The Signal – Playing with genres

‘Films I own but have not yet watched because reasons’ – Part 2

So. I have a big pile of films that I haven’t got round to watching because they variously looked bad, confusing, or just not as good as films that I could have watched instead. This is the second in the series of reviews of these films.


I went into this film knowing nothing about it, kind of live reviewing again.  We’ll see how it goes.

The opening establishes our characters as techy hacker types, one of whom is disabled. The director seems to be aware of the ridicule levelled at the portrayals of hackers in films such as, uh, Hackers, and so it involves some actually techy terms – like Defcon, IP and Linux.

OK, I’m actually moderately impressed that they bothered to do this, but still, we get the typical 2 minute hacking scene instead of 6 hours of two dudes drinking Mountain Dew and looking at 2 lines of code. Fair enough, compromise is important.

23 mins in: OK, I am officially gripped.  this film is actually good so far. The sound design, in particular, has been excellent throughout, setting a refreshingly minimalistic tone. The camera work supports the sound design, the teen romance elements haven’t been annoying, and suspense is definitely occurring. It’s going well so far.

Well! Just as I typed that last sentence and settled back…EMERGENCY!

Nothing’s ever easy is it? I finally find a good film and the downstairs neighbour’s burglar alarm goes off at maximum volume at a quarter to nine at night. We don’t know how we silenced it, only that it finally stopped. Emergency over.  Please resume watching films.

See? Blogging can be rough, man.

Hmm, it just occurred to me that a particularly loud signal interrupted my viewing of The Signal, just as they were starting to talk about ‘the’ signal. Signal-ception? Enough of that, back to the film….Or, perhaps not.

To be frank with you, this review really hasn’t turned out the way I thought it would.

I got completely into this film.  I enjoyed the pacing, I enjoyed the acting, and I thought it was well executed.  I’m actually not sure how I avoided hearing about it until now.  So, rather than go through it piece by piece as I had originally intended, I stopped typing and watched it properly.  Furthermore, I don’t want to reveal any of the plot – even with big fat spoiler tags on. If you want to know what happens, you should watch it.

This film is, in my opinion, very good. It is an interesting twist on the sci-fi genre, and as such deserves to sit alongside other excellent modern and slightly off-piste takes, like Moon. I think its kind of a nice mid way point between District 9 and Inception, certainly in terms of the aesthetics of the stranger things we get to see.

The ending is slightly left field, although it’s not like it’s that bit in Interstellar where Matthew McConaughey is rearranging time through a magical bookshelf. If you can handle that, you can handle this.  Either way,  I certainly didn’t see it coming, and I liked it.


I think you should watch this film. The sci-fi tag might put you off, but its a slow burner that plays with the genre enough to entertain people who might, for example, hate Star Trek.

4 Implants out of 5



Non-Stop, Unfortunately.

So. I have a big pile of films that I haven’t got round to watching because they variously looked bad, confusing, or just not as good as films that I could have watched instead. This is the first in the series of reviews of these films.  Buckle up (hur-dur plane joke. Last one, I promise).


This is another film in which Liam Neeson is inexplicably cast as an action hero. This time, he’s a US federal air marshal on a plane  who starts getting text messages from someone claiming to be on the plane with him. The text messages go back and forth a bit, then he gets a demand for 150 million bucks or someone on the plane will die.

Dramatic, huh?

It takes about 20 mins to get to this stage, and I’m kind of live writing this review, so I’m a bit distracted.  But let’s be honest here, if the first 20 minutes hadn’t solely consisted of the by now confusingly standard moody shots of Liam Neeson looking moody in moody lighting from a moody camera angle, then I wouldn’t have gotten bored to the point of deciding to write about it while watching it at the same time.

Seriously. I don’t get it.  What’s the fixation? I mean, he was even a Jedi. What the actual fuck? Are there that few action heroes in Hollywood left that can get parts these days that people are forced to give them to Liam Neeson? Does he have something on someone? WHAT IS HIS SECRET?


Oh and that chick from Boogie Nights is in it too, she’s one of his co-passengers.  Again, live review here, so I’m thinking she’s fairly suspicious as she’s the only other famous person in this film so far. Oh, so he just talked to Boogie Nights chick and told her what’s up. (I’ll add her name in later. Probably) oh and now there’s turbulence. Super, super exciting stuff here folks.

Jesus, the text messages just mentioned his daughter.  This is just going to be fucking Taken, but on a plane, isn’t it? Yeah there you go, he’s been betrayed by his special agent buddy, Hammond.  Quite a nice fight scene in a plane toilet has just happened though, that must have been a nightmare to film – it’s hard enough to take a shit in one of them. Imagine trying to fit a lighting rig into one.

So this film is Snakes on a Plane without snakes or being good, and Taken without the ground….And oh god, there’s an hour and ten minutes of this left…

Some honesty

…I have to level with you. I just took a 5 hour break in the middle of watching and writing this. It’s fair to say I’m not exactly gripped. Oh yeah, I think the Boogie Nights chick is called Julianne Moore. Onwards.

OK, so there’s some twists and turns in here, Agent Hammond had a suitcase full of coke and now Liam Neeson is explaining why Hammond is now a dead guy to the air hostess and OH MY GOD THERE’S AN ETHNIC GUY ON THE PLANE oh wait he’s a doctor, oh wait its molecular neuroscience and we have no idea what that means.

I, like I suspect many people who watched this film, am completely distracted by wondering what exactly the point to all this is going to be. Is it a pro TSA movie? Is it anti-surveillance? Is it all just a vehicle to further Liam Neeson’s confusing place in action cinema?

Hahahaha, pilot down. I have to be honest, this is kind of like a version of Airplane!, if Airplane! wasn’t funny or good. The situation continues escalating and a good old fashioned rabble occurs about an hour in.  Liam Neeson solves this with the healing powers of consumerism (seriously). Now some more plot twisty background stuff happens.

If I could have picked anyone for this role I would have picked Harrison Ford. Harrison Ford is cool.  He’s all craggy, and the Star Wars he was in was actually good. On the off chance that any Hollywood casting agents are reading this, give Harrison Ford a shout next time a script like this turns up. Just thinking out loud while I watch Liam Neeson be not great at action films.

Got distracted there. I’m sensing a pattern.

The sound design isn’t too bad in this, and while it’s predictably shot, it’s at least technically proficient. It’s not a terrible film at this point, it’s just not good.  I feel like I maybe would have cared about this more if I was an American who caught a lot of domestic flights.  In fact, the film has just slightly ham-handedly inserted a bit with the media being all sceptical of the TSA, approximately 1 minute before Liam Neeson (now the prime suspect because plot twists) finds a bomb. A COKE BOMB. Subtle.

So there go any moral quandaries you might be having about the film and the surrounding laws.  You are here to watch America save the day through increased surveillance, and to watch Liam Neeson be a flawed American every-man and save the day. Sort of like a really shit American version of Braveheart.  Sort of.  

OK I’m paying attention again. Yep. it’s still on. Rats.

I saw a horror film recently called Panic Button.  That was actually sort of similar to this film, but way better. Watch Panic Button instead of this.

panic button

 Right, into the last 30 minutes now. The home stretch.  We can do this.

The aforementioned last 30 minutes of this film are not for people who suffer from motion sickness or dislike shaky cams. OHHHH WAIT! Social media twist! That’s made this whole thing totally relevant. Actually, there’s quite a nice device used throughout the film, where any phone message or video is displayed as an on screen overlay.  It’s pretty cool and is helpful in the big social media reveal scene i just mentioned – but don’t get me wrong, it’s not saving the film.  The message here, with 15 minutes left, is hammered into our heads as if we’ve done something wrong and the director wants us to know it. In fact, who the hell directed this? I’ll look later. Right now its the end bit and this is clearly where a lot of the budget went so I’m going to watch it properly.



Well. I went into this film with pretty low expectations, and it happily met them.  It is an attempt to humanise the TSA, a controversial part of the wider global surveillance culture that we are happily growing for ourselves.  I guess that’s my main problem with it. It’s just all so fucking obvious.  I mean, yeah there’s some twists that are, I guess, meant to make us consider our prejudices, but for a film to make an audience do that, it needs to connect on some emotional level that non-stop, in my opinion, totally fails to.

That said, the last 10 minutes or so were cool enough. There was a bit that reminded me of Max Payne, so that was nice.  Man, I should totally play Max Payne again.  Seriously though, watch Panic Button. Not this.

2 Inappropriately located Liam Neesons out of 5.

Martyrs – What the shit, France?

So, in my continuing quest to watch and review some of the most extreme horror movies available today, I recently watched French director Pascal Laugier’s 2008 film Martrys.  Well.  What the shit, France?

I watched this on recommendation from some friends who’d read one of my other reviews.  I’d initially seen it in controversial movie lists but hadn’t really thought it would be worth bothering with.  This also meant that I didn’t really have any idea what I would be getting into when I hit play.

The plot, and there is one,  constitutes what is probably one of the bleakest looks into the human condition available on film.  It is also ridiculous, and mental.  It follows the misadventures of a pair of girls, Lucie and Anna, as they progress along a series of unfortunate events caused by an organisation looking to create martyrs (ding! you says the name, you wins the game!).  The ways that they choose to go about this suggest that Mr Laugier might well have some fairly deep seated issues with the principals of organised religion, and also that you probably shouldn’t let him plan your stag do, or kids birthday parties.


It opens with a young girl (Lucie), badly beaten, escaping from a building where she has been held and tortured.  The film is interspersed with documentary style footage of the case, stating that there were no signs of sexual abuse.  The girl is placed into care where she befriends Anna. Befriends is probably a bit strong, as the abuse has not been kind to Lucie who – having been held and tortured for a prolonged time – can barely communicate, and is being stalked by some kind of ‘the grudge’ style ghost monster.  Anna promises to protect Lucie.

Flash forward 15 years and a family is going about it’s day.  Breakfast, arguements, the usual. The doorbell rings, and the father goes to answer.  He finds Lucie, who promptly murders the shit out of the entire family of four with a shotgun, kids and all.  Well.  What the fuck, right?  She then shouts at the Grudge rip off that she’s done it, but the monster has none of it and attacks her again.  Bad times all round.

So next, instead of running away like any normal person would do, she calls Anna and tells her to come over.  Anna arrives and sees what has happened and is understandably concerned.  She asks if Lucie is sure these are the ones and Lucie says yes, she can recognise their smell.  This happy little family were the people who tortured her.  So they begin to dispose of the bodies, Lucie progressively becoming more and more unstable as things go on.  Anna realises that the mother is still alive and tries to help her to get out.  Lucie notices and has an episode that involves vigorous and liberal application of a hammer, then goes back to talk to the grudge.

Well, the monster seems initially appeased and goes in for a hug, but then attacks and slices up Lucie.  Dramatically, it is then revealed that the grudge rip off monster isn’t real and it’s, ‘gasp’, Lucie cutting herself up! Because of how crazy she is!  And as if that was too predictable for you and you want it even bleaker, now you get a flashback explaining that the grudge ™ was in fact another girl who was being horribly tortured when Lucie escaped, and who she hadn’t stopped to help. Fun fun fun.  So now there’s four dead people, the house is trashed, and there’s an emotionally disturbed girl self harming.  This is bleak.

Lucie clearly agrees with my assessment of the situation, because the next thing she does is kill herself.  Anna is distraught, there’s some crying, and I sit there wondering how things can possibly get any more depressing.  While Anna was burying the bodies I checked the remaining time. 51 mins elapsed, 40 mins to go. ‘How is this possible?’ I wondered out loud to myself. ‘The protagonist is dead’.  How indeed?

So while cleaning, Anna calls her mother.  This conversation does not go well, with her mother asking if she is still with ‘that girl’.  During the call, Anna notices what appears to be a hole behind a cabinet.  She hangs up and opens the cabinet, only to discover stairs to a tunnel.  rather than running away, she goes inside and finds a torture chamber, where the walls covered in graphic images of torture, mutilation, the whole nine yards.  There is also a hatch, with a retractable ladder.

Rather than running away, Anna opens the hatch and descends.  Inside she finds a girl who has obviously been horribly tortured, with metal things attached to her head and body.  Harsh.  Anna takes the girl upstairs, and rather than phoning an ambulance (a trend emerges) decides to pop her in the bath and pull the metal things off the girl, using a pair of pliers and grim determination.  Because obviously this is a better option than the hospital.  Obviously.

Anyhow, the girl is clearly not a happy bunny, and starts to slash herself up at any opportunity.  Anna is trying to discourage this when the front door opens and some people in suits walk in.  They shoot the girl without so much as a by-your-leave,  and then take Anna down to the torture chamber.

Here the terrible matriarchal Mademoiselle explains to Anna that they torture girls to make them see god, to turn them into Martyrs.  She shows her photos, and yells about their eyes, and it’s fucking nuts.  The last half an hour of the film is essentially a montage of an undisclosed amount of time where Anna is beaten and tortured.  The ending of the film is fairly abrupt, but before that happens, you get to see just why this film is as controversial as it is.  You also get the slightly French flourish of some strange trippy sequences.  The finale does offer a pay off of sorts, but it’s less of an explanation, and more of a big fat fuck you to all concerned.


The film is strange.  By this, I don’t just mean that the plot is strange – it’s clearly mental –  but that the entire viewing experience is slightly disjointed and jarring.  It took me a while to work out why, but I think that its because it switches genre several times in order to maximise the number of filmic tropes it can abuse.

You get a documentary, a ghost/slasher flick, psychological horror, a revenge flick, torture porn, transcendental mysticism, and the big shock ending.  It’s a film that purposefully messes you around, so that just as you begin to think you know what’s coming next, it turns out that you don’t.  The problem is that this took me out of things a bit, as I often wondered to myself ‘what the fuck is going on here, exactly?’ If pushed, I would say that the religious imagery throughout the film suggests that the director is not himself a huge fan of mindlessly pursuing religious goals at the detriment of innocents. It could also be some kind of damning indictment into the evils of consumerism.  I dunno.

What I do know is that this was a particularly brutal, disorienting piece of film. It covets genre conventions so that it can use them to make you feel uncomfortable, and there’s a girl in it with a metal thing stapled to her head.  I mean.  Seriously. What the fuck, France?

Watch this if you like being messed with, and also being slightly disappointed with endings.  Don’t watch this if you like puppies and sunshine and smiling.  There is no smiling in this film.

3 grudge rip off ghosts out of 5

August Underground – Nope nope nope nope

So, the third in my series of extreme horror movie reviews is the first part of Fred Vogel’s August Underground trilogy.  It is entirely possible that you, like most people, have never heard of these films.  This is probably for the best.  

Allow me to explain.  August Underground is – at least content wise – every conceivable sort of wrong.

(**EDIT – I had a bit in here about Charlie Sheen calling the FBI after seeing this film online, but it turns out that was actually the J-Horror ‘Guinea Pig, Flower of Flesh and Blood’ I can admit when I’m wrong.  I was wrong.  Now please don’t make me watch it.**)

I toyed with writing a 3 word review for this film (do not watch)  but after the discomfort I felt during my first aborted attempt at viewing this monstrosity, I decided that any film that has the capacity to elicit extreme reactions from relatively jaded viewers is probably worth trying to sit through, if only to better understand the minds of the director and the viewer in question (me).  So I tried again.  This time I made it through to the second scene.

On the third attempt, I sat through the whole thing, and now feel qualified to have an opinion about it.  But first, a summary.

August Underground follows 2 serial killers as they torture, murder, visit an abattoir, go and see a band, torture some more, go to a shop, torture some more, get tattoos, murder some more, get high, and then top it all off with some more murder. That’s it.

It is a film that, on the face of things, is devoid of merit.  The shot construction is apparently non existent, the scripting seemingly awful, the characters certainly do not elicit any kind of sympathy or empathy from the viewer, and the violence is prolonged and abhorrent.  For most people this is all they need to know – file this film under ‘depraved filth enjoyed only by the mentally unhinged’ and go back to watching Dexter, with it’s lovely sympathetic murderer.

In fact, as noted above, it took me 3 goes to get past this point of view myself.  I didn’t skip bits by the way, I made it through the opening scene 3 times – If you have seen this film you will understand that this is not a pleasant experience, if you haven’t then here is a break down of it:

A guy is outside a house drinking a beer, being filmed.  He tells the cameraman to follow him inside as he has something to show him, and that he will love it.  They go inside, down some stairs, and into a room with a naked girl tied to a chair, sobbing, and missing a nipple.  There is a dead guy in the bath, missing body parts.  As the 2 men giggle like 14 year old’s watching porn, they verbally and physically torture the girl.  This scene is 6 minutes long, is one unbroken shot, and is fucking horrible.  Cut to them driving somewhere.

This is essentially how the film plays out.  Torture scene, something unrelated, torture scene, repeat, end.  Oh and the entire thing is degraded so that it look’s like a VHS home movie that’s been played too many times, or copied and distributed and re-copied.  Like, say, a snuff film.

So how did I make it past this, and why did I bother?

I mentioned Dexter earlier.  One of the things that brought me back to August Underground was an interview I had seen with a psychologist discussing celluloid serial killers vs. the reality of serial killers.  The gist of this was that we are given serial killers in these neat little televisual packages, that show that the protagonist has morals and ‘only kills people who deserve it’ or some similar get out of jail card for the viewer, but that real life serial killers are so fucked up it would be beyond our capacity to process what is going on.  The example he gave was a case where the killer defecated inside the wounds of the people he killed.  Or fucked the bodies, or ate the organs raw. Or all three.   Now, you have to admit, if Dexter was literally balls deep in the eye socket of a victim he’d just shat on, it might just be that little bit harder to see serial killing as ‘OK in certain circumstances’.

August Underground is a film about serial killers with ALL the filters off.  This is the home movie that a serial killer would actually make.  ‘Oh hey Dave, you’re going to love this – here’s that bit where we looked at some statues, oh here’s that bit where I forced a girl to eat shit, oh here’s us getting a burger’.  It’s like the most depraved home movie you could imagine.  It is a reaction to the fetishisation of murder in film.  It is a film maker saying fuck Saw, fuck Dexter, fuck every serial killer film you’ve ever seen, this is what these people are actually like – idiotic juvenile man children who manipulate people to the best of their limited abilities solely so that they can torture and kill for fun.  That’s it.  No moral, no code of ethics, no discernible talent.  Just killing and shit.  is this what you wanted? because this is the reality of what you’ve asked for and it is awful.

Its a bit like watching a full length movie of 3 guys 1 hammer (**WARNING** NEVER EVER WATCH 3G1H- READ THE DESCRIPTION ON WIKIPEDIA INSTEAD  and is actually probably a fairly good representation of what actual spree killers get up to.  Oddly, this actually means that this is an exceptionally proficient bit of film.  That does not, however, mean that you should watch it.

There is a scene in this film where the characters are escaping from a crime scene and a police car pulls out and starts to follow them.  You think that this is the moment where sense will be restored and the authorities will discover their murderous ways and there might even be a happy ending or at least some restitution.  Nope.  The scene immediately cuts to another, in which they are fine.  It is at this moment you realise that the point in this film is not to explore the nature of killers, or to show them being punished so that we can all feel better about ourselves, but rather to show us them getting away with it.  The moment of realisation is awful, as you understand that this is just going to keep going until it stops, and that when it does stop, nothing will be better, nothing will change, the world will not be any better.

Just like real violence, I suppose.

Summing up.  This is not a film that many people will enjoy.  It functions better as a critique on the nature of consuming death as a product, and the glamorisation of serial killing in the media.  It works by making you think ‘what the fuck is wrong with me for wanting to watch this’  because, really, what the fuck IS wrong with you?  A difficult watch which was made on a shoestring, and for that at least, it should probably be applauded.  Its just really hard to convince myself to clap, or to watch the next 2…

I’m off to look at pictures of puppies.  You should decide whether you want to watch this, obtain it, then reconsider.  You will need to supply your own filters to make this worthwhile, and even then you probably won’t enjoy it as a film, but more as a piece of film making.  And for the love of god please don’t watch the 3G1H video.

August Underground – 2 repellent atrocities out of 5

Maniac – Angry hobbit aggressively pursues hair.

Maniac is a dirty feeling film.  It’s the 2012 remake of the 1980 film of the same name, which was widely regarded as a particularly nasty piece of cinema in it’s own right.  So, is the remake any good?

Well, for starters the choice of Elijah Wood for the role of Frank, the titular maniac, has mixed results. On one hand, Wood posses exactly the sort of creepy air required to make a convincing serial killer.  Of course, on the other hand he can also look like a total wet lettuce at times, which is what made him such a convincing hobbit.  The end result of this combination is that most of the time you are relatively ‘in the film’ – engaged with his increasingly fucked up world-view and accompanying journey down the spiral of rampant psychosis, whereas at other times you just find yourself thinking  ‘Man, Frodo is being pretty fucked up right here’ or ‘Why doesn’t he just use his invisibility cloak if he wants to kill this chick so badly?’ and ‘Gandalf’s gonna be pissed when he hears about this.’

But back to the beginning.  The set up of this film is great.  The first scene plays out with Frank behind the wheel of a car stalking a potential victim.  Straight in, no credits.  We are in a POV shot.  We are Frank.  We can hear him breathing. We are instantly made complicit as he chooses and follows his target as she stumbles from a club.  We hear him talking to her, while she does not.  She notices the car following her and starts to hurry.  She stumbles, afraid. She knows something is wrong, gets up and starts to run.  Just as we become as convinced as she is that she’s about to be murdered, Frank pulls off the chase and drives down a different street, quietly explaining to her that  ‘Its OK.  I know where you live, Judy.  I’ll see you later.’  The camera pans, and we see his eyes in the rear-view mirror.  They are clearly psychotic.  We know at this point that Frank is very badly damaged, and that we are in for a ride.  Boom.  3 minutes of perfect tone setting, and a killer (hur hur) first scene.  The rest of the film, however, doesn’t quite match the pacing or direction of the set up.

We don’t have to wait long before Frank gets to kill and scalp his victim for the first time.  Yep.  Frank loves hair.  Like, a lot.  Really.  You have no idea just how much he wants hair.  This is because Frank is a refurbisher of mannequins (thank you auto-correct), having taken over the family business following the death of his sometime prostitute mother.  Frank fantasizes visions of his mother through the course of the film – either instructing and berating him, or sometimes in the form of flashbacks of watching her fuck strangers from the darkness of the doorway of his room as a child.  These visions provide motivation for Frank to go and get hair to complete his mannequins, so that he can turn them into real girls to be with him forever, and silence the visions.

This quest takes Frank into the worlds of internet dating, and art.  Neither goes particularly well, but the art world forms the main plot.  The film reminded me of American Psycho’s premise that truly self-absorbed people would never notice a murderer in their midst because they are all, essentially, psychopaths in their own right.  So when a young photographer called Anna one day wakes Frank at home while she is snapping pictures of the mannequins in the front of his shop, we can tell that her breathless enthusiasm about his art will likely get her into some trouble further down the line.

Frank and Anna start to work together.  Frank produces mannequins for her art installations in her gallery, while she waxes lyrical about the authenticity of his dolls.  It is clear to us that Frank is repressing his more murderous inclinations in order to become close to the woman he thinks could understand him, as if she could be his salvation.  But repressing his urges damages him further, sending him spiralling into the abyss of insanity.

At this point the film becomes disjointed, clearly with the intent of echoing Frank’s broken understanding of the world and difficulty in determining the difference between reality and fantasy. Unfortunately, the end result of this is that it separates you from the involvement offered by the POV film style.  That is to say that Frank becomes so fucked up, it is impossible to empathise with the situation.  We could have been forced to engage with some fairly deep questions about ourselves and the culpability of the spectator through a serial killer film shot entirely in POV, but instead we have to constantly detach ourselves because oops, there’s another fucking PCP nightmare happening, filled with dolls with human hair and flies and his dead mother yelling at him. 

This was my main complaint with the film.  It failed to capitalise on its strengths, which were the stalking scenes and the brutal efficiency of the kills and scalpings, while focusing its weaknesses in the prolonged and over frequent hallucination scenes. Also the final act is almost farcical at times.  I genuinely laughed out loud at one point in the scene where Anna is hiding in the room, which is not, i suspect, what they were going for.

To sum up.  This could have been a great film that forced the viewer to question the role they were playing in consuming a film of this nature, but instead we get a driller killer style pseudo art-house exploitation flick about a fucking angry hobbit with bloody knuckles, and a few too many breaks in the POV to make it believable for any amount of time.

The first 6 minutes though? They’re pretty badass.

Maniac: 3 unpleasant wig collections out of 5


The Poughkeepsie Tapes – Much worse than you expect.

So i was recently browsing the internet and found an interesting site called which reminded me that I freaking love horror movies, and that the last one i saw wasn’t particularly horrifying.  So I got comfortable and started browsing. Horror news has a section for ‘extreme horror’, listing the sorts of the film that the BBFC doesn’t really like, with some blurb about them. Now I’ve seen ‘The Human Centipede (First Sequence)’ and I thought that actually, far from being the country destroying cesspool that the media though it was, it was actually a reasonably well made and particularly dark comedy. (Can you really watch the scenes with ‘meine liebe dreihund’ without bursting out laughing? I can’t) So I got stuck into the list, looking for the films that HMV might not have had on their top 50 front of house displays.

I ended up finding out about the whole subset of ultra realistic horror films, and the controversy surrounding them. These range from the deeply convincing pseudo snuff films like the august underground trilogy, to faux documentaries that jump onto the moral outrage bandwagon and then stab it in the face a bit, like s&man. Now, from a filmmaking standpoint, these films interested me as they are able to achieve some deeply unsettling content that, put simply, does not look like a filmmaker made it.

Now. Recall the last horror film you saw. I watched antichrist recently (don’t do this, antichrist sucks) and while it sucked watching William Defoe getting his ankle bolted to a stone and his pecker exploded, it was, at all times, clearly a film. There is a safety net for the viewer. The film is heavily stylised, with shots that obviously took a long time to construct. there is music. there is lighting. there are blurry shots and long shots, and close-ups and cuts, and it always looks like a film. This is because, most of the time, the audience is looking to be entertained, not disturbed. However, the extreme horror films do away with these niceties, opting instead for a visceral, painful cinematic equivalent of being kicked in the face. ‘Sold!’ I thought. ‘I’ll make a list and watch some of these bad boys.’ Top of the list was The Poughkeepsie Tapes.

I picked The Poughkeepsie Tapes (TPT) because it formed a nice bridge from standard to extreme horror. TPT is a faux documentary about the events leading up to and following on from the discovery of a box of tapes in a property that the police have searched following a lead in an ongoing murder investigation. The tapes are all dated, go back at least a decade, and follow the actions of one unnamed man. We follow a documentary team as they investigate the case after the fact, interviewing key players in the investigation along the way.

The film provides us that safety net of fiction, however it also subverts the genre of serial killer documentaries particularly well. Occasionally, you will forget that you are watching a movie. This is, of course, both excellent and difficult to achieve.

It transpires that the boxes of tapes contain thousands of hours of stalking, abduction, murder, physical and mental torture, and balloon popping (seriously). We see interviews with the profilers who went over the tapes, officers involved in the investigation, families of victims, and finally with a victim herself. We are also slowly exposed to the content of the tapes, and this is where the film continuously, viscerally, kicks you in the face. To give you an idea of the extent of this, I initially found the interview sections to be occasionally poorly acted – a sign of the lower budget indie release. Not every aspiring actor is Al fucking Pacino. However, as the film progressed, I appreciated these moments as they allowed me to think the phrase ‘Oh thank god, this is a film’ to myself while trying to mentally scrub myself clean again.

It starts with a child abduction. The footage is distressed and degraded, out of focus, handheld, distressing. You hear the killer but you never see him. You do not witness the actual abduction, you hear it. The car door slams and he is gone. Moments like these remind you of the truly horrific notion that societal boundaries are the things that keep us safe, but transgression of these boundaries is easy for someone determined and disturbed enough to want to transgress them. And our protagonist really, really wants to.

The worst moments of the film are not the physical torture scenes in which the killer beats or kills his victims, but the psychological torture he inflicts. As the killer progresses we learn that he changes his modus operandi to evade capture, starting to abduct people while disguised as a police officer. He starts to invade homes and successfully kidnaps a girl, who he then holds captive. These scenes are, without question, pushing at the very boundaries of decency. The torture inflicted is horrific by all standards, and far outweigh the lasting impact of the purely violent imagery contained within the film. In fact, much of the actual violence is committed off-screen, but this does not matter. This is still a violent film that will stay with you.

So should you watch it? Well, that depends. If you don’t like horror movies, and you’ve actually made it to the end of this review without deciding that you don’t want to watch it, then no. Dont watch it. But, if you are a horror fan who finds that ‘Insidious’ and ‘Cabin In The Woods’ really don’t cut it for you, or that ‘Hostel’ could have done with being a whole lot more fucked up, then yes. You should watch it.

Just bear in mind that while the film has one last-moment get out of jail free card that finally reminds you to say ‘Oh thank god, this is a film’ towards the end, which made me smile to myself and reflect on a fine bit of film making, I still checked behind every door and in every corner of every room in my flat before I went to bed.


An actually horrific horror film. 4 screaming victims out of 5

Dark Star – In space, no one can hear a beachball attack a man with a mop.

So Dark Star was on recently and, remembering the end scene and a general sense of confusion from when I watched it many years ago, I sky+’d it to show to my girlfriend later.

Unfortunately, there’s never really a time when most girls really feel like sitting down to watch sci-fi films from the 70’s, and my girlfriend falls into this category – probably because of all those times I forced her to watch star wars. So i resigned myself to watching it on my own. This, it turns out, was probably for the best.

Because this film is dated.  And I don’t mean in the same way as earlier series of Red Dwarf look a bit dated because Kryten was a bit shit, but in the way that 8 bit video games look a bit dated.  At one point the ship (white triangle) while racing through space (black square) hits an asteroid field (3 blue lines with grey bits), the computer then raises a shield (blue circle) and protects the crew (blue light), all while I laugh my ass off and marvel at the fact that Star Wars came out a mere 3 years later. Astounding.

But the effects are not what this film needs to be judged on.  This film needs to be judged on its use of dialogue, pacing, humour, and absurdity. This is because if you judge it on these things, Dark Star becomes awesome. In fact, this film looks almost like a prototype for the excellent Red Dwarf, as well as providing a few Hitchhikers Guide moments – I genuinely expected the bomb to be called Marvin.

Now, I’m not sure how terrible it would be to be stuck with the same 4 people for 20+ years on a spaceship with sentient bombs, aliens, and almost nothing else, but imagine it would suck, Hard. What might make this worse? How about an accident that destroys ALL the toilet paper? How about if that alien beachball makes you chase it into a lift shaft then moves your escape plank? how about a computer that the crew ignore when it’s telling them important things? what about a sentient bomb with an anti-authoritarian rebellious streak? what about if one of the crew members had those annoying joke pairs of glasses and a rubber chicken that he thought was funny? Worst of all, imagine its a 70’s spaceship so all the crew are required to wear enormous beards.

I’m sure you agree that the above scenario sounds fucking awful. Now imagine that you also miss surfing, and that there’s only one place in the universe that you know of with oceans. Dark Star explores the resultant cabin fever. Make no mistake, these characters are all either slowly losing their minds, or recovering from the last time that they did. These are people as deprived of social interaction and, paradoxically, solitude as the space around them is deprived of oxygen. Depressing, eh? Moreover, these characters are flying around the universe destroying planets. Yeah, that’s right, they are essentially piloting a Death Star (coincidence?). The planet destroying comes from the sentient bombs, who don’t get on particularly well with the ship’s computer, following a fault in the circuit that controls the signal that tells the bomb to deploy. Obviously, bombs want to explode. It’s in their nature. So how exactly would you persuade the bomb not to blow up if it REALLY wanted to? Dark Star brilliantly addresses this problem with existentialism. This alone should be all the reason you need to watch this film.

So. Dark Star has the potential to be a slightly depressing film, content wise, but after I’d pushed the yellow button of destruction on the sky remote, I was smiling for a few reasons:

1: Earth can suck sometimes. it’s all taxes, and jobs, and fucking blah fucking blah.     But at least I’m not stuck on a spaceship in the above situation.
2: it’s always a good time when a dude gets chased by a mop wielding beachball.
3: Surfing straight into the sun would be an excellent way to die.

Dark Star is awesome, go and watch it.  5 spacebeards out of 5

‘GYO: Tokyo Fish Attack!’ review – because the best sharks are mutant sharks.

So I had this DVD for a while ( I know, DVDs are such old technology. I’m as embarrassed as you are) and I’ve never really thought it was the right time to watch a manga with a title as mental as that.  I was wrong.  EVERY time is the right time to watch a manga that makes your brain spin.  Specifically this one.

This film manages to cram in such a ludicrous amount of crazy that its hard to remember it all.  Here is an example of such crazy-ness – at one point one of the characters becomes a bloated green zombie and does a slow death spiral, while simultaneously burping and farting a sentient smell.  Then turns into a sort of robot spider thing and chases someone.

re-read that.  That’s not the sort of thing that you get in normal films.  Its the sort of thing that you get in awesome films. FACT.

I’m getting ahead of myself.  GYO: Tokyo Fish Attack is a film about what happens when fish and sharks grow legs and attack Japan.  Its sort of like revenge of the sushi.  The film concentrates on a few friends and their struggle to get back to Japan to see if their loved ones are alive.  Once they get there, it turns out that it’s worse than they thought.  A lot worse.  Giant mutant land octopus with robot legs worse.  Things escalate.

Japan has a thing about death, and the fish, accordingly, smell of dead people.  They also chase the shit out of people, move like cockroaches, and oh yeah, if one of them gets you you go zombie.  puffy fart zombie.  This is the worst kind of zombie – it would be like if you REALLY liked pop music and fast food.  (Hang on a second, I think I might have just worked out what’s going on.  The zombies are Americans, and the whole thing is about Pearl harbour and Globalisation.  Yeah, that made more sense when I was thinking it than when I was typing it.)

Anyway.  This film takes in: Mutants, genetic experimentation, robots powered with gas, biotechnology, SHARKS WITH MOTHERFUCKING LEGS, evil scientists, evolution, teen angst drama, conspiracies, the media, ghosts, and much more.  This is all in the space of 71 glorious, and confusing, minutes.

This film re-affirmed to me that manga is amazing.  It can take a genre like the disaster flick and then happily add bits in and play about and have a fun old time without worrying about  boring things like genre conventions, or what you think.  It is its own playground, and it wants you come and play in it.  (In an entirely non-sexual way.  Unless you get off on mutant shark zombie fart robots, in which case you’ll love it more than you thought you could).

You should watch GYO: Tokyo Fish Attack!  I give it at least 4 slowly decomposing fart zombies out of 5.

‘Drive’ review – A slow film about a man who goes quickly

On Saturday night i finally got around to watching the film Drive.  I’ve heard a lot of fuss about this film, comparing it to classic driving movies such as Vanishing point, the French Connection, and, perhaps to a lesser extent, Death Proof.  I love all of these films –  a good driving movie is perfect popcorn fodder, not to mention the fact that the genre is normally replete with excellent anti-heroes.  i mean Kowalski isn’t referred to as the last American hero for no reason.  He is a snarling, amphetamine taking, crazy driving, unwashed throwback to the crashing end of the 60’s.  His mission a statement on the political era it was based in.

I had heard that Drive beat a similar path.  I had also heard that the first 20 minutes of the film were virtually silent.  I decided that this factoid might be best kept to myself, as it would be nigh impossible to persuade my significant other to watch a driving movie with no talking.  So.  Minor deceit complete, excitement levels high, i slid the blue-ray into the PS3, and hit play.

Drive is not Vanishing Point.  Drive, is, in fact, pretty much the exact opposite of Vanishing Point.

This became clear when he went to run his first job in in the film.  The protagonist is a stunt driver who occasionally takes jobs as a getaway driver.  He has rules for his clients – i am yours for 5 minutes.  miss the window, unlucky.  Promising.

Then the job starts.  His car is shiny.  the thieves run out and get into the car, and the chase begins.  Excellent, i think, time for popcorn and handbrake turns and….oh.  wait.  This car chase appears to involve driving sensibly.  at some points, he just stops.

Now i appreciate that this is probably a more realistic version of the getaway, but it just sort of reminded me of the Eddie Izzard sketch comparing British cinema to American.  The popcorn only makes it halfway to your mouth before you throw it back in disappointment at the snooze fest you find yourself watching….oh…I….oh.

And this to me was the real problem with Drive.  I was bored.

I understand that the director may well have been trying to make a more intelligent film, but he’s skipped all the potential to make Drive more than a one trick pony.

Let me put it another way.  Drive is a slow film about a man who drives quickly.  How slow?  You may be familiar with shot construction rules, you may not be.  Try this – watch TV.  It doesn’t really matter what you are watching, just get some on.  OK.  Now count the duration of the shots.  Normally you’ll find something around 2 seconds per shot. There is movement in longer shots, to help keep the momentum that you get from sticking together a series of short shots.  Now, while watching Drive, it occurred to me that it seemed visually slower than usual, so i decided to time the next shot.   This happened towards the end of the film, but is a fairly good indicator of how bored i was at that stage.  How long was the random shot i decided to time?  22 seconds.  i’ll say that again – 22 long, dull seconds.  it was like the cinematographer had specifically set out to give people the time to REALLY watch the amazing shot he had constructed.


Another thing that bothered me was that the report of minimal dialogue for the first 20 minutes was inaccurate.  There was, in fact, dialogue.  it just wasn’t particularly interesting or engaging dialogue.  I began to think that rather than being a film about a driver, it was a film about a man with a crippling social condition that precluded him from making basic conversation. Ever.  When he got a love interest,  I found that I did not particularly care about it,  other than hoping beyond hope that it might lead to a car chase.  Preferably with someone strapped to the bonnet of the car (thanks Death Proof)

No dice.  No car chase.  in fact, driving takes a bit of a backseat (hur hur) while he goes off stamping on peoples faces until their heads pop, and having a hammer which he holds with a REALLY SHAKY hand to show us all how unhinged he is, and other things that i didn’t really care about.

I think the point had to be that actually, as a driver, the majority of the protagonists time its about keeping control and composure, until he attempts a stunt, or a sudden visceral accident shatters the illusion of control that he maintains.  The brief moments of extreme violence echo this approach to portraying the loss of control he feels.

So.  the violence is like a car crash.  Driving is largely sedate, and this guy with a scorpion on his back is flirting very badly with some woman and her ex.  what would really round this off?  oh, i know,  how about some really awful 80’s sounding music.  Actually, scratch that, we’ve spent all of our money on this cinematographer who wants the world to see his long drawn out shots of the sun, is there any way we could get away with just, you know, buying 3 songs and then playing them over and over again?

Seriously.  i haven’t been this annoyed with the music from a film since i watched midnight cowboy (argh buy another song). i understand that you want a theme for your film, but sometimes variety is good too.  Especially if the rest of your film is, to put it gently, a bit dull.

So, to sum up.  i didn’t particularly like this film.  True, it was nicely shot, and true, it can be nice to have an alternative to all the explosions you get with mainstream cinema, but there are just too many negatives to enjoy it.

I will not watch drive again, and i don’t even care about it enough to google the name of the main character.  Sufficient to say, it wasn’t Kowalski.

Oh yes, and just to prove there’s no gender bias here, my girlfriend hated it too. A lot.

Drive – 2.5 car crashes out of 5