Attack The Block

It seems appropriate that Joe Cornish made his name on late night Channel 4, hilariously parodying various famous films through the means of fluffy animals. In a sense those sketches on the 'The Adam & Joe Show' all those years ago were his true directorial debut. Of course, toys and action figures are a lot easier to control and govern than real people. And yet all these influences can be seen in his true debut "Attack The Block". Substitute the toy figurines for an ensemble cast of first timers, homaging films instead of spoofing them and fluffy toys for 'big alien gorilla wolf mother fuckers' and you get a sense of what he set out to achieve in "Attack The Block". This is fitting that the man made his name on late night TV on the sort of show you had to stumble across yourself, before falling instantly in love with it. "Attack The Block" could easily be one of those films you would find in the early hours on a Saturday night. A film you might stumble upon, and find yourself growing ever more entertained by, before fighting away the yawns to see it to it's exciting conclusion. Well thankfully you don't need to stay up until unreasonable hours of the early morning to see it, as Joe Cornish has released a uniformly confidant and original debut, that you can see in most multiplexes over Ireland and the UK from last Friday. Whether or not audiences will appreciate the retro-homaging on display and its vying for 'cult status' charms remains to be seen. What is undeniable, is that along with Richard Ayoade's "Submarine" a few months ago, British TV seems to be harboring more and more interesting and original talent just waiting to break out.

Borne out of a real life mugging that happened to Cornish, it quickly set him to wonder about his attackers and how they might handle themselves in increasingly fantastical and far fetched situations. This in turn led to a beautifully simple idea. What would happen if a South London council estate found itself under attack from alien invaders. So before we have "Cowboys Vs. Aliens" we have 'inner city vs. outer space', as it's tag line beautifully puts it. What Cornish achieves so well with this, is in finding time amidst it's ever escalating action to develop it's gang of hoodlums. Initially beginning as quite an unlikeable group we get to know them more (mainly the silent but strong leader Moses, cheeky boy Pest and brains of the group Jerome) as they find themselves increasingly outmatched and out of their depth against the alien marauders. With recent 'ASBO youth of today gone wrong' films like "Eden Lake", "Harry Brown" and "KiDULTHOOD" it was beginning to seem like the UK were on some sort of vendetta against their adolescent offspring. "Attack The Block" refreshingly paints its central characters as misunderstood hoods defending their home turf by way of eventual action heroes that you'll be cheering along come the end. Although trailers and TV spots have painted the film as a comedy, it actually is an unashamedly sci-fi cum home invasion picture; except here, it's invasion comes from another world. Just because Cornish includes frequent witty dialogue throughout, does not mean that the aliens themselves are any less of a threat. Completely jet black ('blacker than my cousin' one of the group hilariously observes) apart from their glowing green fangs, they are an original and effective design fully in keeping with Cornish's low budget DIY roots. The distinctive electronic roar they give off is sure to be remembered in cult science fiction circles for years to come. All the no name cast are fantastic. Painting an instant picture of camaraderie, the gang all fully convince as street hoodlums who are all too quick to stand up to anybody on their turf, whether they be police or alien. Along for the ride is Luke Treadaway as an hilarious wannabe hoodlum but instead posh toff caught up in the action and Emily Browning as a young nurse (re: the audience) who slowly and reluctantly begins to trust the boys as the threat escalates.

For a first time director, Cornish shows genuine chops behind the camera. Of course having Edgar Wright (who Executive Produces) as a friend certainly helps. However as obvious as his influences are, he shows real flair here, managing to deliver on his original idea. He builds his film nicely, starting rather low-key before you find yourself getting more and more drawn into proceedings. So while his sci-fi leanings (everything from "ET", to "Aliens", to "Predator") are obvious from the outset, what is surprising is where he takes his more urban undertones from ("The Warriors", and mainly "Assault on Precinct 13") which is where the film truly gets it's unique feel from. In fact he shows here what a true progenitor he is to John Carpenters throne in how he builds tension and plays against audience expectations of characters. It's score also owes more than a lot to the great master, as the Basement Jaxx take a few leaves out of his song book in developing their electronic soundscapes. Along the way he litters his film with laughs which only add to the pure escapism on display. It may have taken the man more years than expected to deliver his feature film debut, but his late blooming shows how he developed and learned his craft as best he could before applying himself to it. On the evidence here, Edgar Wright should be looking over his shoulder; there's another director for the nerds in town.

Verdict: 8/10

Excellent escapist fun from start to finish. Joe Cornish may have made his name in no budget spoofery, but here he steps up to the plate and delivers one of the sure to be favourites of the year, and a genuine cult classic for the ages. Betta believe bruv.

"Attack The Block" Trailer

Scre4m

"Scream 4's" recent box office failure in the States at the very least, makes one thing, thankfully, very abundantly clear. There will not be a "Scream 5" (or '5cream' if you will). This is something to rejoice in for a number of reasons, the most pertinent of which is that "Scream 4" is not very good at all. I could argue as to the many reasons why this sequel does not not work but it will always come back to the main fact that had the film doomed straight out of the gate. "Scream 4" was unnecessary. No one was waiting for a fourth entry into the franchise, especially after the dismal third chapter. "Scream" is a product of its time. It worked because it kick started the referential and acutely self aware trend in films, that had never really been done before that point. It was fresh and new. It's concept could not last beyond it's first sequel, of which it just barely did. Then it just began repeating itself. In "Scream 4" all original surviving cast members return, in an attempt to restart the franchise for a new generation. Sidney (Neve Campbell) is now an established author, writing about her traumatic experiences and self-help. On the fifteenth anniversary of the Woodsboro killings she returns home on her book signing tour. However, as soon as she arrives home, more killings start. Killings tracking Sidneys niece Jill (Emma Roberts) and all her high school friends. It's up to Sidney and the now married Sheriff Dewey (David Arquette) and Gale (Courtney Cox) to find who is behind all these new slayings. People forget just how hip the original "Scream" was. It had a hot young cast on the (thought to be) verge of some very big things; an original, achingly cool script, and a renowned classic horror director looking for his big come back. Flash forward eleven years since the last film, and most of its cast have all faded away into obscurity, its writer has a slew of failed film projects and bad TV and the directors last film went straight to DVD over this side of the pond, so bad was its failure in America. This reeks of its original creators cashing in to each give their flailing careers a much needed shot in the arm. The film isn't absolutely atrocious but it really doesn't do itself any favours when it constantly succumbs to the horrible horror cliches it constantly pokes fun at. "Scream 4" wants to have its cake and eat it, which it just can't do. The films witty and all too knowing nature clash violently with its scary and tense framings. Wes Craven is a horror institution but is showing more and more how hard it is to sustain a career in it, whilst still trying to come up with something scary. "Scream 4's" scares are tired and predictable. The most terrifying thing in it is Courtney Cox's horribly stretched and botoxed face. It's characters are all one note and the films final reveal (without giving anything away) is easily the worst in the franchises history. On a positive note, the new generation of victims aren't grating for the most part and some of its digs at recent horror remakes and torture porn are slightly amusing. But it just isn't scary enough or witty enough to really convince as something truly relevant anymore. If its argument is 'there's nothing left to do with horror, lets just have some fun with it all', then why attempt a reboot in the first place? Sure, it's better than "Scream 3" (Scr3am anyone?) but that wasn't exactly too hard in the first place. It is struggling to find a voice in a horror climate that didn't ask for it. It can't mock horror conventions and then fall prey to them itself. "Scream 4" has turned into the thing the film series originally set out to make fun of in the first place.

Verdict: 3/10

The first "Scream" loved horror and loved scaring you with its wit and intelligence. "Scream 4" hates horror and doesn't know what to do with itself. Poor work from everybody involved.

"Scre4m" Trailer

Insidious

When you think about it, horror is a tricky genre to get right. How hard is it to scare, I mean genuinely scare people? The line between something terrifying and something that is unintentionally funny is sometimes hard to traverse. Of course some films use this to their advantage, ranging from "The Evil Dead" series, to "Shaun of the Dead" to "An American Werewolf in London" right up to "Drag Me To Hell"; a film that shares a few parallels with "Insidious". It's a difficult balance and one that "Insidious" never fully commits to throughout its running time. For most of it, the film is a deliberately creepy and deliciously unnerving jaunt through a haunted house; a sub-genre I haven't seen in a few years. And yet, as atmospheric and tense as it gets, there are moments in this which are decidedly more eccentric than the average horror cinema goer might like. This is by no means a bad thing; in fact it was something I was lapping up throughout. For two thirds, the film is by far, one of the better shockers I have seen in recent memory. But then the dreaded third act curse happened. This is something I cannot fathom when it rears its ugly head. Simply put, this film had me. I was prepared to let myself jump and squirm along with the audience, and loving where it was bringing me. But the problem with these types of horrors, is that they have to inevitably explain where the danger and spiritual threat is coming from. And so the film succumbs to three of the things that always render any horror film unscary, in my opinion. It tells us where the menace is coming from, why, and then shows us what it is. Things hidden and barely hinted at will always go farther in audiences head, than anything film makers can explain or show us. Which brings me back to my point; where the film more at ease with its humour, the ending could have worked better. You see when the film decided to forgo any of its mystery then the oddity of where the film takes us would have delivered had it utilised some of its more humourous undertones. Rather than this almost-great horror film we have here; something far more annoying than any bad film could ever be. Like a loved one, this film had won my trust and respect. I cared about its characters and story. Then it betrayed me. This is far worse than a film I never held any feeling for could ever do.

The film is set with a young family moving into the 'house of their dreams'. Then small but strange things happen around the house. Things get moved, odd sounds are heard, and there are brief visions glimpsed. Suddenly, one of their children Dalton, goes into a coma. The Doctors don't seem to know what is wrong with him and he is not responding to anything. It seems he is just an empty vessel. As they bring their young child back home, more and more creepy doings occur, all the while sending the young couple, Josh (Patrick Wilson) and Renai (Rose Byrne) into an ever more frenzied state. When they turn to a medium (Lin Shaye) things get really scary. For most of its running time, the film effortlessly builds tension. Most of the fantastic shocks and jumps that happen nearly all land because the film has earned them. The cast all help sell the scares as the talented Wilson and Byrne have a track record of doing. However credit where credit is due, the films success is down to director James Wan and writer Leigh Whannell, the duo best known for creating the "Saw" franchise. Now while I was never a fan of any of those exercises in gore, I was most pleasantly surprised that they both eschew from any violence or viscera to help the scares in this film. They rely on atmosphere, and the film works wonders because of this. Littered throughout, is obvious, loving homages to their favourite horror films; a bit of Raimi here, a dollop of "The Shining", "Poltergeist" and "Susperia" there. It also is linked to producer Oren Pelis "Paranormal Activity", of which he himself wrote and directed, and something which I'm sure was a friendly source of rivalry on set. Put simply, when this film is good, it more than delivers on shocks. But then that ending happens.

These guys know their horror and have proved that they know how to do it without relying on gore effects and elaborate and overly confusing/nonsensical plotting. The film is pleasingly simple. It follows a nice line of atmospheric set up-jump-laugh-rinse and repeat formula. Before it is fully revealed, it has a great demon antagonist who is after Daltons body. But then the creators go too far into their retro homaging. Put simply, some might not like the slightly cheesy, smoke machine infused and dimly lit world they bring us into for the films climax. It is a misjudged step too far. I know for me, it spoiled everything that had gone before it. This is a huge shame. "Insidious" had a great chance at being one of my favourite recent horror films, something that is few and far between nowadays. The cast all deliver, and the film has the best scares you may see all year, but it is the director/writers own instincts, which hamstrings them.

Verdict: 6/10

For two thirds of its running time this is a fantastic throughback haunted house movie. Pity it doesn't stay true to its initial set up for the denouement. That which is in the shadows is always going to be more scary, than anything that is revealed.

"Insidious" Trailer

Paul

Nerds all over rejoice-Simon Pegg and Nick Frost are back. The two are poster boys all over the world for geek culture; two regular guys from the Midlands done good. In fact this is a part of their appeal for many, including myself. They are relatable guys you could easily imagine having a pint with. Of course the fact that they are very talented also adds to the appeal. They perfectly mix influence and homage from their many icons with great storytelling. Every joke and winking nod to pop culture feels like it was designed specifically for me. You feel apart of their outlook because they themselves are geeks and wear it proudly like a badge of honor. Today, that badge is "Paul", their first film writing together and as you might expect from the two, it offers in-joke, after knowing gag, after spoof, after homage to many of their favourite science fiction films. Unfortunately something is missing from the team. That person is Edgar Wright, the director and brains behind their previous classics "Shaun of the Dead" and "Hot Fuzz". After taking a brief break from each other to work on some solo projects (Wright: 'Scott Pilgrim', Pegg and Frost: 'Paul') before they complete their seminal 'blood and ice-cream trilogy', the lads handed over the gig to Greg Mottola. Veteran of "Superbad" and "Adventureland", with "Paul" he finds himself stretching his directing muscles, being that the film is effects heavy and high on adventure; something his previous films (even the misleadingly titled "Adventureland") lacked. As a result, the film feels like the perfect hybrid of the two; Peggs and Frosts unique British comedy sensibilities and pop culture nods, and Mottolas gorgeous, all American vision mixed with his lucky charm actors, Seth Rogen and Bill Hader. However, for all its fun and humour, "Paul" finds the two desperately missing Wrights cinematic vision and assured writing. It is a problem that the film fails to break out of for most of its running time.

The film finds two life long friends Clive (Nick Frost) and Graeme (Simon Pegg) on a road trip through America. Life long sci-fi fanatics, their tour of old alien sites is given an authentic boost when real life alien Paul (Seth Rogen) shows up asking them to protect him from hot on his heel agents. Of course the alien here is entirely CG, something that could have been the complete undoing of the film for everybody involved. However, what could have been to the films downfall is actually the films biggest success. Paul is an absolute perfect creation and completely believable throughout. Using Seth Rogens voice was masterstroke; here he is funnier than anything he's been attached to in quite a while. The foul mouthed, weed smoking, smart arsed guy is the films strongest suit, and offers most of its amusing moments. Able support is given by (funniest woman alive) Kristin Wiig, Bill Hader, Jason Bateman and Joe Lo Truglio. However, despite its very talented and funny cast, the film never fully gets off the ground. Mottola shoots his love letter to Spielberg very well and events build suitably to its exciting and action packed climax. Despite the copious amount of references to the genre the film is surprisingly broad. I'm sure with all the money going in to making Paul (the character) a success, Pegg and Frost did this intentionally. To risk alienating the majority of their audience could have have sign posted that "Paul" might not have been the box office success it was this week. Put simply they have their core geek friendly fans, those who will show up based on the Pegg/Frost brand alone. But it would not be enough for box-office, so subtlety and genuinely clever and original gags go out the window. The film is great fun, and sorely needed after the last few po-faced Oscar weeks, but when we have learned to expect so much more from these two, then why should we settle for less?

Verdict: 7/10

A very humorous and entertaining film, and with a classic CG character to boot. Just don't go in expecting it to scale to the dizzying heights of either Shaun or Fuzz.

"Paul" Trailer

Piranha 3-D

It first must be noted that before those sitting high and mighty start sniffing their nose up at this movie, they cannot argue against this: At the very least "Piranha" knows its audience and it plays to it brilliantly. It is a remake about man eating Piranhas set loose on lithe, beautiful bodies during Spring Break. What did you expect? High art, this most certainly is not. What it is however, is the most out and out, rollicking good time you may have at the movies this year. While hardly the first 3D exploitation film, it is certainly the most high profile in recent years, following the dreadful "My Bloody Valentine 3D" released early last year. While that film seemed to have aspirations to knowingly playing to generic and cliche horror conventions, it had a horrible cast, daft set pieces, not an ounce of tension and horrid use of its 3D. "Piranha" on the other hand, not only plays hilariously with its tongue lodged firmly in its cheek, but with actual talent in front and behind the camera. Those who can withstand the copious amounts of blood and ridiculously gratuitous nudity will find a live action cartoon in front of them. Do not take this film for one second seriously; it's cast and director certainly don't. What they do take seriously is entertaining their demographic, something the film does in spades.

It's Spring Break on Lake Victoria, Arizona. Hundreds of students cut loose and go wild here every year. However this is the time that an underground earthquake hits, releasing a large swarm of prehistoric Piranhas from their underground lake. Falling prey first, to a very unfortunate Richard Dreyfuss (in the first of many nods to "Jaws") they then descend on the nubile, party goers on the lake. It's up to a small group of strangers to bond together to escape the snappy jaws of the very vicious fish. One of the small successes of the film is in it's casting. Already mentioned was the very welcome cameo of Dreyfuss, yet there are plenty of other surprises in store. Just seeing Christopher Lloyd back on screen again spouting some fantastic OTT dialogue is enjoyable in its own right. Adding to the 'knowing factor' is including talented comedy actors Adam Scott and one third of 'Human Giant' Paul Scheer. In fact its cast has to be one of the oddest in a while; many average cinemagoers won't understand the simple virtues of seeing seasoned veterans Elizabeth Shue (in her first lead in quite a while), Ving Rhames and the aforementioned Lloyd and Dreyfuss back on screen. Jerry O'Connell hasn't lately been in anything other than what is found in DVD bargain bins, Kelly Brook is hardly a 'serious' actress by anyones standards and the rest of the supporting players are filled out by porn stars. All of this adds to the fun on display and shows Director Aja's intentions from the off. To know these actors is to know perfectly what each character will fulfill. It is shameless in its intentions. Somewhat surprisingly, it's distributers Dimension and The Weinstein Company must have had very little faith in the film. Declining to show the film to critics before the films official release usually screams out 'stinker'. But then a curious thing happened. When the film was released, the film actually received good reviews. Happy that critics seemed to be in on the joke, they immediately greenlit a sequel. This has to be the first time a sequel has been put into development as a result of glowing reviews. The film did not open very successfully in its opening weekend. Probably down to the fact that audiences were not to be aware of the intentionally camp and cheesy tone of the film from its many promotional spots, it is regrettable. It seems that everyone involved got the tone the film was aiming for, apart from those promoting it.

Now as you probably can tell, the film is not plot or character based. It has only two things on its mind: Sex and Violence. And the film offers heavy abundance of both. In fact it spends its first half ogling acres of naked flesh, while then spending the second gleefully and very violently ripping it apart. At its center piece is an admittedly very well choreographed and sustained massacre sequence, as all the Spring breakers run (or is that swim?) afoul of all the vicious underwater carnivores. Aja shoots what resembles "Saving Private Ryan" as a stunningly gory and very literal 'bloodbath'. The lake runs red as decapitations, scalpings and lacerations run rampant. The sheer awesomery of the violence on display is both shocking and hilarious. Credit must go to the great make up effects supplied by KNB, for kitting out an entire lakes worth of amputees and bite victims.

Aja has got a lot of praise over the years. Credited with starting the Extreme French Horror genre in "Haute Tension" he then moved to America to remake a string of forgettable and very po-faced horror flicks. While "Haute Tension" was not the horror masterpiece that many proclaimed it to be, it did show that the Director knew how to handle tension and violence in a picture. He can frame a shot well and knows how to play to demands for the genre in a fresh enough way. I thought his talent was to be dimmed in America, but it seems he has found his feet here. He builds proceedings well enough and handles his cast well. Most impressivily, he seems to be having fun with the material. 3-D is very well handled throughout. The film is after all, an all out and unashamed exploitation picture and Aja relishes in throwing as many bodily functions and objects towards his audience as he can think of. The effect works well in adding to the scream-jump-laugh factor. The creatures themselves are hardly menacing in their CG appearance, but they do the trick and work well on screen. The films revels in its absurdism and gleefully celebrates its debauchery. It is gratuitous in every sense of the word, it has zero brains or originality and it panders to the lowest of the low in its audience demographic, but it is competently made, well acted and most importantly of all, great fun. Audiences do get it wrong sometimes it seems. See it on the big screen with mates and laugh along to the glorious violence and mayhem on display.

Verdict 69%

The definition of a guilty pleasure; this offers mindless, nasty violence and pointless and gratuitous nudity, but I chuckled and laughed throughout. Everyone delivers the ridiculous material with a wink and events are well sustained. The sequel cannot come soon enough. Let's hope they decide against the flying piranhas of James Cameron's original 1981 sequel.

"Piranha" Trailer

The House of the Devil

As stated elsewhere on this blog, I suggested that the best horror movies are the ones you have to find yourself. As a huge fan of the genre, I began to get extremely disillusioned with it; there were simply not enough good films being made. All these efforts were cynical, studio based gore spectaculars. Cheap enough to make, and yet easy to recuperate costs. They seemed to rely on apparant 'shocking' violence at the expense of tension and terror. Some appallingy used a misguided CGI presence to threaten the protagonist. The art of how to truly scare people was lost. At least so I originally thought. That was until films across the seas started scaring up great attention. In no particular order, foreign films like 'The Orphange', 'Let The Right One In', 'REC' and 'Inside' all bloody terrified me!! They were unpredictable, tense and best of all, genuinely scary. If these films all seemed to do their job, then it had still been a while since I had seen anything American even approaching something remotely creepy. 'Drag Me To Hell', while enormous fun, was the equivalent of a rollercoaster; simply put, it didn't freak me out. Was the American horror movie dead? 29 year old Director Ti West didn't seem to think so.

It was only recently I had seen that 'The House of the Devil' was being released in the UK this week. I myself first saw this a few months ago, and cannot recommend it enough. But before any readers rush out and see it, I feel I must warn you that it is that which is almost unthinkable in this day and age: a slow burning horror! This is almost certainly not going to be to everyones taste, but if you like what I tell you about the film, then definately check it out. This film definately needs attention. It doesn't have big name stars, or any studio marketing behind it, but for any old school horror fans, it is unmissable. The film is set in the early 80's and absolutely revels in it's attention to detail. Director West, uses this as endearing nod to the previous masters of the genre he honours and in no way does this become a cynical tool. Simply put, the film breathes 1980's culture. Whether or not this is in the shamelessly retro freeze frame opening credits, synth based score, or minor object details; (hello block Walkman!) show an unassuming person the film and they would never guess it was made last year. This provides much fun for the viewer, even as the film grows in tension. Unfortunately, a film as small as this cannot benefit from a full round up of the plot. It's a sort of 'the less you know about it, the better movie', so I will give only a small bit away. College student Samantha is low on funds. She can't make rent for the brand new house she has just rented and has barely enough money to eat. So when a babysitting job at a house on the remote outskirts of town comes along, it seems too perfect. Sam urgently accepts it.

As stated earlier the film is incredibly slow burning, in fact some might accuse this film as an hour and a half of nothingness. To do that, is an extreme disservice to the direction and script, not to mention great work of the cast. It is a tiny, and very simple project, but nontheless effective for it. Fans of old 60's, 70's and 80's horror such as 'Rosemary's Baby', 'The Shining', and 'Suspiria' will lap everything up. Those expecting cheap thrills and non stop gore, will not find it here. This film has an excellent build up of tension. A lot of this features lead actress Jocelin Donahue doing not very much at all. West however, offers up nail biting unease with every tiny creak in the floorboard, or flicker of a shadow that you think you may or may not have seen. In fact, West plays the film so that you're not entirely sure if these creepy occurances are not just in Samanthas head-is it just paranoia, or are there some other dark forces at work here? West takes his time to get there, but never once loses sight of the goal: to make the audience as uncomfortable as possible. With so much care and effort on making us scared of what might happen, when the action finally explodes, it can't possibly live up to what we have been tantalisingly teased with for the past hour, as nightmarish as it turns out to be. Those early details of a house thought to be empty are just too relateable and it is conveyed very well here. Donahue and the rest of the small cast do a great job. As mentioned none are particualarly recogniseable from anything, but this adds to the unpredictability of where it all might go. Old cult faves like Dee Wallace and the simply terrifying Tom Noonan pop up along the way to make the ride as creepy as possible.

That the very young West has created a horror film this mature and confidant in itself is very commendable. Many directors his age might have sold out with a 'Saw' movie or two, and it is remarkable that he managed to get his vision of the film made at all, with no studio interference. It marks him out as a talent to watch in the future. In a genre that by it's essance is the almost defination of crowd pleasing, this isn't it. Most of these films thrive on giving the audience what they want, this thrives on keeping it from them, for as long as possible. It's terror comes from a place of no irony as more recent efforts might have been. He simply wants to terrify you. If you have the patience and value your classic horror then you will want to join him for the ride.

Verdict: 79%

A great exercise in a low budget horror throw back to the 80's. Some may argue that not enough happens, but those are missing out on the directors intentions. If you go along with it, prepare for a shaky walk around your house as you turn all your lights on afterwards.....

Trailer: (Warning: Certain Spoilers of scenes and very poor indication of movies themes and plot)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHvSkTDWFfk