Film Reviews by NP

An initially slow-moving, talky film, this is nevertheless effective. Director and co-writer Vikram Jayakumar treats us to shadowy figures and suggestions of horror rather than plentiful effects or jump-scares; good performances and an under-used location and theme add to the whole.

There’s a genuinely surprising ending which is sign-posted at the very start (I didn’t guess the outcome!), a really nice sense of mood enhanced by good use of the Indian location. Also, I can’t pretend Vanessa Curry (as Amy) isn’t easy on the eye as well as playing a fairly convincing role here. My score is 8 out of 10.

This independent film betrays its low budget in the first few moments. Not with the cinematography, which is excellent, or the soundtrack, which is terrifically creepy, but with the flat acting from many of the cast. Asking many of them to assume American accents (for overseas sales, presumably) is a little too much. While not entirely unconvincing, the performances struggle occasionally.

Apart from that, I really enjoyed this, although the story is often too slow for its own good. Set in two timelines, we have some attempts at authentic 1612 ways of speaking. While this is commendable, the dialogue can be a little clumsy.

The beautiful locations, and Richard John Taylor’s arty direction, lift a film that concentrates on being a mood piece rather than a series of scares – while we do get occasionally shocking moments, they are few and far between; there is also a good, and commendably restrained, pay-off at the end. My score is 6 out of 10.

This is an excellent Mexican horror film starring ‘Saw’s Tobin Bell as Vasilio Canetti, a character shrouded in mystery. It could be described as a police procedural with elements of The Exorcist/The Omen thrown in for good measure. Directed with a real flair by Emilio Portes (who also co-writes), it looks good throughout. Special effects are used restrainedly and – with the exception of an animated statue, which is a good idea let down a little by its execution – are very effective.

There is a good cast of unorthodox heroes, cinematic locations and from the outset, a shockingly brutal line in creepy baby horror. The child at the centre of it all isn’t required to do a lot (probably just as well given his age), but what he does, he does very convincingly. In fact, there is very good acting across the board.

If I have any issue with this, it is that it is a little too long. Fifteen minutes could have been successfully trimmed, especially toward the end, which tends to drag. Recommended nevertheless. 8 out of 10.

This is directed by Grant McPhee, whose earlier ‘Night Kaleidoscope’ made such a virtue out of its very low budget. Although wildly different in mood and atmosphere, McPhee works his magic just as effectively for this story.

The acting – for much of the time a two-hander – is excellent. Sorcha Groundsell and Victoria Liddelle are wonderful as Judith and Roberta respectively. The supporting cast is equally fine. So good is this, it didn’t dawn on me until writing this review that there isn’t a single male character.

Like ‘Night Kaleidoscope’, this film stretches the boundaries of ‘horror’ as we know it; in a recent interview McPhee has said how he fails to see the point of emulating the style of much bigger budgeted productions and instead prefers to extol the virtues of more modest resources – and he does this admirably. His films possess an intimate, claustrophobic often trippy sense of unease, even in a sprawling, beautiful location such as this.

The much discussed Maddy is an interesting character, deliberately thinly sketched and therefore a mystery with dark undertones. To discuss this more would ruin the build up of what is a pretty slim, but compelling, storyline.

I thoroughly enjoyed this vaguely Brontë -ish tale of melancholy and longing and eagerly await McPhee’s next project – surely one of the most interesting and innovative directors of recent years. 8 out of 10.

Based on the Edgar Wallace book, ‘Dark Eyes of London’ features the mighty Bela Lugosi, incongruously surrounded by very British docklands, slums, murky water, and a vast home for the blind.

Horror is subjective: what frightens one person may bore another. For some reason, this film fills me with dread. The atmosphere is one of cruelty, brutality and the most vulnerable in society are subject to these atrocities. The seediness of their surroundings, the extravagance of Bela’s performance – every murky thing about this picture gets to me in a way far more polished efforts somehow do not. And it’s not even a pure horror – more a thriller caper, with grotesque elements.

Bela plays a dual role – one, bewigged, wearing black glasses and softly (and very convincingly) dubbed by another (English) actor as blind Dearborn, head of a converted warehouse that is now a home for the blind. He also plays Dr Orloff, who commits a series of murders for insurance purposes. Surrounded by more mannered, less memorable performers, Bela ‘does his thing’: some would call it ham, others might enjoy his theatrical playing. I’m definitely in the latter camp – once again, his heightened acting compared to the genteel under-playing of his co-stars is very effective. His portrayal of blind Dearborn is brilliant, his whole deportment is changed, his movements slow and uncertain. This become instantly obvious when Dearborn reveals his true identity, the contrast in his performance is effortless and impressive.

The blind are portrayed as tragic, shunned, kindly characters. None more so than monstrous Jake, who is also given the full horror make-up. Played by Wilfred Walter, he shares with Bela an exaggerated menace. The services held in Dearborn Home are eerie sights, with the residents sitting in cheerless silence as a kindly, aged voice escapes Bela – which in itself is a creepy oddity.

The character of resident Dumb Lou (Arthur E. Owen) suffers the brunt of Orloff’s cruelty. Lou is blind and unable to speak. When he discovers too much about Dearborn’s duplicity, Orloff robs him of his hearing too. Using (now) archaic Frankenstein-esque electronic equipment, the helpless little man is strapped down, taunted by Orloff, and has his hearing burnt out, the only reaction being the agitated twitching of his hands. The act is largely unseen, but we hear a distant scream. When we return to the scene, Lou’s hands have stopped twitching. It is a horrible moment, as is Orloff’s later gleeful drowning of the poor wretch.

A smoky morgue, a tearful heroine, mouldy walls, Lugosi’s stare, drownings … Director Walter Summers ensures every setting is as downbeat as possible, adding layer upon layer of leaden atmosphere upon an already sombre palette. And I think that’s what grabs me about this – the sparingly used horrific incidents are merely icing on this absorbingly bleak cake. An absorbingly bleak cake? I told you this film had an effect on me (the light comic ending almost seems to have been spliced in from another picture).

Considering it was the British ban on horror films that helped put the kibosh on many such films stateside a few years before, this is an audaciously (hypocritically?) gruesome thing. The briefly glimpsed images of corpses pulled out of the Thames are surprisingly graphic. Orloff’s fate, at the hands of a furious, betrayed Jake is disappointingly brief, and features Bela up to his neck in gulping muddy sludge, bringing to an end an exceptional film. Network Restoration has done an extraordinary job in cleaning this up. Now we can see the detail of the wonderful sets, and every show of emotion on display, without robbing ‘Dark Eyes of London’ of its rich, shadowy ambience.

This independent film, one of a number concentrating on Borley as a location for ghostly business, is decently acted, nicely filmed and technically impressive. Sadly, it is also very dull. When the tiniest glimpses or suggestions of a Nun-like spirit are consistently followed by ‘going back to the beginning again’, or waking from a dream (again), for most of the 90-minute runtime, it’s clear no major scares are going to manifest, which is frustrating.

I like slow burners; I like films that convey a certain sense of atmosphere – and this one does, as well as a nice feel for the 1944 setting, although there will be discrepancies if you really want to find them. Those discrepancies would be so much easier to overlook if there was a sense of excitement or pacing to distract. Sadly, there is not. Uneventful. My score is 4 out of 10.

As many reviewers love to point out, this is a fairly low budget venture. Anyone expecting a multi-million dollar spectacle and effects might be disappointed. With that out of the way, this is a very enjoyable story told with urgency, convincing acting and occasional bouts of impressive gore.

As a historical piece, director and co-writer Ted Geoghegan’s presents – to me at least – a pretty convincing recreation of life in the 1812 war. Okwaho, a young Mohawk warrior (Kaniehtiio Horn) and her two lovers battle American soldiers. The ongoing fight is given an extra frisson with the suggestion of something spiritual guiding her hand.

I had a great time with this. The story contains enough twists and shocks to retain interest most of the time, and the characters – although fairly thinly drawn – are all well played (Ezra Buzzington is particularly good as Hezekiah Holt).

Perhaps surprisingly, the American soldiers are not portrayed particularly heroically – far from it, in fact. The sporadic flashes of something unnatural only serve to spice things up further. My score is 7 out of 10.

I was put in mind when watching this, of a perverse cross between the ‘Saw’ films and particularly camp episodes of 60’s TV Series ‘The Avengers’ or even ‘Batman.’ It’s a mix that only works due to the acting, particularly Peter Jeffrey, Virginia North and Vincent Price, who manage to balance their performances between theatrical horror and knowing humour.

Phibes is an exceptional creation, but I’m not sure he’s given entirely free reign here. In many ways, this foreshadows Price’s character in the exemplary ‘Theatre of Blood’. Similarities abound – a wronged lunatic who manages to hoodwink the law, abetted by a fearsomely loyal younger relative. Whereas ‘Blood’ is a glorious, sprawling mix of continual gruesome death and gallows humour, the ‘Phibes’ story doesn’t quite command the same mood. My score is 6 out of 10.

In many ways, this is a fairly standard horror film, filled with familiar jump-scare moments and apparitions flecked with the kind of restrained CGI you will have seen before. In other ways though, it’s more than that. The heroine Katie, very well played by Chelsea Jurkiewicz and her friend Brian (Austin Collazo) are a convincing duo – the former, trying to escape her questionable past, the latter quite simply a nice guy.

The sense of unease is a slowly forming thing; Kelly Schwarze’s story is in no hurry to hit us over the head with shock after shock, but the moments are there, and very effective too, for what it a fairly low budget venture.

The standout element for me though, is the setting. I love horror films that present us with a world within a world, normal on the outside but with hidden terrors on the inside. This works really well here, with the contrast between the reality of the dusty, clammy small town and the unknown horror behind closed doors both effectively conveyed. Did the ending make sense? Not entirely sure, but it was an enjoyable journey reaching that point. My score is 8 out of 10.

Ah, the Seventies. Made at the dawn of the decade where peace and love made way for glam rock, ‘Permissive’ is a (presumably) deliberately turgid affair. Featuring the character of Suzy (Maggie Stride), the story charts her rapid transition from a shy, duffel-coat-sporting girl to a sexually wiling rock chick every bit as hardened and dowdy as those around her.

Filmed in that very bleak Seventies graininess, often in rainy wintery locations, Lindsay Shonteff’s occasionally inspired direction features real-life prog-rock band Forever More in a very unglamorous lifestyle that nonetheless inspires hordes of groupies to travel with them. The manager is a supercilious brutish bully; the rest of the band is clearly played by non-actors whose dialogue is frequently blotted out by the soundtrack. It all seems a decision to portray just about everyone as bored and horny and the lifestyle as passionless but relentless. Only Pogo (Robert Daubigney) seems to provide Suzy with any attention, and his fate determines a darker path for her story and that of her friend Fiona (Gay Singleton).

Forever More is more club band than stadium rockers and the groupies are often a bitchy, possessive lot, the lazily passed around joints doing little to mellow their cattiness. Travelling on the open road certainly has its appeal, but none of them seems to be enjoying it very much. Peace and love seem in short supply here, but ‘Permissive’ is nevertheless a very interesting snapshot into a lifestyle belying the perceived accompanying glamour. My score is 7 out of 10.

I would say the only similarity this has with the ‘Wrong Turn’ film series up to this point, is that a group of people get attacked in the woods. We have no cannibalism and little in the way of gore here – in the fact the aggressors seem to be just as reasonable, if not more so, than the ‘heroes’ on occasion.

We have a more diverse range of protagonists with this update, and they are referred to as ‘hipsters’ at one point. Although collectively annoying, they are much more appealing than many of the horny/stoned teen ‘cattle’ from previous films, or indeed many from this genre.

The story is an interesting one, and is much more contained than any of the preceding films: I can’t see there being a linear sequel to this (although of course, I may be wrong). Although the characters are more intelligent, and their situation is more than just slasher territory, I can see why some feel short-changed due to the lack of horror or anything much in the way of scares. The whole thing is a series of events rather than a tale that grows in pace or intensity, more of a series of chapters in a book. It’s good stuff, exceptionally well played and very good at wrong-footing the audience. Even the end credits sequence contains another twist.

My only issue would be – why call it ‘Wrong Turn’ when it is so different and more folk horror than the preceding films? I suspect the obfuscation comes down to making money, which does the resulting production an injustice. My score is 7 out of 10.

I honestly don’t know what I’ve just watched. Recommended for José Ramón Larraz completists only – anyone expecting the slow-burning exploitation/eroticism of his 1974 film ‘Vampyres’ will doubtless be disappointed with this.

A mildly sexual relationship develops between two young women, Triana and Lorna – and Triana is ‘plagued’ by dreams of a naked man on horseback. When he appears in actuality … not a lot happens, all in a washed-out series of images (artistic choice or a sign of its age? Not sure). Shame, because it’s an intriguing premise.

Possibly this film is notorious mostly for the image of a naked woman inside a wooden horse, which is being approached by another horse. It’s enough to make the eyes water - but not much else remains in the memory. If you’re persevering in the hope of a good ending … I wouldn’t bother. My score is 3 out of 10.

If you’ve not seen the original ‘Beyond the Door’, don’t fret. This film has no connection with it, other than the casting of young David Colin Jr (in his only two film roles), here as Marco. Initially entitled ‘Shock’, outside the film’s native Italy, this was re-titled to cash-in on the notoriety of that earlier production; it might have been better to let ‘Beyond the Door 2’ to speak for itself.

This Omen-esque psychological horror dishes out the familiar ‘is she the victim of something supernatural or is it all in her mind?’ plot. That said, Mario Bava’s last film plays with the idea more effectively than most. It also features a terrific central performance from Daria Nicolodi as Dora, who descends from rational to irrational – and still the horrors continue for the poor lass.

A moderately budgeted venture, there are also some very effective practical special effects (the first one only moments in, involving an inexplicably moving white sheet). Equally, central brat Marco is entirely believable as the possible villain – he certainly seems capable of the various unpleasant things that occur, whether guilty or not (I’m not telling).

Some scenes were directed by Bava’s son, an uncredited Lamberto, but the results are even and the spiralling horrors flow very effectively. The Goblin-like score. By I Libra, helps with the sense of disorientation. My score is 7 out of 10.

At the centre of this powerful period found-footage horror is the horrifically tragic story of young Kathleen O’Brien. We first see her alone and imprisoned in the filth of containment, chained deep within an asylum, a pregnant virgin in the throes of possession. Her story is never a happy one, and her throwaway, inevitable fate is that much more effective because it occurs amidst so much aggression from her so-called carers, and there is so much else going on.

Set in the 1960s, Father Riley and Father Thornton’s grisly mission is recorded in what emerges as the found footage we, the audience, are watching. It could be seen as a meshing of ‘The Exorcist’ and ‘The Blair Witch Project’ as it contains a few similarities to both; it also contains cruelty and a dank atmosphere unique to this production.

Everyone concerned should be congratulated on this, especially director and co-writer Aislinn Clarke, who is careful to expose the failings in the system on display here, and those who follow it with a lack of discretion or sympathy, and not fall back on an easier, obvious blasphemy. The villains here are distinctly human, and it is they who allow further, only glimpsed-at, evils to emerge.

Visually, the film is gloomy and claustrophobic with attention given to the grain and flares of film from the time period. Although the possibility of wielding a camera from those times as it is wielded here, is slim, such is the overpowering atmosphere that it doesn’t really matter. Splendidly grim. My score is 8 out of 10.

There are quite a few horror films of this type around – very low budget and low on gore. As independent films go, this is technically very good with some fairly convincing acting.

It isn’t, however, very frightening. Dolls can often be unnerving. Mandy the doll is an unsettling looking prop, and efforts are made to give her a degree of apparent mobility; but she/it isn’t quite enough to fill 90 minutes of film.

I’m glad films like this are made, and it’s unfortunate that anything with a less-than-stellar budget gets slated for that very reason. What are you supposed to do if you have an idea for a film? Realise that you don’t have access to millions of pounds, so you don’t bother pursuing it? Director Jamie Weston and the cast and crew (including briefly, Louisa Warren who has directed a number of similar projects) should be commended for producing something they are passionate about. My score is 6 out of 10.