"A mother and her young son release unimaginable horrors from the attic of their rural dream home."
I'm going to address the elephant in the room straight away: "The Disappointments Room" is aptly named. Everyone can now sit back smugly and chuckle, because saying that is about as obvious and predictable as everything else in this ghostie movie.
It's such a shame when a movie like this fails to deliver, especially as everything was in place for it to be good. The North Carolina location is fantastic, Kate Beckinsale in a blonde wig is still as beautiful as ever, and there's even a cat in the story. Unfortunately, "The Disappointments Room" contains nothing which hasn't been done before, or more importantly, done better.
If you can't guess how "The Disappointments Room" is going to go after the first ten minutes, either you haven't seen enough horror movies (which is possibly a good thing) or you haven't realised the formulaic nature of just about every "ghosts and hauntings" movie ever made. You can be sure that director D.J. Caruso and his co-writer Wentworth Miller have seen everything though, and they've thrown as many tropes as they could into this in arguably not the best manner. Having said that, there are some good moments among the unoriginality, but even then, they aren't great.
Acting-wise, it's okay. Kate Beckinsale seems to have become the Belén Rueda of American horror, and will probably continue in the same vein for years to come. She's always technically been a MILF, but now she's playing one as part of the plot, and there's nothing wrong with that. Her supporting cast, because let's keep it real here, don't have much to do or very much screen time, but they are perfectly acceptable. The storytelling is a bit rushed, and it's that element more than any other which makes "The Disappointments Room" into more of a generic product than something you would want in your collection.
Gerald McRaney's role is woefully small but important, but hey, it's not the size but what you do with it, right? Fortunately, a potentially annoying child in the form of Duncan Joiner playing Lucas is also nipped in the bud early on. The latter has an encounter which is so obviously cribbed from "The Shining" that of course it works, and he's not such an irritating little piss afterwards.
"Bones" fans will spot Michaela Conlin for a few seconds with no discernable lines of dialogue, but who cares? She's in it, it's another IMDb credit, and the point of her character is made. For those who might blink and miss it, Lucas Till's character Ben pretty much nails why the rich, middle-aged "yuppies" have moved to the countryside anyway in a buzzkill, quasi "meta-cinema" line which isn't wasted at all. Some slight socio-political commentary there, maybe? On the plus side, maybe not.
If you want to see more original (although still highly formulaic) stories in the "ghosts/haunted house with a mystery" subgenre, you can choose from "The Uninvited" (1944), "The Haunted" (1963), "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark" (1973), "Burnt Offerings" (1976), "The Haunting Passion" (1983), "The Haunting of Seacliff Inn" (1994), "House of the Damned" (1996), "The Others" (2001), "Penny Dreadful" (2005), "The Orphanage" (2007), "The Abandoned" (2015), and literally hundreds if not thousands more. There's even enough of the "architects renovating a building and setting ghosts loose" movies that they have become yet another subgenre in their own right. One that springs to mind from only a couple of years ago, "Altar" (2014), was almost the same story as this but set in a windswept manor in Northern England.
If you're a Kate Beckinsale fan, you'll love her in "The Disappointments Room". If you're a ghost story fan, you'll watch this anyway for completeness. But if you're looking for originality, something like this (or anything recent in the whole horror genre) is not for you.
"20 years after a horrific accident during a small town school play, students at the school resurrect the failed show in a misguided attempt to honor the anniversary of the tragedy - but soon discover that some things are better left alone."
Rather than immediately writing yet another scathing review of a lacklustre movie in a subgenre which I've grown to despise as soon as it was released, I thought it better to wait until all the gushing mouth-breathers got their overwhelming praise of "The Gallows" out of their systems before watching this latest Blumhouse production.
I'm glad that I waited a few weeks (and avoided reading any of the now seemingly mixed reviews) because I actually liked some of "The Gallows" in spite of myself. I was in the mood for a simple ghost story which didn't take up too much time to watch, and "The Gallows" pretty much delivered exactly what I expected.
Unfortunately, after a very strong start which utilises as many American high school tropes and clichés as possible, I'm grateful that the running time of only 81 minutes seemed to fly by even faster. There's only so much chaotic bickering, screaming, noisy jump scares, and running around madly with a shakycam that I can stand nowadays.
Pfeifer, Cassidy, and Reese get filmed by Ryan... a lot.
Given that the best parts of "The Gallows" involve stereotypes such as jocks and nerds and cheerleaders being as jocky and nerdy and cheerleadery as can be, the story moves along at a brisk pace with decent enough acting for what it is. The primary "cameraman" is a total asshole who defies logic with his constant filming, his best friend is a nicer and dumber jock, and their girlfriends are physically very attractive. So there's not a lot to dislike about the talent or characterisation except for the lack of originality.
Ambient sounds in the background create an unsettling atmosphere when the teenagers are up to the necks (often quite literally) in the spooky shenanigans, and the first 40 minutes of "The Gallows" are quite engrossing. Sadly, the atmosphere and quality of the storytelling doesn't last.
The loud jump scares and overuse of the gimmicky "being dragged through the air by something invisible" stunts which were made so popular by "Paranormal Activity" become irksome soon after the first one kicks in. Although fans of these "haunted house" style features won't be disappointed, they come across as a cheap way of avoiding any attempt at creating tension and genuine frights for the rest of us.
The pity of it is that the first traditional jump scare (when a TV pops on conveniently with the news story of Charlie's death) really does work. After that point, the rest of "The Gallows" turns into a de rigueur Blumhouse mess of obnoxious teenagers blaming each other and themselves, shrieking, panicking, making stupid decisions, and just being bloody annoying until they are bumped off.
With scenes edited in such a confusing manner that it's almost impossible to tell what is happening to which character and in what order, most of the exposition is given way too soon, and the denouement involves a very predictable reveal rather than a twist. Having said that, "The Gallows" may not be remembered for anything other than attempting to leech off the viral "Charlie Charlie" game for its marketing, but it's still surprisingly entertaining overall.
As much as I generally detest "found footage" movies, I guiltily have to admit that I mostly enjoyed this one. It certainly hasn't changed my very negative opinion about faux found footage or Blumhouse Productions, but I imagine that "The Gallows" will be thought of as "the best horror movie this year" by the big name sites and their unreliable "critics". Given the appalling state of the horror genre at the present time, however, I have no choice but to second their recommendation.
Apart from all the clichés, confusing scenes in the second-half which don't progress logically from each other, and of course, the ridiculous ending, "The Gallows" is quite good. It's worth a rental anyway.
"The ghost of a teenager who died years ago reaches out to the land of the living in order to save someone from suffering her same fate."
Remember Vincenzo Natali the director of "Cube" (1997) and "Splice" (2009)? Well, he's back with a supernatural mystery which is available via VOD just in time for Hallowe'en. Don't get too excited, though, because "Haunter" tries to be more cerebral than scary and fails at being either.
The biggest problem is that "Haunter" is another typically Canadian remix of over half a dozen already extremely well known movies and at least two recent TV shows.
The first things I thought of when I started watching it were "Groundhog Day" (1993), "The Lovely Bones" (2009), "Voices" (1973), and "Lady in White" (1988), but there are also some quite blatant borrowings from "The Others" (2001), "Marchlands", and "American Horror Story". Throw in a few tiny homages to "The Collector" (1965), "The Matrix" (1999), and even "Dark Skies" (2013), and you have your movie.
If the wind changes, you'll stay like that. Oh wait...
As "Haunter" is essentially a ghost story, there are bound to be some formulaic similarities to previous ghost stories, but that's still no excuse for all the cloning. It's laziness for the most part, although it's dangerously close to plagiarism in others. I've only read parts of "The Lovely Bones" novel and have never seen Peter Jackson's movie adaptation, but if I can see the resemblances, I'm sure Alice Sebold will!
I'm not saying that "Haunter" isn't fairly enjoyable or well made. The cinematography borders on beautiful, and atmospherically, it's not a million miles away from Spanish thrillers such as "The Orphanage" (2007) or several of the more "girlie" Asian horrors. The acting is competent too, apart from Abigail Breslin who only has one big-eyed expression and is prone to sighing, gasping, and breathing heavily to compensate. Consequently, there are more close-ups than are strictly necessary, but that's a minor niggle.
The three time periods of 1985, the present day, and the late 1950s look the part as far as I can tell. As somebody who has no idea what Ontario looked like in the main 1985 time zone, I assume that kids were into much the same things as I was, but I'm a bit dubious about the Atari games console or Siousxie and the Banshees still being popular in the mid-80s rather than 3 or 4 years before. I've always imagined Canada as being a few years behind everyone else, so maybe it's spot on. My Canadian readers will have to let me know.
Overall, "Haunter" is a decent but very predictable PG-13 ghost story with no scares, no swearing or nudity, and very little violence. It's an upgrade for teenage fans of "Goosebumps" or "Are You Afraid of the Dark", but it's far too kiddified if you're an adult. I'll give it an extra point because it held my interest to the end.
"Farmhouse is a psychological thriller set in the modern day mid-west. We follow a young couple as they leave their everyday lives behind and head out to a new beginning; starting over from scratch. After becoming stranded in an isolated vineyard in the middle of nowhere, the young couple is forced to face the secrets they're running from, all the while trying to escape the malicious intent of the vineyard's mysterious inhabitants."
Here's a blast from the past. Other than the gory torture scenes, I'd completely forgotten about this little gem until I was reading through one of my subreddits and realised that I ought to watch it again. How I forgot to review it is another story, but the end of 2008 and early 2009 wasn't the greatest time for me, and I had far more important things on my mind.
Anyway, having decided to rewatch "Farm House" to refresh my memory, at first I thought, "How many more times is 'Voices' (1973) going to be remade?" Of course, the plot isn't exactly the same, but there are many parallels in the first 30 minutes which should lead you to suspect an equivalent twist ending.
"Farm House" isn't a predictable ghost story though. The majority of the movie is a psychological thriller with extreme torture elements. I know that part of the horror genre has fallen out of favour and died away to nothing, but at the time it was great, especially when coupled with such mean-spiritedness and Kelly Hu being sexy as Hell (pun intended)! It's not that Jamie Anne Allman isn't beautiful in this too, but Kelly Hu is something else! The scene between the two of them involving a cheese grater will haunt you long after this movie ends, and you'll probably never look at a meat thermometer in the same way ever again either!
The acting is superb all round, although Steven Weber's psycho Samael eclipses William Lee Scott's not-quite-heroic Chad and Nick Heyman's valiant attempt at portraing the deaf Alal. The characters are stereotypes to some extent, and clichés abound, but there's actually depth to their characterisation which doesn't happen so much nowadays. How things have gone downhill in only 5 years!
As for the story, it's hard to tell you anything about it without spoiling it for you. Obviously, I don't mind giving spoilers for bad movies, but I prefer to keep them to a minimum for good ones. Suffice it to say that "Farm House" is pretty harrowing stuff and makes director George Bessudo's previous movie "Lake Dead" (2007) seem tame in comparison. If you look up the plot outlines, there are some superficial similarities between the two, of course, but it's like comparing apples to oranges. Everything (including the location, cinematography, and talent) is superior in "Farm House" to anything that was part of the After Dark Horrorfests.
Yes, I know I was going to stick to more "Hallowe'eny" movies this month, but my cunning plan has already been scuppered by a ton of new DVD and VOD releases. I don't suppose it matters much. Any horror movie is good this month, right? But if you want to see something truly horrific, I recommend that you grab yourself a copy of "Farm House" as soon as possible. The "Twilight Zone"-esque reveal goes on for a few minutes too long, but I don't think you'll be disappointed.
"In a remote town in Ireland, eleven-year-old Neve [sic] finds herself the sole survivor of a bloody massacre that killed her parents and younger brother. Suspecting a gang of homicidal vandals, the police ignore Neve's [sic] explanation that the house is the culprit."
If you're silly enough to read any other horror blog except mine, you'll probably see a lot of people praising how cerebral "Dark Touch' is and how it's meant to have a big message about the trauma caused by child abuse or some such unhappy horseshit at the heart of it. What a load of crap! I wanted it to be a ghost story, especially as the official IFC Films synopsis suggests a haunted house, so let the hate commence!
For those of us who can see through the fluff and arty-farty edits, "Dark Touch" is nothing more than a slow-paced clone of Stephen King's "Carrie" and "Firestarter", but it's set in the Irish countryside to make it look better. Give or take a few more disturbed children, it's kind of like how "Wake Wood" (2011) was a rip-off of "Pet Sematary" (1989) in a similar location, and it sucks just as much.
Nice cinematography using every method of filming from handheld camerawork to tripod-mounted long shots doesn't make up for the story being boring as buggery apart from two lush moments of goriness. Once you've seen them, it's not worth waiting for more unless clichés such as exploding windows, treading in broken glass with bare feet, or laconic little girls with Asperger's Syndrome float your boat. Even if they do, the cheap CGI fire effects will probably sink it.
Among the lameness, adults being pinned to walls by kitchen tables or chests of drawers against their thighs is a recurring theme in this movie which has very little to do with anything other than being another cheap and easy effect. I think it happens three or four times, but it may be more. What the significance of these repetitive scenes is, I have no idea. It can join the list of questions I have such as why does the hotter-looking mother suffer from bouts of tinnitus every time little Niamh throws a tantrum? And what kind of dyslexia causes the name Niamh to be pronounced "Neeve"?
"I'm a firestarter, twisted firestarter."
As Irish horror movies go, "Dark Touch" isn't the worst I've ever seen, but it's not even close to being up to the same high standard as "Dorothy Mills" (2008). The creepy atmosphere promises more than it delivers, and the eclectic mixture of regional Irish accents (which range from mild to harsh and unintelligible) cause it to be only a donkey or two short of another "Rawhead Rex" (1986). Having said that, I do quite like "Rawhead Rex" in spite of Clive Barker disowning it, and I'm not even sure if it has any donkeys in it anyway. If it didn't, it should have done. But I've digressed.
The acting in "Dark Touch" is fine given that character development is almost non-existent, and Swedish import Charlotte Flyvholm has a filler part as a heavily pregnant school counsellor to justify the Swedish financial investment. Out of all the characters, she stood out most for me by being the third pregnant blonde that I've seen in a movie this week, the other two being Detective Inspector Sarah Clayton (Joanne Froggatt) in "uwantme2killhim?" and Barb's mother also called Sarah (played by Chantal Quesnelle) in "Curse of Chucky".
Since there's unlikely to be a theatrical release of "Dark Touch" near you, it's available for half the price of a cinema ticket through the various VOD services. At $6.99, I think it's still way too much for a pre-pubuscent "Carrie" clone, and you'd be better off saving your money for the official "Carrie" remake in a few weeks.
"When Paul, an unemployed writer, decides to rent and live in a house that's rumoured to be haunted, he puts his life and his relationships in grave danger as he obsessively attempts to get the story that will finally make his career."
Whenever a yet to be released horror movie which was made for under $10,000 achieves a 7.5 out of 10 rating on the IMDb, I smell shenanigans. Either not enough non-shills have found it and voted, or the "critics" who received screeners really did find it outstanding. The chances of the latter being true are invariably slim to none though.
Thus, as much as I didn't want to backtrack to another one of last year's movies—especially not one with a title change designed to cash-in on the success of FX's "American Horror Story" TV series—curiosity meant that I had no choice but to check out the ghost story formerly known as "Revenant". I'm pleased to say that I wasn't disappointed by my discoveries either. Although very little has improved since Derek Cole and Stephen Twardokus made "Human Behavior" (2006), at least this movie is in colour like something created in the 21st century should be.
Unfortunately, with annoying, atmosphere-killing background music throughout, "An American Ghost Story" fails to generate an ambience conducive to scares. Things improve enormously when silence reigns, but at its worst, the music sounds like a cat walking up and down a piano keyboard while a tone-deaf 5-year-old child practices chords next to it. Occasionally, it even overpowers the dialogue, and that's a real shame because the acting is fairly decent.
Stephen Twardokus is very good as Paul the obsessive ghost hunter who bites off more than he can chew, and natural beauty Liesel Kopp is ideal as his girlfriend Stella. Liesel Kopp has a lovely, expressive face with big, watery eyes that exude genuine fear in her nighttime scenes. It's a pity that Stella disappears from the movie after 30 minutes, but she's really only in it to represent the sane action which most people would choose when faced with living in a haunted house.
Even Paul's best friend Sam (Cain Clifton) is likeable, so I have to give credit where it's due for the casting choices and characterisation. Wendy Haines is a bit over the top as former resident Sue, and Jon Gale isn't quite so hot as Skip the house-owner, but they only have very small roles which don't add much to the story anyway. Both provide minimal exposition/confirmations about details which have already been said rather than falling into the "idiot lecture" trap.
So where does it all go wrong? Well, apart from the aforementioned awful background music which is only used properly in two action-packed places, "An American Ghost Story" is a very slow burn, and it's full of clichés and homages instead of originality.
There's absolutely nothing here that you haven't seen before, especially if you're a fan of haunted house movies. In particular, "An American Ghost Story" owes a lot to the "Paranormal Activity" series. You could even describe it as a conflation of all the jump scares from the "Paranormal Activity" movies without the camcorders and home security surveillance contrivances.
As much as I would love to praise the "old school" use of tripods and zooms to provide an easy film to watch, there are flaws with the cinematography. Some of the long shots never zoom in enough, and several others are poorly framed. One of this story's biggest contrivances is to have Paul investigating the house at night using a flashlight, which leads to scenes that are too dark to see properly. The intention may have been to cover-up a multitude of effects sins by using the darkness for cover, but it also makes Paul's actions moronic in a house with fully functional electric lights and no power outages!
The house itself is very modern, and amazingly neat and tidy inside. It may have a lot of mismatched wood going on—a mahogany dining table among light oak cupboards is the worst culprit—but it's not a sinister looking house at all. Apart from one of those Crosley Companion radios which is designed to look like an antique one, there's nothing creepy to see. The characters may keep saying how oppressive the atmosphere is, but the "Emperor's new clothes" technique doesn't work when the reality is so painfully obvious.
Even with its flaws, all but two of the jump scares work, but so they should since they've been done to death in other movies! Without spoiling things too much for you, I'll just mention that doors and cupboards open on their own, a basketball is predictably rolled towards Paul by an invisible being, the scary-looking radio switches itself on, and there's a chair-stacking homage to "Poltergeist" (1982) which made me groan. There are a lot of excessively loud bangs to catch you out, and one computer-based moment which I should have known better than to fall for (because I leaned in close to the screen) really works! All I'll say about it, after nearly soiling myself, is that I'm surprised that anyone still uses AOL mail... and you can't animate a jpg image! Well played, Derek Cole, you ass!
As you can see in the trailer, the big thing in "An American Ghost Story" is the use of "sheet ghosts" which, of course, also appear briefly in "Paranormal Activity 3" (2011). The last time I saw sheet ghosts before that was in The Avalanches' "Frontier Psychiatrist" music video. Sheet ghosts are traditionally used for comic effect as in "Beetlejuice" (1988) rather than being terrifying for anyone other than small children, but they work very well here. In its favour, "An American Ghost Story" seriously attempts to make sheet ghosts scary again!
What's my verdict then? All things considered, and with the wind blowing in the right direction, I don't think "An American Ghost Story" deserves its 7.5 out of 10 rating on the IMDb (note: it's now dropped to 6.2 and still falling), but I'm willing to give it a pass mark of 4.5 out of 10 simply because I was entertained. If "An American Ghost Story" was due to be released without any background music, it would be much stronger. It still wouldn't be more than a clone of other haunted house movies, but the sad truth is that the chances of ever seeing any groundbreaking originality in this subgenre is unlikely anyway.
"An American Ghost Story" is definitely worth a rental. If you aren't so enamoured by Katie Featherston that you've vowed never to watch another haunted house movie unless she's in it, you'll probably enjoy this a lot more.
"Paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren work to help a family terrorized by a dark presence in their farmhouse. Forced to confront a powerful entity, the Warrens find themselves caught in the most terrifying case of their lives."
I've finally done it! I may be two weeks behind everyone else in the world, but I've now seen "The Conjuring"! I even managed to avoid all the spoilers on Twitter and Facebook beforehand, which wasn't easy considering how overhyped this movie has been.
Supposedly based on a previously unpublished case file from paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren, who I've never actually heard of before, "The Conjuring" starts off like an episode of "Friday the 13th: The Series", turns into a clone of "The Amityville Horror" for an hour, and ends up as a twenty minute version of "The Exorcist". As you can imagine, I was not impressed.
In fact, I was so disappointed with "The Conjuring" that I was tempted to only write the following for my review:
BORING CRAP!
If someone perusing the aisles next to me in a DVD store were to ask me what I thought of "The Conjuring", those two words would be the most honest initial reaction I could come up with other than adding whichever choice expletive I might deem appropriate to the situation. I'm not saying that this has happened, although it certainly has done with other James Wan movies in the past, and the response of the person asking has also been equally negative. I'm sure that similar conversations have transpired between other people in various locations.
Maybe I live in my own sheltered little bubble where everyone shares the same good taste, but I've never known of a director other than James Wan whose movies are so consistently underwhelming apart from Christopher Nolan. Even Zack Snyder has double the amount of good movies on his résumé. I'm not going to acknowledge Dario Argento, Uwe Boll, Lloyd Kaufman, or Ulli Lommel because, let's face it, all their movies are guaranteed to be crap from the get-go.
A metaphor just waiting to happen.
The reasons why "The Conjuring" is such boring crap are very easy to list. For a start, the story is unoriginal and clichéd, and it's a messy fusion of far better films that came out over 30 to 40 years ago. We've seen it all before ad nauseum. "The Conjuring" brings nothing new to the table and doesn't even present what it has got in an entertaining manner for adults.
Thus, the second huge problem with "The Conjuring" is that it might as well be a PG-13. How and why it got an R-rating is beyond my comprehension. There's no nudity, no swearing, no sex scenes, no gore, and it's not scary in any way. So how the Hell did it get rated as an R? "R for Rubbish" is my assessment although I'm betting on failed bait and switch shenanigans behind the scenes with the MPAA just to get asses on seats in the movie theatres.
The big giveaway that the target audience was initially meant to be braindead teenagers is the amount of grammatical errors in the script. Both Lorraine and Ed get away with saying "hung" instead of "hanged" without anyone correcting them, and if that's not bad enough, there's Ed's immortal triple-negative, "We ain't never seen nothing like this!" which you can see in the trailer along with all the other "good bits". The terrible dialogue is almost as bad as the "I'm gonna do what I'm gonna do" line in the shitty "Evil Dead" remake. No wonder the mumble-mouthed younger generation are the way they are!
Thirdly, there's no characterisation whatsoever. I couldn't tell you the names of any of the characters even though they were given, what they might be interested in other than ghost hunting or being the victims of a demonic haunting, or any details that would make them more than two-dimensional. The best I can come up with is that "The Conjuring" stars Patrick Wilson with sideburns, Vera Farmiga looking far more beautiful than I've ever seen her look before, the Peter guy from "Office Space", the plain-looking girl who played Nell in "The Haunting" remake whose name I always forget, and a bunch of other people who I've never heard of poncing about in a badly maintained American house. If you think I'm joking, try telling me the names of the family members without looking them up on the IMDb. While you are at it, what are the names of the cop or the Warren's assistant? No idea? Case proven.
Without characterisation, what's the point of a horror movie? If you can't identify with the protagonists, empathising with their situation and feeling the catharsis when it's resolved is completely lost, isn't it? Or is this something that kids today just don't care about? As much as anyone born after 1989 is likely to be a complete moron in my estimation anyway, there are exceptions who must have left the cinema as disappointed as us older guys. Even the ones who only went to see some scary effects must have felt cheated of their $10.
Vera Farmiga is so hot in her granny clothes!
I wish I could find something good to say about "The Conjuring", but it's a typical James Wan movie. There are a couple of overloud jump scares which don't work, the usual creepy dolls which aren't creepy at all, some guy in a latex witch mask which is supposed to be scary, horrible shaky camerawork (but with lots of zooming this time just to be very '70s!), irritating child actors, poor CGI effects, plotholes everywhere, no atmosphere, no tension, total chaos at the end with a lame resolution, and nothing original whatsoever. The tongue-in-cheek acknowledgement of Blumhouse Productions' formulaic style of composition when the family mentions birds hitting their house (as in "Dark Skies") is realised when the birds repeat their kamikaze attack near the end, but you can't make in-jokes like that when you do the same damned thing yourself!!!
I suppose the period setting in 1970s America is well done, but that's not exactly a difficult thing to achieve. Apart from the cars, America looks much the same as it has done since the 1920s when it comes to the crappy wooden sheds which people jokingly refer to as houses. Every house in my town looks like the one in "The Conjuring" only in an even worse state of disrepair! Forget nostalgia, these firetraps need to be knocked down and replaced with some proper bricks and mortar! I'm sure that I've mentioned that several time before on this blog though.
I'm not happy about James Wan using a cover version of "Sleepwalk" with lyrics either. The original Santo & Johnny instrumental from 1959 which is such a signature feature of Stephen King's "Sleepwalkers" (1992) just doesn't belong anywhere else! The guitars in "Sleepwalk" even sound like cats meowing for God's sake! But, in spite of having a witch in the story, there are no cats in "The Conjuring"! There's a collie dog called Sadie who meets her maker off camera, but no cats! Oh, that makes me so angry!
The word on the street is that James Wan is giving up horror movies now to make the next homoerotic installment in "The Fast and the Furious" franchise. I wish him the best of luck, but after "The Conjuring", I can't say that he will be missed.
"A mysterious, very old solicitor Mr. Blunden visits Mrs. Allen and her young children in her squalid, tiny Camden Town flat and makes her an offer she cannot refuse."
Based on the "The Ghosts" by Antonia Barber, "The Amazing Mr. Blunden" is another classic British movie for the Christmas season.
This is the last one of these that I'm going to post since you all hate free movies so much. Bah, humbug!
Yes, it's a kids' book rather than a film, but "Cold Christmas" is one of the few books which I read when I was in the intended age range for it. As someone who was reading James Herbert instead of the patronising and unrealistic "approved" books in English lessons when the teacher wanted some peace and quiet, I still think that "Cold Christmas" is one of the best of its kind.
"Cold Christmas" is out of print, but there are plenty of copies available to buy from eBay and Amazon. I got mine from a church jumble sale back in the early '80s. I don't have it now as I passed it on to another jumble sale along with all my other paperbacks in the early 2000s. "Cold Christmas" is not a rare book by any stretch of the imagination although I can't tell you how many times it has been reprinted. I had the Piccolo version as in the picture above which I know didn't have the original cover art.
I don't understand why nobody ever thought of adapting "Cold Christmas" into a TV miniseries or a film except that maybe it would have turned out to be too much like "The Amazing Mr. Blunden" (1972) or "The Watcher in the Woods" (1980). Nowadays, with filmmakers cloning every other success, this wouldn't even be an issue.
"Cold Christmas" isn't really like "The Amazing Mr. Blunden" or "The Watcher in the Woods" though. It doesn't have quite the same childish vibe to it. Give or take some of the dialogue, if it's similar to anything then it's a lot like Robert Westall's books in the way it handles the perspective of a lonely child caught up in a more adult situation than the child realises. The closest thing to it that I can think of would be Robert Westall's "The Scarecrows" (1981) which was, of course, written later and meant for slightly older readers, but there are superficial similarities to a lot of Enid Blyton's stories, Barbara Sleigh's "Jessamy" (1967), Penelope Farmer's "Charlotte Sometimes" (1969), Antonia Barber's "The Ghosts" (1969), and even Philippa Pearce's "Tom's Midnight Garden" (1958). Most children's fantasy books are in the same vein, but "Cold Christmas" feels a little bit more modern.
So what's it about? Basically, due to changes in her family circumstances (i.e. remarriage), a neglected little girl named Josephine spends Christmas in a large Georgian mansion, and discovers that the mansion is haunted. Just like every other children's ghost story, it features an alienated lead character and the "Cassandra" trope as what Josephine sees isn't believed by the grown-ups until the very end.
Apparently, Nine Beachcroft saw a house in a Hertfordshire village called "Cold Christmas" and was inspired to write a story about it. The real house has no such legend, but it's described so well that the you can really imagine the place existing and having a ghostly mystery to solve.
The atmosphere is very sad, and the whole family situation is very "upper working class" or even "lower middle class", but that's hardly a hindrance to a child's imagination. I'd hazard a guess that the book was intended for girls, but that doesn't matter so much either. How many boys have read "Twilight" or "The Hunger Games" in recent years? Gender specific books don't seem to phase anyone who wants to read something. Hell, I used to read "Misty" comic along with my weekly "2000 A.D." because the girls' comicbook was the only thing with horror stories in it at the time.
It's a pulp children's novel for sure, but if you've never read "Cold Christmas", I recommend that you do so. It's one of the great Christmas ghost stories no matter what your age is.
"A supernatural drama telling the story of three different families living in the same house in 1968, 1987 and the present day, linked by the spirit of the young daughter of the 1960s family, who drowned in mysterious circumstances."
I know I'm late to the party with this ITV miniseries (based on the pilot episode of "The Oaks" which never got picked up), but I didn't really know of its existence until I started watching "The Secret of Crickley Hall". Just by browsing online for details, there were so many people noticing the similarities that I just had to spend all my waking hours on Sunday watching the whole thing.
Incidentally, I was right about the conflated ending of "The Secret of Crickley Hall" being changed from that of the novel and going out with more of a whimper than a bang. They almost got away with not having an "uzzz" in it until the very end though.
I still don't know why the setting was changed for "The Secret of Crickley Hall" to the North of England (i.e. just outside Leeds in West Yorkshire), but I've noticed that it's just one of those British TV conventions which has been going on for years. Right back to the later "Ghost Stories for Christmas", there were attempts to Northernise M.R. James. I assume that it has something to do with "otherness" and the imaginary "North-South divide" which makes the North of England seem to be a barren and uncivilised place full of superstition compared to the South, but you know they do have indoor toilets, television and the internet up there too now. It's been over 25 years since I last set foot in Leeds or York myself (and I never want to go back), but they didn't seem to be that backward. Admittedly, I couldn't understand a lot of what came out of their mouths, but that's another story.
Anyway, "Marchlands" is yet another ghost drama based just outside Leeds in some village that doesn't really exist. It's full of people saying "uzzz" a lot, using "were" instead of "was", leaving out the word "the" from their sentences ("I'll put kettle on."), and mispronouncing the name of the house as "Marchlunds". It does have that pretty girl (Jodie Whittaker) from "Attack the Block" (2011) in it though.
Years ago, the big joke in England used to be that Australia only had half a dozen actors because the same faces were in everything. What goes around comes around because the same thing has been happening with British television lately too. In "Marchlands", not only are we treated to Alex Kingston from "Doctor Who" but also Nicholas Sidi playing a priest before he did the same again for "The Secret of Crickley Hall".
Other familiar faces include Denis Lawson (from "Star Wars"), Tessa Peake-Jones (from "Only Fools and Horses") and Shelley Conn (from "Mistresses"). I'm not going to go through the entire cast, but rest assured that they've all been in lots of British TV shows in bit parts or lead roles even though I've never watched half of them. Sooner or later every British actor ends up in one of the two dozen or more soap operas, comedies, crime serials or "Doctor Who" so it's getting as boring to mention them as it is to keep on seeing them.
"Marchlands" is uber boring as a ghost story too. There aren't any scares and the "mystery" which adds the "stickiness" factor is predictable from the first episode. The only reason I stuck with it was to prove myself right at the end although lusting over Jodie Whittaker eased the pain considerably.
I did think that the three time periods were dressed really well. The '60s and '80s look right and, of course, the house in the 2000s is all minimalist and painted rather than wallpapered because that's the thing nowadays. "Changing Rooms" has a lot to answer for.
The dialogue isn't so hot throughout, but what do you expect from an American writer? David Schulner did his best, but you have to have been there to know what those periods were like and be British to add the right colloquialisms. I don't know who was hired as a researcher, but they really should have chosen someone who wasn't just out of college to do it. You can't find out everything just by surfing the net, you know.
Overall, I didn't completely hate "Marchlands" even though it's dragged out for two episodes more than it needs to tell the story. With a few trims, it would have made a nice little film rather than a miniseries. I just felt that it was all a bit bland and too much of a soap opera rather than a horror series.
"A year after their son goes missing, a family moves to Crickley Hall. When supernatural events begin to take place, Eve feels the house is somehow connected to her lost son."
It's been so long since I read James Herbert's 2006 novel which the BBC adapted for this lacklustre Hallowe'en TV offering that I almost forgot what a derivative crock of shit it was. I'm not going to say that Herbie plagiarised "The Devil's Backbone" (2001), but he was clearly influenced by it before "Britishing-up" the story. If he says otherwise, I'll find it very difficult to believe him. It wouldn't be the first time that James Herbert sailed too close to the wind as his famous lawsuit over "The Spear" will confirm. His "Sepulchre" is hardly a million miles away from Clive Barker's "The Damnation Game" as far I remember either.
In fairness, the classic "ghost story with children in it" pattern goes back even before "The Haunting" (1963) or "The Innocents" (1961); both of which have influenced every ghost story ever since. With so many supernatural movies in such a short space of time including "The Others" (2001), "Saint Ange" (2004), "Fragile" (2005), "The Orphanage" (2007), the TV series "Marchlands" (2011), and the even more recent "The Awakening" (2011), it's pretty obvious that there would be some similarities.
Given the basic premise, I'd be foolish not to throw in "The Dark" (2005) and "Half Light" (2006) as more of the same unimaginative cloning from the last decade although "The Haunting of Julia" (1977) and "The Changeling" (1981) also dealt with the "bereavement and haunting" formula long before them. There's just nothing new when it comes to ghost stories.
If you look further into the "six degrees of separation" style connections around "The Secret of Crickley Hall" as a TV miniseries, it's far more amusing where they lead. Director Joe Ahearne is most famous for "This Life" which I'm sure I've mentioned on this blog before as being the series which gave Andrew Lincoln of "The Walking Dead" fame his big break. In between the two, Andrew Lincoln was in "Afterlife" (2006) where he played a bereaved father who had lost his son and teamed up with a psychic played by Lesley Sharp. That series was written by Stephen Volk who wrote "The Awakening" (2011). Although there's no real connection, Lesley Sharp was in an episode of "Doctor Who" and so was Tom Ellis who stars in "The Secret of Crickley Hall". They weren't in the same episode or even the episodes of "Doctor Who" which were written by Joe Ahearne, but you can still smell the BBC nepotism a mile away.
Tom Ellis as Gabe.
Just to complicate matters even more, James Herbert's "Haunted" was originally a screenplay which was rejected as a BBC miniseries, Stephen Volk wrote the BBC's infamous "Ghostwatch" (1992), and Lesley Sharp recently appeared in "Whistle and I'll Come to You" (2010) - another BBC ghost story. If you also look at Tom Ellis' list of acting credits on the IMDb, he's a definite BBC regular and also appeared in "The Fades" - the axed supernatural drama from 2010. It doesn't take a genius to work out that all these people know each other or of each other to some extent. How many generic ghost stories were passed between the writers and the decision makers at the BBC is another matter though. There are too many coincidences for there not to be some collusion along the way. And people say that Hollywood is shady!
Conspiracy theories aside, it will always look like Herbert copied Volk who then copied Herbert back before Ahearne was brought into the shenanigans. The rivalry and borrowing by all three writers is probably more noticeable than any of them realise themselves.
After all this rambling, the main problem with "The Secret of Crickley Hall" is that it's an overlong story which can be condensed into one or two sentences. Basically, there's a wartime orphanage/home for evacuees where the sadistic governor kills a little boy by circumcising him so severely that he cuts his pecker off in the process. The governor covers up the crime during a flood and ends up as a ghost along with all the children he abused. In the present day, a family whose son was kidnapped a year ago go to live in the former orphanage, and all the ghosties get riled up to solve two mysteries in one.
Give or take a couple of even more sordid details, that's "The Secret of Crickley Hall" in a nutshell (pardon the pun). Indeed, it could be retitled, "The Legend of the Mutilated Peepee" since that's the big secret. I don't care that this is a spoiler because I can pretty much guarantee that you won't see the little "Jewish" boy get mutilated or "The Secret of Crickley Hall" turn into "The Jew Who Bled To Death". Oh, no, the politically correct BBC won't dare risk upsetting anybody with that. The last time they were brave enough to be controversial in a drama was when Dennis Potter was still alive. Curiously, they don't seem to care about overpaid Jonathan Ross or Jeremy Clarkson flapping their insulting gums though.
As a miniseries, "The Secret of Crickley Hall" tones down the really disgusting stuff to such an extent that the barebones story is boring beyond belief. The book was short of scares anyway, but the brutality, paedophilia and incest which covered its weaknesses are scarcely touched upon in this pussified TV adaptation. I remember when the BBC used to have more balls. Honestly, "The Secret of Crickley Hall" makes me ashamed to be a British horror fan. What the Hell has happened to Britain since I've been away? What happened to all the gritty dramas?
Olivia Cooke as Nancy.
The characters in "The Secret of Crickley Hall" are merely stereotypical ciphers to move on the uninspired plot anyway, but the deadpan delivery of the actors in this miniseries is reprehensible. Olivia Cooke is the worst culprit. Although she's very pretty, and looks young enough to be in the orphanage as one of the orphans rather than their teacher, her monotone voice can't be disguised by cutely letting one glycerine tear run down her cheek. Could she act as if she cared even less? Can she act though? Probably not since she has to be all of 16 years old.
As for Tom Ellis (a.k.a. Dr Oliver from "Eastenders"), he's a little bit better as the sceptical Gabe Caleigh even though his taste in women must have gone on the wonk for him to end up with Suranne Jones (the mouthy one from "Coronation Street") as his onscreen wife. Okay, so a higher power miscast them together, but that's not how those of us with an unwilling suspension of disbelief view such a lack of chemistry or realism. All you want to say is, "He could have done so much better!" At least neither of them has mispronounced the word "us" as "uzzz" yet despite playing Northerners.
There's some bizarre thing about little fingers and a psychic link which makes absolutely no sense either. There doesn't even appear to be anything odd about Suranne Jones' hands in close-up so I have no idea what that's all about. Either it's a poor effect, bad camerawork, something that seemed more important in the script than it really was, or just feeble execution to match every other part of this travesty. It's hard to tell amidst the conflation and censorship. The psychic link homages "The Shining", of course, as does Tom Ellis' bad "Here's Johnny!" impression. I don't think he even tried to do any better. I can't blame him.
Suranne Jones as Eve.
Poor old David Warner has been wheeled out for this thing too as the old guy who used to be a young guy and knows everything. I've forgotten the name of that trope, but, yes, it's yet another familiar one. It's nice to see David Warner in something again, and he's the best actor in "The Secret of Crickley Hall" anyway. Not to take anything away from Donald Sumpter who has been in absolutely everything over the years, but he's not much cop (pardon another pun since he was in "The Bill") as a paranormal investigator. If he has more than four lines in the final episode, I will be shocked.
It's no surprise that both veteran actors have also been in "Doctor Who" recently. "The Secret of Crickley Hall" could even be "Former Doctor Who Actors Do Ghosties" if you want to be a real bitch about it. I suppose it makes a change from "Eastenders Does Ghosties" which has already been done to death.
I have no idea why the setting was changed from Devon to "oop North" except that occasionally the BBC vainly attempts to make Southerners believe that anywhere above Watford isn't full of Neanderthals who eat their own young. It's probably part of the same equal opportunities nonsense at the BBC which has forced every gay and racial minority actor into "Doctor Who" and "Eastenders" over the years. Yes, all six of them have been assured work by the same hypocritical company which allegedly turned a blind eye to Jimmy Saville interfering with little kids for over 40 years. Following that scandal, no wonder the BBC started to get cold feet about airing "The Secret of Crickley Hall". The ironic reminders in the subject matter are uncomfortably close to home, and there aren't any black or gay characters to redress the balance.
Susan Lynch as Lili.
The BBC missed a golden opportunity to replace the psychic with a Jamaican or Indian, but at least they've stayed truer to the book there. They couldn't use anyone Scottish either without reminding everyone of their stupid decision to axe "Sea of Souls". Knowing that Susan Lynch, who plays Lili Peel, fills the "minority" quotient by being Irish somewhat amused me. I bet someone at some point wanted Lesley Sharp for the role except that would have really given away how similar the present day part of "The Secret of Crickley Hall" is to "Afterlife". I still noticed though.
Since I'm writing this after seeing only two episodes, I can't say if the final one will improve anything. I missed "The Secret of Crickley Hall" when it was shown on BBC America (on October 28th) so I've had to follow the postponed UK schedule. I'm sure that the story won't change that much from the novel unless gay aliens fly in and abduct everybody or something comes out of left field like that. You can never tell what will happen with BBC TV adaptations of horror books as "The Haunted Airman" or any of M.R. James' ghost stories over the years can attest to. If it was a Stephen King adaptation, we would all be waiting for another giant spider so be thankful that this is James Herbert. Herbie just likes to destroy everything at the end so be prepared to see your licence fee wasted on some half-arsed flooding effects or explosions.
With the story taking place in two time periods, the most interesting parts seem to happen in World War II. Whether or not that continues, we will just have to wait and see. "The Secret of Crickley Hall" concludes tomorrow.
"Rachel Carlson, a successful novelist moves to a small Scottish village to move on with her life after the death of her son. Strange things start to happen when she is haunted by ghosts and real life terror."
For the 12th movie in my "Hallowe'en Countdown", I've chosen a favourite of mine which has been polarising reviewers ever since it was released. One of the more snarky BBC critics doesn't just stop at bashing the movie but calls anyone who likes this movie "half-wits". If being a half-wit means that you enjoy a good supernatural thriller then I'm proud to be one.
Although it contains themes which are reminiscent of a lot of Asian ghost films from the same time, "Half Light" doesn't have any scary long-haired girls or little boys meowing like cats in it. Unless you find Demi Moore absolutely terrifying (bearing in mind that the jury is still out about some of her close-ups) or extremely attractive then there may not be a lot here for you. It's not a "terror movie" by any stretch of the imagination.
If you are trying to please the ladies with a movie on Hallowe'en, I'm sure they'll be glad that you haven't put on something which will make them soil themselves and give them nightmares. They'll also appreciate that "Half Light" has Henry Ian Cusick (who we all know as Desmond from "Lost") in it plus Hans Matheson as the love interest. Girls goes crazy for these guys. Apart from being very good actors, I don't really see the appeal of either of them though.
Maybe a lot of shock elements might satiate the masses more than a romance with several twists, but "Half Light" works just fine without all the gimmicks. There's certainly enough creepiness in the early part of the film to draw you into the story and keep you engrossed until the very end. That's not to say that "Half Light" wouldn't benefit from a few more clichéd jump scares, but it doesn't really need them.
Set on a remote Scottish island which, in reality, is actually made up of locations in Cornwall and Wales, "Half Light" conjures up the kind of isolated and paranoid environment which is sure to please fans of "The Wicker Man". The influence is so apparent in several scenes that it's far too easy to point a finger at the lack of originality. No horror movie is ever very original anyway so you have to give "Half Light" credit when it manages to go in a different direction to what you might expect.
The greatest thing about "Half Light", other than Demi Moore proving that she can actually act, is that it feels "old school". Most of this is due to Demi Moore's character not being all that big on technology. Apart from mentioning the internet in a public library and using mobile phones near the end, this film could have been made 20 or 30 years ago. I doubt anyone would have had a bad thing to say about it if it had been.
Unfortunately, for those of who seen too many films, it's easy to spot that the "old school" twists are lifted from various made-for-TV ghost movies from the '70s. I could list half a dozen titles which "Half Light" made me think of. Obviously, the thriller elements in all those movies originally came from film noir, and this leads to "Half Light" feeling like a third or fourth generation duplicate of tried and tested formulas in some places.
Even with great production values, surprisingly good acting, and a plethora of British talent on show, I can see how the very harsh critics would hate it, but I still think "Half Light" works extremely well indeed.
"After being hypnotized by his sister in law, a man begins seeing haunting visions of a girl's ghost and a mystery begins to unfold around her."
Lest we forget what Hallowe'en is really about, it's back to ghosties again with "Stir of Echoes". Although it was overshadowed at the time it came out by "The Sixth Sense", "Stir of Echoes" now stands as the better of the two films.
Very superficially, "Stir of Echoes" and "The Sixth Sense" contain similar subject matter: a creepy little kid who can see ghosts, a murder mystery, and a twist ending. The big differences are that "Stir of Echoes" is set in a far more blue collar environment, the emphasis is more on a psychic adult, and it's not rated PG-13. Given the choice between a PG-13 or an R-rated ghost story, I think most of us would now go with the latter.
Based on a book by Richard Matheson but updated with a modernised screenplay written by the director (David Koepp), "Stir of Echoes" is a very nicely paced thriller which brings out the best from its main characters while not exactly skimping on the supporting cast either. Obviously, Kevin Bacon's character, Tom Witzky, is who the story is focused on, but this isn't just another Kevin Bacon vehicle. Underneath the ghost story is a movie about relationships, and everyone gets a chance to shine no matter how big or small their roles.
As you can tell from the picture above, "Stir of Echoes" has quite a few creepy moments yet it isn't really scary. There are even some genuinely light-hearted touches too. The tone is set when Tom's son, Jake, tells says, "Don't be afraid of it, Daddy." Thus, rather than being terrorised by ghosties as would be more usual, Tom and the audience are encouraged to embrace the existence of the supernatural on a more rational level. It doesn't hurt that the ghostly girl is kind of hot too.
Of course, Tom (Kevin Bacon) still seems to become deranged and obsessional to anyone around him who doesn't understand what he's going through. He's the "everyman" character who we can can all identify with but really wouldn't want to be even if it it meant having the gorgeous Kathryn Erbe as a wife. The characterisation in "Stir of Echoes" is multi-layered and almost perfect. For those of us who moan when there are no characters to empathize with in a movie, "Stir of Echoes" has an abundance of them.
Tom's relationship with Maggie (Kathryn Erbe) is stretched to breaking point, but to her credit, she stands by her man. Her character does get used in a scene which is very reminiscent of "The Shining" to clumsily bring more information about Tom's psychic abilities into the story, but there's a lot more to her than that.
The women in "Stir of Echoes" really deserve a whole article devoted to them on their own. They are all very strong characters who are more than just in the background to suffer the whims of their seemingly "man-child" partners. I'll write a bigger piece about them later, but suffice it to say that Illeana Douglas (who plays Tom's sister-in-law) is also an absolute joy to watch in this movie.
As usual with any kind of mystery, I'm going to cut this short in case I give away too many spoilers. If you've never seen it before or haven't watched it for some time, I recommend that you add "Stir of Echoes" to your Hallowe'en viewing.
"A Northern California fishing town, built 100 years ago over an old leper colony, is the target for revenge by a killer fog containing zombie-like ghosts seeking revenge for their deaths."
To say that John Carpenter's "The Fog" is slightly overrated would probably be hypocritical of me since I'm one of the people who has been overrating it for years. Despite the story being created mainly by ingenious editing, it's still a decent film overall and one which I highly recommend for Hallowe'en.
Back in the day, I was disappointed that "The Fog" wasn't an adaptation of James Herbert's famous novel from 1975. Although John Carpenter claims in his director's commentary that his inspiration came from a trip to England where he passed Stonehenge and wondered what it would be like if something came out of the fog, I've always found that to be too coincidental. Stonehenge is in Wiltshire, and the fog of James Herbert's novel appears first on Salisbury Plain which is also in Wiltshire. As the bestselling book predates the movie by five years, I would have preferred it if John Carpenter had admitted the true source of his inspiration since it wouldn't have hurt him to mention it. Several times in the director's commentary, John Carpenter freely admits to borrowing a lot of ideas and locations from Alfred Hitchcock's movies (and a couple of others) so it's always seemed odd to me. Maybe he just didn't like James Herbert for some reason or, more likely, he had to keep quiet about it for fear of being sued.
Obviously, John Carpenter's "The Fog" and James Herbert's "The Fog" are completely different stories. The latter is all about a kind of nerve gas which drives people insane rather than being a supernatural slasher. The only thing they've ever had in common is fog and the shared title. Any confusion about the two seems mostly confined to British horror fans. I just felt that I'd mention it though because when someone brings up "The Fog" in conversation, I always have to ask, "Which one?"
Making matters even worse now is that there was an appalling remake in 2005 which I barely made it through and have no intention of ever reviewing unless I get really bored one day. Actually, sometimes I get tempted to rewatch it just to look at Selma Blair in her skimpy knickers, but that's another story.
One of the reasons why I grew to love John Carpenter's "The Fog" over the years was undoubtedly Adrienne Barbeau's performance as Stevie Wayne. Her character may play some of the worst elevator music that I've ever heard on her radio station, but she is quite believable otherwise as a disc jockey. I also like her rather cosy radio studio in a lighthouse set-up. If I was ever a DJ or could be bothered to make more podcasts, I'd kind of like to do it in such an environment.
Some people find Adrienne Barbeau sexy as Stevie Wayne. Maybe it's the combination of her husky voice and sexy body. I would, of course, be lying if I said that I have no idea what they are talking about. She's definitely the best reason to watch "The Fog" unless you are really into Jamie Lee Curtis who I've always thought was too boyish looks-wise. I never could understand her appeal or her promotion as the "Emperor's new clothes".
I also always found Tom Atkins to be rather ugly, and one of the biggest plot holes for me in "The Fog" is how Nick ends up in a relationship so fast with Jamie Lee Curtis' character (whose name apparently is Elizabeth after one of John Carpenter's previous girlfriends). When she cracks onto him after only a few moments in his truck, I don't know whether to think "slut", "easy lay", or "you need glasses". No matter how many times I rewatch that scene, it's just so bizarre. Let's face it though, any low-budget horror film that deals with ghosts who come back from the dead as physical zombies isn't likely to be big on realism.
The leprous, zombie-ghosts of the murdered sailors used to scare me when I was younger, and rightly so. It would have taken a lot more Dutch courage than Father Malone (Hal Holbrook) had inside him for me to ever confront them. As an aside, I once worked as a security guard on a rural industrial site in the middle of nowhere during the time of year when it was particularly foggy, and I kept imagining these very beings lurking in the mist. Suffice it to say that the job didn't last long.
The disadvantage of rewatching "The Fog" on DVD (I have the old green one not the newer blue one with all the useless trailers) rather than my previous "4 Front Deletions" VHS tape which I got from Woolworths was that I was too tempted by the special features and learned far too much about the technical aspects involved in the making of the movie. A lot of the plot holes such as how sparse the fictional town of Antonio Bay was or why only six people met up at the church when Stevie Wayne told everybody to go there were explained by John Carpenter and Debra Hill as being due to the lack of budget. I think that over a million dollars back in 1979 when "The Fog" was made hardly counts as a low-budget, but Hollywood-based movie people are weird when it comes to finances.
Given what they had to work with, "The Fog" turned out to be quite the genre classic although admittedly tame in terms of gore to what we have nowadays. As more of a product of the late '70s than a truly '80s horror movie, it still works for me as an old school horror. It's not perfect and is kind of far-fetched in a few places, but it's stood the test of time very well indeed.
"A man staying at a secluded historical mansion, finds his life being haunted by the presence of a spectre."
I've often wondered if "The Changeling" started off life as a potential TV movie. It certainly has that feel about it, but maybe it's just because it was directed by Peter Medak and it's Canadian. It's not that there's anything wrong with any of those things as "The Changeling" is still one of the most terrifying ghost stories ever filmed and quite possibly the last horror movie from the '80s which is actually scary.
I'm not a big fan of the '80s as far as genuine horror movies go. 1980 itself was the cut-off point after slightly over a decade of horror which lived up to the dictionary definition. Horror became lame for at least another 25 years with only a few exceptions so I always think of "The Changeling" more fondly than I should.
Objectivity has its place, but this is one of the rare occasions when I am going to be almost 100% subjective and merely state my opinion. It's not that "The Changeling" isn't without enough flaws for me to tear it apart, but you should all know by now that I'm not the kind of guy who does that just to attract more page hits. When I genuinely like something as much as "The Changeling", I am far more likely to go to the other extreme. Although the popularity would be great, I have no desire to turn into a sycophant either.
Having said that, the one hugely negative thing which I have to say about "The Changeling" is that I never liked George C. Scott as an actor and felt completely alienated from his character in "The Changeling". Actually that's two things, but they hinge around the same person. The only way I would ever be able to identify with him would be if I was an old musician who suffered the loss of my entire family in a car accident and then went to live in a huge mansion. Apart from getting older, the rest of it is very unlikely to happen. My cats don't drive for one thing. Well, not that I know of. I also have no musical talent, and the chances of me living in a huge house with ghosties in is also not exactly on my list of things to do.
Ghosties terrify me. Seriously, I have four things which I am truly afraid of: spiders, heights, drowning and ghosties. If I was ever stood on the top deck of a ship and a ghostly arachnid appeared that would surely be the end of me. Thus, you can imagine that when I have to face at least two of my phobias in a movie, it's not pleasant. At least "The Changeling" doesn't have any spiders in it.
The ghost rolling a ball trope as shown in the picture above probably goes back even further than "Voices" (1973) although, of course, its most famous use is in "The Shining" which was also made in 1980. If you've seen it used too many times then it's kind of comical, but I think the scene in "The Changeling" where John Russell (George C. Scott) first encounters the phenomenon is by far the best example. If that had happened to me, I would have been out of that place faster than a DVD collector trying to get the closing down sale bargains at Blockbuster. I probably would have screamed like a little girl and wet myself too.
Obviously that isn't even the most terrifying scene in "The Changeling" as just about everything in it once George C. Scott started getting haunted creeped me out when I was rewatching it last night. The séance was also pretty brutal to my bladder, and I'm surprised that we made it through to the end of the film without a flood. What made it worse was that I've already seen "The Changeling" about twenty times over the years and should know better! Maybe with Hallowe'en coming and being alone in the house with two cats who see things which aren't there really got to me.
In case you wonder, there is a bit of a mystery for George C. Scott to solve in "The Changeling" which I can't say anything about without spoiling it for you. I really want you to see this film for yourselves if you haven't already so maybe this post is more about my reactions rather than a real review.
Since "The Changeling" was made in 1980, before the trends of shakycams, bad CGI effects, and overly loud jump scares, there's nothing bad that I can say about the way it looks or sounds at all. I could criticise how the acting is sometimes a little bit TV movie-ish, but given the background of most of the talent involved, it's still high-quality TV movie acting not soap opera stuff.
"The Changeling" is simply one of the most atmospheric (and even claustrophic) movies in my DVD collection. Even if you are one of those stupid people who doesn't believe in ghosts (or anything else), the internal logic of the story still carries it. I'll be blunt about it, "The Changeling" should be in everyone's collection if they want to be thought of as a true horror fan. You won't get much better than this.
"Locked in a school closet during Halloween 1962, young Frank witnesses the ghost of a young girl and the man who murdered her years ago."
Although "Lady in White" has always been one of my favourite Hallowe'en ghost stories and still beats "Trick 'r Treat" (2007) about a hundred times over in terms of entertainment, having rewatched it for the first time in over ten years, it isn't quite the cheerful, supernatural thriller which I remembered it to be. It's actually a whole lot darker than that.
Whether it's because I now live in America and the cultural distancing has diminished for me, or I'm just more cynical than most people, this time I noticed that Frank LaLoggia's intention must have been to completely destroy the rose-tinted nostalgia trip which he set-up so well at the beginning. I actually found "Lady in White" to be a very unpleasant film when I looked at the subject matter more closely.
While still not quite in the realm of true social commentary, upstate New York in the 1960s is shown to be a rather vile place to grow up. From my own experience, the legacy is obvious, and I wonder if that was what Frank LaLoggia was really aiming to show under the cover of a traditional ghost story. Filled with bullying, racism, hypocrisy, insanity, suicide, murder, and paedophilia, "Lady in White" isn't a typical PG-13 horror movie at all.
Tempting though it is to go through all the subtext, I don't really want to write a twenty page dissertation on "Lady in White". It's always possible to read too much into a movie, and I can think of at least one reviewer right now who I can't bear to read for that very reason. I'd prefer to talk about the superficialities, and I know that's what most of you like reading about too.
As much as I've always hated child actors, little Lukas Haas absolutely steals the show as Frankie Scarlatti. I can't say that his performance is flawless, but he outclasses nearly all of the veteran TV actors around him. The exception being, of course, the very recognisable Alex Rocco who plays his father with a lot of sensitivity. The whole extended Scarlatti family are very believable and are a pleasure to watch. Even a soulless beast such as myself could tell that a lot of love went into and came from their characters.
All the acting is pretty good with the overall effect being a lot like "The Wonder Years" TV series which also began in 1988. There are several lighter moments (maybe too many) to offset the murder mystery which wouldn't have been out of place in "The Wonder Years" at all. Many people have noticed more similarities to "To Kill A Mockingbird" and say that the racist scenes are a blatant homage. I still have "To Kill A Mockingbird" on VHS, and I really must watch it one day to see for myself. Since there's a Hallowe'en pageant in the story, I might even review it later this month.
The scares are done reasonably well, but as a late '80s kids' film, "Lady in White" is arguably one of the least scary ghost stories which I could come up with for my "Hallowe'en Countdown". Give or take a few dated special effects, it's certainly one of the most beautifully filmed so I stand by my decision to include it.
You can watch a VHS rip of "Lady on White" for free on YouTube, but I recommend that you buy the MGM DVD which is obviously much better quality, includes deleted scenes, and has a very informative director's commentary.
"A young governess for two children becomes convinced that the house and grounds are haunted."
It's October! Once again Hallowe'en is on its way and all the horror movie bloggers are frantically scratching around for something to write about. Not me though. I already have my October viewing list sorted out, and I will be bringing you another 31 days of supernatural terror. Wooooo! Ghosties!
Starting off my "Hallowe'en Countdown" is one of oldest ghostie films which is still worthy of rewatching. Having already reviewed "The Haunting" (1963) and "The Uninvited" (1944), it was time to pull "The Innocents" (1961) out of "The Vault". If you are lucky enough to have cable, according to the TCM monthly schedule, all three movies will be shown back-to-back on Wednesday, October 10th with "The Innocents" actually at 3.30am on Thursday morning so you don't even need to buy it.
Based on "The Turn of the Screw" by Henry James, Jack Clayton's version of "The Innocents" has become the best-regarded adaptation of the classic 1898 ghost story. It wasn't the first, however, as there was also an opera and a live television play directed by John Frankenheimer two years earlier. For all of you who hate remakes, "The Innocents" was a kind of remake, but it was a considerable improvement over the TV movie which you can watch clips from on YouTube. Not to belittle Ingrid Bergman's performance, Deborah Kerr is simply much better in the role as a governess.
It probably helps if you haven't seen Deborah Kerr in anything else if you want to fully appreciate her in "The Innocents". Having previously played a nun in "Black Narcissus" (1947) and a governess in "The King and I" (1956), her portrayal of Miss Giddens is occasionally little more than a logical fusion of the two. It's not that she was a bad actress, but as a product of the time, she was a bit limited. The very dated and "Victorianised" dialogue didn't exactly help matters much there either.
Some younger viewers will undoubtedly find the talkiness of this production rather boring in places. At times, I actually found it all to be quite awkward and cringeworthy myself especially with all the clippy-clop, posh English accents. Although I still appreciate "The Innocents" as a ghost story, it lacks realism even considering the period that it was set in. Trust me, I'm English, and I can't imagine anyone speaking like that ever in real life without getting a punch in the throat.
The housekeeper, Mrs. Grose, comes across as the much more credible character due to Megs Jenkin's Northern accent which slightly lessens the jarring quality of the words she speaks. Being no stranger to horror movies since appearing in "The Monkey's Paw" (1948) and going on to "Asylum" (1972), it was no great surprise that Dan Curtis of "Dark Shadows" fame got Megs Jenkin to reprise her role as Mrs. Grose for his own TV movie adaptation of "The Turn of the Screw" (1974).
Staginess aside, the little kids, Miles (Martin Stephens) and Flora (Pamela Franklin), are also really outstanding and genuinely creepy. If, like me, you don't like kids anyway, you can see the evilness behind their façade of innocence which was either brilliant acting or just something naturally horrible about children. A couple of scenes of animal cruelty really made me hate them. There are even suggestions of incest and paedophilia which are downplayed almost to non-existence, but they still deliver some shocking stuff especially in the case of the obviously psychopathic Miles.
The ambiguities raised by the story don't just stop there. In a big change to the novel, it is never truly explained if the ghosts and possessions are real or just in Miss Gidden's head. As much as I prefer the supernatural explanation, the fact that her character seems to be a sexually-repressed "old maid" (for lack of a better term) has tempted numerous essay writers into psychological analysis of her character and her apparent nervous breakdown throughout the movie. Make no mistake about it, "The Innocents" has some very adult elements which were explored further (and rather poorly) ten years later in Michael Winner's "The Nightcomers" (1971).
If you want scares, Freddie Francis' cinematography almost provides enough black and white creepiness on its own without the more startling scenes. I rewatched "The Innocents" during a gloomy and rainy afternoon and, not to put too fine a point of it, pants were nearly shat several times. I say "nearly" because the timing is occasionally a bit off, and I'm too hardcore to really be frightened by anything in a movie.
I still highly recommend "The Innocents" to anyone who loves ghost stories or who loves analysing characters afterwards. While not quite Hitchcock, there's a lot more depth to "The Innocents" than most horror (and proto-horror) movies from the 1960s.
