Scre4m (2011)

Posted on February 5, 2013 by badblokebob

aka Scream 4

I had heard Scre4m (Scream 4, if you prefer) was dreadful; a misguided, belated attempt to revive a once-popular franchise. Personally, I thought it was fun.

Set ten years after the trilogy-closing Scream 3, the new movie wisely kicks off in years-later-sequel mode, re-introducing us to the (surviving) old characters and setting up a selection of new ones ready to be sliced ‘n’ diced. Unlike some subsequent horror franchises, Scream was never about inventive deaths, so the focus on character and storyline (relatively, at least) makes for a welcome change of pace from gore-riddled modern US horror movies.

One of the hallmarks of the original films, as I’m sure you’ll recall, is that they featured characters who were very aware of the rules of the horror movie. It played on these mercilessly, said characters employing knowledge of decades’ worth of horror films and horror sequels in order to (try to) survive. That’s not gone in Scre4m, which sets its sights on the US horror predilections that have followed since; mainly remakes and reboots. Sadly, there’s probably more on-the-nose dialogue-y exposition-y stuff about the poor quality and predictability of remakes than actually integrating such criticism into the film itself; but then again the parallels to the original Scream are there for those who care to look.

It also leads to quite a good extended bit where some characters reel off a list of recent remakes, which rather highlights just how far it’s gone now. There’s lots of examples of this fun ‘meta’ stuff for film fans; for real-world-stuff too, including references to Courtney Cox and David Arquette’s marriage, Emma Roberts being in the shadow of Julia Roberts, and so on.

In a nod to the rise of ‘torture porn’ films, Scre4m frequently reminds us that the rules have changed. I think what it really proves is there are no rules any more. Which on the one hand is fine — filmmakers have spent decades trying to subvert our expectations and surprise us in the horror genre — but on the other means the intelligent viewer can never be surprised, because every possibility is racing through our mind. Which, again, is fine — that’s the point: like every kind of murder mystery from Agatha Christie on, half the game is guessing the killer. And if you want to get suckered in to the jump scares, or think it through so thoroughly you remain ahead of them, that’s fine too. I think that’s one of the reasons horror movies have always appealed so much to teens: they’re still naive enough, unfamiliar with the rules of film enough, to get caught out by those things; whereas an older, seasoned viewer can see them coming.

But, ultimately, all the discussion of horror movies and their rules is just window dressing: if there aren’t rules any more (which there don’t seem to be), it’s impossible for the characters to use them to survive, or for it to lend much self-reflexive weight to how the killer behaves. The only moment when it might be of use is when they predict the climax will occur at a party, and it turns out they’re having a party that very night! But then they go ahead with anyway. So much for that then.

Like so much of the film, Marco Beltrami’s score is amusingly overblown. He makes it sound like something terrifying is happening when someone sits in broad daylight typing “I don’t know what to write” on their computer. I had similar thoughts on bits of the acting, the murders, and so on — there’s an element of a wink and a nudge, of deliberately hamming it up. I think that some would see this as a lack of skill in the acting/writing/directing departments, but I think it’s a choice. Or I choose to think it’s a choice, take your pick. Arguably the resultant mix works as well as a comedy as it does a horror movie. This, I think, is part of why the Scary Movie movies are so reviled — they simply take the piss out of something that is, to one degree or another, already taking the piss.

In many respects, Scre4m is kind of old school. It fits better in the era of the original trilogy and/or earlier horror films than with the development of the genre in the intervening decade. Though as the main development has been torture porn, and it criticises that explicitly from the very first scene, perhaps that’s still OK. In fact, they’re one step ahead again, with a nod to the most most-recent development (the Paranormal Activity-led “found footage” boom), which actually plays a more central role than the torture porn stuff.

It’s fair to say that a chunk of nostalgia for the originals colours my liking of Scre4m. Perhaps it plays best to those who saw the first three at the right age, i.e. mid-to-late teens or so. I shouldn’t think it would engage a new audience all that much, especially ones versed in the gorier Saw and Final Destination franchises. But for those of us with fond memories (to one degree or another) of the first three films, it’s kind of a nice little revisit.

The Final Destination (2009)

Posted on December 15, 2012 by badblokebob

The best thing about The Final Destination is its title, because turning the series’ familiar name into a definitive article for the final entry is really quite a neat move. Sadly, it was a hit and they’ve made more. Why it was a hit… God only knows.

For starters, the story (such as it is) is a complete and utter rehash of the plot of every other film in the series. The only thing on its side is efficiency: it races through ‘plot’ scenes in a quest to find the next set piece. For example, the Rules are explained to this all-new cast because they Google “premonitions” and find out what happened in the previous movies. The overriding sense of familiarity makes for kind of depressing viewing. Previous films tried to find new twists on the rules, ways the cycle might genuinely be broken, etc, whereas this seems content to merely move from one death to the next. Aside from creative ways to kill people, literally the only new idea is that the premonition-haver sees two people die at almost exactly the same time and can’t remember who was first, meaning instead of traipsing to warn the next person they have to find two people. And that’s it.

Production values are low too, featuring very cheap CGI and very poor acting. I’d say both are below the standard of US network TV filler, so for the fourth entry in a fairly successful big-screen franchise that seems even more woeful. I know it’s only Final Destination, but still… The cast aren’t helped by the woeful screenplay, but I don’t think they could’ve enlivened a better one either. They’ve clearly been cast just for being Young and Pretty, but surely there are some Young, Pretty people who can act?

The focus is clearly on the deaths — at 11 it has the highest of the series, and with its short running time that means there’s a fatality every seven minutes. They’re also very gory, more so than in previous films I’d say, but they’re not commensurately more inventive. There’s a very thorough line in misdirection at times, but the whole enterprise feels painfully lacking in creativity. I’m not sure some of them even make sense. But then do they need to? Similarly, there’s some customary low-rent-horror-movie completely-gratuitous nudity too, which I’m sure delighted teenage boys even more in 3D.

None of the deaths matter because nothing is done to make us care about these characters, or even be broadly interested in them, unlike the best of the earlier entries. So there’s zero tension, zero emotion, just elaborate death after elaborate death. It’s one of the most hollow films I can think of. It may even have been better if they’d ditched the attempts at a plot and gone for a series of vignettes in which, unbeknownst to one another, the survivors were bumped off in order. That’s basically what this film wants to be anyway. At least it would’ve been something different. And shorter. And when you want an under-80-minutes (before credits) film to be shorter… oh dear.

The 3D factor was a large part of the film’s promotion, and it makes full use of stereo visuals in exactly the way you’d expect a schlocky horror to. Problem is, it’s so designed for 3D that some of it doesn’t work in 2D. It’s not just the usual array of stuff flying at the camera for no reason — that’s a sure sign it was meant for cheap 3D thrills, but otherwise fine — here, stuff pokes straight out. That means in 2D you see, say, the flat end of a pole, with absolutely zero sense of depth. This happened with one trap in Saw 3D, but in The Final Destination it keeps coming up. It might not sound like a serious problem, but again and again it jars as you try to work out exactly what’s where in the very flat straight-on 2D rendering. Maybe it’s good that 3D films are so thoroughly designed for their intended medium, but I’m not convinced.

As mentioned, this was sold as the final Final Destination — hence the definitive-article title — but it was a surprise hit (thanks in no small part to the 3D, back in the Avatar-hype era when it guaranteed anything a significant boost) and so the series has continued. What’s perhaps most odd, however, is that it makes no serious attempt to bring the whole series to a close. Sure, #3 ditched any links to the first two with a brand-new cast as well, but you’d think, knowing this was The Last One, they’d try to bring it full circle somehow. But clearly not.

Then again, I’m not sure anyone involved could have if they wanted too. The evidence for that is on screen: some of it is unbelievably boneheaded. “Where’s Lori?” “I dunno, I’ve been calling and texting all afternoon, she won’t pick up her phone.” Oh, maybe she’s, I dunno, in the film she told you she was going to see in the scene before last! Dear God.

Elsewhere, one character starts talking about déjà vu before getting killed in the same way as the first film’s most famous death. I suppose it’s meant to be Meta and Funny, and maybe it kinda is, but again the CG is so cheap that the half-trained eye will spot an effect is about to happen, and the manner of death once again doesn’t really make sense. Later, we learn that shopping mall sprinklers can instantly extinguish all fires — handy!

I could go on. I have half a dozen more examples in my notes. But no. It’s so woeful that it’s kind of frustratingly bad — you want someone with half a brain to come along and make the film work.

There’s a somewhat amusing way to judge the Final Destination series: its posters and/or DVD covers; and, specifically, what they tell us about the decreasing importance of character to the franchise. You see, the first prominently features head shots of the central cast (albeit half turned into skulls). The second offers either blurry head shots or full body shots, reducing their recognisability. In the third, the cast are still there, but reduced to near-facelessness seated on a roller coaster, often upside down. And by the fourth, they’re not even there at all. It’s true that Final Destination has never really been about the characters — it’s about how they die — but it’s also true that the more attached you are to them, however superficially, the better (as it were) their deaths are. Perhaps it’s just a coincidence that the characters, deaths and films get weaker at about the same rate, or perhaps each really is connected to the others.

There’s potential in the concept of the Final Destination films, but clearly it’s either limited or the people in charge don’t know how to exploit it, because after making two quite-good films they’ve turned it into a repetitive, stale, uncreative, formulaic disaster. And there’s now a fifth too, and a sixth hasn’t been ruled out — surely it/they can’t be any worse than this? Based on form, maybe they can…

The Final Destination is on Film4 and Film4 HD tonight at 11:05pm, and again on Friday 21st at 11:10pm. Because I’m sure you really want to see it now.

This review is part of the 100 Films Advent Calendar 2012. Read more here.

The Final Destination featured on my list of The Five Worst Films I Saw in 2012, which can be read in full here.

The Call of Cthulhu (2005)

Posted on December 10, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #89
Andrew Leman | 47 mins | DVD | 4:3 | USA / English

I must admit to not being at all familiar with the work of H.P. Lovecraft. I know the name, of course, and the titles of some of his stories, not to mention being aware of the array of well-known fans. Aside from that, I’ve only encountered his work through its influence — there’s some stuff in the Hellboy films, for instance, or the Lovecraft/Wodehouse mash-up in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: Black Dossier. This is my first experience of the undiluted thing, however.

This is an adaptation of a short story first published in 1928, which led its makers to the inspired idea of filming it as if it had been made at the time — in short, as a silent film. This lends an instant… not charm, exactly, but sort of ingenuity. There are a couple of cheats that wouldn’t have been available to 1920s filmmakers, but all are modern low-budget equivalents of something they would have achieved a different way.

And low budget it certainly is. Depending on your point of view, it’s either a fan film or a micro-budget indie. If may lack a final level of polish to qualify for the latter — it was shot on video and it shows (though less so in black & white than in colour, interestingly) — but, if the former, it’s a very slick example; much more professionally executed than Browncoats: Redemption, say.

The marriage of low-budget and silent film style is one made in heaven, particularly when you add in the dedication of the makers. They built impressive props, ingenious sets, and employed model work in various inventive ways, all to execute a story that includes a cultist swamp orgy, a mysterious island, a sea battle, and a skyscraper-sized monster. Some online reviews have criticised the effects, but those people are quite frankly idiots. This isn’t meant to be slick CGI — it’s re-creating lo-fi early film techniques, and (aside from one or two rough-round-the-edges spots of greenscreen) it all looks fabulous.

I would go on, but one of my chief pleasures in the film was the surprises of the effects work, so I don’t want to spoil it for you. The making-of on the DVD is certainly worth a watch (it’s also better made than some I’ve seen on professional films), and I’ll add that a particular favourite of mine is the methods they used to create the highly atmospheric bayou sequence. The model set is incredible!

It’s easy to get distracted by the production when its makers have worked such wonders with next-to-no budget, but there’s also solid storytelling going on here. I have no idea how closely it hews to Lovecraft’s original, but there’s a layered stories-within-stories approach (I think it gets four deep at one point) that is difficult to pull off with clarity, but never falters here. Christopher Nolan would be proud. It also effectively builds a sense of uncanny mystery; not outright scares, but a kind of disquieting unease. It’s my impression that was absolutely Lovecraft’s aim too, so another job well done.

It’s fair to say The Call of Cthulhu isn’t a film for everyone, but then often the best ones aren’t. As well as Lovecraft enthusiasts, fans of silent film and creepy (as opposed to jumpy or gory) horror should definitely give it a go. It’s only 50 minutes of your life, and you might have the same reaction as me: I’m now eager to read Lovecraft’s actual work, and have just received the Blu-ray of the filmmakers’ follow-up, a ’30s-Universal-horror-styled take on another Lovecraft tale. Inspiring such a desire for more is surely always a sign of a good film.

This review is part of the 100 Films Advent Calendar 2012. Read more here.

Predators (2010)

Posted on December 8, 2012 by badblokebob

It’s two-and-a-half years since this was released? Never! If it didn’t say so on multiple websites, I’d never believe it. Where does the time go?!

But anyway…

Predators is writer-director-producer-editor-composer-etc Robert Rodriguez’s attempt to relaunch the Predator franchise, after the mediocre Predator 2 killed it in 1990 and the utterly appalling Aliens vs Predator 2 killed it again in 2007. Based on the fact we’re two years on and there’s been no word of a sequel, I guess he didn’t succeed. Which is a shame, because the original film is fun action/sci-fi entertainment and this is very much in its spirit.

Based on a screenplay Rodriguez wrote in the mid ’90s (deemed too expensive at the time, and since re-written thanks to other films doing some of the stuff in it (chiefly Avatar, apparently)), Predators sees a bunch of unconnected people dropped into a mysterious jungle. All of them have some skill in the field of death-dealing — except, that is, for a doctor — and most are armed to the teeth. Where are they? Why are they there? And what’s that coming after them?

I’ve left my plot description vaguer than most you’ll find, including on the film’s own DVD/BD releases, because the more you know the more the early part of the movie drags. Most blurbs give away the revelations contained within the first act, which makes it an almost gratingly slow start. I reckon it would probably work well in isolation, but I’m not sure how many people are going to see this without having heard more of the premise than I’ve let on. When you know where it’s going, it seems to plod a little; equally, if all you know is that a group of people face a gang of Predators in a jungle then it works fine (it still takes the aliens a while to show up, but then so does the original).

It’s a similar story elsewhere in the film. If you haven’t already accurately guessed what the ‘twist’ is with the doctor just from me even mentioning him, then I’ll be surprised. You may also be aware that Laurence Fishburne is in the film — he’s in the trailer and, naturally, one of the top-billed names. If you weren’t aware, sorry; but if you are (as, indeed, you now are), then his lack of appearance early on will likely clue you in to the circumstance under which he’ll be found. But if you’re not expecting him, that’s all fine and dandy. But now you are. Sorry.

In fairness, the story does manage to pull out a few mysteries. There’s a fair share of action sequences too, naturally, but it’s not an entirely stock plot merely peppered with gunfights. Rodriguez and co have made the effort to push the mythology in new directions; ones which seem to build naturally out of other Predator media, even though those aren’t specifically mentioned. Indeed, although there’s a direct reference to the original film (plus a smattering of callbacks in dialogue), the production team were told to avoid looking at the other films, games and comics for inspiration. You’ve no need to suffer anything else to enjoy this. Indeed, it works even without seeing the original film.

In the special features Rodriguez comments that the film could function even if the Predators didn’t turn up, because you’ve got a gang of characters who might be quite happy to turn on each other if need arose. There’s nothing revelatory amongst the gang of humans, but they’re more characterised than the simple canon fodder of the original film, and the relative dearth of big names will keep you guessing as to the order of their inevitable dispatch.

The main draw is still the action, which is suitably exciting on the whole. Best of all is a sword fight between a Yakuza and a Predator. Who’d’ve thought of engaging a Predator in a sword fight, eh? I love a sword fight, and while this is of course an atypical example, it shows the film’s level of creativeness with its inherited elements. It’s also a beautifully shot segment, making it one of the stand-out parts of the film.

Most of the direction is as good, though I have to mention it because of one unfortunate trope it develops: there’s an awful lot of lingering shots of the cast Looking At Something behind the camera, before we get to see it. Once you notice this — and you may well, like me, notice it pretty early on — it quickly becomes unintentionally comical, because it just. Keeps. Happening. And even when you think it’s gone, it makes a last-minute resurgence at an inopportune moment. I’m certain this wasn’t a deliberate comic device — it was probably employed to add tension and mystery and all that — but, for me, it just became a bit of a joke.

Then there’s the awful atmosphere-ruining end credits song. Honest to God, there’s weird artistic flourishes, and there’s immediately trashing the mood you’ve just strived to create. I know why it’s there — it’s another reference to the original — but it’s a glaring clash of styles that shatters the very particular ending the film has. On the commentary, Rodriguez asserts that it “deflates the tension in a great fun way.” Hm. Hmmm. What a misstep.

And the ending itself… is it sequel bait? It’s not as bad as Prometheus — an unintentionally resonant parallel given the franchises’ shared history, but not an inappropriate comparison. But where Ridley Scott’s confusing picture leaves glaring unanswered questions that demand a Part 2, Predators’ conclusion is both open-ended but also somehow fitting. Which is lucky, because I don’t think a follow-up is forthcoming.

For all the criticism, or gentle ribbing, I’ve levelled at the film throughout this review, it’s an enjoyable experience. There’s nothing deep or meaningful, and nothing that will enliven or revolutionise the genre, but as a sci-fi/action movie it’s at least as good as its blokey-classic predecessor.

The UK TV premiere of Predators is on Channel 4 tonight at 9pm.

This review is part of the 100 Films Advent Calendar 2012. Read more here.

The Keep (1983)

Posted on December 3, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #92
Michael Mann | 91 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | UK / English | 18 / R

Michael Mann is arguably best known for his modern, urban, slick, intricate crime thrillers — films like Heat, Collateral and Miami Vice; all movies that I have greatly enjoyed (yes, including Miami Vice). So it’s a bit of a surprise to discover his second feature in the director’s chair was a supernatural fantasy/horror set during World War II. I confess that I’d never even heard of it before I read Mike’s piece at Films on the Box the other day, after which my interest was sufficiently piqued to make sure to watch it (obviously, as there’s now this review).

And it’s really good… for about half an hour or so. The opening sees a platoon (or whatever) of Nazis arrive in a remote Romanian mountain village to occupy a deserted castle for some kind of defence purposes that don’t look to make a great deal of strategic sense. But shh, because the castle — the titular keep — has walls lined with metal crosses and, spookily, is built back to front: as Jürgen Prochnow’s character, the One Good Nazi, observes, “this place was not constructed to keep something… out.” Oh dear.

At this point Mann — on both writing (adapted from a novel by F. Paul Wilson) and directing duties — has managed to turn in a film that is genuinely creepy, with an effective sense of foreboding and mystery. But the longer it goes on, the more evident it becomes that chunks of the story are missing, the result of the studio hacking away at Mann’s three-hour-ish cut. Events become convoluted and borderline nonsensical, and whatever thematic points the film has to make about evil and belief get lost in the mix. I’m certain there’s something there, because long-ish discussions between various pairs of characters remain, but what Mann was driving at, God only knows.

Should we long for a Director’s Cut, then? Maybe that would be an improvement, but I’m not convinced it would be good per se. You see, the film doesn’t just stick to giving us Nazis vs Whatever The Keep Contains, oh no. First the SS turn up, led by a Properly Evil Nazi, played straight by Gabriel Byrne. Escalation, great. Then there’s Ian McKellen as a professor drafted in to make sense of the keep’s mysteries. Also great — even the Good Nazi is going to have to die, right? Who better to root for than a saved-from-a-concentration-camp Jewish professor.

But oh, then we meet Scott Glenn, and his glowing purple eyes, riding across Europe on a motorbike to somehow save the day. And that entire element of the film is awfully hokey. Not to mention that it leads to a morally dubious sexual liaison: Glenn persuade some border guards to let him pass using only the power of his glowy eyes; later, about five minutes after meeting the ostensible heroine (McKellen’s character’s daughter, the only female), he’s managed to persuade her to wriggle around naked on his lap — coincidence? I guess this sequence is meant to be titillating, but the random grabbing, fidgetiness, soft focus, and the film’s constant softcore porno music (which naturally continues unabated during this segment) make it just laughable.

There are plus points, but they all come with a commensurate downside. The creature is well-realised at first, with some nice animated effects that are more effective than much of the over-cooked CGI spectacle we’d get today. The more we see of him, however, the less power he holds — he ends up essentially a very tall man. OK, it’s a bit better than that makes it sound, but the mysterious billowing smoke was spookier. The film on the whole is nicely shot, with some real standout moments of cinematography. But slow-mo and a smoke machine both get overused by the end, lending many of the visuals a tacky ’80s edge.

So too the score by Tangerine Dream, which has the odd moody moment but also plenty of cringe-inducing synths. Vangelis’ work on Blade Runner is a good example of how this most ’80s of sounds can age well; The Keep is an example of when it can’t. (For more on that element in particular, do see the ghost of 82’s review.) And talking of sound, what the bloody hell is going on with the accents? This Romanian village seems to be located somewhere in the US, including McKellen offering an OTT Chicago twang. Even his considerable acting skills get buried beneath that.

One thing the film never manages to be is remotely scary. It’s not aiming for cheap jump- or gore-based shocks (although there is a little goriness, it’s quite light; triply so by today’s standards), but it doesn’t manage any significant senses of dread or creepiness. As noted, early on it seems to be heading in the right direction — even the secluded mountain village, nestled in a harsh landscape but with greener-than-green grass and garishly painted houses, and towered over by the foreboding slab of stone that is the titular structure, is an uncanny start — but it never makes good on the promise.

I’d love to see a remake of The Keep; one with a boldness and a vision to take what works, ditch what doesn’t, and craft a suitably creepy Nazis-vs-the-supernatural horror movie out of what’s left. Of course, I’m thinking specifically about what I feel works and doesn’t — anyone who’s read the novel, which apparently is much chunkier and ties into other works by the author, would surely have a very different opinion and despise what I’d do given half a chance. Indeed, though the film has been disowned by Mann (reportedly he’s even blocked it being released on DVD), it has quite the cult following — look it up on LOVEFiLM, or at the boards on IMDb, and four- or five-star ratings abound, with people numbering it among their favourite films ever.

I would love to join their ranks, because there are numerous exciting ideas and moments of quality filmmaking to be found here; but I won’t be, because there’s too much muddled dross packed in around them. The result is that quite-rare thing: a decidedly mediocre film that I’m actually glad I’ve seen. But, unless someone wants to hire me for that remake, never again.

This review is part of the 100 Films Advent Calendar 2012. Read more here.

The Saw Series

Posted on October 31, 2012 by badblokebob

Between October 2009 and October 2011, I reviewed every film in the Saw franchise. As it’s Halloween again, it seems a good time to re-post them all to this new blog — one per day in the last week, because I timed it cleverly. Think of this as a kind of personal last hurrah for the ’00s horror staple.

And staple it was, providing one film every year, at Halloween of course, between 2004 and 2010. Indeed, by the time of Saw IV they were using the tagline, “If it’s Halloween, it must be Saw”. The series was at the spearhead of the low-budget high-gore era of horror — the once-ubiquitous term “torture porn” was coined to describe 2005’s Hostel, but it was retroactively applied to Saw. The filmmakers refuted the label, and at the series’ best they’re right. The original film is a small-scale thriller with gory/scary moments — it’s actually a pretty good film, deserving to transcend the reputation its long-running follow-ups have attracted. At its worst, though, the series does plumb the depths of extreme gore for its own sake. Saw III is perhaps the worst example, but that doesn’t excuse some of the other films.

Another factor that marks the films out is their continuing story. Perhaps this will one day be viewed as A Thing of the ’00s — witness how many TV series (especially in the US) moved from obsessively standalone storytelling to serial nature, led by the likes of 24 and The Wire, and cemented by the huge success (in the US at least) of Lost. Though every Saw film presents a standalone story — what I call the “Game of the Film”, as each is a deadly set of tasks (a game) constructed by central villain/anti-hero Jigsaw (or one of his disciples) for some deserving guest character — they quickly become obsessed with their own mythology, doling out variably-sized doses of backstory each time. The early films pretty much stand alone, but by the third and fourth the series is beginning to disappear up its own rear end as it obsessively fills in all the blanks.

The Saw series, unlike so many long-running horror film franchises, really is a series — you can’t dive in and just watch any entry; not if you want it to make sense, anyway. The first two movies are the exception, but the third and fourth take place concurrently and then the franchise moves forward (mostly) through an on-going investigation. Fortunately they were allowed to wrap it up, with Saw 3D (the seventh and final film) bringing the drawn-out story threads to a conclusion. It’s not a wholly satisfying ending (as you can read in my full review), but at least it is one.

The once mega-hit series was killed off by low-budget-filmmaking’s latest fad, the found-footage movie: where once Saw was dominant at Halloween, the sixth film was out-grossed by newcomer Paranormal Activity. That cut short long-term plans for the series (as my review of the fourth film mentions, they once promised at least eight movies), and Paranormal Activity has trundled on as an annual Halloween staple for the 2010s (the fourth was released a fortnight ago). Personally they don’t interest me.

Neither did I think the Saw movies would, really. I’m no gore fiend, nor even a massive horror fan — there has to be something else going on than simply scares to really hold my attention. This is where the first Saw is a real success, because I’d argue it’s actually a thriller with horrific elements; kind of like a B-movie rendition of Se7en, perhaps. Even when it sinks to nasty depths at points that follow, the series retains this thriller element, the (almost-)never-ending story all but ensuring the viewer’s need to continue watching. Even when some of the middle entries dipped, there was always the promise of redemption — the sixth film is perhaps the series’ second-best, for instance. Sadly they couldn’t maintain that momentum for the final entry.

I’m glad the Saw movies came to an end, because with that on-going mythology they really needed an ending. But now they’re done, I kind of miss them a little. Not necessarily enough to sit through it all again… but maybe one day.

My full original reviews of each film, first published between 2009 and 2011, follow:

Devil (2010)

Posted on July 11, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #19
John Erick Dowdle | 77 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 15 / PG-13

Remember when M. Night Shyamalan was the wunderkind of Hollywood? Seems so long ago, doesn’t it? But clearly someone somewhere is still invested in him — or he’s managed to limp on well enough that stuff he works on seems worth a punt — because a couple of years ago he was able to launch a series of films dubbed “The Night Chronicles”. I don’t remember the details and they’re not worth looking up, but as I recall the idea is they were a series of low-key/low-budget horror-thrillers conceived by Shyamalan (he has a Story and Producer credit here) but helmed by others. Devil is the first of these. I don’t recall a second turning up yet.

Funny thing is, this is better than anything Shyamalan has done in a long time. At least since Signs, and I quite liked The Village (except the final act) and Lady in the Water (need to rewatch that, because it seems everyone else hated it). Without meaning to ruin the first act (which does take a little while to reach the point; but it sets up all the characters, so it works), the story concerns a bunch of people stuck in an elevator, one of which is an evil supernatural force… but which?

I like these small-group-of-people-in-one-small-room thriller/horrors — see also the exceptional Cube and the very good Exam. This is a solid addition to the sub-genre — not the best, but with enough action, intrigue and twists to fill its (admittedly very brief) running time. It comes to a head with a pretty good twist/reveal. Again, it’s kind of ironic that it’s the best twist in a Shyamalan film for years, but it comes in a movie he neither wrote nor directed. Maybe he should take another look at the kind of films he’s choosing to make. (I say “maybe”…)

The film impressed on a couple of technical fronts. The main titles, for starters (pun intended): they play out over upside-down aerial shots of a city. Sounds like a silly idea, perhaps, but it actually feels Wrong and terribly unsettling. It’s a highly effective start to a horror movie. Then there’s exceptional creepy sound design whenever the elevator’s lights go out. The filmmakers don’t overdo it, with (say) screams or possessed voices or goodness knows what else, and that’s why it works: the fact it’s quite understated, that you can’t tell what’s happening from the sounds — it’s just breathing, rustling, bumping, that kind of thing — is what makes it all the more realistic and therefore creepier.

As an aside, in my occasional run of Comments Paying Too Much Attention To Certificates, it’s funny what Americans allow at what age rating. Here we have neck stabbing, hanging, creepy devil stuff… Seems a bit much for a PG-13, to me. The UK’s 15 is much more appropriate.

I wasn’t expecting a great deal from Devil. As a Shyamalan film it starts off with, if anything, a negative perception; and as one he didn’t even want to direct himself, you have to wonder how dreadful it’s going to turn out to be. But John Erick Dowdle (previously only responsible for the US remake of [REC] and a couple of things no one’s heard of) does a solid job, creating an effective little horror-thriller that delivers a fair number of chills and a decent serving of mystery. That’s more than can be said of Shyamalan’s work this decade.

The Scarlet Claw (1944)

Posted on June 21, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #46
Roy William Neill | 71 mins | DVD | 4:3 | USA / English | PG

According to Wikipedia, “David Stuart Davies notes on the film’s DVD audio commentary* that [The Scarlet Claw is] generally considered by critics and fans of the series to be the best of the twelve Holmes films made by Universal.” That’s always a bold kind of assertion to make (it’s never trouble-free to define an entire fandom’s favourite), but I can still believe it’s true: The Scarlet Claw is marvellous.

When looking it up before viewing I was surprised to find it had a spot on the Top 500 Horror Movies (voted by users of IMDb’s horror boards, apparently), where it had a place in the lower 300s. I was surprised — Holmes is a detective series, not one I’d think of nominating for such a list. But there is one arguable exception to that — The Hound of the Baskervilles, of course — and it’s clear that Scarlet Claw draws significant inspiration from that preeminent entry in the Holmes canon. Lists of similarities are available for them that wants them, because I think Scarlet Claw does enough to merit consideration in its own right.

And it really is a horror movie too. There’s not just the elements of occult in the myth of the Canadian town Holmes and Watson find themselves in almost by chance, which you always know will be debunked in a Sherlock Holmes plot, but also the way the production is staged. Indeed, the film’s scariest sequence occurs after it’s revealed that the killings are being committed by a mere human — a properly chilling murder scene, quite out of step with the film’s age and PG certificate.

A lot of this is thanks to director Roy William Neill. On a previous review of mine, Ride the High Country’s Colin noted that Neill “turned out some quality low-budget stuff for Universal. He had a real knack for creating a spooky and mysterious atmosphere that’s evident in his horrors and thrillers.” This film demonstrates that fact more than any Holmes yet. His direction is incredibly atmospheric, from a wonderful mist-covered opening scene, replete with an incessantly tolling bell, to regular instances of shadow-drenched photography afterwards; not to mention various pleasing camera angles and moves.

The story — in which townsfolk believe a mythical beast has returned to murder its residents — presents a well-constructed mystery all round, though as it moves into the second half some of its twists become all too guessable. There simply aren’t enough supporting characters to provide any meaningful sense of having to ponder who the villain might be (because, as I noted, you know it’s not really a beast). There’s also a hefty dose of coincidence that everyone involved, both on screen and off, conveniently ignores.

If we’re looking at the flaws, there’s a return for the painful closing speech from Rathbone, this time a Churchill-quoted ode to the wonder of Canada. Ugh. Still, you half expect it from this series, and it’s very easy to ignore.

The other little niggles may stop the film from being perfect but, like the similarities to The Hound, while they’re certainly there, they’re easy to overlook in the name of a rollicking good horror-mystery-adventure.

The Scarlet Claw merited an honourable mention on my list of The Best Films I Saw For the First Time in 2012, which can be read in full here.

* I could verify this for myself, but I haven’t, so… ^

The Alien Series

Posted on June 16, 2012 by badblokebob

With Ridley Scott’s not-an-Alien-prequel-honest Alien prequel Prometheus currently doing solid-if-unspectacular business in the wake of largely positive critical reviews and a more mixed reception from the general public (everyone I’ve seen comment on it has been unsure or hated it, anyway), I thought now would be as good a time as any to bring my reviews of the six previous films in the franchise over to my new blog. Plus my review from last year of the Alien³ Special Edition.

Check them out below. They’re in chronological order, if the pictures aren’t clear enough.

Priest (2011)

Posted on May 28, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #15
Scott Stewart | 84 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 12 / PG-13

In a dystopian church-ruled future (could there be any other kind of church-ruled world), in which a war between men and vampires raged for centuries but has recently been settled (in man’s favour), no-longer-needed warrior-priest Paul Bettany is called upon to go against his vows and leave the city to rescue his niece after her parents are murdered and she is kidnapped in a vampire attack. I could go on, but it’s the kind of plot that sounds far more complicated in a short summary than it is to watch on screen.

This marks Bettany’s third turn as a Christian killer, after an albino monk in The Da Vinci Code and a deliberately fallen angel in Legion. One’s a villain, one’s the hero; here he’s the good guy again, tipping the balance towards Bettany’s filmography being in favour of Christians Who Kill For A Cause. Legion was also directed by Scott Stewart, so perhaps they share a penchant for kinda-Christian action movies? God knows why.

It begins with a contextless, pointless 90-second ‘flashback’ action sequence. Then there’s a bloodily violent animation re-shaping history’s major wars (Crusades, WW1, more) as one long fight against vampires. Quite good, that bit. It’s designed by Genndy Tartakovsky, creator of Dexter’s Laboratory, Samurai Jack and the 2D Star Wars: Clone Wars series. Then there’s another pre-titles-style bit. For a film under 90 minutes long, it takes its time to get going.

And after all that meandering, the story is a bit rushed. It tries to generate character and tension, but hasn’t spent enough time building them to earn it. There’s lots of awful dialogue, flooded with clichés… as is a lot of the plot, and the stock dystopian future setting, and the overuse of slow-mo. There’s some ideas with promise, but they’re largely shunted aside in favour of something from The Big Book of Standard Character Arcs. And I say “promising” — you know exactly how they’d play if the filmmakers had bothered to make more out of them.

Plus there’s a blatant “end of Part One” ending — the story isn’t even close to resolved. It flopped though, so there’s no chance of it being sequelised. And the world doesn’t make complete sense: if “everyone” lives in big cities, why do so many people live in Old West-styled townships in the wasteland? Why are there vampire reservations, why not just kill them all? Etc.

It’s like someone thought of lots of Cool Bits and strung them together irrespective of world or story. And, in fairness, some of the cool bits achieve their aim, in a largely derivative way. And the story’s not that badly constructed — I’ve seen plots that hang together much less well.

None of this is helped by weak acting, which considering the largely quality cast is probably down to the script and direction. How unlikely is Paul Bettany as an action leading man, eh? I thought Jason Statham was odd enough… And if you want a preview of Karl Urban as Judge Dredd, I imagine his early scenes — face in shadow, gravelly voiced — will be a fair indication.

Visually, I don’t know what’s going on with the lenses used — people’s faces are occasionally noticeably stretched. I at first wondered if my chosen viewing method (Sky Movies Anytime via Virgin Media On Demand — potentially less reliable than a DVD or BD) had for some reason squished or stretched the film, but in most shots things look fine. Maybe I was imagining it, who knows. And while he was getting his lenses muddled, it seems the DoP forgot to bring any lights for most of the shooting. The climax takes place in daylight, but a lot of the rest of it…

I dread to think how it fared in 3D. It’s perhaps telling that most of the action sequences are staged either outdoors or in previously-dark locations that somehow gain a bit of a glow; or, to put it more bluntly, “here’s where you’ll want to see the 3D so we’ve made it brighter”. And 3D is so essential to the film that I didn’t remember it had been released that way until the mysteriously bright cave fight over halfway through. It was post-converted too, so I doubt it looked great.

Priest isn’t bad per se — well, depending on your tolerance levels. It’s no Max Payne, put it that way. And it’s better than Legion. If you can withstand a clichéd plot, laughable dialogue and sorely underdeveloped characters in order to get your fix of brain-in-neutral action, this is a quick (under 80 mins sans credits) and moderately satisfying way to go about it.

100Films.co.uk

100% movies. Except when it's about TV.

Category Archives: Horror

Scre4m (2011)

The Final Destination (2009)

The Call of Cthulhu (2005)

Predators (2010)

The Keep (1983)

The Saw Series

Devil (2010)

The Scarlet Claw (1944)

The Alien Series

Priest (2011)