SPRING BREAKERS

Harmony Korine (Gummo, Trash Humpers) returns to feature film with his controversial party film “Spring Breakers”. The film has a bunch of young and upcoming actresses. The likes of Selena Gomez (Monte Carlo) Vanessa Hudgens (Sucker Punch) Ashley Benson (Pretty Little Liars) and Rachel Korine who is the directors wife. James Franco as “Alien” joins the group of girls in this wild, confrontational summer flick. I will be the first to say I’m not really a big fan of Harmony Korine. I liked some of his script and writing work, but I don’t think he directs well.

The story is about four young college girls who are looking to leave their boring lives behind and get away for some fresh scenery. They are all doing what they can to pool their money so they can go to Florida for Spring Break. After some illegal activity and heavy partying in Florida they wind up in Jail. They meet “Alien” (Franco) who bails them out, he takes on the responsibility of taking care of them.

I really like this cast. It goes without saying that the four young women have a lot of fun throughout the film and they do look gorgeous. They do a commendable job, Gomez as “Faith” is the closest thing we get to a protagonist. Selena plays the part well, Faith appears to have gotten caught up in the wrong crowd and quickly regrets her bad decision-making. Sadly she is written out of the story fairly early on, I think that was a mistake.

James Franco steals the show with his performance as “Alien”, a gangster mixed up in drugs and munitions dealing, he also fancies himself a bit of a rapper. Some may say James over sells it but i think the character is written that way. He has his incessant rants about fame and money and living the life. With his silver teeth, dreadlocks and baggy clothing you really think the guy is delusional (haha)

I found this film to be a very clever marketing ploy in getting viewers hooked. I mean I watched it and I knew it probably wasn’t even going to appeal to me! I think it says a lot about the world of marketing. Things like alcohol, drugs, peer pressure, money and fame. What people think will make them happy and the fact that people don’t dare to be different or think for themselves. Actions always have consequences but the full extent is never really shown at all in the film. Personally it disgusts me to see what the youth of today thinks is appropriate behaviour. Anyone thinking the same as me will probably find it hard to immerse themselves in this trip.

The look of the film supports the lifestyle these characters are living. It’s got Harmony Korine stamped all over it. It’s bright fluorescent lighting, overbearing soundtrack and constant use of slow-motion all wear thin pretty quickly. There was one piece of instrumental music I liked when “Faith” was on the bus, I don’t know the artist though. On the surface most of the characters seem happy however anyone with a bit of intuition could see they are anything but happy. We don’t know the full extent of why because it’s never covered. From what we know they appear to have come from normal backgrounds. They are studying in college obviously aiming to get a job? I’m not sure where the desperation to escape their so-called miserable lives even comes from?

The only person with any likeability is Faith (Gomez) and like I said she is written out too early. Franco is hilarious but “Alien” is just a sleazy human being. I can only assume these young girls have parenting issues. Korine did some of the writing for one of my favourite films “Kids” back in 1995. That film covered the importance of parenting and upbringing, with no parental guidance kids can quickly get out of control. The whole Spring Break thing is just a gimmicky attempt to show girls in next to no clothing grinding random guys. It depicts this whole MTV, social media lifestyle that the youth of today places importance on. If you’re a bit older and more mature you can’t look past the fact that these are all terribly immature people. There are so many people conforming to what other people want them to be that after a while you just lose any respect for them.

Towards the end of the movie I was able to pick certain things before they unfolded. Several scenes grate your nerves after they have been repeated for the tenth time. I think it may have been an artistic way of depicting the effects of some of the drugs the girls and Alien take. None the less Alien singing Britney Spears songs horribly out of key for a ten minute scene, achieves nothing. The main sex scene in the pool is another example of the repeated use of dialogue. If I heard “Spring Break” once I heard it a thousand times, not sure why? These characters just like to hear themselves talk, kind of like an episode of Jersey Shore.

I commend Korine on making something with a bit of controversy, it shakes Hollywood and it’s critics up a bit. Today’s society isn’t shocked by much, an attempt at shock value is not enough to make something memorable. You want to see characters that are accountable for their actions. I get that we as humans are fallible, we make mistakes, we live and we learn but no one in this film actually does. They give the impression that they have learnt something but we know actions always have consequences, to pretend they don’t for the sake of a happy ending, gives false hope. Where were the parents in all of this? Or the cops for that matter?

My rating for “Spring Breakers” is 5/10

OUT THERE

To start off, I would like to say a very big thankyou to director Randal Plunkett for sending me the link to his short film “Out There”. The film is a 16 minute short about a man who wakes up in the woods with no memory of how he got there. He searches for answers but all he is left with are more questions. Conor Marren and Emma Eliza Regan play Robert and Jane.

To be honest I have only watched a handful of short films, most of which were a part of various anthology films. This is one of the first true, stand alone short films I have watched. I must say I was pleasantly surprised. This looks and sounds amazing. Majority of it is shot in the woods and what appears to be private property. The camera work is very personal but at the same time there is real dedication to everything in the background of the frame. It’s most visually impressive attribute is that it uses natural light and everything is shot during the day. This is something you don’t see in films of this nature. The score is fantastic it mixes both suspenseful bass and some really effective sounds to build the tension.

The flashbacks to past events were quiet helpful in getting the connection between our main characters. I thought Conor did a fantastic job of the acting considering the film’s success relies mostly on his performance. The accident was very well shot considering the budget here is very small. I couldn’t help but think no one takes their eyes off the road for that long… but I suppose I can forgive that due to the development of the story.

I want to make special mention of the makeup and prosthetic effects. I thought they were really top-notch. I had no idea the direction the story was going to take, this includes the very ending. It’s not often something in the horror/thriller genre delivers that. I definitely didn’t expect to find it in a short film.

What Randal has created here, is a wonderful atmospheric, beautifully shot film that takes you on a real ride. This is only 16 minutes long but it achieves plenty in that short space of time. I can’t fault this gem of a film, by the end I was thinking I could have watched it for another hour. That’s the sign of a great short film. This is a solid building block for a full length feature and I for one can’t wait to see it!

My rating for “Out There” is 9/10

IT’S IN THE BLOOD

In his debut feature Scooter Downey gives us “It’s In The Blood” an independent psychological thriller. Honestly having seen the film now, I would call it more of a survival story with some heavy drama as the sub-plot. It stars Lance Henriksen (Alien) and newcomers Sean Elliot and Rose Sirna. It’s a very small intricate film that has to rely on the calibre of acting and the characters back story, for it to work well.

The story is about a father and son attempting to reconnect. Years after a family tragedy October (Elliot) comes back to his childhood home. His attempt to reunite with his father Russell (Henriksen) is quickly interrupted after Russell takes a fall. Russell breaks his leg, with nightfall quickly approaching October must think of a way to get them out of the situation. At the same time he is dealing with memories of the past and the psychological scars he carries from them.

The opening scene in the film appears to have no context with anything else that’s going on. Eventually we do see a reference to it later on. I think more so than anything else the lazy editing throughout the opening 10 minutes hurts the clarity of some of the details. I think when we finally do get some context, the build up has been too predictable. I wasn’t even aware of the connection between father and son until it’s actually revealed in conversation. Maybe it went without saying, but I didn’t follow.

There is some solid camera work ranging from steady cam to a more conventional style later. We learn very early on that October is suffering from hallucinations. I’m not sure why someone in his position isn’t taking some type of medication? It’s not like he is unaware that he is seeing things. He know’s he doesn’t have it together, so I’m not sure about that choice. I also thought the father son bonding scene in the beginning of the film had no bearing on anything else that happened in the story. It didn’t progress the character development or the relationship between the two. We find out that it’s been years since they had even spoke. A phone call or something to set up the visit back home would have been something easily written in the script.

The acting for most of the film is above average. Henriksen being the one with the most experience, carries the majority of the scenes, although Elliot has his moments. Rose Sirna only has a very small part. She is completely underused and we never really get to see what she may have been able to do. I thought the back story on October’s situation was decent enough but everything is way to predictable. It didn’t show us anything we haven’t already seen before in plenty of other films. I thought the creatures that appear throughout the film were quite effective. However, we never got a good look at them, or were shown any real menace towards our protagonists. They were kind of just there to add the “horror” element. We never get any explanation for them or a resolution with the scenes they appear in. Like I said earlier, this is a much more artistic, drama based thriller than a horror.

I think this would have worked much better if it was just played out as a drama. Using metaphors in “horror” to represent some deeper darker secret is never really successful. Horror fans are expecting horror, if you don’t deliver they are going to feel let down.

I will admit I didn’t get the whole way through this. There was nothing here worthwhile dissecting or elaborating on, by all accounts it was a very plain film. I have since read other people’s reviews and everyone came to the same sort of conclusion. This was mis-marketed, it wasn’t what any horror fan was expecting or looking for. My advice to Scooter is to try again, there is a lot to be learnt from trying new ideas.

My rating for “It’s In The Blood” is 2/10

HANSEL & GRETEL WITCH HUNTERS

I had very little expectation heading into Tommy Wirkola’s modern-day version of Hansel and Gretel. Mostly because his last film “Dead Snow” fell flat on its face. This time he has taken the popular Brother’s Grimm fairytale and crossed it with a modern fantasy film to give us “Hansel & Gretel Witch Hunters”. Starring are Jeremy Renner (The Avengers, The Town) Gemma Arterton (Quantum Of Solace, The Disappearance of Alice Creed) and Famke Janssen (Goldeneye, X-men)

The basics remain the same, Hansel and Gretel are siblings and when they were very young they lost their parents. Obviously in this version of event’s it wasn’t in the same manner as the original fairytale. Witches are responsible for Hansel and Gretel’s mother being burnt at the stake and their father being killed. Most of the film is set many years later. The two are now bounty hunters who track and kill witches. Their goal is to eventually find the witch responsible for the death of their parents. Along the way they cross paths with different characters including a troll. Peter Stormare (Fargo) is a blast as Sheriff Berringer, his acting is a bit over the top, but he has a very fun part to play.

I like the whole cast, Gemma is stunning in this. She kicks some major ass too! Of course I’m a huge Jeremy Renner fan, he is always impressive. I thought his narrated intro and the overall look of the film was very Tim Burton esq. The world was created very well. The intro credits contained some really cool motion capture stuff which I really liked. They keep the witches very conventional, which is both a good and bad thing. They can still fly on their broomsticks but they have other “magical” powers too. Famke Janssen as “Muriel” the evil witch seemed as though she was just doing this for the paycheck. I read an article after viewing the film that said she only took the role because she was having money issues, trust me it showed. I didn’t think she was menacing or believable, she basically sleepwalks through the part. However they did do a great job of her makeup. There were varying decayed looks to each of the witches in the film, that was something different.

I found the score to be a bit trite. I heard everything I was expecting to here and nothing new. I thought there were a couple of really effective kill scenes though. The second half of the movie has some really well done blood and gore effects. Mixing both practical effects with CGI to create a nice blend. The troll is responsible for a fair bit of destruction, not necessarily in a bad way though. Some of the transitions between the scenes and the fight choreography were both a little bit rapid and sudden, but I suppose effective enough. A couple of the sets also looked a little bit cheesy, the differences between the on location stuff and the studio wasn’t always a smooth blend.

The film is quite a good fantasy/action style film, that uses the basic story of a fairytale we all loved as kids. The effects are all pretty good, the acting for the most part is solid too. Some great one liners from both Renner and Arterton. It’s just a good fun, high entertainment value flick. It’s not something you sit there and take super seriously. It’s something you don’t have to think about much. If you want something to leave a bit more of an impression watch “Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter” it’s a bit more professionally done, then what you get here. None the less I thought this was easy and fun.

My rating for “Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters” is 6/10

DETOUR

William Dickerson’s debut feature is a Survival film called “Detour”. This one just finished up on the film festival circuit. iIt’s about Jackson (Neil Hopkins) who is trapped in his car after a mudslide in Los Angeles. Brea Grant (The Baytown Outlaws, Halloween 2) also has a very small part as Jackson’s girlfriend. This is mostly a one man show with Neil Hopkins really doing a solid job in the role. His character is written in such a way that you really root for him through the duration of the film. Over the last few years I have seen films like “Buried”, “Wrecked” and several others in the same style that were very mediocre. I think it takes something very special to craft a solid film, especially with one character in one location. It’s been done before but it’s rare.

I thought this was an interesting premise. The beginning of the film Jackson is already stuck in the car. We know that he works at a advertising company but everything else about his life is a mystery. As the films moves along we get a few flashbacks of him with his girlfriend or was it wife? (I can’t remember) but that’s basically it. From what we are shown he doesn’t seem to be the most loving or commited type of person. Trapped in his car, the mudslide has already taken place. I’m not sure if this was because of a lack of funds, or if they couldnt find a practical way to shoot it. Regardless, I would have like to have seen events prior to the accident. We don’t get to see where he is, how far down he is or how he got trapped. The film has all the cliché elements survival films have, such as the phone not working. Jackson attempts to retrace his driving steps by drawing directions on the rear window of the car. I’m not sure why he thinks that would help him? especially if his car is covered in mud beneath the ground.

Jackson spends a lot of time in the opening act wasting energy with tedious tasks. Once he comes to grips with the magnitude of the situation, he has a panic attack. This is not a smart thing to do when you have a lack of oxygen.. he screams and shouts and breakdowns, wasting a lot of energy. I was expecting this step in the last act, not in the first 15 minutes. Not to mention he has a brain fade and drinks his whole water supply in the first 10 minutes! He then realises this and basically say’s screw it I’ll drink the rest (yeah that makes sense) His first actual attempt to leave the car takes place 20 minutes into the film. I’m not sure what he was waiting for? He quickly realises this isn’t going to be easy, so he decides to get everything he can possibly find from the car. After accessing his supplies he thinks trying to assemble a tube to light a fire through the roof of the car is a smart idea. He is in a car, with petrol and fumes and several other things that could blow up hello?, It’s probably not smart.

I like that Jackson keeps his sense of humour through the ordeal. There were a few funny little comedic moments and references that I did like. Ultimately we get on board with Jackson even though he does some very dumb things. His ability to not give up and continue searching for new ways to escape the situation shows his will to survive. In the same vein as “Buried” (and plenty of other films) it’s just the one location. Somehow “Detour” seems to keep you entertained and wanting to see where things go.

Detour is a low-budget, one man show and you have to admire the attempt. I was thinking that one important thing would save the film (I can’t share details) but I am happy to say that it went the direction I was hoping for. It could have been taken in a certain manner that would have ruined the experience. Technically it’s a well made film. I mean there wasn’t much to do in the sense of lighting, camera work or score so in that respect it should have been competent.

I give William credit for his first feature here. I think he will gain more experience from this and keep making better films. If you are a fan of films about one character or survival films, you might want to check this one out.

My rating for “Detour” is 5/10

THE BRASS TEAPOT

I had been told some good things about “The Brass Teapot” since its initial release. I have to admit it didn’t sound like something that would appeal to me, however I was definitely wrong about that. “The Brass Teapot” stars Juno Temple (Killer Joe, The Dark Knight Rises) and Michael Angarano (Almost Famous, Red State) l have to say these two have a very natural chemistry together that really comes through during the film. I can’t help but think these two are the twins of Renee Zellweger and Shia LaBeouf! It’s quiet freaky how often during the film, the mannerisms or idiosyncracies are comparable. I think they look very much the same too.

The story is about Alice (Temple) and John (Angarano) they are a couple having a hard time making ends meet. Stuck on the poor side of the little town they live in they are just trying to keep their heads above water. Alice is struggling to put her degree to any use and John is not performing at his telemarketing job. After John is fired and the two think their luck is running out they find a magical brass teapot. Yes you heard me correctly! The teapot pays money out when it’s in the company of someone who hurts themselves.

The director Ramaa Mosley has written a very original and clever script with “The Brass Teapot”. The basic story questions your morals and values. What do you place importance on in your life? What are you willing to do to better your life? All these questions are asked throughout the film. The music in the first half of the film was one thing that really stood out to me as original too. A mix of acoustic and indie style songs were used. The film looks great too. From the landscapes of small town suburbia, to some of the shots in the woods. The comedy is very well placed because ultimately the film is a drama. It’s a difficult thing to do to get that balancing act right especially in a film of this obscure nature (obviously the plot being completely illogical) Some of the scenes were very well put together. The standout comedic scene for me would be either the bedroom scene or the family dinner scene. Alice and John have had a bit to drink and let’s just say there is some witty banter with the in-laws. The concept of a brass teapot paying out after someone hurt’s themselves emotionally or physically is very awkward but funny.

We get a bit of back story on the teapot’s origin and what it really represents. This is shown through various oddball characters attempting to steal the teapot. It’s almost reminiscent of the Golden Tickets in Willy Wonka. Sadly I think the last act of the film trips and stumbles to the line a bit. Our characters start to have a conscience about their decision-making and ultimately how far they are willing to go for happiness. We have some scenes with the guy who I think was supposed to be Alice’s ex (can’t remember his name) These were out of context and the trailer home scene reminded of Temple’s other film “Killer Joe” but didn’t fit in this.

In the end I think what I like most about the film is that it says a lot about us as human beings. The things we think will make us happy. The element of greed, power, wealth and the respect we think goes along with all of that. It’s a film we can all relate too. Money does change people, it’s up to you how you choose to let it change you. Will it be for the better or the worse? How will you treat the people in your life? I like that there are lessons to be learnt in this film. On the other side of the coin it’s just a good, fun and honest film. It will probably go over a few people’s heads because of the fantasy element.. If you can’t look past the teapot paying money out to see what it really represents, this is not for you.

I haven’t seen an original idea as successful as this one since Harold Ramis’s “Bedazzled” this is the best combination of humour and drama that I have seen in a long time.

My rating for “The Brass Teapot” is 6.5/10

THE EXPERIMENT WHO’S WATCHING YOU

“The Experiment Who’s Watching You” is an independent “horror” film made by John Symes. It’s English and was made on a very small budget. The film stars (Suzy Deakin) as Mary, she is a stripper at a local club or was it pub? I don’t remember. Her life is in disarray, she has money problems and a jealous boyfriend. After an impromptu break up, Mary is left to fend for herself. Quickly running out of money and unable to get a job after being fired from her previous job. She opts to take part in a new clinical drug trial. She is unaware the experiment she is taking part in is a facade. She is being filmed 24 hours a day and she is under the heavy influence of a new and dangerous drug. This drug is meant to increase a woman’s sex drive.

I thought the beginning of this shoe-string budget horror film was quite good. Some cool eerie sounds effects and score in the opening scenes. I was impressed by the audio in the opening act it was nice and clear. The remainder of the film the bass and dialogue volume were very inconsistent. Music wise the film doesn’t have much going for it, although in one scene Mary is at the pub dancing, I liked the piece of rock music they used. I couldn’t find out who the artist was though. I commend Suzy Deakin on her job as Mary, she was easy on the eyes. She was a little shaky in a few scenes but for the most part she was above average. There is some solid steady-cam shots throughout the film too. Less than half way through it changes to surveillance and documentary style. I guess this is due to the plot and the experiment, I guess it worked okay.

Let’s get to the issues with the film and there are a bunch. Things like the prolonged dancing scenes that appear several times in the film. They add nothing. It’s just a camera pointed at Mary. I mean I’m not complaining Mary looks great and dances sexy, but what’s the point? Did it progress anything in the story, in any of those scenes? The pub scene sounded like clapping and a noise backing track had been put on the film to save using extras… The editing left a lot to be desired, lots of cliché fade in and fade outs. The color was very washed out for 90% of the film (no that’s not just the UK haha) We get numerous amounts of flashes of light and distorted broken up camera work. This is meant to imply Mary is under the influence of the drug. All it does is just make the viewer feel sick.

The men responsible for this drug trial are only ever heard having conversations with each other on the phone. Desk’s and computers are shown but neither of the men’s faces. We don’t know their motivations or backgrounds, I was hoping they would elaborate as the film went on. For one how did they even meet Mary? Was it an ad in the paper? Was it online? Was it through a mutual friend? We never even see an introduction to this trial. When the whole story relies on the trial and we have no idea of how it’s happening there isn’t much room for movement. We see someone roaming around in Mary’s apartment but we never see them actually do anything. Such as putting up camera’s or hiding anything? I don’t get it.

The second half of the film is full of perverse slow motion strip scenes and erotic solo sexual scenes. I can only assume the guy watches or? I really have no idea what the point was. It was just one big haze that never became clear. I have no issues with the budget and technically the film definitely wasn’t horrible. The story (or what there was) however, probably never had the potential to be much better anyway. I gave this thing nearly an hour but I figured I could be cleaning my house or pretty much doing anything else other than suffering through this.

My advice John Symes, is to try again.

My rating for The Experiment Who’s Watching You is 2/10

ONLY GOD FORGIVES

Nicolas Winding Refn (Drive) reunites with Ryan Gosling in  “Only God Forgives”. This is a very loosely based follow-up to the 2011 hit film Drive. The only aspects or reasoning for making that connection could be the violence in this. It could be Gosling’s character and the comparisons to that of his role in Drive. Julian (Gosling) is a drug smuggling thief who is living a life of luxury in Bangkok. He runs a small time Thai boxing club and deals drugs on the side. His brother Billy, played by Tom Burke rapes and murders a young girl. Due to the laws in Bangkok, he must suffer the consequences for these crimes. This puts an ex cop, Chang on a collision path with Julian and his mother Crystal played by Kristin Scott Thomas.

Julian is portrayed as a very misguided and lonely person living a life of isolation. He has a prostitute that he pay’s to fulfill his fantasies and dreams. From what we see, he has little to no relationship with his mother or his brother. We know nothing about Julian’s background. What have his experiences been? Where has he come from? Or deep down who he really is. Gosling’s character says very little for the duration of the film, possibly less than he did in Drive. Gosling does all he can do with this painfully dark, bland character. People making comparisons between Julian and The Driver (his character from “Drive”) but they need to take a closer look at the characters. Yes there is a lot of mystery surrounding both the characters. In “Drive” that works because The Driver represents good, he is the protagonist. We don’t need to know his motivations or his life story etc, we know he represents good. Julian doesn’t seem to possess any likeable characteristics. If he is the film’s reference point, he needed a human quality for the audience to connect with.

Then we have Chang, I can only assume he is an ex-cop? He seemed to be very friendly with the current police force. It was never divulged if he was still a cop, so who really knows? I can’t decipher what his motivation was getting involved with a rape/murder. Single handedly deciding the fitting punishment and making sure he investigated every person in the life of the villain? That would make sense if it was an investigation. The villain is dead? I can’t see the point in that process. Kristin Scott Thomas appears at the closing of the first act of the film. Supposedly she has come to bury her son. This is another example of a half written character. She show’s no emotion whatsoever towards Julian, or anyone for that matter. She appears to have some kind of incestuous relationship with her son… She is a very crass, cold human being. I suppose it gives you some insight into Julian’s upbringing but not enough for you to understand his actions. All in all not a single character’s background is discovered, investigated or shown at all through flashbacks. We have nothing to connect too. Characters disappear for several chunks of the film without warning or explanation as to what they have gone to do? It just lacks any continuity or any real plot. At its core it’s a revenge story but without the story aspect. I didn’t think the violence was overbearing, it was within the context of the “story”.

However all that aside, the film does look and sound fantastic. I’m a huge fan of Refn’s musical score, his camera work and the atmosphere he is able to create. He did it in Drive and he has done it again, good work. The whole film is shot in a dream like state, unbelievably surreal. So many aspects of this remind me of David Lynch’s work in “Blue Velvet” and “Lost Highway” and for the most part it looks good. He probably lingers on slow motion capture and long empty hallways covered in mandarin styled wallpaper for too long. These are almost like montage scenes. They are beautifully lit with fluorescents but they do wear out their welcome after a while. Even the way the characters walk in this film is artistic and dream-like. It’s either in slow motion or at times almost like a dance. It can get a little tedious when it’s overused. Likewise with the score which is crafted with wonderful synth, keys and low-end bass and treble. There is such a contrast between the bass and treble in the suspense and violent scenes. Then parts of total silence fading in to synth for the more erotic scenes. Speaking of which, it was unclear as to if the sexual scenes were memories, fantasies or were they taking place?

At several points throughout the film we have distorted sound and repetition in dialogue. The exact same camera shots are used in several scenes and nothing new in the frame. Too often the film feels like it’s moving in slow motion. We also get several random musical numbers in karaoke bars. I couldn’t work out if they were taking place in the future, the past or never really took place at all? I never did find out. These are all signs of things you would see in an art house film. Once again this is the second time this year I think one of Gosling’s films has been completely mis-marketed.

To sum up we have all the technical aspects close to perfect for this genre of film. It’s a shame it’s not the genre most of us were expecting. I was hoping for a solid follow-up to Drive, but “Only God Forgives” has absolutely no connection to it. Drive was always an unspoken love story under the surface of a Crime film. It had amazing music, was beautifully shot, subtly violent and just simple. “Only God Forgives” is full of style but has no continuity and no substance. It’s a mess of a film with strange sexual erotica, musical numbers, horribly choreographed fight scenes and has nothing to say. Nicolas you are not David Lynch, you have your own style, stick to it. I’m most disappointed by this. it could have been something special.

My rating for “Only God Forgives” 4/10

THE CONJURING

After I originally had planned to see James Wan’s new film “The Conjuring” on its opening night (which due to the lack of respect of others, I had to walk out!) I returned to the cinema with my sister the next morning to see the film. In the modern world of horror films hollywood seems to be churning out remakes, sequels or different versions of the same film. These are gimmicky attempts to frighten the viewer, with taglines like “The scariest movie ever made!!” etc, and you walk out of the cinema feeling let down.

Here we have James Wan (Insidious, Saw) with his much-anticipated possession film “The Conjuring” he decided to cast Patrick Wilson (Insidious, Hard Candy) again, along with a newcomer to the horror genre, Vera Farmiga (The Boy In The Striped Pyjamas, The Departed) the two play Ed and Lorraine Warren, who are very well-known experts in paranormal investigations, Demonologists, whatever you wish to call them. They have dealt with many cases, but none like the one they encounter here, at a small remote farmhouse in Rhode Island, which has been bought by a family of seven. The Perrons, Carolyn, (played by Lili Taylor) and Roger (played by Ron Livingston) and their five daughters.

Shortly after the family moves in, strange occurrences start to begin in and around the house, eventually after things escalate to the point that Carolyn starts to fear for her life and the lives of her husband and children, she seeks out The Warrens, in the hopes that they may be able to help. I had read some reviews about the film before seeing it, some good, some average. Insidious, Wan’s last film, being what I think is the best in the genre, it was always going to be hard to build on that but I was still very much looking forward to this!

First off I like the casting choices here, Wilson plays these type of roles really well, he isn’t trying to over sell it, but he is believable in his charisma on-screen and the actions his character take. Vera Farmiga is a wonderful actress and a great counterpart for Wilson, she has some very good scenes in the film to. The family do look like a real family, I commend Wan on his casting choices, all the young girls have some past experience but are still learning the craft, they still manage to hold their own. Joey King who plays Christine, I thought one of her scenes she played it up a bit too much and it felt forced it very much seemed like acting, she was still good but I think she was the weak link in the film.

The camera work and overall look of the film is fantastic, I can’t really fault it. The attention to detail in the 70’s era setting of the film is immaculate, right down to the furniture, the radio, the clocks, the wallpaper, you can tell everything in the frame was important to Wan. There is also some really effective camera work, one particular scene with a character running down a passage way, we get a rotating camera from the rooftop, really cool. In certain scenes it changes to some great steady cam shots, which can be very effective, especially in some of the creepy cellar scenes. Combine all of this with the little trick’s of light here and there, and the overall lighting of the film, you have a very atmospheric horror film. Although not the most original storyline, the particulars and technical aspects have not been rushed and it shows here in the quality of the work. The only thing that wasn’t a stand out to me was the score, it was a solid backing for some of the scenes, the low-end bass stuff building up in particular was good, none the less, it didn’t have that down right creepy/eerie aspect that the Insidious score and theme had.

The film runs a good length, it doesn’t feel like 112 minutes, probably because there is a fair bit happening. Initially, during the opening act, it does feel a little slow to build, but that is a good sign of not giving away too much, to early. I had viewed the trailer (like most people) so some of the good scares had been shown, which was a little disappointing. I did still find a few scenes where I jumped and for the most part the film is very suspenseful, definitely not a shock value film but based purely on tension.

I like a few of the subtle nods to us horror fans 😉 I am always looking for it, I spotted a few, like The Shining reference, with the young girl in the hallways of the house navigating from door to door in her dressing gown. Also a bit of Saw and the Bride of Chucky, with Annabelle, the insanely creepy doll that appears throughout the film, in hindsight I would have like to see more focus on the doll because it was so creepy. I even like something as subtle as not having the alpha male character that doesn’t believe in the haunting (and just has to attempt to prove everybody wrong… until of course, some scary as shit happens to him, that he has no choice but to get a priest!) I am very happy this cliché was not used in the film.

Overall I thought this was a very well made, genuine horror suspense film. I don’t think it hits the mark like Insidious did, I think James had the opportunity to scare more and have the payoff be even greater than it was. There were a few issues with characters actions and maybe not discovering the full length of what was going on with the other daughters. I do however, like the way he wrapped up the film and didn’t give us the “final scare” we are so very use to seeing, that was clever. I look forward to Insidious 2 being released later in the year and hopefully he can keep making these crowd pleasing films, I don’t think you will see one better than this all year, so make sure you get out to a local cinema and check it out!

My rating for The Conjuring is 7/10