Film Reviews by NP

I would say the only similarity this has with the ‘Wrong Turn’ film series up to this point, is that a group of people get attacked in the woods. We have no cannibalism and little in the way of gore here – in the fact the aggressors seem to be just as reasonable, if not more so, than the ‘heroes’ on occasion.

We have a more diverse range of protagonists with this update, and they are referred to as ‘hipsters’ at one point. Although collectively annoying, they are much more appealing than many of the horny/stoned teen ‘cattle’ from previous films, or indeed many from this genre.

The story is an interesting one, and is much more contained than any of the preceding films: I can’t see there being a linear sequel to this (although of course, I may be wrong). Although the characters are more intelligent, and their situation is more than just slasher territory, I can see why some feel short-changed due to the lack of horror or anything much in the way of scares. The whole thing is a series of events rather than a tale that grows in pace or intensity, more of a series of chapters in a book. It’s good stuff, exceptionally well played and very good at wrong-footing the audience. Even the end credits sequence contains another twist.

My only issue would be – why call it ‘Wrong Turn’ when it is so different and more folk horror than the preceding films? I suspect the obfuscation comes down to making money, which does the resulting production an injustice. My score is 7 out of 10.

I honestly don’t know what I’ve just watched. Recommended for José Ramón Larraz completists only – anyone expecting the slow-burning exploitation/eroticism of his 1974 film ‘Vampyres’ will doubtless be disappointed with this.

A mildly sexual relationship develops between two young women, Triana and Lorna – and Triana is ‘plagued’ by dreams of a naked man on horseback. When he appears in actuality … not a lot happens, all in a washed-out series of images (artistic choice or a sign of its age? Not sure). Shame, because it’s an intriguing premise.

Possibly this film is notorious mostly for the image of a naked woman inside a wooden horse, which is being approached by another horse. It’s enough to make the eyes water - but not much else remains in the memory. If you’re persevering in the hope of a good ending … I wouldn’t bother. My score is 3 out of 10.

If you’ve not seen the original ‘Beyond the Door’, don’t fret. This film has no connection with it, other than the casting of young David Colin Jr (in his only two film roles), here as Marco. Initially entitled ‘Shock’, outside the film’s native Italy, this was re-titled to cash-in on the notoriety of that earlier production; it might have been better to let ‘Beyond the Door 2’ to speak for itself.

This Omen-esque psychological horror dishes out the familiar ‘is she the victim of something supernatural or is it all in her mind?’ plot. That said, Mario Bava’s last film plays with the idea more effectively than most. It also features a terrific central performance from Daria Nicolodi as Dora, who descends from rational to irrational – and still the horrors continue for the poor lass.

A moderately budgeted venture, there are also some very effective practical special effects (the first one only moments in, involving an inexplicably moving white sheet). Equally, central brat Marco is entirely believable as the possible villain – he certainly seems capable of the various unpleasant things that occur, whether guilty or not (I’m not telling).

Some scenes were directed by Bava’s son, an uncredited Lamberto, but the results are even and the spiralling horrors flow very effectively. The Goblin-like score. By I Libra, helps with the sense of disorientation. My score is 7 out of 10.

At the centre of this powerful period found-footage horror is the horrifically tragic story of young Kathleen O’Brien. We first see her alone and imprisoned in the filth of containment, chained deep within an asylum, a pregnant virgin in the throes of possession. Her story is never a happy one, and her throwaway, inevitable fate is that much more effective because it occurs amidst so much aggression from her so-called carers, and there is so much else going on.

Set in the 1960s, Father Riley and Father Thornton’s grisly mission is recorded in what emerges as the found footage we, the audience, are watching. It could be seen as a meshing of ‘The Exorcist’ and ‘The Blair Witch Project’ as it contains a few similarities to both; it also contains cruelty and a dank atmosphere unique to this production.

Everyone concerned should be congratulated on this, especially director and co-writer Aislinn Clarke, who is careful to expose the failings in the system on display here, and those who follow it with a lack of discretion or sympathy, and not fall back on an easier, obvious blasphemy. The villains here are distinctly human, and it is they who allow further, only glimpsed-at, evils to emerge.

Visually, the film is gloomy and claustrophobic with attention given to the grain and flares of film from the time period. Although the possibility of wielding a camera from those times as it is wielded here, is slim, such is the overpowering atmosphere that it doesn’t really matter. Splendidly grim. My score is 8 out of 10.

There are quite a few horror films of this type around – very low budget and low on gore. As independent films go, this is technically very good with some fairly convincing acting.

It isn’t, however, very frightening. Dolls can often be unnerving. Mandy the doll is an unsettling looking prop, and efforts are made to give her a degree of apparent mobility; but she/it isn’t quite enough to fill 90 minutes of film.

I’m glad films like this are made, and it’s unfortunate that anything with a less-than-stellar budget gets slated for that very reason. What are you supposed to do if you have an idea for a film? Realise that you don’t have access to millions of pounds, so you don’t bother pursuing it? Director Jamie Weston and the cast and crew (including briefly, Louisa Warren who has directed a number of similar projects) should be commended for producing something they are passionate about. My score is 6 out of 10.

This is a really well made horror – very gloomy, with a convincing period look and manner. Events take place in 1974, and this is pivotal in a number of ways, most important being the lack of ‘power’ brought about by trade union led strikes at the time, which meant that even hospitals spent time plunged into darkness.

Valerie (Rose Williams) has good reason to hate the dark, and after making enemies from the offset in her job as a nurse placed on the nightshift, spends much of her time in gloomy, unlit rooms and wards. Most people Val meets are horrible, whether as a result of their own experiences or simply because they can get away with it.

There’s a genuine sense of dread throughout, helped enormously by Elizabeth Bernholz and Max de Wardener’s creepy soundtrack. Writer/director Corinna Faith makes as much of the atmosphere as possible, and we are given reasons to understand many of the flaws displayed by many of the characters. Nice to see that many get their comeuppance or are given the chance to see the error of their ways. My score is 8 out of 10.

The acting on display here is exemplary. When you have people like Jim Broadbent and Tim Curry in supporting roles, you know the main cast are of a high standard.

My only problem is, when Susannah York and John Hurt welcome Alan Bates’ character into their homes, they are too ‘polite’ to notice how utterly bonkers he is. Turning the other cheek is one thing, but there are several instances where Bates would have earned his marching orders, however politely. As it turns out, he appears to be slightly madder than anyone realised.

‘The Shout’ would have made a terrific episode of vintage UK drama ‘Tales of the Unexpected’, where it would result in a pretty tense half hour of television. Stretched to nearly three times that, only the acting saves it from being a bit of a chore. My score is 4 out of 10.

I lost interest in the Saw franchise – for that is what it had become, rather than a story – a few sequels ago, after Jigsaw’s elaborate traps and contrived plans became ever more ludicrous, especially after the character had seemingly died. This is ‘Saw 8’; let’s make no mistake about that. Renaming the series after the title character gives a suggestion of starting again, or rebooting, but it doesn’t.

To be fair, we don’t have to wait long before the grimy police procedurals and the screaming victims begin once again to get to the bottom of the slick-talking antagonist’s latest CGI gore-anticipating gameplay. Then towards the end, vast swathes of plot exposition are dished out with moustache-twirling bravado. If you love it, here’s more of the same. If you’re looking for something new amid the hollering and perfect-teeth hysteria, you won’t find it here.

A different name it may be, but the contents are still designer-sweaty and loud. It’s all been done before, too often. My score is 3 out of 10.

This begins with a kind of Universal films tribute – the opening credits come complete with Hans J. Salter’s familiar 1940s music suite, and our heroine Anna James is listening to a Universal Sherlock Holmes soundtrack in the opening scenes (1946’s ‘Terror by Night’, as it goes). Before much else happens, she settles down to watch ‘Nosferatu’ and Vincent Price in further classic old films. It seems that a deliberate decision has been made that identifying these vintage icons is far more interesting than anything else going on here – because for some considerable time, nothing else *is* going on here.

Anna (Lara Belmont) wanders around the big isolated house she has rented. She sits down, stands up, arranges her laptop on a desk, walks around, and has a cuppa. Sometimes she is in daylight, other times in the dark. It is scintillating stuff. There are nice views of the rolling countryside, often with a blue filter over them. All to the strains of melancholy piano music reassuring us all this meandering is deliberate. This is the film.

I very rarely watch a film and get the feeling I am having the mickey taken out of me, but this is the case much of the time here – how long can I watch someone doing nothing? I like slow-burning, atmospheric stories, and there is a remote ambience here; there are also a handful of genuinely eerie moments, but you really have to wait far too long for them. My score is 4 out of 10.

It would be ridiculous to imagine Michael Myers, over forty years after his debut, was still of an age to adopt the physical prowess of a slasher killer. So, because ‘Halloween’ has long since been a franchise and needs to continue to make money, he has to become more than human: to possess powers beyond human understanding (‘the more he kills, the more he transcends,’ is all we get - never specified, explained or explored). He has all this power, yet chooses to go around stabbing sketchy residents while wearing a William Shatner mask. The notion of the ‘boogeyman’ is a frightening idea stretched decades over its reasonable lifespan, and has to continue because … well, because.

There’s a well-executed set-piece near the beginning where an entire fire-crew are killed by this one-note spectre. It’s impressively staged but empty because the villain is an impossible antagonist – no rules apply to him. He keeps coming back, so you know the outcome: anyone you meet is killed. So where do you go from there?

You bring back Jamie Lee Curtis again from the original and make another reboot, designed as a trilogy, that’s where. By its very nature, this delivers exactly what you expect. This is the middle portion, so things are more in limbo than usual – nothing major will occur because there’s still another instalment to come. Laurie Strode is sidelined because presumably, she will have a hand in despatching Michael in the apparent finale (before he appears to come back to life seconds before the end credits roll, I imagine).

So we have more of the same here. Loud non-entities, all virtually identical in character, horrible squealing kids, come and go in often lacklustre fashion; Michael, the least interesting of the lot, endures because the initial idea first introduced all those decades ago, was a successful one.

The deaths are brief and perfunctory, except the heroine survives all manner of violence, because she’s the heroine. Even her inevitable cry of ‘come and get me, mother*****r’ fails to inspire Michael to finish her off. The portrayal of a town quickly descending into panic is effective, but that’s about it. My score is 3 out of 10.

This film is commendable for trying something different. The idea of a futuristic tower block being built on top of an old slaughterhouse with a questionable past is a good one. The rich, beautiful people who guide us through this potential nightmare, with their perfect smiles and hints of cosmetic surgery are easy to dislike, however, and the acting doesn’t stop them from being entirely bland. One perfectly manicured character has a video conversation with her mother – who is exactly the same kind of perfected character vacuum as everyone else, only a few years older. Equally, the pouty little girl Mia whose parents coo over constantly is just a miniature version, carved out of the same stuff.

There are hints of JG Ballard in this storyline, and the production does its best to evoke a disturbing past by integrating images of animal distress from the building’s slaughterhouse days. This works pretty well.

Callum Blue is good as Alex and Mackenzie Moss impresses as little Mia, especially when things get nasty. Sadly, ‘getting nasty’ in the case of this film indicates this turns into another retread of The Shining. 5 out of 10 for me.

Well, this is a load of old cobblers. Universal get criticised for allowing their monster movies to run out of steam as the 1940s went on but the truth is, they were head and shoulders above Monogram stuff like this.

Interesting to note that John Carradine’s character Toby addressed Lugosi’s Dr. Marlowe as ‘master’ – given Carradine’s performance here, Bela was in a different league, even in this confused and ponderous plodder. Incredible then, that around this time, Carradine was chosen to replace Lugosi as Dracula for Universal.

It gives me no pleasure to see Bela, or George Zucco (here playing Nicholas), reduced to such slow moving fright-less nonsense. It’s not bad enough to be interesting, and the 62 minute run-time seems a lot longer, and is topped by a jokey last line that could politely be described as ‘meta’.

I love these old horror films usually, but this is a bit of a chore, I’m sorry to say. My score is 3 out of 10.

This is a pleasant surprise. I expected it to be soft-core titillation played by an effortlessly gorgeous cast, and it is – but there’s enough going on to make you want to keep watching.

Sharon Hinnendael is good as Charlotte Hawthorn, unlikely shy and virginal as the character is, and Victor Webster as Professor Cole looks to have wandered in straight from ‘The Days of Our Lives’ or ‘Sunset Beach’, but is very effective in the role.

If you like horrors laced with bitchy catwalk prom girls and hidden secrets, you’ll like this – if not, you may even be converted - for 91 minutes at least. My score is 7 out of 10.

This is a fairly convincing, wittily written werewolf western. No spoiler there – the revelation is all over the packaging. Great fun, and the werewolves are pretty impressive too – wisely built up throughout the film and kept in shadow much of the time.

At least some of the actors are not American, but sporting American accents as befits the location. I had a hard time trying to work out who was a native American and who was not, so convincing were the accents to my UK ears.

The finale is anti-climactic; I was hoping for rather more than we got. Overall, though, I had a great time with this. The locations and cinematography seemed very accurate and suitably creepy and there were really strong performances across the board. My score is 7 out of 10.

While watching this, my heart went out to Emily Hall, who plays Laura. She gives a decent performance considering all the things working against her – namely, her appalling dialogue, unfathomable dubbing (from American into American), the stone-dead pacing, derivative storyline and the performances of all of those around her. Oh, and the ballad accompanying the longed-for finale 100 minutes later.

There is a scene towards the end of ‘The Last Inn’ involving a priest explaining the entire plot (which seems to be cribbed from ‘The Others’), which involves some of the worst acting I have ever seen on film. So bad, it’s as if everyone is emoting through a mechanical speech-generating device.

It’s as though the dialogue and delivery were translated strictly from another language – possibly Chinese, given that the filming took place mainly at Hengdiah film studios. Remember the old Japanese 1970s ‘Godzilla’ films from Toho studios, and how they were often let down by poor dialogue and dubbing? That’s what this reminds me of.

Elsewhere, the cinematography is very good and nicely lit. There is no skimping on the budget either, because some money has clearly been spent on this. That the results are so off-kilter and odd, ensure that it’s a challenge to get to the end, where you can at least get some comfort spotting the spelling errors in the closing credits. Hopefully Emily Hall can put this behind her. My score is 3 out of 10.