Prime Time: Dark Harvest (2023)

Based on what seems to be quite a popular YA book by Norman Partridge, Dark Harvest is a film with some nice moments of Halloween atmosphere to it, but not much else.

There’s a small town with a strange and deadly tradition that involves forcing a number of young men to fast before setting them on the task of stopping a supernatural creature named Sawtooth Jack getting from the cornfield to the town church. Many will die, but one person will be a victorious hero, allowing them to leave town and enjoy a much better life. Richie (Casey Likes) isn’t supposed to take part in the event, only one family member takes a turn and his older brother already won, and has been gone since that time, but he decides to break the rules, assisted by a young woman named Kelly (Emyri Crutchfield). As the night goes on, Richie starts to become more curious about the creation of Sawtooth Jack. There may be more than just a hibernating “demon” coming out into the open tonight.

Directed by David Slade, a director who came out swinging almost two decades ago with a double-whammy of Hard Candy and then the cinematic adaptation of 30 Days Of Night, Dark Harvest has a style and cool visual palette that feels very much in line with the cinematic signature of Slade, but it’s lacking something essential in the script.

The person responsible for getting this from novel to script form is Michael Gilio. Gilio was one part of the writing team responsible for Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Amongst Thieves, but he clearly works better with others than he does on his own. While some individual elements here work, mainly the scenes that put atmosphere ahead of the plot, most of the film is a disappointing mess, with poor explanations and unbelievable motivations built on a central idea that isn’t given enough proper care and attention. The script is a weak foundation, and nothing stays settled for too long before collapsing. The third act is fumbled and wobbly, undercutting a finale that ends up having no impact whatsoever.

It doesn’t help that the casting feels misjudged. Crutchfield is excellent, and it’s usually good to see Jeremy Davies (who plays the father to our lead) onscreen, but nobody else makes a strong impression. So it all rests on the shoulders of Likes, but Likes isn’t captivating enough to keep things watchable. If you can watch this without being bored at least once then please let me know your secret.

I cannot recommend this, and I really wish I could, but it at least has some great seasonal atmosphere running through it, and there are a few individual scenes that I really enjoyed (all of them involving Sawtooth Jack, a well-realised creation you might end up rooting for more than anyone else onscreen). Disappointing, but certainly not unwatchable.

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

Shudder Saturday: Nightmare Cinema (2018)

The main thing to take away from Nightmare Cinema is this; if you're in a cinema and you find out that Mickey Rourke is smirking as he projects the movies onscreen while slinking his snakehips up and down the aisles to chat to the patrons then you need to get the hell out of there.

The second thing to take away from it is not to be fooled by an anthology horror movie that tries to squash together some big names alongside some lesser-known names to provide solid entertainment for horror fans. This is not solid entertainment. It is, sadly, quite the disappointment.

There are five main tales here, framed by the scariest element of the whole thing (that Rourke-shaped projectionist), and only two work as well as they should. First up is a strong opener, The Thing In The Woods, written and directed by Alejandro Brugués. It's a fun romp through familiar territory until viewers are given an extra piece of information that turns everything on its head. Great fun, a decent twist, and a solid ending. Exactly what you want from a short film/anthology segment. Next up is Mirari, written by Richard Christian Matheson and directed by Joe Dante. I wanted to love this, it's been a while since the last thing I saw from Joe Dante, but that wasn't to be the case. It's not bad, and becomes increasingly twisted and gross in the second half, but it's all far too close to a very famous episode of The Twilight Zone (that I won't namecheck here, it gives too much away). Things get worse from there, with Mashit, which is written by Sandra Becerril and directed by Ryûhei Kitamura. This tale of demonic possession gives you nobody, and nothing, to care about. And it goes on for far too long. This Way To Egress is directed by David Slade, who also co-wrote the tale with Lawrence C. Connolly (writer of the short story it is based on). Funnily enough, although this is a big step up after the previous two tales, the biggest problem it has is that it's VERY similar to one of the newer episodes of The Twilight Zone. Again, naming the episode would give too much away, but it will feel very familiar to anyone who saw the latest series. Last, ending with a whimper instead of a bang, is Dead, written and directed by Mick Garris.

As uneven as the cast are throughout this selection of horror stories, that feels slightly unimportant anyway, considering the main draw for many people will be those involved behind the camera. And yet . . . just how many of these names ARE a big enough draw for all but the most die-hard fans of their work. I'll watch anything Dante does, his name is the hot ticket here, but I can take or leave the rest. Brugues and Slade have, for the most part, worked on TV content or other shorts over the past few years, which perhaps explains why they do better within this format. Kitamura impressed me with the vicious Downrange just a couple of years ago, but he's still not someone I would necessarily seek out. As for Garris, I remain perplexed by his "master of horror" status. It always seems like a little club he made up for him and his friends after spending a number of years riding the coat-tails of Stephen King (and this is coming from someone who has a major soft spot for The Stand).

It's glaringly obvious where the main flaws lie here, from the stories that have the weaker scripts to the general inability to pare things down to a more appealing runtime. Both Mashit and Dead would have been improved by being cut down to about 50% of their current length, for example, and cuts could also have been made elsewhere. There's also a feeling that not every director was paired up with material best suited to their style. Dante, for example, has to work with a tale that is set largely in a sterile hospital environment. Who thought that was a good idea? His "home ground", as it were, is American suburbia, either realistic or cine-realistic, and something that allows him to use everything he has genuine affection for in ways that he always makes fresh and more entertaining.

There's not much more to say. I don't want to make this feel like a review of the worst anthology horror movie ever. It's still worth a watch for the better stories (and other viewers will have different opinions on what works and what doesn't). It's just disappointing for those who want something a bit more memorable. Having said that, it's STILL largely better than the new Creepshow series.

5/10