MAMA

Mama (15)

Director: Andres Muschietti
Written by: Neil Cross, Andres & Barbara Muschietti
Starring: Nikolaj Coster Waldau, Jessica Chastain

A mother's love  is forever
 

“Mama” has a very fine pedigree. Produced by “Mr Everywhere” himself, Guillermo Del Toro, and starring the talented Jessica Chastain, it was a much anticipated movie this year. A collaboration between Spanish-Canadian film-makers, it was directed by relative newcomer Andres Muschietti, being based on his spooky (very) short film that had drawn attention on YouTube. The film has been received exceptionally well in the US, and has just opened in the UK (22nd Feb). The trailer promised a spooky J-Horror type affair, as oppose to an all-out gore-fest. So how does it measure up?

The film opens dramatically, with a crashed car, a business man with a gun, and two scared little girls. Apparently driven over the edge by the financial crisis in 2008, the man in question blows his wife away, and kidnaps his little girls (a 3 year old and a 1 year old). They crash the car and end up in a deserted cabin in the woods during a snowstorm. (Seriously! Just how many deserted cabins are there in the US? There’s a business opportunity there I reckon…). Intending to do away with the girls, he is stopped by “something”. This “something” then takes care of the girls, and I mean genuinely take care, not Mafia “take care”. The story then flashes forward 5 years. The brother of the businessman (Lucas) is obsessively still searching for his sibling and the girls. The tracker working for him comes across the car and the cabin and finds the girls in a feral state, scampering around on all-fours and eating fruit from the forest. Due to a convoluted set of circumstances (where the girl’s Aunt comes across like Cruella Deville’s wicked sister!), the girls end up with Lucas, and his snippy, Goth-Rocker girlfriend Annabel. Given a large house by the supervising doctor, so he can keep an eye on their integration back into society (or so he says *cue sinister music*). We already know that Annabel is thrilled not to be pregnant, so the sub-text exists for her finding her maternal instinct with the girls. However, with strange happenings around the house, and a sudden accident, it becomes apparent that something malignant has followed the girls back to civilisation.

The film opens solidly. The initial sense of tension and the very brief glimpses of “Mama” (“Daddy? There’s a lady outside … and she’s not touching the floor!”), work well and compares favourably to the likes of “The Grudge” and “The Ring”. I must also mention the stunning cinematography that makes it a such a  good-looking film, with colours muted for large portions and contrast between light and dark turned up to “11” (Spinal Tap reference. I thank you…). This is especially apparent in some fantastically stylish Nightmare sequences. There are some very nice set-pieces; like the scene where the youngest child is playing with her sister … only it’s not as she walks down the corridor a second later! Also, the scenes where the oldest girl implores Annabel not to open the closet, and the unexpected attack on a leading character. All good stuff, although some of the scares seem to be lifted shot-for-shot from other recent films (I’m thinking “Sinister” and “Insidious” here … especially the face-over-the-shoulder shot in “Insidious”). You can argue that the scares are somewhat telegraphed and rely on the old chestnut of SUDDEN-SOUNDTRACK-BLAST to make you jump. But at least in the beginning, these are effective in what they set out to do.

Special mention must go to Jessica Chastain. A closet horror fan (Yay!!) but not a fan of gore (Boo!!), she was pleased to take the role and make it hers. Miles away from her caring Burlesque girl in “Lawless” or the tough-cookie agent in “Zero Dark Thirty”, Annabel is a sassy character, who has believable problems in bonding with the girls. This makes the later scenes where she comforts one of them that much more touching and affecting. You can tell she has lots of fun with the role. She really sells some of the scare scenes as well. Incidentally, it’s great that we are experiencing a cinematic era, where actors of Chastain’s and Ethan Hawke’s calibre have no problem appearing in unashamed horror films. The two girls are also particularly good (Megan Charpentier & Isabelle Nelisse). Never mawkish or Disney-fied, they convince at every point, whether acting feral or trying protect Annabel from the wrath of “Mama”.

You can sense a “but” coming up here can’t you? Especially if you’ve already checked the rating…But… It just doesn’t work for me, for a number of reasons. The biggest problem for me was (surprisingly) the ending. About 15 minutes from the end of the movie, it turns from spooky scare-fest to a Tim Burton film, complete with Danny Elfman choir-type “Aaah-Aaah” vocals! And not one of his good films either! It’s like the crew has handed the camera over to him, and said “Go on Son! Forget about the atmosphere we’ve just built up. Go mental with the special effects and do what you feel is appropriate”. But not only that, the final denouement completely contradicts at least two plot points that were earlier established, and smacks of an emergency re-write. I can’t remember a recent film that’s had a final act that I’ve felt was such a drop in quality.

There are also far too many holes in the plot to convince either. Why doesn’t Lucas tell anyone about his supernatural attack? Why is his brother’s spirit appearing to him to save his girls, when he was going to shoot them anyway? What happened to the cute sausage dog?! The doctor and aunt turn out to be pantomime villains for ridiculous reasons. Another sticking point were the pre-movie hype statements that said the actor playing “Mama”, Javier Botet (The slender guy who plays the “Hag” in the “Rec” movies) was doing all his own movements and bendy stunts. Well, that may be, but it’s kind of negated when he’s surrounded by flowing CGI hair and black smoke, so you can’t even see it! Initially scary, the figure becomes the Wicked Witch of the West by the (Tim Burton) end. At one point “Mama” even slides around the floor with just her hair showing, like a possessed wig! (BTW, see “The Wig”. Genuine South Korean bonkers film!)

Maybe I am being overly harsh on the film, but the flashes of brilliance and talent involved make the overall disappointment that much worse. As it stands it’s not something that we haven’t seen before, and it’s not something that we haven’t seen done better (“The Orphanage” and “The Devil’s Backbone” leap straight to mind ironically). However, it’s certainly gone down a storm in the US and rumours are already rife of a sequel. I suppose it’s good news for horror in general, but I’d much rather see something in the genre like “Dredd” or “Before Dawn” have that same kind of impact…
Ah well, the “Evil Dead” and “Stoker” trailers were good…

This has a solid beginning, with great performances from Chastain and the two girls. But the scares are derivative, the plot convoluted, and … that ending! A real missed opportunity.

GRAVE ENCOUNTERS 2

Grave Encounters 2 (15)

Director: John Poliquin
Screenplay: The Vicious Brothers
Starring: Richard Harmon, Shawn C Phillips

Fear is just a word, reality is much worse

Right up front, I’ll say that I did NOT enjoy or even like the original “Grave Encounters”. In fact I still get a bit of heartburn when I think about it (although that could be the dodgy local Vindaloo I had last night…). It was (in my humble opinion) one of the more annoying Blair Witch / Paranormal Activity / Found Footage mash-ups that I have ever seen. With unlikable characters, making stupid decisions, whilst filming in a haunted asylum, and encountering the usual white-faced spooks, with that interminable stretchy-dark-mouthed effect, that film-makers think scares us, and the usual throw-the-actor-at-the-camera type shocks. And … breathe! Yes … I am getting cynical and pissed-off in my old age. Anyway there was way too much ambiguity and too many telegraphed scares for me. However, on this site as well as cinema reviews, we want to highlight any overlooked DVDs that may tickle your fear-buds. The apparent success of the first film (and an admittedly stylish trailer, which clocked multiple views on YouTube) meant that the sequel recently appeared. So I watched “Grave Encounters 2” and I must say … I was pleasantly surprised…

The movie opens with a nice montage of “genuine” webcam reviews on the first film. To the credit of the film, not all of them are positive. It’s a nice touch, and done in a way that “Blair Witch 2” tried to pull off but failed dismally with it. The worst review comes from Alex Wright (Richard Harmon), who is the archetypical film-student snob, and fancies himself as a respected blogger and talented director (His crappy film project suggests otherwise…). The first part of the film deals with him and his friends following up on the urban legends surrounding the first film. As Alex researches it becomes apparent that all the events of the first film were real, and that the haunted hospital exists in real life. All during this time, the film consists of footage filmed by Alex or his buddies, and is just about believable in context. Yes, it IS a found footage film again, but bear with it. This continues when Alex tracks down the production company who released the film and uses a hidden camera to interview staff. In a brilliant touch, The “Vicious Brothers” (who directed the first film and wrote both) appear as themselves and are ridiculed soundly.

With this backstory now established, Alex and his buddies travel to the mental hospital to spend the night and film. It was at this point that I groaned so loudly that the neighbours knocked on my door to see if I was alright. Another straight re-tread of the first film? Well, for about 10 minutes, yes. But then a couple of crazy twists and a new addition to the cast turns the plot on its head. Some of the ambiguity from the previous film disappears, and the story takes several bold steps into originality. Highlights include; a door that goes nowhere (or does it?), a map that doesn’t work (or does it?), and a surprise escape (or is it?). Spooks appear again, but are in no way integral to the plot, and there’s a nice appearance from an over-grown one that struggles to stomp down the corridor after the team. Throw in a brilliant excuse for continuing to film at the worst possible moments, and a nice coda at the end that explains motives, and you have a surprising little treat.

Maybe it was because my expectations were so low, but I had much more fun with this than its predecessor. I’m probably in a minority (judging by message boards and other reviews), but the touches of originality and differing style of the new director John Poliquin, meant that I really enjoyed this ride. Definitely worth a thought if you want a fear-filler for the evening. A further sequel doesn’t look likely at the moment, but if there is one, then sign me up …

An off-the-wall sequel done right! With enough flair and twists to enjoy … even if you disliked the first one.

BEFORE DAWN

Before Dawn (18)

Director: Dominic Brunt
Written by: Mark Illis, Joanne Mitchell
Starring: Dominic Brunt, Joanne Mitchell, Eileen O'Brien
 

This film has annoyed me a bit. I’ll explain why … It was showing at the Film4 London Frightfest, on the smaller screens as part of the usual “showcase” offerings. I didn’t see it there as I stayed with the premiere showings on the main screen. I just hope that I wasn’t watching “Berberian Sound Studio” or “Tulpa” or something similar … because this film is worth a dozen of those efforts!

“Before Dawn” is a labour of love by Dominic Brunt, who directed and produced the film, as well as starring in it. His real-life wife Joanne Mitchell also stars, as well as producing and actually writing the story. Dominic is a bit of a two-pronged institution in the UK. Beloved by soap opera fans for his long-running portrayal of Paddy the Vet in “Emmerdale” (in fact my dear old Mum was a huge fan of his). However, he is also well-known amongst UK genre fans for his love of the genre and actually organises zombie film festivals in the city of Leeds. Due to budgetary constraints and cast requirements, “Before Dawn” was in pre-production for well over a year. After successful festival showings it is now available on Region 2 DVD.

The film opens with Alex (Brunt) and Meg (Mitchell) leaving for a Countryside Cottage holiday, well away from distractions from their children and her work. After a few snide comments by Meg’s mother, they set off and it soon becomes apparent that this is a relationship in free-fall. Alex drinks constantly and has lost his job. Meg is surgically attached to her mobile, and obsessed with a fitness regime. On reaching the cottage (the location is not specified … apart from it being in the arse-end of nowhere), they start to argue again. For anybody who has been in fractured relationships, or nearing the end of a long-term one, these scenes are sadly familiar. Also, familiar will be the sense of remoteness that an English Countryside holiday (complete with overcast crap weather) can have…

There is no real sense of danger until at least a third of the way into the film. We have heard screams in the distance, seen a blood-spattered abandoned car, and are aware of figures running in the distance. But it’s relatively late until the first undead conflict occurs. And once this happens, the whole plot spirals into unforeseen areas…

This is a Zombie Apocalypse film. But those looking for a large-scale siege story, or a survival tale, won’t necessarily find what they’re looking for here. The majority of the film takes place within the confines of the cottage in question. However, if you want to see an intensely personal and realistic portrayal of how people react to large-scale and personal tragedy, you’ll get it here in spades. The creatures themselves are rage-filled bloody-eyed ex-humans, who are attracted to movement and like to chow down on innards. (NB: If you listen to Brunt’s commentary or watch the making-of feature, there is a whole back-story to the “virus” and the effects of contamination, although it’s not referred to in the film). There’s not a lot of them (Arse-end of nowhere, remember?), but they can be deadly. The film is not strewn with gore, but when it happens it is brutal and uncompromising.

There are some great ideas in the film which I can’t elaborate on without being spoiler-rific, but they concern the possible effects of feeding the infected, and how the infection can spread.

Brunt is obviously a talented director and let's hope he continues with similar projects in the genre. His role as Alex is very well-orchestrated and he gives a totally un-showy, realistic performance. Mitchell is also very good in her role, and let’s just say that when she wrote the story, she didn’t spare her character any indignities. The soundtrack is suitably morose and befitting the sweeping countryside and situation.

(Although I could have done without that brief bizarre dub-step track that is played over one zombie attack!). Actually, despite the relatively small number of zombies, I don’t recall a recent undead film feeling so dread-laden...

All in all, a real gem for genre fans that like some meat and food for thought with their splattered brains. Some original ideas and realistic performances make this well worth picking up.

Extras: An extensive making-of feature (49 minutes), an endearingly low-key commentary by Dominic Brunt (which fills in the infection back-story if you are interested), Outtakes, Raw footage, and a trailer.

This is a thoroughly British and refreshingly adult film. Treat yourself to a home-grown horror with substance.

HITCHCOCK

Hitchcock (12A)

Director: Sacha Gervasi
Screenplay: John J McLauglin
Starring: Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren, Scarlett Johansson

I was looking forward to this movie for at least two reasons (Who shouted “Yeah! Scarlett Johansson has both of them!”? Leave this site immediately, you ruffian!). For one thing, my stock answer to the perennial “What’s your favourite movie of all-time?” is “Psycho”. For another, I was exceptionally ticked off by the crass BBC drama “The Girl”, and the unsubstantiated hack-job it did on the character of Hitchcock, and was hoping this would be a more balanced affair. For yet another, the non-fictional book that the screenplay is based on, has pride of place on my book-shelf. Yeah! Book-Shelf! Take your kindles and shove ‘em!! Ahem … Anyway, onto the film itself …

The movie starts with Alfred Hitchcock’s release of the classic “North by Northwest”. As he absorbs the plaudits, one comment from a journalist present raises his ire, when his age (60) is brought up and asks him why he “...doesn’t quit while ahead”. This stings Hitchcock and he sets about looking for a new project, which needs to be something different. He avoids the more “classy” fare like “Casino Royale” (seriously, Hitch could have been the first Bond director!), and sets his sights on bringing the Robert Bloch novel “Psycho” to the silver screen. Regarded by Paramount Film studios, the censors (MPPC at the time), and to most of those in the film industry as a “tawdry little horror” and unworthy of Hitchcock’s talent. To bring the film to life, he risks his home and his marriage, and he comes dangerously close to losing both… The fact that he eventually succeeds in creating a classic and that he is directly instrumental for a whole new style of horror, is a direct testament to not only Hitchcock’s skills, but his unsung wife’s talents as well.

First off, we have to acknowledge the skills and performance of Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren. Accomplished as always, they bring gravitas and emotion to the roles of Alfred Hitchcock and his wife Alma Reville. Hopkins has the physical quirks (finger twiddling & impassive stares) to a tea, and the verbal inflexions are effective. However, despite some realistic prosthetics, I was personally never really convinced by his performance. It always seemed to be Tony Hopkins voice, and he never really seemed to comfortably take on the full persona of the director.



Maybe it’s me, but as much as it pains me to say so, Toby Jones portrayal in “The Girl” seemed far closer to the mannerisms and physicality of Hitchcock. Helen Mirren fares better as Alma, but that’s probably because she was in the public limelight less often. As it’s Mirren though, she does sell some great scenes, especially when she is accused of having an affair by her husband, and she royally lets rip, reminding him of how much he owes her!

The supporting cast are top notch also, and it’s a real shame that some of them are side-lined for a good portion of the film. In particular, Scarlett Johansson is absolutely perfect as Janet Leigh and nails the part completely. Her wide-eyed, good-natured performance, complete with spot-on slightly husky voice, is a doppelganger of the actress. If there is ever life-story of Janet Leigh, they certainly know where to look! James D’arcy too is a dead-ringer for Anthony Perkins, and his twitchy performance is a winner. (Pity he only has about two scenes). Toni Collette is also great as Hitchcock’s personal secretary Peggy Robertson. Starchy but reliable, she holds her own in all her scenes with Hopkins. Jessica Biel has less luck with the Vera Miles role, but that’s really because the part is under-written and doesn’t give her a lot to work with. Genre vet Michael Wincott (“The Crow”, “Alien: Resurrection”) also appears intermittently as Ed Gein…

And this is where we get to some of the elements of the film that don’t really work. Ed Gein, of course, was the real life murderer and grave-robber that inspired “Psycho” (along with other films and stories). In the film, he occasionally appears to Hitchcock to advise him and comment on proceedings. The surreal nature of these scenes, seem out of odds with the tone of the film and aren’t really needed. Despite a good start, the film itself reaches a bit of an impasse at the half-way mark. Ironically, once “Psycho” itself is being filmed on a closed set, the movie concentrates on the discord between Hitchcock and Alma. He’s compulsively ogling his leading ladies and obsessing over “romantic fantasies” (never to the depths that “The Girl” suggested though),



whereas she is stewing over a lack of recognition for her screen-writing skills and is being drawn into a possible relationship with the slimy Whitfield Crook (Danny Huston), a writer friend of the couple. Basically it comes down to an old married couple arguing over petty mis-understandings, as oppose to the making of a classic movie. We barely see 3-4 scenes being shot (even the shooting of the shower scene is rushed through, almost as an after-thought). Maybe I’m being selfish, due to my love of the movie, but there are so many myths and great stories around the actual shooting of “Psycho”, that it seems a wasted opportunity not to spend more time on those moments, particularly with such a great supporting cast.

As if to back this view up, the best scenes in “Hitchcock” deal directly with “Psycho” itself. A lovely scene has the director standing in a cinema auditorium, conducting an imaginary orchestra during the shower scene, as an audience screams at its very first showing. This scene culminates with a wry smile on his lips. Wonderful stuff. The constant battles with the censors and the panic-driven editing scenes are also well worthy of mention.

The director (Sacha Gervasi – known for the rock-band documentary “Anvil!”) does an admirable job with juggling the actors, but I just wished that the scope had been less insular, and more focussed on Hitchcock’s film-making and associated tribulations.
Certainly not a failure, and well worth seeing, but it could have been that much better ….

Classy and mostly enjoyable, but … less Gein, less domestic squabbling, and more set-shooting … and it coulda been a real contender.

WARM BODIES

Warm Bodies (18)

Director: Jonathan Levine
Screenplay: Jonathan Levine
Starring: Nicholas Hoult, Teresa Palmer, John Malkovich
Bros before brains

Okay. I’ll admit it. When I first heard about this being filmed, the news was about as welcome as a cat-flap on a submarine. Like most genre fans, my thoughts were instantly “Twilight Sparkly Zombies”, which inspired a quick trip to the WHSmith “Young Adult” book section with a blowtorch and some petrol… I forgot about it for a while, apart from some snorty derision when I saw it would be a PG-13 in the US and a 12-A in the UK. Then I saw the trailer … actually it didn’t look too bad. The zombies looked okay, there was a blatant reference to “Zombie Flesh Eaters”, and is that John-Frickin’-Malkovich? Okay, I wasn’t expecting much, but I’ll give it a go.

The film is set 8 years after a zombie apocalypse, caused by who-knows-what. It could have been an infected chimp muses the main character (Hello “28 Days Later”!), which is the first of many zombie film references. The story follows one particular zombie, who becomes known as “R” (as he can’t remember the rest of his name). “R”, played nicely by Nicholas Hoult, is a remarkably erudite and intelligent zombie on the inside, but like all zombies he looks like shit on the outside and can only grunt and feed. His narration kick-starts the proceedings, and chips in on other occasions during the film. His memory is missing large chunks; all he knows is to travel in packs, and to feed off humans.

Things start to change when he becomes compulsively attracted to Julie (Teresa Palmer), who is the daughter of General Grigio (John Malkovich), a leader of a dwindling pocket of human resistance. This is partly because she is feisty and beautiful, but mostly because he’s just chomped the brains of her boyfriend and knows what a catch she is! The developing relationship of “R” and Julie is the main focus of the story, along with the implications it has for the rest of the world.

Yes, this is a PG-13 / 12A film, but luckily these are NOT twinkly, family-friendly zombies. They could have come straight out of a Romero film. They congregate in familiar places (Hello, “Dawn of the Dead”!), which in this case is an airport. They hunt in groups and are wary of guns. They even chow down on humans, and prefer the brains for God’s sake!

Obviously, this is not shown explicitly, but neither is it shied away from, so kudos for that. In this lore, the Z-folk eat brains, not to stop themselves feeling the rotting of their bodies (Hello “Return of the Living Dead”!), but to experience memories and feel humanity again. “R” even keeps some hidden away somewhere to snack upon occasionally.

The most intriguing part of this Zombie set-up is that “R” and his immediate … err … acquaintances are in a transitional state. If they fully reject their humanity and give into the feral part of their nature, they literally strip the flesh off their bodies and become “Bonies”, which are stronger more aggressive deadites. Of course, a lot of this is allegorical, and meant to represent our loss of humanity in society, yadda-yadda. But as a concept for a bona-fide Zombie movie, it doesn’t take away their horrific natures or grim tendencies. It also echoes the evolutionary arc from Romero’s “Land of the Dead”, and his predilection for NOT showing them as necessarily the “bad-guys”
​

The two leads, Nicholas Hoult and Teresa Palmer are particularly good in their roles. Hoult especially, is a great sympathetic zombie. His blank stare and adopted duck-face is perfectly fitting and evolves when necessary. His halting grunts and staccato wordplay is well used. Hoult also has the acting chops to pull off a few difficult scenes, namely in one where he eats the brains of a victim and experiences the death of the owner by his own hands, culminating in a wordless display of self-loathing and anger. His voice-overs are often funny (“Don’t be creepy! Don’t be creepy!”) and quite touching, but I think if they had decided to go without that narration, it would have stood up better, as they are no real stumbling blocks in terms of understandable narrative. Maybe they were trying to emulate other recent zombie films (Hello, “Zombieland”!). Oddly enough, Malkovich is so laid-back in his role of humanity’s last general that he seems to have been doped! He only really (ironically) shows signs of life, when he confronts his daughter and her zombie boyfriend in the climax of the film.

I haven’t read the YA novel that the film is based on (Young Adult fiction is my Kryptonite!), but Jonathan Levine (“The Wackness”) directs the story well enough. It’s not a perfect film by any means. It’s a touch heavy on the saccharine (there’s even a balcony scene … “R” & Julie … Geddit… Oh well, please yourselves), the allegories beat you over the head (Don’t lose your humanity … Dude!), the “Bonies” are too CGI-ey and there are waaaa-aaay too many soft-rock montages. The nice thing about this though, is that the film itself acknowledges some of the shortcomings. Julie explains why she got over her boyfriend’s death so easily in a nice scene (which seemed to be a sticking point up until then). Also, the musical montages themselves are mocked when one character plays Orbison’s “Pretty Woman” whilst a zombie is getting made up to look human. “Why are you playing that?” says one character. “Because it’s funny” shrugs another.

There are loads of other nice touches, like “R” listening to vinyl records, because they sound more “alive”, and the way in which the “humanity” plague starts to infect the zombies. There’s also a nice pretend-you’re-a-zombie scene as well (Hello, “Shaun of the Dead”!) I must admit I also had a huge grin when two certain opposing forces join up. Maybe the climatic moments are a little twee, but they befit the incidents leading up to them.

I feel like I shouldn’t like it, but damn it! … I can’t hate a film that does NOT bite the genre hand that feeds it (unlike other films *cough*Twilight*cough*), and respects the lore and the movies that came before it. It’s sweet-natured, fun, and has a life-affirming message that’s hard to be cynical about. Judging by some of the positive reviews circulating from even the more “hard-nosed” horror sites, it seems I’m not the only one …



DJANGO UNCHAINED

Django Unchained (18)

Director: Quentin Tarantino
Screenplay: Quentin Tarantino
Starring: Jamie Foxx, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christoph Waltz
Life, liberty and the pursuit of vengeance

“Alright”, you’re probably thinking, “what are they up to now?” “On a site devoted to the Horror Cinema and screen writing, they’re now reviewing a bloody Western!” “As if Batman, Dredd, and The Man with the Iron Fists weren’t enough”. Well folks, let me qualify this for you. For a start it IS a Quentin Tarantino film, and this is his love-letter to the exploitation flicks and spaghetti westerns. For another plus point, it’s gory enough to have made the front cover of “Fangoria” magazine and other horror publications and sites in the US. And let’s be honest, most of the people reading this site will be seeing the film, due to its overt links with classic B-movie sub-texts, and the reliable standard of screenplay that QT usually displays.

So … “Django Unchained” riffs off the extraordinary and prolific amount of Spaghetti Westerns produced in the 60’s & 70’s. The film (which Tarantino acknowledges as the prime influence) is unsurprisingly the 1966 Italian film “Django” (and its 30-odd “sequels”!!) with Franco Nero as the laconic gunfighter. Grim & gritty with some disturbingly sadistic moments, and some iconic imagery, it also flirted with the theme of racism. In that case it was the Mexicans that were being victimised. Obviously in “Unchained” Tarantino has concentrated on the slavery trade and the inhumanities that were bestowed on the innocents during the time of the film.

The film starts in 1858, two years ahead of the civil war, but the emerging differences between the South and the North are already embedded. Django (Jamie Foxx) is released from a slavery by Dr King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), who is a bounty-hunter/dentist. Schultz needs him to identify brothers, who have a large bounty on their heads. From this point training and kinship, leads the two to become partners and vow to rescue Django’s wife from Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), but they reckon without the loathsome turncoat that is Calvin’s servant, Stephen (Samuel L.Jackson).

Right from the first beat this is a lavish affair, and a pleasing assault on the visual and aural senses. The musical theme to “Django Unchained” is the same as used in the 1966 “Django”, and yet it seems as relevant and appropriate as it did back then (“Django” by Luis Bacalov. Brilliant!) The soundtrack is a combination of epic spaghetti western guitars and 70’s “Blaxploitation” tunes, and well worth checking out, or download (which I believe is what you groovy kids do these days …)

Mainly it’s about the performances and the four leading men have never been better. Christoph Waltz as Schultz follows up his superb performance from “Inglorious Basterds” with a master-class in character acting, creating an endearing persona. To those that level the criticism at the film that all “the white guys are shown as villains”, Waltz proves this wrong. Schultz is possibly the only character in the film that lives by a moral code, recognises the evils of slavery, and cannot live with the cruelty being unrecognised or accounted for. If there was ever an actor that is simply born to get his chops around Tarantino’s chewy dialogue, it is Mr Waltz. Both DiCaprio and Jackson also make their presence felt, with DiCaprio owning the part of the sly and occasionally explosive plantation owner, and Jackson simply oozing slime as the slave who helps subjugate his own kind to earn standing in his masters eyes. Foxx has come in for some criticism around his somewhat laid back style, particularly as the lead character. In my opinion, this is unfounded, and probably due to the fact that the other aforementioned gentleman have (intentionally) “showier” performances. Watch Foxx’s face and outstretched palm when he whips a plantation guard, and stews inwardly when his wife is man-handled. His “light” delivery on some lines, make them work that much better as well, such as the ironic “I like the way you die … Boy”. The “speak-softly-shoot-hard” routine is entirely keeping with the character’s development, and there’s that killer smile at the climax.

Along the four leading man, there are a plethora of famous faces literally doing bit-parts. Zoe Bell (Tarantino’s favourite stunt-lady) appears as a masked Hench-person, as does Tom Savini (!). Don Johnson, Bruce Dern, Jonah Hill, even Tarantino appear in cameos. Best of all is Franco Nero, the original Django from the 1966 film. “The “D” is silent” says Foxx, when asked his name. “I know” says Nero in a deadpan delivery. As you expect from the Q-Man, the screenplay is playful and full of memorable soliloquys and quotes. My favourite being during a gunfight with one character and Django. “I counted six bullets” sneers the villain. “Well, I counted two guns!” says Django pulling out another firearm from his jacket.

It was Tarantino’s objective to produce an “issues movie” but in the style of a crowd-pleasing genre movie, and in this respect he has succeeded. The morality may be over-played and simplistic, but it is accessible and the film is never less than entertaining and sometimes hypnotic.
Oddly enough for Tarantino, and especially given the 165 minute running time, there seems to be less gratuitous violence than “Inglorious Basterds” or “Pulp Fiction”. However, some of the scenes simmer with an undercurrent of brutality, the prime one being when Candie shows the skull of a previous slave and explains his warped theory on slavery. But when the violence comes-a-knocking, you can’t ignore it! The bloody gun fights (especially at the “big house”) are doused in crimson. These aren’t the hand-to-the-chest-AAARGH-ya-got-me gunfights of old. No Siree. In these cases, the cowboys are human blood-bags. When bullets hit, they explode realistically (I would guess … I’m not a forensic expert) and burst in showers of blood from the wounds. Heads explode and limbs are shattered. One scene is reminiscent of the Uma Thurman Vs. The Crazy 88 fight in “Kill Bill” … but with guns. There does seem to have been some snips made to the brutality though. In fact, one slave-fighting scene seems to have been edited quite clumsily to avoid a shocking eye-gouging (which is ironically what put it on the front cover of “Fangoria” … Wah-Wah-Waaaah!). But fans of stylish violence still have plenty to chew over.

Overall, it’s Tarantino in top form again. The film is thrilling, entertaining, and choc-full of great performances. Whether it works wholly successfully as an “issue” movie is down to your good self, but as part of the modern exploitation wave it definitely delivers the goods.
Now if we could just get Tarantino to do a modern update of “The Creature from the Black Lagoon” …



CLASSIC HORROR: BLACK CHRISTMAS

This is the first article in a series written for people trying to learn something about the genre. Blake Snyder and many other writers on the subject of screenwriting advise prospective writers to master their genres. If you're going to write something you had better know what comes before.
I like horror films, but I am no expert. I have a young child and a wife whose limit is the Walking Dead. Opportunities to catch up on back catalogues and latest releases are limited and I'll be honest, I like other genres just as much. But needs must. My writing partner and I are writing horror so become an expert I must.
This series of articles is my own personal reference guide to 'the classics' of the genre. They aren't really reviews, and they aren't essays but something in between. Enjoy and feel free to share your views.

Black Christmas

Released 1975
Directed by Bob Clark
Screenplay by Roy Moore

On my list because it is often proclaimed as the progenitor of the modern 'slasher' genre, BC still stands up to modern comparisons albeit in a mildly diluted way. It's a tense, well-paced whodunit with obvious 'influences' on later films and has some surprising subtext depth particularly in its apparently savage attack on feminism.

The premise is beautifully simple: (presumably) deranged killer stalks free spirited sorority girls over the Christmas holidays. The active questions are whether the girls can stop him and who the hell is he anyway?

If that sounds dull and unoriginal, consider that in 1974, before John Carpenter and Wes Craven took over the slasher genre this was something a little new. And their later-released, oft more celebrated slasher films almost certainly took things from the formula BC established. The first person POV shots that substitute for the killer are a famous characteristic of many slashers, not least Halloween. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know whether BC was the first film to use POV in this way but I suspect it was not. All the same, it's a device Bob Clark uses to the full and along with the telephone calls and Margot Kidder's sexy foul mouth is one of the features of BC that stays with you after the credits.

The POV device is used not only to build tension but also as a loose plot device. One of BCs most controversial elements (here comes a spoiler) is that while the killer is in many scenes, we never see him (or enough of him to tell who it is). The whodunnit is never answered, and that mystery adds to the allure of the film, opening up angles for debate and conjecture. Would a modern screenplay get away with such an open end? I am not so sure. The rules of the game were very different in 1974. A whodunnit without a who now would be a risky move.

The horror elements of BC are mild by comparison to a contemporary slasher. No murder is actually seen its entirety so if you're looking for gore, move along. The horror here comes from the anticipation of the kill. The lingering POVs and 'he's behind you' moments are the scariest bits on show but modern audiences will be in no danger of overworked hearts. The majority of the scares are now obvious from a mile away; at least partly because they've been done over and over since the 70s. It is a sad fact of the sub-genre that new takes are limited mostly to parodies (I understood a truck load of Scream references much better after watching BC). Perhaps there are only a limited number of ways one can be 'slashed'?

Perhaps the most interesting aspect is in the rather heavy handed attack on feminism. The sorority house is rife with free thinking, spirited (and yes, promiscuous) young women. They're gaining an education, drinking, smoking, having sex, and making decisions all by themselves thank you very much. Even their 'house mother' is rather too fond of the sauce. But fear not appalled conservatives, our killer is here to punish them all with his knife and his beady eye. Before the film is done, he has savaged his way through practically everyone who didn't go ski-ing for Christmas.



The ultimate test of this subtext and perhaps the ultimate message then is in the fate of Olivia Hussey's protagonist. She's the brightest spark in the house, but she's done got herself pregnant by some man she doesn't love and she's thinking about an abortion. If she survives and defeats Billy we should read that as a pro-choice message shouldn't we?  Strong women can decide for themselves. Nice positive message that.

But does she survive? Errrr....

Watch it for: cross referencing copycats with the original and because Lois Lane spells out "fellatio" to a policeman and talks about how long turtles can have sex for. Haw haw.