It's very hard for me to now look at Muppet Treasure Island and wonder why I didn't enjoy it so much when I first saw it. The presence of Kevin Bishop aside, who is at least much more bearable as a child actor as he is in adult form, this is a typically enjoyable Muppety adventure, based on the famous tale by Robert Louis Stevenson. The worst thing I can say about it is that it isn't The Muppet Christmas Carol.
Kevin Bishop plays young Jim Hawkins, a boy who ends up in receipt of a treasure map that he then takes on board a ship, The Hispaniola. The crew seem like a decent lot, especially that charming fellow named Long John Silver (played by Tim Curry), but there's mutiny and plundering in the air. And a small dose of cabin fever.
Brian Henson is credited as director, although there seems to have been a lot of work done by David Lane, and three writers put the script together, giving audiences the standard mix of fun characters, gags, and musical moments. The songs here may not be as memorable as some, there's only one that I can remember right now (to do with the aforementioned cabin fever), but they're serviceable enough and interspersed sparingly throughout the proceedings.
Bishop isn't as annoying as some child actors, which is a plus, and Curry adds another excellent performance to his CV with his portrayal of Silver. There are also small roles for Billy Connolly and Jennifer Saunders, both fun to watch even if they're only onscreen during the first quarter of the film. As for the Muppets, you get most of the usual suspects: Kermit, Miss Piggy, Fozzie Bear, Gonzo, Rizzo The Rat, Sam The Eagle, Dr Bunsen and Beaker, and the grumpy old fellas who comment on what's going on (Statler and Waldorf). Another point against the film, however, is the fact that they're not given as much screentime as they get in other films. Miss Piggy, for example, appears onscreen about 20-25 minutes before the very end, while both Kermit and Fozzie are given lead roles that still somehow leave them feeling like minor players in this tale (because the focus is always on the main human characters).
Okay, having started with such optimism, I can now remember why I didn't love this the first time around. It's all down to the fact that there's more time spent with humans than Muppets, or so it seems, and there's a distinct lack of really memorable moments. Which still doesn't make this a terrible movie. It just stops it from being one of the better Muppet movies.
Maybe it's the passing of time mellowing my attitude to what I once viewed as crimes against cinema. Maybe it's because I have actually now seen more movies that ARE crimes against cinema (including at least two feature films for British comedy creations that were nowhere near as much fun as Ali G). Whatever the reason, I decided to rewatch Ali G Indahouse this week for the first time in over a decade, expecting to put myself through some pain, and I did not hate it.
The plot sees a number of ridiculous coincidences leading to Ali G (Sacha Baron Cohen) becoming an elected MP. For everything he says and does that could be disastrous, or at least a major social faux pas, he somehow goes up in the estimation of Joe Public. But Ali doesn't realise that he is being used as a pawn by a scheming politician (Charles Dance) who wants to oust and replace the Prime Minister (Michael Gambon).
The history of small-screen British comedy being adapted into feature films is a troubled one. For every success you can name at least half a dozen failures (I'm not going to name them here, some people may become curious and seek them out, which will make me feel guilty for their temporary madness). Ali G Indahouse at least manages, thanks to the script by Cohen and Dan Mazer, to give fans of the character a lot of what they will enjoy. His constant attempts to be cool hide a very obvious lack of cool, but his own lack of self-awareness almost manages to make him still seem . . . cool, when he's not being a complete moron.
Director Mark Mylod may have a filmography overflowing with TV work but he does a decent enough job here, especially as he obviously has to work within the constraints of the silly plot. The fake start is a bit annoying, perhaps more so because we've now seen the big cinematic opening segue into something smaller and more intimate in many other TV-to-feature openings, but it's decently paced, energised by a very enjoyable soundtrack (equal parts genuinely good music and dollops of cheese), and helped by the fact that luminaries such as Dance and Gambon are very willing to go along with even the more juvenile gags.
And that's the biggest problem here. I laughed quite a few times, to my own surprise, but none of the scenes worked that were supposed to provide the biggest guffaws (Ali G handcuffed to some railings that are being cleaned by a blind man, the moment our main character meets the Queen, naughtiness in the residence of the PM that is heard by the guests while the PM is in a meeting with a guest, and more). Yet there were enough smaller chuckles, often just single lines of dialogue, that kept me amused enough throughout.
Cohen doesn't act, he creates characters that he completely embodies with ease. So, despite the varying quality of the gags here, he's consistently excellent in the role. People who forget that Martin Freeman is in this should give it a rewatch to remind themselves that . . . Martin Freeman is in this. He's a friend to Ali G, as is Tony Way, and is arguably even more ridiculous and desperate than our lead. Dance and Gambon suffer their indignities with aplomb, Kellie Bright is good as the famous Julie, referred to at almost every opportunity by Ali G as "me Julie", and Rhona Mitra has a small role as an attractive temptress helping Dance to reach his end goal.
If you don't like the character of Ali G then you're not going to like this film. If you do like the character of Ali G then you still may not like this film. It's not ever going to be essential viewing, or anyone's favourite comedy, but it's not the travesty that some might lead you to believe, especially compared to some British comedies that we've been subjected to in the past few years.
A dark psychological thriller starring Sean Harris, Alun Armstrong, and a creepy dummy/puppet that makes occasional appearances, Possum is a slow chiller that starts to turn the screws from the very first scenes and doesn't let up until the very end.
Harris plays Philip, a man who heads back to his childhood home after some incident that has temporarily (?) halted his puppeteer career. Perhaps reflecting his mindset, the house is gloomy and in some disrepair, shaded in greys and nicotine-yellows, and the presence of his stepfather (Armstrong) doesn't seem like a plus. There's another presence too, always another presence, but that doesn't seem to be too good for Philip either.
Written and directed by Matthew Holness, still best known to genre fans for Garth Marenghi's Darkplace, Possum is a stylish and constantly creepy piece of work. Adapted from his own short story, Holness sprinkles in just enough elements to take it to feature length without adding anything that ruins the sense of dread and mystery. There are moments here that will ensure Possum stays in your memory, but no individual scenes steal power away from the overall experience. Holness shows his love and knowledge of genre, as he has done for many years (even when working with the tropes comedically), but it's impressive that he creates such a subtle and shifting nightmarescape, rather than a more obvious bag of horror tricks. Having said that he took influence from public information films that he saw in his youth, as well as some classic movies, Possum is a film just slightly out of phase with our reality. If it had to be pinned down to one location then that would surely be Scarfolk.
The viewing experience here will be more uncomfortable for those who dislike, or are creeped out by, dummies. Although used sparingly, praise must go to whoever came up with that design, and the visual unease is heightened by a cracking, equally unnerving, score.
Harris does a brilliant job in the lead role, but anyone who has seen him in any other role will know what to expect from him. He can always deliver intensity, but here it is mixed in with confusion and vulnerability. Armstrong, although not onscreen for too much of the runtime, does equally good work in his very different role. Both men are written to be alternately potential victims or aggressors, depending on what viewers imagine having happened in their backstories until the truth is finally revealed.
Not a film for the unsuspecting viewer after a bit of mindless entertainment, this is Holness effectively poking at a fractured psyche with a sharp stick, seeing what numbs certain areas and what leads to sudden jolts. The end result is an original and unique bit of British horror, something for genre fans to savour, and I look forward to whatever he does next.
Yes, I got to enjoy another movie at the cinema thanks to Mubi Go, and here is the review of it.
Peterloo starts in a battlefield, pretty much ends in a battlefield, and never really leaves a battlefield for most of the runtime. It's just often a battlefield that people walked through every day, throughout a war that continues right now. A class war, a war that endeavours to make the poor even poorer while the rich get richer, and to keep the working masses in their place.
Based on the true story of a peaceful rally in 1819 Manchester that became the scene of a massacre, writer-director Mike Leigh uses that horrific event to show the clashing mindsets of those involved, emphasising the chasm between the viewpoints. Those who work hard and can barely make enough to live wanting something to change in the system that gives them no voice and those who look down from above and view any such intentions as ingratitude and insurrection.
Although there are some key figures here (speaker Henry Hunt, played by Rory Kinnear, being the powerful orator who charges up every crowd he speaks to), Leigh takes his time to show how various individuals are motivated and drawn further to the extremes of their respective causes. This care, and the many telling character moments, add to the lengthy runtime, just over two and a half hours, but I doubt many viewers would begrudge the runtime devoted to such a dark chapter in British history.
Kinnear does an amazing job, in what is arguably the best role of his career so far, Maxine Peake is typically great as a concerned family matriarch, and there are too many great moments for the assorted players to highlight here, but I will namecheck Karl Johnson (a close second to Kinnear with the greatness of his performance), Philip Jackson, Tom Gill, Neil Bell, Ian Mercer, and Victor McGuire, not to mention the many actors being loathsome and downright Dickensian for all of their time onscreen.
There are small flaws. Some characters come and go too abruptly, some scenes feel a little bit clunky in the way they are shoehorned in between more extended sequences, and (the smallest niggle) the passage of time isn't always as clearly signified as it could be in the lead up to the dreadful day.
If you saw the documentary The 13th and were appalled while being reminded that the abolishment of the slavery of African Americans in the USA led to many more ways in which society decided to punish and enslave those it viewed as lower-case citizens, within a new selection of rules and regulations, then Peterloo will leave you with similar feelings. Because, no doubt about it, there may not have been another massacre like this in modern British history but the working class and the poor are still being killed off whole the rich get richer. The pen is mightier than the sword, which is why the weaponry used nowadays tends to take the shape of paperwork and legislation, such as zero hour employment contracts and Universal Credit.
8/10
There's a book all about the horrific incident available here.
Cole Hauser plays Deklan, an ex-military man struggling to deal with PTSD (as shown in a scene with him talking to arguably the worst psychotherapist I've ever seen in a movie). Deklan has two brothers, Brandon (Shawn Ashmore) and the soon-to-be-married Roman (Ashton Holmes). All should be happy in their household, but it takes a dark turn very quickly when Roman's fiance, Mia (Melissa Bolona), is kidnapped by men who specialise in trafficking young women they keep drugged and enslaved. The police (even a determined detective played by Bruce Willis) have their hands tied, so it is up to Deklan to lead the trio on a mission that will return Mia alongside her loving partner and eliminate the ruthless head bad guy (Mike Epps).
There are a lot of scenes in Acts Of Violence that feel weak, including that introduction to the character played by Hauser. The script, by Nicolas Aaron Mazzanatto, is a grab bag of cliches and improbabilities. It's hard to believe that any villains would want to keep Mia alive when she keeps doing her damnedest to cause them so much trouble (she's shown as a beautiful woman who is also admired for her fighting spirit). But accepting improbabilities is often par for the course when it comes to action movies on the lower end of the budget scale. Considering the decent cast, I can only imagine that the money not spent buying another lazy turn from Willis had to be spent wisely.
Director Brett Donowho is comfortable enough at this level of moviemaking. I've seen at least one other movie from him, A Haunting At Silver Falls, enough to know that he can take average materal and turn it into an average feature. There are good moments here, and the action isn't done too badly, for the most part, but he can't ever do enough to raise the material up.
The good news is that some of the cast try harder than Donowho. Hauser is great in his role, and his journey is sketched out in a surprisingly believable way, for the movie he's in. Ashmore is also very good, and Holmes isn't bad, although he's the weakest of the three. Bolona struggles to make a decent impression because she has to work in some of the more ridiculous scenes, but everyone else onscreen shows that they have a stronger pulse than Willis, who is onscreen just enough to remind viewers that he's constantly teetering on the brink of going full Seagal with every role that he is given nowadays. Epps is a decent baddie, and has a number of suitably loathsome henchmen helping him, so that helps.
If you're looking for an action thriller with a plot based around a good dollop of righteous vengeance then this will do the job. There are many better films you could choose, but also many worse ones, so this should be almost slap bang in the middle of any list of potential viewings you might prepare for yourself.
From the group that brought you Turbo Kid, and a few other treats, Summer Of 84 is an enjoyable thriller that manages to recreate the feel of some of your favourite films from the 1980s. Much like their previous film, this may not please fans who are after something a bit grittier and more violent. But it's a much more successful attempt to give viewers a film that feels like a love letter to a very specific form of entertainment. For me anyway, although I know I am in the minority because I didn't outright love Turbo Kid.
Graham Verchere is Davey Armstrong, your typical American movie teen. He has a paper round, he enjoys spending time with friends, who are often at the mercy of their hormones, and he has a vivid imagination. This is why his friends aren't totally convinced when he gets the idea that his neighbour, Mr Mackey (Rich Sommer), is a serial killer. The fact that Mr Mackey is also a policeman makes it harder to consider him as a serious suspect, but Davey and his friends begin their own investigation anyway.
Considering the many obvious influences here, this is a film that deserves praise for managing to have a sense of its own identity. The script, by Matt Leslie and Stephen J. Smith (their first, making it all the more impressive), isn't overly cute and complex. It's simply very well done throughout, with the main characters given just enough depth, the plot developments feel believable enough, and everything builds to a finale that rewards your patience with some bloodshed and real darkness.
It helps that you care about the cast of young characters, played by Verchere, Caleb Emery, Cory Gruter-Andrew, Judah Lewis, and Tiera Skovbye (the main female who the boys all lust after). They're all spot on in their roles, and Sommer is equally good, playing a man who may be a killer and may just be a nice guy who finds himself harassed by a bunch of teenagers. There are other adults acting onscreen, and they're good, but the heart of the movie beats strongest during the scenes that feature Verchere and Sommer.
The direction, by Francois Simard, Anouk Whissell, and Yoann-karl Whissell, is solid. The trio work better this time around with some filtering stopping them from throwing everything in the mix that takes their fancy. Whether that is thanks to the script, or just the fact that they know they will have more than one movie with which to show their love of certain movies, I view it as a good sign for things to come.
Okay, Summer Of 84 may lack the quirkiness of The 'burbs, and it may lack the balance of fun and thrills that were contained in Disturbia
(I still love that film, and I don't care who knows it), but those
films are close touchstones for this one, perhaps because both of them
are also built on a premise that is a teen-friendly riff on Blue Velvet.
All of these films explore the secrets just hidden away behind the
white picket-fences of everyday American suburbs. That material gives
them their comfort factor, and allows it to be twisted into something
that plays on our suspicions and fears. What exactly is going on next
door? What thoughts go through the mind of the neighbour that you pass
by every morning on your way to work? Because everyone seems oblivious
when they're being interviewed by reporters and delivering the usual
"they just kept themselves to themselves" line.
Well, not many of these left (sadly) but I'll keep going as long as Filmstruck is around.
Here's the cinematic journey I made when it came to Western movies, and I am going to boldly assume that a similar experience was had by many people of my age. I first saw Westerns as dull films, schedule-fillers put on at the weekend, after the fun of the programming aimed at kids and before any big sport shows. I'd sometimes be taken along to visit my grandparents, knowing that my grandfather was going to be more interested in how his horses got on for most of the afternoon, and there was often a Western movie on in the background as I tried to keep boredom at bay. The adults were all catching up, it was never a guarantee that any other kids would be there at the same time as I was, and all I seemed to see were the same barren, rocky landscapes, the same bland heroes shooting at some savage villains, and some good stunts on horseback. It's this experience that kept me away from Westerns for many years, even as I started to properly delve into all that cinema had to offer. The Western was the genre I enjoyed the least. Then I discovered Spaghetti Westerns, and the filmography of Clint Eastwood, and even the wonderful mix of romanticism and realism offered up by Kevin Costner (say what you like about his work, the man can craft a Western like a tanner crafts the finest leather goods). And, finally, I decided to check out those films that I had previously thought too dull, too stuck in the simple and old-fashioned roots of the genre. Yes, some of them still feel that way. But the ones that are still praised by fans so many decades later tend to, like enduring classics of any genre, hold up really well. The Searchers is one of them.
John Wayne stars as Ethan Edwards, a man who ends up spending a number of years on the trail of his niece, who was kidnapped by Comanches during a violent raid. He is accompanied on this journey by Martin (Jeffrey Hunter), the adopted brother of Ethan's niece who is also one eighth Cherokee, to the displeasure of Ethan. As they move through the country, viewers get served the expected helpings of action, but it all comes with an interesting look at race relations and the very thin line between violent heroism and outright savagery.
Based on a novel by Alan LeMay, The Searchers benefits from a cracking script by Frank S. Nugent that is given due respect by director John Ford. This could have been an easy movie to make a success without adding any complexity to the central plot strand, and I didn't expect all that I had to chew on as the movie ended, but Nugent and Ford balance things perfectly, right up to an ending so perfect that it quite rightly sits up there, I believe, alongside the greatest endings in cinema. You can spend years dissecting and discussing the portrayal, and misrepresentation, of Native Americans onscreen throughout the history of cinema, and this film doesn't avoid many of the common complaints you can level at 95% of Westerns, but Nugent and Ford spend a lot of time here showing Edwards up as being just as, if not more so, monstrous and bloodthirsty as the enemy he is pursuing. And it's not just Edwards. There are quite a few others who come along to show that savagery and immorality are not traits to be given to one section of society. In fact, there's an argument to be made that, for the most part, the Native Americans align themselves to a moral code more rigidly than a number of the standard white cowboys.
The more I see of John Wayne, after so many years avoiding him under the misapprehension that I would hate all of the movies he starred in, the more I like him. I am well aware of his personal views, which makes it all the more interesting to see him give such a well-rounded, and well-shaded, performance. He's the staunch hero here, apart from the times when he isn't. He's the guy who, in modern cinematic terms, knows that he has to get his hands dirty to get the job done. But he also would rather, at one point, consider shooting a young woman than see her live as a Comanche. Hunter does well to hold his own alongside "The Duke", he's a centre to the moral compass (or perhaps calling it a moral centrefuge would be better, considering the whirling nature of the main characters). German-born actor Henry Brandon does well as Scar, the Comanche Chief (I did say that it didn't avoid many of the common complaints), Vera Miles is lovely as a young woman waiting for the return of Martin, although a young man named Charlie McCorry (Henry Curtis) wants to win her over, Ward Bond is the authority figure who helps when he can, in a role that would nowadays be the angry Police Captain dealing with the rogue cop who gets results, and Natlie Wood makes a strong impression, despite being in the film for maybe a total of 5 minutes, tops.
I wasn't sure if I could overlook the negatives to rate this as a perect movie. The passage of time doesn't always feel that well done, it's tough at times to figure out why Wayne's character is so determined to set out on whatever course he chooses in reaction to certain events, and you have those problematic elements inherent in many films from this time. But those negatives are far too minor to dissuade me. The passage of time could have been better, sure, but that's about it, really. I liked not always understanding Wayne's character, sometimes admiring his steadfast way and sometimes loathing him. And as for the use of Brandon, and the portrayal of the Native Americans here, you always have to view cinema in context. In the context of the time, this still does a hell of a lot that you wouldn't expect.
It's no small irony that anyone asking me a decade ago if I would ever give a 10/10 rating to a John Wayne film would have heard the phrase so oft-repeated in this very film - "that'll be the day."
Yet here we are.
10/10
You can search out The Searchershere.
Americans can get it here.
Or just click on those links and buy everything you want.
I have to hand it to Amir Mo, the man who directed, wrote, and starred in this movie. Despite the many movies I watch every week, month, and year, there are very few that get the lowest possible rating. Most movies have something to save them from the very bottom of the barrel, be it a performance, one or two good scenes, or even just a good idea that isn't explored as well as it could have been. Not in this case though, oh no. The Sex Addict is one of the worst films I have ever seen. It's often painfully unfunny (not being hyperbolic here, one or two of these "jokes" made me roll my eyes so much that I started to get a dull ache behind them), it's impossible to care about any of the characters, and all of the blame can be shouldered by Mo.
What's it about? A young woman named Suzanna (Valerie Tosi) decides to record interviews and events with a sex addict (Rex, played by Mo) for her PhD dissertation. This also leads to her meeting Trudy (Danielle Gross), a prostitute who is a friend to Rex and won't sleep with him, and young Theodore (Caleb Thomas), a high school student roped into being an intern. And hilarity ensues. Well, hilarity would ensue if you stopped watching the movie and found something funnier. I could suggest 1000 alternatives but right now I just have to make it through to the end of this review.
There are two things obvious from the start of this movie. First, Mo has a few friends that he was able to rope into making cameo appearances (they may not be a-list names but I recognised a couple of them). Second, Mo thinks that the main idea, and his script, is hilarious. He would have to fling himself into the deepest pocket of some alternate universe to be more wrong about that second point.
Even for what should be viewed as a light comedy, this struggles to get the basics right. It's set up as a document being recorded by the cameraman who is accompanying Suzanna. Until it switches to a film being shot by someone else. And there are also a few shots from the POV of, well, a standard camera position. Rex is the main character, and it's his journey we are watching. Until it's not. In fact, he becomes the least important figure in the second half of the movie. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, it just adds to the feel of this all being a bit lacking in focus and ultimately pointless. The whole thing is one joke that Mo clearly finds funny, capped with a punchline that doesn't feel amusing for viewers, it just feels like a lazy middle finger from someone who couldn't be bothered to come up with a proper ending.
Some of the performances are bearable. Gross and Thomas do better than Mo and Tosi, and the interview segments with Mary Carey are okay. That's all I can think of to say, in an attempt to end this review on a note that doesn't feel too sour. But this is an awful, awful film and if you watch it then don't say that I didn't warn you. Because I have just warned you.
Directed by, co-written by, and starring Jessica Cameron, Truth Or Dare is a film so desperate to shock that it becomes dull well before the halfway point. Highly derivative, there were already other Truth Or Dare movies (directed by Tim Ritter, and Cameron had even starred in one of his movies before stepping up to make this) and fans of extreme Japanese cinema will be familiar with the Red Room movies, films that this also owes quite a debt to, it's a great shame that those involved didn't put their energies into something less obvious and cynical.
The plot revolves around a group of online celebs who call themselves the Truth Or Daredevilers. They get fans and online hits from extreme stunts, upsetting one individual when their most recent antics involve a death (minor spoiler ahead)... that turns out to be fake.
Will some horror fans find enough here to enjoy? Yes. Some will revel in the fake gore, able to overlook the weak script and ridiculousness of it all (one character seems barely pained by the finale, one lives way beyond their expected time of death), and Cameron and co-writer Jonathan Scott Higgins were obviously too busy squeezing in hot button skeletons in the closet to bother about anything else. You get infidelity, pedophilia, incest, transgenderism, and some nastiness with a bottle that comes closest to those Red Room exploits (anyone who has seen those will remember the lightbulb scene). Obviously desperate to be edgy and offensive, and I am sure some viewers will be offended, the script just comes across as puerile and tiresome.
The acting is, sadly, not good enough to help the script. Cameron, Heather Dorff, and Devanny Pinn all cry and swear a lot, as do Brandon van Vliet and Shelby Stehlin (the main ones I remember). They may look upset but it's never anywhere near the hysteria and terror that you could imagine people experiencing in this situation. Ryan Kiser isn't even that good as the crazed "game master" but he gets one moment at the very end of the film that shows he could have done a bit better with more interesting material.
So how does Cameron, who has a fanbase among horror fans, do with the direction? Not good. All of the flaws feel like they lie at her feet, as a result of not being able to make the best use of the low budget, not giving up her "star" role to anyone else, and generally putting together something that feels cheap, lazy, and rushed.
I guess fans are happy to support Cameron, regardless of the quality of her work. I am not a fan, from what I have seen so far. And am therefore happy to advise people to avoid this one.
2/10
If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do
consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A
subscription/follow costs nothing. It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
It’s certainly worth remembering how much nostalgia can colour your view of things when you revisit a film like Hocus Pocus, a film that I was probably a bit too old to enjoy when it was initially released and most certainly too old to enjoy it nowadays, at the ripe old age of “I spent a lot of my teenage years wondering which of my mates could help me win a quest on Knightmare” years old.
This is a tale of three witches, the Sanderson sisters (played by Bette Midler, Kathy Najimy, and Sarah Jessica Parker). They are your standard, evil witches. In an attempt to stay young forever, they need to drain life force from children. And that gets them in trouble. It gets them a death by hanging. Except death isn’t always the full stop for witches that it is for us mere mortals. Many years later, a young lad who is new in town (Max, played by Omri Katz) decides that it would be good to see what happens when a virgin lights the black flame candle. And what happens is exactly what is said to happen – the witches come back. And they have one night to gain immortality or be turned to dust by sunrise. It’s up to Max and Allison (played by Vinessa Shaw) to stop them, helped along the way by Dani (Thora Birch, playing the little sister to Max) and a talking cat (voiced by Jason Marsden).
There's fun to be had here, especially in any scene that has Midler front and centre, relishing every line that she delivers in her amusingly over the top portrayal, and Hocus Pocus is still one of those movies that I believe serves as a nice introductory "horror" for kids who like some spookiness in their viewing selections. If you can overlook the dated CGI, there's the talking cat to enjoy, an inept zombie, a lively spellbook, lots of fun confusion as the witches encounter the modern world, and a fun rendition of "I Put A Spell On You".
As well as all that, however, you also get the levels of annoying overacting that serve to remind you that this is a typical Disney movie. Not all live action Disney movies suffer from this, but most do. Katz, Shaw, and Birch are all okay in their roles, with Birch easier to excuse as the youngest of the three, but all have their moments. Midler and co. are easier to tolerate because of the characters they're playing. The worst of the offenders are Sean Murray, who plays a young man named Thackery, and Marsden as the voice to the cat (Thackery was transformed as part of a curse, both actors portray the same character), but Tobias Jelinek and Larry Bagby give pretty poor performances as a pair of local bullies, and Doug Jones is stuck with having to overplay things as he pursues the kids in zombie form.
The direction by Kenny Ortega is acceptable, I guess, but there are one or two great moments that show how much better this could have been, with just a little more thought and care for the style of the whole thing, and the script, by Mick Garris and Neil Cuthbert, ranks about the same. There are some very good lines, but also so many scenes that you know could have been filled with a lot more of them. This was a premise full of potential, and only some of it is realised.
There will be people who read this review and hate me, despite the fact that I don't hate the film. A lot of people still absolutely love it. I cannot bring myself to dislike it, despite it not holding up for me so much nowadays, but it's one I would only recommend to anyone wanting to introduce younger viewers to it. You'll still be able to enjoy it for yourself, but watching them enjoy it is an added bonus.
The second reworking of classic sci-fi horror material by director John Carpenter, this is much less successful than his previous attempt. Perhaps it's because the original was already a pretty perfect adaptation of the John Wyndham novel, "The Midwich Cuckoos", or perhaps it was just too lacklustre in all departments, from cast to cinematography, through to score and direction.
You will probably already know the plot. A small village is temporarily knocked out. Completely. Everyone just passes out, and anyone trying to enter just passes out as soon as they step within a certain radius of the location. Then everyone wakes up, and nothing seems different. It becomes clear, however, that all of the females who can bear children have become pregnant. And when those children are born they are all very similar in their physical characteristics. And they share the ability to read the minds of the people around them. Not only that, they can influence people to do things, even if that leads to self-harm or death for the person being controlled. Someone has to stop them, but it may already be too late.
Village Of The Damned is not a BAD film, not exactly. It's certainly not the worst from Carpenter, but the titles in his filmography that rank below this at least had some interesting ideas and imagination, even if the execution of the material was flawed. This is just a film that feels exactly like what it was, a contractual obligation. It's hard to think of a better way to update this material but I am sure there is one. There has to be a better approach than just taking the main plot points and including some moments of unimpressive violence and death.
I always enjoy seeing Christopher Reeve onscreen (this was the last film he completed before the horse riding accident that left him paralysed) and this is another role that makes use of his stoic nature and dependability. He's really the only lead character who remains interesting throughout, with anyone else - Kirstie Alley, Linda Kozlowski, Mark Hamill, etc - either hampered by the script or their unsuitability to the roles assigned to them. Thankfully, there's a great little turn from the legend that is George 'Buck' Flower and the kids are all easy enough to dislike, even if they often emanate an air of irritability rather than pure evil.
This is TV movie stuff when it should have been much better. It's not as if Carpenter wouldn't be a fan of this kind of material, making it all the more surprising that he didn't try to put more of a stamp on the script, credited to David Himmelstein, and either update the material in a much smarter way or use the central idea as a springboard for something that diverted further from the source novel.
It's not a painful viewing experience, but that's really the best thing I can say about it. It's arguably the worst film in Carpenter's filmography, because at least the other films that could be nominated for that title had some imagination and atmosphere to them. They felt like John Carpenter films, even as they started to fall apart. This doesn't.
I had heard that this prequel to Ouija was actually quite a good horror movie but I just couldn't bring myself to give it a watch before now. Yes, it was directed by Mike Flanagan, who also co-wrote the script with Jeff Howard, but it was a prequel to Ouija, which was just crap. I should have had faith, in both the people who advised me that I would enjoy this film and the talent of Flanagan (who hasn't done anything yet that I have really disliked).
Set in the 1960s, this is the tale of a widow (Lina Zander, played by Annalise Basso) and her two daughters (Alice, played by Elizabeth Reaser, and Doris, played by Lulu Wilson). Lina offers readings to people in order to make money, helped by her daughters (who hide away and help to create the effects that show contact has been made with the spirit world), and it looks like they can add to the whole performance when they find an old Ouija board. Unfortunately, they break a number of the golden rules, which lets an evil force into their lives, communicating to everyone through young Doris.
There are a number of jump scares here, and a number of absolutely predictable moments (one or two repeated from the first film), but Flanagan also knows how to just creep viewers out. Once the opening act of the movie is done, with characters established and the Ouija board made use of, things start to get freaky very quickly. And the scares are all the better because of being grounded in a film that feels close enough to something from at least a few decades ago. This may not be a 100% accurate period film but there are enough touches, from the opening credits to the appearance of the film (even including added "cigarette burns" for extra authenticity), to make it feel like something you would have caught in the early days of VHS.
The performances are all excellent, with Basso, Reaser, and Wilson wonderful in their individual turns and also as a strained family unit, and there's a fine supporting turn from Henry Thomas, playing a priest/teacher who helps the family figure out just how bad things are for them. Parker Mack may be the least of the central cast members, playing the young man, Mikey, who is forging a relationship with Alice, but he is also good in his role.
A couple of visual tricks may be overdone, although the white-eyed and gaping-mouthed look never stops being scary to me, and there's obviously the fact that those who watched the first film will know how things should play out, but none of that stops Ouija: Origin Of Evil being a surprisingly brilliant mainstream horror that manages to hit the beats that it has to while also providing a few hair-raising surprises along the way.
Although you can watch this, and enjoy it, by itself, I still grudgingly encourage others to watch the first film first, if only to give you more appreciation when you then see how Flanagan and Howard tied things together here.
How do you make a film that follows on from the enormous success of The Blair Witch Project? You can either do it all over again, but show everything instead of showing nothing and throw in lots of jump scares (as Adam Wingard did) or you can take a radically different approach, instead choosing to comment on the reaction to the first film and the way in which everyone so easily believed that it was based on a truth, a blind acceptance of media in an age that had shown media manipulation to now be as easy as making yourself a packed lunch for work.
The focus of the plot here seems to be a bunch of people who head out to take a tour of the woods near Burkitsville (location of the first movie). They're being shown around by Jeffrey (Jeffrey Donovan), who has previously spent some time in a mental health facility. The main characters are Tristen (played by Tristen Skyler, known nowadays as Tristine Skyler), her partner Stephen (Stephen Barker Turner), a goth girl named Kim (Kim Director), and a white witchy woman named Erica (Erica Leerhsen).
That's the plot, but it's not what the film is about. As things start to develop, things become more and more meta, spiralling in on itself like a snake trying to devour it's tail. For anyone wondering why Joe Berlinger (better known for his documentaries at this point) would even want to direct this, from a script he co-wrote with Dick Beebe, it soon becomes obvious when the story being depicted onscreen starts to fragment and weave in and out of any narrative strand that makes sense.
There may have been some (a lot?) of studio interference here, seeming to be most obvious in a few of the more standard scare moments, but the bad doesn't outweigh the good, despite the reputation that this film gained, a reputation I personally put down to that Halloween III: Season Of The Witch effect. Fans decided that they would rather have more of the same than something that took them on a very different stroll through the woods. Berlinger knows that, and perhaps makes it easier for critics to savage the film by slyly setting up to look as if they will play out that way before pulling the rug out from everyone. It is, to me, why I also enjoy the lack of subtlety in the opening act: clips with Burkitsville locals that echo the early footage from the first movie, the immediate reveal of the character who has had mental health problems, the assembly of the core group of stereotypes, the opening credits having "Disposable Teens" over the top of them. It also wouldn't have helped that the film is, essentially, a slap in the face to everyone who absolutely bought into the hype for The Blair Witch Project. It's a movie version of someone waving their hands around and shouting "you believed this? You actually thought this was real???"
It used to be said that the camera never lies, but it's also said that the camera adds ten pounds to your weight. Nowadays, neither of those statements seem correct. The camera almost always lies, either depending on how the image is manipulated or how the context is twisted or hidden. That has grown exponentially in the internet age and, for me, that is what the book of shadows refers to. The internet. A place where every "page" has the potential to captivate someone and change their mind about something. A place where you can challenge yourself or find plenty to support your own beliefs, whatever they may be. It's out there, a worldwide spell cast by all of us, without any limits in place, and it's important to remember that with every single click we make, both as a user and a creator.
The script may not be as sharp or smart as it could be, and the direction is a bit messy at times, but the biggest weakness here is the cast. Aside from Donovan and Director, and Lanny Flaherty (playing a local Sheriff), the performances range from embarrassingly bad to just about tolerable. Leerhsen is the worst offender, but there are a number of times when Turner and Skyler do their best to match her.
Despite these imperfections, Book Of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 holds up for me as a smart and sophisticated horror movie. I encourage people to revisit it, or finally give it a watch for the first time. You're unlikely to enjoy it as much as I do, but I hope that it might one day rise above the unwarranted bad reputation that has been attached to it since it was initially released.
If I told you that The Lure was a film about killer mermaids then you'd not be bothered by me reviewing it as a horror movie, I assume. You might even be unphased if I told you that it uses the mermaids as proxies for many people in the world around us who are exploited, shaped into something else, and then left in a state that doesn't allow them to just slip back into their former life. But if I told you that it was also a musical, didn't really have many moments of tension or scares, and is basically a strange and cool updating of The Little Mermaid (the Hans Christian Andersen tale, not the Disney animated film), then I can understand that you might balk at the idea of me including it as a horror viewing. Well, I'm counting it.
Marta Mazurek and Michalina Olszanska play the two mermaids, Silver and Golden. They encounter a band singing on a beach one evening and end up going along with them to a nightclub, where they are eventually turned into part of the act. They become singers, stripping as well, and seem to go down well with the clientele. Unfortunately, Silver can't control the urge to go out at night and find someone to eat while Golden finds herself falling in love with the bass player of the band (Jakub Gierszal). Things start to turn sour.
Written by Robert Bolesto, The Lure is quite the entertaining genre mash up. After a very brief prologue that sets up the meeting of the characters, things become very cool and pop-tastic, staying that way for a little while before showing the struggle that the two leads will face (one due to love, one due to staying true to her own nature). It's a smooth transition, allowing viewers to accept the central idea well enough before playing around with it and introducing all of the other main plot points. The dialogue may not be the best you will hear but this is a film more interested in using the fantastical to explore issues that affect people every day.
Director Agnieszka Smoczynska does a fantastic job, moving on from a selection of shorts and TV work to her debut feature with a good eye and plenty of confidence required to handle the imagery, tone, and performances. Even during the busiest, and strangest, moments, she never loses her eye on the focus of the tale. And she's also very good at handling the musical moments (there are some enjoyable, lively, tunes here).
Mazurek and Olszanska both do well in their roles, expressing plenty with just a look as they sometimes communicate telepathically, and comfortable in the fact that they have to be fairly nude for most of the runtime. Geirszal is also good, Marcin Kowalczyk makes a good impression as another land-living creature from the sea (he is, in fact, playing an incarnation of Triton), and Kinga Preis and Magdalena Cielecka are both very good as performers affected by the introduction of the mermaids into their lives/performing group.
If you go into The Lure expecting a standard horror movie then you're going to be VERY disappointed, despite the fact that it is tagged in that way. That is just one part of it (and you get a few moments of bloodshed and quick violence to warrant that). But the horror here stems from mistreatment and abuse that may feel over the top here, because of the main environments and the central characters, but is actually not too many steps away from a version of reality that many victims suffer through. That's what makes The Lure so effective and powerful, once you realise that the sheen of fantasy is just sugar-coating a very bitter pill.
Imagine, if you can, that you were trying to watch the very enjoyable You're Next. But nobody will give you any peace. You have to try to engage in conversations, someone has decided to visit and show you their new (crying) baby, and your bladder has decided to play up for the day, deciding that the last coffee you had was enough to take you over the edge, meaning that you have to nip to the loo every 10 minutes. The pause button on your player is broken so you end up just dipping in and out of the film, getting random bits of information without making sense of the whole plot.
Then you decide to make your own horror movie, one that you feel will be an excellent little horror film in the same vein as You're Next. That movie would be Jackals, a disappointingly pointless mess that never truly engages the viewer and draws them in. But at least you included home invasion horror, people wearing animal masks, and a plot point about someone who used to be in a cult.
The plot is all about a family unit trying to deprogram one of their own, having stolen him away from the cult he now considers his true family. While he resists their attempts to return him to his precious state, the cult members gather outside and start terrorising the family.
It makes sense that this is the first feature script from Jared Rivet, who doesn't create good enough characters, doesn't effectively build tension, and ruins any potential the premise could have with every main story beat, all the way to the tediously predictable final scenes.
What doesn't make sense is the fact that this is far from director Kevin Greutert's first rodeo. He previously directed Jessabelle AND the sixth and seventh instalments in the Saw franchise (two instalments I really enjoyed). So it makes me think that he initially saw something in the script that was then lost during the transition from page to screen.
The cast don't help either. They're not awful, and you get lead roles for people like Johnathon Schaech and Deborah Kara Unger, but a couple of them (Ben Sullivan and Nick Roux, playing the brothers, the former being the brainwashed cult member) aren't as good as they should be. Stephen Dorff is wasted in his small role, and Chelsea Ricketts tries her best but is given the worst parts of the script to deal with, in terms of her reactions to events and characterisation.
If you're desperate for something to watch, and it's streaming somewhere for free, then you may enjoy Jackals. I mean . . . I'm sure someone could enjoy it. But I would implore you to search for something, anything, different. Because the only thing this has going for it is a degree of competence on the tech side of things. No fun, no thrills, no tension, just technical competence.
Nightmare Beach starts with an execution, the execution of a biker named Diablo. He claims to have been set up, and also vows revenge. Skipping forward a year, it's Spring Break time in Miami. Two friends (Nicolas de Toth and Rawley Valverde) join in with the drinking and partying, but soon find their fun being spoiled by a number of inconvenient deaths. Yes, a mysterious biker is picking off a number of revellers, often killing them with a fatal dose of electicity. It's eventually up to Skip (De Toth) and a young woman named Gail (Sarah Buxton) to uncover the identity of the biker, and try to put an end to his killing spree.
Released in 1989, Nightmare Beach feels every bit like a film made much earlier in that decade. It has a bit more of a sheen to it, perhaps, but the pacing and characterisations already feel quite archaic (especially most of the moments involving Valverde, the kind of guy who enjoys telling a woman that smiling more would make her much prettier). Perhaps that didn't seem so obvious back when it was released, and there are a number of films from the end of the decade, and even the start of the '90s, that feel almost designed as quintessential slices of '80s cheese. It makes the film impossible to take seriously now, however, but also helps to make it a hugely entertaining experience.
With direction credited to Umberto Lenzi, although it seems to have actually been helmed by writer Harry Kirkpatrick (AKA James Justice), with Lenzi servind in an advisory capacity, this is a real bag of mixed treats. People looking for a quality classic horror can skip it just now and look for something else, but those of us in the mood for entertaining trash? This is a perfect pick.
De Toth, Valverde, and Buxton are a mixed trio of central performers. None are really memorable, but they're fine. Genre fans will have more fun with the "old guard" onscreen here. You have a small role for Michael Parks, and fun turns from Lance LeGault, as a reverend, and John Saxon, playing a tough cop who may or may not have something to hide. Luis Valderrama is a biker spoiling for a fight, and Yamilet Hidalgo makes quite an impression as his fiery girlfriend.
Despite the attempted mystery element, it's hard to care about the identity of the biker. What matters here are the death scenes, all of them surprisingly impressive and somehow managing to feel different from one another while often managing to use the same method of murder. The pacing is perfect, with deaths interspersed by moments of humour and gratuitous sequences like a wet t-shirt competition (hey, it's Spring Break), and there are enough enjoyable random diversions (e.g. the plot strand with the thief that plays out and then just... ends) that will soon lead you to realise that this is not a film concerned with a cohesive narrative that makes complete sense.
It's a fun time by the beach, that's all. Watch it when you're in the mood for sand, sex, and senseless murders committed by a vengeful biker.
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
Let me get the basics out of the way first. The Devil's Doorway is a sorta-found footage movie (that's the context, but there's a bit of editing on display and very occasional score, unless my ears deceive me). It's about two priests, the elder Father Thomas (Lalor Roddy) and the young Father John (Ciaran Flynn), who visit a Magdalene Laundry to verify a possible miracle; a statue that has been known to weep blood. Father John records as much as possible, Father Thomas spends a lot of time doubting what he sees happen around him, and both men soon find that there are terrible secrets to be unearthed in this nun-staffed institute for "fallen women".
The fact that this is the feature debut of director Aislinn Clarke (who also co-wrote the script with Martin Brennan and Michael B. Jackson) is very impressive. There may be a lack of subtlety throughout, some will be put off by the number of jump scares and you could roll your eyes at a some of the details (the obviousness of naming a doubtful priest Thomas being one of them), but that's offset by an impressive atmosphere of dread and imagery that constantly unnerves viewers by interspersing all of the bigger scare moments with little touches of sheer creepiness. My first viewing was punctuated by moments of me jumping out of my skin and turning away from the screen, sometimes only processing what had just happened as I watched the aftermath while my heartrate started to return to normal. I may have also loosed a few profanities, on occasion.
Roddy is absolutely fantastic in his role, helping to take the film up a notch with his believable performance, and Flynn works well alongside him. There are also good performances from Helena Bereen as the Mother Superior and Lauren Coe as a young, afflicted, woman named Kathleen. The former is the typical indomitable figure in this kind of environment, the latter turns up as the film becomes more intense than it already was.
Although it has some flaws, to be expected in most debut features, this is a fierce and powerful horror film that has enough intelligence to compensate for the negatives. I can easily see it becoming a bit of a favourite for horror fans, and it's definitely a new contender to sit near the top of any "best found footage movies" list.
Well done to Clarke on her achievement. I cannot wait to see what she chooses to do next.
It Follows is the popular horror movie written and directed by David Robert Mitchell that updates the classic idea of "Casting The Runes" by turning the curse into a STD. It's a hugely entertaining film, with a few fantastic set-pieces throughout, but also massively flawed, in ways that will be covered shortly.
Maika Monroe plays Jay, a young woman who finds her life thrown into chaos after a sexual encounter with a young man (Jake Weary) who has deliberately chosen to pass on a deadly curse. He immediately informs Jay of the situation: it will appear to her in humanoid form that anyone "uninfected" will be unable to see, it doesn't move quickly but is relentless, she will die if it gets hold of her, the only way to become safe is to pass it along, if Jay is caught and killed then it will go back to pursuing the previous victim. Jay tries to explain everything to some of her family and friends, and it's no surprise that they find it hard to believe until they start to see things that are scary and inexplicable. Can they help Jay to stay safe, and is there a way to break the cycle?
There's a lot to like here, not least of all the lead performance from Monroe. She's very easy to like, which helps to make up for the lack of real personality in the mixed group of supporting players (Keir Gilchrist has an understandable crush on Monroe's character, Olivia Luccardi has a memorable moment in which she ends a thought by breaking wind, and that covers the "highlights" of moments that don't focus on Monroe). The general dialogue is good, pacing is brisk, and there's a good synth soundtrack by Rich "Disasterpeace" Vreeland (despite the overused trick of the volume increasing in a way that signifies an approaching terror, not unlike THAT cue in the John Williams score for Jaws). You also get good special effects, all the more effective for being used quite sparingly, and the strength of that main premise.
Mitchell shows great confidence for his second feature, but his creation of such a great central conceit is as frustrating as it is entertaining and intriguing. Considering the potential here, there are a number of ways in which It Follows lets down viewers. First of all, moments that play things out with the potential to comment on abuse, and particularly sexual abuse, seem to veer close to saying something meaningful and then swerve away at the last minute. It's not that any horror film MUST have more to it than the superficial tension and scares, but Mitchell occasionally shows that he knows the potential of his premise (e.g. the scene in which police are questioning Monroe over her sexual encounter, certain specific incarnations of the curse) and that is what makes it harder to overlook.
It's also hard to view the curse as anything but inevitable, which is another problem. This isn't something you can pass onto someone else and be done with, nor is it something you can surreptitiously return to the person who initially gave it to you. It's a constant thing, as explained in the film, because once you pass it along to someone then that will only give you a temporary reprieve until the next person is killed. That's fine for the duration of the movie, and it ends with a suitable final image, but it's no good once you start to think outside the confines of that runtime.
Those things are easier to forgive, however, than the main thing to take viewers out of the movie, which is a truly dire third act that involves the worst plan to try to capture an evil entity since Ray, Egon, and Peter tried to jump on that ghost in the library at the start of Ghostbusters. In all seriousness, if anyone can explain to me why that was the big plan then please let me know. I understand that the characters soon realise it won't work, as things start to happen, but I don't understand how they reached their flawed conclusion in the first place. Are we just supposed to believe that the character who came up with the idea is a complete idiot, making the others more idiotic for going along with the scheme?
And yet, despite those big mis-steps, the film still works. It's a fantastic mood piece, with that score matched by some fine, creeping, cinematography (by Mike Gioulakis), and manages to keep you suspending disbelief for a good hour or so. And it also gains points for trying something a bit different.
Malevolent starts off well enough. Set in Scotland in the 1980s, it's the tale of a brother and sister (Jackson and Angela, played by Ben Lloyd-Hughes and Florence Pugh) who, along with a couple of friends, make themselves money by going in to locations that are apparently haunted and conducting a "clearance". It's quite an easy gig, and they have their patter down to a fine art, but it's not long into the movie when things start to become a lot less fake than usual. Things start to get odd for Angela during what should be a regular, easy, gig. Then things go from bad to worse when they are hired by a woman (Celia Imrie) who claims to be plagued by the spirits of noisy children in her home.
It's not that the acting here is bad, not really. Imrie may be the veteran, and she's good fun in her role, but the performances from Lloyd-Hughes and Pugh are decent enough, as is the supporting turn from Scott Chambers (playing the other main member of the group; Georgina Bevan is also onscreen but given so little to do that she barely makes an impression). James Cosmo is as good as ever in his small role, Niall Greig Fulton does okay, and that covers the main characters.
The script isn't really that bad either. Written by Ben Ketai and Eva Konstantopoulos (based on the novel "Hush" by the latter), it mixes in enough melodrama and decent ideas to create a heady brew. You have a dead parent who was apparently insane, claiming to be contacted by spirits. You have the dynamic of the brother and sister relationship, with the male pushing his female sibling into situations that she starts to find increasingly uncomfortable. And you have the character played by Imrie, eccentric and mysterious, perhaps innocent but perhaps not-so-innocent. There are even one or two decent scares in the first half of the film. Then the second half starts up, moving everything along to a third act that is horribly muddled and misjudged, sacrificing any creepy atmosphere for violence and any subtlety for crude simplicity. It becomes embarrassing long before the whole debacle draws to a depressingly dull conclusion.
Director Olaf de Fleur Johannesson (credited as just Olaf De Fleur) doesn't help. His background, a filmography that includes a number of documentary features and standard fictions, seems to have left him ill-prepared for this kind of material. This may explain why he does better in the earlier scenes that feature the strangeness developing in the background of the central relationship dynamics. And if it was his decision to accompany some spooky visuals in the second half of the movie with horribly unnecessary "spooky" voices then he really helped to undermine what could have been a decent little ghost story before that sharp turn to the violence.
I started off this review trying to be kind, as usual, but the more time I spent writing about it, the angrier I got. It's just so bloody annoying. Especially after a solid, if unspectacular, opening act. So much is left unexplored (background of the characters, emotional baggage, even the fact that it is set in the 1980s . . . something I assumed would figure into the plot but it never does) that the viewing experience just becomes more and more frustrating.
Some will be able to watch this and not become as irked as I was. Good for them. I suggest most people skip this and instead pick one of the MANY better horror titles available.
I was very much looking forward to seeing The Witch In The Window but I couldn't, for the life of me, remember why. And then I took note of the writer and director. It's one Andy Mitton, a man who had previously thrilled me with YellowBrickRoad (a divisive, but downright impressive, feature debut) and the even better, although much more standard, We Go On. Both were horror movies made by someone who knows how to mix unease and subtle details with some perfectly-executed jump scares. But, perhaps tellingly, both were co-created with Jesse Holland.
The story here is all about a father (Simon, played by Alex Draper) and son (Finn, played by Charlie Tacker) who are having some time together while the father attempts to apparently "flip" a house. To flip a property is to buy it, hopefully at a low price, and then do enough decent work on it to be able to sell it for a profit. It's a gamble, but Simon has done it a few times now. Unfortunately, this latest property has a bigger problem than any structural or decorative issues. It has the spirit of a witch (Lydia, played by Carol Stanzione), and she sits at the window. What follows is a supernatural tale that focuses equally on the father and son relationship than the scares.
Despite one or two very good scares, The Witch In The Window feels reminiscent of the darker films that Disney gave us back when they tried to create some family-friendly horror movies. Even the title is close enough to The Watcher In The Woods for me to suspect that this is exactly what Mitton was aiming for. Therefore I am inclined to assume the personal responsibility for my lack of love for the movie. I liked it, it's a nicely put together film, but I didn't love it as I had hoped I would. Of course, I wasn't expecting a sweet father and son movie with occasional creepiness. I somehow expected a nerve-jangling experience more akin to We Go On.
Draper and Tacker aren't the best actors but their relationship feels very real, and that's the main thing. Both are coming to the same point from different directions, with the father wanting to be cool with his son but not in a way that will negate rules laid down by his mother (Arija Bareikis) and the son testing boundaries and getting things off his chest while they have their time together. It's this aspect of the film that works best, that strange blend of familiarity and awkwardness that happens when parents reconnect with their children after any time apart. The small main cast is fleshed out by Greg Naughton (who does okay as a nearby neighbour/handyman who knows the history of the house) and Stanzione (effectively creepy).
There are two standout sequences that should manage to give you goosebumps, making this worth your time (and it runs for just under 80 minutes), but I think it's important for people, especially anyone looking for standard horror thrills, to know that the heart of the film is not a scary or evil one.
Going back then, and reappraising the film for what it is instead of what I was expecting, how does it fare? Well, it's fine. I'm surprised that Mitton couldn't get it to generally look and sound better (sorry, it often feels cheap, which he generally avoided in previous movies). It would have also been nice to get to know Simon and Finn a bit more, and to find out why the parents separated. And it's a shame that the tone just doesn't work. Once the "horror" starts to happen, it rarely has any impact. Everything is shown so plainly and calmly that any tension is washed away, none of the characters feel truly endangered, and the short runtime makes it feel that everything rushes to end just as it was building up to something more effective.
The ending is good, however, with a bittersweet resolution for some of the main characters, and the moments that feel most authentic and honest are the moments that will stay with you after the end credits. Even if, like me, you were hoping for some more scares.
6/10
