THIS WEEK’S FLASHBACK Friday continues the James Wan theme in recognition of his current movie, The Conjuring 2 in cinemas as we write this article.
Dead Silence would see Wan collaborate once again with Saw co-creator, Leigh Whannel and would be his second feature in the director’s chair.
There would also be the all too familiar signatures that Wan brings to the screen, the obvious one in this instance would be in the puppetry, substituting Jigsaw for Billy, but let’s not forget his strong use of light and shadows combined with the strong build up of tension to play on the minds of the viewer.
Whilst still not his strongest movie, there are some delights to have along the way as he harnesses his skills and sharpens his tools in order to bring some more than adequate scares along the way.
Starring True Blood’s Ryan Kwanten as Jamie, who at the head of the film loses his wife in a brutal attack by the afore-mentioned doll, Billy.
This leads Jamie to venture homeward bound where he unearths the grisly truth of her 101 dolls.
A must-see for horror fans and a director at the start of what would be an impressive upward trajectory into the bloody genre and putting out all the stops to make this a confident if not perfect psychological thriller.
AS IT STANDSThe Conjuring is sandwiched in the middle of James Wan’s directorial career, nestled nicely alongside Insidious, which was released two years earlier.
When you combine this with the likes of Saw, Insidious 2 and now The Conjuring 2, Wan has firmly established himself as a master in the horror genre field.
This movie was potentially (and arguably) a game changer for Wan and is most certainly an indication of a man coming into his own within his craft.
Upon closer scrutiny, the film treads familiar ground centring on a family haunted by an evil, malevolent spirt, that wishes to do some serious harm to them all.
There are even obvious homages to the original Poltergeist movie, but where it starts to tread new ground and where Wan shines brightly is through his storytelling and excellent use of light and shadow.
The pace of the movie is handled with great care. The balance of tension is beautifully interspersed with scares. And when those scare come, they come with genuine spine-tingling reality.
In fact, part of the appeal of The Conjuring is through its gritty realism. Throw in some strong performances from Lili Taylor, Vera Farmiga, and Patrick Wilson, and you’ve got yourself a credible and believable movie that captivates and entertains throughout.
– Saul Muerte
For more insights on the film check out the podcast discussions below, but be warned, I handed over host duties to Mr Antony Yee for this one and he pushed the time limit just a tad. But not without his charm and knowledge thrown into the mix.
HAVING BEEN RELEASED on iTunes, I figured I’d give this one a whirl.
Backed by WWE Films this movie that stars WWE wrestler Kane has all the hallmarks of that which we’ve come to expect from the ‘drama’ side of things from the global wrestling entertainment company.
Whilst it leans towards the hammy side of things, it doesn’t take away from the budget, which can be seen in places throughout this movie in regards to the SFX, but not so much in the set design and acting ability.
The visual style feels a little lazy at times too, but essentially this is a ‘boogeyman’ movie with Kane taking on the role of said ‘monster’ who hunts down and kills our doomed youth in the confines of an abandoned hotel.
Where this defers from your usual run of the mill horror is that the kids in question are delinquents, with a dark or devious past that is unearthed as the movie delivers its somewhat weak plotline.
If I sound scathing, it’s because it feels a little cheap and run down in places and it is a predictable yarn.
Having said all that, it is enjoyable and hits a lot of the beats that horror fans come to love in their favoured genre.
And Kane personifies the evil to a tee, as he has done throughout his career.
It obviously garnered enough attention, as a sequel was green lit and released in 2014.
It’s just a shame that it didn’t offer anything original or even a little bit clever or insightful.
Maybe save for a rainy day, but don’t lose an arm over watching this.
ROSEMARY’S BABY IS ONE of those movies that most movie fans, particularly horror lovers would have heard of, such was the critical acclaim attested to it.
Some even citing it as one of the greatest American horror movies ever made.
But does it still stand strong today?
I’ve often had discussions with people about this movie and the one criticism that I hear about it comes down to pace and lack there of.
Is this down to the modern audiences expectations?
So much emphasis is focused on pushing people to the next moment and raising the bar with each scare with a hefty dose of tension thrown into the mix.
So in some cases I find that I agree that this isn’t your high-tension fast-moving drama, BUT, it is a slow-burner.
And probably the best example of how to deliver a psychological thriller with ease, something that director, Roman Polanski is deft at.
And with the superb talent of Mia Farrow as the lead, Rosemary, who discovers that her husband has made a pact with a religious cult and that the father of her baby to be is none other than the dark lord Satan.
There are many issues at play here as Rosemary not only has to deal with the process of what has just occurred in her life but also the very fact that the security that she thought she had in those around her have been false.
With no one to turn to it is inevitable that she would succumb to the dark forces that surround her.
And what’s more, a mother’s intuition would kick in despite her essentially giving birth to the antichrist.
In my view it’s a classic for a reason and deserves viewing even with today’s audience. Rosemary’s Baby is an example of Polanski at his best and serves as a good companion piece to his earlier movie, Repulsion, which I also highly recommend.
DEADLY BLESSING IS ONE of those movies that appear to have fallen completely off the radar. Craven himself has stated that whenever he mentioned this being one of his movies, he was met with blank stares.
It seems fairly odd that this would occur as Craven’s profile would grow, and it stars Sharon Stone in her first speaking role in a movie, but perhaps when put into connection with the negative reviews that the film would receive at the time coupled with Ernest Borgnine (Escape From New York, The Wild Bunch) getting a “Razzie” nomination for Worst Supporting Actor for his efforts.
Upon review the critical response feels a little harsh.
So, why the negativity?
Well, a lot of it has to do with the strong religious message that is firmly stamped all over it, with Borgnine’s character, Isaiah preaching the word throughout the entire movie.
When you look past this though there are some elements that prove fruitful and there’s enough ticking along to keep you wondering who or what is behind the foul play that is taking place.
And for keen horror enthusiasts there is a lot at play here that would feel familiar to Wes Craven’s A Nightmare On Elm Street in some of the shots that he would produce.
Most notably in the bath scene when a snake protrudes from between Martha’s legs ala Freddy’s glove. Although in this instance it’s a far more phallic image.
The cast pulls off a fairly adequate performance with Maren Jensen known for her role as Athena in the original Battlestar Galactica. Taking on the lead heroine, Martha.
Stone’s performance is also notable, but perhaps more so for the scene in the barn, which creates enough ambience to feel sinister and certainly feels as though Arachnophobia lifted a few shots and ideas from this scene.
Craven regular (Michael Berryman) also makes an appearance as William.
The movie certainly doesn’t deserve to be admonished and definitely warrants a viewing.
With old horror movies providing Hollywood execs with source material, Deadly Blessing has the chops to be revisited.
Check out the surgeons of horror podcast below for more thoughts and views.
“NOW IS THE TIME. This is the hour. Ours is the magic. Ours is the power.”
There is something quite nostalgic about re-watching The Craft and even more shocking that it’s 20 years old this year.
The film itself isn’t necessarily special but with Fairuza Balk crazing it up like only she can, Neve Campbell at the height of her charms (this being the same year that Scream was released)and Robin Tunney doing the whole millennial thing before it was even a thing.
All of this makes great chemistry on screen and the story of a group of girls who discover that they can use witchcraft to harness their opportunism becomes much more believable.
Of course all will turn sour and the deranged Nancy amps up he mania and turns on newcomer Sarah, exploiting her weaknesses and making her feel more of an outcast.
Ultimately it comes down to a battle of dark and light, good and evil.
The outcome may be predictable, but the journey is enjoyable enough.
It’s still worthy of a revisit and yes the CGI may have aged drastically but the performances still hold strong, coupled with a storyline that is both engaging and thrilling.
STRANGER IN OUR HOUSE WOULD BE Wes Craven’s third film as director and his first outing into the television arena.
This would allow Craven to be exposed to a more professional crew and access to equipment that he hadn’t had the privilege to use before such as a dolly.
It would also be the first time that he shot anything on 35mm.
Craven would use this valuable experience to his advantage, soaking up as much knowledge that he could muster.
Part of that experience would be to work with more known actors, among them was Linda Blair, who had just come out of rehab.
Blair was struggling on the social scene and despite still working in the movie industry, Stranger In Our House would be the last TV movie that she would be involved with.
Blair’s performance in this movie wouldn’t exactly turn heads but she definitely holds her own as Rachel Bryant, an All-American-Girl with a love of riding horses and is dating the local stud, Brad.
Her wholesome life is turned upside down however, when her long lost cousin, Julia comes to stay with them after her parents were tragically killed in an automobile accident.
But Julia (played by Lee Purcell in a noteworthy performance) is not all she appears to be.
Over time, Julia turns the tables into her favour and appears to have all the men waiting on her hand and foot.
Who is this Julia really?
What spell does she hold over the men of the town?
Is witchcraft be involved?
Sure this film is a TV movie and certainly has that feel about it when viewing. The make up and visual effects border on B-Movie style, but some of that lends to its appeal.
It certainly isn’t one of Craven’s finest entries to is resume but it’s certainly watchable and the 35% rating on Rotten Tomatoes is a slightly tougher mark than this film probably deserves.
Check out the surgeons of horror podcast below for more thoughts and views.
IN KEEPING WITH our Flashback Friday Features, this week we turn our attention to Cujo based upon the book bearing the same name by Stephen King.
Man’s best friend goes wild in this psychological horror, which sees the dog go from family protector (as seen in our recent podcast discussions, The Hills Have Eyes) to violent and rabid attacker.
The dog in question, an St Bernard, normally identified as a rescuer, is turned when he chases a rabbit into a bat cave, where a bat bites him.
From then on it’s only a matter of time before he would strike, taking down his neighbour and even his owner.
This leaves Donna (Dee Wallace) facing off against the beast whilst also protecting her son – Tad, who is probably the most anxious kid in history with a fear of monsters.
Donna and Tad end up trapped inside their car when they pay the mechanic (and wild dog owner) a visit.
Donna must face up to her fears and confront the dog to save herself and her son.
Whilst not the scariest Stephen King vehicle, Cujo must rely on the strength of Wallace’s performance.
The character of Donna is going through martial difficulties and has been having an affair, which rightly or wrongly, automatically makes her a flawed person.
Wallace certainly plays her with the right level of vulnerability and strength to keep the viewer engaged throughout it’s 90 minute running length, but just barely.
Which I personally wonder if this is the tight restrains that the novel is willing to allow?
My answer may come when a remake entitled C.U.J.O comes to light, but early reports suggest that this will stray from the original source material.
One last thing to add is that the cinematographer for this movie was Jan De Bont who would go on to direct Speed and Twister.
ABOUT 9 YEARS AGO a major Hollywood A-lister approached the subscription TV network I worked for with a proposal. If you sent his production company a kick ass proposal, he would pony up $10 000 000 for you to make it. In terms of Hollywood features that wasn’t (and still isn’t) a lot. But by Oz standards it was better than a kick in the nutz.
Unfortunately the whole enterprise folded after one mediocre movie and a reality show starring the A-Lister’s old school mate (who, admittedly was quite lovely once you got to know him).
But the point I am so laboriously trying to make with the horror thriller The Boy is that a quick scan through Wikipedia will tell you that it was made with a budget of $10 000 000. But does that money appear on screen?
Well as of writing, The Boy has made over 6 times that in return! But being 6 times richer doesn’t necessarily mean 6 times better. Is it any good? (A phrase I am told has since been copyrighted by fellow horror surgeon Ben Skinner, and so I must now pay him 50 cents).
In a nutshell the story of The Boy (if you haven’t seen the trailer) is about an American woman in her early 30’s who runs away from an abusive relationship and straight into the arms of a wealthy old English couple looking to hire a nanny to look after their young son Brahms .
The couple live in a classic creepy mansion in the middle of country nowhere (naturally) and the woman (Greta) we soon learn is the latest hire in a string of nannies who have failed to stay with the job. The reason? Brahms is a porcelain doll. About the size of a ventriloquist dummy, the elderly couple dress and treat him as if he is real. The reason being is that the real Brahms died back in 1991 at the age of 8 in an unexplained house fire, and in an effort to navigate through this tragedy, his parents have invested a lot of emotional resonance in what appears to be a coping mechanism gone too far.
The couple lay down rules for Brahms – when he is to be woken in the morning, what music he is to listen to and at what time. Even setting a place for him to eat breakfast, lunch & dinner. Greta, who we also learn is the youngest of the nannies trialled – that is sort of relevant later on – understandably thinks they are all bat-shit bonkers; but they are also willing to pay, and what’s more, their locale is far from her abusive ex-boyfriend.
The elderly couple are also long overdue for a holiday and leave Greta alone with the dummy (because apparently he ‘approves of her’) and so she figures this is easy scratch because following the rules is so much easier when there is no one around to enforce them.
Or so she thinks.
Because once left alone the shenanigans begin as things inevitably start to happen in the mansion that can only be attributed to doll Brahms coming to life behind her back. Is it possessed with the spirit of ‘real’ Brahms? A little boy we soon discover in life was a little….odd? Or is all this Greta’s descent into madness brought on by isolation (the mansion has no WiFi and cell service, natch) combined with the unresolved tragedy of having lost an unborn child (see abusive relationship mentioned earlier).
With basically one (admittedly giant) location and a cast you can count on one hand, is the 10 million immediately visible on screen?
Or, approaching it from the other direction, have the film makers been clever enough to come up with a compelling cinematic story whilst using a minimal amount of cast and locations?
By and large the answer is yes. The look & feel of the film is very much like an old skool Hammer Horror flick given a 21st century coat of paint.
The storytelling tricks the director William Brent Bell employs to give life to an inanimate doll (short of making it get up and move ala Chucky) are clever enough, and one I picked before seeing the film – the use of revolving light – is well used here without being abused. (For a famous demonstration of what I mean click on this clip: below)
The Boy is a solid B movie effort. For non-horror fans it will tick enough boxes, and for aficionados of websites like this, what it arguably lacks in straight up scares it should make up for with its intriguing/creepy set pieces and actual story.
Other comments I feel worth mentioning – the lead playing Greta is Lauren Cohan, from The Walking Dead fame. She takes a while to reconcile as her face isn’t caked with grime, blood & dirt, and working in everyday make up I would imagine was a pleasant change of pace for her.
Her performance is likewise solid, and her progression from relatively stable to “holy shit is this dummy real?” is a line that she straddles quite well. Of course that means there are times where delving into “too much” or “not enough” territory may have been the way to go too…
The only other thing I’d like to mention is that although it’s set in the UK, one look at the trees in the opening shot told me it was shot somewhere in America. As it turns out I was half right. It was Canada. Which is how the movie was able to retain an authentic damp/drizzly feel.
So after insulting 3 separate western cultures I will conclude with this, The Boy holds you to the end to find out exactly what the hell is going on. And that’s all any movie can ask for.
Want to know more? Fine – it also borrows heavily from these 2 movies, but if you DON’T want any spoilers – don’t click….
FOR HIS SOPHOMORE OUTING, Craven would explore similar ground to The Last House On The Left.
This time, The Hills Have Eyes would see a whole family being besieged upon by a family of mutants in the remote mid-west of the United States.
The Carters are on a road trip when they decide to take a detour to check out an old silver mine that has been bequeathed to them.
The detour would see them cross paths with The mutants. Thus anarchy is carried out upon the wholesome American family.
There’s the patriarch and matriarch figures leading the way, with their son, 2 daughters and a son-in-law in tow.
Oh and let’s not forget their protectors, 2 dogs by the named of Beauty and the Beast.
And so, in the world that Craven chooses to play in, he constantly plays with dark and light, good and evil and the thin line that seperates the two.
When the Carters are pitted into this extreme environment, a world truly removed from their own, they must turn to their animalistic instincts in order to survive.
Where this outing differs from Craven’s first directorial feature, The Last House On The Left, is that not only is he honing his craft but this time around he delivers a more commercial product. That’s not to say that The Hills Have Eyes is in anyway
Check out the surgeons of horror podcast below for more thoughts and views.
Surgeons of Horror 