Ally's Cinema Review: Stake Land

I was really looking forward to seeing Stake Land. Fin is notorious for hearing about upcoming films and building expectations to unreachable heights. I usually try to steer clear of his hyping-up habits, because I can be guilty of doing the same thing. So I tried to avoid finding out too much about Stake Land to avoid the inevitable let down. Still, from what little I had heard I couldn’t help anticipating good things.

As always, I like to start with the positives... The film is absolutely gorgeous. The vast landscapes of a deserted America are as haunting as they are spectacular. As the group travel north the landscapes change with them, as do the seasons, and it works very well with the unfolding events. The music is very important to the overall mood of the film, due to the sparse use of dialogue, and it combines very well with the cinematography to give the movie a really beautiful feel.

What struck me most about the film was how (incredibly) similar it is to The Road (only with the addition of vampires). It’s the first thing Clarky said as we left the cinema, and he was bang on. I wasn’t much of a fan of the Road, but this film is much better (an excellent book that should never have been adapted... just my two cents). Perhaps you could argue that it borrowed a little too much from it (and many zombie apocalypse movies). I have to say that it doesn’t feel like a hugely original film, although that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

The characters are very interesting. Mister has jumped right into the mixer as my favourite vampire killer. He’s absolutely tremendous to watch. Blade would still have him in a fight, but he’s one tough son of a gun. He’s actually kind of like Whistler – only younger and without the gammy leg. The main character, the narrator, is well portrayed – the film is really about him becoming a man and I think this is well handled. We see him toughen up over time, but he retains part of his innocence and optimism. It is a very realistic character development, and credit must be given to the fine performance of the central actor. The relationship between the two main characters is understated, but very compelling too. Lots of little things are hinted at in the film, without them being rammed down your throat, and I appreciated the subtlety used by the director.

I was expecting big things from this film, and while there was much to admire I can’t help but feel a little disappointed. Perhaps I can blame Fin for building up this film? Even though I tried to ignore the hype, I definitely went in to this one expecting great things. For that reason I feel more critical of it than other (poorer) films. There is no doubt that it is a good, maybe even very good, film. But can it be considered a great film? I think it falls short of this mark. As I said previously, it lacks a little bit of originality that I think a great film needs, although that isn’t my main criticism…

The film has very little dialogue (most of the story is told through narration) and it doesn’t quite work for me. When the dialogue does come it is a little bit clunky and wooden: full of slightly well-used clichés. It’s a shame because the narration is actually very good in its own right, and the film is well acted. You don’t feel you are missing anything when the actors aren’t speaking – it’s just that when they do something about it feels a little out of sorts.

Aside from the two leads, the other characters come and go without really allowing the audience to build a relationship with them. For that reason, when events do unfold, I felt strangely unmoved by some of the goings-on. Perhaps it was due to the sparse dialogue/interaction on display. For me, this chosen style helped to create an atmospheric and beautiful movie, but the side effect was that I felt a little removed from the emotional side of the film. The glimpses at the characters are just too fleeting to really engage with them. In a film that seems to want to pitch itself as character-driven, this seems like a fundamental flaw.

I also think that the film could have been a lot scarier, quite a few opportunities for jumps are missed, which was a shame. The vampires are pretty scary – although apart from the fangs, and aversion to sunlight, they seem more like zombies (the running ones from 28 days later, not George Romero’s slow movers).

Don’t get me wrong though, this film is certainly worth seeing – it’s entertaining, well acted and beautiful to look at. It’s just not quite up there with the gold standard of horror. Still, it’s certainly one of the better horror movies of 2011.

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

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.

Ally's Review: The Shrine

I'd never heard of this film before Fin brought it to the table on Thursday. After briefly reading the synopsis on the back of the DVD I began to worry that we were in for another very uncomfortable watch.

The Shrine tells the story of a (very irritating) journalist who sneaks away to Poland on the hunt for a potential big news story with her gormless colleague and hapless boyfriend. An American tourist went missing in a small town in Poland with no trace, so she goes to investigate. Soon we discover that the small town has some bizarre secrets, most notably a strange fog in the forest. Unwisely (have they never seen a horror movie??) the three of them go off to find out what's happening, with very bad results...


I actually quite enjoyed this movie, probably more than I should have. I enjoyed it despite the very obvious problems. First of all the acting is substandard: the three Americans have no charisma and struggle to convey the more subtle emotions, the natives are quite clearly not Polish (the children are especially comical), although for a small budget movie this is probably an unfair gripe. It suffers from having the characters do the very common horror movie practice of making incredibly dumb decisions - in a tongue and cheek movie that's fine, but in a film that's trying to be serious it adds an unintentional comedic element.

Despite these grumbles I did enjoy the movie, even if I forgot about it soon after the credits rolled. It has some solid scares and it is a genuinely creepy premise for a movie. With some better acting and a bit of polishing (unintended pun) of the script, I think it would have been a surprisingly good film. The twist is well handled (a rarity for a horror film), and not immediately obvious… unless you're Clarky and you call it after about 20 minutes (ruining it for me and Fin in the process!)

In other words, this film is a bit of a mixed bag. It has enough originality and creepiness to be worth a watch for any horror fan looking for a decent 80 minute film. But it's quickly forgotten because the flaws are a bit much to overcome.

Ally's Review: Mulberry Street

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.

Ally's Review: Freaks

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.

Ally's Review: Night of the Creeps

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?

Ally's Review: The Devil's Backbone

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.

Ally's Review: Insidious

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.

Ally's Review: The Silent House

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.

Ally's Review: Night of the Living Dead

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 Review: Martin

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.

Ally's Review: The Grudge

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.

Ally's Review: Near Dark

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.

Ally's Review: Funny Games

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.

Ally's Review: Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood & Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan

Hmmm... I think I overdid the fix of Jason Voorhees. It turns out that you shouldn’t do back to back weeks of Friday the 13th double bills. After watching Part 5 and 6 last week, we wanted to watch the next two and it was too much. Like a kid who wants more sweeties and then feels a bit sick afterwards...

I’ll try to put that aside and rate the films against the rest of the franchise. You can’t really rate these films as independent subjects because they are uniquely - and wonderfully - awful. By part 7 we have a new foe for Jason: Tina Shepherd. She has telekinetic powers that come out when she is stressed. So her psychiatrist decides to try to induce it by taking her to Crystal Lake. As you would. It’s a nice twist on the franchise, and mixed in with the usual elements, it gives this film a bit of originality.

Part 8 is basically Jason on a boat. It has some nice touches and a few good laughs - but it’s probably the worst sequel since part 5. It’s worth seeing for arguably the best Jason kill in the franchise (Jason as the pugilist) and it depicts Manhattan as literally the worst place on Earth. I could do without the near rape scene, and the drug sequence is ludicrous. It's like the director wanted to take the film into a gritty drama for about 10 minutes and it falters badly. Overall, it’s a decent film (relatively speaking), but it ranks quite low in the franchise for me.

For the record... if I had to rank the sequels in order it would be Part 4, Part 2, Part 6, Part 3, Part 7, Part 8 and (bringing up the rear) Part 5. I’ve not seen Jason goes to Hell, and Jason X is kind of its own beast (although I do love it). Perhaps next season we might get round to reviewing the rest of them. But for now, I think we all need a little break from Jason.

Ally's Review: Friday the 13th: A New Beginning & Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives

We decided on a double header of parts 5 and 6 for this weeks viewing. What can I say about these films? The Friday the 13th franchise is a guilty pleasure of mine. It's hard to review these films because they are pretty awful, but that doesn't change the fact that I really enjoy them. The only way to review it is by way of comparison to what has come before. Although if you are seriously thinking about watching parts 5 & 6 then chances are you have a good idea of what to expect.

Part 5 sees Tommy Jarvis return as a haunted adult, who moves to the worst psychiatric facility in the world. For some inexplicable reason 'Jason' returns to kill lots of the patients. Even for a Friday the 13th film the premise is flimsy. They attempted to resurrect the franchise by going in a different direction and it falls completely flat. You could actually just take part 5 out because 4 and 6 fit together much better. However, if you did that then you'd miss out on some great characters such as Reggie 'Reckless' and his big brother Demon. 2D characters such as these are what makes me enjoy the franchise so much. So in that regard, part 5 has some merit.

Part 6 decides that Part 5 never happened and the real Jason returns. Thank goodness. 2 shots of lightning to the chest not only resurrect Mr Voorhees but give him even more strength. His kills in this film are particularly swift and ruthless. It follows the same premise as pretty much every Friday film - Jason kills a lot of people at a Summer camp. If I had to place it in the franchise I'd say that it's better than part 3 but not as good as part 4. However it is worth it just for the kill in the RV. There are also some actual proper nice shots in this film too.

These aren't films that I can necessarily recommend, if you have seen part 4 then there is probably a good chance you are a big enough geek to watch more. Part 5 is really awful and unnecessary (but still funny)… Part 6 is a good addition to the franchise.

Ally's Review: Switchblade Romance

It’s not often that I want to meet the director of a film so that I can shout abuse at them. The only other director, before this film, was George Lucas. A few days after watching Switchblade Romance and I still can’t grasp what happened at the end. I can only assume that the director had a breakdown right at the end of filming, or perhaps someone held a gun to his head and instructed him to ruin the movie. They are the only reasonable explanations I have come up with.

As Fin and Clarky have both said, if you stop it before the twist then you will feel very satisfied with the selection of this movie. Until the twist I was thinking that Switchblade Romance (terrible title aside) was probably the freshest slasher movie I’d seen in a very long time. I was thoroughly impressed and I was all set to place it amongst the best horror movies of the decade.

The villain of the movie was fantastic. He was ugly, disgusting and absolutely relentless. Just when you think he’s been tricked or stopped... he regains the upper hand. I also love that you don’t get a clear shot of his face in the movie (pre-twist anyway) I thought that was a great touch. He combines all the best traits of a slasher villain and moulds them into something new and exciting.

There are other things to admire. The acting, the story, the sound effects, the lighting, cinematography... they are all very good. There is really very little not like about it until the end. But my goodness... the end is just so remarkably bad - and totally nonsensical - that it wipes out all the good will that I had towards the film and director. I’d recommend that people watch it just to see how suddenly a movie can be ruined. I’ve never seen anything like it in any genre. I’d just love to know what Aja was thinking! Has he watched the final cut of this movie and thought “Wowzer! This twist is inspired, people are going to love this”... surely not? If he did then he is even crazier than the person locked up at the end of the movie.

This film was heading to a comfortable place in my top 20 of the movies watched at Horror Club, but now it will have to banished to the depths beside such turkey’s as Drag Me to Hell and The Host. A real shame.

Ally's Review: To Let

I had absolutely no expectations when Fin brought To Let to the table. When I learned that Fin was choosing a film from the same director as [Rec], I began to anticipate something a bit special. [Rec] is in the photo finish for my favourite horror film of the last decade. I think that it is absolutely spot-on in every way. This film was made before [Rec] and you can see some similar elements in this movie. The overall impression that I got from To Let was that this was done by a director who was just learning exactly how to create a great piece of horror. It’s a bit rough around the edges compared to REC. That's not to say that it isn't a good film in its own right.

Firstly, the director knows how to use an apartment block to add tension and creepiness. He takes this skill to another in [Rec], but we also see his brilliance here too. I also thought the story was excellent. I loved the premise of the insane woman, forcing people to stay in the apartment. She’s incredibly creepy and you want someone to smack her with shovel the whole film. The movie is very short, but it zips along well and there are few moments that don’t aid the story in some way.

The most flawed element of the movie is that the characters continually fail to dispatch their tormentor. You will find it impossible not to scream at them as they dawdle around, failing to seize their clear opportunity to escape. I suppose there is something very classic about this device, but somehow it misfires here – they kind of deserve to be recaptured or stopped, because they are so slow and weak (especially the husband: the softest man in any movie ever made).

There are some good set pieces on display, and the creepiness and frights are at a solid level. Ultimately though, my lasting impression from the movie was that it wasn’t quite there yet. Several of the jumps misfire when they could have worked superbly with better timing. This is the best example of what I meant about the director learning on the job. He hadn’t mastered the horror genre by this movie, he was still cutting his teeth. It was really good to see it because of that, so that you can see how he progressed with his skill. If I watched this movie without knowing anything about who directed it then I think I would have still enjoyed it, but I probably wouldn't have given it another moments thought. I think I feel more positive towards it because of how much I love [Rec].

Worth seeing for those who want to see flashes of brilliance from a director who would then put it all together later in his career. For anyone else? I’d probably still recommend it: it’s a solid film, although it won’t bowl anyone over.

Ally's Review: Inside

I thought I'd bring something different to the mixer this week, choosing a film that I'd heard quite a bit of buzz about. I had been thinking about selecting it for a while after seeing it atop of a list of the best horror movies of the decade - but I was reluctant because it sounded pretty full on. I'm not the bravest horror fan in the world, and there have been several films at horror club where I've covered my eyes for a good portion of it - and I knew going in that this film would probably be in that category.

Inside is a very challenging film to watch. It's one of the most violent movies that I've ever seen and that's not really an aspect of horror that floats my boat. I like the comical violence of a slasher movie, and I don't mind the occasional severed limb if it doesn't dominate the movie. I like my horror with tension and frights, not graphic violence. If you read our 'origin of horror club' section you'll see that none of us are into gorno. For me, it's a sub genre of horror that has absolutely no merit. This film is a little too classy to be categorised as a gorno movie, but it walked a fine line. I'll happily admit that the final scene was one that I couldn't watch, it was way beyond my limits. Having said that, although the final shot was absolutely horrifying it was also quite remarkable too.

Even a few days after watching I'm not entirely sure what I think of this movie. It's really well acted, there are some moments of brilliance and it definitely has a depth to it. I was very impressed by the performances of the two stars, who really did an excellent job of conveying the aching sense of loss they both individually carried. There are also some brilliantly crafted shots that represent the best of horror. It's a very stylish film and I think that the team behind it have real potential to go on and make other quality films.

But the overriding impression of the film is the inescapable level of violence. For me, it's just too full on. It's unflinching in its brutality and realism, and I found myself wanting the film to end about half way through. I don't regret the choice because I think it was good to see what my limits are for horror, but I definitely found them in this film. If you are completely numb to violence then this is a very well made movie and it is worth watching. However, if you are anything like me then you'll just find it a bit too much. I definitely won't be recommending it to anyone I know, just in case they think I'm a psychopath as a result.

A very strong film... just a little too strong for my tastes.

Ally's Review: The Night of the Hunter

I was excited to see Clarky come with The Night of the Hunter this week. I had been meaning to bring this film to the table since the first season of Horror Club, but somehow it had been forgotten. I first saw it when I was a kid and I found it pretty terrifying. My Dad suggested that we watch it and I wasn’t up for it at all – I wasn’t exactly enamoured with those dusty old black and white movies. I was proven wrong and I’ve had a high opinion of this film ever since.

Firstly, I have to agree with Clarky, I’d question whether this can really be classified as a Horror movie. However, it doesn’t really matter either way – this is an even better film than I’d previously realised. I can’t find any significant flaw and it deserves to be included amongst the very best films ever made (regardless of genre).

Robert Mitchum creates one of the most sinister, magnetically charming, and endlessly watchable villains to ever grace the silver screen. When you hear him sing ‘Leaning on the everlasting arms’ there is a quality to it that is captivating: you understand his seductive powers. It’s up there with the greatest performances I’ve seen. There are plenty of other superb performances too. Lillian Gish is superb as Mrs Cooper, the antithesis of Harry Powell, who guards her flock against his evil pursuit. The performances by the children are also fantastic, the film wouldn’t work without them being believable.

Special mention has be given to the lighting in this film. In my youth, I foolishly used to think that there were no redeeming features of black & white films. However, I think that it’s actually a real strength of the movie. The way the film is lit is quite astonishing: it’s years ahead of its time. I don’t think a movie in full Technicolor glory could come close to achieving the effect. Watch the clip that Fin has included in his review, it’s quite remarkable. Perhaps it was too forward thinking for its time, hence the critical and box office mauling.

An absolutely superb film and a real change of pace after the double helping of Argento. Anyone, regardless of their interest in horror, should watch this classic.