Fin's Review: Inside

A critic reviewing The Texas Chainsaw Massacre for the first time described the film as a 'scab-picking of the human spirit'. I include this quote not because I agree with it - I feel that you can defend The Texas Chainsaw Massacre on a number of levels - but because it is indicative of a much wider feeling many people have towards horror films. As a fan of the genre you spend a lot of time defending it, both from people who view the whole genre as nihilistic and psychologically damaging and from those who simply view it as weird. For the majority of time this defence is easy; I could talk for hours about the positive and life affirming message of The Exorcist, the artistic flare and vision of Dario Argento, the emotional power of films such as The Orphange and Let The Right One In or even the pure mindless fun of Friday The 13th... I could go on and on. However, there are times when you are presented with films that are clearly abhorrent and do seem to revel in the humiliation and degradation of the human condition - films such as The Hostel and Cannibal Holocaust spring to mind. There are finally a third type of film: the horror films which are perhaps the most challenging for an advocate of the genre. These are the films that you feel truly ambivalent towards and which make you question the validity and worth of the entire horror canon. Ally's choice on Thursday, the French horror Inside, was one such film.

I had heard a lot of buzz about this film in the last few years with Inside topping the lists of best horror film of the decade a number of times. Many horror critics had described this film as one of the scariest films in years and as result anticipation was high on Thursday night. Ultimately I did not like this film and do not think it deserves much of the plaudits it is receiving. I think the most important reason that I did not like this film was that it was simply not scary. There are really only two scenes that were creepy one right at the beginning of the film and the other the final shot the film squeezed between these two moments was poor. Critics who have dismissed this film have described it as a gorno a sub-section of horror that has absolutely no worth and which has been really damaging to the development of the genre. I disagree with this assessment and feel that it is unfair to include this film as a gorno it is much better than that. Whereas gorno films focus on human suffering to the exclusion of story or acting often with a heavy misogynist undertones and unlike traditional horror films have absolutely nothing to say beyond the sadism and pain on screen. Inside was much better than this it was really well shot and the lighting was fantastic and the acting performances were universally excellent. The story focusing on loss and grief was portrayed brilliantly by both protagonists. However despite these positive points the fact that many consider this film gorno highlights the fact that at times the film comes dangerously close to this description.

This film had not been on for long on Thursday night before I realised that I couldn't wait for it to be over. Never a good sign. Largely this was due to the violence on screen, not necessarily because of its graphic nature but because of the excessive use of pointless violence. It became boring very quickly. The issue of violence is a tricky one in horror films and it can seem odd to criticize one film for being violent when almost all horror movies are violent. However, there is violence to advance and enhance the story, and there is violence for violence's sake.

It is much easier to make a gory graphic film than a scary film with an engaging story, and sometimes I think viewers and directors confuse the two. I can deal with violence in a horror film if it is used as part of the story and has a purpose. The violence in Inside was so excessive and constant that once the shock passed it became frustrating. I think this highlights a serious point about the film: ultimately, it has absolutely nothing to say. Once you look past the undoubted technical skill of both the actors and directors, what are you left with is a film with a paper-thin story that tries to overcome this by constant graphic meaningless violence.

Would I recommend this film? No. There too many great horror films to waste your time with this gallic gore fest.

Clarky's Review: Inside

I was intrigued to see what Ally brought to the table this week after talking it up as his most balls out choice. Given that he had previously brought The Texas Chain Saw Massacre to the table I wasn't sure what to expect. Was this going to be another Ally double bluff and we would be watching Ghostbusters, or had he sourced a snuff movie from some dodgy website. It turned out that the film was more comparable to the latter unfortunately.

Inside was certainly a balls out movie and is unflinching in its approach to horror. Whilst, I am happy to watch anything that is put in front of me I find the current trend of torture horror is not for me. It's not that I have a problem with what is on screen necessarily, its more that the torture seems to be the main point of the film and the horror aspect. How exactly filmmakers can justify that showing one disgusting scene after another is horror is beyond me. A good horror has nuance, it get's inside your head and affects your most primal instincts, but most of all it is an art form. Sure you could argue that making someone squirm is making them react to what is shown on screen on the most basic level, but is that enough to classify you as a horror film. I've watched documentaries on surgery that have made me squirm but I wouldn't tell my friends that I had seen a cutting edge horror movie or bring it to horror club!

Horror movies need to be more than that in my opinion. It has to have some heart and soul, and the terror needs to come from something else. The gore should be a reaction to the plot moving forward rather than the cause.

Inside tries very hard to achieve this but doesn't quite achieve it. I'm not sure whether part of this was due to the fact that Ally and Fin built the film up so much that I was expecting the most wizard horror film of horror club to date, or if it is a genuine failing on the part of the filmmakers.

In my opinion the film started excellently and I found the pregnant women aspect a little much but an interesting take for a horror film. It certainly plays to your base fears of survival and vulnerability. For years filmmakers have played upon this aspect (just look at The Night of the Hunter last week) so in these days of taking everything to the nth degree I suppose it was only a matter of time before a foetus became the protagonist!

I also enjoyed the brisk pace of the first 15 minutes, setting up the story efficiently and with an impending feeling of dread. With the first few scenes in the house I thought we had another The House of the Devil on our hands. Every shot was filled with dark corners daring your eyes to flit away as you felt like something was lurking in the background. Indeed, the first shot of Beatrice Dalles character inside the house is one of the best shots I have seen at horror club this year, if not ever, both in terms of technical ability and of tension. If the film carried on like this I'm sure that I would be writing that this was my new number one film.

Instead the tone of the movie changes in an instant and not for the better. From what appeared to be the beginning of a slow assault of terror it quickly moved into an actiony gore fest. I can't help but feel that if the filmmakers had kept the identity of the mystery visitor a secret for longer and had kept her outside the house for most of the film the better this movie would have been.

There were some impressive action scenes, but once they got Sarah locked in the bathroom there was only so many ways the story could go and it felt like, that for the most part, you knew every footstep that the film was going to take. This was the most disappointing thing for me, for whilst this film was clearly innovative in some areas in others the scares were signposted a mile off and the gore became the main focus.

The last 5 minutes the film seems to be on steriods and what came before seems like small fries. Again, it just seemed to be gore, gore then a wee bit more gore, which almost became boring rather than shocking.

Whilst, The House of the Devil last year showed us how to wring the tension out of every scene by playing with peoples preconceptions of horror and well known horror tropes, Inside seems to abide by them after the first 15 minutes and undid any goodwill it had built up. Whilst I would say that my body was tense for a few scenes, this was nothing compared to The House of the Devil and at least 80% of these scenes were due to gore rather than being scared. Inside just doesn't have the scares to back up the gore unfortunately.

I'm glad Ally brought this to the table, there were a couple of scenes of pure dread, at least 1 big jump and one off the most unsettling closing shots I have seen in a while that is sure to stick with you once the credits roll. I may not have enjoyed the film at the time, but 4 days later the film is still fresh in my mind and it certainly caused a lot of discussion after the initial viewing on Thursday night. And although I don't think it was scary enough would be lying if I said I didn't feel a bit uncomfortable going to bed on Thursday in the flat by myself!

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.