Film Reviews by NP

Directed by the mighty Norman J. Warren, this cut-price sci-fi horror piece involves two young women: softie Jessica (Glory Annen) and her sulky, male-hating lover Josephine (Sally Faulkner). In the midst of a row, they stumble across a man who calls himself Anderson (Barry Stokes). I’m hoping the awkward atmosphere is to blame for the fact that neither of the girls immediately notice that the man is clearly not normal – if I didn’t believe that, then they would appear very foolish, especially Jess, who makes polite conversation while Anders takes every opportunity to display his oddness. Perhaps Jo is blinkered by her own dark secrets …

The music is provided by Ivor Slaney, and has a definite BBC Radiophonic Workshop aura about it, bringing back warm memories of teatime children’s sci-fi series from many years ago. In fact, elements of this could almost be a movie-length edition of ‘The Tomorrow People’, ‘Sky’ or suchlike - apart from attention paid to the girls’ relationship and some of the more overt violence, or the bizarre ritual of dressing Anders up in drag, of course. Strangely, the sight of the bewildered gentleman in dress and make-up stimulates a strange fascination in Jo. It’s all a bit odd, but of course such is Mr J Warren’s effective way of ensuring audience attention doesn’t wander.

The film was shot in ten days, with the cast and crew living in the mansion used as the location. It looks similar to the house in the previous year’s ‘Satan’s Slave/Evil Heritage’, also directed by Warren. Much of the script was written during shooting. The resulting film, I found greatly enjoyable, with some terrifically enthusiastic performances and a wonderfully gory ending, where Anders’ true nature is revealed. My score is 7 out of 10.

Mario Bava is undoubtedly a huge and influential name in cinema. He has directed some inspirational movies over the years and even now, almost forty years after his death, his legacy is held in high esteem. So I realise I’m walking on thin ice by admitting that, on the whole, the genius of his work completely passes me by. I haven’t seen all his films, but of those I have seen, only 1963’s ‘Black Sabbath’ has really bowled me over. Other projects, like this one I’m sorry to say, make little to no impression.

Known very much for the visual flair he injects into his low budget films, he ensures many scenes here are generously lit. That is to say, there is much beautiful imagery on account of the many colours that spring from various areas and shadows. Lit up like a Christmas tree, you might say. And that is one of the issues I have with his direction – gaudy and striking these scenes may be, but any sense of realism comes a very distant second. Characters are swathed in psychedelic mists, every contour on their faces illuminated like traffic lights. This approach reduces everything to a stage set, with no sense of atmosphere, even when filmed in a real location. A ‘heightened’ reality then, and something you cannot really believe in.

This approach stretches to the performances too. There’s a kind of subtle ‘knowing’ quality to the characters – again, like they aren’t quite real. They don’t react as a real person would react. And when the horror they are reacting *to* is also similarly stylised, I feel as if we are watching a fairy-tale, or a comic-strip. This approach works when a story I somewhat fantastical in and of itself (again, ‘Black Sabbath’ is a prime example), but it does not flatter what is intended to be a frightening, gothic thriller like this.

As a result, we get moments of jeopardy and gory scenes but no sense of tension or drama. Things happen in a colourful way, and then there is some talking before other events happen in a similarly cartoon-like manner.

I’m sounding less impressed with ‘Baron Blood’ (even the title sounds like a children’s story) than I actually am, but these are the issues I find not only with much of Bava’s work, but also some of those who have been influenced by him (Dario Argenta, Roger Corman and many of Tim Burton’s recent projects) and, while some scenes are genuinely breath-taking, they are never remotely real, and despite some flashy camera effects and a committed performance from star Elke Sommer (and terrifically spooky Gretchen played by prolific 8 year old Nicoletta Elmi), this film is doesn’t massively excite me. My score is 5 out of 10.

Director Lucky McKee has a pretty impressive filmography. He may not be the most prolific, but his projects are always extremely interesting. I first knew of him through 2002’s excellent ‘May’ starring the under-valued Angela Bettis as … well, that’s another story.

In ‘The Woods’ he wastes no time in smothering us all in a genuinely weird, slightly stylised atmosphere which ensures that, even when nothing much is happening, there is a pervading sense of unease. The girls’ boarding school into which our heroine Heather (Agnes Bruckner) is placed is a loosely choreographed web of spite and unnaturally baneful authority figures. So unfriendly is it, that bloody stories about the history of the surrounding woodland are simply an additional level of horror, rather than the sole focal point.

A bored-looking and sardonic, Heather would be difficult to sympathise with if her parents and fellow pupils were not so unrelentingly weird or loathsome, or both. Patricia Clarkson as head teacher Mrs Traverse is particularly good; unruffled and unflappable, commanding attention at all times. High class bully Samantha (Rachel Nichols) is, from the moment we first meet her, in urgent need of a very long detention.

Every character is steeped in a certain level of menace, often softly-spoken but sinister. Scenes fade away abruptly, but this never seems out of place – the eccentric but assured direction is almost a character in its own right. In comparison to this, the latter effects-lead scenes in which the true nature of the authority figures is revealed seems almost pedestrian. I say almost because, despite the CGI and more traditional jump-cut shots, it is still very much the idiosyncratic weirdness that endures. My score is 7 out of 10.

Reggie Nalder plays emaciated local witch-finder Albino, a scurrilous dog who hides behind his position to torture and kill women who spurn his advances. A young, bright eyed Udo Kier is Count Christian, and Olivera Katarina plays veracious Vanessa Benedikt, whose exuberance and sexuality means she is ideal for Albino’s perversions. And Herbert Lom, who is rarely less than majestic, plays Lord Cumberland, who has the weight of dispassionate authority to put into practice the atrocities afforded a man in his position.

Of course, this cruel and extravagantly mounted film unashamedly owes a huge amount to 1968’s ‘The Witchfinder General,’ in which Vincent Price excels in the nastiness of titular Matthew Hopkins (‘Mark of the Devil’ actually eclipsed ‘Witchfinder’ at the box office). ‘Devil’ steps up the graphic cruelty considerably, producing scenes that make you wince. (To quote from Wikipedia, this film was seized and confiscated in the UK under Section 3 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 during the video nasty panic.) Also, torture and rape are treated so nonchalantly by the characters and directed so matter-of-factly by directors and writers Michael Armstrong and Adrian Hoven (whose intense dislike for each other caused problems wile filming), that when the medieval-style iron torture devices and rattling chains are wheeled out once more, there is a certain inevitability that you will be repulsed. Later, as the same empty-headed soldiers storm a children’s puppet show, you know you are in for some disturbing viewing.

When it begins to dawn on Christian that perhaps the law and the execution of it might just be a little corrupt, you can’t help but feel he has been a little naïve thus far. Watching people being unspeakably cruel to each other for 86 minutes is saved from becoming tedious by the gradual way the acts are stepped up over that time. No men of authority are immune from corruption, and this tale reminds us in its opening moments that any enactments of evil are as nothing compared to what actually happened. A word too for Michael Holm’s rousing and elegant music that is so powerful, it is almost a supporting character in its own right.

Relentless and powerfully unpleasant, this is brilliantly done, but I’m not sure I’ll be watching it twice. It’s reassuring to know that society has progressed beyond such hypocritical barbarism … isn’t it?

Beautiful flame-haired Dagmar Lassander plays Minou, a loyal and trusting soul, who is married to less scrupulous Peter (Pier Paolo Capponi ), a man of indeterminate hairline, who from the offset is clearly a bad ‘un, it seems to me. Enter the mighty Nieves Navarro (billed as Susan Scott), playing flirtatious Dominique who flashes a smile full of teeth at every man who passes her by – but saves herself for duplicitous Peter. Then there is The Blackmailer (prolific giallo villain Simón Andreu), who attacks and blackmails poor Minou over her husband’s alleged villainy.

There’s not a huge amount of sex or gore in this, unlike many efforts in this genre, although Director Luciano Ercoli clearly loves the female form, and there’s a definite frisson in intimate scenes featuring Navarro (not to cloud his professionalism of course, but he was Navarro’s husband).

Lassander is very good in a role that could have been irritating if in the hands of a lesser actress. Like that other giallo queen Edwige Fenech, her sense of screen presence and appeal stop her character from becoming the needy scream-queen she could have been. The contrast between her softness and Dominique’s brashness is well conveyed.

The story, whilst not spectacular, has its moments and is definitely heightened by the characters. The finale is typical gialli – the exposed villain gloatingly tells the victim his entire plan before either (a) getting away with it, or (b) not getting away with it. Either way, it is an enjoyable dénouement, and is enjoyable, scenic entertainment overall.

Director Iain Ross-McNamee makes very good use of what is clearly a small budget, for this UK horror story. Veteran actors Brian Croucher (Doctor Who, Blake’s 7 and EastEnders) and Neil Morrissey (Boon, Men Behaving Badly) feature alongside newer names to give a good variety of ages and acting.

Special effects are used with great restraint, and when they do occur, are pretty impressive. The locations, and the vampiric atmospherics they bring about due to fine cinematography, are more immersive than the story being told, however. Rather than a traditional ‘Wicker Man’-style tale of mysterious locals and cavorting sects, I think a weirder, more personal story would have benefitted from McNamee’s talents. There is a certain Jean Rollin-esque style to some of the latter scenes and the way they are composed. Rather than embracing a style of film that has been told more expensively elsewhere, a more dream-like narrative would have been more suitable. There are several nods in that direction, with a certain erotic charge involving the excellent Katie Goldfinch (as Isabelle) and Florence Cady (Scarlet) and some fine locations (beautifully lit) with a dark fairy-tale quality. A little more of this and this enjoyable 96 minutes might well have been even more absorbing.

This exceptional, unpretentious chiller wastes no time in putting the wind up the audience. Here are creatures that exist in shadow, but disappear in the light – a terrific concept for jump scares, and is an idea that has been used in various guises over the years (not least in the form of The Weeping Angels in Doctor Who). Wayward goth Rebecca (Teresa Palmer) is taking care of her little step brother Martin (Gabriel Bateman) , whose father has been killed (in an effective opening scene); his mother Sophie (Maria Bello) has seemingly gone mad, talking to a shadowy entity called Diana. Between them, and boyfriend Bret (Alicia Vela-Bailey), they aim to get to the bottom of this shady business.

The use of jump-scares has reached epidemic proportions in horror films recently, coupled with a crescendo screeching of soundtrack violins, and is in danger of wringing itself dry through over-use. But here, the whole concept is a series of such scares – you know they’re coming but you don’t know when; and they are the fabric of the story. And they are very effective.

Director David F. Sandberg has based this on his own 2013 short of the same name. I have not seen this, but it has been critically acclaimed. This expanded version doesn’t feel padded in any way, the extra time possibly being given over to brief explanations of Diana’s original story, and fleshing out of the characters, all of which are extremely well played (and cast). Also, for a film which *might* uncharitably be dismissed as a succession of ‘boo!’ moments, the tension builds throughout with no real feeling of repetition. There is emotion here, too, without ever becoming syrupy. Deservedly, ‘Lights Out’ proved to be a commercial and critical success upon its release.

I quite like people. They are prone to do silly things. Some of them wear tiny protective helmets, hop onto bicycles and drive really quickly over rough terrain – often, like the young people in this film, risking accidents that can cause huge discomfort, possibly death. It amuses me that people put themselves through this for the name of ‘sport’ or even ‘for a laugh’, but then I speak as someone with no athletic prowess whatsoever.

The production of a horror film with this premise promises something different at the very least, which is refreshing. Joe (Bryce Draper) and Stephanie (Natalie Burn) are fairly likeable leads (although the acting from some supporting cast members is questionable), and when they take part in a Chilean biking exhibition and discover a man dying of a strange virus, we know things aren’t going to be easy for them. And you wouldn’t expect their cell phones to work as they get further out into the wilderness, would you? However, that is about the only predictable development on offer here.

“Why do you have that thing on me? You’ve been shoving it in my face all day.” Stephanie points out early on. Luckily, she’s talking about Joe’s webcam, and so it seems that this will be, in part at least, ‘found footage’ in style. A well-used subgenre for sure, but one that is still effective if utilized well. Again, that is only a fraction of what ‘Downhill’ offers us.

Things become surprisingly nasty surprisingly quickly. They drift into Lovecraft territory a little too, which gives you some idea how darkly bizarre ‘Downhill’ is. I should stress that this project doesn’t ever try and rewrite the horror film (why should it?), rather it re-writes *itself* every so often. It is really a ‘hunted/slasher’ film in style for the most part. But within that category, it provides a deliberately jarring series of events that wrong-foots the viewer in such a way that it never slides into dullness. It is also worth saying that, during the last twenty minutes or so, things become utterly demented.

Director/co-writer Patricio Valladares and Luigi Seviroli, who provided the unnerving soundtrack, should be very proud of this gem.

This film gets straight on with the business of introducing us to the new family moving in to 'the spooky house'. Within moments of Hailey (Nicole Tompkins), the sardonic teen daughter ('she's been through a tough time'), exploring a new neighbourhood she clearly feels is beneath her, mum Jessica (Kim Nielsen) and stepdad Todd (Kaiwi Lyman-Mersereau) have come close to having sex before it is revealed she is 'never in the mood'. Ah - domestic unease. Todd's sister Shae (Amanda Barton), who is renting the house to them, has a history of alcohol abuse and this sparks an argument. And all this before they've barely even closed the front door behind them!

I've never been hugely into the Amityville series. The first film I felt was lightweight and faintly ridiculous: an evil, sentient building is a great idea, but seemed more concerned with destroying a wholesome American family than generating anything interesting. And yet it was a very successful venture. Quite how subsequent projects have featured the 'Amityville' banner and been so amateur is puzzling. This isn't the worst venture into the franchise, but it isn't very involving and worse, doesn't attempt anything that hasn't been done many times before. The lack of aspiration on display allows you know exactly what you're in for only probably slightly less polished than you may be used to.

The acting is mostly fine, the effects few and far between, whereas the story is little more than a box-ticking exercise: wholesome love interest in the form of Brett (Trevor Stines) who reluctantly warns of the bad things that happened in the house (indicating that this is 'the' Amityville house, despite bearing little resemblance to previous building, despite the original featuring on the DVD cover for this), bad girl bullies, and an ending where (spoiler) everything has been forgotten and inexplicably covered-up as new residents arrive to carry on the franchise (whose fate is revealed at the beginning of this instalment).

French director Jean Rollin continues to indulge his fascination with the undead with his fourth film. Whilst not quite as rampantly weird as his previous 'Shiver of the Vampires', this nevertheless provides a very nice contrast between events in the ‘normal’ world as they drift into those of a hidden ‘other’ world.

In his career, he has demonstrated a liking for young female double-acts, and for clowns. Unsurprising then, that this opens with two young girls – apparently lovers – dressed as clowns, hopelessly on the run. Much time is spent with them as they survive various mishaps before stumbling on the biggest of all – a deserted chateau housing 'the last vampire' and his clan. Much chasing and recapturing happens next before the ending reveals the vampire to be surprisingly honorable and the alleged leading man, Frederic, something of a coward.

The nudity is more prevalent here than in earlier Rollin films, and a scene involving Marie being whipped by Michelle pushes boundaries further yet (apparently two versions of various scenes were shot - one clothed and one not - for foreign audiences who maybe shocked by the human form, including - unsurprisingly - the UK). As Maria, Rollin regular Marie-Pierre Castel gains a rare starring role – apparently her sister Cathy was originally cast, but proved unavailable. Her partner is played by Mireille Dargent, who also played a clown in Jean Rollin's 'Les Démoniaques/The Demoniacs'.

Despite typical Rollin moments of occasional unlikeliness, this is once again a curious dream-world spun into a dark fantasy where reality only occasionally bites.

We have two ‘iconic’ characters from the franchise now: Michael of course, and Laurie Strode, played by the mighty Jamie Lee Curtis: more mature now, but still very much in possession of ‘the body’ she was famed for back in the 1980s. Strode is now a self-confessed basket-case, which allows her grand-daughter plenty of opportunities to appeal to the teen-audience by dishing out life-advice for granny. “Get over it,” for example, in relation to her ongoing trauma caused by events in the original film. Another familiar face – and I realise this may be a minority thrill among this film’s fans – is that of Dr Sartain, who has been looking after Michael since Dr Loomis is now dead, like the actor who played him (we get a brief and very welcome voice-over from Donald Pleasance early on). Sartain is played by Haluk Bilginer, who was terrific – also in the 1980s – as roguish Mehmet in BBC soap EastEnders when it was at the height of its powers.

The associated teens here are as silly as you would expect. Quick witted, sexually arrogant and fashionably stoned. They don’t annoy too much, but the weightier material is reserved for two pod-casters who are eager to get inside the mind of Michael, Aaron Korey(Jefferson Hall) and Dana Haines (Rhian Rees). They don’t have much time to achieve this.

I’ve never been massively into this franchise. I found the first film enjoyable and Rob Zombie’s 2007 reboot breathed new life into a fairly standard central character. All other sequels, or reimaginings, I have found incredibly tedious. This version, after giving Michael such a build-up, chooses to begin his latest mild killing spree in curiously muted fashion. There is no sense of occasion. That Michael always happens to go on a rampage on Halloween, and that he is referred to as ‘boogie man’ has seemed to me a blatant merchandise ploy. That said, when John Carpenter’s theme music kicks in, there’s no denying its power.

I found this rather lacklustre to be honest. Once again for example, a major moment of drama occurs because one teen kisses another teen. It is difficult to care because firstly, the characters are inoffensive but vacuous, and secondly, Michael’s strolling round leisurely hacking people up (often off camera, surprisingly and disappointingly). A sadly diluted environment for this much lauded return.

I was first moved to watch this because it been described as a giallo in several articles, and stars the fearsome Klaus Kinski. I came away from it deciding it is definitely not a giallo, and that Kinski’s involvement was far too brief.

There’s no black gloved killer, no nudity, no gore and no rousing soundtrack. What was interesting to me that I spotted that heroine Alice’s short hairstyle was in fact a wig (the join was given away in a close-up early on), and her longer hair – a wig in the film – seems actually to be actress Florinda Bolkan’s real hair.

That moment of self-congratulation aside, I found this to be an intriguing, rather artily-shot thriller. Luckily the moon shots are brief in total, leaving us more time to enjoy the elegant architecture and beautifully shot (this was director Luigi Bazzoni’s last film) locations in Rome and Turkey. In her bid to reclaim her memory, Alice runs into a little girl with piercing eyes, who looked familiar to me. Turns out little Nicoletta Elmi had also starred in ‘A Bay of Blood’, ‘Who Saw her Die?’, ‘Flesh for Frankenstein’ and ‘Deep Red’ (among others) by this time – not a bad resume for an 11 year old.

As for everything else, the occasionally muggy story is undoubtedly lifted by the acting. Bolkan is extremely good, and she is good company. Peter McEnery as Henry is also very good, never quite letting us fully believe in him as either a hero or villain.

This Japanese ghost story, otherwise known as ‘A Black Cat in a Bamboo Grove’ reminds me, in its early stages at least, of an Ingmar Bergman film. Everything is desolate and comfortless. There is minimalist music and settings, and an extraordinarily brutal opening scene is carried out without spectacle. When a group of Samurai soldiers rape and kill two women and then set fire to their home, it is carried out with the minimum of fuss, with the soldiers simply leaving to carry on with their day once the deed has been done.

The ghosts of the two women, Yone (Nobuko Otowa) and her daughter-in-law Shige (Kiwako Taichi), cause problems for the governor, Minamoto no Raiko (Kei Sato) by seducing and the tearing out the throats of various soldiers, so he orders Gintoki (Kichiemon Nakamura) to find and destroy them. Inconveniently for all concerned, however, Gintoki finds that the two women are the spirits of his mother and wife, and they have made a pact to kill every Samurai they meet.

This engaging story is based on a supernatural folk-tale and is very nicely directed by Kaneto Shindo, who makes the most of the twin spectres’ sporadic appearances and utilizes subtle special effects to remind us they are not of this world. This is especially true when events take on yet darker and more fantastical tones, many of which involve cats.

Apart from being critically acclaimed (quite rightly), Nobuko Otowa won a Best Actress award, and Kiyomi Kuroda won an award for his cinematography.

A fairly annoying couple Paul (Josh Stewart) and Adrienne (Jamie-Lynn Sigler) are driving to a wedding. He doesn’t appear to be paying much attention to the road as he drives and she seems lazily determined to stimulate him into sex. They pull into the roadside ‘Roy’s Motel’ where they meet weird Frank (Chris Browing) and his even stranger wife Sandy (Angela Featherstone). They decide that things are not quite as they seem.

Throughout the film, we learn more about why the characters are the way they are. We also meet an unblinking fellow guest who claims to be The Son of God (Afemo Omilami). Only I’m not sure things are even quite *that* simple.

The pace is extremely slow, and there is a murkiness to the effectively isolated location and the characters who stay within it. I get the impression that writer/director Chad Feehan isn’t interesting in telling an ordinary, linear, or straightforward story and clearly feels the audience should share that viewpoint. There are no concessions to those who might want ‘Beneath the Dark’ to get on with whatever it is trying to say, and there are generally few standout moments – at least the cast are all very convincing and keep a certain interest. It takes far too long and too many unsavoury events for Paul to reason that he and Adrienne should leave, but again, that doesn’t seem something we are encouraged to be bothered about. Perceived failings within the film’s structure and pace seem to be a deliberate artistic decision.

On occasions, you cannot beat sitting back and watching a society of the living dead getting massacred in graphic and bloody ways. Based on a video game, this sequel to 2015’s ‘Dead Rising: Watchtower’, begins with a gaggle of earnestly perfect-looking females assuring hero, square-jawed Chase Carter (played by square-jawed Jesse Metcalfe) that whatever happened in the previous film, he’s still a great guy. They are the core of a group of journalists who have stumbled upon a government secret, with a briefly seen Billy Zane popping up as the evil scientist Rand.

After an impressive pre-credits sequence, the pace slackens considerably. The direction, by Pat Williams, is first rate for a modestly budgeted adventure such as this, and ensures that, even during the extended periods when nothing of interest is happening, at least it looks good. But where are the zombies, you might be asking?

It takes a good while for them to appear, but when they do, the cinematography does them proud, although for such a project as this, the various impressive action sequences are light on gore – although what there is looks great.

I think the jokeless, daytime-soap earnestness that permeates every scene is my main issue with this. The actors are fine, but their characters have no real spark about them, nothing for the audience to latch onto or care about. Apart from this issue, I enjoyed ‘Endgame’. It could perhaps be described as an espionage zombie story, with as much attention paid to political villainy as there is to skull-like living cadavers having their brains splashed across the concrete.