Film Reviews by NP

This is a sequel to one of the most notorious horror films ever made and brings back writer/director Meir Zarchi, who was 80 at the time. Camille Keaton, who played original main character Jennifer Hills forty years earlier, also returns.

Two things become apparent as you watch: ‘I Spit on your Grave Déjà Vu isn’t very good. Secondly, at nearly two and a half hours, it is far, far too long. Every scene outstays its welcome, so any pacing or drama is completely squashed. The acting is mixed – sadly Keaton is probably the weakest performer.

Hills is joined here by her daughter Christy (Jamie Bernadette), and after a lengthy scene in which the two characters explain each other’s lives to the audience, they’re kidnapped in a protracted, and very noisy, scene in what looks like a car park. Not only does no one notice, but all the subsequent bouts of yelling and hollering are never challenged either. The only characters in the film seem to be the two women and their redneck antagonists. No one else seems to exist. In between the yelling, the lines of dialogue are often unspeakable, and the deaths are contrived, unimaginative, ridiculous and – guess what? – overlong (although I didn’t see the first decapitation coming).

When you think it’s going to end, it doesn’t. When it does, you wonder what you’ve just watched. 4 out of 10.

I’ll move quickly over the UK actors forced to speak with American actors, as well the leading lady’s plasticity and on to the film itself – anything with ‘Exorcism’ in the title promises the kind of thing you’ve seen several times before, ever since 1973’s ground-breaking ‘Exorcist’. Does this modestly budgeted production offer anything fresh?

You have to wait an hour before an exorcism goes through its familiar patterns. It’s pretty tame when it does, although Karen gets to call Rula Lenska a c**k sucker, which is unforgivable!

Although events occasionally seem to be moving into interesting horror territory, this never truly materialises, although the end is interesting. My score is 5 out of 10.

This begins as an excellent, thoughtful horror film about a young feral girl taken in by a school for troubled teens. We’re presented with the undeniable possibility that in many ways, young Darlin’ (Lauryn Canny) might have been better off with her ferocious animal-like mother. Her ferocious, animal-like mother (Pollyanna McKintosh) has that impression too and is never far behind.

Written and directed by the ‘Woman’ star McKintosh (this is actually a sequel to that 2011 film, although isn’t really billed as such), this meandering story of outsiders, hypocrisy, social rank, vagaries of the establishment and (happily) of cannibalism slowly bleeds away into an odd mishmash of styles that are further and further removed from the style of the original.

To invite our sympathies with the waif, her antagonists are so outrageously cruel to her, and their cruelty laid on with no subtlety whatsoever, that the admirable message of the film is muddied somewhat.

As events unfold, it loses its way and the potential becomes fragmented and squandered, going from promising to bizarre to ridiculous. As you watch, you can feel the intrigue and horror drain away into pantomime silliness, and that’s a real shame. 4 out of 10.

After a written, grammatically challenged monologue telling us the following story is based on true life events, we enter into the world of Jacob and Shawn (Justin Duncan and Gerald Crum) as they steal a supposedly haunted doll to increase their online popularity.

This is clearly a deliberately comedic production and proves reasonably successful, whilst also displaying a typically low-key ‘independent movie’ feel, that actually feeds into the occasional feeling of unease. While this is all fairly successful, there are also many moments where the jokey attitude drags things down. You get fed up with their antics sooner than they do. 4 out of 10.

This is a decent, well directed UK horror that just misses the mark. The story is interesting, and keeps itself watchable due to many shifts and revelations – but the antagonist and idea of the initial set-up are too similar to Jeepers Creepers 2 not to invite comparisons, and the ‘misunderstood’ character of Reggie is too much of a nasty little poser to ever side with. But then, I think we’re supposed to cheer when the nerdy girl gives the monster the one-fingered salute and calls it a ‘****ing piece of s***.’

The young cast does lend this caper a kind of more serious Scooby Doo vibe. Other than that, this is a mildly horrific way of spending 77 minutes. My score is 6 out of 10.

A bus load of misbehaving teens find themselves in a sinister funfair, but they are being watched by … something, or someone.

Tony Todd, who features briefly here, seems to have earmarked himself a career appearing in films like this. Modest productions that occasionally attempt to offer something new. In that, ‘The Accursed’ partially succeeds.

The usual collection of bratty kids is given slightly more depth than usual, their backstories making them more than the usual cyphers this kind of film usually features. This doesn’t stop them from being irritating, but at least they’re supposedly meant to be; damaged youths, as opposed to permanently drunk/horny teens.

The setting is what makes this stand out. I find seaside towns, funfairs, circuses and the like incredibly sinister when ‘out of season’, or, as here, simply abandoned. The funfair setting is quite well utilised. The story has enough twists and turns to keep it interesting. My score is 6 out of 10.

Horror comedies are a tricky business – humour is so subjective, it could make or break a production. I warmed to this – ironic given the snowbound location – immediately when a diner, interrupted by two louts, asks one of them, “Do you have the internet in this town?”
“Yeah, we have the internet.”
“Then why not use it? You could teach your mom how to read.”

There’s a caustic wit on display that runs all the way through, and balances out the genuinely nasty moments of gore, as well as softening the characters. Also, I love snowbound, isolated towns as locations for scary stories.

Jim Cummings writes, directs and plays the lead role in this. This is also the final film to star veteran actor Robert Forster. This is well acted across the board, by a cast who really seem to ‘get’ the quick-fire nuances and can balance them out with a growing sense of unease.

However - not all the jokes land, and sometimes scenes are over-filled with yelled expletives above anything else. Also, the balance isn’t always there – scenes that could be really horrific are undermined by swift cut-jumps to jokey reactions and comedy music. 5 out of 10.

This is a dark and dingy, often candle-lit horror that flits between richly atmospheric scenes and an abundance of CGI, which – unless you have squillions to spend – cheapens the overall effect.

It’s heightened by its very talented cast and its often fast pacing – there’s a lot going on, all of which deserve a second viewing to get to grips with it all. The effects work adds to the occasionally disjointed narrative, but CGI is (thankfully) never allowed to become dominant, enabling the performances to shine. I recommend this dark tale. 7 out of 10.

An initially slow-moving, talky film, this is nevertheless effective. Director and co-writer Vikram Jayakumar treats us to shadowy figures and suggestions of horror rather than plentiful effects or jump-scares; good performances and an under-used location and theme add to the whole.

There’s a genuinely surprising ending which is sign-posted at the very start (I didn’t guess the outcome!), a really nice sense of mood enhanced by good use of the Indian location. Also, I can’t pretend Vanessa Curry (as Amy) isn’t easy on the eye as well as playing a fairly convincing role here. My score is 8 out of 10.

This independent film betrays its low budget in the first few moments. Not with the cinematography, which is excellent, or the soundtrack, which is terrifically creepy, but with the flat acting from many of the cast. Asking many of them to assume American accents (for overseas sales, presumably) is a little too much. While not entirely unconvincing, the performances struggle occasionally.

Apart from that, I really enjoyed this, although the story is often too slow for its own good. Set in two timelines, we have some attempts at authentic 1612 ways of speaking. While this is commendable, the dialogue can be a little clumsy.

The beautiful locations, and Richard John Taylor’s arty direction, lift a film that concentrates on being a mood piece rather than a series of scares – while we do get occasionally shocking moments, they are few and far between; there is also a good, and commendably restrained, pay-off at the end. My score is 6 out of 10.

This is an excellent Mexican horror film starring ‘Saw’s Tobin Bell as Vasilio Canetti, a character shrouded in mystery. It could be described as a police procedural with elements of The Exorcist/The Omen thrown in for good measure. Directed with a real flair by Emilio Portes (who also co-writes), it looks good throughout. Special effects are used restrainedly and – with the exception of an animated statue, which is a good idea let down a little by its execution – are very effective.

There is a good cast of unorthodox heroes, cinematic locations and from the outset, a shockingly brutal line in creepy baby horror. The child at the centre of it all isn’t required to do a lot (probably just as well given his age), but what he does, he does very convincingly. In fact, there is very good acting across the board.

If I have any issue with this, it is that it is a little too long. Fifteen minutes could have been successfully trimmed, especially toward the end, which tends to drag. Recommended nevertheless. 8 out of 10.

This is directed by Grant McPhee, whose earlier ‘Night Kaleidoscope’ made such a virtue out of its very low budget. Although wildly different in mood and atmosphere, McPhee works his magic just as effectively for this story.

The acting – for much of the time a two-hander – is excellent. Sorcha Groundsell and Victoria Liddelle are wonderful as Judith and Roberta respectively. The supporting cast is equally fine. So good is this, it didn’t dawn on me until writing this review that there isn’t a single male character.

Like ‘Night Kaleidoscope’, this film stretches the boundaries of ‘horror’ as we know it; in a recent interview McPhee has said how he fails to see the point of emulating the style of much bigger budgeted productions and instead prefers to extol the virtues of more modest resources – and he does this admirably. His films possess an intimate, claustrophobic often trippy sense of unease, even in a sprawling, beautiful location such as this.

The much discussed Maddy is an interesting character, deliberately thinly sketched and therefore a mystery with dark undertones. To discuss this more would ruin the build up of what is a pretty slim, but compelling, storyline.

I thoroughly enjoyed this vaguely Brontë -ish tale of melancholy and longing and eagerly await McPhee’s next project – surely one of the most interesting and innovative directors of recent years. 8 out of 10.

Based on the Edgar Wallace book, ‘Dark Eyes of London’ features the mighty Bela Lugosi, incongruously surrounded by very British docklands, slums, murky water, and a vast home for the blind.

Horror is subjective: what frightens one person may bore another. For some reason, this film fills me with dread. The atmosphere is one of cruelty, brutality and the most vulnerable in society are subject to these atrocities. The seediness of their surroundings, the extravagance of Bela’s performance – every murky thing about this picture gets to me in a way far more polished efforts somehow do not. And it’s not even a pure horror – more a thriller caper, with grotesque elements.

Bela plays a dual role – one, bewigged, wearing black glasses and softly (and very convincingly) dubbed by another (English) actor as blind Dearborn, head of a converted warehouse that is now a home for the blind. He also plays Dr Orloff, who commits a series of murders for insurance purposes. Surrounded by more mannered, less memorable performers, Bela ‘does his thing’: some would call it ham, others might enjoy his theatrical playing. I’m definitely in the latter camp – once again, his heightened acting compared to the genteel under-playing of his co-stars is very effective. His portrayal of blind Dearborn is brilliant, his whole deportment is changed, his movements slow and uncertain. This become instantly obvious when Dearborn reveals his true identity, the contrast in his performance is effortless and impressive.

The blind are portrayed as tragic, shunned, kindly characters. None more so than monstrous Jake, who is also given the full horror make-up. Played by Wilfred Walter, he shares with Bela an exaggerated menace. The services held in Dearborn Home are eerie sights, with the residents sitting in cheerless silence as a kindly, aged voice escapes Bela – which in itself is a creepy oddity.

The character of resident Dumb Lou (Arthur E. Owen) suffers the brunt of Orloff’s cruelty. Lou is blind and unable to speak. When he discovers too much about Dearborn’s duplicity, Orloff robs him of his hearing too. Using (now) archaic Frankenstein-esque electronic equipment, the helpless little man is strapped down, taunted by Orloff, and has his hearing burnt out, the only reaction being the agitated twitching of his hands. The act is largely unseen, but we hear a distant scream. When we return to the scene, Lou’s hands have stopped twitching. It is a horrible moment, as is Orloff’s later gleeful drowning of the poor wretch.

A smoky morgue, a tearful heroine, mouldy walls, Lugosi’s stare, drownings … Director Walter Summers ensures every setting is as downbeat as possible, adding layer upon layer of leaden atmosphere upon an already sombre palette. And I think that’s what grabs me about this – the sparingly used horrific incidents are merely icing on this absorbingly bleak cake. An absorbingly bleak cake? I told you this film had an effect on me (the light comic ending almost seems to have been spliced in from another picture).

Considering it was the British ban on horror films that helped put the kibosh on many such films stateside a few years before, this is an audaciously (hypocritically?) gruesome thing. The briefly glimpsed images of corpses pulled out of the Thames are surprisingly graphic. Orloff’s fate, at the hands of a furious, betrayed Jake is disappointingly brief, and features Bela up to his neck in gulping muddy sludge, bringing to an end an exceptional film. Network Restoration has done an extraordinary job in cleaning this up. Now we can see the detail of the wonderful sets, and every show of emotion on display, without robbing ‘Dark Eyes of London’ of its rich, shadowy ambience.

This independent film, one of a number concentrating on Borley as a location for ghostly business, is decently acted, nicely filmed and technically impressive. Sadly, it is also very dull. When the tiniest glimpses or suggestions of a Nun-like spirit are consistently followed by ‘going back to the beginning again’, or waking from a dream (again), for most of the 90-minute runtime, it’s clear no major scares are going to manifest, which is frustrating.

I like slow burners; I like films that convey a certain sense of atmosphere – and this one does, as well as a nice feel for the 1944 setting, although there will be discrepancies if you really want to find them. Those discrepancies would be so much easier to overlook if there was a sense of excitement or pacing to distract. Sadly, there is not. Uneventful. My score is 4 out of 10.

As many reviewers love to point out, this is a fairly low budget venture. Anyone expecting a multi-million dollar spectacle and effects might be disappointed. With that out of the way, this is a very enjoyable story told with urgency, convincing acting and occasional bouts of impressive gore.

As a historical piece, director and co-writer Ted Geoghegan’s presents – to me at least – a pretty convincing recreation of life in the 1812 war. Okwaho, a young Mohawk warrior (Kaniehtiio Horn) and her two lovers battle American soldiers. The ongoing fight is given an extra frisson with the suggestion of something spiritual guiding her hand.

I had a great time with this. The story contains enough twists and shocks to retain interest most of the time, and the characters – although fairly thinly drawn – are all well played (Ezra Buzzington is particularly good as Hezekiah Holt).

Perhaps surprisingly, the American soldiers are not portrayed particularly heroically – far from it, in fact. The sporadic flashes of something unnatural only serve to spice things up further. My score is 7 out of 10.