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.

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.

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.

Inside (2007)

ALEXANDRE BUSTILLO, JULIEN MAURY

INSIDE

FRANCE, 2007

6.5/10

"There's a strange woman by my door. Please hurry up. I don't know what she wants. She knows my name... she knows everything about me..."

Since I reviewed MARTYRS (2008) yesterday, I thought it might be fun if I reviewed another French film viewed as highly disturbing, INSIDE (2007).

This review is covered with various spoilers, some small, others larger, continue reading at your own discretion. 

When the film came out, I heard it praised by various genre fans as one of the scariest, brutal, most disturbing films in recent years, and so naturally, I had to check it out. The fact that I had nightmares as a child both about someone stabbing people with a pair of scissors and another about someone cutting an unborn fetus out of another person's uterus made me think that this film was perfect for me (the shot above of a pair of scissors stabbed through the protagonist's hand was literally a recurring nightmare I had as a kid). And so I went into this film with huge, huge expectations.

Despite a very weak opening scene (the CGI baby? really?), although I loved the windshield wiper still running against the broken window, the first 30 to 40 minutes were probably my favorite part of the film. The scene with La Femme at Sarah's door, asking her to let her in literally had me cowering in my seat more than any of the brutal violence that followed. The quick shot of her lighting her cigarette made me think for a second that Le Femme was in fact the nurse who smoked and talked to Sarah at the beginning of the film, an absolutely excellent red herring. I do believe that once La Femme was in the house and we got a good look at her, a lot of the tension was lost, but before we see her face, the shots of her just standing in the darkness are incredibly creepy. 

And then, after 30 minutes of exposition, we get what we paid for: to be grossed out and see just how much blood La Femme can manage to shed. Because of this, I'd like to propose a couple of alternate titles for INSIDE. Perhaps, PARTY AT SARAH'S? Or maybe 101 INVENTIVE USES FOR HOUSEHOLD SCISSORS. And there are quite a few uses of these scissors, my favorite obviously being the stabbed-hand shot (it also didn't help that I have an almost identical pair of scissors with are sitting on the table directly adjacent to me as I type this). The bathroom is probably my favorite set in the entire film, as red blood looks amazing against the clean white background of the room. The entire film is incredibly brutal and gory, which is really the only reason you watch this film: to see the gore.

The film is not without fault, though. It features some of the most idiotic policemen captured on film, it's repetitive, and even though it's pretty short, during the last 10 minutes, I was simply waiting for it to end. The zombie policeman (if you've seen the film you know exactly what I'm talking about) was useless, boring, and just downright not scary. The CGI shots (the aforementioned fetus shots, the scene were Sarah burns La Femme's face off) look horrible and inspire eye rolls instead of screams. The twist ending involving La Femme's identity is horrible (like, yeah, Sarah was told that everyone died in the crash, but surely she would have seen photos of the woman who died in the car they crashed into? Surely, Sarah would recognize her instantly?), and Sarah is somewhat unrelatable, as she is written as being detached from her friends and family, but the only thing this succeeds in doing is making Sarah detached from the audience as well. Honestly, the film is very, very good until La Femme cuts the lights, then it just goes downhill. 

I mainly watched this film just because I wanted to see if La Femme ever cut Sarah's stomach open and pulled the baby out. As I mentioned earlier, I had a nightmare about that as a kid, and the thing that made me want to watch this the most was the fact that that might be in there. I'm not going to say whether or not that happens, I just wanted to include that's mainly why I watched the film, because at the end of the day, people watch this film to see some disgusting pieces of blood and gore. And this film delivers on that. There are many, many, many faults in the film, but the gore makes up for it, and isn't that what we're watching for, anyways?

Martyrs (2008)

PASCAL LAUGIER

MARTYRS

FRANCE, 2008

9/10

"Lucie was only a victim. Like all the others. It's so easy to create a victim, young lady, so easy. You lock someone in a dark room. They begin to suffer. You feed that suffering. Methodically, systematically and coldly. And make it last. Your subject goes through a number of states. After a while, their trauma; that small, easily opened crack, makes them see things that don't exist."

Grisly, graphic, and brutal, MARTYRS (2008) has gained quite a lot of publicity as being an incredibly disturbing horror film. This is another film that I watched for the first time last night, even though I've been meaning to watch it for a very, very long time.

Going into MARTYRS, I had quite a few ideas of what I expected this movie to be. I thought that what would make the movie disturbing would be HOSTEL or SAW levels of gore, I thought it would be a mindless flick that shed more blood than needed. I thought it would be various situations created for the use of gore for gore's sake, that there would be no higher purpose to the film. And boy, was I wrong. MARTYRS does have gore, true, but it is not overplayed, and honestly there are films which are much, much gorier. Not to say that it isn't gory, it is, just not as much as you may expect. MARTYRS instead disturbs you by the way it handles the gore, the way it shows the tortures for what they, not glorifying them in any way.

This is why I don't like why I have seen some people on the Internet refer to this as "torture porn". I'm already not a big fan of the term, but MARTYRS is not torture porn. Unlike HOSTEL, it does not glorify the violence, not does it attempt to entertain (more on that later) using the violence. MARTYRS exists to make you feel uncomfortable, to disturb you. Sure, there may be a few people who enjoy the gore in this, but on the whole it exists for upset the viewer more than anything.

As I mentioned earlier, MARTYRS is not meant to entertain. That may sound weird, seeing as don't all movies exist to entertain? This film, however, does not. It exists to make you incredibly uncomfortable and shocked, and it certainly does that. Everything else about this film is top-class. The cinematography and gore effects are both amazing, the soundtrack (though there is very little of it) is incredibly effective and adds to the experience of this film. The acting is fantastic, and the characters are interesting, complex, and believable  As much as I love popcorn films and mindless slashers, this film is on a tier above the rest. It is dark, shocking, and atmospheric. Though it is an incredibly uncomfortable experience, I recommend that everyone watched this film. There is not much that one can say about this film, so I recommend that you watch it for yourself.