Martyrs (2008)

 Director: Pascal Laugier

Fifteen years after escaping captivity as a child Lucie, accompanied by her friend Anna, breaks into an apparently normal middle-class home and murders the mother, father and two teenage children in a brutal killing spree. We know that this family is somehow related to Lucie's earlier captivity, which was extremely abusive and traumatic, but we are left wondering what exactly was their role, and why they kept and abused a child. Was it sexual sadism? Some form of horrific parenting? The film offers few answers, and raises even more questions as Lucie sees visions of an emaciated human-like creature that appears intent on killing her. At the halfway mark of the story, something happens that completely changes our ideas about what we have just seen, and unleashes a rather different plot, one that is extremely difficult to watch in its brutality.

I am being hazy with the details of Martyrs as it is a film best going in not knowing what will happen, as I did. The film is certainly not for the faint-hearted, and offers no real let-up from the horror it presents to the audience: no moments of humour or levity. I imagine this could be too much for even some of the keenest of horror fans. It is bleak.

That being said, it is not just torture porn (though it veers close to it). The shifts in focus in the storytelling are well done, and the central mystery at the film's heart is seeded from the beginning. It is just that once you find out about it, it carries through its painful implications to the end. This is a glimmer of hope at the end that it is not all in vain, but it is a dim one.

If you have the nerves and stomach for it, this is an interesting horror film, one of the more smarter torturous stories out there. But it is uncomfortable, deeply unpleasant, and will remind you of the horrible things humans are capable of doing to one another. 

Antichrist (2009)

 Director: Lars von Trier

I honestly don't know what to think about Antichrist. I can't say I enjoyed it, and I don't believe von Trier meant it to be an enjoyable experience. But I am still not sure what the film was trying to say. Is it a decrying of misogyny, or is misogynistic itself?

Charlotte Gainsbourg and Willem Defoe play a couple who are working through grief at the death of their child. Gainsbourg's character (unnamed) feels particularly shattered by the loss, and Defoe's character decides to treat her (being a therapist himself). They go to a cabin in the woods (never a good idea in a film) and Gainsbourg's character starts to really unravel, aided by a surprisingly aggressive natural world.

The central idea of the film is that "nature is Satan's church," and Gainsbourg's character argues that since women are more ruled by nature than men (menstrual cycles, pregnancy, etc.) they too are evil. What makes the film frustrating to watch is you are not quite sure if it agrees with this idea. Defoe's character at first disagrees, and works to try and convince his wife too. He also points out that her study of gynocide appears to have affected her thinking. But as her behaviour spirals out of control, and the wood becomes more aggressive, you feel the film agreeing with Gainsbourg.

The film's opening - a black-and-white, slow-motion, silent (with the aria 'Lascia ch'io pianga' playing) depiction of the couple having sex while their child falls out a window - is extremely well done. It sets up the mother's horror that crescendos throughout the film, and leads to a revelation later about the mother's knowledge of their son's predicament (though we don't know if this is her projecting after the fact). Both Gainsbourg and Defoe completely give themselves to the roles, something I don't think a lot of actors would have done, considering the subject matter.

This falls into the "not going to watch again" category, not because it is the most disturbing film I have seen (it is disturbing, but not as much as, say Salo), but mostly because I don't think its knows quite what it is saying about women and misogyny. Lars von Trier has written some really interesting roles for women, and has shown sympathy for female suffering, but this film feels like a weird distortion of that idea.

I've Just Seen: Little Shop of Horrors (1960) (1986)

Directors: Roger Corman; Frank Oz

Of all the films to be give a musical makeover to, surely Little Shop of Horrors is the least obvious choice. The plot revolves around a nice guy, Seymour, forced to kill people to feed a carnivorous, talking plant named after the girl he loves (there is also a sadistic dentist thrown into the mix). If musicals have horror plots, they tend to be gothic (Sweeney Todd, Phantom of the Opera), but Little Shop is a horror-science-fiction-comedy, making it rather unique. Corman's original focuses on the destructive relationship Seymour has with Audrey Jr., while Oz's films ups the stakes, fleshing out Seymour and Audrey's romance, and giving Audrey II a rather sinister motive.

Corman's film is pretty good considering the smallness of the budget. The weirdness of the plot suits the indie nature of Corman's filmmaking, and his abilities with horror shows. The cameo from Jack Nicholson, though small, is fun for modern audiences. The ending is rather bleak, but considering the strangeness of the whole plot, the story could have gone in any direction and it could have worked.

Frank Oz's film, which is based on the stage musical, is more polished by comparison, and it does develop the plot and some of the characters more than they were in Corman's film. Audrey is in a relationship with the sadistic dentist (played wonderfully by Steve Martin), who is abusing her, making Seymour's tenderness with her striking in comparison to what he does with Audrey II. The songs are brilliant, unsurprising as they were written by Alan Menken (who did the scores for many 80s and 90s Disney films). My particular favourite is "Dentist."

Of the two films I did enjoy the musical more, though I will note I did watch it first, making it the default despite being chronologically after (This is why I usually try to see remakes chronological, so I can see the development of ideas through the versions). Regarding the alternate ending to Oz's film, I honestly don't know which one I prefer. While I like the sweetness and romance of the theatrical version, the alternate is dark in a way most musicals are not. At least in this world of Blu-ray extras you can explore both.

I've Just Seen: Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986)

 Director: John McNaughton

So many TV shows, films and, these days, podcasts are devoted to exploring the sensational lives and motivations of serial killers throughout history. We want to know why they killed, what they were thinking, what they were feeling when they killed the person. McNaughton's film doesn't offer any answers to these questions, and doesn't really ask them either. The film is a "portrait", but one that doesn't interrogate its subject, it simply observes wryly.

Michael Rooker is now most famous for his role in Guardians of the Galaxy, and part of me hopes that new fans of his go back and watch his back catalogue. As the titular Henry he is a frightening figure, one whose never explains his many, many kills - though he does provide a rather funny insight into his method. Henry does exhibit a bit of morality regarding Becky, though this is incredibly murky and it is likely he is only feeling attraction, not love. Rooker is great as Henry, leaving us deeply unsettled by the character, yet also giving him a charisma that draws you in.

The look of the film is rough, with grainy film stock and "natural" lighting. This is an ugly world populated by morally repugnant people. The unshowiness of the whole makes this feel realistic. This is a horror film that has no supernatural element, a scenario that could (and frighteningly, has) happened.

While not an easy watch, with an ending that leaves you thinking "Oh crap," it is a clever low-budget horror film. It lives up to its title as the portrait of a serial killer, while also defying the audiences' desire for closure. Why does Henry kill people? We, and likely he, can only guess.

I've Just Seen: The Descent (2005)

Director: Neil Marshall

While I love horror films, few of them actually scare me. I have been a little spooked by some, and love ones that have clever ideas and well-developed concepts; but rarely I am squirming in my seat. The Descent had this effect on me as it tapped into one of my basic fears: being trapped.

Set a year after a tragic accident that killed her husband and daughter, Sarah joins five friends to go caving. One of the friends was secretly involved with Sarah's husband, Juno, and another, Beth, was aware of it. The other three women are two sisters - Sam and Rebecca - and adventurous Holly. The group head off to explore the cave system, and find themselves facing a surprising adversary.

This is one of those films to watch without reading much about it beforehand. There are revelations halfway through that change the story, upping the already claustrophobic tension. The whole film is quite clever, giving us enough details about group dynamics and teasing us with questions only to answer them later in surprising ways.

The part of the film that got to me was not the twist halfway through (that was more terrifyingly thrilling), but the scenes of the women crawling through tight openings in the rock. I am one of those people who would have a panic attack in that situation, being highly conscious of the tonnes of rock and earth on top of me. The film knows this will be true for many in the audience and plays with this fear, having the cave partly collapse, trapping the group. That is one of my nightmares, so my heart-rate was well and truly raised.

The Descent answers the question "what would a female version of Deliverance look like?" Both are about a group entering the wilderness and coming across aggressive locals who don't want them there. They also feature characters pushed to their limits, doing things they would never believed possible, like cold-blooded murder. Survivors guilt also plays a role.

The Descent has one of the best endings I have seen in a horror film. It is veritable sucker-punch, leaving you gasping for air, much like the characters. The version I saw was the "uncut" one, which is bleaker than the original American cut, but makes more sense. It is a great horror film that doesn't make a big deal about its female-focused narrative, and is all the more powerful for it.

I've Just Seen: A Quiet Place (2018)

Director: John Krasinski

I made the mistake of going and watching this during the school holidays, and on "Cheap Tuesday." As a result the cinema had the sounds of munching, crunching and loud murmurs of teenagers. While this would annoy me not matter what the film - you are in a public place, be mindful of others - A Quiet Place is based around the idea of silence as a survival method. I wish the aliens in the film had come out of the screen and removed some of the audience.

It is a credit to the film that despite this distraction I really enjoyed it. It felt like a 1950s B-movie in terms of its simple concept and short run-time, resulting in a tense and clever whole. There is little dialogue, and the characters talk to one another with sign language, as one of them is deaf, so there are more subtitles than speech.

Survival is at the heart of almost every horror film, but this one has a collective approach: the parents are working to protect and equip their children for an uncertain future. As a family they are also living with grief over an earlier loss in the film, a plot point that terrifyingly and heartrendingly establishes the world they are living in. 

Emily Blunt, who is a wonderfully charismatic presence on screen, is great here, her face brilliantly emoting her struggle to stay quiet as her body is trying to give birth, as well as protect her family. Millicent Simmonds, who is deaf herself, is also great, dealing with her grief and guilt, and growing up over the course of the story.

I am really enjoying the spate of clever and diverse horror films coming out in the last few years. A Quiet Place is another one of these, showing Hollywood that a good idea and a good story is what is needed to succeed, not a giant budget or shallow jump-scares.

I've Just Seen: Vampyr (1932)

 Director: Carl Theodor Dreyer

Dreyer's films have been hit-and-miss for me. The ones that I liked - Ordet, The Passion of Joan of Arc and Day of Wrath - I really liked or even loved. The ones that I didn't like so much were disappointing, though not without some interesting parts - Dreyer does know how to shoot beautiful images. Vampyr falls into the latter category.

The film is technically a "talkie" with characters occasionally saying lines, but overall Vampyr plays like a silent movie, with its intertitles and constant music. While this is fine in general, the film does rely too much on reading, particularly in its explanations of what a vampire is in this world. It also doesn't really follow a clear plot, instead wandering through a village of supernatural nastiness, often leaving this viewer wondering what was going on.

The most impressive parts of the film are the special effects and one particular scene where the main character imagines his death. While early special effects are primitive compared to today, I am always intrigued by the ingenuity of early filmmakers. Here there are shadow puppets, and double exposure to get that ghostly appearance of a character, something rarely scene in films today.

The imagined death scene is where the film reaches its eerie heights. The main character falls asleep and his spirit wanders away. He discovers his body and watches it being put in a coffin with a window. The camera then cuts between the character's face staring blankly out of the coffin and the view from the window. There is a real sense of being trapped, particularly as the coffin is moved out of the building and towards the grave.

Vampyr is not typical of horror films with its meditative pace and, for a vampire film, lack of fangs. It does have some interesting set pieces, but feels slightly unfinished, as though it was cobbled together, or even started without a script. It is visually impressive but will likely alienate modern horror fans.

I've Just Seen: House of Usher (1960)

 Director: Roger Corman

I love a good Gothic horror film, and if it has Vincent Price in it I am bound to like it even more. Based on Poe's novella The Fall of the House of Usher, the story follows Philip Winthrop who comes to the House of Usher to see his fiancee Madeline. He meets her brother Roderick who tries very hard to dissuade Philip from marrying Madeline, arguing that the Usher family is cursed with madness, and that only will it stop with his and Madeline's deaths.

I really enjoyed this film. Vincent Price is a magnetic screen presence, and his Roderick is a wonderfully tortured soul. He belief that he and his sister will go mad is presented as tragic, but he is so determined that it will happen, and cannot accept giving Madeline a chance at happiness, that you wonder if the other Ushers simply drove each other mad.

In terms of pace and gore, this film is dated. A modern audience would get impatient with the time it takes to get crazy, and the blood is tame. However, the motivations underlying Roderick's behaviour are pretty awful, and if the story were remade today I'd imagine more emphasis would be placed on Madeline's character. I enjoyed the film, having a soft spot for cult horror classics.

Corman adapted many Poe stories, and if this anything to go by, I shall enjoy watching them. They are fun, and if a horror film doesn't shock or scare you, it is better that it amuse you than bore you.

I've Just Seen: Westworld (1973)

Director: Michael Crichton

Science-fiction and Westerns genre mash-ups often make curious films. Science-fiction is usually focused on the future and technologies interacting with humans; Westerns almost invariably look to the past, and humans in a more primitive mode of survival. Westworld marries the two genres together in a really clever way, exploring these ideas around technology and survival.

The Westworld of the title refers to one of three themed worlds featured at the theme park Delos; the other two are Medievalworld and Romanworld. Each world gives he guests are immersive experience in either the American Old West, Europe in the Middle Ages or Roman Empire life (the last two are the experiences of the elite, naturally). Two guests to Westworld, Peter and his friend John (who is on a repeat visit) enjoy the life of a cowboy in the Old West, even having a duel with a cold-blooded gunslinger, played by a brilliant Yul Brynner. However, malfunctions starts happening, making the androids' "do not kill" function stop working. Guests start getting killed, and Martin finds himself being pursued by Brynner's vengeful Gunslinger.

So much about this movie works really well. The concept for a start is extremely good, and very fertile ground for storytelling: no wonder it has been turned into a TV series several times. The character of the Gunslinger clearly inspired the Terminator, with its relentless pursuit of its intended victim. The film was also rather predictive with its analogy of the systems malfunction to a virus. To modern minds this sounds obvious, but many in the 70s would have found it new, and no doubt frightening.

This is a very clever and thought-provoking film, one I am surprised Hollywood hasn't remade as a film (the TV series likely stopped that from happening). Its ideas are ones we are still grappling with, and it is potentially for horrifying for us as robots become more and more common in everyday life.

I've Just Seen: House on Haunted Hill (1959)

 Director: William Castle

House on Haunted Hill has everything you would want from a horror B-movie. It is set in a strange, gothic mansion, there are skeletons, ghosts, secrets, hysterical screams, a pool of acid in the basement, and best of all, Vincent Price!

The story's set-up is that Price's Frederick Loren has invited a group of people, all in need of money in some way, to stay the night at the supposedly haunted mansion. If they make it through the night, they will get $10, 000. One of the guests is actually the owner of the building, Watson Pritchard, and he is terrified of staying, saying that ghosts haunt the house. The other guests are a psychiatrist, a pilot, a columnist, one of Loren's employees, and his wife Annabelle (the gathering is ostensibly a party for her. Some party.).Of course things start to go bump in the night, and when Loren's wife is found hanging dead from the rafters, things get really exciting.

This film is hoot! While not scream-inducing by today's horror standards, it does have a rather sinister ending. Overall it is pure camp, something I generally enjoy. Vincent Price is also a great screen presence, particularly with that voice of his. Few people project such an aura of malevolence as he does.

This is a great cult classic that is a huge heap of fun. It is short and sweet in its running time, and it won't leave you feeling bored. Its influence on Tim Burton's films and many episodes of The Simpsons are obvious, and only adds to the enjoyment.

I've Just Seen: The Company of Wolves (1984)

 Director: Neil Jordan

One must go into Jordan's film not expecting a typical Three-Act story structure. Instead, like the fairytales it is retelling, the film has stories within stories all based around the film's theme: beware of charming strangers.

Rosaleen, in modern day Britain, dreams she lives in the forest in a fantastical past. Her sister has recently been killed by wolves, and Rosaleen's grandmother tells her stories about dubious men with monobrows who turn out to be werewolves, including a man who disappeared on his wedding night, only to come back years later to visit his ex-wife. All this leads up to the Little Red Riding Hood story, as Rosaleen one day meets a hunter in the woods (one with a monobrow).

The special effects, particularly the wolf transformations, are on a par with those in An American Werewolf in London. They are gruesome and startling, and really well done. Sarah Patterson is great as Rosaleen; she reminded me of Helena Bonham Carter. Angela Lansbury is, as you would expect, wonderful as Rosaleen's grandmother: and she gets a rather spectacular end too!

The Company of Wolves is a fun and clever curiosity of a film. I do like my fairytales, and also Gothic horror films, and this brought the two together nicely. Its low-budget aesthetic also adds to its charms.

I've Just Seen: Dressed to Kill (1980)

Director: Brian De Palma

One could be rude and say that Dressed to Kill is for people who thought there wasn't enough sex and blood (or shower scenes) in Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho. For Dressed to Kill is very much a retelling of Psycho (thought not a shot-for-shot remake). However, saying that would be wrong, as De Palma's film is really a clever and highly entertaining variation on a theme of the famous film. It is Hitchcockian, but also entirely De Palma's own movie.

As in Psycho, the first part of De Palma's film follows a woman, Kate Miller, as she works through a morally dubious situation she has got herself into. In Dressed to Kill, Kate's dilemma is about having an affair, as her husband is not satisfying her needs. She tries her attractions on her therapist Dr Robert Elliot, but he turns her down, so she ends up going home with a stranger she finds in an art gallery. This part of the story is essentially a red herring for the audience, as we believe we are going to see the results of this affair. And then something unexpected, and seemingly unrelated happens: Kate is brutally attacked by a blonde woman in a black trench coat. Just before she dies a young woman, Liz Blake, sees her dying in the lift, and also spots the assailant. So she is next!

De Palma often receives criticism for his portrayal of woman, specifically the way they are sexualised while being mutilated or murdered. I think that criticism is warranted, but his female characters in Dressed to Kill aren't nearly as poorly drawn as many woman in films are. Kate may border on being a stereotypical 'nymphomaniac,' but she has a friendly and close relationship with her son and is a good mother. Liz is a prostitute but is clever, possessing both intelligence and street-smarts. She doesn't sit back and let herself become the next victim, nor relies on the police (in fact, they use her to find information).

There are lots of great scenes in the film, one being the gallery scene where Kate looks for a suitable lover for the afternoon. The whole scene, done without dialogue, is masterful, everything conveyed with glances and gestures and a good old-fashioned glove drop. De Palma uses some old film techniques, like split screens when characters' remember something; and the bright colours of the film are reminiscent of Hitchcock's Technicolor thrillers.

This was hugely enjoyable, the only real negative being the old-fashioned approach to transgender people. The ending is also a bit of a cliche, but I felt that it played to its classic Hollywood approach to the story. This is how you "remake" a film (if you really have to).

I've Just Seen: It Follows (2014)

 Director: David Robert Mitchell

It Follows is a slow-burn horror story with a very clever conceit: after having sex, a person suddenly starts being followed by ghostly apparitions, which only they can see. After an assignation with her new boyfriend, Jay Height finds herself in this situation, having caught the sexually transmitted hauntings, and must make the decision whether to pass it on and get rid of it, or try to end it with her.

Mitchell has filmed his story in a quiet way, with unobtrusive editing (it doesn't cut every split second), and uses Steadicam shots that revolve around a scene until landing on the characters. It is dispassionate but not uninterested. It ups the creepiness and seriousness of the hauntings, as it takes a while for us, and Jay, to see the person following her; and we become suspicious of anyone walking behind the characters.

While a lot of teenagers in horror films are stupid and/or annoying, Jay, her sister and her group of friends are portrayed as intelligent, and supportive of one another. Mitchell even includes some sexual tension between the group which doesn't necessarily lead anywhere, but feels realistic. The tone of the film is quite sincere, there are few jokes or light moments, but it maintains the oppressive fear throughout.

I was really impressed by the film. It has its own distinct style, and enjoys the ambiguity of its story, not giving the audience complete closure with its ending. It resembles Robert Eggers The Witch, with its slow-burn approach that heightens the horror of its story.

I've Just Seen: Funny Games (1997)

 Director: Michael Haneke

Most horror films deal with some sort of supernatural idea, be it monsters or spirits. Or if it is a human character, they are painted as monster-like themselves, and we usually get some kind of explanation for their behaviour. What makes Funny Games one of the most terrifying films I have seen is that the "evil" of the film is unexplained, and it is dealt by two young men who seem, on the surface, pleasant and even helpful.

Haneke's film falls into the category of admirable but not enjoyable. It is hard not to admire it. Haneke uses extremely lengthy shots to allow the story to unfold in a slow-burn way that ratchets up the tension. Two in particular really standout: the first is the one where the mother Anna is trying to give Peter some eggs, which he breaks, then ruins her phone, then drops some more eggs. What starts out as slightly comic becomes threatening, and you start thinking "Get him out of the house." The second one comes right after a horrifying death, and holds on Anna as she, and we, try to overcome our shock at what has happened.

The story is a clever one, defying our expectations, and even breaking film rules as a scene is re-wound to change its outcome. The central question of "why" regarding all the violence and horrible games is never answered, leaving us with little closure. All this is incredibly admirable, but is also used to deliberately make the film really unlikeable.

Like with Requiem For a Dream, I won't be watching this again anytime soon. I don't think I can take the tension all over again, especially knowing what is to come. Haneke's films are never easy or comfortable, but you will never forget them.

I've Just Seen: Re-Animator (1985)

 Director: Stuart Gordon

I love it when a horror film goes utterly crazy. It is both horrifying and hilarious, leaving you almost breathless with glee. Re-Animator, with its short running time, goes brilliantly mental very quickly (I'd say somewhere around the re-animated cat), and just when you think it can't get more ridiculous, it does.

Jeffrey Combs is perfect as the 'mad scientist' Herbert West, whose invention - a reagent that reanimates people - has horrible side-effects on the reanimated corpse. He is obsessively focused on his invention and can't help using it, even when doing is a really bad idea (like reanimating he man trying to take credit for his invention). Combs' West's bluntness and inability to suffer those he sees as foolish make him appear almost the most sane, or at least calm, character in the film.

The story follows West as he tries to fine tune his invention in America. He takes up with a follow medical student, Dan Cain (owner of the cat), and somehow Dan's girlfriend Megan's father ends up as one of the corpses. Into the mix is West's nemesis Dr Hill, who also has a thing for Megan. The film's ridiculous plot adds another layer of humour.

The other great element of Re-Animator is its opening titles sequence and theme, which is iconic enough to be parodied in The Simpsons. It is reminiscent of Psycho, and points to the coming madness and chaos of the story.

Re-Animator has everything one wants in an 80s cult horror film: humour, gore, an iconic central performance, a brilliant theme, and a nice chilling ending to round it all off. Great fun!

I've Just Seen: mother! (2017)

 Director: Darren Aronofsky

Every review you read about mother! is going to say 'This film will divide audiences' or 'This film is not for everyone.' And it is true. Aronofsky has created something that hard to explain and makes no apologies for its allusions and themes. You will come out of the film feeling something, be it stunned, angry or confused (or all three).

I don't want to say much about the film, as it is one that benefits going in as cold as possible. Mother (Jennifer Lawrence) lives with her poet husband Him (Javier Bardem) in a house in the country. She is fixing it up while he tries to write. One day Man (Ed Harris) arrives and stays, much to Mother's chagrin. Then his wife (Michelle Pfieffer) turns up, and things start to get weirder and weirder.

There is a clear allegory in the film, though I only pieced parts together hours after seeing it. You could read it through a feminist lens, with an environmental view, or even with a Biblical eye. Lawrence is wonderful as Mother. The whole film rests on her performance, and a good portion of it is close-ups of her face as she reacts to the chaos ensuing around her. She keeps us anchored as the film's dream logic takes us to extremes.

I really liked this, but know others won't. As I was leaving the cinema, the woman in front of me was telling the usher it was a 'shocker' (Australian for "shockingly terrible"). Like with many films I have seen, I don't know anyone in my immediate acquaintance I'd recommend this to, but am looking forward to seeing it again and noticing new things about it.

I've Just Seen: Black Christmas (1974)

Director: Bob Clark

Black Christmas has one of the best ending for a horror film I have seen. Without giving too much away, it leaves the viewer with a deep sense of unease, wondering what on earth is going to happen next, and slightly shocked that the film managed to trick us into imagining a different ending.

The film is set in a Canadian sorority house just before everyone leaves for Christmas. The sorority has been receiving creepy phone calls from a rather disturbed male caller; we assume it is from the same person we saw climb into the house in the film's opening scene. Our main character is Jess, who is dealing with a grumpy boyfriend, and her unwanted pregnancy to said boyfriend. Margot Kidder is a fellower sorority sister, and the whole group are overseen by housemother Mrs Mac (who is more loose than some of the girls, with her stores of booze hidden around the house). After one of the girls, Clare, disappears, a search starts around the university, until other girls start to disappear: and the phone calls get more and more violent.

The start of the film is a little slow, but it gets more and more tense as it goes on, leading to its brilliant ending. The editing in the slasher scenes is nicely jarring, emoting violent rather than showing it. The first-person camera work used for the killer is effective in its creepiness, as the man sneeks around the house, glimpsing future victims as they wander around. The film's famous image of the girl suffocated in a rocking chair occurs early on, and is used throughout the film to show how close, yet how far the women and police are to solving this case.

I really liked this. It is just as much a psychological horror story as a slasher film, doing what Hitchcock describes as suspense: the killer is the "bomb" in the story, and we wait anxiously, hoping someone discovers him before he "goes off" (kills) again (and so we can find out who it is).

I've Just Seen: Tucker & Dale vs. Evil (2010)

 Director: Eli Craig

Well, its three from three for SJHoneywell's horror recommendations. A mixture of parody and homage, as well as a subverting of the stereotypes of horror films, how could I not enjoy Tucker & Dale vs. Evil!

Like The Cabin in the Woods, Craig's film plays on the horror staple of a group of college students going on a trip into the woods, and a rather eerie cabin with references to previous owner's violence. However, the owners of the cabin are Tucker and Dale, two hillbillies with pure intentions for their weekend getaway: fishing and clear-up of the cabin. The college students take against them after an awkward (and hilarious) encounter at the local petrol station, and it gets even worse when one of them, Allison, ends up unconscious in Tucker and Dale's cabin.

The deaths in this film are both gruesome and hilarious, all of them accidents that incriminate Tucker and Dale. The woodchipper scene was a highlight, its slapstick a more violent type of Buster Keaton sketch. The relationship that develops between Dale and Allison is sweetly handled, and nicely draws out more of their characters than one usually gets in a horror film.

This really works if you love horror, and have seen enough horror-in-the woods American horror films to get all the references. I also like that its skewers stereotypes about its characters: that the attractive, 'educated' characters may actually be the "evil" ones, not the supposedly creepy country folk.

I've Just Seen: Wake in Fright (1971)

 Director: Ted Kotcheff

So many Australian films set in the outback have an aura of horror around them. There is no supernatural creature in Wake in Fright, with the horror instead comes from the aggressive friendship of the characters of Bundanyabba, who welcome city-raised teacher John Grant into their world of drinking, gambling, roo-hunting and fighting. Grant, well-educated with a suitcase full of books, waiting for a flight to Sydney to see his girlfriend, finds his whole person being completely pulled apart by this oppressive masculine world.


The view of Australia is from an outsider's perspective; we are looking at this culture through the eyes of John Grant, played by English actor Gary Bond, and the director is Canadian. The scenes in the RSL feel almost like a study of a foreign culture, from the bar etiquette to the sudden silence during the Ode. As someone who has grown up in this culture (or parts of it, I don't live in the outback) this makes for interesting viewing. When the film came out in the 70s many Australians found the film hard to stomach: it doesn't paint us in a great light!

There are many memorable scenes in the film, from the aforementioned RSL, to the two-up game, and the rather harrowing kangaroo hunt that takes place over a whole day and night. Throughout all the scenes there is an underlying menace from the locals, particularly from policeman Jock Crawford, and Doc, played by Donald Pleasance, who has a tendency to stare at one too long, and stand too close as he speaks to you. The nightmarish quality to John's experience also comes out in his inability to escape the town: he loses all his money in two-up, so no plane journery, and even a hitch-hiking attempt takes him back to the Yabba.

While not displaying Australia at its best, this is one of the great films about the Australian outback, and how alienating life can be living in the middle of nowhere. It is a horror film about the nasty side of mateship, turning the ideals of the Anzac spirit on its head, and asks Australians to think about just how friendly we really are.

I've Just Seen: Slither (2006)

 Director: James Gunn

I watched this on the recommendation of fellow blogger SJHoneywell; we share a similar taste in horror films, a trend which continues with Slither. Comedy-horror can be difficult to pull off, but Slither is both hilarious and horrifying, and often at the same time. It also cleverly references other horror films, but without being derivative or lazy.

We are introduced to the town of Wheelsy, a typical mid-America small town which is visited by an Invasion of the Body Snatchers' style parasite which infects local car dealer Grant Grant (played by the brilliant Michael Rooker, reminding me of his role as serial killer Henry). Soon the alien life is changing Grant, making him hungry for meat and growing long tentacles. His younger wife Starla is suspicious and enlists the help of policeman Bill (who has a crush on Starla). The plot follows the usual trajectory for these type of films, but has fun playing with the audience along the way.

As I said, this gets the balance between funny and frightening pretty much perfect. The comedy comes through the interactions of the characters and their bemusement at what is going on. The horror is genuinely gross at times. The scene where Brenda, used by alien-infected Bill as his human womb, bursts open, releasing millions of these parasites into Wheelsy. The bath scene, made iconic from its inclusion on the poster, is also memorable, and cleverly moves the plot along as well. Grant's final transformation, as the primary organisism that the infected seek to absorb themselves into (with orgasmic joy) makes you laugh out of revulsion as well as humour.

I don't know why this film was poorly received by audiences in 2006, despite critical approval. Watching it now, the special effects haven't aged that badly, the writing is sharp, and many of the stars have gone on to become even more famous in recent years. Unless you hate gooey, slimy, even silly horror, there is so much to enjoy here.