The Loved Ones (2009)

SEAN BYRNE

THE LOVED ONES

AUSTRALIA, 2009

7.5/10

"Bring the hammer, Daddy."

Man, I was not expecting to like this one. Last night, I was going through my watchlist on IMBd to find a horror movie that I hadn't seen, when I came across this one. I had heard a lot about it, but despite all the people telling me it was good, I still felt that it just HAD to be mind-numbingly terrible. Which just goes to prove that maybe I should stop judging movies so much before I watch them.

It could best be described as a weird mash of "Carrie" and "Misery" (kinda similar to how 2002's MAY was a mash of "Carrie" and "Frankenstein") with a little bit of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" because of the whole psychotic-family thing, but that doesn't mean it's unoriginal. Before watching, I was afraid that this film was merely riding on the coattails of the recent wave of torture porn movies (I really hate that phrase but there's really no other way to describe them), but I was surprised to find this film to be a unique thrill ride. It seemed almost like the best of both worlds: it had the interesting and relatable characters from the classic horror movies, but still had the brutal and unrelentless violence from today's pictures (I don't think that a movie should rely on violence, but when it helps the movie like it does here, I'm all for it). 

At first I thought the side story of the two students at the actual dance was a bit pointless, but they did provide a much-needed break (an hour and a half of endless gore would have gotten super boring) and, just when I was growing tired of their story, we see the pictures in the girl's house, which really sheds an incredible and horrifying light on the effect this psychotic family has had on the town. 

*SLIGHT SPOILERS IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH*

There are some very suspenseful scenes (myself and other male viewers were probably cringing in suspense at the scene where Lola threatens to nail Brent's penis the chair in the first half of the movie. Sure, penis-related horror is pretty overdone, but it gets the job done). The scene where Brent and Holly are in the car and we start to hear/see Lola crawl after them is pretty fucking creepy if you ask me. There are also some great moments of dark comedy ("Is it finger-licking good?") that, unlike the comic relief in some other films (*cough* The Conjuring *cough*) doesn't distract the viewer from the scares on screen. And just so I can group all of my spoilers in one paragraph, I'm just gonna say that the implied incest was incredibly uncomfortable, which is obviously what Byrne was trying to achieve, so I give him props for that.

*END OF SPOILERS*

Now the movie isn't perfect by any means. The struggling relationship between Brent and his mom has been done in countless movies, though it does work here. The last 30 minutes drag just a little bit, and for a movie that seems to try to defy genre conventions, there are moments of cliche. The scene in the pit was, in my opinion, not very effective, though another person described it as "nightmare inducing" so it might work for other viewers. 

All in all, this is a pretty effective and entertaining torture flick. It takes a tired concept and makes it seem new again. In a time where most horror movies are pretty dull or too over the top, this one manages to be pretty effective and entertaining. I definitely wouldn't be surprised if this became a contemporary classic. It's not perfect, but it's entertaining and gets the job done. Recommended for people who like character horror with some unrelentless violence as well.

Dark Water (2002)

HIDEO NAKATA

DARK WATER

JAPAN, 2002,

7/10

"I'm sorry, honey...that we can't be together."

**There are spoilers in one (small) section of this review, but they are marked as spoilers so you can avoid them**

Yoshimi Matsubara is in the middle of a divorce and custody trial with her husband. She has custody of her daughter for the time being, but the final decision hasn't been made yet, when they go looking for an apartment to live in. They come upon a slightly run down yet livable apartment that is a good size for the two of them and affordable for their lifestyle as well. Goody. Of course, eventually everything slowly starts falling to shit, and that all begins with a water stain appearing on Yoshimi's ceiling. Really, you can't make this shit up.

Despite the semi-laughable premise, Nakata does a pretty good job with the film. There are lots of very beautiful shots (but the yellow tint of the flashback scenes looks pretty cheap and irritating), and while it can be a little slow at times, the pacing is generally pretty good. Like many other J-horror, the villain is a young girl with long, black hair, similar to Nakata's other, and superior, film, RINGU (1998). At the beginning of the film, I found Mitsuko (the young girl) pretty scary, but by the end of the film I was tired of her as every scare felt familiar.

The actors all do a very good job. It's a bit harder for me to judge acting when they aren't speaking English because I have no idea what words are getting inflection, but they all seemed decent enough to me. The actress playing Yoshimi was a bit over the top at times, but it's clear that that's how her character would react in stressful situations.

**SPOILERS START**

I think a problem with this film is that Nakata aimed to make his audience jump more than he wanted to creep them out. The scene where Yoshimi climbs the water tower and hears faint knocking, due to the fact that Mitsuko drowned in there, is incredibly creepy, but the second the knocks grow louder and they dent the water tower, all the tension is lost. Same with the bathtub scene that's going on simultaneously. Ikuko (Yoshimi's daughter) just saw the bathtub fill itself up and inside there is, you guessed it, dark water. She leans over the bathtub and we see air bubbles come up, but instead of doing a magnificent and suspenseful scene like the amazing television scene in RINGU, we get a cheap jump scare of Mitsuko's hands coming out of the water and grabbing Ikuko's head.

**SPOILERS END**

Despite the cheap jump scares, there are a couple of amazing scenes in the film, mainly the last one, which left the viewer with a very haunted feeling and ties everything up quite nicely, but there are just too many mindless, formulaic jump scenes for me to give this film anything above a 7/10. Overall, this is a slightly overrated yet still pretty effective movie. It's not nearly as good as RINGU was, but it's definitely still worth watching.

The Birds (1963)

ALFRED HITCHCOCK

THE BIRDS

USA, 1963

9/10

"Can I bring the lovebirds, Mitch? They haven't harmed anyone."

"Oh all right, bring them."

**Slight spoilers below**

Alfred Hitchcock is my all time favorite movie director, and so when he worked in my favorite genre, the horror genre (which he only did twice in his career), the product is outstanding. This film is fantastic, it's really only 9/10 because it's not as good as some of his other films. The movie follows Melanie Daniels as she pranks a man she met in the pet store to a small town where he spends the weekends with his mother when the house and the rest of the town become under attack by various kinds of birds. That's basically it for the plot. That's why I believe that no director other than Hitchcock could have been able to pull this off as well as he did. 

Something that is curious about the film is its complete lack of a soundtrack. The closest thing we get to music in this film is when Melanie is outside the school, listening to an almost never ending refrain that the school children are singing as a flock of birds grows larger and larger on the playground behind her. This is probably one of the most suspenseful scenes I've ever seen in a horror movie. The complete silence of the attack scenes, save for sounds of screaming people and the cries of the birds gives an incredibly creepy realism to them, and it works brilliantly in this film.

The beginning of the film is strangely light-hearted. It follows Melanie as she attempts to deliver some lovebirds to Mitch without him seeing her deliver them, and even after that, life continues on normally until Melanie attends a birthday party, along with the first (organized) bird attack. I say organized because of mentions of smaller, one-bird attacks (like the bird that hits Melanie on the boat) that aren't on the scale of the later attacks. The rest of the film carries on with bird attacks, followed by peace, only to be followed by more bird attacks, until Melanie and the Brenner family lock themselves in their house. This reminds me of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (1968) because while they feel safe for the moment, both the audience and the characters know that this peace can't last forever, and that the birds will eventually attack. This plot, due to its feeling of being completely spontaneous, shouldn't work very well, but Hitchcock pulls it off masterfully.

Another thing that Hitchcock pulls off brilliantly is the huge mystery of the film. We never really find out why the birds are attacking, only some different, and probably not accurate, guesses made by various characters throughout the film. This will no doubt annoy some viewers (especially the younger ones), it still works very well in the film. The final shot of the family riding off into the horizon, once again the feeling of current peace yet impending doom, may also annoy viewers, but it works extremely well in the film.

To make some more comparisons to NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, this film is a very character driven one, as there is a lot of down time between the bird attacks where we learn about the various relationships between characters. It is always tricky to do this because if the characters are written with not enough complexity then it's boring, and if they don't respond realistically, it's not scary. However, like NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, all the characters are interesting, believable, multi-dimensional ones. But just because some of the film is focused on the interactions of the characters doesn't meant that there aren't good bird attack scenes, because there are. There is an amazing scene where Melanie stands in a phone booth to escape the birds, and since Hitchcock films this scene from within the booth, we feel just as claustrophobic, exposed, and caged as Melanie does. This is just one of the many superb attacks done by birds throughout the film. The effects in these scenes, while they have aged, are done very well, especially considering the time period they were created in.

All in all, THE BIRDS was a pretty risky film to make. It is extremely character driven, and it is a subject that is pretty difficult to make scary (you have to admit that if you just hear the synopsis, the film sounds a bit silly). Yet Hitchcock manages to pull it off brilliantly in the way that only the Master of Suspense could.

Cannibal Holocaust (1980)

RUGGERO DEODATO

CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST

ITALY, 1980

8/10

"Keep rolling! We're gonna get an Oscar for this!"

**This review contains many spoilers, even though this is honestly a film that can't be spoiled**

The magnum opus of the short lived cannibal sub genre, CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST (1980) is probably one of the most talked about horror movies of all time, and is definitely the most controversial. This film, one of the earliest found-footage films, follows a professor as he attempts to find traces of a group of four people who ventured into the Amazon to film a documentary about the tribes of cannibals which reside there. Nothing could prepare him for what he discovered on the tapes. The film is famous because when the film was released in Italy, Deodato, the director, was believed to have murdered his cast and that this movie was actually a snuff film. He had to bring all the actors in and show how the magnificent impaling effect (pictured above and in the poster) was pulled off. It is also infamous because Deodato murdered actual animals for the movie (they were later used as food for the native actors, but it's still probably the most controversial aspect of the movie). The animals that are killed include a coatimundi, a turtle, a spider, a snake, two squirrel monkeys, and a pig. It is possible, if you own some of the DVDs, to watch a shorter version with the violence against animals removed (I know the Grindhouse release has this option, I'm not sure which others do, though).

When I watched this film for the first time a while ago, I was honestly expecting a mindless splatter fest but was pleased to find an actually thought-provoking message questioning how just how barbaric culture in the "modern world" is today. That's not to say that the film isn't disturbing, because it really is. The rape of the tribal girl in the last half of the film remains one of the only scenes in a movie that upsets me to the level of having to avert my eyes, the hut burning scene was incredibly upsetting for me, and the Last Road to Hell segment contains footage of actual human executions (they weren't filmed specifically for this film, Deodato simply used already filmed footage of real like executions), all in all this is a film that is pretty difficult to get out of your mind after the credits roll. Because of this, I honestly can't recommend this film, as it will be very, very hard to watch for anyone who is upset by violence, rape, anything really. The movie starts off slightly tame (the first half does have some violence and a pretty graphic rape scene, as well as some of the aforementioned violence against animals, but it's not nearly as upsetting as the last half), and it almost lulls you into a false sense of security. Then, the professor discovers the team's tapes, and that's when the film really begins.

This movie has an amazing soundtrack. The calming, peaceful theme is in direct contrast with the disturbing, grisly nature of the film. Yet underneath that light score, you still feel something wrong with it. It was this piece of music that made Faye's rape and the hut burning scene probably the two most memorable scenes in the entire film. The acting is probably the weakest part of the film, but it does improve throughout the film, especially once the characters view the found footage, so the portion of the film involving the documentary crew is quite believable. The direction is great, the camerawork does make it seem like what we're viewing is actually happening, but it doesn't have BLAIR WITCH PROJECT (1999) levels of camera shake, or it's at least not as obvious. The story, while incredibly simple, is fantastic and executed perfectly.

I have only seen this film twice (once a while ago, I don't remember how long, and another just last night), so it's obvious that, while I do like it, it's not the kind of film I wish to watch again and again, as it can get hard to watch. While I gave MARTYRS (2008), another talked about and disturbing film, a higher rating, this movie is definitely the more upsetting/disturbing of the two. Yes, it does have its fair share of set backs, but it's an incredibly influential movie and is such an important part of the genre that it should be seen by everyone who can stomach it.

Carnival of Souls (1962)

HERK HARVEY

CARNIVAL OF SOULS

USA, 1962

8/10

"It's funny... the world is so different in the daylight. In the dark, your fantasies get so out of hand. But in the daylight everything falls back into place again."

The film opens on a sunny day as two cars are side by side, stopped at a light on an otherwise deserted road. The occupants of the car begin a drag race, neither of them seem officially in the lead until the two cars reach the bridge, where one of the cars loses control and flies off the bridge, landing in the water. Three hours later, the car is still being searched for when one woman, Mary Henry, rises from the water. This is how the semi-forgotten cult classic, CARNIVAL OF SOULS (1962) begins. Many have compared this film's tone to an episode of the Twilight Zone extended to feature film length (well, 84 minutes) and because of this, there are times when the film seems to drag a bit. But this isn't a movie that focuses too much on the plot. More than anything else, it's an atmosphere film. Now, it doesn't have BLACK SUNDAY (1960) (review here) levels of atmosphere, but it still works very well in the film.

In fact, this movie does a pretty good job considering the fact that it had a group of local actors who, on the whole, lacked experience, a budget of only $30,000, was filmed in only three weeks, and a crew of only six people. The acting, while nothing to write home about, is not horrible, but there are moments when it gets a little cheesy. The ghoulish make-up is pretty effective, I found myself creeped out every now and again, especially during the film's climax. The director (who has never made a feature film besides this) actually does a very good job with the film. In the quote above, the protagonist says how the world seems different in the daylight, and the director takes this quote and runs with it. The things that seem innocent in the daylight, such as where Mary stays, or the carnival where she feels drawn, or the church in which she plays the organ, suddenly change in the dark and become threatening. Of course, they physically look the same no matter what the time of day is, but the atmosphere the director builds really does make it seem that these safe and pleasant locations mutate into alarming sights of horror in the dark. Many have commented on how good the soundtrack is, so I will not linger upon it, but it honestly is very good. A lot of it is played on the organ, which makes sense because Mary Henry is an organ player. 

This film was originally ignored by critics and audiences alike, but has gained a cult following throughout the years through late night television screenings and a Criterion release. This film is probably not for everyone. As I mentioned before, the plot is slightly slow moving, yet I was still intrigued and interested for the majority of the film. In fact, there isn't much of a plot at all. It relies almost exclusively on its atmosphere to evoke a feeling of dread and horror. Not to say that there are no jump scares, because there are, but they obviously take the back seat as far as priorities go, and there is no violence, gore, or sex to speak of throughout the film. Instead everything simply feels wrong and uneasy, and throughout the picture we, the audience, get a growing sense that something is wrong, beyond the demon-ghoul thing. The twist ending, while semi-predictable, is still good and allows the viewer to be able to analyze and re-watch the film multiple times. I do recommend that you go into the film without knowing the ending, even if, like me, you guess it about halfway through the movie.

Watching this film, it's pretty easy to see how it may have inspired David Lynch or George Romero, so I definitely recommend that fans of their work check this movie out. All in all, this is a very impressive, yet still modest, piece of low budget horror. Genre fans looking for semi-forgotten treasures (I say "semi-forgotten" because over the years it has gained increasing levels of fame, yet it's still not particularly well known) should definitely check this out. It may not have the best acting, plot, or script, but it does have a great atmosphere and does deliver a couple of rather good scares. It is in the public domain so you can watch it for free online, even though if you're a fan I recommend the Criterion release. Highly recommended.

Vampyr (1932)

CARL THEODOR DREYER

VAMPYR

GERMANY, 1932

10/10

"She must not die."

The first time I heard of director Dreyer's amazing, nightmarish masterpiece, VAMPYR (1932), was that it was very similar to the surrealist tone of one of my favorite films ever made, David Lynch's ERASERHEAD (1977). This piqued my interest, and this film found itself near the top of my watchlist. But I was still wary to watch this film. I heard about the strange, grainy video, the washed out dialogue, how this film was as surreal as surreal gets, and then some. But two nights ago, I decided that it was finally time to watch this film.

My initial reaction was the same reaction I had when I watched ERASERHEAD for the first time: "I have no fucking idea what's happening, but I think I like it." The plot is paper thin as we follow our protagonist, Allan Grey, as he uncovers the secrets of a small town he has come across. But the most interesting thing about Allan Grey is that he is completely fucking useless, he's completely one-dimensional, and we don't really know anything about him. While this would greatly annoy me in almost every other movie, in VAMPYR, it works, mainly because VAMPYR does not follow anything even resembling conventional movie-making techniques. 

The entire movie has a very surreal, dream-like quality to it (partly because of the aforementioned grainy and washed out footage as well as the delicate, soft dialogue). We are witness to a strange, unfamiliar world where we see images that are bizarre and intriguing, yet haunting and creepy (like the amazing shadow scene in the first half of the film). Dreyer's amazing, gliding camera work makes even those most stationary sets (such as the mansion where much of the film takes place) come to life and breathe before us. The film itself has much difficulty distinguishing reality from dream, and it does this better than almost every other film that attempts this feat.

This film is no doubt not for everyone. It is an incredibly unique film, and is very bizarre, even for fans of surreal cinema. Even ERASERHEAD, in my opinion, made a bit more sense than this. Viewers will no doubt be annoyed by how passive Allan Grey is. Even the few times he does help, he is often accompanied by another person who causes him to act. As I mentioned before, this works remarkably well in this film due to the fact that it is more of a dream. We are Allan Grey, passively witnessing events but very rarely acting.

A lot of the film, while not conventionally frightening, is very unsettling and its images stay with the viewer long after the screen turns to black. When I first watched this film, I was set on figuring out the significance of all the imagery and metaphors featured in the film. Because I was so set on analyzing this film the way I've analyzed films like ERASERHEAD, I don't think I was able to enjoy it properly right away. The next day, however, I sat back and watched the film again, not attempting any dissection, and let its imagery present itself to me, and discovered a much creepier and more haunting film than I had before. Sure, by the fourth or fifth viewing of this film, I will no doubt have a more concrete view of what I believe the film to represent, but for now, and I urge first time viewers to do this as well, it is good enough to be enjoyed on its own.

Some of the acting in this film is a little shaky, though this is mainly because Dreyer preferred to work with amateurs who had no real film experience, it doesn't distract from the film and actually works pretty well in this context. The direction is absolutely beautiful, and the light and shadows are some of the best I've seen in a black and white film. The entire film is covered in a haunting and, frankly, terrifying atmosphere, and this is the film's true appeal along with absolutely fantastic film-making, as the plot itself is nothing particularly revolutionary. While it was ignored by critics and audiences alike in the '30s, it has since found a very dedicated audience and a must-see for all horror fans and is, quite simply, a masterwork of horror cinema.

The Fly (1986)

DAVID CRONENBERG

THE FLY

USA, 1986

9/10

REMAKE OF THE FLY (1958)

"A fly... got into the... transmitter pod with me that first time, when I was alone. The computer... got confused - there weren't supposed to be two separate genetic patterns - and it decided to... uhh... splice us together. It mated us, me and the fly. We hadn't even been properly introduced."

Some other science fiction-horror films made in this same time period are just large spectacles to display disgusting and impressive special effects. Lots of times, they are generally weak on character development and good plots. Now, sure, David Cronenberg's THE FLY (1986) does have a lot of pretty gross special effects and the plot is pretty simplistic, but the characters in this films are so well developed and fleshed out that I can't help but feel that this film is generally much better than many others of its kind. It follows scientist Seth Brundle, who thinks he figured out a way to transport objects, and decides to show a woman in the media, Veronica Quaife, his projects. THE FLY is not only a great horror film, but it is also an amazing drama and love story on top of that.

Even though it is dramatic and romantic, do not be fooled: THE FLY is not a weak-hearted, light-spirited, happy love story of a movie. The film shows, in excruciating detail, Seth Brundle's transformation from a human being into a gigantic Brundlefly. Yet still, Jeff Goldblum (the actor playing Brundle) is able to break past the many layers of disgusting make-up and let the humanity beneath still break free. His performance in this film is truly great, and probably one of his best.

Cronenberg was no doubt very intelligent in his showing of Brundle's transformation. We first see the good aspects of the fusion, such as the extra strength or the increased stamina in bed. Even though we, as the viewer, know that everything will fall apart and any benefits which Brundle might have had will be nowhere near comparable to what happens to him later, we still have a small glimmer of hope that maybe, just maybe, things may turn out well. And then, slowly but surely, things take a turn for the worse. Much worse. 

And then there's the special effects, namely, the make-up, for which this film won an Academy Award. It starts out subtle: strange hairs on his back, changes in his face, and then it because much more graphic and brutal. The final half of the film features many layers of make-up, which no doubt took forever to get in and out of. While I'm not sure if I'd qualify it as gore because his transformation doesn't have much blood (the finale I would definitely qualify as gore, though), gore-hounds will probably be pleased just because the make-up in this is so good, disgusting, and brutal.

As I mentioned in my review of THE OMEN (2006), one of the most important things I need to see in a remake is something new. Besides the basic premise of a man being fused with a fly, this film is pretty different to THE FLY (1958). This film is, in my opinion, the superior film. It is smarter, scarier, sexier, and all around a better film, something that is very rare in horror movie remakes. All in all, THE FLY is a great film that should be seen by anyone who hasn't viewed it yet.