Category Archives: Film Reviews

Annabelle: Creation 2017

Usually when a sequel comes out to a film everybody hated it is doomed no matter how good it is. It seemed everyone hated The Conjuring spin-off Annabelle so logically its sequel should crash and burn. This has not happened: it has done better than Annabelle did in the US and the worldwide box office. Maybe its the Rotten Tomatoes factor – its reviews have been significantly better than part one. Or maybe The Conjuring Part 2 came out between these killer doll movies and reset the love from audiences for this whole spooky universe.

For that is what we have arrived at folks: The Conjuring movies and its children are officially part of a shared universe and we didn’t even know it. It helps that:

a) No one told us that this was a shared universe to start with, despite the other stories were already well in development before the first Conjuring even came out and

b) They’ve all been really good, well made and frightening movies. Which is always a bonus. Even the first Annabelle – yeah suck it Rotten Tomatoes. I’m right, you’re wrong. Oh also…

c) They’re not The Mummy.

Annabelle: Creation continues this series by being exceptionally scary and not just sticking to one thing. If it was just a creepy looking wooden doll we had to deal with I’m not sure the story could have lasted until half way through the first reel of the first movie (some would argue it barely made it through the prologue of The Conjuring but that’s their problem). Fortunately Annabelle: Creation not only sets us up with the macabre figure of Annabelle herself and her demon we briefly saw in the first film (I think he’s smaller here, which makes sense as this is set years before hand so is less powerful) but a whole host of other creepy images. Things under the bed, crawling darkness up the doorway, half bodies climbing up gaps in the walls and a scarecrow.

That’s one of the funnest things about Annabelle: Creation, it sets up all the set pieces in the early part of the movie, like traps waiting to spring. Half a dozen female orphans and their nun (?) arrive at a country house where a grieving couple take them on after the death of their daughter. The girls all explore around the house and there is the scarecrow in the barn, a broken down old butler’s lift, a ringing bell and, best of all, a really creaky old Stannah Stairlift that takes a crippled girl very slowly all the way up to the top of the house. You know what is going to happen with all these objects and contraptions but that is half of the fun.

And these Conjuring films really are a lot of fun. The frights are varied and can be from a jump scare to something very slow building and subtle. Its a shame that the recent It didn’t learn a thing or two on how to do genuine scares from these films. The stories are relatively simple and maybe not that original but they are all about the framework: setting up the characters and situations as a basis for the main event: to frighten the bejesus out of you. I loved It and it obviously had a better story but it was a very dense one, packed with incident and asides to the point that it didn’t have time to let the scares genuinely frighten you, or at least me.

The Conjuring films are much more bare bones, though thats not to say that you aren’t invested in the characters. The girls here, well the two main ones anyway, are a likeable bunch and you want them to get out of this thing mostly unscathed, not that this is guaranteed. Another good aspect of these films: death is always just around the corner… the most frightening thing of all.

As for the shared universe –  well if this is the first one to fully embrace it then its done a fine job. The film doesn’t lurch to a giant stand still as a bunch of new characters turn up to talk about some international ghost agency (god help us if that happens in the next film). Instead there are just a few hints here and there – plus a post credit scene which is really just telling us what the next film is about.

This whole “Creation” thing though I’m not so sure about. Why call a film creation if the only creation you see is a tiny moment in the opening credits. I get that there is a bit more as to how the doll became evil in the first place but that’s pretty obvious and uninteresting really. What we are left with is a couple of shots of a doll maker following instructions and that’s it. Its like when Leatherface got his chainsaw in Leatherface: The Beginning – he was walking along and saw a chainsaw so picked it up. Et voila! Bit pointless really.

In fact why do we keep on having to have prequels all the time? What happened to horror movies carrying on with the story? The first Annabelle was a prequel to The Conjuring, this one is a prequel to Annabelle. Then there are the Insidious films which seem to just be going backwards now too. Okay they aren’t in this universe but they feel exactly the same so I’m putting them in there too. So where next? Are we just going to go back and back until Cain is being haunted by Abel?

A minor problem though, even if these films weren’t part of a shared universe they work really well floating on their own two feet. Annabelle: Creation has some great scares  (helped no end by the vast majority of them being practical effects or just plain old fashioned camera trickery) and whilst I don’t think that a scare is the be-all-and-end-all of horror, it is always a lovely thing to behold when done well.

 

Advertisements

The Limehouse Golem

I think we can all agree that Bill Nighy is great can’t we? It seems weird to think that he only became a household name in 1998 after his break out performance in Still Crazy, a film everyone seems to have forgotten. Since then Nighy has excelled as somewhat eccentric family members (the excellent About Time for example) or, being British, getting paid handsomely to appear as the villain in various Hollywood studio movies (the terrible I, Frankenstein for example). He even managed to get good reviews for the second and third Pirates of the Carribean films, which is impressive as nothing else did.

However what has been missing has been some proper Bill Nighy starrers to stretch him a bit. We all know he can do it, give him that role. Well here we are with The Limehouse Golem and thank god for that.

Nighy plays Inspector John Kildare, fighting his way through the smoggy streets of Victorian London, being set up by his own force to fail to find the Ripper-like Golem. Seeing as Kildare is not “the marrying kind” he is ostracised by his peers and officers. He is given little help: the Golem case seems as unsolvable as Jack the Ripper was, so the set up for him to succeed against all odds seems like a good one for a film. However he is quickly sidelined by one of the suspect’s wife who is accused of his murder. Might she have killed the man who was the Golem in order to save other victims?

Of course we have been all around Victorian London’s seedy underbelly countless times before. It is all here too: cheeky cockneys, rough ladies of the night, ruddy street urchins, old time music halls and opium dens aplenty. Considering this is not the most expensive looking film ever made, it manages to conjure up a good feeling of authenticity by making everything so goddam dirty and mirky. Even the daylight scenes seem to have a darkness hanging over them. Director Juan Carlos Medina and his team also have a terrific understanding of using light and silhouette to make the city of London feel even more dangerous and mysterious than it is.

However what The Limehouse Golem is really about is the acting. Here the script is not only served brilliantly by Nighy but also by, although not limited too, Olivia Cooke, the hapless wife of the Golem suspect. With her character we delve into what it must have been like to be a poor woman in Victorian England, not only with little chance of pulling yourself out of whatever shit pit you were born into, but then even if you did, contemporary attitudes towards women were at best violent, and at worse, well… much worse! Trying to make your mark in that world in any positive way must have been a grim prospect – one character even says “if I die and I go to hell, I’m not sure I’ll know the difference.” Cooke, who has already proved herself in Bate’s Motel and Me, Earl and The Dying Girl, really has to stretch herself, doing everything from a broken women accused of poisoning to a stage clown. She’s terrific.

Centre stage though it is Nighy who holds the film together so well. His softly spoken performance at first seems to be at odds with what we know as a typical Scotland Yard inspector of yore. But its this very casting against type which make his Kildare so fascinating and such a treat. It helps that the central mystery is such a good one too, but its Nighy’s determination to solve it that makes The Limehouse Golem worth looking through the mist for.

 

 

It 2017

If you’ve read Stephen King’s book of It you will know that turning it into a feature film is a daunting task. Between Pennywise the Clown’s multiple looks, the dense history of the town of Denny and the bit with the giant space turtle there is a lot to translate to screen. Most importantly the main characters, the misfits and rejects that make up The Losers Club, are some of the finest and likeable characters King, or indeed anyone, has ever written.

Basically making a film of It is a tall order.

The TV mini series in 1990 tried with very limited success: Tim Curry as Pennywise obviously and some of the kids stuff but that’s about it. This new movie looked to be heading for disaster with the removal of original director and True Detective creator Cary Fukunarga, he seemed like a perfect fit with TD also telling a story over different timelines. He was replaced by Mama director Andrew Muschietti who everyone seemed to hate because the last ten minutes of Mama had too much CGI despite the previous 80 minutes being horror perfection. Every still that came out was moaned about, no one expected anything good… until the conversation changed when the first trailer came appeared and became a phenomenom. Could It actually be good?

Now we’ve finally got the answer. It the movie is a raging success.

Okay let’s be straight here, it isn’t all perfect. I don’t think the horror side of things is as good as it could be. A lot of the times that the children are scared by the demonic creature the film making approach is loud and overbearing with the It comin’ right at ya. There’s no denying that a lot of King’s prose also had this kind of over-the-top monster mayhem but occasionally it would be nice for a scene to underplay the scares rather over do them. Pennywise himself is a twisted, screaming banshee of a ghoul. His approach to bringing out the fear in his victims is to overwhelm them. It does work within the confines of the story though: think of it as a sideshow or a ghost train at a creepy fun fair.  It is roller coaster thrills rather than genuine chills.This, of course, fits in well with the scary clown motif rather than a creepy old haunted house slant (although there is one if those too).

Another way to look at the horror aspect is that they are going for that macabre playfulness that Freddy Kruger gave us in the Nightmare on Elm Street movies. Not terrifying, just a grisly mocking of children’s fears. This makes sense as the It presented here is set in the 80s of Kruger not the fifties of the book. A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child is even playing at the local theatre.

Maybe I’m just making excuses for It, but even if the scares aren’t actually scary the film gets so much else right that it doesn’t really matter.

The very best thing It the movie does well is get The Losers Club right. Not just right but spot on. All the children are perfectly cast and so well realised that it’s hard to pick out a best performance so I won’t even try.  Richie Tozier was always my favourite in the book and Finn Wolfhard from Stranger Things nails him so well: everything he says is hilarious, which actually now I think about it isn’t like the Richie of the book because all his jokes were terrible. Jaeden Lieberher as Big Bill is sincere, focused and brave despite his stutter, a serious boy not prepared to give up like his parents have after his brother disappears. Sophia Lillis as Beverly is such good casting that it is almost as if she has stepped out of the page: she probably has the most traumatic life and it’s amazing that a young actor can bring such a multi layered and complicated performance to the screen. A scene in her bathroom which could just be gory and standard horror fare is made gut wrenching and tragic by Lillis’ exceptional performance. Only a weird damsel in distress bit late on in the story somewhat undermines Beverly’s character (it’s also a moment not in the book) which made me slap myself in the head. Other than that all the kids are brilliantly brought to life: not just in their acting but in that you can believe they are real friends who hang out with each other, trying to make their lives less depressing and dangerous.

Almost as important is how well the town of Derry is brought to life. In the book Derry is the very epitome of hell on earth: it seems like any normal blue collar American town but just beneath the surface it is a place of violence, abuse and racism. Actually there’s not much of the racism of the book which is a shame as it misses a good opportunity to make a comment about these turbulent times. The adults ignore or are oblivious to their children going missing and hold long, generational grudges against each other. Derry is always just one step away from it’s next accident or murder, another child disappearing or building burning to the ground. The movie somehow manages to capture this terrible feeling of dread in one place perfectly. Being summer there are fairs on, Batman and Lethal Weapon 2 playing at the cinema and long, hot Maine summer days for the kids to enjoy. But just around the corner there are gangs driving in muscle cars, adults ignoring children’s screams and the damp dark sewers where Pennywise is waiting for his next meal. It is the Derry of King’s novel, brought frighteningly to life, and is the really scary part of the movie.

I’m not going to say that I wouldn’t like the horror to be cleverer or more subtle because I would. There’s still enough ghoulish fun and jump scares to at least entertain if not exactly frighten you. But this isn’t what makes It such a great adaptation. It’s the well rounded and believable characters and the perfect sense of time and place that make the film. And the fear it creates is the fear you will have for these characters and the terrible world they live in, and the hope that they can make it out of it alive. Muschietti and his team clearly cared enough about the Losers Club when he made the film, hopefully you all will too.

 

It Stains The Sand Red 2016

Its hard out there for a zombie movie. To try and make yourself distinct from the rest of the flesh eating hordes you really have to try something different in order to get noticed. Recent times have barfed up The Girl With All The Gifts with its emphasis on children and World War Z with its emphasis on throwing lots of money at the screen and then doing a bog standard final act that could be in any low budget undead flick.

It Stains The Sand Red tries something different for its plot and it works a treat… well to start with anyway.

Molly and Nick are racing across the desert in his Porsche, escaping from the zombie apocalypse. Neither of them seem particularly bothered by the mayhem they’ve left behind, partly because they are drunk and high but mostly because they are selfish. However a quick vomit stop results in Molly alone with no car and being relentlessly chased by a single, besuited zombie. This is the central plot of the film: one woman being mercilessly pursued by a man who wants to kill her (and eat her intestines obviously). No matter where she goes, and she doesn’t really have anywhere to go as she’s in the middle of the Nevada desert, there he is, relentlessly following her.

This is a great set up for a low budget movie. For one thing you only need two actors. Brittany Allen has a really tough job to do here. She has to be both an awful human being and deeply sympathetic (she pulls it off well). She may be self obsessed but she has also found herself in this situation through a series of bad choices with bad men, the zombie following her is just the latest in a long line of them. It is telling that when she runs out of the cocaine she was so desperate to keep hold of in her initial scramble to escape, the real Molly starts to show herself. She is a woman of regret and sorrow and maybe this enforced, hideous, sobering experience is what she needs to get back on track in life. Obviously its a pity that her new life could be in a world where everyone is dead but hey, you can’t chose when you’re going to sort your shit out.

Molly herself is a trashy, taste free stripper with too much make-up, some awful animal print clothes and deeply inappropriate shoes for walking in the desert. There is a beautiful moment when Molly comes across a mirror and sees her face, all the make-up long since washed away. She looks almost shocked at seeing her true self. Its the minimalist plot which means the film can have great, subtle character moments like this.

Juan Riedinger plays the zombie, not very affectionally know as Smalls. Zombies are ten-a-penny nowadays so making them distinct or even scary is a tricky number to pull off. Smalls’s relentless pursuit of Molly makes him a formidable presence and having him stumble around in the bright summer sun rather than shuffling around in the dark makes him more creepy rather than less: despite the fact that here is a man trying to kill a woman in broad daylight there is no one here to stop him.

The other thing that works so well in It Stains The Sand Red‘s favour is the astonishing Valley of Fire desert location. There have been a lot of low budget films shot in deserts but director Colin Minihan and his cinematographer Clayton Moore really take advantage of the Nevada landscape, with grand vistas and heat hazed tarmac. The stark image of Smalls in his sharp black suit against the burning brightness of the sand makes the zombie stand out more in this hellish world not fit for humans.

My main problem as I watched the first part of the film was that I wasn’t sure they could make this premise last for an hour and a half. Even half an hour in it felt a little repetitive with Molly thinking she’d escaped Smalls only for him to lurch out from behind some rock again and again. However the dynamic between the two characters does take a turn, I’m just not sure its for the better.

Look, I find it a bit odd for people to say I don’t like the way a story went it should have done this instead. Well if that’s the story you wanted to see then you should have written it yourself. So its not for me to tell Minihan and co what there story should be about. However it seems weird that (OKAY SPOILERS FOR THE REST OF THIS PARAGRAPH) firstly Molly and Smalls should start to get along, mainly because he is a zombie who’s soul purpose in life, sorry death, is to eat people and Molly should be just meat to him.  Maybe its like Bub in Day of the Dead who grows as a zombie and doesn’t want to eat his master. I can maybe see a bit how Molly would be more grateful to him (he saves her life, albeit only because the person attacking her was nearer and so easier to eat) as she probably likes any man who shows some kind of kindness to her. But their relationship does seem to me to stretch probability somewhat. However I could go along with this because at least it did do something different and stretch Molly’s character in interesting ways. What I couldn’t understand was how the final act abandons the entire set up altogether and becomes a basic standard zombie movie like hundreds of others. I realise that you have to tell a story with a beginning, a middle and an end, however the end of this story seemed to be from a completely different movie.

Okay so if you did skip the rest of that last paragraph I basically said it starts of interesting, well made and original and by the end its just well made. Still if you aren’t sick to death of zombies by now (and I have to say I am more and more struggling to care about them anymore) then its better than most, certainly better than World War Z with its generic, bog standard final act… oh, hang on….

Antibirth 21016

The horror genre can be very repetitive. It is constantly going through cycles, making the same stories over and over again. We are subjected to years of slasher movies with little creativity, then years of post-modern slashers mocking them. Possession films have been spat out for so many years that surely everyone must be bored of them by now? Found footage has had its day, at least this time round, as has the haunted house movie. A film about ouija boards is a box office smash and a year later the shelves are full of Ouija rip offs. If you look at the horror genre as just this cycle of repetition then it would be easy to dismiss it as a beast always eating its own tail.

However the horror genre is also the ground for some of the most experimental and unique movies out there. Maybe it is because of the low risk nature of the budgets, or perhaps because experiments in art often result in nightmarish imagery, but the genre is packed with all kinds of weird, off kilter and demented projects. Its not a coincidence that a number of Any Warhol’s films were horror ones. Horror is the place where Cronenberg can explore his obsession with the alien nature of the human body, and where David Lynch can study the fractured state of reality. Horror may be sometimes a cheesy yarn about teenagers being chopped up in a woods, but every now and then it can achieve something much darker, stranger and better.

This is where films like Antibirth exist. It is clear that director Danny Perez’s approach to narrative structure is secondary to weird imagery from the opening scene where we follow our heroine Lou, played by Natasha Lyonne, through a fragmented, drug fueled night of partying which barely makes any sense. The rest of the film is about Lou’s attempt to piece together what happened that night when she finds out that she is pregnant. Whilst initially hard to follow what has happened and indeed what is happening, that is a really the point. We are following Lou’s point of view, and being a drug addict and alcoholic her point of view is as incoherent as her daily life. It’s not like Lou even tries to straighten herself up, either because she has potentially been sexually assaulted or because she is carrying a new life inside her. In fact she seems to go the opposite way and drink more, smoke more and intake more pills. Of course if you have seen Orange Is The New Black then you know this isn’t exactly a stretch for Lyonne. However it is really worth checking interviews to see Lyonne isn’t just being herself on screen, she’s just really good at playing a waster.

Lyonne is ably helped by Chloe Sevengy playing her best friend Sadie. The two of them are like low rent versions of Eddie and Patsy in Absolutely Fabulous– whenever the shit hits the fan, or even if they just have a bit of spare time, their approach is just to pop back to Lou’s horrible prefab home (that seems to being the middle of a dump site) and get off their tits.

All this self abuse leads increasingly to Lou having weird flashbacks and hallucinations which, surprisingly, drive the narrative forward as she is able to see clues as to how she ended up pregnant in the first place. What is most surprising abour all of this is that all this destructive madness makes sense at the end with a gloopy and gory climax for which the word “bonkers” was invented.

The film is designed with primary colours which swwwmed to have been left to mix up together too much in a paint pot so instead of bright and cheerful it’s repellently gross. This is no more vividly expressed than when we meet what seem like bad trip versions of the Teletubbies.

Antibirth probably isn’t for everyone: it’s incredibly cheap and sleazy, and the lead character works hard to get your disrespect and is barely able to stand for most of the time. However if you like to watch some freakish and experimental fun with a brilliant central performance from an actor honing a particular type then you will be laughing. And then there’s that ending which is either hilarious too of revolting, depending how you look at it…

 

 

 

 

Alien: Covenant 2017

Look, if you are one of the seemingly endless amounts of people who didn´t like Prometheus then I can tell you now you are probably not going to Alien: Covenant either. This is because no matter what the title or poster suggests, this is very much the film set after Prometheus rather than the film set before Alien. The main reason given for people´s hatred of Prometheus is that the characters all do stupid things, and if that was your reason then,  like I said, Alien: Covenant is going to annoy you all over again because it is populated by more people doing more stupid things.

That whole stupid characters thing always bugged me. Partly because when you are are in times of great stress then you often DO do stupid things: for example I have frequently not ran out of the way of a falling spaceship, but my excuse was I was in a state of panic because a spaceship was falling on my head. What did you expect? I´m never going to be able to defend the guys who did the mapping of the Space Jockey´s ship and then couldn´t find their way out but to be honest I don´t care. I am a died in the wool, hard core horror fan and characters being idiots is my bread and butter. If they didn´t act like fools then Jason would never kill anyone. Brett in the orignal Alien was a bloody idiot for looking for Jones the cat but no one has a fanny fit about that do they? Alien: Covenant certainly has its fair share of dumbness (two people slip over on the same pool of blood for God´s sake) and there is a moment late in the film which seems more like a rip off from an Alien rip-off than something directed by Sir Ridley Scott but I´ll get to that in a bit.

Maybe the worst problem isn’t that they are stupid but that most of the characters aren´t characters at all, or at least aren´t developed in any way of note. No matter what you thought of Idris Elba and Charlize Theron´s characters in Prometheus at least you knew quite a lot about them. Here there are a number of characters who you can barely recognise as crew members before they´ve been eaten or dribbled on. I suspect that the 18 minutes of deleted scenes coming to the Blu Ray will sketch these people out a little better and you can at least work out who they are if you watch The Last Supper which was a five minute short released before the film which should really have been at the beginning of it.

However, these problems are by the by though. Yeah i know I have said before about the importance of character in order to care for the story but we do have some interesting individuals here and most importantly there is an awful lot of good. Like Prometheus what we are left with is, once again, an ambitious, haunting, beautiful but flawed horror science fiction movie that weighs more heavily on the horror this time than the sci fi of the last prequel.

This emphasis on horror is important. Apparently last time Ridley Scott felt that after all the sequels and verseses the concept of the Alien had run its course, so tried to do something different. Instead of the old dark house in space he went for a more cerebral action sci fi that mused on the origins of humanity and what it means to be a creator. Various last minute rewrites may have muddled those ideas somewhat but it didn’t stop the film from being an interesting discussion on birth, life and death. The look and feel was very much what the future and space could look like. Between the bright, beautiful people, their clothes, the ship and even, initially, the planet they land on , Scott was creating a science fiction universe where technology could be used to explore the origins of humanity and the posibilities of its existance going forward. Alien: Covenant is the flip-side to this. Everything is dirty and dark. The planet the crew land on might seem like it could be paradise but it becomes very quickly apparent that it is in fact hell.

Beyond the usual pods and eggs you’d expect to find on an Alien planet there is also Michael Fassbender’s crazy android David who clearly has far too much time by himself and, if he wasn’t already one circuit short of a ZX Spectrum before he certainly is now. Despite the welcome return of the H. R. Giger designed xenomorph the real monster here is David who has done some unspeakable things since the last film, some of which are only hinted at here (we are never fully sure what he did to Noomi Rapace’s Elizabeth Shaw) and what he has in store for the crew of the Covenant isn’t any better. The home David has made for himself is truly hellish, from the literal with charred bodies reaching out from the ground towards the heavens like some kind of renaissance landscape to the weird little lab/bedroom he lives in.

David is the main fully realised character on display, along with perhaps his replacement Walter. David is confused that he thinks he is playing god, trying to create life like Doctor Frankenstein (he even quotes what he thinks is Byron when what it is is Shelly, the husband of the author of Frankenstein) but really he is just the monster. The opening of the film shows David discussing creation with his maker and the main themes of the movie are set up here, as well as following on from Prometheus. Alien: Covenant might have the sheen of a blockbuster but what it really is a meditation on life and who has the right to create it.

It really is a pity that the rest of the characters are so underdeveloped as we are left to either root for David or against him, rather than for the final girl. That’s not to say that Katherine Waterston doesn’t do her best because she does, but we don’t know much about her other than her husband dies very early on.  This at least is one area where the characters do come alive, even if it is a bit unclear as to who they all are at various points: the spaceship Covenant is carrying colonists to new worlds and the crew themselves are mostly couples. The upshot of this is when one member dies there is serious grief from at least one other crew member, it would have been nice to establish which person was with who at the start of the film though. For example it wasn’t til after the film was over that I realised there was a gay couple on the ship.

The one truly ridiculous part of Alien: Covenant has to be the sex in the shower scene that you probably saw in the trailers. If it happened near the beginning it might have been bad enough but it happens right before the oh-its-not-really-dead extra climax. I’m as big a fan of sex in the shower as the next man who saw An American Werewolf in London as a youth, but if 90% of my crew mates had just been killed on a weird alien planet there’s no way I would be in the mood for some wet and wild times orbiting said planet about ten minutes later. Add into that that the scene feels lifted from Galaxy of Terror, itself a rip-off of Alien in the first place and you have to wonder what anyone was thinking when they wrote, shot and edited that scene.

Oh I don’t care that much really. Alien: Covenant is still head and shoulders above the Alien Vs Predator movies and is way more engaging than Alien: Resurrection (not hard admittedly) so its alright in my books. I’m not saying it isn’t flawed, and I’m certainly not saying it isn’t deeply stupid at points, because it definitely is, but I still really enjoyed it all the same. It was brimming with interesting ideas and beautifully dark imagery. it won’t go down as a classic like Alien or Aliens but it will certainly exist on my shelves next to other expensive and messy follies that I still love like Event Horizon, The Keep or Lifeforce and that, my friends, is okay by me.

God I love Lifeforce. Must watch that again sometime. Hey its my birthday, maybe I’ll watch it tonight…

Don’t Hang Up 2016

Pranksters are a staple of the horror genre. As most monsters and/or serial killer will need a bunch of teens to butcher then those teens better have some kind of character trait. You can have the jock, the nerd, the slutty girl and of course someone who likes nothing more than pulling hilarious pranks on the rest of the gang. And when I say hilarious I mean not funny in the slightest. The good thing about these fool makers is that they are often the first to be garrotted, beheaded or disemboweled by Jason Voorhees or whoever. The audience are happy to see these imbeciles die because they are annoying and their pranks are annoying too.

So making a film purely about pranksters is both a good idea and a terrible one. On the one hand no one else has made a horror movie like this, but on the other we have endure more and seemingly endless “jokes” at other people’s expense. Of course that is the point: we’re not meant to like these guys, but a whole movie with them front and centre? It might be too much.

Brady and Sam are the jesters in question. Despite both looking like male models who could be out getting laid relentlessly, they spend their sad spare time making prank calls to unsuspecting good folk and tell them that their home is being invaded or that their wives have been killed in a car crash. Laugh out loud stuff like that. Problems arise when they get a return phone call and the creepily voiced person (who sounds just like the killer in Scream) calls up and starts to turn the tables on them.

Damien Mace and Alexis Wajsbrot (how come all directors seem to work in twos nowadays?) do a damn fine job of shooting what is essentially a film entirely set in one location. We get some interesting camera moves rolling around Sam’s house like a budget version of David Fincher’s Panic Room. It helps set up the geography of the location which is important because there is a lot of going in and out of doors later on in the film and I really wouldn’t know what was going on without it.

Or maybe I wouldn’t have cared. Obviously Don’t Hang Up wants these characters to get their just desserts (or does it?) however I wouldn’t have minded at least one person to root for. Brady and Sam are the very embodiment of the word “pratts” and having to tolerate their winy existence for an hour and a half was more than most audiences deserve. There is a girlfriend who shows up but even she is pretty unsympathetic. Maybe this is harking back to the bad old days of the Saw movies where everyone was awful and they all got what they deserved but I’m not in any rush to return to that scenario.

Or maybe it’s just me. The film is very well made, the lads who play the two main characters are good actors (which could not always be said about the pranksters in the Friday the 13th movies) and the ending is at least satisfying.

More so than the ending of this review certainly…