I've seen both You're Next and The Innkeepers recently and seeing as though there seems to be some kind of friendly connection between the directors, (they both directed segments of the dire V/H/S and Ti West actually appears in You're Next) I decided to pit them against each other. Both films suffer from some failings of current (and past) horror films: a reliance on loud noises for scares, characters who split up and go into dark rooms armed only with a torch, and worst of all not being horrific or scary in the slightest. Now let's get to the differences.
You're Next bucks the trend of having a heroine who starts off weak and then increases in strength throughout the film. Erin (Sharni Vinson fromHome and Away)is a different character altogether. She goes to a dinner party with her partner Crispian at his family's home. They have a bit of snap accompanied by some not too pleasant chat - Crispian gets accused of baby-snatching by his brother - and then the film turns into a house under siege type affair as the family gets attacked by blokes in white animal masks.
Erin is a strong character right from the off. Problems are thrown her way and she just sorts them with ruthless efficiency. Normally I would be applauding the use of a strong female character (let's face facts, Hollywood seems to have forgotten all about them in Prometheus and Gravity) but here she's too strong, almost to the point of being super powered. It's as if kryptonite didn't exist in the Superman universe. I never felt that she was in any danger. It's more along the lines of Rorschach being sent to prison in Watchmen (and indeed Daredevil in The Devil, Inside and Out), he's not in prison with them, they're in prison with him. In those examples, it's completely cool, but here it kills any tension and destroys any chance of this being scary in the slightest. (It doesn't help matters either that the other female characters run around screaming at every single minor thing that happens.)
Two other problems I have with You're Next are the colour palette and the severe lack of gore. This has to be one of the most beige films going. Hearing the director talking to the colour grader must have been a thrill-a-minute, "No, that's way too much colour. I can actually see a blue pixel there. Make it more beige. Ah, that's better. Nice and bland." Then the gore: it feels more like a slasher from the eighties where severe censorship was rife. It looks like it's been cut badly and that somewhere out there is a director's cut that has all of the juicy violence reinstated. I doubt this is the case though.
The Innkeepers suffers massively from the stupid characters syndrome also but it gets away with it due to a fantastically likeable performance from Sara Paxton (a distant relation to Bill Paxton). Her reactions to scary occurrences are priceless and had me chuckling away at the sheer quirkiness of it all. It distracted me from the low quality of the actual scares.
Claire (Sara Paxton) works at a soon to be abandoned hotel with her friend Luke (Pat Healy) and they are trying to investigate stories of a ghost that supposedly roams the hotel for Luke's new website. Funnily enough, spooky things start to happen.
Ti West's film suffers from the same thing as his previous film The House of the Devil: a great central performance that has the viewer caring for the main character, a fantastic slow build up that lasts for the majority of the film, and then a useless ending that is over way too quick. In the finale things start to kick off, there's a bit of running around (with the obligatory torch) and then she hits a problem. One problem. That's your lot. She doesn't overcome successively difficult trials to reach a thrilling climax. No. Just the one. If Ti West can put together a slow burning start with a meaty ending he may be able to produce a cracking film. As it is...
If I had to sum up You're Next in one word it would be 'smug'. There is a pervasive sense of smugness to the whole production. Whereas, the word I would use for The Innkeepers would be 'charming'. Shame about the ending which badly cripples the overall rating but I would still watch it again. Anyway, let's see the final score for these two horror offerings. You're Next - 2/10 The Innkeepers - 5/10 evlkeith If you like these you could also try: A Horrible Way to Die, The House of the Devil.
This is the first instalment in an infrequent season that could well take a few years to complete, in fact it may never be finished depending on the availability of the films. So what's it all about? F. Paul Wilson wrote three books in the eighties that were seemingly unconnected: The Keep (made into a disappointing film by Michael Mann), The Tomb and The Touch. He then wrote a further three novels that brought everything together: Reborn, Reprisal and finally Nightworld. These six books form The Adversary Cycle and they're probably the books that I have read the most.
What's all this got to do with films then? In Nightworld the local television stations run horror/science fiction marathons that fit with the theme of the book. These films are listed at various points throughout. Being a list pervert I just couldn't resist trying to watch all of them, and that's what I'm going to try and do. I've included the full list of 56 films on Letterboxd for your delectation.
And that brings us to the first film on the list: Night of Bloody Horror. For the late sixties this probably was a night of bloody horror but now it's more of an evening of slight grazing. Okay, it's not that tame but the violence won't have the same impact as when it was originally released. There is a quality comedy killing near the start when a lovely lady goes to confession only to be told that her "penance is death!" Eye trauma follows. An axe is used at one point too - always a treat - so this can be seen as a precursor to the slasher films.
When I was watching The Ark of the Sun God recently I was cynically wondering when Raiders of the Lost Ark was released, and yep, it was a couple of years earlier. Here I was thinking that night of Bloody Horror must have been filmed in 1961 or 1962, just after Psycho. Mais non! This was released in 1969. Way too late for a cheap homage. Suffice to say that if you've seen Hitchcock's classic then you'd see the unexpected twist in Night of Bloody Horror coming, even if it set off from the other side of the world.
Despite some fairly amateurish acting it's enjoyable enough. Wesley (Gerald McRaney - Simon and Simon) plays a troubled young lad who has witnessed something rather disturbing in his childhood. Flashbacks occur in a similar fashion to the ones in Deep Red (1975) accompanied by a tinkly creepy childish tune. Wesley is regularly afflicted by some serious headaches. So serious they are visualised by some some swirly patterns that are overlaid on to his grimacing visage. The police start to suspect Wesley of some minor misdemeanours due to the fact that his girlfriends keep turning up dead. He doesn't help his case by generally being violent and having some slightly worrying dreams. In one he is met by an attractive reporter who hops into bed with him for some slap and tickle. As they caress and rummage, Wesley looks down and the attractive brunette has changed... to his mum. Not good. Oedipus and Freud would stroke their chins in ponderment.
Just as Psycho is an example of a western giallo, so too is this, even down to the leather murdering gloves. It has some style: freeze frames are used to good effect and the camera goes completely bonkers in a nightclub scene, flicking between negative and positive versions of the film. Added to that is the way the camera operator constantly zooms in and out in time to the music. It all made me feel a little bit on the murdery side.
Ultimately, it's not a Dario Argento giallo or a quality Hitchcock thriller. But what you do get is a slice of sixties murder and mayhem all filmed in Violent Vision that may or may not have influenced Mr Argento. Best for people who've never seen Psycho though. 3/10 evlkeith If you like this you could also try: Psycho, Peeping Tom.
This has really got me thinking about what makes a great film. I've ranted recently about Uninhabited with its dull story and irritating characters who are incredibly adept at making stupid decisions. Then along comes Hell's Ground that has some stupid characters and at times, a very cliched story. But I like it. I think I've worked out why.
If you had to write down a list of the top ten critically acclaimed films of all times using all of your film buff knowledge, there would probably be stuff like Battleship Potemkin, Vertigo and Citizen Kane in there. Now if you write down your top ten films they would probably be very different. So even though the films loved by critics worldwide have great stories, acting, etc they're still missing something. I actually think its two things that decide whether we personally love a film rather than merely appreciate it: atmosphere and tone.
Without an atmosphere or tone that I like, a film better be pretty strong in other areas or I'm just not going to enjoy it. But for me a film can be lacking in terms of story, acting, characterisation, technical ability etc and still be great if the atmosphere and tone are right. It's the irrational secret ingredient that can make me love a film.
Uninhabited didn't have it. Hell's Ground does. Not in huge amounts but enough to make the viewing experience strangely pleasurable.
A group of five teenagers lie to their parents and slip away for a night of drugs and rock and roll. Ayesha (Rooshanie Ejaz) comes from a conservative family but due to peer pressure goes along for the ride. They have petrol problems on the way (funnily enough), take an enticing short cut (oh dear), pick up a mildly unhinged passenger (one of many, ahem... homages) and meet up with a Crazy Ralph type figure who sells them some dubious drugs whilst cackling and ranting (I did say it was cliched). Contaminated water has turned some locals into flesh eating zombies and the group of plucky chums soon come into contact with the drooling horde. Then things fly off on a bit of a tangent with the appearance of a mad killer who knocks about in a bloodstained white burka, slinging a spiky ball round on a chain at passersby.
So it's a film of two halves. The zombies look great. The special effects guy made them from tissue paper, latex and other zero budget stuff but they're not bad at all, very reminiscent of the zombies from Zombie Flesh Eaters. They get far too little screen time, although this is made up for by the insane serial killer, Baby.
The scenes that contain Baby are brilliant. Easily one of my favourite screen villains of recent times. The sight of Baby swinging that ball of death around is always unnerving. The killings are nicely disturbing but never become nasty and unpleasant (that all important tone I talked about earlier).
Wide angle lenses, smoke machines and lights were all completely abused during the making of Hell's Ground yet they add up to a very pleasing atmosphere. The short lenses aren't used for scene setting landscape shots, but for medium shots in scenes containing the characters, producing plenty of distortion. Due to its overuse, it becomes part of the style of the film rather than just a mark of a low budget horror enterprise. The smoke machines may as well be visible in some shots because they're constantly chucking out smoke. The operator had obviously had way too many Space Raiders and Red Bulls for brekkie. As for the lighting, well it cant be described as naturalistic. Huge inexplicable lights are just there, smack bang in the frame. Yet again, they add to the otherworldly atmosphere.
Being a Pakistani zombie film it shows some interesting differences between cultures. When Ayesha gets ready to go out on her dubious evening's jaunt she takes some risque clothes to get changed into. Risque for Pakistan anyway. In the UK her clothes would probably be considered too safe and dull to even have as a school uniform. It was also interesting to hear in the director's commentary that he was worried about some extreme swearing getting cut by the sensors. After all it was two utterances of a word that means... poo. Wild edgy stuff.
Despite being fairly standard teen slasher characters, taking drugs and dancing to pop music they're actually fairly likeable. They feel more like real children rather than the stereotypes seen in the usual American fare. I wouldn't go as far as saying that I really cared about what happened to them; I didn't hate them though which has to be a good sign.
Finally a mention has to go to the music. The main theme is fantastic. In the review of A Bay of Blood I went on about how I could listen to the music on the Blu-ray menu for ages. The same applies here. The theme tune was acquired from a seventies film from Pakistan and what a cracker it is. Possibly worth the entrance fee alone.
I've struggled to decide on a final rating for this because it has so many faults but my overall feeling is positive. Plus I want to buy it so that I can watch it again at my leisure (in fact I've just ordered it this very minute). I think I'm going to have to make it a: 7/10 evlkeith If you like this you could also try: The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Halloween.
