MULTI-REVIEW!!!

I've let this place go to the dogs after being threatened by lawyers reprisenting big business. But that doesn't mean I have stopped watching movies. Although 2010 has been pretty bad apart from one or two absolute gems scattered throughout. Anyway, this is what I've seen recently-

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010) David Yates - I haven't been a big fan of the last few Harry Potter films. In fact, I haven't really thought they were great since The Prisoner Of Azkeban. However, this film bucked that trend. There are some really quirky choices in direction which let the film down a bit. And even after seven films, Daniel Radcliffe still really sucks at acting. But Rupert Grint and Emma Watson are excellent, the film feels tonally like Fellowship Of The Ring. And it sets up really nicely for Part 2. Good job everyone!

9/10






The Social Network (2010) David Fincher - David Fincher is one of the few really really special directors working today. His films are worth looking out for as soon as they're announced. So it comes as no surprise that he could make a film about computer coding so damn exciting. Charting the early meteorical rise of Facebook, focusing on the relationships between Mark Zuckerberg, Eduardo Saverin and Sean Parker, The Social Network is like All The President's Men for the 21st Century. Superbly written by The West Wing scribe Aaron Sorkin, and featuring excellent performances from all, but primarily Jesse Eisenberg as Zuckerberg, The Social Network is one of the best films of 2010.

9/10





R.E.D. (2010)
Robert Schwentke - Based on Warren Ellis' comic book of the same name, RED is about retired assassins who are being targeted by an unknown source, possibly connected to the CIA. Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich, Helen Mirren and the rest of the cast are clearly in it for the fun, and that's what the film is. It's not outstanding by any measure, but it is entertaining and easy to watch.

7/10






Centurion (2010) Neil Marshall - I'll admit, I really just watched this out of morbid curiosity. Neil Marshall's films can go either way. And going in with zero expectations probably saved the film for me. It's absolute schlock. And Marshall loves his gore. It's rubbish, but again, there are worse ways to spend 97 minutes. Worth it for Michael Fassbender actually doing a decent job with a terrible script, Dominic West chewing up the scenery, Olga Kurylenko being terrifyingly hot and seeing a head being chopped in half the same way about 3 times.

5/10





I Love You Phillip Morris (2009) Glenn Ficarra and John Requa - This was surprisingly decent. It's the true story of a conman who basically took the piss out of George W. Bush's Texas penal system continuously for years. All in the name of love of another man. Surprisingly funny and with two really great performances from Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor, it's a very over-looked film. Really entertaining.

7/10






Jackass 3D (2010) Jeff Tremaine - Awesome. There's not much to say really, you know what to expect. Except in 3D. Nearly puked. Laughed my ass off. No apologies!

8/10














Four Lions (2010) Chris Morris - I'm a big fan of Chris Morris. So when I heard he was doing a comedy about four suicide bombers, I chuckled away to myself. The film is pretty shocking in parts, but then having seen Morris' other work, that comes as no surprise. Very well performed low-budget comedy about a subject most people wont touch, Four Lions is exactly the right type of satire in this current climate. Really excellent.

9/10






[REC] 2 (2010) Jaume Balagueró and Paco Plaza - I thought this would suck. It takes place roughly five minutes after the first REC finished, and picks up exactly where that film left off. It's incredibly creepy, gory, and features quite a few jumps. A horror sequel that expands on the original in a very inventive way. And while some complain that it takes a bit of the mysetery out of the first film, which admittedly, it does, it doesn't rest on it's laurels and instead expands on the story. Proper horror done really well.

8/10



So there you go. Some more films I've watched recently. The end of the year review will be coming soon, which should cover a few more of the films I've seen. Some good, some rotten. Hopefully I'll get a full top and bottom 10. But I wouldn't count on it! The cinema is costing more and putting out crap, so it really puts me off going. However, we shall see.

EDEN LAKE (2008) - James Watkins

Occasionally, two of my friends and I seek out the darkest, most disturbing films we can find and spend a night putting ourselves through these finds. Grim Night, we call it. Two nights ago, I had a Grim Night on my own. I got hold of James Watkins’ Eden Lake and sat down to watch it on Valentine’s night. Christ. It was dark. The British horror film manages to take common fears and magnify them with horrific results.

Jenny and Steve are a young couple, looking for a quiet weekend away at a picturesque flooded quarry which will be soon turned into a holiday resort. They pack up their four by four, bring a tent and head off. Unfortunately, the quiet seclusion is disturbed by a group of young teenagers, bent on mayhem. At first, the teens are a nuisance. But Steve’s pride leads him to confront the teenagers. This serves no purpose but to enrage the teens, who embark on a vicious vendetta on the couple.



The major success of Eden Lake is that director James Watkins creates an air of tension that is palpably uncomfortable. From the moment the first teenagers appear, you instantly feel uncomfortable, aware that these teens can turn nasty very quickly. They’re fiercely territorial, and Steve and Jenny’s intrusion on their turf will only lead to confrontation. Watkins never lets the tension drop, indeed it escalates steadily throughout the film.

The violence in the film is sporadic, but incredibly disturbing. We’re not talking ridiculous Saw-levels of blood spilling, but violence which, taken in context is quite realistic. Michael Fassbender’s performance as Steve just adds to the nastiness of the events as he (once again) delivers a brilliant piece of acting. Kelly Reilly also does very well, however, her character reacts to situations that at times feel rather contrived. But Jack O’Connell’s performance as the lead teen in the gang is by far the shining light of the film. Brett is a vicious, angry, nasty piece of work. However, there are reasons behind who he is. And O’Connell manages to convey these reasons without ever being obvious. It’s his performance with Watkins’ writing that is the success of the role.



Eden Lake is one of those nasty little films that you hear little about, but leaves quite the impression on you. It’s relentlessly grim, and the tension builds to an incredibly nasty climax. It does play on the fears of Daily Mail ASBO hysteria, but that’s necessary for the purpose of the film. It’s a great little British horror film, and shows the big-budget American films how it’s done properly. Great performances and incredibly nasty. Just the type of film to be watched on Valentine’s Day!


8/10

PARANORMAL ACTIVITY (2007) - Oren Peli

Paranormal Activity was made two years ago, but is only now seeing a release. Very little is known about it, but through word of mouth, it is already the most profitable movie of all time. Is they hype justified? I had heard about it before I headed to the States. And I was sceptical when going to see it.

Katie and Micah are a young, attractive couple with a bit of a problem. Katie’s house (which Micah recently moved into) is plagued by strange occurrences. After purchasing a video camera, the couple begin to chronicle the activity in the house. But as the nights progress, the activity escalates. Katie is convinced it’s an evil force. Micah refuses to buy into anything Katie says. What is going on in the house?

As I’ve said many times in this blog, I love horror films. I’ve seen all manner of horror, from the so-bad-it’s hilarious tripe of Zombi Holocaust to modern greats like Let The Right One In and The Mist. If it’s horror, I’ll watch it. Few films actually scare me. The first time I saw Hideo Nakata’s Ringu way back in 1999 was the last time I was generally frightened by a movie. And then along came Paranormal Activity. I’m not going to say much, but where the film excels is what it doesn’t show you. It’s all about atmosphere and sound. And for that reason, it is a tremendous success and one of the best horror films I’ve seen in years. Genuinely frightening.

9/10

MARTYRS (2008) - Pascal Laugier

Lord knows where to start with Martyrs. Advance word came through that this was the most controversial film of the year. However, whenever I hear this statement, I always find the films to be either complete rubbish or undeserving of such a description. As I sat down to watch Martyrs, I knew little to nothing about it other than it was a French film and whatever the two line plot description on IMDB. I was unprepared for what I was about to witness.

Anna and Lucie are two orphaned girls. In the opening of the film, we see a young teenage girl, battered and bruised, running through what looks like an abandoned industrial complex. She is terrified and clearly fleeing something awful. She escapes and ends up in an orphanage where she is withdrawn and alone until another young orphan befriends her. Years later we see a family sitting down to have breakfast. They are happy. The perfect picture of a family. They young kids playfully bicker while the parents discuss what the older boy is going to study in college. This picture is violently interrupted by the arrival of a young woman bent on bloody murder. This is the older Lucie. She murders the family and calls Anna. There is something desperately wrong with Lucie. She is haunted by something which we are not clear anyone but her can see. Anna arrives at the scene of the mayhem and must clean up what Lucie has done. And as events unfold, things descend into something that can only be described and a horrific nightmare.



As I sit here wondering what to write next, I find it very hard not to go into detail. I don’t want to spoil anything for anyone, as Martyrs has to be seen to be believed. But that’s not a recommendation. It’s more of a disclaimer as nothing I can write can really do justice to what happens on screen. Martyrs is probably the most incredibly difficult film I have ever had to sit through. I’ve seen quite a few difficult films. Some were difficult due to the physical brutality the characters had to endure. Other, far more effective films were difficult due to the emotional hardship endured by the protagonists. Few films I’ve seen seemed to go out of their way to emotionally assault the audience. And Martyrs seems to want to do that in ways that the makers of the reprehensible Saw franchise could only hope to.

The film is split into two separate parts that, while connected by story, are completely different in terms of sub-genre. One half of the film feels like a psychological horror that relies on a creature we’re never quite sure is real or imaginary. The violence in this part of the film is pretty hard core in terms of blood and guts and is difficult watching. However, about half way through, the film takes a complete change of course and becomes something quite different to what came before. And it’s at this point that the film becomes a real test. The violence, both physically and emotionally, is relentless and brutal. At points I questioned myself, worried that I was becoming desensitised to what I was witnessing, but thankfully, found myself appalled at just how far things were going.

There’s one part of me that admires what the filmmakers have done. In ways, the film is comparable to the Saw franchise. But when put next to Saw, Martyrs makes Saw look pretty tame. The difference between the two is in execution. Saw relies on elaborate traps and imaginative death scenarios. Martyrs doesn’t have that kind of thing. It’s just about beatings. And beatings. And beatings. This is far more difficult to sit through than someone with something that resembles an iron maiden attached to their head with a key implanted behind their eye. That kind of thing is just ridiculous, where as we all know what it feels like to take a punch. And the despair that the film creates just never lets up.



The unfortunate thing with Martyrs is that the premise just doesn’t justify the violence. Immediately after the film, I found myself comparing the film to Michael Haneke’s Funny Games. I initially thought where Funny Games was an answer to the audiences’ fixation on violence in 1997, Martyrs was an answer to those who love Saw and Hostel and those kinds of films. However, Pascal Laugier, the director of Martyrs just doesn’t give us a film that justifies what he puts the audience though. The concept, when explained, is quite novel. But it deserves a better film. By the time you finish Martyrs, you will just ask yourself; ‘why?’

It’s abundantly clear why Martyrs is the most controversial film of the year. In fact, I don’t think many films have ever come as close. The screening I was at was packed. But after three quarters of the film had passed, people were leaving. It’s just so difficult to sit through. My jaw hit the floor when I was told afterwards the film has a 97 minute running time. It feels more like a two and a half hour film.

I’m quite conflicted by Martyrs. It’s a very well put together film. The production values, make-up effects and acting are very good. I have to admire just how far the filmmakers were willing to push the boundaries. And the boundaries are destroyed, trampled into the ground and then defecated on. However, the script and plot really don’t justify the volume of violence in the film. You want to have a very, very strong script and one hell of a pay-off to justify what you’re put through in Martyrs. And I really don’t know what that pay-off would be. But Martyrs unfortunately doesn’t deliver. What is very clear about it is, it’s extreme. Few films come close. I won’t watch the film again for a very long time, if ever. I’d love to watch it again, to get a clearer view of how I feel, but I don’t think I could put myself through it. It may seem like a cop-out. But watch it and see if you could put yourself through it twice. As was once said in Futurama- You’ve watched it. You can’t un-watch it. A disclaimer for Martyrs if ever I heard one.


5/10

MIRRORS (2008) - Alexandre Aja

Horror movies. There are a lot of them. And unfortunately, a lot of them are crap. Simple as that. As audiences become more savvy in the art of cinema, special effects and the techniques of making them jump, it is up to the filmmakers to become more inventive and creative. Unfortunately, this is rare in Hollywood. Most horror movies are either remakes or adaptations of previously made Asian films. Alexandre Aja’s new version of Mirrors is one of the later.

Ben Carson is an ex-cop. He’s currently not on the force after killing a man by accident. He’s an alcoholic and has been kicked out of his home by his pathologist wife. He misses his son and daughter and wants to get his life back on track. In order to do this, Ben takes a job as the night watchman in an abandoned shopping mall that has been destroyed by fire. The building is old, ornate and was clearly once beautiful. And it is filled with mirrors. The mirrors are unusual in that they’re untouched and unblemished and as Ben’s job unfolds he notices strange things in the reflections. People appear in the mirror, but aren’t there in real life. And Ben’s own reflection acts strangely. And as things start going wrong in Ben’s life, he must figure out he’s going mad, or if there’s something more sinister in the mirrors.



Why oh why must directors rely on loud noises and animals jumping out at the protagonist in order to get scares. It simply just does not work. There is something to be said for building mood and creepiness. Atmosphere is far more frightening than loud noises. What you can’t see is infinitely more terrifying than what you can. Yet in horror movie after horror movie, the same old tactics, the same old techniques pop up, and there is nothing there to elicit more than a raised eyebrow from those of us who are used to this kind of thing. And Mirrors is no different.

The horror elements aside, the other problem with Mirrors is the script. It’s lazy. And takes twists that are either bafflingly poorly judged or else blatantly obvious. Kids aren’t scary any longer. It’s done. Unless the kid is Damien from the original version of The Omen, you’re going to get very little in the way of creepiness. Yet in Mirrors, we have a normal kid who goes spooky. Done, dull, move on. You could literally tick off the horror clichés while watching Mirrors. And then, in the climax, there are three separate and different endings. It’s like Aja and co-writer, Grégory Levasseur watched three distinct types of horror movie and lifted the endings of each, jamming them into the ending of Mirrors. None of them work within the context of the movie, and yet, if two endings were lifted, the remaining ending wouldn’t work either. It’s terrible.



Kiefer Sutherland, doing this while on hiatus on the filming of 24 does his best. And he does fairly well. Being a frantic, stressed to the point of breaking, can-do father is something Sutherland has nailed while doing 24. So he’s just repeating that here. And that’s fine. Paula Patton, who plays Carson’s wife does the usual concerned turned screaming feminine role. And Amy Smart has little to work with playing Ben’s sister. The rest of the cast is pretty ineffectual. And there’s the scary kid.

There is one gruesome moment in Mirrors that was pretty entertaining. But it’s a fleeting moment and lends little to the rest of the film. It’s just dull. Little in the way of scares, and clichés galore. Dull. There’s no other way of describing it.


3/10

Night Terror

A very talented friend and ex-colleague of mine, Ian Kenny has shot a short horror film called Night Terror. The guy's sickeningly talented, and the short is pretty excellent! It's about a woman returning home on a dark, stormy night and finding out all's not well in her house. Ian wrote, directed, and shot the entire thing... in fact he did everything but star in it, so he's quite the auteur!

Anyway, head on over to www.nightterrorthemovie.com and check out the behind the scenes materials. It wont disappoint!

Night Terror


Night Terror from benjaminkenjamin on Vimeo.

THE STRANGERS (2008) - Bryan Bertino

Serial killers. Mask-wearing psychos. Two young lovers trapped in an isolated home. It’s been done before. To death. Yet this month, we see the release of The Strangers. A film that has those done-to-death elements. Yet it’s another attempt at scaring apathetic audiences with loud noises and jump scares. None of the psychology, all of the cheap thrills.

So we have two young people who arrive at a house off the beaten track, isolated somewhere in America. These two people are lovers, but they’re on a rocky road. Things aren’t going well for them. The house has been done up as a surprise for the girl who has just rejected her boyfriend’s marriage proposal. But things are about to get a whole lot worse. A faceless girl arrives on the door. She is the harbinger of doom. While she initially disappears, she returns with two other masked intruders who proceed to intimidate Kristen and James. Will they get out of this situation alive?



We’ve been here before. It’s ground that is well covered and executed in far better ways. Director Bryan Bertino has some good ideas but they’re not executed very well. While he avoids giving the audience anything sane to grab onto, he keeps his villains masked and anonymous. We never get the cathartic release of finding out who they are. It’s a shame that there’s little in the film to really scare. Shadows and jump scares are about the sum of the whole proceedings. If the sound were turned down a little, there’d be nothing at all.

Liv Tyler and Scott Speedman do their best with what they’ve got in terms of a script. But there’s little for them to do in the film. She just screams, he just runs around having one bad escape idea after another. In the end, there’s little for us to really grab onto and care about in these characters. The rest of the roles are either faceless or relegated to cameos that last mere moments. The direction is effective enough, I guess. But all that’s in the film has been seen before. Been there, done that.



At the end of the day, if you’ve never seen a horror movie before, I’m sure The Strangers would scare the bejesus out of you. But if you’re familiar to the genre, avoid it. It’s an absolutely tame Texas Chainsaw Massacre kind of film. Nothing to see here. Move along.


5/10

[REC] (2007) - Juame Balaguero & Paco Plaza

Spanish horror seems to be the new Asian horror. Over the last few years, films like The Others, Pan’s Labyrinth and The Orphanage have shocked and terrified audiences. And each of these films has brought something new to the table. Released last year, [REC] is one of the latest Spanish horror film to arrive at our doors. While parts of the film have been done before, [REC] also manages to hold it’s own when put up against other similar films.

[REC] is a mockumentary in the same style as The Blair Witch project. We observe proceedings through the lens of a video camera, as a documentary crew follows a team of fire fighters over the space of a night. The crew consists of a cameraman we never see and sexy presenter Angela. They hop on board the fire engine after an emergency call is placed. The crew arrive at a tenement building where screams are heard from one of the apartments. When the police and fire crew enter the apartment, they are viciously attacked by a bloody and screaming old woman. Things go from bad to worse when the government arrive at the tenement, seal everyone in and tell them nobody can leave. And the danger from within grows ever more deadly.



What works so well with [REC] is that it’s a total slow-burner. The film begins in a light hearted manner. Angela, the sassy reporter is after action and goes through the motions of interviewing various fire fighters while taking the piss at times. As we arrive at the tenement, you feel like you’re watching rough footage of a pre-watershed fly on the wall documentary. We’re introduced to the characters in the film and there are a few funny moments. But as things turn dark, the audience, like the characters in the film become more isolated and confused. There are numerous questions, but no answers. It’s a tried and tested formula, and filmmakers Juame Balaguero and Paco Plaza do an excellent job of building the tension.

The film feels very similar to 28 Days Later. In fact, it’s not hard to imagine that [REC] takes place in the same universe as 28 Days Later, just in a different part of the world. The infection that the people are suffering from shares the same symptoms as the rage virus in 28 Days, and 28 Weeks Later. It's not identical, it just looks the same. So from that respect, you may not be too frightened by the film. But events are kept moving swiftly, and during the tension moments, you are left biting your nails.



However, the real terrifying moment comes towards the end of the film. Like most great horror films, [REC] builds it’s tension to a crescendo and then unleashes the goods on the audience. And I must admit, when events did climax, I was pretty terrified. Again, the moment in the film felt like something I have seen before. If you’ve ever seen the Chris Cunningham short, Rubber Johnny, you’ll have some idea of what to expect. However, despite having seen similar before, the execution of the film pushes these minor complaints out of the picture. The film is better than the sum of it’s parts. The acting, for the most part is pretty good. Angela, played by Manuela Velasco is the character we’re given most access too. She’s the host of the show, and therefore is the actor with most screen time. She’s cocky at the start and terrified by the end, so she puts in a good performance. Everyone else gets little more than passing shots and a quick interview. But when they have to freak out, they freak out well!

As I’ve said, [REC] isn’t the most original film in the world. It lifts elements from other films, however it rearranges them well and builds tension very well. The ending is genuinely terrifying. [REC] would make a good third part of a 28 Days/Weeks marathon night. It shares a similar approach to these films and wouldn’t seem out of place among them. Unfortunately, a US remake is on it's way. Totally unnecessary. One note... there’s a lot of screaming in the film. If you’ve sleeping housemates, keep the volume down!


8/10

THE MIST (2007) - Frank Darabont

Frank Darabont and Stephen King are a combination that work as well as salt and vinegar. Rum and coke. Lucas and Spielberg... well, maybe not so much the last one. The Shawshank Redemption, Darabont’s break out, and his second King adaptation is widely considered one of the greatest films ever made. After Shawshank came The Green Mile, another success. And now, we have The Mist, an adaptation of a King short horror story. While the film was a modest success in the US, it’s release on this side of the water was delayed until now. Why? It’s a mystery.

The Mist takes place, as with most of King’s stories in the small Maine town of Castle Rock. David Drayton takes his son to the local shops to gather supplies after their house was damaged in a storm. While in the shop, a mist descends on the town, engulfing all the buildings. But this is no ordinary mist. There’s something lurking in the mist that will kill anyone unlucky enough to get caught up in it. But the mist isn’t the only thing that threatens David, his son, and the rest of the townspeople in the shop. The cabin fever setting in in the shop divides the people into factions. One faction staying as rational as possible, the second faction following the preaching of an increasingly fanatical and dangerous bible-bashing Christian fundamentalist.



There are so many films that have been adapted from Stephen King books, that the poor outweighs the good. While films like The Shawshank Redemption and Stand By Me are great, there’s also tosh like Needful Things, The Lawnmower Man and Dreamcatcher. So whenever a Stephen King book is adapted, approaching the film should be done with great trepidation. However, not all Stephen King books are adapted by Frank Darabont. And in the hands of this director, you’re in for something special. The Mist is essentially a monster movie. There are creatures in the mist and they’re nasty. Very nasty. But what pushes The Mist ahead of the average monster movie is what goes on inside the shop that everyone is stuck in.

While it’s clear that being in the mist is fatal, the atmosphere in the shop turns increasingly dangerous as fear leads to paranoia and the townspeople start devolving in their ethics. Leading the paranoia is the local crazy religious fundamentalist. She’s convinced she’s a conduit to God and when people start becoming desperate, they turn to her for guidance. But her guidance is incredibly dangerous and turns a bad situation worse. Darabont manages to keep the two sides of the story perfectly balanced. While you’re terrified of what’s outside (and there are a few jump-scares, essential horror movie staples), the tension builds to an almost uncomfortable atmosphere inside. With these two sides of the story, the pacing of the film never lets up, and the running time of two hours twenty minutes never seems long.

Because the film works so well as a character piece as well as a horror movie, the performances need to be spot on. And once again, Darabont succeeds in getting the best from his central cast. Thomas Jane plays David Drayton, the story’s main protagonist. Drayton’s the everyman of the film. All he cares about is protecting his son, but when the chips are down, he’s got the drive to act. Jane’s performance is excellent, with a particularly devastating piece of acting that requires me to go into detail I’m going to skip due to spoilers I want to avoid. The standout performance, however, is from Marcia Gay Harden who plays the Christian fundamentalist, Mrs. Carmody. Mrs. Carmody is the kind of fire-and-brimstone preacher who sees all disasters as the wrath of a vengeful God. While her convictions are solid, and her intentions, while crazy, are good in her eyes, she becomes the villain as she allows her delusions take hold and she begins to gain power. Harden creates in Mrs. Carmody a villain you love to hate. The rest of the cast is made up from Darabont regulars in Laurie Holden, William Sadler, and Jeffrey DeMunn and character actors such as Toby Jones and Andre Braugher. And while each of them is excellent, with characters that deserve as much attention, I’d be going on all day.



It’s a credit to Darabont’s script that the characters are so fully realised. It’s the relationships between the many characters that elevate this film above the average horror movie. In fact, I can say quite confidently that The Mist is one of the finest horror films I have seen in a long, long time. The monster moments are horrific and suitable for the genre and the character moments are good enough for any drama. The origin of the mist itself is kept as ambiguous as possible which keeps the audience uncomfortably mystified, just like the townspeople. And with an ending that is astonishing in it’s willingness not to give the audience any sense of comfort in closure, Darabont’s film is as close to the perfect horror film as I’ve seen any film come. It’s almost impossible to lavish enough praise on The Mist. It’s surprising how good it is. But when Stephen King’s stories are adapted well, they make for excellent viewing. The Mist is up with The Sawshank Redemption and Kubrick’s adaptation of The Shining as the best of King’s stories on screen. The Mist is an astoundingly well made movie. And one for the best of ’08 list.


9/10

THE EYE (2008) - David Moreau & Xavier Palud

Oh god. Yet another Hollywood remake of an Asian horror film. By now, you should know the drill with these films. An Asian horror movie is released and has some degree of success with western audiences. Some studio buys the rights to the film. They cast some pretty girl to play the lead, water the horror down for American audiences, add some silly CGI sequences for the wow factor, and release the film without much fanfare. And so this applies to the remake of The Eye.

Blind violinist, Sydney Wells goes in for an operation to replace the corneas in her eyes, hopefully allowing her to see once again. She lost her eyesight as a child, and has become used to using her other senses to get her about in the world. Her new eyes are a success, but they bring with them a strange side-effect... she can see dead people. And so, while to her friends and doctor, she seems somewhat of a loon, Sydney sets off to find out where her eyes came from and solve the mystery as to why she’s seeing scary stuff.



There are two main problems with this film. And both problems are pretty detrimental to the overall film. The first problem is the script. While I haven’t seen the original South Korean film, I can imagine it was a lot more effective than this US remake. However, this film feels like it’s a watered down version of another more scary film. And there are few to no scares here. Most of the scares come from jump scares. Things jumping out from nowhere to get a cheap scare. The story itself is pretty dull. The ending isn’t groundbreaking or surprising in any manner, and Sydney’s quest just seems uninteresting.

The other major problem is Jessica Alba. So far, Alba’s been known for her roles in comic book movies such as Sin City and the Fantastic Four movies. In The Eye, she seems to be attempting to break from that mould and do something different. Develop as an actress. And for that, she deserves some credit. However, it’s a shame that she falls flat on her face due to her innate lack of talent as an actress. At moments, Alba does try to emote, showing attempts at anger and desperation. But she’s just completely useless at it and fails miserably. Apparently Alba trained for six months to learn the violin for the role. Yet in the scenes where she is playing, her finger movements bear no relation what so ever to the music playing, and she ends up looking like she’s just poking randomly at the violin. It’s all part of ruining the illusion that she’s actually playing a character. One thing is for sure. When her looks fade, so will Jessica Alba’s career. She’s a terrible actress and this film does her no favours in dispelling that fact.

The rest of the cast, including Alessandro Nivola and Parker Posey just look like they’re going through the motions. The paycheques for this movie must have been fairly hefty and both these actors, who are usually very good, seem to be phoning in their performances. Perhaps they were hired to make Alba look better as an actress, but then the script is so dull, it gives them nothing really to do. The direction, by David Moreau and Xavier Palud drifts somewhere between dull and clichéd. They rely on the hammy use of loud noises and things jumping out of shadows for scares. And then there’s the ‘monsters’ which consist of badly CGI’d grey blobs which occasionally growl at the camera and scare about as much as Alba can act.



I really hope the trend for remaking Asian horror movies ends soon. It wont, but we can hope. This is yet another in a long line of dull horror movies that are nothing more than a waste of money and talent. And no, I’m not referring to the lead actress there. Do what I should have done. Go get your hands on the original film.


3/10

CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST (1980) - Ruggero Deodato

There’s a very short list of films I’ve been meaning to see, yet am somewhat loathed to see. I do intend to see the films, but by their reputation alone, I find myself not looking forward to them at all. However, one of these films, Ruggero Deodato’s infamous horror film, Cannibal Holocaust found it’s way onto the screen in a friend’s house the other night, and I found myself compelled to watch...

Professor Harold Monroe is a corn-cob pipe puffing, wool sweater wearing professor from NYU who is charged with marching into a generic Amazonian rainforest. His mission is to find a lost film crew, who have disappeared while making a documentary about the tribes who reside in the forest. He encounters a tribe called the Yanomamo, and while living with them, he finds the remains of the film team, and their footage. He returns to New York with the footage, which shows, in gory detail, what happened to the film-makers.



So Cannibal Holocaust is known as one of, if not the most controversial film of all time. It’s one of those late 70’s, early 80’s Italian horror movies that relies on gore rather than story. Most of the story is just there to tie the gory scenes together. And that’s certainly the case here. In fact, the title, Cannibal Holocaust is something of a misnomer. While people do die in the film, and those scenes, to anyone who’s seen their fair share of gore throughout the years, are pretty standard, it’s the animal deaths that are the most reprehensible and objectionable things in the movie. I’m no PETA member, believe me. I likes me steaks rare and bloody. But killing animals for the purposes of entertainment really isn’t on. A coatimundi, two monkeys, a tarantula, and most horrifically, a turtle are all slaughtered on camera. These scenes serve no purpose towards the plot and are inserted solely to shock. It’s incredibly uncomfortable viewing and pretty offensive, to be honest.

But I’ll step down off my soapbox for now. Aside from the animal butchering, the rest of the film itself is still pretty offensive. The first half of the film, which features Harold Monroe (played by ex-pornstar, Robert Kerman), just showcases the ‘natives’ in their natural habitat. While the filmmakers are striving for realism in their depiction of the natives, you can’t help feeling that overall, everything just seems a little... racist. Nothing feels real. It feels staged, and devoid of any morality. The second half of the film, during which we see what happened to the film crew is even worse. The behaviour of the four young people who trekked into the jungle gets progressively worse as the footage is shown. They act incredibly cruelly to the natives until the natives turn on them and pretty much hack them to pieces. I will admit, it’s easy to see why the film courted so much controversy when it was released. To the point where Deodato had to present his actors in court just to avoid charges that he actually murdered them while filming. But at the same time, everything in the film is just unnecessary. On the other hand though, it’s easy to see how films like The Blair Witch Project were heavily influenced by it. It does feel like a very extreme version of The Blair Witch Project.



Deodato attempts to lecture the audience that the civilised people who trek into the jungle are the real savages. That we’re a society obsessed with violence for entertainment. When Monroe shows the footage to studio executives, they want to show the film anyway. However, all this ropey subtext is lost in a film that ultimately is just trying to make the audience feel uncomfortable. For me, this film succeeds in that goal in ways very few other films have. And it really shows how filmmakers like Eli Roth, and those behind the Saw franchise really are lightweights. However, it’s a dubious honour to bestow upon this film, as I don’t think it’s a good film in any way. Am I sorry I watched it? No, not at all. I’m not sure what that says about me, but I make no apology for it. But now that I have seen what is considered the most controversial film of all time, at least I know I don’t have to sit through it for the first time again. Not that I’ll be re-watching it any time soon.


2/10