Mubi Monday: The White Reindeer (1952)

If you only see one Finnish movie that makes use of folklore and reindeer to explore the themes of lycanthropy (maybe subtly altered to the word “lycaribouthropy”) and the danger of getting what you think you want then The White Reindeer is the film for you.

The very heart of the movie is Pirita (Mirjami Kuosmanen), a young woman who falls in love with, and marries, a reindeer herder named Aslak (Kalervo Nissilä). Sadly, Aslak has to be away from home a lot while he works, of course, and Pirita starts to feel concerned about losing his love. So, as you do, she asks a local shaman to make her even more desirable. The shaman makes her wish come true, but not necessarily in the way she expected.

I cannot say that I am familiar with director Erik Blomberg. Nor was I familiar with Kuosmanen, who helped to write the screenplay as well as taking on the central role. Whether or not they did anything else that equaled this, I will be interested if I ever see their names attached to anything else I watch on my never-ending journey throughout the halls of cinema. Both do excellent work here, delivering something as beautiful and poetic as it is succinct (the runtime is just over 70 minutes, and it delights and/or rewards viewers in every scene).

While there are good supporting performances, the whole thing rests on the shoulders of Kuosmanen, who effortlessly excels at being mesmerising throughout. Nissilä has less to do, generally, but he’s fine, and Arvo Lehesmaa gets to steal a couple of scenes as the shaman who irrevocably changes the life of our lead character.

This isn’t a film about the performances though, as good as they are. It is about the stunning visuals (and the landscape shots and framing here ARE stunning, the black and white cinematography providing so many frames that, to use a well-worn phrase, could easily be cut out and framed as a gorgeous painting), it’s about the way of living being presented, and it is about a woman left feeling unwanted, having lost that fire and chemistry that often comes along at the start of a relationship before evolving into something . . . different. Fires are replaced with a central heating system, chemistry leads to strong connection, and there’s more to this protracted analogy, but I think I should just stop now.

Let me just emphasise that, despite what may be viewed as a slim plot presented in a slim runtime, The White Reindeer is as densely packed and satisfyingly rich as a number of other cinematic classic I could mention. It moves between light and dark with ease, and I have used the “horror” label here to flag it up to those who are happy to explore the many ways in which the genre can be reworked and repurposed, and I look forward to revisiting it numerous times in the years ahead. As so often happens, I wish I had given my time and attention to this long before now.

10/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Netflix And Chill: Never Play With The Dead (2001)

Here's the downside of constantly seeking out new and interesting horror movies. You can go into many of them without knowing anything about them. And if you don't know anything about them then that increases the chance of it not being a good movie. It's also the way to find the "undiscovered gems", which is why horror fans often spend their time taking such risks, arguably more so than fans of other genres.

So I saw Never Play With The Dead, a British horror movie from 2001 that I'd never heard of, and decided to give it a go. That turned out to be a big mistake.

Things start with a group of young children breaking into an abandoned building. They don't seem to come out, but things then jump forward in time. The abandoned building is still abandoned, but it is about to be livened up by a group of young men and women who are looking to host a rave party there. As well as taking care of the business side of things, Craig (Mark Homer) has given himself a big headache by inviting Victoria (Kara Tointon) along, which causes tension among the women, and has Craig's girlfriend (Sarah Kayte Foster) suspicious of his behaviour and motivation.

The only full feature film to be directed by Ray Kilby (who has also directed one TV movie and episodes of various TV shows), and also the only feature written by David Fedash, Never Play With The Dead feels, perhaps unsurprisingly, like an extended TV episode. It reminded me of shows like Dramarama and Urban Gothic, with everything competent enough, but not quite cinematic, and a cast full of faces you have seen somewhere else, even if you cannot remember exactly where you saw them, but that is doing a slight disservice to those shows. They made the most of a certain format, and the limitations of whatever timeslot they were going to appear in. This, on the other hand, feels like it was thrown together by people, both behind and in front of the camera, who didn't really want to do it.

The cast never feel like they're doing more than local theatre work, with the exception of Mohammed George (who is, unfortunately, absent for about half of the movie), the plotting is ridiculously padded out, considering the core of the film is an idea that could have been presented in a 5/10-minute short, and there are no attempts to create any legitimate scares or tension. Well, there may be attempts, but I couldn't tell you. Nothing here felt even close to being atmospheric, effective, or even just enjoyably bloody.

Although titled Never Play With The Dead, this could just as easily, and just as accurately, been called Never Play This Movie. Because that is the advice I am giving people. Including those who were involved in making it. I just hope they were able to keep it hidden away in their CV.

2/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Shudder Saturday: Dark Glasses (2022)

Ilenia Pastorelli stars as Diana, an Italian escort who ends up losing her sight when she is attacked by a serial killer. She then meets Rita (Asia Argento), someone aiming to help her adjust to her life without sight, and enlists the help of a small child, Chin (Andrea Zhang), to be her eyes for her. The killer wants to finish what they started though, and it seems inevitable that Diana will lose more than her sight.

When this movie was first announced, horror fans were excited. Dario Argento, a once-great master of cinema, was seemingly returning to the giallo style of movie that had so often given us his best work. Hopes were high that this could banish the memory of the last film he directed a decade ago, the abysmal Dracula 3D. I even started to hear positive reviews from people who saw this at festival screenings. 

Those people lied!

Okay, admittedly, some will just like this more than others, and it is much better than his Dracula movie. But that is like saying cholera is better than the plague. The world would be better off without either. And maybe it is time for Argento to hang up his hat. We all have to accept that he’s probably not going to deliver another classic that would make a perfect end to his directorial career (although his involvement in the powerful and heart-breaking Vortex show that he could maybe collaborate with others in a way that would be beneficial to everyone).

Dark Glasses feels like on of those scripts you sometimes see created by AI. Everything is present and correct, in terms of the tropes that Argento has worked with throughout his career, but nothing feels quite right. Events unfold, but don’t always feel naturally connected to one another. There are occasional bursts of violence, but they feel unimpressive and lacking in any energy. It is, overall, impossible to care about anything, or anyone, in the film.

Pastorelli and Zhang have some good moments together, Asia Argento gives a performance that actually works well (a pleasant surprise), and there is supporting work from Andrea Gherpelli and Mario Pirrello, as well as one or two others, that adds to the potential for a lot of fun. Sadly, that potential is never realised.

It all boils down to the fact that Argento seems to have lost his way, forgotten how he made moments of cinema that were so impactful, that made such an indelible impression on so many viewers. There is no point in criticising the script, co-written by Argento and Franco Ferrini, because these movies aren’t usually focused on the writing. The technical side of things (including the score by Arnaud Rebotini) is all competent. But competent is not what you expect, or want, from Dario Argento. 

I didn’t expect this to be on the same level as his best work, that would be a tall order indeed, but I was hoping to see one or two scenes that contained flashes of brilliance, breadcrumbs rewarding those who keep hoping that an immense talent hasn’t entirely disappeared. There was nothing here. You could even say that something so lacklustre MIGHT make you admire the craziness of his Dracula movie a bit more. I won’t ever say that, but you could.

3/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Sting Of Death (1966)

If you  are going to watch some low-budget nonsense about people being terrorised in watery environments then I think you owe it to yourself to watch at least one of the memorable features directed by William Grefé. I am not saying they are memorable for the right reasons, but I cannot bring myself to dislike his goofy attempts to entertain viewers. His films feel dangerous, he often has ambition far outweighing his resources, and they at least try to do things that are, for better or worse, a step removed from the norm.

Sting Of Death is a title that comes close to evoking what the movie is about, but doesn’t quite give you the full picture. If you expect some dangerous jellyfish then you would be correct. You probably wouldn’t expect someone to have figured out a way to become half-human and half-jellyfish though, and that is the extra silliness that is served up here.

Valerie Hawkins plays Karen Richardson, a young woman who is visiting her father, a doctor (played by John Nagle), with a group of friends accompanying her. There is another doctor present, the handsome John Hoyt (played by Joe Morrison), and there’s also an “Igor”-like assistant named Egon (John Vella). And numerous jellyfish, of course.

If you want some real scares, lively dialogue, and something that feels as if those involved had more than $50 available to them then this isn’t for you. The script, written by William Kerwin (credited as Al Dempsey), is flimsy, and also laughable, and Grefé doesn’t let any limitations stop him from showcasing his special effects, which seem to be a number of plastic bags being used in place of various jelly creatures.

The acting is generally quite poor, although Vella is hugely entertaining with his over the top performance, and there is a random sequence that has cool kids dancing to a groovy tune and partying in a lifeless way that feels exactly like what it is, filler, but the strange mix of weak performances just adds to the charm. Grefé seemed to rope in anyone he could (I am not staying this as fact, but he certainly seemed to go for availability ahead of talent), knowing that the focus would be on the creature(s).

Again, I need to finish with an emphasis on this, Sting Of Death isn’t a good movie. And I would still rewatch it ahead of many other films. What it lacks in skill and polish, it makes up for in a sense of pluckiness, charm, and DIY derring-do.

5/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Terrifier 2 (2022)

First off, to be clear, I didn’t love Terrifier. The first feature film for “new horror icon” Art The Clown, Terrifer had some great gore gags, but suffered from a distinct lack of any actual plot, and uneven pacing. I just think the character works better in the short films he first appeared in, including his appearance in the horror anthology flick All Hallow’s Eve (also from writer-director Damien Leone).

So you might have already guessed how I feel about Terrifier 2, a film that follows the gory exploits of Art The Clown for over 2 hours. There is, once again, very little actual plot, the pacing is still an issue, and it all feels like a bit of a slog in between far-too-infrequent highlights.

I know I am in the minority here, and I certainly don’t want to take anything away from Leone or David Howard Thornton, the actor who has helped to make his killer clown character so memorable, but I really wish Art The Clown had stayed as a character used in short films and anthology movies. It is hard to deny, however, that Art HAS become a new horror icon, despite me placing that phrase in quotation marks in the first paragraph to show my resistance to that idea when the first feature was released. He has a great look, there is a mischievous side to all of the nastiness and killing, and many horror fans already consider him a firm favourite.

The gore here is extremely squelchy and bloody, although I’m not sure that anything here truly warrants the headlines you may have seen (all about cinema audience members who fainted or vomited, or were shaken to their very core). Every gag benefits from great practical FX work, but everything is also pushed further and further, to the point of comedic exaggeration. Unfortunately, once you have seen how far the film will go, in terms of the blood and gore, every other death scene feels a bit tiresome. There is no escalation, you cannot be shocked if the opening scenes have already leaned so hard into the extreme, and that makes everything a bit more boring than it should be.

In my preferred version of this film (and what do I know? the film has already been massively successful), Art is given more moments that focus on the absurdity and humour. There is a great sequence with him being a pesky customer in a shop that I wanted to see more of, but it all has to end in yet another gory death. I also loved almost every scene that had Art accompanied by a childish evil spirit (played brilliantly by Amelie McLain), but nothing was satisfyingly developed there either, allowing it to be another aspect of the film that peaked when it first occurred.

Aside from Thornton and McLain, both excellent, there’s a very likable lead performance from Lauren LaVera as Sienna, a young woman who may have the power to destroy Art, and Elliott Fullam is very good as Sienna’s younger brother, Jonathan. There are many other people onscreen, but they all merge into one collage of gory murder in my mind. That’s what happens when you make a movie putting gory murders ahead of anything like plot or character (another great shame, because Sienna and Jonathan have great potential, when not sidelined in favour of yet another gore gag).

Fair play to Leone. He has managed to make the movies that he has wanted to make, as far as I can tell, and a large part of the horror community has responded positively to his work. With that winning combo of Art The Clown and so many genuinely impressive practical effects, it’s easy to see why. I have just never been won over.

If you like the main character and you want a load of bloodshed then you will find enough to enjoy here. But if you are looking for anything else (from quality production design to fun dialogue, from interesting supporting players to satisfying character arcs) then you will need to look elsewhere. Oh, a bonus point for the excellent score by Paul Wiley. That is it though. There just wasn’t enough here, for me, to lift this above average.

4/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Prime Video: The Haunting Of Goodnight Lane (2014)

AKA Ghost Of Goodnight Lane.

It is always odd to write a review for a film that doesn’t have much you were fully receptive to. That doesn’t mean the film is terrible. It just may not have enough decent plot to discuss, or any cast or crew members who really stand out. But a film not having enough in it to discuss hasn’t ever stopped me from writing a review before, and it isn’t going to stop me now.

Beginning with a death caused by what we can only assume is a vengeful/evil spirit, The Haunting Of Goodnight Lane is a very straightforward bit of horror entertainment. There is a group of people trying to complete a project in a film studio area (well, it is a building that is currently being used as a small film studio), and weird things start to happen. Then more people start to die, by which time it may be too late for anyone to actually escape.

Despite some key people hired to show their faces onscreen, this is a film that feels cheap. But, importantly, it doesn’t feel lazy and careless. There is nothing here that is original, the script by Amy Acosta and director Alin Bijan places chills and fun ahead of plausibility and any sense of realism, but there is also no pretension or delusions of grandeur. That’s surprisingly refreshing, especially when everything is delivered in a way that is at least technically competent. The visuals aren’t all hidden away behind a load of jittery editing and filters (although some scenes get a bit busy), and one key performance helps to underline the self-aware humour of the whole thing.

That performance comes from the one and only Billy Zane, playing the typical man in charge who wants everyone to forget the potential danger around them until he finishes his latest job. Zane is a lot of fun, whether he is pulling tank to get everyone working again or being a bit sleazy with the main actress (played by Christine Quinn) due to revisit the studio. I am not going to pretend that every character registered with me, because this is a film in which you just expect everyone to die at some point, but having Lacey Chabert in a main role was a plus, and then bringing Danielle Harris in just before the halfway point also helped. I like both, and they did perfectly okay here (although it was far from their best work). Another good addition was Brina Palencia as Micah, the “misbehaving” woman who could easily have her absence excused by the others if she happened to disappear at some point.

Look at that. We made it. This is the end of a review I started with a warning about not having much to say. The Haunting Of Goodnight Lane is similar to 101 other cheap horror movies you could choose to watch, many of them using one or two bigger names to draw you in, but it’s also better than a lot of them. It actually makes decent use of the likes of Zane, Chabert, and Harris (instead of relegating them to a cameo filmed during a spare 5 minutes). Richard Tyson is another bonus, but used just for the opening sequence. And the storyline that unfolds is far from the worst I have seen in the horror genre. 

Does it all make sense? Of course not. Do characters act in a way that normal people would act? Nope. Got to hand it to director Bijan though, he paces it perfectly, ensures that most shots look well enough, and simply feels like he has treated the supernatural silliness with a bit of professionalism and care. That is something you can feel throughout the film, and it makes a hell of a difference. Despite enough negatives bringing this down slightly, in terms of choices made with the tone and performances, I would happily rewatch this. And I would even watch a sequel.

5/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Matriarch (2022)

If people know me at all, either from my reviews or from conversations we have had, then they will know that I have always pushed back against the dangerous mottos that push family ahead of everything else. Blood may be thicker than water, but both substances can be so toxic that they cause you physical harm. “You can choose your friends, but you can’t choose your family” is just complete nonsense. You can decide who you want to keep close to you, and you can make a family unit from good friends. Arguably worse than all of this stuff, and arguably even more harmful, are all of the little sayings, and Disneyfied brainwashing, that places every mother on a pedestal. Whether it is “mother knows best” or “others can come and go, but your mum is always your mum”, I heartily disagree. Being the son of an abusive alcoholic will colour your views on these things.

Matriarch is a dark, but not entirely unfunny, horror movie from writer-director Ben Steiner, making his feature debut, and it asks viewers to accept an increasingly ridiculous premise that actually works really well in showing how people will put up with a lot of abuse and (micro)aggression over the years just because they have been acclimatized to it by a family unit that has decided upon the overall environment for their upbringing.

Jemima Rooper plays Laura, a young woman hurtling off the rails so quickly, and so seriously, that she ends up heading to the last place she ever thought she would return to. Her family home. Reuniting with her mother, Celia (Kate Dickie), Laura soon starts to suspect that she has made a big mistake. Old wounds are still very easily re-opened, things feel very much like as if they haven’t changed much, and her mother looks a LOT younger than they should. What is going on? Is there something strange happening, or has Laura misremembered major portions of her childhood, perhaps replacing imagery in her drink/drug-addled brain that she is now struggling to correct?

A film that would make a very interesting companion piece to Men, I keep joking that this could have easily been titled #notallmums, Matriarch is a challenging and bravura piece of work. Partly a cold psychological horror, partly a Cronenbergian journey through a womb of darkness, Stein crafts everything nicely in service to a final act that brings everything together beautifully, but will also be far too “out there” for some viewers. He also gets a bonus point for giving the lead character one of the best last lines I can think of from the past decade or two.

Rooper and Dickie are both superb in their roles, although they are playing their characters in a way that amplifies their strain and strangeness, like the fish having a mad turn in an aquarium without considering the humans watching it, spectators who are unable to comprehend whatever is motivating the temporary madness. Sarah Paul and Franc Ashman also do well, and there are other supporting cast members do very good work, but the heart of the film is, obviously, the mother-daughter relationship (lack of relationship?). Rooper and Dickie not only do well in their individual scenes, but excel in scenes that show them “locking horns” and easily finding the weak spots to attack every time tempers start to rise.

Not a film to recommend to people who like their horror to be safer, and to feel more comfortingly familiar, Matriarch is a dark and fantastical way to look at a very real, sadly all-too-common, problem for many. I encourage people to give it a go, but it will certainly prove divisive. If you like it then you can try explaining it to others. If you dislike it then, well, mum’s the word.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Mubi Monday: The Bird With The Crystal Plumage (1970)

The directorial debut of Dario Argento, and the first of what would become his “animal trilogy”, The Bird With The Crystal Plumage is a visually-pleasing and entertaining murder mystery. It is a giallo that both shows the intended path of a film career that would keep Argento on a high for the next decade or two and yet also tries harder to keep things logical and tidy (unlike a number of the more barmy examples of this sub-genre that aim for style and memorable deaths over any kind of plausibility).

Tony Musante plays Sam, an American living in Rome with his girlfriend, Julia (Suzy Kendall). Walking home one night, Sam witnesses the attempted murder of Monica Ranieri (Eva Renzi). He is unable to properly see the attacker, or even help, as he is trapped in an area between two glass doors. Once Monica is safe, with police and medical personnel on the scene, Sam tries to untangle exactly what he just witnessed. Immediately coming under suspicion from Inspector Morisini (Enrico Maria Salerno), Sam decides that he has to provide his innocence AND find the killer. Yes, it is time for him to turn amateur detective.

A lot of people love this film, and the subsequent films that came along soon after it, but I never have. It’s important, establishing some of the main elements that Argento would go on to polish and perfect by the time he delivered Deep Red, but it lacks the savagery and memorable madness that feels soaked into so much of Argento’s filmography. There’s one highlight, the main sequence in which our hero is trapped while watching the attempted murder take place, and the ending returns to that idea, but it’s not quite enough to make this a classic. It is good, but you can find a hundred other examples of this kind of film that are good.

Argento keeps his script pretty low-key and grounded, and also keeps it fairly close to a Fredric Brown novel titled “The Screaming Mimi” (apparently, I am not familiar with that material so cannot say just HOW close this is), which gives him more time to make viewers cringe with dialogue that weaves between the laughably bad to the horribly outdated. He already shows a good eye for set-piece moments though, but just cannot throw in enough of them while taking more care than usual to deliver a standard narrative.

It's tough to judge the acting on display, especially when heightened melodrama is the tone of most scenes, but I guess you could say that everyone feels right for the time and the place. Musante is a decent lead, helped by the fact that his “relationship” with the killer feeds into his need to get the case solved ASAP, and Salerno is good as the typically displeased cop who is very reluctant to let our hero get too far away from him. Kendall and Renzi are fine, the latter having a bit more fun once the immediate threat of murder is gone, and Umberto Raho, Pino Patti, Giuseppe Castellano, and Mario Adorf all help, populating the screen with memorable characters/suspects.

A score by Ennio Morricone also proves to be a bonus, although it is far from his best work, and there’s a fascination in seeing Argento begin his directorial career with something so intriguingly full of indicators of what he would circle around, again and again, throughout his career. I may not love it, but I certainly admire it.

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Netflix And Chill: A Classic Horror Story (2021)

If the title doesn't clue you in immediately, the opening act, with a number of references to other movies and a number of very familiar tropes playing out (the group travelling through some quiet countryside, a vehicular mishap, ominous signs of dangerous entities in the area, etc), should let you know that you're about to be taken through territory that has been used in hundreds, if not thousands, of horror movies throughout the past few decades.

The core group is made up of Elisa (Matilda Anna Ingrid Lutz), Fabrizio (Francesco Russo), Riccardo (Peppino Mazzotta), Mark (Will Merrick), and Sofia (Yuliia Sobol). These people aren't close friends. They are just making use of a rideshare app, although they bond quickly enough when an accident leaves them stranded in the middle of some woods, and leaves Mark with a broken leg. Before you can say "Wrong Turn", things start to look very odd. And dangerous.

Directed by Robert De Feo and Paolo Strippoli, who both also worked on the screenplay with Lucio Besana, this is a strange, and at times quite brave, approach to horror movies. It's a commentary on our relationship with the visceral thrills of the horror genre, a spiky warning about the need for more and more content, and it does all this with horror movie tropes that aren't exactly subverted, but are simply used in a way that will have viewers wondering just how stupid the central characters might be until the third act starts to turn things over to show everything in a slightly different light. De Feo and Besana worked together on The Nest (which I have yet to see), but the heart of this work may come from Strippoli (considering his previous short was apparently shot entirely through Instagram stories). The finale of A Classic Horror Story may not feel like a good enough reward to horror fans who may tire of the excessive amount of genre trappings throughout the first hour, but it is at least able to deliver some gory goods alongside the kind of damning reflection that was inherent in darker films like Man Bites Dog and Funny Games.

The cast all do well. Lutz and Russo seem to get the most screentime, and the former gets to play a character introduced having a difficult enough time of things already, but everyone goes along with what is asked of them, even if that means they only stand out when involved in a gory death scene. There's also a good performance from Alida Baldari Calabria, playing the typical frightened child that, much like everything here, we've seen many times before, the innocent victim discovered by our leads, who may or may not be exactly as she appears.

I ended up enjoying this, but I must admit that the first half was testing my patience slightly. It was only the knowledge that the film-makers may be making viewers comfortable before pulling the rug out that kept me from completely checking out. Not that anything here was bad. The score is decent, the practical effects are impressive, and sometimes impressively nasty, and the last minute or so, although completely unnecessary, underlines everything being said with humour and sledgehammer-subtlety.

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Shudder Saturday: V/H/S/99 (2022)

I'm not sure how others feel about it, but I am happy that the V/H/S horror anthology movie series has been allowed to go on for as long as it has, and long may it continue. After my disappointment with the third instalment, everything else so far has kept me very entertained, and it's almost as if each one now keeps trying to just get a little bit weirder and wilder, with the emphasis more on fun than nerve-shredding horror. 

We get five tales of terror here. First up is "Shredding", written and directed by Maggie Levin. This is all about an amateur band that decides to break into an allegedly haunted, abandoned, music venue and upset some spirits by rocking out on the stage. Then it's "Suicide Bid", a Johannes Roberts-helmed story of a young woman who reluctantly agrees to be buried alive in order to be accepted into the one and only sorority she has applied to join. "Ozzy's Dungeon" (directed by Flying Lotus, who co-wrote it with Zoe Cooper) is all about the host of a children's game show being tortured by the parent of a child who was seriously injured trying to complete the final challenge on his show. "The Gawkers" (directed by Tyler MacIntyre, who co-wrote it with Chris Lee Hill) has some young men trying to spy on an attractive new neighbour . . . with complete ignorance of the danger they will find themselves in. And then, last but not least, Joseph and Vanessa Winter (aka the Deadstream people) give viewers "To Hell And Back", which is basically summed up by that title.

The only reason I won't name-check everyone onscreen here is because there are too many people to consider, as is often the case with anthology movies, but Ally Ioannides, Steven Ogg, and Melanie Stone were the highlights for me. Ioannides plays Lily, the young woman desperate to join a sorority in "Suicide Bid", Ogg plays the host of "Ozzy's Dungeon, and Stone has a lot of fun as some kind of hell imp in "To Hell And Back". I must say, however, that it's great to not want to single anyone out in a negative way. The shooting style, and ridiculousness of everything, helps, but there isn't anyone here stinking up the place.

Two tales here stood out for me, and those were "Suicide Bid" (Roberts is someone I think always deserves more love from horror fans) and "To Hell And Back" (Joseph and Vanessa Winter really underlining their emergence as names to keep an eye on). "The Gawkers" ranks just below those, boosted by a finale that makes use of a classic monster in a fun and interesting way. Then it's "Shredding", a fun start to things that is undermined by the overuse of the VHS stylisation, and "Ozzy's Dungeon" brings up the rear, although it's still perfectly enjoyable.

Even people who are used to me being quite vague in my movie reviews may feel that I have given away even less than usual here. I am erring on the side of caution, but every part of this film is more enjoyable for the fact that you can quickly figure things out as things unfold. You know that the people involved want to revel in the chance to cut loose and throw around a decent amount of insanity and gore, and every little twist or tweak is always in service of the fun factor.

If you already like this series then you should enjoy this latest entry, particularly if, like myself, you have enjoyed the revival of some modern horror anthologies that seemed destined to end on a low note some years ago.

7/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Frankenstein's Creature (2018)

The feature film directorial debut from Sam Ashurst, who is arguably best known recently for both A Little More Flesh and A Little More Flesh II, what you have here is, as you might expect, an interpretation of the classic Frankenstein tale. Although a different way to relate the events of that landmark sci-fi horror, those involved really underline the superb quote “intelligence is knowing that Frankenstein isn’t the monster, wisdom is knowing that Frankenstein is the monster.”

Starring James Swanton in the titular role, essentially delivering an extended monologue that he used to perform as a one-man show, with the emphasis more on the words and the performance than any cinematic bells and whistles. Which isn’t to say that Ashurst adds nothing to the whole experience, but I will get to that soon enough. Telling his tale, the creature is able to fully expound upon his experience as a singular creation, inspiring fear in a father figure who then rejected him, leaving him abandoned, confused, and angry. 

Released in a very limited edition (as has been the case with everything directed by Ashurst so far), Frankenstein’s Creature is probably one of the more niche movies that I have reviewed, and the fact that I own it is something that can allow me to talk about it with an ever-so-slight air of smugness underlining everything. Because I liked this.

It could easily be argued that this isn’t a fully satisfying filmic experience. It’s a stage work, a bit of theatre that just happened to be filmed. On the one hand. But Ashurst DOES complement the material with his approach. Although the focus remains Swanton and the small set (one small section of an abandoned building), visuals run in the background, as if projected there, that help to show the journey of the creature and affect the overall atmosphere (e.g. some flowing ice water adds a chill viewers can feel working into their bones). There are also one or two moments that superimpose a close-up of Swanton’s on top of his ongoing performance, giving viewers a chance to fully appreciate the unnerving, Conrad Veidt, facial make-up.

I think it’s fair to warn most viewers though. Despite the great work from Ashurst, this is deliberately all about the dialogue being delivered by Swanton. It is a powerhouse performance, and Ashurst shows great restraint in not feeling the need to meddle with it. The Pyramid Texts is the only other film I can think of that feels similar to this, and if you ever managed to see that masterpiece then you should already know whether or not you will find this worth your time.

I didn’t absolutely love this, unlike the aforementioned The Pyramid Texts, but I certainly liked, and admired, it. It’s a real treat to see a classic horror archetype reworked so brilliantly,  and with equal helpings of passion and intelligence.

7/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Books Of Blood (2020)

As much as I love the original source material, a collected volume of short stories written by Clive Barker, trying to adapt any of The Books Of Blood into movie form always feels a bit like a fool’s errand. There are so many great stories there, every page is an example of a writer delivering some of his absolute best work, but it is material that doesn’t tend to translate well into movie form. Someone should really give us all the horror anthology show that we deserve, but I suspect that will never happen.

Let’s get to this movie then, another in a line of movies that have unsuccessfully tried to make something worthwhile from the rich source material (others include Quicksilver Highway, Dread, and, well, Book Of Blood, a 2009 film that covers some of the material also covered here). There are three main stories here, focusing on four main characters. Britt Robertson is Jenna, a very depressed and troubled young woman who ends up leaving home and staying at a house that may have some very dark secrets behind the walls. Bennett (Yul Vazquez) is a man contracted to track down a valuable book, but it’s also something very powerful and dangerous. And, last but not least, Mary (Anna Friel) is a debunker of psychic phenomena who thinks she has finally found someone (Simon, played by Rafi Gavron) who can communicate with the dead.

The first feature film directed by Brannon Braga, who also co-wrote the screenplay with Adam Simon (the two having worked together for many years), there is definitely a feeling here of people trying to do more than just coast along on something with brand recognition (it might be niche brand recognition, but it’s still something a number of horror fans will take notice of). Constructed in a way that allows the tales to intersect at various points, culminating in a final act that brings everything together in a fitting and effective way, the biggest problem the film has is the time it takes to start gathering any momentum. It’s very satisfying to see things cleared up in a dark and twisting third act, but the earlier scenes feel horribly inert and disconnected until the full shape of the narrative starts to become clear, like a lump of clay being sculpted.

Robertson, Vazquez, Friel, and Gavron all do well enough in their roles, but they are characters who are due to have horrors unfold around them, like so many characters written by Barker. Friel plays the one person who ends up having most control, and her main storyline is the best of them, but the rest are very much autumn leaves blown around in some chill winds. I do also have to mention Freda Foh Shen and Nicholas Campbell. Both are used well, playing the owners of the house that ends up playing such a vital role in the fate of Robertson’s character.

Arguably better than most of the other attempts to get any of these tales from page to screen, Books Of Blood still falls short of being as good as it could, or should, be. I think one extra tale intertwining with the others would have been enough to elevate this, but I couldn’t tell you which one would have made the best addition. What you have here is polished, occasionally visually interesting, and decent enough for something to schedule when you want some spookiness. It’s just also quite forgettable, sadly, despite a bittersweet ending that stands out as one of the best horror movie endings of the last few years.

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Prime Time: All Hallow's Eve 2 (2015)

Almost everyone seemed to enjoy All Hallow’s Eve, at least to some degree, the horror anthology movie that introduced horror fans to Art the clown. So it is no surprise to see that a sequel was made. What is slightly surprising, although also an obvious approach, is the fact that this is one of those horror anthology movies created by making use of a handful of talented people all delivering their own tales. Damien Leone, the writer-director of the first movie, was probably already too busy developing the Terrifier movies to deliver more Art “hijinks” for his fans.

The framing device here involves a young woman who has received a videotape on her doorstep. There also seems to be someone watching her. Slightly perturbed, but not half as anxious as I would be, she decides to watch the tape, which contains a mix of tales all revolving around Halloween.

With a film like this, based around so many different writers and directors, using a cast that doesn’t really have any familiar faces in the mix (the only one I immediately recognised was the excellent Bill Oberst Jr), it’s hard to sit down and write out an informative and all-encompassing review. If I went into enough detail here then you would just be reading a page full of names, and there are many other places on the internet to just read film credits.

That is also a good sign though. I don’t have any one person I want to single out, for good or bad, and that shows just how surprisingly consistent this movie is. I still have favourite tales (“Jack Attack” and “The Last Halloween” help the movie get off to a strong start), but I enjoyed pretty much everything presented here. Of course I liked some more than others, but there wasn’t any one take that I loathed.

The biggest downside is the lack of any strong through-line. The Halloween theme may be good enough to loosely link the tales together, but there’s a disappointing lack of flow as we move abruptly from one to the next, and it’s a shame that there was no room for any scenes allowing some more bleed over. There are also some sequences that look worse than others, but that just adds to the feeling of people really putting blood, sweat, and tears into getting their films made.

The cast generally do good work, everyone is clearly making the most of relatively limited resources, and there is a surprisingly high hit rate when it comes to the “punchline” of every segment. Although I didn’t absolutely love it, I would put this on a par with the first film. It’s a perfect choice for the spooky season, providing an entertaining variety of thrills and chills without outstaying its welcome.

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Halloween Ends (2022)

If you loved Halloween Ends then you should probably just skip this review entirely. I really disliked it, although my hopes weren’t that high after also disliking Halloween Kills, and I will specify my reasons here. But before I do that, as divisive as this film has proven to be, let me say that a) I don’t dislike a film for doing something different, and b) I don’t judge any Halloween film based on the screentime for Michael Myers. A lot of people have already labelled detractors of this movie as typical genre fanboys who cannot accept change (there have been a lot of tiresome exclamations of “5cream was so right”). I am sure some viewers have their mindset stuck in that rut, but others may have valid criticisms of a film that seems to undo whatever this trilogy, and it is hard to even call it a trilogy at this point, was aiming for.

Things start well. The shadow of Michael Myers still looms large, and young Corey (Rohan Campbell) is a babysitter who finds his evening ending in the worst possible way. Skip forward by a few years, Corey is trying to get on with his life. His reputation precedes him though, sadly. Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis, as if you need reminding) had meanwhile somehow found a state of peace, helped by the fact that she is now writing down her story. Her granddaughter, Allyson (Andi Matichak), lives with her, and hangs about until she starts to become interested in Corey. Resentment burns through the young couple, a fire so strong that they wouldn’t mind seeing Haddonfield turned to ash, and Corey may be unable to contain his rage. And then there’s Michael Myers, coming perilously close to living the last of his days out as a Chris Farley character, ready to regain his energy enough for another showdown with Laurie. Because we were all shown it in the trailer, and those involved in these films pretend to be daring only until they revert to the fan-pleasing scenes they inevitably squeeze into each instalment.

The biggest problem here is a script that seems to want viewers to forget everything that we saw in the last movie. Remember the mob mentality that was immensely damaging to a town unable to heal its wounds? That’s gone. The grit and awareness of Laurie, someone who lived their life ever-ready for a battle they knew was always upcoming? Gone. Individuals defined by their encounters with the boogeyman? Yes, the leads still have that aspect, but everyone else seems to have moved on in a way that totally dismisses the past few years. Paul Brad Logan and Chris Bernier both join Danny McBride and director David Gordon Green in the writing department for this finale, but it’s difficult to pin any blame on them. This franchise “reinvigoration” has been in the hands of McBride and Green since it first started to take shape (no pun intended), and this fumbled ending shows that they never really considered how to make something consistent and cohesive.

There are some interesting choices made here, not least of which is the focus on Corey, but Green and co. are unable to commit to those choices. They don’t do right by the interesting idea at the heart of this, which should have been a study of a community making a whole new boogeyman, and subsequently waste the opportunity to also give Curtis more to do, while her character could have been the only one to see, and perhaps try to heal, the potential damage that she could see happening to someone not already beyond saving. This may have also helped to maintain a sense of the menacing presence of Myers, a character who can cause almost as much terror and tension by being offscreen as he can when on the rampage, instead of sidelining him and having his infrequent appearances feel ever so slightly patronizing.

The things that work are the things that work in every Halloween movie. Curtis, the music, and the quiet streets of Haddonfield. And I have to say that Campbell was a great choice to play Corey. Oh, and the opening title sequence is superb, and would have been even better if certain elements had been used more effectively (see last paragraph), which I do think was their initial aim. Sadly, nothing else feels good enough. There are only one or two impressive “bodycount” moments, the wild plot tangents aren’t taken far enough, and the predictable and inevitable ending is, by this point, just sadly laughable and pathetic. Poor Andi Matichak is also a negative, her flat performance not helped in the slightest by a script that asks her to do nothing more than fall very quickly for a boy who never really gives her a good enough reason to stick around and put faith in him. Which can happen in real life, I know, but it doesn’t help this movie.

Being divisive isn’t necessarily a bad thing, and many artists would prefer that you love or hate something they have done, as opposed to just sitting right in the middle, so I am still pleased to see that this has created so much discussion and passion. I have heard, and understood, people who really liked the decisions made here. I just strongly disagree, and I think this review clearly explains why I feel the way I do.

I will never bring myself to absolutely hate any Halloween movie, it is my favourite horror movie franchise (despite so few of the films being great), but this sits alongside Halloween Kills, for me, as the worst of the lot. I am glad this “era” is over, and I hope whoever has the next crack at it will take a bit more care, or at least be willing to move much further away from the comfort zone collage of nods, winks, and fan-service that we had here.

4/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Mubi Monday: Earwig (2021)

There are many ways to choose what you want to write about when you spend so much time watching and reviewing movies. A lot of people online will prefer to write about something they love or hate. It makes the whole thing easier, and the end result will often appeal to the binary nature of discourse that seems to get the most internet traffic. It’s harder to write about something that you just thought was okay, especially when there’s no clear standard narrative. But I figured that I should write about Earwig anyway.

Paul Hilton plays Albert, a man tasked with the care of a young girl named Mia (played by Romane Hemelaers). Mia has dentures that have to be fitted daily, and Albert empties out the side fittings that collect saliva. In another plot strand, Céleste (Romola Garai) is a wounded woman who is assisted in her recuperation by a man named Laurence (Alex Lawther). These two threads intertwine, but in a strange and insubstantial way, like wisps of smoke rising into the air while winding around one another, and the ending raises just as many questions as the opening scenes.

Based on a novel by Brian Catling, which may or may not spell things out in a much clearer way than the movie, this may be a murky and muddled mess for most of the runtime, but it was always an intriguing one. I certainly preferred Earwig to the last film I saw from director Lucile Hadzihalilovic (Evolution), which also had her working with Geoff Cox on the writing side of things. This is a challenging and obtuse film, but answers feel tantalisingly close, and I have no qualms about considering it as a unique take on vampirism (there are certainly enough small details to make that a valid interpretation).

Visually, you get a world of browns and browny-greens. It’s an oppressive colour scheme throughout, making viewers feel as if they fell asleep and woke up in the bedroom of someone hosting a 1970s dinner party during the winter solstice. Everything is dark and muted, as well as being potentially dangerous, and the style certainly matches the atmosphere that the movie has in almost every frame.

While the performances are very good from all involved, they are mannered and stilted in a way that shows the characters to be seriously restricted in a variety of ways, whether reliant on others for help, waiting for instructions, or just incapable of accepting events unfolding around them. The film belongs to those crafting the visuals, but the leads have to do try hard with the sparse dialogue to convey a hefty selection of conflicting thoughts.

From Don’t Look Now to Let The Right One In, from The Shining to the filmography of Jean-Pierre Jeunet, Earwig is never far from some influential touchstones, which helps the pacing while adding to the frustrating lack of any real clarity.

I ended up enjoying this, and I am happy with my final interpretation of it, but it made me work hard for that enjoyment. And I cannot say that the effort was completely worth it.

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Netflix And Chill: Paranormal Investigation (2018)

If you look around online for information about Paranormal Investigation then you won’t find too much out there. That isn’t surprising, considering how insubstantial and eminently forgettable the film is.

Some friends decide to have fun times with a spirit board, which always goes well in horror movies, and one of them, Dylan (Jean-Baptiste Heuet), soon starts to act in a way that worries those around him. It ends up falling to Andrei (Andrei Indreies) to get to the bottom of things, and hopefully save Dylan’s soul.

I picked Paranormal Investigation as part of my viewing schedule for two reasons. One, it was fairly short (I wanted something at around the 90-minute mark). Two, I wanted to add some world cinema to the mix, realising I had mainly stuck with English language movies for my Halloween horrors so far this year. I wish I had taken the time to find something better.

Writer-director Franck Phelizon seems to have had one overdone idea, and somehow figured he could craft a worthwhile film around it. He was wrong. This film could easily have been a 10-minute short, which would have been much more enjoyable, but we are instead stuck with a feature that feels stuffed full of padding, none of which is at all interesting.

It doesn’t help that Heuet and Indreies are unable to bring anything to their under-written roles. Neither manage to feel as strong and forceful as they should, and that leaves viewers watching everything play out without any one character to really root for, especially as the supporting cast soon disappears. The focus stays on Dylan and Andrei, to detrimental effect.

It is okay to do a movie that doesn’t have obvious scares or jumps. You can, instead, create tension and atmosphere. You can walk carefully towards a rewarding finale, increasing the creep factor until everyone starts to digest the full impact of what they just watched while the end credits roll. This doesn’t do that, leaving it as a whole lot of nothing.

Don’t bother investigating this one. 

2/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Shudder Saturday: Deadstream (2022)

Joseph Winter, who co-directed and co-wrote this film with Vanessa Winter (the two being husband and wife), stars as Shawn Ruddy, a disgraced online personality who is desperate to get his video channel making good money again after being forced into a time out, due to a specific incident that becomes clear as the movie plays out. In order to come back with a bang, Shawn places himself in an allegedly haunted house, deliberately trapping himself inside and aiming to show himself being scared in a way that will guarantee his live-stream as an unmissable event.

I have seen people describe Deadstream as being very much like The Evil Dead blended with the "found footage" style, and I don't entirely disagree with that description. The main character is teased and tortured in a way that you could easily imagine also happening to Ash. I've also seen people criticise the film for moments that show the main character seeming racist and/or privileged and insensitive. I disagree there. Not that the character ISN'T a bad person, he clearly is, but that is part of the point. He is someone who gave a grovelling apology because he had to, in order to get his "brand" back on track, but he has never really thought about the impact of his foolhardy actions. And even when he has a moment to be a bit more genuinely remorseful, when he decides that things are so bad he may as well aim to be more open and honest than usual, he drops the ball by tying his apology to a lame attempt to appeal to a demographic that he clearly doesn't really care about. The script hints at all of this throughout, because we're shown Shawn being thoughtless and insensitive, at best, from the very beginning.

It's the script that I am going to praise first. The Winters know exactly what they are targeting, and they hit a bulls-eye every time. Ruddy is the kind of over the top, loud and lively, internet personality that you can find on every other YouTube channel. He doesn't like anything, he LOVES IT. He doesn't really want to create anything other than traffic and monetisation for his videos, despite interacting with those who view and comment on his work. The backstories are also nicely crafted, for both the house and Ruddy himself, and the format feels well-handled, with the camerawork being controlled by someone trying to deliver what he claims will be the most cinematic streaming experience possible (even down to supplying his own horror movie soundtrack from a small tape player). The film posits Ruddy as the main character, but it never tries to show him as a hero, or even someone who is any good. Because he isn't.

Mr. Winter is excellent in the main role, on screen for the majority of the runtime. He knows exactly how energetic and good-humoured (and inauthentic) his character should be, allowing the cracks to show frequently enough to make any third act revelations satisfyingly unsurprising. Viewers sense something darker in the details to be revealed, which is much better than having an ending that attempts to pull the rug from under everyone's feet. There are a number of other performers, many of them under some great make up, but the other one to praise is Melanie Stone, playing a young woman, Chrissy, who locates Shawn and wants to keep him company during his stay in the haunted house. Stone is enjoyably impish, and comes in at just the right time to save viewers from becoming exhausted by Ruddy's schtick.

A seemingly silly film with a few serious points to be made, this is horror as absolutely rollicking entertainment. It is, first and foremost, all about entertaining viewers, and the film-makers find a real sweet spot by mixing in a number of perfectly-executed scares with some tension-relieving laughs. It IS a horror comedy, but the fact that I forgot to specify that until now is a testament to how well the comedy is used to simply make the escalating horror and madness bearable.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Demonia (1990)

If you are after coherent and believable horror then the work of Lucio Fulci isn’t for you. But if you want atmosphere and impressive set-pieces then you should check out his work. If you’re a horror fan then you have probably already heard of his best titles, but his filmography also includes a number of lesser-known gems.

Demonia isn’t one of them.

If I tried to explain the plot then I think we would all just start laughing, underlining just how ridiculous it is. Basically, a young woman starts to have visions of some bad things, there is an archeological dig going on, and some vengeful spirit nuns start killing off people. Meg Register is Liza, the woman having the visions, and Brett Halsey plays Professor Evans, helping to oversee the fated archaeological dig. And Fulci himself plays a policeman investigating the deaths that start to occur.

Demonia is bonkers, and not really in the best ways. And yet, for reasons I cannot quite put my finger on, I found myself enjoying the silliness of it all. Maybe I was just in the right mood for it, I did pick it as a viewing that I figured would keep me away from anything too weighty and/or grim, or maybe those being harshly critical of it, and they are many, have been a bit unfair.

Are Register and Halsey good in their main roles? Not really. I don’t blame them though, Fulci never seems to give much thought to his cast members and they are asked to be as over the top and silly as the script they are working with. Others onscreen suffer from similar fates, although both Christina Englehardt and Lino Salemme are a bit livelier and more fun than the rest.

If you can accept the ridiculousness of the script, co-written by Fulci and Piero Regnoli, and the fact that there are no truly standout moments, Demonia isn’t a terrible way to spend ninety minutes. Never mind that Fulci himself tried to get his name removed from the thing (ironic, considering the lack of story credit given to Antonio Tentori). I wouldn’t recommend anyone watch this ahead of The Beyond, Zombie Flesh Eaters, City Of The Living Dead, and a number of other slices of more worthwhile Fulci, but I wouldn’t completely dismiss it. It’s absolutely daffy, and sometimes absolutely daffy perfectly fits the bill.

5/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Moon In Scorpio (1987)

Having heard about this slasher movie from someone online (who shall remain nameless, and still someone with an opinion I value, but let's just say that they like this one a lot more than I did), I decided to blind buy Moon In Scorpio and add it to my list of scheduled horror viewings for this October. I'm easily pleased, a statement I know that I repeat far too often, and I was hoping for some standard horror movie thrills here. 

The very basic plot summary concerns a bunch of friends heading off on a boat trip. Allen (John Phillip Law) will be introducing his new wife, Linda (Britt Ekland), to his friends. Burt (William Smith) and Mark (Lewis Van Bergen) are fellow veterans, and all three men are bonded by their wartime and war crimes. Their partners, Claire (Jillian Kesner) and Isabel (April Wayne), are also on board. As is a killer. 

There is a germ of a good idea at the centre of this, a vengeful force attacking guilty parties who have spent a long time trying to repress memories of bad war times, both what they have gone through and what they did, while also being irrevocably changed by that experience. It could be argued that the most interesting parts of the script, written by Robert Aiken, don’t involve the supernatural/slasher element. There’s interesting fluctuating levels of tension as the group simply settle back into some kind of false friendship, perhaps having kept in touch with one another when some would have been better to just break away and move on.

Director Gary Graver tries, but fails, to make the most of his relatively small budget, some interference from an executive producer (apparently), and the problem of the setting and small core cast making it harder to line up a selection of likely suspects as the murders begin.

Ekland isn’t terrible in her role, but she is clearly picked to be the big name that could draw in viewers. Law and Van Bergen are both fine, even if they find themselves overpowered by the domineering presence of Smith, who is enjoyably unpleasant throughout. Kesner gets to act over the top as someone constantly drinking her way through the film, Wayne is a very pleasant addition to the visual aesthetics, and Robert Quarry is enjoyable enough in a couple of scenes that have him as a doctor interviewing Ekland about just what happened on the boat (no spoiler - the film begins with a hysterical Ekland being found).

While there’s enough here to help this stand out from the crowd of slashers that overwhelmed horror fans from the late 1970s through the 1980s, Moon In Scorpio is more interesting for what it hints at, rather than what it is. Nothing stands out, the visuals, score, effects, and production design are all competent (at best, some nice shots of the boat notwithstanding), and it’s only worth seeking out once you feel that you have exhausted the large selection of more enjoyable, or more interesting, films in this subgenre.

5/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Prime Time: Ouija Death Trap (2014)

I do it to myself every year, without fail. In a bid to explore the full range that the horror genre has to offer me, I inevitably pick something that should never have been plucked from the bottom of the barrel. Ouija Death Trap (AKA Spirits, apparently) is that movie for this year. It was so bad that I almost decided against writing about it, because I know that other people will read this review and think "it can't be THAT bad" before then forcing themselves to endure it, but there are one or two aspects that a) save it from being THE worst of the worst, and b) are worth discussing.

Here's the plot. Four young people head into a building with video cameras at the ready. That's it. The building is supposedly haunted. There is one main male character and three females. And they get a fright when they wander about in darkness and bump into a janitor (played by John O'Hara). Things really start to get wild when the janitor leaves though, with things doing much more than just going bump in the night. Spirits are seen, panic starts to build, and it isn't long until people start to disappear.

Here's the best thing about Ouija Death Trap. It has a runtime even shorter than the 90 minutes listed on IMDb, by the time you account for the titles and end credits. 

There are some things to enjoy here, especially for a film viewer very easy to please (me, that's me). The practical effects throughout aren't too bad, and the scares are enjoyably overt and ridiculous. This isn't a film that wants to develop a creepy atmosphere with a slow build to whatever the finale might deliver. This is a film that wants to throw you into a real, funfair-style, house of horrors.

That's all my positivity used up though. The first thing that puzzles me about this film is how it took THREE people to write it. I'm amazed there's a script in the first place, and maybe Amanda Payton, Johnnie Reed, and director Todd Sheets spent most of their time plotting the scares, relying on their cast member to come up with decent dialogue while they reacted to the events unfolding around them. That was a mistake, and I defy anyone to watch this entire film and then tell me even one bit of dialogue that felt as if it was placed in the movie with even the smallest amount of care and consideration.

It might have helped if the people onscreen were better at acting. William Christopher Epperson, Jessica Hopkins, Dakota Lassen, and Raven Reed may be lovely people, but good actors they are not. Nor is O'Hara. You would think that one out of five would justify their inclusion in the cast, but that's not the case.  I won't single anyone out for extra criticism, especially as the acting is uniformly poor from everyone, but there was one cast member who easily ranks as one of the absolute worst performers I have seen in a feature film.

Maybe it's not their fault. Maybe these people signed up for something that they then realised wasn't going to be worth their time or energy. The plot, what little there is of it, is bloody awful, the camerawork is painfully bad (with the excuse, of course, that we're just seeing the footage shot by the characters onscreen), and the end result is a feature so lazy and slapdash that most viewers will feel a mix of anger and relief when it's all over.

Better actors might have made this much more bearable, but we'll never know. As it is, I've been generous with my rating because of those easy jump scares. And if you don't think I've been generous . . . that just proves that you haven't seen the film.

2/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

The Cottage (2008)

Written and directed by Paul Andrew Williams, The Cottage is a British horror comedy that benefits from some stellar acting talent in main roles, a rich seam of dark humour running through it, and a couple of top-tier gore gags. It isn’t a film I see mentioned too often nowadays, and I am guilty of forgetting about it myself, but it’s one I hope to remind everyone about right now.

Andy Serkis and Reece Shearsmith are two brothers, David and Peter respectively, and the film begins with them having just committed a kidnapping. Their hostage is a young woman named Tracey (Jennifer Ellison), but it soon becomes clear that she isn’t aiming to be a helpless victim. Things quickly start to go wrong, and there are a number of unexpected visitors. To say any more would spoil some of the delicious surprises contained within the movie.

Without revealing any more details of the movie, aside from that basic plot summary just used in the previous paragraph, what makes The Cottage so enjoyable is how it layers the standard botched crime caper we have seen many times in British cinema with an unexpected selection of tropes from a particular subgenre of horror. It also helps that the dialogue is spiky and satisfyingly witty, delivered with aplomb by the leads. Every detail adds to the overall picture, and there are a number of subtle set-ups that lead to very enjoyable pay-offs.

It is stating the obvious to say that both Serkis and Shearsmith are great actors, even if they both have very different performing styles, so just take it as given that both actors are once more great onscreen here, and both are great fun as they rile each other up. Ellison isn’t to be dismissed though, happily subverting the image of a typical “damsel in distress”, and I wish we’d seen her in some more comedic roles like this one. Steve O’Donnell adds to the fun, and adds to the levels of incompetence on display, and there are cameos for both Doug Bradley and Steven Berkoff.

Paced perfectly, shot with a great eye for the visuals (helped by excellent production design throughout), and full of small moments and scripted gems that make it a rewarding rewatch experience, The Cottage is a superior slice of macabre mirth. As it was released almost fifteen years ago, maybe it’s time we all stopped sleeping on it.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Mubi Monday: Playground (2021)

A feature debut from writer-director Laura Wandel that is, quite frankly, extraordinary, as well as extraordinarily powerful, Playground puts viewers back in the world of the school playground, hence the title, and serves as a reminder of just how cruel children can be, and what a minefield needs to be navigated while attempting to simply survive your days that people will ignorantly try to refer to as "the best years of your life".

Nora (Maya Vanderbeque) and Abel (Günter Duret) are siblings starting their school year. Nora is very nervous, but her brother tries to reassure her. Going through a number of childish trials and tests, Nora eventually settles in to a position that might allow her to get through her school year relatively unscathed. Unfortunately, Abel becomes a victim of bullying. Nora thinks telling someone about it might help, but it instead starts a downward spiral for Abel, who starts to gain a reputation that he cannot easily shake off.

With the child-height camerawork throughout and the natural performances from all of the cast members, Playground is an immersive experience, for better or for worse. Would I be exaggerating if I said that a number of scenes in this film had me tense and angry, remembering back to schooldays of my own that I view with nothing but resentment and anger? No. This is a film that will affect many viewers in a similar way, and anyone who thinks it is a bit far-fetched, or showing things in a more grim manner to manipulate viewers, has clearly been fortunate enough to have a school experience far removed from mine.

Vanderbeque and Duret both give quietly devastating performances, although they're helped by Wandel placing them in situations that immediately make them seem more vulnerable as she keeps the camera trained on their discomfort and pain. Karim Leklou is their father, often only visible in shot as he leans down towards his children, and Laura Verlinden is a teacher who seems a bit more aware and sympathetic than a number of her colleagues, but they don't make as much of an impact as so many others onscreen, children that we hear and often only glimpse at the edge of the frame. There are one or two characters who are involved in some important moments, but the camera is almost constantly locked on Nora, showing us what she sees as she becomes aware of it.

Masterfully put together, in terms of the visuals and the sound design, Playground shows that Wandel is a major force to be reckoned with, and no small amount of praise should go to everyone behind the camera who helped her to realise her vision. I'll look forward to whatever she does next, and I'll also be interested to see if Vanderbeque decides to take on some more film roles after making such a strong first impression here.

9/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews