In Fear (2013)

By

-

2014-04-07

They couldn't believe the mileage on their hatchback. So much so, they had to stand back and admire it. — They couldn’t believe the mileage on their hatchback. So much so, they had to stand back and admire it.

Twitter Plot Summary: A new couple head off on a road trip which takes a sinister twist after they get lost on country roads.

Five Point Summary:

1. That hotel remains elusive.
2. Something strange is afoot.
3. So what happened in the pub?!
4. Exactly how much petrol have they… oh, it’s ran out.
5. Now that’s just a bit silly.

We’ve all been there, a road trip that never seems to end with companions who eventually start to grate and annoy. And so we join a couple in the earliest stages of a potential relationship where he has invited her along to a festival in Ireland – but first they must find the hotel. Driving round in circles for hours, tensions mount between them, in particular when strange things start to happen and they realise they may not be alone – on the roads, that is. It would be a bit strange if there was a random haunting in their car or something. Actually, that might have made a bit more sense in hindsight.

The scenery and location is suitably bleak, and for the first half at least it plays on our fears of the unknown – both in terms of the location itself and also that of the uncertainty that surrounds the beginning of every new relationship. The descent into road trip insanity is a gradual one, nerves slowly being frayed and tensions slowly mounting. Their lack of navigational skills aside, this first half is a believable, slightly claustrophobic journey. It’s a shame that it all unravels in the second half, descending into cliche silliness and muddled plotting. Without delving into spoilers, another character is introduced whose motives are uncertain. Are they the reason for the strange goings on? Are they a fellow victim? Are they even there? Well yes, they are – otherwise there would be even less of a point to this script.

Driving in Ireland. It certainly leaves an impression.

The questions soon receive answers, and lead to that aforementioned slightly silly second half. There are a couple of nice sequences to report on from this point forward, but again to describe them would be spoiler territory. Suffice to say, bones are broken, there’s plenty of screaming and also plenty of relationship based analysis to be completed. Would you give up your own life for somebody you’ve only just met? The safe answer would be no, in most situations of course, and in principle it’s something worth exploring in terms of narrative. Again, in terms of maintaining coherence it would have helped if this was explored more, but the descent into confusing/generic horror movie territory does it no favours. You will also begin to question the MPG rating of a standard hatchback. They get a lot further moving on fumes than any vehicle I have ever seen – this alone is remarkable if nothing else. It also makes me want to own that car, the savings on fuel would be astronomical.

There is a really good idea at the script’s core, so it would have been nice to have explored more of the budding (or not) relationship, but this is lost in a script that meanders in a similar way to the Irish country roads which the couple find themselves trapped amongst. Several implausible plot strands abound, and the final film is a little confused and unsure as to what its purpose really is. Ultimately In Fear is much like the car journey it depicts – a bit dull and mostly aimless.

Score: 2.5/5

Avalanche Sharks (2013)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-04-06

0

Twitter Plot Summary: Ghostly sharks are unleashed on an unsuspecting ski resort. Yeah, that’s about it.

Five Point Summary:

1. Ghostly sharks. On a mountain. In the snow.
2. Evil Dead “Deadite” cam!
3. Think this was already silly? Wait until the guy starts talking about love…
4. Why won’t you die?!
5. It had to happen, it was… inevitable.

Some ideas sound far better on paper than the reality. Such is the case with Avalanche Sharks, a film whereby ghostly sharks are unleashed on a mountain top and start eating their way through the ski dudes and dudettes who happen to be in the area. You see, somebody has disturbed some sacred sticks (or something – does it really matter?) and unleashed a number of ghostly sharks upon the unsuspecting populace. It’s up to the usual band of unlikely heroes to put a stop to this ludicrous premise.

Whilst the acting and the script is slightly suspect (and that’s being pleasant, sadly), the direction is surprisingly competent – there are a number of really good shots and choice of angles that belie the low budget and frankly ridiculous story. It almost feels like an A-list director has stepped down to film something on par with the best that the SyFy channel’s TV movies can provide. That is perhaps the only genuinely pleasant thing I can say about the entire production.

The narrative is very similar to Ghost Shark, the only difference being that the sharks are on a mountain rather than a small coastal town. Apart from that difference they could easily be companion pieces, although Ghost Shark has much more fun with the concept. In this case there is the usual sheriff/randoms conflicting with the Mayor who insists the ski resort stay open despite the numerous deaths, lest the town loses money. The acting may be generally sub-par, but in fairness to the actors they’re working with very limited material – each character is a basic cipher lacking personality or depth. The closest anybody comes to having any purpose is the Asian skier who aids in the film’s resolution despite her involvement coming out of nowhere. The central characters we’re supposed to care about? Nope, not a jot of interest in them.

Still just as silly... — Still just as silly…

The effects are also less competent than what we had in Ghost Shark, although in a few instances they’re mildly competent. You’ve also got the mostly nonsensical script to contend with, it’s yet another example of showing characters make completely illogical decisions without rhyme or reason, and it’s amazing that anybody survives to see the end. At least there are a few legitimately amusing moments, and some of the dialogue is intentionally funny rather than accidentally so. Admittedly on occasion it’s hard to tell the difference. This isn’t exploited as well as it might have been, and leaves the overall production somewhere towards the middle of the SyFy TV movie entertainment scale – a couple of good bits but nothing to write home about.

You should know exactly what you’re setting yourself up for from the title alone, yet there’s a perverse pleasure to be had in watching in silly films like this. Whilst it may be no classic, Avalanche Sharks does at least represent the next step in the creature feature genre – we’ve had normal creatures, giant creatures, prehistoric creatures. Now as we move into the supernatural creature feature, there’s only one way to go. Sideways – never up.

Score: 1.5/5

Doc of the Dead (2014)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-04-05

0

Tom Savini's always had at least one body stuck to his ceiling. — Tom Savini’s always had at least one body stuck to his ceiling.

Twitter Plot Summary: A documentary discussing the zombie phenomenon with interviews from famous names in the genre.

Five Point Summary:

1. Fake news bulletin. Standard.
2. Origins of the genre.
3. George Romero. Legend.
4. Fast zombies: good and bad points.
5. Viral infections.

For anybody who has read the majority of my reviews (and if you have – bravo), you may have noticed that I have a particularly keen interest in zombie subculture and the sheer number of different methods in which the undead are presented across multiple media formats, be it film, television, comics, books or otherwise. Subsequently I was always going to tune into a documentary that was specifically about my favourite horror genre.

The key issue is that if you’re already a massive fan of the genre, as I am, there isn’t really anything new discussed. We get a whistle-stop tour of the genre, its origins, recent developments and how it has remained relevant for so many decades. Apart from that it remains very much a surface level analysis of the genre, one better designed for newcomers to zombie culture rather than those who are deeply engrossed in the lore. Despite the fact I learned nothing new, if you are a noob then the talking heads do a very good job at explaining the appeal of zombies and why they remain more relevant today than at any point in their history. The likes of George Romero, Simon Pegg, Max Brooks, Robert Kirkman and Bruce Campbell offer their input, covering everything from the various styles of zombie and the story possibilities they create. Despite the fact we’re talking about reanimated corpses there is a lot of story potential from that basic starting point.

The Charlie Chaplin and zombie conferences had clearly double booked the venue.

The most interesting aspect is the discussion of the possibility of a genuine outbreak, albeit not with legitimate living dead but with parasitic infections or other genuinely possible viral or bacterial infections that could create both the appearance of death and/or create fast/slow zombies as appropriate. If such an outbreak were to occur, it would most likely take the form of a 28 Days Later style infection rather than the dead returning to life. In any case, it’s a point worth exploring given recent developments in medicine and our understanding of parasitic, bacterial and viral infections.

I would have perhaps liked to have seen more about the impact the genre has had on mass media, as this isn’t discussed in any great detail – they’re popular and in the mainstream these days, but it wasn’t a topic explored as much as I’d have preferred. I would have also liked perhaps a few more minutes on the debate between slow and fast zombies, as that addition to the mythos has been a literal shot of adrenalin to the genre. – Zack Snyder’s Dawn of the Dead remake doesn’t even get to make an appearance. There’s also absolutely no coverage of the European or Japanese/Asian input to the genre other than the big obvious one, Shaun of the Dead. The likes of Lucio Fulci and Dario Argento aren’t even name-checked, nor is the work of low budget auteurs like David Cronenberg or more obscure works like the madcap insanity of Noboru Iguchi’s Zombie Ass: Toilet of the Dead. It’s a good starting point, but you’re really going to have to dig deeper into the genre to find the real gems.

Score: 3/5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZHLS2PwMKs

The Thing (2011)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-04-04

0

She had a suspicion that something was going on behind her back.

Twitter Plot Summary: In this prequel to the 1982 film, we see events as they unfold on the Norwegian base. This time there’s also women.

Five Point Summary:

1. OMG – A woman!
2. Some bearded Norwegians and an alien. Standard.
3. Nice twist on the blood test.
4. Some more bad CGI effects.
5. And the link to John Carpenter’s film is complete.

Prequels are tricky business to get right – fans of certain movies will always have preconceptions about the events leading up to said movies and it’s not always necessary for us to see those events played out. Rather confusingly also called The Thing, this prequel sets out the events on the Norwegian base that was explored in the opening act of the 1982 film. Because everybody expects it these days, the lead character is female scientist Kate Lloyd, played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead. The remaining cast are your typical Norwegian stereotypes. Game of Thrones fans will be pleased to see Kristofer Hivju show up in his usual role of big bearded ginger man, and Joel Edgerton is his usual somewhat less than ebullient self as fellow American scientist Sam Carter. In other words, we have a base full of poorly drawn characters ready to be eviscerated and absorbed by The Thing. Lovely stuff.

Ironically enough, The Thing 2011 does actually pass the Bechdel Test as Kate has an admittedly brief conversation with another woman on the base before it all goes to pot. Despite first impressions (and initial uproar at the thought of a woman being in a “Thing” movie), Winstead is just fine in her role – she’s a scientist first and foremost and the question of gender politics never really arises. In her character, and in a refreshing change to the norm, she’s a strong female character and manages to exert influence over the predominantly male list of characters simply through being logical rather than that old cliche of using her feminine wiles.

This is what happened to preview audiences.

All subtlety is thrown out of the window as the creature wreaks havoc and kills/absorbs anybody it can get its tentacle things on. The insistence on primarily using CGI and CGI-enhanced animatronics to show the transformations is a big disappointment, and somehow makes the effects look worse than the practical ones used in 1982. On the positive side, there’s a nice level of tension throughout and it mostly remains as unclear as Carpenter’s film in terms of working out who isn’t who they appear to be. That same aspect of paranoia and suspicion is prevalent, none more so than the divide between the Norwegians and the Americans – yet another Cold War parable that comes 30 years too late in this instance.

It’s not an absolute waste of time, and if you can’t say anything else good about it, it does at least tie in very well with the opening moments of John Carpenter’s 1982 film, but it plays out in almost exactly the same manner and the outcome is ultimately the same. Rather than try and stand out on its own merits it seems overly keen on paying lip service to the 1982 movie, which ultimately turns out to be detrimental to the overall experience. A few more risks and a little less reliance on slightly suspect CGI would have helped immensely. On the other hand, you can at least watch this in a double bill with Carpenter’s film and know that by the time you reach the end credits you have an even better film to look forward to.

Score: 3/5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKjErC2JLQc

The Thing (1982)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-04-03

0

Some men would kill for facial fuzz like this.

Twitter Plot Summary: An alien life form is uncovered and starts wiping out the all male crew of an American base in Antarctica.

Five Point Summary:

1. Those crazy Norwegians and Kurt’s lovely beard.
2. Tendrils!
3. That head’s trying to escape!
4. The blood testing scene. Very tense.
5. Amazing ending.

The Thing remains one of my all time favourite science fiction/horror films. I felt it necessary to state this from the very beginning just so you’re aware of where this review is going and so you are in no doubts as to the score I am going to award it. We are at an American base in the Antarctic and surrounded by a bevy of heavily bearded men, with Kurt Russell’s impressive facial growth worthy of note. Their tranquil operation is soon shattered by the arrival of a dog being chased by some seemingly crazy Norwegians in a helicopter. It soon becomes apparent that all is not well and people start dying. Using the classic body snatcher template, the creature that has invaded the base has the ability to perfectly impersonate other living creatures, and it becomes a race against time to flush the creature out and prevent it from reaching the wider world. As a parable for the Cold War, The Thing hits its mark at every turn – paranoia and fear are the keywords of the day, leading to irrational decision making and uncertainty over who to trust.

One aspect I’m particularly a fan of is that it was never felt necessary to shoehorn in any female characters for the sake of it, nor was it deemed appropriate to distract from the very simple premise of an alien life form wanting to wipe out all life on the base and then subsequently the planet. I know this seems at odds with my other reviews that complain about the Bechdel Test and the lack of strong female characters in films, but hear me out on this one. Invariably scriptwriters tend to shoehorn in a female presence and/or romance angle either because they’re trying to pander to the female audience or because they want to instil some gender-based conflict to proceedings. None of that is essential here – there’s enough tension and testosterone flying around to generate a ridiculous amount of tension, and having a female character for the sake of gender equality is counterproductive in a story like this.

He may look gruesome, but all he wants is a cuddle.

The special effects are, frankly, astounding. There’s a certain something you lose with CGI that is all the more visually striking and visceral when presented as practical effects. Rob Bottin is a genius in this field and still stand up some 30 years later. There’s also the soundtrack from Ennio Morricone which is tense and laced with foreboding. Its simple construction is what sells it, not too showy and does just enough to convey the otherworldliness of the creature and the distrust between the men trapped together.

The scares are consistent without resorting to making things go bang for the sake of it. There’s already a certain sense of unease without resorting to such tactics, and the novel methods used to enhance this are a credit to the script and the production team for keeping the audience on its toes. It would be remiss not to also mention the ensemble cast. At its head is Kurt Russell,, of course, but everyone involved from Keith David to Wilford Brimley and the likes of Richard Masur fully inhabit their roles despite most of them only having a surface level of detail to work with.

And then there’s that ending, beautifully ambiguous and brings the story to a close on exactly the right note, continuing with that sense of uncertainty and paranoia that runs throughout the running time. I don’t think Carpenter has come anywhere close to besting The Thing in any of his other films, with the possible exception of Escape From New York, but in this case all the constituent elements combined to make a genre classic that still holds up to scrutiny today.

Score: 5/5

The Bay (2012)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-04-02

0

"I think I might be a bit sick..." — “I think I might be a bit sick…”

Twitter Plot Summary: A reporter discusses a parasitic outbreak in Chesapeake Bay that wasn’t mentioned in the media.

Five Point Summary:

1. Vomiting! Yay!
2. Creepy crawly bugs.
3. Possible zombies?
4. That man has no tongue.
5. Jump scare!

Ahh, another “found footage” style horror movie. Just what I wanted. I may be unduly harsh towards said movie style, but if done well it can be a very entertaining movie. If done badly it just leaves you lamenting the fact the genre exists. The Bay has that unfortunate distinction of being ever so slightly above average rather than absolutely terrible or absolutely amazing – there are some very good moments but lacks “oomph” when considered in its entirety. Keeping the action contained to a small town in America, it depicts the effects of a parasitic outbreak and its effects on the populace – essentially another of those modern day “infected” zombie films.

My problem with The Bay is that whilst it portrays a mostly believable docu-drama style depiction of a parasitic outbreak, it lacks that certain something that would make it thoroughly engaging. Most of the core narrative is led by reporter Donna, recounting the outbreak to camera, but in my opinion there is little dramatic tension because you know she’s going to survive and that you know from the outset that the outbreak was contained. There are a couple of good scares, but for the most part it ‘s more psychological than anything else, putting yourself in the shoes of the people caught up in the outbreak.

On the other hand, it does go to some lengths to get the medical aspects of the outbreak right, and the effects of said parasites start small and gradually increase in both scale and impact as more symptoms become apparent. It’s clear that the writers did some extensive research in this area and in many ways it’s more of a study about the ecological and physiological effects of a parasitic infection rather than a horror movie. This is perfectly fine, because there is also a decent amount of gore and violence to satiate the horror crowd, but if you look beyond this it’s also clearly a film with a message behind it. You may also be surprised when you realise that this film was directed by Barry Levinson, he of Rain Man and Good Morning, Vietnam fame. This would go some way to explaining why it’s as deep as it is in terms of the background message and also why it’s as competently structured as it is.

Despite my negativity towards the found footage genre, The Bay is at least consistent and the story flows nicely, and there are a few good jumps and scares to justify using the format. By the final act we’re in full-fledged outbreak mode, as those in the medical profession battle to stop it spreading and the residents of the town try to either avoid infection or just stay alive. It’s a very gradual build-up to the low-key but powerful finale, however I think it would have worked better by drawing focus in on one or two sets of characters rather than branching the story the way it did. Still, it does at least feel realistic and an entirely plausible situation.

Score: 3/5

The Raid 2 (2014)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-04-01

0

Suddenly their game of musical statues took on a far more serious tone.

Twitter Plot Summary: Forced to go undercover with the mob, skilled martial artist cop Rama attempts to bring them down from within.

Five Point Summary:

1. Prison time.
2. Working for the criminal underworld.
3. Hobo versus apparently everybody.
4. Car chase.
5. Epic finale. EPIC.

The first film in the series caught be my surprise. I knew of it following comparisons drawn between The Raid and Dredd, which on face value were very similarly plotted films but are actually completely different in terms of how they executed their story. The Raid was tightly plotted and a tour de force of action cinema, so understandably expectations were high going in to see The Raid 2.

The story picks up shortly after the events of The Raid, whereby Rama is recruited by a branch of the police force and asked to go undercover with one of the big crime organisations in order to take them down and weed out the corrupt elements of the police force in the process. Finding himself in deeper and deeper with the bad guys, not only must Rama contend with the fact he’s befriended by some deeply dubious people, but he has to spend a ridiculous amount of time away from his family. Within all of this is a power play for control of the entire criminal underworld, led by Bejo. Meanwhile Ucok, son of kingpin Bangun, wants to improve his position within the organisation by any means necessary. Cue an obligatory number of crosses, double crosses and violence as everybody tries to achieve their aims. Meanwhile Rama is stuck in the middle of all of this – lucky for him he almost has the same speed as the Flash when it comes to fighting his enemies.

You can tell just by looking at them that this is a situation you'd rather avoid being in. — You can tell just by looking at them that this is a situation you’d rather avoid being in.

The core concept of the original film has been expanded upon – and no wonder, given that this was the film Gareth Evans wanted to make in the first place. In place of the necessarily tight structure of the original, now there’s a whole world to play with. Here we get an extended car chase sequence which needs to be seen to be believed, and an array of villainous types that are distinguished by their violent specialist skills. One is lethal with a baseball bat, another is proficient at dishing out pain – in some gloriously bloody detail – with a pair of hammers. Then there’s the man known only as The Assassin, who is on par (and occasionally better than) Rama in terms of pure skill. Evans does his usual trick of being inventive with camera placement and movement, and he has a particular visual style that means fight sequences are clearly set up and none of the action is lost, Michael Bay style, by putting the camera too close to it. That’s not to say that we’re miles away from any action, far from it. Just compare one of Evans’ sequences with something concocted by Michael Bay and you’ll see what I mean.

I’m sad to report that there was a 15-20 minute section where my attention did start to lag, although this may be because I’d been at work all day and the screening was quite late in the evening. It felt like there hadn’t been any action for some time and an unusual amount of time was being spent instead on fleshing out our villains. For those few minutes I was wondering if The Raid 2 could live up to the promise of the original. I needn’t have worried, as the final act is a tour de force of action excellence, neatly resolving the important narrative threads (with just enough left hanging to justify a third film), and displaying a ridiculously amazing grasp of how action sequences can and should be realised on screen. Much like my viewing of Filth in 2013, The Raid 2 managed to affect me on an emotional level, its power derived from an unrelenting final 30 minutes that just doesn’t slow down for a moment. Frankly, it’s a phenomenal piece of work and if martial arts films are your thing you owe it to yourself to see The Raid and The Raid 2 at the earliest opportunity.

Score: 5/5

Galaxy of Terror (1981)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-03-31

0

The size of the giant alien slug had her enraptured, to say the least.

Twitter Plot Summary: A rescue mission goes horribly wrong as the crew of the spaceship Quest are bumped off by manifestations of their own fears.

Five Point Summary:

1. Does nobody think to secure all loose items when they lift off?
2. I wish he’d stop shrieking at everything.
3. Sid Haig hasn’t aged in 30 years, it seems.
4. Giant alien bug rape is not to be taken lightly.
5. So what just happened?

1981. In science fiction terms we received Mad Max 2, Escape From New York and Outland – not an overly auspicious year, all things considered, especially when you look at the rest of the science fiction movies released that year. Amongst them was Galaxy of Terror, a Roger Corman-produced adventure that ripped off much of the best bits of previous genre hits and combined them to form something far worse than the movies that inspired it. In many ways it’s very much like an early version of the movies churned out by SyFy these days, or even those films still being churned out by Corman to this very day.

Dressed in fetching brown sci-fi smocks and with set designs clearly made to replicate the feeling of 1979’s Alien (albeit with a fraction of the budget and talent), the crew of the starship Quest head off on a rescue mission to the planet Morganthus from which a distress beacon from an earlier mission is being broadcast.

Hmm, this looks a little familiar. But 70s beige instead of 70s white. Where's John Hurt when you need him? — Hmm, this looks a little familiar. But 70s beige instead of 70s white. Where’s John Hurt when you need him?

Galaxy of Terror is yet another of those obscure science fiction stories that doesn’t really make much sense in the grand scheme of things, an exercise in obfuscation whilst attempting to appear like an intelligent science fiction feature. There are not many ideas at play – individual fears are manifested and ultimately kill off the crew one by one – but this simple premise is hidden behind needlessly OTT science fiction genre tropes. If there had been more of an attempt to simplify the sci-fi trappings and do something similar to Event Horizon released nearly 20 years later, Galaxy of Terror may have been a recommended viewing. Instead it’s a science fiction equivalent to the low budget silliness of Hawk The Slayer. At least the methods used to dispatch half of the crew are moderately inventive, even if again they borrow/steal liberally from other science fiction or horror movies released before this, and it still has the power to shock (besides the dated set design) – one scene in particular sees a female crew member raped to death by what appears to be a giant alien slug. I won’t lie, but I’m sure that’s a fear we’d all have, consciously or otherwise.

Sid Haig perhaps gets the most from the script by removing all of his character’s dialogue with the exception of one line. For the remainder of his time he stands resolutely mute, conveying a fait amount of intonation with a glance here, a raised set of eyebrows there, culminating with pained screams and anguished glances, of course. At the other end of the spectrum is Robert Englund who is wasted in the role of a junior member of the crew. Greater things awaited him, albeit mostly in the form of Freddy Krueger, but in Galaxy of Terror he has little to do and little to work with. His best moment in fact comes when he’s required to scream at himself, which in fairness to him probably didn’t seem much of a task. Still, some of the special effects are worthy of note – a young James Cameron cut his teeth in the effects department on this feature – but remains mostly forgettable to all but the most dedicated of science fiction/horror fanatics.

Score: 2/5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJO07ylhTu4

Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-03-30

0

Harker could see nothing unusual about the Count's countenance. — Harker could see nothing unusual about the Count’s countenance.

Twitter Plot Summary: Jonathan Harker journeys to the castle of Count Dracula to sell him a house. Unfortunately the Count happens to be a vampire.

Five Point Summary:

1. Mein Gott! Dialogue!
2. Wish those wolves would shut up…
3. He’s looking a bit peaky.
4. Silly run through the courtyard.
5. Never go back for more.

The original Nosferatu was dogged by copyright infringement issues back in the 1920s, for reasons of which I will discuss in my review of that film, however by the time of Werner Herzog’s remake in 1979 such issues were in the distant past and there was subsequently no problems with calling the count Dracula. Herzog presents events in his usual moderately cheap appearance. This relative level of cheapness doesn’t extend to the makeup on Dracula, however – he is in essence a human-sized rat with pointed ears, long spindly fingers and extended sharp teeth on his central incisors rather than the oft-expected canines. And admittedly whilst I may complain about the cheap appearance of the film, that’s not to say it doesn’t look amazing – Herzog picks out a number of truly remarkable shots, and the setting itself has a beauty that is hard to describe. It embraces the gothic aspects of the locations, which are enhanced by Herzog’s direction and use of light and dark throughout. It’s a haunting piece, to say the least.

Kinski presents Dracula as an incredibly melancholic figure, cursed with everlasting life and forced to watch those he loves grow old and die. He drinks the blood of his victims through necessity rather than evil intent, and is an empathetic figure as a direct result of Kinski’s performance. Yes the Count looks horrific to all extents and purposes, but despite his longevity he still only feeds to survive. Whilst a thoroughly unpleasant thing to look at, it’s easy to see where the romantic angle of the vampire myth comes into play in this instance, enhanced by inherent levels of tragedy.

Vampires will always cop a feel if the opportunity presents itself. Fact.

It’s even more tragic for him in that he is a bringer of plague, a bringer of death. No matter where he goes, this is his curse. Soon after arriving in Harker’s home town the plague follows, and Dracula is bewitched by the beauty of Harker’s wife Lucy (not Mina, although confusingly Mina is a character in this remake, albeit not Harker’s betrothed). They represent two opposing sides, the count all in black – plague, death and disease are his companions – and Lucy in white – purity, beauty and goodness on her side. It’s also an interesting rewrite of the original tale, where in this instance it is Lucy who has power – she is not the weak-willed woman depicted by Stoker and is instrumental in Dracula’s downfall.

It’s another classic tale where an existential crisis lies at its centre, primarily through Dracula himself, but also through Harker who is almost drained to the point of death by the count. In this instance the script isn’t afraid to go away from Stoker’s original and we end in a completely different manner to the aforementioned source material. Without going into spoilers (obviously) there’s actually room for a sequel that would have existed on its own merits. Suffice to say there is plenty of room for interpretation in a finale that covers everything from love to sacrifice to new beginnings, with a side portion of lust and desire just for giggles. To say this remake of Nosferatu is intriguing would be an understatement – rife with themes and cannily presented, it is a perfect example of a director/star collaboration in its prime.

Score: 5/5

Aguirre: The Wrath of God (1972)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-03-29

0

"You want me to do what with the monkey?" — “You want me to do what with the monkey?”

Twitter Plot Summary: A group of intrepid explorers head down river in search of El Dorado, whilst natives pick them off one by one.

Five Point Summary:

1. Lots of people bumped off, very quickly.
2. A trial in the jungle.
3. Operation: Get Behind The Black Guy.
4. It’s gonna blow!
5. Best decapitation scene ever.

The opening of Aguirre: The Wrath of God firmly establishes our location and the ultimate futility of the entire expedition as a vast swathe of conquistadors work their way down a mountain path through dense jungle. They’re clearly not kitted out for this kind of journey or terrain, yet they press on regardless. A scout party are ordered ahead to gather information, with the proviso that if they do not return within a week they will be declared lost. Amongst the small party is Aguirre (Kinski), a mad eyed Don and second in command of this troupe. I think it goes without saying that things will not end well – not only do they have to battle the elements but also must contend with natives who are unwelcoming to say the least. As time progresses madness starts to seep into everyone’s behaviour, particularly as more and more of them are either picked off by the somewhat unhappy jungle natives, or fall foul of disease and die a slow death. By the final scene we’re reduced to just a few survivors, a far cry from the opening mountain descent and resulting in an almost inevitable conclusion.

Klaus Kinski is superb as Aguirre, his eyes constantly searching the environment and balancing between out and out insanity and genuine care for his daughter, who is also along for the trip. It’s easy to understand why Kinski caused such tension on the shoot – for the most part he doesn’t seem to be acting per se, merely reacting to the folly of those around him. He seems a genuinely unhinged human specimen and for that very reason is both fascinating yet terrifying in equal measure. There isn’t much to be said about the remaining cast in all fairness – they do their jobs efficiently but there’s nothing notable about their performances. It’s easy to argue that the jungle is the next most important character in Aguirre… as it dominates everything from that opening shot onwards.

Pan pipes. They're everywhere. — Pan pipes. They’re everywhere.

There’s also the little matter of El Dorado itself. It remains forever out of reach, yet man’s greed and avarice pushes him on regardless. What’s important here is the journey itself, the constant rush of the river, the threat from cannibalistic natives, the entire works. To an extent they’re all blind to the reality of their situation, although Aguirre does point out early on that travelling down the river is a futile effort. There’s also the religious angle to take into account, in particular where a discussion with some natives turns sour when they hold the Bible and reveal, rather sensibly, that it’s not talking to them. There is subtext aplenty for those who wish to go looking for it, and beautifully captures the existential aspects of existence and a true study into the darkest reaches of the human psyche. Much like Heart of Darkness, this is a journey into the unknown, both literally and figuratively.

I will also forever be amused at the fact that, in the version I own at least, I was watching Spanish conquistadors speaking in German. That never gets old.

Score: 5/5

SIMONPRIOR.COM