Film review: Slither (2006)

Directed by: James Gunn

Starring: Nathan Fillion
Elizabeth Banks
Michael Rooker
Tania Saulnier

Synopsis:A small town is taken over by an alien plague, turning residents into zombies and all forms of mutant monsters.

My thoughts: I saw this film when it first came out in 2006, but it failed to make much of an impact on me at the time. In the last year or so, however, I've heard it mentioned over and over by people who typically share very similar movie tastes to me. So thinking that perhaps I was in a bad mood, or maybe simply too young, I decided to give it a second shot. Thank god I did!

Slither is one of the best throwback/parody horror films I've seen in years! The film mixes aliens, mutated monsters and zombies into the one film, and manages to perfect the balance between gross-out, humour and horror, all while delivering a cast of characters that are fleshed-out and hilarious in their own special way.

After a rough interaction with galactic space goo while trying to get his groove on, Grant Grant (Rooker) returns home with an alien burrowed in his brain and a desperate desire for meat. Unbeknownst to his sweet, but kind of dippy wife Starla (Banks), Grant is slowly transforming into a persistently hungry alien-monster, hunting down the neighbourhood's pets and farm animals for food, before turning to a larger and more desirable meal, people. Armed with the face of a 15 year old Pizza Hut worker, and two tentacle/scorpion tails projecting from his chest, Grant begins to terrorise the town, feasting and turning the locals into zombie-like worker bees with a gazillion slimy worms helping him succeed. Faced with the fact that her beloved (though hardly perfect) husband is now some kind of alien, Starla teams up with Bill Pardy (Fillion) and Kylie (Saulnier) to try and save themselves and the town.

The whole cast are incredibly likeable and have great chemistry together. Fillion, as usual, is the loveable rogue, though he's a little more inept in this than he is in his more famed role in Firefly. His adoration for Starla is barely concealed, and becomes noticeably more awkward the less human (looking) Starla's husband becomes. While Starla and Bill are inarguably the stars of the film, Bill's quips and scenes with Kylie, your typical teenage girl, are some of my favourites. Hands down though, the best performance in the film is tied between Michael Rooker and Gregg Henry, who plays the town mayor. Henry is an absolute riot, but Rooker manages to display both humour and geniune empathy with his transforming character. His love for his wife is obvious, even if he's perhaps the worst person to ever try and display it. I've always enjoyed Rooker as an actor, but this film has completely sold me on him.

Writer/director James Gunn (writer of 2004's Dawn of the Dead remake) cut his teeth working for Troma, and there is a distinct Troma feel throughout this film, as well as a couple of discreet little plugs for them dotted here and there (keep an eye on the TV screen at Grant's lady's house). The special effects are primarily physical, but extravagantly so. There is no subtlety to these effects, everything is big and slimy and insane, but the quality is high and almost Conenberg-like at times...if you dialled Cronenberg up to 10,000! In fact, there is no subtly whatsoever in this film, and if it wasn't aiming to be shlocky it'd be bordering on terrible. From the effects, to the southern accents, to the town hunting party, to the longing looks that Bill shoots at Starla...it's all larger and more bizarre than life could ever hope to be. The film never takes itself seriously, and all the bad reviews I've seen for this one seem to be from people who fail to recognise this.

You'll find yourself laughing far more than you'll find yourself hiding behind your eyes in this one, but it makes a decent horror film nonetheless. It's a throwback film, but amidst the extreme behaviour and stunts is a troop of quality actors doing a fantastic job, so if you're looking to be entertained, or if you enjoy your horror with a large helping of hilarious, then I think this is the film for you. Keep an eye out for the scene in the barn, it's...well, let's just say it needs to be watched!

4 out of 5 zombie deer stomps in the face.

Film review: Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011)

Directed by: Troy Nixey

Starring: Katie Holmes
Guy Pearce
Bailee Madison

Synopsis:A young girl sent to live with her father and his new girlfriend discovers creatures in her new home who want to claim her as one of their own.

My thoughts: Don't be Afraid of the Dark is a remake of a 1973 tele-movie by the same name. A childhood favourite of writer Guillermo del Toro (he sat out directing this one), this film is a horror-by-numbers. It isn't bad, but it certainly isn't great, and delivers nothing new.

When Sally (Madison) reluctantly moves to live with her dad (Pearce) and his girlfriend, Kim, (Holmes) while they restore an old home, she comes face to face with small, spindly fingered fairies. At first she thinks they want to be friends, but their hostility soon grows and she begins to fear for her life. Her attempts to tell her dad are stonewalled, and instead of shipping her back to her mum, a psychologist is brought to speak with her and she's medicated. As her dad grows more distant as he immerses himself in the house, Kim begins to think there may be some truth to Sally's fears and searches for proof.

Don't be Afraid of the Dark isn't a bad film by any stretch of the imagination, but it suffers from a lack of ambition. Rather than invest in a complicated and dark horror story, it settles for simple scares and fills in the gaps with expositionary scenes that, in all honesty, are some of the worst I've come across in a big budget film like this. Part of the problem seems to be that Del Toro concentrates on the fairy/monsters far too much. Similar to Pan's Labyrinth, this film has an abundance of scenes which show these incredibly detailed and creepy looking creatures. Unlike Pan's Labyrinth, however, these creatures aren't enough to ride the entire film on. It's also a little strange to see such a scare-heavy film actually show you the creatures from very near the start of the film, usually they try and build up the suspense and let you make them creepier in your own mind first.

There are attempts made to add a story in amongst the creepy fairy scenes, but they aren't particularly strong and few of them seem to go anywhere. There's the psychology side which could have built the film up into quite an interesting psychological horror film if they'd hidden the creatures for a little longer, or the upset little girl who hates her stepmum-to-be and blames "fairies" for the destruction of Kim's property, or even the historic tooth fairy thread introduced at about the three quarter mark, but none of these threads ever seem to really go anywhere. Instead they're all tangled up into this mess of a story, which is a real shame because there is enough decent dialogue and action sequences to see that there was a pretty good film buried in there.

My other issue was with the casting. Bailee Madison was incredible as Sally. She cycled through an entire library of emotions depending on the scene and was very convincing. For some strange reason they picked Katie Holmes to be her father's girlfriend, even though the two females look uncannily alike. When I saw the ads for this film last year I had assumed Sally was Kim's daughter, but apparently not. I also have a complete aversion to Katie Holmes, so I can't be sure whether my dislike of her in this film was due to that, or actually due to miscasting. Guy Pearce, however, is an actor I rarely dislike in a film, but I just felt like he wasn't utilised to his full potential in this film. His character swings around, from hard-ass dad, to loving dad, to distant dad, to overbearing boyfriend...because he isn't as central as Kim or Sally, I think they just decided not to develop him as thoroughly as they should have.

Perhaps they were struggling with the constraints of the original film and grappling with how much they could change and how much should stay the same, or perhaps they just completely misread what this film needed to be. Either way, it's a passable film, but easily forgettable. The creatures themselves are a work of wonder, not quite as amazing as those who appear in Pan's Labyrinth but there has obviously been a great deal of love and attention given to their creation and animation. Like I said, this isn't a bad film, there were some genuinely interesting and scary scenes, and the overall quality of the cinematography etc was of a high caliber, they just missed the mark. A shame really.

3 out of 5 carousel night lights. 

Film Review: The Devil Inside (2012)

Directed by: William Brent Bell

Starring: Fernanda Andrada
Simon Quarterman
Suzan Crowley
Ionut Grama
Evan Helmuth

Synopsis: In Italy, a woman becomes involved in a series of unauthorized exorcisms during her mission to discover what happened to her mother, who allegedly murdered three people during her own exorcism.

My Thoughts: There were some real reservations going into this film, all 5 of us had heard less than favourable things about the film, but seeing as nothing else was out we decided to brave it for ourselves. For the most part I was pleasantly surprised. Aside from the found footage approach which resulted in some weird focusing and shots of feet or the sky (seriously, if you want to be a documentary film-maker you'd better get a little better at carrying a camera steady!) the film had a decent pace, decent special effects and a high level of acting proficency from all the cast.

Isabella has travelled to Italy with her cameraman friend (we missed the first 5 minutes so I'm not entirely sure on their previous relationship) to create a documentary about the prevalence of exorcisms today and to try and discover the truth about her mother, a woman who has been locked in an Italian mental institute after killing three people during her own supposed exorcism. As well as visiting her mother for the first time in 20 years, Isabella attends classes at "exorcism school" and meets two young priests who have something of an unhealthy interest in the subject. Asserting that she'll learn more in 5 minutes at an exorcism than she would in months of classes at the religious institute, Isabella follows these two priests (Father Ben and Father David) to the illegal exorcism of a young woman the church denied.

Much like every exorcism film since The Exorcist, this film plays with the finnicky balance between religion and science. Can they exist beside one another? Can we ever be sure the answer is one or the other? Where do we draw the line? Because of the prevalence of this dichotomy, Father David ended up one of the most interesting characters, because as a medical doctor and a priest, he embodies both sides of this divide. There were a few neat little throwbacks to The Exorcist and other films on this subject, but I was actually surprised at home this film really managed to separate itself from what has come before. It's not the first sceptics view into an exorcism, nor is the the first documentary-style film about exorcism, however I never felt like I was watching the same old crap.

The pacing really began to ramp up about 20-25 minutes before it concluded, and though heavily signposted, it was still thrilling and exciting and gross. However then came the final 2 minutes of the film. Just as it was reaching it's crescendo it ended. Just like that it was over. The theatre went from joyful squeals of horror to outrage in less than a second. I do understand what they were trying to do with the ending they chose, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't feel cheated. Is it bad enough of an ending to have me recommend avoiding the film? Not quite, the baptism scene alone is worth a watch, however I would suggest waiting till it comes out on video. It's so infuriating that if you're spending $20 on your movie ticket you may just lose your mind.

So overall a decent and thrilling exorcism film, one of the best of the last few years, that was spoiled by the film-makers either A/ trying to be clever, B/running out of money, C/ running out of ideas in how to conclude it or D/being assholes. You've been warned.

3 tortured mothers locked in asylums for the film

-100 for that damn piece-of-shit asshole of an ending.

Film review: Skew (2011)

Directed by: Sevé Schelenz

Starring: Rob Scattergood
Amber Lewis
Richard Olak

 Synopsis: When Simon, Rich, and Eva head out on an eagerly anticipated road trip, they bring along a video camera to record their journey. What starts out as a carefree adventure slowly becomes a descent into the ominous as unexplained events threaten to disrupt the balance between the three close friends. Each one of them must struggle with personal demons and paranoia as friendships are tested and gruesome realities are revealed...and recorded

Attention Australian readers!! Skew will be playing at the Fantastic Planet Film Festival on Saturday the 31st of March, with a Q&A afterwards. For more info about the showing or the festival itself, follow this link!

My thoughts: Skew is a found footage road trip movie that is clearly a labour of love. Written by Sevé Schelenz back in 2004 and then produced in 2005 for a measly $25,000, the film shines with the dedication of the production team and the trio of actors who carry the story.

Three college friends, Rich (Olak), Eva (Lewis) and Simon (Scattergood) bundle into their car to head across country to a friend's wedding, and, it seems to me, to take some well-needed time out from their regular lives. The trip begins well, with the three of them laughing and mucking around while Simon films them all on the camera he bought for the trip. The trip takes a turn for the worse when Simon starts to notice strange blurs on people's faces when he films them through his camera, and starts to notice that the blurred strangers are dying soon after being filmed. As the film progresses so does the paranoia, tension and barely contained chaos.

The pacing in Skew gradually ramps up, but there is a sense of unease and anticipation from the earliest scenes. Though this is definitely a horror film with supernatural elements, there is also a great deal of story devoted to the personal trials and horrors of each of the three characters. They're all troubled by something, and these issues cause friction that is only amplified by the visions Simon is seeing through his camera lens. Had the cast not been as strong as it is, these personal threads would have been lost amongst the A story, but instead they tangle and build and add an element to the film that is crucial to its overall success and cohesiveness.

I'm generally not an advocate for found footage/POV films; however I really try to judge each one on their own merits. Some films just make me feel nauseated with the shakiness of the footage, while others make some of the most tenuous links as to why there needs to be the found footage element to it. Happily though, I can say that the found footage/POV style worked well for this particular film, perhaps owing to the fact that it isn't found footage in the Blair Witch Project sense of the term, instead it is simply using that personal viewpoint as a way of telling the story. I have to attribute this success to three points. First, although the actor Rob Scattergood (Simon) is not a cameraman, the shots were level, smooth and balanced. That in itself is enough reason for me to give a found footage film the thumbs up. After the vomit-inducing, headache-building camera work in The Devil Inside the other week, I can't even tell you how much I appreciate a watchable, yet still realistic, personally shot film. Second, the camera is a crucial part in the story. It is tightly connected to the story progression, to the development of Simon's character, and is the key instigator in the tension that builds between the three friends. Finally, along with the camera and POV shots being crucial to the story, it was used creatively in the film. One of the things I loved in this film was the use of rewind to add to the paranoia and tension and to finish the film. At points I wondered whether the POV shots could have been combined with traditional camera work to eliminate the scenes where you see little except a blurred friend across the room, or stare at the floor after the camera was knocked over in fear, however because of the relevancy of the camera to the story, I found it didn't bug me as much as it might have in another movie.

The ending may require a couple of watches, and judging by the myriad of reviews and blog posts available online, the ambiguity has lead to several very different interpretations. I really enjoyed the way the film concluded, but if you don't like ambiguous endings you may find it a little confronting. Personally, I had absolutely no idea what to think when it finished, and even now I'm not sure that my personal interpretation even comes close to lining up how Sevé Schelenz intended it to be read. That being said though, your interpretation very much will influence how you look back on the events of the film, and it's been really interesting to see how people have interacted with the story on their blogs and in reviews, and joined some dots I never would have thought to connect. It's almost like a conspiracy theory, and all of this eagerness to discuss the minute details of the film speaks volume on how the general public has received it.

Skew is a little bit of things you've seen before. There's a little of The Ring, The Blair Witch Project and even some Goosebumps mixed in there, however it is definitely it's own film. It takes the elements that made those films interesting and twists them to create a film that is fun, tense, creepy and nothing like what I expected. Enjoy!

3.5 out of 5 dirt smudged cameras. 

Film review: Creak (2012)

I think anyone can relate to that fear that chills your blood when you hear a noise in the middle of the night that you can’t explain. Writer and director Luther Bhogal-Jones explores this very fear in his new horror short, Creak.

Heather is awoken at 4am by a creaking noise that permeates the air around her. Unable to let it go, she convinces her partner, Ellen, to explore the house and be sure that no one is trying to break into their home. Unbeknownst to the terrified Heather and the exhausted Ellen, the creator of the creak is closer than they think.

Creak is a film that manages to brilliantly package together a well-paced and nerve-wracking tale. I especially loved the framing of the shots and the all-consuming darkness that we all fear once in a while in our own homes. I look forward to the upcoming projects from Sincerely, Psychopath/Faster Productions! 

The film is availble to watch for free on Vimeo, so if you have 5 minutes you want to dedicate to some viewing goodness head over there to take a look. Be sure to also take a squiz at Sincerely, Psychopath's facebook page as well and share the love.

4 out of 5 creaking floorboards

Discussion: The differences between Asian and Western horror, or, why Asian horror rocks.

I don't think I've met many horror fans who haven't fallen under the spell of Asian horror. Perhaps they came to it after the rush of Western remakes, the 2002 remake of The Ring in particular, but almost everyone I know has a deep appreciation for the unique cinematic techniques and tropes utilised in Asian horror. Thanks to the films that have been coming out of Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea and Thailand over the past three decades or so, audiences are able to succumb to the dark and disjointed cinematic representation of our greatest fears, often through the utilisation of the creepiest ghosts and child spirits to ever grace the silver screen.

This isn't to say that Western horror is in anyway lacking, or of a lesser quality, however in Western horror it typically seems to be the smaller budget or independent films that achieve the same great heights as Asian horror cinema, while the mainstream industry is intent to repackage Scream, Nightmare on Elm Street, and Saw in a dozen different guises for audiences every year. Unlike these bigger budgeted films, Asian horror seems to align itself more closely to the horror films of the 1970s and 1980s. Although Asian horror films are often the ones which have me jump the most, they're also about much more than simply making audiences shriek or clutch their hands over their eyes. The special effects are typically comprised of physical special effects (masks, prosthetics and mechanised monsters) and film techniques created in the filming or editing processes (jump cuts etc), and the films themselves often have personal or social themes wound neatly up into the supernatural or horror story. When I watch an Asian horror film which falls within these parameters (and not all of them do) I'm reminded of films like The Fly, The Thing and Dawn of the Dead, films which had horrors that were tangible and gritty and pervasive, yet also had social commentary that struck the audience member as hard as the effects did.

There is a lot of ambiguity in Asian horror, and I find that the film tends to head in one of two directions. The first is that it appears, like Ring or The Grudge, to be a fairly typical ghost/monster horror story, yet there is a level of symbolism or discourse that simmers just below the surface, identifiable by a more observant audience member, but not necessary for an enjoyable experience. Or the film will be disjointed, non-linear and blatantly ambiguous, such as MPD-Psycho (a TV series) or Pulse. These films place the emphasis on the thematic concerns of the films, and rarely follow your traditional Western film structures.Both of these two styles employ supernatural or superhuman forces to externalise the internal fears of the characters. I've found that it is rarely a case in Asian horror that the ghost or monster is simply there to terrorise characters, there is always a deeper reason for its arrival, for its tenacity and for its endurance.

Regardless of which two categories a film fits into (and some don't fit into either) Asian horror appears to be more comfortable with letting the audience leap to their own conclusions, to make connections that may or may not have been the film-makers intention, and to take away a more personal reaction to the film. Western films seem much more intent on explaining the continuity of the film, of why everything is happening the way it is, and why that particular character is being punished. Some Asian horror made more recently seems to have fallen victim to this approach, such as the film Dark Water (2002) which had 15 minutes tacked onto the end which was completely unnecessary and simply explained what the film had already perfectly construed through the ghostly water-abounded tale of divorce, loneliness and single parenthood. This is probably the perfect moment to share a quote from horror researcher and author Andy Richards from his book Asian Horror;

 Generally, the slow-burn pacing of the Asian originals is sharply ramped up, combined with an increase in the number of scare-jolts administered to the audience, while the low-fi special effects of the originals are usually  replaced with CGI-enhanced spookery. But more significantly, while Asian horror films are content to leave certain mysteries unexplained, or for the narratives and character motivations to retain a core of ambiguity, the remakes tend to add layers of exposition hat attempt to rationalise - and thereby contain - their supernatural stories.

I have chosen to steer away from discussing Western remakes of Asian horror films, though a post on that topic may soon pop up, but much of what I've said applies to that issue as well. Asian horror may not always be at the same level of technical achievement as a Western horror, and the story and acting may also suffer compared to some of the Western horror films out there, but that never seems to matter. Even amidst the 5-10 minutes worth of dodgy CGI that Pulse employed, the complexity and weight of the film was heads and shoulders above the dozen other horror films I've seen so far this year.

There is a desperate eagerness to tell a story or to represent a current social concern in Asian horror that Western horror simply lacks, and this drive is far more important in creating an impacting and lasting horror film than million dollar special effects or the latest A grade celebrity to feel the need to add some variety to their audition reel. Simply put, Asian horror still believes horror is an important cinematic tool, much like the Western film-makers from the 1970s-80s did, and some indie horror creators still do today. They understand the genre and they continue to experiment and try unbelievable and sometimes crazy things, all to benefit the message they're trying to convey or the story they wish to tell. That's why Asian horror rocks, and that's why every Western production company is falling over themselves to recreate these films, the sad part is that they don't realise how much they're still missing.

Of course, this is all personal observation and opinion, and some of you may feel the complete reverse. Is Asian horror something you seek out to watch, or a style of horror that you just can't enjoy in the slightest?

Film Review: Dark Water (2002)

Directed by: Hideo Nakata


Starring: Hitomi Kuroki
Rio Kanne


Synopsis: A mother and her 6 year old daughter move into a creepy apartment whose every surface is permeated by water

My thoughts: Hideo Nakata is a man I owe a great deal too. Ring, albeit originally through the American remake, was a milestone in developing my taste in horror fiction - moving me away from the teen slashers of Wes Craven and John Carpenter and opening me up to a much broad definition of what horror can be. Beyond being an exercise in feeding that primal need to see people go splat, an exercise which America horror seems to struggle moving past in recent years, Nakata knows how to employ subtly. He uses genuine pathos to suck you in, gives you little peeks at what's hiding under the bed and then finally he gets you by exposing you to some of the creepiest imagery every committed to cinema.

Dark Water is a solid film that Hideo Nakata should be proud to put against his name. It isn't nearly as seminal as Ring is, but it achieves a similar atmosphere, has some terrifying moments and manages to tackle some interesting themes. At its core, the film is about divorce, instability and that terrifying moment in everyone's childhood when your mum isn't there to pick you up after school. This is my favourite thing about J-horror - the supernatural is seldom an arbitrarily evil force that the protagonists most do battle with. Rather, it is a manifestation of the characters' inner fears, working first to destroy their mind before destroying the body. Edgar Allan Poe knew it, Shirley Jackson knew it and Hideo Nakata knows it. You could possibly argue that these accolades belong to Koji Suzuki who wrote both the stories that Ring and Dark Water were based off, but the difference between Nakata's rendition of Ring and Suzuki's leads me to believe that they were trying to achieve different things with the same premise (I thought Nakata's was better).

As much as I enjoyed it, I think there was a bit of fat that could have been cut off Dark Water. I find it pretty hard to believe Yoshimi was able to win her custody battle after losing her child on the late-night streets of Tokyo and having a break down and assaulting her ex-husband at a tribunal. This probably could have been tightened. The dénouement of the film probably could have been skipped altogether, seeing as it was just explicitly showing what the climax of the film eluded to. Something else I would like to see is more twists on the "vengeful spirit" archetype. It is a formula that has produced some of the best horror films of the last two decades, and I would hate to see it go stale(r).

But yeah, I recommend you see this movie. Well-paced, classic J-horror complete with nightmarish imagery. Well worth it for the bath tub scene alone.

4 out of 5 mysterious red bags.

Review: Pulse/Kairo (2001)

Directed by: Kiyoshi Kurosawa

Starring: Haruhiko Katô
Kumiko Asô
Koyuki

Synopsis: Japanese university students investigate a series of suicides linked to an Internet Web cam that promises visitors the chance to interact with the dead.


My Thoughts: I really enjoyed  Pulse, it is a slow paced film that beautifully demonstrates the disconnection of life in (and outside of) Japan both literally and metaphorically. The story is rather disjointed and non-linear, so a thorough synopsis is actually rather difficult, but what you need to know is that at the same time that men and women are committing suicide or disappearing, a student encounters a website offering to show him footage of the dead and a series of doors sealed with red tape are becoming more and more frequent. There are two main story threads that weave this movie together, the story of Ryosuke Kawashima, (played by Haruhiko Katô) a business student who first encounters the ghost website, and after it persistently appears on his computer tries to make sense of where it has come from and why it keeps forcing itself onto his computer, and Michi Kudo (played by Kumiko Asô), a young florist, who witnesses the disintegration and suicide of two of her colleagues and stumbles upon the red taped doors. The two tales circle one another for much of the movie before colliding with one another in time for the film's third act.

There are large gaps within both individual stories and the film in its entirety which made it difficult to follow the direct plot of the film, however the story is easily recognisable. In the early days of the general public using the internet, people were connecting with more frequency on websites, chat-boards and online forums, however as their online presence grew their physical offline presence decreased. They began to shrink away from the real world piece by piece before all that is left is a mere shadow of their former self. Loneliness has long been an element utilised in horror cinema and literature, but Kiyoski Kurosawa managed to take an exciting new aspect of technology (in 2001) and twist it into something dark and scary that will lead to our downfall. Considering what we know about people's online presence nowadays and their addictions to Facebook/twitter/YouTube and preferences for virtual interactions, I found the focus of this movie to be intelligent, philosophical in tone and ahead of its time. The cinematography, scripting and sounds choices equally reflected the isolation and loneliness of this story creating a cohesive film that I found a real pleasure to watch.

The disjointed aspect of production made following the plot incredibly difficult at times, but this really is a film that places the importance on the metaphysical elements rather than the plot, and those elements definitely are clear. It means the film is a real slow burner, however it isn't devoid of scares or moments of faster pace. There are some deliciously spooky moments involving creepy Japanese ghosts with tentacle-style floating hair or who walk endlessly from one end of a room to another as they flicker in and out like a stuttering computer system.

This is probably one of the more impressive J-Horror films I've ever encountered.  Because of the ambiguous story, non-linear narrative and the unconventional pacing I'd hesitate to recommend this to anyone unfamiliar with this style of film, however  it is a film I think the right audience will appreciate for the beauty, philosophy and impeccable cinematography and directorial decisions.


4 out of 5 red tape sealed doors.

Film Review: Cujo (1983)

Released: 1983

Starring: Dee Wallace,
Danny Pintauro
Daniel Hugh Kelly

Synopsis: Evil bites when a monstrous canine terrorises a helpless family in this legendary cult classic. When Donna and Vic Trenton struggle to save their rocky marriage, their son Tad befriends the loveable 200-lb St. Bernard who belongs to their mechanic. But what they don't realise is that a bat bite has transformed Cujo from a docile pup to a vicious killer. With Vic away on business, Donna and Tad's car trouble pushes them into a living nightmare - trapped by the demonic, relentless dog from hell.

My Thoughts: Before watching this film my only exposure to Cujo was in an episode of Friends that's usually remembered by fans because it marks the start of Joey's infatuation with Rachel. So I guess you could say I didn't really have any expectations going into this film, other than it seems to get enough favourable reviews to stop it from becoming one of those Stephen King films. You know the ones, the ones that we're not supposed to mention...

As Donna arrives at the empty mechanic's yard with her her son in their barely functioning car she is attacked by the rabid St. Bernard and trapped within their car. With no hope for escape in their car, and no clear exit path, the mother and son are stuck in the boiling hot car as Cujo stalks around it, halting any attempt at escape and ramming the doors and window with it's head. The claustophobic feelings of anxiety that these scenes evoke had me on the edge of my seat. The camera follows Donna's gaze around the yard, halting on the front door, on a baseball bat, on the door handle of the car, back to her son in the car, all while splicing in shots of Cujo just waiting. I mean that dog is ALWAYS THERE! Any time a window is opened or a door even looks like it might be opened then BAM, snarling, gnashing teeth take focus on the screen. It's some seriously decent and terrifying film-making and is not hard to see why this film is a cult favourite. Then there's Cujo himself, I mean, if there were doggie-Oscars, he'd have won it 10 times over. I can't believe I'm praising the acting of a dog, but seriously, he was insane! The blood matted in his fur, the gunk pouring from his eyes and mouth, the rabid fury as he attacked the car...he was the heart and soul of this film.

Unfortunately these scenes don't make up the film in it's entirety. In fact, this part of the film doesn't kick in until about 45 really boring minutes have passed. It seems like Cujo suffered from the King curse where the film-makers stay faithful to 75% of the source material and then just eliminate the remainder. I'm going to have to actually read the book to know for sure, but there were just aspects of the film that seemed unfinished to me. Such as, Donna and Vic hit a rough patch in their marriage, the rough patch being Steve, the local stud, who Donna is sleeping with. As they struggle to remain civil their son Tad (wonderfully played by Danny Pintauro) is struggling to sleep at night thanks to his over-active imagination. I'm fairly sure if these story arcs were in the actual book then they would have had some actually baring to the main story, but in the film they were just left hanging with zero resolution or reasoning why they were even part of the plot. The marital problems do weigh in slightly more, and perhaps if they were used exclusively for the reason Vic left town, rather than a work issue, it would have felt more complete. I'm guessing they were supposed to add weight and "colour" to the characters, but really they just acted like red herrings to where the story was heading - especially Tad's fear of a monster in his closet.

Stephen King films can be really varied, and until you actually sit down in front of the TV you have no real idea if you're getting one of the winners or one of the duds. Cujo falls somewhere in between, perhaps a bit closer to the winner end of the spectrum. As fantastic and terrifying as Cujo is, his grizzly attack scenes are outweighed by the haphazardly portrayed family drama. Imperfections aside, this is still definitely worth a watch.

3.5 out of 5 Beethoven films that'll never be the same again. 

Film Review: The Fly (1986)

Directed by: David Cronenberg

Starring: Jeff Goldblum
Geena David

Synopsis: A brilliant but eccentric scientist begins to transform into a giant man/fly hybrid after one of his experiments goes horribly wrong.

My thoughts: Tom has been trying to get me to watch The Fly since we started dating, almost three years ago. It's not that I didn't want to watch it, or that I had any aversion to it, but it seemed like the only times he suggested we watch it was at 2am, or when I was in a funk. Finally, we managed to sit down and watch it together, and now I'm kicking myself for waiting for so long!

Jeff Goldblum plays Seth Brundle, an eccentric scientist who has dedicated his time to creating transporter pods. Unfortunately for him, while they transfer non-biological items (seemingly) fine, whenever a living creature is placed inside, they get fucked up, turned inside out, and all that gorey good stuff. While he tries to work out the kinks, Seth meets Veronica Quaife (played by Geena Davis), a beautiful journalist looking for a scoop. Sparks fly, they kiss, they fall in love and Seth keeps trying to sort out his machines. After determining that it should be fine if tested on human subjects, Seth jumps in to see if they'll work. Unbeknownst to him, however, a wee little fly flew into the machine, converting it from a transporter pod into a gene-splicing pod that recodes Seth's DNA with fly DNA. Seth notices no difference, except that his speed, strength and agility seem to have jumped from non-existent to borderline super-hero. Though he thinks it's all due to the disintegration of his body and reassembly of the broken down bits, Veronica starts to notice the smaller differences that he misses or ignores. As Veronica gets more and more nervous, Seth becomes more cocky and obnoxious about his masterpiece machine, ignoring the creeping on symptoms that things are less than OK.

Things begin to spiral very quickly after Veronica decides to leave Seth. Seth transforms from high-functioning human to hybrid creature almost overnight, and each time we see him he appears less human, less well, and more disgusting. As much as I enjoyed the movie as a whole, and the story that was told, it was these transformation scenes which captivated me most. I'm very vocal when it comes to the benefits of physical special effects over computer generated effects, and this film is a firm example of that. From the inside out monkey, to Brundle-fly's gradual transformation, the effects were far more tangible, more tactile (even on the screen) and played a much larger role that CGI ever does. When Veronica returns later to see Seth, the disgust and sadness on her face is far more effective because she is actually seeing Jeff Goldblum transformed and inhuman in front of her, rather than just gazing at a man covered in ping pong balls in front of a green screen. It's just far more effective, and the detailing always seems so much more disgusting and complex and realistic when the SFX are physical.

I loved this film, I thought the love story developed between Veronica and Seth was fantastic, I loved Seth's greedy obsession with his project and his refusal to accept the consequences. I loved the SFX, and the costumes (Oh 1980s, you are good for a giggle), and Seth/Brundlefly during the final 20 minutes. I loved the self-reflection, the concern over scientific experimentation, the drawing of a line in the sand. David Cronenberg created a film that'll remain as troubling and as effective for another 25 years, and doubtless years after that. A true modern horror classic.

4.5 out of 5 Brundle-flies. 

Film Review: Henry, Portrait of a serial killer (1986)

Directed by: John McNaughton

Starring: Michael Rooker
Tracey Arnold
Tom Towles

Synopsis: Based on the life and killings of Henry Lee Lucas famed American serial killer who now resides on death row in Texas. Its always the quiet ones. How many time have we heard this phrase used to describe a killer? Too often. Henry is the boy next door who just can't get the taste for murder out of his mouth. It all started when he was an abused child.

My thoughts: Henry, Portrait of a Serial Killer is one of those films I think any horror/thriller enthusiast is expected to watch. Kind of like Night of the Living Dead, Silence of the Lambs and The Thing.  It just so happened that neither Tom nor I had gotten around to seeing this one, so we decided to finally cross this one of the list.

From the very first minute you're witness to the brutality of Henry, with a montage of 5 murder victims laying prone in the various surroundings while the sounds of their murders play over the top. The worst, perhaps, is the woman sitting half naked on a toilet with a bottle wedged deep into her eye. Though you only see the after-effects of the attacks, their screams for help and the squealchy or thunking sounds of attack were probably the most traumatic aspect of the film for me. The scene lasted so long, that Tom even asked me if this was going to be the entire film, and I have to say, if it was, I probably wouldn't have lasted longer than 15 minutes. Not because it would be slow/boring, but because I think it'd probably haunt me a lot more than actually seeing a man attack other people. I think there's something about savage amounts of gore or violence in film that makes it impossible to see it realistically, this opening scene however, doesn't let you escape the reality of a serial killer.

Though you do eventually see Henry actually kill people in the film, this motif of the sounds of the attack played over their image is repeated several times through the film, always inspiring the same reaction from me. I'd say this is the most successful aspect of the film, and probably one of the reasons the film has gone down as such a "must see" classic. The other factor in its success has to be Michael Rooker's performance, and the character of Henry himself. As the film moves from ghastly murder, to lunch at a dinner, to a quiet evening dinner with his housemate (and soon to be accomplice) Otis and Otis's sister (Becky), to murdering a man over a TV, Henry switches between quiet guy next door who is police and respectful to an apathetic brutal serial killer. This is one of the comments that always comes up when a serial killer is finally caught, so many friends/family/acquaintances say "but he's so charming" or "he's quiet but he was always so polite and helpful". Henry perfectly demonstrated how smoothly a man (or woman, no bias here!) can move between their two personas effortlessly and become all the more dangerous because of it.

So the basic premise of the movie is that it focuses on Henry and his relationship between Otis and Becky. Becky has just flown in after escaping from her psycho husband, and while she looks for work takes the spare room at Otis and Henry's home. While Becky bonds with Henry over their shared experiences of abuse at the hands of their parents, she experiences the "good" side of Henry, with him often coming to her defence when her brother makes sleazy passes at her. Otis, on the other hand, gets to meet the serial killer side, and quickly takes up the occupation for himself. Though Henry is the focus of the film, personally I found Otis far more disturbing. He's aggressive and perverse and he has no control over himself. While Henry is creepy because of his removed view of life as a serial killer (it's almost like it's a job to him), Otis is unable to stop himself once he gets going, and on more than occassion Henry has to discipline him like he's some kind of animal.

While I found the premise and the psychology behind this film fascinating, it fell short for me. Other than Rooker, the actors playing Otis and Becky were less than stellar. Both seemed new to the game and often had that focused look on their face when they recited a significant chunk of lines. The transparency of the acting definitely removed much of the atmosphere for me and was the greatest let down. Other than the acting I'm not really sure I can provide a reason for why this film let me down a little. Perhaps it's because there have been some incredible serial killer films released since, or maybe it's simply a little dated now, but I finished the movie feeling a little "meh" about the whole thing. This seems to be the opposite reaction to quite a few of the reviews on IMDB, but for me it was just...lacking.

While there was a serial killer named Henry Lee Lucas who did have an accomplice named Otis who had a relative (a cousin) named Becky, a quick google search suggests that much of this movie seems to be fabricated. That isn't a big issue for me, but for those of you who enjoy films that closely follow the lives of serial killers this may just be a deal breaker. Regardless, you probably should see this film, because it definitely has its place in horror/thriller film cannon, but be prepared to be a little underwhelmed.

3 out of 5 blood stained suitcases.

In the Mouth of Madness (1995)

Directed by: John Carpenter

Starring: Sam Neil Julie Carmen Jurgen Prochnow

Synopsis: An insurance investigator begins discovering that the impact a horror writer's books have on his fans is more than inspirational.

My thoughts: In the Mouth of Madness is the third movie in John Carpenter's Apocalypse Trilogy and the third movie we saw in our semi-regular movie nights (coincidently, The Thing was the first we saw). It has Sam Neill, it has John Carpenter, it has awesome practical special effects - but it lacked something.

The plot follows Sam Neill character, a professional bullshit-spotter (insurance investigator) who is hired by a publisher to track-down their most successful horror author, Sutter Cane, who has gone AWOL. By using clues hidden in Cane's earlier books, Sam Neill discovers the location of a town named Hobb's End. After arriving in town, he discovers that Hobb's End has probably been written into existence by Cane (who looks strangely like Neil Gaiman), and bad, nightmarish stuff starts to happen.

While everything was solid, it felt like I'd seen everything before. The sceptical protagonist, fiction turning into reality, malevolent creatures from another dimension that send you mad when you look upon them - these are conventions I've seen often enough that, while it could keep me watching, it never moved me to the edge of my seat. It could be that so many authors and film makers have borrowed ideas from this movie that they now seems ubiquitous (the game Alan Wake, for example, owes a huge debt to this film), but there was nothing really in the film that I haven't seen done better somewhere else.

That said, there is a lot in this movie and I don't think there are many other directors who could have take this on and kept it coherent. The story twists and turns, but Carpenter keeps the audience on top of it all - no small feat. As I said before, this film has some great effects including but not limited to: creepy-back-of-head face (like in Harry Potter, but cooler), twisted spider-walking people (like The Exorcist, but not as cool), and lashing tentacle granny (like in The Thing, equally as cool [note from Kayleigh: Tentacle Granny is really fucking cool.]). Another thing the film had going for it was casting Sam Neill in the lead. Consciously putting my affection for Mr Neill aside, he delivered a terrific and believable performance. And I mean that objectively. Well, as objectively as someone who once ordered a portrait of him online can be. Performance by supporting cast was also strong across the board. No complaints in that area at all.

The final act was a bit problematic for me. Get ready for some spoilers....

It turns out Cane is a puppet for creatures from another dimension that want to come here and do terrible things to us. This final turn screams Lovecraft, but without a purpose. There was so much in this film already in terms of psychological horror, supernatural horror and in a way, body horror - it was just too many things by the end of the film. Furthermore, creatures from beyond the realm of the conceivable, the very sight of whom drive the behold mad, work a lot better when you don't get a good look at them
.

Overall its a good effort and very worthwhile for John Carpenter completionists, but it lacks anything truly unique or that will one day make it a classic.

3 out of 5 Sutter Cane sequels

Film Review: The Reef (2010)

Directed by: Andrew Traucki

Starring: Damian Walshe-Howling
Gyton Grantley
Zoe Naylor
Adrienne Pickering

Synopsis: A great white shark hunts the crew of a capsized sailboat along the Great Barrier Reef.

My thoughts: A few weeks ago I was researching for my uni supervisor when this film came up. Usually I find myself pretty disappointed with shark films. Jaws, obviously, is a classic, but more often than not shark films tend to lean more towards the ridiculous (Deep Blue Sea, Shark Night) than the realistic. When a film does try to be realistic, like Open Water, I find myself bored by the shitty characters and slow pacing. That being said, for some reason I decided that perhaps this film would be different and maybe, hopefully, stand closer to Jaws than Raging Sharks.


The Reef follows Kate, her brother Matt, his girlfriend Suzie and Kate's ex-boyfriend Luke as they head out on a boat island hopping their way to Indonesia (or so one review stated, the film itself is less specific). Along with the group is Warren, the poor guy stuck navigating and sailing the boat while the other four lounge around in swimsuits and snorkelling along reefs. Aside from Warren and Luke, who both work on boats, none of them have any real experience in the water, and from the outset it seems as though they're a little unprepared for their journey.

After a luxurious day snorkelling on a small island things take a turn for the worse. As the four make their way back to the boat on a dinghy, it springs a leak after catching on some coral in the shallow water. Back on the boat, the engine has stalled and they have to sail their way out of the shallow coral infested water without its assistance. Then to top it off, after thinking they'd made it back out safely, they're woken with a shock the next morning when the boat strikes more coral and capsizes. When they make it out from under the boat and atop the floating hull they're faced with two options. Stay on the boat and face certain dehydration, starvation and sun-stoke as they float further out to sea, or take to the water and attempt to swim to an island that is 13 miles (20 kilometres give or take) away. Warren, the experienced boat hand, is certain he won't be getting in the water and he makes it crystal clear to the others that in their wetsuits they're going to look like juicy fat seals and the sharks which are definitely swimming around these waters will be only too eager to eat them up. Luke then rebuts this sensible statement by saying it'll only take them 3 hours and he can navigate with the sun and his watch. Warren stays put and Kate intends to stay with him, but when she sees the other three swim 50m she jumps in and decides to take her chances out in the open. This all happens within the first 25-30 minutes of the film. The next hour shows their struggle to swim in the open ocean, and a sudden unwelcome visitor spending far too much time splashing around near them.

Le sigh. OK, this movie wasn't bad. The splicing of real footage of great white sharks amongst the panicked swimmers was well done. Some of the composition probably could have been worked on for a little longer to clean up the edges, but overall it was far more effective and realistic than the traditional robot or CGI options. Unlike other shark films, there aren't prolonged scenes of the shark snapping at the swimmers. Instead they use (far more effectively in my opinion) longer shots which show the murky blue waters and the shadow of the shark swim into view, then out of view again, only to reappear closer on another side. It really emphasised the claustrophobic and hopeless trapped atmosphere that would be overwhelming if you ever found yourself in that situation. The only shot missing was of it's large shadow slipping down below their feet. That's such a classic shark film shot it seemed crazy for it to be absent, and it would have helped scale the size of the shark too. The acting, though a little wooden in the scenes before the shark attacks, was fairly realistic once the terror mounted. Sure it was mostly screaming and crying, but let's be honest, that's what we'd all be doing in their flippers.

OK, now on to the problems. First I should preface this by saying this was based on real events. Three trawler workers decided to risk the swim to a nearby island/reef when their boat capsized off the coast of Townsville. Along the way they were picked off by an aggressive tiger shark leaving only the one survivor who was picked up moments before his own certain death. The film takes an unbelievable but factual story and teases out all sense of reality. They seem completely unprepared for a voyage out on the open sea. When Luke goes to make breakfast on the second day he's faced with an empty cupboard. Exactly how long were they planning to be out on the water for? Then when Luke returns to the capsized, underwater cabin to try and find supplies he doesn't seem to be able to locate any life jackets or other necessary life saving devices found on boats. Then there's Luke's assertion that four weak swimmers would be able to swim 12 miles in under 3 hours in open water, with currents strong enough to drag their boat far from land. Then there's the scene when they all sleep in the water and somehow think they can pick up navigation the next day without having moved. Then there's the fact that the attacking shark is a great white which would almost never be found in Queensland waters. In this situation a tiger or bull shark would have been acceptable, and far more aggressive options that would also lend more accuracy to the story. Basically, the story is full of holes which I simply couldn't get past. I understand that your survival instinct kicks in and perhaps you don't think particularly rationally when your life is threatened, but most of the issues seemed like sloppy or slapdash research and writing by the production team.

Finally, there's the fact that the film is about 25 minutes too long. With these "realistic" animal attack or boat/plane/car accident films, I feel like shorter is always better. It was 45 minutes before the shark was finally more than a dark blur in the distance and attacked someone, but there was another 45 minutes after that which just dragged, even with added shark shots and attacks. There are so few options in these films, (stay on the boat or swim, drown, get lost, make it to island, or shark attack) and so little room for any sort of plot or character development, that they soon grow monotonous regardless of how successful and scary their FX are. Perhaps it was a fault of the movie (they are essentially one trick ponies), or just a symptom of my unbelievable impatience, but this film didn't have enough atmosphere or thrust to keep me interested for the entire film. I've heard the opposite from plenty of people though, so I guess it probably has more to do with me than the film in this case.

Overall, not a bad film, but not a great one either. Your enjoyment will really depend on your previous history with shark films. If, like me, you've seen all the dodgy shark-tacular films with the same CGI shark flipped and  stretched to 100 feet then this will probably seem a real winner. However, if all you have under your belt is Jaws, well...it could go either way. I've never seen more than 25 minutes of Open Water (there's that impatience again) but people have told me this is a similar but more successful version of that film. So then there's that to consider too. Ugh, I think this is perhaps the Schrodinger's cat of films, good or bad, success or failure, you won't know until you open the DVD box and chuck it in your player. Just don't blame me if you hate it. Or if it stops you from being able to dip your toes in the ocean for the next six months. Actually, I think that'd make it a success, so feel free to send me your thanks if that's your reaction!


3 out of 5 rotting sea turtle carcasses.

Film Review: Pet Sematary (1989)

Directed by: Mary Lambert

Starring: Dale Midkiff,
Fred Gwynne
Denise Crosby
Miko Hughes

Synopsis: The Creeds have just moved into a new house in the countryside. Their house is perfect, except for two things: the semi-trailers that roar past and the mysterious cemetery in the woods behind the house. The Creed's neighbours are reluctant to talk about the cemetery, and for good reason too.

My Thoughts: OK, so I'm perhaps not the best person to go to for an unbiased account of Stephen King films. I hate to say it, but I'm a sucker for each and every one of them. Some of them truly are stand out films (Shawshank Redemption is in my top 5 films) but even the dodgiest adaptation has this weird Z-grade charm that I find hard to pass up. Because of my love for all of them, it's a little hard to distinguish with some of these older ones whether it's the quirk I enjoy, or the actual film. Especially in the ones filmed during the 1980s, where even the best are known to garner a little eye-rolling from modern audiences. So I guess this was a fairly roundabout way of saying that this film will get a high rating, but you probably should trust it.

 As I mentioned in my book review of the film, this was my very first bona fide horror film. I loved it, I remember relishing the foreshadowing, the haunting, Hermain Munster without the Hermain Munster gear (Fred Gwynne as the neighbour Jud) and all the other creepy things you expect in a horror film. It must have been weeks before I got sick of saying "First I played with Jud, then I played with mummy, now I want to play with you daddy" in a sing-song children's voice. It never really scared me (not like The Exorcist did a year or two later) but it introduced me to how fun horror can be, and how laughs can mingle with fear and general excitement. If I were to categorise this film it'd be as fun, one of those films where you know what's going to happen and you just can't wait.

Like with many Stephen King adaptations, the film does away with a great deal of the "real" horror, in this case the soul destroying loss of a child. It's still there, obviously, but rather than travel with Louis through his stages of grief, and witness the very upsetting reactions his wife and daughter also have, it fast forwards straight from Gage's death to his "rebirth". As a result there is much less time put into constructing any sort of normal life for the Creeds, or setting up any real characterisation for anyone other than Louis. Instead it chose to focus on the supernatural elements, specifically the warnings Louis received from the recently dead Victor Pascow, the insatiable pull of the Indian burial ground, and most importantly, the psychotic little rugrat that returns to play "stab daddy with a sharp scalpel". I personally found the book superior in introducing the supernatural forces and building the fear incrementally to a mighty crescendo of heart-skipping mind blowing "fuck don't turn out the lights" horror. The film relied on the more obvious methods of scaring audiences, haunting music, spooky tree branches rustling around, a neighbour who looks like Frankenstein...

That said, it wins over many other horror films simply because of the addition of a crazy murderous kid. There is something about children in horror that makes me whimper for my mummy. I guess it's the juxtaposition of precious little cherub faced Gage against precious little cherub faced Gage with a razor sharp scalpel. Mummy and daddy's worst nightmare, rather than wait for their kid to hit puberty and start resenting the parentals, he goes wild at the ripe old age of three. Gage (played by Miko Hughes) really was stupendous in the second half of the film. Not only does he have the best lines (see above), but he managed to wreck havoc and obliterate people four times his size, all with a big toothy smile on his face and not a hair out of place. You gotta hand it to the little demon child, he's got style.

It's not as compelling as the book it was adapted from, but perhaps it's because of the fond history I have with this film... I just...I really can't fault it. It's the perfect mix of creepy kids, cheesy acting, 80s horror clichés and it has a theme song by The Ramones (see below). I wouldn't recommend this to anyone looking for a serious scare, and again, I'm probably just a tad biassed, but I think it's a film everyone should watch at some point, even if only to poke fun at the hokey effects!

4 out of 5 misguided attempts to bring back a loved one.

Film Review: Salem's Lot (1979)

As a follow up to my Twilight rant the other week, I thought I should review a very different vampire story: Tobe Hooper's adaptation of Stephen King's novel Salem's Lot. I was pretty excited to see this, as we're big fans of both Tobe Hooper and Stephen King here at Hail Horrors, but I have to say, I wasn't blown away by this film.

Since seeing the film, I have begun reading King's fascinating book Danse Macabre about his thoughts on the horror genre. One thing he's made clear so far (I'm about half way through: review to come) is that he has thought A LOT about Bram Stoker's Dracula. He identifies the vampire as one of the three major archetypes that the bulk of horror is built upon, the others being the werewolf and the Thing That Can't be Named (he places Frankenstein's monster in this category). One of the attributes of the vampire which he spends some time discussing is the sexual relationship that they have with their victims, which he likens to a primal rape fantasy. Knowing how conscious King was of this, it was surprising that he intentionally de-sexed vampires in the story. Well, I haven't read the book, but sex and vampires wasn't really a theme in the movie. I don't think the story was hurt by this, it's just an interesting decision.

Instead, the film focuses on vampires as a predator - a silent stalker, hunting from the shadow and surrounding itself with minions. Stephen King understands the myth of the vampire and which of our fears it plays to. King's vampires possess little apparent consciousness, lacking the aptitude for social interaction that vampires are traditionally written with. But as I mentioned before, these vampires are the killing kind, not the flirting kind. There is no reason to be able to make small talk when you can just hypnotise victims with your gaze.

In terms of film-making, it was fairly well directed, with the exception of some freeze frame stings when the vampire claims it's first few victims. They have not aged well and are less than I'd expect from the director of the timeless film the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. However, the master vampire's make-up by Jack Young and Ben Lane still looks terrific. Looking back on it, it is probably a good thing Stephen King didn't go for sexy vampires. I don't know how well the Nosferatu-esque bat-guy would have been at pulling chicks, even with supernatural powers of suggestion. This version of Salem's Lot was intended to be two TV-movies, but the DVD we own rolled them into one 3 hour epic, which did get a little tough to sit through towards the end.

The climax follows the classic descent into the hunters into the vampire's lair. The surviving characters and their sub-plots dove tail satisfyingly into the finale - and in true King style, he kills off a few of them for good measure. This was probably my favourite part of the film, followed by the 'window scratching' - an inspired moment of horror genius.

I had high hopes for this movie which weren't met, but it wasn't terrible by any stretch of the imagination. King successfully brought Dracula to small-town USA, but the vampires felt a little sterile compared to those in Bram Stoker's story (again, I'm talking about the movie. I have not read the book). Well worth checking out for King/Hooper fans and hardcore horror aficionados.

3.5 out of 5 (hours to watch this thing)

Film Review: The Exorcist (1973)

Director: William Friendkin.

Synopsis: When a child is possessed by a mysterious entity, her mother seeks the help of two priests to save her daughter.

My Thoughts: When I reviewed the book version of The Exorcist the other week I kept making rather vague references to what I remembered of the film. It seems I perhaps should have re-watched the film before I shared some of those perspectives because it seems like I misremembered much of the film!

Watching the film as a 13 year old what really stood out to me was the girl descending into deeper levels of creepy possessed demon-ness. Her transformation from loveable, happy child into a creature hell-bent on destroying the lives of everyone it comes into contact with was a stark shock for little me, and the images of Regan's head spinning, and the "help me" formed on her stomach haunted me for nights after I first saw the film. Because the poignant transformation had such an impact on the young impressionable me, when I read the book and found an abundance of conflict between psychology and religion and how religion can survive alongside the sciences in the modern world, it felt like a new addition to the story. What I  found upon rewatching it though, is that this conflict is indeed present in the film, and like the book actually takes prescendence over much of the exorcism/possession stuff.

Not being particularly religious (read: stone-cold atheist) the conflict isn't something I've come into contact with, but the representation of it on film with the character of Father Karras makes it painfully clear that religion is much harder to sell, shall we say, and also much harder to swallow. Though he seems clear that there is a god, his psychology background makes it impossible to believe that Regan could possibly be possessed. Though it's explained more within the book, he's clearly more confident with saying she's suffering from some undiagnosable mental disorder than a mystical being possessing her body. It's an interesting predicament, because as an atheist/agnostic I really can't see the difference between demons and god, but for Karras there is a definite difference between them and his scientific background doesn't allow him to suspend his disbelief quite that far. It makes for a possession narrative that's much better equipped for modern audiences and modern society, far more accessible and believable.

For anyone who hasn't seen the film (shame on you) the special effects are hardly of the standard that we're used to today, but I still found them realistic enough to have me hugging  my legs to my chest. To be honest, I find it much more effective to use the physical special effects, as used in The Exorcist, than the CGI ones favoured today. They don't always pass as more realistic, but they have a tangibility that you simply can't get from CGI, regardless of the studio designing them. This is definitely true in this film. The shaking bed and possessed puppetry does border on laughable from time to time, but you can get a real sense of why this film had people in hysterics when it was released. In fact, I think it's one of the few old films where you're completely excused for still feeling fear during. Night of the Living Dead, though a favourite of mine, is decidedly unscary, even though I recognise where the fear would be for older audiences.

The atmosphere is fantastic in this film, and the soundtrack further amplifies the overall feeling of the movie. Perhaps the best example of this film's dark and moody atmosphere is the shot used on most DVD covers of the film. Father Merrin standing underneath the streetlight as light shines down on him in the dark from the open window of Regan's bedroom. Stunning. While the rest of the film doesn't quite meet the same high standard of this image, it does reflect the general cinematic style of the film.

All of this adds up to create a phenomenal, and understandably classic, horror film. One that I implore you all watch, and even if you've seen it before, watch it again. No more discussion, just do it. Now.

4.5 out of 5 pints of pea soup vomit

Double Review: Spiral / Rasen (1998) Review

Written by: Kôji Suzuki.
Directed by: Jōji Iida

Spiral had big shoes to fill. Both Hideo Nakata's and Gore Verbinski's versions of The Ring will be immortalised in horror history for popularising Eastern horror in the West, reinvigorating the horror genre after a fairly lacklustre decade, creating one of the scariest moments in film (do I really have to mention it's the part where Sadaku crawls out of the TV at Ryūji?) and achieving the prestigious title of one of my favourite movies ever. Spiral was never going to exceed that. I know that. And reading the book / watching the film, I was painfully aware that I would have to separate my feeling for the Ring from this story to fairly judge it on its own merits. Despite this, it is still difficult for me to admit that Spiral did not meet my deliberately lowered expectations.

The copy of Spiral (the book) I own describes Kôji Suzuki as "Haruki Murakami blended with Stephen King" on the front cover. This leads me to believe that the journalist quoted here has either never read Stephen King and Haruki Murakami, or instead has never read Kôji Suzuki and just assumed he is Haruki Murakami blended with Stephen King because he is both Japanese and a horror author. My largest qualm about this comparison is Kôji Suzuki's contempt for excessive characterisation. He tends to jump into the crux of the story, attempting to short-cut sympathy for characters by having them deal with some traumatic event or memory, rather than create rich backstories. This is a completely legitimate strategy in films: you don't have long to get the audience on your side. However, in a novel, without those extra details about the character and their motivation, I felt like I was missing a piece of the picture. I should also mention that I read the English version of Spiral, so I can't say with complete conviction that things were lost in translation.

Dr Ando is the tragic protagonist of this story. In both the film and book, he is still dealing with the drowning of his son which he blames himself for, living alone and working as a pathologist who performs autopsies. As I mentioned before, tragic, dark characters are good for audience sympathy but one of the biggest problems is that Ando was made TOO dark and tragic. He lacked any readily identifiable motivation. He contemplates suicide several times, razor at the wrists ready, but never follows through. And I never knew why. His desire to stay alive is slightly clearer in the book, which describes his lust towards his dead friends' lover and later her 'sister.' This did a lot to hurt the sympathy created for him at the start of the narrative. He's tortured by his son's death, but not tortured enough to stop him from thinking with his dick. Compare this to Reiko Asakawa in the first movie (I know I said I wouldn't compare the two, I'm sorry), who is first motivated by her own inherit curiosity and a sense of duty, then the stakes are raised again when her own life is threatened, then again when her son is put at risk. Ando seems to have nothing to lose except the chance to get laid.

The other horror faux pas it commits is explaining loose ends from its predecessor. Spiral demystifies the Ring mythos so much, I'm almost tempted to call it science fiction rather than horror. Supernatural horror needs a sense of mystery and the unexplained, it prevents the horror from becoming familiar and killing the suspense.

If I had to pick one over the other, I'd say the book was slightly better than the film. The detail it could go into just made it less hokey. The code breaking sections of the book were actually really interesting, but could not have possibly be translated to the film, meaning the film missed out on those satisfying "a-ha" moments when Ando cracked them (note: 'a-ha' as in an exclamation of working something out, not the Norwegian pop band. The latter are rarely praised for their contributions to the horror genre). Exposition in Rasen was pretty laboured, resulting in some awkward dialogue and a few of the characters having psychic abilities in order for the story to foreshadow necessary plot reveals. The film did have some cool moments, like Ando's hallucinations and nightmare sequences, but these were spoilt by poor characters, an ill-conceived plot and a vanilla twist ending.

Hopefully, I will get around to watching Hideo Nakata's original version Ring 2 in the next few weeks. While I wasn't a fan of his American version, his competency as a film-maker is abundantly evident, and it surely can't be as disappointing as the legitimate sequel to Suzuki's Ring.

Book: 2 out of 5

Film: 1.5 out of 5

Film Review: Shark Night 3D

Synopsis: A weekend at a lake house in the Louisiana Gulf turns into a nightmare for seven vacationers as they are subjected to shark attacks.

My Thoughts: It's inevitable that any film about sharks will be compared to Jaws, and Jaws this ain't. I didn't go into Shark Night with anything resembling high, or even mediocre, expectations, but it fell short of even my smallest of hopes.

The story begins with "nerdy" pre-med student Nick, struggling to study while his "crazy" room mate plays video games. After giving in his studious pursuits to join the game they're joined by Malik, the jock being tutored by Nick. He comes terrorising into the room ranting about how he needed a C average in order to stay on the team, and Nick "the best tutor on campus" would pay if his football career went down the drain. Anyway, menace, menace, menace "Nah just kidding Brah, I got a B-" Yuk Yuk Yuk. As a reward for Nick's awesome tutorial skills he invites the two "nerds" (actually, that's unfair, one is at least pretty geeky) to spend the weekend at Sara's summer house on a lake in Louisiana.

The cast are the usual suspects in your typical teen slasher/mutilation horror. You have the nerdy guy who in actuality has a waxed chest and muscles almost as big as the jock.  Then there is his geeky, talkative sex-mad side-kick, the token minority guy who is in a relationship with the token minority girl (multiculturalism! Yay!), the sweet girl next door that the nerd is into but has a troubled past, the pretty boy and the "bad" girl (this one was getting a tattoo but set it up as if it was a one night stand . LFMAO!).

After arriving at the fancy summer house equipped with every mod-con except a phone, things quickly turn to shit when Malik is targeted by a shark while doing mad flips on a wakeboard. As he struggles to survive, minus one arm, the rest struggle to find away to get home. There are no phones, the boats aren't safe, nor are jet-skis, "friendly" rednecks, and there is no way off their secluded island retreat except through the water. The rest cycles through your typical formula, sweet girl's troubled past comes back to haunt them, a good guy is actually a bad guy, people die and a weak comment on modern society is explained obviously enough for a dog to understand.

The real problem with this film is that it tries to hard to have a story. I didn't come into this film to see everyone come out the other side better, wiser and stronger people. I wanted to see the obnoxious college students become shark food, and I wanted to see that done as gory and as perversely as possible. The film needed to cut out half the weak story-line and dialogue and introduce at least 20 new characters, even if their only role is to run into the water and straight into the shark's open mouth. Even though the lake is literally teeming with shark we only see one shark attack that isn't directly linked to the group of college kids we're following through the film. The film-makers seemed torn between delivering a balls to the wall gory and ridiculous attack flick (think Piranha 3D) and trying to create a horror story that had a coherent storyline and message. They failed abysmally in the storyline department, a 10 year old could probably do better, and only on occasion delivered decently obscene and 3D-worthy shark attacks. It needed to channel a little bit of Pirahna 3D, and the scene where dozens of college kids were obliterated in the most offensive and bloody ways possible was perfect for this style of film, but Shark Night was missing anything that came even close to hilarious and sickening.

I didn't walk into this film expecting the greatest horror film released this year, but I didn't walk out with the giddy feeling of watching a ridiculously fun teen horror romp either. Stack the unsatisfying lack of gore and insane shark attacks with the poor acting, atrocious storyline and pointless 3D and you've got a film not worth seeing.

1.5 out of 5 thrashing sharks.

Film Review: Cronos (1993)

Directed by: Guillermo del Toro.

With the Brisbane International Film Festival fresh in mind, I'm really excited that my first review on this blog is one of my personal highlights from the festival. Guillermo del Toro's debut feature, Cronos, is my favourite kind of horror film. It was restrained and intelligent, with tasteful body horror themes reminiscent of David Cronenberg. It is incredibly satisfying (and horrifying) to watch a character you genuinely empathise with transform physically and emotionally into something monstrous, wondering how far from their original form they will descend and whether they have crossed the point of no return.

The tragic protagonist in this tale is Jesus Gris (played by Federico Luppi), an antique store owner and loving grandfather. His tender relationship with his young granddaughter, Aurora, initially endears him to us. We are also introduced to his wife, a dance instructor, who appears to have grown distant from Jesus (possibly due to their difference in age). This adds another element of fragility to Jesus' character, as he dutifully trudges through his morning routine and goes to work.

This turns for Gris when he discovers in his shop a 16th century, golden, alchemical mechanism that, unbeknownst to our hero, grants the user eternal life. After innocently winding up the device, it latches onto his hand and injects him with what the audience is shown to be the secretions of an insect still living inside it. This first use is forgiveable, but Gris' weakness becomes apparent as he becomes addicted to it. Thus begins Gris' descent. It immediately reminded me of Seth Brundle from The Fly's transformation. Initially, both characters see physical benefits, becoming younger and stronger, but this new found sense of power also drives them away from those closest to them. And then skin starts to come off and you see what's been growing underneath... but more about that later. Despite the similarities, the two characters aren't carbon copies. Jesus Gris' rejuvenation, while scaring his granddaughter, actually brings him closer to his wife. And rather than letting his hubris destroy his relationship with Aurora completely, Gris works hard to convince his granddaughter that he knows what he's doing, though he's clearly trying to convince himself just as much.

Events escalate again for Gris when he develops a taste for human blood and is murdered (temporarily) by a thug trying to track down the esoteric device on behalf of his terminally ill employer/uncle. Gris luckily regains mortality just before he is cremated, and the gravity of what he has become sets in. I don't really want to go into the plot too much more lest I ruin it for anyone who is yet to see it, but trust me when I say it's a satisfying story from beginning until the end.

The character of Aurora is the innocent of the story, an archetype that appears in several of del Toro's films (Pan's Labyrinth, The Devil's Backbone, and we can assume from the trailers, Don't be Afraid of the Dark). She is almost completely silent the entire film, which seems to be a good way to stop child actors screwing up your movie. Not that she didn't perform well, its just a good rule of thumb. But I digress.

As Gris' addiction to the device worsens, he starts to put Aurora at risk. These selfish acts are far removed from those of the dutiful grandfather we're introduced to at the beginning of the film. Body horror is often an allegory for all kinds of issues, such as disease, our relationship to technology and (more often than you'd think) emasculation, but I'm hard strung trying to remember of another body horror movie that deals with addiction. But when you think about the physical and mental degradation that an addict goes through, I wonder why there aren't more.

Federico Luppi carries us expertly through the Jesus Gris' character arch, from endearment to pity. Another great piece of casting was Ron Perlman, playing the cocky thug trying to track down the device. Perlman apparently offers even more value for Guillermo del Toro, generously agreeing to pay-cuts when the film went over budget. Del Toro did make him Hellboy 10 years later, so they're probably about even now...

Watching this film reminded me just how good del Toro is and how important he is to modern horror, but also how clear his vision has been since he started making films. You really must watch this move if the opportunity presents itself. It will leave you feeling very satisfied.

4.5 alchemical devices of immortality out of 5