first film is pretty divisive for the audience (well, it certainly was for the Horror Club audience). I think it's a potential deal breaker for the film, and what you think of it will decide how much you enjoy the movie. Fin absolutely hated it and wrote the movie off after it, Clarky didn't mind it and quite enjoyed the movie. Personally, I didn't hate it but I just thought it was a bit silly, and I pretty much lost interest. Once the jumps and tension had faded from memory there wasn't much left to take away from the film. You can see the disparity between the three of us reflected in where we rank it on our individual lists (Here, here and here). By way of comparison, all three of us were blown away by the way the first movie wrapped up.

Inevitably, [REC] 3 is in the works and I'm sure it will be worse than the second film. Although they've wisely decided to move the action to a new setting, so who knows? The fact that Balaguero isn't attached to it does make me think the worst though...

If you haven't seen the original you could watch this movie with little confusion and you'd probably really enjoy it, but because it's so similar to the first one comparisons are inevitable for the rest of us. The original is one of the best horror movies of the last 20 years, so it's always going to be tough for the second one to shine in its own right, especially when they decided to make it so similar. Still, I'm sure it made Balaguero and Plaza a lot of money, so fair play to them. It's definitely not the worst sequel ever made and I would probably rate the film higher if I hadn't seen the first film (although I'd still think the twist was mangled).

Fairly frightening, but forgettable fare

Clarky's Retrospective Review: Piranha 3D

2012-02-01T22:12:00.002Z

What can I say about Piranha 3D. It was simultaneously one of the worst films I have ever seen and the most enjoyable. It is also the only 3D film that I have actually enjoyed at the cinema.

3D is, in my opinion, one of the most loathsome things about cinema in the past 5 years, yet the 3D added to the B-movie style of this film. This is a film with its tongue firmly in cheek and it uses the 3D just like the original films in the 80's did, when it first became flavour of the month. It decides to use the gimmicky notion of 3D and make a joke of it. This is a film loaded with gore, nudity and plenty of laughs.

Directed by Alexandre Aja (who seems to be stuck in a rut of making remakes ever since his debut Switchblade Romance - a great film for the first 80 minutes and then an incredibly shocking twist ruins everything that preceded it - see our reviews here) this is an hour and a half of mindless fun. You may not be thinking about it half an hour later, but at the time it is incredibly fun, especially if you know the horror movie genre, especially B-movies.

In fact the film opens with a reference to one of the greatest B-movies of all time - Jaws. Richard Dreyfuss opens the film as fisherman Matt whistling "Show me the way to go home" and dressed almost identically to his character Matt Hooper. It's a nice touch and a nod to the films of the 70's and 80's that it is lovingly homaging. Even the poster is a nod to Jaws.

With regards to the gore there are some scenes that would be incredibly difficult to watch in a "normal" movie. Thankfully, the action and gore is presented here with almost a cartoon sensibility it is difficult not to laugh and cheer at whats on screen. There is one scene in particular involving Jerry O'Connell's sleazy filmmaker which particularly sticks in the memory.

However, the standout scene that sticks in your memory has to be the underwater skinny dipping with Kelly Brook and Riley Steele set to the Lakme - Flower Duet (or the tune from the British Airways advert). A stunning vision, where the 3D really comes into its own!

Added to the mixer we also get cameo's from pornstars (so I'm told), Eli Roth hosting a wet T-shirt competition and Christopher Lloyd as a "mad" professor/scientest - what more do you want? (apart from maybe the reported cameo of the original directors Joe Dante and James Cameron as fishing boat captains - one can't help but feel this never happened due to James Cameron's reluctance nowadays to be associated with Piranha 2: The Spawning)

This is not a film that I would ever buy on DVD but when the sequel (Piranha 3DD - it looks like it will be sticking to the 3D and nudity formula) comes out I will almost certainly be going to the cinema for another hour and a half of mindless fun.

Clarky's Weekly Review: Freaks

2012-02-01T22:06:00.000Z

Once I heard what Ally's choice was this week I was nervous. From what I had heard, despite being made in the 1930's, this film was a tough watch, it was originally banned in the UK for 30 years after its release! I can cope with most things at horror club (just look at Inside) but that's because it is "make believe" and I can always keep telling myself that it isn't real. With Freaks this isn't really an option.

Maybe this is why the film gained so much opposition upon its release. It's almost as if the film is a documentary at times showing you behind the scenes at a circus and there are numerous scenes that do not "further the plot" in the traditional sense and which are just there to show off the "Freaks". Not only is this quite avant garde for a film in the 30's but it also presents a dilemma for the modern day audience in my mind.

On the one hand this film is the complete opposite of what I had expected, yet at the same time is exactly what I feared (not in the horror sense). Freaks was a lot deeper than I expected, it is a morality tale about discrimination and prejudice in which the "normal" people are the real villians. Yet at the same time the film is called Freaks and clearly plays upon the fact that the casts deformities and differences. It seems hypocritical at times and at times I felt uneasy because of this. Not least in the final scene where the "freaks" are shot as if they are archetypal villain's in a "monster" movie.

The film was actually classified as a horror upon its original release, hence the reason we watched at horror club, but if it was released today I can't imagine it would be sitting beside Friday the 13th in your local video shop (if you still have one). Given the storyline I assume that this was the opposite of director Tod Browning's intentions, however part of the reason that this film was misclassified may be due to the fact that Browning had become better known as a horror director at this stage in his career, directing Universal's Dracula that starred Bela Lugosi, as well as the fact that these prejudices were part of society in the 30's. One woman even complained to MGM that the film was so disgusting that it caused her to have a miscarriage.

I really enjoyed watching Freaks, the oldest film we have watched at HC, and am glad to have seen it. But I'm still unsure as to the motivations of the film and can't help but feel that some of the cast were taken advantage of (some even denounced the film years after it's release). Part of the reason may be that, like last weeks Peeping Tom attempts, this film made me question myself. I found myself unable to look away from the screen as my curiosity with those different to myself took hold and I ended up thinking I was no better than the "normal" people portrayed on screen or those who visited sideshow attractions. Having said that I defy anyone to watch Prince Randian (the Human Torso) light a cigarette and not be impressed.

Ally's Weekly Review: Freaks

2012-01-27T23:48:00.011Z

If you take a look down the list of films we've watched over the years at Horror Club it's probably fair to say that there are some noticeable gaps on our list. One of the most glaring is the lack of pre-1970s films. Although we've watched (and enjoyed) some classic oldies, for the most part I think it's fair to say that we usually stick to more modern fare. With that in mind, I thought it was about time we watched a film that - if you're serious about horror - you have to get around to at some point, Freaks.

I've always been curious and wary of Freaks. It's one of those films that you see in classic movie lists and it looks a bit, well, freaky. I've also tended to see the date of the film (1932) and think that the chances of me connecting with it are pretty slim. To my surprise, I found it to be a film that's extremely easy to connect with, and one that packs a real emotional punch.

Freaks tells the story of performers in a travelling circus. Along with your classic clowns, strongmen, trapeze artists etc we are introduced to members of the Freak Show: the non-PC part of the circus from a bygone age. When we first see the 'freaks' laughing and playing, I immediately noticed myself feeling uncomfortable. I think like a lot of people, seeing people with major physical disabilities is not easy for me to deal with. I'm not entirely sure why it is, but I know it's a common reaction. We then see two able bodied men approach and one of them is appallingly cruel to them. We see their sensitivity and childlike qualities (many have severe learning disabilities too) and as an audience I think you feel a bit of guilt and shame for your original feelings. This opening scene very much sets the stage for the theme of the entire movie: how cruel and ignorant some 'normal' people are to those who are disabled (the film does show some 'normal' people with true compassion and kindness, in fairness).

The film itself tells the story of a dwarf, called Hans, who falls in love with Cleopatra, an able bodied performer. She plays on his affections, manipulating him to give her gifts, all the while making fun of him behind his back. Soon she finds out that he is astonishingly wealthy and she hatches a plot to marry him, with the intent of poisoning him so she can collect his money. But after the wedding, her plans are drunkenly found out by Hans and the other 'freaks' and revenge is plotted.

As the film moves to its final act, we as the audience are in no doubt about who is good and bad. We are disgusted with the treatment of Hans and others at the hands of the able bodied. If the intention for Tod Browning was to show the disabled as people with real feelings and emotions, who should be treated with sympathy and decency, then I think the film succeeds to an extent. However, the final act left me feeling a bit uncomfortable.

SPOILER…

When the freaks take their revenge on Cleopatra it's a very uncomfortable watch. On the one hand, seeing deserved retribution is always quite a satisfying conclusion - and this particular revenge is very much out of the karmic tradition. Cleopatra deserves what she gets. However, the freaks change from being sympathetic humans to being the monsters they are ignorantly understood to be by the man in the opening sequence. The scene where they hunt down Cleopatra is disturbing, as we see them crawl in the mud towards her, but their humanity is lost. It's a strange message that Browning is giving the audience. Are we to think that they are monsters? The message that the 'freaks' should be treated with sympathy and decency has been hammered home, but what about equality? The horrific retribution, while in some ways justified for the purposes of a horror film, is truly disgusting and lessens the 'freaks' humanity. The final scene acts to absolve Hans of too much blame for the events, as if to say that it was the others who were the real monsters, but it feels a bit haphazard and disingenuous (not least because we see him chase her down with real gusto!)

Despite my reservations over how the events of the film unfolded, I was genuinely moved by this film. It's one of the most thought provoking pieces of cinema that I've seen, and to say that about a film made in the thirties is quite amazing. It's very easy to see why Freaks is still mentioned today as one of the most important movies of all time. It's a groundbreaking piece of cinema. Any film that has the power to make the audience look at their own responses to people who are different deserves to be given great credit. I'd be very interested to know what campaigners for disability rights make of the film, because there seems to be a lot to love and hate in that regard. As well as being moving, it's a short film that is pretty well paced and the acting is very good.

I think a good argument could be made that it's not actually a horror film, but regardless Freaks is a very memorable and enjoyable addition to our list of films.

Ryan's Guest Review: Peeping Tom

2012-01-24T22:58:00.004Z

When I was told I was making my first guest appearance at Horror Club in 2012 to view a “classic”, I was very encouraged. I had heard of Peeping Tom and the cult following it had gained over the years – the tale of the film is almost a movie script in itself (The film ended Michael Powell’s career, only to become a cult hit and cause many critics to re-evaluate it many years on.). I have to admit my expectations were high, as I thought I was about to view a hidden gem. What I got was a film that has many interesting and controversial themes, but does not age well at all.

Having read Fin and Clarky’s reviews, it’s interesting to see the split between their views. I can understand why Clarky enjoyed the film when you break it down into its base elements – the voyeuristic themes, the use of POV camera work, its comparisons with Psycho, etc – but I have to agree with Fin, in the fact that the film ultimately falls flat because the elements on screen do not stand up to the test of time and take away from the final product.

The acting and scripting is incredibly dated, to the point that it’s almost comical. The lead character – Mark Lewis – is meant to be a cold, calculated killer, driven by the desire to see pure fear in his prey’s eyes. On screen, he’s badly acted by Carl Boehm across as an oddball loner who could barely hold a conversation with someone, let alone carry out a murder. Some may say this is exactly the point of the character – but Boehm’s performance is verging on the ridiculous, to the point that it completely removes any feeling of threat or menace, an element that is essential to a psychological thriller. Sadly, the rest of the cast also follow the same route for me – wooden and downright silly at points. Anna Massey as the “beauty” to Boehm’s “beast” - Helen Stephens - is truly terrible and cringe inducing.

The biggest nails in the coffin for me are the complete lack of fear-inducing moments and a plot that is full of unbelievable coincidences. When I watch a horror/thriller, I want to be on the edge of my seat, I want to be biting my fingernails, and I want to be drawn into the film. I was never able to reach that point as I just couldn’t take the film seriously. The dialogue sounds like something out of a Mr Chomondly-Warner sketch. There’s a scene where Mark Lewis sets up an actress to meet a grizzly end and instead of it being tense and creepy, I ended up guffawing my way through it as she turned it into a dance sequence via the sixties equivalent of a boombox.

By the time the idiotic cops need a chance meeting with an on-set psychologist (yes – really) who just happens to mention “scoptophobia” (the psychological name for being a peeping tom) to finally piece it all together, I had completely checked out. Thank you Mr Powell and good night.

Look, I can understand the cult buzz around this film – it’s interesting to think how uptight British society was in the early sixties to bea so offended by a film like this. There are also interesting themes that have found their way into many horror films over the years. Some of the camera work is also quite forward-thinking, given it was made in the sixties. But I really struggle to get anything out of Peeping Tom purely as a piece of cinematic entertainment, and would struggle to recommend this to anyone other than the most die-hard fans of film history.

Fin's Weekly Review: Peeping Tom

2012-01-24T12:07:00.002Z

Peeping Tom Michael Powell's 1960 release is an undoubted classic and despite the revulsion it caused in the 60s it is now considered by many to be a masterpiece. Martin Scorsese has identified the film as being hugely influential to the development of his career. Scorsese loved the film so much he used a significant amount of his own money to re-master the film. The British Film Institute included Peeping Tom in its poll for best British film ever made. As a result I feel slightly unqualified to criticise a film which has so much critical respect and admiration. However I really didn't like this film, in fact I thought it was pretty terrible. Clarky has done an excellent job of analysing the film and its importance which I do not dispute but I'm going to base my review on my experience of watching the film As we have mentioned many times on the blog many of the classic films that have been hugely influential to the development of the genre can occasionally be underwhelming to the modern viewer. Despite this it is usually possible to see why the film is so important and well loved. However in Peeping Tom's case I could not see what the fuss was about I found it to be poorly acted, boring and perhaps most damaging really silly. It also does not help that Peeping Tom has aged so poorly.

Peeping Tom is the story of Mark Lewis a lonely, troubled film fanatic. Mark Lewis has turned his entire life into a film carrying his camera with him everywhere he goes. Unable to form relationships Mark lives alone in his small flat which doubles as his dark room. However Lewis is much more sinister than your everyday loner he is in fact a murdering psychopath. As a result of his upbringing by his sadistic psychoanalyst father Mark is obsessed by the effects of fear and of recording these effects on camera. Mark records himself killing his victims in a twisted attempt to capture the perfect moment of fear on their faces.

This is undoubtedly a strong set up and an intriguing premise but despite this the film never really gets going. The film initially manges to keep you attention with an unnerving and bizarre tone particular in the scenes in the seedy sex shop. However this effect soon wears off and the film becomes a bit of a bore-fest. Powell never manages to translate an interesting premise into an interesting film and in some ways the strength of the backstory is part of the films problem. The story of Marks upbringing and his emotionally sadistic father is much more interesting than the main story being told on screen . I wanted to know more about Mark's fathers experiments in fear and the effect this had on Mark. Instead we get the bland story of Mark as an adult. Part of the problem is Mark himself the actor Karlheinz Bohm is very poor and his lack of on screen Charisma makes him very hard to be interested in. It is however really unfair to single out Bohm as the acting is universally poor.

Peeping Tom's biggest problem is its tone, at times I didn't know if I was watching a benchmark horror or a Carry On film. There were moments of bizarre inappropriate humour throughout this film. I have no problem with humour in a horror if it works but I felt it had no place in this film and therefore it was even more jarring.

The lowest point has to be the bizarre dance sequence before Mark's second victim is killed it was quite simply ridiculous. Combine this bad acting, bizarre tone and a dull romance and you get a poor film.

I had looked forward to seeing Peeping Tom for a long time and I'm glad I have finally seen it. However in my opinion it is massively overrated. I think much of the hype comes from people involved in film making and for them I'm sure it has a real appeal however if you are simply a viewer there is very little to recommend.

Clarky's Weekly Review: Peeping Tom

2012-01-24T01:02:00.001Z

It's no great surprise to me that Fin didn't enjoy this film as to a certain extent Peeping Tom, although 37 years its predecessor, shares DNA with Funny Games. Both look at the audience's relationship with horror and violence on screen. But I think Peeping Tom attempts to say more on the matter. Whilst Haneke's film is an attack on the horror film, american horror in particular, Powell's film attempts to get the audience to question their position, rather than hold them in contempt.

Michael Powell was one of British cinema's treasures in 1960 before the release of Peeping Tom. As one half of Powell and Pressburger he had directed some of the greatest, most distinctive and beautiful films ever to hit the silver screen. The shock, to the critics when seeing Peeping Tom can therefore not be understated. Neither can the fact that this film effectively ended Powell's filmmaking career in Britain following the scandal.

However, Psycho, a like minded voyeuristic and sexual film (Norman Bates is an Oedipal character who is infatuated with his mother and wants him all to himself, the murders becoming a substitute for sex with the knife representing a phallus) was released in the same year (3 months later to be exact) but garnered more praise, from filmgoers, and cemented Hitchcock's reputation as the master of suspense. It too did not receive a good response from the critics, but it has been noted that Hitchcock cancelled pre-release critics screenings, possibly in wake of the Peeping Tom debacle.

So why was one film mauled, and the other praised?

I think one of the reasons is that in slasher films the killer is often shown as a one dimensional character. However, Mark Lewis is a troubled soul who at once disgusts you, yet also demands empathy as we learn his back story. It's not hard to sympathise with him given his upbringing (exposited through old footage that he shows Helen). The audience is immediately complicit with Mark in these scenes. We know something that Helen doesn't and by making Mark the lead in the film (whereas Psycho follows the victims) we are "on Mark's side" (for want of a better term). We have to sit and watch passively over scenes for which we have no control, yet we know Mark's true nature, and it is these scenes that invoke the most terror and were possibly too shocking for the 1960's audiences.

Another reason may be that whilst Psycho has a tacked on ending that nicely sums up everything and "justifies" Norman Bates' actions, we are given no such clearance or easy outs by Powell. We have enough of a backstory to formulate what exactly drives Mark Lewis, but we are left with a feeling of unease at the end of the film, and ultimately this is far more shocking and terrifying.

What is for sure is the influence of both these films can still be seen in horror today, and both effectively created the aforementioned slasher film. Whilst Psycho gets most of the credit, as it is better known, the similarities between the two (and what followed) is astonishing. It could be argued that both films are at the forefront of a new sub-genre of horror - the terror film. These are rooted in reality and the threat comes from normality (a landlord or a motel owner). Horror films before this were either set in a different period and set in fantasy (Frankenstein, Dracula) or the threat came from abnormality (The Haunting, Them). In Peeping Tom and Psycho, these are both set in present day and feature seemingly normal people. No wonder this was shocking at the time!

What can't be denied however, is that the roots of the slasher film can be distinctly seen in both these movies. Each has the following key components:

The Killer - a psychotic product of a sick family, but still a human being. There is no denying that Mark Lewis is both psychotic and the product of a sick family. Following in his fathers footsteps he is obsessed with film, fear and he has attached sexual satisfaction to both of these.
The Location - the Terrible Place. In Psycho this is clearly the motel room, in Peeping Tom I would argue that this is being captured on celluloid.
The Weapon - anything other than a gun, this is often phallic. The weapon could not be more phallic in Peeping Tom. The tripod leg of the camera rises up as Mark gets excited and moves in for the kill. You can see his excitement growing as he moves towards the victims. This was a non too subtle subtext, and maybe one of the other reasons for the scandal at the time (there was indeed some nudity and sexual content cut out of the scenes with Vivian and Dora by the BBFC). The camera itself becomes the weapon, and this itself is a part of Mark Lewis. Without it he feels naked and vulnerable and can be seen to grasp for it when he see's something he wants to capture and preserve forever. The camera is an extension of his brain, his memories and therefore himself.
The Victims - mostly, if not wholly, beautiful young woman (often sexually active).
The Final Girl - the lone survivor who vanquishes the killer. In Peeping Tom this is Helen, who vanquishes the killer as he has genuine feelings for her and does not want to hurt her.
Shock - sudden and graphic depictions of gore and violence. The subject matter from someone like Powell at this stage in his career was shocking enough, but its not hard to see that this film would have been shocking at the time. Whilst Psycho, which was undoubtedly shocking, was filmed in black and white, Peeping Tom is in lurid technicolor, and therefore more shocking.

Fin noted that he found the film quite dated, and I can't disagree with him. However, Psycho is also quite dated but is held in much higher esteem. I think this is due to the fact that Psycho is so embedded in the culture's psyche that it will always be regarded as a classic and you are more accepting of its flaws. Who here doesn't know about the shower scene, hasn't seen an homage to the film in The Simpsons, heard Bernard Hermann's shrieking score or even seen it ripped off in a shite advert for a budget hotel chain with Lenny Henry. Psycho is so well known that you know it before you even see it and, I believe, that this makes the differences of 60's cinema more palatable. In Peeping Tom the Britain that is portrayed on screen is so far away from what we know today of course it seems ridiculous and dated at times.

Also, a little like Citizen Kane the first time I saw it, it is easy to write off Peeping Tom by today's standards. It's difficult to imagine a world without crane shots, zooms, depth of field etc. Some of the direction and shots in show here are incredibly skilful, and if I hadn't been so caught up in the action on screen I may even describe them as dazzling! One of the biggest things about this film is that the viewer sees things through the camera lens from Mark's point of view.

Whilst the first point of view shot was as early as 1900 (Seen Through The Telescope) it was often used as an editing technique. Here however, the POV shot has much more serious connotations. Powell uses it as a storytelling device, a plot point and to make us, the audience, complicit in the act of murder. This is a film that is all about voyeurism. And what better way to show an audience how complicit they are in horror films and voyeurism by making a film about an obsessed filmmaker and showing us things from his point of view. How can you not identify with Mark Lewis, given by your very nature of entering the cinema or watching a movie you are voyeuristic.

As noted by Sigmund Freud in his 1917 essay The Uncanny - terror has such a hold on us as it represents the eruption into adult life of the most powerful and infantile wishes and fantasies (violence, murder, torture etc). These are all things that lie repressed in our psyches since babyhood but by seeing them on screen we identify with them as part of ourselves. By showing us this not only on the big screen (the events are larger than life, just as a childs point of view of the world) but by, literally, putting us in Mark Lewis' position Powell makes us question ourselves as filmgoers to determine what exactly we get out of this voyeuristic act. This was not easy for a 1960's audience to accept here and whilst POV shots have been seen as early as 1931 in horror films (P Rouben Mamoulien's Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde) this was not the norm in 1960's British films. Now you are hard pushed to find a slasher film that doesn't have a POV shot, just look at Black Christmas and Halloween).

As if Powell's metaphor isn't clear enough, he has one final trick up his sleeve at the shocking denouement. Mark attaches a mirror to the top of the camera so that his victims can see themselves being stabbed, and see how scared they are. Fear invokes fear. This is Mark's life work and by holding the mirror up to his victims, and asking the audience to look at themselves, he asks us all to see ourselves for what we really are.

Clarky's Weekly Review: Night of the Creeps

2012-01-18T22:01:00.000Z

Thrill me!

Never before in a film have I heard these two words said so often. In fact, never in a film have I heard any phrase uttered so often. But such is the demented wont of Fred Dekker, writer and director, that this is all part of the proceedings. This film is the definition of tongue in cheek.

What is this? A homicide, or a bad B-movie?

The film opens with one of the strangest, and most hilarious (I'm still not sure if it's intentional or not), scenes I have ever seen. From there we are treated to a homage to a 1950's B horror movie, before the film turns into an actual 1980's B movie! The acting, throughout, is so over the top that it almost hurts, but at the same time you can't help but enjoy yourself. Especially with chunks of dialogue like this:

Detective Cameron: I got good news and bad news, girls. The good news is your dates are here.
Sorority Sister: What's the bad news?
Detective Cameron: They're dead.

Detective Cameron has a monopoly on the worst dialogue of anyone in this film, which is quite an achievement when you look at characters like Brad, Chris Romero (the ugliest leading man I have ever seen) and J C Hooper - the "comic relief". At one point Detective Cameron literally stops to smell the roses! Later he admits to Chris that he had committed a murder for no reason whatsoever. A secret that he had previously kept for over 30 years.

Zombies, exploding heads, creepy-crawlies... and a date for the formal. This is classic, Spanky

The film is still undeniably enjoyable. Fred Dekker clearly loves old horror movies and there are indefinite homages to previous horror films including Plan 9 From Outer Space on TV in one scene (maybe the greatest worst film ever made), Corman University is a reference to director Roger Corman and the last names of the main characters are based on famous horror and sci-fi directors: George A. Romero (Chris Romero), John Carpenter and Tobe Hooper (James Carpenter Hooper), David Cronenberg (Cynthia Cronenberg), James Cameron (Det. Ray Cameron), John Landis (Det. Landis), Sam Raimi (Sgt. Raimi) and Steve Miner (Mr. Miner - The Janitor).

Hee hee hee - like a banshee!

The film also offers up one of the greatest 80's horror breezies I have set my eyes on in recent memory, or at least since the last Friday the 13th, in the form of Jill Whitlow. Wowser.

Night of the Creeps is mindless enjoyable fun, and actually had a couple of decent scares. I can't imagine I will be watching this again, but I'm glad Fin brought it to the table in an attempt to "Thrill me".

Ally's Weekly Review: Night of the Creeps

2012-01-17T12:15:00.005Z

As has been noted on the blog before, Fin is the member who's the connoisseur of late 70s/1980s B-movie horror. He promised us this week that he's moving away from any more selections from this genre, but before he did he had to bow out in style by bringing one more to the table. He brought a film that I'd only heard of in passing… Night of the Creeps.

Like Phantasm or Re-Animator, these films are kind of difficult to review in a typical way. Part of the appeal is that the audience knows that they are pretty ridiculous and dated. The very things that should make the film terrible, are actually what make it very enjoyable. I suppose it's why I love Friday the 13th part 4 but don't have much time for Hatchet: both are pretty poor films, truth be told, but the sheer 80's-ness of the Friday the 13th sequels make it so much more fun.

Night of the Creeps follows the tradition of not actually being a very good film, but because there are so many ridiculous lines, dated special effects and dubious acting performances, all three of us spent the entire film laughing and enjoying the events on screen. It's not a film to watch by yourself, you need a group of friends so you can basically just laugh at everything that happens.

The plot itself - from what I can gather - is basically some strange worm-like creatures are sent to earth by hilarious looking aliens (who I really wished had more screen time) in the 1950s. They are then cryogenically frozen in a dead body until a couple of hapless, geeky freshmen unleash them on a University town. There are lots of frat parties, a teenage boy's fantasy of what a sorority looks like, fantastically bad wardrobe choices, cartoonish violence… it basically ticks all the boxes.

Special mentions have to be made to two of the cast members. Tom Atkins as the grizzled detective Ray Cameron. Already his catchphrase of "Thrill Me" has entered the Horror Club lexicon. I also have to mention Jill Whitlow as Cindy. Not entirely sure what she sees in our 'hero' Chris, as he's one of most painfully boring protagonists I've seen. Either way, she's joined all time HC favourite Jocelin Donahue as having a special place in our hearts.

Would I recommend this film to anyone? Only if I thought they shared a love of very dated so-bad-they're-good movies. Which is definitely the niche category that this films falls into. I just wonder how Fin will be able to leave the genre behind?

Horror Club: Top 5 post-2000 Horror Movies

2012-01-16T20:06:00.003Z

Ally's List:

5) The Woman - I didn't have very high expectations when I brought this film to the table, but I was really surprised by how good (and original) it was. A really interesting film, with some memorable and shocking moments, it is very well acted (particularly Pollyanna McIntosh and Sean Bridgers) and the music wonderfully adds to the unsettled tone. The violence isn't overt (*cough* Inside): the director doesn't rely on the sight of blood to produce moments of brutality and horror, and that's a skill many horror directors could learn from. Not perfect, but certainly underrated.

4) The Orphanage - One of those rare horror beasts (along with my number 1) that stands up to being a good film regardless of genre. It is just an excellent film that happens to be a horror movie too. Achingly sad and beautifully shot, it's a film that stays with you for days afterwards. Think it might be the only horror movie that I had to pretend to have 'something in my eye' during the final moments. It also has some real frights.

3) [REC] - It has been a superb decade (or so) for Spanish Horror. I've seen [REC] twice and both times I found it absolutely terrifying. It's just a first rate horror film - it has wonderful tension and jumps, the story unfolds quickly all the way to a menacing (and shocking) conclusion. If I had to recommend one film on this list that would guarantee a true horror (visceral) experience this would be it.

2) The House of the Devil - I've only seen this film once, and I've wondered if it would have anything like the same impact on second viewing. The thing is, my reluctance to ever see it again tells you everything you need to know about how scary I found this movie. While I've been critical of his other work, I can't fault Ti West for anything here. It's an absolute triumph. Particularly the way he manages to make it authentically look like a film made in the 80s. It might be the type of film that some people don't find scary, but for me this remains my most terrifying movie watching experience since I first saw The Exorcist.

1) Let the Right One In - In a similar vein to The Orphanage this stands up against any film, regardless of genre. In fact, if I was composing a top 5 (post 2000) movie list this would make a strong case to be number 1 on that too. It's just a really beautiful, tragic vampire tale with some of the best child acting I've seen. Not hugely scary (although it has its moments) Authentic and atmospheric, I just couldn't get enough of this film when we watched it, and we continued to talk about it for weeks. A remake is sacrilegious, this film is nearly flawless.

(Honourable Mentions - The Mist, A Tale of Two Sisters, The Descent, 30 Days of Night, Session 9)

Fin's List:

5) [REC]- Watching The Rec felt like a short sharp slap to the face, in the short space of 78 minutes directors Jaume Balaguero and Paco Plaza put the viewer through an emotional and physical trial. The directors manage to take the genre of the found footage horror film, a genre that has basically run out of ideas, and create something new and fresh. It is rare that a horror film genuinely scare you but REC manages to be truly terrifying.

4) The Mist- Stephen King adaptations have a long history of being terrible. For every Shining there are 5 or 6 The Langoliers or Pet Cemeteries. As a result I went into The Mist with very low expectations. It was therefore even more satisfying when this film turned out to be a modern classic monster film. This is a rare film where the story and emotional impact of a number of great acting performances are more important than the monsters. Like all great monster films Frank Darabont uses his creatures as a tool to tell a story and not the other way round and this is a much more emotionally affecting film than one would expect. The acting is universsaly strong and Marcia Gay Harden's performance as the religious fanatic is Oscar worthy. Darabont created a modern prison classic with the Shawshank Redemption and he does the same with the creature feature with The Mist.

3) Let The Right One In- With the glut of mediocre vampire fare we have been served up with this decade Let The Right One In was a breath of fresh air. It is one of those rare horror films which are of such quality that they cross into mainstream culture. I would recommend this film to anyone and that is not something I would say for most of the films we watch at horror club. Let The Right One In is film of depth and emotion which manages both scares and poignancy. It is a well acted and beautifully crafted film and is a must see for any fan of cinema.

2) The Women- Lucky McKee's ferocious chiller of small town madness and barbarism hiding behind the trappings of respectability came right out of left field for me. I watched this film on the back of a number of strong reviews however much of these reviews portrayed The Women as a continuation of much modern horror focusing on gore and violence to the exclusion of anything else. And while the film is indeed brutal Lucky Mckee has a the skill to portray this violence in an effective, unique and powerful way without resorting to gore. The Women has a look and style that is both exciting and unique and strangely moving. The Women is definitely a film you have to see.

1) House of the Devil- What more can be said about House of the Devil anyone who reads this blog will know that we are all big fans of this film. I came to this film completely fresh with no expectations and was absolutely blown away by it. It is brilliantly made- stylish, cool, retro but so fresh it is unlike anything else you will have seen. However most importantly it is balls out scary with enough tension to cause a heart attack. This film is Ti West's masterpiece and as much as I'm looking forward to the upcoming release of Innkeepers it would have to be something special to better House Of The Devil. Not only the best of the decade but for my money one of the best horror films of the last 30 years.

Clarky's List:

In an attempt to shake things up a bit and ruffle a few feathers I have put up a slightly alternative list to the films I have recognised in my all time list. I'm not going to pretend that it's not been painful to cut out some films (Let the Right One In especially) and its not that I don't enjoy all the movies on the other 2 lists, because I do. I really like them all and would have probably had them on my list if I didn't feel the need to mix it up. This is primarily because there is a lot of crossover between the three of us, and mainly because I like to antagonise Fin and Al!

5) Drag Me to Hell- The first bone of contention no doubt. Slated by Al and Fin I feel I need to give this film the respect it deserves on the blog. By no means a classic, this film is however a pure thrill ride. The reason it works is the fact that Sam Raimi knows exactly what this film is and doesn't try to get the film to punch above its weight. Its funny and scary all at once and is sure to get your adrenaline pumping and leave you with a smile on your face. Best viewed in a big group or at the cinema if you can.

4) A Tale of Two Sisters- Another film that I viewed at the cinema and it really added to the proceedings. Almost half the cinema left at some point during the screening and the tension at times was unbearable. This was the first South Korean film we viewed at HC and whilst at the time this was a benefit, I can't help but feel that The Eye and The Host have somewhat tainted the memory of my cohorts. This film creeped us all out at the time and provided a (possibly the only) scare that caused all three of us to jump of the couch (and possibly let out a little shriek!).

3) The Descent- A film that for whatever reason doesn't seem to have stood the test of time for Fin and Al, but one that had the heart pumping at the time. Even though I had seen this film numerous times before I had forgotten how tense and nerve wracking this film was and the incredible job that Neil Marshall does in giving a real sense of claustrophobia. The tension does drop off once the monsters start to have more screen time, but this is true for almost every horror film I have ever seen, and what comes before is so damn good that it deserves a place in my top 5.

2) The House of the Devil- When Fin brought a haunted house story to the table I wasn't sure what to expect. Especially when the opening credits looked like they were straight out of the 80's. Was this going to be another one of Fin's 80's style B movies like Re-animator or Fright Night? I couldn't have been more wrong. Whilst there is nothing fresh with regards to the story line, it is the matter in which this story is told that is impressive. Ti West has complete and utter faith in slowly racking up the tension. Playing with your expectations, from seeing other horror movies, there are surprisingly few jumps but the tension never dissipates. A masterful piece of direction that shows the Saw generation how nuanced and effective horror can be if done correctly, rather than focussing on gore to make the viewer uncomfortable.

1) The Orphanage- There can be only one winner for me and it is my inaugural choice at horror club. The Orphanage is a stunning film that is hauntingly beautiful. A horror film, but also a portrayal of grief and a mothers love. This film has it all - stunning direction, incredible acting (not least by Belen Rueda as the grief stricken mother), a strong script that takes its time to unravel, genuine jump out your seat scares, high tension, incredible cinematography and a shock ending that is truly shocking, Guaranteed to shock and delight in equal measure, this is not just a great horror film, this is one of the great films post 2000 in my eyes.

(I realise I have left out Let the Right One In out of my top 5 and this is not a decision I took lightly, but given the love it has already and the fact that it is not an out and out horror as it has hardly any scares or jumps I have had to leave it out in order to portray a wider range of films for this list. It's a great film and I don't want anyone believing I think otherwise! Also honourable mention must go to REC as well, a film that reinvigorated the somewhat tired found footage genre.)

Clarky's Weekly Review: Black Christmas

2012-01-11T00:49:00.000Z

After a long festive break Ally brought a, late, Christmas present to the table for us all to enjoy - Black Christmas. To be honest I wasn't expecting much. I knew that they had remade this a few years ago and at the time I the reviews stated that it was based on the cult classic. In my mind, in relation to horror films anyway, I automatically assumed that the original must be one of the schlocky, average "cult" classics. I was delighted to find out that I was completely wrong.

Made in 1974 its not difficult to see the, wide ranging, impact that this film has had on the horror genre. Opening with a point of view shot, which as Fin noted was reminiscent of Halloween and which was made some 4 years later, it features a number of items which are now tropes of the horror genre including (SPOILER ALERT) the idea of the killer phoning from inside the house. But there are also plenty of things that differentiate this from other horrors, especially from the 70's, and when I was watching this it seemed fresh and quite progressive at times to me. God knows what audiences at the time must have thought of it.

It's always important to remember that sometimes films like these can seem dated now, but I was surprised at how well this film still stood up, and how little recognition it seems to get. Sure there are some dud bits of dialogue and the odd bit of hammy acting, but I found the subtext and the morals of the film really interesting. Unlike films like Halloween, which were very black and white in terms of their moral code - the girls who drink, take drugs and sleep around all die at Michael's hands whilst the virginal Laurie Strode survives. In Black Christmas however, it's Clare, the church going "professional virgin", who bites the bullet first (in a genuinely tense and jumpy scene), whilst Jess "survives" even though she parties, has had pre-marital sex and is determined to have an abortion.

What's most interesting is that you can read into this in different ways. Did Jess survive as the director is pro choice, or is Jess being hounded by "Billy" because she is so determined to have an abortion. Suddenly, this cult horror has a little more to it than a simple slasher movie.

I also liked the fact that whilst a number of the deaths seemed quite gruesome at the time, on reflection, very little is actually shown on screen (which as I've stated before is always far more effective and creepy). There are also a suitable number of annoying characters that you can't wait to be picked off by "Billy" and some genuine humour in places. As well as the greatest phone tapping sequence of all time.

But most impressive, and what stays in the memory, are the hideous phone calls. The sound design is incredible and the manner in which "Billy" carries out the phone conversations is incredibly creepy and disconcerting, never mind what he is actually saying!

But, given the issues we have had with endings in the past, I was most impressed with the ambiguous ending that fitted the film perfectly, was incredibly creepy and gave the film real staying power.

When dolls are involved its never going to be good.

This is a film that is a must for any horror afficianado. I can't believe this film wasn't even on my radar before now, and this is a matter that I'm glad to have rectified. Interesting and genuinely creepy.

Fin's Weekly Review: Black Christmas

2012-01-10T23:25:00.000Z

Due to the time of year, Ally thought he would bring a festive-themed horror to the table. He could have done a lot worse than Black Christmas: a taut, well-made and genuinely creepy horror film which laid the groundwork for many of the classic slasher films we know and love. Although this Canadian made film was produced on a tiny budget it is made with enough love and more importantly skill to be a suspense-filled thrill ride.

Having never seen Black Christmas before, its quality came as a surprise, as did the extent of its influence over future horror classics. My initial thought after watching the film is that it is a criminally underrated film. Having watched it you can see its fingerprints all over a number of more heralded later films, not least Carpenter's Halloween. Black Christmas marks an interesting transition from more traditional suspense mysteries to the slasher films which helped to define 70s and 80s horror.

Like the slashers that would follow in its wake, the set-up of Black Christmas is deceptively simple: a group of female sorority girls are terrorised by a sinister and faceless killer who invades their house a few days before Christmas. This simplicity, however, forms the foundation for a film full of mystery, terror and more red herrings than you could shake a stick at. Despite the set-up of the story, Black Christmas does not lapse into the misogynistic cliché this genre of horror so often becomes. Director Bob Clark achieves this by creating a female cast that is diverse and, for a slasher film, three-dimensional characters. The violence perpetrated against the girls is grim and frightening, but it is not overdone and many of the kill scenes are crafted in a way which does not revel in the violence in screen. By introducing the parents of a couple of the characters who meet their hideous deaths, the consequences of violence are contemplated - a rare thing in most horror films. As a result the violence does not take place in a vacuum and seems all the more scary for it.

As with any serious horror film, Black Christmas must firstly be judged on whether it manages to be scary. In this regard Bob Clark's debut ticks all the boxes, containing a number of genuinely unsettling aspects. It also has to borne in mind that, as the first definable slasher film, the original viewers of Black Christmas would have been even more unsettled having no knowledge of what would go on to become genre conventions.

The first aspect of the movie which demands attention is the killer himself. The film opens with a scene very reminiscent of Halloween's opening shots in which we are looking through the eyes of the killer as he enters the sorority house. The concept of seeing through the eye of the killer and the unsettling implication of sharing in the violence have become a concept very common to horror cinema, but in 1974 this was seriously fresh. The killer himself, with his hideous animal-like breathing, creates his terror not through his appearance or identity but rather in his nightmarish mystery. We are given no explanation of motive or back-story - we are simply presented with a blank canvas onto which the viewers can project their own fears. The killer is the age-old faceless, formless monster which stalked the forests in fairy tales and it is the formless nature of the killer which creates the terror. This would go on to provide the template for many horror protagonists to come.

The prank phone calls which are so key in establishing an atmosphere of dread and fear are extraordinary and must rank as the scariest prank calls in any film ever. These films are so full off menace and craziness they have to be heard to be believed. They calls make the calls in Scream sound like child's play. The weirdness of the prank phone calls establishes a strange and unsettling atmosphere that pervades the entire film and, while not reaching Argento levels of weird, it often comes close. A scene where one of the students is killed inter-cut with children singing Christmas carols is particularly unnerving. The killer creeps around the house killing the individual students in ways which Argento would definitely approve of.

Ultimately Black Christmas is a seminal film which, despite remaining largely unknown outside of a cult following, created the bedrock upon which the slasher film would build and develop. Black Christmas is a film I really enjoyed and, although I have some hang-ups about the ending of the movie, it is a film I would struggle to criticise.

Clarky's Weekly Review: The Devil's Backbone

2011-12-19T22:10:00.000Z

Guiilermo Del Toro's The Devil's Backbone, a precursor to Pan's Labyrinth, shares a lot of DNA with it's successor but is not quite up to par. I'm not even sure if it is a horror film. Sure it contains a ghostly little boy, but the scares are few and far between and the story is slanted far more towards the melodramatic rather than the scary.

Given how much we all enjoyed The Orphanage, which was produced by Del Toro, I felt sure I was on to a winner with this choice, however it was not to be. As always from Del Toro it looks gorgeous and there is some good stuff here, but it just never really hits a home run for me. There is something lacking, unfortunately I'm not sure what it is. It was a telling sign that Fin, Ally and myself were chatting most of the way through the film.

The acting is uniformly excellent, but I can't help but feel that the story is lacking somewhat with the result that the film isn't as emotionally resonant as it likes to think it is. I'm glad I've seen this film and I certainly think Del Toro is an interesting director, however this is not a film that I will be revisiting.

Ally's Weekly Review: The Devil's Backbone

2011-12-19T15:44:00.009Z

I was the only horror clubber who'd seen Clarky's choice this week, and I must admit when he brought it to the table I kind of sighed. Not because I thought it was a bad film on first viewing, but more that I remember seeing it in the cinema and feeling profoundly bored. However, that was a decade ago and things change, so perhaps my feelings would too?

Unfortunately, I felt much the same way as on first viewing. I should probably clarify that I don't think The Devil's Backbone is any shape or form a bad movie. It's a excellent in a lot of ways, and I really do admire what del Toro has achieved… yet I never found myself feeling captivated by the onscreen events.

Set near the end of the brutal Spanish Civil War, we are introduced to an orphanage for children of the martyred left wing republicans. We arrive at this run down building with Carlos, a young boy who doesn't know that his father has been killed. He is dumped at the worst time, with barely enough food to feed the growing number of children as the ravages of war become an increasing reality. I think this aspect of the film is its great accomplishment. We really get a sense of the pressures and difficulties that being on the losing side of war can bring, and del Toro achieves this without ramming it down our throats. The narrative is in a lot of ways about something different, but the pain and sacrifice of the war effort hangs heavy in every scene. In this sense, the film deserves all the critical praise that it received.

It is also beautifully shot. The scenery of the parched Spanish landscape is filmed to perfection, as are the night time shots. It really is gorgeous to look at. The acting on display is first rate, with some characters who really portray a great deal of depth. In particular, Dr Casares and Carmen are richly created and give the film a real soul, and it is through them that we see the harsh reality of war. The children are also universally believable, which is no small achievement. The language of the film is incredibly poetic and beautiful too.

Sounds like a great movie, huh?? Well, I suppose it is in a way. Perhaps it's just my overstimulated - lacking in patience - mindset, but I felt very bored for most of the movie. The pace of the film is very slow and deliberate, in no rush to tell its story. I found my mind wandering off to other places, trying to engage the guys in banter, because I couldn't stay with the film. I felt like a bored three year old. From a horror perspective, the film is not scary. Truthfully, I'm not entirely convinced it should be classified as a horror film anyway. Yes, it is a ghost story, but the traditional ghost story is used as a metaphor for something a lot more substantial, and not supernatural. The ghost himself is on display early and often, so there is no real sense of mystery about the unknown, and the director makes only halfhearted attempts to make the audience jump.

For me, this is the type of horror movie that you might name check if you want to impress. It's a great piece of filmmaking that has real quality about it, but to be absolutely honest - give me Friday the 13th Part IV or Re-Animator over this every single day of the week.

Clarky's Weekly Review: Phantasm

2011-12-14T20:39:00.001Z

After raising some eyebrows, and possibly Fin's ire, the other week when I suggested that if asked to sum up my fellow HC members with a style of horror film I would say that I choose films that are more jumpy (The Silent House, The Descent etc), Al is more of a classics man (The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, The Exorcist, Don't Look Now etc) whilst Fin is a child of the 80's. This went down badly, and Fin was nothing short of affronted.

I'm not sure why, as I didn't mean this as a criticism. Read any of my reviews and often some of the greatest plus points is the "80'sness" of the proceedings. It's clear to me that Fin's heart is with 80's films. He owns the Friday the 13th box set, has brought Re-Animator, Near Dark, and Fright Night to the table along with countless other films that have shared DNA with these films (plus outside HC you'll be hard pushed to find a modern movie in his collection).

Maybe it was with this in mind he decided to live up to (my) expectations with last weeks choice - Phantasm (which I am aware was made in 1979 and not the 80's). Directed by Don Coscarelli (who is also behind the rather enjoyable, silly and schlocky B movie extravaganza that is Bubba Ho Tep), the film opens with some incredibly hammy acting as a couple are having sex in a graveyard. We get a gratuitous tittie shot and then "Boom" the guy with the shockingly bad mouser gets it. With an opening like this - what's not to like?

Probably quite a lot in reality. The acting is universally bad. The plot is ridiculous (as are some of the characters decisions which are almost always contradictory). There is a quitar jamming session, with a bald guy who has a ponytail. There is a ridiculous session with a psychic, that seems so out of place given what follows. Mike somehow figures exactly what is going on within 5 seconds of "visiting" the morgue's secret room! There is the dreaded "twist ending" which is genuinely straight out of an 80's soap opera and some of the scripting is simply unbelievable. Here are a few choice excerpts:

Reggie: Okay. I see it, I see it all now. What we gotta do is we gotta snag that tall dude and stomp the shit out of him, and we'll find out what the hell is going on up there. Yeah! We lay that sucker out flat and drive a stake right through his Goddamn heart!
Mike: You gotta be shittin' me, man! That mother's STRONG!

Jody: I just don't get off on funerals, man, they give me the creeps.

Reggie: Hi guys. Heh heh, just thought I'd come over and see what was going on before the kids got out of summer school. Hey Mike, you want to ride along with me today? It's pretty warm outside and the ice cream's going to be flying fast and furious. Remember how good you were at crowd control last time? Hey, what's going on here?

Mike: I know you're not going to believe this, but these things were here, right in the garage, and they were going to get me!
Jody: Aww, give me a break, would you?
Mike: They were jumping on the car and making these weird sounds!
Jody: You're sure it wasn't that retarded kid, Timmy, up the street?
Mike: No, it was the same thing that chased me last night!

Written down they don't look great, but I think the delivery may be even worse. Which in a weird way is what makes this film so great!!!

All these things that should be bad points, make into an excellent B movie whole. If you're not a horror fan then this film is not for you, that's a given. But if you have a lot of horror hours already under your belt, you can't help but enjoy this film. It lives up to the stereotypical 70's / 80's cheapo horror movies, but is fun and, to a certain extent, inventive (even if the acting can't keep up with some of the ideas). It also includes some (funnny) gory scenes, which come from nowhere, and the obligatory late 70's early 80's breezies (even if they don't get enough screen time).

In summary, embrace the cheesiness, the bad acting, poor scripting and plotting and sit back and enjoy a film that is so bad it is good.

Horror Club: Top 5 Creepiest Characters

2011-11-24T23:16:00.005Z

Ally's Top 5

5) Grandfather in The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (John Dugan)

We don't see Grandfather for very long but he's hard to forget. In the most disturbing family dinner in any film, the audience is left absolutely disgusted and puzzled by the old man. What is he? How is he alive? What's his backstory? The word creepy doesn't cover it.

4) Mrs Blaylock in The Omen (Billy Whitelaw)

Sent to look after Damien following the untimely death of his previous nanny (in the most shocking scene of the entire movie), Mrs Blaylock is absolutely terrifying. Her eyes in particular give you chills, and when she attacks? Buurrghh!! She easily makes the list.

3) Raymond Lemorne in The Vanishing (Bernard-Pierre Donnadieu)

His character is so strange that it can't help but be creepy. A family man, who is also incredibly polite even to those who know his deviant secret, something in his head is just not quite right. His methodical and deliberate approach, coupled with an astonishing lack of empathy, is truly shocking. This paradox makes him one of the most unsettling characters we've encountered at Horror Club.

2) Regan/Pazuzu in the Exorcist (Linda Blair)

One of the icons of cinema and still hugely unsettling even to this day, the demon possessing Regan is truly one of the creepiest characters ever on screen. The voices, the laughing, the power… yeah, it's not something you can watch too many times.

1) "Mother" in The House of the Devil (Danielle Noe)

If I never see a picture of this 'woman' again it will be too soon. For the entire film we are waiting in suspense for the ghastly secrets of the house and when we find out what's in store for the protagonist it is truly horrifying. The sort of character that threatens to give you bad dreams after a viewing. Unbelievably creepy.

Honourable Mentions: Toshio in The Grudge (Yuya Ozeki), Margaret White in Carrie (Piper Laurie) and Chris Cleek in The Woman (Sean Bridgers), The Cenobites in Hellraiser, Paul in Funny Games (Arno Frisch)

Fin's Top 5

5) Chris Cleek in The Woman (Sean Bridgers)

A more contemporary character for my number 5 but equally creepy. Chris Cleek is the all American family man and small town lawyer who also happens to be seriously twisted. Chris Cleek's insanity knows no bounds weather he is emotionally abusing his terrified family or 'civilising' a feral women. If you doubt his place on the list check out his unique form of dog ownership.

4) Margaret White in Carrie (Piper Laurie)

Abusive, mentally ill and a fanatic, nobody's ideal mother. When Margaret punishes her daughter for starting her period you know that she is bad shit crazy. However this is only the tip of the iceberg and as we see more glimpses into her twisted mind her true horror become clearer and increasingly frightening.

3) Rev. Harry Powell in The Night of the Hunter (Robert Mitchum)

The two characters at number 1 and 2 in this list are terrifying partly due to their appearance. Harry Powell creates terror not from outward appearances but because of the twisted and ugly evil which lies inside is charming and handsome exterior.

2) Grandpa Sawyer in The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (John Dugan)

Grandpa Sawyer is the patriarch of the most frightening and disgusting screen family of all time. If your son turns out like Leatherface you must be one twisted dad. It is the mystery that surrounds Grandpa that makes him so scary he is an enigma who oozes a sinister presence. He is barely human and seems barely alive Grandpa is without doubt one of the scariest and vile screen characters ever.

1) Regan/ Pazuzu in The Exorcist (Linda Blair)

What more can you say about this character. One of the most instantly recognisable icons of not just horror cinema but all film. Pazuzu is the embodiment of evil, Pazuzu terrified me on first viewing and remains incredibly unsettling.

Notable Admissions: Raymond Lemorne in The Vanishing, Dr Carl Hill in Re-animator, The Cenobites in Hellraiser, Michael Myers in Halloween, Roman Castavet/ Mini Castavet in Rosemary's Baby, Mother in House of The Devil

Clarky's List

5) Le tueur in Switchblade Romance (Phillippe Nahon)

Whilst this film will go down in HC folklore as a film that completely loses the plot, literally, in the last 10 minutes, up until then le tueur is a horrible character. His shabby exterior, the dirt under the fingernails and his unrelentlessness (if that is a word) disgusted me to my very core whilst watching this film. If it weren't for the fact that he is a figment of Marie's imagination then he would be higher up the list.

4) Eun-joo (Stepmother) in A Tale of Two Sisters (Jung-ah Yum)

A Tale of Two Sisters is a film that we watched a while ago, and I almost forgot how creepy a character the step mother was until I started making this list. She is an oppressive figure throughout the film and incredibly unsympathetic to the clearly troubled daughters.

3) Roman and Minnie Castevet in Rosemary's Baby (Sidney Blackmer and Ruth Gordon)

The elderly neighbours from Rosemary's Baby have to make my list. Whilst they seem "off" from the start, you don't know what their ulterior motives are. They are conniving and deceitful, and incredibly creepy.

2) "Peter" and "Paul" in Funny Games (Frank Giering and Arno Frisch)

Peter and Paul (if that is their real names) from Funny Games nearly make it to the top of my list. This film was like a punch to the gut and that is in no small part due to the the faultless performances from these two antagonists. Their lack of emotion and sheer coldbloodedness stay with you for days, if not weeks, after viewing. Sure it is a bit of a cheat having two characters in my list, but they are a double act and have to be included as such.

1) Grandfather in The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (John Dugan)

There can only be one winner here and it has to be the grandfather from The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. The scene dressing is incredible and is incredibly unsettling, just when you think Tobe Hooper can't push you any further we are introduced to the greatest butcher there ever was. The look of him is enough to turn even the strongest stomach. He is barely alive and doesn't utter a single word of dialogue, and even though he makes the briefest appearance he sticks with you longer than any of the characters, even Leatherface. Even know, thinking back to when I first saw this over 10 years ago, he is still the first thing that pops into my head when I think of this film. Surely, testament enough that he is the creepiest character going.

Notable Admissions: How can I possibly reduce 2 and a half years worth of horror, and creepiness, into 5 characters! With so much scope I've decided to provide a slightly different list from that of my cohorts. That's not to say that their characters aren't creepy, it's just that I feel I need to bring something different to the table, to provide as diverse a list as possible. Having said that, there is some crossover with my number 1 as he is simply the creepiest character out there!

Firstly I have to give honourable mentions to Raymond Lemorne from The Vanishing as noted by Ally. The landlord from To Let, has to be mentioned as well. Whilst not the greatest film, she is genuinely creepy and unsettling right from the off.

Martin, from Martin, is creepy, but not nearly unsettling enough to make my top 5. Whilst Damien, another titular character, from the second Omen film is an incredibly unsettling character, as he is throughout the series, however, the underrated second film encapsulates everything that is wrong with Damien and shows him becoming a willing accomplice in the the dark lords plans.

Finally, Chris Cleek is another almost ran. He is undeniably creepy, but as he is on Fin's list already I thought I would add something different to the mix.

Fin's Weekly Review: Insidious

2011-11-22T19:14:00.001Z

To use a very tired old football cliché, this film was definitely a game of two halves. The first half of the film is strong, but it is let down by a weak and slightly cheesy ending. However, notwithstanding the shaky ending, Insidious is an effective and at times genuinely creepy tale - a thrill ride of a film that, despite being ultimately forgettable, is fun while it lasts.

Insidious tells the story of a young family who move into an old house and begin to experience a chilling and malevolent presence. Thinking that it is the house that is haunted, they make plans to move, but after their young son falls into a coma it becomes clear that it is not the house which is haunted and that there is a much more terrifying explanation at work. As this very brief story outline suggests there is nothing new or unique about this film and if you were being very critical you could argue that it is derivative of a number of better films. However, while Insidious definitely borrows/steals from a number of superior films, it is fast-paced and exciting enough to be enjoyed on its own terms.

Director James Wan proves to be skilled in creating tension and fear even when nothing is happening on screen, and it is while the ghosts and demons are hidden from view that this film work best. Wan is excellent at forcing the viewer to peer into the dark and to check the periphery of the screen for unseen horrors. This straining into the dark makes it even more scary when a small glimpse of the demons is given. Unfortunately the film never goes above the level of jump scares and trick shots and, while very effective, never becomes truly scary.

Much of the imagery Wan uses is at times genuinely eery - I was particularly affected by the twisted old woman ghost - but the more screen time Wan gives these creations, the more the fear seeps out of the film, until by the end I felt like I was watching a particularly creepy episode of Buffy.

While the direction of James Wan is strong, the same cannot be said of the acting, which is very poor. Rose Byrne and Patrick Wilson are particularly bad and never convince. Neither of the parents seemed sufficiently bothered by the fact that their son was potentially possessed. Having said that, many horror films before Insidious have had poor acting performances and still managed to be effective.

It is the dramatic change in tone that this film undergoes half way through that I found most difficult. It felt to me that Wan did not know how to bring this tense, dread-filled haunted house story to an end in a scary and satisfying way. Instead, Wan introduces the character of the psychic who takes the story on a completely different trajectory. The explanation for the family's troubles is too bizarre and difficult to believe and all the tension and fear built in the first half is instantly dissipated. By the time Patrick Wilson goes in search of his son, a creepy ghost story has instead become a bizarre, slightly camp experience reminiscent of a fairground ghost train.

I actually quite enjoyed the closing scenes - they just felt like they belonged to a different film. Demons and ghosts which had appeared genuinely scary at the start of the film had become mildly ridiculous, not least the main red faced demon. Wan seemed to be attempting to create the confusing, otherworldly, hallucinogenic atmosphere seen in horror classics like Phantasm, but he never really achieves it.

Insidious is a fun if forgettable film and, in spite of its faintly ridiculous ending, is undoubtedly entertaining.

Ally's Weekly Review: Insidious

2011-11-21T23:01:00.005Z

Continuing the trend of very recent films, I brought Insidious to the table, a film that none of us had seen but one we've been talking about for a while. The recent run has been a bit hit and miss (as always at horror club!) with some good (The Woman), some pretty poor (The Dead) and some what-might-have-been's (The Silent House). Insidious can probably be classified in the not-too-bad category, although it's a film of two halves…

Insidious comes from the makers of Saw and Paranormal Activity, something I didn't know until just before we started watching. I've never seen Saw because from what I've heard it sounds like the sort of horror movie that I really loathe. We did watch Paranormal Activity and that was one of the major disappointments of last season, so I was a bit worried that Insidious was going to fail to deliver after such a promising trailer.

In the first half of the film, the story of the family haunted by… something… unfolds at a steady pace. The jumps, tension and creepiness increase as we learn more about what's happening. To about the halfway point in the film this is really well achieved, in my opinion. It's exactly the type of film that scares me - paranormal/bump in the night etc - so I was hiding behind my hands a fair bit. There are some really well designed scares, which caught all of us screaming at various points. While the acting is quite poor (not quite as bad as The Dead, but still noticeably wooden) it doesn't have too much of a negative impact on what is a creepy ghost/paranormal story. It's not particularly original, many of the elements feel borrowed from other films (The Exorcist, Poltergeist, even The Haunting), but again because the scares are plentiful and because the pace of the film is good it doesn't really matter too much.

Around the halfway point we are introduced to a sort of parapsychologist who does the job of fully explaining what is happening. She, along with her assistants, start to draw up plans for sorting out the situation. It's around this time that the tension and spookiness of the film begin to noticeably sag. While it's not a disastrous change of pace, it does impact the film quite significantly, to the point where it becomes a bit comical. When the father enters the different dimension the film becomes a bit silly, and the scares completely lose their impact. There is one scene that is so stupid, I felt like I was watching Batman & Robin (never a good thing). By the time the film reaches it's climax I felt quite bored, and I think it is by this point that the poor acting begun to have an effect.

The twist at the end of the film has been criticised a fair bit from what I've subsequently read, but I didn't mind it too much. The film was limping towards the finish line and needed some spark to finish. It seemed okay to me, even if it was a little bit obvious. Or maybe my expectations from twists are so low after The Silent House? Either way, it wasn't the deal breaker in this film.

Overall, the film is quite enjoyable and has some really good scares, but it runs out of steam just after half way through and never gets it back. A solid film, but not a modern classic. Best to watch one of the films that it borrows heavily from instead.

Clarky's Weekly Review: Insidious

2011-11-21T21:40:00.001Z

From the makers of the first Saw film, which I actually enjoyed, this film has garnered a lot of praise recently. But I took this with a pinch of salt given the dearth of good horror films of late. Compared to a Fright Night / Friday the 13th / any 1980's movie that Hollywood wants to bastardise, anything new can appear to be fresh! However, because of my low expectations going in I was pleasantly surprised. That's not to say this is a masterpiece, far from it, but it is a mindless hour and half that is very enjoyable at times.

There were some really innovative jump scares here, which managed to get me to jump out my seat on more than occasion (no mean feat given how hardened I appear to have become to the horror genre after 2 and a half seasons of horror club). However, some of the acting was ropey at times, as was the dialogue, but the real issue was that the film has no heart.

The main focus of the film is the son who is apparently haunted, a nice twist, however the film zips along so quickly to start with that you are only given one scene with the young scamp before he is possessed. It is therefore very difficult to connect with the wee man or feel any sympathy towards him. The parents don't come across very well either, which may be due to their acting, which doesn't help matters. There is also a couple of characters, one of which is played by the writer Leigh Whannel, which add some (unwanted) comic relief. This seemed out of kilter with the rest of the film and I could have done without it to be honest.

The main problem however is how the film ends, a problem that we have encountered our fair share of at HC and one that is particularly prevalent in poltergeist stories. The ending was somehow laughable and a bit creepy at the same time before the totally unoriginal twist ending drags the film across the finish line (something that we have definitely seen too much off at HC). At the time I was happy enough with the ending as I was involved enough in the film and was enjoying the ride. But in hindsight I don't think I would take the ride again, and I can certainly see why some people may absolutely hate it.

All in all this was an enjoyable, if forgettable film, but I will certainly follow James Wan and Leigh Whannel's career going forward. There is a lot of promise here and if they can iron out some of the issues that I had then they seem imaginative and exciting enough to bring something masterful to the table in years to come.

Clarky's Weekly Review: The Silent House

2011-11-14T23:21:00.000Z

SPOILER ALERT!!!

An open letter to any filmmakers considering a twist ending

Don't.

That is all.

Yours sincerely

Stuart Clark

I remember when twist endings were cutting edge, it was round about November 1999 when The Sixth Sense was released and it ended sometime in 2000. Where in The Sixth Sense M Night Shyamalan pulled the rug from under our feet and left us reeling, Gustavo Hernandez leaves us reeling for other reasons here.

The Sixth Sense worked so well as it hadn't been done for a while and when the twist was revealed it went back to show us selective moments from the film that when viewed with the knowledge that Brucey is dead has a totally different perspective. This tricks the viewer into believing that this is a nuanced and effective film, even though upon further scrutiny and inspection it does not fully stack up.

The problem with The Silent House is that the twist doesn't have a chance of stacking up and instead of being original and shocking it shows a real lack of imagination and guts to follow through with what has come before. It is a shocking ending, in the wrong sense of the word for a horror film!

The whole premise of the film is that it is a "single shot" (more on that later) and is set in real time. Therefore when we are confronted with the fact that Laura has killed her father it totally contradicts what has come before. If we are with her the entire time how does she commit the murder? Why is Nestor so upset with Laura from going upstairs? Who grabs her on the back of the neck? and countless other issues? Just like Switchblade Romance last year I was left with a bad taste in my mouth at the end of this film. They were both gearing up to be some of the great HC new picks and they literally sh*t all over themselves in the last 5 minutes.

Before this however this is one of the creepiest and most effective horror films I have seen in a while. With the "single shot" technique (not actually one continuous take but filmed in real time, there is even an editor credited and the camera only shoots for 12 minutes) never allows for a break in the action and the tension continues to rise throughout to near unbearable levels.

The lighting is incredibly claustraphobic and means you are constantly scanning the background for anything lurking. Half the time your mind is playing tricks on you, which is even scarier than what is on screen. I've never seen such a "dark" film, it is oppressive and with the camera focussing on Laura we don't ever get a feeling for the layout of the house which leads to a sense of disorientation and therefore adds to the uneasiness and whilst this a basic story and premise the scares are executed so perfectly that this doesn't matter and soon you forget about the gimmick of the single shot, except for the fact that the tension never lets up. The only misstep (apart from the ending) is that when Laura escapes from the house for a couple of minutes the momentum dissipates and the tension never quite reaches the unbearable standards that the film sets in the first 45 minutes. However, given the single setting Hernandez wrings every set up for all that they are worth and provides more jump scares than almost any other film I can remember viewing at HC (which makes the ending even more disappointing).

There are a number of scares that I have been done before, but that are pulled off with aplomb here. In particular the scene with the polaroid camera is incredibly effective and the darkness allows for unnoticed cuts in the movie enabling it to seem as if it is one long continuous shot. The choreography alone is incredible in order that these long takes could be carried out, especially given how many scary ass mirrors there are in this house! You just wish that the filmmakers had followed through with the ghost story element which is much scarier than the twist ending that we are presented with.

Despite all the praise noted above I could not make anyone watch this film as the ending is so crushingly disappointing that it leaves the viewer feeling cheated. And unlike the filmmakers I refuse to dupe other viewers like this.

Ally's Weekly Review: The Silent House

2011-11-13T22:34:00.009Z

Ah the horror movie twist. So tempting for directors to add one in the hope of taking their movie to the next level, and yet an almost impossibly difficult manoeuvre to pull off. If you fail, you end up destroying all that went before it. It's a high risk/ high reward kind of game. You'd like to think that a movie twist would be discussed amongst the actors and crew, or even stopped after the rough cut is seen, in the hope that a movie isn't unnecessarily ruined. I suppose I can kind of see why the gamble is worth taking, if you know that without a twist your movie is not particularly memorable. But what if you have an excellent movie for 90% of the running time? Do you need a twist? Maybe it's just better to land the plane safely…

I thought I'd already come across the worst movie twist - and the most disappointing ending to a horror film - that I'd ever have to witness when I watched Switchblade Romance. For those who haven't seen it; for almost all the movie you are watching a brilliantly fresh take on the slasher genre… and then a twist happens that is completely nonsensical. It leaves you feeling angry and saps all of its accumulated goodwill (and good review that I had planned). I never thought I'd see a movie blow up like that again. Unfortunately, I hadn't banked on Gustavo Hernandez's inner saboteur.

Up until the 65 minute mark I was all set to place this film alongside the best (and scariest) horror films of the last decade. There have been few films that I have been more on edge watching. I can't lie, I spent the majority of the film watching it through my fingers (which meant I missed quite a few of the scares). There is some real brilliance on display in this film. It has garnered a lot of attention because it was filmed in one single take, which is a really astonishing achievement. I'm not sure how they did it, I presume an unbelievable amount of planning.

The film is superbly lit, the house is so dark and everything we see is by a horrible light that the main actress carries around. It means that you are constantly expecting to bump into some horrible thing at any moment. Everything that makes a film uneasy to watch, every technique and trick, is used here in a fresh and innovative way. For me, this was the hardest watch at horror club since The House of the Devil in the 2009/10 season. Up until the 65 minute mark I could find no real fault with this movie, and it was going to launch into my top 5 scariest movie list…

… and then came the twist. I won't spoil it for anyone who wants to see it. But just like Switchblade Romance, the twist makes no sense whatsoever and completely destroys the tension and plaudits in literally five seconds. It was amazing the difference in the three of us as this unfolded. We could have been watching big brother for all the interest that was paid after the twist was revealed. I could go on and on about how the twist doesn't make any sense whatsoever, but I'd have to care to do that. I completely lost any interest in this film after it. Maybe it's because all my anger about bad movie twists was exhausted on hating Switchblade Romance. This twist is worse: it makes even less sense and the fall from greatness is steeper. It's a real shame - you just wish someone had a quiet word in Hernandez's ear and explained to him that he had a film that was incredibly scary AND original (due to the way it was shot), and therefore it didn't need a twist of any sort.

This film is worth seeing by any budding horror directors as a cautionary tale about the dangers of being too ambitious. A good horror film doesn't need a 180 degree twist to make it memorable. If you can sustain tension, frights and wrap the film up solidly then you've got everything you need to make a great horror film. Not every twist can be Keyser Soze.

Such a waste of a good film.

Clarky's Weekly Review: The Dead

2011-11-08T18:37:00.000Z

The Dead is a film, that along with Stake Land, Fin has been raving about for over a year, and whilst the latter almost lived up to its hype, The Dead falls quite a bit shorter. At first glance the film offers an interesting premise by setting the zombie outbreak in Africa.

Horror films have often used their B-movie standings to offer us something that is often more than the sum of its parts. They often offer us an insight into our own fears but masquarade as something entirely different (Them, and its atomic ants, was an allegory for the fears of the US public of atomic war and communism, Frankenstein's sub text revolves around individuality and modern science, Dracula concerns itself with sexuality and national identity and King Kong is a parable on the great depression). Given the current socio-economic climate, the rising debt of Third World countries, the civil conflicts past and present throughout Africa and the rise of AIDS, this was a film that was ripe for allegory and a social subtext (which is not uncommon for zombie films when you look at Romero's back catalogue).

However, there is one mention of the soldiers, in this unnamed country, having a new fight on their hands and that is about all the political subtext that we are provided with. This a film that focuses purely on being a B-movie horror, and whilst there are some tense moments, it is somewhat lacking in this department as well and I can't help but feel that this was a wasted opportunity. There appears to be no real reason that this film is set in Africa apart from it being slightly more isolated.

There are some nice touches here. Some of the gore is quite impressive for the low budget and the look of the zombies is suitably unsettling, but the acting really holds this film back. Rob Freeman at Lt Brian Murphy is quite simply an awful actor and it makes the film trying to watch at times. Added to this we have a stilted script and some scenes that are totally pointless - the scene where he takes a baby off a bitten mother could have been very interesting. Instead The Dead skips over the moral dilemma and then has him pass over the child in the next scene himself. This should have been on the cutting room floor as it is totally pointless. By keeping this scene in then they should have at least shown the hardship of having to look after a baby during a zombie apocalypse. Instead the filmmakers seem to decide that introducing this new strand in the story was a mistake and dismiss it straight away.

In the final scenes we are also witness to one of he greatest coincidences in cinema as Lt Brian Murphy phones the military base. It is a scene that is laugh out loud ridiculous with some terrible scripting and even worse delivery. Unfortunately there is then a cheesy denouement to the film which seems somewhat out of place with the rest of the proceedings.

There is enough here to keep the horror fanatic interested and amused, but the casual viewer is most likely to find this a tiresome film.

Fin's Weekly Review: The Dead

2011-11-08T09:08:00.002Z

Following Ally only a week after he brought the fantastic The Woman to the table was always going to be difficult. I continued with the contemporary theme picking a film that seems like it has been in production for years and has finally achieved a tiny cinema run and a DVD release. The Dead was made over two years ago and it has taken that long to find a distributor and be released. In that time the Ford brothers have been able to build a slow but growing buzz about the film. Much of this hype has been based on the few reviews of those who managed to see the film at The Toronto Horror Festival and a short trailer on the films website. The very small number of reviews were extremely positive and the trailer showed a film that looked like it may be fresh enough to inject some much needed energy into the zombie genre. Both the setting and story were intriguing and as fan of old school zombie films it was nice to see some shuffling, stumbling, slow zombies. As a result I was very excited about seeing this film. Sadly though it was a film that largely left me cold I did not think it was a terrible one just one in which if you stripped away the initial excitement about the setting was very average indeed and one which had lfew fresh ideas to offer.

I don't think this is awful film and although it is like it zombies fairly slow moving it managed to hold my attention. The star of the show is definitely the setting this film must be up there as one of the most beautiful zombie films ever made. Wither it is a deserted tropical beach or the vast dry landscapes of the desert, or the blazing sun beating down on a remote African village this film definitely has a unique and powerful setting. For a while this setting draws you in the first zombie attacks on an isolated African village are genuinely startling. The first time the plane crash survivors are attacked on the African beach is also very effective. However as time goes on and the novelty of the setting wears off it becomes clear that there really isn't much else going on. The story and acting is ultimately so flimsy that the setting cannot rescue The Dead from mediocrity. The Ford Brothers are both primarily commercial directors and in this film they struggle to make the leap to film director. While they are good at making the action on screen look nice they do not seem to know how to link this into an effective story arch. It sometimes feels like you are watching a collection of separate scenes rather than a coherent film. The bitty nature of the film was a real shame as there were a few scenes when taken on their own which were excellent. A scene where the two main characters have crashed their decrepit old car and the lights have gone out is particularly creepy as are number of other scenes. But ultimately a collection of very good scenes drowns in the larger mediocrity of the film as a whole.

The Zombies in The Dead are a real strength scary, sad, otherworldly they really work. It was genuinely refreshing to see zombies who walk and crawl towards their potential victims. I loved the way in which these zombies began to meld into the background of the African vistas seeming to become a natural part of the landscape. However much like the setting the undoubted quality of the zombies could not save the film from an almost nonexistent story and a poor central performance. Admittedly this was a low budget film but surely the Ford brothers could have cast a better actor than Rob Freeman in the central role. I had never seen this actor before and I now know why, he is the definition of a charisma vacuum. He performs every line of dialogue in the exact same way regardless of the context and crucially in this type of film it is very hard to feel anything for him as it is impossible not to see him as a ham actor. Although Freeman is poor it is a very underwritten part and other than appealing to a western audience I did not see why he was in the film. He was perhaps the token white man put there because the directors felt they could not simply have told an African tale. The African characters and in particular Sgt Daniel Dembele are much more interesting than Freeman's Lt Brian Murphy. Dembele played excellently by African actor Prince Oseia is a really strong creation. He has a reality about him that Freeman never achieves he is also hard as nails. I would have much rather seen a film which focused on his story and struggles rather than Lt Murphy's. David Dontoh is an other African actor who performs admirably in his role as a philosophical village priest trying to protect his village from the undead horde. However just when his and his villages story is becoming compelling we are wrenched back out to follow Freeman's pointless journey.

The Dead is so disappointing not because it is awful but because it is such a wasted opportunity. There are so many ingredients in this film that hint at what could have been achieved. The African setting is compelling and could really have offered something new to the zombie legacy. The setting also gave the directors such a great opportunity to use the genre to discuss the range of issues effecting this troubled part of the world. However this does not happen and once the impact of the setting wears off we are left with a film that is empty of any new ideas or even a semblance of a compelling story. And it is the story that is the second major disappointment. It is sad that the Ford brothers did not have the courage of their convictions to focus exclusively on the African characters and their journeys. Both Sgt Dembele and the chief are strong, believable characters and perhaps most importantly characters the audience care about what happens to them. It is a sad indictment of western cinema that the directors feel they have to shoe-horn in a white American as the main character a character who proves to be the least interesting aspect of this film. The Dead is a film that offered so much and in the end delivers very little, what a shame and what a missed opportunity.

Fin's Weekly Review: The Woman

2011-11-02T13:32:00.001Z

Last Thursday, Horror Club guest Ryan from Those Movie Guys chose Night Of The Living Dead as his inaugural choice. In my review for that undoubted classic, I bemoaned the lack of ambition and purpose exhibited in most modern horror and dreamed of a film of the stature and game-changing quality of Romero's 1968 opus being released today. It was therefore a big week for Ally coming on the back of Night Of The Living Dead and it was particularly interesting that Ally chose the recently released 'The Woman' as his choice. Only a week after my Night Of The Living Dead review, would I get the chance to further enforce my negative take on the majority of modern horror, or would The Woman, like Let The Right One In and House Of the Devil, be that rare modern horror of real craft and quality which can take its place alongside the greats of the 70s and 80s?

Well, my only disappointment after watching this film was that it had not received more hype. I was absolutely blown away by it. When you become so inured to the usual bland Hollywood fare on offer at the multiplex, you forget that film can still be a powerful and unique artistic form. It is funny that it takes a film as fresh and cutting-edge as The Woman to remind you that there is life in the old art form yet. Director Lucky McKee crafts a ferocious, angry and challenging film, but also one which manages to marry this with enjoyment. Particularly rare among modern horror, and with parallels to last week's film, Lucky McKee actually has something to say in this film.

The Woman is fundamentally a twisted family drama in which we see the final acts of a family imploding. The story introduces use to family man and popular small town lawyer Christopher Cleek. Christopher is a throw-back to the 50s idea of fatherhood, appearing to love his family but running his house with a military precision and discipline. His family, particularly the women in it, have been trained well to respect his authority. While out hunting Christopher discovers a wild, feral woman subsisting in the woods near his country home. Chris views this woman as a project and perhaps a bizarre way to unite his family. With the aid of his oppressed and cowed family, he takes it upon himself to 'civilise' this woman.

From the opening credits I found this film remarkable. The story, the way the film is shot, the quality of the acting and the unique soundtrack work together to create a bizarre, unsettling, hypnotic experience. There are not many horror films that I would be happy to watch more than once but The Woman is one that I would return to more than happily, if only to pick up on everything that is happening on screen. From the beginning of the film, the director manages to create a real atmosphere of dread in scenes where nothing out of the ordinary is happening.

In the opening scene, with the Cleek family attending a barbecue, Lucky McKee squeezes tension from nothing - a real skill for a horror director. McKee is absolutely fantastic at using silences to create suspense and to hint at horrors unsaid. The New York Times compared Mckee's use of silence in this film to the work of David Cronenberg and Roman Polanski - high praise indeed. Throughout the film McKee shows genuinely fresh vision in how he shoots, perhaps most notably in his use of cut shots. The scene in which The Woman is washed down with a power shower is both excruciating to watch and emotionally powerful due to the masterful use of cuts shots. Throughout the film McKee uses interesting angles and techniques in places that would not even occur to lesser directors.

Some reviewers have criticised The Woman for its use of violence, and while it would be silly to say that this film is not violent, this violence is never gratuitous. I'm very critical of films that use violence simply because they have no fresh ideas or indeed any story to work with (Eli Roth, anyone?). However McKee's use of violence is well judged and a vital part of the story and in fact much of the actual violence is off screen or just glimpsed through masterful cut shots. A prime example of this is when Chris's horrific progeny Brian, who he has trained and shaped in his own image, decides to torment the feral woman. We do not actually see any of the violence but the horror is magnified both by the cut shots and by the sound. The sound in The Woman also deserves great praise. It is employed magnificently to further emphasise the horror on screen.

The story itself is excellent. It is lean, simple and powerful. From the start McKee allows the story to develop in a well-paced, quiet and natural fashion. From the initial unease felt by the viewer at the family barbecue McKee begins to feed the viewer just enough information to increasingly build a picture of the true extent of the horror this family represents. However he does this in a way in which we are kept guessing - we get a sense of something terrible going on outwith the action on screen, but often we are not sure what it is, increasing the dread.

As a result, when certain aspects of the family that we have just guessed at before are fully revealed they are genuinely shocking. As with any horror film worthy of its place in the genre, there are shocks and violence but cleverly McKee does not dwell on these in graphic detail. Indeed these shocking acts are carried out in an everyday, almost mundane fashion, indicating the real depravity at the heart of this family. Much of the real terror of this film is derived from the effect Chris Cleek has on his family. Rather than being shown actual acts being carried out by Chris, we witness the effect his physical presence has on his terrified wife and daughter and his increasingly sinister son.

As with any film, the success of any story relies heavily on the quality of the acting. Thankfully the acting in The Woman is universally excellent. The two fundamental roles in this film are Chris Cleek and the eponymous woman, both of which are performed brilliantly. Sean Bridges' performance as Chris is absolutely stunning and I'm confident that if this was not a horror film he would be receiving wider praise. He plays Chris in a bizarre mix of charm and threat, madness and cool, detached confidence in his own goodness. Pollyana Macintosh is equally good in her role as the wild, feral woman. In a role with almost no speech, she still manages to command the screen with a ferocious, brave and in a strange way moving performance. The rest of the cast ably support the two main players, realistically portraying the effects this man has had on his family.

A final mention must go to the soundtrack. The soundtrack written by Sean Spillane is a notable feature of this film - it seems strangely out of place, hinting at more everyday dramas. Spillane's soundtrack, while better quality, is weirdly reminiscent of the american alt-rock that plays constantly over US teen dramas like the OC. This strange juxtaposition adds a further unsettling element to this masterful film.

At the start of this review I mention Night Of the Living Dead, a true game changer. While I'm not arguing that The Woman is as groundbreaking as Romero's work - I doubt any modern film could be - I do think this film will go on to be recognised as an important film of this era in horror. The Woman is a challenging film, both in how it approaches the conventions of horror and how it challenges issues within society.

In terms of horror conventions, it completely twist expectations. Most horror is built upon the assumption that the horror comes from without and is a threat to the safe, familiar or societal norms of the time. In other words, the unknown threatens the known. In The Woman the exact opposite happens. The unknown, the wild and the apparently threatening is simply a means to highlight the horror of everyday life. The unknown is not something to be feared in this film - the terror comes from the threat of corrupted power and the horror of the everyday.The Woman can even be argued to challenge the very notion of civilization itself.

People more intelligent than I have discussed the societal implications of this film, but a review of The Woman would not be complete without mentioning this side to it. The Woman is undoubtedly a feminist horror film. At a simple level, the woman suffers a range of abuse at the hands of men, both physically and sexually, but also emotionally. However to say that this film is anti-men is too simplistic and indeed is the same critique people have always labelled at anything feminist. Instead, this film does what all great horror does - it holds a mirror up to society and by the use of horror techniques and exaggeration, the flaws of our own reality are all the more clear.

When this film was shown at the Sundance Film Festival a number of reviewers walked out, claiming it was too horrific. I believe that these claims are disingenuous. People struggle with this film not because the violence and emotional abuse are not too horrific, but becayse they are too familiar. What this film does, through the lens of horror, is highlight the myriad ways in which women suffer in a patriarchal system where power and control are the fundamentals of our society.

The Woman is a must see and has, in the space of 101 minutes, become one of my favourite horror films.

Clarky's Weekly Review: The Woman

2011-11-01T19:23:00.000Z

When Al informed us on Thursday afternoon that his choice for the evening may be a controversial one, I feared the worst. After last years Inside, a film from the current extreme French wave which involved an incredible amount of gore, I couldn't imagine what sort of deviant choice he had lined up for us. Things didn't get any better when I saw the DVD cover:

Directed by Lucky McKee (who I thought was a woman giving what I knew about the film and its supposed feminist agenda) The Woman was only released on 30 September 2011 into cinemas and is a sequel to the 2009 film Offspring. Whilst, I haven't seen Offspring, I believe that The Woman follows on directly from the end of that film as The Woman in question, portrayed by Scottish born actress Pollyanna McIntosh, is severely wounded and the last surviving member of a feral clan of cannibals. I initially thought that she was going to provide the majority of the "horror", however it is something much more normal, and terrifying, that provides the scares here.

The film opens with a stunning opening shot of The Woman crawling into a tunnel. The lighting is impeccable as we can only see the whites of her eyes. Make no mistake about it, this woman is an animal. They say the eyes are the doorway to the soul, and this scene epitomises this more than any other that I can remember.

I thought at this point that she had killed a wolf in this tunnel. The following dreamlike sequence shows a wolf with a baby. I had assumed at the time that this was meant to symbolise something (way over my head) and completely forgot about it until I started to write this review. In hindsight, whilst there is an element of symbolism, I think that this may have a more literal meaning given the ending of the film (more of which later - do not read on if you wish to avoid the dreaded SPOILERS).

The film then cuts to a family BBQ and we see the main antagonist of the piece - Chris Cleek, the father of the family and the dominant figurehead. I initially thought that he was eyeing up a younger lady in front of his wife, yet this turns out to be his eldest daughter. This leads to a strange dynamic throughout the rest of the film, which hints at incest, yet never makes it absolutely clear.

Even in this initial scene, we get a sense of Chris Cleek's dominance over his wife. Although he never says anything that horrendous to her, he never makes eye contact with her, and talks to her as if she is a servant and a lower being than him. He also flicks the switch and becomes, relatively, charming when talking to a widower. Yet you get the underlying suspicion that whilst he pretends to care, he is going to take this woman for all she is worth and exploit her.

We then cut to a scene where we watch a boy (Chris' son) watch a little girl being bullied. His face shows no compassion as he witnesses this act. The camera shows you the scene from his point of view making you implicit in his (non) actions and giving you a taste of what is to come. Again, this scene has a sense of foreboding that is present throughout the film.

The acting is universally excellent throughout this film. The Woman herself could easily be a role which invites derision, yet Pollyanna McIntosh, unrecognisable under some fantastic make-up and prosthetics, brings a real heart to this character and skilfully evokes her mood and feelings, all without uttering a single word. The children are excellent too, with the youngest daughter showing herself to be incredibly naturalistic in front of the camera. The stand out however is Sean Bridgers as Chris Cleek. This is an incredible performance from Bridgers who is unrecognisable from his turn as Johnny the doofus in Deadwood. He exudes menace in every scene and is utterly terrifying.

Due to many of his actions, and those of his son, throughout the film the film has been branded misogynistic by some critics. His wife is downtrodden and trapped in her marriage, and is subject to physical and mental abuse. The physical abuse is particularly shocking, as it comes from nowhere. Whilst the mental abuse underlies every comment and conversation - most of which involve him barking orders at her and getting her to wait on him hand and foot.

His eldest daughter clearly lives in fear of him, and may or may not have been raped by her father. Whilst she is clearly uncomfortable around him this could be simply due to the fact that she is pregnant. Her father is clearly overbearing, in the first scene at the BBQ he orders his wife to stop his youngest from playing with the boys and trying to hug and kiss them. She may just be fearful of him, or she may have been violated by him. It is never fully clear. (please note this is not a criticism!). It is noted at the beginning that she was seeing the boy at the party and she is very distant when talking to him. Is this due to the fact that he is the father.

(It's interesting to note that the "boyfriend" is one of only two male characters outside the Cleek Clan. He is shown to be extremely petulant when Peg declines his advances. The other male character, if you can call him that, is the groundskeeper at the school who appears to be portrayed as a dirty old pervert. Its fair to say that the male characters in this film are given pretty short shrift and are not likeable in the slightest).

The teacher, who it is intimated is a lesbian, is a very rough and ignorant character, and her actions at times are unbelievable. Acting outside jurisdiction its tempting to say that in "horror terms" she gets what she deserves. This is meant to be a successful, independant young woman, and yet Lucky McKee kills off about the only strong female in the film.

The "strongest" female character is of course The Woman herself. She is a real threat to Chris and has to be bound and chained in order to be under Chris' control (much like the other woman in Chris' life who he controls through mental and physical abuse). Yet at the same time she is actually captured by Chris thereby suggesting that she is the weaker sex, and by being captured she is at his mercy. When she does have a chance to escape (during the rape scene) she decides not to.

Earlier in the film we see Chris come towards her and she bites off his finger. Yet when he is close enough to have sex with her (after lighting a candle adding extra creepiness to the scene as he clearly has convinced himself that locking her up is for her own good and this is in some way romantic) she decides just to take it rather than fight back. Given she is a feral, cannibal why not bite through his jugular, rather than decide to relinquish all hope and accept this abuse forever. The only thing I can think off is that she is hoping to return to her baby, as witnessed in the opening scene, yet it is likely that the baby won't have survived this long (if it is even real).

The other minor female character is a PA to Chris Cleek who seems to be under his spell, and seems to be flirting with him. Again, this is not a very strong female character. Maybe this is Lucky McKee trying to reflect what he see's in society.

There is no doubt that these characters are treated in a misogynistic manner, however, the film itself appears to be phylogynist, as there are no redeeming male characters in the entire film. The entire male species are deemed to be bullying idiots, with no compassion for woman. In this sense, the film is quite two dimensional, although the characters themselves are not, and black and white. There are not many shades of grey here, and at times it feels quite simplistic.

Yet, without wanting to contradict myself, the more I thought about this film, the more misogynistic I thought some of the characters were. Firstly, it is conceivable that the mother could be considered the greatest villain of the piece. Not only does she have the chance to hit her husband over the head and free The Woman, but she also doesn't have to stay with her husband.

This is clearly not a good environment for her children to be brought up in, and you could say has resulted in her son evolving into the man he does (on another note this also opens up the question of nature versus nurture - which also plays a role in the story of The Woman herself and the post end credits I think). Lucky McKee seems to agree that she is in fact a bad guy by having her killed at the end as retribution, along with the father and son thereby lumping her in the same category as them.

The only two that survive are the eldest sister, and this may only because she is pregnant and therefore is carrying an innocent life, and the youngest daughter who is still innocent herself. However, the woman seems to decide to take the daughter, possibly to replace the child that she has lost from the beginning of the film.

It is after the denouement, and the credits, that we are "treated" to an animated sequence with the youngest daughter who seems to be in awe of a tree person. Is this The Woman, is it an metaphor for Mother Nature. Or does it refer to nature versus nurture again. The Woman is clearly a feral woman yet she appears to have higher moral standards than the Cleeks and is clearly in touch with her surroundings possessing a sixth sense at times - she knows that Peg is pregnant. Who knows what the post end credits was meant to signify, it felt so pretentious and out of place that I still don't know what to make of it.

This almost seems to tie in with the fact that the desire to be successful also appears to be frowned upon (Chris is a successful business man whilst his son has an almost robotic approach to practicing his basketball free shots, under his fathers tutelage of course). However, it is only the men that have this drive with the woman shown as secondary / lessor characters - the housewife, the assistant etc. With the exception of the schoolteacher, however, as noted earlier this is then contradicted by showing her to be naive and is killed off.

Maybe this is what Lucky McKee was aiming for, to have the viewer constantly questioning their beliefs and their interpretation, but to me it just comes across as if the film is muddled and doesn't know entirely what it wants to say. That, or the characters are just not up to scratch to stand up to further scrutiny.

The other issues that I had were in relation to some possible plot holes, some of which bothered me more than others. I'm sure Fin and Al are saying that I am nitpicking, but when a film like this asks you to review it and scrutinise it then everything should stack up.

Firstly, the "dog" at the end seemed a bit far fetched and seemed to be just a cheap jump scare in hindisght. If this is the second person that Chris has captured then the issues that the family had with capturing The Woman seem somewhat diluted and therefore lack the same impact (especially on repeat viewing). This quite simply wasn't required and seemed out of kilter with the rest of the film for the sake of a twist / boo scare.

Secondly, I noted at the time how they got The Woman upstairs to wash her, and have seen numerous other comments online regarding this. This didn't bother me too much to be honest, given Chris' nature I just assumed that he knocked her out and brought her upstairs when she was unconscious before tying her to the barrel.

Finally, why does Peg lie about finding her brother touching The Woman and himself. Surely the fact that he took pliers to her is the most worrying thing about that scene. There is no need to lie, and it just raised more queries in my mind.

Although, I seem to have been quite negative there is a lot to recommend here. The soundtrack is a trippy experience, where at times the music seems totally alien to what is being portrayed on screen, resulting in everything feeling out of kilter, in a good way. There are also times where no music is employed and the sound design does everything for you - the ringing after the shot is fired (which also serves to put you in the point of view of The Woman increasing your sympathy for her) or the constant barking of the dogs which shreds your nerves and is constantly unsettling.

The editing is also particularly good, specifically the scene where the son tortures The Woman with the pliers. You don't actually see the pliers contacting with her which, again, serves to put you in The Woman's shoes and also lets your imagination run wild. No matter what is on screen, the idea in your head of what he is doing to her with the pliers is always going to be more terrifying, and therefore have more impact.

In conclusion, the message is a bit mixed from Lucky McKee in my mind, and a bit heavy handed at times. There are also certain things that don't hold up well on further inspection, which a film like this demands from its viewer. However, there is no doubt that this an attention grabbing piece of cinema, and is unlike anything I have ever seen. It may not be perfectly executed, but it leaves you questioning a lot of issues and if nothing else demands credit for that.

Fin's Weekly Review: Night Of The Living Dead

2011-10-27T17:59:00.000+01:00

What more can you say about Night Of The Living Dead that hasn't already been said. It is quite simple one of the best horror films ever made. George Romero's 1968 classic can rightfully take its place alongside The Exorcist, Carrie, and Halloween as one of the few truly great films to come out of the horror genre. It is hard to do justice to how good this film actually is, it is phenomenal. In the space of 96 minutes Romero presents a blistering vision which single-handedly changed not only the horror genre but popular culture. Night of The Living Dead is for my money the greatest debut picture ever made. Unlike many classics that have had their ideas so widely copied in the preceding years Night Of The Living Dead remains as fresh and enjoyable today as it did 43 years ago. Night Of The Living Dead changed the face of horror four decades ago and all horror directors since 1968 have worked in its shadow.

Part of what makes watching this film so entertaining now aside from its excellence is seeing how many well worn horror conventions were invented by George Romero in this one film. Most obviously the concept of the shambling, mindless, flesh eating zombie was born in this picture. Previous to Night Of The Living Dead Zombies were based in the Voodoo mythology of using black magic to gain mind control over a unwitting victim and create a living slave. It was Romero that created the classic Zombie that has come to dominate not only horror but popular culture. Romero's zombies are so terrifying because they are us or friends our families and our neighbours. Romero created a horror creature that has become as iconic as the werewolf and vampire. It is a strange to think that our modern conception of zombies have only been stumbling and mumbling across our nightmares for 43 years it feels like they have been there forever. The simple story of a group of strangers forced by circumstance to cooperate in the face of a new unprecedented nightmare. The isolated and lonely farmhouse surrounded by unfeeling, sinister forces. The slowly unfolding catastrophe being relayed to the survivors and the audience through a series of increasingly hysterical news broadcasts. It is a tribute to the genius of Romero and this film that all zombies stories since have in their own way copied this basic template it is as if Night Of The Living Dead in one step invented and defined the genre to such an extent that future directors could not escape its shadow.

It is not simply the completely unique nature of Romero's zombies or the story he creates which is worthy of note but also how he presents this story in itself was game changing. Night of The Living Dead was so subversive of the ruling horror conventions of the day that by the end of the 96 minutes any horror film released before would appear staid, safe and irrelevant. Romero establishes this breaking with convention in the first 5 minutes of the film when a young brother and sister visiting their fathers grave are attacked in broad daylight. Two completely unique things happen here first the brother is killed the conventional male 'hero' who would usually go on to save the day is dead. Secondly the attack and horror came straight out of the blue in daylight! The traditionally idea that horror would happen only in night scenes been blown away. In the new world of horror films the terror could come at any time and in any place. There is no dramatic music or lighting or effects the horror just happens giving a unsettling glimpse into the realism with which the story will unfold. This realism is another major reason for the success of this film. Romero rejects the glossy techno-colour of 60s Hollywood and instead uses grainy black and white. the camera stays close to the action alongside the characters giving the viewer the impression of being in the house allowing use to relate to the characters as a fellow survivor. The black and white film and camera work give Night Of The Living Dead a bleak and chilling urgency absent from most horror films of the era.

George Romero's 1968 opus is a genuine masterpiece and one which any fan of film should see. In 1968 George Romero forced the horror genre to grow up. The horror conventions which audiences had become used to since the 30s and which had allowed them to feel safe were blown away in less than two hours. The modern horror film was born where no one was safe and the horror could come at any time without warning. Night Of the Dead gave birth to a concept that would be continued in films like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and The Exorcist the idea that horror films could actually be dangerous and the terror these films created was real. It is perhaps ironic that this idea of real fear and danger has calcified into a new set of horror conventions where all that matters is increasing violence and gore and one in which story takes a back seat and as a result any genuine fear has disappeared from much modern horror. At no time in the last 43 years has the horror genre been crying out for a new Romero and a film with the impact and vision of Night Of The Living Dead.

Clarky's Weekly Review: Night of the Living Dead

2011-10-18T23:00:00.000+01:00

Choosing a film for horror club is always a daunting task, even for a seasoned regular like myself. So when I offered Ryan my choice last week I was nervous for him! Thankfully my fears were unfounded and Ryan brought an out and out horror classic to a table - Night of the Living Dead.

I'm not entirely sure why this film hasn't been brought to horror club before, I can only think that Fin and Ally were saving it for a rainy day when they had no other choices. Even more mind boggling is the fact that, like Ryan, I had never seen Night of the Living Dead until last Thursday. I was therefore feeling a different kind of pressure- what if I didn't like it? Would I be ousted from horror club by Ally and Fin?

The previous Romero efforts that we have screened at horror club had both left me cold initially and whilst I warmed to Martin during the process of reviewing it, The Crazies got worse on reflection. Therefore I genuinely had no idea what to expect as both these films are highly regarded by Romero die hards.

The set up is brisk and efficient and although I, as a modern cinema goer, knew what was happening, its worth remembering that the idea of the dead returning to life was totally foreign in 1968. Romero literally is the father of the modern zombie movie as before this zombies were like those in White Zombie where the "zombies" were alive but under the curse of a voodoo / witch doctor. To this end we get a lot of exposition from the news reports, which may seem over the top nowadays, but at the time was required to bring the audience up to speed.

I can't imagine what it must have been like watching this in 1968, especially as ratings did not exist at that time so little kids were freely admitted to the cinema, but audience members must have felt like they were freefalling and the new exposition must have helped to give them there bearings. Even then however there are some genuinely shocking moments and at least 3 jumps (1 of which was particularly scary).

Romero's use of sound and editing really adds to the proceedings and along with the cinematography, direction and special effects (especially the shots of the zombies feeding and the hand being slashed to pieces which are genuinely unnerving) help to detract from the, at times, slightly dodgy acting. The black and white also helps and helps to put you in the mindframe of a 1960's audience member, even if it cannot be fully comprehended.

With regards to the storyline itself, there are many different theories as to what Romero's intentions were with Night of the Living Dead, especially in relation to the racial tensions in America at the time. However, Romero himself has stated that Duane Jones was simply the best actor of everyone involved and therefore got the lead role as he had the most to do. However, there are also anecdotes that Romero re wrote a number of scenes once Jones got the role, and there is supposedly a cut "lynch mob hanging" scene where the zombies are hung from trees. Whether this is something that has been embilished over time as the impact of the film has grown is one thing, but the fact remains that after viewing it is difficult not to think about these issues, or to read up on the movie. It draws you in from the start and demands your attention thereafter, and even just having a black hero in a cast full of white actors was groundbreaking and potentially controversial at the time no matter what stories are true.

Due to studios refusing to distribute the film there are apparently as many as 23 different versions of the film out there due to the different scenes that were cut and due to the fact that the studio filled in the copyright under Night of the Flesh Eaters (the working title) and therefore the original film is in the public domain. I'm not sure entirely which version we saw, but I will certainly be looking out the longest version available just so I can get as much zombie action as I can!

Whatever mistakes the studio made they thankfully agreed to leave Romero's original ending on, which is nothing short of stunning. It was at once shocking, and at the same time satisfying that he didn't pander to the studios demands and the bleakness that has dominated the previous 90 minutes follows through right to the end.

A stunning debut that I thoroughly enjoyed. Roll on Dawn and Day!

Ryan's Guest Review: Night of the Living Dead

2011-10-18T22:08:00.004+01:00

Being given the honour of a guest spot at the Edinburgh Horror Club several weeks ago was an exciting and daunting prospect – one that I enjoyed immensely. Horror is a bit of a weak spot in my movie armoury – it’s only recently I’ve been turned on to its importance as a breeding ground for up and coming directors, as well as a genre that is loved by many enthusiastic fans.

So when I was asked to take on a guest curator role and bring a film of my choice to the table, I knew how high the stakes were – whilst there have been guests before, no one has been given this responsibility outside our three intrepid horror experts. I had to make a solid debut; otherwise an opportunity like this may never appear again.

So I went for the jugular and a bonafide horror classic that Clarky and I had discussed on our Those Movie Guys podcast - the original Night of the Living Dead by the zombie godfather himself, George A Romero. It was a bit of a gamble as I’d never seen it before – I chose it on its amazing reputation and my genuine interest in watching a piece of cinema history. It was a gamble that paid off handsomely.

It’s a common occurrence for a film to be labelled a classic, only to disappoint when you finally get round to seeing it. In some cases, the passing of time can be a film’s worst enemy, as concepts and effects that seemed forward-thinking at the time fail to age well.

Well, I’m absolutely delighted to say that this is not the case for Night of the Living Dead. The film absolutely lives up to its reputation and is just as effective now as I can imagine it was when it was first released 43 years ago. There’s a reason it’s been selected for preservation in the National Film Registry in America – it really IS that good.

It’s regarded as the movie that spawned the zombie sub-culture we know and love today and from watching it, you can see why. Until this film came out, zombies were often people who had an infection or were possessed. NOTLD grasps one of the creepiest concepts in horror and does it in an iconic way – the walking dead. The way Romero presents the creatures has been aped thousands of times over – the slow-moving lurch, the eating of human flesh, the unkempt appearances – all elements of the zombie film that viewers now take for granted.

Much has been said about the themes in this film. Some have cited it as an allegory for the carnage and loss of life in the Vietnam War. Others have said the struggle of the black main character, Ben, is a metaphor for the black rights movement at that time. These are all important points that show just how well the film was received and how seriously it was taken – you don’t make assertions like that on a throwaway movie.

The crucial point – in my eyes - is that this is a phenomenal piece of horror film-making that still delivers on the raison d’etre of a horror film – the creep factor. The zombies are some of the most unsettling creatures I’ve ever seen on screen. I think the black and white filming only adds to the atmosphere. At one point I nearly jumped out my seat when the first zombie arm broke through the boarded up window of the house our characters are holed up in. When they make the run from the house to try and reach a nearby truck, I was genuinely on edge as they burst into the open among the army of undead outside. These are all situations that we’ve seen before in horror films, but very rarely have they been done so well. I can only imagine what it would’ve been like watching this in the late sixties when nothing like this had been done before. Initially, they even let kids in to see it. There’s a fantastic quote from reviewer Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times that brilliantly sums up how ridiculous that move was:

“The kids in the audience were stunned. There was almost complete silence. The movie had stopped being delightfully scary about halfway through, and had become unexpectedly terrifying. There was a little girl across the aisle from me, maybe nine years old, who was sitting very still in her seat and crying.”

The cast do a great job, despite their relative inexperience. Whilst some of the acting is hammy or a touch OTT (Keith Wayne as Tom and Judith O’Dea as Barbra, I’m looking at both of you), there is never any doubt over their fear and confusion. Duane Jones in the lead role of Ben is excellent. Many social commentators called the casting of a black man in a lead role with an all-white cast a really significant moment. Romero said it was simply down to the fact Jones gave the best audition. Either way, Jones stands out as a calm, resourceful character amongst all the madness. He went on to star in a number of horror films, but was supposedly worried about being typecast as Ben. Given how highly regarded NOTLD is after all these years, I reckon he’d be more than delighted to be associated with role, were he still alive today.

It is – however - Romero’s vision and direction that really make the film work. Filmed on a budget $114,000, he squeezes the full worth from every penny. He turns a simple farm building into a house of horrors through clever angles and shots. He wasn’t afraid to push the boundaries of taste – the flesh-eating scenes and the transformation of a young girl into a zombie who attacks her parents were both seen as shocking at the time. The props and effects were fairly limited, but you wouldn’t know it – apparently the dripping blood was actually chocolate sauce and chunks of ham were used for severed limbs and flesh! I also really enjoyed how he used the radio and TV stations to give the feeling of the zombie invasion being much wider than just a small part of rural Pennsylvania – a simple but effective trick, even though some of the newscasters’ scripts are bordering on the cringe worthy!

What I loved most about the film was the fact Romero has the courage of his convictions to see the shocking story line right through to the finish, where he eschews the happy Hollywood ending from something far more sobering. I will not give it away, but the film is all the better for it.

This is not just a zombie classic. This is not just a horror classic. This is a classic. It’s a film that spawned many imitators but very few of them can stand up to the original. I don’t gush about horror films very often but more than four decades on, this one is still worthy of all the praise. I can’t recommend this film highly enough. If you want zombie scares, don’t go for the cheap imitations. Get it from the source.

Ally's Weekly Review: Night of the Living Dead

2011-10-17T23:11:00.008+01:00

For the first time ever a selection was made at Horror Club from someone other than myself, Clarky or Fin. We'd welcomed radio personality Ryan Gilbert (best known for his velvet tones reading the news on Radio Forth, and of course Those Movie Guys) to our Thursday night ritual before when we watched Fright Night, but this time the choice was all his. The pressure was increased as it was actually the 60th choice at Horror Club. Fortunately he couldn't have picked a better film as a debut choice. Night of the Living Dead is a stone cold classic.

It was a great choice because I've been feeling a little bad that the only two George Romero films we've watched so far were both films that I really didn't like (The Crazies, Martin). I really wanted to review one of his better films, because the man is a legend for good reason. I find with a lot of classic horror films, the ones that break new ground - or even create a new sub-genre altogether - have a tendency to feel a little tired/slow when you watch them decades later. Although you can admire their originality and significance, you sometimes feel that you want to watch the imitators. However, despite the wave of films that Night of the Living Dead directly influenced (or was just flat out copied by), it still feels as essential today as it did in 1968. Although I can't even imagine what it would have been like to have watched this when it first came out, because it really blazed a trail like few horror movies ever have.

Despite now being well over forty years old, the film still has the power to shock and scare a modern film viewer. Even though I've seen it before, I still found myself tensing up at points and jumping at some unexpected set pieces. The gore and griminess on display must have been completely shocking to a Sixties audience, and there are still points in the film that made me squirm a bit. Even though the story is so familiar to a 21st Century audience, it still feels remarkably fresh. The film beautifully builds the tension at a slow but steady pace, as the house is besieged by more and more zombies. Our understanding of the events increases through news bulletins (a trick that has been copied many times, but never bettered).

While the acting is pretty poor (save for the lead role, played very well by Duane Jones) it doesn't really seem to be to the detriment of the film, perhaps even enhancing the enjoyment factor in some way (there is definitely some unintentional comedy value to be found through the acting of Keith Wayne!)

Other than some of the acting performances, there is nothing here that I can fault. Romero would go on to make two other bona fide classics of the zombie genre before he started to tire out the format he revolutionised. While I have knocked Romero for some of his later films, and indeed some his 'classics' that I can't help but feel are overrated, I have to give him his due; he is a true innovator who forever changed the genre of horror. Even if Romero had made nothing but films of the standard of Diary of the Dead after this one, he'd still be on the Mount Rushmore of horror. It's just a brilliant piece of film making.

For me, there are just a handful of films that are absolutely essential for any self respecting horror fan to see, Night of the Living Dead is one of them.

Ally's Cinema Review: Don't be Afraid of the Dark

2011-10-16T22:08:00.004+01:00

We all went to the cinema last week to watch this because myself and Fin were invited to be guest reviewers on the wonderful Those Movie Guys weekly podcast. When I was told this was going to be the film we reviewed I was pretty disappointed, and after watching the trailer my expectations were incredibly low. Other than Kate Winslet, Katie Holmes might be my least favourite actress, so the chances of this movie being any good seemed slim to none. Yet the one silver lining was the involvement of Guillermo del Toro, who has of course produced some of the finest horror/fantasy movies this side of 2000.

My original scepticism turned out to be well founded. There was a consensus between myself, Clarky, Fin and Ryan that this was a poor movie, with each one of us scoring the film around 4/5 out of 10. Yet I was actually surprised to find some elements to this film that I enjoyed, and plenty of potential for a better film to exist. The barebones of the story is actually quite interesting, and well told, even if it feels a little too familiar. I liked the idea of little mythological creatures being released in a renovated mansion, hellbent on collecting children's teeth. It's a creepy premise. The creep factor is upped during the opening scene of the movie which shows a pretty horrific flashback.

Unfortunately, the film is just poorly made after this promising beginning. The acting is truly substandard. Katie Holmes is Katie Holmes, so I don't need to say much more than that. But Guy Pearce absolutely phones this one in, as he has done way too often since the glory days of Memento and L.A Confidential. The main protagonist is a little girl played by Bailee Madison. Although her acting is probably the best on display, she is a largely unsympathetic character, devoid of any real warmth or charisma. This is a major issue with the film on the whole, as it lacks any humour or heart. The other flaws of the film (chief among them, the formulaic narrative, and the poor use of the creatures) could probably be overcome if the film had a bit more warmth to it, but it feels as cold as the renovated house.

The creatures themselves are not used to maximum effect. We see them too much, and they soon lose their ability to scare or shock the viewer at all. Fin made a good point during the podcast; this film would have been far better if they had aimed it at a younger audience. With more humour, warmer characters and a bit less violence, it would have made for a great children's scary fairytale film. Instead, it feels like it isn't really for anyone. The script, acting and effects are too sloppy to engage with this film as an adult cinemagoer, much less a fan of horror.

It's not the least entertaining movie I've ever seen, but I couldn't recommend it to anyone.

Fin's Weekly Review: The Vanishing

2011-10-13T20:26:00.000+01:00

The Vanishing was my choice this week at horror club and like Martin the previous week it is a film that I had not seen but had read much of the hype surrounding it. The Vanishing is a film that receives 100% on Rotten Tomatoes, Mark Kermode said that when he first saw this film he thought he was going to faint with terror and I could list many more equally awestruck reviews. One thing is beyond debate it is a unique and fascinating film and is such a change from the last 30 years of horror film that it can seem like it doesn't belong in the same genre. This was a question we all asked after watching The Vanishing is this a horror? Ultimately I think it is unequivocally a horror film and a very strong one at that. The Vanishing is a throw back to the 60's when the genres of psychological thriller and horror merged into one. George Sluizer's 1988 film would sit comfortable beside some of Hitchcock's psychological thrillers of the 1960s. Having said that this is a film that is spoken about in hushed whispers by some fans and critics who view it in an almost worshipful way. The hyperbole surrounding this film makes the first time viewer expect a terrifying, white knuckle thrill ride with an ending that truly shocks. In reality the films strengths are a lot more subtle than that and the much vaunted ending is perhaps not ground breaking but rather a continuation of what I found to be a slightly unpleasant bleak European nihilism.

The Vanishings story is both simple and sinister. A young couple are on holiday in France when they stop at a service station for a drink. Time goes by and the wife who went to buy the drinks does not return. From this simple set up we descend into a story which is concerned with obsession and madness. Whether this is Rex's obsession with finding out what became of his wife or the extremely sinister obsession of Raymond Lemorne to commit the perfect murder. This obsession becomes madness most obviously in Lemorne's character but also in the way that Rex becomes to define his entire existence with the search for his wife. Rex neglects every other aspect of life in this search for not only his wife but perhaps more importantly the answers to the questions which have haunted him for the three years since his wifes disappearance. This film is very much a two man show and so it's success hinges upon the performance of Donnadieu as Raymond and Berovoets as Rex. Berovoets provides a solid performance however I would argue that his character is underwritten and he becomes a vehicle through which we are shown the sheer calculating evil of Raymond. Donnadieu give an extraordinary performance of controlled, smug, calculating evil. Raymond Lemorne is to my money one of the most hateful characters in the history of horror. It is Lemorne who moves The Vanishing from the plane of simple Psychological mystery to the realm of horror. The most interesting aspect of this film is the rejection of genre conventions by director George Sluizer both in terms of Psychological mystery and horror. Thrillers are usually base upon the concept of keeping the truth a mystery from both characters in the story and the audience. The Vanishing rejects this and although Rex remains ignorant we are aware of the villain and his techniques and motives from a very early stage. It is to Sluizer's great credit that this approach does not destroy any tension and works to create a sense of growing dread. From a horror perspective this film is even more unique. Almost all horror is built upon the irrational the paranormal the bizarre. Sluizer creates a horror film that rejects this approach. Raymond is so horrific because he appears so rational, sane and calculating. In the Vanishing extreme rationality becomes the horror as Raymond commits the crimes for no other reason than because he can. His evil becomes mundane, methodical and completely divorced from emotion.

A psychological horror classic which really deserves a watch. If you can see it without seeing the hype that surrounds this film you experience will be all the better for it.

Clarky's Weekly Review: The Vanishing

2011-10-10T22:39:00.001+01:00

As mentioned numerous times before it is becoming increasingly difficult to bring something fresh to the table. So it was with great excitement and anticipation that we sat down last Thursday to watch Fin's second choice of the season - The Vanishing. When I read quotes such as:

"..be warned this film could give you a sleepless night..."

".. the film Hitchcock would make if he was still alive..."

and was informed by Kirsty that the good Doctor also gave it positive reviews and that one reviewer said he thought he was going to be sick with the final reel, I was beginning to wonder what exactly I had let myself in for (a thought that to be fair crosses at least one of our minds almost every week). This is a film that has garnered almost universal praise (a 100% critics review score and 87% viewers score on Rotten Tomatoes!) and was even the film that the Netherland's out forward as their foreign picture contender at the Oscar's that year (it was rejected on the basis that there was too much French rather than Dutch language!).

Whilst I did enjoy The Vanishing, and it had no issues with holding my attention for its entire running time, I did feel that the film was lacking in a couple of areas. I am also not entirely convinced that this is a horror film. Whilst at times it is certainly horrific, I would say it is more thriller than horror. However, it is often classified as a horror and compared to other films that we have viewed I would say that it just about deserves the right to qualify.

The film opens with Rex and Saskia, a Dutch couple holidaying in France who stop at a gas station, where Saskia subsequently dissappears, apparently without a trace. This is the kind of idea that couldn't be pulled off nowadays, but in a pre mobile phone, pre CCTV society the idea of this is genuinely terrifying.

At this point the film I thought that the film was going to turn into a murder mystery. Interestingly, and somewhat uniquely, the film takes a different turn and shows us Raymond, the abductor, as he prepares for the abduction. It's fair to say that Raymond is one of the most despicable characters ever witnessed at horror club. His cold blooded perfectionism and detachment in preparing for the abduction is terrifying. We witness him calculating how much chlorine is required and at one point he even plants a spider in the drawer to scare his daughter, thereby testing whether or not his house is sufficiently far away from his neighbours to hide the screams of his abductee.

We then flash forward three years and catch up with Rex again who is a new relationship but is still obsessing over Saskia. Quite why Lieneke is with Rex I will never understand, and I would liked to have seen more of their back story and the past 3 years. One of my favourite things about The Orphanage, another story about loss and obsession, is how we follow the protaganist and slowly become obsessed with their loss ourselves. In The Vanishing however, I felt that I would have liked to have seen more of Rex's journey into insanity and obsession, in order that we could sympathise and emphasise with his character more.

I would also like there have to been more focus on Rex's guilt regarding Saskia's disappearance and the fact that they had fought just before the abduction. As it stands, it is hard to be sympathetic for Rex at first, as he comes across so badly in the initial scenes. Exploring how he felt following the abduction and the impact of the fight would have also helped to serve just how obsessed he had become and would help to justify some of his stranger actions as the film develops. I am of course assuming that Rex has been constantly obsessed with Saskia since her disappearance, which makes his relationship with Lieneke even stranger and out of place.

I don't really want to say much about the last third of the film, but it has some interesting ideas and is extremely tense and unnerving at times, and has a final scene that will stick with you for a while afterwards.

In conclusion, I wouldn't recommend this to any one else as a horror film, but it is worth seeing. I don't think it is as great as the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes would have you believe, but it has some interesting ideas, but in the end I would have loved for some of the themes to have been explored more thoroughly.

Clarky's Weekly Review : Martin

2011-10-04T23:57:00.000+01:00

Last Thursday was Ally's second choice of the season, and he brought Martin for our viewing pleasure. This was a film that I had been eagerly anticipating ever since I heard about it. I didn't know much about it, except that you are never sure whether the titular character is a vampire or not, which I thought was a fascinating idea for a film.

The film opens with an uncomfortable scene where we witness Martin attacking a young woman on the train. The film doesn't pander to it's audience and jumps straight in to this strange event, leaving the viewer wondering - what the hell is happening. There is an eerie perveseness to the proceedings, that permeates through most of the film.

I have to say that I didn't immediately warm to the film. I thought that it was at times interesting and provocative, but that it missed the mark on some occassions, and overall on first viewing it left me a bit flat. However, as I started to think about the film more I realised how beautifully crafted this film is, and how it works on many levels. Most notably, it allows the viewer to discern as to whether or not Martin is a vampire. It certainly seems to present plenty of evidence (for both cases) yet neither of them seem mutually exclusive at the same time.

Depending on your viewpoint it is my belief that you could easily argue that Martin is a vampire, however there is also sufficient evidence to suggest that he isn't. This is the crux of the film, and I have to admire both George A Romero for crafting such a delicately and beautifully paced film, but also John Amplas for his understated, yet terrific performance as Martin. His performance holds this film together, and you are drawn into his world (a feat that is not easily done considering he is a murdering vampire!).

Being a teenager and a vampire are not too different, they are both on the fringes of society and spend their time lusting after sex / blood. There are many parallels to be drawn between the two and this is where the film succeeds. This is also the focal point of the film, therefore I am going to argue the case for Martin being a vampire (For) and for him being a loony, murdering teenager (Against), in order to try and determine my own opinion, and to question other viewers thoughts.

For) Martin clearly drinks the blood of his victims. This is the very definition of a vampire.

Against) He may drink the blood, but he never actually bites his victims, as you would expect.

F) As noted by Martin it is cleaner to use the needles and razors on his victims.

A) He uses the drugs and razors as he is not a real vampire. Its fair to say that both attacks, on the train and on the housewife, are not straightforward affairs.

F) This does allow him to cover up his murders however as suicides - not as easily done with bite marks in the neck.

F) Martin is constantly complaining about the depiction of vampires in movies, and how this is not what they are like (in one scene he even parodies this himself dressing up like a vampire and scaring Cuda).

A) Of course vampires aren't really like Martin, he is not a vampire. His arguments also allow him to circumvent many of the superstitions that are often associated with vampires. Martin even states that there is no magic in these things, therefore how could he be a vampire?

F) Martin is about 70 years younger than his cousin, who is convinced that he is a vampire.

A) Whilst it is unusual to see two cousins with such a disparity in age, it is not impossible. There is also plenty of evidence to suggest that Cuda himself has started to lose the plot, including the fact that if he does know about the "family curse" and vampires then why is he so scared to see Martin looking like a traditional vampire if they don't look like this in reality?

F) We see black and white flashbacks of Martin as a younger man and he claims to be 84 years old.

A) Again, this could be an elaborate back story that Martin has convinced himself of in order to justify his actions to himself. The majority of these scenes seem to be focussed on a young girl and have a sexual connotation to them. Again, furthering the argument that he is just a mixed up teenager who is so withdrawn and isolated that he has created this imaginary world for himself.

My initial reaction is that Martin was not a vampire, however I certainly questioned this based on the numerous points above. In the end I still don't believe that Martin is a vampire, however there is plenty of scope to argue the case that he is, and the fact that both cases can be argued shows how well put together this film is.

However, as I noted earlier, my original perception was that there were a few missteps and missed opportunities. One of the instances of this was where Martin ended up killing the housewife's extra marital partner, and drinking his blood. Up until this point I thought that Martin was carrying out his killings primarily to satiate his carnal desires. He is a teenager, and like all teenagers is obsessed with sex. As he is so shy and awkward, I assumed that the ritual of drugging the women and drinking their blood was rife with sexual connotations. Indeed, the earliest vampire stories appear to be an allegory view of sexual expression, with the bite itself being a metaphor for rape - entering someone else's body against their will and changing them forever thereafter (it's interesting to note that Martin never actually bite's one of his victims).

So when he killed the man, this through me off kilter as Martin seems to be obsessed with sex. Upon reviewing the film, and as detailed above, this is just another move by Romero to further muddy the waters. It seems to further the case for Martin being a vampire rather than just a disturbed teenager. When Martin does eventually have sex, with a married woman, although the build up is protracted Romero's post coital shot is only on screen for a matter of seconds as she lies heaped upon Martin. This shot is so tragic, and ordinary looking, that it quickly demolishes any of the romanticism that Martin may attach to sex, just as Romero's film does for the vampire by showing us how cold blooded the deaths are, and by having a lead character who is so uncharasmatic and ordinary. Especially in comparison to the normally charming and magnetic vampires typically seen in vampire movies, such as the original Universal Count Dracula played by Bela Legosi.

Romero is clearly well versed in vampire lore and is constantly referencing this. Setting the scene for the viewer by placing garlic and crosses around the house and keeping mirrors covered up. All in an attempt to settle the viewer before he pulls the rug from under our feet and totally defies our expectations as he rips apart the vampire rule book!

In conclusion, whilst I didn't think this was a particularly great film at the time, I am glad that I saw it and it is certainly an interesting film, and unlike any other vampire film I have ever seen. A true original and definitely worth checking out. I have to disagree with Martin, there is a little bit of magic here.

Fin's Weekly Review: Martin

2011-10-04T00:27:00.000+01:00

I have wanted to see Martin for a long time so I was really excited when Ally brought it to the table on Thursday. I have rarely seen an underground horror film that has been so widely praised and admired. Very few horror films achieve a 96% on Rotten Tomatoes. I'm also a huge fan of Night, Dawn and Day of the Dead so, having read some people argue that Martin is Romero's best film, I was hugely excited.

I have to say that because of my anticipation I think Martin might be the film I have been most disappointed with at Horror Club to date. I desperately wanted to like it, but unfortunately it turned out to be very, very poor. I'm well aware that George Romero is capable of some real stinkers, with Diary Of The Dead marking a real low point for the director, but I put this to the back of my mind as the film started, certain that this would be Romero working at the peak of his powers. Alas, no. This is a boring, tepid and essentially pointless film.

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the film for me was the fact that the set-up for the film is so fascinating. The story concerns Martin, a young man who claims to be a vampire but could just as easily be a mentally unhinged serial killer. Martin does not kill in the traditional vampire fashion (using seduction to get close to a victim before biting the victim's exposed neck). He has absolutely no chance of seducing anyone - he is socially inept, with an awkwardness that reaches autistic levels. Instead, Martin uses an anaesthetic administered through a syringe, following up with a razor once his victim is rendered unconsciousness. Martin has none of the romance or sensuousness of classic vampire lore; instead, his killings are grim, tawdry and depressing.

However, just as we are about to write off Martin's claim to be a vampire as the ravings of a troubled mind, we are introduced to his equally mad cousin (or is it his uncle? We are never enlightened). Through his cousin/uncle, we are introduced to the back story of Martin's devoutly Catholic family which has been afflicted by the curse of Nosferatu. Martin's uncle views Martin very much in the mould of an old-world vampire and wants to save Martin's soul before destroying his body, in an attempt to stop the genetic curse of vampirism afflicting his family. With a story as unique and as strong as this, it is all the more annoying that Romero cannot follow through and deliver the film the story deserves.

It is hard to pinpoint why Martin doesn't work. It just never ignites and becomes boring worryingly early into the film. Like Ally, I was willing this film to end before it reached the half way mark. Perhaps the main stumbling block for me was Martin himself. He is such a thoroughly unlikeable character I found it impossible to have any sympathy for him. Even if you ignore his murderous actions, he is such a weaselly, sulky teenager. He is also not very interesting, which is amazing considering he is a psychopathic teenage misfit who is also possibly a vampire.

The fact that Martin ends up being totally boring at the same time as painfully unlikeable can only be an indictment of John Amplas's performance. It is also a major problem - he is on screen for almost the whole film and his performance is so central that it is no surprise that the failure of Martin as character is fundamental to the failure of the film. But it's not just Martin that is boring. The way Romero shoots the film is also dull and lifeless. There is not a single shot that I can think of that stood out as exciting or worthy of mention. To me the film looks very much like a bad, made-for-TV drama from the early 70s. What I found particularly annoying was that after introducing a number of the great ideas mentioned earlier, Romero makes no effort to explore any of them in detail and there is really no plot or story development throughout the film.

If I have one overriding feeling when thinking about Martin, it is disappointment. A great story and great director which somehow amount to nothing very much.

Ally's Weekly Review: Martin

2011-10-03T17:07:00.006+01:00

Hmmm... What to say about Martin? I was excited to bring this one to the table. Finding a potential Horror Club classic (a film that none of us have seen) is becoming an increasingly difficult endeavour, I was hoping that Martin might be that choice for me. From what I’d read it seemed like a potentially excellent film. George Romero’s take on the vampire canon? Yes please…

As the final credits rolled, the feeling in the room seemed to be a collective “meh”. Personally, I was looking forward to the film finishing from about half way through, it was a pretty boring couple of hours. Martin is a really interesting character: he’s part social misfit, part violent sociopath and, of course, part vampire. I say interesting... he’s interesting on paper. In the actual film though he’s quite irritating and dull. His lifeless voice, his sulky teenage disposition; he’s tough to watch for any length of time. Unfortunately, we have to watch him a whole lot in this movie and ain't much fun being in his company.

The film begins with Martin awkwardly attacking a female passenger on a train. It’s an awkward opening scene, very uncomfortable to watch; the kind of scene that makes you wonder why you watch these sort of movies at all! Soon after Martin arrives in Pittsburgh to live with his insane cousin. Quite why Martin chooses to live with him is never really clear to me, but we soon learn that the family has a curse going back generations. The curse, just like the premise of the movie, is interesting and it feels worthy of deeper exploration. But despite an interesting backstory, it never feels like the movie is really going anywhere. The only drama or tension comes from the scenes where Martin is attacking a female. These scenes are not scary, they are just uncomfortable to watch. The rest of the film is spent watching Martin skulk about a new city, the film focuses on his lack of connections with people. We see flashbacks, but they feel disjointed and a little hammy. If the only type of scenes on offer are ones that bore you, or make you feel properly uncomfortable, you aren’t on to a good thing.

The formula sounds so promising: an original vampire tale, interesting backstory, some depth to the characters (i.e. the cousin and Martin’s lonely housewife companion) and of course George Romero. Unfortunately, the final element of the formula seems to be the problem. Perhaps because it was directed by George Romero (and probably because of my high expectations going in) I am critiquing Martin more harshly than some other poor Horror Club movies. But we’ve watched two Romero films at Horror Club: Martin and The Crazies, and they’ve both been ranked very low on my list. While I have to admit that I was a bit tipsy when we watched The Crazies, I did see enough of it to recognise the same thing in Martin... the movie just feels flat, like a glass of Asda cola or a piece of music that is played too quietly. There’s no pulse to the film - some type of thrill or buzz just seems to be missing. I can’t say too much about The Crazies, because I fell asleep, but the very fact that I did suggests it lacked an important ingredient in an entertaining movie.

I don’t want to come down too hard on old Georgie boy, because he’s had a rough couple of years with Diary of the Dead etc. and it’s not like he didn’t know how to make a good movie in his prime. But I have to say that Martin was a major disappointment. Lots of promise, very disappointing end product.

Avoid like a classic zombie outbreak.

Clarky's Weekly Review : The Grudge

2011-09-27T00:22:00.000+01:00

Following my review of Near Dark I wasn't expecting many positive reviews for the rest of the season from my fellow HC members. However, having read both their reviews I have to say that they are spot on. This is an, at times, effective film but ultimately it struggles to hit home (especially with a western audience in my mind).

As touched on by Fin, many Asian horror films are based upon fairy tales and folk lore which are specific to Asian culture. As a result, the story is often alien to western audiences and difficult to connect to. Ally and Fin also noted on the non-linear story, and whilst I think in certain ways this added to proceedings, it also made it difficult to follow the story at some times.

If this was told chronologically then the film would not be as interesting or hold your attention. I liked the way that the story was broken up into different parts each focussing on different characters. Some times these stories interlinked and it made you think about whereabouts you were in the grand scheme of things (although ultimately this had very little bearing on the film itself). But it did draw you into each story and focus on the various protagonists. It also allowed for a variety of scares, using Toshio and his mother, in a slightly different manner each time. So although it was the same, it also seemed fresh.

Having seen the original, which was very poor I was hoping that this would be better, however, most of the beats are quite similar (from what I remember) but I did enjoy the viewing on Thursday more, and this was primarily down to Kirsty adding some extra thrills and keeping us all on the edge of our seats. Whilst I enjoyed many of the scenes, especially the tight close up and pans, I wasn't particularly scared by the film. But having another member who was screeching and screaming like there was no tomorrow, certainly helped to raise the tension in the room.

Overall, I enjoyed the film, but its not one I would recommend to any of my other friends. It is not the scariest film of all time as proclaimed by Sam Raimi, but does have some decent scares and some tense moments. Maybe Sam was talking about one of the 5 other Ju-on films that Takashi Shimuzu appears to have directed according to his IMDB page!

Fin's Weekly Review: The Grudge

2011-09-26T21:29:00.001+01:00

I have to say when Clarky revealed that he was bringing an Asian horror film to the table I was not hugely excited. I thought about the awful Korean films we had watched in the last two years and I feared the worst. I don't think there is a member of Horror Club who is not haunted by the experience of watching The Host. There has never been a sub-genre of horror that has ever been as over-hyped as Asian horror. It seems that any Korean or Japanese horror film which is excessively violent while simultaneously being ridiculous is hailed as a horror masterpiece.

The Grudge was definitely not without its problems and did share a number of features of Asian horror cinema that I really don't like, but it is undoubtedly a film of quality. Without doubt this is a well crafted, well shot creepy film but it is not a film I could ever fall in love with. But, as my mother used to say, if you have nothing nice to say don't say anything at all and therefore I will start with the positives.

The Grudge has a lot going for it and was an enjoyable watch throughout. The director Takashi Shimizu definitely knows his business and the way to use a camera in a horror film. Some of the shots he employs are masterful - his use of close ups are fantastic, often not allowing the audience to see much of what is going on around the characters and as result really upping the dread factor. The ghosts themselves are genuinely creepy. The small boy Toshio, who we see a lot, is unnerving, particularly when making cat noises. But it is his mother who steals the show - she is properly scary. When she drags herself across the floor, her face fixed on her next victim, she is truly hideous. At a particular point in the film Toshio's mother drags herself down the stairs, evoking strong memories of the infamous spider walk from The Exorcist.

The acting is good with no particular stand out performance but a solid ensemble effort. The Grudge is not an overly long film and is well-paced, providing a short, thrilling experience. However...

The Grudge may have much to recommend it, but it never really sets the screen on fire. I had a number of issues with the film and the more I thought about it the more niggles I had. I mentioned above that the ghosts are both effective and genuinely unnerving and are a real strong point of the film. However, I thought Shimizu played his trump card too early and too often. Shimizu is excellent at using a mix of close up and panning shots to create an atmosphere of dread, but it felt like he bottled out of a few of the scenes and decided he had to cut these tense scenes short with a dramatic shot of one of the ghosts. It was as if the director, similar to 19th century authors being paid by the word, was being paid every time he showed one of his ghosts. The ghosts are excellent, but in a weird way it is a hindrance to the film as it becomes too reliant upon them to replace a coherent story and their overexposure means that they begin to lose their power.

And for me this is the rub with this film, and much of Asian horror: the story is just not good enough. I have to admit that in many cases this may be my fault as much as the films'. Many Asian horror films are based on cultural references and myths that simply have no resonance to most Western viewers and in many cases are completely missed. Whether it is my cultural misunderstanding, or simply poor writing, the stories in Asian horror - including The Grudge - never grip me or draw me in. Very often, in fact, I find them alienating. In this particular case, the story is so convoluted and so complex that it just does not hang together.

The initial concept is actually quite strong: a cursed house that is so possessed by hate and anger that anybody who comes into contact with the house is doomed. In practice, however, it doesn't really work. What we get instead is a loose collection of stories that never quite hang together and instead would maybe be more suitable as short films. This doesn't become a major problem until the story starts to make jumps backwards and forwards in time and becomes very confusing. Another problem with this approach is that characters are introduced and then forgotten about. One interesting character is the grizzled old policeman who leaves the film just as you warm to him and become interested in his story.

This film has a lot of strengths and I wouldn't want to ignore these. It provides a creepy 80 or so minutes but, that said, this film is ultimately pretty forgettable. The Grudge, despite its quality, confirmed my existing opinion of Asian horror - it really isn't for me. This is one of the best that Asian horror has to offer and it still left me cold.

Ally's Weekly Review: The Grudge

2011-09-26T17:29:00.009+01:00

I can’t lie, my heart sank when Clarky revealed his choice this week. Firstly, I associated it with the Hollywood remake so my expectations were immediately low once I started thinking about Buffy. Secondly, it was a return to Asian Horror, which has been a bit hit or miss at Horror Club... mostly miss. While Asian Horror has undoubtedly provided some extremely scary and creepy moments, it has produced far more disgusting and nonsensical ones. I’ve lost count of the times that I’ve watched a South Korean or Japanese horror and found it impossible to follow, or just had an overwhelming feeling that I wanted to stop watching because it went too far with violence or torture. So I had a strong feeling of trepidation when Clarky brought it to the table.

Was this another example of Asian Horror missing the mark? No. But...

First of all (and most importantly) I enjoyed this movie from start to finish. It’s a well made film with plenty going for it. The film really excels at creating an unsettling environment for the viewer. Through his use of close-ups and tight angled shots, the director does a wonderful job of unnerving his audience. It also has some really memorable characters in it... not least Toshio, one of the creepiest child characters I’ve seen in any movie. Despite being on screen for a not inconsiderable amount of time, his power to creep the audience is never diminished; a rare quality for a bogeyman(boy).

It’s definitely creepy but is it scary? This is more difficult to answer because of an external factor when we watched the movie – Fin’s wife, Kirsty. It turns out that a movie is much scarier when someone else in the room unexpectedly screams (very) loudly. So I definitely jumped a lot in this movie, I’m just not sure if I would have otherwise. But there are certainly some scary set pieces, and moments of well-constructed tension. The film is particularly effective in the scenes at the main house, the layout of which lends itself very well to creating those moments where you have to cover your eyes with a cushion.

I mentioned that there were usually two elements in Asian horror that put me off: sadistic violence and nonsensical plots. The Grudge is pretty restrained in the gore department, and the little that is there feels absolutely necessary to the story. However, the story itself is very difficult to follow. It’s not so much nonsensical, it’s just quite difficult to understand. The events of the film seem to jump around in time, and it becomes very hard to get a handle on what’s happening in a few key scenes. I’m sure that I could read up about the film, watch it again and it would make perfect sense on second viewing. However, once it was over I didn’t really have the inclination to understand what had happened. I got the gist of the events and that was enough for me. I enjoyed it, but I was never so absorbed that I wanted to fully understand all that took place.

I think my lack of investment was due to the fact that there is no ‘hero’ or main character. We follow several people, in no particular order, with none of them seemingly more important than the others. We see their part in the story and little else, with no screen time “wasted” on character development. I think the lack of a protagonist may be the film’s most glaring weakness, and why the film feels a bit disjointed.

It’s certainly far superior to some of the other Asian Horror that we’ve watched at Horror Club, although it isn’t in the class of A Tale of Two Sisters. I enjoyed watching it: the film moves along well, has plenty of ‘shudder’ moments, and a few jumps (made all the more effective if watched with Kirsty). But it was difficult to really understand all the strands of the story, and I found myself not really caring enough to uncover the truth.

A rock solid (if perhaps a little forgettable) addition to Horror Club... but my Asian Horror prejudice remains.

Ryan's Guest Review: Fright Night

2011-09-23T01:25:00.006+01:00

To be asked to become the Edinburgh Horror Club’s first official guest was a real honour. The lads have been great when asked to help out on the Those Movie Guys podcast, which Clarky and I record each Monday night. Ally made an excellent guest appearance to review Stakeland and Fin is poised to bring his horror knowledge to a Hallowe’en special in the not too distant future. So I’m well aware of the extent of their collective horror knowledge – and the scrutiny with which a film is looked at on a Thursday night – so I was only too happy to step up to the plate and return the favour.

Both Clarky and Fin have already broken down the movie in their reviews – but crucially, there is an area where I have one up on them and will use it as a basis for my review.

When Fin whipped out the original Fright Night as the feature film of the evening I was immediately aware of its significance, despite never having seen it. Fright Night is universally acclaimed by fans and critics – it still boasts an incredible 93% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Perhaps it’s this popularity that encouraged the movie moguls to commission a remake, which hit British cinemas just a few weeks ago. A remake – that of the four of us – only I had seen.

So I’m going argue that the Fright Night - filmed in 1985 on a budget of around $9million with a bunch of (at the time) no-name actors - is superior in almost every way to its 2011 reincarnation, which starred Colin Farrell, Anton Yeltsin and David Tennant and came in with a price tag of more than $30million.

The most important and interesting point is that the newer version sticks very closely to the plot of the original. I was actually surprised by how similar the storylines were. The remake omits a character – Billy Cole, the mysterious roommate of vampire protagonist Jerry (who turns out to be a ghoul, which may explain the earlier questions raised by Clarky) – but everything else – even down to the nightclub scene - is essentially the same.

I saw the 2011 version first, just a few days before my Horror Club debut. It was far from the worst film I’ve seen this year, but I couldn’t help but feel underwhelmed. Whilst the story whipped along and featured semi-decent performances, it took itself far too seriously. I couldn’t help but shake the feeling that it was vehicle for the likes of Farrell and Tennant. It almost ceases to be a horror film.

In contrast, 1985 original is under no illusions of what it is. The tongue-in-cheek humour, over the top special effects (which aren’t bad, all things considered), schlocky dialogue and hammy performances are straight out of the B-Movie handbook. And therein lies the rub – this film is an unabashed B-Movie gem and it makes no attempt to hide it. By sticking to the plot, but throwing big name stars and modern special effects (including the utterly redundant 3D, but I’ll put that particular soapbox away for another day) the remake attempts to take away the elements that make the 1985 film work so well – the sense of self-deprecating humour and classic 80s charm.

The comparison of two characters perhaps best sums up the differences. Clarky and Fin have both highlighted the character of Peter Vincent, the crabby, aging, self-indulgent vampire hunter played by Roddy MacDowell (channelling his inner Peter Cushing). In the original he plays a crucial role, turning from fraud to reluctant hero and providing the film with its one almost poignant scene as he kills Evil Ed and watches him return to his human form. It’s a great wee moment amongst all the madness. You could almost argue the real story is really about Vincent’s redemption, as opposed to our young hero Charley Brewster saving his incredibly annoying girlfriend.

In the 2011 version, he plays almost exactly the same role, but is relegated slightly in importance as David Tennant attempts his best Russell Brand impression and misses the point of the role, almost becoming a sideshow with his leather trousers and mockney accent. With the loss of McDowall’s initial aloofness and world-weariness, eventually giving way to pity and finally self-belief, the plot is robbed of arguably its best character. Having seen both films, the remake is worse off without a more fleshed-out Peter Vincent.

The other important character is Evil Ed. In the original he’s played by Stephen Geoffreys, who turns in a performance that is hilarious and excruciating in equal measures, but nonetheless leaves an indelible mark on the movie. His grating voice, camp acting and oddball look serves as a constant reminder that this film is not taking itself too seriously and you cannot help but laugh at some of his lines.

In the remake, Evil Ed is played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse, who seems unable to shift the label of McLovin’ no matter how hard he tries. He attempts to get into the weird and wacky mindset needed for Evil Ed, but is barely in the same ballpark. He’s neither funny nor crazy and ends up forcing out a McLovin-lite effort, which is fine if you’re in Superbad but not here. It’s not hard to understand how playing a hugely popular character like McLovin’ can typecast an actor. Indeed, it appears Geoffreys suffered a similar fate. After starring a couple of other 80s horrors, he apparently turned down Fright Night 2 – presumably to avoid being typecast as Evil Ed. According to Wikipedia, he ended up doing gay porn for several years in the 90s – this is something of a career path I’m pretty sure Mintz-Plasse does not want to emulate.

Essentially, I got far more out of the original, as it was completely honest and happy about what it was, you can tell the film was being made for the right reasons, and you can’t help but be charmed by the undeniable cheesiness. McDowell even brings a bit of emotion to the movie. It could be very easy to turn your nose up at this film’s obvious B-movie stylings, but to me they’re the enjoyable parts. The bottom line is that it’s a fun watch.

By going for “star power” and special effects, the remake takes away all that’s fun and entertaining about the story and the facets of the characters are lost behind the reputations of the actors involved. Despite sticking almost completely to the same plot, the more expensive and eye-catching remake can’t decide what it is and serves up middle-of-the-road mediocrity.

Thanks again to the lads for having me round – I look forward to my next invite and continued education in the horror genre. I’m dying for the chance to bring a movie of my own to the table!

Ryan

Fin's Weekly Review: Fright Night

2011-09-20T17:54:00.002+01:00

After watching Near Dark I thought it would be good to bring Fright Night to the table a film which alongside Near Dark represents the the pinnacle of 1980s vampire films. Released in 1985 Fright Night was the directorial Debut of Tom Holland and remains his best and pretty much only good film. On paper fright night shouldn't really work, but it does and it delivers bucket loads of fun and B movie charm along the way. Holland took the John Hughes teen formula which would come to define 80s cinema in films such as The Breakfast Club, Sixteen Candles and Ferris Bueller's Day Off films in which weird or geeky teenagers unite to somehow outsmart and defeat both the adult world and their more popular peers. Holland adds in a great B movie story line and a great fondness for classic vampire lore and creates a funny, cartoonish and endearing horror gem.

Much of the success of this film is anchored upon the fact that the set up and the story are incredibly simple. The film never takes itself too seriously and has its tongue firmly in its cheek throughout. Fright Night focuses on the adventures of Charlie Brewster a horror film fanatic who discovers his new next door neighbour is in fact a vampire. After reporting this startling discovery to those in authority and being understandable laughed at by his mother and the police. Charlie decides that he must take responsibility for destroying the vampire threat next door. Realizing that he is seriously out of his depth Charlie tries to recruit the only person he thinks can help, Peter Vincent a washed out old actor and star of the vampire films Charlie loves. Tom Holland crafts a film of charm and wit around this simple premise. A huge factor in the success of Fright Night are the universally excellent characters who are both funny and likeable and as a result we really care what happens to them.

Two performances provide the backbone of the film in the form of Chris Sarandon's vampire and the washed up and slightly sad old actor Peter Vincent. Roddy Mcdowall is on fine form as the cynical world weary vampire slayer who only agrees to help Charlie and his gang after charlie's girlfriend gives him her $500 savings. His journey from cowardly on screen hero too real life hero is really fun to watch develop. Peter Vincent also provides a link to the past and is a way of Tom Holland paying tribute to the Hammer Classics that this film pays homage too. Fright Night was ahead of its time in terms of ironic parody and self referential tribute to a by gone age of horror film making. Much like Scream over a decade later which paid tribute to the slasher genre Fright Night is a eulogy and tribute to the classic vampire films of the 50s and 60s. At a time when a succession of weaker and weaker slasher films were being released Fright Night looked backwards to golden age. Peter Vincent sums this idea up in his most famous line 'The kids today don't have the patience for vampires. They want to see some mad slasher running around chopping off heads'.

The second stand performance is Chris Sarandon's in his excellent portrayal of the vampire Jerry Dandridge the seductive, charming killer next door. Chris Sarandon plays the vampire role perfectly he is coolness personified however this affability and charisma hide a far darker more sinister side. Couple this with the clear enjoyment Sarandon has in playing the role and some of the stunning 80s gear he wears during the film and he alone makes this a film worth seeing. Evil Ed also deserves a mention Charlie's geeky friend and even bigger horror nerd who brings much of the comedy to Fright Night.

A further notable aspect of the film that is really strong are the special effects which are both very over the top and very effective. The scene where Evil Ed is transformed into a wolf and back again is really impressive and in some ways bears comparison to the transformation scene in American Werewolf in London. All in all Fright Night is an underrated minor classic of 80s horror with more heart and charm than most films out there. Considering the time of year Fright Night would make a great choice for Halloween a perfect mix of laughs and light-hearted chills.

Clarky's Weekly Review: Fright Night

2011-09-20T00:33:00.000+01:00

Fin's choice last week and he brought another 80's vampire movie to the table. Given what had come the week before I was not holding out much hope but as with every film that is brought to the table I was willing to give it a chance, especially when I saw Chris Sarandon was involved (I love The Princess Bride!).

After complaining about the acting last week the opening scene did not fill me with much hope as we settled down on Thursday night. The camera slowly pans up to a bedroom window as we overhear a conversation within. Some of the dialogue is wooden and not only that the delivery is stilted. It's fair to say that I was fearing the worst.

Thankfully, as the camera enters the bedroom we see that the conversation taking place is on screen as part of the "Fright Night" features shown on local TV. This sets the tone for what's to come, gives a knowing nod to the films that it is emulating and sets the acting bar very low! From this moment I knew I was going to like Fright Night. It may not be a great film and it may even be "worse", in filmic terms, than Near Dark, but I thoroughly enjoyed it. A schlocky, tongue in cheek B-movie that is also campy, over the top, doesn't take itself seriously and is all the better for it.

There are some neat story elements in here though, particularly in relation the traditional vampire folk lore - Dandridge being invited in was a nice touch and there is a stunning shot early on where Dandridge is walking across the bedroom but is not casting a reflection in the full length mirror. I also liked Roddy McDowell's character of the ageing B movie actor Peter Vincent, who is self involved but who turns out to be a hero in the end. Not only that, some of the special effects are absolutely spot on. The scene with Evil Ed in particular was great (returning to his original form was a really nice touch). Sure some of the effects were over the top, but they were in keeping with the tone of the movie and were a lot better than some of the CGI rubbish you see on screen nowadays.

This also ties in with one other factor that really added to the enjoyment of this film. It is something that has been noted in almost every Friday the 13th review we have written, and it is a favourite part of horror club. It is the sheer 80's ness of the film. It really is joyful to watch some of the stunning gear that the characters, especially Jerry Dandridge, show up in throughout the 106 minute running time. You even get a classicly superfluous 80's booby shot - a staple of the 80's horror film and staying true to the 80's horror movie formula, you also get the incredibly annoying character in the form of Evil Ed. However, he is also incredibly funny, but not always intentionally so.

Sure there are some plot holes - is Dandridges roommate a vampire? If so how can he go out into the sunlight? Why did the cross work on Evil Ed if Peter Vincent didn't really believe in it? But, unlike last week, the film doesn't take itself too seriously and therefore doesn't demand the viewer to either. As a result it is easy to forgive these differences as you are simply having to much fun to worry about them.

I can't imagine what the recent remake will add to the original, especially if they stick to the original tone. The only way it would be worth seeing is if it is a far more serious take on the story. However, by the looks of the trailer this is not the case. Why go and see a B movie remake with a big budget and big effects, when you can watch a gory, schlocky 80's "masterpiece"!

Ally's Weekly Review: Near Dark

2011-09-14T22:16:00.002+01:00

Once in a while we watch a film at Horror Club that really divides us. Some of the most notable examples of that have been Drag me to Hell and Carrie. Strong feelings on both sides of the argument have produced some robust debates, to say the least (a sampling of which can be seen in the comments section!) I brought Near Dark to the table because my first choice didn't arrive in time (thanks, play.com) As Clarky mentioned I had ranked this film in my top 5 vampire films when I joined his weekly movie podcast, so I felt it was only fair that he watched it… and after being late with my review I've had a chance to see the two very different sides. So my review is going to be a bit of a response to those earlier efforts by my horror club cohorts.

Personally, I think Near Dark is a very good film. It is definitely of its time, it has that unmistakable 80s style (which I always love in a movie). The soundtrack is brilliant, but it's by Tangerine Dream so that shouldn't be a surprise. It looks impossibly cool, Kathryn Bigelow may have just been learning her craft but she already knew how to film some iconic shots. It's a violent, slightly trashy, western/vampire movie that zips along at an entertaining pace with everything neatly wrapped up in an hour and a half.

Sounds pretty good, huh?

But Clarky absolutely hated it. Read his review for his long list of reasons. I kind of feel Fin has given a very strong review of why Near Dark is a good film, so I'd be retreading old ground by regurgitating what he's said. But I do feel I need to respond to a few of Clarky's gripes. So here goes…

1) The acting. I don't have any problems with it. I don't actually think any of the performances are that bad. Is Caleb the most charismatic and interesting lead I've seen in a movie… no. But he doesn't have to be. I felt he was good enough. I think Bill Paxton is great as the absolute violent nut job. The other vampires are interesting and do a pretty good job of conveying some character depth considering how little dialogue they are given.

2) Clarky's other problem was the plot holes. I definitely don't want to reopen the debate on these because we'll never agree. But the plot holes aren't actually Clarky's main problem, I don't think. The film just didn't grab his attention or imagination. The thing is, I can kind of see his point of view. The film doesn't have that many likeable characters, so it's difficult to really care about any of them. Although the script does have a destination it's not exactly the finest piece of storytelling I've come across, it also lacks a humour or warmth. Is the film a bona fide classic of horror? Probably not. I think on reflection I did rate it slightly too high when I did the podcast. Does it have flaws? I have to say it does. So I can understand why Clarky doesn't like it, or why it wouldn't grab someones attention.

But despite seeing his point of view… I still think it is really enjoyable movie. It's a cool looking film that is entertaining, has a brilliant soundtrack, it definitely has some thrills and blood spills, and above all else makes you wish you were still living in the 80s. It has an excitement to it that is hard to put your finger on. It's nostalgic and it is absolutely worth checking out. One of the most divisive films we've seen, but it remains one of my favourite vampire movies.

Fin's Weekly Review: Near Dark

2011-09-13T22:17:00.001+01:00

Near Dark is an awesome film. It is not only the best vampire film of the 80s and 90s, slightly edging out the excellent Fright Night, but it is also to my mind one of the most criminally overlooked and underrated horror films of the last 30 years. Kathryn Bigelow puts elements of horror, traditional vampire myth, Westerns and romance into a blender and then adds enough of her own fresh ideas to create a movie that oozes a dank, hazy and sultry atmosphere; the kind of atmosphere that the creators of Twilight could only dream about.

Now I really like The Lost Boys, but Bigelow's tale is twice the film of its more famous contemporary. The basic set-up for the film is simple: Caleb, a restless young man living in Nowheresville, Oklahoma, meets a mysterious and attractive girl while hanging out drinking beer with his friends. After approaching the girl, things seem to be going well for Caleb. The young girl, Mae, seems to like him and asks for a lift back to the trailer park where she is 'staying' with her family. However, things are not what they seem: Mae is a vampire who is out hunting for human blood, with Caleb the intended victim.

Mae does bite Caleb, but something about him reminds her of her early life and she spares him. Caleb, thinking Mae is simply crazy, drives off, but very soon it is clear all is not well. Caleb gets sicker and sicker, struggling with his mystery illness. Before he can reach the safety of his home, he is kidnapped by Mae's family. As he has been turned, Mae's fellow vampires can not kill him and instead grudgingly attempt to initiate him into their brutal shadow world.

These are not the romantic vampires of myth. Bigelow creates a cast of desperate, brutal villains who are more like a pack of animals or a biker gang than a family. Jessie, the leader of the gang, is a violent and wicked veteran of the Civil War, Homer is a creepy old man trapped in the body of a young boy and Severin is a Southern ladies' man who relishes the extreme violence of the vampire lifestyle. Mae is the only character that has managed to maintain some contact and memory of the daylight world and her relationship with Caleb draws her further back to the light.

Near Dark is a film where the story is almost secondary to the visuals and the atmosphere created by Bigelow. Now, in most films this would be a weakness, but in Near Dark it is the film's main strength. The story, while engaging, is not hugely original - it is the way that the film looks, feels and sounds that makes it a masterpiece of post-70s horror. The visual style of this film is fantastic. From the opening shot of Caleb driving across the stark Oklahoma landscape, the film just looks gorgeous.

The solid, loving and humdrum existence of Caleb's family is in contrast to the chaotic, violent but seductive camaraderie of the vampires' outlaw existence. Bigelow achieves this as much by what the film looks like as the action on screen. In Near Dark the daylight hours are ablaze with light. Everything is crisp and clear, the sun fills every inch of the screen, everything is visible. Yet they are bland and colourless, a symbol of the life that Caleb will lead if he chooses to remain with his family, He will work and marry and ultimately die.

If the daytime visuals of Near Dark are stunning, the night-time scenes are operating at the level of near genius. Never in any film has the contrast between night and day been more clear than in Near Dark. They are not simply different times of the day, but different worlds, and it is between these two worlds that Caleb must choose. Mae asks Caleb to look at the night early on in the film, saying, "it's so bright it will blind you" and going on to describe the night as deafening. It is really amazing that Bigelow manages to portray both of these ideas in her direction of the film.

The night scenes that dominate so much of the film are phenomenal. The screen pulses with a weird woozy kind of light. The scenes are hazy and almost blurry but at the same time somehow crisp, and give the impression of being under water or not being fully conscious. Bigelow shows both the haunting appeal of the night and the vampires' lifestyle, and the danger and sinister nature of it. Ultimately Caleb must make a choice and it is a choice all of us must make, albeit in a less dramatic setting. We must make a choice to grow up and accept responsibility and adulthood, or to reject it and try to stay forever young and irresponsible, avoiding the difficult compromises of adulthood.

Another ingredient which adds to success of this film is the inspired soundtrack by Tangerine Dream. The music and visuals work together to perfection. The fact that this film was Bigelow's debut release is even more extraordinary. Bigelow has created a film of beauty and ferocity which melds the romanticism of vampire mythology with the grit and elegiac nature of the Western tradition to create something special.

Clarky's Weekly Review: Near Dark

2011-09-13T00:31:00.000+01:00

Whilst this was Ally's reserve choice (his first choice wasn't delivered in time) it was a film that I was looking forward to ever since Ally had brought it to the table during the top 5 debate on his debut guest spot on the Those Movie Guys podcast. Unfortunately, it did not live up to the hype in my opinion.

Whilst there are many things I liked about the film, there were a few too many things that pulled me out of the movie and made me question some of the plot devices. Whilst I have no doubt that Fin will say that I am nit picking and that I can't just sit back and enjoy a film, I would argue that if a film isn't holding your attention then this is when little niggles start to stand out more and pull you out of the film. If this film had been good enough to sweep me away I'm sure some of these niggles wouldn't have been too bad, unfortunately some of the biggest issues I had were right from the off.

Firstly, I wasn't convinced by some of the acting at the start. Adrian Pasdar who plays Caleb is like a plank of 4x4 and by the end is has "matured" into Pinocchio - ie still wooden but not quite so bad. I'll be the first to agree that there are many films that we have watched over the past few seasons where the acting is questionable to say the least, but where this hasn't affected my enjoyment of the film. In the majority of cases these have been 80's films and comedy horrors (some unintentionally so - Friday the 13th I'm looking at you). This isn't that kind of film however, and because of this the film falls down for me.

Another major issue I had was why Mae decides to "turn" Caleb when she doesn't even appear to like him. Even if she does like him, and the acting was just so bad that I missed the subtle undertones, then why would you want to spend eternity with someone that you have only known for half an hour?

Once Caleb had turned the idea of hi still having morals and whether or not he could kill to maintain his lifestyle with Mae was interesting but never fully developed. Caleb is given 2 or 3 deadlines to make his first kill and never does it, but with no repercussion's. Why Jesse didn't just kill him like he said he would is never fully explained except that to do so wouldn't have served the remainder of the film.

We then have a stand off at the motel with a little girl, who turns out to be Caleb's sister - but we have seen so little of her that we don't know this or care particularly. Homer wants this little girl and instead of nicking her neck for a second, like Mae did to Caleb, he lets them get away.

After doing so however Caleb starts to burn up, literally, in the morning sun, at which point he is kidnapped by Jesse and his gang of vampires. They then decide that they want to kill Caleb. If this was the case, then why rescue him in the first place?

I also had a lot of issues with consistency in the film. In the opening 10 minutes the dawn nearly kills Caleb, yet after the bar scene they are all exposed to mid afternoon sunshine and seem not much worse off. It's not a major point I know, but by this stage little things like this were starting to grate because I found the 2 main characters so interesting. I couldn't have cared less if Caleb made it or not. Jesse, is the stand out character in this film, and it would have been interesting to go back to having a charismatic bad guy, just like the original vampire - Dracula. In the end, I found the majority of the characters totally unlikeable, and therefore I was not drawn into the film.

The final, and most shocking, niggle for me was the blood transfusion scene. Apparently vampirism can be treated by a blood transfusion. If this is the case, then can zombies be treated in the same way? What about the infected in 28 Days Later. And, in the real world AIDS and all other blood diseases can now be cured by a blood transfusion - yay! All we need to do is drain all the blood out there body, so that there is none of the infected blood and then put in fresh blood. Quite how the body manages to sustain itself with no blood is any ones guess (especially when a veterinarian has set up the operation), but what does that matter when you have to keep the plot moving!

There are a lot of cool shots, especially when the group are backlit, and some of the special effects are brilliant - Bill Paxton's burns in particular, and I really liked the smoke that started to come off the vampires when exposed to sunlight. However, some of the special effects at the end are shocking. I realise that these have not dated well, but the slow motion shots of Homer bursting into flames looked really bad. And whilst I know this may not have affected me as much had I seen the film in the 80's, I didn't. I saw it now, and it didn't stand up very well.

I'm glad I saw this film, and it did have a different take on the vampire genre, unfortunately none of the interesting plot strands were developed fully enough and there were too many plot holes for me to enjoy this film.

Clarky's Weekly Review: Funny Games

2011-09-06T00:17:00.001+01:00

Last Thursday was the 2011/12 season opener, I was up at the plate and the pressure was on. My first choice last year was The Thing. A great film no doubt, but a very safe choice. I wanted to get back to the best of Horror Club and bring something new to the table that my fellow members hadn't seen before, and something that they maybe wouldn't watch on their own accord. With this in mind I selected Funny Games.

I stumbled across the US remake (Funny Games US) on TV a few weeks ago and instantly felt the need to show this to my fellow horror club members. However, in order to keep things fresh for myself I decided to bring the original Austrian version to the table. As a result, my review will also look at the comparison between the two films, and it should be noted contains major SPOILERS, so if you've not seen them, read no further!

Funny Games opens with a gorgeous aerial shot of a 4x4 driving to the country to the sound of operatic music as a husband and wife play a game guessing the composer and the name of the track. The camera then moves to an external shot of the car on the bonnet looking in on the husband, wife and their young son. At this point thrash metal starts to play, yet the action on screen is just as beforehand. This is the only time in the film that music, other than what has emanated from the scene, is used, yet it perfectly sets the tone for what is about to come. It is at once unexpected, banal and most of all unsettling.

Unsettling is probably the most apt word to describe this film. Whilst it is not necessarily a horror film in the conventional sense, in fact it is more like an anti-horror, it does use a well know horror set up. And whilst at first there is nothing necessarily untoward about "Peter and Paul" (or is it "Tom and Jerry" or "Beavis and Butthead") the sense of foreboding is unreal. Haneke fills every scene with unease and tension. So much so that the film is almost unbearable at times.

The use of the various names could have any number of meanings and as with many things in this film, demands further inspection (especially the chat on the boat at the end with regard to reality and non-reality - we have just watched a movie, but does that make it any less real?). Are these simply just random double acts, or is "Peter and Paul" a biblical reference? Many people have mentioned the story of Job when discussing this film. As the viewer we are God, we are all seeing and omnipotent yet we do not / cannot get involved. Yet we are fully aware of what is going on, it is for our benefit.

Are they actually "Tom and Jerry"and their names a reference to the cartoon violence normally seen in horror films? Or are the "Beavis and Butthead", two disenfranchised youths with too much spare time trying to fill their boredom by playing these games? We never really find out, and we never get a motive. In one scene Haneke plays with our expectations, and the families, by providing various reasons as to why they do what they do. Is this a bluff or a double bluff, who knows, and that is all the scarier that there may be no motive or reasoning for their actions other than boredom.

It's worth noting that the US remake is almost a shot for shot remake by Haneke - the only scene that I could think that was different was the scene with the dog in the 4x4, which was more effective and chilling in the US remake. The dialogue is almost exactly the same, with the exception of one of "Peter's" monologues to the camera where he states that they have to draw it out as we the audience expect more plot development. This scene is expanded slightly in the US version, where he provides more details as to the "rules" of a film. Other than that the films are almost identical, even the sets were made to the same specification of the original!

However, all in all I think the US version is a superior film. That's not to say that I didn't think the original was a good film. If anything, I was shocked and surprised at how hard hitting the film still was, even though I knew what was going to happen. But this is a film that was designed to question the American fascination with horror and as a result I think it works better playing to that audience. Not only this but, as noted above, Haneke also made some minor changes that overall improved on the original, and whilst I think Ulrich Muhe gave a better performance than Tim Roth, it is the casting of Naomi Watts that really tips the balance. Not only in terms of her performance, but also in achieving Haneke's goal of making you implicit within the film, and question your own beliefs and motivation for watching a horror film.

Whilst, the scene where the two intruders force Anna / Anne to strip is undeniably gruesome and horrible to watch. There is something about having an actress as attractive as Naomi Watts on screen that, on a base level, had me almost wishing that the camera would pan back so we could get their point of view. This feeling was what stuck with me more than anything. I could barely watch the screen yet couldn't stop at the same time. I felt thrilled and disgusted at the same time. It was in this scene that Haneke best captures the sense of driving past a car accident - you know you shouldn't look, but you can't help but slow down and have a look. It is a morbid curiosity that is within everyone of us, a feeling that to a certain extent makes us human, yet it also dehumanises those which we observe.

This is at the very core of Haneke's film. It makes us question our reasons for watching horror movies. Playing against convention, Haneke doesn't show us any of the acts of violence (save for one, but more on that later) and for me this had the impact of making the violence all the more terrifying as my imagination is always going to be worse than what is shown on screen. Here we only see the emotional effects of the violence, which in turn also worsens the effect as it appears "real".

In a normal "Hollywood horror" your bloodlust is quenched and everything is packaged in a certain manner that the violence is almost like a "Tom and Jerry" cartoon - you know its not real and it is entertaining. The reality is that if you were to genuinely see some of the acts of violence that are carried out within these films then you would be scarred for life. By not showing us, Haneke is at one time saving us this anguish, yet on another level heightening the effects of the violence - How bad is it that he won't show it?

In the case of the most shocking scene in the film I don't know if I could have coped if Haneke had shown George Jnr's death. It may have been too much. As it is, the scene is still an incredibly tough watch, and was genuinely shocking - Haneke smashes another rule of horror movies that whilst children can be in peril they are in no real danger. But it is the incredibly long single take that sticks in the mind. Simply having the courage to have a static camera and capture the breakdown of the mother and father with barely a single word uttered is a brave decision, that not many directors / actors would be assured enough to be able to pull this off. As David Lynch says, this is the eye of the duck of this movie.

Haneke also makes us, the viewer, implicit with the action, but again not by following normal horror tropes and conventions. In many horror films the director shows us a point of view shot from the killer as he stalks his pray, putting you in the killers shoes, often getting you to will the killer to take one of the supporting characters down. Normally, this character is an annoying side note, a 2 dimensional character that you don't care about and whom everyone knows is just there as fodder - just look at any of the Friday the 13th films for the annoying character that you are literally cheering for the killer to dispatch!

In Funny Games "Paul" addresses the camera directly, acknowledging the fact that what they are doing to this family, the torture that they are putting them through, is ultimately for our benefit. Whilst this was, at first viewing, off putting, I think it is an incredibly bold move, and one that ultimately pays off. By making us confront the reasons that we watch horror, we hold a mirror up to ourselves and question our own morality - is it really acceptable to watch films like this?

With regards to empathising with "Peter and Paul" I don't feel that this is the case. "Peter", especially in the US version, is quite charismatic but the characters are just too off putting. Having said that, at times the father is a truly unlikeable character who doesn't stand up for his family when needed. I know for certain that my fellow horror club members were not enjoying his chat, and whilst they maybe weren't glad that he was being inflicted with pain, they certainly didn't feel sorry for him.

Ultimately though, it is "Peter and Paul" that you want to receive comeuppance, and you are normally provided with this in a horror movie in some shape or form. In this case Anne / Anna grabs a shotgun at an opportune moment and shoots "Peter" square in the chest. It is the only time we see blood shed on screen. It is a monumental moment that was greeted with a cheer on Thursday night. However, Haneke doesn't allow us to enjoy this for long, swiftly rewinding the movie, snatching away from us the moment we desired and reminding us that in this case, this is not a typical movie. He was simply showing us what we desired and expected a movie to do, and as such he has the power to rewind this and show us what would actually happen if two psychos invaded your house. It's a divisive moment that may lose some viewers, but on reflection I think it proves to be Haneke's masterstroke.

Thereafter, we are provided with one last chance. Maybe Haneke has been playing with us all this time, but surely Anna / Anne will get away in the good old fashioned horror tradition of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Halloween, Friday the 13th et al. We suddenly remember the knife on the boat from the opening 5 minutes and think she may finally escape. Obviously Haneke isn't that kind. The killers notice this and nonchalantly throw her overboard. This lack of any emotion at all is one of the most chilling things about the film. After all this, the killers show no remorse, and move onto another family to use as their playthings. How many times have they done this before, how many times will they do it again? Who knows, like the rest of Haneke's film it doesn't give you any answers and certainly doesn't leave you with any hope. This is a film that will stay with you for days, if not weeks after viewing, and there are not many films that I can say that about. Especially two seasons deep into Horror Club!

Ally's Weekly Review: Funny Games

2011-09-05T18:25:00.006+01:00

I was very much looking forward to getting Horror Club back up and running for our third season. Then we put the DVD in and I remembered how much of a mental and physical toll a horror film can take on you. When Clarky told us that he had lined up an Austrian psychological horror to launch the 2011/12 season I knew I wasn’t in for a comfortable evening... and so it proved.

To give a brief synopsis, the film starts with a young Austrian family driving to their summer house on the lake. As they begin to get settled in they are visited by 2 friendly, but rather odd, young men. Soon they become uncomfortably weird and then the film focuses on the intense psychological, and physical, torture that the family is subjected to. Yep... just another light, frothy watch at horror club. I was hoping to be eased back into things before the more full-on stuff, but Clarky had other plans. Cheers, Clarky.

(First a warning - it’s impossible to review this one without veering into spoiler territory, so keep that in mind.)

The first thing I feel needs to be mentioned about this film is that the acting on display is absolutely first rate. The suffering of the family is astonishingly realistic. Maybe too realistic, as it becomes very difficult to watch their shattered faces go through such an ordeal. But I have to say that the acting might be up there with the best I’ve seen in any horror film. The two standout performances are from the mother of the family and the lead villain. There have been very few horror bad guys that I have hated as much. He oozes self-assuredness, far from showing a shred of empathy for his victims he positively revels in the twisted game he has constructed. It is a brilliant piece of acting to create a character that the audience can despise so viscerally.

What I found difficult was the unflinching tragedy of the events. The audience is given no respite, no revenge and no redemption. The realism is brutal... scenes are deliberately protracted and uncomfortable affairs, and because of the acting - and the complete lack of movie gloss - you feel like you are somehow watching a real event. I think that I found it just a bit too difficult to watch, even though it wasn’t that scary (although there were moments of superbly constructed tension). Nor was it disgustingly violent: indeed we actually see almost no violence whatsoever (we hear it and see the reaction of others instead). So it wasn’t like other, more conventional, horror films. This film was difficult for new reasons, which I admire... but that doesn’t mean that I ‘enjoyed’ it. You can’t really enjoy a film where you watch a twenty minute scene showing a mother and father grunt and cry as they mourn the death of their son. Horror movies push the limits of what you can tolerate, but this scene in particular was over the limit for me. The majority of this film was just about watching suffering... very realistic suffering. Well made point or not (which I will get to in a moment), the facts are that I first and foremost want to enjoy a film on some level, and I struggled mightily with this one.

The part that is clearly the most divisive aspect of the film is this idea of it being an ‘Anti-horror’ movie. It defies the usual trademarks and formula of horror and makes the audience question their participation in the events, and what they want to happen next. Literally... the primary villain asks the audience if the victims have had enough. In this way, it seems that the film wants to provide a type of a social commentary about violence, and more specifically the portrayal of violence in cinema (see Fin’s review for a fuller explanation).

It also purposefully robs the audience of its only satisfying “revenge” moment, and I think how you view this moment may determine how you rate the movie. When it happened I was outraged and immediately compared it to the end of Switchblade Romance. But Clarky pointed out that if it had happened then it would have completely gone against the very thing the director was trying to express to the audience. The satisfying moment was unrealistic, it wouldn’t have happened in real life (it is actually the only violence we see). Instead we see this moment and then the film ‘rewinds’ to show the satisfying moment thwarted. Clarky was right, and I’ve revised my opinion about this pivotal scene, it shouldn’t be linked with the end of Switchblade Romance. It’s a clever film, but I found this device to just be a bit too clever for its own good. I found it too jarring: veering clumsily between ultra realism and the surreal.

I can appreciate what the director was doing on one level, but as I said previously I watch movies to enjoy or get a thrill out of them too. Not only that… I also want to become fully invested and immersed in it, and the director purposefully denied me all these things to hammer home a wider point. It is most certainly a thought-provoking film, one that can be debated and discussed at length, and that is obviously a good thing. I think it will be a film that generates a lot of discussion, so I’m very glad that Clarky brought it to the table. Films that challenge the audience to look at their own participation, and questions what we are watching, are few and far between. However, as much as I admired the film and applaud its originality I just can’t embrace it fully.

An impressive film that showcases some superb talent, and it will probably stay with me for a long time, but it won’t ever be a favourite of mine at Horror Club.

Fin's Weekly Review: Funny Games

2011-09-05T10:00:00.000+01:00

Clarky started season three off on Thursday with 'Funny Games', the widely acclaimed Austrian horror film. Michael Haneke's film was released in 1997 and since then has been widely praised. The initial set-up is about as classic horror as you can get: a wealthy family leave for a relaxing weekend in the country, but are instead the victims of a night of sheer terror. However, this is the extent to which Haneke follows the norms of horror cinema and in the course of an hour and forty-five minutes he crafts one of the most uncomfortable, provocative and challenging films I have ever sat through.

I have thought about this film a lot in the days since I watched it; I have not been more conflicted by any film I have watched at Horror Club. Four days after watching, I'm still not entirely sure what I think of it. There are aspects of this film in which Haneke is operating at the level of masterpiece, but other aspects - often taking place during these same sections - that left me cold.

It is very hard to review this film in the way you would an average horror, for the simple fact that there is a lot more going on here than in most horror films. Michael Haneke is a controversial and political director and it is important to note he is not a horror director. In fact, Haneke is not a fan of the genre (to put it mildly) and it is this attitude that makes Funny Games such an uncomfortable watch for the viewer, particularly if the viewer happens to be a huge horror fan.

Haneke has in the past attacked modern American cinema as being no better than pornography, in that it seeks to make the 'visceral, horrific, transgressive elements of life consumable', and there is perhaps no genre to which this attack applies more than horror. In denouncing modern cinema, Haneke also criticises the audience and seeks to put the audience in the role of accomplice to what they are witnessing on screen. This is, ironically, an approach that has led to Haneke's work being branded obscene.

Whether Funny Games is obscene our not is open to debate, but what is not up for debate is the almost physical difficulty of watching it. This is where I think you could argue that Haneke is, if not a genius, then certainly a visionary. As a means of attacking the entire horror genre - and those who enjoy it - Haneke creates a visceral, intense and at times phenomenal horror film as a vehicle for doing so. It is therefore very difficult to separate the film itself from the intent with which Haneke made the film and as a result is hard to review. Despite his aversion to the genre, Haneke crafts a film which a number of less-intelligent horror directors could only dream of being able to make.

Funny Games is a tense, painful and truly horrific psychological horror. From the moment the film opens with a slow-panning shot of the victims' car driving to the countryside, while inside the parents discuss classical music, we know that this film is going to be different. One of the most interesting aspects of the film, and a technique which is hugely successful, is shooting the film in the same way a director would shoot a family drama or comedy film. It is this technique that helps make this a film so uncomfortable to watch, as our expectations of what a horror film should look like are not matched by what is happening on screen (at least at the start of the film), creating a tense and really psychologically difficult atmosphere for the viewer.

When the family initially come into contact with the two villains of the piece, the result is truly unsettling as we don't know whether to laugh or scream in a scene that is both comedic and terrifying. These are perhaps the most hateful villains I have ever seen in a horror film and also two of the most frightening. With their extreme politeness, false, obnoxious friendliness and child-like natures, they are truly otherworldly, but at the same time they are like playground bullies that have grown up but never left that stage of their life behind, only now instead of torturing small animals, they torture people.

When the truly awful violence does begin, it is shot in an interesting way, in that it is never shown fully on screen. We hear it - which is actually worse - but the physical act is always just off screen, out of view. What we see instead is the reaction of the wife while her husband, who is sitting beside her on the couch but out of shot, is stabbed. This is both awful and unsettling, and it is at this point that Haneke does something that no other horror director does: he shows the results of the violence.

In perhaps the hardest scene to watch, which is saying something when the film in question is Funny Games, we witness a father's and mother's reaction to the death of their son in single shot over a twenty minute period. The emotional breakdown of the parents is shattering. It is a startlingly uncomfortable scene and Haneke intends it to be. He is asking the viewer, very clearly, "What the hell are you doing watching this stuff?". Surely watching the suffering of people, even if it is in a film, is, if not wrong, then bizarre and unhealthy?

Haneke, by extending the scene to the length that he does, goes one step further, suggesting that not only is it bizarre to watch this film and by extension other horror films, but also if we do then we are complicit in the violence on screen and no better than the physical perpetrators. Indeed, it is perhaps for this reason that the villains are so so hateful, because unlike Leatherface or Freddy Kruger their very normalcy means they represent us, the viewer.

On a more superficial level, it should not be forgotten that there are many facets of this film that would grace any horror film: the acting, lighting and directing are all excellent and the sound is something to behold; whether it is eery silence or the background hum of motor racing, the sound is perfect.

Having said that, Funny Games is not without its faults and some of these faults are significant. Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, this film is in no way enjoyable. This is not to question its quality - it is a film that was made with the aim of creating a truly awful experience and questioning the viewer, and as a result if you enjoy it in the traditional sense you are slightly strange.

I have said that Hanake is a visionary and possibly a genius, both statements I believe. However, I have also said he is not a horror director and this is an important point. He attacks the genre and does so very effectively, but by not being a horror director or even a fan of the genre he uses a very broad brush. The horror genre, like any other, is a wide one and contains a range of films with different approaches and points of view. I would argue that Hanake does not engage with this, instead attacking horror in the same way and using the same arguments that its critics have always used.

Nevertheless, Funny Games is a truly different and unique film and one any horror fan should try to engage with. It will not be comfortable or enjoyable, but if nothing else it will definitely make you think.

Season 2011/12 kicks off this week!

2011-09-01T17:38:00.000+01:00

The end of summer (Edinburgh got about 3 days of sunshine) is approaching, and the nights are getting longer again. That means it's time to start the Thursday night ritual of Horror Club once more. Clarky kicks things off by picking the first film of the 2011/12 season tomorrow. We don't want to start off with a terrible choice so there is monumental pressure on him to pick a winning film!

Our weekly review will be back up and running from this Monday and you can expect that to carry on each week thereafter. We are also planning a few changes to the blog, which we hope to implement over the next couple of weeks, and we're going to try and update twitter much more regularly with movie news and general banter. If you've got any recommendations or feedback then please get in touch via twitter or write a comment after any post.

Cheers,

Ally, Clarky & Fin

Fin's Retrospective Review: Omen III: The Final Conflict

2011-09-01T17:00:00.000+01:00

At the start of this review, I should put my cards on the table. I'm a huge fan of the Omen trilogy and as a result I no doubt overlook some of the weakness of the franchise, particularly in Omen II and III. Despite my fandom, I'm aware that, if Omen II was poorly received by critics, Omen III is absolutely derided and for many people a joke. This film is by no means a great film but it is not as bad as many people make out. It contains an effective story and provides a satisfying conclusion to a solid trilogy including some genuinely creepy set pieces along the way.

In this final instalment of the franchise, Damien Thorne is now an adult who has fully assumed the role of antichrist. Thanks to his devious machinations, Thorne Industries is the world's biggest and most influential multinational corporation, providing him with the power to make his move into politics. Damien, with the help of some demonic powers, secures his father's old position of Ambassador to The Court Of St James and, perhaps most importantly, becomes head of the UN's youth council. It seems that after all of his scheming all of the pieces of the puzzle have fallen into place for Damien and the path to world overlord is clear.

However, Damien's true nature and his rise to power have not gone completely unnoticed and a small band of monks vow to put a stop to his plans. The priests set out to kill Damien using the Seven Daggers of Megiddo, the same weapons with which Gregory Peck failed to off Damien in the first Omen. If you think seven elderly priests using a knife against the antichrist doesn't sound fair, you would be correct. However, something else is going on. Using some of the most budget scientific equipment I think I have seen in any film, the Vatican Observatory has noticed something strange taking place, something Damien had also noticed and something that scares even the antichrist himself. In the sky, a strange confluence of three stars indicates the second coming of Christ, and with that the titular final conflict begins.

Now I accept that, in a series that in the previous two outings had pretty solid understated stories, the story in Omen III is pretty out there. However, I think that the film gets away with it, as it represents the final battle between the devil and God and therefore needs to be dramatic and full-on. If nothing else, this film is just fun. As much as it is often laughed at, horror reviewers sometimes forget that it contains some genuinely creepy scenes. In one particularly hideous set-up, Damien orders the murder of all newborn boys born on the 24th of March in an attempt to kill the reborn Christ. The results are truly unsettling, as we witness the murder of baby boys in an echo of Herod's killings in the Bible. The hunting scene is also wonderfully effective, seeing Damien take control of a pack of bloodhounds to terrorise one of his would-be assassins. The film also contains the creepiest crucifix since Carrie.

Basically what I'm saying is that this film is not the horror dud it is made out to be. While it is the weakest of the three films, it provides a satisfying conclusion to a great trilogy.

Ally's Retrospective Review: Pontypool

2011-09-01T16:49:00.004+01:00

One of the glaring weak spots from our list of films currently reviewed is the lack of zombie movies. This isn’t because of an aversion to them (far from it, Fin is a connoisseur of the zombie subgenre), it’s just the way it has worked out so far. Hopefully, as we embark on our third season, that will change. I personally plan to throw a few zombie films into the mixer this year. One of the very few zombie films we have watched at Horror Club is Pontypool, which we watched in the middle of the 2009/10 season.

I’d never heard of Pontypool before Fin brought it to the table, but it sounded interesting. The film starts in a small snowy town in Ontario, in the middle of the night. We meet a grizzled DJ coming on to do his graveyard-shift slot. Immediately, I began to warm to the film. The style seemed slick and polished, and the actor playing the DJ (Stephen McHattie) is absolutely spot on. He plays a once renowned shock jock who has clearly made some bad choices, and he’s wound up on a small time radio station as little more than an announcer. He’s actually one of the strongest characters from any recent horror movie I’ve seen: you get the feeling that the back story is all there in his face and voice. As he settles down for the shift, news of strange events happening around their little town begin to trickle through. At first it doesn’t appear serious, but soon more events unfold that begin to reveal just how dire the situation outside really is…

By the end of the first hour, a full-on zombie outbreak is on the cards and the radio station soon becomes populated with those potentially spreading the virus. But how is it spreading? It’s at this point that Pontypool can’t quite deliver on its potential. On paper they have an excellent - and novel - take on the zombie outbreak tale: the virus is spread through peoples voices. At first I thought this was a piece of genius, a fresh new approach to the genre. But unfortunately the film quickly becomes as nonsensical as those infected with the virus. Twists fall flat and it actually becomes a very dull film towards the end. We were all laughing at the absurdity of the final quarter of the film, which was a shame. Once the outbreak was fully-fledged I became completely disengaged from events. The film is in no way frightening, a few of the jumps are more for comedy-value than to actually scare the audience. Any tension and suspense is tempered by the drop-off in quality as the story evolves.

Like a lot of horror films, it failed to build upon an intriguing idea. The necessary execution to produce something worthy of its original promise was severely lacking. It was a disappointment because the first quarter of the film showed real originality and style, plus the character of Grant Mazzy deserved a better platform (although I wonder if part of the problem with the film is that his unique character doesn’t quite work as the ‘hero’ during the second half).

Pontypool wasn’t known before it was brought to Horror Club, and it was quickly forgotten after being watched. I’m surprised that it has actually been reasonably well-received by a lot of critics, it just doesn’t work in my opinion. If you want to watch a zombie film then you are best to stick to the classics. This one is only for those who have seen virtually all zombie movies and are searching for anything with a scrap of originality. But for everyone else, there are plenty of more interesting and well-crafted zombie movies out there. Best avoided.

Clarky's Retrospective Review: Don't Look Now

2011-08-31T19:01:00.004+01:00

Ally brought Don't Look Now to the table at the tail end of the 2009/10 season, and whilst I was aware of the film, I had never seen it. Thankfully, I was better of because of this. Where my run in with another classic British horror, The Wicker Man, had faltered as it failed to live up to my expectations and the ending didn't quite have the same impact due to my familiarity with the subject, Don't Look Now confounded all my expectations. Although, looking back I'm not sure what those expectations were!

Often difficult to watch, although this was sometimes due to the graphic sex scene (never an easy watch at horror club - the setting just doesn't work!), but impossible to tear yourself away from Don't Look Now tells the story of a couple played by the breezy that is Julie Christie and a moustache ridden Donald Sutherland struggling to cope with the loss of their young daughter. Also thrown into the mix are two elderly sisters, one of whom is blind and claims to be psychic (I would be avoiding her like the plague!) and a serial killer that is on the loose.

Unsettling, unnerving and never pandering to its audience, this is a film that demands repeat viewings. The use of imagery and the motifs peppered throughout the film could have you puzzling over the film for years. Whilst this type of film may infuriate some, I was drawn in and wrapped up within the story. The use of editing, with flashforwards and flashbacks, is impeccable and gives a real sense of unease to the viewer. At times the film can seem disjointed yet at the climax everything falls into place, which just further underlines the brilliance of the film in my opinion.

Its interesting to note that one of the most memorable uses of this intercutting happened in an attempt to get the uncut sex scene past censors. It was expressly forbidden for "the rise and fall between the thighs" to be seen on screen, therefore Roeg intercut the scene with them post coitally getting ready and going out for dinner. Therefore, Roeg cut the post coital shots between "the rise and fall" in order that there was nothing untoward for the censors to object to. But clearly the viewer fills in these gaps for themselves. Thankfully, this trick to avoid the wrath of the censors has resulted in a phenomenal scene.

Essential viewing for any horror fan, but particularly so for a British horror fan. This may well be the best British horror ever made.

Ally's Retrospective Review: Them

2011-08-25T16:30:00.004+01:00

In my opinion, the type of horror that is the most scary... the most unbearable... is the unseen and unknown. The hardest watch is when you know there is something wrong, but you don’t know what it is: you don’t have a handle on what you are up against. A good horror film should slowly increase the tension and not overplay its hand too early. It’s a much more intense experience when you don’t know what the bogeyman/dark force looks like, or what they will do next. Some of the best examples of this are found in [horror club favourite] The House of the Devil... even Jaws got this right (the mechanical shark was impressive for the era, but the sinking yellow barrels were scarier).

Often films make the mistake of believing that some CGI monstrosity is scarier than the unknown, and then you get unfortunate turds like Jeepers Creepers. The French film we reviewed last season, Inside, also suffered greatly from revealing itself too soon. The film begins as unbearably tense: we don’t know who this shadowy presence is, but we’ve been told just enough to know that they are in the house... and it’s a potentially brilliant piece of filmmaking. Then we see the villain fully, we see her temporarily thwarted. The film has played its best hand within 20 minutes and can then only terrify through violence... and more violence. It becomes disgusting, rather than scary. A promising premise is lost.

I saw a trailer for Them on a DVD we watched in the first season of Horror Club and it looked absolutely terrifying. Exactly the type of film that is unbearable to watch. Who were these strange people tormenting a helpless couple in their home? So I decided to bring it to the table with much nervous anticipation...

For the first third of the film I was sure that we were watching a potential classic of the genre. The set pieces were brief, the frights understated, but by taking this approach the tension quickly became unbearable. I wasn’t sure I was going to make it through the whole film. Unexpected flashes of light, the creaking of floorboards... it was agony to watch. I felt that we were in the hands of a director who knew how to make a film terrifying and tense. The acting of the two leads was very natural, and they are easily empathised with as they start to become more and more aware of the threat they face.

Then we encounter the villains fully. We see our heroes stand toe to toe with - and briefly repel - them... and the film changes. It becomes a chase, and you can only maintain the tension of a chase for so long. When you watch a chase for two thirds of a film the tension inevitably washes away, as does its ability to shock and frighten the viewer. That’s certainly how I feel about it, although others may disagree. All I can say is that I began watching a film that was genuinely scary and I soon became pretty nonplussed: I wasn’t covering my eyes once the film stopped trying to build tension. I knew what the protagonists were up against, seeing the bad guys more and more on screen diminished their impact. If the film had built upon the initial tension and had a shorter chase sequence to end the film, I’d probably be imploring you all to see it. But imagine (for those who have seen it) what The House of the Devil would be like if the final 10 minutes was actually two thirds of the film, or that giant-faced shark was jumping onto the boat for 70 minutes... and you get my gripe with Them.

The film is solid, don’t get me wrong, but I was left feeling a little disappointed after such a promising opening. While I can’t strongly recommend this film, it does have some quality to it - I can’t fault the acting and it is well shot. However, after we watched it I don’t think any of us ever mentioned it again: which is a pretty clear indictment. I did like the very end of the film... it redeemed some of its creepy credentials with the finish (always good to throw in a ‘based on a true story’... even if it’s not!)

On the whole though this film will be filed away under ‘what might have been...’ Strangely this file is crammed full of French horror films. Them, Switchblade Romance and Inside have all failed to deliver on their strong potential. Coincidence? Je ne sais pas...