The Well (2023)

I'll be repeating things already said by others while reviewing The Well, but that just shows that it has a very certain appeal to horror fans, and it succeeds in what it sets out to do. Because, as you may have already been made aware, this is a film that feels very much like a throwback to the gory Euro-horrors of the 1980s and early '90s.

Lauren LaVera plays Lisa, a young woman who ends up in a large house in the middle of nowhere as she sets about restoring a very damaged painting. Lisa encountered a group of young travellers on the way to her job, and the movie shows those people being put in peril, and grievous bodily harm, as Lisa starts to suspect that something is amiss at her place of temporary employment. Her employer, Emma (Claudia Gerini), needs Lisa to hit a very specific deadline, but Emma's daughter, Giulia (played by Linda Zampaglione), doesn't want the job finished.

Although there are enough people in the cast to keep the deadly set-pieces flowing throughout the runtime, this is based very much around our three leads and one hulking killer who seems to live to supply the titular well with fresh meat. The killer is an enjoyably horrifying menace, but everyone is given just enough to make themselves feel worth spending some time with just before a potentially grisly demise, which is a pleasant surprise when evaluating the cheesy script co-written by Stefano Masi and director Federico Zampaglione (and yes, that is his daughter cast in the role of Giulia). The dialogue might not tickle your earlobes, but there's enough done to identify people as individuals and have viewers retaining a small hope that one or two escape their predicament.

Zampaglione knows exactly what he is making, and he moves into each gory set-piece with gusto, getting in close whenever flesh is being chopped and limbs are being removed. The unfolding "mystery" is pretty obvious, but our lead character is helpfully motivated to stick around by the young girl that she ends up feeling protective of.

LaVera is an excellent lead, and already quite the horror celeb due to her role in the Terrifier movie series, and she's easy to spend time with, and root for when things start getting even more dangerous for her in the third act. Gerini is enjoyably shifty, as expected, as is Zampaglione, and both slightly overact in that way that helps the film feel more in line with the films that it is emulating than any slicker modern horrors. I'm not going to pretend that I could spot all of the other cast members in any line-up, but I stand by the opinion that they're all helped just enough by the script to make themselves feel like more than bodybags-in-waiting.

It's not interested in being clever or revolutionary, but The Well is a hell of a lot of bloody fun. Horror movie fans should have a good time with it, and it shows how you can craft something that has memorable kills AND a decent enough narrative moving between the set-pieces.

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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Prime Time: Gamera 3: Revenge Of Iris (1999)

It's near the end of the road for Gamera, in terms of cinematic outings (one more main feature after this one, is it time for a revival?), and this particular outing brings together a couple of familiar characters to root for Gamera as it ends up fighting a giant creature named Iris that really isn't like a version of Mothra at all, honest.

There are more Gyaos around, dealt with by Gamera in a way that leads to major collateral damage (aka thousands dead). This leads to some once again viewing Gamera as an enemy of the people. Meanwhile, a young girl, Ayana (Ai Maeda), finds a stone egg that she looks after until hatching time, leading to the birth of Iris. Ayana and Iris have a bond with one another, and the girl is manipulated into directing her resentment and anger (her parents died during a previous kaiju incident) towards Gamera. Mayumi Ngamine (Shinobu Nakayama) knows the truth though, how things need to play out for the benefit of the human race, and she hopes that Asagi Kusanaga (Ayako Fukitani) can help Gamera to win what may be their toughest battle yet.

It's Shûsuke Kaneko in the director's chair again, and Kazunori Itô back as a co-writer, which guarantees a consistency of approach and style that helps to make this feel like a fitting third part of a trilogy. It never feels like a full ending though, with those involved perhaps hoping to make another movie that would serve as an immediate continuation of this particular cinematic chapter of Gamera (the next film, Gamera The Brave, would end up being released in 2006, with a different writer and director on the job). The special effects are very good, with Iris a particularly eye-catching creation, the pacing works well enough, and anyone who enjoyed the previous two movies in the series will enjoy this, even if it is a slight step down from the last film.

With both Nakayama and Fukitani reprising their main roles, the latter having been in all three of these movies, there's a solid through line for their character development, and it's nice to have that extra sense of familiarity, a comforting core of Gamera support while so many others view the creature as an enemy to be destroyed. Maeda is very good as the person inadvertently helping to destroy our hero, and Senri Yamasaki and Tôru Tezuka are good fun as the real villains of the piece.

Although not as memorable as I suspect it wants to be, this is another solid Gamera feature, and it does well in balancing the human element with the big fight scenes. It delivers what you would want, but doesn't quite do enough to exceed expectations. All in all, it's a good time.

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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

HauntedWeen (1991)

There's nothing like a good slasher movie, and many slasher movies you can find in your exploration of horror cinema can best be described as nothing like a good slasher movie. HauntedWeen isn't good, not in the standard ways, but it's a lot of fun, and certainly does better than a lot of slasher movies that are less interesting, and less enjoyable.

Things start in the classic way, a prank gone wrong. A young boy accidentally kills a young girl, but he's then protected by his mother for years, instead of being treated by any proper professionals. Sadly, mother passes away, leaving that young boy as a confused man, living in what is assumed by everyone else to be an abandoned house. Which is where our cast of disposable fraternity students comes in, looking to make money by turning the abandoned house into a haunted house experience. It's certainly going to be full of scares, but they may be much more realistic than intended.

The only film written and directed by Doug Robertson, this is the kind of oddity that many will hate, but some (like myself) will be slightly charmed by. The acting and effects are both quite crude, the dialogue isn't polished, and there are many scenes that feel like filler on the way to a satisfying end sequence, but it's a group of people trying to do their best with very limited resources. Although released in 1991, this feels like it's from some years earlier (I don't know the schedule, sometimes these independent productions can take years to film and find distribution, depending on the availability of everyone).

Ethan Adler does a decent job as the killer, Eddie, and the setting allows him to have one or two moments that feel memorable for all the right reasons, and Brien Blakely, Blake Pickett, Brad Hanks, Leslee Lacey, et al. do fairly well as they remain part of a large group of potential victims to be hacked and slashed once our killer starts to get his groove on. Nobody stands out, but that just makes it easier to sit and wait to see who won't make it to the end credits.

There's plenty to pick apart here, especially on a technical level, but this won me over. Using the familiar slasher movie template, it has a great idea at the heart of it, even if Robertson cannot do quite enough with his film-making to match the potential of the premise, and there are one or two well-executed scares on the way to the third act. I'm not going to consider it any kind of forgotten classic though, I'm not that blinded by my affection for it. I would tentatively recommend it to fans of the sub-genre though, especially those who have already sat through so many other films in this vein, and are already used to the weaknesses often outweighing the strengths.

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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Mubi Monday: The Substance (2024)

Please note, in a slight change to the usual format, I have scheduled this review AHEAD of time. The Substance lands on MUBI on October 31st, making it a potentially perfect viewing choice for your Halloween evening.

As many people already know, The Substance is the second full feature from writer-director Coralie Fargeat (who made an impressive debut with Revenge back in 2017). It’s a hell of a move away from her first film, in terms of both content and the level of film-making on display, and I am pleased to say that it’s going to be battling near the top spot whenever I try to list my favourite films of the year.

Demi Moore plays Elisabeth Sparkle, a celebrity/fitness instructor who is about to be thrown onto the scrapheap by her shallow and selfish boss, Harvey (Dennis Quaid). Desperate to find a way to prolong her time in the spotlight, Elisabeth signs up to use The Substance, a material that leads to her birthing the younger and beautiful Sue (Margaret Qualley). All should be well if the two women remember that they are one, and abide by the rules. They have to switch every seven days, without fail, and properly schedule their ongoing dosage of materials to keep up the ruse.

A full-on body horror that isn’t for the squeamish, The Substance is also a pitch-black comedy and an unsubtle commentary on the horror of unrealistic beauty standards, the aging process, and the hunger people can have for celebrity status. Some musical and visual cues also remind viewers that this is sci-fi that could have easily been sub-titled An Innerspace Odyssey (or perhaps A Face Odyssey).

Fargeat moves through every main sequence with admirable precision, helping the 141-minute runtime fairly fly by with audio and visual choices that positively affect the energy levels and help maintain the momentum en route to a wonderfully delirious finale.

Moore and Qualley are both pretty flawless in their performances, the former required to closely inspect every perceived flaw in her physique and face while the latter gets to dazzle with the apparent knowledge of what lies ahead of her. The two feel believably sourced from the same genetic material, yet also separated by the years that can provide some wisdom and caution. Quaid is enjoyably monstrous in his role, filling up his few scenes with his big grin, fast negotiations, and a steady stream of bullshit for those he deems a lucrative enough proposition for his time.

There will be people who wish that this was handled with a lighter touch, but I think this is one walnut that deserves to be smashed with a sledgehammer. The consistently excellent special effects (seemingly largely practical, but with some good VFX work mixed in) help to make this an unforgettable, and scathing, commentary on a problem that isn't new, but has certainly been exacerbated by the proliferation of cameras, filters, and a constant need for new faces to turn into branded content. Unlike my own reflection in the mirror, wrinkles and lumps and bumps and all, I cannot find fault with this, and I wouldn't want to make any changes.

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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Netflix And Chill: The Conference (2023)

I don't know why I didn't get around to watching The Conference sooner, considering the good word I heard about it from other horror movie fans, but I finally made time for it now. Do I consider it time well spent though? that's the question. I do, although I think it could have been a bit sharper.

What you should know about The Conference is that it is a darkly comedic slasher movie set at a remote hotel where a group of colleagues are to engage in a variety of team-building activities. That premise is ripe with potential for fun, pain, and murders, as anyone who has seen the excellent Severance will already know. There's also something fishy about the latest big deal that this team are due to celebrate, which leads to people throwing around a few accusations and choice curse words. Even worse, someone starts a killing spree. But who is the killer, and what is their motive?

Based on the 2021 novel, Konferensen (also the standard title of the movie in the original Swedish language), by Mats Strandberg, The Conference is co-written by Thomas Moldestad and director Patrik Eklund. Moldestad has worked well in this sub-genre before, having helped to shape the enjoyable Cold Prey trilogy, but I am completely unfamiliar with Eklund's filmography, although a quick browse shows that most of his projects have been mostly short-form work. Much like the aforementioned Cold Prey, this is happy to stay well within familiar boundaries, and it presents some enjoyable tension and decent kill scenes in a way that reminds you of how easy it should be to deliver such relatively simple pleasures to horror movie fans who don't need every slasher movie to comment on, and play with, every rule and trope that has been part and parcel of the sub-genre for decades.

Despite not giving them all quite enough time and space to make their impact, Eklund also helps his cast do enough to both work as one imperilled group and also individuals who may end up being a killer or a victim. Katia Winter and Adam Lundgren work very well as Lina and Jonas, respectively, the two most at loggerheads, and Maria Sid is wonderful as the team leader, Ingela. Eva Melander, Bahar Pars, Amed Bozan, Christoffer Nordenrot, Claes Hartelius, Cecilia Nilsson, and Jimmy Lindström all deserve a mention though, as do Lola Zackow and Marie Agerhäll, everyone convincingly engaging in their usual work duties until the bloodshed begins and the fear starts to flow through the group like a fast-developing fire.

There are weaknesses here though, and I should probably make note of them here before people start assuming that this is some unmissable and perfect creation. The attempts to give the killer some memorable iconography don't quite work, the red herrings thrown around aren't ever convincing, and the second half moves between some decent kills and a fairly banal explanation for the murderous rampage. There are also very few elements that truly stand out, one or two kills aside. The script could have been sharper, the direction likewise, and those two important aspects not being as strong as possible create a ripple effect that neuters what should have been a good bit of gory fun.

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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Shudder Saturday: Azrael (2024)

The fact that Azrael is described in some places as an action horror should be enough to get the makers in trouble with the Trade Descriptions Act. There's no decent action, and there's also a distinct lack of any horror. There's a decent end scene, but it's a punchline that isn't even worth the relatively meagre 86 minutes that you have to waste on the full runtime.

Things start off with a bit of text explaining that the movie is set years after the Rapture. Yes, THAT Rapture. Many of those left behind believe that speech is a sin, which leads to them trying to live in relative silence. That should also help them avoid some demonic creatures that try to hunt and eat them. One person trying to avoid such a fate is Azrael (Samara Weaving).

I was going to try and add some more detail there, give you something to at least pique your curiosity, but I can't. This film gives viewers nothing, and then continues to deliver a whole lot of extra nothing throughout. It's bad in a way that is hard to understand, because it feels like someone had to continually make one bad decision after another, all the way to just before the end credits.

I guess the person to get most of the blame is writer Simon Barrett. Barrett is someone who has written some fantastic films, but he's also done his share of some not-so-fantastic films. His other not-so-fantastic films are easier to understand though, often making use of too much CGI or too many jump scares in ways that epitomise the worst habits of modern movie-making. This is another level, however, with a lack of detail, an apparent lack of logic (at times), and nothing to truly reward viewers who read that opening text, shrug, and decide to go along with the ridiculousness of the central conceit.

Maybe, and it's a very big maybe, things would have been easier to go along with if director E. L. Katz had been able to present the material in a way that was more entertaining and distracting. Katz has made a couple of fill features before this, and has been involved with a few decent horror genre TV shows, which explains why this doesn't even have the accidental positive of laughable incompetence. A complete newcomer may have failed with more amusing results, or even succeeded beyond anything they could comprehend, whereas someone with more experience would know to either stay away from the script or change whatever needed changing to give it even half a chance to work.

Weaving can't do anything much to help. As good an actress as she is, she's dragged down into the mud here by the script. Her character isn't ever someone we get to know, aside from her will to survive, and she's only worth rooting for, I guess, because she's Samara Weaving. I understand that Barrett probably wanted to challenge himself, and cinema is predominantly a visual medium, but making the central character such a blank page (perhaps literally) does nobody any favours.

I didn't like Azrael, I know that I have made that much clear, but I want to underline how angry it made me. I resent the fact that I watched this bloody thing, which limped along from one stupid and improbable moment to the next, without the feeling of anyone involved having ever once pushed aside their own sense of smugness to make an effort to draw people into the world and premise depicted onscreen.

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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street (1936)

Every film fan and movie collector knows that the best thing about it is constantly making new discoveries. Of course, one of the worst things about it is . . . also constantly making new discoveries. It's bad for your bank balance, it's bad for any physical space being eaten away by any collection, and it's bad for your sense of self as you figure out yet another big gap in your knowledge highlighted by some lovely boxset that you've just bought. This is what happened to me when I picked up a lovely Tod Slaughter set earlier this year (accompanied by a fine tome I have yet to start reading).

Not knowing where to begin with any of his films, but knowing that he was celebrated for some fantastic stage work that was also translated into movies in the 1930s (although his career spanned more than just that decade, of course), I decided to take what I saw as the safest option, diving in to a film with a very familiar storyline, and one I have loved since seeing it played out in a wonderful coin-operated machine that used to be the highlight of Edinburgh’s Museum of Childhood.

Thanks to other movie versions, and also the enduring appeal of this macabre tale, I expect that everyone knows what this is about. Sweeney Todd (Slaughter) is a barber who gets into the habit of killing certain victims who end up in his chair, and then turning the chair on a trapdoor mechanism to deliver the body into the underbelly of Mrs. Lovatt (Stella Rho), who then turns them into pies. Things get more tense between the two when Todd sets his sights on the lovely Johanna Oakley (Eve Lister), but Johanna hopes to soon be reunited with her love, Mark (Bruce Setton), who is spending some time at sea as he tries to improve his lot in life.

Making use of an amusing framing device (a man waking into a barbershop where he is told this story), this is an unsurprisingly brisk 76 minutes, the perfect pacing helped by the absolutely superb lead performances from Slaughter and Rho. John Singer plays a young apprentice named Tobias, which provides a way to both show how our deadly duo operate and add some extra tension in the escalation of the third act.

Although this feels very much like a Tod Slaughter film ahead of anything else, director George King deserves credit for his work, as do the writers, including the creator of the stage material serving as the source, George Dibdin-Pitt, dialogue contributor H. F. Malibu, and Frederick Hayward. Everything plays perfectly, including the specific allusions to the content of the pies, the fun set design, and the moments that provide a glimpse of what happens to the unwitting victims as they are polished off by the titular villain.

It is Slaughter’s film though, no doubt about it, and his performance is the highlight of the whole thing. That’s why it’s pleasantly surprising to find that his co-stars do their best to match him. Yes, Lister and Setton may be stuck with the weaker roles, but they have great energy and attitude when being placed in peril in time for the grand finale. Singer is very enjoyable as the kind of Dickensian urchin usually seen in, well, Charles Dickens tales, and Davina Craig and Jerry Verno provide supporting turns that feel useful to the narrative, yet also provide some comic relief from the dastardly dealings. Rho is the other real star though, holding her own opposite Slaughter in a number of scenes that show the turbulence of their arrangement as the power dynamics start to tilt favourably from one to the other.

I expected something stagey, a bit creaky, and maybe just a bit too old-fashioned to be truly entertaining. What I got was something that managed to avoid claustrophobia (one or two different settings help to occasionally get us out of Todd’s “lair”) while always providing viewers with an absolute feast of eyebrow-wiggling, finger-twirling, twinkly-eyed devilry. Which is what you should really want from a Sweeney Todd movie. It ostensibly felt like a film version of that coin-operated machine I fell in love with as a kid, which means that I slightly fell in love with this too.

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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

In A Glass Cage (1986)

A film that was recommended to me some time ago (by Christianne, who does great writing and other blog content here), In A Glass Cage was never at the top of my "to watch" list because I had heard about the main premise. It's a dark and disturbing tale that explores very uncomfortable material, but generally does so in a way that tries to shock viewers without completely pushing them away.

Klaus (Günter Meisner) is confined to an iron lung after an unsuccessful suicide attempt. You might have pity for him, but the opening scenes hint at his passion for cruelty and death. Klaus is a former Nazi who would torture and abuse children. Unbelievably, he remains married to Griselda (Marisa Paredes), but the situation is taking a toll on her, and making her wonder if she can continue to play the loving wife. It might be better if Klaus would just die. In comes young Angelo (David Sust), a young man who is interested in taking on the role of nurse/carer to Klaus. Griselda doesn't like Angelo, and doesn't think he is right for the job, but Klaus wants him to stay. It turns out that the two share some history, and Angelo doesn't want to leave the past in the past.

Despite his film career having spanned the better part of four decades, I am unfamiliar with writer-director Agustí Villaronga. All I know about him is that this was his feature debut, which is a hell of a start to a full film career. I was certainly aware of this title before it was specifically recommended to me, having seen it on lists that suggest "most disturbing movies" for those not too faint of heart, but I wasn't sure if it would be something actually worth my time (which rarely stops me from watching anything, but can often lead to certain titles hanging around in the low priority section). Thank goodness for friends who know are there to give the occasional nudge.

When it comes to the central performances, Meisner, Paredes, and Sust are all pretty great, even while performing with very different levels of physicality and emotional transparency. Young Gisèle Echevarría is also very good, playing Rena (daughter of Klaus and Griselda), and her story arc is arguably the spine of the whole thing, which gives viewers one pure and innocent soul, for want of a better phrase, to be invested in while others onscreen engage in a very macabre dance that inextricably connects them via a series of exposed and raw nerves.

Because of the many scenes set in one room, due to the location of the iron long, there’s a constant atmosphere of oppression and gathering clouds of pain and violence. It isn’t unbearable though, which is arguably the greatest trick that Villaronga manages to pull off, and feels closer to a drama about people being infected by a rapidly-developing cancer than the simplistic gross-out horror that it could have been.

Unpleasant but engrossing, this is a look at the cycle of trauma that takes things to extremes without distracting from the horrible truths sprinkled throughout it. It’s certainly worth your time, but be sure that you have suitably prepared your headspace before pressing play.

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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Prime Time: Gamera 2: Attack Of The Legion (1996)

When I first watched Gamera 2: Attack Of The Legion I wasn't too familiar with the series. I did enjoy it, a lot, but I had no major attachment to, or knowledge of, the main creatures at the heart of this (aka the Legion). Now that I feel fully-versed in the lore of Gamera, all I can say is that I enjoyed it even more. It's still slightly restricted by the boundaries of the kind of kaiju movie it is, but this is easily a fantastic time for fans of these films.

The plot is as simple as expected. Earth is visited by another alien beastie, although they work together as a crowd of beasties working together as one. As people start to figure out exactly what is going on, Gamera ends up poised to once again save our planet. The main people working on a solution, and waiting to support Gamera, are Lieutenant Colonel Watarase (Toshiyuki Nagashima), an engineer named Obitsu (Mitsuru Fukikoshi), and a science instructor named Midori Honami (Miki Mizuno). There's also a returning appearance for young Asagi Kusanagi (Ayako Fujitana, reprising her role from the previous film), a girl psychically connected to Gamera.

With both writer Kazunori Itô and director Shûsuke Kaneko returning behind the scenes, this is a great natural progression from the last film, although it also works very well as a self-contained story (one or two elements aside). Unlike every other Gamera movie I can think of, this takes time to make things surprisingly tense and creepy throughout the first act, potentially keeping the main antagonist as a mystery to those who may have somehow started watching it without reading the title. Starting things off on a relatively small scale proves to be a great way to turn this into something that stands out from the kaiju movie crowd, but anyone hankering for a bigger threat and more destruction doesn’t have to wait too long.

Mizuno is an enjoyable presence, and both Nagashima and Fukikoshi do well enough in roles that are, as ever with these movies, playing second fiddle to the titular creatures, but the real highlight is Fujitana, more because of being able to enjoy the continuity of her character’s journey than any superior acting performance.

Gamera movies are often inherently silly, and also happy to keep things as child-friendly as the more juvenile Godzilla movies. This particular film uses the groundwork laid by the previous instalment to deliver something a bit more tense and interesting, and the end result is one of the very best films in the entire Gamera filmography.

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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

A Quiet Place: Day One (2024)

Look, I really liked A Quiet Place. It had some great set-pieces, a good core cast of characters, and just the right pacing and plotting to keep you from picking it all apart while it was on. Then came the sequel, which wasn’t as good, but enjoyed major success. And now we have attempts to develop this into a full franchise, which makes me feel as depressed and pessimistic as seeing a film advertised as coming “from the imagination of John Krasinski”.

There's very little to really say about this. It connects in a small way to the second film, but can easily be watched as a standalone "adventure" in this world where silence is golden. Lupita Nyong'o stars as Sam, a woman with terminal cancer and a cat she loves. Joseph Quinn is Eric, a man with no real character or depth (from what I could gather). Once our planet has been besieged by the creatures seen in the two movies preceding this, Sam and Eric eventually cross paths. But will they be able to help one another survive the perilous situation?

Written and directed this time around by Michael Sarnoski (although Krasinski once again helped with the storyline), this is a pretty disappointing piece of work from everyone involved. It certainly pales in comparison to Sarnoski's previous movie, Pig, and it's far down the list of Lupita Nyongo's films. Even Quinn, as relatively new on the scene as he is, looks set to quickly position this as one of his lesser films.

The visual effects are perfectly fine, but I didn't care about them. Some scenes with people in peril are fine, but I didn't care about them. Sarnoski tries to pace things well with a few key set-pieces on the way to the ending, but I didn't care about them. And those last few scenes? You guessed it . . . I didn't care about them.

A Quiet Place is the sort of thing you can get away with once. Keep going back to that well and all you do is draw attention to the flaws and plot holes. It's hard to maintain a vested interest in people when you can just as easily roll your eyes and wonder why they can't just sit still and be quiet until danger has passed them by. It's also hard to know what we already know about the creatures from the first two movies and then watch everyone fail to figure out how to fight back at them.

If it wasn't for Nyong'o here then this wouldn't even make it to the level of average. She's as good as ever, working hard in material that feels far beneath her. Quinn tries hard when sharing scenes with his phenomenal co-star, but he constantly comes up short, and isn't helped at all by a script that doesn't seem to know how to properly develop and nurture his character.

If you're after something that has the basic elements in place and does the bare minimum to trick people into feeling entertained for a while then knock yourself out. If you're after something that has actual tension and impact though then I'm afraid that you have to look elsewhere.

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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Mubi Monday: Bloodsuckers (2021)

Count Dracula was, just to remind you, a selfish and rich monster who would feed from others without much fear of actually being caught and punished by anyone. He enslaved people to do some of his dirty work, lounged around in his massive home, and eventually set his sights on a trip to another country where he hoped to reassert himself as a well-to-do member of society and convince a young woman to be his new love. Basically, he is a typical rich person used to getting his own way.

Which is something made all the more obvious in Bloodsuckers (AKA Bloodsuckers - A Marxist Vampire Comedy), a mix of comedy and dark drama that feels light and fun until it strongly underlines every main point being made in the final act.

 

Writer-director Julian Radlmaier is no stranger to this kind of content, despite not being the first person you would think of to helm a "vampire" movie. He enjoys using cinema to explore philosophy and politics, and fans of his work will already have a good idea of what to expect from this, which is actually (and surprisingly) only his second full feature.

The main characters are Octavia (Lilith Stangenberg), her manservant Jakob (Alexander Herbst), and a man named Ljowushka (Alexandre Koberidze). All three of these people go through different journeys that show how they can work as both prey and prefator, sometimes in obvious ways and sometimes in much more subtle ways. 

The visuals here are fine, although very few scenes work as effectively as they could in blending the vampire motifs into the everyday details of the struggles being depicted, and the acting from everyone is in line with the straightforward approach to the material that Radlmaier clearly prefers. Stangenberg has enough presence to make her character feel worthy of the people who fuss around her and aim to keep her happy, Herbst is entertainingly pained throughout, and Koberidze is part everyman and part fraudtser, lying about himself in ways that are only slight exaggerations of how people often lie about themselves every day.

Although I enjoyed this intermittently, it's not the best work from Radlmaier. As subjective as it is, the comedy didn't work for me as often as I wanted it to, which was made all the more notable during the few times when it really DID work. And I'll admit that I wanted to see some more moments of literal vampirism mixed in with the commentary. That might just show that I am not as smart or savvy as Radlmaier's intended main viewership, or it might show that he needs to work on making the most of any premise that can provide equal parts talking points and cinematic entertainment. Let's face it, it's probably the former.

 

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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

 

Netflix And Chill: It's What's Inside (2024)

An ambitious feature debut from writer-director Greg Jardin, It's What's Inside is an interesting and unique concept that is well-executed, but ultimately suffers from the inherent difficulty of translating the material from page to screen. 

A group of friends get together for a big party, just before one of them is due to get married, and things get very interesting when one of the guests, Forbes (David Thompson), turns up with a device that can allow them all to swap bodies. He explains it as your mind being like a hard drive and this gadget simply being able to transfer the files. Everyone is freaked out, but then they start to figure out how they can have fun with it. Swapping everyone around, the aim is then for others to guess who is the real person inside the body that they are currently inhabiting. With me so far? Things are then complicated by resentments, scheming, and treachery, and it gets even more confusing when one or two people decide to lie about who they are while hidden away inside the body of someone else. 

If you read that paragraph and thought it seemed very complicated then you wouldn't be wrong. Jardin tries to help viewers keep track in two ways. First of all, everyone gets a photo pinned to them once they have been identified (although that is assuming that they actually ARE the person they claim to be). Second, scenes move between showing the external personalities conversing and then, with a different visual style, the peoeple inside those bodies. It's a tricky balance to maintain, and Jardin almost makes it work. There are two main flaws, sadly.

The biggest flaw is not having enough memorable characters in what ends up being an oversized group to keep track of. I understand that Jardin needed enough people to allow for the twists, turns, and playfulness of the material, but viewers don't spend enough time with most of the characters to more easily follow their journeys, aside from Forbes and the central duo of Shelby and Cyrus, who we first see having a tense time before they get ready to head to the party.

The second flaw is an avoidance of extra tics and signifiers. It's understandable that Jardin would keep away from these things, not wanting to make the film too simplistic and implausible (because it would be harder to believe that characters were being fooled if we ourselves weren't being fooled), but this needed to be slightly simplified. For example, there's a reason why "timeloop" movies always have main events that work as time-stamp markers, and this needed some device akin to that.

Things are paced well though, there's a wonderfully "disruptive event" just over the halfway mark and a surprisingly delicious and satisfying ending, and Thompson is a great presence. It's a shame that very few of the other cast members can match him. O'Grady is decent enough as Shelby, Morosini is amusingly whiny as Cyrus, and Reina Hardesty impresses in the role of Brooke, but that's about it. Gavin Leatherwood, Nina Bloomgarden, Alycia Debnam-Carey, and Devon Terrell all just make up the numbers. There's fun to be had with Madison Davenport, but she doesn't get nearly as much screentime as she deserves.

I definitely enjoyed this, and it's a film that may well improve on multiple viewings (when you know what to keep an eye out for), but it's a shame that some of the ambition, as admirable as it is, gets in the way of what could have been a more interesting and entertaining film.

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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Shudder Saturday: MadS (2024)

Writer-director David Moreau may not be the most prolific person working in the movie business nowadays, but he certainly isn't afraid of trying different things. Whatever you think of it, Them AKA Ils (2006) impressed many horror movie fans when it was released. The Eye (2008) didn't impress anyone, to my knowledge, but Moreau was brave enough to even tackle it. He has since tackled comedy, a fantastical teen movie, and a heart-warming adventure drama about some people trying to return a trafficked lion cub to Africa. MadS sees him firmly back in the horror genre though, and it's almost as if he has something to prove. 

Milton Riche is Romain, a young man who takes some drugs before having his chilled evening plans ruined by an encounter with a sick and bloody young woman. What Romain doesn't understand is that he's about to be an important link in a chain that will lead to a zombie-like virus spreading. Romain inadvertently infects many other people, but the main one we then start to observe for a while is his girlfriend, Anais (Laurie Pavy). 

Presented as if everything is being shown in a single take, although some cuts are hidden away here and there, MadS is a bold and intriguing spin on the infection/zombie movie. Moreau builds up a head of steam in the opening scenes and then somehow manages to keep control of a rolling snowball of energy right up until the very last moment. While the style of the thing is a gimmick, it's done well enough to make it worthwhile, yet it's also done without seeming to stop every few minutes to point out how audacious it is being.

Things are helped along by the lead performances, particularly that of Pavy. Riche is good enough to make his potentially irritating character bearable for his section, and a third important character played (and played very well) by Lucille Guillaume gets to carry us to the end credits, but Pavy is the shining centrepiece here. Whether in carefree party mode or showing the changes within her via some great physical work, Pavy is consistently mesmerising.

I was wary when this started, worrying that I had started some kind of drug-fuelled horror movie that would compare to the divisive work of Gaspar Noé, but Moreau put my mind at ease within the first few minutes. A great title card gives way to a sudden dose of added tension, which then gives way to a narrative that creeps along as steadily and surely as the malady about to spread through the population. I said near the start of this review that it's almost as if Moreau has something to prove. Well . . . he certainly proves 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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

It: Chapter Two (2019)

It's still Andy Muschietti in the director's chair here, but the writing duties have now fallen to Gary Dauberman alone for this continuation of the tale that pits the Losers Club against a supernatural entity that often takes the form of a clown named Pennywise. Is that a good thing? Many people probably think not. I'm in the minority, and I think Dauberman does a fantastic job of filling this hefty 169-minute runtime with excellent scares and moments of dark surrealism.

In some of the most perfect casting to be committed to film, the youngsters from the first film are now shown in their adult forms, but also reappear in a number of flashbacks that tie events of the past and present together. Here is where I will credit both actors portraying them. You have Bill (Jaeden Martell/James McAvoy), Beverly (Sophia Lillis/Jessica Chastain), Richie (Finn Wolfhard/Bill Hader), Mike (Chosen Jacobs/Isaiah Mustafa), Ben (Jeremy Ray Taylor/Jay Ryan), Stanley (Wyatt Oleff/Andy Bean), and Eddie (Jack Dylan Grazer/James Ransome). And against this steadfast group is the constant source of terror that is It AKA Pennywise (Bill Skarsgård being as brilliant here as he was in the first part of the story). There are other characters who come in and out of the narrative, some just as important as any of our leads, but the heart of the film remains a group of close friends helping one another to battle their greatest fears.

Perhaps it was inevitable that this would pale in comparison to the successful first instalment, especially when many people would agree that the story of the adults just isn't as engaging or entertaining as the story of their childhood experience, but Muschietti and Dauberman work together to try their hardest at making this work as well as it can. Making liberal use of the child actors is one way that they help themselves. Continuing to let Skarsgård steal pretty much every scene he is in is another.

As far as I can tell, nobody likes this film as much as I do. People like it, and there are individual moments that they can point to as highlights, but the runtime and tone seems to have put many off. You can certainly feel the runtime, but I would still argue that it's not necessarily bloated, considering the many extra treats littered throughout. As for the tone, it's a bit lighter at times than the tone of the first film, but I don't think it ever strays too far away from some proper horror for too long. This is never going to be incorrectly labelled as a horror comedy, despite some of the levity and one-liners. It just shows adults using laughter as an essential release valve from an enormous build-up of stress and fear. I guess that some viewers were disappointed by moments that they thought were too silly to be scary, but I also enjoyed that aspect of the whole thing. This is a film that never forgets that the thing taking on the guise of Pennywise is much more than that, and every form it takes is designed to put victims into a "more succulent" state of fear. Yes, some moments are quite bizarre, and illustrated by suitably wild special effects, but they're all part and parcel of the shape-shifting horror that wouldn't be out of place in any Lovecraft tale.

While not as uniform as the first instalment, the acting here is generally top notch. One or two minor quibbles aside, mainly stemming from the writing more than the performances, everyone does great work, and there is a particular joy in watching the adults feel like such a natural development from the children that already made such a strong impression in the previous film.

Arguably even more visually impressive, and arguably even more ambitious, this is a horror movie that benefits from those involved believing that they can now fully embrace the disorderly and manic nature of the beast depicted. I love that about it. I love that it shows how to make your fears small and manageable. I love that there is as much time given to the ideals of friendship and hope as is given to the darkness and danger. I might be overcompensating slightly, considering how many others consider it the lesser work, but I consider this equal to the first film. There are different strengths and weaknesses, but the whole thing works perfectly to deliver a satisfactory ending without spending too much time repeating the exact same scares that we got the first time around.

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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

It (2017)

Adapting what is, for many, a formative reading experience into a movie is always a challenge. Attempting to do that after there's already been a fantastic, and beloved, TV movie adaptation that many still view as definitive and iconic would seem to be a fool's errand. It's happened before with Stephen King works though, and I have no doubt that it will happen again. I'm not sure I would mind if they all turned out as well as this.

It, and it's worth mentioning for those who may be unaware that this is the first, albeit nicely self-contained, part of an enjoyably sprawling horror story that is spread out over two movies, is all about a group of youngster who help one another survive an extremely deadly summer in Derry, Maine. They all end up being affected by a creature that can take on the shape of their fears, although it mostly catches victims while in the shape of Pennywise the clown (Bill Skarsgård, doing such a great job that he somehow manages to equal the nightmare-inducing performance given by Tim Curry in the 1990 TV movie). That's all you need to know. Seven children, a lifelong bonding experience, and a killer clown.

Having very recently rewatched this, I am sure that I was a bit harsh on It during my first viewing experience. I did praise certain elements, particularly the mix of scares and bloodshed without a reliance on either, but I also mentioned some unnecessary CGI used, a slightly weak script, and the fact that the main characters weren't really. Well . . . present me disagrees with the past me (although I still think there are one or two bits of CGI work that didn't have to be done that way, or maybe even done at all).

With Chase Palmer, Cary Fukunaga, and Gary Dauberman figuring out the best ways to turn King's major tome into a satisfying screenplay, Andy Muschietti can stay focused on direction. The screenplay is a great blend of coming-of-age episodes and well-executed scares, even if a number of them are jump scares, and Muschietti serves the material well. The film is, in many ways, a mood piece, a painting by someone who wants to depict growing pains and common anxieties in the same picture. And, in that regard, it works. In fact, it works brilliantly, constantly evoking a growing sense of nostalgia, the blossoming of dark petals of sadness, and an impressive sprinkling of dread over every main sequence.

There are no weak performances to critique, which makes it easy for me to simply namecheck all seven members of "The Loser's Club" here; Jaeden Martell (Bill, credited here as Jaeden Lieberher), Sophia Lillis (Beverly), Jeremy Ray Taylor (Ben), Finn Wolfhard (Richie), Chosen Jacobs (Mike), Jack Dylan Grazer (Eddie), and Wyatt Oleff (Stanley). All of these characters get enough time and space to feel like more than just a scared victim, and the cast members are all perfectly cast. Nicholas Hamilton and Owen Teague are also very good, although they are given the unenviable task of playing typical King bullies who are, and Jackson Robert Scott does well enough in the role of young Georgie to cast a suitable little shadow over the entire film. As for Skarsgård, he's a creepy and brilliant delight in ways that I cannot even begin to list here. Whether pretending to be innocent and fun or showing a hint of his true evil nature, he's always an interesting depiction of a monster never quite comfortable enough in any one form to fully convince people that there's no threat nearby.

The 135-minute runtime ticks over without any pacing issues, those responsible for the adaptation from page to screen have great instincts for what to show, what to imply, and what to completely excise, and the whole thing is just about as good as you can get, certainly in the realm of modern mainstream horror. It's still hard to watch without thinking of the novel, or thinking of that beloved TV movie, but it's easily up there with the very best King movies (and the top of that particular tree has some real classics nesting there).

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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Prime Time: Gamera: Guardian Of The Universe (1995)

A reboot of the movie series featuring everyone's favourite flying turtle-like kaiju, Gamera: Guardian Of The Universe is good fun for those already familiar with the IP.

The Gyaos are also back for this adventure, looking to cause mayhem and destruction in Japan until the arrival of Gamera. Always one to protect any children, first and foremost, Gamera this time forms a strong bong with young Asagi (Ayako Fujitani). This bond helps Asagi to inform others of what Gamera is trying to do, but that doesn't mean that everyone will view Gamera as an ally, especially when the government sees all of the damage caused by its actions. 

While not on a par with the special effects of many other mid-'90s blockbusters I could mention here, this is certainly a step up from the crude charm of the earlier movies. The "lo-fi" approach feels like a decision that has been made to avoid alienating fans, but there are some nice little details and clarity added to the creatures and their wider range of actions this time around. 

Writer Kazunori Itô, who had a great 1995 with his work on both this and Ghost In The Shell, does a very good job of delivering some facts for the uninitiated while also keeping things moving along for everyone eagerly awaiting some Gamera and/or Gyaos action. The same can be said for director Shûsuke Kaneko, doing more than enough to satisfy all-comers without hitting nowhere near the heights that he would reach in the years ahead (having given us even better kaiju movies, as well as the first superb live-action Death Note movie in 2006). 

Cast-wise, things are also pretty good. Fujitani is likeable enough as young Asagi, and Tsuyoshi Ihara, Akira Onodera, and Shinobu Nakayama do well as other main characters trying to figure out how to put an end to the giant creature battles before Japan suffers too much collateral damage. You get the usual selection of authority figures (police, military personnel, and, ummmmm, civil servants), but the plotting allows for Asagi and co. to remain the clear focus while moving around in the shadows of the kaiju.

It's not quite as fun as some other instalments in the series, but this does what is required to successfully reboot everything, allowing us to get a couple of movies that are even better (well, I know the next film is a favourite of mine, but I'm being presumptuous about the as-yet-unseen Gamera 3: Revenge Of Iris). Whatever your personal preferences when it comes to individual instalments in the series, this should keep you happy enough if you've watched the other films that came before it.

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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

The Last Voyage Of The Demeter (2023)

Based on one specific chapter from Dracula, this is an old-fashioned horror movie that makes great use of modern effects to depict, and enhance, a classic bit of text. Directed by André Øvredal, who is yet to helm a real stinker in his filmography, it's as easy to appreciate and enjoy this as it is to, sadly, see why it failed to find a big audience.

Corey Hawkins plays Clemens, a man who ends up getting himself hired as a crew member on the Demeter. Captain Eliot (Liam Cunningham) is a fair taskmaster, but he soon finds himself overwhelmed by numerous incidents that make everyone suspect their voyage may be cloaked in misfortune. It may well have something to do with their mysterious cargo, which won't be a surprise to anyone familiar with the source material.

Despite the inherent limitations of the source material (meaning the film takes place mainly in one location and with a fairly limited cast of characters), The Last Voyage Of The Demeter manages to come up with a number of inventive and entertaining ways to wander through very familiar territory. Writers Bragi F. Schut and Zak Olkewicz have less consistency than Øvredal, but they seem to work together well on something that approaches the trappings of the vampire movie with an impressive sense of reverence and earnestness.

While the cast are a mixed bag (I don't want to spend too much time discussing the accent work by David Dastmalchian, nor do I want to try to list those who play the more forgettable characters), the leads are excellent. Hawkins is the right person to carry this on his shoulders, especially when he can occasionally share the burden with Cunningham, Aisling Franciosi does very good work as a stowaway who knows the danger of the "cargo" being transported, and Javier Botet delivers yet another physical performance under heavy make up that puts him right alongside Doug Jones when it comes to being able to bring supernatural beings to life in solid humanoid form.

The runtime may be a touch too long, as the runtime clocks in at just under the 2-hour mark, but there's plenty to enjoy here, from start to finish. There's wonderful music from Bear McCreary, gorgeous cinematography from Tom Stern (although I did thing things a bit hard to see in a finale that sets everything in the middle of a dark and foggy area of the sea . . . but maybe that's more to do with my ageing eyes than the professionals working to create the visuals), and beautiful design work throughout every department, from sound to wardrobe, and everything in between.

It's far from perfect, especially when the screen has too many characters that aren't really memorable enough to do more than add to the bodycount, but this is an enjoyable and surprisingly bloody little film that makes good use of modern movie-making techniques to deliver something comfortably old-fashioned at heart, yet garnished with some impressive effects and bloodshed. Not recommended for the impatient, but tentatively recommended for vampire movie fans.

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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Mubi Monday: Humanist Vampire Seeking Consenting Suicidal Person (2023)

Although I have often told people that a movie title tells you everything you need to know about the feature, it has rarely felt so specific. Humanist Vampire Seeking Consenting Suicidal Person is unlikely to be stumbled upon by people thinking that they're about to see anything other than that specific scenario, which is both good and bad. It's good to have films that aren't judged by people simply critiquing it for what it isn't, but it's bad to have titles like this consigned to a destiny of minor cult fandom.

Sara Montpetit plays Sasha, a young girl who ends up not being best-suited to the vampirism running through her family tree. She has more compassion than she should, which makes things very tricky when she's supposed to be finding victims to feed from. Things look up, however, when she meets Paul (Félix-Antoine Bénard), a young man feeling suicidal, which could allow Sasha to plan a meal without being too bothered by any sense of guilt. Paul has some things to do before he faces the very end of his life though, and Sasha encourages him to make an effort to grab some satisfaction while he can.

Although we've seen many interesting, and often comedic, takes on vampirism over the past few decades, this feature debut from director Ariane Louis-Seize (working with writer Christine Doyon, also making her feature debut) is something that manages to be sweet and funny in a way that doesn't detract from the core idea of a young woman struggling to find a way to fit in with the traditions and expectations of her family. There are laughs to be had here, but it's a coming-of-age drama with some amusing moments throughout, as opposed to anything close to an outright comedy.

Nicely shot by Shawn Pavlin, this is time spent with characters living in darkness, both internally and externally, and the whole thing maintains a consistent atmosphere of a certain kind of limbo in which young people wake every day to engage in some horrible Sisyphean struggle; just getting through the hours ahead of them until they can retreat to the safety of their personal space once again.

Both Montpetit and Bénard are very good in their roles, two sensitive souls who ultimately bring out the best in one another. Both portray familiar character types without ever feeling as if they're showing us the kind of performances that we've seen many times before. Arnaud Vachon plays an irritating bully, something he does well enough to make you want to see him cross paths with the wrong "victim" eventually, and Noémie O'Farrell is very good as Sasha's cousin, Denise, someone already very inured to the idea of killing humans off for the sake of a consistent food supply.

Maybe lacking a real stand-out moment, and arguably a bit inconsequential by the time the end credits roll, Humanist Vampire Seeking Consenting Suicidal Person is a sweet and lovingly-handled work that deserves some more eyes on it. I'm not sure that will happen though, but that will just make it seem all the more valuable to those who enjoy it and hold it dear. And I'm happy to place myself in that camp.

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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Netflix And Chill: Emelie (2015)

It used to be the case that horror movies would spend a lot of time showing us a babysitter in grave danger. Now we have a decent selection of movies that show us that the call is coming from inside the house in a different way. Babysitters aren't as innocent and trustworthy as they used to be. Emelie certainly turns out to be someone that you wouldn't want to leave alone with your children.

The only feature film, so far, from director Michael Thelin, who co-wrote the story with writer Richard Raymond Harry Herbeck, this is a relatively simple tale of a babysitter who isn't who she says she is. Emelie (Sarah Bolger) turns up to look after Jacob (Joshua Rush), Sally (Carly Adams), and Christopher (Thomas Bair), and the parents (played by Chris Beetem and Randi Langdon) assume that she is the young woman they hired named Anna. They head off for a date night, happy that the children will have a responsible young woman taking care of them. Although things start off well enough, they soon take a turn for the strange when Emelie's charade is revealed.

Walking a fine line between the thrills that the movie needs and some small semblance of plausibility, Emelie is an entertaining and dark thriller that should please movie fans who are now used to seeing a twist on the standard "babysitter in peril" premise. There are enough details revealed to show the motivation, and mental state, of the main character, but everyone seems to be aware that this isn't the kind of thing that can sustain an overlong runtime (it clocks in at a judicious 82 minutes).

Bolger is very good in the titular role, revealing more and more of her real self as the evening unfolds. She's initially mischievous, but that soon turns into real malice when it looks as if things aren't going to go her way. Rush, Adams, and Bair all give fine performances as the children in her care, with Rush being allowed to get more work to do as his character starts to piece together the full extent of the danger that he and his siblings could be in. Beetem and Langdon are mostly offscreen, of course, but do get one or two surprisingly good moments as their date night comes to an end, Elizabeth Jayne is enjoyable as an "unwelcome" visitor who could scupper Emelie's plans, and Dante Hoagland is a welcome, if unnecessary addition, playing Jacob's friend, Dan.

Both Thelin and Herbeck have a good idea of just how far to take things before it all reaches a point of no return. There are no big surprises, and all of the tension comes from the simple fact that a group of innocent children have been placed in jeopardy by parents who don't realise that they've made a huge, and potentially deadly, mistake, but this is a decent little psychological thriller.

Not one to bump up your viewing list, especially if you have more highly-rated recommendations to check out, but this is worth the relatively short time investment required, if only just for the fantastic lead performance from Bolger, who seems to be having a blast portraying a character I'd love to see re-used elsewhere.

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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Shudder Saturday: Daddy's Head (2024)

Daddy’s Head is far from the first film to use the trappings of horror to explore grief. It’s also far from the first film to explore growing tension between a parent and child. I have to say though, considering the plot description, that I didn’t expect to be thinking of one specific film so often throughout my time viewing this. That film was The Babadook. And this is much better than that.

Young Isaac (Rupert Turnbull) is left in the care of his struggling step-mother, Laura (Julia Brown), after the sudden death of his father. It may only be a temporary situation, because Laura may barely be able to care for herself at this time, let alone a child, but maybe they can help one another through the dark tunnel of grief until they see light at the end. Or maybe an interloper will make things even more difficult for them, especially when it seems to be Isaac’s father, back from the dead in a twisted and malevolent form.

The second film from director Benjamin Barfoot, who also wrote the screenplay this time around after making his feature debut a few years ago with Double Date (a glorious horror comedy written by the lead, Danny Morgan), Daddy’s Head is much more interesting and thought-provoking than I expected it to be. Balancing out the good and the bad, as well as the straightforward drama and the standard horror movie moments, this is a mature and careful exploration of grief that many may pass over due to the title and basic plot description. The two main characters don’t necessarily mean to make things any more difficult for one another, they just aren’t able to make things any easier as they become more and more pre-occupied with managing their own pain.

Turnbull and Brown are equally excellent in roles that require them to show themselves in a very poor light. The script helps them to be problematic without making them unbearable, thanks to the strong current of grief running through the film and the well-balanced performances. There are a few good supporting cast members helping to remind viewers of the potential for outsiders to observe and judge our leads, but the others who deserve a mention are Nathaniel Martello-White, complicating things as a slightly-too-close friend of Laura, and Charles Aitken as “daddy”.

On the one hand, I’m not sure who to recommend this to. On the other hand, I would love everyone to watch this. It will be a divisive experience, especially with the way in which things play out in the very last scenes, but patient viewers should find themselves rewarded with a film that uses some pulp fiction to shine a light on a dark and vital aspect of the human experience.

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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Salem's Lot (2024)

It's been 20 years since the last adaptation of Salem's Lot so I guess there's a chance that many people exploring the horror genre nowadays will be less familiar with the tale, first presented in a Stephen King novel that remains one of his best, before being turned into a traumatic TV movie directed by Tobe Hooper. There have also been other sojourns into, or near, the town, with A Return To Salem's Lot in the mid-1980s, and King himself expanding on the tale in separate short stories and as part of the threads winding through The Dark Tower book series. So I don't think it should ever be classed as something that cannot be revisited/reworked.

Lewis Pullman is our Ben Mears this time around, a writer who returns to the small town that he lived in for a time as a child. The town, and particularly one large house, has a certain pull to it. Ben forms a connection with Susan Norton (Makenzie Leigh) while he is back in town, and befriends a schoolteacher named Matt Burke (Bill Camp). It doesn't take long for these three to notice that something strange is happening around them, with town residents disappearing or acting very odd, as a powerful vampire decides to make Jerusalem's Lot the base for his attempt to turn the USA into his own little Fangtasia.

The second film directed by Gary Dauberman, who helped to make the Annabelle series such a success, and also worked on the screenplay for both chapters of It, the biggest problem with Salem's Lot is something I wouldn't normally tend to complain about. It's far too short. Considering both of the main previous attempts to film this story have clocked in at about the 3-hour mark, this solo movie needs far more than the 114-minute runtime it gets. That becomes very obvious when scenes seem to clash against one another, allowing no time for the proper development of the bigger picture of a town being infected and turned into a ghost town (but, obviously, the ghosts are all vampires).

There are good moments here, all of the actual vampire stuff is well-handled (it's often spooky and inventive, if never actually scary), and the way in which certain scenes are reworked is often surprisingly successful, especially in the change of setting for the big final battle. It's just a shame that the pacing never feels right for most of the runtime, with the exception of a few set-pieces in the second half that you just know the rest of the movie was planned around.

Pullman is decent in the lead role, although he doesn't shine as brightly as some other potential choices (Ben Mears has never been the most memorable King character though, despite the greatness of the story). Leigh is better, with the advantage of being able to comment on a town that she's lived in all her life. Both Bill Camp and Alfre Woodard (playing Dr. Cody) are excellent, feeling quite appropriately like more experienced peers helping the younger leads to deal with a very odd situation, and there are also enjoyable performances from John Benjamin Hickey (as Father Callahan), William Sadler (Sheriff Parker Gillespie), Pilou Asbæk (as Mr. Straker), and Spencer Treat Clark (superbly unnerving as the grave-digger, Mike Ryerson). The other person to mention is Jordan Preston Carter, playing young Mark Petrie with an expected mix of wisdom, anger, and terror. Carter is very good in the role, although a couple of the best moments involving his character are slightly mis-handled, again all to do with the pacing.

Maybe we'll see the full version of this one day, and I don't doubt that there was a lot of extra work done in the editing room here. It's almost like watching a series on a streaming service and accidentally hitting the "play next episode" option twice, leaving you with a gap that you piece together as the ongoing narrative continues. There's still enough to enjoy here, and it's certainly not as bad as many other remakes I could mention. The visuals and atmosphere both have moments of brilliance, but it's clear from the opening credits and very first scenes that this is a film with much more just beyond the edges of the screen that horror fans would love to see.

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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share