THE BAY

The Bay (15)

Director: Barry Levinson
Screenplay: Barry Levinson, Michael Wallach
Starring: Kristen Connelly, Christopher Denham

Panic feeds on fear

“The Bay” is a horror film marking a collaboration between director Barry Levinson (“Good Morning Vietnam”, “Rain Man”, & “Sphere”) and producer Oran Peli (director and guiding hand behind the “Paranormal Activity” franchise). It is shot in the style of a “found footage” movie (Wait! Come back! It’s good!) and depicts an incendiary event that affects the (fictional) small coastal town of Claridge in Maryland USA, during the 4th of July celebrations in 2009. Heavily influenced by events in a real-life counterpart town, the movie debuted at the 2012 Toronto Film Festival, and has built up quite a reputation in the meantime. After a short theatrical run, it is now available on DVD and Blu-Ray in the UK.

Although the whiff of “found-footage” can turn a horror fan ashen at twenty paces these days, as it is a much used (and abused) form of narrative in genre movies, it is used remarkably well and effectively here. The whole film is made up of multiple sources of footage, from Skype, to CCTV, to hand-held cameras, and mobile phones. There are also thinly disguised versions of Facebook and Wiki-leaks. This is pieced together to form the chronological plot of the fate of Claridge, albeit with a couple of flashbacks to environmental experts who first discover the “problem” in the bay area. It’s a plot device that can (and does) work well, particularly with a director of Levinson’s skill.

The framing device for the plot is Donna Thompson (played by Kether Donahue), a reporter who was a trainee during the (expected to be) lightweight coverage of the celebrations in Claridge on that day. Speaking in the present to an unknown source on Skype, she narrates the strung-together footage, puts events into perspective, and names characters and their motives. The day and the festivities start with Crab-Eating contests and Miss Crustacean (!) making an appearance. However, we soon become aware that two divers were found recently dead with mystery wounds. People are also suddenly developing boils and rashes, vomiting blood, and wounds are suddenly appearing on their bodies. As the day progresses, the medical and law enforcement departments are over-whelmed and things get a whole lot worse when the “disease” is identified…

This is all good chilling stuff. Although there are mangled corpses aplenty and moments of body-horror that will make you wince, it’s some of the stuff that is unseen that really hits you. A 911 caller shrieks  “I just saw something real bad”, and in an especially taut sequence, a police officer enters the house of an infected family, and only the audio captures the screams and the people begging to be killed. Without spoiling things, the cause of the horror is a combination of several things, but one of these elements is the existence of the marine “Isopod”. I’ll say nothing more, but if you watch the film or “Google” the genuine animal (Cymothoa exigua), for me it’s one of the best arguments for evolution, because there’s no way anyone would create one of these little sods! Having been aware of these creatures before, I have to admit this movie pushed all kinds of the wrong buttons for me (in a sort-of good way). *shiver*

The other aspects of the movie also work well, as there are lots of nice little touches nodding to the footage aspect. Donna wonders if she shouldn't be dubbed by a voice actor. Some snippets of message text contain spelling errors (“Holly Shit – Just ate something weird!”). There are a lot of disapproving nods to authority and small-town American attitudes as well. The Mayor refuses to acknowledge that there is anything wrong until it’s far too late, and it’s the town’s inherent greediness and denial that fast-forwards the horror. One cop, amid the chaos, even mentions that he’ll get “hell at the next town meeting”. Too late for that mate! It’s also genuinely frustrating (and probably close to the truth) as to how the smug indifference of the CDC (Centres for Disease Control) and Homeland security comes across, even when the epidemic gets way out of hand and the town is basically abandoned to its own fate. It’s interesting to note Levinson’s obvious disdain of the authority figures here, and who can blame him as the roots of the story lies in a real-life environmental disaster, where the facts were covered up (research “Chesapeake Bay” conspiracy fans).

There are a couple of mis-steps. I’m not sure about the female oceanographer’s French accent (I kept expecting her to say “Leesten car-fully! I weel say zis only once…”). The film does run out of steam after the halfway-mark, and seems merely content to have some of its remaining characters fall victim to the plague, or simply creep around in the dark. But on the whole, these points do not affect the main plot and atmosphere.
A special mention also, to the non-obtrusive soundtrack by Marcelo Zarvos. It’s unusual to praise a “soundtrack” in a “found-footage” movie, but this is especially creepy and doom-laden, and adds much to the horror scenes.

I was tempted to mark it a 4/5, but the short running time (75 minutes, not including credits), slight lack of impetus towards the end, and an absence of extras on the DVD/Blu-Ray, dropped half a point for me. But it is very much recommended and well worth a purchase.

Extras: Trailer, and an 8 minute making-of Documentary. The doc does contain an interesting interview with Levinson on his motives for making the film.



An enjoyable cross between “Jaws” and “The Crazies”. The mixture of cold-hard facts and plausible body-horror makes this a chilling film with a message, that’s well worth buying. Runs out of steam little towards the end, but leaves an impression on you that will make you drink bottled water for weeks!

HANSEL AND GRETEL: WITCH HUNTERS

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters (15)

Director: Tommy Wirkola
Written by: Tommy Wirkola
Starring: Jeremy Renner, Gemma Arterton, Famke Janssen

Revenge is sweeter than candy
 

Despite a promising looking trailer, and an excellent cast, this film has built up a lot of negative hype, which was stoked when the release date was delayed by almost a year. Mostly shot in 2011 and intended for March 2012 showings, cinema-goers in the UK now finally have a chance to see this horror-cum-fantasy film. Remember when “R” used the mantra in “Warm Bodies”, “Don’t be creepy! Don’t be creepy!”? Well, when I sat down in front of the screen for this movie, I found myself thinking “Please don’t be Van-Helsing! Don’t be Van-Helsing!” Dark fantasies and fairy-tale horrors don’t seem to have a good reputation in this genre. Can this confound the critics and beat expectations?

“Hansel & Gretel”, of course, expands on the fairy tale by the Brothers Grimm. Taking place in an unspecified mediaeval time and country, the prologue depicts the well-known story with the brother and sister being dumped in the forest by their parents and chancing upon the candy-house with the wicked witch. Having despatched her, the credits (a nice mediaeval diorama with great 3D effects) show them growing up and becoming mercenary “Witch-Hunters”. Now portrayed by Gemma Arterton and Jeremy Renner, they are hired by towns to find the missing children (Witches eat them. Obviously.) And also to execute the aforementioned non-humans. With a nice line in MacGyver gadgets that are well before their invented time, and a pissed-off attitude towards anything witchy, they get to work in one such town. However, they uncover a secret coven (led by Witch-Queen, Famke Janssen), who are preparing to enact a secret rite which will make them harder to kill. With the aid of some new friends, and a troll called Edward, they prepare to kick some Hag-Ass!

Okay. There are some things that don’t hit the mark with the film. Even for a 3D film, and one set often in deep forests in the night, the cinematography is quite murky and dark. The plot is silly, doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, and meanders all over the place (especially in the middle section). Some of the plot “twists” are telegraphed with neon lights and fog horns. And you can’t watch any scene with broomstick flying, without thinking they’re going to break into a game of Quidditch, or that a Stormtrooper is going to appear on a Speeder-Bike with an Ewok on his back!

However … for the life of me, I just do not understand the amount of vitriol and distaste that has been thrown at this film by most film critics. Some high-profile UK critics have already proclaimed it to be the worst film of the year! (In February? Have a crystal ball do you lads? You’ve obviously lost a sense of fun…). It’s a good, goofy romp and all the more enjoyable for it. It’s well directed by Tommy Wirkola (His first film after the great Nazi-Zombie movie “Dead Snow”) and there are some very nice set-pieces that work well in 3D (especially the flaming crossbow-bolt, and the slow-mo, morphing bullet shot). It also has a brilliant line in sly humour that is quite atypical of the genre. Parchments of missing children are stuck to milk bottles (mimicking the US campaigns). The siblings have a stalker, who collects pages of mediaeval coverage of their exploits (“Orphaned Siblings defeat Swamp Witch!!”). Gretel forms a friendship with the troll called Edward (STILL a better love story than Twilight!), which can’t be a coincidence! As mentioned, the brother and sister have souped-up gadgets, including the world’s first tazer and the earliest record-player! It’s all done with such an infectious knowing wink, that you can’t help thinking that one of the producers, Will Ferrell, suggested a few ideas! The (great) final line of the film could have been easily ripped out of an 80’s action film with Stallone or Swarzenegger. It kind of feels like that as well. 80’s action, with touches of “Evil Dead” (One villain is the dead-spit of the “Cellar Witch” and there’s a great physical fight with her in a cottage.). Where else these days can you see a large group of witches, being mown down by supernaturally charged Gatling gun? Incidentally, it’s really good to see the film NOT go down the PG-13 route. Bodies are ripped asunder and explode, heads are cut off, and the siblings swear like drunken sailors (Please take note, makers of “Die Hard 5” and “Taken 2”!!)

Of course it wouldn’t work at all, if not for the main actors. Arterton has a ball as Gretel! All bitchy attitude, she witch-slaps her way through the movie, dropping the F-Bomb as if there’s no tomorrow! Hopefully, she’ll be up for some more action-orientated roles. Hansel could have been played by any decent physical actor really, but at least Renner injects a bit of personality into the role. He becomes endearingly tongue-tied and goofy, when the local peasant girl puts the moves on him. Best of all though is Famke Janssen. She hisses and hams and coos her way through the lines, showing all how a real witch should act.

So in retrospect, it certainly isn’t the disappointment that “Van-Helsing” was. It’s not a work of art or an award-winning effort, but it is a good, fun-filled, bloody romp, with nicely judged performances and some off-the-wall humour. And at the end of the day … what’s wrong with that?

Despite some shortcomings, this is a good, unpretentious, silly romp. There are solid performances from Arterton, Janssen and Renner, and a nice line in sly humour. Witch-Hunt it out for some guilty pleasure.

​

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 …