The Troll Hunter

It could be lazy to compare The Troll Hunter to fellow Scandinavian fantasy Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale from last year, but there are an abundance of similarities to be found. Both are fantastical tales, borne out of the dark side of fairytails. Both utilise their almost mystical landscape to great effect in helping to craft some of the fantasy. And then there is the fact that both come from histories steeped in rich mythos. So while Rare Exports centered on the fact that not only does Santa Claus exist, but he is a centuries old demon, imparting only terror and misery on those at Christmas time, The Troll Hunter rather matter-of-factly deals with the very real secret of giant trolls living in rural, remote Norway. The film begins on a small group of film maker students, interviewing the locals and trying to find the culprit behind the bear slayings in their town. Through this they find Hans (Otto Jespersen), a very private man reluctant to let any camera upon him or be interviewed. However, those pesky students follow Hans one night and find a lot more than they bargained for. As it turns out, Hans works for the Norwegian government as (very large) pest control for the problem of trolls. Disillusioned with his work and sick of being undervalued, he eventually agrees to let the small camera crew document his hunt for the various trolls that have breached their territories and the reasons behind this.

Through it's found footage mockumentary stylings, director André Øvredal has great fun in exploring the various types of troll, their behaviour and just how they have managed to exist all this time without the public knowing about them. Like the aforementioned Rare Exports it is also very refreshing to see films coming from somewhat smaller countries and competing with Hollywood in the broad entertainment stakes. While The Troll Hunter certainly had a small budget, it still delivers it's fair share of 'money shots' through the escalating set pieces and troll attacks. The film is a monster movie of sorts, as each of the trolls tower imposingly over our hero with each desperately eager to drink the blood of a Christian man. Hans is hilariously unfazed throughout. Wisely, the film doesn't take itself too seriously and this is personified in Hans. To the film makers and the audience, the events are frequently amazing and yet to him, it is all in a days work. The designs and effects of each troll is wonderful and original, giving valuable personality to many of the different creatures. The sound design must be applauded also for adding to the nuance and tension so that while the camera might not pick up what is stalking them, the various thuds and stomps let the audience know that something big and imposing can never be too far off. Alas, it's basic format seems to be the films main drawback. While it was obviously chosen as a means to paper over any budgetary concerns with the monsters, it seems that the 'found footage' format' is only growing old at this stage. Sure the film offers plenty of hair raising moments with great effects, but that is only ever followed by endless scenes of Hans driving through (admittedly stunning) Norwegian fjords and landscapes along with the dreaded Blair Witch patented effect of 'shaky cam running through the woods as something chases from behind'. Surely a more traditional narrative approach could have worked better while still keeping it's minimal effects to the basics. Don't forget that for Jaws the prosthetic shark on set barely ever worked which led to Spielberg having to come up with ever more ingenious ways of personifying danger without ever showing the monster. You don't need poorly shot shaky hand held camera for the audience to visualise themselves in the situation.

Verdict: 6/10
A frequently fun and exciting monster movie. Norway competes with Hollywood and for the most part admirably succeeds with it's effective low key CG effects and designs. It's themes and main character are original and it is only in it's mockumentary format that shows the genre is growing ever more tired and which takes some of the steam out of proceedings.

"The Troll Hunter" Trailer

Kill List

There is a stunning sense of dread that permeates every frame of Kill List. It is unfair to call the film an outright horror - although things do get mighty horrific, building steadily to more disturbing happenings; the film rather, is it's own thing completely. It's own curious oddity. That underlying tension throughout proceedings helps subvert genre. Parts gritty drama, hit-man thriller and buddy comedy, the film is every bit as original as you might expect from such a blend. Taking such stale staples of cinema as it's starting point, Kill List then uses them to mould an increasingly bizarre, violent and disturbing tale and is one that come it's end, will leave a cold grasp on you. In fact that is perhaps where the film may get it's true power from; in letting some of it's more subtler character beats and plot developments mature in your head, you realise just what director Ben Wheatley and his cast have crafted. This is a film that makes you work for it and you will only get out what you put in. But if you're prepared to go the distance - and Kill List goes to some pretty dark places, then you will have one of the more original hard hitting films this year. Somewhat unfairly, the film has been proclaimed to almost 'instant classic' status by some reviewers; a move that while it will surely help it's box office, can only leave most somewhat underwhelmed by such a high benchmark. Not to say the film isn't good enough, rather it would seem that the film is simply too small for the masses. This is something that works best as a more cult finding. Those who discover it knowing as little as possible will be those whom the film works best on. I would even go so far to suggest not even reading this review for fear of only adding to the hype machine, but I digress......

Focusing on the minutiae of British suburban life, we open on Jay (Neil Maskell) and wife Shel (MyAnna Buring). Locked in a passionately violent marriage, the stress of bills and mortgages are taking their toll as their young son Sam (Harry Simpson) watches on helplessly. So far, so regular, until we discover Jay has the far from regular job as a hit-man. Eight months after what seems a disastrous job in Kiev, Jay reluctantly takes on another job with cohort and best mate Gal (an excellent Michael Smiley): the titular list. Of course in films, that 'one last job' is never a good idea and pretty soon, the two find themselves in increasingly murky territory as each hit on their list leads them down darker alleys. The cast are all uniformly excellent. Wheatley and the cast spent almost as much time improvising various takes as with scripted material and the result is incredibly effective. Maskell and Buring's relationship is painfully conveyed to almost too realistic effect. A couple that bicker and fight, only to make up seconds later; it is obvious to everyone but them, that they should not be together. At the heart of things however, is Jay and Gal. As the two embark on their murderous road trip, they paint a memorable couple. Killers with their own set of moral codes; they are fiercely loyal to each other. The two actors do a fine job in making the audience believe the bond between the two. Their core relationship also leads to some of the more wittier moments; never too far off it seems and perfectly breaking up all that tension and misery in between. However, as the List becomes unofficially longer, and the boys realise they are in over their heads there is only more and more unresolved questions stacking up. Who exactly is the man who hired the guys in the first place? Why do Jay's targets continually thank him before each murder? What exactly is that mysterious symbol scribbled on the back of the mirror in Jay's bathroom? All and none of these questions are answered. Mystery surrounds every corner of Wheatley's story and while he may not give a solid answer to any of them, you can rest assured that he has provided enough hints prior to let you connect the dots. It is also safe to say a second viewing will be almost as enlightening as the first, and help clear up some of the mystery. Throughout, Wheatley effortlessly builds tension. Though not much at all may be happening, there is a sea of violence just waiting to explode at any time. All this is only built on by the films atmospheric soundscapes, breathing deep unease into the images. Overall the film is an incredibly peculiar chiller. Not outright horror, drama or crime/thriller, it is hard to categorise.  Instead of this being a hurdle, the film uses this confusion to build a very original and disturbing tale, although definitely not for everybody. If you let the film work on you, by the time the lights come up you may be shocked, confused and just a little bewildered, but no less stunned. But don't listen to me, you're better off taking the film on it's own merits and finding out for yourself.

Verdict: 8/10
A frequently disturbing and odd film that effortlessly blends genres to stunning effect. Some will bemoan the lack of cohesion come it's end, but everyone else will be taken on a very uneasy and murky ride through the underside of British suburbia. Darkly comic and very unsettling, it is an experience you might not be able to shake soon after.

"Kill List" Trailer

Final Destination 5

That a franchise with 'Final' in the title is now on it's fifth entry is deeply ironic. This is certainly one series that should have been left well alone long ago. Indeed, after eleven years of studios mindlessly hashing these things out, it is easy to forget that the first release was actually an effective little thrill ride. Sure it was never going to win any awards, but in a genre that at that time, was overcrowded with self knowing slasher flicks, this 'Mouse Trap' compendium took a novel approach to the way it offed it's respective teens. However, one sequel was more than enough before it started repeating itself and here we are somehow - on entry five. Each chapter follows the exact same formula as the last and this one is no different. Sam is on his way to a team building exercise with his company when he finds himself in the middle of a huge  collapsing suspension bridge disaster. We find out the tragedy was in fact a premonition and Sam luckily manages to save himself and a few of his friends by warning them just before the actual disaster occurs. From then on, it's business as usual as Sam and the gang discover from scary deep voiced coroner (Tony Todd) that they have not escaped death, merely slowed it down. Pretty soon, one by one each of the team slowly succumb to overly elaborate and very painful deaths involving freaks of chance. It's many intricate murders is what the series has always been known for. There was something original about it being fate itself hunting those victims, rather than any personification of evil. Here, those scenes seem to aspire for winces and groans, but end up becoming very yawn inducing, very fast. Sure the first few are fun, but after a while interest begins to wean seeing yet another one of the gang being conveniently left alone to fall prey to rickety massage tables/laser eye surgery/gymnastics and gain yet another supposedly hilariously gruesome death. And all in gore-popping-3D. It doesn't help that each one of the very annoying characters is played by very annoying actors. We hold absolute no sympathy for anyone and mostly look forward to their fates catching up to them. The first one was novel for not knowing who or when anybody could go; here we know exactly who and exactly when, subtracting all tension from proceedings. The only thing left is how and that is all the film seems to care about. Director Steven Quale is a protege of James Cameron no less and while he shows proficiency with effects and the like (that opening bridge collapse is admittedly, pretty impressive stuff) he couldn't care less about plot or character. Overall this is a dead franchise that should have been itself killed off long ago. After watching this, it begs the question; who did it have to kill for Death to pass it over?

Verdict: 3/10
Outside of a very well handled opening disaster, the film quickly fizzles out from there leaving you wondering what the point of it all is. At this stage of the game everything has become tired, monotonous and predictable and is yet another example of a franchise being hammered mercilessly into the ground, leaving no survivors.

"Final Destination 5" 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

The Resident

No matter how derivitive and unoriginal a film sometimes might be, you can still, against your better nature find yourself getting kinda swept up with it. Now don't get me wrong, there is nothing in this film that is memorable or truly original, but for what the film does, it does it well. Following on from the likes of "Single White Female" and particularly "Pacific Heights", "The Resident" is a film about a dangerous obsession of another. Here it is Hilary Swanks Doctor who falls victim to her new landlord, the unnervingly sweet, but shy Max, played by Jeffrey Dean Morgan. Simply put, the film prays on the trust we sometimes give to others without ever fully knowing who they are. Max seems nice, but anyone watching within the first ten minutes will tell you that all is not what it seems. There is a system of peep holes Max watches Juliet unbeknownst to her. Even when Juliet leaves her apartment, Max does some very wrong things in her bath tub. His dangerous obsession grows ever more violent and intrusive. Of course facades soon fall and we discover Max's true psychotic nature all too late. Generic, very much so, but the film features typically solid performances from its two leads. The handsome and naturally charasmatic Dean Morgan playing a loner psycho was initially something I thought was going to fail to convince, but he managed to convert me very early into the film. This the second film in Hammers newly renewed production company after "Let Me In". So far both films have delivered on what they set out to do and hopefully promises more interesting horror from them in the future. Nice also, to see the face of Hammer, Christopher Lee back again, here playing Max's grandfather. It is only Lee Pace who is unfairly wasted here. Playing Swanks ex-boyfriend he is given next to nothing to do and as anyone who has seen the visually stunning "The Fall" will know, he is far better than seen here. Other nice additions are that it's shot by Guillermo Del Toros regular cinematographer, Guillermo Navarro. The film looks gorgeous as is typical of his work. John Ottman also more than ably scores the film in keeping with the high standard of his previous soundtracks. In the end, these aren't huge things, but go some way in adding to my enjoyment of the film. Everything about this film is predictable, but it handles its cliche ridden conventions well, and is done with style. It could be seen as the equivalent of junk food; it's not good for you and you feel terrible when it's done, but was fun while it lasted.

Verdict: 5/10

Cliches and predictability stalk this film at every turn, but it handles its conventions well and does it to the best of its ability. Completely unmemorable, but slightly effective nontheless.

"The Resident" Trailer

Black Swan

Awards season is always the best time of the year to go to the cinema. It may be odd when you consider it, but releasing most of the years great films over two or three months, is incredibly encouraging. Each week you can be sure to find a very worthy film in your cinema. There are however, a few downsides to this. By distributers holding onto their strongest film for a very specific release date, it casts a very obvious dearth on the rest of the year. The year is top ended, with the majority of great films getting released from December to February. Not to say there will be no more great films this year, it would just be more welcoming for more of these worthy efforts getting released in the Summer time, when Blockbuster fatigue is setting in. And of course, just as it can get quite tiring after a while reseeing all the explosions and shallow characterisation the Summer has to offer, it can also get samey reliving all the more classic and serious minded films the Awards Season has in store. I find it all the more strange then, that "Black Swan" is one of those films being considered for awards. Not to say it is undeserving of its awards success, far from it, but it just seems most of these films are more often than not 'safe'. Not to take away from any of them, as this is never necessarily a bad thing, it just seems blatantly obvious as to what films are going to be favoured by the Academy and get nominated and win awards. "Black Swan" is completely and unashamedly polarizing. Just as many people going into it will detest it as those to proclaim it to be a breathless work of art. Moreso than that, when was the last time you saw a film win awards that featured extreme violence, jump scares, and a full on no holds barred lesbian scene? This is not any film however. This is a film by Darren Aronofsky, and any glance over his body of work shows perfectly what we have in store here. "The Wrestler" may have brought him more mainstream success, but it has not for one second changed his sensibilities. His films split a fine line through the audience. They are more often than not, searingly brutal, uncomfortable to watch, quite upsetting and visually majestic. You may not have enjoyed the ride he has brought you on, but at the very least, you will not be able to shake it off for days. This is a tradition he upholds in glorious style, with "Black Swan".

Ballet dancer Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman) lives a sheltered and very protective existence under her Mothers (Barbara Hershey) wing. When she is finally picked to appear as the lead in the new production of 'Swan Lake', it seems all her years of practice have finally paid off. However, Thomas (Vincent Cassel) her sexually manipulative director, says Nina is too technically perfect in her dancing skills. While this is perfect for the White Swan side of the character, she does not know how to lose herself in the moment to fully engage as the Black Swan. This is embodied in Lily (Mila Kunis), a new younger upstart, who fits the Black Swan role perfectly. She is everything Nina secretly wishes she could be; confidant, sexually ambitious and dances gracefully and carefree. Pressure comes from everywhere: her so called 'friends', her Mother, her director who may or may not be abusing her and Beth (Winona Ryder), the aging dancer Nina recently replaced. The immense pressure coming from all angles causes Nina's psyche to crack. Of course this could all be intentional. Is Nina's quest from shy, unassuming 'nice' girl to vampish and psychotic seducer what she needs, in order to fully inhabit the Black Swan character, and win the adulation she craves? The film, at the very least is intense. Led by Portman's stunning turn, the film begins quite melodramatically and grows ever more nightmarish and terrifying as more and more of Ninas psyche comes undone. Everywhere she looks is an oppressive force looking to corrupt the innocent star. However as it turns out, Nina's greatest enemy may in fact be herself. In every scene mirrors dominate the frame, with a mysterious doppelganger skirting around the edges. It's no coincidence that Thomas' repeated orders for Ninas technique is to 'lose yourself'. Paranoia and vivid, walking hallucinations dominate proceedings and all the while Nina struggles to keep it all together. The film is very effective in showing Ninas floundering mental state, and all the more disconcerting for it. You may not want to experience something so vividly dissected, but you will not be able to tear your eyes from the screen come its gloriously deranged climax.

Of course, this is Aronofsky through and through. The film shares parallels with his previous feature "The Wrestler", something the director himself acknowledges. As he himself puts it, 'Wrestling some consider the lowest art—if they would even call it art—and ballet some people consider the highest art. But what was amazing to me was how similar the performers in both of these worlds are. They both make incredible use of their bodies to express themselves'. Aronofsky again takes pleasure in detailing the routine behind the scenes injuries of these show people. Their bodies take as much a beating as their heads and hearts do. Aronofsky shoots in a similar style to that film, yet as "Black Swan" goes on, it throws subtlety out the window in favour of shocking violence and terrifying ghosts, haunting our heroines mind. Interesting also to note, that Aronofsky gave its so called 'low art form' of the wrestling world, a far more subtle and heartbreaking emotional experience; while for ballet, the 'higher art form', he goes to great extremes in making everything visually heightened and wildly excessive. This is part of his genius. His is surely one of the best visions in Hollywood right now. His films are not ever nice or pleasant, but they always make the audience feel. In fact "Black Swan" also shares some parallels with his sophomoric effort "Requiem For A Dream". Both films feature underlying themes of how fragile the mind can be, and both race towards a nightmarish and disturbingly surreal conclusion. In fact it is probably for the best Aronofsky has not yet crafted an out and out horror film as of yet; the results might simply be too much to take. Anybody who has witnessed "Requiem For A Dream" can tell you just how terrifying it portrays drug abuse; likewise here, there are some scenes that will have you looking out from behind your popcorn. And yet the overall film, never descends into horror cliche. As unsettling and creepy as it threatens and indeed does get, it is grounded in our heroines performance, and her reality. Losing ones mind is something most people fear. Aronofsky knows how to take basic and very real human fears and turn them into nightmares on screen.

Portman gives an incredible performance. She puts absolutely everything into her performance and not just into the dancing, so stunningly photographed by Aronofsky regular Matthew Libatique. The dichotomy of her character is also enforced by the real life Portman; we all know she has what it takes to be nervous and fragile Nina, but what about that rarely tapped, darker side? It doesn't matter because Portman nails both. Aronofsky always gets incredible performances out of his actors. After the career best turns he coaxed from Ellen Burstyn in "Requiem" and Mickey Rourke in "The Wrestler" would be be unreasonable to add Portman to that list? No, here she shines brighter than ever before, and taken out of her normal comfort zone so much as she is here, shows what a courageous actor she is. This film calls for some outrageous scenes and situations to be in, and without Portmans convincing veneer, the audience would be lost in the jumbled mess of this persons mind. Cassel aides as a very sly and slimy director. His actions and power to manipulate others minds and bodies is ugly to watch, but nontheless entrancing. Kunis also gives a fantastic performance as the woman who may or may not be out to steal Ninas role for herself, while Barbara Hershey terrifies as the passive-aggressive Mother. It is through Nina she lives now; all her dreams and failures are on Ninas back and with her constant nagging and treating her daughter like a little girl, it is obvious that even without the ballet underlying the drama, Nina would still be teetering on the edge of sanity.

The film is stunningly filmed. It has images and scenes that stick in the memory long after the final lights have died down. Aronofsky goes for grandiose in every performance and scene. As events spiral towards a breathtaking and original climax, no matter how much you want to, you will not be able to tear your eyes from the screen. The dance sequences are majestically filmed and the underlying grace and beauty of ballet, is contrasted brutally with Aronofsky's hard edged presentation of it. It is quite possible, you won't see anything like this for a while. For his next gig, Aronofsky is helming the new 'Wolverine' film. Charged with the saving of a franchise as big as that shows the faith in his talent. Looking at his films when he started no one could have predicted they would be awards favourites, mainstream successes, or even blockbuster extravaganzas. How such a searingly inventive, extreme and original director achieved this must show that maybe it is in fact the world that is losing its mind, and not Darren Aronofsky.

Verdict: 85%

Divisive, terrifying, putrid, ugly, depressing, exuberant, theatrical, original, thrilling, shocking, exciting and remarkable. Vintage Aronofsky then.

"Black Swan" Trailer

Paranormal Activity 2

There is one very simple reason why the first "Paranormal Activity" was such a staggering success. Those people at Paramount sold their movie incredibly well. Sensing they had another 'Blair Witch Project" on their hands, they marketed their film as one of 'the scariest movies of all time'. Trailers showed just how terrified audiences were with real life camera footage (on a film about supposed real life camera footage) capturing all the jumps and scares in the cinema in all its grainy night vision glory. You were made to believe you had to see this film. As a result, curiosity changed from an original and ultra low budget indie horror experiment, to a film that effectively boiled down to a dare on the audiences behalf. And they accepted in their droves. The first "Paranormal Activity" is one of the most successful films ever made. From its original budget of a mere fifteen thousand dollars, it went on to gross over $193 million. However, with all this huge hype behind the film, the finished product could never withstand it all. I greatly looked forward to the films eventual release (I had heard about it quite some months before it was finally released) and felt it would be a very welcome surprise to see an original and inventive American horror in what seemed like a very long while. So while it was fairly original and certainly inventive, the final product just didn't impact me the way I had originally envisioned. Having said that, I can certainly imagine what it would be like walking into this film knowing next to nothing about it, and the shock it would have. But it is a tiny and very limited resource horror film. When the biggest of Hollywood blockbusters are struggling to meet the hype bar they are setting for themsleves, then what chance did this single location, zero CG effects, no name chiller have? And whats more all it had to fall back on was its gimmicky premise. Supposed 'found footage' in cinema has been going for decades now. Even more recently the marketplace (especially horror) has become crowded with them. So my opinion of the original was this: as a very cheap exercise in how to get an effective and neat little horror movie in cinemas, it worked. And at the very least the fact that the film attempted to create an atmosphere for itself, as opposed to relying on gore and cliche tricks of the genre, a lot must be said. However, as the experience it was built up to be, the film never once delivered. But with opening numbers like that, is it really so shocking that its sequel has been rushed into production in time for Halloween and in exactly a year since the first films release?

The "Saw" franchise has, for the first time in 6 odd years, a competitor to its yearly Halloween throne. In fact, the first "Paranormal Activity" was so successful, it seems to have buried the "Saw" franchise once and for all, with its supposed final offering out this week. While this should be cause for celebration in itself, especially if you feel the same way I do about the "Saw" films, then consider now, that "Paranormal Activity" films will now be clogging up the multiplexes every year for the foreseeable future. The films, so cheap to make, must be sending their makers laughing all the way to the bank. However, and this is something I never anticipated; but "Paranormal Activity 2" is actually rather good. It is exactly what a decent sequel should be: it opens out the world and provides some backstory, it ups the game and stakes, and it offers more of the same except, y'know, slightly different. If you detested the first one then Part 2 will do absolutely nothing to sway you, but I have to say, I more than once felt myself gripping my armchair in tension. Unfortunately it may also seem that me recommending this film, based on the first ones successful critical reaction, can do nothing but take away from the experience for you. If the first one couldn't withstand the hype, then chances are that this one can't either. After all, these are films based on waiting. Waiting for something to happen. Anything. And as a result, there is not really much action in the film at all. But if your up for going along with the film, then there is no reason why you can't get the shivers as I did more than once throughout the running time.

The plot initially surprises as being set before the events of the first film. This is one of the successes of the film, that in its mere story it actually improves the first one. Kristi and Dan move back home with their brand new born baby Hunter. Documented by Dans daughter Ali, we see the family and watch Hunter grow. The protagonists here are actually presented as likeable, compared to the slightly annoying owners in Part 1. With a family we relate to, more characters-one of them an infant, tension is immediately raised when all sorts of spooky goings on begin to happen. We learn that Katie, from its predecessor, is actually Kristis sister. Both her and the soon to be doomed Micah make appearances throughout adding a refreshing layer to proceedings. So we follow the exact same pattern as the first, as night time cameras are set up to document the house at night when its occupants have all gone to bed, and this is when all the eerie tension begins. Yes, the same title of 'Night #_' can initially become quite monotonous, what with the film intent on following the same tried and tested material, it is lucky the final product is as effective as it is. This is a particular wide frame with next to nothing happening in it. The sound turned low, your eye frantically searches the frame, looking for something that may be out of the ordinary. Then something loud or unexpected very abruptly happens. Yes, its cheap and yes it is not necessarily hard to scare audiences with it, but my God it works. It seems those in charge of the follow up also learned a few lessons of what was not particularly successful from the first one, and as such, the sequel features far more action and genuine scares, as opposed to just loud BANG noises of which the first had in plenty. Go along with it and you may find yourself shivering along to the scares, wether you want to or not. Acting is serviceable and all effects are competantly handled. When the action does kick off, he film itself is quite nicely reminiscent of "Poltergeist" and "REC2" from earlier this year.

So the film offers the audience more. It could be argued that in attempting to create a reason why the Demon has targeted all these people, takes away from the creepy unknown and random attacks of the first. But it also gives more drama and story in a franchise very much devoid of both. I know watching again won't give me anywhere near the same reaction, but the film actually had me at one or two points. To get that in major horror releases these days is rare. To get it from a rush-released sequel is rarer still. And yet "Paranormal Activity 2" succeeds despite this. It over comes its gimmick source, familiar origins and low expectation (hate in some peoples eyes) reputation to deliver despite everything going against it. It's not art, and it's no were near a classic, horror or otherwise, but it is cracking audience bonding flick. The collective tense-jump-laugh has rarely been this satisfying in quite a while. For attempting genuine fear and scares without resorting to shock tactics, "Paranormal Activity 2" must at least be given more respect than it has been getting. This franchise may be about to get old, but for now, Part 3 does not seem to be all that bad a prospect.

Verdict: 66.6%

A very surprising roller coaster horror, that shocks in actually being more effective than its predecessor. Two excellent jumps, one or two nail biting encounters and an effective sense of dread in the atmosphere equals a very fun night out at the movies. Nothing to it, dead easy to make and mass produce, but it doesn't take away from the fact that the franchise knows how to unnerve its audience. Naysayers will not be converted, everyone else will sleep with the lights on.

"Paranormal Activity 2" 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

Splice

From its promotional campaign, you could be forgiven into thinking that "Splice" is just another trashy B-Movie Creature/Horror extravaganza, just like "Predators" was only a few short weeks ago. Ironically both also feature Adrien Brody as the male lead, but whereas the films are similar in genre and in dealing with alien forms of humanoid life, both are tonally, very drastically different. "Predators" offers the more shallow nights entertainment. You bought a tickets for very scary looking creatures attacking humans and thats what you get, nothing more or less. However buying a ticket and going into "Splice" you could easily be forgiven in thinking that the same nights entertainment lies in store for you. This is because "Splice" is an entirely different beast altogether (pun intended). A thoughtful and sometimes uncomfortable probe into humans obsession of genetics and cloning, it features conflicting themes of raising children in modern day America, while simultaneously being a "Frankenstein" story for the 21st Century. As a result, its nature is quite divisive, leading to potential reactions from being very thoughtfully impressed by the deep themes this film attempts to go into, and those who dismiss it as laughably cheap and ridiculous to the point of extreme. I fall somewhere in the middle.

Bio-Chemists and partners Clive and Elsa have created life by splicing together the DNA of various different animals as research into curing different diseases and plagues of the world. The large maggot like creatures they dub Fred and Ginger offer a glimpse into the future of genetics and where it could take them. However, the two push this research into morally questionable territory when they add human DNA into the mix and they give life to a new type of creature; not entirely human, but not all animal either. The life form matures at an alarmingly fast rate and it is not long before the two find themselves, in attempting to keep their creation hidden, raising the child 'thing'. They name their creation 'Dren'. So while Elsa loves it in the ways her own Mother never loved her, Clive finds himself growing ever more attracted to the creature. Clive and Elsas background and relationship problems will come to feature predominantly and eventually lead to whether the two can actually control and raise this creature, while trying to keep her secret. The film for the most part is at the very least, very original in its ideas, which in 'Sci-Fi' is always far more important than spectacle. Director Natali focuses on characters above all else and in humanising its main creature, makes Dren at turns incredibly sympathetic, whilst keeping tabs on the fact that she is also incredibly dangerous. This is a B-Movie, albeit a very thoughtful one, that might lead to its downfall in some audiences. The film will not play well to all, rather only those who are willing to go along and explore the various psychological undertones that this film has to offer. This all mixes schlocky and 'icky' thrills, with sometimes uncomfortable questions about human nature in how they react to not only each other, but also their ability to simultaneously create and destroy. Everyone has tremendously selfish flaws. Everyone, even Dren is dealt in very human terms. It simply wont play to everybody and many will snigger at some of the antics on screen.

I however found parts to be very entertaining and thought provoking. It plays on levels its genre should, but also brings in some very dark notes of humour. That it offers the audience some very uncomfortable questions to ponder, adds to its surprising originality. Brody and Polley both deliver strong work. Brodys submissive and weak minded character works well with Polleys all controlling and domineering bitchiness. Both offer subtle character details important for actions later on in the films and as events turn ever more outlandish, our basis in the two leads grounds the proceedings. However, the films secret is Dren, played by Delphine Chanéac. At turns an alarmingly sympathetic but frighteningly alien being; she is excellent and a great creature. In a film of this nature, its success lies in its monster and Dren is one of the best in recent memory. Possessing agile hind legs, three fingers on each hand, gills, wings and a long tail with a spike able to dispense poison on her victims, her effect is stunning. A wonderful combination of CG, and prosthetics work, actress Chanéac brings Dren to life to great effect. All the more impressive considering she has only her stunning expressions and features to gain the audiences sympathies. Effects for the creatures are all top notch and initial scenes in the labs offers some squirm inducing splatter for the gore hounds.

Director Vincenzo Natali and producer Guillermo Del Toro offer shocks in body horror that would make Cronenberg proud, yet never forget that crucial human element. The idea is fantasically played out to sometimes shocking effect. However it is only during the climax that the film dramatically falls apart. Up until this point, the film has been anything but stereotypical, yet it soon transforms into predictable and lazy horror territory. It's almost as if its makers lost interest come the final third. It does not fully manage to ruin the entire experience; if you have been with the film up until this point, you will forgive it. However, it is just a shame the film takes such a nose dive in its final few scenes. In walking a very fine line between exploitive and intelligent film making throughout, the film always threatens to let its outlandish and sometimes uncomfortable ideas devour proceedings. For the most part, it is a very fresh take on the sci-fi horror genre. Brody shows more range a million miles from his tough guy soldier in "Predators" and Polley takes a risk with her icy and psychologically damaged 'mother'. Chanéac helps create one of the finest movie monsters in recent memory and all effects for the creature are thoroughly convincing. It's weak climax and often unusual tone threaten to derail things, but for the most part "Splice" offers a refreshing take on the Frankenstein story.

Verdict: 65%

The cast all do strong work and in Dren we have a stunning new movie creature creation. Vincenzo Natalis subversive take on the sci-fi monster genre will divide audiences but for those willing to accept its outlandish themes, a very thought provoking, uncomfortable and sometimes shocking foray into horror is waiting for them.

"Splice" Trailer

May/June Round-Up: Iron Man 2/ Sex & The City 2/ The Killer Inside Me/ The Collector

I haven't been writing for the last few months and have missed out on a few releases. So for anyone interested, here is my take on them.

Iron Man 2

The first big tent pole release of the Summer went off with a bang. Our hero Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) has to face off against new enemies in the shape of a psychotic Russian 'Whiplash' (Mickey Rourke), who possesses the same power as the Iron Man suit and rival arms manufacturer Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell), who is hell bent on acheiving the same success that Stark has. Other turmoil comes from Starks discovery that his suit is also slowly killing him, and tension between him and best bud Rhodie (Don Cheadle). If that sounds like a dark and convoluted super-hero extravaganza (a la, Spider-Man 3) then rest assured that Director Jon Favareau manages to keep proceedings as light and breezy as the first chapter. Downey remains as likeable as ever, and the new additions to the cast all deliver, especially Rockwell as Starks business rival, who is far too desperate to be like him in every way. The material could have become too convoluted for its own good, so kudos to Favreau for keeping an eye on things and easily matching the first in terms of excitement and fun which is all the series ever set out to do in the first place. Also in that Monaco sequence near the start, he delivers the action scene of the year thus far. Problems include Scarlett Johannsson getting lost in the mix, and that the film never rises above its 'fun' origins, means it never fully gives the adrenal glands the work out it should, however in a Summer full of lack lustre releases, this can stand above them all. Until Inception is released that is.

Verdict: 69%

Sex & The City 2

If, upon the original success of the show back in the late 90's, you had told its fan base that the once insightful, clever and witty formula, would dissolve into a camp, bloated and very cynical juggernaut, would any of its viewers have actually turned off? We find the 4 girls, for the second time in the series' history, not feeling fully fulfilled after becoming 'happy ever after'. A rut in marriage, the complexities of juggling a career and family, the sheer hell raising children can be and the eternal battle to stave off old age are all dealt with by our leads. Unfortunately for Jessica Parker, Cattrall, Davis and Nixon is that these so called problems all come off as whiny and selfish. These could have been dealt with far more intelligence, as to give a decent meditation on any of these subjects could provide interesting observations on life for 40 plus women. Unfortunately, the film seems to be far more concerned with fashion and Liza Minnelli singing Beyonce, than any true drama. Not for a second the realistic take on 'women' that the show once set out to be, it has become a parody of itself. Hell, there is even very little sex and practically no city, as the girls (and writers) struggling to keep things fresh, decide to take a sojourn to Abu Dhabi. This is where the franchise reaches its low point. In trying to inject fresh life into it, the film becomes ever more shallow, stupid and almost offensive to the point of ridiculousness. Contrasting and compromising the differences between West and Middle Eastern women should have been ripe fodder for some interesting and yes, witty observations on the differences. This just comes off as being naive to the extreme. If the series is meant to be fun, then where are witty exchanges that made the show famous in the first place? In fairness, the leading ladies all gamely try and inject fun into proceedings (they have been playing these characters for far too long to not be able to), but it is no where near enough. The series has become as tired as Kim Cattrall and should be put out to the pasture. The fact that it didn't make quite as much money as the first in theatres, shows that fans may be slightly in agreement, that this is surely, one trip too far.

Verdict: 25%

The Killer Inside Me

To release this film smack bang in the middle of the Summer Season is quite odd. A slow burning and occasionally sadistically shocking study of a very disturbed mind, it does not scream 'summer crowd pleaser'. To say this film is its own beast, is an understatement. It plays entirely on its own terms. In fact those of you can stomach the brutal bouts of violence, and quiet intensity, might not even like what they find come the end. Casey Affleck proves yet again, what an actor he has been the entire time, while his brother hogged the lime light and media glare. There are a few moments in his performance where it is are quite disturbing to see what a true monster lurks behind his good looks and soulful eyes. That Affleck conveys these small moments so well is a tribute to his skill. The plot is set in the 1950's and centers on young Deputy Sheriff Lou Ford. He attempts to blackmail the local town head honcho, which spirals steadily out of control. This is all a facade however, as the film really concerns itself with the psychotic inner workings of Ford himself. An unreliable narrator, we see the world through his eyes entirely, which must be remembered come the films close. A very damaged individual, all the films drama stems from his thirst for murder and intense hatred of women. He is joined by a surprisingly capable Jessica Alba. Kate Hudson also manages to escape her bland filmography and apparant lack of acting skills and they both engage as the women who attempt to love Ford, without fully knowing what he really is. The film, however will be mostly remembered for its shocking bouts of violence. Now, it must be stated that for all the headlines this film grabbed about its excessive (hardly) and shocking (very much so) violence, is that there is very little of it in the actual film. It is all simmering under the surface of Fords facade, threatening to brim over, and when it finally does, it can be very tough to watch, even for this battle hardened veteran of violent film extravaganzas. The film has also been accused of misogyny, which it is. However, the main reason for this, is that that is what Ford is and it is through him we experience everything in the film. As a result, throughout watching it, I see-sawed in between hating and being quite intrigued by what I was seeing. Director Michael Winterbottom is a master of switching genre whenever he feels and must be applauded for his ruthless adaptation of the original 1952 novel. However, as curious as the end result is and the strength of every performance, especially Afflecks, it just may seem, that you may not be willing to spend as long inside the head of a man like Ford, for the films duration. File under as one of the most curious releases of the year.

Verdict: 59%

The Collector

For whatever reasons I initially went to see this film, I could not remember come the films end. Another (yawn) excessively violent torture porn yarn, this one gets more kudos than it deserves thanks to a genuinely tense and inventive first 45 minutes. After the film descends into grand guignol and people start losing limbs left right and center, you will be become completely immune to the shocks and scares that this film initially threatened to offer. That the film has an inventive idea at its core reeks even more of a missed opportunity. Diamond thief Arkin breaks into a remote and apparently empty mansion to steal from the family he has been casing out. However, upon his arrival he discovers that something far worse has got there before him and are holding the family who live there at bay to torture and maim them. What follows is an interesting idea as our hero becomes quite conflicted in his feelings to either stay and try to save those he initially tried to rob, or to save his own skin. That the leather masked murderer also laced the house with inventive and deadly booby traps to prevent anyone from escaping adds to the tension as it becomes a warped version of 'Home Alone'. Unfortunately this is where the film decides to become a daft exercise in torture porn as tension gives way to blood red viscera that is no more shocking or scary than Macauley Culkin's antics were. The film grows ever more stupid and tiresome until it finally peters out. That it is from the writers of 'Saw's 4,5 and 6 show you all you need to know about the film. When are horror screenwriters going to remember the lost art of things hinted at, are far more terrifying than anything they could ever show us? After its rapid downhill descent you will be begging for the Collector himself to come take you away.

Verdict: 35%

Retrospective - 'Inside' (À l'intérieur) 2007

How do I recommend this film? It is quite possibly one of the most shocking and downright disturbing films of recent years. Its blood soaked hands possitively burst out of the screen and grab you by the throat such is its effect. It is a film that stays with you long after you see it. Many of you will be sickend by its gore and violence. Many of you will simply not be able to watch it. How then, can I rate this so high and proclaim it as one of the best horror movies of the last decade? Of course, someone telling you 'you won't be able to take it', only makes most people want to see something even more. Just don't say I didn't warn you. 'Inside' was initially released in its native France, very surprisingly, in 2007. So why am I reviewing it now? Well part of this blog is to provide information about films that you may or may not have heard of. So while a lot of you probably have not seen this, I can safely and one hundred per cent say that you have never seen anything quite like this before.

The film is set on Christmas Eve. Sarah (Alysson Paradis) is heavily pregnant. She is still recovering (physically and emotionally) from the death of her husband only 4 months before. She is to have an induced labour the next day and is understandably, quite anxious about it. However, this is all before a mysterious woman (Beatrice Dalle) comes knocking late in the night and refuses to go away. You see, this strange lady wants Sarahs child, and will stop at nothing to get it. This film is incredibly stripped down. There is something so simplistic about a heavily pregnant woman in such peril, I'm surprised that other films have not taken advantage of it before; tension is a given with it. And what tension. This begins almost instantly with such nerve shredding terror, and does not let up for its entire running time. You simply have no idea where this film will go next, such is its visceral rawness. And the places it takes you, well it will simply be far too much for some. Which brings me to my next point. The violence.

I am a fan of horror. While I have reviewed a few here before, I believe that the good ones are very far and few between. Before viewing this film, I had some preconceived notions about what the genre should feature. Less is always more, the lower the budget the better and under no circumstances, should the film ever rely on gore. This film gloriously tears up any ideas I previously had about it. It is easily one of the most vicious films I have ever seen. It begins quite violently and gets more and more over the top gory as it goes on. Previous reliance on gore used to be at the cost of tension, I believed. Here it enhances it. Before the film is over you are left watching through fingers at disbelief at the carnage. Why is this though? When watching it, I found myself torn in whether I actually liked the film or not. I had been advised on the similarly violent 2008 gallic-horror 'Martyrs' before I watched 'Inside'. These are quite similar films and yet having such conflicting opinions for the two is quite odd. That the former had received very positive praise from critics and that also in my opinion, you have to seek out the best horrors yourself, I eagerly checked out it out. 'Martyrs' was, for me a sleazy exercise in shock tactics. Centering on the dreaded 'torture-porn' sub-genre, it offered me next to nothing. Shocking, just for the sake of it. 'Inside', is quite possibly, more violent and yet affected me so much more. I can't quite pin-point where and why my opinions differ on the two films. And with this escalation of screen violence, where does this leave violence in movies to go and what can be acceptable for audiences?

So why then, is this film so good? Well it is shot beautifully. First time directors Alexandre Bustillo and Julien Maury ensure every scene carries a sense of menace, and the pacing of it is impeccable. It's eerie use of primary colours recall a sense of the 70's classic 'Susperia' along with its soundtrack, enhancing the shocks greatly. Its relentless assault on the senses is due to its pacy editing. For such a low budget film, it looks great. Make-up and many of its special effects are top class. So while it is very technically proficient, why does it carry such an emotional punch? This could be down to its two female leads. Both are played with great devotion and conviction in their parts. Dalle cuts a very imposing figure in her gothic, black dress and Paradis must be applauded for receiving quite possibly, the most punishment any character has gone through in a film in recent memory. 'Home invasion' films are unnerving simply by what they stand for. Our home is the one place we feel safe and can relax. Add in the very primal fear of pregnancy and you have ready made effective themes for the audience to relate to. The house is the one place Sarah is safe; the womb is the only place her unborn child is safe. We are already rooting for Sarah from the start just for the terrifying predicament she finds herself in. It is ambiguous in all the right places (is the 'Woman' a real, or supernatural presence?) and all characters carry just the right shades of grey to them; Sarah already blames the death of her husband on her unborn child, so consequently, does she want to fight as hard for her, and its survival?

Gore aside, this film is incredibly tense. Its mayhem and carnage is well handled, but were it not for its eerie unpredictability, it would not have near the effect it does. It is very, very scary. Minor criticisms center on some comically inept and stupid police officers added to the mix, for no other reason it seems, than to up the body count. Hopefully, you will be too wrapped up in the film to notice, but they are good examples of characters that 'live in the film world' and do certains things that will have some people screaming at the screen in disbelief. It also becomes almost too blood soaked by the climax. This for me did not take away any of the movies enjoyment. Come the end, you will have been through an experience like no other. Some may not have liked what you have seen, but one thing is for certain, you will not be able to shake this films effect on you.

Verdict: 85%

An stunning achievement in modern horror. If you find yourself jaded by the genre, then this film is for you. Most people will be put off by the endless and shocking violence, but when it is handled as well as this, you cannot fight the primal effect it has on the viewer. I urge you to seek it out, wherever you can find it.

Trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldUsz12kSQU

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

The Crazies

First of all let me state that I have not seen the George A. Romero '73 version of the same name. So judging this, is completely on its own merits. I can say that this is a competently made and relentlessly paced thriller. From what I can tell it is more along the lines of the Dawn of the Dead remake, rather than The Omen's recent efforts. The film stars Timothy Olyphant(-astic) and Radha Mitchell as the respective Sheriff and Doctor of the town, Ogden Marsh in Iowa. Something strange is happening around this small town, and no one seems to know what is going on. Turns out, the towns water supply has been infected with some sort of virus and its affects include sending the normal, sane and pleasant inhabitants of the town into homicidal maniacs. Can the Sheriff and his loving wife save the day, or will they join the town and succomb to the depths of insanity? What follows is a simple, 'get from here, to there' as a few of the sane minded towns folk attempt to navigate their way and escape the town once and for all. The US Army however, have other ideas....

I have enjoyed both Olyphant and Mitchell's work for some time now. They regularly appear in these genre films, but always turn up decent, watchable work, and this is no exception. Olyphant's cool gait and Mitchell's expressive features provide the main reasons why you keep with the film, despite all the stupidity going on around them. They are ably supported by the various townsfolk, but at the end of it all, it is their love and steely determination that sees you watching through to the bitter, bloody end. It was to my suprise upon seeing the end credits, that I noticed that Breck Eisner had directed the film. It seems he has put the disaster of his 2005 Matthew McConaughey starring adventure film 'Sahara' (both in the court rooms and its box office performance) behind him. The mayhem is well handled and maintained throughout the films brisk running time. Our protagonists move from small burst of action to small burst of action every few minutes and this suprisingly does not become tiresome. In fact, taken for what it is, and you can get a certain level of enjoyment out of the film.

Its main problems lie in its plot. It wisely never attempts to complicate or deepen things, but this ends up meaning that the film becomes quite slight and forgettable. Imagine 'Tremors' crossed with the little seen 2006 thriller, 'Right At Your Door'. Fun for its duration, but will not stick with you in same way that it possibly could have. Sure the film is violent and tense, but Eisner never fully explores the idea of your loved ones turning on you in such a terrifying manner. In fact, he could have made the whole affair much nastier if he wanted it to stick with audiences better. This is not to take away from the film. I have always had a soft spot in my heart for those 'small American towns that get destroyed' movies that come along every now and then. Done right, and you can get a nice, little tense thrill ride, much of what exists here. The film is being marketed as a horror. In fact it is rare to see American films nowadays that truly scare. This is no exception. It's tense, and features some nicely inventive death scenes, but never, for one second did I nervously look over my shoulder for fear of those who might be behind me on my walk home....



Verdict 61%

Short, fun and tense. Perfect date movie fodder, but don't expect to suspect your friends and neighbours as anything other then they are when it's all over.

Film Trailer:(Be warned, it actually gives away a lot of the best scenes and films plot)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEMZwQulT1Q