A group of people in Hawaii recently decided to sue CERN over the potential dangers of the Large Hadron Collider Project. The project, located in Switzerland, is the largest scientific project ever undertaken by humanity and attempts to recreate the conditions of the early universe in a tunnel. This led to fears by a few skeptics that the project could potentially open up a black hole here on earth. While these fears have been dismissed by all scientists, they nonetheless help spark the imagination of a populace who is unfortunately more than willing to embrace worse case scenarios about science and about the future of our planet.

Such an implausible scenario is the foundation for Frank Darabont’s latest film (based on a story by Stephen King), The Mist, an old-fashioned monster flick that chills the spine and abounds with dark and pessimistic nihilism. Darabont, who is better known for directing sugar-coated fares such as The Shawshank Redemption (1994) and The Green Mile (1999), shows us a very sinister side of his personality with this truly scary and grabbing film in which all kinds of monsters from another dimension are let loose on a quiet village in New England.

But The Mist is more than just a suburban Cloverfield (2008). It also takes a shot at religious fanatism, at the scientific and military establishments and at a right-wing conservative and small-minded America. In the tradition of many monster movies from the 50s, behind its layer of superficial but effective entertainment (if horror fulfills your entertainment needs that is) lies a social commentary that offers a reflection on the US’ post 9/11 malaise.

Planet Terror has over-indulgent geekiness written all over it. B-movies have always been made with a specific crowd in mind, the type that can easily look beyond the obvious cinematic limitations of the movie and instead can find in it an interesting form of entertainment, and in some cases, the epitome of coolness, whatever that may mean. With the passing of time, these movies also have the potential to attract additional viewers through the ‘nostalgia effect’. When watching such films, one is taken back to the 50s, 60s, or, as it relates to Planet Terror, to the 70s when the Grindhouse double bill developed its legions of followers. Personally, and obviously one can deduce from this that I am not an admirer of these Grindhouse films, I believe that it is the knowledge of going back to a specific point in time, to experience a piece of ‘culture’ from a certain decade and country, that makes some of these films watcheable, and, at times, enjoyable. Most of them were bad films, but they were not always made with the knowledge that they were bad, or if they were, time has taught us to look back on them with anthropological compassion and with some kind of tolerant understanding.
However, when Tarantino and Rodriguez had the bright idea to come up with a deliberately bad double feature called Grindhouse (Planet Terror and Death Proof, marketed separately in Europe), to honor the past, and in Tarantino’s words, to offer viewers something ‘fresh and original’, they either must have assumed that the entire world lives on the same geeky film planet as they do and would rush to the cinemas to see their films, or, as is most likely the case, they just decided that they wanted to please themselves and do something to pay homage to a form of cinema they both love. I can just picture the both of them sitting in some room, writing the script, and telling each other: ‘a machine gun instead of a leg? Right on!’, ‘let’s make the reel look old. Now that’s fresh’, ‘and then the head explodes…how cool is that?’
The problem is that none of this is in fact that fresh or original (unlike both director’s early work). It’s old. And it only works as new for about 15 minutes and then wears off quickly, leaving behind a profusion of mindless and silly gore, and, regrettably, not one iota of scariness…even worse: the film is not funny. What kind of a Zombie film does not make you either laugh or scream?
I said to a friend ‘it’s a bad movie’. To which he responded: ‘That’s the point’. But, no, I believe his answer is the one missing the point. The real point is: it’s a bad movie. The fact that it is an intentional bad movie does not turn it into a good movie. And let us not be deceived by an artsy-fartsy, Rodriguez/Tarantino-can-do-no-wrong-because-they-are-so-cool, you-either-get-it-or-you-don’t temptation to see something that isn’t there. Remove the names of the directors, and the appeal of the film drastically goes down.

Of course, the debate between B-movies lovers and bashers has been raging for decades and it will not be solved today. If Rodriguez and Tarantino were hoping to please the lovers, they probably succeeded. If, on the other hand, they were attempting to attract some of the skeptics, I believe they failed.

1950’s Sci-Fi at its best.

It came from Outer Space set the standard in the early days of American cinema for serious and intelligent Sci-Fi by placing a reasonable amount of care in the writing, acting and directing of this film about a man who is rejected by his community after claiming to have seen a spaceship land in the desert where he lives.
The theme of ‘The Other’ is properly explored, as is that of the lone liberal man against a blind, unreasonable and conservative community.
It is regrettable that Universal, the studio behind many Sci-Fi flicks from that period and thus, probably the most open-minded studio in its acceptance of liberal themes, decided to nevertheless add the ‘creature’ after it concluded that the audience would not enjoy watching a 90 minutes film without ever seeing some kind of alien representation. Had they not chosen to do so, and consequently, had they not decided to incorporate this gigantic eye thingie as the terrifying monster, It Came from Outer Space would have been even more so sober and powerful, a pioneering film in ‘what you can’t see is even more creepy’ type horror and suspense cinema.

Shame i can’t find my 3D glasses…

This British low budget mishmash of cyberpunk, horror and exploitation has become a bit of a cult classic in certain circles. The idea was apparently entirely stolen from a story called Shock! that appeared in the 80s in the comic book 2000AD, which is a bit of a shame since it takes away from one of the film’s main attributes: its originality (in spite of several commonalities with Terminator).
Nonetheless, equipped with a meagre budget of 100,000 dollars, Richard Stanley managed to create quite a dreadful, claustrophobic and apocalyptic atmosphere that effectively captured the spirit of decay, waste and techno-paranoia associated with Cyberpunk. The film also contains several musical references that many connoisseurs will enjoy.
Unfortunately, beyond the visual and musical aspects, and with the exception of a few cheap thrills and a couple of funny cheesy lines, the film has little to offer and feels quite amateurish and boring at times.

For a certain crowd only.

I will not argue: this is a very scary film. The tension builds up nicely and the last half hour can rival in intensity some of the best horror films. But the descent is unfortunately filled with many clichés, traditional plot devices and inconsistencies. We know immediately who will be the last woman standing, and we can only sigh when one of them announces that she didn’t take the maps and that no one before them has ever explored these caves. The Descent creates nothing new and does not take the genre to a new level. It simply does a good job within the existing boundaries of that genre.

Creepy at times, funny at others, The Tenant is hard film to pin down. It disturbs us a little, scares us occasionally, confuses us somewhat and even makes us laugh at times (perhaps, sadly, unintentionally). Such a combination is clearly not for everyone. And it is this combination that makes The Tenant a diluted and confused effort. Polanski’s own Repulsion is a far superior tale of madness and Rosemary’s Baby a great deal scarier.

In the tradition of The Happiness of the Katakuris, this film is a concoction of gore, suspense, comedy, action (but no singing)…Surreal, bizarre, engaging, quirky, it is not for everyone’s taste but should please all those craving for something different and exotic (and well put together).

I saw Dark Water as part of a Horror Film retrospective as the NFT. Mark Kermode was co-curator and introduced a few films, including Audition which i saw a few days before Dark Water. I found Dark Water to be a much better and scarier film than Audition. The claustrophobic cinematography and the constant dampness and sense of decay of the building in which the action takes place, provide the ideal stage for this grabbing and chilling ghost story about motherhood.

Tales of madness don’t come any better than this. Catherine Deneuve’s pure and flawless beauty offers the ideal canvas, the perfect opposing force, and thus, starting point, against which folly and psychosis can be depicted and exposed.

Supposedly ahead of its time due to the graphic nature of some of its content (the removal of a dead person’s face to be ‘grafted’ onto that of a living), this modern Frankenstein tale has its poetic moments but is far from captivating.

I wish i had seen Nakata’s film when it came out. Instead, i became the victim of hype and overblown expectations. Ring offers an interesting premise and quite an appealing mix of myths and supernatural ideas, all blended together in a somewhat scary film that seems remarkably appropriate for the modern age. The cinematography uses dark and bluish tones perfectly to create tension and the sparse dialogues reinforce the visual aspect of the film. However, they cannot hide a narrative and overall storyline that often feels forced and stitched up.

There appears to be a tendency out there to respect sick and twisted Asian films, because their appreciation carries a certain symbol of hippness and modern art connoisseur (the success of the Tartan Extreme DVD collection would seem to corroborate this). And i admit it, i love many of these films. But Battle Royale is not one of them. I was bored after the first 5 killings…

In 1951, Howard Hawks’ The Thing introduced audiences to horror science fiction. While the genre would prove quite popular with the public, it would also unfortunately be too often associated with cheap and amateurish B-movies.

British efforts, frequently more serious in intent than their American counterparts, provided a few solid entries into the genre, including The Quatermass Xperiment (55), Village of the Damned (60) and Unearthly Stranger (63).

But Ridley Scott’s Alien (79) marked the first time horror and science fiction were masterfully combined to create a realistic, serious, and truly scary film.

When the film came out in 1979, Ridley Scott was a relatively unknown director. With only the magnificently atmospheric film The Duelists (77) to his credit, Scott created The horror film in space, one whose premise and style continue to be an influence on many filmmakers, writers, production designers and audiences today.

Read more »

Unearthly Stranger (63) is a remarkable example of solid and intelligent science fiction, reminding us that low budget is not always synonymous with cheap and funny.

John Krish, whose past credits included episodes of The Avengers and The Saint, was fully aware of the limitations placed on him by a low budget, and decided to do what Val Guest did in The Day the Earth Caught Fire (61), that is, to make a sci-fi film that relies on rigorous direction, serious acting, and sharp and clever dialogues.

The result is one of the best British sci-fi films of the 60’s.

The film includes superb performances by John Neville, who continued to struggle as an actor until 1988 when Terry Gilliam cast him for the lead role in The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (88), thereby revitalizing Neville’s career, and by Philip Stone who worked with Stanley Kubrick three times in a career that included mostly television.
Read more »