The Boy (2016): Review

The Boy is a 2016 horror film. Directed by William Brent Bell (The Devil Inside) and starring Lauren Cohan (The Walking Dead) and Rupert Evans (The Man in the High Castle). The film was previously titled “The Inhabitant”.

The film follows American nanny Greta (Cohan) as she relocates to England to find work. She finds a position with the Heelshire family but is surprised to learn that their child is actually a lifelike doll in memoriam of their actual child Brahms, who died many years earlier. After the parents leave for a holiday (a rather permanent one), Greta is left alone in the house with Brahms and discovers that the strange ceramic boy is more animated than he first appeared. Local delivery man Malcolm (Evans) also becomes involved and they find themselves trapped in the large country house with Brahms, who turns out to be surprisingly grown up.

I can only assume that the Brahms prop was the first thing designed for this movie and the writing followed afterwards, because the plot and characters are the afterthought here. Yes it is a very effective and creepy design for the antagonist but, as the central characters treat it as a joke, I found myself unable to take the character seriously as the film wore on. I laughed heartily when I saw the trailer for this movie and assumed it was a horror comedy, unfortunately it’s not. The supporting characters are irritating caricatures of eccentric English country folk and, despite a thrown together back story, the placement of Greta into this setting seems wholly arbitrary.

Everything about this movie is predictable and clichéd. The spooky mansion, the creepy kid, the haunted doll have all been done in recent years and done better (The Woman in Black and Insidious to name a few) and even the 3^rd act twist (if you can call it a twist) is identical to last year’s vastly superior “Housebound”. I feel bad for Cohan, she does her best with a dull and lifeless script and is by far the most likeable character but this is not the best way to capitalise on her success in The Walking Dead. Evans, on the other hand, embarrasses himself after an excellent turn in the Man in the High Castle and it’s clear that both these actors are better suited to TV work.

The Boy is every creepy kid/possessed doll movie that you’ve ever seen and is as generic as it’s title and marketing suggest. It’s also pretty remarkable that anyone has handed Bell a budget of this size again after the disastrous Devil Inside (2012). Suffering the same symptoms as Annabelle (2014), creepy doll movies just don’t seem to work in this day and age and become instantly forgettable. Not overly terrible but a long way from being enjoyable, this movie is a waste of everyone’s time and will leave you feeling as lifeless and glazed over as our young friend Brahms.

** 2 stars

What did you think of the film? Did Brahms scare you?

10 Cloverfield Lane (2016): Review (spoiler free)

10 Cloverfield lane is a 2016 sci-fi horror movie. Produced by JJ Abrams (Cloverfield, Lost) and directed by Dan Trachtenberg, the film stars John Goodman (The Big Lebowski), Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Scott Pilgrim, The Thing) and John Gallagher Jr. Described as a “spiritual sequel” to 2008’s Cloverfield, the film was completed under the name "Valencia" and was revealed as 10 Cloverfield Lane 2 months before its release.

The movie opens with Michelle (Winstead) leaving her partner after a row but, due to an unfortunate turn of events, she wakes up in chains in a cold basement. This basement is actually a post-apocalyptic bunker belonging to Howard (Goodman), a conspiracy nut who was more than prepared for the “attacks” that he tells Michelle have destroyed humanity above. They are also joined by Emmett (Gallagher), a farmhand who helped construct the bunker and now finds himself also confined for what Howard describes as “a 1 to 2 year” period. Things soon turn from tense to violent as Howard struggles to contain his true nature and Michelle is able to escape the bunker, only to discover that the truth about the attacks is surprisingly more crazy than even Howard suggested.

The main question mark over this film which threatens to overshadow it, is whether this is actually a sequel to Cloverfield. We know that the film was completed under the title “Valencia” and was based on a spec script called “The Cellar” which had nothing to do the Cloverfield universe. However, Abrams and co apparently noticed thematic similarities which led them to rework the movie into 10 Cloverfield Lane. Abrams himself has stated that “It’s not called Cloverfield 2 because it’s not Cloverfield 2” and I think this accurately presents the film as a “spinoff” rather than a direct sequel. That’s not to say that the events in the film aren’t clearly linked to the events of Cloverfield, just in a more interesting and mysterious way than you might expect (this is Abrams after all!). I found it really refreshing that the film/trailer was revealed a mere 2 months before release and I found it exactly the right amount of time to get excited.

Now, if you can get over the fact that this is both a film that has been cleverly woven into the universe of an existing science fiction universe and, conversely, a film that has been shoehorned into a franchise to maximise profit, you will find one of the most taut and tense thrillers to come out in years. The Hitchcockian claustrophobia and paranoia seeps from every pore of a career best performance from Goodman, as well as from the fantastically designed set. Winstead is impeccable as always and Bear Macreary’s score ramps up the tension periodically to match the actors ebb and flow. The twists and turns in the plot were subtle enough to be felt underneath the atmosphere and the process of trying to figure out the characters, as well what was happening in the outside world, was a joy. The ending will surely divide audiences as, despite knowing what we know from the first film, it didn’t quite go in the direction I thought it would (but not in a way that felt cheap). Rather, the ending leaves an enticing thread hanging much like the satellite crash at the end of the first film.

In a post Prometheus (2012) world, I think we’ve all learned to manage our expectations when we hear of a semi-sequel or “ a film that shares DNA” and it’s easy to see this film as a cash in on what was a very successful movie. However, the movie is so well written, so tightly directed and so perfectly acted, that you soon forget that there is meant to be any franchise connection at all and it’s on this basis that the movie should be assessed. Some may be bemused with the ending and clear foundation being laid for future instalments but, after all the dust has settled, this will stand up as one of the best movies of the year. And if you’re after a plot that makes complete sense and is tied up in a neat little package at the end…then what the hell are you doing watching a JJ Abrams production?

***** 5 Stars

What did you think of the movie? Is it really connected o Cloverfield?

The Witch (2016): Review

 

The Witch is a 2016 period horror film. The directorial debut of Robert Egger, the film stars Ralph Ineson (The Office), Anya Taylor-Joy and Kate Dickie (Prometheus, Filth).  The film is based on historical accounts and folklore from the time and was endorsed and promoted by the Satanic Temple.

Set in 17th Century colonial America, the film begins with William (Ineson) and his family being exiled from their own community for being excessively puritanical. They end up founding their own farmstead at the edge of a dense wood. William’s wife Katherine (Dickie) gives birth to a baby boy, in addition to their twins, young son Caleb and teenage daughter Thomasin (Taylor-Joy). However, things take a turn for the worst when the baby is snatched by the witch in the woods and the family is thrown into turmoil. To make matters worse, Caleb also goes missing in the woods and is returned with a terrible fever and the family soon start to suspect Thomasin as the witch. Confounded by an assortment of devilish animals, including family goat “Black Phillip”, the family are tormented and torn apart by the phantom in the woods as their faith in God is stretched to the limit.

From the opening shots of The Witch, it’s clear that this is going to be an incredibly visual film and this only intensifies as you’re drawn deeper into the world. The overhead shots are creeping and the interior shots are claustrophobic, this is pure Kubrick and shows an impressive command of the screen for a first time director. What’s also interesting is the decision to linger on black after certain cuts for longer than usual just to ramp up the tension even more. The score is terrifying and the use of ghostly choirs and discordant strings amplifies the dread and atmosphere to almost unbearable levels at times.

The film owes a lot to The Wicker Man (1974) as well as the more recent A Field in England (2012), not just in its allusion to pagan rituals and Witchcraft, but also in the way that it’s a horror film much more in style than in its content or plot. Eggers touches the cornerstones of the genre without ever being sucked into the clichés and tropes as you might expect from the title and marketing of the film. I’m always a sucker for period horror and the setting of New England during the “witch trials” period is always worth revisiting. To enhance this,  Eggers authentic script is beautifully written and fantastically delivered (most often through Inesons unmistakable tones).

The Witch may buckle under its own hype at times, but it never breaks, standing out as a stark and original piece that betrays it’s bog standard horror marketing campaign. A painfully slow pace may turn some off and perhaps it suffers from style over substance at times but give it a few days and you’ll find the bleak imagery and heavy themes remain under the skin. The Witch is a breath of fresh air for fans of both horror and art house cinema and aims to unsettle and unnerve rather than to scare. Also features the best performance by a goat this side of Drag me to Hell (2009).

**** 4 Stars

What did you think of the Witch? Did it live up to the hype?

The Forest (2016): Review

The Forest is a 2016 supernatural horror film. Directed by Jason Zada and starring Natalie Dormer (The Tudors) and Taylor Kinney (Zero Dark Thirty). The film is set around the real life Aokigahara forest, also known as the suicide forest.


Sara and Jess (both played by Dormer) are identical twins with a troubled past. After Jess goes missing in the suicide forest, Sara fears the worst and makes her way to Japan to find her sister. Aided by suspicious journalist Aiden (Kinney) and a local guide they begin an excursion into the forest, finding traces of Jess to suggest she has committed suicide. However, Sara refuses to believe this and insists on staying in the forest with Aiden. The more lost they become, the more the forest reveals it's own demons and Sara becomes drawn into a psychological battle to save her sister.


I had been aware of a film being made about the famous Aokigahara forest for some time, however, I was expecting the, as yet unproduced, Japanese film by legendary director Hideo Nakata (Ring, Dark Water). Therefore, what we end up with here feels like an American remake of a Japanese film that hasn't even come out yet and has more than a whiff of cultural appropriation. Obviously, the suicide forest is an excellent setting for a horror movie and the direction in this film is fantastic creating a real atmospheric dread throughout. There were also some genuinely creepy bits in the forest scenes and it reminded me of a cross between The Blair Witch Project (1999) and The Grudge (2004).


However, a film depicting such a real and tragic place is always in danger of veering into poor taste and this is made all the worse by the white American central characters. For a protagonist, I found Sara pretty unlikeable and she very much plays the American idiot abroad ie "You're eating what?". The character's lack of respect for Japanese culture and superstition soon infects the rest of the film and, although there are some Japanese characters, the film eventually comes off as a white washed interpretation of what is a very serious issue in Japan.


The Forest held my attention and even scared me a few times but, more often than not, it strayed into over the top tropes and became an irritant with a fairly poor ending to boot. American interpretations of Japanese horror are rarely successful (with the very notable exception of The Ring) but they are usually at least based on Japanese source material. Not terrible by any means but, I would imagine, Nakata can do a lot better.


*** 3 Stars


What did you think of The Forest? Are you familiar with the Aokigahara forest?

Nina Forever (2016): Review

Nina Forever is a 2016 romantic horror comedy. Directed by Ben and Chris Blaine and starring Fiona O'Shaughnessy (Utopia), Abigail Hardingham and Cian Barry. This is the Blaine brothers feature length debut and had a limited release on Valentines day.

The film centres around Rob (Barry) and Holly (Hardingham), two troubled souls who work at a supermarket together. Rob is still grieving after the sudden death of his girlfriend Nina (O'Shaughnessy) and the pair soon fall for each other and begin a relationship. However, things take a pretty dark turn when a bloodied Nina makes an appearance during sex and makes it clear she is not happy for Rob to move on. Nina continues to appear, tormenting the new couple and threatening to tear them apart unless they can find a way to preserve her memory and exorcise her ghost.

Nina forever strikes a very interesting balance between black humour and genuinely touching performances from the three excellent leads. Sure, it's a rom-zom-com, but it's more like Shaun of the Dead (2004) meets Nekromantik (1987) and deals with love and death in equal measure. Weirdly, Nina provides the comic relief (albeit jet black) when things are getting too intense between Rob and Holly. However, Nina also comes out with some pretty profound musings on what it's like to experience death and I found myself hanging on O'Shaughnessys every word.

The film is beautifully shot in suitably melancholic, muted tones and felt authentically English and miserable. I also really liked the way the narrative shifted between Rob and Holly as just when I started to think that one was the protagonist, it shifted to the other and the plot was refreshingly unpredictable. Ironically, the only thing I really took issue with was that the ending felt pretty unresolved, but I can't help but think that this was the entire point of the film and that, just maybe, this was intentional?

For all the over-saturation of the zombie genre, rom-zom-coms still don't come along that often. Films that can successfully balance sincere romance, authentic tragedy and morbid humour, come along even less often (Harold's Going Stiff is another fine example of this). Nina Forever isn't always an easy watch but it's one of the most fiercely original and thought provoking films of the year thus far.

**** 4 Stars

What did you think of Nina Forever? What's your favourite rom-zom-com?

Goosebumps (2016): Review

Goosebumps is a 2016 family horror film. Directed by Rob Letterman (Monsters VS Aliens) and starring Jack Black (School of Rock, King Kong), Dylan Minnette (Let Me In, Prisoners) and Odeya Rush (We Are What We Are). The film is based on the popular children's books by R.L Stine and 90s TV series.

The film starts off with a familiar Goosebumps setup. Zach (Minnette) is the new kid in the neighborhood and has moved in next to Hannah (Rush). The only problem is Hannah's overprotective and weird dad (Black), who seems intent on keeping her locked up in the house. This is where it starts to get meta. After Zach and his buddy Champ sneak into the house, they discover that, not only does Hannah's dad own a collection of Goosebumps books, but that he is R.L Stine himself! Unfortunately they learn this after accidentally opening one of the books and unleashing a menagerie of monsters on the unsuspecting town. The only way to get them back in? For Stine to write a new story that ends up becoming the plot of the film itself.

Goosebumps captures the feel of the original series (including a Danny Elfman score) and puts it through the Cabin in the Woods (2012) filter to freshen it up a little, with some Jumanji (1995) mechanics thrown in for good measure. Jack Black is surprisingly good as the semi-fictional version of Stine and even better as the iconic Slappy the dummy, who is perfect as the leader of the monsters. There is a good selection of monsters on show including the abominable snowman, the wolfman, a giant preying mantis and an assortment of gnomes. However, I still felt that there could have been more and sometimes they focused on the slightly more generic beasties.

The only part that let the film down a bit was the over reliance on cgi effects for the monsters, which were not of the highest standard (although they were dealing with a lot of different characters). Slappy was the only character rendered with practical effects (perhaps appropriate if he’s the leader) and a lot of the other monsters felt like they weren’t quite as alive as they should have been (particularly the gnomes who had lost a lot of their sinister qualities since the TV show). I also felt the romantic sub plot was somewhat unnecessary and bolted on and Hannah's character twist was pretty cheesy.

My expectations were fairly low for what is essentially a glossy, big budget reboot of a cult TV show that played such an important part in many horror fan’s childhoods. But, all things considered, this is probably as authentic a Goosebumps experience as could be expected in 2016, and on such a large scale. There might be an over reliance on CGI effects but that goes for the movie industry as a whole. Campy B-movie fun that the whole family can enjoy but unlikely to make the same impact as the original series.

*** 3 Stars

What did you think of Goosebumps? How does i compare to the books and TV show?

Martyrs (2016): Review

Martyrs is a 2016 American horror film. Directed by Kevin and Michael Goetz (Wrecked) and starring Troian Bellisario and Bailey Noble. The film is a remake of the seminal 2008 French film of the same name.

The film opens with a young Lucie (Bellisario) escaping captivity and being re homed in a convent where she meets future best friend Anna (Noble). Fast forward 10 years and a deranged Lucie storms a suburban home and exacts bloody revenge on her captors. Starting to lose touch with reality, Lucie reaches out to Anna who quickly gets dragged into a mass murder case, but also a worldwide religious conspiracy intent on creating martyrs who can potentially see through to the other side. This leads to a bloody finale which sees the girls achieve transcendence and discover the secrets of the universe before they die. 

Martyrs (2008) is not only one of the greatest French horror films out there but takes it's rightful place as one of the greatest horror films outright. Though the new wave of French extremity produced other gems (Haute Tension (2003) and Inside (2007), Martyrs perfectly encapsulated the savage but profound nature of the movement. And what do Americans do when they get their hands on complex, thought provoking foreign films? They dumb it down of course! Don't get me wrong, Martyrs is a fantastic looking film with a really strong score to boot, but the decision to remove almost all of the violence from the plot really defeats the object and significantly changes the tone of the film.

Random changes to other elements of the plot seem to have been made simply to differentiate from the original and the spectacular flaying sequence from the original is replaced with a simple crucifixion (which didn't even involve piercing of the hands and feet). If the entire premise of the film is that Martyrs are created through a process of intense suffering then we need to see that suffering (as in the original) otherwise the transcendence (or in this case double transcendence) is not believable and makes no sense.

There is probably a good reason that no other French new wave films have been remade. A. Not many directors would have the balls to do it and B. most directors understand that these films have a uniquely French blend of extreme violence and sophisticated, cerebral ideas that would simply not translate into an American setting. This isn't a terrible remake, but rather, falls into the vast and expansive category of pointless remakes that offer nothing new nor enhance enjoyment of the original film.

** 2 Stars

What did you think of the remake? Is the extreme violence vital to the plot?