Film Review Archives - Page 3 of 3

September 18, 2015

Film Review: Berberian Sound Studio

Our guest blogger is hobbyist film and TV series reviewer and writer Harry Casey-Woodward. In this post he reviews Berberian Sound Studio directed by Peter Strickland released in 2012…

Sometimes, you’re sure that you’ve seen a good film, and the critics say it’s good. You just can’t see why.

Toby Jones plays a British film sound technician named Gilderoy, who arrives in an Italian sound studio in 1976, where they’re recording the soundtrack for a horror. Tensions among the crew rise, and Gilderoy becomes increasingly alienated and disturbed, though he doesn’t show it, since Jones gives a great reserved performance, communicating isolation with as little emotion possible.

This film works best as a tribute to 70s Italian horror and as an exploration of the art of film sound effects. Watching the sounds of mutilation being provided by hacking up vegetables, and demonic screaming being produced by weirdly talented vocalists are the movie’s most fascinating elements. Technically, the film is impressive, with great lighting, sound, and shots, all creating suspenseful atmosphere.

Unfortunately, the film only offers suspense, which never builds up to much. It felt like an experimental indulgence in technology that shunned sense, confusing and excluding the average filmgoer. Some scenes questioned film violence and expectations of the horror genre. Overall, however, it tried to say something without saying it, which annoyed me.

Though original and inventive, it felt atmospheric and menacing just for the sake of it. As much as I applaud cinematic strangeness, a film is only threatening if it shows what it’s threatening you with. The fact that the film tried to say lots through the exclusive setting of a sound studio just felt (though I hate using this word) pretentious.

Image From Worn by Heroes and ICA

September 11, 2015

Film Review: Horns

Our guest blogger is hobbyist film and TV series reviewer and writer Harry Casey-Woodward…

Horns 2013, 2/5
A while ago I saw Daniel Radcliffe’s face emblazoned on a magazine cover. He was unshaven, had a steely squint and a smoking cigarette dangling from his lips with no consideration for influencing young wizards with this dirty muggle habit. The headline was ‘Harry Potter gone bad’ or something silly like that.

Daniel

My guess is that Radcliffe’s new bad boy image had something to do with this film I’m reviewing, for his character does indeed smoke, drink, curse, fight, has some sex and looks as if he could do with a bath, some attitude counselling and a good night’s sleep: you know, like a normal young adult.

This is not the first time I’ve wondered if Radcliffe is taking the same career path as Elijah Wood; in other words, attempting to trash the cute boy wizard/hobbit roles that made them famous by proving they can do darker, mature roles. For example, Wood starred in Maniac in 2012 as a woman-slaughtering psychopath and in 2014’s Open Windows he played an internet creep stalking his favourite actress (who happened to be played by porn star Sasha Grey to add further controversy).

Radcliffe has gone down a less violently extreme image-trashing career path than Wood, but his angry young man take in Horns is still hilarious, especially since he’s adopted an American accent. As grating as this sounds, you do get used to it and surprisingly I ended up caring a little bit for his character. He plays a young man named Ig living in some insignificant backwoods town whose girlfriend Merrin (Juno Temple) has just been murdered and everyone thinks he did it. After a drunken emotional night, he wakes up to find a pair of horns sprouting out of his forehead. He then discovers that everyone he talks to confesses their deepest, darkest secrets and desires. He decides to use this new awkward gift to seek out his girlfriend’s killer and force a confession.

As imaginative and darkly hilarious this setup is, it’s not really explained and doesn’t make a lot of sense. I’m not one of those people who like every aspect of the plot dictated to me and I do believe a little ambiguity is good for a film. However, If director, Alexandre Aja, is trying to make some moral point about Ig being cursed with demonic powers it’s missed because there’s no reason for it. I don’t know if the novel by Joe Hill offers more explanation and, like Kubrick did with The Shining , Aja decided to sacrifice some of the novel’s explanations for the film’s imagery.

But in The Shining, there is a vague justification for the weird spooky stuff, in that it’s a reflection of all the dark stuff that happened in the hotel’s past. In Horns Ig never does anything that justifies his curse. Sure he’s a surly, indulgent, non-believer like every young adult, but he’s not evil. If anything, he’s the character most wronged. The only heretic thing he does is smash the Virgin Mary figurine at his dead girlfriend’s shrine, pee on some candles and then rant about what good going to church every Sunday did for her. Do any of these pathetic, slightly justifiable actions merit the horror thrust on his life, whether by God or the Devil (unless either one has a very bitter sense of humour)? And if this curse is a punishment for whatever darkness lies in Ig’s heart, surely it shouldn’t give him advantages? Halfway through the film snakes swarm to Ig, willing to obey his will, I guess because he’s now tainted with evil? So he uses them for vengeful purposes, thus making him more evil than when he started. If God’s trying to punish him He’s doing a bad job and if the devil’s trying to corrupt him, why him? He wasn’t exactly a pure being to start with.

I do admire films that do weirdness for the sake of it, but only to an extent. Traditionally in Gothic moral narratives, like Doctor Faustus, religious phenomena that has a negative impact on the protagonist’s life has a moral purpose, in order to give didactic instruction to the audience (let’s ignore the film Stigmata, which is based on random religious phenomena). With Horns we have what feels like a traditional Gothic narrative. But the fact that the reason and nature of Ig’s non-deserved curse, whether it’s a blessing or a punishment, is hidden to the audience means that the moral we’re expecting is not very clear. All we get is a character that has a lot of weird, bad stuff happen to him. This doesn’t do much for a story and throws up more questions than answers. The other thing that lets the film down is Radcliffe. As hard as he tries, whether he’s being distraught or vengeful, he’s never very convincing. He always looks like he’s straining when he should be easily slipping into these emotions. Unfortunately, since the entire film consists of him having emotional conflicts with every character, we’re stuck with Radcliffe in tantrum mode.

I didn’t expect the film to be great from the offset, as I’m not a fan of Radcliffe, but I was surprised at how gripping and entertaining it was on another level. Despite the vast room for improvement left by the issues discussed above, it’s still a good murder mystery and the idea of a superpower that removes people’s inhibitions is an original idea that leads to some hilarious and cringing scenes. The story and dialogue is good, even if it’s a lot of flashbacks and emotional angst. All the performances, apart from Radcliffe, are good too. Juno Temple playing Ig’s girlfriend shows Radcliffe up on convincingly portraying a troubled young adult. Even the child actor playing Ig in the flashbacks does a better job than Radcliffe. We also get Heather Graham in a great minor role as a publicity-crazed waitress.

So if you want a supernatural murder mystery with a thrilling plot that looks cool but you don’t care about the supernatural part making much sense, knock yourself out. Other than that, there isn’t much substance here and the film will probably only be memorable for Harry Potter joining the forces of evil.

September 5, 2015September 5, 2015

Top Five Wes Craven Films

Our guest blogger is hobbyist film and TV series reviewer and writer Harry Casey-Woodward

Last week saw the passing of one of the coolest directors in cinematic horror, Wes Craven… He deserves to be called king of the slashers, for he kick-started two classic franchises of the genre (A Nightmare on Elm Street and Scream). However as crude as the slashers were, Craven’s films were always smart, imaginative and underpinned with great plot and occasional literary references. They were also quite scary. I admit I haven’t seen every Wes Craven film (including Last House on the Left, which I’m still kicking myself for) but I have arranged the handful I have seen in order of the best, according to my opinion of course. All aboard the Wes Craven ghost train…

5. Scream (1996)

It’s a shame that this was the film that inspired the Scary Movie franchise and the legions of unfunny film spoofs that followed. The original Scream movie was better, in that it worked the same way that its signature ghoulish killer did (you know, the one who dressed like he was trick or treating). Both were tongue in cheek and poked fun at the horror genre, yet still managed to efficiently scare and slaughter the other characters, no better than in the darkly funny but terrifying opening scene starring Drew Barrymore. In other words, Craven succeeded in paying tribute to classic slashers while being slyly aware of their clichés. At the same time he delivered an intense, gruesome chiller that was also funny and entertaining, thus creating a perfect recipe for a horror hit. The sequel Scream 2 , also by Craven, was just as good as the first film in exploring the public’s obsession with horror films. The follow-ups got a bit silly.

4. Wes Craven’s New Nightmare (1994)

Craven did another twist on the genre in the final addition of his other popular series (unless you count the heathen 2010 remake ). Despite his iconic creation Freddy Kruger getting ‘killed’ in the sixth Nightmare on Elm Street film , Wes couldn’t resist directing a follow-up, the only Nightmare sequel he directed. While Freddy may have died on film, he returns with a vengeance to the real world; a world so real that actress Heather Langenkamp (aka Nancy from the first film) plays herself, as does Wes and Robert Englund (who plays himself and Freddy if you can get your head around that). Then try and get your head around the fact that this is a Nightmare on Elm Street movie about a new Nightmare on Elm Street movie being made, and Langenkamp realising that the character of Freddy is creeping into her reality and threatening her life, sanity and family. The best thing about this movie is that it’s possibly the scariest Nightmare, since Wes stripped Freddy of the wisecracks and clownishness popularised in the previous sequels and left him as he is: a psychotic kidnapper. This movie not only stepped the game up from the previous sequels, but was a comment on audience’s obsession with Wes’ films and his nightmarish figure of Freddy.

3. A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

You can’t beat the original. One of those great cinematic success stories where a film starts with a budget of just over a million dollars (small in the eighties) and becomes an unstoppable franchise, cementing itself in the horror hall of fame. Starting off with a great premise (a killer returned from the dead to slaughter teenagers in their dreams), this classic is also great for its weirdness and imagination. Take the iconic villain Freddy Kruger for instance: a Dennis-the-Menace sweater, a trilby, a mutilated face and a glove with knives for fingers. You can’t even imagine how they put all that together, yet lucky they did for Freddy’s image proved very marketable in toy shops.

The other great thing, regarding the low budget, is the variety of stunts and special effects created for when the characters enter Freddy’s dream world: stairs become quicksand; phones lick you and beds vomit blood. I guess what makes this a horror classic is its blend of crassness (the bloody massacre of sex-addicted teenagers) and sophistication (dreams, a Gothic trickster and Shakespearean references). And while the soundtrack is heavy with synth and the hairstyles are big, this still remains a thrilling, gruesome and effective horror. By the end you’re no longer sure of the difference between dream and reality. Watch out for a baby-faced Johnny Depp too.

2. The Hill Have Eyes (1977)

Craven’s second feature after his controversy-baiting debut Last House on the Left and released the year punk broke, The Hills Have Eyes deserves its place as a horror classic for its sheer brutality. It’s a nasty, gritty piece of work in the same manner of Texas Chainsaw Massacre and fits right in with the decency-assaulting home-invasion shockers of the 70s (see Straw Dogs and I Spit on your Grave). Once again Craven blends sophistication with exploitation.

The plot has something for psychologists, sociologists and violence addicts alike. It’s essentially a merciless battle between two families. On one side you have a typical decent white American family. On the other, a clan of cannibalistic savages who live out in a patch of American desert previously used for testing nuclear weapons; which the other family happen to be driving through. The movie succeeds in building up suspense in the first half, with lots of howling wind and spooky desert shots, and once the violence starts it never lets up. The audience is assaulted with constant noisy savagery as the civilised family find themselves in a bestial fight for their lives. The 2006 remake offered the same with some pointless back story. Watch the original for a ferocious vision of the American dream.

1. The People Under the Stairs (1991)

Possibly Craven’s most underrated masterpiece and one of the most underrated of all horrors. I consider this his best work, for he concentrates most on the story and characters over the violence, which pays off. I cared more about the heroes in this film than any of Craven’s others, mainly because they were kids and they weren’t stereotypes of teens or nuclear family members, and the villains are truly detestable. This film could almost be a family adventure if it weren’t for the disturbing content. What makes it genius is its blend of classic and contemporary storylines. It’s almost like a traditional fairy tale: children are lost in a big scary house, outwitting the ogre and witch-like adults. The modern aspect of the story comes from its depiction of the social and economic divide between races in America.

Our hero is a young black kid named Fool (Brandom Adams) who lives in a deprived neighbourhood and agrees to help rob his landlord’s house in the rich white neighbourhood. Unfortunately the landlord and his wife turn out to be a pair of racist, incestuous, cannibalistic fiends, who like to feed undesirables to their clan of deformed, animalistic offspring locked in the basement. When Fool finds himself trapped in this fortified, booby-trapped house from hell, he relies on his wits and the help of some allies among the children (including the brutalised daughter Alice played by A. J. Langer) to escape and get justice. This most original and imaginative of Craven’s efforts (which says a lot) wins for having such a classic enjoyable plot: plucky underdog heroes in a battle of wits against some truly nightmarish villains. Like all of Craven’s films, there’s a lot going on under the horror and it’s still quite frightening. A real exhibit of the talents of a great director.

Images from IMDB

August 7, 2015August 30, 2015

Film Review: Wild Tales

Our guest blogger is hobbyist film and TV series reviewer and writer Harry Casey-Woodward. On th-ink.co.uk Harry will be writing a series of posts in which he will be sharing his opinions on things he has watched. Read his first and second review. In this post Harry will be reviewing Wild Tales…

Wild Tales (Relatos Salvajes), 2014, cert 15, dir Damián Szifron, 4/5

A plane load of passengers realise they all have something in common. A waitress recognises a customer. Two drivers have a disagreement. A demolition expert is late for his daughter’s birthday. A teenage boy wakes his parents in the middle of the night. Newlyweds celebrate their special day.

So begin the six Wild Tales, a series of narratives in one film released in the UK this year and now on DVD. The tales are not related to each other. There are no random criss-crossing characters like in David Mitchell’s Ghostwritten novel, which makes connections between its stories for the sake of it. Wild Tales is more like watching an entire TV mini series similar to Inside Number 9, a British show that shares the film’s indulgence in wicked humour.

The only thing linking the tales is the theme of revenge, but they do not obsess over it in a Tarantino-esque, blood spattered manner. The director Damián Szifrón insists he did not have the linking theme in mind when he wrote the screenplay but that it materialised on completion. Thus the narratives feel very natural and there is no forced message. They are like little episodes, small windows into the characters’ lives (as short stories should be). So while we don’t get deep, complicated plots, we do get sharp, concentrated slices of action that somehow keep you gripped while covering a range of characters and issues.

This is not only the first film I’ve seen use this unique narrative structure, but the first Argentinean film I’ve ever seen. It’s produced by the legendary Spanish film maker Pedro Almodóvar and while Wild Tales does pay homage to Pedro’s style (stylish film work, passionate performances and a thick streak of black humour), it stands up on its own and is more concerned with plot and action rather than the emotional complexities of its character’s relationships, which Pedro is a master at.

Some of the stories manage emotional impact with hints of tragedy, while others are stark exercises in making us laugh then feeling guilty about it. The plane-based narrative at the beginning, for example, serves as a short but bold introduction that grabs your attention and ensnares it for the rest of the movie.

That’s not to say this film does away with emotions altogether. This is no cold expression of violence like a Haneke or Kubrickian film. Wild Tales is about real characters being thrust into extraordinary situations and their lives spiralling out of control. As Szifrón explains, each character find themselves losing their inhibitions and enacting primal fantasies that civilised society can only dream of.

All in all, this film is a sheer delight to watch. Everything about it works. Like the best films, it’s a spicy pot of humour, darkness and substance that’s carried along by outstanding performances and relies on smart filmmaking rather than dialogue to tell each remarkable story. Wild Tales has an Oscar nomination for best foreign language film this year and thoroughly deserves it.

What do you think? Do you agree with Harry?

Images from IMDB

Director paraphrased from behind the scenes documentary and interview on DVD

July 24, 2015July 24, 2015

Film Review: Jurassic World

Our guest blogger is hobbyist film reviewer and writer Harry Casey-Woodward. This is the first in a series of posts in which Harry will be sharing his opinions on films he has watched. First up is his review of Jurassic World…

Jurassic World, 2015, cert. 12A, dir. Colin Trevorrow, 2/5

‘Jurassic World’ confuses me. It’s a bad film but somehow it was awesome. It made me cheer along and cry big fat tears of nostalgia as well as grind my teeth in frustration.

The reason for my eroded teeth was how much this new film has dumbed down the franchise. The first film was also made for entertainment, of course, but it at least had some good science that the characters weren’t afraid to discuss. This might have been because Michael Crichton wrote the screenplay – and also wrote the original novel, which was even heavier on the science and chaos theory. The film was also a bit scary…

The new film tries to be scary. In fact, I wouldn’t even call it an effort. So scientists have created a new super predator that gets out of their control? How refreshing! For something that’s meant to be scarier than the T-Rex, the new Indominus Rex (created because the public are getting bored of average dinosaurs) doesn’t even look interesting. You could have given it horns, wings, anything! What also doesn’t help is that the Indomimus and all the other dinosaurs were rendered purely with thoroughly unimpressive CGI (computer-generated imagery). I don’t remember seeing any animatronics. So, somehow, the painstakingly crafted animatronics and limited CGI the 90s film had, look more realistic and scary than anything Hollywood can do now. Hooray for 21^st century filmmaking.

So along with dumb effects and plot, we get dumb characters setting gender representation back several decades. Everyone has fallen in love with Chris Pratt and he is fun to watch, but his character is a one-dimensional action man. He’s the rugged man of the wilderness who can do no wrong. Next to him, we get Bryce Dallas Howard playing the female lead. She plays a capable character who can act on intuition. However, she is presented to us as a woman too obsessed with work and profits to spend time with her nephews and only becomes a more positive character when she opens up emotionally, usually through tears, which Chris Pratt never shows. She is also meant to be laughable because she doesn’t know how to cope in the jungle and Pratt does. She is also the most sexualised heroine in the franchise. Sure, Laura Dern runs around in shorts and loses her shirt in the first film. But she doesn’t run around in high heels, chest heaving and glistening with sweat, clothing getting more dishevelled, while Pratt’s remain intact. Does this say something about the declining presentation of women in film over the last two decades, or the trashy nature of sequels?

I also got fed up with the amount of nostalgia we were expected to swallow: the classic score blasted out at every opportunity and the constant needless references to the better first film, which only reminded you that you could be watching it.

Yet despite all this tripe, I came out of the cinema bouncing with excitement like I’d dropped ten years. Although my inner voice was screaming that this was not an accurate representation of dinosaur behaviour, the whole film was still one big thrill ride. The action is impressive and even quite bloody at times, which made me wonder if it was suitable for the families who doubtless flocked to see it, or are kids more desensitised these days?

Nevertheless, it was still exciting to see what a working dinosaur theme park would look like and clearly the makers had fun imagining it. Although I hate to admit it, the plotline of a new super predator dinosaur being created just to keep the public interested is believable, as is one character’s belief in the military potential of the dinosaurs. Furthermore, although the film’s message is nothing new and it’s still about people running away screaming, at least it did some things different, such as making the ‘raptors capable of training, so they could be good guys for once.

It was never going to be as good as the first film. There are several things wrong with it, but it could have been much worse. Don’t expect much, but do expect a lot of fun. And dinosaurs.

Images from Empire Online