theblackscythe Reviews

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 (2014)

Utter mediocrity, dull and disappointing.

[3/10 · 24 November 2014]

Although I am not a particularly huge fan of this franchise, I have enjoyed the movies up to this point. The first was highly flawed but mostly enjoyable, and the second a large improvement, actually among the better blockbusters of that year. This third entry takes the franchise into a dull, predictable and hugely underwhelming direction however.

The first thing to note here is the acting. It is generally subpar. Lawrence gives the least interesting performance of her career, clearly either tired with the franchise or not engaged by the weak script. The supporting cast is generally filled with talented actors, Harrelson, Hoffman, Moore, Sutherland and Dormer. However they are almost all wasted, given little to do and often spend time filling the screen with no real purpose. The is most glaringly obvious with Harrelson, who spends the majority of the film wandering around in the background with zero purpose. All of these great actors are shelved in favour of the dull mediocrity that is Liam Hemsworth, who is given a huge amount of screen time here. His presence is comparable with a small moist stone in your sock, irritating and uncomfortable without arousing much of a direct reaction from the victim. The only good performance of note is Natalie Dormer, who is given a passable amount of screen time and appears to be the only actor enjoying themselves.

The cinematography, CGI, lighting and set design are all dull and forgettable, not worthy of description or discussion. As is the predictable and horrendously repetitive script, which features around four separate scenes wherein Lawrence's character cries whilst surrounded by rubble and debris.

Finally, I will look at the film from the perspective of somebody who has in fact read the trilogy. Mockingjay is a bad book. It has some of the most rushed pacing I have ever seen, and has no character of emotional depth to it. However this film is bad in a totally different, if equally offensive way. It is bland, personality free and lazy to witness. The action is tacked on and boring, the characters are as dull as in the book, and the pacing non-existent. This is a massive disappointment, and a sad collapse of an otherwise decent film series. I would say I have hopes for Part 2, however the second half of the book is a hilarious disaster already, so I am very sceptical.

Mystic River (2003)

Although the performances are strong, this is a very flawed and overrated picture.

[6/10 · 23 November 2014]

I was quite underwhelmed by this film. There are many who consider this to be among the greatest films to be created by director Clint Eastwood, on the level of 'Unforgiven' or 'Gran Torino'. I sadly did not see a great film here, I mostly saw a decent but ultimately flawed and uninspired character drama.

Firstly, the films biggest asset is it's cast of actors. Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Kevin Bacon and Lawrence Fishburne all give great performances and it is quite interesting to see their varied acting styles interact. Tim Robbins probably gives the most impressive performance here, totally worthy of an Academy Award. However, the acting is dragged down by an uninspired and formulaic script. Many of the lines are tedious and cliché', and others are almost nonsensical and stupid. This does not apply for every exchange, however it is prominent enough to be an annoyance.

The plot is fairly standard fare. There are no shocking twists or particularly daring ways of presenting the story here. It is far from incompetent or laughable, however it almost becomes boring in it's predictability. The film's strongest narrative feature is it's solid pacing, allowing the actors room to showcase their acting talent, in fact much of the film appears centred around creating the perfect conditions for these actors to demonstrate their talents. The film's pacing is sadly ruined towards the end, when the film's plot is wrapped up and an overlong epilogue sequence does it's best to ruin as much of the good which came before as possible. Not only in terms of pacing, but also in terms of character and the film's thematic content, This ending was quite terrible and did much to destroy the film for me, specifically the moronic 'King' monologue.

The cinematography and set design is very nice, nothing outstanding but defiantly strong. It has a very well defined look and can get downright gorgeous at times, specifically in it's impressively shot opening sequence. However this good visual work is often undermined by a poorly used and highly repetitive soundtrack. Often wildly out of place with the actions on screen, and sounding quite cheap and melodramatic in places.

Overall, although the performances are good, I was quite underwhelmed by this picture. I could not look past it's gaping flaws and did not find it much above decent.

Foodfight! (2012)

Does so bad it's good even apply here?

[1/10 · 21 November 2014]

So bad it's good (SBiG) is a term commonly used to describe films which are entertaining despite being terrible, mainly through unintentional hilarity. I have enjoyed many films for being SBiG, for example "The Room" and "Plan 9 From Outer Space". However I would argue that Foodfight! is not even worthy of that dubious honour, and here's why; It is far too dull. The film reaches an almost mind-bending degree of total failure, to the point where it becomes hard to rationalise and understand, never mind mock.

Foodfight!'s animation is probably it's most glaring flaw. It looks horrifying, absolutely unacceptable by the standards that were in place by 2012. Perhaps it would have been more tolerable in the early 2000's, provided the broken facial expressions and hideous textures were improved, however it is insulting to expect a paying audience in 2012 to tolerate this crap. There is little to talk about here, aside from how obviously ugly this film is.

The writing is honestly a greater insult to me than the animation. Almost every conversation or exchange of dialogue contains puns, bad puns. Puns constitute 80% or so of the film's limp and flaccid attempts at humour. These puns vary from bad, to eye-bulging in their failure, it is a pathetic defeat to see 5 PROFESSIONAL WRITERS produce this horrendous quality of humour. Aside the puns, the film's dialogue is disjointed and completely nonsensical, it becomes unintelligible noise after around 20 minutes or so. There are also some worryingly misogynistic and sexual elements at play in this 'script', for a film supposedly meant for young children. If I were to discover that this film was written in one sitting and was partially intended as a joke, I would totally believe it.

The audio quality also causes me to tilt my head in sheer bewilderment. Some lines, sometimes from the same character, are of drastically lower quality than others in terms of audio clarity. This problem gets worse towards the film's end, leading me to assume that the more expensive microphones were lost or sold later in the film's production, meaning cheaper mics had to used. The quality honestly reaches shocking levels of awfulness, and becomes near to unlistenable at points.

Overall, this film fails in every notable area. It is hideous in every strata of it's existence, to a point in which it stops being funny and simply becomes sad to witness. This is the audio/visionary equivalent of having a sowing needle impaled through your toe, if that makes any sense.

Nightcrawler (2014)

An all-time great performance from Mr. Gyllenhaal, and an all time great satirical thriller.

[9/10 · 16 November 2014]

Nightcrawler is among the most impressive directorial debuts I have ever seen. A razor sharp screenplay from writer/director Dan Gilroy, combining sharp and precise satire with a unique character in Louis Bloom. This character in particular is the film's primary draw, both in terms of performance and writing.

Jake Gyllenhaal is spectacular as Bloom. His weight loss gives his face a ghoulish quality, and his huge eyes evoke an owl, constantly watching and calculating, purely in visual terms, Gyllenhall delivers a knockout blow. This ghoulish quality mirrors the characters complex, but undoubtedly deplorable, personality. A- moral, manipulative and megalomaniacal slime-ball at heart, Gyllenhaal also manages to add pathos and relatability to a character who would be totally unsympathetic in lesser hands. I do not wish to spoil this performance any further, other than to say it is one of the best all year and is entirely due to the commitment of the incredible actor at the helm, along with a top notch script.

The other performances also deserve praise. Paxton is fun as always, a hugely underrated actor in my opinion. Riz Ahmed delivers a highly likable and naturalistic performance, managing to keep pace with Gyllenhaal in even the most intense sequences. I have high hopes for this young actor in future supporting roles. Above both of these performances however stands Rene Russo, delivering an intense and densely satirical portrayal of the manipulators of the media. It evokes Faye Dunaway from 'Network' and is a very well delivered supporting role.

The screenplay itself is spectacular, probably one of the best in recent years. Every dialogue exchange is memorable and layered, with the excellent cast delivering the dialogue perfectly. It blends character, satire of the media, and thriller-ish elements wonderfully and feels complete and well thought out.The pacing of the film is also very strong, slowly building in complexity and instability, much like it's main character, however some may find the conclusion slightly jarring.

Aside the acting and the screenplay, the camera-work is also great, utilising the subject matter, TV news footage, to deliver some wonderful visually unique sequences and shots. The lighting in particular was fantastic, emphasising shadows and the natural lights found in a city like L.A., giving the film a unique visual flavour and echoing the shady subject of the film.

Overall, this film was amazing. I demand accolades for Gyllenhaal, and I hope this slick satire is recognised for what it is.

The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993)

The ultimate holiday crossover, and a landmark for animation.

[9/10 · 10 November 2014]

*I personally consider this to be the ultimate November movie (combining the holidays of October and December), and that is why I have written this review now in particular.

The reason this film is so highly lauded is how it merges to beloved times of the year together. Nightmare does this in ways which extend beyond the lavish aesthetic, the atmosphere of both seasons permeate the film throughout. The creepy joy of Halloween and the whimsical timelessness of Christmas are perfectly balanced here. It could stand alone for both seasons, but manages to stand for them both. This is a huge accomplishment.

The films flawless atmosphere comes from it's excellent musical score, perhaps Elfman's very best, and it's outstanding stop motion animation. Laying down the foundations for stop-motion films to follow, the stunning colours, expression and imagery here are truly amazing and hold up well today, despite Henry Selick's own ambitious follow up stop-motion films. I must in particular praise the film's palette, a trait which is held by most of Selick's films.

The film's story is also classic. Simply told, but incredibly effective. This is largely due to the myriad of enjoyable musical sequences spread throughout the runtime, all of which contribute to the story and tell it's tale largely through the music itself. The story is also made stronger by the film's great cast of talent voice actors and singers, who work a fairly predictable story into narrative magic.

It almost feels like this film has always existed. It so perfectly encapsulates two seasons and is so classic in its imagery and storytelling, it is hard to imagine a world without Nightmare. A milestone in animation, musicals and holiday classics, and the perfect ambassador for the dreary month of November.

Tombstone (1993)

A last hurrah for the cheesy fun western.

[7/10 · 4 November 2014]

Tombstone is not sophisticated, or deep, or emotionally weighty. However it is quite special nevertheless. In a time after 'Unforgiven' supposedly killed the traditional romanticised western, for this ball of cheese and fun to have been made is a happily defiant stance for simple and fun movies. Tombstone does not deconstruct, or analyse anything within its genre. It simply enjoys itself and tells a good story.

The acting in tombstone is very good, particularly Val Kilmer in my personal favourite performance of his. Kurt Russel also delivers a strong, if cheesy, performance as the standard action badass (I am aware that this is technically a biopic, however I'm fairly sure that this is not an accurate portrayal of the man). Their acting is enhanced by the cliché and simple, but well paced screenplay. The film's humour is also pretencion free and charming, hearkening back to the golden age of westerns.Despite the obviously throwback nature of this film, it doesn't feel tired. The acting and writing is still slick and modern despite keeping the spirit of the past. It really is a fun little example of how to do a silly throwback well, and still have occasional moments of weight and gravitas (once again mainly through Val Kilmer).

On the downside, the film lacks a satisfying enough conclusion and in general seems to lack direction in its third act. I was also disappointing by the lack of satisfying material for Sam Elliot or Bill Paxton, two actors I genuinely like in supporting roles.

Overall however, despite hardly blowing my mind or challenging me, I enjoyed my viewing of Tombstone. After Unforgiven killed the genre, for a film the brazenly cheesy to come out a year later was a big risk. In my opinion, it paid off.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)

A shockingly advanced and refined horror/drama from the early 30's.

[9/10 · 31 October 2014]

(Halloween Horror Reviews #17)

It is hard to believe that such a refined and dynamic film as this came out of this early period in horror. The harsh emotions, the creepy imagery and sets, all massively ahead of their time. The themes and ideas of the novel remain respectfully intact here, nowhere near as diluted as they would have been expected to be.

Fredric March is truly incredible as both Jekyll and Hyde. The emotional range is stellar, the physical investment from the actor is truly admirable and quite spectacular. Miriam Hopkins also offers a chilling performance in her role, captivating the audience with her simple yet effective displays of fear and bewilderment. Between these two actors, the film becomes a powerhouse of great early sound acting and a real marvel to watch 82 years later. The supporting actors also do a fine job, but are ultimately overlooked and passed over by the main stars.

The set design and lighting are both also stellar, perhaps some of the best examples of such things from the early sound era of horror. The lamp lit streets, the chaotic laboratory and the jolly pub, these are all great sets and give the film a vibrant charm of its own.

In conclusion, this is a near perfect film and an outstanding accompaniment to the classics of Universal. A sadly often overlooked gem here.

The Return of the Living Dead (1985)

A fun and sleazy 80's exploitation extravaganza.

[9/10 · 31 October 2014]

(Halloween Horror Reviews #16)

This film is so much fun. As a sequel to the original classic, it lacks most of the subtlety or weight of said original. However as its own creation, it is some of the most entertaining comedy-horror out there.

Firstly, the film's actors are all charismatic and likable. Delivering the hilarious dialogue well and able to bring gravitas to the handful of more intense moments. More importantly here however is the sharp as a knife screenplay, filled with innumerable funny gags and clever moments. As a comedy the film is truly special, funny as anything you'll see using the horror genre as a skin. However RotLD does not simply use horror as a skin, it is a genuine entry within the genre, unlike some other satires. The zombie effects are genuinely great, and the atmosphere is solid. Both an amazing comedy, and a strong horror.

The film also has a great plot, both for horror and comedy. Walking through numerous clichés and host to several great set pieces. In particular the first introduction of the zombie horde is great example of effects and scale. The film is joyfully drenched in sleaze and grindhouse charm (including a character who spends the majority of the film naked for no real reason).

Overall, I loved this tasty ball of slime and dark humour. A true classic of the holidays in my opinion.

Don't Look Now (1973)

A bizarre and unique psychological thriller, with some knockout scenes.

[8/10 · 31 October 2014]

(Halloween Horror Reviews #15)

Considered by many to be a masterpiece of psychological horror, Don't look now is undoubtedly a well made movie. It is a slice of 70's paranoia thriller on the level of 'The Conversation' and 'Taxi Driver'. It creates an incredible atmosphere and uses a top-notch location (Venice) in a unique and subtle way. Any filmmaker who wishes to master the art of forming an eerie atmosphere should defiantly check this film out.

The film's main actors are all superb. Julie Christie and Donald Sutherland work absolute magic every second they are on screen, their emotional weight and passion is something truly staggering. They are a huge part of why the film is so effective. The supporting cast is also solid, however may often seem lacking when compared to the two powerhouses at the centre of the film.

The film has some of the best sound-mixing around, creating a great sense of panic for the audience and making every scene as disorienting as a bad nightmare. The paranoid sense of dread is emphasised by the bleak and cold setting. Venice feels hostile and angry, it works as a driving force throughout the film and puts the audience all the more on edge.

The film can feel convoluted and jumbled at times in it's plotting. Characters will lack relevance regardless of screen time, and plotpoints will seemingly go nowhere. This, along with the sometimes lacklustre pace are by far the film's largest problems for me.

However the film's opening and closing scenes are fantastic. Emotional, cerebral and horrifying, both in drastically different ways. These scenes are where the film shines brightest for sure.

Overall, whilst clunky and a little dated in it's execution, Don't look now is a stunning horror/thriller and shows many truly inspired elements and sequences.

The Babadook (2014)

A twisted and cerebral horror masterpiece.

[10/10 · 28 October 2014]

(Halloween Horror Reviews #14)

Rarely are horror films this effective. The Babadook sets out to do a few things, and nails every single one of them. It curls toenails, dries mouths, opens eyes. It is legitimately one of the genres best entries in over a decade.

The first reason for this masterpieces effect is the phenomenal performance by Essie Davies. She dominates the screen throughout and presents fragility, doubt, menace and realism in everything she does. We relate with everything she does and thinks (we delve deeply into her psyche through use of dream sequences) and are driven to to shivering fright as the horrors unfold around her. In conjunction with this career making performance is Noah Wiseman, portraying a young boy haunted by his separation from others and his mother's guilt and fear. He is believably and highly likable in a part that so easily could have failed or become overbearing. Instead of this however, he brings a sense of dread and danger to the scenario by his vulnerability and sympathetic mannerisms.

The director has control over her atmosphere to a level that would impress Kubrick or Romero, it is a truly staggering achievement in modern horror. The beautifully washed-out set design, the prevalent shadows and the careful lighting. I particularly praise the shots of barren trees against the stark white sky, it was a poignant source of chills for me and was essential in forming the film's harsh and uninviting world. The film oozes with passion and care, and the atmosphere was clearly the focus of much of these passions.

The Babadook has a refined emotional range rarely seen in lesser horror fare. It brings catharsis, wonder and immense sympathy before the horror begins and creates a fully formed connection with both of the main characters before the true chills begin. The final 20 minute stretch can best be described as a glorious crescendo of various emotions, all with freakish implications and subtexts. You feel like you've entered a fresh layer of Hell, and are overwhelmed with unease and persistent cloying dread.

In conclusion The Babadook stole my heart, before promptly forcing it though the emotional wringer. It should stand as one of THE all time classics and will affect its audience in varied and totally unexpected ways. It is one of the most joyfully surprising film experiences that I have ever had. I hope that every member of this creative team goes on to have sparkling careers of their own.

I would also like to personally thank the Kickstarter contributors for this film's art budget. Thank you for allowing me to experience this cinematic powerhouse in it's full glory.

Troll Hunter (2010)

A darkly comedic and thoroughly majestic beast.

[10/10 · 26 October 2014]

(Halloween Horror Reviews #13)

Troll Hunter is not only an astonishing horror film, it is also a unique window into the folklore of another culture. The way this film blends together fairytale wonder and sinister chills into one 100 minute package is breathtaking, a truly unique experience.

Firstly, the film's acting is stellar. A collection of wonderfully charismatic and enjoyable performers, most of whom are actually well known Norwegian comedians (likely the reason for the films excellent comedic streak), who work the strong screenplay with as effortlessly as you our I breathe. Particular praise goes to Otto Jespersen, the tolljegeren himself, for whom I wish nothing but the most fruitful and successful of careers. The film's script is great also, mixing light exposition with naturalistic dialogue masterfully.

The film's greatest achievement is it's peerless atmosphere. There are only a handful of films which posses an atmosphere this fully formed or effective, it envelopes the audience like a layer of Norwegian snow and does not let go until long after the film ends. The wonderful shots of the Norwegian landscape, the intimacy of the 'found footage style', and the gorgeous dark lighting during the all important Troll scenes. The film both manages to feel like reading a fairytale, through its likable characters and Grimm reminiscent setting, and like the most unnerving of horror fare all at once.

Overall I cannot praise this tightly knitted blanket of a horror film more. I feel like I learned more about atmosphere, Norwegian culture, and the correct use of the 'found footage' style here, than in almost any other film. I implore you to watch this drop of fun and twisted magic for yourself.

The Fly (1958)

A well constructed and touching sci-fi/horror drama.

[8/10 · 25 October 2014]

(Halloween 'Horror' Reviews #12)

The Fly is one of the most dignified and refined science fiction thrillers in the entire 1950's, the heyday of the genre. Its slow, laid back pace and well constructed dialogue turns the film into more of a sci-fi drama than a horror. However the film marketed itself as a horror, and it continues to be held in the same regard as the other horror films of the time.

As a drama, the film excels. Its acting is very good all around, with Vincent Price turning in a wonderful performance, demonstrating the genuine dramatic weight he possessed. It's also got a nice slow pace, allowing the audience to take in the fairly heavy and serious ideas the film presents. Finally the film has significant emotional weight, particularly in its third act. It honestly gets quite heavy and asks some evocative questions at this point in the film.

Aside from the films dramatic pursuits, it also functions as a solid sci-fi film with a horror edge. The set design is excellent, specifically the lab set, and there are some creepy ideas on display. I would argue that the film shouldn't really apply as a true horror (it rarely even tries to scare the audience), however it succeeds in presenting some sinister visuals on occasion.

Overall I feel the producers mistook the film's intentions. It really isn't a horror film, however if accepted for what it is (a superb science fiction drama about families the horrid results of a small mistake) it is very strong.

The Devil Inside (2012)

A disgusting insult to any genre fan.

[1/10 · 23 October 2014]

(Halloween Horror Reviews #11)

If you are a lover of horror cinema then please heed my warning. There are very few films that I will beg you not to see, this is one of them. But above this, know that:

This film is a lie.

Every thing contained in the film's advertising is a lie, it is not scary, it is not shocking and it isn't even complete. I feel no shame in listing this review as 'Non-spoiler', because there is nothing to spoil. This is among the most predictable and generic horror films I have ever seen. Nothing of originality, nothing to offer a veteran horror fan, and even less for a newcomer to the genre. When I rate a film 1 star, I mean to say that not only does the film have no value, it has anti-value. It causes nothing but harm to its peers and embarrasses an entire community of films by association.

The film's acting is a joke. Delivered with the passion of an Ikea lamp, and with the originality of bad haircut. The 'main characters' are unlikable assholes, portrayed as much through the dialogue as the acting. The film's 'script' is a dirty, sodden dishcloth, every jump-scare is a stain upon it.

This horrendously trite slice of nothingness failed to even achieve an 85 min runtime, likely because they avoided inconveniences such as character or plot. The film cares so little for its audience that it even insults the .01% of said audience who enjoyed it. It does this by failing to end. The film has NO ENDING. The last frame of the film is a link to a now defunct web domain (the studio was so cheap it only paid for 6 months on the website, a website referenced in every version of the film!).

This crap surpasses Frankenstein (1994) as the worst horror film I have ever reviewed. It's monumental financial success is a testament to how we have all been played for cattle, steered into the corporate slaughterhouse and reduced to chowder.

Frankenstein (1931)

Horror's first real masterpiece of the sound era.

[9/10 · 21 October 2014]

(Halloween Horror Reviews #10)

Frankenstein is one of the most dazzling horror films of the entire 1930's. It is also one of the best films of 1931, a contender for being one of the best years in cinema history (at least in my opinion). It has aged beautifully and remains amongst the most iconic and recognisable horror films ever. So why has it withstood the test of time so much better than 'Dracula' (which came out the same year)? Firstly, the film takes full advantage of the new sound technology at its disposal. The awkward and clunky lack of a score in Dracula is replaced here by an atmospheric and grand orchestral score, which matches the action on the screen perfectly. To me, this helps to show just how ahead of the game director James Whale really was.

Next, the film's acting remains strong and has only slightly aged. Boris Karloff gives the performance that would launch one of the greatest careers in horror cinema. His portrayal of the creature is as perfect as Lugosi's Dracula, utterly flawless. Dwight Fry is enjoyable once again (however I will admit that his material is lacking compared to Dracula), as is Colin Clive in one of the most underrated performances in early horror. His demented yet tortured stare and physically involved acting style is totally engrossing, grabbing the audience by the collar and not releasing for 70 minutes. The rest of the cast is strong also and generally their performances hold up stronger than the supporting performances in Dracula.

The film's set design is wonderful and is defiantly one of its key draws. From the iconic lab set, as ingrained in our cultural memories as anything else in horror cinema, to the atmospheric graveyard set the film opens on. The film looks gorgeous and I will often find myself pausing the film to drink the ambiance they provide in. Unlike Dracula, the film never loses steam in this department, offering 70 whole minutes of beautiful painted backgrounds and perfectly balanced sets.

Overall Frankenstein is a masterpiece. Its ending is one of the most intense sequences in early horror, and James Whales darkly witty signature permeates every layer of the film. Kenneth Branagh's embarrassment does not deserve to share a name with this slice of cinematic wonderment.

Dark Skies (2013)

Barely a good sci-fi/horror film, but good nonetheless.

[6/10 · 18 October 2014]

(Halloween Horror Reviews #9)

Dark Skies is heavily flawed. It is barely worth recommending at all. However it has just enough to commend and is fresh enough to warrant a positive stance from me.

The flaws are obvious. It's acting is fairly bland, few good moments hidden beneath a canopy of mediocrity. It's screenplay and dialogue is sub-par, resorting to the horror trope of characters behaving like idiots. It is also rarely ever scary (or even close) and is not particularly exciting. Overall the film is standard and cliché' ridden.

Despite this however, there are clever and enjoyable things here. J.K Simmons delivers a great cameo in the films third act, making a simple expository sequence highly entertaining and tolerable. In fact the film's entire third act is better than the film prior, bringing more scares and more spooky imagery. By far the film's greatest strength is in it's restraint, for example the film does not actually show the aliens, leaving it to the imagination of the audience (unlike lesser alien invasion films such as 'Signs'). The film is also quite well shot and features some very nice lighting, creating an atmosphere which is more eerie than scary or creepy.

In conclusion, the film is hardly a masterpiece. However it is well made and smart enough to warrant a watch from a horror fan, and its ending is a great example of a competent cliffhanger designed to creep the audience out above satisfy them.

The Screaming Skull (1958)

Cheese filled and stupid, but not totally lacking in charms.

[4/10 · 17 October 2014]

(Halloween Horror Reviews #8)

This is a stupid film. It's acting is wooden, it's plot nonsensical and it expects you to be scared of a small prop skull and some peacocks. However its not entirely witless, and has a creepy element here and there.

Firstly, actor/director Alex Nicol rises above the other mediocre performances in the film and offers something fairly compelling and a touch creepy. Despite this little glimmer however, the acting is mostly bland and amateurish, worsened by a horrible script of horrendous dialogue.

Next, the atmosphere of the film is still strong. It has that unique blend of camp and creep that only the 50's could offer. Some of the skull's POV shots are also fairly suspenseful, a precursor to the techniques used in later slasher films. The suspense is ruined by the source of the fear (a skull and a few peacocks) and a weird immersion breaking break in the film (also evident in the MST3K version).

Overall the film's charms are outdone by its leaden dialogue, weak acting and silly 'scares'. The final nail in the coffin is the overtly complicated plot, which ruins the 'dumb-fun' vibe and makes it more infuriating than entertaining. However, it may still have use as a slice of stinky 50's cheese.

Dracula (1931)

One of the most important and influential horror films ever.

[7/10 · 16 October 2014]

(Halloween Horror Reviews #7)

Tod Browning's Dracula is a landmark. Not simply among horror films, but a landmark for all of cinema. It played a vital role in moving the horror genre into the sound era, and setting the blueprints for the various other 'monster' films that followed throughout the 30's and 40's. It also cemented the Universal brand as being the chief mass entertainers of the age, with their brand of Gothic horror leaving a gigantic mark on film history. However, outside of this titanic influence, does the film still hold up after 83 years?

Firstly the acting. Bela Lugosi's Dracula is truly immortal and has not aged a day. It still holds as a perfect example of actor and character becoming one, and there is a reason that Lugosi stands as the iconic Dracula, despite innumerable other renditions of the character. Dwight Frye is also wonderful as Renfield, bringing chilling creepiness to every scene he inhabits. He also carries a sympathetic weight and tragedy throughout adding layers to the role. Between these two, the acting is already a treat regardless of the other performances. Edward Van Sloan is the only other performance of note, filled with the authoritative dignity the man was renown for. However despite these great stars in the leading roles, the supporting cast is a massive letdown. Average at best, distressingly bland and wooden at worst. Many scenes begin to slump together as a result of these limp performances. Overall however the acting does stand strong due to the leads, but suffers from uneven support.

The set design and imagery is stunning. One of the most iconic Gothic mansion ever put to film features in the opening, a true treat for a fan. However the visuals do dip slightly upon arrival in England, where more generic period sets feature. Some nice lighting and creepy highlights (a sequence featuring live rats running around in a coffin filled basement in particular) do keep the momentum of the opening go throughout however, so overall the sets and imagery do hold up well. The cinematography is far more dated, it is often stiff and doesn't take full advantage of the locations. This fault was fixed in the alternate Spanish version of the film, with far more haunting camera movements.

The lacking score is a dividing point for many. Some view it as creepy and ambient, where's other feel it is awkward and an example of the holdover elements from silent cinema. I personally agree more with the later, however it does work at times (the rat sequence once again springs to mind).

Overall the film is still strong. However when compared to the work's of contemporaneous director 'James Whale' (who also made monster films for Universal), it is clear that it is severely lacking in polish and shows its age far more than it really should. There is enough immortal material here to warrant its continuous status as a classic. However many elements hold it back, not least of which is an almost laughably anti-climatic climax and ending which leave an oddly sour taste in the mouth.

Gone Girl (2014)

Probably the best film of the year. A masterpiece.

[10/10 · 14 October 2014]

I must point out here that I have not read the original source novel, also I will be extremely careful to avoid any spoilers as this film MUST NOT be spoiled. Aside from that, I feel totally confident in declaring this as the best film I have seen all year. Fincher has crafted one of the all time great thrillers, and has done so in an aggressive and brutal fashion. Although its premature to call it a career best, its fair to say that this film deserves to be in contention for that honor at least.

Firstly, the acting is stellar. I demand an Oscar for Rosamund Pike, for giving the best performance I have seen all year. I will not describe why it is so remarkable, as it is a clue to some of the film's reveals, however you will be shocked suffice to say. Affleck is perfectly cast and works well, playing to his strengths and probably giving the performance of his career. In the supporting cast, Carrie Coon and Kim Dickens are great and I hope they receive more work in the future, possibly even some high profile starring roles. However, better still is Tyler Perry, delivering a shockingly hilarious and fitting performance, showcasing impeccable comic timing and oozing personality in every scene. The film has a cast for the ages, everybody works well and every scene raises the bar further into the stratosphere.

The screenplay is excellent, written by the writer of the book (Gillian Flynn) and containing all the delicacy and detail of a great novel. However with enough of an adaptation to feel naturalistic, its not 2 and half hours of having a novel read out to you, as it easily could have been. It gives the actors all the space and material to show their skill and presence on screen and has a twisted plot line worthy of Fincher.

The cinematography is wonderful. It is shot with the detail and precision of a master, a title which Fincher has more than earned by this stage. Well balanced lighting, a fitting palette, it truly looks perfect. The set design is also perfectly planned and well constructed, encouraging you to look for even the slightest clues in Fincher/Flynn's warped minds.

Overall, I implore you to watch this brutal and devilishly twisted little number from one of the best collaborations in modern cinema. If Flynn writes every Fincher film in the future, with Pike as the star, then I'd be overjoyed.

The Phantom of the Opera (1925)

As shrouded as a Phantom.

[8/10 · 13 October 2014]

(Halloween Horror Reviews #6)

This film has one of the most disastrous production history's I can think for a horror film. Allegadly at one time at least 3 versions of the film existed, each with different scenes, tones and endings. However today only one version exists, luckily it is all we need.

Lon Chaney as the Phantom is astonishing. With the bare visual essentials he is able to chill, excite and entertain better than any other rendition of the character since. He brings a sympathetic weight that many would not immediately think of in reference to the story, and he offers an outlook on deformity and loneliness witch strikes a cord even today, 89 years later. It is hard to discuss the make-up, because it is so perfect and deeply integrated into the film's effect. Chaney looks like a demon, and his jerky movements transform him into a living gargoyle on screen. The film deserves it's rating for the wonderfully shocking and perfectly built up unmasking sequence.

Aside from Lon Chaney, the set design is sumptuous and highly impressive for the time. One of the better examples of a large scale period piece being attempted in the 1920's (possibly due to the adoption of some German expressionist techniques and ideas in the set design). This lavish set design is particularly prominent during the colour sequence, a dazzling and highly enjoyable barrage of Technicolour and macabre imagery. However this effect is ruined somewhat when we later see the same setting in black & white, diminishing the dreamlike and magical quality of the scene. The other actors are solid also, however Mary Philbin's stereotypical damsel in distress can become granting after a while.

Although it may be unfair to comment on the score, because it was added after the film's original release, however it is breathtaking. I would honestly declare it a masterpiece of a score and a massive part of the film's effect is derived from it flowing between daunting organ pieces, to ambient percussion, and then to iconic orchestra bombast. Although I do not wish to undersell the film overall, I will admit that 90% of the film's power comes from the following four elements alone:

1. Lon Chaney as the Phantom.

2. The musical score.

3. The colour sequence.

4. The exciting and emotional ending.

This is possibly to the film's detriment, as long stretches can drag a bit and other elements are pushed aside in one's memory after seeing the film.

Overall I loved this creepy little gem. Although much of the Phantom is lost to the mist of history, the shadow that remains is ghoulish enough to remain a classic of the silent age.

Sunshine (2007)

A brilliant sci-fi thriller......which then devolves into a disastrous slasher humiliation.

[5/10 · 11 October 2014]

(Halloween 'Horror' Reviews #5)

This is one of the most rage inducing films I will cover this month. The first two-thirds are a beautifully written and cerebral science fiction masterpiece. However at around the two-thirds mark, it changes and drops all of its clever aspects and ideas.

Before I cover this, I'll talk about the films promising start. The films cast is exceptional, both in terms of acting and reflecting thematically on the film itself. The ships multicultural crew helps to represent that this is a global crisis. American, British, Japanese, Oceanic and Chinese actors were employed to demonstrate this, with perfect casting all-around. Cillian Murphy offers a strong and charismatic performance (as expected), Hiroyuki Sanada brings a powerful nobility befitting of a leader, and Chris Evans offers a moral grayness rarely seen in other large sci-fi productions. The only significant issues I have with the casting and acting of the film is that Michelle Yeoh was pretty much wasted, and Mark Strong is given horrendous material. However this material only occurs during the films terrible climax, which I will cover at the end.

The screenplay is, at first, very good also. Focusing on the effects of human error rather than convoluted villains and freak occurrences adds a reliability and tragedy to the events that are also often missing in certain sci-fi plots. The pacing is solid and allows for a good amount of character and atmosphere without seeming bloated or losing focus. Furthermore the dialogue seems natural, and fitting for a group of intelligent individuals (Physicists, Psychiatrists, Astronauts etc.). The screenplay dives during the climax also however, suffering worse than the other elements in fact.

The soundtrack to the film is epic, defiantly one of the reasons the film starts off so strong. John Murphy tops his excellent work on the '28 Days Later' OST, bringing a sense of grandeur to the proceedings of the film. It truly is one of the great modern soundtracks.

Now I will talk about the climax. The reason my rating is a 5 rather than the 7/8 the first two-thirds were worthy of. Without spoiling the film, the cerebral and intelligent tone set throughout the preceding film is totally dropped and a slasher-horror tone replaces it. I honestly didn't want to review this film as a horror, however that is what it becomes. It ends on a ridiculous and laughable note, ruining the majestic scientific concepts which propelled the film forward prior to the climax. In addition, it takes the previously promising scenes with Mark Strong, and ruins them, turning him into a campy slasher villain and robbing the film of its tragic overarching tone. Established by the villain-free human errors which occur at the start of the film.

Overall, this film totally crashes and burns. It switches genre in the most ham-fisted manner possible, and spoils everything the film previously stood for. I would almost call it a betrayal.

Night of the Living Dead (1968)

One of the most effective, and important, horror films of the 1960's.

[9/10 · 8 October 2014]

(Halloween Horror Reviews #4)

This film is one of the most influential films in American cinema history, both for its massive contribution to all horror films, but its role in shaping American independent cinema also. It's honestly shocking to think of all the amazing films that wouldn't exist without this initial spark, and what a bright spark it is.

More than just an important milestone, 'NotLD' remains a stellar horror film to this day. With excellent writing, a perfect atmosphere and beautiful black and white cinematography. Even now, despite the over-saturation of zombie films we have, nothing has been made which is quite like the progenitor (aside the 1990's remake). Its hopeless and desperate situation, its brief timespan (as the title suggests, only one night), and its shocking ending all remain mostly unique to this single film 46 years after its release.

The film does show its age, and low budget at times. However this is only 2-3% of the time, the other 97-98% you are stuck wondering how so much timeless brilliance can be squeezed into a single (relatively short) horror film. The tight location is used to its full and that simple cabin in the woods has become the parent to all others in the many decades to follow.

Overall, it's 'NotLD'. What more can you expect other than glowing praise?

Final Prayer (2013)

A daring, fresh and genuinely creepy indie achievement.

[8/10 · 6 October 2014]

(Halloween Horror Reviews #3)

The Borderlands is a rare creation. It borrows much from earlier films, and yet it feels fresh and brings some brilliant new ideas to a well worn subgenre. It does this despite a tiny budget, simple camera techniques and cheap locations. I would therefore argue that this film could be taken as an example on how to ensnare an audience despite limited resources.

The first thing of note is the cast. There are only four significant performances in the entire film, and that is all that is needed. The four main actors are all great and come across as competent and capable. Each character works off the others beautifully, and there are some great themes and clever symbolism being portrayed through them. The breakout performance is undoubtedly Gordon Kennedy as Deacon, I hope he is able to get some more prominent roles in bigger productions after this. The acting is reinforced by a naturalistic and confident script, complimenting the rough found footage format the film uses. Despite the featherweight budget, the characters are perfectly developed and the story doe not feel restricted or small in scale, alluding to many complex and deep traits that would be impossible to otherwise portray with the small budget.

Next the horror elements. The film has a powerful sense of dread, which steadily builds throughout. It actually allows the audience to put themselves in the mind of the characters, a trait that only top tier horror can accomplish. The found footage approach allows for an intimacy with the characters which is usually prohibited in low-budget horror, this allows for the tension of the film to connect to the viewer at a personal level. The imagery is excellent too, creepy, violent and unnerving in ways that most films simply are not. The ending is also an example of a perfect payoff to a well formed atmosphere and is amongst the scariest scenes in recent film history.

Overall, the Borderlands is a triumph of low-fi horror and paranormal scares. In a world where crap like 'The Possession' can have millions thrown into their production, its nice to see a gem like this being made.

The Possession (I) (2012)

A hilarious example of everything that can go wrong with modern horror films.

[2/10 · 3 October 2014]

(Halloween Horror Reviews #2)

This is a film of two halves, both of which are terrible. Half one is a boring re-heated slice of Hollywood pseudo-horror, commercial slop with no artistic merit or purpose outside of milking money out of horror fans at this time of year. The other half, is one of the most baffling and awkward horror films of the last decade or so.

The first element of this predictable and stale, yet fascinatingly bad and hilarious, mess is the acting. Generic, done a thousand times before, 'creepy' child acting, relying on the same tricks that have been used since 'The Omen'. The only interesting thing about the performance of (as I like to call her) 'creepy little girl 2070' is the hilariously inept screenplay. For example, there is sequence wherein this child stabs her father through the hand with a fork, this is met with her being sent to bed and being mildly chastised and reprimanded. I don't feel I need to comment on how people don't act like this in any way shape or form. This performance particularly bothers me, and is a microcosm for the entire film, being both dull and forgettable and profoundly sloppy and terrible. The rest of the acting is average to mediocre, made worse by a weak script with inhuman dialogue and leaden exposition.

Next are the film's scares, key in all horror films. They are mostly non-existent. Either lame, predictable jump scares or dull and recycled 'creepy' scenes borrowed from the various other exorcism based films of the last decade. Literally the only original scary concept or image in the film, is on the poster and in the trailer,so even that was wasted. The film fails to create an atmosphere because it has no identity, and fails to scare because it has no surprises.

Next is the film's rather odd theme. Jewish folklore. This is a fairly specific and honestly intriguing focus point for the film. Or it would be if it wasn't introduced over an hour into the film. The theme is wasted and does not reflect at all in the previous hour of the film, with not a single explanation for why this specific entity, from this culture, targeted this little girl. In addition to this, the Jewish exorcism is filmed and treated the same as a more recognisable Catholic exorcism (I do not know if the two ceremonies are actually this similar, or if the Jewish faith even has exorcism, however I f they are this similar then why bother with the distinction at all?), sucking all chance for uniqueness are flavour the film could have in one scene. The ending twist, although I will not spoil, suffice to say is another example of an overdone and obvious modern horror film technique.

Overall the film is a travesty. I would call it the horror equivalent to "Crash"(due to its moronic writing, reheated ideas and total lack of punch), however I feel more confused than angry here, unlike with Crash. This film was also not given the acclaim that Crash was, and has rightfully been left to die on the side of the street, with all the other generic horror retreads to have emerged in the last 15 years. This is for the greater good I assure you.

Psycho (1960)

Rightfully considered one of the all time horror masterpieces.

[10/10 · 1 October 2014]

(Halloween Horror Reviews #1)

To Begin my rush of October horror reviews, I will now cover one of the most iconic and acclaimed horror films ever. Alfred Hitchcock's often imitated, but never matched, Psycho.

To start, the film has possibly one of the tightest screenplays ever written. Innumerable twists, plays on the audiences expectations and elegant little subversions upon itself make the plot come alive and dazzle like a firecracker. I mean it when I say that 54 years after its release the rest of the genre is still trying to catch-up Joseph Stefano and Robert Bloch's masterpiece of a screenplay. However, the way Hitchcock delivers this script is also incredible. Small visual hints and tricks make the film a joy to re-watch. For example, we see a woman in white underwear, later in the film she wears black underwear to show that she has committed an impure act. Such tiny details, but the impact is massive on the whole.

Next the acting. Anthony Perkins delivers one of the most effective 'creepy' performances of all time. Like the screenplay it too has not been matched in 54 years and remains the yardstick for all psychopathic portrayals in film. Aside from Perkins however, the rest of the cast give strong performances, particularly Janet Leigh in the 'starring' role.

The set design is legendary. Such mundane and simple locations are brought to life by the films exquisite lighting and use of shadows. The house in the background to the main set looms like a falcon, and casts a shadow over all the preceding events. You feel like someone is watching you at all times, and are constantly on edge. Such simple images as a stuffed bird, or a tall staircase are used so effectively here. This film remains an icon on minimalist set design, and how to creep your audience out with the simplest of imagery.

Overall I cannot praise this film enough. One of the most iconic and brilliant films, from one of the most iconic and brilliant directors of all time.

Happy Halloween.

Vampire's Kiss (1988)

Certainly a Unique Creature.

[7/10 · 29 September 2014]

There has never quite been a film like Vampire's Kiss, and there has not even been an imitator since. It is an absurd, hilarious semi- spoof of all things horror, whilst also being a surreal and powerful delve into the damaged psych of horrid human being. I honestly feel I need to break this down in pieces.

The elephant in the room is Nick Cage. His performance is excellent, but takes getting used to. He is hilariously over the top, moving like Max Schrek on Caffine pills. He talks in a petulant and whiny 'vaguely British' voice, also leading to some really goofy line readings. However despite this camp factor, there is depth here. Cage is also believable here, he stays perfectly true to the character throughout and forms a unique identity that can only be found here. It reminds me of Christian Bale in 'American Psycho', which is fitting as Bale based his performance off this film. One aspect I will bring up often here is thee film's re-watch value, suffice to say that Cage's performance changes and shifts upon numerous viewings.

Next is the direction. It showcases some great shots of New York, almost making it feel alive. The cinematography highlights the striking architecture and uneven lighting of the city, almost showing it to be a real life translation of classic horror settings. However it also shows the clinical detachment of such a large city, and the Yuppie culture that has grown from it. The other performances match this films dual nature also, taking classic horror roles at times, and being typical Yuppie's at others.

Night and Day, Gothic and Modern, Deep and Funny, Dark and Light. This film performs an entirely unique juggling act that has never been matched since. Both a homage to classic horror tales, and a deconstruction of the 80's Yuppie lifestyle.