Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Jay Hunter's Journal of Horror Films
Options
Comments
-
Battle Royale (2000)
Plot: 42 school children are forced to compete in a battle to the death on a deserted island. Naturally, the film was censured both in Japan and internationally, and much like The Passion of St. Tibulus, was a smash hit due to all of the public press.
Thoughts on the film:
• The premise is hastily explained as punishment for Japanese school kids skipping class; this is a (twisted) lesson in respect/survival. Even though this game has happened before, these children seem unaware of it (perhaps for the audience's sake). Compare this to The Hunger Games, where 24 teens are annually chosen to compete as a punishment for a prior rebellion, and The Condemned, where 8 criminals are competing for our entertainment.
• The whole operation seems like a haphazard, personal vendetta from Kitano (the guy running Battle Royale), rather than the legal atrocity seen in the Hunger Games. For example, he brings in 2 older, menacing-looking 'transfer students' just to "spice things up". They get completely unique clothes, so you know they'll last long!
• Every time someone dies, on-screen text tells us who died, how many are left, and maybe some last words. Pretty cool.
• The classical music cues make the film's tone less serious, which I found detrimental. Perhaps done on purpose to detract from the grave premise of the film of school children killing each other.
• The movie cuts between different students and their past, like LOST. However since the cast is so huge and it's under 2 hours long, it's difficult to get as emotionally invested in the characters. I'm sure that's the point though; like in school, having many casual acquaintances.
• On the plus side, since there are so many kids, deaths are frequent and really keeps up the pace. Weapons range in efficacy (from guns to a paper fan!) and relationships between the students differ, so the deaths are varied and always interesting.
• There is blood but generally no gratuitous gore (apart from one particular decapitation!)
• The kids deal with this in different ways, and with different skills, we get to see a variety of small storylines throughout. (e.g. Mimura tries to hack the army's computer base to break the game, mute Kiriyama has an AK with a hilariously endless supply of bullets. It's like he's entered a cheat code for the game.)
• I really appreciated when a small team agrees on a meeting point if separated. This completely logical point is missing from so many TV shows and movies!
• The special edition DVD has scenes newly shot after the film was released, giving more background (especially about the deadly Mitsuko) which adds to the film. Try get your hands on that!
Overall: It's a very cool premise and a fun, engaging movie. An easy and entertaining watch. Definitely recommended.0 -
-
Offspring (2009)
He's got no self esteem! Different Offspring. Written by Jack Ketchum, based on his book of the same name.
Plot: A tribe of cannibal savages (including children) attack a house for their next meal. Pollyanna McIntosh plays the lead female cannibal.
Thoughts on the film:
• It's a grimy, gruesome, gritty horror film: Lots of murdering, cooking of body parts, dismemberments, gore and some quite rough scenes(eg pulling a man's intestines out using teeth, a savage bites/mutilates female genitalia)• There is nudity amongst the savages and when the film indicates rape.
• It's quite low budget, money was spent on blood and props to show gruesome deaths.
• There's supposedly a sub-plot about Claire's abusive husband; to showcase a 'civilised' predator vs actual primal predators. I felt it was more touched on rather than being a big part, more 'he's an a**hole, he gropes and drink-drives' as a character rather than a study or message. The scene itself is quite forced and awkward.
• The acting's quite rough, cheap/boring dialogue when the action isnt' happening. Also, there's large plotholes (the police knew for decades about the cannibals, but aren't arsed sorting it out, in this small enough area)
• Apart from the son (who is a badass!), the victims aren't that interesting so any character building falls pretty flat..
Overall: The film is supposed to be unpleasant, and it succeeds...which also means it was more off-putting and ultimately not that enjoyable. It looks quite cheap, and so is the acting. It has quite nasty gore, far grittier and a sombre vibe than the gratuitous SAW films. I wouldn't recommend.0 -
The Woman (2011)
Sequel to 2009's Offspring, written and adapted for screen by Jack Ketchum.
Plot: A family man finds a savage woman while hunting, chains her up in their shed, and his family goes along with it. This is a sequel to the film "Offspring", with Pollyanna McIntosh reprising her role as the lead female savage.
Thoughts on the film:
• The film chronicles the lives of the family members after capturing her. The intimidating patriarch's increasingly malevolent behaviour, the son turns into a little sh**, the daughter becomes increasingly detached and more reclusive in school, and the mother dies a little inside. Their acceptance of this barbaric act is incredulous but is indirectly explained by the film's end.
• The dad doesn't do a great job of selling the family on having basically a cave-woman as a pet!
• Strong emphasis on family drama, and the savage woman is more a vehicle for what happens to them.
• The first two acts are pretty slow and the third goes off the rails into a madhouse horror film. This jolt in pacing makes the sudden character escalation pretty ridiculous & unbelievable. We get ideas of how some family members are 'not right' but the reveals are shocking and come at a frantic pace, so it comes off as a mess.
• Lots of indie rock music. I guarantee a band member is related to/friends with director Lucky McKee!
• Whilst "the woman" is kept shackled in the shed, there is a long-running subtext of how men figuratively keep women in chains, with the physically & mentally abusive husband/father and his long-suffering wife & daughter. Combined with the implication of the final shot, it the clear feminist message felt like personal issues were exorcised in this film.
Some spoileriffic thoughts:• The story progression of the son is a little much. Just a normal kid to suddenly "my son the rapist!"
• Didn't like how the wife submissively accepts being nonchalantly slapped. It makes sense in the story, I just really didn't like seeing it.
• There was shocking lack of tact from the councillor revealing the daughter's (unexpected teen) pregnancy.
• Oh my God, punching out the wife in front of the kids was a real shocker.
• The husband's huge tirade against women comes about very quickly.
Overall, it's very uneven - the dragging first hour gives way to a sudden gore-fest and character revelations. An interesting concept not well executed, but much like the previous film, it is unique and intentionally off-putting. Not recommended.0 -
Beneath (2013)
Plot: Obnoxious teens head to the lake, all except one are unaware of what lies beneath the waves!
Thoughts on the film:
• The film is almost entirely set on a small boat in a lake, and in the woods - which'd make it very cheap to film. Whatever small budget they had was spent on a giant rubber catfish. It looks fine as a still, but sadly the prop is overly clunky and ends up being quite hilarious! I appreciate them trying to go the non-CG route and they tried their best with it, but the catfish just wasn't up to the task. There's a few shots where it looks to be travelling at 1 mile a day.
• I'm not sure why horror films insist on making their protagonists so unlikeable. We get a perfect example as the awkward, lecherous Zeke whips out his camera as soon as the girls start getting ready to go swimming, and another lights fireworks like it was his penis. Perhaps it's so you're rooting for the monster to do away with them? That'd make more sense for horror icons like Freddy, Jason etc, but not for a one-off creature story about a killer fish.
• Silly decisions are made to progress the plot:break the oars to hit the fish (instead of paddling to safety) a torniquet'd superficial arm bite = death, and is friend convulsing? Silently record it on video! Killer catfish about? Leave the arm bleeding into the water! I've no idea how the 'distract the fish with a corpse right next to us' idea was supposed to work!• You'd expect in the scenario that the characters would end up doing things they never thought they'd do, but it goes farther into the unbelievable murderous psychopath area.
• There's not that much blood in what is ostensibly a slasher flick.
• There is a calamitous 3 stooges type death due to a slowly turning rope which was so ridiculous it was great.
• On a positive note, Mark Margolis (Hector from Breaking Bad) has a brace of cameos.
• I'm sure this was supposed to be a claustrophobic thriller, 'find out who you really are', a type of lord of the flies on a small boat, but it's nothing like that at all! Acting, plot and characters are all sub-par.
Overall: Not much to say - it's garbage, but sadly not horrendous enough to be entertaining. Avoid!0 -
Advertisement
-
Zombies: Wicked Little Things (2006)
Plot: A mother and two daughters move back into their secluded family home, near where ghosts of children killed in a mining disaster reside. Starring Chloe Moretz (Kick-Ass 1/2). Well, you gotta start somewhere!
Thoughts on the movie:
• In typical ghostly fashion, they make themselves known gradually (initially friendly) with increasing frequency and malice. Similarly, they contact the youngest (and most impressionable) daughter Emma (Moretz) but her recounts are dismissed.
• There's an understated subplot about William Carlton, who owns all the land. "Gitout it's mah propertah now" and so on.
• The characters are unmemorable. "Regular" is how I'd describe them!
• Quite low budget. It's supposed to be in Carlton, Pennsylvania, but the film is shot in Bulgaria. There isn't much in the way of props, makeup or special effects. Some of the autumn-forest foliage is nice.
• They use the terms ghosts and zombies interchangeably. It's very odd - after you die, how you could take both forms? Their makeup suggests they are zombies, and it's confirmed much later in the film, eating human flesh. Combined with the 1913's mining garb, these kids look a little hilarious and not menacing.
• These children have weapons and a physical presence so why not take them out? It's just a small bunch of pre-pubescent kids! Thankfully this exact point is addressed, as ghost-zombies they're impervious to bullets.
• Despite this huge mining disaster, subsequent folklore and ghost-zombie sightings, the vast majority of the cast never heard of it. Only ancillary teens and randomers doling out the backstory!
• Oh my God, there's a big hoopla about who is/isn't protected by 'blood'. It's quite long-winded and messy, metaphorically and literally.
Overall: The film has little good about it, beyond getting to use the term "ghost-zombie". Avoid!0 -
Here Comes The Devil (2012)
Plot: A Mexican film where two children are lost overnight in a rocky hill, and return different, with a blunted affect. The film is told from the parent's POV, as they uncover and deal with the event.
Thoughts on the film:
• Within the first ten minutes, we see lesbians having sex, a daughter's first period, and a husband successfully cajoling his wife into having sex in the car. The sexually-orientated tone is present throughout the film. However, it's completely different than the joyless nudity found in most horrors - it's generally within a loving relationship. Combined with some subject matters broached/described (paedophilia, incest) it may be uncomfortable viewing. There is full female nudity in both sexual and non-sexual situations.
• The characters aren't particularly memorable or unique. Just a regular family with problems are subjected to this terror.
• The idea is cool but the story is a bit dodgy: The police detective scenes go nowhere. The mother has some serve-the-plot irrational decisions (eg let's keep this huge discovery to myself!) but I didn't mind.
• Lots of visual references to blood with the daughter (eg deep red blankets and jacket/hat)
• Exposition: Sadly we are given very little information of the evil residing in the hills, just a vague campfire recollection of why you shouldn't go near that area.
• Low budget but it's more of a dark drama spent with the family, so it's not really noticed. When we do get effects they feel a little out of placeWe get brief shots of blood, ghoul makeup and levitating effects (which is a bit hilarious)• Best bit:One instance of a ghost breast-groping, done with stop motion! Amazing...
Overall it was an interesting watch. It's tone/approach is very different than other horrors but will be more remembered for it's sexuality/frequent nudity, which doesn't mask the characters and some story elements. Give it a go, see what you think.0 -
Banshee Chapter (2013)
Cast/Production: Produced by Zackery Quinto (Sylar in Heroes and Spock from new Star Trek), directorial debut by Blair Erickson, starring Katia Winter (Quinn's prostitute friend Nadia from Dexter S7).
Plot: A journalist (James Hirsch) dies after ingesting a banned experimental testing drug, and his friend/fellow journalist Anne investigates his mysterious death and disappearance.
The film itself is loosely based H.P. Lovecraft's short story "From Beyond", as well as actual history, employing real stock footage from interviews/press conferences about it: the horrific "Project MKUltra". During the 50s-70s, the CIA would use mind-altering drugs and intense techniques to test the extent of the subject's mental state and brain function. The drug in the film is "DMT-19" aka Tri/Di-Methyl Tryptamine (the film mentions both) is an actual chemical, a psychadelic hallucinogen which causes vivid experiences, including hallucinating meeting alien beings (which is in keeping with the film).
Thoughts on the film:
• I couldn't think of a single reason why it's called Banshee Chapter. Afterwards I looked it up and it's a combination of the name the subjects used to describe the alien(s), and the 'chapter' where they were held. It's mentioned in a throwaway dialogue but I'm still not satisfied! You'll never remember it from that explanation.
• In this movie, the drug causes (short wave) radio disturbances, intense fear and seemingly beckons malevolent beings.
• I found it odd that the original victim qualifies the camera style (handheld) by asking a friend to record him, but the rest of the film follows Anne by herself (and is shot handheld without explanation).
• It's sometimes narrated like a journalistic piece (e.g. giving exposition and a quick biography of a book author she visits, Thomas Blackburn). He's a thinly-veiled charicature of Hunter S. Thompson (crazy, gun-toting alcoholic writer)
• Sky Go's blurb included "What they discover makes The X-Files look like the adventures of Dora the Explorer." Which is quite untrue but it does have some kind of X-Files vibe.
• The film does build some good anticipation, but sadly the scares are flat, usually jump scares with a quick glance at the actor in white 'dead' makeup. It does attempt to hide the low budget/no money spent on FX but quickly realise the very limited scope that the film can afford.
• It's an interesting approach with the real stock footage, the fake hand-held film and the (faux) government experiment footage giving more information and as a vehicle for horror/jump scares.
• I'm always a fan of the "review security footage that isn't live oh my god!" But the payoff is quite weak. It's a shame, the film could've really used some more money to make good on the scares.
• With the large number of scares/escapes it fet like the alien(s) just want to stalk/scare her, rather than actually do anything with her. Finding her at close range, she still escapes really easily. I imagine the limited time the alien spends on screen is due to budget reasons. They do make sense of it by the end.
• The protagonist is pretty but not charismatic, quite emotionally cold. I realise in her situation it's expected but she is not friendly to anyone she meets along the way. As a consequence I never cared what happened to her.
Overall: The idea is good and there's some well-done anticipation but the film quickly shows you it can't follow through. Completely forgettable, not recommend.0 -
Maniac (2012)
Plot: Elijah Wood stars as Frank Zito, a psychotic murderer who also restores mannequins. It's a remake of the 1980's exploitation film of the same name.
Thoughts on the film:
• Shot almost exclusively in POV (i.e. handheld at eye level mimicking the killer's point of view), which including stalking, conversing with and eventually murdering his victims. It's an engaging method of shooting and works very well in the horror genre. We only catch a few seconds of Frank through reflections (eg in a mirror, side of car)
• Despite being about a serial killer, it's more of a dark drama than a horror.
Wood plays an obviously damaged but somewhat sympathetic killer.
• The film periodically flashbacks to Frank's childhood, filling in his damaged backstory, which explaining certain homicidal traits.
• Frank's murderous compulsions are visibly shown through an intense, delusionary migraine (victim's face starts to bleed and the audio/video becomes blurry), which is pretty cool.
• The second act is quite slow as we see the events leading up to a mannequin photographer's big art showing.
• Some of the special effects (scalping and ripping the skin off of a face) are done really well. Others are quite iffy, so it's a mixed bag.
• The ending action sequence is quite frantic and exciting, lots of blood and some CG, which quite a turn from the generally slow-paced character story.
Some spoiler thoughts:• The flashback scenes showing his mother as a prostitute and him being present were quite effective. I felt bad for him.
• Well impressed with Frank cutting a victim's Achilles' tendon. Really effective - if you ever need to escape being chained by your ankle, that's what you need to do! (Take that, jigsaw!)
• Scalping people wouldn't necessarily kill them (although shock, eventual infection and exsanguination would)
Overall: The first person point of view and story is interesting, and although it drags in the middle, it's well made. Give it a watch!0 -
Resident Evil (2002)
Although we've been getting videogame adaptations since the 80s (Super Mario Bros) this was the big kickstarter for many more to be made (Max Payne, Silent Hill etc).
Also often lauded as the best videogame adaption. After Mortal Kombat Annihilation of course.
Plot: A t-virus outbreak in an underground research facility turns everyone there into zombies. A security team is sent to investigate.
Cast/Crew: Directed by Paul W.S. Anderson (Mortal Kombat 1995), starring Mila Jovovich (before she married the director) and Michelle Rodriguez.
Thoughts on the film:
• It starts off in a mansion (great!) but it's just a mansion, not the Resident Evil mansion.
• The main character Alice (Jovovich) is new, as are most of the characters. Her outfit is very comic book/videogame character: Red dress and big black boots (I'm sexy but dangerous!). It's an entirely new story, using the basic framework of the series (Umbrella is massive big-brother type global corporation that funds experiments. "What kind?" "The illegal kind.") It's more an action franchise that sparingly name-drops videogame references.
• Did You Know? George A Romero originally wrote the script, but was canned by the producer. One version has Chris and Jill being the protagonists, which, oh God, sounds so much better. I'm not saying make a Resi movie into a mansion puzzler spending half an hour finding the WIND CREST that fits in a door panel but come on!
• I can't stand Michelle Rodriguez, she plays the same angry loner b*tch in every film. She gets bitten, which is both great (as she'll die) but awful (as we have to hear about it for the entire rest of the film) Her character is written like she wants to be a man, because physical toughness is the only way women can be tough, right?
• Alice's amnesia is a perfect reason for exposition!
• Scares unfortunately are all startling BOO! scares.
• The pace and story continually moves forward, and there's some fun action.
• There are plenty of synthesized metal music montages, by Marilyn Manson (and Marco Beltrami). It's impossible to have any kind of suspense when it happens, as it's trying to be cool. And it is cool, just not scary.
• I enjoyed the Red Queen (the computer's AI) manifested as a creepy little girl. It's worth noting that she does what's right for the public - shutting down The Hive to prevent the outbreak of the T-virus outside the facility. Gassing the workers still alive prevented them from being eaten alive (they're in a closed room with zombies) and becoming the walking dead.
• There are two really sweet action sequences in the film:
1) The famously cool Lazer room. The security team should've known something bad was gonna happen with such a great-looking room. They get chopped to bits. I feel especially bad for the last two lads as one jumps to avoid the Lazer, which moves upward to slice him, and it turns into a grid to completely Lattice the other into many parts. Poor sport!
2) The first big zombie attack. Loved the corridor with grimy containment cells and rolling dry ice. Loved the anticipation of silence, the rolling cannister (to tell you something's there), and the sound of dragging an axe. One of the zombies is missing half his head...how is he not dead? One guy is hesitant to shoot the zombie, Marilyn Manson has a song I wish he used here ("The Reflecting God" - "Shoot! Here! and the world gets smaller/Scar! Scar! Can you feel my power?/One shot and the world gets smaller/No salvation, no forgiveness") Perfect, eh?
• The zombie dogs look like dogs with red & black makeup on. It is the lesser of two evils as they do have both CG and prosthetic lickers (a mutant monster) and the real one there looks awful. As does the CG licker.
• The word zombie isn't said in the film - very movie logic; horror films don't exist in their world. They just skirt around it calling them infected, reanimated, undead.
• Cool part where Rain (Rodriguez) lets her bleeding hand drip down into a mob of snarling zombies. She's only a foot above them, it's hilarious they've given up trying to get her.
Videogame References:
Umbrella, Spencer Mansion, using an underground train, lickers, the licker walking across a wall (just like the introduction of the licker in Resi 2 walking across a window). They namedrop Racoon City (RE2) and Nemesis (RE3) at the end. Turning off the power in one area, affects other things elsewhere. A murder of crows being disturbed is used throughout RE4. Umbrella Chronicles incorporates the Red Queen into canon. RE4 uses the Lazer room sequence.
Alice in Wonderland References:
Alice, Red Queen (Queen of Hearts), shoot zombies in the head ("Off with their heads!), journey to the hive sees how deep the rabbit hole goes, test subject is a white rabbit.
OVERALL: It feels quite late 90s/early 2000s, it's more action than scary, some of the writing can be dodgy, but I quite like it. One of the best videogame adaptions. Not a bad way to spend 1hr 34.0 -
Advertisement
-
THE DIVIDE (2011)
Plot: A group take refuge in the apartment basement after a huge nuclear blast and radiation fallout.
Cast: Starring Michael Biehn as Mickey (the superintendent/leader) and Milo Ventimiglia (Peter Petrelli in Heroes) as Josh, a disgruntled hothead.
Thoughts:
• This is a Michael Biehn vehicle. He has long diatribes & monologues and is the central focus for the first act of the film. It's like someone said "show me your range, Reese!"
• The effects of the trailer are misleading - the film is almost exclusively set in a small bunch of concrete corridors, so it's quite low budget. But the story is centred around how people change during confinement and captivity so it's not that noticeable. The budget has been spent on some ridiculous videogame hazmat suits/futuristic guns and two shots (one of them's in the trailer)
• Tensions run high as hope and supplies get low and Mickey asserts his dominance while being vague in his reasonings. It's quite slow moving until they find out Mickey's got a secret room. This also helps as it's somewhere new to go (a different type of dank) and provides some story/character development.
• There are no scares, and not that much blood. Whenever something bloody comes up they change the camera shot.
• It's a little contrived that a few of the guys would turn into psychopathic rape-murderers but I guess the film would be boring otherwise!
• I thought it was odd that Marilyn was told her daughter was dead, despite her clearly being alive. I guess this was the plan to break her emotionally so you can use/abuse her? But you were still a regular guy at the time this happened...
• I'm a big fan of backstory and exposition and this film has none. We get no explanation of the hazmats' allegiance and what they were doing.
Overall: There were some interesting parts but I felt the 2 hour runtime. Ultimately I wasn't engaged. Avoid.0 -
Leprechaun: Origins (2014)
Cast/Production: WWE-funded film by Lionsgate, starring WWE’s leprechaun, Hornswoggle (Dylan Postl) as…the leprechaun. Kinda.
Plot: 2 American couples come to the backarse of nowhere in Ireland, and are told there’s a cave with ancient historical artifacts near them. However they’re to be sacrificed to the resident leprechaun.
Thoughts on the film:
• This is a major red flag – the leprechaun is not a leprechaun, it’s a generic, hairless grey monster. Hornswoggle is in a full prosthetic suit far too big for him, like a child wearing his dad’s work shirt. The forearms and legs are too long and you can see where it bends. They try to hide the poverty of a rubber suit by using only quick, blurry shots of the monster…but it’s still an embarrassment, especially when he moves.
• The leprechaun loves gold you see, and will go for a gold earring, watch etc, leading to some first-person poor stalking moments.
• One of the couples is on the rocks, and the other is quite obnoxious, thanks to an instantly-dislikeable guy. It’s like they’re teenagers that just got together and trying to impress everyone.
• Hilariously that the huge douchebag above had his leg torn open and still hobbles/walks it off. Despite his friends immediately leaving him to die (and him surviving) it’s not a source of contention.
• Hornswoggles "father" Finlay should’ve cameo’d in this film, as the guy who tells them about the relic. (My friend Steve was considering him to be the babyface protagonist! It couldn’t have made the film worse)
• Despite being Rated R, there’s no nudity, and this film badly needed it. There’s barely cleavage.
• The gore is quite cheap looking. Like giblets that aren’t red enough. Awful.
• The film looks cheap and extensively treated in post-processing, making it washed out (not a good thing).
• The line “f**k you, Lucky Charms”. We don’t have Lucky Charms in Ireland! (possibly in an American shop). It's said in the original though.
• They had a chance to make it more interesting by not having the expected finish, and they had the expected finish. It also doesn’t make sense considering it’s a prequel to a 6-film long franchise.
• I don’t understand why you’d bother paying to use the Leprechaun name (this is a reboot) and have some boring monster instead of a leprechaun.
• I don’t understand the point in having Hornswoggle if he doesn’t have a line and is completely covered in a crappy prosthetic suit.
• This film goes for serious and terrible instead of going for campy-horror schlock (other Leprechauns were aware of how terrible it was and would play it up a bit). This was the original concept for the film - whatever it could’ve been, it would’ve been better. This is not the franchise to try do a ‘legitimate’ serious horror film.
• This had an extremely limited theatrical run. I wonder if people were able to feign enjoying this movie, as the ‘stars’ would be in attendance.
• I'm struggling to think of positives. It’s in my favourite aspect ratio, 16:9. It’s also 90 minutes, thankfully. I'm trying to see the good in any film but damn, this is one of the worst movies I've ever sat through.
Overall: A film you’ll instantly check out of. Completely unengaging, and not bad enough to be funny. Dirt-poor, and I watch a lot of WWE films. Avoid.0 -
Hotel Inferno (2013)
Plot: A hitman decides to bail on his mission and escape the hotel.
Cast/Production: Giulio De Santi was the writer/producer/director/vis fx supervisor. That many roles is always disconcerting! Michael Howe as Jorge Misandria (the voice of the employer) and Frank Zimosa (Rayner Bourton) as the hitman, whose viewpoint we watch the film.
Thoughts on the film:
• The main selling point is that it's shot entirely in first person.
• The majority of the film is spent in a cheap hotel and running around different poorly-lit, cheaply-furnished rooms. It must've been extremely cost efficient.
• Gore is plentiful, over the top and initially, hilariously cheap. This becomes extremely tiresome halfway through, and it's just a cavalcade of gory deaths from a battery of dummy human-shaped props. It completely loses it's impact doing it over and over. There's a scene where Frank sterilises his hand wound, which comes off a bit comical due to the really fake rubber hand and the protagonist's emotionless wailing.
• Many, many long scenes staring at a blinking monitor (not unlike Talkie Toaster) with Jorge shovelling exposition down your throat, while some knob makes scary symbols on the wall. It's awful. Blah blah cult, blah blah pain monster.
• First person fight scenes feel quite weird and slowly choreographed (lead pipes, strike down three times) and the edits are hidden well in constant visual glitches/zooms.
• The antagonist Jorge, your (former) employer accompanies you throughout the film, via a voice over. It's explained via high-tech glasses, a radio or speaker, whatever's convenient.
• The voice acting is poor. It's painfully obvious that both the hitman and Jorge recorded their lines some other time. They lack the sense of urgency. In particular Frank the hitman's acting is desperate. See the quotes below.
• The writing is poor. The mysterious employer and hitman speak about being professional, but the dialogue is the opposite. ("Uhh... Sorry for asking")
• What kind of hitman bails after successfully completing his murders? He's literally got a few minutes' work left and he can go home. I blame Jorge for hiring such a sh*tty hitman.
• Jorge knows exactly where Frank is at all times. Why does he never alert his men to his whereabouts?
• I was annoyed that whenever Frank turns around or closes a door, people stop trying to get him. At least an hour in one of then says "we need him alive".
Is there anything good about the film? Yes, there's some video-game tropes thrown in, which are amusing:
VO: "You've just found a secret area"
More notable enemies (eg guy with a chainsaw) do their taunt and ready themselves before a fight! (meanwhile, Frank stands there patiently)
He literally acquires (a hand-drawn) map from a dead body.
There's hilarious "item get" music that starts he gets a bomb. Check inventory, two left!
I really like the idea of making a first person film and fight scenes but this is low rent in every sense of the word. So cheap I feel bad for insulting it as it was obviously slap-dashed on a tight budget.
A taste of the lines you can expect:
"What weird things could a software engineer see? A weird cable?" - "Yeah, heh heh heh."
"Hey! I'm talking to you! Watch me!"
"When I find you, I'll kick you ten times over, f**ker"
VO Jorge chimes in with exposition. "This hotel is a cover you see, for what a really going on". Wow.
Overall: F*** man. This is what you get with low-rent actors, writing and budget make a gory film overloaded with coma-inducing cult/demon exposition. It was horrendous. Even worse than Leprechaun Origins. I went back and forth posting this review because then it'll be part of this thread! A struggle to finish. Garbage, avoid.
0 -
May (2002)
The trailer is quite whimsical, a completely different tone to the film.
Cast/Crew: Directed by Lucky McKee (The Woman, 2011) and starring Angela Bettis as the titular May.
Plot: May is an extremely timid, lonely girl with poor social skills. Her rejections in relationships cause her psychoses to bloom as the film progresses.
I need to rant first:
• About he medical aspect of the film: May has amblyopia, a ‘lazy eye’, and also a right esotropia which her optometrist didn’t fix! Anyway, lazy eye is easily corrected by an eye patch and is fixed pretty quickly. In the film she is treated early but still has it over a decade later (which is bulls***). She wouldn’t have to wear the eye patch at school as they’re only worn part-time (i.e. at home) or, forego the patch and get eye drops instead. We’ll assume May has severe amblyopia as it affects her depth perception and general sight (which we see, bumping into people and spilling washing powder).
• May is a Vet’s assistant but also has incredible surgical skills despite the film making it glaringly obvious she doesn’t. These scenes at the Vet’s office: “Remember the big scalpel for surgery?” The f*** is that? Do you only have one and it’s dirty? Also, May PULLS OPEN sutures (not cutting them), which is infuriatingly wrong and dangerous. Later, May tells a story of how the vet ran out of large sutures. What? F*** are you starting surgery without checking?! Ok, rant over
Thoughts on the film :
• May (2002) …the film (not the date!) does a great job of quickly explaining her upbringing and meek personality – her disapproving bitch mother gets her a doll "because she cant make friends" and chastises her for unwrapping present wrong thereby "ruining it". Her difficult childhood has greatly influenced her adulthood but sure, it wasn’t that bad. There wasn’t any kind of actual trauma.
• As an adult, May talks, shouts and takes advice from her only friend/doll (Suzie) going from imaginary friend to actual psychoses.
• She takes a stalker-level interest in Adam, an amateur filmmaker with ‘perfect’ hands. She’s scarily happy to talk to him. (Bettis does a great job showcasing an incredibly unsure, awkward woman with her physical movement, eyes and delivery of her lines). A side point, I don’t approve of him getting her to take up smoking as a way to bond.
• Her co-worker at the Vet’s office is Polly (Anna Faris from Scary Movie 1-4) , a flirtatious airhead who completely dresses up for work, highlighting the contrast to the drab May.
• It’s a good idea they kick the film off with May stabbing herself in the eye – because the first hour of the film is a story about this gawky girl who fails at relationships. Why she’d consider using her eye as it’s imperfect seems like just a plot device. You could dismiss it by saying she’s desperate and psychotic, but the film keeps mentioning her obsession with ‘perfect parts’.
• There’s an unintentionally hilarious segment where May brings Suzie the doll to blind kids. They have a tug of war with the glass case, it breaks and the kids’ first instinct is crawl along the glass, cutting their hands and knees. Thought it was ridiculous and quite funny, just as May decides to rub her eyes despite it obviously having little glass shards. Jaysus madam!
• Dressing in black/more Goth-like really suits May. SO much better than dressing like a raggedy doll with patches. Her Halloween dress is actually really very cool.
• Some punk called Blank putting the moves on her ("ah it’s so hot in here! Lemme take off my shirt!") is great. He had a great 3 minutes on screen.
• There’s killing but no gore. There’s a nice shot of blood mixing with milk. Kills are quick are shots last a few seconds max.
• I don’t buy how this loneliness/difficulty ramps up into murderous, psychotic obsession. She didn’t have those to begin with, and her actions later contradicts what she said in the beginning: "I like every part of him (especially his hands)". To the doll "You’ve been my friend my whole life, I need a real friend".
• Absolutely loved the final note the film ended on.
Overall: It’s more of a dark drama. The pace is fine, Bettis does a great job in the role but it isn’t that engaging. Horror is the crescendo of the film, it doesn't "start" until an hour in. Wouldn’t recommend but it is a competent film and a nice character piece.0 -
Jug Face (2013)
Cast/Crew: Written and directed by Chad Crawford Kinkle, starring Lauren Ashley Carter (Peggy the victim from 'The Woman')
Plot: Ada, a teenage girl who is part of a trailer park community living in the woods, finds a clay jug of herself – meaning she is to be sacrificed to "the pit".
Thoughts :
• Jug Face is a hilarious movie title.
• It’s also the face on a lovely clay head. I’ll be honest – I didn’t cop that the jug face was Ada’s until she said it. It has red hair (well, the fringe) but the face is a poor likeness!
• For horrors I always think it’s a good idea to have some kind of sex/nudity at the start of a film, so people will keep watching (and hopefully get into the film on it’s own merits.)
• Ada is part of a backwater community who worship a muddy pit. In true yokel fashion, she’s to be married off to Bodey (against her will), her father slings moonshine and she’s pregnant with her brother’s child. Oh and her mother is constantly physically and verbally abusive. Sean Young did an excellent job at making mother Loriss absolutely detestable.
• Ada feigns her period by dabbing red paint in her panties. Thought that was ingenious.
• Although she does wrong/hides her problems/people die because of it, Ada’s easily likeable as she’s seemingly the only rational main character capable of clear thought, not simple-minded or prone to violent outbursts. She is not free – she is forced to marry in order to rear many children (like an animal), and is constantly beaten down, abused by her brother and repeatedly by her mother.
• Whenever I see a film shot in the woods, I see no-budget film-making! No taxes! The film spent all of it’s money on jugs and some entrails.
• They drip feed the plot, mentioning "I’m the next jug face" and having "as many kids as the pit wants".
• So The Pit demands sacrifices and heals others when they need it. From the film, it’s a very lop-sided trade. This sacrificing of your children at random is a really bad deal. Why don’t this trailer community just move to another area where this creature isn't? The pit's creature also stalks and kills others indiscriminately because it’s angry. That’s some bulls***! It's shown by yellow quick cuts of murders, as Ada convulses to these visions, which aren't great.
• The yokels are quite accepting of the sacrifices/extra deaths from the pit, as opposed to being the stock laughing evil hill-billies, good stuff.
• The Shunned boy is the go-between of the people and the pit monster. I liked how it’s not just an intangible supernatural element – this spectre actually talks to Ada and matter-of-factly explains she won’t be forgiven for crossing them.
• There’s gore but it’s shown in quick cuts. Usually just an aftermath showing guts/torn limbs. Sacrifices have some nasty shots.
• The film’s a little short, credits roll before the 1hr18 mark. The way story progresses means you couldn't, but I'd actually like to see the community/the pit explored.
Overall: An easy watch. It’s interesting but I wouldn't seek it out.0 -
Lovely Molly (2012)
Plot: Molly Reynolds is a regular woman in her mid-20s. After marriage, she moves back into her deceased parents' relatively-isolated old house, and familiar odd happenings start to occur.
Thoughts:
• To denote 'this is a horror film', the film opens with her trying to slit her throat but she can't as some 'beings' won't let her.
• Molly's metaphorically and seemingly literally haunted by her parents death, becoming increasingly detached and erratic along with increased unexplained occurances in her house.
• Interspliced throughout the film is handheld camera footage stalking a little girl, which makes sense and is unexpectedly satisfying by the end.
• These otherworldly intrusions are eventually accompanied by the sounds of a man singing Lovely Molly (an arrangement of the folk song "Courting is a Pleasure") and sounds of a horse. Early on, they show you pictures in the house of her parents riding horses, so I assume it's her dad.
• I quite liked the anticipation of hearing an (intruder) voice of a small girl crying.
• The problem with any good anticipation built is that the film's budget doesn't allow them to come through with something, paranormal activity style. Just noise and doors slamming shut.
• There is full frontal (and 'backal') nudity and sex from 35 mins into the film, which I found odd as people would've already decided to watch (or not watch) at this point. I thought this would turn out to be a possession/demon baby gimmick. The end of the film has long sequences of Molly in the nip, so long (and unnecessary) that it felt quite like a student film.
• I didn't like the Pastor at all. He ham-fistedly blurts out "You're dealing with problems? The death of your parents?", hammering home a plot point. I'm not impressed with how quickly lecherous he became either, I felt that was a weak movie thing to do.
• Molly's a recovering drug addict but the idea of it being in her head/nobody believing her isn't really an issue, which I felt was a missed opportunity. She does act like she could be possessed at times so good stuff.
• For the story's sake, she refuses to tell anyone what (she knows) is happening. She just annoyingly drops vague hints e.g. "he's back" etc and the scene ends. It felt like a lazy hook so she can dole out exposition throughout the film.
• Thankfully, her husband correctly pleas "SHE NEEDS PSYCHIATRIC HELP!", her sister replies "NO! Lemme talk to her. I'll take her if you're afraid." Well f*** you, madam.
• I liked the ending revelation, in the closing scene, it was pleasantly unexpected. It concludes the story but leaves more answers than questions, adding another angle to the film.
Overall: Feels like a mish-mash of other films that are better executed. I appreciated the ending sequences but it's nothing special. It's not bad but I wouldn't recommend.0 -
-
jaykhunter wrote: »Jug Face (2013)
Cast/Crew: Written and directed by Chad Crawford Kinkle, starring Lauren Ashley Carter (Peggy the victim from 'The Woman')
Plot: Ada, a teenage girl who is part of a trailer park community living in the woods, finds a clay jug of herself – meaning she is to be sacrificed to "the pit".
Thoughts :
• Jug Face is a hilarious movie title.
• It’s also the face on a lovely clay head. I’ll be honest – I didn’t cop that the jug face was Ada’s until she said it. It has red hair (well, the fringe) but the face is a poor likeness!
• For horrors I always think it’s a good idea to have some kind of sex/nudity at the start of a film, so people will keep watching (and hopefully get into the film on it’s own merits.)
• Ada is part of a backwater community who worship a muddy pit. In true yokel fashion, she’s to be married off to Bodey (against her will), her father slings moonshine and she’s pregnant with her brother’s child. Oh and her mother is constantly physically and verbally abusive. Sean Young did an excellent job at making mother Loriss absolutely detestable.
• Ada feigns her period by dabbing red paint in her panties. Thought that was ingenious.
• Although she does wrong/hides her problems/people die because of it, Ada’s easily likeable as she’s seemingly the only rational main character capable of clear thought, not simple-minded or prone to violent outbursts. She is not free – she is forced to marry in order to rear many children (like an animal), and is constantly beaten down, abused by her brother and repeatedly by her mother.
• Whenever I see a film shot in the woods, I see no-budget film-making! No taxes! The film spent all of it’s money on jugs and some entrails.
• They drip feed the plot, mentioning "I’m the next jug face" and having "as many kids as the pit wants".
• So The Pit demands sacrifices and heals others when they need it. From the film, it’s a very lop-sided trade. This sacrificing of your children at random is a really bad deal. Why don’t this trailer community just move to another area where this creature isn't? The pit's creature also stalks and kills others indiscriminately because it’s angry. That’s some bulls***! It's shown by yellow quick cuts of murders, as Ada convulses to these visions, which aren't great.
• The yokels are quite accepting of the sacrifices/extra deaths from the pit, as opposed to being the stock laughing evil hill-billies, good stuff.
• The Shunned boy is the go-between of the people and the pit monster. I liked how it’s not just an intangible supernatural element – this spectre actually talks to Ada and matter-of-factly explains she won’t be forgiven for crossing them.
• There’s gore but it’s shown in quick cuts. Usually just an aftermath showing guts/torn limbs. Sacrifices have some nasty shots.
• The film’s a little short, credits roll before the 1hr18 mark. The way story progresses means you couldn't, but I'd actually like to see the community/the pit explored.
Overall: An easy watch. It’s interesting but I wouldn't seek it ou
t.
My type of movie0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
100 Bloody Acres (2012)
Plot: Australian indie horror-comedy. 3 friends on their way to a music festival in the backwoods countryside hitch a ride with Reg, who has a dead body in the back.
Thoughts on the film:
• Being horror-comedy means gore & violence is with a light-hearted approach (which means it's impact is lessened and the film relies on the comedy/characters)
• Reg and his brother Lindsay are fertiliser salesmen who’ve discovered that humans are an excellent additive to their compound formula, adding extra “potassium excreted from their gland”, a ludicrous maguffin for the film to hinge around. But sure, it's a horror-comedy.
• Plot comes about from Sophie – she cheated on her bf James (who plans to propose later) with his friend Wes. The love triangle gets a bit more complicated as Reg and herself get on very well. After being detained, we see if her advances are a rouse to escape or actually something significant. Reg is conflicted between listening to his amoral brother and listening to Sophie.
• Wes is quite a prat. It’s difficult to feel sorry for him. He openly insults Reg while asking for a lift (before Reg is revealed to be a killer) and when James shows him the engagement ring, he throws it behind him. Plot-wise it’s so he can find the dead body, but it’s a real a**hole thing to do.
• I do like it when people escape their captors, it makes the scenario more interesting and moves the story along.
• The real kicker, film isn’t really funny at all. Reg and Sofie seem nice, but they’re not that interesting. There’s a few shocking/funny moments (who they kill, Reg having a handy in his trailer & giving his crumpled rag to Wes) but it’s nothing must-see.
• There are two funny lines, both from Lindsay. “There’s nothing within 100 bloody acres of this place” (haaaa!) and when explaining the awful things he’s done today, notes “these are the risks you take when you operate a small business.”
Overall: It’s just an average watch. A horror comedy that doesn’t have much comedy. Nothing bad, but I wouldn’t recommend.0 -
Gun Woman (2014)
Cast/Production: Directed by Kurando Mitsutake (The Grudge 2), starring Asami (Machine Girl, "Zombie Ass: The Toilet of the Dead", and 5 "Rape Zombie: Lust of the Dead" movies) as Mayumi, the titular Gun Woman.
Plot: Japanese indie horror flick. GUN WOMAN is about a drug addict that’s trained into a "perfect killer", to take revenge for her kidnapper/surgeon/trainer’s murdered wife. The target is a rich Yakusa’s son, who is also a necrophiliac cannibal. She allows guns to be surgically placed inside her for later retrieval on this assassination mission.
Thoughts:
• OK, obviously, that’s ridiculous. The film cannot be taken seriously, although the film is not played for laughs (outside of the Rocky-esque montage). Boulder-sized logic holes constantly come up. Why train a drug addict starting at 28 years old? Why does she swing like a drunk? Why do they think local anaesthetic is the same as a paralytic? There are only 4 security guards, just use a knife? There are only 4 security guards, f**king storm the building! Why are the gun parts surgically placed deep in your body, causing massive blood loss – what’s wrong with her buttocks and thighs? Something more plausible pops up every few minutes!
• There are long bouts of nudity in the film. The film opens with a woman showering, there’s a woman who bleeds to death standing naked, and protagonist Mayumi does her mission entirely naked. Doing flips and bleeding out, completely starkers.
• By the way, Mayumi's the picture of health – great skin/make-up, lustrous hair etc. Frizzing her hair and having her eyes closed doesn't sell "drug addict". Try harder!
• Positive: The target is a really creepy Japanese dude. So well done.
• Retrieving her gun parts, she’ll bleed out, so she’s 22 minutes to complete the mission; giving it more of a sense of urgency.
• To prove this fact, she cuts another woman in a similar fashion and she drops dead in 22 minutes. I thought this was actually done quite well.
• They explain her master is a skilled surgeon, able to make any scar disappear with his suturing (to explain why she doesn't have body scar makeup) – preposterous but I appreciated they addressed it.
• The B-plot is an assassin/driver en-route to her. They speak in English, whilst the rest of the film is in Japanese. It’s very odd to have the two mixed.
• The budget is almost non-existent, spending the money on blood packs and convincing Asami to spend the last 25 minutes of the film naked.
• Gun woman makes a tourniquet out of her own hair (which was funny…em, why not the clothes of her dead attackers? And she doesn't bother with the bullet-proof vest either!)
• I did like the Gun Woman song at the end, but absolutely not the "Gun Woman will return" text!
Overall: Perhaps I just don’t have the mindset to just enjoy the garbage placed in front of me. The story, writing, acting, budget, effects etc are all bottom of the barrel. I couldn't get into what they were selling. The constant nudity can’t drag this up from an “definitely avoid” status. Awful!0 -
We Need To Talk About Kevin (2011)
Cast/Crew: Adapted from the titular book by Lionel Shriver. Directed and written by Lynne Ramsay, starring Tilda Swinton as Eva (the mother), John C. Reilly (Franklin, the father) and Ezra Miller as Kevin.
Plot: Eva was happy until the birth of her son Kevin. He's a mean-spirited antagonistic little sh*t that grows up to be an incarcerated, acerbic psychopath. Poor Eva is put through the ringer on a daily basis, further alienated as Kevin puts up a loving front to his father. This is the story of her life picking up the pieces, intertwined with flashbacks filling in the past, building to a horrific event.
Thoughts:
• The film does an excellent job showcasing Kevin's spite towards her (insulting and ruining her scrapbook room, spitting on a jam on bread and smashing it into the glass table and scowling at her etc) and the subsequent emotional distress Eva is subjected to. You really feel her being at wit's end.
• John C Reilly plays the oblivious kind-hearted husband, who makes excuses for and defends Kevin, furthering Eva's isolation. He's perfect for the role.
• If I were Eva, I'd place cameras in the house - or at least keep a journal of everything he's done, instead of internalising it. Some kind of evidence.
• It would've been interesting if Eva's suspicions could be misplaced i.e. if she was wrong in some cases, suggesting things could be in her head. Although some of the incidents aren't directly seen, the film is pretty loud and clear.
• The book is written as letters to her family, so it's from her recollection of the events (i.e. she could be remembering it wrongly). The novel also places more blame on Eva (that her mild unwillingness to be a mother negatively influenced Kevin) but it's barely present here. All we really get is a loving mother that tries very hard - only once she really verbalises her resentment about being hated for no reason.
• I wouldn't call it a horror, more a dark drama. The movie is spent chronicling Kevin's actions, mentally hurting Eva, and her absorbing it.
• I would've liked to have seen at least one big shot showing the ramifications of what Kevin did. (ie many dead bodies). Shocked to hear there were problems with the "large budget" - it was written and looks to have cost very little.
• Poor Eva doesn't deserve all of this, even though she moved, she's still known as Kevin's mother. Her second child, Celia, is lovely and is does nothing to soften that piece of sh*t Kevin. There's no inferring that he has a mental condition to explain this.
Overall: It's well-written and well-acted, but I'm not enriched by seeing a woman slowly emotionally battered and proven right in the worst possible way. A good movie but I wouldn't recommend.0 -
Haunt (2013)
Cast/Crew: Directed by Mac Carter, starring Harrison Gilbertson as Evan and Liana Liberato (Annie in Trust) as Samantha.
Plot: A young family of 5 move into a house, whose former owners died. They call it the Morello Curse.
Thoughts on the film:
• Protagonists are the teenage son Evan and female neighbour Sam, who has an abusive father. She parleys teenage insecurity into a drive to uncover the haunting.
• Sam and Evan have a budding teen relationship but I didn’t find it awful – it’s actually grand as they’re both likeable, which is a huge win.
• Typical ghostly progression of making their presence known in increasing frequency and intensity, with some fake-outs in between.
• Silly common horror trope of doing everyday activities in the dark. Sitting in your room in pitch blackness! Faulty electrics lead to flickering lights!
• Also the film trope of waking up with more clothes on than when you slept.
• When caught sleeping over, Sam should’ve snuck out the window and rang the doorbell instead if accepting getting busted. However, the parents/family are very accommodating with the son banging some random girl in their new house.
• Unfortunately there are some really cheap startle scares, none worse than the youngest daughter talking ‘to no-one’ in her room, Evan backs out, and “hey look it’s a GHOOOOST!”. BOOOOO.
• The father says the line “I don’t want any of her joo joo rubbing off on me.”
• Wide shot used for eating pizza so the actors don’t actually eat the pizza through multiple takes.
• Always fun to see characters watching Night of the Living Dead.
• Dentists don’t do “rounds at the hospital”. Perhaps the father’s been having an affair!
• Some ghosts/demons haunt people, others haunt a building.
• The ghost is only seen in quick shots, some CGI, some prosthetics. It’s a shame you don’t get a good look, because the prosthetic is cool-looking.
• You can de-possess someone by hitting them with a lamp.
• The protagonists don’t include the parents in the ghost-find of the century but they do acknowledge it as the parents dismiss it and tell them to quit their ghost-hunting. Later, the roads are closed so the parents can’t get home for a few hours (so the protagonists must deal with this themselves).
• An enjoyable finish/unveiling of the plot. However, the explanation leads to big plot-hole sized questioning of the ghost’s motives, why it killed/didn’t kill others.
Overall: Haunt has a lot going for it – it’s enjoyable, with likeable teen protagonists, an interesting plot and the writing’s decent enough, but due to the poverty of the actual horror (startling “I’m here” boos with sudden high strings) unfortunately it’s below the threshold for recommend. If it’s on TV, sure check it out.0 -
HORRORTHON 2014: Basket Case (1982)
Plot: Duane Bradley checks into a dingy NY flophouse with an interesting possession, a large basket. What's in the basket? Something horrifying no doubt! It's... a ball-shaped monster!
Thoughts:
• It's an indie monster film - low budget, low tech, physical effects from the 80s, editing's a bit dodgy - certain scene changes have 'jumps', and the audio sounds pretty mono and done on set. It's the whole vibe of the film, this guerilla filmmaking.
• The tenants of the hotel Duane stays at are all quite caricatures (hairy deadbeat manager, older more sexual lady, various ethnicities in wifebeaters etc) and are all very nosy - whenever there's screaming/commotion, the entire lot try to get into the room and are always looking around, scoping out Duane and his belongings.
• A lady tells him the story of a previous tenant and abruptly stops and walks off. It's hilariously jarring.
• The first act is Duane putting food in and talking to the basket, with someone rocking the basket to simulate movement. Ha!
• The plot is drip-fed throughout the film, eventually getting to see what's in the box, the connection between Duane and the monster, and why they're in NY.
• Duane comes off as a nice guy and looks like an 80s Pat the NES Punk. Some scenes where he goes crazy are very hammy and played that way, enjoyable. Even the way he kisses is over the top. He's likeable so I didn't mind the budding relationship with Sharon.
• The movement of Belial is either done via puppet (hiding the puppeteer) or showing just a hand, or -in an amazing 80s way- stop motion animation. It's HILARIOUS when it cuts to some claymation doll tearing up the apartment in like 5 frames per second!
• Oddly it's not until the final scenes until there's breasts in the film. Belial wants to get in on Duane's friend (Casey) and love interest (Sharon). I won't spoil it but both pervy scenes are quite funny, to see a ball of humanoid monster try to quell his sexual needs! There's also 2 shots of full bushy male nudity.
• There's not much gore (as they can't really afford gore) so there's a bit of spraying around blood off-screen, more reactions to it.
• The surgical scene with Belial is ridiculous! Tiny scalpels and seemingly no anaesthetic!
• The film has a lot of screaming - unfortunately it's quite piercing as there wasn't any audio-levelling.
• "Siamese twins? You don't look Oriental!"
This screening was introduced by director/writer Frank Henenlotter with a Q&A afterwards:
• He was very humble, shocked his film is still being seen after all these years, and repeatedly mentioned how sad he was that NYC is 'Disney-fied', now a family-friendly city for the rich, and German tourists. He loved the seedy 42nd street vibe. The Mayor (Koch or Dinkins I assume) used the aids hysteria to remove the sex clubs and topless bars. (Part of the film was shot in a sex club, where they shot around the 'equipment'). While filming Duane walking down the street, with a nudie club in shot, the owner ran out and jumped in their van demanding to know if they're the news, and was apologetic when he found out it was for a monster movie.
• The movie was completed with a budget of $33k, he knew it couldn't be a serious film with the budget constraints, and so told his actors to 'act big' (i.e. ham it up).
• One of the actors (who tries to steal Duane's money) actually owned a few sex clubs (in name, the real owner was in jail, and the actor ended up fleeing America for 20 years) and died recently after a hit & run.
• The film was saw was part re-discovered original negative (it was in a mis-labelled box in plain sight) and another version of the film. For it's theatrical release it was cropped to 1.85:1 so this was the original 4:3 aspect ratio. You could tell in most of the shots you could've cropped out the top and bottom and it'd still look grand.
• The special effects guy had a lot of contempt for the project and broke the Belial puppet when handing it off, so Henenlotter fixed it and worked the puppet himself (he was either out of shot, or hiding in the chest of drawers underneath the basket).
• Someone asked what the subtext for the basket was, and Hellenlotter said there wasn't any, he used it because it's called Basket Case. (and got a huge round of cheers/applause!)
Overall: It's a fun festival film and easy to see why it's a cult classic. Enjoyable silly monster horror film. If this kind of thing interests you, go see it!0 -
-
-
-
HORRORTHON 2014: Truth or Dare (2013)
***This review contains some spoilers***
Plot: Torture film, where a group of friends who make a daredevil YouTube show are placed at gunpoint by a crazed fan, to play their game for real.
Cast/Crew: Jessica Cameron directed, wrote and starred in the main role, and featured all of her friends. I'm always worried when someone has that many duties in a single film. She wore her on-screen outfit to the festival the next night!
Thoughts:
• Apart from the opening few minutes, it's exclusively shot in a small basement, which gets visually tiresome. There's also no B-storyline so there's no break from the main story to freshen things up. That could be swung into a positive saying it's relentless and never lets you take a breather.
• Although there's a few gory shots, there's lots of screaming and blood. They passed out barf bags prior to the showing but no-one puked, although maybe 10 people left (that could've been due to 'we've seen enough of this film' though, but it is genuinely unpleasant).
• I enjoyed the first death, it was a nice shock.
• The "Truth or Dare-Devils" all choose Truth to start off, and lie, and all of them have some kind of sexually-related secret (paedophilia, incest, rape, transgender); the paedophile gag is a rib on the actor playing Tony, who'd be "most likely to have been with a 17-year old"! He's also the best thing about the film, a comedic character. Cameron and the trans play sullen b**ches, which is never an entertaining character.
• Lots of "no I'm not doing that", threaten, "ok I'll do that".
• At the start of the film, the actors say "we wanted to make a video that got thousands of hits", which I find odd, as if you're on a talk show, you'd more likely have millions each video. Derik (the crazed fan) later uploads his tortuous game snippets for half-million or so hits, so good!
• I always like people escaping their captors, as it changes the situation and dynamic. Doesn't happen, they don't even try. It's annoying as there's clearly a few opportunities to do so (one instance where Derik puts the gun down and unties them)
• There's some rough gimmicks (bottle rape, removing an eye with a corkscrew etc) which isn't pleasant.
• There isn't any moral quandary or twisted logic, it's just a fan terrorising these people for what seems like an ice-age.
Cameron did a Q&A afterwards:
She told people to get their film made no matter what, was able to find funding after talking to the right person at a party, gets the film she wants made (i.e. no external input), is jaded with Hollywood horror and is a massive fan of Social Media. She expressed annoyance at women doing one horror and calling themselves a Scream Queen. She based the crazed fan on auditioning actors, saying if she saw Jason (the horror icon), she'd cross the street, but innocuous-looking actors get inside her personal bubble demanding to know what they did wrong to not get the part, which is far scarier. She did mention that there's a sequel (and wants to but couldn't find enough cool stuff for a 3rd one); where Derik goes to find Jennifer (Cameron) in an Asylum to finish the game, and they play Truth or Dare with the inmates. I hate to admit it actually sounds very cool.
Overall: I didn't enjoy this film, I got bored of the premise and the weak characters pretty quickly. It's low budget so it's more blood and reaction than gore (like salami nippes!), but the editing hid it well. However the unpleasantness is what Jessica Cameron was going for, and it succeeded. Unless you're into people screaming for 90 minutes, it's a definite avoid.0 -
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIuRjqcpuGQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEowFhZDtLA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaXjkMtyhmI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86Nskpe4Iws
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxCiMMOCSGc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc1t_ONilkg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhrYDiaSo_s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHPXeWpION8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWUT4CXWcwQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY2lTdwCLms
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwU5Me8Dp40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCklKATj4oQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKxeic0R5lQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGSvhDcimJg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JXnv9YZrcY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=613nUzGbshU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ29OLAmqBI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGjjK5SMbJA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-iEIPCmfak
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtmLKrxR6H0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8J7qVONFmEAdvertisement