Film Reviews by NP

Of course, they do let him in. But who exactly is the danger here?

This taut horror film begins shakily, with the male characters initially played surprisingly flat. Tristan is a git, Calvin is quietly sarcastic, Mandy is a slapper who just wants to be loved – so it’s a good job we have the sensible Paige, who is a level headed nurse.

The arrival of Sam Hazeldine as Shawn causes other players to raise their game, it seems to me, with a real sense of dynamic between the characters – and kudos to actor Rhys Meredith for the maggot scene (you’ll know when you see it).

From here, the story becomes more and more intriguing. What appeared to be some awkwardly shoe-horned back-story in the form of dialogue becomes integral to the understanding of some pretty neat twists and turns. Added to this, a nice bit of gore spices things up (sometimes the shock effects overtake logic. Would an art student, seeing a mangled corpse in a tree calmly sit down and draw it? Hard to believe, but it provides a good jump scare).

‘Don’t Let Him In’ takes a while to get going, but get going it does, and turns out to be great fun. My score is 7 out of 10.

Lucy (Cristin Milioti) has a new husband Wade (Michael Rady), a new baby and a new house. Luckily, these characters are all appealing and not portrayed as overtly schmaltzy or horny, as often newlyweds are in films like this. These main players are supported by an equally inoffensive bunch – Lucy’s distant sister, her ex-boyfriend therapist (to whom she continually confides) and Christian babysitter. For once, the practice of religion is not used as a mask for repressed villainy, which is a nice change. Equally, the psychic drafted in to explain Lucy’s ghostly apparitions is little more than an entirely useless cameo. It is interesting that the male character seems often to be a focus for spooky malignancy, instead of the female.

Against these refreshing developments is an over-cluttering of ideas, many of which emerge only partially developed. They serve not to spice up a plot that has been attempted before, but to confuse it. The threat once revealed, isn’t terribly menacing, his crimes only thinly sketched. That the characters often speak in hushed tones that are only vaguely audible doesn’t help matters.

So this is ultimately a mixed bag with perhaps too much going on. The perennial threat that ‘the abused becomes the abuser’, Lucy’s dread, is nicely ominous, but a large twist towards the end changes things somewhat. I’ll say no more than that! It is up to the individual as to whether this big reveal works – personally, I liked it. My score is 6 out of 10.

This is adapted from Henry James’ 1898 novella ‘Turn of the Screw’. Understandably, Peter Waddington’s screenplay fleshes out the story, but only in a way that confuses some events. It’s tempting to imagine that Director Donato Rotunno attempted to spice up the tale with some steamy scenes that seem to be drafted in from another production.

Miss Grose (Tara Fitzgerald) seems initially to be cold and dictatorial; the two children - after their fearsome build-up - appear to be well behaved and reasonable. New nanny Anna Veigh (Leelee Sobieski) comes across as ‘sincere and well meaning’, wholesome and a little scatter-brained. All these things gradually – very gradually – change (and possibly back again), as sightings of a mysterious man on the premises, and stories of what happened to the previous nanny, increase.

The ending comes with another unclear occurrence, which on top of all the others sprinkled throughout, doesn’t quite satisfy. Anna’s mental journey (bookended by her two respective employers telling her ‘things aren’t quite working out’) is never made clear, and possibly the inconsistent scenes throughout could be a result of her addled mind. Against that, however, is the fact that she was not present during some of the scenes – Miss Grose’s out of place intimacy with herself, for example. As a result, the film comes across as choppy in its content. It’s a fine balance: sometimes such an approach could convey a sense of frightening delirium but here, when events are otherwise so straight-laced, it doesn’t quite work out. Equally, the underlying premise that ‘all males are evil’ isn’t strictly necessary.

The performances are very good, especially Fitzgerald. As the two dubious youngsters, Miles and Flora, Christian Olsen and Gabrielle Adam are very effective. My score is 5 out of 10.

Young Tom Ryan has gone missing. As expected, the effects on his father Jake (Greg Wise) and brother Matt (Harry Treadaway) have taken their toll. Jake has taken to drink, and Matthew appears to be suffering from mental instability, hearing Tom’s voice on recordings when they aren’t there and falling prey to wild paranoia. It doesn’t help that the estate on which they live is not particularly sensitive to the situation: the local kids use Matt’s fragile mental state as an excuse – not that they feel they need an excuse – to bully him.

Director and co-writer Johnny Kevorkian has crafted a story that might have been told before, but in a way that never allows the attention to wander. The atmosphere of the run-down area, and the effect it has on the people living there, is powerfully conveyed. The mystery of Matt’s absent mother is only hinted at, and used to fuel the lad’s adverse feelings about his father; equally, Jake tries hard not to blame his son’s negligence for young Tom’s disappearance.

The character of Amy is an adolescent boy’s dream – funny, pretty and touchingly loyal to an outcast. Ros Leeming plays her as troubled and appealing – almost too good to be true. Her story, although signposted fairly early on, turns out to be the most tragically powerful of all.

That the cause of the mystery is entirely physical is almost disappointing. With a growing unease because of a keenly felt spiritual possibility, events seemed to be looming toward a more ethereal villainy. However, maintaining situations within rationality keeps things real, and doesn’t shy away from the mental toll the situation has taken on the sensitive Matt.

This is an excellent film and highly recommended. My score is 8 out of 10.

I’m really at a crossroads with this, the latest film from Andrew Jones’ prolific North Bank Entertainment company. This sequel to 2018’s ‘Legend of Halloween Jack’, this production is a similar mix of the good and the not-so-good. The problem is, after so many projects, the not-so-good elements should be better than what we have here.

It is a step up from the previous instalment, however; Halloween Jack’s appearance has had a few tweaks, and his glowing scarecrow appearance looks pretty good in an eccentric kind of way. Any sound issues prevalent in previous films are absent, and the acting is all pretty decent.

However, we do get the usual mix of accents, which makes it difficult to pinpoint where the gruesome action is supposed to be located. Cockneys, RP, Welsh and American accents all rub shoulders together. The Americans in particular sound unconvincing to this UK ear, and must give genuine United Statesians toothache. The location is listed as Dunwich in Massechusetts, but it might as well be Suffolk.

Halloween Jack’s motive seems to be to kill as many people as possible. The kills are spectacularly under-produced, with cap guns and a distinct lack of gore. I wondered if this film was supposed to be a family friendly horror, but the frequent profanities would indicate otherwise. There’s a massacre at a Halloween party, where a handful of people we’ve been made familiar with are knifed. The other partygoers respond by running around the living room and screaming, but make no attempt to leave the house. It is a masterpiece of understatement, and it gives the impression that no attempt has been made to create any tension at all.

After a brief chat to bearded weirdo Duke Tanner (Peter Cosgrove), Danielle (Tiffany Ceri) – whose previous most daring exploit was to defy her father and attend the afore-mentioned Halloween party – suddenly becomes what we are invited to imagine is a gun toting bass ass. Despite the prolific Ceri’s best efforts, it is a lukewarm transformation.

I like that North Bank Entertainment exists, and I am glad they have reached a level of success that allows them to make a growing number of UK/Welsh horror productions. But it frustrates me a little that they don’t progress artistically a little more. Their best film, in my view, remains their very early ‘Theatre of Fear (2014)’. My score is 6 out of 10.

Amicus were a film company who threatened to topple Hammer’s crown as the UK’s foremost horror specialists in the 1970s. They specialised in anthology films, and nothing proves their dominance in this field more than ‘Tales that Witness Madness’ – produced by World Film Services.

Not that ‘Tales…’ is particularly bad. It features a terrific cast, and is directed by the prolific and acclaimed Freddie Francis. The budget, while clearly not spectacular, is adequate to convey the stories being told.

For me, it is a combination of lacklustre stories and lack of pace that lets things down a little here. In order:

Dr. Tremayne (Donald Pleasence) explains to his colleague Dr. Nicholas (a dubbed Jack Hawkins in his last filmic appearance) how he has cured four special cases.

The first involves young Paul (a fine performance from Russell Lewis) who imagines he has a pet tiger to sort out his ever bickering parents.

The second sees antique dealer Tim (Peter McEnery) inheriting a penny farthing bicycle that transports him back in time.

Thirdly, the mighty Joan Collins plays Bella, who grows increasingly jealous of her husband Brian’s (Michael Jayston) obsession with a tree.

Finally, Auriol (Kim Novak) embarks on a relationship with dashing Kimo (Michael Petrovitch, who is far more invested here than he was in the previous year’s quietly wonderful ‘Neither The Sea Nor The Sand’). However, he seems more interested in her daughter Ginny (Mary Tamm) for his own grisly reasons …

The stories are quite happy to live within their ludicrous premises, but somehow they – and the equally preposterous umbrella theme – miss the mark and it is difficult to pinpoint why. Perhaps it is because all stories feature events that cross the line between what is horrific and what is fantastic, with no variation from that. There is a feint psychedelia to the denouement that adds to the proceedings’ sense of unreality – and there is nothing wrong with that. It just doesn’t quite come off with the situations taking place in the identifiable drudgery of the real world. My score is 6 out of 10.

After tackling such horror luminaries as Dracula, Frankenstein, the Werewolf and the Mummy, Hammer films turned their attentions to poor old disfigured Erik, the opera ghost.

Except in this version, he’s not a ghost, and much of his mystery has been explained by a back-story. Told in flashback, it tells of how the character, Professor Petrie as he is named here, was a down-on-his-luck composer mercilessly robbed by the true villain of the piece, Lord Ambrose D'Arcy (Michael Gough). Petrie’s deformity – much like his eventual death – is the result of pure bad luck.

This was not a huge success for Hammer back in 1962, at least in the UK, where – true to form – censors had insisted much of the gore be removed (it fared much better in the US, who got to see the unbutchered version). Unfairly, director Terence Fisher seemed to have been temporarily black-listed by Hammer as a result.

I really enjoyed this. Hammer tinker with the original story in much the same way they tinkered with the source of their earlier horror pictures – budgetary considerations causing them to rethink various locations and developments. Their condensed version of the tale works well, mostly. Where it falls down is perhaps in the pacing: the famous unmasking scene, together with the equally well-known ‘falling chandelier’ spectacle all take place in the last couple of minutes, after we viewers have sat through a fairly lengthy operatic performance. Although pivotal to the story, giving Petrie the chance to see his work performed at last, these scenes slow the scenes following his back-story considerably.

For a film that has been criticised for making its titular character too human, there are no reasons to be sympathetic to the Phantom in the first half. There is no love between him and Heather Sears’ endearing Christine, and he treats her very badly indeed. His love is reserved entirely for his music, for so long denied him. It is only when we learn this that Petrie becomes a truly tragic figure.

Also, the nasty deeds are mainly left to ‘the dwarf’, played by Ian Wilson. His murderous sprees are dismissed as little more than mischief by Petrie. After all, it was the dwarf that saved his life and allows him to live undetected in his underground lair. This is an interesting development, but it does threaten to make the Phantom seem a little redundant in his own film. Lom’s performance, hidden behind Hammer’s last-minute mask and his voice robot-ised by distortion, doesn’t get the chance to come to life until late on. Film legend Cary Grant expressed an interest in working for Hammer, and the role here was cautiously written with him in mind, which might make sense of the fact that most of the Phantom’s nefarious activities were given to another.

For Hammer, this is an expensive looking production. Everyone is on great form here – and there are some amusing cameos from a heavily made-up Michael Ripper and Miles Malleson – but the greatest performance belongs to Michael Gough. Never has he been fruitier and so lip-smackingly vile than as D’Arcy – and the fact that he gets no real send off, certainly no comeuppance for his nastiness, is one of this otherwise terrific film’s biggest flaws. My score is 8 out of 10.

You know in some films involving a curse such as the one featured here, and the airing of some ancient text sets free some sort of deadly creature from the dawn of time? ‘The Curse’, or ‘Foe’ as it is sometimes known, fills the vast majority of the running time with piecing together the text. As a fan of slow-burning films, even I found myself getting exasperated with the endless scenes of research and bickering in the pursuit of making sense of this alleged curse. Just as it seems hero Johann (Mark Gantt) is getting somewhere, the sequence turns out to be a dream, or troublesome Agent Mike Fox (Timothy Gibbs) pops in and tells Johann exactly what the audience already know.

The acting is very good, the locations are scenic and well used, but the story seems to deliberately avoid going anywhere. This is a shame - Antoni Solé’s plot is hardly there at all.

Fox’s involvement gives us reason to suspect he is pivotal character, and yet he is killed arbitrarily off camera, and a fairly important phone conversation between Johann and his wife Barbara (Nikol Kollars) occurs with us only hearing Johann’s dialogue – at first I thought these two occurrences were two clever red herrings of some kind, but no. Alongside many other moments, they just ‘happened’. Very inconclusive. It’s as if actors Kollars and Gibbs suddenly became unavailable for some reason and were unable to finish the film.

When the end of ’Foe’ came, it happened with no sense of closure or deliberation: the finale was just another scene that made no real sense. This is disappointing because so much seems to have been invested in this. My score is 4 out of 10.

George Johnny Johnson produces, directs and writes this 'inmates on the rampage' horror known as 'Psychotic' or 'Psychotic Asylum.' It's clearly a low budget project, but entered into with a certain enthusiasm and some effective moments.

As main character Dr. Helen Kingford, Jenna Verdicchio battles gamely with some awkward medical dialogue that tries to offer some explanation for the actions of deranged warders, specifically Thomas Reid (Steve Hope Wynne).

Initially driven to despair by the imminent closing of the asylum, Reid's mind is invaded by an unexplained demonic influence, which goes onto possess those around him. We know they are possessed, because their eyes go black, and they are occasionally given to answer to a distorted, disembodied voice. Apart from that, however, we know nothing about the nature of the threat. It simply controls its victims, giving them a childlike mentality.

There are a few decent twists here, especially the rather implausible one toward the end involving inmate Lara Visser (Kristina Dargelyte).

There are also a few disappointingly directed scenes of violence, lots of spitting, brief moments of gore, and a highly impressive location. I would say the building is probably the main reason to watch - its dilapidated corridors and dark spaces take your mind off deficiencies in the production which often occur in low budgets films such as this. My score is 5 out of 10.

The first thing that bites you about ‘Soulmate’ is the extraordinary scenery. Filmed in Wales, entirely on location I think, it looks breathtaking. Director Axelle Carolyn absolutely makes the most of it.

Audrey, played by the always wonderful Anna Walton, stays at a remote house in the middle of nowhere to piece together her broken spirit following the death of her husband and subsequent suicide attempt. Not only does the house appear to be frequented by a mysterious other, but she has to fend off sticky-beak neighbour Theresa (Tanya Myers) whilst confiding in her husband Dr Zellaby (Roger Corman’s former Frankenstein Monster Nick Brimble). This, alongside Douglas (Tom Wisdom) pretty much is the cast, all fine performers.

Cautiously for a work of horror fiction, the BBFC requested compulsory cuts to the pre-credits suicide sequence, as they felt that the risk of imitation was too high to be acceptable. Luckily they didn’t feel that anyone would copy the subsequent traumatic incidents involving Audrey, or we wouldn’t have this splendid film at all - but at least the public would have been spared any inclination to go out and haunt someone.

Ultimately, the story proves to be slight, and the ending might have been a little more conclusive. After investing in these characters for so long, it seems a shame most of their journeys were left so open-ended.

However, it is very difficult not to enjoy this richly layered, deeply atmospheric production. I wouldn’t suggest it is necessarily a ‘gentle’ horror, but it what it (deliberately) lacks in spectacle and gore, it makes up for in its immersive mood. My score is 7 out of 10.

An occasionally wooden Stephen Rea plays studious Dr. Hill, whose daughter Lara (Eleanor Tomlinson) glares at people from beneath thickly made-up eyelids: she listens to Joy Division and attempts, in quiet moments, to self-harm (Lara’s mum committed suicide in post natal depression). During one such time, she witnesses a car crash, in which another young girl is ejected and left. That her name is Carmilla should get alarm bells ringing. Carmilla (Julia Petruchia) is bewitching and, as you might imagine, somewhat sinister.

‘Angel of Darkness’, or ‘Styria’ as it is sometimes known, could be said to be a retelling of the Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu vampire story that pre-dates even ’Dracula’, but that’s not to say interesting new things aren’t done with the theme of vampire seduction.

Directors Mauricio Chernovetzky and Mark Devendorf really lay on the atmosphere here, from the beautifully decaying Hungarian castle in which Hill is hurriedly conducting his experiments in the short amount of time available to him, to the wonderfully gothic surrounding gardens and woodlands. This is a modestly budgeted film – in fact I understand it was completed thanks to a Crowdfunding campaign – but it looks superb throughout, with the effective scares taking second place to rich ambience.

The two girls tread that line between mischievous and dangerous, but so skillfully are they played, they never come across as bratty which would be the case in less talented hands.

Sluggish in places it may be, but this is a very enjoyable excursion into gothic horror and provides a very worthwhile and enjoyable new take on the Carmilla story. My score is 8 out of 10.

Sophie and Amy (Judy LeGal and Theresa Joy) are two young aid workers back-packing across the beautiful Caucasus Mountains. The characters are well written and played, and above all likeable. Flighty Amy, who could be grating, doesn’t take herself seriously. Even lines like “I’m used to eyes undressing me 24/7” are delivered more with humour than with the kind of casual arrogance sometimes found with extroverts in this type of film. The two girls, seem to be having such a good time in each others’ company that you really don’t wish them harm. And, knowing the kind of film this is from the title and publicity, you just know that is exactly what they are going to get.

The awkwardness about being a stranger in a foreign land is well conveyed here. However friendly – or not – the locals may be, there is the underlying feeling that the two girls don’t fit in here. As a result, the character of UN Major Palmer (a terrific Peter James Haworth) has a reassuring familiarity about him … you’d think. Equally, local Lasha (Giorgi Kipshidze , also excellent) seems to be helpful company when things start to get scary.

Amy disappears. She is kidnapped by a madman known as The Breeder, who is kidnapping girls and brainwashing them, making a blank canvas of them, so he can ‘recreate’ them in his image. The scenes in which this takes place are characteristically perverse – but it is what you don’t see that makes Amy’s ordeal so horrifying.

Then it all gets a bit weird. People who we think are friends turn out not be – or do they? Characters who were given reason to fear are revealed to virtuous after all – or are they? In a frenzied finale in which people appear to die, only to pop up and save the day before they are seemingly dispatched once more, events threaten to get ludicrous.

Luckily, the action is just about kept in check – although it bulges at the seams of reality – by director and writer Till Hastreiter, and what results is often a deliberately disorientating film (echoing the ordeal of The Breeder’s victims) that I had a good time watching. And, despite the suffering and horror on display – or maybe because of it – that’s a good thing, isn’t it? My score is 7 out of 10.

This film is what might happen if 'Eden Lake (2008)' collided with 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)'. It is also very convincingly played and the cinematography, directed by Tony Giglio, is nicely claustrophobic.

Yes, it follows a lot of clichés you might have seen in similar films, but it presents them alongside a real feeling of jeopardy, and the audience is rewarded with a particularly demented central plan from the protagonists, and a nasty way of going about it. The gore is enough to make you squirm, but isn't excessive, allowing the sense of danger to make its mark unencumbered by relentless shock effects.

You may have gathered that I really enjoyed this. Other opinions are out there, of course. But for me, the heroic twosome are easy to relate to, despite their matinee toned good looks, and many of their spirited endeavours to escape are thwarted, encouraging us to remain solely on their side.

The idea that the inbred family is both crushed by tragedies, gruesomely displayed in pickling jars, and have used religion to justify their extremes is an interesting one. Religion has been used many times to assert the atrocities committed by the weak-minded, it could be said to be an easy kicking target. It's important to disassociate abhorrent abuse of religion with religion itself, and the dispatch of the character of Deacon by stabbing him with a crucifix is a good deal less blasphemous than the antics of the possessed Regan in 'The Exorcist (1973)'; but it is still an easy 'stab' at irony - both as a symbol of the religion practiced by the family used against them, and the first weapon our heroes have to hand.

Josh Randall is great as Mike, stabbed, branded and battered but still capable of impressive hero skills - as is Brianna Brown as Sheryl, whose journey is a potentially harrowing one. Nick Searcy and Beth Broderick are excellent as Clyde and Ida, completely rational and reasonable about their crazed plan - at least initially.

This hits the ground running, and the intensity only gathers pace from there. My score is 8 out of 10.

This is another fine release from High Fliers Films, a company I only discovered recently with the release of ‘The Cleansing (2019)’. I am delighted to find there are many films under their banner, and a lot of them are horror stories.

This is another modestly budgeted chiller, based on the real life Bender family of the 1870s, the first known serial killer family. Director and co-writer John Alexander orchestrates events in a restrained manner, never in a hurry to tell their story. If you are prepared for a mainly unspectacular, intelligent slow-burner, this will not disappoint. That isn’t to say there aren’t moments that won’t make you jump – the fate of one of the local doctor’s patients, and the doctor’s own eventual fate, for example, are handled deftly. Shocking moments in an overall ambience of distinctly calmed oddness.

There’s an unspecific but unsettling nature about the directorial choices here too – lingering just too long on a smile, highlighting the rugged features of a character contrasted against a wide blue sky, introducing the grocery store as a lone silhouette, the omnipresent but barely perceptible buzzing of flies – that further communicates the sense of dislocation and unease as further disappearances occur in Fairweather.

Just don’t eat the pork.

I get the impression 'The Portal' would like to be a bit like 'The Ring (1999)' - and I can't knock that aspiration. The Japanese original and American remake are master-classes of weird horror. 'The Portal', alas, isn't directed with anything like the skill or comparative restraint. Also, where I am a big fan of low-budget horror, the lack of finance seems to inhibit the ambitions of those behind the camera almost as much as the comparative lack of sophistication.

There's an interesting Lovecraftian central idea in the titular Portal, and some terrific gore involving exploding heads. But Serge Rodnunsky's writing is frequently undermined by his directorial choices. He appears to desperately want to keep things from getting boring by constantly introducing new characters in various shades of jeopardy, but succeeds only in confusing and disorientating the audience. As a result, the film comes across as badly edited, disjointed and frequently incomprehensible.

There are good ideas here, and that's the frustration. Set-pieces which could have been visually arresting are destroyed by constant fast cuts and close-ups. I imagine this comes to down to inexperience, and the desire to make every second matter.

As for the actors - Michael Madsen (Azirra) growls and poses his way through his dialogue, Stacy Keach (Hafler) does what he can with his lines, and Jenna Zablocki (April) is convincingly terrified in a variety of ways.

Once you are aware of the limitations on offer, you can enjoy 'The Portal' for what it is. My score is 5 out of 10.