·
I probably was aware of the dry humour in the
dialogue “We Are Still Here” because of
an audience; I might have taken initially it at face value otherwise
·
Seeing some glowing reviews of films on the
other screens, I wondered if I might be missing out by sticking to FrightFest’s
main screens; then again, the films I have seen on the alternative screens have
all been lacklustre in previous years, “The Sand” being second best and “Willow
Creek” coming out top
HELLIONS is, like “Cherry Tree”,
a tale of a young girl stricken with a demonmic pregnancy. But this time, “Pontypool”
director Bruce McDonald tends more towards the abstract with reality slipping
out of control as a bunch of trick’or’treaters terrorise the poor girl. Aside
from some tonal missteps - do we need weary, defiant punchline every time an
antagonist gets killed? Do we need stirring defiant rock tunes every time a
protagonist turns into a Final Girl? And, despite the reductive promotional
material with her in angelic wings brandishing a shotgun, did she ever really
need to turn into a Final Girl since the film aims for other targets? - this is
beautifully filmed and slips increasingly into ambiguity. It also goes some way
to making kids chants creepy again (until they fit as part of the rocking
soundtrack).
LANDMINE GOES CLICK is variation
on that rape/revenge thing that Bergman’s “The Virgin Spring” modelled, except
this time it’s the boyfriend of the victim that wreaks vengeance after being
unable to save his girlfriend from a predatory native once he believes himself
incapacitated when stepping on a landmine. But how he gets on the landmine is
just one of the subplots that seem to play out male anxieties on women’s
bodies - yes, it’s the male on the
landmine but the woman is already reduced to “bitch” and “whore” as soon as her
infidelity is revealed and male pride is wounded. That the ostensibly good guy
executes his revenge for his girlfriend by utilising the female bodies of the
antagonist’s families only adds to the sense that the women as real people
matter less than male passion plays of power. The audience laughed along when
the tables were turned and the protagonist used the antagonist’s own words and
methods against him, but they also laughed when the Russian roulette reached
its conclusion and it seems director Levan Bakhia was looking more for a “beware
if you stare into the abyss” morality tale. It seems some of the audience
thought they were watching a different film.
THE DIABOLICAL can’t do
anything without the soundtrack going BAM!!! This soon BAM!!! gets BAM!!! tedious.
It comes across initially as a James Wan-inspired jump-scare vehicle and
although the audience may roll its eyes as soon as a paranormal investigators
appear, it may be equally amused when they immediately run off. Apparitions
appear in a family house and no one will believe them. Then the film becomes
more interesting when the film suddenly changes genre just as you have dozed
off and the stuff that initially appears filler instead features as part of the
puzzle. Although possessed with a most aggravating and obvious soundtrack where
everything is cued (and when it goes silent, you know there is a jump-scare
just coming up), this shift in tone makes “The Diabolical” far more interesting
than it initially appears. It suffers from a too-tidy ending, though: in the
Q&A afterwards, director Alistair Legrand flippantly remarked that he
wanted a happy ending, sort of, but this just stymies the real sense of tragedy
and darkness that the film heads towards.
JERUZALEM uses a Google
glasses perspective but it still follows the usual subjective footage formula:
attractive American twenytsomethings go to Jerusalem and, after much bonding,
chasing sex and partying, the gates of hell open. Of course, it plays into that
American isolationist fear of other places, but directors Doran and Yoaz Paz
want to celebrate the city and offer a more realistic version too. In the
Q&A after the screening they spoke of their non-religious outlook, that the
apocalypse seems to come from the many faiths that exist alongside eachother in
Jerusalem, and it’s true that the dark angel zombies of the film offer
something a little different. While it offers nothing especially new, the local
flavour is appealing and they have obviously learnt a thing or too from “Cloverfield”
too. It culminates in an unforgettable vision, the kind of thing that justifies
that subjective-camera to me – even though the action often breaks up the
technology and is incomprehensible when things get hairy.
WE ARE STIKLL HERE’s director Ted
Geogheghan spoke of this being like Lucio Fulci meets MR James, and also John
Carpenter’s “The Fog” was thrown in. Yes. A grieving couple buys a house to
start over again and find themselves in the thick of a haunting and a local
sacrificial lot. The Seventies-early
Eighties feel is excellently rendered, the action is no-nonsense without
suffering from ADD and it is the first entry on here to properly use silences
as a tool (instead of just telegraphing jump-scares). Geogheghan also spoke of
how most contemporary horror films centre on young folk and yes, it is nice to
see adults take the foreground for once. Excellently performed, funny (that
genre-expected exposition dialogue went down like comedy with the FrightFest crowd)
and a genuine treat.
No, I didn’t want to see James
Wan’s “Demonic” on the main screen because I felt I had already seen that thing
a million times and he doesn’t quite put his name to the horror that I like,
even if this was directed by Will Cannon. So I went to see Isaac Gabaeff’s “The
Sand” instead. Obviously low budget and second league stuff, but as a
undemanding creature-feature that centres more on a bunch of Spring Breakers
working out how to deal with a monster under the beach, it took time to flesh
out characters that could have been obnoxiously 2D, had enough fun and humour
and situations to make this a fun if undemanding experience.
No comments:
Post a Comment