Ted's film reviews: Army of Darkness (released 1992)

Image source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106308/mediaviewer/rm2861960192

Today we have an action film classic that has undeniably and fully deservedly earned its status of being a cult-classic amongst its contemporaries of the genre and when it was made.  However, much like a number of other classic action films and similar media from the 1980s and 1990s, while the quotable bits and iconic scenes have earned their referential icon status, the weaker bits of the film are forgotten about and don't rear their ugly head until you actually watch the piece of media in question.  Ladies and gentlemen, that piece of media of the day is the 1992 cult hit Army of Darkness starring the almighty chin man that is Bruce Campbell.

Made on the back of the two enormously successful and cheaply-made Evil Dead films (released 1981 and 1987), Army of Darkness was a bit of a departure from its predecessors in that it was the first entry into the franchise with a definitively large budget.  Part of the appeal of the first two movies is that, much like a lot of Quentin Tarantino's earlier work, a lot was achieved on a low budget via creative cinematography.  While a similar sense of cinematography being used to cover up the cracks is present in Army of Darkness, it doesn't really feel as genuine or even as effective considering the higher budget and production quality compared to the previous movies.  That isn't to say that the film is bad in terms of the cinematography but I feel that it should've either gone whole hog for being a low-budget skimmer of a movie or a full-blown blockbuster.  Not to say that finding a middle ground in this regard is impossible but that in the case of this movie, it felt a bit over-ambitious on the part of the filmmakers to try to this extent. 

But, as theoretically lopsided as the movie might be, this aspect doesn't ruin the whole meal rather just a small part of it and thankfully, this doesn't take away from the delightfully simple plot.  After the events of Evil Dead II, Ash (played by Bruce Campbell) is transported back in time to a highly fictionalised past where two warring kingdoms are spilling each others blood in the medieval era all while the land is being ravaged by an army of undead monsters and daemons being led by a malevolent undying king.  After proving that he has what it takes to be the hero to retrieve the foul book that is the Necronomicon to reverse the curse placed on this begotten land, Ash is handed his trademark chainsaw arm and sawn-off shotgun before setting off to claim the book for his newfound friends and hopefully find a way back to his time and home.  Through some inevitable hijinks however, the evil king is not immediately defeated and Ash is tasked with fighting off a demonic invasion and uniting the two warring kingdoms while still struggling to survive.

Its a real classic tale format of a badass outsider being plunged into unfamiliar territory that you somehow know, even with that hero's limited knowledge, that they'll deal with like they're poaching some eggs.  This basic tale is spiced up with a, what was at the time modern and topical hero with similarly natured technology, character who acts as a contemporary audience proxy and through a mixture of wit, dumb luck and having A SAWN OFF SHOTGUN, is able to win the day, get the girl and say some memorable lines that live on in movie pop-culture history.

With such a simple plot, one would suspect that the quality of the film throughout isn't much to talk abut especially considering the earlier discussion about the thematic inconsistency with the other films.  Thankfully, the quality of the acting is such that this doesn't really matter and this is supported by some refreshingly simple script writing.  I do like complex acting performances and screenplays as well as scripts but sometimes, while you might fancy a steak tartan, you may also fancy a humble and simplistic beef burger.  The cast and script seem to know from the offset that they're not creating something too deep or 'high art' and as a result they just relish in having fun making a dumb, cheesy and endearingly plain and simple popcorn flick.

Again, as mentioned above, the film is far from perfect.  The acting isn't amazing across the board and Bruce Campbell is the only one who is good throughout the whole movie and the thematic pacing does feel a bit wonky.  Not to mention, the introduction of the main villain feels a tiny bit contrived and its not always clear what the rules are of the new magic and swords world that Ash is adventuring in.  But, as similarly mentioned earlier, the enjoyment factor of the film is quite high and even if you don't ignore its faults, you can still enjoy Army of Darkness as a bit of good old dumb fun.

Camerawork/cinematography: 5.5/10

Writing/screenplay: 6/10

Acting: 7/10

Direction: 7/10

Personal enjoyment: 9/10

Film review: Absentia (released 2011)

When you think of indie horror films your mind might end up wandering to either one of two places. One could be an artful horror thought-piece like the legendary Vertigo (1958) directed by Alfred Hitchcock where the budget is larger than one would expect for a film like this and where the definition of 'indie' is generally a bit stretched. And secondly, your mind could end up conjuring up thoughts of films that use their smaller budgets to their advantage by allowing simplicity and use of camerawork to enhance the atmosphere.

This is where today's topic, the 2011 release Absentia comes in. And where it nearly wastes the oppourtunity to make its simplicity and interesting camerawork enhance the film to the fullest extent.

Image source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1610996/mediaviewer/rm1922807552?ref_=tt_ov_i

Now let me just say that this is not necessarily a bad film.  It could have been so much better and is generally let down by some flat performances in certain scenes and bizarre plotting towards the end of the film. BUT, it and the filmmakers try their damned hardest to make a truly great horror/thriller. I always prefer a film to fail ironically while being unironically serious wether it turns into a befuddled mess like this film or becomes an unintentional comedic masterpiece like Manos: The Hands of Fate  (1966). If you have a film that is just straight up bad and aware of it while trying to do nothing to at least try and be good or change certain things, you just end up feeling drained and bored.  Wether Absentia turned into a comedy or not because of its failings, I still would admire it for its artistic vision and interesting concepts both in cinematography and plot.

The cinematography, I personally feel, is this film's strongest aspect. Whereas many indie or low-budget horror films would simply rely on shot-reverse shot or close-up camerawork to convey scares, Absentia rarely relies on this kind of filmmaking unless it ABSOLUTLEY has to. Many of the scenes where a particular mood is being set are shot from the back so that we get an impression of the character being framed is going though a thought process on how to approach the situation that they are faced with. Its a bit difficult to describe more than that, but, for most of the film, you feel like you're watching what is going on screen along with the character being framed in the scene. As a result, even in some of the more dour and less-interesting scenes, the mood is enhanced by pretty damn solid cinematography.

Another area where the film might not be as strong, but still deserves praise, is its plot. Despite my misgivings, the concept of the plot at least is a thoroughly engrossing draw. Tricia (played by Courtney Bell) has been living in her house for 5 years debating on wether or not to declare her long-missing husband Daniel (played by Morgan Peter Brown) dead while also coming to terms with her own pregnancy and the possibility of moving out. Just as she decides to follow through with signing off the paperwork for both of these big decisions, Tricia's former drug-addict sister Callie (played by Catherine Parker) comes to stay and help her through moving house and the emotions of declaring Daniel dead. But, just as this and the romancing advances of Detective Mallory (played by Dave Levine) begin to develop, mysterious incidents start popping up around Callie and Tricia in ways that reveal a great deal about their flaws. This sounds like the perfect plot for a narrative threaded together with plot twists and intrigue and, for the most part, that is the case. However, towards the end of the film, this aspect of the whole feature goes and craps its breeches.

If there was one major criticism I could levy at the film, it would be the thoroughly disappointing ending/third act where any semblance of realism or mystique goes out the window for some baffling exposition. The moment when the film has a metaphorical stroke is when Callie breaks character from being a nervous but steady-headed quizzical woman of faith into being a raving nutcase when she reels off some crazy theory about the walk tunnel near Tricia's house. A theory that, despite lack of real evidence, Callie and the film treat absolutely seriously without questioning it despite her sources all being alternative and minor news websites. This moment is sandwiched by insane moments that contradict the theme and style of the film where visions of monsters haunting Tricia's neighbourhood are revealed to possibly be real and not just the understandable hangover hallucinations from when Callie still abused heroin. From here on out towards the end of the film, the whole feature just forgets what its been building up and shits the bed and in turn becomes a most generic thriller in the third act. Aside from a genuinely haunting last couple of scenes, the final act of Absentia is definitely the movie's weak link.

But is this damming enough to make the film a bad one? In terms of its finish; yes. In terms of the film overall?; a little bit but this shouldn't downplay the other qualities that Absentia has on offer. Like I said above, the cinematography is great as is the writing and plotting for the first 75% or so of the film. On top of this, in combination with the camerawork, the music/soundtrack helps enhance the ethos and theme of many scenes to a fantastic extent as does the performances of Morgan Peter Brown and Catherine Parker who are the two powerhouse performers amongst the cast. However, the lack of a quality final act is still galling and really drags the film down, had this not been the case I would have said Absentia was the best horror film of 2011.

Direction: 7/10
Writing: 6.5/10
Camerawork/cinematography: 9.5/10
Plot: 4.75/10
Acting: 6.85/10

Personal enjoyment: 6.25/10

So bad its good #1: Mindhunters (Released 2004)

Again, as I've said many times before, sorry about not posting anything on this here blog in a while.  BUT HEY!  At least you guys can rely on one thing being consistent here with your (probably) favourite blog!; inconsistency!.

And speaking of consistency, there is perhaps no other form of film I enjoy more than ones which are trying to be profound or good but fail either through lack of skill or sheer ineptitude.  Today's offering truly does fit this bill consistently throughout its runtime and so, again with thanks to the University of Sussex Sci-fi and Horror society for helping me to see this film again, I give you the bountiful gift that is the 2004 underrated horror classic, Mindhunters!

Image source: www.imdb.com/title/tt0297284/mediaviewer/rm47553792

In all honesty though, I would think that it'd be fair to forgive someone for thinking that they were going into a moderately entertaining horror/action flick at the very least .   The plot is pretty straightforward and should, on a face level, make for decent viewing. 

In the bygone age of 2004 USA, a team of undergraduate junior FBI investigators and profilers are sent by their crime investigation tutor Jake Harris (played by Val Kilmer) to a US Navy seals training facility on a remote island to conduct a mock manhunt for an imaginary serial killer.  However, as soon as Harris leaves and the exercise begins, the investigators are gradually killed off one by one for real by an elusive assassin that the rest of the survivors have to unite against. All this has to be done while the team are all suspecting each other of being the killer and attempting to solve the murders.  This isn't made any simpler for the team by the last minute inclusion on their expedition of federal department officer Gabe Jensen (played by James Todd Smith (aka LL Cool J)) who was previously unknown to the rest of the students.  Can Jensen and the FBI undergrads put aside their differences or will they all be picked off one by one by the mysteriously planned traps that all seem to target one particular team member one at a time?

Now doesn't that just sound like the plot of an underrated classic?  Well in a sense it is because despite having a cast including a few half-decent actors and a nice and simple plot, the narrative, characters and pacing quickly go into a cavalcade of goofy failure.  What really makes me warm to the failures of Mindhunters though is that unlike the vast majority of Uwe Boll's films, this flick wasn't made with a lack of care put into it and in contrast to anything from The Asylum film studio, it wasn't intentionally made to be bad.  Add to this that all of the best actors are given the worst lines, are underutilised or killed off right at the start in combination with considerable incompetence all round and your have a crapshoot of grand proportions.  And its not for a joke either, its all played 100% straight, trimmings and all.

On the point of decent actors being killed off way too early (SPOILER WARNING), Christian Slater is one of the first to go in what is easily the funniest death scenes in the film which is nicely helped along with easily the worst bit of CGI in a film that showcases no good CGI at all.  But while it is perhaps understandable not to make the biggest use of a one-note actor like Christian Slater, you'd expect a seasoned great of the craft like Val Kilmer but instead, the 1990s heavy hitter is just given a small bag of generic lines and is in the film for a grand total of just a few minutes. 

The last gasp bastion of providing a possibility of a good performance would be LL Cool J who, if not a talented actor, always provides warming charisma. Instead, J seems to have been given little to no good direction on top of easily the three most notoriously bad lines in the film (watch the film in full you'll get what I mean).  With the three most promising talents of the cast taken out of commission or improperly used (perhaps less so in LL Cool J's case because he is still able to really sell his lines with passion) you're left with a cast of either walking horror thriller stereotypes or cardboard cut-outs who desperately try (or at least I think that's what they're trying to do) to glean some ironic quality out of the horrendous script, archetypal early-2000s pop soundtrack or lame duck direction.

Image source: https://www.horrortalk.com/reviews/40-movie-reviews/291-mindhunters.html

In a strange bit of contrast though, there are some genuinely unironic and true bits of quality sprinkled throughout the movie.  While the CGI sucks major cobblers, the action scenes where some of the CGI can be found are among the only small handful of scenes in the film with any good direction.  The final gunfight between the main character and villain at the end of the film in a ice pool is genuinely gripping. Meanwhile, a scene much earlier in the film where LL Cool J and Clifton Collins Jr both have to work together against the clock in order to save themselves from a hallway filling with electrified water is made truly intense by the score actually being suitable for once and LL Cool J performing some half-decent stunt work along a hole-riddled wall.  The stunt work in general is actually pretty decent and even when the action isn't at its best, such as the fistfight between LL Cool J and detective Harper (played by Jonny Lee Miller), the action scenes are between participants that are only about as tough as one another so no scrap ever feels uneven and has at least a satisfactory level of intensity.

Just note, this isn't anywhere near enough to rescue the film and make it a genuine and unironic 5/10 film experience at least.  But on the flipside, its not like the genuinely good bits of the film highlights the cons of the film and make them worse either. It is true that there was a good deal of potential for this film to be genuinely good but Mindhunters is one of the few bad films where the bits that are genuinely and unironically good make you incur pain from how much better the film could've been. Instead, how I would describe this dilemma of an ironically bad/good film having unironically good bits in it is that in Mindhunter's case, its more like going to a Chinese restaurant near the end of serving hours to have a delicious chow mein and then getting some free fresh leftovers from the kitchen warm out of the kitchen right as you're leaving and as the restaurant is closing.  You didn't expect such a development and one thing is of a higher quality than the other, but its sill very tasty and you're happy to enjoy it regardless.

So to CONCLUDE!  Mindhunters is an awfully made film in an objective sense but is made with such effort and passion behind it that it both gives the film an admirable charm whilst also highlighting the genuinely good aspects of the film. And even when the awful script rears its scruffy head, its usually with a line that you either laugh your knickers off at or can't help but at least give a mirthful smile to.  So would I recommend Mindhunters?  Ironically I would. Definitely in a so bad its good way, you can glean a great deal of enjoyment of this flick while also appreciating some actually decent fight choreography. Do not go into this film with expectations of it being a satisfactorily well-made film or being constantly rip-roaringnly funny throughout, it might sound weird to do that but trust me, you'll enjoy the film all the more for doing so.

 Camerawork/cinematography: 4/10

Directing: 3/10

Acting: 5/10

Writing & plot: 5.5/10

Personal enjoyment: 10/10

OVERALL RATING: 27.5/50

TV first impressions #1: Hannibal (2013-2015)

Image source: http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/hannibal-tv-series/images/34599546/title/hannibal-lecter-wallpaper

As with the last few reviews of films on this blog, many thanks to the University of Sussex Sci-fi and Horror society for giving me the opportunity to see this TV show for the first time.

I just wish I could give the same level of thanks to the makers of the 2013 horror/thriller TV series Hannibal for the quality of their project's final form.  This isn't to say that Hannibal is a bad TV show but I feel that it is pretty dull a lot of the time and has a lot of unfulfilled potential.  Now there are a few good points about this show from the first few episodes, so I'll try as best as I can to give them due credit.

First off, I have to give massive credit to Mads Mikkelsen for this inexplicably Danish but nonetheless highly impressive performance as a young Dr Hannibal Lecter.  While his performance as the iconic horror character is somewhat more restrained than that of Anthony Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs (1991), Mikkelsen's performance still resonates buckets of charisma and heavy atmosphere.  When he slowly and smoothly walks into the scene, you can feel that something drastic or haunting is about to occur.  Even when your boy Hannibal is just making someone breakfast in this show he reeks of subtle and deeply psychological threat.  Mikkelsen combines this with a greater emphasis on having a hauntingly stony-faced persona than how Hopkins relied on portraying a highly-intelligent but nearly-at-the-breaking-point persona in the 1991 movie.  If it wasn't for Hopkins performances in both Silence of the Lambs and the 2001 movie Hannibal then Mikkelsen's performance as the eponymous Dr Hannibal Lecter would be the very best in the series.

Image source: http://quotesgram.com/hannibal-lecter-tv-show-quotes/

The other main aspects I have to give credit to is the sound design and soundtrack.  The soundtrack does not have a great many memorable tunes but it does its job of amplifying the mood of a certain scene admirably.  Where the series might have a scene that is lacking to, for example, have an atmosphere of tension, the soundtrack for the most part helps amplify this purpose and elevate otherwise lacklustre scenes to being genuinely entertaining.  This is in no small part also helped along by the equally solid sound design.  Admittedly, I feel this is an aspect of the show that may go over people's heads as it did certainly mine before I had some time to think about the first few episodes.  However, it is undeniable that the atmosphere of a horror show or film rests heavily on good sound design.  Granted, this is to different extents depending on what kind of horror we are looking at but the aim and purpose of sound design in horror or thriller films and shows is all the same.  And, fortunately for Hannibal, the show has top-notch sound design that really brings out the best in the most intense and harrowing scenes which really helps with some of the more visually and vocally dull moments.

This dullness unfortunately is something that seems to pop up during the first few episodes a fair bit.  I feel this is in large part down to three major issues I have with the first few episodes; the directing is uninspired for the most part, most of the actors are dull as dishwater and the dialogue is mostly grey and pretty boring.  

Image source: http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/hannibal-television-series/images/36351719/title/hannibal-tv-series-wallpaper

I do feel, at the very least, the less-egregious aspect of these three is the poor-quality direction which does a bad job of grabbing attention in the first few episodes of the show.  The direction might improve later on into the series but the interest of an audience in a TV show heavily relies on it making a deep and lasting initial impact on the viewer.  And despite the best efforts of the director of the first few episodes, I just did not get such a feeling from this show at all.  Even with poor acting talent at hand and a lacklustre script, I firmly believe that a competent director can at least squeeze something entertaining out of such a conundrum.  However, the directing in the first few episodes has little such direction and thus fails to make itself entertaining be that in a genuine sense or being something that is 'so bad its good'.  In all honesty, I would take good-bad over what we got here but to be fair, the show is still generally competently made so I can't be too harsh on the directing.

What I feel that I definitely CAN be mean and nasty to though is some of the mostly horrendous acting which for me, has to be the worst aspect of the initial episodes of the show.  Despite the best efforts of Mikkelsen and Hugh Dancy to provide decent performances in their scenes, which I feel that both men definitely do, they are not above having some bad lines and this goes quadruple for the rest of the cast.  The rest of the cast in the initial run of the show are guilty being either uncharismatic as unbuttered Sainsbury's basic white loaf or skin gratingly annoying.  Most performances like Lawrence Fishburne, Brian Zeller or Hettienne Park are just simply good actors not performing at their best or at least not being given enough opportunity to do so.  But, the worst performance for me has to go to Lara Jean Chorostecki as thoroughly unpleasant reporter Freddie Lounds.  Now I'm not saying that a slimy, loose-on-morals undercover reporter character is out of place in a show like this and I think that Lounds could have been one of my favourite characters if Chorostecki did not play her as unlikeable as possible.  Plus, in fairness to her, this is not entirely down to her as she and the rest of the cast are given a bad script with uninspired direction.  But, I can't shake such a feeling about such an unappealing character as the performance itself really isn't good.

Image source: http://rockmyvegansocks.com/hannibal-the-vegan/

But perhaps the saddest aspect of this show to compare to previous entries into the Hannibal Lecter franchise is the lacklustre script and writing in general.  Even the poor-quality previous entries into this franchise have had some memorable lines but when you compare the 2013-2015 series to entries such as The Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal (2001), you begin to realise that the dialogue in this entry is just not memorable enough to make any significant impact in the beginning.  This all adds up with the acting and directing to make a first few episodes that could grab the viewer by the nose and wrench them in but it falls so short of that supposedly easy task.

In conclusion, I wish I liked this TV show a lot more and its not like it doesn't have good things going for it.  In a way, I wish the series was given more effort into its first 2 to 5 episodes than into the style of the whole show or its advertising.  As a result, the show relies heavily on nostalgia, name recognition and a generally talented cast without focussing on the spine of what makes a good show; a good script, direction, acting and an immediately grabbing initial run.  Either these aspects are missing or are not prominent enough in Hannibal which isn't too much of a surprise that it only lasted a few dozen episodes over just under 3 years.  I kind of wish this wasn't the case but the show really is as sleep-inducing as Mads Mikkelsen's recent Carlsberg adverts.

Camerawork/cinematography: 6.5/10

Directing: 4.5/10

Acting: 4/10

Writing: 4.25/10

Soundtrack and sound design: 8.25/10

Overall rating: 27.5/50

New film review #25: Get out (Released 17th March in UK)

 

Image source: http://mikesslowroad.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/scary-movies.html

While I haven't seen a new film in a fair old while I feel now is as good a time as any to review this cinematic escapade directed and written by Jordan Peele that was released earlier this year.  I saw the beginning of this film at the most recent meeting of the Sussex sci-fi and horror society at which point I remembered that I had seen the film a couple of times recently.  Those couple of times sadly not being enough to leave enough of an impact on  me to remember the film all that much.

One of those times was on a flight back from holiday in the US and the other was recently when I was drunk and watching a bunch of films on streaming services with a bag of McDonalds cheese bites in hand.   Probably not the best scenarios to watch such an inventive film as this.  However, upon further reflection after viewing the first third of the film with the people at Sussex Uni I came to the sad conclusion that I just don't like this film a great deal.  Again, I need to reiterate, this may be because of what the circumstances were in which I saw the film but I can't help how I feel about it.

And this is unfortunate considering what a talented and attractive cast we have on hand here.  Daniel Kaluuya's turn as main protagonist Chris is one of the most endearing turns as a main character to come out of a new release this year or in 2016.  Other standout performances include Bradley Whitford as a mysterious and somewhat unsuspecting father figure, Betty Gabriel as a strangely repressed individual who looks like she's about to crack in every shot or Allison Williams playing Chris' girlfriend Rose.  However, an inventive setting for a horror/thriller film and a talented cast cannot save a film if it is not well executed or delivered.

And while Peele clearly cares about his craft and puts his all into the writing and directing of this film it just comes off as a bit clunky.  Now this isn't to say that I do not think he can write or direct well but this isn't the best example of his talents in this area.  I do personally prefer his comedic talents when he's acting off of his buddy Keele on the TV.  But in all fairness, I do think there is still plenty of time and space for improvement in his cinematic writing and directing.  Actually, one of the stranger examples of the writing and directing not always being on point in Get Out is Lil Rel Howery as the comedic best friend sidekick to Chris named Rod.   Rod isn't the most positive impact of a character in the film because his light-hearted comedy does not gel well with the dark tones of the horror scenes.  Now this isn't to say that a comedic character contrasting against dark tones and imagery can't be done well or at all but the mark was missed by some distance here.  When we get the comedic scenes as compared to the horror counterparts throughout the film, it feels like Peele is making horror film and a comedy short at the same time but mashing them together without any proper unity.  The horror is good and the comedy, while not great, is still decent but they are just not well put together both individually or in combination.

If there is anything to say about the plot its that it may be the best thought-out part of the film, at least in concept.  If anything, I would recommend seeing this film for its creative narrative.  While the majority of the individual aspects constituting this film are not all that well combined together, the narrative is the one main constant that keeps the spine of the movie glued together.  I'll leave most of it to you lot to find out for yourself for when you come to watch the film (if you choose to of course) but I would recommend reading one or two synopsis about Get Out to at least get a good sense of what you're in for going into this experience.  To put it briefly though, Chris is going with his girlfriend out into the countryside to meet her family and parents in particular but out intrepid young hero starts noticing strange behaviour among the helpers and housekeepers of the local estate.  With his mind wandering to suspicious horizons, Chris must figure out if he is under threat and if he is, how much time does he have to realise to what extent he is in danger?  A great setup to be sure, and one that is, at the very least, interesting to study.

To conclude, Get Out has one of the most creative narratives of any film released this year but its let down by a great deal of unrealised potential and unbalanced execution.  There is a lot of talent on show here, especially in regards to the lighting, acting and sound design but most of the individual aspects, as good as they are, aren't cohesive enough.  The film isn't flat out bad though and like I said above, the acting in many cases is genuinely really good.  Add to this the aforementioned cool concept of a story, atmospheric lighting and sound design and you have a decently tense thriller.  At least the film succeeds in that regard.


Camerawork/cinematography: 7.5/10
Directing: 4.75/10
Writing: 4.5/10
Acting: 8/10
Concept/narrative: 8.5/10

Overall rating: 33.25/50

Old film review #10: John Carpenter's The Thing (Released 1982)

Image source: https://vicsmovieden.com/2014/10/09/john-carpenters-the-thing-1982-lobby-cards/

Hey ladies and gentlemen!  Sorry about the lateness of this most recent film review but now is as good a time as any to release it considering its a bit late eh?  Kind of what happened between each version of this legendary film (The original The Thing being released in 1951, this one in 1982 and the 2nd remake coming in 2011).

Once again, as with the last film review on this blog, thanks a great deal to the University of Sussex sci-fi and horror society for giving me the chance to see this cinematic cult classic for the first time.

As with the 1951 original and the 2011 remake, John Carpenter's The Thing has a nicely simplistic plot that is delivered with gusto and skill, supplemented by a witty script and superb acting.  I mean...less so in the case of the 2011 remake because that one was about as disappointing as getting a book you've already got for Christmas.  But thankfully, the tone, story and narrative of this 1982 version is much more similar, in a good way, to that of the 1951 black and white classic. 

And speaking of that plot;  An observation team from the USA are holed up in their secluded but strangely cosy arctic observation post out in the arctic tundra when their duties and quiet are savagely and terrifyingly interrupted by an acid-spitting and shape shifting alien that picks off the crew one by one while disguising itself in order to spread chaos and allow itself to continue killing our heroes.   A simple plot to be sure and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

However, in order to make the plot not be an overly-simplistic dud, a story this simplistic would require at least a few aspects to be delivered to such a high level of quality and creativity that over-simplicity is either overshadowed or not a problem in the narrative.  Fortunately, that is something which is present in the final product of this movie in spades.  It is clear that legendary director John Carpenter knew what he was doing with this remake of the 1951 original The Thing From Another World and took some steps to learn from the pros and cons of that film.  Because of this, while Carpenter's 1982 version may lack the same level of regal class and iconic influence as the original, it supplements this vacancy with a witter script, generally less wooden directing and dialogue.  And not to forget, an ending that arguably trumps that of Christian Nyby's and Howard Hawks' original.  An ending that, I believe, is possibly among the very cream of the crop when it comes to tense and ambiguous endings to either horror or thriller movies.

Image source: https://www.tumblr.com/search/richard%20a.%20dysart

And that ending isn't just a random gem in the film, its given a good foundation to base itself upon thanks to the sense of horror and tension throughout the film that is in no small part helped by the legendary practical effects of this movie.  If you are going to look into or study the history and art of practical effects in movies, this film must come up at some point because its ability to make you feel fear with expansive and gruesome models and practical gore is sublime.  The models and make up used to portray the gore are rightfully regarded as some of the best of the 20th century, especially the 1980s, and even more so considering the film's very minimal use of special effects.  The effectiveness of the models and make up is given even more effective muscle to work with because of how the colours of blood, gore and deformed corpses stands out against the white background of Antartica.  Add to this some scenes where the reveal of plot twists and horribly deformed corpses is hidden by mist, steam or smoke and you have a scenario where the practical effects are given as much of a chance to enhance Carpenter's theme of isolation, mystery, tension and gut-wrenching surprises.

Image source: http://www.theaceblackblog.com/2012/05/movie-review-thing-1982.html

Perhaps the other aspect of the film that could rival the direction, script and practical effects in terms of enhancing the themes of the film is the talented cast on show.  A cast that easily has its jewel in the crown being a top-of-his-game Kurt Russell.  With a cast brimming with talent like Russell, Wilford Brimley, Keith David and Donald Moffat among several other big names, it'd be suprising if such a talented cast was not able to at least produce a competent collective performance.  Granted this can happen sometimes with certain films depending on circumstance, timing and poor directing or scripts. Thankfully, and once again in part thanks to Carpenter's top-class directing, we have a highly talented cast that are directed to the best of their capabilities and all supplemented by a script that fantastically slips from darkly witty to nail-bitingly tense.  Kurt Russell really is the star of the show though.  This isn't too surprising considering how talented the man is.  But, considering that he's just one man in a case of highly-respected and talented actors, some of whom, at the time, had far more experience, is a testament to how impressive his performance in this cinematic classic is.  His mixture of empathetic and ruggedly tough is a real trademark of Russell's acting, especially during the 1980s, but there is possibly no other greater example of this, at least outside of the Snake Plissken films, than John Carpenter's The Thing.

Image source: https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/1091-the-thing/images/backdrops

To conclude, this is one of the greatest films of the 1980s and was able to make itself a cult classic very quickly despite being released in a year that was stacked with fantastic films being released.  There are a few weaknesses like how one or two instances of practical effects show their age and how not all of the dialogue really works but the pros far outweigh the cons in this case.  Furthermore, if you do not like horror or thriller films, I still recommend looking into how this film was made as that in of itself is an interesting tale of skill and creativity.  On top of this, I would still recommend seeing the film just for its star-studded cast and high-quality acting performances by everyone on board for the vast majority of the film's running time.  And hey, if you want any other reason to see this film I can think of a real golden one.  A BEARDED KURT RUSSELL FIGHTING A SHAPE-SHIFTING ALIEN WITH A FLAME THROWER.  Now THAT, is just one very big reason why I love action and thriller films from the 1980s.

Camerawork/Cinematography: 6.5/10

Directing: 8/10

Writing/script: 7/10

Acting: 8.15/10

Practical and special effects: 9/10

Overall rating: 38.65/50

Old film review #9: The Silence of the Lambs (Released 1991)

Image source: http://www.goldposter.com/9168/

Before we get into proceedings I would once again like to do as I did with the last film review on this here blog.  Many thanks to the University of Sussex Horror and Sci-fi society for giving me the opportunity to see this film because I had never seen The Silence of the Lambs before this past Monday. 

Through some source of media or another, many of you by this point may have been exposed to pop-culture references to this 1991 cinematic thriller/horror/psychological classic.  Especially considering that as of this review,  the film has now been out for 26 years.  When you think about it, the movie has had plenty of time to expose its wide reach to the masses.  Something that the main character does in regards to their mental psyche and emotions.

Image source: https://thesouloftheplot.wordpress.com/2014/02/18/the-silence-of-the-lambs/

The main character I am referring to of course being Jodie Foster's career-making turn as trainee FBI investigator Clarice Starling.  Now it is true that Foster's truly big first break in film was with her teenage powerhouse performance in Taxi Driver (1976), but I personally feel that her wide range of acting talents is no better shown than in The Silence of the Lambs.  Simply put, this cinematic classic contains what is easily the best performance in Foster's career to date.  Well...at least that's my takeaway from it.  But really though, Foster really makes Clarice a convincing character in both a realistic as well as cinematic manner.  The dramatization of a trainee FBI investigator being thrust into a dangerous investigation and unwanted limelight from the media is portrayed superbly by Foster who shows Clarice to be a real go-getter but also prone to mistakes and the adversities of inexperience.  A cinematically enthralling but ultimately relatable and realistic character representation.  In turn, Foster also shows a more human side of Clarice's character by portraying her role as determined and fatalistic in one sense while also being considerate, kind and rational in the other.  I think most people want to see themselves as a good balance of reasonable and determined and combined with a cinematically dramatic setting.  Because of this, I felt genuinely concerned when Starling would do something that puts her life or job in jeopardy because it seemed all the more believable thanks toJodie Foster's performance.  A scenario that happens in agonisingly tense detail in the film's climactic showdown between Clarice and the maniacal serial killer 'Buffalo Bill'.

This performance is so resonant and good that I feel there is only one performance in the film that matches or surpasses it.

Image source: http://picphotos.net/silence-of-the-lambs/

That other standout performance being the great Anthony Hopkins' turn as iconic film villain Hannibal Lecter.  Its no secret from the previous entries into this franchise, both book and film, that Lecter is a sneaky, slimy and manipulative butcher who adores toying with the emotions of both his victims and even those who end up helping him.  His cannibalistic tendencies being the amalgamation of his more psychotic side. But what I feel is sometimes underappreciated, and something that neither Hopkins or the makers of this film miss thankfully, is Dr Lecter's intellectual streak which gives him his psychological supremacy over most if not all of his adversaries.  Hopkins has this aspect of Dr Lecter's character nailed down to a T as his performance in this film, much like Jodie Foster's, is easily the best of his career to this date.  In a long career which includes many marvellous performances, again like Foster, I have to applaud Hopkins in getting every scrap of tension and cinematic quality out of his direction and script as possible through his performance.

Now this isn't to say these are the only good performances or that there is a marked amount of bad ones.  Even the weaker actors are still given room to flex their acting chops a bit thanks to the already-mentioned high-quality directing on behalf of seasoned director Jonathan Demme who sadly passed away this April at the age of 73.  A good way to note Demme's legacy though would be to note his trademark use of steady-cam shots in close-ups particularly during scenes that are both quiet and dialogue-heavy.  There are scenes like this dotted throughout The Silence of the Lambs where they are used to magnificent effect for character building and exposition.  These are aspects of filmmaking which I've always implored that; if you do moments regarding these aspects of film, you have to do them well or else you risk losing the audience's attention.  Fortunately, in combination with the tense atmosphere throughout the film and a magnificent musical score, the camerawork really shows its quality through the steady-cam scenes as well as some more mobile scenes of intense action towards the end of the film.

Image source: http://quotesgram.com/silence-of-the-lambs-quotes-fava-beans/

I suppose that I should talk about the plot a bit before wrapping things up and when thinking about it, I guess I should've done that after the introductory thank you line to the Horror & Sci-fi society.  However, as far as I can tell, the film's secrets and twists have been a tad spoiled by the immense mark of popularity that it left on pop-culture and cinema as a whole.  This is what I mean when I sometimes say that popularity is a double edged sword.  I really don't want to sound like a stuffy-minded hipster spoiling films for some ironic reason that amounts to me liking the sound of my own voice or saying that every film pre-1992 was better than anything post-2000 or so, instead I'm just saying that the more popular and mainstream something gets, the more unwieldy its influence and popularity gets.  Regardless of this waffle, I recommend you go into seeing this film with as little info as possible other than the briefest of summaries.  Clarice Starling is a trainee FBI agent who is tasked by her boss Jack Crawford (Played by Scott Glenn) with capturing the savage murderer 'Buffalo Bill' while bargaining with the caged criminal genius Dr Hannibal Lecter in order to get as much info on Bill in order to capture him before he kills again.  I could go into more detail and as lightweight as this sounds, I want you all to experience this film to the maximum for yourselves by going in blind.

Image source: http://www.pophorror.com/727-2/

In conclusion, The Silence of the Lambs is possibly the best film of 1991, easily amongst my top 10 favourite films of the 1990s and is definitely ranked up with my top 3 psychological and horror thrillers ever made.  If you want to see how to do a suspenseful thriller properly with efficient use of all aspects of the film at hand, look no further than this nail-biting super-classic.

Cinematography/camerawork: 10/10

Directing: 9/10

Writing: 8.75/10

Acting: 8.5/10

Theme of suspense: 10/10

Overall rating: 46.25/50

Old film review #8: The cabin in the woods (Released 2012)

Before we get into proceedings I'd like to thank the University of Sussex Horror and Sci-fi society for giving me the chance to see this film.

Image source: http://waytooindie.com/features/75-greatest-movie-cover-designs/

So I may have mentioned that the tone of the last two films that I reviewed were a bit skewed in places or perhaps just a bit inconsistent.  Those two films of course being Dead Alive/Braindead (1992) and Moon (2009).  However, I am happy to say that for the first time in about 3-4 movie reviews I have reviewed a film that has a consistent theme, tone and structure throughout the whole movie and only challenges this status quo within the film when the story needs it to!

I didn't think such an aspect of The cabin in the woods (Directed and written by Drew Goddard and co-written by Joss Whedon) could be such a refreshing note of point after my last two film reviews but I'll take it!

Unfortunately however, this film's main strength in the form of its excellent plot twists and comedic springs and surprises, has been somewhat ruined by the exposure it has received.  Combine this with the speed at which information travels on the internet in the information and social media era and by now, many people already know the plot twists and key moments that really make the film before they've seen it.  I was unlucky enough to have had this same experience but I was still pleasantly surprised by the twists that the film did take and I would also recommend you do your best to go into seeing this film blind.  Believe me, the movie will be all the more enjoyable for you if you do that.

Image source: https://genkinahito.wordpress.com/2012/04/22/the-cabin-in-the-woods/

Now, how to summarise the plot synopsis without giving too much away?  Well, to put it as succinct as possible, the premise of the film is that a group of horror and slasher film stereotypical characters all go to a suitably ominous cabin in the woods (nice title insert there for you all).  While enjoying their holiday in a dusty old shack that probably smells of damp and musk, the gang are attacked by creatures of evil while also being observed through secret cameras by a team of mysterious office workers.  That's all I can really go into without thoroughly spoiling the film as.  Just get the DVD, watch the film and you'll see what I mean.

However, this does not mean that we can't speak about the best aspects of the film which I feel are both the direction and writing as well as the aforementioned .  The tone of this being a horror/comedy/parody film throughout is kept nice and consistent and never strays away from this sub-genre unless the story requires it.  There are a couple of dramatic moments, but these are not too heavy-handed and mainly occur towards the end of the film.  Even here though, the theme of the film is still consistent.  Something that must go down as being credited to Goddard's direction.

This directing perhaps isn't as strong as the subversive directing style shown in Moon but it is consistent and not just in tone but also in quality throughout most of the film.  Even when some actors did not seem as talented as they could be or the film faced a dip in quality, Goddard's direction shines through by limiting the adverse aspects of these kinds of things happening.  For example, Chris Hemsworth's character is kept suitably idiotic to keep in line with the stereotype of meathead jocks in horror films but he isn't so stupid that his character defies normal film and human logic.  In the hands of a spoof director less skilled than Goddard, I feel that Hemsworth's performance for one would be marred less by magnifying stereotypes of a genre as a spoof film should do and instead overly rely on those same tropes and themes unironically.  Something that Goddard prevents reasonably well in other areas of the film including the other characters and the use of music and camera angles.

This is in turn helped greatly by a simple but well-written, well-delivered and funny script that allows the actors on all fronts to really express their acting and comedic chops.  Even the actors and actresses who don't put on as good a performance such as Kristen Connolly are still able to flourish reasonably well thanks to a stable, consistent and humorous script.  In an unexpected turn, the actors are able to also flourish in regards to their acting and comedic talent thanks to the gore and blood in the film not being overtly excessive.  Instead the gore is used sparingly for when it is appropriate so it is shocking when it appears.  This is of course excluding the last 25-30 minutes of the film wherein the story and gore goes absolutely mental.  Seriously, in the 3rd act the film goes from using gore and blood in a conservative manner to displaying as much mad carnage as an Arnold Schwarzenegger film on steroids.

Image source: http://cultspark.com/2012/04/15/review-the-cabin-in-the-woods/

The major complaint I have to pay to this film was raised by my good friend Phil when we saw this movie at the latest meeting of the University of Sussex Horror & Sci-fi society.  After we saw The cabin in the woods, Phil raised the point that the film would have been a more effective critique and spoof of horror and slasher films if the film had been less slick and highly-produced.  We both agreed that the film being well-made and produced was to its benefit but the extent to which this was the case worked against the idea of spoofing slasher pics itself.  The famous slasher films of the 1980s and 1990s where made famous primarily because of how cheesy and cheap they were made and what they did in order to offset the downsides of being made in this way.  Had the film done this at least in regards to the parts of the film where the heroes are stuck in the woods being attacked, I would think it would have been a much more effective spoof.  It might've helped if the scenes in the woods and the cabin were done like this while the scenes with the secret observation team were presented in a shiny and slick manner.  Perhaps this kind of contrast would have created a better basis for spoofing slasher flicks but alas we may never know.

This is really the main core criticism I have of the film and I have to thank Phil for raising it but I do have a couple more minor ones to point out before wrapping up this review.  As mentioned earlier, some of the acting isn't the best and while no single actor puts in a bad performance, the clearly high level of effort put into the writing, directing and camerawork feels a tad wasted at points because of this.  Another gripe I have happens towards the end of the film.  In this case, a character we have never seen or heard of before in any clear or significant manner shows up and explains the basis of the plot to the main hero.  Not only is this a god-awful exposition dump that is delivered with about as much grace as me eating a bag of popcorn but it also tells the audience something that has already been explained at least twice by this point in the film.  There are moments like this dotted throughout the film that keep it from being a irrefutable classic of spoof movies like how Dead Alive/Braindead managed to be.

Image source: https://grizzlybomb.com/2015/10/07/lionsgate-wants-a-sequel-to-the-cabin-in-the-woods-from-drew-goddard/

To bring this to a conclusion, I think that like Moon, The cabin in the woods has a good concept, is directed and written well and has a half-decent production but is either undone by some aspects being too overt, poorly-done exposition and key points in the film that bring the narrative to a grinding halt for no discernibly good reason.  This isn't to say that either of these films is bad however.  Like with Moon last week, I do really like The cabin in the woods and it really shows its quality in how much effort was put into it.  It really is good to see a spoof movie be an actual spoof rather than just pointing out contradictions in a genre and making stale pop-culture references.  If this film interests you then I recommend viewing as little information about it before getting a DVD and having yourself a humorous old jaunt through one of the best horror films or spoof films of the last 10 years.

Cinematography/camerawork:  6.5/10

Writing: 9/10

Directing: 8/10

Acting: 6.25/10

Effects: 6/10

Overall rating: 35.75/50

Old film review #6: Braindead aka Dead Alive (Released 1992)

Hello ladies and gentlemen and welcome back to my very overdue film review series!  Not only have I not posted anything on this blog in several weeks which is bad enough in of itself, BUT, I haven't done a review of a film from many years past in almost 2 years here on Blogger. To rectify both of these heinous issues I though I might do a review of the film I saw when I went to attend the 2nd October 2017 meeting of the University of Sussex Horror & Sci-fi society.  This film in question is the cult classic legend of a zombie flick known to some as Braindead and others as Dead Alive.

Image source: http://horrorfreaknews.com/horrors-7-sinister-senior-citizens

Image source: http://www.horror-movies.ca/2011/07/dead-alive-bluray-release-date/

Despite its well earned status as a cult classic, one might think that Braindead/Dead Alive is some nasty schlock judging from its cheap-looking presentation in posters and trailers.  Something that is reinforced when looking at the film's small $3,000,000 budget, even small in a comparative sense for the early-1990s.  However, I would argue that the state of quality that the film turned out in despite these misgivings far outweighs most concerns some might have about the way the film was advertised and how it looks.  In fact, I would argue that the cheap look of the film ads to its darkly comedic nature and really highlights the top-notch quality of the practical effects which I would argue are the best parts about the film.

Although this is not to say that the practical effects are without some sort of downside.  While I do think these effects and make up throughout the film are fantastic, they are such good quality and in such surplus that when things get gruesome later into the film I can imagine some moviegoers getting a bit queasy.  However, if you're into plentiful butchery in your movies, this film will be an absolute treat.  I'd also say the same if you're not the type for these kind of films but are still interested in looking generally at filmmaking and practical effects as a whole as well as specifically in the horror & zombie genres.

Image source: http://theevileyeuk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/dead-alivebraindead-review.html

Easily the best example of these legendary practical effects is in the equally iconic lawnmower scene towards the end of the film.  What this features is Timothy Balme's initially timid Lionel mulching dozens of the undead in a row with a somewhat-not-very-sharp-looking lawnmower.  There was a point in time when this scene held the record for the most fake blood used in a single movie scene.  While this record was later broken you can really tell that it earned that record well and good.  Another good example of the film's glorious make up department and other effects is in the gradual collapse of Lionel's mother Vera (Played by Elizabeth Moody) after she is bitten and infected with the zombie virus of the Sumatran rat monkey.  This gruesome display of effects is not for the squeamish but it does have a kind of gruesome artistry to it that has to be desired for both the skill and creativity of it all.  Even more so considering the already mentioned small budget that the filmmakers had to work with.

Continuing on with the point about the nature of the characters, the acting and writing really helps the characters shine despite the directing and writing not being perfect.  Lionel has easily the best arc of any character in the film going from the timid doormat son to Vera to being a resourceful, brave and badass hero that steps up to the plate when the zombie outbreak gets out of hand.  What makes this arc truly great is how much of a clod Lionel is at the beginning of the film what with him not only being timid and not very bright but also making decisions that contribute to the zombie outbreak happening.  But when push comes to shove, he evolves from a weedy sod of a character into an admirable if still goofy hero.  Helped along by Balme's darkly comedic and likeable turn as the character, Lionel is easily my favourite character in the film.

Despite this, there are also several other well-written and acted characters such as the beautiful and equally resourceful Paquita (Played by Diana Penalver), the slimy and vile Uncle Les (Played by Ian Watkin) or the aforementioned Vera played superbly in an overbearing turn by Elizabeth Moody.  Linked together by a narrative that switches from slow-paced dark comedy to comedic butchery halfway through the film, these characters are all given plenty of time to develop and evolve.  All this helped along with a script that hits most of the notes in a deliciously dark comedic manner.

Image source: http://www.interrogatingideologywithachainsaw.com/2014/08/dead-alive-1992-lawn-mower-to-oedipus.html

However, if there are any aspects of the film that I could criticise about the film there are two that jump to mind.  The first of these is that the tonal shift halfway through the film is a bit jarring.  But, in all fairness, this is helped by the earlier-mentioned good acting, funny script and amazing action and practical effects.  I can imagine the slow pace being more of a problem in the first half of the film for some than it was for myself but there are worse issues for a film of such a small budget to have.

The other main issue I have with the film is more so to do with other reviews of this classic movie.  I've seen some people compare Lionel's relationship with his mother Vera to being a classic mirror of the Oedipus complex.  While this is possibly not entirely inaccurate I think this possibility is a bit overstated.  While there may be reason to argue this theory, I'd argue that the relationship between Lionel and Vera is more of an overbearing mother smothering her son well into maturity because of unfounded or overzealous fears.  This is something I believe that is reinforced by a plot twist regarding Vera that Lionel uncovers late into the film.  While the plot twist is not the best conveyed and kind of comes out of nowhere, it supports the idea that Vera is more single-minded, overbearing and moralising in her governance of Lionel's life than being romantic with him.

Regardless of either of these issues, the film is an undisputable classic.  As mentioned above, even if you do not enjoy the gore or the narrative, the writing and sheer skill of the practical effects is enough to at least appreciate the film and earn it a hearty cult classic status.  A cult classic status that it rightfully deserves on account of the film not having the best opening weekend in its three biggest countries in 1992 and 1993 in Spain, the UK and the USA.  So if you can grab a copy of this film or see a viewing of it at your local indie cinema then I definitely recommend it.  It isn't perfect but nothing is and besides, those practical effects are legendarily magnificent.

Camerawork/cinematography: 7/10

Directing: 8/10

Writing: 7.5/10

Acting:7.5/10

Special and practical effects: 10/10

Overall rating: 40/50