_poster.jpg)
Reviews / Author Comments due: 01/02/2014
Wednesday 29 January 2014
Monday 27 January 2014
Re-Animator - Will's Review.
Herbert West: Reanimator was a 6 part serial by HP Lovecraft intended as a nspoof of Frankenstein. This movie is an updated adaptation of that story, although it uses only the broadest strokes of the original story.
After a cold open in which West (brilliantly played by Geoffrey Combs) has seemingly, albeit briefly, reanimated his dead professor at Zurich University, we plough into the films opening credits, and my single biggest problem with the movie.
Picture the scene: it's 1984, you've just made a horror movie and you need a theme tune. There are all kinds of reasons (mostly budgetary ones) you might want to use a new arrangement of an existing piece as your theme. I have no problem with that.
But why, why use this:
Yes, that is 'prelude' from the Psycho Suite aka "The main theme to one of the most famous horror movies of all time". It can't be that they didn't want us to notice; they knew that horror fans would be watching, and (along with Jaws and Halloween) this is one of very few horror themes I'd expect even non-horror fans to know.
I kept expecting the theme to go off in its own direction, using Psycho as a mere reference... But nope, it's the whole thing!
I know it's a weird thing to get hung up on, but it really bothered me for some reason.
Anyway, onto the movie proper; I did see most if not all of this at a friends house when I was 12 or so, but didn't really remember a thing about it save for the fact that it was incredibly gory - something which at time of its release was considered true. All I can say on that count is "how horror as changed" the gore in this movie is outright mild by today's standards!
It's an entertaining enough story though and the acting, while (intentionally I assume) hammy at times is perfect for the movie. As already mentioned Combs especially is brilliant as the lead.
Theme aside, the only problem I had with the movie was an element in the finale. It's odd to use the term 'far fetched' having already bought into the conceit of a serum that raises the dead, and a head that can talk without lungs or much of a throat; but never the less the 'laser scalpel lobotomy' that the films main antagonist employs to mind-control his victims really does stretch credibility.
All in all though, I thoroughly enjoyed it; it's part Frankenstein, part zombie movie, and it has a darkly comedic streak running right through it... I look forward to seeing the sequels once were done with the time out 100.
Re-Animator - Lisa's Review
I approached this weeks movie with a little trepidation as I was aware it had a mix of the two things known to not especially appeal to me - comedy & horror. It's one of those 80's movies that seem to have slipped under the radar for me. I grew up on crappy 80's horror (mostly Stephen King) due to having a dad who was horror obsessed. So, I have to honestly say when I watched this one I was pleasantly surprised. It can be added to the massive list of 2 movies where I felt comedy and horror meshed well (Shaun of the dead & Evil Dead - Army of Darkness).
So, yup I actually liked this one. I felt the comedy was genuinely funny and the gory bits where genuinely full of that ick factor it should be. I felt a very similar feel when watching this movie as I did when watching Shaun of the Dead. Although it is funny, the horror was no less horrific than in a straight horror movie.
So, in the unlikely event that any reader has not actually watched this movie, a bit of a premise? Medical student Herbert West (Jeffrey Combs) has invented an illuminous green reagent which he claims brings the dead back to life. After a bit of a major boo boo while studying at the University of Zurich, he injects too much reagent when attempting to bring his professor back to life and there are horrific side effects.
Herbert moves to New England in America to continue his studies and of course his experiment with his reagent. He lodges with a fellow student Dan Cain (Bruce Abbott) and is soon experimenting on Dans dead cat, discovered by Dans fiancee Megan. Megan just so happens to be the daughter of the university Dean Dr Halsey. Dr Halsey has been turned against Herbert by a professor at the university Dr Hill for reasons which you can pick up if you watch the movie.
As the movie progresses we have more attempted reanimations by Herbert and his unwitting assistant Dan. I won't go into detail about who and why, but it's excellent! We have decapitations, zombies aplenty, talking severed heads and flying severed arms. The effects are fantastic for the time and even are impressive by todays standards. The comedy used amidst all the horror is genuinely funny (and that's saying something coming from me as I'm notoriously difficult to make laugh when it comes to staged laughs).
I would say that there was one negative to the film for me. Just one scene which I thought wasn't required and was a bit inappropriate as far as I was concerned. It made me cringe more than I was comfortable with. I won't go into detail about what it was, but Will should know instantly. I will advise it was a scene with Megan, her father Dr Halsey and Dr Hill.
The good far outweighed the bad though as it was only 1 scene I was uncomfortable with. The same may not be the case for others watching the movie, I can just write about how I felt. This is the first movie in a long time I feel I can recommend. At last, there it is!! Recommended!!
Friday 24 January 2014
Black Sunday - Will's Review
This one is from writer Mario Bava, who we previously encountered during Video Nasty A Week when we reviewed (and both recommended) his movie, Twitch of the Death Nerve.
This time around, it's a much earlier film (1960) that feels earlier still, this one looks and feels as though it could almost have been born of the 40's horror boom.
This time around, it's a much earlier film (1960) that feels earlier still, this one looks and feels as though it could almost have been born of the 40's horror boom.
A prologue set in the 1600's sees an accused vampire witch havering 'The mask of Satan' nailed to her face, before being burned at the stake. She promises to have revenge on her accuser (who is also her brother) by 'living on' through his bloodline.
200 years later, a pair on doctors running late to a conference bribe their carriage driver to take a shortcut through some woods which locals claim are haunted by the witches ghost. Predictably enough one of the coach's wheels brakes (ye olde flat tire) and the doctors go off for a wonder while the coachman switches in the spare
Stumbling upon the witches crypt, the pair let themselves in and the older, a curious sort, removes the mask from her corpse in order to examine it, cutting himself and unknowingly revive her in the process.
Upon exiting the crypt they encounter the witch's lookalike descendent (with whom the younger doctor is immediately smitten) and decide to stay in town overnight.
After much panicking and jumping at shadows on the part of the lookalike and her father, the witch finally comes to life proper, and so begins her plot to drain the doctor who revived her (to get to full strength) and then her doppelgänger, as through her, the witch feels she will gain life immortal.
The movie looks great, full of shadows that perfectly compliment the gothic sets, and even though the movie has a very classic feel, there is just a hint of the gallio feel that Bava would go on to pioneer.
Sadly, the movie drags horribly in its second half; Once resurrected, the witch seems in no hurry whatsoever to act on her plan, and I found myself struggling not to reach for my phone and check Facebook or play a round of Candy Crush Saga... For a movie with such a promising opening, seeing it fall this far was very disappointing.
200 years later, a pair on doctors running late to a conference bribe their carriage driver to take a shortcut through some woods which locals claim are haunted by the witches ghost. Predictably enough one of the coach's wheels brakes (ye olde flat tire) and the doctors go off for a wonder while the coachman switches in the spare
Stumbling upon the witches crypt, the pair let themselves in and the older, a curious sort, removes the mask from her corpse in order to examine it, cutting himself and unknowingly revive her in the process.
Upon exiting the crypt they encounter the witch's lookalike descendent (with whom the younger doctor is immediately smitten) and decide to stay in town overnight.
After much panicking and jumping at shadows on the part of the lookalike and her father, the witch finally comes to life proper, and so begins her plot to drain the doctor who revived her (to get to full strength) and then her doppelgänger, as through her, the witch feels she will gain life immortal.
The movie looks great, full of shadows that perfectly compliment the gothic sets, and even though the movie has a very classic feel, there is just a hint of the gallio feel that Bava would go on to pioneer.
Sadly, the movie drags horribly in its second half; Once resurrected, the witch seems in no hurry whatsoever to act on her plan, and I found myself struggling not to reach for my phone and check Facebook or play a round of Candy Crush Saga... For a movie with such a promising opening, seeing it fall this far was very disappointing.
Thursday 23 January 2014
The Abominable Dr Phibes - Lisa's Review
As I saw the title for this movie, is was another case of 'Le sigh'. I'm not a fan of older movies and especially don't tend to like older British movies. Having watched the movie, do I feel any differently? Hmmmm Overall no. Let's see if I can explain why.
This movie is rated in a list of horrors. How that happened is anyones guess. Yes, the general plotline of the movie is rather horrific I suppose, but if you watch this expecting to see anything that could be classified as 'Horror' you're going to be mightily disappointed.
I'll start of with a very basic premise. Dr Phibes has lost his wife to a fatal illness and blames the doctors who were involved in her care. He fakes his own death by pretending to have died in a crash he was in rushing to his wifes hospital bed. He plots to murder all the doctors involved inspired by darker parts of the bible.
Rather a lot is made of the fact that Vincent Price is in this movie, but we don't see an awful lot of him, even though he is cast in the title role of the movie. He is supposed to be horribly disfigured by his car accident and is therefore wearing a mask. He also cannot speak, eat or drink due to damage from the accident, so rather wierd solutions are encompassed in the movie.
Anyone who knows me at all will know I absolutely despise 'Carry On' movies with a passion. I also missed the boat for loving Hammer Horrors. To me, this movie felt like a conglomeration of the two. Unfunny jokes, bumbling actors, obvious jokes, none of it made me laugh. The set, scenes and general feel of the movie had a 'Hammer' feel to me. It just doesn't float my boat. I find it grossly overrated.
Something that could have been fantastic from reading the plotline, turned out to be something lukewarm with jokes that really weren't well placed and lacked the punch it clearly needed to make it something worth watching.
I won't give it a recommended for reasons I've already stated, but don't feel it was bad enough to warrant an avoid, as most of the negatives were probably down to personal choice.
May appeal to Vincent Price devotees or Hammer fans. Not for me.
Tuesday 21 January 2014
The Abominable Dr. Phibes - Will's Review
Given my penchant for classics, it's a marvel I haven't seen this until now, but I haven't, so I was really looking forward to it.
In many ways, on paper, it should be exactly my thing; this is a Vincent Price movie with a capital VINCENT PRICE, the whole sequence where he comes up through the floor while playing a pipe organ could only work as a stylised 'oh my god that is so him!' moment with a known over the top personality (in the upcoming remake, this kind of thing will work simply because Burton is directing, replacing a personality lead with a personality director).
The plot is solid but wacky too: Following the death of his wife on the operating table, Phibes has faked his own death (becoming horribly disfigured in the process) and is now attempting to kill the 9 people who assisted in her operation, in ways which recall the biblical plagues of Egypt.
Sadly, the pacing is all off. Sadly, especially for a film where creative kills is the MO, the first half dozen or so deaths rattle by with no setup, and little in the way of payoff; one of them even happens before the movie starts and is simply briefly mentioned. We neither see enough, nor are given time to appreciate them. Even the movies last true victim, a Saw-like setup, in which a surgeon's son is chains to a bed bellow a slow-moving acid-dumping contraption, with the key to his chained embedded inside him, is dealt with quickly and entirely off-screen.
Phibes has a female assistant, who is literally never explained. She's central to the plot, many of the kills couldn't be executed without her, and she is the only lead the police have, but we never learn who she is, or why she is loyal to Phibes.
Add to that the fact that Price really doesn't get all that much screen time, nor chance to flourish when he is on screen (his face is supposedly a mask, so be mostly has to hold it still) and the whole movie is just a catalogue of wasted opportunities.
It's probably horror heresy to say this, but I'm tentatively of looking forward to Tim Burton's remake, a bit if modern pacing and appreciation for the inventive kills could sort this right out... Sadly I suspect it will be an all too-knowing, wacky, Jonny Depp vehicle - no doubt with Burton's wife as Phibes' mystery assistant, and an intrusive Danny Elfman score.
Monday 13 January 2014
Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer - Will's Review
I am fascinated by serial killers.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to be one, or meet one, and in an ideal world they wouldn't exist; but as they do exist, I may as well admit that I find them fascinating, and read about them... So I do.
Henry Lee Lucas isn't as well represented in serial killer literature and documentaries as most of his contemporaries, mostly because little about his crimes is actually known; most of his confessions were debunked, and his death sentence was commuted to a life sentence when it turned out he was probably in the wrong state to have committed the murder he was sentenced for (scumbag or not, a life sentence for a crime you were hundreds of miles away from seems a bit much to me).
What we do know about Lucas, is that he had a male lover, Ottis, whom he met at a soup kitchen, and that he had an affair with Ottis' 12 year old daughter, Becky.
It tells us all we need to know about the accuracy of this movie that Ottis is present as a flatmate that he knew from prison, and Becky is here as Ottis' adult sister. This movie isn't so much 'based on a true story' as 'based on a trio of actual first names'. But that's fine; what we are left with is a gritty, almost exploitative, piece about a realistic, though fictional, serial killer.
Or, more accurately, pair of serial killers; as is believed to be the case in real life, Ottis joins Henry on part of his rampage.
Whereas the real Ottis was probably a serial killer in his own right, here it is Henry who desensitises him to murder, and teaches him the 'art' of serial killing; specifically, Henry is a fan of the 'no MO' MO - shoot one victim, strangle the next, dismember one, dump one in an alley whole - no pattern makes you harder to catch!
One of the movies most effective scenes is also the one that gave me greatest pause from a story point of view; having established that Henry is all about not being caught and leaving a trail (he dissuades Ottis from killing a college kid he sells drugs to, on the grounds that killing so robe you have a connection to is a big no-no) the pair use a camcorder to film a home-invasion they stage. While the invasion is disturbing and effective, I don't buy that someone so familiar with the serial killer no-noes would create such a piece of evidence.
Ottis at one point tries to forcibly kiss his sister (squick!) for "a joke"; Henry does not take kindly to this, forcing Ottis to apologise, it's one of two time that Henry shows any kind of morals as you and I might understand them (the other relates to a postmortem sexual assault). Theses moments work to set up a line that even he will not cross, but do nothing to redeem him as a human being, as such I found them interesting; usually these things are set up as some kind of redemption of a killer turned hero-killer.... This is SO not that kind of movie.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to be one, or meet one, and in an ideal world they wouldn't exist; but as they do exist, I may as well admit that I find them fascinating, and read about them... So I do.
Henry Lee Lucas isn't as well represented in serial killer literature and documentaries as most of his contemporaries, mostly because little about his crimes is actually known; most of his confessions were debunked, and his death sentence was commuted to a life sentence when it turned out he was probably in the wrong state to have committed the murder he was sentenced for (scumbag or not, a life sentence for a crime you were hundreds of miles away from seems a bit much to me).
What we do know about Lucas, is that he had a male lover, Ottis, whom he met at a soup kitchen, and that he had an affair with Ottis' 12 year old daughter, Becky.
It tells us all we need to know about the accuracy of this movie that Ottis is present as a flatmate that he knew from prison, and Becky is here as Ottis' adult sister. This movie isn't so much 'based on a true story' as 'based on a trio of actual first names'. But that's fine; what we are left with is a gritty, almost exploitative, piece about a realistic, though fictional, serial killer.
Or, more accurately, pair of serial killers; as is believed to be the case in real life, Ottis joins Henry on part of his rampage.
Whereas the real Ottis was probably a serial killer in his own right, here it is Henry who desensitises him to murder, and teaches him the 'art' of serial killing; specifically, Henry is a fan of the 'no MO' MO - shoot one victim, strangle the next, dismember one, dump one in an alley whole - no pattern makes you harder to catch!
One of the movies most effective scenes is also the one that gave me greatest pause from a story point of view; having established that Henry is all about not being caught and leaving a trail (he dissuades Ottis from killing a college kid he sells drugs to, on the grounds that killing so robe you have a connection to is a big no-no) the pair use a camcorder to film a home-invasion they stage. While the invasion is disturbing and effective, I don't buy that someone so familiar with the serial killer no-noes would create such a piece of evidence.
Ottis at one point tries to forcibly kiss his sister (squick!) for "a joke"; Henry does not take kindly to this, forcing Ottis to apologise, it's one of two time that Henry shows any kind of morals as you and I might understand them (the other relates to a postmortem sexual assault). Theses moments work to set up a line that even he will not cross, but do nothing to redeem him as a human being, as such I found them interesting; usually these things are set up as some kind of redemption of a killer turned hero-killer.... This is SO not that kind of movie.
From the technical side, this movie was made for around $100,000 in 10 days, leaving neither the time nor budget for effects and reshoots; The director has used this entirely to his advantage, bringing us a low-key movie which adds to the realism. Performances are solid, but a special mention must go to Michael Rooker (The Walking Dead's Merl) who is almost too believable in the title role.
With enough differences between the this movie and the truth of the case, it would be wrong to claim this movie is, in any meaningful sense, a true story; but it is at least realistic. As such, it's probably one of the best realistic serial killer movies I've seen ('true' or otherwise), but it's not for everyone; it's gritty, nasty, and uncomfortable, there are no punch-the-air moments, or 'creative' kills, no twisted justice, or victims that 'had it coming' (well, one, but even that isn't framed as a cathartic moment for the viewer), it truly is a great movie... Not that's not to say it's an enjoyable one.
Recommended, but proceed with caution if you're not hardened to this kind of thing.
With enough differences between the this movie and the truth of the case, it would be wrong to claim this movie is, in any meaningful sense, a true story; but it is at least realistic. As such, it's probably one of the best realistic serial killer movies I've seen ('true' or otherwise), but it's not for everyone; it's gritty, nasty, and uncomfortable, there are no punch-the-air moments, or 'creative' kills, no twisted justice, or victims that 'had it coming' (well, one, but even that isn't framed as a cathartic moment for the viewer), it truly is a great movie... Not that's not to say it's an enjoyable one.
Recommended, but proceed with caution if you're not hardened to this kind of thing.
Sunday 12 January 2014
Black Sunday - Lisa's Review
So another 'old' movie this week. We're transported back to 1960 to a movie set eons earlier for this Italian Gothic Horror Fest that is Black Sunday. The movies alternative name is 'The Mask of Satan', which as far as I'm concerned is a much better name having watched the movie. Anyway....
The movie is set in Moldavia and sees a beautiful young witch, Asa be put to death courtesy of a spiked mask which is hammered into her beautiful face by a mahoosive sledgehammer. Not before she places a curse on her brother (who ordered her murder) and all his (their) descendants. We find out as the movie progresses that her lover, Javuto was also put to death along with her.
200 years later, we follow 2 doctors as they travel through Moldavia for a medical conference. Shock, horror they experience a problem with the wheel on their carraige and get stuck in the middle of Moldavia, as it happens right beside the crypt where Asa is buried. As you can imagine, they don't simply go and have a peek and exit again without any happenings. The older of the 2 doctors, Kruvajan manages to break the glass on the coffin which enables him to remove the mask from the body (why you would want to do this is anyones guess). We see that Asa is pretty well preserved apart from her eyeballs, which are full of spiders. Kruvajan cuts his hand on the glass and the blood drips off a shard of glass after he has gone and onto Asas face. Of course any horror fan amongst us will know what this means.
Asa is back for vengeance and is bringing her old boyfriend with her. I won't go into any more detail as quite honestly the movie bored me to tears. If you want to see it, to be honest what I've told you is probably enough. Any more would be spoilerific (if that's possible in this movie).
Dull, preditable plot asides, this movie looked great. It was very reminiscent of Hammer with its style and leading ladies makeup and couture. I can imagine that in 1960 it was a smash hit, but in these days where we've seen pretty much everything there is to see, it is a bit staid and dull. Is great use of light and beautiful scenes enough to keep you interested? Sadly for me it isn't.
I certainly wouldn't stick an avoid on this as it had a quaint charm but it certainly was nowhere near to getting a recommended.
Saturday 11 January 2014
.jpg)
Let's Scare Jessica to Death - Will's Review
Three alternative types (we know they are alternative types) move from New York into a house in the country. Two of them are a couple, Jessica and Duncan , who bought the house, while the third, Woody, is a friend of theirs, who will likely be moving on once the couple are settled.
Upon arrival at their new property, they find that they have a squatter, Emily. You might expect tensions to flair at this point, but you'd be wrong! Instead the squatter politely offers to get her things and leave, and our trio insists that she stays awhile!
We learn that Jessica is not long out of a mental Heath facility, and she soon starts hearing voices calling to her and seeing a body in the lake adjoining the property... A body that looks not unlike Emily and only seems to appear when the freeloader has made an excuse to leave for a bit... Mmmmmm.
And so, between the looky-likey ghosts, and the title, you'd be forgiven for assuming that the whole thing is a hoax, intended to drive the already unstable Jessica over the edge... Perhaps her friends from New York are in on it? Maybe even the local antique dealer, himself full of spooky stories and recently moved from New York himself?
Upon arrival at their new property, they find that they have a squatter, Emily. You might expect tensions to flair at this point, but you'd be wrong! Instead the squatter politely offers to get her things and leave, and our trio insists that she stays awhile!
We learn that Jessica is not long out of a mental Heath facility, and she soon starts hearing voices calling to her and seeing a body in the lake adjoining the property... A body that looks not unlike Emily and only seems to appear when the freeloader has made an excuse to leave for a bit... Mmmmmm.
And so, between the looky-likey ghosts, and the title, you'd be forgiven for assuming that the whole thing is a hoax, intended to drive the already unstable Jessica over the edge... Perhaps her friends from New York are in on it? Maybe even the local antique dealer, himself full of spooky stories and recently moved from New York himself?
SPOILERS FOLLOW
'Fraid not; that would have been a much more interesting movie, albeit one spoiled by the title... Nope, it seems like the title here is a deliberate mislead, having nothing to do with the plot. What's actually happening is.... I have no idea.
SQUATTER seems to be the only woman in town, and might possibly be some kind of vampire? Maybe? Certainly all of the men in town have strange scars, mostly in the neck, and she does go out of her way to seduce both of Jessica's companions and maybe bites one of them?
In short, it's a mess. I dig ambiguity in movies when it's done well (Lisa and I both stuck the "recommended" tag on 'The Beyond') but here it isn't, seeming to be ambiguity for its own sake, leaving us with a movie that's seemingly far less clever than it thinks it is.
The opening and closing narration are identical, with the movie seemingly being told in flash back, but both are set at entirely different times of day.
Maybe the idea was to suggest that none of it is real, instead played out in Jessica's troubled mind? If that's the case, it could certainly have been done better - maybe with the closing narration back in the facility.
I'd like to say that the whole thing was just badly made, a thrown-together accidental mess; but I can't help but get the impression that it was made this way quite deliberately, maybe in the hope that fans of film students would be able to spend hours pouring over theories. Sadly it wasn't remotely well done enough that I can imagine anyone doing this.
These "100 best horror movies" are proving to be disappointing.
Avoid.
'Fraid not; that would have been a much more interesting movie, albeit one spoiled by the title... Nope, it seems like the title here is a deliberate mislead, having nothing to do with the plot. What's actually happening is.... I have no idea.
SQUATTER seems to be the only woman in town, and might possibly be some kind of vampire? Maybe? Certainly all of the men in town have strange scars, mostly in the neck, and she does go out of her way to seduce both of Jessica's companions and maybe bites one of them?
In short, it's a mess. I dig ambiguity in movies when it's done well (Lisa and I both stuck the "recommended" tag on 'The Beyond') but here it isn't, seeming to be ambiguity for its own sake, leaving us with a movie that's seemingly far less clever than it thinks it is.
The opening and closing narration are identical, with the movie seemingly being told in flash back, but both are set at entirely different times of day.
Maybe the idea was to suggest that none of it is real, instead played out in Jessica's troubled mind? If that's the case, it could certainly have been done better - maybe with the closing narration back in the facility.
I'd like to say that the whole thing was just badly made, a thrown-together accidental mess; but I can't help but get the impression that it was made this way quite deliberately, maybe in the hope that fans of film students would be able to spend hours pouring over theories. Sadly it wasn't remotely well done enough that I can imagine anyone doing this.
These "100 best horror movies" are proving to be disappointing.
Avoid.
Saturday 4 January 2014
Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer - Lisa's Review
A familiar title this week. I vaguely remember watching a bit of this one years ago. I didn't quite remember what happened though, but that's nothing unusual with my memory. I had convinced myself that it was a really good movie because there had to be some reason that the title stuck in my head. Having watched it again, I suddenly remember both why the title stuck in my head and why I didn't remember much about it. Quite simply I didn't get to the end of it first time and struggled in a big way this time.
So, the premise? We follow Henry (Michael Rooker) and a prison buddy friend of his Otis (Tom Towles) and their wierd, somewhat uncomfortable friendship. Another major player is Otis's sister Becky (Tracy Arnold) who seems to have a strange fascination with Henry, even after being let into the secret that Henry killed his mother.
We follow Henry & Otis as they travel down the slippery slope of depravity and murder. They kill purely for the kicks, just because they feel like it. There is nothing to gain from it. They will kill anyone, man or woman. As Henry advises, they don't want to go for the same type of person every time and provide the police with a MO. As the movie progresses Becky grows closer to Henry, maybe because she came from such a depraved home. She may be transfixed by Henry, but she has a naivety about her and sadly she just seems to be one of those girls who gets shit upon over and over in life. Her story was very moving and sad to watch.
Now to why I'm not a fan. Maybe this is unfair... it probably is, but I found watching this movie SO uncomfortable, I didn't want to inflict my eyeballs with it any more. I literally had to FORCE myself to sit through the last half of the movie. Maybe that's a testament as to how good the movie is or how well it did its job, but the sheer nastiness of some of the scenes is just hard to stomach for me. It is filmed with such a dreariness and grittiness it adds to the whole utter hopelessness I felt watching it. The movie is just so..... grey and depressing. Henry & Otis give absolutely no thought as to what they are doing, what they are putting people through, that it made my stomach turn.
There is one particular scene which involved a family which made me deeply angry and disgusted. I won't go into detail. If I were actually to try to explain it to you, no words could convey the scene for me, as it sounds quite lame when written down, but for me it was too much. They say everyone has their limits and this scene is quite close to it for me. I don't tend to feel revulsion and disgust when watching gore for some odd reason... maybe I can distance myself from it as it's usually so removed from reality. This movie though is very close to the truth.
After having watched the movie, the simple thought that people exist who are like Henry or Otis, fills me with revulsion and anger. They simply don't deserve to draw breath. There are few movies with a similar premise that manage to convey the depths to which some people will stoop in the pursuit of 'feeling something' or 'scratching an itch'. Maybe I should be singing this movies praises for making me feel this way, but I feel like a need a wash after having watched it, so I simply can't.
If you want to watch a truely nasty, horrible movie, then this is for you. Sadly it most definately wasn't for me.
So, the premise? We follow Henry (Michael Rooker) and a prison buddy friend of his Otis (Tom Towles) and their wierd, somewhat uncomfortable friendship. Another major player is Otis's sister Becky (Tracy Arnold) who seems to have a strange fascination with Henry, even after being let into the secret that Henry killed his mother.
We follow Henry & Otis as they travel down the slippery slope of depravity and murder. They kill purely for the kicks, just because they feel like it. There is nothing to gain from it. They will kill anyone, man or woman. As Henry advises, they don't want to go for the same type of person every time and provide the police with a MO. As the movie progresses Becky grows closer to Henry, maybe because she came from such a depraved home. She may be transfixed by Henry, but she has a naivety about her and sadly she just seems to be one of those girls who gets shit upon over and over in life. Her story was very moving and sad to watch.
Now to why I'm not a fan. Maybe this is unfair... it probably is, but I found watching this movie SO uncomfortable, I didn't want to inflict my eyeballs with it any more. I literally had to FORCE myself to sit through the last half of the movie. Maybe that's a testament as to how good the movie is or how well it did its job, but the sheer nastiness of some of the scenes is just hard to stomach for me. It is filmed with such a dreariness and grittiness it adds to the whole utter hopelessness I felt watching it. The movie is just so..... grey and depressing. Henry & Otis give absolutely no thought as to what they are doing, what they are putting people through, that it made my stomach turn.
There is one particular scene which involved a family which made me deeply angry and disgusted. I won't go into detail. If I were actually to try to explain it to you, no words could convey the scene for me, as it sounds quite lame when written down, but for me it was too much. They say everyone has their limits and this scene is quite close to it for me. I don't tend to feel revulsion and disgust when watching gore for some odd reason... maybe I can distance myself from it as it's usually so removed from reality. This movie though is very close to the truth.
After having watched the movie, the simple thought that people exist who are like Henry or Otis, fills me with revulsion and anger. They simply don't deserve to draw breath. There are few movies with a similar premise that manage to convey the depths to which some people will stoop in the pursuit of 'feeling something' or 'scratching an itch'. Maybe I should be singing this movies praises for making me feel this way, but I feel like a need a wash after having watched it, so I simply can't.
If you want to watch a truely nasty, horrible movie, then this is for you. Sadly it most definately wasn't for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)