Movie Review: Cloverfield (2008)

Directed by: Matt Reeves

BBFC Certificate: 15

Running time: 85 mins

Who remembers when ‘found footage’ movies were effective? When the media hype of such films worked really well in building excitement for the movie? And remember when the films came out and every single one of them sucked hairy dog testicles? This is Cloverfield.

Cloverfield is a ‘found footage’ film about an attack on New York city by a giant monster. The camera follows a group of friends as they begin by throwing a surprise going away party and end up taking to the streets to survive the destruction and devastation.

 

The acting is generally good although the characters are so cookie-cutter: the ‘funny man’ best friend, the emotional brother who will blatantly bite the bullet first, the forbidden love who will lead our main character to ignore better sense by escaping and instead, search Manhattan for  her. A list of generic characters who we don’t care about as we know they will all die; why invest any time in getting to care about them?

The monster divides most viewers – those who believe that the creature is horrifying, effective and well created using subtle CGI, and those who think otherwise. Being entirely honest and fair to the film creators, it looks like shit. In many of the scenes, the monster appears as if it has been painted into the scene, belonging more in a monster movie of the 1950s than film released in 2008.

The biggest flaw with ‘Cloverfield’ is that it is filmed as a ‘found footage’ movie, complete with warning label at the beginning of the film explaining where the tape was found. The issue with this is that these events never happened. For a found footage film to be truly effective, it needs to leave a sense of unease with the audience. Blair Witch Project, although not a good film, at least convinced the audience that the three filmmakers actually went missing in a secluded wood one weekend. Clover field cannot hope to achieve the same as the events are too huge to be filmed as ‘found footage’ any sense of belief instantly disappears when it is obvious that New York has never been attacked in the way that this movies claims.

That isn’t to say that the found footage isn’t totally ineffective: the way that the camera is passed from one character to another as they meet their demise is clever and the majority of the recording makes sense – there is very little ‘pointlessly filmed’ sections where you wonder why the video camera was still on (although they do still exist – the bridge is collapsing as you are on it, why are you still holding the camera capturing other people’s reactions as you run for your lives?)

Overall, Cloverfield suffered in 2008 from its own hype – it was well advertised, showing just enough to allow movie goers to be interested without revealing anything of the plot. For such effective hype, a movie that is anything less than incredible will fail spectacularly, as Cloverfield does. Is it the worst ‘found footage’ film ever released? No. The acting is good, bordering on great at times, many shots look good, particularly when the Statue of Liberty’s head rolls down the street and there are times when the movie is genuinely scary. However, none of that saved the reputation of the film in 2008 – after seeing it in the cinema I remember someone shouting ‘well, that was shit!’ as the film finished. Although Cloverfield is better than many people remember it being, it should never have been a ‘found footage’ film.

Overall opinion: Cloverfield isn’t awful. It is better  received now than it was when it first came out but has stolen a number of ideas from other films, which were far better in many aspects. If you enjoy ‘found footage’ movies or generic monster movies then you may find something enjoyable here. It will probably not be a film that you watch more than once though.

Available now on: DVD, Blu-Ray, Netflix

If you enjoyed this, why not try: Godzilla (2014), Super 8 (2011)

Movie Review: Grace (2009)

Directed by: Paul Solet

BBFC Certificate: 18

Running time: 85 mins

Sometimes a film will come along that breaks the boundaries of what our beloved genre is all about. The horror will be well dispersed – a necessary inclusion that develops the plot whilst at the same time adding an edge that leaves audience spell-bound: unable to watch but unable to look away at the same time. And then there are other films that are just horrific for the sake of it: with that in mind, let’s discuss ‘Grace.’

I first heard about this film when my wife was six months pregnant with our first child. Although we did not know the gender of the unborn baby at that point, we had decided that Grace would be a suitable name if the child was a girl (as it so happened, we did have a girl and so chose to call her Grace). With that in mind, I made the sensible decision not to watch this film whilst my wife was six months pregnant. Nine months later I have returned to finally give this film the credit that it may very well deserve.

The very premise of ‘Grace’ is horrific: a pregnant woman (Madeline Matheson, played by Jordan Ladd) is involved in a car crash in which her husband is instantly killed and her unborn child is miscarried. So distraught by the events, not to mention the fact that she is a crazy hippie vegan who’s all into hugging trees and not washing, the woman decides to carry the baby full term anyway. Although the baby is still born, it miraculously comes back to life and appears to be happy and healthy… until Madeline discovers a dark secret about her new daughter Grace.

‘Grace’ is one of those films where you have to ask yourself why it exists. The story is horrific, nonsensical and never needed to exist. The plot is stupid, the characters are idiots and nothing makes any sense. This baby, who attracts swarms of flies and smells putrid, is check by numerous doctors and found to be perfectly fine. The baby, who by all professional accounts should not be alive, requires human blood to stay healthy. Although a little belief needs to be suspended during films (after all, these aren’t documentaries), the movie never even tries to explain anything away. “The baby should be dead but isn’t, deal.” “The baby drinks human blood because…”

Onto the characters themselves: Madeline is your typical loving mother. She changes, cares and feeds her baby, not to mention killing people to be able to extract their blood to feed her freaky child. Her best friend, Patricia Lang (Samantha Ferris) is a hippie lesbian mid-wife lady who goes along with the whole thing, never really questioning what the fuck is going on (after all, it’s just because…) The main ‘monster’ in the movie is obviously the baby but the issue here is that this baby cannot even crawl yet – how can a film possibly build fear around an immobile monster that is about as threatening as a tea-bag?

Have we discussed the mother-in-law yet? Where to start on the mother-in-law. Madeline has a crazy over-judgmental mother-in-law (played by Gabrielle Rose) who dislikes Madeline and criticizes everything that she does. Mummy dearest decides that Madeline is abusing the child and so decides to steal her away. Brandishing a hammer, she attacks Madeline, but only just before having her throat bitten out and dying from blood loss (probably being fed to Grace afterwards). Oh, and she is obsessed with breast-feeding her husband during some kind of kinky foreplay thing (because old ladies need to whip their tits out in films as well of course).

If you are at all confused by the plot then welcome to ‘Grace’ – we haven’t even begun to discuss the gall stones that her doctors decide must lead to premature delivery – a plot that goes nowhere. Or the final scene of the movie which is only there to demonstrate exactly what this movie is about – grossing the audience out so much that they won’t notice how much of their lives they are wasting on this shite.

To try and review Grace is like writing an article on that one bowel movement you had which for a short time convinced you that you might have colon cancer. It is disgusting, makes you feel uneasy for an hour or two, but in the end is just a meaningless pile of crap. I would end by saying that you should not watch this film if pregnant but I think it covers more ground to just say that no-one should watch this film ever. The 85 minutes that you waste watching this abomination of film could have been spent instead watching any of the original three Evil Dead films – that’s perspective that makes you re-evaluate exactly what you will get out of Grace: The answer? Very little.

Overall opinion: A gross film with a stupid plot and wooden performances. If you are a fan of horrific films, try the first two Saw films or Hostel 2 – you’ll get to witness just as much gore but with a story line as an added bonus. Stay away from ‘Grace.’

Available now on: Netflix

If you enjoyed this, why not try: Re-evaluating your life.

Movie Review: Stigmata (1999)

Directed by: Rupert Wainwright

BBFC Certificate: 18

Running time: 103 mins

Religious cult-y horror films are a dime a dozen. There is something about religion that appears to make a large number of people shit their pants – whether it is due to a fear of the unexplained or the hysteria that so many religions rely on to control the masses. However, that is a discussion for another day. Instead, we are here to discuss Stigmata.

Stigmata was released in 1999 and contains a number of fairly recognizable  actors in lead roles: Patricia Arquette (The fucked up crazy girl from ‘A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors’), Gabriel Byrne (The ringleader from ‘The Usual Suspects’ who we are led to believe is Keyser Soze although *SPOILER* it’s the cripple all along) and Jonathan Pryce (The baddie from ‘Tomorrow Never Dies’ whose dastardly plan is to cause World War 3 so that he can sell more papers). The story centres around Frankie Paige (Arquette) who begins to demonstrate stigmata – five body marks associated with Jesus Christ that indicate the second coming. This sensation is investigated by Father Andrew Kiernan (Byrne), who is sent by the Catholic Church to decide if the stigmata is genuine or false.

The film is exceptionally well paced. Stigmata moves the story on well, allowing time for character development but never slowing down for too long. The action is well dispersed, often coming out of nowhere to ensure that the audience are kept on their toes – one minute the characters are enjoying coffee in a cafe and the next minute, the girl is having nails driven through her feet.

Although not an outright horror film, Stigmata is a combination of a number of genres. The action scenes are well done and before long the film develops into a mystery crime thriller with Father Kiernan racing to discover the truth before Stigmata ends up killing the girl.

The performances are solid. Having only ever seen Arquette in ANOES before, it is refreshing to see her in a part that actually requires some acting – she certainly holds her own in this film, switching between the athiest young woman who doesn’t want to believe, and the pain-induced victim who finds it difficult NOT to. Jonathan Pryce plays a convincing villain, a man forced into making difficult decisions to protect the religion he has devoted himself to.

As the film draws to a close, the story gets a little confusing. It is difficult to follow all the twists and turns of the story, remembering the names of characters that were barely hinted at an hour ago and now are suddenly an integral part of the plot. The last twenty minutes is a bit of a slog, and the final message – about God being present in the minds and souls of people and not necessarily in the bricks and mortar of a church, is thought-provoking but perhaps could have been delivered better: the message gets a little lost in the convoluted plot at the end of the film.

Overall opinion: Not a typical horror film, meaning that those looking for a genuine Horror-Religion may be a little disappointed. However, as a mystery / action film with horror elements intermingled, Stigmata delivers well. Worth a watch.

Available now on: DVD, Blu-Ray, Netflix

If you enjoyed this, why not try: The Reaping (2007), End of Days (1999)

Movie Review: The Human Centipede (2009)

Directed by: Tom Six

BBFC Certificate: 18

Running time: 92 mins

Human Centipede became infamous in 2009 for its shocking and disturbing plot – a German surgeon kidnaps three foreigners and reassembles them into a ‘human centipede’ by stitching them together, mouth to rectum. Rumours were widespread of viewers vomiting and passing out on seeing some of the tasteless scenes in the movie. Despite this (or perhaps due to it) the Human Centipede spawned two sequels (released in 2011 and 2015).

There is little doubt that the film’s premise is disgusting – the very thought of what the insane Dr. Heiter is attempting will repulse even the hardest of horror fans. The main issues with films that aim to shock is that often the shock is all that matters. With the Human Centipede, it would be easy to expect there to be little plot and for the action to begin straightaway. What we get instead, is a nice tense forty minutes of film, including a well executed cat-and-mouse sequence between Dr. Heiter and the main protagonist, Lindsay (played by Ashley Williams). The Dr explains his plan to his victims in a surgically professional way (including some informative self-drawn slides)

Although it may be hard to believe, the film manages to keep its discretion even once the human centipede is revealed. At no point does the film venture too far into the ‘hideously disgusting realm, instead choosing to be more subtle than many people would expect. The suggestions are still vile but the delivery of the film is less so.

The acting of the two girls during the first fifteen minutes of the film is atrocious. They have zero chemistry and are entirely unconvincing as two close friends. They over act every second of the movie and it is so relieving once they become part of the Human Centipede as they are unable to deliver any more crappy lines.

Dr. Heiter, on the other hand is played superbly by the dominating presence of Dieter Laser. His every appearance on the screen is a master to behold. He plays the character with a perfect blend of professional curiosity and insanity. He methods are matter of fact – there is no soul searching here but merely a matter of fact passion about his work.

When all is said and done, the film is not a masterpiece of the genre – it is not revolutionary, it does not break new ground and, if you are a horror fan, it will probably not be the most disgusting film you’ve ever seen. Much of the controversy was billed before the film even came out and it would come as no surprise to discover that many of the nay-sayers have never even watched the film. Personally, I found myself a little underwhelmed by events in the film – at times it came off as slow moving and even a little dull. That is not to say that the idea is not disgusting – the first time that the front character defecates would turn anyone’s stomach – but for a film that was supposed to be hideous, it lacks a little something.

Overall opinion: The Human Centipede is an unsettling premise that on the most part, is delivered well. The main character is well played and the film has a good combination of tension and horror. It is a little self-appreciating at times – the film has illusions of grandeur that it does not quite fulfill – and generally it does not deserve the reputation that it seems to enjoy. If you haven’t seen it then it is an interesting, although not ground-breaking, horror film.

Available now on: DVD, Blu-Ray, Netflix

If you enjoyed this, why not try: The Human Centipede II (2011) The Human Centipede III (2015)

Movie Review: See No Evil 2 (2014)

Directed by: Jen & Sylvia Soska

BBFC Certificate: 15

Running time: 90 mins

See No Evil 2 was released straight to DVD here in the UK and the film is littered with continual reminders as to why this was the case. There is little tension aside from the ‘false jump scares’ and stupidity from so many of the characters. As with so many slasher films that fail, the viewer will find themselves rooting for the killer. None of the cattle characters are developed in any way and so you will probably spend the majority of the time hoping that someone else dies soon.

As with so many cliché films of the genre, we are forced into a ‘secret love’ that we care little about. Seth (Kaj-Erik Eriksen) is secretly in love with Amy (Danielle Harris) who it appears, is entirely oblivious to the fact – despite the fact that he spends the majority of the film wagging his tongue at her (not just his tongue). This sub plot would be bearable enough if it wasn’t for the simple fact that Seth is the only likeable character in the film whilst Amy is an annoying bitch who spends the entire film making stupid decisions and putting her friend’s lives in jeopardy. At two thirds of the way through when Amy confesses that she knew all about Seth’s secret crush from the beginning, the audience can do nothing but face palm. Firstly, Amy should know never to try and create a tender moment when a sadistic killer is after you as this now will guarantee that at least one of them has to die. Secondly, why has it taken until now for Amy to admit to this? In a parallel universe, she does the sensible thing by telling Seth that she likes him too, neither of them are trying to impress each other by working on this fateful night and as a result of this, the only person who dies is the old fellow in the wheelchair whom no-one was sad to see go to begin with.

Next, onto Kane as the psychopath Jacob Goodnight. Anyone who has seen the original See No Evil will no exactly what to expect from the WWE star’s performance – some great stunts, ripping biceps and little else. Kane has a number of lines in the film, although they don’t particularly extend further than a series of grunts and lines read through gritted teeth. With this, I can’t help but feel that the directors missed a trick – anyone who watches WWE will know that Glenn Jacobs is a particularly talented (not to mention, intelligent) individual who, although not the best in ring performer, delivers a show well. Rather than this Jason Voorhees lumbering mass of muscles and little else, what if they had gone down the intelligent psychopath route? Making Goodnight more akin to Freddy Krueger’s sadistic wit may have made for a more enjoyable film.

Unlike the first film, See No Evil is pretty uninspiring as far as deaths go. There is very little to see aside from slashed throats and strangulations. Nothing feels particularly original, only strengthening that this is a ‘body count’ film.

The plot is non-existent – barely anything is explained about the killer apart from a quick exposition at the beginning of the film. The movie wants to presume that everyone saw the first ‘See No Evil’ which would be fine if it wasn’t for the fact that few people have and those who have probably had the sense to stay away from this sequel.

Aside from the dull characters, lack of plot and general dull-fest that See No Evil is, what is difficult to ignore is the glaring plot holes in the movie. Whilst it is explained that employees of the morgue have to lock their phones away, where are the phones of the all guests who snuck into the morgue? Are you trying to tell us that this people were rebellious to break into a morgue but had the decency whilst doing so to lock their phones away? What about the fact that Jacob Goodnight comes back to life after the ECG and two paramedics pronounce him dead? There’s definitely an internal investigation that needs to happen there. How about the fact that Goodnight is pumped full of so much embalming fluid that his eyes explode with blood, yet he somehow manages to appear at the end of the film to kill off more people? Nothing in this movie makes sense, including the question ‘why I am still watching this?’ – a question I asked myself time and time again.

Overall opinion: See No Evil 2 is a cheap cash in on the name of Kane and the WWE franchise. This film adds nothing to the original or to the character of Jacob Goodnight. Many slasher films are guilty of this but at least most of them have the decency to wait a few films in until their monster is well known before churning out pointless sequels – the See No Evil franchise (if you can call it that) is not infamous enough yet to be creating lack lustre films like this yet. Kane is good as the villain but he does it so much better on WWE. Avoid.

Available now on: DVD, Blu-Ray, Netflix

If you enjoyed this, why not try: Hatchet (2006), See No Evil (2006)

Movie Review: Dracula 2000 (2000)

Directed by: Patrick Lussier

BBFC Certificate: 15

Running time: 99 mins

Dracula 2000 features the most famous vampire of all time in a modern setting that attempts to bring the mythos into the current age. As a result of this, it is fast paced, sexy and at times, daring. Many of the characters look as if they have been lifted straight from a L’Oreal advert and the dialogue is definitely hit and miss at times.

The plot sees Abraham Van Helsing, the infamous Vampire hunter, keeping himself alive into the 21st century through injections of Dracula’s blood which allows him to continue living. He keeps Dracula locked away in a crypt as he has been unable to find a way to kill the beast once and for all. One night, Dracula’s body is stolen and the undead Prince is reborn, beginning a bloody path of vengeance. Van Helsing is joined by Simon Sheppard, who takes up the vampire hunter’s mantel in an attempt to destroy Dracula once and for all.

The acting is generally acceptable, with good performances by Dracula (Gerard Butler) and Val Helsing (Christopher Plummer). However, the character Simon Sheppard was either mis-cast or badly written. It is difficult to know who is to blame but this is not Jonny Lee Miller’s best performance – his character is over pronounced, screaming many of his lines early on in the film where there was no need, and is just ‘overly British.’

The aim of the movie was to give the story of Dracula a modern feel to bring it into the New Millennium. On the whole, this works well with decent choreography during the fight scenes, updated weapons that feel more akin to the 21st century, as well as subtle nods to the original source material, which is in keeping with the Dracula story but updates it for a new audience. At times, it can feel a little too modern – the film makers definitely adopted a ‘style over substance’ attitude to the film, but overall this doesn’t ruin the ambiance of the film too much.

To the ending – the origin story of Dracula given in this film is widely considered to be one of the best in all Dracula media. The writers, rather than just accept that Dracula is who he is, have attempted to explain how the character came about – including his fear of religion and weakness to silver and daylight. It is such a good explanation that it amazes me that we haven’t seen it explained this way before – indeed someone recently explained this origin of Dracula to me as if it were canon. It is a great explanation to the character that almost feels wasted on an otherwise average film.

Overall opinion: Dracula 2000 is a formidable attempt to modernise the character’s of Bram Stoker’s original tale. It is not possibly not for die hard fans of the older, slower films as it definitely trades style for substance. However, for the rest of us, it is not a bad Vampire flick and is worth watching once for the ending alone. Give it a try.

Available now on: Netflix, DVD

If you enjoyed this, why not try: Blade Trinity (2004), Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992)

Movie Review: Goal of the Dead (2014)

Another Zom-com with little comedy…

Directed by: Thierry Poiraud & Benjamin Rocher

BBFC Certificate: 18

Running time: 140 mins

Comedy zombie films (affectionately known as Zom-Coms) are not a new idea, although the release of Shaun of the Dead in 2004 has brought many of the these films to the forefront once again, as well as beginning a new reign of releases. Goal of the Dead is a French film released in 2014 that combines the popular undead with the game of soccer.

The story is a little complicated for a film of the genre. A man injects his son with a performance enhancing concoction so that his soccer team can beat the visitors in a local game. However, the injection causes him to instead become a fuel crazed zombie, intent on finding and killing one of the rival players. Whilst this plot is taking place, we also have four soccer fans intent on hijacking the broadcasting during the game, as well as a completely unrelated plot about one of the soccer stars being signed to a better club. Not to mention the sub plot involving another soccer star who finds out that he has a daughter. Oh, and he’s also hated by his hometown because he left their team to join a different team, the teams are now playing each other in a game. Confused yet? You will be.

As you may already be able to tell, the plot is all over the place. 2 hours 20 minutes seems like a long time for a Zom-Com, until you appreciate how many different plots are all going on at once. Due to the complexity of the plot, it takes a long time for the action to begin and once it does, it is very uninspired. There are a couple of good death scenes (one involving a car door is a bit of fun) but the zombie attack just feels stupid. The zombies in this film are not required to bite someone to pass on the zombie virus, instead the filmmakers opted for them to vomit on their victims. So once the zombie attack begins, all we get is a twenty minute vomit-fest. Fairly disgusting but not in the slightest bit scary.

The acting is fairly choppy. The lead actors do well enough but the supporting cast appear to have little direction. Some of them play their characters as over-the-top comedy types whilst others choose to go for a more serious approach – what we end up with is a choppy feel to the entire story that doesn’t scare or excite.

Next the comedy – for a Zom-Com to succeed, it needs to be funny. Shaun of the Dead was not at all scary but it is a successful film because it is funny. Braindead, Evil Dead II, Dead Snow II are all good Zom-Com films because they are funny. Goal of the Dead is not funny. None of the characters are funny, the plot is not funny and the action is not funny – it’s stupid. You cannot have many of your characters act like idiots and expect people to find it funny.

Finally, a special mention goes to the ending. After sitting through over two hours of build up, the ending is such a failure. The two main soccer stars perform a double team on the pitch (which appears to be the longest soccer pitch in the world) whilst the zombies weave past them and generally look like idiots. It is the perfect ending to a perfect disappointment.

Overall opinion: Goal of the Dead fails as a Zom-Com, and as a movie in general. It is not funny, scary or entertaining in any way and should not be viewed by anyone with any taste in movies. Avoid.

Available now on: Netflix, DVD, Blu-Ray

If you enjoyed this, why not try: Shaun of the Dead (2004), Flight of the Living Dead (2007)

Movie Review: 51 (2011)

A half-decent B-movie that misses the mark too often

Directed by: Jason Connery

BBFC Certificate: 18

Running time: 90 mins

51 begins with an expositive television broadcast – after years of speculation, the military base in the Nevada Desert known as Area 51 is being opened to a small number of reporters. The military want to dispel any rumours once and for all of alien activity inside the base. Once inside, however, the true nightmare begins as soldiers and civilians are torn to shreds by the inhabitants of area 51.

The plot is a mess. It transpires that three dangerous aliens are being kept in Area 51 – two large spider-like creatures which enjoy impaling people and eating their flesh, and a humanoid shape-shifter who can imitate the appearance and voice of anyone that it touches. Throughout the film, you will continue to ask yourself one simple question: If these three creatures are so dangerous then why are there only a small number of wannabe soldiers on site and why is the elevator to the surface so unguarded. At any time during the film, the aliens only had to ride the elevator to the ground and leave. There were five guards posted on the elevator once shit hit the fan but they say time and time again that if the aliens attack, the soldiers will be no match.

There is nothing at all surprising about this film. From the beginning, you can select the half a dozen survivors as they are introduced and you are given a back story to each of them – just to make you want to root for them that little bit harder. The visuals are lacking and although the build up to the aliens is tense, the reveal is a huge let down. Rather than attempt fully CGI aliens, they were instead mainly portrayed by prosthetic and costumes. All this does is ensure that when they do finally appear on screen, they look fake and any sense of fear is diminished.

The character’s actions make no sense either. Soldiers run blindly into rooms without any sense of formation, characters wander off by themselves with no concern for their well being. Not to mention that the best weapon about these hulking armor coated behemoths is a penlight…!

However, the film is not without merit. The gore is gratuitous and a lot of fun. Limbs are torn off, flesh is stripped from bone and the kill count is respectfully high and at times, rather ingenious. The acting is generally on par – some lines are delivered a little non-convincingly but generally the actors work the best with the script that they have.

Overall, there is nothing in 51 that we haven’t seen better in other films. The aliens are a mix between the xenomorphs from Alien and the monsters from Critters. The shape-shifting scenes are pulled directly from The Thing, not to mention the inclusion of all the most cliche parts to any slasher film. It’s a decent enough 90 minutes but adds nothing that we haven’t seen before.

Overall opinion: If you are a BIG fan of sci-fi and old school B-movies then you may find something in 51 to entertain you. However, it has all been done better a number of times before. Avoid.

Available now on: Netflix, DVD, Blu-Ray

If you enjoyed this, why not try: The Thing (1982)

Movie Review: Children of the corn IV – The Gathering (1996)

Directed by: Greg Spence

BBFC Certificate: 18

Running time: 85 mins

What is it about children in films that makes them so fucking scary? Village of the Damned, The Shining, The Exorcist, Child’s Play – all these films, considered cult classics, used children to scare the shit out of us. And it worked.

Children of the Corn is a film series that’s entire premise is based around the idea that children make the scariest antagonists. The original Children of the corn (1984) was loosely based off a short story by Stephen King and saw a village’s inhabitants killed off by the children, who were being controlled by an entity known as ‘He who walks behind the rows.’

Children of the Corn IV: The Gathering is considered the ‘Halloween III’ of the series. Having little to do with any of the other films in the series, instead choosing to focus on completely new antagonists. Our heroine of the hour is Grace (played by a young Naomi Watts), who returns home to aid her unwell mother and two younger siblings. One night, all the children are taken ill with a fever but wake the next day appearing to be well again, for a time.

Considering that this is the fourth film in the series, Children of the Corn IV is relatively entertaining. The acting is decent – although some of the adults’ performances can be a little hammy, the children more than make up for this with their unsettling characters. Naomi Watts does well to carry the film through the first half until the slaughter begins.

When people do start dying, the film is unrelenting. The gore is generous, well distributed and effective. The last death of the film is particularly satisfying, with chunks of flesh falling from the bone. Some of the deaths can be a little cheesy (I cannot assume that s child could push a medical trolley fast enough to sever a man completely in two but perhaps they had some demonic power behind them?) but it only adds to the entertainment – after all, this is the fourth film and so it would be foolish to expect the film to take itself entirely seriously.

The story is delivered well, with revelations approximately two thirds of the way through. It doesn’t feel entirely necessary – this is probably not the film you are expecting to be amazingly well written – but it was a good decision to stay away from the original characters of the first film to give viewers variation.

Overall, Children of the corn is quirky, entertaining and at times can be quite unsettling. If you have seen any of the other films in the original series then you already know what to expect, but The Gathering definitely holds its own against the original. A solid entry to the series.

Overall opinion: Children of the Corn IV is a product of its time. It stands as its own film, so you don’t have to have seen the previous films to understand what is happening. If you enjoy old school slasher films with a little supernatural added to the mix, then this film may be for you. Worth a watch.

Available now on: Netflix, DVD

If you enjoyed this, why not try: Children of the Corn (1984), The Children (2008), Village of the Damned (1960)

Movie Review: Mr. Jones (2013)

Directed by: Karl Mueller

BBFC Certificate: 15

Running time: 84 mins

Before beginning, I must make one thing perfectly clear – I HATE ‘found footage’ movies. I found them dull, incomprehensible and often a waste of 90 minutes. Going into Mr. Jones, I knew nothing about the film and had no idea that it was shot as a ‘found footage’ film. This immediately gave me a negative opinion of the film. Unfortunately, the problems with Mr Jones extend way beyond the basic genre issues.

First of all, this movie cannot decide if it wants to be found footage or not. It starts as an obvious FF film – camera jolting around as a young couple (Scott and Penny, played by Jon Foster and Sarah Jones) are heading to a cabin for a year vacation. Scott has taken a year out to film a nature documentary and his girlfriend Penny has given up her job to join him. Very soon, however, the problems with the ‘found footage’ begins.

First of all, if he is filming a documentary, why is he also filming the two of them in bed asleep? When they have a full blown argument, why is the camera still on? The issues continue to escalate until approximately half way through the film, where the filmmakers evidently decided to give up on the ‘found footage’ genre altogether. Now we have both characters being shot from a variety of camera angles at different times. Gone are the ‘we are making a documentary’ message as the film becomes a normal paranormal thriller / horror.

Unfortunately, the film’s issues don’t end with the camera work. The two main characters get very little introduction at all. Apart from a couple of strongly hinted expositions, we know very little about Scott and Penny, which means that we will not be particularly empathetic to them. There is nothing particularly likable about either of them and so at no point am I concerned about what happens to either of them.

As for the characters themselves, very few of their actions make any sense. Whilst out in the dark one night, Penny goes from enthusiastic amateur filmmaker, desperate to record an interview with the elusive Mr. Jones, to a wailing frightened child, despite the fact that nothing happens to her. Towards the beginning of the film, Scott breaks into Mr. Jones’ house to get his rucksack back, then hides from Mr. Jones himself. The actors needed some sort of direction for their characters but instead, we get two people who have no consistency about themselves.

People who have seen this film tend to fall into two categories regarding the ending. There are that group of people who found the ending artsy, that it probably depicted a dream state in which the characters are trapped in limbo, unable to face themselves and so have become victims of whatever it is that is lurking in the shadows. Then there are the other group who feel that the film becomes a complete mess. That it is trying to be more intelligent than it actually is, leading to a pompous mess that makes very little sense and leads a lack of satisfaction at the end. All I know is that ten minutes from the end, I couldn’t wait for the film to be finished.

Found footage films are supposed to be terrifying. The idea is that they place the audience in the shoes of the characters – we are there alongside them living the fear as they do. The problem with Mr. Jones is that it is not scary. There was no point at which I felt concerned or worried for the characters and it is not a scary film. There were times when the film tried something new which I thought worked well (the double sided camera which allowed you to see the character’s reactions as well as what they were filming was nice) but overall, the film is trying too hard in completely the wrong direction.

Overall opinion: Mr Jones is a convoluted mess. If you are a die hard fan of the found footage genre then there may be something for you. Everyone else should avoid it though.

Available now on: Netflix, DVD, Blu-Ray

If you enjoyed this, why not try: Paranormal Activity (2007), Rec (2007)