As the tagline says: Fear, revisited. REC2 maintains its predecessor's awesome atmosphere and use of found-footage technicalities.
The film begins on the very same night as the first film, minutes after the ending. A SWAT team are called in to escort a doctor through the quarantined apartment block, but little do they know at first that the doctor is actually a priest, and their mission is to find an antidote to the demonic possession that currently plagues the area.
Like all good sequels this adds to the existing story and extends the lore without overstepping its bounds. Like REC, this film is set almost entirely within the very same apartment block, even revisiting the same haunted rooms and corridors where ghastly encounters took place. This does what I love in sequels: consistency. If you enjoyed REC as much as I did (as a definitive found-footage horror film) you will enjoy this.
Naturally I don't want to spoil what happens or how it evolves the existing story, but if I had to claim something negative about the sequel, is its middle act. We follow the SWAT team early on, and this is excellent, but midway through we are given three kids who aren't connected with the story until they do what all cliche horror characters do and stick their noses where they know they shouldn't.
Another grievance is the SWAT team's total lack of professionalism... I've read excuses such as "They are Spanish, they are hot-headed", and I don't buy it. Urban warfare and tactics go out of the window in REC2, and it is inexcusable. At least in the first film they were firemen and a reporter, people who are in over their heads.
It is still as gory, intense and kinetic as the first film, though perhaps has little to improve on (REC by most standards was perfect) perhaps only by entering the action immediately, whereas REC started slowly. A worthy sequel, and I recommend anyone watching REC to follow it up with this.
With trepidation I sit down and watch George A. Romero's most recent offering, but if like me you are hoping this is a return to form... you'd be wrong.
Survival of the Dead follows a rogue unit of soldiers looking for a place to escape the escalating zombie outbreak, their only salvation comes from a viral video suggesting an island as a secure location. However the island is hotly disputed by two rival groups, one of which wants to preserve the zombies and perhaps one day cure them.
Am I wrong, or is it becoming increasingly difficult to see why George A. Romero is regarded as the father of the zombie genre? Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Dead were all excellent films that stand out in the genre as benchmarks; his trademark manner of inserting social commentary into his stories became paramount to his success. But with Survival, and the disastrously bad Diary of the Dead, I simply lose all hope for his creative vision.
Perhaps it is the climate of over-saturation of the zombie genre nowadays, The Walking Dead television show pulls no punches, and by comparison this film is pedestrian and almost... almost Uwe Boll standards of mediocrity.
It has been a while since I've seen so many plot conveniences; Survival just pulls things out of its rotten, stumbling corpse. Oh, she has an identical twin sister we knew nothing about! Hm, I've been shot, but it is okay (until everyone who can help leaves, then it is a problem, doh!) This does not help with the distinct disinterest you have for the characters; those Irish stereotypes! Just, wow. Don't forget the young know-it-all, geeky kid who... I actually don't know why he's in this, I don't even know his name. I just referred to him as "Smart ass".
While Romero's films are decidedly mixed in tone, usually effectively so, they should at least have some dread. Like with his previous film Diary, I felt no sense of urgency, threat or fear for anything or anyone involved. The tone and atmosphere is completely shot through the head.
So yeah, what good is there? Buried here and there is evidence of Romero's larger story; the evolution of the zombies in this apocalypse that is spanning decades. Instead of exploring the how or the why it happened, Romero is exploring the future of a zombie outbreak. Like with Day and Land of the Dead, we see zombies change in intelligence.
It is just a shame this is so woefully underplayed in this film, it is almost limited to the final scene!
So no, I wouldn't recommend this to anyone but the hardcore zombie/Romero fans, it isn't scary, it doesn't push any boundaries or even respect the excellent earlier films.
(but it is superior to Diary of the Dead.... for whatever that actually means)
A decent little horror/thriller, unique with a few notable scenes, even if it is a remake of a Korean film five years previous.
Kiefer Sutherland plays a cop and father who is trying to redeem himself to his family after alcohol abuse by taking the job as a night watchman at a burnt down shopping mall. However, the previous guard had committed suicide, and Ben quickly discovers there's something unnatural occurring within the mall's pristine mirrors. His investigation leads to something so dangerous it threatens not only his life, but the lives of his family.
Okay, so Mirrors isn't going to change your life, no horror does these days as we have seen almost everything before, but for such a small and simple premise, it does really well.
We've seen it before, you know that scene, in every horror film where a character looks at a mirror, looks away, then something behind them when they look back? This film exaggerates that effective jump scare into an entire feature. So yes, Mirrors has cliches, it takes some liberties here and there.
But I enjoyed its simplicity, and its pacing and its main character Ben. Sure it is Kiefer "Jack Bauer" Sutherland, and the man has a presence about him, but there is a stand out scene early on. Ben is drawn to a room within the burnt out mall, and a mirror shows him a screaming woman's arm reaching from a doorway (there is no one there, in reality). The mirror is placed so that is all he can see, but instead of him fleeing, or the scene ending, he actually picks up the mirror and drags it to the doorway so he can see who is there!
I don't know, I just found that sort of thinking from both character and script quite refreshing.
While its pacing an uniqueness are enough to sell me on it, I will admit it does lose itself towards the end as it escalates the scenario. Mirrors does best with its haunted atmosphere, Ben's psychosis and the mirrors (which you begin to see everywhere!) Having said that, when it does gore, boy does it go all the way!
I recommend Mirrors to people looking for a simple, easy scare, its more compelling than a lot of what the genre gives us nowadays.
I guess I have to hunt down the Korean film Into the Mirror now and see if tradition rings true and it turns out to be superior to this. Conversely, dare I see the sequel, Mirrors 2?
Deeply disturbing, for a film I just dived into blindly I was not prepared for it (especially when I wasn't feeling well!)
Elijah Wood plays a serial killer who stalks and targets young women and after stabbing them to death, he scalps them and staples their hair onto mannequins so they can live with him.
Yeah, so I picked this up because of one reason: Elijah Wood in an 18-rated horror, would it be good or laughable since his fame as a Hobbit? The answer is yes, it is extremely good... a little too good.
What hits hardest about the film, is that Maniac is shot entirely through the eyes of our killer; the film puts you in the driver's seat of this stalking, chasing, butchering and frightful man, exposing his inner demons and psychosis along the way. It is very unpleasant to watch in this perspective. As you'd expect, we don't see Elijah unless he is looking at a mirror (and a couple of deliberate moments of psychosis) yet his acting is mesmerising all the same. Towards the end, if you make it that far, you begin to learn about why he does these terrible things.
Of course, as his killing spree continues, there is evidence of police investigation, but this is massively underplayed; the film's dedication to its use of perspective does not budge, and uses little to grant levity. The only humanity is portrayed through his relationship with a young photographer who he actually managed to have dialogue with.
In terms of physical effects, they are extremely effective and gory. Since the film is a remake of an old grindhouse film, I can safely say these effects live up to the vintage film style!
It really puts all modern slasher films to shame in its execution alone, and in terms of horror I find this far more unpleasant to watch than say... The Human Centipede. As such I can't say I enjoyed the film, but I can respect how it challenged me.
I'm sure these days it is said: "Anyone can make a zombie film". Ozombie is proof that this is not the case.
Oh okay, as soon as you know the premise, you'll know that you cannot take this seriously, and it shouldn't be, but even as a spoof it is terrible.
So, after her brother Derek goes to Afghanistan in a wild revenge plot to kill Osama Bin Laden (despite by all accounts he was already killed), a Yoga instructor called Dusty joins a troop of soldiers to look for him. The team are out in the wilderness to hunt down the resurrected Bin Laden and his zombie horde.
Yeah, its one of those films, you know, the ones you watch with friends when you are all drunk? I can only compare this with the likes of Uwe Boll movies, yet... marginally... this deplorable, talentless waste of time is better than his movies.
It has zero charisma, despite how the dialogue is permanently set to "witty banter" mode, it doesn't even make particular fun of itself; there's no moment I felt like these actors were reveling in the stupidity.
The action is terrible and scenes are both poorly edited and poorly implemented, for example: a soldier gets jumped on as they are all standing in a circle facing each other, in a open clearing. How did no one see that zombie?
Our token woman in the squad has a samurai sword (for no given reason, I might add) and while in several shots the sword doesn't even have a physical blade, she clearly does not hit zombies through the head, yet they die anyway. Heck, in one scene a horde of brain-eaters just ceases to exist, failing to survive the film's editing.
Our characters are bland, the soldiers' only have back story when they are seconds away from dying. Derek is about thirty years old, yet clearly has the brain of a twelve year old. While I was greatly disappointed Dusty shows no sign of being a Yoga instructor... Come on, it SAYS that on the dvd BOX! She isn't even inconceivably wearing Yoga gear in the middle of a battle, that's how not joyfully silly this thing is.
Yes, I said it. This spoof film isn't even that outrageous, it isn't even Machine Girl silly, verging more towards Battle: Los Angeles levels of blandness. Why has it even got an 18 certificate?? There's blood yes, but not that much, there's no noticable bad language, no sex and no nudity, or even extreme gore or violence outside zombies getting shot in the head (sorry to sound so disappointed, but that's generally what makes things 18 rated!)
So no, spare yourself the trouble, unless you have a bunch of friends to watch this with while drinking yourselves senseless. The only grace this film had was a surprising amount of semi-realistic military hardware (NOT including the terribly CG animated helicopters. Yeah, apparently it is possible to animate helicopters badly)
Additional Marshmallows: Watching films like this, I find myself asking more logical questions than I should be, but that's what happens when you're given such a bizarre premise.
If you have soldiers sent against zombies, knowingly and willingly, surely you'd give them a means to end their own lives relatively painlessly? No, all these guys have is a friend planting a bullet into their face. Yeah, I'm sure their family will be happy to receive that body!
A half way decent homage to the classic monster movies that holds a lot of atmosphere, even if it doesn't hold its characters highly enough.
Upon the death of his brother, Lawrence (Benicio Del Toro) travels back home to uncover the mysterious circumstances around the murder. His father (Anthony Hopkins) and old flame Gwen (Emily Blunt) support him as best they can, but when his investigation leads him to be salvaged by some sort of beast, Lawrence's life is about to change.
Something of an homage to the classic monster movies (I've not seen the original Wolfman, apologies!) this film is lovingly set in the period, stooped in shadows, musty houses and a score by Danny Elfman. Many of the effects are impressive (despite the transformations being CG, which is a bit of a shame) the action later on in the film is lavishly blood splattered and extreme. The Wolfman himself is of the classic movie design, more human than wolf.
Unfortunately though, The Wolfman takes a terribly long time to get going; the first act is riddled with uneventful moments and scenes, the film refuses to give us what we are here to see. Normally these films let us relate to the characters, or sympathise, or even have a hope for them during their plight, but sadly I felt very little for any of them. True enough, can you see Anthony Hopkins as Benicio Del Toro's father?
It is quite predictable too, which adds to the film's deliberate feet-dragging. We know what's going to happen, so get on with it. There's some weird dream and hallucination visuals too mid-way through... I couldn't decide if they were silly or not.
Hugo Weaving was a pleasant change to the film's pace, arriving forty minutes in as a detective who had investigated "the Ripper" (interesting connection!)
It has issues, mostly in regards to pacing and a poor focus on character development, but if you can get through the first half, the second half is explosively animated and full of violent gore. It still won't feel fully satisfying even at the end, but has plenty of moments throughout.
Additional Marshmallows: Oh dear, the director also did Jurassic Park III. Forget I mentioned that!
You have to dig deep to find a unique vampire film these days, yet luckily here it is!
Following a vampire couple quietly living in the city, Miriam is a vampire from ancient Egyptian times, while her sired partner John has discovered his own immortality has begun to wane. With his age rapidly accelerating he looks for help from a scientist who is trying to prevent rapid aging diseases.
This is the first film made by the late Tony Scott and it certainly stands out from what he became famous for; it is a quiet, atmospheric, sexualised and haunted experience that's focused on the vampire's turmoil.
David Bowie plays vampire John Blaylock and he makes for a good vampire. The opening act is a 1980's punk infused montage of the two vampires feeding, yet the rest of the film does not return to this sort of setting. The film's most impressive element has to be John's degradation; the make-up work (or "make up illusion" as the credits state) is very cool, for most of the second act we see Bowie rapidly age and it still looks impressive today!
Susan Sarandon plays the scientist Sarah Roberts, and is probably the best performance out of all of them, although her involvement at first is strenuous as best. The film relies on the audience knowing what the classic vampire lore is, and tries to spin in some science elements which sadly doesn't lead anywhere. Instead this is a vehicle to lead Sarah into the seductive arms of Miriam (Catherine Deneuve).
It provides everything a mature vampire film should, but is surprisingly atmospheric and I found John's rapid aging fascinating. The ending however was out-of-the-blue and tonally jarring with the rest of the film, as nightmarish and effective as it was, and audiences might find it quite slow.
A simple story of scares from the early 1960s featuring Vincent Price and based off the writings of Edgar Allan Poe.
When a brother hears news of his sister's passing, he travels to the castle where she had lived. Once there he finds Nicolas Medina (Vincent Price) and servants, Nicolas was his sister's lover and since she died has become a deeply disturbed man, claiming the castle itself is malicious due to its history; his father once being a torturer for the Spanish Inquisition. While investigating his sister's death, the brother and her doctor discover the old castle's torture chambers...
I have not read Poe's short story, but I am aware that the film's opening two acts are entirely constructed for the adaptation; the final act is Poe's original concept. As such, the film acts as a deliberate build up to the inevitable climax: The Pit and the Pendulum.
It plays out not unlike a haunted house story, mixed with a who-done-it investigation as our hero wants more concrete answers than the mystery he is given. This works fine, although one does wait anxiously for the signature event to take place.
Vincent Price is great as a deeply troubled individual, I should track down more of his films. The story even includes a bonafide twist! A twist I did not expect.
So while the film is aging (that long-awaited pendulum is NOT metal...) and the sets are a little wobbly, it proves to be a fun little story full of spooky atmosphere, grim, blooded murder and haunted expressions. I'm impressed it still has a 15-certificate!
Additional Marshmallows: Did you know it took fifteen days to shoot the entire film? You wouldn't get that nowadays!
With a runtime of over two and a half hours, this taut
investigative thriller may lose some of the less attentive audiences,
but is so grim with frank realities, moralities and tension that it
succeeds wonderfully.
When two families find their youngest daughters missing, a police
detective runs an investigation into a possible kidnapping. But when
the only suspect has the mind of a child and seems unlikely to have
committed such a crime and the leads dry up, one of the fathers of
the missing girls takes the law into his own hands.
Hugh Jackman and Jake Gyllenhaal are both electric in this story.
Jackman, as a stormy-eyed survivalist who will do anything to protect his family, and Gyllenhaal as a cool headed, restrained investigator
who has yet to lose a case. Which is a blessing, considering the film
in its entirety is solely focused on the characters and their
seemingly hopeless search.
The story is told unconventionally. We are not given much time for
the generic opening scenes of “Oh what a happy family they have,
how wonderful everything is; wouldn't it be sad if something went
wrong” that plagues a lot of these films. No, Prisoners hits
the audience immediately and has the girls missing within the first
twenty minutes. What follows is a bleak, grim story as each member of
the family deals with the loss, and our two leads struggle with
literally no clues or evidence.
Now some people expecting car chases, murders, or out-of-control
antagonists will find this direction-less second act a little...
exhausting. Our antagonist is a very quiet, unassuming man, and as
such the film's focus is the slow and steady build up into its climax.
I wouldn't dare spoil what happens in the film either since it really, really doesn't give anything away. I've not seen a film keep cards so close to its chest in a while, so I can almost guarantee you won't fully predict what will happen.
It is a slow, very quiet and calculating film which won't grab absolutely everybody, but I can see myself watching this again for any clues I might have missed! If you like crime thrillers and puzzling dramas, I recommend it, it'll leave you thinking about it for days.
Well, October 2013 starts out with a bang. This has to be the worst "found footage" "horrors" I've seen since the deplorable Quarantine.
A daughter travels to Rome to meet her mother who has been held in custody by the Vatican after murdering three people during an exorcism twenty years previous. Discovering the Vatican has no interest in helping or even acknowledging the possibility of demonic possession, the daughter takes it upon herself (and the help of her camera man and three priests) to save her mother.
Sigh... Where to begin?
There's a lot to be said about a modern horror film in the first ten seconds, if it has a disclaimer, ie: "based on a true story". But in this film's case: "The Vatican does not endorse this film".
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeally?
I'm shocked.
This only gets worse as the film continues as our characters cite some of the most cliche and most ignorant "facts" about demonology as if it were classified fact. This reminds me of wincing at Arnold Schwarzenegger's End of Days' supposed gospel (but at least that had the self-awareness as an Arnie film)
If you want to make a found footage film appear genuine and real, you have to make it credible. Our "student priests" (I'd like to call them that) take classes in the Vatican about demon possession, the Vatican hold dangerous exorcism victims in privately owned wards yet... the Vatican do not accept the existence of demon possession? They even release the mother, despite an outburst, with no safeguards for other people's well being?
Some of the dialogue is downright idiotic, from some classic "dumb camera man" syndrome (seriously what happens to men who hold cameras in these films?) to just some aggravatingly thoughtless dialogue. While possessed, the mother talks about things she couldn't possibly know to her daughter... then later the daughter is horrified when a different possessed woman knows her name. Surely that wouldn't be so surprising?
It isn't even that scary, it even fails at jump scares (a big dog randomly jumps at a fence as they walk down a random street, seriously?) I didn't think that was possible. The only credibility this film has is some decent body horror with the exorcisms. There are some alarming contortions going on which did impress. Though... I'm sure all exorcism films do this well.
It does nothing to hold your attention. The characters are bland, the story and setup is farcical and if anything it makes the mythology for real exorcisms even more laughably unlikely. There are so many better exorcism films out there, you have no reason to see this one.
"Sick, twisted, demented, bizarre" are some of the words used to describe Filth in its sledgehammer trailer, and it certainly indulges itself in all manner of things, but I would say I was surprised at its equally compelling lead character.
Based off the novel by Irvine Welsh (Trainspotting) Filth is set in Scotland during the Christmas season and follows a drug abusing, sex mad police officer with a superiority complex who goes on a rampage against his fellow officers so he can land a promotion. The promotion, he believes, will win back the hearts and minds of his wife and daughter.
Filth is a great film, and certainly stands tall beside Trainspotting (though it is a very different story) and while I've not read the book I can say the film carries the multitude of characters well.
Casing point is James McAvoy, who continues his big screen storm with yet another deeply unhinged character (see this year's Trance) and he is utterly engrossing here as a plotting, immoral monster. The meat of the film is his terrorism of his peers, mostly through ruining their relationships and destroying their professionalism, elevating himself in the eyes of his superiors in the process. Begin a loud, angry procession of drugs, drinking and sex, all from McAvoy's Bruce Robertson's perspective.
Of course, it doesn't stop there. Trainspotting had its own level of surrealism, and Filth certainly maintains that as it develops. We see our lead character slowly unravel and experience intense fever dreams, and the plot itself deliberately collapses along with him. Underneath this growing pile of human depravity, the film lands a surprisingly deep twist to take the entire audience by surprise (I don't want to spoil it for those like me who haven't read the book!)
It also sports a great sense of humour, executed frequently with McAvoy's sly expressions, a lot of it comes from Scotland's own personality (Bruce's inner monologue about the Scottish people is great)
It is a certificate 18, hard R film, it isn't a film I would re-watch over and over, but it is something to behold at least once in your life. I could argue further that the film (for how loaded it is) could have been a bit longer; as we see more of Bruce's past the more it becomes fleeting glances, I would have liked just a little more of it. But then that may have lessened the film's cleverness.
If you can stomach a lot of drug-use, sex and jarringly strange visuals at times, give it a try! I guarantee you haven't seen anything like it.
