"A beautiful female vampire awakens after a hundred years of slumber to find herself in modern-day Mexico City, in this tongue-in-cheek thriller from director Daniel Taplitz."
Not to be confused with the zombie-comedy "Night Life" (with a two word title) from the same year, "Nightlife" is a made-for-TV vampire-comedy starring Maryam d'Abo, Ben Cross, and Keith Szarabajka.
As far as I know, "Nightlife" is not available on DVD, and although you will find it to watch online in all the usual places, the VHS version has become ridiculously expensive. For a low-budget TV movie which is only slightly above average, the price has obviously been driven up by VHS collectors rather than vampire movie fans. Having said that, there's still a lot to like about "Nightlife".
Dealing with the most obvious thing first, "Nightlife" has Maryam d'Abo in it only two years after her breakthrough role as a Bond-girl in "The Living Daylights". Although I don't have a "thing" for her, many people do, and she's certainly very attractive as the vampire Angelique.
"She's in better condition than my wife!"
The coincidence that there's also an Angelique (played by Lysette Anthony) in "Dark Shadows", and Ben Cross went on to play another vampire, namely Barnabas Collins, in the same 1991 TV series, won't be wasted on collectors of such trivia or vampire aficionados. As Vlad (no originality there!), Ben Cross delivers an often menacing and scenery-chewing performance, which clearly got him noticed and typecast as another vampire later.
Because "Nightlife" is a romantic-comedy at its core, Keith Szarabajka, who I've occasionally confused with a young Nick Nolte or even John Heard, plays Dr. David Zuckerman in a traditional yet occasionally comedic manner as he falls in love with his vampire patient. While not the most charismatic or heroic actor in the world (although he was great in "The Equalizer" TV series), he suits the part, and his chemistry with Maryam d'Abo mostly works.
Blurry VHS makes everyone look younger.
Having mentioned John Heard, "Nightlife" has a noticeable similarity to "Cat People" (1982), especially the relationship between Oliver Yates (John Heard) and Irena Gallier (Nastassja Kinski). Just replace Paul Gallier (Malcolm McDowell) with Ben Cross, and the "eternal triangle" is complete. I'm not saying that anyone copied anyone else here. The sexual rivalry is simply a standard element of most "rom-coms".
As a PG-13 rated vampire movie, "Nightlife" doesn't have a lot of blood, and its comedy is subdued enough to cause the drama to be slightly more serious than it should be. Glenn Shadix from "Beetlejuice" (1988) turns up as an unnamed vampire, Camille Saviola gives an over-the-top performance as Angelique's maid Rosa Mercedes, and there are a couple of witty lines, but there's nothing which will make anyone laugh out loud. I think the lack of comedy works in this movie's favour, however, and makes it a lot more palatable for those of us who don't like horror-comedies.
There's not much else to say about "Nightlife" other than it was filmed on location in Mexico City. It doesn't have many sets (and the few it does have are a bit sparse), some of the camerawork is dodgy, and the "I Put a Spell on You" song by Jay Hawkins is overused. Apart from those minor quibbles, it's fine.
With my rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia firmly in place, I'm going to rate "Nightlife' slightly higher than most people would. "Nightlife" was one of the first vampire movies which I reviewed for a magazine many years ago, and I've enjoyed it watching it again.
"Jacki, a scientist involved in genetic research, meets Tom, a young modern dancer who is suffering from a degenerative nerve disease. Jacki experiments with using genetic material taken from a cat to cure him, but the cure has side effects, and Tom begins to take on feline characteristics that may turn him into a monster. The situation is further complicated by Tom's attachment to Imogen—and Jacki's growing jealousy as she fears the loss of her patient and lover."
Since there's very little information about "Tomcat: Dangerous Desires" online, and only a few short reviews which I could find, I decided that it was about time for me to redress the balance by rewatching and reviewing this "guilty pleasure" movie myself.
Although I have absolutely nothing to feel guilty about when I watch any erotic-thriller, especially one with a "CatMan" (to quote the German VHS title) and former Bond-girl Maryam d'Abo nude in it, I have to preface my review by saying that this is not entirely typical of the movies which I normally watch, but it's close enough to provide an example of things to come.
Having said that, I'll probably never watch "Tomcat: Dangerous Desires" again unless I have a very good reason to share it, but once I've finished telling you about it, I'm certain that you'll want to see this for yourself.
"I want to talk to you up close."
"Tomcat: Dangerous Desires" is a typical '90s straight-to-video product which contains all the elements that the hipsters and SyFy channel viewers now only enjoy ironically. There's mostly bad acting, horrible cheesy dialogue, and lots of softcore sex scenes involving very hot actresses.
Richard Greico's outstanding feline performance is kind of great, because he suits the role perfectly, but the ladies will be sad to learn that he only gets semi-nude. You do get to see him shirtless several times, and he shows his bottom, but you're not going to see Richard's other Richard.
Offscreen kills and nothing particularly gruesome apart from some cruelty to insects, plus an anaesthetised cat with tubes coming out of it head in grainy video-footage of the important operation, mean that the R-rating is only for the nudity and occasional swearing which doesn't get any harder than the word "Fuck!"
At the heart of "Tomcat: Dangerous Desires" is a fairly tame Frankenstein-genre plot with so many moments of humour that you can't believe the serious performances which surround them. How can this not be a comedy when the first things to give you a hint that Tom is half-cat are the types of food and bottles of milk in Tom's fridge?
"What a loser. No fucking beer!"
As a cat caregiver myself, those contents aren't much different to the ones in my fridge, give or take a couple of dozen cans of Monster, but we already have the title of the movie in our minds, and it's pretty obvious that Tom doesn't have a pet.
Because the story starts in medias res, the secret of why Tom is a little bit odd and has superhuman powers is the next thing revealed. We find out that sexy Dr. Jacki (Maryam d'Abo), who is now Tom's girlfriend (for lack of a better term at this point), has performed an unethical experiment.
Tom initially went to Dr. Jacki suffering from a terminal hereditary illness, and just as any good Canadian NHS doctor might do, she cured his genetic problem by replacing his damaged human cells with cat brain cells. Purrfect! Nothing could possible go wrong!
"You're not killing the cat!"
Here's where things start getting a bit more involved. Tom is prone to going out at night, staying out, and coming back in the morning... just like a cat. And what do tomcats need to go out for at night? Yeah, you guessed it. He's not the most faithful fella in the world.
Suffice it to say that Tom and his sexy dancing partner Imogen (Natalie Radford) start getting jiggy with it after what can only be described as the worst version of "Swan Lake" ever performed. There's wirework and flying through the air in this shit!
Not blue Bart Simpson.
Just to make sure that we still understand that Tom is a bit catty now, a playful splash of water scares him and causes him to take off his shirt (revealing a panther tattoo!), which is followed by some very astute observations and accusations about Tom's behaviour from Jacki. She's suspicious, a bit jealous, and she knows but can't prove that there's something wrong.
It isn't long before the affair becomes more obvious. Without giving too much away, Jacki catches Tom and Imogen kissing at a nightclub called "Feline Sex Club". I shit you not, that's its name. Feline. Sex. Club. Nothing naughty could ever happen there!
It's not what it looks like. She's inflatable.
Lest I ruin the rest of the movie with spoilers, it's enough for you to know that Jacki and Tom break up in a bad way, a VHS tape of Jacki's experiment on Tom falls into the wrong hands a couple of times with deadly consequences, Tom becomes more unstable and unfaithful, and Imogen has a boyfriend who also becomes a problem.
"I'm King of the World... I mean King of 21 Jump Street!"
For anyone who suffers from vertigo, as Tom used to before he went all catified and found that he preferred high places, I'll just warn you that a torturous scene with Imogen might give you the heebies. It's not as bad as the one in "The Devil's Advocate" (1997) though.
"Do you like scary movies?"
Possibly the most awkward scene involves Imogen selfishly and tantalisingly having phone sex with Tom while he is on his cellphone in a public area of a hotel, but it's undeniably hot too! If watching this part of "Tomcat: Dangerous Desires" makes you want to see more of Natalie Radford, you won't need to go to another movie because she's not shy! Trust me, you'll see everything you need to eventually.
The big question, however, which I'm sure you're asking, is "Are there any cats in this movie?" I'm delighted to tell you that, yes, there are.
There's a Persian cat during the opening credits, a Tabby cat involved in the experiment, and Imogen and her boyfriend Dale (Sean Orr) share a Siamese cat. Two black and white moggies (from what appears to be stock footage which is flipped horizontally at one point) also hang out and watch Tom and Imogen run around a lumber mill near the end.
Written and directed by Paul Donovan who (according to the IMDb) also directed "Def-Con 4" (1985) and 12 episodes of the "Lexx" TV show (1997-2002), neither of which I've seen, "Tomcat: Dangerous Desires" isn't a great horror movie, but it's far from being a terrible one. It's better than 99.9% of today's progressive-liberal tainted rubbish anyway.
It may look like a TV movie, and it's more about a very weird romance than it is about horror or sci-fi, but "Tomcat: Dangerous Desires" is nicely filmed on location in Vancouver (with real cameras and tripods and stuff rather than handheld shakycams in someone's backyard), and it's an amusing little product of its time.
There's nothing to get too upset about with this movie unless you're looking for a hardcore porno or some extreme bloody violence, because it isn't one of those. It's not that "Tomcat: Dangerous Desires" doesn't have any violence at all or some absolutely beautiful and thoroughly refreshing politically incorrect moments, but it's not meant for horror purists, and it certainly isn't scary.
Yes, it really is called "CatMan" in Germany, and they replaced Maryam d'Abo with Natalie Radford on the VHS artwork. Meh. It could be worse.
Unlike the mean-spirited and humourless twonks who rated "Tomcat: Dangerous Desires" as 3.6 on the IMDb, I'm giving this highly entertaining movie 6 out of 10 because it wasn't slow, boring, or preachy, and I liked it.
"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.
"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.
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.
"In 1885, a female doctor helping a group of people with their phobias becomes embroiled in a murder mystery surrounding a patient that may or may not be a vampire."
What the Hell did I just watch? It's not often that a movie is so soulless and ineptly made that it leaves me speechless, but this is one of those times. After "Phobia" ended, I sat staring at the blank page on my computer screen for three hours afterwards waiting for the neurons in my brain to reconnect, and then I had to go to bed for a long depression nap before I could bear thinking about it again.
Even though it's only 90 minutes long, "Phobia" feels several times longer because of how dialogue heavy and boring it is. When I say boring, I mean really boring in the way that watching an amateur dramatics production or a high school play is boring. Actually, no, this is worse than either of those; "Phobia" is seven-year-olds-performing-a-nativity-play-boring but in a foreign language which you don't understand. I was familiar with the subject matter, I knew what was intended, but I couldn't process it because it was so shit.
How any movie could be both overwritten and overacted but contain characters so underdeveloped at the same time is a mystery to me, although I'd hazard a guess that it must take some severely misplaced genius to create such a thing and a lot of luck to get it distributed. Maybe not so much luck since "Phobia" is only another one of many Gravitas Ventures VOD movies which I've written off this year, but still... I can't even... I don't know... my head is full of FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU! Sorry for writing like a fifteen-year-old, but honestly, this movie was probably written by a teenager too. With no nudity, swearing, or anything more gory than you'd see in an episode of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", it's definitely PG-13 all the way, and it's impossible to call it horror with a straight face.
She's dressed as a man, but he's wearing a fake beard. WTF?
If you can concentrate on anything in the first half-hour without being distracted by Erica Leerhsen's thumbsucker-mouth which stands out more because she's supposed to be disguised as a man (à la "Yentl") then you're a slightly better person than me. But if you don't wonder why she still wears a girl's wig, or notice that Sigmund Freud (played by Matt Moore) has a ridiculous fake beard, there's no hope for you as a movie critic. I know this is a low-budget B movie of sorts, but what the bloody Hell were they thinking?
Also how can anyone hire Eric Leerhsen—the only girl in "Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2" (2000) who gets naked—and not ask her to get naked again? Wouldn't a clichéd and gratuitous nude shower/bath scene being overlooked by another character make a better reveal of her gender than removing a stupid black wig which doesn't match her ginger eyebrows? It's not as if you can't see that she's a woman anyway, but... oh my God!
Bearing in mind that director Jon Keeyes is only a couple of weeks younger than me and hasn't directed anything worthwhile other than "American Nightmare" (2002), a few shorts, and a couple of horror TV shows for kids, he should still know better. Exactly what age group is "Phobia" intended for? It's too talky for kids and too tame for adults. And what's with all the badly spoken French with subtitles? It's distancing, alienating, and irritating. It certainly doesn't make the period setting more realistic.
You just have to have a bald Nosferatu guy called Guy!
Once there are no more scenes of Americans butchering the French language, things improve slightly, but just to redress the balance towards crap again, half of them now need to have fake Romanian accents which are more like Russian. Has no one ever heard a Romanian speak before? They usually sound Latin (for obvious reasons including Romanian being a Romance language) not Russian! Jesus wept! And was it really necessary to have a bald-headed Nosferatu lookalike just so that everyone knows that this is a vampire movie? Seriously?
Beautiful Tiffany Lonsdale spices the eyecandy up a bit as bald Guy's sister with claustrophobia, but the lack of any family resemblance is uncanny. She doesn't even look like anyone in the family portraits or her cousin Val Drakul! Maybe she was adopted or a lusty milkman paid her mother a visit? Casting decisions were clearly not a strong point, so it's probably better to not overthink these things.
At least everything improves considerably after the location change from Paris to California (although it's really Texas). Once Erica Leerhsen starts wearing big Victorian dresses, lets her hair out, puts on some lipstick, and looks like a woman again, she's actually quite pretty. She's still not believable as a doctor, and her relationship with Nicholas Brendon lookalike Chase Ryan Jeffery lacks chemistry, but to give credit where it's due, her performance gets much better as the story progresses. The fact that Dr. Lesley doesn't get the chance to cure her patients' phobias is relatively unimportant.
Stephanie Rhodes (the Camp Counselor in the "Friday the 13th" remake) steals the show completely in her scenes as sexy Elizabeth, the ward of agoraphobic Annabel Lee (Carolyn Wickwire), but not enough is made of her to be memorable overall. Without any eroticism or some desperately needed sex scenes, why even add a lesbian facet to Elizabeth's character? What's the point? Again, who are the target audience?
The saddest thing is that everyone in "Phobia" can act! They've all been in other things before, whether TV shows or movies, and they don't disgrace themselves once you take into account what they had to work with. The fault rests almost entirely with the script despite annoying background music which outstays its welcome, lethargic pacing, cheap-looking camerawork, and a lot of staginess which doesn't help. Whatever clever period mystery Anne Gibson may have thought she was creating, it would have been better as a pulp YA novel than a movie. To say that "Phobia" is reminiscent of Kim Newman would be an insult more than a compliment, however, since I can't stand that grinnygog or his books.
Okay, she does look a bit better in a dress.
On the plus side, the way the use of hypnotism and vampires are combined into a mystery seems to be fairly original. If my mind wasn't still numb, I'm sure that I could find better examples than "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" or "The Vampire Lovers" to prove myself wrong, but as all roads lead back to Hammer and Bram Stoker's "Dracula", I'm positive that there's nothing new here other than the way it's presented. A couple of homages to Edgar Allan Poe are harmless additions.
Before I wrap this up, I have to mention the effects. Apart from the wig and beard fiasco, the make-up is generally good and a couple of torn throats look the part. Inevitably, there are some very cheap "Buffy-esque" CGI effects near the end which place this movie in the "Syfy Original wannabe" category and will doom it to appearing in Echo Bridge or Mill Creek multipacks one day, but they do provide some horror action. I doubt that "Phobia" will ever been shown on TV unless Chiller (or Zone Horror/The Horror Channel in the UK) get it for next to nothing though.
According to the IMDb, the ensemble cast from "Phobia" is due to reappear in "The Harrowing" (2014) but with the addition of Debbie Rochon instead of Erica Leerhsen. As I'm done with being a masochist after suffering through this borefest, I think it'll be another good one to miss.
"A Spring Break beach trip turns into a waking nightmare in this indie shocker based on true events. When car troubles lead a group of students to seek shelter in an abandoned lodge, dark forces emerge and blood is spilled."
Ever watched a horror movie just because of the picture on the DVD cover? Yeah, me too, all the time. That's how I ended up watching "The Eves" after promising to only watch good movies from now on. Oh well, as far as slasher clones go, it's not that bad. At least the scene with the shotgun-toting blonde occurs eventually.
Thus, although I was expecting something more like "High Tension" or even "Baise-moi", I ended up with yet another bunch of teenagers breaking down in the middle of nowhere and falling foul of a serial killer (or two) in a movie which shamelessly borrows from "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" (1974) and every slasher made since. Presumably, that's how it's "based on true events".
All the usual clichés are ticked off including cell phones not working, teenagers with entitlement issues getting drunk, doing drugs, and having sex before being murdered one by one, and of course, there's the inevitable twist which I have to admit is nicely done here and not predictable at all. It's not overly original either, but it works.
The funny thing is that I actually enjoyed "The Eves", albeit not entirely in the way it was intended. I've never liked the original version of the "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre", and if it wasn't for R. Lee Ermey as Sheriff Hoyt in the remake and its sequel, I wouldn't have watched those. I'm glad I have though, because it amused me to see the same setup being used again by one of these so-called "groundbreaking and innovative" indie horror movies, and my cynicism was constantly being justified.
To give credit where it's due, the acting in "The Eves" is more than acceptable considering that the characters are quite poorly differentiated. Out of the teenage guys, there's a serious one, a quiet one, an even quieter one who looks identical to the previous quiet one, a prankster, a smartass, and all of them are assholes. The three girls are basically two slutty ones (a blonde bimbo who shows her boobs and a kinky brunette who doesn't) plus a more serious blonde who is as normal as any of these stereotypes can be. What their names are doesn't even matter until near the end.
I like the pretty girls.
As in all modern slasher movies, there's exactly enough shown of the potential victims to make you hate them but not enough to allow you to sympathise with them, and then the lacklustre killing spree begins. In fairness, the kills are more realistically handled than having blood spurting everywhere or intestines wriggling all over the place, and the make-up/effects are okay, but there's nothing memorable about them in and of themselves either. The blinding scenes only made me feel a bit bad because they reminded me of a recent news story from China which I wish I'd never read about. "Man's inhumanity to man" is often much worse in real life than anything you'll see in a silly low-budget horror movie although a similar scene at the start of "Borderland" (2007) is just as gruesome.
While "The Eves" isn't particularly scary, some of the scenes manage suspense competently and the background music which accompanies them is complimentary. Unfortunately, nothing here is likely to get a hardcore horror fan's pulse racing. Considering that I am an example of that aforementioned "hardcore horror fan", I watched this movie calmly and patiently without a flicker of emotion whatsoever.
A casual viewer or someone new to the genre might get a kick of "The Eves", but he or she would have to be American and around the same age as the victims to avoid feeling alienated. When all's said and done, "The Eves" is just a cookie-cutter teen slasher aimed at cookie-cutter teenagers rather than someone like me anyway.
"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!
"A detective searches for the body of a femme fatale which has gone missing from a morgue."
If you're a regular follower of my Twitter feed or Facebook page, you'll know that I've been raving about this thriller intermittently ever since I first heard about it. Not only am I an enthusiastic ogler of Belén Rueda, but I naively expected "The Body" to get a theatrical release.
Unfortunately, after only playing at a few festivals, "The Body" has gone straight-to-DVD (and Blu-ray) in the UK, and there's still no news of any US release. This is a bit of a disappointment, but it's only to be expected in a country where envious eyes are probably drawing up their plans for a remake and holding off distribution for as long as possible. Such shenanigans surrounded "[REC]", "Let the Right One In" and "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo", so I have every reason to be cynical. Also, since this movie is already so American in style, you just have to laugh at the irony of anyone wanting to remake it in the first place, but I'm sure it'll happen eventually.
"The Body", you see, is a genuine homage to classic film noir without falling into the neo-noir trap. It's a contemporary version of Agatha Christie-style thrillers for the most part with twist on top of twist. It also owes a great deal to Chan-wook Park's "Vengeance Trilogy" stylistically, but only insofar as Park's movies also homage better pulp mysteries of the past. "The Body" is as beautifully filmed but less taxing on the senses as, essentially, it's an easy to follow "popcorn flick" dressed up to look like more than it really is. That is until, of course, everything is revealed at the end.
Without giving away the plot too much, all I can tell you is that "The Body" is mainly a police investigation which takes place over one rainy night with flashbacks and some hypothetical scenes of events which may not have happened. Structurally, it's reminiscent of "Endless Night" (1972) and "Basic Instinct" (1992) but not without a couple of healthy dollops of "Sunset Blvd." (1950) mixed in. Thus, noir genre fans should feel right at home among the formulas. One very gory make-up effect will please horror fans too.
Belén Rueda and Hugo Silva.
While some people might say that "The Body" is clichéd, generic, and a little bit too slick for its own good, the perfect pacing, atmosphere, and performances turn it into a very classy piece of storytelling. There's maybe not quite enough depth to the characterisation to cause empathy, but you could say that about "Double Indemnity" (1944) or any of the Bogart vehicles. Two-dimensional characterisation is crucial for the various reveals in such thrillers anyway. Outside of Mankiewicz or Hitchcock, there's never been much time devoted to character driven mysteries which actually work, and writer/director Oriol Paulo hasn't taken that route with "The Body" either.
The focus is on Hugo Silva, who as Álex Ulloa is trapped like a fly skewered on a pin, and José Coronado as the tenacious detective Jaime Peña who questions him. Both are well cast in their roles although there are moments when it's hard to believe that bearded and bespectacled Hugo Silva would have enticed not one but two beautiful women into his bed. With much sport made of Belén Rueda's age along the way, Álex Ulloa is immediately defined as a gold digger who has bitten off more than he can chew this time, and he's not a likeable character.
José Coronado, on the other hand, doesn't develop any further than being a typical cop haunted by his own "Lost Lenore" tragedy. He certainly looks the part, and even the most casual glance at his previous TV and film credits indicate that he's been typecast here. In case you're wondering, a lead role in "R.I.S. Científica" (a one-season Spanish version of C.S.I.) is his most recent claim to fame. There's a little bit more to detective Jaime Peña than meets the eye, but you'll have to find out what that is by watching this movie yourself. Unlike some over-privileged, douchebag movie reviewers, I'm not going to give away the details.
Sadly, Belén Rueda doesn't get nearly as much screen time as she did in "The Orphanage" (2007) or "Julia's Eyes" (2010)—both of which are credited to the producers of this movie—but she still has a very important part to play even as a corpse. That bit I can give away because it's in the synopsis. However, as a compensation for the lack of Belén Rueda's MILFy goodness, Aura Garrido provides a decent amount of eyecandy as Álex's girlfriend Carla. Once again, there's more to her than just a pretty face.
Aura Garrido as Carla.
The supporting players are all top notch Spanish TV actors from various dramas which haven't travelled. Some stand out more than others including fierce-looking Patrícia Bargalló as Agent Norma who deserved to have a bigger part. Trust me, you'll notice her because she looks like Noomi Rapace from "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo". I'm sure it's meant to be an intentional in-joke as there are several other visual homages to that movie. For even more fun, write down a list of as many famous thrillers as you can remember before watching "The Body" and tick off all the lines of dialogue that you've heard before.
Ultimately, "The Body" is a noir-geek's paradise for identifying all the "borrowings", but that's exactly what it's meant to be to some extent. Despite its overall serious tone, and one "gross-out" moment, the ending is so contrived that you know little more was intended than a display of Oriol Paulo's erudition and some very dark humour. Make no mistake, "The Body" is not a comedy—no jokes are cracked, and nobody except Belén Rueda laughs—but that doesn't stop it being witty for other reasons. Whereas some thrillers allow the journey to become more important than the destination (or vice versa), "The Body" is pleasing throughout.
Even if you're not a big fan of mysteries and thrillers, "The Body" is easily the best movie you will see this year.
Click the pic to visit the official Facebook page.
"Forced underground by the next ice age, a struggling outpost of survivors must fight to preserve humanity against a threat even more savage than nature."
If you're Canadian, I'm sure you saw "The Colony" (and hated it!) when it was released theatrically back in April. It's not due to be released in the US for another four weeks, and it'll be October before it's available on DVD and Blu-ray. As usual, the pirates have already leaked it online, and it doesn't take much to find it on any of the major video streaming sites. Shame on you, pirates, but thank you too.
One thing which really aggravates movie reviewers is how some areas get to see movies before others. Even more irritating is the privileged clique of usually sycophantic movie reviewers who get access to new movies and can write their spoiler-laden critiques before anyone has even heard of the movie that they've written about. Such is the case with "The Colony" as it already has over 30 external reviews on its IMDb page, and it isn't even officially out yet!
Even some online Canadian friends of mine hadn't heard of "The Colony" before I mentioned it, yet it has a ton of negative reviews surrounding it for no apparent reason other than it was partially funded by Telefilm (or the Canadian equivalent to the BBC) and people feel that their taxes were wasted on it. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about the name of the company and their level of involvement because I only skimmed those reviews for obvious reasons.
The thing is, I enjoyed "The Colony" and have no reason to hate it whatsoever.
"I say we grease this rat-fuck son-of-a-bitch right now."
Okay, so "The Colony" is only "The Day After Tomorrow" (2004) with feral human cannibals in it, and superficially, it has a bit of a "28 Days Later" (2002) and "30 Days of Night" (2007) vibe to it as well, but there has never been an original Canadian movie in the entire history of movies, so it's nothing to get too upset about. In every case of a Canadian horror movie that I've ever seen in my life, all they've done is take three or four existing movies and mix them together with a big stick and some maple syrup.
Owing to the fact that I did read some of the review headlines accidentally, I will agree with the majority opinion that Bill Paxton is mostly wasted in his role as a power-hungry asshole, but he's still Bill Paxton, and he's awesome anyway. Laurence Fishburne also doesn't get to do a lot except for one very important action—an overused trope which is one of my biggest pet peeves in any American action movie ever—but again, Laurence Fishburne is still cool and always will be (apart from "Predators" which is best forgotten about). These two stars add some class to a movie otherwise filled with "no-name" TV actors, although to be fair, a few of us have heard of Kevin Zegers because of "Wrong Turn" (2003) and "Frozen" (2010).
I've never heard of Charlotte Sullivan before, but now that I've seen her—noting that she looks like a hybrid of Melissa George and Avril Lavigne—I wouldn't mind seeing a lot more of her. Yes, a pretty girl can save almost any movie that I watch, and I really am that shallow. She's a very good actress, and her chameleon-like ability to resemble so many other known actresses will surely help her career enormously. She doesn't have the biggest part in "The Colony", but her performance is nothing to be ashamed of.
Not Melissa George or Avril Lavigne when you get up close.
Cinematography-wise, "The Colony" looks fantastic. It was all filmed around an abandoned NORAD base in North Bay, Ontario, Canada, so the location is everything. It certainly looks the part, unlike some of the jarring CGI-effects and Dru Viergever who plays the feral leader as a pointy-teethed escapee from one of the "Mad Max" films.
Yes, I had to go there, and having gone there, I am now forced to mention the ever multiplying ferals who create all the lapses in logic possible. Breeding in bizarre numbers according to how many are needed in each scene is the least of their problems. How and why adults would turn en masse into cannibalistic maniacs who've lost the power of speech over presumably only ten years is a plot hole which doesn't even bear thinking about. Sometimes you just have to take things for what they are and ignore the lack of realism if you want to enjoy an action movie. At least it doesn't suffer from the magically reloading guns nonsense.
There's definitely plenty of action and a surprising amount of gore in "The Colony" which pleased me no end and is sure to please you. Having watched the movie cold (no pun intended but still acknowledged), I thought it was just going to be a predictable sci-fi movie about survivors in a frozen apocalyptic future such as a short story I read many years ago in one of the "Mammoth Books of New Horror" (sorry, I've forgotten the name of it, but it's not the Tim Lebbon one!), so I was extremely happy when the ferals appeared. Some of the scenes are rushed, but not enough to matter. You can forget about suspense or scares though because it's not really that kind of horror movie.
I'm going to rate "The Colony" as average, although it becomes a lot less than average once you factor in the $16,000,000 budget and wonder what it was spent on. There's been no big marketing campaign or buzz about this movie, so I really can't see how it cost that much to make a Canadian sci-fi/action adventure in the first place. I thought filming was supposed to be cheaper over the border even if you have some famous names attached.
I'll probably buy "The Colony" when it comes out on DVD, but I suggest seeing it theatrically (if you can), or as a VOD or Redbox rental, before going for a blind buy. If you like "The Day After Tomorrow" and "30 Days of Night", this is almost a sequel to the former and a half-way house to the latter. It's not very original, but it's not as bad as some people want you to believe.
"Set in Catalonia, Painless weaves two stories: in one, starting during the Spanish Civil War and running through to the '60s, an asylum attempts to rehabilitate children who feel no pain, by teaching them physical suffering. In the second, in the present time, a brilliant neurosurgeon who needs a bone marrow transplant, discovers this dark past when he searches for his biological parents."
Since American horror is as dead as a zombie that's just been shot in the head, incinerated, and ground-up into ink to be used to print more articles from Lianne Spiderbaby in Fangoria, I've decided to return my attention to the European offerings as I continue my quest to find something horrific again. Sadly, for all of its beautiful camerawork and moments of brilliance, "Painless" was not what I was looking for.
Ostensibly a drama about congenital analgesia, "Painless" has much the same look and atmosphere as "American Horror Story: Asylum" but without the silly bits. It's pretty dour stuff all the way through since that's exactly what anyone should expect from a story set mostly during the various civil wars in Spain. If you've ever seen "The Devil's Backbone" (2001) or "Pan's Labyrinth" (2006), they have a similar socio-political commentary in the background. You can tell that director Juan Carlos Medina (actually an American by birth) fancies himself as the new Guillermo del Toro, but employing Luis Berdejo Arribas, the weaker writer from the "[REC]" series, hasn't helped his cause.
While the acting is to the same high standard as any of the big name Spanish movies from the last 10 years, the script leaves the characters begging to be more than two-dimensional. The highlight is seeing a now totally unrecognisable Derek de Lint from "Poltergeist: The Legacy" playing a German doctor who speaks Spanish. Minor as it is, he's the only one allowed to have any development.
"Domi-nique -nique -nique s'en allait tout simplement, routier, pauvre et chantant."
Other than the modern half of the story being a lot less interesting than the first hour of period set scenes, "Painless" becomes very rushed and contrived in its last third. Even if I had a thorough knowledge of Spanish political history, I doubt that it would make a great deal of sense, plus there are enormous plotholes.
Yes, there are real, physical plotholes rather than continuity errors or small lapses in logic that can be reasoned away. For one thing, I would love to know what the inmates of the hospital, especially Berkano (Tómas Lemarquis), get to eat during their incarceration. I know the kids are supposed to have supernatural abilities along with their inability to feel pain, but a couple of spoonfuls of soup, in one important case, couldn't keep a mouse alive! Cannibalism is suggested later on, but for five years with only one rotting corpse to feed on? Not likely, is it?
"We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious!"
For a reasonably well-funded movie, the production values are excellent. The cinematography is competent with only a few moments where things are too dark, the sound is good, and the location covers a multitude of sins. Unfortunately, "Painless" lacks spectacle after promising so much with its admittedly CGI-enhanced opening scene.
Plodding rather than thrilling, "Painless" is worth a rental, but it's visually better than the story it delivers.
This pack and the following one were both released at the same time in March 2010 so it's pretty much impossible to give them a chronological "volume number". Amazon calls this "Vol. 5", but it's the third of these packs that I saw and bought. I didn't really want yet another copy of "Night of the Living Dead" (which I now have 14 times!), but I got it cheap in a "4 for $10" pawn shop deal.
Even though "Night of the Living Dead" is a space-filling reissue from their first series of classic horror multi-feature DVDs, Echo Bridge Home Entertainment put together quite a varied set here. The three "new" films are ones which most people wouldn't have gone out of their way to buy previously.
There are several known stars in these movies, but as usual, their performances (and the movies themselves) vary in quality. Let's face it, if these were top-notch horror movies, they wouldn't be in a $5 multipack.
Night of the Living Dead (1968)
"When a brother and sister visit the gravesite of their deceased father, the dreaded trip turns into a terrifying nightmare when night falls and a flesh-eating zombie attacks. Starring Russell Streiner and Judith O'Dea."
If you don't know this classic George A. Romero movie by now, you can consider your "horror licence" revoked. I'm not going to review it again.
There's an apology about the print quality before "Night of the Living Dead" begins which is nice. You might think it's unnecessary since they've used the same Public Domain master as every other DVD version, but this transfer is particularly bad.
If you've honestly never seen "Night of the Living Dead" before, this is the cheapest way of getting it on DVD other than downloading it and burning it to DVD yourself. Ideally, most fans would rather pick up for the true "remastered" Elite Entertainment version instead.
Hindsight (2008)
"When an unexpectedly pregnant—and broke—couple lists their unborn baby for adoption on the internet to score an upfront payment, they're lured into a twisted, sadistic game of desperation and deception. Starring Jeffrey Donovan, Leonor Varela, Waylon Payne, and Miranda Bailey."
"Hindsight" is a solid but very slow thriller with some violence and a creepy twist that almost makes it a horror movie.
The production values are good, the acting is decent, and Leonor Varela is beautiful. Does that save it from being a bit boring though? Not really.
Give or take some of the more adult scenes, this is almost Hallmark Channel stuff. With its cast made up of actors who have all been quite successful in TV dramas fairly recently, "Hindsight" is a contemporary non-horror genre movie which would be better in a "4 Films Thriller Collector's Set" if such a thing even exists.
A very recognisable face in this movie is Richard Riehle who plays Peter (as in "Saint Peter" if you haven't guessed the twist from the title itself).
Cruel World (2005)
"A vengeful reality show reject traps nine co-eds in his own sick version of reality TV—where the challenges are bizarre, the danger is real and death is just a competition away. Starring Edward Furlong, Jaime Pressly, and Andrew Keegan."
Having never heard of it before, I wasn't expecting a lot from "Cruel World", but it's only supposed to be a fun "Ten Little Indians"-style slasher film with a decent budget anyway.
Just because it has some humour, "Cruel World" isn't really a horror-comedy in spite of how some sites categorise it. If you hate reality TV shows, the satire is kind of cool in places, but you'll still hate reality TV shows just as much afterwards. The drawback is that everything looks, feels and sounds like a slick teen movie rather than a reality TV show so there's no catharsis possible.
Sadly, Jaime Pressly is only in it for the first 15 minutes, but it's enough to get your fix if you fancy her. There are several other pretty girls with very little characterisation (or clothing) to make up for her absence otherwise.
Much maligned Edward Furlong really seems to enjoy his role as a slob, but how much of that is acting or a result of how things were for him at the time is hard to tell. Whatever the case, he definitely stands out more than anyone else and gleefully chews the scenery.
The kills in "Cruel World" range from mildly amusing to effective although, ultimately, this movie is a huge waste of acting talent. The epilogue/end is nothing but hastily cobbled together nonsense.
Razor Eaters (2003)
"A lethal mix of Fight Club, Jackass and Natural Born Killers, RAZOR EATERS follows an anarchistic gang on their week-long rampage of violence, death, and destruction. Based on shocking true events."
Based very loosely on the exploits of the Hedge-Burners gang who plagued Melbourne, this violent Australian movie provides a powerful and very serious finale.
The trouble is that it looks cheap and nasty like a film school student's project. It probably is one too, but I don't really know any of the details about how it came to be made. All I can say is that if you're expecting this to be another "Romper Stomper", "Chopper" or "Snow Town", you'll be very disappointed.
The switching between handheld cameras and badly lit, grainy film makes a mockery of the decent $1,500,000 budget (which the IMDb claims it had). Windowboxing it to save space on the DVD doesn't help either.
Crime films aren't really my thing no matter how much bloodshed there is in them, so "Razor Eaters" is the least watchable of the movies in this pack for me. I didn't get very far into it before switching it off through boredom. Your mileage, however, may vary.
As entertaining as it might be overall, once again, we have another weak link in these multi-feature sets. While offering very good value, the three newer movies can only be rated as 3.5 out of 10 on a good day, and less than that on a bad one.
Even with the inclusion of "Night of the Living Dead", I wouldn't recommend buying this "4 Films Horror Collector's Set" unless you are a completist. Now that these movies make up half of "The Midnight Horror Collection: 8 Movie Pack Vol. 6" (with the others being the final "4 Films Horror Collector's Set" from June 2010), the 8 pack is the better way to go.
It has to be said that "The Midnight Horror Collection: 8 Movie Pack Vol. 6" (the final obviously numbered one) is pretty weak too though. You may want to save your money for a newer one with a good combination of Full Moon and Miramax horror titles in it instead.
"A gang of ruthless highway killers kidnap a wealthy couple traveling cross country only to shockingly discover that things are not what they seem."
Have you ever heard of "No One Lives" before? No? Me neither. Usually when a movie has such beautifully gory set pieces, the internet goes crazy with the buzz about it, but bizarrely, not this time. Thus, we have one of the main problems with anything put out by WWE Studios: For some reason known only to them, they just aren't promoting their movies adequately. The limited theatrical release of this one is another testament to their lack of faith in their own product.
Obviously, the movie business is a bit of sideline for the masters of wrestling shows which delight small children and the poorly educated, and the days of MySpace when we were all encouraged to watch "See No Evil" starring Kane (whoever he is or was) are long since over, but the whole thing feels like a conspiracy. Every big name horror site has hated this movie and gone out of their way to tear it apart. Perhaps they weren't given enough of a financial kickback or something. That also wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Maybe the usually PG-13 friendly WWE are ashamed of "No One Lives" for being R-rated. They shouldn't be because it pretty much rocks if you overlook some of the acting, weaknesses in the script, and a few lags. The dialogue may be more than a little bit hokey, but at least it suits the tone of the rest of the movie. Let's he honest here, "No One lives" is a lot of fun in an over-the-top and mean-spirited way.
With recognisable actors such as Luke Evans and Lee Tergesen in it, I didn't even know that "No One Lives" was a WWE movie anyway although I should have realised that something was slightly amiss when a big, fat, tattooed guy showed up. Other than the fact that he's disgustingly overweight and useless at acting, I wouldn't know that he's a wrestler since I don't watch that crap. I don't know his name and never want to. Even his character is more use dead than alive, but I'll say no more about that because it's a huge spoiler.
Directed by Ryûhei Kitamura of "The Midnight Meat Train" (2008) fame (but nothing else that I've ever seen), "No One Lives" is a difficult movie to place in the horror genre. It starts off as a crime drama about kidnapping, but then really goes into action mode due to a very physical and credible performance by Luke Evans who plays a kind of cross between Freddie Clegg and Rambo.
Although Lee Tergesen starts off well as a crime boss, he's somewhat wasted. I may not like the movie, but he was a lot better in "The Collection" (2012). Adelaide Clemens (from "Silent Hill: Revelation 3D"), on the other hand, isn't very convincing because the part is simply too big for her. Having said that, I can't actually think of anyone except Melissa George who could have done it better, and unfortunately, she's too old now.
Standouts include Derek Magyar as the evil Flynn and Lindsey Shaw as Amber ("the only one with a soul") who go above and beyond what you would expect from TV actors. America Olivo is also her usual self, but I love America Olivo and she can do no wrong. She gets her boobs out too, which is another reason why she needs to be in every horror movie from now on as far as I'm concerned.
As you would expect from a $2,900,000 budget, production values are very high throughout "No One Lives". Not only is the gore outstanding, all of the stunts are exceptionally well choreographed. Presumably that's where WWE's many years of faking fights must have been extremely useful.
Not knowing what to expect, I was impressed by how original "No One Lives" was in places, and even as a seasoned horror fan, I didn't see the twists coming. Mind you, if I live to be 100, I'll probably never see the twists coming in any thriller because I'm not wired that way.
It's not scary as such, the tension could have been handled much better, but for what it is, "No One Lives" is highly entertaining. It's not the greatest horror movie ever made, but it's well above average when compared to most of the junk available right now.
"You wake day after day to the comfort and security of your home. But how safe is it really?"
Directed by Jaume Balagueró, the half of the "[REC]" creators who didn't ruin the franchise, "Sleep Tight" is a solid Spanish thriller along the lines of "Hider in the House" (1989) but with more sadism and set in an apartment building in Barcelona. Unlike "[REC]", there are no weird exorcisms or rabid zombies here, just a balding concierge named César who gets his jollies by making other people miserable.
The main focus of César's unwanted attention is Clara, a sexy thirty-something played by Marta Etura. Her character's nickname, "Mimi", is undoubtedly an homage to Mimi Rogers, but they don't really look or act the same. For all of its originality as a Spanish movie, "Sleep Tight" is knowingly derivative of its American predecessors, but it's actually considerably better than all of them.
Luis Tosar plays César, the aforementioned concierge, with such charisma that it's impossible not to root for him instead of the people whose lives he destroys with his spiteful pranks. César starts out as an antihero rather than an outright villain, but where one ends and the other begins is hard to say.
Tormented by his own inability to experience happiness, César is a morbidly fascinating character much like dour comedian Jack Dee without any witty jokes. As a Brit, I found myself reminded of Jack Dee's TV show where he tried various things to make himself happy and they all failed. Thus, there are comedic touches to "Sleep Tight", of course, but they are the very sick and twisted kind.
As you can see in the trailer (above), César's escapades include hiding under the bed of his uber hot victim then sliding out and chloroforming her into total unconsciousness while she sleeps. At first, it seems to be the desperate act of someone who is lonely and wants a cuddle-buddy, but César's darker motives are revealed as the story progresses.
I'm not going to give away anything more, but when César starts altering Clara's beauty creams to cause an allergy and wipes cockroach eggs everywhere, it becomes very obvious that this isn't about unrequited love or some predictable case of revenge.
I will just say that I was torn between fancying Marta Etura (even more that I fiend for Belén Rueda) and hating everything normal that her character represents. I don't think that I'm quite as disturbed as César, but the voyeuristic tendencies of the film certainly caused me to empathise with him.
Everyone in "Sleep Tight" gives a fantastic performance, the characterisation is almost perfect, and the wit of the story really highlights how lazy American movies have become in comparison. I shouldn't need to add that it's all beautifully filmed, but given Jaume Balagueró's previous movies and the resurgence of faux "found footage" crap once again this year, I don't want you to confuse this with more of the same. "Sleep Tight" is a real movie with a script, real actors, a decent pace, and none of that shakycam nonsense.
Since it's a Spanish movie, I have no idea what the background is of any of the actors (other than the information available on the IMDb), but when the little girl who attempts to blackmail César is as outstanding as the other leads, you know that you're watching something special and a little bit more classy than usual. With a very respectable (estimated) budget of $16,000,000, it damned well should be as good as it is too.
I never thought I'd ever call a story of this nature "classy", but it really is. "Sleep Tight" may be as twisted as they come, but it's up there with Roman Polanski's apartment trilogy as far as I'm concerned.
