2021 - January
RANKING ALL FILMS:
01. The Keep (1983) 4/4
02. The Blair Witch Project (1999) 4/4
03. The Good Liar (2019) 3/4
04. Cold Prey (2006) 3/4
05. Dark Woods (2003) 3/4
06. Phantoms (1998) 3/4
07. DeepStar Six (1989) 2.5/4
08. Cold Prey II (2008) 2.5/4
09. April Fool's Day (1986) 2/4
10. Screamers (1995) 2/4
11. Cry Wolf (2005) 1.5/4
12. The Rental (2020) 1.5/4
13. The Translators (2019) 1.5/4
14. Cold Prey III (2010) 1/4
01. The Keep (1983) 4/4
02. The Blair Witch Project (1999) 4/4
03. The Good Liar (2019) 3/4
04. Cold Prey (2006) 3/4
05. Dark Woods (2003) 3/4
06. Phantoms (1998) 3/4
07. DeepStar Six (1989) 2.5/4
08. Cold Prey II (2008) 2.5/4
09. April Fool's Day (1986) 2/4
10. Screamers (1995) 2/4
11. Cry Wolf (2005) 1.5/4
12. The Rental (2020) 1.5/4
13. The Translators (2019) 1.5/4
14. Cold Prey III (2010) 1/4
List activity
47 views
• 0 this weekCreate a new list
List your movie, TV & celebrity picks.
14 titles
- DirectorDave FrancoStarsDan StevensAlison BrieSheila VandTwo couples rent a vacation home for what should be a celebratory weekend get-away.01-01-2021
"The Rental" is the story about four people you'd never want to go on a weekend retreat with going on a weekend retreat. They consist of the insufferable yuppy Charlie (Dan Stevens), his understanding wife Michelle (Alison Brie), his troubled brother Josh (Jeremy Allen White), and Mina (Sheila Vand) who happens to be both Charlie's business partner and Josh's girlfriend. In good old "Friday the 13th" tradition, we spend the first half getting to know the characters, but in "The Rental" that is not a virtue because this particular foursome is so dysfunctional, preachy, and generally unlikeable that they singlehandedly make the first 40 minutes of this film almost unbearable. They begin their trip to a cabin in the woods (no, I'm not joking) by deciding that the man they're renting it from must be a racist. Their proof. He turned down Persian Mina's reservation and accepted white Charlie's. So, the moment they get there, they begin acting in a hostile and patronising way towards Taylor (Toby Huss) despite the fact that he is nothing but forthcoming and helpful to them. When he goes to the trouble of acquiring a telescope for them to enjoy the stars, Mina announces that he's creepy and wants nothing to do with him. But, Mina and Charlie have bigger problems than Taylor to deal with. Namely, their unresolved and painfully obvious sexual tension which comes to the forefront during the drug-hazed first evening at the cabin resulting in a brief but passionate tryst in the bathroom. Meanwhile, Josh and Michelle spend some quality time together too during which Josh reveals to Michelle that Charlie has a history of cheating on his partners which greatly upsets her for some reason.
It is clear from these opening 40 minutes that debutante director/writer Dave Franco is aiming for the kind of psychological drama-infused genre film that Sophia Takal is exceptional at making. Her first two films "Green" and "Always Shine" had a similar dialogue-heavy structure to them during which the characters and their relationships slowly unfolded towards an inevitably horrific conclusion. However, "The Rental" never achieves the perceptiveness of the writing nor the intensity of the direction Takal brings to her films. My skin still crawls when I recall some of the dialogue scenes from "Always Shine" during which amiability imperceptibly crosses over into awkwardness before rising towards breathless tension. "The Rental", on the other hand, simply plods along with seemingly endless scenes of uninspired dialogue delivered by characters you want to know as little as possible about. The leads of Takal's films are by no means likeable and, in "Green", share the same sort of big-city bigotry as does the foursome from "The Rental", but they are wholly realised, three-dimensional human beings whose behaviour we can recognise and often defend as justifiable in the given situations. "The Rental" presents us with four characters so despicable and one-dimensional that by the time bad things started happening to them I just didn't care if they lived or died. This is not a good basis for a thriller.
The genre elements start to kick in when Mina discovers a camera in the bathroom, a camera which she deduces must have recorded her sexual encounter with Charlie. Who placed the camera there? Why, it must be the local country hick Taylor, of course. Mina confronts Taylor who strenuously denies the accusations, Josh mistakes their argument for Taylor attacking his girlfriend and ends up beating the man to death. Predictably, they decide not to call the cops and simply cover up the death.
After 40 minutes of establishing a series of personal issues between these four characters, the finale comes across as totally anticlimactic because none of these issues is ever resolved. Instead, our annoying leads are picked off one by one by some crazed maniac in a white mask who turns up in the film like a bad deus-ex-machina spoof. All that bickering, all that endless dialogue, and all that character establishing we had to sit through was for nothing. In the end, a mad slasher simply bashes their heads in and the credits roll. Boy wasn't that worth my time!
Why was the mad slasher necessary for this film? Why didn't Dave Franco simply allow his characters to resolve their conflicts amongst themselves? Seeing this toxic group of "friends" implode upon each other would have been far more interesting than seeing them hunted down in the encroaching fog. However, if he wanted to do a straightforward slasher film, why did he subject us to 40 minutes of character development? Especially when the characters he's developing are so unlikeable and uninteresting. Furthermore, their deaths are so unimaginative and bloodless that they won't satisfy any slasher fan out there. So, we get a film which will bore you with its first 40 minutes and leave you unsatisfied by the final 40.
"The Rental" is indeed a deeply unsatisfying and uninvolving film. Not all of it is bad but a flat and bloated screenplay by Dave Franco and Joe Swanberg tanks any good effort put into the production. I must commend the cinematography by Christian Sprenger, as well as the score by Danny Bensi and Saunder Jurriaans. The talented cast too is blameless for the film's failure as the characters they are tasked to play were problematic in the script itself. I can't, in all honesty, commend Dave Franco's direction, however, which I found to be rather flat and unimaginative. He never succeeds in wringing out any suspense, drama, or sense of catharsis from the material he wrote himself resulting in a film which feels static, has serious pacing issues, and ends in a limp and derivative slasher sequence. Despite a promising cast and a recognisable but comfortable premise, "The Rental" is a dismal flop.
1.5/4 - DirectorSean S. CunninghamStarsGreg EviganNancy EverhardTaurean BlacqueA team of navy personnel stationed at a temporary base at the bottom of the ocean and tasked with setting up nuclear missiles discovers a huge underwater cavern which houses a giant prehistoric creature.03-01-2021
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried, lies DeepStar Six, a Navy underwater station. It's mission: lay nuclear warheads deep under the surface in the next seven days. Short on time and manpower, project chief, the impatient and brusk South African named Van Gelder (Marius Weyers), decides to forgo procedure and skip the usual sounding of the land. Instead, he has the team begin the process of laying down the warheads immediately. But, as it so often happens in these kinds of movies, the excavation disturbs an underwater cavern which collapses and releases some kind of monster. A giant prehistoric arthropod which begins an aggressive campaign against the station. Now, the 11-person crew has to face a variety of dangers including the prehistoric arthropod, the nuclear reactor which is about to go super-critical, and the possibility of staying trapped underwater after a neurotic crew member evacuates with the station's sole escape pod.
OK, "DeepStar Six" indeed is "Alien" underwater. You've probably already sussed that. And yes, it is unfair to compare any creature feature set within the confines of a small group of people with "Alien", but with its low ambitions, "DeepStar Six" fails to detatch itself from the "Alien-rip-off" label. It is neither original enough nor well-made enough to be considered outside of that frame of reference. The plot is preposterously convoluted with twists and turns which even the most benevolent viewers won't be able to take seriously, the characters are only differentiated by the stereotypes they represent (the comic relief, the hero, the coward etc.), and the dialogue consists almost entirely either of cheap technobabble which obviously neither the screenwriters nor the actors understand or endless countdowns. I'm positive that, had it been made only a decade later, "DeepStar Six" would have premiered on the SyFy channel.
And yet, I have to admit that I did have fun watching "DeepStar Six". From the opening credits, it struck that soothing B-movie tone which I find ever so enjoyable. It has flat characters, bad dialogue, and a preposterous plot but it pulls it off without any pretentiousness and with a fast-paced, no-frills approach giving us an action set-piece or a plot twist in almost every scene. I enjoyed it all the more when I compared it to the miserable experience I had watching "Leviathan", another "Alien" rip-off which had come out the same year. The main difference between the two is that "Leviathan" tried very hard to be an intelligent, glossy production which made its failures all the more obvious and egregious. "DeepStar Six" contents itself with being a B-movie, plays all its scenes for fun, and, in my opinion, mainly gets away with it. I grinned at the bad lines, I grew to like the flat characters, and eventually, I got involved with the plot when I decided to leave my brain at home and just go with the ride.
But not all of "DeepStar Six's" charms are dependent on your good will. For instance, I have to commend the special effects which, admittedly, fail to sell us the illusion of the vast and wondrous ocean, but do a very convincing job on a very tight budget. The station and the SeaCat models look and move rather convincingly, and the creature design, although clearly inspired by "The Thing", is effective if not in the least imaginative. Smartly, it is mostly kept off-screen and the brief glimpses of it we do get to see look just convincing enough to sell the illusion. It's no "Alien" or even "Leviathan" which showcased some great work from Stan Winston, but it is head-and-shoulders above the stuff you'd usually see in your typical Roger Corman movies (take "Forbidden World", for example). Furthermore, I do seem to be one of the few fans of director Sean S. Cunningham. His work on the original "Friday the 13th" still stands out in my mind as some of the best slasher direction out there. In that film, he did a beautiful job of building tension through the use of a slow and pensive pace, lingering on shots of the picturesque Crystal Lake and the surrounding forest just long enough for us to start wondering if there was someone behind the trees or just under the surface of the water. In "DeepStar Six", his direction is less atmospheric but no less effective. It is an efficient, no-frills action movie with a steady, fast pace and a constant sense of tension. In the action scenes, he evokes a sense of chaos without making them confusing. Meanwhile, the quiet scenes, which are admittedly few, still retain a feeling of imminent menace. Cunningham is no John Carpenter, but he is a practical, skilful director.
The cast is uncommonly good for a low-budget horror movie too. Marius Weyers does a surprisingly low-key job with a character most actors would have a blast hamming up, Matt McCoy is not a particularly funny comic relief but he does avoid becoming obnoxious like the insufferable Daniel Stern in "Leviathan", Taurean Blacque is a likeable and affable father figure as the submarine captain, and the unfairly underrated Miguel Ferrer is, as always, utterly convincing as the fidgety coward. Only Greg Evigan and Nancy Everhard as the butch hero and his girlfriend underwhelm, mostly because they lack chemistry and charisma, but since "DeepStar Six" is an ensemble movie rather than a hero-led one this is not really a problem. Harry Manfredini's score and the cinematography by Mac Ahlberg are workmanlike and unimpressive but without any noticeable or egregious flaws.
If you go into "DeepStar Six" expecting a smart and scary SFX horror movie you will be disappointed. It is none of those things. However, if you, like me, take great pleasure from non-pretentious B-grade creature features, well-made on a tight budget, and with a gamely sense of humour then this is a film for you. It lacks the seedier the elements of Roger Corman's "Forbidden World" and the pretentiousness and annoyingness of George P. Cosmatos' "Leviathan". It is a tongue-in-cheek actioner which will help you pass 90-minutes in a fun yet not particularly memorable way.
2.5/4 - DirectorJoe ChappelleStarsPeter O'TooleRose McGowanJoanna GoingIn the peaceful town of Snowfield, Colorado something evil has wiped out the community. And now, its up to a group of people to stop it, or at least get out of Snowfield alive.03-01-2021
Jen (Joanna Going) and Lisa (Rose McGowan) are two sisters, one a respected small-town doctor, the other an LA low-life wasting her time on an alcoholic mother and a thug boyfriend. In an effort to turn her life around, Jen "abducts" her and convinces her to spend the winter with her in Snowfield, a charming Colorado community seemingly stuck in the 1950s. However, as the sisters roll into town, they find it deserted and strangely quiet. No barking, no birds, no people. The streets are littered with cars and all electronics seem to be down including the phones. Then, they stumble across the bodies. Veiny and twisted, they look as if they've been beaten to death, but there's no blood or signs of violence around them, only a strange black goo oozing out of their pores.
The first half of "Phantoms" is spooky and excellent as the sisters investigate the mysterious goings-on in the town of Snowfield accompanied by three local cops: the cool as ice Sheriff Hammond (Ben Affleck), the creepy deputy Stu Wargle (Liev Schreiber), and the quiet, yet competent Steve Shanning (Nicky Katt). These opening 45 minutes are full of WTF moments. They stumble across the severed heads of the local bakers on top of freshly made pies. A ghost of a murdered boy appears to Sheriff Hammond in a closet. The local priest lies dead in front of a mountain of metal and gold. Director Joe Chappelle does a great job of establishing an atmosphere of frenzied terror with fast, disorienting cuts, smooth camera movements, and a cacophony of sounds, screams, garbled speech, all deformed and seemingly coming from everywhere. It is a creepy and engrossing opening, full of mystery and threat.
The second half ramps up the action as the military takes over and the dead begin to rise. Back-up rides into town in mobile laboratories built like tanks. Hazmat-suited and armed to the teeth they begin exploring the town but are as stumped as our heroes. And although the military in these types of movies is the superior power, here they get wiped out very quickly indeed and their bodies join the hordes of the reanimated dead, not zombies, but vessels. Vessels for an ancient creature asking for just one thing: Dr Timothy Flyte (Peter O'Toole), a former academic turned hack writer of articles about Bigfoots and aliens. Why Flyte and what exactly is this thing haunting Snowfield are the mysteries at the heart of "Phantoms".
Based on a novel by Dean Koontz, of course, the story smacks of Stephen King with its small-town setting and Lovecraftian ancient-evil antagonist, but its style and tone seem also to have older inspirations, most obviously John Wyndham and Nigel Kneale. Like in one of their works, science proves to be the key to defeating the villain, but in the case of "Phantoms", that solution comes all too easily and neatly. The second half is nowhere near as eery or mysterious as the first and feels oddly rushed and disjointed. However, I did greatly enjoy "Phantoms", an effective little chiller with a spooky atmosphere and a relentless pace which never-the-less allows the mystery to be built at an engrossing pace. I credit mainly the excellent direction by Joe Chappelle which, as mentioned earlier, is energetic and atmospheric. The cast fares a bit worse, mainly because the screenplay, by Koontz himself, gives them very little to play. They are not characters as much as figures placed in a certain situation. They are merely there to react to strange events. However, the story is not really about them and as the mystery is so interesting and the atmosphere so effective, I stopped being bothered by the lack of characterisation very soon. Never-the-less, Ben Affleck is as charismatic a lead as ever and it's always a pleasure to watch Peter O'Toole, even when he's relegated to delivering expository dialogue. Going and McGowan are fine but don't really stand-out, especially as they get quickly sidelined by Affleck and the walking dead.
"Phantoms" is no Lovecraft nor is it "The Thing", but it is a spookily intriguing horror/thriller with some genuine scares. Well-directed and fast-paced, it doesn't overstay its welcome nor does it ever become tedious. Sure, it's second half is anticlimactic and the resolution to its central mysteries is both hackneyed and unoriginal, but the ride there is fun and creepy enough to make it worth your while.
3/4 - DirectorMichael MannStarsScott GlennIan McKellenAlberta WatsonNazis are forced to turn to a Jewish historian for help in battling the ancient demon they have inadvertently freed from its prison.04-01-2021
Dinu Pass, Romania, 1941. A motorised Wehrmacht unit tears through a village towards an uninhabited ancient citadel. In one of the cars, Captain Klaus Woermann (Jürgen Prochnow) stares out of the windows as mothers grip their children in fear, villagers run lest they be run down by the motorcade, and grown men cry in defeat. The sheer horror and hopelessness of this opening scene alone make all the ancient evils present in "The Keep" seem like nothing more than set dressing. But the film is aware of this and instead of trying to sell its demons as the greater evil than man, it wisely builds its horrors on the very fact that demons are no match for human evil. When a local priest and keeper of the citadel (William Morgan Sheppard) tries to warn Woermann of an ancient evil trapped behind its walls, Woermann replies: "Old man, the real nightmares man has made upon other men in this war. The bad dreams of your keep are nursery rhyme in comparison." This sense of desperate cynicism in the face of the greatest manifestation of evil in living memory paints this film a desperately grim colour indeed.
Soon enough, however, the demon kept in the citadel awakens and begins killing off the Wehrmacht soldiers. The local SS man, Kaempffer (Gabriel Byrne) tries the strong-arm approach, shooting villagers and blaming partisans, but when his attempts to stop the killings fail, a desperate option in the form of a frail, dying historian named Cuza (Ian McKellen) is called on for help. In a brilliant twist of bitter irony, Cuza is Jewish. However, "The Keep" is not your run of the mill creature feature and the tension in it comes not from a struggle between man and beast, but rather from the choice Cuza is put before. The demon from the citadel offers to end the war and destroy the Nazis if Cuza will release him from his prison. Now, this dying man has to discern what is the greater evil. An ancient all-powerful demon or the corrupt mankind. Or are they perhaps one and the same and does the evil that fuels the demon actually come from men themselves?
Michael Mann is best remembered for his visually-stunning crime films, but in "The Keep" he proves conclusively that he has more in common with Andrei Tarkovsky then Martin Scorsese. His work on this film is absolutely mesmerising. The imagery is full of potent symbolism, the story is a powerful allegory, almost a meditation on the extent of human evil, the atmosphere thick with terror and desolation. Alex Thomson's cinematography is simply stunning, making full use of the play of shadow and light. Every frame is, indeed, as the saying goes, a painting. Mann also makes great use of one of Tarkovsky's favourite editing tricks - slow-motion - to great effect which in conjunction with Tangerine Dream's melodic score, gives the film a dreamlike quality, a kind of nightmarish otherworldliness, placing the film in the world which is a mixture of fantasy and reality, the world of "The Mirror" and "Stalker", the world of cinematic poetry. And indeed Michael Mann is one of cinema's few true poets. A director whose intelligent and atmospheric approach makes even the banalest of screenplays seem revelatory. His mastery of cinematic techniques, imagery and editing, is second to none.
Not that the screenplay to "The Keep", written by Mann himself and based upon a novel by F. Paul Wilson is banal. It is full of emotionally charged and surprisingly lucid moments. In one of the film's most horrifying scenes, Cuza and his daughter Eva (Alberta Watson) sit behind a barbed-wire fence waiting for transport to a concentration camp. Oblivious to the dangers awaiting them, a group of gipsies sit next to them singing. "When we reach that new settlement place they say we are going to," says one of the gipsies, "then I play music for you, gadgie girl. There are farms, and wheat fields there... they said." In another superbly powerful scene, Woermann, disillusioned by the war, finally gathers up the courage to confront the despicable Kaempffer. "What are you discovering about yourself, Kaempffer? 'I murder all these people therefore I must be powerful!' And you smash them down because only that raises you up. It's a psychotic fantasy to escape the weakness and disease you sense at the core of your souls. You have scooped the most diseased psyches out of the German gutter. You have released the foulness that dwells in all man's minds. You have infected millions with your twisted fantasies! And from the millions of diseased mentalities that worship your twisted cross what monstrosity has been released on this keep? Who are you meeting, Kaempffer, in the granite corridors of this keep? Yourself." That scene goes to the very heart of what "The Keep" actually is. It is not a silly fantasy/horror movie to scare the little kids before sleep. It is not a homage to some long-dead horror writer. It is not a sentimental recreation of a genre from a bygone era. It is a potent allegory in which fantastical elements are used to explore the very darkest reaches of the human soul.
The material is expertly delivered by a superb cast. Ian McKellen is especially impressive giving the kind of performance you rarely see in movies these days. It is a fully committed, unselfconscious performance, emotional and loud. He gives himself completely to the material, trusting in it fully. He shouts, rages, screams. He doesn't care if he looks like a madman as long as the emotion of his character gets through - and it does. It is a theatrical performance perfectly reshaped and balanced to work on the cinematic screen. Also wonderful are Jürgen Prochnow who gives a soulful performance as the man tired of war, Gabriel Byrne who makes the despicable SS man pitiable and terrifying without ever resorting to caricature or seeming like a villain from an "Indiana Jones" film, and Alberta Watson with her expressive face and caring, hurt eyes. She is an easy woman to fall in love with.
"The Keep" has been cut-up and amateurishly reassembled by a studio that entirely misunderstood its aim. But even in this horridly disjointed and often incomprehensible shape, it is a powerful cinematic experience. It has been a long time since a movie excited and exhilarated me so much with the sheer power of its imagery and ideas. It is a brave movie, decades ahead of its time, and made in the wrong place. There is nothing Hollywoodsy about "The Keep". No. It has a Slavic soul. It is melancholic, cynical, dark, poetic, and steeped in ancient lore. It is an allegory, not a cheap genre movie schoolboys will want to sneak into the cinema to see. Unfortunately, due to the many missing scenes, several of the key elements of the film remain mysterious and unexplored. What is the role of the mysterious traveller with inhumanly blue eyes played by Scott Glenn? He appears at various intervals in the film and in the end, remains a cypher. What is the nature of the demon from the citadel? What are its powers and intentions? I hope with all my heart that the full version of "The Keep" is one day released, not only so that those questions are finally answered, but so that it finally gets the recognition it deserves. I don't believe in God, or in the power of love, but I do believe that the full version of "The Keep" is one of the most unusual and brilliant movies ever made.
4/4 - DirectorChristian DuguayStarsPeter WellerRoy DupuisJennifer RubinA military commander stationed off planet during an interplanetary war travels through the devastated landscape to negotiate a peace treaty, but discovers that the primitive robots they built to kill enemy combatants have gained sentience.05-01-2021
In the 2060s, the planet Sirius 6B was found to be rich with a rare ore, berynium, used to fuel interplanetary spaceships. Mass exploitation soon began until the mining engineers noticed that they were extracting something else along with berynium. Large quantities of radiation were released along with every new batch of the ore, poisoning the planet and those working on it. With their employers, the ominously named New Economic Block, unwilling to pull the plug on the profitable berynium mines, the engineers went on strike causing a faction war on the planet between the representatives of the New Economic Block (nicknamed the NEBs) and the engineers turned soldiers (nicknamed the Alliance). A decade later, the war still limps along, but the planet has been turned into a desolate wasteland by bombings and battles. The factions, tired of fighting and long forgotten by Earth officials, waste away locked in their underground bunkers - disillusioned soldiers of a forgotten war.
This backstory is in fact the most interesting aspect of "Screamers", a familiar yet effective reimagination of a civil war with some economic satire thrown in for good measure. The rest of the film, however, is a straight-forward, no-frills creature feature actioner with a sci-fi twist. The creatures are the titular screamers, androids, ruthless killing machines, able to take on the form of human beings. Originally developed by the alliance to take out NEB soldiers, they have now gone rogue and are killing anyone they come into contact with. Our heroes, two alliance men, the jaded colonel Hendricksson (Peter Weller) and the eager rookie Jefferson (Andrew Lauer) who trek out across the desert planet to attend a peace conference with the NEBs. Along the way they encounter a pair of rogue soldiers, a sexy black marketeer and a hell lot of screamers.
The interesting set-up of "Screamers" was copied from Philip K. Dick's short story "Second Variety", a creepy tale of war machines turning on their creators. Sadly, besides copying it, this film doesn't really do anything interesting with the material. All the commentary on capitalism and civil wars promised by the opening few minutes are quickly put aside for the benefit of familiar action set-pieces and some truly baffling plot developments. The result is a film which has a kind of gung-ho B-movie appeal to it but is ultimately a disappointing ride. Even the "Blade Runner"-esque question of who is human and who is an android isn't exploited. There's very little suspense or mystery in this film, no suspicion is thrown at any of the characters until they reveal themselves to be screamers after which they are quickly dealt with by a bullet to the head.
Some of "Screamers" can be very entertaining. I enjoyed how hammy a lot of it is, with its shamelessly stereotypical characters and over-the-top plot twists. This is the kind of film best viewed on a beat-up VHS tape or a random cable channel. The dialogue is woefully wooden and exposition-laden. The first 30 minutes is nothing but characters explaining things to other characters who should already know these things. The performances are as stereotypical as the characters. The loose cannon soldier has a wild haircut and speaks with a raspy whisper. The sexy black marketeer wears a revealing sleeveless shirt which she happily takes off for no reason. The rookie continually has a dumb smile on his face which is only ever replaced by a look of gee-whiz confusion whenever something goes boom. In fact, so much of the film is similarly hoaky that I suspect it was an intentional send-up. However, just as much of "Screamers" doesn't work. Without believable and likeable characters, the action set-pieces lack tension. The complex backstory which ultimately proves unimportant for the almost non-existent plot is delivered in such a clumsy way that it makes the first act of the film overbearing. Meanwhile, the second act is so bereft of plot or character development that it is frequently tedious. Ultimately, all the plot twists (none of which make much sense) are packed together in a rollercoaster third act which twists and turns so much that it begins seeming self-parodic.
"Screamers" has a terrific premise which a good sci-fi director with vision and sense of irony could have turned into a top-notch commentary on war and capitalism. Instead, director Christian Duguay has shot it as a mid-range B-movie which despite being occasionally entertaining is ultimately forgettable and disappointing. The audience of nostalgic B-movie fans will surely enjoy "Screamers", finding in it the same kind of charm they find rewatching cheap 1950s quota quickies, but anyone on the prowl for an intelligent and exciting sci-fi film should look elsewhere. With its hoaky script, middling direction, and preposterous plot twists, "Screamers" is just not as effective as it should have been.
2/4 - DirectorRégis RoinsardStarsLambert WilsonOlga KurylenkoRiccardo ScamarcioNine translators hired to translate the eagerly-awaited final book of a bestselling trilogy are confined in a luxurious bunker. The dream job becomes a nightmare when the first 10 pages of the top-secret manuscript appear online.08-01-2021
Since when can the quality of a thriller be deduced from the number of twists contained within it? Most people seem to blame M. Night Shyamalan for this infuriating trend, but it seems to be far more recent than that. I only began noticing it in films such as "Now You See Me" or Oriol Paulo's "The Invisible Guest". Sure, it has been done before in films such as "Ocean's Howevermany" but it has never been a trend until now. In fact, if you look at classic mysteries such as those written by Agatha Christie or many older movies known for their twists such as "The Sixth Sense" or "The Usual Suspects", you will find that they contain a single, major twist, usually revealed at the very end towards which the entire plot builds. This formula was somewhat subverted in the highly popular David Fincher film "Gone Girl" by revealing the big twist midway through, but there still was only one. In Régis Roinsard's "The Translators" there seems to be a major plot twist every 20 minutes, each more preposterous than the previous one mainly because no writer, no matter how good he is, can come up with a thriller plot so foolproof that it can withstand six plot shake-ups. Furthermore, none of them is in the least bit hinted at, foreshadowed, or built up to which makes them less plot twists and more cheap surprises, sort of like mental jump scares. The joy of a great mystery is playing along, collecting all the pieces of the puzzle, and trying to figure out the twist before the detective gets there. In "The Translators" and films of its ilk, you can only stare at the screen in disbelief as the writers reveal increasingly more outrageous schemes in order to surprise you. Does it work? Sure. In the same way that I'd be surprised if a random person dropped a cup of boiling coffee on my crotch. But being surprised doesn't equate enjoying being surprised. A good plot twist has to make sense and has to make sense of previously mysterious aspects of the story. It has to be hinted at before it is revealed.
The opening premise of "The Translators" is that a group of nine... well, translators, is locked in an underground bunker by a megalomaniac publisher (Lambert Wilson) so that they can translate the latest instalment of an insanely popular thriller franchise in secret. But, someone leaks 10 pages of the novel online and threatens to leak the rest unless the publisher pays 80 million euros by the next day. Who's the mysterious hacker and how did they manage to leak the pages from an underground bunker that has no internet connection? This premise promises a closed-circle mystery, a kind of modern "And Then There Were None" but with novel pages rather than murder victims. However, this promise is never delivered upon because the movie begins taking all sorts of wild detours. By the midpoint, the hacker is revealed and the film becomes not a mystery but a caper film as their plan slowly unfolds. However, as we are never given enough clues or time to figure out who the hacker is by ourselves or how did they manage to do what they've done, there's no pleasure to be gained from watching "The Translators". In a sense, it's not a mystery at all or even much of a thriller. Just a series of ludicrous plot reveals tied together by a barely coherent plot. Why does the publisher in this film act like the concept of secrecy in publishing is a brand new thing? Translators of the "Harry Potter" franchise or the "Game of Thrones" franchise didn't have to be locked up in an underground bunker. How come a single man seems to have the power over foreign publishing houses? How does he expect not to get prosecuted after he imprisons his translators in the bunker in order to find the hacker? Only the slightest bit of disbelief is required for "The Translators" to fall apart and that is not even getting into the final series of twists which push this film into the realm of fantasy.
Nothing in "The Translators" is better than adequate. Régis Roinsard's direction is competent but unexciting. He fails to build up much of a sense of atmosphere and the pace he imposes upon the film is much too slow. The cast is altogether decent if unmemorable. The nine translators are played by actors without much charisma or natural presence which compounded with the fact that they're all one-dimensional stereotypes makes the leads of this film largely indistinguishable from one another. In fact, I believed almost until the very end that the Danish translator was the same character as the German translator. Lambert Wilson is the only cast member who is somewhat fun to watch but even he doesn't seem to be having as much fun as he usually does hamming it up in bad movies. The dialogue, however, is simply appalling and seems to consists entirely out of half-arsed philosophical arguments (actually just vague one-liners purporting to be philosophical) and randomly selected literary quotes. Take a few of these nuggets of brilliance in consideration. "A puzzle is a sequence of simple things", "Crime is a form of theatre", "Magic is not of this world". Also, had the screenwriters ever read a novel in their life they'd know that no self-respecting author would write a passage as inane as this without a hint of sarcasm: "Her long brown hair wove over the water of Seine. In her curls were reflected the lanterns of the boats. Her dress rippled around her, like a pair of white wings." Yeah, pull the other one.
The plot of "The Translators" weaves and bobs through various genres and twists so much that it eventually managed to shake me off. I stopped caring about a third way through. I watch mysteries not to be fooled, lied to, or surprised by sudden and nonsensical reveals. I watch them so I can play along. Try to solve the puzzle first. Be surprised by a clever, simple, and logical solution which ties together a series of previously revealed clues into a neat conclusion. "The Translators" offers no clues, no atmosphere, no characters. Just a series of plot reveals. It's impossible to play along with and it's impossible to become immersed in.
1.5/4 - DirectorBill CondonStarsHelen MirrenIan McKellenRussell ToveyConsummate con man Roy Courtnay has set his sights on his latest mark: the recently widowed Betty McLeish, worth millions. But this time, what should have been a simple swindle escalates into a cat-and-mouse game with the ultimate stakes.24-01-2021
There is a wonderfully striking scene somewhere in the middle of "The Good Liar" in which the frail, cowering Roy Courteney (Ian McKellen) is cornered in an empty tube station by a raging man half his age demanding Roy give him his money back. The man towers over the old man who slowly limps along in a fruitless effort to escape. Then he realises they're all alone but for a speedily approaching train and before his raging former client realises what is happening, Roy effortlessly overpowers him, stabs him in the eye with his belt buckle and throws him on the tracks to his demise. Unseen, unshaken, he returns to his old man demeanour and hurries away. This is all the more shocking for it takes place only a few minutes after a charming brief interlude at a hat store in which Roy is spruced up by his "companion", the lonely rich widow Betty (Helen Mirren) with whom Roy has begun a curiously harmless budding relationship much to the chagrin of her suspicious grandson Stephen (Russell Tovey). Is Roy and Betty's relationship real or is she only his latest mark? Will she notice before it is too late? Or is it he who is being taken for a ride? And why is he so careful not to talk about the War?
Whatever the answers to these questions may be, "The Good Liar" is not a heartwarming tale of old codgers pulling one last con its posters make it appear to be. Nor is it one of those infuriating long-con twist movies a la "Now You See Him". No, "The Good Liar" is an enjoyably old-fashioned thriller with a suspense-laden premise, a mystery motor, and a pair of strong performances to shoulder the weight and it all works surprisingly well a lot of it precisely because of Ian McKellen and Helen Mirren who bring a lot of charisma and heart into their somewhat underwritten characters. Mirren's lonely widow is especially thinly developed in the screenplay with her sole defining characteristics seemingly being a thousand-yard stare and an occasional fainting spell. McKellen's old con man, on the other hand, is all style and no substance with his clever tricks and ever-changing demeanour, but McKellen is so utterly charming and engrossing in the part that one doesn't mind the staleness of the writing and is taken along for a very pleasant ride. Otherwise, the plot is an intriguing one and even though it doesn't quite play fair, its ending is surprising and refreshingly bleak. This is a film with courage behind its convictions, in other words, it doesn't shy away from painting Roy as the nasty piece of work he is nor does it ever glamourise his criminal trade. Don't expect any joyful slights of hands or delightfully surprising con tricks in this film. "Hustle", it ain't. In fact, McKellen's performance, seamlessly going from loveable to psychopathic, is more in line with Bob Hoskins' turn in "The Long Good Friday" then Paul Newman's in "The Sting".
On the other side of the camera, things function just as well. Tobias A. Schliessler's cinematography has that slick sheen one associates with films set in London these days and he comes up with some very nice shots and inventive solutions in association with director Bill Condon who makes the at times overwhelmingly convoluted story move at a brisk and engaging pace. Tying everything together is the soundtrack which is everything we've come to expect from composer Carter Burwell. Melodic, simplistic, and haunting. It is nowhere near his best work, but it does a great job of ensconcing us in the film's mysterious atmosphere.
If there's one thing I'd have to point out in "The Good Liar" as a minus, it would have to be the way Jeffrey Hatcher's screenplay occasionally rushes over certain key moments. It is based on a novel by Nicholas Searle whose plot eventually proves a little too thick and complicated for a 100-minute movie to contain as the clumsy closing 10-minute exposition scene clearly shows. The film is also full of convenient contrivances and happy accidents and it all ties in just a little too neatly for its conclusion to be truly believable. Maybe that tiny character from act one didn't really have to be brought back for the finale. One of the clumsier moments in the film comes in the form of a scene in which Helen Mirren's character has to find a hidden item in a library. Thankfully, the librarian conveniently not only leaves her alone in the room but also closes the doors behind her allowing Betty to raise the floorboards and immediately find the thing she's looking for. These kinds of scenes don't really bother me all that much but they do go to show that the filmmakers had trouble fitting all the elements from the novel into a film with a manageable runtime. On second thought, "The Good Liar" could have certainly done with some streamlining and the screenwriter should have allowed for more quiet, character-developing scenes between the film's excellent leads.
However, I did thoroughly enjoy "The Good Liar". It is a lot of fun trying to unravel its mystery and the answers when they do come, are surprising and interesting. I also admired it for its unabashed darkness and willingness to make the leading man a complete and utter psychopath. However, it is the performances that make this movie, especially McKellen's. A lesser actor would have had a lot of fun making Roy into a sinister, sleazy monster, but in McKellen's capable hands he becomes almost loveable. As I watched him coldly observe a man's hand being crushed under a meat hammer, I realised I was kinda rooting for him to win. This realisation terrified me more than a smirking evil hammy performance ever could. The way he shifts gears between the loveable old codger Roy and the cold-hearted killer Roy makes for a fascinating watch. With all its script-issues and all too neat ending, "The Good Liar" is a smart and genuinely surprising thriller.
3/4 - DirectorPål ØieStarsBjørn FlobergKristoffer JonerEva Röse5 Norwegians head for a cabin in the wilderness for a few days of team building. But strange things start happening--especially down by the water where they find an abandoned tent. Is someone else around?26-01-2021
Four people are taken on a team-building exercise into the deep, dark Norweigan woods by their authoritarian TV producer boss Gunnar (Bjørn Floberg). Almost immediately, their supposedly idyllic forest getaway turns sour by Gunnar's increasingly tyrannical demands. He confiscates their phones, makes them hunt for food, and keeps them to a strict, army-like schedule (no one's happy about the 7 a.m. wake-up call). As the hours go by, it becomes obvious Gunnar is not a psychologically well man and is haunted by memories of his equally authoritarian father whose cabin in the woods they're now occupying. To keep the ghosts of the past at bay, Gunnar's behaviour becomes more and more erratic until he begins chopping down trees in the middle of the night. But a chilling discovery by a lake Gunnar's father had forbidden him to go near reveals to the team they are not alone in the woods and soon a mysterious killer begins hunting them down. If only they had their phones...
"Dark Woods", hailed as the movie that reintroduced the horror genre into Norweigan cinema, is certainly not a hard movie to watch. The characters are not annoying, the mystery is pacily developed, and the tension is expertly built. However, there is little in this film to truly grab the attention of a well-versed horror viewer. Even though the setting and imagery evoke "The Lake of the Dead", the first Norweigan horror film ever made, the story in "Dark Woods" clearly has overt American influences, most obviously "The Blair Witch Project" but pretty much any other backwoods horror film you can think of. It sticks very true to the format and introduces no novelty in the already tired subgenre. The characters are not satisfactorily fleshed out and remain indistinguishable but for the stereotypes they embody. There's the comic relief, the bad boss, the slightly unhinged but nice one... Meanwhile, the two female characters are only identifiable as the horny one and the less horny one. Also true to the format is the unsatisfactory ending in which it is revealed that all the build-up and mystery was essentially for nothing and that the killer is someone we've never even heard of until the point they are revealed.
"Dark Woods'" sole distinguishing feature is its style which takes many of its traits from the then highly popular Dogma 95 movement. Director Pål Øie makes good use of the handheld cameras, low-fi image quality, and naturalistic performances to build an atmosphere of mistrust and tension between the characters. This aspect of the film works the best and by the end, I too felt like I was experiencing the effects of cabin fever. So while its screenplay is cliched and ultimately disappointing and its characters mere sketches, I actually found myself getting engaged by "Dark Woods" mainly due to its thick and oppressive atmosphere. It is a valiant first effort for the Norwegian cinema and though its story is largely forgettable its execution will have you squirming in your seat.
3/4 - DirectorRoar UthaugStarsIngrid Bolsø BerdalRolf Kristian LarsenTomas Alf Larsen5 young Norwegians head up to the mountains to snowboard. One breaks his leg and it's getting dark soon, so they spend the night in a big, abandoned hotel, closed 30 years ago. They are not alone.26-01-2021
Do you like slasher films? I ask the question because your answer will determine whether you'll enjoy "Cold Prey", as straightforward and no-frills slasher films as possible, or not. I do. In fact, I have to confess to absolutely loving them. It is one of the few genres I never really tire of. I'm not much of a gorehound but slasher films go a long way in satisfying my enjoyment of closed-circle mysteries, masked killers, and suspense set-pieces. It is by its nature a derivative and formulaic genre, all slasher films in one way or another resemble "Halloween" or "Friday the 13th", but the joy of seeing a slasher film comes not from its innovations but rather from the expertise involved in pulling off all its cliches and tropes. A good slasher film is not characterised by the depth of its characters or ambitious storytelling, what sets it apart from the rest is the effectiveness of its kills, the excitement of its chase scenes, and the mystery surrounding its villain.
So what is it that every slasher plot needs? Well, for one there's the closed circle of characters. In "Cold Prey", our victims for the day are a group of five snowboarding friends weekending on top of a picturesque Norweigan mountain. They fit neatly into the basic stereotypes. There's the jock, the sexy blonde, the resourceful brunette, the comic relief, and that other guy who gets killed and you kinda forget he was in the film at all. As far as slasher films go, however, this fivesome is surprisingly well-drawn, with each of the characters possessing different skill-sets and clearly distinguishable personalities. Furthermore, thanks to the very believable performances from its five leads, they are a fairly likeable bunch. Especially, Janicke (Ingrid Bolsø Berdal) and Morten (Rolf Kristian Larsen) whose budding relationship is surprisingly subtly and endearing built up throughout the film.
Next, of course, we need our sinister setting and "Cold Prey" goes for a classic choice. An abandoned hotel from the 1950s, long-since closed due to unrepaired fire damage.
Astrid Sætren's production design is no match for "The Shining", but this hotel's long hallways, peeling wallpapers, and rusty pipes provide a tangible atmosphere of claustrophobia. The unwelcoming but beautiful snowy landscapes which surround the hotel only add to the feeling of helplessness. Daniel Voldheim's cinematography really gets a chance to stand out when the characters venture into the freezing outdoors and the climactic fight on the ice is not only exciting and well-choreographed but also boasts some imagery which looks ready for framing.
But what is it keeping our fivesome from leaving the hotel once the going gets tough? Subzero temperatures and lack of phone reception are not enough. Oh, no. Here's where the next slasher mainstay comes in, namely the main obstacle keeping our heroes stuck with the killer. What the filmmakers come up with is simple, somewhat unexciting but serves the purpose. They have the comic relief, Morten, break his leg in a snowboarding accident. This not only forces them to seek shelter in the abandoned hotel but also gives our heroes an additional obstacle to face in trying to escape the killer. Instead of simply running and hiding, now they have to lug poor old Morty around as he whimpers and yelps at every move. Thankfully, Rolf Kristian Larsen gives a likeable enough performance for this not to become a bore.
Finally, and most importantly, there's the killer! Like in most other things, "Cold Prey" opts for simplicity and keeps the mystery man out of sight for most of its runtime. What we do know, however, is that he is a giant, pickaxe wielding man who has been hiding in the basement of the hotel for decades and who knows his way around its hallways and surroundings better than anyone else. He is also a dab hand at boobytraps, seemingly invulnerable, and a smart cookie to boost. Padded up in his wintry outfit, his face concealed by skiing goggles and a shawl he is a mysterious and frightening figure precisely due to his lack of perceivable emotion. He comes from a long and distinguished line of masked slasher villains and though his outfit and appearance are not in any way memorable, he serves his purpose more than well enough and proves an admirable adversary for our fivesome.
If all of this sounds familiar, that is because "Cold Prey" essentially recycles every slasher cliche in the book. There is not an original or notably inventive bone in its body. However, director Roar Uthaug is a highly-skilled director who has obviously seen enough slasher films to know how to find his way around all the usual trappings. The action set-pieces are exciting and well-choreographed with the action being chaotic without becoming confusing. The kills are brutal and sudden. The quiet moments filled with tension and dread. "Cold Prey" takes a very no-frills approach at the genre which is surprisingly refreshing in this age of constant genre subversions and quasi-spoofs in which every horror film has to either "subtly wink" at its audience or outright mock them for having a good time watching something so insignificant. "Cold Prey" avoids these post-"Scream" tropes as well as any intrusions of politics or feminism for which I'm particularly grateful. David Gordon Green eat your heart out.
"Cold Prey" offers nothing new in the slasher genre and recycles everything old, but its execution is top-notch, its cast likeable, and its action suspenseful and atmospheric enough to provide 90 thrilling minutes. I recommend it to anyone who loves slasher films, but if you're in the market for something more thoughtful, original, or political, you should ski away from "Cold Prey".
3/4 - DirectorMats StenbergStarsIngrid Bolsø BerdalMarthe Snorresdotter RovikKim Arne HagenJannicke wakes up in the hospital. All of her friends are dead. As she walks through the dark corridors, she thinks she is left alone. But the nightmare isn't over yet.28-01-2021
Like most slasher films, "Cold Prey" ended with the seemingly invincible villain dead at the hands of the final girl (Ingrid Bolsø Berdal). "Cold Prey 2", like most slasher sequels, begins with the seemingly dead villain proving to have miraculously survived. Picking up mere hours after the close of the previous film, "Halloween II" style, "Cold Prey 2" opens as final girl Jannicke is brought to hospital and a rescue team is sent out to fetch the corpses of her friends from the gorge into which the masked killer threw them. Everything seems peachy, except for Jannicke's crippling PTSD, of course, until one additional body is brought to the hospital. That of the giant villain himself. And he has a pulse! Predictably, during the night, he frees himself and wreaks havoc on the hospital and soon enough the only people left who can stop him are Jannicke and her doctor, Camilla (Marthe Snorresdotter Rovik).
The first "Cold Prey" film took the familiar slasher formula of a group of teenagers finding themselves at the mercy of a ruthless killer and played it dead straight. With Roar Uthaug's capable direction and a likeable cast, it turned out to be an exciting and refreshingly unpretentious movie, a well-executed rehash for the lovers of the slasher genre. "Cold Prey 2", however, takes a different, more action-based approach, and in many ways resembles "Halloween II", not only due to of its hospital setting but also in the way the film plays out, with the night shift nurses and doctors proving easy prey for the ludicrously powerful killer in the long, empty hospital corridors. Furthermore, like "Halloween 2" this film has a subplot in which a considerate authority figure investigates the killer's background. Luckily, there are no grand plot twists at the end of "Cold Prey 2" which takes a more minimalistic approach to the formula than "Halloween II".
The film is mostly made up of a series of action set-pieces which closely follow each other after a lengthy and somewhat laborious introductory act. These include a fight scene in the hospital morgue, a thrilling sequence in which the killer picks off a group of armed police officers, and a climactic one-on-one stand-off between Jannicke and the killer in the place where it all started - the old abandoned hotel from the first film. This proves to be a very good idea indeed as the final 40 or so minutes of "Cold Prey 2", with its relentless action scenes, are just as exciting if not more so than the whole first film. Debutant director Mats Stenberg does an admirable job of keeping the pace up while never forgetting to allow our two leads to have brief but key emotional beats. He also possesses an unassuming visual flair leading to the film having a more stylish and memorable visual identity than the first film. A particularly memorable moment is when Jannicke walks in on the medical staff reviving the man who killed four of her friends just a few hours ago. As the doctor fires up the defibrillator, the lights flicker behind her. She lets out a lengthy, anguished scream but all we hear is the whirring of the lifesaving machine. Such an imaginative shot is worthy of Hitchcock himself.
The screenplay by Thomas Moldestad, however, proves a lot less imaginative and unlike the first film, "Cold Prey 2" fails to resolve certain key issues of logic. Why Jannicke and Camilla don't simply run away from the hospital or call the police is never adequately explained nor are the circumstances of the killer's escape satisfactorily convincing. No police force, no matter how small, would leave a dangerous serial killer handcuffed to a hospital bed with only a single rookie cop to guard him. Logical fallacies such as these are indeed inevitable in a film such as this, but there are so many of them in "Cold Prey 2" that its script quickly begins seeming lazy. Why does a policeman who knows how dangerous this killer is charge into the hospital with only two men instead of waiting for backup? Why does the killer only hesitate in killing Jannicke allowing her to escape or overpower him multiple times? How come a hospital this size is manned by only five people and has only two patients? I could go on for pages, but suffice to say that it seems to me like the screenwriter cared more about coming up with neat set-pieces rather than logically setting them up.
Another aspect of "Cold Prey 2" I didn't like is its treatment of the killer. In the first film, he was a mysterious villain who was barely ever seen. Keeping him off-screen gave the film a sense of suspense and created the feeling that our heroes were in constant danger. Like them, we, the audience, never knew where their assailant was. Thus every sound, every creak could be his footsteps, and every corridor and blind spot could be his hiding place. Here, the killer is repeatedly shown walking around the hospital removing much of the sense of mystery around him. And, to be perfectly honest, in a well-lit room, his outfit makes him look like a padded-up yeti. He also seems not to be wholly human as he manages to survive falling dozens of feet into a frozen gorge, hypothermia and getting blasted with a shotgun. In fact, not only does he survive all of this in a matter of hours, but he also seems to be unaffected by any of it. He doesn't even have a bit of a limp! This is, of course, par for the course in slasher films, but that doesn't mean it's not annoying.
"Cold Prey 2" is a different beast than its predecessor. More action-based and stylish. But it is a worthy sequel in that it is a well-executed take of a straightforward formula. It does not try to be subversive, original, or political, it merely does its job and does it fairly well. The action scenes are exciting, the kills gruesome and shocking, and the characters likeable enough that they don't annoy us while alive and we're sorry when they die. I was impressed with Mats Stenberg's direction and Ingrid Bolsø Berdal's stoic performance even if the screenplay was less cohesive and sensible than that of the first film. I would also have preferred for the action to kick off sooner than it does as it takes the film almost 50 minutes to reach its first kill, 50 minutes filled largely with inane dialogue that contributes very little to the film.
2.5/4 - DirectorFred WaltonStarsDeborah ForemanGriffin O'NealClayton RohnerNine college students staying at a friend's remote island mansion begin to fall victim to an unseen murderer over the April Fool's Day weekend, but nothing is as it seems.29-01-2021
Eight college friends gather at a remote island house of the stinking rich heiress Muffy St. John (Deborah Foreman) for a prank filled weekend celebration of April Fool's Day. If that sounds odd to you, it won't be once you meet the group, a goofy lot if ever there was one comprised, among others, of the horny jokester Arch (Thomas F. Wilson) who according to Muffy has only two expressions: collar up and collar down; preppy Southern "young achiever" Hal (Jay Baker) who spends his days smoking cigars and practising pick-up lines to use on Muffy ("my talent and your money..."); and the too-cool for school seductress Nikki (Deborah Goodrich) with a love for Cosmopolitan questionnaires and acrobatic sex positions. But if there's one thing the movies have thought us it's that nine teenagers alone in a remote location always spells trouble, a suspicion confirmed when Muffy's departing maid ominously remarks that there will be no one on the island until the ferry comes again on Monday. "It's just like Agatha Christie," remark the friends before they even know just how right they are because it is not too long before one by one they start disappearing and the game's afoot!
Don't be too quick to judge a movie by its plot summary, however, as "April Fool's Day" is not just a run-of-the-mill slasher flick. In fact, it is one of the few 80s slashers which try to be inventive with the formula and, at moments, even genuinely subversive. Of course, being made a full decade before "Scream", it never quite reaches Wes Craven levels of genre-busting satire nor does it have Jeff Lieberman's dead-pan sense of self-deprecation, but it is still an attempt worthy of admiration because the one thing 1980s slashers rarely were was inventive.
"April Fool's Day" has a noticeably more comedic tone than a regular 80s slasher and focuses more on the pranks and banter between the friends than on gore and suspense. With so much of the runtime dedicated to their antics, it is fortunate that the actors appear to have an easy and relaxed chemistry with each other and many of the gags and witticisms were and seem improvised. A great example is a rambly but entertaining scene in which the girls do a Cosmpolitan questionnaire. The result is a greater sense of camaraderie between the characters than is usual in slasher films. Writer Danilo Bach also doesn't shy away from inserting sly jabs at preposterous genre conventions even though they are often too subtle to be called satirical. Never-the-less, this is an oddball movie in the slasher oeuvre. After all, how many dead teenager films have the said teenagers quote from Milton and Boswell?
While all this witticism and subversiveness is commendable it still doesn't make "April Fool's Day" a good movie. I did enjoy watching it as something of an unusually self-aware 80s slasher flick and did find it fairly witty and amusing but it is hard to ignore the fact that its comedic overtones significantly undercut the suspense and horror leading to a curiously flat second act painfully lacking in mystery. The film, even at under 90 minutes, drags and as one-by-one the characters disappeared so did my goodwill. Director Fred Walton fails to pull off the Wes Craven trick of equally balancing humour and horror which made "Scream" so successful both as satire and as an enjoyable slasher film.
"April Fool's Day" is certainly not a film that will appeal to everyone's tastes. I can see how the constant pranks and jokes could get on some viewers' nerves and how the all-too-clever twist ending would disappoint anyone looking for a straightforward slasher movie. I, myself, was ultimately left disappointed by the film's lack of atmosphere and mystery. But I do appreciate the cleverness behind its idea and its attempt to be subversive and inventive at a time when those two attributes were not yet in fashion. Ultimately, however, "April Fool's Day" is neither an effective slasher film nor a satisfying satire of the genre resting uncomfortably somewhere in between unable to balance both and unwilling to fully embrace either option. The undeniable chemistry between the actors, Charles Minsky's picturesque cinematography, and a few funny scenes do make it a watchable (and occasionally enjoyable) experience but hardly make it a notable entry in an already dying genre.
2/4 - DirectorMikkel Brænne SandemoseStarsIda Marie BakkerudJulie RustiKim FalckTakes place in the 80's where a group of teenagers go to visit an abandoned hotel, only to find themselves hunted by a psychotic killer through the Norwegian woods.29-01-2021
Originality is overrated. Sure, novel ideas and inventive solutions to old problems are always a welcome and exciting addition to any film but this widely accepted notion that originality is the be-all and end-all of quality is simply not true. Formulas work - that's mainly the reason why they become formulas and some genres can thrive on them with the slasher genre as the prime example. Franchises such as "Friday the 13th" have been running for decades without ever changing their basic and usually simple formula. This doesn't mean they are all necessarily successful but it also doesn't mean they are all necessarily bad. What it comes down to, in my opinion, is not how original the film is but how well the formula is executed. This is why I was able to enjoy "Cold Prey", the Norweigan slasher film which stuck to the basic genre formula with admirable fidelity. However, it still managed to generate excitement and keep me invested for 90 minutes because of its capable, dynamic direction and likeable cast and characters.
"Cold Prey III" tries to pull off the same trick. Its set up comes straight from the "Friday the 13th" textbook. We have a group of teenagers, a frenzied, indestructible killer, and a vast backwood for him to hunt them through. But unlike its predecessor, it utterly fails to engage or excite due to its haphazard execution.
The first sin is that its characters are utterly indistinguishable from one another. Besides possessing absolutely no identifying character traits or discernable personality, they are also physically similar. Two blonde women and four men with Beatles haircuts all look the same to me. When you can't tell your heroes apart how can you be expected to care what happens to them? These cardboard cutouts have no dreams, hopes, aspirations; their interpersonal relationships are undefined (How long have they been friends for? Are the relationships between them long-term or brief liaisons?); and they don't grow in the least over the course of the film. Even for slasher movie standards, these are some bland characters. The fat guy isn't even funny!
The second sin is that its editing is so quick and jumbled that the action scenes cause confusion rather than excitement. More than once in the film, the jump-cut heavy editing made me assume a character had been killed when they had escaped and vice versa. In one scene, a character lies impaled on a pointy stick. The killer approaches him. A quick montage of pained close-ups ensues along with a mushy sound effect making me think the killer had impaled them further on the stick, killing them. Mere seconds later, however, the victim is seen alive. In another scene, another victim is being chased by the killer through the forest. Another fast montage of close-ups and blurry foot shots ensues followed by a long silence. In my confusion, I assumed the victim escaped. That is until their dead body plopped on the floor. The director of the first "Cold Prey" film, Roar Uthaug did an admirable job of portraying chaos on-screen without confusing us, the audience. "Cold Prey III's" director, Mikkel Brænne Sandemose, possesses no such skill.
The third sin, and most annoying one, is Sandemose's abuse of hackneyed jump scares and cheap scare tactics. Every few minutes a shot of someone innocently grabbing their friend's shoulder will be followed by a loud musical sting, an item being dropped will cause about as much noise as a firing shotgun, or a completely innocent event such as someone stepping on a branch or even opening their eyes will be followed by a scare chord. Add to that the fact that every single appearance of the killer sees him suddenly show up in the frame accompanied by some sort of industrial noise and you've got yourself one headache-inducing soundscape. And to see just how corny the scares in this film are, all you have to do is to take a look at the opening prologue which replicates the ages-old trick of someone bending down in front of a mirror to reveal the killer behind them. I'm not sure where exactly this scare originated but I'm sure it didn't even work then. Nowadays it's so recognisable and predictable that it can only cause knowing laughter.
These are only three of "Cold Prey III's" many sins. The overall impression, however, is of a terribly bland film. Nothing interesting happens in it at all. The action scenes are not exciting, the kills are confusingly edited and corny, and the characters are so flat and uninteresting that I didn't care (or remember) if they lived or died. No, the biggest flaw of "Cold Prey III" is not its lack of originality, but the lack of talent behind the camera. This is a hackneyed, listless, and amateurish production boasting a derivative score from Magnus Beite, murky and overly dark cinematography by Ari Willey, and some of the worst editing I've seen in a decent budgeted film for a long time (courtesy of Wibecke Rønseth). This is one slasher film to avoid.
1/4 - DirectorJeff WadlowStarsJulian MorrisLindy BoothJared PadaleckiEight unsuspecting high school seniors at a posh boarding school, who delight themselves on playing games of lies, come face-to-face with terror and learn that nobody believes a liar - even when they're telling the truth.29-01-2021
I can tell you the exact scene in which "Cry Wolf" lost me. It begins with Owen (Julian Morris), a new student at a prestigious private high school, being inducted into an exclusive rich kids club which congregates covertly, at night, in a gothic church by the campus. The kids are strewn all over the pews, boozing, making out, flirting. Dodger (Lindy Booth), the school queen bee, sits, her legs seductively crossed, observing the proceedings. What's going to happen? An "Eyes Wide Shut"-esque orgy? A satanic ritual? A high-stakes poker game? Oh, no, no, no... Wanna know what these rich high school kids sneak out at night to do? Wanna know how these 16-year-olds spend their nights? What their biggest thrill is? They meet to play mafia. Yes, mafia. That children's game in which one person is selected to be the killer while everyone else keeps their eyes closed. Then they have to figure out which one of them is it. And these kids play seriously! Threats are made, friendships are lost, relationships are broken, over this thrilling, life-and-death game of... mafia. This film is marketed as a horror/thriller, but boy, can I tell you, I haven't laughed that much in years.
So, to recap, we have wise-cracking horror-fan teenagers obsessed with serial killers, party games, and a moody church setting. I too am surprised not to see Kevin Williamson's name in the credits, except "Cry Wolf" is more "I Know What You Did Last Summer" than "Scream". All style, all wit and no substance or believability.
The kids eventually grow tired of playing mafia. "We all know each other too well," Dodger says. So they need to come up with a more exciting game. Strip poker maybe? Monopoly? Mario Kart? Oh, no. These geniuses decide to invent a serial killer, a masked murderer supposedly massacring a campus every few years, and then convince everyone at school that it's their turn to die. If, at this point, you're wondering if this film is set in the 1980s, no, it's not. It's set in the age of the internet. 2005. No YouTube or Facebook yet, but Google was up and running and Chloe Sullivan sure could find any information she wanted. And yet these masterminds manage to convince their entire campus that they are being stalked by a killer through no more effort than sending everyone a chain email. Guess there are no spam folders at Westlake Prep School.
This idea, were it to be done seriously and convincingly, has a lot of promise. "Cry Wolf" could have been an indictment of fake news before fake news was even a term. It could have been a clever and witty commentary on teenagers' relationship with the internet and the way rumours can spread out of control. Sadly, writer/director Jeff Wadlow boils it down to a lame quasi-slasher when the kids who invented the serial killer find themselves being stalked by their own invention. Is it someone from the group? Or someone wanting revenge on them? Or is it a real psycho who was merely inspired by their lies?
Films such as these entirely hang on the surprise and airtightness of their twist which I correctly guessed less than 30 minutes in. This is not because I'm some great Chessmaster but because the reveal is so obvious and old-hat that I wondered if it was even supposed to be a surprise. Not only is the twist wildly predictable but it also hinges on one of those laughably faithful plans which require dozens of uninformed people to do precisely the right thing at the right time to work. This particular plan may as well require Mars to align with Saturn in the shadow of Z'ha'dum for it is that overcomplicated. David Mamet, eat your heart out.
"Cry Wolf" really is a mess starting from the overwritten screenplay. Wadlow has his characters speak exclusively in one-liners and references. They're either stand-up comedians ("Mad because you blew the physics test?" - "Mad because the only thing Mercedes blows is your hair?"), chess sages ("Avoid suspicion, manipulate your friends, and eliminate your enemies."), or amateur philosophers ("This is high school. Nothing is real."). Besides wise-cracks, however, his characters have nothing else to offer. They aren't even stereotypical for that would require them to have some sort of personality. They all seem to exist solely to fit into the inane plot woven around them. Even our designated lead, Owen, is a charmless husk of a person. His love interest, the artless Dodger, is simply a tremendous bore with her non-stop witticisms and smarter-than-thou attitude.
As if aware of how thin his script is, Wadlow tries to liven up the proceedings with visual trickery. Split-screens and animated backgrounds are thrown at us like dust into our eyes, but even a blind man can see that "Cry Wolf" is all howl and no bite. I admit, there's some fun to be had with it, but only if you watch it as the film it actually is. A preposterous, overwritten, pretentious thriller for teens who spend their days at chess club dreaming of being popular. This is no slasher, it's a rehash of "House of Games" for those who find "Veronica Mars" too intellectual to follow.
1.5/4 - DirectorDaniel MyrickEduardo SánchezStarsHeather DonahueMichael C. WilliamsJoshua LeonardThree film students vanish after traveling into a Maryland forest to film a documentary on the local Blair Witch legend, leaving only their footage behind.31-01-2021
To make a truly terrifying horror movie you have to make, above all else, an utterly convincing horror movie. Sure, an occasional tentacled monster or energy-suckers from space can be a fun, diverting watch, but only that which you can believe in has the power to keep you up at night. And I don't know a more convincing horror movie than "The Blair Witch Project", a trendsetting film which popularized the found-footage subgenre and set the course for horror movies of the new millennium. However, its believability does not come, as people seem to think, from its shaky camerawork and mockumentary shenanigans. Many movies in the past 20 years have successfully emulated those aspects without achieving the eeriness and scariness of "The Blair Witch Project". No, what makes this film work is above all else how real it feels. Not looks. The characters talk and behave like real people in a maddening situation. Their emotions are convincing as responses to the events around them and their outbursts and bickering feel earned. Their dialogue, awkward and halting, is natural as are their motivations and relationships.
Also, as anyone who's ever been on a low-budget movie set can attest, this is by far the most realistic behind-the-scenes film ever made. I've certainly found a new appreciation for it since my own movie-making experiences. The crew dynamic which develops between our three filmmakers is absolutely spot-on. We have Heather (Heather Donahue), the dedicated but inexperienced director whose attempts to motivate her crew and hold a steady course for her documentary make her seem more pushy and annoying than she desires to be. Then, there's Josh (Joshua Leonard), the jokey cameraman whose constant attempts at lightening the mood soon get on everyone's nerves. Last but not least is Mike (Michael C. Williams), the moody sound guy, who considers himself a professional but is actually just a demanding hypocrite who constantly acts as if someone's holding a gun to his head to work on this film. All three of them are people you are more than likely to run into shooting a movie and the shooting of Heather's documentary goes the same way most low-budget films go. Everyone gets on everyone else's nerves, she tries to boss them into shape, ends up being too agressive, and everyone gets fed-up of the film and leaves. Except, in the woods, there's nowhere to go.
The idea of following around a documentary crew is absolutely brilliant. It allows the filmmakers to methodically reveal the lore behind the Blair Witch without having to resort to awkward exposition dumps. The film opens with a series of interviews with residents of a town by the woods which besides informing us, the audience, about the ghost supposedly haunting the forest, also gives the film and the story authenticity it requires. What also gives the film credence is the fact that all the interviewees recount the story as a legend from long ago and even those who believe in it admit they've never seen anything themselves. There are no shaky-voiced warnings or ominous premonitions here. The tale of the Blair Witch is presented as yet another local story like every town has, like your town probably has.
After the crew go into the woods and get lost, the filmmakers slowly build up the atmosphere. Unlike the inpatient horror directors of films which "The Blair Witch Project" inspired, Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez give themselves almost a full hour before anything concrete happens. First, they establish the uneasy dynamics between our trio and then they begin slowly unravelling it by making them (and us) feel more and more uneasy. They begin going in circles, passing locations which seem to be the same. Are they? We and they can't really be sure. Those trees look similar to the ones we passed earlier but they all look the same. The woods seem endless and there's nothing but trees on the horizon wherever we look. This evokes a truly disquieting sense of being lost in a labyrinth.
The presence of something malevolent is merely hinted at. We never see what it is haunting the woods, we never even see its victims, but we can definitely feel its presence. We hear twigs break in the distance, wind howling through the trees sounds like children laughing, strange artefacts are left in front of the trio's tent. The terror in this film is evoked not from outside sources but from within our characters. We react to their reactions and as they slowly become more and more terrified, as they begin feeling more and more paranoid, so do we. By the end of the film, we strain so hard to hear every footstep, every breath, that even silence is suspenseful. The most effective moment in the film comes during a scene in which the crew is chased out of their tent into the dark woods. Lost and fearing for their lives, they stop running. To avoid detection they turn out all the lights and they (and we) are left in the complete darkness. They stop moving, stop talking, stop breathing and just listen. Is it still after them? We hear crickets, wind, and maybe a footstep in the distance. Then I realised I was holding my breath too. Listening just as intently as they were.
So, it's not really the shaky-cam that makes "The Blair Witch Project" scary. It's the fact that the characters feel like real people, people we may know, people we could potentially be lost in the woods with. It's the fact that the situation and their reactions to it are utterly believable. A low-budget film crew would be in the woods shooting this film and their dynamic would be the same as the one between our trio. And finally, the villain is elusive and its presence is only hinted at so that it is left to our own imagination to invent the Witch or project our own fears onto it. It is more terrifying not to know exactly what happened and spend the night after seeing the film trying to think up an explanation than to get it neatly explained on a silver platter.
The final shot of "The Blair Witch Project" is one of the most effective and memorable horror endings of all time and it involves no gore, no special effects, and no editing tricks. Just one actor standing in the corner of an abandoned basement. This is a film which is notable for its simplicity not for its gimmickry. This is thanks to the careful, patient way in which the director/writer team of Myrick and Sanchez chose to develop the story, but also because of its talented three stars whose performances are so naturalistic and relatable that they're easy to overlook. When the film came out in 1999, it was sold as a real documentary and it is not hard to see why so many people bought into the con. Even the film's imperfections, its uneven pace, the awkward framing, work to its benefit. Due to its notoriety and subsequent imitators, it is easy to forget just how excellent a film "The Blair Witch Project" really is. A true slow-burn, subtle horror experience which builds up an unforgettably creepy atmosphere using not blood and effects but clever sound design and good acting and which eventually climaxes in a mysterious and brilliantly unsatisfying manner. There's no closure on terror.
4/4