Film Reviews by NP

This begins in very interesting fashion. An unusual premise, you really don’t know how the story is going to pan out. Sadly, it doesn’t really go anywhere as interesting as it promises, and when any developments do occur, they are very few and far between.

Some nice performances don’t disguise the fact that most characters are severely under-developed, and the horror elements never really gain momentum. Things really don’t go anywhere.

Despite being well directed and played, the main thing I took from ‘A Haunting in Cawdor’ was that it was being made up as it went along. My score is 4 out of 10.

‘The Relic’ is a mostly excellent horror film that unravels slightly toward the end. Telling the story of Edna (Robyn Nevin), who appears to be succumbing to dementia, and her family’s struggle to help her, this could be a parable for widespread age and decay, and what ultimately becomes of us. It’s quite humbling.

It is slow, moody, beautifully acted and written, troubling and melancholic: it reminds us we are all finite. Decay becomes the shadow cast before the characters and they are simply succumbing to it. Although, it the best traditions of horror, this is open to interpretation.

The allegory becomes a little too much toward the story’s close however, and the imagery swaps subtlety for something less sophisticated. This doesn’t exactly break the spell, and the evolution into full horror is effective, but it threatens to drift into fantasy. My score is 7 out of 10.

Events at the beginning of this film happen at such a fast pace that, coupled with the exuberant characters, things seem as if they might become exhausting. Thankfully, this calms down a little as ‘The Sanctuary’ progresses.

I enjoyed this German found footage film a great deal. The fact that the plot revolves around a group of notorious You Tubers gives the usual trappings – given away by the film’s alternative ‘Haunted Hospital’ title - individuality, as well as a good reason for them to continue filming no matter what.

The twist at the end is a big one, and asks a lot of the viewer – some will like it, some will hate it. I thought it made a lot of sense, and was genuinely unexpected. My score is 8 out of 10.

I was surprised to read ‘Red’ had a fairly fractious history. Original director Lucky McKee pulled out in support of his long-term collaborator Angela Bettis, who had been removed from the project. Kim Dickens had the awkward task of replacing the wonderful Bettis, and is very good in the role of Carrie.

The resultant film is surprisingly good considering the circumstances. Brian Cox is his usual reliable self, giving Avery Ludlow a quiet dignity belying a resilient determination – and I defy anyone not to sympathise with him completely when he and faithful dog Red are confronted by protected local hoodlums, also very well played, especially the relentlessly self-hating Harold (Kyle Gallner) and truly irredeemable Danny (Noel Fisher. Fisher is probably a lovely guy in real life, but his performance here makes you want to throttle him). Robert Englund and Ashley Laurence also pop up briefly, adding to a terrific cast.

My only problem is that the story relies a little too much on the stupidity of the villains. If they didn’t over-reach themselves quite so fully (as I suppose braggarts are prone to do), things would have turned out a lot differently. Also, there is a back-story for Avery that doesn’t really achieve anything except add an extra layer of tragedy for the poor fellow, as well as giving Cox and Dickens a good opportunity to showcase their excellent acting. My score is 7 out of 10.

This is a low budget monster feature. The Sasquatch are played by actors in suits, but we see them so sparingly thanks to director John Portanova that, to me, that’s never a problem – I often prefer practical effects to CGI anyway, unless there are millions of dollars on offer.

Portanovaa also produces and writes, so his story doesn’t over-exert its ambition, meaning that every set piece can at least be adequately realised. This restraint is commendable, and I enjoyed the resultant film as a result.

A few nice twists, some agreeable characters and a fair pace. Can’t say fairer than that. My score is 7 out of 10.

At first I was reticent about watching ‘Saint Maud’. A horror film concerning a terminally ill woman seemed too depressing (and too reality-based) a premise for my liking. Jennifer Ehle plays Amanda Köhl, and it is true she enlists the help of her ‘little saviour’ Maud (Morfydd Clark) to look after her through her final weeks and days – but that’s only part of the story.

The inclusion of Maud’s strict religious beliefs also sounded alarm bells for me. All too often, religious types are presented as fanatics, perverts and/or murderers, and that is a plot point I find not only predictable but lazy in its exploiting of an ‘easy target’. Amanda mocks the idea of religious belief, but there’s no laziness here. None of the characters are black and white; with the aid of clever writing and exemplary playing, you believe in them entirely - but none of them are predictable or easy to like. Things are more complex than that.

Despite my misgivings – misgivings that reinforce the belief that it’s best to go into any film blind – I absolutely loved ‘Saint Maud’. In this astonishing debut feature Rose Glass has created a world within a world – a world of abject loneliness and exclusion, of the fragility of human beings and the casual unkindness of others. Not that Maud is easy to sympathise with – initially she is pious and judgemental, but then, we are all flawed. Amanda wants to live her last days as a reflection of her exotic past, whereas by all accounts she was, as the departing nurse at the beginning of the film points out, ‘a bit of a c***.’

Most of the location filming took place in Scarborough, I was delighted realise (it’s a favourite place of mine) although – apart from the giveaway ‘Coney Island’ gambling emporium – many of the background details are blurred out, giving the impression that this is just another seaside town.

This won’t appeal to everyone. CGI lovers and jump-scare addicts may not find enough to hold their attention, but this is about saturation levels of mood, atmosphere and a very definite weirdness. I look forward to seeing more of Rose Glass’s productions. My score is 9 out of 10.

The most striking thing about this film is Joaquin Phoenix in the title role. His awkward, flamboyant, chuckling performance is truly something special. Laughing, when there is sadness and anger in the eyes, dancing and gyrating in a series of triumphant gestures or furiously spitting out vitriol about how he has been treated – Phoenix is wonderful, and every accolade he has received and every award he will win is justly deserved. His is a truly tragic character, but we are never allowed to truly sympathise with him – which is fine balance.

In fact, the acting cannot be faulted here at all. Robert De Niro has the relatively brief role of TV host Murray Franklin, the teeth-bleached entertainer who actually gives the name ‘Joker’ to outcast Arthur Fleck, and like everyone around him, is very good.

My only issue is with the story, or parts of it. Inevitably spoilers will occur – but he’s given a gun, and uses it to shoot three (arguably deserving) people. Dressed as a clown, he inadvertently reveals the gun at a one-man show at a children’s’ hospice. This is in the middle of a series of political protests made by people dressed as clowns that is sweeping across Gotham; and yet despite the fact that he is fired because of this, the only police intervention is from a couple of out-of-shape law enforcers causing a (very entertaining) siege on a train, and nothing else. From then, Arthur is invited to appear on a Franklin’s TV show in a live broadcast, despite having been ridiculed in an earlier edition, with no pre-show security check or other means to show identification. I know Gotham is, by its nature, a comic-strip world, despite director Todd Philips’ laudable attempts to give this a run down, urban reality, but when Fleck begins ranting and acting erratically, it’s no great surprise when he begins shooting people. I mean, what did they expect?

I enjoyed ‘Joker’ greatly, more that I thought I would, but these cases of Fleck’s demented behaviour going continually unchecked bugged me a little. Even in the middle of a clown-demic, would these things really be allowed to happen?

That aside, I recommend to ‘Joker’ to any of the few people who have not seen it. It’s one heck of a rollercoaster. My score is 7 out of 10.

It’s probably true to say that watching this Indonesian film will leave you exhausted. The story of a raid on a notorious drug gang’s safe house is exhilarating, non-stop and relentless.

The story itself is straightforward, but then it needn’t be anything else. You have one set of characters that form the ruthless SWAT team, and another set of characters that make up an even more ruthless gang. That’s all you need.

The choreography is extraordinary. The actors went through a special training regime in order to study various combat protocols and weapons use. The result is a little too heavy to be labelled as fun, and too grisly to appeal to everyone; but it is an edge-of-your seat ride that rarely lets up for a moment, and I thoroughly recommend it. 8 out of 10.

“What else would you expect from this family?” mom asks dad, having embraced the fact that her husband and children are dreadful. “This is more than just stupid sh*t,” she later tells her daughter.

The parents make nervous small-talk as they wait to see whether their new temporary trailer accommodation meets with their teens’ approval. Not to worry, they’re busy looking at their phones, not speaking, barely tolerating anything. Daughter Kinsey has her Ramones t-shirt on, so clearly she’s not to be provoked. Despite the initial difficulty to warm to the characters, who are only roused from their blandness by arguments, they become more sympathetic as their situation grows more deadly. Why not make them likeable in the first place – then we can care even more about them when things get nasty?

I might be unusual in that I am not familiar with the earlier two ‘Strangers’ films. I think this stands up pretty well on its own, although I’m guessing no explanation is ever given as to who these beings are? Is ‘why not?’ really justification for all the implausibly elaborate ways of torture and killing committed by the creatures when asked ‘Why are you doing this to us?’ Where did they come from? We get no answers here, and are left to wonder why these three antagonists go to such trouble to make life miserable for the family.

Another title for this could have been ‘Death by Music from the Eighties’, because many acts of violence are accompanied by a popular song from that era. Kim Wilde, in particular.

I found this to be a decent, if unremarkable, slasher film. It was also curiously gore free, but as it seems to have done well at the box office, the choice to appeal to the widest of demographics appears to have paid off.

Everyone puts in sterling performances here, from the young and pretty parents, to the older-than-their years teens. My score is 6 out of 10.

Of the comments I have read about this, many of the more critical ones have been scathing about the two little girls. I have seen a great many juvenile performers far worse than this, and whilst they probably are too prominent, they are nowhere near as whiney or obnoxious as a lot of children in these kind of productions – and their reactions to everything going on around them were very well played. Poor little sods.

More troublesome to me is the elaborate and highly improbably lengths to which the antagonist goes to ruin the lives of the young mother and her two daughters. Of course, his capers are heightened for dramatic effect, but he goes to an awful lot of trouble just to polish off these newcomers – and slowly too. 6 out of 10.

Another home invasion film probably influenced by ‘The Strangers', and very good it is too. To begin with, the viewer is continually wrong-footed until we’re finally made aware of what is going on. Even then, events conspire to surprise us.

There’s also a reason for the antagonists to be here, which makes them more real and believable, rather than nameless mask-wearers who elaborately taunt and torture people for kicks.

The heroes are a motley bunch. The men spend a lot of time squabbling, and the mother is defined mainly by botox; the daughter meanwhile is wetter than a wet thing. Understandably so, you might argue, given the circumstances.

Good, unexpected ending too, although some will be frustrated by it. My score is 8 out of 10.

This is a quietly unsettling film, directed very much in the style of a TV movie. It really ramps up the tension at the halfway mark, following a séance to determine the cause of the haunting that is rattling John Russell, played by an excellent George C Scott.

A question that remains with me after watching this is - if the spirit is so powerful, why does it need Russell’s help? Equally unclear is the actual ending of the film, involving Sen. Joseph Carmichael (played by another wonderful veteran Melvyn Douglas) in his final scene (no major spoilers here!).

For a film to be open to suggestion is not a problem for me, especially when the whole experience is as good as this. Minimal horror effects go to prove that if done right (and director Peter Medak certainly knows how to do that), a palpably uneasy atmosphere is enough. My score is 7 out of 10.

This is a strangely structured film that takes in period horror and flirts with found footage. Slightly over-long, but very well acted, and a central doll that is genuinely quite scary on occasions.

I like that ‘Curse of the Witch’s Doll’ aims to try something different, both with the horror elements and the story itself. This is a rare occurrence where a bigger budget might have benefited that ambition – as it is, some of the very talky scenes outstay their welcome a little.

It’s surprising how little the doll actually features, but when it does, and considering it is only a prop, it is surprisingly effective. A definite case of less is more. My score is 7 out of 10.

This is an independent film about a caper organised by notorious east end gangsters the Kray twins. Despite something of a drubbing from the critics, I enjoyed this. The cinematography is nice and gloomy, the weather relentlessly wintry. The acting ranges from good to very good (former EastEnder Rita Simons is excellent as Lisa Prescott). Sadly, the weakest link by some way is Nathanjohn Carter as Ronnie Kray who wouldn’t cut it as a supporting character, and as one of the main players, lets the side down rather.

What a cast too. Chris Ellison, Linda Lusardi, Nicholas Ball and the late Leslie Grantham in his final role.

The story is a good, low-key, character driven slow-burner. The director and writer is prolific Richard John Taylor (who was also behind the similar gangster tale, 2020’s ‘Vengeance’), who is a name to look out for. My score is 7 out of 10.

This is an atmospheric, claustrophobic chiller. Shay Mitchell is very good as damaged Megan, and Kirby Johnson is very effective as the eerie title character. With possession/exorcism stories, you often know what you’re going to get, so I liked the fact this story actually began with the exorcism and then explored the fall-out. The ex-boyfriend Andrew (Grey Damon – what a great name) s a bit wooden, and Security assistant Dave has got frizzy ginger hair, so he’s a bit of a twit.

In the 80s there was a dance move called body-popping. For a while, it was everywhere – then it became a feature of horror movie creatures – and it is very much in evidence here too.

This reinvigorated my passion for horror after watching a lot of substandard genre films. My score is 8 out of 10.