"A self-conscious bride is tormented by the memory of her husband's dead first wife."
Although I'm the first to admit that I'm not much of a Hitchcock expert, this Oscar winning gothic thriller seems ideal (at least atmospherically) for my second recommendation in the run up to Hallowe'en.
There's not much I can tell you which you can't find out for yourself by Googling or reading Wikipedia, as it all seems fairly typical of an Alfred Hitchcock wartime film noir to me. "Rebecca" was Hitchcock's first American movie and his second adaptation of a book by Cornish author Daphne du Maurier.
Apparently, David Selznick wasn't happy with losing control as producer to the whims of Alfred Hitchcock and reshot several scenes, but I have no clue what they were or even if it matters that much. The movie ran way over budget for all kinds of reasons, and I don't think anyone involved was completely happy with it either during or after production.
Much like any other movie of the time, "Rebecca" is all very dated with mostly awful overacting and line delivery, and effects such as rear projection during the driving scenes are glaringly obvious. There's even what appears to be roadkill in the background of the second day out in Monte Carlo (actually California) with Maxim and the future Mrs de Winter.
"There will only be 8 planets left... after I destroy Uranus."
With several changes to the original novel by Daphne du Maurier, the standout amd most memorable character becomes the sinister housekeeper Mrs Danvers (as played by Judith Anderson) rather than the romantic leads. Danvers is quite the looker, hardly ever blinks, and has the worst kind of fangirl crush on the dead former mistress of the house. Weirdly, we never get to see the titular Rebecca de Winter in flashbacks, and have to learn nearly everything about her from the rose-tinted memories of her obsessed servant. But just like the novel, the new Mrs de Winter doesn't even get a first name.
The only big problem with "Rebecca" is that it's hard to care about any of the characters other than Laurence Olivier's cuckolded Maxim, and to some extent, George Sanders as the opportunistic adulterer Max Favell. A very young Joan Fontaine is simply far too mousey, awkward, and scared of her own shadow as she comes to terms with her new position among the upper classes to be a sympathetic character for modern audiences who have never encountered domestic service themselves. Except for period TV dramas such as "Upstairs Downsatirs" and "Downton Abbey", I'm glad to say that I've never had much to do with the antiquated British feudal system either.
What makes "Rebecca" worth watching for its two-hour duration is the set design for the interiors of Manderley, the atmosphere, and the anticipation of revelations with a twist. Getting there may not be worth the trouble for some people (including anyone who has seen or heard any of the remakes and clones), but as a precursor to "The Uninvited" (1944)—an equally dated ghost story which I've often recommended for Hallowe'en—it's certainly interesting to see how certain moral codes were only everso slightly more relaxed four years later.
Due yet another remake any time now, "Rebecca" is still worth checking out if you don't want to wait. A certain British newspaper gave away barebones DVDs of the movie several years ago (which you can now pick up for pennies on eBay), and of course, it's been uploaded all over the internet streaming sites (despite not being officially in the Public Domain as far as I know) for those who want to search for it.
As an old black and white movie, I don't know if there's any benefit in buying a blu-ray version, but I'm sure at least one exists. The existing DVDs have several grainy moments near the end which could be the result of an intentional effect shot through a piece of net (perhaps to simulate fog or smoke), but they are all good enough for most people.
"When aspiring model Jesse moves to Los Angeles, her youth and vitality are devoured by a group of beauty-obsessed women who will take any means necessary to get what she has."
Imagine, if you will, "Zoolander" without the intentional comedy, or "Starry Eyes" without the horror. Got those fixed in your mind? Good. That's pretty much what "The Neon Demon" is, but it's not as good as either of them. In fact, it's just not good.
There are two major problems with "The Neon Demon" which render it absolutely worthless even for the Millennial dripsters who would normally gush over similar products. First, it's slower than molasses going uphill in January. Second, Elle Fanning has neither the looks, height, or demeanour to be a fashion model. The latter would make the whole movie unintentionally hilarious, but for the fact that it's also tedious as shit.
If this movie is really supposed to be a horror movie, Nicolas Winding Refn has no idea what a horror movie should be. Granted, it's a horrible movie, but there are no scares, no surprises, and not really much of anything of interest once you take out the mildly titillating lesbianism and necrophilia.
While boobs and blood used to be all that was needed for a movie to qualify for the genre, things have moved on a bit in the rest of the real world. Audiences now like subtle things such as a compelling story and decent characterisation too, neither of which you'll find here.
As "The Neon Demon" is contrived to be very Elle Fanning-centric, it's a pity that she doesn't have the "X Factor" or any screen presence whatsoever. As a girl-next-door type, I'm sure Elle has her devoted, horndog fans, but based on her performance in this movie, I'm not likely to ever be one of them. It's hard to tell if her acting is good, bad, or horrendous because every character in "The Neon Demon" is unlikable and seems to be affected by some kind of Asperger's Syndrome anyway.
Keanu Reeves stands out in his two minutes of screentime, but he's last-billed for good reason. In what can only be described as an extended cameo where he's still channelling John Wick, he's not much more than a miserable so-and-so, albeit with all the best lines. I would say more, but I've already written more words than his character has. If you're a big Keanu mark and want to see "The Neon Demon" purely because he's in it, be prepared to be disappointed.
If you're looking for a movie which satirises the fashion industry, you would obviously be better off with "Zoolander" or even the unfairly maligned "Zoolander 2" (which is almost as great as the first one). Sadly, "Showgirls" did all the seedy stuff better many years ago, and both "Eat" and "Starry Eyes" did the horror properly.
I was asked if I had seen this movie last night, and my reply was, "Seen it, hated it." That doesn't make for much of a critique, but it's all that really needs to be said when anyone mentions this pretentious arthouse crap in future. I wasn't even going waste my time reviewing it because, like most new movies, it's not worth the effort of sitting through in the first place, but I suppose I've done it now. "The Neon Demon" is complete and utter shit.
"Set in the depression era, Gore Orphanage shows that some things are worse than losing your family."
Sharing the title and same urban legend with an earlier low-budget horror movie from 1980 which I've never seen, "Gore Orphanage" adds to one of Ohio's most famous (albeit extremely fanciful) ghost stories by successfully slipping the motivation of real life English murderer Mary Bell into the mix.
Obviously, being British myself, I wouldn't have ever known about the Gore Orphanage urban legend, but I did know about Mary Bell who was all over the news in the early 1980s and caused another kerfuffle during the Tony Blair era when the government failed to prevent her (as a convicted murderer) from profitting financially through sales of her published story.
Of course, if you don't know or care about any of those things, it doesn't really matter. "Gore Orphanage" is a work of fiction whether you choose to read Emily Lapisardi's "Gore Orphanage: The Novel" right now or wait a few months longer to watch this movie which Emily Lapisardi has directed and co-written (with producer/actor Cody Knotts) when it's officially released in October. I've been one of the lucky few reviewers who was selected to see the screener, and I mostly enjoyed it.
"Gore Orphanage" stars Maria Olsen as a sadistic proprietor of a privately owned orphanage in a role reminiscent of the latest incarnation of prison governor Joan "The Freak" Ferguson from the Australian "Wentworth" TV series. Mrs. Pryor (Maria Olsen) is a nasty piece of work with mental health issues which may excuse but not condone any legal justification for her actions. You'll hate her, but you're supposed to. As usual, Maria looks attractive in some scenes and appropriately horrible in others, but either way, she can certainly act.
As a foil to Maria Olsen's character, Keri Maletto plays the younger and nicer Miss Lillian who also shows similarities to an early Joan Bennett from "Wentworth". I'm not saying that there are any borrowings as such here, just stereotypical and easily recognisable genre characters. I may have noticed them in "Wentworth" (the rebooted "Prisoner: Cell Block H") most recently, but such characters have been part of every prison and orphanage drama.
I don't know why Miss Lillian never takes her hat off when she's indoors.
Sharing the burden of looking after the orphanage is Bill Townsend playing Ernst the German janitor/handyman. I won't spoil it for you, but things may or may not be as they first appear with Ernst. There's certainly some good work there with the script and characterisation. More screen time for Ernst would have been nice, but maybe a little more depth would have wrecked his subplot too.
Since this story is set in an orphanage, the rest of the cast is mostly comprised of child actors including Emma Smith, Nora Hoyle, and Brandon Mangin Jr. I believe that this is their first movie, so I'm not going to judge any of them too harshly. Some of their performances are better than others (and some made me cringe), but generally, they do an acceptable job. None of them are up to the same standard as kids in movies such as "The Bad Seed" (1956) or "Stephen King's It" (1990), but they're as good as any Children's Film Foundation actors from back in the day.
If I had to pick one child actor out of all of them who looks like she will have a big future ahead of her, it would be little Nora Hoyle who plays Esther. She has some great expressions, is aware of the other actors, and makes her scenes convincing. I simply wasn't very impressed by Emma Smith in the lead role as Nellie, but she does have her moments.
To be brutally honest, the camerawork and the direction doesn't work in the favour of many of the children. Wrong angles, some bad framing, and keeping them on their marks tends to show through. In particular, faults are most apparent when the children are speaking to each other and eye contact isn't made at the right angle, and there are unnatural movements when these young actors have to walk or run to a certain point.
Again, I also have to make some allowances because this is Emily Lapisardi's debut feature and she still needs to learn her craft. Giving credit where it's due, she's done a lot better than I could ever do, but that's a redundant point since I'm not a filmmaker and have no desire to ever be one. I'm just an often overly critical viewer.
Mealtimes involve a lot of playing with food rather than eating it.
The cinematography by Nicholas Carrington is inconsistently but mostly competent. I prefer the scenes where he clearly used a tripod rather than the shaky handycam, but that's because I'm old-fashioned that way. The best of these is when Mrs. Pryor reads a passage from the Bible to the kids before they eat. Only in one scene near the end does the handycam accidentally make you think that you're watching a "killer's point-of-view", and this could possibly be stabilised more in post-production to remove that slight problem.
Editing is a laborious process for anyone, so I fully appreciate the effort which has gone into "Gore Orphanage", but even as a slow-burn murder/mystery/horror, it would benefit from being a bit tighter. The pacing is okay as it is, but... yeah, if I knew how to do it, I would swap a few scenes around and excise a couple of others. The soundtrack is also very basic and occasionally echoey as well. All these things are standard problems with low-budget productions, so you can take what I'm saying with the usual pinch or sackful of salt.
The 1930s depression era setting works well, and care has been taken with the various props, costumes, and location. "Gore Orphanage" is not quite as good in that respect as the movies which have inspired it, but it's noticeable that someone cared enough about attention to detail within the contraints of the budget.
Similar looking and themed movies such as "Flowers in the Attic" (1987), "The Others" (2001), "The Devil's Backbone" (2001), "House of Voices" (2004), "The Orphanage" (2007), "The Awakening" (2011), and ""The Secret pf Crickley Hall" (2012) do more or less the same thing, but "Gore Orphanage" doesn't have anywhere near the same budget as even the cheapest of those productions.
She still has that hat on!
One final (and very minor) gripe is that Chris "The Irate Gamer" Bores is listed in the credits but doesn't appear until after them. Apparently, he was in a cut scene which involved paranormal investigators. The only bit that remains is a post-credits bonus in which you only see him running away with three other people and have no idea who any of them are. Oh well, I guess that he won't be promoting this movie much on his YouTube channel now.
If you think from my critique so far that I hated a lot of this movie, you'd be wrong. In fact, I enjoyed the storytelling despite "Gore Orphanage" not being the supernatural or even bloody event which I initially thought that it was going to turn into. I truly enjoyed the acting, and I definitely got a kick out of the "twist" element. The wraparound scenes give that away more than I just have.
"Gore Orphanage" may not be brilliantly or slickly realised, and it's predictable for those of us who've seen too many movies, but it's generally okay. A little nod to "The Shining" doesn't become a cliché, and I totally respect and am grateful for the restraint shown there. I'm also grateful that no holds were barred when it came to the more taboo subject matter.
Having said that, I'm not entirely convinced that "Gore Orphanage" should be classed as a horror movie. It may be within the wider scope of the genre and contains a few slasher elements, but it's more of a drama and mystery than a "shit-yer-pants-scary" affair anyway.
For that reason, more than any other, I can only give "Gore Orphanage" a slightly below average rating as it stands at the moment. As much as I'm tempted to hypocritically gush about this movie and drop a marketing-friendly "quote" into my review to get a mention on the DVD sleeve, I just can't do it. "Gore Orphanage" isn't scary, and horror movies should be scary.
"In the snowy Utah mountains, an ancient being terrorizes four friends as they try to survive."
There aren't many independent horror movies which I've waited over two years to see (or even cared about for that matter), but Brandon Scullion's "Live-In Fear" is one of them. In fact, it was way back on Friday, October 26th, 2012, that I first mentioned this movie, and earlier today, thanks to Maria Olsen from MOnsterworks66, I finally got to watch the HD screener.
Is "Live-In Fear" all that I expected it to be? Well, yes and no. I was mostly looking forward to the wintery setting, "The Shining"-style madness, and of course, the performances by Maria Olsen, Arielle Brachfeld, and the equally lovely Sarah Greyson. There's undoubtedly nothing to disappoint anyone too badly with these three actresses involved, but—and there's always a but with these things—the "cabin in the woods" (or rather "lodge in the snow") story itself is a tad confusing in places.
The good news is that this movie now exists and it won "Best Grindhouse Feature" at the 2014 Los Angeles RIP Horror Film Festival. Fans of Arielle Brachfeld (from "The Haunting of Whaley House") will also be pleased to learn that she won "Best Actress" for her role as Mallory at the same festival.
The bad news is that "Live-In Fear" is still another C-grade indie horror which isn't for everyone's tastes. You can't compare something like this with a multi-million dollar Hollywood blockbuster, and so I'm not going to be foolish enough to try. However, when despite the best efforts of everyone involved, the story ultimately doesn't make a whole lot of sense, there's always room for criticism.
Nice retro poster. It reminds me of the '70s.
I was fine with everything (sort of) for the first 53 minutes. "Scooby Doo"-style villains and "Cassanda" tropes aside, each of the characters has dark secrets which are revealed in due course. Coupled with the usual low-budget horror bloodshed, this makes for some decent entertainment overall.
Admittedly, I found myself distracted by the scenery and ogling Sarah Greyson (whom, I have recently been informed, was in the "Road Rules" TV show) as Becca with her Bettie Page hair, but the camerawork is competent enough for the most part, and the sound has some unnerving ambient additions which first made me wonder if there was something wrong with my speakers and then caused me to worry that I was hearing things which weren't supposed to be there. Trust me, you'll notice these things too, and many more.
Written and directed by Brandon Scullion, "Live-In Fear" is a co-production between Brandon's Iodine Sky Productions and Maria Olsen's MOnsterworks66.
Maria Olsen is very attractive in her earlier scenes (and a bit scary later) as Seth's mother, and she definitely gives the younger actresses a run for their money, even if the aforementioned Arielle Brachfeld as Mallory is the one who is meant to stand out the most. Aiding and abetting them is David Lautman as Seth and Chris Dorman as Eric, neither of whose characters I warmed to, and with good reason considering the reveals.
The supporting cast of Geoffrey Gould, Myles Cranford, Charlene Geisler, and Nancy Wolfe are okay-ish, but Nancy Wolfe (who played Susan Atkins in the original 1976 "Helter Skelter") is the obvious stand-out here. None of them have very much screen time.
Sadly, "Live-In Fear" isn't a very scary movie, and it kind of takes itself too seriously for what it is. I actually prefer the latter element in a horror genre movie rather than everything being played for laughs (although I know other people don't feel the same way), so that's another point in its favour.
There's some nice blood and gore in places, which we all like, but there could have been more. Practical effects of various qualities appear throughout, several of which are unintentionally comical, but I can't say any more without spoiling them for you.
Eric is not a very nice man.
The only thing which threw me right out of my willing suspension of disbelief was what can only be described as a "WTF moment" around the 54 minute mark. Something far too weird happens with a younger version of Mallory (played by Charlene Geisler) which had me puzzled for the 4 minute duration of the scene. It makes absolutely no sense even with a second viewing, so I'll generously put it down to padding. The scene could be excised with no great loss, although with a running time of only an hour and 20 minutes, "Live-In Fear" isn't a very long movie anyway. It also has, in my opinion, an unnecessary and unsatisfying "Epilogue".
"Live-In Fear" did not quite live up to my expections, and I highly doubt that it's truly "the most disturbing film you'll see in your lifetime" (as the voiceover in the trailer suggests), but it certainly left me shaking my head and wondering, "What the fuck did I just watch?"
I recommend "Live-In Fear" for fans of this subgenre of indie horror movies, but it isn't good for anyone with mainstream tastes. It's hardly "The Evil Dead" despite some superficial similarities, but then again, it doesn't try to be either.
Having said that, "Live-In Fear" is likely to be one of the best micro-budget indie horrors that you'll see this year. Give or take a plethora of unrealistic situations and responses (which abound in all horror movies), I enjoyed it.
"A teenage girl is terrorized when she spends two nights alone on a remote island as part of her camp counselor [sic] initiation."
My second movie today is this extremely generic Canadian "Friday the 13th"-esque clone.
Don't watch the trailer because it gives away all the good bits!
"Solo" is typically Canadian with better acting than it deserves, more clichés and borrowings mixed together with a big paddle of predictability, and no chance at ever getting a higher rating than "just average". The main character's backstory provides some originality, but as it's lost in favour of a traditional "kidnap, escape, and chase through the woods" third act, it's hardly worth mentioning.
Nothing much happens horror-wise until the end, and the gory money shot is far too short, but everything looks okay. Decent production values, competent camerawork (albeit sometimes shaky), and solid acting tend to cover a multitude of sins in the pacing, lack of atmosphere, and script.
Annie Clark is satisfactory as the lead, and the bad guy gives a damned good try at being nutty as a fruitcake, but neither performance is outstanding or very memorable. As usual, I have no idea if anyone involved in this production is famous in other respects such as TV, and I can't be bothered to look them up.
One thing I picked up on is that all the male characters smoke and don't seem to be able to get through a scene without lighting up. It's not important to the story in any way, just a theme which runs throughout. Maybe there's an in-joke there which someone can explain to me later. As a smoker myself, it amused me that I was puffing away along with them.
Unfortunately, "Solo" isn't very scary. I had hopes that more would be made of the ghost story about the island being haunted, but alas, it was not to be. It's a mystery thriller with some horror elements, and only a minor upgrade from Syfy Originals and other "filler" genre movies.
I have a feeling that "Solo" is pretty much a directorial debut. Sometimes I tend to be more lenient with new talent, and there's enough talent involved in this movie to make it watchable. If you want something more exciting, however, I recommend one of the earlier "Friday the 13th" movies or "Sleepaway Camp" instead.
"The Parkers, a reclusive family who follow ancient customs, find their secret existence threatened as a torrential downpour moves into their area, forcing daughters Iris and Rose to assume responsibilities beyond those of a typical family."
I'm just going to do a couple of quick reviews today to get them out of the way. To be honest, I've found it a bit of a struggle to fill this month with something horror-related every day, and I'm looking forward to my time off on Hallowe'en.
The first of today's movies is Jim Mickle's reimagining of "Somos lo que hay" (2010) with the genders changed of the protagonists for no good reason whatsoever. Changing the sons from the original into daughters and having the mother dying instead of the father doesn't add much. Actually, it downgrades the social commentary of the original to such an extent that there's nothing here which you haven't seen before in any generic American horror movie from the last 3 years.
In many ways, "We Are What We Are" reminded me of "Flowers in the Attic" (1987) although its story is closer to being a non-comedic version of Jack Hill's "Spider Baby or, The Maddest Story Ever Told" (1968). As with all new horror movies, some scenes are very formulaic, and because this is only a special kind of remake anyway, its borrowings are fairly obvious.
Julie Garner and Ambyr Childers.
Decent enough cinematography and above average acting are becoming de rigueur in remakes, and are the reasons why I'm not going to pan this one completely. It's always nice to get a movie which looks like a real movie. I was impressed by the camerawork in the opening scenes, and that was enough to hook me into watching the rest of it. If "We Are What We Are" had looked like another low-budget nasty, I would have ditched it after 5 minutes.
The biggest problem is that "We Are What We Are" is extremely slow over the ground and plays as a drama/thriller until the final scene. Mystery elements including a decoy murder and a doctor working out that the family are cannibals by looking up the symptoms of Kuru (or spongiform encephalopath for the more medically minded) are added to pad the running time, but a lot more gore spread throughout would have been better. I don't mind a languid pace in some movies, but this one made me want to scream, "Hurry up and do something!" at the screen.
The ending finally brings the much needed gore to the table (literally!), but it's so over-the-top and from out of left field that it completely ruins everything which preceeds it. The gore effects themselves are nothing to write home about either.
Worth a rental, I suppose, but neither of the "We Are What We Are" movies are as shocking as Pete Walker's "Frightmare" (1974).
"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.
"Two best friends are filming a comedy about getting revenge on the bullies at their high school. One of them isn't joking."
If you're expecting "The Dirties" to be another "Rampage" (2009), think again. "The Dirties" is amateur handycam crap of the highest order with semi-decent acting wasted on an unoriginal plot which ultimately peters out and stops dead just as the excitement begins. It's all talk, very little action, and mostly unconvincing characters.
Apart from the location, "The Dirties" is far too similar to Samuel N. Benavides's "None Left Standing" (2005) for those of us who know our low-budget movies. Although "The Dirties" isn't a blatant rip-off and doesn't focus on a descent into madness as well, it's certainly in the same vein. Both are about a trio of students making a film with one of them being dangerously obsessive.
The difference, of course, is that "The Dirties" uses a no-budget student film within another no-budget student film as its novelty "meta" contrivance. The levels of metafiction reach their peak with Matthew Johnson not only acting as himself but also being the director and writer of this disappointing drivel. He doesn't do a bad job for a jack-of-all-trades (and master of none), but I would love to see Canadian filmmakers come up with something more original rather than lazily reworking American movie tropes to death.
Because of its borrowings, I'm not sure if "The Dirties" is supposed to be "found footage" of some kind or if it's meant to be a bizarrely filmed "fly on the wall" drama. Either way, it failed for me aesthetically and stylistically. The unseen cameraman (who I think is called "Ed" at one point) brings up too many questions about who is filming what and why, and it threw me out of the movie several times.
As far as stories about high schools and bullies go, "The Dirties" is full of the usual clichés; jocks versus nerds and all that bullshit which, as a Brit, I never encountered and can't identify with no matter how many times the same stereotypes are forced on me. There's nothing that any of the kids do in this movie that a good old-fashioned punch in the mouth wouldn't have solved if only the emasculated characters stood up for themselves. I know this is Canadian, but Americans and Brits are usually so mouthy about expressing everything that I can't even get my head around the internalisation which leads to isolation, self-destruction, or murder. In Canada, where the myth is that everybody is nicer and less selfish, the frustration caused by repression is maybe less puzzling.
Prior to watching "The Dirties", I came across an interesting documentary called "Bullied to Death: The Tragedy of Phoebe Prince" (2010) which covers the subject of American high school bullying and its psychological effects a lot better. But, as someone whose only experience of attempted bullying has been as a "victim" of the online geek-cliques of hypocrital prudes, their whiteknights, and "flaggots" who I laugh at for being so childish, I still don't quite understand how such things are allowed to escalate. Maybe kids need to find better ways to deal with their frustrations like going outside once in a while, helping someone less fortunate, or stroking a cat.
Teenagers are nasty buggers anyway, and every modern movie and documentary which shows the younger generation and their infantilised parents is an argument to bring back corporal (and capital) punishment. In my day, a few hard whacks with a cane would've sorted everything out. But enough of me on my soapbox. Suffice it to say that the predictably violent but very brief (and punch-pulling) ending of "The Dirties" is the culmination of what happens when you spare the rod and spoil the child.
"The Dirties" isn't a movie recreating Columbine or any of the other famous school shootings, nor is it meant to be, but what it's trying to say as a drama about teenage relationships, loneliness, and a kid who can't tell fiction from reality anymore doesn't work either. It's all too tame, and even an old British kids' TV show like "Grange Hill" dealt with the topics in a more controversial and satisfying way over 30 years ago.
If you're looking for something gritty, I recommend skipping this one.
"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.
"An intense, troubling film, boasting a spectacular lead performance from Marta Milans, DEVOURED calls to mind such bleak and visceral late '70s NY urban dramas as TAXI DRIVER and DRILLER KILLER in its expert depiction of alienation and escalating horror."
The synopsis from Amazon.co.uk describes "Devoured" so perfectly that there's very little I need to add. That product description absolutely nails it, uses the word "visceral" correctly, and reminds me of the days when I used to write such concise one or two sentence reviews instead of rambling on to fill up a blog post. For someone who doesn't often suffer from nostalgia, I miss those days a lot.
But as I wouldn't be me if I didn't have my own two cents to add, I will just say that I haven't enjoyed any "low-budget" movie as much I did this one. According to the IMDb, the estimated budget was only $1,500,000. That's still a huge amount of money for normal people, but hardly anything in movie industry terms, so maybe that's one of the few points in any independent movie's favour which I'm willing to concede. You don't need hundreds of millions of dollars to make a good movie if you know what you're doing, but the caveat is that you really do need to know what you're doing.
Although this is Greg Olliver's first horror movie, he's been around for a while making award-winning rock documentaries. His IMDb profile page details how he learnt his craft the right way by going to film school and then working his way up in the industry, so he isn't one of the half-arsed hobby horror filmmakers. The result of his knowledge and experience is that he has created an impressively adult "descent into madness" drama here which, despite its obviously Poe-like elements, isn't predictable at all.
Maybe I would have noticed some flaws if I hadn't been so captivated by Marta Milans as the lead, but the attention to detail is such that I doubt there are any important ones anyway. I would like to say that Marta Milans is to "Devoured" what Gretchen Lodge is to "Lovely Molly" (2011), since they both give outstanding performances which carry the rest of their respective movies, but that wouldn't be a completely accurate or fair comparison. It also wouldn't be fair on everyone else involved. Movies are a team effort, after all.
Everything about "Devoured" is as close to perfection as the budget allows. The cinematography is excellent, and from the script by Marc Landau to the smallest acting role, this is a classy, thought-provoking, and thoroughly engaging production. There are some movies which can draw you in as if you're living in them, and "Devoured" is certainly one of them. Whether you would actually want to live inside another person's nightmare is, however, another matter.
For an American movie, "Devoured" has a very European atmosphere and grittiness about it which means that it's bound to be a bigger success overseas, even if it's only for a niche audience. Such slow burns with great characterisation are unlikely to be so highly praised by the teenage slasher crowd who just want to see boobs and blood, and that's a real shame, but stranger things have happened. No matter what your age or tastes, if you call yourself a horror fan, you owe it to yourself to see this movie.
As far as I know, "Devoured" is currently only available from Amazon.co.uk as a DVD or Blu-ray. Hopefully, a US version will start appearing in stores soon. Keep an eye on the official website for further details.
"Four ex-classmates get together to celebrate the pregnancy of one of them. The venue chosen for the party is a country house located one hour away from the city. It has been a while since the four of them saw each other for the last time, and one recently committed betrayal threatens to destroy their long and deep friendship. The revelation of a dark secret and a series of violent deaths transform the baby shower into a nightmare. A very disturbing one."
Something which surprised me after watching "Baby Shower", and then looking up reviews to steal pictures from, is that there aren't any positive reviews of this movie to be found on the IMDb (or anywhere else for that matter). That seems very odd to me, and means one of two things: either not enough people have seen this movie yet, or a lot of copying and pasting has been done from one review to another. Bearing in mind that the "critics" in every case mainly retell the story in their own spoilerific words, I have no respect for any of them, least of all one who hated the movie because it had subtitles, and another douchebag who I know didn't give it his full attention because he practically lives on Twitter.
I have no idea what director Pablo Illanes did to upset these "reviewers" apart from placing non-comedic versions of the "Sex and the City" girls in the middle of a Chilean forest and bumping them off in fabulously gory ways—especially as I think the whole idea is absolutely fantastic—so just because he's managed to bring one of my own sordid dreams to life, I'm going to give "Baby Shower" a thoroughly positive review to redress the balance.
Okay, I admit that in my imagination, it would only be the most irritating characters from "Sex and the City" being tortured in insanely erotic ways that wouldn't ever legally make it to film, but you have to take what you can get. Obviously, nobody would want to see anything bad happen to Charlotte (Kristin Davis), since she's the only pretty one in the show, and I'm pleased to say that her lookalike Ángela (Ingrid Isensee) doesn't suffer too much either (except emotionally!). Everyone else does—oh, yes, indeedy—and there's lots of blood, nudity, and mean-spiritness to enjoy here!
Aside from (but including) the boobs and blood, the cinematography is sometimes quite beautiful, especially for a low-budget foreign movie (if you can call $900,000 low-budget!), and the location looks the part. Where logically there should be spaciousness, the atmosphere is parodoxically claustrophobic, and that takes some doing, especially as the camera looks at everything you want to see and quite a few unpleasant things which most people don't!
"You have to let go of who you were to become who you will be."
With a hint of "Rosemary's Baby" (1968) and a little bit of the craziness from "Inside" (2007), the plot itself isn't the most original, but it's handled in a much better way than either of those aforementioned borefests. Let's face it, I might like "Rosemary's Baby" myself, but it's still 45 years old and has become horribly dated now. It was never very believable to begin with, and teenagers are more likely to laugh at it. On the other hand, "Inside" is simply an overrated idiot play with unrealistic gore, and I'll never understand its appeal if I live to be a hundred.
Thus, even with its stereotypical characters which aren't really developed, and other clichés such as non-functioning cell phones abounding, "Baby Shower" is much more suitable for a modern audience, especially if they're sick puppies like me who appreciate realistic woundings and creative kills. The fact that the actresses are some of the best-looking women in Chile also doesn't hurt. Just pick out your favourite and enjoy her for as long as she remains on screen.
Once again, I'm not going to give any spoilers because I hate it when other people do that. Suffice it to say that the sexy "Samantha" character called Olivia (Claudia Burr) steals the show from creepy lunatic Soledad (Patricia López), but the rest of the cast are still impressive. In particular, Sofía García, Francisca Merino, and Kiki Rojo don't play typical helpless victims; they fight back and scream very well indeed!
The only eyecandy for the ladies is Álvaro Gómez as Julio whose first appearance is shirtless and riding a horse, so you can imagine the impression that makes! He's not quite Marcus Tandy from "Eldorado", but women shouldn't be watching horror movies for hunky men anyway. To be honest, women shouldn't ever watch horror movies like this in the first place because they'll only bitch about the gratuitous nudity, misogynistic violence, and rape afterwards. I've had enough of those prudes to last me a lifetime, and I'm sure you have too.
As "Baby Shower" isn't available on DVD yet (except in Germany), you'll have to be a Netflix subscriber to see it legally anywhere else, but you should definitely check it out if you're into the gory stuff, and unlike some dumbass reviewers, you don't mind reading subtitles.
Based on the bestselling novel by Marion Pauw, "Daglicht" is a Dutch movie which is bound to get the same Hollywood remake treatment as "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" once the "powers-that-be" get wind of it. Unlike "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" though, this movie is very formulaic and will appeal to the lowest common denominator rather than the more cerebral.
"Daglicht" (meaning "Daylight") is a polished but predictable European thriller which seems cleverer than it needs to be until you start picking away at the details. Much debated theories about genetics which pave the way for far-fetched discovery contrivances are more likely to be met with a shrug by today's "look it up" generation and laughter from those who know better, and once you realise that the mystery aspect is so easy to solve, it's only worth watching to see your hunches played out.
Maybe that's the point of the thriller genre anyway, but as entertaining as such predictability may be, we're so many years on from "Columbo" and "Murder She Wrote" that I'm surprised how something this simple could still work. Apart from one problem solving spectacle, I'm certain that everything in "Daglicht" has been done to death in soap operas too.
Don't worry, I'm not going to spoil "Daglicht" by deconstructing the entire plot because it's definitely worth watching with no prior knowledge of what it's about, but a visit to TVTropes.com afterwards will make you feel quite foolish for liking any of it. Mind you, I could say the same thing about 99% of the movies made in the last 40 years because that's just the way things are. Change the character names and locations, and we're always being resold the same half-dozen stories.
If you don't want even minor spoilers, stop reading now!
Great production values and a fine cast of Dutch actors including Derek de Lint, Fedja van Huêt, and Monique van de Ven barely cover the superficial dialogue, unrealistic relationships, and rushed situations. Everything may look good, especially Angela Schijf as Iris (and Matteo van der Grijn as Bo for the ladies), but "Daglicht" often feels like a glorified TV movie with abrupt scene changes which would normally be hidden by commercial breaks.
It's not that things jump haphazardly from one scene to the next as there is a logical progression, albeit with a few flashbacks, but many clues are revealed without reason or compulsion. Hardly any work is put into investigating other than a few interviews, and infuriatingly, the dead ends or red herrings which crop up are simply abandoned. For example, how Iris goes from one internet search to another with such precision is never explained, and the crucial cover-ups are probably the worst kept secrets in the entire history of cover-ups. When every major character is so willing to talk, it makes the minor characters who refuse to reveal information look ridiculous. Worse than that, some characters don't seem to serve any purpose at all, especially Thijs Römer's initially interesting but entirely superfluous role.
To give credit where it's due, the make-up on Fedja van Huêt (who plays both the younger and older Ray) is as outstanding as his acting, but he's not a million miles away from being a less sympathetic clone of "Rain Man". Thus, for every point in its favour, "Daglicht" has several more against it. The deal breaker for me is that the kid who plays Iris's son is annoying to the point of making you want to see something very bad and extremely painful happen to him, but sadly, nothing does.
Angela Schijf and Derek De Lint. Cool.
"Daglicht" was released theatrically in the Netherlands on April 11th this year, but has been leaked to the internet before getting even an official UK DVD release. I may be cynical, but the very high quality of the streams which I've seen suggest that rather than being uploaded by pirates, it was done by the producers themselves to avoid an international distribution deal for a movie which they realise isn't that good and use that loss to make it easier to pitch the idea of a remake directly to Hollywood. Stranger things have happened.
In its still pre-Hollywood remake favour though, "Daglicht" does attempt to show the negative repercussions of mental retardation. Despite going out of its way to reinforce the bullshit myth of idiot savants, the fact that Ray's own mother can't cope with him after his emotionless animal cruelty is only one example of the darker side.
Bearing in mind that nothing in "Daglicht" is as controversial as any of the statements I made above, there are a couple of gratuitously shocking moments, but the ickiness factor is very underplayed. Its superficial portrayal of mental health problems mean that "Daglicht" is hardly another "Loving Walter" (1982), nor could it ever be. Gritty realism would have made "Daglicht" something that everybody would want to talk about rather than another example of pulp.
"Katie is trying to make it in the cutthroat world of modeling. When she innocently accepts an offer to have new photos taken for her portfolio, the experience quickly turns into an unthinkable nightmare of rape, torture, and kidnapping. When a twist of fate finally frees her from her captors - beaten, battered, bruised, and broken, she will have to tap into the darkest places of the human psyche to not only survive her ordeal, but to ultimately find the strength to exact her brutal revenge."
Starring Jemma Dallender (from "Hollyoaks") doing an American accent, Joe Absolom (from "Eastenders") with an Eastern European accent, Mary Stockley (from "The Woman in Black" remake), and a load of Bulgarians who you've never heard of, Steven R. Monroe's "I Spit on Your Grave 2" is not only the underwhelming sequel in name only that you would expect, but also the rape-revenge clone that nobody asked for or needs.
Annoying handheld camerawork which refuses to stay still, more screaming than is strictly necessary, multiple black screens to show the passage of time, and bucketloads of mean-spiritedness don't add up to anything remotely enjoyable. "I Spit on Your Grave 2" is just a time-wasting mess of predictable tropes, bad acting, and generic torture porn.
As someone who makes no secret of loving "extreme horror", even I have my limits when it comes to poor quality dreck like this. I was, by turns, bored, disappointed and thoroughly dissatisfied. All the criticisms of the first "I Spit on Your Grave" remake which I defended are now totally applicable to this movie instead. It's gratuitous for the sake of being gratuitous, soulless, and not even as entertaining as "Hostel" with its clichéd xenophobia.
Although things start off realistically enough, the whole raping, drugging and kidnapping shenanigans progress into being more ridiculous than harrowing. I'm sure that there are certain "Women in Horror" bloggers who will have a field day with the rape scenes because, let's face it, they've got puritanical sticks up their asses about this kind of thing, and their whole pointless lives are dedicated to seeking out the controversial so that they can pretend to be morally superior. As it's all they have to attract readers to their hypocritical blogs anyway, I'll let them have at it this time because nothing here was able to float my boat.
"Tell me how much you want to watch my showreel from Hollyoaks!"
Jemma Dallender isn't as attractive as Sarah Butler, her vain character is instantly dislikeable, and her change from being a haughty, prudish model to a semi-feral sewer-dweller has to be some of the laziest storytelling that I've ever had the misfortune to see. Aside from dozens of lapses in logic, her incredible character changes are unintentionally comical unless this movie is supposed to be a comedy. Given that the 1978 original is one of my top ten horror-comedies, maybe this isn't meant to be taken too seriously either, but how someone frail enough to be described as weighing about as much as a "leaf dripping wet" can develop superhuman strength after only eating half of a spit-roasted pigeon and three cans of beans is still absolutely mindboggling!
Despite being extremely graphic, the gory revenge elements are equally uninventive and lack the poetic justice which would make them memorable. All the background noise and screaming which obliterates the payoff lines is beyond irritating, especially as there's no way on Earth that anyone could decipher the most important one. I replayed it ten times before giving up!
I hate to say it, but after looking forward to "I Spit on Your Grave 2" ever since I first heard about it, I can't recommend this movie to anyone.
"A psychological-thriller in the haunting tradition of films like Taxi Driver and Monster, The Grief Tourist takes us into the chilling labyrinth of a man's dark hobby and his even darker mind."
Not a review today but a recommendation. Apparently it's "Labor Day" or something in America, so I'm going to celebrate it by doing as little as possible. Writing a blog post is obviously such hard work!
Anyway, it may interest you to know that Suri Krishnamma's "Dark Tourist", formerly known as "The Grief Tourist" (presumably to differentiate it from Dom Joly's book about the weird hobby rather than the same subject matter), has a limited theatrical release at City Cinemas Village East Cinema, New York. Check it out if you live within range. [It's also available via VOD and iTunes for anybody else.]
As a film noir-ish hybrid of "Chained" (2012) and "Taxi Driver" (1976), "Dark Tourist" might not appeal to everyone unless they are into serial killers or stories about maniacs becoming that way, but if you're reading this blog, it's highly likely that you are the target audience. Even though I'm more into fantasy than real life murders, I think that "Dark Tourist" is a very good movie indeed. It's well written, nicely shot, and has an off-beat, gritty, character-driven feel to it like "Edmond" (2005).
Aside from Michael Cudlitz's outstanding performance which I'm sure is being raved about from one side of the internet to the other, it's also extremely nice to see Melanie Griffith in something on the big screen again. She's still much the same as before except older, wiser, and a better actress than I remember her to be. The scenes involving Jim (Michael Cuditz) and Betsy (Melanie Griffith) are great.
My only minor criticism is that "Dark Tourist" should've been longer. For that reason, the story seems to have some unnecessary additional information near the end which doesn't quite fit in. I won't spoil it for you, but suffice it to say that Suzanne Quast as Iris the prostitute is definitely all woman!
"Dark Tourist" is the kind of bleak and brutal stuff which I'm always willing to recommend. It's not going to make me take up grief tourism—"the act of travelling with the intent to visit places of tragedy or disaster"—as a hobby though. I'm already morbid enough as it is.
"The costumed high-school hero Kick-Ass joins with a group of normal citizens who have been inspired to fight crime in costume. Meanwhile, the Red Mist plots an act of revenge that will affect everyone Kick-Ass knows."
I'm writing this while still buzzing from the post-movie adrenaline rush—and a can of green apple Rockstar Supersours—so this is not going to be a review as much as gushing fanboy-ish praise for a much darker and more adult sequel than I ever imagined "Kick-Ass 2" could be.
Having barely registered the first "Kick-Ass" (2010) as anything more than a quasi-hipsterish hack job meant for teenagers, the change of director and screenwriter has allowed levels of ultra-violence to rival something which Tarantino would be proud of. "Kick-Ass 2" has lots of bloodshed, multiple murders, and even an attempted rape! It's nearly as ridiculous as an exploitation movie, and I love it!
The cinematography is very good with only a few fight scenes where quick cuts make it hard to tell what's happening. It's not as bad as "The Dark Knight Rises" or "Iron Man 3", so be grateful. The effects are decent throughout, and some of the kills are extremely brutal. Although even more blood and gore would have made me ecstatic, there's enough for an R-rated movie, and it's guaranteed to upset some people. Jim Carrey refused to promote "Kick-Ass 2" because of the violence, but that's his problem. It's doubtful, but I hope there will eventually be an "Unrated Version" which will add more meanspiritedness.
Of course, "Kick-Ass 2" is aimed primarily at the now three-years-older teenage crowd who enjoyed the first movie more than I did, so there are some kiddified comedy bits which are mostly based around Hit-Girl's attempts at fitting into high school. As a fully grown adult of another gender and country, I can't relate to any of that, but I can acknowledge that the "gross-out" puking and defecating scenes are amusingly over-the-top. One thing is for certain, "Kick-Ass 2" is definitely not aimed at little kids, prudes, or comicbook-reading manchildren. Apparently, the latter really hate this movie, as do the mainstream "critics", but that's because they have no taste anyway. Anybody over the age of 12 years old who reads "Spider-Man" and "Batman" comics regularly obviously suffers from some kind of mental retardation, so I couldn't care less what those people have to say about anything.
Unlike the comicbook fantards, I can't find anything wrong with "Kick-Ass 2". As an action movie, it all works, but I suppose you do need to have seen the original for everything to make sense. There are minor attempts to bring a new audience up to speed with who is who, but "Kick-Ass 2" is a faster-paced sequel rather than a standalone story. Given the time that's passed, it's probably better if you don't watch the two movies back-to-back because of the change in tone.
Yes, that is Jim Carrey on the left!
Acting-wise, Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Christopher Mintz-Plasse are much the same as before, but "McLovin" is maybe more comedic than strictly necessary as a supervillain. Jim Carrey is completely unrecognisable in a role which proves that he can genuinely act when/if he wants to, and Chloë Grace Moretz steals the show yet again. She overuses her cute, wide-eyed expressions, but she's absolutely fantastic for a 16-year-old. I'm almost looking forward to seeing her in the "Carrie" remake now.
John Leguizamo has an important supporting role and continues to talk out of the side of his mouth like a champ, Iain Glen has a nice cameo as a mafia boss, Olga Kurkulina is fearsome as Mother Russia, and Morris Chestnut (aka Luke from the first "American Horror Story") replaces Omari Hardwick as Detective Marcus Williams. In another cast change, Todd is now played by Augustus Prew instead of Evan Peters. I can't say that I noticed the difference. I was too busy ogling Lindy Booth as Night Bitch, Lyndsy Fonseca as Katie Deauxma, and Claudia Lee as Brooke the bitchy popular girl. Oh yes, there's a lot of lovely eyecandy here!
While "Kick-Ass" is a semi-parody of more famous superheroes, "Kick-Ass 2" continues that idea although only pays lip-service to a few of them. "Batman" gets a couple of explicit mentions, not because Big Daddy's oft-shown empty costume looks just like Batman's but due to a minor character using his backstory. The nerdy Marvel homages and in-jokes are mostly part of the plot itself rather than shout-outs, yet it's easy to spot them all. If you're inclined to see the whole thing as a rip-off or a clone, it won't disappoint you in its lack of originality. You could also criticise "Mystery Men" (1999) for the same reasons and the things which both films share. Superhero movies are all the same anyway.
Despite the dangers of vigilantism being more of a contrivance and a satirical afterthought than in "Mystery Men" or "Kick-Ass", there's a bigger message here about being what you are meant to be and doing the right thing no matter what the rest of society thinks. Thankfully, that message doesn't extend to encouraging the lameness which cosplayers indulge in though, and their childish "dressing-up for Hallowe'en everyday" bullshit continues to be ridiculed throughout.
As a massive snark about cosplayers, geeks, nerds, teenagers, pop-culture, and American society in general, "Kick-Ass 2" surpasses all expectations. No wonder they had to film it in Toronto instead of New York! Since infantilisation, pussification, entitlement, selfishness, lies and injustice have now become the American way, "Kick-Ass 2" has a counter-culture message which will be hated by its lampooned targets and is subversive enough for me to wholeheartedly support.
I'm not going to deconstruct or spoil anything else for you because you need to see this movie for yourself. I don't often recommend non-horror movies, so just watch it, okay?
"After his fiancee is brutally murdered, Don Malek sets out for revenge."
I've seen some strokes pulled in my time, but this one really takes the biscuit. Although I've never had the misfortune to watch the slightly longer "New Terminal Hotel" (2010), "Do Not Disturb" is simply a recut and renamed version of the same thing! What the bloody Hell?
Was this done just so that director B.C. Furtney could get two IMDb credits for the same crappy, low-budget borefest, or was it supposed to fool people into thinking that a straight-to-video movie made in 2008 is a new one?
Apparently, the recutting and repackaging is all due to a change of distributors, so I suppose we'll just have to accept that as the definitive answer on the subject. To be brutally honest, I don't actually care that much. It's not as if I'm going to write a huge shill-review enticing you to watch either version anyway. You can't turn a sow's ear into a silk purse, and "Do Not Disturb" would still be an overly talky turd by any name.
So, let's see why anyone would be silly enough to watch this movie.
Well, the late Corey Haim has an extended cameo role as a washed-up English rockstar with a constantly slipping accent—the point being that his character is not really English or a rockstar but just an alcoholic bum. Are his less than three minutes on screen worth your consideration? I think not. I'm sure he was only on set because he was allegedly engaged to Tiffany Shepis at the time, and someone thought it would be a good idea to give him something to do while he waited around for her. The biggest clue is that you could cut his parts out of the movie and it wouldn't make any difference to the story whatsoever.
Secondly, there's the aforementioned Tiffany Shepis who fanboys go crazy for but I've never found attractive. It's only fair because she definitely wouldn't find me attractive either. I must admit that she does a better job than usual and seems to be able to act a little bit. How much of her potty-mouthed character is acting and how much is just her, I wouldn't even try to guess at. Yeah, she's kind of pretty, I suppose, and she briefly shows her bra, but it's down to Danielle Fortwangler as a hooker to provide the topless eyecandy.
"Oh, you're so cool, Brewster!"
The lead role goes to Stephen "Evil Ed" Geoffreys who I haven't seen in anything since "Sick Girl" (which was, of course, only filmed the year before). He seems in pretty good shape for an older guy and spends a lot of the movie with his shirt off. If that floats your boat, have at it. His acting here is also better than in anything he has ever done before despite the fact that he's horribly miscast as either a writer or a multiple murderer. A little bit of Evil Ed shines through occasionally, but you can also almost see echoes of William H. Macy's performance in "Edmond" (2005) at times. That would be great if "Edmond" didn't already exist... but it does.
Thus, it's all down to Ezra Buzzington to steal the show as Malek's crippled and equally shirtless neighbour Spitz, an even more boozy and bad-tempered version of Lieutenant Dan from "Forrest Gump" (1994). Easily one of the most prolific and successful character actors around, he doesn't disgrace himself here either. Given what and who he had to work with, the only reason that I could possibly recommend "Do Not Disturb" is for Ezra Buzzington, but that's not enough. For a "Murder Monday", I need lots of blood and guts to set me up for the week ahead.
There's some decent splatter in places, but not that much gore to see as most of the torture and kills occur off camera until near the end. When Malek's revenge surgery starts, the lack of torture porn is overwhelmingly disappointing, but as this is primarily a stagey "crime drama" with horror elements, it's only to be expected that a lot of punches are pulled. While "Do Not Disturb" may have aspirations to be more than something thrown together by the local amateur dramatics group, the lack of budget doesn't help matters.
The camerawork is okay, but the sound is so echoey in places that "Do Not Disturb" feels "studenty" throughout. With unlikeable characters, too much talk, and not enough action, "Do Not Disturb" is tolerable enough to rate as a 2 or 3 out of 10, but it's also hella boring. I didn't make it through in one sitting, and I doubt that you will either.
Make no mistake about it, "Do Not Disturb" should have been renamed as "Do Not Watch".
Do not confuse it with the other 2 dozen identically named movies!
