The Wicker Tree (2011)

By

-

2015-07-22

"Ladies and gentlemen, our sacrificial Country singers." — “Ladies and gentlemen, our sacrificial Country singers.”

Twitter Plot Summary: Robin Hardy returns to the world of the wicker men, but in a way that isn’t very interesting.

A chaste Christian couple head over to Scotland in order to spread the word of God in this spiritual sequel to The Wicker Man. This should come as no surprise as it’s adapted from director Robin Hardy’s own novel Cowboys For Christ, however despite the similar story it is worlds apart from the Edward Woodward and Christopher Lee-starring classic. Whilst this is a shame, it’s still leagues better than the Nicolas Cage remake. Small mercies.

Whilst not directly specified and the character isn’t named, an all too brief cameo from Sir Christopher Lee links events with the 1973 Wicker Man and suggests that Graham McTavish’s Sir Lachlan Morrison was inspired to action by Lord Summerisle himself. Despite being mere moments of the story that adds almost nothing to the plot Morrison and his fellow islanders’ have hatched, it still proves to be the most entertaining part of the film. This is despite the ritualistic burning of people in and around giant wicker creatures, the random nudity and scenes of a sexual nature, and the heavy dose of pagan imagery. On paper it’s something that shouldn’t fail, and yet it does. It does at least indicate that Summerisle did not meet the same fate as Sergeant Howie, so that’s something to consider.

The problem is a lack of an intriguing protagonist and antagonist. Brittania Nicol and Henry Garrett are of moderate interest as the young American couple who make the journey over the Atlantic, but Garrett is not given enough to do as Steve besides mope and jump into bed with the first stranger who shows interest in him (the intriguingly named Honeysuckle Weeks). Meanwhile Brittania’s Beth Boothby, a former teenage pop star in the same slightly dubious category as Britney Spears and Katy Perry, has a few moments to demonstrate that she is anything but a passive victim but ultimately proves to be generally annoying. Graham McTavish always provides value for money, yet he too is reduced to spouting his lines and never being given chance to shine.

Unlike The Wicker Man, this is the equivalent of a tribute act performing the old hits of the original. Some tribute acts prove to be incredibly competent, whereas others are pale imitations of the original. Such is the case with The Wicker Tree, borrowing some of the plot from The Wicker Man and introducing some new twists in a bid to keep fans of the original – and by extension audiences new to the concept – on their toes. The concern is that there is little surprising about the story, and little to suggest that it has anything new to say. The odd moment of humour, provided by Clive Russell as the kilt-wearing Beame, sit uneasily with the rest of the film and don’t work nearly as well as the frequent musical interludes that served a narrative purpose in The Wicker Man. If there had been a greater emphasis on the reasons behind the sacrifice in the modern age then perhaps The Wicker Tree would have redeemed itself. Instead, it will be compared unfavourably with Robin Hardy’s far superior 1973 film and will never truly stand as its own piece of work.

Score: 2/5

Rage (2010)

By

Simon Prior

-

2015-07-21

0

He's got no face and he's dressed in black. Bad guy. — He’s got no face and he’s dressed in black. Bad guy.

Twitter Plot Summary: A man gets on the wrong side of a biker and finds himself being stalked for the rest of the day.

Dennis Twist (Rick Crawford) and his scraggy beard are engaged in extra-marital activities with another woman. On this day in particular he manages to incur the wrath, somehow, of a mysterious Biker who then proceeds to follow him everywhere. We never see the Biker’s face – somewhat disturbing in itself – and Dennis’ thoughts that all of this may be a result of the affair he’s currently involved in provide a welcome sense of urgency and mystery. Without that there would be little point in watching it.

Dennis’ impressively unkempt beard aside, there are a few good ideas trying to push to the fore, but they are mixed in with some poor acting, occasionally bad editing and some equally bad audio quality. The plethora of rave reviews, awards and award nominations on the back of the DVD case go a long way towards hiding the fact that it’s still not particularly good. Nobody’s expecting a Hollywood style, explosive action thriller by any stretch, not from an indie budget movie. Perhaps it fails under the weight of expectation?

The mysterious Biker is an imposing presence, but this is about as far as the feeling of threat goes. The violent moments are not handled all that well – over-cranked footage and occasionally bad editing do little to engage you with events. It seems like yet another example where a change in director or a change in shot selection would have made all the difference. As it is, it often feels like not enough thought has gone into where the camera should be placed to best capture the action. More often than not a potentially dramatic moment is tarnished by having the camera shoved right in the actor’s face.

"Excuse me sir, are you aware of the words of our Lord and Saviour, The Great Motorcycle God?" — “Excuse me sir, are you aware of the words of our Lord and Saviour, The Great Motorcycle God?”

The script goes to great pains to mention Steven Spielberg’s Duel, from which Rage draws much of its inspiration. Referencing a classic is fine, but doing so as blatantly as Rage does – and without even trying to be amusing, it had to be said – is not the best way of doing things. Yes we get it, the main story is borrowed quite liberally from Duel, now can we move along? It’s a script inclusion that has the potential to annoy, irritate or cause groans of derision from the audience.

The real issue is that very little actually happens. The transition from thriller to home invasion in the final act is a welcome move as until that point there’s little to suggest it is worth sitting through. Fear not, because things pick up in the last third and it’s a much better movie for it. With the addition of a chainsaw and a slightly irritating neighbour, the same issues of camera placement from earlier are still there, but are easily forgiven with the addition of blood splatter, personal violations and general violence.

Depending on your perspective of course, Rage may be a perfectly decent, low budget revenge thriller. If all you’re after is a couple of vehicle chases and a bit of violence at the end, then it’s the perfect film for you. Those of us with more interest in a developed story and solid choreography may have to get their kicks elsewhere.

Score: 2/5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HHJlSS1DvA

Frankenstein’s Army (2013)

By

Simon Prior

-

2015-07-20

0

Twitter Plot Summary: Russian soldiers find a lab where Nazis have been experimenting using the notebooks of Victor Frankenstein. You can guess what happens next.

Following the exploits of a Russian Dirty Half Dozen in East Germany towards the end of the war, Frankenstein’s Army takes a few elements of historical fact and twists them around in a corkscrew of pure fantasy. You see, Adolf Hitler reportedly had a thing about the occult and as part of his reign of terror over much of Europe. What Frankstein’s Army suggests is that the Nazis uncovered the works of Victor Frankenstein and have since commenced their own experiments around resurrecting dead flesh – albeit with some unique, Nazi-themed twists to the original idea. All well and good you might think for a bit of B-movie fun. In spurts it does have that, but there are a couple of major issues that hold it back.

Big problem number one: shooting this as if it is a found footage piece – I’ll come back to this point. Big problem number two: providing characters who we have absolutely no interest in supporting because they are self-centred, horrible people. When the inevitable happens – and you know immediately what fate awaits almost everyone in this little group – you have no sympathy for anybody. Provide an antihero by all means, someone you love to hate, but a group that have no redeeming qualities whatsoever? That makes things difficult to like and/or enjoy.

The creature designs are quite interesting though, so it’s not all bad. You can tell that some thought has been put into making these WW2 era Frankenstein’s monsters look good, even if their design does stretch the already thin fabric of disbelief that hovers over this project. Some go so far as to combine people with aircraft, which is absolutely bonkers but surprisingly doesn’t prove to be the idea that break’s the film’s back.

This is what the Nazis needed all along - a spidery soldier thing. — This is what the Nazis needed all along – a spidery soldier thing.

No, that lies solely with the aforementioned need to film this in a found footage manner, and in colour no less. Yes, they did have colour film at that time – I know my history, thank you – but there’s been no effort to make the footage look anything other than full widescreen and high definition. If you really want people to think this is a found footage piece, then don’t present it to us in immaculate 21st century digital quality. It’s an immersion breaker that is all the more disconcerting than some of the experiments ambling around the lab.

From a narrative perspective, the film might only run for around 85 minutes but there’s a nice build-up before the first creatures are revealed, however the story does seem to lose its way a little once everything starts going wrong. Perhaps a little more focus on providing a satisfying narrative conclusion would have been a better method of pulling things together. And while I’m not the biggest fan of the found footage genre, in this instance it does at least have the benefit of putting you front and centre into the action rather than being a casual observer. It’s a clear mixed bag of good and bad ideas, and your appreciation of the ideas presented will depend on how well you get along with the found footage genre.

Score: 2.5/5

Don’t Wait Django… Shoot! (1967)

By

Simon Prior

-

2015-07-18

0

"You're not Franco Nero, are you?" — “You’re not Franco Nero, are you?”

Twitter Plot Summary: Django, played by someone else entirely, seeks revenge for the death of his father. And nothing happens.

One of a huge number of unofficial Django movies, Don’t Wait Django… Shoot! marks one of 9 films starring the character that were released in 1967 alone – and the original had only been released the year before. Franco Nero wouldn’t return to the role until 1987 in the only official sequel, so here Django is played by Ivan Rassimov (or Sean Todd as he was known here), complete with stubbled chin and black leather outfit.

Here, he seeks revenge on the bandidos who killed his father, murdered on the road for the money he was carrying. That’s about it as far as plot goes, Django gets on the bad guy’s trail while the bad guy and his minions look a bit sinister and randomly kill folks. Otherwise, there’s very little that happens. It’s almost as if the script has had all the fun bits taken out of it for reasons of budget and/or logic. Even the gunfights are boring, mostly because Django is such an awesome gunslinger that it’s rare that they last more than a few seconds. Who’d have thought it could be possible?

Almost as if to make the character appear legitimate, everyone but Django himself seems keen to drop his name into every sentence. It’s only one step away from him referring to himself in the third person. That wouldn’t be so bad because then at least Rassimov may have had a bit more to do other than look like a third tier Clint Eastwood. As it is, his Django is barely recognisable when compared against Franco Nero, and barely warrants a mention even in the context of the film he’s supposedly starring in. Worse still is the villain barely registers, which for a Western seems almost unforgiveable. The problem is that he is introduced far too late into the narrative and it’s down to Django’s various faceoffs with a number of underlings to carry the story – fine on paper but on screen it’s deathly dull.

Even the horse was dubious about his "Django" qualifications. — Even the horse was dubious about his “Django” qualifications.

It’s almost amusing how many spaghetti western tropes get thrown into the production – the crazed, near psychotic villain, the ponchos, the quest for gold, the violent deaths, the occasionally bare chested cowboys, the busty women needing rescuing from those aforementioned poncho wearing chaps… it bears all the hallmarks of a film being made in the hands of those who are not entirely aware of what makes a good cowboy film. Six men all falling to the ground in unison, having been shot, is practically laughable in its execution. Many of the death scenes are, frankly, amusingly over-acted and of course completely lacking in blood. This formula is repeated time and again, quickly becoming repetitive and leaving you wondering if there is genuinely any point in watching.

Thus, Don’t Wait Django… Shoot! is nothing more than what it was always intended to be – a cheap knock-off of the character in order to make a bit of money out of his name. Such is its adherence to Western cliche that it makes you wish you were watching a Sergio Leone Western just because he knew what he was doing. That and you may very well have been genuinely entertained.

Score: 1.5/5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4tw2tY0fus

Repo! The Genetic Opera (2008)

By

Simon Prior

-

2015-07-17

2

Sarah Brightman could barely hide her surprise.

Twitter Plot Summary: In a future where organ repossession is legal, if people can’t keep up repayments they’re up for the chop. Literally.

It is the near future, and organ transplants are as common and fashionable as part exchanging your car. The prices are so ridiculous that many find it difficult to maintain repayments, and so GeneCo, the company responsible for the organ replacement parts, send in the Repo Men to take back their property. This isn’t your average rock opera, a mixture of black comedy, blood and guts. If you can compare it with anything else, it seems that The Rocky Horror Picture Show may be a not so distant cinematic cousin.

Alex Vega is thrown into the mix as a young girl who is kept in isolation by her father due to her weak immune system, wearing what seems to be an awful goth wig. But then the fact it’s a wig is linked to her weak immune system so we’ll let that one slide.
There are a couple of unique selling points here – besides the music of course, which over the course of 50+ songs provides a tour de force of rock opera. Those other plus points are Anthony Head as Nathan, not only a competent singer but able to switch between fatherly and sadistic at a moment’s notice. Then there is the Graverobber, portrayed by Terrance Zdunich. He has little to do with the main story, instead turning up at random intervals and getting to sing some of the best songs.

Repo! is a good example of the modern diversification of musical theatre and cinema, playing up to the conventions of the musical format but doing so in a dark, gruesome and thoroughly different style. Ignoring the frequently poor CGI, there are regular cuts away to comic book style storyboards to bridge the gaps in the live action. It’s an interesting stylistic choice, one that is a little odd at first but soon blends in well with the material that surrounds it.

Zydrate comes in a little glass vial. A little glass vial. A little glass vial.

The CGI really isn’t the focus however, it’s the story and characters that carry it. Some low grade CGI actually fits quite nicely with the grim setting and comic book overtones. To complain about the relative lack of depth to that story may be a little churlish, what with the solid performances, good tunes and visual aesthetics, but the fact of the matter is that there isn’t much depth outside of Nathan wanting to protect his daughter from the big bad world. More could have been made of the effects of people’s dependency on the street drug Zydrate, the legal murder of people to repossess their organs, or even expanding on the role of the Graverobber, but then you can’t always have it all.

Perhaps even more surprising is that Paris Hilton isn’t that bad as Amber Sweet. There was a suggestion at the time that she was nothing more than stunt casting, but believe it or not she’s rather good as the demanding, got to have it all daughter of Paul Sorvino’s GeneCo businessman Rotti Largo (who has a great operatic voice, it has to be said). But then if you think about it, playing a spoiled “it” girl is hardly a stretch of her abilities. She certainly gets a better deal than Bill Moseley as her brother Luigi. He’s reliable for sure, but his over the top characterisation seems a bit much even in context to the rest of the film.

There’s a final mention due for Sarah Brightman who plays Blind Mag and appears in a rare acting role. Again though, she is hardly stretching her capabilities by simply showing up, looking a bit gothic and singing a fair bit. Thankfully she gets it right and hits all the right notes (pun intended).

So it’s not perfect, but the songs, dark moments and equally dark comic moments all create something that is decidedly unique and a worthy entry in the pantheon of rock operas that have been turned into movies. Not that there are many out there, admittedly.

Score: 3.5/5

Fright Night 2 (2013)

By

Simon Prior

-

2015-07-16

0

It was the look that was all the rage in Romania.

Twitter Plot Summary: A remake of a remake, and not a particularly good remake either.

Not to be confused with the actually quite decent Fright Night Part 2 from 1988, which acted as a sequel to the equally decent vampire horror Fright Night, this is an unrelated sequel to the similarly quite decent 2011 Fright Night remake. But then perhaps this should be considered a confusing affair. Characters with origins in the 1985 original – Charlie Brewster, his friend Evil, and TV “vampire hunter” Peter Vincent – are taken from their rightful home in a 1980s shockfest and transplanted to deepest, darkest Romania to enact what is almost entirely a remake of the remake. Did any of that make sense to you? I know it makes my brain hurt a little…

There are similarities to Fright Night Part 2, in that the vampire villain is a woman, but otherwise this almost a beat for beat match to the 1985 and 2011 editions. Jaime Murray plays that lady vamp, Gerri Dandridge (oh, how cunning a change from the male Jerry), a professor by day (well, early evening) and a vampire by night. Wise to her bloodsucking ways is Charley Brewster, played by cut price budget Tobey Maguire lookalike Will Payne. He has eyes for Classmate Amy (Sacha Parkinson) and is joined by his caustic friend Ed, aka Evil, played by Chris Waller.

I have to question the logic of calling this Fright Night 2 as it has nothing to do with the 2011 remake apart from stealing its entire plot and just moving the action over to Eastern Europe. None of the subtlety of the original or even the fun of the remake is present, replaced mostly by characters we don’t care about and a story that you have literally seen done better in two other Fright Night movies.

The Somewhat Competent Three. Not Enid Blyton's finest hour. — The Somewhat Competent Three. Not Enid Blyton’s finest hour.

For what it’s worth Murray gives the sexuality of the role a good go, but the random blasts of nudity do little to help matters and come across as nothing but a cheap attempt at titillation. It’s also not helped by maintaining a similarly serious tone as the 1985 original, yet lacking the elements that made the film as enjoyable as it was – and how it remains to this day.

One fun little twist is the use of an animated sequence, in a comic book style, to describe the vampire’s long history. This was apparently in an attempt to reduce the film’s production costs and save the studio a bit of money – in all honesty you can tell, but for all its brevity the animated sequence does help this stand out a little on its own two feet, even if those two feet were previously stolen from a vampire victim.

If I was going to say anything else positive it would be that the Romanian locations are nice to look at, but that’s really not enough to suggest Fright Night 2 is worth seeing – you’d be better off just taking a holiday to Romania and seeing the sights for yourself. Trust me, you’d enjoy it much more. Similarly, you’d be better off watching any of the other Fright Night films, even Part 2 – in each of those cases they could at least justify their existence, whereas Fright Night 2 does nothing of the sort.

Score: 2/5

Wolfcop (2014)

By

Simon Prior

-

2015-07-15

0

Thank goodness he didn't have to shave this morning. — Thank goodness he didn’t have to shave this morning.

Twitter Plot Summary: After an encounter with an occult group, tired cop Lou is transformed into Wolfcop!

Films that knowingly reference cinema’s cheesy and sometimes dubious past are all the rage these days, cashing in on the nostalgia factor that many film fans have for neon-soaked, 80s horror films, the films that, for the most part, didn’t realise at the time just how tongue in cheek they were. Wolfcop is a film which delights in this outrageousness, but just about manages to stay on the right side of the bad/good/so bad it’s good border. In this case, we have an amusing pastiche of mashup horror movies, an almost Grindhouse level of knowing camp that helps rather than hinders the premise.

Leo Fafard is Lou Garou, the man destined to become Wolfcop, although he already looks like he’s halfway towards being a werewolf as it is, such is his hirsute appearance. Lou is skating on thin ice in his role as deputy in the local sheriff’s office, apparently intent on drinking himself into oblivion rather than taking down the criminal underclass that plague the local area. That is, until an encounter with a cult group leads him to take on wolflike abilities. Yes, this is entirely bonkers. Just go with it.

It knows how to have fun, not against an occasional cheesy one-liner (”What the f**k are you?!” a robber asks Wolfcop. “The fuzz!” comes the response.) and just when you think it can’t get any more ridiculous there’s an extended sex scene between the transformed Wolfcop and femme fatale barmaid Jessica. If there was any doubt about the tone of the film, that entire sequence should cement it for you.

What it also has are some genuinely gruesome transformation effects that are almost on par with Rick Baker’s work in An American Werewolf in London, but with added grue and toilet humour. Suffice to say, if you’re a man you may end up wincing a little, and you may never look at a urinal in quite the same way again. The reliance on practical effects rather than CGI is most definitely a positive point. It might look silly on occasion but enhances the reality of this world. Plus, practical effects always look better than CGI.

It doesn’t outstay its welcome, but it is more than anything else an absolute hoot. Obviously this isn’t a film that desires a thorough analysis of its plot, in fact its breakneck pace certainly acts in its favour. If you added anything else to it you’d probably dwell for far too long on its plot about weird occult ceremonies at the hands of shapeshifting alien things, solar eclipses and strange prophecies.

What it perhaps should have done is spent more time enjoying Wolfcop running around town meting out justice to those on the wrong side of he law – if a sequel ever gets to see the light of day, this would most definitely be the best approach to take. Still, any narrative misgivings aside, can you really complain about a film called Wolfcop which stars a werewolf cop and has some really rather excellent special effects? No, thought not.

Score: 3/5

Blood of Dracula (1957)

By

Simon Prior

-

2015-07-14

0

Twitter Plot Summary: Despite what you might think from the title, this is nowhere near as good as you’re hoping it is.

Blood of Dracula opens with a car crash and a young woman being slapped in the face by her father. Then it immediately lapses into minutes of exposition that explains why that young woman, Nancy (Sandra Harrison), has been sequestered off to a women’s boarding school by her father and his recently married second wife, Nancy’s step-mother. For reasons that are not adequately explained, Nancy becomes an experimental subject who, through a strange amulet and a strong dose of hypnosis, is slowly turned into a vampire.

The film’s other title, Blood Is My Heritage, is frankly awful, and while the title Blood of Dracula may leave an audience expecting the famous bloodsucker to show up in some capacity, it is one that distracts you from how truly terrible this film really is. Let’s be honest, the only reason you’re here is because the title is moderately interesting, yes? The fact of the matter is that the dark prince himself has no part to play in this tale. Indeed, the only thing that links this film to Bram Stoker’s most famous creation is that one character becomes a vampire, and Dracula is named in the title. That’s it. Bearing in mind Hammer’s reimagining of the Dracula story was released just a year later, it’s abundantly clear which one is more deserving of your attention.

That's what you get if you're a teenage girl in the 1950s. A slap in the face. — That’s what you get if you’re a teenage girl in the 1950s. A slap in the face.

Blood of Dracula doesn’t just fail to hold a candle to Hammer’s fangtastic (sorry) effort, it’s a poor companion to even the hokiest of 50s B-movies. Much of the direction has that air of a televised live action play. The number of edits are limited so that each scene runs almost without any cuts, opting to dolly and pan across the room to follow the action rather than cutting in for a closeup. Suffice to say, performances are stilted and exactly as you might expect for a cheap horror film released in 1957. The other issue is that it’s not scary, not even by 1950s standards. Hell, not even by 1930s standards is it scary. As if that wasn’t enough, it degrades into a musical number at the halfway point – and it’s not even a good song either, mixing basic, inoffensive 50s pop rock with what sounds like a car horn being sounded.

What it boils down to are a group of women catfighting and getting on each other’s nerves, with a few random vampire-based deaths thrown in for good measure. Alongside the hokey acting and inexplicable plot there is an all too brief consideration of how women were treated in a world that was (and arguably still is) being run by men. No, this potentially intriguing idea gets one line and that’s it. Before you know it you’re back in the depths of bad exposition, some and a vampire makeup job that looks like a child has been let loose on the makeup box. There are many films out there where the title is the only good thing about it, and Blood of Dracula is just one of them.

Score: 1/5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFWTTF4mwDo

Blackhat (2015)

By

Simon Prior

-

2015-07-13

0

"Quick, we're going to miss our train!" — “Quick, we’re going to miss our train!”

Twitter Plot Summary: A hacker currently serving a prison sentence is allowed out to help prevent a terrorist attack.

It’s been nine years since Michael Mann’s last feature film, and twenty years since his seminal effort Heat. What we have here in Blackhat are your typical, gorgeous Mann cityscapes, his inventive use of darkness and light, and a story that delves into the world of hacking and related money making efforts. Chris Hemsworth is hacker Nick Hemingway, currently serving time for a matter surprisingly unrelated to his hacking skills, and a man who is very much in demand when the authorities discover that his code was used to take down a Chinese nuclear reactor. He’s allowed back out into the world in the hope that he can help the FBI and the Chinese government take down the man responsible before he does any more damage. No big ask, then.

After an opening sequence that is just like Tron but minus the tiny computer people, we’re straight into the heavy stuff of terrorism and the destruction of nuclear power stations, of Chris Hemsworth’s floppy fringe and his inexplicable relationship with Chen Lien (Wei Tang), which emerges completely out of nowhere. There’s probably hours of extra footage lying on a cutting room floor somewhere.

What Mann has always been capable of is structuring the perfect cinematic gun fight, achieving near perfection in the process. There isn’t anything here that is on par with the street battle in Heat, mostly because almost nothing can match that for pure technical beauty and dramatic tension. But each admittedly brief sequence of gunplay in Blackhat is incredibly well done, each different weapon has its own clear and distinct sound, each bullet impact having its own weight, its own believable sound.

A lot of effort has been put into making the technological side of the script legitimate – Mann reportedly put in a fair amount of research to ensure this side of things was accurate. Sadly this angle is almost entirely dropped by the second half in favour of mostly generic thriller territory. You can’t even call it an action thriller as Chris Hemsworth’s Nick Hathaway isn’t your archetypal action hero, more inclined to tap a few keys on a keyboard and ponder how best to proceed than to sprint from sequence to sequence in a desperate bid to be more energetic than Tom Cruise.

As you might expect, Hemsworth is a likeable lead, but somewhat miscast given his action/superhero hero status. He’s never entirely convincing as the hacker type, coming into his own a little more on the few occasions where he’s required to fire a weapon or get engrossed in a fistfight with the bad guys.

It’s neither an absolute disaster nor is it an essential Mann film, but it is competent and a demonstration of the things he does well as a director. The problem is the story itself, never quite sure of itself and prone to skirting vlose to greatness. What it does well is provide a gripping story and performances from some very serious people. There’s no pomp and circumstance, just a very believable story and a realistic villain in that he is a bit rubbish.

Score: 3/5

Shivers (1975)

By

Simon Prior

-

2015-07-11

0

Twitter Plot Summary: A scientist unleashes a parasite on an apartment block that causes the infected to seek out sexual congress with non-infected people.

The smell of Canadian exploitation is all over this one, as we open with a sales pitch for new apartments being intercut with a Rolf Harris type, an older bearded gentleman assaulting what appears to be a female version of David Bowie dressed in a school uniform. Before you can shout “Operation Yewtree” he’s stripped his top off, removed most of her clothes and is cutting her open for reasons that will soon become apparent.

You see, the residents of that apartment block soon find themselves under assault from a parasitic invader, one that turns its hosts into sex-crazed maniacs. It was perhaps a little too early for it to be a direct reference to the HIV and AIDS epidemics that would dominate the 1980s, but in hindsight it does work very much on that level, playing into people’s fears about sexually transmitted diseases and the movement towards a more liberal, less repressed society. Or rather, that’s what the uptight types from that decade wanted to believe.

Ignoring the overtly 70s fashions for a moment (and if anything it’s worse here than in Rabid), there isn’t anything all that scary about being attacked by parasites that look a lot like turds. It’s almost as if South Park’s Mr Hankey has gone back in time to the 1970s in order to give everyone he meets a big “howdy ho” and a peck on the cheek. What is more unsettling is the idea behind it all, the transmission of the parasite and how it releases all inhibitions. Would it have been more chilling if it had made everyone perform interpretative dance rather than foul depraved sexual acts? Perhaps, but that’s probably not a film you’d be inclined to see.

More effective is the gradual increase in tension that leads to a genuinely unsettling finale that is on par with the 1978 remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers, but with 100% more swimming pool and, sadly, 100% less Goldblum, Nimoy and Sutherland. This being the grim 1970s, there seems to be no end of dark films where things don’t necessarily work out for the better, and Shivers is a proud member of that club. In fact the whole film can be defined as the Body Snatchers template on a much smaller scale, but is no less effective because of it.

Our perspective on these events is coloured by the incredibly blonde Paul Hampton as Roger St. Luc, the one man who sees what is happening but is almost powerless to stop the infection spreading. He’s joined by his girlfriend Nurse Forsythe (Lynn Lowry), and they almost prove themselves to be an exception to the infection’s spread. What could have been interesting would be to explore people who are immune to the effects of the parasite, but this may have involved expanding the concept a little too far. As it is, it covers almost everything a horror fan may wish to experience – a sense of increasing dread, an unstoppable enemy and people being attacked by poo-shaped parasites. But thinking about it, maybe that last one isn’t specific to horror fans.

Score: 4/5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK9Wal9Dvic

SIMONPRIOR.COM