Fright (1971)

"Young babysitter Amanda arrives at the Lloyd residence to spend the evening looking after their young son. Soon after the Lloyds leave, a series of frightening occurrences in the gloomy old house have Amanda's nerves on edge. The real terror begins, however, when the child's biological father appears after recently escaping from a nearby mental institution."

As I've been watching a few films containing outstanding portrayals of nutters recently, it would be remiss of me if I didn't say something about Peter Collinson's "Fright" (also known as "I'm Alone and I'm Scared" in America).

Although I'm one of those people who would argue until I'm red in the face that the plot of "Fright" paved the way for "Halloween" (1978), I have to admit that John Carpenter probably had no idea of this film's existence when he made his slasher classic. Psychos escaping from asylums and seeking revenge was nothing new in the horror genre even in 1971, but whereas John Carpenter added a few supernatural abilities to Michael Myers, "Fright" (scripted by Tudor Gates) deals with a much more human and sympathetic villain.

"She's a sensible girl. She won't be frightened."

"Fright" is almost a film of two distinct halves due to focusing first on Susan George as babysitter Amanda and then eclipsing her performance with the late Ian Bannen as nutty Brian. When I say "almost", it's because Susan George in her skimpy lilac mini-dress absolutely carries this film from beginning to end.

Obviously this isn't just a story with two actors such as "Sleuth" (1972), but the others are little more than supporting roles. Honor Blackman does her best to act paranoid as Helen, Cockney geezer Dennis Waterman tries to be Amanda's desperately horny boyfriend Chris, and George Cole as Jim is, well, just the same slightly amusing George Cole as he ever was. There's nothing wrong with any of their performances, and none of them are merely two-dimensional bit parts, but as I said, this is Susan George's vehicle most of all.

"From now on, the world is your lobster."

Since I wasn't really alive at the time that "Fright" came out (1972 in the USA), I have absolutely no idea about what the critics' reaction was to it. If you compare "Fright" to "The Exorcist" (1973), it's obvious that horror movies really increased in nastiness in little over a year. I know that it's like comparing oranges with apples, but "Fright" seems like a throwback to a much tamer world of horror movies. The fact that it contains some quite brutal violence and lots of screaming yet still retains a PG certification does little to persuade me otherwise.

I suppose there's just something a lot more cosy about British horror movies which the censors didn't pick up on, plus most British filmmakers didn't often go for gritty realism until much later than their American equivalents. Consequently, "Fright" is full of well-mannered Brits all saying "please" and "thank you", although on one occasion Susan George lets a lovely four-letter expletive out, and there's never any doubt in your mind that this is a horror movie.

"I wrote the theme tune, sang the theme tune..."

If this was an American horror, Susan George's cussing would have one of those annoying clichés which would set her out to be either morally or mentally unstable. In "Fright", not only is our heroine very much a prototype for the even more foul-mouthed Margot Kidder in "Black Christmas" (1974), but you know that she isn't an innocent dumb blonde with a pretty face. It makes her character real.

Of course, Susan George is a fantastic piece of flawless eyecandy (or "tottie" as we Brits say) as well as being a feisty final girl. I really don't know a lot about her as an actress, but I do know that she was footballer George Best's girlfriend at one point, was married to Simon MacCorkindale, loves horses, and also starred in the infamous "Straw Dogs" (1971). If she ever looked more beautiful in a film than she did in "Fright" then I want to see it.

"Here's Brian!" doesn't have quite the same ring to it really.

Once creepy Ian Bannen turns up, however, Susan George is almost pushed completely out of the limelight by his acting prowess. Although he's not nearly as good in "Fright" as he is in "The Offence" (1972), there are some obvious parallels between the way Ian Bannen plays Brian and the suspected paedophile Kenneth Baxter.

Maybe it's because he does a trademark mumbling thing every so often, but Ian Bannen really gets under my skin (or on my last nerve). I know it's wrong to speak ill of the dead, but there was just something very sinister and menacing about Ian Bannen in every role that I've ever seen him in. He was probably a lovely man in real life though, and weirdly, that shows through too in the scene with his screen son (Tara Collinson) which looks improvised rather than scripted. I even felt a little bit sorry for nutty Brian because he's more to be pitied than blamed.

I really don't have anything else to say about "Fright" other than recommending that you watch it. Yes, it's a little bit dated now but not in a bad way. It's not really very scary or exciting either when compared to modern slashers, but it still has some effectively tense scenes.

Trivia lovers will note that the two stars of ITV's "Minder", George Cole (who played Arthur Daley) and Dennis Waterman (who played Terry McCann) were both in "Fright" eight years before their famous partnership. Oddly though, they have no scenes together.

Also watch out for a couple of self-aware "meta" moments which pre-date the "Scream" series by a quarter of a century.

R.I.P. George Cole, OBE. He died at the age of 90 on August 5th, 2015.

You're Next (2011)

"When the Davison family comes under attack during their wedding anniversary getaway, the gang of mysterious killers soon learns that one of victims harbors a secret talent for fighting back."

I thought it best to wait until the other horror bloggers exhausted their overpraise before watching "You're Next". It's been described as everything under the Sun including a parody and a comedy, but I can't see how this low-budget crap could be either of the latter except unintentionally.

Basically, "You're Next" is a mixture of Mario Bava's "A Bay of Blood" (1971) and Dae-wung Lim's "To Sir with Love" aka "Bloody Reunion" (2006). Despite the masks which the bad guys wear, it's not overly similar to "Ils" (2006), "The Strangers" (2008), or "The Purge" (2013) apart from the home invasion aspect. Hell, if it wasn't being classed as such, I wouldn't even call this a horror movie. It's more of a crime drama with horror elements than anything else.

After 25 minutes of boredom, which was made worse by everything being filmed with a handheld camera, all the shouting and screaming over the top of each other just made me want to walk out. I didn't, of course, because that would be wasteful, but I didn't enjoy anything which followed either.

I wonder what this movie is called?

While "You're Next" might be fine for teenagers who want the kills to occur off camera with only the aftermath shown, I prefer to see the brutality in all its glory. Unfortunately, every time there's the potential for something to be "lush", the punches are pulled. Whether that's due to the budget or because Adam Wingard is a shitty filmmaker is anyone's guess.

Out of the not very inventive deaths, only two deliver a decent amount of blood, and their repetitive nature gets old pretty fast. I suppose stabbing someone in the head either with a crossbow bolt, a screwdriver, or a knife is the quickest way to finish the job, but it doesn't make interesting viewing. It also takes considerably more force to stab anything through someone's skull than some tiny Australian girl is capable of, so there's that too. Female empowerment, my arse!

Even though nearly everybody knows about the twists now, I'm not going to spoil it more for you except to say that the reveal comes far too early at around the 50 minute mark. Thus, there's another 40 minutes of clichés, poorly written dialogue, and bad acting to get through afterwards which I can't be bothered to talk about. As thrillers go, "Panic Room" (2002) is infinitely more entertaining, tense, and scarier than this drivel.

"Our target for this year's purge is hiding in your home."

The only character who I almost liked was Zee played by Wendy Glenn, simply because she's hot! There's no depth of characterisation to anyone though. In generic slasher-style, they only exist to die as quickly and as unpleasantly as possible.

At the end of the day, "You're Next" is just another overhyped home invasion movie in an oversaturated subgenre. No wonder it sat on the shelf for two years. In better days, this would have been straight-to-DVD fodder rather than being worthy of a theatrical release.

Texas Chainsaw 3D (2013)

"A young woman travels to Texas to collect an inheritance; little does she know that an encounter with a chainsaw-wielding killer is part of the reward."

Maybe it's because I've been watching a lot of crappy indie horror movies lately and damaged my brain with gin, but I don't think "Texas Chainsaw 3D" is as bad as some people would have you believe. For a start, it has a fairly decent budget of $8,000,000 behind it which is more than can be said for a lot of January films. At least it's not found footage or a zombie movie.

Of course, my only reason for watching "Texas Chainsaw 3D" was Alexandra Daddario as Heather. Some of you may remember her as being in the only good part of "The Attic" which, ironically, was the January movie from 2008. I always knew Alexandra had potential although it's taken until now for her to show up again in something that anybody might actually want to see.

All the nerds are moaning about the continuity error in how Heather Miller should be 39 not 25, but in fairness, who would you rather see running around on screen? Nobody wants to see a 39-year-old woman do anything unless her name is Kate Beckinsale or Milla Jovovich, but that's only because they've been drinking from the fountain of youth or something. In reality, most 39-year-old women look like Carrie from "Sex and the City"... ugh!

Is that a chainsaw or are you just pleased to see me?

Anyway, I suppose you want to know all about the gore and scares. Well... there isn't enough of either unless CGI does it for you. I'm sure that pleases the gloating fanboys of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (1974) even though there isn't any gore in the original. I've never really liked Tobe Hooper's only real claim to fame outside of "Salem's Lot" (1979) so comparing the two films isn't that important to me. Suffice it to say that there are a lot of homages to the original despite "Texas Chainsaw 3D" still being a re-imagined sequel for the most part.

You can ignore the last two "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" films anyway because "Texas Chainsaw 3D" is supposed to be a direct sequel to the original movie as if there were never any others in between. Yes, it's just like what "H20" tried to do for the "Halloween" franchise. That's a very good thing here though because all the other sequels suck balls. Can you believe that it's been almost 10 years since the 2003 remake? I still haven't reviewed that one either. What can I say? I just don't like slasher films very much.

I can't say that I really liked "Texas Chainsaw 3D", yet I didn't completely hate it. I'm certainly not going to rave over it, but I'm not going to tear it apart either. It's just another formulaic slasher full of stupid people who you want to see getting killed off among a load of even stupider rednecks. Essentially, it's the same old crap as usual but with different actors. Dan Yeager is the new Leatherface, but Gunnar Hansen appears briefly both as Boss Saywer and as Leatherface in flashbacks at the beginning.

To be honest, it doesn't matter who plays Leatherface. He gets lots of time on screen, but I couldn't care less about who plays some guy in a mask. Anyone could do it. I'm willing to bet that Dan Yeager will start showing up on the convention circuit now charging $25 for his autograph along with all the other mask-wearing non-celebrities. Sadly, there will even be people who want that to happen.

Texas Hots, anyone?

Aside from the old guys, "Texas Chainsaw 3D" is chock-full of "pretty" actors of both genders. Trendy teen horror lives again! If Alexandra Daddario doesn't do it for you, the other hot chick is sexy Tania Raymonde who played Alex Rousseau in "Lost". As you can see (above), she looks a lot better in "Texas Chainsaw 3D"... for a while anyway. She definitely has the best death scene in the film. I'm not going to spoil it for you but "BANG!"

Nearly all the characters are the usual generic and flat cannonfodder, and nobody gets nude, so it's not really worth mentioning anybody else. Just from the trailer, it's easy for you to predict who is going to die and in what order. Pretty "teenagers" breaking the rules, disposable black character, jump scares, lots of running around and screaming, final girl... yeah, we've seen it all done before in every other franchise that's been sequelled to death, rebooted or cloned just to make a quick buck.

The camerawork is okay, some of the practical effects are quite acceptable although not outstanding, plot holes abound, several opportunities are missed, and the script is lousy, but you could say the same thing about any horror movie from the last 20 years. For the intended audience (which doesn't really include me), "Texas Chainsaw 3D" is fine. The whole horror genre is so unimaginative now that anyone brought up on a diet of utter shit won't find anything wrong with it. Hey, it's set in Texas (but filmed in Louisiana), it has a chainsaw in it, and there's 3D... so what is there to complain about?

The 3D stuff is nice but so underused that it makes you wonder why they even bothered, and the crappy ending (and gag after the end credits) will piss most people off, but "Texas Chainsaw 3D" isn't the worst horror film ever made. Trust me, I've seen far worse! It's just not very original or memorable.