Review for 'Heartless'

Release Date - Out Now

Directed by – Philip Ridely

Starring – Jim Sturgess, Clémence Poésy, Noel Clark.

“Another horror movie. Just what the world needs.” say Matt Bochenski [for LWL] in his review of Philip Ridley’s latest film Heartless without any hesitation or care for his genre bashing. I myself am obviously a very big horror fan so for someone to say that I simply answer “Yes it is actually.”

But the thing is about Heartless is that it isn’t much of a horror. I’d say it’s about as much of a horror as Donnie Darko was. Sure they both have horror elements with Heartless verging more onto complete horror appose to Donnie Darko, but over all I’d say they where supernatural fantasy with cheap horror scares. But this connection between the two films which share the same themes and the same kooky and shy protagonist (not forgetting their demented psyches).

Heartless tells the Brother’s Grim like story about Jamie played by Jim Sturgess, a photographer from the East end of London who was born with a vivid birthmark on his face and body. He feels like he is a social outcast as the yobs around his building make fun of him on his way home which has thrown him into a pit of disperse and loneliness. One night whilst taking photo’s he comes across a strange scene with hooded daemons disguised as yobs screaming and cackling around a fire then at his brothers studio Jamie begins to fall for Tia played by Clémence Poésy who’s heritage and background is left in the shadows. What follows is these two instances begins his decent into this strange world of daemons and self loathing as Jamie makes a deal with Papa B.

I had been looking forward to Heartless for a few weeks now and after watching it I had to think it over. Now this to me isn’t a bad thing. Whether a film turns out terrible in the end if it made you think about it it’s done something to resonate in you. Thankful to say I really did enjoy the flick. At one point I began to doubt it however it recovered.

The dark portal of London will haunt the local’s nights and indeed those walking alone at night. The film is lead brilliantly by Sturgess and has some great actors making an appearance such as Noel Clark as the next door neighbour and my personal favourite Eddie Marsan as the Weapons Dealer. Some strange choices where made by the director and a lot about characters and plot are left in the dark to die which makes some element suffer but over all it’s an enjoyable look into the mind of a young man battling his daemons. We’ve all been there, but hopefully not to such an extreme. I can see this being dragged away by the cult movie community to a place it probably belongs.

Anticipation - 4

Enjoyment - 3

In Retrospect – 3

Review for 'A Nightmare on Elm Street'

Release Date May 7

Directed Samuel Bayer

Starring Jackie Earle Haley, Kyle Gallner, Rooney Mara

What’s there to say about the remake of the classic slasher that hasn’t already been said? It’s a high budget remake of a classic low budget horror which has been directed by someone no ones heard off (he aparently is a music video director) and produced by Satan himself Michael Bay in an attempted to not do it for the art for but simply for the money.

The story if you haven’t seen the original Wes Craven film (shame on you) follows the story of a group of teenagers who are haunted by a dream like boogie man. This mysterious figure torments them for several days before finally killing them off (no surprise there). They try to keep awake and alive before experiencing ‘micro naps’ and before long they find they are trapped in Freddy’s world.

Now I’m really in two frames of mind about this. Part of me hates it, and the other kinda liked it. Obviously it’s stupid and nothing like it’s counter part but I don’t feel like I wasted money seeing it.

One of the main problems which renders the whole films ridicules is that fact that they don’t all live on Elm Street. And if they do, it never mentions it. This is stupid because it’s called ‘A Nightmare on Elm Street’ not ‘A Nightmare on Elm Street and all the other teenage in the community.’ What links them together is that (*SPOILER TIME*) they went to the same pre-school where they where all , get this, raped by pre-school gardener Fred Kruger. He’s a pre-school gardener turned pedophile then murderer in the after life. And when the parents discover that he’s a paedophile they turn into backwards crazy villagers out for his blood just shy of pitch forks and fire. In some bizarre dream flashback one of the characters sees Fred Kruger being chassed into a warehouse and brutally set a light as the family listen to him burn alive. Who need a justice system or a fair trial? At least in the original he was a child murder which gives them more incentive to kill him.

All the teenage actors where pretty poor and boring and there was no characters we where suppose to cling on to. It jumps between the teenagers which just confuses the audience. So are we suppose to route for Freddy? Granted in the original you didn’t but through the series you began to like him and eventually by Craven’s New Nightmare we loved the beloved classic Robert Englund. But in the new film Freddy’s a paedophile so how could we as an audience possibly relate to him? So we end up not caring the teenagers are tearing them selves apart from not wanting to fall asleep but when they’re in Freddy’s world we don’t care if he kills them. That’s bad in a slasher movie. Jackie Earle Haley is clearly the best actor in the movie however he character doesn’t develop till the end. Jackie must have expected not to best Englund and I think it shows but they missed something about Freddy which is fundamental – his black comedy. Sure in the movie towards the end he says some funny words but at the beginning he’s not funny or intimidating.

The film also has no sense of pace. In the original they talked about this burnt man who haunted their dreams which build a lot of tension so when the audience eventually saw him seemed like a threat. In this he appears in the first five minutes and pops in a way to send the fans boys into joyful glee. This is not good horror movie making. This just shows your doing it for the money and fanboys. Then after that you see Freddy enough for him to not be scary by the end. So in the end he’s not scary or funny = not Freddy.

In the grand scheme of horror remakes, Nightmare on Elm Street falls between the two Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake and prequel which where necessary because after the first they where terrible and also the Last House on the Left remake which I enjoyed and at the low end the Friday 13th remake. I’ve said it hundred of times before. Horror films do not need a remake unless you can do something for them, case and point The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. But this falls flat with a incoherent script with bad characters and a stupid plot. Poor Jackie has to do another two movies as well. Let’s hope they turn out better then this. I think anyone who thinking about seeing it would have seen it already, but save you money and by the DVD classic.

Trailer

Anticipation - 3

Enjoyment - 2
In Retrospect – 2

#18 Horror Remakes And Why They Never Work

With today being Friday 13th (oh watch out for that bad luck), I thought I would write about the now growing craze, to remake classic horror films. Today is also the day that Michael Bay’s remake of ‘Friday 13th’ is released (in the UK). But what I have been asking my self is why people like Michael Bay think, in there sick little heads, that it is a good idea to recreate the film but also destroy it’s spirit. To show what I am getting at I thought I would show the horror classics that are either being remade or having another sequel-

Friday 13th

Evil Dead

Evil Dead IV

The Birds

Nightmare On Elm Street

The Thing

Predator

And then the remakes that are all ready out…

The Grudge

Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning

Dawn Of The Dead

The Amityville Horror

The Omen

The Hills Have Eyes

The Wicker Man

28 Weeks Later

It is beyond me. Is Hollywood said there will be remaking ‘The Godfather’ or ‘Taxi Driver’ again there would be riots in the streets, so what gives them the right to do it with horror films? Bottom line is that it is all because of money. People like Michael Bay don’t care about the history of cinema (mainly with Bay because he get away with only using CG) and kills the spirit of the films. Do you think anyone could kick ugly alien ass like Kurt Russell did in ‘The Thing’. No. Why they don’t channel all that “creative” thought power into some new slasher franchise like ‘Dead Silence’ (2007). But they just think “well we can spend time thinking of new ideas but then why not just remake a classic and throw Will Smith in”.

Everyone knows that Japan is one of the biggest distributors of crazy horror films. From ‘The Grudger’ to ‘The Ring’ to ‘Dark Water’, Japan has released some of the sickest horror films ever. But once Japan has had there glory with there new hit, Hollywood has to grab and remake for it to stay alive. But it’s not just film that J-Horror has influenced but also videogames, they truly do make the most bizarre scary films.

I remember watching 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning' and thinking this was some god work but channelled in the wrong places. What I am saying is that it's not all so bad but at the moment is the UK and Japan who are leading the Horror creativity at the moment with America either making spin-offs or Americanising the foreign films because for some reason they don't think that American audiences can handle subtitles. A few years ago New Line Cinema released 'Freddy vs. Jason' which to b honest wasn't that bad, in fact it was quite interesting watching two un-killable psychopaths to battle. What let it down was the cliché teenagers and silly dialog.

In a interview with Bruce Campbell (who played Ash in the original 'Evil Dead') he talked about how he thinks the remake of 'Evil Dead' should be which i agreed with, he said "The remake? Whatever. I'd be most interested if they went back with a 16mm camera and used no actors you've ever heard of. Because that's what The Evil Dead was - five kids in a cabin in rural Tennessee in 1979." If they did that then the film would be a succses and fans would be all over it (myself aswell also being a fan of the films).

Well on a final note; if ‘The Birds’ actually gets made in 2011, you can put your ear to the ground and hear ol‘ Hitchcock turning in his grave. This is just another piece to the on going evidence to show that Hollywood and other big companies are crushing creativity for money and not a love for films. Oliver Hunt