THE FACILITY

The Facility

Director: Ian Clarke
Screenplay: Ian Clarke
Starring: Aneurin Barnard, Alex Reid

There are two easy mistakes to make with “The Facility”. First off, it’s not “The Faculty” (The Robert Rodríguez sci-fi film with body-snatchers). Secondly, it stars Alex Reid. That’s Alex Reid: the attractive Cornish actress from “The Descent” movies and “Arachnid”. NOT Alex Reid: the cage-fighting, cross-dressing, Jordan-baiting winner of UK Celebrity Big Brother. I mean, what must her life be like?! The name’s spelt exactly the same!

Moving on … “The Facility” is a low-budget British movie that was previously known as “Guinea Pigs”. It’s probably a good move to have the name change, as a drunken order on Amazon could have you ending up with the infamous Japanese gore films, and watching a mermaid decompose or something…  Produced by Vertigo films, who are probably better known for their gritty crime dramas, such as “Pusher” and “Bronson”, but they did also produce the acclaimed “Monsters”. This is the first full-length feature film to be directed and written by Ian Clark, after a number of successful shorts.

The film starts as seven volunteers congregate at the Limebrook medical centre. This is a high-security facility (there’s the title!) far from civilization and deep in an English Countryside forest.  They are there to take part in a clinical trial for a new substance made by “ProSyntrex Pharmaceuticals”. Called “Pro9”, the volunteers will be injected with gradually increased doses of the drug over a period of two weeks, and all for the princely sum of two grand. The volunteers are an eclectic bunch and consist of students, hippy-chicks, alpha-males, and one grumpy old git called Morty (Steve Evets) who apparently makes a living out of these trials and has some juicy stories.  It doesn’t take two weeks for things to escalate though. Merely hours after the first dosage, one member of the group starts to succumb to unforeseen side-effects. Their skin flushes red, they have excruciating pain, and they start to exhibit hyper-violence. As this victim is isolated, things start to escalate further and get a whole lot worse. How the hell can the survivors escape from a locked down building in the middle of nowhere?

As per my (unfunny) sub-heading, this film really does have the basic feel of “28 Days Later”, albeit scaled down to a single location, a lower budget and without a fear of cross-infection (the victims have already been “infected” and can’t pass it on. They just kill people).

Where it works best, is in the quiet moments of menace and tension, as oppose to all-out rage attacks. And there are some great examples of these. For instance, we never see the first attack by the infected volunteer on staff at the medical centre. We just see the after math. A nurse silently running for her life as somebody watches in fear from a window. A Doctor quietly explains the situation to onlookers, as he bleeds profusely from a gory head wound, and then collapses. There are also other effective moments; A bulked up volunteer flexes menacingly in the background as a character walks past in blissful ignorance. Another volunteer gives himself a “splitting headache” whilst watched in horror by others on CCTV. The old chestnut of a dark room, being illuminated only by camera flash, gets another good outing as well. It speaks volumes that practically all of the film has no background music or soundtrack at all, which makes the gritty moments of violence more effective. In fact, the whole movie has that particularly low-key feel that British dramas seem to have. The cinematography is very “shaky-cam”, and most sequences are subtitled with the time and date, as the night continues. There’s even some prologue and epilogue text at the start/end of the film.

The cast all perform incredibly naturalistically and effectively, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a fair bit of improvisation going on. If I had to single out any of the cast, it would have to be Morty (Evets), Adam (Aneurin Barnard), and Joni (Alex Reid). Particularly as one of these has to act out the full onset of the drug’s effects in full view of the camera (*Non Spoiler Alert*: not saying who).

I would have marked the movie a little higher, but if truth be told it is a little too low-key to be a real major scare-contender. We spend a good twenty minutes or so following the volunteers as they get their shots and we explore their characters, much in the manner of a genuine NHS documentary. And despite the “28 Days Later” comparison, it never really turns into a full-blown “siege” movie. To be fair, there aren’t many logic gaps, but whilst it’s easy to accept the lack of mobile phones, cars, and the Internet, why does nobody simply leg it into the forest or set off one of the fire-alarms in plain sight? (Call me” Mr Picky”). And while the film is well-paced and never outstays its welcome, its running time still seems a little short.
There is a nice little plot “twist” towards the end that I felt was a bit reminiscent of “The Mist”. Can’t elaborate. Shush! (*makes Austin Powers be-quiet hands movement*)

All in all, this is another genuinely effective Brit horror. It’s not going to blow people away, but it is an effective fright flick, that achieves a lot with its low budget and high-level concept. I hope it does well on DVD, and I’ll be eagerly awaiting Clark’s next picture. You won’t regret a purchase if you’re interested. Just remember … it’s not THAT Alex Reid!

DVD Extras:
A 17 minute “making of” feature. Some interesting information into the genesis of the film, and the nature of clinical trials themselves.
Trailer + Teaser

Uniformly good performances and a plausible set-up make this a thoroughly watchable scare film. However, the overall substance and running time is very slight, and there are no real “surprises” in content. 

SHADOW PEOPLE

Shadow People (12A)

Director: Matthew Arnold
Written by: Matthew Arnold
Starring: Dallas Roberts, Allison Eastwood
Now you will see them too

You know, I’ve long wanted to talk to some of the people and departments in the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification), and ask them what the deal is, with some of the comments on their rating boxes. They contain additional information, so parents of children (or people that are too thick to guess that “Bloody Violent Massacre: Part II” might contain some gore) can ascertain if the film is suitable for viewing. Now I can understand text like “contains strong bloody violence” or “contains sustained strong language”. That’s useful. It’s the more surreal comments that get me. For instance I’ve seen a Pixar film that contains “mild peril”. Now, what in the name of Hade’s jockstrap is “mild peril”?! Peril just isn’t peril if it’s mild! I’ve also seen a nature film that “contains scenes of chicks in distress”, which is misleading in more than one way. And apparently, according to the BBFC, “Shadow People” contains “moderate supernatural threat”. That line means sod-all and tells you nothing, but could indicate that Casper the Friendly Ghost had finally lost it and gotten hold of a flick-knife.

Anyway…  Supposedly based on a true story, “Shadow People” is a supernatural thriller detailing how the urban legend of the aforementioned nasties apparently rose to fame in the USA, during the 1970’s and 80’s. Shadow People are supposedly either inter-dimensional douche-bags, or incorporeal demons, that terrorise unsuspecting victims in their beds. The story itself concentrates on the story of Charlie Crowe (Dallas Roberts), who is a late-night DJ on a small town radio station. Alongside the usual crackpots, he gets a call one night from a 17-year boy, who tells him that he is being menaced by living “Shadows” in his bedroom. This is followed by a gunshot, which understandably freaks Charlie out. The boy is apparently safe, but later dies mysteriously in the hospital from no apparent cause. Charlie starts to research the myth of the “shadow people”, with the aid of materials which had been sent to him by the boy before his death. When a young student and a nurse die in the same manner, he becomes obsessed with the phenomenon and devotes his radio show to the subject. As call after call comes in, with people experiencing menacing dark figures in their own homes, and many suffering from sleep paralysis, he realises that he is onto something very real. A CDC (Centre for Disease Control) investigator (Alison Eastwood) works with him on identifying a cause, but Charlie is convinced that there are genuine supernatural menaces abroad and that he must find proof to reveal their existence…

The trouble with “Shadow People” is that it just doesn’t know what the hell it’s supposed to be, and tries to be everything at once. The film mixes “documentary” footage (I’ll explain the speech-marks later), with a semi-realistic dramatic narrative, and scenes of people being menaced and killed by demonic beings. And still manages to be dull and disappointing. The real shame is, that there’s definitely a superior scary movie to be made out of this subject, but this ain’t it. If the director (Matthew Arnold), had just done a balls-to-the-wall fictional scare-athon on the subject, or a truthful documentary on the phenomenon, you could imagine it would be a belting movie. And the Shadow People do genuinely exist (in the same way the Loch Ness monster and Sasquatch “exists”), as a quick search on Google and YouTube will confirm. So a fictional version based on this urban legend, in the manner of “Candyman” would work very well.

However, far too much time is spent on Charlie’s domestic life, with his ex-wife and disapproving teenage son, which really slows the story down. In fact whenever the story gets some pace, an excerpt from a documentary or a talking head is inserted, sometimes next to the “real” movie itself. Yes, these “documentaries”… Apparently (according to the credits) these are called “The shot heard around the web” and “Your worst nightmare” and contain interviews from the friends and family of those in the main story. There are even clips of the “real” people from the story (played in the main narrative by Roberts and Eastwood). A major plot point is the posting of a viral video on YouTube, of a scientific experiment called “Sleep Study GR16 1971” (you KNOW you’re going to search for it…). The trouble is that all across the web, there is no evidence of these documentaries, the people who took part, and the viral video is obviously faked. It just smacks of “Blair Witch” type chicanery. I’d love to be proved wrong, but I don’t think that’s going to happen. In the same way that “The Fourth Kind” tried this angle and failed, “Shadow People” is even more of a disappointment.

There are things that do work in the movie. The (far too few) haunting sequences with the Shadow People zapping about and lunging at sleepy victims are sometimes genuinely unnerving. There’s a nice touch when Charlie empties his house of furniture and lights to eliminate mis-leading shadows. The whole idea that Shadow People are attracted to thoughts of themselves is quite intriguing. As one character says, “How do you STOP thinking about something?”, and another likens it to sharks smelling blood in the water. Roberts gives a nice performance, even if he is required to turn from a laconic, jaded hack into a twitchy, conspiracy-theory nut, almost overnight. Eastwood is pretty much wasted though, and even seems a little embarrassed to be there.

Overall though, you will be disappointed. Scooby Doo plot twists abound, with buried film in a coffin, and an experienced CDC investigator racing across town because (after several weeks on the case) she only JUST realises that the “illness” could be caused by a placebo effect.

The “12” certificate should also give you an idea on just how “intense” the material is. So despite the creepy subject matter, it’s really not worth your time. You would be better off returning to “Blair Witch” or any of the “Candyman” movies.  Having said that, I will be quaffing large amounts of coffee this evening, and sleeping with a torch next to my bed. Just because the film’s not very scary, it doesn’t mean that “they” aren’t… *shiver*.

DVD Extras: As insubstantial as a shadow itself. Nothing.

​

This is an awkward mix of slow paced supernatural thriller, and documentary style exposé. There are one or two affective scare scenes, but it just doesn’t work as a whole. The use of “real” interviews and footage feels like sub-“Blair Witch” manipulation. Although the mythology gets creepier the more you think about it, the film doesn’t. Sweet dreams!

BAIT 3D

Bait (18) 

Director: Kimble Rendall

Screenplay: Shayne Armstrong, Duncan Kennedy

​Starring: Xavier Samuel, Julian Mcmahon

A tsunami just flipped the food chain

There have been a few recent shark-based horror movies either based around or shot in Australia. “The Reef” (2010) and “Open Water” (2003) are the ones that come immediately to mind. Add to this the constant public fascination that the public has with sharks ever since the classic “Jaws” (1975), and the fun-but-dumb thrills of “Deep Blue Sea” (1999). The “Piranha” movies played their part as well in promoting gory undersea horror, especially “Piranha 3D” (2010). Also observe the constant obsession that the “SyFy channel”/”The Asylum” film studios has with films like “Super Shark” (2011) and “Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus” (2009) {NB: For casual readers, I am NOT making these movies up, Google ‘em}, and also natural disaster movies. Stir all these factors together, and you should get something along the lines of “Bait”. Originally titled “Bait 3D”, this Australian/Singapore production was made to bring more shark-horror to the screens, and ride on the crest of the 3D (tidal) wave. Now released on UK DVD, YGROY flicks a fishing line into its murky depths.

The film opens with a ”Cliffhanger” (the Stallone movie) type opening, where a hung-over life guard Josh (Xavier Samuel) sees his friend and colleague being eaten by a shark in front of him. After a Darth Vader “Noooooo!!” cry to the heavens, the story jumps twelve months forward. Still based in the same Australian coastal city, his life is now a mess, as his fiancé Jaime (the sister of the aforementioned shark victim) left him, and he now works in a supermarket stacking shelves. On this particular day, a mass of clichéd characters are amassing in and around the supermarket. There’s the desperate-but-has-a-heart-of-gold robber, and his psycho masked mate. The chavvy shoplifter and her exasperated cop father. The spoilt rich couple complete with annoying yappy dog. And to top it off, after a year Jaime (Phoebe Tonkin) has returned to the town (Yay!) and brought her new boyfriend with her (Boo! Bitch!).  But then wouldn’t you know it … A massive earthquake hits the city and a subsequent tsunami deluges the supermarket, killing many and submerging much of the store…

Now I’ll just interject here and interrupt this thrilling synopsis. I’m not a geologist, but this is a preposterous sequence in the extreme. From the first rumble, to the impact of the tidal wave, it all happens in less than a minute!! Even I know that’s impossible and is worthy of a double face-palm… We now return you to the synopsis.

The surviving cast now find themselves stranded in (inexplicably water-tight) cars and on supermarket shelves, as they stay clear of the water. They have to stay above the water, as the wave has brought in two Great White sharks that are now circling the beleaguered characters. Imagine the drowned-kitchen sequence in “Deep Blue Sea”, or the supermarket-sequence in “Tremors”, drawn out over the bulk of a movie, and you’ll get the idea. As they try to find a way out, they also have to fend off the sharks, and use their ingenuity to survive. Who gets out … and how much of them will be left?

From the very beginning there is a pungent aroma of cheese about this film. As mentioned, the characters are all walking clichés, and wouldn’t be out of place in a US disaster movie set in the 1970’s. The constant references to the other movies that I’ve made, also highlights the lack of originality in the film. The pre-occupation with 3D effects (which you won’t experience unless you have a fancy-ass TV and the Blu-Ray version) is a tad juvenile as well, with seagulls and body parts being literally poked in your face.

There is a huge amount of fun to be had with the dialogue, if you’re so inclined. You can play “Disaster-Film Bingo” or have a shot of booze, every-time one of the characters says a well-worn cheesy phrase that you’ve heard thousands of times in disaster movies. In fact, during the space of one minute two characters have this exchange; “When’s it going to end?”, “Why is this happening?”, “We’re not going to make it out of here, are we?” HOUSE! *hic*

And if I had a quid for every time somebody says “Get outta the water!!”…
The CGI special effects range from “Deep Blue Sea” level with fairly effective shark menacing, to PlayStation cut-scene quality (particularly during the lousily realised tsunami and first shark-attack). A lot of the gore actually comes from the body parts littering the supermarket. The shark attacks are along the lines of the actor-dunking-his-head-and-coming-up-screaming, or messy-red-CGI-blobs around the shark’s chops. I will say though, that there is a genuinely good and gory visual gag that occurs as a character tries to escape via the air conditioning.
Other “joys” which you can experience consist of; logic gaps (how can 12ft sharks get into an area that the victims are “trapped” in?), inappropriate sweeping music during romantic confessions, a leading cast member turning suddenly into Bruce Willis (figuratively speaking), a mobile shark-cage (!?), a bullet-time tazer shot, a “mystery” around the identity of one of the robbers (which is only a mystery if you’re deaf), and a truly horrendous cover version of “Mack The Knife” over the end credits. To be honest, I would have marked it lower than a 2 star rating, but I did find myself grinning several times, if only for the sheer unashamed verve and cheesiness of it all, and it does drift into the so-bad-it’s-good territory sometimes…

​

Surprisingly, the screenplay is co-written by the once-great Russell Mulcahy (“Highlander”). Even more surprisingly, the film was actually a modest hit in China and Italy. As a result it looks like a sequel is on the way, and will supposedly be set in Los Angeles!  China and Italy? You’ve only got yourselves to blame …
​

DVD Extras:
Substantial 43 minute making of documentary.
Trailer

There is some cheesy fun to be had, but it’s pretty much negated by all the bad points. Awful dialogue, loads of lazy clichés, varying quality on the special effects, and some pretty big logic gaps “sink” the movie (Do you see what I did there?). You may well enjoy it to a certain extent, but you’ll hate yourself afterwards…

THE COLLECTION

The Collection (18) 

Director: Marcus Dunstan

Screenplay: Marcus Dunstan, Patrick Melton

​Starring: Josh Stewart, Emma Fitzpatrick

Every great collector has a vision

“The Collection” is the 2012 sequel to the moderately successful horror “The Collector” from 2009. The original film depicted the shenanigans of a serial-killer (“The Collector”, obviously…) who practised home-invasion, advanced trap/mutilation technology (a la “Saw”), and a perverse need to kidnap at least one victim from each crime. Clad in a skin-tight, lace-tied mask, he was the archetypical slasher, whose face (and motives) was never made clear. The original film was mostly set in one location, and ended with the capture (and probable death) of the main protagonist Arkin O’Brien (Josh Stewart) by the seemingly indestructible villain. The film was actually the cinematic equivalent of a pub crawl, enjoyable at the time, but you couldn’t really recall the details the next morning and you weren’t in a great hurry to do it again. Nevertheless here’s the sequel with the original director (Marcus Dunstan), which goes straight to DVD in the UK although it had a theatrical release in the US.

The movie opens with the (unnamed) city and its citizens in panic as the previous actions of The Collector are being publicised by the media. Obviously though, this doesn’t stop teenagers acting like teenagers, and a small group head to a seedy night club to “party” (as I believe the US vernacular has it). The main focus here is Elena Peters (played by Anne Hathaway lookalike, Emma Fitzpatrick), who has sneaked out from under her Father’s over-protective gaze. It’s one of those nightclubs that don’t actually exist in real-life. Full of good-looking people, who dance as one in slow-motion. Not full of ugly people throwing up and sniffing drugs in the filthy toilets. Anyway, as Admiral Ackbar from Star Wars says; “It’s a trap!” The Collector is lurking in rafters and sets off a series of devices, which mows down, cuts, or squashes nearly all the kids. It’s the most OTT club-massacre scene since “Hellraiser 3” or “Blade”. From this, Elena is kidnapped by the collector, and taken to his lair. Meanwhile Arkin O’Brien (from the original film) is still alive, and escapes from the club in the ensuing carnage. Thinking he’s safe in hospital, Arkin’s bad luck continues as he is coerced into re-entering The Collector’s lair by a group of mercenaries, hired by Elena’s father. As they locate the building (an abandoned hotel), they creep into an absolute smorgasbord of horrors, corpses, and fatal traps. Who will survive?

As you can probably guess from that synopsis, credibility is not the film’s strongpoint. For a start, what was the deal with the Nightclub? Does The Collector own the place or something? How come nobody saw him put a combine harvester in the ceiling?  Also, when we see the inside of the hotel, it’s literally strewn with hundreds of bodies and victims! Piles of ‘em in some cases! Has he wiped out half the city’s population or something, and nobody realised? Just how crap is the local police force? At one point somebody lights a long fuse going to explosives like Wile.E.Coyote! All the better for the good guys to escape in time! It’s probably best not to think too much about the story …

An uncomfortable comparison came to me as I watched the film. The Collector is basically an Evil Batman! Stay with me here… A reliance on gadgets. An expert in martial arts fighting and weaponry. Ninja poses in the rafters. He even swings down on a pulley system, incapacitates three people, and swings up again. All that’s missing is a batarang! I kept expecting someone to say, “Where does he get those wonderful toys?” At one point he even runs towards the camera silhouetted in a spotlight, like a Schumacher-era Batman. I shit you not! Mind-boggling…

​

Comic book comparisons and comedy bombs aside … There are some real nice visual flourishes in The Collector’s lair, which is actually called “Hotel Argento”. No prizes for guessing where some of the homages come from! Damien Hirst style pickled corpses are frozen in poses of unnatural beauty, and these are brilliantly utilised in the great fiery climax. Mutilated corpses in a mid-dissection state are seen in the background as almost throwaway references. In fact, the production design is of a very high standard throughout the film. The make-up effects and the gore scenes are also very nicely done, despite the odd splash of CGI-blood. A lot of fun is had as well, with the ingenious death-traps that show themselves, as the Scooby Doo crew of mercenaries creep around the building. It’s like a Haunted House attraction for grown-ups. Add some very impressive tracking shots of devices being sprung, and you’ve got a number of reasons why this is an enjoyable bit of horror hokum, even with the marks 

against it.

So, a nice little horror diversion, but you’ll probably forget about it as soon as you watched it. It’s that type of movie. I don’t think we’ll be seeing The Collector return anytime soon, but at least he had a decent send-off…

DVD Extras:

Alternative/Deleted scenes: An alternative death scene, which adds an interesting dimension to a leading character. An alternative closing credits scene, which they REALLY should have used instead of the generic rerun-of-the-gory-deaths that they went with. It really expands on the final scenes of the movie and adds a nice full stop to the story.
Five 4-minute segments on; Director’s “vision”, Special Effects, Stunts, Make-up, and Production design.

Not an outstanding slasher flick, or even particularly original, but it’s competently enough done. It’s saved from obscurity by some neat visual flourishes, and some very effective Argento-inspired imagery. Still can’t get that “Evil Batman” analogy out of my mind though…