Saturday, 30 November 2013
Daughters of Darkness (1971) - Lisa's Review
I'm kind of torn this week with 'Daughters of Darkness'. I thought when we entered the Time Out Top 100, we would be moving away from these kind of movies. When I say 'these kind of movies' I mean dated, supposedly erotic, weak horrors. The reason I am torn is, while watching the movie, I could see many reasons to give it a decent review - it has an impressive set, is beautifully shot, the 4 main players in the movie are all incredibly attractive, the colours jump off the screen at you. It is beautiful to look at, but that's where I draw a line with compliments.
This movie is very highly rated, but it just isn't the sort of movie I enjoy or would choose to watch. I suppose I've kind of had it with dated horrors with casual lesbianism thrown in.
In the movie, a young couple, Stefan and Valerie, stop off at a very large, very impressive and very empty hotel. We are given an idea of their characters and it seems Stefan is a bit of an arse and the impossibly beautiful Valerie is very sweet and naive. The couple are just married, but Stefan seems to have severe reservations about introducing Valerie to his mother.
Enter the very sophisticated, alluring Elizabeth Bathory (yes, that one) and her pretty maid Iona. The hotel concierge is sure he remembers Elizabeth from many years ago when he was a young boy, but she hasn't changed at all in these years. We learn that the secret to her beauty lies in the blood of young virgins... you know the story....
Elizabeth attempts to get closer to the attractive young couple by first seducing Stefan (not at all difficult it seems), then she moves on to her main interest, the beautiful Valerie. Iona also makes her move on Stefan (who isn't winning any awards for husband of the year) and he succumbs again.
The movie is basically a mix of arthouse (which is what I think put me off) and seduction. I wouldn't think I was giving anything away by telling you that Elizabeth Bathory is a vampire. We know she is seeking the blood of young virgins. Stefan is hardly a virgin, so we can see where the movie is headed. I wouldn't categorize the movie as horror at all. There is very little in the way of horror here. It wouldn't even be considered as particularly erotic these days.
I can see why men would love this movie. It is after all the stuff of fantasies, but there was very little here for me to get excited about.
One plus with the movie is that it doesn't end as you would imagine. That was what had me torn. It lost its element of predictability. As fellow blogger Will often says, the presence of an unexpected and cool ending sometimes saves a mediocre movie. Well this is the case for me.
Would I recommend it? To guys who like older, classic or Hammer movies, yea sure. This is where I feel it's appeal ends though. It's not an avoid by any means, but it just didn't float my boat.
Thursday, 28 November 2013
Sunday, 24 November 2013
The Fog - Will's Review.
Writer / Director John Carpenter, Producer Deborah Hill, and Actress Jamie Lee Curtis; the Halloween Gang are out in force on this one!
Some opening exposition comes in the form of a man scaring children with ghost stories: specifically the tale of how the founding fathers of their town had used a false beacon to lure a ship to its doom in order to loot it. The plundered gold was used to build thier town; one hundred years ago to the day.
As the clock strikes midnight and the town experiences all manor of phenomenon; car alarms go off, people loose electricity, windows break themselves... and a mysterious fog bank forms out to sea.
We quickly learn that the fog carries the ghosts of the wrecked ship, and that they are intent on having their revenge on the town that killed them.
Along the way we learn more specifics about the ghostly crew, an the full extent of the town's betrayal of them.
The whole thing is very unusually paced; there's always something going on, or some new revelation, yet somehow the movie feels like it plods along at a fairly relaxed pace. It doesn't necessarily suffer for it, mind, in fact I rather enjoyed it's slower pace; it wasn't until I thought about the film afterward that I realised how deceptive the apparent pace was.
The fog itself is a great device; fog always looks spooky, and it allows a ghost story to be told without having to see too much of the ghosts (we see them mostly in silhouette).
Performances are sound all around, most especially Adrienne Barbeau, as Stevie, DJ / owner of the local radio station.
The only real negative is the movie's brief epilogue, which undermines the films dramatic conclusion simply to squeeze in an extra kill.
Overall though, well worth watching.
Some opening exposition comes in the form of a man scaring children with ghost stories: specifically the tale of how the founding fathers of their town had used a false beacon to lure a ship to its doom in order to loot it. The plundered gold was used to build thier town; one hundred years ago to the day.
As the clock strikes midnight and the town experiences all manor of phenomenon; car alarms go off, people loose electricity, windows break themselves... and a mysterious fog bank forms out to sea.
We quickly learn that the fog carries the ghosts of the wrecked ship, and that they are intent on having their revenge on the town that killed them.
Along the way we learn more specifics about the ghostly crew, an the full extent of the town's betrayal of them.
The whole thing is very unusually paced; there's always something going on, or some new revelation, yet somehow the movie feels like it plods along at a fairly relaxed pace. It doesn't necessarily suffer for it, mind, in fact I rather enjoyed it's slower pace; it wasn't until I thought about the film afterward that I realised how deceptive the apparent pace was.
The fog itself is a great device; fog always looks spooky, and it allows a ghost story to be told without having to see too much of the ghosts (we see them mostly in silhouette).
Performances are sound all around, most especially Adrienne Barbeau, as Stevie, DJ / owner of the local radio station.
The only real negative is the movie's brief epilogue, which undermines the films dramatic conclusion simply to squeeze in an extra kill.
Overall though, well worth watching.
Saturday, 23 November 2013
The Fog (1980) - Lisa's Review
*** SPOILERS ***
So this week we're back to 1980 and to John Carpenters 'The Fog'. I remember having watched this movie many years ago, but as always is the case with me, a few months after watching a movie, I've forgotten the entire content. Needless to say, I had to revisit the movie in order to do a review.
This movie has obviously made an impression, as in the years which followed, we had a 2005 version of 'The Fog' and a remarkably similar concept in 'The Mist'. Anyways, I deviate.
The movie is based around a seaside town of Antonio Bay which is celebrating its centennial. The movie starts with an old man sat around a campfire with a group of children, telling a scary story, which is unfortunately not a work of fiction.
100 years ago, a group of men, including an ancestor of the towns priest, Father Malone, deliberately caused a ship called 'Elizabeth Dane' to crash into rocks. They set a fire, which acted as a false beacon and ultimately led the ship and its crew to their deaths. The ship was full of gold, which the men proceeded to steal and the town of Antonio Bay was built with these ill gotten gains.
The movie tells the story of the towns centennial celebrations which prompt the return of the perished crew to seek revenge from the townsfolk and reclaim what is rightfully theirs.
The cast consists of Father Malone, the towns priest and descendant of one of the original group of criminals, A female DJ Stevie Wayne with the sultriest of voices, Stevies son, Nick Castle - all round good guy and Elizabeth Solley - an out of town pretty girl, who is picked up by Nick while hitch hiking.
Something I like about John Carpenters movies is the existence of strong female characters. In horror, females are generally there to provide eye candy (although arguably this is probably the case here too), but also to be a shrieking, screaming mess in need of rescue from the male lead. Thankfully, this isn't the case here, which is a plus right away. He obviously also rates Jamie Lee Curtis as she makes a reappearance as a female lead in this movie after the success of her performance in Carpenters Halloween.
I seem to have digressed again... apologies. Inexplicable things happen, electrical faults, public phones all ringing, devices switching themselves on, objects moving by themselves... This is the first sign of all not being well. As Nick gives Elizabeth a ride into town, the cars electrics start to fail and the windows shatter.
As we progress, the ghosts of the fallen crew return on the towns centennial and wreak havoc in the town as they appear in an eerie fog and slay anyone who gets in their way. This starts with 3 fishermen when their boat is engulfed in an eerie glowing fog. They see an old boat pull alongside them, which contains the ghosts of the fallen crew and they all meet their end within the fog.
The remainder of the movie follows the remaining characters struggling to survive through the existence of the fog and the attempts to send the ghosts back whence they came. I won't go any more detail about the storyline in case our imaginary readers have yet to see the movie, but it is all pretty much what you'd expect.
Originally this movie was meant to be a more supernatural ghost story and not so much a horror containing gore, but the insistence was made to add more length to the movie and make it nastier and gorier for the audiences. I for one, would have loved to see the original as I thought the kills didn't add to the story at all. The movie would have been just as powerful had we seen nothing of how anyone met their end. In actual fact, it may have been more powerful.
I love the ominous feel of the movie, the setting, the casting and the storyline. I enjoyed it when I first watched this movie and again on a repeat viewing. I would recommend anyone watch this as I struggle to think of much negative to say about this movie.
Lisa Recommends.
Thursday, 21 November 2013
Sunday, 17 November 2013
Threads - Will's Review
Originally released in 1984, when nuclear war looked frighteningly possible, even likely, Threads is a docu-drama by the BBC, detailing the possible effects of a nuclear strike, on Britain generally, and on 2 families in particular.
I vaguely remember this causing a bit of a fuss when it was shown on TV, and I seem to recall a big deal being made when it was repeated in the early 90's too; I finally saw it for the first time about 8 years ago, and again for this review. It isn't particularly a film that benefits from a second viewing, as much of its impact comes from the shock of the severity of the situation; but fear not, imaginary reader, as my memory of the firt time around is still clear 9 years later (truth be told, I could probably have 'cheated' and done this without a rewatch!).
It starts of reasonably soap-opera-ish, with our main characters deciding to marry because of an unplanned pregnancy, while their respective families deal with their versions feuds and problems. One thing that you don't normally here or see in dips though, are reports about the mounting difficulties between the west (specifically the US), and The Soviet Union.
Now, bear in mind that this was 1983. The world was locked in a Cold War that always seemed dangerously close to turning hot; in real life people had actually been sent the government produced booklets featured in the film, detailing what to do during nuclear attack (you were supposed to use the three minute warning to, amongst other things, remove most if your doors and use then to build a makeshift shelter).
As uncomfortable as this movie is to watch now, watching it then must have been almost too much to bear, and must have cost many people more than just the one night's sleep.
You see, in the movie we eventually take a detour from the soap style (and, thankfully, from real life) as the news reports become more prominent on the story, and more urgent in nature; This cumulates when the bomb hits.
If the initial strike is horrific, then I do not have words for the shockwave.
For all of the horrific images, for all of the human suffering, one of the most powerful images in the movie is that of a glass milk bottle on a doorstep, meal ring as the wave hits. (if you don't know why an empty milk bottle would be on your doorstep, ask your dad, you whippersnapper you.)
From there of course, it only gets worse; those killed in the blast are the lucky ones, as the movie goes into great detail about the breakdown if society, to radiation sickness, to nuclear winter. If anything, I suppose this is an apocalypse movie; but not the 'triumphant outpost of humanity' affair you're used to, where a group of heroes make the best of a bad situation; this is bleak, and realistic, and horrid; this is you or me, stuck in hell, watching everything we know fall apart.
The bleak realism of the movie is fairly typical of the British approach to the threat of nuclear war; while our US counterparts were taught to 'duck and cover' and that everything would be okay, the TV information films produced, but thankfully never aired for real (although they appear in the movie), instead told you to wrap your dead in plastic, and store them in a separate room until the fallout has calendar down enough to drag them outside and dig them a shallow grave.
The movie details further and further into the future and, for me, this is where it falls down. Everything up to the '2 years later' mark seems fair enough; but thereafter I can't help but feel they got carried away. By the '13 years later' segment, anyone born post-strike can't even talk properly, blurting out ill-formed words of broken English ("babby now!" For instance, means "I think the baby is coming"). While I get that education would be limited, I refuse to accept that children would no longer naturally learn to pick up the language from those around them.
Despite it's flawed ending though, it is a highly unpleasant, depressing, horrific, and very important movie; one which I strongly recommend that you watch (and one that should be mandatory viewing for anyone joining a political or military career path.)
Now, bear in mind that this was 1983. The world was locked in a Cold War that always seemed dangerously close to turning hot; in real life people had actually been sent the government produced booklets featured in the film, detailing what to do during nuclear attack (you were supposed to use the three minute warning to, amongst other things, remove most if your doors and use then to build a makeshift shelter).
As uncomfortable as this movie is to watch now, watching it then must have been almost too much to bear, and must have cost many people more than just the one night's sleep.
You see, in the movie we eventually take a detour from the soap style (and, thankfully, from real life) as the news reports become more prominent on the story, and more urgent in nature; This cumulates when the bomb hits.
If the initial strike is horrific, then I do not have words for the shockwave.
For all of the horrific images, for all of the human suffering, one of the most powerful images in the movie is that of a glass milk bottle on a doorstep, meal ring as the wave hits. (if you don't know why an empty milk bottle would be on your doorstep, ask your dad, you whippersnapper you.)
From there of course, it only gets worse; those killed in the blast are the lucky ones, as the movie goes into great detail about the breakdown if society, to radiation sickness, to nuclear winter. If anything, I suppose this is an apocalypse movie; but not the 'triumphant outpost of humanity' affair you're used to, where a group of heroes make the best of a bad situation; this is bleak, and realistic, and horrid; this is you or me, stuck in hell, watching everything we know fall apart.
The bleak realism of the movie is fairly typical of the British approach to the threat of nuclear war; while our US counterparts were taught to 'duck and cover' and that everything would be okay, the TV information films produced, but thankfully never aired for real (although they appear in the movie), instead told you to wrap your dead in plastic, and store them in a separate room until the fallout has calendar down enough to drag them outside and dig them a shallow grave.
The movie details further and further into the future and, for me, this is where it falls down. Everything up to the '2 years later' mark seems fair enough; but thereafter I can't help but feel they got carried away. By the '13 years later' segment, anyone born post-strike can't even talk properly, blurting out ill-formed words of broken English ("babby now!" For instance, means "I think the baby is coming"). While I get that education would be limited, I refuse to accept that children would no longer naturally learn to pick up the language from those around them.
Despite it's flawed ending though, it is a highly unpleasant, depressing, horrific, and very important movie; one which I strongly recommend that you watch (and one that should be mandatory viewing for anyone joining a political or military career path.)
Saturday, 16 November 2013
Threads (1984) - Lisa's Review
This weeks movie from our 'Time Out 100 Best Horror movies' is a docu-style film made for BBC TV from 1984. I seem to remember something vaguely about this from many years ago. I know I hadn't seen the movie before, but I think I was most definately aware of the fact it had been made and caused quite the stir at the time.
The movie follows inhabitants of Sheffield, specifically 2 families, before, during and after the breakout of a Nuclear war between America and Russia.
As the movie starts we are brought into the homes of a couple of families and made aware of various situations and problems they have. In the background we hear radio broadcasts and there are news reports. These start as a background noise alongside the script, but soon become more and more prevalent as we are advised of the situation in Iran with regards to America & Russia.
The actual explosion itself, the damage, the deaths and the fallout are all shown in detail and make for sobering viewing. Of course we've seen much, much gorier, bloodier scenes in other movies, but something about the documentary style in this movie, the location and the subject matter makes it all feel very close to home. That's why this movie works so well. It's possible.
You might say Vampires, Werewolfs and maniacs are the stuff of nightmares, but this movie is the stuff of real nightmares. While watching it was almost impossible not to consider the thought of being in the situation yourself. I found myself wondering what I would do?
As the different manners in which people die are played out and we are given text on screen (you remember that really irritating typewriter sound they used to play in 80's movies when text came up on a screen as if it was being typed? well, that!) giving us information, figures, timescales and effects.
Normally this sort of movie ends after the main event, tying things up nicely for us....not in this case. We are given updates up to many years after the event and are told what has changed and what the effects have been. It makes you think if this event were to ever happen, you'd prefer to die in the initial explosion. They were the lucky ones....
The movie ends abruptly and with sobering reality. It's one of those where, when you've finished watching it, you don't really know what to say, how to feel. If I'm honest it made me feel thoroughly depressed. The fact this is a real threat and completely possible is what makes this movie so effective.
I have given it a 'recommended' even though I can't say I felt brilliant after having watched it. It's not a movie you're going to feel good about, but it definately is effective in what it sets out to do. I can see why it made the Time Out Top 100 list.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)