Shocktober Days 7 & 8

#7- The Brood (1979)

King of the bizarre, David Cronenberg is an absolute legend of the horror game, with such works as the eccentric videodrome and the visually disturbing, the fly.

The broods pretty much unknown in comparison to those films and almost for good reason, holding no real unique features ignoring the sheer disturbing images seen throughout the film.

So, in this small town, kids start going batshit mental, killing people left and right, so basically it's a weird murder mystery, with the town trying to solve

the case.

For the majority the brood is a pretty enjoyable if relatively straight forward horror film with little to offer in terms of both true horror scares or unique features. The mystery does however hold you in place just long enough till the final act whereby shit kicks off and Cronenberg is unleashed. 

The final 10 minutes is what the viewer really comes for, as for the majority of the film it struggles to maintain the tension. That said the brood is good fun. Weird and peculiar tasting good fun

7/10- Wacky Cronenberg madness will have you squirming

#8 Straw dogs (1971)

I need to like look at the Imdb genres for each of these films from now on, not that straw dogs was some sappy rom-com, just more of a thriller than a horror, yet a good thriller at that.

Dustin Hoffman, every man's best friend, plays a tentative American, newly introduced to a British village, full of natives who are rather hostile to outsiders. 

This is just straight up a solid film, which refreshingly maintains significant tension throughout as the film holds the audience in its grasp through the compelling evolution of dustins character.

 The audience grows to realise the hostility in the village as dustin does and this aids considerably in the films consistent disturbing nature.

As most horrors do, straw dogs also ends in a 10 minute or so scene of havoc and bloodshed however with the character development of dustins character providing a driving force for this violence this gives meaning to the final scene, something which a large majority of horrors omit .

Although straw dogs starts a little slow, the tension grows from within, exploding in the final sequence to powerful effect.

8/10- a very solid thriller, touching on the universal fear of public discrimination



...man I'm 3 days behind

Shocktober Days 5 & 6

#5- The Vanishing (1988)

I need to start checking the genre of these films before I pick em, cus although the Vanishing is a blooming amazing crime drama it ain't really that scary, excusing the heavily disturbing final sequence.

The story itself is really quite simple, a man's wife is kidnapped, and we follow him up 10 or so years later where he refuses to forget the mystery of her disappearance. Thing's get more interesting once the husband is given just as much screen time and character development as the murderer himself. When all that shit happens the film really picks up, touching on some deeper themes such as the desperation of the human condition but who gives a toss about that when there's a proper solid murder mystery going on.


Apart from a laggy middle section where little happens and scenes get noticeably slower, The Vanishing is a sound film which especially towards the conclusion holds bags of tension. A wild crime time, fun for all the family...apart from young children and toddlers, they can watch Dolphin tale 2 instead (but strictly not the first film).

8/10- A pretty gripping crime drama, which I mistook for a Horror, saying that- it is a wild time.

#6- Audition (1999)

Yooooo, I know these Japanese horror films are all proper dark but geeezus, audition is some next level shit right here.

For the most part Audition isn't really that horrible, quite a nice little jaunt through the park actually, with the story concerning a man looking for a new wife after the past death of his old one. Once he settles with a lovely woman with super interests, the shit hits the fan and audition gets messy. The conclusion to this film is without doubt one of the most disturbing ever put to film, and anyone whose seen the film will know exactly what I mean. Just thinking about me makes me want to retrieve my tuna pasta bake from my stomach...with the wire...and the ugghh. Saying that whilst the images of the finale are certainly imprinted in my brain, never to leave, it is none the less a little meaningless in my opinion.

I mean the film has got rave reviews across the board from critics and fans alike, but whilst i enjoyed the film and some of its mysterious elements towards the end especially, in retrospect the whole film just felt a bit lifeless. Set-up is of, course without saying, vital to inducing meaning into any film, but here the set-up is long and ultimately uneventful , leading for the final act of the film feeling quite contrived and certainly out of place.

Saying that, any horror film which sufficiently disturbs you with a scene or image which you will literally never forget is worth at least a little credit. So whilst audition may not fulfil your narrative desires, it will certainly not leave your brain for a long while after viewing.

7/10- The sort of film which, after the final act and horrifying soundtrack of the credits, you'll want to immediately remove the disk and have a shower.

Shocktober Day 3 & 4

#3- Oculus (2014)

I must have been in a bad mood when I saw this on Friday, I'm writing this late, but from what I can remember from the truly forgettable Oculus, was that it was absolute rubbish.

Mirrors are great tools to use cinematically in any genre, perhaps they're overused a little in Horrors, but golly when they're used right they can really scare the beejezzus out of you. Basing a film about a mirror however is just straight up stupid, why didn't they learn from that Kiefer Suterland film, Mirrors, which no one likes or ever talks about. It's hard to talk about a film like Oculus because when it comes down to it, what do i talk about?! The film is so lifeless and devoid of any meaning, or actual horror for that matter.

Oculus isn't a terrible idea for a film and I guess the story is pretty unique, so kudos for that, but in terms of being a horror film it sucked, quite simply because it wasn't scary. It's more of a really bad psychological thriller in the sense that often the film doesn't even try and scare you it just throws a guy on the screen wearing a cheap halloween mask and expects you to shit yourself. Towards the end the film starts getting more and more ridiculous and actually it turns into a really effective comedy! This may be due in part to Karen Gillan's questionable acting or maybe it was just the way her character was written, either way her character came across as a whiny, arrogant bastard who wouldn't shut the fuck up.

The more I talk about Oculus the more bored I become, so to do it justice I should really finish with as few words as possible.

4/10- It's shit


#4- 28 Days Later (2002)

This is a weird one because I only just realised that I'd put this film on the best Horrors list on day #1, thinking I'd seen it before (which I kinda have) but turns out I haven't really so yeah...thought I'd give it a view.

Turns out I'd got my days and weeks mixed up, cus I'd seen the start of days and mixed it with the end of months...nightmare. Anyway, after finally seeing the whole of 28 days later I shan't be taking it off the best horrors list, this film is bloody amazing. From the very opening scene which is now famous in the genre, showing a man walking alone through the deserted London streets, to the more bloodthirsty finale, 28 days later carries jugs full of tension, literally never letting the audience go, despite the fact that a lot of the film is isolated conversations or quiet walks.

It's not until the end that you realise that really the film didn't have that many zombies in it, yet you are still drenched in sweat, fists clenched, hiding behind your cardigan. The film is so intelligent it knows it doesn't have to show blood and guts to get a reaction, the sheer isolation of this film taps into everyone's universal fear of solidarity especially in a time of fear. It's this mixed with the terrifyingly realistic narrative which cooks up the films terrific story and horror elements. Everything from the subtleties of a paper bag blowing through the streets to the literal collapse of the government is clenched with such realism, the whole transformed universe is just accepted by the characters, because what else can they do. There's no grandiose acting performances, no cliched hero, this is a story about people just as much as it is a horror film about zombies.

28 days later is one of the best zombie films of all time, sitting up with the classics of George Romero, not just this but it is also one of the scariest films of all time, at least for me it is.

9.5/10- Relentlessly terrifying in the quietest manner.

Shocktober- Day 1 & 2

Finally it's the holiday which no one waits for, Halloween is on the 31st of this terrible month and I'm 3 days late to it. You know what this means- Horror films. Films which thrill, spill, dill (the herb) and jill you to the core (jill is a word), we all love them but no one really knows why. We all know the majority of them are bad, they're dirt cheap to make and as a result there's a whole back catalogue of thousands of whiffy releases, most of which are waiting for your viewing right at the bottom of Netflix's horror section where no one dares to visit. Case in point, take the 'Deadly Bees' (1967) which is situated right at the bottom of the stink pile (I literally just looked), which to be fair could be quite good- I've never seen it. Saying that I'm reading the synopsis as we speak and its pushing all my buttons- terrific.

There are however those hidden gems, ones which keep you squirming for a good 7 hours (no more and strictly no less), a small list which (personally) include:

- Rosemary's baby (1968)     - The Borderlands (2013)              - Let the right one in (2008)
- The Shining (1980)            - Carrie (1976)                               - Psycho (1960)
- The Thing (1982)               - Eden lake (2008)                         - 28 days later (2002)
- The Descent (2005)            - Alien (1979)                                - Slither (2006)
- Kill List (2011)                  - Night of the living dead (1968)   - The Wicker man (1973  2006)

So as Halloween approaches, I'm gunna do this thing some people (I don't know who) call Shocktober which involves watching a horror film every day of October. I'm gunna be watching films which I've never seen before, otherwise... yuknow. Some films will be super old, some super new, like for example the newly released Dolphin Tale 2 which frankly looks fucked up. So hopefully I can add some new horror films to my favourites.


#1- Silence of the Lambs- (1991)

I've been told to watch this for a fair while and so took this month as an opportunity to watch it and yeah it's about as good as everyone says it is!

This film is just as much about the thrilling story as it is about the construction of the two protagonists. I mean Hannibal Lecter is an infamous horror villain, so I knew he would be pretty gruesome in the film but man... Anthony Hopkins' performance as the fictional murderer is just dirty and genuinely gets under your skin- as he pierces into the mind of Jodie Fosters character you feel as though he's doing the exact same thing to you. One could question just why Mrs Starling, Jodie Fosters character, is quite as dumb as she is despite her being a 'top student', however the film does do a pretty good job in explaining this... I say pretty good because she is just straight up stupid at some points.

The mystery surrounding Lecter is great and contributes to the job of getting under your skin, depending on how you view him as a character however some of his actions are quite astounding, performing feats in the space of 5 minutes which would take bloody Kevin Mcloud a couple of weeks. Saying that however if you analyse this considered 'classic', such actions would fit in perfectly to the mysterious and devilish character of Lecter.

The Silence of the lambs is truly gripping, reeling the audience into its world of horrific crime and mystery. Putting the narrative puzzle together is both as tantalizing as it is unnerving, truly scared as to what Lecter could be holding up his sleeve.

8.5/10- Perhaps not a terrifying horror but certainly a gripping crime drama.


#2- The Purge: Anarchy- (2014)

Judging by this films predecessor, the purge 2 (Or anarchy if you're a dick) in theory should be a steaming pile of shit, but heads up sister- shit, it aint.

You see the Purge 2 does something really weird and frankly bizarre which Hollywood very rarely does, this film actually listened to the fans of the first film and gave us exactly what we wanted. The idea of the purge is a great one, for those who don't know- yahoo it or ask jeeves (if you rekon he'll know), although you could certainly argue that the concept is a little silly and unrealistic, it is none the less undoubtedly original and interesting, providing an interesting concept which attempts to act as a social commentary. The problem with the first film was that, with a concept which includes the whole of the USA, they trap themselves within the confines of one home and the story becomes redundant as it simply turns into a slasher flick. As I said, the purge 2 does exactly what the fans asked for, it branches out and shows us how the people of the US react to this controversial day. Quite understandably there is backlash from underground organisations who are trying to make this day obsolete, however at the same time, there are of course some crack heads who go out trying to do some illegal shite.

This alone makes the Purge 2 a whole lot better than its predecessor, branching out to show us a more complex and intellectual storyline. The story follows 3 sets of people who find themselves on the streets on purge night for different reasons, some purposefully, some accidentally and whilst not all these characters are hugely compelling, the protagonist played by the most recognisable actor in the film, Frank Grillo, is surprisingly very well fleshed out, so much so that this characters arc alone is enough to call the whole film a success.

As they travel through the streets to find safety we see these characters evade some truly well organised criminals with interesting philosophical views, my favourite of which came from a man who waved to 2 of the protagonists whilst wearing a mask reading 'God', a simple and pointless attempt at philosophical meaning which ultimately means nothing. As all these people are humans it would have been nice to see a more human side to each of the criminals we see on the streets.

The Purge 2 is a great surprise, boasting a very well constructed protagonist within a far more expanded world of quiet intelligence and fairly subtle social messages. If this, now franchise, treads lightly it could make to be a very interesting horror franchise.

6.5/10-  An ambitious and vast improvement on the pants preprocessor
.

Guardians of the Galaxy

At this point in time in the MARVEL cinematic universe, anyone who considers new cosmic release Guardians of the Galaxy 'a risk' is frankly deluded. Seriously, stick the Marvel logo on any property and both bags of cash and budding fans clutching figurines will be charging their way, the superhero renaissance is truly in the palm of their hands. The Guardians of the galaxy is simply another step (granted a more significant one) in their ever growing franchise, heading presumably for a climactic Avengers 3 and most definitely more. Although Guardians of the Galaxy is an inexcusable stepping stone, it is one however which can be hugely enjoyed on its own, something the other solo movies lack, with its brash humour and general entertainment value making it unique.

Abducted from earth as a child Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) grows to become 'Starlord' a cosmic smuggler of all things shiny and expensive, one of which, a mysterious silver orb, is much wanted as he finds many will kill for it. Eventually he crafts a team of outlaws, including a walking/talking tree, Groot (voiced by Vin Diesel), a raccoon, Rocket (voiced by Bradley Cooper) an assassin Gamora (Zoe Saldana) and a warrior, Drax (Dave Bautista), to defend the orb and take it to safety whilst being pursued by the sinister Ronan the Accuser (Lee Pace). Having met none of these characters before in any form of popular media, the film does a very good job in introducing each of them, doing so progressively, almost like a set of solo movies, gradually introducing them into the story once the last character has received sufficient development. Some characters did work better than others however, actually more specifically the only one which really didn't work was Gamora who is supposedly a master assassin but who often found herself in inescapable situations; her personality wasn't really fleshed out and didn't go further than 'brooding'. Each of the other characters work very well with Chris Pratt as Starlord leading the pack well with sufficient charisma giving evident heart to his character, whilst the remaining three are provide the majority of the simple entertainment and comedic moments. The film however doesn't have to  try very hard to make us revel in its fun as this is simply an effortless task, as within a franchise of such saturation, forced to love the same characters over and over again, any change from the typical order is lovingly embraced, especially when that change is seen drastically in the form of a talking tree and raccoon. This mini team-up of tree and animal does quite the opposite of what one would expect, being seemingly there for childish merchandise purposes when in reality they actually provide much of the films grit and dark nature. As cute and fun as Groot is, many of his attacks are harsh and sinister, and when entwined with Rockets rather stern Chicago based persona the couple become less cute and cuddly and more disturbing yet entertaining.

Branching out from the typical story of the MARVEL universe which we know (and are beginning to rapidly get tired of), Guardians of the galaxy is certainly a breath of fresh air into the franchise being a change to the often light, cotton woolled story inserting a dose of gritty sci-fi action. This release dares to be different and feels far more like an expansion of the growing story, branching out into the cosmos onto planets which we will surely begin to know more about as the franchise continues. It is impossible to ignorable however the continued narrative formula seen in nearly all MARVEL films whereby each film follows an easily recognisable and safe route, to the point where we begin to not care about the characters as we know they will survive. The same happens at the end of this film, wasting time with meaningless sympathy for characters which we know will be fine, in this sense the Guardians of the galaxy does just feel like 'another stepping stone' as whilst it may be a new property, the story and familiar clichés remain. One of the only linking factors to the other films in the series is that of the main series villain, Thanos, barely played by Josh Brolin in his lacklustre appearance in the film. Thanos' appearance in the film is rather lacklustre, looking more like a ball of purple playdough pathetically created by a toddler than 'the universes greatest threat'. Quite the opposite was Ronan the Accuser who instead could be taken seriously with a strikingly sinister appearance, black liquid seeping from his eyes and mouth, his huge cloak and staff commanding the shot. Shame then that his character was largely boring and directionless, his actions usually unexplained or simply uninteresting.

Helped by its unique properties of characters and soundtrack, Guardians of the galaxy is MARVELS most refreshing release to date and perhaps even its best. Seeing the team interact with the Avengers is something nearly every fan is eager to see as it is clear that MARVEL has aided in reinvigorating the franchise with memorable protagonists, a unique style and established humour.

8/10- The best film of phase 2, and perhaps phase 1 too, Guardians of the Galaxy is a huge amount of fun and just what the franchise needed.

Calum Russell

The Inbetweeners 2

With only a few exceptions the transition from TV series to feature film hasn’t fared to well for the British in recent years. The most notable cases in point being the god awful ‘Keith Lemon film’, ‘Ms Browns Boys D’Movie’ as well as the ‘Pudsey the dog movie’ which one only has to see the trailer for to see that it looks absolutely pathetic. Perhaps one of the best TV- movie transitions of the past few years was the Inbetweeners Movie back in 2011 which ended the much loved series with sufficient humour and a hopeful romantic conclusion. However despite the very fitting end, money talks, and the Inbetweeners got a quite unnecessary sequel which invites us back to experience plenty more laughs unfortunately entwined within a hugely inconsistent narrative.

Sticking on the past storyline of a lads holiday the group of four head to Australia where Jay (James Buckly), working there in a hotel, promises them the time of their lives with girls and booze galore. With Will (Simon Bird) hardly enjoying university and Simon (Joe Thomas) and Neil (Blake Harrison) seemingly doing very little at all they decide to join Jay in Australia whereby comedy ensues. The story may as well be identical to its predecessor and in some ways it plays out much like it, however with nearly all plot lines tied up by the end of the last film, the film struggles to get off the ground for a good 15 minutes procrastinating with what the characters are doing and making excuses to why they are available to go on a gap year. This quickly gets tiresome as nervous laughs waft around the cinema in hopeful expectation of things to come, and thankfully the laughs come in their handfuls once the holiday begins.

It’s not until the side characters are introduced that the film finally gets into gear, pitch perfectly mocking the, now infamous, image of the arrogant, preppy gap year student. This, in contrast with the crass and puerile humour of the four boys makes for some truly hysterical scenes, with the ‘spiritual, true traveller’ character of Ben, played excellently by Freddie Stroma, clashing perfectly with the group. Moments of hilarity often spark from this character as he brings the relatable tropes of camping and budget travelling to the table where they are questioned and ridiculed. This subsequently builds into big comedy set pieces whereby their tension finally peaks to largely hysterical results.

You can’t help but reminisce however at the modest, low budget TV series where jokes formulated from ingeniously crafted comedic moments entwined with the sheer wit of the four hugely likeable characters. Here it simply feels as if they’re trying too hard, the set pieces (as funny as most of them are) are simply too grandiose and as a result the film loses some of its simplistic charm. At times the film often forgets what made the show so funny in the first place, where the characters and situations are so relatable that it’s a joy to follow them round and join in their relatable moments of hilarity, and when the film remembers this it is truly at its funniest. However it often forgets, dabbling in plot lines which neither fit in with the story at all nor the audience can relate to or be interested in. This results in a frustratingly inconsistent final film which has strong essence of Inbetweeners comedic flair but also a pungent whiff of huge narrative flaws which can be perfectly encapsulated in the films final beat, wrapping up so quickly it felt almost disloyal to audience members who felt so attached to the characters.

The Inbetweeners 2 lacks the narrative fluidity of the first film but matches if not exceeds it in comedic moments, with one or two especially surely going down as some of their very best moments. This in some ways simply isn’t enough however and you can’t help but feel a little disappointed as the film jolts by, laughter dotted over infrequent pages and the story being almost ignored.

6.5/10- A largely funny Inbetweeners outing with a disappointing focus on story.

Calum Russell  

Boyhood

It's recent previous releases such as 'Bernie' and the 'Before' trilogy which have made director Richard Linklater one of the most unique and interesting auteurs of the modern era. Such innovation is continued in 'Boyhood' Linklaters 12 year project chronicling the fictional story of a boy growing up from the age of 5 to 18. Filmed over the course of 12 years Boyhood's ambition is evident with no prior knowledge of how the actors would develop and change, however this gamble ultimately doesn't pay off.

 The story is as simple as it sounds and unfortunately refuses to impress cinematically by choosing a more realistic route of storytelling whereby very little happens at all. As the story begins we are introduced to Mason (Ellar Coltrane), sister (Lorelei Linklater) and mother (Patricia Arquette) a fictional family which for the most part of the opening hour are fun and exciting to be around, as the story seemingly builds its foundations. Entwined within scenes of realistic childhood memories such as simple sibling rivalries as well as first days at school, a more complex and interesting plot brews in the background, one surrounding the consequences of divorce on a family's children. This sufficiently developed and otherwise interesting plot point should've provided a backbone for the rest of the film but is however abandoned without explanation, being replaced by a more disinteresting and far more overdone story of simple adolescence whereby none of the past trials and tribulations seem to have any affect on our bland protagonist.

 Granted, finding a quality child actor is very hard to come by, especially when choosing one 12 years in advance in order to play a complex 18 year old at the projects end. Unfortunately this doesn't excuse the level of acting seen by young Ellar Coltrane, which considering the films context is by no means awful, but is certainly not good either. This is where the main issue with the film sparks. In a film called Boyhood, being specifically centred around the development of a single character, the fictional boy, as well as the actor, are both so lifeless and devoid of personality that it is impossible to relate to the character. This therefore prevents the film from conveying its messages of the trials of growing up as they are all poorly conveyed through the films protagonist. In retrospect the character of Mason really does very little at all, being carried through the film by the more interesting plot points of those around him such as that of his birth father and struggling mother. Ethan Hawke who plays the loyal birth father does so very well and is by far the saving grace of the film, projecting a realistic character damaged by the consequences of divorce, nostalgic of the lost time with his children. A film focused on him, his ex-wife and their two kids would've made for a highly interesting view on how a bad childhood damages the person as a whole. Instead the film is bogged down with a plethora of unnecessary characters and scenes which go literally nowhere. Most notably, an early scene where the protagonist is moderately bullied  is neither seen nor ever mentioned of again in the film, an example of the narrative almost teasing the audience with the opportunity to branch out, instead opportunities to do so are constantly squandered . Thus the film goes nowhere, giving it a total lack of direction and no climactic target to strive towards, leaving the audience with no sense of progression resulting in boredom; especially when considering the films 3 hour running time.

Aside from the many unnecessary scenes, the writing on the whole is pretty solid, especially at the films opening which treats us to a whole load of compelling and emotionally involving scenes. These scenes went from the simple and elegant sight of seeing the protagonist paint over the height marks of the door at his old home to the grand and nostalgic scene of Mason and his Father sharing a camping trip, something that most if not all male audience members can relate to. It seems as though however that whilst Linklater has an excellent grasp on young life, his view on modern day teenagers is warped and at times embarrassing. Mason and his peers seem to speak in philosophical metaphors through the mouth of Linklater, their every line visibly crafted to forcibly induce feeling into the audience, but instead these moments simply came of as arrogant and almost unbearable. The paths of both the mother and father are far more developed, towards the end at least ,as we see the effect of growing up directly impacting them both, perhaps something Linklater has more relation to than the growing up of a modern day boy.

Linklater has a nostalgic and warm view on early childhood, as most of us do, however as the protagonist reaches adolescence he no longer writes the characters through the eyes of a growing boy but instead though that of an adult. Masons change seems unnatural and sudden, going from a loveable, naive yet developing boy into an irritating and arrogant teenager whose bland personality and monotonous tones were no fun to be around. Boyhood is perhaps one of those films which differs between cultures, the view on relationships for example here seems unrealistic and foreign here in the UK but may well be the norm in the US. Starting very well, using its 12 year production context intelligently to chart the subtle changes of a boy, Boyhood deteriorates into directionless drivel disguised as philosophy.


6/10- It's ambition is admirable but the final result frustratingly disappointing.

Calum Russell