A team of Louisiana Army National Guards venture into a local bayou. After getting lost they take three small boats belonging to local Cajuns. When they fire blank bullets at the men the Cajuns return this gesture with real bullets, killing one of the soldiers. From here on in things get worse and worse for the soldiers as they must fight for their own survival.
I remember seeing the last act of this film on late night TV in the 80's and it was one of the most paranoid and chilling sequences I think I had ever seen in a film. Seeing the full film, this sequence remains taut and utterly unnerving.
In fact the film as a whole is yet another gem from director Walter Hill (The Warriors, 48 Hours, The Driver) with amazing cinematography from Andrew Laszlo.
This film reminds me of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre in that we have a slow tension-filled buildup until a massively violent incident comes out of the blue and shows us that the film means business. I'm certainly not going to disclose this genuinely shocking moment but it's a gritty, uncompromising incident in a gritty and uncompromising film.
A fine all-male ensemble reminds me of the same dynamic as John Carpenter's The Thing which can't be bad. In fact, it reminded me of The Warriors also, but minus another Mercy type character. Again, this comparison is no bad thing.
On it's release the movie drew inevitable comparisons to Deliverance but this feels rawer, leaner and more suspenseful. This has the sensibilities of an edgier independent film. And there are no cringy scenes involving banjos.
I first heard of this Yuletide horror flick as John Waters spoke about it as being his favourite seasonal cinematic shocker. With such high praise from The Prince of Puke I later heard it was being shown at a local cinema in Sydney, Australia where I lived for a year (it was actually shown as part of a double bill with Black Christmas which is possibly the greatest duo of films I've ever seen on the big screen).
This film was also seized during the raids on video shops that happened in the UK during the video nasties furore. After it was seized it was then banned by the BBFC. Hence, why I wasn't allowed by the powers that be to see this masterpiece in the 80's.
The film centres around Harry Stadling who we see first as a child as he sees Santa pleasuring his mother. After seeing Old Nick being so naughty he goes upstairs and self harms with a broken ornament from a Christmas tree.
The film then flashes forward to Harry as an adult working in a local toy factory. He seems to be completely obsessed by Santa Claus and even dresses like him, sleeps in his outfit and orientates his whole being towards becoming him. We even see him applying way too much shaving foam to his face so that it resembles a white beard to make the likeness even more apparent. He has also starts to make notes regarding the neighbourhood children as to who has been 'good' or 'bad' whilst jotting down examples of why he has arrived at his decision.
Harry is told by his boss that the factory will donate toys to children at a local hospital but only if production at the factory increases and employees chip in with their own money. This angers Harry who sees this as an indication that his boss only cares about production rather than genuinely caring for the local unfortunate kids.
Harry's Santaphilia reaches new heights on Christmas Evil when he seems to truly believe that he is Father Christmas. He starts to travel around in his equivalent of a reindeer led sleigh- a van with a picture of a sleigh on the side of it. He creeps into his brother's house and leaves bags of presents for his nephews and then leaves a bag of dirt to one of the other neighbourhood children he has noted down as being 'bad'.
After he is mocked by three men who are leaving church, he stabs one of the men in the eye with a sharpened Christmas ornament and then kills all three with an axe. After then entertaining people at a local Christmas party who mistake for just some harmless Santa impersonator and after telling the kids present that they should be good, he breaks into his co-worker Frank's house (who we saw earlier in the film after he asked to swap shifts with Harry so he could be with his family only to be then spotted by Harry in a local bar drinking with his pals much to Harry's chagrin) and murders him but not before leaving toys for his kids.
To tell you much more would ruin the film for everyone and disclose some genuinely unexpected and quite brilliant twists. Without giving too much away I love the fact that even though he's a murderous Santa, the neighbourhood's kids protect him from an angry mob who have formed to capture or even kill him. The kids will save Santa even he is to Christmas what Michael Myers is to Halloween.
The final scene will fully ignite the magic of the Yuletide season in your soul. Seriously! Did Steven Spielberg steal it for possibly the most iconic scene of E.T? Quite possibly. I'll take this movie over Spielberg's saccharine family favourite any day though.
A genuine oddity and a film unlike any other, Christmas Evil was worth the wait for me and John Waters is completely justified to have taken this to his heart. Perfectly acted, beautifully photographed and with some fantastic insights regarding 'this most wonderful time of the year'. These include those who are permitted to buy into the whole illusion of Christmas whilst others aren't, the vileness of capitalism masquerading as being caring and charitable (but only if production is increased) and how in-crowds and groups judge others as 'one of us' or not.
Waters said that if he had kids (and that would be quite something) he would sit down and watch this seasonal shocker with them every year. And if they didn't like it they would be PUNISHED! That's fair enough in my book.
The sequel to Wonder Woman was rescheduled time and time again because of the emergence of COVID-19 and cinemas being off limits. It's finally been released however but can also be streamed on HBO Max which has made some to say that cinemas may be a thing of the past.
So is this sequel as good as it's amazing first film?
The film opens with Diana reminiscing to when she was a child and taking part in an Olympics style event in which she excels until she is felled by a tree branch which makes her fall from the horse that carries her but then decides to cheat to try and take the lead. She is found out to have cheated however and whilst she is heartbroken at not having won she is told that her time will come. This opening is in keeping with the first film and is fantastic.
But as the film then flashes forward into 1984 it starts to come seriously unstuck. It's easy for films to fall into a kind of exaggerated, unrealistic and truly irritating parody of a decade especially one that is larger than life like the 1980's. The film falls headlong into this trap and so the 80's we see is wall to wall bad fashions, people eating fatty foods in abundance and littering. It feels fake and manufactured. If there was a hashtag that could be used here for the Twitterati it would be #notmy80s. 'Ah but this is the vision of the 80's that is individual to this film and Patty Jenkins' I hear the comic fanboys screaming. Then in that case it just plain sucks.
There then comes an action sequence in a shopping mall in which WW foils a robbery. It's so pointless and pathetic that I actually shouted out in the cinema 'This is awful!' I even for a nanosecond thought of walking out. This would have set a new record for the fastest time I've walked out of a film, having lasted only ten minutes watching Freddy Vs Jason.
Fortunately the film calms down on the over the top 80's schtick as we see the main narrative for the film- an artefact known as the dreamstone which can fulfil the wish of those who touch it but with a catch. For every wish, the person loses something else dear to them. When I heard of this premise for the film it seemed fine. But as is stated by characters within the film, this is actually based on the urban legend of the 'Monkey's Paw'. When I found this out (and by characters in the actual film!) the premise disintegrated right before my eyes. I felt robbed and the whole premise for the film felt lazy. In fact, very quickly in the film I found myself thinking 'I really don't care what happens to ANY character in this film'. Nothing in the film's runtime swayed me from this.
Diana wishes for Steve Trevor to come back and hence this is how we get Chris Pine back in the sequel. However, with this wish coming true we see WW start to lose her powers. The scene where we see him reappear should have had a massive emotional pull for the audience. There was nothing. This film is just like it's depiction of the decade it takes place in- all surface, no depth.
We are introduced to the socially awkward Barbara Minerva who wishes to be just like Diana. She gains her wish. She later wishes to be an 'apex predator'. Again, she gets her wish and transforms into supervillianess Cheetah. The first glimpse of Cheetah was so naff I actually burst out laughing.
We also get another baddie in the form of 'orange man bad' Max Lord who is based on Donald Trump. Theres even a border wall in the film. Hmmm. The President of the United States in the film is obviously based on Ronald Reagan. There are even allusions to his Alzheimers with him saying that felt completely disorientated and 'somewhere else' during one scene. Or maybe with such as admission he's based on Joe Biden instead.
The real problem for me throughout the film are the scenes that involve Wonder Woman which is massively problematic based around her character. The action scenes contain the worst examples of CGI I've seen in a long long time. There are times when Wonder Woman feels more like an action figure in a really badly conceived computer game from the early 00's.
There is also a scene in which we are introduced to a new power that Diana unveils. She can turn objects invisible by simply touching them. This made me roll my eyes when I had already rolled them far too many times already. 'Maybe she can also make this film half it's running time' I found myself thinking.
Another scene that had me rolling my eyes was when Barbara decides to go to the gym when she discovers she has superstrength and decides to lift weights. There is also another cringy scene when she bumps into the creepy guy who harassed her earlier in the film.
But there are scenes that work. When Diana finds out she can fly it's through a statement Steve has made earlier in the film about his love of flying. These scenes are beautiful to behold and don't involve dodgy CGI. This scene works amazingly well. If only the care and attention that had gone into this scene could have been applied to the rest of the film the whole movie would be more of a rewarding experience.
I enjoyed the scenes of Max's health getting worse with every wish he bestows. This could have been exploited more with him disintegrating more radically throughout the film a la the undead character in An American Werewolf In London. But I appreciate that that might not have been appropriate in a film aimed primarily at children.
When Diana has to say goodbye to Steve so that she can get her powers back, again, there should have been more emotional resonance for the audience. Again, there wasn't any.
In fact when I heard that Diana was to lose her powers to get Steve back I instantly thought of Superman 2 with Superman willingly renouncing his superpowers so he can enter a relationship with Lois. But whilst I was hoping for a sequel as good as Superman 2 for Wonder Woman instead we got Superman 4: The Quest For Peace resplendent with a naff call for world peace in a nuclear free world.
After the first film I would have wished for a sequel. After seeing Wonder Woman 84, I renounce my wish.
I remember one summer when my family was on holiday at my aunt's house in Stoke on Trent my father took us to what appeared to be a disused reservoir within a park. He explained that under the grate he showed us a young woman was once held for ransom. Her name was Lesley Whittle and Donald Neilson, her abductor had left her tied up in this underground hell completely naked except for a hood over her head and a noose made of wire around her neck which would kill her if she tried to escape. She wasn't found in time and so died after Neilson didn't get the ransom he demanded. Yes, this was just an average day out for my family.
The criminal who carried out this was nicknamed in the press 'The Black Panther'. After carrying out a series of armed robberies at post offices, he set about the abduction of Whittle so that he could demand a hefty ransom and reap more lucrative rewards.
A couple of years after this kidnapping happened a film was made of these events. It was felt in the media that this was too soon and certain censorious channels sought to prevent the film being shown at cinemas throughout the UK. How this was achieved was by pressure being placed on local authorities who in those days had a lot of power regarding films being shown. The BBFC could make a decision on a film and whether it should be left uncut, censored and banned outright but then the film was at the mercy of local authorities and councils as to whether the film would be aired in their respective boroughs.
This is what happened with The Black Panther and why it was as good as suppressed in the UK. The TV show Tonight were part of this campaign to prevent the film playing with the show's host Sue Lawley dubbing it a 'sick film' even though she hadn't seen it.
The film resurfaced in the 80's on VHS but aside from that remained buried as it were (pun not intended). That's until the BFI restored the film a few years ago and issued it on Blu ray.
So is this film really some kind of hidden gem worthy of rediscovery? In a word- YES! It's a bleak account of a psychopathic man embarking a life using his lack of conscience to try to get rich quick after leaving the forces. In fact his time in the army is looked back on by Neilson through rose tinted spectacles as he reminisces about it but also brings that past into his present as he struts around in his attic in his old uniform reliving his glory days. He even lives in the wild as if on an army retreat for days at a time whilst he plans his crimes- firstly, the robbery of the post office substations and then the kidnapping of Whittle. We see him use his training at home also again in his attic/office to plan these projects with military precision.
The Black Panther is just like it's main character in that it's completely cold, emotionless and detached. This may sound like some kind of criticism but it works brilliantly well. This is the film equivalent of the objective and fact based kind of crime reportage used with no editorialising whatsoever. Even the screen captions to denote dates and places is done so by utilising the font of a typewriter to denote the fact-based reporting of facts. In fact the film brings to mind the reconstructions that were part of the true crime TV show Crimewatch UK, especially the ones featured in the earlier series that were shot on film.
It's also interesting to see an emotionless character like Neilson operating in the real world and with other people who possess the empathy chip even though he doesn't. The scenes of him at home with his wife and family are darkly entertaining and sometimes downright shocking. He expects his wife to be little more than a hausfrau who serves him and him alone. He barks his disapproval at every turn and over the most mundane things that can't be controlled (we see throughout the film that Neilson wants control over everything in his life but life doesn't work like that. Each of his robberies are besieged and altered from running smoothly by factors that are beyond his control). One example is when he doesn't even look at his wife but raises his tea mug to let her now that he wants it to be filled again. After she dutifully does this he then takes a sip and screams that the tea is 'too hot!'
There also another very perceptive insight into his home life as we see his teenaged daughter ask if she can go out to see friends. He says no and explains that she will spend money whilst she's out and that it's better to save instead for a rainy day. His daughter then whispers to her mother that her father has said no and they both look dejected. This doesn't last long through. Neilson announces that he will be away for two weeks on another job (he says he's going away to work on projects like house renovations when he is in fact embarking on his army style manoeuvres). We see a sly smile spread across his daughter's face at the news as she exchanges very knowing glances with her mother as if to say 'Hooray! He's out of our hair for a while!'
The film also acts as a snapshot of what life was really like in 1977. The red phone boxes the killer uses, the thoroughly ugly headboards and brown pyjama sets worn by the sub postmasters when they are rudely awoken in the middle of the night by Neilson robbing their business. The film also shows how terrifying it must have been to be woken up by a man in a blood hood brandishing a sown off shotgun in your face.
The BFI have done a great job with the Blu ray for the film as it looks and sounds amazing. There are also exhaustive liner notes from director Ian Merrick as to the curious history of the film, it's unwarranted suppression and it's re-emergence on Blu ray. There are also a wealth of extras such as short films and raw footage shot when locations were being sought for the film.
The Black Panther can now be seen for what it always was- an outstanding true crime film that was ahead of it's time.
Dirk Bogarde stars in this 1978 Fassbinder film as Hermann, a chocolate factory owner living in Berlin during the Weimar Republic who suffers from dissociation. He dreams of escape. On his travels he meets a homeless man who he thinks can imitate him in a scam. This will involve his faked murder so that he can escape his life. His wife will then receive a substantial insurance pay out because of his supposed death. In reality Hermann will vanish to Switzerland, live below the radar and start a new life. Will Hermann's plan go without a hitch?
I love the mystery of this film. It really is a puzzle of a film and sweeps us along on it's gorgeous journey. Twist follows turn and back again.
The whole cast are perfect with Dirk Bogarde being perfect as Hermann. The screenplay is brilliantly adopted from a Nabokov novel by Tom Stoppard with snappy and wicked dialogue that positively crackles.
The look of the film is muted and also beautiful because of it. It lends massively to why the film works so well as it's visually and uniformly a treat for the eyes. Enjoy the ride which will keep you guessing until the final frame.
This 1978 Fassbinder movie starts with the film's eponymous hero Maria getting married to her husband Hermann in Germany during World War II just as a bomb being dropped threatens to curtail proceedings. Thankfully the couple's union is officially sealed and Hermann then goes off to fight in the war himself.
After learning later that her new husband has been tragically killed Maria starts to go to a local bar frequented by American soldiers to work as a waitress. She meets a black US soldier called Bill who she then starts a relationship with. They are just getting it on one day when...to tell you anymore would be to reveal a huge plot detail that I'm not going to spoil for you!
I first heard about this film when at university studying Film Studies as one of my tutors had the poster for the movie on her office wall.
Whilst it's interesting to see a character doing what needs to be done to survive and indeed prosper within challenging circumstances, I found this film to be a bit, erm, flat. I've read great reviews regarding it with many critics and casual viewers stating the opinion that this is one of Fassbinder's best movies. When it was originally released it not only wowed the critics but also performed very well at the box office. But I think that this is maybe because many of the more radical and idiosyncratic aspects of Fassbinder's films aren't present here hence making it more palatable for cinemagoers used to more mainstream and linear films.
I think that if you have a lead character who can become so detached and cold as to exploit those around her for her own gain even if it's done in exceptionally destitute circumstances, you don't have an especially likeable character who audiences can engage with. At least that's what I felt. Plenty of critics and moviegoing audiences disagree though.
Not a complete disaster by any stretch of the imagination with great acting and fantastic cinematography as ever by Michael Ballhaus who would go on to work with Scorsese after his tenure with Fassbinder was over.
Fassbinder's 1971 film about a German film crew waiting for a production to start whilst on set in a Spanish hotel lobby.
The film starts with the verbal recanting of a Goofy cartoon. This is possibly the most linear part of the entire film's narrative but that's not an insult. The rest of the film shows fragments of how the characters interact on many different levels. The movie also shows the power relations and how these shift throughout the film's duration.
The film crew resemble a Germanic version of the trope of superstars Warhol used to use. With waiting comes emotions ranging from an utter lack of enthusiasm through to explosive rage about proceedings not starting when they should or crew members not doing what they should when filming does actually begin.
This film was based on Fassbinder's experiences of making the film Whity. It must have been hell for him judging by the events depicted here.
If you're looking for a film with a linear narrative, a 'start, middle and end', if you will, this isn't for you. But if you're looking to be swept away by Fassbinder into a film that is more of an experience, then you'll love this.
This early Fassbinder film concerns a group of dissatisfied and directionless young people who turn their attentions away from themselves and the relationships within their inner circle when a young Greek man arrives looking for work and lodging. Soon the group rumour mill goes into overdrive as they perceive the young man as an outsider and so demonise and persecute him.
Another great character driven piece by the German maestro with the ugliest facets of human nature being explored as the members of the insular and narrow minded group start to spread rumours and make their prejudices known towards young Jorgos. After an innocuous chance meeting in the street with one of the women from the gang, the group's Chinese Whispers soon snowball to him having tried to rape her as well as other crimes such as him being a Communist.
The men of the group then seize their opportunity to beat him up for crimes he isn't guilty of.
Conformity, group hysteria and mobbing by the gang are all explored perceptively within Katzelmacher which makes it, unfortunately, ring all too true.
Beautifully acted, perfectly framed and directed and with a gorgeous late 60's black and white which is icy cool and absolutely gorgeous.
Look out for the scene of the young woman dancing.
More Fassbinder goodness with this 1974 film as we see the central character start out as a happy go lucky woman who feels pressurised to find a man, settle down and adjust to married life. Her own parents are revealed to be in a loveless marriage until Martha's father collapses and dies when he is with his daughter on holiday in Italy.
I'm not going to give away too much about the plot and what happens during the course of the movie as I don't want to blunt the impact of the film but all I'll say is that this is a dark piece of cinema! And I mean DARK!
As the concept of coercive control is just starting to be spoken about in the popular media, Fassbinder had made a film about it 1974. And gaslighting. And marital sadism.
A special mention needs to go to Margit Carstensen in the lead role whose performance is nothing short of astonishing as we see her character's spirit and very existence being destroyed and disintegrating before our very eyes.
I also didn't know that Karlheinz Bohm had ever depicted a darker character than his star turn in Michael Powell's Peeping Tom. I was sooo wrong! His character here is a sadistic psychopath/narcissist and acted to grimy and reptilian perfection.
I remember when I saw the movie Threads for the first time. I thought to myself that it couldn't get any darker but then saw that that it was only halfway through it's running time. I then saw that it could get MUCH darker! The same happened when I watched Martha.
This does for marriage and societal expectations for women what Jaws did for sharks. When I watched this I kept thinking to myself 'I'm so glad that I'm gay. And that I'm happily single!'
Your life will be better for seeing this film. Seriously.
Emmi, a 60 year old widowed cleaner decides to enter a bar that is playing Arabic music to shield from the rain. She sits at a table on her own far from the regulars who are at the other side of the bar. They dare one of their entourage, Ali to go and ask her to dance. Whilst they think he will refuse instead he calls their bluff and complies.
With this Emmi and Ali get to know each other and this develops into a relationship. But with this the couple come face to face with societal prejudices regarding inter-racial relationships and their age gap.
Masterfully directed by Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Ali- Fear Eats The Soul shows how the love between Ali and Emmi is met with others hatred, ignorance and bigotries.
The couple are quickly ostracised and find themselves all alone which is depicted by the couple being depicted in long shots in many of the film's scenes. One such is the heartbreaking scene in which they both sit in the rain outside a restaurant where there are no other diners. The couple sitting at the middle table of a huge and empty seating area emphasises their ostracised status within the restaurant and society in general. In fact the only others there are the restaurant's staff who have decided to stand outside openly gawping at the couple in wide eyed disbelief that they would dare to be in a loving relationship whilst transgressing so many norms of what is acceptable and what isn't.
The scope of these extreme long shots which emphasise their isolation and separation is huge with Emmi and Ali being shown to be tiny within them. This emphasises just how cut off from everyone else they are whether that be the people around them or society as a whole. Another example is when they go to a restaurant just after they get married. The couple even seemingly break the fourth wall and look into the camera as they are shown to be the only figures in the frame and dwarfed by how far away the camera is and how small their figures are in the frame. Fassbinder holds this shot for seconds but it feels like hours with the audience being made to purposely feel a little uncomfortable at having the characters dwarfed in their surroundings whilst they look us in the eye.
Emmi is shown to be shunned by her family who took her for granted anyway and then by her work colleagues, her neighbours and even the owner of the small convenience store she used close to her apartment.
The issue of their relationship being built on love but without sex also poses a problem within the film with Ali going to the female owner of the bar for almost functional sexual fulfilment which Emmi finds out about. Again, we get another shot to depict Ali's loneliness and isolation, this time in another long shot but this time on his own sat on the bar owner's bed, completely alone and without Emmi just as she was alone when sat at the table in the bar at which they met.
The film shows that Emmi's family and friends only start to speak to her again and seemingly accept her new marriage when they need something- her babysitting duties when it comes to her son who had previously kicked in the screen of her TV on hearing the news of her marriage (a reference to Sirk's All That Heaven Allows which was an inspiration for this film), her storage space when a neighbours's son needs to store his belongings in a hurry, her custom and hence money when she is accepted again by the owner of the local shop.
The film also explores how powerful the need to fit in with societal norms really is with Emmi's narrow minded friends deciding to come to her apartment to meet Ali but which then leads to a scene in which Ali storms out to leave after being objectified by the women as a powerful, exotic object of their lust resplendent with big muscles. They express surprise when they find out that he even washes everyday just like any other civilised human being. Ali feels dehumanised by this and rightly leaves hastily. Even when he leaves, Emmi voices the opinion that it is down to his 'foreigner mentality' and 'others' him even further.
Emmi is received back into her gang of co-workers and by doing so ostracises a new woman who has joined her team just because she is an immigrant just like Ali. Toxic behaviour is evidently highly contagious.
During the film, Emmi goes to Ali's workplace to see him after he had left. She is then humiliated because of her age by his workmates who he laughs along with whilst pretending not to know who Emmi is. The pull of conformity and not wanting to be seen as 'other' or 'different' is a powerful one and affects both Ali and Emmi in different circumstances.
But nothing brings people together quicker than when adversity strikes and puts everything else into it's true perspective. And that's all I'm saying as I don't want to ruin the conclusion of this extraordinary film.
There are amazing performances all round but especially from Brigitte Mira as Emmi and the unbearably handsome El Hedi ben Salem as Ali. There's even an uncredited cameo by Fassbinder himself as Emmi's vile son in law.
Fassbinder's film is so well observed that it aches with the love between the two lead characters but also with the hatred and wilful lack of understanding from others that makes it so poignant and heartbreaking.
We also get a peek into the beauty of 70's Germany which acts as a fantastic backdrop to this extraordinary film.
Ali- Fear Eats The Soul is a masterpiece. It is so poignant that if it doesn't pluck at your heartstrings and stir your soul then you possibly don't possess either. It will stay with you long after the film has finished.
Ali-Fear Eats The Soul is beautiful and brutal and just as relevant today as it's ever been. Every now and again I watch a film that makes me think that my life is better for having seen it. Ali- Fear Eats The Soul is one such film.
I first saw Children of the Corn when it was first shown on UK TV in the mid 80's. The following day it would appear that most of my school friends had seen the movie too as we all recalled the events of the film in grisly and lurid detail.
On watching the film again recently I can say that it holds up very well indeed. The plot involves two characters called Vicky and Burt taking a roadtrip and happening upon a small Nebraska town called Gatlin. A major red flag goes up when the couple notice that on approaching the town the radio now only plays content that appears to be Baptist 'fire and brimstone' style sermons.
What Burt and Vicky don't know is that three years earlier the town's adultfolk had been slaughtered on the wishes of 13 year old Isaac who has set up his own religious sect with 'He Who Walks Behind The Rows' as their god, the rows being the huge cornfield which is central to Gatlin. A failed harvest had prompted the uprising with Isaac asserting that his new god needs human sacrifices to be appeased and so that there are bountiful harvests as a result. Young child Job wasn't involved as his father didn't like Isaac and so wasn't allowed to go to a gathering organised by Isaac for all of the town's children. Job's sister Sarah also wasn't there as she was severely ill with a fever. She is shown to have some kind of psychic powers and depicts what she sees from the future in the pictures she draws.
Things go from bad to worse for the adult couple who have now stumbled across the town which has been run by Isaac and his henchman deputy Malachi for three years now. When they hear about the adult trespassers they demand for them to be captured and then sacrificed to their cornrows deity. Poor Burt and Vicky. They discover Job and his sister who assist them in not becoming human sacrifices.
This film has a great premise which is based on a short story by Master of Horror Stephen King. The film also taps into one of the last taboos especially in film which is that of the killer child. And here we have scores of them. The milleu of the religious sect and the small details connected to this like the children being made to change their names to more biblical monikers also adds to the utterly sinister tone of the film. It also shows what can go wrong when a setback or downturn of fortunes can be taken as an opportunity by a charismatic person with sinister motives to come to prominence and give the downtrodden and disillusioned someone to believe in even though he/she is up to no good.
The opening scene takes place in a diner in which the children present (after being given the nod by Isaac) poison and violently slaughter the adults in attendance. I remember being utterly shocked by this scene in particular when I first saw the film and I can reliably report that it's hasn't lost any of it's power to shock decades later.
But this isn't the only sequence which has the power not just to shock but also to worm it's way inside your head. The sequence in which Vicky is placed on a cross with it then being hoisted up, the shot showing the weapons hanging from the hands of the children as they descent on a house which has one of the couple in it and the gruesome scene in the church as we see what happens to the children who come of age are such examples.
The casting of the movie is also excellent with Sarah Hamilton as Vicky and Peter Horton as Burt. But the attention to detail regarding the casting of the children is just as impressive. The casting of the freakishly sinister Isaac and his horrifyingly hillbilly deputy Malachi are inspired. In fact, it seems they cast every child with unconventional and unique looks.
Another great quality that the film possesses is whether He Who Walks Behind The Rows is actually a real supernatural force or just completely fabricated by Isaac.
There are also some 80's visual effects in the film which are still extremely pleasing to the eye and have aged very well indeed.
In fact the same can be said about the whole film. In lesser hands, this could have aged terribly and been forgotten about. Instead we get a film where thought and innovation were used to fully bring to life King's great plot idea and which still has it's own rabid fanbase. However the film still doesn't get enough praise or recognition when films are talked about which were adapted from King's novels. This is a real shame. Maybe this will change.
A mother and daughter in law (named in the credits as 'older woman' and 'younger woman' respectively) are waiting for their son/husband to return from the war he's fighting in. A soldier named Hachi who fought alongside him comes back to tell them that in fact he saw him killed. He then starts having a torrid affair with the daughter against the wishes of her mother in law. This is going on in secret although the mother in law knows all about it and is jealous. All of this continues until...well, that would be telling!
Breathtaking cinematography, a great plot, amazing acting and imagery that will stay with you well after the film has ended!
This film was banned outright when it was first submitted to the BBFC and then released heavily edited. It's now acknowledged as a classic with it being on the Criterion collection.
A teenage drag race goes dreadfully wrong with one car being forced off a bridge and into a river. From the car a woman, Mary manages to escape and clamber ashore.
However, Mary's life after that isn't the same. She seems to see ghostly figures when she seemingly disassociates herself with everyday life that is going on around her. One example takes place on a bus when she sees seemingly dead people coming for her. The film very creepily plays with space and time and does so without warning. The film is just as disconcerting and disorientating for the audience as it is for Mary.
The ghostly figures she sees seem to be led by a man (in reality, the film's director Herk Harvey) who seems intent on somehow coming for Mary to take her somewhere as yet unknown.
Mary is a church organist by occupation but even this is affected now with her only playing the kind of funereal pieces that in the future The Cure would be playing in 1981. Yes, they're that bleak! One priest who hears her playing stops her and deems her playing as 'Profane! Sacrilege!'
Add to this a very sleazy and creepy housemate who gets off on perving on her as she gets out of the bath and won't let up.
The action builds up to an ending that actually takes place in an abandoned fairground. This all adds up to a truly great cinematic experience. There are sequences of this film that are far removed from anything I've ever seen in a motion picture before or since. The haunting photography, the use of some sequences such as a dancing scene in the carnival being sped up, the way the film takes the audience with Mary as she enters her limbo world where the dead walk and stalk her.
The idea of a limbo world between life and death was also brilliantly explored later on in the classic movie Don't Look Now. Carnival of Souls went on to influence George A Romero who said that it was a huge influence on Night of the Living Dead as did David Lynch on Blue Velvet. The influence of the film can also be seen within the better parts of the Goth movement. The sequence where the undead run after Mary on the beach feels like a fantastic Goth version of something from a Fellini film.
Carnival of Souls is an anomaly in cinematic terms, a one-off which is like no other. It's also a masterpiece. I'm so glad it wasn't forgotten. It was restored and released cinematically in 1989 after it's original 1962 release and is now on the Criterion collection on Blu ray alongside the best of cinema. And rightly so!
As soon as I saw that this 1965 Amicus film was directed by Freddie Francis I knew that the direction and photography would be beautiful. And I was right! I was also excited as I knew that this was a horror anthology film and starred two heavyweights of the genre, Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee.
As well as Cushing and Lee the cast also includes Alan 'Fluff' Friedman, Donald Sutherland and Roy 'You're a Record Breaker!' Castle. We even get Kenny Lynch appearing in a cameo role.
Travellers in a train compartment are joined by the very sinister Dr Schreck who whips out his deck of tarot cards and tells each of his fellow traveller's fortunes. Each fortune told is a separate episode in this anthology.
The separate stories involve vampirism, a vine seemingly related to a Triffid that comes to life, lycanthropy, voodoo and black magic and a severed hand. I want to give more details away about each segment but there are so many brilliant twists and turns that writing any more would be like trying to tiptoe through a field full of landmines.
Each episode is completely different from each other, taking place in a real breadth of locales and circumstances which keeps the film as a whole really varied and interesting.
This film has all the ingenuity of five separate mini episodes of Tales of the Unexpected. Each concept is unpredictable, genuinely ingenious and likely to surprise most viewers.
A joy from start to finish with perhaps the biggest twist coming after each of the characters fortunes has been told.
Cult cinema at it's purest. Terrible but VERY enjoyable!
A few things about this film should attract cult film aficionados. Firstly, it stars John Saxon and Lynda Day George. It was also released on the infamous video label VIPCO (home of Zombie Flesh Eaters and Shogun Assassin in the early 80's). It's also features some of the cheapest special effects I've ever seen which have aged incredibly badly. In other words, it's great fun and has plenty of things going for it.
A couple move to a tropical island and find a mansion that is so cheap that they have to buy it. But it then becomes apparent that Barbara (George) is showing signs of being possessed by the evil spirit of the wife of the previous owner who was practising the occult before she ended up killing and being killed by her husband.
This is kitsch cult cinema at it's purest- bad effects, bad acting, bad plot. BUT, very enjoyable because of it. This film has, erm, character! This movie would be perfect if you stumbled upon it on an obscure cable channel late at night.
Massively underrated. Horror, intelligence and great characters
George A Romero's 2009 zombie flick and a concept that involves the found footage of a film student assembled into a movie by one of the film's other characters. All of the movie is shot on camcorders and other similar devices available at the time commercially.
This found footage chronicles a group of film studies students who are travelling home across country. They witness firsthand and record the apparent dead coming back to life as zombies.
The film gets the balance right between narrative for the casual film viewer, gore for the purist horror fans and metaphor/soul searching content for the serious cineaste (there are plenty of issues raised about what the truth actually is, the suppression of the truth by the mainstream media, the truth being conveyed by bloggers and those not working in the corporate media. The idea of what the truth is is also relevant regarding filmmaking in general as the 'truth' you are seeing is in fact the truth of the person who has shot the footage and also the person who has edited it).
The film never lags and feels like a fresh perspective on the zombie genre and Romero's Living Dead series in general. The characters are interesting with the audience fully engaging with them and wanting to see what will happen to them. Most importantly, they're not irritating.
But for the horror fans there are also new and innovative kills concerning how to kill a zombie. The scene involving a pickaxe being used whereby a freshly bitten human kills both himself and the zombie who has just taken a chunk out of him at the same time has to be seen to be believed.
We even get Romero's take on if zombies should run or not after the Dawn remake and the undead's speed and athleticism therein. A character says that zombies would never run as their ankles would break as (duh) they're dead. And he's right.
A very exclusive school is lobotomising (what is it about lobotomies in my choice of films for this year's 31 Days of Halloween?!) it's students so that they become the kind of upstanding captains of industry that makes society great. This is the High School version of The Stepford Wives.
Played more for comedy than horror, this film isn't as irritating as many other horror-comedies. Great characters, especially the unconventional supporting players and nice art direction help proceedings pass very well indeed.
The idea of the school being a kind of sausage factory to make capitalist highflyers out of isn't really explored enough but who cares as this is a late 80's horror comedy yarn after all.
Notable for it's cast which includes Virginia Madsen, Sherilyn 'Laura Palmer' Fenn and Richard 'Cruising' Cox all of whom should be known to cult film/TV fans.
When I saw that Robin Askwith headed the cast of this British 70's horror flick I instantly thought of the brilliant bawdy comedies The Confessions series which he starred in and were delightfully mucky and low-brow. Perfect for the era. If Mr Askwith could prove a huge hit with the sexploitation brigade surely he could score big when it came to another low brow form of entertainment, the horror film.
Here he plays Jason Jones who works in the music industry but after his manager rips off one of his songs he decides to escape via a company offering getaway breaks ('Hairy Holidays'!) and heads away from London and the music scene. He meets a girl on a train and they get on handsomely. She is even going to the same 'health farm' that he is headed to.
And so the adventure begins. Even the ticket collector at the station they arrive at is like someone from a Hammer horror film. However, this holiday destination is actually a hospital in which the residents are wayward hippies and permissive types who are then lobotomised.
The resulting adventure is part horror film, part groovy campathon which it accomplishes with relish. There is a cast of various oddball supporting characters that are just as entertaining as the main players and there are great touches such as the car fitted with a huge knife that shoots out to behead anyone brave enough to try and escape.
This film captures a great time in British film when films were made for the young with their content being just as boundary transgressing as the youth of the day themselves. Hence genres such as bawdy, racy comedies and bloody (but humorous) horror was the order of the day. A golden era.
As lurid as the paisley underpants Askwith wore in the Confessions movies.
A horror sequel for those who know NOTHING about good horror films
I remember when this was released on home video in 1988. I couldn't wait to watch it as the poster alone harked back to the original film, it's mythology and the very Panaglide soaked vision that helped make it such a masterpiece. I was hoping for the film to be just as impressive. If they could have a decent stab (pun not intended) at reproducing the feel of the first film with it's excellent first sequel taking place in Haddonfield Memorial Hospital then they could do it with this new film.
However, the film was closer to the tacky UK poster made for the film. I saw H4 on home video and HATED it! Would I feel the same when I embarked on watching it recently as I did in 1989?
The answer is 'Yes' I still hated it but with many more years of film criticism under my belt I was better equipped to articulate why I despise it so much.
So what is Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers? It's part teen drama, part TV Movie of the Week, part very violent episode of Goosebumps and last but certainly not least, it's a cynical horror franchise sequel for idiots who wouldn't know a decent horror film if they tripped over it.
The plot of the film goes like this- both Dr Loomis and Myers sustained horrific injuries after the literally explosive ending of Halloween 2 but both survived (of course). Mikey Boy has been in a coma for the ten years following this (the action takes place here during Halloween 1988) and is just about to be (stop if you think you've heard this one before...) transferred between hospitals. In the ambulance during this journey he hears that he has in fact got a niece and as she's unlucky enough to be within the female line of the Myers family tree he kills his escorts and escapes to try to get to his niece to finish her off.
This is all so reminiscent of the first film that already the film shows that it's been made to give the fans exactly what they want but whilst not adding anything new when it comes to the plot. It also very quickly establishes that everything that made the first film a masterpiece doesn't get a look in.
Halloween 4 really is just a man in a Michael Myers mask (and a crap one at that) stalking and killing people. No art, all base level vacuous nonsense. Not that a horror film has to be 'art' but a sense of tension, imagination and innovation are always welcome within a horror film project. Even making a blatant cash cow of a film project can still have all of these qualities whilst still giving the fans what they want and making a decent film at the same time.
And what's worse, Michael's niece, Jamie is so unlikeable that you're just praying for Uncle Mikey to accomplish the job very quickly indeed.
Not even the odd mildly entertaining moment such as the lynch mob killing the wrong guy instead of Michael can save this stodgy mess. The ending is so bad it's laughable. In fact, for a terrible moment the filmmakers even suggest with such an ending that a whole slew of movies which would feature Jamie as the killer. Now that would be REAL horror.
You know you know nothing about horror or filmmaking in general if you walked out at the end of Halloween 3 and your first response was 'Where's Michael?!' instead of marvelling at it's brilliant cinematography, direction, soundtrack let alone being blessed enough to have spent an hour and a half in the company of Tom 'The Man' Atkins.
Halloween 4 is the film made for people who just watch horror films because people are killed in them, without knowing anything about what makes a great horror movie. Halloween 4 is the anti-Halloween 3. And that's one of many reasons why I hate it so much.
A young cartoonist Josh chats up a young woman named Cheryl in the street (the board at Gillette must be despairing at this) but when she collapses she is then taken to a nearby hospital in an ambulance which has been called for her. When Josh tries to track her down there appears to be no trace of her being taken to any hospital in an ambulance. Josh then learns that the same fate happened to Cheryl's roommate. Something fishy is going on. Does it have anything to do with that specific ambulance?
With such a great premise I was expecting a cross between Coma and Maniac Cop. But, alas instead this is more like a TV movie that feels very slight and somewhat hollow.
I was also expecting more as this was directed by the great Larry Cohen and whilst there are some great directorial flourishes and some great dialogue which Cohen also wrote (all of the supporting characters in Cohen's films have the best in quirky left-field comebacks), they don't save this movie.
A sumptuous, disturbing masterpiece. You won't forget this in a hurry.
A young man who can restore frescos (ancient works of art) arrives to restore one such artwork but finds events within the remote town to be far from normal. Indeed, they are downright bizarre. Does the fresco hold any clues? Does it depict what people have been led to believe it shows? Will the events directly affect Stefano?
This Italian film is one hell of a gorgeous (and VERY disturbing) journey. Not only do we get the backstory of the artist who first painted the fresco but also the freaky events that are happening in the Valli di Commacchio area that the action takes place in.
With all the best of Italian horror/gialli, it also makes you want to go to Italy and experience such a seemingly fantastic and aesthetically pleasing way of life. The photography is magnificent. I'd love to see this film on the big screen.
The locales are sumptuous, the characters are left field to the max (at times I kept think of the films of Jodorowsky) which all adds to the overall vision and atmosphere of this gorgeous film.
I'd love to speak about the conclusion of the film but that would massively spoil the entire film for those of you who haven't been lucky enough to see it yet. Also, if I tried to write down what happens you probably wouldn't believe me. Just to say- it's surreal, can't be predicted and gets under your skin and inside your head and remains there long after the actual film has ended. Fantastic.
A young couple have their young baby snatched away from them and offered as a human sacrifice to an ancient tree to prolong it's life by the infant's nanny. We then see a short time later the Druid nanny from Hell starts new employment caring for another couple's child.
This tautly and stunningly beautiful film was director William Friedkin's first excursion into the horror genre again after that low-key film that he directed in 1973 that no-one ever talks about anymore. Just kidding. Friedkin's first horror movie after The Exorcist was bound to garner much press and this film did. It was also predictable that any film that wasn't as genre-defining and revolutionary as The Exorcist would provide howls of derision and bad reviews which was the fate for The Guardian.
I refuse to think of any film directed by William Friedkin to be irredeemably bad or massively flawed. And this truly is the case with The Guardian. Amazingly directed, beautifully shot, pinpoint perfect performances (a big shoutout goes to Jenny Seagrove as the anti-Mary Poppins) and you have a taut 1990 film that has more positives than negatives. If anything is lacking it's maybe the generic source material and the constant re-writes that affected the film. But it's interesting to see such a great director working on strictly genre fare and seeing what happens. This reminds me of Martin Scorsese directing Cape Fear and seeing what he could do within such parameters.
The horror scenes are great and the buildup of tension is lovingly established. The film establishes the feeling of placing the well being of your baby into someone else's life and that someone turning out to be a nutjob (if only the film had ditched the supernatural element and made it about a psycho nanny instead. This film could have been to childcare what Jaws was to sharks). The loss of control and the erosion of some of the most precious parental boundaries are fully explored here and the result makes for a very chilling film.
Time has been very kind to The Guardian. It's established a fanbase and isn't the disaster some critics would have you believe it was at the time. In fact, it's a very good movie.
A remake of the much loved and revered masterpiece Dawn of the Dead was always going to be sneered at by fans and film scholars alike when the project was announced.
I actually saw the film on it's release when I was visiting Glasgow and was expecting to roll my eyes constantly whilst saying 'Psst!' under my breath a few hundred times (but not too loudly...) during the film's running time. I was pleasantly surprised though. Whilst it was no worthy competition for Romero's original film in terms of it's coveted place in horror history, it was far from mediocre. In fact, it was really rather good!
The opening scenes show central character Ana finish a long shift as a nurse at her local hospital and return home. The next day a little girl from her neighbourhood comes into her house and shows that all it not well. She has changed into a zombie and fatally attacks her partner, ripping out a chunk of his neck with her teeth. Very quickly, he then springs back to life and also in a zombiefied state like the girl who attacked him.
Ana gets to her car and we then see that the very fabric of society has broken down almost completely. People are either dead and running around as zombies and trying to kill others, or they are still human but have either gone completely crazy (witness Ana's neighbour armed with a gun) or are in 'survival of the fittest' mode with no regard for anyone else around them (someone attempts to hijack Ana's car by trying to jump into it).
After running off the road, Ana crosses paths with cop Kenneth who, with other characters (one of them pregnant!), goes to the neighbouring mall for refuge.
The mall is where the majority of the rest of the movie takes place just like the original. There's even a nod to the first film with a sign for a shop called Gaylen Ross. The theme of a crisis bringing out the best and worst in a person's character is explored well here with the security guards who are already in the shopping centre having marked it as their territory and only letting the new arrivals take refuge if they surrender their weapons and adhere to their rules and laws. This is very Lord of the Flies.
The next day even more characters are interjected into the narrative by way of a delivery truck and we now have our cast in place for the rest of the film. And this is one of the major strengths for the remake and that is that the characters are so brilliantly sketched and well rounded. There is a fantastic diversity and range within the characters with some changing by the time of the film's conclusion so that our expectations are constantly being challenged and contradicted with seemingly vile people redeeming themselves and vice versa.
The film also perceptively displays human relationships at work. On first arrival most of the characters rub along pretty well. But being in a confined space together soon causes divisions and differences to develop and flare up. The film soon becomes something akin to events in a season of Big Brother but with, obviously, more at stake.
As well as great characterisation we also get great make up and effects. The special effects for the film were actually by the company owned by Heather Langenkamp aka Nancy Thompson from the Nightmare on Elm Street films! She should be very proud with the results as they are fabulous.
Scott Reiniger, Ken Foree and Tom Savini from the original all get cameos well as the Gaylen Ross reference/homage.
The zombies in this film move a lot faster than their blue-skinned counterparts from the original which massively divided fans with Romero himself saying that he didn't like this aspect. I personally think it doesn't really bother me as it's something new just like the film itself. There's also a new rule regarding the dead turning into zombies with there being a set time of a few seconds before the dead arise again. I thought this was also an interesting new aspect of this remake/reimagining.
There is also some great humour in the movie also. Witness the 'Celebrity Squares' game that Kenneth plays with his gun shop buddy who is trapped on the roof of his business nearby. This also blossoms into a great moment of camaraderie and dare I say bromance between the two characters. Again, this echoes the same kind of relationship that Scott and Peter had in the original. I thought that it was great that this was reproduced in the remake.
I have to say though that on watching this film again for this review after seeing it on it's original release brought diminishing returns this time around. It was almost like when you know what to expect with this remake half of the fun has gone.
This remake will never come close to the original film. But on first viewing it was interesting, innovative and had some artistic merit. It's also a great rollercoaster ride that didn't make me roll my eyes once.
A sequel to Village of the Damned which is less a continuation of the plot and instead like a film containing characters who possess the same powers as the children in the original but under different circumstances.
Whereas the original took part in a countryside idyll, the action within this film is based in London. A gifted child called Paul is studied and observed by the relevant governmental authorities. Other almost supernaturally gifted children are also discovered and brought to the city so that UNESCO researchers can witness them at work. They are brought from places as varied as China, Russia and Nigeria.
These gifted children then abscond from each of their respective embassies that they are staying in and take refuge in an abandoned church. It's here that the authorities and the army find them and have to decide whether to try to coax the children out or destroy them if they pose a threat to humanity. It's here that a tense standoff encroaches.
This film as opposed to the original is firmly on the side of the children who we see as persecuted and in need of human support. The original depicted them as inhuman, devoid of emotion and empathy and very much as villains in a horror film. Children of the Damned elicits sympathy and compassion for the children who are shown as unjustly discriminated against, ostracised and treated as freaks in many ways. Having high levels of intelligence and other powers such as telekinesis are gifts but also hindrances. Witness the speech Paul's mother shrieks at him that she should have destroyed him before she took him in her arms for the first time.
I made the mistake of reading the reviews for this film before I actually watched it. The few examples I could find were derogatory and very unflattering. They were also wrong, in my humble opinion. Children of the Damned may not be as good as the original film it is a sequel to but is still a vivid, well written, engaging film that is well worth a view. The shots of 60's London are beautiful. A special mention to Ian Hendry (Repulsion) who heads a stellar cast.
The head of a theatre troupe Alan (think of a cross between Charles Manson and Timothy Claypole in lurid and very colourful 60's clothing) takes his fellow thespians (who he refers to as his 'children') to an island which is used as a kind of graveyard for dead criminals. He then assumes the role of a religious leader, puts on robe he just happens to have brought with him and proceeds to try and raise the dead using his knowledge of magic. Whilst this (seemingly) doesn't work they dig up the dead body of a man called Orville. However later on in the film the dead do indeed rise again and get their revenge. They board the actor's boat at the end of the film.
The director of this film is listed as Benjamin Clark but is in fact Bob Clark who went on to make the masterpieces Dead of Night and Black Christmas. Allan Ormsby who plays Alan went on to direct the excellent Ed Gein biopic Deranged.
This film has an interesting vibe to it that is similar to the counterculture early 70's vibe of Wes Craven's Last House on the Left (but without the violence or genuine transgression). This is gritty low budget filmmaking that points to the drive-in but also to the arthouse realm.
The colour palette of the cast's wardrobe is like watching an acid trip with each character wearing a different very bright colour and when more than one cast member is in the frame together it's a trip. In fact theres a shot in the movie of the cast members all lines up behind each other and it's like a spectrum of colour. The audience members on certain substances must have loved this sequence.
This is an interesting film but far from being some kind of 60's classic. The title is very misleading also.