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.

– Paul Farrell

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….

– Antony Yee

IT’S CURIOUS AND YET strangely fitting that I Spit On Your Grave should be our first feature to focus on our Flashback Friday posts.

Fitting because it follows on the theme of revenge horror films from our podcast discussions on The Last House On The Left  of which this movie is arguably the pinnacle.

Banned in numerous countries around the world and severely panned for its crude and exploitative focus on rape and the vilification of its lead female character Jennifer causing film critic Roger Ebert to cite it as the “worst movie ever made” and a “vile piece of garbage.”
It’s not just the act or several acts that follow and the torment that is inflicted upon her, but the sheer relentlessness of it all these actions that make for incredibly uncomfortable viewing.
So much so that you can’t help but question the reason for such gratuitousness.

If it was about the revenge, then the that revenge had best be sweet, and even though the poor excuse for humans are duly dispatched, by the time it comes around, you are left not caring.

By the time it comes around, you’ve been turned off by all that unfolded previously.

The acting is poor.

The plot is left wanting.

And the subject matter is badly handled.

I Spit On Your Grave may have reached cult status and will probably stay as such whilst it stays in the limelight. (The recent remake and subsequent sequels have strengthened that at least for the time being.)
And yet in this Horror Surgeon’s eyes, the movie doesn’t deserve such a high place on the classic horror mantle.

Especially when placed alongside the likes of Friday the 13th or A Nightmare On Elm Street.

Best to be shelved and forgotten about.

-Paul Farrell

SUCH WAS THE IMPACT that Wes Craven’s feature, The Last House On The Left had on the film industry, it was inevitable that Hollywood would look at a remake.

What is interesting about this film is that the masterminds behind the original, Wes Craven and Sean Cunningham came on board as producers.

Certainly the theme still could hold strong with a modern audience, as parents seeking revenge on their daughters’ near-death experience at the hands of some vile representatives of humanity.

The key difference from the original though is that in this instance, the daughter survives and is also on hand to exact revenge.
Where as the character was not so fortunate in the first instance.

There are other obvious differences too.

We’re dealing with a much more polished vehicle this time around and dare I say it? A higher level of acting ability on show too.

Most notably for me though is how the horrid affair plays out in the woods when our antagonists prey on their victims.

This time around, it has a much harder edge, and the brutality and physicality of their actions seem a lot harder to bear.

The 1972 movie was shocking for the fact that it didn’t allow the viewer to shift away from the ordeal that took place and were left empty at the daughters’ demise.

Here though, she survives, but just barely, having to fight tooth and nail to escape with every once of her being.

Once in the ‘safety’ of her home, then things just get crazy as all hell breaks loose.

Definitely one to watch and a lot better than I thought it would be, perhaps due to Craven and Cunningham’s eyes watching over the project?

Stars: Tony Goldwyn (Ghost – and no he will never shake that off), Monica Potter (Along Came A Spider, Saw), Garret Dillahunt (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles), Spencer Treat Clark (Unbreakable), and Aaron Paul (Breaking Bad)

– Paul Farrell