The Watcher In The Woods (1980)

Here we are, once again, with another film I had always been aware of, from a very young age, but somehow never got around to watching. This was, to me, that Disney horror movie, and I'm annoyed that it took me so long to see it.

David McCallum and Carroll Baker play Paul and Helen Curtis, parents to two girls named Jan (Lynn-Holly Johnson) and Ellie (Kyle Richards). This family all move into a new home, owned by Mrs Aylwood (Bette Davis), an elderly woman who lives just next door to the main residence. It just so happens that Mrs Aylwood approved the family as tenants because Jan reminded her of her own daughter, Karen (Katherine Levy), who disappeared many years ago. A number of mysterious events occur, convincing Jan that Karen is trying to communicate with them. But what is the message, and will anyone in the area appreciate the past being raked over?

Enjoyably atmospheric at times, and striking the right balance between spookiness and adventure, The Watcher In The Woods is sometimes a great mix. The tone is pitched nicely for family viewing, and some of the small scares are effective. Developed from the book by Florence Engel Randall, the script (initially by Brian Clemens, subsequently revised by Rosemary Ann Sisson and others) is good when it comes to the main premise and how events interconnect on the way to the third act. It's just a shame that everything else falters.

The brief runtime doesn't stop the film from feeling a bit dragged out, thanks to pacing issues that arise after the halfway point, the direction from John Hough (with reshoots from an uncredited Vincent McEveety) is a bit lifeless and feels like they were aiming for a TV movie feel rather than a theatrical release, and even the resolution ends up lacking the thrills it should have.

The acting covers a wide spectrum. Davis is wonderful in her role, playing Mrs Aylwood with the right mixture of concern and shadiness that arguably comes with pretty much any character she plays, and McCallum and Baker do well enough as the parents, kept to the background throughout much of the story. Other main adult actors onscreen (Richard Pasco, Ian Bannen, and Frances Cuka) do alright, as does young Benedict Taylor, but the female leads let the side down. Levy is okay most of the time, it's not so much her acting style as her being at the mercy of the script, but Johnson overacts in almost every scene. It's less noticable in the earlier scenes, but becomes more and more obvious as the plot unfolds, making it a cringeworthy experience almost every time she starts to shout and show any nervousness or tension.

Once again, I may have liked this more when it was originally released, when I was closer to the right age for it and less exposed to the multitude of movies I have subsequently experienced. As it is, it's okay. That's all. I think children will still find enough to enjoy, but you will need to let them check it out before they are bombarded with the typical array of CGI wizardry and inventiveness that inhabits most modern slices of entertainment aimed at younger viewers.

6/10

The film can be bought here.
Americans can buy it here.

Dogs (1976).

The puns can begin straight away with this one. A complete dog of a movie. We're gonna need a bigger bone. Things get a bit . . . . . . ruff.

I’ll try to control myself now, I apologise but this is the kind of movie that leaves you to make up your own fun while the plot plays out predictably and with a serious lack of any excitement.

It’s all about a sudden spate of attacks by dogs, hence the title. Something (could it be whatever’s being done in that damn lab?) has turned them into vicious killers. Even the ones that look like cuddly Labradors being prodded into action by some offscreen dog wrangler. It’s up to David McCallum to provide the star power and possible solution, George Wyner is the other big brain who believes him when nobody else does and Linda Gray . . . . . . . . . . takes off her glasses and puts them on again in some kind of strange, and strangely alluring, seductive tic.

Dogs is just one of those movies, so prevalent in the 70s, about animals that turn into killers but it could have been a very good one. Instead, it wastes it’s premise by failing to cover up the budgetary shortcomings, throwing in one too many scenes clearly meant to instil terror that clearly instil mild amusement instead and not throwing in lots and lots of gore to compensate for whatever else it’s missing.

McCallum is okay in the lead role but he’s stuck playing the kind of clichéd, dull hero that we’ve seen far too many times in the genre. A maverick, a guy who can stumble onto something major but not get the back-up to find a solution in time to save the lives of the locals around him, he may as well have “rugged, moody, intelligent hero” tattooed on his forehead.

As for the dogs themselves, they don’t really get a chance to shine despite having the title of the movie. There are occasional moments of tension and violence but our canine killers spend most of the time looking like they’d much rather be fetching sticks or chasing rubber balls. Many of the dogs look the part, and are much scarier than (for example) the large rabbits in Night Of The Lepus, but just as many look like they couldn’t bite their way out of Paris Hilton’s handbag.

I actually enjoyed this more than The Breed, a killer dog movie released 30 years after this one, but that’s because there was more that was obviously laughable and it didn’t have Michelle Rodriguez in it. Other viewers may be more discerning and decide to avoid the film completely but fans of the genre, and all it can offer, can at least mine SOME entertainment value from this film. But there are many preferable options.

4/10.

http://www.amazon.com/Dogs-1976-Remastered-Widescreen-Blu-ray/dp/B00HVFA34A/ref=sr_1_2?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1394495188&sr=1-2&keywords=dogs