Cruel Summer (2016)

Based on a true story, inspired by real events, although I suspect that inspiration comes from the fact that people have been killed by people many times over the years, and Bananarama once released a single called "Cruel Summer", this is the kind of film you can watch when you want to be reminded of the fact that many opportunities are still out there in the film industry for those who arguably don't deserve them. Because Cruel Summer is really bad. It wouldn't seem so bad if it was shown as part of some ongoing plot strand in a late-night Hollyoaks special, or even if the nastier moments were cut out to make it something shown in schools, but those involved weren't doing that. They made a feature film. It's mercifully short, but it's still a feature film.

Danny (Richard Pawulski, who I am completely unsurprised to see hasn't had a main acting role since this) is off to spend some time camping in the woods. It will help him to complete whatever checklist is required for his Duke Of Edinburgh award scheme. Danny also has autism. And he's about to become the target of someone with plenty of anger issues. Nicholas (Danny Miller) has recently split up with his girlfriend, and Julia (Natalie Martins) decides to try and help him feel better about the split by lying to him. She says that his ex had slept with Danny. Nicholas immediately goes on the warpath, with Julia in tow, and they also get Calvin (Reece Douglas) on their side, by developing the lie to say that Danny is a dangerous pedophile who needs taught a lesson.

The writing-directing team of Phillip Escott and Craig Newman seem to have found their niche nowadays in making featurettes and documentaries about other movies (both had a history with that subject matter, but , to be more accurate in my generalisation, it's Escott who has gone on to do more and more in that realm). I was not a fan of Escott’s last main doc, The Found Footage Phenomenon, but will happily watch a second instalment if it keeps him away from trying his hand at more fictional fare. The two film-makers don’t show themselves up as incompetent here, by any means, but they spectacularly fail to address fixable flaws in their work, from weak moments in the screenplay to at least one acting choice that feels sorely misjudged, at best. There are also issues with the pacing and tone that more capable people could have easily avoided, although I will admit that the third act generally builds things to an impressively bleak and unflinching finale.

I am not going to spend time here shredding the performance of Pawulski. Maybe, MAYBE, it was based on people he knew, or people he met while preparing for the role. It seems unlikely though, based on my own experiences with those who have had varying degrees of autism. Other people can decide whether to give him the benefit of the doubt or not. Miller plays his character well enough, but there is also something in his performance that had my spidey-sense tingling. Perhaps due to the script, he feels unable to commit to the character, more energetic and impressive when he is allowed to show a lack of self-control. It’s understandable that he wouldn’t spend all of his time unable to keep his violence in check, but the moments of calm don’t even hint at the undercurrent of rage surely held within. Martins does a lot better, giving easily the best and most convincing performance in the film, scheming to get in more tightly with a guy she likes, but never believing that the chain of events she sets in motion will ever go too far. Douglas also does a decent job, being the unwitting accomplice in a scheme that he soon realises is bullshit.

There is no reason to ever pick this as a main viewing choice. Better completely fictional tales have been told about this kind of thing, better documentaries can be found to show similar, and similarly upsetting, crimes. And anything else you might be seeking, whether that’s a good selection of scares or a showcase for some great acting, is available in hundreds, if not thousands, of other movies that are more deserving of your time. This is bad. Not godawful, but bad enough to recommend completely avoiding. You won’t be missing out.

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

Netflix And Chill: Poltergeist Activity (2015)

There are very few, if any, times when it is acceptable to be personally insulting to anyone making movies. I would argue, however, that someone treating viewers with complete disdain, delivering them a product that is clearly slapped together with a lack of care or consideration, is one of those times when reciprocating with a certain brusque manner, or overt rudeness, is generally okay. Because why give someone respect who seems unable to respect the people who may have spent some of their money to be suckered in by a terrible (usually horror) film?

And that is why I am starting this review by confidently stating that writer-director Andrew Jones should step away from film-making, or maybe he just needs to get himself in the company of financiers and producers who can better help him realise a proper movie. Jones has been responsible for some of the worst movies that I've seen throughout the past decade, and all of them are given some decent artwork to lure people in, as well as a title that either plays on some other movie or hints at something MUCH better (e.g. Poltergeist Activity, The Amityville Asylum, and anyone using the name Amityville in a title that isn't an official part of the series should have a warm seat kept for them in a special circle of cinema hell, The Manson Family Massacre, The Jonestown Haunting, Cabin 28, and Alien: Battlefield Earth). Who knows, maybe something like Jurassic Predator manages to be daffy fun. I'm not brave enough to check it out yet, I believe it is safest to only watch one Andrew Jones film a year, at most. The BEST thing I have seen from him is Robert, a killer doll movie that has inexplicably turned into a whole series by now (about 5 films so far, unless I am miscounting). And I gave that a mighty 3/10. The worst I have seen from him is The Curse Of Halloween Jack. Well, that was the case until I saw this film.

Lee Bane plays David Prescott, a man who moves into a new house with his daughter, Katherine (Natalie Martins). Unfortunately, it turns out that the house has a dark history. Before you can say "is that clown doll there just to reference the best Poltergeist movie?" things start to get freaky and scary. That's what is supposed to happen anyway. What actually happens is father and daughter arguing with one another, things becoming more unbearable for them in the house, and the eventual help of an occult expert, Hans Voltz (Jared Morgan). There's also a neighbour, Mrs. Blankenship (Judith Haley), who knows about the history of the house. And one scene in which Sam Harding plays Alex, a character he seems a bit too old to be playing.

Absolutely horrible, almost painfully so, from start to finish, this is amateur film-making at its very worst. Although the acting is quite bad, I am loathe to blame the cast. This feels like one of many British horror films that is made with the approach of "well, we have a central idea/title/poster, I am sure we can work out the rest while filming". If you know me at all then you will know that I always try to find some good in everything. Very few films have nothing at all going for them. This is one of those rare ones. And the less said about the audio mix, and music from Bobby Cole, the better.

Consistently ugly, there's genuinely not one moment here that even accidentally frames the action in a way that you can acknowledge resulted from a conscious choice, absolutely lacking any actual scares, often laughable when it's trying to be serious, this is a disaster. Destined to be a solid choice for any bad movie club, the only other place this should appear is in a wastebin. Which is then dumped in the sea.

One final note, a warning to the curious (if you will), is that I've probably oversold it here. Although mentioning it as a contender for a bad movie club choice, this doesn't even manage to be laughable in the right way. You just end up growing increasingly incredulous as you realise that people worked on this, people thought they were making something worthwhile, and then they thought that others might pay to see it. Do NOT ever exchange any money for this. Ever. Because a penny spent on this is a penny you could have used as a sacrifice in one of those wonderful "Make Your Own Penny" machines that can be found at numerous tourist attractions up and down the UK.

P.S. If anyone involved in these films ever wants to contact me and put forward their side of things then I'll be happy to email back and forth, and allow some space here for that dialogue. My email address is kevinjmatthews75@gmail.com

1/10

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

A Werewolf In England (2020)

Writer-director Charlie Steeds seems like a lovely man. And he's certainly been doing his best in recent years to provide horror fans with a number of British genre flicks. So it's with no great relish that I warn people to avoid A Werewolf In England, which is arguably even worse than most of The Howling sequels (yes, I know what I am saying, unfortunately).

Tim Cartwright is Horrace, a man in charge of a prisoner (Archie, played by Reece Connolly) who is to be sentenced to death. They have to shelter at an inn for the night, and it turns out that those running the inn have some guests marked as potential food for some local werewolves.

On the one hand, fair play to Steeds for not letting his limited resources narrow his vision. Where some people might just figure out a way to make this a modern horror movie with one main creature, Steeds has decided to set this in years gone by, and to show multiple werewolves. On the other hand, there's a fine difference between genius and stupidity. Worrying about making one werewolf that looks good enough to be shown onscreen is one thing. Having more than one, or editing to make it look that way, doesn't feel like a wise decision, especially when things aren't quite as polished and effective as they could be (to put it nicely). The first full werewolf sighting is disappointing, and things don't get any better.

Oh well, at least the script is energetic and full of good humour, eh. No. Those involved with the film may have thought that, but it's not. Humour, like horror, is very subjective, but there's something far too on the nose about the potential metaphor that came to my mind as I had to endure a drawn-out scene in which a werewolf inadvertently sprayed two main characters with liquid shit. Nothing feels well thought out, and the second half feels very much like a lot of padding around whatever gags Steeds thought would be enough to make the movie worthwhile.

I wouldn't say that Cartwright and Connolly were bad, not exactly, but they're given material that needs them to do a lot of mugging and overacting in ways that don't really show them in their best light. Natalie Martins fares a little better, playing an "employee" at the inn, named Jane, but most of the cast are left to the same fate as the leads.

I like the attitude of Steeds, he doesn't seem to be in the mindset that so many others might adopt while working on independent British horrors and he's certainly trying to be prolific without necessarily joining in with the titles that feel like they've come out of some British manufacturing line (the ones that feel like British companies emulating The Asylum). It's just maybe worth remembering that quality over quantity can also be a good thing. 

2/10

https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Nothing like this is IN the movie.

Vampire Virus AKA After Dark (2020)

Charlie Steeds has directed about half a dozen features before this one, which I am going to insist on referring to by the better title of After Dark (EVEN if it eventually ends up being forced to go under the far-less-enjoyable title of Vampire Virus). I haven't seen any of his other works, but I've heard some praise for them, especially The Barge People, which I need to see soon.

After Dark is a familiar tale, a woman (Jennifer, played by Natalie Martins) has herself a nice sexy time and then finds that she's feeling quite different after. It turns out that she's been vampirised, which adds tension to her relationship with her friend/co-tenant Jack (Peter Lofsgard), who happens to be dating a police officer (Freddie, played by Derek Nelson). And that police officer is part of a special squad looking to take care of a vampire menace.

The look and feel of After Dark is very much in line with some beloved vampire movies from the 1980s (this is very much a distant relative to the likes of Fright Night and Vamp), which is a huge bonus. Although filmed mostly in the UK, it is set in America, and designed to feel like a pretty standardised American horror film. I don't mean that in a disparaging way, I just mean that it works extra hard to avoid looking like a low-budget, low-aiming, British indie flick.

The script, written by Steeds and Sam Ashurst, is lively and fun, happily running through the full range of dialogue and exchanges that you'd expect to find in a cool vampire movie, and everything unfolds at a cracking pace, thanks to the appeal of the central characters and the timing of some well-done gore gags.

Martins is very good in the lead role, perfect as both the uncertain and scared incarnation of her character and the strong and confident version, and she's capably supported by both Lofsgard and Nelson, even if the latter is more of a stereotypical role you can find in many other vampire/horror movies (he's basically a good cop still doing his job after being given a peek "behind the curtain). Then we have Jéssica Alonso, playing Izabella, the prime vampire who changes Jennifer's life.

You can, if you're that type of person, have fun spotting the many ways in which Steed and co. tried to cover up the fact that they were filming an American-set movie while not being actually in America. If you do that, however, then do balance out your critical eye with an appreciation of what ended up onscreen. This often looks great, and it's impressive to see a small film like this aim to be something more, something with ambition and scope that is rarely seen in smaller UK film releases.

Flawed, both in terms of the material and also the execution of the material, this is still worth your time, and I would say that it's very much worth your support. I'd rather have a few more films like this every year than the hundred other found-footage horror movies we've had that throw people into the British countryside and try to make a plus point of having very limited resources.

6/10

https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews