Guest Review - Ryan: We Are What We Are

When Clarky whipped out “We Are What We Are” at my last appearance at Horror Club, I was genuinely excited.  It was one of the few films that I had wanted to see – but missed – during 2010, and if you know how many films I see every year for our Those Movie Guys podcast, you’ll know this doesn’t happen very often.

I had always been intrigued by this Spanish language horror – it was pretty well received by critics and certainly had an interesting premise.  You probably know the basic story already – a family of cannibals living in the poorest parts of modern day Mexico lose their father  - not only is he the provider in the monetary sense, but also in the sense of the mysterious “ritual” they talk about. It’s then left to the remaining members to take the reins and find a victim for the family to feast on.

What follows is a very unsettling (in a good way) mix of kitchen sink drama meets slow-burning art house horror, interspersed with some exceptionally dark humour.  It’s also a genuinely interesting piece of low budget film-making.  I can honestly say I enjoyed the film on both levels.  It succeeds in meshing a realistic situation with a shocking premise, making you believe that the situation could happen.

After a striking opening sequence where the patriarch of the family dies on a busy street, the film admittedly takes a while to get going.  He’s from the lowest class, so the rest of the family carry on their daily business, unaware of his fate.  It doesn’t initially make the most gripping viewing, but absolutely highlights the family’s situation – someone being so poor, that it doesn’t register immediately when they keel over and die in the street.

The issue of cannibalism isn’t immediately revealed, but there’s a slow-building sense of unease between the family members from the off.  The mother seems unhinged, the brothers constantly get at each other, and the sister is an obvious manipulator from the start.  Tensions grow throughout the first section, especially as you know what they’re into but they don’t openly address it.  This to me works well (admittedly I’m probably more patient than your average film viewer) as when the true horrors of the “ritual” are revealed, it makes them even more chilling.

The whole film has a washed-out, sepia style to it, which works very well.  Not only does it look good, but it plays well to the grim, uneasy mood of the film – giving it an almost dream like quality – and you feel something isn’t quite right from the very beginning.  The air of sick desperation grows as the plot unfurls and all the family members take matters into their own hands, as they’re so set on carrying out their “ritual” in the wake of the father’s death.

The tension is ratcheted up, when the older brother finally grabs the bull by the horns and goes out hunting a victim.  It’s a strange sequence that only just works, where he plays a game of cat and mouse with a guy in gay club – but the whole time the viewer knows what’s coming. When the fish finally takes the bait, it moves the film into its final section.

It’s at this point – when the unease reaches its peak – that the gore is finally brought out.  When it does come it is pretty shocking.  The mother and the sister (who’ve really worn the trousers throughout the plot) strap up the victim and get the tools out.  It has the look of a Saw film, but because the set-up has been so meticulous and precise it doesn’t feel like a cheap move.  The sister, who’s spent the film typically arguing with her brothers, is now biting a chunk out a victim’s leg.  The crazy mother is wielding a knife like a well-trained butcher.  It acts as a total turn-around from what’s gone before.  All the tension-filled build-up pays off, as the family’s true colours are revealed in their grim glory.  But before the scene descends into a full blown feast for four, the plot takes another twist, moving away from the gore and setting up a closing act which is all about survival.  I will leave it for you to watch, but I will say that I thought the ending worked very well and it was far cleverer than I expected. Make sure you pay attention. It also stops what has been a very well put together film descending into a mess of blood and guts, leaving the worst of it to your own imagination (always a shrewd move in horror, if you can pull it off).

The film also manages to weave in some of the blackest humour going – the scene were the autopsy on the father is being carried out and the mortician uses a dismembered finger to flick the bird at two hapless cops investigating the case is a fine example.  It’s used sparingly, but it does work when it comes round.

Where this film may fall down for some viewers (not for me though, I may add) is the complete detachment you feel from the characters. This is something that Clarky rightfully pointed out in his review, and may not sit well with some people.  If you need a character to root for during a film, you’ll not find one here.  It’s nigh on impossible to feel sorry for the family given the depravity of their actions. I personally don’t feel that’s the point of the film, but I suspect some traditional horror fans may be disappointed.

This is not an easy watch but I found it rewarding at the finish. It’s all about the set-up, which demands patience and concentration from the viewer.  It’s an exceptionally slow-burner, but when it does get to the pay-off, the meticulous preparation makes the horror of the situation feel all the more realistic and chilling.  I really enjoyed it and found it stayed with me for a good time afterwards.

An interesting final note – the rights for an English remake have been picked up.  It’s to be directed by Jim Mickle, who’s writing the script along with Nick Damici. You may recognise those names as the men behind 2010’s most excellent vampire/survival flick “Stake Land”. I’ll be very interested to see what they do with it.

Guest Review - Amanda: Mulberry Street

(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.

Guest Review - Ryan: Peeping Tom

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.

Guest Review - Ryan: Night of the Living Dead

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.

Guest Review - Ryan: Fright Night

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