Prime Time: Vampire Clay (2017)

Although I rarely do this, I decided to seek out some other reviews of Vampire Clay once the movie had finished. There were two reasons for that. First, I was looking at a variety of sources to double-check some of the information about the cast. Second, I wanted to know what others thought of it, knowing already that I would be recommending it to others. I ended up dissatisfied with what I found. There's very little specific information out there, perhaps due to the nature of the film itself, and opinions vary wildly between those who appreciated the humour of the film and those who don't think of it as a horror comedy.

As far as I'm concerned, it's definitely a horror comedy. The central idea makes that a given, and the more inventive moments brilliantly mix gore gags with surreal humour. So trying to claim that it isn't one is either showing that you missed the intent completely, or that it really didn't work for your comedic taste.

Let me get to a brief description of the plot anyway, and it IS brief. A bunch of people at a tiny art school start to be attacked, consumed even, by some sentient clay that has the power to zombiefy people, warp their body, and use them to attack others. Is there any way to destroy it? Maybe. Or maybe that will have to wait until the inevitable sequel which I am prematurely going to name A Time To Kiln. There IS actually a Vampire Clay 2 already, I was unaware of that, but I have no idea how connected it is to this tale, or when we may get a chance to see it here in the UK.

Written and directed by Sôichi Umezawa, making his feature directorial debut, this is a film that turns the small budget and limited resources into a positive, thanks to the wonderful stop-motion work that often shows the living clay on the attack. Gorehounds may be a bit disappointed, but there's just enough bloodshed and nastiness to ensure that this isn't a complete cop out when it comes to the clay-based carnage.

The script is simple, the characters are paper-thin (I won't even namecheck the cast, all do decent work though), but none of that matters when the visuals start to become energised, staying that way right through to the very end. You get a backstory to the main creature(s), but it hardly matters. What matters is knowing that you're always just one minute away from something inventive and impressive, considering the obvious limitations on Umezawa's vision.

I can absolutely see why some people would dislike this. It's probably a bit too light and ridiculous for anyone after some entertaining bloodshed. If you know what you're letting yourself in for, however, then I hope at least some others enjoy this as much as I did. It may even inspire someone to get their own modelling clay set and start working on their own short films.

8/10

Japanuary: Visitor Q (2001)

We've seen this kind of thing before. The stranger who comes into the lives of various family members, shakes things up, and helps them to embrace the things that will make them happy. Of course, as this is a Takashi Miike movie, things are a bit different here.

Kazushi Watanabe is the titular visitor, who comes smashing into the life of Ken'ichi Endô (literally, by way of a rock to the head). Endô is Kiyoshi Yamakazi, a TV reporter who is having a bit of a crisis after being bullied and abused in an incident that was also recorded. He also pays to have sex with a prostitute who is also his daughter. Yeah, it's that bad. And things get worse from there. His wife, Keiko Yamakazi (played by Shungiku Uchida), spends her time miserable, being beaten by their son (Takuya, played by Jun Mutô) and turning to heroin for some solace. The visitor is going to help them all love life a little bit more, freeing them further from inhibitions in a way that will bring the maladjusted individuals together into one maladjusted unit.

Written by Itaru Era, Visitor Q was one of a number of movies from different directors planned to specifically take advantage of new digital cameras, and the freedoms they allow. As you might expect, Miike used this exercise less as a way to push the technology, but more to push right up to the barriers of standard taste, and then go that one step further. Less a movie experience and more of an assortment of grotesque, and blackly comedic, acts, Visitor Q is one of those movies you can only ever recommend to someone if you know that they have previously been a bit daring while exploring the many dark recesses of cinema.

I used to love this film. Well, using the word in a loose sense. The content makes it hard, but not impossible, to love. Catching up with it again recently, after a gap of over a decade, I realised that it has two major flaws. The first big flaw is the whole look of the thing. I know that it's in line with the content, and I know that digital cameras were new at the time (and not half as good as they are nowadays), but this is a film that is ugly from start to finish, often in a way that just feels like laziness. Shot composition, the image quality, nudity being pixellated rather than characters being positioned differently, it all adds up to a bit of an eyesore. The second big flaw is the fact that it all feels rather pointless. There's no big statement being made here, no conclusion that makes all of the shocks and depravity worth your time. Well, okay, maybe it's not exactly pointless, but the point is buried so far under all of the nastiness that it's a hard one to give due consideration once the film has finished.

Despite those flaws, I still cannot help but admire and appreciate Visitor Q as a statement of intent from Miike, coming along just a couple of years after the likes of Dead Or Alive and Audition had made him a name familiar to cinema fans, and being followed up by the likes of Ichi The Killer and The Happiness Of The Katakuris. No matter where you stand on his films, and his prolific work ethic guarantees that some are a lot better than others, Miike has left us one hell of a cinematic legacy, and there's no denying that Visitor Q is up there with some of his most memorable outings.

8/10

You can get the DVD here.
And there seems to be a much more expensive disc option here.

Mubi Monday: Little Women (2019)

Considering the range of movies from around the world that Mubi provides, I did not expect it to get in the way of this Japanuary train I am on. And yet . . . here we are. So, with time of the essence, and nothing Japanese available from their selection just now, I have decided to take the opportunity to review a very recent movie that was the Mubi Go ticket for last week. Little Women.

Adapted from the source novel by Louisa May Alcott, of course, this is a near-perfect working of the tale from writer-director Greta Gerwig, providing a film that is as entertaining as it is thought-provoking, and showing that Ladybird was no fluke. In fact, although some may think I was a bit too flippant in my criticism of Ladybird, Little Women shows a huge improvement in almost every regard, and we should all appreciate that Gerwig gave herself the fairly daunting task of working on something far from guaranteed to give her more success. But more success she has gained, and rightly so.

I'm NOT going to cover the overall storyline of Little Women. Suffice to say, it is basically about four sisters (played here by Saoirse Ronan, Florence Pugh, Emma Watson, and Eliza Scanlen), their mother (Laura Dern), a charming young man (played by Timothée Chalamet), and ANOTHER charming young man (Louis Garrel). There is a framing device used here that takes the literary talent of Jo (Ronan, the lead character) and allows for some more playfulness than usual, in terms of both addressing attitudes of the time and also working with the audience expectations.

I'm going to mention the very small negative here first. It is an issue I have with the source material, therefore it's not something to blame on Gerwig and co. Beth March (Scanlen's character) is just one of those inherently irritating characters. Her only role is to be the vulnerable one who always seems to be weak or ill. I don't care how good she is at playing the piano, she's the most annoying member of the March clan, which is really saying something when you consider the actions of selfish Amy (Pugh).

Otherwise, there's nothing here I want to criticise. And, trust me, I have been giving it lots of thought since I left the cinema, wondering if my initial delight would settle down and allow me to reconsider anything. There's no need. Nothing to reconsider.

Not only has Gerwig given herself a great gift with her own screenplay, she has ensured it was all delivered exceptionally well by a near-flawless cast. Ronan is about as perfect a Jo March as you could hope for, Pugh is good enough to make Amy bearable during even her worst moments, Scanlen looks suitably fragile, and/or ill, and Watson does just fine as Meg, although she's perhaps stuck with the weakest moments in the film, mostly reduced to being overly earnest and only making one mistake on the road to finding her place in womanhood. Dern has to be 100% goodness and light, which she does admirably, and her sweetness is countered by the sharp tongue and mind of Aunt March (Meryl Streep on top form). Considering the focus of the tale, it's pleasantly surprising to find that all of the men are equally well-cast, and all of them get at least one or two great moments apiece. Chalamet is the charming and safe young star of the moment, and he's perfect here, while Garrel makes a strong impression with his small amount of screentime. Chris Cooper also makes the most of his role, Mr Laurence (the neighbour, and grandfather of Chalamet's character), James Norton plays a character who is perhaps the most grounded of everyone onscreen, Tracy Letts is a lot of fun as the editor who accepts Jo's writings, and Bob Odenkirk is always a welcome presence onscreen, albeit a bit surplus to requirements here as the mainly-absent patriarch of the March clan.

I can't think of a better way Gerwig could have handled this material. It has every main element from the book, of course, and yet it also feels fresh, full of energy, and completely relevant to today. Think of other adaptations of classic novels from the 1800s and they tend to have one main aim for the women, to find true love and marry into a happier life. Little Women has that notion in there, which was probably unavoidable, but it offsets that by showing the many and varied ways that everyone can follow their instincts to make themselves happy, make others happy, and make their own path through life, no matter where others may try to push them. It's a full, rich, experience that embodies the best of cinema, something that you can happily take as pure entertainment, and also something that gives you a lot of moments to think over and discuss with others.

I may have only caught up with it on the 1st January 2020, but this is easily my pick for the best film of 2019.

10/10

You'll be able to buy it here.
Americans will be able to buy it here.

Netflix And Chill: A Silent Voice (2016)

I hated most of my school years. Absolutely hated them. Schools are still pretty bad at being able to deal with bullying. Bullies are sly, their victims prefer to stay quiet. Telling teachers doesn't work, standing up to them can even lead to a fight which gets both of you in equal amounts of trouble, and you can't ignore a bully when they're in so many of your classes. Thankfully, you can mock them, you can get smarter than them, and you can eventually move from the area, build up your movie collection to an enviable amount, sit in your paid-up home, and mentally deliver a big fat "FUCK YOU" to all of those who helped to make your life an absolute nightmare for at least five years. Okay, that may be just me, but I am here to tell others that there is always hope. The weirdest thing about remembering those years, however, is remembering the times that I did the bullying. It happens. I still feel awful about it to this day. Trying to single out the kid who was a bit more different from the rest, trying to go along with a joke that was clearly making someone else miserable. Oh, they had dandruff (big deal), they weren't used to using deodorant yet (some people never learn, THAT'S when you need to address the issue), they were even poorer than I was, or they were just being far too annoying while also being physically weak, and therefore possibly beatable in a fight.

If you read that and I was ever involved in anything that made your life wretched and worse at an age when it should have been a lot easier just for us all to band together and battle through our education . . . please know that I am very sorry. I don't think I was ever a big threat to anyone, but I know (as much as I want to rewrite my own history) that I had some moments of being really shitty, for no other reason than to pass along the shittiness that I had been delivered by bullies.

I know, I know, you've once again stumbled on to a review here and wondered just what the hell I am wittering on about. Why this big tangent at the very start? Well, A Silent Voice is an imperfect film. The animation is nice, but not gorgeous. The characters, outwith the leads, aren't too memorable. The main story isn't really all that engrossing, in terms of how things ultimately develop en route to a third act. Yet it remains one of the best animated movies I have watched in some time, for one big reason. This film, more than any other, gives you an idea of the slippery slope of bullying, how easy it is to remain in that mindset, AND the ways in which bullying victims can continue to apologise and blame themselves for the actions of others.

The main strand of the narrative shows the relationship between Shoya and Shoko. Shoya is first shown planning a suicide attempt, and flashbacks show the life decisions that led him to that point, with the worst being his bullying of Shoko, a deaf girl first seen introduced as a new pupil at his school. As a youngster, Shoya really wasn't all that nice to some people, especially Shoka. But he improves as he gets older, although he moves through high school in an isolated and antisocial way, either deliberately keeping people away from him or assuming his past behaviour was already enough to cause them to want to avoid him. It's possible for people to change, especially moving from their younger years through their teens, and towards adulthood, but it can be a lot tougher when you consider the damage already caused to be irreparable.

Director Naoko Yamada has a decent selection of work in his filmography, from the look of things, but I am unfamiliar with anything else he has done (which is a lot of TV work, some OVAs, and less than a dozen movies). I may check out some of his other stuff one day, although I try to stick to individual movies rather than the wealth of episodic anime tales available out there, but the person who I need to remember from the list of credits here is writer Reiko Yoshida. He has a more extensive, and even more eclectic, filmography, and I am very interested in enjoying other tales from him, on the strength of his incisive work here, although perhaps I should also check out the source material by Yoshitoki Ōima.

The voice cast do well enough. Miyu Irino is the main voice for Shoya, Saori Hayami is the main voice for Shoko (although she says very few words, understandably), and the few other main voices are perfectly suitable, but the power of the film comes from the way it so beautifully illustrates different relationships and attitudes, rendering the vocal performances a distant second to the skillful visuals and artistic decisions.

Not everyone will get as much out of this. I am well aware that it resonated more strongly with me for a couple of different reasons (the spiral of self-loathing that motivates Shoya is also familiar to anyone who battles against depressive episodes). But I encourage everyone to give it a watch. Especially if, like me, you hadn't heard of it before.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Shudder Saturday: Ring 2 (1999)

It's no surprise that a hit as big as Ring got at least one sequel, as well as the remake, and the remake sequels, and I am not going to list all of the other connected movies. And it's no surprise that many people enjoyed Ring 2, considering how many of the cast and crew returned to work on it. What IS a bit of a surprise, certainly to me anyway, is just how much this sequel doesn't hold up nowadays, removed from that joyous time when so many of us were soaking up all of the J-horror that we could find.

Following on from the events of the first film, this time we are introduced to Mai Takano (Miki Nakatani), a young woman who is investigating the death of her boyfriend. His name was Ryûji, and viewers saw his last moments as well-dweller Sadako famously clambered out of a screen to ensure his death. Mai teams up with Okazaki (Yūrei Yanagi), a newsroom colleague of Reiko, the lead character in Ring, and the two embark on a journey that takes in more history of Sadako, a number of misjudged scientific experiments, and Reiko's son, Yôichi (Rikiya Ôtaka).

Perhaps the most interesting thing about Ring 2 nowadays is just how much it is guilty of sins that we are often quick to point out in mainstream American horror movies. You get much more backstory to the central evil, you get one or two set-pieces that pale in comparison to everything that was done in the first movie, and you even get (slight SPOILER WARNING) an ending that could be viewed as a much happier one than that of the original.

Director Hideo Nakata can do better than this. He has shown us, repeatedly, yet he seems to coast along here, perhaps too comfortable working with what essentially became a very successful brand that would find an audience due to name recognition alone, another common flaw with horror movie sequels. Although Hiroshi Takahashi still manages to throw a couple of decent moments into his screenplay (once again working with material established in the source novel, Ring, by Kôji Suzuki), neither he nor Nakata seem to be able to nail down everything they got right in Ring. That doesn't make this anywhere near an awful movie, it just renders it a big disappointment.

Nakatani and Yanagi are acceptable leads, working hard against a script that doesn't give them enough texture or warmth, and all of the supporting cast members do good enough work, but this is a film that would still satisfy in the simplest of ways if it delivered enough killer moments with the evil figure at the heart of it all. It doesn't.

Perhaps best viewed as one weak part of a relatively strong series (a notion I will confirm or deny for myself when I prioritise a revisit of Ring 0 in the next little while), Ring 2 is only worth prioritising if you're a completist, like myself. Otherwise, I can't think of any one part of it that makes it unmissable.

4/10

Get this lovely set here.

Japanuary: A Slit-Mouthed Woman (2007)

If you have any experience of Japanese horror, or knowledge of some of their lore, then you'll be aware of the slit-mouthed woman. Legend has it that she would appear in front of you, wearing a mask and carrying a sharp object, and ask you if she was pretty. Answer no and you get the business end of the sharp object. Answer yes and she moves the mask away to show that her mouth has been slit open at the corners (hence . . . slit-mouthed woman). She will once again ask if she is pretty. Answer no and you are killed. Answer yes and she uses the sharp object to make you look just like her. She doesn't sound like someone you'd really want to meet, but nor does any boogeyman, which is what she is. It's an enduring urban legend, and there have been, unsurprisingly, a number of movies made about her. This is just one of them, not to be confused with Slit Mouth Woman from 2008.

Children start to be kidnapped in a small Japanese town and reports from witnesses seem to point to the infamous slit-mouthed woman as the main suspect. Is she real? Or is it just someone wearing a mask and using the fear of the legend to make their crime spree more frightening? Kyôko Yamashita (Eriko Satô) has to dive fully into investigation mode when her daughter (Mika Sasaki, played by Rie Kuwana) disappears one day. Noboru Matsuzaki (Haruhiko Katô) helps her, having already spent some time trying to confirm his own suspicions about the killer.

It's strange to see this directed by Kôji Shiraishi, who also co-wrote the script with Naoyuki Yokota. The two had previously worked together on the excellent Noroi: The Curse (now there's a horror film crying out for a super duper release if ever I saw one), which managed to feel very grounded in reality while making use of various plot details that felt like genuine Japanese lore (I cannot recall now how much, if any, of the background to the events were sourced from reality). So a film about the slit-mouthed woman should allow them to once again scare the crap out of viewers, and allow them to once again ground the horror in a reality that makes the sense of dread all the more palpable. But they don't bother. Instead, they serve up a film that is almost a standard crime thriller, with a memorable villain at the heart of everything.

I realise that what I'm saying could actually be applied to a lot of modern horror movies from Japan - they're most often about people investigating the circumstances around one or more deaths - but A Slit-Mouthed Woman doesn't have any of the scares that the others do. I suspect Shiraishi and Yokota figured that the woman herself would be the main scare, and her physical appearance is certainly enough to cause a shiver to run down your spine, but they should really have worked on a number of decent set-pieces to keep everyone on their toes.

Satô and Katô are fine in their roles, yet they're often trying to make something out of nothing, discovering revelations delivered by the script that will be obvious to most people from the earliest scenes. Kuwana has to be a child in peril, and acts accordingly, and Miki Mizuno does a good job as the woman with the "Glasgow smile".

There's nothing here that's badly done, and the figure using the mask allows for some extra paranoia that feels as specific to Japan as the rest of the lore being utilised, but far too much of the runtime is relatively free of tension and actual scares. Which is always a tough hurdle for a horror movie to overcome.

6/10

Americans can buy the movie here.

Japanuary: P.O.V. - A Cursed Film (2012)

Haruna (played by Haruna Kawaguchi) and Mirai (played by Mirai Shida) are hosts of some little show that one of the producers wants to give a boost. That leads to them playing video footage that they have been sent, except it is different footage when played compared to what had been visible earlier. The footage was shot at Haruna's school, leading the show team to head there and try to get to the bottom of things. There are soon creepy things happening, a tragic backstory being revealed, and some wonderfully atmospheric moments showing people in peril while spirits start to become more and more numerous around them.

Taking the familiar found footage style and mixing in the idea of a whole film being cursed (and we're well aware of cursed filmed footage having a key place in last couple of decades of Japanese horror), P.O.V. - A Cursed Film spends a bit too much time in the first half trying to subtly build up the chills without any context for them. There's nothing especially wrong with the first 20-30 minutes, it just isn't half as good as the last two thirds of the film.

Writer-director Norio Tsuruta has thrown together a number of fun ideas here, and it's impressive that he's done it in a way that nicely balances a sense of knowing playfulness with a handful of properly creepy moments. As well as the more obvious touchstones, this feels very much indebted to Don't Look Up, certainly by the time the last few scenes play out before the END end credits (there are a few end credits here, so don't turn the film off prematurely or you'll miss out on quite a bit).

Kawaguchi and Shida don't have to do anything too strenuous, considering they are playing characters with their own names and are positioned in scenes that have spooky things going on around them, but they do well enough. There are a few other key supporting players, but the focus stays on the two girls, when it isn't on whatever has been captured on film. Their interactions with one another, and reactions to things, are all very believable. If anything, they consistently prove that most young Japanese girls are still a lot braver than I am, even when they're petrified.

Although I mentioned the fact that the last two thirds of this film are better than the opening act, that won't necessarily be the case for some, who I suspect may lose interest during the last 5-10 minutes. Things take a further turn that you have to get on board with, twisting the onscreen events into something arguably more interesting and sophisticated than the opening scenes would suggest. Subtlety has long gone, and the layers between viewer and footage start to blur and bleed into one another. In some ways, it's very silly. In other ways, it works. It's a tale within a tale within a tale (within a tale?), and that approach is certainly more interesting than what could have easily been an enjoyable, but altogether familiar, found footage to sit alongside the hundreds of others from the past couple of decades.

It doesn't quite get either end of the fear spectrum exactly right, the subtle moments are too subtle and the outright madness of the finale would have been better if there had been an attempt made to slide things into place a bit more smoothly, but this is still worth your time. Even if it's not one you'll ever want to revisit.

6/10

This is a region 3 disc (you have been warned).

Prime Time: Tag (2015)

Not to be confused with the American comedy of the same name, Tag is a Sion Sono movie that is as typically mad as a Sion Sono movie can be. It has at least one very interesting idea at the heart of it all, and the wild set-pieces hold your interest, but this is a film that I fractured viewing experience that I can easily see people disliking, despite the fact that I really enjoyed it.

Things start with a clip that many people will already have seen, even if they're unaware of the fact that it's from this movie. Mitsuko (Reina Triendl) is just one of many schoolgirls sitting in a coach as it travels along a road. The atmosphere is calm and dreamy. Mitsuko bends down to pick up her dropped writing implement, and that is when an invisible force cuts the entire bus in half, having just done the same to the bus just ahead. There's metal and bisected bodies everywhere, and Mitsuko is understandably shocked as she tries to figure out what happened. While escaping the carnage, the force seems to follow her, taking out other people while Mitsuko does her best to avoid it. She then gets to her school, where more strangeness occurs. She is then a bride (and has the name Keiko, and is played by Mariko Shinoda). More strangeness occurs. She is then a runner in a marathon (Izumi, played by Erina Mano). Something dangerous seems to be pursuing every one of her identities, even as she tries to figure out what is going on and just who she really is.

Based on a short story by Yûsuke Yamada, Sion Sono wrote and directed this with his usual mix of slick visuals and unflinching approach to more extreme moments. The gore is infrequent, but it's a huge bloody mess when you see it (and you do get to see it), the madness stops completely when characters get together to discuss some of the ideas being proposed as explanations for the strange events, and there's a transition between each main segment that allows viewers to clearly see the lead changing identities. The whole film does a great job of mixing the perplexing, the disorentating, and the more grounded moments. It may be a head-scratching viewing experience, at times, but that's only keeping viewers close alongside Mitsuko/Keiko/Izumi as she tries to figure everything out.

Triendl does well in her role, as do both Shinoda and Mano, but it's worth singling out Yuki Sakurai for some special praise. She plays Aki, a girl who is always there as a friend to the main character. But sometimes Aki seems oblivious to what is about to unfold, and sometimes she seems to know a lot more than our lead. Whatever her sense of the situation, Sakurai plays her perfectly throughout every main sequence.

Although it feels very much like a throwaway film, any attempt to add some logic comes along too late and I'm still not sure it really makes any sense, I still had a blast with Tag. It ultimately didn't matter to me how things ended anyway, as I was enjoying thinking about the various possible explanations that might have been used. I recommend this, even though many may view it as a lesser Sono flick.

8/10

You can buy the movie here.

Yule Love It: inside (2016)

There usually comes a point while watching a remake when you have to make a conscious decision to forget the original movie. Some movies make that impossible. If a film is going to slavishly copy what has been done before then you just can't view it as one individual work of art. The same can happen, however, if the film moves too far away from the source material, making you wonder why they even bothered to create it as a remake.

I really like Inside, the 2007 horror movie from Alexandre Bustillo and Julien Maury that came along with a number of other extreme French horror movies during the first decade of this century. The two then followed that with Livid, another wonderful horror film, although one with a much more dream-like atmosphere throughout. I've not yet seen Among The Living, for all I know they may have been three for three at that point. I know that all seemed to be going well for them until they were tasked with delivering audiences Leatherface.

But I digress. I had deferred my viewing of Inside for so long because of my love for the original movie. I just didn't have any faith in a remake doing it justice. Enough time had passed though, so I figured it might finally be safe to give it a go.

The main story is the same, as you might expect. Things start with a car crash. Rachel Nichols is Sarah, a survivor of the crash. She's also very pregnant. It's Christmas Eve, Sarah is struggling with her loss, and considering what to do as motherhood approaches, when there is a knock at the door. It's a woman (Madeleine, played by Laura Harring) who seems to know Sarah. When refused entry, Madeleine eventually finds another way inside. She wants to take Sarah's baby, and will stop at nothing to get it.

The good thing about Inside is that it casts two women in lead roles that I always think should have more films under their belt. Nichols and Harring are both women I look forward to seeing onscreen, and both do their best with the material here, Harring having a bit more fun in the role of the villain (as you might expect). And that's about it for the praise portion of this review.

Inside is terrible. It mishandles any moments that it lifts directly from the original, and it also makes changes that don't work, despite obviously being put there to add some potential scares, tension, or kills. One main example is giving Sarah some hearing loss, which then allows her to have a hearing aid that can be lost and gained, depending on how director Miguel Ángel Vivas wants a scene to play out. Vivas also worked on the script, alongside the talented Jaume Balagueróand Manu Díez, and it's almost impossible not to put all of the blame for the lacklustre feeling of the final product on his shoulders. I cannot recall the last time I watched a horror movie that alternated so erratically between either underplaying or overplaying the scares. None of the BIG moments work as they should, leaving viewers underwhelmed, and simply bored, as it all winds to an ending that, well, I won't spoil . . . let's just say that it also fails to prove worthwhile when you think of the ending to the original movie.

Cynically designed to appeal to those who don't want to watch a nasty horror film with subtitles, this is the worst kind of remake. It loses the power of the original, mishandles everything that was done so well the first time around, and never shows an ounce of courage. Pitiful.

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

Mubi Monday: Vertigo (1958)

When I first saw it, many years ago, The Birds used to be my favourite Alfred Hitchcock movie. I have since changed my mind on that film. Despite the superb set-pieces, there are some other aspects to it that make it a surprisingly weak feature from the master of suspense. And so I moved my love to Psycho. And then Rear Window. Oh, and North By Northwest. The point I am trying to make is that ol' Hitch has a number of contenders that could easily be viewed as his very best. Vertigo should always be in the running.

James Stewart plays a detective, John Ferguson AKA Scottie, who is hired by an old acquaintance to follow his wife, Madeleine (Kim Novak). There's a building sense that Madeleine is going to do herself some harm, a notion that solidifies into a reality when Madeleine tries to jump into a bay and drown herself. This is only a temporary reprieve, and Vertigo really kicks into gear after the halfway point, which sees Scottie encountering a woman named Judy Barton (Novak), a woman who seems very much like Madeleine in many ways.

It's always easy to admire the works of Hitchcock while also unfairly dismissing them as nothing more than exercises in thrills and tension, yet so many of his movies have a lot more to them than that. It just so happens that it's usually easier to recommend his films without having to go into too much detail. The real exploration and discussion of his classics is left to people who want to write essays, or even whole books, on them. If you think I am going to try and change that with this brief review then you can think again.

What I will do, however, is try to emphasise just why this is one of the greatest films of all time. Because it most certainly is.

Things have a good grounding in the script, by Alec Coppel and Samuel A. Taylor. Although it's structured in a way that makes some of the 128-minute runtime feel like padding, very few scenes fail to provide food for thought, either in terms of the plotting, the characterisations, or the psychological turbulence of the leads.

Then you have a cast all doing excellent work. Stewart gives another wonderful performance for a director he worked well with, moving from his likeable everyman persona into something darker as the film whirls and dives into ever-darkening waters. Novak gives two performances that are almost flawless, particularly as things develop in the second half of the movie and viewers start to wonder if Judy IS Madeleine, or just someone who looks very much like her. The third main player here is Barbara Bel Geddes as Marjorie Wood AKA Midge, a close friend to Stewart's character, and someone who has similar difficulties to him in processing some complex feelings that she at least manages to manage in a slightly more healthy manner (at least outwardly anyway). There are others (Tom Helmore as the husband of Madeleine, a number of very small roles for characters populating the world that these characters move through, but the focus stays tight on the central pair, for the most part).

Add the masterful direction to this and you have quite the heady brew. Hitchcock isn't afraid to show the psychological cracks deepening and affecting the environments around his leads, and he also manages to show the effects of vertigo with a dolly zoom effect, still used best in both this film and Jaws. Love, obsession, control, regret, madness, all of these things and more are explored in Vertigo, in a flowing and beautiful series of scenes, accompanied by yet another one of the best music scores from Bernard Herrmann.

Watch it, take it all in, watch it again, take more in, and be sure to have it to hand whenever you want to enjoy an absolute classic.

10/10

This is the set to get. It is stunning.

Netflix And Chill: Holiday Rush (2019)

There's never a good time to fire an employee. Unless you're a proper Scrooge, Christmas is probably the worst time to do it. But that is what happens to popular DJ Rush Williams (Romany Malco) in this light and enjoyable bit of holiday fare.

Initially seeing no silver lining on the massive cloud that has descended upon his life, Rush is soon spurred into some positive action by his long-time associate, and close friend, Roxy (Sonequa Martin-Green). A bit of downsizing is required, a new home (well . . . it's their old home, one with less space but more emotional weight to the memories), and a plan to take over a small radio station and start again. If it's not going to be difficult enough already, the person responsible for firing Rush (Jocelyn, played by Tamala Jones) aims to try and make it impossible. There's also the not-insignificant matter of how the four children will adjust to the situation.

Although he has a 2013 festive special under his belt already, director Leslie Small is a strange choice for Holiday Rush. His background is rooted much more in comedy, particularly the live comedy of Kevin Hart, as well as numerous Comedy Jam specials. And Holiday Rush is not a comedy. So I assumed that Small had decided to put his faith in some writers with more experience in this kind of thing. Not so. In fact, neither Sean Dwyer nor Greg Cope White have an extensive list of writing credits, and they certainly haven't accrued the TV movie work that some have (usually those who know the formula in and out and can tweak it every time for a number of variations on the same themes).

Maybe this lack of over-familiarity helps to make Holiday Rush as good as it is, although I am not going to tell you that it's great. It manages to use some familiar tropes sparingly, yet remains focused on the story of a father trying to recover from a major blow while also ensuring that his children can acclimatise to the changes he is taking them through. A big part of the movie, an undercurrent that bubbles to the surface in a couple of crucial scenes, really delivers the lesson that it's okay to not be okay, and sometimes everyone needs someone there to help them, or maybe just be in their corner and continue to believe in them while they work beyond their own doubts. That may sound as trite and cheesy as anything else you could glean from any crop of TV movies, but it's done in a way that handles the unsubtle emotional manipulation better than many others I could point to.

Malco is a pleasant surprise in the main role, considering how much I assumed the material would pump up the bluster and swagger that I always think is his main persona (to be fair, I am basing that entirely on his turn in The 40-Year-Old Virgin, which remains one of his strongest supporting turns). He has the confidence you expect him to have when doing what he loves, but that is tempered by the stress and worry building as everything seems to conspire against him. Martin-Green is very welcome in her role, an obvious close and supportive friend who seems to be at her best when giving someone else a kick in the pants. Darlene Love is a solid matriarch, playing the aunt who knows when to offer tough love and when not to push, and Amarr M. Wooten does his best with what he's given, which is to be the most difficult of the four children, viewing the problems as an indicator that there won't be enough money for him to go to the university of his choice, and viewing some decisions made as personal attacks on things that he holds dear. Jones is a fun baddie, and Deon Cole is a highlight, playing a supposed friend who doesn't really give due consideration to Rush and co. while his own job is safe.

Once again, as if it would ever be different for a film of this type, you know how things are going to end, you know that nobody will get themselves into any kind of situation that they won't be able to get out of, and you know that everything will be wrapped up in shiny paper with a pretty bow on top. But that doesn't stop this from being a very enjoyable slice of Christmas cake, helpfully coming in at an almost-perfect runtime and leaving you with a smile on your face as the credits roll.

6/10

Shudder Saturday: The House At The End Of Time (2013)

The House At The End Of Time is a number of things. It's an interesting little puzzle. It's an emotional drama. And it is, despite what some may think, a horror movie. It may not conform to all of the expected genre conventions, but it deals with some painful loss and repercussions that ultimately add up to what many would consider to be a truly horrifying scenario.

Things begin in 1981. Dulce (Ruddy Rodríguez) is confused as she and her family are attacked by supernatural forces. Her  husband (Juan, played by Gonzalo Cubero) dies from a knife wound, and she watched her son pulled back through a doorway, where he then disappears. It all seems quite clear to the authorities. Dulce did it. Her prints are on the murder weapon. It's the only thing that makes sense. Thirty years later, Dulce is released, but she remains under house arrest. While staying at home, she starts to piece together a puzzle that may explain past events. But can anything be changed?

Written and directed by Alejandro Hidalgo, making his feature debut in the director's chair (with his only previous credit being a screenplay for a film I haven't seen, and hadn't previously heard of, Azotes De Barrio), this is the work of a film-maker who is confident both in his own capabilities and in the patience of an audience. It's not exactly unpredictable, or even all that unique, but it's all laid out in a way that shows how much care has been taken to make a worthwhile tale concerned about more than just any jumps and cheap scares.

Rodríguez is very good in her role, whether playing her character in the past or the present. She carries the air of someone who has experienced great loss, which in turn allows viewers to remember that something happened in those opening scenes of tragedy that defies explanation. Cubero has a smaller role, and his character is not someone you really like spending time with, but he does well. And both Rosmel Bustamante and Héctor Mercado do good work, playing the children of Dulce, the cause of both her joy and grief.

The big problem that the movie has, and it's a problem that has affected bigger movies than this one, is the fact that it reveals details long after most viewers will have figured everything out for themselves. That doesn't make those details and less appreciated, it just undermines what could have been a big strength of the film. There's no real sense of mystery, and anyone with even a passing interest in this kind of genre fare will have a good idea of where everything is heading from the opening act.

Hidalgo shows a lot of promise, and I'll be very interested to see what he does next, but I hope next time he can throw in a few more surprises, and maybe some more scenes that provide some classic horror moments.

6/10

Yule Love It: Surviving Christmas With The Relatives AKA Christmas Survival (2018)

Having years ago written the screenplay that would traumatise a generation of married men considering hooking up with a random woman (Fatal Attraction), James Dearden has now decided to write, and also direct, a film all about something with the potential to be equally difficult for many married couples: the family Christmas dinner.

Julian Ovenden and Gemma Whelan are Dan and Miranda, the married couple who have been tasked with delivering a traditional Christmas for visiting relatives. Money is tight, the house is having a lot of work done to it, there's a brand new oven due, and extra strain comes from Miranda's sister, Lyla (Joely Richardson), and her partner, Trent (Michael Landes). The kids have their squabbles, Dan has to try and figure out a way to help his ex-partner with their weed-addicted son, Harry (Jonas Moore), and Aunt Vicky (Ronni Ancona) seems one step away from fooling around with Trent, who seems to be keeping one eye on wherever his next drink may be and one eye on a chance to get frisky.

Pulled from some of Dearden's own experiences, and certainly full of moments that will be recognisable to anyone who has been put in charge of the big family dinner at Christmas time, Surviving Christmas With The Relatives has elements contained within it that work, but that is rarely down to the script or direction, both of which feel fairly perfunctory. It's odd to think that Dearden could somehow think of this being a worthwhile addition to the overstuffed selection of Christmas movies we get every year. I'd go as far as saying that many of the "lesser" TV movies churned out for this time of year have been a bit better than this. At least they stay focused on their simplistic aims, weaving together basic plot elements in a way that seems planned out (most of the time). This, on the other hand, feels like the work of someone who had too many ideas without realising that none of them worked well with the others being forced into screenplay form.

The cast are largely responsible for the moments that do work, so it's a shame that Dearden didn't cast his male characters as well as he cast his females. Whelan is incredibly likable , Richardson is incredibly frosty and entitled, and Ancona is the perfect mix of neuroticism, regret, cheer, and good-heartedness. Landes is actually also very good in his role, although he is helped by the fact that he's the one American adult in a family unit made up of bickering Brits. Ovenden doesn't ever get you fully on his side, nor does Moore, but it is difficult to say how much of that stems from them and how much from the script.

If you could at least get a sense that there was something, however incomplete, that Dearden was trying to comment on with his comedy drama then that would be some consolation. There isn't though. It's just a snapshot of moments: Eastern European workmen who aren't always appreciated for what they do, a vicar and his wife showing their own strained relationship, an elderly aunt who has a vibrator packed in her luggage, a pretty female visitor from another country who may end up making quite an impression on a stoned teenager. Hell, if this was an '80s John Hughes movie then it could have ended up as one of my favourites. But it isn't, and it won't. I don't see it ending up as a favourite for anyone.

4/10

You can buy it here.

Yule Love It: Christmas At Dollywood (2019)

Although many would view this with some trepidation (it is, after all, a Christmas TV movie built around the brand of Dolly Parton and her theme park), I was optimistic. Director Michael Robison has quite a few of these under his belt, as does writer Nina Weinman. It would get me nostalgic for The Wonder Years (as any star vehicle for Danica McKellar would, she'll always be Winnie to so many of us, especially us Kevins). And it would benefit from the presence of Dolly, although I was under no illusions when it came to how much screentime she might have.

McKellar plays Rachel Lewis, an event planner who returns to her Tennessee home when given the chance to plan the titular Christmas at Dollywood. This sees her paired up with the head of operations, Luke (Niall Matter), who is also pursuing the General Manager vacancy, and doesn't see the need for Rachel to be given the responsibility. After an expectedly bumpy start to their relationship, things expectedly smooth out, and the pair soon recognise that they can work well together. They also have an interest in seeing one another outside of work.

And there you have it. The woman returning to her home town. The professionals also making time for the truly special moments of Christmas. A slippery slope towards what may be true love, with a stop or two on the way for hot chocolate and peppermint treats.

Weinman's script is about as safe as you can get (unsurprising, considering they are also using that Dolly name to sell this), but that ensures that this is right in the middle ground, when compared to all of the movies of this type. There aren't any great set-pieces, nor are there any moments that will make you cringe (well, not if you've seen enough of these without cringing already). Robison's direction is professional and light, showing his confidence in the leads, and the big star name, to let this pleasantly meander through the glimpses of Dollywood that we get to see, and of course it was shot on location there. Although all of these movies have the look and feel of a TV movie, this really makes the most of the resources at their disposal, and manages to feel as if it was given a little bit more money, and just a bit more polish. That may not have been the case, but Robison makes it seem that way, and good on him for the end result.

McKellar and Matter work well together. I wouldn't say that sparks fly, there's no snow-melting heat coming off either of these two individuals, but they're both appealing enough individually, making their scenes together little more than a pleasant waiting game en route to the predictable ending. Zoë Noelle Baker is less annoying than some child actors I have seen lately, so her turn as Ava, Rachel's young daughter, do nothing to harm the picture. The same can be said of the supporting turns from Christine Cattell (Rachel's mother), Garwin Sanford (Rachel's father), and Pauline Egan, the woman who really gives Rachel her big chance. And you get a little bit of Dolly. Not much, but just enough to be reminded of why she's remained such an iconic star for so many decades. She doesn't come close to the kind of performances she gave when actually playing other characters, but she does well enough.

Dollywood may not be enough of a gimmick to make this more appealing to the majority of people who watch these movies, but it's a nice bonus for those who are fans of Dolly. And why wouldn't you be a fan of Dolly?

5/10

Prime Time: Nativity Rocks! (2018)

How? How do we now have four of these bloody things? Especially when they keep getting worse. Well, that's not strictly true. The series seems to have bottomed out with the third instalment, making anything else released both as awful and slapdash as anyone still watching deserves. Which includes me, masochist that I am.

After his small part in the previous movie, Simon Lipkin gets to move front and centre here. He is the new Mr. Poppy, Jerry, cousin of the old Mr. Poppy (yes, Marc Wootton finally decided to move on from the series). Turning up at a school, Jerry is allowed to just immediately get himself involved with the Christmas musical that is being planned, a rock opera. Because schools are absolutely able to do that, as has been shown in every previous Nativity! movie. The rock opera needs to be done right, and there are a couple of main sub-plots, one involving a small boy who has parents too busy to take much notice of him, and one involving a child refugee separated from his father.

Okay, I will begrudgingly admit that, despite my harsh words opening this review, this fourth Nativity! movie feels ever so slightly better than the third one. If there was someone better in the lead role, it could have been an actual decent movie. But we get Lipkin in the lead role, a man who decides to perform his role as a cross between Wootton and Jack Black, with the skill of neither.

Writer-director Debbie Isitt seems to have made this her main focus over the past few years (I noticed there is a stage show version now, and I am assuming she will have at least some credit for that). None of these films have been very well-received, critically, but I know that the first two did great business. I can even see the appeal in the first one. And the second, which tries to repeat the main trick while adding in some David Tennant. But I am surprised that enough people saw, and enjoyed, the third to warrant a fourth. Will there be a fifth? Knowing my luck, probably.

I've already complained enough about Lipkin, spending any more time criticising him would feel too much like tripping up a small puppy, but there's a decent supporting cast here to at least partially make up for his central awfulness. Craig Revel Horwood may not be one of the better players, but he has a bit of fun with his role, giving us the main villain this time around. Daniel Boys, Helen George, and Celia Imrie all do well as the main adults caring for the children, Hugh Dennis and Anna Chancellor are good as the parents not paying their child much attention, and Ruth Jones brightens up the second half of the movie with her presence. Brian Bartle (Doru, the refugee) and Rupert Turnbull (Barnaby, the child with "absent" parents) aren't the best in their roles, but they don't do a terrible job, and I've sat through much worse child performances. You also get small roles for Meera Syal and Jessica Hynes, with the latter bursting in near the end with just the right amount of energy and humour to perk things up.

Not the worst, but that's a very low bar set by the previous movie, Nativity Rocks! feels like a return trip to a well that dried out some years ago. I really hope that they don't make another one. But I know I'll end up watching it IF it happens.

3/10

You can buy a set here.

Yule Love It: The Nutcracker In 3D (2010)

Obviously, first of all, watching The Nutcracker In 3D in 2D feels like it's diminishing the experience slightly. Never fear, however, because this film being in 3D is the least of the "selling points". Oh, it has such sights to show you. I almost didn't include it in my roster of festive film reviews, but the recent thoughts of people losing their minds over Cats reminded me that other people deserved to hear about it.

Essentially a telling of the classic tale, with Elle Fanning in the role of Mary, the main young girl who finds herself going on an adventure with a nutcracker who comes to life, this is a wild fever-dream interpretation of the material, with additions that just genuinely boggle the mind. Don't believe me? You will, by the time you have sat through a musical number which allows Albert Einstein (played by Nathan Lane) to sing a song about relativity to a famous melody from the suite. Yes, that happens. And it's one of the most memorable moments.

Director Andrey Konchalonskiy (AKA Andrei Konchalovsky) also co-wrote the screenplay with Chris Solimine. Konchalovskiy, director of such '80s hits as Runaway Train and Tango & Cash, THAT Konchalovskiy. He has mixed things up over the years, and I'm not saying that making those action movies means he should give us nothing but more films in the same vein, but this seems like a wild departure, even when considered alongside his more varied films from the past couple of decades. It's so unrelentingly bizarre, in relation to the main choices made, that it becomes something you need to see, just to give yourself a badge of honour. I haven't even mentioned the talking monkey, or any of the other supporting characters who help to make up the bizarre menagerie populating this cinematic world.

There's also a good cast in place for the main roles. Fanning is good as Mary, Aaron Michael Drozin does just fine as her brother, Max, and Lane is at least fun in the role of "Uncle Albert". Richard E. Grant is the father, Shirley Henderson is the voice of The Nutcracker, and John Turturro and Frances de la Tour provide nightmare fuel with their portrayals of, respectively, The Rat King and The Rat Queen. Turturro takes the first prize for terrifying children, especially in the one or two moments that have him snarling in a way that turns his face more ratty while his civil facade slips a la Bilbo Baggins in The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring.

Despite the oddness of it all, The Nutcracker In 3D (in 2D) somehow manages to stay fairly uninteresting throughout most of the runtime. The direction from Konchalonskiy is on par with that of an ambitious festive special for the BBC (to be fair, they probably could do something much more impressive than this nowadays). Perhaps the problems lie with the tale itself, which is better suited to a theatrical performance than any attempted narrative film, but that doesn't let anyone off the hook when they come together to have a stab at it.

3/10

You CAN buy it here. But don't.

Mubi Monday: Lonely Are The Brave (1962)

I am sure that it has happened before, but I am very much aware of the fact that when I stumble across a great film like this one, and it IS great, film fans reading my review may well end up rolling their eyes and muttering "well . . . duh." But here I go anyway.

Kirk Douglas is John W. "Jack" Burns, a cowboy in a world in which very few cowboys are left. We first see him sorting out his horse as an airplane flies overhead, a jarring juxtaposition of two very different worlds. Jack is a tough, independent guy, and when he hears that an old friend has been placed in prison he gets himself put in there alongside him, ready to plan an escape. The friend, however, doesn't want to spend his life on the run. Jack doesn't mind though. He'll keep moving anyway.

Directed by David Miller, Lonely Are The Brave is an adaptation of an Edward Abbey novel brought to the screen by Dalton Trumbo. While I am not familiar with Miller, his work behind the camera here is pretty spot on, and he's able to make the most of the superb script and winning performance from Douglas. This isn't necessarily saying that the world still needs men like Douglas in it, but it does question why so many feel threatened by him, and what he represents, and it shows how much more there is to the man than just a figure on a horse.

As the man hanging on to a "lost" way of life, Douglas is at his very best here. He's tough, charming, frustratingly obstinate, and believable. These qualities frustrate Jerry Bondi (Gena Rowlands), aggravate Deputy Sheriff Gutierrez (George Kennedy) when Jack is residing in his prison, intrigues Sheriff Morey Johnson (Walter Matthau) when Jack is attempting to evade capture, and makes him a very memorable character to spend time with. And all of those other people I have just mentioned give equally great performances, in different ways. Rowlands has an air of worry and slight exasperation about her, Kennedy is a sonofabitch, and Matthau gives yet another one of his weary and pragmatic turns.

One of many films to show a fading American dream, Lonely Are The Brave stands out because of how it makes use of the archetypal cowboy figure. That's interesting enough, yet it's even more interesting to view this nowadays and see how much it feels like a template for a certain other movie about someone strong and self-sufficient returning to a small town and butting heads with authority figures. Yes, I'd happily suggest that First Blood owes more than a small debt to this, and maybe it was in the back of David Morrell's mind as he worked on the novel that would be released a decade after this movie.

There are just one or two minor omissions here that hold it back from being perfect, a step from the middle section to the third act that leaves it feeling a bit less strongly structured as it could be, but I could easily see myself bumping this score up in the future. Part of me wants to rewatch it already, and I just finished it less than an hour ago.

9/10

I'm not even going to link to a poor disc copy here. This NEEDS better treatment.

Netflix And Chill: The Knight Before Christmas (2019)

Netflix continue to try making their mark on the traditional Christmas movie market and, once again, there are a mix of pros and cons with their approach.

Vanessa Hudgens (who did such a great job in The Princess Switch last year) is a young woman, Brooke, who has everything in life, except for a man. And every woman needs a man, of course. Although... well, we will come back to this point soon. Anywayyy, that looks set to change when a Knight (Sir Cole, played by Josh Whitehouse) is sent forward in time by an old crone (Ella Kenion), enabling him to complete whatever quest he is supposed to figure out needs his attention, and enabling Brooke to realise that she doesn't mind the idea of true love.

Like almost every other Christmas movie they have produced over the past few years, with one or two notable exceptions, this one works in terms of the simple entertainment it aims to provide, yet feels as if those who made it were too wary to fully embrace the conventions of these specific types of movies. You get moments you expect, but you get them in a diluted, "diet soda", form. The sweetness and sense of immediate satisfaction are both there, they're just lacking the unabashed pure sugar rush.

Hudgens is good enough in the lead role, but it doesn't make the use of her talent that The Princess Switch did. That would seem to be the fault of writer Cara J. Russell, who has a fairly short list of credits, compared to the kind usually amassed by people in this field (although everyone starts somewhere), and perhaps that explains her approach to the material lacking a confidence in just how much viewers will welcome this kind of thing leaning hard into the expected "bucket list items". Director Monika Mitchell has a bit more experience, with both standard TV movies and Christmas TV movies, but doesn't show it here, which adds to the feeling that both she and Russell were slightly hampered by Netflix, who somehow seem to think that they can't just dive right to the ground and make snow angels while we look on and smile.

Although Hudgens is fine, Whitehouse can be given a little praise for his fun, light performance. Sir Cole may be ridiculously unfazed by things around him in the modern world (cars, TV, phones, Alexa, etc), but Whitehouse plays up the wide-eyed innocence of his character well enough. Emmanuelle Chriqui is the other main lead, friend to Hudgens and parent to the main child involved in the storyline (Claire, played competently enough by Isabelle Franca), and does well enough in her role.

It's telling that you can get all the way to the grand finale here without really knowing what the main lesson to be learned is, or even what quest Sir Cole needs to complete to make things right. Netflix want to hand you gifts, but they're not sure if you'll like them. So they make stuff, move towards embracing the home-made charm of it all, and then chicken out by polishing it up too much and packaging it with a gift voucher. You may read this and wonder what the hell I am on about, but if you're a fan of Christmas movies then you know I am right. Come on, Netflix, just knock back the eggnog, have the snowball fight, add more montages, wear the ugly sweater with pride, and stop pretending to be above it all.

5/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Shudder Saturday: Inner Demon (2014)

Sarah Jeavons plays Sam, a young woman who is kidnapped by a couple of depraved killers, in this horror movie written and directed by Ursula Dabrowsky. Not to worry though, it's not long until Sam escapes their clutches. She escapes the trunk of their car, thanks to a combination of intelligence and a tyre iron, and ends up in a cabin in the middle of some woods. Of course. And can you guess who lives in that cabin? Yes, I think you may be one step ahead of me already. And we may all be a step or two ahead of Dabrowsky.

The more movies I watch, and I watch a LOT of movies, the harder it becomes to be harsh on a film like Inner Demon. I usually have a full conversation/argument with myself while writing the review, sometimes never coming to a final decision until I get to the very end. I think about how nothing in the movie is that bad, how there are so many worse movies out there, and how Dabrowsky has tried to give viewers something familiar, but with a twist. And then the rest of my brain starts to drown me out, because I am making excuses.

Inner Demon is a bad film. It may not be as bad as many other films, but that doesn't stop it from being a bad film. The cast have nothing to worry about, the acting from the main leads is consistently good enough, but they just can't elevate the material they have to work with. Indeed, I wish they'd been given more to do. Jeavons is asked to simply look scared and bleed for most of the runtime, while Kerry Ann Reid, Andreas Sobik, and Todd Telford are all irrational and agitated killers. There's no interesting dialogue between these characters, nothing to reveal anything more about them beyond convenient disagreements that move the plot forward.

You may think that Dabrowsky has instead spent her time focusing on making her movie as dark and tense as possible. Not so. This is a film that starts strong, despite some confusion in the editing department, before pulling back for an hour of nothing really interesting happening. There's some death, yes, but it's not actually interesting, mainly thanks to us having no interest in the characters who could live or die. There's also something brought in to the finale that allows this to be a bit different from many other movies about a captured potential murder victim trying to make their escape. Treated differently, with more woven throughout the rest of the script, this could have been a nice little addition. As it stands, it feels like something thrown in for the sake of it.

Although this is the second film from Dabrowsky, it feels as if she has maybe put herself in a holding pattern since her 2009 debut, Family Demons, which seems to have some overlap (but I am only going by the plot summary on IMDb here). I'm not in a rush to see her first movie, but maybe I'll get to it one day. In the meantime, perhaps those who have seen both can let me know if they feel as similar as I suspect they might.

I hope Dabrowsky tries something new with her next movie. Some may like this more than I did, but I doubt anyone will be clamouring for more of the same.

3/10

Yule Love It: The Christmas List (1997)

Mimi Rogers plays Melody Parris in this wonderful little festive TV movie that mixes in all of the expected story beats with something just different enough to make it all feel a bit less tired than other examples I could point to.

Melody has a decidedly average life. She is passed over for promotion at her work (she sells fragrances in a department store, and has a gift for being able to pick someone the perfect scent once they have answered some simple questions), her boyfriend won't make any major commitment, and she knows that her Christmas will be another time during which she settles for less than she really wants, partly due to the fact that her mother never really goes all out with the Christmas dinner traditions. But things start to change for Melody when she helps out a young boy (Danny, played by Bill Switzer). It's the season for those who have been on the nice list to be rewarded, which may explain the change in Melody's fortunes.

Directed by Charles Jarrott, a sure hand who had a lengthy filmography spanning work for cinema and TV over six decades, The Christmas List feels more like a fun film that is making use of the trappings of Christmas, as opposed to a Christmas movie with a plot shoehorned in there. This may not seem like a big difference, and I cannot speak to how writer Marie Weiss (who gave us both this and The Ref) worked out the storyline, but it's enough to make it stand out from a (over-)crowded field. There are still limitations in place, and no surprises, but there are plenty of moments that prove to be far more rewarding than, for example, the standard scene we have seen so many times featuring the leading lady saving a festive event at the last minute with her sheer love of Christmas. I may be exaggerating, but you know I am close enough to the truth.

Rogers is also giving a performance that doesn't feel like it's constrained by the usual TV movie boundaries. That's not a polite way of saying that everyone else who acts in these specific types of TV movies is doing a bad job. It's just refreshing to see someone not having to act as ignorant of the magic starting to happen around them, which is what happens most of the time. Melody starts to notice the strangeness early on, and it is up to her to try to turn things in her favour or let the opportunity pass her by, which allows Rogers to play her character very naturally, with a building sense of optimism as more things begin to fall into place for her. Switzer is also very good in his role, managing to be the kind of kid who befriends a random adult without being too annoying, and Rob Stewart works hard to make his character more appealing after making an unflattering first impression.

There are also good turns from Stella Stevens (Melody's mother), Enuka Okuma (Naomi, a colleague and friend), and Madison Graie as April May, the woman who gets a promotion ahead of Melody, despite having nowhere near her knack for actually selling the customers the right product.

Despite my praise, however, and despite the fact that I have mentioned the ways in which this doesn't feel like a Christmas TV movie, there are a number of ways in which it decidedly DOES feel like one. That's no bad thing. It is what it is supposed to be, after all. It just means that it falls short when compared to most movies that are not created to that remit. You'll still know most of the story beats, you can see the ending coming a mile away, and an oft-repeated magical "vision" of people wearing Santa hats when Melody realises she is being blessed with good fortune again is a bit too cheesy for it's own good.

One worth tracking down though, and I would happily watch it again.

6/10

Here is a DIFFERENT movie with the same title. Might be fun.
That different movie is also available here, but with the same region coding.