TEXAS CHAINSAW

Director: John Luessenhop

Screenplay: Adam Marcus, Debra Sullivan, Kirtsen Elms
Starring: Alexandra Daddario, Scott Eastwood
Evil has many faces

The Texas Chainsaw movie franchise is one of the most convoluted and scatter-shot series of films in the genre. Similar to the “Halloween” franchise there have been sequels and reboots, and also (uniquely) a prequel to a remake! Like its hulking protagonist, this is a cinematic offering that refuses  to lie down and play dead. It’s undeniable that the 1974 movie is an original and a classic, with a gruesome core and a perfect atmosphere of madness and terror. This is all the more impressive when you realise, that for all its reputation, there is hardly any blood-letting in the film at all. Which makes it all the more ridiculous that the original film was subjected to a long and unnecessary ban on the UK shores. Since then we’ve had the (hit-and-miss) “Chainsaw Part 2”, the (hit-and-miss) “Chainsaw 3: Leatherface”, the (shit-and-piss) “Chainsaw: The Next Generation”, the (actually quite impressive) 2003 remake “Texas Chainsaw Massacre”, and the (meh) prequel to the remake “The Beginning”. Phew!

Now we have a new entry. It’s minus the “massacre”, but it’s got added 3D. Before we get to the film itself, there are a number of kudos that need to be acknowledged. The director (John Luessenhop) has shown some backbone, and insisted on a serious approach to the subject matter, and actively stated that this would be a direct sequel to the 1974 classic. Forget about the previous sequels and remakes, the storyline deals with the ramifications of what happened to the farm and the hideous Sawyer family, after Marilyn Burns hitched a lift on a truck, and Leatherface was left furiously dancing with his chainsaw against the backdrop of a burning sun. Also, there has been an absolute blitzkrieg of advertising and paraphernalia around the release, which I find pretty darn exciting and encouraging for what could have been seen to be a “niche” genre film, alongside “Les Mis” and “Jack Reacher”. This is true of both the US and the UK shores, nice going Liongate dudes!

Anyway … the film itself. (*drum roll*).
“Texas Chainsaw” (3D or otherwise) opens with a montage of the original iconic scenes, rendered in (sort of) 3D. It then kicks off with a pre-story scenario with the local police onsite at the Sawyer residence and ready to take “Leatherface” (His name is Jed Sawyer folks!! No! Really!) into custody, but this is interrupted by a large gang of local hicks, who turn out to be the 20th Century’s equivalent of peasants with pitchforks and flaming torches. It all kicks off, and Molotov’s make short work of the house and the Sawyer family. Something that is made instantly clear is that the Sawyer family is more extended than small gang of nutters that the 1974 film showed. It’s a hillbilly brood and one little baby survives, along with another member of the family … guess who!

Roll forward twenty years or so … Incidentally, the eras depicted aren’t made clear until we see a gravestone which confirms that the film is set in 2012. As one character has aged about twenty years or so, this means that the original film took place in the 1990’s. Tobe Hooper was more forward thinking than we knew! It also means that Leatherface is not sixty years old, as some wise asses have been complaining about on film forums. I digress … Heather Miller (Alexandra Daddario) learns that she is adopted. Her stepfather drops this bombshell on her lap with the words “You came from a shit-heap” … Nice. An Aunt has left her a mansion in her will, and so she travels to Texas with her friends, and a hitchhiker picked up along the way, until she arrives in the sleepy town of Newt. The mansion is beyond her wildest dreams, and within a few hours she soon settles into the extravagant gaff. Unbeknownst to her, there are secrets in the mansion, and she will soon have to face the truth about her history and her bloodline. It’s at this point on viewing the film that you might inwardly groan, and think you know where the plot is going. They’re a group of archetypal teenagers (the douche-bag boyfriend, the slutty girlfriend, the virginal “final girl”, etc.). They’re going to be gradually picked off by Leatherface, whilst searching through the mansion and chased through the woods. But, hold on thar Jethro! To Luessenhop’s credit, that isn’t where the film goes. Not at all. Halfway during the film, there have been some shock murders and bloodletting (which homage some of the scenes in the original), but it then turns into a genuinely tense chase sequence, and the plot goes into a completely different direction. I won’t elaborate further, so as not to spoiler-alert any potential viewers…

I actually admire what Luessenhop and his crew have done here. It could have been a straightforward slasher, but they’ve tried to put a different spin on the fable. Whether you agree with what happens in the plot and the directions it takes are down to your personal preference, but at least it’s not groaningly formulaic. I will admit that there are plot-holes that you could ride a stilt-walking Elephant through (Why the hell does she never read her Aunt’s letter? Why has Heather never heard of the Sawyer clan?), and some characters simply disappear from the film at some points. Most of all, you may find your credibility stretched by decisions made by the main characters, namely the leading lady and the town Sheriff. The script is also a little on the clunky side. “Chainsaws don’t make yer bulletproof” says one copper. No, but some common sense and sharp-shooting lessons would help in your favour. Those last few points are the only reasons why I haven’t rated it higher, because this IS an enjoyable film folks.

I know that mainstream critics and horror purists are never going to rate this very highly, but it clicks so many buttons that I had a great time with it. For once, the 3D is used to huge advantage for horror purposes. Yes… you do get a chainsaw in the face … several times in fact. In one bravura sequence a character hides in a coffin and Leatherface sticks the saw through the lid … and into the audience, about 6 rows in fact! Great stuff! Blood and OTT gore is also present. One character is bisected horizontally whilst hanging from a meat hook, with no (arf!) cut-away by the camera. CGI is also kept to a minimum. Practical effects here! Yayyy! There are nice and knowing cameos for Gunnar Hansen, Marilyn Burns, and Bill Moseley as well.
Oh … and stay for the small post-credit sequence where an annoying couple get their come-uppance!

So, if you can live with the plot-holes, and some questionable characterisations, you have a solid and enjoyable addition to the franchise. I would personally put it below the 1974 classic, and probably the 2003 remake (which I still have a soft spot for), but way above the other sequels and “The Beginning”, and to be honest that is far more than I was expecting.

It’ll be interesting to see what direction a sequel would take (if it makes enough to keep Liongate happy).



SIGHTSEERS

Director: Ben Wheatley

Screenplay: Steve Oram, Alice Lowe
Starring: Steve Oram, Alice Lowe
Killers have never been this close knit

After his first film (“Down Terrace”) and the critically acclaimed “Kill list”, the third film by UK director Ben Wheatley has been eagerly anticipated by fans of his work, and those who are generally interested in home-grown genre artists in general. “Sightseers” is released nationally on the 30th November, and comes to us already laden with festival plaudits and superlative reviews in the general media. So what can you expect from the film and is it really as impressive as we’ve been led to believe…

To begin with, I’ll just state that “Kill List” was a film that I admired and appreciated, rather than really liked (Phrase @copyrighted by The Back-handed compliment company). Without spoiling it for those that haven’t seen it yet, the mash-up of gritty crime drama and horror genre, didn’t personally work for me, and neither did the ambiguity of the climax. But a lot of people don’t agree with me on that (and many other things come to think of it ...). So I had a bit of trepidation before seeing the film, in case the film veered too much between comedy and horror, and making neither of the elements work. I needn’t have worried though. “Sightseers” is a terrifically British black comedy, which merges the banal with random acts of violence, genuinely funny one-liners, and surreal situations.

The film starts with Chris (Steve Oram) and Tina (Alice Lowe) getting ready to leave on a camping holiday, with a state-of-the-arse Caravan. It’s a relatively new relationship of 3 months, and Tina’s domineering bitch-cow of a Mum isn’t happy. In fact Tina’s Mother has a grudge against her daughter, ever since an unfortunate incident with the family dog, a squeaky toy, and some knitting needles! Anyway, Chris has the agenda sorted out for the next week or so. Remember those bizarre tourist attractions that your parents insisted on taking you to whenever you were touring the UK hotspots? Chris does, and he wants to visit the best of them in the Northern Counties.  Crich Tramway Museum, Keswick Pencil Museum, etc. (NB: These ARE real attractions). All ready to be ticked off and enjoyed. However, a couple of “accidents” later, and some messed-up corpses onwards, it becomes clear that Chris and Tina are kindred spirits in more ways than just a shared interest in niche museums and gift-shop tat!

The success of “Sightseers” depends on the audience reaction to Chris and Tina. Luckily these are superbly brought to life by the joint talents of Steve Oram and Alice Lowe. At a Q&A session, they stated that the Brummie couple were their own creations from previous shows and improvisations, and come out of the idea of two boring caravan enthusiasts being serial-killers. Oram is perhaps best known as “Donnie the Tramp” in “The Mighty Boosh”. Lowe is the archetypical I-know-that-face comedy actress, who played the lead in “Garth Marenghi’s Dark Place”, and many BBC sketch shows. Their performances are faultless here. They are basically adult-kids, with a sense of naivety and joy in simple things. They are (at least initially) endearing to the audience, because their victims are people that we’ve all waved an imaginary gun at! The litter-bug, the boisterous kids, noisy hippies, etc. “They’re not innocent people” says Chris “They’re Daily Mail readers”. Quite. Even when the crimes get out of hand, you can’t help rooting for them, if only for the simple pleasure and goals that they seek.  Some of the violence is quite brutal, particularly one pompous victim who gets pummelled to pulp by Chris, whilst accompanied on the soundtrack by John Hurt reading the lyrics to “Jerusalem”! Wheatley says this was intended, as he never wanted the victims to be seen as merely cyphers or objects to be abused by the couple. No A-Team or PG-13 violence here folks!

The film does come up with some gut-bustlingly funny moments to offset the occasional violence. It’s the dead-pan deliveries by Lowe and Oram that really sell it. Whether; it’s Tina bellowing “That’s not my vagina!!” on finding a stolen camera with previous photos stored, the ridiculous sight of Tina writing a Dear-John letter with the biggest pencil in the world, or the couple lovingly laying out knitted lingerie on the caravan bed (including crotch-less knickers!!).The droll delivery is just fantastic.

Also worth noting, is the subtle “power-struggle” in the relationship, which alternates at various points between Chris and Tina, and provides a nice dimension to the narrative. Full marks also to Wheatley for the very strong soundtrack.

Whilst a lot of reviews have clearly stated this to be the “best Brit (genre) film of 2012”, I still have a soft spot for the underrated “Cockneys Vs. Zombies”, “Grabbers” and “Tower Block”, but this is still up there with the best of the UK genre films this year, and it HAS been a very good year for home-produced genre … for a change.

So all in all, a wonderful little film for Christmas to demonstrate the power of love. Sod “It’s a Wonderful Life”! Go and see Chris and Tina living the dream! Who knows, you might even get an idea for a holiday. Just try not to kill anybody …

​
 

THE TUNNEL MOVIE

Director: Carlo Ledesma

Screenplay: Enzo Tedeschi, Julian Harvey
Starring: Bel Delia, Andy Rodoreda
The light runs out

It seems there has been something of a backlash against found-footage films of late. Format over content has been the criticism and to be fair the claim is not totally unfounded. The last few years have seen a plethora of shaky, hand-held style films and an awful lot of them have been disappointing. However The Tunnel is not one of them. 



Released last year, The Tunnel has a rather interesting back story. Writers and producers Enzo Tedeschi and Julian Harvey created the 135k project - an effort to fund the film through selling frames of the movie to  members of the public (for $1 each). In addition to this, the movie was available to download on BitTorrent upon its release - meaning that it was essentially free to watch.



As interesting as these facts are, they ultimately mean very little if the movie is not worth watching. Fortunately, The Tunnel is anything but a gimmicky rip-off.



Set during a water shortage in Australia, The Government suddenly go cold on plans to recycle millions of litres of water trapped in a network of old train tunnels underneath the city of Sydney. Rumours begin to emerge of homeless people living in the tunnels going missing.  Local journalist Natasha sees a chance for a big story and gathers her small team to investigate what is happening beneath their feet. Although they are denied entry to the tunnel network by a security guard, they find their own way in.



The Tunnel is shot as part found-footage, part documentary. The found footage element is the investigation of the tunnels and it's broken up with present day interviews with some of the team. It's an original and interesting format but it automatically removes a level of tension from proceedings because we know that certain characters survive their underground ordeal. It also breaks the flow of the film a little.



The film takes a little bit of time to really get going. The first thirty minutes or so are dominated by squabbling journalists and lots of talking heads. It's far from dull but more impatient viewers may start to get restless. It's a shame that film-makers need to hook an audience so quickly nowadays but it's just a sign of the times I guess. We have very short attention spans.



However, when The Tunnel does begin to turn the screw, it does it with consummate professionalism. The ultra-realism of the first act almost leaves us unprepared for what is to follow and as soon as we become aware that something is down there with them in the tunnels, it's nerve-racking stuff.  Some of it will make your hairs stand on end.



There are three key reasons why the film works. Firstly, the actors involved here, and there aren't many, are very good. Low budget affairs sometimes result in inadequate actors being hired but this is not the case.

Bel Delia and co are both watchable, likeable and believable. A list of traits that are vital for making us care about their fates.



Secondly, the location is disorientating and unsettling. Part of this is has to be attributed to Carlo Ledesma's direction but sometimes a location can act as an antagonist all by itself and the network of tunnels under Sydney (although shot at several different locations) are a match for any other horror setting.



And thirdly and possibly most importantly, The Tunnel  deserves credit for the way it handles it's bogeyman. The notion that what we don't see scares us more than what we do, is something that is not lost on Tedeschi and Harvey. A lot of the horror derives from the mystery surrounding what is actually roaming the tunnels, tracking our team of investigators. And when we do eventually catch glimpses of what/who it is, it's anything but disappointing. 



If you thought that found-footage has run it's course. Think again

​

SILENT HILL: REVELATION

Silent Hill: Revelation 3D(15)

Director: Michael J Bassett
Screenplay: Michael J Bassett
Starring: Adelaide Clemens, Kit Harrington
Prepare for a 3D ride through hell

Film versions of video games are pretty much expected to be disappointing.  The film versions of horror video games are even more pointless. You’ve only got to look at Uwe Boll’s output, and the occasional US effort like 2005’s “Doom”, to be convinced of that. The only real exception to that rule has been the “Resident Evil” franchise. However, this has only remained fairly popular as it has created its own rules and story outside of the games, headlines an engaging heroine, and rode on the 3D revival wave. One film generally overlooked is the 2006 film version of “Silent Hill”, which was directed by Christophe Gans (“Brotherhood of the Wolf”) and written by Quentin Tarantino’s chum Roger Avary. Based on the Konami series of survival horror games, it remained very true to the imagery and narrative of those, with some noteworthy actors (Radha Mitchell, Alice Krige, etc.). It received mixed reviews, but actually made double its budget and was considered an underrated success. Rumours of an immediate sequel were rife, but it wasn’t until six years later that “Silent Hill: Revelation” hit the cinema circuit.

A direct sequel to the original “Silent Hill”, “Revelation” follows the mis-fortunes of Heather Mason (played by Adelaide Clemens) and her connection to the cursed town of Silent Hill. Well … I say Heather Mason … her real name is actually Sharon Da Silva. She changes her name on a regular basis, as she moves towns on a regular basis with her father to stay one step ahead of a murderous cult. Her father (played by Sean Bean, returning from the first film, complete with a dodgy US accent) was Christopher Da Silva, but now goes by the name of Harry Mason, to avoid the police due to a murder he committed in self-defence. Heather has no memory of her childhood because she was in a car accident … except she wasn’t … as she was trapped in an alternate hell-ish dimension in Silent Hill. She was freed by her mother, with a magic medallion, and finds out that … No! No more!  I’m losing the will to live! As you can see, the story is a convoluted mess. The whole plot seems to be constructed to include as many references to characters, story, and images from the games as possible. In fact, a major plot point is the Heather receiving the same body-warmer that she wore in the game “Silent Hill 3”. I kid you not! Imagine all that information above (and much, much, more) being thrown at you in minute long info-dumps and flashbacks, as part of the script by the poor cast. I kept expecting Michael York as Basil Exposition from the Austin Powers movies to wander in, and give us another plot-point! In a nutshell: Heather must journey to Silent Hill and face her true identity and destiny.

As you may have gathered, the film is a mess, and not an enjoyable one. Directed (and written) by Michael J.Bassett (“Death-watch”, “Solomon Kane”) its slavish desire to represent all facets of the video games destroys any sense of danger and alienates anybody not familiar with the mythology or concepts. The imagery is there and a still a little bit cool, but is ultimately wasted. One iconic villainous figure becomes a hero at the last minute. A creepy spider-like creature made of mannequin parts, is knackered by an over-dose of the CGI’s. Apart from Heather, all the other characters are cyphers and are instantly forgettable. Carrie-Anne Moss appears as the cult leader, and appears to be auditioning for the part of Legolas from the “Lord of the Rings” movies!  Malcolm McDowell also cameos as a character in an asylum. He is chained throughout the performance; I would guess this was to prevent him from taking the money and running for it! The 3D is also wasted (surprise!!). Apart from a nifty bit where severed fingers fly out of the screen, and a stunning shot of Silent Hill’s high street as Heather walks down it (a real feeling of depth, as oppose to something poked in your face!), it is entirely redundant.

By far the best thing about the film is the Aussie actress Adelaide Clemens. Looking like a teenage Kirsten Dunst, and acting her socks off, she is in practically every shot of the film. As Heather, she is believable and both feisty and vulnerable. You really wish she was in a better film! Better known for her role in the BBC’s “Parades End”, she would make a fine action heroine or genre leading lady, and will be seen (hopefully as such) in the new “Mad Max” movie with Tom Hardy.

One other noteworthy scene involves the ubiquitous melty-faced nurses, which are irreversibly connected with Silent Hill. The protagonists are trapped in a room with multiple versions of these monsters at one point. Their stop/start jerky attacks are triggered by noise, and their escape from the room is the only moment of tension in the whole film. It’s sort of reminiscent of the “Blind Dead” films … although that’s probably a bit of a stretch!

The film ends with a couple of hints, that with further sequels, more game elements and characters would be followed. Due to the poor quality of this film, I’m hoping that this will not be the case. Initial Box office takings in the US, would also suggest as much.
Nice try, but no more Silent’s please ….  

                                       

THE RAVEN

Director: James McTeigue

Screenplay: Ben Livingstone, Hannah Shakespeare
Starring: John Cusack, Alice Eve
The only one who can stop a serial killer is the one who inspired him

I’ve never been a big Edgar-Allan Poe aficionado, but I can’t recall any details in his life that refer to him having a pet raccoon (that chows down on a human heart), or that he wrote front-page reports on a serial killer in Baltimore during 1849 …Nevertheless, here it is.



“The Raven” has just been released on region 2 DVD and Blu-Ray in the UK, after a very brief spell at the cinemas.

The premise is promising. A serial killer is modelling himself on some of Poe’s literary characters, and performing grisly murders in the style of his books. There’s a “locked-room” murder a’ la “Murders in the Rue Morgue” and a murder with a swinging axe pendulum like “The Pit and the...” well you get the picture.



Meanwhile Ed Poe (John Cusack) is behaving like an annoying lush around the town (seemingly just for the sake of it) and in pursuit of Emily Hamilton (Alice Eve). Detective Fields (Luke Evans) has realised the link between Poe and the murders and ropes him into the investigation, until the murders hit too close to home …



John Cusack as Poe? Buddy cop film set in 19th Century USA? Grisly serial killer basing his work on classic literary works? Sounds good right? Should at least be a guilty pleasure? Hmmm … Not so much.

The main problem is that it’s really none of the above. The tone veers wildly from character study, to detective film, to period romp, and never really settles in one direction.



Cusack is as watchable as always, but he never really convinces as Poe. Some scenes are seemingly strewn with bizarre vocabulary (What the hell is a “mental oyster”?) and emotional outbursts, merely to give Cusack something to chew on.



Eve is a little disappointing as well, switching from insipid to amazingly resilient, with nothing in-between. Luke Evans actually gives a calm measured performance that befits his character.

James Mcteague’s direction is okay, and the first 30 minutes contains some inspired imagery (a tracking shot backwards through a keyhole as it is locked) and some surprising full-on scenes with the murders (The pendulum being a highlight, despite the obvious CGI).



If there had been more concentration on this element of the narrative, then it would have been a lot more enjoyable. Instead, the murderer stomps around various areas, like some early version of “The Shadow” and leaves clues that are more obtuse and confusing than the ones in the old “3-2-1” quiz show. You can’t help thinking that if this element had been evolved more and more had been made of Poe’s detective instincts, and then it could have been a bit of gem to watch.



Instead, the police continually take pot-shots at the killer, and prove to be worst marksman than the storm-troopers in “Star Wars”!

The one point I was impressed with, is that the story does tie in with Poe’s apparent final words, so somebody had obviously checked their wiki entries…

​

Okay for Cusack fans or horror/thriller fans looking for a slightly unusual period tale, set against historical characters but it could’ve been much better though. A C-minus for Poe.

LIVID

Director: Alexandre Bustillo, Julien Maury

Screenplay: Alexandre Bustillo, Julien Maury
Starring: Chloe Coullord, Felix Moati
Experience the fallout

Like a lot of fans of Gallic Horror, I was very impressed by “Inside”  by the French directors Alexandre Bustillo and Julien Maury. Tough and uncompromising, it was the gruelling story of a pregnant woman, alone and being stalked by a lunatic stranger, played by the great Beatrice Dalle. It made waves at various film festivals and got good word-of-mouth and positive reviews. Livide (or Livid) is their follow-up film, and garnered a lot of attention at various film festivals. It is available on UK DVD and Blu-Ray on Monday 13th August.

It’s Halloween in a desolate French coastal town (think Weston Super-Mare in November). We know there’s something not quite right with the place as there’s a plethora of “missing” posters, and a crab-eaten severed head on the beach, looking like leftovers from “Jaws”. Lucie(Chloe Coulloud) has just started training as a care-worker in old-age homes and local residences. The jaded nurse Wilson (Catherine Jacob) is showing her the ropes … and bed-pans. An encounter with one patient, added with a bit of gossip from Wilson, entices Lucie into a situation which will have dire consequences for her and her friends …



To add any more details would spoil any surprises and expectations, although the DVD box and press quotes does that anyway (*face-palm*). Suffice to say that instead of the outright slasher-horror of “Inside”,  “Livide” is a more supernatural/fantasy based affair. It is also something of a mixed bag, with moments of brilliance, but with some jarring moments and an uneven tone.



It is well over half-way into the film, before any hint of the supernatural creeps into the narrative. Once this happens and the plot clips into full-speed there is some genuine disturbing imagery (Automatons with animal heads, a ballerina with a face liked cracked marble and sewn-shut eyelids). As we near the climax of the movie, you realise that to appreciate it fully, you have to let go of any realism and treat it as an out-and-out “fairy-tale”, even if the main plot revolves around a well-covered horror genre. There are moments of gore, but more than anything else, the film felt very similar in tone and content to Guillermo Del Toro’s “Cronos” (Bugs, Clockwork devices).



Coulloud is striking in the lead, and looks uncannily like a young Beatrice Dalle (who incidentally turns up for literally 5 seconds as Lucie’s deceased mother). Most impressive is Marie-Claude Pietragalla who oozes menace in several different guises.



There is an impressive lack of CGI, and most effects seem to be physical. Cinematography is crisp with some eerie tracking shots. Bustillo and Maury obviously know their horror onions. The local pub is called “L’Agneau Abattu” (The Slaughtered Lamb, werewolf fans!), and one of the characters is confronted by kids in Halloween costumes and sings the Silver Shamrock ditty from “Halloween III”!



Worthy of mention are the superb subtitles, which some genius has over over-anglicised. Examples include; “Stop your shenanigans”,  “I hate my bloomin’ job”, and “Blimey!”



Overall though, I must admit I was somewhat disappointed. Maybe I was expecting another horror roller-coaster ride after “Inside”, whereas this is a slow methodical fable with moments of blood and gothic atmosphere. Also, I felt that some of the plot points just disappeared or weren’t explained within the context of the narrative (Just what was the deal with the young girls and the door less room?). I suppose if you accept that this is a fairy-tale then maybe everything doesn’t have to be explained. I think your enjoyment of the film will depend on your reaction to the very last scene …



Not a total disaster, but don’t purchase expecting a repeat of “Inside”, or a horror film like “Switchblade Romance”. If you liked “Cronos”  or just a stylised version of an over-used horror convention, then you will probably enjoy it more than I did.

CHERNOBYL DIARIES

Director: Bradley Parker
Screenplay: Oren Peli and Shane and Carey van Dyke
Starring: Jesse McCartney, Devin Kelley
Experience the fallout

​(Spoiler alert!)

For a horror film goer who is looking for some mild peril and cheap thrills, The Chernobyl Diaries might tick some boxes in a perfunctory kind of way. It is not without tension or scares. But for an aspiring screenwriter like me, it is a frustrating piece principally because it's a produced film with a cinema release and reasonable publicity campaign that almost completely eschews one of the fundamental aspects of a modern film, namely the third act.

​

Diaries treads on well-worn steps to begin with. Americans backpacking in Europe. Deserted towns devastated by nuclear disaster. Radioactive mutants.

Seen it, seen it and seen it again.



But despite this, film does engage earlier on. The character introductions are snappy and we cut to the Chernobyl bit quickly. This is good because it's no secret that's where everyone is heading - the clue is in the rather odd title. The post catalyst scenes have an imposing atmosphere and the act one break is a nice set piece with 7 people stuck in a van.

Up to that point, so far so good in a mediocre sort of way.

​

It wouldn't be fair to say things go awry from the moment Paul, Amanda, Michael and Zoe return to find the van containing Chris and Natalie is gone but it's definitely a milestone. To me this is the obvious midpoint. The characters can't just walk away any more. The stakes go higher. Yet from here the narrative launches in to set piece after set piece of the characters running around darkened buildings being prayed on by unseen mutants. If I can get past the recycling of the films own scenes, I can't understand why just at the point when the characters reach their lowest point, the story kills them all off.

​

I can't find the character development! Where is it?!
What's more there is no well-defined protagonist. Paul is responsible for the characters being there in the first place. He's reckless and we know he has let his brother down many times before. Natural arc there? Possibly, yet Paul just becomes increasingly pathetic as the film progresses. He has no plan, no fight back, no idea what to do. And then having seemingly escaped to live another day he gets himself unnecessarily shot in a final glorious act of being a reckless twat. This guy can speak the native tongue, so he understands what the guys holding the guns are saying yet he still doesn't do it. What did he learn in the story...?

​

So Amanda it must be. She has the most screen time along with Paul and she lives longest. But what is her story here? We learn she's recently broken up with her boyfriend. She likes taking photos. And... nope, that's it. But if we analyse the structure of the narrative through the prism of her as the protagonist, where is her mid-point? Where is her all is lost moment? The latter appears to be when Natalie is found and she has to be coaxed into going on but the other elements just aren't there, because her character is just not nailed down.

​

But although paper thin, Amanda is the strongest character, the one who is brave and consistently the one to take action. In the last throes of the script she saves Paul proving she is also the strongest physically. But this is where the story stops for her. She is carted off and thrown into a cell to be killed by the mutants. The writers seem to have taken their main character to her lowest ebb and then just killed her. Bizarre.

​

I can't help but feel that Diaries would have been improved by another ten pages or so. There is no pay off for the characters let alone the audience. The Hills Have Eyes is more complete because it allows it's protagonists to take some action of their own. Diaries' flimsy protagonists are all just kill fodder.

​

So what? It delivers some scares, has good production values and was never going to win Oscars. Yet I can't help but feel a little pissed off. Co-writer Oren Peli is either subverting the rules in search of his "old style" or he either doesn't know or doesn't care about basic screenwriting "rules". Obviously he has a leg up being who he is, but for those of us trying to break in to the game using the rule book, Diaries is a frustrating example of modern horror.

STORAGE 24

Storage 24 (15)
Director: Johannes Roberts
Screenplay: Noel Clarke, David Fairbanks
Starring: Noel Clarke, Colin O’Donoghue
Will their first contact be their last?

Sometimes after you’ve seen a movie, you know that in a weeks’ time, you will probably have forgotten all about it. This is very much the case with Storage 24. In fact the next day, my girlfriend had forgotten what we had seen. “Storage 24” I told her. That’s not to say it is an awful film. On the contrary, awful films tend to stay with me just as long as great ones. It is average films that get forgotten the quickest. Our brains seem to filter out mediocrity.



Johannes Roberts is best known for "F", his high-school based horror which whilst intriguing in parts, ended on a rather unfinished note.

But Roberts has nothing to do with the screenplay here (he wrote "F"). Noel Clarke penned the screenplay - which is clunky at times. Some of it is refreshingly real whilst other parts are too “on the nose”. He clearly has some talent but if Storage 24 is anything to go by, he still has room for improvement.

​

The characters are rather two-dimensional and plot twists are virtually non-existent. It’s all just a bit too predictable. And the crazy guy in a dressing gown who turns up halfway through proceedings just confuses things. As a character he simply is not needed.



Its saving grace is its sense of humour. From the opening scene we are aware that this film isn’t going to take things too seriously. That underneath the alienesque claustrophobia of the storage facility there is a joke waiting to be cracked. It serves to undermine any real scares in the film but the comedy is subtle and for the most part, successful. The actors involved also do ok although none of them do enough to make the movie their own (Although Laura Haddock does look pretty darn good!)

Storage also deserves credit for doing what it does on a small budget.

 

The vast majority of the film is set within the storage facility and kudos for the production team for making the location seem more expansive than it obviously was. The special FX also merits a mention. Although the death scenes themselves are relatively tame, the impressive insect-like alien is a hard slap in the face to CGI reliant horror films.



By the end of the film we realise that the alien invasion is not just limited to the storage facility. It looks as if the whole of London and possibly the world is under attack. It gives us hope of a sequel. Although maybe hope is the wrong word. Possibility of a sequel is probably a better description. Because if and when one is made, I may well have forgotten that the original even existed.