Movie Director

Devil May Cry 4

noreply@blogger.com (thaluph) — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 19:17:00 +0700

Minimum System Requirements

OS: Windows XP/Vista
Processor: Intel Pentium 4 @ 3.0 GHz
Memory: 512 Mb
Hard Drive: 8 Gb free
Video Memory: 256 Mb
Video Card: nVidia GeForce 6600
Sound Card: DirectX Compatible
DirectX: 9.0c
Keyboard
Mouse
DVD Rom Drive

Recommended System Requirements
OS: Windows XP/Vista
Processor: Intel Core 2 DUO @ 2.8 GHz
Memory: 1 Gb
Hard Drive: 8 Gb free
Video Memory: 512 Mb
Video Card: nVidia GeForce 8600
Sound Card: DirectX Compatible
DirectX: 9.0c or 10
Keyboard
Mouse
Other Controllers: Game pad
DVD Rom Drive

Devil May Cry 4 opens with Nero, with his right arm in a sling, racing towards the Opera House where a ceremony celebrating Sparda is already underway. Nero lives on the island of Fortuna who worship the demon Sparda like a God. Arrving at the Opera House in barely enough time to see his romantic interest Kyrie perform for the ceremony, the high preist Sanctus begins a sermon which is interrupted by Dante who bursts from a skylight and assassinates Sanctus in front of the whole Opera House. Easily defeating the Holy Knight members who immediately attack him, Nero decides to challenge the unmatched Dante while Kyrie's brother and Captain of the Holy Knights, Credo, takes Kyrie to safety, promising to return with backup. Nero and Dante's fight is brutal as Dante taunts Nero, calling him "kid" until Nero taps into his own undiscovered demonic power which transforms his arm. Defeating Dante with his newfound power, he is shocked to see Dante immediately recover, impressed by Nero. Before leaving, he reveals that the Holy Knights members he killed were actually demons, and departs.

To investigate the confusing turn of events, Credo returns and gives Nero the task of stopping Dante and discovering his true intentions. However, the city suddenly finds itself under siege by a demonic attack, seemingly related to Dante's appearance. While Credo leads Kyrie and the townspeople to The Order of the Sword headquarters, Nero embarks on his quest through the destroyed city, to Foruna Castle where he meets Gloria, an Order of the Sword member who simply wishes him good luck. But as his journey deepens, Nero uncovers the secret lab of Order of the Sword Member Agnus, who has secretly been experimenting with demonic power by siphoning the intense demonic energy from the shards of Dante's brother Vergil's old sword Yamato. Imbuing normal items such as swords and suits of armor, Agnus has secretly created an army of demon infuse warriors and several Hell-Gates across Fortuna under the orders of Sanctus himself. But what's more, he has been imbuing Order of the Sword Members with the demonic energy turning them into demons, explaining the demons Dante had killed. Using this power he has ressurrected Sanctus who appears to be the mastermind of these events.

Shocked by the treachery of the Order, Nero fights Agnus but is mortally wounded by him, which fully unlocks his demonic power which mends the broken Yamato and sends it flying into his hand. Nero destroys the lab with his demonic power, and Agnus flees to inform Sanctus, who suggests using Kyrie against Nero in their next encounter while Gloria assumes Nero's old mission of finding Dante. Wrestling with the fact that he is not human, but in fact a devil as well, Nero continues onward to confront the Order. Fighting the creatures spawned from Agnus's Hell Gates, Nero eventually rejoins with Credo who he discovers to his dismay to be a part of the conspiracy as well and they battle. But their fight is interrupted by Agnus who brings Kyrie to see Nero's trasformation into a devil, which makes her lose her faith in Nero. Agnus then kidnaps Kyrie and departs. Credo, stunned by The Order's blatant use of his sister, is shaken in his belief and apologizes to Nero, promising to return once he has investigated Sanctus's true intentions.

Nero continues on his journey now to save Kyrie from Sanctus, and once more meets Dante. With his quest to capture him long since forgotten, he wishes to simply pass Dante. However, Dante wants Yamato, stating that it simply has too much power to be trusted with anyone. A fight ensues where Dante is victorious. However, he reveals that it was a test to make sure that he could trust Nero with Yamato for the time being. They trade names and form a steady alliance as Nero continues forward. Suddenly, Gloria appears before Dante as Nero leaves, and it is revealed that she is actually Dante's partner, Trish. Thus, it is revealed that Dante has had Trish snooping as Gloria for the entire game. She questions whether Dante should allow Nero to keep Yamato and Dante reassures her.Finally Nero finds Sanctus with an enormous statue, in Sparda's image, which he calls the Savior. Sanctus reveals that only Yamato and the sword Sparda, along with Sparda's blood can awaken the Savior and unleash hell. They battle and Sanctus uses Kyrie as a human shield to distract Nero and capture him. Suddenly Credo, having abandoned his faith, returns and attempts to rescue the two. Unfortunately Credo is defeated by Sanctus who using Yamato, subsequently stabs Nero. Revealing that Nero is a descendant of Sparda's blood, The Savior awakens and Nero is absorbed into it while Nero promising that he and Kyrie will get out of there together. Dante and Trish appear, unable to stop the proceedings, as they promise Credo in his final moments to save Kyrie and Nero.

Agnus under the city, opens the hell gate with Yamato, which releases countless demons upon the city. Using The Savior to defeat the oncoming demons, Sanctus enacts his ultimate plan by putting the city through hell and then acting as their "Savior" Sparda, in order to raise the people's faith and worship. Dante, making his way through Fortuna, succeeds in destroying all the hell gates and kills Agnus, sealing the final hell gate. Finally taking on The Savior, Dante takes Yamato and drives it through the Savior's chest, where Nero reclaims it inside. Facing Sanctus, Nero sees Sanctus's twisted interpretation of Sparda's will and defeats him, freeing Kyrie in the process. In the aftermath, Nero returns Sparda to Dante when The Savior awakens, having absorbed Sanctus. Destroying this final demon, Nero makes peace with his arm and sees Dante off.Having already returned Yamato, Nero attempts to give it back, but Dante, instead, entrusts Yamato with Nero saying that since Vergil's sword means so much to him, "That's the only kind of gift worth giving." Nero asks before Dante leaves if the two will ever meet again, and Dante only responds with a wave of his two fingers without turning around and leaves. Nero and Kyrie reconcile in the ruins of Fortuna. Stating that he is the most human person she has ever known, also that he is the one she wants to be with, despite his demonic heritage, they are about to kiss when they are interrupted by scarecrow demons. Nero readily goes to face them off.

Meanwhile, Lady returns to the Devil May Cry office where she had formerly hired Dante to go to Fortuna. Having completed the job, Lady offers a menial reward citing that Dante and Trish's presence escalated the simple job she had asked into the situation it became. As Trish and Lady argue over the reward money, they drag Dante into the argument while he reads a magazine. Unenthusiastically, Dante accepts the small reward as a phone call interrupts Lady exiting the shop. Trish answers and reveals that the caller is offering a job, which Dante happily accepts. As Dante suits up, Lady excitedly asks Dante if she can come along, to which Dante laughs and says, "Do what you want, but don't expect to get paid!" As the trio bursts through the door, Dante, Lady, and Trish all pose as Dante says, "Come on babes. Let's Rock!" and fires repeatedly at the screen.

The Thing (2011)

noreply@blogger.com (thaluph) — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:31:00 +0700

Near an isolated Norwegian outpost in Antarctica, a discovery full of scientific possibility becomes a mission of survival when an alien is unearthed by a crew of international scientists.An alien that can mimic any living thing perfectly, including humans....

There are two kinds of people in this world....those who love John Carpenters THE THING, and those who haven't seen it, (never trust these people, folks). Its that sort of film. A film so perfect in each and every detail that it transcends genres as effectively as it blends them. For me, its the single greatest Sci-fi Horror in the history of cinema, even surpassing Ridley Scott's ALIEN. So it was with great trepidation that I approached this 'prequel'.

I say prequel in quotations, as this film could very easily be viewed as a remake. Not only of Carpenters masterpiece, but of the equally brilliant Howard Hawks original, THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD. It takes Hawks genesis story, and transports it to the desolate landscape created by Carpenter in his version. I'm sure you all know by now that this film follows the fate of the Norwegian camp who originally unearthed our shape-shifting hombre. No one ever really gave two shits about seeing what went down at the camp, as we've all spent years dreaming up the scenario in our own imaginations, and no film could ever come close to rivalling the bloodbath we all dreamt of. Despite being unnecessary, word that the Norwegians tale would be detailed did raise interest in the Horror community. Interest and fear...

See, THE THING's monster is, without any doubt in my mind, (and many others), the most fascinating creature ever put on screen, and if you think theres one that's MORE fascinating, well, 'The Thing' can replicate it perfectly, so its got that base covered too, sucker. Its a monster that demands the greatest respect in how its treated on film, both on a physical level and an intellectual one. Of course, the possibilities are endless when it comes to creature design here, as the great Rob Bottin proved with his stellar designs in Carpenters movie. He brought to the screen nightmares that to this very day, still piss all over any CG creations that Hollywood has churned out in the last few decades.

On an intellectual level, the 'thing' is equally as enthralling. Its an unknowable being. We don't know how it thinks, how it shape-shifts, where its from. We don't even know if it can mimic us so perfectly that we actually believe we're still human. Its just a fucking wonderful creation, and in the right hands, I'd happily watch a whole army of films dealing with this creature. John Carpenters hands were the right hands, Hollywood's hands are not....

Now I'm not saying that this 2011 version was directed by the wrong hands, quite the opposite, in fact. Director Heinenngin is clearly in love with the source material, and goes out of his way to pay great respect to the atmosphere, environment, sound effects, and camerawork that all combined to make THE THING (1982) such a perfect film. It should be noted that he originally stated that almost all the creature effects would be 'in-camera', with very little CG. Hell, all the scenes we witness in the movie were created with prosthetics, and then replaced by studio demand. Bastards...

Its here that the film falters. The CG just cannot match what came before. It looks rushed, and holds no weight. Theres no pain involved in the transformations, nowhere near enough gore, and very little to inspire awe. Hollywood, as usual, has no fucking idea what fans want, and thinks that the upcoming generation need CG to enjoy a movie. Its just not true. THE THING would have been far superior were it handled old-school, as the director intended. The good news? There are still some prosphetics used, and they look just fantastic, as do some of the creatures incarnations, (though the CG does them no favors).

The film is also very much a mixed bag when it comes to suspense, too. The opening 40-45 minutes are actually pretty damn good. Sure, its all a little too polished, but they did hire mostly unknown and very capable actors, and as the story kicks off, the tension, and essentially, the paranoia runs really high. I found myself loving the damn thing, (pun intended), and I was engrossed in the characters plight, and in trying to identify who was human and who was an interstellar bad-ass. The second half, though, drags the whole damn show in a very different direction. It becomes, essentially, a monster movie. The paranoia and suspense are replaced by extended scenes of a monster/monsters chasing our heroes down dark tunnels. Theres nothing wrong with this in theory, but that's not what THE THING is about. Its a creature that wants to hide, that is as cunning and unknowable as it is deadly, and so when the fucker reveals itself to all and sundry, and begins a rampage around the Norwegian camp, you find yourself watching a merely capable monster flick. Why the film went this route is up for grabs, but for a film that opens so strong to devolve into (admittedly very fun), stock entertainment, really feels like another case of studio-fuckery at play.

That girl from FINAL DESTINATION 3 is surprisingly good too, and its to the producers benefit that shes never belittled or objectified in the film. She wears big old woolly tops and jackets throughout, and the focus remains on her character and not her looks. I was really impressed by the gal. Theres also no 'tacked-on' love story to ruin the experience, and that really does sweeten the deal. Shes fine in the film, and alongside a cool-as-fuck silent Norwegian called Lars, shes really the only memorable character in here.

As a card carrying fan-boy of the original, I could hate up a storm on this fucker, but I'm not gonna do it. I believe that hidden inside the so-so CG and the multiplex pandering action sequences during the final run, theres a really entertaining film here. It could never match the Carpenter movie, minus a miracle, but it doesn't taint that movies memory, either. For those unfamiliar with the original, this'll probably be a far above average monster movie, but for the fans, it cant quite seal the deal.

Still, I'm glad it exists. Its good enough that it will definitely draw a new audience to the Carpenter film, (while leaving fans of the original very keen to revisit the film), and that can only be a good thing. It helps that its a prequel, (mostly), rather than a straight up remake, and its a perfectly acceptable film, it just stings to know that the prosthetics were abandoned and that its only really half a 'Thing' movie, and half a B-Movie.. I say check it out, but don't expect miracles. Its good enough to leave you wanting more, but its a long, long way from Carpenter and Bottins nightmarish world.

Little Deaths (2011)

noreply@blogger.com (thaluph) — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:23:00 +0700

Directors:

Sean Hogan, Andrew Parkinson

Writers:

Andrew Parkinson, Simon Rumley

Stars:

Scott Ainslie, Mike Anfield and James Anniballi

Sometimes I feel like I'm from a different planet, friendo's. If anyone knows directions to Earth, draw me a fucking map, will yes??
I had read nothing but good things about LITTLE DEATHS, and had even been recommended it by a very close, very drunk and very enthusiastic friend. Most of the more established Horror websites have proclaimed it a worthy addition to the much beloved 'Horror-Anthology' sub-genre. Some have claimed it has depth, style, great acting, satisfying stories and its fair share of gore-filled set pieces.

Well, I'm not buying any of that shit...

I love a good Horror Anthology. At least I have that in common with my peers. I mean, who doesn't love those short sharp blasts of Horror? The broadly drawn characters, the inevitable (twisted) twist in the tale, the cornucopia of well-known faces and the literal guarantee of at least two or three payoffs. They resemble nothing so much as E.C's 50's Horror comics writ large, and when done properly, they can be a hell of a lot of fun.

Some of my all time favourite films are anthologies. Romero and Kings CREEPSHOW, (which basically was an E.C Comics adaptation, in style and content), Roger Corman's TALES OF TERROR, Ealing Studios' DEAD OF NIGHT and last but not least, the magical TRICK 'R' TREAT are all stone cold classics in my world. I've seen them all countless times and love them inside-out, and the reasons for this are tenfold. These films, (and others that successfully work within the template), have a number of very vital things in common that make them work. Most importantly, they all have a sense of fun, and a certain playfulness to their presentation; be it CREEPSHOW'S EC inspired animated wraparound story, DEAD OF NIGHTS alternately terrifying and fascinating 'deja-vu' grounding, or TRICK 'R' TREATS inverted, twisting, turning and converging plot-lines. These film all shine. They each have a unique sensibility. LITTLE DEATHS has none of that.

The three stories presented here are linked by the themes of sex and death, but its a very tenuous link. There is no wraparound, no commonality, (other than some half perceived notions of intellect), and apparently very little inspiration. What you essentially have is three short-length 'art-house' movies that are neither artful, nor feel short. It feels like three very poor episodes of FEAR ITSELF have been placed back to back with practically no through-line, and labelled an anthology. Some will argue that the three films are a study of the deep, dark relationship between sex, and death, (the title, after all is taken from the French term for orgasm, 'Le Petite Morte'), but that just isn't the case. All three feature varying degree's of sexual perversion (or not, depending on how you roll), and all climax in acts of violence, but other than that, there really isn't much food for thought here, at all.

Only the first, and by far the best tale HOUSE AND HOME, has some depth to it. In dealing with a perverted couple who abduct and rape the homeless of (I assume) London, it does manage to say some pretty interesting things about the class system in Britain. It has the best performances too, especially from the downtrodden, sick as fuck husband character. The pay-off is decent, its well paced, and it supplies some much welcome gore in its final moments. In another anthology it would be a middling entry, but in LITTLE DEATHS its as good as things are gonna get. It's all downhill from here, troops.

The second ditty, MUTANT TOOL, is a total mess. It's an altogether incomprehensible collision of Nazi experimentation, a drug made from cum, and a study of addiction and its effects on the individual. It aims high and lands flat on its ass. Theres no characters to get behind, (in HOUSE AND HOME we had the abducted gal), no sense of threat, no cohesive plot and frankly, no point to the whole venture. Its the low mark of the collection, but that's not to say things get much better.

BITCH, the third, and thankfully, final story, is a tale of a guy who likes to dress like a dog and piss on his better half's underwear, and then be punished via a strap-on dildo up his rear-end. That's fine, man. Whatever floats your boat, its all good. But these people aren't the sort of protagonists I can get behind, (although I wouldn't wanna get in front of 'strap-on girl, either, kids). The girls a fucking lunatic, and the guys a damned wimp, so by the time the bloodless, pointless and altogether dull finale arrives, I couldn't give two shits who's killing who, or for what reason. This tale felt like it lasted hours. They may have failed at making a shocking portrait of sexual dominance, but they fucked up the space-time continuum with fucking flying colours.

LITTLE DEATHS sees itself as an elegant treatise on the symbiotic relationship between sex and death. It wants to be shocking, edgy and perceptive. It ain't...

LITTLE DEATHS wants to be Clive Barker, but its R.L Stine with some tit-shots and a rubber dick. Other than the passable opening tale, its about as monotone, dull and pretentious as any Horror movie I've ever seen. Its not even bad enough to be fun, its just downright dull. The acting is almost all 'stagey', theres barely one character worth giving a shit about, the violence is set to 'none', the cinematography shoots for 'gritty' and hits on 'shitty', and the whole thing feels like a tacked together, art-school project. Overindulgent, wannabe profound, self-important nonsense that deserves to be ignored.

As I said, the first tale is alright, (although any episode of TALES FROM THE CRYPT kicks the shit out of it, by a long long way), but its not good enough to make this worth your while.

Now, supposedly I'm wrong on this, as the 'film' has its admirers, but if this is what passes as Horror and/or Art nowadays, I'd rather be wrong, than hanging with the 'right' guys. If your looking for some intelligent, challenging Horror-shorts, there are many out there, which receive zero publicity or distribution. Seek them out. And if your looking for a fun little Horror buffet, you already know where to look. It's a free world, ladies and gentlemen, but time is short; and in a world where we have TRICK 'R' TREAT and CREEPSHOW, why in the hell would this film be worth 90 minutes of your wonderful existence? You decide.

11.11.11 (2011)

noreply@blogger.com (thaluph) — Mon, 5 Dec 2011 19:48:00 +0700

Director:

Darren Lynn Bousman

Writer:

Darren Lynn Bousman (screenplay)

Stars:

Timothy Gibbs, Michael Landes and Brendan Price

After the death of his wife and child, an author who has lost his faith in God, travels to Barcelona to visit his estranged brother, (a preacher) and dying father, where he comes to realise that many important events in his life all seem relate to the number 11. As he investigates, he finds himself trapped in an ever-worsening nightmare that could herald the apocalypse. Demonic entities and Hellish visions begin to plague his every moment, as he comes to learn the terrible truth behind the mystery, and all the time the date 11-11-11 draws slowly nearer....

What the fuck happened?

Lets get this straight. I loved MOTHERS DAY. I enjoyed all of Darren Lynn Bousmans previous efforts, but I freaking loved MOTHERS DAY. That film was vicious, unrelenting, intelligent and paced within an inch of its life. It managed to hold court with the French New Wave of Horror, and not embarrass itself, and it was one of the few remakes that not only surpassed the original, but kicked its teeth out and left it bleeding on the racetrack.. Bousman has been growing and growing as a filmmaker. The guy has serious skill's behind a camera and crew....

And look at the plot for 11-11-11! Its practically a guarantee of something special. The main conceit of the movie is immediately intriguing. We all love a good cosmological/theological conspiracy, after all. And to come across a film that delves into that world of the esoteric and numeracy, and to have it a Horror movie...and directed by the guy who's last film was MOTHERS DAY!? Its a no brainer, man. This film just had to be great.

So I repeat...what the fuck happened?

I'll tell you what happened.... 11-11-11 is perhaps the greatest example Ive ever come across of how fatally a poor editing job can fuck up a movie. Its actually quite mind boggling to sit through a film such as this one, where so much is done so well, and to find the whole thing has been clearly dismantled beyond all repair in the editing suite! Practically every editing choice is wrong. EVERY SINGLE ONE! Your left agape at the mess you just sat through, (that's if you manage to get through the damn thing. Sleep, drug addiction or insanity may well claim you long before the halfway mark), as every single scenes pace and power is tossed into a bottomless editing hell. Scenes that should be short, sharp and to the point are dragged on endlessly, and scenes that demand the room to breathe, and allow for the audiences emotional engagement, are practically flew through. Its hard to comprehend, it really is.

There are some great, great scenarios in 11-11-11 that should and could be Horror gold. Yet they falter each and every time, in every way imaginable. We're thrown from engaging scenes, seemingly mid-action or mid-conversation! We're on one emotional trip one minute, and volleyed without warning into another at a seconds notice, with no closure, and no time to soak in the meaning or the impact of the moment.

Of course, its not only the audience that suffers during this madness. The poor actors all suffer right along with us, as their perfectly fine performances are buried under crazy pacing, scene switching and general unfathomable nonsense. And I liked the cast. Timothy Gibbs, our lead, is a fine actor and has real screen presence. He has a meaty roll here too, and one into which he throws a great deal of effort. Hell, I even quickly got over the fact that he looks like the lovechild of George Clooney and Xavier Bardem. He carries the film well, (or would), but it feels like the 'blocking' of scenes was done under the influence of ampthetamine. All sense of timing is lost.

The rest of the cast hold their weight too. Wendy Glenn is a fine looking lady, and does well with her small role as Xavier Clooneys possible love interest, and Micheal Landis is solid too, as our leads wheelchair bound brother. The dialogue between Landis' preacher and his atheistic brother is often interesting too...

And that's another thing.... its pretty well written. It could be tighter, sure, but 11-11-11 deals well with issues of faith and atheism, and manages to avoid the pitfall of bias, for the most part. Some scenes are a little repetitive, but I love a good theological discussion, or even an average one. At some points I felt this film was some christian propaganda piece, and I was pleased to learn that it may not be. If it truly has a point to make, it failed to do so; but its nice to see these issues in film. And who really needs closure anyway. THE WICKER MAN had no closure. In fact, I hated Lord Summers-isle and Edward Woodward's Copper equally, (both assholes,if you ask me).

Okay, so its reasonably well written, has a good cast, has a fucking great concept. What else does 11-11-11 have going for it?

How about beautiful cinematography? Yep, the film looks lovely. Mostly shot in Barcelona, it utilised the environment well, and the house/mansion in which most of the action takes place is labyrinthine, and has a genuinely creepy, Gothic vibe that fits the, (intended) tone of the film well. It lends well to the handful of (would be), genuinely creepy moments and scenarios the film has going for it. Its all good, friendo's.

We also have an ending that, while many will see coming, as I did, is still very clever, and very enjoyable and a satisfying conclusion to the tale. In fact, the last ten minutes of this film are the only points in which it seems to settle into its groove, and just as it takes off....its done. Jesus....

11-11-11 is perhaps the biggest disappointment of the year. I only learned about it a few weeks ago, but it caught my imagination immediately. It has so much potential, and does so many things well, that its damned infuriating that the whole enterprise was torn down at the final hurdle, in the editing room. Theological Horror is rare, good theological Horror is even rarer. This one had all the guns in place to shoot down the opposition and take its place among the best of them. Instead, its a clipped, poorly-paced mess that is near impossible to get into. The cast, the crew and most of all, the Director, deserved a much better outcome than the finished work. I just hope to god they manage to re-edit this thing on its home-release. Theres a great little Horror film living inside this bullshit, screaming to get out.

I hold out out real hope for Bousman. He's got the goods, but for gods sake man, next time hire an editor who knows what the fuck he's doing. Imagine how annoying it would be if a review was to be edited in this fashion, and just stop mid.

Territories (2010)

noreply@blogger.com (thaluph) — Mon, 5 Dec 2011 12:45:00 +0700

Director:

Olivier Abbou

Writers:

Olivier Abbou (screenplay), Thibault Lang Willar (screenplay)

Stars:

Roc LaFortune, Sean Devine and Nicole Leroux

Five friends return home from a marriage in Canada to the United States. Not far from the border, two customs officers stop them to check their identity. When the officers observe that one of the men is of middle-eastern origin, things quickly escalate to the point of no return, and the friends come to learn the full truth about, 'Homeland Security'....

Trust the French to be the only film-makers with big enough cahones to explore the horrifying infringement of rights that happens under the noses of Americans every day.

Right of the bat I'm gonna state that TERRITORIES, is essentially a true story. I wish to god it wasn't, but it is. The characters may be fictional, and the setting of the film may be rather trite in a time when 'lost in the backwoods', flicks are ten a penny. But this films message, and its intent, are entirely based in reality. The anguish onscreen is a very accurate portrayal of what the world knows to be going on in detention camps states-wide. The truly heartbreaking fact is that while there are only the lives of five characters being demolished by the state in this film, the real numbers are off the charts. As you suffer through TERRITORIES, you'll never once be swept off on fancy. Its brutally frank in its depiction of Guantanamo Bay, now closed, (Read : Relocated), and the many other hellish facilities where we lock our 'enemy combatants', without due process, trials or even reason. This is an important film. It's a film that demands you, the viewer, heed its message and take on board your complicity in the events onscreen. TERRITORIES is exactly the sort of movie western audiences need to be subjected to, to help shake off the hypnosis that they've been living under for so long. Viva France, indeed...

The simple and predictable premise is where the similarity ends to other genre pictures, as the film opens itself up to new methods and ideas, and makes some very brave, very intelligent narrative choices. This could, and will, be labelled a 'torture porn' movie, though it's anything but. There is very little onscreen carnage, no gore to speak of, and the one scene in which a graphic depiction of agony is portrayed, is actually among the most tender moments in the entire movie. It's an altogether rare moment of mercy in an otherwise merciless film. The reason the film hits so hard and so effectively is in its inherent truth. What plot exists is merely a microcosm of the current atrocities the western world passes off as acts of 'national security', and it's very hard as a westerner to not feel a sense of shame in what takes place. After all, we get the government we deserve.

While the violence onscreen is subtle, the horror in the message is coming over loud and clear. This is an angry movie, and a very righteous one. From the opening moment, when we meet our young cast, and realize one of them is of middle-eastern descent, you feel your gut clench up. At least you do if your anyone with half a damn brain. You know where this is going. You've seen it happen a thousand times before. On the streets, in the pubs, in the airports, (although now the TSA has decided we're all terrorists. Thanks for that, you fucks), and to a far lesser degree, on that bastion of mindless shit we call television. The kids are interrogated at the roadside, brutalised, and incarcerated for absolutely no reason, other than the inherent fear, and brainwashing, that the antagonists have succumbed to. It's immediately heartbreaking.

What occurs next is an accurate, though very much toned down, depiction of life in a detention centre. Its small scale, but its all there, in bare bones form. The dehumanisation, the breaking down of the psyche, the turning of man against his brother. The whole thing hurts to watch, and just when you think you can't take any more.....

Something changes. I won't say what, but the film morphs from one genre archetype to another. It's jarring, and at first feels unnecessary, but by the films end the whole thing makes perfect sense, and is actually the film's greatest strength. All I will say is that while we follow yet another character into a search for truth, that's equally as hopeless and futile as the search for 'truth' of the villains. The difference being, this guy's truth is real.

As for the characters. We get very little background on the captives, (which works perfectly in context with the lack of intelligence we have with those we willingly detain and torture, for no reason, each and every day), yet we come to care for them, through sheer force of compassion, and humanity. We see their strengths and ultimate weakness' as the 'detainment' unfolds. All the cast are exceptional. Maximum effect with minimal dialogue.

As for the captors, we learn a little more, mainly through observational cues, and hints at their pasts. These guys are every bit as human as the innocents they detain, yet are completely corrupted by the system. In a sense, they resemble the 'Frankenstiens Monster', created by the American Military Industrial Complex. The beast has been created, let loose on the world, and is running amok...and it's all our own fault for allowing it to occur. Shame on us all. Both actors are brilliant in the roles, and the main 'villain', played by Sean Devine, is bone-chilling. He's the perfect representation of wrapping yourself in the flag, committing atrocities in its name, and declaring yourself a patriot. Of note also, is another character who enters the fray in the films second half. I don't want to give his part away, but he's played with depth, and subtlety also. The entire cast appears to realise the significance of the message and raises their game accordingly.

TERRITORIES is a film that deals with the absence of light. Not only in its portrayal of the horrors the 'civilised' world inflicts on the innocent, but in its greater message,
that the light of truth is, sadly, rarely shone on the inhumanities of our governments. Its an important film, from a country that are notoriously fearless film-makers. Yes, the film is shot in America, for obvious reasons, but it's as far from American horror as your likely to see, without subtitles.

The film will most likely be labelled anti-american, or left-wing, or some such nonsense, (as will this review, no doubt), by those who don't enjoy looking in the mirror when it's held in front of them, but that's all just bullshit. This is pro-humanity and pro-truth. Burying one's head in the sand doesn't make the horrors pass us by, they effect and reflect on all of us. When all is said and done, and the film ends on it's quietly heartbreaking final scene, all that's left is the viewers contemplation, and many won't want to even entertain the truths it portrays. I almost feel sorry for those people....almost. Don't be one of them.

Battleground (2012)

noreply@blogger.com (thaluph) — Mon, 5 Dec 2011 12:41:00 +0700

Director:

Neil Mackay

Writers:

Neil Mackay, Sean McAulay

Stars:

Bryan Larkin, Hugh Lambe and Bob Cymbalski

When a bank heist goes 'south' for Mr Pink, Mr Blonde, Nice Guy Eddie and....oh shit, hold up......

When a bank heist goes south for a random group of career criminals, they find themselves having to hide out overnight in the woodlands surrounding Michigan. What they don't know is that the same woods are home to a war damaged Vietnam-Vet who's watched far too many John Rambo movies. Cue bloodshed, bullet-holes and booby-traps....

You know those annoying, amatuer-ish reviews that spend half their time comparing a film to others in its field, without ever really delving into the film itself? Well, this is one of those. Sorry....

I'm gonna try to keep the comparisons to a minimal, but with a movie that wears its influences on its sleeves so proudly, its gonna be really fucking hard. This in no way means its a bad film. In fact, I rather enjoyed it for what it was. It delivers the, 'slasher/action movie', goods in its own humble way, while paying respectable homage to its admittedly far loftier peers.

BATTLEGROUND plays out like a strange mash-up of RESERVOIR DOGS and FIRST BLOOD. You have the stock criminal characters who bicker like they'd rather be shooting each other than working together, (which apparently, they would), and the fucked up Vietnam Veteran who's taken to living a survivalist lifestyle out in the backwoods on Michigan. Robbers Vs Rambo, is the order of the day, and for a film with such a limited budget, it does okay.

The influences don't stop there though, hell no. Battleground pays homage to many, many films including FRIDAY THE 13TH's remake and THE DEER HUNTER. It even borrows heavily from PREDATOR, for fucks sake! Yet I have to admit, as lowbrow as the whole thing is, its sort of fun. If your not spending your time spotting the influences, your having fun with the kills, the situation and the characters. Especially the characters....

BATTLEGROUND actually has some pretty strong performances under its belt. Most notably its lead, Bryan Larkin, who plays the leader of the rag-tag group of crooks. He plays the whole thing razor straight, and actually elevates the film a few notches by simply being dedicated to the material, derivative or not. His performance belongs in a far more important movie than this, and hopefully he'll find himself getting more work once the film hits the states. The rest of the crooks are an amusing bunch too..

We have a Bruce Willis lookalike who scowls a lot and looks like he needs a shit 24/7. We have two Italian stereotypes, (at least I think they're Italian), who cant be trusted, and generally fuck up the whole heist and its aftermath. We have the leads best buddy, who's one of the few characters, (alongside said lead), who feels real and, last but certainly not least, we have the huge, silent warrior type, who spends most of the movie wearing reflective shades and a bullet proof vest, (even at night), and generally looking cuddly and amusing, rather than the intended bad-ass and hardcore. You'll know what I mean when you see him.

The small cast is rounded off by a random blond chick they find in the woods who has nothing to do with nothing, and the trap-happy veteran himself. Both do okay with their limited dialogue. The killer could have been a little more sinister, and keeping him in the shadows in true 'slasher tradition' would have helped the film build suspense, but who's complaining? After all, this flick is as much an action movie as it is a Horror movie.

All these guys are fun to hang around with, and theres a reason these character types have become well established. This isn't AMERICAN BEAUTY we're watching here, folks. Its a bunch of killers taking on a different type of predator on his own turf. Its mindless, good fun. Its hard not to enjoy a movie like BATTLEGROUND, or at least be mildly amused by it.. Its hindered somewhat by its minuscule budget, but everyone pulls their weight and the whole thing flies by.

The gore effects are very sparse, and are very much hit-and-miss. We have a very cool de-skinning of a victims head so his skull can be added to the Vets existing collection, (remind you of anything? A certain space-rasta, perhaps?), and we have some assorted stabs and gunshots that look passable, but we also have blood that looks like strawberry juice and runs down characters faces with the viscosity of water. Again, budget limitations rear their ugly head. If you're watching an indie film of this calibre, you'll know what your in for.

Before I round this shit up, I really have to share a thought I had as I watched the movie...

The killer has underground tunnels, and is a trained survivalist. He's adept with forest traps and even a bow and arrow. If your up on your remakes, (hard not to be when they re rammed down our fucking throats day and night), you'll know that this description fits FRIDAY THE 13TH 2009's Jason Voorhees perfectly. It got me thinking about how much more special that remake would have been had Jason been up against this sort of group rather than the usual teenage dickheads. How about a hardcore slasher with Jason against trained killers? The possibilities are endless. A modern day, gory as all hell FIRST BLOOD. I'd pay to see that shit. Fact! (Any goon from Platinum Dunes reading this, I'll have my cat write the screenplay, and I guarantee it'll be far, far better than A SHITEMARE ON ELM STREET).

So there you have it. BATTLEGROUND is an instantly forgettable indie flick, but a fun time while it lasts. It's admirably serious in tone and intent, and its a fast paced work. Director Neil Mackay shows a lot of promise and manages to make the whole thing feel more expensive and vital that the material deserves or requires, and he's one to watch. As I always state, these indie films have to be reviewed within their own universe, and for any fan of such films, this ones just above average. It aims for a serious mood, and manages to stay in its intended headspace for most of the run-time. Its a mindless way to pass ninety minutes. You could read into it that the bank robbers are the good guys and veterans are to be feared, and the whole thing is a fascist manifesto, (hello wall street, you fucks), but that's just splitting hairs, man. This is simply a well meaning, middling little Horror/Action crossover that might well keep you vaguely amused, as it did me.

how to create a navigation page numbers

noreply@blogger.com (thaluph) — Mon, 5 Dec 2011 03:57:00 +0700

well,,
previously we already know with the name navigation page number ..
like the picture below

just the first step to make navigating the numbers

STEP 1 :

Login to Blogger Dashboard and navigate to Layout > Edit Html
Don’t click the checkbox which says ‘Expand Widget Templates’
The first step you find this code ]]></ b: skin>

css copy the script below and save it before the code

.blog-pager,#blog-pager{
  font-family:"Times New Roman", Times, serif;
  font-weight:normal;
  width:500px;
  font-size: 0.8em;
  padding: 0.6em 0.5em;
  background-color:#000000;
  text-align:center;
 }
.showpageNum a,.showpage a {
  text-decoration: none;
  padding: 0.3em 0.5em;
  color: #055d90;
  white-space: nowrap;
  color: #ffffff;
   margin-right: 0.1em;
  }
.showpageNum a:hover,.showpage a:hover {
 color:#A30A1A;
 text-decoration:none;
 background-color:#ffffff;
  }
.showpageOf{
  margin:0 8px 0 0;
  display:none;
  }
.showpagePoint {
 color:#ffffff;
 text-decoration:none;
 background-color:#A9061B;
 width:36px;
 height:16px;
 font-size:12px;
 padding-left:5px;
 padding-right:6px;
 padding-top:3px;
 padding-bottom:4px;
  }
]]></b:skin>

STEP 2 :

Find this code :

</body>

Replace with :

<script type='text/javascript'>;
var home_page='/';
var urlactivepage=location.href;
var postperpage=7;
var numshowpage=4;
var upPageWord ='Prev';
var downPageWord ='Next';
</script>;
<script src='http://scriptabufarhan.googlecode.com/svn/

trunk/pagenaviv202-min.js' type='text/javascript'></script>
</body>

Change based on your blog setting :
var postperpage=7;
var numshowpage=4;
Postperpage : How many Post every Page for your blog
numshowpage : how Many number will show in Your page Navigation

STEP 3 :

Find this code :

'data:label.url'

and Replace with this

'data:label.url + &quot;?&amp;max-results=7&quot;'

Change 7 base on how many post every page

The next live you save the template

completed,,

how,, very easy to create a navigation page number

Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2010)

noreply@blogger.com (thaluph) — Mon, 5 Dec 2011 02:51:00 +0700

Director:

Troy Nixey

Writers:

Guillermo del Toro (screenplay), Matthew Robbins (screenplay), and 1 more credit »

Stars:

Katie Holmes, Guy Pearce and Bailee Madison

A young girl sent to live with her father and his new girlfriend discovers creatures in her new home who want to claim her as one of their own.

When reviewing DON'T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK, I found myself in a state of internal conflict. Its been my hardest review to articulate by far, so bear with me and by the end it'll all make sense, I hope...

Anything with Guillermo Del Toro's name on it is usually a guaranteed work worth experiencing. Whether he's in the directors chair, (PAN'S LABYRINTH, THE DEVIL'S BACKBONE), or working in a producing capacity, (EL ORFANTO, JULIA'S EYES), his unique vision, cinematic aesthetic and storytelling prowess are always upfront. DON'T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK is no different, at least on the surface.

Taking on the role of both Writer and producer, this time Del Toro is dipping his toes into the shark infested water that is ' THE REMAKE'. Yep, DON'T BE AFRAID is a remake of a TV movie from the 80s that made quite an impression on many who saw it. I caught it for the first time last year and I really couldn't see what all the fuss was about. It had a cool concept that plays on a whole host of childhood fears, yet I found the execution to be severely lacking. In my mind, its a film that was ripe for a remake. After all, instead of remaking all the stone cold classics like HALLOWEEN, why not take a flawed work and push to make it better; make it what it could have been?

The plot for DON'T BE AFRAID fits snugly into Del Toro's cinematic vision of the world. Much like PANS, it plays out like an extremely dark fairy tale. One in which the solid 'reality' of the adults existence is offset by the fantastical view of our world as seen through the eyes of a child. Both films feature children in their central roles, and both deal with the vast rift between the perception of adult and child. The difference, and its a vital one, is that Del Toro directed PAN'S LABYRINTH, and with that film, he was far more successful in portraying the two worlds than he is here, as a producer.

In fairness though, PAN'S was reaching for the level of high art. It achieved it with aplomb. The fantasy elements served as a metaphor for the rise of fascism, and the films inherent intelligence, shocking violence and disturbing sexual undertones marked it as a fairy tale made specifically for adults. DON'T BE AFRAID, while carrying an R rating, is a film that I believe will be far more accessible to the young members of the audience. It's an enjoyable, suitable creepy ride for us old folks, but I believe for a child it will be one hell of an experience.

DON'T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK is a film getting wildly mixed reviews, and I think I understand why..

I want to review this film in complete fairness. I honestly believe it requires a specific outlook in order to fully understand/appreciate it. Some will say I'm being an apologist for bad writing, but the longer I think on it, I really don't think I am. The writing in this film will help it soar, or sink it completely, depending on the viewers standpoint. This situation could have been avoided, and I believe its totally down to false-target advertising, a ridiculous rating, and an expectancy from an audience its not really created for. Let me explain...

First of all, from the perspective of an adult, I left the movie with, at first, a sense of real disappointment. I went in expecting a full-on, violent hell-ride, (the totally inexplicable R-rating lent itself to that expectation, of course), but what I got was an almost bloodless, occasionally infuriating experience. A very enjoyable experience, for sure, but one I felt. (key word there; felt), was almost scuppered completely by its script. When I hear that Del Toro is writing a screenplay, I obviously expect the cream of the crop. The mans a genius, and among the most visionary artists we have living on our spinning world, and he's proven with PANS and DEVILS BACKBONE that he can inject what would be child-centric horror with an artistry and maturity that most can only dream of, and elevate it to the highest echelons of deeply adult Horror. Here, though, the screenplay makes many choices that my 'adult mind', just couldn't gel with. DON'T BE AFRAID is one of those films where the actions of certain characters are so dumb, so UNTHINKABLE, that the experience can lose its grip on you. This is fantasy, yes, and I can happily get on board with small creatures rising from the netherworld to claim innocents, (in fact, I think that's an awesome concept), but I'm also an adult, and what I have a harder time getting on board with are choices made by 'humans from our reality', that defy any and all common damn sense. This film has many such moments. Yet they can be overcome, and even viewed as a strength. Its all just a matter of perspective.

Before I go into that side of things in detail, let me inform you of what immediately works here. First of all, its a Del Toro movie. The pitch black whimsy, dreamlike imagery and vivid attention to story and pacing that were so brilliantly displayed in his previous works, are all here in full force. And the setting is just remarkable. Its an absolutely beautiful location for a film with such Gothic overtones. The mansion is a character in itself, alive with foreboding...its endless corridors wreathed in shadow and its surreal decor, it really feels like the 'forbidden mansion of lore' where kids can simply disappear forever. Its beautiful, and is shot with a precision eye. The film looks every bit as stunning as EL ORFANTO. I should note that first time director Troy Nixey does a brilliant job here. Not all credit should go to Del Toro.

Also, the cast are uniformly solid. Guy Peirce plays his role as the neglectful father rather fearlessly, (you WILL hate this guy, more on this later), and its good to see Kate looking and acting like a member of the human race again, after so many years trapped in the Horror movie that we all imagine is marriage to Tom Cruise, (I'm guessing she pulled her head together enough to reclaim her self-worth in between all the Scientology bullshit he force fed her). Shes as charming and as capable as she always was back in the day. More so, in fact, as her role is the most fleshed out, with the strongest arc. Its hard for me to get on board with anyone who's chums with Mr Cruise, but I really felt for her here. Shes great.

The real star of the show, though, is newcomer Bailee Madison, who's performance is every bit as effective and nuanced as Haley Joel Osmond's was in THE SIXTH SENSE. As the child terrorised by demonic forces, she runs the gauntlet of emotions from childlike glee, to insolent anger, to outright paralysing terror, and she's incredible in every moment. Her character, at first, appears very unlikable, but by the end of the film, you'll be terrified for her, (and wishing her dad a horrifying death, but more on that later). She carries the whole film on her shoulders, and makes the rest of the cast, however good, look like amateurs. Lets hope this cute, talented kid manages to avoid the Hollywood trappings that so expertly fuck up most child actors. If so, she can and will go a very long way.

The films pace is perfect, though some will find the first half uneventful and ponderous. Anyone who knows Del Toro's ouvre will be accustomed to this focused style of storytelling. Things do take time to get going, but with good reason. The build up of suspense is something all too damn rare in Horror cinema, these days. And its nice to be able to sink your teeth into a tale that cares about building atmosphere and tension. Troy Nixey appears to be a filmmaker in the most traditional sense, talking great care to craft a solid, complete story. The second half, on the other hand, is full of memorable moments and set pieces, as the monsters expose themselves to the little girl, and become far more threatening. There are some really creepy moments awaiting the open-minded viewer here, and I thought the finale was both sad, and exciting.

Now, a film like this will stand or fall on the strength of its creatures, I'm sure you'll agree. And that's yet another thing DON'T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK does incredibly well. The nightmarish, demonic, whatever the-hell-they-ares, are kept mostly in shadow, and the CG matches Del Toro's usual top-tier standards. The design of these tiny beasts is brilliant too. They look every inch the nightmarish creation of a Brothers Grimm tale, or a childs night terror. Theres a palpable sense of evil in their movement, their sinister yet enticing voices, and their impish appearance, that make them among the most memorable onscreen horrors Ive seen in a long time. These guys are universal childhood fears writ large, representing more than simply little goblins. They are the creature under the bed, the beast in the basement, the very real fear every kid has of being dragged away from their family. I can only imagine the trauma such creatures would have inspired in the kid-version of myself, and that's where I come to the characters actions....

The one issue that I'm sure most people will have with the story being told here is that of the fathers behavior. He appears to either be the most idiotic ass hat on Earth, or a complete and utter asshole, and makes choices that do stretch the boundaries of believability, AS AN ADULT. Yes, you could argue that his utter idiocy is a simple case of poor writing, or even a lack of respect towards the audience and their intelligence on the writers part. You could argue that the story simply asks us to accept these moments of stupidity, and shut the hell up like the mindless drones we are. And if you look at the film in that sense, you'll be angered, feel cheated, and most likely hate the damn thing.

Now, from a child's perspective, these things are completely believable, and inherent in the traditional storytelling mould. Theres a horror lurking in your home, and your parent is so distant and self absorbed he cant see past his own world, and into yours. The creatures your conversing with are offering you more than your distant, egocentric parent ever has, and your tempted....

If you pay attention to the tale being told, its stated that the daughter is dosed up on medication before the tale begins, so it makes sense that her old man would think she was making all this up. His actions may be insufferable, but if you look at this as an (extremely) dark fairytale, then that becomes the whole point. Lost children having to face the evil in the world, without the help of a trusted adult, is what those tales are all about. Also, theres a clever twist on the 'wicked stepmother' of many fairy tales, as the fathers younger girlfriend becomes something of a companion for the child. Filling the role the absentee father cannot or will not. That in itself is a terrifying notion to a child....that the parent doesn't want to understand them, and dismisses their every thought as nonsensical. Add into that mix a healthy dose of creeping, lurking figures that stalk you in the night and want to drag you off and eat you....you have a near perfect childhood nightmare scenario.

Now, as an adult, the scenario wont hold a great deal of fear for you, but imagine seeing this film as a child. Remember THE GATE? Well, this plays on those same fears, yet is far more effective. If you can still touch base with your inner kid, this film will most likely delight you. And I really believe that it will grow and grow in stature until it becomes a classic of its kind. This is a film I would allow my daughter to watch around eight or nine, and while I know it would terrify her, its exactly the sort of film that leads to a love affair with Horror for a kid. It plays on all those long-repressed fears we have, and that kids are still in full sway to, and it forces the kid to face them. Fear of the dark, the unknown, the monster in the closet that stalks us at night, isolation, loveless parents...its all here.

After sleeping on it, my initial disappointment at the film has vanished, and Ive come to see it as a wonderful, though misunderstood work. I would have loved to see this as a child. It would have upset the hell out of me, but man, would I have ate it up. Is there such a thing as intelligent Horror aimed at children? I don't know if I've ever come across it, at least not so fully realised. Childlike Horrors aimed at adults, yes, but not vice-versa. DON'T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK is tense, creepy, visually stunning and focuses on story and atmosphere over effects. Go in expecting another PANS LABYRINTH, full of adult themes, political and spiritual insight, and its game over; but if you view this film through the prism of that little Horror lover you once were, you may just love it. I do, and I hope my daughter does too, once she forgives me for having her watch it...

Fright Night (2011)

noreply@blogger.com (thaluph) — Mon, 5 Dec 2011 02:40:00 +0700

Director:

Craig Gillespie

Writers:

Marti Noxon (screenplay), Tom Holland (story), and 1 more credit

Stars:

Anton Yelchin, Colin Farrell and David Tennant

In a suburb on the outskirts of Las Vegas, young Charlie Brewster's High School life is finally coming together. He has a stunning girlfriend, his acne has cleared up, and he's distanced himself from his nerdy friends. Yet kids are going missing from school, and soon Charlie begins to believe that his strange new neighbour may be responsible, and may well be a lot more dangerous than a garden variety serial killer....

I really didn't want to see this film.

I won't rant on about my love for the original, you can read all about my reasons for adoring it in my review here. I will say though, that my loyalty to the original clouded my mind on the idea of a remake. Its the sort of shit that puts hate in a mans heart...

The trailers infuriated me. The casting of Colin Farrell as Jerry Dandridge infuriated me. The damned

setting infuriated me. This film had 'cash-grab' written all over it from day one. Over the years we've all suffered through abysmal remakes of many of our most beloved classics, but I actually assumed FRIGHT NIGHT was safe. After all, its name alone wasn't enough to guarantee huge box office. Its not NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 2010 or FRIDAY THE 13TH 2009. This was a film beloved by a small pocket of discerning and loyal Horror fans, not a commercially viable franchise. So why remake it? Why not just create a whole new vampire movie and leave my cherished classic the fuck alone? It made no sense then and it makes no sense now. In fact it makes less sense now that I've seen it, as it basically is an entirely new movie.

Lets get something straight, right off the bat.....This is not FRIGHT NIGHT. It has the same basic template as the 80's classic, but makes completely different creative moves and grooves along they way. The setting is different. The characters are different. The mythology is different. Other than the title, a vampire moving in next door, and a few very loose references to the original, this is its own beast. No one claims that the original FRIGHT NIGHT is an official remake of Hitchcock's REAR WINDOW, do they? It has the same bare bones concept with which its foundations are laid, and then it blazes its own trail. That's what we have here. Much like Snyder's DAWN OF THE DEAD really isn't a remake, (other than locale and name), FRIGHT NIGHT 2011 should be, and in time, I'm sure will be taken on its own merits. I'm at a loss as to why they named it FRIGHT NIGHT at all. This is a beast with its own unique bite.

With that in mind, and for the purpose of reviewing this film as its own entity, I'm renaming the fucker. From here on in, it will be called.....RANDOM VAMPIRE MOVIE. That way I can come to terms with my feelings about this film as I review it.

Normally with a remake, I'd compare it to the original constantly. I'll still have to make the odd reflection, but will keep it minimal. I want to get it out of the way very early on that almost everything I loved about the original is gone. No more spooky old mansion, no more fond looking back at the Hammer Horror classics, no more old fashioned spook-show theatrics. All of what made FRIGHT NIGHT such a joy, is gone. And yet, shockingly, unbelievably and despite all universal laws, I REALLY ENJOYED this movie!

It was a very clever move to go in a whole new direction here, as FRIGHT NIGHT could never be topped. Taking the template and running with it, allows the viewer to quickly adapt to this film as stand alone piece. I haven't had this much fun with a Horror movie in a long, long time. I cant believe I'm even writing this, but its true. RANDOM VAMPIRE MOVIE is freaking great! Once your mind is able to overcome the issue of 'remake', the film quickly proves itself to be a unique, fresh and vibrant Horror film that treats the source with great respect while courageously running wild in its own way. Some will suggest that by changing so much it shows a lack of respect, but I disagree. This film allows the original to remain untarnished, and due to the quality of this film, it will surely open up a whole new generation to the joys of the 80's movie. Now, can you say that about anyone who's introduction to NIGHTMARE was through Brad Fuller's shitster-piece? I thought not. By creating a whole new plethora of characters, situations and environments, RANDOM VAMPIRE MOVIE shows respect by avoiding cheap plagiarism for a buck. Sad then, that this film bombed at the box office while SHITEMARE ON ELM STREET done relatively well.

The setting is perfect. The small suburbs, completely isolated in the middle of the desert, makes for an eerie, desolate and very atmospheric hunting ground for our killer. And fits perfectly with his M.O, People are transitory there. People are not missed. And in this film, Jerry isn't concerned with fitting in for long. He's concerned with causing as much damage as quickly and as violently as possible. And while it makes little sense that Jerry would move into a house and then slaughter the entire neighborhood, it makes for a helluva lot of fun. This is sheer entertainment. Fast, frenetic and funny.

And its scary too. RANDOM VAMPIRE MOVIE is genuinely creepy at times, and has a handful of scenes that work brilliantly. Most notably a scene in Charlies doorway as he and Jerry enter an unspoken psychological game of cat and mouse, as Jerry pushes for an invite and Charlie tries not invite him in, while at the same time not giving away the fact the he suspects Jerry's a bloodsucking killer. Its downright excellent. Another early scene as Charlie attempts an improvised rescue in Jerry's lair drips with tension and provides real Horror goods. How about a car chase, (in a vampire movie!), that's as funny as it is intense. Yet the whole thing is also very playful, and has a real sense of fun.

While the writing and direction is great, much of the frightful fun is down to the stellar, (and I cant believe I'm saying this), performance of Farrell, as Jerry Dandridge. He's just brilliant. He's a very different beast to Sarandon's suave, seductive killer. This guy is far more animalistic, and far less sympathetic. This is a vampire

who appears to be taunting his neighbour for the sheer fun of it all. A self satisfied smile is never far from this undead badass' face, even as his plans go awry. He's amused that a young kid could even assume to be any match for him, and he acts accordingly. I've never been a fan of Farrell, in fact Ive actively avoided his work, but here he really is the star of the show. If Sarandon was a vampire in the classic mould, then Farrell's incarnation is a serial killer who loves his work, and just happens to be immortal and superhuman. And he's gleefully aware of the advantage this gives him. His Jerry is a perfect antidote to the shiny emo wimps that have infested cinema since those goddamn Twilight 'movies' hit the scene. If for no other reason, this film should be celebrated for bringing the 'monster' back to the 'myth'.

Yelchin is great as Charlie too. Playing him as a nerd who's finally on the cusp of being accepted, and has became something of a douchebag in the process. Its a bold move to have your hero display such asshole tendencies, and its testament to Yelchin's ability that he remains likable, even as he turns his back on his friends and his true nature in order to, frankly, get a little pussy. His character arc is believable and interesting, as we watch him discover that the person he wanted to be was who he was all along. Good stuff.

The much hyped casting of David Tennant as, 'Peter Vincent', is a fine fit for this character. Channeling Jack Sparrow and remaining somewhat high as a kite for the whole duration of the film; he provides much of the comic relief. He even has a certain depth to him as the story progresses and we learn just why hes such a wreck of a person. Again, the creators of RANDOM VAMPIRE MOVIE are well aware that Roddy McDowell's beloved performance can't be beaten, so they avoid it altogether and recreate the guy from the ground up. Clever folks, those creators...

a little word on Evil Ed, he's okay. He's used very sparingly and mainly serves as a plot device, but I enjoyed him as he was. Mintz-Plasse does his usual routine, which works fine. Although I feel the character could have been used a little more, if only to please the fans.

In a film that gets practically everything right, theres only one issue. And its an issue us Horror fans have been complaining about since the inception of its technology. Yep, you guessed it...CGI. There are numerous moments where the CG is pretty cheap looking, and that really shouldn't happen with a production with such financing. We see this time and again in cinema, but it never fails to disappoint. Whats even more grating is that Farrell's vampire is so fearsome and magnetic that he doesn't need any digital enhancement. Thankfully, he's mostly in 'human form'. The few scenes where we see his true face aren't bad per-say, just rather unnecessary. And if a scene or two of Jerry in 'full vamp' was needed...why not go with prosthetics? The gore is also augmented with CG, but its far less jarring than the work we've seen before, however pointless. We all know squibs are far more effective than anything a PC can rustle up, and I'm sure the creative team behind the film know it too. I'm willing to bet this is on the heads of those creative vacuums at the studios, who seem to believe the only thing the younger generation will respond to is computer graphics. Will they ever listen to what the fans want? I doubt it.

Overall, RANDOM VAMPIRE MOVIE is a real treat, and the most entertaining mainstream Horror of the year. Its fast paced, funny, atmospheric and frightening. It has some moments of brilliance, some unforgettable characters and it has the balls to groove to its own tune. FRIGHT NIGHT can rest easy. Its legacy is secured.

Panic Button (2011)

noreply@blogger.com (thaluph) — Mon, 5 Dec 2011 02:10:00 +0700

Director:

Chris Crow

Writers:

Frazer Lee, John Shackleton, and 2 more credits

Stars:

Scarlett Alice Johnson, Jack Gordon and Michael Jibson

Four strangers win a competition on the popular social-networking website All2Gether, and are offered a trip to New York via private jet. When they get on board, however, a new game is presented to them. One that will show them for who the really are, and in which their lack of participation will have serious consequences....

"Facebook - Never has there been a more wretched hive of scum and villainy" - Me

I hadn't heard of PANIC BUTTON until the day I watched it, (yesterday as it happens), and had no idea what it was dealing with, other than the fact that it had something to do with social networking, and was British. Now right away, that combination inspires dread in me. You see, Ive seen CHAT ROOM, and it was ninety odd minutes of my life and my sanity that I can never reclaim. That film tried as hard as can be, to be on the pulse of today's widespread self-whoring media obsession, but managed to be about ten years too late. Has anyone even been in a chat room since the early noughties? I didn't even know the things still existed.

Where that film was filled to the brim with upper class English wankers whom you wanted to eviscerate on sight.....PANIC BUTTON is filled to the brim with upper class English wankers who you want to eviscerate on sight, too....

Five minutes into this little Brit thriller and I was ready to hit 'stop' and make my way to the nearest pub to drink away the thought that these types exist. Thankfully, I stuck with it. The initial setup will have your ray gun set to 'fuck off', but very soon the plot kicks in, and these four disparate characters begin to take on real personality. As the stories central conceit comes to the fore, we find that these people are entirely human, and we relate. Its not a comfortable relation, but its a damn pertinent one.

Its hard to discuss a film like PANIC BUTTON without giving away the many cool plot twists, or many of the situations that occur during the show. What I will say is that the premise of the film is one in which a light can be shone on many current weaknesses and flaws in our 'self-aggrandisement', based society. And it shines a light very brightly into some pretty dark corners.

We all love the Internet. Its a source of vast information. Yet we all know it can be a place of darkness and depravity just as readily as a beacon of enlightenment and intellect. PANIC BUTTON takes a pretty vicious look at a few aspects of the worldwide web, and one that has grown to massive proportions recently; the social networking world.

Almost all of us are willing victims of these sites. Myspace and Facebook being the two most prominent, which we all know sell on our information to third parties, and which we keep coming back to, like fucking idiots. The human hunger for self worth, and social acceptance knows no bounds, man, and this nefarious form of communication has allowed us free reign on 'who' and 'what 'we want others to perceive us to be. You may be sitting at home eating Pizza and jacking off to Sasha Grey, but on Facebook, your a fucking astronaut. We're slowly becoming the Borg, folks. PANIC BUTTON takes an intelligent look at some aspects of this 'craze'.

Its a fast moving little film for its type. That's to say there is very little by way of action, but its very well written, and works more as a think-piece than an outright Horror movie. Its most definitely Horror, and is often a harrowing experience, but it uses situations and character to convey its uncomfortable truths to the viewer. There is some serious violence, but its never up-front, and its never the focus. The focus here is on 'us lot'. The sheep, the consumers, the media whores.

As the 'game' our four fuck-wits find themselves forced to play begins, it becomes immediately obvious that the protagonist/s is taking a moral stance on the spiritual and moral side-effects the Internet has had on us as a collective. Why these four have been chosen is up in the air, but as he begins to pick apart the online persona's of his victims and reveals the ugliness beneath the surface, things become very interesting. From the benign to the perverse, many subjects are touched on. Early on, we see a video on YouTube of a real murder, and learn that one 'game participaant' sent it to friends with noticeable glee. We then see that persons judgement in the eyes of the others, as the 'game host' questions her relentlessly on why she watched it over and over. Its very gruelling to watch.

The freedom of information act, and the disclosure act, (all but completely wiped out in today's corporate fascist society), are also held up to the light, as the contestants every online move is scrutinized and exposed. Its disturbing to know that this shit goes down all the time, yet the scene dealing with this issue is among the only glimmers of light in the whole show, at least for a fleeting moment. Its hilarious to watch as one guys online searches are shown to reveal a serious hunger for porn, but it rapidly becomes darker as more and more is revealed. Again...real Horror, no violence. Excellent.

When the action does kick in about fifty or so minutes in, the film takes something of a turn in quality. The absorbing study of human nature turns, perhaps necessarily, toward a more recognisable Horror scenario. Its still very gripping, as your on-board with these misfits one hundred percent by this point, (you may not like these fuckers, but theres far more at risk than just their images and lives). As the stakes are upped and the game becomes far more terrifying, the dialogue and ideas take a time-out as things get physical. Its not a bad move, in all truth, as things could perhaps get a little slow for the casual viewer expecting 'SAW on a plane', (some reviewers have NO imagination, man), and it gives the more discerning viewer a chance to breathe.

The cerebral among you can rest easy, though, as PANIC BUTTON's finale leads us back down the dark path and into a thought-provoking and very tragic conclusion. The film opens with 'Based on real events', for a very good reason. If your someone with an understanding of certain behavior in the upcoming generation, its very sad stuff.

PANIC BUTTON is a damn fine film. Its well worth watching for its insights into modern culture, and it sure as hell helps that the whole show is very gripping, disturbing stuff. The cast are all excellent in their roles, and manage to elicit a degree of sympathy in their altogether human natures. For a film with essentially four actors and one set, this thing flies, (no pun intended), and its a ride you really should think about taking. It may reveal some home truths that make for a squirm-inducing watch, but that's the point. Between this and TERRITORIES, Horror looks like its growing its brains back. I'll drink to that.

Final Destination 5 (2011)

noreply@blogger.com (thaluph) — Mon, 5 Dec 2011 01:58:00 +0700

Director:

Steven Quale

Writers:

Eric Heisserer, Jeffrey Reddick (characters)

Stars:

Nicholas D'Agosto, Emma Bell and Arlen Escarpeta

Survivors of a suspension-bridge collapse learn there's no way you can cheat Death.

Calling FINAL DESTINATION 5 the best of the sequels isn't really saying too much, or in any way an indication of quality. After all, its the fifth part in what has been until now, a series travelling in ever decreasing circles. The first was great, the second was campy fun, the third was Mouse Trap with gore, (although often funny) and the fourth, well, I cant even remember the fourth, other than remembering I hated it. Its not a great track record, and like most Horror franchises, your most likely going to expect yet another drop in quality. Its great news for Horror fans then, that the fifth film does a whole lot right, and goes quite some way to putting the franchise back on track. Its easily the best since the first, yes, but its also just a damn fun film in its own right.
Whereas arguably every film since the original, (and the first sequel), has forsaken all character beats for cool looking death scenes, this one actually makes an attempt at creating some likable, semi-rounded people to root for. It helps that they got on board some actors who can actually act this time. This ain't Laurence Olivier but it's a long damn way from the rage inducing douchebaggery of the fourth film. Of course, theres little real depth here but this isn't a character study, its not fucking RAY, its a film about hapless randoms having their asses handed to them by the Grim Reaper. People watch these films for one reason only, and that's the gruesome and inventive kills. But as the last two films proved, you have to have at least some fucking story, or else your just watching what amounts to a high budget snuff movie. The first film grasps this amazing concept, the second looked it up and down in the bar, then flirted with it some, and the third and fourth may as well have had crash test dummies as its cast. I cant remember a single one of those characters/actors besides that hot chick from SCOTT PILGRIM, and that was only because shes that hot chick from SCOTT PILGRIM.

FD5 tries a little harder, and manages to create some sympathetic characters. The lead, and this films 'psychic' is identifiable as an average guy who loves his work and loves his gal, and seeing as his gal is Emma Bell, (FROZEN), you'll most likely love her too, and get right on the guys side. His best mate is well played too, by Miles Fisher. You believe these guys are buddies. The rest of the cast do well enough too, and you'll be sorry to see some of them go, even though watching them go is a damn blast. Also of note, the mighty Tony Todd reappears here as the creepy ass coroner who seems to relish telling each group of survivors they're fucked, without being in any damn way helpful. Love the guy, and its always a trip to see him onscreen, however brief. That's all you gotta do, Tony, just show up and freak the cast out with your 'Death has a plan' riff, and I'm sold, sir.

Todd's behaviour isn't the only familiar thing here though. The film feels more like a remake of the original than a continuation. Theres very little new plot elements here, and the film follows the originals template beat for beat until the third act, when it tries to do a few things differently. We've seen it all before, we know the huge accident is coming, we know theres a funeral to end act 1, and an interrogation scene with the lead and some feds, we know there'll be thirty second discussion that helps explain the plot to anyone who's been living in a rain forest for eleven years. We know all this, yet its familiarity feels pretty welcoming. The formula still works. These films are akin to a fairground ride, and when done well, as this one most certainly is, they're a hell of a lot of fun. Its nice though , that they still make attempts at doing things a little differently in the final act. And its refreshing to see a fifth part in a series have so much care go into it. The writers and directors really ought to be kept on board for the inevitable sixth entry.

And what of the main attraction, the kills? They're pretty damn great, and as mean spirited as you would hope for. Of course I wont give the gags away, but theres a real sense of glee in the slaughter, and its hard not to grin like an idiot as the blood, gore and body parts are liberally splashed across the screen. Every death is a crowd pleaser, and the opening accident is the best in the entire series, and is pretty damn frightening, much as the first two disasters were. This is probably the goriest of all the movies, and its also the most cruel. In other words, good times. And while the deaths are very graphic, the setups for Death's traps have wisely been pulled back and made simpler, much like FINAL DESTINATION 1 and 2. The ten minute long Mouse Trap bullshit is gone, and it helps give the film a greater sense of urgency. Paranoia makes a welcome return too, and theres a nice scene in a kitchen that hearkens back to Devon Sawa's suspense riddled attempts to eat a can of tuna in the original. It all adds up to a very fun experience. And without giving anything away, the films ending is a nice surprise for the fans, and it pretty frightening in its own right. It makes no damn sense, but who gives a shit.

If your worried that the franchise can only sink lower after part 4, don't be. This is a solid genre pic that goes back to the series' roots and ups the stakes in some pretty amusing ways. Its cruel, graphic, well directed, smartly written and is a real treat for the faithful. Who'd have thought a fifth part in whats essentially a slasher series could aim so high? This ain't high art, hell, it ain't even low art, but its an enjoyable ride while it lasts. Grab your bud's, grab some beers and give it a chance.

Blooded (2011)

noreply@blogger.com (thaluph) — Mon, 5 Dec 2011 01:54:00 +0700

Director:

Edward Boase

Writer:

James Walker

Stars:

Nick Ashdon, Neil McDermott and Oliver Boot

A group of hunters, led by a prominent Pro-Hunting lobbyist, Lucas Bell, are abducted in the remote Highlands of Scotland by animal rights activists, and given a taste of what its like to be hunted themselves.

This is a film site, so I'll discuss the movie on its merits before commenting on what I see as a very upsetting agenda within this film. Feel free to read and enjoy only the critique on the technical aspects of the film, and I'll let you know when it'll move on from that....

If your working on a low budget, and you happen to be based in the UK, there are worse things you can do than film your movie in my home land of Scotland. You need a sense of total isolation? You got it. You need a landscape so untouched by civilisation that it commands respect even when viewed through the lens of a camera? Well, you got that too. You need a sense of majesty in your cinematography? An epic sweep that can make your humble little indie film look like a million bucks? Yep, got it.

Recently, Writer/Director, Neil Marshall, (THE DESCENT/DOG SOLDIERS), filmed his latest work, CENTURION in the Highlands of Scotland, and it done the film absolute wonders. His blood drenched tale of the missing 'Ninth Legion', of Rome, utilised the untouched, desolate and utterly beautiful landscape of my home, to essentially create a danger for his desperate Roman Brigade that was every bit as dangerous as the Scottish Pict's who were hunting them. Its a trick our old pal, Mel Gibson, missed when he decided to film a biopic of Scottish hero, William Wallace, in Ireland. Ireland is a beautiful country, but Scotland has its own irreplaceable character, theres a sense of sadness and mourning that lies over its more remote lands that can't be found anywhere else in the world. Perhaps its her history, perhaps its the way the light and the weather interact here that creates such a haunting beauty. Whatever it is, its unique. And its a perfect environment for a survival horror film.

The team behind BLOODED have made a wise decision in their filming location. Though that's not to take anything away from the absolute brilliance of Kate Reid's cinematography. Her work here is simply stellar, and is reason enough to see this film at least once. She manages to capture the essence of what makes Scotland such a beloved country to so many around the world, much as Peter Jackson captured New Zealand's untouchable beauty in his LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy. But perhaps theres a finer comparison can be made; that of Australian Horror Autuer Greg McClean, who's films, WOLF CREEK and ROGUE managed to capture not only the wonder of Australia's outback, but also its ferocity. The cinematography here is that good, and the film looks utterly brilliant. Reid's eye for a shot is surely going to set her career on a very successful path, and as I said, it really is worth viewing BLOODED for her work alone. Its a shame then that so many other elements of it feel lukewarm. And some I actually found downright insulting.

Stylistically, we've seen this type of film many times before; the pseudo-documentary that uses 'real' footage, interviews with the survivors of the ordeal and 'recreated footage' to tell its story. And its all done fairly well. The acting is solid enough, the standout being Adam Best as 'Interview version Ben Fitzpatrick', who pulls out a very real performance as the loyal, regretful mate of our focal character, Lucas Bell. All the performances are believable enough, and the film has a solid, focused pace, but its undercut by two lethal errors for a film of this type, or any for that matter.

The first is the use of interview's with the survivors. You know from the get go, who's going to survive, so its goodbye tension. The similar, yet superior, 'THE TUNNEL' suffered from the same problem earlier this year. In that case the setting and the sense of mystery helped pull the film through, and it remained a scary experience, but in BLOODED, there is no mystery, we KNOW why these people are being hunted, and we know who's doing it, so all sense of surprise and apprehension is lost.

I'll give you an example. In the pivotal, (and best) scene in the film, we follow our hunting pals as they wake up, half naked and completely disoriented in the wilds of the Highlands, with no idea how they got there. The scene bristles with atmosphere, and should be completely unnerving, but we KNOW they'll all be home in time for Pizza before too long. These moments are very well directed, just as the whole film is, but they lack the power to scare. If we had no idea what was coming, we would be 100% in the scene, but instead we're left wondering what the point of it all is.

Theres more though, even if the outcome was unknown, you just might be begging for these people to die anyway. Its hard to garner sympathy for a bunch of spoiled rich kids who get a kick out of killing wild animals. Your far more likely to find yourself cheering on the activists. And here's where the film became insulting to me. I'm loathe to discuss this, but I feel I must.

You see, theres a HUGE difference between a barbaric and cruel sport such as fox hunting, and the act of hunting for reasons of survival and population control. Yet here, we're asked not only to sympathise with a guy who supports fox hunting with all his heart, but we're asked to admire him! Now, this isn't a political sight by any means, and never will be, but I have a moral code, and its one which my taste in cinema has never before encroached upon. I do not believe in any form of censorship in cinema, and I rarely find anything insulting outside geopolitics and the lies of our governments worldwide, but this shit was going too far. For me, to watch a film that I can only see as blatant pro-hunting propaganda, was pretty damn infuriating. If it had been left to the audience to decide what side to take, I would have no problem with it, but to attempt to paint 'sport killers' as noble men of the land, and paint animal rights activists as lunatics, just doesn't sit right in my heart. Whether it sits right in yours is your own issue.

I can't recommend this film. It has much to admire, and I wish the cast and crew all the best, but for the first, and hopefully last time in the Hotel, I have to take a moral stance. The solid technical attributes of this film cannot mask its clear agenda, and so if your in any way opposed to animal cruelty, you may want to avoid this film or risk an ulcer. It's a real shame to see such beautiful cinematography wasted on such a biased and compassion free endeavor.

1 Disgusting Propaganda Tool out of 10

(Authors note : After writing this review, I decided to look a little deeper into this matter of propaganda, that I felt was implicit in the film. I've come to learn that the film was promoted as having really taken place. In other words, animal rights activists were used as scapegoats to promote this trash. Quite rightly, they are offended and disgusted by the actions taken by the production team. Its a free country, but FUCK this movie. You wanna see the Highlands? Come visit Scotland and I'll take you for a pint, but we ain't goin' fox hunting).