ROOM 237

I have a major confession to make. I do not like “The Shining”. At all. Personally I find it overrated, overblown, and an irritating entry into the genre. I know that I am in the minority and I have learned to live with that handicap (*sniff*). Whilst I appreciate the amazing cinematography (especially the opening sweep across the American mountains, and the tracking shots in the frozen maze), the OTT performance by Jack Nicholson, and the sense of isolation, I just don’t get the adulation that grew up around it, as most of it doesn’t work at all for me, and just seems extremely pretentious. To be honest, it irks me to see the movie continually being listed at the top of “Best Horror Movie” listings in various publications. It continually baffles me how it is rated above such classics as “The Exorcist”, “Psycho”, or even “Halloween”! That’s why it’s all the more surprising that I enjoyed “Room 237” so much.

“Room 237” is a documentary about “The Shining”, but it’s not a film about the making of the movie. It’s subtitled: “…being an inquiry into The Shining in 9 parts”, and is an exploration of the hidden themes that supposedly exist within its scenes. Five movie enthusiasts/critics narrate “Room 237” for the entirety of documentary and present their own thoughts on what Stanley Kubrick was trying to depict when directing the movie. You never see their faces, as this isn’t a “talking heads” piece. All the narration is visually represented by clips from (unsurprisingly) “The Shining”, news-reels, and other Kubrick films like “2001” or “Eyes Wide Shut”. Not only that, but we also get off-the-wall clips from films like “Creepshow”, “Capricorn One”, and even “Demons” to add to the mix. Some shots are literally frame-by-frame analysis of “The Shining”, which even include white-arrows to draw your attention to things you may not have noticed, or subliminal images.

However, it is the narrators stream of opinions and revelations, that make the documentary such an entertaining piece of work. Some of these are outright conspiracy theories and some are quite well researched with moments of how-the-hell-did-I-miss-that scenes. A few of these are probably true; there are so many references to the slaughter of Native Americans that it does seem to be legitimately part of Kubrick’s intentional theme. There are some dubious connections; does it mean the film was about the Nazi Holocaust, just because the typewriter was German and the number ‘42’ (1942) is used a lot? There are also some downright mental connections! One of the narrators states that the haunted room in the hotel was changed from “217” to “237” because the Moon Is 237,000 miles from Earth, and Kubrick had filmed a fake Moon Landing! Really? Another charges that because a poster of a skier looks a bit like a Minotaur (if you squint) then the whole film is a reinterpretation of Greek Mythology.

It’s not just the (sometimes wacky) theories that make this such a good documentary though. Other intriguing facts and points are raised and proven. The floor plan of the Overlook Hotel is shown to be logistically impossible. One fan arranged a showing of “The Shining” with a super-imposed screening of the same film being run backwards over the top of it. Now whether Kubrick intended it or not, it throws up some wonderful scenes. For example, the opening shot is framed like a postcard, complete with caption. Also, there is some definite proof that Kubrick was going out of his way to piss off Stephen King, which seemed to work a treat.

This is all captivating and fascinating stuff, and it doesn’t matter if you’re a fan of the film itself or not. Although, it is almost guaranteed that you’ll want to view “The Shining” again pretty soon after seeing this. The real point is that we all have films that we obsess over, and we can all find hidden layers to them if we hold onto that obsession. For my part, I still bore people rigid with tales about “Psycho”, and every friend that I’ve got knows that it was the first major film to show a toilet flushing! So I totally get this. The documentary distances itself from Warner’s and the Kubrick family quite majorly, with disclaimers printed all over the place, so it’s not meant to be a considered analysis of the movie. It’s more enjoyable than that.

Crisply directed, and excellently edited, by Rodney Ascher, there are some nice little aesthetic touches throughout “Room 237”. The opening tweaks film footage to show Tom Cruise and Robert Redford enjoying “The Shining”. Strangely enough there is also a nice Euro-Horror-alike soundtrack playing unobtrusively during the film, which adds to the flavour nicely.

A recommended treat. It might not float everybody’s boat. The average cinema-goer is probably going to get turned off by the constant narration and MTV-speed flow of film clips. But if you’re a fan of the film itself, or have a serious love for genre movies, you’ll get a real kick out of this. Just remember 2x3x7=42. Weird or what?
DVD Extras: A trailer. Seriously? Where’s the love people?

It doesn’t matter if you like “The Shining” or not. This is a fascinating journey into the psyche of obsessive film fans, and the work of a master manipulator. If you love the cinema, book yourself into this room as soon as you can.

DARK SKIES

Dark Skies (15)

Director: Scott Stewart

Screenplay: Scott Stewart

Starring: Keri Russell, Jake Brennan

Once you've been chosen, you belong to them

Remember E.T.? Well, imagine if the little brown dude was NOT a lovable wuss, but he was in fact a slender “Gray”. And instead of hiding in the toy cupboard and cooing over a 7 year old Drew Barrymore, he was a complete bastard with unfathomable technology and just wanted to mess with Elliott’s head and to make him wet himself just for a laugh! There, in a nutshell is the concept for “Dark Skies”.

Released in the UK cinemas on the 3rd April, “Dark Skies” is a science-fiction/horror film about the effect that Alien intervention has on a normal family in suburban USA. If you will, it comes across as a cross between “Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind” and “Poltergeist”.

The film focuses on the Barrett family. There’s Father Daniel (Josh Hamilton), Mother Lacy (Keri Russell), oldest son Jesse (Dakota Goyo), and youngest son Sammy (Kadan Rockett, awesome name by the way Kiddo!). To all intents and purposes they seem to be the archetypical family, living the “American Dream”. The first few scenes of the film set up the banal day-to-day routines of the characters. They have a barbeque, discuss the price of coffee (no, really, they do), and engage in pleasantries with the neighbours, whilst the eldest kid goofs off with his douche-bag buddy and watches pornography. There are cracks starting to show though. Daniel is an out-of-work architect looking for business, and Lacy is having to work twice as hard as an estate agent to get by (She’s an honest one though, so she obviously didn’t read the job description properly!). The bills are piling up and it’s starting to look grim. But that’s when things start to get really bad…

Restless at night, Lacy is startled to find things stolen from the fridge, sculptures of tinned food in the kitchen, and the family photos are stolen. The security alarms are also going off for no reason, and birds are throwing themselves at the house windows like teenage girls at Justin Bieber. They report this all to the Police, who are about as useful as a camel on roller-skates. In fact, they basically roll their eyes, shrug their shoulders, and say “Kids, eh?” blaming the two boys. But Sammy especially seems to know that something isn’t right, and constantly refers to conversations with “The Sandman”.

The incidents escalate, until all the family start to exhibit unnatural physical and mental conditions. It is only then that they contact a “specialist” in these matters (isn’t the Internet just great?), a man with experience of these incidents called Edwin Pollard (the great J.K. Simmons), who advises them on how to react. With this knowledge they prepare for a confrontation…

Now, this film would be a lot better if half of those incidents I’ve described took up less screen time. As it is, it’s over two-thirds into the running time before the parents drop their wall of denial, and accept that they’ve been singled out by strange forces. By which time most of the audience are constantly face-palming and have second-guessed what’s happening to them, even if they haven’t seen the trailer or looked at any publicity stills. It just seems to be all build-up and little pay-off in terms of plot. The other major issue is that it just seems to be all “second-hand” scares, and for a film that promises fresh alien-orientated scares, there’s absolutely nothing that we haven’t seen in other films before. The Kitchen “sculpture” is from “Poltergeist”. The bright lights are from “CE3K”. Even the video monitoring is a direct re-run of scenes from “Paranormal Activity”.

The film also seems to be rather lightweight on the scare factor. People standing in gardens, with their mouths wide open, and with a little bit of a nose-bleed, isn’t necessarily scary … no matter how loud you play the soundtrack! There a couple of effective scenes, where Lacy chances upon something unexpected in her son’s room, but even these seem reminiscent of “Insidious”. To be honest, if you compare any of the climatic scenes in “Dark Skies” with the abduction of the small boy in “CE3K”, there’s no contest in terms of scariness, and that’s a 36 year old film! (Christ! I feel old!). You know you have problems when the aliens in a Crunchy Nut Cornflake advert, shown prior to the main feature, are more unsettling than those in the film!

As regards the leading actors, Keri Russell and Josh Hamilton acquit themselves well enough, but the script doesn’t give them much to work with. The two sons aren’t bad, but Sammy is waaaa-aaay too whiny to evoke much sympathy. Only J.K. Simmons as the defeated abductee makes a real impact, but has little screen time. The director, Scott Stewart (known for the Paul Bettany-fests, “Priest” & “Legion”) is efficient enough with the camera work, but it almost feels like a one of the old made-for-TV movies that were about in the 70’s and 80’s.

Oddly enough, the most successful element of the plot is the sly digs that it has against the US ideals that make up the suburban “dream”. It’s telling that Daniel is more worried about his neighbours finding out that he has money problems, than he is with his youngest son’s mental state. A potent image crops up later, when the family sit around a table crying, in a bordered up house, whilst the American anthem plays over 4th of July celebrations on the TV. You can’t help but think a lot of this is being driven by frustration with the current economic issues as opposed to alien jiggery pokery. As for the aliens themselves, they just seem to be grinding this family into the dirt, just for the sheer hell of it! Intergalactic bullies, if you will…

So there you have it, one or two moments that strike home and the domestic-nightmare element of it works well, but it promises a hell of a lot more than it actually delivers, and it really isn’t anything that we haven’t seen before or better.

More of a dissection of the “American Dream” than an Alien Horror flick. Some effective scare moments, but these are few and far between. It feels like a TV true-life movie and it takes far too long in establishing its concept. You’d be better off hunting down past films like “Fire in the Sky” or even “CE3K” for more potent alien frights.

THALE

Thale (15) / Director: Aleksander Nordaas / Screenplay: Aleksander Nordaas / Starring: Silje Reinåmo, Erlend Nervold

In a cellar, dark and deep, I lay my dearest down to sleep; A secret they would like to keep

Norwegian Horror seems to be going through a renaissance period at the moment, which is a sentence I never thought I would type! Over the last few years, we’ve had “Dead Snow”, the “Cold Prey” films, and (of course) “Troll Hunter”. And not a stinker amongst them! Now another scary flick has emerged from snowy climes of Norway, fresh from the Toronto Film Festival, and has just been released on UK DVD. Directed by Alexander Nordaas on an extremely limited budget (as well as writing, producing, and editing … and shooting in his father’s basement!), it delves into the folklore of the country and melds it with a modern setting, which was something that “Troll Hunter” did very well.

Leo (Jon Sigve Skard) is the cool and taciturn boss of a crime scene clean-up company (called “No-Shit” apparently). He currently employs his friend Elvis (Erlend Nervold) as his working partner. Elvis is a bit of a dumb-ass and continually throws up at crime scenes, but he needs the job for the money for his estranged daughter. Called to a cabin in the woods (Seriously … never buy a cabin in the woods … doesn’t matter what country you’re in, no good will come of it!) to clear away the aftermath of an elderly man’s death (of which we never learn the reason for), they discover several hidden rooms. In one such room they stumble across a wide-eyed young woman, who is seemingly mute and possibly the victim of sustained torture. Due to scattered tapes and books, they find out she is called “Thale” (pronounced “Tul-lah”).Beautiful as she is, there’s something a little “off” about her, and as they settle in to await the return of the police, they realise that they are not alone in the woods …

Just before we get into the film itself, a question. Why are the publicists and designers of covers for DVDs, so intent on blowing plot points and narrative twists before you even view the film? You only have to glance at the box art or the pictures on the back of this film to see a major plot reveal regarding Thale, and some important climatic shots! I mean what the hell?! I’m betting that if they released “Sixth Sense” these days, there would be a transparent Bruce Willis walking through a door! Or with “Seven”, there would be a blood-dripping box with Gwyneth Paltrow’s noggin peaking over the top! Just stop it!

Anyway, “Thale” is a fairly short film, just clocking over 70 minutes if you ignore the credits. Most of the events take place within a small area and over a short time. Despite this, it still feels as if the middle section drags somewhat, with most of the “action” consisting of Elvis and Leo, sitting in the cabin watching over Thale and revealing a couple of personal secrets. Incidentally, much is made of Elvis having an “illegitimate” child. Is that still a big concern in Norway? God knows how “The Jeremy Kyle show” would go down over there…

In fact, as a whole it seems that the intriguing premise, as to where Thale has come from and what is chasing her (which takes a whole new twist towards the end) is never really fleshed out or expanded as much as it could have been. That may be a fault of the budget, or an intentional decision to keep everything low-key.

Having said that, there is still much to enjoy in the film. Silje Reinamo, who plays Thale, is a dancer and actress, and this is her first part in a feature film. With her large brown-eyes, and fluid physicality, she is marvellous as the mysterious woman, without ever uttering a word. What is refreshing as well is that the two guys never view her in an overtly sexual way, or attempt to take advantage of her. In my cynical mind, I can’t help feeling that if this was shot in the US or remade there, one of the characters would come onto her or be inappropriate in some way.  Exerting vulnerability and spending a fair portion of the film (yes, I have to mention it) unclothed, she nevertheless becomes something convincingly opposite this portrayal, when the end of the film comes. In fact some of the climactic scenes are breath-takingly beautiful scenes of violence that rivals John Woo for slo-mo brutality and elegance. Just watch the sequence where an assault rifle and a horseshoe are used as unconventional weapons!

There is a fair amount of visual poetry and cold beauty to the film. But then, that goes without saying when shooting in the Norwegian “wilderness”. There are some nicely creepy scenes as well, especially when one character is standing in a road, and something spindly in the far distance scampers across the horizon. When we do get full-on glimpses of these enigmatic “somethings” the CGI is effective enough, without being mind-blowingly realistic, but it’s still way better than the average SyFy “mockbuster”.

So, whilst it does have its issues, and you do feel frustrated that a lot more could have been done with the story, it’s still not a bad little way to indulge in Norwegian culture, and get a spooky horror fix at the same time. I would be very interested in seeing the next film from Nordaas.

And remember, whilst Nature is fierce, it’s Man that’s the real monster…
Extras: More vanilla than a choc-ice. Nothing … as I am NOT going to include “audio set-up” as an extra!

It does drag during the middle section, and so much more could have been done with the source material. However, it does have an ethereal performance from the lead actress, marvellous cinematography, and some deliriously poetic scenes of violence. Definitely worth a view.

THE TALL MAN

The Tall Man (15)

Director: Pascal Laugier
Screenplay: Pascal Laugier
Starring: Jessica Biel, Jodelle Ferland

Fear Takes a New Shape

Pascal Laugier’s “The Tall Man” was released on UK DVD last week, and I caught up with the film (having missed it at the Frightfest All-nighter and other Film Festivals). Laugier has a short but impressive filmography, including the much-acclaimed “Martyrs”, which divided genre fans right down the middle, due to its hyper-violence and philosophical intent. For the record, I found it a very impressive piece of work, and all the elements worked for me.  Laugier was also pencilled in to shoot the proposed “Hellraiser” remake/reboot/whatever at one point. On watching “The Tall Man”, it becomes apparent that “Martyrs” is not the only divisive film that Laugier was destined to make…

The film takes place in the run-down and remote Township of “Cold Sore”... Sorry … “Cold Rock”. Once a mining town, the recession and closure of the mine has reduced it to a few streets of mostly closed shops and trailers.  In this town works Julia Denning (Jessica Biel), a local nurse who keeps the surgery open and helps the poverty stricken families with children. However, it seems this town keeps mislaying their kids, as a number of them have gone missing. Enough in fact to foster an urban legend regarding the mythic figure of “The Tall Man”, who comes in the night snatches children, and spirits them away to an uncertain fate. Some locals believe in the myth, others are sure that it’s an unidentified paedophile or child serial-killer (Daily Mail readers obviously …). After listening to gossip regarding the boogey-man in a local diner, Julia returns to her large home that she shares with her young son and nanny. However, late at night she sees a shadowy figure carry her boy off, and a frantic chase begins… So far, so effectively-spooky and thrilling, but all is not what it appears …

Revealing more of the Rubik’s-cube plot would be tantamount to saying “He’s dead all through the film you know…” to someone who hasn’t seen “The Sixth Sense” yet (It’s been 14 years! Don’t get pissy!). So I won’t. Suffice to say, the plot changes directions so many times that if it had a Sat-Nav, it would have been smashed after the first 45 minutes. Sympathies are tested, allegiances are questioned, and moralities are uncertain. Just when you think you’ve got a handle on a character’s motives, the plot challenges you yet again. This is necessarily a “bad” thing, and it’s good to have intelligent film-making and to be confronted with a narrative that won’t follow convention. However, just like Beyoncé on stage, a big “but” is sure to appear …“But” the chicanery in this film is too much. Instead of challenging your expectations, it simply ignores common-sense (Why do two opposing characters dress the same way for no apparent reason, for example) and creates narrative holes the size of King Kong.

On top of this, there are some profound messages at its core, which the plot has been literally built around as oppose to just accommodating them. Basically it queries the effects that our life decisions have on our children, and what we should do to ensure their safety and a better future. The answer that the film gives doesn’t really sit well (with me at least), and seems trite and unforgiving, and to be fair the film does acknowledge that viewpoint.
At the centre of it all sits the marvellous performance of Jessica Biel. It has to be a multi-faceted performance and sometimes ambiguous, but Biel does indeed pull it off. It’s a real shame that she doesn’t get more parts like this, and that this role plays second fiddle to the mind-bending elements of the film, because she is terrific. Whatever else may be lacking in the film, it isn’t for her want of trying. The soundtrack and the opening credits are also wonderfully “doomy”.

I know I’ve been waffling about aspects of the plot (as oppose to details)and suchlike, and it may be that other people find this a brave and enchanting film, but personally I finished watching the movie with a sense of being “cheated”, and unsure as to how I felt about the messages therein. Maybe that’s a good thing, that I felt so strongly about it, but in terms of enjoyment and opinion of the experience, it’s only a 2 from me I’m afraid.  It may be, like “Martyrs” that your opinion totally differs.
Extras: Nothing, nada, zip, zilch, zero … not even a trailer! WTF?

​

A film that’s too concerned with mind-tricks and slippery twists, than providing a decent plot. Despite a superlative, but ultimately wasted, performance by Jessica Biel, this is a truly divisive film. You WILL love it or loathe it.

JACK THE GIANT SLAYER

Jack the Giant Slayer (15)

Director: Bryan SInger
Screenplay: Darren Lemke, Christopher McQuarrie
Starring: Nicholas Hoult, Stanley Tucci, Ewan Mcgregor

Prepare for a giant adventure

What’s that you say? There’s a new film depicting massive flesh-eating creatures fighting against medieval warriors? It’s in IMAX and 3D? It stars Ian McShane, Ewan McGregor, and Stanley Tucci? It’s from the director of “The Usual Suspects” and “X-Men 1 & 2”? Whoa … count me in! What’s that? It’s based on “Jack and the Beanstalk”!? It’s a partial remake of “Jack the Giant Killer”!? It’s had mixed reviews in the USA and less than stellar box-office? It’s a “12A”!!!!???? *awkward silence*

Ooh-kay. Well, as mentioned this film is a partial remake of the 1962 Kerwin Matthews film, “Jack the Giant Killer” with added references to English lore and the tale of “Jack and the Beanstalk”. That 60’s film is quite obscure these days, but it used to be a staple Bank-Holiday film on British TV, much like “The Wizard of Oz” and “The Great Escape”. It was a fun little film, that was basically like the Ray Harryhausen “Sinbad” films, but with worse special effects. Seeing as it’s been acknowledged as a remake, I’m not sure why Jack is now a “slayer” instead of a “killer”. It doesn’t make much difference to the victim I suspect. “Mrs Smith, I’m afraid your husband has been brutally killed”. “Well, that’s alright officer, as long as he hasn’t been slain…” Ahem, I digress…

Jack (Nicholas Hoult) is a simple farm boy in the kingdom of Albion (aka Medieval Britain). He grows up listening to the legends of giants, who live in a floating island in the sky and like nothing better than snacking on humans, until banished by an ancient king. Years later, both his parents have shuffled off this mortal coil, and he lives with his shit of an Uncle (who disappears after about 10 minutes for no good reason). Sent to the local castle to sell his horse (you can see where this is going can’t you?), he comes into possession of some enchanted beans after a monk has stolen them from the kings advisor Lord Roderick (Stanley Tucci).



Roderick has a plan to use giants to take over the kingdom, apparently. The monk tells him not to get the beans wet (though presumably he can feed them after midnight, or shine bright light onto them…). Due to reasons too daft to go into, the beans get wet, roll under Jack’s abode, which then grows the Beanstalk, shooting the house straight up into the Giant’s kingdom. The Princess Isabelle (Eleanor Tomlinson) is on the lam (as she doesn’t want to be a Disney Princess anymore) and was unfortunately a tenant of the aforementioned abode at the time. Therefore, Jack and the King’s Guard (led by Ewen McGregor) scale the beanstalk to rescue her. But this creates an opportunity for Lord Roderick and the Giants to create chaos.

Right, bad stuff first. The script is, to be perfectly blunt, awful. It’s extremely perfunctory and lacking in wit and/or charm. “Princess Bride” it ain’t! Some of the lines seem to come from 70’s British Sit-coms. “He wouldn’t spill the beans”, after a Monk is tortured for the hiding place of the enchanted beans. “You’re barking up the wrong beanstalk, Jack”, etc., etc. Woeful. The two main characters (Jack & Isabelle) make an insipid pairing, and there’s no chemistry between the two. Jack himself comes across as one-dimensional, and only shows some dynamism late in the film. It’s not Hoult’s fault, as he was terrific in “X-Men: First Class”, and also in the wonderful “Warm Bodies”. That heroic spark is just missing from the screenplay. So, waste of time then?

Not so. The thing that really saves this film from total mediocrity is the Giants themselves. Excellent CGI creations, they are much, much better than they first appeared on the trailers and adverts. The first Giant encounter focuses on the features in all their eye-rolling, hairy-nosed, wrinkled-skin glory. As Jack cowers in shallow water, we see (in silhouette) it biting the head off a cute ickle lamb, and effortlessly grab a fleeing human. In fact the more grisly qualities of the Giants are not glossed over at all. Nasty creatures that graphically pick their nose, smell their armpits, and frequently bite/stomp/kill/eat fleeing humans. All good nasty stuff. In fact at one point, we get a close up of a character (not saying if it’s human or giant *taps nose secretly*), that gets its face crushed and its eyeball flies out of the screen! Literally if you’re watching in 3D! The take-no-prisoners-after-all-fairy-tales-are-gruesome mentality is well represented here.

There are some great set-pieces, especially one battle scene that has hordes of Giants suddenly emerging from a forest to battle a small army on the run. Both the kingdom of Albion (actually Somerset) and the Giants kingdom look gorgeous on the screen, with locations (such as Well’s Cathedral) put to good use. One other nice touch is the character of Elmont (Ewen McGregor) as the leader of the King’s guard. Far from being the conceited doofus he appears in the trailer, he’s actually a stand-up honourable guy and quite atypical for this type of movie. There should also be a special mention for the great Bill Nighy who does sterling work as Fallon, king of the Giants, with his features recognisable on the CG face.  UK character actors Eddie Marsan and Ewen Bremner are pretty wasted though, especially Bremner who plays the world’s most irritating evil sidekick!

The 3D is okay, but not essential, unless you want beans (or eyeballs) thrown at your face. Incidentally, there’s a nice little coda at the end, that explains why the rest of the world should respect the UK that little bit more … or else!

So all in all, despite the disappointing script and some uninspiring leading characters, don’t write this off as a throwaway family film and have a kip whilst the kids watch. The OTT antics of the Giants and the surprisingly violent set-pieces make it worth your while.
But I would like to say to the film studios … Enough already with the fairy tales!! You’ve made your point and you’ve peaked your profits. Flog another dead horse. Please.

An awful script and an insipid pair of leading characters threaten to slay the film itself. But it’s saved by the non-child-friendly portrayal of the giants, some great set-pieces, and some nice locations. This is one that horror fans can enjoy with the kids without feeling that they’ve sold out … too much.